How does an expanding space time explain this?

[Baruch]

You've just confirmed my post:  in you heart of heart, you know it's true. You're no different than those guys who flew planes into buildings.

Just a blog post but ...
http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/248329

Are you MENSA?

[josephpalazzo]

Just a blog post but ...
http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/248329

The title of your article is: How Important Is Emotional Intelligence to Success in Business?

So which business did you build?

[Baruch]

The title of your article is: How Important Is Emotional Intelligence to Success in Business?

So which business did you build?

It isn't about me ... it is about you ... and you still don't get it ;-)  I am not making any claims for myself ... because I have never respected "authority".

[surreptitious57]

Einstein claimed that the single greatest mistake of his career was the introduction of the cosmological constant. However
that fades into insignificance when compared to his absolute refusal to accept quantum mechanics because it was counter
intuitive to his notion of an ordered universe. And so it is an irony of unbelievable magnitude that he produced one of the
twin pillars of twentieth century physics that itself is counter intuitive yet saw it as totally acceptable whilst then rejecting
the other pillar entirely. This was totally new territory of course but others like Heisenberg and Schrodinger and Bohr and
Dirac accepted it even if they did not always understand it. Now by complete contrast Einstein rejected it on philosophical
grounds which is not how a scientist should be doing science. And so Feynman was absolutely right when he said that the
only thing that matters is evidence. So anything which contradicts that has to be rejected even if it is so counter intuitive
it makes no sense. For what ultimately matters is if something is objectively true not whether or not it can be understood 

[josephpalazzo]

Einstein claimed that the single greatest mistake of his career was the introduction of the cosmological constant. However
that fades into insignificance when compared to his absolute refusal to accept quantum mechanics because it was counter
intuitive to his notion of an ordered universe. And so it is an irony of unbelievable magnitude that he produced one of the
twin pillars of twentieth century physics that itself is counter intuitive yet saw it as totally acceptable whilst then rejecting
the other pillar entirely. This was totally new territory of course but others like Heisenberg and Schrodinger and Bohr and
Dirac accepted it even if they did not always understand it. Now by complete contrast Einstein rejected it on philosophical
grounds which is not how a scientist should be doing science. And so Feynman was absolutely right when he said that the
only thing that matters is evidence. So anything which contradicts that has to be rejected even if it is so counter intuitive
it makes no sense. For what ultimately matters is if something is objectively true not whether or not it can be understood 

Just a caution: Einstein did not reject QM as a scientific theory, what he rejected was the prevailing interpretation.

[Baruch]

Just a caution: Einstein did not reject QM as a scientific theory, what he rejected was the prevailing interpretation.

Maybe Einstein just didn't like a cheesy danish ... like Bohr ;-)  The book, Thirty Years That Shook Physics ... they pointed out that Bohr's laboratory was financed by a beer brewery.  Maybe Bohr sampled the production too much?  He is the father of the "shut up and just calculate" school of physics.  If you study Einstein as a philosopher ... he was neo-Kantian, not really Machian (who was a pure empiricist).  Einstein's thinking was eclectic, he used whatever philosophy suited him at the time.  Bohr was like some here ... philosophy agnostic.  If you have the right equation kabuki (original Bohr atom) then all things are good.  But it took DeBroglie to explain why the Bohr atom worked ... and Schrodinger to perfect it.  Heisenberg on the other hand was like Bohr, but a better mathematician.  To my taste, QM circa 1930 does seem semi-empirical ... as it did to Einstein (and Planck, DeBroglie, and Schrodinger).  But Einstein's intuition ran out of gas around 1924 ... he had gone from being the rebel who challenged the authorities, to being an authority himself!  Relativistic QM started prematurely with Schrodinger (early Klein-Gordon), established by Dirac, perfected by Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga.  Physics today is running on fumes from 1950 forward, especially from 1983 onward.  But nobody has seriously eliminated the Copenhagen (Bohr) interpretation.

If you look at physics around 1900 ... there were three schools.  Newtonian mechanical, Maxwell field theory, Boltzmann thermodynamics (aka energeticism).  The Newtonian was maintained for ordinary engineering (though Poincare had pointed out other celestial mechanical problems other than the orbit of Mercury, that ultimately presaged Chaos theory).  Maxwell field theory led to early electronics.  Statistical energeticism led to QM ... first with Planck and Einstein.  And QM led to modern electronics.  With few exceptions, relativity theory has had little practical impact aside from GPS.  Maxwell field theory, while perfected by SR, provided us with radio and radar.  Einstein't corollary to Planck's work, was more crucial, though he rated it little compared to relativity theory ... and that is what he got the Nobel for.  As an engineering student, I of course had to study the practical side of all three positions ... the more esoteric theoretical and experimental ... had little impact on my education ... unless I had shifted from engineering to physics in grad school.  As it turned out, I went computer science instead.

[surreptitious57]

The Copenhagen interpretation may not have been eliminated but it is by no means universal
Since there are alternatives to it that have support within the physics community such as the
the many worlds interpretation and string theory. These are the serious rivals to Copenhagen
There are also physicists who do not support any of these so nothing is established right now

[josephpalazzo]

The Copenhagen interpretation may not have been eliminated but it is by no means universal
Since there are alternatives to it that have support within the physics community such as the
the many worlds interpretation and string theory. These are the serious rivals to Copenhagen
There are also physicists who do not support any of these so nothing is established right now

The sticky point about those who are still "intrigued" about QM often haven't studied QFT. QM is like getting a small sandwich with the crust cut off that people used as an appetizer, but unfortunately some think it's the main course. Those who have moved on to QFT find the discussion about interpretations of QM quaint and frankly obsolete. I feel sad for those who are still cranking papers after papers- perhaps to justify their tenure - on this subject, wondering where's the spooky action at a distance and the collapse of the wave function, and so on, and are still mesmerized about quantum "weirdness". Of course, there are people, like Michio Kaku, who are banking on continuing to have this weird stuff alive in order to fill auditoriums and get a hefty speaker's fee.

[Baruch]

The sticky point about those who are still "intrigued" about QM often haven't studied QFT. QM is like getting a small sandwich with the crust cut off that people used as an appetizer, but unfortunately some think it's the main course. Those who have moved on to QFT find the discussion about interpretations of QM quaint and frankly obsolete. I feel sad for those who are still cranking papers after papers- perhaps to justify their tenure - on this subject, wondering where's the spooky action at a distance and the collapse of the wave function, and so on, and are still mesmerized about quantum "weirdness". Of course, there are people, like Michio Kaku, who are banking on continuing to have this weird stuff alive in order to fill auditoriums and get a hefty speaker's fee.

While low energy QM might be quaint ... I don't think that high energy QM aka QFT is free of interpretation.  Brian Greene is a stringier version of Michio Kaku IMHO.  Popularization of science is always suspect to me.  So it is a gambit ... try to deal with interpretation in a perhaps easier but limited situation, or go whole hog and deal with interpretation there.  In the case of Einstein, he had to develop SR first, then GR ... not GR and then derive SR from that.  But it would be astounding in some parallel universe if that is what happened there.  That Einstein would have a very enlarged cranium compared to the one in our universe, and maybe an even fuzzier head of hair ;-)