Why is the speed of light the same relative to any frame of reference?

[Rationalise]

Why?!?![g)]
What makes it the only constant in the universe?

[EL]

Basically no one knows why the laws of nature look like they do. Physics just describes them...
But c is not the only constant. (Others are h-bar, G...)

[pmb_phy]

Originally posted by EL
Basically no one knows why the laws of nature look like they do. Physics just describes them...
But c is not the only constant. (Others are h-bar, G...)

Actually if it was proven that Maxwell's equations were correct and that the photon's proper mass was zero then the constancy of light could be derived from the principle of relativity and Maxwell's equations

[EL]

Ok, but that just leads us to the next question...why do Maxwell´s equations look like they do?
You will always end up at something unexplainable "in the bottom"...(at least no one has yet been able to start from anything else to build up a theory from)

[russ_watters]

You're going to end up in an infinite "why" loop with these questions. There really isn't a good absolute answer here. The three most common are: "They just are," "God made them that way," and "if they were any different, we couldn't exist to observe them."

As you can see, "why?" is more philosophical than scientific. It can be interesting to think about/discuss, but it isn't really all that scientifically relevant.

[EL]

That´s my point...

[LURCH]

.But c is not the only constant. (Others are h-bar, G...)
I think he meant, "only constant speed...".


I tend to use hyperdimensional reasoning to make lightspeed's frame-independance more palitable. If you can accept the fact that speed and direction are two different ways of looking at a single property, then you can make the "absolute speed" of light (a speed which is the same to all observers) an absolute direction, which is at the same angle from any path. This helps me tie lightspeed to the fourth dimension; time.

[ahrkron]

I agree with EL and Russ in that, ultimately, there are things in the universe that "just are", regardless of how much they make our neural circuitry feel "comfortable".

However, there's a couple of comments that may help you accomodate your intuition around a constant speed of light.

First (probably close to what Lurch said), when you measure the magnitude of the four-dimensional "speed" of any object, it turns out to be c always; how we measure it to move with respect to us is somewhat of an accident.

Second, I just want to emphasize that, counter-intuitive as it sounds, a constant speed of light is perfectly compatible with all experimental evidence to date.

Finally, the answer to your question is somewhat buried among the generality of maxwell eqns: from them, you can derive the speed of a wave regardless of the speed of its source.

[Adam]

You're talking about the motion of energy through matter. In any given medium, the EM energy can move at a given speed. Why would the speed at which the energy can migrate through a given material change simply because you are running left instead of walking right?

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by ahrkron
I agree with EL and Russ in that, ultimately, there are things in the universe that "just are", regardless of how much they make our neural circuitry feel "comfortable". To take this a step further, some people seek the answers to some unanswerable questions in religion, but unfortunately there are always unanswerable questions, even in religion. The 'why?' of many things can be answered by citing God, but what about 'why?' questions on God himself?

[EL]

Originally posted by russ_watters
To take this a step further, some people seek the answers to some unanswerable questions in religion, but unfortunately there are always unanswerable questions, even in religion.

At least our way of logic thinking cannot get around this problem...maybe we´re just not enough smart...

[ahrkron]

My take on it is that this is a limitation of all representation systems, and that intelligence and reason are unavoidably based on representations, implying that no matter how "smart" any species becomes, it will always have unanswerable questions.

[EL]

Originally posted by ahrkron
My take on it is that this is a limitation of all representation systems, and that intelligence and reason are unavoidably based on representations, implying that no matter how "smart" any species becomes, it will always have unanswerable questions.

Yes, but you are saying that from our logical point of wiev. What seems reasonable to us must not be the truth...
(Of course even my own reasoning is based on logic thinking, which makes this whole philosophical discussion paradoxial.)
However I think it´s dangerous to believe that our small brains are capable of determining what is possible to know and what is not.
But I agree that in the way humans are thinking now, we will always have unanswerable questions, no matter how smart we are...
Hope you got me...[;)]

(Sorry for leaving the field of physics)

[mhernan]

Most publication use the Michelson-Morley experiment as a talking point and they refer casyually to the "null" result, implying there was no data showing light affected by the so-called aether drag. However, MM experimental results were not null, just approximately 1/20 of the 'expected' drift througth the aether. In the 1920 and after, Dayton Miller performed hundreds od MM tests which resulted ibn a finding of about 1/20 iof the 'expected'. So we have to assume the calculated value by the then current prevailing views in physics were correct in their assesment of the earth's velocity through space if we are to place any faith in the experimental results of MM..
On a slightly different angle the famous 'eclipse' experiments ofd 1919measuring the pull of mass on light from distant stars in 1919 was hailed as a huge success and Eisnstein was an immediately star. The eclipse experiments were "questionabley accurate". Where the calculated focal resolution was 2-3 arc seconds, the paper on the eclipse experiments claimed resolution of hundreths of a millimeter.
Einstein lauded the resolution of .01" in his Relativity book. This number came from comparing exposures of stars on photographic paper taken months apart and then overlaid and compared!
Is the velocity of light constant in all directions?
Yes?
No?
Prove it.

[Haelfix]

Fortunately, we don't have to build interforometers anymore when analyzing special relativity. Instead we can look in modern particle accelerators, where everything is relativistic and calculable to 11 significant digits.

Any deviation in exact lorentz symmetry would output huge corrections to our results. We don't see it, ergo we still think special relativity is right.

[ahrkron]

Another piece of evidence for SR comes in the fact of the electricity bill for accelerators.

The higher the speed, the higher the mass (as measured in the lab's frame), which means that you need to have a higher magnetic field to keep your protons on track. All this numbers (from the mass to the measured field to the amount in dollars needed to keep all working) agree with SR.

[Nereid]

Here's (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#7.%20Other%20experiments) a summary of tests of SR (there may be a better, more up-to-date summary; if any reader has found one, please let us know).

The 1919 eclipse observations were indeed 'marginal'; I would hope that no reviewer today would have agreed to its publication. Fortunately, a great many other observations have been made, involving both one-way (e.g. quasars) and two-way (e.g. Voyager on Mars, Cassini) signals.

I've not found anything better than Clifford Will's compilation (http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/) as a summary of GR tests.

[Terry Giblin]

Is the speed of light travelling through a pure uniform rain droplet within a cloud, the same in every direction?

Is it therefore not logical to assume that the speed of light travelling through uniform 3-Dimensional droplet within an 11 Dimensional super cloud will also be the same in every direction?

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Terry Giblin
Is the speed of light travelling through a pure uniform rain droplet within a cloud, the same in every direction?

Is it therefore not logical to assume that the speed of light travelling through uniform 3-Dimensional droplet within an 11 Dimensional super cloud will also be the same in every direction? I didn't know that GR had been formulated in terms of 'an 11 Dimensional super cloud', I thought that was super-gravity, or String Theory, or M-Theory. I am also unaware of any experimental results which indicate a need for any such theories; GR has passed all its tests with flying colours.

You may want to read some of the threads in Strings, Branes & LQG, in the Physics sub-forum.

[Terry Giblin]

Hi Nereid,

You are correct for point out that General Relativity, did not need additional space dimensions, but it Special Relativity (SR) would work very well without considering the time dimension and GR would not work within the frame of SR until we add the dimension of mass in for form of electrons and six additional quarks.

Where would quantum mechanics be without the electron and six quarks, in a 4-D spacetime inside a 10 or 11 dimensions super cloud.

The superstring theory describes the photon and electrons in 4-D spacetime and not forgetting the 6 quarks and the M-theory describes the cloud.

Newton, General Relativity, quantum mechanics, c,..., are all simple subsets within the cloud.

[DW]

Originally posted by ahrkron
Another piece of evidence for SR comes in the fact of the electricity bill for accelerators.

The higher the speed, the higher the mass (as measured in the lab's frame), which means that you need to have a higher magnetic field to keep your protons on track. All this numbers (from the mass to the measured field to the amount in dollars needed to keep all working) agree with SR.

Actually the experiments are in agreement with the special relativistic law of motion according to which the mass does not change with speed. It is the time derivatives in the law of motion that are dilating. The charge follows a path described by
\frac{q}{c}\eta _{\mu}_{\nu}\frac{dx^\mu}{d\tau}F^{\nu \lambda} = m\frac{d^{2}x^\lambda}{d\tau ^2} and according to this special relativistic law of motion the mass m does not change with speed.

[Hurkyl]

sees their rational professionalism as superior to intuition, reason and simplicity

They don't.

However, to some people (yourself included, it seems):

intuition = what I learned from parents / TV / elementary school
reason = logic (and illogic) that supports what I think
simplicity = little to no deviation from what I think it should be

and they have grounds to think "rational professionalism" is superior to these. [:)]

[mhernan]

quote:
Mhernan stated in an earlier post:
sees their rational professionalism as superior to intuition, reason and simplicity.
[/QUOTE]


To which Hurky replied, somewhat indignantly:

They don't.

However, to some people (yourself included, it seems):

intuition = what I learned from parents / TV / elementary school
reason = logic (and illogic) that supports what I think
simplicity = little to no deviation from what I think it should be

and they have grounds to think "rational professionalism" is superior to these


You didn't quite get it, but I do see a a superior professional with his hand dutifuly raised in identifying himself.

Intuition is the flooding of consciousness with ideas and thoughts bubbling from the deep and unswimmed sea of my depths.

Rationalizations as in the feakish use of mathematical models that are of value only to the mathematicians: See "interference amplitude", "relativity" and "AIDS" for soem ice berg tips.

Simplicity as when the light falls on the darkness caused by unilateral complexity: "The Doctor knows best". Take most of the mathematical models out of physics and an immediate advancement of science occurs. The mathmatics used modernly to an excess was designed and developed for business needs.In a world where events happen sequentially, on all levels, why are models ignoring just this obvious triviality? Now\ the mathmaticians tell us through the quantum mechanical fog, that "reality", the "base reality of the quantum world" is mere "potentiality", "we can never know the essence of nature". Feynman in his textbook "Lectures on Physics", no less, utters at least 100 times (I quit counting) in the three volumes, how much "quantum mechanics is a mystery:, "we just don't know,", "science has given up", yet we clothe his nmemory in the garb of yet another god.

You said, "they don't". I say "they do". Are you one of them? Do you believe your rational professionalism is superior to say, one practicing voodoo?[!:)] [!:)]

[Hurkyl]

I'm something much worse. I'm a mathematician. [:D]


The problem with arguing that something must be correct because it is "intuitive" is that you are the only person in the world who has the same intuition as you do. And even then, your intuition will change as you learn new things. (Assuming you care to)

The other problem is that intuition is gained from experience. If you have little to no experience with something, your intuition is likely to be very poor. And be honest with yourself, you have little to no experience dealing with facts about velocities over 100,000 MPH and objects smaller than a nanometer in diameter.

Thus, it is extremely arrogant of you to think your intuition about such things has any sort of reliability. And it is this arrogance that earns you (and others like you) the "attitude" you get from others.


I'm willing to admit that I have little to no intuition about such things. Until you do too (or demonstrate that your intuition really is accurate), you will be forever a crackpot.

[mhernan]

Hurkyl replied to mhernan as

I'm something much worse. I'm a mathematician.


The problem with arguing that something must be correct because it is "intuitive" is that you are the only person in the world who has the same intuition as you do. And even then, your intuition will change as you learn new things. (Assuming you care to)

The other problem is that intuition is gained from experience. If you have little to no experience with something, your intuition is likely to be very poor. And be honest with yourself, you have little to no experience dealing with facts about velocities over 100,000 MPH and objects smaller than a nanometer in diameter.

Thus, it is extremely arrogant of you to think your intuition about such things has any sort of reliability. And it is this arrogance that earns you (and others like you) the "attitude" you get from others.


I'm willing to admit that I have little to no intuition about such things. Until you do too (or demonstrate that your intuition really is accurate), you will be forever a crackpot.


Mhernan replies to Hurkyl

I do not read my paper as claiming intuiton as the "above all" in mental processes. And no I am not the only person in the world with similar intuitions. And there you go making this vast summation of what I and the rest of the world may or may not be engaged in. Is that an automatic integrating machine I am sure you refer to as a mind that I hear clicking all the way to Arizona?

I made the point that my "intuition" came from the depths of my inward mental and [spiritual] self. Ever heard the words, "Eurecka!"

I haven't engaged in experiments where particles are moving at 100,000 mph, which is only .000015 the speed of light. My acceleration experiments were llimited to 50kv proton accelerations through single crystals of gold. What is the particle separation of gold atoms in a single crustal lattice? Is it in the nanometer range? What about your dealing with reality, ever perform a phsyics experiment?

But a mathematician now, one who doesn't need any freaking reality to clog their cherished rational constructs must be something else!

There is so much gobbly gook out there foisted on an unwary public by mathematicians posing as scientists that it is bordering on corruption. In a discussion with a PhD Physics professor, expert in "spinor theory" (all math degrees) she was unable to discuss the most fundamntal concepts of Stern-Gerlach transition experiemtns. When she could see me readying my wit to "thrust home" she retreated with a, "that's not my specialty.". The results of SG transition experiments are fundamental to quantum theory, which I am sure you weren't aware. I won the argument with the spinor theorist because she crumble when having to consider some very basic and not all that complicated physical facts, but then what can you expect from a mathematician.

When a mathematician refers to me as a crackpot I get so emotionally high that the unbvelievablye sweetness of it makes me sob. Actually you are the first to make such a claim. I cannot see how I managed to make it this far to have this day my first in recgnition of "crackpt status".

You really should have read my note again. It is apparent that you have grossly over reacted, and somehow felt threatened by what I actually said. You claim ignorance of intuiton, yet are completely, and smugly, ready to condemn anyone claiming the personal talent of intuitive thought. What do you mean "demonstrate" my accuracy? You haven't the slightest idea of what I do with my mental faculties and the very last person on this earth I will ever feel a need to "demonstrate accuracy" to is some childish mathematician who preaches from a confessed platform of complete, total and utter ignorance.
Thank you for your support.[zz)]

[selfAdjoint]

I made the point that my "intuition" came from the depths of my inward mental and [spiritual] self. Ever heard the words, "Eurecka!"

And you are the only person who had this Eureka moment. It means nothing to anybody else, and it isn't eveidence of anything but your internal brain states.

[mhernan]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
I made the point that my "intuition" came from the depths of my inward mental and [spiritual] self. Ever heard the words, "Eurecka!"

And you are the only person who had this Eureka moment. It means nothing to anybody else, and it isn't eveidence of anything but your internal brain states.

Are we to throw out Cartesian systenms because Rene Descarte had a flash of insight, intuition that was the senminal event of his brillaint career?

Whatever you discard from myself, for any reason, or ill-reason, is your concern and your problem. It takes only the slightest intuitive grasp to observe the silliness of the statement regarding "internal brain states". First, one must prove, by some rational systematic activity, that intuition is a state of mind and formed in the brain and secondly, that there can ever be a systematic scrutiny of brain states that directly and causally relate to any specific "brain state" under scrutiny or otherwise.

Mssrs. Adjoint and Hurkyl are so very adamant in approaches that there can be no question of the sincerity which they profess and held so tightly by convictions. However, virtually everything mentioned has been nothing but personal opinion. There isn't any of this beautiful "science" that would elevate the statements over the 'intuition'.

Were I to make an intuitive value judgment here I would say that the contest has come down to "opinion vesus intuition". In case you've not had the opportunity to scan my aphorism below my signature, it says: Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth tnan lies.

[Integral]

I believe that history itself is all the evidence needed to counter the intuition argument. Intuition was the basis of science until Galileo's time. It is clear that all meaningful advances in our understanding of the physical universe have come since the abandonment of intuition as the key to understanding the universe. It was only by careful application of the scientific method which allowed humans to begin to understand the non-intuitive features of the universe.

To claim that all must be intuitive is an example of ethnocentrism at its worst.Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth tnan lies.

Clearly you have no convitions when it comes to this matter.~^ [?]

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by mhernan
Are we to throw out Cartesian systenms because Rene Descarte had a flash of insight, intuition that was the senminal event of his brillaint career?

No, he is saying that "Eureka moments", although being nice personal experiences, need to be followed by a lot of detailed math work in order to produce anything in science.

As Integral and Hurkyl point out, intuition has not been a reliable guide since, at least, the begining of last century. In order to develop a useful intuition for modern physics, you absolutely need to go through a lot of math; without it, intuition cannot help you understand what has been discovered and (extremely well) measured in physics in the last hundred years or so.

[russ_watters]

The thing I find most ironic about the anti-math arguments is that the "intuition" is usually Newtonian physics. Now, thats probably just because thats the only physics these guys ever learned, but the ironic part is that Newton was the original and quinticential physicist<->mathematician. He invented a whole new branch of math just to use it as a tool to solve his gravity equations! Dilbert would call that "synergy."

And before Newton, "intuition" told most people (anyone who knew physics then learned it from Aristotle) that big objects should fall faster than small ones. Legend has it that Tycho Brahe used to drop verious sized food on the floor at dinner parties to demonstrate this intuition wrong (much to the chagrin of the hosts).

And don't get me started on Aristotle: his intuition told him that a fly should have 4 legs like a table to be able to stand. No need to actually look at one when your intuition has it covered, right? [o)]

[Michael D. Sewell]

Yeah, and it only took 2000 years for us to figure out that Aristotle was wrong. I don't know about you, but it sure makes me proud to be a human! God save us all. -Mike

[mhernan]

Ahrkon stated

Originally posted by ahrkron
No, he is saying that "Eureka moments", although being nice personal experiences, need to be followed by a lot of detailed math work in order to produce anything in science.

As Integral and Hurkyl point out, intuition has not been a reliable guide since, at least, the begining of last century. In order to develop a useful intuition for modern physics, you absolutely need to go through a lot of math; without it, intuition cannot help you understand what has been discovered and (extremely well) measured in physics in the last hundred years or so.

mhernan resdonds


To those who are following this thread please be aware that it was I who used the term "intuition" for which the process of intuition is being debated as to its value as a competent and useful activity on a level with modern science. At no instant have I assumed or intentionally , or otherwise, indicated that a "message" arrived at through intuition be treated in the same light as a physical observation. Even Descarte had a problem, other than his 'rush of insight' at an early age. He struggled with the question of truth being somehow related to 'rational mental processes'- I think therefore I am.

My use of intuition was intended as response to what I understood was a claim that "mathematics" was a process providing scientific information with informatioal integrity on the level of experimetnal and scientific observations.

Whatever the arguments may be, one way or the other, my use of the word intuition was then intended, and remains intended, to mean that intuition >= mathematics as as valuable scientific information in modeling of nature.

If any wish to struggle with "proof" arguments, proceed on. There is always the problem, however, analogous to religious debates where each side demands the other "prove" it in terms of the one demanding proof. That systems differing in basic formative assumptions, that they do not dovetail, is by iteself, insufficient to establish one or the other as exclusively competent.

Any claims that the mathematical formulation of quantum theory, for instance, as a competent model of Mother Nature, exceeding all which preceded QT, must prove the statement true in scientific terms. The mere utterance that A = B, after all, is no different that I = B', where I = intuition. And, most importantly, it is the rational scientific side of this discussion making all the claims that I is a useless activity. Your system demands scientific proof of statements, yet you are so casual in ommitting the essence of your precious system, proof.

So, in your own terms, gentlemen, Prove it.


mhernan

[Integral]

intuition >= mathematics

This is an apples and oranges argument. Without intuition there would be no advances in mathematics or science in general. Without the ability to record and accumulate information there would be no advances in mathematics or science in general. The knowledge of what has been done by others must guide the intuition to enable insight leading to new knowledge. Without the cumulative knowledge of generations intuition reinvents the wheel. Unfortunately there is no easy way, there in no intuition, which will provide access to the cumulative knowledge of generations. That cumulative knowledge must be learned by sweat and inspiration, as there is much in that cumulative knowledge which seems to defy logic. But when it is all put together, it is your sense of logic which must be redefined.

What so many who claim, math is unnecessary, fail to realize is that they are the short sighted ones. Those who have struggled with the concepts and learned to understand and use mathematical and scientific methods are at an advantage, simply because they have seen both sides. At some point in their life virtually every scientist and mathematician did NOT have these skills. They have seen life with and without the skills so are able to differentiate between the states of knowing and not knowing. Those who have never put forth the effort to learn these skills have no way of understanding the advantages gained.

Once again, the only proof required to demonstrate that more is required then intuition is history itself, when only intuition was used little or no significant advances in our understanding of the universe were made. When mathematics was developed to record and guide intuition things began to happen. Intuition is how the human mind makes leaps of knowledge, Math is how these leaps are guided, recorded and shared with others.

[chroot]

This thread really seems to belong more in the Philosophy of Science and Mathematics forum than it does here. So... I'm moving it.

- Warren

[einsteinian77]

Why?!?![g)]
What makes it the only constant in the universe?

Prior to the big bang everything was constant, so to ask the question why something is constant I think you need to look at what made the singularity change.

[Pergatory]

Can you truly believe we should take YOUR intuition over EVERYONE's math? When it comes right down to it math and intuition are very similar, the difference is that intuition is performed inside your head whereas math can be performed in your head, on paper, on a napkin, or countless other places. Math is a language through which we can express and validate our thoughts. Intuition is an INTERNAL method for your own review.

In my opinion, you are right, intuition should tend to overrule math. Otherwise, ironically, you open yourself to becoming the crackpot. In math there are many ways to do one thing, and so it is intuition that will tell you whether you are approaching it from the right angle or not. HOWEVER, this is an internal function of the mind, and your intuition should be used as sort of a filter on the theories you hear from others. Another person's theory cannot be argued by your intuition, if you wish to convey your opinions you must do so in math because math is unbiased. The person receiving your postulation will then apply their intuition to the math you've presented and either agree with you or not.

It's all fine and well to present only theories that your intuition agrees with, in fact it should be no other way. Yet you must express them using math or some other scientific notation or others will have no reason to take you seriously. It is one's knowledge in math and science that builds a strong foundation for such intuition.

[Terry Giblin]

This thread really seems to belong more in the Philosophy of Science and Mathematics forum than it does here. So... I'm moving it.

- Warren


Warren,

This is the second time, in as many replies, that I have to ask you the same question.

Would you classify "What is a photon?" the same way you classified, "What is an electron?" as a question for the "Philosophy of Science" and Mathematics - M-Theory issume - which has been the usual response.

Is the following cartoon joke, a joke or relality? - Science or Philosophy - Physics or metaphysics.

Can anyone please tell me,

"What is an electron?"

"What is a photon?"

"What is a graviton?"

The only metaphysicist I know is Woody Alan, who cheated in his metaphysics exam if I remember rightly.

Before we are sent to join the "Philosophy of Science" debate...

In my option this thread should remain in the physics science section for further open minded scientific discussion, as it is receiving at present, I do not study metaphysics or philosophy, only physics and mathematics.

Regards

Terry Giblin

[chroot]

One of the three axioms of rational thought (or whatever they happen to be called in philosophy books) states simply that "An object is defined by its properties, and only its properties."

An electron has many properties: it carries a charge of -e, it has a certain mass, it is a type of lepton, it it one of the products of beta-decay, and so on. It has enough properties to fill a book, in fact.

That's an electron: it's the thing that has all those properties. There is no deeper way to describe an electron; that's all there is, and all there can be. I somehow guess that you won't like this answer, because I think we've had this same discussion before. My reply to your anticipated rejection is simply If you do not accept the axioms of rational thought, we cannot have a rational discussion. I'm not interested in irrational discussions.

- Warren

[Terry Giblin]

Warren,

"An object is defined by its properties, and only its properties."

But a picture paints a thousand words, cartoon joke attached.

Any physicists and mathematicians can solve complex puzzles easier, if they can visualise them first.

The better we can visualise an electron or photons from the properties we have learnt about it and look at them with an open mind, like the YDSE we might look at them in a different light.

Knowing what we have learnt from the Electron-Magnetism, The Standard Model, 5 superstring theories, The M-theory, Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity.

Start by first agreeing “What an electron is” from the properties we can already observe and measure. – Just like the Chemists and Physics did with the hydrogen atom and the period table.

It is a job of a scientist to some times ask un-popular questions.

What does an electron look like based on its properties. – Ask a Chemist first you might get a surprise.

Regards

Terry Giblin

[chroot]

Visualization is, in fact, a totally worthless endeavor. You can't visualize a quantum-mechanical entity, because the concept of "vision" doesn't exist in such a small domain.

- Warren

[Stevo]

A pertinent question would be, in response to the initial thread topic, is the speed of light a contingent reality? Or is it a necessary reality?

[pelastration]

Visualization is, in fact, a totally worthless endeavor. You can't visualize a quantum-mechanical entity, because the concept of "vision" doesn't exist in such a small domain.

- Warren
Are you a blind man Chroot?

[chroot]

Are you a blind man Chroot? That's about the most stupid post ever posted on PF.
Insulting the pf staff is not a smart thing to do, you realize.

- Warren

[pelastration]

One of the three axioms of rational thought (or whatever they happen to be called in philosophy books) states simply that "An object is defined by its properties, and only its properties."

An electron has many properties: it carries a charge of -e, it has a certain mass, it is a type of lepton, it it one of the products of beta-decay, and so on. It has enough properties to fill a book, in fact.

That's an electron: it's the thing that has all those properties. There is no deeper way to describe an electron; that's all there is, and all there can be. I somehow guess that you won't like this answer, because I think we've had this same discussion before. My reply to your anticipated rejection is simply If you do not accept the axioms of rational thought, we cannot have a rational discussion. I'm not interested in irrational discussions.

- Warren

So a car is only what can be observed, measured. The outside properties. So there is no need to look or search for an engine, the hidden mechanism.

Einstein: "Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavour to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears it ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of the mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility of the meaning of such a comparison."

If you don't look after a picture that explains and confirms your observed properties you just accept ignorance. The more simple the picture is the better (Occam's razor). 'Uncertainty' is not a picture, it's the rational acceptance of ignorance.

[pelastration]

Insulting the pf staff is not a smart thing to do, you realize.

- Warren
Sure Warren, but as you probably noticed I edited the last sentence almost immediatelly ... but you were that fast that you didn't noticed my editing.
But as you will notice in my next post visualization is very important to have an idea about the hidden system or engineering picture behind physics and reality. Isn't that the final goal? Go for insight?
So I was very surprised to see that remark coming from you. :wink:

[Hurkyl]

The very real problem with trying to visualize things as macroscopic objects is that you tend to treat them as macroscopic objects. Thus, if the thing you are trying to visualize does not behave like macroscopic objects, you're probably worse off by making a visualization than not.


One can still try to visualize things, but it must be done less naively, and have some sort of rigorous justification; for instance, Feynman and string diagrams.

[Terry Giblin]

Hindsight is a wonderful gift.

When you give a young child a new bicycle for their birthday.

They have three choices,

1 Assemble the bike from trial and error, from his, own experiences.

2 Hope to find a manual that he can read and understand the instructions.

3 Examine each part separately and write and design his-own, machine and manual.

Personally I don’t mind which route he takes, which ever gets us to where we want too be.

We can always use hindsight to fill in the gaps left behind, if our theory is correct.

I don’t mind what you call it, I call it getting the job done, the best way we can, but we must have a target to aim for – or we will simply be going round in circles?

The beauty of studying the YDSE is that I knew no one had solved it, so I do not need to speak to anyone in Physics or Mathematics. Otherwise they would have already solved it themselves and claimed their prize.

Here was a very small branch of physics no one had a satificatory solution for, the duality of electrons and photons and their interaction with Quarks to Quasars.

How could any mathematician or physicist refuse such a excellent challenge.

With single electron Quantum Tunnelling devices as a possible improvement on the experiment, to change the flavor of the electron from a particle to a quantum electron.

Time was also on my side.

