From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. (dfsiemensjr@juno.com)
Date: Mon Jul 14 2003 - 15:08:13 EDT
George,
Thanks for filling in the information.
As for Glenn's note that alternates are hard to find, this may be in
large measure because the theories are so complex. For example, sometime
about 1950, Einstein produced a theory, probably unified field, which
involved some complex math. There were supposedly only three persons
capable of understanding the math. One (Havarti ?) reported that, after a
year's very difficult work, he had found the math correct, but could not
comment on its application. He was quoted as saying something like, "I am
only a mathematician: Professor Einstein is a genius."
As to producing alternatives, Whitehead was arguably the greatest
geometer of the century, if not of all time. He mapped the Riemannian
geometry used by Einstein onto Euclidean. I suspect that the mapping
would now be easier in one sense since the universe apparently is flat.
But there is no point in merely producing an equivalent theory,
especially since someone bright enough to do that task can better expend
his talent searching other matters. I note that, since Newton's
interpreted Euclidean geometry down to the present, the gravitational
theories have involved geometry. There are other areas of mathematics, I
believe, that would allow a mapping of any of these theories onto a
different mathematical calculus. I believe that there are also other
calculi which have not yet been thought of. Complexity theory is one of
the more recent discoveries.
Were the phenomena simple, there is no reason why there would not be many
alternatives. For example, for the sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, I can come up
with a pattern allowing the generation of an infinite number of formulas
producing that series. If a matrix is presented, I'd need to know more
math. But mathematicians should have no problem. Getting into scientific
theories, I'm quickly over my head, though others understand them to a
greater degree. Most scientists, however, reach a point where they become
overwhelmed by the complexity. Some time back I talked to a group of
physics grad students at Berkeley. They told me that they were told that
they could expect to understand about one in five of the articles in the
/Journal of Physics/, which fifth depending on their area of
specialization. With mere understanding that limited, how many will
produce alternate theoretical structures--unless they join the lunatic
fringe?
I think another area of duplication of theories involves quantum theory
and wave mechanics. They were first shown equivalent and then combined
because of dealing with "wavicles."
Dave
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 19:16:41 -0400 George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
writes:
> Glenn Morton wrote:
> >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
> > >Subject: Re: Predetermination: God's controlling will?
> > >
> > >Glenn,
> > >I'm not talking about nonsense. The YEC position is not
> scientific.
> > >Einstein's two relativity theories are. I noted Whitehead's
> attempt to
> > >replace Riemannian geometry (1925--if my memory serves). It fit
> what was
> > >known, but not what was later discovered. A later attempt to
> "correct"
> > >Einstein was produced by Dicke and someone whose name I don't
> recall.
> >
> > Brans-Dicke theory I beleive it was. See Thornton, Misener and
> Wheeler,
> > Gravitation, p1048 and following and 1068 and following.
> >
> > Now, while I believe there are an infinite number of theories, the
> fact that
> > they are so hard to find tells me that they are not all equally
> good.
> >
> > If there are an infinite number of theories to explain the facts
> of
> > relativity all of which are equally good, why are they so
> difficult to find?
> > I know of none as of this time, since Whitehead, Brans-Dicke and
> the rest
> > have been refuted. The only reason I can see for believing an
> infintitude of
> > theories is if they are trivial, non-testable clones. That is why
> I cited
> > the YEC stuff.
> >
> > >Many predictions identical to Einstein's, one clearly different.
> That one
> > >did it in after the experimentalists were able to mount a test.
> There was
> > >an article on these multiple theories in /Scientific American/ a
> goodly
> > >number of years back (can't locate the reference), listing a
> couple dozen
> > >alternatives. Not all, if I remember correctly, were intended to
> > >supplant: some were designed to clarify. Given the complexity of
> > >relativity, I don't expect to see a large number of alternates.
> That
> > >there are any indicates that scientific theories are not unique
> to a set
> > >of data.
> >
> > I would agree with that.
>
> There is a large - potentially infinite - number of possible
> theories of
> gravitation which are viable to a certain degree because there is a
> large number of
> mathematical structures that to various degrees of approximation
> give the same results
> for different tests. I.e., when certain quantities are sufficiently
> small, the theories
> of Newton, Einstein, Whitehead & Brans-Dicke, as well as others,
> predict elliptical
> planetary orbits. When you start going to better approximations,
> some theories start
> falling by the wayside. You can start generating such theories even
> within the
> Newtonian paradigm by making the force dependence an inverse 2 +
> small number power or
> by fiddling with Poisson's equation.
> The Brans-Dicke theory hasn't been shown to be precisely
> "wrong". Rather, it's
> been shown that a new parameter that occurs in the theory (omega, as
> in MTW p.1070) has
> to be larger than a certain value to fit observations - large enough
> that I think most
> theorists now consider it rather artificial. In the same way, the
> Michelson-Morely
> experiment in itself doesn't allow you to say that there is
> absolutely no "aether wind"
> but only that its speed relative to the earth is less than a certain
> value.
> The Brans-Dicke theory wasn't proposed as a "correction" to
> general relativity
> in the sense of trying to fix some observation. It was originally
> proposed as an
> extension of Einstein's equations which could, it was hoped,
> incorporate Mach's
> Principle, but it did predict a different value for perihelion
> precession. Dicke then
> measured solar oblateness & got a value that would have destroyed
> the good agreement
> between observation & general relativity, with the B-D theory able
> (by suitable choice
> of omega) to make up the discrepancy. But his measurement of solar
> oblateness didn't
> hold up.
> We can talk about one theory being an approximation to
> another because we're
> dealing with the mathematical structure of theories. If you tried
> to talk about the
> relationship between YEC and RG (real geology) in a similar way, you
> might say that YEC
> approximates RG for distances into the past of a few thousand years,
> but for more than
> that YEC blows up. But this is just a sophisticated way of saying
> "nonsense."
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
>
> George L. Murphy
> gmurphy@raex.com
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jul 14 2003 - 15:19:32 EDT