Re: definition of science

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
Date: Thu Apr 28 2005 - 14:02:42 EDT

Are you suggesting that only one mathematical model fits? After Einstein
presented his work, Whitehead came up with a different version. Not
liking Riemannian geometry, his was based on Euclidean. Eddington proved
that the two were equivalent on the four matters then recognized as
relevant. Later work disproved Whitehead's version of relativity because
of other matters. I recall an article in /Scientific American/ that
presented additional relativity theories, though it did not discuss the
calculus underlying them. Some apparently were equivalent to Einstein's
theories, while others were designed to be slightly different.

Quanta may be approached either as particles or as waves, equivalent
theories. I understand that two approaches to string theory were
demonstrated equivalent. In other words, the fit is multiple. Beyond
that, are four dimensions simple? What about 10 or 11? Is seeing a
matching pattern simple? Once seen, it's "obvious," of course. Then why
does it take brilliant people so long to see it? How many have an /annus
mirabilis/?
Dave

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 01:02:36 -0700 "Don Winterstein"
<dfwinterstein@msn.com> writes:
"...The shift to a Riemannian geometry because of the inclusion of time
is not necessarily that simple...."

You're right, Einstein needed a kind of 4-D space that could locally
change shape.

"As to why simplicity, the answer that immediately suggests itself is
that that is all the human intellect can grasp."

Perhaps we've beaten this almost to death; but what I hear Einstein
saying is that the simplest math is not just what is comprehensible to
human minds but is what the world precisely fits. Measurements support
the precision of fit. He's making a statement about how the world is
made.

Don
Received on Thu Apr 28 15:24:39 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Apr 28 2005 - 15:24:43 EDT