How I found glaring errors in Einstein's calculations (2009)(cognitionandculture.net)
cognitionandculture.net
How I found glaring errors in Einstein's calculations (2009)
http://www.cognitionandculture.net/home/blog/35-pascals-blog/435-how-i-found-glaring-errors-in-einsteins-calculations
11 comments
A prof at a small college I know apparently found something wrong with relativity. Tried to publish, but got brushed off in the peer review. The troublesome thing was that his reaction was "fine, I'll go back to teaching, then". A little bitter, but he just gave up. Maybe he was just wrong, but he's smart and definitely not fanatical.
There is always the Internet.
No, that's the point. He doesn't care enough to try to make others pay attention. He just went on with his life. Unusually mentally healthy crackpot? Perhaps.
Or maybe he was just wrong.
It might not be of interest to cutting-edge researchers, but I think it's still important from a pedagogical perspective to see what mistakes are made by intelligent, educated, non-crackpots who think they've found a glaring error, or some fantastical consequence.
Usually it would be some common mistake/misconception, eg. applying special relativity in a non-intertial reference frame, but occasionally it might give a real insight into the analogies and methods used to teach a concept.
Usually it would be some common mistake/misconception, eg. applying special relativity in a non-intertial reference frame, but occasionally it might give a real insight into the analogies and methods used to teach a concept.
Yeah, probably. I just like it more when wrong people are angry. Calm, reasonable but also wrong people make me uneasy.
Say that you encounter a conspiracy theorist. When you point out that his theory is crazy, you don't want him to propose to agree to disagree, right? At that point, I feel like I might be wrong, because I'm the most argumentative. Get what I mean?
Say that you encounter a conspiracy theorist. When you point out that his theory is crazy, you don't want him to propose to agree to disagree, right? At that point, I feel like I might be wrong, because I'm the most argumentative. Get what I mean?
I really like this principle from cryptography:
"Anyone can make a cryptosystem that he himself cannot break."
"Anyone can make a cryptosystem that he himself cannot break."
I tried to argue with a crackpot once and even recommended psychiatric help if needed and all it did was make me feel terrible, it did not convince the crackpot. Needless to say I've now resigned to just ignoring them altogether.
Nice segue from 'a crackpot' to 'them'. They have labels pasted all over them so no difficulty in crossing to the other side of the street.
Well crackpots are different from me, in that I don't believe I'm one, so yes there is indeed a difference between myself and "them". Sorry if I'm not politically correct enough for you. Just to clarify, I have no issue with crackpots, mentally ill people, whatever you want to call them. My only point is that trying to convince someone that they are a crackpot is not going to work, at least over the internet!
I think the claim is not so much that you are or might be a crackpot, as that it's too easy to misdiagnose a genuine revolutionary as a crackpot. The canonical example for mathematicians is Ramanujan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan); Hardy would have been perfectly justified in thinking him a crackpot and throwing away his letters, and one of the most valuable collaborations in number theory would never have happened.
I love something about this comment. But what!
Why is it sad? At least they're doing something they enjoy doing with their time.
I imagine it's very frustrating for them. It also wastes quite a bit of other people's time. And, they're wrong, so the whole thing is a waste.
Just take up fishing or something. Or if you really want to get into physics, enrol in a PhD program, or even some online courses.
Physics is weird and unintuitive, but that's just because we're living in a simulation which was sloppily coded by the lizard people.
Just take up fishing or something. Or if you really want to get into physics, enrol in a PhD program, or even some online courses.
Physics is weird and unintuitive, but that's just because we're living in a simulation which was sloppily coded by the lizard people.
Smegal posted this link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9544163
If you read that the person involved doesn't seem to be enjoying the experience; they frequently attack others; they take up quite a lot of time; etc.
If you read that the person involved doesn't seem to be enjoying the experience; they frequently attack others; they take up quite a lot of time; etc.
I am interested in alternative explanations even including nonrelativistic ones... as the current ones we have are largely unsatisfactory so I guess this makes me a 'crackpot'. This is how science is done not blindly answering 'easy questions' (which is what I do in my real life academic job, well not easy..).
Personally I just disregard the whole article it is written by someone who is neither a physicist nor engineer, in fact someone without any background in the physical sciences at all.
What intellectual right this social scientist has to pontificate on matters he knows nothing about is unknown to me. He seems to disregard the opinion of those who are trained engineers with a PhD as damaged goods or delusional. What right has he to say this with absoloutely no knowledge in the field? Maybe after 8 years of daily academic grind he can come back and write something with a bit more humility.
For instance "without actually studying maths and physics - which would show the crackpot why he’s misguided." - How does he know this?? Although my academic background is in EE I have reviewed the physics curriculum at my alma mater and there is little there that I do not already know to an advanced level. Most learnt during my PhD in physics.
'Regular interaction' is important and the textbooks are outdated/immaterial, it's not possible to understand papers unless you are talking to the people involved. This is a man who simply doesn't understand what working in the physical sciences involves. He is totally ignorant of the field. Does he think major advances are happening on a 6 monthly basis?
Personally I just disregard the whole article it is written by someone who is neither a physicist nor engineer, in fact someone without any background in the physical sciences at all.
What intellectual right this social scientist has to pontificate on matters he knows nothing about is unknown to me. He seems to disregard the opinion of those who are trained engineers with a PhD as damaged goods or delusional. What right has he to say this with absoloutely no knowledge in the field? Maybe after 8 years of daily academic grind he can come back and write something with a bit more humility.
For instance "without actually studying maths and physics - which would show the crackpot why he’s misguided." - How does he know this?? Although my academic background is in EE I have reviewed the physics curriculum at my alma mater and there is little there that I do not already know to an advanced level. Most learnt during my PhD in physics.