If I was right, no one should be able to answer the following simple question.

"What is an electron?"

Todate I have not been proven wrong.

I do not wish to hijack this discussion, please accept my apology.

Regards

Terry Giblin

[mhernan]

This is an apples and oranges argument. Without intuition there would be no advances in mathematics or science in general. Without the ability to record and accumulate information there would be no advances in mathematics or science in general. The knowledge of what has been done by others must guide the intuition to enable insight leading to new knowledge. Without the cumulative knowledge of generations intuition reinvents the wheel. Unfortunately there is no easy way, there in no intuition, which will provide access to the cumulative knowledge of generations. That cumulative knowledge must be learned by sweat and inspiration, as there is much in that cumulative knowledge which seems to defy logic. But when it is all put together, it is your sense of logic which must be redefined.

What so many who claim, math is unnecessary, fail to realize is that they are the short sighted ones. Those who have struggled with the concepts and learned to understand and use mathematical and scientific methods are at an advantage, simply because they have seen both sides. At some point in their life virtually every scientist and mathematician did NOT have these skills. They have seen life with and without the skills so are able to differentiate between the states of knowing and not knowing. Those who have never put forth the effort to learn these skills have no way of understanding the advantages gained.

Once again, the only proof required to demonstrate that more is required then intuition is history itself, when only intuition was used little or no significant advances in our understanding of the universe were made. When mathematics was developed to record and guide intuition things began to happen. Intuition is how the human mind makes leaps of knowledge, Math is how these leaps are guided, recorded and shared with others.

mhernan responds

Integrals statement is well constructed and thought out. The intuition vs mathematics discussion turns on the value of both systems. To assume that mathematical modeling, or the structure of scientific models in mathematical constructs proves something about the worth, value accuracy or resolution of mathematics is axiomatic, but then what else is mathematics? Newton's "action at a distance", gravity, is defined by the scientific community in mathematical terms and says nothing about the essence of "gravity". Being able to make a space ship that corforms to guidance systems is not a proof of mathematical integrity in science. Surely orbits of planets and asteroids can be calculated with various degress of precision, yet no inforamion about "gravity" is expressed in the calculations. Ptolemy's "Circles wiwthin circles" did a credible job for two thousand years.

It cannot be denied that mathematics is an integral part of science, whatever that may be, but the wedding of math and science does not prove the existence of value in the marriage.

To assert that the current state of science is the result of "accumulated" knowledge is to ignore history and the technology that is expressed there. Describe the building of the Giza Pyramid in scientific terms. How did they do it? Certainly not by any accumulated science. Technology (science?) seems to come and go and to eqaute the current status of history as some accumulation of the past, as if all were adding up nicely as times goes by is presumptuous, to say the least. These are mere axiomatic beliefs, that are valuless in the totality of human thinking processes, to wit, they are egotistic.

Raising mathematics to the level of science as an integral and essential part of science is no more of value, or justified, than an Expressionist artist claiming her style better represents "reality" than any other artisitic style. Mathematics is used by 'scientists' like artists use paint. Each discipline expresses an abstaction of that being described, no more, no less, and neither captures the essence of the soul of that being scrutinized and examined. Mathematics limits thinking to reality in terms of nice neat numbers that do not quarrel with limited and awkward physical concepts. Numbers are disguised objectivity, and all sum to the detriment of scientific exploration and the accumulation of knowledge. :cool:

[Terry Giblin]

Raising mathematics to the level of science as an integral and essential part of science is no more of value, or justified, than an Expressionist artist claiming her style better represents "reality" than any other artisitic style.

Mathematics is used by 'scientists' like artists use paint.

Each discipline expresses an abstaction of that being described, no more, no less, and neither captures the essence of the soul of that being scrutinized and examined.



But won't it be nice to learn the code used by the painter or learn the music by the composer?

Expressionist, musicians, scientists all are all looking and expressing the same thing but in different forms.

[Hurkyl]

mhernan responds

I'm entirely unsure what you're trying to say this last post, but I'll try and respond anyways.


Mathematics is, from one perspective, the study of deductive logic. One logically derives conclusions from hypotheses (this isn't limited to numbers). Science is the art of selecting hypotheses to describe the universe... or more precisely observed facts about the universe.

Mathematics specifically avoids ascribing any meaning to anything beyond what is given by the axioms, because the point is to study the consequences of the axioms.

[mhernan]

I'm entirely unsure what you're trying to say this last post, but I'll try and respond anyways.


Mathematics is, from one perspective, the study of deductive logic. One logically derives conclusions from hypotheses (this isn't limited to numbers). Science is the art of selecting hypotheses to describe the universe... or more precisely observed facts about the universe.

Mathematics specifically avoids ascribing any meaning to anything beyond what is given by the axioms, because the point is to study the consequences of the axioms.

mhernan responds:
I have no argument with any of your statements.
I was simply asserting that mathematics is no more of value as a description of nature than the artist. One uses numbers the other paint. My objection to mathematics is the widespread belief in the scientific value of mathematics, which I assert is nonexistent as the paint is of no value to the artist by itself. Both disciplines can offer, at the very most, an abstraction of reality, or physical phenomena.
In one sense the artist is more honest as there is no suggestion that the painting is a "real" representation, where the mathematical physicist, some at least, demand that mathematical modeling is on a one to-one mapping with physical reality, as in pronouncements of Hawking, for one.

[chroot]

And Terry, really, if you're going to keep saying things like "no one has ever explained Young's double slit experiment," we're going to have to keep moving all your posts to theory development; Young's experiment is extremely well understood.

- Warren

[mhernan]

But won't it be nice to learn the code used by the painter or learn the music by the composer?

Expressionist, musicians, scientists all are all looking and expressing the same thing but in different forms.

Responding is mhernan
I suppose so, but the little dabbling I have doen with 'painting' I have yet to find anything like a 'code'. In fact the best drawings are produced by the artists who specifically omit verbalization in the drawing while they are drawing. In place are general impressions, wordless, comparing heights, colors, depth, shading, line and so on. The "code" of which you refer I can only intuit, but I wouldn't use the word as if there were some literal kind of code that is lurking in the background, perhaps, or that all artistic expression can be theoretically linked to DNA, linked as the basis of the produced art, or musical presentation. What is the code, for instance, of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds?"

[confutatis]

I was simply asserting that mathematics is no more of value as a description of nature than the artist. One uses numbers the other paint. My objection to mathematics is the widespread belief in the scientific value of mathematics, which I assert is nonexistent as the paint is of no value to the artist by itself. Both disciplines can offer, at the very most, an abstraction of reality, or physical phenomena.

I think you expressed it in a very good way. I've always been puzzled as to why so many intelligent people believe mathematics and reality are the same thing, or close enough to make the differences irrelevant. Having a scientific education myself, I could never understand what everyone else seemed to find so obvious. But I think I found the answer.

What people have to understand about mathematics is that it is an extremely powerful language. If you can express an idea through mathematics, and if you don't make any mistakes in your calculations, you can rest assured that your idea is true. Once you are in possession of a mathematical truth, you can be absolutely confident that the only people who will disagree with you are fools not worth taking seriously.

That power of mathematics tends to make people believe it is somehow magically capable of telling you what you can't otherwise know. And this is exactly where misunderstanding comes in - mathematics can't possibly tell you what you don't already know. The reason math is so powerful is precisely because its rules prohibit people from telling what they don't know. That fact is not well understood, so people tend to see all those physics equations as some form of revelation. They aren't. The mathematical aspect of physics is simply a linguistic expression of its empirical aspect. Physicists measure something, and then express the results of those measurements through mathematics, so that whoever understands the equations also understands what has been measured. There's nothing more to it, nothing less.

In one sense the artist is more honest as there is no suggestion that the painting is a "real" representation, where the mathematical physicist, some at least, demand that mathematical modeling is on a one to-one mapping with physical reality, as in pronouncements of Hawking, for one.

Some mathematical models are a perfect mapping of reality. The difference between the way you and Hawking think about reality is not as fundamental as you seem to be implying. If someone tells you they put five stones in a basket, took three out, and found four inside, you know they are not telling the truth. You know the equation which describes what happens to stones in a basket, and you have as much faith in that equation as physicists have in theirs.

[Organic]

The reason math is so powerful is precisely because its rules prohibit people from telling what they don't know.

Do you think that when we are using Math, there is one and only one way to know something?

And if your answer is no, then do you think that a dialog between different point of views on some thing can help us to know it better?

If your answer yes, do you think that mathematicians from different Mathematical branches have to develop a dialog between them if they want to develop their on special Mathematical branches?

If your answer is yes, then is this important dialog really exists among current mathematicians society?

If your answer is no, then do you think that the current mathematical system (which is constructed of separate branches, that do not communicate between them) is entering step by step to a dead-end street?

[Les Sleeth]

Insulting the pf staff is not a smart thing to do, you realize.

- Warren

This raises serious philosophical questions. Are we to assume that a mentor cannot say stupid things? Or is it mentors might be able to say something stupid, but we are not allowed to point that out?

And then, are mentors to be considered the standard for truth? Should we assume if a mentor can't visualize quantum operations, for example, then that must be true for everyone?

(By the way, IMO mhernan was treated pretty hard. Just because he values intuition as a way of exploring things doesn't mean he wouldn't follow up with proper research to confirm what he intuits. It seems someone might have asked him about that first before assuming the worst.)

[confutatis]

Do you think that when we are using Math, there is one and only one way to know something?

Actually, what I said is that there is no way to know anything using math. But I mean 'know' in a very specific sense, as in "I don't know if it will rain tomorrow". That is, math is not capable of revealing knowledge that depends on observation.

Where math is extremely useful is helping us see what we should already know, facts that are implied by other facts. For instance, you can use math to discover that April 14, 2098 will fall on a Monday. That may sound pretty impressive, but it's essentially no different from the process we use to determine that April 14, 2004 will fall on a Wednesday. It's just that we're not smart enough to do those kinds of calculations without using sophisticated methods that work around our limitations.

To a perfectly intelligent being, math would seem like a completely useless collection of trivia. But even a perfectly intelligent being cannot know if it's going to rain tomorrow.

[Jeebus]

To a perfectly intelligent being, math would seem like a completely useless collection of trivia. But even a perfectly intelligent being cannot know if it's going to rain tomorrow.

Are you saying this with 1oo% certainty or relativistic terminology? I think that depends on your definitions on what a perfectly intelligent being is.

[Stevo]

Are you saying this with 1oo% certainty or relativistic terminology? I think that depends on your definitions on what a perfectly intelligent being is.

I think the point is that a being with infinitely powerful deductive skills would regard mathematics as almost a triviality. Much the same way that authors of maths textbooks claim that some hideously difficult theorem is "clear". :mad: :wink:

[outandbeyond2004]

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=155786&postcount=8

That post referred to the 4-D "speed" of some (any) object. I suppose that means

(ds/dt)^2 = 1 - (dx/dt)^2 - (dy/dt)^2 - (dz/dt)^2 = 1 - v^2

??

That is not equal to c = 1. In fact, photons go at zero 4-D "speed"?

[mhernan]

Some mathematical models are a perfect mapping of reality. The difference between the way you and Hawking think about reality is not as fundamental as you seem to be implying. If someone tells you they put five stones in a basket, took three out, and found four inside, you know they are not telling the truth. You know the equation which describes what happens to stones in a basket, and you have as much faith in that equation as physicists have in theirs.

[B]mhernan replies]
I cannot quarrel for what mathematics is and I am not aNti-mathemtics anymore than I am anti-paint. With HawkinG, howevr, there is a Sticking point: For all the claims he has made about black holes, singularities and what not, he prEsents the findings as gospel,as scientific truth. Assume his mathematics is impeccable and he hasn't misplaced a minus sign or a '2'. Like any other system using mathematics the input needs accuracy as well as mathematical manipulation. Garbage in garbae out I learned when fiorst programming in fortran. Are the quantum mechanical assumption true in Hawkings 'black hole' analysis? Are his desisions along the way of ignoring this or that, or eliminating the 'seond order terms'. I don't know and neither does the mass of physicists who have heard of Hawking and his general theory of what ever. Is the mathematical model he uses of value?

SO often, especially on these pages, there is the stated, or implied, fact that "most scientists agree". What bunk. Science isn't a political disciplne, but getting funding by not straying from the well defined 'standard model path' seems to be the watchword.

I read somewhere that a 'scientist' needs more expertise in proposal writing, than quantum theory, which can be made up as one goes along.

End of venting. :mad:

[matt grime]

Mehrmann, you do understand what the word theory means don't you?

[Hurkyl]

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=155786&postcount=8

That post referred to the 4-D "speed" of some (any) object. I suppose that means

(ds/dt)^2 = 1 - (dx/dt)^2 - (dy/dt)^2 - (dz/dt)^2 = 1 - v^2

??

That is not equal to c = 1. In fact, photons go at zero 4-D "speed"?

The 4-velocity along a worldline is


v = \left( c \frac{dt}{d\tau}, \frac{dx}{d\tau}, \frac{dy}{d\tau}, \frac{dz}{d\tau} \right)


So the (square of) 4-speed is


v^2 = c^2 \frac{dt}{d\tau}^2 - \frac{dx}{d\tau}^2 - \frac{dy}{d\tau}^2 - \frac{dz}{d\tau}^2


Recall that d\tau is defined by (c d\tau)^2 = (c dt)^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2, and if we "divide through" by d\tau^2 we see that v^2 = c^2.

[mhernan]

Mehrmann, you do understand what the word theory means don't you?


[Mhernan replies?
Like 'relativity theory'? the Lorenz and Fitzgerald contraction theory? Math not physics.
The gobbly-d-goop quantum theory of contrived mania? wave-paricle duality, superposition of states, interference amplitude, these all assuming the world operates as mathematical models dictate? Read chapter 5 of Feynman as a scientist and see if you can find any "errors" in logic and reasoning, I dare you, or anyone to do this.
Ptolemy's circles-within-circles theory? Hey it worked for two thousand years and for over 100 years after Gallileo.
evolutionatry theory? Yeah, right, prove it.

With relativity theory, pretty much all mathematical, wouldn't you agree? The relativists are fond of quoting Michelson-Morley experiments as '"a null result", which they wasn't. MM results were merely 1/20 or so from what the "classical model" predicted they should have been. See Dayton Miller (circa 1920-1930) whose mathematics is restricted to correlating experimental results, who found essentially the same as MM, only more and better with higher resolution. Are you referring to the 1919 eclipse experiments that launched Al Einstein into orbit? Telescopes with 1-2 arc seconds of resolution claimed by Al to give results in the range of hundreths of a millimeter? Al actually spied on Miller and personnally thanked those supporting RT! Check the internet for challenges to RT theory.

I am not sure what your question is directed at, but is seems you intended a one liner that was supposed to make me "gulp", am I correct? Read Feynman's
'Lectures on Physics' Vol III page 1-10 to 1-11 (the prevailing mentality is it not?) where he says that qt is here forever and that physics has "given up", and that qt is just the way it is. Why have any qt research at all, if the qt gods have already spoken, theoretically that is? This is science? I quit counting at 100 of the instances Feynman said something to the effect "we (I) don't know" and I began to believe his confession of ignorance, and still do. They actually give Nobel Prizes for that kind of stuff? Wow!, where have I been?

[selfAdjoint]

mhernan,

If relativity is "just math" what about all the experimental evidence? Since you only mention the Michelson-Morley experiment, I conjecture you don't know about all the cyclotrons, synchrotrons, etc., the GPS satellites, the clock studies, the lifetime of elementary particles, and much much more I can't call to mind at this moment. Relativity is one of the most thoroughly experimentally supported theories in history. You really have to deal with all that if you want to criticise it.

[matt grime]

Evidently from your rant of a reply you don't understand what the word theory means.

[confutatis]

I cannot quarrel for what mathematics is and I am not aNti-mathemtics anymore than I am anti-paint. With HawkinG, howevr, there is a Sticking point: For all the claims he has made about black holes, singularities and what not, he prEsents the findings as gospel,as scientific truth.

I think the problem with people like Hawking is not that they have too much faith in mathematics, but simply that they have too much faith in themselves. That I find really annoying.

Are the quantum mechanical assumption true in Hawkings 'black hole' analysis? Are his desisions along the way of ignoring this or that, or eliminating the 'seond order terms'. I don't know and neither does the mass of physicists who have heard of Hawking and his general theory of what ever. Is the mathematical model he uses of value?

I think most of advanced physics is pure garbage. It's assumption upon assumption upon assumption... then they end up with ridiculous nonsense and look at each other in amazement: "we have discovered that the universe is nonsensical!"

One can only laugh at the comedy.

So often, especially on these pages, there is the stated, or implied, fact that "most scientists agree". What bunk.

I think scientists are quite good at projecting an image of consensus, because they know they can lose those grants if they let people know what they are really doing.

Hawking made that very clear in one of this books. He clearly stated that physicists should not refer to research on time travel by its real name, and use something like "superluminal velocities" or some other fancy jargon I don't care to remember. His rationale? In his own words, people believe time travel is nonsense and would never give physicists money to do any research on it. So in order to get the money, physicists must lie to the public.

Those are the heroes of our time....

End of venting. :mad:

ditto

[Organic]

Matt Grime,

Please, define theory.

[Organic]

outandbeyond2004,

That is not equal to c = 1. In fact, photons go at zero 4-D "speed"?

I think maybe there is here an interesting point of view on c speed.

What if n+1_Dim appears as a motion in n_Dim?

Let us say that the existence of some phenomena cannot be totally disconnected with some cognition's abilities to know it.

If this is the case then for aleph0_Dim-cognition, motion does not exist.

But if motion does not exist then there is no difference between n and n+1, therefore "to know something from aleph0_Dim-cognition" = "to know something from 0_Dim-cognition"

What do you think?

[mhernan]

mhernan,

If relativity is "just math" what about all the experimental evidence? Since you only mention the Michelson-Morley experiment, I conjecture you don't know about all the cyclotrons, synchrotrons, etc., the GPS satellites, the clock studies, the lifetime of elementary particles, and much much more I can't call to mind at this moment. Relativity is one of the most thoroughly experimentally supported theories in history. You really have to deal with all that if you want to criticise it.

You just uttered useles words. Why don't you prove what you are saying instead of presenting your "theory" as some sort of polirical assessment? You are in tghe proof business aren't you?

[mhernan]

I think the problem with people like Hawking is not that they have too much faith in mathematics, but simply that they have too much faith in themselves. That I find really annoying.



I think most of advanced physics is pure garbage. It's assumption upon assumption upon assumption... then they end up with ridiculous nonsense and look at each other in amazement: "we have discovered that the universe is nonsensical!"

One can only laugh at the comedy.



I think scientists are quite good at projecting an image of consensus, because they know they can lose those grants if they let people know what they are really doing.

Hawking made that very clear in one of this books. He clearly stated that physicists should not refer to research on time travel by its real name, and use something like "superluminal velocities" or some other fancy jargon I don't care to remember. His rationale? In his own words, people believe time travel is nonsense and would never give physicists money to do any research on it. So in order to get the money, physicists must lie to the public.

Those are the heroes of our time....



ditto
mhernaqn replies,

you are gonna get in trouble talking like tha . We're supposed to argue, dotcha know?

[mhernan]

mhernan,

If relativity is "just math" what about all the experimental evidence? Since you only mention the Michelson-Morley experiment, I conjecture you don't know about all the cyclotrons, synchrotrons, etc., the GPS satellites, the clock studies, the lifetime of elementary particles, and much much more I can't call to mind at this moment. Relativity is one of the most thoroughly experimentally supported theories in history. You really have to deal with all that if you want to criticise it.

mhernan replies.
No I mentionmed th e1919 eclipse studies that launched Einstein and jammed the relativity theory down our mental gullets. It's propaganda.

[mhernan]

Evidently from your rant of a reply you don't understand what the word theory means.

mhernan says,

I understand it from my perspective, rantingly biased, of course.

[mhernan]

We have two light sources at L and R with an observor at M. A train passes by at T1, the instant light pulses leave L and R.

L -----------------------M--------------------------- R


-------------------------T1-------T2-----T3

later, but before the light reaches M, the pulse from R reaches T2.
.

After the pulses reach M at the same time, the light from L strikes the train at T3.
This is experiment #1.


Now, we place detectors on the ground next to where T2 and T3 are going to pass such that the light from both sources strike two detectors at T2 and then two detectors at T3, both at the same instant in their respective locations. The stationry and train mounted detectors are placed on wave length of light apart.
Experiment #2

Now, we eliminate the train and place two detectors at T2 and two detectors at T3 all on the ground.
Experiment #3

Is not this Einstein's (I have his "Relativity" book in fornt of me as I type) simulteneity experiment so widely discussed?

What is all the fuss about? :cool:

[matt grime]

Organic, the idea of the word theory is that is 'the best we have'. It needs to explain phenomena, and no one claims it is true only that it is validated by said phenomena. That doesn't stop some result being true within the theory obviously. Relativity has been widely valitdated, as has quantum mechanics. The two do not sit comfortably together, and they will be replaced by something that can synthesize the two and account for gravity.

For Mehrnan to find it distressing that a scientist can believe ina theory, and know that it will be replaced indicates that he doesn't know how scientists think or work. And never trust anyone who refers to themselves in the third person; they probably will benefit from lots of counselling.

No (physical) theory can be proved, it can only be validated or disproved. And even its disproof doesn't alter its uses. Has the world stopped using Newtonian mechanics because of the discovery of quantum effects?

[Nereid]

mhernan replies.
No I mentionmed th e1919 eclipse studies that launched Einstein and jammed the relativity theory down our mental gullets. It's propaganda. The 1919 eclipse observations were not very good, in terms of accuracy and constraining GR (or its competitors).

However, radio VBLI observations have improved the accuracy of this particular test considerably, to ~1 part in 10,000. Further, the deflection has now been measured far from the Sun, and GR passed those tests. Further2, it's not just radio, Hipparcos (http://astro.estec.esa.nl/Hipparcos/) increased the accuracy of tests in the visible light part of the spectrum.

Details of these tests, and much much more, can be found in Clifford Will's excellent review (http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/)

[Nereid]

I think the problem with people like Hawking is not that they have too much faith in mathematics, but simply that they have too much faith in themselves. That I find really annoying.

I think most of advanced physics is pure garbage. It's assumption upon assumption upon assumption... then they end up with ridiculous nonsense and look at each other in amazement: "we have discovered that the universe is nonsensical!"

One can only laugh at the comedy.

I think scientists are quite good at projecting an image of consensus, because they know they can lose those grants if they let people know what they are really doing.

Hawking made that very clear in one of this books. He clearly stated that physicists should not refer to research on time travel by its real name, and use something like "superluminal velocities" or some other fancy jargon I don't care to remember. His rationale? In his own words, people believe time travel is nonsense and would never give physicists money to do any research on it. So in order to get the money, physicists must lie to the public.

Those are the heroes of our time....Two questions:
1) How do you account for the results of experiments and observations done to test GR?

In other words, what explanation do you give when asked: "what is the observed deflection of light by the Sun is due to?" and so on, for the thousands of experiments which have been performed?

2) How do you think your computer works?

In particular, how do the CPU and RAM chips work, at the level of the doped silicon and electrons?

[mhernan]

Organic, the idea of the word theory is that is 'the best we have'. It needs to explain phenomena, and no one claims it is true only that it is validated by said phenomena. That doesn't stop some result being true within the theory obviously. Relativity has been widely valitdated, as has quantum mechanics. The two do not sit comfortably together, and they will be replaced by something that can synthesize the two and account for gravity.

mhernan responds

Theories do not explain phenomena, theories explain themselves. Like the country western song goes: Relativity and Quantum theorists are the Queens of Denial.

Your interset in truth is nonexistent, therefore your statement regarding truth can be discarded as unsupported opinion.

Validation isn't claimed as true, only that it fits within the theoretical limits. Then Ptolemy's circles within circles theory was consistently validated for some 2000 years. For the purposes that this theory was instituted it worked. Most thought it also was "true". Your theory then as you have described it is one of utility: If it works it has value. Check the Web Sites on the matter and you will see a number of other theories that also dovetails with Mecuriy's perihelion 'error' that is not relativistically models. All of the "validation you discuss is well known, but also flawed. J.S.Bell proved, using quantum theory methods that qt was incomplete unless in contained nonlocal forces in the model stsructure. So what is this thing about validation that seems so important? It sounds like "truth" or "reality" is not a subject matter of interest for the theorists. You have made claims about validation in a number of experiments. Are you able to prove your staements or are your claims sufficient by themselves for some useful purpose of winning this debate?.

A school teacher discovrd the relationship E = mc.2 some fifteen years bfore Lorentz or whoever preceded Einstein.

The 1/(1- v>2)>1/2 is not a statement of physics describing a real phenomena. The statement follows the logic , I suppose, of the discoverers. Fine, I'm just not interested in applying myself to a disciplne that purports to be nature oriented, but is in fact just another club of believers that have maintained a "standard model" or some agreement, and for what purpose? The theoretical phenomenologists shrug off the particular reality as it has no place in the hierarchy of the model. QT even has this process built in to the model.

You need "synthesis" and "gravity" included in both? Pretty tall order. You seem to b e implying that thios little tweaking of the current model and all is accomplished. Why even pretend the current qt and rt theories are useful for scientific purposes? They are both mathmatical instabilities, contrivances, something to mutter to the general public as a substitute for knowledge and Mother Nature doesn't work that way.


When you claim incompatibility between qt and rert and admit changes must eventuially will occur, why discuss the current understanding as somehting to dogmatically support?

Matt Grime]
For Mehrnan to find it distressing that a scientist can believe in a theory, and know that it will be replaced indicates that he doesn't know how scientists think or work. And never trust anyone who refers to themselves in the third person; they probably will benefit from lots of counselling.


mhernan responds

I am not distressed because of your belief system, which isn't a scientifically validated mental state anyway, it is a religious one, a dogmatic belief in the "curent system" until one , or two of you come up with something exciting for the rest to chew on. I am not distressed peiod. Anyway your belief system , it is psychological, a form of a mental "security blanket". I know how you work, though I wouldn't use the description of scientist, when that is inaccurate.

So there is an "amplitude" that I will benefit from counseling, is there? What is the number? Have you a mathematical model, or experimental proof, or are you just muttering a little insulting dig at my depressed level, while you elevate yourself to some enlightened intellectual state of superiority? You do realize, do you not Matt Grime, that the insecure use such tactics you just described, which doesn't make you a bad person, just limited in mental scope -depthm breadth, and width. Or are you just being cute?



Matt Grime
No (physical) theory can be proved, it can only be validated or disproved. And even its disproof doesn't alter its uses. Has the world stopped using Newtonian mechanics because of the discovery of quantum effects?

responds mhernan

Of course you are going to offer a proof of some sort that theories cannot be proved in your respose to this aren't you? Newtonian and Quantum Mechanics are both flawed "theories", though Neils Bohr, said that QT flowed from Newtonian Mechanics down to the small world, and that each have their realm. One doesn't use interference amplitude when scientifically scrutinizing Barry Bond's latest home run. Apples do not replace, nor substitue for rutabegas, do they? The quantum efects are little teeny peeks through the Wizard of Oz's curtain, that is all. Methinkis you may have a distorted view on matters that is biased by herd thoughts. You are writing as if QT was some universally accepted modeling of whatever. Well it isn't, anad we on the other side only chuckle when our integrity is rehabilitated through counselling. My shrink usually gets into some uncontrollable laughing spasm when I relate the menatal deficiencies of quantum theorists who think they have taken the high ground in the discussion with their condescending and smug tonalities.

We are amused, Matt Grimes.

Roses are red, violets are blue,
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I[/QUOTE]

[Organic]

Dear mhernan,

Roses are red, violets are blue,
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I

Thank you for participating with us your disease.

I wish you a peaceful life as much as possible.

[confutatis]

Thank you for participating with us your disease.

If I may insert a quick comment, just yesterday I was reading this:

The MWI was first put forth by Hugh Everett III in a Princeton doctoral thesis written for John Wheeler in 1956. It was soon taken up and elaborated by Bryce DeWitt. For several years John Wheeler defended his student's theory, but finally decided it was "on the wrong track," no more than a bizarre language for QM and one that carried "too much metaphysical baggage." However, recent polls show that about half of all QM experts now favor the theory, though it is seldom clear whether they think the other worlds are physically real or just abstractions such as numbers and triangles. Apparently both Everett and DeWitt took the realist approach. Roger Penrose is among many famous physicists who find the MWI appalling. The late Irish physicist John S. Bell called the MWI "grotesque" and just plain "silly." Most working physicists simply ignore the theory as nonsense.

In an article on "Quantum Mechanics and Reality" [...], DeWitt wrote with vast understatement about his first reaction to Everett's thesis: "I still recall vividly the shock I experienced on first encountering the multiworld concept. The idea of [a virtually infinite amount of] slightly imperfect copies of oneself all constantly splitting into further copies, which ultimately become unrecognizable, is not easy to reconcile with common sense. This is schizophrenia with a vengeance!"

(Quoted from http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-09/fringe-watcher.html)

Sometimes I think the only difference between physicists and schizophrenics is that physicists get paid to sound crazy.

[mhernan]

Dear mhernan,

Thank you for participating with us your disease.

I wish you a peaceful life as much as possible.

mhernan responds
On my planet we have jokes. I suppose you call these jokes diseases. What are diseases? :biggrin:

[Organic]

What are diseases?

In our planet diseases are sometimes jokes who can kill us.

[russ_watters]

You just uttered useles words. Why don't you prove what you are saying instead of presenting your "theory" as some sort of polirical assessment? You are in tghe proof business aren't you? It's propaganda.... For starters, mhernan, your tone needs to change. This is a place for friendly discussion - scientific discussion.

Second, SA shouldn't need to tell you that there is a lot of experimental evidence for Relativity - if you understand it as well as you think/say you do, you should already know that. If you don't already know that, then there is a gap in your knowledge that is hindering your ability to understand the issue here.

If you haven't already seen it, Nereid posts (though she didn't in this thread unless I missed it...)THIS (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html) page listing experimental tests of SR and THIS (http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/) one listing tests of GR in just about every thread where someone attacks Relativity. If you have specific issues with any (all) of these tests or can provide a real experiment that is not consistent with Relativity, please do tell us. But remember: all arguments must be grounded in science. Do not just keep spouting off about "propaganda" - you won't get very far here.

If your problem is with the scientific method itself or the very concept of reality, well - this is the Philosophy section, but I find it curious that your problems are much more focused than that: it seems that you just don't like certain theories that don't make logical sense to you.

[Les Sleeth]

For starters, mhernan, your tone needs to change. This is a place for friendly discussion - scientific discussion. . . .

If your problem is with the scientific method itself or the very concept of reality, well - this is the Philosophy section, but I find it curious that your problems are much more focused than that: it seems that you just don't like certain theories that don't make logical sense to you.

I've observed this debate as an outsider, but my impression of how it's unfolded has me questioning your interpretation.

What I have witnessed is mhernan suggesting that intuition, overall, deserves priority over mathematics as one proceeds in research. Then he got jumped on for suggesting such a thing. It seemed the mentors assumed he was a flake, who wouldn't follow up what he intuited with sound research.

Mhernan took that assumption personally (as a newbie at a forum might be inclined to do), started firing back, and that's been the theme of things here since.

When you say "This is a place for friendly discussion . . . " I wonder if our new Administrator is setting the standard for feedback. I hope it's not the case but sometimes it feels like his approach is to intimidate, make people feel stupid and afraid to ask questions, and discourage anyone who fails to meet exalted standards.

It seems we could be more hospitable until someone proves they are misinformed and/or illogical, and then won't listen about that.

[FZ+]

What I have witnessed is mhernan suggesting that intuition, overall, deserves priority over mathematics as one proceeds in research. Then he got jumped on and thrashed like a child molester for suggesting such a thing. It seemed the mentors assumed he was a flake, who wouldn't follow up what he intuited with sound research.

Rationalizations as in the feakish use of mathematical models that are of value only to the mathematicians: See "interference amplitude", "relativity" and "AIDS" for soem ice berg tips.
I haven't really looked at this thread, but I don't think LWS has analysed the situation correctly. I fail to see how he can conduct sound research while condemning rational (mathematical) thought, and denouncing the results of thousands of experiments, research and so on. His attitude appears simply to be that of utter arrogance, and disregard of a key tenet of the scientific method - you try to evaluate and incorporate all the evidence.

It is hard to think of his as logical, if he is attacking logic itself.

[Les Sleeth]

I haven't really looked at this thread, but I don't think LWS has analysed the situation correctly.

If you've not read it, how can we trust your opinion? Have you intuited mhernan's meaning? :wink:

Mhernan wrote:


To those who are following this thread please be aware that it was I who used the term "intuition" for which the process of intuition is being debated as to its value as a competent and useful activity on a level with modern science. At no instant have I assumed or intentionally , or otherwise, indicated that a "message" arrived at through intuition be treated in the same light as a physical observation. Even Descarte had a problem, other than his 'rush of insight' at an early age. He struggled with the question of truth being somehow related to 'rational mental processes'- I think therefore I am.

My use of intuition was intended as response to what I understood was a claim that "mathematics" was a process providing scientific information with informatioal integrity on the level of experimetnal and scientific observations.

Whatever the arguments may be, one way or the other, my use of the word intuition was then intended, and remains intended, to mean that intuition >= mathematics as as valuable scientific information in modeling of nature.

That is how I understood his use of the word before he had to explain it as he did above. When he was reminded about the necessity of math, I didn't see why anyone saw the need to do that unless they were assuming (or had they, like you, intuited? :eek:) he didn't intend to be thorough. In other words, the reaction seemed knee-jerk, and not one based on what information they had about mhernan yet.

I fail to see how he can conduct sound research while condemning rational (mathematical) thought, and denouncing the results of thousands of experiments, research and so on.

:confused: You really are off base FZ. Mhernan never said or implied that.


His attitude appears simply to be that of utter arrogance, and disregard of a key tenet of the scientific method - you try to evaluate and incorporate all the evidence. It is hard to think of his as logical, if he is attacking logic itself.

You better read the thread. Your analysis of mhernan isn't even close as far as I can see. My interpretation is that his sarcasm has mostly been a reaction to being treated (or feeling he was treated) inconsiderately.

[Hurkyl]

It seems some posts have been deleted. I can't find the post I quoted in my first reply, despite mhernan acknowledging he had posted it with:


quote:
Mhernan stated in an earlier post:
sees their rational professionalism as superior to intuition, reason and simplicity.
[ /QUOTE]


To which Hurky replied, somewhat indignantly:


(space added in the [ /quote] flag so it didn't close my quote)

[IooqXpooI]

Not the ONLY constant...

It's explained in 'special relativity'...

[metacristi]

Why is the speed of light the same relative to any frame of reference?


It is impossible to prove that enunciation,it is a basic principle,accepted as true,still only provisionally.Sufficient reasons against would bring its demise from science.Some might argue rightly that it is metaphysical,in spite of Michelson Morley experiment,indeed the before mentioned experiment cannot rule out the existence of aether,we can always postulate that the aether interacts very faintly with usual matter.Still it is a fruitful theoretical construct from which,in conjunction with the principle of equivalence of the laws of physics in all inertial frames,we can deduce the standard Lorenz transformations,supported by empirically known facts,making also new predictions.This is an fine example of why metaphysical assumptions are allowable within science but only if in conjunction with other accepted enunciations within the main body of accepted scientific knowledge produce new,but potentially testable,predictions.It is true now that some ad hoc hypotheses (if they have a strong compatibility with accepted knowledge) are allowed,still if they remain in that state for a long time it is unlikely that they will be retained within science if they will not be made fruitful in the way I explained above.Otherwise only if were found new data which to sustain them would we be still entitled to maintain them as being scientific enunciations and thus prefer them for all our practical purposes to all other,lacking such support for the moment,equal alternative explanations (for example in the same way how discoveries in chemistry,explanation of brownian motion and the kinetic theory of gases sustained Dalton's hypothesis regarding the existence of atoms well before their indirect experimental confirmation).I'm afraid not absolutely everything goes,history clearly vindicates the existence of a method,having at base empiricism (no proof that comepting hypotheses are incommensurable,thus at least on long run they are potentially comparable on empirical grounds) and the principle of sufficient reason (the base of human rationality).Even the famous irrationalist examples with Copernicus and Galileo can be easily explained in the lakatosian view (its only weakness is the existence of instant refutations in some cases,very few anyway) if we take in account how were they accepted by all scientists (the hypothesis making process is totally another thing,it might be irrational).

As an interesting digression here the standard Lorenz transformations are not the only transformations we can deduce from them (the principle that all laws of physics are the same in all inertial systems and the principle of the constance of the speed of light in all inertial frames).Since we do not have a direct confirmation for the contraction of lengths (only for the dilation of time) it is possible to obtain a modified set of Lorentz transformations which does not sustain the contraction of lengths,the interesting thing is that some of those possible transformations are compatible with the existence of a preferential system of reference whilst retaining the equivalence between all systems of reference.Still the actual evidence (the Michelson Morley experiment) does constitute a sufficient reason against that approach.But of course the discovery of direct or indirect evidence for the existence of the aether would dramatically change facts.Bohm's quantum potential is such a candidate,though certainly it is not the same concept of aether Planck,Lorenz or lord Kelvin and many other physicists tried to save at the end of 19-th century.

[Hugo Holbling]

history clearly vindicates the existence of a method,having at base empiricism (no proof that comepting hypotheses are incommensurable,thus at least on long run they are potentially comparable on empirical grounds) and the principle of sufficient reason (the base of human rationality).

How does it do that?

Even the famous irrationalist examples with Copernicus and Galileo can be easily explained in the lakatosian view

They can? Would you care to try?

[jdavel]

metachristi said: "Still it (the ether) is a fruitful theoretical construct from which, in conjunction with the principle of equivalence of the laws of physics in all inertial frames, we can deduce the standard Lorentz transfomations, supported by empirically known facts, making also new predictions."

How do you get from an ether and the principle of equivalence to the "Lorentz transformations supported by empirically known facts"?

Is this what you're saying?: Assume an ether, and the principle of equivalence. Then observe length contraction and time dilation. Then deduce the Lorentz transformations where c is constant relative to the ether?

If so, why is that a better theory than this (SR)?: Assume the principle of equivalence. Then deduce the Lorentz transformations. Then verify by measuring length contraction and time dilation.

[metacristi]

How do you get from an ether and the principle of equivalence to the "Lorentz transformations supported by empirically known facts"?


When I said iIt' I was talking about the invariance of the speed of light in all inertial frames.No aether involved there.As for the rest here is another try (I am aware that my english profficiency is not very good).Einstein's postulates are based on observational data but they are not the only ones which could lead to roughly the same observed facts (experimentally confirmed).Basically there could exist an infinity of explanations for the same observational evidence,we cannot deduce explanations from facts.As I've already said there is even possible to obtain from the assumptions of the invariance of the speed of light+accepting only the dilation of time as experimental evidence (the contraction of length is not proved experimentally) some variants for the Lorenz transformations for which we have perfect synchronization for all inertial frames (which is compatible with the existence of an aether,let's say Bohm's quantum potential).This is why we cannot say that Bohm's interpretation of QM cannot be Lorenz invariant.This is still possible,of course with the expense of changing the form of Lorenz transformations.Still since there are no reasons for the existence of an aether (be it in the form of a quantum potential) there are no good reasons also to prefer such transformations.If we could somehow find sufficient reasons,experimentally based,that the aether exist then things would change dramatically.Not the case as of now.The principle of sufficient reason and empirical evidence (the number of empirical confirmations of a hypothesis) are at the base of science,since Bacon at least,they assured the privilege of science and the actual method of the scientific method over other systems of beliefs.Otherwise we should accept everything as being equally valid (as irrationalists claim) clearly not the best approach.They still have to prove why do we have the science as we know it and not a science based on Homer's Gods for example.

[selfAdjoint]

This is why we cannot say that Bohm's interpretation of QM cannot be Lorenz invariant.This is still possible,of course with the expense of changing the form of Lorenz transformations.

Don't raise the bridge, lower the river?

[metacristi]

This is why we cannot say that Bohm's interpretation of QM cannot be Lorenz invariant.This is still possible,of course with the expense of changing the form of Lorenz transformations.

Don't raise the bridge, lower the river?

Well from all I know there is very serious work now attempting to construct a relativistic form of Bohm's Interpretation of QM (though some other physicists,the majority in fact,think it's impossible).Nothing is set in stone,since we can only obtain sufficient reasons backed by observed facts,not prove or deduce our enunciations from observations.Even those assumptions accepted intially with sufficient reasons (from all what we know at a certain moment) are still fallible knowledge,open to revise.for example now we have no good reason to think that an aether exist due to Michelson Morley's negative result indeed still some new data could change things dramatically (as I've argued before) by potentially providing sufficient reasons supporting the existence of the aether.

[metacristi]

How does it do that?

We always start from natural explanations,according with the principle of sufficient reason,but over time facts make the difference.In neurological field for example currently there is absolutely no reason to suppose that consciousness involves something more than the functioning of the neural netwotrk of the brain,virtually all neurologists will not accept qualia as being a 'hard problem' as many philosophers propose (ask those who have been at Tucson conference this year).Still some new direct/indirect evidence or at least if qualia could be introduced in our scientific theories by making potentially testable predictions would dramatically change things.



They can? Would you care to try?

Tycho Brahe's data was compatible in Kepler's time either with a very complicated variant of Ptolemy's hypothesis and the Copernican view as modified by Kepler,the copernican system had evolved empirically and theoretically (at some time before it was even inferior).Now they were equally valid on empirical grounds indeed so scientists preferred one or another on other criterions (the majority preferred tradition,I wouldn't say because of religious pressures in science).The relative simplicity of Kepler's proposals did not convince many to accept it,only some mavericks did.Kepler for example invoqued some mystical causes for his preference.Still on longer term it was the considerable empirical success of newtonian physics (Kepler's laws can be deduced from it) which convinced scientists to switch.It was fully visible now the ad hoc status of Ptolemy's system.More or less the same pattern happened later with Einstein when he first saw Kaufmann's results.He acknowledged that Abraham's and Bucherer's models were favorized by those data,still he considered his model 'confirmed' (hope you understood I do not mean proved or made more probable) by that experiement for the differences were extremely small.He explained that he did so because whilst his theory was able to encompass a wide range of phenomena,the alternative models were extremely ad hoc.Further empirical confirmations gave sufficient reasons to reject those ad hoc alternatives.There might not exist instant rationality but on long term,as in the lakatosian model,definitely there is a method assuring the rationality of scientific changes,the primacy of the scientific method.Irrationalists still have to prove the success of induction (based on the principle of sufficient reason in majority,for example when inferring the causes of an observed effect) and why do we have currently the actual scientific body of knowledge and not a system based on the Greek Gods for example (if this really is possible,I do not think it could be made viable).Finally,contrary to what some might object,the bayesian view is a strong 'tool',widely used in science,there are even underway very serious efforts to back the stronger form of Occam's Razor/principle of parsimony (the simpler hypothesis is more likely to be true).

[Hugo Holbling]

Now they were equally valid on empirical grounds indeed so scientists preferred one or another on other criterions (the majority preferred tradition,I wouldn't say because of religious pressures in science).

This is quite false: Kepler and Copernicus both had religious reasons for adopting their ideas as well as those based on neoplatonic and hermetic ideas, particularly from Philolaus. It was because of these that Copernicus insisted that orbits must be spherical and it took Kepler so long to arrive at the ellipse.

Kepler for example invoqued some mystical causes for his preference.

Indeed he did, as did most others of that time and plenty since. Your faith in Lakatos ignores more recent philosophy of science such as the work of Holton.

Still on longer term it was the considerable empirical success of newtonian physics (Kepler's laws can be deduced from it) which convinced scientists to switch.It was fully visible now the ad hoc status of Ptolemy's system.

This is also false, while your use of the term "scientist" is anachronistic. I suggest you actually read the Principia (in Cohen's translation) and try to factor in something other than "empirical success", since you'll find that for those like Newton and Einstein the belief came first and the "empirical success" second. That brings us to:

He explained that he did so because whilst his theory was able to encompass a wide range of phenomena,the alternative models were extremely ad hoc.Further empirical confirmations gave sufficient reasons to reject those ad hoc alternatives.

On that contrary, Einstein's approach and epistemology are far more complex. These reasons are philosophical in the first place, but he also discounted Kaufman from a faith in his ideas that could not be shaken (indeed, it seems he didn't respond at all when asked to comment on D.C. Miller's later falsification of his theory). Holton's studies have amply demonstrated this additional "dimension" (as he puts it), but a story i like goes thusly:

When asked by one of his students how he felt about the correct predictions for Eddington's expedition to measure the eclipse in 1919, he replied "but i knew that the theory is correct." When the student asked how he would have felt if the prediction had not been confirmed, he answered "then i would have been sorry for the dear Lord - the theory is correct."

There might not exist instant rationality but on long term,as in the lakatosian model,definitely there is a method assuring the rationality of scientific changes,the primacy of the scientific method.

What is this method that you merely assert?

Irrationalists still have to prove the success of induction (based on the principle of sufficient reason in majority,for example when inferring the causes of an observed effect) and why do we have currently the actual scientific body of knowledge and not a system based on the Greek Gods for example

Why do they have to do that? This is a rather massive non sequitur, but i might ask if you can "prove the success of induction" (whatever that means)?

Finally,contrary to what some might object,the bayesian view is a strong 'tool',widely used in science,there are even underway very serious efforts to back the stronger form of Occam's Razor/principle of parsimony (the simpler hypothesis is more likely to be true).

Instead, Bayesian theory is anything but taken for granted and subject to significant critique. Of course, i needn't explain why because it seems we deal here only in assertions. Parsimony is likewise problematic and it's doubtful that verisimilitude applies, even before we get to the Bohr's objection that the consequences of additional hypotheses are never clear a priori and can only be evaluated after the fact.

What i was wondering, in asking my questions before, was if you have any reasons for your assertions or if they are indeed just that?

Edited to add: on second thought, forget it. I give up.