You're saying that the justification for physicists believing what they believe is that they believe it. If we were talking about religion or politics, you'd be calling this circular reasoning.samalkhaiat said:Generalization of my statement is (as I said before) meaningless, because it is a common BELIEF among physicists. The SM, string theory and supergravity represent a solid ground for this belief.
The best argument for special relativity is that it has gotten us this far, why should we consider abandoning it now. But the same argument applies against every revolution that has ever been done in physics. Lee Smolin's new book goes to great length describing how difficult every one of the previous revolutions.
The first and most obvious example is the optics of crystals. The presence of birefringence (and "trirefringence") give optical evidence of anisotropy in the crystal and is a hint of the structure of the crystal.samalkhaiat said:Having said this, I do, however, want you to tell me where, in physics, do I find a Lie symmetry that gets larger in the low energy limit?
A crystal in the cubic system exhibits no birefringence and so appears to possess SO(3) symmetry to photons (of low enough energy). But at x-ray energies, the symmetry is broken (to a discrete symmetry).
Lee Smolin's latest book describes the ether theory of the late 19th century as a "matter" theory because it tried to explain everything in the world as matter. The ether was invisible matter that carried the vibrations of light. Since light travels at a very high speed, it was thought that the ether must be very stiff. Light moving in a crystal follows the analogy perfectly.
For the case of the substance which moves when light travels, the analogy to the crystal is that as long as our energies are low, the Poincare symmetry will appear to be a continuous one. But at high enough energies, it is also possible that the symmetry will be broken to a discrete symmetry. In this case, the breaking would be by the appearance of a preferred reference frame and the reduction of Poincare symmetry to the symmetries that existed before the invention of SR.
Classical mechanics was a mathematically sound theory with countless experimental verifications. It had logical consistency and was able to explain a number of known facts. So why search for a new theory outside its bounds?samalkhaiat said:NO, because this was a result from a mathematically sound theory with countless experimental verifications. By "mathematically sound" I mean logical consistency and ability to explain a number of known facts.
I've been enjoying Lee Smolin's new book "The Trouble With Physics". He makes it very clear that at any given time, very few physicists are worried about the direction of the field. Instead, they just calculate. But Smolin also points out the difficulties that attend the present situation and he makes a pretty good argument that something radical needs to be done.samalkhaiat said:Like most physicists, I think science is going in the right direction.
I have great respect for your knowledge of physics and appreciate your spending time here defending what is commonly believed to be true. Earlier, I gave an alternative interpretation of relativity, that it is a consequence of an anthropic principle and you didn't respond to it. As far as showing you a solid result, as long as you refuse to imagine that anything other than what you've been taught is true, it would be a waste of time. Besides, it doesn't belong on this forum.samalkhaiat said:If you think that physics needs to be rewritten, then DO IT and show us a solid results. Don't just sit there and [throw] garbage on us.
Do you agree that if the naive ether theory of the late 19th century (i.e. Gallilean invariance, the straw man that SR defeated) were true, then the biochemistry of living organisms would depend on their orientation? Do you agree that if gravitation and acceleration were not equivalent then biochemistry would depend on the gravitational potential that a planet experiences? Do you agree that both of these effects would tend to make it more difficult for life to survive? Do you agree that one can make a first principles argument for SR and GR on the basis of the anthropic principle? Do you agree that if our foundation for believing SR and GR is the anthropic principle, then it is reasonable to explore physics ideas that treat SR and GR as only very good approximations? What I'm curious here is exactly which step in the above reasoning you find fault with.