Was Tesla right?

Was Tesla right?

Other urls found in this thread:

math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Dumb old guard.

>Tesla
>Dumb
Pick one.

*picks two*

No

Nice argument you've got there.

>94% of the universe is some spooky shit.

Yes. But he didn't provide a competing theory, so we're working with what we've got.

nice burden of proof u got there

Tesla was wrong. Plain and simple. He was an aether guy, he thought both relativity and QM is bullshit. Two of the most significant theories of modern physics. Experimentally verified ad absurdum. Yeah, he was just wrong.

No. Special and general relativity have both consistently been verified by experiment.

>Experimentally verified ad absurdum.
>Special and general relativity have both consistently been verified by experiment.
Not true. There have been experiments made, yes, but the results of those experiments aren't proofs that Einstein was right. They have just been interpreted that way due to wishful thinking and confirmation bias.

Sort of but since he provided nothing better he was kind of just being a dick

No. He was an engineer, not a scientist. Realistically, he couldn't pass a modern real analysis course. He was a brainlet who knows how to smash things together, congratulations.

>Was Tesla right?
I've not read the pic, but I'm going to say no.

einstein was also an aether guy

whats your point?

Tesla was usually wrong, except for a few times. He's also a hypocrite for saying that, having never verified most of his work which obviously didn't work the way he thought.

Yes, he is. Einstein knew he was wrong, but still published his work anyways. He just got lucky that what he was wrong about could be viewed as having physical meaning outside of being a fudge factor (cosmological constant).

The reality of the situation is that general relativity cannot be quantized, and is only marginally correct, however our undying acceptance over it forces us to work around its very obvious limitations, rather than find a better, more useful theory.

Tesla knew the Copenhagen interpretation was bullshit, and it is, and as a result of this bullshit, you have cucklords like Ed Witten winning a fucking fields medal by connecting unphysical theories on an 11-dimensional superbulk, calling it meme-theory, and people thinking that it actually speaks to reality.

This is physics bro. When you have infinite solutions to the problem and you cherry pick the one that best fits reality, you're fucking all of us in academia.

>this is your brain on engineering

You don't know shit about how science works. Everyone already knows "Einstein wasn't right." Except all that really matters, however, is that relativity is the best theory we have so far. And yes, relativity and QM have not only both been experimentally verified, but the theories are imortant in engineering things like GPS and lasers.

...

>I don't know shit about physics beyond pop-sci: The Post.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about, so I'd like you to tell me some experiments you think are just confirmation bias and not genuine indicators that relativity and QM are right. I mean obviously there are holes in any theory we have, so "right" might be a poor choice, but I mean it in the sense that it's blatantly incorrect

The aether he talks about is nothing like the aether tesla believid in. My point being, Tesla believed in a theory that was experimentally rejected in 1880s.
Mr philosopher, by right, we mean "better than anything we had at the time". And to this day, if a theory disagrees with relativity, it is considered (rightfully so) wrong. It is the best theory of gravity that we have for the macroscopic scales. And even though it might seem unintuitive or "wrong" to you, or it might disagree with your worldview, QM is here to stay. Learn some math and go read textbooks. When you finally accept QM, it's time to get your mind blown by Polchinski

I'm not that guy, but:
>I compose my posts out of buzzwords for lack of any valid counter-argument: the post

Counterargument to what? There's no argument in that post.

Woit please. Your opinions on M-theory are irrelevant. Leave or i'll link how you got bitchslapped by Polchinski

1) QM has not been experimentally varified. QM arises from the observation of discrete spectral lines, which the theory links to discrete atomic energy states. The wave function is a strictly mathematical concept. The Schrödinger equation gives correct answers because it is a laplacian/d'alambert type differential equation, and has harmonic solutions. To our current understanding and by looking at fourier's theory, everything can be discribed by a superposition of harmonic wave functions. You could come up with a theory of matter that is based only on maxwell's equations. The main problem I see in QM is that it does not make any varifiable predictions, and in contrast, experimental results have been steadily modifying quantum mechanical theory to a point where hardly noone understands what the right hamiltonian, the right fermi sphere or the proper energy levels or energy potentials are. Not only is it a mess to deal with unknown chemical structures, it is a much bigger mess to come up with an explanation that fits into the quantum mechanical narrative.

2) The popularity of Einstein boils down to lorentz contraction factor and E=mc2, which both cannot be attributed to Einstein alone. Einsteins tensor theory is unintuitive and hardly produces any experimentally verifiable claims. I simply refuse to believe that relativity plays a role in correct GPS functionality because GPS still has a high amount of uncertainty involved, something you can observe by driving with a GPS-based navigator or even by looking at US GPS-guided missiles missing their destination by miles, which happened so often after 9/11 that they had to fall back on UAVs. The theory of relativity might be formulated in a similar way to maxwells equations, with a GE and a GM field, which would allow for a much simpler understanding of gravitational waves, that have only recently been observed and arise naturally from a d'alambert-type differential equation.

As if I want to read about some schleb talk about its mathematical beauty.

Perhaps reread OP's quote. Doesn't matter how good the seasoning is, KFC still has shit-tier chicken.

>This post
Holy fuck.

>Engineer
>Is actually a retard

Kek.

If you want to ignore one of the most prolific figures in string theory on the notion of 'i don't like the idea', then be my guest. Ignorance is bliss. Luckily for humanity, the woits, smolins and penroses are just a vocal ignorant minority in the field of theoretical physics. Sad thing is, laymen will listen to them, because people who are actually knowledgeable are too busy with research

Does Penrose not like string theory either?

Certain (fundamental) aspects of it. For example, he doesn't like that string theory predicts everything that can be predicted.

Can we just talk about the Tesla stuff he was working on after AC?

Honestly relativity is the one making claims, the burden of proof lies on those who make the claims. Yes there is lots of evidence relativity is right but it doesnt explain quantum mechanics and it doesnt absolve itself of all error just because it makes predictions. Im not claiming relativity has errors im just saying its very unscientific to claim it doesnt.

>relativity is right but it doesnt explain quantum mechanics
This is why people don't take you seriously.

Well then, enlight us with your intelligence.

Explain some observable phenomena, like the energy levels of neon molecules obtained by raman spectroscopy, using a quantum mechanical description.

What are the wavefunctions for each of neons 10 electrons?

How do I calculate the energy involved between the wavefunctions as electrons enter an excited state?

How do I predict what color a neonlamp will glow if I apply an ac voltage of A volts and f frequency?

Its doesnt. Try to combine GR with QM, if you succeed you will be a very rich man.

You're an idiot. Relativity isn't supposed to "explain quantum mechanics", what you're talking about is unification, something completely different.

It's called string theory and it's very active and fruitfull area of research

Physicists are scientists...meta or not. For a wizard his spelling was weak.
:3

Tesla was like a million times smarter and more accomplished than the morons who criticize him in this thread. And yes, he was right about relativity.

Except it was acting on something...
Gravitational "nodes" Bosons....

While he was undoubtedly more intelligent and accomplished than the entirety of this uzbeki yak-milking forum, that doesn't make him immune from being wrong.

wow good job. you watched a physics documentary and are now an expert

>Explain some observable phenomena
Okay
>Double slit experiment
Say you have two slits, separated by [math] d [/math] and a screen some distance [math] L [/math] away, after working through the geometry
we find that a particle would travel [math] x = \sqrt { L^2 + (d/2 - y )^2 } [/math] from slit one, so we have that [math] \langle y | 1 \rangle \langle 1 | y \rangle \propto e^{ i/ \hbar ( px -Et ) }[/math] Now obviously we want to compute [math] | \langle y | i \rangle |^2 = | \langle y | 1 \rangle \langle 1 | y \rangle + \langle y | 2 \rangle \langle 2 | y \rangle |^2 [/math] So put [eqn] x_1 = \sqrt { L^2 + (d/2 - y )^2 } \approx 1 + \frac { ( d/2 - y )^2 } { 2L^2 } \\ ~ \text { And } \\ x_2 = \sqrt { L^2 + (d/2 + y )^2 } \approx 1 + \frac { ( d/2 + y )^2 } { 2L^2 } [/eqn] Then [eqn] \langle y | i \rangle |^2 = | e^{ i/ \hbar ( px_1 -Et ) }+ e^{ i/ \hbar ( px_2 -Et ) }|^2 [/eqn] Which after substitution and some fairly tedious algebra, becomes: [eqn] | \langle y | i \rangle |^2 = 4 \cos^2 \left ( \frac { pyd } { 2 \hbar L } \right ) [/eqn] Which produces an interference pattern that is exactly what is observed.

>Energy levels of hydrogen
Another simple one, I'm not going to solve the Schrödinger equation here, but the result is [eqn] E_n = - \left [ \frac { m } { 2 \hbar ^2 } \left ( \frac { e^2 } { 4 \pi \epsilon _0 } \right )^2 \right ] \frac { 1 } { n^2 } [/eqn] Again, exactly what's observed.

cont...

on the subject of tesla and electricity, does that mean that gravity is simply another electrical force that we haven't detected yet

*slaps you*

cont...

>Energy levels of Helium
You mentioned a very specific example, that of a Neon sign, unfortunately I'm not familiar enough with the operation of Neon signs to be able to go into any detail, and there is no exact solution to the quantum n-body problem, just some approximation schemes. So for Neon you'd need to move to some quantum chemistry package, perhaps someone else here can do this. But we can look at the next simplest atom, the Helium atom. Now the actual calculation isn't that hard but is quite tedious, but you can find it in Griffiths page 300-303. Anyway to second order we find that the ground state energy is [math] E_1 = -77.5 ev [/math] while the experimental value is [math] E_{exp} \approx -79 ev [/math]

>Van der Waals interaction
In chemistry we know that there is a weak, short range force between near by polarisable atoms. This is the Van der Waals force. Suppose that we have two molecules a distance [math] R [/math] a part, modeled as an electron (of mass [math] m [/math] and charge [math] -e [/math] ) connected by a spring to a nucleus (charge [math] + e [/math]), seperated by some distance [math] x [/math] we can write the Hamiltonian for this system as just being some uncoupled oscillators, ie [eqn] H^0 = \frac { p^2 _1 } { 2m } + \frac { 1 } { 2 } k x_1 ^2 + \frac { p^2 _2 } { 2m } + \frac { 1 } { 2 } k x_2 ^2 [/eqn]Now drawing the system allows us to show that the Coulomb interaction is [eqn] H' = \frac { 1 } { 4 \pi \epsilon _0 } \left ( \frac { 1 } { R } - \frac { 1 } { R -x_1 } - \frac {1} { R + x_2 } + \frac { 1 } { R-x_1 + x_2 } \right ) \approx - \frac { e^2 x_1 x_2 } { 2 \pi \epsilon _0 R^3 }[/eqn]Where we expanded in the last equality (since R >> x ). Now to second order in perturbation theory (the first order approximation vanishes) cont...

cont...
[eqn] E = \sum \frac { | \langle \phi _n | H' | \phi _0 \rangle } { E_n - E_0 } = \left ( \frac { e^2 x_1 x_2 } { 2 \pi \epsilon _0 R^3 } \right )^2 \frac { | \langle 1 | x | 0 \rangle |^2 |\langle 1 | x | 0 \rangle |^2 } {(\hbar \omega - 3 \hbar \omega ) } = -\frac { \hbar } { 8m^2 \omega ^2 } \left ( \frac { e^2 x_1 x_2 } { 2 \pi \epsilon _0 } \right )^2 \frac { 1 } { R^6 } [/eqn] So we have an attractive potential proportional to the reciprical 6th power of distance, exactly the Van der Waals force.

>Other effects
You also have things like the Stark and Zeeman effects. And then QFT (the unification of QM with SR) predicts and explains the Lamb shift.

>Scattering
I'm not going to go into scatter too much, but needless to say all modern particle theory scattering experiments affirm the validity of QM (and by extension SR).

not sure if trolling

Isn't it obvious just by that name?
>engineer talking about theoretical physics

>space can have no properties
What is it then? Having a dimension is quite a property.

>What is it then?
Space is the sum of all places. It is where things are, not a thing in itself. Talking about "bending space" makes no sense.

Don't worry, after you go through undergrad math, you will see how bending space makes perfect sense

Was he right. Veeky Forums?

nice

>for humanity

String theory isn't useful, and Penrose is completely correct about it.

>vocal minority
>layman

Lol? Do you even fucking think about that? Most people will agree with whatever Michio Kaku blabbers about on the science channel, which coincidentally is an underserving praise for a non-physical, empty mathematical framework that sort of resembles reality if you suffer from cognitive dissonance.

String theory research is a dying meme, and literally everyone in the field knows this. It's a dead end, and more and more people are figuring that out. So, in being "too busy with research," you mean to say, "too busy desperately trying to find anything remotely physical about the theory such that they can continue being a glorified pure mathematician and plaguing the advancement of physics," right?

Damn bro u mad, did a hung, virile, string theorist cuck you or something lmao.

well said

string theory is beautiful but hard and thats what pisses brainlets off (including certain subpar physicists)

this is you on string theory

How is string theory not useful? It predicts all that can be predicted. In its current state, it might not give what you would like, but that doesn't change the fact that it's the most likely candidate to GUT. There's a lot of work to be done, sure, but it's fare from useless.

Most people don't even know what QM is and are eager to say 'copenhagen is wrong' after reading a book written by some crackpot because there simply isn't a proper book on QM for layman. The only sympathy for strings i met was among theoretical physicists. Most people i know subscribe to Woit and his buddies and totally dig his nonsense.
I can't understand what goes in their minds. I'm no climate scientist so i don't go dictating them that they're wrong after reading an article by that MIT skeptic prof. It makes me angry that they feel the need to comment on things they don't understand, even worse, on one of the most difficult topics to grasp in physics. QM is hard. String theory is much harder, not just from mathematical standpoint- there are plenty of mathematicians who think strings are just math on vixra. It's hard, there are very few people who understand it and that makes people mad. I get it, i used to get mad that someone was better at something than me. I too used to get into arguments about things i barely understood (and got rekt). It just gets tiresome to hear the same things from all the armchair experts all over again.
If you don't like strings, go to theoretical physics and come up with something better, meanwhile we will put effort into the most promising theories even though they turned out to be much more difficult. Good luck.
He's a pretty smart guy. Too bad his internet personality is a bit too much to bear. His lectures were one of my favourite, he was passionate. Quite a loss for hep-th.

>String theory research is a dying meme, and literally everyone in the field knows this.

You arent in the field for sure, so stop talking out of your behind. String theory dominates theoretical physics for a reason. If anything this domination only increased over last decade, and there is simply no other alternative on the horizon for physics beyond the standard model. ST is here to stay.

The situation in the field is such that new experimantal data is very hard to get and so naturally theory has outpaced experiments quite a bit. But this is not specific to string theory, it is a problem which applies to entire high energy theoretical physics field.

100% right.

To me the principle of Dark Matter itself looks very much like aether.
It's everywhere, we can't detect it, and it influences matter.
We don't even know if the relation goes both way (matter influencing Dark Matter), and we don't know if it interacts with itself.
It could be anything, really.

heterotic M-theory

>heterotic M-theory
Sorry mate, I stopped paying attention to string theories a long time ago.
Extra dimensions may really be a thing, but I don't know that we'll ever be able to prove it. Let alone experiment with it to find which string theory is correct.

Thats my problem with it, it feels like discussing philosophy when no progress is to be made

Bad for you then, because it will take quite a long while until phenomenology catches up with theory. But sure, put your time into incomplete or wrong theories if you so will. Just don't pretend we don't have any idea- because we do.
There's constant progress being made in string theory. Where have you been the last 30 years?

>put your time into incomplete or wrong theories
Implying that's not what string theories are all about.
Here's the catch.
You finally settle on a model that predicts cosmological evolution, quantum mechanics, as well as dark matter.
Congratulation, you can't prove it's actually what's happening.
If you can't observe extra dimensions, you literally can't design an experiment because you don't have all the parameters.

The trick is to combine QM with mathematics. To visualise the info and logically adopt to it as it reveals itself. Works like a charm if you know your geometry. The jump to 4d can only be understood if you know how to jump from 2d to 3d.

No half A presses.

String theory is complete. It's "just" a matter of putting in (enormous) effort to find the right model. Even without observing the extra dimensions, you will end up with some set of models that all have considerable predictive power. You will never what is actually happening. All we have are models that give some predictions. If the predictions correspond with experiments, it's right. If they don't, it's wrong.

Well I must be retarded, then.
It's still all theoretical though.
I fully understand why it's a thing.
Maybe someday we'll come up with a loophole that allows us to prove the model by observing only the incomplete picture we get from space-time alone.
Ring me up when it's done.

Thank you for your detailed summary. Im sorry, i should have worded it differently, like "explain some observable phenomena that can only be described by QM/schrödinger equation".

>double slit experiment

All you do mathematically is taking two radial waves and looking at their intensity along a fixed line, assuming superposition. I am not arguing about the wave nature of light.

>energy levels of hydrogen

Has been known well before the foundation of quantum mechanics. If you assume a positive radial potential, then tweek around with maxwells equation, im fairly certain you can come up with a similar result for the distribution of space charge akind to s/p/d... orbitals - they are the solution of laplace equation in a spherical potential.

>Van der Waals interaction

You derive the energy using a classical oscillator model.
While this is useful for real life (Drude-Lorentz...), it has little to do with Schrödinger. You could also formulate a hamiltonian for a real mass-spring, does not make the hamiltonian any more valid over a Force-DEQ.

