The Future of Physics
Bryan G. Wallace
Carter with the intriguing title "The Private Lives of Albert Einstein." In
their lucid and scrupulously researched biography the authors add a previously
unwritten chapter to the life and legend of Einstein. Tracing his personal
life through two marriages, and several affairs, a more complete picture of
Einstein the man emerges from the long shadows cast by his formidable
reputation. The book is a $14.95 paperback that was published in 1993 by St.
Martin's Press, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10010, and the ISBN number is
0-312-11047-2. The back cover of the book contains the following statement by
Evelyn Einstein, Albert's granddaughter:
Nobody likes to see their sacred cow criticized but it is about time the
real story came out.
Starting on page 4 of the book you will find the following information that I
found of particular interest:
The desire for impersonal detachment and the desire for intimacy were
secretly at war within Einstein - just as his idealism was at war with a
bleak cynicism, and his modesty was at war with arrogance. Few understood
these contradictions better than Hans Albert's mother - Mileva Maric - who
met Einstein while both were physics students in Switzerland. Their
marriage, from 1903 to 1919, spanned the most important years of Einstein's
life, covering the majority of his creative activity. Yet Mileva has
always remained a shadowy figure in Einstein biographies, and it is only in
the last few years that the full story of their relationship has begun to
emerge. In the early stages, it is the story of an amorous young man
rebelling against his background to pursue a woman of exceptional drive and
intelligence. This includes Einstein's attempt to use Mileva as a means to
break free from his mother, whose emotional grip was exceptionally strong
and marked him throughout his life. It includes the birth of an
illegitimate daughter whom he gave away and whose existence remained secret
until 1987 - but who possibly could still be alive today. Most
controversially, recent scholarship has suggested how heavily Einstein
leaned on Mileva as he began to develop the first outline of relativity.
He referred to his early studies as `our work', casting her as his co-
conspirator in what became a scientific revolution. Einstein hailed Mileva
as his `right hand', his equal, one who was as strong and as independent as
himself, without whom he was unable to function.
...
Newly released documents make it possible to chart the decline of the
marriage, and to show how Einstein deceived Mileva in a secret liaison with
the cousin who later became his second wife. His behavior during the
separation, when Mileva suffered a mental and physical breakdown from which
she never fully recovered, dismayed his closest friends. Yet it was to her
that Einstein then gave the money from his Nobel prize for physics - the
greatest honor that the scientific world can bestow. ...
My free electronic book "The Farce of Physics" contains 156 references to
the published literature with extensive quotations of arguments from many
prominent people including Einstein. There are no restrictions on anyone
making electronic or paper copies of my book, and there are thousands of
people who have copies, so if you can't get the book by the Internet, you
should be able to find someone who will make a computer disk copy or a paper
printout of the book. The HTML/World-Wide Web Hypertext version of the book
is available via:
URL:http://www.Germany.EU.net/books/farce/farce.html
You can also ftp the current corrected version of the book from
ftp.gate.net in the directory /pub/users/wallaceb. The file farce.txt is the
ASCII version and the file farce.wp5 is the WordPerfect 5.1 version and it
contains all the extras like italics and superscripts, etc. The file d.wp5 is
a WordPerfect reprint of my published 1969 Venus radar paper, and the j.wp5,
m.wp5, and p.wp5 files are reprints of my principle dynamic ether published
papers, some that include imbedded graphics. The p1.gif, p2.gif, and p3.gif
files are graphics of 3 of the events mentioned in the book and the file
readme.txt describes the contents of the other files.
Bryan
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>I've recently came across a fascinating book by Roger Highfield and Paul
>Carter with the intriguing title "The Private Lives of Albert Einstein." In
>their lucid and scrupulously researched biography the authors add a previously
>unwritten chapter to the life and legend of Einstein. Tracing his personal
>life through two marriages, and several affairs, a more complete picture of
>Einstein the man emerges from the long shadows cast by his formidable
>reputation. The book is a $14.95 paperback that was published in 1993 by St.
>Martin's Press, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10010, and the ISBN number is
>0-312-11047-2. The back cover of the book contains the following statement by
>Evelyn Einstein, Albert's granddaughter:
>
> Nobody likes to see their sacred cow criticized but it is about time the
> real story came out.
>
scientific theories are totally detached from their creators.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
W$
>From: me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>Subject: Re: The Future of Physics
>Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 19:40:07 GMT
>In article <4kjllf$m...@navajo.gate.net>, wall...@gate.net (Bryan G. Wallace) writes:
>>I've recently came across a fascinating book by Roger Highfield and Paul
>>Carter with the intriguing title "The Private Lives of Albert Einstein." In
>>their lucid and scrupulously researched biography the authors add a previously
>>unwritten chapter to the life and legend of Einstein. Tracing his personal
>>life through two marriages, and several affairs, a more complete picture of
>>Einstein the man emerges from the long shadows cast by his formidable
>>reputation. The book is a $14.95 paperback that was published in 1993 by St.
>>Martin's Press, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10010, and the ISBN number is
>>0-312-11047-2. The back cover of the book contains the following statement by
>>Evelyn Einstein, Albert's granddaughter:
>>
>> Nobody likes to see their sacred cow criticized but it is about time the
>> real story came out.
>>
>Why? Who cares. How many more times it needs to be said that
>scientific theories are totally detached from their creators.
Scientific theories are totally detached from their creators? What about the
evoluntionary spin on the Piltdown man?
Besides, people like reading such things ... else they wouldn't be published,
or bought. Why the need to censor any and all the discussion on the subject?
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>In article <DppqM...@midway.uchicago.edu> me...@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>>From: me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>>Subject: Re: The Future of Physics
>>Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 19:40:07 GMT
>
>>>0-312-11047-2. The back cover of the book contains the following statement by
>>>Evelyn Einstein, Albert's granddaughter:
>>>
>>> Nobody likes to see their sacred cow criticized but it is about time the
>>> real story came out.
>>>
>>Why? Who cares. How many more times it needs to be said that
>>scientific theories are totally detached from their creators.
>
>Scientific theories are totally detached from their creators? What about the
>evoluntionary spin on the Piltdown man?
The point, exactly. Theories are judged based on correspondence to
data, not on who created them.
>
>Besides, people like reading such things ... else they wouldn't be published,
>or bought. Why the need to censor any and all the discussion on the subject?
I most certainly didn't suggest censoring anything. But freedom of
speech doesn't imply freedom from criticism.
W$
>>>> Nobody likes to see their sacred cow criticized but it is about time the
>>>> real story came out.
>>>>
>>>Why? Who cares. How many more times it needs to be said that
>>>scientific theories are totally detached from their creators.
>>
>>Scientific theories are totally detached from their creators? What about the
>>evoluntionary spin on the Piltdown man?
>The point, exactly. Theories are judged based on correspondence to
>data, not on who created them.
>>
Except that is the above case the data was falsified to perpetrate a hoax.
>>Besides, people like reading such things ... else they wouldn't be
published, >>or bought. Why the need to censor any and all the discussion on
the subject?
>I most certainly didn't suggest censoring anything. But freedom of
>speech doesn't imply freedom from criticism.
True. But there seems a fair amount of opposition to criticism of both the
creator, and the data, where the subject of any treatise on Einstein is
concerned.
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>In article <DpsHG...@midway.uchicago.edu> me...@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>>>>> real story came out.
>>>>>
>>>>scientific theories are totally detached from their creators.
>>>
>>>Scientific theories are totally detached from their creators? What about the
>>>evoluntionary spin on the Piltdown man?
>
>>The point, exactly. Theories are judged based on correspondence to
>>data, not on who created them.
>>>
>
>Except that is the above case the data was falsified to perpetrate a hoax.
>
science needs a decent dose of scepticism to operate and why theories
are not accepted easily. Also, be careful with the word "theory".
something like the Piltdown Man wouldn't classify as theory in
physics. A physical theory is a conceptual framework whcih is both
explanatory and gives rise to falsifiable predictions which can be
checked by other people, not just the originator of the theory.
>>>Besides, people like reading such things ... else they wouldn't be
>published, >>or bought. Why the need to censor any and all the discussion on
>the subject?
>
>>I most certainly didn't suggest censoring anything. But freedom of
>>speech doesn't imply freedom from criticism.
>
>True. But there seems a fair amount of opposition to criticism of both the
>creator, and the data, where the subject of any treatise on Einstein is
>concerned.
Really? I didn't notice anybody commenting except myself and I would
react just the same to a book about the private life of any scientist.
Mahipal Singh Virdy
>In article <tsar.364...@linex.com>, ts...@linex.com (W$) writes:
>>In article <DppqM...@midway.uchicago.edu> me...@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>>
... snip ...
>
>>>Why? Who cares. How many more times it needs to be said that
>>>scientific theories are totally detached from their creators.
>>
>>Scientific theories are totally detached from their creators? What about the
>>evoluntionary spin on the Piltdown man?
>
>The point, exactly. Theories are judged based on correspondence to
>data, not on who created them.
Not to disagree with you both, but in science the word 'discoverers'
rather than 'creators' seems more correct. I personally don't like the
connotations associated with someone 'creating' theories. Certainly, the
true science models are man's discoveries and neither creations nor
inventions.
I don't mean this in any spelling or grammar flame. Each language has
its words with specialized meanings. I simply happen to know English
well enough to be aware of the distinctions between the three words:
{Discovery, Invention, Creation}. Still, the differences are well worth
the learning.
>>Besides, people like reading such things... else they wouldn't be published,
>>or bought. Why the need to censor any and all the discussion on the subject?
>
>I most certainly didn't suggest censoring anything. But freedom of
>speech doesn't imply freedom from criticism.
What's freedom afterall? ...simply a rhetorical question.
Paul |meforce>
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
... snip ...
>
>Not to disagree with you both, but in science the word 'discoverers'
>rather than 'creators' seems more correct. I personally don't like the
>connotations associated with someone 'creating' theories. Certainly, the
>true science models are man's discoveries and neither creations nor
>inventions.
>
>I don't mean this in any spelling or grammar flame. Each language has
>its words with specialized meanings. I simply happen to know English
>well enough to be aware of the distinctions between the three words:
>{Discovery, Invention, Creation}. Still, the differences are well worth
>the learning.
Well, I disagree in this case. You can discover what's there. But,
in the case of physical theories the "what's there" is a vague term.
We discover experimental facts and we create models (theories) which
account for them. If you could find the ultimate theory which
accounts exactly for everything in the universe, then you could talk
about "discovery". But, as it is, even if you find such theory you'll
never be able to prove that it is, indeed, the real thing.
If you use the term "discover" regarding a scientific theory, then
you've to account tfor the fact that what has been "discovered" may
get "undiscovered" as a better theory comes along. Take Newtonian
mechanics for example. Suppose you say "that's the mechanism of the
universe and Newton discovered it". But then we learn that this is
really just an approximation, not the exact thing. So, is it
"undiscovered" now? And how could it have been "discovered" if it is
not the real thing?
Nick Barnes
In article <DpsHG...@midway.uchicago.edu>, <me...@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>In article <tsar.364...@linex.com>, ts...@linex.com (W$) writes:
>>In article <DppqM...@midway.uchicago.edu> me...@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>>
... snip ...
>
>>>Why? Who cares. How many more times it needs to be said that
>>>scientific theories are totally detached from their creators.
>>
>>Scientific theories are totally detached from their creators? What about the
>>evoluntionary spin on the Piltdown man?
>
>The point, exactly. Theories are judged based on correspondence to
>data, not on who created them.
Not to disagree with you both, but in science the word 'discoverers'
rather than 'creators' seems more correct. I personally don't like the
connotations associated with someone 'creating' theories. Certainly, the
true science models are man's discoveries and neither creations nor
inventions.
I don't mean this in any spelling or grammar flame. Each language has
its words with specialized meanings. I simply happen to know English
well enough to be aware of the distinctions between the three words:
{Discovery, Invention, Creation}. Still, the differences are well worth
the learning.
You may know English, but you display an ignorance of the philosophy
of science. Theories (scientific and otherwise) are inherently human
creations. There may, or may not, be underlying physical laws for
which scientific theories provide models and approximations. One may
correctly speak of the discovery of physical systems or laws (thus:
"the discovery of electromagnetism"). But unless one holds to some
bizarre Platonic model of science, theories are created and not
discovered. This is, in fact, the goal of many scientists: to make
discoveries and to create theories which account for those
discoveries.
Being created, theories naturally reflect some aspects of their
creators.
Nick Barnes, speaking for himself
Jim Carr
>
>Not to disagree with you both, but in science the word 'discoverers'
>rather than 'creators' seems more correct.
I would say that you "discover" whether the theory you "created" is
in agreement or disagreement with experiment.
> I personally don't like the
>connotations associated with someone 'creating' theories.
Try it! ;-) The process of coming up with a theory is extremely
creative, and requires as much inventive talent as any artist or
inventor uses to fabricate some new object.
> Certainly, the
>true science models are man's discoveries and neither creations nor
>inventions.
What we discover is whether our mathematical inventions are likely
candidates for the "true" model, whatever that might be. We cannot
know whether our creation is "correct", we only know it is not wrong.
--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | My first naked-eye sighting of
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | Comet Hyakutake was overhead at
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | equinox: 3 AM 3/20/96 (0803 GMT).
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | Still very nice in binoculars.
Gordon D. Pusch
>
> vi...@pogo.den.mmc.com (Mahipal Singh Virdy) writes:
> >
> >Not to disagree with you both, but in science the word 'discoverers'
> >rather than 'creators' seems more correct.
>
> I would say that you "discover" whether the theory you "created" is
> in agreement or disagreement with experiment.
I would say that in scientific practice, the word ``developed'' is
almost universally used, in preference to *either* `discovered' or
`created'.
> > I personally don't like the connotations associated with someone
> > 'creating' theories.
>
> Try it! ;-) The process of coming up with a theory is extremely
> creative, and requires as much inventive talent as any artist or
> inventor uses to fabricate some new object.
Quite true; notwithstanding this, in published work, the creative,
subjective, and aesthetic aspects of the process of developing a
theory are seldom refered to --- perhaps in an attempt to suppress
them, and make the model seem more ``objective.'' Sometimes, this
is carried so far as to lose track of the fact that a theory =IS=
``only a model''... :-(
> > Certainly, the true science models are man's discoveries and
> > neither creations nor inventions.
>
> What we discover is whether our mathematical inventions are likely
> candidates for the "true" model, whatever that might be. We cannot
> know whether our creation is "correct", we only know it is not wrong.
I agree with this position myself --- perhaps because I personally
=DO= believe that an objective reality exists to be discovered.
Unfortunately, many of my colleagues --- perhaps in blind support of
Bohrian Orthodoxy --- try not to talk about ``reality,'' and pooh-pooh
anyone who does: ``welll, *you* can do that sort of thing if you *want*
to but it's =NOT= physics !!!'' (with the clear implication that such
epistemological concerns are *quite* beneath them). Yet, to fill this
metaphysical vacuum, they almost always speak of ``believing'' in the
dominant theory --- clearly unaware that they are using ``belief'' in
its =religious= mode, and have lost sight of the fact that it =IS=
``only a model'' !!!
(Modern-day so-called `philosophers of science', of course, don't
believe in an ``objective reality'' *either* --- science is merely
``the collective social activity of scientists,'' and has no more
claim to respectability than any *other* human belief-system... :-(
I once watched dumbfounded as Andrew Pickering told a colleague that
yes, he could stand there and state with no qualms whatsoever that
he had no basis on which to believe that his right arm was in fact
=HIS= right arm --- then inquire why my colleague had a problem
with that !!! One certainly wonders why a person with such a
belief-system bothers to *do* anything at *all* !!!!!!!)
Gordon D. Pusch | Internet: <pu...@mcs.anl.gov>
Math and C.S. Div., Bldg.203/C254 | FAX: (708) 252-5986
Argonne National Laboratory | Phone: (708) 252-3843
9700 South Cass Ave. |
Argonne, IL USA 60439-4844 | http://www.mcs.anl.gov/people/pusch/
But I don't speak for ANL or the DOE, and they *sure* don't speak for =ME=...
Mahipal Singh Virdy
> vi...@pogo.den.mmc.com (Mahipal Singh Virdy) writes:
>
>>
>>Not to disagree with you both, but in science the word 'discoverers'
>>connotations associated with someone 'creating' theories. Certainly, the
>>true science models are man's discoveries and neither creations nor
>>inventions.
[...]
>Well, I disagree in this case. You can discover what's there. But,
>in the case of physical theories the "what's there" is a vague term.
>We discover experimental facts and we create models (theories) which
>account for them. If you could find the ultimate theory which
>accounts exactly for everything in the universe, then you could talk
>about "discovery". But, as it is, even if you find such theory you'll
>never be able to prove that it is, indeed, the real thing.
>
>If you use the term "discover" regarding a scientific theory, then
>you've to account for the fact that what has been "discovered" may
>get "undiscovered" as a better theory comes along. Take Newtonian
>mechanics for example. Suppose you say "that's the mechanism of the
>universe and Newton discovered it". But then we learn that this is
>really just an approximation, not the exact thing. So, is it
>"undiscovered" now? And how could it have been "discovered" if it is
>not the real thing?
We can ONLY discover what's there. I agree. Logically, the thing being
discovered is presupposed to exist so that it can come to be discovered.
One is not going to ever discover something that does not exist. Though
that which exists, may not ever come to be discovered. Then why ``it''
bothers to exist at all is a mystery to me.
In the above paragraph, replace discover with either 'create' or
'invent'. Reading the sentences with those words loses its coherence of
meaning. One can not presuppose the existence of a thing being created
or invented. Of course, one doesn't. ;-)
[It's a big internet and younger readers may benefit from this discourse]
I surely agree with Jim Carr pointing out that making theories is a
artistic-creative process. And by 'creating theories' we are discovering
something objective about Nature. My personal concern is, I don't want
my discussion here to be misused by the so-called ``Creationists''. Though
the individual words are their's for the rephrasing. ;-)
In the modeling of physical phenomena, we have many procedures for
estimating outcomes. Empirical methods are in abundant variety. Curve
fitting observed data with equations, with different levels of tolerance
for errors, is a time-honored technique. Whether one decides to use a
log-log scale or a polar-plot or linear-scale, one still preseves some
underlying mathematical 'structure'. Now, as new data becomes available,
does the structure of the relationship between (x,y) change? The
availability of better measurements does jeapordize paradigms.
In the case of Newton's gravity with its action-at-a-distance mystery
and Einstein's spacetime geodesics, we have a interesting scenario. For
many minds, the geodesics model completely replaces Newton's model.
Though one is easier to apply and is valid for practical utility for a
vast range of phenomena. Einstein's work is more advanced and defines
domains where Newton's model errs. Perhaps it is an easy exercise to
show that both schemes are mathematically equivalent (or just predict
equivalent behaviour) for certain domains. I personally haven't seen
this derivation but I'm sure it's a basic graduate level exercise. I've
done similar exercises for other phenomena.
See, in the big scheme of things, Newton's method had to predate
Einstein's work. One could not make E's conceptual leap in physics without
following this specific-road-to-discovery. I know this is a big claim,
but it isn't mine alone either. I recall something of this nature being
referred to as Bohr's Correspondence Principle. No, it is not at all
like the Correspondence Principle between quantum-mechanics and classical
mechanics. Bohr's is rather more philosophical yet also testible and
falsifiable. Though it suffers from being easily confused with (or
likened as) a form of the Anthropic Principle. Oh well. ;-)
How many different mathematical formulas exist to represent an ellipse?
Why? Does that imply that an ellipse is a discovery or creation? Can there
be a `better' formula discovered for ellipse representation? I guess, the
language of mathematics isn't arbitrary. Maybe, the structure of
mathematics is a discovery.
Once Newton had the elliptical character of the orbits from Kepler's
work, I think it was rather easy for Newton to find the differential
equation associated with ellipses. But I am oversimplifing.
What you imply with 'creator' is that the underlying thinking behind the
observed orbits is not a bonified 'discovery'. Creator implies that it's
just a recipe, subject to change from one individual to the next. Though
the word 'creator' is applicable, I contend it is less correct than
'discoverer'. Mathematical relationships are solid discoveries.
And what you said is totally fine by me. That only ``true'' theories of
physical phenomena are discoveries and those that are not `true' are merely
creations. With the additional note that we may never be able to gauge
whether an ultimate theory has been discovered.
But I don't like closing doors so definitively. I leave open the option
that a good theory would compel one, by its logical certitude, to honor
it as a bonified discovery. Then we'd be back at the routine question of
why such logic exists and is it a Discovery, Invention, or Creation (DIC).
I guess we're, at least me, totally SCREWed. ;-)
Paul |meforce> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3178/mew3.html
Why ``DIC''? Well I have 3! options for a shorthand. Which would you
use? {DIC, DCI, CDI, CID, IDC, ICD}. Roll the dice.
Bryan G. Wallace
book "The Private Lives of Albert Einstein" by Roger Highfield and Paul
Carter, wrote:
Why? Who cares. How many more times it needs to be said that
scientific theories are totally detached from their creators.
You can say it as many times as you want, it still does not make it true. It
certainly is not true in regard to relativity theory and Einstein. Because of
media hype Albert Einstein has become the "Jesus Christ Superstar" of modern
physics, with his 1905 Special Relativity paper as the "Old Testament" and his
1915 General Relativity paper as the "New Testament." Chapter 9 of the book
titled "The Holy One", starts with the following:
THROUGHOUT all his years with Mileva, Einstein was unknown outside physics.
Within a few months of his divorce and remarriage, however, he was
celebrated across the world. People who had only the haziest understanding
of his discoveries held him in awe. He became the first superstar of
science.
He owed his sudden fame to the headline writers of newspapers in England
and America. `Revolution in science, New theory of the universe, Newtonian
ideas overthrown,' thundered The Times in London on 7 November 1919.
`Lights all askew in the heavens, Men of science more or less agog ...
Einstein theory triumphs,' announced the New York Times two days later.
Their reports revealed the findings of two British expeditions earlier that
year to observe a solar eclipse. Scientists based at Sobral, in northern
Brazil, and on the island of Principe, off the west coast of Africa, had
witnessed the bending of starlight predicted by Einstein in his general
theory. The results caused a sensation when announced in London at the
rooms of the Royal Society, whose president hailed relativity as perhaps
the most momentous product of human thought.
Abraham Pais has called this `the birth of the Einstein legend'. It
hardly mattered that no one at the London meeting could give a clear non-
mathematical statement of the new ideas: a world exhausted by war was eager
for distractions, and relativity became a public sensation. Warped space
and the bending of light provided instantly beguiling slogans, however
obscure their detail. Suddenly the mysteries of the heavens - mysteries
that held a magic for anyone who had gazed up at the night sky - seemed to
have been unlocked. Einstein's strange new order, in which little was what
it had seemed, captured the disturbed mood of the times. Yet it was also a
triumph of human logic, a vindication of rationality after the war's
senseless barbarism. Einstein was not the only man for whom science could
provide an escape from the dark and irrational.
