Relativity and Empiricism

[Erasmus00]

Rather then drag this this thread off topic, I wanted to pose some questions for Hilton Ratcliffe here. To start:

Given the phenomenal success of theories special relativity based theories (such as QED,QCD,electroweak), how can we doubt that special relativity wasn't on to something?

In other words, you wish to work with a euclidean 3 dimensional universe with an absolute time parameterizing trajectories. However, the best tested theories we have are not mappable to this model (i.e. quantum field theories). How can we hold to Euclid in light of this? How can we ignore Minkowski?
-Will

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi Will,

Thank you for your questions. My criticism of Relativity and the Gaussian geometry from which it was eventually drawn is confined to the phenomenological universe in which I work. I understand that for entities beyond the scale of direct observation and measurement, we have no choice but to try to imagine how things might be, and I concede that the only way to do that with any relevance is by mathematics. Any discussion of those areas of enquiry are limited to mathematical debate, and that in itself can lead to a maelstrom of ideas that conclude themselves only to those individuals suitably fluent in the mathematical syntax being employed. I distance myself from such enquiry, because I find (probably as a result of my own ignorance) that it is simply frustrating and almost impossibly hard to verify in many cases.

However in the observed universe that astronomers deal with, we are not compelled to resort to meta-mathematical abstractions. It is a universe that obviously exists in 3-D Euclidean space, and therefore I maintain that we should not treat it in any other way if we want real answers to our problems of measurement. Without any hard data to back up my contention, I believe that a mechanical link will eventually emerge between macro and micro, or at the very least, we will discover that we don't need completely different, often irrational, physics to describe anything in the physical universe. It my view that we have arrived at these successful but unilateral models of sub-atomic phenomena precisely because of the mathematical route that has become standard in science. As soon as one removes the neccessary restraint of our common reality, one is given dangerous and consuming freedom to re-define reality to suit one's equations.

Best regards
Hilton

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by Hilton Ratcliffe

As soon as one removes the neccessary restraint of our common reality, one is given dangerous and consuming freedom to re-define reality to suit one's equations.

So Maxwell, Lorentz and Einstein wrote their equations arbitrarily and the results of all experiments of electricity, magnetism and optics were bent to suite those equations...

[modest]

Is the suggestion that we go back to æther and a variable speed of light, or that we accept the validity of SR and GR but try and put them into Euclidian geomatry?

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by Hilton Ratcliffe

Hi Will,...However in the observed universe that astronomers deal with, we are not compelled to resort to meta-mathematical abstractions. It is a universe that obviously exists in 3-D Euclidean space,...

Given the first question in this thread, it is not clear what aspects of mathematical modeling you are objecting to. By inference from other posts, you are claiming that Special Relativity (at least) is unnecessary. Maybe even General Relativity. You also appear to be saying that there are no observational reasons for concluding that Einstein's math explains the real 3-D universe.

Au contraire, mon ami. The observational evidence for both Relativities is vast and plentiful. Especially from astronomy.

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi Modest,

Is the suggestion that we go back to æther and a variable speed of light, or that we accept the validity of SR and GR but try and put them into Euclidian geomatry?

I live and breathe in a 3-D Euclidean universe. My suggestion is therefore that we form our theories of things that happen in this universe using the appropriate geometry. In essence, I am saying that Einstein's Relativity attempts to fix something that isn't broken, at least not in the observed and measured universe.

Best
Hilton

[Qfwfq]

A farmer in Holland who never travels or rises above the ground lives and breaths on a very flat piece of land, surrounded by other very flat pieces of land. When working out shapes and measures of these fields and their boundaries, for purchasing them or for splitting them between heirs, it is perfectly appropriate to use good ol' Euclid's geometry.

And 2-D, to boot.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Hilton Ratcliffe

Hi Modest,



I live and breathe in a 3-D Euclidean universe. My suggestion is therefore that we form our theories of things that happen in this universe using the appropriate geometry. In essence, I am saying that Einstein's Relativity attempts to fix something that isn't broken, at least not in the observed and measured universe.

Best
Hilton

Is there something I don’t know about Euclidean geometry that makes it more "appropriate" to other geometries - perhaps that it was described first? Is a spherical surface better in some fundamental way than a hyperbolic surface?

GR can be described with a 3-dimensional hypersphere embedded in a 4-dimensional Euclidean space with an imaginary time coordinate or a 4-dimensional hyper-hyperboloid in a 4+1-dimensional Minkowski space-time. (1) To me, these seem like different descriptions of the same thing. I don’t believe an idea or a model should be arbitrarily dismissed because of the coordinate system used to describe it. As we know, these models of SR and GR can be described in more than one geometry. I believe this is a product of geometry or more essentially math, and not the reality or validity of the model itself.

Or, should we limit ourselves to only using Euclidean geometry when describing physics? How would this help in our understanding the universe?

-modest

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi Modest,

Or, should we limit ourselves to only using Euclidean geometry when describing physics? How would this help in our understanding the universe?

Don't you agree that in the area of investigation described in my earlier posts, Euclidean geometry is the simplest, easiest and most accessible way of quantitatively describing the environment? Furthermore, do you not agree that it is a system of directly mapping observed phenomena in the way that we empirically conceive of it? It does not need convoluted mathematical expression. That would make it fundamentally better, in my opinion, unless the relativistic method gives us answers that we cannot obtain by this method. If you disagree, then I fear we have reached an impasse where we are both excercising our choice of first principles, and simply seeing it differently. I assume a 3-D Euclidean universe because it is the one I see.

Best
Hilton

[sanctus]

Are you sure it is the one you see? When you look at stars for example their position can be shifted by gravitational lensing for example. Or what about the perihelium of Mercury (don't know if this is the good translation into english of what I mean, ask in case it isn't)?

Your argumentation seems a bit middle-agish in the sense that the motivation is: "because it is the one I see" just as all the non-scientifics from inquisition argued geocentrism...