Peikoff/Harrimans bok om induksjon i fysikk

Diskusjon om teknologi, teknologiske fremskritt, ny vitenskap, etc.

Re: Peikoff/Harrimans bok om induksjon i fysikk

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 06 Aug 2012, 09:05

Som kjent var det Bohr og Einstein som var de primære frontfigurene på hver side i striden om tolkningen av kvantemekanikken. Einstein mente at “gud spiller ikke terning med universet”, dvs. han mente at identitetsloven og årsakloven gjelder, mens Bohr reelt sett var en mystiker som gikk god for all mulig irrasjonalitet. Det var som kjent Bohr som fikk gjennomslag og som nå er dominerende på dette feltet.

Nå er jeg blitt kjent med at det var en ung fysiker, John Clarke Slater, som i utgangspunktet var på samme side som Einstein, men som under et besøk hos Bohr i 1923-24 fikk oppleve Bohr i praksis.

Slater ga et intervju som ligger her: http://www.aip.org/history/ohilist/4892_1.html

Intervjuet er langt og anbefales ikke, men det mest interessante er klippet ut og ligger her:

Slater forteller (uthevelser av VM): I went there. Bohr was very nice, he invited me to Christmas dinner, I told him about my ideas, he felt these were fine, "But, you see, they're much too definite. Now we cannot have this exact conservation. We must not think too specifically about the photons. We don't have photons like that." In other words, he wanted to make the whole thing just as vague as he could. Kramers was always Bohr's "yes-man" and wanted to do exactly the same thing. He said "This is a fine idea, if we will modify it in such and such ways." That was the last I saw of it.

Bohr and Kramers wrote the paper, they invited me to sign it, the letter to Nature was the first paragraph out of the paper, they invited me to sign it, take it or leave it. This was my experience with Mr. Bohr and Mr. Kramers. Since then, it has developed in a very interesting way, namely, that I was right and they were wrong. They didn't realize this until Mr. Bothe came along with his experiment showing that the photons were really there. So I completely failed to make connection with Bohr. I could have made connections with Kramers if it hadn't been for Bohr, but Kramers was completely playing Bohr's game.

No, no, they wrote it. They kept me in the back room—or they kept me in the front room while they went in the back room—and they wrote it and kept on changing it, and they would ask me, would I agree with the change; I would agree with the change all right. You notice that the paper was sent in at the end of January. I got there at the end of December. Presumably it was several days after I got there that I told my ideas to them. Bohr immediately liked some parts of it so much that he gave a talk, I guess it was in Danish in his local seminar about it. He and Kramers sat right down to write it, and they got it done during January. As I say, the changes they made I didn't like, but I didn't see that I could fight against them.

I was all in favor of letting the energy be the energy of the photons, saying that the wave did not carry energy, that the energy was conserved and it was conserved because photons carried it when they went from one—when you ejected a photon from an atom, it was conservation. If you had slightly different frequencies at different times the atom would come off with slightly different energies and therefore the breadth of its energy band and the photons would come out slightly differently. No, I was in favor of exact conservation. Now we will come to the point which is that those papers were dictated by Bohr and Kramers very much against my wishes. I fought with them so seriously that I've never had any respect for those people since. I had a horrible time in Copenhagen.

I always approach a problem in the sense of wanting to be able to make it definite and work out the details. I feel that if you can't work out the details you can't be sure it's right. I have a great distrust of the hand-waving approach to anything. I had supposed, when I went to Copenhagen, that although Bohr's papers looked like hand-waving, they were just covering up all the mathematics and careful thought that had gone on underneath.

The thing I convinced myself of after a month, was that there was nothing underneath. It was all just hand waving
. I just said, "I'm not going to content myself with this, I'm going to go ahead and see if I can't work out a physical picture without much thought that it was the correct one, which at least would show that these ideas can be made to hang together logically."

So I tried to see if any set of hypotheses could be hung together that would be somewhat logical. I think that the final result was that I could do this. Well, I was working on that. Bohr was contemptuous of it. He would have nothing whatever to do with it. He said he wasn't interested in looking at it or anything like it. Same way with Kramers. They just had no use whatever for this. So I decided I had no use whatever for being around them, I went away. And I've never had any respect for Mr. Bohr since.

Bohr always would always go in for this remark, "You cannot really explain it in the framework of space and time." By God, I was determined I was going to explain it in the framework of space and time. In other words, that was Bohr's point of view on everything, and that was the fundamental difference of opinion between us.

Bohr was fundamentally of a mystical turn of mind and I'm fundamentally of a matter-of-fact turn of mind.
Vegard Martinsen
 
Innlegg: 7865
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Re: Peikoff/Harrimans bok om induksjon i fysikk

Innlegg hytteteppe 06 Aug 2012, 20:39

Vegard Martinsen skrev:
hytteteppe skrev:
Apropos diskusjoner i andre tråder er det også interessant at Harriman i samme innlegg sier følgende:


    "Other physicists argue that string theory is just a mathematical game detached from reality–that it isn’t a theory of everything, but instead a theory of anything. And we’re starting to hear similar criticisms of Big Bang cosmology; if the theory is so flexible that it can explain anything, the critics say, perhaps it actually explains nothing."


Jeg er enig i dette mht FLEKSIBLE teorier, men det jeg siktet til i den andre tråden - hvor jeg at det er feil å si at en teori som forklarer alt egentlig forklarer ingenting - var ikke fleksible teorier.


Teorien om at alle objektivister er uenige i min påstand om verdien av teorier som "forklarer alt" har nå vist seg fleksibel nok til å overleve to falsifikasjoner .... I rest my case.
Brukerens avatar
hytteteppe
 
Innlegg: 368
Registrert: 26 Jan 2009, 17:00

Re: Peikoff/Harrimans bok om induksjon i fysikk

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 08 Aug 2012, 06:17

hytteteppe skrev: ... Teorien om at alle objektivister er uenige i min påstand om verdien av teorier som "forklarer alt" har nå vist seg fleksibel nok til å overleve to falsifikasjoner .... I rest my case.


Jeg trodde at jag aldri skulle opplever at noen ville beskrive Objektivismen som "fleksibel".

Forøvrig ser jeg ikke noen "falsifisering" i hytteteppes innlegg.

I rest my case.


I don't think so.
Vegard Martinsen
 
Innlegg: 7865
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Re: Peikoff/Harrimans bok om induksjon i fysikk

Innlegg QIQrrr 27 Aug 2012, 18:49

Børge Svanstrøm Amundsen

"Atlas was permitted the opinion that he was at liberty, if he wished, to drop the Earth and creep away; but this opinion was all that he was permitted" - Franz Kafka
Brukerens avatar
QIQrrr
 
Innlegg: 4439
Registrert: 20 Mai 2004, 23:33

Forrige

Gå til Teknologi og vitenskap

Hvem er i forumet

Brukere som leser i dette forumet: Ingen registrerte brukere og 1 gjest

cron