Congetture e confutazioni : Quindici racconti sotto un titolo illustre (Italian Edition)
For the first two years, they really believe it. But in the third year, they study issues in the philosophy of science and discover that it is all a myth.
It is a myth with high predictive value, and no other myth has been found to be more accurate. Yet it is not an Eternal verity, but simply our best guess about the universe works. When they come to that realization, many of the students go through a profound emotional crisis. Some of them never recover.
But the best ones emerge with a deeper understanding of science and a better ability to do original research. These "skeptical" opinions which are similar in some sense to those of the well known epistemologist Paul K. Feyerabend are of course in part right, in part wrong, and in part, moreover, paradoxical.
Yes, even if most of contemporary physics could be well described indeed as a work of idealistic "fiction", all the same the aim of any "true" science should always be, at the contrary, to try to assemble as far as it is possible a rational image of the world, which, at least in principle, cannot be but the same for all human beings, since they share the same experiences and thought-categories That is to say, even if a scientist should always show himself well aware of the limits of his knowledge, and of its possible hypothetical nature, science cannot but reduce the space for arbitrariness of opinions, and a "proof" of this is the fact that very often quite independent scientists, coming from all the parts of the world, and from absolutely different cultures, elaborate the same kind of scientific theories, as this volume shows in some extent.
The "paradox" arises when one takes note of the existence of a curious factual situation [see for instance the paper of Bolognesi about the "big-bang", or the professional experiences sketched in Marinov's reprint], namely that, this "liberal" epistemology notwithstanding, scientific paradigma are defended by the establishment like dogmas, critical research on the "foundations" is discouraged, official journals would not take even in consideration papers like most of the ones published here, for instance those which express doubts about relativity, under the conviction that this theory is "beyond a shadow of a doubt" 11, and that only a crank would challenge Einstein.
Briefly, the paradox is that a self pretended in words liberal environment, shows itself quite illiberal in the facts! It is not difficult to realize how much of this debate is influenced even by politicalsociological purposes, since the appreciated value of tolerance would be, in the persuasion of many, better favoured by the absence of any "truth", including "scientific" ones. As a matter of fact, there are instead effective arguments concerning the possible coexistence of freedom 12 and truth, for instance that there are not too many truths to be afraid of12, or that every generation has anyway the right, even better the duty, to doubt this is the Cartesian methodological doubt any opinion received from the previous generation.
As Federigo Enriques brilliantly says: "For the values of the spirit, as well as for those of economy, a degradation law holds: men cannot peacefully enjoy their hereditary possession, but must renew and recreate these values, in an effort to understand and to get over them" Carrying on this discussion, we would risk to write down a manifesto of proto-modern epistemology, opposed both to modern and post-modern an example of this is given by the quoted Feynman and Sowa , not to say pre-modern!
He used to teach modern formalistic mathematics, telling his students as it is usual under these circumstances - that the highly sophisticated approach they were called to follow since the very foundations , was necessary, due to the "well known" great achievements of physical research at the beginning of XXth Century. Most teachers roughly satisfy the need of motivations in this way, but the editor decided, at some point of his career, to study with more attention the previous statement, in order to be able to persuade better mostly himself!
So he went on studying the physical connection, analysing in some detail the famous historical experiments, which led people such as Feynman to claim that "classical" explanations were " absolutely impossible". When he started this research he was quite sure that he would have found all in perfect order, and that he would have come back to his beloved pure mathematics in a very short time: but 20 and more years have elapsed since then, and he has found himself more and more sinking into a deep bog, and he was persuaded at last that the "magnificence", and the experimental ground, of some theories as relativity, or quantum mechanics in its widespread "irrational" Copenhagen interpretation was more an effect of propaganda, rather than of objective science namely, a science which is based on certain experimental data, and deductions , or of logical "impossibilities".
This persuasion of the necessity of a new literal re-volution, of the restoration of ordinary rationality in Natural Philosophy, appears - we would dare say - a common thread connecting the papers collected in this volume, wholly dedicated to criticism and alternative to the pillars of XXth Century physics, relativity, relativistic cosmology, etc..
We must admit that we are well aware of the fact that some of this criticism could be in its turn criticized, since not always the arguments are free of errors, or of misunderstandings. All the same, in our opinion, this does not diminish the interest of such attempts for a long overdue renewal of science, since we are not in front of mathematics, where a mistake in a line of a proof of a theorem usually makes the whole discussion worthless. Matters in physics appear more complex, and subtle, and one can take advantage of even "unperfect" papers, which however express good ideas We are ending this "foreword" explaining briefly the criteria which inspired the choice of the reprints.
As Friedwart Winterberg says very keenly, the promising attempts of physics at 13 the end of XIXth Century, aimed towards a knowledge of the aether's structure, "were brought to an abrupt end by Einstein's rejection of the ether and its replacement by his well-known postulates" Both the papers of Almansi and of Moisseiev appeared as a good example of this assertion, even if they, especially the second one, were written after the publication, and the rather fast acceptance16, of Einstein's theory. The publication of Marinov's "paid advertisement" in Nature, was something due, a tribute to the memory of on unforgotten friend, and in most sense a "master".
Not all his opinions appear acceptable, since he never believed in an "aether", yet he defined himself an "absolutist", a situation which led him to statements like: there are no "fields", there is no finite speed propagation of interaction, there exists energy coming from "nothing", and so on. The same applies for the choice of Zapffe's "exodus": a commemoration of a physicist which always disputed relativity as a an adequate "model" of physical reality His magnetospheric theory sounds quite attractive, unfortunately one must repeat what has been said in Marinov's case, not all his opinions appear acceptable Notes 1 - Nature, , ; Nature, , and Needless to say, this does not mean that everything before was quite good, and that were not irrational obstacles interposed against free thought - which is the indispensable condition for the progress of any knowledge - but the Darwinistic pessimism and aggressiveness had a very bad influence on the field itself of "rationality".
Bartocci and J. Wesley eds. In reality, it contains the only mystery". Of course, from an aether-theoretical point of view, all the pretended "impossibilities" are rooted instead on the post-relativity disappearance of the concept of aether, as responsible for all quantum phenomena. Lavenda and E. Santamato assert for instance that: "Quantum indeterminism is explainable in terms of the random interactions between quantum particles and the underlying medium in which they supposedly move" "The Underlying Brownian Motion of Nonrelativistic Quantum Mechanics", Foundations of Physics, Vol.
Physics, Vol. The situation is similar to the famous case of non-euclidean geometries. They are logically acceptable intellectual constructions, but they do not describe the intuition of ordinary space which is "rooted" in man's mind. Exactly as non-euclidean geometries show that there are many possible "models" of space which could be thought of, relativity show that it is possible to conceive many abstract mathematical models of space-time, and the important question to ask is not whether these counter-intuitive spacetimes are "illogical" in themselves since after all they are mathematical models, and thus they are "logical" in the same measure as all mathematics is logical , but if their introduction is really necessary in order to describe Nature's laws.
Jaca Book, Milano, , p. Bjerknes dedicated to S. No less enthusiastic appears the famous mathematician Hermann Weyl which the author appreciates very much in different contexts , when he claims in Space - Time - Matter, Dover Pub. It is as if a wall which separated us from Truth has collapsed" "Truth" has a capital initial letter in the original English text, but one should take into account that in the German original the corresponding term "Wahrheit" had to be written with a capital initial by a general rule of that language.
Nevertheless, orthodox physicists are not so unwise do not acknowledge that any physical theory cannot be a perennial certainty, and that it could be shown wrong in certain respects, an approximation of limited validity to reality. For example, many physicists would easily accept that the theory of relativity both special and general may be imprecise when applied in the domain of very small distances, or that it may not be adequate when applied to extremely large ones for instance, of the order of the presumed "size" of the universe.
But, even if these possible breakdowns would not cause concern, it appears very unlikely that the establishment would be willing to recognize that relativity gave a quite misleading image of the universe, and that they followed a completely wrong path for more than years. Zanichelli, Bologna, , p. Editor's translation, with obvious apologies, here and elsewhere, for the poor English! Proceedings, London, Aether as a continuum is the Solution Glory to experts in Aether models! While people are wondering how the universe began and evolved, The Answer seems to depend upon Aether as the continuum in Fluid Mechanics.
Hydrodynamics provides an analogy to the physical pictures of simplicity in fundamental Nature. In the simplest continuum analogous to vacuum, quantum uncertainty is not yielding particles but actually, mini vortices. Vortices are stable, interactive, and able to form particlelike patterns. Vortices are actually spinning strings in Superstring Theory. The beginning of the Universe is just the quantum fluctuation of Aether or the fabric of space.
Quantum field is a vacuum continuum. While other physicists are still searching for the reality of superstring, aether continuum physicists or fluid mechanics physicists are keen on the reality and application of vortices. This attitude has on the one side almost totally discouraged the production of free critical thought, and on the other side has crystallized the foundations of established Physics in a system of dogmatic immobility - a situation which forced many intellectuals not only physicists to understand scientific knowledge as a kind of "religion" a thought system in which beliefs cannot be checked by laymen, or not even really "understood" - see for instance, in this same issue of Episteme, Marinov's complaints, or Theocharis' contributions.
Even today, things are continuing in this manner, as far as leading scientific journals are concerned, but the increasing diffusion of the Internet has allowed greater freedom of expression and communication, and this has supported the acquisition of unconventional news and points of view, thus showing that discomfort towards the actual establishment's philosophy of Nature and of Science is rather widespread.
In this page, we offer some interesting examples of this "resistance", which becomes more and more worth of attention, the more some investigations could lead to unexpected and very positive practical consequences see for instance Aspden's mention below of an "unseen sea of energy that we inhabit in ignorance of its overwhelming power". We are ending this short presentation with an almost obvious consideration: while censorship of ideas has become less effective, the web's information content has become so large that even a willing reader is at risk of getting lost in a maze of too many inputs, some of which must truly be classified in the realm of day dreams, if not of voluntary disinformation Many widely held beliefs fly in the face of observational evidence.
Theories go through such contortions to resolve inconsistencies that the ideas can no longer be explained in simple language. Alternative ideas are often rejected out of hand simply because they challenge the status quo. The result Meta Research is dedicated to bringing some common sense back to this field. Here we challenge ideas that have consistently failed to make successful predictions, examine new paradigms, and advocate the ideas found to be most worthy of further consideration and testing.
Such reforms have long been urgently needed; and yet there is no area of scholarship more stubbornly censorial, and more reluctant to reform itself. Reigning paradigms in physics and cosmology have for many decades been protected from open challenge by extreme intolerance, excluding debate about the most crucial problems from major journals and meetings. But the founding of the NPA in provided those struggling against this irrationality and intolerance with the strength, visibility, and credibility that comes from numbers and from collaborative, purposeful effort.
It has also enabled them to share, expand, and refine their individual knowledge through contact with many other critical scholars, at NPA general meetings--held at least once per year since and by phone and mail, both postal and electronic. Because of the perennially central role the natural sciences, critical arguments focus on the presuppositions, concepts and methods of modern physics, and especially on the cognitive revolution associated with special relativity "antirelativity".
Its almost a commonly known fact that the aether was disproven by an experiment done almost one hundred years ago, by a couple of physicists whom we know as Michelson and Morely see "Is the Speed of Light Constant". Given that, An obvious question might be then, "why should we re-visit this idea? There are a few reasons why we should. The first point I should make is that the aether theory that was disproven by the 18 Michelson and Moreley experiment was that conceived by 19th century physicists.
This only means the first aether conception was wrong, not that there is no aether. Furthermore, new scientific research is a process of "turning over stones". We are simply not smart enough to know which 'stones to turn' or what we will find underneath. Sometimes we can find things of interest , most times not -- but, sometimes you get "spin-offs". When it comes to basic research it is unfortunately hard to guess at any kind of a return on investment.
They were doing basic research - just doing the sweeping - after all the great discoveries had finally been made. They were measuring the drift velocity of the earth through the aether. Every physicist expected that the Michelson and Morley experiment because of the extremely precise Michelson Interferometer would give some number for the earth's drift velocity through the aether.
This number was the expected ROI. Instead they found no drift velocity whatsoever. In fact, if we were to use their results to calculate the velocity of the earth with respect to the aether we would have to say that the earth is at absolute rest - not even orbiting the sun!. This was far more interesting and valuable than the expected ROI. They found 'gold' - a new principle - a new physical law. This find was one of the key ingredients to today's modern physics. It gave Einstein the foundation upon which all of his work was built.
And this gives us another observation… As the turn of the century was approaching, physicists believed that physics was nearly done. This turned out to be wrong way wrong. This is a pattern in science history.
- Idée ditinéraire - La Turquie aux mille visages (French Edition).
- Come August, Come Freedom: The Bellows, the Gallows, and the Black General Gabriel!
In fact, it is not too far off to state this as a principle, that "established science is often wrong". Yes, but they are not what you might expect. It is an educational site operated on a non-profit basis by Energy Science Ltd.
Harold Aspden, who in his retirement years provides the financial support needed to sustain this venture. Aspden acknowledges his gratitude to the Internet facility for providing the means to tell the world about his lifelong exploration of the unseen sea of energy that we inhabit in ignorance of its overwhelming power.
The book Aether Science Papers was published in The front section of the book is a 68 page commentary entitled The Creative Vacuum.