Sabine Hossenfelder on BackReaction claims herself to be a modern physicist expressing truths about the state of modern physics:
- I do not know what it means for something to be “real” or “true.” You will have to consult a philosopher on that.
- If you want to claim that the Higgs-boson does not exist, you have to demonstrate that the theory which contains the mathematical structure called “Higgs-boson” does not fit the data. Whether or not Higgs-bosons ever arrive in a detector is totally irrelevant.
- Here is a homework assignment: Do you think that I exist? And what do you even mean by that?
- From November on, I will be unemployed, at least that is what it presently looks like: If you don't exist, can you be employed?
If this is the truth, no wonder that modern physics is in a state of crisis.
But Sabine's criticism of modern physics appears well founded and thus admirable. At the price of making employment difficult, which is even more admirable. But she is not alone saying that modern physics in a state of stalemate crisis without progress, as evidenced in the new book
The Universe Speaks in Numbers by Graham Farmelo summing up:
But Sabine's criticism of modern physics appears well founded and thus admirable. At the price of making employment difficult, which is even more admirable. But she is not alone saying that modern physics in a state of stalemate crisis without progress, as evidenced in the new book
The Universe Speaks in Numbers by Graham Farmelo summing up:
- ...the slow rate of progress of the string framework may presage a more sedate pace in fundamental physics that may persist for centuries to come.
- There has never been a better, more exciting time to be a theoretical physicist.
Concerning the crisis of modern physics it is commonly accepted that one reason is that the two basic building blocks, relativity theory and quantum mechanics, are contradictory/incompatile . If you dig a little deeper you will find that the underlying reason is that both theories are unphysical as exposed in detail as Many-Minds Relativity and Real Quantum Mechanics and also here.
Two theories which are physical cannot be contradictory, because physics which exists cannot be contradictory. But unphysical theories may well be contradictory, as ghosts can have contradictory qualities.
The Special Theory of Relativity of Einstein is unphysical because the Lorentz transformation is not a transformation between physical coordinates, as strongly underlined by its inventor Lorentz, but misunderstood by the patent clerk Einstein believing that the transformed time is real and thus that time is relative. Quantum Mechanics is unphysical because its interpretation is statistical which makes it non-physical, because physics is not an insurance company. Here Einstein was right understanding that God does not play dice.
Concerning the crisis of modern physics, listen to
Concerning the crisis of modern physics, listen to
It is comforting to see that I am not alone in my criticism of relativity theory and quantum mechanics.
It is impossible to discuss these things with main stream physicists, since their common wisdom is that neither relativity theory nor quantum mechanics can be understood as rational science.
An example of the confusion is the hype about quantum computing with the sound criticism by Dyakonov in The Case Against Quantum Computing of course being dismissed by main stream physicist Lubos.
The confusion is exposed in an exhibition combining arts and science about quantum mechanics at Center for Contemporary Culture in Barcelona commented on at BackReaction. Here is an artistic expression of the quantum leap of an electron which infuriated Schrödinger:
In this context you are invited to a previous post on the true meaning of Planck's constant $h$ shows The text book view is that $h$ is a fundamental quantum of action connecting the energy
$E=h\nu$ to a particle/photon of light of frequency $\nu$ according the Planck-Einstein relation with light viewed as a stream of discrete particles/photons.
But it is not at all necessary to view light this way to understand the true meaning of Planck's constant, which is revealed through the way it is measured, that is through the photoelectric effect which simply connects light frequency to the energy unit of electronVolt.
Einstein gave a heuristic explanation of the photoelectric effect from an idea of light as a stream of particles. By the common Aristotle logical fallacy of confirming the assumption by observing the consequence, this has convinced modern physicists that light indeed consists of a stream of particles, which however is against all scientific rationale and a basic reason for the crisis of modern (particle) physics. Schrödinger understood that there are no particles. See posts on the photoelectric effect showing that it does not require Einstein's particle heuristics to be understood; wave mechanics serves much better!
$E=h\nu$ to a particle/photon of light of frequency $\nu$ according the Planck-Einstein relation with light viewed as a stream of discrete particles/photons.
But it is not at all necessary to view light this way to understand the true meaning of Planck's constant, which is revealed through the way it is measured, that is through the photoelectric effect which simply connects light frequency to the energy unit of electronVolt.
Einstein gave a heuristic explanation of the photoelectric effect from an idea of light as a stream of particles. By the common Aristotle logical fallacy of confirming the assumption by observing the consequence, this has convinced modern physicists that light indeed consists of a stream of particles, which however is against all scientific rationale and a basic reason for the crisis of modern (particle) physics. Schrödinger understood that there are no particles. See posts on the photoelectric effect showing that it does not require Einstein's particle heuristics to be understood; wave mechanics serves much better!
Inlägg
