ICEINSPACE
Moon Phase
CURRENT MOON
New Moon 0.2%
|
|

23-10-2015, 03:55 PM
|
 |
amateur
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 7,109
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eratosthenes
How creative is Science when compared to Art or music?
|
Very... and that creativity can be independently confirmed... contrary to (most.. ) artistic creations.
|

23-10-2015, 04:22 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,926
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave
Schwinger and Feynmann attempted to explain Lamb shift using non relativistic calculations and the concept of fictional mass which they eventually conceded WAS WRONG.
But they were wrong throw everything out before and after.
Sorry Steven but going on the past my reply may be all you get
|
Alex,
Quantum mechanics was developed in the 1920s and provided an excellent model AND EXPLANATION for the energy levels of the hydrogen atom.
Prior to QM the energy levels were described by ad hoc empirical formulae.
Experiments had shown however there was a slight deviation in the observed hydrogen spectrum to what QM predicted.
This difference is known as the Lamb shift.
The motivation behind QED is the effect of electric fields that cause perturbations or deviations from QM.
QM wasn't thrown out because it is a first order approximation to QED. QED doesn't work without QM as much as GR can't work without Newtonian gravity.
Similarly anything after the first appearance of QED is a refinement and improvement.
The mistakes made by Schwinger and Feynmann in 1947 in explaining the Lamb shift were ironed out by 1950 by which time Tomonaga had come to the party as well.
QED is rightly known as the Jewel of Physics and is the most accurate physics theory known.
What I find quite funny in this thread is how the ill informed and ignorant comments are being made with the aid of a computer which is the very technological outcome of QED.
https://www.bell-labs.com/our-people...56-transistor/
|

23-10-2015, 07:11 PM
|
 |
Widefield wuss
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Caboolture, Australia
Posts: 6,994
|
|
I love when these conversations start because I love learning from you Steven. I like to dabble in particle physics and find, as you say, QED seems to fit the experimental data, not only that but it has allowed some of most amazing predictions that have also since been verified with utterly astonishing accuracy.
The quote goes extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I like to think this is true and I tend to believe that QED is frequently providing extraordinary evidence of its accuracy..
Another of my favourite quotes...
Physics is a lot like sex.. Sure it has some practical applications but that's not why we do it.
5points to whoever know the source of that one.
|

23-10-2015, 10:00 PM
|
 |
Gravity does not Suck
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
|
|
Steven is and has been extremely helpful for me .
And thank you again Steven.
I think the simple thing people miss is a model does not have to reflect reality it has to perform.
If you think it works differently present a better model that makes better predictions.
Simple really....if you really have something
I love my push gravity idea but I can't use it to build a better model...well that is it I can't build a better gravity model...you can't rubbish the old unless you actually have better.
And take the time to find and read the papers to date just maybe they hold a little something.
|

23-10-2015, 10:48 PM
|
 |
Trivial High Priest
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 392
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bojan
Very... and that creativity can be independently confirmed... contrary to (most.. ) artistic creations.
|
validated confirmed creativity - interesting notion
why would someone require an artistic expression to conform to some process of validation???
Does logic, the fundamental basis of mathematics, subject itself to creative expression?
How creative is String Theory, which can be best described as a Mathematical philosophy rather than a scientific theory? A theory which lacks experimental and observational evidence to support it.
Scientists often claim creative inspiration in their work, but in many cases they avoid it and in some cases are afraid of it.
Many disciplines in Modern Science have become contaminated with the deranged lunacy and inward looking insanity of the short term corporate model and thus its scientific priests far bigger cowards than those who came before them. Their vision for great ideas has been suppressed $$$$
I am about to set up my little Newtonian - not many clouds out at the moment
|

24-10-2015, 08:18 AM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 31
|
|
So you consider that there is no chance to be creative in the design, construction, execution or analysis of an experiment?
In my limited experience the broad range of obstacles and problems encountered in such work gave rise to many opportunities for the application of creativity.
|

24-10-2015, 10:13 AM
|
 |
Gravity does not Suck
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
|
|
I would say string theory is very creative....in a nice way.
|

24-10-2015, 11:27 AM
|
 |
Trivial High Priest
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 392
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave
I would say string theory is very creative....in a nice way.
|
I am of the opposite view....I find it difficult to find anything that is less creative. ST is a logic based mathematical philosophy. Its consequences may appear to be astonishing but the fundamental basis of the ST idea is boring mathematical axioms and rationalistic conservatism.
If there was an International Museum dedicated for boredom that results in Psychiatric deformities and mental derangement, then String Theory would be the first exhibit - right at the front foyer. Star of the show along with the putrid Quantum Mechanical frauds
|

24-10-2015, 11:32 AM
|
 |
Trivial High Priest
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 392
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chochawker
So you consider that there is no chance to be creative in the design, construction, execution or analysis of an experiment?
In my limited experience the broad range of obstacles and problems encountered in such work gave rise to many opportunities for the application of creativity.
|
creativity is critical and found in every human endevour and pursuit.
In modern science however it is corporately avoided like the plague.
The typical modern scientist is not like those that came before him/her.
There are exceptions of course - like my friend Robert, but they are far and few in between.
(its also creeping into traditional art forms such as music, which inherently thrive on creative inputs and outputs. Corporatised jingles and crap all over the place - where are the musical innovators? The concept albums? Music with something to profound to say that could transform the way people, and in particular the youth of the world view this deranged world? Where is it Chochawker?)
|

24-10-2015, 11:52 AM
|
 |
Gravity does not Suck
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
|
|
Peter what's wrong in your view of mathematical philosophy.
I m trying to understand your view.
|

24-10-2015, 11:59 AM
|
 |
Trivial High Priest
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 392
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave
Peter what's wrong in your view of mathematical philosophy.
I m trying to understand your view.
|
nothing wrong - I have looked into Mathematically based philosophies for some time now, and its a very interesting area.
(it's just not Science. ST may turn out to be a Science if and when experimental evidence emerges to support it one way or another)
|

24-10-2015, 12:15 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 31
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eratosthenes
creativity is critical and found in every human endevour and pursuit.
|
Except science?
Or does that not count as a human endeavour or pursuit?
Quote:
In modern science however it is corporately avoided like the plague.
|
Can you point at anything that might back up this assertion?
And if you can spare the time, perhaps you can educate me as to how something is corporately avoided and how this differs from avoiding in general?
Quote:
The typical modern scientist is not like those that came before him/her.
|
Agreed. The modern scientist operates in a very different environment, both as a result of knowledge inherited from past generations and also from a very different operating environment. For example due to constraints associated with the need to obtain and maintain funding.
However I don't see how that is at all relevant to any of the earlier discussion.
Quote:
There are exceptions of course - like my friend Robert, but they are far and few in between.
|
I have a friend who has three children.
I have another friend who is currently overseas on a holiday.
Perhaps we can discuss whether puppies are more cute than kittens?
Quote:
(its also creeping into traditional art forms such as music, which inherently thrive on creative inputs and outputs. Corporatised jingles and crap all over the place - where are the musical innovators? The concept albums? Music with something to profound to say that could transform the way people, and in particular the youth of the world view this deranged world?
|
How is any of the above relevant to any of the prior discussion on this thread?
Where is what?
|

24-10-2015, 01:34 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Newtown, Sydney, Australia
Posts: 164
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chochawker
Except science?
...
Agreed. The modern scientist operates in a very different environment, both as a result of knowledge inherited from past generations and also from a very different operating environment. For example due to constraints associated with the need to obtain and maintain funding.
...
|
Here, I think, might be the source of the problem.
With 400 years of previous scientific advances (assuming 'modern' science starts around the time of Newton/Galileo), understanding science today is very, very difficult. And if you are trying to understand physics, you need to understand not only 400 years of physics, but a whole pile of pretty difficult maths.
I know from first-hand experience that the result of the past generations is that 4 years of full time university-level study gets you a basic understanding of the whole structure, and a tiny bit of specialisation to more deeply understand a small part of it. And, understandably, most of the effort goes into how to calculate stuff rather than worrying about what it all means. (Though all good lecturers do try to stop and think about meaning from time to time).
As an example, you can't really start thinking about what the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle means, until you've first thoroughly understood the mathematical formalism of QM, plus the theoretical basis of Fourier analysis. Trying to talk about it without that understanding is utterly pointless, and typically results in people saying stuff that is just flat out wrong.
Unfortunately it is much easier to not bother with all this, but to pick something that sounds intuitively implausible, and rubbish it for being intuitively implausible, and when challenged, breezily assert that going to all the trouble of understanding the details is 'not creative'. Or something.
|

