For PD....was; Re: Experts doubt Einstein..... but Einstein Dingleberries still worship him
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Another response....Re: Experts doubt Einstein..... but EinsteinDingleberries still worship him
Next: Magician and this Universe. [$15 Puzzle]
From: PD on 2 Jun 2010 08:21 On Jun 2, 6:13 am, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, PD wrote: > > On Jun 1, 10:59 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Peter Webb wrote: > >>> I gather from the context that you believe that Einstein's Special and > >>> General Theory of Relativity are wrong. > > >>> What do you think of Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect > >>> (which was instrumental in thedevelopment of Quantum Mechanics, and for which > >>> he earned a Nobel prize), and Einstein's modelling of Brownian motion (which > >>> virtually created the whole field of statistical mechanics) ? > > >>> Was he wrong about them as well? > > >> Was Einstein right or wrong? > > >> What we have are two schools of thought: i) Einstein did something, vs.. > >> ii) a bunch of experts/skeptics who think Einstein made a lot of noise, > >> more heat than light, and fooled a lot of people. > > > I really don't care much for schools of thought. > > Fine. But, quite a few people do pay attention to these schools of > thought. > > After all, there is > > > still a substantial school of thought that the earth is 6600 years > > old, > > That is more of a belief of faith than a determination for something (the > planet, the universe) that is a natural "object" for intellectual inquery.. > Biblical scholars don't have laboratories, instruments, or systems of > experiments that yield data the same way this is done by scientists. > > but that doesn't mean its existence automatically earns it any > > > credibility. > > The various religions of the world are major creations of the human mind > and in various societies around the world. I do not practice any religion, > but I never the less respect people who do, and those beliefs are taken > with seriousness by those people and I prefer to accomodate them as much > as possible. Co-existence is a reciprocal political policy meant to avoid > bad relationships rather than thwart the pursuit of truth. > > > I'm much more interested in understanding WHY those people in the anti- > > Einstein school of thought feel that way. > > See below.... > > > > > Some candidate ideas: > > - The theory is wrong, because it makes no sense to these people, and > > these people firmly believe that unless a theory makes sense, it > > cannot possibly be considered right. > > - The theory is wrong, though it is right by the metrics by which > > science judges theories. But this points to the fundamental problem > > with how science is done, and this theory being wrong is just a > > symptom of that problem. > > - The theory is probably right, but the credit is wrongly given to > > Einstein, as it properly belongs to other people. > > - The theory's correctness is completely uncertain at this point, and > > the issue is that scientists insist that it must be accepted as right. > > - Even if the theory is right, voice needs to be given to the contrary > > proposal with equal weight, for the sake of maintaining debate. > > > Which of these represents your position? > > None of them. First, a sentence about science: it is a system by which > careful thinking is connected with observations to develop understandings > which allow predictions that come true (at least in high accuracy). This > sentence will surely have at least some scientists who will disagree with > it on all kinds of grounds (including exceptions, teleology, etc). > > Second, I know damned well that I do _not_ understand enough about either > of the relativity theories to defend them against criticism except from > anti-science religious fanatics. This is despite the fact that my > undergraduate degree is in physics (with chem, bio as minors) and I have > no fundamental dislike of either Einstein or science. > > Third, most people really have difficulty, or even dislike, maintaining a > knowledge which permits competing and mutually contradictory theories to > co-exist in their minds. These people would like to _prefer_ one, and > discard the rest. One fact about science is that real scientists actually > do this and controversies all through the history of science really do > exist, and this includes all branches of science. The controversies are > usually resolved if and only if some new insight leads to a vast consensus > in which a majority of practitioners _accept_ one theory over many others > and that this acceptance is overwhelming. This in and of itself is not > "final proof" since various tweaks, adjustments, revisions, additions can > happen to any of even major theories. > > As a non expert in relativity, I can only go by what is said by the > experts and that includes people who wrote books on the subject. When I > was much younger, I accepted relativity because my physics teachers did > and most of the books (and journal articles) did, too. I thought the > "fringe" crowd were basically a very _few_ nut-cases. Over the years, it > seems that there is a substantial number of people who question relativity > to the point where they deserve an audience. > > A book I read decades ago, "Beyond the Edge of Certainty" ed. by Colodney > ('60s-70s) with chapters by professors of philosophy departments opened my > eyes to the historical development of the Newton laws of motion. You might > think this is trivial stuff; after all, we all _accept_ these laws, and > nobody questions