Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: this newsgroup
Message-ID: <11571@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 14-Jul-85 20:57:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.11571
Posted: Sun Jul 14 20:57:05 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Jul-85 03:36:17 EDT
References: <1801@pur-phy.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 51

>      We have people insisting on the existence of the ether, varying the speed
> of light, saying that quantum mechanics is still much in debate, arguing about
> what mass is, posing self-contradictory relativity questions, this list is 
> almost endless.

Although much of the recent discussion has been ill-founded,
it is not wise to pooh-pooh every idea that differs from the
conventionally-accepted body of "knowledge".  Some of the
best ideas in physics at first sounded rather strange to the
majority of practitioners.

The real distinction should be between "crisp" and "fuzzy"
theories.  A "crisp" theory should be sufficiently complete,
precise, and interpretable that others are able to derive new
predictions from it and perform experiments to test them
(when the predictions differ from those of the conventional
theory).  A "fuzzy" theory is not formulated well enough to
allow this.  Nevertheless, a "fuzzy" theory, if intelligible,
may spark the work needed to produce a good "crisp" theory.

As an example, suppose someone suggested "perhaps both the
electromagnetic and gravitational field are really part of a
single entity".  (Assume for the moment that we can ignore
quantum considerations.)  Now, that is a "fuzzy" theory in
that it tells us nothing about how to formulate relevant
mathematical models or how to make predictions.  However, if
there is a refinement like "suppose in Einstein's formulation
of general relativity we subsititute a nonsymmetric field for
the metric tensor and carry through the usual variational
derivation of field equations", then we have a relatively
"crisp" theory which we are able to test.  (This example
turns out to not quite work, but it comes surprisingly close.)

The thing is, the current state of physical knowledge is
pretty good but it is incomplete.  In fact, there are real
conceptual problems with fundamental theories such as QED.
Several famous physicists have expressed dissatisfaction
with current theories and have investigated alternative
theoretical approaches.  This should not prevent working
physicists from applying the ideas they have been taught in
school, but it should perhaps remind them that what we now
"know" is not the final word.

Having said all this, I have to agree that the ether and
grainy gravity patter has been not only "fuzzy", but near
unintelligible.  This makes it have little value.  On the
other hand, discussing what is meant by "mass" is not a bad
idea.  I suspect most working physicists cannot answer that
question, except to say that mass is the "m" in their
formulas.  To most epistemologists, that is an unsatisfactory
answer; the question deserves better.