Tableau de bord
| Rédaction | Depuis | Articles publiés | Commentaires postés | Commentaires reçus |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| L'inscription | 0 | 34 | 0 | |
| 1 mois | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 5 jours | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Derniers commentaires
-
@Bernard Dugué « Vous noterez que votre remarque sur le temps n’a aucun sens »
Au contraire, c’est le problème fondamental (au moins dans le monde anglophone) :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... »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE
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. »
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. »
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. »
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... »
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. »
Pentcho Valev -
« Avec Einstein, la scène et les masses sont indissociables. La scène est courbe, dynamique... »
C’est plus tard. D’abord, Einstein tue le temps, en introduisant le faux postulat de la constance de la vitesse de la lumière :http://www.espritsciencemetaphysiques.com/le-temps-n-existe-pas-il-na-jamais-existe-et-nexistera-jamais.html  ;
« Le temps n’existe pas – Il n’a jamais existé et n’existera jamais (...) Bien sûr, nous avons accepté le temps comme une réalité jusqu’à il y a 100 ans quand Einstein a décidé de tout remettre en question avec sa théorie de la relativité. » (Voir mon commentaire)Pentcho Valev -
Parmis les initiés en France seul E. Klein a le courage de faire allusion la fausseté de la relativité d’Einstein (en l’opposant à la physique quantique) :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDYIdBMLQR0
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. »
Pentcho Valev -
@JL
La correction est encore plus stupide. -
@JL « il n’y a pas symétrie entre les situations des deux jumeaux : il n’y en a qu’un seul qui a subi une accélération suivie d’une décélération (soit deux accélérations en valeur absolue) : cette accélération aura ralenti ses processus vitaux. »
C’est trop stupide. L’accélération n’a aucune importance :http://sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=84&t=26847
Don Lincoln : « A common explanation of this paradox is that the travelling twin experienced acceleration to slow down and reverse velocity. While it is clearly true that a single person must experience this acceleration, you can show that the acceleration is not crucial. What is crucial is that the travelling twin experienced time in two reference frames, while the homebody experienced time in one. We can demonstrate this by a modification of the problem. In the modification, there is still a homebody and a person travelling to a distant star. The modification is that there is a third person even farther away than the distant star. This person travels at the same speed as the original traveler, but in the opposite direction. The third person’s trajectory is timed so that both of them pass the distant star at the same time. As the two travelers pass, the Earthbound person reads the clock of the outbound traveler. He then adds the time he experiences travelling from the distant star to Earth to the duration experienced by the outbound person. The sum of these times is the transit time. Note that no acceleration occurs in this problem...just three people experiencing relative inertial motion. »
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2014/today14-05-02_NutshellReadMore.html
Don Lincoln : « Some readers, probably including some of my doctoral-holding colleagues at Fermilab, will claim that the difference between the two twins is that one of the two has experienced an acceleration. (After all, that’s how he slowed down and reversed direction.) However, the relativistic equations don’t include that acceleration phase ; they include just the coasting time at high velocity. »
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/members/gibbons/gwgPartI_SpecialRela tivity2010.pdf
Gary W. Gibbons FRS : « In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as far. This would give twice the amount of time gained. »Pentcho Valev
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Agoravox utilise les technologies du logiciel libre : SPIP, Apache, Ubuntu, PHP, MySQL, CKEditor.
Site hébergé par la Fondation Agoravox
A propos / Contact / Mentions légales / Cookies et données personnelles / Charte de modération