Errors in physics by Prof. Donald Simanek

Got a great idea? Tell the world about it here.

Moderators: mvs_staff, forum_admin, Marilyn

Errors in physics by Prof. Donald Simanek

Postby Albert 2016 » Fri Sep 02, 2016 3:38 am

Emeritus Prof. Donald Simanek, from Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania, is very tough toward errors by other people in physics.

On the contrary, it seems he is very indulgent with HIS OWN errors.
Here is what I found in his personal page
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/phys101.htm
At the end of the document, there is a section (this)
“Important physics facts often overlooked.”
where Simanek indicates some of the commonest errors in physics, among which:

1) No physical influence can propagate through space between two different points instantaneously. (Nothing can be in different places at the same time.) (???????)

2) Information cannot travel instantaneously between two displaced points. (????????)

With ref. to point 1), it seems that Simanek is confusing a lot concepts such as cause, effect, and propagation.
In other words, physicists such as Newton, Laplace, Eddington, Mach, Van Flandern, Volk ( me more modestly) etc. were/are believing that gravity (but also inertia according to Ernst Mach) is a force that propagates instantaneously.

Otherwise, if gravity propagates just at the speed of light, gravity attraction would be weakened, and distance between Sun and Earth would double in just 1,200 years.
So, instantaneous propagation of gravity is proved by the stability of our solar system, and planets' orbits, after billions of years.

But that does not mean at all that gravity is “in different places at the same time”, as Simanek wrote.
Gravity’s intensity - as a force – is simply given by m/d^2 , i.e. mass of a body (A) divided by the squared distance (d^2) from another body (B).
Therefore, if at the surface of the body A gravity is x, the same force is just x/d^2 on body B, regardless of the fact that gravity propagates instantaneously, or just at light speed (as Einstein believed).
In other words, velocity of gravity propagation has nothing to do with EFFECT/INTENSITY of gravity.
So, gravity is DIFFERENT in magnitude at the same time, in two distant location A and B, contrary to what Simanek wrote (“nothing can be in different places at the same time”) because gravity is a physical force, i.e. a physical cause that produces physical effects, it is not a person having the gift of ubiquity, as it seems after reading what he wrote.

2) It is not correct that information cannot travel instantaneously between two different points.
Many experiments by physicists such as Aspect, Zeilinger, Clauser, Freedman, etc. proved that in quantum entangled particles (photons) that interacted in the past, information between them is transmitted instantaneously, any measurements (such as spin and polarization) on a photon A is instantaneously changing spin and polarization of photon B, regardless of the distance between the 2 particles.

Simanek is confusing this (instantaneous entanglement/communication between 2 particles) with the fact that we – as humans – cannot communicate faster than light speed, because OUR information is being transmitted through light and electromagnetic waves, whose propagation is subject to the boundary condition of the speed of light, as limit of velocity.

It is the same, for instance, with ULTRA-SOUNDS. We – as humans – cannot hear ultra-sounds, because we can only perceive sounds whose frequencies are between 15-20 kHz. If an ultra-sound has a frequency under 100 kHz, it will be perceived by a bat, if frequency is over 100kHz up to 10 GHz, it will not be perceived by bats too.

BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT ULTRA-SOUNDS DO NOT EXIST!

So, Simanek is in error, because instantaneous communication in physics and quantum mechanics is surely possible, and experimentally proved as early as 1972, although we – humans – cannot communicate instantaneously.

Alberto Miatello
Albert 2016
Thinker
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2016 4:54 am

Re: Errors in physics by Prof. Donald Simanek

Postby robert 46 » Tue Sep 06, 2016 8:48 am

Albert 2016 wrote:Emeritus Prof. Donald Simanek, from Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania, ...
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/phys101.htm
At the end of the document, there is a section (this)
“Important physics facts often overlooked.”
where Simanek indicates some of the commonest errors in physics, among which:

1) No physical influence can propagate through space between two different points instantaneously. (Nothing can be in different places at the same time.) (???????)

2) Information cannot travel instantaneously between two displaced points. (????????)

With ref. to point 1), it seems that Simanek is confusing a lot concepts such as cause, effect, and propagation.
In other words, physicists such as Newton, Laplace, Eddington, Mach, Van Flandern, Volk ( me more modestly) etc. were/are believing that gravity (but also inertia according to Ernst Mach) is a force that propagates instantaneously.

This is an antiquated idea from the age when people thought that light travelled instantaneously, and that there was only one absolute reference frame.
Otherwise, if gravity propagates just at the speed of light, gravity attraction would be weakened,

What is the basis for this belief?
... and distance between Sun and Earth would double in just 1,200 years.

What is the calculation which implies this?
So, instantaneous propagation of gravity is proved by the stability of our solar system, and planets' orbits, after billions of years.

