Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2015 - 08:36pm PT
|
Jstan:
I remember the article entitled, “That’s Interesting!” by Davis (1971), a sociologist. Davis argues that theories that are "non-interesting" are those that affirm certain assumptions of their audience. "Interesting theories" are those that deny certain assumptions of an audience. In both takes, there is a reference not to one’s experience (which one may not be able to truly define) but to a community’s standards. It’s difficult to have any conversation unless you’re willing to observe and honor community conventions.
An economist named Keynes once quipped that some theories in the sciences can become true by modifying the reality they purport to explain. (I think Kuhn said something along these lines, too.) That happens through the institutional designs (systems, structures, metrics, processes) that transform image into reality. Social norming creates accepted truths, and people are hesitant to violate powerful prescriptive expectations. Language, too, affects what people notice and ignore. In sum, theories can become self-fulfilling. Theories may not attain their lofty status because they are true, but because they are interesting and engage the attention of experts and practitioners. I suppose folks will make the argument that empirical data allow confirmation of theories, but I’d say that data are theory-laden. In the last analysis, it can look like sandcastles in the air. I’m not saying that objective things don’t exist. I’m just saying I don’t know. My initial question to you was, how do you know what boundaries to observe? If you’re saying it’s because they are interesting, then I’ll just quit there with you on the subject.
(BTW, “incomparable experiences” would be almost certainly be highly subjective, I would think.)
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2015 - 09:36pm PT
|
Or put differently, for the known phenomenon that have no physical mass, what is their physical extent? (JL)
I'm sitting here staring at a blank wall and imagining a circle of radius one foot. I can see it clearly in my mind's eye. This phenomenon has no mass, but it's physical extent is Π square feet.
That happens through the institutional designs (systems, structures, metrics, processes) that transform image into reality (MikeL)
So, if a group of physicists conjecture the existence of a hitherto unobserved particle, they simply design their equipment in a way that the particle will appear. Fascinating.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2015 - 10:04pm PT
|
An economist named Keynes once quipped that some theories in the sciences can become true by modifying the reality they purport to explain.
You're seriously sitting at your keyboard quoting an economist criticizing science because it's subject to groupthink? Man, I sorry, but that's just plain f*#ked up.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2015 - 10:46pm PT
|
Healje:
i think you finally read and understood my writing. Where you been?
Jgill: So, if a group of physicists conjecture the existence of a hitherto unobserved particle, they simply design their equipment in a way that the particle will appear. Fascinating.
Your derision is hardly veiled.
And YOU complain often about the paucity or quality of the conversation?
|
|
STEEVEE
Social climber
HUMBOLDT, CA
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2015 - 08:27am PT
|
So, if a group of physicists conjecture the existence of a hitherto unobserved particle, they simply design their equipment in a way that the particle will appear. Fascinating. What's even more "fascinating" is our ability to build machinery to "create" or should I say liberate such "unobserved particles" (since they've always been there). We have a short but productive history of doing so from Crooke's tubes to the Large Hadron Collider.
It seems our mistake as scientist is that we're always trying to separate the parts from the whole and wanting to go even smaller, never understanding the whole.
Edit: By the way, it's the parts that will kill you, but as a whole it's beautiful.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2015 - 08:29am PT
|
JL,
You are not a boson. You have physical extent. Your carpool is no match for Alvy Singer's Mom.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2015 - 08:30am PT
|
It seems our mistake as scientist is that we're always trying to separate the parts from the whole and wanting to go even smaller, never understanding the whole.
100% on the money ......
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 16, 2015 - 10:26am PT
|
Your whole notion that at the core of everything is 'no physical extent' hasn't a shred of science backing it, so-called caltech rideshares notwithstanding. Its self-serving bullsh#t.
-
Nice rant, Dingus. But verily, you nor yet anyone else has yet to tell me what the physical extent IS of a photon or bosen etc. What is bullshit is insisting that because these phenomenon can occasion a physical effect or measurement, that means they must contain material mass. What mass, what stuff - and be specific.
The ironic thing is that per "wo wo," people keep asking for physical proof. For physical evidence, and lest some "thing" registers in the physical world it is not "real." Well a photon registers in the physical world, so what IS it? The "is" question is generally answered with a material "answer." It is "that," and we point to some stuff. But look what happens when we cannot point to any stuff. It's like the sky is falling.
JL
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2015 - 11:48am PT
|
Historically humans have shown the same reluctance to accept new things as real, that is driving this thread. When the atomic theory was first introduced we did not accept atoms as being "real". They were a construct. If you all will listen to Joanne Hewett's discussion she deals with string theory's effect on the concept of physical extent. If string theory proves to be useful these strings will also prove to be useful and in that case physical extents of particles/strings can be as large as 0.1mm. Of course Heisenberg uncertainty will still obtain and we won't know precisely where the bloody things are.
We all will probably be dead before most of our questions have been answered. We can do one of two things.
1. Continue this discussion as it is going now, until death makes our lack of progress moot.
2. Accept that we are incredibly lucky to be living now in the middle of a revolution and try to soak up some of what is going on.
When an undergrad in the fifties I have to say I elected the first option. QM is so weird even some professors were not so sure it was "real". They were following Einstein which pretty much covers one's ass. That day is over. It ended in 1948 when Feynman figured out how to do the calculations required by Quantum Electrodynamics.
We are in a new world. Revel in it.
I first began to get the drift in 1959 on being introduced to functions of complex variables that required one to do line integrals around infinities, calculate residues, and do analytic continuations when the functions misbehaved. The person to lecture on this topic is Professor Gill, not me.
The denizens of ST have no idea of the resources available to them - on almost any subject.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2015 - 11:58am PT
|
When the atomic theory was first introduced we did not accept atoms as being "real".
It was nothing new at all.
It was already known for thousands of years.
Modern so called science has been light years behind what was already general knowledge for millions of years past.
Modern science entered the cave instead of exiting it ......
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2015 - 12:20pm PT
|
Werner:
This is something I have never before heard. Please cite the papers showing australopithecus afarensis habitually and before fire was mastered, gathered around a rock to discuss the atomic model for matter. This is data that will set everyone on their ears.
|
|
STEEVEE
Social climber
HUMBOLDT, CA
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2015 - 12:39pm PT
|
I believe what is trying to be said is that australopithecus afarensis knew what it was (whatever that means), more accurately didn't have to know what it was. Most of us humans are lost in needing to know which is a double edged sword but a sword none the less.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2015 - 01:04pm PT
|
John S., As I'm sure you have surmised, Mr Duck lives on a different astral plane, one I was privileged to visit occasionally over forty years ago. The experience was too heady, however, and beyond my ability to describe, so I did not loiter there but returned to our realm, exhausted.
How he manages to remain relatively unaffected is a mystery.
;>)
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2015 - 01:21pm PT
|
I believe what is trying to be said is that australopithecus afarensis knew what it was (whatever that means), more accurately didn't have to know what it was. Most of us humans are lost in needing to know which is a double edged sword but a sword none the less.
This post recalls something of which I have heard. Possibly the funniest event ever to happen. At a physics colloquium a question arose as to what exactly Feynman had meant in a paper. An extended and very earnest debate ensued featuring Pauli as one of the participants.
Feynman, who was sitting there, made no comment.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 16, 2015 - 03:25pm PT
|
Dingus - as mentioned, I was not asking you to list the ways that a photon effects other stuff, rather I was asking you to list or break down the actual physicality or materiality of the photon itself, irregardless of what it hits or does not hit. When they say that a photo has no rest mass, at all, what do you suspect that means a materialist POV?
And John said: The denizens of ST have no idea of the resources available to them - on almost any subject.
What this betrays is the simple and total identification of your attention with the rational or discursive part of your mind, the one that says to "shut up and start calculating."
There are many resources available to you per flexing other aspects of your mind, but so long as the identification remains with the discursive, and virtue is attached to same, then the very resources you just mentioned remain untapped.
JL
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2015 - 03:37pm PT
|
This post recalls something of which I have heard. Possibly the funniest event ever to happen. At a physics colloquium a question arose as to what exactly Feynman had meant in a paper. An extended and very earnest debate ensued featuring Pauli as one of the participants.
Feynman, who was sitting there, made no comment.
Reminds me of a bunch of Rabbis sitting around arguing about the meaning of a passage in the Torah. One must have faith in their theories... proof and vindication comes later.
A priest a rabbi and an evangelical are all sitting around arguing about the moment when life begins. The priest says life begins in the individual bodies of man and women therefore no masturbation. The evangelical says life only begins when the sperm and the egg are one and so abortion is out of the question. The Rabbi scratches his head looks around and says life really doesn't begin until the kids have moved out and the dog dies.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2015 - 03:49pm PT
|
Paul:
Do we detect a cynic there?
JL:
You are quite right. When I said we have resources I did refer only to the discursive resources. You bring up a good point.
Can the non-discursive resources advise you to do things like finish your tie-in knot? If I ever tie in again I will surely want to employ all resources. Certainly those that have physical extent.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!