/sci/ - Science & Math

Einsteins relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors.The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king... its exponents are brilliant men but they are meta physicists rather than scientists.

Today's scientists have substituted mathematics forexperiments, and they wander off through equation after equation,and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.

Woah

What now /sci/???

Now that your entire world view has been shattered???

What now??

>Today's scientists have substituted mathematics forexperiments

*cough* most theoretical physicists *cough*

Tesla was a retarded schizophrenic who spoke with pigeons and thought he could use a Tesla coil to contact aliens on mars

>>4983787
Are you fucking retarded? Do you even know how physics works?

>>4983792
>>4983792

Calling the man who invented the 21st century a retarded schizophrenic??

Who the fuck are you faggot boy? What have you done?

>>4982331
We've got thousands of examples of gravitational lensing, the warping of space acting like a lens and bending light. Your argument is in no way scientific, it is some semantic garbage about space being "nothing".

>>4983798

>autistic homosexual theoretical physicist detected

>>4983801
>Calling the man who invented the 21st century a retarded schizophrenic??
Are you stupid? He didn't do anything, most of his patents were frauds and the courts gave it to him because he was insane/mental. He's credited with way too much.

> schizophrenic
Do you even know anything about him besides what you read on some article online? This place is filled popsci morons like you. Please leave and educate yourself.

>>4983802

>implying endless equations that have no relation to reality is "science" and not semantic garbage

>>4983808
Go back to /b/. You describe all of /sci/ in one pathetic little post.

>space = nothing
sorry retarded childish try-hard, i really am.

>>4983810
>>4983810
>>4983810

except that those equations are based on factual observations and not theoretical.

>>4983809
>>4983809

Nigger you cant even be serious

>>4982331
>>4982334
>implying Tesla wasn't a fucking retard

>>4983810
It's people like you who ruin /sci/. You are the reason why /sci/ has become shit. You have no idea what you're talking about yet you continue on with your horrible misconceptions of what physics is. Please kill yourself, aspie cancer.

>>4983815
>>4983815

Yea the idea thay the earth was flat was based on "factual observations" too

>>4983810
>implying the 99% of all physicists aren't experimentalists

You have never actually been to a lab or university have you?

>>4983820
>>4983820

>implying theoretical physicists are not the aspie cancer

>>4983821
>>4983821
>>4983821

>based on "factual observations" too

not it wasn't. is english your first language, because honestly, could have fooled me.

>>4983821

wait, i'm confused. does the brain-dead pedophile who started this thread actually believe relativity is inaccurate? Something that has been supported for a hundred years through experimental evidence, versus Tesla, who is essentially a comic book villain?

>>4983828
implying blah blah blah I'm a massive jerkoff 15 year old blah blah blah look at me, why does nobody care? I'm so lonely ;_; give me attention

>>4983828
It seems that you don't understand what science is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Good luck.

>>4983836
>>4983836

I wonder what wikipedia would have said about science if it existed 300 years ago

>>4982331
>2012
>god

>>4983841
>>4983841

probably much the same as it does now, because if wikipedia existed that means they had roughly our degree of development, so things really wouldn't have been much different. yo.

Be careful with what you are saying here; you are speaking philisophically about science. The two do not mix, and when people try to, they just get bullshit.

>>4983847

>2012
>atheist faggot aspie that thinks he can science

Just as I would expect

>>4983854

Anyoje that thinks that philisophy can be seperated from science is a fool

>>4983855
Please get out of here.

Why not go start a thread on the solutions to the field equations and their empirical support so you can educate yourself instead of spamming incoherent religious drivel now that you're out of insults to physics?

>>4983861
>>4983861
>>4983861


i've got my eye on you.

The eternal [Logos] is the Power of God, and the work, of the -eternal [Logos] is the world, which has no beginning, but is continually becoming by the activity of the eternal [Logos]. Therefore, nothing that constitutes the world will ever perish or be destroyed, for the eternal [Logos] is imperishable. All this great body of the world is a Soul, full of intellect and of God, who fills it within and without and vivifies everything.

Contemplate through Me [the Divine Mind], the world and consider its beauty. ... See that all things are full of light. See the earth, settled in the midst of all, the great nurse who nourishes all earthly creatures, All is full of Soul, and all beings are in movement. Who has created these things? The one God, for God is one. You see that the world is always one, the Sun, one; the moon, one; the divine activity, one; God, too, is one. And since all is living, and Life is also one, God is certainly one. It is by the action of God that all things come into being…

All that is, He contains within Himself like thoughts: the world, Himself, the All. Therefore, unless you make yourself equal to God, you cannot understand God; for like is not intelligible save to the like. Make yourself grow to a greatness beyond measure; by a leap [of intellect], free yourself from the body; raise yourself above all time, become Eternity; then you will understand God.

Believe that nothing is impossible for you; think yourself immortal and capable of understanding all, all arts, all sciences, the nature of every living being. Mount higher than the highest height; descend lower than the lowest depth. Draw into yourself all sensations of everything created, fire and water, the dry and the moist, imagining that you are everywhere, on earth, in the sea, in the sky; that you are not yet born, in the maternal womb, adolescent, old, dead, beyond death. If you embrace in your thought all things at once-all times, places, substances, qualities, quantities-you may understand God.

Tesla was only partially right.

"Curvature of space" as evidenced by the lensing effect is only a crude way of modelling a phenomenon we do not understand, but whose outcome we can predict and replicate.

