Do physicists understand physics?

[socratus]

All the sources of physics are created on abstract ideas:
inertial motion, inertial reference system, ideal gas,
absolute black body,
negative four-dimensional (Minkowski) space,
"a method of renormalization", etc.
===========================
1.
G. Galileo has shown that natural motion is ‘inertial’
but nobody knows what is ‘ inertial motion’.
2.
J. Maxwell aspired to explain electromagnetic processes from
mechanical point of view, using cogwheels and wheels.
3.
L, Boltzmann admired the equations of Maxwell and he tried
to improve Maxwell,s mechanical model.
4.
H. Hertz practically discovered electromagnetic waves
but he has declared in writing that the electromagnetic
waves have no practical importance.
Later, he wrote about the equation of Maxwell:
"…that they are wiser than we ourselves,
even wiser than their first-discovers…"
5.
"We did more than have understood".
/Rutherford/
6.
M. Planck almost for 20 years searched arguments
against his theory of the light quanta.
7.
"The more successes the quantum physics gains,
the more senseless it looks".
/Einstein/
8.
Everything is getting along, but the deep grounds remain unclear".
/Sommerfeld /
9.
"I think I can safely say that no one understands quantum mechanics".
/Feynman/
10.
What the fine structure constant ‘a’ means nobody knows
and on Feynman,s expression this quantity is
‘by the god given damnation to all physicists’.
11.
Robert Milliken told, that he knew nothing
about “last essence of electron”.
This remains unknown also today.
12.
etc.
=========================
How do the physicists want to solve these problems?
a)
They try to create new theories.
But if the base of the first floor (classic)
and second floor (quantum) of physics is abstract
what can we expect from the new theories?
b)
They try to find the first, initial particle.

In 1906, Lord Rutherford studied internal structure of atoms,
bombarding them with high energy a- particles.
This idea helped him to understand the structure of atom.
But the clever Devil interfered and gave advice to physicists:
‘ Bomb them stronger’.
And physicists created huge cannon-accelerators of particles.
And they began to bomb micro particles in the vacuum,
in hoping to understand their inner structure.
And they were surprised with the results of this bombing.
Several hundreds of completely new strange particles appeared.
They lived for a very little time and do not relate to our world.
Our Earth needs another constants of nature.
But physicists are proud of their work. They say:
we study the inner structure of the particles.
The clever and artful Devil is glad. He again has deceived man.
Physicists think, that an accelerator is first of all
the presence of huge energy. And the Devil laughs.
He knows that an accelerator is first of all the Vacuum.
But this, he has withheld from man.
He has not explained that the Vacuum is infinite and inexhaustible.
And in infinity an infinite variety of particles is contained .
And by bombing the vacuum, one can find centaurs and sphinxes.
But my God, save us from their presence on Earth.
==============
E. Rutherford was right.
His followers are mistaken.
Why?
Imagine, that I want to plant a small apple- tree.
For this purpose I will dig out a hole of 1 meter width
and 1,20 m depth. It is normal.
But if to plant a small apple- tree, I will begin to dig
a base for a huge building (skyscraper),
or if to begin to drill ground with 11 km. depth,
will you call me a normal man?
===================================
Imagine a man who breaks watches on the wall.
And then he tries to understand the mechanism of the watches
collecting cogwheels, springs and small screws, throwing ewerywhere.
Does he have many chances to succeed?
As many as the scientists who aspire to understand the
inner structure of electron by breaking them into accelerators.
If not to take into account the initial conditions of Genesis,
the fantasies of the scientists may be unlimited.
==============
Great physicists didn,t ashamed admit that they
couldn,t understand the base of physics.
The ‘small’ physicists understand the physics on 100%.
The ‘small’ physicists teach physics as dogmatically
as the priests teach theology.
There are a few men who understand that we already
live in Orwell,s ‘1984’ world.
============================

[dleviwing]

Socratus;
Physicist really do understand physics. What they have problems with is explaining physics in terms that can be understood by non-physicist. I am assuming that is why you’re frustrated with them. What you are making comments about is like saying that because YOU can’t fly a plain, a pilot doesn’t know what he’s doing.

I must admit however, that when it comes to quantum physics, I must agree with you and Einstein.

Even modern physics can be presented in classical terminology, but it does not sound so impressive that way and the academic temples would have to reduce their fees.

[mkirkpatrick]

Soccatus,good thread starter,who really understands who,in this egocentric me dominated
disciplines?


regards michael.

[socratus]

Socratus;
Physicist really do understand physics. What they have problems with is explaining physics in terms that can be understood by non-physicist. I am assuming that is why you’re frustrated with them. What you are making comments about is like saying that because YOU can’t fly a plain, a pilot doesn’t know what he’s doing.