'Regular interaction' is important and the textbooks are outdated/immaterial, it's not possible to understand papers unless you are talking to the people involved. This is a man who simply doesn't understand what working in the physical sciences involves. He is totally ignorant of the field. Does he think major advances are happening on a 6 monthly basis?
I also find this "crackpot" quite entertaining:
http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/PhD.html
http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/PhD.html
It saddens me that one who seems to have technical talent in science can fail so miserably at social interaction, with probably fatal consequences for his scientific career.
At the same time the behaviour of the professors gives me hope. Several kindly and patiently tried to help him despite him being rude, offending and egocentric.
Finding his behaviour positively entertaining is sadistic, and I'd find it contemptible and disgusting.
I agree that what crackpots are missing is not scientific method or technical talent but social integration and interaction. An early, informal and honest "this idea is non-sense" can help a lot.
At the same time the behaviour of the professors gives me hope. Several kindly and patiently tried to help him despite him being rude, offending and egocentric.
Finding his behaviour positively entertaining is sadistic, and I'd find it contemptible and disgusting.
I agree that what crackpots are missing is not scientific method or technical talent but social integration and interaction. An early, informal and honest "this idea is non-sense" can help a lot.
My favorite is Louis Savain, who would go full mad scientist when his theories were challenged and even laugh like Mandark in his correspondence. Example: http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Insan...
Published on Wednesday, 01 April 2009 08:17
Your comment appeared, disappeared then reappeared. It seems to be here to stay now.
Perhaps this is some bug in HN's CMS.
Perhaps this is some bug in HN's CMS.
More likely a caching bug, I'd say.
Sometimes these crackpots are people of high social status (well, sort of...)
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/nov/14/science...
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/nov/14/science...
Mocton is a hereditary peer. It's worrying that those people have some power, but it could be worse.
The previous English minister for energy and climate change (Matthew Hancock) is a climate change denier who refuses to discuss anything related to climate change and who accepts large donations from other prominent climate change deniers.
http://rt.com/uk/248605-climate-skeptic-donations-hancock/
The previous English minister for energy and climate change (Matthew Hancock) is a climate change denier who refuses to discuss anything related to climate change and who accepts large donations from other prominent climate change deniers.
http://rt.com/uk/248605-climate-skeptic-donations-hancock/
This is fascinating and I think I can understand why he finds it so interesting, and useful, to study people who disagree with probably the most testable, established, unquestionable parts of science. I hope it will help identify bias and groupthink in less testable, established science.
Clickbait title - boring article about amateur scientists.
[deleted]
really Offtopic: but does time really slow down or just the clock we use are dumb? I never believed it.
I'll try lay-mans this for you. Time doesn't really slow down.
You have a reference frame, your reference frame simply describes something along the lines of "where you are". "Where you are" could be how close you are to something massive (a star, a planet) or how fast you are moving.
If you have a watch on your own wrist it will always tick at 1 second from your own perspective (ignoring extreme cases like black holes, where your hand could be in a very different reference frame from your face). It will always be correct and time will never slow down or speed up. It will be exactly the same 1 second that everyone in the universe experiences from their own perspective. However, if someone looked at your watch with a telescope from another reference frame it would be ticking faster or slower than their own watch.
This is where relativity gets its name from "something in RELATION to another." Without checking your relation to something else you can't determine that time flows at different rates.
Think of time as a smooth river. The further along the river you are the more time you have experienced (our classical notion of time does not exist, it has been replaced by distance). If you move into the area of the river that has a strong current you will move through the river faster but from your own perspective the water and people directly around you will still be the same. You would only be able to tell that you are in a strong current if you could see someone who is in the weaker current.
Therefore our clocks do exactly what they should be doing, measuring 1 second by ways of our own frame of reference.
You have a reference frame, your reference frame simply describes something along the lines of "where you are". "Where you are" could be how close you are to something massive (a star, a planet) or how fast you are moving.
If you have a watch on your own wrist it will always tick at 1 second from your own perspective (ignoring extreme cases like black holes, where your hand could be in a very different reference frame from your face). It will always be correct and time will never slow down or speed up. It will be exactly the same 1 second that everyone in the universe experiences from their own perspective. However, if someone looked at your watch with a telescope from another reference frame it would be ticking faster or slower than their own watch.
This is where relativity gets its name from "something in RELATION to another." Without checking your relation to something else you can't determine that time flows at different rates.
Think of time as a smooth river. The further along the river you are the more time you have experienced (our classical notion of time does not exist, it has been replaced by distance). If you move into the area of the river that has a strong current you will move through the river faster but from your own perspective the water and people directly around you will still be the same. You would only be able to tell that you are in a strong current if you could see someone who is in the weaker current.
Therefore our clocks do exactly what they should be doing, measuring 1 second by ways of our own frame of reference.
Yep, this was the most difficult thing to grasp when I started learning this stuff. I thought that somehow the body knows to slow things down when it is in motion. But when you think through it, it is easy. Its all in the reference frames. Imagine yourself going from Earth to Alpha Centauri in a constant velocity. In SR terms, this means you are in motion with respect to earth. Now imagine there is nothing else in the universe except you. Take away Earth, Alpha Centauri, all stars, galaxies, etc. Nothing but infinite empty space. Imagine yourself doing the same movement (I know it is a stretch and I am butchering physics here, since I asked to take away your source and destination, but you can form a mental picture). Now, in SR terms, I cannot say anything about your motion. You are neither moving nor stationary and it is pointless to say anything. But based on old Newtonian model, you can be considered "moving" in this big empty room of Universe (which later became theorized into Ether). When you grasp this and understand that motion is relative, also understand that time is relative. There is no giant universal clock which dictates what time it is for this giant room (which is again what Newton imagined). Einstein simply said there is no such thing (aka special reference frame). Once this is grasped, other concepts like time dilation will flow from it.
The issue is, first, if there is a 'dumb' clock (and an accompanying 'correct' clock), then there would be a special reference frame in physics. What you can do is make a convention: "I'm measuring my time in reference to the instantaneous inertial frame A of my location on Earth", and other nearby users from other inertial frames can adjust their clock rate using Lorentz transformation (I need not even mention value synchronization), such any user from A will see the clocks going at a fixed rate. Second, after adjustment, all users with different velocities will experience their clock going slower.
This is the special relativity view and it creates the twin paradox: if your time is going slower and no reference frame is special, couldn't we say his time is going slower instead? Who will age faster? This isn't really a paradox in special relativity, since in SR (i.e. assuming all observers are in fixed inertial frames) the observers can't "age" to meet at a later time: their clocks will diverge, but they will get away from each other so they can never compare how they are aging -- indeed this is a symmetric position. Once you allow them to change frames so they're able to compare their own aging, some frame will have to experience acceleration, and hence break symmetry. That is, the paradox resolves in general relativity.
All this is well explained on wikipedia (much better than I can do).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
This is the special relativity view and it creates the twin paradox: if your time is going slower and no reference frame is special, couldn't we say his time is going slower instead? Who will age faster? This isn't really a paradox in special relativity, since in SR (i.e. assuming all observers are in fixed inertial frames) the observers can't "age" to meet at a later time: their clocks will diverge, but they will get away from each other so they can never compare how they are aging -- indeed this is a symmetric position. Once you allow them to change frames so they're able to compare their own aging, some frame will have to experience acceleration, and hence break symmetry. That is, the paradox resolves in general relativity.
All this is well explained on wikipedia (much better than I can do).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
Time really slows down. GPS satelites wouldn't have worked if it wasn't taken into account.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_P...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_P...
That is again just the clock going haywire.
It's the clocks on all 24 GPS satellites, all 24 Glonass satellites, and the 8 (so far) Galileo satellites, all going "haywire" by precisely the amount predicted by a theory developed before the first satellite went into space.
And it's not a paltry amount - if we didn't understand and plan for this amount, the GPS system would have an error drift of 10km (~6 miles) per day
And it's not a paltry amount - if we didn't understand and plan for this amount, the GPS system would have an error drift of 10km (~6 miles) per day
No, it's an attribute of time itself, not mechanical clock issues. I _highly_ recommend the book "About Time"
http://www.amazon.com/About-Time-Einsteins-Unfinished-Revolu...
http://www.amazon.com/About-Time-Einsteins-Unfinished-Revolu...
It's difficult because it is completely unintuitive, and I'm not sure we can ever experience it - or even conceive of experiencing it.
It helped me to wrap my head around it by comparing it to gravity. If you pick up 1kg of material and place it on a scale, it'll weigh 1kg. If you take that same scale to the moon, and place 1kg of material on it, it'll weigh 1kg. And we can objectively experience that - if we pick up that 1kg on the moon, it'll feel like a bag of sugar.
And this should be the same for time. The clock taken to relativistic speeds will still measure 1 minute as 1 minute. The difference is that in the case of gravity, we can measure that same mass from a distance - we can bring it home and experience it again relative to a different gravity. It's much less intuitive to measure time from a distance.
It helped me to wrap my head around it by comparing it to gravity. If you pick up 1kg of material and place it on a scale, it'll weigh 1kg. If you take that same scale to the moon, and place 1kg of material on it, it'll weigh 1kg. And we can objectively experience that - if we pick up that 1kg on the moon, it'll feel like a bag of sugar.
And this should be the same for time. The clock taken to relativistic speeds will still measure 1 minute as 1 minute. The difference is that in the case of gravity, we can measure that same mass from a distance - we can bring it home and experience it again relative to a different gravity. It's much less intuitive to measure time from a distance.
A kg is a measure of mass, not weight. Weight requires 2 general objects, and is dependent on gravity (between them). Mass does not.
1kg of material in outer-space will weight zero. And on the moon, about 1/6 of what it weights on earth.
While its mass will remain the same.
Your scale would have to be re-calibrated for the change in gravity to produce the same reading between the measure on earth and the moon - for both weight and mass of an object (a scale can only measure weight, which then has to be converted to mass using the already predetermined gravity force at the location)... Unless it was a really fancy one with some mechanism that could also measure gravity.
1kg of material in outer-space will weight zero. And on the moon, about 1/6 of what it weights on earth.
While its mass will remain the same.
Your scale would have to be re-calibrated for the change in gravity to produce the same reading between the measure on earth and the moon - for both weight and mass of an object (a scale can only measure weight, which then has to be converted to mass using the already predetermined gravity force at the location)... Unless it was a really fancy one with some mechanism that could also measure gravity.
I'm using an uncalibrated scale intentionally, as that's exactly what we're doing when we talk about taking two clocks and moving one of them at relativistic speeds. That two identical instruments in different gravitational fields will exhibit different measurements.
With mass this makes sense to us, because we can compare with a constant - we can take the same item with a constant mass and measure it in two different gravities - and because it happens on scales we can perceive. Men bouncing around the moon is a perceivable change. An astronaut coming back from a year on the ISS, being biologically 12.5 seconds younger than if he hadn't gone, is far too glacial for humans to perceive.
Of course, we could just argue that relativity is a myth and the clocks just need to be calibrated.
With mass this makes sense to us, because we can compare with a constant - we can take the same item with a constant mass and measure it in two different gravities - and because it happens on scales we can perceive. Men bouncing around the moon is a perceivable change. An astronaut coming back from a year on the ISS, being biologically 12.5 seconds younger than if he hadn't gone, is far too glacial for humans to perceive.
Of course, we could just argue that relativity is a myth and the clocks just need to be calibrated.
Please define "dumb" in the context of a system solely guided by one of the most basic, non-emergent process conceivable (caesium oscillator) ?
by dumb, I meant, just because our clock says the time is so and so doesn't mean the time itself has slowed down. Maybe just the clock is having a bad day(acceleration).
If I travel fast for years will I be younger when I return home to my twin? or just my clock will say so?
Sorry, going really off topic.
If I travel fast for years will I be younger when I return home to my twin? or just my clock will say so?
Sorry, going really off topic.
You will be younger. What "really" happened is a question for philosophers, but every measurable periodic physical or biological process, including your own ageing, will have behaved as though time really was running slower. (And how could it not? We can use any such mechanism as a clock - Galileo, possibly first physicist, used his own heartbeat to time falling objects).
> including your own ageing, will have behaved as though time really was running slower.
This. This is what I wanted to confirm, thanks. Is there any experiment or some paper which proves this?
This. This is what I wanted to confirm, thanks. Is there any experiment or some paper which proves this?
The only direct measurements of relativistic effects have been in the nanosecond range, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experime... - not a scale on which you could measure human ageing.
But it's really just utterly implausible that it would happen any differently, because biology is just (complex combinations of) ordinary physical processes that follow the ordinary laws of physics like any other. Compare e.g. http://lesswrong.com/lw/hq/universal_fire/
But it's really just utterly implausible that it would happen any differently, because biology is just (complex combinations of) ordinary physical processes that follow the ordinary laws of physics like any other. Compare e.g. http://lesswrong.com/lw/hq/universal_fire/
There is most probably no experiment on how relativistic time dilation effects aging because the time dilation is very small and aging occurs so slow (in context).
However, there are loads of experiments and papers that show or rely on the fact that everything in one place viewed from another place seems to slow down or speed up due to relativity.
That aging also slows down or speeds up is concluded by induction.
However, there are loads of experiments and papers that show or rely on the fact that everything in one place viewed from another place seems to slow down or speed up due to relativity.
That aging also slows down or speeds up is concluded by induction.
That's not actually hard to do. I would be completely unsurprised were I to learn that Einstein would be unable to get consistent answers were he to repeatedly count on his own toes.
There is a great deal of difference between symbolic mathematics - calculus and the like - and arithmetic.
While not as bad as Einstein, I'm very poor at arithmetic as well.
There is a great deal of difference between symbolic mathematics - calculus and the like - and arithmetic.
While not as bad as Einstein, I'm very poor at arithmetic as well.
The article characterizes crackpots who claim there are serious problems with the underpinnings of science that can be rectified with college level or even high-school level math.
It doesn't actually find a calculation flaw in Einstein's work.
It doesn't actually find a calculation flaw in Einstein's work.
I wasn't criticizing Einstein's theories, I was criticizing Einstein's arithmetic.
In a letter to Mt. Wilson observatory, he requested that they point their telescope just off the edge of the sun in full daylight - NOT during an eclipse - to determine whether the stars whose light passed through the sun's gravity would be out of place with respect to the positions of those stars when the sun was not nearby.
He was apparently unaware that to point an observatory scope that close to the sun - I don't recall whether it was the 100" or the 60" - would melt the glass photographic plate.
His calculations of where the stars would be, was wildly inaccurate.
Someone - a Mt. Wilson astronomer I expect but don't really know - had to point out to Einstein that he required an eclipse. I expect someone else had to do the arithmetic for the African eclipse expedition.
In my original post I clearly distinguished symbolic mathematics from arithmetic. I've studied some tensor calculus, while straightforward in principle it is conceptually quite difficult to follow.
Einstein had his tensors right what he did not have correct was "2 + 2". I mean like he'd try that computation then come up with "5".
In a letter to Mt. Wilson observatory, he requested that they point their telescope just off the edge of the sun in full daylight - NOT during an eclipse - to determine whether the stars whose light passed through the sun's gravity would be out of place with respect to the positions of those stars when the sun was not nearby.
He was apparently unaware that to point an observatory scope that close to the sun - I don't recall whether it was the 100" or the 60" - would melt the glass photographic plate.
His calculations of where the stars would be, was wildly inaccurate.
Someone - a Mt. Wilson astronomer I expect but don't really know - had to point out to Einstein that he required an eclipse. I expect someone else had to do the arithmetic for the African eclipse expedition.
In my original post I clearly distinguished symbolic mathematics from arithmetic. I've studied some tensor calculus, while straightforward in principle it is conceptually quite difficult to follow.
Einstein had his tensors right what he did not have correct was "2 + 2". I mean like he'd try that computation then come up with "5".
> Someone - a Mt. Wilson astronomer I expect but don't really know - had to point out to Einstein that he required an eclipse
What a terrible theoretical physicist, not knowing mundane details of astronomy.
What a terrible theoretical physicist, not knowing mundane details of astronomy.
there's a damn good reason some physicists are theoreticians.
While Caltech had a physics laboratory requirement - for everyone, not just the physics majors - there was a way that one could be excused from it, typically as a result of the destruction of expensive equipment.
I don't really know but would be unsurprised were Einstein one such, when he was an undergrad.
It's not well known but it is well documented, that Einstein wrote his four historically-important papers in the simple hope of getting a modest raise in pay.
Patent examiners with doctorates were paid more than examiners who didn't have PhD's, you see. He hoped one of the papers would be accepted as his dissertation.
(E=mC^2 was derived from one of the first four.)
While Caltech had a physics laboratory requirement - for everyone, not just the physics majors - there was a way that one could be excused from it, typically as a result of the destruction of expensive equipment.
I don't really know but would be unsurprised were Einstein one such, when he was an undergrad.
