Go Back   Physics Help Forum > Physics Forums > Philosophy of Physics

Philosophy of Physics Philosophy of Physics Forum - Philosophical questions about our universe

Like Tree3Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Jan 11th 2014, 04:18 AM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 8
ok, so now were on the same page :)

thats what i meant in the first post with the image i ve uploaded, that now that we discovered that antimatter exists, the image and the concepts in that image could be to some degree a reason of why and how gravity work like it works, whit a lot of erroes and holes. but are another way of understanding gravity.

I found very interesting the paragraf you uploaded, that einstein explained the way space and time works , how they are affected by gravity, but that could also lead indirectly to what gravity is and how it works at a conceptual level, well like you said nobody knows that yet so

thats why i found it interesting of thinking of that concept of matter and anttimater fighting for space , and compresing each other, in an intent to reach equilibrium, and call that gravity, and visualayz it like the famous video of a planet bending the fabric of space (represented by a 2d or 3d mesh), in the einstein relativyt theory, but from a slightly diferent perspective.... just an idea
vrgdaniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 11th 2014, 04:24 AM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 8
also about the big bang , i agree totaly whit the idea of it, which i found has no sence that time and space the universe it self were generated at that moment, that before there was nothing, something must have made the big bang happen, that something means automaticly that time did existed before, and the universe must have materialyzed in to something, so that something must have been there before, if the first law of termodinamycs is truh, that energy only transforms, why at the moment of the big bang we assume that everthyng even time was formed out of nothing, it makes muhc more sence to see it as a cicly that repates its self....so this is one of the concpets behind the ideas in the image ive uploaded
vrgdaniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 15th 2014, 04:12 PM   #13
MBW
Senior Member
 
MBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Bedford, England
Posts: 668
Returning to the original post

I like the idea of the misconceptions page.
The interest generated by your original post indicates that it could fly.

It could however cause friction, one persons misconception is another's unassailable truth!
It might cause a bit of a headache for the forum mediators...
MBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 15th 2014, 06:15 PM   #14
Pmb
Physics Team
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,491
Originally Posted by MBW View Post
I like the idea of the misconceptions page.
Originally Posted by MBW View Post
The interest generated by your original post indicates that it could fly.

It could however cause friction, one persons misconception is another's unassailable truth!
It might cause a bit of a headache for the forum mediators...


The moderators and myself talk about these. We put them up when it's a true misconception and not simply a matter of opinion, which is what you're referring to. A misconception is not subject to opinion but is a fact of physics.

For example; one common misconception is quantum mechanics implies that a particle can be in more than one place at the same time. That's a misinterpretation of orthodox quantum mechanics. No legitimate quantum mechanics teacher would ever teach something like that and it one can't arrive at such a conclusion or give any meaning to it with quantum mechanics.

Another misconception is that Einstein proved that gravitation is a curvature in spacetime. That's a misconception. Einstein not only never said that but when Max Von Laue sent him his new book on relativity for Einstein to review and it said that the existence of a gravitational field is determined by the presence of spacetime curvature Einstein disagreed with him explaining why and what the "correct" way was.

Another misconception is that Einstein never used relativistic mass. I know several examples where he used it, most notably in The Principle of Conservation of the Center of Gravity and the Inertia of Energy, Albert Einstein, Annalen der Physik, 20 (1906): 626-633. Also in his text The Meaning of Relativity.

I could go on and on. One of my areas of interest in physics is historical accuracy in special and general relativity.
Pmb is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12th 2018, 11:45 AM   #15
Pmb
Physics Team
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,491
Originally Posted by vrgdaniel View Post
regarding the latest post, like gravity a bend in the stuff that makes the antimatter, well camed from the fact that ensiteins saw gravity like a bend in space and time, ..
This is a common misconception too. Einstein never "saw" gravity in that way. That's a false claim that is widely propagated in the physics community. In fact Einstein wrote that in a letter to Max Von Laue in response to claim von Laue made in the book he sent Einstein to proof read. Einstein responded by explaining why it was wrong and misleading to think in those terms.
Pmb is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12th 2018, 12:28 PM   #16
Pmb
Physics Team
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,491
Another common misconception in physics is the notion that (relativistic) mass and energy are the same thing. They are not. In the first place mass-energy equivalence only means that if the internal energy or kinetic energy of a body increases then so too does the mass. It in no way means that they are the same thing. If the potential energy associated with position changes then there is no change in the mass of the body.

For this reason I use the term inertial energy to refer to the sum of kinetic energy and rest energy of a body since its this energy which is associated with changes in the inertia of the body.
topsquark likes this.
Pmb is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13th 2018, 03:41 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 143
Originally Posted by MBW View Post
I like the idea of the misconceptions page.
The interest generated by your original post indicates that it could fly.

It could however cause friction, one persons misconception is another's unassailable truth!
It might cause a bit of a headache for the forum mediators...
It's okay... where's the spice if there's no disagreement?
benit13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13th 2018, 10:05 AM   #18
Pmb
Physics Team
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,491
Originally Posted by benit13 View Post
It's okay... where's the spice if there's no disagreement?
What he suggested is far from true. A misconception is not subjective whatsoever. E.g. Its fact that Einstein never said or thought of gravity as a curvature in spacetime anymore than Newton thought that gravity is tidal force. They are related but far from being the same. If what I said was a matter of opinion I never would have posted it. I did so because these are misconceptions.

Take the notion of mass being a function of speed and the claims that its not true. Its not as if scientists discovered by experiment that mass doesn't depend on speed. Particle physicists were using and focusing their work on the properties of proper mass and had les use of it. They outnumber general relativists and cosmologists who use the concept. So people began to think it was a discovery or that they make a mistake in the definition along the way and corrected it. That's the misconception.
topsquark and benit13 like this.
Pmb is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 14th 2018, 05:51 AM   #19
Pmb
Physics Team
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,491
Another misconception is what it means for spacetime to be curved. Many people who don't understand the notion tend to reject it because they think of something having a material existence when they think of curvature. Those embedding diagrams don't help the situation at all. When its said that spacetime is curved its only meant in the mathematical sense. By this I mean that spacetime is a manifold (i.e. a special kind of set) consisting of events (a point in space at a given time). A manifold is said to be curved at a point when the Riemann tensor doesn't vanish at that point. The term "curved" originates as an analogy from everyday objects in the world which have a curved surface, like a basket ball. But there is no physical substance to which it pertains. Understand curvature only as an analogy and you'll be okay.
Pmb is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Physics Help Forum > Physics Forums > Philosophy of Physics

Tags
page



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Physics Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Common Misconceptions in Physics arbolis General Physics 38 Feb 28th 2018 11:18 AM
Terminology and "looking like physics" NicoleJS Physics Software 3 Aug 24th 2016 09:49 PM
Urgent! Project for Physics Class! "Air Train" of sorts. Crystal0513 Kinematics and Dynamics 1 Sep 13th 2013 04:36 AM
Friction physics problems.. understanding "mi"? abcmj Kinematics and Dynamics 1 Nov 12th 2009 12:34 AM
Does "attitude" mean "orientation"? s3a Light and Optics 1 May 30th 2009 11:27 PM


Facebook Twitter Google+ RSS Feed