Hi... does anyone else like Einstein's way of thinking?

[unparadoxical]

I'm just a layman with not very much in the way of formal education (relative to many of the members of this forum, at least). I come from an intensely inquisitive perspective, and my main pathway into theoretical science has been via philosophy, and particularly the ideas of Kant as developed in the Critique of Pure Reason. After nearly 2 decades of trying to figure out quantum mechanics, I have recently gone back over to the relativistic side of fundamental physics, and I am now able to appreciate why Einstein's theory is so crucial to the development of a deep understanding of the nature of physical reality.

It seems that the so-called twin paradox is one of the main attractions that draws people towards the modern physics paradigm. The way I would resolve the perplexity is just that there cannot be two "really living people" in the different reference frames since the "stationary" frame is meant to represent a space that is of lower dimensionality than the "moving" frame. This just means that the "stationary" frame is actually a flat hypersurface onto which the space-filling field consisting of the lone "really living person" is projected, for the purpose of the creation of an image that can be "observed".

I am also very interested in the question of why/how the "bridges" in the Einstein-Rosen paper went from initially representing a simple field-theoretic formulation of corpuscular matter into the science fiction plot device now known as "wormholes". (I'm not sure, but it appears that the current appetites for hyperbolic metaphysical speculation might have something to do with it: the kind of speculation that Kant warned us about, in terms of the dangers of too much in the way of the dogmatic Leibniz-Wolffian approach to metaphysics.)

I look forward to thoughtful discussions about the many-headed monster that we call relativity with all of you!

 

[phinds]

Welcome to the forum.

I caution you strongly against posting such nonsense as this quote (below) in the actual science forums, and I suggest you read the forum rules --- especially the one about posting personal theories, and the one that says we don't discuss philosophy.

The way I would resolve the perplexity is just that there cannot be two "really living people" in the different reference frames since the "stationary" frame is meant to represent a space that is of lower dimensionality than the "moving" frame.

 

[PeroK]

I look forward to thoughtful discussions about the many-headed monster that we call relativity with all of you!

Special Relativity is absurdly simple. Especially when presented as Minkowski geometry.

Like all modern physics, mathematics is the key. Although, in fact, Roger Bacon recognised this nearly 800 years ago:

"Whoever then has the effrontery to study physics while neglecting mathematics must know from the start that he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."

Roger Bacon (1214-84)

 

[unparadoxical]

"Special Relativity is absurdly simple. Especially when presented as Minkowski geometry."

Is the other side of that statement one that goes something like:

"General Relativity is absurdly complex. Especially when presented with Riemann curvature tensors."

?

 

[phinds]

"General Relativity is absurdly complex. Especially when presented with Riemann curvature tensors."

Complex, yes, but why "absurdly"? The universe is what it is and sometimes it IS complex and in any case, it cares little whether or not your think it is absurd.

 

[PeroK]

Is the other side of that statement one that goes something like:

"General Relativity is absurdly complex. Especially when presented with Riemann curvature tensors."

It's absurdly difficult to solve the Einstein Field Equations, except for a few simple cases. But, then, as Laplace didn't actually say (even in French):

"Nature laughs at the difficulties of integration."

 

[unparadoxical]

I sometimes wonder what sense there is in speaking of "solving" the Einstein field equations without any previous notion (even if just implied) of the kind of "constructing" that geometers are so fond of. It seems, for example, that what Schwarzschild accomplished was more akin to a Euclidean construction (e.g. of a circle from out of two points) rather than the type of simple analysis done when "solving for x".

 

[robphy]

"Special Relativity is absurdly simple. Especially when presented as Minkowski geometry."

Is the other side of that statement one that goes something like:

"General Relativity is absurdly complex. Especially when presented with Riemann curvature tensors."

?

In spite of these apparent absurdities (not really)
is the fact that both these explanations of the world
in their ranges of application far exceed any alternative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parameterized_post-Newtonian_formalism

 

[unparadoxical]

in their ranges of application

Another thing that interests me is the degree to which certain theorists insist that there is a limited range of application for GR that does not include, for example, the range of application of QM. The fact that the "machinery" of GR allows for arbitrary coordinate systems, within which arbitrary functions may be defined, and that each cover a background spacetime of arbitrary curvature, seems like a good enough reason to speculate, along with Susskind, that "GR=QM" [1].

The fundamental problem with following Einstein's intellectual pathway from standard GR into the domain of a hypothetical "unified field" seems to lie somewhere along the lines of my previous comment that solutions to his field equations are taught to be understood in terms of algebraically "solving for x" rather than geometrically "constructing an x". Such constructions are — nowadays at least — typically described as "toy models" that do not apply to our own universe.

[1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1708.03040.pdf

 

[phinds]

Speculative but fascinating. Thanks for the link.

 

[robphy]

Another thing that interests me is the degree to which certain theorists insist that there is a limited range of application for GR that does not include, for example, the range of application of QM. The fact that the "machinery" of GR allows for arbitrary coordinate systems, within which arbitrary functions may be defined, and that each cover a background spacetime of arbitrary curvature, seems like a good enough reason to speculate, along with Susskind, that "GR=QM" [1].

The fundamental problem with following Einstein's intellectual pathway from standard GR into the domain of a hypothetical "unified field" seems to lie somewhere along the lines of my previous comment that solutions to his field equations are taught to be understood in terms of algebraically "solving for x" rather than geometrically "constructing an x". Such constructions are — nowadays at least — typically described as "toy models" that do not apply to our own universe.

[1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1708.03040.pdf

It's not just theorists involving General Relativity and Quantum Physics....

• Consider Newtonian mechanics...
  when should we use
  the terrestrial gravity U=mgh
  vs
  universal gravity U=-GMm/r?
  
  I guess the answer here depends on how much detail you care about.
  Clearly, there is a limited range of application of terrestrial gravity.
• Unfortunately, the situation is not as clear in the GR-QM interfaces.

Of course, there are other interfaces, e.g. as suggested by the Bronstein cube

a figure from John Stachel's

• "A Brief History of Space-Time" (2003) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252697584_A_Brief_History_of_Space-Time
• "Einstein's Intuition and the Post-Newtonian Approximation" (2006) https://www.bu.edu/cphs/files/2015/04/2006_Einstein_s_Intuition.pdf
• https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Bronstein-cube_fig1_241529454

See more from my post at https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/724544/148184Certainly, Einstein's contributions were a breakthrough in the understanding of gravity,
which suggested to others a breakthrough in
(say, for example) geometric thinking in its applications to physics.
However, there's no rule that says we have to follow Einstein or that
Einstein's contribution is to only way to have gotten to where we are today.

In my opinion, see what seems to work and push them as far as one can
...and being willing to move on from them if they don't make substantial progress.

 

[unparadoxical]

As I see it, the question of "what seems to work" in terms of "making substantial progress" towards unification in theoretical physics depends on some interlocking factors.

Apart from the purely technical factors of showing mathematical and experimental proof, there are also the more mundane economic factors that determine who, in the first place, receives the funding needed to conduct the requisite research.

In certain cases, other issues might crop up in the political arena: authoritarian regimes, for example, might not be too receptive to the idea that the scientists in their respective countries could be formulating "grand unified theories" that are seen to be in direct conflict with the official state ideology. At present, this last issue does not appear to be too much of a concern in the Western democracies.

 

[berkeman]

Introduction thread closed for Moderation...

 

[berkeman]

I'm just a layman with not very much in the way of formal education (relative to many of the members of this forum, at least). I come from an intensely inquisitive perspective, and my main pathway into theoretical science has been via philosophy, and particularly the ideas of Kant as developed in the Critique of Pure Reason.

The thread will remain closed. The New Member Introductions forum is meant for brief introduction posts, not discussions, and frankly this thread does not qualify for being moved to any of the technical forums (some replies were okay in terms of references, others were not).

@unparadoxical -- If you want to start a discussion on any of these issues, please choose the best PF forum and post peer-reviewed journal article references to start those conversations. Thank you.