/sci/ - Science & Math

> what do you think?

nothing, somebody who markets himself permanently has no bearing or consequence on my life

>>10278186
Are you saying that "What does /sci/ think about Jacob Barnett?" would be better phrasing?

>>10278178
Never heard of him. Doesn't sound like it's worth reading up on him, though. Do people really care? A smart kid who looks like 15 is finishing up his PhD, which took me fucking ages and I lost about 10 year's worth of life expectancy. Good for him. Not sure why I should care, though.

>>10278193
I guess the better question is, wouldn't the claim that the theory of relativity is unfounded be completely outlandish?

>>10278178
People who haven't done anything and just have potential are just being shilled. There's no reason why I should care why this faggot exists. Contrast him with someone like Terence Tao who has actually produced notable work.

>>10278197
>wouldn't the claim that the theory of relativity is unfounded be completely outlandish

Well - we know it's not the complete picture. Not sure what his angle is, though. Sounds like a waste of time, though.

>>10278208

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1507.01232.pdf

It appears he already has done something

>>10278209
>Well - we know it's not the complete picture.
If he had something noteworthy it would have been discussed or published by now. I'm guessing it's one of those "I really like the standard model, GRAVITY RREEEE"

>>10278209

I agree, it does sound like a waste of time. On top of that, disproving relativity sounds like a dangerous rabbit hole that a person can obsess over their whole life and make no progress

Well if he's right then cool, perpetual motion machines might be actually possible and practical. If not okay, just means we won't have to reset from zero on physics again. Either way it shouldn't really matter and good luck to him.

Here's another paper

https://arxiv.org/abs/1108.6083

Good for him

Sounds like a meme trying to give himself more meme power. Disproving relativity is literally not possible anymore. You can only modify the model.

>>10278211
>>10278247
Arxiv manuscript pre-prints aren't publications you dumbfuck.

>>10278264
I know trusting quotes of people w/o citations on the internet is risky business, but if that is a real quote by Perelman, which I doubt, that's some cool praise.

>>10278232
>Well if he's right then cool, perpetual motion machines might be actually possible and practical
Quantum

>>10278274
Glue eater

>>10278273
The journal each paper is featured in, should it appear in one, is noted in the arxiv page you dumbfuck. Arxiv doesn't store papers written willy nilly. Here's >>10278247

https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.84.024103

>>10278278
upon further inspection, my dumb ass fell for a meme

>>10278247
Its shit

>>10278284
And why is that?

>>10278178
Relativity was dead on arrival like virtually all theories of physics. The moment Quantum Mechanics (albeit flawed itself) proved reality was non-deterministic through the double-slit experiment and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, all of known physics should have been scrapped. My thoughts are that since everything is made up of Quantum particles at their core, that they must carry over their quantum traits even to the macro-cosmic. I believe that relativity only seemed to work because of human perception. I think the way we perceive light and the passing of time may be playing tricks on how we perceive things. Understanding the illusions of the mind is probably going to be the only way to find a working Theory of Everything.

>>10278300
I don't think that's how that works at all anon, even if you want to believe it. What separates the world of quantum mechanics from the macro every day world is that we have models on things that we can anticipate. While at the quantum level, we have to form models around things we can't anticipate. Just because things are uncertain and "non-deterministic" at the quantum level, doesn't imply that physics at the macro level should be scrapped.

>>10278282
>The journal each paper is featured in, should it appear in one, is noted in the arxiv page you dumbfuck.
Which is why bare minimum you post the page and not the pdf document especially one without any reference (which postprints are supposed to have), but obviously mostly the journal since you can assess the quality if it instantly.

For example it appears you haven't noticed (or you have but unlike the other glue eater itt you are not even an honest man) that his first authorship is unpublished. Given that it's been sitting on a pre-print site for 3 years it has likely been rejected from every good and terrible journal in the entire field. This is a massive smudge to both their names.

It is for this reason that people don't post preprint manuscripts, is a thing that failures do. Normal people post journals and then you can find preprints on scholar.

The second pub is a second authorship which for a theory paper implies someone is just using the local pet autist to try and garner media attention for themselves.

>Arxiv doesn't store papers written willy nilly
Yes it does, it's a pre-print site, I can go upload any bullshit sitting on my desktop right now and I can sponsor you to do the same thing, but honestly I'd rather give it to >>10278274

>>10278307

Thank's for the insight. The second authorship link I gave is actually his first paper. According to the university he attends, that one in particular has been published in said journal

https://insidetheperimeter.ca/perimeter-welcomes-exceptional-young-talent/

and I hope not at the expense of Jacob as you imply. As for his first authorship paper, yeah I have no idea if its been confirmed or rejected so given the time its been sitting there it would likely be rejected.

>>10278275
im not a science goy but doesn't relativity have no bearing on thermodynamics?

>>10278316
Arrow of time.

>>10278300
did... did you just say that relativity is outdated because of "the way we percieve light and the passing of time is playing tricks on us"?

Nigger that is the whole point of relativity kys

>>10278306
Of course it does, my broken clock is right twice a day, so I should keep it right? See the problem here is that you think there is actually a difference between the micro and macro worlds, there isn't. It is all the same shit, even if at the macro it doesn't seem like it. If the differences between relativity and quantum mechanics could be reconciled it would have done so by now. The big secret why though is because relativity relies on the existence of gravity. Want to know the most likely reason gravity doesn't effect things at the quantum level?.......it doesn't exist. It is not a physical force. That is why it's so maddening, we keep trying to shoehorn in a variable that isn't real. The effects though of "gravity" are likely passive effects of something we're missing. A passive effect of a yet unidentified force. Like confusing the ripples of ocean surface for a 2d plane while missing the depth. I would bet money in 100 years people will look back at us and laugh at the things we believe in today.

>>10278318
No fool, I meant at an even deeper level than relativity can account for. None of the effects of relativity are verifiable because I cannot travel at the speed of light or near a black hole to test if our math is correct. Compared to a Theory of Everything, relativity can only perform a few parlor tricks. People will eventually look at Einstein the way we look at Newton, or worse, Aristotle.

>>10278300
It’s still deterministic, just deterministic with dice. Quantum effects don’t matter for macroscopic objects, as the probability cloud of a car is for all intents and purposes nonexistent in comparison to its size.

As a brainlet, I have mixed feelings about this. I'm even jelly someone has a degree-related job.

OTOH, I want nice things to be invented so let's see in a 100 years which prodigy child happened to do so.

>>10278324

>If the differences between relativity and quantum mechanics could be reconciled it would have done so by now.

That's why we're actively working towards a unifying theory. Today. In the real world. In (current year). jfc

That's why theoretical physicists get out of their beds in the morning.

Even someone with popsci levels of science literacy knows this.

>gravity doesn't exist

kys. i hope spacetime bends and pushes you into a meatgrinder

>>10278337
Don’t bother. People like to make empty conjecture to look cool and smart when it’s just fard an shidd.

>>10278340

It's /x/-tier schizoposting.

>>10278332
My point is that time breaks down determinism, things only seem deterministic at the macro because we perceive things so slowly and our lives are so unbelievably short at the cosmological level. A car might be a car in the 80 so odd years we live, but would bet that car is still a car, even in a vacuum, in 10x34 power years from now? If not, then determinism is false. An illusion crafted from the abysmal nearsightedness of human life and experience.

>>10278337
You sound exactly like the people that used to assert that heavenly bodies traveled along crystal spheres in an Earth centered cosmology. How dare someone question this thing that consensus says is true, haven't these fools heard that truth is a democracy?? Relativity and quantum mechanics are both flawed and dead, they have gone from honest science using the scientific principle of evidence before conclusion to being too scared to let go of old thinking, now it's starting with a conclusion while grasping at things to prop it up as truth you big fool. There comes a point where it's time to start fresh, we have hit that point.

>>10278346
>time breaks down determinism

no. stop. read pic related and get your head out of a philosophy textbook. Quantum mechanics, time, and what you're trying to convey, does not throw deterministic models for the macro world out the window. They work because that's how the world works. You can jack off in circles with philosophical implications all you want but it won't achieve anything, prove anything, or get things done. That's why math/Science and philosophy parted ways a long time ago, because philosophy gets nothing done.

>>10278342
Lot's of name calling, but not a lot of science. This board's inhabitants have 2 large issues: Many can only think in literal extremes (which considering the amount of Aspergers and Autism in STEM students, this is not surprising), and they are also young and college-aged. They are not capable of abstract thought.

>>10278349
> they have gone from honest science using the scientific principle of evidence before conclusion to being too scared to let go of old thinking
Since we're basing this on evidence, what evidence contradicts relativity or quantum mechanics?

>>10278354
bullshit is not abstract thought. holyshit

all the autists here, especially in the M category of STEM, are capable of abstract thought. fuckouttahere

>>10278357
THANK YOU i was just about to ask that.

>>10278346
>>10278349
>>10278354
What's your proof? I have a lot of rigorous proof on the grounds of both logical rigor and physical evidence backing up my side. It's called science irl.

>>10278346
>>10278349
>>10278354
just because you think something is x -> y doesn't mean know x -> y unless you can prove it.

>>10278351
Science is applied philosophy with a heavy emphasis on objectivism. Can you prove, with showing your work, that under no circumstance the Macro (also define where the macro definitively becomes the micro) is effected or controlled by the micro. Should you find a single instance where it does, it proves determinism falsifiable. True determinism can only exist in a vacuum where only deterministic laws govern events and happenings. Nor will I stop questioning you. As the saying goes, I would rather live in a world without answers than a world where answers cannot be questioned.

>>10278357
The fact that gravity seems to have no effect of Quantum particles and the fact that Relativity only deals with gravity and not electromagnetism, or the strong and weak nuclear forces. They are flawed, just as with the broken clock analogy.

>>10278371
Nice non-answer. So I'll take that as an admission that you don't have any evidence against relativity or quantum mechanics.

>>10278363
My proofs lies in the fact that you use flawed models to reach your conclusion. Correct math using flawed models is only correct within......wait for it ......FLAWED, INCORRECT, INCOMPLETE models. Without an objective Theory of Everything you are just pissing in the wind.

>>10278374
>The fact that gravity seems to have no effect of Quantum particles
You do realize the small mass of particles makes the extremely tiny effects a prediction of GR, and thus that's not evidence against GR?

>the fact that Relativity only deals with gravity and not electromagnetism, or the strong and weak nuclear forces
You realize you can put almost whatever matter content you want inside of general relativity, right? You're basically saying that since GR is a theory of gravity, the existence of anything that's not gravity is evidence against GR.

>>10278346
Cars will always be cars until their constituent molecules have been rearranged or changed in such a way that a human would no longer define it as one. That has nothing to do with determinism.

>>10278380
“Objective theory of everything”

You have no idea what a scientific theory is goddamn

>>10278371
>Science is applied philosophy

woo lad that was a good one. Does thinking that help you sleep at night with your worthless philosophy degree

>>10278371
>>10278380


Mathematics, whether it is a subject that is discovered, invented, or both, makes the models. So unless math is wrong, you're going to have a very hard time asserting "proof" that the models are wrong.

>>10278382
Here we go with the extremes again. If GR were correct, it would not be GR but a TOE. Same goes for QP. There are serious grievances between the two that render them both flawed and incomplete, there is also nothing stopping them both from being outright wrong. Mark my words, should humanity ever find the true TOE, it will likely be something outside all current models.

>>10278389
He’s technically right if you want to be pedantic but science outgrew the label of “natural philosophy” centuries ago.

>>10278395
But it is literally impossible for relativity to be wrong. It can only be modified.

>>10278385
My point was given enough time the car wouldn't be a car, enough random happenings at the quantum level would have likely rendered it something else proving that with enough time the micro directly effects the macro. The whole point being that the separation of things into micro and macro is a silly false dichotomy. It's bearing on determinism being a demonstration that at the longest time scales things really are random.

>>10278395

Holy fuck. GR + QP + maybesomeshit = TOE

We now know that GR was never meant to be TOE on its own and neither is QP, maybe thats why you are confused

>>10278395
You're the one who brought up evidence. I asked you for the evidence against GR and quantum physics. You gave shitty arguments that weren't actually experimental evidence against either theory. And now, you're just saying "we don't have a theory of everything".

Do you know what "evidence" means?

>>10278398
Thinking something is impossible is not how one finds a TOE.

>>10278402

>>10278395 could also submit mathematical proof, but they haven't done that either.

>>10278387
Objective being the joke fool. People ITT getting mad for someone questioning their sacred GR and QP. No theory is above question, every theory is falsifiable.

>>10278407
No, relativity isn’t. It can only be modified, not refuted.

>>10278389
While I have no philosophy degree, I would argue that a physics degree is equally useless due to the odds of you landing a field related job. The Scientific principle is itself a philosophical stance on how to find truth.

>>10278407
Clearly you don't understand what "theory" means in math and physics. "*math/physics thing* theory" or "Theory of *math/physics thing*" is not something that is unconfirmed, they are fields of study that use verified facts to progress the knowledge of that field of study. You're confusing the word "Theory" with "hypothesis".

>>10278412
No one is going to refute germ theory anytime soon

>>10278402
Use GR to find the exact position of an electron, along with the exact path it will take from that point. I'll wait. When you give up, you will have your evidence and your answer.

>>10278415
General relativity doesn’t deal with the paths of electrons or their locations, nor do electrons HAVE exact positions. This is a non-point.

>>10278412
And you don't seem to understand the difference between "Theory" and "law". There is nothing stopping our understanding from being wrong. I'm sure the ancient cosmologists had a "Theory" of the machinations of the crystal spheres too. Rubbish, all of it was.

>>10278414
the math/physics definition of "theory" is easily extended to other sciences, so yeah obviously no one is going to refute germ theory because its a field of study grounded on facts. We probably stopped using the "ology' suffix to name fields cuz shit was getting complicated.

>>10278418
You dumb motherfucker. “Theory” in terms of a field of study is grounded in “law(s)”

>>10278418
Our understanding is incomplete, not wrong. The core facets of relativity and quantum mechanics will remain even when the sky falls.

>>10278417
THAT is my very point! While QP doesn't deal with the EXACT positions of where the electron IS either, it does deal with where it COULD be. It does not deal with things in terms of determinism, because it can't. This is my original argument. The universe cannot be deterministic and non-deterministic simultaneously. This is double-think and the realm of the religious. Either truly the micro and macro are governed by different laws, or the difference in mechanics itself is an illusion and we are missing the big picture. A TOE will likely result in the death of both GR and QP.

>>10278418
ancient cosmologists had hypotheses, since they lacked the tools and foundations to find out they were wrong. god damn

>>10278425
So what is the root "Law" of gravity? Semantics, all of it.

>>10278431
But I would wager that they didn't call them "Hypotheses", oh no, I bet they were quite a bit more arrogant and sure of themselves than that. Much like these other Pseuds in ITT.

>>10278430
nigga you need string theory

>>10278307
Preprints are very common in hep. It's the fastest way to get information out there.

>>10278437

well if you understood science, you would know to use newtons laws for objects not near light speed, and we use relativity for things at light speed

>>10278441
Until you can produce any kind of mathematical proof or physical evidence, you are the only pseud here.

>>10278442
I actually quite like string theory, even for all of it's flaws, which I hate to say are many.

>>10278451
GR and QP are the ones making all the assertion here. You cannot place the burden of proof on me. You cannot "prove" a negative. But if you truly think GR and QP are unfalsifiable, then you cling to your textbook like a Christian to their Bible.

>>10278454
string theory is what will tie GR and QP together, thats the goal. clearly you dont understand all 3. which is probably why you think that too is flawed. you probably like it because its the more abstract and edgy of the 3.

out of curiosity, what is your background

>>10278430
>It does not deal with things in terms of determinism, because it can't.
Everett says hi.

>>10278449
But why can't I use GR, or QP? There isn't something WRONG with them is there?

>>10278458
we've done the burden of proof. and have proved them to be positives. you're the one asserting they are negatives, so the burden of proof has been on you the whole time

>>10278459
String theory has a lot wrong with it though....like being unable to make an accurate prediction. If string theory was a workable TOE it would have the title, which it doesn't. I still have high hopes for it though. Mankind can go no further than this Solar System without it.

>>10278461

they're different models for very different things. why the fuck would you use GR on something small

>>10278462
You cannot reconcile the differences though, which is why they are still two different models instead of being unified. There are still unseen or unknown variables and the discovery of any of them could shake both theories to their core.

>>10278468
well kiddo, nature and the universe are complicated. but when we find a model for something complicated, and prove it to be true. then its done

>>10278468
you still havent done your burden of proof

>>10278466
Because a unified theory is the goal, everything being fractured is indicative of their flawed nature. There is an ultimate "why?". If your model cannot explain or predict the goings-on from the smallest to the largest then at some point it breaks down. We need a clock that works, not a broken, innacurrate one.

>>10278474
I still cannot prove a negative, logic 101. GR and QP can only prove themselves RIGHT, but they cannot, neither stand a chance at being a unified theory. Next you will be asking me for definitive proof that soda is NOT a soft drink.

>>10278483
Reminder: you brought up the "scientific principle of evidence". You can't name any scientific evidence that disproves either QM or GR.

>>10278178
Notice how kids like that are usually White kids. Why is that there are never Black kids able to do that? There are Black nerds for sure, but a Black genius of mathematics and physics like this "Jacob Barnett" or , simply doesn't exist

Why?

Maybe because of innate racial differences in IQ??? Do you know why?

Why is there no Black equivalent to Eddie Woo?

>>10278430
how would a toe disprove anything lmao
it's just a toe

>>10278489
Um, EACHOTHER. That is kind of the point, they negate eachother, one breaks down in the realm of the other. We live in a single universe, not a micro nor a macro. These are just false labels we give them because we don't want to give up either theory. Anything that isn't a TOE will come to perish.

>>10278497
The TOE is the goal though. Whatever unifies GR and QP will invariably cancel out the other two. The TOE doesn't "disprove" GR or QP, but proves itself right. The others being incorrect is merely a consequence of that.A flawed model is a flawed model.

>>10278516
>one breaks down in the realm of the other
Saying that doesn't make it true.

>>10278519
kek hes talking about the toe on a foot you sperg

>>10278264
that is a nice troll

kek

>>10278178
He's wasting his intelligence on physics. What he should do instead is work for MIRI to develop good AI alignment theory.

>>10278521
But it is, hell one is even deterministic and the other not. The entire reason why there are two theories instead of one should be painstakingly obvious. If they didn't break down in each other's realm they would be a unified theory.

>>10278530
The second half is the joke, but that isn't what I was referring to.

>>10278533
nice bait

>>10278497
Why do you think people are always saying about feet smelling? The toe knows.

Yes that is some multilayer punning.

Where did the meme of writing on a window come from? Is this some Hollywood gag or are there actual benefits to this?

Why isn't anyone mentioning that Barnett is a KH virgin?

>>10278264
Kek. I miss fake science quotes

>>10278932
I think John Nash is the origin of the trope. I've seen some shit when looking at places to rent in the past, writing equations on windows and mirrors just seems to be a thing people do when they're stressed the fuck out. Probably looking for familiarity or a nice view while thinking about the equations.

>>10278536
>hell one is even deterministic and the other not
Again, Everett says hi.
>If they didn't break down in each other's realm they would be a unified theory
No, it just means the simple mathematical tools we've used so far don't obviously carry over.

>>10278178
pretty smart desu

>>10278395
Now lads, listen, how can you possibly disprove something, that, as said, is not a TOE, and furthermore, physics, as stated in Hilbert's sixth problem, remains a system with no axiomatic basis?

>>10280168
Probably with a FINGER.

>>10280209
ERROR 404. LOGIC NOT FOUND.

Why doesn't the physicist community give more thought to the scalar tensor theories like Brans-Dicke that expand on GR. It seems that most of the conundrums in physics today are in Cosmology realm where GR is assumed to explain everything, even at the expense of saying things like 90% of the universe is made up of some pervasive mysterious matter and energy. Dark matter/Energy proponents are beginning to sound a lot like the people who espoused the Ether paradigm in defense of their precious old theories.

>>10281775
The major branches of physics today explain stuff in one of four quadrants, with the axes going from low to high energy and small to large scale. This also ties them to particular experiments and tools, with large scale, high energy having anything astronomy related. Dark matter and energy are more like large scale, low energy phenomena. Astronomy can't really deal with that atm so it ends up a bit like string theory was a while back, not so much demand or funding for it.

>>10281785
>Astronomy can't really deal with that atm
Hence why physicists are now looking for weakly interacting dark matter candidate particles I suppose. However, none of the particles in the standard model of particle physics fit the bill. Which is more likely then? That 90 % of the universe is teeming with particles that we have never seen in experiments done on varying length and energy scales OR that the theory that tells us that gravity is unique among all the fundamental forces of nature is incomplete? The standard model is more self-consistent and complete than GR with its singularities, cosmological constants, dark matter/energy and so on.

>>10281947
I think the main thing is it's underfunded compared to everything else, that's what really pushes people to research these sorts of things. String theory got a massive cash injection when the larger particle accelerators were built because it's supposed to deal with some of the scales they'll be getting to at some point with those. I wonder if we'll see something similar with gravitational waves, maybe gravitational lensing based telescopes, and then tech we're nowhere near like neutrino based telescopes and direct space exploration.

>>10281994
I get what you're saying. We could benefit a lot from new types of observatories because we've only been studying cosmic phenomena with electromagnetic signatures so far. Who knows what may unravel once we start to see the universe in its other facets. However my point was that maybe we should go back to the drawing board in terms of studying gravity to start with a quantum field theoretic approach like we do with the other forces. I really think Einstein kind of screwed us with this one. Or let's say gravity is not a fundamental force and that there's only 3 of those and gravity is simply what we observe when spacetime gets curved in the presence of those 3 fundamental forces and/or matter. How's that for a TOE?

>>10282012
>I get what you're saying. We could benefit a lot from new types of observatories because we've only been studying cosmic phenomena with electromagnetic signatures so far. Who knows what may unravel once we start to see the universe in its other facets. However my point was that maybe we should go back to the drawing board in terms of studying gravity to start with a quantum field theoretic approach like we do with the other forces.
I didn't totally clarify or finish my point fully (I am ill rn). I mean for that sort of thing to happen you need funding, and funding tends to follow these kinds of tools and projects around. So string theory used to be pretty niche, then the accelerators were built and a lot of funding either became more accessible or directly for that area of physics. As far as I understand it, it was actually at the expense of the gravity side of things, I looked through some old Usenet archives a while and you can find a number of posts from people that are annoyed their funding has dried up while there are more of these stupid string people about.

Those sorts of tools (even gravity waves, but probably more so neutrino detection) allow you to discern more subtle effects on larger scales, so it requires a good theoretical framework for low energy, large scale work.

>I really think Einstein kind of screwed us with this one. Or let's say gravity is not a fundamental force and that there's only 3 of those and gravity is simply what we observe when spacetime gets curved in the presence of those 3 fundamental forces and/or matter.
I think that was one of Einstein's ideas actually.

There is also Penrose btw who sort of works on high energy and large scale low energy (so both the big bang and other singularities, and how they affect background and hawking radiation, like is there information encoded in those things).

>>10282042
Thanks for the explanation. But why exactly is a ToE hard to get? What's the problem in accepting that gravity is not a fundamental force (ie excitation in physical fields) but merely a property of space-time ? Do we not know how to express the field theories in places where the curvature of space time is high? But I can write down the equations for GR equivalent of any classical physical theory such as hydrodynamics by using 4 vectors. Why is it hard to do the same in QFT?