Posted: Sat May 24, 2003 12:21 pm Post subject: Einstein's Religion
You all know that Albert Einstein was deeply religious in his pantheistic veneration of the physics of nature. No scientist today should be surprised to learn that Einstein was completely wrong about true religion. This paper is about outrageously religious ideas in the philosophy of physics.
Einstein's greatest blunder in science was his stubborn, unrealistic faith in a deterministic universe. His belief in a mechanistic interpretation for all natural law is widely recognized as a direct denial of quantum physics and the Hebrew Bible. Einstein would express his faith by saying, "Gott wurfelt nicht!" (God does not play dice!) Of course God plays dice with light and matter. God not only plays dice with the universe, —He cheats. (I don't mean to review the philosophical/religious underpinnings of quantum mechanics in this paper).
Einstein's second greatest scientific blunder, which he never repudiated, was his fallacy of no absolute time order for all events in the universe and that we may not conceptualize time being divided into an absolute past, present and future.
Albert Einstein wrote:
For us believing physicists, the distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion, even if a stubborn one.
Einstein's sophistry about time order being relative is clever and compelling but it's inconsistent with Einstein's favorite cosmological model. All of Einstein's watchful, guarded reasoning in the famous train and embankment gedanken experiment derails itself in a spatially closed and bounded universe. I will demonstrate how an absolute time order follows from the laws of physics in Einstein's universe. The argument is easy. Here are the key ideas:
If a law is a true law of physics, then it's true everywhere, for all time. There is a universal speed law of light propagation. It's impossible to prove global theorems about time order with an insufficient array of synchronized clocks. A consistent, global view of synchronization and spacetime, based on a universal speed law of light propagation, outranks all local, partial and limited views of the universe.
Eugene,
You make ole "Albie" sound like an Atheist when in reality he was sort of a "Deist", believing in a "higher power".
Having said that, I must say that being a Deist just isn't quite enough to get you to God's kingdom so I hope that just before that last heartbeat, he somehow found the faith to "bow the knee" to Jesus, I'd really like to see the guy in Heaven.
Just one evidence of the truthfulness of my assertion is this statement from Albert Einstein himself:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." Source: from a 1954 letter to an atheist. (Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press, 1981.)
Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2003 1:55 pm Post subject: Should Religious Relativists Worship a New Axiom of GR?
I posted the following message in the newsgroup sci.physics.relativity.
I propose that all religious relativists should worship a new axiom of general relativity.
Instead of the praise and adoration given the non-science of relative simultaneity in a universe with a presumed (S^3)xR topology, I think that scientists should start worshipping the more reasonable possibility of an absolute time order, based on the trivial physics of SxR.
If the unanimous belief of professionally trained relativists like Dr. Tom Roberts is correct, then the assumed non-existence of an absolute time order on SxR, (S^2)xR and (S^3)xR isn't provable; it isn't math or physics; it's just semantics. If that is true, then we could just as easily replace non-order with order.
What do you all think of my proposal of adopting the new axiom?
Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2003 4:50 pm Post subject: The newsgroup sci.physics.relativity
Bill Hobba wrote:
I came across this really interesting quote:
'to do good science you have to doubt everything including your ideas, your experiments, your conclusions'
My observation is 'what a load of bunkum'
If you doubt everything then no progress can be made. What good science is about is asking the right questions. Basically most questions will lead you nowhere; but occasionally you strike a gem - and that is what creates progress. For example Einstein asked 'what a light wave would look like if you moved with it'; and constructed SR. Dirac asked 'what would happen if I did not reject the minus values of my equation as unphysical' and we had the hole positron theory. Examples abound.
I contend it is not about doubting it is about asking the right questions. Any fool can doubt. It takes an Einstein, Landau, Feynman or a Dirac to ask the correct questions.
What do others think?
I believe that you've stated a tautology. Consequently therefore, I also believe that there's greater merit in your quote than in your opinion.
The truth is physicists are incredibly narrow-minded in their hostility to mathematical reality. My observations are that most physicists are so hopelessly indoctrinated by the established paradigms that they don't even have the will or the inclination to tolerate any logically consistent alternatives.
I perceive true physicists as mathematicians at heart who have escaped the standard pseudo-scientific brainwashing and, seeing the beauty of physics and their responsibility to society, have an inclination to confront the profoundly religious beliefs of physics.
Bob Kolker wrote:
Logical consistency is necessary but not sufficient. Theories must have some kind of experimental support to be plausible. But more important than the theories are the questions. It is questions that drive science.
In the realm of physics, Facts rule, Theories serve.
You really ought to read Isaac Newton's rules of hypothesizing in Book 3 of -Principia Mathematica-.
> Logical consistency is necessary but not sufficient. Theories must have some kind of experimental support to be plausible.
SxR has all the experimental validity of SR. However, its existence as a viable alternative to SR is despised and rejected.
> But more important than the theories are the questions. It is questions that drive science.
Questions that praise the prevailing paradigm are accepted.
Questions that refute the prevailing paradigm are rejected.
> In the realm of physics, Facts rule, Theories serve.
Your statement is both naïve and false. I have presented facts and conclusions that are provably true and undeniably counter to the physicists' paradigm, yet the facts and provable conclusions are judged as unworthy of circulation, recognition and scrutiny. Why? In the realm of physics, prejudice rules. Theories are worshiped.
Bill Hobba wrote:
>SxR has all the experimental validity of SR. However, its existence as a viable alternative to SR is despised and rejected.
Your theory is only locally equivalent to SR. The reason it is rejected is not experiment, but the same reason LET is rejected - you make unnecessary and unwarranted assumptions. There is no reason to propose - a priori - that the world has this circular geometry. Just as there is no reason - a priori - to propose we have an aether. It is much more reasonable to suppose it is Euclidean - this is the natural geometry we find around us.
You misunderstand my purpose completely. In this forum I write as a mathematician, not as a religious relativist extolling the outrageous pretension that physicists comprehend the only possible, almighty and all-glorious nature of the universe. To a mathematician, presupposing that 3-space is infinite and Euclidean or one of several spherical space forms like RP^3 (projective 3-space) or S^3 (a hypersphere) are equally reasonable hypotheses. It is you with the unwarranted assumption that one of these spaces is more reasonable than the other! Where's your proof? Where are your empirical arguments? The presupposition that empty space must be flat and infinite in extent is the most unjustified and ignorant belief of all religious dogma. Stop protesting SxR by citing religious decrees. I am only selecting a different axiom set and asserting a viable alternative to Einstein's special relativity theory.
To argue in 1805 that a mathematician had no right to conceive of Minkowski spacetime until physicists were forced to abandon Galilean spacetime is an idea too medieval and barbaric to be tolerated. How dare that mathematician entertain axiom sets not sanctioned by the high priests of physics?
Bill Hobba wrote:
Yes we believe the universe is bounded but that is the domain of GR not SR. And the basis of GR is not adherence to a particular geometry (only in a very limited sense of considering pseudo Riemannian geometries) but the specific rejection of any prior geometry - geometry (or more specifically the metric) is a dynamical variable in GR. Thus your idea of proposing a priori a circular universe is at odds with GR. This is the reason I believe one of the fundamental ideas of GR is no prior geometry. It is this idea that forces us to consider the metric as a dynamical variable from which the most reasonable Lagrangian gives the EFE's.
Euclidean space is the simplest of spaces (mathematically speaking). Empirically, Euclidean geometry used locally has worked splendidly. Just look at the Pyramids for empirical support.
> The presupposition that empty space must be flat and infinite in extent is the most unjustified and ignorant belief of all religious dogma.
It is not dogma. It is heuristic. If there is no reason for believing the spatial manifold is curved, why assume that it is? Simplicity is a reasonable heuristic choice, especially in the absence of any countervailing empirical evidence.
Robert Kolker,
Your praise for Egyptian Pyramids has been noted. Your reliance on religious denials is nonsensical. In spite of your extremely devoted religious protestations, the rational mathematician still says that SxR, (S^2)xR and (S^3)xR exist in themselves as consistent mathematical models of spacetime. Deny this all you want. It is trivial that special relativity on a circle, sphere and hypersphere are viable alternatives to Einstein's SR theory. I'm not faulting you for being blind or religious. I fault you for NOT believing in modus ponens.
Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2003 12:09 pm Post subject: A variety of newsgroups
The Outrageous Pretension that Physicists Comprehend the One and Only Possible Universe
Einstein said, "What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world." Thanks to the extraordinarily brilliant Theory of Everything, Einstein's metaphysical curiosity has been transmuted into an empirically verifiable scientific theory and answered fully. It is now certain that God had no choice in either the creation of the universe or in selecting any of its physical laws. The brainwashing is so complete that physicists either can't conceive of or refuse to acknowledge the most trivial alternatives to SR.
Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2003 10:45 am Post subject: Re: A variety of newsgroups
Ronald Stepp wrote:
Re: The Outrageous Pretension that Physicists Comprehend the One and Only Possible Universe
BS Filter Activated.
You are just pretending that you have understanding. Here is the meaning of my riddle.
The heading is the thread name and a relevant thesis title.
The first sentence is an accurate Einstein quote. The next sentence is just sarcasm based on Einstein's remark and harmonizes perfectly with my thesis title. The sentence after that repeats the outrageous pretension of most physicists that no choices were made in the creation of the universe.
The last sentence is both a summary and conclusion.
The posted link verifies my assertion.