It's not well known but it is well documented, that Einstein wrote his four historically-important papers in the simple hope of getting a modest raise in pay.
Patent examiners with doctorates were paid more than examiners who didn't have PhD's, you see. He hoped one of the papers would be accepted as his dissertation.
(E=mC^2 was derived from one of the first four.)
But what does that have to do with the linked-to article?
I haven't read the article.
What I've been repeatedly pointing out is that Einstein was appallingly poor at arithmetic.
I am also repeatedly pointing out that his theories are flawless, as far as we can tell through experiment.
When Einstein attempted to predict the experimental results of his theory, while the theory was correct, his predictions were wildly inaccurate, because he was really, really bad at arithmetic.
I'm not just making this up - I learned it in physics class at Caltech, from the president of the Institute.
Caltech is in pasadena, Mt. Wilson overlooks pasadena, the Mt. Wilson Observatory office is in pasadena. Mt. Wilson and Caltech are different organizations but work very closely together.
What I've been repeatedly pointing out is that Einstein was appallingly poor at arithmetic.
I am also repeatedly pointing out that his theories are flawless, as far as we can tell through experiment.
When Einstein attempted to predict the experimental results of his theory, while the theory was correct, his predictions were wildly inaccurate, because he was really, really bad at arithmetic.
I'm not just making this up - I learned it in physics class at Caltech, from the president of the Institute.
Caltech is in pasadena, Mt. Wilson overlooks pasadena, the Mt. Wilson Observatory office is in pasadena. Mt. Wilson and Caltech are different organizations but work very closely together.
Grr! Then at least start your first comment with "I haven't read the article, but based on keyword matching in the title I want to say .." or something like that.
There's no reason to repeatedly point out that Einstein's theories are flawless. The article specifically says "To most physicists, such discussions are largely irrelevant, as these classic experiments were only the first ones in a long series of tests that showed the complete agreement between observations and predictions from special relativity."
See also http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1632 .
There's no reason to repeatedly point out that Einstein's theories are flawless. The article specifically says "To most physicists, such discussions are largely irrelevant, as these classic experiments were only the first ones in a long series of tests that showed the complete agreement between observations and predictions from special relativity."
See also http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1632 .
Have you considered the possibility that your instructor is not infallible and may have been in error.
He was the president of the institute, and a tenured physics professor.
Yeah but he's not the pope.
I think you have the same confusion I did. MichaelCrawford appears to be showing off via name dropping, rather than providing useful information, which is what I expected.
There is a common misperception that Einstein was lousy at math. Some sources say it's because the Swiss and German systems both use a numerical scale, but in opposite directions, so what looks like an excellent grade in one is lousy in the others. Others conjecture that it was because he didn't originally think that high mathematics was important for physics, so was considered a lazy student. (See http://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-Albert-Einstein-failed-... for various comments.)
It seems that MichaelCrawford is unaware of this misperception, as the claim that Einstein was "appallingly poor at arithmetic" is attributed only be reputation of the speaker of said claim. While that may be a good first step, anyone who was aware of the misperception would know it is necessary to have stronger evidence to remove doubt.
Such evidence does not exist.
Instead, we see that MichaelCrawford doubles down by appealing again to authority, instead of doing a search for "Einstein bad at arithmeic". All 10 of the first hits from Google describe how Einstein was not bad at algebra and how such a belief - even when expressed by a tenured CalTech professor - is simply wrong.
In http://io9.com/the-math-problem-that-had-einstein-asking-for... we even see a case where Einstein did get the math wrong - he had miscalculated coefficient of friction. Had he been "appallingly poor at arithmetic" there would be many more, and much more clear, examples of arithmetic errors.
There is a common misperception that Einstein was lousy at math. Some sources say it's because the Swiss and German systems both use a numerical scale, but in opposite directions, so what looks like an excellent grade in one is lousy in the others. Others conjecture that it was because he didn't originally think that high mathematics was important for physics, so was considered a lazy student. (See http://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-Albert-Einstein-failed-... for various comments.)
It seems that MichaelCrawford is unaware of this misperception, as the claim that Einstein was "appallingly poor at arithmetic" is attributed only be reputation of the speaker of said claim. While that may be a good first step, anyone who was aware of the misperception would know it is necessary to have stronger evidence to remove doubt.
Such evidence does not exist.
Instead, we see that MichaelCrawford doubles down by appealing again to authority, instead of doing a search for "Einstein bad at arithmeic". All 10 of the first hits from Google describe how Einstein was not bad at algebra and how such a belief - even when expressed by a tenured CalTech professor - is simply wrong.
In http://io9.com/the-math-problem-that-had-einstein-asking-for... we even see a case where Einstein did get the math wrong - he had miscalculated coefficient of friction. Had he been "appallingly poor at arithmetic" there would be many more, and much more clear, examples of arithmetic errors.
Here's a much, much more accurate article about Einstein's correspondence with astronomers:
http://huntingtonblogs.org/2015/03/einstein-and-the-astronom...
Also, by the way, the first result on Google when I searched for it.
As you will see (if you care to read the article) his first calculation was made in 1911, only 3 years after his special relativity publication, and before he even knew about differential geometry.
His second calculation was based on general relativity, and the fact that it predicts twice the angle of his previous calculation is hugely important in the history of science.
http://huntingtonblogs.org/2015/03/einstein-and-the-astronom...
Also, by the way, the first result on Google when I searched for it.
As you will see (if you care to read the article) his first calculation was made in 1911, only 3 years after his special relativity publication, and before he even knew about differential geometry.
His second calculation was based on general relativity, and the fact that it predicts twice the angle of his previous calculation is hugely important in the history of science.
I expect the letter Dr. Goldberger referred to, was the one to Dr. Hale.
Goldberger was quite specific that Einstein asked that the telescope be pointed right at the edge of the sun. I've studied german but not in enough depth that I could translate Einstein's letter.
One arc second is not far from the limit of the resolution of an amateur telescope. While in principle the larger telescopes could resolve finer detail, atmospheric turbulence leads them not to resolve much better - they can see dimmer objects, but not more clearly. It is only in recent years that adaptive optics, faster imaging sensors and more-sophisticated image processing algorithms enable better resolution.
I don't know but expect that when the 1919 expedition confirmed GR, it was done by measuring the positions of multiple stars to determine that their positions were, on the average, out of place. The scope they used was not that big, as they had to carry it out into the African countryside.
The tensor calculus used in GR is quite complex. To reduce that to specific predictions of the star locations would require quite a lot of arithmetic. Back then they would have used logarithm tables and adding machines.
I am willing to concede the Einstein could balance his checkbook, but numerical analysis is hard enough to get right on a modern computer, it is quite hard when done the old-fashioned way, with logarithms and the like. It would be easy to write down a single digit incorrectly, or to not carry the computation out to enough significant figures.
Dr. Goldberg was also quite specific about Einstein's computations - not his theory - being "wildly inaccurate".
Finally, that article brought back many memories for me, some good some bad. I love the Huntington, I love Mt. Wilson but I had a rough time at Caltech.
I was, for a very brief time, a solar astronomer, but at Big Bear Lake.
Goldberger was quite specific that Einstein asked that the telescope be pointed right at the edge of the sun. I've studied german but not in enough depth that I could translate Einstein's letter.
One arc second is not far from the limit of the resolution of an amateur telescope. While in principle the larger telescopes could resolve finer detail, atmospheric turbulence leads them not to resolve much better - they can see dimmer objects, but not more clearly. It is only in recent years that adaptive optics, faster imaging sensors and more-sophisticated image processing algorithms enable better resolution.
I don't know but expect that when the 1919 expedition confirmed GR, it was done by measuring the positions of multiple stars to determine that their positions were, on the average, out of place. The scope they used was not that big, as they had to carry it out into the African countryside.
The tensor calculus used in GR is quite complex. To reduce that to specific predictions of the star locations would require quite a lot of arithmetic. Back then they would have used logarithm tables and adding machines.
I am willing to concede the Einstein could balance his checkbook, but numerical analysis is hard enough to get right on a modern computer, it is quite hard when done the old-fashioned way, with logarithms and the like. It would be easy to write down a single digit incorrectly, or to not carry the computation out to enough significant figures.
Dr. Goldberg was also quite specific about Einstein's computations - not his theory - being "wildly inaccurate".
Finally, that article brought back many memories for me, some good some bad. I love the Huntington, I love Mt. Wilson but I had a rough time at Caltech.
I was, for a very brief time, a solar astronomer, but at Big Bear Lake.
Last paragraph, quick transcription:
'Es ware deshalb von grosstem Interesse, bis zu wie groszer Sonnennahe helle Fixsterne bei Anwendung der starksten Vergrosserungen _bei Tage_ (ohne Sonnenfinsternis) gezehen werden konnen.'
My translation:
'It would therefore be of the greatest interest [to know], until how near to the sun bright fixed stars could be observed, under the largest magnification and by day (without solar eclipse).'
'Es ware deshalb von grosstem Interesse, bis zu wie groszer Sonnennahe helle Fixsterne bei Anwendung der starksten Vergrosserungen _bei Tage_ (ohne Sonnenfinsternis) gezehen werden konnen.'
My translation:
'It would therefore be of the greatest interest [to know], until how near to the sun bright fixed stars could be observed, under the largest magnification and by day (without solar eclipse).'
Einstein may have been unclear that to get so much as that one arc second of displacement, you have to point the scope right at the edge of the sun.
One can see venus with the naked eye during the day - but not when it is near the sun.
I expect that a red filter would get rid of some of the scattered atmospheric light. A telescope should be able to see some of the brighter stars during the day.
But to get the scope so near the edge of the sun that you can measure that arc-second displacement, you'd have quite a lot of sunlight entering the telescope. The atmospherically scattered light in that region is quite intense.
One can use an "Occulting Disk" but they are of limited effectiveness. When the sun is in the sky, hold your hand out at arm's length, then block the sun with your thumb; you'll see that the skylight is quite bright around your thumb. That's not from the solar corona - not much of it - but from atmospheric scattering.
One can see venus with the naked eye during the day - but not when it is near the sun.
I expect that a red filter would get rid of some of the scattered atmospheric light. A telescope should be able to see some of the brighter stars during the day.
But to get the scope so near the edge of the sun that you can measure that arc-second displacement, you'd have quite a lot of sunlight entering the telescope. The atmospherically scattered light in that region is quite intense.
One can use an "Occulting Disk" but they are of limited effectiveness. When the sun is in the sky, hold your hand out at arm's length, then block the sun with your thumb; you'll see that the skylight is quite bright around your thumb. That's not from the solar corona - not much of it - but from atmospheric scattering.
One might think it funny that he didn't write in English, or have someone translate it, but back in those days most scientific papers were in german. English wasn't in widespread use until after the war to end all wars.
[deleted]
Einstein excelled at mathematics throughout his schooling. There's no evidence that he was a dunce with arithmetic.
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2011/12/albert-einst...
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2011/12/albert-einst...
+1
Einstein was, in fact, so good at math that at 15 he passed that portion of a university entrance examination (although he failed every other subject).
A very real example of a super-intelligent human, which normal people regard as "learning disabilities" due to their own inability to comprehend or cope that intelligence - as has been demonstrated in the comments section of this post.
Einstein was, in fact, so good at math that at 15 he passed that portion of a university entrance examination (although he failed every other subject).
A very real example of a super-intelligent human, which normal people regard as "learning disabilities" due to their own inability to comprehend or cope that intelligence - as has been demonstrated in the comments section of this post.
My best subject in Physics was electricity and magnetism, which depends heavily on special relativity.
I aced the junior year E&M final without ever having shown up to class nor attempted any of the problem sets. I don't recall sitting for a midterm exam, maybe I spaced it.
I also successfully petitioned for credit for UCSC's optics class. In my written narrative evaluation, Dr. Scherr said that while I got the correct answers, my derivations were quite different from those of the other students.
I aced the junior year E&M final without ever having shown up to class nor attempted any of the problem sets. I don't recall sitting for a midterm exam, maybe I spaced it.
I also successfully petitioned for credit for UCSC's optics class. In my written narrative evaluation, Dr. Scherr said that while I got the correct answers, my derivations were quite different from those of the other students.
All of which have nothing to do with Einstein.
My point being that I know quite a lot about relativity. Not just that I know about it but have quite a deep understanding of it.
I know quite a lot about Einstein as a person.
I know quite a lot about Einstein as a person.
> I know quite a lot about Einstein as a person.
Clearly not. According to Maria, Einstein had immense aptitude for applied arithmetic by age 12.
> My point being that I know quite a lot about relativity.
How is your knowledge of relativity relevant to the discussion? The topic of Einstein's arithmetic aptitude was raised.
Clearly not. According to Maria, Einstein had immense aptitude for applied arithmetic by age 12.
> My point being that I know quite a lot about relativity.
How is your knowledge of relativity relevant to the discussion? The topic of Einstein's arithmetic aptitude was raised.
You are being disingenuous.
The original protest to my comment about Einstein's arithmetic, made the claim that I was in agreement with the eccentrics who claim Einstein's theories are incorrect.
To the extent that they have been verified by experiment, I know that the theories are correct. We haven't found gravitational waves yet, which is a concern but all other experiments have worked out.
Not my emphasis on experiment: even when theoretical derivations, proofs and the like are flawlessly carried out, that doesn't mean that they correspond with physical reality.
That's the whole point of being a physics researcher. That's not well understood by most members of the public; the exciting thing about physics is to prove a theorist wrong through experiment. It's helpful to prove a theorist right, but uninteresting to do so.
The original protest to my comment about Einstein's arithmetic, made the claim that I was in agreement with the eccentrics who claim Einstein's theories are incorrect.
To the extent that they have been verified by experiment, I know that the theories are correct. We haven't found gravitational waves yet, which is a concern but all other experiments have worked out.
Not my emphasis on experiment: even when theoretical derivations, proofs and the like are flawlessly carried out, that doesn't mean that they correspond with physical reality.
That's the whole point of being a physics researcher. That's not well understood by most members of the public; the exciting thing about physics is to prove a theorist wrong through experiment. It's helpful to prove a theorist right, but uninteresting to do so.
> The original protest to my comment about Einstein's arithmetic
My protest with that comment about his arithmetic is that it is incorrect.
> You are being disingenuous.
No I am not. I am pointing out that you bringing up your educational level is completely irrelevant to the argument. Your education about Einstein's work has absolutely no bearing on your potential knowledge about his person or arithmetic ability - you are setting yourself up as an authority in a plea to authority. I'd take his sister, Maria's, word about his arithmetic ability over yours - regardless of your degree.
Your degree, profession, hobby, articles and so forth (that you keep bringing up out of context) hold absolutely no authority in that original assertion that you made. Being a theoretical physicist does not make you right about everything, even on matters about the physicists who pioneered fields that you are an expert on.
It is you who is being disingenuous by attempting to diminish other people's intelligence by explaining how you are more intelligent than them by virtue of your talent in physics - I can't fathom any other reason why you would bring up that irrelevant information.
I never said that you are stupid, I said that you are wrong. If you believe that you are right because you are a physicist then you are most certainly a fool (which is still different from stupid).
My protest with that comment about his arithmetic is that it is incorrect.
> You are being disingenuous.
No I am not. I am pointing out that you bringing up your educational level is completely irrelevant to the argument. Your education about Einstein's work has absolutely no bearing on your potential knowledge about his person or arithmetic ability - you are setting yourself up as an authority in a plea to authority. I'd take his sister, Maria's, word about his arithmetic ability over yours - regardless of your degree.
Your degree, profession, hobby, articles and so forth (that you keep bringing up out of context) hold absolutely no authority in that original assertion that you made. Being a theoretical physicist does not make you right about everything, even on matters about the physicists who pioneered fields that you are an expert on.
It is you who is being disingenuous by attempting to diminish other people's intelligence by explaining how you are more intelligent than them by virtue of your talent in physics - I can't fathom any other reason why you would bring up that irrelevant information.
I never said that you are stupid, I said that you are wrong. If you believe that you are right because you are a physicist then you are most certainly a fool (which is still different from stupid).
gambiter(2)
Please read the article, not just comment on the headline.
I've studied special relativity through graduate school at UCSC.
While I haven't exactly studied general relativity in a formal way I've attended quite a few talks on it by cosmologists and the like.
I was an astronomy major at Caltech, but switched to Physics when I realized I prefer to build telescopes rather than look through them. Astronomers don't build telescopes; Opticians do that. However Physicists commonly build their own experimental apparatus.
While I haven't exactly studied general relativity in a formal way I've attended quite a few talks on it by cosmologists and the like.
I was an astronomy major at Caltech, but switched to Physics when I realized I prefer to build telescopes rather than look through them. Astronomers don't build telescopes; Opticians do that. However Physicists commonly build their own experimental apparatus.
So you still didn't open the article? :/
Most web pages work really poorly through my Mom's earthlink dialup. In part that's due to metric fucktons of javascript, in part it's due to some problem with routing.
