mte@busch.UUCP (Moshe Eliovson) (07/16/85)
While all of you physicists seem to love heaping on
the condemnations you seem to have failed to answer my relevant
questions in my article regarding psychic phenomenon.
May I cordially request, without any reference to
unscientifically proven matters, some explanation as to what
the study of meta-physics concerns and all relevant details.
Moshe Eliovson
{allegra, ihnp4}!we53!busch!mtegwyn@BRL.ARPA (07/18/85)
From: Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn@BRL.ARPA> "Metaphysics" was the name of a book by Aristotle. It has come to mean the study of the ontological aspects of the world, by which is meant pondering whether there are "things" that "exist", and what do these terms mean. There are several opinions held by reputable philosophers on these matters, including: - "ideal" entities exist but all we can detect are imperfect projections of them; - consciousness is primary and "existents" are produced by acts of consciousness; - existence and consciousness are both inventions of some divine entity; - there are real objects and consciousness, each with specific innate characteristics, and what is perceived is the result of interaction of these. The general idea is, "metaphysics" is the branch of philosophy that treats the questions of what is truly fundamental in existence or experience. The branch that treats how we acquire knowledge and what knowledge consists of is "epistemology". There are other branches of philosophy such as "ethics", "aesthetics", etc. Physics is not normally considered to be closely related to these; however, it should be apparent that some questions in physics are fundamentally epistemological questions. Most physicists give rather short shrift to metaphysical speculation, on the grounds that the same general issues are still unresolved after thousands of years of debate and that physics can proceed without answers to such questions. It may be wrong, but that seems to be the general consensus.
rimey@ucbmiro.ARPA (Ken Rimey) (07/19/85)
> May I cordially request, without any reference to >unscientifically proven matters, some explanation as to what >the study of meta-physics concerns and all relevant details. > > Moshe Eliovson > {allegra, ihnp4}!we53!busch!mte The term meta-physics does not mean what you think it does. Usually written without the hyphen, it refers to a particular school of (non-modern) philosophy that has no particular relationship to physics. Perhaps someone else can give us an authoritative definition. "Meta" is often prefixed to the name of discipline, to indicate the study of the language, assumptions, or methods of the discipline. "meta-mathematics" has this kind of meaning. It would be nice to have a term for speculation on questions like 1. Does there exist a finite theory that completely describes the fundamental behavior of matter in the universe? 2. Is there a simple and elegant mathematical formulation of this theory? Why should there be? 3. Can we guess constraints on what this theory must be like? (Many general relativity enthusiasts would say yes.) Meta-physics would seem the appropriate term, but it has already been taken. As a kid, I was delighted to find zillions of entries for "metaphysics" in our public library's card catalog. But when I looked up the books on the shelves, I found that they had nothing to do with physics or science. (Actually, it was particularly disappointing because I hadn't been aware of what non-modern philosophy was really like. These books were full of debates on mind vs. body, the nature of God, and the like.) Maybe the interesting observation is that there just isn't much written on questions like mine above. People who actually know physics seem to find that their time is better spent actually doing physics. Ken Rimey
michael@spar.UUCP (Not Bill Joy) (07/20/85)
In article <9161@ucbvax.ARPA> rimey@ucbmiro.UUCP (Ken rimey) writes: >> May I cordially request, without any reference to >>unscientifically proven matters, some explanation as to what >>the study of meta-physics concerns and all relevant details. >> -- Moshe Eliovson > >The term meta-physics does not mean what you think it does. Usually >written without the hyphen, it refers to a particular school of (non-modern) >philosophy that has no particular relationship to physics. Perhaps >someone else can give us an authoritative definition. > >"Meta" is often prefixed to the name of discipline, to indicate the >study of the language, assumptions, or methods of the discipline. >"meta-mathematics" has this kind of meaning. > >It would be nice to have a term for speculation on questions like > > 1. Does there exist a finite theory that completely describes the > fundamental behavior of matter in the universe? > > 2. Is there a simple and elegant mathematical formulation of this > theory? Why should there be? > > 3. Can we guess constraints on what this theory must be like? > (Many general relativity enthusiasts would say yes.) > >Meta-physics would seem the appropriate term, but it has already been taken. >As a kid, I was delighted to find zillions of entries for "metaphysics" in >our public library's card catalog. But when I looked up the books on the >shelves, I found that they had nothing to do with physics or science. > >(Actually, it was particularly disappointing because I hadn't been aware >of what non-modern philosophy was really like. These books were full of >debates on mind vs. body, the nature of God, and the like.) > >Maybe the interesting observation is that there just isn't much written >on questions like mine above. People who actually know physics seem to >find that their time is better spent actually doing physics. -- Ken Rimey Actually, meta-physics is simply the book that Aristotle wrote FOLLOWING his physics. A modern interpretation is that it refers to things independent of rigorous OBJECTIVE thought and especially scientific induction, though stuff like Chuang Tzu rarely makes it to the sunday supplement in this or any other culture. SMASH CAUSALITY!! -michael
