Can all of physics be traced back to common sense?
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Can all of physics be traced back to common sense?
Given what we can and can't do, is it possible, in principle, using only our personal experiences (experiments that we can personally perform) and our ability to follow logical arguments (written in mathematical language), to find out whether any or all of the predictions of any physical theory are valid? If we can, is it right to refer to this process as "studying physics"?
If we can't, is modern physics the magical thinking of a bunch of mathematics obsessed poindexters?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Can all of physics be traced back to common sense?
The above is an epistemological issue, which is the purview of philosophy.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Can all of physics be traced back to common sense?
viewtopic.php?p=345704#p345704Terrapin Station wrote:One thing that's worth looking at is what we're actually observing in experiments (in other words, what we're directly observing in a phenomenal sense) versus what sorts of claims we're making, and where there are differences, it's worth looking at how exactly we're arriving at claims that aren't simply reports of what we're observing.
As I said in the "Is Time Just an Idea?" topic (many, many pages back now), I think one of the main reasons for the long fruitless conversations in that topic is a failure to first identify what is observed and what the theory predicts will be observed, and only then discuss what, if any, ontological conclusions we might want to draw from the observations, and predicted observations.
Those conclusion, if we draw them, are rarely simply reports of what we're observing. That's true in art as much as in particle physics. It's a theme that's explored in lots of movements in art that don't simply try to create photo-realistic representations of the subject.
-
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm
Re: Can all of physics be traced back to common sense?
But why start here?Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 24th, 2020, 9:17 am Like any subject, the ideas in physics are cumulative. i.e. to understand each part you have to have some understanding of the parts on which it was built. It purports to describe and predict the patterns in larger and larger subsets of all possible observations. If we pick a starting point of 400 years ago, during the time of Galileo, we can, in principle, follow the arguments through to the relatively modern fields of QM and SR/GR, and decide whether we consider the arguments to be valid.
If we want to look at the actual foundations, and see if they are 'rock solid', considering this thread came from a thread about what 'time' is, and that 'relativity' is based upon, or about, 'time', itself, how about we start at where did the concept 'time' come from?
What do we agree with that were the actual 'observations, or scientific experiments', that could be agreed to be a 'foundation' of 'time', itself?
I have absolutely no idea, but, if I suggest observing a stick in the ground, and its shadow, might be one 'foundation of time', or at least a 'foundation of measuring', then would I be to far off this being some sort of foundation of 'time', from where we could start? At the moment i can not think of an earlier foundation, but I am not an intellectual or well read person at all.
I would say, "Yes".Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 24th, 2020, 9:17 am We can personally perform the earlier experiments. To perform later experiments becomes increasingly difficult. Galileo dropped objects off buildings. We can do that. The particle accelerator at CERN accelerates subatomic particles to near light speed. We can't do that.
Given what we can and can't do, is it possible, in principle, using only our personal experiences (experiments that we can personally perform) and our ability to follow logical arguments (written in mathematical language), to find out whether any or all of the predictions of any physical theory are valid?
I would just call this process 'logical reasoning'.
To me, 'studying' involves being told some things are true and some things are false, and when you are tested on this, then your answers have to agree with what you have been told, otherwise you will fail. If you fail, then you are not allowed to join our group. And, it does not matter if your answers are actually true and correct and the ones you were told are actually false and wrong, the ones you were told to repeat in the test is the current, and accepted, knowledge. It is the knowledge you were tested on, and it is the only knowledge that we accept as being true and right, at the moment. And, what 'we accept' is all that really matters here, and only what actually matters here.
But I might be somewhat cynical of things here, if it was not yet noticed.
But anyway, if I wanted to "study physics", then I would have just gone to a "physics school".
Well it appears that you have already concluded the outcome here.
Anyway, if we start with the observation of the shadow of a stick, and the movement of that shadow around the stick, then could this be said to be the 'foundation' of 'time', well for the sake of this discussion anyway?
By the way, and before I forget to mention what actually triggered this thread when I wrote about; Two observers moving towards each other, at a constant velocity, they see each other's clock tick faster, than their own clock, but when the velocity becomes larger, then for unknown reasons to me, you say they now see each others' clock tick slower, than their own clock.
And what I also said was; When this has been clarified, then we can start examining the foundations. But, if you will not even explain and clarify this, first of many to come, contradictions, then how could 'we' even concentrate on examining the foundations.
If you need more time to be able to respond to this contradiction in what you said, then that is fine, we can concentrate on examining the foundation and working logically through this up to the present date if you like. But I just do not want this contradiction I pointed out to be forgotten, especially since this is the third time you have detracted away from responding to it. But still feel free to take as much time as you need to respond to it. I am certainly in no rush.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Can all of physics be traced back to common sense?
No, you would not be far off. That's not a bad place to start. Although perhaps you could start by considering what causes the apparent movements of the shadow across the ground which our ancestors appeared to find useful.creation wrote:if I suggest observing a stick in the ground, and its shadow, might be one 'foundation of time', or at least a 'foundation of measuring', then would I be to far off this being some sort of foundation of 'time', from where we could start?
No, I haven't. Note the question mark on the end of the sentence that you quoted. Remember what I said in an earlier post about treating questions as questions and statements as statements. If I pose a question, I am not making a statement. Note that the titles of many topics in this place are in the form of questions. They are invitations to discuss what is asked, not assertions.Well it appears that you have already concluded the outcome here.
I didn't say that about two observers moving towards each other. If you disagree, quote me saying it. Re-read the clarification that I asked you to-read before.Two observers moving towards each other, at a constant velocity, they see each other's clock tick faster, than their own clock, but when the velocity becomes larger, then for unknown reasons to me, you say they now see each others' clock tick slower, than their own clock.
- h_k_s
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
- Location: Rocky Mountains
Re: Can all of physics be traced back to common sense?
I personally think of Physics as having been invented in 1687 AD by Sir Isaac Newton.Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 24th, 2020, 9:17 am Like any subject, the ideas in physics are cumulative. i.e. to understand each part you have to have some understanding of the parts on which it was built. It purports to describe and predict the patterns in larger and larger subsets of all possible observations. If we pick a starting point of 400 years ago, during the time of Galileo, we can, in principle, follow the arguments through to the relatively modern fields of QM and SR/GR, and decide whether we consider the arguments to be valid. We can personally perform the earlier experiments. To perform later experiments becomes increasingly difficult. Galileo dropped objects off buildings. We can do that. The particle accelerator at CERN accelerates subatomic particles to near light speed. We can't do that.
Given what we can and can't do, is it possible, in principle, using only our personal experiences (experiments that we can personally perform) and our ability to follow logical arguments (written in mathematical language), to find out whether any or all of the predictions of any physical theory are valid? If we can, is it right to refer to this process as "studying physics"?
If we can't, is modern physics the magical thinking of a bunch of mathematics obsessed poindexters?
Galileo on the other hand invented Science in general and Astrophysics in particular with his home made telescope in hand in 1610 AD.
- h_k_s
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
- Location: Rocky Mountains
Re: Can all of physics be traced back to common sense?
Time does not exist. It is like Mathematics -- merely an invention of the human mind.creation wrote: ↑January 25th, 2020, 3:45 amBut why start here?Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 24th, 2020, 9:17 am Like any subject, the ideas in physics are cumulative. i.e. to understand each part you have to have some understanding of the parts on which it was built. It purports to describe and predict the patterns in larger and larger subsets of all possible observations. If we pick a starting point of 400 years ago, during the time of Galileo, we can, in principle, follow the arguments through to the relatively modern fields of QM and SR/GR, and decide whether we consider the arguments to be valid.
If we want to look at the actual foundations, and see if they are 'rock solid', considering this thread came from a thread about what 'time' is, and that 'relativity' is based upon, or about, 'time', itself, how about we start at where did the concept 'time' come from?
What do we agree with that were the actual 'observations, or scientific experiments', that could be agreed to be a 'foundation' of 'time', itself?
I have absolutely no idea, but, if I suggest observing a stick in the ground, and its shadow, might be one 'foundation of time', or at least a 'foundation of measuring', then would I be to far off this being some sort of foundation of 'time', from where we could start? At the moment i can not think of an earlier foundation, but I am not an intellectual or well read person at all.
I would say, "Yes".Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 24th, 2020, 9:17 am We can personally perform the earlier experiments. To perform later experiments becomes increasingly difficult. Galileo dropped objects off buildings. We can do that. The particle accelerator at CERN accelerates subatomic particles to near light speed. We can't do that.
Given what we can and can't do, is it possible, in principle, using only our personal experiences (experiments that we can personally perform) and our ability to follow logical arguments (written in mathematical language), to find out whether any or all of the predictions of any physical theory are valid?
I would just call this process 'logical reasoning'.
To me, 'studying' involves being told some things are true and some things are false, and when you are tested on this, then your answers have to agree with what you have been told, otherwise you will fail. If you fail, then you are not allowed to join our group. And, it does not matter if your answers are actually true and correct and the ones you were told are actually false and wrong, the ones you were told to repeat in the test is the current, and accepted, knowledge. It is the knowledge you were tested on, and it is the only knowledge that we accept as being true and right, at the moment. And, what 'we accept' is all that really matters here, and only what actually matters here.
But I might be somewhat cynical of things here, if it was not yet noticed.
But anyway, if I wanted to "study physics", then I would have just gone to a "physics school".
Well it appears that you have already concluded the outcome here.
Anyway, if we start with the observation of the shadow of a stick, and the movement of that shadow around the stick, then could this be said to be the 'foundation' of 'time', well for the sake of this discussion anyway?
By the way, and before I forget to mention what actually triggered this thread when I wrote about; Two observers moving towards each other, at a constant velocity, they see each other's clock tick faster, than their own clock, but when the velocity becomes larger, then for unknown reasons to me, you say they now see each others' clock tick slower, than their own clock.
And what I also said was; When this has been clarified, then we can start examining the foundations. But, if you will not even explain and clarify this, first of many to come, contradictions, then how could 'we' even concentrate on examining the foundations.
If you need more time to be able to respond to this contradiction in what you said, then that is fine, we can concentrate on examining the foundation and working logically through this up to the present date if you like. But I just do not want this contradiction I pointed out to be forgotten, especially since this is the third time you have detracted away from responding to it. But still feel free to take as much time as you need to respond to it. I am certainly in no rush.
- h_k_s
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
- Location: Rocky Mountains
Re: Can all of physics be traced back to common sense?
Exactly right.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 24th, 2020, 7:51 pm One thing that's worth looking at is what we're actually observing in experiments (in other words, what we're directly observing in a phenomenal sense) versus what sorts of claims we're making, and where there are differences, it's worth looking at how exactly we're arriving at claims that aren't simply reports of what we're observing.
The above is an epistemological issue, which is the purview of philosophy.
Most people including scientists do NOT understand this however.
-
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm
Re: Can all of physics be traced back to common sense?
If I suggest observing a stick in the ground, and its shadow caused by the sun, might be one 'foundation of time', or at least a 'foundation of measuring', then would that be a better place to start?Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 25th, 2020, 4:00 amNo, you would not be far off. That's not a bad place to start. Although perhaps you could start by considering what causes the apparent movements of the shadow across the ground which our ancestors appeared to find useful.creation wrote:if I suggest observing a stick in the ground, and its shadow, might be one 'foundation of time', or at least a 'foundation of measuring', then would I be to far off this being some sort of foundation of 'time', from where we could start?
Okay that is fine, and good.
I have also stipulated that the reason I put a question mark at the end of a sentence that actual means that I intend that as a clarifying question to be answered. If, however, it is answered or not is completely unexpected, and completely up to someone to answer it anyway they want to, or not, as they so see fit. From my perspective they are completely free to do whatever they want to do here.
Note also you asked two questions:
1. Given what we can and can't do, is it possible, in principle, using only our personal experiences (experiments that we can personally perform) and our ability to follow logical arguments (written in mathematical language), to find out whether any or all of the predictions of any physical theory are valid?
And,
2. If we can't, is modern physics the magical thinking of a bunch of mathematics obsessed poindexters?
And the second question implies that if we can not find out whether any or all of the predictions of any physical theory are valid, then you wrote, with a question mark on the end, is modern physics the magical thinking of a bunch of mathematics obsessed poindexters?, which, as pointed out, to me, this appears to be a very specific 'conclusion', especially considering the multitude of other conclusions that may or may not come to light.
See, to me, arriving at such a very specific conclusion, with a question mark at the end of it, seems about as far away as possible to already know, from my perspective, especially considering of how much actual investigation and inquiries we have to make here first.
I did re-read the clarification that you asked me to read. I saw your attempts to cover up your contradiction, which you put in that so called "clarification". That is why I wrote my next response with your exact words, which you ignored and tried to deflect away from again. You tried to accuse me that you did not quite write what I said, which might be true in that not absolutely every letter and thus every word was 100% in the exact same order that you wrote it, but the 'contradiction', the main and only issue, I was pointing out is exactly the same as how you wrote it.Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 25th, 2020, 4:00 amI didn't say that about two observers moving towards each other. If you disagree, quote me saying it. Re-read the clarification that I asked you to-read before.Two observers moving towards each other, at a constant velocity, they see each other's clock tick faster, than their own clock, but when the velocity becomes larger, then for unknown reasons to me, you say they now see each others' clock tick slower, than their own clock.
