Explanation of Newtonian Time

Matt Farr posted a new paper on Time in Classical Physics:

Wigner (1995, 334) describes how Newton’s “most important” achievement was the division of the world into “Initial Conditions and Laws of Nature”, noting that “[b]efore Newton there was no sharp separation between the two concepts. […] After Newton’s time the sharp separation of initial conditions and laws of nature was taken for granted and rarely even mentioned.” This is the central feature of the Newtonian schema.

Some people are so locked into this view that they say that indeterminism and free will are inconceivable. When you make a choice at a restaurant menu, it has to be determined by the initial conditions, or else the laws of physics are violated. No, that is just the Newtonian schema.

For example, Sabine Hossenfelder argues:

And according to new scientist, the superdeterminist view 5:20 naturally raises the possibility that the laws of physics are at odds with unlimited free will. 5:26 What are we to make of this? For one thing, this free will assumption in quantum physics, despite 5:33 its name, has nothing to do with what we normally refer to as free will in none of the definitions 5:40 that philosophers like to use.

Regardless of what you think quantum physics exactly means, the laws 5:47 of physics are always at odds with unlimited free will. This is why they're called laws. If you jump 5:54 off a bridge, you'll fall down. And no amount of free will is going to make you fall up.

She is saying that the Newtonian schema leaves no room for free will. If your initial conditions have you jumping off a bridge, the laws of physics determine your fall, and free will cannot do anything.

I think she is alluding to philosophers who try to define free will as being compatible with all your choices being determined before you were born. To those philosophers, free will is just in your imagination, and has nothing to do with the laws of physics or any actual choices you make. Most philosophers have such a nihilist view.

Yes, the Newton schema assumes that the past determines the future. That is not a law of physics. It is just an assumption. It works well approximately in a great many cases. Not all cases, if you believe in free will.

Some people also argue that the future can determine the past, in the same way that the past determines the future.

The above paper looks at what Newton said about time, and contrasts it with relativity and Lagrangian mechanics. Everyone says Newtonian time is more intuitive than relativistic time, but I am not sure. I have no intuition for anything going faster than light, as Newtonian time allows.

Lagrangian mechanics is another story. Time is just another variable, and it is not so clear how causality works. The paper tries to make sense of it.

New Scientist just released a video:

What Is Reality? Does Quantum Physics Have The Answer?

Over the past century, quantum physics has transformed science and reshaped our understanding of reality. In this special compilation from the New Scientist archive, we trace that evolution, from the birth of quantum mechanics to today’s lab-made “mini universes.”

We explore how quantum ideas revolutionised technology, how they continue to inspire new forms of creativity, and how recent breakthroughs are pushing the limits of what we can understand.

Most of it is not too bad, but it presents an expert physicist saying, about interpretations of quantum mechanics:

I think the 5:02 one that is probably most compelling to 5:04 the majority of physicists is called the 5:06 many worlds interpretation. It's 5:08 compelling because it says that 5:09 fundamentally we are also in superposition. Every possibility has a 5:14 realization in different worlds.

No, this is crazy stuff. I hope it is not true that a majority of physicists find this nuttiness compelling.

The Schroedinger Cat was once an example of silly thinking. Now this man is compelled to believe in many-worlds because he wants to believe that he is just like a Schroeding cat.

Quantum Computing Skepticism

I gave an online presentation on my quantum computing skepticism, and it is now posted. Thanks to the sponsors for making this happen, and persisting in the face of criticism from enthusiasts.

Why Einstein's Dishonesty was Tolerated

I wrote a book on Einstein, but I was never able to explain why everyone overcredits him for relativity and other wisdom.

One explanation is that most people do not know the history of relativity. Yes, that's true, but the history is well-documented for all the scholars who bother to look.

Another possible explanation is that his reputation was being propped up by friends or Jews or Leftists or others who were partial to him for some reason. But he gets plenty of exaggerated support from non-Jews and others with no obvious ties.

Galina Weinstein is an Israeli philosopher, and Einstein scholar and worshipper, and she suggests another possibility. Because the Nazis denigrated Einstein in the 1930s, an Einstein critic might get labeled a Nazi.

What is not acceptable is ... to frame the [relativity priority] debate in terms that echo long-standing prejudicial tropes.

As I commented:

Apparently this is a veiled reference to a stereotype of Jews being dishonest plagiarists, and as being parasitic, unoriginal, morally corrupt, and eager to appropriate the achievements and culture of others.

That seems rude, but Weinstein is essentially saying that Einstein must be credited to avoid those stereotypes. Just to be sure, I conferred with an AI, and it confirmed the interpretation.

A 1931 German book was titled, A Hundred Authors Against Einstein. According to Wikipedia, Einstein said the authors were Nazi professors, but that was not true. Maybe a couple of them were Nazis. He emigrated from Germany a couple of years later.

Sabine Hossenfelder says the book's main objection was that "Einstein’s theory is merely a philosophical construction." But that is how Einstein's biggest admirers credit him. He cannot be credited with any of the mathematical or physical elements of the theory, and they all predate him.

All this gave the impression that criticizing Einstein was something that ignorant and anti-Jewish Nazis would do.

To me, the history of relativity seems far removed from Jewish issues. But then Weinstein argues that certain Einstein criticisms are unacceptable, if they echo Jewish stereotypes.

If she is right, then maybe that is why almost everyone credits Einstein for relativity, and idolizes him as a great genius. They will be called Nazi and prejudiced, if they do not.

Then there is the issue of Deutsche Physik versus Jewish science. I cannot find a clear explanation of the difference. Wikipedia says that some Germans questioned Einstein's notion of the aether, and some experimental results.

Any analysis of how Einstein's relativity work might be Jewish science must be based on what Einstein actually contributed to special relativity. The consensus among historians is that Einstein ignored experiments like Michelson-Morley, and that he had no new formulas or testable ideas. Einstein is usually praised for obscure terminological differences that have no physical significance. Is there something Talmudic about that? I don't know.

This all seems foolish to me. Einstein was a brilliant physicist. There are lots of other brilliant Jewish physicists. Just credit them for what they did. Those who artificially inflate his reputation are the ones echoing those long-standing tropes.

The Fitzgerald-Lorentz Contraction is not Real

Sabine Hossenfelder's latest physics video:

Over a century ago, Einstein wrote his theories of special relativity and general relativity. Within those theories, he predicted that, as an object moves faster, it slightly contracts in length. However, 50 years later Penrose and Terrell predicted that what one would see is instead that the object is rotated. In a recent experiment, physicists proved that this Penrose-Terrell effect is actually real. Let’s take a look.

She is a big Einstein idolizer. Her favorite prop is an Einstein bobblehead.

Let me review the basic facts.

The relativity length contraction was discovered by Fitzgerald in 1889 and Lorentz in 1892. Lorentz also discovered time dilation in 1895. Both of them used these to explain the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment.

Poincare in 1905 and Minkowski in 1907 explained these as a new geometry of spacetime. In their interpretation, the spacetime distortions are not real, but an artifact of choosing a frame in the 4D non-euclidean geometry. This interpretation was quickly accepted, and is the dominant one today.

Dr. Bee starts:

0:00 Albert Einstein totally changed our understanding of space and time. ...

Einstein’s theory of 0:46 special relativity makes two most remarkable predictions. The first is time dilation, 0:52 the other one is length contraction. Time dilation means that if an object moves faster 0:58 than its internal time passes slower. Length contraction means that the same fast-moving 1:05 object will also be shorter. It’s not that it appears shorter, it actually is shorter.

No, Lorentz and others made those remarkable predictions 10+ years ahead of Einstein. They said that the motion actually actually made the Michelson apparatus shorter. I think most physicists today would say that it only appears shorter.

In 1931, a group of scientists went so far 1:24 as to publish a book called “100 authors against Einstein.” It’s an interesting historical summary 1:31 of why people rejected Einstein’s insights, more than 2 decades after he had put them forward.

1:38 Some of them claimed Einstein’s maths is wrong. Some said the maths is right, 1:44 but they did it earlier.

The most frequent objection though was that they thought 1:49 Einstein’s theory is merely a philosophical construction. They thought that special 1:55 relativity tells us something about the way we see things. Not about how they really are. 2:01 Well, they were wrong. We know that length contraction is real. A moving object really is 2:08 shorter.

Her opinion is very strange. Lorentz and Poincare had all the equations and predictions before Einstein. The only way to credit Einstein for relativity is to say that he had a superior philosophical construction. If the Lorentz contraction is real and the 1931 book was wrong to say that Einstein had a philosophical construction, then Lorentz had it all before Einstein.

Here is what Poincare wrote in 1905, before Einstein:

But the question can still be seen form another point of view, which could be better understood by analogy. Let us suppose an astronomer before Copernicus who reflects on the system of Ptolemy; ...

Or this part which would be, so to speak, common to all the physical phenomena, would be only apparent, something which would be due to our methods of measurement. ...

so that the theory of Lorentz is as completely rejected as it was the system of Ptolemy by the intervention of Copernicus.

He says his view is like Copernicus rejecting Ptolemy, putting a new view on the same data. The relativity contraction is only apparent, due to our methods of measurement.

This is the modern view of relativity. It was popularized by Minkowski in 1907-8, and accepted ever since. Einstein is only credited because of a mistaken belief that he contributed to this modern view. In fact, the view was published before Einstein, and Einstein rejected it when he learned about it.

Most of Dr. Bee's video is about a new paper confirming a visual illusion that Penrose discovered.

Whatever Happened to String Theory?

Gizmodo reports:

Whatever Happened to String Theory?

At the turn of the century, it sounded as if string theory could give us big answers about the universe. Well… has it?

Believe it or not, physicists want to keep it simple. That’s why many scientists, including Albert Einstein, believe physics could eventually converge into a single, overarching paradigm that describes the universe — a theory of everything.

It was always a foolish belief. Especially Einstein's version of it. Anyone looking for a "paradigm" is not doing science.

Enter string theory. Very broadly speaking, string theory is a mathematical framework that replaces point-like particles with one-dimensional “strings” as the fundamental building blocks of matter. It was initially proposed as an explanation for a different phenomenon but quickly caught the attention of physicists working to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity—two extremely successful, equally valid theories that notoriously don’t get along.

Everybody says those theories conflict, but there is no problem as they apply to anything observable.

Then followed two “superstring revolutions,” which saw impressive strides in mapping out the details of how string theory could capture the complexity of our universe. The fervor of string theory naturally leaked over to popular conversations—science enthusiasts of the 1990s and 2000s, I’m looking at you—producing famous documentaries such as PBS’s The Elegant Universe and a trove of popular and academic books.

The word "revolution" is another tipoff that science is not being done.

The article requested comments from experts, and got a variety of opinions.

I say that string theory was trying to solve a problem that did not exist. It was a mathematical exercise with no relation to science.

In twenty years, I look forward to articles on what happened to quantum computing, quantum cryptography, teleportation, and other trendy topics of today.

Quantum Supremacy by 2028

Dr. Quantum Supremacy lists some recent quantum computing announcements, and says:

Evidence continues to pile up that we are not living in the universe of Gil Kalai and the other quantum computing skeptics. Indeed, given the current staggering rate of hardware progress, I now think it’s a live possibility that we’ll have a fault-tolerant quantum computer running Shor’s algorithm before the next US presidential election. And I say that not only because of the possibility of the next US presidential election getting cancelled, or preempted by runaway superintelligence!

Note that he is not quite saying that I have been proved wrong. Maybe I will be proved wrong by 2028.

Many-worlds Theory Rejects Models and Probabilities

The Sean M. Carroll podcast just had a guest talking about models and probabilities for an hour. And then he said:

1:01:43 the many worlds idea that you know this wave function which is the beast of 1:01:48 quantum mechanics, the thing that it that it provides for the whole universe in principle um has a very natural way 1:01:56 of describing everything that there is as being split 1:02:01 into quote unquote worlds.

Um, and that there's a there's also a 1:02:09 very natural beast that comes with quantum mechanics which tells you how probable you are to be in a world and 1:02:16 that that's all you need. And that sort of and that all that there is is this wave function and these probabilities which are part of the wave function. 1:02:21 They're not externally tacked on. Um, and that from that you get out all of 1:02:26 the predictions of quantum mechanics that you could possibly want.

No, that is completely wrong. The many-worlds theory does not tell you how probable you are to be in a world, and it does not give you the predictions of quantum mechanics.

Carroll is a big proponent of many-worlds, and he knows the guest was wrong, but quietly wrapped up the interview.

Many-theory theory stands in opposition to everything the guest was says. He said all of physics, and indeed all of science and life itself, can be understand in terms of models and probabilities. But many-worlds theory is a rejection of that whole concept, as it hypothesizes that everything that can happen, does happen, and probabilities are meaningless.

People who learn many-worlds always assume that it says that some worlds are more likely than others. But no one has ever gotten that to work. Nor would the proponents want it to work, as the whole point is to reject models and probabilities.