Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum Physics: By Beauty it is beautiful.

Physics: By Beauty it is beautiful.
#
After reading book ‘Albert Einstein’ by Leopold Infeld.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Infeld
========================.
Page 4.
‘ Many believe that relative theory tells us that ours
is a kind of Alice-in-Wonderland universe; . . . .‘
‘ How, then, did the prejudice about the mysterious relative
Alice-in-Wonderland universe arise?’
#
I will try to give my brief remark about this situation.
1.
In the 19th century aether /ether was the term used to
describe a medium for the propagation of quantum of light
(electromagnetic waves ).
This aether had strange chracteristic.
On one hand it must be very thin, because the planets
move through it without resistence.
On the other hand it must be very hard, because quantum
of light is a transverse wave. And a transverse wave can
move only in a hard space. It was created many theories
to explain this paradox but without success.
2.
In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment
showed that the speed of quantum of light is constant in all
directions regardless of the motion of the source.
This experiment was interpreted as ’ether doesn’t exist’.
3.
In 1905, Albert Einstein resolved this paradox by revising the
Galilean model of space and time to account for the constancy
of the speed of light. Einstein formulated his ideas in his
special theory of relativity, which advanced humankind's
understanding of space and time.
/ The special theory of relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light
4.
In 1908 Herman Minkowski explained Einstein’s
idea using time as forth dimension and said:
‘ Henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself,
are doomed to fade away into mere shadows,
and only a kind of union of the two will preserve
an independent reality.’
=======================.
#
So, ‘ How, then, did the prejudice about the mysterious
relative Alice-in-Wonderland universe arise?’
My opinion.
On the page 5 Infeld wrote:
‘ Science is a rational structure; the greatest pleasure
in studying is that of understanding. Without it
knowledge means little.’

Very well. But if the ‘ Science is a rational structure’
then where is the Minkowski (-4D ) in nature, where
is the ‘only a kind of union of the two’ ?
Nobody knows where it is.
So, what is about a rational structure?
So, what is about a real structure, real nature?
I don’t mean to criticize.
I only cannot understand why the trick of changing
concept of ether on the concept of space-time was passed
without doubt, with glory and proud.
=====.
P.S.
Maybe the reason of (-4D) long live is it
mathematical beauty ?
Page 45.
‘Minkowski mathematical genius put Einstein’s ideas
into a new geometrical form that fully revealed their
beauty and simplicity.’

But is it correct to say, that these two parameters real enough
to explain and understand the real nature?
About 2500 years ago, according to Plato, Socrates said:
‘ I do not go so far as to insist upon the precise details;
only upon the fact that it is by Beauty that beautiful
things are beautiful.’

This is exactly that physicists are doing.
And as a result, going in such beautiful mathematical
way we have many paradoxes in physics.

Without the precise physical details, like: volume (V ),
temperature (T ) and density ( P) the Minkowski
beautiful and simple (-4D) is a pure mathematical game,
it is an abstraction.
=======.
All the best.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
==============================.

Socratus

I'm not sure exactly what your question is. I apologize for that. I will try to discuss it to the best of my ability.

One thing is that you say that the idea of spacetime replacing the ether was "passed without doubt". In fact for many scientists there was a great deal of doubt. The concept was not immediately picked up by everybody. This is the normal way that science works. Somebody develops a new concept and announces to the world that he/she has found the answer to the latest questions. Then some people look at it and say yes that looks good, and some say it is all wrong. But it isn't immediately accepted as the way the world is until experiment has confirmed it, to the extent possible. It took some time for the concept of spacetime to be widely accepted. But over time experiment after experiment agreed with the General Theory of Relativity (GR) and it became the accepted theory. GR, and the concept of space time, are accepted because they work. The ether theory did not work, so it was replaced when the Theory of Relativity came along.

Now on to this part of your question.



I am kind of feeling around to find a way to discuss what I think you are asking about. In the quote about science being a rational structure I think the author was trying to describe a structure that is logically consistent, and describes what we see in the world around us. This rational structure in fact describes what we see in the world around us. So it represents the real structure of the universe, to a good approximation. I think possibly you may be having a problem getting hold of the idea of spacetime as a unified concept, because we can't see it and hold it in out hands. Of course we can't actually see space either. We can see the contents of space, but space itself is a concept created by our attempts to organize 'stuff' in a coherent way. However we don't normally include time as a dimension, because we can't really see it. We see things change in space, and assign time as a way to track the changes. When Minkowski developed the concept of spacetime he confused a lot of people, because there is no real way to visualize it accurately. We can visualize space as an organization of stuff, but having time be just another dimension with the 3 dimensions of space is not intuitive. I personally just let a lot of the concept slide right on off of me, because I do have some problems with time. In space we have 3 dimensions, and we can move freely in any direction. But for the time dimension we can only go one way. We may change the speed with which we travel in time, by increasing our speed with respect to whatever we choose as a rest frame, but we still go only one way. So it is definitely not intuitive. But in my case I know that it works, so I just accept it and go on my way.

Now I have rambled enough. I hope I have helped some.

Bill Gill

Bill Gill wrote.
However we don't normally include time as a dimension,
because we can't really see it.
!
When Minkowski developed the concept of spacetime
he confused a lot of people, because there is no real way
to visualize it accurately.
!
We can visualize space as an organization of stuff,
but having time be just another dimension
with the 3 dimensions of space is not intuitive.
!
So it is definitely not intuitive.
!
But in my case I know that it works, so I just accept it and go on my way.
!
Now I have rambled enough. I hope I have helped some.

Bill Gill
============.
1
You just accept a way that impossible to visualize,
you just accepted a way that impossible to see,
you just accepted a way that impossible to understand logical,
you just accepted a way that is definitely not intuitive.
Is this way what your choice?
I don’t have that to add.

2.
Book ‘Albert Einstein’ by Leopold Infeld.
Page 4.
And out of this fantastic, relative world that Einstein
created there suddenly appeared the atomic bomb.
Page 36.
Its title is ‘Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on Its Energy?’
This short paper states: the use of atomic energy is,
in principle, possible. Forty years later, the work
of many scientists showed that the use of atomic
energy is practicable as was demonstrated . . . . .
. . . in the New Mexican desert and the devastation
at Hiroshima.
=============.
So, on the one hand SRT is true theory.
But on the other hand its basis ( -4D) is abstract.
To tell half of truth is worse than pure lie.
When in SRT practical truth mixed with an abstract meaning
of (-4D) our logical thought sink as ‘ unsinkable Titanic’.
SRT, as a good mirror, shows us the real ugly understanding
the concept that we call ‘ Scientific Knowledge’.
But . . .but . . .
‘ One thing I have learned in a long life:
that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive
and childlike - and yet it is the most precious thing we have.’
/ Einstein /
=============.

Socratus,

I don't see that the 4D formulation of relativity is particularly abstract. I don't have a good intuitive feel for it, but it is based on a rigid mathematical formulation that provides very specific predictions of how the world runs. I don't know enough math to be able to work with it, but that doesn't keep me from realizing that it is a beautiful scientific theory. If I did know the math I might have a better feel for exactly what the 4D world means. The use of relativity, both Special and General, resolved quite a few problems that had been bothering a lot of scientists for many years.

As far as ugly things that come from the uses that science are put to, well, that doesn't really have anything to do with science. It rather has to do with people. People are not very good at choosing the best uses for anything they have or know. Historically people have been mean, selfish, cruel, and thoughtless no matter what their technological level. They have also been kind, generous, and caring. So the uses we put scientific knowledge to are based on people, rather than the specific knowledge.

Bill Gill

Socratus, I find myself wondering what you understand by the term "accept".
Obviously, you use a computer, you also think deeply about things, combining the two suggests that, on some level, you accept the weirdness of quantum theory. Do you understand it, or do you accept something that in many ways is counter-intuitive?

Bill S.

There are a lot of people who are disturbed by quantum mechanics (QM). The way it works is really not an intuitive concept. I am currently reading "The Black Hole War - My Battle With Stephen Hawking to Make the World Safe for Quantum Mechanics" by Leonard Susskind. In it he points out that we have evolved with an intuitive feel for Newtonian Mechanics. We can solve what would appear to be complicated mathematical problems in the blink of an eye. For example in baseball a batter hits the ball. Almost immediately the fielder figures out where it is going, and gets there in time to catch it. Figuring that out mathematically would be a major effort, but we do it just fine. Then QM comes along and says we don't know anything about how things will work in the quantum world. But there are mathematical procedures that will give us very good results. So, now we have to rewire our brains to be able to figure it out. And that is not easy. Frankly I am willing to accept that QM works, because there are so many things in our world that have been developed using QM, such as computers and lasers and cell phones. QM, the basis for these, is indeed illogical from the point of view of beings that evolved in an environment that doesn't require that understanding. So I guess we just have to keep on pecking away and trying to get Socratus to catch on to what SR, GR (General Relativity), and QM are all about.

Bill Gill