分类存档: 行情

这个类别包含了大部分名言我的沉思. 冥想沉思专为虚幻博客.

Bye Bye Einstein

Starting from his miraculous year of 1905, Einstein has dominated physics with his astonishing insights on space and time, and on mass and gravity. 真, there have been other physicists who, with their own brilliance, have shaped and moved modern physics in directions that even Einstein couldn’t have foreseen; and I don’t mean to trivialize neither their intellectual achievements nor our giant leaps in physics and technology. But all of modern physics, even the bizarre reality of quantum mechanics, which Einstein himself couldn’t quite come to terms with, is built on his insights. It is on his shoulders that those who came after him stood for over a century now.

One of the brighter ones among those who came after Einstein cautioned us to guard against our blind faith in the infallibility of old masters. Taking my cue from that insight, í, 一, think that Einstein’s century is behind us now. 我知道, coming from a non-practicing physicist, who sold his soul to the finance industry, this declaration sounds crazy. Delusional even. But I do have my reasons to see Einstein’s ideas go.

[animation]Let’s start with this picture of a dot flying along a straight line (on the ceiling, so to speak). You are standing at the centre of the line in the bottom (on the floor, 就是说). If the dot was moving faster than light, how would you see it? 好, you wouldn’t see anything at all until the first ray of light from the dot reaches you. As the animation shows, the first ray will reach you when the dot is somewhere almost directly above you. The next rays you would see actually come from two different points in the line of flight of the dot — one before the first point, and one after. 因此,, the way you would see it is, incredible as it may seem to you at first, as one dot appearing out of nowhere and then splitting and moving rather symmetrically away from that point. (It is just that the dot is flying so fast that by the time you get to see it, it is already gone past you, and the rays from both behind and ahead reach you at the same instant in time.Hope that statement makes it clearer, rather than more confusing.).

[animation]Why did I start with this animation of how the illusion of a symmetric object can happen? 好, we see a lot of active symmetric structures in the universe. 例如, look at this picture of Cygnus A. There is a “core” from which seem to emanate “features” that float away to the “lobes.” Doesn’t it look remarkably similar to what we would see based on the animation above? There are other examples in which some feature points or knots seem to move away from the core where they first appear at. We could come up with a clever model based on superluminality and how it would create illusionary symmetric objects in the heavens. We could, but nobody would believe us — because of Einstein. I know this — I tried to get my old physicist friends to consider this model. The response is always some variant of this, “Interesting, but it cannot work. It violates Lorentz invariance, 不会吧?” LV being physics talk for Einstein’s insistence that nothing should go faster than light. Now that neutrinos can violate LV, why not me?

当然, if it was only a qualitative agreement between symmetric shapes and superluminal celestial objects, my physics friends are right in ignoring me. There is much more. The lobes in Cygnus A, 例如, emit radiation in the radio frequency range. 事实上, the sky as seen from a radio telescope looks materially different from what we see from an optical telescope. I could show that the spectral evolution of the radiation from this superluminal object fitted nicely with AGNs and another class of astrophysical phenomena, hitherto considered unrelated, called gamma ray bursts. 事实上, I managed to publish this model a while ago under the title, “为无线电源和伽玛射线暴管腔围油栏?“.

你看, I need superluminality. Einstein being wrong is a pre-requisite of my being right. So it is the most respected scientist ever vs. yours faithfully, a blogger of the unreal kind. You do the math. 🙂

Such long odds, 然而,, have never discouraged me, and I always rush in where the wiser angels fear to tread. So let me point out a couple of inconsistencies in SR. The derivation of the theory starts off by pointing out the effects of light travel time in time measurements. And later on in the theory, the distortions due to light travel time effects become part of the properties of space and time. (事实上, light travel time effects will make it impossible to have a superluminal dot on a ceiling, as in my animation above — not even a virtual one, where you take a laser pointer and turn it fast enough that the laser dot on the ceiling would move faster than light. It won’t.) 但, as the theory is understood and practiced now, the light travel time effects are to be applied on top of the space and time distortions (which were due to the light travel time effects to begin with)! Physicists turn a blind eye to this glaring inconstancy because SR “作品” — as I made very clear in my previous post in this series.

Another philosophical problem with the theory is that it is not testable. 我知道, I alluded to a large body of proof in its favor, but fundamentally, the special theory of relativity makes predictions about a uniformly moving frame of reference in the absence of gravity. There is no such thing. Even if there was, in order to verify the predictions (that a moving clock runs slower as in the twin paradox, 例如), you have to have acceleration somewhere in the verification process. Two clocks will have to come back to the same point to compare time. The moment you do that, at least one of the clocks has accelerated, and the proponents of the theory would say, “Ah, there is no problem here, the symmetry between the clocks is broken because of the acceleration.” People have argued back and forth about such thought experiments for an entire century, so I don’t want to get into it. I just want to point out that theory by itself is untestable, which should also mean that it is unprovable. Now that there is direct experimental evidence against the theory, may be people will take a closer look at these inconsistencies and decide that it is time to say bye-bye to Einstein.

Love of Wisdom

哲学意味着爱智慧. 但它享有没有魅力的,它的定义将意味着. 例如, 在董事会的游戏,我和孩子们最近打了一个, 机会卡会让你破产的实际阅读, “变成一个哲学家,失去所有的钱!” 此卡是特别麻烦我,因为我不打算采取了严肃的哲学, 希望不久.

缺乏智慧与世俗回报之间的相关性是令人不安, 特别是对那些谁是傻到认为自己聪明. 为什么说智慧的爱将没有转化为荣光, 财富和物质享受? The reason, 据我可以告诉, 是哲学与生活之间有很深的脱节 — 作为一个明智的 (但明显非哲学) 我的朋友把它放在毕业多年的那些朦胧的深夜stupors之一, “哲学对现实生活中就是手淫是对性。” 是的, 群众见智的爱毫无意义的智力手淫. 这种观点是什么罗素曾经说过或许呼应:

哲学本身忙于用的东西,看起来很明显, 拿出浮夸的东西. 这与琐碎明显的痴迷是一种假象. 消除这种印象是这个职位的目的. 最后,让我指出一个事实开始. 哲学是一切,你做的根. 你生活的很好, 道德生活? 甚至是一个糟糕, 贪婪的1? 你的行为, 选择和原因进行了研究伦理. 你是一个 关于, 或做的东西的技术或数学? 逻辑. 到物理和崇拜 爱因斯坦? 你不能则忽略的形而上学方面 空间时间. 律师? 是啊, 修辞. 知识工程师? 认识论的知识定义什么是. 艺术家? 时装设计师? 在电影行业工作? 我们得到了你的美学覆盖. 你看, 人类努力的各种途径,有一个哲学支柱吧.

指出这是托底, 在现实中, 不是什么大不了的事,因为我做出来是. 这仅仅是定义的问题. 我定义的理念是什么,那就是 “支撑” 生活的方方面面, 再点出这个支柱作为它的重要证据. 哲学的真正价值是在构建我们的思想和引导他们, 例如, 在感知我的支柱,因此,重要参数的speciousness和微妙的圆. 哲学告诉我们,没有看台拥有自己的, 并有照亮的问题结构和思想的学校,我们的迷惑. 有支架支持我们, 并在其肩膀巨头,我们可以站在看远和明确. 可以肯定的, 一些巨头可能面临走错了路, 但是又是来与理念,大胆和独立性,这将有助于我们看到以自己的方式错误. 没有它, 学习变得灌输, 在我们寻求吸收信息成智, 我们得到介于两者之间卡住 — 也许在知识水平.

所有这一切的讨论仍然没有给我们一个线索,理念和破产之间的连接令人不安. 因为当一个伟大的人讲他的存在的痛苦, “我认为, 因此,我,” 我们总是说 (像我们经常做), “适合你队友, 无论你的作品!” 和去我们的生活.

爱智慧或许有助于其收购, 和智慧的目的只有智慧. 这很像生活, 其目的仅仅是为了活得长一点. 但是,如果没有哲学, 我们如何看到生命的意义? 或缺乏?

改变的事实

There is beauty in truth, and truth in beauty. Where does this link between truth and beauty come from? 当然, beauty is subjective, and truth is objective — or so we are told. It may be that we have evolved in accordance with the beautiful Darwinian principles to see perfection in absolute truth.

The beauty and perfection I’m thinking about are of a different kind — those of ideas and concepts. 有时, you may get an idea so perfect and beautiful that you know it has to be true. This conviction of truth arising from beauty may be what made Einstein declare:

But this conviction about the veracity of a theory based on its perfection is hardly enough. Einstein’s genius really is in his philosophical tenacity, his willingness to push the idea beyond what is considered logical.

Let’s take an example. Let’s say you are in a cruising airplane. If you close the windows and somehow block out the engine noise, it will be impossible for you to tell whether you are moving or not. This inability, when translated to physics jargon, becomes a principle stating, “Physical laws are independent of the state of motion of the experimental system.”

The physical laws Einstein chose to look at were Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism, which had the speed of light appearing in them. For them to be independent of (or covariant with, 更精确) motion, Einstein postulated that the speed of light had to be a constant regardless of whether you were going toward it or away from it.

现在, I don’t know if you find that postulate particularly beautiful. But Einstein did, and decided to push it through all its illogical consequences. For it to be true, space has to contract and time had to dilate, and nothing could go faster than light. Einstein said, 好, so be it. That is the philosophical conviction and tenacity that I wanted to talk about — the kind that gave us Special Relativity about a one hundred years ago.

Want to get to General Relativity from here? 简单, just find another beautiful truth. Here is one… If you have gone to Magic Mountain, you would know that you are weightless during a free fall (best tried on an empty stomach). Free fall is acceleration at 9.8 m/s/s (或 32 ft/s/s), and it nullifies gravity. So gravity is the same as acceleration — voila, another beautiful principle.

World line of airplanesIn order to make use of this principle, Einstein perhaps thought of it in pictures. What does acceleration mean? It is how fast the speed of something is changing. And what is speed? Think of something moving in a straight line — our cruising airplane, 例如, and call the line of flight the X-axis. We can visualize its speed by thinking of a time T-axis at right angles with the X-axis so that at time = 0, the airplane is at x = 0. At time t, it is at a point x = v.t, if it is moving with a speed v. So a line in the X-T plane (called the world line) represents the motion of the airplane. A faster airplane would have a shallower world line. An accelerating airplane, 因此, will have a curved world line, running from the slow world line to the fast one.

So acceleration is curvature in space-time. And so is gravity, being nothing but acceleration. (I can see my physicist friends cringe a bit, but it is essentially true — just that you straighten the world-line calling it a geodesic and attribute the curvature to space-time instead.)

The exact nature of the curvature and how to compute it, though beautiful in their own right, are mere details, as Einstein himself would have put it. 毕竟, he wanted to know God’s thoughts, not the details.

God’s Blunder

Scriptures tell us, in different ways depending on our denomination and affiliation, that God created the world and everything in it, including us. This is creationism in a nutshell.

Standing in the other corner, all gloved up to knock the daylight out of creationism, is science. It tells us that we came out of complete lifelessness through successive mutations goaded by the need to survive. This is Evolution, a view so widely accepted that the use of capital E is almost justified.

All our experience and knowledge point to the rightness the Evolution idea. It doesn’t totally preclude the validity of God, but it does make it more likely that we humans created God. (It must be just us humans for we don’t see a cat saying Lord’s grace before devouring a mouse!) 和, given the inconveniences caused by the God concept (wars, crusades, the dark ages, ethnic cleansing, religious riots, terrorism and so on), it certainly looks like a blunder.

No wonder Nietzsche said,

另一方面, if God did create man, then all the stupid things that we do — wars, crusades etc. plus this blog — do point to the fact that we are a blunder. We must be such a disappointment to our creator. Sorry Sir!

照片由 美国国会图书馆

性别与物理 — 根据费曼

物理经过自满的时代曾经在一段时间. 从完整的意义上沾沾自喜起源, 我们已经发现了一切的感觉有知道, 该路径是明确的,这些方法易于理解的.

历史, 自满这些发作是紧接着就是革命性的物理方式进行快速发展, 向我们展示了如何错的,我们一直. 历史上的这震撼人心的教训可能是什么原因促使费曼说:

自满这样的年龄存在于19世纪之交. 著名人物如开尔文表示,所有剩下要做的就是做出更精确的测量. 迈克尔逊, 谁在革命中发挥了至关重要的作用遵循, 被告知不要进入 “死亡” 领域如物理学.

谁曾想到,在不到十年的时间进入了20世纪, 我们会彻底的改变,我们认为空间和时间的方式? 谁在他们的心中,现在会说,我们将再次改变我们对空间和时间的概念? 我做的. 然后再, 从来没有人指责的权利心灵的我!

另一场革命上个世纪的过程中发生了 — 量子力学, 它废除了我们的决定的概念,是一个沉重的打击,物理系统观测模式. 类似的革命会再次发生. 让我们不要坚持我们的理念是不变的; 它们不是. 让我们没有想到我们的老船长犯错, 为它们不. 由于费曼自己也指出,, 物理学单独持有其旧主人的易错的更多示例. 而且我觉得,在思想的彻底革命,现在已经过期.

你可能会想知道这一切,是因为有性行为. 好, 我只是想做爱会卖得更好. 我是正确的, 不是我? 我的意思是, 你还在这里!

费曼也说,

照片由 “穴居人查”科克尔 cc

爱因斯坦对上帝和骰子

虽然爱因斯坦最出名的是相对论的他的理论, 他也是量子力学的出现,背后的主要驱动力 (QM). 他在光生伏打效应铺平了道路前期工作为QM未来发展. 他获得了诺贝尔文学奖, 不是相对论的理论, 但对于这个早期工作.

然后,它应该作为一个惊喜给我们,爱因斯坦并没有完全相信QM. 他度过了他职业生涯的后期试图装置思想实验,将证明,QM是不一致的他认为是自然规律. 为什么爱因斯坦不能接受QM? 我们永远不会知道肯定, 我的猜测是可能不如别人的.

爱因斯坦的麻烦QM总结在这个名言.

这实在是难以调和的观念 (或至少​​一些解释) QM用一个词鉴于其神拥有的一切控制. 在QM, 观测概率的性质. 也就是说, 如果我们以某种方式设法送两个电子 (在相同的状态) 上下一致的光束,一段时间后,观察他们, 我们可能会得到两个不同的观测性能.

我们可以解释这个缺陷观察是我们无法建立相同的初始状态, 或缺乏精度我们的测量. 这种解释引起所谓的隐变量的理论 — 认为是无效的,适用于各种原因. 解释目前流行的是,不确定性是自然界的固有属性 — 所谓哥本哈根解释.

在哥本哈根图片, 颗粒位置观察,只有当. 在其他时间, 他们应该被认为是一种为分布在空间. 在双缝用电子干扰实验, 例如, 我们不应该要求一个特定的电子是否发生在缝或其他. 只要有干扰, 种是需要双方.

在这种解释令人不安的事情爱因斯坦将是连上帝也无法使电子采取一个切口或其他 (不干扰的干涉图案, 就是说). 如果上帝不能将一个微小的电子在那里他想, 他是如何去控制整个宇宙?