Discussion:
L'Espace-Temps d'Einstein en France et ailleurs
(trop ancien pour répondre)
Pentcho Valev
2016-05-09 07:51:41 UTC
Permalink

Thibault Damour (7:04) : "La théorie d'Einstein en une phrase : L'Espace-Temps est une structure élastique qui est déformée par la présence, en son sein, de Masse-Énergie."

Dans le monde anglophone on rejette l'Espace-Temps d'Einstein, implicitement mais souvent aussi explicitement :


Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."

https://edge.org/response-detail/25477
What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721.200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-spacetime.html
"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time (...) The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. (...) Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029410.900
New Scientist: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we need it back? (...) Einstein landed the fatal blow at the turn of the 20th century."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review
"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."

http://www.bookdepository.com/Time-Reborn-Professor-Physics-Lee-Smolin/9780547511726
"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730370-600-why-do-we-move-forwards-in-time/
"[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. Although you might have seen three things happen in a particular order – 
A, then B, then C – someone moving 
at a different velocity could have seen 
it a different way – C, then B, then A. 
In other words, without simultaneity there is no way of specifying what things happened "now". And if not "now", what is moving through time? Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task."

D'où vient cette absurdité, l'Espace-Temps, que les scientifiques anglophones veulent abandonner ? Elle est une "conséquence immédiate" du faux principe de la constance de la vitesse de la lumière :

http://community.bowdoin.edu/news/2015/04/professor-baumgarte-describes-100-years-of-gravity/
"Baumgarte began by discussing special relativity, which Einstein developed, 10 years earlier, in 1905, while he was employed as a patent officer in Bern, Switzerland. Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime."

https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-185331159.html
"That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce. (...) Einstein's famous insistence that the velocity of light is a cosmic speed limit made sense, Minkowski saw, only if space and time were intertwined."

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2016-05-10 15:15:23 UTC
Permalink
L'Espace-Temps d'Einstein est incompatible avec le temps newtonien de la mécanique quantique :


E. Klein (1:06:45) : "Est-ce que l'avenir existe déjà dans le futur ? C'est une question fondamentale ... Les relativistes disent oui - le futur est déjà là mais nous on n'y est pas encore ... Les physiciens quantiques, les présentistes disent non - le futur est un néant ... Les voyages dans le futur sont impossibles pour les présentistes alors qu'ils sont possibles pour les relativistes."

https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/research/conferences/convergence/roundtable-discussion-questions/what-are-lessons-quantum
Perimeter Institute: "Quantum mechanics has one thing, time, which is absolute. But general relativity tells us that space and time are both dynamical so there is a big contradiction there. So the question is, can quantum gravity be formulated in a context where quantum mechanics still has absolute time?"

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/08/05/science.aac6498
"In Einstein's general theory of relativity, time depends locally on gravity; in standard quantum theory, time is global - all clocks "tick" uniformly."

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0610057.pdf
"One one hand, time in quantum mechanics is a Newtonian time, i.e., an absolute time. In fact, the two main methods of quantization, namely, canonical quantization method due to Dirac and Feynman's path integral method are based on classical constraints which become operators annihilating the physical states, and on the sum over all possible classical trajectories, respectively. Therefore, both quantization methods rely on the Newton global and absolute time. (...) The transition to (special) relativistic quantum field theories can be realized by replacing the unique absolute Newtonian time by a set of timelike parameters associated to the naturally distinguished family of relativistic inertial frames."

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2013/509316/
"In quantum mechanics, time is absolute. The parameter occurring in the Schrödinger equation has been directly inherited from Newtonian mechanics and is not turned into an operator. In quantum field theory, time by itself is no longer absolute, but the four-dimensional spacetime is; it constitutes the fixed background structure on which the dynamical fields act. GR is of a very different nature. According to the Einstein equations (2), spacetime is dynamical, acting in a complicated manner with energy momentum of matter and with itself. The concepts of time (spacetime) in quantum theory and GR are thus drastically different and cannot both be fundamentally true."

Pourqoui alors les Einsteiniens ne rejettent-ils ni la relativité d'Einstein ni la mécanique quantique ? Parce que leur coexistence fait de la théorisation de la science une schizophrénie, et dans un tel monde les Einsteiniens gagnent le maximum d'argent :

http://lecercle.lesechos.fr/economie-societe/recherche-innovation/recherche/221160264/physique-est-schizophrene
Marc Lachièze-Rey: "La physique est schizophrène (...) ...relativiste le matin, quantique le soir... mais schizophrène lorsqu'il tente de concilier les deux visions. C'est là que réside le problème fondamental de la physique d'aujourd'hui."

http://www.librairal.org/wiki/George_Orwell:1984_-_Deuxi%C3%A8me_Partie_-_Chapitre_IX
"La doublepensée est le pouvoir de garder à l'esprit simultanément deux croyances contradictoires, et de les accepter toutes deux. Un intellectuel du Parti sait dans quel sens ses souvenirs doivent être modifiés. Il sait, par conséquent, qu'il joue avec la réalité, mais, par l'exercice de la doublepensée, il se persuade que la réalité n'est pas violée. Le processus doit être conscient, autrement il ne pourrait être réalisé avec une précision suffisante, mais il doit aussi être inconscient. Sinon, il apporterait avec lui une impression de falsification et, partant, de culpabilité. La doublepensée se place au coeur même de l'Angsoc, puisque l'acte essentiel du Parti est d'employer la duperie consciente, tout en retenant la fermeté d'intention qui va de pair avec l'honnêteté véritable. Dire des mensonges délibérés tout en y croyant sincèrement, oublier tous les faits devenus gênants puis, lorsque c'est nécessaire, les tirer de l'oubli pour seulement le laps de temps utile, nier l'existence d'une réalité objective alors qu'on tient compte de la réalité qu'on nie, tout cela est d'une indispensable nécessité."

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2016-05-11 08:05:18 UTC
Permalink
http://etienneklein.fr/livres/phys-xxeme/relativites/relat_restreinte/
E. Klein : 25:10 La relativité restreinte, une théorie universelle de l'espace-temps

Mais c'est le même espace-temps que beaucoup de scientifiques anglophones rejettent, E. Klein :

https://edge.org/response-detail/25477
What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..." x

Pourquoi rejettent-ils l'espace-temps, E. Klein ? C'est une conséquence déductive du principe de la constance de la vitesse de la lumière, et si la conséquence est à rejetter, alors le principe est peut-être... faux ?

E. Klein :

Loading Image...

Pentcho Valev

Continuer la lecture sur narkive:
Loading...