Once the story broke, reporters rushed to meet the man behind it. They
could not believe their luck. Instead of some stereotypical grey academic
they found a wild-haired eccentric with rumpled charm and a mocking sense
of humor. Einstein was good copy, and soon his opinions were being sought
at every opportunity and on every subject. `They all want articles,
statements, photographs etc.,' he wrote at Christmas 1919. `The thing
reminds one of the story of the emperor's new clothes, but it is a harmless
piece of folly.' He soon felt that he was like Midas, but, instead of
gold, everything he touched turned into a fuss in the newspapers.
Einstein became a media sage, courted the world over. During the next
decade he made visits to Scandinavia, the United States, Japan, the Middle
East, the Far East, South America and the United Kingdom, where the London
Palladium asked him to put on his own three-week show and the daughter of
his host, Lord Haldane, fainted on meeting him. During a trip to Geneva,
he was mobbed by young girls, one of whom tried to snip off a lock of his
hair. Babies, cigars, telescopes and towers were named after him, and a
daily torrent of letters began to arrive. They continued for the rest of
his life: letters from well-wishers, religious cranks, spongers begging for
money, pressure groups seeking endorsements, children wanting help with
their homework - even, eventually, from a little girl asking, `Do you
exist?'
On page 204 of the same chapter we find the following paragraph:
The architect who designed the summer house, Konrad Wachsmann, developed
a close relationship with Einstein and Elsa. His recollections, recently
published in German, reveal that the marriage was by then under
considerable strain. There were frequent rows, even talk of separation,
and the reason was always the same. Women were drawn to the world-famous
professor like iron filings to a magnet, says Wachsmann, and Einstein
responded with open eagerness to their attentions. A series of liaisons
developed, some of them casual, a few of them intimate, all deeply wounding
to the pride of his betrayed wife. Einstein provoked Elsa into the same
jealous furies that he had complained of in Mileva. His wife would refuse
to speak to him for days on end, except on the most necessary matters, and
would go about their apartment with a fixed and icy smile.
On the question of the foundation of Einstein's scientific arguments, we find
the following paragraph on page 16 of the book:
The scholars of the Einstein papers project are also placing renewed
emphasis on the young boy's reading of popular science books, some of which
were given him by Max Talmey, a poor Jewish medical student whom his
parents took under their wing. From the time Albert was ten until he
turned fifteen, Talmey would engage him in intellectual debate during
weekly visits to have dinner with the family. Maja recalled her brother
working through a series of simple guides to science by Aaron Bernstein
that had been recommended by Talmey. Einstein himself said that he read
them `with breathless attention'. As Kayser remarked, `They were a gay-
colored, beautiful atlas of nature within the limits of a child's
comprehension. To Albert, these books were veritable revelations. He
consumed them with the same passion with which other boys devour Indian
stories.' For today's Einstein scholars, study of Bernstein's books has
revealed striking parallels to some of Einstein's most important ideas. As
Jurgen Renn and Robert Schulmann have commented, `Bernstein discusses the
corpuscular theory of light that Einstein would revive ... and he even
mentions the possibility of light deflection by gravitational field, which
eventually became one of the key proofs of the general theory of
relativity.' Einstein never cared for painting in the details of science
for their own sake: he worked on a big canvas. Bernstein's books allowed
him to grasp the pressing issues of current research without becoming
overwhelmed by minutiae. One of their themes dear to his heart was their
emphasis on the way that unseen forces gave unity to the universe. Renn
has pointed out another - the idea that the world can be described in terms
of atomic behavior, a theme that underpinned Einstein's revolutionary
papers in 1905.
On page 103 we find the following paragraph:
The year 1905 was to be Einstein's annus mirabilis, in which he produced
three separate articles that shook the foundations of science. The papers
were sent off at intervals of less than two months, and it is often
remarked that they seem to cover dazzlingly disparate subjects. But
several scholars have pointed out that common threads exist. Professor
Jurgen Renn stresses that each is based on a `particulate' view of the
world, understanding phenomena in terms of minute bodies: atoms, molecules,
electrons and chunks of energy. Each of the papers also marks the final
consequence of a long chain of work by masters of classical physics -
Boltzmann, Planck and Lorentz. From his letters, it is clear that Einstein
avidly devoured their ideas. However, he had sufficient distance from
their way of thinking to interpret their research from a new perspective -
and to appreciate its revolutionary implications. Their work was delicious
fruit that was ripe for picking.
With regard to Mileva's contribution to Einstein's work, we find the following
starting on page 110:
... Around 1905, for example, Einstein is alleged to have told Mileva's
father, `Everything that I have created and attained I owe to Mileva. She
is my genial inspiration, my guardian angel against mistakes in life and
even more in science. Without her I would never have begun my work nor
finished it.' These lines certainly have the same tone as much that the
young Einstein wrote in his love-letters (of which Trbuhovic-Gjuric had no
knowledge). ... In an interview with a Belgrade journalist in 1929, Bota
claimed to have been told by Mileva of her role in relativity five or six
years earlier. She said that Mileva found the subject painful, as if it
hurt to recall `her most beautiful hours', or as if she was reluctant to
slight Einstein's reputation. ... One reason why these claims have gained
currency is Einstein's own failure to provide a clear and consistent
explanation of relativity's origins. Not only did his papers contain no
references, but he contradicted himself in later accounts of the influences
on his work. It remains unclear, for example, how much he was stimulated
by the so-called Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887. ... Such arguments
would fall away, of course, if it could be shown that Mileva signed the
relativity paper as co-author. This was alleged by Desanka Trbuhovic-
Gjuric. She claimed that the Russian physicist Abram F. Joffe recalled
that all three of the epoch-making articles of 1905 were signed `Einstein-
Maric'. Joffe, she alleged, saw the originals while working as an
assistant to Wilhelm Rontgen, the discoverer of X-rays, who reviewed papers
for Annalen der Physik before publication. This claim has been taken up by
Evan Harris Walker, who has located an article in a 1955 Soviet physics
journal where Joffe states that the author of the 1905 papers was
`Einstein-Marity'. Dr. Walker has placed great stress on the use of
`Marity', the Hungarianized spelling of Mileva's Serbian surname, claiming
that all biographical sources call her `Maric'. He argues, `Only if Joffe
had actually seen the manuscript, as reported, with her name written by her
on it, would he have remembered the name in the form "Marity". This is a
singular piece of evidence that, indeed, Mileva Maric co-authored the
theory of relativity.' ... Conversely, the claims for Mileva cannot
entirely be disproved, because the crucial evidence does not survive. In
1943 Einstein was asked to put the manuscript of the original relativity
paper up for auction, in aid of the American war effort. He was unable to
do so, revealing that he had discarded it after publication. ... It has
been widely reported that Einstein told friends, `My wife does my
mathematics.' Very probably the words are apocryphal - perhaps they were a
joke. But this is also the story passed down to Paul Einstein, Mileva's
great-grandson who lives in Hawaii. The most striking and well-balanced
testimony comes from Hans Albert, through the mediation of his interviewer
Peter Michelmore. According to Michelmore's account of the final
breakthrough on relativity:
Mileva helped him [Einstein] solve certain mathematical problems, but
nobody could assist with the creative work, the flow of fresh ideas ...
The transfer of the broad concept of the theory to its logical
mathematical progression on paper took five weeks of sapping work. When
it was over, Einstein's body buckled and he went to bed for two weeks.
Mileva checked the article again and again, then mailed it. `It's a very
beautiful piece of work,' she told her husband.
... Most important of all, Jurgen Renn points out that the algebra in
Einstein's 1905 paper on relativity is not especially sophisticated. `If
he had needed help with that kind of mathematics, he would have ended
there,' says Renn. He adds that it was not even the mathematics that was
new - having been developed to a great extent by Lorentz - but Einstein's
interpretation of it. ...
In this regard, we find the following sentence on page 222:
Einstein's letters around this time show a genuine rapprochement with
his ex-wife, as if the handing over of the Nobel prize money had cleared
the air between them.
My free electronic book "The Farce of Physics" contains 156 references to
the published literature with quotations of arguments from many prominent
people including Einstein, that are related to and an extension of the above
information. There are no restrictions on anyone making electronic or paper
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>Mati Meron, in his April 11 post in reply to my April 11 post concerning the
>book "The Private Lives of Albert Einstein" by Roger Highfield and Paul
>Carter, wrote:
>
> Why? Who cares. How many more times it needs to be said that
> scientific theories are totally detached from their creators.
>
>You can say it as many times as you want, it still does not make it true. It
>certainly is not true in regard to relativity theory and Einstein. Because of
>media hype Albert Einstein has become the "Jesus Christ Superstar" of modern
>physics, with his 1905 Special Relativity paper as the "Old Testament" and his
>1915 General Relativity paper as the "New Testament."
... a long writeup about Einstein's relation with the public,
the press, his wife and others deleted ...
And what, may I inquire, has this stuff anything to do with the issue
of whether physical processes are or aren't Lorentz invariant?
W$
>In article <4l0naj$6...@tel.den.mmc.com> vi...@pogo.den.mmc.com (Mahipal Singh Virdy) writes:
> In article <DpsHG...@midway.uchicago.edu>, <me...@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote:
> >In article <tsar.364...@linex.com>, ts...@linex.com (W$) writes:
> >>In article <DppqM...@midway.uchicago.edu> me...@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
> >>
> ... snip ...
> >
> >>>Why? Who cares. How many more times it needs to be said that
> >>>scientific theories are totally detached from their creators.
> >>
> >>Scientific theories are totally detached from their creators? What about the
> >>evoluntionary spin on the Piltdown man?
> >
> >The point, exactly. Theories are judged based on correspondence to
> >data, not on who created them.
On that particular point - not splitting hairs about the "theories" woven
around the hoax - the data was designed to deceive in order to enrich the
author in some fashion. Sometimes motives are pertinent.
> Not to disagree with you both, but in science the word 'discoverers'
> rather than 'creators' seems more correct. I personally don't like the
> connotations associated with someone 'creating' theories. Certainly, the
> true science models are man's discoveries and neither creations nor
> inventions.
> I don't mean this in any spelling or grammar flame. Each language has
> its words with specialized meanings. I simply happen to know English
> well enough to be aware of the distinctions between the three words:
> {Discovery, Invention, Creation}. Still, the differences are well worth
> the learning.
Have to disagree, SR is clearly a creation - not a discovery.
>You may know English, but you display an ignorance of the philosophy
>of science.
No, just a difference of semantics.
> Theories (scientific and otherwise) are inherently human
>creations. There may, or may not, be underlying physical laws for
>which scientific theories provide models and approximations. One may
>correctly speak of the discovery of physical systems or laws (thus:
>"the discovery of electromagnetism"). But unless one holds to some
>bizarre Platonic model of science, theories are created and not
>discovered. This is, in fact, the goal of many scientists: to make
>discoveries and to create theories which account for those
>discoveries.
Quite true.
>Being created, theories naturally reflect some aspects of their
>creators.
Which is why it's interesting to read about the individual(s) involved.
W$
In article <phn34a8...@destiny.mcs.anl.gov> pu...@mcs.anl.gov (Gordon D. Pusch) writes:
>I agree with this position myself --- perhaps because I personally
>=DO= believe that an objective reality exists to be discovered.
I agree. But I'd say you are most certainly in the minority. Worse, I think
very few understand the link between theory and physical reality anymore, or
even perceive that it's an issue.
>Unfortunately, many of my colleagues --- perhaps in blind support of
>Bohrian Orthodoxy --- try not to talk about ``reality,'' and pooh-pooh
>anyone who does: ``welll, *you* can do that sort of thing if you *want*
>to but it's =NOT= physics !!!'' (with the clear implication that such
>epistemological concerns are *quite* beneath them). Yet, to fill this
>metaphysical vacuum, they almost always speak of ``believing'' in the
>dominant theory --- clearly unaware that they are using ``belief'' in
>its =religious= mode, and have lost sight of the fact that it =IS=
>``only a model'' !!!
Did you catch the recent thread "New Age Physics" ? This shows the evolution
of such thinking quite well. When you separate the math and experiment from an
objective metaphysics then literally nothing can be really "believed" ... thus
anything, no matter how ridiculous, can be proposed.
>(Modern-day so-called `philosophers of science', of course, don't
>believe in an ``objective reality'' *either* --- science is merely
>``the collective social activity of scientists,'' and has no more
>claim to respectability than any *other* human belief-system... :-(
Not just philosophers of science, the subjective world view is the hallmark of
modern academia in the sciences AND the fuzzy subjects.
>I once watched dumbfounded as Andrew Pickering told a colleague that
>yes, he could stand there and state with no qualms whatsoever that
>he had no basis on which to believe that his right arm was in fact
>=HIS= right arm --- then inquire why my colleague had a problem
>with that !!! One certainly wonders why a person with such a
>belief-system bothers to *do* anything at *all* !!!!!!!)
Give such know-nothings their due ... they really do know nothing! One might
ask what such silly beliefs serve (one might ... few do), because what it
provides is a means to furnish knowledge by concensus ... which means pressure
group warfare for recognition/fame/glory ... and bucks of course, all without
ever any means to challange the content of the proposal on any rational basis.
This is what makes the book Wallace referenced interesting, it shows this
system in action from behind the scenes ... with one of the most celebrated
names in science as the subject.
Mark Barton
>> Not to disagree with you both, but in science the word 'discoverers'
>> rather than 'creators' seems more correct. I personally don't like the
>> connotations associated with someone 'creating' theories. Certainly, the
>> true science models are man's discoveries and neither creations nor
>> inventions.
>
>> I don't mean this in any spelling or grammar flame. Each language has
>> its words with specialized meanings. I simply happen to know English
>> well enough to be aware of the distinctions between the three words:
>> {Discovery, Invention, Creation}. Still, the differences are well worth
>> the learning.
>
>Have to disagree, SR is clearly a creation - not a discovery.
To the extent you think of it purely as a mathematical model this is of
course trivially true. However this is not a very helpful observation.
The fact that, to a very good approximation and with some precisely known
caveats, the mathematical model is isomorphic to the real universe is the
discovery. SR was discovered in that it was chosen from competing models
which did not work as well.
Cheers,
Mark B.
W$
>>Have to disagree, SR is clearly a creation - not a discovery.
>To the extent you think of it purely as a mathematical model this is of
>course trivially true. However this is not a very helpful observation.
Well yes it is helpful. It puts into perspective the difference between a
theory and a fact.
>The fact that, to a very good approximation and with some precisely known
>caveats, the mathematical model is isomorphic to the real universe is the
>discovery.
This is of course what the debate is about, in all but the orthodox halls of
SRiania, just how isomorphic to the real universe the model is. And you are
mistaken to claim, this early in the game, that the model and physical reality
have a one to one correspondence ... and that this is a fact. ( But that's
only my opinion.)
That's a matter of a particular metaphysics, however, as was pointed out
earlier, and was in fact the point Wallace's original post illustrates.
> SR was discovered in that it was chosen from competing models
>which did not work as well.
SR works quite well for many things, but then so did that which it supplanted
when the proper transforms are applied.
Amart, the online bookshelf
> >
> >Not to disagree with you both, but in science the word 'discoverers'
> >rather than 'creators' seems more correct.
>
> in agreement or disagreement with experiment.
Yes, sci-fi authors and lawyers create; engineers invent.
Physicists and other empirically-oriented investigators
merely discover or uncover what is already there.
Rod
http://www.clearlight.com/~amart/
DISCLAIMER: This expressed opinion may or may not reflect
the opinion of Amart, the Online Bookshelf, where used-book
buyers and sellers meet. http://www.clearlight.com/~amart/
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>> vi...@pogo.den.mmc.com (Mahipal Singh Virdy) writes:
>> >
>> >Not to disagree with you both, but in science the word 'discoverers'
>> >rather than 'creators' seems more correct.
>>
>> I would say that you "discover" whether the theory you "created" is
>> in agreement or disagreement with experiment.
>
>Yes, sci-fi authors and lawyers create; engineers invent.
>Physicists and other empirically-oriented investigators
>merely discover or uncover what is already there.
>
theoretical side. This one is creative, in the sense that Mother
Nature doesn't have stone tablets hidden in secret caves, with the
laws of physics engraved on them. No, you create the theory in your
mind. You use hints from experimental data, of course, but there is
no automated, algoritmical procedure that takes data and converts it
to theory. Of course the creation isn't arbitrary, the way artistic
creation is. Once the theory is there it'll be compared, over and
over again, to the real world so that anything arbitrary it did
contain will eventually be purged out.
Mark Barton
>Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 16:19:08 GMT
>>In article <Dq798...@inssun.ins.u-tokyo.ac.jp> Mark Barton ><mba...@icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp> writes:
>
>>>Have to disagree, SR is clearly a creation - not a discovery.
>
>>To the extent you think of it purely as a mathematical model this is of
>>course trivially true. However this is not a very helpful observation.
>
>Well yes it is helpful. It puts into perspective the difference between a
>theory and a fact.
Your remark certainly doesn't help put them into perspective for me.
I presume we differ on our usage of the terms "theory" and "fact". For
your reference, I consider a fact to be a very well-tested theory.
The fact that SR is a creation is quite irrelevant to the process of
it acquiring facthood. It could have been found engraven on stone
tablets, thus making it a discovery. However from there the process of
testing by which it approaches facthood would have proceeded
identically.
>>The fact that, to a very good approximation and with some precisely known
>>caveats, the mathematical model is isomorphic to the real universe is the
>>discovery.
>
>This is of course what the debate is about, in all but the orthodox halls of
>SRiania, just how isomorphic to the real universe the model is. And you are
>mistaken to claim, this early in the game, that the model and physical reality
>have a one to one correspondence ... and that this is a fact. ( But that's
>only my opinion.)
Ah, I suspected as much, and the above supports it strongly: the
concept of an approximation is probably incomprehensible to you. As I
said, _to a very good approximation and with some precisely known
caveats_, the isomorphism is a fact. One of the caveats for example is
that SR is inaccurate for problems involving gravity. This state of
affairs could _conceivably_ change at any time, but SR is a accurate
summary of our knowledge in a certain domain to date.
>That's a matter of a particular metaphysics, however, as was pointed out
>earlier, and was in fact the point Wallace's original post illustrates.
>
>> SR was discovered in that it was chosen from competing models
>>which did not work as well.
>
>SR works quite well for many things, but then so did that which it supplanted
>when the proper transforms are applied.
I'm afraid you're mistaken. Possibly you are misusing the word
"transform". For example, classical physics predicts a null result
for the Michelson-Morley experiment. One can get a correct prediction
in this particular case by introducing the hypothesis of length
contraction of the apparatus. However this is not a "transformed"
version of classical physics but a distinctly different theory which
stands or falls on its own merits. To the extent that this new
unnamed theory gives a correct prediction, the credit accrues not to
classical physics but to the new theory. By adding sufficiently many
patches you can turn classical mechanics into SR, but along the way
you have created a whole string of different theories, all of which
are different and no two of which can be simultaneously correct.
Cheers,
Mark B.
Mahipal Singh Virdy
> ni...@harlequin.co.uk (Nick Barnes) writes:
>
>> vi...@pogo.den.mmc.com (Mahipal Singh Virdy) writes:
>On that particular point - not splitting hairs about the "theories" woven
>around the hoax - the data was designed to deceive in order to enrich the
>author in some fashion. Sometimes motives are pertinent.
And we should all be aware that such deception has taken place and
perhaps is being funded even right now. I'm a University-Man so I don't
target this sentiment against any colleges. The real world is bigger
than the academians inhabit. And they may have a false sense of worth
in the outside world. Anyway, deception happens. Learn to recognize it.
>> Not to disagree with you both, but in science the word 'discoverers'
>> rather than 'creators' seems more correct. I personally don't like the
>> connotations associated with someone 'creating' theories. Certainly, the
>> true science models are man's discoveries and neither creations nor
>> inventions.
>
>> I don't mean this in any spelling or grammar flame. Each language has
>> its words with specialized meanings. I simply happen to know English
>> well enough to be aware of the distinctions between the three words:
>> {Discovery, Invention, Creation}. Still, the differences are well worth
>> the learning.
>
>Have to disagree, SR is clearly a creation - not a discovery.
SR is not all of science. Still, how do the authors of SR `create' a
theory which limits the speed of light AND get Nature to duplicate this
feat at all observations? Nature is under no contractual obligation to
adhere to the axioms of SR.
>>You may know English, but you display an ignorance of the philosophy
>>of science.
Sorry. I shall try conceal my degree of ignorance in future posts.
>No, just a difference of semantics.
Yes, that's what I was doing. But some lurkers must cherish the idea of
identifing all the Ignorami Posters they can get their eyes upon. :-)
>> Theories (scientific and otherwise) are inherently human
>>creations. There may, or may not, be underlying physical laws for
>>which scientific theories provide models and approximations. One may
>>correctly speak of the discovery of physical systems or laws (thus:
>>"the discovery of electromagnetism"). But unless one holds to some
>>bizarre Platonic model of science, theories are created and not
>>discovered. This is, in fact, the goal of many scientists: to make
>>discoveries and to create theories which account for those
>>discoveries.
>
>Quite true.
I concur with most of this as well. However, one does not ``create
theories'' ad hoc. It's not a random exercise. One can discover new
phenomena by observation OR one can discover new phenomena because the
mathematical models hint at it. It's a very grey area sometimes when
deciding which comes first.
Assuming 'theories' are mere human constructs, will the Earth cease to
orbit the Sun in its unique and singular trajectory within the stars if
humanity ceased to exist due to any one of numerous potential scenarios?
You can lose the ``observor'' but the ``observed'' still remains.
Theories are mathematical constructs. Being mathematical constructs,
they can be regarded as objective entities. An inaccurate math model
doesn't cease to exist when a better more accurate math model is
discovered/developed/`created'. Rather, the two models can be compared
symbol for symbol to gather insights into their workings and
applicability to reality and future enhancements.
>>Being created, theories naturally reflect some aspects of their
>>creators.
>
>Which is why it's interesting to read about the individual(s) involved.
Ultimately, Newton's or Einstein's personal life style is NOT the key
ingredient in the success or failure of their scientific models. That's
Mati's very legitimate and valid point. I'm sure they wouldn't want
their names removed from the Halls of Science, but their work stands
independent of their hairstyles.
Some may not like the message, but science is independent of its
``creators'' and/or ``discoverers''. Deal with it. All the philosophies
combined can't take the existence out of parabolically falling stones.
Mahipal $|meforce> = |d(\sqrt{me})/dt>$
``Politics is for the moment. An equation is for eternity.'' --Einstein
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>In article <tsar.376...@linex.com>, W$ <ts...@linex.com> wrote:
... snip ...
>Theories are mathematical constructs. Being mathematical constructs,
>they can be regarded as objective entities. An inaccurate math model
>doesn't cease to exist when a better more accurate math model is
>discovered/developed/`created'. Rather, the two models can be compared
>symbol for symbol to gather insights into their workings and
>applicability to reality and future enhancements.
>
>>>Being created, theories naturally reflect some aspects of their
>>>creators.
>>
>>Which is why it's interesting to read about the individual(s) involved.
>
>Ultimately, Newton's or Einstein's personal life style is NOT the key
>ingredient in the success or failure of their scientific models. That's
>Mati's very legitimate and valid point. I'm sure they wouldn't want
>their names removed from the Halls of Science, but their work stands
>independent of their hairstyles.
>
>Some may not like the message, but science is independent of its
>``creators'' and/or ``discoverers''. Deal with it. All the philosophies
>combined can't take the existence out of parabolically falling stones.
>
Exactly !
Peter J. Carini
> In article <4l0naj$6...@tel.den.mmc.com>, vi...@pogo.den.mmc.com (Mahipal
Singh Virdy) writes:
>
> ... snip ...
> >Not to disagree with you both, but in science the word 'discoverers'
> >rather than 'creators' seems more correct. I personally don't like the
> >connotations associated with someone 'creating' theories. Certainly, the
> >true science models are man's discoveries and neither creations nor
> >inventions.
> >
>
> in the case of physical theories the "what's there" is a vague term.
> We discover experimental facts and we create models (theories) which
> account for them. If you could find the ultimate theory which
> accounts exactly for everything in the universe, then you could talk
> about "discovery". But, as it is, even if you find such theory you'll
> never be able to prove that it is, indeed, the real thing.
>
Dittos Mati! I've had this same discussion in a class on "Creativity and
Invention". The term "discovery" in physics means to learn of the existence of
a phenomena (e.g. when certain materials were first found to be
super-conducting, it was a 'discovery'). The term 'create' or, perhaps more
appropriate in this discussion, the term 'invent' in physics refers to the
origination of a theory or construct to describe (or attribute meaning to)
physical phenomena. For example, Newton did NOT 'discover' gravity, it was very
familiar to others long before he was born. ;) Nor did he 'discover' his theory
of gravity. He 'invented' it using his mental facilities to account for the
physical phenomena he witnessed. Also, Einstein did not 'discover' general
relativity. It is only a theory. Had anyone else come up with it (invented it)
it is resonable to assume that it would, or for that matter even COULD be in a
different form. Hence, it is not a discovery but an invention (or creation).
Now, we could argure about the word 'true', but I believe Socrates, Plato and
Aristotle had a better insight on that one. As far as physics is concerned,
'TRUTH' is nature. Every theory we have come up with so far is an approximation
of that truth or a description which is on valid in a given domain of interest.
It is therefore an incomplete description of 'the truth' at best. 'Models' are
not 'truth'.
PJC
_________________________________________________________
Peter J. Carini us02...@pop3.interramp.com
"If I were near you, I wouldn't be far from you" -Phish
_________________________________________________________
Doug Groseclose
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu says...
>
>In article <4lgi1g$9...@tel.den.mmc.com>,
>>In article <tsar.376...@linex.com>, W$
<ts...@linex.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Some may not like the message, but science is
independent of its
>>``creators'' and/or ``discoverers''. Deal with it.
All the philosophies
>>combined can't take the existence out of
parabolically falling stones.
>>
>
>
Not exactly.....approximately. The "discoveries/
theories/proofs/etc" of science may well stand alone
and endure well beyond their creators/discoverers and,
proof of their idea may well be independent of them.
Had it not been for their particular "lifestyles,"
personalities, backgrounds, however it is highly
unlikely they would have had the interests they did
and therefore the creations/discoveries would have
remained undone or for someone else. IMHO there is a
clear connection between the lifestyle/character of
the person and what they achieve though it may
outlive them.
Doug
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>In article <DqA5I...@midway.uchicago.edu>,
>me...@cars3.uchicago.edu says...
>>
>>In article <4lgi1g$9...@tel.den.mmc.com>,
>>>In article <tsar.376...@linex.com>, W$
><ts...@linex.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Some may not like the message, but science is
>independent of its
>>>``creators'' and/or ``discoverers''. Deal with it.
>All the philosophies
>>>combined can't take the existence out of
>parabolically falling stones.
>>>
>>
>>
>Not exactly.....approximately. The "discoveries/
>theories/proofs/etc" of science may well stand alone
>and endure well beyond their creators/discoverers and,
>proof of their idea may well be independent of them.
>Had it not been for their particular "lifestyles,"
>personalities, backgrounds, however it is highly
>unlikely they would have had the interests they did
>and therefore the creations/discoveries would have
>remained undone or for someone else. IMHO there is a
>clear connection between the lifestyle/character of
>the person and what they achieve though it may
>outlive them.
>
is the person that's responsible for a specific theory/discovery isn't
very important (reminds me of the story about the German professor who
said "by now we are quite sure that the Illiad and the Odyssey were
not written by Homer but by another poet bearing the same name).
Also, it is rather rare to have a discovery appearing quite "out of
the blue". Usually the time is ripe, meaning there is some
information available, there is a perception of a problem and there is
interest. Thus, if one person won't do it, somebody else will. For
example, Newton made an enormous contribution to mathematics. But, if
he wouldn't do it it would hardly matter since Leibnitz did pretty
much the same, at about the same time. The time scale could shift by
a decade or two but in the long run I don't think that would matter
much.
Still, we can argue it forever, it is just part of the larger and
ethernal historical argument, namely to what extent is history shaped
by the personality of the leaders and to what by great, impersonal,
economic and social forces (I have my own theory on this too but I'll
keep it to myself :-)). What seems important to me is that once the
theory/discovery is there arguing the issue of what specific events in
the life of the author helped or hindered in the process aren't
relevant to anything. Which, by the way, isn't unique to science.
Just think, suppose that tomorrow somebody comes with a conclusive
proof that Shakespeare didn't actually write any of the plays
attributed to him, just served as a front for somebody else. So, will
this have any bearing on the value of the plays?
W$
>From: me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>Subject: Re: The Future of Physics
Who ever suggested their "personal life style" or "hairstyles" was an integral
part of the success or failure of their scientific models? Their particular
metaphysics certainly is. How would you divorce Bohr's metaphysics from the
Copenhagen model? Questions of how they arrive at their positions are indeed
relavent to an understanding of their proposals.
You're simply trivializing the issue by bringing such inanities into it; not
that even the inanities are interesting to many people when it concerns the
famous. What's wrong with that? Maybe you could make your point clearer?
If YOU don't like to read about such things, then fine .... don't. If the only
question for you is whether the math works, or it can be experimentally
verified ... fine. If you don't think there's any other test of validity ....
AND you're bored with the story of the "hairstyles" then by all means avoid
the book, or any similar material, and stay in the lab or at the blackboard.
>>Some may not like the message, but science is independent of its
>>``creators'' and/or ``discoverers''.
The facts of physical reality are certainly independent of their
"discoverers". Their [discovers] spin on the evidence, and the mathmatical
models may or may not be.
Deal with it. All the philosophies
>>combined can't take the existence out of parabolically falling stones.
>>
Sooner or later you're going to come up against the question
"how do you know what you know?" And that ain't physics its philosophy! You
can try to get around it all you like .... but YOU won't, and no one else ever
will either.
You deal with it.
>Exactly !
Exactly!
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>In article <DqA5I...@midway.uchicago.edu> me...@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>>From: me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>>Subject: Re: The Future of Physics
>>Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 20:13:21 GMT
>
>part of the success or failure of their scientific models? Their particular
>metaphysics certainly is. How would you divorce Bohr's metaphysics from the
>Copenhagen model? Questions of how they arrive at their positions are indeed
>relavent to an understanding of their proposals.
>
mechanical calculations are independent of the Copenhagen model. In
any case when you do science, i.e. compare predictions with
experimental results, the underlying metaphysical model is irrelevant.
It may help (or hinder) your personal visualisation of what's going on
but that's extraneous to the science.
Alan Anderson
>parabolically falling stones.
Newton did.
Stones can fall in elliptical or hyperbolic paths, not just parabolic ones,
and if it's travelling slower than escape velocity, it will always move in
an elliptical path. Over a small distance, a parabola will approximate an
ellipse closely, but in general, a suborbital ballistic trajectory is more
correctly described as a section of an ellipse.
Nyah!
= === === === = = = === === === === = = === = = = === = = === =
# Alan Anderson # Ignorance can be fixed, but stupidity is permanent. #
(I do not speak for Delco Electronics, and DE does not speak for me.)
Lucy Openshaw
<wall...@gate.net> writes
>I've recently came across a fascinating book by Roger Highfield and Paul
>Carter with the intriguing title "The Private Lives of Albert Einstein." In
>their lucid and scrupulously researched biography the authors add a previously
>unwritten chapter to the life and legend of Einstein. Tracing his personal
>life through two marriages, and several affairs, a more complete picture of
>Einstein the man emerges from the long shadows cast by his formidable
>reputation.
>
>
> ...
> Newly released documents make it possible to chart the decline of the
> marriage, and to show how Einstein deceived Mileva in a secret liaison with
> the cousin who later became his second wife.
I forget when, but halfway through the BBC's "National Scicnce Week"
there was a program on BBC2 with very similar information to the above
mentioned book. Watch out for a repeat, because it was excellent!
--
Lucy Openshaw
Doug Groseclose
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu says...
>
<some good stuff snipped>
>Still, we can argue it forever, it is just part of
the larger and
>ethernal historical argument, namely to what extent
is history shaped
>by the personality of the leaders and to what by
great, impersonal,
>economic and social forces (I have my own theory on
this too but I'll
>keep it to myself :-)).
Ge, can't we coax it out of you, Mati? This is an
interesting debate/dialogue. There's quite a bit of
evidence in the social and organizational sciences
that says the "One great man/woman" theory is bunk. It
is, however, difficult to explain away the
achievements of great people and equally difficult to
convince those who beleive themselves current or
future "great people" that they really are the pawn of
some cosmic "unseen hand."
> What seems important to me is that once the
>theory/discovery is there arguing the issue of what
specific events in
>the life of the author helped or hindered in the
process aren't
>relevant to anything. Which, by the way, isn't
unique to science.
>Just think, suppose that tomorrow somebody comes with
a conclusive
>proof that Shakespeare didn't actually write any of
the plays
>attributed to him, just served as a front for
somebody else. So, will
>this have any bearing on the value of the plays?
>
I agree. IMHO the fundamental truth is that we can
never really know if Archimedes would or would not
have said "Eureka!" had his potty training been
earlier or later. (He is the guy proported to have
said that, right?) What we can assume is that, had
Archimedes life up to that point been different, he
made not have had that particular geshalt. Seems to me
that a number of people have already proven (to their
own satisfaction) that someone other than Shakespeare
wrote the plays, sonnets, etc. attributed to him:-).
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>In article <DqBz2...@midway.uchicago.edu>,
>me...@cars3.uchicago.edu says...
>>
><some good stuff snipped>
>
>>Still, we can argue it forever, it is just part of
>the larger and
>>ethernal historical argument, namely to what extent
>is history shaped
>>by the personality of the leaders and to what by
>great, impersonal,
>>economic and social forces (I have my own theory on
>this too but I'll
>>keep it to myself :-)).
>
>Ge, can't we coax it out of you, Mati? This is an
>interesting debate/dialogue. There's quite a bit of
>evidence in the social and organizational sciences
>that says the "One great man/woman" theory is bunk. It
>is, however, difficult to explain away the
>achievements of great people and equally difficult to
>convince those who beleive themselves current or
>future "great people" that they really are the pawn of
>some cosmic "unseen hand."
>
it real concise.
I think that historical changes are analogous to phase transitions.
Normally a macroscopic system is very stable against fluctuations.
However, near phase transition systems become unstable in the sense
that a small perturbation can send them over the edge. A good analogy
would be a supercooled body of water which will freeze when you drop
an ice crystal into it. If this little crystal would be alive it
would probably say "gee, I caused the whole lake to freeze". However,
the freezing was really caused by a large scale process (cooling) and
the crystal just acted as a seed for a change which was already
prepared. In its absence another seed would've been found soon.
I trust you see where it is leading. IMO social and historical
changes are caused by large scale processes that gradually move said
society to a point where it is on the brink of change. Then, and only
then can some great man/woman act as a seed and prompt the change.
He/she can also influence the path the system will take to the new
equilibrium point, but not the endpoint itself. In the absence of
this specific person, somebody else will be found out and the path may
be different, but the end result will be pretty much the same.
The only issue that's open here is whether it is possible that a
social system which reached the brink of instability has more than one
new stable point it can reach. If so, then the person influencing
events at that point can make a real difference, in the sense of being
able to influence which of the potential new equilibriums
(equilibria?) will be obtained.
To get back to wehre we started, i.e. physics, I believe that physics
at the turn of the century was at a phase transition points due to the
inconsistencies that accumulated during the previous 20-30 years.
Thus I think that relativity was practically inevitable and that,
would Einstein had the bad luck of being dropped on his head at birth,
somebody else would reach same result at approximately same time
scale. It could happen few years later, and it could have few authors
(the way QM does) instead of one, but nothing major would change in
the history of science.
... snip ...
> IMHO the fundamental truth is that we can
>never really know if Archimedes would or would not
>have said "Eureka!" had his potty training been
>earlier or later. (He is the guy proported to have
>said that, right?) What we can assume is that, had
>Archimedes life up to that point been different, he
>made not have had that particular geshalt. Seems to me
>that a number of people have already proven (to their
>own satisfaction) that someone other than Shakespeare
>wrote the plays, sonnets, etc. attributed to him:-).
Yeah, I think quite a few did. And none of them stopped to ask "what
difference does it make?". Reminds me that when the last of the
Medicci's decided to bequeth the family's art collection to the public
(and we are talking about what's possibly the finest art collection in
the world, te Medicci's commissioned art work from all the "who's who"
of the High Reneissance, Michelangelo's David is just one item on the
list), he added the stipulation that the art works will be displayed
without the artists' names. His argument was that "art should be
appreciated for itself, not for who created it". As a result of
public pressure this stipulation was overturned. A pity, IMO.
W$
>From: vi...@pogo.den.mmc.com (Mahipal Singh Virdy)
>Subject: Re: The Future of Physics
>In article <tsar.376...@linex.com>, W$ <ts...@linex.com> wrote:
>> ni...@harlequin.co.uk (Nick Barnes) writes:
>>
>>> vi...@pogo.den.mmc.com (Mahipal Singh Virdy) writes:
>[...trim...]
>>On that particular point - not splitting hairs about the "theories" woven
>>around the hoax - the data was designed to deceive in order to enrich the
>>author in some fashion. Sometimes motives are pertinent.
>And we should all be aware that such deception has taken place and
>perhaps is being funded even right now. I'm a University-Man so I don't
>target this sentiment against any colleges. The real world is bigger
>than the academians inhabit. And they may have a false sense of worth
>in the outside world. Anyway, deception happens. Learn to recognize it.
I agree.
>>
>>Have to disagree, SR is clearly a creation - not a discovery.
>SR is not all of science. Still, how do the authors of SR `create' a
>theory which limits the speed of light AND get Nature to duplicate this
>feat at all observations? Nature is under no contractual obligation to
>adhere to the axioms of SR.
You're certainly right that Nature is under no obligation to adhere to the
axioms of SR ... further there are those that don't agree that it does "at all
observations."
>>>You may know English, but you display an ignorance of the philosophy
>>>of science.
The above is not my comment, nor do I agree with it. We're simply debating the
semantics of the terms. Disagreement does not equal ignorance.
>Sorry. I shall try conceal my degree of ignorance in future posts.
Not applicable. You exhibited no ignorance.
>>No, just a difference of semantics.
>Yes, that's what I was doing. But some lurkers must cherish the idea of
>identifing all the Ignorami Posters they can get their eyes upon. :-)
Yes, many use these forums to attempt to make fools of others. I suppose this
makes them feel superior in some way.
>>> Theories (scientific and otherwise) are inherently human
>>>creations. There may, or may not, be underlying physical laws for
>>>which scientific theories provide models and approximations. One may
>>>correctly speak of the discovery of physical systems or laws (thus:
>>>"the discovery of electromagnetism"). But unless one holds to some
>>>bizarre Platonic model of science, theories are created and not
>>>discovered. This is, in fact, the goal of many scientists: to make
>>>discoveries and to create theories which account for those
>>>discoveries.
>>
>>Quite true.
>I concur with most of this as well. However, one does not ``create
>theories'' ad hoc. It's not a random exercise. One can discover new
>phenomena by observation OR one can discover new phenomena because the
>mathematical models hint at it. It's a very grey area sometimes when
>deciding which comes first.
This is an accurate view I think
..
>Assuming 'theories' are mere human constructs, will the Earth cease to
>orbit the Sun in its unique and singular trajectory within the stars if
>humanity ceased to exist due to any one of numerous potential scenarios?
>You can lose the ``observor'' but the ``observed'' still remains.
According to objectively oriented metaphysics your position is correct.
According to alternate views reality is in the mind of the beholder. I'm a
devotee of the former school.
W$
<mba...@icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp> writes:>From: Mark Barton
<mba...@icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp>>Subject: Re: The Future of Physics
>Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 07:03:39 GMT
W$, ts...@linex.com wrote:
>>
>>>>Have to disagree, SR is clearly a creation - not a discovery.
>>Mark Barton ><mba...@icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp> writes:
>>>To the extent you think of it purely as a mathematical model this is of
>>>course trivially true. However this is not a very helpful observation.
>>
>>Well yes it is helpful. It puts into perspective the difference between a
>>theory and a fact.
Mark Barton ><mba...@icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp> writes:
>Your remark certainly doesn't help put them into perspective for me.
>I presume we differ on our usage of the terms "theory" and "fact".
I think that's obvious.
>For your reference, I consider a fact to be a very well-tested theory.
For the purposes of discussion it's all well and good for you to define your
terms, then it's understood what you mean. However, I do not agree that
"factual" and "theoretical" are synonyms. A trivial example is that you could
say theoretically if an apple stem is severed from the tree the apple will
fall. The fall of the apple to the ground is a fact ... after it occurs. In
this case I agree that the theory predicts the outcome perfectly, nevertheless
the fall remains theoretical until it happens. This is my usage of the terms.
Under this usage SR remains a theoretical model of physical reality that has a
great deal of experimental validation, and is mathematically self consistant.
It is not a fact that physical reality does/will act as SR predicts in all
cases. Nor do I believe that you can establish that it does to my satisfaction
at this time.
>The fact that SR is a creation is quite irrelevant to the process of
>it acquiring facthood. It could have been found engraven on stone
>tablets, thus making it a discovery. However from there the process of
>testing by which it approaches facthood would have proceeded
>identically.
It has acquired facthood by your standards as stated above. Not everyone would
agree with this usage. And that is a fact.
>>>The fact that, to a very good approximation and with some precisely known
>>>caveats, the mathematical model is isomorphic to the real universe is the
>>>discovery.
>>
>>This is of course what the debate is about, in all but the orthodox halls of
>>SRiania, just how isomorphic to the real universe the model is. And you are
>>mistaken to claim, this early in the game, that the model and physical reality
>>have a one to one correspondence ... and that this is a fact. ( But that's
>>only my opinion.)
>Ah, I suspected as much, and the above supports it strongly: the
>concept of an approximation is probably incomprehensible to you.
I see. If my comprehension capability were not so poor I would agree with you.
> As I
>said, _to a very good approximation and with some precisely known
>caveats_, the isomorphism is a fact.
I suggest you read the FAQ's for sci.physics, particularly concerning the
supposed paradoxes of SR, and tell me if, according to your usage of the
terms, the answers there are "facts". If you claim they are we are hopeless
separated by our metaphysical and epistemological positions, and further
discussion is pointless.
>>
>>SR works quite well for many things, but then so did that which it supplanted
>>when the proper transforms are applied.
>I'm afraid you're mistaken. Possibly you are misusing the word
>"transform".
This is probably due to my poor comprehension abilities.
> For example, classical physics predicts a null result
>for the Michelson-Morley experiment. One can get a correct prediction
>in this particular case by introducing the hypothesis of length
>contraction of the apparatus. However this is not a "transformed"
>version of classical physics but a distinctly different theory which
>stands or falls on its own merits. To the extent that this new
>unnamed theory gives a correct prediction, the credit accrues not to
>classical physics but to the new theory. By adding sufficiently many
>patches you can turn classical mechanics into SR, but along the way
>you have created a whole string of different theories, all of which
>are different and no two of which can be simultaneously correct.
I think the "fact" is there's no such thing as "classical physics" or any
other such division. There's only physics. The understanding, and successful
predictability of the various models has changed of course. I predict this
process will continue. The changing of the models has never changed physical
reality (Bohrs metaphysics notwithstanding), and although many things derived
from the models are no doubt accurate, there are things which remain that are
belived by many today which will not endure the test of time.
Your last statement obviously implies a belief in a non-contradictory
universe, but some of the models you espouse as facts are not so lucid.
Bill $
Mark Barton
>>>>Mark Barton ><mba...@icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp> writes:
>>> W$, ts...@linex.com wrote:
>>>>>Have to disagree, SR is clearly a creation - not a discovery.
>
>>>>To the extent you think of it purely as a mathematical model this is of
>>>>course trivially true. However this is not a very helpful observation.
>>>
>
>>>Well yes it is helpful. It puts into perspective the difference between a
>>>theory and a fact.
>>
>>Your remark certainly doesn't help put them into perspective for me.
>>I presume we differ on our usage of the terms "theory" and "fact".
>
>I think that's obvious.
>
>>For your reference, I consider a fact to be a very well-tested theory.
>For the purposes of discussion it's all well and good for you to define your
>terms, then it's understood what you mean. However, I do not agree that
>"factual" and "theoretical" are synonyms.
Just as well, because that's not what I said. I despair of your
reading comprehension.
>A trivial example is that you could
>say theoretically if an apple stem is severed from the tree the apple will
>fall. The fall of the apple to the ground is a fact ... after it occurs.
Yes but it's also a theory, competing with many other theories such
as that someone batted a cricket ball into the tree from behind and we
didn't look carefully enough, and that the world is all a dream. We
can raise the apple theory to a practical certainty, i.e., "fact" by
correlating many lines of evidence, such as that there is no apple
hanging on the branch anymore, that the fallen object looks up close
like an apple, tastes like an apple, etc.
>In
>this case I agree that the theory predicts the outcome perfectly, nevertheless
>the fall remains theoretical until it happens. This is my usage of the terms.
>Under this usage SR remains a theoretical model of physical reality that has a
>great deal of experimental validation, and is mathematically self consistant.
>It is not a fact that physical reality does/will act as SR predicts in all
>cases. Nor do I believe that you can establish that it does to my satisfaction
>at this time.
Of course not. However this is not a statement about relativity per se -
this is a statement about the future.
>>The fact that SR is a creation is quite irrelevant to the process of
>>it acquiring facthood. It could have been found engraven on stone
>>tablets, thus making it a discovery. However from there the process of
>>testing by which it approaches facthood would have proceeded
>>identically.
>
>It has acquired facthood by your standards as stated above. Not everyone would
>agree with this usage. And that is a fact.
You said in email that you wanted to have an epistemological debate.
It appears that you want to have a semantic argument. Since the usage
I have outlined is quite standard in science, and since it has been
explained to you before, it is ingenuous of you to start a
correspondence in a scientific forum using the words in a different
sense without explanation. Since by the terms "fact" and "theory" you
appear to mean "past event" and "predicted future event", those are
the terms I shall use henceforth. If you had gotten in earlier with
suggested alternatives which would have allowed the scientific
meanings to be expressed, while allowing you to keep on saying
"theory" and "fact" in your preferred senses, I would have politely
gone along with it, but now I shall not.
>>>>The fact that, to a very good approximation and with some precisely known
>>>>caveats, the mathematical model is isomorphic to the real universe is the
>>>>discovery.
>>>
>>>This is of course what the debate is about, in all but the orthodox halls of
>>>SRiania, just how isomorphic to the real universe the model is. And you are
>>>mistaken to claim, this early in the game, that the model and physical reality
>>>have a one to one correspondence ... and that this is a fact. ( But that's
>>>only my opinion.)
>
>>Ah, I suspected as much, and the above supports it strongly: the
>>concept of an approximation is probably incomprehensible to you.
>
>I see. If my comprehension capability were not so poor I would agree with you.
No, if your comprehension were not so poor you would not have made
such a blatant misreading. What you paraphrased my remarks to is not
what I said, and the difference is vital to the issues being
discussed. You do not seem to have any ability to manage degrees of
similarity - you routinely paraphrase my remarks of the form "X is like
Y to such and such and extent" to "X is identical to Y".
>> As I
>>said, _to a very good approximation and with some precisely known
>>caveats_, the isomorphism is a fact.
>
>I suggest you read the FAQ's for sci.physics, particularly concerning the
>supposed paradoxes of SR, and tell me if, according to your usage of the
>terms, the answers there are "facts". If you claim they are we are hopeless
>separated by our metaphysical and epistemological positions, and further
>discussion is pointless.
The section of paradoxes is about the internal consistency of the
theory. It has nothing to do with facts about the real world. It is
a fact about the theory that it is to be interpreted in the way
outlined in the FAQs. I suspect you would like it to be mushy
nonsense that could be rationalised with anything; I suspect you take
that as a matter of faith; I even suspect that to you it _is_ mushy
nonsense, but it's not. If the real world didn't happen to agree with
it, that would have been too bad. In that hypothetical case, we would
with a bit of luck be discussing some other theory which happened to
be the best theory at this time. However (the Hafele-Keating
experiment etc) the real world does agree with it (GR, to experimental
precision, for a wide range of past experiments, in the non-quantum
regime, and don't you dare trim a word of that fineprint).
>>>SR works quite well for many things, but then so did that which it supplanted
>>>when the proper transforms are applied.
>
>>I'm afraid you're mistaken. Possibly you are misusing the word
>>"transform".
>
>This is probably due to my poor comprehension abilities.
Lack of due preparation is my best guess. If you want to talk to
scientists about epistemology, you'll need to find out which words
have well-established technical meanings and either avoid them or
explain in advance that you're not using them in the technical sense.
This is why your attempts to date to start a discussion have crashed
in flames and acrimony almost immediately.
Let me also expand on what I mean by misusing. The most charitable
interpretation of what you've said is that you've misunderstood some
remark about transforms in physics and have gotten the idea that all
models are in some sense the same. The original error (on this
hypothesis) was to have misinterpreted transform in this way. However
transform as a technical term applies only within the one model so it
is meaningless to speak of transforming between theories, and that is
what I actually know you to have done.
The bottom line is that models are different and _at most_ one can be
correct at a time.
>> For example, classical physics predicts a null result
>>for the Michelson-Morley experiment. One can get a correct prediction
>>in this particular case by introducing the hypothesis of length
>>contraction of the apparatus. However this is not a "transformed"
>>version of classical physics but a distinctly different theory which
>>stands or falls on its own merits. To the extent that this new
>>unnamed theory gives a correct prediction, the credit accrues not to
>>classical physics but to the new theory. By adding sufficiently many
>>patches you can turn classical mechanics into SR, but along the way
>>you have created a whole string of different theories, all of which
>>are different and no two of which can be simultaneously correct.
>
>I think the "fact" is there's no such thing as "classical physics" or any
>other such division. There's only physics.
I'm uncertain about what you mean by this. This is what I wrote first:
Again you seem to be mostly interested in semantic arguments.
Classical physics is the name of a _model_. There _is_ such a thing
because physicists have bestowed that name on a theory. Moreover it is
perfectly well understood to be a fact about theoretical physics, not
about reality. To suggest otherwise is slashing at straw men and
tilting at windmills. There is a "classical model of physics", and a
"relativistic model of physics", and innumerable other models of
physics, no two of which are the same. Some of these are dead wrong,
and of the rest some are more isomorphic to reality than others.
However reading up and done a bit more, I wonder if you don't mean
that there really is only one one-size-fits-all theoretical physics
and that classical physics and relativity are actually the same thing.
This would be really crashing ignorance and I hesitate to attribute it
to you.
>The understanding, and successful
>predictability of the various models has changed of course. I predict this
>process will continue. The changing of the models has never changed physical
>reality (Bohrs metaphysics notwithstanding),
Whoever suggested that it did? The whole point of using the
model-based philosophy in the first place is to be quite clear and
above board on this point. You're the one who keeps trying to blur or
dismantle the distinction (e.g., your preceding paragraph).
>and although many things derived
>from the models are no doubt accurate, there are things which remain that are
>belived by many today which will not endure the test of time.
So? That's life. I _know_ that, I look forward to it, that's why I'm
in this job - it's an ever-unfolding story. Moreover in practice, at
least in physics, old theories that have had a modicum of success
rarely ever die - they just get recycled as convenient approximations
to something more accurate but more fiddly.
>Your last statement obviously implies a belief in a non-contradictory
>universe,
It obviously implies no such thing. I'm more than happy to concede
that the universe could involve essential contradictions beyond the
capability of mathematical models (or human ingenuity) to encompass
it. It doesn't _seem_ to have happened, but we _might_ have missed
something important already and we _might_ encounter something like
that in future. In that case _not even one_ model (let alone two)
could be true. What I am attempting to deny is your claim that the
models are in some sense all the same so that _more than one_ could
happily be true together. Again I despair of your reading
comprehension.
>but some of the models you espouse as facts are not so lucid.
Far be it from me to suggest that relativity is lucid because _I_
think I understand it - people thinking like that are a major problem.
I formulate the problem as a theory: "relativity is usefully free of
contradiction" and attempt to test it. I merely look around and note
that a very large number of people have an identical understanding of
it and, working in isolation, given the same scenario, come up with
the same prediction. Therefore I conclude it is well-defined and
different from other theories, which is all that is required to apply the
model-based testing approach. We can start an account in the name of
this theory and allow it to start clocking up points (or not) by
successfully predicting reality (or not).
Cheers,
Mark B.
Mahipal Singh Virdy
Alan Anderson <aran...@kosepc01.delcoelect.com> wrote:
>>All the philosophies combined can't take the existence out of
>>parabolically falling stones.
>
>Newton did.
You've taken my one line out of context and given it diametrically
opposite meaning. I don't know how to set things straight anymore.
>Stones can fall in elliptical or hyperbolic paths, not just parabolic ones,
>and if it's travelling slower than escape velocity, it will always move in
>an elliptical path. Over a small distance, a parabola will approximate an
>ellipse closely, but in general, a suborbital ballistic trajectory is more
>correctly described as a section of an ellipse.
>
>Nyah!
Yes, in an inverse square field, the rock can take on any of the
trajectories defined by the conic sections. However: All the
philosophies combined can't take the existence out of moving stones. And
they move according to Laws of Nature. One can't just think or redefine
the phenomena away.
>= === === === = = = === === === === = = === = = = === = = === =
># Alan Anderson # Ignorance can be fixed, but stupidity is permanent. #
> (I do not speak for Delco Electronics, and DE does not speak for me.)
I know you are trying to help. But, Alan, you took my words out of
context and misrepresented my intent. My words, my intent. Sure, taking
out of context it happens all the time. It's OK. And thanks. :-)
Mahipal |meforce>
Mahipal Singh Virdy
Doug Groseclose <Doug_Gr...@ccmail.orl.mmc.com> wrote:
[...]
>Ge, can't we coax it out of you, Mati? This is an
>interesting debate/dialogue. There's quite a bit of
>evidence in the social and organizational sciences
>that says the "One great man/woman" theory is bunk. It
>is, however, difficult to explain away the
>achievements of great people and equally difficult to
>convince those who beleive themselves current or
>future "great people" that they really are the pawn of
>some cosmic "unseen hand."
It's great to study human motivations/potential/etc. But there's no need
to assume the presence of unseen-hands when simpler more provable
explainations do.
[trim]
>I agree. IMHO the fundamental truth is that we can
>never really know if Archimedes would or would not
>have said "Eureka!" had his potty training been
>earlier or later. (He is the guy proported to have
>said that, right?) What we can assume is that, had
>Archimedes life up to that point been different, he
>made not have had that particular geshalt. Seems to me
>that a number of people have already proven (to their
>own satisfaction) that someone other than Shakespeare
>wrote the plays, sonnets, etc. attributed to him:-).
Take the example of Shakespeare a bit deeper. Sure, if we said that
someone else wrote those plays, they still remain undiminished. Here's
the difference between Shakespeare and Newton. If we lost all known
records of both works completely, then it is almost certain that no
one else will ever come to rewrite the works of Shakespeare! No matter
how many wo/men at the CRAY powered Artificially (or Naturally)
Intelligent CPUs. Whereas the work of Newton is almost certainly
likely to be rediscovered! And the fact that Leibnitz discovered the
Calculus independently of Newton proves this point most eloquently. In
this sense, the discoveries of science are utterly objective and
independent of the acknowledged, recognized, and cherished
discoverers.
This ``independence'' of scientist and discovery is in no way trying to
undermine the lives of the scientists. IMO, Newton and Einstein would be
more than proud to know that people come to understand this aspect about
their work and its relation to Nature. Shakespeare's work couldn't have
been written by a non-Englishman. The laws of math/physics could've been
discovered anywhere! I know it *didn't* happen anywhere, but that's a
matter of historic interest (important in its own right).
Mahipal |meforce>
Alan Anderson
ts...@linex.com (W$) writes:
>[...]
>Who ever suggested their "personal life style" or "hairstyles" was an integral
>part of the success or failure of their scientific models? Their particular
>metaphysics certainly is.
"Metaphysics" is totally irrelevant to the success or failure of a model.
The model gives its explanations and makes its predictions in the realm of
ordinary physics, where science applies.
>How would you divorce Bohr's metaphysics from the
>Copenhagen model?
That's the Copenhagen *interpretation*, not *model*. It *is* metaphyical
in nature. It *isn't* the scientific theory of quantum mechanics. Many
interpretations are consistent with the observed correctness of the theory,
and there is presently no scientific reason to choose one interpretation
over another. Any preference is strictly personal preference, and has no
role to play in a discussion of the merits of the theory itself.
>Questions of how they arrive at their positions are indeed
>relavent to an understanding of their proposals.
In some part, yes. But the questions of *why* they chose to follow the
path that led to the position are not relevant.
W$
>From: me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>Subject: Re: The Future of Physics
>
>>
>You confuse physics with metaphysics. The results of quantum
>mechanical calculations are independent of the Copenhagen model. In
>any case when you do science, i.e. compare predictions with
>experimental results, the underlying metaphysical model is irrelevant.
>It may help (or hinder) your personal visualisation of what's going on
>but that's extraneous to the science.
Truth theory is irrelevant? So if your model works, i.e. does a good job of
prediction, it's unimportant whether or not it's in agreement with physical
reality ... only that the model works?
I agree that this is the prevalent position of the day. I do not agree that it
is a resonable means to compare what one derives from experiment and
calculation to the physical universe.
As I said long ago:
Is it possible to come up with a mathematical model which does an excellent
job of prediction, is self consistant, and agrees with experimental evidence
... and yet is absolute erroneous with respect to the physical reality?
I'd suspect many might say it is not possible. But it is, and it has happened
before. So how do you tell the difference ... particularly if you're not
allowed to use metaphysics? (Why this limit would be imposed is not clear.)
I get the impression you're saying that a theory works (like QM) so who cares
what the underlying reality is, as long as we can predict the outcome of the
experiment. If this isn't saying "the cat is neither dead nor alive",
certainly a metaphysical position, and using that to advance a theory, then
what is it?
W$
>From: aran...@kosepc01.delcoelect.com (Alan Anderson)
>Subject: Re: The Future of Physics
>>All the philosophies combined can't take the existence out of
>>parabolically falling stones.
>Newton did.
>Stones can fall in elliptical or hyperbolic paths, not just parabolic ones,
>and if it's travelling slower than escape velocity, it will always move in
>an elliptical path. Over a small distance, a parabola will approximate an
>ellipse closely, but in general, a suborbital ballistic trajectory is more
>correctly described as a section of an ellipse.
>Nyah!
Well put. And what was the "fact" of the matter before Newton discovered this?
Bryan G. Wallace
book "The Private Lives of Albert Einstein" wrote:
And what, may I inquire, has this stuff anything to do with the issue of
whether physical processes are or aren't Lorentz invariant?
Until we bury the myth of Albert Einstein as the "Jesus Christ Superstar" of
modern physics, with his 1905 Special Relativity paper as the "Old Testament"
and his 1915 General Relativity paper as the "New Testament", we won't be able
to advance to the final simple realistic unified theory of everything. My own
unified theory research has only scratched the surface of the full potential
of the logical advance from the current popular stationary ether/vacuum/space
model with its mystic infinite mass and energy properties, to the dynamic
fluid ether model with its complete conservation of mass, momentum, and
energy. The kinetic energy of the mass moving at speed c in a closed orbit in
a particle at rest leads naturally to the E = mc^2 formula, and the Lorentz
equation for time is related to the periodic motion at a given radial distance
in the particle as it moves from rest to a high velocity. The dynamic ether
model goes back to the ancient Greeks, with different variations advanced by
many scientists over the intervening years, including in recent times
arguments by John A. Wheeler and Richard P. Feynman.
Media hype earlier this century created the Einstein myth, and current
media hype will destroy it. The authors of the above book are both
journalists, Roger Highfield is the science editor of the London Daily
Telegraph, and Paul Carter is the deputy chief sub-editor of the London Daily
Express. On the back cover, The New York Times Sunday Magazine gives the
following review of the book:
Albert Einstein is universally associated with genius and personal
nobility. He won the Nobel Prize and worked for world peace. But
according to The Private Lives of Albert Einstein, the gentle physicist was
an adulterous, egomaniacal misogynist who may have even beaten his first
wife.
Lucy Openshaw in her April 24 post with regard to the book wrote:
I forget when, but halfway through the BBC's "National Science Week"
there was a program on BBC2 with very similar information to the above
mentioned book. Watch out for a repeat, because it was excellent!
On page 1 of the 16 April 1996 Discovery section of my local newspaper, the
St. Petersburg Times, there was an article by Andrew Marshall of the
international Reuters news agency. The article was titled "Hang on to your
Geiger counter! Scientists may have to rethink the universe" and the abstract
reads "E still equals mc^2 (for the moment), but an Irish engineer is trying
to disprove Einstein's theory of relativity, a cornerstone of modern physics."
The following paragraph was cut from the article:
Kelly says his discoveries will shake the foundations of modern physics
and force scientists to revise their view of the universe. In a research
paper published earlier this year, he put forward evidence which, he says,
proves that Einstein's theories of space, time and the behavior of light
are flawed.
I received a 21 March letter from Patrick Fleming, the Principal Scientific
Officer of the National Standards Authority of Ireland, that included two
reprints of papers by Kelly. Fleming had downloaded my free electronic book
"The Farce of Physics" and thought that I might be interested in Kelly's
papers since they seemed to support my arguments to some extent. Kelly's
arguments are based on experiments such as the Sagnac Test and the
synchronization of atomic clocks around the world. His arguments are similar
to arguments I've heard from many physicists over the years that have
challenged the standard relativity theories. The main difference is that in
the past the media journalists have ignored these arguments, and now they are
willing to publicize them. The current empirical data from fast moving
spacecraft over long distances, is far more impressive than my published 1969
Venus radar analysis of the data published in the Astronomical Journal, the
Hafele Keating experiment, or any of the older earth bound experiments. In
general the currently popular buzz term "general relativity" is used
extensively in the documentation, but for the "in group" at the NASA
California Institute of Technology Jet Propulsion Laboratory it stands for a
hybrid version that is a practical combination of Newtonian and Einsteinian
arguments. In particular, all observations of position, velocity, and time
are ultimately related to a primary coordinate system at rest in the
background galaxies, and the velocity of light is based on the Newtonian
particle model corrected for extinction by electron scattering. The general
public and most physicists don't read and can't understand the articles
published in scientific journals on this question. With the new media
attitude with regard to relativity theory, it is inevitable that eventually
the JPL will present an impressive array of evidence in easy to understand
language in the press and on television as they have on most their less
controversial photographic data. When this happens, modern physics will cease
to be a such a farce.
My free electronic book "The Farce of Physics" contains 156 references to
the published literature with quotations of arguments from many prominent
people including Einstein, that are related to and an extension of the above
information. There are no restrictions on anyone making electronic or paper
copies of my book, and there are thousands of people who have copies, so if
you can't get the book by the Internet, you should be able to find someone who
will make a computer disk copy or a paper printout of the book. The
HTML/World-Wide Web Hypertext version of the book is available via:
URL:http://www.Germany.EU.net/books/farce/farce.html
You can also ftp the current corrected version of the book from
ftp.gate.net in the directory /pub/users/wallaceb. The file farce.txt is the
ASCII version and the file farce.wp5 is the WordPerfect 5.1 version and it
contains all the extras like italics and superscripts, etc. The file d.wp5 is
a WordPerfect reprint of my published 1969 Venus radar paper, and the j.wp5,
m.wp5, and p.wp5 files are reprints of my principle dynamic ether published
papers, some that include imbedded graphics. The p1.gif, p2.gif, and p3.gif
files are graphics of 3 of the events mentioned in the book and the file
readme.txt describes the contents of the other files.
Bryan
Patrick Juola
>>You confuse physics with metaphysics. The results of quantum
>>mechanical calculations are independent of the Copenhagen model. In
>>any case when you do science, i.e. compare predictions with
>>experimental results, the underlying metaphysical model is irrelevant.
>>It may help (or hinder) your personal visualisation of what's going on
>>but that's extraneous to the science.
>
>Truth theory is irrelevant? So if your model works, i.e. does a good job of
>prediction, it's unimportant whether or not it's in agreement with physical
>reality ... only that the model works?
Absent evidence from disagreements between predicted reality and physical
reality, there's no way to determine whether or not the model is "true."
From a scientific perspective, it's an unanswerable-by-definition, and
hence useless question.
>Is it possible to come up with a mathematical model which does an excellent
>job of prediction, is self consistant, and agrees with experimental evidence
>... and yet is absolute erroneous with respect to the physical reality?
Yes. And by definition, we'll never know that it's absolutely erroneous.
Patrick
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>In article <DqCLG...@midway.uchicago.edu> me...@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>>From: me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>
>>
>>>
>>mechanical calculations are independent of the Copenhagen model. In
>>any case when you do science, i.e. compare predictions with
>>experimental results, the underlying metaphysical model is irrelevant.
>>It may help (or hinder) your personal visualisation of what's going on
>>but that's extraneous to the science.
>
>Truth theory is irrelevant? So if your model works, i.e. does a good job of
>prediction,
>it's unimportant whether or not it's in agreement with physical
^>reality ... only that the model works?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Are you kidding? The only objective physical reality is the
measurable one. How can you verify an "agreement" with an
unmeasurable Platonic concept. It is meaningless. Statements like
"I don't care whether this theory agrees with experiment or not, deep
in my heart I know that reality is different" belong in religion, not
science.
>I agree that this is the prevalent position of the day. I do not agree that it
>is a resonable means to compare what one derives from experiment and
>calculation to the physical universe.
>
Suggest something better.
>As I said long ago:
>
>Is it possible to come up with a mathematical model which does an excellent
>job of prediction, is self consistant, and agrees with experimental evidence
>... and yet is absolute erroneous with respect to the physical reality?
Yes, it is, as long as you deal with a limited data base. Eventually,
if it is really totally erroneous, the discrepancies will show up. If
they never show up, it is not erroneous.
>
>I'd suspect many might say it is not possible. But it is, and it has happened
>before.
Examples?
So how do you tell the difference ... particularly if you're not
>allowed to use metaphysics? (Why this limit would be imposed is not clear.)
There is no tabu on using metaphysics. There is only an insistence on
not mixing physics with metaphysics, in order to prevent confusion.
>
>I get the impression you're saying that a theory works (like QM) so who cares
>what the underlying reality is, as long as we can predict the outcome of the
>experiment.
What I'm sayin is that you've no objective way to say anything about
the "underlying reality" other than through experiment.
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
comedy archive.
Mahipal Singh Virdy
To W$: Please use less than 70 characters per horizontal line. Thanks.
In article <tsar.385...@linex.com>, W$ <ts...@linex.com> wrote:
> vi...@pogo.den.mmc.com (Mahipal Singh Virdy) writes:
>
>>In article <tsar.376...@linex.com>, W$ <ts...@linex.com> wrote:
[...trim...]
>>>Have to disagree, SR is clearly a creation - not a discovery.
>
>>SR is not all of science. Still, how do the authors of SR `create' a
>>theory which limits the speed of light AND get Nature to duplicate this
>>feat at all observations? Nature is under no contractual obligation to
>>adhere to the axioms of SR.
>
>You're certainly right that Nature is under no obligation to adhere to the
>axioms of SR ... further there are those that don't agree that it does
>"at all observations."
Don't get lost in trying to (parking)validate the opinions and beliefs of
everybody! Societies, particularly politically religious, have a vested
interest in perserving the beliefs of their traditions. The world is NOT
fair. Masses of people have always let themselves be pawns! Why? IDK.
But if you have reproducible data, scientists would be more than willing
to consider FTL. AFAIK and can speedily target with a laser beam, FTL
travel is purely speculative. The speed of light limit doesn't appear to
be a mentally or culturally imposed limit, it's an aspect of Nature.
You have to accept this fact: If FTL is possible, it is in the best
interests of scientists to establish this. All sorts of new technology
in communication may stem from this, etcetra. It's absurd to suggest
that scientists have some desperate need to suppress FTL. Scientists
don't give a damn one way or the other. But they can't assume their
observations are deceiving them. Too many variables to control if there
was any such conspiracy. The last thing scientists like is an unending
list of variables. I know, I hate the existing list already. :-)
>>>>You may know English, but you display an ignorance of the philosophy
>>>>of science.
>
>The above is not my comment, nor do I agree with it. We're simply
>debating the semantics of the terms. Disagreement does not equal ignorance.
Yes I know. It's a comment N. Barnes made. And he's not `wrong'.
Hell, who isn't ignorant?! Can you count the number of minds who ever
heard of, thought about, or considered |meforce>? Jeez... that would
make the entire world ignorant. Let the bliss of ignorance reign. If you
run into S. Weinberg in the hallway or at a symposium, ask him if he is
or isn't ignorant to |meforce>.
[BTW: You can substitute your pet theory's name for meforce above and
make the same claim too. And, no I didn't mispell J. Wheeler either.]
>>Sorry. I shall try conceal my degree of ignorance in future posts.
>
>Not applicable. You exhibited no ignorance.
Thank you. But I do have my ignorances. Anybody who for a nanosecond
thinks they are not, never have been, or are incapable of having any
ignorance... are truly the ignorant pathetic. Truly.
BTW: ``I shall try conceal my degree of ignorance in the future'' is
perhaps the wisest and funniest I will ever get. I know this. For good,
for bad, for funny. Whatever. The sentence should make you wonder HOW is
it that I will manage to conceal THAT which I'm ignorant of? If I'm
knowingly missing something, doesn't that mean I'm not ignorant of it?
[snip]
>>I concur with most of this as well. However, one does not ``create
>>theories'' ad hoc. It's not a random exercise. One can discover new
>>phenomena by observation OR one can discover new phenomena because the
>>mathematical models hint at it. It's a very grey area sometimes when
>>deciding which comes first.
>
>This is an accurate view I think.
And your view is accurate too. Creating scientific theories is a
reasoned exercise. It isn't so illogical that arbitrary pink invisible
unicorns can be proven to propel my car/rocket/locomotive/...
>>Assuming 'theories' are mere human constructs, will the Earth cease to
>>orbit the Sun in its unique and singular trajectory within the stars if
>>humanity ceased to exist due to any one of numerous potential scenarios?
>>You can lose the ``observor'' but the ``observed'' still remains.
>
>According to objectively oriented metaphysics your position is correct.
>According to alternate views reality is in the mind of the beholder. I'm a
>devotee of the former school.
Former or latter? I will have to resort to the dictionary to decide
which school you are devotee of, rather than resort to coin tossing.
OK. You belong to the objectively oriented metaphysics school. Then I
fail to see why you and I are seemingly in disagreement. Or were. :-)
The point is, one can't belong to both schools of thought. An individual
can't be sane while holding on to both extremes of thought. Also, one
way is simpler and far more ordered than the `reality is in the mind of
the beholder c r a p'. Not to be insulting. I've met quite a few people
who think that thinking shapes reality to such extreme absurdity that
they could stop the Sun from shining if they thought enough about it.
The challenge is still open to them. Go ahead and make it so I say.
Makes for absolutely great comedy.
Captian Piccardish: Make it so. Just do it! Do it damn it. Stop the Sun
from shining. I don't give a damn about your laws of physics! I've got
my Ship to protect. If this Sun keeps shining, we'll be melted. And I'm
not about to look for any other acting career. I like being Captain!!!
[Alright, there's more Captain Kirk in there than Piccard.]
One would have to be Crazy to think that thinking shapes Reality. It
doesn't! When Shakespeare's line is inevitably quoted in discussions
like this, let me point out that ``Nothing is good or bad, only thinking
makes it so'' is a value based judgement. It isn't altering the unique
geometric relationships observed in the MoonEarthSunStars (MESS). Good
or bad qualia have zero to do with what exists-provably-objectively.
Western scientists are not trained to feel comfortable around the mere
sight of words like metaphysics and mysticism. It's a cultural bias
learned over time through training, perhaps fear. We all engage in
metaphysics of some sort. Despite this, an objective reality with
underlying Physical Laws of Nature is a reasonable paradgm to embrace.
It's perhaps the one and only logical outcome of the reasoning process.
Mahipal |meforce> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3178/mew3.html
To Mati: Sure Einstein could've been dropped on his head as a baby. But
that's an unlikely physical event from a parents' POV. What's more
probable is that Einstein may never have been conceived if his Mother
had a headache that particular night. Not to mention that no two nearest
neighbouring sperm result in the same baby. Isn't life grand?
W$
In article <4lo0nk$s...@kocrsv08.delcoelect.com>
Physics>Date: 25 Apr 1996 14:03:32 GMT
>In <tsar.384...@linex.com>,
>ts...@linex.com (W$) writes:
>>[...]
>>Who ever suggested their "personal life style" or "hairstyles" was an integral
>>part of the success or failure of their scientific models? Their particular
>>metaphysics certainly is.
>"Metaphysics" is totally irrelevant to the success or failure of a model.
>The model gives its explanations and makes its predictions in the realm of
>ordinary physics, where science applies.
If your metaphysical position is such that non-contradiction is ruled out as a
sufficient test for the validity of the theory it is relevant to the success
or failure of the model. If the contrary is true it is relevant to the success
of the model. At some point the math, graphs, and experiments must be put
aside and rules decided upon regarding the acceptance of the data. If, as
those of you claim, there are NO rules, then how do you decide what is
contradictory and what is not?
Over and over the attempt is made to divorce science from any theory of
knowledge, as if this somehow liberates it beyond such basic questions. Yet
you cannot conceive of, or carry on a debate or discussion without an
underlying agreement as to what constitutes "rational" and what does not. You
continue to appeal to the "rational" in your arguements, while denying that it
has any bearing on the questions of physics. Sorry ... physics is not separate
from epistemology and metaphysics, it relies on them every bit as much, or
more, as any other area of knowledge.
>>How would you divorce Bohr's metaphysics from the
>>Copenhagen model?
>That's the Copenhagen *interpretation*, not *model*. It *is* metaphyical
>in nature. It *isn't* the scientific theory of quantum mechanics.
Okay *interpretation*. Then explain the underlying physical reality your
QM theory is based on. And without an appeal to metaphysics.
Many
>interpretations are consistent with the observed correctness of the theory,
>and there is presently no scientific reason to choose one interpretation
>over another.
But is one correct? And the others incorrect? No, you say there's no
scientific reason to chose. So is the "cat" dead or alive? You say neither.
That's metaphysics you're using to give such an answer. The answer you're
giving is that the universe is "non-deterministic", and this means
non-objective, and this means you can have it either way ... or your cake and
eat it too if you like.
> Any preference is strictly personal preference, and has no
>role to play in a discussion of the merits of the theory itself.
And the nature of reality ... as a question ... is avoided.
>>Questions of how they arrive at their positions are indeed
>>relavent to an understanding of their proposals.
>In some part, yes. But the questions of *why* they chose to follow the
>path that led to the position are not relevant.
I'm afraid we just don't see things the same way. In this particular instance
I'll side with Einstein. I think the why matters, and I think the "cat" is
EITHER dead OR alive.
Doug Groseclose
In article <DqE95...@midway.uchicago.edu>,
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu says...
>
>I think that historical changes are analogous to
phase transitions.
Yes, I agree with this. Eastern Europe and the former
Soviet Union are current examples of human system
phase shifts.
>I trust you see where it is leading. IMO social and
historical
>changes are caused by large scale processes that
gradually move said
>society to a point where it is on the brink of
change. Then, and only
>then can some great man/woman act as a seed and
prompt the change.
>He/she can also influence the path the system will
take to the new
>equilibrium point, but not the endpoint itself. In
the absence of
>this specific person, somebody else will be found out
and the path may
>be different, but the end result will be pretty much
the same.
>
Very nice. Does this not resolve what most people see
as paradox....how we can be both mover and moved? IMO
another function of the "great person" is to keep
hysterisis from overtaking the change. The hysterisis
effect is very strong in human systems.
>The only issue that's open here is whether it is
possible that a
>social system which reached the brink of instability
has more than one
>new stable point it can reach. If so, then the
person influencing
>events at that point can make a real difference, in
the sense of being
>able to influence which of the potential new
equilibriums
>(equilibria?) will be obtained.
>
Is Fred Alan Wolf in the house today??? Seems the
above is a perfect fit for parallel universes, or at
least multiple potential universes. I believe the
current work in complex systems suggests the new
stability point (actually psuedo-equilibrium) is
unpredictable.
Doug
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
In article <4lqd12$9...@theopolis.orl.mmc.com>, Doug_Gr...@ccmail.orl.mmc.com (Doug Groseclose) writes:
>In article <DqE95...@midway.uchicago.edu>,
>me...@cars3.uchicago.edu says...
>>
... snip ...
>>
>Very nice. Does this not resolve what most people see
>as paradox....how we can be both mover and moved? IMO
>another function of the "great person" is to keep
>hysterisis from overtaking the change. The hysterisis
>effect is very strong in human systems.
Very strong indeed. Which, most of the time, is a blessing. I don't
think it would've been possible to maintain sufficient stability
without hysteresis. Sometimes, though, it gets in the way.
>
>>The only issue that's open here is whether it is
>possible that a
>>social system which reached the brink of instability
>has more than one
>>new stable point it can reach. If so, then the
>person influencing
>>events at that point can make a real difference, in
>the sense of being
>>able to influence which of the potential new
>equilibriums
>>(equilibria?) will be obtained.
>>
>
>Is Fred Alan Wolf in the house today??? Seems the
>above is a perfect fit for parallel universes, or at
>least multiple potential universes. I believe the
>current work in complex systems suggests the new
>stability point (actually psuedo-equilibrium) is
>unpredictable.
Which would mean that history may make sense when you read about past
events but not when you live through the current ones. Or that post
mortems are accurate, predictions aren't. Yeah, I agree.
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
In article <4lopkb$a...@tel.den.mmc.com>, vi...@pogo.den.mmc.com (Mahipal Singh Virdy) writes:
. big snip ...
>To Mati: Sure Einstein could've been dropped on his head as a baby. But
>that's an unlikely physical event from a parents' POV. What's more
>probable is that Einstein may never have been conceived if his Mother
>had a headache that particular night. Not to mention that no two nearest
>neighbouring sperm result in the same baby. Isn't life grand?
Grand and unpredictable. That's what makes it interesting.
Ben Weiner
t...@ix.netcom.com(Tom Potter) writes:
> vi...@pogo.den.mmc.com (Mahipal Singh Virdy) writes:
>>Not to be insulting. I've met quite a few people
>>who think that thinking shapes reality to such extreme absurdity that
>>they could stop the Sun from shining if they thought enough about it.
>Some Christians and Jews think that Joshua made the sun stand still.
Hopefully they believe that God made the sun stand still,
at Joshua's behest. There's a difference. The one is a miracle.
The other is probably a blasphemy.
>I knew a guy who made the moon shine.
Dare I suggest that you might have partaken a little too much of
that moon shine, Tom. Methanol is a fine high, but oh, the hangover!
Followups to sci.physics.
Alan Anderson
In <tsar.1....@linex.com>,
ts...@linex.com (W$) writes:
>>...In
>>any case when you do science, i.e. compare predictions with
>>experimental results, the underlying metaphysical model is irrelevant...
>
>Truth theory is irrelevant? So if your model works, i.e. does a good job of
>prediction, it's unimportant whether or not it's in agreement with physical
>reality ... only that the model works?
To the extent that the model is useful for explaining and predicting the
real world, whether or not it works is the only relevant issue. Science
does not, and should not, concern itself with *why* things work, or with
debating things that are fundamentally unknowable in a given framework.
>I agree that this is the prevalent position of the day. I do not agree that it
>is a resonable means to compare what one derives from experiment and
>calculation to the physical universe.
>
>As I said long ago:
>
>Is it possible to come up with a mathematical model which does an excellent
>job of prediction, is self consistant, and agrees with experimental evidence
>.... and yet is absolute erroneous with respect to the physical reality?
I don't know what you mean by "absolute erroneous" here. I don't believe
that something completely at odds with reality would be capable of giving
the correct answers. My opinion is that if a self-consistent model does
an excellent job of correctly predicting the results of experiments, that
model is worthy of being used.
>I'd suspect many might say it is not possible. But it is, and it has happened
>before.
For example? Please tell us of a model that does agree with experimental
evidence yet is contradicted by physical reality. I'm having a very hard
time following your terminology.
>So how do you tell the difference ... particularly if you're not
>allowed to use metaphysics? (Why this limit would be imposed is not clear.)
The scientific method doesn't use "reasoning outside the system" to tell
whether or not a hypothesis is valid. It uses experiment and observation
within the system. If two hypotheses yield the same answer, they are both
equally valid. Assuming they also agree with experiment, the choice of one
over the other is merely a matter of convenience. Pick the one that needs
the least effort in order to give an answer.
>I get the impression you're saying that a theory works (like QM) so who cares
>what the underlying reality is, as long as we can predict the outcome of the
>experiment. If this isn't saying "the cat is neither dead nor alive",
>certainly a metaphysical position, and using that to advance a theory, then
>what is it?
The "metaphysical position" I take is that a model is not reality. Reality
is what we observe; a model merely *models* reality. Advancing a theory to
explain reality using a particular model does not rely on metaphysics; the
only factors that are important are whether or not the theory agrees with
experiment and whether it is easier to use than other theories which give
the same answer. *Interpretations* of the theory don't matter one bit to
the theory itself. (Schroedinger's cat isn't part of QM theory.)
David Fried
I have always been interested in astronomy since I was a kid but to date
I have no degree related to such field, so please be patient with me.
I have heard there are theoretically particles called tachyons that can
travel faster than light. I am interested in other peoples opinions on
whether faster than light travel would someday be possible by humans. To
me it seems impossilble being species of limited action in three
dimensional space we do not have power over space and time. I have also
heard from fiction such as Star Trek of the ability to go through time by
slingshoting around a star. Is this theoretically possible.
I would welcome anybodies input.
LIVE LONG AND PROSPER.
David Fried
Doug Groseclose
In article <4lnt4n$1...@tel.den.mmc.com>,
vi...@pogo.den.mmc.com says...
>
>In this sense, the discoveries of science are utterly
objective and
>independent of the acknowledged, recognized, and
cherished
>discoverers.
>
art is that scientists discover what has been there
all the time while artists create what has not
previously existed. When Michaelangelo was asked how
he could have created his wonderful statue David, he
supposedly replied "I just found a rock with David
inside and chipped off everything from around him." At
least that's the story I heard so, perhaps some
artists believe they too are discoverers.
Doug
Mdickins
>previously existed. When Michaelangelo was asked how
>he could have created his wonderful statue David, he
>supposedly replied "I just found a rock with David
>inside and chipped off everything from around him." At
>least that's the story I heard so, perhaps some
>artists believe they too are discoverers.
probably a fable, I heard a similiar one on the Beverly Hillbillies when
a man was ask how he made a wooden indian.
Track139
Well, **Theoretically** you could use the law of universal gravitation
F=Gm1m2
--------
r^2
to show that when r=very small, the force would be very great, but of
course if r were very small and the object was a star...you would die
quite unpleasantly. Also, this assumes that the gravity is coming from a
point mass.
[
[
[ That's all, folks.
[
[
Tom Potter
In <4lopkb$a...@tel.den.mmc.com> vi...@pogo.den.mmc.com (Mahipal Singh
Virdy) writes:
>Not to be insulting. I've met quite a few people
>who think that thinking shapes reality to such extreme absurdity that
>they could stop the Sun from shining if they thought enough about it.
Some Christians and Jews think that Joshua made the sun stand still.
I knew a guy who made the moon shine.
Tom Potter http://pobox.com/~tdp
Alan Anderson
In <4lntun$1...@tel.den.mmc.com>,
>In article <4llmig$c...@kocrsv08.delcoelect.com>,
>Alan Anderson <aran...@kosepc01.delcoelect.com> wrote:
>
>>>All the philosophies combined can't take the existence out of
>>>parabolically falling stones.
>>
>>Newton did.
>
>You've taken my one line out of context and given it diametrically
>opposite meaning. I don't know how to set things straight anymore.
Sorry. :-) You were apparently trying to imply that there is some
fundamental underlying reality to what we observe, but you managed
to do it by invoking a model of reality that we now know is wrong.
Your position is fine, but your example fell short, in my opinion.
>I know you are trying to help. But, Alan, you took my words out of
>context and misrepresented my intent. My words, my intent. Sure, taking
>out of context it happens all the time. It's OK. And thanks. :-)
I agree with you in principle: the universe is knowable. But in
practice, any model we have of reality is probably going to be an
incomplete or approximate one. The Law of Universal Gravitation
states that 'parabolically falling stones' were really falling in
elliptical paths, and followed conic sections in general. The
Theories of Relativity bring in the concept of straight paths in
curved space. Parabolas were just an approximation to ellipses,
ellipses are just an approximation to geodesics. It doesn't take
a philosopher to overthrow a particular description of reality.
The reality endures, however. That's my particular metaphysics.
James Nicoll
In article <4lqc5b$6...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
Tom Potter <t...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <4lopkb$a...@tel.den.mmc.com> vi...@pogo.den.mmc.com (Mahipal Singh
>Virdy) writes:
>
>>Not to be insulting. I've met quite a few people
>>who think that thinking shapes reality to such extreme absurdity that
>>they could stop the Sun from shining if they thought enough about it.
>
I thought God made the Sun stand still. Joshua just put in
the request for a stoppage.
James Nicoll
--
" The moral, if you're a scholar don't pick up beautiful babes on deserted
lanes at night. Real Moral, Chinese ghost stories have mostly been written
by scholars who have some pretty strange fantasies about women."
Brian David Phillips
Steven K. Anderson
A book that treats the subject well--at least in the Star Trek universe
is "The Physics of Star Trek". Basically when Star Trek talks about
Warp Speed and the tranporter the energy costs become prohibitive
according to the book. Of course these statements are based on current
theory and technology. Read it for more info.
In <Pine.HPP.3.91.96042...@bluejay.creighton.edu>
W$
In article <DqE95...@midway.uchicago.edu> me...@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>From: me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>Subject: Re: The Future of Physics
>To get back to wehre we started, i.e. physics, I believe that physics
>at the turn of the century was at a phase transition points due to the
>inconsistencies that accumulated during the previous 20-30 years.
>Thus I think that relativity was practically inevitable and that,
>would Einstein had the bad luck of being dropped on his head at birth,
>somebody else would reach same result at approximately same time
>scale.
I'd think to be realistic about this claim you'd have to rebutt Wallace's
claims. In all the time on this topic I've never seen a single account that
does that.
When there's hard data available for the asking that will settle an issue as
important as this, and it is ignored, it's pretty hard to claim relativity was
"practically inevitable".
It could happen few years later, and it could have few authors
>(the way QM does) instead of one, but nothing major would change in
>the history of science.
> ... snip ...
>> IMHO the fundamental truth is that we can
>>never really know if Archimedes would or would not
>>have said "Eureka!" had his potty training been
>>earlier or later. (He is the guy proported to have
>>said that, right?) What we can assume is that, had
>>Archimedes life up to that point been different, he
>>made not have had that particular geshalt. Seems to me
>>that a number of people have already proven (to their
>>own satisfaction) that someone other than Shakespeare
>>wrote the plays, sonnets, etc. attributed to him:-).
>Yeah, I think quite a few did. And none of them stopped to ask "what
>difference does it make?". Reminds me that when the last of the
>Medicci's decided to bequeth the family's art collection to the public
>(and we are talking about what's possibly the finest art collection in
>the world, te Medicci's commissioned art work from all the "who's who"
>of the High Reneissance, Michelangelo's David is just one item on the
>list), he added the stipulation that the art works will be displayed
>without the artists' names. His argument was that "art should be
>appreciated for itself, not for who created it". As a result of
>public pressure this stipulation was overturned. A pity, IMO.
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
In article <tsar.389...@linex.com>, ts...@linex.com (W$) writes:
>In article <DqE95...@midway.uchicago.edu> me...@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>>From: me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>>Subject: Re: The Future of Physics
>>Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 01:22:43 GMT
>
>
>>To get back to wehre we started, i.e. physics, I believe that physics
>>at the turn of the century was at a phase transition points due to the
>>inconsistencies that accumulated during the previous 20-30 years.
>>Thus I think that relativity was practically inevitable and that,
>>would Einstein had the bad luck of being dropped on his head at birth,
>>somebody else would reach same result at approximately same time
>>scale.
>
>I'd think to be realistic about this claim you'd have to rebutt Wallace's
>claims. In all the time on this topic I've never seen a single account that
>does that.
>
related to science?
Jedidiah Whitten
Track139 (trac...@aol.com) wrote:
: Well, **Theoretically** you could use the law of universal gravitation
Even theoretically, it would take an infinite force to reach the speed of
light.
--
------------------------------------------
| Jedidiah Whitten |
| jswh...@ucdavis.edu |
| http://wwwcsif.cs.ucdavis.edu/~whitten |
------------------------------------------
Peter Petropoulos
Why can't you keep this drivel in the appropriate newsgroups ?
Why do we have to waste valuable disk space to store the kill
files that have grown to MB size ever since everybody and his
mother started hiking on this ``information superhighway'' ?
As far as I know the ejection of trash out of automobile windows
while on an Interstate is a punishable offence.
Peter
David L Evens
Jedidiah Whitten (ez04...@boris.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
: Track139 (trac...@aol.com) wrote:
: : Well, **Theoretically** you could use the law of universal gravitation
: : F=Gm1m2
: : --------
: : r^2
: : to show that when r=very small, the force would be very great, but of
: : course if r were very small and the object was a star...you would die
: : quite unpleasantly. Also, this assumes that the gravity is coming from a
: : point mass.
: Even theoretically, it would take an infinite force to reach the speed of
: light.
There may be ways arround this kind of problem, if it is possible to
produce induced gravity with certain kinds of preoperties. If you could
form a wormhole, and hold it open (the second probably being rather
harder than the first), you could travel through it and emerge at the
other end with less travel time than if you went via a route that didn't
pass through the wormhole. (I am told that the details of how space-time
metrics that are valid across wormholes work precludes any cute tricks
like using a wormhole for time travel.) Of course, the result wouldn't
really be like a warp drive, it would be VERY much like the fold motors
from the Robotech series (the books, at least, including the posibility
of more time passing for a non-folding observer during a fold than for a
folding observer if the system wasn't working properly, and large
ammounts of energy being emiting as gravity waves at both fold and defold).
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron, | "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,| But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion, +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down! | "Was anybody in the Maqui working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Kalbfus
The problem with wormholes is that you don't know where the
other end is going to end up if you open one. There is no
theoretical basis for determining where it will open or even
what Universe.
Stephen D. Schaper
In article <4lutqh$g...@mycroft.westnet.com>, Thomas Kalbfus
<tkal...@westnet.com> wrote:
> The problem with wormholes is that you don't know where the
> other end is going to end up if you open one. There is no
The problem with wormholes is the worm in the middle. Heck of a think to
hit 2 solar masses at .98c.
--
Impeach President Clark!
--Brought to you by the Committee for a Free Mars.
Thomas Kalbfus
The speed of light is 299792458 m/sec. According to the theory
of relativity it is not possible for solid matter to travel at
this speed, but it is possible for an object to travel at
299792457 m/sec and nothing in the theory suggests that it is
impossible for an object to be moving at 299792459 m/sec.
Imagine a vast space station in the shape of a wheel which
produces 9.8 meters of acceleration at its inner surface by
spinning. This wheel's diameter is given by the formula
9.8 m/sec*sec = 299792457 m/sec * 299792457 m/sec / r
r = 299792457 m/sec * 299792457 m/sec / 9.8 m/sec*sec
The diameter is roughly 9,171,000,000,000,000 meters more or
less. It tangential velocity is 299792457 meters per second,
just 1 meter per second short of the speed of light. This wheel
would make one revolution every ...
T = 2 * 3.1415927 * 9,171,000,000,000,000/299792457
1,922,100,000 seconds. There is another ring just slighly
larger than the ring I just mentioned. It has the same period
of rotation as the inner ring but it experiences a slightly
greater centripetal accleration. One person on the inner ring
station looks through a window in the floor of his space
station to peer into the window in the ceiling of the outer
ring. He sees people walking backward in fact time seems to be
reversed in that outer ring because in order to maintain that
same period of revolution. The outer ring must travel faster
than the speed of light. This fellow in the inner ring has a
friend in the outer ring and their both stock brokers. Each
person sees the others future as the time frame of the outer
ring runs backwards relative to that of the inner ring so too
does the inner ring relative to the outer ring. Every day they
show each other stock quotes from their various newspaper
financial sections. When this happens they each take a picture
of the others financial page. The next day The guy on the inner
ring shows a picture outer ring financial page taken yesterday
to the guy in the outer outer ring. The previous day the guy in
the outer-ring shows tommorows financial page to the guy in the
inner ring. They both use this information to become filthy
rich. No part of either ring is every traveling at exactly the
speed of light.
Is this possible according to the laws of Physics?
doyle@problem_with_inews_gateway_file
Thomas Kalbfus (tkal...@westnet.com) wrote:
> The problem with wormholes is that you don't know where the
> other end is going to end up if you open one. There is no
> what Universe.
Why not send a probe in to look around and come back?
Karen
Rick Eaton
David Fried <dfr...@creighton.edu> wrote:
>I have always been interested in astronomy since I was a kid but to date
>I have no degree related to such field, so please be patient with me.
>I have heard there are theoretically particles called tachyons that can
>travel faster than light. I am interested in other peoples opinions on
>whether faster than light travel would someday be possible by humans. To
>me it seems impossilble being species of limited action in three
>dimensional space we do not have power over space and time. I have also
>heard from fiction such as Star Trek of the ability to go through time by
>slingshoting around a star. Is this theoretically possible.
> I would welcome anybodies input.
> LIVE LONG AND PROSPER.
>David Fried
No, FTL travel is not possible. It is essentially equivalent to
traveling backwards in time and leads to the same logical
contradictions (like being able to go back in time and kill your
parents before you were born). Tachyons may exist but they by
definition can not interact with ordinary matter in any way, so
signaling with them would not be possible.
There is an interesting web site with lots more info than you probably
really wanted at:
http://bohr.physics.purdue.edu/~hinson/ftl/FTL_part4_html.html
The "part4" contains a section discussing tachyons.
Robert Saunders (UCL)
aran...@kosepc01.delcoelect.com (Alan Anderson) wrote:
>Science does not, and should not, concern itself with *why* things work
>, or with debating things that are fundamentally unknowable in a given
>framework.
I'm sorry but I think you are confusing engineering and science. Science
is exactly asking the question "why does that happen, why does it do that,
what makes that happen. Also alot of theoretical physicists come up
with theories that are under present conditions untestable. String
theory is just an example of a theory which so far seems theoretically
and mathamatically consistent, allows for all observed phenomena but
is untestable at present. As in to tell if standard model picture is
all or if string theory is more like reality. Standard model:-
mathamatically consistent(if untidy) stood up to many years of testing
but still thought to probably be wrong, just the best we've got right now.
Newtonian mechanics:- Mathamaticlly consistent, describes macro-observables
but it's wrong, as seen only when microscopic world was investigated.
Two jobs for theorists:-
1) Explain observed phenomena in such a way as to provide a usefull
tool for predictions and applications, but does not say anything
about what is actually happening(eg statistical Mach. Newtonian Mech)
2) Explain what is actually happening.(eg standard model,string theory)
These 2 can be combined in some mixture in one theory.
Jobs for experimental scientists.
1) Test predictions of existing theories
2) look for new phenomina.
Job of engineer to use theory (1) experimental(2) to make usefull things.
There is some overlap here with experimental (2) here.
scha...@ubaclu.unibas.ch
In article <4m19sk$c...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>, rke...@ix.netcom.com
> David Fried <dfr...@creighton.edu> wrote:
>
>>I have always been interested in astronomy since I was a kid but to date
>>I have no degree related to such field, so please be patient with me.
>
>>I have heard there are theoretically particles called tachyons that can
>>travel faster than light. I am interested in other peoples opinions on
>>whether faster than light travel would someday be possible by humans. To
>>me it seems impossilble being species of limited action in three
>>dimensional space we do not have power over space and time. I have also
>>heard from fiction such as Star Trek of the ability to go through time by
>>slingshoting around a star. Is this theoretically possible.
>
>> I would welcome anybodies input.
>
>> LIVE LONG AND PROSPER.
>
>>David Fried
>
> No, FTL travel is not possible. It is essentially equivalent to
> traveling backwards in time and leads to the same logical
> contradictions (like being able to go back in time and kill your
> parents before you were born). Tachyons may exist but they by
> definition can not interact with ordinary matter in any way, so
> signaling with them would not be possible.
I don't agree with this categorical answer. It is true that within the
framework of special relativity FTL travel enables going backward in time,
thereby producing unsolvable paradoxes. However, this is not true in general.
For instance, the laws of general relativity allow traveling at arbitrarily
large speeds. See
http://www.astro.cf.ac.uk/groups/relativity/papers/abstracts/miguel94a.html
Basically, if there is an absolute time (which is not disproved
by relativity) then there is no problem with FTL traveling, at least in
principle. Recently, I wrote a short text in HTML format which discusses this
question, giving some arguments why an absolute time may exist:
"The speed of light - a limit on principle ?"
It can be found at
http://monet.physik.unibas.ch/~schatzer/space-time.html
So, why should FTL traveling not be possible ?
Laro Schatzer
Alan Anderson
In <4m2al7$e...@dscomsa.desy.de>,
>>Science does not, and should not, concern itself with *why* things work
>>, or with debating things that are fundamentally unknowable in a given
>>framework.
>
>I'm sorry but I think you are confusing engineering and science. Science
>is exactly asking the question "why does that happen, why does it do that,
>what makes that happen.
I have the distinction between engineering and science very clear in my own
mind. I see the scientific method as a tool to determine *how* something
works, not *why*. The *why* part is for the theorists. There is, of course,
no clear boundary between theorists and scientists, but I believe that "doing
science" means employing the scientific method to test theories about how a
system functions.
Engineers deal with *what* works. *How* is unimportant; *why* is irrelevant.
Scientists deal with *how* things work. Theorists try to answer *why*.
Becky Bray
Why not just hire different scriptwriters for StarTrek to redefine
wormhole physics.
Becky
Track139
Actually, if you take eye of newt and nightshade root...
A wormhole can and will appear.
Through it, send a probe please.
Should it come back then hops is near.
Boil the newt and eat the root
And you will enter another dimension
And at 23.4 Declination
And 3.14 Ascencion
You will find monsters
who like condescension.
Bye bye from the mushroom forest. Live long and hearty but beware
Ebeneezer: he bites.
[
[
[ That's all, folks.
[
[
doyle@problem_with_inews_gateway_file
Because wormholes are REAL SCIENCE not SCIENCE FICTION. They are being
discussed by respected physists in the most respected journals. They may
seem like fiction and may turn out to be but they seem to be allowed
by the current theories in physics, and in physics that which is not
forbiden is manatory. They are looking for them now. The technique for
looking for them was developed at a workshop at JPL on faster than light
travel.
> Becky
Karen
Nicholas Landau
Somebody posted here on sci.space.policy, stating that the theory of
relativity does not prohibit faster-than-light travel (FTL). I am
not a physicist, but I know a little bit about Einsteinian physics.
Is there any reason why the below point is invalid?
As a particle approaches c, its mass increases such that, at c, it
will have an infinite mass. Since its mass is infinite, no amount of
energy can now change its velocity. I *think* that you would in
fact need an infinite amount of energy just to accelerate a particle
with mass to c, and not just to exceed c or slow down.
In short: matter cannot reach c given there is only a finite amount
of energy in the universe. Even if a probe were accelerated to c,
we could never accelerate, slow down, or change its course.
Either FTL is prohibited by Einstein, or I must have been on very
heavy drugs when I read that relativity-for-the-unwashed-masses
book.
--Nick Landau
nla...@eden.rutgers.edu
STEVE WARNER
Hay David....
Here's something you may be interested in concerning the faster
than light theory...
In 1982, Alain Aspect did an experiment out of the Institute of Optics,
University of Paris. She was able to change the configuration of a set
of polarized detectors microseconds before distant identical photons
struck their respective targets. It pointed to the "Superluminal
transfer of information"......ie Information is able to transend the
speed of light.
What the heck, the literature is out there. Give it a read and see
what ya think:
Alain Aspect, Jean Dalibard, and Gerard Roger, "Experimental test of
Bell's Inequalities Using Timve-Varying Analyzers," Physical Review
Letters, vol.49, no 25, 1982, 1804
Haenry Stapp, "Are Superluminal Connections Necessary?", Nuovo Cimento,
40B, 1977, 191
(Its longhair physics stuff....and I don't know what to think of it, but
there it is, none the less)
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
In article <4m3imi$q...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>, doyle@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE () writes:
>Becky Bray (becky...@msfc.nasa.gov) wrote:
>
>> Why not just hire different scriptwriters for StarTrek to redefine
>> wormhole physics.
>
>Because wormholes are REAL SCIENCE not SCIENCE FICTION. They are being
>discussed by respected physists in the most respected journals. They may
>seem like fiction and may turn out to be but they seem to be allowed
>by the current theories in physics, and in physics that which is not
>forbiden is manatory. They are looking for them now. The technique for
>looking for them was developed at a workshop at JPL on faster than light
>travel.
>
Wormholes are allowed by some of the current theories in physics but
their existence is by no means confirmed. The business of "in physics
that which is not forbidden is mandatory" should be taken with a grain
of salt. A more proper formulation is "that which is not forbidden is
mandatory unless it'll be found out to be forbidden by future
refinements of the theories". After all, according to Newtonian
physics no velocity was forbidden.
W$
From: Mark Barton <mba...@icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp>
Subject: Re: The Future of Physics
>>>For your reference, I consider a fact to be a very well-tested
theory.
A fact is:
1. a thing done 2. (archaic) performance, doing 3. the quality of being
actual 4. something that has actual existence, an actual occurance
5. a piece of information presented as having objective reality (truth)
A theory is:
1. the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2. abstract thought (speculation) 3. the general or abstract principles
of a body of facts, a science, or an art 4. a belief, policy, or
procedure
proposed or followed as the basis of action, an ideal or hypothetical
set of facts, principles, or circumstances 5. plausible or
scientifically
acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain
phenomena
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate
I'm perfectly willing to use the above definitions. If you wish to use
something other than this, that's fine, as long as you explain what
you mean.
>>For the purposes of discussion it's all well and good for you to
define your >>terms, then it's understood what you mean. However, I do
not agree that >>"factual" and "theoretical" are synonyms.
>Just as well, because that's not what I said. I despair of your
>reading comprehension.
I can see why you would despair. Condescension is frustrating, even
if one thinks it's necessary.
>>A trivial example is that you could
>>say theoretically if an apple stem is severed from the tree the apple
will >>fall. The fall of the apple to the ground is a fact ... after it
occurs.
>Yes but it's also a theory, competing with many other theories such
>as that someone batted a cricket ball into the tree from behind and we
>didn't look carefully enough, and that the world is all a dream. We
>can raise the apple theory to a practical certainty, i.e., "fact" by
>correlating many lines of evidence, such as that there is no apple
>hanging on the branch anymore, that the fallen object looks up close
>like an apple, tastes like an apple, etc.
Well here you've hit on the heart of the matter. If you watch an apple
fall to the ground, is it a fact that it fell to ground ... or is it
a theory? I submit ostensive knowledge is valid. Within definitions
of fact as above it is a fact. It's not a theory that it fell, because
someone cannot convince himself of the "fact" of existence, and the
other speculations (theories) are easily disposed of. This is in
accordance with my epistemology.
You see, we really did get around to discussing it.
>>In
>>this case I agree that the theory predicts the outcome perfectly,
nevertheless >>the fall remains theoretical until it happens. This is my
usage of the terms. >>Under this usage SR remains a theoretical model of
physical reality that has a >>great deal of experimental validation, and
is mathematically self consistent.
>>It is not a fact that physical reality does/will act as SR predicts in
all >>cases. Nor do I believe that you can establish that it does to my
satisfaction >>at this time.
>Of course not. However this is not a statement about relativity per se
-
>this is a statement about the future.
That's true regarding the future, but I think it pertains to SR also.
>>>The fact that SR is a creation is quite irrelevant to the process of
>>>it acquiring facthood. It could have been found engraven on stone
>>>tablets, thus making it a discovery. However from there the process
of >>>testing by which it approaches facthood would have proceeded
>>>identically.
>>>It has acquired facthood by your standards as stated above. Not
everyone would
>>agree with this usage. And that is a fact.
>You said in email that you wanted to have an epistemological debate.
>It appears that you want to have a semantic argument.
Not really. I've tried to point out the sense that I use particular
terms. I went further this time and published some general guidelines.
Within those guidelines (definitions) above, I agree that in the sense
that SR is offered/claimed to be truth it fits into a usage of the term
"fact", albeit quite loosely. However, I don't think this helps the
clarification of "that which remains theory and that which is generally
understood to be fact", and I don't think everyone would share the
generally accepted opinion that SR is "fact".
> Since the usage
>I have outlined is quite standard in science, and since it has been
>explained to you before, it is ingenuous of you to start a
>correspondence in a scientific forum using the words in a different
>sense without explanation.
Well if I did that, I hope I've clarified my position. I have no means
of assessing whether the usage is standard or not, but it is obvious
that many "in" science regard SR as truth certainly. However, I do not
recall agreeing that the predictions of SR were facts, or having an
understanding that this was a standard accepted usage in science. Since
this is an interactive thread, and not a speech, it seems reasonable
that explanations can be given as required.
>Since by the terms "fact" and "theory" you
>appear to mean "past event" and "predicted future event", those are
>the terms I shall use henceforth. If you had gotten in earlier with
>suggested alternatives which would have allowed the scientific
>meanings to be expressed, while allowing you to keep on saying
>"theory" and "fact" in your preferred senses, I would have politely
>gone along with it, but now I shall not.
By fact I mean actuality, or event done in accordance with the
definition above. By theory I mean a plausible hypothetical explanation
for a phenomena, or pretty much what Webster does.
>>>>The fact that, to a very good approximation and with some precisely
known >>>>caveats, the mathematical model is isomorphic to the real
universe is the >>>>discovery.
>>>
>>>This is of course what the debate is about, in all but the orthodox
halls of >>>SRiania, just how isomorphic to the real universe the model
is. And you are >>>mistaken to claim, this early in the game, that the
model and physical reality >>>have a one to one correspondence ... and
that this is a fact. ( But that's >>>only my opinion.)
>
>>>Ah, I suspected as much, and the above supports it strongly: the
>>>concept of an approximation is probably incomprehensible to you.
>
>>I see. If my comprehension capability were not so poor I would agree
with you.
>No, if your comprehension were not so poor you would not have made
>such a blatant misreading. What you paraphrased my remarks to is not
>what I said, and the difference is vital to the issues being
>discussed.
I did not paraphrase your remarks. I edited them down and responded to
what I felt was the pertinent part. This is common practice. If I left
out YOUR intended message, as you claim, by all means respond with
what you think it is that was important that I missed. I note that
you freely edit my comments, and sometimes leave me wondering why you
missed my point. But I don't claim this to be a lack of comprehension,
only a difference of where to place the bullets in the posting.
If what I left out is vital, by all means explain what it was.
> You do not seem to have any ability to manage degrees of
>similarity - you routinely paraphrase my remarks of the form "X is like
>Y to such and such and extent" to "X is identical to Y".
Yes I do draw conclusions from what you're saying. Like the conclusion
you draw that I have poor comprehension, inability to handle degrees
of similarity, am ingenious, like mushy nonsense, and misuse terms, to
mention a few. I happen to think you're jumping to conclusions, and
being unduly acrimonious, but that's probably because of some other
character flaw.
>>> As I
>>>said, _to a very good approximation and with some precisely known
>>>caveats_, the isomorphism is a fact.
I do not agree with this statement. It's not been established that
the speed of light is a constant or a limit, it's not been established
that time functions in accordance with the theory, or that the length
of an object contracts proportional to velocity. By established I mean
verified to the exclusion of all other "reasonable" possibilities.
With respect to the constancy postulate no one has bothered to confirm
or deny the data that exists from the NASA probes confirms or denies
the postulate. This situation is the most disturbing, particularly so
because the data has been identified, clearly exists, and even NASA
employees and contractors have commented on irregularities. The
physics community, so far as I can see, has shown not the slightest
interest in the matter, except to laugh about it. The laughter
would be much more convincing if the data were to be analyzed, and
the matter settled in favor of SR. It's pretty hollow coming from
people who COULD analyze it, but can't be bothered.
It's much to early to claim the theory is very isomorphic to physical
reality, particular regarding ALL the theory predicts. IMHO
>
>>I suggest you read the FAQ's for sci.physics, particularly concerning
the >>supposed paradoxes of SR, and tell me if, according to your usage
of the >>terms, the answers there are "facts". If you claim they are we
are hopeless >>separated by our metaphysical and epistemological
positions, and further >>discussion is pointless.
>The section of paradoxes is about the internal consistency of the
>theory. It has nothing to do with facts about the real world. It is
>a fact about the theory that it is to be interpreted in the way
>outlined in the FAQs.
If the theory is fact it would follow that what it predicts would be
factual also. In fact none of the paradoxes have been tested, and
no one really knows what would occur in the situation given. It's
one thing to speculate, even with consistent mathematics, and say
such and such would happen, if you use the caveat "theoretically",
but the experiment would have to be performed to KNOW the reality.
That's not the case though is it? The FAQ's state speculation in
the form of dogma. Every student of physics is exposed to this,
and is in effect indoctrinated with the supposition that facts
can be determined, and theory confirmed without recourse to experimental
verification.
>I suspect you would like it to be mushy
>nonsense that could be rationalized with anything; I suspect you take
>that as a matter of faith; I even suspect that to you it _is_ mushy
>nonsense, but it's not.
I think it's much worse than that. It's an unethical license.
The "common person" whom I get the distinct impression many
professionals despise and feels above, does not have the time, and in
many cases the wherewithal to check what he is told. He relies on the
integrity of those in the profession to dispense the truth and nothing
but the truth, and not to shade it.
> If the real world didn't happen to agree with
>it, that would have been too bad. In that hypothetical case, we would
>with a bit of luck be discussing some other theory which happened to
>be the best theory at this time. However (the Hafele-Keating
>experiment etc) the real world does agree with it (GR, to experimental
>precision, for a wide range of past experiments, in the non-quantum
>regime, and don't you dare trim a word of that fineprint).
Well the real world HASN'T agreed yet. You (whoever is writing
the explanation) are PREDICTING that it will. Why don't you include
that in your explanations? These so-called paradoxes are at the very
least "gray" areas that even professionals in the field don't all
agree on, why present it as if it were all a done deal without any
controversy whatsoever?
There is a difference between the experimental verification that
exists NOW for SR, and the cases presented. One experiment or
a thousand different experiments does not (necessarily) guarantee
that a case involving a so-called paradoxical situation will verify
also. Particularly in cases like the "twins", or "giant scissors"!
What a subatomic particle does in an accelerator might well imply what
a twin in space and a twin on earth will experience, but it leaves the
experiment undone.
The USACE has a wonderful model of San Francisco Bay in Sausalito. They
plug in enormous amounts of data to determine what happens with
changing situations. The model is quite accurate ... within limits.
But when an oil spill happens, for instance, they don't run the model,
move all resources to the predicted points of impact, and ignore
real world data.
>>>SR works quite well for many things, but then so did that which it
supplanted >>>when the proper transforms are applied.
>
>>>I'm afraid you're mistaken. Possibly you are misusing the word
>>>"transform".
>
>>This is probably due to my poor comprehension abilities.
>Lack of due preparation is my best guess. If you want to talk to
>scientists about epistemology, you'll need to find out which words
>have well-established technical meanings and either avoid them or
>explain in advance that you're not using them in the technical sense.
>This is why your attempts to date to start a discussion have crashed
>in flames and acrimony almost immediately.
I could fill reams with the discussions I've had on this
subject. Don't make the mistake of interpreting the dialogue here
as indicative of all discussions on this and similar subjects ...
or even with your own impressions. I don't expect to convince anyone
of my point of view, or have any similar motives. This is just a
discussion. Some are hostile, some are friendly, some are interested,
and some are not.
