From: tycchow@riesz.mit.edu (Timothy Y. Chow)
Subject: Re: invention of time
Organization: None.  This saves me from writing a disclaimer.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 01:17:01 GMT

In article <snodgras.714777577@crash> snodgras@crash.cts.com (John Snodgrass) writes:

>      In fact, evidence for relativity is all in the realm of the obscure,
>or if it's not, it is evidence capable of another interpretation. For instance,
>decay of cosmic ray muons is cited as evidence for time dilation, because
>they last longer travelling down through the atmosphere at relativistic
>speeds than they do when observed in labs at slow speeds. Now, in an
>otherwise normal way of looking at it, one might tend to attribute the
>difference between the decay rates to the numerous environmental or source
>factors related to these different muons.

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.

>      Gravitation is another example. Bending of light in a gravitational
>field was cited as confirmation of the notion of curvature of space, in
>line with relativity. However, this only makes sense if one assumes that
>light is non-material, and therefore could not be deflected by a gravitational
>field any other way. But the notion that light is non-material is another
>assumption of relativity! A material theory of both light and gravity would
>make the same prediction.

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.

Interference phenomena are also difficult if not impossible to explain on a
corpuscular theory.  Some kind of wave theory is necessary.  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!  Bring back the luminiferous aether, you say?
(Someone else has already brought this up.)  That also has a whole host of
well-known problems associated with it.

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.

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?

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?
-- 
Tim Chow     tycchow@math.mit.edu
Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs
30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh
only 1 1/2 tons.                               ---Popular Mechanics, March 1949
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech