/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9726714
>my opinion on spacetime matters
insert retardedbrainlet.png

>>9726714
Except for that "minus one".

>>9726718
Physicists here, he's somewhat right. Spacetime is a model that's extremely useful, but you shouldn't take it literally. Time is itself, just a paramater that let's us differentiate between events. The thing with relativity is that because it's not longer a universal parameter so it's less trivial how you define events and conserves cuantities. Put time is not some extra "axis" that comes out of uour ass, but a very useful abstraction.

>>9726723
>Except for that "minus one".
Wick rotate and forget about it.

You imagine that I look back on my life's work with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track." — Albert Einstein, on his 70th birthday, in a letter to Maurice Solovine, 28 March 1949 (in B. Hoffman Albert Einstein: Creator and Rebel 1972, p.328)

"The effect [of ether-drift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect." — Dayton Miller (1928, p.399)

"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex.
Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, July 1925

>mass and energy are the same thing

>>9726804
how would a chemistry experiment on the emergence of life invalidate relativity? or is he talking about a different experiment?

>>9726804
"After his death in 1941, Miller’s work was finally “put to rest”, in the publication of a critical 1955 paper in Reviews of Modern Physics by Robert S. Shankland, S.W. McCuskey, F. C. Leone and G. Kuerti (hereafter referred to as the “Shankland team” or “Shankland” paper), which purported to make a fair and comprehensive review Miller’s data, finding substantial flaws."

https://nextexx.com/dayton-millers-ether-drift-experiments/

>>9726820
This is in regards to aether vs relativity.

>>9726823
Educate yourself: http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

>light is a particle and a wave

>>9726714
Does space continue forever in all directions?

>>9726828
>Educate yourself: http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
Hahahahahahahahahahaha, he believes in orgone and orgonite.

>>9726726
>Physicists here
Where did you get your PhD, and where are you now?

>>9726836
No one knows

>folds paper
>sticks a pen through it

>time is the 4th dimension
>you cant die because energy cant be created or destroyed

>>9726800
>>9726804
In 1955, Robert S. Shankland, S. W. McCuskey, F. C. Leone, and G. Kuerti performed a re-analysis of Miller's results. Shankland, who led the report, noted that the "signal" that Miller observed in 1933 is actually composed of points that are an average of several hundred measurements each, and the magnitude of the signal is more than 10 times smaller than the resolution with which the measurements were recorded. Miller's extraction of a single value for the measurement is statistically impossible, the data is too variable to say "this" number is any better than "that"—the data, from Shankland's position, supports a null result as equally as Miller's positive.

Shankland concluded that Miller's observed signal was partly due to statistical fluctuations and partly due to local temperature conditions and, also, suggested that the results of Miller were due to a systematic error rather than an observed existence of aether. In particular he felt that Miller did not take enough care in guarding against thermal gradients in the room where the experiment took place, as, unlike most interferometry experiments, Miller conducted his in a room where the apparatus was deliberately left open to the elements to some degree.

In Shankland's analysis, no statistically significant signal for the existence of aether was found. Shankland concluded that Miller's observed signal was spurious, due mainly to uncontrolled temperature effects rather than to the observed existence of an aether. In addition, some mainstream scientists today have argued that any signal that Miller observed was the result of the experimenter effect, i.e., a bias introduced by the experimenter's wish to find a certain result, which was a common source of systematic error in statistical analysis of data before modern experimental techniques were developed. (This effect was not addressed by name in Miller's early textbook on experimental techniques; cf., Ginn & Company, 1903).

>humans will make a successful fusion reactor

>>9726965
Come on now, play nice

>>9726909
MIT. McDonald's.

>>9726909
I suppose you are questioning the claim. I'm doing my masters at a semi prestigious uni, the best in the region though.

>>9726797
Einstein is a dead kike and his views are not relevant.

>global warming
>climate change

>Infinite parallel universes

>>9726726
alcohol is one shit of a drug

>>9726812
>posting shitty le epic meme image reactions makes you seem less mentally ill and cringey

>>9727761
Sure it is. That doesn't change the fact that a lot of brainlets can't differenciate between a mathematical model and the physics it describes.

>universe is expanding

>>9727777
It's official - the universe is expanding

>I'm gonna graduate and move straight into academia

>physics is a hard science

>>9726726
This is so illegible I literally dont know what point you are trying to make.

>>9727825
>>physics is a hard science

>Space is infinite

>>9727833
There's no physical fourth dimension. That's taking the mathematical model too literally. It's not that fucking hard.

prove that they aren't then

I'll wait

>>9727856
Burden of proof is on you because Occam's razor. Time and space being equal is intuitively the more outlandish claim than it not being so.
As an observer I notice that time persistently passes forward (not backwards) and it cannot be "seen" like matter in space. Two bog basic layman observations in which time and space have opposite characteristics.
It's only with the influx of pop science faggots do normies now spout "space and time are the same thing dude" but they haven't even heard about the principle of general covariance or whatever, only the sugary details are kept.

So now I ask you. Show me Occam's razor is incorrect here, if you can. Pro-tip: You can't

>>9727879
The way you perceive time is an illusion. The human body is not capable of telling the true flow of time.

>>9727881
That's correct. Still doesn't show space = time in any way

>>9727879
Are you actually retarded? People say spacetime is one thing because Einstein said it was one hundred years ago, the only pop-sci faggot here is you. And Occam's Razor proves spacetime because them being one single, multidimensional, plane is literally simpler than them being two.

Burden of proof is on you for going against accepted theories.

>>9727879
Occams Razor has nothing to do with that. But you are correct that time cannot be seen as a property of space, and physically, you are still just watching some clock. The point of the, badly explained, spacetime is the idea that the actual invariant quantities we are used to are no longer invariant (lenght, time, simultaneity), and when you are changing observers, you need to consider changes that get budled with time making cinematic objects much complicated and somewhat useless. Now, from this is not evident that you need a 4-dimensional manifold to talk about "spacetime", but the point stands in special relativity. Basically you still see 3 dimensional space, and you put an extra parameter to events with a clock, but now we have, as a law, that the speed of light is constant and we make no assumption about time measured by different observers. The idea here is that events that are simultaneous to an observer will no longer be simultaneous to all other admissible observers, which makes it really difficult to talk about motion, change, force whatever. So a way to study this is to propose a 4 dimensional space which has some sort of distance function that is useful for relativistic calculations, and then to try and study how geometry changes with this function. This isn't really new, in galileo, when you plot X vs t you are doing this, but because time is universal, the 4dimensional space reduces to a 3 dimensional hyperplane that moves uniformly in the 4th axis so it's really not that useful. So yea, the models need to be interpretes carfuly, but saying occams razor as some sort unmutable universal rule that applies to everything (even if you are not applying correctly) is your pseudism showing.

>dark energy is real

>>9727915
>thinking people believe in dark energy instead of calling it that because they don't know wtf it is

the absolute state of /sci/

>>9727889
>And Occam's Razor proves spacetime
Woah woah woah, there's some bad philosophy going on, I can feel it.

>>9727959
one is simpler than two

>>9727936
>the absolute state of /sci/

>>9727485
Laughed so hard at this

>>9728026
I’m only saying that science isn’t like religions where prophets and messiahs and priests are central. The models and theories that people create are important. The person means fuck all, and we’ve surpassed them a long time ago.

>>9728041
You don't actually understand relativity, cosmology or physics in general do you?

>>9728042
Nu pheesiks is retarded

Congrats on the ad hominem.

>>9728051
My intention was not to argue, but to call you a retard in a pasive aggressive way.

You can't have space without time.

You can't have time without space.

>>9727915
>>9727936

He actually managed to trigger someone

Good
Job

>>9728400
>You can't have space without time.
Simple solution:
>Go out into empty space
>Don't bring any clocks

>>9727764
>calling other people mentally ill makes me less mentally ill

>>9728400
imagine you freeze the current state of space
the time will become a 0 dimensional space which is still there!

>>9727836
>>>physics is a hard science

>>9729448
>>>>physics is a hard science
(This image is in the brainlet wojak family)

>>9726714
A long time ago I read a book (or books?) that explained the theory of relativity, spacetime, and black holes pretty well and I understood what was being said. It was amazing. I have a strong feeling it was Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" but I'm not exactly sure. Plus I'm sure there were some textbook explanations that helped too. Moral of the story, check out Hawking's book. Very accessible from what I remember.

>>9730079
I personally think that was there best album. Some of John and Paul's best work.

>>9727819
just ignore and hide, its the same few crossboarders from /v/ who's reaction folder only consists on one type of image

>>9727936

>>9726714
>Height is the same as width.

>>9727777
ayy lmao

>>9728820
>>9728919
>imagine

Time is the measurement of change, aka movement. Space is the area something can move around in.

Without time, no movement occurs, which means space is not utilized and therefore undetectable. Without space, no movement can occur, which means time is not utilized and also undetectable.

Can't have space without time. Can't have time without space.

>>9730724
>Space is the area something can move around in.
It's not even that. Space doesn't exist without objects for it to separate. Space is just the way that humans visualize the effects of distance on causality

>>9727879
>and it cannot be "seen" like matter in space
We're not talking about matter in space though, we are talking about space itself.
Can you see the space in which matter resides? No, all we see is matter or, more importantly, the affect of light interacting with matter.