Relativity
Ragnar
I met an objectivist recently who was passionately devoted to the
notion that Einsteinian physics was wrong and that we should go back to
good old Newtonian physics. I don't recall Ayn Rand ever taking a
position on this topic.
The guy referenced a scientist named Petr Beckmann, who I know of
from his pro-nuclear energy work.
What is the objectivist view of relativity?
Enright
: I met an objectivist recently who was passionately devoted to the
You will find no unanimity of opinion on this one.
But, for what it's worth, and it must be worth something,
Objectivists with intense backgrounds in physics are usually
supporters of relativity.
Petr Beckmann, recently deceased, was I believe a professor
of electrical engineering. He was originally from Eastern
Europe (Czechoslovakia?) but emigrated to the States after
World War II, and taught in Boulder, Colorado. He didn't
regard himself as "an Objectivist," but he had a lot of
fans who regard themselves as objectivists.
He wrote a book, proposing a counter-theory to relativity,
called, I think, "Einstein Plus Two." He also began a
journal, I think it's still going, called something like:
Journal of Galilean Electrodynamics. (I may have this wrong.)
The title, "Einstein Plus Two," referred to his claim that
his theory accounted for all the phenomena Einstein's theory
accounted for, plus two other phenomena. These other two,
as I recall, were 1) the spacing of the orbits in the solar
system, and 2) the spacing of the electron shells in atoms.
Note to real physicists: excuse me if I have badly mis-stated
something here. I'm just functioning as a reporter here.
And you know how badly reporters do with science.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Enright from address: jenr...@home.interaccess.com
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Hurben
: Ragnar (rag...@ace.com) wrote:
: : I met an objectivist recently who was passionately devoted to the
: : notion that Einsteinian physics was wrong and that we should go back to
: : good old Newtonian physics. I don't recall Ayn Rand ever taking a
: : position on this topic.
: : The guy referenced a scientist named Petr Beckmann, who I know of
: : from his pro-nuclear energy work.
: : What is the objectivist view of relativity?
: You will find no unanimity of opinion on this one.
: But, for what it's worth, and it must be worth something,
: Objectivists with intense backgrounds in physics are usually
: supporters of relativity.
Just curious: how many Objectivist Physicists are there? The only physicists
that regularly post to this group are myself and Tom Radcliffe (did I miss
anyone? Sorry if so) - and I cannot speak for Tom, but I think it is safe
to say that neither of us are Objectivists. I have never met a single
person in my profession who called him/herself an Objectivist. I have never
read a single journal article mentioning anything about Objectivism
whatsoever.
: Petr Beckmann, recently deceased, was I believe a professor
: of electrical engineering. He was originally from Eastern
: Europe (Czechoslovakia?) but emigrated to the States after
: World War II, and taught in Boulder, Colorado. He didn't
: regard himself as "an Objectivist," but he had a lot of
: fans who regard themselves as objectivists.
: He wrote a book, proposing a counter-theory to relativity,
: called, I think, "Einstein Plus Two." He also began a
: journal, I think it's still going, called something like:
: Journal of Galilean Electrodynamics. (I may have this wrong.)
: The title, "Einstein Plus Two," referred to his claim that
: his theory accounted for all the phenomena Einstein's theory
: accounted for, plus two other phenomena. These other two,
: as I recall, were 1) the spacing of the orbits in the solar
: system, and 2) the spacing of the electron shells in atoms.
Sorry, but I am unfamiliar with this book, so I cannot comment on it.
But it does raise another interesting question:
Has Objectivism had any influence/made any contributions to science at all?
I mean, beyond Piekoff's preposterous implications that Heisenberg's
Uncertainty Principal is some kind of arbitrary assertion fashioned after
irrational Nazi/Kantian subjectivism.
: Note to real physicists: excuse me if I have badly mis-stated
: something here. I'm just functioning as a reporter here.
: And you know how badly reporters do with science.
:-)
: --
: -------------------------------------------------------------
: John Enright from address: jenr...@home.interaccess.com
:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mike
Enright
: Just curious: how many Objectivist Physicists are there? The only physicists
: that regularly post to this group are myself and Tom Radcliffe (did I miss
: anyone? Sorry if so) - and I cannot speak for Tom, but I think it is safe
: to say that neither of us are Objectivists. I have never met a single
: person in my profession who called him/herself an Objectivist. I have never
: read a single journal article mentioning anything about Objectivism
: whatsoever.
In reverse order of the questions:
1) As far as I know, Objectivism's direct impact on physics has
been non-existent. There has been some commenting from the
sidelines about various claims involving physics. But I can't
imagine it's made any dent on the practice of physics.
2) Objectivist Physicists employed as such? I don't know. Maybe Larry
Gould would consider himself an Objectivist. My comment referred
to people with "physics intensive backgrounds" because I was mentally
including a lot of people I've known who had undergrad hard-science
degrees who knew a fair amount of relativity and quantum theory.
Many of these people had engineering degrees.
Evan Picoult has a doctorate in Physics from Columbia, but he's
not working as a physicist right now. I'm pretty sure he'd count
himself as an Objectivist.
Over on Jimmy Wales' group they've been having a little debate going
about the curvature of space. The people with the physics background
are insisting that space _really curves_. It's the mathematician
in the group who's got objections to the idea. But no one is
arguing General Relativity _is wrong_. They're arguing over what's
a logical interpretation of it.
John "Just An English Major" Enright
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
from address: jenr...@home.interaccess.com
-------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Gustafson
I'm not an Objectivist although I consider Rand to be the only intellectual
in the humanities that I can respect. I'm not even a physicist, being a year
from my masters degree in physics(won't even be a physicist then, I know).
: Ragnar (rag...@ace.com) wrote:
: : I met an objectivist recently who was passionately devoted to the
: : notion that Einsteinian physics was wrong and that we should go back to
: : good old Newtonian physics. I don't recall Ayn Rand ever taking a
: : position on this topic.
This I must disagree with. Einstein's two theories are valid, tested in reality.
Within our present context they are true.
hur...@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Mike Hurben) writes:
>Has Objectivism had any influence/made any contributions to science at all?