Space isn't "curving." But the model works well enough.

Does light really contain a dual nature of wave/particle? Not likely. But our model works well enough for almost all experiments we've used so far.

Is an electron a particle or a cloud? Most likely neither.

Some day we'll figure this stuff out, but until then our models work well enough.

>>4983922

Look someone with logic in my thread. Didnt see that one coming

>>4983922
Tesla wasn't "partially right." But the model works well enough.

>>4983952

He was completely right

>>4983922
>Space isn't "curving." But the model works well enough.
>Does light really contain a dual nature of wave/particle? Not likely.

You've got confused between the reasonable point that current theory is incomplete to the baseless assertion that it is wrong.

>>4983966

It is wrong bra

>>4983964
Tesla wasn't "completely right." He was batshit insane, and had many delusional beliefs.

>>4983973
>Shall I use facts or a clever analogy to prove my point.
>No, I'll just state it again, that'll show 'em.

>>4983922
>"Curvature of space" as evidenced by the lensing effect is only a crude way of modelling a phenomenon we do not understand, but whose outcome we can predict and replicate.
You're an idiot.

>Space isn't "curving." But the model works well enough.
Yes it is. Do you know what the Pythagorean theorem is? Do you know what a metric is? Do you know how to generalize this to non-euclidean geometries?

>Does light really contain a dual nature of wave/particle? Not likely. But our model works well enough for almost all experiments we've used so far.
Confirmed for god awful popsci moron. Just because they don't go through field theory for you and explain what a wave packet is doesn't mean science doesn't understand how some phenomenon works.

>Is an electron a particle or a cloud? Most likely neither.
It is described freely as an excitation of the Dirac field. In a bound state with some positive lump of matter it exists in some ground or excited state of some nucleus' potential well, modeled and evolved with simple time evolution.

>Some day we'll figure this stuff out, but until then our models work well enough.
You do not understand how science works and what we currently know. Go read an actual physics book.

>>4983981

Retards calling geniuses insane.

Par for the course

>>4983987

Look guys this book says so. My teacher told me its right. So it must be!!

>>4983986
Tesla was both a genius and insane. They are not mutually exclusive.

tesla why are you talking like gman

>>4983973
Are you mentally retarded? The field equations describe the precision of orbits, paths of test particles, black holes, big bang cosmology, and all modern accountable phenomena in space.

Please find a model that does this without curving the geometry surrounding particles.

This is you right now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlqDu2cDT0A

>>4983993
Please tell me you're trolling. You don't understand at all how empiricism works. Would babby like me to cite all experiments and their respective publications within the last 2000 years?

>>4983983

Relax, numbnuts. That was a different anon than the first one you replied to.

Yes, it is MOST LIKELY WRONG. Why? Telsa pointed out why. Math is a tool. Our models are tools. They do NOT guarantee we come up with an accurate description of whatever phenomena.

You're coming off as one of those clowns that treats science like a religion. I'm guessing that's not too far off.

>>4983987
The Standard Model is very obviously not a fundamental theory.

The problem with >>4983922 is not that he is wrong but that his "only a model" point is an utterly trivial point that can be made about anything, and doesn't justify any of the bad philosophy that OP quoted. Just because every model is partially wrong does not make every criticism partially right.

>>4984000
>>4984000

Yea and tell me how the hiv/aids hypothesis is correct and how c02 causes catastrophic global warming while you are at it faggot.

>>4984008
>The Standard Model is very obviously not a fundamental theory.
Are you fucking trolling? Where was this implied?

All of what I stated matches up to current experimental predictions.

QED, which describes the Dirac field and coupling to the electromagnetic field, is the most accurate scientific theory to date, ten parts in a billion. We can get even more precise with higher orders but it's an experimental/technological limit at that point. It's not wrong, you fucking retard.

>>4983987

We've got a live one here.

The theory itself holds up to experimentation. The math is backed by experimentation, but as Tesla pointed out, suffers from the same mindset you're displaying.

The model is either poorly worded or partially incorrect.

THat's not a knock against science. It's how the scientific method works. Stop frothing at the mouth. Nobody is attacking your precious religion.

>>4984017
>suffers from the same mindset you're displaying.
>Nobody is attacking your precious religion.
Are you 12? 13? Please tell me how anything I stated is experimentally falsifiable or incorrect. There's a wealth of evidence for fields. There's a wealth of evidence for curvature of space. There's precision tests of both.

>>4984015
Yes, but it's not accurate to a part in <span class="math">10^{-1000}[/spoiler]. So it's in that sense "partially wrong." As I said, it's a trivial point.

>>4984025
*a part in <span class="math">10^{1000}[/spoiler]

>>4984025
We do not have the technology to test that. It works for all intents and purposes and is accurate in it's rage - all of physics at it's current scale throughout the entire universe.

What do you think renormalization is for? We just now have colliders that hit the electroweak scale. It's unlikely we will ever go to the GUT scale in our lifetimes.

How do you think nonrelativistic/relativistic physics works? They produce the same exact results at low velocities - there's no difference.

You need theory to match observation. Anything else is untestable, unfalsifiable drivel.

>>4984022

Tesla worked out the same math your referencing. Tesla didn't claim the math was wrong, only that what it proposed to describe (curvature of space) was not completely accurate.

It's very true that math is worked out independent of how it relates to reality. We then devise a model that matches the math and experimentation.

It 50 years we won't be talking about a "curvature" of space.

>>4984032
Oh, and to add, even if it is "partially wrong", whatever "better" theory is next still needs to encapsulate all existing empirical evidence. It's how science works. Fields and wave packets are empirical, they will not leave.

>>4984033
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. General relativity makes the absolute, best physical predictions. Again, a "new theory" must cover existing empirical evidence! Curvature is empirical.

Want proof? Read some actual science instead of a fucking popsci book.

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/

>>4984040

Nigga you be str8 sheepin

>>4984045
What does this even supposed to mean? Apparently I'm arguing with people who think particles do not follow geodesics, which is about the most experimentally straight out fact abroad in physics since Newton.

>>4984032
We know it won't be accurate to that precision because
>tfw no gravitation

>What do you think renormalization is for?
I think it's for integrating out physics at high energy scales, leaving you with an approximate model that describes physics at low energies.

Why are you arguing? I don't disagree with any of what you're saying, and the guy who said Tesla was "partially right" was wrong -- Tesla's insane semantic argument for the wrongness of GR was not the same as the his (correct but trivial) point that everything is an approximate model.

>>4984037

Comedy.

Nobody said field theory or wave particles was wrong. We still don't know why light behaves as a particle in one experiment and as a wave in another. Same goes for a stream of electrons.

THAT'S HOW WE KNOW OUR MODELS AREN'T PERFECTLY CORRECT.

Yes, sight the same math Tesla was ridiculing again in support of your hardheadedness. That'll show everyone.

Just because the model isn't completely accurate doesn't mean it doesn't fit experimentation very well (duh, that's the whole point of the model).

Take a deep breath. Get a clue.

>be an established inventor
>new scientific theory comes out
>don't accept it, get upset, criticize it
>die out like your antiquated view

Because the classical view of space was so comprehensive and accurate.

>>4984037
Definitely agreed on this point.

>>4984033
>It 50 years we won't be talking about a "curvature" of space.
Balderdash. We didn't stop talking about gravitational force when GR came along, and we won't stop talking about spacetime curvature when GR is succeeded by a better theory.

>>4984056

>>4984056
>We still don't know why light behaves as a particle in one experiment and as a wave in another. Same goes for a stream of electrons.
We do. What the fuck do you think quantum mechanics is? It's been known since Schrodinger!

http://vqm.uni-graz.at/movs1/04_18a.mov

>>4984056
>We still don't know why light behaves as a particle in one experiment and as a wave in another.

>>4984067
>>4984060

Alright. I (possibly) stand corrected. I never did take quantum mechanics, so I don't know what the current theory says on the matter.

>>4984079
Then you should stop discussing things you have no formal education on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

>>4984087

Get fucked. All you're doing is regurgitating stuff you were taught in school. I just happened to be one semester behind you. It's not unheard of for professors to fabricate explanations for their students as a way to keep the lecture moving.

>>4984123
Petty undergraduate quantum mechanics in not the entirety of human knowledge on physical phenomena, you know.

> All you're doing is regurgitating stuff you were taught in school.
All you are doing is spewing pseudoscientific drivel without any real understanding of what is being stated. You are not even formulating your thoughts into a logical inference, just plain wishful thinking. You claim "nobody said field theory is wrong", yet you state the polar opposite a sentence after. Formulating statements on topics that you know little to nothing about and rehearsing them as if they are factual is pure Dunning-Kruger. Philosophers do not even do that. Consider going into theology if you'd like to make stuff up that blatantly goes against evidence.

Science is not rote memorization of facts, either, but I'm sure you'll argue against that in a minute with yet another weak understanding of the subject.

>>4984060
>What the fuck do you think quantum mechanics is?
I know that it's certainly not an explanation of WHY light behaves as a wave in some circumstances, and as a particle in others.

>>4984195
>Feynman on "why"-questions.mpeg

Go suck a dick.

>>4984056

>>4984195
Nice trolling bro

5/10

>>4984056
>2012
>particle wave duality

LMFAO. Have you been living under a rock for the last 60 years. Physics fully explained all that shit decades and decades ago. Jesus fucking christ, read book dipshit. There is no great mystery to that shit, it is all fully explained and all fully understood.

>>4984195

>>4984056
>We still don't know why light behaves as a particle in one experiment and as a wave in another. Same goes for a stream of electrons.

>THAT'S HOW WE KNOW OUR MODELS AREN'T PERFECTLY CORRECT.

Nope, you're a retard, and the other anon was right to post the "how do magnets work, Feynman?" video.

The model can be fully 100% accurate and not answer that why question. Such a situation is fully consistent.

>>4982331
>waa waa, I don't understand non-Euclidean geometry

>>4982341
>implies no evidence for relativity
This is what idiots believe.

Tesla actually was able to do things with his knowledge. The theoretical physicist s cannot because its bullshit.

Tesla correct. All else faggots

>>4984197
>>4984198
>>4984208
I'm serious. A lot of the time in science, we DO get "why" answers.

Q: Why do we get Brownian motion?
A: Sufficiently small particles, such as grains of pollen and motes of dust, may be jostled by the thermal motion of individual atoms.

That's a good, satisfying explanation.

Newton's law of gravitation, on the other hand, didn't give a why. It's just a rule for how things had been observed to work. Then GR came along and gave us a why (of course, it doesn't explain why energy warps space, but energy warping space explains why mass attracts mass).

QM is only a very detailed system for predicting what consequent observations we might expect to follow certain initial observations.

It is notoriously silent about what's actually going on between one observation and the next, to the point that all sorts of confused notions like "fundamental randomness" and "many worlds" get thrown around.

If you think that QM gives us any "why" answers, you haven't understood it at all. Someday we may have a provable model of a more fundamental level of reality, which explains the statistical predictions of QM, and finally tells us WHY light sometimes seems to act like a particle and sometimes like a wave.

What if space really is nothing and light is the aether? Light works as a wave and a particle doesn't it? So can it not be said that we are all, at all times, within the light? There are light sources all around us, always emitting (what appear to be) waves of light. These waves travel distances, they reach us, and they pass us. However, they exist at all points at some time, do they not?

Please, /sci/entists, try to humor my philosophical question.

>>4984254
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
>That is not only not right - it is not even wrong!

>>4984244
> it doesn't explain why energy warps space
Yes it does. The field equations are invariant under the Poincare group. All laws of physics thus far have been invariant under said transformations. It doesn't however explain the "source" for energy, but string theory and Kaluza–Klein does - curvature of other dimensions, which of course are Poincare invariant, and hence seem to be a logical next step.

>QM is only a very detailed system for predicting what consequent observations we might expect to follow certain initial observations.
>predicting
Are you saying QM is an incomplete theory? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

>It is notoriously silent about what's actually going on between one observation and the next
No? It's just geodesic equations with a commutator. The particles evolve as wave packets.

>all sorts of confused notions like "fundamental randomness" and "many worlds" get thrown around.
Those are philosophical interpretations which are untestable. The laws can go either way, but it does not matter at all, because it doesn't at all influence science and hence the observable.

>which explains the statistical predictions of QM,
QM is a complete theory. Look up Bell's theorem and see that you're wrong.

>and finally tells us WHY light sometimes seems to act like a particle and sometimes like a wave.
It is not either. A particle is a wave packet, an excitation of a field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_packet#Free_propagator

>>4984275
You are completely missing the point.

How do you answer the question "But why does it work that way?". Every time you answer, I'll ask that exact same question.

>>4984260
>For example, any physical theory based on the existence of the aether
But I am not proposing that an aether through which light propagates exists. I am suggesting that light itself is the medium through which everything else propagates.

Energy is still equivalent to mass according to that, isn't that right?

>>4984279
I understand that, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm disagreeing with you stating that a) QM is incomplete, b) GR does not explain why energy warps space, and c) QM is "sketchy" about particle evolution

>>4984284
That was a different anon.

>>4984280

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
>Not even wrong (or the full version "That's not right - that's not even wrong") refers to any statement, argument or explanation that can be neither correct nor incorrect, because it fails to meet the criteria by which correctness and /incorrectness/ are determined.

>>4984280
Yes, but how it is testable? What would that allow us to conclude? How would it impact observation? You can believe that, or solipsism, or angels carrying particles around when you aren't looking for all I care, but how it be experimentally deduced?

>>4984284
>you stating that a) QM is incomplete, b) GR does not explain why energy warps space, and c) QM is "sketchy" about particle evolution

I'm: >>4984195 >>4984244

I didn't say these things, don't know what you mean by them, and rather doubt they have any sensible meaning:
>a) QM is incomplete
>c) QM is "sketchy" about particle evolution

As for this:
>b) GR does not explain why energy warps space

It most certainly does not.

>The field equations are invariant under the Poincare group. All laws of physics thus far have been invariant under said transformations.
This is very obviously not a "why energy curves space".

> It doesn't however explain the "source" for energy, but string theory and Kaluza–Klein does - curvature of other dimensions, which of course are Poincare invariant, and hence seem to be a logical next step.
...and now you're talking about string theory as if there was any good reason to take it seriously.

>>4984308
>>a) QM is incomplete
You state in >>4984244 that
>Someday we may have a provable model of a more fundamental level of reality, which explains the statistical predictions of QM
and
>QM is only a very detailed system for predicting what consequent observations we might expect to follow certain initial observations.
You seem to imply quantum mechanics is "statistical", and thus incomplete, requiring hidden variables. This is not the case.

>>>c) QM is "sketchy" about particle evolution
You state in >>4984244 that
>It [QM] is notoriously silent about what's actually going on between one observation and the next
This to me sounds like you do not understand time evolution in quantum mechanics, which does exactly that. It's defined in a very rigorous manner with either the Schrodinger or Heisenberg formalism and is not at all "silent".

>It most certainly does not.
The field equations of general relativity was described originally by Einstein as a functional on space of metrics of a manifold.

Today, it is realized that the theory is equivalent to a functional on the space of connections with values in representations of the Poincare group.

This is similar to explaining "why" particles have charge. They couple to an electromagnetic field which is described as a functional on a U(1) fibre bundle, part of the standard model. In a similar fashion, stress-energy couples to the gravitational field with a functional on the Poincare group.

Again, it depends on what you mean by "why". It's more "deep" to think about physics as a set of symmetries.

>>4984308
First, sorry for the late responses, I'm in the middle of doing several things.

>>a) QM is incomplete
You state in >>4984244 that
>Someday we may have a provable model of a more fundamental level of reality, which explains the statistical predictions of QM
and
>QM is only a very detailed system for predicting what consequent observations we might expect to follow certain initial observations.
You seem to imply quantum mechanics is "statistical", and thus incomplete, requiring hidden variables. This is not the case.

>>c) QM is "sketchy" about particle evolution
You state in >>4984244 that
>It [QM] is notoriously silent about what's actually going on between one observation and the next
This to me sounds like you do not understand time evolution in quantum mechanics, which does exactly that. It's defined in a very rigorous manner with either the Schrodinger or Heisenberg formalism and is not at all "silent".

>It most certainly does not.
The field equations of general relativity were described originally by Einstein as a functional on space of metrics of a manifold.

Today, it is realized that the theory is equivalent to a functional on the space of connections with values in representations of the Poincare group.

This is similar to explaining "why" particles have charge. They couple to an electromagnetic field which is described as a functional on a U(1) fibre bundle, part of the standard model. In a similar fashion, stress-energy couples to the gravitational field with a functional on the Poincare group.

Again, it depends on what you mean by "why". It's more "deep" to think about physics as a set of symmetries.

>>4983802
Shut up. Noob.

>>4984339
>mathematician thinks QM is not statistical
LOL

BTW
renormalization : quantum gravity :: decoherence : interpretations of quantum mechanics

If one is philosophy, then so is the other (neither is relevant to modern testable science).

>>4984352
I'm not a mathematician. The guy I'm responding to is claiming there is something deeper than QM to explain wave/particle duality and the statistical nature of particles, thus hidden variables. I'm not denying the statistical nature of QM, rather the "incompleteness" portion of his argument. Maybe I should have worded that differently.

And yes, I agree with you, all of those are philosophy.

This sounds to me like the something versus nothing argument that's been popping up. IDK if it's trolling but OP's premise seems pretty solidly wrong given what we know.

>>4984339
>You seem to imply quantum mechanics is "statistical"
QM is very definitely statistical. It assigns probabilities to possible observations, rather than predicting definite outcomes.

If you think that by definition this makes it "incomplete", I can't disagree with that. I doubt there is any such thing as a dice rolling mechanism, and I find "many worlds" beyond absurd.

As for "hidden variables", I think quantum entanglement proves unambiguously that there are such things. The alternative was that a particle's response to certain measurements was determined by true randomness at the instant of measurement.

This was plausible until quantum entanglement was demonstrated experimentally: measure one particle, and the measurement of another particle is determined before it happens. Either the two shared some hidden variable from when they were first entangled, or the first communicated its measurement by instantaneous "spooky action at a distance" to the second, which then stored the information in a hidden variable until it got measured. There's no logical way around hidden variables.

(too long)

continued from >>4984367
The thing about hidden variables, is that people keep disproving very specific sorts of hidden variables, and then going around speaking as if they had ruled out hidden variables in general. There are all manner of fully-deterministic lower-level models that could result in the QM rules we see. It is more a problem that we have no cause to prefer one over another than that we couldn't come up with one.

The math we use for QM was developed for situations where it's infeasible to collect complete information. It's unreasonable to interpret what we can collect on quantum particles as "complete information", and absurd to interpret our statistical predictions as a "complete theory".

This is like a structural engineer who never left the planning office trying to argue that there is no such thing as a real nail which definitely has or hasn't been driven into a piece of wood.

>>4984367
>QM is very definitely statistical. It assigns probabilities to possible observations, rather than predicting definite outcomes.
Yes, again, I worded that awkwardly. QM is by far statistical, it is complete, though.

>As for "hidden variables", I think quantum entanglement proves unambiguously that there are such things.
Not at all. Entanglement is built right into the QM formalism. Again, Bell's inequalities show hidden variables are impossible. Read this > http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Compact.pdf

>The thing about hidden variables, is that people keep disproving very specific sorts of hidden variables, and then going around speaking as if they had ruled out hidden variables in general. There are all manner of fully-deterministic lower-level models that could result in the QM rules we see. It is more a problem that we have no cause to prefer one over another than that we couldn't come up with one.
Bell's inequalities work for local hidden variables. Global hidden variables are not empirical, and do not work well at all with the laws of physics. They violate special relativity and cannot be incorporated well into field theory.

>The math we use for QM was developed for situations where it's infeasible to collect complete information. It's unreasonable to interpret what we can collect on quantum particles as "complete information", and absurd to interpret our statistical predictions as a "complete theory".
That goes utterly against all of quantum mechanics, observation, and modern physics.

>>4982331
einsteins theory was experimentally proven by measuring the degree of curvature produced by the solar mass of the sun on light emitted from distant stars in the same direction. The degree of variance of curvature could be measured from 2 observatory positions on the earth and the result agreed with einsteins own theoretical prediction

>>4984412
>Bell's inequalities work for local hidden variables. Global hidden variables are not empirical, and do not work well at all with the laws of physics. They violate special relativity and cannot be incorporated well into field theory.
What Bell claimed to have proved was non-locality, the necessity of "spooky action at a distance" whether you have hidden variables or not. By any but the most unreasonably-motivated rationalization, this finding both violates special relativity, and does nothing at all to disprove hidden variables.

In fact, as I previously explained, by any reasonable definition, quantum entanglement necessarily implies hidden variables. If the first measurement was not predetermined by a hidden variable, something has to "remember" the result of the first measurement so it can influence the outcome of the second.

However, the fact of it is, he made unnecessary assumptions. By his model of local hidden variables, he constrained the types of possible local hidden variables to less than all possibilities we may wish to consider.

It was an important step forward to rule out this class of hidden variables as a means of establishing locality, but Bell's theorem is one of the most misunderstood things in physics.

It's like the people who claim that aether was disproved experimentally, when people like Poincare were saying at the time that it may turn out that speed through the aether is unmeasurable. His concept of aether certainly wasn't disproved.

>>4984493
>By any but the most unreasonably-motivated rationalization, this finding both violates special relativity, and does nothing at all to disprove hidden variables.
You seem to have a horrible misunderstanding of entanglement. Entanglement does not violate any assumption or conclusion in special relativity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem
Hidden variable theories, although, do because of the preferred frame of reference. You cannot have field theory without special relativity, thus the standard model says a preferred frame does not exist. I think this is sufficient for me unless I can be shown hidden variables make testable predictions and agree with all current empirical backing on physics.

>quantum entanglement necessarily implies hidden variables
No, it does not. How can you even reach such a preposterous conclusion? Confirmed for not knowing what you are talking about.

>If the first measurement was not predetermined by a hidden variable, something has to "remember" the result of the first measurement so it can influence the outcome of the second.
Define "remember"? Entanglement = correlation higher than any local hidden variable theory, by Bell's theorem. Do you even know how tensors work? A tensor product of two vectors has only dim(v)^2 degrees of freedom. An entangled state <span class="math">|\Psi\rangle\in\ocirc \mathcal{H}_i[/spoiler] is necessarily not separable - see the Peres–Horodecki criterion, for example. For an entangled system, you just have embedding of the tensor products of 2+ CP spaces into a higher dimensional one - a pure state; (partial) collapse of the state vector isn't at all "memory", for two systems with the basis <span class="math">\{ |0\rangle, |0\rangle \}[/spoiler] it's probabilistic according to <span class="math">|\Psi^(A\ocirc B) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|00\rangle + |11\rangle)[/spoiler].

>>4984493
>By any but the most unreasonably-motivated rationalization, this finding both violates special relativity, and does nothing at all to disprove hidden variables.
You seem to have a horrible misunderstanding of entanglement. Entanglement does not violate any assumption or conclusion in special relativity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem
Hidden variable theories, although, do because of the preferred frame of reference. You cannot have field theory without special relativity, thus the standard model says a preferred frame does not exist. I think this is sufficient for me unless I can be shown hidden variables make testable predictions and agree with all current empirical backing on physics.

>quantum entanglement necessarily implies hidden variables
No, it does not. How can you even reach such a preposterous conclusion? Confirmed for not knowing what you are talking about.

>If the first measurement was not predetermined by a hidden variable, something has to "remember" the result of the first measurement so it can influence the outcome of the second.
Define "remember"? Entanglement = correlation higher than any local hidden variable theory, by Bell's theorem. Do you even know how tensors work? A tensor product of two vectors has only dim(v)^2 degrees of freedom. An entangled state <span class="math">|\Psi\rangle\in\otimes \mathcal{H}_i[/spoiler] is necessarily not separable - see the Peres–Horodecki criterion, for example. For an entangled system, you just have embedding of the tensor products of 2+ CP spaces into a higher dimensional one - a pure state; (partial) collapse of the state vector isn't at all "memory", for two systems with the basis <span class="math">\{ |0\rangle, |0\rangle \}[/spoiler] it's probabilistic according to <span class="math">|\Psi^(A\otimes B) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|00\rangle + |11\rangle)[/spoiler].

>>4984493
>By any but the most unreasonably-motivated rationalization, this finding both violates special relativity, and does nothing at all to disprove hidden variables.
You seem to have a horrible misunderstanding of entanglement. Entanglement does not violate any assumption or conclusion in special relativity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem
Hidden variable theories, although, do because of the preferred frame of reference. You cannot have field theory without special relativity, thus the standard model says a preferred frame does not exist. I think this is sufficient for me unless I can be shown hidden variables make testable predictions and agree with all current empirical backing on physics.

>quantum entanglement necessarily implies hidden variables
No, it does not. How can you even reach such a preposterous conclusion? Confirmed for not knowing what you are talking about.

>If the first measurement was not predetermined by a hidden variable, something has to "remember" the result of the first measurement so it can influence the outcome of the second.
Define "remember"? Entanglement = correlation higher than any local hidden variable theory, by Bell's theorem. Do you even know how tensors work? A tensor product of two vectors has only dim(v)^2 degrees of freedom. An entangled state <span class="math">|\Psi\rangle\in\otimes \mathcal{H}_i[/spoiler] is necessarily not separable - see the Peres–Horodecki criterion, for example. For an entangled system, you just have embedding of the tensor products of 2+ CP spaces into a higher dimensional one - a pure state; (partial) collapse of the state vector isn't at all "memory", for two systems with the basis <span class="math">\{ |0\rangle, |0\rangle \}[/spoiler] it's probabilistic according to <span class="math">|\Psi^{(A\otimes B)} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|00\rangle + |11\rangle)[/spoiler].

>>4984493
>By any but the most unreasonably-motivated rationalization, this finding both violates special relativity, and does nothing at all to disprove hidden variables.
You seem to have a horrible misunderstanding of entanglement. Entanglement does not violate any assumption or conclusion in special relativity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem
Hidden variable theories, although, do because of the preferred frame of reference. You cannot have field theory without special relativity, thus the standard model says a preferred frame does not exist. I think this is sufficient for me unless I can be shown hidden variables make testable predictions and agree with all current empirical backing on physics.

>quantum entanglement necessarily implies hidden variables
No, it does not. How can you even reach such a preposterous conclusion? Confirmed for not knowing what you are talking about.

>If the first measurement was not predetermined by a hidden variable, something has to "remember" the result of the first measurement so it can influence the outcome of the second.
Define "remember"? Entanglement = correlation higher than any local hidden variable theory, by Bell's theorem. Do you even know how tensors work? A tensor product of two vectors has only dim(v)^2 degrees of freedom. An entangled state <span class="math">|\Psi\rangle\in\otimes \mathcal{H}_i[/spoiler] is necessarily not separable - see the Peres–Horodecki criterion, for example. For an entangled system, you just have embedding of the tensor products of 2+ CP spaces into a higher dimensional one - a pure state; (partial) collapse of the state vector isn't at all "memory", for two systems with the basis <span class="math">\{ |0\rangle, |1\rangle \}[/spoiler] it's probabilistic according to <span class="math">|\Psi^{(A\otimes B)} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|00\rangle + |11\rangle)[/spoiler].

>>4984767
[cont]

>but Bell's theorem is one of the most misunderstood things in physics.
Not sure what you mean here. The only hidden variable theory on the market right now is Bohmian mechanics, and it is incompatible with special relativity because of the preferred frame requirement. It's also pretty nonsensical with Coulomb potentials among other things where the electron apparently just "sits" in the hydrogen atom and does not move.

>His concept of aether certainly wasn't disproved.
You are sounding more like a crackpot by the minute. Sure, it's impossible to disprove. As someone above stated, it's "not even wrong". The formalism is the same, so what exactly is the point of arguing over it? This is all irrelevant and philosophical bullshit and has no correlation with physics or even science.

Remember niggers. Tesla discovered how to obtain free unlimited energy but it was suppresed y the shadow government.

Also, /sci/ is full of hopelessly propagandized aspies that will believe whatever the establishment tells them.

>mfw tesla had more knowlege of the universe than all these propagandized faggots combined

>>4984888

DEM TRIPS NIGGAA

I EVEN SPELLED A WORD WRONG


ALLAHU AHKBAR

Kno what im sayin man?

>>4984797
Your statement is so generalize you could have replaced your text with the daily weather of the moon and had the same effect. Why even reply if you are just going to say nothing? Does it make you feel like you belong? Because you don't. Any following reply from you on this subject is redundant for the topic I am speaking is redundant but you fail to see your own flaws. But I am sure you will thus proving me correct.

Nature may reach the same result in many ways. Like a wave in the physical world, in the infinite ocean of the medium which pervades all, so in the world of organisms, in life, an impulse started proceeds onward, at times, may be, with the speed of light, at times, again, so slowly that for ages and ages it seems to stay, passing through processes of a complexity inconceivable to men, but in all its forms, in all its stages, its energy ever and ever integrally present. A single ray of light from a distant star falling upon the eye of a tyrant in bygone times may have altered the course of his life, may have changed the destiny of nations, may have transformed the surface of the globe, so intricate, so inconceivably complexare theprocessesinNature. In no way can we get such an overwhelming idea of the grandeur of Nature than when we consider, that in accordance with the law of the conservation of energy, throughout the Infinite, the forces are in a perfect balance, and hence the energy of a single thought may determine the motion of a universe.

you faggots would love tesla if he was an atheists, just like you faggots love nietzsche, but little did you retards know that nietzsche was actually a freemason, not an atheist. The more you know

>>4984898

Whats this nigga talking about the weather for?

you faggots would love tesla if he was an atheist, just like you faggots love nietzsche, but little did you retards know that nietzsche was actually a freemason, not an atheist. The more you know

>>4983802
>light bending
>space bending

oh wait this is two different things, we just assume that it's the same.

but the standard model is perfect!

oh wait without "dark matter" it's 95% (just a small amount of) wrong, as realized once we observed that our mathematical models were completely wrong when it came to stars and how they orbit the center of their galaxies.

I'll take Tesla's word over any fag in this thread.

>>4984913
Are you 5? 6? Do you even know what you're talking about?

How does it feel knowing mommy dropped your head on concrete?

>>4984908

HOLY SHIIIT!!!!! I DIDNT EVEN KNOW THATT. THANKS DAWG. GREAT INFO!!!

>>4984913
>>4984913
You are a homosexual?
An engineer?

>>4984924

> homoexual butthurt aspie detected

>>4984924
I am 7 retard. I live with my daddy. He drops me on the head alot. He makes me sit on his lap and my butt hurts.

>>4984913
There is so much fucking fail and bullshit in your post I am truly amazed.

Do you teach a class on trolling? Or are you just very young/uneducated?

Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point of the universe. This idea is not novel. Men have been led to it long ago by instinct or reason; it has been expressed in many ways, and in many places, in the history of old and new. We find it in the delightful myth of Antheus, who derives power from the earth; we find it among the subtle speculations of one of your splendid mathematicians and in many hints and statements of thinkers of the present time. Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic! If static our hopes are in vain; if kinetic — and this we know it is, for certain— then it is a mere questionof time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature.

>>4984944
Did Telsa enjoy it in the ass as much as he did the mouth? Can you find that info for us please!

The scientific man does not aim at an immediate result. He does not expect that his advanced ideas will be readily taken up... His duty is to lay the foundation for those who are to come, and point the way.

>>4984944
What a bunch of semantic periphrastic nonsense

>>4984948
I knew engineers were faggots, but Tesla takes the fucking cake. Is he the biggest faggot of all time? I never took a history of enginering course, so I have no freaking idea

>>4984952
>>4984952
>>4984952>>4984955

Let the future tell the truth and evaluate each one according to his work and accomplishments. The present is theirs; the future, for whichI really worked, is mine.

>>4984962
So he was a cock sucker! Thanks for the info!

>>4984966

>standard left/right paradigm liberal atheist butthurt aspie #4984966 gives his oppinion as if its valid

>>4984962
How many cocks do you need to shove up your mouth to come up with that?

"You have a better chance of proving the continuum hypothesis, than of finding a straight engineer" - E. Noether

"Engineers are kind of funny little guys. You know, faggots" - A. Einstein

"Engineers? Fuck-em" - W. Pauli

"In 2012, some faggot will keep bumping a stupid thread. He won't let it die."
-- Nikola Tesla

"While the universe appears to be based of uncertainities, the one thing I remain certain of is the faggotry of the engineer" - W. Heisenberg (Uncertainity principle)

When the great truth accidentally revealed and experimentally confirmed is fully recognized, that this planet, with all its appalling immensity, is to electric currents virtually no more than a small metal ball and that by this fact many possibilities, each baffling imagination and of incalculable consequence, are rendered absolutely sure of accomplishment; when the first plant is inaugurated and it is shown that a telegraphic message, almost as secret and non-interferable as a thought, can be transmitted to any terrestrial distance, the sound of the human voice, with all its intonations and inflections, faithfully and instantly reproduced at any other point of the globe, the energy of a waterfall made available for supplying light, heat or motive power, anywhere —on sea, or land, or high in the air —humanity will be like an ant heap stirred up with a stick: See the excitement coming!

"Why can't I find a straight engineer?" - Marie Curie.

"Why does Tesla always want to know if I am free in the evening?" - T. Edison

"I do not have a problem with the engineer, as long as he doesn't talk about gay sex in my lab." - De Broglie

"If you see a group of engineers going into the gym shower together, RUN." - E. Schrodinger

"I am so bloody tired of having to dumb shit down for these faggots (engineers)" - E. Rutherford

"Elegance should be left to shoemakers and tailors, faggotry should be left to engineers" - L. Boltzmann

"The engineer does not study engineering because it is useful; he studies it because he delights in men, and he delights in them because they are beautiful." - Brunel

"Why hire an engineer? Did we run out of illegal immigrants?" - Richard Feynman

"A conversation with a janitor would be far more intellectually stimulating then one with an engineer" - M. Planck

"It is better to have one scientist by your side, then a whole army of engineers." - J. Maxwell

"I perfer sex with men." - N. Tesla

>>4983878
>>4983878
>>4983886
>>4983886
>>4983886

Can someone give me the source for these? Are they from the bible?

They mention "science"... but I thought science wasn't around back then. It makes no sense.

"There are only two things that are infinite: The universe and the homosexuality of engineers. And I'm not so sure about the former." - A. Einstein

>>4985007
lel
I thought Einstein believed the universe was eternal?

>>4985006
install 4chan sounds you noob

>>4985011
>4chan sounds

What?

"Confucius say engineer no like the puss." - Confucius

>>4985006
>>4985006

Its from the corpus hermeticum, and you are not supposed to know about it.

>>4985015
Thank you!

What exactly is it? What purpose did it serve for the early christian era?

>you aren't supposed to know about it
Why?

>>4985015
>>4985015

They come from the gnostics of ancient egypt. And the people in power want to make us retarded with atheism, and the senseless religions we currently have.

>>4985015
Even though the meticulous engineer Evan had Adam for a husband, he only sucked, he was still a virgin."
-St. Irenaeus

>>4985015
Science still wasn't around back in that period.
This shit makes no sense

>>4985015
LOL

op, it's an anime reference

>>4985036
Thanks for nothing guys.

>Giordano Bruno

>>4985046
Holy shit, the guy was so ahead of his time. How the hell did he realise that the sun is just another star in the universe on philosophy alone?

This guy is really interesting. And he was around Aristotles period. It's as if all that were intelligent were situated in the same proximity, during the same period.

Yeah, Giordano Bruno is amazing. He was also one of the first ti suggest that the concept of 'God' was, in fact, the universe.
That much, I still agree with.

>>4985052
>around Aristotles period.
>Born: 1548, Nola
yup

>>4985058
my bad

Giordano is the boss!

But science wasn't around in the 15th century.

>>4985076
Wasn't it? Then how'd he know?

>>4985081
The word "science" existed back then but it just meant a particular branch of knowledge.

>>4985002
>>4985003
>>4984999
>>4985001
>>4984994
>>4984996
>>4984997
>>4984993
>>4984986
>>4984986
>>4984988
>>4984991
>>4984984
>>4984982
>>4985002
>>4984981

BEST FUCKING THREAD EVER!!!

This shit should be stickied

mfw when this thread
mfw some faggot who lust over Tesla's bung hole is butt hurt because no one credits him for shit.

sure is taoist in here