As to dealing with scientists, I've been doing this for years, almost
exclusively without being chastised for my ignorance, or "lack of
preparation". There've been the usual percentage of inflated egos
and prima donnas, but that's not exclusive to scientists.
In any conversation it's almost always wise to stick to the subject,
rather than dealing with someone's perceived faults. First, it simply
takes time away from the issue, and it's sometimes embarrassing to
discover the exact value of your evaluation of their character
to the person you're critiquing.
>Let me also expand on what I mean by misusing. The most charitable
>interpretation of what you've said is that you've misunderstood some
>remark about transforms in physics and have gotten the idea that all
>models are in some sense the same. The original error (on this
>hypothesis) was to have misinterpreted transform in this way. However
>transform as a technical term applies only within the one model so it
>is meaningless to speak of transforming between theories, and that is
>what I actually know you to have done.
You're certainly welcome to your opinion. My "misuse" can be clarified
by looking at the results of a test run in a particle accelerator -
if no one had heard of SR. The results would have been exactly the
same. Several runs would have prompted the physicist to develop formula
which accounted for the "apparent" increase in mass he was measuring.
I think it's reasonable to assume he would develop the same transforms
mathematically even without SR, or any other explanation for the
phenomena.
In other words, it would be quite possible to express the results
mathematically AND be able to predict results in future tests, all
without having SR. That's not to say he wouldn't go on to "discover"
SR; but he'd be able predict results quite easily.
>The bottom line is that models are different and _at most_ one can be
>correct at a time.
Here's where I don't follow you. If _at most_ one can be correct at a
time ... isn't this reliance on the factor of non-contradiction?
>>> For example, classical physics predicts a null result
>>>for the Michelson-Morley experiment. One can get a correct
prediction >>>in this particular case by introducing the hypothesis of
length >>>contraction of the apparatus. However this is not a
"transformed" >>>version of classical physics but a distinctly different
theory which >>>stands or falls on its own merits. To the extent that
this new >>>unnamed theory gives a correct prediction, the credit
accrues not to >>>classical physics but to the new theory. By adding
sufficiently many >>>patches you can turn classical mechanics into SR,
but along the way >>>you have created a whole string of different
theories, all of which >>>are different and no two of which can be
simultaneously correct.
>
>>I think the "fact" is there's no such thing as "classical physics" or
any >>other such division. There's only physics.
>I'm uncertain about what you mean by this. This is what I wrote first:
>Again you seem to be mostly interested in semantic arguments.
>Classical physics is the name of a _model_. There _is_ such a thing
>because physicists have bestowed that name on a theory. Moreover it is
>perfectly well understood to be a fact about theoretical physics, not
>about reality. To suggest otherwise is slashing at straw men and
>tilting at windmills. There is a "classical model of physics", and a
>"relativistic model of physics", and innumerable other models of
>physics, no two of which are the same. Some of these are dead wrong,
>and of the rest some are more isomorphic to reality than others.
I understand you, and I agree. What I meant was that reality is as it
is. Always has been always will be. There's only one "real" explanation
of physical reality that is correct. To make a division of physics into
"classical", "relativistic", and so on may serve to differentiate
between models, but it's just as easy to say physics is physics, delete
that which is obsolete, and incorporate that which is found to be
correct. And note those areas where the verdict isn't in.
I've heard it said many times that "classical physics works fine for
those things moving at relatively slow speeds, but when the velocity
begins to approach the speed of light, classical physics is unable to
deal with the relativistic effects". Okay, so what? But the fact is
so-called classical physics gives you an approximate answer, and
relativistic physics gives the more accurate one ... assuming for
the moment SR is the true model of physical reality.
Perhaps I should have differentiated more between physics
and physical reality.
>However reading up and done a bit more, I wonder if you don't mean
>that there really is only one one-size-fits-all theoretical physics
>and that classical physics and relativity are actually the same thing.
>This would be really crashing ignorance and I hesitate to attribute it
>to you.
Well, no, the models are certainly not the same thing. The underlying
reality though hasn't changed.
As to ignorance, I'm ignorant (lacking knowledge) about many things. I
have to rely on machinists to grind my cutting tools for lathe work
because this is a specialty I'm not experienced at. Of course I hope
that I'm aware of what I don't know, though perfection at that would be
too much to hope for. As to physics, there's a wealth of things I either
don't know or have forgotten. Mr. Meron has corrected me on two
particulars that I can think of, and I've followed his references and
"cured" that portion of my ignorance. But this is not something I'm
afraid to admit. The other side of that coin is the person that thinks
he knows everything. Like being extremely proficient at math and
science, and assuming that makes you an expert on truth theory.
>>The understanding, and successful
>>predictability of the various models has changed of course. I predict
this >>process will continue. The changing of the models has never
changed physical >>reality (Bohrs metaphysics notwithstanding),
>Whoever suggested that it did? The whole point of using the
>model-based philosophy in the first place is to be quite clear and
>above board on this point. You're the one who keeps trying to blur or
>dismantle the distinction (e.g., your preceding paragraph).
Many many have suggested that it did. Seems kind of senseless to "blur
or dismantle "distinctions. Maybe I cleared up my misunderstanding about
what I was trying to say. I might even be wrong .... but I'm not trying
to blur anything. What would be the point?
>>and although many things derived >>from the models are no doubt
accurate, there are things which remain that are
>>believed by many today which will not endure the test of time.
>So? That's life. I _know_ that, I look forward to it, that's why I'm
>in this job - it's an ever-unfolding story. Moreover in practice, at
>least in physics, old theories that have had a modicum of success
>rarely ever die - they just get recycled as convenient approximations
>to something more accurate but more fiddly.
Then the above statement was not address to you, but to those that think
NOW we have eternal truth.
>Your last statement obviously implies a belief in a non-contradictory
>universe,
>It obviously implies no such thing. I'm more than happy to concede
>that the universe could involve essential contradictions beyond the
>capability of mathematical models (or human ingenuity) to encompass
>it. It doesn't _seem_ to have happened, but we _might_ have missed
>something important already and we _might_ encounter something like
>that in future. In that case _not even one_ model (let alone two)
>could be true. What I am attempting to deny is your claim that the
>models are in some sense all the same so that _more than one_ could
>happily be true together. Again I despair of your reading
>comprehension.
I do not believe the universe involves essential contradictions.
Knowledge beyond the capability of mathematical models? Certainly, much
of that already. Knowledge beyond human ingenuity? No doubt.
I don't know what it is that makes you think I think contradictions can
exist "happily together" or otherwise, because I don't. As to my reading
comprehension:
>The bottom line is that models are different and _at most_ one can be
>correct at a time.
Here's where I don't follow you. If _at most_ one can be correct at a
time ... isn't this reliance on the factor of non-contradiction? Isn't
this obvious? What did I not comprehend? What did you mean in the
statement above if not " _at most_ one can be correct at a time."?
>>but some of the models you espouse as facts are not so lucid.
>Far be it from me to suggest that relativity is lucid because _I_
>think I understand it - people thinking like that are a major problem.
>I formulate the problem as a theory: "relativity is usefully free of
>contradiction" and attempt to test it. I merely look around and note
>that a very large number of people have an identical understanding of
>it and, working in isolation, given the same scenario, come up with
>the same prediction. Therefore I conclude it is well-defined and
>different from other theories, which is all that is required to apply
the >model-based testing approach. We can start an account in the name
of >this theory and allow it to start clocking up points (or not) by
>successfully predicting reality (or not).
I agree with this, with the exception that I think if physics were my
profession I'd look into some other possibilities besides the stock
ones.
I'd sure take a look at the NASA probe data .... that everybody
ignores.
regards .... bill
Thomas Kalbfus
One of the primary violaters of the speed of light limit is the
Universe itself. The inflation theory calls for the univers to
expand faster than the speed of light. If the laws of physics
allow the univere to do this perhaps ways can be found to
travel faster than the speed of light. If the conditions of the
big bang can be duplicated in a localized region perhaps
spacial expansion will ensue. It the fabric of space could be
made to expand followed by a just as sudden contraction in
space a sort of compression wave will form. Gravity waves are
transveres wave and travel at the speed of light. Compression
waves in space can travel faster since the expansion of space
itself is not limited to the speed of light only objects
traveling through it. An object could suddenly be shifted light
years away in a matter of seconds. No relativity (forward or
backwards is involved), since the objects really aren't moving.
The space in front of them is being compressed while the space
behind them expands.
W$
>>I'd think to be realistic about this claim you'd have to rebutt Wallace's
>>claims. In all the time on this topic I've never seen a single account that
>>does that.
>>
>What claims? That Einstein was an abusive husband? How is this
>related to science?
I'd settle for the claims that the NASA probe data from the Venus probes
contradict the constancy postulate in SR.
Grinch
Thomas Kalbfus wrote:
> [snip]
> traveling through it. An object could suddenly be shifted light
> years away in a matter of seconds. No relativity (forward or
> backwards is involved), since the objects really aren't moving.
> The space in front of them is being compressed while the space
> behind them expands.
An object may appear to be closer, but in reality, it wouldn't be. As
you say, the space is compressed, so therefore your means of measuring
distance will be equally compressed. And unless you actually take a step
closer to the object, you will not be closer.
And then when you wait for the wave to pass, space will return to nomral
and you will be back to square one so to speak...neither you nor the
object having moved.
--
G.
Mondays are a hard way to
spend one-seventh of your life.
http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/1229
Lawrence E. McKnight
nla...@eden.rutgers.edu (Nicholas Landau) wrote:
As far as I can see, your argument is valid. You can never accelerate
anything which has mass to the speed of light (or, of course, beyond).
GR does _not_ however, rule out the possbility of particles which travel
faster than c. You just can't accelerate (i.e., slow them down) to the
speed of light, either. They are doomed to always travel faster than
light.
>
>--Nick Landau
> nla...@eden.rutgers.edu
---------------
Larry McKnight
(this space unintentionally left blank.....
Mark Barton
In article <DqnDu...@linex1.linex.com> W$, ts...@linex.com writes:
>Subject: Re: The Future of Physics
>Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 02:07:35 GMT
>>From: Mark Barton <mba...@icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp>
>Subject: Re: The Future of Physics
>Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 11:12:19 GMT
>
>>>>For your reference, I consider a fact to be a very well-tested
>theory.
>
>A fact is:
>
>1. a thing done 2. (archaic) performance, doing 3. the quality of being
>actual 4. something that has actual existence, an actual occurance
>5. a piece of information presented as having objective reality (truth)
Well, which is it? For the purposes of a discussion of epistemology,
Defs 1-4 express a completely different concept from Def 5. I suspect
in fact that you haven't actually conceptualized this distinction. It
strikes me as quintessentially pointless to be starting an
epistemological discussion with "facts" in senses 1-4. The hard part
of epistemology is how to come by these precious objects in the first
place.
>A theory is:
>
>1. the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
>2. abstract thought (speculation) 3. the general or abstract principles
>of a body of facts, a science, or an art 4. a belief, policy, or
>procedure
>proposed or followed as the basis of action, an ideal or hypothetical
>set of facts, principles, or circumstances 5. plausible or
>scientifically
>acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain
>phenomena
>
>Webster's Ninth New Collegiate
>
>I'm perfectly willing to use the above definitions. If you wish to use
>something other than this, that's fine, as long as you explain what
>you mean.
Again, you haven't said anything. Def 1 begs the "fact" question as
noted above. Def 2a is boring - if that's what "theory" means, why
would we bother to discuss it? Def 2b (speculation) is as far as I
can see a simple opposite of fact, but it too is ambiguous - it could
be an opposite of either fact1-4 or fact5. Def 3 seems to be trying to
express a contrast with "experimental", which doesn't seem relevant.
I don't know what Def 4 means. The dictionary seems to omit the most
common, if somewhat sloppy, meaning, "hypothesis". I still don't know
what you mean by "theory", nor even if you assign a fixed, coherent
meaning to it. I will always endeavour to use Def. 5. Of course
this is a loaded definition, being a technical term in a particular
epistemology as it is, but I don't see any use for any of the other
meanings that can't be better expressed by a different word.
[snip]
>>>A trivial example is that you could
>>>say theoretically if an apple stem is severed from the tree the apple
>will >>fall. The fall of the apple to the ground is a fact ... after it
>occurs.
>
>>Yes but it's also a theory, competing with many other theories such
>>as that someone batted a cricket ball into the tree from behind and we
>>didn't look carefully enough, and that the world is all a dream. We
>>can raise the apple theory to a practical certainty, i.e., "fact" by
>>correlating many lines of evidence, such as that there is no apple
>>hanging on the branch anymore, that the fallen object looks up close
>>like an apple, tastes like an apple, etc.
>
>Well here you've hit on the heart of the matter. If you watch an apple
>fall to the ground, is it a fact that it fell to ground ... or is it
>a theory?
Whether it is a fact or not is a function of the epistemology. In my
epistemology, fact is not an all or nothing business - there are
degrees of facthood. The facthood of the apple falling could cover a
wide range in degree of security, depending on how many of the tests
that I _could have done_ I _actually did do_.
>I submit ostensive knowledge is valid. Within definitions
>of fact as above it is a fact. It's not a theory that it fell, because
>someone cannot convince himself of the "fact" of existence, and the
>other speculations (theories) are easily disposed of. This is in
>accordance with my epistemology.
You say "are easily disposed of". You have implicitly helped yourself
to a large quantity of data. If you are going to do that then you can
make any epistemology, no matter how stupid or unprincipled, look
good. The test of an epistemology is whether it copes gracefully when
you give it real life problems where you can't help yourself to all
the data you would like.
I agree that we can dismiss the more solipsist theories. It's not
that there is a principled deductive argument against solipsism, it's
just that all the sincere solipsists have been done in by "imaginary"
hazards so there's not a lot of point in rehearsing arguments against
them. In fact the consistency of the perceived world is a powerful
inductive argument that there is in fact an external reality (I'll be
happy to spell this out if you think it important), but it shares the
weaknesses of inductive arguments generally.
However I can't possibly take your epistemology seriously if you can
dispose of the cricket ball theory without a word of comment. This is
exactly the sort of real life challenge that an epistemology ought to
be tackling. The real life scenario is that a red blur goes whizzing
past your ear and you have to identify the source of the sense
impression. Now in fact if you are sitting on a picnic blanket under
a single tree in an open field, then it would be the work of two
seconds to gather all the data required to sift the theories and
arrive at a fact (preferred theory) and a very firm error estimate for
that fact. However this is simply because human brains are hardwired
to be good at the sorts of discriminations required in this example.
One doesn't need a principled epistemology in this case, and in fact
I'm rather sceptical that you do in fact have such a thing and that
you ruled out these theories on the basis of it. Certainly an
epistemology that assumes that the human impression forming faculty is
always reliable is a joke.
>You see, we really did get around to discussing it.
>
>>>In
>>>this case I agree that the theory predicts the outcome perfectly,
>nevertheless >>the fall remains theoretical until it happens. This is my
>usage of the terms. >>Under this usage SR remains a theoretical model of
>physical reality that has a >>great deal of experimental validation, and
>is mathematically self consistent.
>
>>>It is not a fact that physical reality does/will act as SR predicts in
>all >>cases. Nor do I believe that you can establish that it does to my
>satisfaction >>at this time.
>
>>Of course not. However this is not a statement about relativity per se
>-
>>this is a statement about the future.
>
>That's true regarding the future, but I think it pertains to SR also.
Of course it does. However it doesn't apply any more or less to SR
than it does to the claim that the sun will rise tomorrow, or any
differently from how it does to any claim about the future made on the
basis of any epistemology whatever.
Moreover the common denominator here is much broader than just the
future, it's simply the unknown. The future is intrinsically unknown,
but large amounts of the past are unknown as well. It is _always_
conceivable that what you don't know will turn out to be grossly
different from what you know already. To the extent this is true we
might as well just give up - epistemology won't save us.
Be informed that you come across as disingenous when you say this - it
is like a politician saying "don't vote for my opponent, he's going to
die" when in fact there is no suggestion that the opponent is
expected to die more prematurely than any other mortal including the
first politician. Your target audience finds it very difficult to
credit the idea that you could fail to notice that this is a perfectly
general fact.
>>>>The fact that SR is a creation is quite irrelevant to the process of
>>>>it acquiring facthood. It could have been found engraven on stone
>>>>tablets, thus making it a discovery. However from there the process
>of >>>testing by which it approaches facthood would have proceeded
>>>>identically.
>
>>>>It has acquired facthood by your standards as stated above. Not
>everyone would
>>>agree with this usage. And that is a fact.
>
>>You said in email that you wanted to have an epistemological debate.
>>It appears that you want to have a semantic argument.
>
>Not really. I've tried to point out the sense that I use particular
>terms. I went further this time and published some general guidelines.
As noted above, you offered no few than 5 alternatives for each of the
disputed words.
>Within those guidelines (definitions) above, I agree that in the sense
>that SR is offered/claimed to be truth it fits into a usage of the term
>"fact", albeit quite loosely. However, I don't think this helps the
>clarification of "that which remains theory and that which is generally
>understood to be fact", and I don't think everyone would share the
>generally accepted opinion that SR is "fact".
Well that's just the tyranny of a technocracy for you. You either
have the time, money, intelligence and persistence to become an expert
on something or you accept a proxy opinion. Tough. I regret that in
the next ten or twenty years I am unlikely ever to have an infomed
opinion on the Out of Africa hypothesis. Are we discussing the
epistemology that the experts should be using here or the epistemology
for the people who don't know anything about it and can't even
understand the words used to describe the facts? These are completely
different questions.
>> Since the usage
>>I have outlined is quite standard in science, and since it has been
>>explained to you before, it is ingenuous of you to start a
>>correspondence in a scientific forum using the words in a different
>>sense without explanation.
>
>Well if I did that, I hope I've clarified my position.
Sorry.
>I have no means
>of assessing whether the usage is standard or not, but it is obvious
>that many "in" science regard SR as truth certainly. However, I do not
>recall agreeing that the predictions of SR were facts, or having an
>understanding that this was a standard accepted usage in science. Since
>this is an interactive thread, and not a speech, it seems reasonable
>that explanations can be given as required.
There is no difference in principle between saying that SR is a fact
and saying that gravitation (in the sense of an attraction between any
two masses) is a fact or that say Ohm's law is a fact. It's just not
something that one rushes around saying unless one is distinctly
paranoid and wanting to reassure oneself.
[snip]
>>>> As I
>>>>said, _to a very good approximation and with some precisely known
>>>>caveats_, the isomorphism is a fact.
>
>I do not agree with this statement. It's not been established that
>the speed of light is a constant or a limit, it's not been established
>that time functions in accordance with the theory, or that the length
>of an object contracts proportional to velocity. By established I mean
>verified to the exclusion of all other "reasonable" possibilities.
Such as? There are an awful lot of possibilities already killed off. I
see no reason to take this remark seriously unless you can actually
come up with an alternative theory. Science is always to be
understood as a work in progress, subject to the limitations of
theoretical and experimental ingenuity.
>With respect to the constancy postulate no one has bothered to confirm
>or deny the data that exists from the NASA probes confirms or denies
>the postulate. This situation is the most disturbing, particularly so
>because the data has been identified, clearly exists, and even NASA
>employees and contractors have commented on irregularities. The
>physics community, so far as I can see, has shown not the slightest
>interest in the matter, except to laugh about it. The laughter
>would be much more convincing if the data were to be analyzed, and
>the matter settled in favor of SR. It's pretty hollow coming from
>people who COULD analyze it, but can't be bothered.
This has to be set in the context of the number of conspiracy theories
involving NASA. Provide details and I look into it.
>It's much to early to claim the theory is very isomorphic to physical
>reality, particular regarding ALL the theory predicts. IMHO
>
>>
>>>I suggest you read the FAQ's for sci.physics, particularly concerning
>the >>supposed paradoxes of SR, and tell me if, according to your usage
>of the >>terms, the answers there are "facts". If you claim they are we
>are hopeless >>separated by our metaphysical and epistemological
>positions, and further >>discussion is pointless.
>
>>The section of paradoxes is about the internal consistency of the
>>theory. It has nothing to do with facts about the real world. It is
>>a fact about the theory that it is to be interpreted in the way
>>outlined in the FAQs.
>
>If the theory is fact it would follow that what it predicts would be
>factual also. In fact none of the paradoxes have been tested, and
>no one really knows what would occur in the situation given.
The twin paradox has been directly tested in the Hafele-Keating and
similar experiments. It accords to the predictions of GR (but not SR
because gravity is important).
>It's
>one thing to speculate, even with consistent mathematics, and say
>such and such would happen, if you use the caveat "theoretically",
>but the experiment would have to be performed to KNOW the reality.
>That's not the case though is it? The FAQ's state speculation in
>the form of dogma.
This is a misreading. The principle that you are supposed to take
away is that given a theory, the _predictions_ have to be clear and
consistent. Vague theories will not do, neither will theories with
major self-contradictions. The complaint against relativity is not
that it fails to agree with experiment but that it is internally
inconsistent. The discussion in the FAQ is intended as a defence not to
the charge of failing to agree with reality but to the charge of
inconsistency. Since you apparently concede that the mathematics is
in fact consistent, that's the end of that story.
>Every student of physics is exposed to this,
>and is in effect indoctrinated with the supposition that facts
>can be determined, and theory confirmed without recourse to experimental
>verification.
For obvious reasons, which I will not spell out, in physics textbooks
one normally encounters successful theories, for which the predictions
are pretty much identical to observation. I freely concede that this
creates the impression you suggest. However every physicist who
progresses beyond being a student learns very quickly that it is
extraordinarily difficult to create a theory for which this is true, so
this is not a serious problem among professionals.
>>I suspect you would like it to be mushy
>>nonsense that could be rationalized with anything; I suspect you take
>>that as a matter of faith; I even suspect that to you it _is_ mushy
>>nonsense, but it's not.
>
>I think it's much worse than that. It's an unethical license.
>The "common person" whom I get the distinct impression many
>professionals despise and feels above, does not have the time, and in
>many cases the wherewithal to check what he is told. He relies on the
>integrity of those in the profession to dispense the truth and nothing
>but the truth, and not to shade it.
You don't suggest an alternative. I suggest there is none. Become an
expert or stop whinging.
>> If the real world didn't happen to agree with
>>it, that would have been too bad. In that hypothetical case, we would
>>with a bit of luck be discussing some other theory which happened to
>>be the best theory at this time. However (the Hafele-Keating
>>experiment etc) the real world does agree with it (GR, to experimental
>>precision, for a wide range of past experiments, in the non-quantum
>>regime, and don't you dare trim a word of that fineprint).
>
>Well the real world HASN'T agreed yet.
This is a simple falsehood, at least in so far as the twin paradox is
concerned. Moreover, given the independently attested fact of time
dilation, the Michelson Morley experiment is a fairly direct
demonstration of length contraction.
