Re: real science


JoeT wrote:
PD: It is very difficult to correct errors and misconceptions
accumulated over three centuries. May I ask, if every universal
phenomena has a mechanical explanation just like understanding steam
engine, do physicists still want to asume the presence of object-free
force fields, spacetime, curved spacetime, electromagnetic wave,
photon, vurture particles, dark matters, etc.?

What physicists have learned is that nature is richer and involves more
kinds of things than what can be used to explain how a steam engine
works. At every stage, physicists have asked, "Is this really a new
kind of thing, or is it just the same kind of thing but looks
different." The answer to that, for those things that have persisted
(like object-free fields) is, "Yes, this is indeed a new kind of
thing."

Let's say light is
electromagnetic wave or photon and gravity is curved spacetime. The
answers do not satisfy anybody since nobody knows what electromagnetic
wave, photon and spacetime are?

Sure they do. You might not, but please don't project.

Yes, they are mathematical functions,
so what?

No, they're much more than that. They're quite real. Sometimes it helps
to see these new kinds of things in action. It also helps to not try to
force a new kind of thing into being "in reality" another instance of
the familiar, old kind of thing.


Why physicists believe that mathematics is physics? It is neither
biology nor other fields of science, why physics?

Biology has its own issues. It has names for things and doesn't know
what they are, either. "Gene" for example. It's not at all clear what a
gene is. Now, if you'd like to discuss that briefly (briefly because
it's not physics), we can.

Admit or not, physics
has very big problems.

JoeT

PD wrote:
JoeT wrote:
Thank you PD. I guess that your comments also represent all the rest of
them I don't know what they are talking about. The purpose of this post
is to point out that physicists must face the fact that PM is a
having-aether science while MP is a no-aether theory.

That is another fundamental error.

There are two
physics which contradict each other. only one of them can be right and
both can not be correct. I guess your answer is that both are right. Of
course, you believe that MP is right and you also teach PM in schools.
I still disagree with all of you.

1&2. In PM mathematics is a tool for quantification purposes not
physics.

That is another fundamental error.

Its laws only apply to objects having masses and all phenomena
are produced by objects.

That is the same fundamental error you made previously. It simply is
not true.

Applying them to massless system has
apparently stepped out of the boundary of science.

Of course not, and I don't know why you would think that.


3. Sorry, although object-free (force) fields are convenient for
calculations, they are not real.

A PM scientist would disagree with you, and vigorously. A field,
without reference to objects, can be demonstrated to carry momentum and
energy, for example -- and a discussion of this is in any first-year
physics text.

A "real scientific force field" is a
field of particles having masses such as aether or neutrino particles.

I don't know where you got this idea. Furthermore, I don't know who
made up the phrase "real scientific force field". You?


4. A correct or real science should be consistent throughout and should
have no "domain (limit) of applications" unless there is a logic
scientific explanation.

Two comments here. What you think science "should be" is irrelevant. If
you want to know what science is, ask a scientist. Secondly, *every*
theory in existence without exception has a finite domain of
application. This may come as a shock to you, but it is true
nonetheless. You may want to ask a scientist whether this is really
true.

The question is not that whether PM is
applicable to microsystems. It is why the energy orbital of electrons
are quantized, for example.

JoeT

PD wrote:
JoeT wrote:
The Only Real Science

The very fact we all must face is that there is only one real science
that must be consistent throughout without contradiction. We believe
that both "physics of mechanics (PM)" and "modern physics (MP)"
are real sciences. This can not be true since they contradict each
other! PM has long concluded from huge amounts of experimental findings
that all phenomena are produced by objects having masses and relative
motions. Yet MP postulates that there is no object (aether) in space to
produce universal phenomena, which are mathematical functions, not
objects! For example, scientists have found that sound, fire,
atmospheric pressure, heat, etc. are produced by objects agreeing with
the teaching of PM. Yet, their scientific answers to light are
"electromagnetic wave" and "photon" and to gravity is
"distorted spacetime", which are mathematical functions not
produced by objects. For centuries, physics, the fundamental science,
has such fatal contradictions. Either PM or MP is real science, but not
both!


You make several fundamental errors.

1. The "physics of mechanics" is not strictly a physical picture of
massive particles or collections of massive particles interacting with
each other in a completely deterministic way. The "physics of
mechanics" is in reality a set of *physical laws* (and these are
defined in terms of mathematically predictive principles) which seem to
prevail in nature, and most of those laws were built to account for the
behavior of massive particles or collections of massive particles
interacting with each other in a deterministic way. However, there is
no inherent assumption that the reason *why* those laws apply is
*because of* deterministic interactions between particles or
collections of particles. Nor is it implied that the laws *apply only
to* deterministic interactions between particles or collections of
particles.

2. Determinism was an *article of faith* about the character of physics
in the 19th century, much as underlying symmetry and the smallness of
the number of truly fundamental particles are *articles of faith*
today. An article of faith is driven as much by a sense of esthetics as
it is from experience, but it is not necessarily derivable from data or
fundamental principles. The article of faith is what drives physicists
into *new* territory, without the benefit of data or derivation from
previous theory. An example of this is the characterization of physical
entities by classical wave characteristics or by classical particle
characteristics. Light, it was found, exhibited particle
characteristics as well as wave characteristics. An *article of faith*
about symmetry in nature led deBroglie to ponder whether electrons
exhibit wave characteristics as well as particle characteristics -- in
the complete absence of data to suggest that. In the 20th century,
experiments arose which shook the presumption of determinism, and
physicists were forced to reconsider whether their article of faith was
a reliable indicator for new territory. In fact, the issue was so
fundamental that experiments were carefully designed to discern whether
nature is fundamentally completely deterministic or at least partially
non-deterministic. Experiment says the latter, which came as a shock to
many, but so nonetheless.

3. It is an error to think that physics only considers intuitive
entities to be massive particles and collections of particles. Fields
are considered to be very real, even in classical physics, and they
carry measurable things like energy and momentum -- they are NOT
thought of as purely mathematical fictions. To insist otherwise is to
have a very limited perception of what physics -- even classical
physics -- considers to be real.

4. It is incorrect to say that PM and MP disagree. They both have a
domain of application where they claim to be relevant and successful.
The fact that there is a domain where PM does *not work* to accurately
account for observed behavior, does not invalidate its use for the
domain where it does work. Moreover, it is a serious constraint on MP
that, in the domain where PM is known to work well, MP must agree
completely on observational predictions with PM. This is known as the
"correspondence principle". As for whether MP and PM is "more" correct,
it is true that MP has a larger domain of application than PM does --
this is known experimentally.

PD

.

Relevant Pages

  • Physics Top Ten -- Annual Review of Best Research by Physicists
    ... Former presidential science advisor Vannevar Bush referred to science as an endless frontier of new discoveries. ... So what were the big physics findings for 2008? ... Superconductors are used in specialty applications where high electrical currents are needed, such as in MRI scanners at hospitals or in the magnets used to steer particles at atom smashers. ... Using lasers to slow a gas of particles down to near stillness is by now a standard method for measuring the subtle properties of atoms. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • This Weeks Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 253)
    ... This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics ... particles using some math called "triality", ... Standard Model, together with gravity. ... makes the Lie algebra suinto a Lie subalgebra of so. ...
    (sci.math.research)
  • Re: real science
    ... physics which contradict each other. ... field of particles having masses such as aether or neutrino particles. ... A correct or real science should be consistent throughout and should ... Determinism was an *article of faith* about the character of physics ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Determinism
    ... unambiguously main line physics. ... there is still a strong thread of determinism underlying ... indeterminancy introduced by black holes. ... was negligible (Say we had access to sub-sub atomic particles). ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: real science
    ... The very fact we all must face is that there is only one real science ... For centuries, physics, the fundamental science, ... massive particles or collections of massive particles interacting with ... Determinism was an *article of faith* about the character of physics ...
    (sci.physics)