The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Do physicists understand physics?  (Read 12826 times)

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
Do physicists understand physics?
« on: 07/01/2007 18:18:40 »
All the sources of physics are created on abstract ideas:
inertial motion, inertial reference system, ideal gas,
absolute black  body,
negative four-dimensional (Minkowski) space,
"a method of renormalization",  etc.
===========================   
1.
G. Galileo has shown that natural motion is ‘inertial’
but nobody knows what is ‘ inertial motion’.
2.
J. Maxwell aspired to explain electromagnetic processes from
mechanical point of view, using  cogwheels and wheels.
3.
L, Boltzmann admired the equations of Maxwell and  he tried
to improve Maxwell,s  mechanical model.
4.
H. Hertz practically discovered electromagnetic waves
 but he has declared in writing that the electromagnetic
 waves have  no practical importance.
Later, he wrote about the equation of Maxwell:
"…that they are wiser than we ourselves,
 even wiser than their first-discovers…"
5.
"We did more than have understood".
 /Rutherford/
6.
M. Planck almost for 20 years searched arguments
against his theory of the light quanta.
7.
"The more successes the quantum physics gains,
 the more senseless it looks".
 /Einstein/
8.
Everything is getting along, but the deep grounds remain unclear".
/Sommerfeld /
9.
"I think I can safely say that no one understands quantum mechanics".
/Feynman/
10.
   What the fine structure constant ‘a’ means nobody knows
    and on  Feynman,s  expression  this quantity is
      ‘by the god given damnation to all physicists’.
11.
    Robert Milliken told, that he knew nothing
     about “last essence of electron”.
This remains unknown also today.
12.
     etc.
=========================   
How do the physicists want to solve these problems?
a)
They try to create new theories.
But if the base of the first floor (classic)
and second floor (quantum) of physics is abstract
what can we expect from the new theories?
b)
They try to find the first, initial particle.

In 1906, Lord Rutherford studied internal structure of atoms,
bombarding them with high energy a- particles.
This idea helped him to understand the structure of atom.
 But the clever Devil interfered and gave advice to physicists:
‘ Bomb them stronger’.
 And physicists created huge cannon-accelerators of particles.
 And they began to bomb micro particles in the vacuum,
in hoping to understand  their inner structure.
And they were surprised with the results of this bombing.
Several hundreds of completely new strange particles appeared.
They lived for a very little time and do not relate to our world.
 Our Earth needs another constants of nature.
But physicists are proud of their work. They say:
 we study the inner structure  of the particles.
The clever and artful Devil is glad. He again has deceived man.
Physicists  think, that an accelerator  is first of all
 the presence of huge energy. And the Devil laughs.
 He knows that an accelerator  is first of all the Vacuum.
But this, he has withheld from man.
 He has not explained that the Vacuum is infinite and inexhaustible.
 And in infinity an infinite variety of particles is contained .
 And by bombing the vacuum, one can find centaurs and sphinxes.
 But my God, save us from their presence on Earth.
 ==============       
E. Rutherford  was right.
His followers are mistaken.
Why?
Imagine, that I want to plant a small apple- tree.
For this purpose I will dig out a hole of 1 meter width
and  1,20 m depth. It is normal.
But if to plant a small apple- tree, I will begin to dig
a base for a huge building (skyscraper),
or if to begin to drill ground with 11 km. depth,
will you call me a normal man?
===================================   
Imagine a man who breaks watches on the wall.
 And then he tries to understand the mechanism of the watches
collecting cogwheels, springs and small screws, throwing ewerywhere.
 Does he have many chances to succeed?
 As many as the scientists who aspire to understand  the
 inner structure of electron by breaking them into accelerators.
 If not to take into account the initial conditions of Genesis,
 the fantasies of the scientists may be unlimited.
==============   
Great physicists didn,t  ashamed admit that they
couldn,t understand the base of physics.
The ‘small’ physicists understand the physics on 100%.
The ‘small’ physicists teach physics as dogmatically
as the priests teach theology.
There are a few men who understand that we already
 live in  Orwell,s ‘1984’ world.
 ============================   


 

Offline ukmicky

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Re: Do physicists understand physics?
« Reply #1 on: 08/01/2007 04:18:54 »
Science can be counterintuitive,very complicated and hard to understand even for the most cleverest amongst us and very rarely do thes scientist get things spot on first time without testing their ideas.. Science is all about testing new thoughts through experiments and learning from your mistakes and there nothing wrong if someones ideas are found to be wrong as it can often help with the big picture.
As long as someone doesnt continue to proclaim something as fact once it has been proved wrong then what does it matter.

To aid us these days we can look back through countless past experiments,but in the past the Planks ,Morley's,Maxwells etc had it hard they had very little in the way of experimental data to look through to help their understanding.
« Last Edit: 09/01/2007 23:14:47 by ukmicky »
 

Offline bigtim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Do physicists understand physics?
« Reply #2 on: 15/01/2007 22:26:13 »
Physics is all about creating a methematical model, finding a mathematical solution and then applying it. One may understand the model, but this does not necessarilly represent the precise physics.
 

Offline woody000

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Do physicists understand physics?
« Reply #3 on: 15/01/2007 22:50:38 »
I don't have a clue how to physically understand some aspects of Quantum Mechanics, I only know the principles and equations. But without quantum mechanics a lot of the inventions we take for granted wouldn't work, or in some cases wouldn't have been invented. So as ukmicky said, what does it matter? Science has a purpose which it can carry out even if it's hard or impossible to visualise certain things.

I can't visualise a complex 3d plane equation, to me it's all a lot of maths, but a computer can and it can then show me a picture of it. Our brains are limited, but it doesn't make the things we discover untrue or invalid in any way.
« Last Edit: 15/01/2007 22:52:50 by woody000 »
 

lyner

  • Guest
Do physicists understand physics?
« Reply #4 on: 17/01/2007 13:34:07 »
The concept of 'understanding' is a difficult one. It's all relative. It's almost in the region of 'faith'.
It is easy to confuse it with just being familiar with a concept - like one you were taught so long ago that you don't question it.

You could convince someone else that you 'understand' a topic if you can answer any of their questions, apparently successfully. But there is sure to be someone else who could ask you a question which you couldn't cope with. Does that mean that you don't, in fact, understand it any more?
Understanding is just a personal feeling of confidence. Knowing a subject well enough to be able to progress with it and to extrapolate successfully and usefully is what counts. That is all that Science can do.
The non-scientists seem to demand understanding where the 'real' scientist merely demands a model which works successfully over a useful range of conditions.

Newtonian Physics is a wonderful and reliable model. It just needs and extension to deal with extreme conditions. It didn't suddenly become wrong at the beginning of the last century.

Do lay people need scientists in the same way that they used to need mystics? Someone else to rely on? They are bound to be disappointed.
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Do physicists understand physics?
« Reply #5 on: 19/01/2007 14:04:48 »
Maybe Socratus is looking for "Truths". Physics cannot give him, because physics it's not religion.
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Do physicists understand physics?
« Reply #6 on: 20/01/2007 17:15:42 »
Almost all the abstract ideas in physics are based on solid experimental work and lead to predictions that can be tested with experimental work.  In many cases these results are predicted to very high degrees of accuracy.  The abstract ideas also set accurate limits on the extent of our knowledge and experimentation.

I have seen many of Socratus' writings and looked at his website.  I am not sure that I understand his aims other than to create doubt and discord and increase traffic on his website.  While I agree that there needs to be a "devils advocate" to make us think carefully but In general I avoid rising to the bait because I consider his main aim is as a time wasting troll. 

I will give the writings much more attention when I find a positive contribution coming from that source.

One of his aims does seem to come from an attempt to link science and religion by creasing a pseudo scientific mystique in many scientific facts.  I to am very interested in creating a modern link between science and religion and consider that he has completely the wrong approach.

Science can and must give the most accurate understanding if our universe as we can understand it but human beings must find simpler ways of deciding how they should behave with their associates and to ensure their long term success within their ecological niche by their everyday behaviour to each other and the environment. Many of the more positive attributes of a modern soft line non fundamentalist religion can provide this simple model.

For example one should behave as if all our personal actions were being observed by a compassinate God before whom one would at some time in the future be give an account of our choices.  That's more than enough for this website for the moment.
« Last Edit: 20/01/2007 17:35:05 by Soul Surfer »
 

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
Do physicists understand physics?
« Reply #7 on: 28/01/2007 17:29:55 »
  ' ukmicky ' wrote:
Science can be counterintuitive, very complicated and hard to understand even for the most cleverest amongst us and very rarely do thes scientist get things spot on first time without testing their ideas..
---------------- 
There are many interpretations of quantum physics.
American physicist   J.A.Wheeler had a hobby:
He collected different interpretations of quantum physics.
My work is one more interpretation of the Quantum theory.
=========================
'bigtim ' wrote:
 Physics is all about creating a methematical model, finding a mathematical solution and then applying it. One may understand the model, but this does not necessarilly represent the precise physics.
-----------------------
The mathematics is not a queen of science.
The mathematics is only a servant of physics.
It is only a king,s servant.
If mathematics (the servant , a professional mathematician)
wants to be the king of physics they both become crazy.
We can see this now on
 “ abstract and paradoxical ideas of physicists.”
These ideas are following
1.
The " virtual principle" and " virtual particles".
Richard Feynman explains the application of a principle of
virtuality in such a way:
" We are obliged to imagine that our system hardly has moved, even
if it really did not move or is not so capable to move. We use small
imagined movement to apply a principle of energy conservation".
This method is abstract.
2.
The " method of renormalization",
a method "to sweep the dust under the carpet" / Feynman./
This method is abstract.
3.
When the priest speaks about “spiritual particles"
not using physical arguments it  is clear.
When physicist speaks about “virtual particles”
not using their physical parameters it is strangely.
It is not visible difference between the priest and physicist
Both of them don’t explain the concrete situation with particles.
Both of them are paradoxical in their speeches.
=============== 
4.
The physicists call them "virtual particles ".
The priestes called them  "spiritual particles" .
Maybe "virtual particles" are spiritual ones,
 and they can turn in real particles.
=============
' woody000 ' wrote:
I don't have a clue how to physically understand some aspects of Quantum Mechanics,
 I only know the principles and equations.
---------
 You are honest man.
===========
‘ sophiecentaur ' wrote:
The concept of 'understanding' is a difficult one. It's all relative.
------------------
1.Consciousness is real but nonphyslcal.
2.Consciousness is connected to physical reality .
==================== 
1. Descartes said: “ I think, therefore I am “
2. Buddhist said: "I think not, therefore I am"
=======================
The man acts ( the brain works):
1) usually under logic program,
 2) sometimes on intuition (unconsciousness).
=============  =======  ============= 
Our computer-brain works on a dualistic basis:
   a) consciousness,
    b) intuition  (unconsciousness).
 In a usual daily life all we do is done logically,
under an influence of our feelings.
We don,t make any discovers.
On the other hand………..
……………
Some psychologists compare our consciousness with iceberg.
The small visible part of this iceberg is our logical consciousness.
And the unseen (underwater) greater part of the iceberg is
our subconsciousness. Therefore they say, the man uses
only 10% of possibility of his brain.
And if it so, why doesn,t anybody teach us how
to develop our subconsciousness.
I think it is because there are few people who understand
that the processes of subconsciousness are connected
with quantum processes. The subconsciousness theory
closely united with quantum theory.
These quantum processes which take place in lifeless
 (inanimate) nature also take place in our brain.
Our brain can be the laboratory in which we can
test the truth of quantum theory.
=============
1. Nonlinear dynamic process.
2. Vacuum process.
3. Superconductive process.
4. Holographic process.
5. etc.
===========   
'lightarrow ' wrote:
Maybe Socratus is looking for "Truths".
 Physics cannot give him, because physics it's not religion.
------------   
What is the Light quanta?

============ 
‘Soul Surfer’ wrote:
Almost all the abstract ideas in physics are based on solid experimental work
and lead to predictions that can be tested with experimental work.
---------------   
1.
What is the origin of inertia?

An old professor of mine used to say
that anyone who can answer that question
(the one you posed)  would win a Nobel Prize.
So we can offer explanations in terms of energy, momentum,
or the Higgs Boson, but what it comes down to
is that Nature just behaves that way. .........
/some comment /
   2.
 What is   fine structure constant  ‘a ‘
This constant remained unknown in modern physics and
on  Feynman,s  expression , which he said with humour
 that this quantity is
 " by the god given damnation to all physicists ".
 3.
etc, etc.
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Do physicists understand physics?
« Reply #8 on: 30/01/2007 19:11:02 »
The man acts ( the brain works):
1) usually under logic program,
 2) sometimes on intuition (unconsciousness).
Our computer-brain works on a dualistic basis:
   a) consciousness,
    b) intuition  (unconsciousness).
 In a usual daily life all we do is done logically,
under an influence of our feelings.
We don,t make any discovers.
Are you saying that consciousness is always rational and unconsciousness is always irrational?
If you say this, I don't agree with you.
Consciousness is only what we perceive (inside and outside) at the moment. The rest is unconscious. A tipical rational person is unconsciously irrational; a tipical irrational person is unconsciously rational; some times this is also the typical difference between men and women! For example, often men are irrational when emotionally involved (but not women!) and women are irrational...normally!
What you refer to is a typical man's behaviour!
Quote
And if it so, why doesn,t anybody teach us how
to develop our subconsciousness.
I think it is because there are few people who understand
that the processes of subconsciousness are connected
with quantum processes.

Here you compare irrationality with quantum processes. From a psychological point of view it could mean that, for you, women's behaviour is quantistic! Going along with the analogy, it could mean that, for you, they don't give their love (energy) in a continuous way, but in a discontinuous (quantized) way. (In this I could agree with you!).
So I could deduce that you have lost a woman's love suddenly, in your past life.
Quote
'lightarrow ' wrote:
Maybe Socratus is looking for "Truths".
 Physics cannot give him, because physics it's not religion.
------------   
What is the Light quanta?

I asked the same question a lot of times. See, for example this thread:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=5033.0
Quote
1.
What is the origin of inertia?
2.
What is the fine structure constant?
3.
etc, etc.
There always are questions, then we always find the answers, which always leave new questions.
Isnt'it?
 

Offline Pentcho Valev

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Do physicists understand physics?
« Reply #9 on: 26/02/2007 13:58:14 »
RELATIVISTS: SIMULTANEITY IS ABSOLUTE

http://www.routledge.com/shopping_cart/products/product_detail.asp?sku=&isbn=9780415701747&pc=
Einstein, Relativity & Absolute Simultaneity, Smith & Craig
Editor(s) - William Lane Craig, Quentin Smith
Series: Routledge Studies in Contemporary Philosophy
"Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity is an anthology of original essays by an international team of leading philosophers and physicists who, on the centenary of Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, come together in this volume to reassess the contemporary paradigm of the relativistic concept of time. A great deal has changed since 1905 when Einstein proposed his Special Theory of Relativity, and this book offers a fresh reassessment of Special Relativity’s relativistic concept of time in terms of epistemology, metaphysics and physics. There is no other book like this available; hence philosophers and scientists across the world will welcome its publication."

http://www.amazon.com/Language-Time-Quentin-Smith/dp/0195155947
Language and Time by Quentin, Smith: "This book offers a defense of the tensed theory of time, a critique of the New Theory of Reference, and an argument that simultaneity is absolute.....He concludes the book with a lengthy critique of Einstein's theory of time."

Bravo! Relativists' next step will be to discover which false principle misled Einstein into believing that simultaneity was relative. The false principle of constancy of the speed of light? Who knows.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
 

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
Do physicists understand physics?
« Reply #10 on: 08/01/2008 08:20:38 »
Comic situation.
----------
On June  2007 I wrote here an article:
Do mathematicians understand Physics? / What is for whom?/
The idea is:
Mathematics is not written for mathematicians.
 Mathematics is written for physics, for Nature.
This simple fact has been forgotten in science.
…………………….etc
Now mathematics goes ahead of science
and physics follows it. Mathematicians carry the posters
 "Forward to abstraction", "Forward to the absurd"
and we all follow them. We march bravely on the dinosaur’s path.
========.
After enough long discussion I resaved comment from
one  mathematician. Here this comment.
===================..
Do mathematicians understand Physics?
To answer your question directly,
 Mathematicians are NOT physicists.
Therefore, you can't expect a mathematician to understand everything a physicist knows and vice versa.  Usually the two fields are closely intertwined however, so there is a lot of shared knowledge. It is just as much of a mistake to say that mathematicians understand everything about physics as it is to say mathematicians understand nothing about physics.
Mathematics is an abstract representation of the real world which is applicable
 in just about every profession which makes it a fundamental skill. By using it,
 you can model the real world to make accurate predictions. However, math is worthless if you can't effectively use it in the real world.
Physics uses a lot of math to model the real world.
You can't be a good physicist if you don't have math ability and reasoning skills.
To respond to the original post, I'll ask this:
Should we believe a physicist who doesn't understand mathematics?
===============..
So, it is possible to say that mathematicians not guilty.
All guilt lies on physicists.
" Should we believe a physicist who doesn't understand mathematics? "
Does anybody see the comic situation?
 

Offline Batroost

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 276
  • There's no such thing as a dirty atom!
    • View Profile
Do physicists understand physics?
« Reply #11 on: 17/01/2008 19:33:37 »
Quote
All guilt lies on physicists.

So to use mathematics makes me guilty...? Of what? Believing that there might be some correspondence between a mathematical model of the world and my perception of the world?

Ok. Lock me up.

(That's what Physics is for).
 

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
Do physicists understand physics?
« Reply #12 on: 20/01/2008 11:24:31 »
 My comment.
===================
I think  the " pure " mathematicians are 100% correct.
The " pure " mathematicians have all right to create
and use abstract models ( point, line ...etc)
All guilt lies on physicists .
They cannot use abstract models ( point, line ...etc).
They must use mathematical apparatus in connection
with real object, particle. And they forgot about this fact.
For example.
1.
In thermodynamics particles are " mathematical point".
2.
In QT particles are " mathematical point".
 3.
In SRT particles are points.
But according SRT the " mathematical point",
 cannot be a firm " mathematical point" .
 It means it is a " elastic point",
which can change its form. ( ?? !!! ).
4.
When this " mathematical elastic point" fly with speed c=1
its form become flat circle.
/ not a " mathematical point" fly with speed c=1./
5.
In QED electron is elastic sphere,
which can change its form. ( ?? !!! ).
6.
The power is also a " mathematical point".
7.
Then one a " mathematical point" /particle/ interact
with another  a " mathematical point" / power/
the physicist say: " The micro-world is paradoxical."
Don't we need psychoanalyst to understand this situation?
8.
If physicist think about particle as a " mathematical point"
the result can be only paradoxical.
========..
Best wishes.
========...
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Do physicists understand physics?
« Reply #13 on: 20/01/2008 17:35:35 »
Matematicians always deal with a model world of their own creation.

Practical physicists deal with the real world as it is and do not expect their results to be absolutely accurate.

Newton with his simple gravitational theory was and still is accurate enough to prove the existence and location of the planet Neptune and most astronomical needs.

It is only when gravity is very strong or speed is very high that Einsteins slight corrections need to be applied.  It is true that in very extreme conditions these corrections can be quite large.

In physics models are good enough if the produce good predictions that match what happens.  It is only when these predictions become less accurate that we start to learn something new.

Physicists know that models of particles as mathematical points are probably wrong but they work well enough in experiments even at the very highest energies.

Theoretical physicists are somewhere between mathematicians and practical physicicts they try to build models that might be related to the real world but are often wrong.  The models are used to help to think up experiments that might allow the prectical physicists to test out new ideas.
 

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
Do physicists understand physics?
« Reply #14 on: 21/01/2008 10:44:42 »
Physicists know that models of particles as mathematical points are probably wrong but they work well enough in experiments even at the very highest energies.

Theoretical physicists are somewhere between mathematicians and practical physicicts they try to build models that might be related to the real world but are often wrong.  The models are used to help to think up experiments that might allow the prectical physicists to test out new ideas.
======================
The model of particle , the model of light quantum
from XIXc ......still waits for its solving.
=================

 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Do physicists understand physics?
« Reply #14 on: 21/01/2008 10:44:42 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums