Anyone interested?
Relativity
Let's take it one section at a time and then discuss.
So: Physical Meanings of Geometrical Proposition
Einstein's Relativity
-
Aetixintro
- Posts: 319
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:44 pm
- Contact:
Re: Einstein's Relativity
I can follow you. If you write your opinions on it, I'll read them, gladly! 
-
Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Einstein's Relativity
I'll have a dent at this with you SGR.
As I've managed to read it with increasing incomprehension a few times over the years and would like to try and make some sense from it. Not least because this appears to be Alberts best attempt to 'talk-down' in these matters.
So,
How would the format go? We state what we understood overall of the section then raise what we didn't? Line-by-line, paragraph-by- ?
You or me first?
a_uk
p.s.
you read Feynmans QED?
As I've managed to read it with increasing incomprehension a few times over the years and would like to try and make some sense from it. Not least because this appears to be Alberts best attempt to 'talk-down' in these matters.
So,
How would the format go? We state what we understood overall of the section then raise what we didn't? Line-by-line, paragraph-by- ?
You or me first?
a_uk
p.s.
you read Feynmans QED?
Re: Einstein's Relativity
Count me in! I have a physical copy of that book somewhere, though (a) I'm not sure where (b) to be honest I think I only ever read the first chapter and (c) that was about 15 years ago so I don't think it gives me an unfair advantage.
-
Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Einstein's Relativity
Dig it out then Rick
Mines this one, isbn 0-415-25384-5
Although having seen the intro I think SGR may not be around for a while
Shall we give him some time or get stuck-in?
Mines this one, isbn 0-415-25384-5
Although having seen the intro I think SGR may not be around for a while
Shall we give him some time or get stuck-in?
Re: Einstein's Relativity
Pah! Who needs sleep?
Physical Meaning of Geometrical Propositions:
My take on this:
Euclidean geometry is made up of axioms which are assertions. These assertions form a system in which things can be demonstrated. Something is true in so much as it corresponds to reality. Therefore geometrical demonstrations are ‘logical’ rather than true.
Einstein’s proposal to consider two points on a rigid body has always appeared flawed to me. First he says three points are on a straight line if one can superimpose them from some position by looking at them through one eye, then he talks about ‘line interval’ upon a rigid body. Unless the rigid body is a perfect plain he is talking about two different examples.
Physical Meaning of Geometrical Propositions:
My take on this:
Euclidean geometry is made up of axioms which are assertions. These assertions form a system in which things can be demonstrated. Something is true in so much as it corresponds to reality. Therefore geometrical demonstrations are ‘logical’ rather than true.
Einstein’s proposal to consider two points on a rigid body has always appeared flawed to me. First he says three points are on a straight line if one can superimpose them from some position by looking at them through one eye, then he talks about ‘line interval’ upon a rigid body. Unless the rigid body is a perfect plain he is talking about two different examples.
On order.Arising_uk wrote:you read Feynmans QED?
-
artisticsolution
- Posts: 1942
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:38 am
Re: Einstein's Relativity
Hi SGR:
S:Pah! Who needs sleep?
AS: Hey congrats on the baby!
S:Euclidean geometry is made up of axioms which are assertions. These assertions form a system in which things can be demonstrated. Something is true in so much as it corresponds to reality. Therefore geometrical demonstrations are ‘logical’ rather than true.
AS: I didn't get that from the first chapter. What I understood him to be saying was that we take for granted that these arbitrary assertions are true and we base all subsequent logic on that. But what if the axioms aren't true? What if there are different or changeable axioms and therefore different and changeable rules.
S:Einstein’s proposal to consider two points on a rigid body has always appeared flawed to me. First he says three points are on a straight line if one can superimpose them from some position by looking at them through one eye, then he talks about ‘line interval’ upon a rigid body. Unless the rigid body is a perfect plain he is talking about two different examples.
AS: I am going to try to keep up with all of you but I have to tell you right now I am lost when it comes to math. So what I got from this part was that if an axiom is not true in all situations, then we can say that logic itself is more complex. For example, if the rigid line is moving then so are the two points. I must admit...I start getting confused here. Does that mean that geometry is untrue or that is is only true on a very small scale because we (humans on Earth) only exist on a tiny dot compared to the universe and if we could see the big picture we could then see the movement?
S:Pah! Who needs sleep?
AS: Hey congrats on the baby!
S:Euclidean geometry is made up of axioms which are assertions. These assertions form a system in which things can be demonstrated. Something is true in so much as it corresponds to reality. Therefore geometrical demonstrations are ‘logical’ rather than true.
AS: I didn't get that from the first chapter. What I understood him to be saying was that we take for granted that these arbitrary assertions are true and we base all subsequent logic on that. But what if the axioms aren't true? What if there are different or changeable axioms and therefore different and changeable rules.
S:Einstein’s proposal to consider two points on a rigid body has always appeared flawed to me. First he says three points are on a straight line if one can superimpose them from some position by looking at them through one eye, then he talks about ‘line interval’ upon a rigid body. Unless the rigid body is a perfect plain he is talking about two different examples.
AS: I am going to try to keep up with all of you but I have to tell you right now I am lost when it comes to math. So what I got from this part was that if an axiom is not true in all situations, then we can say that logic itself is more complex. For example, if the rigid line is moving then so are the two points. I must admit...I start getting confused here. Does that mean that geometry is untrue or that is is only true on a very small scale because we (humans on Earth) only exist on a tiny dot compared to the universe and if we could see the big picture we could then see the movement?
-
Richard Baron
- Posts: 204
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:55 am
- Contact:
Re: Einstein's Relativity
That sentence starts "We are accustomed further to regard three points ...". He seems to be talking about how we casually think, not about how we ought to think.S G R wrote:First he says three points are on a straight line if one can superimpose them from some position by looking at them through one eye ...
Re: Einstein's Relativity
Thank you.artisticsolution wrote:Hey congrats on the baby!
No, this is me putting forward my idea of what Einstein is starting to say but at the same time saying it using my own ideas. Einstein is explicitly saying that truth is correspondence to reality and what he is trying to explore is reality and we know that he is going to show that Euclidean geometry does not fit the facts. So I am trying to set up a framework that hopefully can deal with the way different ideas are considered as he goes along.I didn't get that from the first chapter.
Philosophically I think relativity is an objectivist theory along the lines of Frege in contrast to, say, a Kantian metaphysics of rationalism. Strangely, to me, Quantum Mechanics often seems to be rationalist. Hopefully we will get to this later.
I think you are correct and this is where he is going.What I understood him to be saying was that we take for granted that these arbitrary assertions are true and we base all subsequent logic on that. But what if the axioms aren't true? What if there are different or changeable axioms and therefore different and changeable rules.
Please say when you get lost and I’ll try to help as much as I can. I hope this helps, though, reading it through I may have got a bit carried away:I am going to try to keep up with all of you but I have to tell you right now I am lost when it comes to math.
I recently watched a brilliant programme (Channel 4, Dispatches: Kids Don’t Count, broadcast 15th Feb) which explored why children find it so difficult to learn maths in the English state system. Whilst the upshot was that it was because the teachers of young children themselves don’t understand maths, there was an interview with two children which showed a possible reason where the problem lay: the person brought in to improve maths teaching used a very physical method of explaining what maths was about. He used cups and called it ‘the maths story’. The two children being interviewed said that they did not understand maths before they were told the maths story because without the cups it was too difficult to remember what it was about. I think what they were saying is that they had been taught maths as if maths was a thing in itself. This is not the case – maths is a type of language, it is a way of explaining something – the children were being taught maths without anyone ever pointing out that it referred to things – a bit like being taught the difference between cats and dogs without ever having seen a cat or dog or ever being shown a picture – they were being taught rules in a vacuum – how difficult would it be to learn all the differences and all the similarities between cats and dogs in a rote type way? Just lists of rules? Maths isn’t a list of rules it is a way of describing things – in some ways it is very powerful but at the same time it is not the whole story unless what is being referred to is included. If you go shopping and buy two eggs, two cartons of milk and two pounds of flour the maths will only describe the two-ness of the things it doesn’t describe everything – are the cartons of milk pints or quarts? Does two pounds of flour come in one bag or two?
I don’t think so – the logic is just the logic, if it doesn’t hold true it is failing to describe reality. It is not necessarily the case that it needs to be more complex it is just the case that it is an inappropriate description.So what I got from this part was that if an axiom is not true in all situations, then we can say that logic itself is more complex.
I think this is one of the fundamental questions that Einstein is asking and my original statement is in a way me trying to answer the question before it has been fully asked.Does that mean that geometry is untrue or that is is only true on a very small scale because we (humans on Earth) only exist on a tiny dot compared to the universe and if we could see the big picture we could then see the movement?
-
artisticsolution
- Posts: 1942
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:38 am
Re: Einstein's Relativity
SGR,
S:Thank you.
AS: No TY. I appreciate any help you can give me. I am blown over by your generosity. Your daughter is a lucky girl to have such a dad.
S:Philosophically I think relativity is an objectivist theory along the lines of Frege in contrast to, say, a Kantian metaphysics of rationalism. Strangely, to me, Quantum Mechanics often seems to be rationalist. Hopefully we will get to this later.
AS: LOL Okay, this gives me some work to do. I will google these people and theories in order to understand you better.
S: I recently watched a brilliant programme (Channel 4, Dispatches: Kids Don’t Count, broadcast 15th Feb) which explored why children find it so difficult to learn maths in the English state system. Whilst the upshot was that it was because the teachers of young children themselves don’t understand maths, there was an interview with two children which showed a possible reason where the problem lay: the person brought in to improve maths teaching used a very physical method of explaining what maths was about. He used cups and called it ‘the maths story’. The two children being interviewed said that they did not understand maths before they were told the maths story because without the cups it was too difficult to remember what it was about. I think what they were saying is that they had been taught maths as if maths was a thing in itself. This is not the case – maths is a type of language, it is a way of explaining something – the children were being taught maths without anyone ever pointing out that it referred to things – a bit like being taught the difference between cats and dogs without ever having seen a cat or dog or ever being shown a picture – they were being taught rules in a vacuum – how difficult would it be to learn all the differences and all the similarities between cats and dogs in a rote type way? Just lists of rules? Maths isn’t a list of rules it is a way of describing things – in some ways it is very powerful but at the same time it is not the whole story unless what is being referred to is included. If you go shopping and buy two eggs, two cartons of milk and two pounds of flour the maths will only describe the two-ness of the things it doesn’t describe everything – are the cartons of milk pints or quarts? Does two pounds of flour come in one bag or two?
AS: Wow...yes that's it in a nutshell. Instinctively is the only way I understand math....or should I say relatively? That is how I draw realistically...using relative lines to figure out where things belong. However, I encounter problems when I am doing a mural and the space to be painted is unusually large and hard to get to (like a high ceiling.) I have to do my initial drawing from the ground looking up and have someone up on the scaffold mark the important lines via my direction. It really sucks and it is during these times I think math could help. However, the more I do it my way the less cumbersome it is...kinda like typing with 2 fingers...you get used to it...lol.
S:I don’t think so – the logic is just the logic, if it doesn’t hold true it is failing to describe reality. It is not necessarily the case that it needs to be more complex it is just the case that it is an inappropriate description.
AS: Yes, but to me...changing descriptions before I even understood the first description IS 'more complex.' lol
S:I think this is one of the fundamental questions that Einstein is asking and my original statement is in a way me trying to answer the question before it has been fully asked.
AS: I am curious. How far have physicists gone in understanding Einsteins theory. Have they understood it enough to implement it or surpass it? Is this that the hadron collider is about? Please excuse my ignorance...this is the first time I have really paid attention to anything having to do with the theory of relativity or physicists.
S:Thank you.
AS: No TY. I appreciate any help you can give me. I am blown over by your generosity. Your daughter is a lucky girl to have such a dad.
S:Philosophically I think relativity is an objectivist theory along the lines of Frege in contrast to, say, a Kantian metaphysics of rationalism. Strangely, to me, Quantum Mechanics often seems to be rationalist. Hopefully we will get to this later.
AS: LOL Okay, this gives me some work to do. I will google these people and theories in order to understand you better.
S: I recently watched a brilliant programme (Channel 4, Dispatches: Kids Don’t Count, broadcast 15th Feb) which explored why children find it so difficult to learn maths in the English state system. Whilst the upshot was that it was because the teachers of young children themselves don’t understand maths, there was an interview with two children which showed a possible reason where the problem lay: the person brought in to improve maths teaching used a very physical method of explaining what maths was about. He used cups and called it ‘the maths story’. The two children being interviewed said that they did not understand maths before they were told the maths story because without the cups it was too difficult to remember what it was about. I think what they were saying is that they had been taught maths as if maths was a thing in itself. This is not the case – maths is a type of language, it is a way of explaining something – the children were being taught maths without anyone ever pointing out that it referred to things – a bit like being taught the difference between cats and dogs without ever having seen a cat or dog or ever being shown a picture – they were being taught rules in a vacuum – how difficult would it be to learn all the differences and all the similarities between cats and dogs in a rote type way? Just lists of rules? Maths isn’t a list of rules it is a way of describing things – in some ways it is very powerful but at the same time it is not the whole story unless what is being referred to is included. If you go shopping and buy two eggs, two cartons of milk and two pounds of flour the maths will only describe the two-ness of the things it doesn’t describe everything – are the cartons of milk pints or quarts? Does two pounds of flour come in one bag or two?
AS: Wow...yes that's it in a nutshell. Instinctively is the only way I understand math....or should I say relatively? That is how I draw realistically...using relative lines to figure out where things belong. However, I encounter problems when I am doing a mural and the space to be painted is unusually large and hard to get to (like a high ceiling.) I have to do my initial drawing from the ground looking up and have someone up on the scaffold mark the important lines via my direction. It really sucks and it is during these times I think math could help. However, the more I do it my way the less cumbersome it is...kinda like typing with 2 fingers...you get used to it...lol.