them. Yet the book, a very serious book, presented a very > interesting "interpretation" of these laws which allowed for the > possibility that we don't know as much as we think we do about these laws > and about physical phenomena. > > Another angle in this discussion is semantics and the psychology of the > human brain. We all have at least some kinds of intuitive concepts of > the physical world through the psychology of our brains. This also > includes a whole dependence on words and their semantics and how they are > derived from simple, practical interpretations. When non-intuitive (eg. > quantum theory) science (physics) is involved, the correspondence between > the non-intuitive phenomena become inaccurately describable with our > intuitive lexicon, and that is where the rub occurs. > > I also recently (a few days ago) re-read the chapter on the wave-particle > duality in an advanced undergraduate textbook I have on quantum mechanics.. > I have always been uncomfortable with this explanation, but the book (also > authored by a professor of physics) was also uncomfortable with this, too, > and I'll say that the book did a nice job of explaining the "status" of > this idea that the wave-particle "duality" means that somehow light has > both particle and wave properties _simultaneously_. The book, > unfortunately did not get into the area of philosophy which asks or > studies "what is knowledge" and how do we design experiments which include > so called "strong inference" (or, in short, can you design one experiment > which proves light is either wave or particle instead of two experiments: > one in which light is a wave or not a wave, and a second in which light is > a particle or not a particle, and, thus this leaves open the possibility > that light is something else). > > So, in the end, I must leave my eyes open to all possibilities, including > recognizing that there is a school of thought (I have not studied it > deeply) that includes very bright people who argue against Einstein's > theory of relativity. Perhaps one day I may look at some of these books > and try to decide, only for myself, if there is anything to them. And, if > I make noise about these anti-Einstein books, it does not mean, > necessarily, that I think Einstein is wrong or totally wrong. Only that > there are experts who doubt Einstein's theories. And, that leaves me at > the position that the doubters deserve further study. > > And, I also know that there is a Flat Earth Society with a very small > number of members who you also cannot argue with because their arguments > are non-debateable through -- perhaps-- some peculiar version of logic. > Me? I am sure the earth is a sphere, and satellites really do orbit, etc. > Cosmology is another mess: cosmologists have many theories of black holes > and articles I read in the popular media that are authored by guys who > know more about it than I do say that these theories leave a lot to be > desired, so there is a problem there, too. > > There are two other dangerous but useful books out there that I have read: > "The End of Science" and "The End of Physics." Both written by > scientists/physicists. > > Sorry for the long response, but I took your question seriously. > > I have a PhD in biology, and am retired after a career with my own > laboratory, staff, publications in peer-reivewed journals, grants from > granting agencies, books edited, invited conference papers, conference > organization, and retired from a faculty appointment (research professor) > at a major university. > > > > Well, thank you for your long reply. I'll just make a few middling comments. 1. I don't think it's right to say that physics expects people to hold contrary notions in their head at the same time. You mentioned particle-wave duality. This is a classic example of the confrontation of conceptual pigeonholing against an observation that resists this pigeonholing. Our conceptual and linguistic framework is slow-moving, and up until a century ago it was shaped by our senses and what thin slice of reality is available to us through those senses. It is natural for humans to categorize what they see, and to categorize the concepts that are derivatives of what they see. This leads to the unfortunate thing that you describe: that electrons and photons are characterized as having the properties of two mutually exclusive and exhaustive concepts (particles and waves) at the same time. This in itself should cause one to rethink whether those concepts are in fact mutually exclusive or exhaustive, or whether the categorization is appropriate at all -- just as monotremes no doubt disrupted how people traditionally classified animals. A more balanced reading selection would have also exposed you to the notion that there may be a THIRD class of physical entities, which is neither particle nor wave, but which shares some of the properties of each. And in fact, it turns out that EVERYTHING belongs in this third class, and it's only in some approximate sense that the true behavior of this class exhibits itself in two dominant behavior types that we assumed were distinct -- incorrectly so. 2. Just because there are "experts" and educated people who are actively questioning whether a theory is right does not necessarily suggest that there is significant controversy. In a very real sense, science rates theories operationally and competitively. Which theory produces the most accurate predictions of observations in the widest set of circumstances? This evaluation is therefore one that is pretty much a tally system and is usually not controversial, nor does it leave open much room for personal conviction by weighing logic or presentation of opposing theories. Of the various candidates that have been put forward, relativity and quantum mechanics are the most successful so far, by that metric. 3. This is not to say that relativity and quantum mechanics are closed books. No theory is just flat out accepted -- none. Moreover, a theory changes complexion as more applications are studied and more questions asked about it -- just as evolution AS A THEORY has dramatically changed since it was put forward by Darwin. And there is always opportunity to test a theory experimentally in a domain or at a precision where it has not been tested previously -- all in the hope of discovering that it isn't as right as once thought. That's why tests continue to this day. 4. I think it is good that you have decided to not just "accept" relativity or quantum mechanics because a trusted teacher also accepted it. But in the requestioning, the FIRST thing you have to decide is how you are going to go about settling the matter for yourself. What I would suggest is that you seriously weigh what I suggested above -- the preponderance of experimental data in the widest set of applications. I think you'll find this more valuable than whether a theory is overwhelmingly accepted by a community, quashing all counterarguments.
From: Me, ...again! on 2 Jun 2010 11:24 On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, PD wrote: > On Jun 2, 6:13 am, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, PD wrote: >>> On Jun 1, 10:59 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: >>>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Peter Webb wrote: >>>>> I gather from the context that you believe that Einstein's Special and >>>>> General Theory of Relativity are wrong. >> >>>>> What do you think of Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect >>>>> (which was instrumental in thedevelopment of Quantum Mechanics, and for which >>>>> he earned a Nobel prize), and Einstein's modelling of Brownian motion (which >>>>> virtually created the whole field of statistical mechanics) ? >> >>>>> Was he wrong about them as well? >> >>>> Was Einstein right or wrong? >> >>>> What we have are two schools of thought: i) Einstein did something, vs. >>>> ii) a bunch of experts/skeptics who think Einstein made a lot of noise, >>>> more heat than light, and fooled a lot of people. >> >>> I really don't care much for schools of thought. >> >> Fine. But, quite a few people do pay attention to these schools of >> thought. >> >> After all, there is >> >>> still a substantial school of thought that the earth is 6600 years >>> old, >> >> That is more of a belief of faith than a determination for something (the >> planet, the universe) that is a natural "object" for intellectual inquery. >> Biblical scholars don't have laboratories, instruments, or systems of >> experiments that yield data the same way this is done by scientists. >> >> but that doesn't mean its existence automatically earns it any >> >>> credibility. >> >> The various religions of the world are major creations of the human mind >> and in various societies around the world. I do not practice any religion, >> but I never the less respect people who do, and those beliefs are taken >> with seriousness by those people and I prefer to accomodate them as much >> as possible. Co-existence is a reciprocal political policy meant to avoid >> bad relationships rather than thwart the pursuit of truth. >> >>> I'm much more interested in understanding WHY those people in the anti- >>> Einstein school of thought feel that way. >> >> See below.... >> >> >> >>> Some candidate ideas: >>> - The theory is wrong, because it makes no sense to these people, and >>> these people firmly believe that unless a theory makes sense, it >>> cannot possibly be considered right. >>> - The theory is wrong, though it is right by the metrics by which >>> science judges theories. But this points to the fundamental problem >>> with how science is done, and this theory being wrong is just a >>> symptom of that problem. >>> - The theory is probably right, but the credit is wrongly given to >>> Einstein, as it properly belongs to other people. >>> - The theory's correctness is completely uncertain at this point, and >>> the issue is that scientists insist that it must be accepted as right. >>> - Even if the theory is right, voice needs to be given to the contrary >>> proposal with equal weight, for the sake of maintaining debate. >> >>> Which of these represents your position? >> >> None of them. First, a sentence about science: it is a system by which >> careful thinking is connected with observations to develop understandings >> which allow predictions that come true (at least in high accuracy). This >> sentence will surely have at least some scientists who will disagree with >> it on all kinds of grounds (including exceptions, teleology, etc). >> >> Second, I know damned well that I do _not_ understand enough about either >> of the relativity theories to defend them against criticism except from >> anti-science religious fanatics. This is despite the fact that my >> undergraduate degree is in physics (with chem, bio as minors) and I have >> no fundamental dislike of either Einstein or science. >> >> Third, most people really have difficulty, or even dislike, maintaining a >> knowledge which permits competing and mutually contradictory theories to >> co-exist in their minds. These people would like to _prefer_ one, and >> discard the rest. One fact about science is that real scientists actually >> do this and controversies all through the history of science really do >> exist, and this includes all branches of science. The controversies are >> usually resolved if and only if some new insight leads to a vast consensus >> in which a majority of practitioners _accept_ one theory over many others >> and that this acceptance is overwhelming. This in and of itself is not >> "final proof" since various tweaks, adjustments, revisions, additions can >> happen to any of even major theories. >> >> As a non expert in relativity, I can only go by what is said by the >> experts and that includes people who wrote books on the subject. When I >> was much younger, I accepted relativity because my physics teachers did >> and most of the books (and journal articles) did, too. I thought the >> "fringe" crowd were basically a very _few_ nut-cases. Over the years, it >> seems that there is a substantial number of people who question relativity >> to the point where they deserve an audience. >> >> A book I read decades ago, "Beyond the Edge of Certainty" ed. by Colodney >> ('60s-70s) with chapters by professors of philosophy departments opened my >> eyes to the historical development of the Newton laws of motion. You might >> think this is trivial stuff; after all, we all _accept_ these laws, and >> nobody questions them. Yet the book, a very serious book, presented a very >> interesting "interpretation" of these laws which allowed for the >> possibility that we don't know as much as we think we do about these laws >> and about physical phenomena. >> >> Another angle in this discussion is semantics and the psychology of the >> human brain. We all have at least some kinds of intuitive concepts of >> the physical world through the psychology of our brains. This also >> includes a whole dependence on words and their semantics and how they are >> derived from simple, practical interpretations. When non-intuitive (eg. >> quantum theory) science (physics) is involved, the correspondence between >> the non-intuitive phenomena become inaccurately describable with our >> intuitive lexicon, and that is where the rub occurs. >> >> I also recently (a few days ago) re-read the chapter on the wave-particle >> duality in an advanced undergraduate textbook I have on quantum mechanics. >> I have always been uncomfortable with this explanation, but the book (also >> authored by a professor of physics) was also uncomfortable with this, too, >> and I'll say that the book did a nice job of explaining the "status" of >> this idea that the wave-particle "duality" means that somehow light has >> both particle and wave properties _simultaneously_. The book, >> unfortunately did not get into the area of philosophy which asks or >> studies "what is knowledge" and how do we design experiments which include >> so called "strong inference" (or, in short, can you design one experiment >> which proves light is either wave or particle instead of two experiments: >> one in which light is a wave or not a wave, and a second in which light is >> a particle or not a particle, and, thus this leaves open the possibility >> that light is something else). >> >> So, in the end, I must leave my eyes open to all possibilities, including >> recognizing that there is a school of thought (I have not studied it >> deeply) that includes very bright people who argue against Einstein's >> theory of relativity. Perhaps one day I may look at some of these books >> and try to decide, only for myself, if there is anything to them. And, if >> I make noise about these anti-Einstein books, it does not mean, >> necessarily, that I think Einstein is wrong or totally wrong. Only that >> there are experts who doubt Einstein's theories. And, that leaves me at >> the position that the doubters deserve further study. >> >> And, I also know that there is a Flat Earth Society with a very small >> number of members who you also cannot argue with because their arguments >> are non-debateable through -- perhaps-- some peculiar version of logic. >> Me? I am sure the earth is a sphere, and satellites really do orbit, etc. >> Cosmology is another mess: cosmologists have many theories of black holes >> and articles I read in the popular media that are authored by guys who >> know more about it than I do say that these theories leave a lot to be >> desired, so there is a problem there, too. >> >> There are two other dangerous but useful books out there that I have read: >> "The End of Science" and "The End of Physics." Both written by >> scientists/physicists. >> >> Sorry for the long response, but I took your question seriously. >> >> I have a PhD in biology, and am retired after a career with my own >> laboratory, staff, publications in peer-reivewed journals, grants from >> granting agencies, books edited, invited conference papers, conference >> organization, and retired from a faculty appointment (research professor) >> at a major university. >> >> >> >> > > Well, thank you for your long reply. I'll just make a few middling > comments. > > 1. I don't think it's right to say that physics expects people to hold > contrary notions in their head at the same time. Most physics (and other) textbooks actually teach dogmatically. I will invite you to get a copy of "Quantum Physics: A User's Manual" by Michael A. Morrison (he is at University of Oklahoma, and wrote other books) and read around the chapter on wave-particle duality (I have read the whole chapter) and tell me, after you read it, if you would still say what you just said. You mentioned > particle-wave duality. This is a classic example of the confrontation > of conceptual pigeonholing against an observation that resists this > pigeonholing. Our conceptual and linguistic framework is slow-moving, > and up until a century ago it was shaped by our senses and what thin > slice of reality is available to us through those senses. It is > natural for humans to categorize what they see, and to categorize the > concepts that are derivatives of what they see. This leads to the > unfortunate thing that you describe: that electrons and photons are > characterized as having the properties of two mutually exclusive and > exhaustive concepts (particles and waves) at the same time. This in > itself should cause one to rethink whether those concepts are in fact > mutually exclusive or exhaustive, or whether the categorization is > appropriate at all -- just as monotremes no doubt disrupted how people > traditionally classified animals. A more balanced reading selection > would have also exposed you to the notion that there may be a THIRD > class of physical entities, which is neither particle nor wave, but > which shares some of the properties of each. And in fact, it turns out > that EVERYTHING belongs in this third class, and it's only in some > approximate sense that the true behavior of this class exhibits itself > in two dominant behavior types that we assumed were distinct -- > incorrectly so. Um, what is this third class? Another theory? > 2. Just because there are "experts" and educated people who are > actively questioning whether a theory is right does not necessarily > suggest that there is significant controversy. In a very real sense, > science rates theories operationally and competitively. Which theory > produces the most accurate predictions of observations in the widest > set of circumstances? This evaluation is therefore one that is pretty > much a tally system and is usually not controversial, nor does it > leave open much room for personal conviction by weighing logic or > presentation of opposing theories. Of the various candidates that have > been put forward, relativity and quantum mechanics are the most > successful so far, by that metric. Well, you are welcome to state your case. I have also welcomed the "opposition" to state their case. I am not defending either case, but merely stating that there are two schools of thought and I don't have the time or resources to become an expert. > 3. This is not to say that relativity and quantum mechanics are closed > books. No theory is just flat out accepted -- none. Moreover, a theory > changes complexion as more applications are studied and more questions > asked about it -- just as evolution AS A THEORY has dramatically > changed since it was put forward by Darwin. Actually, I am more familiar with this area and the consensus is that evolution really has not dramatically changed since Darwin. And there is always > opportunity to test a theory experimentally in a domain With astronomical distances, and geological time scales, these are two examples where test-tube experiments are NOT always possible. or at a > precision where it has not been tested previously -- all in the hope > of discovering that it isn't as right as once thought. That's why > tests continue to this day. I'd also suggest you read both Kuhn's and Fuerabend's works on the nature of scientific progress (but perhaps you have already?) > 4. I think it is good that you have decided to not just "accept" > relativity or quantum mechanics because a trusted teacher also > accepted it. But in the requestioning, the FIRST thing you have to > decide is how you are going to go about settling the matter for > yourself. What I would suggest is that you seriously weigh what I > suggested above -- the preponderance of experimental data in the > widest set of applications. I think you'll find this more valuable > than whether a theory is overwhelmingly accepted by a community, > quashing all counterarguments. One of the problems in some of these areas is that the arguments are circularly self-consistent. Thus the data are _consistent_ with the theory, but do not prove it. I am happy with GPS capabilities (but still use old paper maps, and my memory, and ask people...to find places) and that some GR/SR details help with navigation, but I have also read persuasive arguments that the story is not complete. There are two other books I've read: "The End of Science" and "The End of Physics" by guys who spent a whole lot of time and effort developing their themes and I can't dismiss them out of beligerant dogmatism. The first book was widely panned in book reviews, but I had the feeling that the guy was making an observation worth thinking about even if it went against the grain of conventional thinking. Therefore, I try to pay attention to contrarian thinking at least to be aware that conventional thinking might be wrong. I appreciate your viewpoints and have the perception that we are not all that far appart in many aspects. At least I was surprised at how many anti-Einstein books were really out there, and not authored by crackpot-weirdos, either, but people who did think about things and did a lot of reading, too.
From: PD on 2 Jun 2010 16:14
On Jun 2, 10:24 am, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, PD wrote: > > On Jun 2, 6:13 am, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, PD wrote: > >>> On Jun 1, 10:59 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > >>>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Peter Webb wrote: > >>>>> I gather from the context that you believe that Einstein's Special and > >>>>> General Theory of Relativity are wrong. > > >>>>> What do you think of Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect > >>>>> (which was instrumental in thedevelopment of Quantum Mechanics, and for which > >>>>> he earned a Nobel prize), and Einstein's modelling of Brownian motion (which > >>>>> virtually created the whole field of statistical mechanics) ? > > >>>>> Was he wrong about them as well? > > >>>> Was Einstein right or wrong? > > >>>> What we have are two schools of thought: i) Einstein did something, vs. > >>>> ii) a bunch of experts/skeptics who think Einstein made a lot of noise, > >>>> more heat than light, and fooled a lot of people. > > >>> I really don't care much for schools of thought. > > >> Fine. But, quite a few people do pay attention to these schools of > >> thought. > > >> After all, there is > > >>> still a substantial school of thought that the earth is 6600 years > >>> old, > > >> That is more of a belief of faith than a determination for something (the > >> planet, the universe) that is a natural "object" for intellectual inquery. > >> Biblical scholars don't have laboratories, instruments, or systems of > >> experiments that yield data the same way this is done by scientists. > > >> but that doesn't mean its existence automatically earns it any > > >>> credibility. > > >> The various religions of the world are major creations of the human mind > >> and in various societies around the world. I do not practice any religion, > >> but I never the less respect people who do, and those beliefs are taken > >> with seriousness by those people and I prefer to accomodate them as much > >> as possible. Co-existence is a reciprocal political policy meant to avoid > >> bad relationships rather than thwart the pursuit of truth. > > >>> I'm much more interested in understanding WHY those people in the anti- > >>> Einstein school of thought feel that way. > > >> See below.... > > >>> Some candidate ideas: > >>> - The theory is wrong, because it makes no sense to these people, and > >>> these people firmly believe that unless a theory makes sense, it > >>> cannot possibly be considered right. > >>> - The theory is wrong, though it is right by the metrics by which > >>> science judges theories. But this points to the fundamental problem > >>> with how science is done, and this theory being wrong is just a > >>> symptom of that problem. > >>> - The theory is probably right, but the credit is wrongly given to > >>> Einstein, as it properly belongs to other people. > >>> - The theory's correctness is completely uncertain at this point, and > >>> the issue is that scientists insist that it must be accepted as right.. > >>> - Even if the theory is right, voice needs to be given to the contrary > >>> proposal with equal weight, for the sake of maintaining debate. > > >>> Which of these represents your position? > > >> None of them. First, a sentence about science: it is a system by which > >> careful thinking is connected with observations to develop understandings > >> which allow predictions that come true (at least in high accuracy). This > >> sentence will surely have at least some scientists who will disagree with > >> it on all kinds of grounds (including exceptions, teleology, etc). > > >> Second, I know damned well that I do _not_ understand enough about either > >> of the relativity theories to defend them against criticism except from > >> anti-science religious fanatics. This is despite the fact that my > >> undergraduate degree is in physics (with chem, bio as minors) and I have > >> no fundamental dislike of either Einstein or science. > > >> Third, most people really have difficulty, or even dislike, maintaining a > >> knowledge which permits competing and mutually contradictory theories to > >> co-exist in their minds. These people would like to _prefer_ one, and > >> discard the rest. One fact about science is that real scientists actually > >> do this and controversies all through the history of science really do > >> exist, and this includes all branches of science. The controversies are > >> usually resolved if and only if some new insight leads to a vast consensus > >> in which a majority of practitioners _accept_ one theory over many others > >> and that this acceptance is overwhelming. This in and of itself is not > >> "final proof" since various tweaks, adjustments, revisions, additions can > >> happen to any of even major theories. > > >> As a non expert in relativity, I can only go by what is said by the > >> experts and that includes people who wrote books on the subject. When I > >> was much younger, I accepted relativity because my physics teachers did > >> and most of the books (and journal articles) did, too. I thought the > >> "fringe" crowd were basically a very _few_ nut-cases. Over the years, it > >> seems that there is a substantial number of people who question relativity > >> to the point where they deserve an audience. > > >> A book I read decades ago, "Beyond the Edge of Certainty" ed. by Colodney > >> ('60s-70s) with chapters by professors of philosophy departments opened my > >> eyes to the historical development of the Newton laws of motion. You might > >> think this is trivial stuff; after all, we all _accept_ these laws, and > >> nobody questions them. Yet the book, a very serious book, presented a very > >> interesting "interpretation" of these laws which allowed for the > >> possibility that we don't know as much as we think we do about these laws > >> and about physical phenomena. > > >> Another angle in this discussion is semantics and the psychology of the > >> human brain. We all have at least some kinds of intuitive concepts of > >> the physical world through the psychology of our brains. This also > >> includes a whole dependence on words and their semantics and how they are > >> derived from simple, practical interpretations. When non-intuitive (eg.. > >> quantum theory) science (physics) is involved, the correspondence between > >> the non-intuitive phenomena become inaccurately describable with our > >> intuitive lexicon, and that is where the rub occurs. > > >> I also recently (a few days ago) re-read the chapter on the wave-particle > >> duality in an advanced undergraduate textbook I have on quantum mechanics. > >> I have always been uncomfortable with this explanation, but the book (also > >> authored by a professor of physics) was also uncomfortable with this, too, > >> and I'll say that the book did a nice job of explaining the "status" of > >> this idea that the wave-particle "duality" means that somehow light has > >> both particle and wave properties _simultaneously_. The book, > >> unfortunately did not get into the area of philosophy which asks or > >> studies "what is knowledge" and how do we design experiments which include > >> so called "strong inference" (or, in short, can you design one experiment > >> which proves light is either wave or particle instead of two experiments: > >> one in which light is a wave or not a wave, and a second in which light is > >> a particle or not a particle, and, thus this leaves open the possibility > >> that light is something else). > > >> So, in the end, I must leave my eyes open to all possibilities, including > >> recognizing that there is a school of thought (I have not studied it > >> deeply) that includes very bright people who argue against Einstein's > >> theory of relativity. Perhaps one day I may look at some of these books > >> and try to decide, only for myself, if there is anything to them. And, if > >> I make noise about these anti-Einstein books, it does not mean, > >> necessarily, that I think Einstein is wrong or totally wrong. Only that > >> there are experts who doubt Einstein's theories. And, that leaves me at > >> the position that the doubters deserve further study. > > >> And, I also know that there is a Flat Earth Society with a very small > >> number of members who you also cannot argue with because their arguments > >> are non-debateable through -- perhaps-- some peculiar version of logic.. > >> Me? I am sure the earth is a sphere, and satellites really do orbit, etc. > >> Cosmology is another mess: cosmologists have many theories of black holes > >> and articles I read in the popular media that are authored by guys who > >> know more about it than I do say that these theories leave a lot to be > >> desired, so there is a problem there, too. > > >> There are two other dangerous but useful books out there that I have read: > >> "The End of Science" and "The End of Physics." Both written by > >> scientists/physicists. > > >> Sorry for the long response, but I took your question seriously. > > >> I have a PhD in biology, and am retired after a career with my own > >> laboratory, staff, publications in peer-reivewed journals, grants from > >> granting agencies, books edited, invited conference papers, conference > >> organization, and retired from a faculty appointment (research professor) > >> at a major university. > > > Well, thank you for your long reply. I'll just make a few middling > > comments. > > > 1. I don't think it's right to say that physics expects people to hold > > contrary notions in their head at the same time. > > Most physics (and other) textbooks actually teach dogmatically. I will > invite you to get a copy of "Quantum Physics: A User's Manual" by Michael > A. Morrison (he is at University of Oklahoma, and wrote other books) and > read around the chapter on wave-particle duality (I have read the whole > chapter) and tell me, after you read it, if you would still say what you > just said Oh, I agree there are dogmatic books. Compare, for example, how Halliday, Resnick and Walker present Newtonian gravity and how Giancoli presents it. The latter does a much better job of explaining HOW this law was derived from data and other principles (also confirmed by experiment), as opposed to the former's ex cathedra approach. > > > You mentioned > > particle-wave duality. This is a classic example of the confrontation > > of conceptual pigeonholing against an observation that resists this > > pigeonholing. Our conceptual and linguistic framework is slow-moving, > > and up until a century ago it was shaped by our senses and what thin > > slice of reality is available to us through those senses. It is > > natural for humans to categorize what they see, and to categorize the > > concepts that are derivatives of what they see. This leads to the > > unfortunate thing that you describe: that electrons and photons are > > characterized as having the properties of two mutually exclusive and > > exhaustive concepts (particles and waves) at the same time. This in > > itself should cause one to rethink whether those concepts are in fact > > mutually exclusive or exhaustive, or whether the categorization is > > appropriate at all -- just as monotremes no doubt disrupted how people > > traditionally classified animals. A more balanced reading selection > > would have also exposed you to the notion that there may be a THIRD > > class of physical entities, which is neither particle nor wave, but > > which shares some of the properties of each. And in fact, it turns out > > that EVERYTHING belongs in this third class, and it's only in some > > approximate sense that the true behavior of this class exhibits itself > > in two dominant behavior types that we assumed were distinct -- > > incorrectly so. > > Um, what is this third class? Another theory? No. It's the class identified by quantum mechanics -- that electrons and light and basketballs are all quantized fields, which in fact are neither particles nor waves, but something else entirely that exhibit some of the properties that had been previously attributed to particles and to waves. > > > 2. Just because there are "experts" and educated people who are > > actively questioning whether a theory is right does not necessarily > > suggest that there is significant controversy. In a very real sense, > > science rates theories operationally and competitively. Which theory > > produces the most accurate predictions of observations in the widest > > set of circumstances? This evaluation is therefore one that is pretty > > much a tally system and is usually not controversial, nor does it > > leave open much room for personal conviction by weighing logic or > > presentation of opposing theories. Of the various candidates that have > > been put forward, relativity and quantum mechanics are the most > > successful so far, by that metric. > > Well, you are welcome to state your case. I have also welcomed the > "opposition" to state their case. I am not defending either case, but > merely stating that there are two schools of thought and I don't have the > time or resources to become an expert. > I'm sorry, but just a day or so ago you were saying that the way you favored settling the matter is to examine very carefully the arguments of both schools and then seeing which one you believe. This necessitates devotion of time and resources. I realize that there are many who are not willing to devote those, and then the natural thing to hope for is that there is overwhelming acceptance, evidenced by a pronounced lack of reasonable-sounding opposition. Sorry, no shortcuts. > > 3. This is not to say that relativity and quantum mechanics are closed > > books. No theory is just flat out accepted -- none. Moreover, a theory > > changes complexion as more applications are studied and more questions > > asked about it -- just as evolution AS A THEORY has dramatically > > changed since it was put forward by Darwin. > > Actually, I am more familiar with this area and the consensus is that > evolution really has not dramatically changed since Darwin. I'm actually surprised to hear this. I was under the impression that "tweaks" like punctuated equilibrium represent significant modifications to evolutionary theory. > > And there is always > > > opportunity to test a theory experimentally in a domain > > With astronomical distances, and geological time scales, these are two > examples where test-tube experiments are NOT always possible. And the very microscopic, which translates to high-energy projectiles. (Compare the energies of the projectiles for an optical microscope, electron microscope, and an electron LINAC.) > > or at a > > > precision where it has not been tested previously -- all in the hope > > of discovering that it isn't as right as once thought. That's why > > tests continue to this day. > > I'd also suggest you read both Kuhn's and Fuerabend's works on the nature > of scientific progress (but perhaps you have already?) Yes, I have. > > > 4. I think it is good that you have decided to not just "accept" > > relativity or quantum mechanics because a trusted teacher also > > accepted it. But in the requestioning, the FIRST thing you have to > > decide is how you are going to go about settling the matter for > > yourself. What I would suggest is that you seriously weigh what I > > suggested above -- the preponderance of experimental data in the > > widest set of applications. I think you'll find this more valuable > > than whether a theory is overwhelmingly accepted by a community, > > quashing all counterarguments. > > One of the problems in some of these areas is that the arguments are > circularly self-consistent. Thus the data are _consistent_ with the > theory, but do not prove it. I am happy with GPS capabilities (but still > use old paper maps, and my memory, and ask people...to find places) and > that some GR/SR details help with navigation, but I have also read > persuasive arguments that the story is not complete. Absolutely. Theories are never proven. They only compete with each other. The "winning" theory is always a provisional award, and it is always subject to the arising of a new competitor. But the competitor must play the same game of matching experimental data. And in fact, it is not sufficient to be *equally* good at matching experiment. In the case that two theories do seem to match current data equally, it becomes first priority to investigate the points of departure between the models and then put those to experimental test. > > There are two other books I've read: "The End of Science" and "The End of > Physics" by guys who spent a whole lot of time and effort developing their > themes and I can't dismiss them out of beligerant dogmatism. The first > book was widely panned in book reviews, but I had the feeling that the guy > was making an observation worth thinking about even if it went against the > grain of conventional thinking. I've read The End of Physics and find it to be a good book, but I don't see a whole lot in it that is unsupportive of the current state of affairs. > > Therefore, I try to pay attention to contrarian thinking at least to be > aware that conventional thinking might be wrong. > > I appreciate your viewpoints and have the perception that we are not all > that far appart in many aspects. > > At least I was surprised at how many anti-Einstein books were really out > there, and not authored by crackpot-weirdos, either, but people who did > think about things and did a lot of reading, too. |