Again, you have to understand that I'm not questioning observed data, just the textbook statement that QM/Schrödinger is the only best way to describe it. Especially because you state that there is
>no exact solution to the quantum n-body problem
thus rendering the application of the theory to predict energy transitions next to impossible. Which leaves us with a theory that is difficult to understand, can only be applied with lots of restrictions, modifications and careful considerations, and can hardly be used in a real life scenario.

Now think of standard EE. The building blocks are all there (R,C,L), the theory is solid and relatively easy to grasp, deduced only from observable phenomena - and the applications are everywhere.

So my intuition tells me the building blocks of matter have not been properly understood, especially in regards to how difficult it is to predict light/matter-interaction.

You don't get it if you are willing to leave a theory with maximal predictive power in favor of what? Either nothing or some incomplete theory. But alright, just don't discourage others from strings please

>String theory
>Not seeing the toroidal wave functions as they pass through higgs fields

>where did i leave my gravity?

>tfw tube theory
>tfw it will never catch on
>Fractals of tubes birthed from a string, transparent and ever expanding into nothingness
>tfw music of the universe
>tfw just want the music to stop so I can think

Well by all means go on.
I can't predict if there's anything to it, and neither can anybody at this stage.
The ride might never end, and we'll keep having to add parameters forever.
Just because someone thought maybe an extra dimension would help the model, and look how much we're at the exact same spot as he was.

Not alive for 9 of those for one :^)

Perhaps to put emphasis on my line of though once again, consider the following anecdote.

There used to be a time when Maxwell's equations were formulated by Hamilton's quaternion mathematics. While undoubtfully correct, handling the mathematics was an incredibly tedious task, and hardly anyone could understand or operate the equations. It took Heaviside to come up with the modern vector notation, which is much simpler and allows for fast computation of the E/M fields, thus we can simulate something like the coil configuration of Wendelstein 7-X.

It seems to me we are at a similar place in regards to quantum mechanics - the puzzle parts are all there, but they are yet to be put in a proper way to have a clear picture.

I could very well be wrong, and would like to be corrected, so I can turn my attention to something more productive.

>but they are yet to be put in a proper way to have a clear picture.
The picture of QM is completely clear, I don't understand why you think otherwise

Tesla is right, but jew won

>Has been known well before the foundation of quantum mechanics.
Sure, from old quantum mechanics. But that didn't generalise to multi-electron atoms, which is one reason it was ditched.
>then tweek around with maxwells equation
Maxwell's equations are just a specific instance of a more general QFT.
>You derive the energy using a classical oscillator model.
It's explicitly non-classical since it relies on the solution of QHO
>thus rendering the application of the theory to predict energy transitions next to impossible.
Classical mechanics has no exact solution to the n-body problem either, is that useless as well?
>So my intuition tells me
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *inhales* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Why don't you actually try and derive equivalent results in a consistent frame work? You claim that you should be able to do it, but don't.

Why are tripfags universally terrible?

math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
Why bother with anyone above 0?
Apparent from his name, he's either a troll or severly underqualified to bring a valid criticism of QM.

Many deluded morons in this thread.

>Was Tesla right?
Yes.

On which side of the argument?
Also does strain theory unify or replace Relativity?

Holy shit what a beta reddit faggot.

(((Relativity))) is a jewish lie purposely created and pushed by (((some))) to spread the acceptance of (((cultural relativism))) many years down the line.

This.

No. He is a complete hack.

LOL. You seriously believe a retard who today is popular because pop and pseudo scientists think he is cool is smarter then the combination of 100 years of physicists.

Tesla would be a complete nobody if not for the "free energy" conspiracy theories.
He wasn't even a real scientist, which is clear from his disregard for mathematics.

Interstellar medium tho. 50 atoms per cubic meter isn't nothing.

What's that got to do with anything?

Given your lack of reading comprehension, I've decided to take the time it would take to explain this to you and insult you instead.

Completely. It will be proven in the next 50 years.

""... Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curving of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies, and producing the opposite effects, straightening out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible - But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena."

"My second discovery was of a physical truth of the greatest importance. As I have searched the entire scientific records in more than a half dozen languages for a long time without finding the least anticipation, I consider myself the original discoverer of this truth, which can be expressed by the statement: There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment." "

Tesla was wrong.
So was Einstein regarding Quantum physics.

Even our geniuses can't get everything right, it's ok op.

We have to account for relativity in orbit, or the GPS go to shit. What do you think?

Tesla isn't saying it's WRONG, he saying it's a bandaid that ignores the problems. It's not the whole picture.