Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site prometheus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!prometheus!pmk
From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc)
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: Arrogance and Physical Laws
Message-ID: <136@prometheus.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 5-Apr-85 14:08:13 EST
Article-I.D.: promethe.136
Posted: Fri Apr  5 14:08:13 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 7-Apr-85 09:22:05 EST
References: <699@houxl.UUCP>
Organization: Prometheus II Ltd., College Park, MD
Lines: 71

> Science is not a system of belief, religions are systems of belief,
> science is made up of careful, systematic, open minded observations.
> Scientific theory is an attempt to describe the observations in the
> most compact, precise, and understandable way possible.
> Scientists don't go around trying to sweep disagreeable facts under the rug.
> If you think that, you simply don't know any scientists.
> 
It is my contention that both scientists and theologians (and some are both)
are only human.  They both deal with reality and generate a theory/ies of 
reality.  Science is more local.  (Where the hell did the initial energy 
come from that forms the physical Universe?)   This is a question more for 
theologians, now, but science is getting there and someday maybe they too 
may recognize (hypothesize) the existance of non-physical (2d) hypermatter 
or some other name that moves science into a broader reality.  

As for compact, precise, and (comprehensible) understandings?  Well, every 
once in a while that happens, but most of the time NOT.  For example,  the 
epicycles to explain planetary motion, and the particle charts to explain 
the excited particle states of simple +-electrons.  They don't sweep 
disagreeable "facts" under the rug?  Very cleverly they do it all the time.  
Anything that can't be correlated with other more simpler things are given a
name.  For example,  electron.  What is an electron?  It's a charged particle 
that obeys the Lorentz force and has slight mass and some spin, you say?   
It's can NOT even be a particle in the sense that the word `particle' 
suggests independent existance, and removing a single electron from the 
universe "box" would forever change the physical laws of the remaining 
universe, fundamentally.  That is a truely removed electron could 
leave no universe charge +1 behind otherwise it really wouldn't be removed.  
The truth is that electrons are more like "half particles" in that although
they have separable location they nevertheless are field line tied.  

The laws of conservation will probably eventually be collapsed into a single 
law of information conservation which has both operator and array expressions. 
Time as a quantized entity would be not so different than the frames of an 
artificial reality "motion picture" unfolding one at a time. Information in
quantity being conserved and the shutter being both creation and anihilation 
operator for the "2d" screen projection. Since time passes for us, it's 
reasonable to assume that information is being exchanged across
each "time" frame.  Maybe what "particles really are" relates to the operator 
and array processing units for our unfolding "reality". So that by analogy 
a particle does two things.  It is like a television monitor to display a 
grainy information array and it is also a video camera "viewing" the monitor 
and at the same time feeding its signal to it for display.  In this sense, 
electrons could be "holes" in space into which information "grains" disappear, 
or go out of existance, thus allowing "time" to proceed.  The net flow of
information though space may be associated with the vector A. And, the precise 
number of "grains" created or anihilated in a single time frame with the 
value and sign of "charge".  That's conservation of information and that 
IS precision.  Known to more places than any other constant.

So this is certainly a "crackpot" thought, but, such thoughts are certainly 
necessary if simplifications and improvements in understandings are to come.
The problem with "physicists"** is that they sweep what is not known or not 
yet fully related "under the rug, by simply giving it a different name.  
electron  charge  gravity ..  ..etc.  Any person with common sense 
instinctively knows that reality is a woven fabric of a single entity,  
"information, intelligence,..." so there is a real problem in getting people
to study physics and "believe the b....  s....".

At the present time physics requires fervent "belief" just like "religion"  
and if we don't accept that little goody, our probability of having the
humility it takes to advance science by simplifying it is not very high.  

Overstated to make the point.
** Feynman excepted!
-- 
|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| pmk@prometheus: (301) 445-1075			| FUSION | 
| Prometheus II Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222	|  this  | 
| ..!{umcp-cs,seismo}!prometh!pmk 			| decade |
|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|