Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site utcsstat.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!utcsstat!laura
From: laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.ai
Subject: Re: RE: Intuition in Physics
Message-ID: <1251@utcsstat.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 9-Oct-83 17:38:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: utcsstat.1251
Posted: Sun Oct  9 17:38:45 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Oct-83 21:26:29 EDT
References: <2360@ncsu.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Toronto, Canada
Lines: 81

Gary,
I don't know about why you think about physics, but I know something about
why *I* think about physics. You see, i have this deep fondness for
"continuous creation" as opposed to "the big bang". This is too bad for me,
since "big bang" appears to be correct, or at any rate, "continuous
creation" appears to be *wrong*. Perhaps what it more correct is 
"bang! sproiinngg.... bang!" or a series of bangs, but this is not
the issue.

these days, if you ask me to explain the origins of the universe, from
a physical point of veiw I am going to discuss "big bang". I can do this.
It just does not have the same emotional satisfaction to me as "c c"
but that is too bad for me, I do not go around spreading antiquidated
theories to people who ask me in good faith for information.

But what if the evidence were not all in yet? What if there were an
equal number of reasons to believe one or the other? What would I be
doing? talking about continuous creation. i might add a footnote that
there was "this other theory ... the big bang theory" but I would not
discuss it much. I have that strong an emotional attatchment to
"continuous creation".

You can also read that other great issues in physics and astronomy had
their great believers -- there were the great "wave versus particle"
theories of light, and The Tycho Brahe cosmology versus the Kepler
cosmology, and these days you get similar arguments ...

In 50 years, we may all look back and say, well, how silly, everyone
should have seen that X, since X is now patently obvious. This will
explain why people believe X now, but not why people believed X then,
or why people DIDN'T believe X then.

Why didn't Tycho Brahe come up with Kepler's theories? It wasn't
that Kepler was a better experiementer, for Kepler himself admits
that he was a lousy experimenter and Brahe was reknowned for having
the best instraments in the world, and being the most painstaking
in measurements. it wasn't that they did not know each other, for
Kepler worked with Brahe, and replaced him as Royal Astronomer, and
was familiar with his work before he ever met Brahe...

It wasn't that Brahe was religious and Kepler was not, for it was
Kepler that was almost made a minister and studied very hard in Church
schools (which literally brought him out of peasantry into the middle
class) while Brahe, the rich nobleman, could get away with acts that
the church frowned upon (to put if mildly).

Yet Kepler was able to think in terms of Heliocentric, while Brahe,
who came so...so..close balked at the idea and put the sun circling
the earth while all the other planets circled the sun. Absolutely
astonishing!

I do not know where these differences came from. However, I have a
pretty good idea why continuous creation is more emotionally satisfying
for me than "big bang" (though these days I am getting to like
"bang! sproing! bang!" as well.) As a child, i ran across the "c c"
theory at the same time as i ran across all sorts of the things that
interest me to this day. In particular, I recall reading it at the
same time that I was doing a long study of myths, or creation myths
in particular. Certain myths appealed to me, and certain ones did not.

In particular, the myths that centred around the Judeao-Christian
tradition (the one god created the world -- boom!) had almost no
appeal to me those days, since I had utter and extreme loathing for
the god in question. (this in turn was based on the discovery that
this same wonderful god was the one that tortured and burned millions
in his name for the great sin of heresy.) And thus, "big bang"
which smacked of "poof! god created" was much less favoured by me
at age 8 than continuous creation (no creator necessary).

Now that I am older, I have a lot more tolerance for Yaveh, and
I do not find it intollerable to believe in the Big Bang. However,
it is not as satisfying.  Thus I know that some of my beliefs
which in another time could have been essential to my scientific
theories and inspirations, are based on an 8-year-old me reading
about the witchcraft trials. 

It seems likely that somebody out there is furthering science by
discovering new theories based on ideas which are equally scientific.

Laura Creighton
utzoo!utcsstat!laura