Philosophy Now Forum

Physics: By Beauty it is beautiful.
#
After reading book ‘Albert Einstein’ by Leopold Infeld.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Infeld
========================.
Page 4.
‘ Many believe that relative theory tells us that ours
is a kind of Alice-in-Wonderland universe; . . . .‘
‘ How, then, did the prejudice about the mysterious relative
Alice-in-Wonderland universe arise?’
#
I will try to give my brief remark about this situation.
1.
In the 19th century aether /ether was the term used to
describe a medium for the propagation of quantum of light
(electromagnetic waves ).
This aether had strange chracteristic.
On one hand it must be very thin, because the planets
move through it without resistence.
On the other hand it must be very hard, because quantum
of light is a transverse wave. And a transverse wave can
move only in a hard space. It was created many theories
to explain this paradox but without success.
2.
In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment
showed that the speed of quantum of light is constant in all
directions regardless of the motion of the source.
This experiment was interpreted as ’ether doesn’t exist’.
3.
In 1905, Albert Einstein resolved this paradox by revising the
Galilean model of space and time to account for the constancy
of the speed of light. Einstein formulated his ideas in his
special theory of relativity, which advanced humankind's
understanding of space and time.
/ The special theory of relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light
4.
In 1908 Herman Minkowski explained Einstein’s
idea using time as forth dimension and said:
‘ Henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself,
are doomed to fade away into mere shadows,
and only a kind of union of the two will preserve
an independent reality.’
=======================.
#
So, ‘ How, then, did the prejudice about the mysterious
relative Alice-in-Wonderland universe arise?’
My opinion.
On the page 5 Infeld wrote:
‘ Science is a rational structure; the greatest pleasure
in studying is that of understanding. Without it
knowledge means little.’

Very well. But if the ‘ Science is a rational structure’
then where is the Minkowski (-4D ) in nature, where
is the ‘only a kind of union of the two’ ?
Nobody knows where it is.
So, what is about a rational structure?
So, what is about a real structure, real nature?
I don’t mean to criticize.
I only cannot understand why the trick of changing
concept of ether on the concept of space-time was passed
without doubt, with glory and proud.
=====.
P.S.
Maybe the reason of (-4D) long live is it
mathematical beauty ?
Page 45.
‘Minkowski mathematical genius put Einstein’s ideas
into a new geometrical form that fully revealed their
beauty and simplicity.’

But is it correct to say, that these two parameters real enough
to explain and understand the real nature?
About 2500 years ago, according to Plato, Socrates said:
‘ I do not go so far as to insist upon the precise details;
only upon the fact that it is by Beauty that beautiful
things are beautiful.’

This is exactly that physicists are doing.
And as a result, going in such beautiful mathematical
way we have many paradoxes in physics.

Without the precise physical details, like: volume (V ),
temperature (T ) and density ( P) the Minkowski
beautiful and simple (-4D) is a pure mathematical game,
it is an abstraction.
=======.
All the best.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
==============================.

I agree that all physics relies on a priori mathematical abstractions to model the universe, and I reject utterly the assertion from mathematicians that somehow the language of the universe is mathematics- I regard this as hopelessly anthropocentric.
Yet, whilst I have these reservations I admit and accept that the boundary of an ever growing science relies on the accurate modelling by maths of the physical universe.
It seems to me that the limits of human conceit and our ability to impose this model on the Universe to understand is being reached. In a sense the nature of the Universe is proving too resistant to succumb to our machinations, and that this struggle is parallel with a long realised philosophical question; it the universe of a single substance, dualistic or atomistic? It seem to me that the digital nature of maths is failing to understand the analogue reality. Is reality a wave or is it a particle.

socratus wrote:Physics: By Beauty it is beautiful.
#
After reading book ‘Albert Einstein’ by Leopold Infeld.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Infeld
========================.
Page 4.
‘ Many believe that relative theory tells us that ours
is a kind of Alice-in-Wonderland universe; . . . .‘
‘ How, then, did the prejudice about the mysterious relative
Alice-in-Wonderland universe arise?’
#
I will try to give my brief remark about this situation.
1.
In the 19th century aether /ether was the term used to
describe a medium for the propagation of quantum of light
(electromagnetic waves ).
This aether had strange chracteristic.
On one hand it must be very thin, because the planets
move through it without resistence.
On the other hand it must be very hard, because quantum
of light is a transverse wave. And a transverse wave can
move only in a hard space. It was created many theories
to explain this paradox but without success.
2.
In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment
showed that the speed of quantum of light is constant in all
directions regardless of the motion of the source.
This experiment was interpreted as ’ether doesn’t exist’.
3.
In 1905, Albert Einstein resolved this paradox by revising the
Galilean model of space and time to account for the constancy
of the speed of light. Einstein formulated his ideas in his
special theory of relativity, which advanced humankind's
understanding of space and time.
/ The special theory of relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light
4.
In 1908 Herman Minkowski explained Einstein’s
idea using time as forth dimension and said:
‘ Henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself,
are doomed to fade away into mere shadows,
and only a kind of union of the two will preserve
an independent reality.’
=======================.
#
So, ‘ How, then, did the prejudice about the mysterious
relative Alice-in-Wonderland universe arise?’
My opinion.
On the page 5 Infeld wrote:
‘ Science is a rational structure; the greatest pleasure
in studying is that of understanding. Without it
knowledge means little.’

Very well. But if the ‘ Science is a rational structure’
then where is the Minkowski (-4D ) in nature, where
is the ‘only a kind of union of the two’ ?
Nobody knows where it is.
So, what is about a rational structure?
So, what is about a real structure, real nature?
I don’t mean to criticize.
I only cannot understand why the trick of changing
concept of ether on the concept of space-time was passed
without doubt, with glory and proud.
=====.
P.S.
Maybe the reason of (-4D) long live is it
mathematical beauty ?
Page 45.
‘Minkowski mathematical genius put Einstein’s ideas
into a new geometrical form that fully revealed their
beauty and simplicity.’

But is it correct to say, that these two parameters real enough
to explain and understand the real nature?
About 2500 years ago, according to Plato, Socrates said:
‘ I do not go so far as to insist upon the precise details;
only upon the fact that it is by Beauty that beautiful
things are beautiful.’

This is exactly that physicists are doing.
And as a result, going in such beautiful mathematical
way we have many paradoxes in physics.

Without the precise physical details, like: volume (V ),
temperature (T ) and density ( P) the Minkowski
beautiful and simple (-4D) is a pure mathematical game,
it is an abstraction.
=======.
All the best.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
==============================.

chaz wyman wrote: I agree that all physics relies on a priori mathematical abstractions
to model the universe, and I reject utterly the assertion from
mathematicians that somehow the language of the universe
is mathematics- I regard this as hopelessly anthropocentric.

#
" Mathematics may be defined as the subject where we never know
what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true."
/ Bertrand Russell./
#
‘Since the mathematical physicists have taken over,
theoretical physics has gone to pot.
The bizarre concepts generated out of the over use and
misinterpretation of mathematics would be funny if it were not
for the tragedy of the waste in time, manpower, money,
and the resulting misdirection.’
/ Richard Feynman./

Book ‘Albert Einstein’ by Leopold Infeld.
Page 4.
And out of this fantastic, relative world that Einstein
created there suddenly appeared the atomic bomb.
Page 36.
Its title is ‘Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on Its Energy?’
This short paper states: the use of atomic energy is,
in principle, possible. Forty years later, the work
of many scientists showed that the use of atomic
energy is practicable as was demonstrated . . . . .
. . . in the New Mexican desert and the devastation
at Hiroshima.
=============.
So, on the one hand SRT is true theory.
But on the other hand its basis ( -4D) is abstract.
To tell half of truth is worse than pure lie.
When in SRT practical truth mixed with an abstract meaning
of (-4D) our logical thought sink as ‘ unsinkable Titanic’.
SRT, as a good mirror, shows us the real ugly understanding
the concept that we call ‘ Scientific Knowledge’.
But . . .but . . .
‘ One thing I have learned in a long life:
that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive
and childlike - and yet it is the most precious thing we have.’
/ Einstein /
=============.
S.

socratus wrote:

chaz wyman wrote: I agree that all physics relies on a priori mathematical abstractions
to model the universe, and I reject utterly the assertion from
mathematicians that somehow the language of the universe
is mathematics- I regard this as hopelessly anthropocentric.

#
" Mathematics may be defined as the subject where we never know
what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true."
/ Bertrand Russell./
#
‘Since the mathematical physicists have taken over,
theoretical physics has gone to pot.
The bizarre concepts generated out of the over use and
misinterpretation of mathematics would be funny if it were not
for the tragedy of the waste in time, manpower, money,
and the resulting misdirection.’
/ Richard Feynman./

These quotes do not address my issue.
But can you tell me where they are from?

socratus wrote:Physics: By Beauty it is beautiful.
#
Without the precise physical details, like: volume (V ),
temperature (T ) and density ( P) the Minkowski
beautiful and simple (-4D) is a pure mathematical game,
it is an abstraction.

I can sign your words. As I have already written physics became a belief :(

There is only the time of “now” here. The time of “before” remains perhaps (somewhere) frozen. In any case there is not (prepared) the time of “after” yet. In case the future had already (somewhere) existed the Universe would have lost its sense. (I hope you understand my awkward English)

See another simple problem: The integrals of force differ in cases of incoming and outgoing body (known Mercury’s trace spinning). Such difference is just the source of its tangential shift. But whole special relativity uses expression “v^2/c^2” that is not sensitive to moving direction...

埃及拒付继续

chaz wyman wrote:埃及拒付继续

#
This formula ( below) is very beautiful.
But how it is a pity what I cannot understand this formula.
But how it is a pity what this formula is wiser than me.
=================.
#
Quote by Heinrich Hertz on Maxwell's equations:
"One cannot escape the feeling that these mathematical formulae
have an independent existence and an intelligence of their own,
that they are wiser than we are, wiser even than their discoverers,
that we get more out of them than was originally put into them."
==.

Cerveny wrote:See another simple problem: The integrals of force differ in cases of incoming and outgoing body (known Mercury’s trace spinning). Such difference is just the source of its tangential shift. But whole special relativity uses expression “v^2/c^2” that is not sensitive to moving direction...

In case of incoming body the force/signal goes/arrives parallelly with a body (their acting time are subtracted) and in case of outgoing body the force/signal goes by opposite direction to outgoing/leaving body (their acting time are added)... SR does not describe this simple consideration at all… I can not help myself - the special theory or relativity is mostly unreliable speculation (for me)…

Cerveny wrote:

Cerveny wrote: SR does not describe this simple consideration at all…
I can not help myself -
the special theory or relativity is mostly unreliable speculation (for me)…

Book ‘Albert Einstein’ by Leopold Infeld.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Infeld
Einstein’s colleague professor Leopold Infeld wrote
on the page 88.
' . . . Einstein’s great work in quantum theory is concerned
with the physics of light while his great work in relativity
theory is concerned rather with the geometry of light.'

So, maybe:
The quantum theory is concerned with the physics of light.
QT is a part of quantum of light theory.
The SRT is concerned with the physics and geometry of light.
SRT is a part of quantum of light theory.
The QED ( QT + SRT ) is theory of quantum of light.
The QED describes behavior of quantum of light.
==============.
Socratus.