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.