>I mean, beyond Piekoff's preposterous implications that Heisenberg's
>Uncertainty Principal is some kind of arbitrary assertion fashioned after
>irrational Nazi/Kantian subjectivism.
Probably not as Objectivists, since that is not their chief interest(accele-
rating particles in a cyclotron, that is). They'll have enough work trying
to restore the humanities to a respectable state to keep them busy for a
century or so.
Regarding the Uncertainty Principle(UP) and the whole of quantum mechanics,
knowing that this may have been discussed before, are there any essays on this
stemming from the Objectivists?
In OPAR(page 11 or 17), dr Peikoff states(not exact quotation),
"... that even if it were in fact impossible to simultaneously determine the
position and momentum of a particle, and this is debatable ...".
Dr Peikoff doesn't elaborate, and I think he should have. If he has found a
crack in the foundations of quantum mechanics this is remarkable(no sarcasm).
I take the UP to be a metaphysical fact, not an epistemological one.
If correct it cannot be wished away, not saying that it's the final word on
the subject.
BTW I read somewhere a physicist saying that the UP is a LOCAL phenomena, and
that there in is fact a Newtonian kind of determinism when observing a system
as a whole(any real physicist out there?).
Rand often stressed (correctly) the bancruptcy of the humanities.
What about physics? I've heard some disturbing stories from a real physicist.
About the Superstring Theory, being far from mathematically correct and not
possible to verify through experiments(what value does a theory such as that
hold?).
About the Big Bang theory and the Grand Unified theory, where they've ceased
to ask, "Are our equations correct?", but more like "Our equations are correct
- let's fit the data into them!".
And of nuclear physics, which to me seems to be a "case by case" - approach,
no reduction such as Maxwells equations(maybe not be there yet).
Any REAL physicist out there?
Peter Gustafson.
Tom Radcliffe
[deleted]
|>
|> BTW I read somewhere a physicist saying that the UP is a LOCAL phenomena, and
|> that there in is fact a Newtonian kind of determinism when observing a system
|> as a whole(any real physicist out there?).
|>
I'm not sure what this means. If it means you can make the consequences
of non-comutivity go away by measuring on pairs of correlated particles,
it is false. If it means that it looks like there is instantaneous
action-at-a-distance in such measurements, it is true, but in an
operational sense it does not help us any because there is no way of
detecting motion with respect to the frame of absolute rest.
|> Rand often stressed (correctly) the bancruptcy of the humanities.
|> What about physics? I've heard some disturbing stories from a real physicist.
|>
|> About the Superstring Theory, being far from mathematically correct and not
|> possible to verify through experiments(what value does a theory such as that
|> hold?).
I don't do strings, but so far as I know the math is fine (people I trust
say this) and not being experimentally verifiable at the moment is no
big deal. When Pauli postulated the neutrino there was no way of
verifying that it existed, either.
|> About the Big Bang theory and the Grand Unified theory, where they've ceased
|> to ask, "Are our equations correct?", but more like "Our equations are correct
|> - let's fit the data into them!".
The general Big Bang senario is almost certainly true, but as a more
detailed picture of the early universe builds up we will see if any
fully-consistent model can be created. People working in this area are
well-aware that if they can't fit the details they have to go back and
look at the big picture. GUTs are in a state of flux. The
nicest ones are hard to test. And there is no evidence for ``physics
beyond the standard model'' that would act as a guide to further
theorization. No one is interested in just fitting data. We are
interested in a) killing of speculative theories and b) finding experimental
results that will give some indication of promising theoretical
directions.
|> And of nuclear physics, which to me seems to be a "case by case" - approach,
|> no reduction such as Maxwells equations(maybe not be there yet).
|>
I'm not sure what this means. We have a theory of the strong interaction,
but it has some problems. These are in part fundamental (the strong CP
problem) and in part mathematical (it is very hard to calculate with.)
We don't have a nice, neet simple theory because non-Ablian theories
are not nice, neat and simple.
Tom Radcliffe
|> Ragnar (rag...@ace.com) wrote:
|>
|> : I met an objectivist recently who was passionately devoted to the
|> : notion that Einsteinian physics was wrong and that we should go back to
|> : good old Newtonian physics. I don't recall Ayn Rand ever taking a
|> : position on this topic.
Peikoff somewhere says (Jefferson School 1985?) that mass is the quantity
of stuff, energy is the capacity to do work, ergo E = mc**2 is philosophically
false, or words to that effect. He has said that ``philosophy has
`veto power' '' over science, and I take this as an example of what he
means. For some reason objectivists don't like relativity. The ones
who like it the least also understand it the least.
|> : The guy referenced a scientist named Petr Beckmann, who I know of
|> : from his pro-nuclear energy work.
Beckmann was an engineer who dabbled in physics. So far as I am
concerned he was a crank insofar as his forays into physics go.
[deleted]
|>
|> Petr Beckmann, recently deceased, was I believe a professor
|> of electrical engineering. He was originally from Eastern
|> Europe (Czechoslovakia?) but emigrated to the States after
|> World War II, and taught in Boulder, Colorado. He didn't
|> regard himself as "an Objectivist," but he had a lot of
|> fans who regard themselves as objectivists.
|>
|> He wrote a book, proposing a counter-theory to relativity,
|> called, I think, "Einstein Plus Two." He also began a
|> journal, I think it's still going, called something like:
|> Journal of Galilean Electrodynamics. (I may have this wrong.)
|>
|> The title, "Einstein Plus Two," referred to his claim that
|> his theory accounted for all the phenomena Einstein's theory
|> accounted for, plus two other phenomena. These other two,
|> as I recall, were 1) the spacing of the orbits in the solar
|> system, and 2) the spacing of the electron shells in atoms.
|>
I looked at this book long ago. If I can dig up a copy cheaply
I'll review it for this group. As I recall, it was really quite
bad. If Mr. Enright is correct about what Beckmann was explaining,
it should be worth a laugh.
|> Note to real physicists: excuse me if I have badly mis-stated
|> something here. I'm just functioning as a reporter here.
|> And you know how badly reporters do with science.
|>
Do I ever. You've done a good job.
STEVEN L BLAKE
>Peikoff somewhere says (Jefferson School 1985?) that mass is the quantity
>of stuff, energy is the capacity to do work, ergo E = mc**2 is philosophically
>false, or words to that effect. He has said that ``philosophy has
>`veto power' '' over science, and I take this as an example of what he
>means. For some reason objectivists don't like relativity. The ones
E=mc**2 is not scientific theory, it is scientific fact; an observable
property of the universe verified decades ago. Assuming that the above
paraphrased Peikoff quotes are true and reported in the correct context,
then by using philosophy to invalidate physics Peikoff is either:
1) Intellectually dishonest
2) An adherent to a bankrupt philosophy.
In either case, the view that "philosophy has veto power over science"
contradicts a fundamental principle of Objectivism; the belief in a
perceivable, objective reality. No one holding such view could honestly
claim to be an Objectivist.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| Steven L. Blake slb...@eos.ncsu.edu |
| NC State University (919)515-3916 |
| Center for Communications and Signal Processing |
| __ rubbernecking on the Information Highway __ |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Brian K. Yoder
>In article <CpJqs...@knot.ccs.queensu.ca> t...@mips2.phy.queensu.ca
> (Tom Radcliffe) writes:
>>Peikoff somewhere says (Jefferson School 1985?) that mass is the quantity
>>of stuff, energy is the capacity to do work, ergo E = mc**2 is philosophically
>>false, or words to that effect.
I have no idea where you got that from, but I know Dr. Peikoff's position on
this issue very well and that's not it. Before this whole discussion flies
off into a detailed analysis of the faults of that position you need to
offer some evidence that anyone thinks it is true. I certainly
don't.
>He has said that ``philosophy has
>>`veto power' '' over science,
THAT is something he has said in many cases, and he's absolutely right.
No scientific conclusion can ever invalidate a philosophic principle
because science is BASED on philsophy. For a scientifidiscovery to
deny a philosophical principle would be an example of the stolen concept
fallacy. Now, there are lots of people out there who would define philosophy
so broadly as to include some scientific issues and science CAN invalidate
those conclusions, but that's because they are not properly philosophical
principles.
>and I take this as an example of what he
>>means. For some reason objectivists don't like relativity. The ones
>E=mc**2 is not scientific theory, it is scientific fact; an observable
>property of the universe verified decades ago.
That's certainly true. I don't know where Tom got the idea that Dr. Peikoff
thinks otherwise, but I'm sure that he has never claimed that E=mc^2 is
false.
>Assuming that the above
>paraphrased Peikoff quotes are true and reported in the correct context,
>then by using philosophy to invalidate physics Peikoff is either:
>1) Intellectually dishonest
>2) An adherent to a bankrupt philosophy.
That would be the case if that's what he said, but I'm certain he didn't.
I have heard him speak on that issue more than once.
>In either case, the view that "philosophy has veto power over science"
>contradicts a fundamental principle of Objectivism; the belief in a
>perceivable, objective reality. No one holding such view could honestly
>claim to be an Objectivist.
Certainly not. I think you misunderstand what Dr. Peikoff means by that
claim. He isn't saying that "Statements about reality ("science") are
subject to veto by rationalistic philosophical musings.". What's saying is
that since science is based on philosophical premises (say, the law of excluded
middle for example) it can never discover that those premises are false
(because that would be committing the fallacy of the stolen concept).
Does that make sense?
Let's keep this whole thing straight before it explodes into an argument
about a position Dr. Peikoff doesn't hold.
--Brian
--
+------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Brian K. Yoder | "The children who know how to think for themselves, spoil |
| byo...@netcom.com| the harmony of the collective society that is coming, |
| US Networx, Inc. | where everyone (would be) interdependent" --John Dewey |
+------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
STEVEN L BLAKE
In article <byoderCp...@netcom.com>, byo...@netcom.com
(Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>In article <2qn771$7...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu> slb...@eos.ncsu.edu
> (STEVEN L BLAKE) writes:
>>In article <CpJqs...@knot.ccs.queensu.ca> t...@mips2.phy.queensu.ca
>> (Tom Radcliffe) writes:
[delete]
>>He has said that ``philosophy has
>>>`veto power' '' over science,
>
>THAT is something he has said in many cases, and he's absolutely right.
>No scientific conclusion can ever invalidate a philosophic principle
>because science is BASED on philsophy. For a scientifidiscovery to
>deny a philosophical principle would be an example of the stolen concept
>fallacy. Now, there are lots of people out there who would define philosophy
>so broadly as to include some scientific issues and science CAN invalidate
>those conclusions, but that's because they are not properly philosophical
>principles.
Agreed, with the caveat that empirical observation _could_ invalidate a
basic philosophical or scientific principal; for example, the discovery of
a priveledged frame of reference. I'm not holding my breathe, though.
[delete]
>>E=mc**2 is not scientific theory, it is scientific fact; an observable
>>property of the universe verified decades ago.
>
>That's certainly true. I don't know where Tom got the idea that Dr. Peikoff
>thinks otherwise, but I'm sure that he has never claimed that E=mc^2 is
>false.
Then my premise (below) was incorrect.
>>Assuming that the above
>>paraphrased Peikoff quotes are true and reported in the correct context,
>>then by using philosophy to invalidate physics Peikoff is either:
>
>>1) Intellectually dishonest
>>2) An adherent to a bankrupt philosophy.
>
>That would be the case if that's what he said, but I'm certain he didn't.
>I have heard him speak on that issue more than once.
I'll accept your word on this.
>>In either case, the view that "philosophy has veto power over science"
>>contradicts a fundamental principle of Objectivism; the belief in a
>>perceivable, objective reality. No one holding such view could honestly
>>claim to be an Objectivist.
>
>Certainly not. I think you misunderstand what Dr. Peikoff means by that
>claim. He isn't saying that "Statements about reality ("science") are
>subject to veto by rationalistic philosophical musings.". What's saying is
That was the premise for my previous post. I'm glad to hear that he isn't
arguing that point.
>that since science is based on philosophical premises (say, the law of excluded
>middle for example) it can never discover that those premises are false
>(because that would be committing the fallacy of the stolen concept).
>Does that make sense?
Yes. Therefore, we had better make sure that our science (and our
philosophy) is based on strong, defensible premises.
>Let's keep this whole thing straight before it explodes into an argument
>about a position Dr. Peikoff doesn't hold.
Fair enough. But how do you respond to the claim that "objectivists don't
like relativity"? Is that more urban legend?
Tom Radcliffe
|> >In article <CpJqs...@knot.ccs.queensu.ca> t...@mips2.phy.queensu.ca
|> > (Tom Radcliffe) writes:
|>
|> >>Peikoff somewhere says (Jefferson School 1985?) that mass is the quantity
|> >>of stuff, energy is the capacity to do work, ergo E = mc**2 is philosophically
|> >>false, or words to that effect.
|>
|> I have no idea where you got that from, but I know Dr. Peikoff's position on
|> this issue very well and that's not it. Before this whole discussion flies
|> off into a detailed analysis of the faults of that position you need to
|> offer some evidence that anyone thinks it is true. I certainly
|> don't.
|>
I don't know if there are any transcripts or tapes from the Jefferson
School in 1985. I'm pretty sure that is when Peikoff said it, in one
of the open question periods. If you have access to these things, you
could check. Otherwise, it is nothing more than my recollection of the
event, and of course that may be badly flawed.
|> >He has said that ``philosophy has
|> >>`veto power' '' over science,
|>
|> THAT is something he has said in many cases, and he's absolutely right.
|> No scientific conclusion can ever invalidate a philosophic principle
|> because science is BASED on philsophy. For a scientifidiscovery to
|> deny a philosophical principle would be an example of the stolen concept
|> fallacy. Now, there are lots of people out there who would define philosophy
|> so broadly as to include some scientific issues and science CAN invalidate
|> those conclusions, but that's because they are not properly philosophical
|> principles.
|>
The difficulty with this position is that philosophers rarely know what
they are talking about when they try to delimit science from philosophy.
The law of contradiction, for instance, is subject to modification by
science because it explicitly singles out *time* as an important quantity,
and the nature of time is at least in part a scientific question.
[deleted]
|>
|> >In either case, the view that "philosophy has veto power over science"
|> >contradicts a fundamental principle of Objectivism; the belief in a
|> >perceivable, objective reality. No one holding such view could honestly
|> >claim to be an Objectivist.
|>
|> Certainly not. I think you misunderstand what Dr. Peikoff means by that
|> claim. He isn't saying that "Statements about reality ("science") are
|> subject to veto by rationalistic philosophical musings.". What's saying is
|> that since science is based on philosophical premises (say, the law of excluded
|> middle for example) it can never discover that those premises are false
|> (because that would be committing the fallacy of the stolen concept).
|> Does that make sense?
|>
It depends. The difficulty with these claims is that philosophy as
Peikoff and Rand refer to it means inducitive claims based on everyday
experience. There is no basis for extending these claims over an
arbitrary range, particularly to things that cannot be objects of
experience even in principle.
pol...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
Actually, I'd hope objectivism supports Einstein's Relativity as well as
quantum mechanics as they are both the best models for natural phenomina.
First off, far below the speed of ght, Newtonian Mechanics still works
in the relativistic scheme o' things. Besides, in some sense Relativity is
an outcome of Newtonian Physics. Follow this:
1) Special Relativity is a direct result of Maxwell's Equations.
2) Maxwell's equations are the result of the Energy Laws.
3) Energy laws are an expression of Newtonian Laws.
Also, Newton was wrong about light as a particle, diffracion would not be
possible. Maxwell's equations (wave equations) acount for this. While
a set of Quantum equasions account for the dual wave/particle nature of all
things (light and electrons, even macro-objects).
Practically, semiconductors operate on quantum theories. Maxwell's
equations explain radio and TV transmissions.
Relativity equations are used in satelight communications, as Newtonian
Equasions breakdown in that region.
I realize most modern scientific models are against common sense, yet
the models work (accept perhaps in dealing with plasmas, nobody's theories
seem to cohesivly explain all phenomina).
:::Polaris.
Brian K. Yoder
>In article <byoderCp...@netcom.com>, byo...@netcom.com
> (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>>In article <2qn771$7...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu> slb...@eos.ncsu.edu
>> (STEVEN L BLAKE) writes:
>>>In article <CpJqs...@knot.ccs.queensu.ca> t...@mips2.phy.queensu.ca
>>> (Tom Radcliffe) writes:
>>>He has said that ``philosophy has
>>>>`veto power' '' over science,
>>THAT is something he has said in many cases, and he's absolutely right.
>>No scientific conclusion can ever invalidate a philosophic principle
>>because science is BASED on philsophy. For a scientific discovery to
>>deny a philosophical principle would be an example of the stolen concept
>>fallacy. Now, there are lots of people out there who would define philosophy
>>so broadly as to include some scientific issues and science CAN invalidate
>>those conclusions, but that's because they are not properly philosophical
>>principles.
>Agreed, with the caveat that empirical observation _could_ invalidate a
>basic philosophical or scientific principal; for example, the discovery of
>a priveledged frame of reference. I'm not holding my breathe, though.
What exactly would such a "priveledged frame of reference" be? What would
such evidence consist of? And what philosophical position would it invalidate?
>Fair enough. But how do you respond to the claim that "objectivists don't
>like relativity"? Is that more urban legend?
It would be more acurate to say that there are certain ideas afoot which
are (rightly or wrongly) attributed to the theory of relativity which result
in predictions of paradoxical truths. Objectivists argue against such
paradoxes are possible.
Another problematic issue has to do with the tendency of many modern
physiciststo reify their mathematical abstractions rather than to view them
a sdescriptive of existents. For example, it is often heard that light is
"waves" passing through empty space. Not, entities changing in some respect
according to some periodic pattern, but "just waves" not "changes in
etheric compression" or "changes in the electrical/magnetic properties of
photons" or anything else, just "waves without anything that is doing the
waving". It is not the job of philosophy to say exactly what is the case
along these lines, but philosophy can point to a theory and say "there are
problems of some kind here".
Among Objectivists with a physics background (I have had several good classes,
but I'm not an expert myself) many subscribe to one version or another of the
"entrained ether" theory (which, you may be interested to discover was the
interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment that Michelson believed
throught his life after his famous experiment). Such a position is not
part of Objectivism, but as I understand it, such a theory avoids all of the
strange time-change problems associated with relativity. It does seem odd
doesn't it that the relativist time theoriests base their position on basically
two premises. First, that the speed of light is a constant, and second, that
we observe light moving through a vacuum at faster and slower speeds. Rather
than just revising that constant "c" premise, they start tinkering with
the rate of time passing.
In any event, none of such speculations are matters of philosophy, they are
scientific claims which can be proven by experiment. What philosophy
CAN say is that he method used in arriving at the conclusions was wrong which
would therefore "veto" the scientific conclusion.
Robert J. Kolker
......snip....
>Another problematic issue has to do with the tendency of many modern
>physiciststo reify their mathematical abstractions rather than to view them
>a sdescriptive of existents. For example, it is often heard that light is
>"waves" passing through empty space. Not, entities changing in some respect
>according to some periodic pattern, but "just waves" not "changes in
>etheric compression" or "changes in the electrical/magnetic properties of
>photons" or anything else, just "waves without anything that is doing the
>waving". It is not the job of philosophy to say exactly what is the case
>along these lines, but philosophy can point to a theory and say "there are
>problems of some kind here".
This is a perfectly legitemate abuse of language. What is used in
producing predictions is the mathematical nature of the various
wave equations. Operationally, a wave is anything that measurably
obeys a wave equation. It just so happens we derive the wave equat-
ions (historically) from the behaviour of water (en mass) and
elastic bodies. Science progresses by the use of metaphor.
>Among Objectivists with a physics background (I have had several good classes,
>but I'm not an expert myself) many subscribe to one version or another of the
>"entrained ether" theory (which, you may be interested to discover was the
>interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment that Michelson believed
>throught his life after his famous experiment).
The reason why SR is such a hit, is that it does not use Ether, which
cannot be detected by any known means. SR derives from the normal
metaphysical assumptions plus two others:
1. The speed of light is constant for all observers regardless of
their state of motion.
2. The laws of physics are invariant under uniform (non-accelerated)
motion.
Both these postulates (as Einstein called them) are inductive
generalization of commonly observed phenomena.
Einstein, in his earlier days, insisted that physics be based on
what can be observed and measured, and avoid whenever possible the
invocation of entities of properties, having purely metaphysical
existence.
>Such a position is not
>part of Objectivism, but as I understand it, such a theory avoids all of the
>strange time-change problems associated with relativity. It does seem odd
>doesn't it that the relativist time theoriests base their position on basically
>two premises. First, that the speed of light is a constant, and second, that
>we observe light moving through a vacuum at faster and slower speeds. Rather
>than just revising that constant "c" premise, they start tinkering with
>the rate of time passing.
But, darn it! Light has a constant velocity regardless of the motion
of the observer. Einstein didn't take that postulate arbitrarily. It
is an inductive generalization of actual honest to goodness measure-
ments. The time dialation and the non absoluteness of simultenaity
*follows* from this. It is not assumed.
It was H.A.Lorenz who postulated some kind of *mechanical* deform-
ation of measuring devices[1] due to the absolute motion of of the
devices wrt to the Ether. The Ether was assumed and the deformation
followed logically. Unfortunately, no one knows how to detect the
Ether, which means either (a) it doesn't exist or (b) there are no
absolute motions.
>In any event, none of such speculations are matters of philosophy, they are
>scientific claims which can be proven by experiment. What philosophy
>CAN say is that he method used in arriving at the conclusions was wrong which
>would therefore "veto" the scientific conclusion.
The method of Einstein was to look, induct, and assume no more than
the observations and the operations warrented. His thinking, as a
young man, was clean and direct, unburdened with any un-neccessary
metaphysical baggage. Incidentally, Einstein made the same meta-
physical assumptions you do. The world is real and exists. Things
have the properties they have, and we are capable of observing
what those properties are and creating correct theories from our
observations.
In his later life his thinking got more complicated. He strayed
from his own earlier principles when he refused to accept the
essential completeness of quantum theory. He never denied the
correctness of quantum theory, but he insisted that the indeter-
minacy derives from the aggregate behaviour of (as yet) unobserved
causal factors (the so called hidden variables). He also strayed
from his own straightforward principles when he refused to accept
that the conclusions of the gravitational field equations of GR implied
the universe was expanding. He added a fudge factor (which he later
regretted doing) out of *metaphysical* considerations. Thus he
missed out being the man who found the Universe is expanding.
On the balance, Einstein was a towering genius who built on
simplicity and cleanliness of thought. The very anti-thesis of
the scholastics who multiplied entities beyond necessity.
[1] That is why it is called the *Lorenz* contraction. By assuming
a deformation in material and clocks having a mechanical cause
he was able to "save the appearences". See hist paper
ELECTRO-MAGNETIC PHENOMENA IN A SYSTEM MOVING WITH ANY VELOCITY
LESS THAN LIGHT, published in 1904 ( year before A. Einstien
published THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES). You will see
very same co-ordinate transformations that Einstien uses, the
so called Lorenz transformations, but H.A.Lorenz's reasoning is
very different from Einstien. Lorenz's work was the ultimate
development of the Ether hypothesis.
--
Conan the Libertarian
"Taxation is Theft. "
"There are no good governments, only bad ones and worse ones"
"If you can't love the Constitution, then at least hate the Government"
Tom Radcliffe
|>
|> Among Objectivists with a physics background (I have had several good classes,
|> but I'm not an expert myself) many subscribe to one version or another of the
|> "entrained ether" theory (which, you may be interested to discover was the
|> interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment that Michelson believed
|> throught his life after his famous experiment). Such a position is not
|> part of Objectivism, but as I understand it, such a theory avoids all of the
|> strange time-change problems associated with relativity. It does seem odd
|> doesn't it that the relativist time theoriests base their position on basically
|> two premises. First, that the speed of light is a constant, and second, that
|> we observe light moving through a vacuum at faster and slower speeds. Rather
|> than just revising that constant "c" premise, they start tinkering with
|> the rate of time passing.
|>
One hardly knows where to begin -- so many errors, so little time. And
my virtual meetings with Mr. Yoder in the past have demonstrated that
he is completely impervious to education. Facts do not sway him. For
instance, it is a well-known fact, accessible to anyone, that the
entrained or Stokes ether is inconsistent with measurements of stellar
abberation. Think about it for a while, Mr. Yoder: ether theories
require entrainment to explain the Michelson-Morley result, and require
no entrainment to explain stellar aberation measurements. That is,
the ether must be both entrained and not entrained in the same respect
and at the same time. That is what is called a ``contradiction'' in
the language of both philosophy and science. Even those evil Kelley-ites
generally call this a contradiction. Somehow, only true orthodox
Objectivists don't see things that way.
I have no idea what you mean by ``strange time-change problems associated
with relativity.'' I have never encountered any. And the premises of
SR are that c is a universal constant, and that the laws of physics should
be formulated in a way that is independent of the state of motion of the
observer. The latter is an epistemological constraint -- it is possible
to develop an ether theory that reproduces all of the results of SR, and
in fact none of the *results* of Einstein's 1905 paper were new. Everything
from the Lorentz transformations to the relation between mass and energy
had been derived using ether theories prior to 1905. What Einstein did
was develop a conceptual framework which dispensed with the unobservable
ether and translated the dynamical effects of the ether into kinematical
effects of Lorentz transformations. This has the important practical
consequence of making SR applicable to all interactions, not just
electromagnetic ones. It also has the consequence that time as it appears
in SR is the time we measure on real clocks that we can build, not
clocks at rest with respect to the ether.
David Bohm's book, _Special Relativity_ is a very good introduction to
the subject that treats the successes of the ether theories in more
detail than most. (Bohm is actually guilty of some historical back-projection,
in that he makes a more plausible case for Lorentz's derivation of the
Lorentz transformation than Lorentz himself could make, because he
didn't know enough about the nature of the chemical bond.)
Tom Radcliffe
[deleted]
|>
|> causal factors (the so called hidden variables). He also strayed
|> from his own straightforward principles when he refused to accept
|> that the conclusions of the gravitational field equations of GR implied
|> the universe was expanding. He added a fudge factor (which he later
|> regretted doing) out of *metaphysical* considerations. Thus he
|> missed out being the man who found the Universe is expanding.
|>
This is something an academic legend. The cosmological constant is a
constant of integration that can have any value. Einstein gave it a
value that made the universe static. In fact, the value now appears
to be very close to zero. But Einstein's choice was not arbitrary, nor
was it a matter of pure metaphysics: no one had any evidence that the
universe was expanding or contracting. Given this lack of evidence (plus,
I admit, the metaphysical prejudices of his time) he gave the constant
an experimentally justifiable value. But the point is that it is an
*experimental* value, and still is today (the simplist theoretical
calculations, based on quantum field theories not available to Einstein,
give a value that is a mere factor of 10^21 off. One of the nice features
of inflationary cosmologies is that they make this discrepancy go away.)
|> On the balance, Einstein was a towering genius who built on
|> simplicity and cleanliness of thought. The very anti-thesis of
|> the scholastics who multiplied entities beyond necessity.
|>
|> [1] That is why it is called the *Lorenz* contraction. By assuming
|> a deformation in material and clocks having a mechanical cause
|> he was able to "save the appearences". See hist paper
|> ELECTRO-MAGNETIC PHENOMENA IN A SYSTEM MOVING WITH ANY VELOCITY
|> LESS THAN LIGHT, published in 1904 ( year before A. Einstien
|> published THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES). You will see
|> very same co-ordinate transformations that Einstien uses, the
|> so called Lorenz transformations, but H.A.Lorenz's reasoning is
|> very different from Einstien. Lorenz's work was the ultimate
|> development of the Ether hypothesis.
|>
Many early papers on relativity can be found in _The Principle of
Relativity: a collection of orginal memoirs on the special and
general theory of relativity_ by H. A. Lorentz, A. Einstein,
H. Minkowski and H. Weyl, trans. W. Perrett and G. B. Jeffery.
There is a Dover edition of this, so it should be both cheap and
widely available.
Brian K. Yoder
>byo...@netcom.com (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>>Another problematic issue has to do with the tendency of many modern
>>physiciststo reify their mathematical abstractions rather than to view them
>>a sdescriptive of existents. For example, it is often heard that light is
>>"waves" passing through empty space. Not, entities changing in some respect
>>according to some periodic pattern, but "just waves" not "changes in
>>etheric compression" or "changes in the electrical/magnetic properties of
>>photons" or anything else, just "waves without anything that is doing the
>>waving". It is not the job of philosophy to say exactly what is the case
>>along these lines, but philosophy can point to a theory and say "there are
>>problems of some kind here".
> This is a perfectly legitemate abuse of language. What is used in
> producing predictions is the mathematical nature of the various
> wave equations. Operationally, a wave is anything that measurably
> obeys a wave equation. It just so happens we derive the wave equat-
> ions (historically) from the behaviour of water (en mass) and
> elastic bodies. Science progresses by the use of metaphor.
I have no problem with any of that. The problem is that the coventional
wisdom is that light is "just waves" not "something changing in a way described
as a wave". Does that make sense? It is as though they are saying "There
is some 'jumping', but nothing doing the jumping.". Does that make sense?
>>Among Objectivists with a physics background (I have had several good classes,
>>but I'm not an expert myself) many subscribe to one version or another of the
>>"entrained ether" theory (which, you may be interested to discover was the
>>interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment that Michelson believed
>>throught his life after his famous experiment).
> The reason why SR is such a hit, is that it does not use Ether, which
> cannot be detected by any known means.
I don't want to get too deeply into this because i'm not really expert enough
in the area to be certain of what is correct. Actually, if light travels
faster through a more dense medium (such as what some entrained ether theorists
say surrounds massive bodies) then the fact that we see light bending as it
passes near stars would constitute evidence of something being different
about those regions than others. There are two general ways of interpreting
that evidence. One is that time passes faster in some places than in others.
The other is that there is something there which causes light to propagate
differently there than in other places. It is also important to remember that
the M-M experiment didn't disprove all of the possible ether theories, only
the one where the Earth is plowing through an ether sea (and I think one
other that I don't recall). If the Earth's ether travels along with it
(the "entrained" theory) then the evidence still fits just fine. As I
understand it, onoe explanation of how this could work is that the "ether"
is not a material substance, but the local gravitational field (which is
unfortunately, another ill-defined concept).
I really don't want to go too far in trying to defend this theory because I
don't know it to be true, all I can do is tell you what I have heard.
> SR derives from the normal
> metaphysical assumptions plus two others:
> 1. The speed of light is constant for all observers regardless of
> their state of motion.
> 2. The laws of physics are invariant under uniform (non-accelerated)
> motion.
> Both these postulates (as Einstein called them) are inductive
> generalization of commonly observed phenomena.
But what about all of those paradoxical predictions? Are you saying that
they are incorrect? Or that they are just OK?
> Einstein, in his earlier days, insisted that physics be based on
> what can be observed and measured, and avoid whenever possible the
> invocation of entities of properties, having purely metaphysical
> existence.
What do you mean by "purely metaphysical existence"?
>>Such a position is not
>>part of Objectivism, but as I understand it, such a theory avoids all of the
>>strange time-change problems associated with relativity. It does seem odd
>>doesn't it that the relativist time theoriests base their position on basically
>>two premises. First, that the speed of light is a constant, and second, that
>>we observe light moving through a vacuum at faster and slower speeds. Rather
>>than just revising that constant "c" premise, they start tinkering with
>>the rate of time passing.
> But, darn it! Light has a constant velocity regardless of the motion
> of the observer. Einstein didn't take that postulate arbitrarily. It
> is an inductive generalization of actual honest to goodness measure-
> ments. The time dialation and the non absoluteness of simultenaity
> *follows* from this. It is not assumed.
But it isn't true that light travels at the same speed. You can see it
changing speed as it passes near the Sun. Or do I misunderstand you?
Anyway, what the entrained ether theory would say is that c is invariant
relative to the ether it passes through. Have we actually observed light
passing through different entrained systems? (Say, that of another star?)
Anyway, I can't really go much furthere here because I'm really not an
expert on either of these theories so I'm probably the wrong guy for you to
be arguing with. I can look at a theory and tell you whether it is
philosophically "vetoable", but beyond that all I can do is listen to the
experts.
> It was H.A.Lorenz who postulated some kind of *mechanical* deform-
> ation of measuring devices[1] due to the absolute motion of of the
> devices wrt to the Ether. The Ether was assumed and the deformation
> followed logically. Unfortunately, no one knows how to detect the
> Ether, which means either (a) it doesn't exist or (b) there are no
> absolute motions.
That depends entirely on what ether is. If it is (as some have postulated)
the gravitational field, we can certainly detect that. Look, we don't even
know at this point what gravity is yet, but we know it exists.
>>In any event, none of such speculations are matters of philosophy, they are
>>scientific claims which can be proven by experiment. What philosophy
>>CAN say is that he method used in arriving at the conclusions was wrong which
>>would therefore "veto" the scientific conclusion.
> The method of Einstein was to look, induct, and assume no more than
> the observations and the operations warrented.
Why do you think he should have not assumed any philosophical premises?
The fact is that he did (he had no choice) but if he had hidden assumptions
which were false (as you can be almost certain of if he never thought about
them explicitly) then would you be surprised that he would come up with some
mistakes?
I'm certainly not saying at all that Einstein was an idiot or that he didn't
discover a great many important and true things. He was clearly one of the
most brilliant physicists in history. In fact, he himself saw that there were
some problems in some of his theories, but he couldn't see how to solve them.
> His thinking, as a
> young man, was clean and direct, unburdened with any un-neccessary
> metaphysical baggage.
> Incidentally, Einstein made the same meta-
> physical assumptions you do. The world is real and exists. Things
> have the properties they have, and we are capable of observing
> what those properties are and creating correct theories from our
> observations.
Like I said, he was a pretty smart fellow. ;-)
Unfortunately, he didn't have an explicit thoroughly validated philosophical
system to stand on an that is why he ended up reaching some of his
erroneous positions (as I said, he himself admitted that there had to be
some mistakes in some areas because the results didn't make any sense, but
he could not find where the errors were).
> In his later life his thinking got more complicated. He strayed
> from his own earlier principles when he refused to accept the
> essential completeness of quantum theory. He never denied the
> correctness of quantum theory, but he insisted that the indeter-
> minacy derives from the aggregate behaviour of (as yet) unobserved
> causal factors (the so called hidden variables). He also strayed
> from his own straightforward principles when he refused to accept
> that the conclusions of the gravitational field equations of GR implied
> the universe was expanding. He added a fudge factor (which he later
> regretted doing) out of *metaphysical* considerations. Thus he
> missed out being the man who found the Universe is expanding.
Exactly what does it mean to say that the "universe is expanding"? That has
always seemed to me to be a strange thing to say.
> On the balance, Einstein was a towering genius who built on
> simplicity and cleanliness of thought. The very anti-thesis of
> the scholastics who multiplied entities beyond necessity.
As I said, he was certainly a great genius, but that doesn't mean he didn't
make any mistakes. In fact, he was honest enough to admit and point a
number of them.
pol...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
we observe light moving through a vacuum at faster and slower speeds. Rather
than just revising that constant "c" premise, they start tinkering with
the rate of time passing. "
I am more of a mathematician than a physicst, however there is a
good reason for the constant c bit.
The result is derived by Faraday's law and the Maxwell/Ampere law.
The combination yields a second order partial differential equation. The
solution to which is the wave equation. The wave equation gives a value
for velocity, which is c in the case of Light and electromagnetic waves
in general. In this case, c is equal to the reciprocal of the square root
of the permissivity times permitivity of free space, which are constant for
a given medium.
Constant c is a result of the wave equations as applied from
Maxwell's equasion, which by the way are supported by physical reality so
well that they are in no need of being replaced.
Frankly, relativity used to seem slightly backwards until I understood
the math.
:::Polaris.
STEVEN L BLAKE
>In article <2qo8jg$e...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu> slb...@eos.ncsu.edu
(Steve Blake) writes:
>>Agreed, with the caveat that empirical observation _could_ invalidate a
>>basic philosophical or scientific principal; for example, the discovery of
>>a priveledged frame of reference. I'm not holding my breathe, though.
>
>What exactly would such a "priveledged frame of reference" be? What would
>such evidence consist of? And what philosophical position would it invalidate?
An inertial frame of reference is a non-accelerated coordinate system from
which to make observations. Such a reference frame may be at motion relative
to the objects under observation. The two basic postulates used to derive
special relativity are:
a) absolute uniform motion cannot be detected
b) the speed of light is constant in all reference frames.
To my knowledge, the conclusions of special relativity (ie., time dilation,
length contraction) have been conclusively verified. Also, to my knowledge,
no other set of postulates have been proposed which account for the
experimental evidence. Hence, the two postulates can be considered as laws.
A priviledged frame of reference is one from which the observed speed of
light does not equal c. I have also heard it described as a reference frame
from which causality is violated. If you ever discover one (say, at the top
of Pike's Peak), you have discovered magic, with the obvious calamitous
consequences for science and philosophy. It's akin to the question of the
existence of God. If you do see a burning bush, you've got a problem. But
like I said, I'm not holding my breathe.
Perhaps the above paragraph is flippant. There may be a 'meta-relativity'
theory that would allow priviledged frames of reference as special exceptions
while validating the other results of special relativity. But a basic
axiom of physics, and, I assume, of objectivism, is that the laws of
the universe are uniform. If the laws we have already derived are just
special exceptions and the 'real' laws are more general and less obvious,
then in principle uniformity is not invalidated, but all of our previous
conclusions about reality must be called into question. In any event, the
ultimate arbiter of truth must be the experimental evidence.
Note: for a good reference of this topic, try Tipler, Paul A.,
"Modern Physics", ISBN 0-87901-088-6. Only a basic knowledge of sophomore
physics and calculus is required.
>It would be more acurate to say that there are certain ideas afoot which
>are (rightly or wrongly) attributed to the theory of relativity which result
The English language is not a good medium for discussing physics; mathematics
is.
>in predictions of paradoxical truths. Objectivists argue against such
>paradoxes are possible.
Which paradox are you refering to, the twin paradox? Why do Objectivists
argue against such paradoxes? Are they arguing against the specific,
'paradoxical' conclusion, or that paradoxes in general cannot be true?
If a relativistic conclusion appears paradoxical from a commen sense
perspective, is a real paradox at hand or is this evidence that our
common sense perspective is inadequate?
>In any event, none of such speculations are matters of philosophy, they are
>scientific claims which can be proven by experiment. What philosophy
>CAN say is that he method used in arriving at the conclusions was wrong which
>would therefore "veto" the scientific conclusion.
Corallary: any induced or deduced conclusion of philosophy can be
invalidated by experimental evidence.
Note: I'm not a Real Physicist(TM), I just play one on the net.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| Steven L. Blake slb...@eos.ncsu.edu |
| NC State University (919)515-3916 |
| Center for Communications and Signal Processing |
| "In a technological society, those who don't |
| know math live at the mercy of those who do." |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
GrimJim
Brian K. Yoder <byo...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <CpMzq...@world.std.com> r...@world.std.com (Robert J. Kolker) writes:
>>byo...@netcom.com (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>> This is a perfectly legitemate abuse of language. What is used in
>> producing predictions is the mathematical nature of the various
>> wave equations. Operationally, a wave is anything that measurably
>> obeys a wave equation. It just so happens we derive the wave equat-
>> ions (historically) from the behaviour of water (en mass) and
>> elastic bodies. Science progresses by the use of metaphor.
>
>I have no problem with any of that. The problem is that the coventional
>wisdom is that light is "just waves" not "something changing in a way described
>as a wave". Does that make sense?
Don't get too caught up in syntax. The term "wave" does have a precise
meaning in the context of physics when describing particles and light.
And is not mathematics not another form of language?
>I don't want to get too deeply into this because i'm not really expert enough
>in the area to be certain of what is correct. Actually, if light travels
>faster through a more dense medium (such as what some entrained ether theorists
>say surrounds massive bodies) then the fact that we see light bending as it
>passes near stars would constitute evidence of something being different
>about those regions than others.
Light travels more -slowly- in an optically denser medium. More precisely,
special relativity only claims that the speed of light in a vacuum is
constant.
>There are two general ways of interpreting
>that evidence. One is that time passes faster in some places than in others.
>The other is that there is something there which causes light to propagate
>differently there than in other places. It is also important to remember that
>the M-M experiment didn't disprove all of the possible ether theories, only
>the one where the Earth is plowing through an ether sea (and I think one
>other that I don't recall). If the Earth's ether travels along with it
>(the "entrained" theory) then the evidence still fits just fine. As I
>understand it, onoe explanation of how this could work is that the "ether"
>is not a material substance, but the local gravitational field (which is
>unfortunately, another ill-defined concept).
>
>I really don't want to go too far in trying to defend this theory because I
>don't know it to be true, all I can do is tell you what I have heard.
The entrained theory would be trivial to test given that we have shot
space probes a fair distance through out solar system. Mind you, the effect
of gravity is considered in general relativity. A gravitational field is an
accelerating frame of reference, something not covered by special relativity.
In essence, the theory you mention involves time-invariance (absolute time?).
It may seem simpler to you to have such a theory, but consider this: muons
have an average lifespan of 2.2x10^-6 sec, as observed when produced in a
laboratory. Given a constant speed of light, they cannot travel more than
600m. Yet they are generated about 10km high in the atmosphere and reach the
ground as cosmic rays. If you assume that time does not dilate for
relativistic speeds, then you must conclude that the speed of light
dramatically changes depending on one's own speed. This phenomenon violates
the "entrained" theory.
Jeff Dalton
>|> >He has said that ``philosophy has
>|> >>`veto power' '' over science,
> [...]
>The difficulty with this position is that philosophers rarely know what
>they are talking about when they try to delimit science from philosophy.
>The law of contradiction, for instance, is subject to modification by
>science because it explicitly singles out *time* as an important quantity,
>and the nature of time is at least in part a scientific question.
Good point.