I've spent years trying to diagnose it. I've got some theories but nothing conclusive. It seems to help if I do something like:
I've spent years trying to diagnose it. I've got some theories but nothing conclusive. It seems to help if I do something like:
$ sudo ping -f -c 1000 www.nytimes.com
I am sure that in the 21 minutes that elapsed between this comment and the one left by you above it, you could have just hit the page with curl.
Stop making embarrassing excuses and just read the article.
Stop making embarrassing excuses and just read the article.
While I haven't tried curl, it is common for regular web pages - blogs, articles and the like - to take quite a lot longer to download with Safari or Firefox.
I can see the problem when I do a traceroute.
I can see the problem when I do a traceroute.
I'm having too much fun duking it out with whoever keeps modbombing me.
"Modbombing"? Your comments have been voted down by regular users of HN. You've been here long enough to know how this works.
In a different article, someone downvoted a comment in which I requested a reply, rather than a downvote of the parent.
Tonight's activity leads me to believe my cyberstalking friend from Kuro5hin has finally turned up.
It's hard to say, he's generally anonymous.
Tonight's activity leads me to believe my cyberstalking friend from Kuro5hin has finally turned up.
It's hard to say, he's generally anonymous.
Don't be paranoid. Most guys here aren't evil, they just appreciate humbleness, politeness, honesty and facts.
Regular users voted you down because you backed controversial claims by appeal to authority or your education.
Also, you wrote comments without reading the article, which is usually considered bad here.
Regular users voted you down because you backed controversial claims by appeal to authority or your education.
Also, you wrote comments without reading the article, which is usually considered bad here.
Works fine in lynx.
Over my Mom's dialup?
It's 2015. Your mom could probably get DSL for the same price that she's paying for Earthlink.
She's too far from the phone office for DSL, and she is completely convinced that were she to get comcast cable, no one would ever be able to email her, ever again.
Oddly she is completely cool with using webmail from cybercafes - she travels quite a lot.
Mom isn't stupid, she only acts that way.
Oddly she is completely cool with using webmail from cybercafes - she travels quite a lot.
Mom isn't stupid, she only acts that way.
You are making up fake excuses now. You've downloaded about as much text from HN just to reply to the threads here than it would have taken to read the original article.
The original document is 185512 bytes. The download can be read locally in 'links' with no additional network connections. At 28.8Kpbs that's a bit over a minute. Even with a noisy connection, that's well under the 21 minute gap pointed out elsewhere between your posts.
There is no reason to drag your mother's beliefs into this. Simply stop at "I don't have good internet access." All else is needlessly placing the blame or shifting the focus elsewhere ... that being your willingness to completely ignore the topic and instead name-drop your own history, connections to authority, and personal beliefs - even when they have no basis in fact.
The original document is 185512 bytes. The download can be read locally in 'links' with no additional network connections. At 28.8Kpbs that's a bit over a minute. Even with a noisy connection, that's well under the 21 minute gap pointed out elsewhere between your posts.
There is no reason to drag your mother's beliefs into this. Simply stop at "I don't have good internet access." All else is needlessly placing the blame or shifting the focus elsewhere ... that being your willingness to completely ignore the topic and instead name-drop your own history, connections to authority, and personal beliefs - even when they have no basis in fact.
Not sure how I'd feel if my optician prescribed me a telescope.
opticians make telescopes. Optometrists write prescriptions for eyeglasses. Optometric opticians make eyeglass lenses.
Opthalmologists diagnose and treat disease of the eyes. An optometrist can perform an opthalmological exam but cannot prescribe medicine nor practice eyeball surgery.
Opthalmologists diagnose and treat disease of the eyes. An optometrist can perform an opthalmological exam but cannot prescribe medicine nor practice eyeball surgery.
Google Define:
optician ɒpˈtɪʃ(ə)n/Submit nounBRITISH a person qualified to prescribe and dispense glasses and contact lenses, and to detect eye diseases ( ophthalmic optician ) or to make and supply glasses and contact lenses ( dispensing optician ). US a dispensing optician.
optician ɒpˈtɪʃ(ə)n/Submit nounBRITISH a person qualified to prescribe and dispense glasses and contact lenses, and to detect eye diseases ( ophthalmic optician ) or to make and supply glasses and contact lenses ( dispensing optician ). US a dispensing optician.
In my understanding, a dispensing optician is a different thing than either an optometrist or an opthalmologist.
There are some good reasons one requires a professional prescription from eyeglasses; if you wear the wrong lenses for any length of time, it can screw up your eyesight. Although the effect is commonly temporary it _can_ be debilitating.
So a dispensing optician would be someone who sells eyeglasses, given a prescription from an optometrist or an opthalmologist.
It is quite definitely the case that opticians make telescopes. From time to time I call myself an astronomical optician. I don't grind glass much anymore but I am quite good at making astronomical telescope optics.
There are some good reasons one requires a professional prescription from eyeglasses; if you wear the wrong lenses for any length of time, it can screw up your eyesight. Although the effect is commonly temporary it _can_ be debilitating.
So a dispensing optician would be someone who sells eyeglasses, given a prescription from an optometrist or an opthalmologist.
It is quite definitely the case that opticians make telescopes. From time to time I call myself an astronomical optician. I don't grind glass much anymore but I am quite good at making astronomical telescope optics.
I'd better tell my optician to change the sign outside the shop then...
Pardon me while I drop by the chemist's shop to pick up some fuming nitric acid, sulfuric acid and glycerin.
[deleted]
Most of these people were old, many engineers (edit: which the article agrees with) with a former basic knowledge of physics. They kinda reminds me of the old professor in the movie "Proof", that has lost grip on reality and invented his own "proofs". Or the movie "A beautiful mind" when he's on his worst. It's a bit sad, really.