The Hard Problem of Gravity

[westprog]

I've got a book on statistical physics book with a chapter on crystals.

The divide between physics and chemistry is a fairly arbitrary one in any case. Chemistry is a subset of physics, for the most part. But I'm always delighted by seeing indigestible facts served up. Maybe he'll try to insist that statistical physics isn't physics really.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Your proposed reinterpretation of Phlogiston Theory as 'pretty accurate' simply doesn't hold water. The theory had nothing to do with chemical energy, and was simply and completely wrong. Read the Wikipedia on it.

I read the wiki article on phlogiston some time ago and have since re-read it for clarity. The idea was proposed in the 17th century -- before we gained knowledge of atoms and the periodic table. The basic idea that combustible substances contained something that was released when burned is directly analogous to the idea of chemical energy being released as fire. Was the 'four elements' ontology it was based off of accurate? Of course not. Did Becher have knowledge of modern chemistry and physics? H3LL no. But, considering the relative ignorance of that period, the idea of phlogiston was pretty close to the mark.

If you mean Albert Einstein, he did give a lecture to an aetherist audience, equating space-time with the aether - by dismembering the aether property by property until he was describing something quite unlike traditional theories of the aether (stationary and otherwise) - he was tactfully and effectively debunking the whole idea of an aether, and replacing it with the space-time of GR.

Thanks for providing the link to Einstein's talk on the 'aether', it was very informative. It interesting to note, however, that in the talk Einstein points out that the concept of the 'aether' changed considerably since its first conception to the time of his talk.

Said Einstein:

"More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the Special Theory of Relativity does not compel us to deny the Aether. We may assume the existence of an Aether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it. We shall see later that this point of view, the conceivability of which I shall at once endeavour to make more intelligible by a somewhat halting comparison, is justified by the results of the General Theory of Relativity. "

From his talk, its clear that the aether was not a monolithic static idea, but a concept that had numerous interpretations and revisions over the course of its history. Einstein was essentially making one more reformulation of the concept and replacing its title "aether" with that of "space-time". Even today, Einstein's conception of space time is going thru revision and change in contemporary theories like string theory and loop quantum gravity.

Both the assumptions and the concepts of phlogiston and aether theory were wrong - game attempts to explain observations of nature, supplanted by quite different and better explanations. If you redefine the names and/or reinterpret the theories and their history to suit your own purpose, you only render them meaningless.

If some revised expanded model of the 20th century conception of space-time were brought forward that renamed it as [place label here] would it be a 'debunking' of Relativity? Would it mean that Einstein's theories were mystical woo-woo? Of course not.

 

[rocketdodger]

I've got a book on statistical physics book with a chapter on crystals.

"Statistical physics" isn't "proper physics" according to westprog since it involves mathematics, so there you go.

Or maybe he will claim it is, since it has "physics" on the cover. But in that case, I dunno about a chemistry book, since most of them don't have "physics" on the cover...

 

[rocketdodger]

The divide between physics and chemistry is a fairly arbitrary one in any case. Chemistry is a subset of physics, for the most part. But I'm always delighted by seeing indigestible facts served up. Maybe he'll try to insist that statistical physics isn't physics really.

Wait, wait wait...lemme get this straight:

You claim chemistry is a subset of physics.

You claim biology and electrical engineering is not a subset of physics.

How is that supposed to make sense?

 

[rocketdodger]

If it can give a consistent response to multiple inputs then it does computation?

Sure.

 

[westprog]

Sure.

Right then. I'll just go over to this pile of unconnected computer bit in our shared conceptual space.

Keyboard leaning against box. Pull within 10 degrees of vertical. Release. Returns to original position. Pull within 5 degrees of vertical. Release. It does exactly the same! Press the space bar gently, and then hard - it pops right back!

It seems that this heap of components can do computation too.

 

[westprog]

Wait, wait wait...lemme get this straight:

You claim chemistry is a subset of physics.

You claim biology and electrical engineering is not a subset of physics.

How is that supposed to make sense?

No, I said that chemistry is mostly a subset of physics. Biology is partly a subset of physics. Electrical engineering is not actually science at all. Why is this so difficult to understand? Engineering is about how to make things. Physics is about understanding things. Engineering needs physics, physics does not need engineering.

The reason that chemistry is not entirely contained within physics is that certain aspects of studying chemistry are more properly to do with chemical engineering - i.e. this is how we make compound X. If we're dealing with, for example, how crystals are formed, then that study is contained within physics, and hence it's not surprising that it's found in a book on physics.

Certain aspects of biology are contained within chemistry, and hence within physics. Some aspects of biology are not part of chemistry or physics.

The reason for this is that physics encompasses the study of anything that happens in the universe - and hence includes potentially almost anything. But that doesn't mean that economics, say, is part of physics, because it is not studied on a physical basis. If and when all of economics is studied in that way, it will be part of physics.

Crystals, on the other hand, can be understood on an entirely physical basis, and hence crystal theory is likely to be found in a physics textbook. As it seems it in fact is, which inconvenient fact Rocketdodger has yet to acknowledge.

 

[AkuManiMani]

No, I said that chemistry is mostly a subset of physics. Biology is partly a subset of physics. Electrical engineering is not actually science at all. Why is this so difficult to understand? Engineering is about how to make things. Physics is about understanding things. Engineering needs physics, physics does not need engineering.

The reason that chemistry is not entirely contained within physics is that certain aspects of studying chemistry are more properly to do with chemical engineering - i.e. this is how we make compound X. If we're dealing with, for example, how crystals are formed, then that study is contained within physics, and hence it's not surprising that it's found in a book on physics.

Certain aspects of biology are contained within chemistry, and hence within physics. Some aspects of biology are not part of chemistry or physics.

The reason for this is that physics encompasses the study of anything that happens in the universe - and hence includes potentially almost anything. But that doesn't mean that economics, say, is part of physics, because it is not studied on a physical basis. If and when all of economics is studied in that way, it will be part of physics.

Crystals, on the other hand, can be understood on an entirely physical basis, and hence crystal theory is likely to be found in a physics textbook. As it seems it in fact is, which inconvenient fact Rocketdodger has yet to acknowledge.

Its arguments like this that convince me that scientists and engineers should be trained in epistemology. *headache*

 

[rocketdodger]

No, I said that chemistry is mostly a subset of physics. Biology is partly a subset of physics. Electrical engineering is not actually science at all. Why is this so difficult to understand? Engineering is about how to make things. Physics is about understanding things. Engineering needs physics, physics does not need engineering.

The reason that chemistry is not entirely contained within physics is that certain aspects of studying chemistry are more properly to do with chemical engineering - i.e. this is how we make compound X. If we're dealing with, for example, how crystals are formed, then that study is contained within physics, and hence it's not surprising that it's found in a book on physics.

Certain aspects of biology are contained within chemistry, and hence within physics. Some aspects of biology are not part of chemistry or physics.

The reason for this is that physics encompasses the study of anything that happens in the universe - and hence includes potentially almost anything. But that doesn't mean that economics, say, is part of physics, because it is not studied on a physical basis. If and when all of economics is studied in that way, it will be part of physics.

Crystals, on the other hand, can be understood on an entirely physical basis, and hence crystal theory is likely to be found in a physics textbook. As it seems it in fact is, which inconvenient fact Rocketdodger has yet to acknowledge.

Bravo, westprog.

*facepalm*

 

[rocketdodger]

Right then. I'll just go over to this pile of unconnected computer bit in our shared conceptual space.

Keyboard leaning against box. Pull within 10 degrees of vertical. Release. Returns to original position. Pull within 5 degrees of vertical. Release. It does exactly the same! Press the space bar gently, and then hard - it pops right back!

It seems that this heap of components can do computation too.

Yes, subsets of the entire system can do computation.

Just like portions of a water droplet can crystallize.

That doesn't make the whole drop a crystal. Nor does it make the whole pile a computer.

*double facepalm*

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Its arguments like this that convince me that scientists and engineers should be trained in epistemology. *headache*

I'm not sure if anything actually will help when people just seem to grasp at more or less arbitrary conceptual boundaries when defending their position. I'm not even sure which positions are actually at play anymore. A mess this is!

 

[dlorde]

The lad[y] doth protest too much, methinks...

... Was the 'four elements' ontology it was based off of accurate? Of course not. Did Becher have knowledge of modern chemistry and physics? H3LL no. But, considering the relative ignorance of that period, the idea of phlogiston was pretty close to the mark.

Close to the mark in the same way Genesis gets the creation of the universe right - the timescale is a bit off, and the events aren't right, but everything gets created, which, considering the relative ignorance of that period, is pretty close to the mark...

From his talk, its clear that the aether was not a monolithic static idea, but a concept that had numerous interpretations and revisions over the course of its history. Einstein was essentially making one more reformulation of the concept and replacing its title "aether" with that of "space-time".

As I said, rather than tell the audience directly that their pet theory (in its many variations) was wrong, he neatly dismantled it and substituted GR space-time in its place - the old 'switcheroo'. A tactful and constructive strategic redefinition of the term, unlike your redefinitions.

If some revised expanded model of the 20th century conception of space-time were brought forward that renamed it as [place label here] would it be a 'debunking' of Relativity?

It would if it showed GR to be basically incorrect - even if was also called 'Relativity'.

Bear in mind that neither of these theories bear comparison to classical (Newtonian) mechanics, which is superseded by SR, but is still applicable/useful in limited contexts as an approximation to it.

Would it mean that Einstein's theories were mystical woo-woo? Of course not.

Oh dear - another straw man... did I say the theories in question were mystical woo-woo? No, they are just scientifically wrong - the evidence doesn't support them and we have better theories.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Close to the mark in the same way Genesis gets the creation of the universe right - the timescale is a bit off, and the events aren't right, but everything gets created, which, considering the relative ignorance of that period, is pretty close to the mark...

Lol.

I never said that phlogiston was a valid theory -- just a good guess for the time. I'm pretty sure that centuries from now when people look back at our gold-standard scientific theories they'll consider them just as quaint

As I said, rather than tell the audience directly that their pet theory (in its many variations) was wrong, he neatly dismantled it and substituted GR space-time in its place - the old 'switcheroo'. A tactful and constructive strategic redefinition of the term, unlike your redefinitions.

Soooo...In other words Einstein was a crafty, underhanded SOB and I should learn from his methods?

If that's true I think I would have to completely loose faith in humanity before I stoop to that. I prefer to be candid about what I'm proposing and let reason make my case. I've considered resorting to methods like the cookie trail tactic but they make me feel ill thinking about it

It would if it showed GR to be basically incorrect - even if was also called 'Relativity'.

Bear in mind that neither of these theories bear comparison to classical (Newtonian) mechanics, which is superseded by SR, but is still applicable/useful in limited contexts as an approximation to it.

By those standards any scientific theory we devise is 'basically incorrect'. Sooner or later, even the best theories we have now will be superseded by more useful and comprehensive theories with radically different assumptions.

Oh dear - another straw man... did I say the theories in question were mystical woo-woo? No, they are just scientifically wrong - the evidence doesn't support them and we have better theories.

Well, if you remember, this particular line of discussion began with the question of distinguishing protoscience from mysticism & "woo-woo". As much as I'm enjoying this particular line of discussion I don't want our exchange to get as lost as the one between westprog and RD. Maybe start another thread on this topic? O_<

 

[dlorde]

Soooo...In other words Einstein was a crafty, underhanded SOB and I should learn from his methods?
If that's true I think I would have to completely loose faith in humanity...

Again, that's entirely your interpretation - there's no reason to loose faith in humanity for the sake of your own straw-man

My own view is that it was fine example of persuasion by reasoned argument and carefully judged to make a radical departure palatable. I wish there was more of that in these forums...

By those standards any scientific theory we devise is 'basically incorrect'. Sooner or later, even the best theories we have now will be superseded by more useful and comprehensive theories with radically different assumptions.

No. I explicitly explained the difference - either you didn't read it properly or you just missed my point altogether.

Maybe start another thread on this topic? O_<

I think not. I've had my fill of misinterpretation, misrepresentation, and straw-man arguments.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Soooo...In other words Einstein was a crafty, underhanded SOB and I should learn from his methods?
If that's true I think I would have to completely loose faith in humanity...

Again, that's entirely your interpretation - there's no reason to loose faith in humanity for the sake of your own straw-man

Heeey...

How come when you interpret its legit but when I interpret its a 'straw-man'? Thats messed up, dude -_O

My own view is that it was fine example of persuasion by reasoned argument and carefully judged to make a radical departure palatable. I wish there was more of that in these forums...

I hear yah, its the same kinda thing my public speaking proff. taught us. There is a lot of craft and finesse that goes into persuading an audience. Even so, I still say that what you're talking is more rhetorical slight of hand than an actual appeal to reason. If I have to drop cookie trails and pull 'switcheroos' to convince my audience of my position then, as far as I'm concerned, they don't deserve what I have to offer.

The more I think of it, the more it pisses me off. I can see that what you're saying has some practical merit. From the get go, I saw plenty of ways I could play with the wording of my arguments and ideas, in such a way as to subtly lead my audience into my manner of thinking. But why should one even have to make radical departures palatable? Shouldn't Einstein have been able to go up and say:

"Okay here is my theory and the equations that its based on. This is what it logically explains. Here is how is avoids the problems of the older models. There's also some new terminology I and my colleagues have packaged with it."

Shouldn't people have been able to honestly assess a strait-forward presentation of the theory without having to be slickstered and cajoled into doing so? Why the h3LL do people care so much about how conventional a new idea sounds when deciding whether or not to accept it? Like I said, I understand your point perfectly well and there's a part of me that suspects that you're right. If you are right afterall, then...*eyetwitch*

By those standards any scientific theory we devise is 'basically incorrect'. Sooner or later, even the best theories we have now will be superseded by more useful and comprehensive theories with radically different assumptions.

No. I explicitly explained the difference - either you didn't read it properly or you just missed my point altogether.

I got the point just fine: if one has a useful theory whose explanatory and predictive power supersedes a previous theory, within the same domain of applicability and different assumptions, then the previous theory is 'basically incorrect'. You then anticipated my response and made a special caveat for Newtonian mechanics -- knowing full well that I would point out that S&G-Relativity has radically different descriptions of the nature of gravity and space than that of Newtonian mechanics.

Its also noteworthy that the two physical theories currently being used in science atm -- QM and relativity -- have fundamentally different descriptions of the nature of reality. When confined to certain domains of application they work just fine, but the fact is that they are mutually incompatible. This means that, hidden within both theories, there lie inadequacies in their descriptions of reality. Any future model of reality is bound reveal fundamental inaccuracies in both theories.

Trust me, I implicitly understand your point; you're simply failing to recognize the logical conclusion of it...

I think not. I've had my fill of misinterpretation, misrepresentation, and straw-man arguments.

You're gunna have to pull yourself away from this discussion while you still can. More frustration awaits you if you stick around. Go! Save yourself! *_*

 

[dlorde]

How come when you interpret its legit but when I interpret its a 'straw-man'? Thats messed up, dude -_O

You know what a straw-man argument is - and yes, it's messed up, but you don't seem able to resist doing it.

Even so, I still say that what you're talking is more rhetorical slight of hand than an actual appeal to reason. If I have to drop cookie trails and pull 'switcheroos' to convince my audience of my position then, as far as I'm concerned, they don't deserve what I have to offer.

Read the article. All he's saying is that if you want consider something like an aether, the closest you can get in GR is space-time. The 'switcheroo' is the whole point - Einstein leads them logically to the idea of space-time as aether - it's an exposition not a deception.

Shouldn't people have been able to honestly assess a strait-forward presentation of the theory without having to be slickstered and cajoled into doing so?

If you read the article you'll see there's no slicksterism or cajoling.

Why the h3LL do people care so much about how conventional a new idea sounds when deciding whether or not to accept it?

Human nature, I guess.

I got the point just fine: if one has a useful theory whose explanatory and predictive power supersedes a previous theory, within the same domain of applicability and different assumptions, then the previous theory is 'basically incorrect'.

That's not quite what I said.

You then anticipated my response and made a special caveat for Newtonian mechanics -- knowing full well that I would point out that S&G-Relativity has radically different descriptions of the nature of gravity and space than that of Newtonian mechanics.

My mention of Newtonian mechanics was a counter-example, not a 'special caveat'. The point was that NM is still a useful approximation, in effect, a limit case of GR. The other theories had no such relation to their successors.

Its also noteworthy that the two physical theories currently being used in science atm -- QM and relativity -- have fundamentally different descriptions of the nature of reality. When confined to certain domains of application they work just fine, but the fact is that they are mutually incompatible. This means that, hidden within both theories, there lie inadequacies in their descriptions of reality.

That's common knowledge, although I don't recall it being part of our discussion...

Any future model of reality is bound reveal fundamental inaccuracies in both theories.

The fact that they can't both be right doesn't necessarily mean they both have fundamental inaccuracies - though that may be the case.

Trust me, I implicitly understand your point;

I'd rather you explicitly understood it.

You're gunna have to pull yourself away from this discussion while you still can. More frustration awaits you if you stick around. Go! Save yourself! *_*

I think you're right about the frustration.

 

[westprog]

Its arguments like this that convince me that scientists and engineers should be trained in epistemology. *headache*

Well, not really. In their day to day work, physicists might do engineering, engineers do physics, and both of them could be involved in chemistry and computing. The boundaries only matter when discussing philosophical matters on a forum like this.

 

[westprog]

Yes, subsets of the entire system can do computation.

Just like portions of a water droplet can crystallize.

That doesn't make the whole drop a crystal. Nor does it make the whole pile a computer.

*double facepalm*

It's not my fault that your laughable definition is so imprecise that it's entirely impossible to define what is part of the system and what isn't. What parts of the computer are part of the system when it's doing computing? The electrons passing through the processor? The silicon itself? The silicon substrate? The circuit board? The memory? The disc drive? The box? The floor holding up the box? The monitor? The keyboard? The power supply? The electric circuit that powers the whole thing? The power station supplying the electricity that makes the program work? The man who monitors the dials at the power station? The lady who brings him his tea?

Any of these can be included or excluded from the definition of the computing process on an entirely arbitrary basis - because the definition is so flimsy that it doesn't include or exclude anything.

Compare this to a salt crystal sitting on a saucer. Is the air around the crystal part of the crystal? Is the saucer part of the crystal? Are the sodium atoms part of the crystal?

The answers to these questions are easy and obvious. It's possible then to produce fuzzy boundaries if we want. Dissolve the crystal, mix in impurities, whatever. The difference is that we still have a sound definition from which to proceed. In the case of computing, we have nothing. There's not one part of the "system" which we can clearly say is or isn't inside or outside. It's all fuzz. There's no "there" there.

 

[AkuManiMani]

You know what a straw-man argument is - and yes, it's messed up, but you don't seem able to resist doing it.

Or you can't resist construing what I say to be strawmen.

Read the article. All he's saying is that if you want consider something like an aether, the closest you can get in GR is space-time. The 'switcheroo' is the whole point - Einstein leads them logically to the idea of space-time as aether - it's an exposition not a deception.

[...]

If you read the article you'll see there's no slicksterism or cajoling.

Hold up. My original point was that Einstein was essentially providing yet another update of the aether model, adding his own terminology in the process. Then you reply saying that wasn't the case; he was actually pulling a 'switcheroo'. So I went along with that line of reasoning for the sake of discussion and now you're backtracking and pretty much explicitly agreeing with the interpretation I put forward to begin with. Just why the heck are we arguing about this?

Why the h3LL do people care so much about how conventional a new idea sounds when deciding whether or not to accept it?

Human nature, I guess.

Silly humans

I got the point just fine: if one has a useful theory whose explanatory and predictive power supersedes a previous theory, within the same domain of applicability and different assumptions, then the previous theory is 'basically incorrect'.

That's not quite what I said.

I was paraphrasing instead of directly quoting to show that I understood. Again, whats the contention here, anyway?

My mention of Newtonian mechanics was a counter-example, not a 'special caveat'.

Like I said, Newton's description of nature and Einstein's description have fundamental differences. Newton's conception of space was an early version of the aether theory. I hate to break it to ya, but that's hardly a 'counter example' -- it outright proves my point :-/

The fact that they can't both be right doesn't necessarily mean they both have fundamental inaccuracies - though that may be the case.

I guess you're right about that. Either way, tho, every scientific theory is open to radical revision and replacement. There is no possible theory that gets it exactly right because its not possible to have a perfect understanding of reality. The deeper we dig, the stranger it becomes.

I'd rather you explicitly understood it.

"AMM, your contention that space-time is essentially another update to the aether theory was wrong. Einstein was just pulling a 'switcheroo' on his audience by showing them that the aether is relativistic space-time."

That about explicit enough, or should I just directly quote you verbatim from now on? >_>

I think you're right about the frustration.

Welcome to teh internetz. Have a aspirins?

 

[westprog]

I'm not sure if anything actually will help when people just seem to grasp at more or less arbitrary conceptual boundaries when defending their position. I'm not even sure which positions are actually at play anymore. A mess this is!

I agree, but it's really up to people putting forward the concept to provide precise, clear definitions.