THEORETICAL PHYSICS: CRISIS OR DEATH?
in [Math]
|
Prev: speed of light is likely to be more accurately that of 3.14159.. x 10^8 m/s; magnetic monopole Chapt 14 #185; ATOM TOTALITY
Next: Musatov shows his writing chops: Prolog to new novel, sneek peek!
From: Pentcho Valev on 21 Jun 2010 05:19 http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reg_ls_physics The Crisis in Physics - and Its Cause By David Harriman "For two centuries after Isaac Newton, the science of physics served as the leading example of the power of the human mind. Its basic content and method, and the life-saving technology that emerged from it, sent a message that resounded throughout the western world: man can live and prosper by the guidance of reason. However, for the past century, theoretical physicists have been sending a different message. They have rejected causality in favor of chance, logic in favor of contradictions, and reality in favor of fantasy. The science of physics is now riddled with claims that are as absurd as those of any religious cult. This lecture examines the historical development of such ideas and refutes the myth that they derive from experimental evidence. History shows that philosophers provided the irrational ideas, which physicists then incorporated into their theories. Philosophy is the inescapable foundation for physics, and the irrationalism of modern philosophy is the quicksand that engulfed physics in the 20th century. Mr. Harriman argues that our future depends upon saving physics - which can only be done by providing it with the solid ground of a rational philosophy." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/ Jos Uffink: "The Second Law made its appearance in physics around 1850, but a half century later it was already surrounded by so much confusion that the British Association for the Advancement of Science decided to appoint a special committee with the task of providing clarity about the meaning of this law. However, its final report (Bryan 1891) did not settle the issue. Half a century later, the physicist/philosopher Bridgman still complained that there are almost as many formulations of the second law as there have been discussions of it (Bridgman 1941, p. 116). And even today, the Second Law remains so obscure that it continues to attract new efforts at clarification. A recent example is the work of Lieb and Yngvason (1999)......The historian of science and mathematician Truesdell made a detailed study of the historical development of thermodynamics in the period 1822-1854. He characterises the theory, even in its present state, as 'a dismal swamp of obscurity' (1980, p. 6) and 'a prime example to show that physicists are not exempt from the madness of crowds' (ibid. p. 8).......Clausius' verbal statement of the second law makes no sense.... All that remains is a Mosaic prohibition ; a century of philosophers and journalists have acclaimed this commandment ; a century of mathematicians have shuddered and averted their eyes from the unclean.....Seven times in the past thirty years have I tried to follow the argument Clausius offers....and seven times has it blanked and gravelled me.... I cannot explain what I cannot understand.....This summary leads to the question whether it is fruitful to see irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the essence of the second law. Is it not more straightforward, in view of the unargued statements of Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the strained attempts of Planck, to give up this idea? I believe that Ehrenfest-Afanassjewa was right in her verdict that the discussion about the arrow of time as expressed in the second law of the thermodynamics is actually a RED HERRING." http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/31/relativity-and-relativism/ Washington Times: "A frequently heard statement of cultural relativism goes like this: "If it feels right for you, it's OK. Who is to say you're wrong?" One individual's experience is as "valid" as another's. There is no "preferred" or higher vantage point from which to judge these things. Not just beauty, but right and wrong are in the eye of the beholder. The "I" indeed is the "ultimate measure." The special theory of relativity imposes on the physical world a claim that is very similar to the one made by relativism. (...) So how come the speed of light always stays the same? Einstein argued that when the observer moves relative to an object, distance and time always adjust themselves just enough to preserve light speed as a constant. Speed is distance divided by time. So, Einstein argued, length contracts and time dilates to just the extent needed to keep the speed of light ever the same. Space and time are the alpha and omega of the physical world. They are the stage within which everything happens. But if they must trim and tarry whenever the observer moves, that puts "the observer" in the driver's seat. Reality becomes observer-dependent. Again, then, we find that the "I" is the ultimate measure. Pondering this in Prague in the 1950s, Beckmann could not accept it. The observer's function is to observe, he said, not to affect what's out there. Relativity meant that two and two didn't quite add up any more and elevated science into a priesthood of obscurity. Common sense could no longer be trusted." http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a909857880 Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78 "The prediction that clocks will move at different rates is particularly well known, and the problem of explaining how this can be so without violating the principle of relativity is particularly obvious. The clock paradox, however, is only one of a number of simple objections that have been raised to different aspects of Einstein's theory of relativity. (Much of this criticism is quite apart from and often predates the apparent contradiction between relativity theory and quantum mechanics.) It is rare to find any attempt at a detailed rebuttal of these criticisms by professional physicists. However, physicists do sometimes give a general response to criticisms that relativity theory is syncretic by asserting that Einstein is logically consistent, but that to explain why is so difficult that critics lack the capacity to understand the argument. In this way, the handy claim that there are unspecified, highly complex resolutions of simple apparent inconsistencies in the theory can be linked to the charge that antirelativists have only a shallow understanding of the matter, probably gleaned from misleading popular accounts of the theory. (...) The argument for complexity reverses the scientific preference for simplicity. Faced with obvious inconsistencies, the simple response is to conclude that Einstein's claims for the explanatory scope of the special and general theory are overstated. To conclude instead that that relativity theory is right for reasons that are highly complex is to replace Occam's razor with a potato masher. (...) The defence of complexity implies that the novice wishing to enter the profession of theoretical physics must accept relativity on faith. It implicitly concedes that, without an understanding of relativity theory's higher complexities, it appears illogical, which means that popular "explanations" of relativity are necessarily misleading. But given Einstein's fame, physicists do not approach the theory for the first time once they have developed their expertise. Rather, they are exposed to and probably examined on popular explanations of relativity in their early training. How are youngsters new to the discipline meant to respond to these accounts? Are they misled by false explanations and only later inculcated with true ones? What happens to those who are not misled? Are they supposed to accept relativity merely on the grounds of authority? The argument of complexity suggests that to pass the first steps necessary to join the physics profession, students must either be willing to suspend disbelief and go along with a theory that appears illogical; or fail to notice the apparent inconsistencies in the theory; or notice the inconsistencies and maintain a guilty silence in the belief that this merely shows that they are unable to understand the theory. The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse." http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=317&Itemid=81&lecture_id=3576 John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles." Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics." John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha, hm, ha ha ha." http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! (...) The speed of light is c+v." Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: George Greene on 21 Jun 2010 14:32 On Jun 21, 5:19 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: <some links to some bullshit, one of which claimed:> > The clock paradox illustrates how relativity theory does indeed > contain inconsistencies that make it scientifically problematic. This is simply not the case. It does MATTER that this was in a journal about "epistemology" AND NOT ANY science.
From: Pentcho Valev on 23 Jun 2010 00:59 Confessions made in moments of aberration: http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics." http://articles.courant.com/2009-03-26/news/thorson0326.art_1_science-education-theory-of-general-relativity-arthur-eddington "Albert Einstein strengthened science through his contributions, but he may have inadvertently crippled science education through his example. This notion is supported by an editorial, "Redefining Science Education," published in January by Bruce Alberts, editor in chief of the journal Science. His main concern is that "many college-educated adults in the United States," including teachers, "fail to understand that science is a way of knowing completely different from mysticism, tradition and faith." Science is based on "evidence that can be logically and independently verified," rather than on personal authority. Most of the public accepted Einstein's 1915 theory of general relativity based on his authority, rather than on the evidence presented." http://plus.maths.org/issue37/features/Einstein/index.html John Barrow: "Einstein restored faith in the unintelligibility of science. Everyone knew that Einstein had done something important in 1905 (and again in 1915) but almost nobody could tell you exactly what it was. When Einstein was interviewed for a Dutch newspaper in 1921, he attributed his mass appeal to the mystery of his work for the ordinary person: Does it make a silly impression on me, here and yonder, about my theories of which they cannot understand a word? I think it is funny and also interesting to observe. I am sure that it is the mystery of non-understanding that appeals to themit impresses them, it has the colour and the appeal of the mysterious." http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/science/26essay.html "The worrying continued. Lawrence Krauss, a cosmologist from Arizona State, said that most theories were wrong. "We get the notions they are right because we keep talking about them," he said. Not only are most theories wrong, he said, but most data are also wrong..." http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/87150187.html "Dark Energy: The Biggest Mystery in the Universe (...) "We have a complete inventory of the universe," Sean Carroll, a California Institute of Technology cosmologist, has said, "and it makes no sense." http://www.beilstein-institut.de/bozen2004/proceedings/CornishBowden/CornishBowden.pdf Athel Cornish-Bowden: "The concept of entropy was introduced to thermodynamics by Clausius, who deliberately chose an obscure term for it, wanting a word based on Greek roots that would sound similar to "energy". In this way he hoped to have a word that would mean the same to everyone regardless of their language, and, as Cooper [2] remarked, he succeeded in this way in finding a word that meant the same to everyone: NOTHING. From the beginning it proved a very difficult concept for other thermodynamicists, even including such accomplished mathematicians as Kelvin and Maxwell; Kelvin, indeed, despite his own major contributions to the subject, never appreciated the idea of entropy [3]. The difficulties that Clausius created have continued to the present day, with the result that a fundamental idea that is absolutely necessary for understanding the theory of chemical equilibria continues to give trouble, not only to students but also to scientists who need the concept for their work." ftp://ftp.esat.kuleuven.ac.be/pub/SISTA/markovsky/reports/06-46.pdf "From the pedagogical point of view, thermodynamics is a disaster. As the authors rightly state in the introduction, many aspects are "riddled with inconsistencies". They quote V.I. Arnold, who concedes that "every mathematician knows it is impossible to understand an elementary course in thermodynamics". Nobody has eulogized this confusion more colorfully than the late Clifford Truesdell. On page 6 of his book "The Tragicomical History of Thermodynamics" 1822-1854 (Springer Verlag, 1980), he calls thermodynamics "a dismal swamp of obscurity". Elsewhere, in despair of trying to make sense of the writings of some local heros as De Groot, Mazur, Casimir, and Prigogine, Truesdell suspects that there is "something rotten in the (thermodynamic) state of the Low Countries" (see page 134 of Rational Thermodynamics, McGraw-Hill, 1969)." Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Pentcho Valev on 25 Jun 2010 01:12 Genetics is based on Mendel's first and second laws. Thermodynamics is based on the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Relativity is based on Einstein's 1905 first and second postulates. Genetics is flourishing, thermodynamics and relativity are dying. Why? http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/ Jos Uffink: "The Second Law made its appearance in physics around 1850, but a half century later it was already surrounded by so much confusion that the British Association for the Advancement of Science decided to appoint a special committee with the task of providing clarity about the meaning of this law. However, its final report (Bryan 1891) did not settle the issue. Half a century later, the physicist/philosopher Bridgman still complained that there are almost as many formulations of the second law as there have been discussions of it (Bridgman 1941, p. 116). And even today, the Second Law remains so obscure that it continues to attract new efforts at clarification. A recent example is the work of Lieb and Yngvason (1999)......The historian of science and mathematician Truesdell made a detailed study of the historical development of thermodynamics in the period 1822-1854. He characterises the theory, even in its present state, as 'a dismal swamp of obscurity' (1980, p. 6) and 'a prime example to show that physicists are not exempt from the madness of crowds' (ibid. p. 8).......Clausius' verbal statement of the second law makes no sense.... All that remains is a Mosaic prohibition ; a century of philosophers and journalists have acclaimed this commandment ; a century of mathematicians have shuddered and averted their eyes from the unclean.....Seven times in the past thirty years have I tried to follow the argument Clausius offers....and seven times has it blanked and gravelled me.... I cannot explain what I cannot understand.....This summary leads to the question whether it is fruitful to see irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the essence of the second law. Is it not more straightforward, in view of the unargued statements of Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the strained attempts of Planck, to give up this idea? I believe that Ehrenfest-Afanassjewa was right in her verdict that the discussion about the arrow of time as expressed in the second law of the thermodynamics is actually a RED HERRING." http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=317&Itemid=81&lecture_id=3576 John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles." EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics." John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha, hm, ha ha ha." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/ "Genius Among Geniuses" by Thomas Levenson A clue to EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION: "And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves. Alice's Red Queen can accept many impossible things before breakfast, but it takes a supremely confident mind to do so. Einstein, age 26, sees light as wave and particle, picking the attribute he needs to confront each problem in turn. Now that's tough." http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann Another clue to EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Pentcho Valev on 25 Jun 2010 10:36
PHYSICS EDUCATION: CRISIS OR DEATH? http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/nov/22/schools.g2 "But instead of celebrating, physicists are in mourning after a report showed a dramatic decline in the number of pupils studying physics at school. The number taking A-level physics has dropped by 38% over the past 15 years, a catastrophic meltdown that is set to continue over the next few years. The report warns that a shortage of physics teachers and a lack of interest from pupils could mean the end of physics in state schools. Thereafter, physics would be restricted to only those students who could afford to go to posh schools. Britain was the home of Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and Paul Dirac, and Brits made world-class contributions to understanding gravity, quantum physics and electromagnetism - and yet the British physicist is now facing extinction. But so what? Physicists are not as cuddly as pandas, so who cares if we disappear?" http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ingdahl2.html "But there has been a marked global decrease of students willing to study physics, and funding has decreased accordingly. Not only that, the best students are not heading for studies in physics, finding other fields more appealing, and science teachers to schools are getting scarcer in supply. In fact, warning voices are being heard about the spread of a "scientific illiteracy" where many living in technologically advanced societies lack the knowledge and the ability for critical thinking in order to function in their daily environment." http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/may/22/highereducation.education Harry Kroto: "The wrecking of British science....The scientific method is based on what I prefer to call the inquiring mindset. It includes all areas of human thoughtful activity that categorically eschew "belief", the enemy of rationality. This mindset is a nebulous mixture of doubt, questioning, observation, experiment and, above all, curiosity, which small children possess in spades. I would argue that it is the most important, intrinsically human quality we possess, and it is responsible for the creation of the modern, enlightened portion of the world that some of us are fortunate to inhabit. Curiously, for the majority of our youth, the educational system magically causes this capacity to disappear by adolescence.....Do I think there is any hope for UK? I am really not sure." http://archives.lesechos.fr/archives/2004/LesEchos/19077-80-ECH.htm "Physicien au CEA, professeur et auteur, Etienne Klein s'inquiète des relations de plus en plus conflictuelles entre la science et la société. (...) « Je me demande si nous aurons encore des physiciens dans trente ou quarante ans », remarque ce touche-à-tout aux multiples centres d'intérêt : la constitution de la matière, le temps, les relations entre science et philosophie. (...) Etienne Klein n'est pas optimiste. Selon lui, il se pourrait bien que l'idée de progrès soit tout bonnement « en train de mourir sous nos yeux ». (...) Cette perception d'une « science mortifère » se double d'une « culture du ressenti », sorte de sésame passe-partout utilisé pour justifier l'acquisition, l'évaluation ou le rejet des connaissances. « J'ai eu à faire récemment à un jeune étudiant en sciences qui n'était pas d'accord avec la théorie de la relativité d'Einstein pour une raison étonnante : il m'a dit qu'il ne la sentait pas », indique-t-il en riant à moitié. Au bout du compte, ce soupçon d'imposture permanente débouche sur une idée simple qui fait des ravages : « En sciences comme ailleurs, tout est relatif. » Dans ce contexte, la vulgarisation est d'un maigre secours car « la pédagogie ajoute du bruit et augmente la confusion »." http://mneaquitaine.wordpress.com/2008/11/26/loccident-face-a-la-crise-des-vocations-scientifiques/ "L'Occident face à la crise des vocations scientifiques. Le mal s'accroît, mais le diagnostic s'affine. Les pays développés, qui souffrent, sans exception, d'une désaffection des jeunes pour les filières scientifiques, pointent du doigt la façon dont les sciences sont aujourd'hui enseignées. Trop de théorie, pas assez de pratique ; des enseignements qui n'invitent pas au questionnement... (...) ...les sciences physiques, grandes victimes de ce rejet collectif des jeunes Européens, dégringolent (- 5,5 %)." http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/news/newsarchive2006/ceer-physics-2.html "PHYSICS IN TERMINAL DECLINE? In CEER's latest report, published 11 August 2006 and funded by the Gatsby Charitable Foundation, Professor Alan Smithers and Dr Pamela Robinson show that the decline in physics as student numbers fall and university departments shut is more serious than is generally appreciated." http://www.wellingtongrey.net/articles/archive/2007-06-07--open-letter-aqa.html "I am a physics teacher. Or, at least I used to be. My subject is still called physics. My pupils will sit an exam and earn a GCSE in physics, but that exam doesn't cover anything I recognize as physics. Over the past year the UK Department for Education and the AQA board changed the subject. They took the physics out of physics and replaced it with... something else, something nebulous and ill defined. I worry about this change. I worry about my pupils, I worry about the state of science education in this country, and I worry about the future physics teachers - if there will be any. (...) UPDATE 2009: After much frustration I'm leaving teaching England in physics. I've started a side business in time management and am taking a break from the profession." Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com |