Paul, Kashyap, Siegried, thanks for your valuable inputs.

For other list members that might be interested… I posted the following 
question in another forum and received further good answers in the affirmative:

>”Are special relativity predictions consistent with experimental results at 
>near-c at the LHC? LHC has accelerated protons to 0.999999991c. Are collisions 
>at this speed consistent with E=mc^2/√(1-v^2/c^2 ) with Lorentz factor 7450? 
>Here, kinetic energy of two protons colliding yields 7450 (x 2) times the 
>energy-of-collision than would be expected if SR false. Is this experimentally 
>observed?”

An article that relates:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.08453.pdf

My original background is in engineering, so this emphasis on the 
energy-balance is the kind of smack-in-the-face evidence that I was looking for.

Conclusion: The evidence supporting SR is solid. Having established this much, 
I will be particularly interested in what the following article has to say, 
when it gets published in September. I mean, how can one argue with the 
obvious, verifiable energy implications of a large Lorentz factor?
http://www.nacgeo.com/nacsite/press/1march2016.asp

sj

 

From: online_sadhu_sanga@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:online_sadhu_sanga@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Siegfried Bleher
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 3:48 PM
To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [Sadhu Sanga] Is relativity theory holding back progress in 
science?

 

Dear Stephen,

 

There is no conflict between SR and QM and no controversy from the perspective 
of physics as practiced today.  There is, however, a lack of agreement between 
GR and QM or, rather, they don’t ‘mesh’ under conditions that require both to 
apply or, more simply, neither can make sensible predictions in such 
conditions.  The fact that GR evolves from SR does not imply that GR should 
either agree with QM or be incorrect—the ‘disagreement’ arises in regimes of 
size and mass where SR is no longer adequate (and GR is required), and QM is 
also required.  

 

Time as felt subjectively (by us or by flies) has little relationship to the 
time standards used in physics (e.g. the time related to the frequency 
difference between two energy levels of an atom), or to time as it appears in 
equations of physics.  In turn, questions of time symmetric QM, faster than 
light communication or FTL ‘connection’ are addressable from those equations 
(or modified versions), without relying on intuitive notions of time.  Now, 
having said this, I agree that intuitive notions of time, or perhaps 
experiences of timelessness or no-time may inspire new insights into wider 
applicability of existing equations, or modified equations with wider 
applicability.  And, along the lines of inquiry of this forum, new insights 
into the relationship between science and spirit.

 

Given the success of SR, QED, GR, Standard Model, etc., in their domains of 
applicability, any new insights would likely occur outside their individual 
domains of applicability.  A nice interactive graphic has been provided by 
Quanta Magazine for the current “Theories of Everything” in physics: 
https://www.quantamagazine.org/frontier-of-physics-interactive-map-20150803

 

Best wishes,

 

Siegfried

 

From: online_sadhu_sanga@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:online_sadhu_sanga@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Jarosek
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 5:07 AM
To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [Sadhu Sanga] Is relativity theory holding back progress in 
science?

 

Paul Werbos>” No. There is no conflict between special relativity and QM, 
period.”

The following article is of a very different opinion. The controversy is 
clearly far from settled. From Nature 547, 156–158 (13 July 2017) 
doi:10.1038/547156a:
http://www.nature.com/news/witness-gravity-s-quantum-side-in-the-lab-1.22273?WT.ec_id=NEWSDAILY-20170711


Sixty years ago, physicists congregated to discuss gravity in a seminal 
conference at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. Richard Feynman 
proposed a thought experiment to analyse a deep problem: the incompatibility of 
quantum theory and general relativity. We think that his argument needs 
revisiting 
[...] 
A starting point would be a focused meeting bringing together the quantum- and 
gravity-physics communities, as well as theorists and experimentalists. Perhaps 
it is time for a second Chapel Hill conference.

 

sj

 

From: online_sadhu_sanga@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:online_sadhu_sanga@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul Werbos
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 8:25 PM
To: online_sadhu_sanga@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Is relativity theory holding back progress in 
science?

 

 

 

On Jul 11, 2017 11:45 AM, "Stephen Jarosek" <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

. However, you do accept many of relativity theory’s premises, which I do not. 
Relativity theory (SGR – special/general relativity) is a dead weight, 

As a born heretic, I too was much offended by popular, literary and 
philosophical stores about special relativity -- until I learned the modern 
proper formulation, in variance under proper Lorentz transformation, and 
Einstein-style vision of a cosmos full of fields and energy but no magical 
point particles. All aspects of physics are properly challenged regularly and 
intensely, but at the moment there are many aspects physics FAR less tested and 
certain, and promising for serious scientific challenge, than special 
relativity. Even general relativity has held up quite well despite very intense 
(and laudable) questioning; arxiv.org has reviews posted.



Most of us, at one time or another, have probably come across some reference to 
the inconsistencies between relativity theory (SGR) and quantum mechanics (QM). 
The second of SGR's two postulates is that nothing can go faster than the speed 
of light (c).

That is what you read in the popular press. And who knows, from the viewpoint 
of literary criticism you might find statements by Einstein to that effect. 
(Most serious physicists would not know or care about offhand statements.) But 
in fact, there is only one postulate in special relativity as used today: 
invariance of the laws of the universe with respect to proper Lorentz 
transformations.

 

>From the mathematics of qualitative properties of PDE, we know that 
>information cannot propagate faster than light if we solve PDE in forwards 
>time, if the PDE obey special relativity and if the PDE possess a special 
>property called "quasilinearity." (Probably Google would point you to the huge 
>literature on this topic.) But these are big "ifs"!!! In fact, MQED complies 
>with special relativity just as much as the canonical version of QED does, and 
>it does predict that we could send real informative signals back through time, 
>just as we send Morse code along a telegraph or even photographic images.

 

If you Google "tachyons," you will see another mechanism by which ftl 
communication is logically consistent with special relativity.. though no 
experiments have been done yet which support either tachyons or ftl, at least 
not convincingly. 

 

 

But this conflicts with QM, where some manner of information transfer has been 
experimentally shown to be, for all practical intents and purposes, 
instantaneous (though not in the context of communication – no communication 
theorem applies). 

No. There is no conflict between special relativity and QM, period. The 
mainstream confusion about relativity versus QM is all about gravity, about the 
extension to general relativity. Since most of physics is not about gravity, 
that conflict us doing nothing at all, in my view, to retard the advance of 
knowledge. Most physicists would agree with that much, but I view the true 
situation as even stronger. Under local realism of the Einstein type (getting 
rid of the extraneous assumptions he used in predicting EPR), unifying the rest 
with general relativity is mathematically trivial, and there is no empirical 
evidence that the simplest unification  (due to folks like Wheeler and 
Carmelli) is inexact.

 

 

 

The time to confront these inconsistencies is now long overdue. Either QM or 
SGR or both are wrong. Only one of them, at most, can be right.

 

 

Again, flat out false.

 

-- 
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference 
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions 
under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: 
http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org 
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." 
group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to online_sadhu_sanga+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CACLqmgcoa9%3D7fyom-eCkm_CGtiX-me%2B%2B5vegPBcxWLeNC5qg7g%40mail.gmail.com
 
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CACLqmgcoa9%3D7fyom-eCkm_CGtiX-me%2B%2B5vegPBcxWLeNC5qg7g%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
 .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 



 

-- 
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference 
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017

Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions 
under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)

Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports

Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: 
http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03

Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138

Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer

Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin

Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org

Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org 

Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga

Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." 
group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to online_sadhu_sanga+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/000001d2febf%24c1348920%24439d9b60%24%40net.au.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirc...@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .




Reply via email to