Sadly, your ignorance about science is obvious, and you haven't learned much since I first came across your posts here.
They needed your practical skills and worked at making you feel at home.
Not that you are famous for inventing things.
You'd need better math skills that you seem to have to be able to do that. There are probably few text books that could get you up to speed, but you've never bothered over the past few decades.
CERN people were remarkably good at electronics when I ran into them when I was working in the UK and the Netherlands. I've published about ten rude comments in the Review of Scientific Instruments over the years
- the first was back in 1972 - and I don't have high expectations of the electronics skills of most physicists, but people with links to CERN were pretty impressive.
Max Planck didn't bother to send it out for peer-review.
Except that it isn't. It didn't get cleaned up by careful peer-review because it was already quite impressive enough to get Max Planck's attention as it stood.
Not exactly. It pulled together some ideas that were circulating and formed the basis of a whole lot of useful subsequent work.
There were three other Einstein papers in 1905. They were all pretty impressive
The errors turned out not to be fundamental.
Rubbish.
It seems so that we're each expected to have a familiarity and a facility and a fluency in the standard formalisms, _and their derivations_, then also _and their implicits_, and about that _the reductionist account was reduced from a wider account_.
The "shut up and compute" bit seems suffices with "facility", matters of convenience, in a sense, about the sensibility, fungibility, tractability of the descriptions of tendencies and propensities in attenuation/dissipation and oscillation/restitution.
Sort of like other professional environments, where everybody is expected to know everything.
Here there's no account of second-class citizens, of who-gets-to-say who-gets-to-say, it's the account itself that speaks for itself.
So, if somebody doesn't know that the convenient reductionism has _by definition_ lost something of itself its real character, we may call them ignorant and unweight their opinion. Then, when furthermore the real character and the empirical have means of a greater anti-reductionist account, then they do, it is what it is.
<snip>
They should do.
If they could look up the answer with Google, one has to wonder why they would ask the question here, where physicists are pretty thin on the ground.
I did check with Google and the artificial intelligence response seems to say they do, not that I'd trust it.
john larkin snipped-for-privacy@glen--canyon.com wrote or quoted:
|It is interesting to note that Bohr was an outspoken critic |of Einstein's light quantum (prior to 1924), that he |discouraged Dirac's work on the relativistic electron theory |(telling him, incorrectly, that Klein and Gordon had already |succeeded), that he opposed Pauli's introduction of the |neutrino. that he ridiculed Yukawa's theory of the meson, and |that he disparaged Feynman's approach to quantum electrodynamics. | footnote on page 23 in "Introduction to Elementary Particles" (1987)
- David Griffiths (David J. Griffiths)
And when Dirac met Feynman, the first thing he said (as I remember having read somewhere) was, "I have an equation; what do you have?".
It was also Paul Dirac (1902/1984) who told one young student that his theory, "was not even wrong", and who AFAIK, thereby, invented this expression!
You are confusing rest mass (which a photon lacks) with mass-energy.
The energy tied up in photon has mass, and that will have a gravitational effect.
Einstein talks about mass-energy, not mass, and clearly didn't have the same idea in mind as Newton had.
Wrong. The first LIGO observation was of two black holes merging
Not only do photons have mass, but gravity waves do too.
Nor do I much care.
See, I've never heard of them.
Yeah, yet who uttered:
"Gravity: it's not just a good idea: it's the law."
Here I got the AI's acknowledging quite a bit of one theory.
For example, there are quite a ton of comments on this video essay "Logos 2000: physics today".
They can behave in very different ways. Mass can stay put. Energy tends to travel at the speed of light.
Crossed laser beams don't seem to interact.
It doesn't seem to. The mass of most photons is pretty small, and when they are travelling at the speed of light they don't interact for very long.
But not thinking at all.
He's making a promise about his own behavior, which he is unlikely to carry out.
That's not being an obergruppenfuehrer. Fuss-budget would be a more accurate term.
Great line. I'll add it to my collection of quotes.
I like this one:
Experiment is the only means of knowledge at our disposal. Everything else is poetry, imagination.
- Max Planck
John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics
Yes.
Utter nonsense. >> If e and m are the same thing, why do people use two symbols?
They simply are NOT the same thing. Also, one uses "E", not "e", for energy.
Utter nonsense. Mass and energy are quantities, not physical objects.
They do if their energy is large enough. But the virtual leptons or quarks that are temporarily produced cannot be observed directly.
You could say that; it is *zero* :-D
Nonsense.
You, too, do not know what you are talking about.
F'up2 sci.physics.relativity
There is no such thing as "rest mass" (in modern physics). Rest energy (the total energy that an object has at relative rest) is sometimes called "mass energy" because it only comes from mass:
E_0 = m c^2,
where m is mass and c is the speed of light in vacuum. The rest energy of objects with mass zero, like photons, is zero: m = 0 ==> E_0 = 0. IOW, if they are free particles (no potential energy), their total energy is (equal to) their kinetic energy.
Nonsense. Energy does not "have mass", and mass does not "have energy". Those are physical quantities, properties of objects or physical systems, not objects themselves. One cannot "have" the other.
It is the energy (density) of photons itself that corresponds to the curvature of spacetime, and *that* explains a (miniscule) gravitational effect that light has on other objects.
It does NOT explain the deflection of light: light mostly follows the spacetime curvature that corresponds to the existence of *other* objects (*their* energy--momentum density), *particularly* those with non-zero mass (because their rest energy is already large thanks to the factor c^2, and if the mass density is large, so is the energy density).
He does not.
He does.
That much is true. Based on special relativity he discovered that, contrary to Newtonian mechanics, objects can have energy even when they are not in relative motion, due to and proportional to their mass. He wrote in 1905 in "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content?" (translated): "we are led to the conclusion: The mass of a body is a measure of its energy content" (it is that paper where E_0 = m c^2 comes from, even though he did not write it this way).
You should read his papers once; they are quite instructive and at least the first ones are written so that even laypeople can understand them (with some intellectual effort):
(Unfortunately, the Digital Einstein Archives are being commercialized now, so free versions of the official translations and the original papers are currently only available via the Internet Archive and some private repositories, respectively.)
No, the above is correct. (Contrary to what had been though previously, for example by Lavoisier, mass is NOT conserved; the _total energy_ is.)
... and has absolutely nothing to do with two *photons* interacting with each other. Apparently you have no clue what a photon is or what a black hole is, or you simply cannot read comprehensibly. Which one is it?
Correct.
Wrong conclusion. Also, for the nth time: gravity waves and gravitational waves are two different phenomena.
And which part of "Followup-To" do you people not understand? *facepalm*
Academics see the necessity for identifying and correcting errors. If you'd had any experience of the time that can get wasted on elaborating fundamentally silly ideas you be less tolerant.
There was a project at EMI Central Research for doing image reconstruction with ultrasound beams travelling through the human body in different directions. The guy - C.A.G.LeMay - that thought it up had lots of credibility. He'd invented the image reconstruction algorithm that made the EMI brain and body-scanners practical.
He ignored the fact that ultrasound beams - unlike X-rays - don't travel through the body in nice predictable straight lines. He did claim that you could get around this, but never explained how in any sort of convincing detail.
I was supposed to be the senior engineer supervising a team to build the hardware that would make his idea work. I was rude enough about the project that I didn't get stuck with the job, and the unfortunates that did get stuck with trying to make it work had to deal with his nasty habit of fiddling with the hardware after everybody else had gone home without document the the changes he'd made.
Their first job, every morning, was checking the machine for undocumented changes.
It didn't work, and wasted a lot of time and money.
I blame myself - and my boss - for not ridiculing the idea sufficiently energetically to get it thrown out. There are a lot more bad ideas than good ideas, and you do need to weed out as many of the bad ones as you can.
Notably, Thomas Heger is a well-known Internet/Usenet crackpot (like Dingle eventually became, just without the Net) whose own writing is so ripe with fundamental physical mistakes and misconceptions that he cannot be trusted to provide an informed review of Einstein's works.
Einstein submitted this paper to the "Annalen der Physik", and Max Planck was not the editor at the time to begin with; Paul Karl Ludwig Drude was.
Probably fiction. It is not clear when Planck became aware of that paper.
Depending on how you define mass. Newton had one definition.
Einstein had another. Light pressure does imply that a photon has momentum.
The photon is an interaction, not a particle. Thinking of photons as discrete particles leads to madness.
Jeroen Belleman
On my first impression he is just another loudmouth who is uncritically regurgitating third-hand 'knowledge' about non-electronis subjects.
I may be mistaken of course,
Jan
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required