3 ms·

These characters still exist on Reddit and elsewhere. They typically also stick to trying to disprove SR, because it barely requires more than high school math.

These characters still exist on Reddit and elsewhere. They typically also stick to trying to disprove SR, because it barely requires more than high school math. No one ever tries to disprove the foundations of condensed matter physics.

jjoonathan 5y ago
Doesn't condensed matter physics heavily feature harmonic analysis? It's a pity -- if math weren't so damn difficult, we could point all the "crystal resonance" crowd in a productive, fascinating direction.
- boppo1 5y ago
  I'm a mathlet who is working slowly on learning more. Can you elaborate on the connection you're drawing?
  - dasudasu 5y ago
    Bloch's theorem I'd assume.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
whatshisface 5y ago
>No one ever tries to disprove the foundations of condensed matter physics. My contribution to this severely under-served department: "It can't possibly be correct to use relativistic field theory to write effective fields for excitations of a wave medium when the whole idea of SR was that there wasn't a medium."
- wrycoder 5y ago
  That's not the "whole idea" of SR. What he said in his 1905 paper was, "The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be /superfluous/ inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place." In 1920, after developing GR, his views were considerably more nuanced, as expressed in his 1920 lecture at the Leyden University, "Ether and the Theory of Relativity": "Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it." Einstein, Albert. Sidelights on Relativity . Public Domain Books. Kindle Edition. (0.99$ on Amazon) That lecture, by the way, is a superb example of presenting the frontier of 1920 physics - before Schrodinger, Dirac, and modern field theory - without using any mathematical notation whatsoever.
bee_rider 5y ago
I believe (although it isn't my field) that Semiconductor physics is considered to be ultimately grounded in condensed matter physics, right? So we could look at the ridiculous idea that transistors could just keep getting tinier and tinier as a bit of a crackpot idea. Turns out these physicists managed to "yes, and..." their way into controlling, what, most of the economy?

jjoonathan 5y ago

Doesn't condensed matter physics heavily feature harmonic analysis? It's a pity -- if math weren't so damn difficult, we could point all the "crystal resonance" crowd in a productive, fascinating direction.

boppo1 5y ago
I'm a mathlet who is working slowly on learning more. Can you elaborate on the connection you're drawing?
- dasudasu 5y ago
  Bloch's theorem I'd assume.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

whatshisface 5y ago

>No one ever tries to disprove the foundations of condensed matter physics. My contribution to this severely under-served department: "It can't possibly be correct to use relativistic field theory to write effective fields for excitations of a wave medium when the whole idea of SR was that there wasn't a medium."

wrycoder 5y ago
That's not the "whole idea" of SR. What he said in his 1905 paper was, "The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be /superfluous/ inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place." In 1920, after developing GR, his views were considerably more nuanced, as expressed in his 1920 lecture at the Leyden University, "Ether and the Theory of Relativity": "Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it." Einstein, Albert. Sidelights on Relativity . Public Domain Books. Kindle Edition. (0.99$ on Amazon) That lecture, by the way, is a superb example of presenting the frontier of 1920 physics - before Schrodinger, Dirac, and modern field theory - without using any mathematical notation whatsoever.

bee_rider 5y ago

I believe (although it isn't my field) that Semiconductor physics is considered to be ultimately grounded in condensed matter physics, right? So we could look at the ridiculous idea that transistors could just keep getting tinier and tinier as a bit of a crackpot idea. Turns out these physicists managed to "yes, and..." their way into controlling, what, most of the economy?