Simple Enough, Who's smarter?
Neils Bhor by far in my opinion, his revoloutionary ideas on quatum mechanics have acctually proved Albert Einstein wrong, and so if Albert Einstein was to acctually accept Quantum Mechanics, then he would have to abandon e=mc^2.
(Warning, Intellect may be required!)
Welcome to ScienceForums.Net!
|
After you've registered, come in and introduce yourself, or visit the forum index. If you need any help registering, posting, or if you just have some questions about our site, please feel free to contact us at staff at scienceforums dot net.
|
|
| Guest Message © 2010 DevFuse | |
Neils Bhor or Albert Einstein
#2
Posted 10 June 2003 - 07:26 PM
(übernerd)
Quote
Originally posted by Miseria_
Simple Enough, Who's smarter?
Neils Bhor by far in my opinion, his revoloutionary ideas on quatum mechanics have acctually proved Albert Einstein wrong, and so if Albert Einstein was to acctually accept Quantum Mechanics, then he would have to abandon e=mc^2.
(Warning, Intellect may be required!)
Simple Enough, Who's smarter?
Neils Bhor by far in my opinion, his revoloutionary ideas on quatum mechanics have acctually proved Albert Einstein wrong, and so if Albert Einstein was to acctually accept Quantum Mechanics, then he would have to abandon e=mc^2.
(Warning, Intellect may be required!)
Quantum mechanics don't prove relativity wrong. The theories are both generally correct, just not unified. Quantum gravity is a large area of research that is seeking to unify these theories.
Furthermore, e=mc^2 applies to all particles, including those on the quantum scale and those without mass.
- Posts: 3454 | Joined: 04-July 02
Reply
#4
Posted 11 June 2003 - 08:22 AM
(Primate)
Quote
Originally posted by Miseria_
Simple Enough, Who's smarter?
Neils Bhor by far in my opinion, his revoloutionary ideas on quatum mechanics have acctually proved Albert Einstein wrong, and so if Albert Einstein was to acctually accept Quantum Mechanics, then he would have to abandon e=mc^2.
(Warning, Intellect may be required!)
Simple Enough, Who's smarter?
Neils Bhor by far in my opinion, his revoloutionary ideas on quatum mechanics have acctually proved Albert Einstein wrong, and so if Albert Einstein was to acctually accept Quantum Mechanics, then he would have to abandon e=mc^2.
(Warning, Intellect may be required!)
E=mc^2 (or rather it's fuller equation, which I shall not bother to post again) is NOT part of General Relativity (The part of relativity which disagrees with QM).
It is part of SPECIAL relativity, and The Standard Model of Quantum Physics assumes that SPECIAL relativity is valid.
Your post is complete garbage.
See the other thread for another reply on this topic.
- Posts: 3281 | Joined: 27-July 02
Reply
#6
Posted 11 June 2003 - 08:50 AM
(Primate)
Bohr came up with the best method(s) of measuring the height of a tall building using a barometer.
but anyway, while what Bohr did was revolutionary, QM was rather a mess of ideas until Dirac came along and made it look pretty.
but anyway, while what Bohr did was revolutionary, QM was rather a mess of ideas until Dirac came along and made it look pretty.
The Ancient
- Posts: 2038 | Joined: 19-July 02
Reply
#8
Posted 11 June 2003 - 06:54 PM
(Quark)
fair nuff, i was merely interested in other people beliefs.
And I ultimately believe that both Quantum mechanics and The theory of Realativity both have to many gaps in them to be fully complete, and that they have a bad habit of contradicting each other.
I also beleive that Neils Bhor Deserves more credit for the acheivements he has made.
And I ultimately believe that both Quantum mechanics and The theory of Realativity both have to many gaps in them to be fully complete, and that they have a bad habit of contradicting each other.
I also beleive that Neils Bhor Deserves more credit for the acheivements he has made.
I dont get it.
- Posts: 38 | Joined: 10-June 03
Reply
#10
Posted 11 June 2003 - 09:41 PM
(Primate)
Quote
Originally posted by Miseria_
fair nuff, i was merely interested in other people beliefs.
And I ultimately believe that both Quantum mechanics and The theory of Realativity both have to many gaps in them to be fully complete, and that they have a bad habit of contradicting each other.
I also beleive that Neils Bhor Deserves more credit for the acheivements he has made.
fair nuff, i was merely interested in other people beliefs.
And I ultimately believe that both Quantum mechanics and The theory of Realativity both have to many gaps in them to be fully complete, and that they have a bad habit of contradicting each other.
I also beleive that Neils Bhor Deserves more credit for the acheivements he has made.
WHICH theory of relativity?
Spec Rel works perfectly fine, and that is the one you've quoted before.
People, do NOT underestimate Einstein.
The Photoelectric effect (explanation of) was his doing. This is a prerequisite for Quantum Physics.
Special Relativity is one of the most elegent physical theories in history.
General Relativity is a masterwork, which has been proven to be empirically correct on every level except the quantum one, and nearly ALL researches into a Grand Unified Theory are assuming that the flaw lies with the Standard Model of Quantum Mechanics, not with General Relativity.
Oh, he also predicted the Einstein-Bose condensates and won the nobel prize.
He's not the 'cleverest man ever' as some people seem to postulate. He did however create some of the most important theories in the history of physics.
Whilst Bohr made important contributions, his achievements are little compared to the above.
- Posts: 3281 | Joined: 27-July 02
Reply
#11
Posted 12 June 2003 - 09:28 AM
(Primate)
Quote
Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
He's not the 'cleverest man ever' as some people seem to postulate. He did however create some of the most important theories in the history of physics.
He's not the 'cleverest man ever' as some people seem to postulate. He did however create some of the most important theories in the history of physics.
who do you think is then?
The Ancient
- Posts: 2038 | Joined: 19-July 02
Reply
#12
Posted 12 June 2003 - 11:40 AM
(Primate)
Quote
Originally posted by Radical Edward
who do you think is then?
who do you think is then?
You want me to tell you the most intellegent person in human history?
Given that intellegence is qualititative, I'd say it's a stupid question, totally ignoring our lack of information about almost all of the population.
- Posts: 3281 | Joined: 27-July 02
Reply
#13
Posted 12 June 2003 - 12:07 PM
(Primate)
Quote
Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
You want me to tell you the most intellegent person in human history?
Given that intellegence is qualititative, I'd say it's a stupid question, totally ignoring our lack of information about almost all of the population.
You want me to tell you the most intellegent person in human history?
Given that intellegence is qualititative, I'd say it's a stupid question, totally ignoring our lack of information about almost all of the population.
heh... the most intelligent known person in science then.
The Ancient
- Posts: 2038 | Joined: 19-July 02
Reply
#14
Posted 12 June 2003 - 01:02 PM
(Primate)
Quote
Originally posted by Radical Edward
heh... the most intelligent known person in science then.
heh... the most intelligent known person in science then.
That's also a stupid question, because the only way to judge them is by their results, which isn't a good indication of 'intellegence'
- Posts: 3281 | Joined: 27-July 02
Reply
#17
Posted 12 June 2003 - 01:27 PM
(Primate)
Quote
Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Don't hate me because I'm right.
Don't hate me because I'm right.
It's not a matter of right really, I think of it more as a way of avoiding endless circumlocutions to get to the intended question asked. But then even the question "who has made the biggest contribution" is a difficult one in a way. Personally a favourite of mine is actually Thomas Young , though not many people have actually heard of the guy.
and yeap, Euler was fairly prolific, though I didn't realise how much so until I looked him up just now
The Ancient
- Posts: 2038 | Joined: 19-July 02
Reply
#19
Posted 12 June 2003 - 02:51 PM
(Primate)
Quote
Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Thomas Young: Famous throughout A-level physics as the man who created the Young Modulus.
Thomas Young: Famous throughout A-level physics as the man who created the Young Modulus.
and even A Level students will have precious little idea about the things Young did.
The Ancient
- Posts: 2038 | Joined: 19-July 02
Reply
#20
Posted 12 June 2003 - 06:00 PM
(Molecule)
Einstien is better because he is a Jew.
Another interesting fact: people think Einstien never succeed in achieving a unified theory, actually he did-- on his death bed. The government confiscated the information and much enjoys watching everyone squirm and suffer in confusion.
Another interesting fact: people think Einstien never succeed in achieving a unified theory, actually he did-- on his death bed. The government confiscated the information and much enjoys watching everyone squirm and suffer in confusion.
- Posts: 797 | Joined: 01-June 03
Reply

Help
Sign In »
Register Now!
This topic is locked















