"I'm so clever I can understand things without being able to construct an illustrative analogy, a useful model, or any comprehensible explanation, of them."
Keep in mind this underlying assumption is part of a philosophy that goes back to at least 1926 in Copenhagen. This is not far from what is taught in modern physics classrooms in most schools and universities. This is why Hans' book is important--he is looking at whether that philosophy--the foundation--is correct or incomplete.
Since we assume the universe is interconnected and consistent, analogies should work in many variations. However, they have to be "in kind" to be valid or the analogy will go south; apples to oranges type of thing. Those in kind display a deeper understanding of the natures being discussed and can be illustrative.
The analogy lets a scientist consider where or how energy may be stored, and how it gets moved or used (work). The scientist would need to make some limits on how detailed an analogy. Cut off before it becomes a likeness of something that's not useful for the problem at hand. IOW: think before blind application. The mechanical analogy for polarization works nicely as a basic concept, but needs different application for the the part of the electromagnetic spectrum considered.
There are always two fundamental questions in physics: 1) What can be predicted? 2) Why are things as they are? Sabine Hossenfelder is explicitly rejecting the second question.
Max Planck considered a physical theory to be a metaphor for reality. Her refusal to accept any form of analogy flies in the face of what he wrote.
Fascinating observations. His discussion regarding use of analogies is very interesting, and brings to mind how "quantum foam" and its behavior might be similar to how luminiferous aether might behave if it exists.
And if similar, what this says about Relativity, as either might form a universal frame of reference.
There's certainly a similarity. The Maxwellians made elaborate mechanical models of the aether which they used to tease out the physical relationships. Cartesian vortices, however, strike me as a qualitative explanatory model that cannot be used to make predictions. Do you know if Descartes was able to make any useful predictions using his vortices?
I don't think Descartes succeeded in making any useful predictions using his vortices. His successor, Cristiaan Huygens, did try to come up with a vortex model that would lead to the same numerical results as Newton's. I'm not sure how successful the model was mathematically, but it is clear that it never gained traction during the 18th century.
Newton overshadows far too many great thinkers. He stood on the shoulders of giants, but he didn't give them much credit. Stanley L. Jaki wrote about this.
"I'm so clever I can understand things without being able to construct an illustrative analogy, a useful model, or any comprehensible explanation, of them."
Yeah, no.
Keep in mind this underlying assumption is part of a philosophy that goes back to at least 1926 in Copenhagen. This is not far from what is taught in modern physics classrooms in most schools and universities. This is why Hans' book is important--he is looking at whether that philosophy--the foundation--is correct or incomplete.
Since we assume the universe is interconnected and consistent, analogies should work in many variations. However, they have to be "in kind" to be valid or the analogy will go south; apples to oranges type of thing. Those in kind display a deeper understanding of the natures being discussed and can be illustrative.
The analogy lets a scientist consider where or how energy may be stored, and how it gets moved or used (work). The scientist would need to make some limits on how detailed an analogy. Cut off before it becomes a likeness of something that's not useful for the problem at hand. IOW: think before blind application. The mechanical analogy for polarization works nicely as a basic concept, but needs different application for the the part of the electromagnetic spectrum considered.
There are always two fundamental questions in physics: 1) What can be predicted? 2) Why are things as they are? Sabine Hossenfelder is explicitly rejecting the second question.
Max Planck considered a physical theory to be a metaphor for reality. Her refusal to accept any form of analogy flies in the face of what he wrote.
Fascinating observations. His discussion regarding use of analogies is very interesting, and brings to mind how "quantum foam" and its behavior might be similar to how luminiferous aether might behave if it exists.
And if similar, what this says about Relativity, as either might form a universal frame of reference.
And thanks for reminding me. I added Sabine Hossenfelder's tweet to the post.
The contrast with Sabine Hossenfelder's recent advice to not even try to understand physics is striking.
Scientist/Honest Observer >> Science Promoter
FitzGerald's wheels sound to me like a variant of Descartes's vortices.
There's certainly a similarity. The Maxwellians made elaborate mechanical models of the aether which they used to tease out the physical relationships. Cartesian vortices, however, strike me as a qualitative explanatory model that cannot be used to make predictions. Do you know if Descartes was able to make any useful predictions using his vortices?
I don't think Descartes succeeded in making any useful predictions using his vortices. His successor, Cristiaan Huygens, did try to come up with a vortex model that would lead to the same numerical results as Newton's. I'm not sure how successful the model was mathematically, but it is clear that it never gained traction during the 18th century.
It's a shame Newton so overshadowed Huygens. I'll be talking about their contrasting views on optics in Chapter 7.
Newton overshadows far too many great thinkers. He stood on the shoulders of giants, but he didn't give them much credit. Stanley L. Jaki wrote about this.