The WiZard is In
International Hazard
Posts: 1617
Registered: 3-4-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Physics hairline cracks.
Extracted from :—
MACROSCOPE
The Man Behind the Curtain
Physics is not always the seamless subject that it pretends to be
Tony Rothman
American Scientist 99:186 & ff
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2011/3/the-man-b...
It is also the view the field holds of itself and the way physics is
taught: Physics is the most fundamental of the natural sciences; it
explains Nature at its deepest level; the edifice it strives to
construct is all-encompassing, free of internal contradictions,
conceptually compelling and—above all—beautiful. The range of
phenomena physics has explained is more than impressive; it
underlies the whole of modern civilization. Nevertheless, as a
physicist travels along his (in this case) career, the hairline cracks
in the edifice become more apparent, as does the dirt swept under
the rug, the fudges and the wholesale swindles, with the
disconcerting result that the totality occasionally appears more like
Bruegel’s Tower of Babel as dreamt by a modern slumlord, a
ramshackle structure of compartmentalized models soldered
together into a skewed heap of explanations as the whole jury-
rigged monstrosity tumbles skyward.
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
That was the best physics article I have read in many years.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
crazyboy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 436
Registered: 31-1-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: Marginally insane
|
|
I have only taken introductory physics but a lot of what the article seems to say is that idealized equations are easy to solve but don' apply to
reality, and when you try to describe the behavior of things in the real world "shit gets complicated" It seems the author labeled everything as "ad
hoc" when real world equations get complicated. The real world is very complicated an d there are many interacting forces to consider. Just because an
equation looks messy or hard to work out doesn't mean the fundamental system used to define it is flawed.
|
|
|
The WiZard is In
International Hazard
Posts: 1617
Registered: 3-4-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by crazyboy  | | I have only taken introductory physics but a lot of what the article seems to say is that idealized equations are easy to solve but don' apply to
reality, and when you try to describe the behavior of things in the real world "shit gets complicated" It seems the author labeled everything as "ad
hoc" when real world equations get complicated. The real world is very complicated an d there are many interacting forces to consider. Just because an
equation looks messy or hard to work out doesn't mean the fundamental system used to define it is flawed. |
Yup. Stoichiometry doesn't work in the Real world and
in geochemistry.
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
Hmmmmm... Just seems like another person who got pissed off at the scientific process and decided to sound off. He's telling us all about shit that
every physicist knows and he's lying about teachers and texts not mentioning it. These things are all widely known. He's acting as if the average
physicist knows as much about physics as a lay person.
This reminds me of the relativity doubters. It's great to question things, really. But it just smacks of "conspiracy theory" type crap. Create a
better model, devise an experiment that contradicts relativity (or at least supports your hypothesis) or just stop spreading rumors and gossip.
I see what this guy is saying but really, is there really a point here that hasn't been made before or that most physicists/chemists aren't aware of
already? I don't think so. It was interesting, don't get me wrong, but it just had too much of a crybaby tone to it.
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
