Two things are wrong when you say that:
1-One can even regards the Lorentz transform as proximaily an equation for the Doppler shift of microscopic quantum waves
2-The negative gravitational potential energy reduces the total rest energy.
How the Nazis Split Modern Physics, and How It Can Be Reunified
- Edited
While I cannot follow the details to check the corectness of the equations , I could say that I have learned about engineering projects, where the design of the project has been molded significantly by the way the team was built . The personal biographer named Banesh Hoffmann , new to me, is mentioned . Maybe there are a couple of particular moments, or events that made the famous physicist ,to ignore some possibilities, or he was (and still is) right with his approach. Pros and cons : in various sources , I learned that fields are a good language to talk about particles ; cons, form other sources concerning a different issue , I found out about a couple of different experimental tests that successfully invalidate the EPR paradoxes objections . Alternating with an other positive thing to say , that also in the news was an other experimental verification that go for a "quantum relativity ".
speculating - here is a mix of history and science. Maybe how something is discovered is (a tiny bit) part of the discovery content . Or an individual biographical experience to change the physical significance ; or this shouldn't apply to humans, only in the extremely long time future at the heat death of universe . Science is constructed and works because is independent of individuals , but maybe they will connect and join sometime, on a verry different occasion .
Hi PurpleEagle
Following is a summary and review of your essay performed by AI Chat GPT 4. I've provided it for you to demonstrate the theme of my essay, that AI will play a role in the future of peer review. My essay is titled "Age of Knowledge"
I hope you enjoy this review of your work.
Chat GPT 4
The essay argues that the strong antipathy towards Albert Einstein by the Nazis in the 1930s prevented the development of a unified theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. The author suggests that if history had been different, the physics could have developed in a remarkably different way. The essay reviews the history of Einstein and the Nazis, focusing on the Nazi influence in German universities and research institutes, and the pressure on physicists to conform to the party line. The author suggests that German physicists were under great pressure not to mention Einstein or relativity in any way, and that it was safer to present quantum mechanics as a completely different theory with its own mathematical formalism. The essay concludes by suggesting some implications for the future of physics and technology, particularly regarding quantum computing.
The essay is well-written and presents a novel and interesting proposition. The author provides a detailed historical background and draws insightful conclusions. The essay is also well-structured, with clear sections that flow logically from one to the other. The author's arguments are backed by evidence, including references to historical figures and events. However, the essay is relatively short, and some of the arguments could have been developed further.
The essay proposes the concept of quantum relativity, a theory that aims to link relativity and quantum mechanics, without the paradoxes of uncertainty and entanglement. The author argues that quantum waves and electromagnetic waves are similar vacuum fields that allow the derivation of the Lorentz transform. The speed of light, c, is also the maximum speed of quantum waves, and every microscopic quantum wave acts as a clock with time and a ruler with length, both defined locally by real microscopic objects in space. Quantum relativity is viewed as more general and less abstract than special relativity or general relativity. It provides a universal foundation not focused specifically on electromagnetic waves, allowing the interpretation of special relativity and general relativity in a different way. The essay concludes that quantum relativity can provide an alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation of Bohr and Heisenberg, providing a missing link that ties relativity to quantum theory without the paradoxes of uncertainty and entanglement. The essay is well-written and provides a clear overview of the theory. However, as a scientific contest essay, it lacks references, data, and testing evidence, making it difficult to evaluate its validity.
Overall, I would rate this essay as good quality. It presents a thought-provoking idea that challenges established thinking and is well-supported by evidence.
Chat GPT 4
Thank you for passing along ChatGPT’s review of my essay.
However, ChatGPT is merely a parrot with a grammar engine, and has absolutely no understanding of the content of my essay.
I would be more interested in your review of my essay.
- Edited
Alan Kadin At the moment I only know your essay to the extent of Chat GPT's review. But judging from that its defiantly an essay I'll be happy to read. So I'll do so and return to you with comment.
I was unaware the separation of QM and Relativity might be a legacy of the 1930's Nazi party. I love science history and I have a personal interest in the intersection between these fundamental sciences, so yes, I'm your target audience. That such a historical influence could have such a lasting legacy speaks towards some kind of failure in the science process. I'll be interested in your conclusion on this. Is science overly ruled by tradition and doctrine?
Yes, the intersection between our fundamental theories, QM and Relativity. I'll be interested to know your approach. I have views on this myself, and I'll just make a quick observational point.
As for General Relativity, non of its verifiable measures are performed on space itself. Rather, the measurements are all directed towards matter and only then inferred as relating to coordinates in space. The empirical aspects of Relativity are all properties of matter, which means all empirical aspects of relativity are QM in nature. For example, time dilation is nothing more or less than an account of atomic activity, and atomic activity is a QM property, Photons and Gluons for example. Wasnt the point of fundamental forces to explain the origin of all processes? Let me put it like this. If every aspect of Relativity Theory needs to be inferred through the lens of atomic properties, then why cant scientists work out how Relativity relates to matter, and QM? They are conceptually intersected by necessity. Having said this, I do understand why science is hung up on these issues, however there are some obvious avenues for inquiry which I find amazing that they have not been explored.
Ok, what of Lorentz transformations then? Again, length contraction is a structural consideration of matter/atoms, and also a distance traveled by objects, and it is Photons and Gluons for example that manage atomic structure. So it can be said that origin of length contraction points to the same property of matter implicated in the process of time dilation, that is to say, variable atomic activity. Both point to and are implicated with atomic forces or fundamental forces. Gluons and Photons. And Gluon's and Photons are QM of nature.
An analogy. A car demonstrates the relationship between force, activity levels and distance/length. The car engine issues force, which generates the cars activity level, which equates to the distance traveled down the road. I know this sounds ridiculously simple to suggest that this analogy provides a guide to how to unify Relativity and QM, but in fact I can provide many more reasons why this is the correct context. My essay hints at some of them.
- Edited
Alan Kadin In addition.
Force is a straightforward explanation of any given acceleration. And time dilation is nothing more than an accelerated rate of atomic activity. Atomic activity is a product of atomic force, and an accelerated rate of atomic activity can be due to variable atomic force.
Time dilation, a case of acceleration due to force. What could be more straightforward?
What does science demand from me? That I prove an association between force and acceleration?
I did not know all that Nazi stuff, but it is hard for me to believe that anything deterred the acceptance of relativity. Relativity went from an unproven hypothesis to wide acceptance very quickly. By 1908 the Physics world had accepted it, and by 1920 it had glowing articles in the newspapers. It was already firmly in the textbooks before the Nazis came to power.
You have some skepticism about quantum computers. Okay, I agree that their value has not been proved. But is the whole quantum computer project the current remnant of a Nazi prejudice? Do the quantum computer researchers realize that they have been duped by the Nazis?
Dear Purple Eagle,
Your essay is the only one so far I copied. Your identity seems to be obvious to me, Words like solitrons and nonlinear equations are telltale. Let me not hide that I agree with you on that Einstein was certainly correct with his critics of Copenhagen interpretation. In all FQXi contests so far, nobody succeded to unite Einstein's relativities with Heisenberg's ideas. Already Barbour, in the first contest, failed to solve the problem. Your essay will face distrust although it is definitely much better than mine. Please accept mx apology for several imperfections. I got aware of the new contest on April 27th and had very few time until May 2nd. Unfortunately some old essays were deleted. I could only vagely recall "just too many people" or "just too many children". Being clumsy e.g. with user names and passwords, I had no time for due proofreading. Anyway, I consider your new essay much more mature than your previous ones.
Could you or someone else please guide me to essays of similar quality?
I consider this essay very interesting both as regards the historical analysis and as regards the physical analysis of quantum waves. I fully agree with both aspects you cover in the essay.
I wish we could also discuss the description of quantum waves in more detail. But we will have to wait for the end of the anonymous phase of this contest to end (June 6th or July 11th?).
See you soon for an interesting discussion on the relativistic nature of quantum mechanics.
In the meantime I ask you to consider (and rate) my essay which I hope you will find interesting for other reasons "The Name of the arXiv: when too much zeal is an obstacle to science"
As I have been interested in the connection of quantum theory and relativity at the foundational level for some time, I was truly excited to read this paper. Although the title indicated that the author might try to score some cheap “virtue points” by repeating “Nazi bad” in various ways, I was not discouraged (after all Nazi vilification, though amounting to the beating of a thoroughly dead horse, is commonplace enough). However, I quickly developed the impression that the paper was more a smattering of ideologically impassioned musings than a serious presentation of carefully thought out ideas pertaining to foundational scientific theory and the influences of recent history on it. Indeed, some of the ideas presented are so downright bizarre that it is difficult to take any part of the paper seriously. The author claims that in the 12 years the Nazis were in power, they somehow managed to completely derail the progress of foundational physics– the more than 120 year development of quantum theory in particular. Further, the author claims that, only when quantum theory is brought into alignment with his/her own views will “the final defeat of Nazi ideology” be secured. Could anyone take such a bizarrely exaggerated thought such as that seriously? In supporting this thesis, the author, predictably, makes all sorts of dubious claims, such as that Einstein (by far the most influential scientist of the time) “was ignored”. The author even goes so far as to say that certain “derivations” of the Schrodinger equation, which are (allegedly) supportive of the author’s own view, are “never presented in elementary textbooks, because that would make it obvious that” the author's theories are correct as opposed to the conventional ones! It is hard to see how this amounts to anything but conspiratorial paranoia. As to what the author’s actual theories are, it is difficult to discern. Nowhere do I find a clearly presented theory which is clearly contrasted to any (accurately presented) prevailing theory, and nowhere do I find an adequate description of any experiment that would be able to lend support to the author’s purported theory over conventional ones. As far as concrete theoretical content goes, the article seems to be nothing more than an amalgam of disconnected, usually dubious claims that say nothing specific enough to be rationally evaluated (though some other reviewers have pointed out a few bald-faced factual errors). The only thing approaching this is the author’s claim that the fate of quantum computing will ultimately decide whether his/her theories are right or not. Apparently, the mountain of experimental evidence in support of the reality of entanglement is not sufficient for the author, but a quantum computer is for some unspecified reason. (Entanglement based quantum computing protocols are already a reality, by the way.) In short, for me, nearly every sentence in this paper is redolent of some kind of strange exaggeration, dubious assertion, misleading characterization, or simple falsehood.
Ian Brinkley Good points. Too bad the author is not replying. I got fooled by the first sentence: "Everyone knows that the Nazis hated Einstein and relativity." As far as I can determine, the Nazis never removed relativity from the textbooks or stopped teaching it at universities. I doubt that the Nazis even had any opinion about relativity or Einstein.