Einstein … was mightily influenced by what the ex–patent clerk called Mach’s Principle[:] “the inertia of every element of matter is due to its interaction with all the other elements of matter in the universe.”
We haven’t fully followed that investigative road, Mead said. “Instead what we’ve done is we’ve treated isolated objects as if all their attributes were just given us, and [we] haven’t asked where they came from,” he said. “Things like the inertia of an object, the rest energy of an object, the velocity of light — all those things. We have a list of fundamental constants that we’re not allowed to ask where they come from.”
If we want to get that stalled 100-year-old revolution unstuck, Mead said, we’ve got to ask – and discover – where those constants come from, and not just believe in them as handed down by academics and buried in mountains of math. We need to discover their basis in the interactions and interrelationships of all matter in the universe.
This topic is also dear to me, because it’s something that has always been frustrating about Mathematics; something I hadn’t overcome until extremely recently when I began taking online Pre-Calculus courses at Khan Academy.
Unlike at a physical high school, online I have instant access to many teachers with an unlimited attention span: I can search for various sources on a topic until I get a thorough understanding of it.
In this way, I’ve finally been able to find explanations of constants and equations that are more insightful than just “So-and-so thought of it in 17-something-something. Now here — useit.” “But why? How?” I’d wondered. I’ve never felt comfortable with just using something that I could never have arrived at myself. Something like that is so incorporeal, so weightless, who knows if it wouldn’t just flit out of my memory? Even if I don’t yet have the mathematical background to derive something, a historical context and an intuitive explanation are essential to giving a concept a body — something to hold on to.
Either way, it would mean that the Universe is fundamentally nonlocal, in the sense that every bit of the Universe can be connected to any other bit anywhere, instantly. That such connections are possible defies our everyday intuition and represents another extreme solution, but arguably preferable to faster-than-light communication. “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them.”
— Researchers look beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory, Physorg, Oct 28, 2012
Einstein [May Have Been] Right: Space-Time Is Smooth, Not Foamy
Space-time is smooth rather than foamy, a new study suggests, scoring a possible victory for Einstein over some quantum theorists who came after him.
In his general theory of relativity, Einstein described space-time as fundamentally smooth, warping only under the strain of energy and matter. Some quantum-theory interpretations disagree, however, viewing space-time as being composed of a froth of minute particles that constantly pop into and out of existence.
…
“If foaminess exists at all, we think it must be at a scale far smaller than the Planck length, indicating that other physics might be involved,” study leader Robert Nemiroff, of Michigan Technological University, said in a statement. (The Planck length is an almost inconceivably short distance, about one trillionth of a trillionth the diameter of a hydrogen atom.)
Interesting. Initially I thought of a sculpture I created a couple of years ago — the { Quantum Chess } set. Figured this would mean the idea is now obsolete, until I got to the part about Planck length. I’ve never really thought about the distinction between space-time foam and quantum foam before, or perhaps hadn’t heard of the former? Learned something.
Tonight’s World Science Festival presentation — “Spooky Action” — was absolutely amazing. Brian Greene (with supporting stage actors) delivered not only a fantastic, accessible review of quantum mechanics in the 20th century with a focus on “Spooky Action at a Distance”, but also brought in live demonstrations of the { double slit } and { quantum superconductor levitation } experiments.
/Impressed & grateful.
P.S. A good book about these subjects: { Quantum } by Manjit Kumar
Steve Gimbel discusses the idea that people love Albert Einstein because he represents the notion of intellectual cosmopolitanism; each of us has a perspective that has some access to insight.
Gimbel is chair of the philosophy department at Gettysburg College. His takes a special approach to teaching ethics, in a fashion designed to encourage open-minded, but rigorous discussion. Gimbel has published nineteen scholarly books, articles, and reviews, and holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from Johns Hopkins University.
TEDxGettysburgCollege - Steve Gimbel - Einstein’s Intellectual Cosmopolitanism (by TEDxTalks)
Maybe this is a little bit hypocritical to say, since I’m reblogging this… but when the subject comes up, I always think: Let’s spend a little less time talking about the fact that we’re women and we’re doing things, and more time just doing those things and being damn good at it. Because we can, now.
When I was a boy, I wanted to become a physicist like my hero Einstein until I realized as a teenager the much bigger impact of building a scientist smarter than myself (my colleagues claim that should be easy), letting him do the remaining work.
[an excellent timeline that you should click on the link to read about, but a bit long to re-post]
…
Now you say: OK, maybe computers will be faster and better pattern recognizers, but they will never be creative! But that’s too pessimistic. In my group at the Swiss AI Lab IDSIA, we developed a Formal Theory of Fun and Creativity that formally explains science & art & music & humor, to the extent that we can begin to build artificial scientists and artists. …
••••••
Do read on — it’s a really good piece: interesting, funny, & vastly informative.
“The goal which it (physical science) has set itself is the simplest and most economical abstract expression of facts.
When the human mind, with its limited powers, attempts to mirror in itself the rich life of the world, of which it itself is only a small part, and which it can never hope to exhaust, it has every reason for proceeding economically.
In reality, the law always contains less than the fact itself, because it does not reproduce the fact as a whole but only in that aspect of it which is important for us, the rest being intentionally or from necessity omitted.”
“Until very recently, general relativity was taught only in postgraduate mathematics or physics courses, because the mathematical foundations of the theory were regarded as much too demanding for undergraduates. But the Liebers possessed an astounding, Promethean faith that a much larger audience could learn Einstein’s theories—the genuine article, not watered-down explanations. They believed that Einstein’s work, the deepest understanding of space and time yet conceived, belonged to all of us and should be made accessible to anyone who wanted to learn it. We share that belief. The first editions of this book were homemade by the Liebers (Hugh Lieber colored many of the illustrations by hand). After some years, a publisher took a chance, and kept the book in print for fifteen years. It has been out of print ever since, despite substantial efforts by the book’s fans to get it republished. This new edition has made the dream of decades come true for us.” (via 50 Watts)
The idea of edges, of separateness, is antithetical to the web, which as a hypermedium dissolves all boundaries, renders implicit connections explicit. Indeed, much of the power and usefulness of the web as a technology derives from the way it destroys all forms of containment and turns everything it subsumes into a part of a greater, ever shifting, amorphous whole. The web is an assembly not of things but of shards, of snippets, of bits and pieces. An electronic book is therefore a contradiction in terms. To move the words of a book onto the screen of a networked computer is to engineer a collision between two contradictory technological, and aesthetic, forces. Something’s got to give. Either the web gains edges, or the book loses them.
In that way — maybe, in a metaphorical way — the web is like a macroscopic simulation of the universe. If we can understand that nothing on the web is an isolated “thing”, maybe we can begin to understand it about our “physical” world as well, and experience it in a new way through that understanding.
![Einstein [May Have Been] Right: Space-Time Is Smooth, Not Foamy
Space-time is smooth rather than foamy, a new study suggests, scoring a possible victory for Einstein over some quantum theorists who came after him.
In his general theory of relativity, Einstein described space-time as fundamentally smooth, warping only under the strain of energy and matter. Some quantum-theory interpretations disagree, however, viewing space-time as being composed of a froth of minute particles that constantly pop into and out of existence.
…
“If foaminess exists at all, we think it must be at a scale far smaller than the Planck length, indicating that other physics might be involved,” study leader Robert Nemiroff, of Michigan Technological University, said in a statement. (The Planck length is an almost inconceivably short distance, about one trillionth of a trillionth the diameter of a hydrogen atom.)
{ space.com }
Interesting. Initially I thought of a sculpture I created a couple of years ago — the { Quantum Chess } set. Figured this would mean the idea is now obsolete, until I got to the part about Planck length. I’ve never really thought about the distinction between space-time foam and quantum foam before, or perhaps hadn’t heard of the former? Learned something.](http://24.media.tumblr.com/10c558dd2dc30cfc9cdfed32ddd6c4c1/tumblr_mgi45wYpHc1qa3q7lo1_500.jpg)
![{ When creative machines overtake man }March 31, 2012 by Jürgen Schmidhuber
When I was a boy, I wanted to become a physicist like my hero Einstein until I realized as a teenager the much bigger impact of building a scientist smarter than myself (my colleagues claim that should be easy), letting him do the remaining work.
…
Let me show you this pattern of exponential acceleration of the most important events in human history, which started 40,000 years ago with the emergence of Homo Sapiens Sapiens from Africa.
[an excellent timeline that you should click on the link to read about, but a bit long to re-post]
…
Now you say: OK, maybe computers will be faster and better pattern recognizers, but they will never be creative! But that’s too pessimistic. In my group at the Swiss AI Lab IDSIA, we developed a Formal Theory of Fun and Creativity that formally explains science & art & music & humor, to the extent that we can begin to build artificial scientists and artists. …
••••••
Do read on — it’s a really good piece: interesting, funny, & vastly informative.
Also watch Jürgen Schmidhuber’s lecture about { The Algorithmic Principe Behind Curiosity and Creativity }.](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m22tgmZl4c1qa3q7lo1_500.jpg)
