E=MC^2: Exploring the Connection Between Matter and Energy

[rewebster]

It is not whether it is right or wrong in the sense of being a true description of physical reality. Science does not work that way. Any theory is 'correct' so long as it is consistent with all the evidence. Theories can only be disproven. They can never be proven absolutely true. One fact will destroy the most elegant theory. A gazillion facts will not make it 'absolutely true'.AM

yes---and I think I've read something like that before someplace

All Einstein did was derive, from very few simple principles, a mathematical and conceptual model of matter and energy that, to date, is completely consistent with all physical observation. In a hundred years, no one has been able to find a fact that is inconsistent Einstein's theory.

You don't have to believe that Einstein's theory of relativity represents 'truth' or 'reality'. But it is irrational to think there is something wrong with it if you are unable to identify a fact that it is inconsistent with.
AM

but if this were true, then there would not have been any reasons why Quantum Physics and all of its derivatives would have come about.




There are inconsistencies.

 

[ZapperZ]

but if this were true, then there would not have been any reasons why Quantum Physics and all of its derivatives would have come about.

Er... say what?

There are inconsistencies.

What are they?

Zz.

 

[rewebster]

the actions/interactions around and in the atom

 

[ZapperZ]

the actions/interactions around and in the atom

.. and how is this inconsistent with anything? And please, make a complete description of it and show the citation that you are basing this claim on, keeping in mind our guidelines.

Zz.

 

[russ_watters]

This is the part of his idea of his theory that I have trouble with.

Please explain - what is the problem?

the evidence supports his theory as long as you go "by his theory"

Huh? What other way is there to test his theory? You can't count ducks at a pond and say the number of ducks isn't what Einstein predicted in Relativity - to test relativity, you have to test relativity. That tautology is pretty basic.

The BIG question is rather it's right or not.

And how does science figure out if it is right or not?

Honestly, you're not being real clear/specific on what the issue you have with Relativity is: it just seems like some vague discomfort with the theory's implications.

but if this were true, then there would not have been any reasons why Quantum Physics and all of its derivatives would have come about.

You do understand that Relativity and QM describe two different things, right? QM wasn't created to correct Relativity, it addresses issues outside the scope of Relativity.

 

[rewebster]

I'm not saying there are not inconsistencies with QM (a theory too), either-

-but isn't that why the two theories exist, and they can't be totally and successfully entwined? Don't both have inconsistencies and are not completely compatible?----for their own varies reasons of inconsistency and are not combined because of their incompatibility.

 

[rewebster]

I hate it when I have a message typed and I've been 'timed' out and lose my response. (I know---put a check in the 'remember me' next time)

 

[russ_watters]

-but isn't that why the two theories exist, and they can't be totally and successfully entwined? Don't both have inconsistencies and are not completely compatible?----for their own varies reasons of inconsistency and are not combined because of their incompatibility.

No. It isn't that they are incompatible or inconsistent. They are two different theories that discuss two different things. Scientists would like to combine them into a single "theory of everything", but for the moment, both work just fine in their separate domains of applicability.

It is starting to sound like like you have heard vague objections to the theories and because of that you think there are problems with them...but you don't know what those problems are. That's why you are not explaining what you think the problems are. Am I correct?

 

[rewebster]

Please explain - what is the problem?

Huh? What other way is there to test his theory? You can't count ducks at a pond and say the number of ducks isn't what Einstein predicted in Relativity - to test relativity, you have to test relativity. That tautology is pretty basic.


And how does science figure out if it is right or not?

Honestly, you're not being real clear/specific on what the issue you have with Relativity is: it just seems like some vague discomfort with the theory's implications.


You do understand that Relativity and QM describe two different things, right? QM wasn't created to correct Relativity, it addresses issues outside the scope of Relativity.

A lot of people have a problem with it (SR). Those who use it or have to use it accept it as what it is. They are people who are all the way up and down the Bell curve for their admiration of it, and a separate curve who think there's something wrong with it to 'its perfect'. MY problem is that I don't think its right (from my own reasons which I can't discuss on the forum).


As far as testing his theory, it depends on what you have in mind before you start testing. Is someone 'testing his theory' or are they doing a test 'looking for' results to prove or disprove his theory? In other words, would this test be done if his theory wasn't even known and how would the results be interpreted? How would the results fit in anywhere (in any theory)? (and yes, I know its one of the best theories we have---and, yes, the other 'best theory we have' is quantum based).


(started that at 2:30 --with interruptions-finished 2:57)


They are two different things trying to explain all/most of the same things. They both have similarities and both have been built on the same foundations. Would SR been the same if quantum would have been put out twenty years earlier, say 1885? I never said they were the same. And yes, wouldn't it be great if they were combined?

 

[jtbell]

Um... we have a very successful theory that combines special relativity and quantum mechanics. It's called Quantum Electrodynamics.

 

[rewebster]

----it may do a better job -- (from what I've read)--but is it 'right' ?

but, does it explain everything? I know people have to use 'something' and hopefully the 'best'.

 

[rewebster]

Um... we have a very successful theory that combines special relativity and quantum mechanics. It's called Quantum Electrodynamics.

I needed a


jtbell:

OK---from 1% to 100% , where would you fit QED on the ' it's right ' scale?

(not the "it's the one I use" scale)

 

[ZapperZ]

I'm not saying there are not inconsistencies with QM (a theory too), either-

-but isn't that why the two theories exist, and they can't be totally and successfully entwined? Don't both have inconsistencies and are not completely compatible?----for their own varies reasons of inconsistency and are not combined because of their incompatibility.

What EXACTLY is incompatible here? SR has been incorporated inside of QM. That is why we have QFT/QED/Dirac equation, etc.

So I am still waiting for this inconsistency here. Point out exactly and explicitly where SR and QM don't agree. You are verging on crackpottery here.

Zz.

 

[rewebster]

Mostly, I'm just questioning the validity of theories.

It seems from the amount of theories and postulates to those theories to "correct" them, that the right explanation still doesn't exist. It seems like that's the reason for many experiments (gravity wave, the CERN labs, etc.). We don't know yet and we want to know more. If we have QFT/QED/Dirac equation, etc., why is there a MWI?

Is it wrong to question why we have to have so many postulates to theories to 'correct' them (just thinking about Occam's razor)?

I haven't found any thing in SR to explain electricity. -maybe there is.

 

[ZapperZ]

Mostly, I'm just questioning the validity of theories.

It seems from the amount of theories and postulates to those theories to "correct" them, that the right explanation still doesn't exist. It seems like that's the reason for many experiments (gravity wave, the CERN labs, etc.). We don't know yet and we want to know more. If we have QFT/QED/Dirac equation, etc., why is there a MWI?

Is it wrong to question why we have to have so many postulates to theories to 'correct' them (just thinking about Occam's razor)?

I haven't found any thing in SR to explain electricity. -maybe there is.

1. You are confusing the FORMALISM with INTERPRETATION!

2. You are confusing your ignorance of the subject matter to mean there's no explanation.

3. You are confusing your ignorance of the empirical evidence to mean something isn't valid.

4. There is a difference between questioning something based on VALID evidence, either logically or experimentally, versus questioning it by throwing out random phrases without undrestanding what they mean.

This thread is done, thanks to your hijacking of it.

Zz.