Re: The Einstein Effect

Martin Brown wrote:

Don wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

Don wrote:

<snip>

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. ...
>
     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. 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.
     It is rather a Copernicus or a Kepler that is needed. 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. But this is a much too
     scary perspective for particle physicists to let it even
     faintly cross their minds.
>
     Besides the epicycle model that dominated astronomy for
     fifteen centuries, history has instructive examples on a
     much shorter time scale.
>
     (excerpt)

>
In their day epicycles applied to circles were the forerunner of modern
Fourier theory and could be used to model the movements of planets with
increasing degrees of accuracy with ever more terms used.
>
A mathematical model of the physical laws is just that. There may be a
better one just around the corner but until that new method is found
something that works well enough to be useful is better than nothing.
>
The modern VSOP model of solar system dynamics has an incredible number
of harmonic terms for the mutual interactions of the various planets.
The real world is seldom simple when you want ultimate precision and
accuracy.

If I remember correctly, in her video HOW WE KNOW THAT EINSTEIN'S
GENERAL RELATIVITY CAN'T BE QUITE RIGHT [1], Sabine Hossenfelder
more-or-less says Einstein's Field Equations are relatively easy for
DIYers (eg me), to master. It encouraged me to use a JPL tutorial [2]
to teach it to myself. Subsequently, the topic of cosmology was
mentally parked on my brain's back burner for the time being.

Schockly puts Schroedinger's Equation to good use in ELECTRONS AND
HOLES In SEMICONDUCTORS. In regards to Schroedinger's Equation, Bohmeian
Mechanics [3] currently piques my interest. THE METAPHYSICS OF BOHMIAN
MECHANICS by De Guyter gave me a peek inside the rabbit hole.

Note.

[1] <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov98y_DCvRY>
[2] <https://spsweb.fltops.jpl.nasa.gov/portaldataops/mpg/MPG_Docs/Source%20Docs/Einstein%27s%20Field%20Equations.pdf>
[3] <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/>

Danke,

--
Don, KB7RPU, https://www.qsl.net/kb7rpu
There was a young lady named Bright Whose speed was far faster than light;
She set out one day In a relative way And returned on the previous night.