How does science work?

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

uwot
Posts: 4375
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: How does science work?

Post by uwot » Sat Jun 09, 2018 8:18 pm

Necromancer wrote:
Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:36 pm
So you're saying that science isn't describing nature? I say that's counter-intuitive, not credible standing today, in 2018. 8)
Well, to put it simply, science describes what nature does. It doesn't really matter to science what nature is. Special relativity assumes space is completely empty. General relativity assumes it's a smooth substance called spacetime. Quantum mechanics assumes it's lumpy. All three very accurately describe what nature does, but they can't all be right about what nature is.
I think there is a way to explain why SR, GR and QM work based on an interpretation of Quantum Field Theory, which is explained in a comic book format here: http://willijbouwman.blogspot.com/2018/ ... st_16.html

User avatar
Necromancer
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Contact:

Re: How does science work?

Post by Necromancer » Sat Jun 09, 2018 8:55 pm

uwot wrote:
Sat Jun 09, 2018 8:18 pm
Well, to put it simply, science describes what nature does. It doesn't really matter to science what nature is. Special relativity assumes space is completely empty. General relativity assumes it's a smooth substance called spacetime. Quantum mechanics assumes it's lumpy. All three very accurately describe what nature does, but they can't all be right about what nature is.
To my information, based on my physics studies, there is no necessary contradiction between SR, GR and QM. It's only when crazy people start to add unsubstantiated theories that it becomes contradictive.

You know as well as I do that Theory of Relativity is derived from Newtonian physics. Einstein just happened to have the brains for it. See also the example with the train cart where light travels from the floor of the cart as the cart is moving. External to this is the observer "seeing" something very special, relating to the cart and the light beam shot up to the "very high" ceiling of the cart and, presumably, reflecting back to the cart's floor.

It isn't that complicated, but who could imagine the thoughts that led to it apart from Einstein himself?

wtf
Posts: 833
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: How does science work?

Post by wtf » Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:03 pm

Necromancer wrote:
Sat Jun 09, 2018 8:55 pm
It isn't that complicated, but who could imagine the thoughts that led to it apart from Einstein himself?
Poincaré, Mach, and Hilbert to name three off the top of my head. Not to mention long-suffering Mileva Einstein who did a lot of horny Al's work but received none of the credit.

uwot
Posts: 4375
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: How does science work?

Post by uwot » Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:13 pm

wtf wrote:
Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:03 pm
Necromancer wrote:
Sat Jun 09, 2018 8:55 pm
It isn't that complicated, but who could imagine the thoughts that led to it apart from Einstein himself?
Poincaré, Mach, and Hilbert to name three off the top of my head. Not to mention long-suffering Mileva Einstein who did a lot of horny Al's work but received none of the credit.
Don't forget Lorentz.

wtf
Posts: 833
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: How does science work?

Post by wtf » Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:25 pm

uwot wrote:
Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:13 pm
Don't forget Lorentz.
My memory is contracting.

uwot
Posts: 4375
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: How does science work?

Post by uwot » Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:26 pm

Necromancer wrote:
Sat Jun 09, 2018 8:55 pm
To my information, based on my physics studies, there is no necessary contradiction between SR, GR and QM. It's only when crazy people start to add unsubstantiated theories that it becomes contradictive.
Here's a crazy person with a Nobel Prize:
"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo."
Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University
Necromancer wrote:
Sat Jun 09, 2018 8:55 pm
You know as well as I do that Theory of Relativity is derived from Newtonian physics. Einstein just happened to have the brains for it. See also the example with the train cart where light travels from the floor of the cart as the cart is moving. External to this is the observer "seeing" something very special, relating to the cart and the light beam shot up to the "very high" ceiling of the cart and, presumably, reflecting back to the cart's floor.
I know. Pages 42-47: https://willijbouwman.blogspot.com I think you could better defend your accusation of craziness on my part if you were to at least read what I write,

uwot
Posts: 4375
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: How does science work?

Post by uwot » Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:27 pm

wtf wrote:
Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:25 pm
uwot wrote:
Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:13 pm
Don't forget Lorentz.
My memory is contracting.
Yup. I know that feeling.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2832
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: How does science work?

Post by -1- » Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:34 pm

uwot wrote:
Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:27 pm
wtf wrote:
Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:25 pm
uwot wrote:
Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:13 pm
Don't forget Lorentz.
My memory is contracting.
Yup. I know that feeling.
I don't contract out my memory. I usually carry an external brain-pack when I need extra memory. My girlfriend.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2832
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: How does science work?

Post by -1- » Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:39 pm

uwot wrote:
Sat Jun 09, 2018 8:18 pm
Special relativity assumes space is completely empty.

General relativity assumes it's a smooth substance called spacetime.

Quantum mechanics assumes it's lumpy.

All three very accurately describe what nature does, but they can't all be right about what nature is.
The easiest way to memorize this is to think of the universe as a toilet bowl.

Inside of it, its contents are sometimes empty... sometimes smooth... sometimes lumpy.

Got it.

uwot
Posts: 4375
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: How does science work?

Post by uwot » Sat Jun 09, 2018 10:42 pm

-1- wrote:
Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:39 pm
The easiest way to memorize this is to think of the universe as a toilet bowl.

Inside of it, its contents are sometimes empty... sometimes smooth... sometimes lumpy.

Got it.
Exactly.

uwot
Posts: 4375
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: How does science work?

Post by uwot » Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:47 pm

Well, it looks like a version of the article could end up in the magazine. Here's what the editor said:

"Prima facie the piece does look very interesting, but it is, as you say, a little long[...]if you could cut it down to under 3,800 words then we can consider a polished version properly. For it to be most useful to us, you'd be better off cutting out bits of history rather than philosophical analysis, to raise the ratio of philosophy to history to its maximum."

So I have to ditch about a thousand words of the historical fluff and tighten up the philosophy bit. Okie-dokie

{Bollocks!! Sorry uwot. Accidently mucked-up your post could you re-edit it please. Humble apologies. AMod}

gaffo
Posts: 2396
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: How does science work?

Post by gaffo » Sat Jun 23, 2018 4:11 am

per its peramiters(sp) emiprisism.

yes.

uwot
Posts: 4375
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: How does science work?

Post by uwot » Mon Jul 08, 2019 7:30 pm

uwot wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:47 pm
Well, it looks like a version of the article could end up in the magazine. Here's what the editor said:

"Prima facie the piece does look very interesting, but it is, as you say, a little long[...]if you could cut it down to under 3,800 words then we can consider a polished version properly. For it to be most useful to us, you'd be better off cutting out bits of history rather than philosophical analysis, to raise the ratio of philosophy to history to its maximum."

So I have to ditch about a thousand words of the historical fluff and tighten up the philosophy bit. Okie-dokie

{Bollocks!! Sorry uwot. Accidently mucked-up your post could you re-edit it please. Humble apologies. AMod}
Well, that was just shy of a year ago. Mind you, in the meantime, I did bash out a biog of Thomas Kuhn, which appeared in the April/May issue, which you can read here: https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Th ... _1922-1996 Anyway, the article I wrote as the subject of this thread is coming out in the next edition of PN at the end of the month. Just goes to show, with a bit of effort, research, but mostly patience, it can be done.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 3406
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: How does science work?

Post by attofishpi » Wed Jul 10, 2019 1:28 pm

uwot wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 7:30 pm
uwot wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:47 pm
Well, it looks like a version of the article could end up in the magazine. Here's what the editor said:

"Prima facie the piece does look very interesting, but it is, as you say, a little long[...]if you could cut it down to under 3,800 words then we can consider a polished version properly. For it to be most useful to us, you'd be better off cutting out bits of history rather than philosophical analysis, to raise the ratio of philosophy to history to its maximum."

So I have to ditch about a thousand words of the historical fluff and tighten up the philosophy bit. Okie-dokie

{Bollocks!! Sorry uwot. Accidently mucked-up your post could you re-edit it please. Humble apologies. AMod}
Well, that was just shy of a year ago. Mind you, in the meantime, I did bash out a biog of Thomas Kuhn, which appeared in the April/May issue, which you can read here: https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Th ... _1922-1996 Anyway, the article I wrote as the subject of this thread is coming out in the next edition of PN at the end of the month. Just goes to show, with a bit of effort, research, but mostly patience, it can be done.
Ya, I bought the wrong issue in support!

Tis the dude i am...ah well all for a good cause, i think!

btw, science doesn't work...people do. :P

uwot
Posts: 4375
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: How does science work?

Post by uwot » Wed Jul 10, 2019 2:44 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Wed Jul 10, 2019 1:28 pm
Ya, I bought the wrong issue in support!

Tis the dude i am...
We've all been there me old China. I'll email you a PDF of the article.
attofishpi wrote:
Wed Jul 10, 2019 1:28 pm
...ah well all for a good cause, i think!
Sho nuff.
attofishpi wrote:
Wed Jul 10, 2019 1:28 pm
btw, science doesn't work...people do. :P
Yeah, that's pretty much the punchline.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests