Talk:World History Lecture Eleven - Revision history

Rubashov: /* Communism and Christianity */ new section

2010-01-20T15:43:01Z

Communism and Christianity: new section

Robert: /* 20th century science */ new section

2009-05-16T19:21:40Z

20th century science: new section

ClementB: /* Postulates of Special Relativity */

2009-04-29T04:03:10Z

Postulates of Special Relativity

Aschlafly: /* Postulates of Special Relativity */ reply to Clement

2009-04-28T23:23:21Z

Postulates of Special Relativity: reply to Clement

ClementB: /* Postulates of Special Relativity */

2009-04-26T04:29:34Z

Postulates of Special Relativity

Aschlafly: /* Postulates of Special Relativity */ reply

2009-04-26T03:36:33Z

Postulates of Special Relativity: reply

ClementB: /* Postulates of Special Relativity */ typo

2009-04-26T03:03:45Z

Postulates of Special Relativity: typo

ClementB: /* Postulates of Special Relativity */

2009-04-26T02:39:18Z

Postulates of Special Relativity

Aschlafly: /* Postulates of Special Relativity */ reply to Clement

2009-04-25T23:59:21Z

Postulates of Special Relativity: reply to Clement

ClementB: /* Postulates of Special Relativity */

2009-04-25T04:10:44Z

Postulates of Special Relativity

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:43, January 20, 2010
Line 299:		Line 299:

	[[User:Robert\|Robert]] 15:21, 16 May 2009 (EDT)		[[User:Robert\|Robert]] 15:21, 16 May 2009 (EDT)
		+
		+	== Communism and Christianity ==
		+
		+	I've noticed that the section on "Communism" enters almost immediately into a discussion of Christianity and the parables of Jesus. Might it make more sense (and perhaps be more intellectually honest) to consider/critique Communist ideology on its own terms a little more before moving on to interpretations from the Christian perspective. Communism (and the work of Karl Marx more broadly) is a complex and difficult social theory that, like it or not, is important even today to how we understand and discuss our world. It would seem important that students become familiar with the theory itself to allow for more informed critique. As the section on Socialism and Communism in lecture ten strikes me as a bit light, I think we should add a bit more heft, either in Lecture Ten or here. --[[User:Rubashov\|Rubashov]] 10:43, 20 January 2010 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:21, May 16, 2009
Line 247:		Line 247:

	:::::: Orwell was a member of the POUM (Workers' Party of Marxist Unification ). He wrote a book about it, ''Homage to Catalonia''. That's hardly obscure. [[User:ClementB\|Clement ♗]] 16:05, 24 April 2009 (EDT)		:::::: Orwell was a member of the POUM (Workers' Party of Marxist Unification ). He wrote a book about it, ''Homage to Catalonia''. That's hardly obscure. [[User:ClementB\|Clement ♗]] 16:05, 24 April 2009 (EDT)
		+
		+	== 20th century science ==
		+
		+	There are a number of comments I'd like to make about the science / technology section of this lecture. That is the only part I'm going to address; the rise of "modern physics" (quantum mechanics and relativity) happens to be something I take great interest in. Some of my comments are rather trivial, like the way Freud died, but some are, in my opinion, quite serious, to the point of being untrue, or at least seriously misleading to the point of appearing deceptive.
		+
		+	:But first, you have challenged other contributors making comments on the talk page for lecture 9 to take your midterm exam. Accordingly, I have created a "modern physics" midterm [[User:Robert/Physics Exam\|here]]. In the spirit of good fun, I challenge you to take it. And, of course, feel free to adapt any of these questions into your exams.
		+
		+	Here are my comments:
		+
		+	*"The most notable accomplishment in science was the discovery of quantum mechanics ..." You should qualify it as "accomplishments in ''20th century'' science". I realize that this lecture is about the early 20th century, so the context should be clear, but the sentence looks funny without that qualification. Also, you should mention that there were ''two'' theoretical achievements in the early years of the 20th century: quantum mechanics and relativity. Those two together are considered to be the rise of "modern physics", perhaps the most important physics watershed in history. You may consider them very different, and you may assign much greater importance to one than the other, but the fact is that they are taken together whenever one writes the history of "modern physics".
		+	*"ultimately produced about a dozen Nobel Prizes" About a dozen? Much more than that, I'd say. I don't have the list in front of me (it could be looked up easily), but I'd guess that most physics Nobels have been related to quantum mechanics and subatomic behavior.
		+	*"basis for the entire computer industry today" I'll have more to say about that below.
		+	*"Enrico Fermi, a devout Christian" I don't know for sure, but that may be a stretch. From what I've read, he was raised in a not-very-observant Catholic family, and was not very observant himself. He may have been an agnostic. But I'm not an expert on this. You could very well have better information.
		+	*"Quantum mechanics formed the basis later for the discovery of very small transistors, which today form the integrated circuits in every computer and electronic device." More below. It is, in any case, somewhat redundant with an earlier statement.
		+	*"relativity was proposed based on mathematical theory rather than observation" Well, quantum mechanics was also based on mathematical theory (statistical mechanics) rather than observation. No one observed quantum effects in a recognizable way until well after Planck's "quantized oscillator" theory. Of course, Planck's observations about statistical mechanics were ultimately based on observation (no area of physics can be formulated completely in a vacuum), but the same can be said of relativity -- it was based on observed invariance of Maxwell's equations, etc. The two theories actually had quite similar origins, as mathematical theories designed to explain effects that were quite esoteric in comparison with the usual way scientific theories are made (dropping balls from the Tower of Pisa, for example.)
		+	*"the expression arose that 'space is curved.' But experiments later proved that space is flat overall." Totally misleading and/or wrong. The curvature of spacetime as the source of gravity is firmly established, and has been for decades. The way this is popularized is unfortunate, but the statement you made seems to be exploiting the imprecision of the curvature in the popular imagination. It then seems to imply that space isn't curved after all. This is just wrong, if not outright deceptive. The two effects are completely different. The scientists using supernova data to determine the overall curvature of the universe know full well that ''local'' curvature is real, and is the source of gravity.
		+	*"Nothing useful has even been built based on the theory of relativity" More below.
		+	*"Einstein's work had nothing to do with the development of the atom bomb, contrary to popular opinion." Largely true, and you are to be congratulated for debunking some nonsense. (I even have a book about the Manhattan Project claiming that Einstein was at Los Alamos!) But "nothing to do with" is too strong a statement. I'm not sure just how the sentence should be phrased.
		+	*"validity of that particular award [Hulse/Taylor, I presume?] is questionable" Is this really a controversy you want to get into? Are you questioning the research or results of Hulse and Taylor? Can you cite that? Is it relevant to the history of 20th century physics?
		+	*"Many things predicted by the theory of relativity, such as gravitons" Not true. Relativity never predicted gravitons. They arose from later attempts (still ongoing) to unify relativity with quantum mechanics. As you know, Einstein never participated in those attempts, and wasn't very accepting of quantum mechanics.
		+	*"Many observed phenomena, such as the bending of light passing near the sun or the advance of the perihelion in the orbit of Mercury, can be also predicted by Newton's theory." '''Absolutely untrue'''. The two theories give different values for the bending of light; and the determination of which value was correct (not whether it bends at all) is what Eddington was seeking. We all know that Eddington handled the situation in a way that wouldn't pass muster today, and pointing this out was the right thing. But subsequent observations, that are accurate and unimpeachable, confirm the relativity value or 1.75 arcseconds. There is a lot of confusion in the lay literature about whether classical mechanics predicted any bending at all, and, consequently, just what Eddington was looking for. You have a chance to clear that up. But the existing article seems to muddy the waters, rather than clearing them.
		+	:Furthermore, Newton's theory '''does not predict (anomalous) perihelion precession'''. Absolutely not at all. Now one might think that one could fudge the exponent (2) in the inverse square law, but
		+	:*That wouldn't be Newton's theory. Newton set the exponent to 2.
		+	:*It doesn't work in any case. The anomalous precession fraction is 3 v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>. Connected with the velocity as a fraction of the speed of light. It is, without question, a relativistic effect.
		+	:General relativity is the only credible theory explaining this, and has been right from the start.
		+	*"Eddington supposedly retorted, 'Who's the third?'" This is a very widely misunderstood anecdote. You say nothing about what he meant. Please put it into the context, so that people can understand what it was about, and not continue with their lack of understanding.
		+	*"many seized upon the theory of relativity to apply it in a vague way to morality and social issues" Could you please say "wrongly seized upon"? I know you believe that seizing upon this is wrong; you can help put this foolishness to rest.
		+	*"There remains enormous political support for the theory of relativity that has nothing to do with physics" Really? Does this have to do with the "vague morality and social issues" business? You seem to be implying that by putting it in the very next sentence. Do you really believe that congressional appropriations on LIGO, for example, are based on some notion that it will promote moral relativism? Can you cite evidence?
		+	*Big bang vs. steady state -- good.
		+	*Freud -- minor nit: Is there a point to saying that his death was assisted by a physician? If your intent is to show that doctor-assisted suicide did not originate with Dr. Kevorkian, and that it was going on at least as far back as 1939, please say so, with appropriate statistical data. As it is, one anecdote doesn't really say much. BTW, a far more telling anecdote relating to 20th century science would be the death of Max Planck's son.
		+
		+	=== When is technology "based on" something theoretical? ===
		+
		+	Some statements in the lecture, cited above, attempt to draw a clear distinction between quantum mechanics, with an apparently huge number of practical applications (including the entire computer and semiconductor industry) and relativity, with none at all. It is extremely misleading to say that quantum mechanics can be credited with producing transistor technology. So much so that a reader might come away from this lecture having been deceived into thinking that quantum mechanics is "more important" than relativity. They are both extremely important. But they are both '''theoretical''' advances. They give us insights into how the universe works. In retrospect, those insights are, of course, crucial to everything we do. Including transistors.
		+
		+
		+	Consider this:
		+
		+	*Quantum mechanics tells us how electron orbitals work, and hence how all chemical reactions work. Without chemical reactions, we would have nothing.
		+	*Relativity tells us how gravity works. Without gravity, we would have nothing. Relativity also tells us how electromagnetism works. This is the basis for the "electrical revolution" of the 19th and 20th centuries.
		+
		+	But people have known about chemical reactions (for example, fire) since long before 1900, and people have known about gravity since long before 1900. Fire, and all the inventions dependent on it, is now known to be explained by quantum mechanics. Space travel, to name one thing out of millions, depends on combustion. Do we credit quantum mechanics for that?
		+
		+	Similarly, without gravity, we would not be in orbit around the Sun. We would have none of the benefits of being close to a star. In fact, neither the Sun nor the Earth could have formed. Do we credit relativity for that?
		+
		+	Furthermore, the electric and magnetic forces are unified by relativity. Magnetism could be thought of as just a relativistic consequence of the electric force. Therefore, all electric motors and generators, for example, use relativity as the underpinnings of their operation. Do we credit relativity for that? Of course, Maxwell knew nothing about relativity when he formulated his equations. He did not know that they took the form that they did because of relativity. But the cavemen didn't know about the quantum-mechanical underpinnings of fire.
		+
		+	We can credit quantum mechanics, and relativity, '''after the fact''' for all these wonderful things. But most of them were developed without direct use of these theories. There are a few inventions (SQUIDS, for example) that directly, intentionally, and knowingly depend on quantum mechanics. But most use it indirectly. The semiconductor properties of Germanium and Silicon were known long before the details of the "band theory" solid-state quantum mechanics were worked out.
		+
		+	Putting it another way, one can fabricate a transistor without knowing the details of quantum mechanics, just as one can upload gravitational time dilation information to GPS satellites, or turn on a fan, without knowing the details of relativity.
		+
		+	[[User:Robert\|Robert]] 15:21, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:03, April 29, 2009
Line 195:		Line 195:

	::::: Rather than answer my two simple questions, or be substantive, you resort to a question rant. Surely you don't think Pauli's formulation is perfect, and incapable of improvement. No, your real position seems to be that a ''conservative'' cannot possibly improve on it!--[[User:Aschlafly\|Andy Schlafly]] 19:23, 28 April 2009 (EDT)		::::: Rather than answer my two simple questions, or be substantive, you resort to a question rant. Surely you don't think Pauli's formulation is perfect, and incapable of improvement. No, your real position seems to be that a ''conservative'' cannot possibly improve on it!--[[User:Aschlafly\|Andy Schlafly]] 19:23, 28 April 2009 (EDT)
		+
		+	:::::: Two answer your two questions:
		+	::::::*Do you ever ''apply'' the Bible in your quest for the truth? - '''Yes'''
		+	::::::*Do you earnestly seek the truth? - '''Yes'''
		+	::::::Now, here are mine:
		+	::::::*Do you try to ''apply'' the Bible to physics?
		+	::::::*Do you think you are the one to improve Pauli's formulation of Einstein's postulates substantially? The same formulations which are around for a century and used by physicists around the world? Endorsed by the leading scientist of his time? Please, do yourself a favor, and ask some actual physicists what they think about your version...
		+	:::::: [[User:ClementB\|Clement ♗]] 00:03, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

	== Regarding Trotsky ==		== Regarding Trotsky ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:23, April 28, 2009
Line 193:		Line 193:

	::::[[User:ClementB\|Clement ♗]] 00:29, 26 April 2009 (EDT)		::::[[User:ClementB\|Clement ♗]] 00:29, 26 April 2009 (EDT)
		+
		+	::::: Rather than answer my two simple questions, or be substantive, you resort to a question rant. Surely you don't think Pauli's formulation is perfect, and incapable of improvement. No, your real position seems to be that a ''conservative'' cannot possibly improve on it!--[[User:Aschlafly\|Andy Schlafly]] 19:23, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

	== Regarding Trotsky ==		== Regarding Trotsky ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:29, April 26, 2009
Line 187:		Line 187:

	:::Your biblical quote is a good start but it's unclear what it means, if anything, to you. Do you ever ''apply'' the Bible in your quest for the truth? Do you earnestly seek the truth?--[[User:Aschlafly\|Andy Schlafly]] 23:36, 25 April 2009 (EDT)		:::Your biblical quote is a good start but it's unclear what it means, if anything, to you. Do you ever ''apply'' the Bible in your quest for the truth? Do you earnestly seek the truth?--[[User:Aschlafly\|Andy Schlafly]] 23:36, 25 April 2009 (EDT)
		+
		+	::::If your formulation of Einstein's postulates is superior Pauli's formulation (as quoted by me), why do physicists around the world use Pauli's version in text books, articles, etc. ? Why did Einstein, Sommerfeld, Born, etc. endorsed Pauli's article, where he stated the postulates the way I do? Is yours a new insight into the world of special relativity which all the physicists of today seem to have missed?
		+
		+	::::I'm sorry that you found the biblical quote unclear.
		+
		+	::::[[User:ClementB\|Clement ♗]] 00:29, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

	== Regarding Trotsky ==		== Regarding Trotsky ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:36, April 26, 2009
Line 181:		Line 181:

	::[[User:ClementB\|Clement ♗]] 22:39, 25 April 2009 (EDT)		::[[User:ClementB\|Clement ♗]] 22:39, 25 April 2009 (EDT)
		+
		+	:::My restated postulate that the "speed of light can never be increased" does preclude the scenario you describe, whereby a static observer increases the observed speed of light with the assistance of a moving observer. This is expressly precluded by my restatement of the postulate.
		+
		+	:::But your postulate about "independent of the motion of the light source" does not preclude increasing the speed of light beyond the ordinarily observed "c". Indeed, some relativists now insist that "c" need not be the ordinarily observed speed of light, but can be any assumed upper bound on the speed of light, and might be much greater than "c" as traditionally defined. My postulate is what underlies the above fundamental formula of relativity; your postulate requires redefining "c" in the above formula.
		+
		+	:::Your biblical quote is a good start but it's unclear what it means, if anything, to you. Do you ever ''apply'' the Bible in your quest for the truth? Do you earnestly seek the truth?--[[User:Aschlafly\|Andy Schlafly]] 23:36, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

	== Regarding Trotsky ==		== Regarding Trotsky ==

@@ Line 172: / Line 172: @@
 ::''Whoever digs a pit may fall into it; whoever breaks through a wall may be bitten by a snake. Whoever quarries stones may be injured by them; whoever splits logs may be endangered by them. If the ax is dull and its edge unsharpened, more strength is needed but skill will bring success. '' (Ecclesiastes 10:8-10)
-::'' If you don't believe me, then plug in a velocity ''v'' greater than ''c'' and watch what happens to the above equation.'' But, as you said, in the formula for time dilation, ''c'' represents the speed of light. Plug in a velocity greater than 300,000 km/sec for ''c'' and see what happens! Nothing much....
+::'' If you don't believe me, then plug in a velocity ''v'' greater than ''c'' and watch what happens to the above equation.'' But, as you said, in the formula for time dilation, ''c'' represents the speed of light. Plug in a velocity greater than 300,000,000 km/sec for ''c'' and see what happens! Nothing much....
 ::I said above: Your formulation: the ''speed of light can never be increased'' doesn't prevent that a static observer '''A''' and a moving observer '''B''' measure different quantities for the speed of light. It only implicates that these measurements doesn't differ from their own earlier - or later - done measurements.

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:39, April 26, 2009
Line 169:		Line 169:

	:As to the Bible, why do you avoid it so much? I cite it repeatedly in my history course, but I haven't seen you cite a passage from it yet despite all your commentary about history. Do you ever cite a specific passage from the Bible? I'd like to see just one example.--[[User:Aschlafly\|Andy Schlafly]] 19:59, 25 April 2009 (EDT)		:As to the Bible, why do you avoid it so much? I cite it repeatedly in my history course, but I haven't seen you cite a passage from it yet despite all your commentary about history. Do you ever cite a specific passage from the Bible? I'd like to see just one example.--[[User:Aschlafly\|Andy Schlafly]] 19:59, 25 April 2009 (EDT)
		+
		+	::''Whoever digs a pit may fall into it; whoever breaks through a wall may be bitten by a snake. Whoever quarries stones may be injured by them; whoever splits logs may be endangered by them. If the ax is dull and its edge unsharpened, more strength is needed but skill will bring success. '' (Ecclesiastes 10:8-10)
		+
		+	::'' If you don't believe me, then plug in a velocity ''v'' greater than ''c'' and watch what happens to the above equation.'' But, as you said, in the formula for time dilation, ''c'' represents the speed of light. Plug in a velocity greater than 300,000 km/sec for ''c'' and see what happens! Nothing much....
		+
		+	::I said above: Your formulation: the ''speed of light can never be increased'' doesn't prevent that a static observer '''A''' and a moving observer '''B''' measure different quantities for the speed of light. It only implicates that these measurements doesn't differ from their own earlier - or later - done measurements.
		+
		+	::In fact, that's my biggest rub with your formulation.
		+
		+	::The existence of a ''maximum fixed velocity for light'' (though not it's quantity) is a consequence of Einstein's postulates '''if they are stated correctly'''.
		+
		+	::[[User:ClementB\|Clement ♗]] 22:39, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

	== Regarding Trotsky ==		== Regarding Trotsky ==

@@ Line 161: / Line 161: @@
 In a discussion, someone will always have the last word - at least temporarily. But you'll have the last word on the article, as I won't alter it against your will.
 [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 00:10, 25 April 2009 (EDT)
 == Regarding Trotsky ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:10, April 25, 2009
Line 149:		Line 149:

	::::::::::::: Clement, there's no substance in your replies. You're just imitating and copying. This is a site for thinking. Please address the ''substance'' of my comments above. [[Last wordism]] is disfavored on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly\|Andy Schlafly]] 18:33, 24 April 2009 (EDT)		::::::::::::: Clement, there's no substance in your replies. You're just imitating and copying. This is a site for thinking. Please address the ''substance'' of my comments above. [[Last wordism]] is disfavored on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly\|Andy Schlafly]] 18:33, 24 April 2009 (EDT)
		+
		+	<- unindent: ''Please address the substance of my comments above.'' Fine.
		+	* ''Perhaps you "keep" the Bible "out of" many fields of inquiry, not just science and history (and why censor the Bible from history???).'': I said that ''I keep it out of my science or history classes'', I don't censor it from history.
		+	* '' I've never seen you quote or mention the Bible in any of your numerous edits here.'' I didn't quote the Bible, but I mentioned it - as I do now
		+	* ''You seem to quote everything and everyone except the Bible.'' The Bible doesn't say much about the history of Prussia, the political parties Orwell belonged to, or the Theory of Special Relativity. You haven't quoted the Bible on these issues neither. At the moment, I try to treat Conservapedia as an ''educational'' source, not a ''spiritual'' one.
		+	* '' You've never explained why you think the lecture is incorrect with respect to its current formulation of the relativity postulate.'' If you want to state Einstein's postulates, you should try to represent them truthfully, i.e., use a wording which is accepted in physics. We're talking about something quite elementary, so a look in a text book should help. '''You still haven't given any source for your formulation of the postulates'''. Your formulation: the ''speed of light can never be increased'' doesn't prevent that a static observer '''A''' and a moving observer '''B''' measure different quantities for the speed of light. It only implicates that these measurements doesn't differ from their own earlier - or later - done measurements.
		+	* '' I'm not even sure you do disagree with it, except that you say it is not how Pauli (who had nothing to do with relativity) described it.'' Pauli is nowadays most popular for his exclusion principle. But to say that ''had nothing to do with relativity'' is downright comical.
		+	* '' I have explained why Pauli's description is inadequate: his description ("the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source") does not expressly preclude somehow increasing the speed of light. '' First, it isn't a description, it's a widespread formulation of Einstein's postulates. Second, yes the postulates don't ''preclude expressly'' that the speed of light increases. As BHarlan stated above, that's a conclusion of the postulates.
		+	* ''Yet the formulas for relativity do assume that is impossible.'' What ''formulas for relativity'' are you referring to?
		+	Yes, I copied your edits above. I tried to address any statement of your edit. As for substance: Calling Pauli's work inadequate, and stating that he had ''nothing to do with the theory of relativity'' - though he wrote one of the most prominent articles on this subject made me cringe.
		+	In a discussion, someone will always have the last word - at least temporarily. But you'll have the last word on the article, as I won't alter it against your will.
		+	[[User:ClementB\|Clement ♗]] 00:10, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

	== Regarding Trotsky ==		== Regarding Trotsky ==