Royal Society revives a strange old document

  • B
  • Thread starter slow
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Strange
In summary, the conversation discusses the digitization of old documents by the Royal Society, specifically a publication from the middle of the 20th century. The purpose of this digitization is for archival purposes and to preserve historical information, rather than judging the content of the articles. There is also discussion about the difficulty of determining what is worth saving and the potential dangers of discarding potentially useful information. The conversation also touches on the importance of understanding the thoughts and theories of past scientists and the validity of classical electrodynamics in today's mainstream science.
  • #1
slow
93
16
Hi. I want to show a publication from the middle of the 20th century.

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/253/1025/205

I have been surprised by the subject it deals with. I would like to understand why the Royal Society digitizes that old document, which has never been received by the mainstream. I suppose that the lack of reception is a consequence of serious errors in development. And I would like to have some idea of those errors, if they exist. Your comments on this will surely help me. Best regards.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I think the Royal Society is digitizing its journals for archival purposes, without judging the various papers on their merits or faults.
I have no comment on the content of that particular article.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #3
robphy said:
I think the Royal Society is digitizing its journals for archival purposes
I agree And I have the following question: does someone want to archive what is not useful ?
Edit: Now I am noticing that historians could be interested in everything, what is useful and what is not useful.
 
  • #4
slow said:
And I have the following question: does someone want to archive what is not useful ?
Edit: Now I am noticing that historians could be interested in everything, what is useful and what is not useful.
Right. in addition to being difficult and time consuming to judge what is worth saving and what isn't, our judgement could change in the future. It is easier and safer to save everything.
 
  • #5
It’s also good to see what folks were thinking at the time, especially by following the web of references and citations.

In research, it would be a timesaver to know that one is going in the wrong direction... unfortunately such results aren’t published or at least acknowledged.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #6
I couldn't open the document. PDF link took me back to the same page. Have anyone read the actual document?
 
Last edited:
  • #7
robphy said:
I think the Royal Society is digitizing its journals for archival purposes, without judging the various papers on their merits or faults.
.
Of course. You have to consider just who would be doing the digitisation. They wouldn't be using subject experts but clerical staff. It would be far more dangerous to allow potentially useful stuff to be ditched.
 
  • #8
olgerm said:
I couldn't open the document. PDF link took me back to the same page.
It is true. It seems that membership is required to download it. It's a pain, because Nature praises the work of S. R. Milner in the following article.
https://www.nature.com/articles/145887c0
Here a link where you can request full text.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239037724_The_Classical_Field_Theory_of_Matter_and_Electricity_I_An_Approach_from_First_Principles
 
Last edited:
  • #9
slow said:
It is true. It seems that membership is required to download it. It's a pain
What a different world we would live in if we just assumed we would be paying for all the data we get from the Internet. Micropayments would be an accepted way of getting information and we would then not be subjected to the antics of Cambridge Analytica. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
 
  • Like
Likes slow
  • #10
slow said:
Nature praises the work of S. R. Milner in the following article.
https://www.nature.com/articles/145887c0
That note on his retirement from the University of Sheffield was published in 1940. A Google search for "s r milner physics sheffield" turned up a Google Books link to a list of former professors at the University of Manchester which indicates that he was there 1898-1900. So he received his education through his doctorate before then, in the late 1800s. At that time, the structure of matter (before QM!) was a wide-open question with many physicists trying to make sense of it using classical mechanics and electrodynamics. One might speculate that Milner "returned to his roots" in retirement.

The article of his that you linked to, was published 17 November 1960 but "received May 31, 1954" :oldconfused: I wonder what the story is behind that.
 
  • #11
Regardless of the dates, I liked that someone managed to formulate 100% of ##m C^2## as electromagnetic wave energy. Why did I like it? First, because then the universal validity of the mass / energy ratio and the wave properties of the particles are understood naturally. Second, because the abstract says that the mathematics go well. Third, because there says it allows to derive the discrete distribution of the electric charge. And there says that, in the case of the atom, the scheme implies a distribution by layers with well-defined energy levels. All derived from classical electrodynamics. Today all that is not part of the mainstream. Then we can not grant it validity. That's why the Royal Society surprised me by reviving a document that, in advance, is doomed to be scientifically useless. But historically, epistemologically, it might be interesting to keep it. Only that.
 
  • #12
slow said:
Today all that is not part of the mainstream.

That is correct. You might be surprised at how much good stuff there is out there that is never taught or learned in mainstream academia.

Then we can not grant it validity.

I don't see how that follows. There's lots of valid stuff out there. The fact that most of it is not taught in the mainstream is certainly not a criterion for validity. Rather, the appeal is made to Nature for that determination.
 
  • #13
Mister T said:
The fact that most of it is not taught in the mainstream is certainly not a criterion for validity.
It's usually the other way round: loads of stuff isn't taught because it's just wrong or superceeded. There is a tendency towards conservatism in Science which is actually very efficient. Just think of the 99% of nonsense that gets proposed, as against the useful 1%. If something in the 99% happens to be valid, it will surface again and get considered.
Scattergun Science just doesn't work and any hint of 'conspiracy' against alternative theories is largely misplaced. Yes, personalities are involved and established egos account for reluctance to change paradigms but it's the least worst system.
 
  • #14
Mister T said:
You might be surprised at how much good stuff there is out there that is never taught or learned in mainstream academia.
I do not despise the fact of taking a look at non-mainstream sites. In fact, the image of my avatar appears in a non-mainstream monograph, written in Spanish, which is my native language. But my subjective taste for what that monograph says is one thing and granting validity to a non-mainstream proposal is another very different thing.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
slow said:
But my subjective taste for what that monograph says is one thing and granting validity to a non-mainstream proposal is another very different thing.

Validity is determined solely by Nature. There are a lot of models that are valid in the sense that the model's behavior matches Nature's, within the limits of that validity. My point is that the majority of those things are not part of a mainstream education. There is too much of it to fit within a curriculum. It takes a few years to get a degree, not a few lifetimes. And it would take more than one lifetime to learn it all.
 
  • #16
Mister T said:
Validity is determined solely by Nature.
You have expressed an epistemological conviction. I agree with that.
Mister T said:
There are a lot of models that are valid in the sense that the model's behavior matches Nature's, within the limits of that validity. My point is that the majority of those things are not part of a mainstream education.
I suppose I can agree with that too. I say I suppose and I do not say I confirm, because my outlook on that matter is relatively small. I also take into account that only in exceptional cases, something that is initially non-mainstream, is incorporated into mainstream because no other available scheme is better suited. Some examples of such exceptions are famous, such as the work of Faraday, or in older times, the work of Fermat. I would like to have an exception detector to use it every time I go through non-mainstream sites, something able to sniff out what has real physical flesh and, as a consequence, has a future.
 
  • #17
Mister T said:
Validity is determined solely by Nature. There are a lot of models that are valid in the sense that the model's behavior matches Nature's, within the limits of that validity. My point is that the majority of those things are not part of a mainstream education. There is too much of it to fit within a curriculum. It takes a few years to get a degree, not a few lifetimes. And it would take more than one lifetime to learn it all.
But that's life, isn't it? Fact is that it's been well over a hundred years since one person can know it all. Mainstream education can't be aimed at the exceptionally able and there will be stuff that most people will have no chance of ever understanding. It is also a fact that Science is hierarchical and it is not possible (as many PF contributors seem to expect) to leap in and have a meaningful discussion about cutting edge Science without a good basic knowledge. On being told gently that "it's just too hard for you", people take offence and say that the establishment is cutting them out.
Some difficult politics involved there because PF wants to nurture anyone who comes in with the right attitude and respect for the subject.
 
  • #18
It seems the article will become "free" in the future.

Which content is free?

Content:
a) 1665-1943* Free in perpetuity
b) 1944*-2003* under access control
c) 2004*-2 years ago Free
d) Last 2 years under access control
Each January the years with an * will move forward by one
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/faq
 

1. What is the "strange old document" that the Royal Society revived?

The "strange old document" refers to the Charter of the Royal Society, which was first written in 1663 and has been updated and revised over the years.

2. Why did the Royal Society decide to revive this document?

The Royal Society revived the Charter as part of its 350th anniversary celebrations in 2010, to reaffirm its commitment to promoting science and its role in society.

3. What is the significance of the Charter of the Royal Society?

The Charter outlines the purpose and objectives of the Royal Society, which include promoting and supporting scientific research, communicating scientific knowledge, and recognizing excellence in science. It also sets out the principles of scientific inquiry and the values of openness, integrity, and collaboration that the Royal Society stands for.

4. Has the Charter of the Royal Society changed over time?

Yes, the Charter has been updated and revised over the years to reflect the changing landscape of science and society. However, the core principles and values outlined in the original Charter of 1663 still hold true today.

5. How does the revival of the Charter impact the work of the Royal Society?

The revival of the Charter serves as a reminder of the important role that the Royal Society plays in promoting and supporting scientific research and its impact on society. It also reaffirms the Society's commitment to upholding the principles of scientific inquiry and promoting the value of scientific knowledge.

Similar threads

  • Computing and Technology
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Computing and Technology
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • General Engineering
Replies
22
Views
5K
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
5
Replies
169
Views
18K
Replies
22
Views
7K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
3K
Back
Top