This is what you actually did say in your first post where I questioned your contradiction. You wrote:
As two observers recede from each other at constant velocity, each can look at their own clock and compare it to their view of the other's clock. Each sees the other's clock ticking more slowly than their own. If they move towards each other at constant velocity, each sees the other's clock ticking faster than their own. Obviously (tautologically), in both cases, each sees their own clock ticking at the same rate as their own clock. So, regardless of their velocity relative to the other observer (or relative to anything else) they see all of their local clocks ticking at the same rate as each other. More generally: there are no local measurements that they can perform which will tell them anything at all about non-local observers or their clocks, or how those non-local observers are moving relative to them.
The faster the relative velocities, the more extreme the effect. As relative velocity tends towards the speed of light, each sees the other clock's tick rate tend towards stopped.
In bold and underlined is the actual contradiction I have been seeking you to clarify.
If you had just written something like; Oh I made a mistake, I meant to write (such and such), then that would be all good, I did not mean the last sentence that is not correct, and/or, if the contradiction could have been easily explained, then all good as well. But you changing what you originally wrote, and then making out that that these changed words is what you did originally write is not helping you here. I have absolutely no care at all if you wrote something mistakenly, and you just admitted that, but you changing your words, and proposing that that is what you did write, then some readers will be noticing this as being very deceptive in nature.
This is your clarification, underlined, which you wanted me to re-read, which I had already done, by the way, and replied to, and asked you to re-clarify.
Clarification: I didn't say it quite as you've said it above. What I said was this: In both cases they're moving at constant velocity relative to each other. When moving away from each other at that velocity they each see the other's clock ticking slower than their own. When moving towards each other at that velocity they each see the other's clock ticking faster than their own. If that velocity is larger, then in both cases the effect is more extreme.
You bold the words "the effect is more extreme", which some readers might be thinking that is one way to detract from the previous four words, which I have bold here instead, "then in both cases", which were obviously not in your original post. So, it is actually you who is not copying what you yourself wrote 'quite as you said', as shown above', You are accusing me of what you are actually doing. The difference though is I did not change any words to mean something completely different, and deceiving.
Also, what can be very easily seen and noticed in what you actually did write, underlined here: The faster the relative velocities, the more extreme the effect. (without the then in both cases), and As relative velocity tends towards the speed of light, each sees the other clock's tick rate tend towards stopped is that this specifically means that as relative velocity towards the speed of light, in both cases, each sees the other clock's tick rate tend towards stopped. (Although might be not what you actually meant.)
Even when I pointed out that the last sentence that you did actually write, which you conveniently left out, (in your supposed clarification) contradicted what you were writing, you never cleared this up, so that is why I said that your so called "clarification" is now even more contradictory.
Now, just to make this absolutely clear this is what you wrote in your first post where this began. This is the foundation here, which I have broken down but still in your exact words, to make things clearer, in regards to two observers:
If they more towards each other at constant velocity, each sees the other's clock ticking faster than their own.
The faster the relative velocities, the more extreme the effect.
As relative velocity tends towards the speed of light, each sees the other clock's tick rate tend towards stopped.
In your clarification you make the claim that what you said was this:
If that velocity is larger, then in both cases the effect is more extreme.
Obviously this is not what you actually wrote in the original. What you actually said I have repeated above.
So, to clarify, accurately and truthfully this time, do you want to say that the last sentence, in red, is not correct at all, and that you did not add the 'then in both cases' words, which is what you actually did mean?
Or, have you not been referring to the last sentence, in red, at all because you want to maintain its correctness?
Or, is there something else you want to say to clarify this fully and properly this time?
-
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm
Re: Can all of physics be traced back to common sense?
-
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm
Re: Can all of physics be traced back to common sense?
From what I have observed, what I see is time only exists in concept, or thought, and as just a word, which describes the measurement of change.h_k_s wrote: ↑January 25th, 2020, 7:23 amTime does not exist.creation wrote: ↑January 25th, 2020, 3:45 am
But why start here?
If we want to look at the actual foundations, and see if they are 'rock solid', considering this thread came from a thread about what 'time' is, and that 'relativity' is based upon, or about, 'time', itself, how about we start at where did the concept 'time' come from?
What do we agree with that were the actual 'observations, or scientific experiments', that could be agreed to be a 'foundation' of 'time', itself?
I have absolutely no idea, but, if I suggest observing a stick in the ground, and its shadow, might be one 'foundation of time', or at least a 'foundation of measuring', then would I be to far off this being some sort of foundation of 'time', from where we could start? At the moment i can not think of an earlier foundation, but I am not an intellectual or well read person at all.
I would say, "Yes".
I would just call this process 'logical reasoning'.
To me, 'studying' involves being told some things are true and some things are false, and when you are tested on this, then your answers have to agree with what you have been told, otherwise you will fail. If you fail, then you are not allowed to join our group. And, it does not matter if your answers are actually true and correct and the ones you were told are actually false and wrong, the ones you were told to repeat in the test is the current, and accepted, knowledge. It is the knowledge you were tested on, and it is the only knowledge that we accept as being true and right, at the moment. And, what 'we accept' is all that really matters here, and only what actually matters here.
But I might be somewhat cynical of things here, if it was not yet noticed.
But anyway, if I wanted to "study physics", then I would have just gone to a "physics school".
Well it appears that you have already concluded the outcome here.
Anyway, if we start with the observation of the shadow of a stick, and the movement of that shadow around the stick, then could this be said to be the 'foundation' of 'time', well for the sake of this discussion anyway?
By the way, and before I forget to mention what actually triggered this thread when I wrote about; Two observers moving towards each other, at a constant velocity, they see each other's clock tick faster, than their own clock, but when the velocity becomes larger, then for unknown reasons to me, you say they now see each others' clock tick slower, than their own clock.
And what I also said was; When this has been clarified, then we can start examining the foundations. But, if you will not even explain and clarify this, first of many to come, contradictions, then how could 'we' even concentrate on examining the foundations.
If you need more time to be able to respond to this contradiction in what you said, then that is fine, we can concentrate on examining the foundation and working logically through this up to the present date if you like. But I just do not want this contradiction I pointed out to be forgotten, especially since this is the third time you have detracted away from responding to it. But still feel free to take as much time as you need to respond to it. I am certainly in no rush.
-
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm
Re: Can all of physics be traced back to common sense?
I agree that it is also worth looking at how exactly we are arriving at claims, because some people will report what they observe, but when delved into and looked at more honestly, then what it is that they claim to have observed could be found to be really just what has already been predicted, and/or reported to be observed, and not necessarily what they, themselves, have actually observed, personally or first hand.h_k_s wrote: ↑January 25th, 2020, 7:24 amExactly right.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 24th, 2020, 7:51 pm One thing that's worth looking at is what we're actually observing in experiments (in other words, what we're directly observing in a phenomenal sense) versus what sorts of claims we're making, and where there are differences, it's worth looking at how exactly we're arriving at claims that aren't simply reports of what we're observing.
The above is an epistemological issue, which is the purview of philosophy.
Most people including scientists do NOT understand this however.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Can all of physics be traced back to common sense?
My comments weren't at all just about time. My comments pertain just as much to claiming that there is dark matter, and strings/m-branes, and multiverses, and singularities, and wormholes, and additional spatial dimensions, and on and on. Even with time, my comments pertain just as much to claiming something like the B theory of time.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Can all of physics be traced back to common sense?
Yes, Newton is possibly the most famous physicist of all time (as well as inventing the milled edged coin and the catflap). But Galileo was a great experimentalist. He was perhaps the first true experimentalist in the western world since the Ancient Greeks. He did lots of experiments investigating motion, which laid the foundations for Newton's Laws of Motion. The principle known as "Galilean Relativity" emerges from these experiments. It is the principle which states that the laws of motion (later formalized by Newton) are the same in all non accelerating reference frames.h_k_s wrote:I personally think of Physics as having been invented in 1687 AD by Sir Isaac Newton.
Galileo on the other hand invented Science in general and Astrophysics in particular with his home made telescope in hand in 1610 AD
Here's a piece of Galileo's experimental equipment. It's a slope with measuring apparatus attached, designed for measuring the acceleration of a ball acted on by gravity; the bread and butter of Newton's Laws. When Newton said that he regarded himself as "standing on the shoulders of giants", he obviously had Kepler in mind, but others too, presumably including Galileo.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Can all of physics be traced back to common sense?
Neither are mine.Terrapin Station wrote:My comments weren't at all just about time....
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023