From: snodgras@crash.cts.com (John Snodgrass)
Subject: Re: invention of time
Date: 29 Aug 92 21:20:31 GMT

In <1992Aug27.011701.4569@galois.mit.edu> tycchow@riesz.mit.edu (Timothy Y. Chow) writes:


>       But this seems to be "explaining away" the differences
>too.  I am not sufficiently familiar with the literature to be
>sure of this, but I believe that controls can easily be set up to
>rule out "environmental or source factors" as a possibility, and
>I have no doubt about what the results of such experiments would
>be.

       It's nice to know you're open-minded. :-) But by all
means, it would be interesting to see the experimental design
which can eliminate every possible cause affecting muon decay
rate except time dilation. Especially since the reason for muon
decay isn't even understood. This is an amusing facet of all
these 'decay rate' verifications of time dilation.

       Overall, this method of reasoning is like suggesting that
certain mysterious marks left in the ground were made by UFOs,
and then citing the marks as proof that UFOs exist.

>       A material theory of both light and gravity would also
>have other consequences.  For example, Newton's corpuscular
>theory was such a theory. Newton explained refraction of light as
>follows: as a particle of light approaches the denser medium, it
>accelerates towards the denser medium, thus gaining a component
>of velocity in the direction normal to the boundary between the
>media.  This is why the light bends.  Sounds reasonable, doesn't
>it?  Unfortunately, this theory predicts that the speed of light
>in the denser medium will be greater than in the less dense
>medium, which is simply not true.  Furthermore, it is possible to
>measure the speed of light to verify this without assuming ahead
>of time that light is not material. .... Bring back the
>luminiferous aether, you say?

       No one has proposed a return to the corpuscular theory of
light, or to the ether, or to Newtonian physics in general. The
notion of all-encompassing Newtonian space, which is actually
carried over into relativity, and which puts the causative forces
in some 'frame of reference', is the basic suspicious element.
What we think of as 'laws of nature' such as Newton's laws of
motion, how do we know these are not actually the result of the
systems matter is made up of, interacting with each other? The
grandiose cosmologies of geometrizing everything, or of escaping
mechanism through statistics, avoid all consideration of this
possiblity. For instance, the manner in which light moves through
different mediums could be a complex question. (Consider the
circularity of frequency and index of refraction.) Perhaps we
should be looking at the photon as a system, and assume it is
always moving in a complex environment, rather than the opposite.
The particle-wave duality could result from two or more
different, interacting levels of matter. In short, one can assign
forces to interaction of matter, instead of assigning them to
some geometrical framework, or giving them some otherwise
mathemagical nature. This elimates problems with Mach's
principle, or the equivalence of gravity and acceleration, which
in the current paradigm are fairly knotty problems.

>       The current paradigm is not going to be overthrown by the
>simpleminded suggestions you offer.  Most of them have been
>thought of in the past, and even clung to with great tenacity by
>those committed to earlier paradigms, but finally, and
>reluctantly, rejected when they simply failed to make sense of
>the experimental results.

       Longing for paradigms lost? No. Computer technology has
opened new vistas to us equivalent to the invention of writing
(which includes math). In fact, most advances of science have
been technology driven, the two obvious examples being the
microscope and the telescope, but many other general advances
resulted from more obscure technologies, like improved vacuum
pumps. Computers are different from these technologies in this
respect: like the invention of writing, they directly serve our
minds, and aid in the development of conceptual models. What they
add to writing is the power of motion, retrieval, and simulation
of processes. This is beginning to give us great insight into
meta-processes of discover, and to cause us to see previous
modeling methods in a new light. Under this new light the
chalkboard models appear shoddy and superficial.

>       But now we have to deal with the problem of how to assign
>a mass to a wave, especially when the wave travels in a vacuum!

       The notion of a wave is just a conceptualization of motion
of what we call a medium, which is always a complex (if unified)
body of matter. As for mass -- as Joan Rivers says -- can we
talk? Mass and energy have complex derivations as concepts, and
their meaning in an objectivist science could be significantly
altered. As for the  existence of a geometrical vacuum, I
heartily dispute it. Our perception is limited toward the small.
It's hardly clever to assume that what you can't see isn't there,
especially when you have plenty of evidence that it _is_ there.
Much wiser (if history is any indication) to assume that there
are physical causes behind physical events, regardless of their
direct perceivability.

>       The reason I find your view dubious is not, I think,
>primarily from an irrational desire to cling to the current
>dogma, but simply because your views do not seem consistent.  For
>example, from your articles it seems that you emphasize that
>science is an instrument of control.  But in what way does the
>mathematization of reality threaten science's ability to control?
>Much of the physics that you condemn was crucial in the
>development of the atomic bomb, which is the quintessential
>example of control.  Who cares if the mathematization of reality
>is absurd, as long as it lets us control what we want to control?

       For sure, the atomic bomb development. Was there really
that much reliance on the more esoteric theories we are
discussing? You're not suggesting that someone who didn't accept
time dilation couldn't dig ore, build centrifuges (or whatever),
or calculate masses? In fact, one can sum up atomic bomb theory
in one sentence: CRITICAL MASS GOES BANG. The rest is the details
of the mechanics of assembling that mass. One's position on the
current paradigm may shade this or that engineering decision, but
whether that makes a bigger or smaller bang -- well, these are
fringe considerations (like most disputes on the topic of
relativity). As far as mathematicalization goes, as with the
above exercise in muon/time dilation, it stands in the way of
progress and greater control of matter. Newton said: "I do not
frame hypotheses." In this and his general disclaimer to have
explained, rather than described, it's possible he will be
considered that last great scientist of the previous paradigm,
after which there was a gap before the next paradigm. He took
written modeling as far as it could be taken without going off
the deep end for purposes of simplicity. Now we have computers.

>       Moreover, even if everyone were suddenly "enlightened" and
>converted to the Kuhnian paradigm theory and instrumentalism, it
>isn't clear that they would be any more willing to give up their
>beloved theories when those theories were threatened.  Sure, they
>would believe in paradigm shifts in principle, and would think of
>their theories as tools instead of as accounts of reality, but
>when push came to shove they would be just as unwilling to give
>up their favorite "tools of control" as realists are unwilling to
>give up their "facts."  What would we gain?

       Those who have the more correct view will end up in
control, both of education and wealth. The latter will of course
happen first, since the academics are always the die-hards,
loathe to revise their cherished cirriculums upon which their
entire raison d'etre as individuals-who-profess rests.

>      Tim Chow  tycchow@math.mit.edu


      John E. Snodgrass
      -----------------
      snodgras@crash.cts.com