Physicists Hunt for Mirror Universe to Explain Neutron Decay Mystery & Dark Matt

Started by Unbeliever, July 08, 2019, 02:29:34 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Cavebear

Quote from: josephpalazzo on July 20, 2019, 06:42:33 AM
I admire your optimism, but I don't share it, not for the immediate future. Physics needs a revamp, and most likely with a new generation. Changes only come with great pain. We haven't gone through that pain, though there are cracks beginning to show.

Um, if "revamp" was not explicit in my previous post, let me say that is is my expectation now.  I think that our current theories of reality is/are getting a bit too weird and that "The Next Genius" is going to help us return to something more comprehensible.  I have no more idea what that will be than the generation before Newton did.

But I am pretty sure that there will be a serious simplification of our concepts sometime in this century.  I say that without the least bit of evidence or any suggestion of what a new concept might be.  I just think that the universe is not quite as weird as the spacetime/quantuntheory/stringtheory/multipledimensiontheories suggest.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Unbeliever

Quote from: Cavebear on July 20, 2019, 07:49:37 AM
I think that our current theories of reality is/are getting a bit too weird and that "The Next Genius" is going to help us return to something more comprehensible.

Hell, I think the current theories aren't weird enough - the universe isn't just weirder than we suppose, it's weirder than we can suppose.
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

Cavebear

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 20, 2019, 02:03:51 PM
Hell, I think the current theories aren't weird enough - the universe isn't just weirder than we suppose, it's weirder than we can suppose.

Well, yes.  But a simpler theory could be even weirder than our current ones.  "Weider" doesn't HAVE to be more complicated.  I'm thinking like how Copernicus eliminated epicyles.  And sun-centric counted as "weird" at the time.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Unbeliever

Copernicus didn't entirely eliminate epicycles:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDgxYp8RCfA


So the Copernican heliocentrism still had epicycles, which were removed by Kepler's elliptic orbits.

God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

Cavebear

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 20, 2019, 03:00:47 PM
Copernicus didn't entirely eliminate epicycles:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDgxYp8RCfA


So the Copernican heliocentrism still had epicycles, which were removed by Kepler's elliptic orbits.

Yes Kepler.  I KNEW I didn't like Copernicus as the answer.  I'm losing some memories.  I went from Copernicus to Newton...
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

It is commonly mis-taught, that Copernicus' heliocentric system as simpler.  It was Kepler who simplified things, though until Newton explained why, nobody could rationally justify elliptical orbits vs the "perfect" circle model.  In recent times it was shown that Ptolemy had retouched his data, to make his system work.  Fake science.  He might have needed to add additional epicycles to improve the match.

Unbeliever and my recent postings on Fourier analysis is the best explanation as to why epicycles were used.  They made sense at the time, if everything had to be based on circles.  With enough epicycles, you can trace out a Homer Simpson orbit.  Kepler could only use observation to justify his ellipses.  It took Newton to explain them.  And for the orbit of Mercury it was still off.  But science avoided the temptation of adding epicycles.  It took Einstein to justify the precession of the orbit of Mercury.  The force at that close distance is a bit off from 1/r^2.  1/r^2 gives you perfect Newtonian orbits.  That is why Newton chose that as part of his gravity formula.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

Quote from: Cavebear on July 20, 2019, 05:59:37 PM
No, it isn't.

I think, initially, the "simpler" of Copernicus (he actually used more epicycles than Ptolemy) would only be apparent to an expert.  Ellipses are much simpler than either system.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Quote from: Baruch on July 20, 2019, 07:25:48 PM
I think, initially, the "simpler" of Copernicus (he actually used more epicycles than Ptolemy) would only be apparent to an expert.  Ellipses are much simpler than either system.

In retrospect, 2 orbital bodies and a common center of gravity not the center of one seems obvious  Giants of the retrospective obvious we stand on...
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

trdsf

Quote from: Cavebear on August 20, 2019, 12:09:57 PM
In retrospect, 2 orbital bodies and a common center of gravity not the center of one seems obvious  Giants of the retrospective obvious we stand on...
And Kepler came up with ellipses without a theory of gravity, which is nothing less than brilliance.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Baruch

Quote from: trdsf on August 23, 2019, 07:18:14 PM
And Kepler came up with ellipses without a theory of gravity, which is nothing less than brilliance.

He had originally tried Platonic Solids ... to explain the planets.  But yes, Kepler was a brilliant applied mathematician.  He took Brahe's observations (two angular measurements of position vs time) and then converted that to non-circular orbits.  Since it was truly simply than either Ptolemy or Copernicus ... it seemed just right.

In our time, both the graves of Brahe and Copernicus were found.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Quote from: Baruch on August 23, 2019, 10:59:30 PM
He had originally tried Platonic Solids ... to explain the planets.  But yes, Kepler was a brilliant applied mathematician.  He took Brahe's observations (two angular measurements of position vs time) and then converted that to non-circular orbits.  Since it was truly simply than either Ptolemy or Copernicus ... it seemed just right.

But he had the correct equation but made a simple error and missed the right answer for a couple years.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

Quote from: Cavebear on August 24, 2019, 12:21:55 AM
But he had the correct equation but made a simple error and missed the right answer for a couple years.

I treat you, like you treat me ;-)  Please provide links.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Quote from: Baruch on August 24, 2019, 12:57:54 AM
I treat you, like you treat me ;-)  Please provide links.

First, oops I meant Kepler.  And it was mentioned in the Sagan or Tyson Cosmos series.  I can't find it online.  The reference is to Kepler having actually found the correct formula for planetary  orbits using a ellipse but made a mistake and passed it by only to return to it later and seeing it worked.  Does anyone have a similar recollection and/or link?
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

I may recall that, now that you mention it.  One can see, given the intellectual prejudice of the time, that anything non-circular might be ... ignored initially.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.