Things to Reject in 21st Century Physics
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Deepwater Horizon BP Oil Spill - A Geophysical Theory That Needs Consideration
Next: EINSTEINIANA: THE FUNDAMENTAL NIGHTMARE
From: eric gisse on 12 Jul 2010 15:28 PD wrote: [...] >> what are the properties of space ??!!! > > Quite a few. > - curvature > - impedance Impudence too. [...]
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 13 Jul 2010 00:11 On Jul 12, 8:33 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > > [...] > > When your mind starts processingthingsother than thoughts, perhaps your claims > will make sense. Until then, your thoughts can at best be MODELS of the world. > So model building is all there is for us poor humans. > > Tom Roberts ---------------------------------- Dropping polemics for a minute, I appeal to your scientific objectivity in considering the following argument. Consider this statement: THE SUN IS A STAR, AND THE STARS ARE DISTANT SUNS. or LIFE EVOLVES. These statements are purely conceptual. I really do not think you could, or would want to, express them in terms of mathematical models. Yet these are two of the crown jewels of mankind's struggle to understand nature. Take your most cherished analytical models. If you removed all conceptual input from these models, you would end up with a dessicated hieroglyphics that no has intrinsic meaning, although it might be mathematically self-consistent. I am concerned that our argument is becoming semantic for the following reason. I started out claiming that physics needs BOTH conceptual and analytical input in order to evolve in a healthy manner, and that the former has been neglected in recent decades. Your argument seems to morphing into something like: concepts are a form of modelling too, so all scientific thought is one form of modelling or another. This is not something I would strongly object to. After all, my point is simply that concepts like "the Sun is a star" cannot be neglected, nor should future conceptual breakthroughs of this type be sniffed at, or be declared quackery. Whether you call natural philosophy conceptualizing, or conceptual modelling, or pictorial thinking, or whatever you want to call it, is immaterial to me. Just don't neglect it. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 13 Jul 2010 00:40 On Jul 12, 8:40 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > As I have pointed out before, neither "prior" nor "unique" are required. Science > is not history, and those two aspects are related to history, not science.. They > may well be desirable, but they most definitely are not required. ---------------------------------------------------------- And you can keep "pointing out" such subjective ideas, but I am not required to buy into them. I honor the definition of "prediction" that was handed down by people like Bacon and Galileo, and scrupulously adhered to the leading scientist of the last century: Albert Einstein. Sorry, but the new pseudoscience version of "predictions" and epistemology is not of much interest to me. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Thomas Heger on 13 Jul 2010 01:42 Tom Roberts schrieb: > Thomas Heger wrote: >> Tom Roberts schrieb: >>> Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: >>>> Physics can be thought of as primarily the mathematical modeling of >>>> nature. >>> yes. Not merely "can be", but rather "is". >>> >> I'm an engineer and not really interested in mathematical models, but >> interested in the 'machinery' -or- how things function. > > All of engineering is based on the mathematical models of physics. All > of it. The "how things function" is really how THE MODELS function. > Maybe we talk about the same thing, but from a different perspective. I say, we would better stop calculating, but try to understand the machinery first and than model this machinery. You say, we have the needed knowledge already, but need to apply it more sophisticated. In the case of your point of view, the knowledge provided should be undebated, what I think it isn't. Personally I think the idea of particles is generally wrong, while standard physics is based on particles. This is why it is called the standard model. Same in cosmology, where we have the cosmological standard model, which is based on the idea of a big-bang. I say, that GR is actually the better idea, what would lead to significantly different understanding. In geology I think, the so called growing earth hypothesis is correct, while that is not even debated, but we have the model of plate tectonics, what I regard as nonsense. Since the understanding of the fundamental mechanisms of nature is of greatest importance to all the other sciences, including engineering, we have to find that and than try to apply this knowledge more sophisticated. > >>>> Natural philosophy is the attempt to understand how nature actually >>>> works and how nature really is. >>> That is utterly hopeless. >> Maybe hopeless for you. But don't try to steer people away of at least >> trying to understand. > > It's useless for people to waste their time on something that is > impossible. For me, this is kind of hobby. Hobbies are based on the idea of how to waste time more sophisticated, rather than -say- watch tv. So that time would be wasted anyhow. But I think, theoretical physics is the greatest challenge possible to waste your time with. That is why I have chosen this, not because of a career and not even for a result. It's like a huge mountain, that you challenge yourself with. > I'm trying to "steer" people into channels that are not > impossible. No matter what they do, at best they are going to understand > some model, not "how nature actually works". > > At worst they're going to be like so many contributors around > here -- completely clueless. > Well, I think the usenet is a great thing, as it enables people to put stupid propositions somewhere. Than discuss this and later make less stupid propositions. In the course of this, some people really learn. The mechanisms of interactions of contributors make the usenet function like a large network, where good and