You are saying that A implies C, and whereas C therefor A. This is the Affirming the Consequent fallacy because it does not rule out B implies C.
But that does not mean at all that gravity is “in different places at the same time”, as Simanek wrote.
Gravity’s intensity - as a force – is simply given by m/d^2 , i.e. mass of a body (A) divided by the squared distance (d^2) from another body (B).
Therefore, if at the surface of the body A gravity is x, the same force is just x/d^2 on body B, regardless of the fact that gravity propagates instantaneously, or just at light speed (as Einstein believed).
In other words, velocity of gravity propagation has nothing to do with EFFECT/INTENSITY of gravity.
So, gravity is DIFFERENT in magnitude at the same time, in two distant location A and B, contrary to what Simanek wrote (“nothing can be in different places at the same time”) because gravity is a physical force, i.e. a physical cause that produces physical effects,

You are equivocating over the meaning of "nothing"- which should be interpreted as being restricted to "no object". Force is not an object, and a force at one location can be different from the force at another location because these forces are dependent on factors other than the influencing object itself.

F=G*m1*m2/r^2
F=m1*a1
a1=G*m2/r^2
F=m2*a2
a2=G*m1/r^2
None of these equations are time dependent. Assuming the masses do not change, nor the gravitational constant, then we get:
a1(t)=G*m2/r2(t)^2
and
a2(t)=G*m1/r1(t)^2
Yet t is dependent on the frame of reference, so:
a1(t1)=G*m2/r2(t1)^2
and
a2(t2)=G*m1/r1(t2)^2
So what happens now is:
a1(now1)=G*m2/r2(now1)^2
and
a2(now2)=G*m1/r1(now2)^2

What this means is that the acceleration is inversely proportional to the square of the observed separation of the other mass, now. But the now's are relative to independent reference frames. Thereby under the principle "what you see is what you get", there is the necessity for the gravitational effect to coincide with the light: otherwise it would violate the principle. If one had a gravitational telescope then the location of the object, using it, must be at the same position as seen through a light telescope. One cannot have two different values of r(now) [a vector] for gravitational and light telescopes at the same location and time (one reference frame).
robert 46
Intellectual
 
Posts: 2775
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:21 am

Re: Errors in physics by Prof. Donald Simanek

Postby Albert 2016 » Wed Sep 07, 2016 5:02 am

@robert46

You wrote:

"This is an antiquated idea from the age when people thought that light travelled instantaneously, and that there was only one absolute reference frame."

No, you're in error!

First of all Newton, Laplace, etc. were clearly distinguishing between light and GRAVITY speed.

Morevover Ernst Mach refused Einstein's relativism because Einstein was unable to provide any evidence that light was really the fastest physical entity of the universe.

"What is the calculation which implies this?"

Because light from Sun takes 8 minutes to reach our Earth surface, so if gravity propagates at the same speed as light, there would be a delay in transmission of gravity intensity, and gravity attraction between Earth and Sun would be reduced, and in 1,200 years the distance between them would double.

However, it seems to me that you want to discuss things that you never studied, and that you don't know at all.
My kind suggestion is that you read - as a first approach - this paper by Tom Van Flandern - who was not "someone living centuries ago" (1940- 2009) but was a great physicist whose collaboration with military US authorities was fundamental to set off the Global Positioning System (GPS) , and who criticized a lot the ludicrous Einstein's dogma that gravity propagates at the same speed as light.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 0198006501

Morevover, you clearly don't know that Alan Guth's (Alan Guth is a living physicist of Boston MIT) model of inflationary universe, of 1984 is based on a light speed of 10^23 times faster than today's speed, clearly refuting Einstein's dogma that light is the absolute limit of velocity for all physical entities in our universe.

Furthermore, Simanek wrote another gross mistake, writing that "•No physical influence can propagate through space between two different points instantaneously. (Nothing can be in different places at the same time.) "

"Nothing can be in different places at the same time"????

This guy clearly ignores that Quantum superposition (a basic principle of Quantum mechanics) proves that in the well-known two slits experiment a photon can be in two different places at the same time
http://phys.org/news/2015-01-atoms.html

So, I think that you can do better things than defending Donald Simanek, who ignores basic principles of Quantum mechanics and physics.

Moreover,I would like to inform you that Prof. Donald Simanek in his website put a link

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/physics.htm

to the website of Herb Weiner, where this latter collected a lot of articles trying to ridicule Marilyn Vos Savant

So, my final question to you is:

Are you a friend of Donald Simanek who is trying (along with Herb Wiener) to ridicule Marilyn?

And so, why are you staying here?

Why don't you go with Simanek?

As far as I know this is Marilyn Vos Savant's website, it is not the website of Marilyn's enemies (as Donald Simanek)
Albert 2016
Thinker
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2016 4:54 am

Re: Errors in physics by Prof. Donald Simanek

Postby robert 46 » Wed Sep 07, 2016 12:30 pm

Albert 2016 wrote:robert 46 wrote: "What is the calculation which implies this?"

Because light from Sun takes 8 minutes to reach our Earth surface, so if gravity propagates at the same speed as light, there would be a delay in transmission of gravity intensity, and gravity attraction between Earth and Sun would be reduced, and in 1,200 years the distance between them would double.

... read - as a first approach - this paper by Tom Van Flandern
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 0198006501

I suggest you read this:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/R ... speed.html

Whereas the effects are of the order (v/c)^2 [1], they are not destabilizing of the solar system; so my claim that there is a B which implies C was correct.
Morevover, you clearly don't know that Alan Guth's (Alan Guth is a living physicist of Boston MIT) model of inflationary universe, of 1984 is based on a light speed of 10^23 times faster than today's speed, clearly refuting Einstein's dogma that light is the absolute limit of velocity for all physical entities in our universe.

There is a difference between the universe expanding at faster than light speed and the speed of light changing. The expansion causes the wavelength to increase, but the speed of light remains constant. In any case, I do not accept Guth's Inflationary Epoch speculation. It is ad hoc, sensitive to initial conditions, and unverifiable because currently we have no way to observe the universe before the decoupling time.
This guy [Simanek] clearly ignores that Quantum superposition (a basic principle of Quantum mechanics) proves that in the well-known two slits experiment a photon can be in two different places at the same time
http://phys.org/news/2015-01-atoms.html

It does nothing of the sort: whenever a photon is detected it is at one location. What it is doing when not detected is speculative and not subject to direct verification.
Moreover,I would like to inform you that Prof. Donald Simanek in his website put a link
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/physics.htm

to the website of Herb Weiner, where this latter collected a lot of articles trying to ridicule Marilyn Vos Savant.

Can you quote anything from the Wiskit website which qualifies as "ridicule"? Weiner has attempted to draw attention to errors in Marilyn's published answers. Are you aware that Marilyn sicced lawyers on Weiner in an attempt to shut down the website for "too much use of copyrighted material"? This was a grave blunder of Marilyn's because it shows that she reacted emotionally rather than intelligently. Attempting to suppress contrary opinion is incompatible with the search for truth.
So, my final question to you is:

Are you a friend of Donald Simanek who is trying (along with Herb Wiener) to ridicule Marilyn?

I have not heard of Simanek before, but have visited Weiner's website. What is your motive for using the inflammatory word "ridicule"?
And so, why are you staying here?

I have drawn attention to errors which I believe Marilyn has made. What better place than at her own website? She can't complain about "too much copyrighted material" being used here. But I also support Marilyn when I think she is right.


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity
robert 46
Intellectual
 
Posts: 2775
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:21 am

Re: Errors in physics by Prof. Donald Simanek

Postby Albert 2016 » Sat Oct 22, 2016 6:09 am

@robert46

you wrote

"It does nothing of the sort: whenever a photon is detected it is at one location. What it is doing when not detected is speculative (???) and not subject to direct verification."

When a photon is not detected it is subject to the usual rules of Quantum mechanics, so it is described by a wave function and the Schroedinger equation, it is not "speculative" as you wrote, it is the ABC of Quantum mechanics.

Sorry for not replying to your other statements (as the ones about Guth's model, and the speed of gravity, etc.) ,because the answer alone you gave me above, about the photon, is enough for me and it proves that you ignore everything of QM, so this is not a discussion, it is simply a waste of time.
Albert 2016
Thinker
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2016 4:54 am

Re: Errors in physics by Prof. Donald Simanek

Postby robert 46 » Sat Oct 22, 2016 9:51 am

Albert 2016 wrote:@robert46

you wrote

"It does nothing of the sort: whenever a photon is detected it is at one location. What it is doing when not detected is speculative (???) and not subject to direct verification."

When a photon is not detected it is subject to the usual rules of Quantum mechanics, so it is described by a wave function and the Schroedinger equation, it is not "speculative" as you wrote, it is the ABC of Quantum mechanics.

Recall that the Schrodinger equation is about probabilities (the wave function). It is not a description of a physical process, so it does not tell us what a photon actually does when not observed. That is the sense in which I used "speculative".
Sorry for not replying to your other statements (as the ones about Guth's model, and the speed of gravity, etc.) ,because the answer alone you gave me above, about the photon, is enough for me and it proves that you ignore everything of QM, so this is not a discussion, it is simply a waste of time.

Then why did you bother to post? There are several other issues which you have evaded with this summary dismissal.
robert 46
Intellectual
 
Posts: 2775
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:21 am


Return to Great Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests