Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain
the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in
Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles
and JavaScript.
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
Comments
Commenting on this article is now closed.
Pentcho Valev
If quantum mechanics is "faith", then what is Einstein's relativity? Answer: An absurdity based on the false principle of constancy of the speed of light. That the speed of light is variable, not constant, is obvious. When the initially stationary observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L (L is the wavelength). This means that either the speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v, or the motion of the observer somehow changes the wavelength of the incoming light – from L to L'=Lc/(c+v). The latter scenario is absurd – the motion of the observer is obviously unable to change the wavelength of the incoming light.
Conclusion: The speed of light is different to differently moving observers (varies with the speed of the observer), in violation of Einstein's relativity.
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
All consequences of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate are absurd. One of them, length contraction, implies that unlimitedly long objects can gloriously be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/ba... "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. [...] So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. [...] If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped in a compressed state inside the barn."
See, at 7:12 in the video below, how the train is trapped "in a compressed state" inside the tunnel:
It is not difficult to realize that trapping long objects inside short containers drastically violates the law of conservation of energy. The trapped object, in trying to restore its original volume ("spring back to its natural shape"), would produce an enormous amount of work the energy for which comes from nowhere.
At 9:01 in the above video Sarah sees the train falling through the hole, and in order to save Einstein's relativity, the authors of the video inform the world that Adam as well sees the train falling through the hole. However Adam can only see this if the train undergoes an absurd disintegration first, as shown at 9:53.
Clearly we have reductio ad absurdum: An absurd disintegration is required – Adam sees it, Sarah doesn't. Conclusion: The underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.
Pentcho Valev
Maurits Van den Noort
Towards a theory of everything: "The observer's unconscious brain"
Prof. Maurits van den Noort<sup>1</sup>*, Prof. Sabina Lim<sup>1</sup> & Dr. Peggy Bosch<sup>2</sup>
1. Research Group of Pain and Neuroscience, Kyung Hee University, Seoul 130-701, Republic of Korea 2. Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Nijmegen, 6525 HR Nijmegen, The Netherlands
We read with great interest the article by Richard Dawid,<sup>1</sup> in which the recent book of Roger Penrose<sup>1</sup> is critically examined. We agree with Dawid that Penrose focuses more on developing visionary ideas than on providing a detailed criticism of prevalent theories. However, in sharp contrast to Dawid,<sup>1</sup> in our opinion, there is nothing wrong with scientists having visionary ideas, on the contrary, nowadays, visionary ideas (and research projects investigating them) are often lacking, in a time where scientists seem to be mostly bothered with achieving long publication lists and keeping their research projects within the economical budget.
We remember when Penrose published his book entitled, "Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness", back in 1994.<sup>3</sup> He received a lot of criticism from both physicists and neuroscientists who found that he speculated too much in his book. However, in our opinion, it is too premature to claim that Penrose is wrong. Recently, we have seen discoveries such as: the brain's dark energy,<sup>4</sup> default mode networks,<sup>5</sup> etc., and colleagues that would have suggested those theories decades ago, would have been laughed at. Neuroscience is a relatively new research field and, therefore, many discoveries are still to be made, possibly proving Penrose?s Orchestrated objective reduction (Orch-OR) hypothesis.<sup>6</sup>
Unfortunately, it seems that in his new book, Penrose does not tap the missing link between physics and neuroscience enough,<sup>2</sup> because a theory of everything<sup>7</sup> should not only fit within the laws of classical and quantum mechanics, but should also fit within the fundamental laws of neuroscience (e.g., for instance, what about the observer's<sup>8</sup> (un)conscious brain processing and interaction?). We do not know if Penrose prepares a new book, but if this is the case, our title suggestion would be: "Towards a theory of everything: The observer's unconscious brain".
*Correspondence to: info@mauritsvandennoort.com
1. Dawid, R. Theoretical physics: The emperor's new physics. Nature538, 36-37 (2016). 2. Penrose, R. Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe. (Princeton Univ. Press, 2016). 3. Penrose, R. Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness. (Oxford Univ. Press, 1994). 4. Raichle, M. E. Neuroscience: The brain's dark energy. Science314, 1249-1250 (2006). 5. Raichle, M. E. The brain's default mode network. Annu. Rev. Neurosci.38, 433-447 (2015). 6. Hameroff, S., Penrose, R. Consciousness in the universe: a review of the "Orch OR" theory. Phys. Life Rev.11, 39-78 (2014). 7. 't Hooft, G. et al. 'A theory of everything' Nature433, 257-259 (2005). 8. Schrodinger, E. Die gegenwortige Situation in der Quantenmechanik [The present situation in quantum mechanics]. Naturwissenschaften23, 807-812 (1935).
Pentcho Valev
If quantum mechanics is "faith", then what is Einstein's relativity? Answer: An absurdity based on the false principle of constancy of the speed of light. That the speed of light is variable, not constant, is obvious. When the initially stationary observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L (L is the wavelength). This means that either the speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v, or the motion of the observer somehow changes the wavelength of the incoming light – from L to L'=Lc/(c+v). The latter scenario is absurd – the motion of the observer is obviously unable to change the wavelength of the incoming light.
Conclusion: The speed of light is different to differently moving observers (varies with the speed of the observer), in violation of Einstein's relativity.
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
All consequences of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate are absurd. One of them, length contraction, implies that unlimitedly long objects can gloriously be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/ba... "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. [...] So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. [...] If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped in a compressed state inside the barn."
See, at 7:12 in the video below, how the train is trapped "in a compressed state" inside the tunnel:
http://www.youtube.com/watc... "Einstein's Relativistic Train in a Tunnel Paradox: Special Relativity"
It is not difficult to realize that trapping long objects inside short containers drastically violates the law of conservation of energy. The trapped object, in trying to restore its original volume ("spring back to its natural shape"), would produce an enormous amount of work the energy for which comes from nowhere.
At 9:01 in the above video Sarah sees the train falling through the hole, and in order to save Einstein's relativity, the authors of the video inform the world that Adam as well sees the train falling through the hole. However Adam can only see this if the train undergoes an absurd disintegration first, as shown at 9:53.
Clearly we have reductio ad absurdum: An absurd disintegration is required – Adam sees it, Sarah doesn't. Conclusion: The underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.
Pentcho Valev
Maurits Van den Noort
Towards a theory of everything: "The observer's unconscious brain"
Prof. Maurits van den Noort<sup>1</sup>*, Prof. Sabina Lim<sup>1</sup> & Dr. Peggy Bosch<sup>2</sup>
1. Research Group of Pain and Neuroscience, Kyung Hee University, Seoul 130-701, Republic of Korea
2. Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Nijmegen, 6525 HR Nijmegen, The Netherlands
We read with great interest the article by Richard Dawid,<sup>1</sup> in which the recent book of Roger Penrose<sup>1</sup> is critically examined. We agree with Dawid that Penrose focuses more on developing visionary ideas than on providing a detailed criticism of prevalent theories. However, in sharp contrast to Dawid,<sup>1</sup> in our opinion, there is nothing wrong with scientists having visionary ideas, on the contrary, nowadays, visionary ideas (and research projects investigating them) are often lacking, in a time where scientists seem to be mostly bothered with achieving long publication lists and keeping their research projects within the economical budget.
We remember when Penrose published his book entitled, "Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness", back in 1994.<sup>3</sup> He received a lot of criticism from both physicists and neuroscientists who found that he speculated too much in his book. However, in our opinion, it is too premature to claim that Penrose is wrong. Recently, we have seen discoveries such as: the brain's dark energy,<sup>4</sup> default mode networks,<sup>5</sup> etc., and colleagues that would have suggested those theories decades ago, would have been laughed at. Neuroscience is a relatively new research field and, therefore, many discoveries are still to be made, possibly proving Penrose?s Orchestrated objective reduction (Orch-OR) hypothesis.<sup>6</sup>
Unfortunately, it seems that in his new book, Penrose does not tap the missing link between physics and neuroscience enough,<sup>2</sup> because a theory of everything<sup>7</sup> should not only fit within the laws of classical and quantum mechanics, but should also fit within the fundamental laws of neuroscience (e.g., for instance, what about the observer's<sup>8</sup> (un)conscious brain processing and interaction?). We do not know if Penrose prepares a new book, but if this is the case, our title suggestion would be: "Towards a theory of everything: The observer's unconscious brain".
*Correspondence to: info@mauritsvandennoort.com
1. Dawid, R. Theoretical physics: The emperor's new physics. Nature 538, 36-37 (2016).
2. Penrose, R. Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe. (Princeton Univ. Press, 2016).
3. Penrose, R. Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness. (Oxford Univ. Press, 1994).
4. Raichle, M. E. Neuroscience: The brain's dark energy. Science 314, 1249-1250 (2006).
5. Raichle, M. E. The brain's default mode network. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 38, 433-447 (2015).
6. Hameroff, S., Penrose, R. Consciousness in the universe: a review of the "Orch OR" theory. Phys. Life Rev. 11, 39-78 (2014).
7. 't Hooft, G. et al. 'A theory of everything' Nature 433, 257-259 (2005).
8. Schrodinger, E. Die gegenwortige Situation in der Quantenmechanik [The present situation in quantum mechanics]. Naturwissenschaften 23, 807-812 (1935).