Re: What are relativists?

Bilge wrote:

jem: >Bilge wrote:

>> So? You didn't ask if invariance was unique to relativity, so
>> what's your point?
>
>Bilge, discussing anything with you is a chore. You say "Relativity has >nothing to do with relative quantities", and follow it up with "It's a >theory based upon invariants". The implication is that "invariants" are >what Relativity's about, but if other theories are also "based on >invariants", then obviously that description doesn't distinguish what >Relativitiy's about.
Then, you should study relativity some more so that you know
what these invariants are and what they mean.

>> Then give me an example of a model which uses different ``things''
>> along with the means of detecting them so that we identify those
>> ``things'' as entities usng ``things'' called detectors that obey
>> the same physics as the things in your theory.
>
>Look to the past for models based on different sets of entities. >Examples are numerous.
Then, you should easily be able to provide an example. To the best
I can determine, every theory in physics, even prior to newton, has
been based on the same sorts of constructs. All relativity has done
is provide a concise, physical theory which consolodates a lot of
superficially different phenomenology into precise mathematical
language.


>> >"things" don't produce signals in detectors, they "produce" (by logical >> >inference) numerical results that correspond to the measurements of >> >signals produced by detectors. Big difference.
>> >> That's absurd. To obtain ``numerical results'' you have to interpret
>> the signals in a detector. Do you think the concept of a charged particle
>> differs from the concept of the detector in which the charged particle
>> loses energy by creating particle/hole pairs in a piece of silicon?
>> >
>Speaking of absurd, where's the connection between my statement and your >response?
Are you from this planet, or what?

>> >The particles don't "mean anything physically" - they're just >> >hypothetical constructions with defined behaviors that (in viable >> >theories) happen to act (i.e. logically speaking) in accord with natural >> >phenomena.
>> >> Sure they do. Particles are ``physically'' the description of what we
>> measure using the entirety of theories we've developed. If you decide that
>> you want a different, ``hypothetical'' construction, be prepared to
>> construct a lot of other hypothetical constructions to repace hypothetical
>> constructions such as space, time, electric fields, fermions, bosons,
>> people, etc. Please do, so I can see an example rather than just idle
>> speculation. I'm willing to accept any abstraction as physical so long as
>> you show me how quantify through a physical measurement that establishes
>> it as a physical ``thing.'' So far, you seem to just want to be contrary
>> without offering an example.
>
>So evidently you believe that Kepler and Einstein, by the strokes of >their pens, eliminated epicycles and gravity from Nature when they >developed improved descriptions that didn't involve these elements.
OK, we are not only not on the same page, we aren't even in the
same book. You are being incredibly naive in what you consider
entities. You're also confusing kepler with copernicus. Epicycles
were never ``eliminted.'' What copernicus showed, was that by
redefining the origin of your coordinate system, the (circular) oribits
of the planets were greatly simplified. Kepler, realized the orbits
weren't circular, but were ellipses and introduced the dynamical
component of the geometry by showing that the areal velocity was
a constant. The trend continued through the late nineteen'th century
with greater and greater generalizations of spatial variables until
the concept of generalized coordinates took hold and classical mechanics
was formulated in terms of poisson (and other) brackets which provided
a procedure for identifying ``invariants,'' otherwise known as constants
of the motion. Einstein realized that one could be even more general
and include the time explicitly in the formalism as a coordinate.
All of those involve the same entities.

>I'm not going to try to persuade you on this issue, you should know
>better.
Because I do know better, I know you are being terribly naive.

[...]
>> Having another theory can't make quantum mechanics incorrect,
>> if quantum mechanics is correct. What's your point?
>
>The point is that your statements are about model entities and not about >Nature.

The level of discussion you have set is too naive to discuss that
issue.
>Saying e.g. that Planck length is an absolute of Nature fails >to recognize the possibility that a better model will be produced at >some point that won't even use the concept of length.
Who ever said that I restricted the concept to what you are
calling length? I most explicitly am not. But, you are stuck
on superficial concepts, so there's no point in going there.

>> Since you seem to be missing the point, let's just go with your
>> argument, since I don't think you're too interested in getting the
>> point: Which of those ``competing theories'' did you have in mind?
>
>Must you be shown an example of something before you're able to consider >it?

Yes, I must.
>Do you think it's possible there could be a 3m tall human or would >you have to see an example of one before believing that?
Huh? What does this have to do with anything? That is even more
naive than I gave you credit for. By ``different'' model, I mean
a model that has fundamentally different objects that don't satisfy
the invariance principles of relativity. Since relativity is essentially
defined by the invariance of the interval, ds^2 = g_uv dx^u dx^v,
you objects can't satisfy that relation.

>> That's irrelevant and you are being extremely naive. I'm allowing you
>> a great deal more latitude than you allow yourself. All you've done
>> is suggest the possibility of a theory at a lower level in which
>> there exist things more fundamental than the electron.
>
>No, I'm suggesting that a "better" theory might not incorporate anything >that corresponds to particles at all.
No, what you're describing is the possibility of a lower level theory
from which a theory of particles is constructed. That's not a different
theory. That's just a theory which has the cirrent theories as limiting
case. It's irrelevant to your argument.

>> pairs and a more fundamental theory in which electrons are not the
>> fundamental objects will change that. Electrons are still the particles
>> responsible for the current.
>
>Are you incapable of understanding that in the future there may arise >better models that look nothing like the present ones?
You seem to be unable to distinguish between a different theory
and a limiting case of a theory. Electrons will _always_ be objects
of any theory that has electrons as a limiting case, just as rocks
are _always_ going to be objects of any theory which has matter
based on atomic structure. You said _different_ objects. So,
create different objects. Eliminate electrons and therefore atoms
and therefore rocks.

>> I'm saying you are free to discard the concept of an electron _right_now
>> and recreate the world using different concepts. I just want to see an
>> example.
>
>Can't you contemplate the existence of something without first having a >concrete example?
I can contemplate a lot of things, but not when you haven't
given any information regarding what it is I'm supposed to
contemplate. So far, you've said nothing that bears on your
argument. All you've done is demonstrate that you don't see
the connection between various physical theories throught history.

>For good reason, modern Physics has assumed a narrow focus, concerning >itself only with observable phenomena and not speculating on matters >beyond that, but you've extended that philosophy to Metaphysics, where >it's entirely inappropriate.
Screw off. I've asked you for an example. Use one of the numerous
examples you claim exist.

There wasn't much point in responding to the whole post and ending it like that, Bilge, but don't tell me to screw off - you're the one who butted in here, and if you don't like having your comments criticized, you can just *** out.

.

Quantcast