"Timo A. Nieminen" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008, Bill Miller wrote:
May I add my list of Dogmatically accepted physics "laws"
Yes, of course, Bill. Go right ahead.
The near-universal interpretation that Maxwell's "Laws" show that E
*causes*
H and H *causes* E,
Common enough as a just-so story in introductory textbooks. A natural
interpretation of Faraday's experiments, yes?
Hardly near-universal, as it isn't hard to find books (on
electromagnetics) where such claims are not made. Historically, it's been
clear ever since Lorenz's 1867 paper. Also clear in any modern formulation
of electromagnetics as a 4D relativistic field theory (given the Lorenz
gauge, what else would one expect?).
Would publishing (or attempting to) a paper opposing this interpetation
result in attack on one's scientific career?
F=MA as a "law" although there are many well recognized exceptions.
Such as? A "law" doesn't need to be universally applicable. For example,
consider Snell's law: can you use Snell's law when one of the media cannot
be characterised by a refractive index?
Newton's "law" that violates conservation of momentum.
For *every* action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. NOT!
???
Coulomb's "law" that "blows up as r -- zero.
One of the well-know deep problems in classical and quantum
electrodynamics. However, as far as we can tell, Coulomb's law _works_.
The real problem is the implications of this, such as infinite
self-energy, and infinite inertia of point charges.
Thermodynamics "laws" that aren't (except on average.)
Given that statistical mechanics is widely taught to undergrads, making
this point, is this really dogma?
I suspect there are more, but we dare not speak them aloud for fear the
spirit of St. Albert might strike us dead.
Do keep in mind that the original post was equating resistance from within
"establishment science" to the enforced introduction of teaching of
religious dogma in science classrooms with a supposed enforcement of
establishment dogma in science. How is defensive anti-dogmatism meant to
be the same as enforcement of dogma?
Would trying to publish on _any_ of the topics you listed endanger a
scientific career?
The research-end of science is full of dispute and controversy. Many of
the participants in disputes over who is correct are wrong (usually at
least somebody must be, and sometimes everybody is wrong).
The textbook-end of science is rather ossified, and simplified severely at
the introductory level. Witness the usual pattern of teaching classical
mechanics as True, to be followed later by teaching special relativity as
True ("What we have taught you before is wrong!" - an attitude which can
disturb students), when neither is a complete (or we might say, "correct
in a strict sense") theory. OTOH, both are very good theories when applied
appropriately. Given that you can hardly start out by teaching general
relativity (to get the GR - SR - classical mechanics progression) or
quantum field theory (to get a QFT - non-relativistic quantum
mechanics - classical mechanics progression), what can one do? Well, the
transition from CM - SR should emphasise just how little change is
required in the core of CM, and certainly shouldn't be along the lines of
"what we taught you before is wrong". Especially because most of what had
been taught before is _not_ wrong.
Textbooks are a teaching tool, not expositions on current scientific
opinion. That said, they can have lasting influence on students. In
particular, scientific knowledge is in a state of flux, and the
presentation of textbook content as absolute fact is in opposition to
this, encouraging scientism or confusion when scientific dispute is
encountered; not good preparation for modern life. Thus the movements to
include understanding/history/nature/philosophy of science in science
education in the schools.
Given that significant, and politically influential, elements of the
"establishment" are actively working towards education of the public
including the tentativeness of scientific knowledge, where is the
dogmatism of the establishment?
Inferior teachers who adopt "textbook fundamentalism" to avoid questioning
are _not_ members of the scientific establishment.
Timo... you make a number of fine points and my reply to any of them might
be considered as a "quibble."
Taken overall, the ossifiaction in textbooks has benn compounded by
generations of engineers and scientist -- many at th PhD level -- that did
not pay attention to the "tweaks" that you point out in your post.
From personal experience, I have been vilified personally by PhD level folks
for suggesting that Maxwell's Equations are descriptive rather than causal.
BTW a Law, in my NTBHO is always universally applicable. Anything else is a
theory or a hypothesis (or occasionally wild-ass guess!)
For example, for many years, Newton's Law fell into the "Law" category. Not
anymore.
Bill
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/...,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html