Re: "modern physics"

holog wrote:
does "modern physics" limit our understanding of what reality is?

I'm not sure that "modern physics" accepts the concept of 'reality' but if it does it assumes that it is irrelevant to physics as it assumes we are incapable of understanding it.

"...it should be QUITE CLEAR that the most that human beings can aspire to is to make models of the world -- we can never actually "know" what Nature herself is really doing. We can only make models and test them, which is known as science" Tom Roberts

As there is no other science which takes this view Tom's statement that what he describes "is known as science" is plainly untrue. It sets Physics apart from other sciences and brings into question whether it can now be considered a science or simple a branch of mathematics dealing with the mathematical modelling of aspects of human experience previously coming under the now defunct science of physics. Even that is a simplification as it is now 'modelling' things which are way beyond human experience and totally incapable of verification.

Likewise it isn't "QUITE CLEAR" understanding is impossible. Perfect understanding may be beyond our grasp but one can still measure progress by better understanding rather than bigger equations.

What the statement is leading up to of course is that modern physics insists that a mathematical model is preferable to a physical model. This dogma came about because the only physical model consistent with SR maths is that provided by Lorentz's aether theory, Einstein having totally failed to come up with an alternative "theoretical structure" to the one of Lorentz which he objected to.

Professor Dingle, a respected physicist - broke rank and criticised the orthodox view. The behaviour of his 'peers' says a lot about physics. They attacked the man for his heresy - daring to question the one true faith - rather than dealing objectively with his concerns. He outlined some basic misunderstandings which account for Special Relativity being accepted for so long despite its untenability. First, and most seriously, he identified the false conception of the relationship between mathematics and physics.

Galileo and Newton took observations as their starting point and used mathematics only as a tool to extract the maximum amount of information from their experiments, and as a means for expressing their new-found knowledge. The first example of the mastery instead of the servitude of mathematics in relation to physics came with Maxwell's 'displacement current' where something was assumed to exist simply because the maths demanded it. Today such assumptions are the bread and butter of physics.

Once maths becomes the master there is not the safeguard which would come naturally from knowing what the equation is describing. In the following article:

http://www.ivorcatt.org/icrwiworld80mar1.htm

Catt points out that a simple minus sign is subject to all sorts of confusion. In the case of Newton's laws what is slovenly mathematics is saved by common sense but once you are into anything more complex - Maxwell's equations for example (which by modern standards are relatively simple) - common sense will not rescue you.

Modern physics is maths .. built on maths ... built on maths ...built on maths ......etc. One might think that the security of the foundations on which all this is built would be of paramount concern but it is not. When I point out where SR came from I am told that doesn't matter. This is the 21st century not the 18th. Put simply, faith in physics is based on the impressive amount of mathematics produced and its high level of sophistication independent on what its foundations are and independent on whether it has anything whatever to do with the natural physical world it is supposed to be modelling. The mystique is enhanced by the fact that the more physics 'advances' the more complex the maths the fewer, and fewer people can understand it. The people in this NG bask in the reflected glory of these high priests priding themselves on the fact that they understand a tiny bit more of the maths than the common man. In truth they don't "understand modern physics" either - they simply know of a man who they think does and can produce the odd 'sound bite'.


--
John Kennaugh
The problem with maths is that an awesomely impressive equation may be
describing an incredibly silly idea.
.

Quantcast