24-10-2015, 01:40 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Newtown, Sydney, Australia
Posts: 164
|
|
And while we're at it, as an Honours Physics grad with 20 years as a financial mathematician, regarded by most people who know me as an excellent amateur pianist, married to a woman who is a gifted visual artist, but has a solid understanding of science having attended this country's top science-focused school, I find the suggestion that science and creativity are somehow incompatible is not just wrong, but insulting.
Harrumph.
|

24-10-2015, 03:26 PM
|
 |
Gravity does not Suck
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
|
|
Peter may I ask do you regard special relativity and general relativity as science.
Do you regard the big bang theory of cosmology to be science.
|

24-10-2015, 03:50 PM
|
 |
Widefield wuss
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Caboolture, Australia
Posts: 6,994
|
|
Dave2042,
Couldn't agree more.
You will note that through all his ramblings, Peter never once backs up his claims with theories, evidence or mathematics. The question I feel I must ask is, is the reason for this that his ramblings are nonsense and he is just stirring the pot because he enjoys the discussion that ensues? Or is it that he whole heartedly believes that the standard model is insanity but has neither the knowledge or the creativity to devise and express a better option? Is it possible that he is simply in way over his head, has little to no understanding of the subject matter (pun not intended but I am happy to live with it) and takes shots at the current best model of the world around us that we have yet is completely incapable of producing math, experimental observation or even a reference to someone elses work that may back his claims...
|

24-10-2015, 05:15 PM
|
 |
Gravity does not Suck
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
|
|
One more little question Peter as I suspect if you hold strong critisismm for some of mainstream perhaps all of it, do you have a theory of everything or an alternative cosmology perhaps.
I am genuinely interested in your views.
Have you something to offer other than general attack on mainstream.
|

24-10-2015, 06:39 PM
|
 |
amateur
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 7,109
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bojan
Please confess - you are just pulling our legs here and actually provoking the discussion 
|
As suggested earlier..
|

24-10-2015, 08:53 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,926
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexN
I love when these conversations start because I love learning from you Steven. I like to dabble in particle physics and find, as you say, QED seems to fit the experimental data, not only that but it has allowed some of most amazing predictions that have also since been verified with utterly astonishing accuracy.
The quote goes extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I like to think this is true and I tend to believe that QED is frequently providing extraordinary evidence of its accuracy..
Another of my favourite quotes...
Physics is a lot like sex.. Sure it has some practical applications but that's not why we do it.
5points to whoever know the source of that one.
|
Thanks Alex,
One of the unique aspects of QED is that in an early prediction, the electron magnetic moment would differ from the experimental values of the time.
Generally if a theoretical value differs from the experimental value obtained from laboratories where the experimental results are found to both statistically repeatable and reproducible, then one would assume the theory to be wrong.
What QED had shown was the experiments of the time were not sensitive enough to show the anomaly.
With technological improvements this anomalous electron magnetic moment was eventually detected in experiments.
With regards to the source Feynmann was not only a brilliant physicist but also a party animal.
Regards
Steven
Last edited by sjastro; 25-10-2015 at 10:21 AM.
Reason: grammar
|

24-10-2015, 09:44 PM
|
 |
Trivial High Priest
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 392
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bojan
As suggested earlier..
|
Why does there appear to be doubt over whether any legs are being pulled here?
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +10. The time is now 07:26 PM.
|
|