# Einstein's mistakes, or what's science for, anyway??



## elder999 (Jun 13, 2006)

So, this post got me thinking about some things I might share with the rest of you

Many are fond of the notion of the ultimate goal of science, and have put forth the idea that science ultimately has all the answers, that scientific truths and knowledge are ultimate truths and knowledge. How positively.._unscientific_, in my opinion. In Aristotles time, the goal of science was mans _happiness_; today it is something different, though it may achieve that in some measure. Science surely doesnt have all the answers, nor will it-ever. In fact, I can make a strong case-philosophically-that science doesnt really have anything more to do with objective reality than religion does-though thats another matter.

Scientists do not discover laws of nature; they *invent *them. Scientists do not observe nature in the raw; our observations are filtered through layers of subjective impression and social conditioning. Scientific facts about nature are not preexisting truths; they are human constructs, the products of human minds. The models that scientists build to represent what they see in nature are not literal representations of nature, but analogies, metaphors and simulacra: mostly assumptions. One of many things that Aristotle put forth that still holds today is that a true conclusion can result from false assumption. The truth that science discovers is not objective and immutable, it is subjective and socially contingent. That is why, from time to time, there are revolutions in science that overthrow one complete set of assumptions in favor of another, in the way that Galileo and Newton overthrew Aristotle, and Einstein, in turn, overthrew Newton.

Now its Einsteins turn-has been for years, really. 

A little background:

Once light and other electromagnetic phenomena were discovered to travel in waves, just like the acoustic phenomena of sound, scientists were confronted with a dilemma. Every wave phenomenon known to science required some medium of propagation, some form of matter through which the wave traveled, but science also knew that light traveled through space, which is a vacuum, and apparently devoid of matter as we know it. They rationally assumed that there had to be some form of matter existing in the vacuum as well as within the pores of other matter like glass or water that acted as the propagation medium for light. This was called the aether lumeniferous, or light bearing stuff. It was an easy enough mistake to make; they were thinking of light as if it were sound.

On that basis, a rather logical chain of reasoning evolved. If youre traveling on a train traveling at _x_ miles per hour, and you walk toward the front of the train at rate _n_, then your rate is _x+n_ miles per hour. One would subtract walking toward the back of the train. Simple vector addition, something physicists use to measure velocity.

Velocity is not the same as speed; it implies not only how fast but which direction. A vector indicates both- and, thus, true velocity.

Scientists reasoned that if they could split a beam of light, and send part of it traveling in the same direction as the earths rotation and the other part counter to it, they should be able to detect the aether by vector addition. The difference between the two beams, no matter how small, would verify the existence of the aether.

Two American scientists, Michaelson and Moreley designed an experiment to measure the phase shift of light; they were looking for lights Doppler Effect, which would be, in essence, a product of such the anticipated difference. By splitting a beam of light into two parts: one out and reflected back in line with the direction of earths orbit, and he other at right angles to the earths orbit, and recombining the two beams they would be able to detect a shift in the phases of the two beams relative to each other.

Note for now, that the apparatus itself was also traveling along with the earth.

The results: no phase shift was detected, and the speed of light remained the same in both directions. What followed was a paradigm shift in theoretical physics, the effects of which are with us today even in superstring theory, as they are based on theoretical assumptions Einstein made to interpret the experiment.

When the results of the experiment violated expectations dictated by the aether theory, two physicists, Lorentz and Fitzgerald, designed a series of equations known as the Lorentz transforms to bring the test results and the expectation into agreement. What these equations did, in effect, was to say that length shortened, mass flattened and time dilated as a body moved through the aether; hence, it was possible to detect the aether by these means.They were, in effect, one of many, many "fudge factors" that have alwaysexist in physics, chemistry, and astronomy since Ptolemy.


Length shortened, mass flattened, time dilated. Sound familiar?

The transform equations of Lorentz made their way into Einsteins theory of Special Relativity. Einstein interpreted the data of the experiment to mean that _the velocity of light was a uniform constant to any observer._ With that, the notion of aether was discarded for the single simple reason that it was no longer needed. What was retained in his theory, via the transforms, were the time dilations and length contractions themselves, which were now interpreted to be the result of acceleration of any mass to near light velocity. Moreover, the transforms were essential to Einsteins derivation of E=Mc2.

Einsteins failing was in declaring the velocity of light an observable limit to the velocity of any mass when it should only have been the limit to any observable wave velocity in the aether. The velocity of light is only limited in the field of space where it is being observed. Einsteindidnt remove the notion of aether; he *relied* upon it and "forgot" that he was doing so-an application of the beloved _Ockham's Razor_, no doubt. As a result, the velocity of light has been misinterpreted as a constant upper boundary limit on velocity for all masses, rather than as a boundary condition between different types of masses coexisting in the same system.

The error of the Michaelson Moreley experiment-in terms of scientific method-is that it is also valid for the case where there *is* an aether, and it is moving along with the same relative velocity. Imagine youre on a boat in a whirlpool, with matched velocities: if you put your hand over the side into the water, are you going to detect the motion of the water? No. 

A man named Sagnac set up a rotational version of the original experiment in 1925, and the results successfully demonstrated that the velocity of light varied dependent upon direction. Because of Sagnacs experiments, Einstein formulated General Relativity, and put forth the notion that local space-time around rotating large masses curves. 
Sagnacs experiment has been duplicated with lasers and more modern measuring equipment as recently as at least 1999.The results are always the same:_the velocity of light is *not* constant._

Einstein, I'm convinced, was wrong about this and a more than a few other things-in this, I am not alone, though there are those who would hold that it's a "fringe" theory, for now.


