Did Einstein overthrow Newton?

Pinball, can you track down a distinguished physicist or two who does not think that Einstein overthrew Newton? - who say that Einstein merely added to Newton's foundation, or something similar. This is, after all, supposed to be a site which places a premium on evidence, and I take it that expert testimony counts as evidence.

I've provided evidence in the form of numerous experts -- indeed the finest physicists in the world -- who say, in their various ways, that Einstein did overthrow Newton.

Your own evidence thus far amounts to the combined testimony of yourself and about three other contributors to this thread, along with the explanation that famous scientists "talk shit", and engage in hyperbolic histrionics in order to boost sales of their throw-away pop-sci pablum.

I'd say it's not yet an entirely compelling case that you've mounted.

Anyway, have fun at the pub!
 
Last edited:
Pinball1970 said:
I am going to the pub in ten minutes.

Some truth claims.

I will drink alcohol
Villa will beat united.
Ten Hag will be sacked not long after, before the end of the day.

Tomorrow you can falsify those claims.
Click to expand...

The Scottish fans will smash up Wembley.
 
axocanth said:
Your own evidence thus far amounts to the combined testimony of yourself and about three other contributors to this thread, along with the explanation that famous scientists "talk shit", and engage in hyperbolic histrionics in order to boost sales of their throw-away pop-sci pablum
Click to expand...
And the text books and modern cutting edge research, please do not forget that part.
 
"When Rangers fans returned to the city for a European clash with the Reds at Old Trafford in 2010, they were held at the DW Stadium in Wigan before the match."


Jeez! Talk about cruel and inhumane punishment. Wigan!
 
axocanth said:
Serves you right for what you did to William Wallace, ya bampot. ;)
Click to expand...
That old turkey, that was 1305 let it go.
axocanth said:
So, do you feel Manchester was "overthrown"? Or was it all just a storm in a teacup?
Click to expand...
We are 14th so yes, we are crap right now. Have to careful here, I don't like detailing threads!

I need to get a few more text books out, has Kip Thorne published any?
 
Last edited:
axocanth said:
Hmm, lemme see where TheVat lives . . .
Click to expand...
Baja North Dakota.

To your obs on instrumental v realism, and the ever present risk of incoherence, I'll just say that structural realism seems like the wise middle path. You mentioned it in the STOT thread...

This, in turn, leads others to defend a position known as structural realism, as we've mentioned before. You can't rely on scientific theories being true, and you can't rely on its unobservable postulates being real, but you can rely on the retention of certain relationships even through massive theoretical upheaval. Steven Weinberg, a staunch realist, argues for something like this.

I find this relationship approach appealing, as it directly addresses what most of science observes, viz the relationship between things rather than the things in themselves. I am reminded of Heisenberg remark, "what we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning." As a structural realist one can skip the merry-go-round of defining what a field or a force really is, where one is chronically ending up with a circular definition.
 
TheVat said:
Baja North Dakota.

To your obs on instrumental v realism, and the ever present risk of incoherence, I'll just say that structural realism seems like the wise middle path. You mentioned it in the STOT thread...

This, in turn, leads others to defend a position known as structural realism, as we've mentioned before. You can't rely on scientific theories being true, and you can't rely on its unobservable postulates being real, but you can rely on the retention of certain relationships even through massive theoretical upheaval. Steven Weinberg, a staunch realist, argues for something like this.

I find this relationship approach appealing, as it directly addresses what most of science observes, viz the relationship between things rather than the things in themselves. I am reminded of Heisenberg remark, "what we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning." As a structural realist one can skip the merry-go-round of defining what a field or a force really is, where one is chronically ending up with a circular definition.
Click to expand...
This seems also to appeal to Carlo Rovelli, according his book “Helgoland”, which is as a matter of fact inspired by Heisenberg’s radical approach to QM…..

The relational interpretation of QM stresses the reality of interactions, but is studiously agnostic about the reality of the properties of entities in between interactions.
 
TheVat said:
To your obs on instrumental v realism, and the ever present risk of incoherence, I'll just say that structural realism seems like the wise middle path. You mentioned it in the STOT thread...

This, in turn, leads others to defend a position known as structural realism, as we've mentioned before. You can't rely on scientific theories being true, and you can't rely on its unobservable postulates being real, but you can rely on the retention of certain relationships even through massive theoretical upheaval. Steven Weinberg, a staunch realist, argues for something like this.

I find this relationship approach appealing, as it directly addresses what most of science observes, viz the relationship between things rather than the things in themselves. I am reminded of Heisenberg remark, "what we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning." As a structural realist one can skip the merry-go-round of defining what a field or a force really is, where one is chronically ending up with a circular definition.
Click to expand...


And it's hard to think of a case to which structural realism fits more snugly than the one we are examining right now!

To say that Einstein's work is nothing but a smooth continuation, or an extension, of Newton's isn't going to convince anyone (except perhaps Glasgow Rangers fans). On the other hand, to say that absolutely everything was jettisoned in the transition doesn't seem quite right either.

(And at this juncture, I might add that talk of "apples continuing to fall" through it all, as if Newton thereby deserves credit for this, is simply vacuous bluster or a misunderstanding of what's going on. People continued to writhe on the ground through the transition from the "demonic possession" theory (or whatever) to the epilepsy theory. This is scarcely a reason to be singing the praises of the former theory.)

The core ontology (absolute space, absolute time, attractive force) of Newton is all gone -- overthrown! (unless demonic possession stays too) -- but we can, I think, reasonably say something like this:

"The story Newton told us about the architecture and furniture of our universe, we now believe, is totally wrong. As far as we are best able to appraise at present, our universe is nothing remotely like that. Newton did, however, identify mathematical relationships that hold between massive bodies in the macroscopic realm. These relationships, we now believe, are strictly speaking false, though for most everyday applications they yield values that are so close to the exact value as to be indistinguishable."

What do you think, paisan? Reasonable? The relationship (more or less) stays. Capisce?


 
P.S.

Or if you take the strict instrumentalist approach . . . "Einstein's theory is a better tool than Newton's. It yields predictions that are more accurate. It works better. Full stop."

And, if you adopt this approach, don't you dare let me catch you speaking of either theory explaining this, that, and the other, or science marching towards truth, or us having a better understanding of the universe now . . . or I'll thump you with my spanner.

Spanners don't do any of these things either. Spanners assert nothing.
 
Pinball1970 said:
I need to get a few more text books out, has Kip Thorne published any?
Click to expand...

Hmm, I think I've only read his "Black holes and time warps: Einstein's outrageous legacy". The local uni library has this one too . . .


I pulled it off the shelves and glanced through it. Except for the short introduction though, if I recall correctly, the rest was all terrifying equations which fill about half a page each. Aaarrgghh!!! Way over my head. Perhaps you'll fare better . . . after the hangover subsides.


Pinball1970 said:
That old turkey, that was 1305 let it go.
Click to expand...

Yes, William Wallace was well hung . . . like all Scotsmen.
 
Pinball quotes S. J. Gould in post #135 . . .

Pinball1970 said:
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered."
Click to expand...

I've read that too, and to be perfectly frank (burp), I remember thinking that does not sound one bit like the clever, sophisticated Gould that I know and love. That sounds like a communique issued by the Ministry of Scientistic Propaganda itself. Why, it's so naive and simplistic and childlike that it sounds like Richard Dawkins talking. It's awful. Aaaaarrrggghhhhh!!!!


What's so awful about it? Well, what we're being told is that, on the one hand, there is the "raw data" -- the facts -- uncontaminated by any theoretical or conceptual apparatus that we bring to bear on the observation thereof. You might say there is a "theory-neutral" language of observation that we all share. We all see the same facts; though we may construct different theories to explain those facts. Theories may come and go, the Rockies may crumble, and Gibraltar it may tumble, but a fact -- like our love and Vito Corleone's dog -- is here to stay.

In a word (or four), facts speak for themselves.


Consider first: "The Sun rises every morning". Fact or not?


Consider second:

"Facts do not 'speak for themselves'; they are read in the light of theory" - S J Gould, essay "The Validation of Continental Drift", found in "The Richness of Life", p 291


And consider third . . .


 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top