What is Physics?

[junglelord]

Not a single answer. Such simple questions.

[Eres]

Not a single answer. Such simple questions.

Hi junglelord is keeping on reading the site of BG, I don't agree on some things, others there are not explained well, but on a thing I agree with him; on the scientific method of research and on the real value and purpose of the physics.
Today the mathematics, the pure description without references to the reality has taken field on the physics and on the observation, for this it seems me there isn't doubtful.
End this fact has also created a certain confusion of ideas.
Meanwhile, I still wait for my two questions...
bye

[altonhare]

Not a single answer. Such simple questions.

Hi junglelord is keeping on reading the site of BG, I don't agree on some things, others there are not explained well, but on a thing I agree with him; on the scientific method of research and on the real value and purpose of the physics.
Today the mathematics, the pure description without references to the reality has taken field on the physics and on the observation, for this it seems me there isn't doubtful.
End this fact has also created a certain confusion of ideas.
Meanwhile, I still wait for my two questions...
bye

Eres:

I directed you to appropriate threads for those discussions. The issue of "light on light" is already covered there, I'm not going to retype the same things when they are already posted. The answer requires a fairly deep working knowledge of TT so you need to familiarize yourself with it first via BG's videos and some of the discussions on this board. "Light on light" is probably the most important question in all of physics. Why doesn't light interact with itself but everything else appears to? There will probably be several simpler and more fundamental questions you will need answered before we can tackle a discussion of a behemoth like "light on light".

By "cosmological red shift" I assume you are referring to the observation that all/most of the atoms we observe appear to be moving away from us. So... what? I fail to see why this is a deal-breaker observation. There is no telling how miniscule our zone of observation is. I know there are estimates but these are really just guesses.

I don't really think a theory of physics needs to "account" for the red shift beyond simply giving a physical explanation for why receding objects are perceived to emit at a lower frequency (see "to anyone who believes in SR's time travel" or "Time and Motion").

[Eres]

Ok altonhare, thanks for the answers, I will try to deepen the matter.

[altonhare]

Ok altonhare, thanks for the answers, I will try to deepen the matter.

You're welcome and I hope you really get something out of it!

[altonhare]

Physics is the study of objects.

An object is that which has shape, meaning it is bordered i.e. finite. Anything that has shape is visualizable. Therefore if someone tells you they have a theory of physics that explains X phenomenon, they can show you a picture of what is happening in their theory.

This goes back to the "structure and function" mantra. If something has structure (shape) it can be visualized with a picture/movie/model. The illustrated structure must justify the claimed function.

[Zakhur]

What is a charge? Physically, not an equation. What is a field physically? What is aether? I don't want to see a single equation yet, you must tell me what these things ARE before you can begin to DESCRIBE them with an equation.

Find and read Dr. Peter Kreeft's "Socratic Logic" for more information on why people DON'T want to think this way. His thesis is that the teaching of mathematical logic to the exclusion of formal logic has disabled the ability in speakers of Western languages to describe something's essential nature. The reason? Mathematical language possesses the LEAST descriptive powers of all known languages. Therefore, even a mother language like English loses some of its descriptive powers because mathematical logic has been established as English's "meta-language." This began about 100 years ago when symbolic logic was popularized as being more precise than classical logic. However, this is only true in the abstract. The rules of classical logic enable us to use the language we speak to make "sense" of what we sense. If, on the other hand, we try to make sense of an abstraction by trying to find its equivalent among what we detect with our senses, we might end up searching for the rainbow at the end of the pot of gold until Peter Pan tells us nothing like that exists.

This fixation on the abstract closes the mind to the data of the senses. In classical Western philosophy, the data of the senses was considered to be the ORIGIN of thoughts. A man has to exist before his senses give his mind something on which to chew. Rene Descarte reversed this when he declared that thought occurs BEFORE the thinker. Immanuel Kant enforced this by saying that there are two kinds of knowing. We can know our thoughts and what our senses report to our minds, but only our thoughts are verifiably true; and THAT is why modern "philosophers/scientists" think abstractions are true while ignoring empirical data to the contrary. Aristotle's definition of true knowledge was this: the mind conforms with reality. The occupants of insane asylums define true knowledge in this way: reality MUST conform to MY mind.

[Plasmatic]

Exellent post Zakhur !

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Zakhur,
Welcome aboard.
You wrote:

Rene Descarte reversed this when he declared that thought occurs BEFORE the thinker.

Something of an oversimplification of Descartes' philosophy. His 'I think, therefore I am' was a mind game designed to show that whatever the veracity of the sense data, there was a thinker who was independent of it. The 'I' exists and can think. The thinking of thoughts comes later. Potential must pre-exist its realisation.

Immanuel Kant enforced this by saying that there are two kinds of knowing. We can know our thoughts and what our senses report to our minds, but only our thoughts are verifiably true; and THAT is why modern "philosophers/scientists" think abstractions are true while ignoring empirical data to the contrary.

Kant was responding to the empiricists' view that everything man knows comes through his senses. Kant siad yes, but unless there was already something present within man to make sense of the data, one would be subject to a series of of random and incomprehensible images etc. In other words you need an operating system which knows what to do with the files from your input devices.

Aristotle's definition of true knowledge was this: the mind conforms with reality.

