Absolute Truth in Fundamental Physics
Discussion:
Absolute Truth in Fundamental Physics
(trop ancien pour répondre)
Pentcho Valev
2018-01-23 10:43:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
There is absolute truth in science. Of the following two statements one is absolutely true, the other is false:

(A) The speed of light depends on the speed of the light source.

(B) The speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source.

Einstein hesitated between A (a tenet of Newton's emission theory of light) and B (a tenet of the ether theory) and finally chose B, the false one, as his 1905 second postulate:

Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous." https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

As a result, science became insane (died):

Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")." http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf

Loading Image...

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2018-01-24 11:23:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Another example of absolute truth in science. Water in electric field:

"The Formation of the Floating Water Bridge including electric breakdowns"


The system is obviously able to produce work - e.g. by rotating a waterwheel. Of the following two statements one is absolutely true, the other is false:

1. The work will be done at the expense of electric energy.

2. The work will be done at the expense of ambient heat, in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

Scientists may not know which of the statements is true, or may diligently practice crimestop:

"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity." http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/chapter2.9.html

Still the absolute truth does exist.

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2018-01-29 09:53:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
If there is a catalyst that affects the forward and the reverse reactions unequally - e.g. accelerates the one more than the other - then the second law of thermodynamics is violated. Here is a catalyst that accelerates the forward reaction, 2H+ -> H_2, but SUPPRESSES the reverse reaction, H_2 -> 2H+. Violation of the second law of thermodynamics par excellence:

Loading Image...

Yu Hang Li et al. Unidirectional suppression of hydrogen oxidation on oxidized platinum clusters https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms3500

In this case passively obeying crimestop is not enough. Exercises are necessary:

"He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He presented himself with propositions - "the Party says the earth is flat", "the party says that ice is heavier than water" - and trained himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that contradicted them. It was not easy. It needed great powers of reasoning and improvisation. The arithmetical problems raised, for instance, by such a statement as "two and two make five" were beyond his intellectual grasp. It needed also a sort of athleticism of mind, an ability at one moment to make the most delicate use of logic and at the next to be unconscious of the crudest logical errors. Stupidity was as necessary as intelligence, and as difficult to attain." https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/chapter3.4.html

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2018-01-30 11:02:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In the electric field between the plates of the capacitor, turbulent motion can be seen:

"Liquid Dielectric Capacitor"


What energy powers the turbulent motion? Could that be electric energy? That is, we have essentially an electric motor: current passes from plate to plate, somehow pushes the water violently, and the spent electric energy eventually leaves the system as heat produced by friction.

If the above hypothesis is not reasonable (the liquid is non-conductive by definition), then the powering energy is ambient heat. No other source of energy is conceivable.

In this case work can be done by using the rising of the water - e.g. floating weights can be lifted. Again, the crucial question is:

The work (lifting floating weights) will be done at the expense of what energy?

If "electric energy" is not the correct answer, then the only remaining answer is "ambient heat". The system is a perpetual-motion machine of the second kind!

Pentcho Valev

Loading...