IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 2 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Boltzmann's Atom - * * * * 1/2
A neat book by David Lindley from 2001. The battles over what was really going on in Thermodynamics has some interesting parallels with the battles over Superstrings today.

http://www.amazon.co.../aw/d/0684851865/

Recommended.

Cheers,
Scott.
New String Theory is Mysticism.
New Were 'it' only that simple/or truthy-enough.. to 'work with'
New Practical test for String Theory.
http://phys.org/news...tists-theory.html

(Phys.org) —Scientists at Towson University in Towson, Maryland, have identified a practical, yet overlooked, test of string theory based on the motions of planets, moons and asteroids, reminiscent of Galileo's famed test of gravity by dropping balls from the Tower of Pisa.

String theory is infamous as an eloquent theoretical framework to understand all forces in the universe —- a so-called "theory of everything" —- that can't be tested with current instrumentation because the energy level and size scale to see the effects of string theory are too extreme.

Yet inspired by Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton, Towson University scientists say that precise measurements of the positions of solar-system bodies could reveal very slight discrepancies in what is predicted by the theory of general relativity and the equivalence principle, or establish new upper limits for measuring the effects of string theory.

[...]


FWIW. ;-)

Cheers,
Scott.
New OK, I'll bite..
(I bit: a used one enroute, for a pittance + mere $4 ship)
Interesting alt-Amazon format; have to see how you get there. After I ordered: scanned some of the free-pages .pdf

Already I infer about Ludwig a well-earned Y.P.B.--for prescience, literally pre- -science (science as 'done' by 'peers', just then.)
And surprised how he fits within other recent explorations (see below)--or was nearby.. yet missed a prime connection! or two.
He needed that encouragement amidst the ungrateful wretches whose minds he meant to expand--Tungsten is very hard.
(Fortunately, as was eventually the case: it's also brittle.) Heads exploded?

Reviewer, Thomas P. Seager opines:

...
What Lindley has done is give us a wonderfully practical and insightful guide into the world of physics AND the world of academia at the same time. The 19th century debates (in which Boltzmann was more often than not at the center) about what constitutes legitimate science, what constitutes admissable argument or reasoning, what seperates hypothesis from theory from fact, about the nature of thermodynamics and whether it is a discipline that must rely upon the atomic "hypothesis" or be developed completely independently... these debates still shape the scholastic experience of engineers and physicists today!

In some ways, then, Boltzmann's Atom is a cautionary tale for future research faculty. It may hold special meaning for graduate students or philosophers of science, but readers of all background may agree with me that it is a fascinating study in both human frailty and the physical world around us.



I anticipate seeing what Mr. Lindley makes of the current Huge-questions re say, How shall we treat next, intellectual excursions into realms beyond even the possibility of 'experimental verification', as always means: Yet? via guessable techno means.. or At-all, ever?

Then onto: Mathematical manipulations, via Identities and such are almost limitless--and even their (math) provability / after one groks their intent--also consumes much time in the digestion. Yet Einstein's quip re match seems as apropos as any other: (about math proofs and Reality) So we see we can't go back to [I don't believe that atoms exist] Mach, nor can we embrace the gedanken-experiment as complete-enough substitute for that (pedantic? limiting?-) rigor

What I do not expect to find: is some New litmus-grade Test of the Reality defined by any Theorem. So long as language demands [Referents]
and metaphor is the commonest/necessary model during exploration: the 'metaphysics' from the Indian continent are apt to appear somewhere within
the present/next meta-Physics.
Neither Induction nor Deduction may ever catch more than a glimpse of whatever [Reality] "is" ... it very-much seems to me.

Anyway.. pondering an enigma wrapped in a codex from a parallel Universe of anti-matter with a different Cosmological 'constant'
keeps us off the streets (if it doesn't fry too many of the weaker neurons--there's always Danger somewhere.)


(Will save comments for anon on Lindley's, The End of Physics)--some thoughtful reviews and some serendipitous connections re Boltzmann:
Vienna Circle, Karl Popper, Wittgenstein (Wittgenstein's Poker again) and: Boltzmann, apparently just-missing out on several contacts there..
His bio files under Tragedy via insouciance of 'peers' (and by lousy birth-timing?)
New I think you'll like it.
Interesting alt-Amazon format; have to see how you get there.


Amazon usually throws a bunch of extraneous stuff in their URLs. What I usually do is a search for the book or item, then strip everything in the URL after the ISBN (for books) or ASIN (Amazon's item number, for nearly everything else). E.g. http://www.amazon.co...ch/dp/B009B0MZ8U/ I then check it to make sure it works. ;-)

I anticipate seeing what Mr. Lindley makes of the current Huge-questions re say, How shall we treat next, intellectual excursions into realms beyond even the possibility of 'experimental verification', as always means: Yet? via guessable techno means.. or At-all, ever?


I hope I didn't give you the wrong impression. He mentions and comments on such things, but only briefly. There were big battles in Boltzmann's day about whether Atoms were real or just mathematical constructs that were helpful fictions that helped one do some math that gave the right answers. Gibbs didn't use them when he developed his insightful papers on thermodynamics of materials. Mach didn't believe in them, and even more, argued that Theory was worthless. He thought the only purpose of science was to do measurements and catalog the results - that trying to build a theoretical framework wasn't science if it talked about things one couldn't measure. (Of course, Mach had to hand-wave around the question of how to know whether what he measured was really the same as what someone else measured without appealing to a baseline theory of some sort...) The subtle differences and arguments between Boltzmann and Maxwell and the others was very interesting to me. And the cautionary tale about how looking for a purely logical, consistent explanation for the world can lead to dead ends is always worth remembering.

Superstring theory is only mentioned in passing a couple of times. I won't spoil your discovery of his views. ;-) But it does give one pause, I think, to say categorically that "Superstrings aren't science" because they can't be tested when a similar state of affairs existed in the late 1800s regarding Atoms. If Superstring Theory can make testable predictions, eventually, then there may be something to it. ;-) It's probably too early to say.

It's the first book by Lindley that I've read - it was a recent gift that I read on vacation. He doesn't seem to have a recent book covering Superstrings, but does have several other physics-and-physicist related topics that may go into it in a bit more.

HTH.

Enjoy!

Cheers,
Scott.
New Book came.. complete with anecdote, courtesy of Floriduh
An ex-library book, hard-cover in v.good shape.

Stamped on flyleaf:


DISCARDED
OUTDATED, REDUNDANT
MATERIAL


PALM BEACH LIBRARY
WEST PALM BEACH FLORIDA 33406



OK: maybe they had Two? and only One HS-physics grad in the county.

{{Sheesh}} Floriduh again: got opinions on 'relevance' and Everything,
whether or not they have an inkling about any topic's 'currency'.
(Maybe some refugees from Pasadena? members of the Calif Textbook Committee, rendered infamous by Feynman's famous scathing review of their ad hoc Reviewing non-process,)

Thanks! though, FL: saved me cost of a month's supply of decent chow for 3-4 ferals.. they say: Pffffttt!
Now on to.. disproving (am confident via quick scan) their acumen in yet another area of human Valuez.

New At least it didn't go to the shredder!
There's just so much paper out there these days, it must be a huge challenge for libraries to manage their collections - keep the important old stuff yet continuously add new. One would think it would get easier with eBooks, but the headaches from the publishers may make the situation worse - http://www.ala.org/t...ooks-us-libraries - less shelf space, but more IT headaches.

Let me know what you think of it. I hope you enjoy it - I'd hate to think that your beasties might go hungry due to a bad book!

Cheers,
Scott.
     Boltzmann's Atom - * * * * 1/2 - (Another Scott) - (7)
         String Theory is Mysticism. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (2)
             Were 'it' only that simple/or truthy-enough.. to 'work with' -NT - (Ashton)
             Practical test for String Theory. - (Another Scott)
         OK, I'll bite.. - (Ashton) - (3)
             I think you'll like it. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                 Book came.. complete with anecdote, courtesy of Floriduh - (Ashton) - (1)
                     At least it didn't go to the shredder! - (Another Scott)

I'd probably enjoy it, actually.
41 ms