- Why we don’t have Philosophy of Physics ?

- Why we don’t have Philosophy of Physics ?
===========.
The common opinion about Philosophy of Physics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_physics
#
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
etc . . .
===========.
My opinion:
- Why we don’t have Philosophy of Physics ?
==========
There are Classic Mechanic and Quantum Mechanic,
but there isn’t Philosophy of Physics. Why ?
=======.
1.
In thermodynamics particles are "mathematical points",
2.
In QT particles are "mathematical points",
3.
In SRT particles are points.
4.
In QED particles are points.
5.
The energy, impulse, linear and angular momentum in physics
is also a " mathematical point".
6.
Then one "mathematical point" ( particle) interacts with another
"mathematical point" (energy, impulse ..etc ) the physicists say:
" The Quantum theory and micro-world are paradoxical."
==========
Therefore I wrote :
Physics - Particle and its shadow Math Point.
Our Earth moves straight and rotates around itself.
Let us take an infinite small point and suggested
it also has these two kinds of movement.
What will be happen ?
1
An infinite small point moves straight and its trajectory
shows us a straight line ( SRT)
2
An infinite small point changes its straight direction
( for example near Sun) and its trajectory curves ( GRT)
3
An infinite small point can rotate around itself.(?!)
Here is hidden a puzzle.(!)
Stupid question:
Does anybody ever draw point in his life?
!!!
Take pen and make point.
What do you see ?
Point,- you say.
And I see point, which has geometrical form of circle ( c/d=pi=3,14).
And even the smallest point will have geometrical form of circle
And even an Infinite Smallest Point will have geometrical form of circle
4
The SRT talks about an infinite small point which moves
in the Emptiness.(!) Which geometrical form can have this point ?
The Third law of Thermodynamics says in the Emptiness (!)
( in the Cold Emptiness ) an infinite small point cannot have volume.
It means an infinite small point must have geometrical form of circle
5
According to SRT this circle – particle cannot be firm,
it must be elastic.(!)
6.
The Electron’s puzzles.
The electron is not a point.
It is forbidden to electron to be hard as a steel, it must be elastic.
The electron doesn't have really orbit . . .
It is a reason of a standing wave of fantastically high frequency.
It can be a corpuscular and a wave at the same time.
On the one hand, in interaction with aether all its parameters
becomes infinite, but on the other hand, it is the reason
of electromagnetic waves and a density in the aether.
The electron has a negative twin brother - positron.
#
1900, 1905
Planck and Einstein found the energy of electron: E=h*f.
1916
Sommerfeld found the formula of electron : e^2=ah*c,
it means: e = +ah*c and e = -ah*c.
1928
Dirac found two more formulas of electron’s energy:
+E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2.
Questions.
Why does electron have five ( 5 ) formulas ?
Why does electron obey four ( 4) Laws ?
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass
b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
d) The Fermi-Dirac statistics
#
What is an electron ?
Now nobody knows .
In the internet we can read hundreds theories of electron.
For example.
More than ten different models of the electron are presented here. (!!!)
More than twenty models are discussed briefly. (!!!)
Thus, the book gives a complete picture of contemporary theoretical
thinking (traditional and new) about the physics of the electron.
/ The book "What is the Electron?"
Volodimir Simulik. Montreal, Canada. 2005. /
http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/Electron.htm
All of them are problematical.
So, why we call an electron a simple elementary
particle if it looks not very simple ?
We can read hundreds books and magazines about philosophy of physics.
But how can we trust them if we don’t have the real model of Electron ?
7.
In 1915 Einstein connected Mass with Geometry.
Maybe now, in 2010, somebody will try to understand the interaction
between an Infinite Small Particle and Geometry.
=====================.
P.S.
Let’s look at it another way –
In an Italian railway station.
It was more then two hours until the departure of the train.
I went to the café and ordered a cup of coffee. Soon two men
and a very beautiful, slim woman took a place opposite me.
They ordered something to drink and one of the man opened
a case of violin and took out a bow. He began to explain
something about the bow, carefully and gently touching it.
Then another man took this bow and also enthusiastically
continued this conversation. For half an hour the bow was passed
from one hands to another followed with enthusiastic discussion.
And the beautiful woman looked at bow, at both these men without
saying a word. For half an hour I watched this group with admiration
and excitement. What a class! What a cultural level!
What a beauty!
And now let's imagine the bow pressed into a "mathematical point"
and the musicians speak seriously about a "mathematical point"
which must produce a sound from a violin.
Everybody will say I describe an idiotic situation.
Well, I agree.
But why doesn't anybody say it to physicists when they observe
an elementary particle as a "mathematical point" , without paying
attention to its geometrical form.
#
If physicists think about a particle as a " mathematical point"
the result can be only paradoxical. And I am sure if somebody
takes into consideration the geometrical form of particle the
paradoxes in Physics will disappear.
We will have Philosophy of Physics.
#
When Feynman said "I think I can safely say that nobody
understands quantum mechanics." it was only because nobody took
into consideration the geometrical form of a particle.
=============================.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
=========================.

In physics a particle is represented most accurately using a wavefunction. This is not a "point".

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
In physics a particle is represented most accurately using a wavefunction. This is not a "point".

Good point🙂

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
In physics a particle is represented most accurately using a wavefunction. This is not a "point".

Quantum physics can be seen as a space of wavefunctions; as opposed to regular x, y, z, t coordinates.

If the space of all wavefunctions is the space in which we are working ... then one wavefunction IS a 'point'.

Of course this wave function of a single particle is highly idealised, and fails to include the wave function for the rest of the universe.

Why does the post ask why there is no "Philosophy of Physics" while linking to an article that demonstrates that we do, and it's quite a substantial discipline?

Originally posted by mtthw
Why does the post ask why there is no "Philosophy of Physics" while linking to an article that demonstrates that we do, and it's quite a substantial discipline?

I was just about to point out the very same apparent contradiction but then I read your post.

Originally posted by mtthw
Why does the post ask why there is no "Philosophy of Physics" while linking to an article that demonstrates that we do, and it's quite a substantial discipline?

You might as well ask why time is cubic.

Richard

Originally posted by flexmore
Quantum physics can be seen as a space of wavefunctions; as opposed to regular x, y, z, t coordinates.

If the space of all wavefunctions is the space in which we are working ... then one wavefunction IS a 'point'.

Of course this wave function of a single particle is highly idealised, and fails to include the wave function for the rest of the universe.

Or for the lay person.

A wave function is just like a wave in the water except the peaks and troughs of a wavefunction have to do with probability. Since we can't know the exact velocity AND the exact position of a particle there is the probability that it will be here or there. The more likely the particle is to be at a certain point the higher the peak will be.

Originally posted by tomtom232
Or for the lay person.

A wave function is just like a wave in the water except the peaks and troughs of a wavefunction have to do with probability. Since we can't know the exact velocity AND the exact position of a particle there is the probability that it will be here or there. The more likely the particle is to be at a certain point the higher the peak will be.

True, but not the original point. flexmore was pointing out that you can consider a wavefunction a "point" if you take a more general definition of the word "space" (which "point" is defined relative to).

Originally posted by mtthw
True, but not the original point. flexmore was pointing out that you can consider a wavefunction a "point" if you take a more general definition of the word "space" (which "point" is defined relative to).

Yeah, I just know that many people visit this forum who don't know what a wavefunction is.

Is the OP confused about the way we refer to "points" when discussing particles? Is it just a poetical playing about with words without touching anything significant? In any case, why does gender stereotyping have any useful place in this discussion?

If "points" have meaning, then I imagine that is only in geometry, where Euclid classically describes relationships in space (such as length, distance, angles) by conceiving the abstract idea of a point. There is no actual point, any more than there is an actual line or an actual angle.

If I mark a "point" on a sheet of paper (or a piece of wood) with my pencil, then the mark is not in itself a "point," but an indicator to say that this is where I wish to place my "point." The "point" is where the pencil mark is (approximately) but the mark is not a "point." I know the "point" is there either a) because I have complete freedom to prescribe where I want my "point" to be or b) because this can be calculated with reference to other "points," whose location I (or another) have arbitrarily decided. However what I cannot do is track down a "point" by observation, such as using a high powered microscope.

We have just been told that an electron is a perfect sphere. An electron cannot be a "point" because it has the properties of a circle, which is a relationship between many points. So what type of particle could possibly consist in a "point"?

Originally posted by finnegan
Is the OP confused about the way we refer to "points" when discussing particles? Is it just a poetical playing about with words without touching anything significant? In any case, why does gender stereotyping have any useful place in this discussion?

If "points" have meaning, then I imagine that is only in geometry, where Euclid classically describes re points. So what type of particle could possibly consist in a "point"?

An electron is often referred to as a "point particle". What this means is that an electron has no discernible internal structure (as opposed to e.g. a neutron) and no rotational/vibrational degrees of freedom (as opposed to e.g. a molecule). However, despite having no internal structure, an electron does take up a finite amount of space.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
An electron is often referred to as a "point particle". What this means is that an electron has no discernible internal structure (as opposed to e.g. a neutron) and no rotational/vibrational degrees of freedom (as opposed to e.g. a molecule). However, despite having no internal structure, an electron does take up a finite amount of space.

Ok but does that spoil my suggestion that this is a language thing?

In the long OP the phrase to note may be this: "If physicists think about a particle as a " mathematical point" the result can be only paradoxical. And I am sure if somebody takes into consideration the geometrical form of particle the paradoxes in Physics will disappear." Does the alleged paradox arise by shifting between mathematical language and ordinary language?

I suppose that the "geometrical form" of an electron is not the same as the form of a point in geometry. On the other hand, in a mathematical model, it might be fine to treat it as a point, which might simply facilitate the calculation. In some calculations it is useful to treat a planet as a point. But treating it as a point or even describing it as a "point particle" is not the same as suggesting that it is indeed a "point."

By the way, one thing I agree with Feynman about is this - I don't mind being wrong.

Originally posted by finnegan
Ok but does that spoil my suggestion that this is a language thing?

In the long OP the phrase to note may be this: "If physicists think about a particle as a " mathematical point" the result can be only paradoxical. And I am sure if somebody takes into consideration the geometrical form of particle the paradoxes in Physics will disappear." Does ...[text shortened]...
By the way, one thing I agree with Feynman about is this - I don't mind being wrong.

The point is, indeed, that a point particle is not a "mathematical point".