For me the roots of the crisis reach back 400+ years to the philosophical/psycho-social foundations of the science of motion known as "mechanics".
Harry Terry Blanton wrote: > On 8/14/06, Harry Veeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> A recent article by Lee Smolin entitled "A Crisis >> in Fundamental Physics" >> >> http://www.nyas.org/publications/UpdateUnbound.asp?UpdateID=41 > > Excellent article Harry. I believe it is most certainly on topic. > This is the very attitude which drove Hotson from studying physics: > > http://www.geocities.com/terry1094/HotsonPart1.pdf > > <sidebar> > > The Hotson "family business" is English literature. Mr. Hotson's > father and uncle had Harvard Ph.D.s in the subject, and his late uncle > was a famous Shakespeare scholar. Mr. Hotson, however, always intended > a career in physics. Unfortunately, he could not resist asking awkward > questions. His professors taught that conservation of mass-energy is > the never-violated, rock-solid foundation of all physics. In "pair > production" a photon of at least 1.022 MeV "creates" an > electron-positron pair, each with 0.511 MeV of rest energy, with any > excess being the momentum of the "created" pair. So supposedly the > conservation books balance. > > But the "created" electron and positron both have spin (angular > momentum) energy of h/4p. By any assumption as to the size of electron > or positron, this is far more energy than that supplied by the photon > at "creation." > > "Isn't angular momentum energy?" he asked a professor. > > "Of course it is. This half-integer spin angular momentum is the > energy needed by the electron to set up a stable standing wave around > the proton. Thus it is responsible for the Pauli exclusion principle, > hence for the extension and stability of all matter. You could say it > is the sole cause of the periodic table of elements." "Then where does > all this energy come from? How can the 'created' electron have > something like sixteen times more energy than the photon that > supposedly 'created' it? Isn't this a huge violation of your > never-violated rock-solid foundation of all physics?" > > "We regard spin angular momentum as an 'inherent property' of electron > and positron, not as a violation of conservation." > > "But if it's real energy, where does it come from? Does the Energy > Fairy step in and proclaim a miracle every time 'creation' is invoked, > billions of times a second? How does this fit your never-violated > conservation?" > > "'Inherent property' means we don't talk about it, and you won't > either if you want to pass this course." > > Well, this answer sounded to him like the Stephen Leacock aphorism: > "'Shut up,' he explained." Later Mr. Hotson was taken aside and told > that his "attitude" was disrupting the class, and that further, with > his "attitude," there was no chance in hell of his completing a > graduate program in physics, so "save your money." He ended up at the > Sorbonne studying French literature, and later became a professional > land surveyor. However, he has retained a lifelong interest in the > "awkward questions" of physics, and with Dirac's Equation has found > some answers. > > <end> >