>You (whoever is writing
>the explanation) are PREDICTING that it will. Why don't you include
>that in your explanations?
Presumably because whoever wrote the FAQ thought it was obvious.
>These so-called paradoxes are at the very
>least "gray" areas that even professionals in the field don't all
>agree on, why present it as if it were all a done deal without any
>controversy whatsoever?
Because the level of disagreement is at the low level typical of any
field of physics. It is no more nor less a done deal than anything
else, so the standard caveats cover it.
[endless tedious instances of Bill misreading scientists as claiming
far more than they actually do claim snipped]
>>Your last statement obviously implies a belief in a non-contradictory
>>universe,
>
>>It obviously implies no such thing. I'm more than happy to concede
>>that the universe could involve essential contradictions beyond the
>>capability of mathematical models (or human ingenuity) to encompass
>>it. It doesn't _seem_ to have happened, but we _might_ have missed
>>something important already and we _might_ encounter something like
>>that in future. In that case _not even one_ model (let alone two)
>>could be true. What I am attempting to deny is your claim that the
>>models are in some sense all the same so that _more than one_ could
>>happily be true together. Again I despair of your reading
>>comprehension.
>
>I do not believe the universe involves essential contradictions.
>Knowledge beyond the capability of mathematical models? Certainly, much
>of that already. Knowledge beyond human ingenuity? No doubt.
>I don't know what it is that makes you think I think contradictions can
>exist "happily together" or otherwise, because I don't. As to my reading
>comprehension:
>
>>The bottom line is that models are different and _at most_ one can be
>>correct at a time.
>
>Here's where I don't follow you. If _at most_ one can be correct at a
>time ... isn't this reliance on the factor of non-contradiction? Isn't
>this obvious? What did I not comprehend? What did you mean in the
>statement above if not " _at most_ one can be correct at a time."?
We insist on consistent _models_ because we want clear predictions and
inconsistent models generate ambiguous predictions. If two consistent
models generate different predictions then they are different models -
this is a definition. Thus at most one model can be correct at once
and this relies on the principle of consistency of _models_. However
you were talking about a principle of consistency for the _universe_.
There are two cases: either the universe is consistent or it is not.
If it is consistent, then with a bit of luck we will find one
consistent model that works (but not two). This is consistent with "at
most one". Alternatively the universe might be inconsistent. In this
case it cannot be isomorphic to a consistnet model, and no consistent
model will work. This is also consistent with "at most one". Since
both possibilities are consistent with what I said, you cannot have
made a correct deduction.
Cheers,
Mark B.
Brian Zeiler
Grinch wrote:
> And then when you wait for the wave to pass, space will return to nomral
> and you will be back to square one so to speak...neither you nor the
> object having moved.
No, he's referring most likely to Dr. Miguel Alcubierre's "warp drive".
Alcubierre is a physics professor at University College of London. It
would take me a half hour to get the reference among my mountainous piles
of papers, but it was published in the journal Quantum and Classic
Gravity sometime in the past year or two.
Basically, Alcubierre shows that with matter with negative energy density
(if it even does exist), a "fold" can be made in space by expanding space
behind the ship and contracting it ahead of the ship. Thus, light speed
is obeyed locally while in relation to a fixed point the ship is moving
at any arbitrary speed above c. I don't think your above point would
address his paper directly.
Dr. Hal Puthoff also has some ideas about manipulating the speed of light
locally by directly manipulating the two determinants of the speed (I
forget what they are offhand, I'm not a physicist).
If anybody wants the references for these, I can probably exhume them
from the heap.
--
Brian Zeiler
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
Since by now we have excellent evidence that relativity works up to
speeds of v/c = 0.999999999 (yes, it is nine nines) I wouldn'r take
seriously any claims coming from realms of relative velocities of
v/c = 0.00001 or less, where the differences between relativistic and
nonrelativistic predictions are of order 10^(-10) relative, i.e where
the experimental uncertainties are the greatest.
To give a comparable example, suppose somebody comes and claims that
he repeated Cavendish's measurement in the lab, using 100 kg weights,
and found that the force of gravity is proportional to 1/r^2.1, not
1/r^2. Now I know that planetary orbits, which give you an onfolding
experiment on gravity are consistent with 1/r^2 and that they are
extremely sensitive to the value of the exponent, to the point that a
correction of 1/10^9 would've been readily observable. I know on the
other hand that the lab experiment, using small masses, is very a low
signal/noise situation and quite error prone if not done extremely
carefully. so which on I trust better.
That's before we've even dealt with the issue of whetehr the claim
represents actula NASA data, somebody's misinterpretation of it, or
just plain invention.
Eric Hoffman
Two excellent references on this subject have appeared
in Scientific American:
1. "Particles That Go Faster Than Light," Gerald
Feinberg, vol. 222 #2, Feb '70
2. "Faster Than Light?" R. Y. Chiao et al, Aug '93
An interesting treatment in the form of a novel, which
addresses the so-called violation of the Causality
Principle, is "Timescape," by Gregory Benford (Simon &
Shuster, 1980).
A short section dealing with the possibility of
supraluminal communications is included in the short course
"Satellite Communications, Tracking & Control" presented by
the Applied
Technology Institute(http://catalog.com/hitekweb/),
presented next time in Huntsvile, Alabama 14-16 May.
-- Eric Hoffman
Johns Hopkins APL
doyle@problem_with_inews_gateway_file
> > And then when you wait for the wave to pass, space will return to nomral
> > and you will be back to square one so to speak...neither you nor the
> > object having moved.
> No, he's referring most likely to Dr. Miguel Alcubierre's "warp drive".
> Alcubierre is a physics professor at University College of London. It
> would take me a half hour to get the reference among my mountainous piles
> of papers, but it was published in the journal Quantum and Classic
> Gravity sometime in the past year or two.
The paper is called "The warp drive: hyper-fast travel within general
relativity"
> Basically, Alcubierre shows that with matter with negative energy density
> (if it even does exist), a "fold" can be made in space by expanding space
> behind the ship and contracting it ahead of the ship. Thus, light speed
> is obeyed locally while in relation to a fixed point the ship is moving
> at any arbitrary speed above c. I don't think your above point would
> address his paper directly.
> Dr. Hal Puthoff also has some ideas about manipulating the speed of light
> locally by directly manipulating the two determinants of the speed (I
> forget what they are offhand, I'm not a physicist).
> If anybody wants the references for these, I can probably exhume them
> from the heap.
> --
> Brian Zeiler
Karen
doyle@problem_with_inews_gateway_file
Robert Link (li...@enif.astro.indiana.edu) wrote:
> doyle@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE () wrote:
> >
> >Because wormholes are REAL SCIENCE not SCIENCE FICTION. They are being
> >discussed by respected physists in the most respected journals. They may
> >seem like fiction and may turn out to be but they seem to be allowed
> >by the current theories in physics, and in physics that which is not
> >forbiden is manatory. They are looking for them now. The technique for
> >looking for them was developed at a workshop at JPL on faster than light
> >travel.
> >
> This (the underlined bit) is simply not true. It is perfectly
> possible to have a set of equations (in this case the Einstein-Maxwell
> equations) which admit a solution that cannot be formed from any
> reasonable initial condition.
If something is permitted by a theory but but observed in the
universe then the theory is questioned. And that is the way it
should be.
> In answer to the original question about sending a probe through a
> wormhole and having it report back, the only wormhole scenario I am
> familliar with is the Einstein-Rosen bridge, and it is surrounded by
> an event horizon. Thus, your probe could never actually report back
> to you.
The Einstien Rosen Bridge was an attempt to explain the electron which
did not actually work.
There are several other theories of worm holes which are more recent.
> --
> -r | That is not dead which can eternal lie,
> | And with strange aeons even death may die.
Joe Varo
Nicholas Landau (nla...@eden.rutgers.edu) wrote:
: Somebody posted here on sci.space.policy, stating that the theory of
: relativity does not prohibit faster-than-light travel (FTL). I am
: not a physicist, but I know a little bit about Einsteinian physics.
: Is there any reason why the below point is invalid?
: --Nick Landau
: nla...@eden.rutgers.edu
I'm not a physicist either but I happen to have just read _Schroedinger's
Kittens_ by John Gribben wherein he wrote about things, namely the
theoretical "tachyons", travelling faster than the speed of light and all
of this not being barred by relativity theory.
According to Gribben, relativity theory states that you cannot _increase_
your velocity to the speed of light. But there are theoretically
possible tachyons which start out at a speed greater than the speed of
light and as they "accelerate" actually slow down.
The way I'm picturing it is sort of like the speed of light is an
asymptote which has symmetric curves approaching it from each side.
Robert Link
doyle@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE () wrote:
>Robert Link (li...@enif.astro.indiana.edu) wrote:
>
>
>> This (the underlined bit) is simply not true. It is perfectly
>> possible to have a set of equations (in this case the Einstein-Maxwell
>> equations) which admit a solution that cannot be formed from any
>> reasonable initial condition.
>
>If something is permitted by a theory but but observed in the
>universe then the theory is questioned. And that is the way it
>should be.
>
I have to disagree. If something is *predicted* by a theory but not
observed, then certainly the theory should be questioned. However, a
perfectly good theory can (and some do) admit mathematical solutions
that do not correspond to reality. The easiest example, as I
mentioned above, is a theory that has a solution that can only be
reached from extremely unlikely initial conditions.
The moral of the story is that just because the math says something
could happen doesn't necessarily make it so; you have to look at the
physics that the math is trying to describe.
>> In answer to the original question about sending a probe through a
>> wormhole and having it report back, the only wormhole scenario I am
>> familliar with is the Einstein-Rosen bridge, and it is surrounded by
>> an event horizon. Thus, your probe could never actually report back
>> to you.
>
>The Einstien Rosen Bridge was an attempt to explain the electron which
>did not actually work.
>
The Einstein-Rosen bridge was used in an attempt to explain the
electron. Its origins are in black hole physics. Specifically, the
Kruskal-Szekeres geometry for the static black hole admits two
asymptotically flat regions. The `wormhole' that connects them is the
Einstein-Rosen bridge.
>There are several other theories of worm holes which are more recent.
>
Possibly, but I haven't studied them enough to comment on them
intelligently.
Robert Link
doyle@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE () wrote:
>
>Because wormholes are REAL SCIENCE not SCIENCE FICTION. They are being
>discussed by respected physists in the most respected journals. They may
>seem like fiction and may turn out to be but they seem to be allowed
>by the current theories in physics, and in physics that which is not
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>forbiden is manatory. They are looking for them now. The technique for
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>looking for them was developed at a workshop at JPL on faster than light
>travel.
>
This (the underlined bit) is simply not true. It is perfectly
possible to have a set of equations (in this case the Einstein-Maxwell
equations) which admit a solution that cannot be formed from any
reasonable initial condition.
In answer to the original question about sending a probe through a
wormhole and having it report back, the only wormhole scenario I am
familliar with is the Einstein-Rosen bridge, and it is surrounded by
an event horizon. Thus, your probe could never actually report back
to you.
--
Grinch
Brian Zeiler wrote:
>
> locally by directly manipulating the two determinants of the speed (I
> forget what they are offhand, I'm not a physicist).
..Neither am I so don't worry about it ;-)
It was my own common sense, based on the science of the "Slinky", talking.
Harry H Conover
(Empty Barrel) Brian Zeiler (bdze...@students.wisc.edu) wrote:
:
: No, he's referring most likely to Dr. Miguel Alcubierre's "warp drive".
: would take me a half hour to get the reference among my mountainous piles
: of papers, but it was published in the journal Quantum and Classic
: Gravity sometime in the past year or two.
Ah, yes! The well known and universally respect scientific journal
"Quantum and Classic Gravity!"
Give it a break, Brian. You were outclased in alt.alien.visitors and
sci.skeptic, and now your have the unmitigated audacity to show your
face in sci.energy!
For those not already familiar with him, Brian slings scientific
sounding but non-sensical pseudo-scientific bullshit in groups like
sci.skeptic and alt.(various UFO and paranormal related titles).
Brian sometimes employs pseudo-scientific babble in an attempt to dazzle
readers with his knowledge (largely limited to 1950-1960
generally discredited UFO 'fringe literature') and sometimes
likes to throw in technical/scientific jargon (APS-57 radar
systems, for an example, on which he hasn't a clue.
You can usually distinguish and identify Brian by the
string of personal attacks and invectives that he hurls at anyone
taking exception to his rather bizarre and unscientific viewpoints.
Let the reader beware...
Harry C.
Gordon D. Pusch
In article <4m6mdc$1...@news-central.tiac.net> con...@tiac.net
>
> (Empty Barrel) Brian Zeiler (bdze...@students.wisc.edu) wrote:
> :
> : No, he's referring most likely to Dr. Miguel Alcubierre's "warp drive".
> : Alcubierre is a physics professor at University College of London. It
> : would take me a half hour to get the reference among my mountainous piles
> : of papers, but it was published in the journal Quantum and Classic
> : Gravity sometime in the past year or two.
>
> Ah, yes! The well known and universally respect scientific journal
> "Quantum and Classic Gravity!"
Hate to spoil your rant, but regardless of Brian's reputation, he got
his facts *nearly* right: there really =IS= a respected IOP-published
scientific journal called _Classical and Quantum Gravitation_; Miguel
Alcubierre (Physics Dept., Cardiff College, Wales) really =DID= publish
a paper on an EXACT solution to Einstein's general relativity equations
that really =DOES= appears to allow FTL travel, and Alcubierre really
=DID= use the term ``warp drive'' to describe his solution. The paper is:
``the warp drive: hyper-fast travel within general relativity''
Miguel Alcubierre
Class. Quant. Grav._11_, pp.L73--L77 (1994)
The complete text is available on the web somewhere, but I don't have
the URL handy, and I'm on a 'dumb terminal' at the moment, so I can't
look it up... :-( But, if you try doing an 'author search' in the Los
Alamos e-print archive <http://xxx.lanl.gov/>, though, you can probably
find a downloadable copy. :-)
Alcubierre's solution does have *one* annoying feature --- it appears
to require _negative_ energy-densities to generate the drive field,
and the *total* ADM-mass of the drive-plus-payload must vanish; however,
many mainstream physicists no longer consider negative energy-densities
to be the ``absolute impossibility'' that they used to...
Gordon D. Pusch | Internet: <pu...@mcs.anl.gov>
Math and C.S. Div., Bldg.203/C254 | FAX: (708) 252-5986
Argonne National Laboratory | Phone: (708) 252-3843
9700 South Cass Ave. |
Argonne, IL USA 60439-4844 | http://www.mcs.anl.gov/people/pusch/
But I don't speak for ANL or the DOE, and they *sure* don't speak for =ME=...
W$
<DqoLB...@midway.uchicago.edu> me...@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>From: me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>Subject: Re: The Future of Physics
>>I'd settle for the claims that the NASA probe data from the Venus probes
>>contradict the constancy postulate in SR.
>Since by now we have excellent evidence that relativity works up to
>speeds of v/c = 0.999999999 (yes, it is nine nines) I wouldn'r take
>seriously any claims coming from realms of relative velocities of
>v/c = 0.00001 or less, where the differences between relativistic and
>nonrelativistic predictions are of order 10^(-10) relative, i.e where
>the experimental uncertainties are the greatest.
I wouldn't expect you to take the claim seriously, i.e. that it would be born
out by the evidence. But I'd sure be curious as to what the basis of the claim
was. Why not look?
>To give a comparable example, suppose somebody comes and claims that
>he repeated Cavendish's measurement in the lab, using 100 kg weights,
>and found that the force of gravity is proportional to 1/r^2.1, not
>1/r^2. Now I know that planetary orbits, which give you an onfolding
>experiment on gravity are consistent with 1/r^2 and that they are
>extremely sensitive to the value of the exponent, to the point that a
>correction of 1/10^9 would've been readily observable. I know on the
>other hand that the lab experiment, using small masses, is very a low
>signal/noise situation and quite error prone if not done extremely
>carefully. so which on I trust better.
Yes, your point is well taken. However, I'd think this would still be an
excellent opportunity to take real world data, and perform the calculations.
Since we've never before had an opportunity to look at such predictions, and
since the order of accuracy has improved dramatically between the first and
latest shots, this seems an excellent experiment for a class on physics to
demonstrate the current ability to confirm the constancy postulate ... albeit
subject to the points you raised above. I certainly do not follow any reason
not to.
>That's before we've even dealt with the issue of whetehr the claim
>represents actula NASA data, somebody's misinterpretation of it, or
>just plain invention.
The data is real. Wallace gave the userid of one of those with access to the
data. I also discussed this with JPL. The data certainly exists, though in raw
form which would have to be broken down and correlated to be used. I'd think
any working physicist could do this.
As to interpretation; as I said, you'd think this would make an interesting
classroom experiment - if nothing else - and if subject to routine analysis
should at the very least settle the question of interpretation.
As to invention, I think this is highly unlikely. I invite any reader to
contact the references first hand and see what they say on the issue.
NASA even has information exchanges, and processing software available for
educational purposes. What's to lose?
David L Evens
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
: In article <4m3imi$q...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>, doyle@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE () writes:
: >Becky Bray (becky...@msfc.nasa.gov) wrote:
: >
: >> Why not just hire different scriptwriters for StarTrek to redefine
: >> wormhole physics.
: >Because wormholes are REAL SCIENCE not SCIENCE FICTION. They are being
: >discussed by respected physists in the most respected journals. They may
: >seem like fiction and may turn out to be but they seem to be allowed
: >by the current theories in physics, and in physics that which is not
: >looking for them was developed at a workshop at JPL on faster than light
: >travel.
: >
: I would qualify the above, less the wrong impression is created.
: that which is not forbidden is mandatory" should be taken with a grain
: mandatory unless it'll be found out to be forbidden by future
: refinements of the theories". After all, according to Newtonian
: physics no velocity was forbidden.
The Principle of Totalitarianism (which was subtly misquoted above)
actually refers to QM processes being required to occur unless strictly
prohibited. Since we don't yet have an operation quantum gravity model,
it can't be applied properly.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron, | "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,| But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion, +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down! | "Was anybody in the Maqui working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David L Evens
scha...@ubaclu.unibas.ch wrote:
: In article <4m19sk$c...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>, rke...@ix.netcom.com
: (Rick Eaton) writes:
: > David Fried <dfr...@creighton.edu> wrote:
: >
: >>I have always been interested in astronomy since I was a kid but to date
: >>I have no degree related to such field, so please be patient with me.
: >
: >>I have heard there are theoretically particles called tachyons that can
: >>travel faster than light. I am interested in other peoples opinions on
: >>whether faster than light travel would someday be possible by humans. To
: >>me it seems impossilble being species of limited action in three
: >>dimensional space we do not have power over space and time. I have also
: >>heard from fiction such as Star Trek of the ability to go through time by
: >>slingshoting around a star. Is this theoretically possible.
: >
: >> I would welcome anybodies input.
: >
: >> LIVE LONG AND PROSPER.
: >
: >>David Fried
: >
: > No, FTL travel is not possible. It is essentially equivalent to
: > traveling backwards in time and leads to the same logical
: > contradictions (like being able to go back in time and kill your
: > parents before you were born). Tachyons may exist but they by
: > definition can not interact with ordinary matter in any way, so
: > signaling with them would not be possible.
: I don't agree with this categorical answer. It is true that within the
: framework of special relativity FTL travel enables going backward in time,
: thereby producing unsolvable paradoxes.
Actually, this isn't strictly true either. SR predicts that undefined
effects should occur for any body travelling faster than light, since the
transformations end up giving a non-real result, which isn't well defined
under the terms of SR.
: However, this is not true in general.
: For instance, the laws of general relativity allow traveling at arbitrarily
: large speeds. See
: http://www.astro.cf.ac.uk/groups/relativity/papers/abstracts/miguel94a.html
: Basically, if there is an absolute time (which is not disproved
: by relativity) then there is no problem with FTL traveling, at least in
: principle. Recently, I wrote a short text in HTML format which discusses this
: question, giving some arguments why an absolute time may exist:
: "The speed of light - a limit on principle ?"
: It can be found at
: http://monet.physik.unibas.ch/~schatzer/space-time.html
: So, why should FTL traveling not be possible ?
It depends on what you mean by FTL travel. If you mean traveling FTL in
normal space, the energy constraints probably bar that. Traveling at an
effectively FLT speed might not be.
David L Evens
: > And then when you wait for the wave to pass, space will return to nomral
: > and you will be back to square one so to speak...neither you nor the
: > object having moved.
: No, he's referring most likely to Dr. Miguel Alcubierre's "warp drive".
: Alcubierre is a physics professor at University College of London. It
: would take me a half hour to get the reference among my mountainous piles
: of papers, but it was published in the journal Quantum and Classic
: Gravity sometime in the past year or two.
: Basically, Alcubierre shows that with matter with negative energy density
: (if it even does exist), a "fold" can be made in space by expanding space
: behind the ship and contracting it ahead of the ship. Thus, light speed
: is obeyed locally while in relation to a fixed point the ship is moving
: at any arbitrary speed above c. I don't think your above point would
: address his paper directly.
He picked a good name for it, since that's the whole idea of
space-warping drive in ST.
: Dr. Hal Puthoff also has some ideas about manipulating the speed of light
: locally by directly manipulating the two determinants of the speed (I
: forget what they are offhand, I'm not a physicist).
The permeability of free space and the permeativity of free space. The
square root of the product of the two is the speed of light in vacuum.
How one goes about creating a pocket of spacetime where these are
different without cutting it off from the outer universe (which is
implied by the uniform physical laws requirement) and how anything could
survive such a radical change in the laws of physics is a completely
different problem.
: If anybody wants the references for these, I can probably exhume them
: from the heap.
: --
: Brian Zeiler
--
David L Evens
: >Because wormholes are REAL SCIENCE not SCIENCE FICTION. They are being
: >discussed by respected physists in the most respected journals. They may
: >seem like fiction and may turn out to be but they seem to be allowed
: >by the current theories in physics, and in physics that which is not
: >forbiden is manatory. They are looking for them now. The technique for
: >looking for them was developed at a workshop at JPL on faster than light
: >travel.
: >
: This (the underlined bit) is simply not true. It is perfectly
: possible to have a set of equations (in this case the Einstein-Maxwell
: equations) which admit a solution that cannot be formed from any
: reasonable initial condition.
: In answer to the original question about sending a probe through a
: wormhole and having it report back, the only wormhole scenario I am
: familliar with is the Einstein-Rosen bridge, and it is surrounded by
: an event horizon. Thus, your probe could never actually report back
: to you.
If an Einstein-Rosen bridge is constrained to be surrounded by an event
horizon, it cannot be said to be a trans-universal bridge in any real sense.