S:I don’t think so – the logic is just the logic, if it doesn’t hold true it is failing to describe reality. It is not necessarily the case that it needs to be more complex it is just the case that it is an inappropriate description.
AS: Yes, but to me...changing descriptions before I even understood the first description IS 'more complex.' lol
S:I think this is one of the fundamental questions that Einstein is asking and my original statement is in a way me trying to answer the question before it has been fully asked.
AS: I am curious. How far have physicists gone in understanding Einsteins theory. Have they understood it enough to implement it or surpass it? Is this that the hadron collider is about? Please excuse my ignorance...this is the first time I have really paid attention to anything having to do with the theory of relativity or physicists.
-
Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Einstein's Relativity
S G R wrote:Pah! Who needs sleep?
as a long past father of a baby.-
Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Einstein's Relativity
Personally I'd like to use the Preface and Note to give an idea of the scope of this small book, but first I'd like to know whom amongst us discussing this book has what Einstein would regard as "a standard of education corresponding to that of a university matriculation examination"?
Although I'm inordinately pleased that in the Preface he says he has,
About the fifth appendix;
Although I'm inordinately pleased that in the Preface he says he has,
And then I'm blown away by this in the 'Note to the fifteenth edition'.Einstein wrote:...purposely treated the empirical physical foundations of the theory in a "step-motherly" fashion, so that readers unfamiliar with physics may not feel like the wanderer who was unable to see the forest for trees. May the book bring some one a few happy hours of suggestive thought"
About the fifth appendix;
An interesting 158 pages ahead I'd guess?Einstein wrote:...I wished to show that space-time is not necessarily something to which one can ascribe a separate existence, independently of the actual objects of physical reality. Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept of "empty space" loses its meaning.
-
artisticsolution
- Posts: 1942
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:38 am
Re: Einstein's Relativity
LMAO!! Why do I get the feeling that everyone is looking down at me through wire rimmed spectacles perched precariously on the tip of their noses, one raised eyebrow, lips pursed in skeptical cynicism, waiting for my answer?Arising_uk wrote:Personally I'd like to use the Preface and Note to give an idea of the scope of this small book, but first I'd like to know whom amongst us discussing this book has what Einstein would regard as "a standard of education corresponding to that of a university matriculation examination"?
Well, arising....let's put it this way, It's me, you , Rick, Richard and SGR who are the ones discussing this book so far. You already know your education, and I think we all know Rick and Richard qualify, so that leaves me and SGR. Now SGR started this thread so I can assume he is confident he has the credentials and didn't he say he was an engineer? I am thinking he has attended at least a few years at a university, so that leaves lil ol' me.
I had to work my ass off to get into college because I practically failed high school. I spent many hours with a dear teacher/friend of mine who took me under her wing and tutored me. I did very well in college but as you know I am far from a scholar. By Einstein's requirements I probably do not qualify because most everything I have ever learned I am not able to retain.
So am I in?
P.S. Opps! I forgot Aetixintro! Sorry AE! Oh good...I have company! So tell us aetixtintro....do you qualify? Hmmmm? (Said through wire rimmed spectacles perched precariously on the tip of my nose, one raised eyebrow, lips pursed in skeptical cynicism.)
-
Aetixintro
- Posts: 319
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:44 pm
- Contact:
Re: Einstein's Relativity
Hello artisticsolution
I've done some studies on university level, but my knowledge of physics comes from the fact that I specialised in physics at secondary high school, doing all the tree levels where only the first is compulsory in Norway.
I'm not sure it qualifies, but knowledge to the people! I'm sure if I display any horrid misunderstanding as the posts are written, you let me know?
Cheers!
I've done some studies on university level, but my knowledge of physics comes from the fact that I specialised in physics at secondary high school, doing all the tree levels where only the first is compulsory in Norway.
I'm not sure it qualifies, but knowledge to the people! I'm sure if I display any horrid misunderstanding as the posts are written, you let me know?
Cheers!
Last edited by Aetixintro on Fri Aug 27, 2010 1:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Einstein's Relativity
Paranoia?artisticsolution wrote:...LMAO!! Why do I get the feeling that everyone is looking down at me through wire rimmed spectacles perched precariously on the tip of their noses, one raised eyebrow, lips pursed in skeptical cynicism, waiting for my answer?
Not so, it leaves the little 'ol two of us I'd guess.....so that leaves lil ol' me.
Its why I asked, as I'm going to need such a person to explain parts of this book I suspect.
I was not trying to exclude anyone, nor would I be a position to do so.So am I in?