Live data from Hacker News

Einstein's Other Theory of Everything

nautil.us

71–80 of 138 posts

Re: Einstein's Other Theory of Everything

#71
post #70

As a physics student, I feel compelled to point out, to any readers who might now go read Hossenfelders other articles, that many of her views are generally not shared by a majority of physicists today. She is a real physicist and not a kook, but she has been criticized for presenting her views (e.g. superdeterminism) as having much more acceptance than they actually do. She ignores and misrepresents counter-argument…

Is there any scientist science communicators that this criticism wouldn't apply to?

As far as criticism goes, I appreciate how professionally you stated this PSA. Most don't make the same points as gracefully. Best of luck with your studies.

Re: Einstein's Other Theory of Everything

#72

naively, i'd wonder if the time properties of black holes could be used to effect local super-massive gravitational effects on entangled particles here. e.g. they figured out how to entangle the electron and proton of a hydrogen atom with a complementary particle that is being pulled into a black hole, like if there were a way to entangle or entrain a local atom with hawking radiation from a black hole, where as the…

While something like this could be an interesting idea for a sci-fi novel, this is not at all how quantum entanglement works. Entanglement doesn't make one particle "[adopt] the dilated time/gravity of its remote counterpart", it just refers to a perfect correlation of certain measurements of the two particles. For example, if you produce two particles that you know have zero total momentum, but don't measure the mom…

interesting, content to be wrong based on an absolute ignorance of the topic. my laymans read of photon entanglement had to do with how it was described in quantum key distribution, where entangled photons maintained a kind of polarization state between each other over a long distance, where the observation of one of them caused a state change at the other "end". this idea of remote causality was what implied that the properties of one end of an entanglement could operate on another.

when I looked up whether other particles could be entangled in the same way, the analogy seemed to map, but the logical errors appear to be, a) assuming there is time between the entangled photons as there's no t in p = mv, b) then that there is time dependent information between the photons, then c) extrapolating that some property of black holes might operate on that relationship.

thank you for indulging!

Re: Einstein's Other Theory of Everything

#73
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An electron falling (electrostatically) toward a proton will reach the speed of light at some point. No, it won't. A correct relativistic analysis of the relative motion of the electron and proton will show their relative speed never reaching c, let alone exceeding it. You can't just plug numbers into Coulomb's Law for this case, because Coulomb's Law by itself is not relativistically correct. You need to use the f…

> You can't just plug numbers into Coulomb's Law for this case, because Coulomb's Law by itself is not relativistically correct. Sorry if this is a bit pedantic, but as someone trying to study this at the moment, I don't see this the same way and I'd like to validate my interpretation: You can just plug numbers into Coulomb's law, that part is correct. But then the problem of infinite velocities comes from interpreti…

Hi greysphere, you are definitely correct that one primary thing preventing velocity of the electron from exceeding than the speed of light is the presence of gamma in the relativistic force law, aka \partial_t (m_e \gamma v ) = q_e(E + v \times B), although the LHS doesn't quite equal \gamma m_e a, since \gamma also depends on v...

In general I think it's fine to use Coulomb's law as an approximation in this case because the proton is much heavier than the electron and so we can just stay in the proton's reference frame and let the electron fall in from infinity (and we're ignoring QM and just doing relativistic EM here). We could also switch to a tritium nucleus and make it a bit better of an approximation, or indeed add a whole bunch more neutrons and get lucky that they don't beta decay to make it an arbitrarily good one. It is true that if the proton starts moving that you will no longer have a pure Coulomb field with respect to the original reference frame, as after a Lorentz boost the E field gets squished into the transverse direction somewhat, and you'll gain a B field swirling around the proton...

Staying with the frozen proton approx, if we plug numbers in we get quite a bit of energy: set the proton radius r_p to 1E-15, and we get U = q_e^2 / ( 4 \pi \eps_0 r_p ) ~ 1.4 MeV, or a gamma of about 4, so yeah, it would be moving faster than c if we stayed with Newtonian mechanics. But there's another wrinkle: the 1.4 MeV of liberated potential energy won't all go into the electron's relativistic kinetic energy, because it is accelerating like crazy, especially in the final femtometers, and that acceleration (essentially Bremsstrahlung, although its not braking here) will generate an intense pulse of EM radiation as well - a decent fraction of the 1.4 MeV will go into that instead. You could perhaps estimate how much using the Larmor formula (in general calculating this radiation reaction force precisely becomes very complex, because the excitation of the EM wave modifies the acceleration, which modifies the excitation of the EM wave etc... And, now looking on Wikipedia, I'm not surprised to see that the first QM version of the calculation was done by Sommerfeld).

So yeah, the electron will zip through the proton, with much of the potential energy converted to an EM pulse that zips off to infinity, and so the electron is now bound to the proton, and will continue to zig zag back and forth, emitting more radiation until it comes to a rest inside the proton. So yeah, we do need QM after all.

Re: Einstein's Other Theory of Everything

#74
post #70

As a physics student, I feel compelled to point out, to any readers who might now go read Hossenfelders other articles, that many of her views are generally not shared by a majority of physicists today. She is a real physicist and not a kook, but she has been criticized for presenting her views (e.g. superdeterminism) as having much more acceptance than they actually do. She ignores and misrepresents counter-argument…

Is there any scientist science communicators that this criticism wouldn't apply to? As far as criticism goes, I appreciate how professionally you stated this PSA. Most don't make the same points as gracefully. Best of luck with your studies.

Neil deGrasse Tyson; if he is working on a s riot prepared by someone else like on a TV Show, he is quite a nice communicator. But, if he does not have such a script, I would say unless he is debunking a flat earther or some actor’s mythical views of mathematics, I would just ignore it. If he talks about biology, which he often does, I would just leave.

Re: Einstein's Other Theory of Everything

#75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any scientist science communicators that this criticism wouldn't apply to? As far as criticism goes, I appreciate how professionally you stated this PSA. Most don't make the same points as gracefully. Best of luck with your studies.

Neil deGrasse Tyson; if he is working on a s riot prepared by someone else like on a TV Show, he is quite a nice communicator. But, if he does not have such a script, I would say unless he is debunking a flat earther or some actor’s mythical views of mathematics, I would just ignore it. If he talks about biology, which he often does, I would just leave.

He comments on fields in which he’s unqualified, and his remake of Nova had a ton of unnecessary swearing. And goes on TV and talks about politics. That’s when he lost me.

Re: Einstein's Other Theory of Everything

#76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't just plug numbers into Coulomb's Law for this case, because Coulomb's Law by itself is not relativistically correct. Sorry if this is a bit pedantic, but as someone trying to study this at the moment, I don't see this the same way and I'd like to validate my interpretation: You can just plug numbers into Coulomb's law, that part is correct. But then the problem of infinite velocities comes from interpreti…

Hi greysphere, you are definitely correct that one primary thing preventing velocity of the electron from exceeding than the speed of light is the presence of gamma in the relativistic force law, aka \partial_t (m_e \gamma v ) = q_e(E + v \times B), although the LHS doesn't quite equal \gamma m_e a, since \gamma also depends on v... In general I think it's fine to use Coulomb's law as an approximation in this case be…

To follow on a bit, the wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung links to a paper by Weinberg: https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.11168 and a quick skimming shows that he's perfectly happy to use the Coulomb field as an approximation...

Re: Einstein's Other Theory of Everything

#77
post #70

As a physics student, I feel compelled to point out, to any readers who might now go read Hossenfelders other articles, that many of her views are generally not shared by a majority of physicists today. She is a real physicist and not a kook, but she has been criticized for presenting her views (e.g. superdeterminism) as having much more acceptance than they actually do. She ignores and misrepresents counter-argument…

Is there any scientist science communicators that this criticism wouldn't apply to? As far as criticism goes, I appreciate how professionally you stated this PSA. Most don't make the same points as gracefully. Best of luck with your studies.

The host of PBS Space Time, Dr. Matt O'dowd, seems to be pretty unbiased.

Re: Einstein's Other Theory of Everything

#78
post #25

An electron falling (electrostatically) toward a proton will reach the speed of light at some point. This is of course the same distance where inside it would need an escape velocity greater than c. So that's an event horizon due to a different force. Some claim matter falling into a black hole never really does from the point of view of an outside observer. I've seen weird sounding descriptions like it "spreads out…

> Some claim matter falling into a black hole never really does from the point of view of an outside observer. Such claims are wrong. The correct statement is that the outside observer never sees the matter reaching or falling inside the event horizon. But that's not because it never happens; it's because the spacetime geometry prevents light emitted at or beneath the horizon from getting back out to the outside obse…

In a hypothetical pure GR universe what you're saying is correct, but our universe also includes QM and that makes BH physics much more subtle, e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewall_(physics) and we can't state things with such certainty...

Re: Einstein's Other Theory of Everything

#79
post #70

As a physics student, I feel compelled to point out, to any readers who might now go read Hossenfelders other articles, that many of her views are generally not shared by a majority of physicists today. She is a real physicist and not a kook, but she has been criticized for presenting her views (e.g. superdeterminism) as having much more acceptance than they actually do. She ignores and misrepresents counter-argument…

[deleted]

Re: Einstein's Other Theory of Everything

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neil deGrasse Tyson; if he is working on a s riot prepared by someone else like on a TV Show, he is quite a nice communicator. But, if he does not have such a script, I would say unless he is debunking a flat earther or some actor’s mythical views of mathematics, I would just ignore it. If he talks about biology, which he often does, I would just leave.

He comments on fields in which he’s unqualified, and his remake of Nova had a ton of unnecessary swearing. And goes on TV and talks about politics. That’s when he lost me.

Sagan was political, more so than Tyson. Sometimes science intersects with politics in ways that can’t be avoided. Nuclear proliferation, land management, etc. So how can you just turn off any scientist who touches politics? Or is it just a certain kind of politics that turns you off?
Post reply on HN