Yes but this takes us back to the question of what is reality. And if one reads Aristotle it is clear that 'mind' to him is not synonymous with 'brain'.

The occupants of insane asylums define true knowledge in this way: reality MUST conform to MY mind.

This statement is nonsense. Firstly it assumes that all occupants of insane asylums suffer from the same malady, and secondly, you have no idea of what is going on in the minds of any of these people.

[altonhare]

This statement is nonsense. Firstly it assumes that all occupants of insane asylums suffer from the same malady, and secondly, you have no idea of what is going on in the minds of any of these people.

We just need to define "insane". Someone who believes a contradiction is being insane. As a society if someone believes too many contradictions or acts upon them in a destructive way we label them "insane" and lock them up.

Everyone mistakenly accepts implicit contradictions at some point or another. By implicit I mean that, if they continued to think on their claim by applying identity, the contradiction would become apparent. Accepting implicit contradictions is not insane, but rather due to a lack of effort. Once the contradiction becomes apparent we refer to it as an explicit contradiction. Believing an explicit contradiction would be called an "insane belief".

An explicit contradiction is very simple. You point at a chair and say "chair". Then you point at it again and say "not chair". Someone who believes that something is both itself and not itself holds an insane belief.

Particle physicists hold insane beliefs. They point at the electron and say "particle". Then they point at it and say "wave-packet". At first glance we would assume they have two labels for the same thing. But when they describe the discrete particle and the continuous wave their contradiction becomes explicit.

Particle: Finite.
Wavepacket: Non-finite

An explicit contradiction. Wave-packets are purported to "exist over all space" although they are drawn/visualized by only including something like 99.9% of the wave because it is impossible to actually deal with "something" non-finite. But the equations and formulas for wave packets make it clear that there is no definable boundary to a wave-packet, that the 99.9% boundary is a useful approximation.

Particles are defined as having a definable boundary. It does not matter if they say that we cannot determine its position/momentum precisely, the particle is *defined* as having a boundary. Our ability to measure its position/momentum has nothing to do with how the physicist *himself* defines his particle. If he defines it as bounded he cannot later state that it is boundless (as in the wave-packet) without invoking explicit contradiction.

If he wishes to renege and define his particle as boundless then he is back to the wave-packet and you must ask him why he has two names for the exact same thing. It is deceptive. The physicist wants to LOOK like he has a valid hypothesis (the particle, something with shape) so that you will believe him. Then when he goes to actually do anything his equations explicitly contradict his supposed hypothesis.

He proposes a valid hypothesis, the particle, so that you will listen to him. Then he tosses it out the window when he goes to actually do something because the particle itself is powerless to explain the simplest phenomena. But he already has you listening, possibly already has your funding. When he churns out some technology you stop questioning his explicit contradiction because the math is useful. Science dies as mathematical correlations resulting in technological breakthroughs supplant it. The scientific method dies as nobody cares anymore about hypotheses, but only cares about what new mathematical correlation can build a new device. People start thinking that mathematical correlations and technology ARE science, and what was science is not only dead but completely forgotten.

The Greeks weren't trying to build new devices or make a fortune. They weren't trying to fool you into listening to them so they could get funding. They were truly trying to understand the universe, thinking for thinking's sake. Acquiring knowledge for the sake of acquiring knowledge. That's the scientific spirit. It's gone today, anyone trying to pursue an explanation just for the sake of itself is marginalized as a quack/crank. If you don't produce any new equations or technology you're just stamp collecting.

But it is the particle zoo that has become stamp collecting. Just a ton of correlating and labeling observations, placing them into categories. No understanding, but not even an attempt at understanding.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Alton,
You wrote:

We just need to define "insane".

No we do not. It has nothing to do with defintions of insanity. The problem was with the statement by Zakhur. Your obsession with definitions is insanity to me.

[altonhare]

Hi Alton,
You wrote:

We just need to define "insane".

No we do not. It has nothing to do with defintions of insanity. The problem was with the statement by Zakhur. Your obsession with definitions is insanity to me.

Did you read anything else I wrote?

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Alton,
You wrote:

We just need to define "insane".

No we do not. It has nothing to do with defintions of insanity. The problem was with the statement by Zakhur. Your obsession with definitions is insanity to me.

Did you read anything else I wrote?

Hi Alton,
Yes, I read it all. You went rambling on about particles and physicists and such like. You made some comments about the Greeks towards the end. Let's say that I agree in principle with what you wrote about them and chose not to be overly pedantic and nit-pick the parts I disagreed with lest it appeared that I was doing it just ot disagree with you.
Or were you referring to something else with you question?

[altonhare]

Hi Alton,
You wrote:

We just need to define "insane".

No we do not. It has nothing to do with defintions of insanity. The problem was with the statement by Zakhur. Your obsession with definitions is insanity to me.

Did you read anything else I wrote?

Hi Alton,
Yes, I read it all. You went rambling on about particles and physicists and such like. You made some comments about the Greeks towards the end. Let's say that I agree in principle with what you wrote about them and chose not to be overly pedantic and nit-pick the parts I disagreed with lest it appeared that I was doing it just ot disagree with you.
Or were you referring to something else with you question?

Nope, it meant just exactly what it said.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Alton,
You wrote:

Nope, it meant just exactly what it said.

Then the answer is yes, I did read it.