Re: "The map is not the Territory"...

From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 08/01/04 

Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 00:08:42 GMT

"srp" <srp2@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:410B967F.AB22F3D1@globetrotter.net...
> Bill Hobba a écrit :
> >
> > "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> [snip]
>
> > > What is the physical justification for it other than experience?
> > > Are you sure you just aren't taking certain principles as being
> > > axiomatic?
> >
> > Freddi the whole purpose of my reply was to point out that Paul's
constant
> > hammering at explanations being physical or not relies on a certain
> > interpretation of 'physical' - with that interpretation not necessarily
> > being the lay one. Now it is obvious what Paul means by physical from
his
> > writings - which is properties caused by an underlying medium or aether.
> > But that is not the usual meaning of the word as used in discussing
> > physics - that meaning being dependant on context. If one were to ask
for a
> > physical explanation of Maxwell's equations then pointing to a
lagrangian
> > that can be used to derive it would suffice - and is what I meant when I
> > gave that explanation. However if one asked for a physical cause - then
> > that is another matter. Fields in classical EM are considered
fundamental -
> > not requiring a cause - so Paul's question of physical cause is making
an
> > assumption the facts do not warrant - we have zero direct evidence,
> > classically, that fields depend on something deeper - his aether. Hence
the
> > question is meaningless and I will not even attempt to provide an
answer.
> > Indeed the very concept of fields in EM is up for grabs as the
references I
> > gave makes clear - it is really something we introduce for the
convenience
> > of being able to apply conventional physical ideas such as the
> > interpretation of conservation principles in a usual manner. Feynmans
and
> > Wheeler's formulation I gave the reference to does away with field
> > entirely - and still has a lagrangian. The cost is the conservation
laws
> > that Noethers theorem implies exists (you know that theorem that Paul
thinks
> > is not an explanation of anything or a cause or any of the other
worthless
> > adjectives he trots out regarding it) have an interpretation that does
not
> > conform to our usual ideas eg it requires effects traveling both forward
and
> > backward in time. That is the real reason we introduce fields - so we
have
> > an explanation that conforms to our usual intuitions. And that is the
> > reason Paul wants an aether - so he has an explanation that conforms to
how
> > he wants to view the world - it just so happens that that medium - the
> > aether he want to introduce - would need properties quite weird indeed
to
> > account for experiments. I admit the reason I prefer the field
framework is
> > it allows me to look at theories in the way I like - Paul's simply
refuses
> > to admit the reason he prefers the aether framework is it allows the
world
> > to be viewed in the way he likes. I admit the field approach has
problems
> > (eg a particles field acting on itself - a problem QED removes with
> > renormalisability) but Paul refuses to acknowledge the problems with an
> > aether - eg we have zero evidence of any phenomena whose only
interpretation
> > is the existence of an aether or how it melds with the other forces of
> > nature such as the weak and strong forces.
> >
> > My view is that when and if we ever have a final theory of nature all
these
> > problems will disappear - we will understand why the theory is as it is,
why
> > we should describe things in terms of fields or not or any of the other
> > myriad of problems we currently have.
>
> A final theory of nature that would cause all these problems to
> disappear cannot possibly come about until a sufficient number of
> people realize that the real MacCoy is the physical reality out
> there that all of our personal theories are ultimately trying to
> describe, and this includes the personal theories that have become
> generalized as current orthodox physics.

Banding words about like 'physical reality' and 'out there is fraught with
danger. Such is not the way of science - all that counts is how well a
theory is in accord with experiment. When we have a number of theories
equally in accord with experiment and no reasonable reason to decide between
them then we have an issue. When we have arbitrary constants such as alpha
that needs to be put into theories we have an issue. As far as the aether
is concerned we have a very good reason to exclude such theories - the
aether had never been detected. You do not introduce into theories
unecessary assumptions. However the existence of EM fields is another
matter. We can formulate a theory that does not require them - but at a
cost - our normal notions of conservation laws. The issue here is not as
clear. So why do people generally not go for the Feynman-Wheeler theory? -
it resolved the problem of a particles field acting on itself. Symmetry
arguments from QM strongly support the idea of a field - it can deduced by
local gauge invariance (see page 280 of the following reference
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Nothing/Law.doc). I know
something of QED but there are people around who know more and they may
correct me if I am wrong. But my understanding is that QED contains within
it both the Feynman-Wheeler and Maxwell's theories - that being the case
then the difference between the two views is rather moot. But that is an
interesting point I might do a separate post on.

>
> No real progress in that direction ever was accomplished in the past
> until a sufficient number of people stepped back a little from their
> own pet theories and started assembling the good pieces that fit
> together, whatever personal theories they may have stemmed from.
>
> This happened only a few times in the past. Among others, In Newton's
> time, and in Maxwell's time, in Plancks time...
>

Details please. I claim progress is made once the physicists concerned
asked key questions that allowed then to translate their ideas into
mathematics and the mathematic into physics. This is examined here:
http://modeling.la.asu.edu/R&E/SecretsGenius.pdf .

For example Maxwell made progress once he looked at the mathematical
consistency of the equations experiment showed EM obeyed. Dirac made
porgies once he asked what would happen he pursued ways other than the Klein
Gordon equation to fit SR into QM. Einsnten made progress when he asked
what would a beam of light took like if you war moving with it. All these
are examples of asking the right question.

>
> I think that great discoveries will be the payoff when such a
> stepping back occurs again.

I think the great discoveries will be the payoff for asking the right
questions.

Thanks
Bill

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "The map is not the Territory"...
    ... >> is not an explanation of anything or a cause or any of the other ... I admit the reason I prefer the field ... I claim progress is made once the physicists concerned ... mathematics and the mathematic into physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Chi FAQ v1.1.7
    ... It's not the practical application that I dispute, it's the explanation. ... and around which practices that *work* developed. ... The only reason is because they can do it, and no physics Nobel prize ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: Material driven duration help
    ... Thanks for your explanation, I was confused. ... The reason I wanted to ... use project is there are a number of dependencies on the progress and I ...
    (microsoft.public.project)
  • Re: "Intelligent design"
    ... but I think that someday we could have the true theory ... We figured out most all of physics in the last few hundred years. ... could be sure it was the final explanation. ... There's no reason to believe that we won't just ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: wanted - rigorous definition of "wave"
    ... only works for a SUBSET of waves, much like "gives live birth to its ... the context of physics. ... explanation, and if those are ruled out, then the only possible ... that pretty much sums up the idea of waves without a medium. ...
    (sci.physics)
Quantcast