Prev: A century of phytoplankton decline suggests that ocean ecosystemsare in peril
Next: Good arguments supporting reality of Global Warming
From: PD on 7 Aug 2010 12:16
On Aug 6, 11:30 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 12:25:59 -0700, PD wrote:
> > On Aug 4, 8:48 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 00:40:57 +0200, Hayek wrote:
> >> > Unified_Perspective wrote:
> >> >> On Jul 29, 3:40 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >>> The problem is getting more and more pressing:
>
> >> >> Science is a relatively small part of our culture, it is true, but -
> >> >> this has always been true. In fact I believe that science probably
> >> >> is held in higher regard now than at any prior time in human
> >> >> history, with the possible exceptions of the dawning of the age of
> >> >> enlightenment, circa 1700's and the dawn of the industrial
> >> >> revolution circa 1880.
>
> >> >> The challenge for those of use who love science is to make it more
> >> >> respectable, through the use of good humor and good manners, and to
> >> >> make it more comprehensible through the use of analogies and plain
> >> >> writing or speech.
>
> >> >> Einstein is not at fault here. The material he presents and the
> >> >> mathematics he CREATED are quite difficult topics.
>
> >> > Einstein did not create the mathematics. Riemann did. Einstein genius
> >> > was that he was able to apply the principle of relativity and
> >> > conservation of energy in some highly creative thought experiments.
>
> >> "Thought experiment" is an oxymoron, by the way. I suggests that
> >> science can be done a priori, which is bullshit and very much
> >> non-science.
>
> >> One of his thought experiments was the EPR paradox. which turned out to
> >> be a pile of bullcrap.
>
> >> Einstein's genius was taking Lorentz's work and calling it his own.
>
> > Physicists do not confuse "thought experiments" with "experiments".
> > Amateurs, hacks, and hobbyists do. That's why amateurs, hacks, and
> > hobbyists think they're doing interesting science by posing "thought
> > experiments".
>
> Then you must not think Einstein a physicist, because Einstein believed
> his "thought experiment" debunked quantum entanglement. We know now how
> stupid THAT was.

No, I wouldn't go so far as to say he thought it proved anything. What
he showed is that IF the principle of locality held (which he believed
it did), THEN there would be a problem. We'll never know what Einstein
would have said after the results of the Aspect experiments, but you
can rest assured that Einstein, like all physicists, recognized that
experiment has the final say in all such matters.

>
>
>
> > Einstein used "thought experiments" for two main purposes. One was to
> > *explain* the consequences of a proposed tenet, postulate, or model. The
> > consequences then are presumably testable. The other was to show how an
> > imagined outcome is consistent with known laws of physics or are
> > consistent with other statements in the theory. For example, the train
> > and embankment "gedanken" is an explanation of why relativity of
> > simultaneity follows directly from, and is consistent with, the
> > constancy of the speed of light. It is not proposed as a *proof* of
> > either the constancy of the speed of light or of relativity of
> > simultaneity, but rather only the logical connection.
>
> > All thought experiments beg real experiments of similar intent.
>
> > And in fact, the EPR proposal was not a claimed proof of anything. It
> > suggested a way, however, to test the claims of quantum mechanics. And
> > in fact, it directly inspired real experiments by Aspect et al., which
> > showed exactly what Einstein bet would not happen. I don't know how you
> > would then conclude that the EPR proposal was therefore "bullcrap".
>
> Oh, bull. Einstein didn't say "we can test the theory this way", the
> idiot claimed his thought experiment debunked QM. He had an irrational
> bias against the statistical nature of QM. You can apologize for
> Einstein's ignorance of the scientific method and try and explain away
> "thought experiment" as something else - but it's bullshit. The very NAME
> "thought experiment" is an unscientific appeal to the a priori and is by
> definition non-science.

Einstein isn't here to defend himself about his intentions or
predispositions about theory vs. experiment, and I don't think there's
much point in attempting to read the minds of dead men.

So, let's just focus on what physicists think of his work and what
value it has and for what.

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: A century of phytoplankton decline suggests that ocean ecosystemsare in peril
Next: Good arguments supporting reality of Global Warming