Re: The Brilliance of Our Teachers

From: Gregory L. Hansen (glhansen_at_steel.ucs.indiana.edu)
Date: 03/23/05 

Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 22:26:33 +0000 (UTC)

In article <1111610510.3b139fc5f766e548d9255c1afeeac5cf@teranews>,
Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Mar 2005 17:04:30 +0000 (UTC)) it happened
>glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in
><d1s7iu$btm$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu>:
>
>I am snipping some previous stuff to keep the size down, all on google
>anyways.
>
>>Sort of, if you take the question of how a Le Sage particle interacts with
>>>>matter as a question that doesn't need to be asked.
>>>Then start asking it, I have been wondering about that for years.
>>
>>Okay, why would a LeSagian particle interact with matter instead of
>>passing through as if it weren't there?
>You will likely not take 'I dunno ' as an answer....

I certainly would. But I would not accept that the LeSagian particle is
any more of a "mechanism" than a field or a spacetime curvature. It
satisfies some restricted definitions of "mechanism" that requires a
mechanical model in the style of colliding billiard balls or water waves,
but that's an arbitrary restriction.

>
>
>>The conventional explanation for
>>particles like BBs bumping off each other is electrostatic forces, which
>>introduces the field. But then the mechanical interaction is reduced to
>>interactions between fields. If one is not satisfied with the field as a
>>"mechanism", one might suppose a lumeniferous aether that permeates space.
>>But then one is brought right back to the question of why the aether
>>interacts with particles.
>Yes (I have read all you posting first, so referring to 'comfort zone'), of
>cause because the way we grow up and play, we take things for granted,
>like space, having 3 dimensions...

Poincare had a tediously long discussion of that very point in his book
"Science and Hypothesis", published more than a hundred years ago (and
available today as a cheap Dover edition). The very act of reaching out
and picking something up is a mental model that correlates sense
experience in a self-consistent way.

>There may or may not be some electromagnetic coupling in the case of a Le
>Saga particle... IF<<< if was to move FTL then how would that work?
>Neutrinos pass through the earth no problem, but exchange some energy it
>seems, and they change state.
>Analogous to that one can think of 'other' energy transfer mechanisms..

But all those mechanisms are mediated by the electromagnetic field, the
weak field, etc., or their associated gauge bosons if you like. Aethers
seem to be introduced around here by people that don't accept the field as
a mechanism, but would accept a fluid.

>Can we even detect such a particle...
>It seems to me if you want to see why inertia and weight (well expression) is
>equivalent, these Le Saga particles provide an explanation too.

It's easy to imagine experiments to test LeSage-- gravitational shielding,
a gravitational Brownian motion, spontaneous heat generation, etc. But
the test seems to get lost in the limits-- the flux increases as the
interaction strength decreases to whatever limit is needed to squeeze
through the error bars. It would result in a measurable drag on planets,
and although I've been confidently assured that problem has been resolved,
I've never figured out how.

We can expect LeSagian particles to have a sort of frame-dragging effect.
Some of them, we'd expect, will be hit like a baseball bat on a ball by
our rotating planet, slightly more at the near side than the far side
because of the shielding effect of the mass. And so they'd tend to fly
off with a velocity that doesn't intersect the center of our planet,
giving a little push to something in orbit.

But that's not really analogous to frame dragging in general relativity,
which is more like magnetism. Imagine a charged particle approaching a
current-carrying wire. As it approaches it deflects in one direction, as
it recedes it deflects in the other because F=vxB. If it stays at
constant r (dv/dr=0) there's no deflection other than orbital motion.
Let's see what Gravity Probe B says.

>You argue we need no mechanism

I argue that little BBs bouncing around is no more "mechanism" than a
field or a spacetime curvature. The theory has a mechanism.

>(perhaps only the math), but math alone makes
>no car go.
>Physics math is often (should always be?) build on the results of experiments.

That's a rather stifled view. Experiments inspire and validate the math.
But we shouldn't think the theory has to be "built on" the results of
experiments-- then we'd have no theory at all, just a bunch of curves
fitted to data sets.

>And those experiments happen in a physical world.
>It is easy to say: 'hey, I have got a formula for this effect' and in fact
>ANYBODY can make a formula for ANY effect, but its predictive value is what
>counts (not only from an engineering point of view).
>I mean, relativity has made some correct predictions, some of it questionable,
>but is too easy used in a way to prove itself (gravity waves).
>If there are no gravity waves the whole idea is garbage, NOT the math, but
>cannot be applied that way.

Relativity is not an instance of just casting about for a formula. What
you've desribed above seems more like the engineers that write out
empirical formulas and make measurements to figure out what coefficients
to put in there for a particular gas or whatever. That's a strictly
pragmatic approach for a profession where prediction is the only thing
they care about, because they're just trying to build stuff that works.

Relativity is not a collection of empirical formulas. It's a small set of
universally applied postulates from which all the results are deduced (not
induced). It is a theory, the predictions it makes are derived and not
fitted.

>
>>Ultimately, finding a "mechanism" is a fool's errand because you're
>>eventually left with postulates that have no explanation in themselves.
>Nope, FIRST you understand HOW, THEN (capitals!!!) you can make a
>mathematical model that allows you to do theoretical design (call it
>simulation if you so please).

The model *is* "how". The model might be mathematical, it might be purely
conceptual. But your conceptual model is not more "how" than someone
else's mathematical model.

>There are plenty of examples of that.
>Some effect is observed, (say electricity), a relation is found to be
>true (say Ohms law), and now you can use Ohms law to predict and design
>things, without first creating these physically.
>We found electrons, it is VERY dangerous to say I have got Ohms law, and
>what is in those wires must be water -> and therefore electrical outlets will
>get wet.
>This is Einstein's way: I have got this math, it fits observations, and
>THEREFORE there are gravity waves, no eather, and C is max. speed.
>Just makes no sense to me.

Einstein worked with conceptual models long before he put them to math.

>
>
>>The only thing a theory can do is to explain a phenomenon in terms of
>>things one is more comfortable with or is satisfied to just accept.
>Of cause there is our physical world, you can see a ball, throw it,
>get a feel for how to throw it, become a champion too.
>Bet you the champion cannot do the math :-)
>But his brain did real time simulation better then the best computer.
>Math as I know it, is only a language.
>I have come across this several times, incredible complicated formulas,
>sigh, then a simple C program, 'Oh yes', I see what you mean, just yesterday
>really.
>Math, is just one of those ways to connect our picture of reality perhaps.
>It is not the only one, and not the most efficient one.
>Many ideas surface from our subconscious, and maybe if we are into math at
>that time: 'hey I have this solution!'.

Math quantifies a model, making rigorous testing possible.

>
>
>>>Problem is, that if you say C is max. speed, then that makes it more
>>>difficult.
>>>That is why I wrote:
>>>'There is no mechanism to put the brakes on at C in relativity'.
>>>IF there was an eather, there could be (but Ein did not need one...).
>>>We observe (it seems?) not > C in accelerator.
>>>If this is caused by some 'substance' that substance could move at different
>>>speed too elsewhere (I have heard of the MM experiment).
>>>So, start thinking about a mechanism by all means!
>>>Maybe we should do some experiments in that direction.
>>>We have spend enough on proving there are no gravity waves.
>>
>>That is a different question entirely than why a LeSagian corpuscle will
>>bump a particle of matter. And since you phrase it as a "mechanism to put
>>the brakes on at C in relativity" I think you must be imposing Galilean
>>relativity on a theory in which there is no such thing. In relativity,
>>nothing "puts the brakes on c". It is simply an invariant speed.
>And I would like to know WHY it is invariant, and is it really?
>We have observed galaxies receding from each other at up to 27 x C, and
>this is then rationalized away with very very dubious assumptions about
>viewing angle.
>Maybe right maybe wrong, but you have to have a LOT of guts to base anything
>you see on C is invariant.
>It is almost like saying all bananas are green, the yellow ones just look
>yellow because green is the only possible banana color, so they must be spray-
>painted.
>
>
>
>> You
>>might as well ask what mechanism, in Galilean relativity, preserves
>>lengths for a boosted observer. But that's probably a question you didn't
>>think needs to be asked. Not because the question is any sillier, but
>>because it's sitting deep in your comfort zone.
>Oh I have asked that question too, in fact did a little experiment (with null

Good! A lot of people don't. A lot of people ask for a mechanism that
makes c invariant without e.g. thinking that the mechanism that makes c
additive is even a question that can be asked; they don't realize their
own postulates that are assumed true without question.

That c is invariant is a postulate. If it had an explanation it would not
be a postulate, it would be a conclusion. But before asking for a
mechanism for that, what postulates do you assume must be true such that
it even makes sense to ask for the mechanism? Why should c not be
invariant? Is that concluded from measurements of the speed of light?
No. Maybe because of an attempt to generalize personal experiences with
things moving 0.0000001 c to arbitrary speeds?

>result) to test Lorentz's old 1904 LET theory (before Einstein),
>http://panteltje.com/panteltje/lorentz/index.html
>Could be repeated more accurate though, have not played with it some years.
>But was a fun experiment.
>I am the opinion that we should do experiments, I think LIGO is great to
>disprove Einstein's philosophy about 'gravity waves'.
>Maybe LIGO is just a big MM experiment, and we all know what that gives as
>result ;-)
>I am not a knowledgeable person on physics as we know it (you know it).
>But I am an old analyzer, and hard to fool, worked all my life with things
>I cannot see (electrons), and those little creatures and I go along well.
>I fail to see the 'mechanics' in Enstein's ideas, and we NEED a MECHANISM,
>EVEN if it only was to visualize where we now are overflowed with math.

You know the mechanism; the field equations relate curvature directly to
mass-energy, the popular literature is filled with rubber *** analogies.
What's wrong with that as a mechanism? It's no good because it doesn't
have little BBs flying around?

>Take string theory, IF you say 'strings are at the basis of everything',
>then FOR SURE if you are a good math fiddler you will end up proving
>everything is made of strings, but EXCUSE ME that was you point of origin,
>so I need not know your math, I trust you know your stuff!

I don't know string theory, but they have the "how" built into the name--
things are made of vibrating strings. The extra spatial dimensions all
rolled up may be weird, but "extra spatial dimensions" and "rolled up" are
a physical picture for the math to represent.

>But now build me a drive that takes me in a day to some star, I will pay the
>one who does, and I will not give a cent for an other theory.

I might have to get back to you on that one.

>
>>"Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler."
>> -- Albert Einstein
>This I have read some where here:
>There are a million simple beautiful solutions to any problem,
>most of them wrong.
>
>In electronics and programming:
> Not tested = not working.
>The exceptions are less then 1 in a thousand perhaps.
>Have fun. 

-- 
"Is that plutonium on your gums?"
"Shut up and kiss me!"
  -- Marge and Homer Simpson
Quantcast