Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

spacetime quantized?

slo1
Posts: 4,353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 3:05:30 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
https://www.sciencedaily.com...

Our experience of space-time is that of a continuous object, without gaps or discontinuities, just as it is described by classical physics. For some quantum gravity models however, the texture of space-time is "granular" at tiny scales (below the so-called Planck scale, 10-33 cm), as if it were a variable mesh of solids and voids (or a complex foam). One of the great problems of physics today is to understand the passage from a continuous to a discrete description of spacetime: is there an abrupt change or is there gradual transition? Where does the change occur?

The separation between one world and the other creates problems for physicists: for example, how can we describe gravity -- explained so well by classical physics -- according to quantum mechanics? Quantum gravity is in fact a field of study in which no consolidated and shared theories exist as yet. There are, however, "scenarios," which offer possible interpretations of quantum gravity subject to different constraints, and which await experimental confirmation or confutation.

One of the problems to be solved in this respect is that if space-time is granular beyond a certain scale it means that there is a "basic scale," a fundamental unit that cannot be broken down into anything smaller, a hypothesis that clashes with Einstein's theory of special relativity.

Imagine holding a ruler in one hand: according to special relativity, to an observer moving in a straight line at a constant speed (close to the speed of light) relative to you, the ruler would appear shorter. But what happens if the ruler has the length of the fundamental scale? For special relativity, the ruler would still appear shorter than this unit of measurement. Special relativity is therefore clearly incompatible with the introduction of a basic graininess of spacetime. Suggesting the existence of this basic scale, say the physicists, means to violate Lorentz invariance, the fundamental tenet of special relativity.

So how can the two be reconciled? Physicists can either hypothesize violations of Lorentz invariance, but have to satisfy very strict constraints (and this has been the preferred approach so far), or they must find a way to avoid the violation and find a scenario that is compatible with both granularity and special relativity. This scenario is in fact implemented by some quantum gravity models such as String Field Theory and Causal Set Theory. The problem to be addressed, however, was how to test their predictions experimentally given that the effects of these theories are much less apparent than are those of the models that violate special relativity. One solution to this impasse has now been put forward by Stefano Liberati, SISSA professor, and colleagues in their latest publication. The study was conducted with the participation of researchers from the LENS in Florence (Francesco Marin and Francesco Marino) and from the INFN in Padua (Antonello Ortolan). Other SISSA scientists taking part in the study, in addition to Liberati, were PhD student Alessio Belenchia and postdoc Dionigi Benincasa. The research was funded by a grant of the John Templeton Foundation.
....
slo1
Posts: 4,353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 3:15:45 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I posted the first few paragraphs of this article as it is a great demonstration of the problem between quantum gravity, which fundamentally means that space time is comprised of minimum sized pixels or blocks just like energy is comprised of a minimum quantity called a quantum, and relativity.

I thought the example of a quantum of space time and how it would look to a person traveling at the speed of light and how it would appear smaller to that person versus the stationary person was fantastic.

If you are interested read the full article as it contains a proposed experiment that they are working on that will advance knowledge of space time and locality/non-locality. Very cool stuff.
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 4:07:35 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Planck units have nothing to do with quantization. They're just a way to nondimensionalize certain fundamental constants. And it's not even the only way to do it.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
slo1
Posts: 4,353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 4:19:45 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 4:07:35 PM, user13579 wrote:
Planck units have nothing to do with quantization. They're just a way to nondimensionalize certain fundamental constants. And it's not even the only way to do it.

If you wish to start a topic about plank units, please do so on your own post.

This post is about this one paragraph.

"One of the problems to be solved in this respect is that if space-time is granular beyond a certain scale it means that there is a "basic scale," a fundamental unit that cannot be broken down into anything smaller, a hypothesis that clashes with Einstein's theory of special relativity"
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 4:20:06 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 4:18:33 PM, keithprosser wrote:
Thanks user13579. Knowing that will come in really handy. :)

https://en.wikipedia.org...
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 4:21:12 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 4:19:45 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/25/2016 4:07:35 PM, user13579 wrote:
Planck units have nothing to do with quantization. They're just a way to nondimensionalize certain fundamental constants. And it's not even the only way to do it.

If you wish to start a topic about plank units, please do so on your own post.

This post is about this one paragraph.

"One of the problems to be solved in this respect is that if space-time is granular beyond a certain scale it means that there is a "basic scale," a fundamental unit that cannot be broken down into anything smaller, a hypothesis that clashes with Einstein's theory of special relativity"

There is no reason to assume space-time is granular. Problem solved.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
slo1
Posts: 4,353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 4:30:44 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 4:21:12 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 4/25/2016 4:19:45 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/25/2016 4:07:35 PM, user13579 wrote:
Planck units have nothing to do with quantization. They're just a way to nondimensionalize certain fundamental constants. And it's not even the only way to do it.

If you wish to start a topic about plank units, please do so on your own post.

This post is about this one paragraph.

"One of the problems to be solved in this respect is that if space-time is granular beyond a certain scale it means that there is a "basic scale," a fundamental unit that cannot be broken down into anything smaller, a hypothesis that clashes with Einstein's theory of special relativity"

There is no reason to assume space-time is granular. Problem solved.

That is good news then that there are smarter people than you and I who design experiments to gather observations and empirical data to either prove or disprove theories which indeed do speculate on the quantization of space time. Problem not solved until we know either way.
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 4:31:04 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
That's the problem with modern science. Just assume whatever you want and if it contradicts the current understanding of things then that just means you can write more papers.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 4:34:14 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
If some ridiculous assumption with absolutely no evidence behind it leads to a clash with Einstein, then I am sticking with Einstein! I can also dismiss the ridiculous assumption!
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 4:43:04 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Give me SOME evidence for the quantization of space-time. At least something. Until then, I am sticking with Einstein and all the evidence supporting Einstein!
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
slo1
Posts: 4,353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 4:58:56 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 4:34:14 PM, user13579 wrote:
If some ridiculous assumption with absolutely no evidence behind it leads to a clash with Einstein, then I am sticking with Einstein! I can also dismiss the ridiculous assumption!

It is not an assumption, it is a hypothesis. You obviously don't understand how science discovery comes about. In fact, with your notions, if you were born prior to Einstein's theories, you would have declared them bunk as there was no empirical evidence when he created the theory.

Stop trying to put limits on science that it can only create a hypothesis after there is evidence, for f's sake.
slo1
Posts: 4,353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 5:01:09 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 4:43:04 PM, user13579 wrote:
Give me SOME evidence for the quantization of space-time. At least something. Until then, I am sticking with Einstein and all the evidence supporting Einstein!

The confirmed quantization of all the forces/fields minus gravity doesn't even have you curious that other things could be quantized?
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 5:07:50 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 4:58:56 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/25/2016 4:34:14 PM, user13579 wrote:
If some ridiculous assumption with absolutely no evidence behind it leads to a clash with Einstein, then I am sticking with Einstein! I can also dismiss the ridiculous assumption!

It is not an assumption, it is a hypothesis. You obviously don't understand how science discovery comes about. In fact, with your notions, if you were born prior to Einstein's theories, you would have declared them bunk as there was no empirical evidence when he created the theory.

We have relativity now because there was evidence that the previous theories were flawed. Relativity was needed to explain the new evidence.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
keithprosser
Posts: 2,041
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 5:39:57 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Einstein would have been well ware of some problems with existing theories sucjvas the inconsistency between newton and Maxwell and the failure of Michaelson/ Morley to detect the ether. That would have been a motivation to do some blue-sky thinking, but afaik Einstein's motivation to develop gr was purely theoretical - he wanted to combine sr with gravity. There were no new observations to motivate doing so. The enormous influence of gr since shows the benefit of thinking outside the box for its own sake-providing you're Einstein and not, say, me.
slo1
Posts: 4,353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 5:54:46 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 5:07:50 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 4/25/2016 4:58:56 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/25/2016 4:34:14 PM, user13579 wrote:
If some ridiculous assumption with absolutely no evidence behind it leads to a clash with Einstein, then I am sticking with Einstein! I can also dismiss the ridiculous assumption!

It is not an assumption, it is a hypothesis. You obviously don't understand how science discovery comes about. In fact, with your notions, if you were born prior to Einstein's theories, you would have declared them bunk as there was no empirical evidence when he created the theory.

We have relativity now because there was evidence that the previous theories were flawed. Relativity was needed to explain the new evidence.

Your sense of time and timing is somewhat skewed, but none the less, yes indeed the Mercury problem was indeed identified in 1859 and Einstein's GR explained it a half or so century later.

However, GR, makes no claims at an extremely tiny scale and evidence since the time of GR's creation tells us that at a tiny scale things are often different in that there is discrete levels of "stuff".

Again, by your notions of science, what was someone doing looking at the procession of Mercury when there was a perfectly good Newtonian gravity to explain things.

You have zero right or standing to proclaim we understand the full nature of space time and gravity especially when everything else has been shown to fit under the quantum umbrella. It is short sighted and dangerous to the advancement of knowledge having such notions.
musicalone
Posts: 163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 6:33:00 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 3:05:30 PM, slo1 wrote:
https://www.sciencedaily.com...

Our experience of space-time is that of a continuous object, without gaps or discontinuities, just as it is described by classical physics. For some quantum gravity models however, the texture of space-time is "granular" at tiny scales (below the so-called Planck scale, 10-33 cm), as if it were a variable mesh of solids and voids (or a complex foam). One of the great problems of physics today is to understand the passage from a continuous to a discrete description of spacetime: is there an abrupt change or is there gradual transition? Where does the change occur?

The separation between one world and the other creates problems for physicists: for example, how can we describe gravity -- explained so well by classical physics -- according to quantum mechanics? Quantum gravity is in fact a field of study in which no consolidated and shared theories exist as yet. There are, however, "scenarios," which offer possible interpretations of quantum gravity subject to different constraints, and which await experimental confirmation or confutation.

One of the problems to be solved in this respect is that if space-time is granular beyond a certain scale it means that there is a "basic scale," a fundamental unit that cannot be broken down into anything smaller, a hypothesis that clashes with Einstein's theory of special relativity.

Imagine holding a ruler in one hand: according to special relativity, to an observer moving in a straight line at a constant speed (close to the speed of light) relative to you, the ruler would appear shorter. But what happens if the ruler has the length of the fundamental scale? For special relativity, the ruler would still appear shorter than this unit of measurement. Special relativity is therefore clearly incompatible with the introduction of a basic graininess of spacetime. Suggesting the existence of this basic scale, say the physicists, means to violate Lorentz invariance, the fundamental tenet of special relativity.

So how can the two be reconciled? Physicists can either hypothesize violations of Lorentz invariance, but have to satisfy very strict constraints (and this has been the preferred approach so far), or they must find a way to avoid the violation and find a scenario that is compatible with both granularity and special relativity. This scenario is in fact implemented by some quantum gravity models such as String Field Theory and Causal Set Theory. The problem to be addressed, however, was how to test their predictions experimentally given that the effects of these theories are much less apparent than are those of the models that violate special relativity. One solution to this impasse has now been put forward by Stefano Liberati, SISSA professor, and colleagues in their latest publication. The study was conducted with the participation of researchers from the LENS in Florence (Francesco Marin and Francesco Marino) and from the INFN in Padua (Antonello Ortolan). Other SISSA scientists taking part in the study, in addition to Liberati, were PhD student Alessio Belenchia and postdoc Dionigi Benincasa. The research was funded by a grant of the John Templeton Foundation.
.... : :

There's much more to life than quanta but most scientists don't understand that fact. However, a few have been experimenting with the string theories that continue to deceive them, meaning they don't have any visible evidence to prove their theories. At least these scientists are closer to our original birth place.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,041
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 6:33:52 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Tiny wee point... Gr does make claims at tiny scales because it is a 'classical' theory that assumes space time is smooth at all scales. In gr scale is irrelevant.. And therein lies the problem of squaring it with qm which is not scale invariant.

I have a solution this post is too small to contain. I hope I remember it tomorrow....
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 6:55:39 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 4:34:14 PM, user13579 wrote:
If some ridiculous assumption with absolutely no evidence behind it leads to a clash with Einstein, then I am sticking with Einstein! I can also dismiss the ridiculous assumption!

Einstein didn't have a huge amount of evidence to conjecture on either.

At the edge of observation, theoreticians rely on alternative models to suggest new phenomena that might be observed, and new ways to observe them. The alternative models aren't always right, but can provide coherence and accountability to conjecture, and even if they're wrong, they help support scientific epistemology through a sort of ontological sensitivity analysis. That's the gig of being a theoretical scientist: guess the kinds of emerging empirical problems new models might be able to solve, then offer the models that might help solve them.

And you're right: there needs to be enough accountability to observation that theoretical models don't drift endlessly into philosophy. But there also needs to be patience as the possibilities of the models are explored.
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 7:00:07 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 5:01:09 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/25/2016 4:43:04 PM, user13579 wrote:
Give me SOME evidence for the quantization of space-time. At least something. Until then, I am sticking with Einstein and all the evidence supporting Einstein!

The confirmed quantization of all the forces/fields minus gravity doesn't even have you curious that other things could be quantized?

Nope. Wanting to make equations look pretty isn't evidence of the real world!
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 7:03:55 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
It's funny. "If we assume X, then we have all these new problems that we don't know how to solve. Hmm, now we need more research grants to figure out how to solve these new problems."

How about just now assume X for crying out loud?
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
slo1
Posts: 4,353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 7:04:33 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 7:00:07 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 4/25/2016 5:01:09 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/25/2016 4:43:04 PM, user13579 wrote:
Give me SOME evidence for the quantization of space-time. At least something. Until then, I am sticking with Einstein and all the evidence supporting Einstein!

The confirmed quantization of all the forces/fields minus gravity doesn't even have you curious that other things could be quantized?

Nope. Wanting to make equations look pretty isn't evidence of the real world!

Whatever, there is obvious no point of continuing this discussion, especially if you are denying the most successful theory of all times, quantum mechanics. It is the only theory that has been 100% accurate with predictions of atoms and molecules to date.

Over and out.
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 7:06:44 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Wait a minute. You're denying Einstein, by making assumptions with no evidence! On the other hand, Einstein has quite a lot of evidence in his favor. There is no evidence of quantized spacetime. At all. Wanting to make equations pretty isn't evidence!
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 2:38:01 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Here's my theory of everything:

A=A

See how pretty that equation is? Nice and neat. And it's obviously true. It's true no matter what scale you're working with.

The only problem is it actually explains nothing!
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 3:36:37 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Why would anyone think Einstein was an experimental physicist?

This thread is quite irritating...
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 5:28:33 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
The problem with quantizing spacetime is after you have done so, where exactly do you put those spacetime particles?

f you want to postulate that time and space "emerged" from a deeper reality, if they are contingent rather than fundamental, for that postulate to be sensible, you need to define that deeper reality from which time and space emerged, you need to say what they are contingent upon.

String Theory, Quantum Loop Gravity, all of the leading candidates are eons away from anything even resembling an explanation.as to what that deeper reality from which time and space emerge can be.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 5:32:26 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/28/2016 3:36:37 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Why would anyone think Einstein was an experimental physicist?

This thread is quite irritating...

He didn't have to be. Other people did the experiments, and he "just" connected the dots.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 5:37:23 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/28/2016 5:28:33 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
The problem with quantizing spacetime is after you have done so, where exactly do you put those spacetime particles?

Just call them "quantum" something and you're good to go. You apparently don't need any evidence any more to do science.

String Theory, Quantum Loop Gravity, all of the leading candidates are eons away from anything even resembling an explanation.as to what that deeper reality from which time and space emerge can be.

They want a theory of everything. A theory of everything is basically just A=A. Besides, you can't prove anything about the physical world just by manipulating equations.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 6:43:29 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/28/2016 5:32:26 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 4/28/2016 3:36:37 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Why would anyone think Einstein was an experimental physicist?

This thread is quite irritating...

He didn't have to be. Other people did the experiments, and he "just" connected the dots.

Nobody did experiments on relativity prior to him formulating his theories, special or general.
He did precisely what you seem to despise: theoretical physics.
Einstein did't start with new experimental data, he came up with thought experiments and postulates from which he derived his theories. It took years before other people could test them.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic