"Timo A. Nieminen" <timo@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:Pine.WNT.4.64.0806211103400.656@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008, Bill Miller wrote:
>
>> May I add my list of Dogmatically accepted physics "laws"
>>
>> <Yes, of course, Bill. Go right ahead.>
>>
>> The near-universal interpretation that Maxwell's "Laws" show that E
>> *causes*
>> H and H *causes* E,
>
> Common enough as a just-so story in introductory textbooks. A natural
> interpretation of Faraday's experiments, yes?
>
> Hardly near-universal, as it isn't hard to find books (on
> electromagnetics) where such claims are not made. Historically, it's
been
> clear ever since Lorenz's 1867 paper. Also clear in any modern
formulation
> of electromagnetics as a 4D relativistic field theory (given the Lorenz
> gauge, what else would one expect?).
>
> Would publi****ng (or attempting to) a paper opposing this interpetation
> result in attack on one's scientific career?
>
>> F=MA as a "law" although there are many well recognized exceptions.
>
> Such as? A "law" doesn't need to be universally applicable. For example,
> consider Snell's law: can you use Snell's law when one of the media
cannot
> be characterised by a refractive index?
>
>> Newton's "law" that violates conservation of momentum.
>>
>> For *every* action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. NOT!
>
> ???
>
>> Coulomb's "law" that "blows up as r --> zero.
>
> One of the well-know deep problems in classical and quantum
> electrodynamics. However, as far as we can tell, Coulomb's law _works_.
> The real problem is the implications of this, such as infinite
> self-energy, and infinite inertia of point charges.
>
>> Thermodynamics "laws" that aren't (except on average.)
>
> Given that statistical mechanics is widely taught to undergrads, making
> this point, is this really dogma?
>
>> I suspect there are more, but we dare not speak them aloud for fear the
>> spirit of St. Albert might strike us dead.
>
> Do keep in mind that the original post was equating resistance from
within
> "establishment science" to the enforced introduction of teaching of
> religious dogma in science classrooms with a supposed enforcement of
> establishment dogma in science. How is defensive anti-dogmatism meant to
> be the same as enforcement of dogma?
>
> Would trying to publish on _any_ of the topics you listed endanger a
> scientific career?
>
> The research-end of science is full of dispute and controversy. Many of
> the participants in disputes over who is correct are wrong (usually at
> least somebody must be, and sometimes everybody is wrong).
>
> The textbook-end of science is rather ossified, and simplified severely
at
> the introductory level. Witness the usual pattern of teaching classical
> mechanics as True, to be followed later by teaching special relativity
as
> True ("What we have taught you before is wrong!" - an attitude which can
> disturb students), when neither is a complete (or we might say, "correct
> in a strict sense") theory. OTOH, both are very good theories when
applied
> appropriately. Given that you can hardly start out by teaching general
> relativity (to get the GR -> SR -> classical mechanics progression) or
> quantum field theory (to get a QFT -> non-relativistic quantum
> mechanics -> classical mechanics progression), what can one do? Well,
the
> transition from CM -> SR should emphasise just how little change is
> required in the core of CM, and certainly shouldn't be along the lines
of
> "what we taught you before is wrong". Especially because most of what
had
> been taught before is _not_ wrong.
>
> Textbooks are a teaching tool, not expositions on current scientific
> opinion. That said, they can have lasting influence on students. In
> particular, scientific knowledge is in a state of flux, and the
> presentation of textbook content as absolute fact is in opposition to
> this, encouraging scientism or confusion when scientific dispute is
> encountered; not good preparation for modern life. Thus the movements to
> include understanding/history/nature/philosophy of science in science
> education in the schools.
>
> Given that significant, and politically influential, elements of the
> "establishment" are actively working towards education of the public
> including the tentativeness of scientific knowledge, where is the
> dogmatism of the establishment?
>
> Inferior teachers who adopt "textbook fundamentalism" to avoid
questioning
> are _not_ members of the scientific establishment.
Timo... you make a number of fine points and my reply to any of them might
be considered as a "quibble."
Taken overall, the ossifiaction in textbooks has benn compounded by
generations of engineers and scientist -- many at th PhD level -- that did
not pay attention to the "tweaks" that you point out in your post.
From personal experience, I have been vilified personally by PhD level
folks
for suggesting that Maxwell's Equations are descriptive rather than
causal.
BTW a Law, in my NTBHO is always universally applicable. Anything else is
a
theory or a hypothesis (or occasionally wild-ass guess!)
For example, for many years, Newton's Law fell into the "Law" category.
Not
anymore.
Bill
>
> --
> Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
> E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
> Shrine to Spirits:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
>
|
