it gets curiouser....

[Guest guest]

why do front-rank scientists make categorical assertions such as the

following from Heisenberg? :

 

'the theory {special theory of relativity set out by Albie E.

friends}... has meanwhile become an axiomatic foundation of all modern

physics, confirmed by a large number of experiments. It has become a

permanent property of exact science just, as has classical mechanics

or the theory of heat.'

 

we can throw some light on these questions by considering the

following two thoughts:

 

1. as a mathematical problem there is virtually only one possible

solution (the Lorentz transformation) if the velocity of light is to

be the same for all.

 

 

 

2. there was and there is now no understanding of the

Michelson-Morley experiment( giving us the first strong evidence that

the theory luminiferous aether was in error),except through giving up

the idea of absolute time and of absolute length and making the two

interdependent concepts.

 

 

the logical structure of both of these statements (including the

implied assertions) is the same and can be expressed as follows:

 

1. a solution for the problem under consideration has been obtained.

 

2. long and intensive study has failed to produce any alternative

solution.

 

3. hence the original solution must be correct.

 

in the case of statement 1, this logic is irrefutable. it would, in

fact, be valid even without any search for alternatives. since the

original solution yields the correct answers, any other valid solution

would necessarily have to be mathematically equivalent to the first,

and from a mathematical standpoint equivalent statements are simply

different ways of expressing the same thing. the statements x = ab and

x/a = b, for example, are not two different mathematical relations;

they are simply two different ways of stating the same relation. hence

as soon as we obtain a mathematically correct answer to a problem, we

have the mathematically correct answer.

 

statement 2 is an application of the same logic to a conceptual rather

than a mathematical solution, but here the logic is completely

invalid, as in this case alternative solutions are different

solutions, not merely different ways of expressing the same solution.

a physical theory consists of a formal calculus and an interpretation,

but the relation between calculus and interpretation is in fact not

unique. a single calculus may be interpreted in terms of various

concepts.merely finding an explanation, which fits the observed facts,

does not, in this case, guarantee that we have the correct

explanation. as brought out previously, we must have additional

confirmation from other sources before conceptual validity can be

established.

 

 

the baba on the ball

 

..b boji baba