Galileo and scientists since have held up the mathematical model as the key to the universe, but mathematical models-and their verification-rely upon circular arguments that are a sort of logical fallacy. Galileo knew this and wrote of it.Galileo argued that the mathematical hypothesis explains the phenomenon, and the phenomenon's existence verifies the hypothesis-so the conclusion is always ultimately based on its own premises, and *not* immutable, natural law at all.

Galileo said, well, here, in reference to his mathematical proof of the moon's influence upon tides:



> _Under the assumption of the two terrestrial movements, you give reasons for the ebb and flow, and then, vice versa, *reasoning circularly*, you draw from the ebbing and flowing the sign and confirmation of those same two movements."_Galileo,speaking in the character of Simplicio, in the _Dialogue_



Of course, we accept that the tides are caused by the moon, but the reality of the math being a map, and proof, does not rule out that at some later date we'll find that the entire thing is incorrect, and that the tides are caused by some other influence altogether, though I won't hold my breath.


Science doesn't always provide answers to underlying causes, or often explains them incorrectly. Moreover, science often draws truthful conclusions from false premises and theories. While you can ask :what are the planets?" and "why do they behave the way they do?" you cannot use anything but a model to support your answers, and any conclusions you draw, as well as experiments that you set up, are subjective in nature, as would be any consensus that a group of scientists might reach might reach.

As an example, I used to work at LANSCE -the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center, where we take protons, accelerate them to near relativistic speeds, and utilize them in various experiments in a variety of fields, as well as to generate neutrons and utilize them. This whole process begins with a bottle of protons-that is, hydrogen gas, which is turned into a plasma and stripped of electrons in a device very much like a high-voltage light bulb called a _source._ We have an H- source and and H+ source, H- being the more complex of the two. The process of generating H- is aided by cesium, and here's a funny thing: no one can tell you _why_. Put six or seven PhD. physicists in a room-especially one with alchoholic beverages being served-bring up an H- source and cesiation, and in no time you'll get a lot of "harrrumphing" and hand-waving. We know it aids the process, and we even know how to optimize it, but there is no consensus among the theories as to why it works, or what exactly happens in the source. One of my colleagues says it's "P.F.M.-as in 'pure effin' magic.' Why do you think it's called _sourcery?_"


As another example, science can tell us fairly conclusively what sorts of music will evoke what sorts of emotions in a listener-it can tell us what sounds good, and what sounds bad, but it can't tell us why, mathematically or otherwise-references to the Golden Mean aside- what constitutes a good melody or bad one, or good harmony or bad one,happy song or sad, should be subjective, but appears to be fairly consistent across cultures, and time, and yet, while science can tell us that this one will evoke so-and-such a response in the brain, it can't tell us _why,_ and may never be able to.

What I really wanted to get to with this thread, is that-from the perspective of the early twenty-first century-it seems clear to me that while much was gained in the unleashing of science, much has been lost as well. For the freedom science offers through theoretical knowledge and material wealth we have paid a heavy price in the loss of spiritual context for existence and in enslavement to the day-to-day exigencies of technology. We have become commodities, shaped and molded form infancy to meet the requirements of an economy run increasingly on the purest of scientistic, materialist principles. Because science has bequeathed to us the unmitigated power to destroy our habitat, we are doing so, rapidly. Aristotle. I think it is safe to say, would have considered the vast majority of us little better than slaves. Socrates ,too, would have thought us sorry specimens, mired in base material obsessions. 

Are we happier in our day-to-day lives than our ancestors were in theirs, or merely more comfortable? Are the lives we lead more worthy of respect, or less? Is our world, taken all in all, a better place than theirs was? To what extent are the advances made over the past four hundred years in social and economic justice attributable to science? In what degree have they been made in *spite* of science, which teaches the social efficacy of natural selection and survival of the fittest ? It is worth pointing out that neither Stephen Hawking or myself would remain alive under the domination of such a scientific paradigm, as well as the fact that the recent cultural artifact of longevity, and other advances in medical science, are not necessarily within the order of things, scientifically speaking. There is a price to be paid for all technological and scientific advances, and all too often, man has not considered the cost. Case in point: the internal combustion engine, which has increased mans mobility and productivity, while also creating a need for an infrastructure to support it, pollution, death and mutilation on a truly tragic scale. When you accept a technology, you also accept its ancillaries, and it is usually the ancillaries which cause damage. 

Todays science has come to a point where it insists on three things:

First, that everything that goes on can be accounted for by matter and motion.

Second, that reality consists of mathematics , numbers and formulae. Which is really a way of saying that reality is made of human invention, yes?

Lastly, and most importantly, science acknowledges a reality _beyond_ mathematical formulae, ever since the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum physics, of 1920, which basically is the gold standard, the orthodox dogma of modern physics, which says that quanta, the subatomic entities that make up the world, are nothing more than thickenings or concentrations in a universal electromagnetic field. Quanta have the peculiar characteristic of occurring in something called probability waves until theyre _observed_ by a conscious observer. When that happens, the wave collapses and the quanta either exists or does not. 

