pdf Hidden In Plain Sight: The simple link between relativity and quantum mechanics (English Edition)Author Andrew Thomas – Z55z.co

You Never Knew Theoretical Physics Could Be So Simple In This Exciting And Significant Book, Andrew Thomas Clearly Illustrates The Simplicity Which Lies Behind Nature At Its Fundamental Level It Is Revealed How All Unifications In Physics Have Been Based On Incredibly Simple Ideas Using A Logical Approach, It Is Explained How The Great Th Century Theories Of Relativity And Quantum Mechanics Share A Common Base, And How They Can Be Linked Using An Idea So Simple That Anyone Can Understand It An Idea Which Is So Simple It Has Been Hidden In Plain SightAndrew Thomas Studied Physics In The James Clerk Maxwell Building In Edinburgh University, And Received His Doctorate From Swansea University In He Is The Author Of The What Is Reality Website Whatisreality , One Of The Most Popular Websites Dealing With Questions Of The Fundamentals Of Physics It Has Been Called The Best Online Introduction To Quantum Theory

5 thoughts on “Hidden In Plain Sight: The simple link between relativity and quantum mechanics (English Edition)

  1. Carlos Jiménez Carlos Jiménez says:

    Very nicely written, easy to read description of how quantum mechanics and relativity work, focusing on the basics of each theory without entering too much in the details no math at all in the book, no complicated phenomena explained, just basic principles and how they relate to interesting, counter intuitive, easy to grasp phenomena Also the purpose of the journey through these 2 main theories is to highlight the qualitative similarities between them, suggesting that they have a common root that might serve as a link to achieve the highly looked for unification Basically the author takes you on a journey of ideas in which he heuristically deduces quantum mechanics and relativity from what he considers a simple, self evident fundamental principle But although all the physics that the author explains is true, the reader should keep in mind that the derivation of theories from the principle is logical but purely speculative It s a nice philosphy exercise the author does and it s very fun to follow, but remembering the fact that it s not supported by mathematics or any scientific evidence.Nevertheless, it s a good book in general, and a very good book if you ve not read science at all before.

  2. Antonio P. Antonio P. says:

    Un recorrido por la historia de la F sica del siglo XX y de c mo algunos conceptos tomados por inmutables tuvieron que ser revisados.Por el precio pagado, es una gran compra Adem s, tiene continuaci n.

  3. Clifton L. Fraser Clifton L. Fraser says:

    I can only hope that Thomas hypothesis becomes a theory It is indeed an elegant and uncomplicated solution It is so obvious that it has eluded the most brilliant minds the world has produced.The reason why I hope it s declared a theory is of course irrational selfishness in the sense that finally, the inherent uncertainty in our best theories in physics are put to good use to my mind Like Einstein, I do not believe that the inherent property of reality is one of utter uncertainty but certainly of probability The probability that what we all experience during our daily lives is a smokescreen underwritten by arbitrary laws that s infirm and transgressable remote, I wager As are the probability of multi verses splitting ad infinitum in split seconds.I am not nearly advanced enough in physics for my opinion to count anything But for the first time the theories of special relativity, general relativity and quantum mechanics make sense to me And believe me, I ve read a lot about them.Even if Thomas hypotheses are not accepted, his vision has helped me enormously to understand the inherent uncertainty in what we believe to be firm reality It is firm There us nothing to question and there is no supernatural malarkey to upset our declared theories.Thank you so much for clearing up that sir Now all your books are on my wish list.

  4. Craig Lang Craig Lang says:

    This book is an excellent tutorial on some of the most fundamental and unifying principles in physics It takes the question of the relationship between relativity and quantum mechanics to a fundamental and seemingly obvious conclusion After reading it you sorta wonder so what s the big mystery.I would have to think about his ideas a little and see what other writers have to say But Plain Sight builds a very good case for the unification of these two branches of physics.Ot was great that this book was readable and nearly math free However it might have been nice to have some mathematics details insets It is nearly impossible to have physics without math And while Plain Sight does a good job it with what it has, showing the philosophy behind unification theory it could have had some extra for experts included.

  5. Alan Levin Alan Levin says:

    If you find this entertaining, please enjoy, but I would put it in the category of popular fantasy rather than popular physics.I have a number of problems with the author s approach, though I found much of the book readable First, he seems to intentionally misunderstand and or confuse some basics about the nature of science Science is a community effort where hypotheses, results, and explanations are presented for consideration in such a way that the results are repeatable, the hypotheses are clear and include the conditions for measuring results, and the explanations are not flawed mathematically or logically, nor do they contradict other known results and measurements The notion is that any individual could have bad data or a flawed hypothesis, but in the limit of many people searching for a consistent explanation of agreed upon data, the explanation hypothesis will converge to some improved version So to my mind science is not a set of facts or for that matter at set of theories, but rather a creative self correcting process that is convergent in the long run A hypothesis is a creative guess that is somehow testable in a way that might allow you to make a better guess Further, a hypothesis is not true until proven wrong, and its appeal to its author is not generally a good indicator of its correctness Nor is appeal to the public a good indicator.Second, Thomas is rather cryptic in describing his background he names the building in which he studied physics as an undergraduate, and mentions a doctorate without specifying field I could find no reference to any peer reviewed conferences or papers including a thesis that would indicate that his work has been examined by others working in the field I do not mean this as a demonstration that any of his work is necessarily incorrect, but it made the hairs stand up on the back of my neck as I read this book If someone fell down the stairs, I would look for an emergency room with MDs rather than homeopaths or faith healers I have no clear demonstration that homeopathy or faith healing cannot be effective, and my knowledge of placebo effect makes it interesting to think about what might be there Yet, I would look to medical professionals to help me in an emergency And I would go to the same people to help me understand the detailed medical claims of a homeopath, assuming I found those claims at all compelling.His approach to physics at times has a fundamentalist tone He claims that that there is an irrefutable axiomatic or logical basis for the way that nature must be Are self evident truths a good basis for science There was a time when axiomatically space had to be Euclidean and action at a distance was non sensical Logically correct merely means that if what you started with is deemed correct in some way, then you haven t made it incorrect through faulty calculation or analysis Logic doesn t create truth, it merely keeps it from being screwed up This naive point of view gives the reader a sense of being brow beaten with conclusions as beyond any rationale don t bother arguing with me because I have already accepted it as true and no argument can touch it.One last thing about book one I am not arguing against his assumption that there is only one universe and so everything that exists must be in the universe But I would point out that it is very easy to make category errors in set theory and logic when you define things with self referential closure, like the set of all sets or everything in the universe For instance, these things are capable of being both open and closed because we have trouble sorting out what a boundary or limit means in this context.If you are looking for a well informed popular description of modern physics there are several much better options including works by Brian Greene, and if you are particularly interested in issues of quantum mechanics and general relativity, you may find Lee Smolin s popular papers and books interesting.