Markus Hanke

Senior Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Markus Hanke last won the day on August 18

Markus Hanke had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

165 Excellent

About Markus Hanke

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Favorite Area of Science

Recent Profile Visitors

3795 profile views
  1. What is Space made of?

    No such theory is possible, because EM dynamics are linear, whereas gravitation is not. They are fundamentally of a different nature. It depends what you mean by “chaos”. GR Gravity is completely deterministic, since it is a purely classical theory, but it is not always indefinitely predictable. Since gravity is highly non-linear, under certain circumstances you get chaotic systems - here “chaotic” is used in the sense that the evolution of such systems is highly sensitive to initial conditions. Even tiny perturbations of the initial conditions can have large consequences in long-term evolution of the system. This is a well known phenomenon, which is found in many other areas of physics as well. I don’t understand what you mean by this...? No instantaneous actions at a distance can occur in nature. You can only have non-local correlations, which is a different thing, because that does not allow for the exchange of information. Electromagnetism is completely local, there are no non-local interactions.
  2. What is Space made of?

    He was unsuccessful because gravity is not an electromagnetic phenomenon. His approach was basically upside down. This is not entirely true. It is in fact possible to combine GR and EM into a single, overarching model, called Kaluza-Klein gravity. The problem with this is that it can’t be done in 4 dimensions, and also that it requires extra fields for which there is no evidence in the real world.
  3. I think the two mutually depend on each other - physics stimulates new discoveries in maths, and maths has a huge influence on how we think about the physical world. One might consider the relationship to be somewhat analogues to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis for natural languages, albei probably more the weak version of it.
  4. Probability vs. Observation

    Apologies, I am unsure what you mean by this. What is your question?
  5. Probability vs. Observation

    The stochastics and uncertainties of quantum physics are intrinsic to its nature, they are not just an artefact of our observational methods.
  6. That’s assuming that “I” is identical to consciousness or awareness...which is another assumption I’d be extremely sceptical of this particular assumption, actually...when I was a kid, my concept of “I” was very much different than it is today, yet I was aware of things in the same way that I am today. So equating “I” with the agent of awareness is something I’d put a huge question mark over. Also, when one actually stops the philosophising, trains the mind into a more phenomenological mode, and then starts to investigate where that agent/observer/knower really is, one very quickly realises that it is in fact nowhere to be found. There is nothing permanent and independent that you can point your “inner finger” at and say: “That there, that’s me.” There is only a whole bunch of memories, views, habit patterns, processes, and tendencies, none of which is separate from the context in which they originated, and all of which are just impersonal natural processes. The “I” is really nothing more than a view the mind takes on in order to make sense of these objects and their interrelationships. It’s not so much an illusion, as it is a case of mistaken identity - the “I” is just a vast and very complicated network of cause-and-effect relationships in space and time. These are completely impersonal, natural phenomena. It’s a bit like putting a candle in front of a rock, so that a shadow is cast. We can search for the “owner of the shadow” until the cows come home, but at the end of the day there is no one and nothing who “owns” it - it’s just light, and the absence of it. The same with “I” - there’s just a body interacting with the environment in various ways, and the mind pulling all of this together into a more or less coherent view of my body, my thoughts, my perceptions etc etc. But in reality these are all just impersonal process, and the “I” is nowhere to be found. That view is real, but it is also empty, since the object it refers to does not exist. It’s just a mental fabrication. Yes, but what question does this statement answer, really? We can only ever be aware of the contents of our own minds, i.e. mental objects of various kinds, including the end products of the processes of perception. Hence, the above is only to say that when there is awareness of something, there is mind - which is a rather trivial statement from a human perspective, albeit perhaps more interesting from a more general point of view. Then of course, there is also the question of whether or not the inherent subject-object duality in the notion of ordinary “awareness” is fundamental and irreducible, or in itself an empty illusion of some kind. Just because we sense our experience as being dualistic, does not mean that this duality is actually a fundamental feature of awareness itself.
  7. It should be “There are thoughts, therefore there is thinking”. The “I” is an additional assumption, that may or may not follow - that’s up to the philosophers to debate.
  8. Time Dimensional physics a true story

    Reported for (repeated!) trolling.
  9. Charge in free fall

    We have already established that one detector goes off, whereas the other one does not. Obviously, it will be the same with the explosives.
  10. Proto-particle

    This applies to the neutrino, but not to the photon, which is demonstrably massless. If photons had a non-vanishing rest mass, several things would happen: Conservation of electric charge would no longer be guaranteed The Coulomb law would no longer be purely inverse-square; specifically, it would be weaker over large distances Static magnetic fields would show differences in behaviour On a more theoretic level, quantum electrodynamics would cease to be renormalisable, which is a big problem, since one could no longer extract any physical predictions from it. All these things can be experimentally tested, and to date no hints of any of the above has been observed, so very stringent limits have been experimentally placed on any non-zero photon masses. Note also that the photon having a rest mass would also bring down pretty much all of the rest of the Standard Model, which is obviously a problem.
  11. Galileo and inertia?

    This is not what happens. All objects fall at the same rate (in vacuum).
  12. Falling objects and Einstein’s equivalence-principle?

    Yes. I should note here though that the equivalence is between uniform acceleration, and a uniform gravitational field. This means the equivalence holds only locally, in a small enough region. On larger scales, a gravitational field due to a mass distribution (such as a planet) is not uniform.
  13. Charge in free fall

    As I said before, the electromagnetic field (and it’s associated energy-momentum tensor) is always the same, it’s just that different observers see different aspects of it, depending on their own perspective in spacetime. That is why some see radiation, whereas others do not. But breakage of a macroscopic object isn’t like that - it either happens or it doesn’t. Everyone agrees on the outcome, they just won’t agree on the where and when.
  14. Charge in free fall

    No, because all observers agree on the value of proper acceleration of that object, no matter what reference frame they are in. This proper acceleration is calculated in a way that is independent of the coordinate system chosen.
  15. Vacuum dynamics

    Actually, the elemental charge itself depends on both vacuum permittivity and Planck’s (barred) constant, the numerical values of which have to be determined experimentally. The fine structure constant can also be obtained in a number of other ways, so while this article is interesting, it does not make any unique predictions as such.