jagardner@watmath.UUCP (Jim Gardner) (07/24/85)
[...] Someone may have already posted this, but here's the origin of the term "metaphysics". Aristotle wrote a book called "physics", describing the workings of the physical world as he perceived it. After that, he wrote a book about the spiritual world, gods/faith/higher realities, and so on. Whether or not he put a different title on this second book has been lost to history. By the Middle Ages, the second book was called "metaphyics" because it came after (in Greek "meta") the book on physics. Now in the same way that metaphysics is in some sense a commentary on those things that physics can't handle, the "meta" term has often been used for topics that other particular disciplines can't handle. For example, Godel's Theorem is often said to be "metamathematics" because it talks about what math can and can't handle. Recently, the "meta" prefix has taken an abrupt change in direction and is also being used to refer to semi-abstract rules governing the rules of some other system. Metamathematics sets down rules about the way mathematics works. Metalinguistic theories talk about the way language affects our thinking. And so on. This causes difficulties when it comes to physics and metaphysics. Metaphysics does not bear the same relation to physics that metamathematics bears to math. Metamathmetics IS mathematical and rigorous. Metaphysics, the word that started the whole mess, is only indirectly a commentary on physics itself, and plays little part in the actual science. Jim Gardner, University of Waterloo
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (07/24/85)
In article <9161@ucbvax.ARPA> rimey@ucbmiro.UUCP (Ken rimey) writes: > >The term meta-physics does not mean what you think it does. Usually >written without the hyphen, it refers to a particular school of (non-modern) >philosophy that has no particular relationship to physics. Perhaps >someone else can give us an authoritative definition. > You are essentially right. A little history is usefull here. The term means "after physics" and is due to the fact that when (I believe) Aristotle wrote his treatise on All Knowledge(I forget the actual title) he couldn't think of a name for this subject and since it was the chapter following the chapter on physics he calle the chapter "After Physics" = Metaphysics. The closest "modern" field is probably Parapsychology(which likewise has nothing to do with Psychology). It is the 'study" of the supernatural/divine world. > >It would be nice to have a term for speculation on questions like > > 1. Does there exist a finite theory that completely describes the > fundamental behavior of matter in the universe? > > 2. Is there a simple and elegant mathematical formulation of this > theory? Why should there be? > > 3. Can we guess constraints on what this theory must be like? > (Many general relativity enthusiasts would say yes.) > >Maybe the interesting observation is that there just isn't much written >on questions like mine above. People who actually know physics seem to >find that their time is better spent actually doing physics. > > Ken Rimey What is the name of this field? There is at least *some* material written on it, so the field "exists". Is there a name for it? -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (07/30/85)
> In article <9161@ucbvax.ARPA> rimey@ucbmiro.UUCP (Ken rimey) writes: > >> May I cordially request, without any reference to > >>unscientifically proven matters, some explanation as to what > >>the study of meta-physics concerns and all relevant details. > >> -- Moshe Eliovson > >It would be nice to have a term for speculation on questions like > > > > 1. Does there exist a finite theory that completely describes the > > fundamental behavior of matter in the universe? > > Actually, meta-physics is simply the book that Aristotle wrote FOLLOWING > his physics. > -michael Physics studies the "physical universe" ONLY. Metaphysics relates to the total universe. We experience (measure) the "physical universe" and note the unfolding changes (time). But we logically know that three space implies a two and a one dimensional space. If information exists there it can't be (or interact with) "matter", simply because it doesn't have volume. But, perhaps the information or matter of our world resulted from a decay of a quantity of information normally confined to two space. Voila! the big bang. And we do need a place for souls and the animal version "angels". And what about God, let us put him in one dimensional space and give him a density so great that time passes at a zero rate or better the spread of his present is infinite. How is information managed in three space? It is conserved in amount? are particles and photons just information operators? Not only does the "LATER Physics" encompass a wider universe it can even apply a wider viewpoint. Why not apply information theory to physics. Because, it to strange a thing to do. But in meta physics it's not strange at all. - - NOTE: MAIL PATH MAY DIFFER FROM HEADER - - +-------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | pmk@prometheus.UUCP; ..seismo!prometheus!pmk.UUCP | decade | +-------------------------------------------------------+--------+
gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (07/31/85)
> ... But we logically know that three space implies a two and a one > dimensional space. If information exists there it can't be (or interact with) > "matter", simply because it doesn't have volume. Koloc, could you either explain what the hell you're talking about or shut up? It is trivial to take a projective subspace of three-space, but no new physics results (just projections of 3-space physics). And in any case, what is this about "information" (whatever you mean by that) having or not having volume? Not to mention needing space-time in a fundamental theory rather than just space. > Not only does the "LATER Physics" encompass a wider universe it can even > apply a wider viewpoint. Why not apply information theory to physics. Fine, why not. Various people have done so. > Because, it to strange a thing to do. But in meta physics it's not > strange at all. It certainly isn't strange for people to come up with meaningless mystical mumbo-jumbo when they talk metaphysics. Theoretical physicists of the caliber of Einstein, Dirac, Feynman et al. often proposed "strange" ideas in an attempt to better explain the workings of the universe. But in those cases, they had "crisp" theories that could be accurately applied by others to derive specific (predictive) results. Words are symbols for concepts, and their concepts were abstracted from specific referents. How about telling us what YOUR words/concepts mean, if anything?
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (08/05/85)
> > ... But we logically know that three space implies a two and a one > > dimensional space. If information exists there it can't be (or interact with) > > "matter", simply because it doesn't have volume. > > Koloc, could you either explain what the hell you're talking about or > shut up? It is trivial to take a projective subspace of three-space, > but no new physics results (just projections of 3-space physics). And > in any case, what is this about "information" (whatever you mean by > that) having or not having volume? Not to mention needing space-time > in a fundamental theory rather than just space. > The metaphysics is quite different from what is generally taught now, yet it seems to result in pretty much the same phy- sics. What quantities in physics are more real? We physically represent a photon as two coaxial sinesoidal amplitudes of elec- tric and magnetic fields, respectively. But what is a photon, really. Or an electron is a negatively charged particle subject to the forces of electric and magnetic fields. But, what is an electron. We can identify the presence (at least past presence) of a rabbit by the distinctive tracks it makes in the snow but that really doesn't tell us what a rabbit is. They can be lovely warm cuddly little rodents. I think we can predict very much about simple electromagnetic phenomena, but I really don't think we understand it. What I am after is to deepen our understanding. By understanding things better we may be able to simplify physics even more and be able to predict a great deal more of the physics phenomena which now can not be predicted. To answer or shed more light on what I was talking about, (see above), I think that there exists three very separate places where information can exist and at least in two of them con- stantly changes, although at significantly different average rates. In the beginning there was only one dimensional space. Nothing existed outside of this space, and there was only one object in this space. Time was meaningless in the sense that the information density (field density, energy density) is infinite there so time is frozen in the present. Another way of looking at it is that there is no past and no future, because the present has crowded them out. Then existence (information..) was released into a two dimensional space and a multiplicity of objects formed. And, later still information was released into three space. Now the amount of information in three space is not infinite (existence, energy) and so the space is grainy. But that space is quasi con- tinuous by virtue of the fact existence (information) operators of that space are delta functions. Now it turns out that both two space and three space can be mapped into 1 space (an infinite number of times). Without information in three space there is no coordinate system, no measure or no points. Introduction of a single neutron in to three space (infinitesimal micro big bang) would generate that "metric". Let's back up and look at it from another point of view. A movie represents reality so much so we pay to observe it. As a "rom" reality, it has some interesting parallels with "our observed reality". First there is limited information (but con- stant in average grain number) for each time frame. Second, time passes the way it does in "reality", time is the hand over hand creation and annihilation of "information frames". A better reality (one which automatically creates "particles") is the display we obtain by viewing a television monitor displaying information it receives from a television camera which its self is viewing the screen of the same monitor. Such a model has "ram". What seems to be a grey blank screen suddenly becomes "alive" with worms or vorticities, in other words "pseudo parti- cles". Relativity can be invoked also. Digitize the signal at a set rate. Then the time it takes to "paint" the new frame is longer if there is a higher "information or grain density". Time dilates. The framing rate goes down. This is similar to a pho- ton "eating its way" through the various information displays of our reality. Simplest is its path through a gravitational field (vacuum). But it takes longer the higher the "grain" density of the gravitational field is. This hypothesis is moving toward the concept that "parti- cles" aren't just a "display of information", but rather a combi- nation or dual entity which has both "operator" and "information array" components. Further creation and annihilation functions are coupled. But enough said for now. Certainly I did not want to talk of the "ordinary or trivial" view of one and two dimen- sional spaces, which are "subsets" of three space. The one space and two space I spoke of has quite the opposite meaning. For now, get your self a video camera and monitor and go make an artificial "reality". It's actually fun. Then write the laws of motion for your "pseudo particles" or observe their "half life". - - NOTE: MAIL PATH MAY DIFFER FROM HEADER - - +-------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | pmk@prometheus.UUCP; ..seismo!prometheus!pmk.UUCP | decade | +-------------------------------------------------------+--------+
gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (08/06/85)
> ... But what is a photon, really. ... But, what is an electron. Both a photon and an electron are concepts that are intended to denote physical objects that in different ways appear to be particulate. The current conception of them is not so simple as you described. > What I am after is to deepen our understanding. Good goal. > In the beginning there was only one dimensional space. > Nothing existed outside of this space, and there was only one > object in this space. Time was meaningless in the sense that the > information density (field density, energy density) is infinite > there so time is frozen in the present. Another way of looking > at it is that there is no past and no future, because the present > has crowded them out. > > Then existence (information..) was released into a two > dimensional space and a multiplicity of objects formed. And, > later still information was released into three space. ... "Then"? If time is frozen, how can it progress? You are also still not defining what your term "information" means; it cannot be the same as in information theory.. > ... Without information in three space there is > no coordinate system, no measure or no points. Introduction of > a single neutron in to three space (infinitesimal micro big bang) > would generate that "metric". What introduces this neutron? Why do you say that there can be no metric without whatever it is you mean by information? > For now, get yourself a video camera and monitor and go make an > artificial "reality". It's actually fun. ... Physics is supposed to be the study of real reality. All this speculation is interesting in its way, but it does not appear to be driven much by observations of the real world. If it were more quantitative, perhaps it could be tested against reality. Obviously, you wouldn't claim to have been around "at the beginning" to watch the dimensions unfold as you describe. So where do you find any evidence of these things?
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (08/07/85)
> The current conception of an electron and photon is not so simple as > you described. Actually, I didn't give any or even my concept of them. >> In the beginning there was only one dimensional space. >> there .. . time is frozen in the present >> Then existence (information..) was released into a two >> dimensional space and a multiplicity of objects formed. And, >> later still information was released into three space. ... > "Then"? If time is frozen, how can it progress? You are also > still not defining what your term "information" means; it cannot > be the same as in information theory.. Good point! The assumption is that prior to existence outside of one dimension there was only a potential existence in two space and three space. Also there was no "information, energy, matter" existing in 2/3 space either, so without information "to process" and infinite number of (empty) frames are processed and time (outside of one dimension) would pass at an infinite rate. The "then" exists only outside of 1D. Information relates to the location of existence grains, and therefore to their existence and non-existence. Anything detectable, noticeable, connotes information. Gravitational grains and ink in a newspaper head line are examples. An analogy: The average grain density per frame motion picture film can be determined by counting. A motion picture of a rock generates many frames of information and the grain location in each frame are unique. So too, a neutron is a constantly framing entity. The location of the "existence or information" grains in a neutron do not repeat and are unique and that is true of all neutrons in the universe. The framing rate for neutrons can be calculated from Planck's constant, it's mass, and the speed of light. >> ... Without information (matter) in three space there is >> no coordinate system, no measure or no points. Introduction of >> a single neutron in to three space (infinitesimal micro big bang) >> would generate that "metric". > > What introduces this neutron? Why do you say that there can be no > metric without whatever it is you mean by information? It was intended as a "thought experiment". The introduction of a modest amount of existence into three space, (the big bang) then allows that existence to form particles (matter) as determined by the logic of the operator and array handling process, the physics of 3-space. The fact that there is a metric means that there is information and therefore existence in space; that means matter exists (and its far field distributions). >> For now, get yourself a video camera and monitor and go make an >> artificial "reality". It's actually fun. ... > Physics is supposed to be the study of real reality. All this > speculation is interesting in its way, but it does not appear to > be driven much by observations of the real world. If it were > more quantitative, perhaps it could be tested against reality. .. . of three D reality. The quantity of observations is not so important in generating the basis for speculations about the deep secrets of nature. Quality is. We study reality by modeling. And the speculation here is capable of being modeled qualitatively at first and then with coarse quantitative estimates. Then with more reshaping of the model, the results will become more satisfactory. There are areas that a metaphysical approach could help. One large gap in physics is the lack of understanding of charge, electromagnetic fields and gravitational fields. The viewing these fields as being "grainy information fields" certainly simplifies things and can bring more physical artifacts to be predictable or calculable. Can you set up the video experiment, observe the "pseudo particles" and then write the physics laws of their motion or half life? If you can, then can generalize them, you will have a great start in solving more of the mysteries of the universe and estimating real physical quantities not possible with present physics. I have a couple of ideas of quantities to estimate as well as interpret gravitational, electric and magnetic fields in terms of forms of an "information" field. Let's get this off the net, because I don't think there is anyone interested in this dialog. Mail through seismo, as noted below. - - NOTE: MAIL PATH MAY DIFFER FROM HEADER - - +-------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | pmk@prometheus.UUCP; ..seismo!prometheus!pmk.UUCP | decade | +-------------------------------------------------------+--------+
SLONG@USC-ISIE.ARPA (08/08/85)
> Physics studies the "physical universe" ONLY. > > Metaphysics relates to the total universe. > > We experience (measure) the "physical universe" and note the unfolding changes > (time). But we logically know that three space implies a two and a one > dimensional space. If information exists there it can't be (or interact with) > "matter", simply because it doesn't have volume. But, perhaps the information > or matter of our world resulted from a decay of a quantity of information > normally confined to two space. Voila! the big bang. And we do need a > place for souls and the animal version "angels". And what about God, let > us put him in one dimensional space and give him a density so great that > time passes at a zero rate or better the spread of his present is infinite. | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | pmk@prometheus.UUCP; ..seismo!prometheus!pmk.UUCP | decade | ---------------------------------------- I am cautious of such statements as these,perhaps out of historical evidence rather than empirical evidence. Because we cannot DETECT it (whatever the IT may be per the particular discussion) does not imply it is not a part of the physical universe. How long have atoms, molecules, electrons, nutrons, and protons been a part of the physical universe? Ever since the universe began. However, it is only recently (in the span of man's time, that the existence of such has been acknowledged. If we all said "Seeing is believing", much of our technology thought impossible years ago would still be impossible. But some have been daring enough to dream (going to the moon!??!) and differ with current thought so as to learn what was there to learn. Because we cannot yet understand mental powers (or is "abilities" more appropriate) does not mean they are non-existent, and more so, does not imply they are not part of the "physical" universe. Quite the contrary. If they exist, they are part of it. My thoughts as an individual are indeed a very integral part of this universe. They are able to bring changes to physical matter (what about using a nuclear weapon - someone's mind devised it). We simply do not yet have the total integrated psychophysical understanding to explain it all. THOUGHT --> CONCEPT --> ACTION = PHYSICAL IMPACT.We have much to learn about the interrelationship of mind and matter. Personally, I do not believe the two are separable until death. Then my being ceases to have an impact from the thought level on the physical universe. The other is for net.religion. Let us not be quick to boot out ideas that are new, though different. I saw some references to Einstein saying though he was "adventurous" in his thoughts, others could verify his arguments. Not so. His ideas were rejected by the "scientific community" for years before they accepted them. None the less, he continued. Let us be careful to remember history so we avoid the mistakes of the past -- even in physics. -- Steve
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (08/11/85)
> I saw some references to Einstein saying though > he was "adventurous" in his thoughts, others could verify his > arguments. Not so. His ideas were rejected by the "scientific community" > for years before they accepted them. None the less, he continued. This is historically inaccurate. Einstein's theories, published in 1905, attracted attention quite early. Poincare, who died in 1912, was an early champion. Einstein received his Ph.D. in 1905, and by 1910 was already a FULL Professor. In 1912 he accepted the prestigious chair of theoretical physics at the Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, and in 1914 became titular Professor of Physics and Director of Theoretical Physics at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute (Berlin). He was 35 at the time, barely nine years away from his Ph.D. This just isn't what happens to you when the "establishment" is rejecting your ideas! Even if the original statement had been accurate, I would question the logic of the original posting. It is the same old "they all laughed at (fill in name of famous person), therefore my pet idea must be correct" non sequitor that we see justifying many a crackpot idea. Do we have to have this in net.physics? Let's keep this kind of reasoning in net.origins, where it belongs! -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
gjphw@iham1.UUCP (wyant) (08/15/85)
> > I saw some references to Einstein saying though > > he was "adventurous" in his thoughts, others could verify his > > arguments. Not so. His ideas were rejected by the "scientific community" > > for years before they accepted them. None the less, he continued. > > This is historically inaccurate. Einstein's theories, published in > 1905, attracted attention quite early. > Bill Jefferys I would like to amplify what Bill Jefferys said about A. Einstein. There was no time, to my knowledge, when Albert or his ideas/theories were considered crank or dismissed by the scientific community. Albert always dwelt with the major issues in physics at the turn of the century. Einstein's difficulties with the scientific community stemmed not from his physics but from his personality. As a young man, Albert was almost insufferably arrogant. In the small academic community of 1900, the reputation and character of any aspiring university professor would be well known to most established departments. His arrogance was in part to blame for Albert's inability to land a university position right out of college (which, with some help, led to the patent office job, which allowed Albert ample spare time without pressure to consider the grand design and operation of the universe, which produced papers on the photoelectric effect, special relativity, and some of the concepts toward general relativity). Patrick Wyant AT&T Bell Laboratories (Naperville, IL) *!iham1!gjphw
mcgeer%ucbkim%Berkeley@sri-unix.ARPA (08/16/85)
From: mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley (Rick McGeer) >> I saw some references to Einstein saying though >> he was "adventurous" in his thoughts, others could verify his >> arguments. Not so. His ideas were rejected by the "scientific community" >> for years before they accepted them. None the less, he continued. > >This is historically inaccurate. Einstein's theories, published in >1905, attracted attention quite early. Poincare, who died in 1912, >was an early champion. Einstein received his Ph.D. in 1905, and >by 1910 was already a FULL Professor. In 1912 he accepted the >prestigious chair of theoretical physics at the Federal Institute >of Technology, Zurich, and in 1914 became titular Professor of >Physics and Director of Theoretical Physics at the Kaiser Wilhelm >Institute (Berlin). He was 35 at the time, barely nine years away >from his Ph.D. This just isn't what happens to you when the >"establishment" is rejecting your ideas! True, but it should also be noted that Einstein's champions told the authorities at Zurich when Einstein was under consideration for the post there that they should ignore Einstein's strange ideas about light particles, he was a very bright fellow otherwise... Historical curiosity only! Einstein's ideas clearly were thought interesting enough -- innovative, testable, mathematically rigorous -- even in 1905 to be published in Naturschwiffen.... >Even if the original statement had been accurate, I would question >the logic of the original posting. It is the same old "they all >laughed at (fill in name of famous person), therefore my pet >idea must be correct" non sequitor that we see justifying many a >crackpot idea. Do we have to have this in net.physics? Let's >keep this kind of reasoning in net.origins, where it belongs! Indeed. If anyone reads Einstein's original articles (well, translations...) and compares them to the dreck that shows up in net.physics....well, you get the idea. Rick
mikes%orville@sri-unix.ARPA (08/16/85)
From: mikes@orville (Peter Mikes)
Subject: Re: Re: meta-physics
Article-I.D.: <529@utastro.UUCP>
In-Reply-To: Article(s) <476@sri-arpa.ARPA>
This is historically inaccurate. Einstein's theories, published in
1905, attracted attention quite early. Poincare, who died in 1912,
was an early champion. Einstein received his Ph.D. in 1905, and
by 1910 was already a FULL Professor.
Bill Jefferys 8-%
Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail)
It was not really that smooth as you make it sound. He was not able to
get a job in his field when he graduated. His early work on Irreversible
Thermodynamics and Brownian motion, even though important and excellent,
was practically ignored and his first professorship in Prague was not
considered very desirable. Let's face it: The system did not work that well
even then. Yet it did work eventually. I agree with you that it was the
strength of logic of his papers which got them accepted and won him the
influentual support. It was not the argument "they all laughed.." , but
the physical meaning ( path to the experiment ) of his theory which did it.
That is what should guide us in this net.physics : we should avoid 'ha ha'
as an argument and also '"they" always laugh argument. Some of "they" always
laugh, there were some who did even got angry at relativity!
In physics.net we should concentrate on the logic of the posting (if any..)!
Peter
.