If at first, you didn't recognize any sarcasm, then consider yourself tested and proven to be outrageously narrow, unseeing and impatient.
Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2003 3:53 pm Post subject: The newsgroup sci.physics.relativity
Mechanistic Philosophy is Obviously False
There is a philosophy in physics that alleges that the universe is mechanistic. Mechanistic philosophy is the central pillar and faith of the overwhelming majority of crackpots. Mechanistic philosophy is obviously false.
Richard Feynman once said, "I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, 'But how can it possibly be like that?' because you will go down the drain into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that."
Richard Perry wrote:
What do you mean by mechanistic?
I define 'mechanistic philosophy' as the belief in determinism, especially the belief that spacetime and everything in it can ultimately be described as we usually understand machines. I mean mechanistic in the extreme: The idea that the essential laws of physics--fields of force (gravity, electromagnetism, the weak and strong nuclear force), quantum theory, relativistic effects, the nature of time, the properties of matter and energy--are all derivable from a correct mechanical understanding of the aether fluid. Mechanical: All forces are contact forces and/or something else equally simplistic.
Richard Perry wrote:
There is nothing in Feynman's statement supporting your conclusion. There is no logical connection.
Sure there is. These newsgroups are infested with persons absolutely obsessed with the delusion that they understand the fundamental basis for a theory of everything. They're certain that everything can be explained through their mechanistic philosophy.
Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:04 pm Post subject: Lines of force
Daniel Weston wrote:
It seems to me that in your post you used "mechanistic" to mean different things. It would be a big help if you could let us know what you think a non-mechanistic philosophy is.
I've just elaborated on the mechanistic philosophy in my reply to Richard Perry. A non-mechanistic philosophy would be any system of thought opposed to that. The belief that God plays dice with the universe and that all fundamental physics is essentially quantum based, is a non-mechanistic view of physics.
Daniel Weston wrote:
For example, if I accept the validity of the EM field and the gravitational field, am I accepting a mechanistic philosophy or non-mechanistic philosophy?
I think of the equations of electromagnetism as a purely mathematical summary of all known empirically verifiable properties of the EM force. Quantum effects are ignored. Aggregate, non-quantum approximations are highlighted. Visualizing an EM field as something objectively occupying space and pretending it has a real existence on its own is purely a creation of the human mind. Likewise, there's no objective scientific reason to believe that powerful EM fields emanate from charged particles. Correspondingly, there's no rational reason to read Maxwell's equations as a measure of electromagnetic force resulting from a mechanical strain on an invisible, luminiferous ether. Maxwell's equations merely express how charged particles behave in empty space or in different media where aggregate material properties are summarized by dielectric constants.
If you believe that the earth moves in its orbit around the sun because the earth is stuck in a constantly flexing eddy of luminiferous fluid or, alternatively, is naturally sliding on a slippery spacetime fabric, then yes, you have embraced a mechanistic belief.
"There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2004 9:52 am Post subject: Re: The Emptiness of Theology
Richard Dawkins wrote:
What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious?
I wouldn't have hope and joy without faith in the everlasting gospel. I believe that the gospel is demonstrably true and is not obvious to you.
There is only emptiness in false theology. True theology is only beneficial for those who believe.
You believe in a childishly simple, mechanical universe. I say that it is only your faith and understanding that is mechanical, childish and simple. Richard Feynman once said, "I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, 'But how can it possibly be like that?' because you will go down the drain into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that."
If you take a look around the newsgroup sci.physics.relativity, you'll find plenty of crackpots and physicists who don't believe in mysteries. It's the majority that needs to take a break from their deeply religious peddling of mechanistic philosophy and consider true physics. Is quantum theory obvious? Was it obvious to Albert Einstein? Did Einstein even believe in consciousness?
There are clearer and more accurate statements about quantum physics in the Bible than in the physics newsgroups.
There is an emptiness in physics. The universe, according to physicists, is driven by an irrational purposelessness. According to the Bible, mankind has been given the power of consciousness. Nature is not self-acting. God is the power upholding existence. He is continually working through His creation and His laws, using them as His instruments.
"Whatever the LORD pleases He does,
In heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deep places.
He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth;
He makes lightning for the rain;
He brings the wind out of His treasuries." Psalm 135:6,7.
"He spreads the snow like wool and scatters the frost like ashes." Psalm 147:16.
The Lord is constantly employed and using as His servants the things that He has made. Said Christ: "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." John 5:17.
The universe can't even exist apart from God. "He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." Colossians 1:17.
"In Him we live and move and have our being." Acts 17:28.
While it's true that the Biblical view of physics anticipated modern quantum theory, it doesn't take a Sir Roger Penrose to have confidence in consciousness and to realize, as a consequence, that quantum mechanics is incomplete.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
