Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights
From: Ste on 21 Feb 2010 16:57
On 21 Feb, 01:45, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > On 20 Feb, 05:27, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
> > wrote:
> >> If you're suggesting that it's improbable that a theory could work not
> >> because its premises were correct, but because it simply promoted
> >> correct behaviours, then wonders why religion has fared so well. In
> >> any event, I'm willing to accept Feynman's argument, basically that QM
> >> amounts to a workable mathematical model, and makes no claim to any
> >> truth more fundamental than that.
>
> >> ________________________________
> >> The whole of physics is like that, not just QM. Physics just gives us the
> >> eqns by which the universe functions. It does not make claim to any more
> >> truths fundamental than the eqns; the rest is just philosophy.
>
> >> Your problem of course is that you don't understand the eqns, so you
> >> don't
> >> understand physics.
>
> > On the contrary, my problem is that physics seems to have dispensed
> > with the physical. Yet it is the physical, as opposed to the
> > mathematical, that I am interested in. That is, the qualitative
> > physical concepts  - what I've referred to as an explanation at the
> > the "practical-mechanical" level - that would seem to me to
> > distinguish physics from maths are largely absent, and indeed seem to
> > be systematically deprecated and devalued.
>
> You should look up, and learn, Minkowski space time. This gives a
> practical/mechanical explanation of SR that most physicists find very easy
> to use and understand. However even simple explanantions do involve high
> school mathematics. Like I said, it can only be "dumbed-down" so far.

Peter, will you please stop treating me as an idiot, as though I
somehow don't understand the nature of Minkowski spacetime. If you
think Minkowski spacetime amounts to a "practical-mechanical
explanation", then you have absolutely no idea what those words mean,
and yet you continue to respond as though you do understand. That may
be partly my fault for being unable to explain the concept of a
"practical-mechanical explanation", or even perhaps it is just
inexplicable or insignificant to certain people, but in any event
please stop pretending you understand.



> > Indeed, your argument that "physics does not make claim to any truths
> > more fundamental than the eqns" is, itself, a philosophical position
> > and a statement of ideology - even though you refer disparagingly to
> > "the rest" as "just philosophy".
>
> Sure. The statement "physics does not make claim to any truths more
> fundamental than the eqns" is not a statement physics can even make. Unless
> you are arguing about the eqns, you are not arguing about physics.

I note "physics" is again given a specific but unspoken definition,
something equivalent to "that which people who call themselves
'physicists' are currently doing" - and the authority of this group is
implicitly invoked on yet another occasion.

You are simply mistaken if you think that all physics has ever been
about is equations. Do you really think Benjamin Franklin stood at a
blackboard all his life?



> Note that you have not (as far as I can tell) discussed physics at all, you
> have been discussing your own personal philosophies.

Only because you see your own position as somehow "not involving
philosophy".



> > This ideological position becomes even more detectable in the context
> > of grandiose claims that "physics gives us the eqns by which the
> > universe functions".
>
> Umm, well, it does. Not all of them, of course, or there would be no need to
> do any more physics research.

If we were to extrapolate a trend from history, then physics has not
yet given us a single equation which describes how the universe
functions. It has given us some rules of thumb and some cumbersome
approximations.

Of course, it's not these inaccuracies in themselves that are the
problem, but the certainty, pomposity, and implicit closed-mindedness
with which the same fundamental arguments and ideas are aired on every
available occasion by almost everyone here who claims to know any
physics.



> > Not only is that a total falsehood when interpreted literally and in
> > the context of history, but moreover I know from the context that you
> > do not mean "regrettably, physics has only given us the eqns..." or
> > even "physics has given us the eqns, and I'm unable to say if there is
> > a more complete description", what you really mean is "these eqns
> > provide a complete and final description of the physical world, and I
> > hold that nothing else is relevant to physics and nor am I concerned
> > with it".
>
> What you are discussing is not physics, unless you want to claim that some
> equation of SR (or anywhere else in physics) is wrong. You are not claiming
> that, are you?

I am actually not claiming that it is right or wrong, because unlike
you I chew a lot and swallow little.



> > And what I object to is not the content of these staments, but the
> > constant concealment of your ideological beliefs beneath allusions to
> > objectivity and ideological and philosophical independence.
>
> If you believe that any prediction whatsoever of SR is wrong, you should
> tell us. Otherwise welcome to the camp that thinks that SR is a correct
> physical theory.

Unfortunately I'll decline membership of the asylum for now.
From: Ste on 21 Feb 2010 17:23
On 21 Feb, 21:40, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 9:36 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 20 Feb, 05:27, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
> > wrote:
>
> > > If you're suggesting that it's improbable that a theory could work not
> > > because its premises were correct, but because it simply promoted
> > > correct behaviours, then wonders why religion has fared so well. In
> > > any event, I'm willing to accept Feynman's argument, basically that QM
> > > amounts to a workable mathematical model, and makes no claim to any
> > > truth more fundamental than that.
>
> > > ________________________________
> > > The whole of physics is like that, not just QM. Physics just gives us the
> > > eqns by which the universe functions. It does not make claim to any more
> > > truths fundamental than the eqns; the rest is just philosophy.
>
> > > Your problem of course is that you don't understand the eqns, so you don't
> > > understand physics.
>
> > On the contrary, my problem is that physics seems to have dispensed
> > with the physical. Yet it is the physical, as opposed to the
> > mathematical, that I am interested in. That is, the qualitative
> > physical concepts  - what I've referred to as an explanation at the
> > the "practical-mechanical" level - that would seem to me to
> > distinguish physics from maths are largely absent, and indeed seem to
> > be systematically deprecated and devalued.
>
> > And on top of this, there is an ideological arrogance on the part of
> > many in physics that is distasteful in light of their claims to
> > "objectivity" and "adherence to scientific principles".
>
> > Indeed, your argument that "physics does not make claim to any truths
> > more fundamental than the eqns" is, itself, a philosophical position
> > and a statement of ideology - even though you refer disparagingly to
> > "the rest" as "just philosophy".
>
> > This ideological position becomes even more detectable in the context
> > of grandiose claims that "physics gives us the eqns by which the
> > universe functions".
>
> > Not only is that a total falsehood when interpreted literally and in
> > the context of history, but moreover I know from the context that you
> > do not mean "regrettably, physics has only given us the eqns..." or
> > even "physics has given us the eqns, and I'm unable to say if there is
> > a more complete description", what you really mean is "these eqns
> > provide a complete and final description of the physical world, and I
> > hold that nothing else is relevant to physics and nor am I concerned
> > with it".
>
> > And what I object to is not the content of these staments, but the
> > constant concealment of your ideological beliefs beneath allusions to
> > objectivity and ideological and philosophical independence.
>
> I note with interest that you at one point appeared to be interested
> in engaging in learning how it is that the speed of light could be the
> same, regardless of the motion of the source, or how it is that
> simultaneity could be frame-dependent. But your interest in the
> physics here quickly waned and you fell back to fussing about the
> sociology of scientists. What accounts for your short attention span
> for the physics? Note that in the discussions I was giving you, there
> was practically no math in favor of presentation of basic physical
> principles and their conceptual implications.

Actually I was still interested in discussing the invariance of 'c',
and I do still have questions. Unfortunately, both threads appear to
have been partly taken over by other posters arguing completely
different points, and much of my own time and attention has once again
returned to addressing the quips, implicit insults, and general
"sociological" points raised.
From: mpalenik on 21 Feb 2010 17:28
On Feb 21, 4:57 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 21 Feb, 01:45, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > On 20 Feb, 05:27, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
> > > wrote:
> > >> If you're suggesting that it's improbable that a theory could work not
> > >> because its premises were correct, but because it simply promoted
> > >> correct behaviours, then wonders why religion has fared so well. In
> > >> any event, I'm willing to accept Feynman's argument, basically that QM
> > >> amounts to a workable mathematical model, and makes no claim to any
> > >> truth more fundamental than that.
>
> > >> ________________________________
> > >> The whole of physics is like that, not just QM. Physics just gives us the
> > >> eqns by which the universe functions. It does not make claim to any more
> > >> truths fundamental than the eqns; the rest is just philosophy.
>
> > >> Your problem of course is that you don't understand the eqns, so you
> > >> don't
> > >> understand physics.
>
> > > On the contrary, my problem is that physics seems to have dispensed
> > > with the physical. Yet it is the physical, as opposed to the
> > > mathematical, that I am interested in. That is, the qualitative
> > > physical concepts  - what I've referred to as an explanation at the
> > > the "practical-mechanical" level - that would seem to me to
> > > distinguish physics from maths are largely absent, and indeed seem to
> > > be systematically deprecated and devalued.
>
> > You should look up, and learn, Minkowski space time. This gives a
> > practical/mechanical explanation of SR that most physicists find very easy
> > to use and understand. However even simple explanantions do involve high
> > school mathematics. Like I said, it can only be "dumbed-down" so far.
>
> Peter, will you please stop treating me as an idiot, as though I
> somehow don't understand the nature of Minkowski spacetime.

You don't. What makes it Minkowski spacetime? How do space and time
behave under rotation in a way that is different from a rotation in
non-Minkowskian spacetime? What shape is a curve made up of points
equidistant from the origin? Why is it different from regular,
euclidean space? What is it about a moving object that makes it look
like it's rotated in a 4 dimensional, Minkowskian manifold?
From: mpalenik on 21 Feb 2010 17:37
On Feb 21, 4:57 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> and the authority of this group is
> implicitly invoked on yet another occasion.

This group has no "authority" on anything whatsoever. This is not
where scientists come to have serious scientific discussions. This
group is not mainly composed of real scientists (although the ones who
are are easy to pick out). This group does not represent a
significant fraction of the people who have studied physics. This
group should not be used as a source to pull citations from or learn
actual academic material, since none of it is peer reviewed or edited.

I have no idea why most of the people who post here do so. I even
asked PD about this a while back. For me, it's kind of theraputic,
after grading dozens of papers where freshman students have written
"no polarization" and then drawn a picture of polarized atoms, or
listed "the force the boy exherts on the mother is smaller than the
force the mother exherts on the boy" as a reason for why a mother who
pushes a boy on ice-skates doesn't move, while the boy does.

You can't call them stupid, although here, there is no such rule when
someone says something so mind-bogglingly sputid. On the other hand,
at least, freshman physics students are capable of learning, whereas
for some miraculous reason, 90% of the people here seem to be stuck in
perpetual, unwavering ignorance.
From: mpalenik on 21 Feb 2010 18:10
On Feb 21, 4:57 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> If we were to extrapolate a trend from history, then physics has not
> yet given us a single equation which describes how the universe
> functions. It has given us some rules of thumb and some cumbersome
> approximations.

This just further illustrates that you don't understand how physics
actually works. The history of physics isn't a series of blunders
that we've thrown out as we get better and better equations, hampered
by our belief in the old equations. Rather, physics at just about
every point in time since the renaissance has been a journey from very
specific to more general rules--criteria by which any new physics must
be constrained.

For example, Kepler, while not really a physicist per-se, devised
descriptions of the elliptical orbits that planets must follow.
Newton, then, discovered that this is a special case of the
conservation of angular momentum, which is a much more general
principle--however, conservation of angular momentum MUST be able to
reproduce the elliptical orbits of planets, or else it is wrong.
Kepler's rules constrained Newton's theories.

Special relativity then changed Newton's laws, a bit. The basic
principles, like F = dp/dt remained, but Special relativity says that
space and time must transform differently than they do in Newtonian
mechanics. However, Newtonian mechanics is still a special case of
special relativity--as the speed of an object approaches zero, the
laws begin to reproduce Newton's laws. Newton's laws, in this way,
constrain Special Relativity. Because if it did *NOT* reproduce
Newton's laws at low speeds, it would be wrong.

General relativity came along and it turns out that special relativity
only works as a limiting case of general relativity, specifically,
when there is no mass or energy present. As the amount of mass and
energy present goes to zero, general relativity reproduces special
relativity. If it could not do this, it would be wrong.

Any new physics must be able to reproduce the old physics in the
regimes in which it has been tested. Any new theory that cannot do so
is necessarily wrong because it has already been ruled out by
experiment.

There's no way to know whether at some higher energy or smaller
distance than we've observed the laws of physics actually are
different than what we believe. But even so, these new laws must
reduce to the old ones at lower energies and larger distances. And if
there is some new, more fundimental physics at a different scale,
there's always a nobel prize, or at least several publications in it
for anyone who can find this.

In order to have a new working theory, however, you must be able to 1)
make predictions that differ from those of the old theories and 2)
show that those predictions match either a new experiment or a
previously unexplained experiment.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94
Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights