Re: What are physicists trying to do?
- From: The TimeLord <mathnphysics-not@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 00:20:26 -0600
Randy Poe wrote:
On Dec 30, 11:52 am, "Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS...@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
What are physicists trying to do?
This is a provocative question for some, especially those
who do not like or accept relativity or QM. Here is my
answer, which I believe to be close to the 'official' view.
Why do you think there's an "official" view? What
"officials" determine this? Is it written down?
I suspect that he is referring to the consensus view: kind of like the
fact that there are now 8 planets, even though some of us cringe that
we have to teach it that way. (It seems to me that under the current
definitions of orbiting stellar objects, we must ask ourselves if we
are really discovering planets around other stars. Then again, the
definitions were not made by astronomers, just approved by us.)
[...]
1 Philosophically pleasing.
I'm not sure what that means. It doesn't sound
important. The universe is what it is, even if the
rules displease me or somebody else.
There is this idea that the correct view will be internally
consistent. An example is Ptolemy's view of cycles, epicycles and
deferents as opposed to Copernicus' view of a heliocentric system.
Copernicus' view won out because it didn't require the weird mechanics
of the crystalline spheres even though actually Ptolemy's system at
the time was more accurate.
2 Mathematically tractable.
Again, I'm not sure how important that is. If the
exact theory is intractable, that's not a show-stopper.
The search for an alternative, approximate theory
or method of calculation that is tractable is
important to produce predictions. But that doesn't
mean the exact theory should be discarded in favor
of the approximation. They are two separate and
equally important physical theories.
Mathematics is regarded by mathematicians as the study of natural laws
that are inherently true in any universe, whereas physics is regarded
as the study of natural law in our particular universe. If something
is true in any universe then it should also be true in our universe.
If in addition the law in our universe is mathematically expressible,
then there is an inherent convenience because we can inherit
mathematical laws in addition to the physical laws and thus the total
work expended on discovery is reduced.
[...]
3 Wide realm of applicability.
Completely unimportant. Not even sure what you're
4 Intuitive
Completely irrelevant. Not even on the radar.
Well, actually we would like physics to be intuitive, but I agree that
the intuitive nature of the expression of physics should not come at
the expense of truth.
[...]
--
// The TimeLord says:
// Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us!
.
- Prev by Date: Re: How fast is time? Light's clock
- Next by Date: Re: Can gravity become infinitely small?
- Previous by thread: Re: What are physicists trying to do?
- Next by thread: Re: Wavelength & Frequency experiments for SR
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