The observer, however, is also made of quanta, so he must also be observed before any observing can, be done, or he does not exist -to use a solipsism, but within orthodox doctrine-in other words, *scientific law*

But thats beside the point-the point being that science has a huge, unresolved problem that it sweeps under the rug because the model works fine on a practical, day-to-day instrumental level without having to solve it. Somewhere, there must be an ultimate observer for all this to exist. Theres no way out of it, scientifically speaking. Science says that all things can be known through matter and motion, and yet, Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle tells us-in no _uncertain_ terms, that you *cannot* observe matter and motion (Mass and momentum, speed and position, call it what you will) at the same time.

Science has declared, for more than 80 years now, that it is incapable of knowing ultimate reality.

Science cannot tell us what is *right.* We cannot know what right and wrong are from simple observation and data collection, nor from mathematical formulae. Wherever and however we attain this knowledge or belief, it isnt from science, though science may help to prove how we are hardwired for it-right and wrong are universal concepts with gradations that fit within various social frameworks.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 13, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> The observer, however, is also made of quanta, so he must also be observed before any observing can, be done, or he does not exist -to use a solipsism, but within orthodox doctrine-in other words, *scientific law.*
> 
> 
> But thats beside the point-the point being that science has a huge, unresolved problem that it sweeps under the rug because the model works fine on a practical, day-to-day instrumental level without having to solve it. Somewhere, there must be an ultimate observer for all this to exist. Theres no way out of it, scientifically speaking. Science says that all things can be known through matter and motion, and yet, Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle tells us-in no _uncertain_ terms, that you *cannot* observe matter and motion (Mass and momentum, speed and position, call it what you will) at the same time.


 
This is a wonderful post because it really describes the process of science in a detailed situation.  Lots of good encyclopedic information.  However, this "ultimate observer" declaration is not really supported by what you wrote, IMO.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 13, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This is a wonderful post because it really describes the process of science in a detailed situation. Lots of good encyclopedic information. However, this "ultimate observer" declaration is not really supported by what you wrote, IMO.


 
Not quite the point, either-it's just taking the theory a little beyond what we can observe, for the sake of hyperbole, and the idea of models-supported or not, at first blush there must be an "ultimate observer" to continue to make the model work _in its present state_. As the model and theory evolve, I'm fairly certain that this will become less of an issue-just as the aether has.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 13, 2006)

Clarke's Third Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke 

There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened - Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker&#8217;s Guide to the galaxy"

Bottom-line, Science, like just about everything else, is fallible.

There have been things taken as scientific fact in the past that were proven to be wrong by later advancement in science. There are things taken as scientific fact today that will be proven to be wrong at some latter date because of advancements in science.


----------



## Ray (Jun 13, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> Scientists do not discover laws of nature; they *invent *them. Scientists do not observe nature in the raw; our observations are filtered through layers of subjective impression and social conditioning. Scientific facts about nature are not preexisting truths; they are human constructs, the products of human minds.
> 
> Now its Einsteins turn-has been for years, really. ...
> 
> ...


go back and re-read Einstein.  He didn't say "the speed of light is a constant at all times and in all places"  he said the "speed of light is a constant in a vacuum."  The speed of light is known to vary -- take for example the optical illusion when looking at something 1/2 in water and 1/2 out of the water -- it doesn't look right; and that's because light travels at different speeds in the air than through the water.  And everyone knows that.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 13, 2006)

Ray said:
			
		

> go back and re-read Einstein. He didn't say "the speed of light is a constant at all times and in all places" he said the "speed of light is a constant in a vacuum." The speed of light is known to vary -- take for example the optical illusion when looking at something 1/2 in water and 1/2 out of the water -- it doesn't look right; and that's because light travels at different speeds in the air than through the water. And everyone knows that.[/color]


 
The speed of light in a vacuum is *not* constant(you might need to re read my post, especially the portion on Sagnac), and I'm completely familiar with the refractive index.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 13, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> The speed of light in a vacuum is *not* constant


 
This is, to my understanding, a theory not yet proven.


----------



## Bigshadow (Jun 13, 2006)

Great post!  Dang.... Where is my dictionary when I need it!   j/k  A truly interesting read.  You make some very profound points.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 14, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> This is, to my understanding, a theory not yet proven.


 
And yet, it does prove that the models-even the ones that appear to have been "set in stone" for most of our lives-change, as they are meant to.

So, what is science for?

Aristotle and Plato would argue that the purpose of science is to make mankind happy,that we are curious by nature and to know more of the world that surrounds us, or _cosmos_(as they believed the universe to be finite) was to satisfy that curiosity and thus, make us happy. I like that idea, but, since the arrival of Galileo, the scientific method, and a rationalist, mechanistic view of the world sometimes called _scientism_, as though it were some sort of religion, this has been far from the case.

Many will argue that the ultimate goal of science is to plumb the depths of reality-to dicosver ultimate reality, to bring the models closer and closer to the truth. Morality aside-and we&#8217;ll get to that in a minute,-there are questions about reality that science will never provide ultimate, definitive answers for. Important questions like, &#8220;Why are we here?&#8221; and &#8220;What is the meaning of life?&#8221;

As for reality, while I&#8217;m not one to speak of not revealing the rainbow, or whatever, I do have to point out that there are a multitude of factors to science that are morally disturbing, damaging, and, well, just not good.Casting aside my own moral repugnance at some of what my work has entailed as part of the Stockpile Stewardship program (look it up, as I won&#8217;t explain it here) I find it extremely disturbing that something as seemingly benign as gene-sequencing could easily be exploited by terrorists with the click of a mouse. There are 39 biological agents that could readily be utilized for weaponization-some quite nasty-and 38 of their genomes are available online. Disregarding that science could probably do very little about the mutation of say, ebola, to an airborne virus, it&#8217;s disturbing enough that there have been scientists engaged in dong just that very thing, simply because they could.

Then&#8230;..there&#8217;s medicine.

People will invariably hold up the advances in medical science as evidence of how science has improved the human condition, and it has in many ways, but it is, firstly, unscientific, and it is also counter to nature in such a way that it will ultimately have done more harm than good.

It is unscientific because it does not-nor need it-adhere to the empirical, scientific method per se. I offer, as an example, aspirin, and the headache.

Aspirin is an excellent medicine, good for reducing fever and inflammation, as well as dulling the pain of a headache. Of course, doctors still haven&#8217;t figured out why aspirin will get rid of a headache, any more than they have been able to figure out why the brain-which has no nerve endings to experience the sensation of pain-should have &#8220;headaches.&#8221; Yet we all have had headaches. Research is being done, and I&#8217;ve no doubt that someday we will know why, but, in the meantime, we&#8217;ll go right on having headaches, and taking aspirin (or ibuprofen, or acetominophen) to get rid of something that shouldn&#8217;t scientifically exist.

It&#8217;s all in our head, you see.

As far as medical science advancing lifespan and curing diseases, well, our increased longevity is an artifact, and a tenuous one at that. It also runs counter Darwinism, which preaches &#8220;survival of the fittest.&#8221; More importantly, we are not meant to live-as organisms-much beyond our prime years of reproduction. This is a basic scientific law all across the known animal kingdom, and yet medical science has allowed humans o live well beyond our prime breeding years. The result? Overpopulation, pollution, and overuse of resources. It&#8217;s only gonna get worse, and we have science to blame for it.

_-edited for punctutation-_


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 14, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> And yet, it does prove that the models-even the ones that appear to have been "set in stone" for most of our lives-change, as they are meant to.
> 
> So, what is science for?
> 
> ...


 
First: I have no intention of looking it up, I frankly don't care.

Second: there is more to medicine than what the West says

Third: although some of what you say is very intriguing some of it is just plain wrong.

Forth: Regardless of all of this, my first post said. Bottom-line, Science, like just about everything else, is fallible.

Fifth: My main point - You are stating that Einstein was wrong and presenting that as fact based on a unproven theory. This is not proof. I have a theory that little green Gnomes take one of my socks every month. I have no proof, but it is my theory therefore it must be fact....aaah no.

I am the first to admit that in a debate about Physics, theoretical physics and Quantum Physics, I would be in way over my head, Physics, Statics and Calc 3 were a long time ago. But when it comes to using unproven theories as absolute proof, then I know that the argument that has been presented is at best flawed.


----------



## mrhnau (Jun 14, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> Science says that all things can be known through matter and motion, and yet, Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle tells us-in no _uncertain_ terms, that you *cannot* observe matter and motion (Mass and momentum, speed and position, call it what you will) at the same time.
> 
> Science has declared, for more than 80 years now, that it is incapable of knowing ultimate reality.



Not exactly. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle tells us that the more accurately we try to measure one variable (mass/momentum) the less certain we can be of another one. We can of course observe both, but not with unlimited precision.


----------



## Ray (Jun 14, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> The speed of light in a vacuum is *not* constant(you might need to re read my post, especially the portion on Sagnac), and I'm completely familiar with the refractive index.


The refractive index was a counter example of your statement (which led me to believe that you thought that c was always a constant). I believe the late Issaac Asimov wrote an article called "behind the teacher's back" (maybe as far back as the 60's) which addressed the variable speed of light. And it had less to do with the refraction and more to do with observable speed -- it was written at the average kid's level.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 14, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> Fifth: My main point - You are stating that Einstein was wrong and presenting that as fact based on a unproven theory.
> I am the first to admit that in a debate about Physics, theoretical physics and Quantum Physics, I would be in way over my head, Physics, Statics and Calc 3 were a long time ago. But when it comes to using unproven theories as absolute proof, then I know that the argument that has been presented is at best flawed.


 
No, I 'm syaing "he's wrong" because Special Relativity includes and is based onthe Lorentz transforms, which were part and parcel of the aether model-a sterling example of the mutability of models, and Aristotle's principal of basing a truth on an untruth, _possibly._ Additionally, while there are cases where the speed of light appears to be variable, and theories-with a great deal of support, whether you need to look it up or not, that the speed of light has changed over time,there are "fudge factors" that have been developed to explain some of these phenomena, as in the case of Sagnac, where we see both a refutation of Special Relativity, which says that the velocity of light traveling towards you on an object approaching you is still _c_, and not the addition of the vectors, contrary to what is observed in a Sagnac experiment, where we can see the speed of light as _c+v_, where v is the velocity of a point on the circuit-yet we still see relativistic effects, both in Sagnac and in other real world applications. A good example of this is the much debated time difference adjustment for GPS satellites-additionally, when I worked at LANSCE, we accelerated protons to about 84% of _c_, and we do indeed see relativistic effects in the mass of those protons. 

Finally, when I am *hyperboulously* writing that "Einstein was *wrong*," it might be better for those of you who aren't recognizing what I meant if I said, "Einstein's model is *grossly* incomplete, and demonstrably false in certain applications." (For the record, though, I didn't say he was "*wrong*" I said it was his model's turn to follow Newton and Aristotle-and I'll stand by that, as it's only common sense and good science.)


----------



## mrhnau (Jun 14, 2006)

Ray said:
			
		

> The refractive index was a counter example of your statement (which led me to believe that you thought that c was always a constant). I believe the late Issaac Asimov wrote an article called "behind the teacher's back" (maybe as far back as the 60's) which addressed the variable speed of light. And it had less to do with the refraction and more to do with observable speed -- it was written at the average kid's level.



I read some interesting articles that the speed of light is actually decreasing, but that the instruments we have been using to measure the speed of light have been decreasing at the same rate. It was pretty interesting. I'll have to see if I could dig it up. Had to do with universal entropy and all that good stuff  Not alot of scientist agreed with it at the time, but it made for some interesting reading. Also made some interesting statements regarding the age of the universe and the ultimate size of it.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 14, 2006)

Something tells me this thread is turning less into a discussion of the meaning of "science" and more into a discussion about physics. 

Laterz.


----------



## Kensai (Jun 14, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Not exactly. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle tells us that the more accurately we try to measure one variable (mass/momentum) the less certain we can be of another one. We can of course observe both, but not with unlimited precision.


 
Beat me to the punch! ^ What he said.


----------



## Kensai (Jun 14, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> First: I have no intention of looking it up, I frankly don't care.
> 
> Second: there is more to medicine than what the West says
> 
> ...


 
Umm, actually, this point IS true, and I'll fight any person, any art that says it isn't. I swear to God if I have pound for everyone of my vanished socks, I'd have at least 20 quid!

Seriously, isn't science simply a tool? I'd no more expect it to solve the mysteries of the universe, than I'd expect to saw through wood with a hammer.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 14, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> Finally, when I am hyperboulously writing that "Einstein was wrong," it might be better for those of you who aren't recognizing what I meant if I said, "Einstein's model is grossly incomplete, and demonstrably false in certain applications." (For the record, though, I didn't say he was "wrong" I said it was his model's turn to follow Newton and Aristotle-and I'll stand by that, as it's only common sense and good science.)


 
Actually you did say he was wrong



			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> Einstein, I'm convinced, was wrong about this and a more than a few other things-in this, I am not alone, though there are those who would hold that it's a "fringe" theory, for now.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 14, 2006)

Kensai said:
			
		

> Umm, actually, this point IS true, and I'll fight any person, any art that says it isn't. I swear to God if I have pound for everyone of my vanished socks, I'd have at least 20 quid!
> 
> Seriously, isn't science simply a tool? I'd no more expect it to solve the mysteries of the universe, than I'd expect to saw through wood with a hammer.


 
Damn!! Then I'm not crazy after all..... Now what about the elves that let the air out of my tires in the winter????? 

I feel science is a tool and as I have said a couple times in this post... Science is fallible.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 14, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Something tells me this thread is turning less into a discussion of the meaning of "science" and more into a discussion about physics.
> 
> Laterz.


 
That is to be expected if physics is used as a justification for the argument..... at least I think it is.....:idunno:


----------



## tradrockrat (Jun 14, 2006)

*sci&#183;ence* 
_n._ 

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and *theoretical explanation* of phenomena. 
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. 
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

So science is about the attempted explanation of natural law, it has never been about dogma, though that frequently happens through the agency of pride and ego on the part of the scientific community - consider the years wasted in string theory because scientits insisted there were only 10 dimensions (leading to five different string theory's) instead of the important unifying 11th dimension.

Science is fallible?  No, *scientists* are fallible - science is just a tool, wholly dependent on the user for its usefulness and accuracy.

The whole idea is to canstantly refine and replace what we know now with a better more comprehensive explanation.  I believe the point of the origional post was a valid one, but overturning Einstien with imperfect understanding of where science has gone since his death is relatively silly - pun intended.  That the speed of light isn't constant has been accepted as scientifically valid long enough to make it into high school science textbooks.  Einstien has been attackable since the birth of quantum mechanics - it doesn't change the fact that his theorys are the bedrock of a great amount of current scientific thinking, but remember - his (most important) papers were published in 1905.  We've had a hundred years to change, adapt and rework his theories - and we have.

What I'd like to adress is the question raised of esthetics in science - is it good in and of itself?  Does increase our quality of life?

Read _Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintanance_ for a great take on this very question.

My opinion is that scientific advancment is completly neutral - neither good nor bad - but universally useful.  It's up to us to make life worth living, to make our lives "Quality".  Again, science is just s tool, as martial artists we should be more aware than most how ugly or beautiful a tool and it's use can be.  There's a reason we strive to perfect forms and techniques - it's the art in what could otherwise be an ugly use of tools - fighting..


----------



## elder999 (Jun 14, 2006)

el brujo de la Cueva(that's me!) said:
			
		

> _Einstein,* I'm convinced,* was wrong *about thisand a more than a few other things* -in this, I am not alone, though there are those who would hold that it's a "fringe" theory, *for now.*_





_Yes, and if you reapply the correct emphasis on what I said, I'll still stand by it-don't think the man was wrong about everything, but he made mistakes, and they are becoming more apparent every day, as his model-and even the model of quantum mechanics-is supplanted_
_ 
_


----------



## Kacey (Jun 14, 2006)

I'm going to go back to these questions, as the physics is somewhat beyond me, and it seemed that this is what you really wanted answers to.




			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> Are we happier in our day-to-day lives than our ancestors were in theirs, or merely more comfortable?




To an extent, I would say that our ancestors were happier - they did what they needed to do to survive, and could see a clear correspondence between what they did and what they got.  Certainly, catastrophes happened that were outside their control - but look at many jobs today, as ask if those people see a correspondence between what they do and the ultimate outcome of their efforts... but this is a very subjective statement.  And then there is the question of more comfortable... also a very subjective statement.  For either of this, how would you measure it?  Lifespan?  But wait... my grandfather is 96, wears a diaper, can't walk, can't hear or see very well, takes umpteen medications - is that life?  Or existence?  To hear him tell it, his on-going existence (which is what he considers it to be, most of the time) is all the fault of a dog he had for 18 years, because he and the dog walked several miles a day for the dog's entire life... the fact that the dog has been dead for over 25 years notwithstanding in his argument.  Material possessions?  Uh... given the 3 hours I spent last night trying to fix my router connection so my internet would work right... instead of doing other, more pleasant things.  And so on... very subjective.




			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> Are the lives we lead more worthy of respect, or less?




This is, I think, much less related to _*how* _we live than when... and again, is very subjective.




			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> Is our world, taken all in all, a better place than theirs was?




No, I really don't.  Is it worse?  That's hard to say... but certainly, the planet itself is not better off for our last several hundred years of tenancy - especially when compared to how the planet was faring more than several thousand years ago.




			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> To what extent are the advances made over the past four hundred years in social and economic justice attributable to science?




I think that too many of those "advances" are responses to science - some good, some bad, some indifferent.  The justice system comes to mind - take that any way you want.




			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> In what degree have they been made in *spite* of science, which teaches the social efficacy of natural selection and survival of the fittest ?




Survival of the fittest has been losing ground for decades, perhaps longer, as medicine improves it's ability to maintain life in those who would have died in earlier times - premature infants, children with severe birth defects, people incapable of supporting themselves physically, emotionally, etc. in prior times, who are now supported by the state.  The problem comes not when those people survive - but when they procreate, which they are doing in greater and greater numbers.  But for the good of the species (as opposed to the good of the individual) where do you draw the line?  At severe retardation?  At severe physical incapacity?  What about glasses?  What about people who are at the top of the spectrum and choose to have few or no children, as opposed to those at the bottom, who often have more?  And who decides what "fittest" really means?




			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> It is worth pointing out that neither Stephen Hawking or myself would remain alive under the domination of such a scientific paradigm, as well as the fact that the recent cultural artifact of longevity, and other advances in medical science, are not necessarily within the order of things, scientifically speaking. There is a price to be paid for all technological and scientific advances, and all too often, man has not considered the cost. Case in point: the internal combustion engine, which has increased mans mobility and productivity, while also creating a need for an infrastructure to support it, pollution, death and mutilation on a truly tragic scale. *When you accept a technology, you also accept its ancillaries, and it is usually the ancillaries which cause damage. *




The statement in bold is all too true - and again, goes back to the question of what it means to be "fittest to survive".  I don't have an answer - nor do I think that society as a whole has one either - but it is a vital question that needs to be worked on for the continuing future of the species.


----------



## Ray (Jun 14, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Not exactly. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle tells us that the more accurately we try to measure one variable (mass/momentum) the less certain we can be of another one. We can of course observe both, but not with unlimited precision.


You're right.  And one of my favority "everyday" ways of thinking about the uncertainty principle is measuring the temperature of a glass of warm liquid with a cool thermometer - how warm was the liquid before some of the heat was transferred to the thermometer?


----------



## elder999 (Jun 14, 2006)

Thanks for your reply, Kacey-I was sure you were never going to "talk" to me again. As a scientist, and human being, I'm largely in agreement with you, though some of the examples you've offered are, by their very nature, subjective, while the negative effects of technology obviously are not.....



			
				mrhnau said:
			
		

> Not exactly. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle tells us that the more accurately we try to measure one variable (mass/momentum) the less certain we can be of another one. We can of course observe both, but not with unlimited precision.


 
Actually, having read it in German, I can pretty concretely state that what it says is that the more accurate the one is, the less accurate the other becomes-it also says that we can have both of them exactly in the past, but only one of them exactly in the present-and, in the case of mass and momentum, they are relatively useless without the other.

Of course, having read it in German, I can also say that there are a variety of words that can be applied to Heisenberg _relations_, but that it may not be, or have ever been or meant to b, an "Uncertainty _Principle_," at all-and is grossly misconstrued, even by physicists.

I'll spare you the math, but what it basically means is that if we look at an particle in motion, we can observe its path/velocity, i.e., momentum in a given moment, but the more accurate that observation becomes the less accuurate our observation of its mass, and visa versa.

The interpretation of these relations has often been debated. Do Heisenberg's relations express restrictions on the experiments we can perform on quantum systems, and, therefore, restrictions on the information we can gather about such systems; or do they express restrictions on the meaning of the concepts we use to describe quantum systems? Or else, are they restrictions of an ontological nature, i.e., do they assert that a quantum system simply does not possess a definite value for its position and momentum at the same time? The difference between these interpretations is partly reflected in the various names by which the relations are known, e.g. as &#8216;inaccuracy relations&#8217;, or: &#8216;uncertainty&#8217;, &#8216;indeterminacy&#8217; or &#8216;unsharpness relations&#8217;, etc. The debate between these different views has been addressed by many authors, but it has never been settled completely. Let it suffice here to make only two general observations. 

In Heisenberg's view, all the above questions are either true or not-you can't pick and choose.Indeed, he adopted an operational "measurement=meaning" principle according to which the meaningfulness of a physical quantity was equivalent to the existence of an experiment purporting to measure that quantity. Similarly, his "measurement=creation" principle allowed him to attribute physical reality to such quantities. Hence, Heisenberg's discussions moved rather freely and quickly from talk about experimental inaccuracies to epistemological or ontological issues and back again. 

There is a passage where he discusses the idea that, behind our observational data, there might still exist a hidden reality in which quantum systems have definite values for position and momentum, unaffected by the uncertainty relations. He emphatically dismisses this conception as an unfruitful and meaningless speculation, because, as he says, the aim of physics is only to describe _observable _data. Similarly in the Chicago Lectures of ...1930, I think, he says:



> "One should be especially careful in using the words &#8216;reality&#8217;, &#8216;actually&#8217;, etc., since these words very often lead to statements of the type just mentioned."



So, Heisenberg also endorsed an interpretation of his relations as rejecting a reality in which particles have simultaneous definite values for position and momentum. 

The second observation is that although for Heisenberg experimental, informational, epistemological and ontological formulations of his relations were, so to say, just different sides of the same coin, this does not hold for those who do not share his operational principles or his view on the task of physics. Alternative points of view, in which e.g. the ontological reading of the uncertainty relations is denied, are therefore still viable. 

The statement, often found in the literature of the thirties, that Heisenberg had _proved_ the impossibility of associating a definite position and momentum to a particle is certainly wrong, but the precise meaning one can coherently attach to Heisenberg's relations depends rather heavily on the interpretation one favors for quantum mechanics as a whole.Since no agreement has been reached on this latter issue, one cannot expect agreement on the meaning of the uncertainty relations either. 

Again, coupling the uncertainty relations with Bell's Theorem, it's demonstrably provable that the moon is not there when no one is looking.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 14, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> [/i]
> 
> 
> _Yes, and if you reapply the correct emphasis on what I said, I'll still stand by it-don't think the man was wrong about everything, but he made mistakes, and they are becoming more apparent every day, as his model-and even the model of quantum mechanics-is supplanted_






			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> Finally, when I am hyperboulously writing that "Einstein was wrong," it might be better for those of you who aren't recognizing what I meant if I said, "Einstein's model is grossly incomplete, and demonstrably false in certain applications." (For the record, though, I didn't say he was "wrong" I said it was his model's turn to follow Newton and Aristotle-and I'll stand by that, as it's only common sense and good science.)


 
Emphasis!?!? What emphasis? It was a direct quote from your original post!? 

And I can see this is going nowhere fast.

Enjoy


----------



## elder999 (Jun 15, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> Emphasis!?!? What emphasis? It was a direct quote from your original post!?
> 
> And I can see this is going nowhere fast.
> 
> Enjoy


 
Good grief.

Look. It's like this.

The Ptolemaic model for the universe, the one that held sway even after Kepler proved (mathematically) that Copernicus was right, had Earth at the center of the heavens, with all the celestial bodies orbiting it. Was it wrong? *Yes*. Did it _work?Yes_ In fact, those familiar with celestial navigation-or astrology-will tell you that this is the model _still_ used to navigate by the stars.

Now, to adress upnorthkyosa's counterintuitive confusion (and the reason so many of my colleagues practice Zen). The use of quantum physics and Bell's Theorem to say that the moon doesn't exist when it's not being observed is a sort of mathematical conceit. The fact (as near as we can call any of this "fact") is  that  the _Newtonian_ model aptly demonstrates that the moon is always there. What applies to particles-_quanta_-can not really be applied to the macroverse-that is to say, real _matter_, rather than its myriad constituent particles. In spite of what that ridiculous movie _What the &@#%$! do we know_ said, you *cannot* be in two places at once, arrive somewhere before you leave, or anything of the sort-you're just too big. Lots of particles display ..._effects_ like these, and we're struggling with what they mean, but Newtonian physics tell us that the moon is there, whether anyone -or thing-is observing it or not.

As for light-well, it's _ interesting._ When I say "Einstein was wrong." Sure, I mean  it-quantum mechanics cannot always be resolved with relativity. The Michealson-Morley experiments failed to find a Doppler Effect for light. What does this mean?

Imagin you're a major league pitcher, with a 100 mph fastball. And imagine you're riding on the roof of a sportscar, with a pitcher's mound on top, in a vacuum (so there's no air resistance-never mind that you'd be dead, and the car wouldn't run.) Now, if you throw your fastball in the direction of travel, what's the _velocity_ of the ball? Well, most of us can figure that it's the sum of the vectors, or something approaching 200 mph-, 'cause the ball is already traveling at 100 mph, and is accelerated an additional 100 mph.

Light does not do this,(most of the time) and the Michaelson Morley experiments proved as much-sort of. Consequently, Einstein concluded that the speed of light-in a vacuum or any other media, really-is constant. That it will travel at a certain rate in a vacuum, and a certain rate in water, or glass, and, more to the point, that if it is emitted from a moving object, like a satellite, or spaceship, or choo-choo, or sportscar, it will still be traveling at the same rate-186,000 mps in a vacuum, and a variety of other values in other media, rather than c+v,where v is the velocity of the source of emittance. A few things bear this out, except for Sagnac-truthfully, there are those who say that Sagnac supports relativity and is supported by the Newtonian model (though the Newtonian model has been aptly demonstrated in several ways to not apply to quanta)-and there are those who say that Einstein was wrong-in this, that the velocity of light is not constant. 

It doesn't really matter. Sometimes the model  (relativity)works, and for some things it just plain doesn't. Heck, sometimes the plain old Newtonian model works for quanta-getting back to LANSCE, if we accelerate a proton to 84% of c, and smash it into something, and use the adjusted mass of a proton for the requisite relativistic effects, we can calculate the energy it smashes into the something with plain old E=MV2, and it works, just like the Ptolemaic version of the universe works for celestial navigation. But relativity cannot be completely reconciled with quantum mechanics, no matter how we try, and there are cases where-empirically-light's speed varies (in the same media) though there are "fudge factors," and a variety of theoretical models that allow them to apparently agree-_somewhat_. So those in the "constant _c_" camp are reduced to saying that Sagnac reconciles Relativity and Newtonian physics, in spite of all the cases where Newton clearly does not apply, and those in the "variable _c_" camp are relegated to the "it's a mystery, and I'm still investigating," camp at best, and the "fringe" camp (the photon has mass, the photon has mass, the photon has _very, very, little_ mass) at worst.. Someday, someone will come up with a better model.

In any case, the person who ultimately resolves the conflict, and says that "This is _closer_  to the way it really is," will win a Nobel prize, accolades, hand-waving, harumphing, and general acclaim-though I'm not holding my breath. It might be super string theory, or something like it, or part of it, but, ultimately, there will still be more questions, and this is the *real* point, what good will it be? It won't end world hunger, eradicate AIDS, do away with poverty, or even make your teeth whiter. It will really only concern a few scientists, and, somewhat later, a few engineers who might come to exploit it to make more stuff that won't do any of those things either. 

The point is that the models *never* adequately explain everything, and yes-in this *I am convinced that Einstein was wrong*. Don't mean that he wasn't a genius-certainly more creative than I am-or that his model doesn't work sometimes, just as Ptolemy's still does-just that it's in error in some places, that there are times when it isn't true, that there are situations where it's, well, ...._inadequate_ would be a good word, but what's wrong with *wrong?*


Getting back to my question, though, I have a really good example: the place where I live and work shouldn't exist.*Really*. When the Manhattan Project began, Los Alamos was supposed to be temporary-it wasnt' supposed to develop into a secret city, with an ongoing industrial concern-it was supposed to do that one thing and fold up. And that one thing was done-in five years!-what an achievement. New ground was broken, and advances were made in chemistry, physics, material science, computing, dynamics (that's explosives to you) and a variety of other new areas, advances that continue to impact our lives-in good ways and bad-today. I'm really curious though, because, except for putting a man on the moon, there hasn't been anything approaching the concerted scientific effort since. Where's the "Manhattan Project" for AIDS, world hunger, or global warming? In the meantime, there's money for my pal Joey Martz to compete-compete!- for the opportunity to develop the next generation of U.S. nuclear weapons in a world where they really, really shouldn't exist.

I kind of hold to the view of Aristotle and Plato, that science is about making scientists (at least) happy-this is, of course, the trap that Oppenheimer and so many others have fallen into-approaching such things as an "interesting intellectual problem"-without even considering the consequences, and then being surprised and dismayed when their solution to the problem wound up being a bigger problem altogether.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 15, 2006)

Thanks for the science/history lesson, although it truly wasn&#8217;t necessary, but it all goes back to what I originally said now doesn't it, science like everything else is fallible.


----------



## Martial Tucker (Jun 15, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> Imagin you're a major league pitcher, with a 100 mph fastball. And imagine you're riding on the roof of a sportscar, with a pitcher's mound on top, in a vacuum (so there's no air resistance-never mind that you'd be dead, and the car wouldn't run.) Now, if you throw your fastball in the direction of travel, what's the _velocity_ of the ball? Well, most of us can figure that it's the sum of the vectors, or something approaching 200 mph-, 'cause the ball is already traveling at 100 mph, and is accelerated an additional 100 mph.


In this example, the only certainty is that if you pitch for the Cubs, someone is still going to hit your 200 mph fastball out of the park to beat you, and you'll end up on the disabled list....


Regardless, I tend to agree with your sentiments. Today's cutting edge theory/model is like the Ipod. It's destined to be tomorrow's "Walk Man"


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 15, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> I kind of hold to the view of Aristotle and Plato, that science is about making scientists (at least) happy-this is, of course, the trap that Oppenheimer and so many others have fallen into-approaching such things as an "interesting intellectual problem"-without even considering the consequences, and then being surprised and dismayed when their solution to the problem wound up being a bigger problem altogether.


 

Sorry. I forgot to add this to my last post.

I agree with this.


----------



## pstarr (Jun 15, 2006)

Man is an inherently inquisitive creature capable of reasoning, logic, and with a concept of "I."  That's why science _is,_ in my opinion...


----------



## elder999 (Jul 11, 2006)

Seen  here 



> Recent research has found evidence that the value of certain fundamental parameters, such as the speed of light or the invisible glue that holds nuclei together, may have been different in the past.
> if ("There is absolutely no reason these constants should be constant," says astronomer Michael Murphy of the University of Cambridge. "These are famous numbers in physics, but we have no real reason for why they are what they are."
> 
> The observed differences are small-roughly a few parts in a million-but the implications are huge: The laws of physics would have to be rewritten, not to mention we might need to make room for six more spatial dimensions than the three that we are used to.


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 12, 2006)

We stand on the shoulders of giants.  Thus, our giants must necessarily precede us, and their collective height grows proportionately to our curiosity and vigour.


----------

