Was Tesla right?

Dumb old guard.

>>8935172
>Tesla
>Dumb
Pick one.

>>8935176
*picks two*

>>8935151
No

>>8935269
Nice argument you've got there.

>>8935151
>94% of the universe is some spooky shit.

Yes. But he didn't provide a competing theory, so we're working with what we've got.

>>8935366
nice burden of proof u got there

>>8935366
Tesla was wrong. Plain and simple. He was an aether guy, he thought both relativity and QM is bullshit. Two of the most significant theories of modern physics. Experimentally verified ad absurdum. Yeah, he was just wrong.

>>8935151
No. Special and general relativity have both consistently been verified by experiment.

>>8935408
>Experimentally verified ad absurdum.
>>8935480
>Special and general relativity have both consistently been verified by experiment.
Not true. There have been experiments made, yes, but the results of those experiments aren't proofs that Einstein was right. They have just been interpreted that way due to wishful thinking and confirmation bias.

>>8935151
Sort of but since he provided nothing better he was kind of just being a dick

No. He was an engineer, not a scientist. Realistically, he couldn't pass a modern real analysis course. He was a brainlet who knows how to smash things together, congratulations.

>>8935151
>Was Tesla right?
I've not read the pic, but I'm going to say no.

>>8935408
einstein was also an aether guy

whats your point?

>>8935151
Tesla was usually wrong, except for a few times. He's also a hypocrite for saying that, having never verified most of his work which obviously didn't work the way he thought.

File: IMG_5172.jpg (82KB, 709x639px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 709x639px

>>8935151
Yes, he is. Einstein knew he was wrong, but still published his work anyways. He just got lucky that what he was wrong about could be viewed as having physical meaning outside of being a fudge factor (cosmological constant).

The reality of the situation is that general relativity cannot be quantized, and is only marginally correct, however our undying acceptance over it forces us to work around its very obvious limitations, rather than find a better, more useful theory.

Tesla knew the Copenhagen interpretation was bullshit, and it is, and as a result of this bullshit, you have cucklords like Ed Witten winning a fucking fields medal by connecting unphysical theories on an 11-dimensional superbulk, calling it meme-theory, and people thinking that it actually speaks to reality.

This is physics bro. When you have infinite solutions to the problem and you cherry pick the one that best fits reality, you're fucking all of us in academia.

>>8935151
>this is your brain on engineering

>>8935986
You don't know shit about how science works. Everyone already knows "Einstein wasn't right." Except all that really matters, however, is that relativity is the best theory we have so far. And yes, relativity and QM have not only both been experimentally verified, but the theories are imortant in engineering things like GPS and lasers.
>>>/pol/

File: pepe 1440367323181.jpg (7KB, 250x237px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 250x237px

>>8936174

>>8936165
>I don't know shit about physics beyond pop-sci: The Post.

>>8935986

You clearly don't know what you're talking about, so I'd like you to tell me some experiments you think are just confirmation bias and not genuine indicators that relativity and QM are right. I mean obviously there are holes in any theory we have, so "right" might be a poor choice, but I mean it in the sense that it's blatantly incorrect

>>8936150
The aether he talks about is nothing like the aether tesla believid in. My point being, Tesla believed in a theory that was experimentally rejected in 1880s.
>>8935986
Mr philosopher, by right, we mean "better than anything we had at the time". And to this day, if a theory disagrees with relativity, it is considered (rightfully so) wrong. It is the best theory of gravity that we have for the macroscopic scales. And even though it might seem unintuitive or "wrong" to you, or it might disagree with your worldview, QM is here to stay. Learn some math and go read textbooks. When you finally accept QM, it's time to get your mind blown by Polchinski

>>8936199
I'm not that guy, but:
>I compose my posts out of buzzwords for lack of any valid counter-argument: the post

>>8936248
Counterargument to what? There's no argument in that post.

>>8936165
Woit please. Your opinions on M-theory are irrelevant. Leave or i'll link how you got bitchslapped by Polchinski

>>8936188

1) QM has not been experimentally varified. QM arises from the observation of discrete spectral lines, which the theory links to discrete atomic energy states. The wave function is a strictly mathematical concept. The Schrödinger equation gives correct answers because it is a laplacian/d'alambert type differential equation, and has harmonic solutions. To our current understanding and by looking at fourier's theory, everything can be discribed by a superposition of harmonic wave functions. You could come up with a theory of matter that is based only on maxwell's equations. The main problem I see in QM is that it does not make any varifiable predictions, and in contrast, experimental results have been steadily modifying quantum mechanical theory to a point where hardly noone understands what the right hamiltonian, the right fermi sphere or the proper energy levels or energy potentials are. Not only is it a mess to deal with unknown chemical structures, it is a much bigger mess to come up with an explanation that fits into the quantum mechanical narrative.

2) The popularity of Einstein boils down to lorentz contraction factor and E=mc2, which both cannot be attributed to Einstein alone. Einsteins tensor theory is unintuitive and hardly produces any experimentally verifiable claims. I simply refuse to believe that relativity plays a role in correct GPS functionality because GPS still has a high amount of uncertainty involved, something you can observe by driving with a GPS-based navigator or even by looking at US GPS-guided missiles missing their destination by miles, which happened so often after 9/11 that they had to fall back on UAVs. The theory of relativity might be formulated in a similar way to maxwells equations, with a GE and a GM field, which would allow for a much simpler understanding of gravitational waves, that have only recently been observed and arise naturally from a d'alambert-type differential equation.

>>8936362
As if I want to read about some schleb talk about its mathematical beauty.

Perhaps reread OP's quote. Doesn't matter how good the seasoning is, KFC still has shit-tier chicken.

>>8936488
>This post
Holy fuck.

>>8936488
>Engineer
>Is actually a retard

Kek.

>>8936626
If you want to ignore one of the most prolific figures in string theory on the notion of 'i don't like the idea', then be my guest. Ignorance is bliss. Luckily for humanity, the woits, smolins and penroses are just a vocal ignorant minority in the field of theoretical physics. Sad thing is, laymen will listen to them, because people who are actually knowledgeable are too busy with research

>>8936664
Does Penrose not like string theory either?

>>8936672
Certain (fundamental) aspects of it. For example, he doesn't like that string theory predicts everything that can be predicted.

Can we just talk about the Tesla stuff he was working on after AC?

>>8935374
Honestly relativity is the one making claims, the burden of proof lies on those who make the claims. Yes there is lots of evidence relativity is right but it doesnt explain quantum mechanics and it doesnt absolve itself of all error just because it makes predictions. Im not claiming relativity has errors im just saying its very unscientific to claim it doesnt.

>>8936774
>relativity is right but it doesnt explain quantum mechanics
This is why people don't take you seriously.

>>8936641

Well then, enlight us with your intelligence.

Explain some observable phenomena, like the energy levels of neon molecules obtained by raman spectroscopy, using a quantum mechanical description.

What are the wavefunctions for each of neons 10 electrons?

How do I calculate the energy involved between the wavefunctions as electrons enter an excited state?

How do I predict what color a neonlamp will glow if I apply an ac voltage of A volts and f frequency?

>>8936777
Its doesnt. Try to combine GR with QM, if you succeed you will be a very rich man.

>>8936798
You're an idiot. Relativity isn't supposed to "explain quantum mechanics", what you're talking about is unification, something completely different.

>>8936798
It's called string theory and it's very active and fruitfull area of research

>>8935151
Physicists are scientists...meta or not. For a wizard his spelling was weak.
:3

File: quote-i-hold-that-space-cannot-be-curved-for-the-simple-reason-that-it-can-have-no-properties-nikola-tesla-102-33-88.jpg (104KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 850x400px

>>8935151
Tesla was like a million times smarter and more accomplished than the morons who criticize him in this thread. And yes, he was right about relativity.

>>8936813
Except it was acting on something...
Gravitational "nodes" Bosons....

>>8936813
While he was undoubtedly more intelligent and accomplished than the entirety of this uzbeki yak-milking forum, that doesn't make him immune from being wrong.

>>8936798
wow good job. you watched a physics documentary and are now an expert

>>8936778
>Explain some observable phenomena
Okay
>Double slit experiment
Say you have two slits, separated by [math] d [/math] and a screen some distance [math] L [/math] away, after working through the geometry
we find that a particle would travel [math] x = \sqrt { L^2 + (d/2 - y )^2 } [/math] from slit one, so we have that [math] \langle y | 1 \rangle \langle 1 | y \rangle \propto e^{ i/ \hbar ( px -Et ) }[/math] Now obviously we want to compute [math] | \langle y | i \rangle |^2 = | \langle y | 1 \rangle \langle 1 | y \rangle + \langle y | 2 \rangle \langle 2 | y \rangle |^2 [/math] So put [eqn] x_1 = \sqrt { L^2 + (d/2 - y )^2 } \approx 1 + \frac { ( d/2 - y )^2 } { 2L^2 } \\ ~ \text { And } \\ x_2 = \sqrt { L^2 + (d/2 + y )^2 } \approx 1 + \frac { ( d/2 + y )^2 } { 2L^2 } [/eqn] Then [eqn] \langle y | i \rangle |^2 = | e^{ i/ \hbar ( px_1 -Et ) }+ e^{ i/ \hbar ( px_2 -Et ) }|^2 [/eqn] Which after substitution and some fairly tedious algebra, becomes: [eqn] | \langle y | i \rangle |^2 = 4 \cos^2 \left ( \frac { pyd } { 2 \hbar L } \right ) [/eqn] Which produces an interference pattern that is exactly what is observed.

>Energy levels of hydrogen
Another simple one, I'm not going to solve the Schrödinger equation here, but the result is [eqn] E_n = - \left [ \frac { m } { 2 \hbar ^2 } \left ( \frac { e^2 } { 4 \pi \epsilon _0 } \right )^2 \right ] \frac { 1 } { n^2 } [/eqn] Again, exactly what's observed.

cont...

on the subject of tesla and electricity, does that mean that gravity is simply another electrical force that we haven't detected yet

>>8935187
*slaps you*

>>8936778
cont...

>Energy levels of Helium
You mentioned a very specific example, that of a Neon sign, unfortunately I'm not familiar enough with the operation of Neon signs to be able to go into any detail, and there is no exact solution to the quantum n-body problem, just some approximation schemes. So for Neon you'd need to move to some quantum chemistry package, perhaps someone else here can do this. But we can look at the next simplest atom, the Helium atom. Now the actual calculation isn't that hard but is quite tedious, but you can find it in Griffiths page 300-303. Anyway to second order we find that the ground state energy is [math] E_1 = -77.5 ev [/math] while the experimental value is [math] E_{exp} \approx -79 ev [/math]

>Van der Waals interaction
In chemistry we know that there is a weak, short range force between near by polarisable atoms. This is the Van der Waals force. Suppose that we have two molecules a distance [math] R [/math] a part, modeled as an electron (of mass [math] m [/math] and charge [math] -e [/math] ) connected by a spring to a nucleus (charge [math] + e [/math]), seperated by some distance [math] x [/math] we can write the Hamiltonian for this system as just being some uncoupled oscillators, ie [eqn] H^0 = \frac { p^2 _1 } { 2m } + \frac { 1 } { 2 } k x_1 ^2 + \frac { p^2 _2 } { 2m } + \frac { 1 } { 2 } k x_2 ^2 [/eqn]Now drawing the system allows us to show that the Coulomb interaction is [eqn] H' = \frac { 1 } { 4 \pi \epsilon _0 } \left ( \frac { 1 } { R } - \frac { 1 } { R -x_1 } - \frac {1} { R + x_2 } + \frac { 1 } { R-x_1 + x_2 } \right ) \approx - \frac { e^2 x_1 x_2 } { 2 \pi \epsilon _0 R^3 }[/eqn]Where we expanded in the last equality (since R >> x ). Now to second order in perturbation theory (the first order approximation vanishes) cont...

>>8936902
cont...
[eqn] E = \sum \frac { | \langle \phi _n | H' | \phi _0 \rangle } { E_n - E_0 } = \left ( \frac { e^2 x_1 x_2 } { 2 \pi \epsilon _0 R^3 } \right )^2 \frac { | \langle 1 | x | 0 \rangle |^2 |\langle 1 | x | 0 \rangle |^2 } {(\hbar \omega - 3 \hbar \omega ) } = -\frac { \hbar } { 8m^2 \omega ^2 } \left ( \frac { e^2 x_1 x_2 } { 2 \pi \epsilon _0 } \right )^2 \frac { 1 } { R^6 } [/eqn] So we have an attractive potential proportional to the reciprical 6th power of distance, exactly the Van der Waals force.

>Other effects
You also have things like the Stark and Zeeman effects. And then QFT (the unification of QM with SR) predicts and explains the Lamb shift.

>Scattering
I'm not going to go into scatter too much, but needless to say all modern particle theory scattering experiments affirm the validity of QM (and by extension SR).

>>8936488
not sure if trolling

>>8936931
Isn't it obvious just by that name?
>engineer talking about theoretical physics

>>8936813
>space can have no properties
What is it then? Having a dimension is quite a property.

>>8936975
>What is it then?
Space is the sum of all places. It is where things are, not a thing in itself. Talking about "bending space" makes no sense.

>>8936983
Don't worry, after you go through undergrad math, you will see how bending space makes perfect sense

File: quote-miss-never-trust-a-jew-nikola-tesla-272054.jpg (40KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 850x400px

Was he right. /sci/?

>>8936488
nice

File: IMG_5103.jpg (29KB, 247x248px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 247x248px

>>8936664
>for humanity

String theory isn't useful, and Penrose is completely correct about it.

>vocal minority
>layman

Lol? Do you even fucking think about that? Most people will agree with whatever Michio Kaku blabbers about on the science channel, which coincidentally is an underserving praise for a non-physical, empty mathematical framework that sort of resembles reality if you suffer from cognitive dissonance.

String theory research is a dying meme, and literally everyone in the field knows this. It's a dead end, and more and more people are figuring that out. So, in being "too busy with research," you mean to say, "too busy desperately trying to find anything remotely physical about the theory such that they can continue being a glorified pure mathematician and plaguing the advancement of physics," right?

>>8937067
Damn bro u mad, did a hung, virile, string theorist cuck you or something lmao.

>>8936664

well said

string theory is beautiful but hard and thats what pisses brainlets off (including certain subpar physicists)

File: motlmoazcu.jpg (81KB, 487x650px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 487x650px

this is you on string theory

>>8937067
How is string theory not useful? It predicts all that can be predicted. In its current state, it might not give what you would like, but that doesn't change the fact that it's the most likely candidate to GUT. There's a lot of work to be done, sure, but it's fare from useless.

Most people don't even know what QM is and are eager to say 'copenhagen is wrong' after reading a book written by some crackpot because there simply isn't a proper book on QM for layman. The only sympathy for strings i met was among theoretical physicists. Most people i know subscribe to Woit and his buddies and totally dig his nonsense.
I can't understand what goes in their minds. I'm no climate scientist so i don't go dictating them that they're wrong after reading an article by that MIT skeptic prof. It makes me angry that they feel the need to comment on things they don't understand, even worse, on one of the most difficult topics to grasp in physics. QM is hard. String theory is much harder, not just from mathematical standpoint- there are plenty of mathematicians who think strings are just math on vixra. It's hard, there are very few people who understand it and that makes people mad. I get it, i used to get mad that someone was better at something than me. I too used to get into arguments about things i barely understood (and got rekt). It just gets tiresome to hear the same things from all the armchair experts all over again.
If you don't like strings, go to theoretical physics and come up with something better, meanwhile we will put effort into the most promising theories even though they turned out to be much more difficult. Good luck.
>>8937107
He's a pretty smart guy. Too bad his internet personality is a bit too much to bear. His lectures were one of my favourite, he was passionate. Quite a loss for hep-th.

>>8937067

>String theory research is a dying meme, and literally everyone in the field knows this.

You arent in the field for sure, so stop talking out of your behind. String theory dominates theoretical physics for a reason. If anything this domination only increased over last decade, and there is simply no other alternative on the horizon for physics beyond the standard model. ST is here to stay.

The situation in the field is such that new experimantal data is very hard to get and so naturally theory has outpaced experiments quite a bit. But this is not specific to string theory, it is a problem which applies to entire high energy theoretical physics field.

>>8937035
100% right.

>>8935408
To me the principle of Dark Matter itself looks very much like aether.
It's everywhere, we can't detect it, and it influences matter.
We don't even know if the relation goes both way (matter influencing Dark Matter), and we don't know if it interacts with itself.
It could be anything, really.

>>8937221
heterotic M-theory

>>8937240
>heterotic M-theory
Sorry mate, I stopped paying attention to string theories a long time ago.
Extra dimensions may really be a thing, but I don't know that we'll ever be able to prove it. Let alone experiment with it to find which string theory is correct.

>>8937259
Thats my problem with it, it feels like discussing philosophy when no progress is to be made

>>8937259
Bad for you then, because it will take quite a long while until phenomenology catches up with theory. But sure, put your time into incomplete or wrong theories if you so will. Just don't pretend we don't have any idea- because we do.
>>8937268
There's constant progress being made in string theory. Where have you been the last 30 years?

>>8937279
>put your time into incomplete or wrong theories
Implying that's not what string theories are all about.
Here's the catch.
You finally settle on a model that predicts cosmological evolution, quantum mechanics, as well as dark matter.
Congratulation, you can't prove it's actually what's happening.
If you can't observe extra dimensions, you literally can't design an experiment because you don't have all the parameters.

>>8937288
The trick is to combine QM with mathematics. To visualise the info and logically adopt to it as it reveals itself. Works like a charm if you know your geometry. The jump to 4d can only be understood if you know how to jump from 2d to 3d.

No half A presses.

>>8937288
String theory is complete. It's "just" a matter of putting in (enormous) effort to find the right model. Even without observing the extra dimensions, you will end up with some set of models that all have considerable predictive power. You will never what is actually happening. All we have are models that give some predictions. If the predictions correspond with experiments, it's right. If they don't, it's wrong.

>>8937295
>>8937299
Well I must be retarded, then.
It's still all theoretical though.
I fully understand why it's a thing.
Maybe someday we'll come up with a loophole that allows us to prove the model by observing only the incomplete picture we get from space-time alone.
Ring me up when it's done.

>>8936867

Thank you for your detailed summary. Im sorry, i should have worded it differently, like "explain some observable phenomena that can only be described by QM/schrödinger equation".

>double slit experiment

All you do mathematically is taking two radial waves and looking at their intensity along a fixed line, assuming superposition. I am not arguing about the wave nature of light.

>energy levels of hydrogen

Has been known well before the foundation of quantum mechanics. If you assume a positive radial potential, then tweek around with maxwells equation, im fairly certain you can come up with a similar result for the distribution of space charge akind to s/p/d... orbitals - they are the solution of laplace equation in a spherical potential.

>Van der Waals interaction

You derive the energy using a classical oscillator model.
While this is useful for real life (Drude-Lorentz...), it has little to do with Schrödinger. You could also formulate a hamiltonian for a real mass-spring, does not make the hamiltonian any more valid over a Force-DEQ.

Again, you have to understand that I'm not questioning observed data, just the textbook statement that QM/Schrödinger is the only best way to describe it. Especially because you state that there is
>no exact solution to the quantum n-body problem
thus rendering the application of the theory to predict energy transitions next to impossible. Which leaves us with a theory that is difficult to understand, can only be applied with lots of restrictions, modifications and careful considerations, and can hardly be used in a real life scenario.

Now think of standard EE. The building blocks are all there (R,C,L), the theory is solid and relatively easy to grasp, deduced only from observable phenomena - and the applications are everywhere.

So my intuition tells me the building blocks of matter have not been properly understood, especially in regards to how difficult it is to predict light/matter-interaction.

>>8937317
You don't get it if you are willing to leave a theory with maximal predictive power in favor of what? Either nothing or some incomplete theory. But alright, just don't discourage others from strings please

>>8937332
>String theory
>Not seeing the toroidal wave functions as they pass through higgs fields

>>8937338
>where did i leave my gravity?

>>8937338
>tfw tube theory
>tfw it will never catch on
>Fractals of tubes birthed from a string, transparent and ever expanding into nothingness
>tfw music of the universe
>tfw just want the music to stop so I can think

>>8937332
Well by all means go on.
I can't predict if there's anything to it, and neither can anybody at this stage.
The ride might never end, and we'll keep having to add parameters forever.
Just because someone thought maybe an extra dimension would help the model, and look how much we're at the exact same spot as he was.

File: 1495005143798.jpg (86KB, 561x606px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 561x606px

>>8937279
Not alive for 9 of those for one :^)

>>8937330

Perhaps to put emphasis on my line of though once again, consider the following anecdote.

There used to be a time when Maxwell's equations were formulated by Hamilton's quaternion mathematics. While undoubtfully correct, handling the mathematics was an incredibly tedious task, and hardly anyone could understand or operate the equations. It took Heaviside to come up with the modern vector notation, which is much simpler and allows for fast computation of the E/M fields, thus we can simulate something like the coil configuration of Wendelstein 7-X.

It seems to me we are at a similar place in regards to quantum mechanics - the puzzle parts are all there, but they are yet to be put in a proper way to have a clear picture.

I could very well be wrong, and would like to be corrected, so I can turn my attention to something more productive.

>>8937388
>but they are yet to be put in a proper way to have a clear picture.
The picture of QM is completely clear, I don't understand why you think otherwise

Tesla is right, but jew won

>>8937330
>Has been known well before the foundation of quantum mechanics.
Sure, from old quantum mechanics. But that didn't generalise to multi-electron atoms, which is one reason it was ditched.
>then tweek around with maxwells equation
Maxwell's equations are just a specific instance of a more general QFT.
>You derive the energy using a classical oscillator model.
It's explicitly non-classical since it relies on the solution of QHO
>thus rendering the application of the theory to predict energy transitions next to impossible.
Classical mechanics has no exact solution to the n-body problem either, is that useless as well?
>So my intuition tells me
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *inhales* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Why don't you actually try and derive equivalent results in a consistent frame work? You claim that you should be able to do it, but don't.

Why are tripfags universally terrible?

>>8937900
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
Why bother with anyone above 0?
Apparent from his name, he's either a troll or severly underqualified to bring a valid criticism of QM.

Many deluded morons in this thread.

>>8935151
>Was Tesla right?
Yes.

>>8939151
On which side of the argument?
Also does strain theory unify or replace Relativity?

>>8935151
>>8936813
Holy shit what a beta reddit faggot.

File: cute-baby-polar-bear-day-photography-35__880.jpg (102KB, 880x551px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 880x551px

(((Relativity))) is a jewish lie purposely created and pushed by (((some))) to spread the acceptance of (((cultural relativism))) many years down the line.

>>8939349
This.

>>8935151
No. He is a complete hack.

>>8936813
LOL. You seriously believe a retard who today is popular because pop and pseudo scientists think he is cool is smarter then the combination of 100 years of physicists.

Tesla would be a complete nobody if not for the "free energy" conspiracy theories.
He wasn't even a real scientist, which is clear from his disregard for mathematics.

>>8935408

Interstellar medium tho. 50 atoms per cubic meter isn't nothing.

>>8939979
What's that got to do with anything?

File: kramer niggers.jpg (10KB, 240x180px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 240x180px

>>8940030

Given your lack of reading comprehension, I've decided to take the time it would take to explain this to you and insult you instead.

>>8935151
Completely. It will be proven in the next 50 years.

""... Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curving of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies, and producing the opposite effects, straightening out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible - But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena."

"My second discovery was of a physical truth of the greatest importance. As I have searched the entire scientific records in more than a half dozen languages for a long time without finding the least anticipation, I consider myself the original discoverer of this truth, which can be expressed by the statement: There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment." "

Tesla was wrong.
So was Einstein regarding Quantum physics.

Even our geniuses can't get everything right, it's ok op.

>>8935151
We have to account for relativity in orbit, or the GPS go to shit. What do you think?

>>8941566
Tesla isn't saying it's WRONG, he saying it's a bandaid that ignores the problems. It's not the whole picture.

>>8941536
>what is gravitational gauge invariance and the failed hole argument?
>what is elementary kinematics of radioactive decay?
what a fucking pleb of all plebs

>>8941635
you're a cunty little faggot. dude's asking questions. let's burn him at the stake.

>>8941687
huh?

>>8936629
You'd know these buzzwords if you have taken calc III, Math Phys, and QM. What he is saying holds up and is a reasonable basis that relativity, like most things, has its flaws. However he nor anyone elese on this board can generate the intuition to explain how a new Explination would work better.

>>8941575
That's why we discovered strings behind QM. It's fthe whole picture and not only for our, but for any other hypothetical universe

>>8935408
Aether does exist. It's called plasma.

http://bigbangneverhappened.org/

>>8935408
On the topic of aether: he was closer to being correct.

Recent discovery says reality is vibrations within layers of quantum fields. This layer of fields is basically the corrected version of the aether (a medium of which allows light to propagate in a vacuum). Even admist the vacuum of space, these layers of fields exist, allowing light to propagate, and can even create virtual "particles" in their vibrating. Might as well just call all these fields "the aether"

This turned out to be a rather nice thread.

>>8941704
>What he is saying holds up
No.
> he was closer to being correct.
Also no.

>>8939976
>He wasn't even a real scientist
I keep seeing that as an insult, but you do realize that engineers are the ones who make things that actually work irl. Tesla's understanding of EM waves allowed him to create and demonstrate a radio controlled boat over a century ago. His thoughts on the wireless transmission of power have been verified by modern experiments.
>https://web.archive.org/web/20150510072057/http://globalenergytransmission.com/index.php/en/latest-news/27-examining-working-principle-of-tesla-tower
His designs for electric motors, alternators, transformers etc are still used to this day and have only been improved by more modern materials.
So be careful when you castigate someone who has a unit of magnetic flux density named after him you just make yourself look like a fool.

File: Some_dumbass.jpg (64KB, 371x131px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 371x131px

>>8942788
>Tesla's understanding of EM waves
Nigga had a pre-Maxwellian understanding of EM.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tCcDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA171&lpg=PA171&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

>>8937221
dark matter is already debunked gramps

>>8942963
I thought that it would be all over the news if relativity and string theory was wrong. Or do you have a source that isn't vixra or some crackpot's blog post?

>>8942975
dark matter is just gravity

>>8936847
take that back. this is the best uzbeki tak-milking forum there is

>>8937035
truly a mad scientist

>>8942977
"just gravity" doesn't quite convey the whole story. You might have as well just said that you agree with string theory instead of making it sound like you dig some crackpot's ass-juice.
>>8942991
The only science going on right now is the guy that's dumping his thesis over at the fermi gas state thread. In that regard, this kyrghyz goat-shaving club is not doing quite as well as some people here like to think.

>>8935373
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

>>8943140
gib link to gas thread, cant find in catalog

>>8943629
Already dead. So now, there's a grand total of 0 actually interesting threads on /sci/. All that's left is gulible brainlets giving-in to some contrarian crackpot's bullshit, climate "science" and trolling.

>>8943629
>>8944508
Well there's this. >>8937250

>>8935151
Not in this case.

Tesla didn't need relativity in the work that made him famous. He was also batshit insane in 1935.

>>8942807

>implying the photoelectric effect wasn't explained by 'particles of energy' by einstein

>>8944697
>What is wave/particle duality.
Tesla conceptualized EM waves in the same way Newton did.

>>8936817
This

>>8936641
BTFO

>>8935151
dude sounds pretty triggered and im pretty sure he's been proven wrong so i think hes full of shit desu

File: Feynmann_Diagram_Gluon_Radiation.svg.png (7KB, 279x178px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 279x178px

>>8936488
I understand you saying that all we can ultimately base our understanding of reality on is fourier transforms, but understand that the Fourier Series could be something very unique and related to human perception. The whole point of Q.E.D is to unify electromagnetism and special relativity. MAXWELL's equations only describe interactions of charged particles and they never mention mass. Tesla who was at heart an engineer who couldn't (by nature of lack of microelectronics) use quantum mechanics to his advantage. Einstein and others were brilliant because they were able to think outside the confines of classical electromagnetism and explain things about light that EM could not.

>>8939976
>complete nobody.

are that fucking unread you don't know that tesla invented three phase power and AC transmission? Yeah the world would have been a great fucking place if we were still using DC for bulk power consumption.

File: 1464812247468.jpg (533KB, 1920x1182px) Image search: [Google]

533KB, 1920x1182px

>>8935151
Nikola Tesla is brilliant, but he was simply working in a different area of physical science. Here's the thing, the theory of general relativity and the theory of special relativity have both been proven correct through nearly a century of tests trying to disprove them. If relativity were wrong, someone would have found out by now. Time dilations and contractions, and the curving of light due to gravity. It all fits Einstein's model. It is not praised for nothing.

>>8935151

No.

But empiricists are incapable of truly understanding rational logic.

The former is just animalistic observation, the latter is human thinking. Few people are human, we already knew this.

>>8946275
Nigga what? Special relativity was included in Maxwell's equations from the start, no one noticed it until Einstein and Minkowski and Poincare pointed out that there is a symmetry group acting on these equations that previously went unnoticed mathematicians. QED was meant to unify electromagnetism with quantum mechanics as previously E&M was only used in an ad hoc way in QM which was good enough to derive some basic stuff about atoms but was not a complete theory.

>>8943621
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether
> It was invoked to explain the ability of the apparently wave-based light to propagate through empty space, something that waves should not be able to do

How does relativity explain this?

>>8946286
He didn't invent either, you moron.

>>8935151
Bit he didn't fix it? You literally have to know how it actually works in order to make this claim. Bream out the maths bro. It's not even metaphysics by today's definition though.

Also, my feelings for Tesla are the same as I have for any God. Fine by me but I can't fucking stand their fan clubs

File: 1484873758606.jpg (92KB, 500x688px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 500x688px

>>8936174

>>8935172
>>8935187
>>8935408
I'd trust the guy who actually made physically viable inventions based on his theories than the guy who proposed invisible particles and only has writing unverifiable theories as his only accomplishments.

>>8947315
>i'd rather believe a mechanical engineer over theoretical physicist when it comes to theoretical physics because mechanical engineer makes stuff i can use
Ayyyo

>>8947338
>theoretical physicist is correct because he has an idea and builds on it as well as being hailed as smart by people in power.

>Ctrl+F
>Ultraviolet catastrophe
>Phrase not found

>>8947344
Theoretical physicist is correct because all experimental evidence agreeswith him and his theory has more predictive power. Simple, isn't it?
Tesla was smart, but he went batshit crazy later in life. His opinions on relativity are completely irrelevant. QM? He didn't have the mathematical tools to understand it. We know what happens to fools who try to talk above their level. See Polchinski's bitchslap to Woit. The same would have happened to Tesla if anyone took him seriously at the time.

>>8947375
>All experimental evidence agrees with him
>more predictive power
How exactly does the evidence agree with him, how do we know that the experiment supported him and wasn't just interpreted in his favor based on the theory he layed out before hand? Just because it seems correct doesn't mean that it is.

>He went batshit crazy later in life
>His opinions on relativity are completely irrelevant
>He didn't have the mathematical tools to understand it

Now your just attacking Tesla, not his argument. And as for the crazy spiel, it's not that difficult to appear crazy or insane.

>>8947375
>See Polchinski's bitchslap to Woit.
S...source?

>>8947448
>You cannt no nuffin: the post

>>8947448
Oh you're one of those... Well, we can never know what's really going on. All we have are different theories giving different models. It turns out some models give better predictions than other. The model which gives the most accurate predictions is considered correct. You can play math all you want, but if you want "your" theory to agree with latest experiments, you will get QM. I get it, people really don't like QM because of the role of the observer or perhaps because of the indeterminism. Some even hate that they have to give up either locality or realism. But get over your ego already, it is the best model we have, it's not going anywhere (just like strings) and even if it were, the successor would be the same in this regard.
I'm not attacking Tesla, just noting that the rational thing to do is listen to actual experts, not a crazy man. Crazy people tend to make up things (like dynamic theories of gravity;)

>>8947464
https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.06145v1
Woit’s amateur psychoanalysis of Weinberg (which is typical of the writing of string
theory on his blog) shows no understanding of how science actually works. Indeed, it seems
to show little interest in science at all. It is disturbing to me that my colleagues in other
fields might believe this of Weinberg, or for that matter believe that Woit has anything useful
to say about science. His writing shows no respect for science, for scientists, and ultimately
no respect for himself, if this is the best that he thinks he can do.
As for his anonymous colleague X who believed that Weinberg was senile in 2005, looking
at the work that Weinberg is still doing ten years later, I confidently assert that whatever
scientific success that X produced on the best day of his or her life, it was less deep and
significant than what Weinberg is still doing today, past the age of 80.

>>8947572
Woit BTFO

>>8946485
>If relativity were wrong, someone would have found out by now.
Very dangerous assumption, especially considering the rest of our beliefs are based on it.

>>8947315
>I'd trust the guy who actually made physically viable inventions based on his theories

Who is that? Because it wasn't Tesla.

Tesla didn't have any theories. He just fucked around with this randomly until he got something that worked. If he did occasionally stop to think about theory, it was generally wrong and backwards.

And then there's also the viability of his inventions. Seems he kept misrepresented them and was considered by many of his contemporaries to be a fraud or hoaxster. Even in his glory days at Westinghouse, it was probably his assistants keeping him propped up. And it wasn't too long before they sacked him and invented better devices.

Didn't this nigga not believe in electrons?

>>8948743
>nigga
kys lardass

File: schroedinger-cat-news.png (224KB, 564x446px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 564x446px

>>8937120
>the most promising theories

How can anyone call String Theory "promising" when it has gone on for half a century without making a single confirmed prediction?

And """predicting""" gravity from the existence of a spin 0 boson does not cut it. We knew about gravity already.

I can believe people know something if they can

* Predict things better than someone else. ST = FAIL.

* Explain things more simply and parsimoniously than someone else. ST = FAIL.

* Design things that work better than someone else. ST = FAIL.

* Fix stuff better than someone else. ST = FAIL.

Theorists are moving away from ST because it is a dead end. Witten will die without a Nobel.

I don't have a better idea but ST is not going to get us there. It would be better to admit we have no idea.

>>8947572
>Woit’s amateur psychoanalysis of Weinberg

> take side comment
> attack it as though it was of the slightest significance
> avoid taking on Woit's substantive criticisms

Hardly a bitch-slap.

>>8948794
>And """predicting""" gravity from the existence of a spin 0 boson does not cut it.
Actually it predicted a spin 2 boson. Which is significant, because:
>Phenomenologically we expect the graviton to be spin 2
>A spin 2 elementary or composite boson can't be part of any relativistic field theory (cf. Weinberg-Witten theorem)

See Faraday..

>>8948794
>How can anyone call String Theory "promising" when it has gone on for half a century without making a single confirmed prediction?
It took a while to confirm relativity and QM. What makes you think we're capable of confirming some predictions exclusive to strings (like susy)? Theory is just way too far ahead of phenomenology.
>And """predicting""" gravity from the existence of a spin 0 boson does not cut it. We knew about gravity already.
Gravity was always a plug-in in every other theory. It naturally arises from string theory. Why do you comment on this if you can't get the spin number right?
>*Hurr durr muh applications
Yeah. String theory won't make your bread cheaper. That's not its purpose. It's purpose is to clarify how the Nature works. It offers quite elegant explanations.
>Theorists are moving away from ST because it is a dead end. Witten will die without a Nobel.
String theory is only getting more support. So far, it's been a tremendous success, but the low-hanging fruit is already gone so naturally, the progress is slowing down. That's why it might seem to you that people are moving away from it. Nobel prize was always a phenomenological thing. I don't think anyone expects a string theorists to get it any time soon. Witten is still THE theoretical physicist.
>I don't have a better idea but ST is not going to get us there. It would be better to admit we have no idea.
You have no idea. Strings are the most promising theory so far. No amount of Woits and Smolins is going to change that.

>>8948801
Woit has been repeating himself for the past 10 years. His "substantive criticisms" have been already refuted ten times over. This was just fun and even more fun was Woit getting butthurt over it and making Polchinski edit it. Maybe he's slowly accepting that no one significant takes him seriously.