wayne@pur-phy.UUCP (Wayne K. Schroll) (07/14/85)
I read this newsgroup when I can't get a big enough laugh from net.jokes
or net.flame, because of the total absurdity of the majority of the articles
posted. It appears as if most of the posters are lost in a Niven-like fantasy
universe where one may invent physical "facts" when knowledge falls short.
We have people insisting on the existence of the ether, varying the speed
of light, saying that quantum mechanics is still much in debate, arguing about
what mass is, posing self-contradictory relativity questions, this list is
almost endless. We have such great statements as "radio is like light but
slowed down" and "gravity is grainy" (paraphrased). Where do people get this
crap?
I propose two solutions to this problem :
1) Abolish net.physics and create two new groups. Net.physics.true and
net.physics.make-believe where articles would be posted to the approp-
riate group.
2) Before you submit an article, READ ABOUT THE SUBJECT IN A PHYSICS BOOK.
This will serve a two-fold purpose. It will reduce the idiocy in this
group and the poster will run a far smaller chance of making a fool out
of his/her self. gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (07/15/85)
> We have people insisting on the existence of the ether, varying the speed > of light, saying that quantum mechanics is still much in debate, arguing about > what mass is, posing self-contradictory relativity questions, this list is > almost endless. Although much of the recent discussion has been ill-founded, it is not wise to pooh-pooh every idea that differs from the conventionally-accepted body of "knowledge". Some of the best ideas in physics at first sounded rather strange to the majority of practitioners. The real distinction should be between "crisp" and "fuzzy" theories. A "crisp" theory should be sufficiently complete, precise, and interpretable that others are able to derive new predictions from it and perform experiments to test them (when the predictions differ from those of the conventional theory). A "fuzzy" theory is not formulated well enough to allow this. Nevertheless, a "fuzzy" theory, if intelligible, may spark the work needed to produce a good "crisp" theory. As an example, suppose someone suggested "perhaps both the electromagnetic and gravitational field are really part of a single entity". (Assume for the moment that we can ignore quantum considerations.) Now, that is a "fuzzy" theory in that it tells us nothing about how to formulate relevant mathematical models or how to make predictions. However, if there is a refinement like "suppose in Einstein's formulation of general relativity we subsititute a nonsymmetric field for the metric tensor and carry through the usual variational derivation of field equations", then we have a relatively "crisp" theory which we are able to test. (This example turns out to not quite work, but it comes surprisingly close.) The thing is, the current state of physical knowledge is pretty good but it is incomplete. In fact, there are real conceptual problems with fundamental theories such as QED. Several famous physicists have expressed dissatisfaction with current theories and have investigated alternative theoretical approaches. This should not prevent working physicists from applying the ideas they have been taught in school, but it should perhaps remind them that what we now "know" is not the final word. Having said all this, I have to agree that the ether and grainy gravity patter has been not only "fuzzy", but near unintelligible. This makes it have little value. On the other hand, discussing what is meant by "mass" is not a bad idea. I suspect most working physicists cannot answer that question, except to say that mass is the "m" in their formulas. To most epistemologists, that is an unsatisfactory answer; the question deserves better.
gv@hou2e.UUCP (A.VANNUCCI) (07/16/85)
> I read this newsgroup when I can't get a big enough laugh from net.jokes > or net.flame, because of the total absurdity of the majority of the articles > posted. It appears as if most of the posters are lost in a Niven-like fantasy > universe where one may invent physical "facts" when knowledge falls short. > > We have people insisting on the existence of the ether, varying the speed > of light, saying that quantum mechanics is still much in debate, arguing about > what mass is, posing self-contradictory relativity questions, this list is > almost endless. We have such great statements as "radio is like light but > slowed down" and "gravity is grainy" (paraphrased). Where do people get this > crap? > > I propose two solutions to this problem : > > 1) Abolish net.physics and create two new groups. Net.physics.true and > net.physics.make-believe where articles would be posted to the approp- > riate group. > > 2) Before you submit an article, READ ABOUT THE SUBJECT IN A PHYSICS BOOK. > This will serve a two-fold purpose. It will reduce the idiocy in this > group and the poster will run a far smaller chance of making a fool out > of his/her self. I wholeheartedly agree with solution number 2. I personally enjoy very much chatting about PHYSICS with people that know physics and I am quite bothered by those who litter this newsgroup with questions that are answered in chapter 1 of any textbook on the subject. However, I am bothered even more by those who answer such questions with meaningless jibberish that indicates that they know even less about the subject than the person asking the question. Thus, I propose the following addendum to solution 2 : 2b) Before you submit a follow-up to an article ask yourself: " Is it likely that among all the people reading this article I am the one that knows the most about this subject ?" If the answer is not an emphatic YES, keep in mind that your posting will appear alongside the follow-up postings of people that know more than you, and you are rather likely to make a fool of yourself. If rules 2 and 2b were followed, the volume of stuff in net.physics would probably be reduced by a factor ten, but the amount of real substance will certainly increase dramatically. Giovanni Vannucci AT&T Bell Laboratories HOH R-207 Holmdel, NJ 07733 hou2e!gv
wayne@pur-phy.UUCP (Wayne K. Schroll) (07/19/85)
In article <11571@brl-tgr.ARPA> gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) writes: >> We have people insisting on the existence of the ether, varying the speed >> of light, saying that quantum mechanics is still much in debate, arguing about >> what mass is, posing self-contradictory relativity questions, this list is >> almost endless. > >Although much of the recent discussion has been ill-founded, >it is not wise to pooh-pooh every idea that differs from the >conventionally-accepted body of "knowledge". Some of the >best ideas in physics at first sounded rather strange to the >majority of practitioners. .... > .... On the >other hand, discussing what is meant by "mass" is not a bad >idea. I suspect most working physicists cannot answer that >question, except to say that mass is the "m" in their >formulas. Please do not misunderstand my previous posting. I, by NO means intend to "pooh-pooh" a new idea that differs from conventionally-accepted body of knowledge. We are all too familiar with the scepticism that greeted the birth of quantum mechanics. I only meant to point out that there are certain established FACTS which are proven and immutable, therefore it is most definately a waste of time to dispute or attempt to discredit them. Namely : 1) There is no ether. ref : Michelson and Morley (1881), Kennedy (1926) and Illingworth (1927) 2) The speed of light in vacuum is the same for all observers who are in uniform, rectilinear, relative motion and is independent of the motion of the source. Its free space value is the universal constant c given by Maxwell's equations. ref : Einstein (1905) note : There is some speculation that c may depend on the size of the universe, i.e. Hubble's constant, but it will take many years to accrue the neccessary data. 3) Light is light, be it visible, radio, radar or UV. The quantum of electromagnetic energy is the photon. It travels at velocity c in free space (see 2). 4) Gravity is non-granular. It is a field and its quantum is the (as yet) conjectured graviton. On scales smaller than the Planck length, it is uncertain what its nature is. 5) We have all seen many special relativity paradoxes. They are all resolvable under close enough scrutiny. They are, however, at times, amusing brain teasers. 6) Propagation of information at velocities greater than c (free space) has not been observed nor predicted by any sound theoretical formulation. 7) Uri Geller - absolutely no comment. I agree with your attitude toward an insightful understanding of such fundamental entities such as mass, and I rather enjoyed the clear answer posted. (Sorry I don't recall who.) However, such basic concepts are quite lucidly covered in texts such as Halliday and Resnick. Again, I must state I am not "pooh-poohing" all the articles, just the ones where a little reading would have made the posting more enjoyable for all concerned. After all, doesn't the beauty of physics lie in its fundamental predictions of a very confusing universe, rather than its basis being one of fantasy? W. K. Schroll
jp@lanl.ARPA (07/19/85)
> > I read this newsgroup when I can't get a big enough laugh from net.jokes > > or net.flame, because of the total absurdity of the majority of the articles > > posted. It appears as if most of the posters are lost in a Niven-like fantasy > > universe where one may invent physical "facts" when knowledge falls short. > > > > > > I propose two solutions to this problem : > > > > 1) Abolish net.physics and create two new groups. Net.physics.true and > > net.physics.make-believe where articles would be posted to the approp- > > riate group. > > > > 2) Before you submit an article, READ ABOUT THE SUBJECT IN A PHYSICS BOOK. > > This will serve a two-fold purpose. It will reduce the idiocy in this > > group and the poster will run a far smaller chance of making a fool out > > of his/her self. > > I wholeheartedly agree with solution number 2. I personally enjoy > very much chatting about PHYSICS with people that know physics and I am > quite bothered by those who litter this newsgroup with questions that are > answered in chapter 1 of any textbook on the subject. However, I am bothered > even more by those who answer such questions with meaningless jibberish > that indicates that they know even less about the subject than the person > asking the question. Thus, I propose the following addendum to solution 2 : > > 2b) Before you submit a follow-up to an article ask yourself: " Is it > likely that among all the people reading this article I am the > one that knows the most about this subject ?" If the answer is not > an emphatic YES, keep in mind that your posting will appear alongside > the follow-up postings of people that know more than you, and you > are rather likely to make a fool of yourself. > > If rules 2 and 2b were followed, the volume of stuff in net.physics > would probably be reduced by a factor ten, but the amount of real substance > will certainly increase dramatically. > > Giovanni Vannucci > AT&T Bell Laboratories HOH R-207 > Holmdel, NJ 07733 > hou2e!gv All of this has a certain flavor of elitism that is all too prevalent in the physics community. I once knew a PhD physicist (Post-doc) that thought that maybe you shouldn't be allowed to vote unless you had a PhD in physics. The technicians went right to work trying to set him straight. I don't think that they completely succeeded, however. Perhaps a rational (and polite) way out of the dilemma would be to establish a net.physics.expert similar to the astronomy group. Then those who can't (won't) lower themselves to converse with the unwashed heathens won't be obliged to read their contributions/questions. Jim Potter jp@lanl.arpa
jp@lanl.ARPA (07/24/85)
Before anyone complains too much about the postings to this group, spend some time reading net.origins.
eugene@ames.UUCP (Eugene Miya) (07/30/85)
> perhaps there should be a net.physics.expert as well. > Howard Hull > {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | harpo!seismo } !hao!hull > Perhaps a rational (and polite) way out of the dilemma would be to establish > a net.physics.expert similar to the astronomy group. > > Jim Potter jp@lanl.arpa This group is getting too large to read. Two people independently came up with this suggestion, unfortunately, the ARPA readers would have to suffer getting both news group. What say we vote on the issue of splitting the group? --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene emiya@ames-vmsb.ARPA
rdp@teddy.UUCP (07/31/85)
In article <1059@ames.UUCP> eugene@ames.UUCP (Eugene Miya) writes: >> perhaps there should be a net.physics.expert as well. >> Howard Hull > >> Perhaps a rational (and polite) way out of the dilemma would be to establish >> a net.physics.expert similar to the astronomy group. >> >> Jim Potter jp@lanl.arpa > >This group is getting too large to read. Two people independently came >up with this suggestion, unfortunately, the ARPA readers would have to >suffer getting both news group. What say we vote on the issue of splitting >the group? > After the recent flames against the PK stuff, and the fact that the incidence of that sort have thing subsequent to that has dropped to below the noise level, I find the current arrangement quite satisfactory. The range of topics is very broad, which, to me, is one of the major attractions to this group. I would vote NO on a .expert group, but, then again, I'm no expert. Dick Pierce