For deep thinkers and theoretical officiandos

A place to keep track of reference material - any particularly useful books, articles, etc. should be listed here.
Post Reply
User avatar
Richard Hull
Site Admin
Posts: 10904
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

For deep thinkers and theoretical officiandos

Post by Richard Hull » Mon Apr 30, 2007 4:54 pm

"Old Physics For New", Thomas Phipps, Aperion Montreal, 2006.
Paper back....

I have known and admired this PhD physicist for some time now. I love reading his works for his masterful command and use of the english language, which is refreshing in and of itself.
(His first book was "Heretical Verties")

He is quite the maverick physicist now that he is safely retired. Something he, fairly, will admit to readily. It seems that once these guys retire, they let loose the pent up frustrations and doubts about physics dogma following a lifetime of being on the "main line" and playing it "straight" and "safe". Gotta' put bread on th' table.

Apparently, Phipps has been brooding over his sins of association with the new church. Whether he has actually sinned by omission or commission in the past is irrelevant, for he pounces on relativistic dogma with freshly sharpened claws.

His attack is wisely mounted, not directly at relativity, but at a physics upon which it is partially based as bed rock... Maxwellian electrodynamics.

As an engineer, this "sine qua non" of the profession is useful, but as a basis for extended physics, apparently, it is lacking.

Phipps gently eases us into the investigative mindset and points out early short comings of Maxwell. Among these are his horrid use of partial time differentials, under parameterized equations and source and sink errors. He leads us to Hertz's corrective Maxwellian surgery that is correct, ostensibly, and mathematically, but was incorrect in its assumption of the luminiferous aether.

As Phipps wryly notes,.... Hertz got the math correct, but based it on an aether with hooks that, unfortunately for him, was testable and ultimately failed the test.

This book is not an easy casual read and demands the reader to be intune with a lot of higher level extant physics. It is both a scolding of physics based on a rare but intense survey of "'detailed" physics history that the reader might be well advised to know at least tenuous details about prior to reading. Still, Phipps is gentle in his guidance of the reader if not his attitude towards todays high end physics as taught and accepted.

It is all about the differences between the maxwell-eintsien covariant electrodynamics and the modified form of the Hertz invariant electrodynamics.

If you are interested in seeing how seeming triffles and often abstract concepts have been left dangling, in the wake of the Einstienian revolution and how latter day disciples have attempted to plug the holes like good little dutch boys, but failing in the process, if not in loyalty to their God head, then you are in for quite an intellectual ride.

Check it out if you dare.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
Retired now...Doing only what I want and not what I should...every day is a saturday.

Chad K.
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:16 pm
Real name:

Re: For deep thinkers and theoretical officiandos

Post by Chad K. » Wed May 28, 2008 9:07 pm

It sounds like a good read. My question pertains to the God head comment. So most Physicists try to plug in Physics with Religion and fail, correct? Are you saying he's scolding what most say and he is a non believer in god or he is scolding those who can't explain their science with their god because one is faulty. What side does he lie on? I'm curious how science and religion mix, so I thought I'd as seeing as you've read the book. I'll have to pick it up!

-Chad
Michigan

User avatar
Mike Beauford
Posts: 419
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:24 pm
Real name:
Location: Morton Grove, IL

Re: For deep thinkers and theoretical officiandos

Post by Mike Beauford » Thu May 29, 2008 1:56 am

I believe he means "God Head" refers to "Einstein" not literally, but figuratively.

Corrected for Steven!
Mike Beauford

User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2096
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:50 am
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: For deep thinkers and theoretical officiandos

Post by Steven Sesselmann » Thu May 29, 2008 2:07 am

Make that "Einstein" please...
Attachments
einstein.jpg
einstein.jpg (3.16 KiB) Viewed 1790 times
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG

User avatar
Richard Hull
Site Admin
Posts: 10904
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: For deep thinkers and theoretical officiandos

Post by Richard Hull » Thu May 29, 2008 5:33 pm

Lots of physicists are picking at failures in certain areas of Einstein's theories. Just like there are issues with failures in the work of Maxwell. It seems like no one can sweep in an all inclusive theory of even electrodynamics but what someone will pose a problem that can't be handled or answered with the mathematics or experiment related to the theory for the poser. The folks looking at Maxwell and Einstein's work as a God head in physics try to plug the holes but there is always another poser or the plugged holes are found to be unsatisfying as more codiciles are added as cover.

No physicist is willing to just throw out Maxwell or Einstein as the fabric of physics is too wrapped up in those theories. Einstein used to note that if just one part of a theory fails, the whole thing must go.

Phipps is just pointing out problems where the answers are not in keeping with theory.

A whole peer reviewed publication exists where top physicists question parts of both Maxwell and Einstein's work, "Galilean Electrodynamics".

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
Retired now...Doing only what I want and not what I should...every day is a saturday.

Chad K.
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:16 pm
Real name:

Re: For deep thinkers and theoretical officiandos

Post by Chad K. » Thu May 29, 2008 9:45 pm

I see. Well I better understand now. I'm more interested t read it, I'd like to learn these beliefs and see what others have to say bout them. Thank you for the clarification.

Chad
Michigan

DaveC
Posts: 2346
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 5:13 am
Real name:

Re: For deep thinkers and theoretical officiandos

Post by DaveC » Wed Jul 09, 2008 9:42 pm

Thanks Richard for those references....

Just for clarification - Religion - the word - comes from a Latin root, which means to bind up, again... suggesting in the Christian context, to bind up or reconcile God and man.

In Science, there are plenty of "beliefs", but I don't think any "religion". In fact, the phrase "theoretical" suggests this, exactly. When a theory has been proven, then it can be considered a "fact" or a proper explanation. The experimental work, that makes this a complete process, often gets lost, in many popularized accounts.

Today with so much indiscriminately disseminated information, theory, simulations and facts are used interchangeably by the popular media, to everyone's confusion. Much of the religious-scientific controversy arises from the clash of beliefs, not facts.

FWIW....

Dave Cooper

User avatar
Richard Hull
Site Admin
Posts: 10904
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: For deep thinkers and theoretical officiandos

Post by Richard Hull » Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:22 pm

I use terms here related to religion and physics euphemistically and never in a literal sense that physics is a religion or that one needs to be religious. It is used more in the light that some scientists and non-scientists look upon parts of physics (still theoretical) as a virtually untouchable dogma, clinging to it and defending it as an article of faith. This is partially due to many experiments tending to show these theories are correct and partially due to their age and how much of subsequent physics is built upon them.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
Retired now...Doing only what I want and not what I should...every day is a saturday.

DaveC
Posts: 2346
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 5:13 am
Real name:

Re: For deep thinkers and theoretical officiandos

Post by DaveC » Thu Jul 10, 2008 6:54 pm

Richard -

I understood your viewpoint, and I think we more or less share a similar view regarding the "dogma" of physics.

Thanks, as always for your penetrating insights. they are refreshingly original, which is what helps to keep science, properly "so-called" ... science.

Dave Cooper

Post Reply