I didn't get much further than tweaking stuff on the bench. The maths
in my thesis was wrong, though the mistakes led me to some modestly
new techniques as I began to understand. Others found ways to express
my findings in a coherent manner. In a way it was my incapacity to
follow the normal rules that was my strength, leaving me with little
option but to experiment, put the hours in in data collection (which
includes devising the experiments) and then try and see if some
mathematical nuggets could be extracted. I just became a massively
over-qualified technician. This level of benchwork is not well
understood in books for lay people (which have long been described as
a kind of pornography-market for chattering classes).
I'd recommend Alain Connes' website to all. Even if we can't
understand all of what he is saying, he does put the material there
for anyone to have a go at. This is still remarkably difficult in all
kinds of academic areas because much of the work is hidden in the
academic vanity press. Trying to start from scratch is a good idea -
though in physics, chemistry and biology tends to lead to the same
"old wheels and stub-axles". Plos.org is another good start and on a
specific subject aidsonline.com - these at least allow one to get
closer to what is actually being claimed rather than the
"pornographic" hype.
Most of us are likely to have been taught the billiard ball version of
physics and chemistry - itself never more than a teaching vehicle for
much more complex ideas. Biology is increasingly understood as
something a bit like the old dip switches in electronics, with
different things happening dependant on which switches are on and
off. We were probably not taught much more than Mendel's peas.
None of this should be about superiority in knowledge, but a wider
education in which schools play a smaller part than they do now.
Learning because you are around people who know stuff and are working
experimentally or with the end of changing things is very different
from hacking along to a few classes. This kind of learning is
extremely difficult to find, just as virtually anyone born lucky
enough could go to whatever the universities have become, whether one
seeks skills or education as an aim in itself.
I'd like some answers or facts that would help speculation on why our
day-to-day world is so dud and just why we can perceive vastness,
space moving beyond the speed of light in space, and feel very
constrained we cannot reach out to more than a few specks away because
we are constrained by 'light-speed physics', even though we know this
is likely to be a small part of a physics of observation. Without
going into old chestnuts on free speech I can only offer a metaphor.
A rain forest dweller shows you an old wall and begins to explain his
religion. One may have the courtesy to listen, yet also start
wondering and discover an ancient civilisation prior to the European
invasion rather than his gods. One group has just establsihed this in
the Amazon. One can always consider whether science and maths
algorythms are this 'wrong'.
On 31 Aug, 15:20, Georges Metanomski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My response praised your endeavor both, at the beginning
> ("the enormous and apparently sincere endeavor") and at
> the end, where I praise your drive saying that IMO
> you could use it better standing on the shoulders of QFT
> and be creative in avant-garde domains of fundamental
> Physics such as trials of unification or singularity-free
> mathematical field descriptions.
> I got an off topic, ad hominem answer, which I shall
> comment in-line in a few most typical places.
>
> > jr writes>
> > As an American I "certainly" recognize your right
> > to express your
> > unsupported opinion. However, unsupported opinions are as
> > common as
> > the "tongues" that wag them.
>
> ================
> G:
> True. Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Maxwell,
> Planck, Darwin, Einstein wagged unsupported opinions and
> so do you, thus if I wag, I wag in good company.
> Yet, as American, claiming in the following paragraph
> an expertise in English, you know better than me that
> (un)supported is a meaningless empty predicate unless
> specified "by whom/what". In your context it is clearly
> "by Inquisition" in the sense implied by Paul Marmet:
> QUOTE
> ...in recent years, the "purity" of science
> has been ever more closely guarded by a self-imposed
> inquisition called the peer review. [...] Like the
> inquisition of the medieval church, it has teeth and can
> wreck a career by refusing funds for research or by
> censoring publications."
>
> There is not much hope for new scientists to try writing
> new papers to rationalize physics unless they accept to
> end their career. Some centuries ago, they burned Bruno
> and imprisoned Galileo. Even in our century, a dissident
> of the Copenhagen interpretation is rejected and called
> a crank
> UNQUOTE
> But there is another "support", by intrinsic deductive
> consistency, inductively verified and not (yet) falsified
> by facts.
> My "opinion" seems to be "supported" in this way. But I
> don't reinvent Physics, even if I contributer to SR by
> rigorously deriving E=MC^2. I induce from it an Ontology
> underlying an Epistemology which culminates in a Logic
> confirmed by efficient use in the Gemini Project (sending
> the man to the moon) and never so far falsified.
> I have direct contact with the cutting edge of Physics
> mainly via my daughter Agnes, whom I coached in her
> beginnings, who spent 12 years to climb through BS, MS,
> PHD in Physict to PHD in Astronomy, and worked four years
> in La Silla observatory in Chilean Ands to describe three
> new discovered stars. Her opinion confirmed by a frew CERN
> researchers whom I know, is that the current state of the
> art of Physics consists in 1.experimenting, 2.coordinating
> with help of QFT mathematics handicaped by weird
> normalisation, 3.never interpreting, in wake of Dirac's
> "Shut up and Compute".
> So, if you want to revolutionize Physics, you would have
> to work for 20 years in some CERN or Silla, do some
> original experiments and/or equations. Did you?
> Then, with this luggage you could climb to the
> hypothetical unifying domain of p-brans, superstrings,
> etc.
> BTW, it's not my cup of tea, but at least I know why the
> most realistic unifying theories are formulated in
> 10 Dimensions. Not from some Stanford or other kitchen
> almanac, but from my own experience in Physics.
> Do you?
> No sarcasm, but hardly anybody knows, so if you don't
> I'll gladly explain.
> BTW, below you talk about electric current and its
> generated magnetic Field.
> Do you know at least what is the mathematic fabric of
> the so called "magnetic field vector"?
> Again, no sarcasm, very few know and I am ready to help.
>
> I write it hoping against hope that it may start some
> rational, even if disagreeing discussion.
> If not, let's leave it at that.
>
> Georges
> ================
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