I must admit however, that when it comes to quantum physics, I must agree with you and Einstein.

Even modern physics can be presented in classical terminology, but it does not sound so impressive that way and the academic temples would have to reduce their fees.

===============
The situation in Classic physics:
In the beginning God created the
First Newton,s law of motion.

And after the whole situation in physics is clear.
Really, there is some 'ideal gas',
but it is no very important that it means.
=============

[socratus]

Socratus;
Physicist really do understand physics.

=======================
The physics is best understood by engineers.
But engineers don,t make weather in SCAINCS.
Engineers make weather in technology.
==============================
socratus

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Socratus and Michael, if you want to quote and believe religion, why don't you go to the proper threads...? When you can unite god and gravity, come on back...

"An unprincipled intellect is a foolish soul. A principled soul is a wise intellect." me

regards,

[socratus]

Comic situation.
----------
On July 2007 I wrote an article:
Do mathematicians understand Physics? / What is for whom?/
The idea is:
Mathematics is not written for mathematicians.
Mathematics is written for physics, for Nature.
This simple fact has been forgotten in science.
…………………….etc
Now mathematics goes ahead of science
and physics follows it. Mathematicians carry the posters
"Forward to abstraction", "Forward to the absurd"
and we all follow them. We march bravely on the dinosaur’s path.
========.
After enough long discussion I resaved comment from
one mathematician. Here this comment.
===================..
Do mathematicians understand Physics?
To answer your question directly,
Mathematicians are NOT physicists.
Therefore, you can't expect a mathematician to understand everything a physicist knows and vice versa. Usually the two fields are closely intertwined however, so there is a lot of shared knowledge. It is just as much of a mistake to say that mathematicians understand everything about physics as it is to say mathematicians understand nothing about physics.
Mathematics is an abstract representation of the real world which is applicable
in just about every profession which makes it a fundamental skill. By using it,
you can model the real world to make accurate predictions. However, math is worthless if you can't effectively use it in the real world.
Physics uses a lot of math to model the real world.
You can't be a good physicist if you don't have math ability and reasoning skills.
To respond to the original post, I'll ask this:
Should we believe a physicist who doesn't understand mathematics?
===============..
So, it is possible to say that mathematicians not guilty.
All guilt lies on physicists.
" Should we believe a physicist who doesn't understand mathematics? "
Does anybody see the comic situation?

[bottomlander]

Comic situation.
I resaved comment from
one mathematician. Here this comment.
===================..
Physics uses a lot of math to model the real world.
You can't be a good physicist if you don't have math ability and reasoning skills.
===============..
" Should we believe a physicist who doesn't understand mathematics? "
Does anybody see the comic situation?

Fundamental Cosmic situation should be the first part of a Theory-of-Everything.
An empirical/realistic thinker may see the fundamental cosmic situation with just fundamental mathematics, physics and philosophy knowledges. Fundamental knowledge is sufficient works out a cosmic picture with reasoning skills. Nature doesn't play tricks on its fundamental levels.
Advanced knowledge will be for other parts of TOE.

So, a naive like me seems still has the chance to figure something out.

Best Regards. Bottomlander

[bottomlander]

Comic situation.

" Should we believe a physicist who doesn't understand mathematics? "
Does anybody see the comic situation?

Sorry that I overlooked "Comic" as "Cosmic" in my last post.

Anyhow, during preTOE times, fundamental cosmic conceptions may be found comic [with many laughable ad hoc presumptions] when compared with the simple, natural TOE foundation.

Best Regards. Bottomlander

[RascalPuff]

In response to the theme of this thread (Do physicists understand physics?):

Considering Kuhn's 'Structure of Scientific Revolutions', physics as a discipline inevitably undergoes evolution and plateaus of understanding reality at large, which, itself, appears to be undergoing evolution.

There's a correspondingly evolving 'in-ranks' debate in just about every facet of physics, throughout the evolution of physical science.

In the category of TOE theories, 'myphysics' commenced a thread entitled 'Propagation through a vacuum/empty space', in response to which I posted an URL about the (still lively, exemplary) argument regarding the 'aether' conductor of EM (to be or not to be? And, is it - 'the aether conductor' - necessary?).


http://home.alphalink.com.au/~loge27...r_einstein.htm


There's an impressive list of references following the close of the remarkable and educational text, which is not without humor as well as history, of a relatively new physics argument.
The (exemplary) debate (for which there are many counterparts in The Evolution of Physics) continues.

Do physicists understand physics?

They're working on it...

Best regards,
- RP