bad ideas float around and at a certain point the better ones convince the contributors of the weaker ideas. So the usenet is in effect are large learning system with tremendous power, since it is in parts build by learning beings. Not all learn - of course-, but the enormous pace of information exchange makes it possible, that only a tiny fraction of real progress is feed into a large network and alters that. As soon as the mass of contributors regard some ideas as really good, than that will be multiplied by a large amount of people. To steer this process in one way or the other seems impossible to me, because the effect of multiplication comes only from convincing the contributors, and only real good ideas can do that. > >>> We humans can never know "how nature actually works" or "how nature >>> really is". >> This is because 'knowing' is about things already known. > > No. I can clearly learn new things, though I certainly relate them to > things already known. But about the world I can only learn about models > of the world, because thoughts can at best be models of the world. > > >> Since the 'machinery of the universe' is unknown, we cannot know. But >> we can find out, or at least try. > > Trying is hopeless. It's MUCH better to understand the limitations of > your mind and work within them, rather than pinning your hopes on the > impossible. > I said: the challenge is it. If you say, it is impossible, than it's just the right kind of challenge. > >>> This ought to be obvious, because your mind can process only >>> thoughts, and thoughts can at best be MODELS of "how nature actually >>> works" or "how nature really is". >> I personally prefer pictures instead of mathematical models. >> Illustrations have no limits, only some restrictions, mainly to be >> flat. But good artists can overcome this by an arsenal of tricks. > > Images need not be flat. Or static. But they, too, are at best MODELS of > the world. > Well, if not static, we usually call that films or animations. Even 3d-stuff is now possible, but out of reach to common users. I wonder why animations are not more common in physics, because a great deal of learning could be achieved with proper animations. Than we could have some other tools, that are computer simulations of a certain process. This would allow to encapsulate the mathematical background into 'objects' -as computer programmers call their sub-programs - that could be put together like lego bricks. A lot of stuff is possible, but not for everybody. For me drawings are a good way to express certain ideas. > "Ceci n'est pas une pipe." -- Magritte. > "The map is not the territory." -- Korzybski (and others) > "But you've got to know the territory!" -- Meredith Willson > > >>> There is, of course, a reason why our models of everyday phenomena >>> are so good: we humans have evolved this as our primary means of >>> survival. >> This is a description of a stone-age-man, misguided as a physicist. > > Nonsense. Humans today survive by our wits, not our superior senses, > exceptional strength, or powerful teeth and claws. By having good models > of the world we can manipulate it to our own benefit, and have done so > ENORMOUSLY. > I would agree, but who is 'we'? > Our models are not perfect, and we rarely take into account the > full consequences of future impacts of our actions. This last > will become increasingly obvious and disastrous to our children > and grandchildren, as it is only recently (few decades) that > human actions have had consequences on a global scale. These large scale consequences of decisions is something, I think about, too. What would be the best thing to do? How would a world look like, I would like to live in? And what is possible to achieve such a state. As being only a single person, in global perspective not more than an ant, I think about this more theoretical. But this multitude of 'yous' seem to have tougher means. So what is your idea? >> Do you really believe, they are like that? > > Look at all the humans around you, including yourself. How did they (and > you) obtain their food to survive in the past week? Reflect on how much > we have modified the world in order to build farms, highways, > automobiles, trains, supermarkets, refrigerators, and all the other > components that went into providing food for you and your neighbors. > Then think about how all that is only possible because we have good and > accurate models of how the world works, that permit us to figure out how > to manipulate it in ways we desire. > > Of course it is also necessary for people to have good models of their > SOCIAL environment. Today, the major danger for virtually all humans is > due to other humans, not traditional predators. About the usefulness and possibility of 'social engineering' I'm a bit skeptical. But maybe, this is somehow necessary, too. TH
From: eric gisse on 13 Jul 2010 01:53
Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jul 12, 8:40 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> As I have pointed out before, neither "prior" nor "unique" are required. >> Science is not history, and those two aspects are related to history, not >> science. They may well be desirable, but they most definitely are not >> required. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > And you can keep "pointing out" such subjective ideas, but I am not > required to buy into them. Nor are we required to take you seriously. When was the last time one of your papers was cited by anyone but yourself? > > I honor the definition of "prediction" that was handed down by people > like Bacon and Galileo, and scrupulously adhered to the leading > scientist of the last century: Albert Einstein. > > Sorry, but the new pseudoscience version of "predictions" and > epistemology is not of much interest to me. Not much in modern science is of interest to you, which is why you are posting to USENET which is mostly populated with other people who are equally disinterested in how modern science works. That you can't even predict the spectrum of the Hydrogen atom is amusing. > > RLO > www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |