Re: The Einstein Effect

On 12/01/2025 4:19 am, Don wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

Don wrote:

Jeroen Belleman wrote:

john larkin wrote:

Don wrote:

john larkin wrote:

>
https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/einstein-and-adam-grant-agree-the-puzzle-principle-will-make-you-instantly-smarter/91102339
>
Cohen's book looks interesting, so I ordered it.
>
I'm now reading Gleick's short biography of Isaac Newton, who was a
very weird guy.

>
Einstein loved the sound of his own metaphysical bark and wasn't above
fudging the score:
>
<https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/58/9/43/399405/Einstein-Versus-the-Physical-Review-A-great>
>
Regardless, my followup isn't about this thread's titular Einstein.
It's about Newton.
>
      "Did you know? It was AYABHATA & not Newton or (sic) Leibniz who
      first developed Calculus"
>
      <https://x.com/Aelthemplaer/status/1874573331330167032>

>
Seems to me that if gravity has finite velocity, there have to be
gravitational waves.
>

>
Yes, and if there are gravitational waves, there must be quantization
effects. Where waves and matter interact, quantization occurs. The
scale of the phenomena, both in time and in size, may make it hard
to recognize it as such though.
>
That said, there are plenty of examples of quantization effects in
the behaviour of objects in our solar system. Orbital resonances,
tidal locking, Trojans, what else?.
>
Come to think of it, when a star gets ejected at high speed from a
star cluster, as sometimes happens,  isn't that in some way similar
to the decay of a radioactive atom?

>
For what it's worth, both the photoelectric effect in Einstein's
equation and Millikan's measurement make perfect sense to me. Although
light with weight works with me, things begin to become unworkable
with Schrödinger and Einstein's field equations.

>
Schroedinger's and Einstein's field equation are both perfectly workable
representations of reality. They wouldn't have become widely accepted if
they weren't. If you can't get them to work for you, you probably need
to sign up for a university course to improve your skills.

 Propositions promulgated by PR people such as Bernays are often widely
accepted.
 THE HIGGS FAKE: HOW PARTICLE PHYSICISTS FOOLED THE NOBEL COMMITTEE
      the epicycle theory has become a synonym of thoughtless
     complication. ...

In fact is was primitive way of handling elliptical orbits before they were recognised to be elliptical. It was a well-thought-through complication that worked pretty well.

     Einstein's general relativity refined Newton's law of
     gravitation, but it did not simplify it in the sense that
     it needed less parameters. Newton's theory never underwent
     the piling up of absurd complications that we know from
     the standard model.

It took a long time before we had enough precise observations to nail down the deviations from Newton's Law of Gravitation.

     Nevertheless they dare to compare
     their illogical turmoil to Newton's clear thoughts, hoping
     that the standard model will be "embedded" by a future
     theory of the sought-after new Einstein. Wishful thinking.

The standard model fits current observations pretty well. As with Einstein's elaboration of Newton's over-simple theory, any new theory has to fit the observations we've made so far.
That isn't wishful thinking - rather a better grasp of reality than you seem to have.

     It is rather a Copernicus or a Kepler that is needed.

Copernicus articulated an idea. Kepler took Brahe's precise observations, and gave Newton organised data that was good enough to be worth thinking about

     All that will remain after the crash of the standard model,
     when the thin fouling is brushed off the rocks, is quantum
     mechanics as developed in the 1920s.

Probably wrong. The standard model fit's some aspects of reality remarkably well

     But this is a much too
     scary perspective for particle physicists to let it even
     faintly cross their minds.

Don't be silly.

     Besides the epicycle model that dominated astronomy for
     fifteen centuries, history has instructive examples on a
     much shorter time scale.

Epicycles fitted the crude eyeball data which was all we had for fifteen centuries. Brahe's data was still eyeball data, but he used huge and expensive observational tools to make his observations somewhat more precise than anybody had managed before.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney