Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

2017/01/28: An issue regarding the front page of /jp/ has been fixed. Also, thanks to all who contacted us about sponsorship.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 688 KB, 2618x3560, einstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8594953 No.8594953 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

or was it just the result of the natural course of scientific discoveries

>> No.8594958

>>8594953

You can ask him in hell.

>> No.8594959

If you think of Truth as something that exists "out there" outside our purview, then I'd say the second one.

If you had never studied anything in your life, it wouldn't make any of the information you have today any less "existing" outside of your awareness.

>> No.8594969

>>8594953
After realizing pretty much all of special relativity is a result of Minkowski geometry, there is the obvious question of what if we generalize this to curved spaces.

How you get gravity from that, given only the knowledge of physics they had then, idk.

>> No.8595002

>>8594953
Perceived curved light from acceleration ---> must be curved space.

Not too hard.

>> No.8595008

All these convoluted explanations of gravity are the modern-day equivalent of ptolemaic orbits. There's just something simpler there that we can't see.

>> No.8595026
File: 111 KB, 637x814, serre_dies.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8595026

>>8594969
I disagree. Riemannian geometry became Italian school mathematics and physicists didn't know anything about it.
The formulation of special relativity using a metric was also the work of Minskowski, and Einstein head to learn it.

>>8594953
Lots of people worked in that direction.
The first metric theory of gravitiy was that of Nordstrom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordstr%C3%B6m's_theory_of_gravitation

There is also a famous Einstein-Hilbert dispute
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute#General_relativity_4
Hilbert was done with the theory earlier than Einstein, and he was the one who knew the math, but Einstein came up with the general field equations.

And generally, there are articles from a decade after GR came out that make it clear they don't get the math (or it's implications) of coordinate transformations vs. curved spaces.

It's like with spin, the early physicists working this out had no insight into Lie-algebra homomorphisms, everything was foggy

>> No.8595037

>>8595026
(cont.)

Here are some physicists who came up with metric ideas, half of them have their own Wikipedia articles

Bergman
Coleman
Einstein (yay)
Einstein–Fokker theory
Lee–Lightman–Ni
Littlewood
Ni
Nordström's theory of gravitation
Page–Tupper
Papapetrou
Rosen
Whitrow–Morduch
Yilmaz theory of gravitation
Bollini–Giambiagi–Tiomno
Deser–Laurent
Whitehead's theory of gravity
Einstein's GR
Fourth order gravity
f(R) gravity --- this is a straight forward extention:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F(R)_gravity
Gauss–Bonnet gravity
Lovelock theory of gravity
Infinite derivative theorem gravity
Bekenstein
Bergmann-Wagoner
Brans–Dicke theory
Jordan
Nordtvedt
Thiry
Chameleon
Pressuron
Hellings–Nordtvedt
Will–Nordtvedt
Lightman–Lee
Rastall
Rosen (1975)

Extentions of the Pseudo-Riemannian framework are

Belinfante–Swihart
Einstein–Cartan theory
Kustaanheimo
Teleparallelism
Gauge theory gravity

And then different classical force theories on the one hand, and quantum shizzle on the other

>> No.8595148

>>8594953
It's always easy to say that theories are obvious or even trivial after they have been conceived. As a layman it's also easy to ignore how difficult the details of working out a theory is, meaning working out phenomenology, consistency checks etc. These days there are shitloads of introductory books on the topics that are presenting the concepts and mathematic in a very comprehensive way. Back then it wasn't as easy. Every little thing needed to be worked out, double checked and interpreted. The math was very new as well back then and there were no computers you could have used to make quick plots etc.

>> No.8595235

>>8594959

WRONG!

Schrodinger's cat proves otherwise

>> No.8595243

>>8595235
*canned audience laughter*

>> No.8595251

>>8594953

I think it was inevitable but nonetheless impressive

>> No.8595252

>>8595235
[insert long discussion about time and causality]

>> No.8595257

>>8595251
The same way that people are impressed with works of art. "I could never have done what he did!" Obviously. You didn't spend your whole life working on that. He did. You spent your whole life doing something else.

>> No.8595268

>>8595026
>I disagree. Riemannian geometry became Italian school mathematics and physicists didn't know anything about it.

So it would be like going up to a physicist today and expecting them know what a Derived Stack is?

>> No.8595313

>>8594953
The mane stream meteor says otherwise.

But, ignoring those opinions, its POV was impressive.

Also, he was jewish, so it implies he is superior.

>> No.8595792

Seeing as his theory about gravity waves has found a foothold in modern day science, could further research on the topic reveal something further about gravity that could potentially block is affects and create some kind of anti gravity device?

>> No.8595835

IT WAS JUST A MATTER OF TIME HAHAHAHAHA.

Fml. It's 05:43 here in the NL and I can't sleep anymore. Why do I keep waking up between 4 and 6am /sci/. After I wake up I can't fall a sleep anymore

>> No.8595841

>>8595792
Seeing as philosophy is the most important element of science let me kick us off with a Socratic principle:

>What IS is. One can not talk about something without being able to answer that little question.

So yeah, let me know and I'll build your handheld gravity device. Not like I have some fucking sleeping to do

>> No.8596365

>>8594953
It was hard. Just like Newton, yeah gravity was there all along but work it out

>> No.8596369

>>8595268
Yes.

Except I think the learning barrier to anything (properly) geometrical is smaller than to derived functors etc.

>> No.8596377

>>8594953
>the natural course
wat

>> No.8596379
File: 3.65 MB, 320x180, Mike-Tyson-clapping-and-laughing(2).gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8596379

>>8595835
>A matter of time

Holy fuck. He did say general though. That's the gravity one

>> No.8597826

>>8595841
IS means an equality of two substances, or in some cases for one element to pass through another so as to become part of another for an infinite amount of time.

So if that's the case and is IS actually IT'S, then answer the fucking question.

If gravity could potentially be blocked just like we can block light, would such device be detrimental or instrumental in the innovation of antigravity?

>> No.8597833

>>8596377
This. Is this a question on predestination? Was Einstein an anomaly against a predetermined course of the universe? Is a certain scientific discovery required before another can happen?

>> No.8597838

>>8596369
A derived stack is geometrical.
https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/derived+algebraic+geometry

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
reCAPTCHA
Action