DOCSLIB.ORG

An Information Theory Interpretation of Relativistic Phenomena

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Information Theory Interpretation of Relativistic Phenomena An Information Theory Interpretation of Relativistic Phenomena Gareth Boardman B.App.Sc.(Dist) A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Philosophy and Social Inquiry Faculty of Life and Social Sciences Swinburne University of Technology 2012 i Author’s Declaration I, Gareth Boardman, do hereby declare that: This dissertation entitled “An Information Theory Interpretation of Relativistic Phenomena,” contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at this or any other academic institution. To the best of my knowledge, this dissertation contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the text of the dissertation. Signed: ........................................................................... Dated: ............................................................................ ii An Information Theory Interpretation of Relativistic Phenomena Abstract: It is well recognized that two of the foundational theories of modern physics, relativity and quantum mechanics, are inconsistent. Efforts to overcome this through intensive pursuit of unifying theoretical frameworks or improvements in experimental precision as pursued by Robertson-Mansouri-Sexl and Standard-Model-Extension test theory protocols, have so far proven unsuccessful. Nonetheless, empirical evidence deriving from investigations inspired by the twentieth-century “EPR” polemic, can now claim to have identified ‘locality’ and ‘separability’ as notions integral to special relativity theory inconsistent with quantum mechanics and experimental evidence supporting it. Following intimations of J.S. Bell, L. Smolin, Maudlin and others, the history and philosophy of science are engaged as research tools to uncover the origins of the assumptions underlying such incompatibility. In particular, known but prevalent fallacies and the deprecation of processes as described by Whitehead, together with recent insights into the functional distinctions between representative models and explanatory theories, are engaged. Analysis of the evolution of optical and electromagnetic theorizing is then suggested to demonstrate that the choice of a mechanically compatible model of electromagnetic radiation, as has conventionally underwritten development of the light-speed postulate of special relativity, is inappropriate. Pursuing options made available within a multiple models idealization of optical and electromagnetic phenomena, replacement of the sponsoring model by a non- local and non-separable wavefront process of radiation of the form advanced by Fresnel and Kirchhoff on the basis of Huygens’ principle, suggests the possibility of reformulation of relativity theory without incurring such conflicts. However, choice of a wavefront electrodynamic model including the extinction theorem of Ewald and Oseen, equally suggests possible theory reformulation without necessitating a four-dimensional construct of space and time or postulating an absolute constancy of light-speed in vacuum. Such a constancy can in turn be considered as demonstrating an innate limitation on empirical observation resulting from the loss of relative velocity information during electromagnetic transmission due to the memorylessness of the Markov propagation process of refraction together with information flow discontinuity resulting from dielectric boundary extinction events. Such characteristics are shown to be applicable to electromagnetic radiation of all frequencies. Further, from a wavefront reformulated hypothesis of inertial relative motion, it appears possible to demonstrate that the Galilean principle of relativity can be preserved. However, Lorentz invariance would then require reinterpretation wherein the Lorentz transform group would be deemed to quantify the degree of information distortion inherently experienced by any empirical enquiry into electrodynamics involving relative motion. iii Acknowledgements: The author wishes to express his gratitude to Assoc. Prof. Arran Gare, not only for his provision of expert advice, guidance, mentoring and supervision over many years, but for his courage and support for a research program both multi-disciplinary in content and potentially controversial in outcome. The author also wishes to express his gratitude for the provision of expert advice, research papers, supportive correspondence, and the generous donation of their time by: Prof. Michael Weisberg, Department of Philosophy, University of Pennsylvania, for his permission to include in research, concepts arising in his then unpublished material “Three Kinds of Idealization.” Ray Essen, for his kind provision of scanned copies of personally annotated articles written by prominent British physicist, the late Dr. Louis Essen, formerly of the United Kingdom’s National Physical Laboratory. Prof. Domina Eberle Spencer, Dept. of Mathematics, University of Connecticut (retired), for providing her critical examination of the Hafele & Keating experimental raw data. Dr. Ronald R. Hatch, Director of Navigation Systems, Principal and Co-Founder of NavCom Technology, Inc., Torrance, California, past-President of the U.S. Institute of Navigation, (ION) and former general chairman of the ION Global Positioning Satellite meetings, for general correspondence and his kind provision of many articles on Special Relativity and the GPS system. Dr. Roman P. Frigg, Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method, London School of Economics. Prof. Jeffrey Koperski, Dept. of Philosophy, Saginaw Valley State University. Charlene J. Phipps, M.S. of Innovative Human Dynamics, Community Services Centre, University of Oregon, Eugene, and the Columbia Leadership Institute, for kindly providing copies of her past Conference papers. Communication Unit, The European Synchrotron Radiation Facility, Grenoble, Cedex, France. Dr Uma Y. Shama, Dept. of Mathematics and Computing, Bridgewater State University, Massachusetts. Dr. Daniel Y. Gezari, Astrophysicist Emeritus, Astrophysics Science Division, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland. Richard Moody Jr. Prof. Andrew Wood, Dr. Christopher Fluke, Dr. Alan Roberts, and Dr. Peter Alabaster. iv For their generous provision of time and expertise in translating otherwise unavailable foreign language research materials into English: Prof. Henry R. Mendell, Department of Philosophy, College of Arts and Letters, California State University, Los Angeles, for his extensive personal discussion detailing aspects of translations of Euclid’s Optica from its original Greek. Dr. W. Walker for his English translation of L. Rosenfeld’s 1928 paper, “Le Premier Conflit Entre la Théorie Ondulatoire et la Théorie Corpusculaire de la Lumière.” Mr Dennis O'Niell, for his English translation of "Das Relativitäsprinzip"(1907) by Hermann Minkowski, from the original German text as submitted for publication by A. Sommerfeld. Prof. Emeritus Umberto Bartocci, Department of Mathematics and Information, University of Perugia, Italy, for active assistance in having Dr. Umberto Lucia translate an original article on Huygens’ principle by Italian mathematician Giacinto Morera. Dr. Umberto Lucia, Ministry of Education, Alessandria, Piedmont, Italy, for his most kind donation of time and expertise in his translation of Morera, G. 1895, "Sull'espressione analitica del principio di Huygens." v Table of Contents: Author’s Declaration ..................................................................................................... ii Abstract ......................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... iv Table of Contents .......................................................................................................... vi Introduction and Overview ......................................................................................... vii An Information Theory Interpretation of Relativistic Phenomena Part 1 Chapter 1. Conflict in the foundations of science. ................................................... 1 Background to the problem ...................................................................................... 5 The “EPR” polemic ................................................................................................... 6 Bell’s Theorem and the empirical ‘Inequality’ test .......................................... 11 The “Loopholes” problem ............................................................................ 13 Closing the “Detection” loophole ................................................................ 14 Closing the “Locality” or “Lightcone” loophole ......................................... 16 Measuring the speed of quantum correlations ................................................... 17 Superluminality and quantum tunneling ........................................................... 19 Superluminal velocities, signals and special relativity ...................................... 22 Dispersion – normal and anomalous ................................................................. 25 Velocity definitions for wave phenomena ........................................................ 27 Chapter 2 - Science in the 21st century - paradox and dilemma ........................... 34 The modern dilemma and the evolving status of special relativity
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2007 Abstracts Und Curricula Bewusstsein Und Quantencomputer
    BEWUSSTSEIN UND QUANTENCOMPUTER CONSCIOUSNESS AND QUANTUMCOMPUTERS ______________________________________________________________ 7. SCHWEIZER BIENNALE ZU WISSENSCHAFT, TECHNIK + ÄSTHETIK THE 7th SWISS BIENNIAL ON SCIENCE, TECHNICS + AESTHETICS 20. / 21. Januar 2007 / January 20 - 21, 2007 Verkehrshaus der Schweiz, Luzern Swiss Museum of Transport, Lucerne Veranstalter: Neue Galerie Luzern, www.neugalu.ch Organized by: New Gallery Lucerne, www.neugalu.ch ______________________________________________________________ A B S T R A C T S Samstag, 20. Januar 2007 / Saturday, January 20, 2007 Verkehrshaus der Schweiz / Swiss Museum of Transport Keynote 12.15 - 12.45 BRIAN JOSEPHSON Quantenphysik Cambridge / UK IS QUANTUM MECHANICS OR COMPUTATION MORE FUNDAMENTAL? IST DIE QUANTENMECHANIK ODER DAS RECHNEN FUNDAMENTALER? Is quantum mechanics as currently conceived the ultimate theory of nature? In his book "Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge", Niels Bohr argued that because of the uncertainty principle quantum methodology might not be applicable to the study of the ultimate details of life. Delbruck disagreed, claiming that biosystems are robust to quantum disturbances, an assertion that is only partially valid rendering Bohr's argument still significant, even though normally ignored. The methods of the quantum physicist and of the biological sciences can be seen to involve two alternative approaches to the understanding of nature that can usefully complement each other, neither on its own containing the full story. That full story, taking into
    [Show full text]
  • Michelson–Morley Experiment
    Michelson–Morley experiment Figure 1. Michelson and Morley's interferometric setup, mounted on a stone slab that floats in an annular trough of mercury The Michelson–Morley experiment was an attempt to detect the existence of the luminiferous aether, a supposed medium permeating space that was thought to be the carrier of light waves. The experiment was performed between April and July 1887 by Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley at what is now Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, and published in November of the same year.[1] It compared the speed of light in perpendicular directions in an attempt to detect the relative motion of matter through the stationary luminiferous aether ("aether wind"). The result was negative, in that Michelson and Morley found no significant difference between the speed of light in the direction of movement through the presumed aether, and the speed at right angles. This result is generally considered to be the first strong evidence against the then-prevalent aether theory, and initiated a line of research that eventually led to special relativity, which rules out a stationary aether.[A 1] Of this experiment, Einstein wrote, "If the Michelson–Morley experiment had not brought us into serious embarrassment, no one would have regarded the relativity theory as a (halfway) redemption."[A 2]:219 Michelson–Morley type experiments have been repeated many times with steadily increasing sensitivity. These include experiments from 1902 to 1905, and a series of experiments in the 1920s. More recent optical
    [Show full text]
  • Implementation of the Fizeau Aether Drag Experiment for An
    Implementation of the Fizeau Aether Drag Experiment for an Undergraduate Physics Laboratory by Bahrudin Trbalic Submitted to the Department of Physics in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science in Physics at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY May 2020 c Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2020. All rights reserved. ○ Author................................................................ Department of Physics May 8, 2020 Certified by. Sean P. Robinson Lecturer of Physics Thesis Supervisor Certified by. Joseph A. Formaggio Professor of Physics Thesis Supervisor Accepted by . Nergis Mavalvala Associate Department Head, Department of Physics 2 Implementation of the Fizeau Aether Drag Experiment for an Undergraduate Physics Laboratory by Bahrudin Trbalic Submitted to the Department of Physics on May 8, 2020, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science in Physics Abstract This work presents the description and implementation of the historically significant Fizeau aether drag experiment in an undergraduate physics laboratory setting. The implementation is optimized to be inexpensive and reproducible in laboratories that aim to educate students in experimental physics. A detailed list of materials, experi- mental setup, and procedures is given. Additionally, a laboratory manual, preparatory materials, and solutions are included. Thesis Supervisor: Sean P. Robinson Title: Lecturer of Physics Thesis Supervisor: Joseph A. Formaggio Title: Professor of Physics 3 4 Acknowledgments I gratefully acknowledge the instrumental help of Prof. Joseph Formaggio and Dr. Sean P. Robinson for the guidance in this thesis work and in my academic life. The Experimental Physics Lab (J-Lab) has been the pinnacle of my MIT experience and I’m thankful for the time spent there.
    [Show full text]
  • Experiments in Topology Pdf Free Download
    EXPERIMENTS IN TOPOLOGY PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Stephen Barr | 210 pages | 01 Jan 1990 | Dover Publications Inc. | 9780486259338 | English | New York, United States Experiments in Topology PDF Book In short, the book gives a competent introduction to the material and the flavor of a broad swath of the main subfields of topology though Barr does not use the academic disciplinary names preferring an informal treatment. Given these and other early developments, the time is ripe for a meeting across communities to share ideas and look forward. The experiment played a role in the development of ethical guidelines for the use of human participants in psychology experiments. Outlining the Physics: What are the candidate physical drivers of quenching and do the processes vary as a function of galaxy type? Are there ways that these different theoretical mechanisms can be distinguished observationally? In the first part of the study, participants were asked to read about situations in which a conflict occurred and then were told two alternative ways of responding to the situation. In a one-dimensional absolute-judgment task, a person is presented with a number of stimuli that vary on one dimension such as 10 different tones varying only in pitch and responds to each stimulus with a corresponding response learned before. In November , the E. The study and the subsequent article organized by the Washington Post was part of a social experiment looking at perception, taste and the priorities of people. The students were randomly assigned to one of two groups, and each group was shown one of two different interviews with the same instructor who is a native French-speaking Belgian who spoke English with a fairly noticeable accent.
    [Show full text]
  • Popular Arguments for Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity1
    1 Popular Arguments for Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity1 Patrick Mackenzie University of Saskatchewan Introduction In this paper I shall argue in Section II that two of the standard arguments that have been put forth in support of Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity do not support that theory and are quite compatible with what might be called an updated and perhaps even an enlightened Newtonian view of the Universe. This view will be presented in Section I. I shall call it the neo-Newtonian Theory, though I hasten to add there are a number of things in it that Newton would not accept, though perhaps Galileo might have. Now there may be other arguments and/or pieces of empirical evidence which support the Special Theory of Relativity and cast doubt upon the neo-Newtonian view. Nevertheless, the two that I am going to examine are usually considered important. It might also be claimed that the two arguments that I am going to examine have only heuristic value. Perhaps this is so but they are usually put forward as supporting the Special Theory and refuting the neo-Newtonian Theory. Again I must stress that it is not my aim to cast any doubt on the Special Theory of Relativity nor on Einstein. His Special Theory and his General Theory stand at the zenith of human achievement. My only aim is to cast doubt on the assumption that the two arguments I examine support the Special Theory. Section I Let us begin by outlining the neo-Newtonian Theory. According to it the following tenets are true: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • HOMOTECIA Nº 6-15 Junio 2017
    HOMOTECIA Nº 6 – Año 15 Martes, 1º de Junio de 2017 1 Entre las expectativas futuras que se tienen sobre un docente en formación, está el considerar como indicativo de que logrará realizarse como tal, cuando evidencia confianza en lo que hace, cuando cree en sí mismo y no deja que su tiempo transcurra sin pro pósitos y sin significado. Estos son los principios que deberán pautar el ejercicio de su magisterio si aspira tener éxito en su labor, lo cual mostrará mediante su afán por dar lo bueno dentro de sí, por hacer lo mejor posible, por comprometerse con el porvenir de quienes confiadamente pondrán en sus manos la misión de enseñarles. Pero la responsabilidad implícita en este proceso lo debería llevar a considerar seriamente algunos GIACINTO MORERA (1856 – 1907 ) aspectos. Obtener una acreditación para enseñar no es un pergamino para exhib ir con petulancia ante familiares y Nació el 18 de julio de 1856 en Novara, y murió el 8 de febrero de 1907, en Turín; amistades. En otras palabras, viviendo en el mundo educativo, es ambas localidades en Italia. asumir que se produjo un cambio significativo en la manera de Matemático que hizo contribuciones a la dinámica. participar en este: pasó de ser guiado para ahora guiar. No es que no necesite que se le orie nte como profesional de la docencia, esto es algo que sucederá obligatoriamente a nivel organizacional, Giacinto Morera , hijo de un acaudalado hombre de pero el hecho es que adquirirá una responsabilidad mucho mayor negocios, se graduó en ingeniería y matemáticas en la porque así como sus preceptores universitarios tuvieron el compromiso de formarlo y const ruirlo cultural y Universidad de Turín, Italia, habiendo asistido a los académicamente, él tendrá el mismo compromiso de hacerlo con cursos por Enrico D'Ovidio, Angelo Genocchi y sus discípulos, sea cual sea el nivel docente donde se desempeñe.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Crucial Experiment for Relativity
    A New Crucial Experiment for Relativity Steven Zins October 25, 2012 Abstract Dayton Miller performed an experiment in 1925{1926 that, at face value, contradicted relativity theory. The strongest argument against Miller's experiment is that subsequent Michelson-Morley experiments yielded increasing consistency with relativity, disagreeing with Miller's results. But subsequent experiments were not valid replications of Miller's. Specifically, they failed to replicate the medium in the light path and the scale of Miller's experiment. A valid replication must either be exact or be demonstrably equivalent with regard to its cru- cial sensing region. The unexplained effects seen by Miller demand exact replication. The proposed experiment is crucial for special rela- tivity but is more than a replication of Miller. This proposed Crucial Experiment should use a Michelson-Morley apparatus with a 4.25 m arm length as Miller used. The novelty of this experiment is that the light path should be in a chamber that can be operated from near zero to one atmosphere. Predictions: (1) At one atmosphere, the re- sult will agree with Miller's and contradict relativity. (2) Near zero atmospheres, the result will agree with Georg Joos' and agree with relativity. (3) Intermediate pressures will yield intermediate results. 1 Background 1.1 Origins of Ether Maxwell's formulation of electromagnetism in 1860 described the wave mo- tion of electromagnetic radiation including light. The medium that was assumed to transmit the waves was called ether. 1.2 Experiments The Michelson-Morley experiment was a test of an ether theory, specifically to determine the velocity of the Earth through an ether assumed to be fixed 1 in the solar system.
    [Show full text]
  • “Kings of Cool” Superconductivity Who Are These People? SUPERCONDUCTORS
    “““Kings of Cool” Superconductivity Who are these people? SUPERCONDUCTORS An Introduction by Prof George Walmsley Normal conductor eg copper • Current, I. • Voltage drop, V. • Resistance, R = ? • Ans: V/I = R eg 2 Volts/1 Amp = 2 Ohms I Copper I V Normal conductor eg copper • Source of resistance: • Electron collides with lattice ion to produce heat (phonon). Copper lattice Lower Temperature • What happens when we cool a metal? • Ans 1: The electrons slow down and current is reduced maybe to zero. R→∞ • Ans 2: The lattice stops vibrating and resistance disappears. R=0 How do we cool things? • Commonly used liquid refrigerants: Element Boiling Pt Oxygen 90K Nitrogen 77K Hydrogen 20K Helium 4.2K Thomas Andrews, Chemist • 9 Dec 1813 – 26 Nov 1885 • John (Flax spinner, Comber) [ggfather] • Michael (Linen, Ardoyne) [gfather] • Thomas (Linen merchant) [father] • Studied under James Thomson, RBAI • 1828 Univ of Glasgow, Thos Thomson • 1830 Paris, Dumas • 1830-34 Trinity College Dublin • 1835 MD U of Edinburgh • 1835-45 Prof of Chemistry RBAI • 1845 Vice-President, Queen’s College • 1847 Prof of Chemistry, Queen’s College • 1869 Bakerian Lecture on CO 2 • 1871 Visit by Dr Janssen of Leiden • Photo: Paris 1875 Andrews’ Isotherms • Note critical temperature NORMAL CONDUCTOR: Electrical properties Normal metal eg copper Resistance and (resistivity, ρ) >0 As temperature falls ρ falls smoothly too: ρ 0 100 200 273.15 Temperature/K SUPERCONDUCTOR: Electrical properties Superconductor eg mercury, lead Resistivity ( ρ) >0 like normal metal down to critical
    [Show full text]
  • Real Proofs of Complex Theorems (And Vice Versa)
    REAL PROOFS OF COMPLEX THEOREMS (AND VICE VERSA) LAWRENCE ZALCMAN Introduction. It has become fashionable recently to argue that real and complex variables should be taught together as a unified curriculum in analysis. Now this is hardly a novel idea, as a quick perusal of Whittaker and Watson's Course of Modern Analysis or either Littlewood's or Titchmarsh's Theory of Functions (not to mention any number of cours d'analyse of the nineteenth or twentieth century) will indicate. And, while some persuasive arguments can be advanced in favor of this approach, it is by no means obvious that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages or, for that matter, that a unified treatment offers any substantial benefit to the student. What is obvious is that the two subjects do interact, and interact substantially, often in a surprising fashion. These points of tangency present an instructor the opportunity to pose (and answer) natural and important questions on basic material by applying real analysis to complex function theory, and vice versa. This article is devoted to several such applications. My own experience in teaching suggests that the subject matter discussed below is particularly well-suited for presentation in a year-long first graduate course in complex analysis. While most of this material is (perhaps by definition) well known to the experts, it is not, unfortunately, a part of the common culture of professional mathematicians. In fact, several of the examples arose in response to questions from friends and colleagues. The mathematics involved is too pretty to be the private preserve of specialists.
    [Show full text]
  • Lemaître and Hoyle: Contrasting Characters in Science and Religion
    S & CB (2012), 24, 111–127 0954–4194 RODNEY HOLDER Lemaître and Hoyle: Contrasting Characters in Science and Religion Georges Lemaître was a jocular Roman Catholic priest and Fred Hoyle a bluff Yorkshireman who despised organised religion. Both were giants of twentieth century cosmology but espoused diametrically opposed cosmological models. This paper explores the extent to which ideology, and particularly religion, played a part in the controversies over the Big Bang and steady-state theories. A significant problem for many cosmologists, including Hoyle, was posed by the idea that the universe had a temporal beginning: an eternal, unchanging universe seemed metaphysically preferable. And Hoyle was highly polemical about religion in his popular writings. In contrast, Lemaître saw no theological import from the Big Bang, and never entered a debate about its theological implications until, perhaps unexpectedly, he took issue with an address given by the Pope. Hoyle’s seminal work on stellar nucleosynthesis led him to speak of a ‘superintellect monkeying with physics’ though this was never identified with the God of classical theism. The work of both Lemaître and Hoyle resonates with more recent debates concerning cosmology. Key words: Lemaître, Hoyle, Big Bang, steady-state theory, cosmology, creation Introduction In Georges Lemaître and Fred Hoyle we have two characters who are so utterly different in many ways, yet who shared one very significant attrib- ute: they were giants in twentieth century cosmology and astrophysics. In short, here we have a Belgian Roman Catholic priest who can rightly be described as the Father of the Big Bang, and in Hoyle an atheist York- shireman who pioneered the alternative of a steady-state universe with neither beginning nor end.
    [Show full text]
  • Dossier Pierre Duhem Pierre Duhem's Philosophy and History of Science
    Transversal: International Journal for the Historiography of Science , 2 (201 7) 03 -06 ISSN 2526 -2270 www.historiographyofscience.org © The Author s 201 7 — This is an open access article Dossier Pierre Duhem Pierre Duhem’s Philos ophy and History of Science Introduction Fábio Rodrigo Leite 1 Jean-François Stoffel 2 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24117/2526-2270.2017.i2.02 _____________________________________________________________________________ We are pleased to present in this issue a tribute to the thought of Pierre Duhem, on the occasion of the centenary of his death that occurred in 2016. Among articles and book reviews, the dossier contains 14 contributions of scholars from different places across the world, from Europe (Belgium, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Sweden) to the Americas (Brazil, Canada, Mexico and the United States). And this is something that attests to the increasing scope of influence exerted by the French physicist, philosopher and 3 historian. It is quite true that since his passing, Duhem has been remembered in the writings of many of those who knew him directly. However, with very few exceptions (Manville et al. 1927), the comments devoted to him exhibited clear biographical and hagiographic characteristics of a generalist nature (see Jordan 1917; Picard 1921; Mentré 1922a; 1922b; Humbert 1932; Pierre-Duhem 1936; Ocagne et al. 1937). From the 1950s onwards, when the studies on his philosophical work resumed, the thought of the Professor from Bordeaux acquired an irrevocable importance, so that references to La théorie physique: Son objet et sa structure became a common place in the literature of the area. As we know, this recovery was a consequence of the prominence attributed, firstly, to the notorious Duhem-Quine thesis in the English- speaking world, and secondly to the sparse and biased comments made by Popper that generated an avalanche of revaluations of the Popperian “instrumentalist interpretation”.
    [Show full text]
  • Science Fiction Stories with Good Astronomy & Physics
    Science Fiction Stories with Good Astronomy & Physics: A Topical Index Compiled by Andrew Fraknoi (U. of San Francisco, Fromm Institute) Version 7 (2019) © copyright 2019 by Andrew Fraknoi. All rights reserved. Permission to use for any non-profit educational purpose, such as distribution in a classroom, is hereby granted. For any other use, please contact the author. (e-mail: fraknoi {at} fhda {dot} edu) This is a selective list of some short stories and novels that use reasonably accurate science and can be used for teaching or reinforcing astronomy or physics concepts. The titles of short stories are given in quotation marks; only short stories that have been published in book form or are available free on the Web are included. While one book source is given for each short story, note that some of the stories can be found in other collections as well. (See the Internet Speculative Fiction Database, cited at the end, for an easy way to find all the places a particular story has been published.) The author welcomes suggestions for additions to this list, especially if your favorite story with good science is left out. Gregory Benford Octavia Butler Geoff Landis J. Craig Wheeler TOPICS COVERED: Anti-matter Light & Radiation Solar System Archaeoastronomy Mars Space Flight Asteroids Mercury Space Travel Astronomers Meteorites Star Clusters Black Holes Moon Stars Comets Neptune Sun Cosmology Neutrinos Supernovae Dark Matter Neutron Stars Telescopes Exoplanets Physics, Particle Thermodynamics Galaxies Pluto Time Galaxy, The Quantum Mechanics Uranus Gravitational Lenses Quasars Venus Impacts Relativity, Special Interstellar Matter Saturn (and its Moons) Story Collections Jupiter (and its Moons) Science (in general) Life Elsewhere SETI Useful Websites 1 Anti-matter Davies, Paul Fireball.
    [Show full text]