If modern physics is so wrong how come it is so right?


BaalChatzaf

Recommended Posts

There are Objectivists (Harriman for one) who tell us that physics is philosophically corrupt, wrong-headed, ill-founded etc. etc.. So how come physics predicts the outcome of experiments so well. How come physics can account for astronomical observations (in several spectra, too!). In short how can something so wrong be so right?

To this day relativity theory (on of the pillars of modern physics) has yet to be falsified empirically. Quantum theory (in its latest state) correctly predicts and adequately explains observed phenomena in the sub-atomics. An example: solid state technology cannot be explained except in terms of quantum processes. Classical electrodynamics simply do not account for how solid-state devices work. Hell! Classical electrodynamics imply that atoms will collapse in something like

1/(10^11) seconds flat, something that is palpably false.

Another example: Classical electrodynamics implies that the energy that light imparts to matter (especially loosely bound electrons in metals) is proportional to the amplitude of the light waves impinging on a sliver of metal (for example). This effect was first noted by Herz when he constructed apparatus to verify Maxwell's theory of electromagnetic radiation. Einstein showed that the energy imparted to loosely bound electrons is proportional to the frequency of the incoming light (this is the well known photo-electric effect). Einstein's mathematical analysis of the photoelectric effect has been verified experimental and Robert Millikan (who initially disagreed with Einstein on the photo-electric effect) verified Einstein's analysis and predictions. The Compton Effect is yet another corroberation of Einstein's proposal of "atoms of light" (now called photons). Bottom line: we cannot explain X-rays except in quantum (photonic) terms.

The line of research undertaken by Einstein with regard to electromagnetic radiation put quantum theory on the map and eventually lead to the physics underlying lasers. If we accept what Harriman says, the explanation for lasers is utterly incoherent. If physicists thought as did Harriman we would have no lasers (an not transistors either).

Well, philosophically, mentally deranged physics explains: X-rays, cosmic rays, radioactive decay and many, many other observed effects and phenomena.

How is that possible?

I leave it to the Objectivists here to explain this seeming quandry.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited by BaalChatzaf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Come on Bob, you know that no one is disputing the experimental results. The issue concerns the interpretation of those results.

What causes time dilation? How does modern physics answer this question?

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on Bob, you know that no one is disputing the experimental results. The issue concerns the interpretation of those results.

What causes time dilation? How does modern physics answer this question?

I thought motion caused time dilation since time is a measurement of motions of which there are many.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on Bob, you know that no one is disputing the experimental results. The issue concerns the interpretation of those results.

What causes time dilation? How does modern physics answer this question?

I thought motion caused time dilation since time is a measurement of motions of which there are many.

--Brant

The first half of your sentence makes sense, I don't understand the second half. Anyway, motion is indeed associated with time dilation, but I don't see that physicists have actually causally connected it by specifying how, nor do they seem particularly concerned with doing so. Such a lack of concern disqualifies them from actually being legitimate physicists.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this a joke?

The predictions of Chaldean astronomy were incredibly accurate, and not surpassed by the Greeks or the Arabs or any observers until Tycho Brahe. The mechanisms, if any, that they posited? Various winged deities and a dragon which occasionally consumed and then vomited out the sun.

Really, Bob, this has been explained to you over and over and over. I know your memory is bad. But this sort of cluelessness as to the objections of your critics is not possible without some willful dishonesty. The fact that you post this in a new thread, rather than in the old threads or with links to the old threads where you have been corrected before, shows your intent to evade the relevant facts in an attempt to stay on message.

You should work for the DNC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on Bob, you know that no one is disputing the experimental results. The issue concerns the interpretation of those results.

What causes time dilation? How does modern physics answer this question?

I thought motion caused time dilation since time is a measurement of motions of which there are many.

--Brant

The first half of your sentence makes sense, I don't understand the second half. Anyway, motion is indeed associated with time dilation, but I don't see that physicists have actually causally connected it by specifying how, nor do they seem particularly concerned with doing so. Such a lack of concern disqualifies them from actually being legitimate physicists.

Shayne

Not so sure about that conclusion. Time dilation is a simple and necessary consequence of the cosmic speed limit - no?

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not so sure about that conclusion. Time dilation is a simple and necessary consequence of the cosmic speed limit - no?

Bob

It mathematically results from the proposition that the speed of light is discerned as constant in all reference frames. Deriving the formulas from the proposition (a simple task) is different from explaining why the proposition is so.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on Bob, you know that no one is disputing the experimental results. The issue concerns the interpretation of those results.

What causes time dilation? How does modern physics answer this question?

Shayne

Time dilation is a logical (i.e. mathematical) consequence of the constance of the speed of light regardless of the velocity of the observers or the source. See any standard textbook on Special Relativity. If the speed of light is constant (for all viewers and sources) then it follows that viewers in relative motion to each other will see the clock in a f.o.r. moving slower. By the way this has been verified experimentally. It is not "just a theory".

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on Bob, you know that no one is disputing the experimental results. The issue concerns the interpretation of those results.

What causes time dilation? How does modern physics answer this question?

Shayne

Time dilation is a logical (i.e. mathematical) consequence of the constance of the speed of light regardless of the velocity of the observers or the source. See any standard textbook on Special Relativity. If the speed of light is constant (for all viewers and sources) then it follows that viewers in relative motion to each other will see the clock in a f.o.r. moving slower. By the way this has been verified experimentally. It is not "just a theory".

Ba'al Chatzaf

Well you're just restating what I just barely said.... I think we're all just waiting to see how long it will take you to recognize what the debate is actually about. Everyone but you seems to understand, why are you so dogmatic on this particular point? It's like that 2D "flatland" metaphor; there's a dimension to this issue that you seem perfectly blind to.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on Bob, you know that no one is disputing the experimental results. The issue concerns the interpretation of those results.

What causes time dilation? How does modern physics answer this question?

Shayne

You seem to believe that the only results that are true follow from the experiments. Not so. The effects of the gravitational field on light and on clocks were -predicted- by the theory of relativity based on the equivalence principle. It was not the case that red shift in a gravitational field was seen first in an experiment or that the slowing of clocks in a heavier gravitational field was first understood as an odd experimental fact. Not so. General Relativity predicted these results (which were later verified by experiment) as a consequence of the Equivalence Principle. The effects of the gravitation field on the frequency of light and the oscillation of atoms (which are clocks) is the basis of GPS which is known to work empirically.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_Principle

Some theories are developed to explain certain observations and or experimental results which have no explanation or no valid explanation. Other theories are derived from assumptions of symmetry (such as General Relativity). Not all observed phenomenon have known causes. Neither Newton nor Einstein produced a -cause- for gravitational interaction. Both produced theories which described gravitational effects and made predictions about gravitational interactions.

Maxwell proposed his theory of electromagnetism to describe and explain the relations between the magnetic field and the electric field. We know know there is only the electromagnetic field some of whose components are related to magnetic forces and other components are related to electrical forces. It turns out that in Special Theory of relativity there is a very neat and elegant way of representing electro magnetic fields with a tensor of order 4. This is a refinement and simplification of Maxwell's presentation of the e.m. field (his famous 4 equations).

Newton in his Scholium of Book III of -Principia Mathemtica- wrote "hypotheses non fingo...;" which is Latin for "I posit no hypothesis" referring to the causes of gravitation. To this day no one knows why gravitation exists. but there are several nifty theories which accurately predict the effects of gravitation on matter and fields. We don't know WHY gravitation is but we know HOW gravitation is and quite well.

By the way you still haven't answered the question I posed. If physics is so incoherent and ill founded how come the physical theories predict effects well before they are ever seen in observation or experiment. No one ever saw a neutrino by quantum physics required the neutrino for reasons of symmetry. Eventually the particle was found by empirical means. In a similar fashion, quarks were found, anti-particles were found and we hope the Higgs Boson will be found at the LHC. That remains to be seen.

How did Einstein get E = MC^2? It was not the result of any laboratory measurement.

How did Maxwell correct Ampere's Law of Induction with the Displacement Current term. Maxwell never saw a displacement current in his lab. He postulated it for reasons of mathematical symmetry. With the Displacement current added to Ampere's Law Maxwell was able to predict that electro-waves will travel through space. He got as a reward for mathematical neatness a theory of light and as his equations were verified by Hertz we all got radio and t.v. I am searching (so far in vain) through Harriman's book for a inductive explanation of how Maxwell got the correction. It wan't like he had to add a fudge factor to make an experimental result come out right.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on Bob, you know that no one is disputing the experimental results. The issue concerns the interpretation of those results.

What causes time dilation? How does modern physics answer this question?

Shayne

Time dilation is a logical (i.e. mathematical) consequence of the constance of the speed of light regardless of the velocity of the observers or the source. See any standard textbook on Special Relativity. If the speed of light is constant (for all viewers and sources) then it follows that viewers in relative motion to each other will see the clock in a f.o.r. moving slower. By the way this has been verified experimentally. It is not "just a theory".

Ba'al Chatzaf

Well you're just restating what I just barely said.... I think we're all just waiting to see how long it will take you to recognize what the debate is actually about. Everyone but you seems to understand, why are you so dogmatic on this particular point? It's like that 2D "flatland" metaphor; there's a dimension to this issue that you seem perfectly blind to.

Shayne

What am I blind to? That physics works and according to some Objectivists it shouldn't work at all.

What is it I am missing. A reason why a broken set or principles correctly explain and/or predict the world. I am missing that. Why? Why? Why?

The Objectivist objection to physics is that it is WRONG. So why does it keep getting right answers?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way you still haven't answered the question I posed. If physics is so incoherent and ill founded how come the physical theories predict effects well before they are ever seen in observation or experiment. No one ever saw a neutrino by quantum physics required the neutrino for reasons of symmetry. Eventually the particle was found by empirical means. In a similar fashion, quarks were found, anti-particles were found and we hope the Higgs Boson will be found at the LHC. That remains to be seen.

You mistake what the criticism is aimed at.

How did Einstein get E = MC^2? It was not the result of any laboratory measurement.

I have not examined how Einstein derived it. I'd say based on my own reasonings that E=MC^2 is implied by the constancy of the speed of light in all reference frames.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What am I blind to? That physics works and according to some Objectivists it shouldn't work at all.

What is it I am missing. A reason why a broken set or principles correctly explain and/or predict the world. I am missing that. Why? Why? Why?

The Objectivist objection to physics is that it is WRONG. So why does it keep getting right answers?

Ba'al Chatzaf

This is not an Objectivist issue. It's about whether causality means anything or not. On the one hand you have those who believe in a causal universe, and that physicists should seek causal explanations. This includes but is not limited to Objectivists. On the other you have those who think that causality is a perversion, who think that the role of physics is to describe not explain.

The reason physicists get so much right is that they're just turning a deductive crank on some premises, e.g. relativity. This deductive procedure is shared by both sides. They don't differ on that. Where they differ is on the meaning implied by the mathematical conclusions.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What am I blind to? That physics works and according to some Objectivists it shouldn't work at all.

What is it I am missing. A reason why a broken set or principles correctly explain and/or predict the world. I am missing that. Why? Why? Why?

The Objectivist objection to physics is that it is WRONG. So why does it keep getting right answers?

Ba'al Chatzaf

This is not an Objectivist issue. It's about whether causality means anything or not. On the one hand you have those who believe in a causal universe, and that physicists should seek causal explanations. This includes but is not limited to Objectivists. On the other you have those who think that causality is a perversion, who think that the role of physics is to describe not explain.

The reason physicists get so much right is that they're just turning a deductive crank on some premises, e.g. relativity. This deductive procedure is shared by both sides. They don't differ on that. Where they differ is on the meaning implied by the mathematical conclusions.

Shayne

Every physical theory is based on both physical and mathematical postulates. Assuming that there is no argument with the math why do the corrupt, incoherent, wrong mind theories produce correct results (relative to empirical corroberation). Why do the senseless, corrupt underling physical postulates keep turning out right answers and why has no one been able to falsify these philosophically corrupt wrong minded theories by empirical means?

And why haven't Objectivists come up with philosophically righteous alternative theories that give the same empirically correct answers? Forget Lewis Little's T.E.W. His theory has been thoroughly busted on empirical grounds. If getting good physics is just a matter of staying philosophically (metaphysically) pure, then where are the Objectivist alternatives? Where is the John Galt electrical generator?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited by BaalChatzaf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every physical theory is based on both physical and mathematical postulates. Assuming that there is no argument with the math why do the corrupt, incoherent, wrong mind theories produce correct results (relative to empirical corroberation). Why do the senseless, corrupt underling physical postulates keep turning out right answers and why has no one been able to falsify these philosophically corrupt wrong minded theories by empirical means?

Ever heard of isomorphism?

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what physical postulate explains what causes time dilation, that is not a mere tautological statement of time dilation (i.e. a deduction from the constancy of the speed of light).

And why haven't Objectivists come up with philosophically righteous alternative theories that give the same empirically correct answers? Forget Lewis Little's T.E.W. His theory has been thoroughly busted on empirical grounds. If getting good physics is just a matter of staying philosophically (metaphysically) pure, then where are the Objectivist alternatives? Where is the John Galt electrical generator?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Well, I'm with you on that one. I for one don't think that any Objectivist will ever come up with a significant theory of anything on any subject. We have seen the pinnacle of what an orthodox Objectivist can do in Harriman's book. (And I do not agree with calling someone an Objectivist unless they are orthodox).

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what physical postulate explains what causes time dilation, that is not a mere tautological statement of time dilation (i.e. a deduction from the constancy of the speed of light).

There are no known causes. It is enough that the amount of dilation can be correctly determined given the relative velocities. No one knows why the speed of light is constant. No one knows why there is gravity. No one knows why there is electrical charge. No one knows the cause of inertia. No one knows the cause of mass, but there is a theory that accounts for it. Mass is related to the Higgs field. But no one knows at this time whether the Higgs field is real or just a mathematical device.

To get use out of these things the causes need not be known. What most be known are the observable and predictable properties.

Life exists and no one knows how life arose on this planet. Biology as a science thrives, yet no one knows how life began. It suffices to know how living things operate and how they change over time.

Causes need not be known.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited by BaalChatzaf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ever heard of isomorphism?

if a philosophically wrong minded incoherent view of the world can produce a theory that is -isomorphic- to one produced by a philosophically righteous view then why give a damn about the philosophy? All that counts are the RESULTS, i.e. the correct predictions. Everything useful about a physical theory flows from its predictions.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Causes need not be known.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You're confusing the issue that there can be no infinite regress with the purpose of physics in finding causes. On your methodology no causes would ever have been discovered for anything; all would be taken at face value. Your mode of physics is parasitical on past physics that did seek causes.

Time dilation is not a primary fact of reality, since motion is one part of what causes it (there must be some other part working along with the motion). Something is wrong with a theory that says motion is relative but also says time dilation happens. If motion were really relative then time dilation would be impossible, because motion would only be motion if viewed from a certain point of view.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ever heard of isomorphism?

if a philosophically wrong minded incoherent view of the world can produce a theory that is -isomorphic- to one produced by a philosophically righteous view then why give a damn about the philosophy? All that counts are the RESULTS, i.e. the correct predictions. Everything useful about a physical theory flows from its predictions.

Ba'al Chatzaf

If all you care about are results then that's all you care about. All that counts -- TO YOU -- are the results. This counts for me, and in addition, I want a proper mental grasp on their meaning. You don't care about meaning. OK, fine, don't care all you want. What do you want me to do about it?

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If all you care about are results then that's all you care about. All that counts -- TO YOU -- are the results. This counts for me, and in addition, I want a proper mental grasp on their meaning. You don't care about meaning. OK, fine, don't care all you want. What do you want me to do about it?

Shayne

Do you really care that your computer was made possible by a corrupt, wrong-minded fairy-tale (Harriman regards quantum theory as a fairy tale). Or do you care whether your computer computes and computes correctly. What is it you really care about.

I am one of those concrete bound savages that go by results.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you really care that your computer was made possible by a corrupt, wrong-minded fairy-tale (Harriman regards quantum theory as a fairy tale). Or do you care whether your computer computes and computes correctly. What is it you really care about.

Harriman is not one to be asking about who is and who isn't corrupt. Nor would I swallow his analysis of his field whole.

What I'd say is corrupt are those physicists who only care about results and mock and interfere with the careers of those who care about causality. If some physicist is too dumb to understand causality, then fine, he's too dumb. He can be concerned with whatever narrower points fit into his brain and I won't complain, but he shouldn't get in the way of his betters.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you really care that your computer was made possible by a corrupt, wrong-minded fairy-tale (Harriman regards quantum theory as a fairy tale). Or do you care whether your computer computes and computes correctly. What is it you really care about.

Harriman is not one to be asking about who is and who isn't corrupt. Nor would I swallow his analysis of his field whole.

What I'd say is corrupt are those physicists who only care about results and mock and interfere with the careers of those who care about causality. If some physicist is too dumb to understand causality, then fine, he's too dumb. He can be concerned with whatever narrower points fit into his brain and I won't complain, but he shouldn't get in the way of his betters.

Shayne

Let us look at the score. The physicists have enable the engineers to come up with the technology and the seekers after causality have come up empty handed.

Game, set, match.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let us look at the score. The physicists have enable the engineers to come up with the technology and the seekers after causality have come up empty handed.

Game, set, match.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Well that's just a plain lie. Issac Newton was a causality-oriented physicist, and without him none of your concrete-bound formula-seekers would have been able to do a damn thing.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let us look at the score. The physicists have enable the engineers to come up with the technology and the seekers after causality have come up empty handed.

Game, set, match.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Well that's just a plain lie. Issac Newton was a causality-oriented physicist, and without him none of your concrete-bound formula-seekers would have been able to do a damn thing.

Shayne

Newton hypothesized no cause for gravity. "Hypothesis non fingo" Read Scholium of Book III of -Principia-.

Please see: http://en.wikipedia....heses_non_fingo

Newton considered many differed possibilities, including a solid Cartesian either, bombardment by particles, some kind of rare aether (somewhat like Maxwells' aether). He found none of these hypotheses satisfactory so in the end he never postulated a cause for gravitation. He made it very clear he was taking a mathematical approach to understanding gravity.

Newton settled for understanding how gravitation worked rather than seeking its cause. His efforts paid off very well in astronomy. In the long run, his law of gravitation fell short of the mark. It could not account completely for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. A better theory was needed and Einstein provided that with the General Theory of Relativity. Einstein's complete wrong minded misunderstanding of space (Harriman's evaluation) produced a correct explanation of Mercury's motion. We also got an good description of the expansion of the Cosmos (supported by observation) and just as a bonus the GPS system. Like I said the muddleheads delivered the technology and the seekers after causes did not.

I noticed your scholarship on Newton's work is just about as good as Harriman's.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited by BaalChatzaf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Newton hypothesized no cause for gravity.

Just how foolish are you? Objectivists are Aristotelians, they don't advocate an infinite regress. And neither as it happens do I.

You're out of your depth. I think you should just stay in your nice little 2-D flatland and be happy and let the grownups deal with the issues you can't handle. Don't feel bad, not everyone is cut out to handle grownup issues, just focus on what you're capable of.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now