Existence of the physcial laws

[Jim_Baur]

As I mentioned, I am here to learn.

I am the OP.

I am really concerned as to what species of existence the physical laws have.

Here is what GEddie said: “A law, in the physical sciences, is a property of matter or energy, or both, that can be described by a mathematical equation or group thereof.”

Here is another quote in a text book: laws are statements of the consistencies nature displays in the properties and functions of matter and energy.

To paraphrase GEddie: Physical law describes the property and function of matter and energy.

I am not sure which statement is a more accurate statement.

This is that about which I am concerned.

What exactly is being described?

Are matter and energy being described?

Are property and function being described?

Is the law the mathematical statement?

I am flummoxed by what is being described: nature, energy, function, or property.

What is meant by nature? Is it the gas or temperature (for Boyle’s Law)? Is it the motion, planet or gravity?

What kind of ontic existence do the physical laws have?

For me GEddie was helpful. He seemed to say a law is a property of matter and energy.

My mind then pondered is the property a physical entity or a non-physical entity?

Is the property an immaterial entity since it is described by math?

Is the property a rational entity since it is described by math?

In other words, what kind of being is described?

Thanks! . Physical law describes the property and function of matter and energy.

 

[Warrior1979]

I’ll give it to you in a nutshell. Physical laws only exist because we attempt to explain our that which we observe. There are as many or as few as necessary to achieve this goal.

 

[GEddie]

I wouldn’t describe a physical law as a being.

Physical laws are descriptions of the interactions of matter and energy, such that we can wrap our heads around them by means of mathematics.

Neither matter nor energy is a “being” either, although both possess being.

The law is not immaterial, since it exists only in relation to matter or energy.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Jim_Baur]

GEddie;

Thanks!

Does math have being?

I find it interesting that physical science makes use of math, but math does not have quantity, weight, volume, mass, matter or size.

 

[GEddie]

GEddie;

Thanks!

Does math have being?

I find it interesting that physical science makes use of math, but math does not have quantity, weight, volume, mass, matter or size.

Good question!

Mathematics is a tool of thought. Would it have being, apart from the minds that make use of it??? I am a nonphilosopher after all…

Is the quadrillionth digit of Pi out there if no one ever calculates it???

Math you might say, is the bridge between the material world and our immaterial minds!

ICXC NIKA!

 

[Jim_Baur]

I believe that our ability to reason creates math.

I believe that our ability to reason can see and create many other beings.

This is a real jump: the spiritual laws exist. They have more ontic (this is a real word) reality than the physical laws.

As a believing Christian, I believe that the moral or spiritual laws really exist.

I believe we can observe them in the manner that we created math and then use it to observe and describe the physical laws.

I believe they are analogous to the physical laws, but the primary analogate (this is a word, too) is the spiritual law.

I believe that God exists.

I believe that He created all other being.

I believe that He created with love and reason.

Therefore I believe that the spiritual laws can be observed just as the physical laws.

Actually, whether God exists or not, the moral or physical laws do exist.

I, for myself, define the spiritual laws similarly to the physical laws.

Laws are the statements of the consistencies that God’s love and our love and reason display in the properties and functions our thoughts, choices, and passions (passions emote feelings) and external actions.

Love and hate are inversely proportioned.
Happiness and misery are inversely proportioned.
Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera…

Sobriety really exists. It has more reality than gravity.
Chastity is beautiful and it too has more reality than gravity and math.
Prudence and justice really exist and have more reality than the gravity and irrational numbers.
Wisdom really exists.

Just as math has no mass, weight, volume or size, but exists; so do the spiritual laws have existence.

If humans are unable to discern them because they have no mass, they should consider disregarding math too. It is our ability to reason that created and recognizes math; the ability to reason has no mass. It is true that spiritual laws are discerned with our ability to reason. I believe that God created the spiritual laws as observed by Moses. Speaking metaphorically, the Ten Words (dabar) came from the heart of God. God is love; don’t hate. God is truth; don’t deceive. God is life; don’t murder.

Oh, I have observed them in my conscience. Many others have observed them, too.

Like I said in the OP, I am here to learn, not fight.

 

[greylorn]

Greylorn, methinks you are a wee bit hard on Aristotle; the proto-scientists were Aristotelians.

Yes, they were. And that is why they got it all wrong. You’ll notice (well, maybe not) that science did not progress beyond the geometric laws of mechanics developed by the Greeks until Galileo stepped outside the totally false Aristotelian paradigm and others began to follow his lead.

None of the laws of physics known today could have been discovered by Aristotelians. It might be time for you to tippie-toe into the 18th century, at least. Medieval thinking is not so great as it’s been cracked up to be.

And the relative speed of falling bodies is not a logical issue, it can be determined only empirically, as it was in Renaissance times. If there was any fault in earlier periods that limited human knowledge, it was a lack of empirical observation.

Nonsense! You are utterly mistaken. Galileo wrote a paper showing, using nothing but good old Aristotelian logic, that if heavy items fell faster than light ones, wood would sink in water and iron would float.

I do not recall the name of the paper, having read it in 1960, and an ex-wife took the book in which I found it. However, I just verified that the book still can be found on Amazon, shipped to your door for $4. I’ve ordered a copy for future reference. You can repair a bit of your dreadfully dogmatic ignorance by finding the paper on the internet, or acquiring your own copy of Arthur Beiser’s The World of Physics.

Subsequent to his theoretical paper, Galileo put the scientific method to work by verifying his paper’s conclusions, not by seeing if iron floated, but by rolling wooden balls of various sizes and weights down inclined planes. The same series of experiments led him to the discovery of the first law of motion, which Newton arrogated to himself and presented as, I believe, his own Second Law.

The falling-body problem is treated by classical physics as entirely a logical problem, which treats the acceleration of a body under the influence of a gravitational field as a mathematical (logical) function of the field strength. Nonetheless, there is nothing like watching an iron ball and a feather released simultaneously in an evacuated bell jar to drive home the conviction that well-conceived, logical theory, works.

 

[greylorn]

As I mentioned, I am here to learn.

I am the OP.

I am really concerned as to what species of existence the physical laws have.

Here is what GEddie said: “A law, in the physical sciences, is a property of matter or energy, or both, that can be described by a mathematical equation or group thereof.”

Here is another quote in a text book: laws are statements of the consistencies nature displays in the properties and functions of matter and energy.

To paraphrase GEddie: Physical law describes the property and function of matter and energy.

I am not sure which statement is a more accurate statement.

This is that about which I am concerned.

What exactly is being described?

Are matter and energy being described?

Are property and function being described?

Is the law the mathematical statement?

I am flummoxed by what is being described: nature, energy, function, or property.

What is meant by nature? Is it the gas or temperature (for Boyle’s Law)? Is it the motion, planet or gravity?

What kind of ontic existence do the physical laws have?

For me GEddie was helpful. He seemed to say a law is a property of matter and energy.

My mind then pondered is the property a physical entity or a non-physical entity?

Is the property an immaterial entity since it is described by math?

Is the property a rational entity since it is described by math?

In other words, what kind of being is described?

Thanks! . Physical law describes the property and function of matter and energy.

Do you really expect to obtain the knowledge, and more importantly, the conceptual understanding normally acquired in a serious program of university study by asking questions of dogmatists on a religious forum?

The truth is, you won’t, and are not.

 

[GEddie]

Wasn’t it Galileo who dropped the balls of the tower in Pisa?

 

[greylorn]

I presume you either have a PhD in Philosophy (in which case your rejection of Aristotle could be valid, but your objections to physics is not) or a PhD in Physics (in which case your objections to physics could be valid, but your rejection of Aristotle is not). Or, I suppose a third option is that you just have a BA/BS in Physics or Philosophy and think you know all, but have zero authority to declare either wrong. In any event, you’re wrong at least once.

Spoken like a true dogmatist, dependent upon authority for your beliefs and opinions, usually the mark of someone lacking imagination.

Inasmuch as my theories run entirely contrary to those of all religious belief systems, and to several cherished but false opinions of physics, and to Darwinism, it really does not matter whether I acquired my knowledge base through a dozen degree programs, or read some books while riding in on the turnip truck.

You might enjoy Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Then, since it shows how authority figures have been mostly warts on the posterior of scientific progress, you are more likely to disagree with it entirely. It may help you to know that Kuhn has a Ph.D in philosophy, that his book shows the expected scholarship and clear reasoning of an honest philosopher, and that while his theses remain somewhat controversial (what interesting ideas in philosophy do not?), he is a well respected academic, or was. Surely retired by now.

Put simply, which you seem to need, if a scientific theory is false (e.g. Darwinism, the Bohr interpretation of Q/M), its falsity is a matter of the quality of the theory, not the pedigree of the person who points out the flaws. I once knew a bartender whose insights into matters of reality were totally unsupported by a degree of any sort, but were uncannily correct. I made good money by betting on his insights, and learned that the clue to critical thinking is to cut through the blather and find the core of every issue, which is never where you start out looking for it.

(The needle is more likely to be found in the gut of a distressed cow than in the haystack.)

Lots of turkeys with Ph.D’s wrote complex equations describing phlogiston theory. The real laws of thermodynamics were discovered entirely by intelligent non-scientists who did not have their noses in some worthless perfesser’s backside.

I guess you never considered that “millions” could be an exaggeration? Off the top of my head in 10 seconds: Ideal gas Law, van der Waals gas law, Newton’s 3 laws, Kepler’s 3 laws, 4 laws of Thermodynamics, law of superposition of waves, conservation laws (about half a dozen of those). That sounds like it’s a bit more than a few, and those are in just physics alone, there’s still plenty more in biology & chemistry.
I don’t see how y=0.5gtt is not standard mathematical form, unless you want y_f - y_i = v_0t+0.5gt*t, but if you’re just dropping a ball from a height, v_0=0 & y_i=0, reducing that equation to what I wrote

Okay, so we’ve proven that you can be trusted to exaggerate, and are fond of non-standard mathematical forms. This is often the mark of a nit who is trying to obfuscate his way to impressing people. Or, it could simply be the style of an imaginative genius who goes his own way. I’ll await further insight, but remember, no one else’s opinion of you matters, especially mine.

 

[greylorn]

I also disagree with my being “lazy” about not including definitions (y=distance, g=gravitational acceleration constant, t=time–happy?), perhaps it befit you to consider that perhaps the OP has knowledge of 1st year physics? In which case, it is likely not necessary to re-state things he might already know (unless you’ve got the habit of explaining every single term of an equation over and over and over again to your classmates (and assuming, as well, that you are a physics student & not a philosophy student)).

I try to base my replies not only upon my assessment of the poster’s education level (with about 70% accuracy), but also upon the possibility that outside readers with different levels of understanding might have been interested in the thread. As my editor once told me, wisely, “If you are interested in furthering the understanding of others, and yourself, do not overestimate the intelligence of your potential readers, or your self.”

In a less generous frame of mind he clarified this sentiment— “It is almost impossible to write down to the American book reader.”

Physical laws are not mathematical equations; this is the whole point of the first two chapters of Rizzi’s book. However, the observables can be expressed as a mathematical relation of several quantities. Thus, the nature of the laws are to relate observations to mathematical equations. I see how that might be confusing if you’re so in tuned to mathematical physics, but in reality math is just a useful tool to explain events on paper & does not at all denote reality.

You have gotten it backward. The laws are attempts to fit mathematical equations to the observed behavior of things, and by doing so in the most general possible manner, to discover new mathematical laws which could not have been discovered from observation alone.

I bought Rizzi’s book expecting it to provide insights, but found its early chapters to be focused upon him telling us how smart he was from childhood, then treating obvious abstractions as if they were unique and valuable ideas. I quit a few chapters in. Time is precious and life is short.

If you know of an advanced chapter in which he says something not obvious, and insightful, kindly pass along the chapter numbers.

Think about it this way: have you ever seen number one (and not the figure we represent as one: 1)? No, no one has because the number one (and indeed all numbers) are not real, they’re useful representative tools. I bet your first thought after reading the question was: “One what?” And that is exactly my point, one is a quantifier & not a physical entity. Hence, Rizzi has shown a relevance in physics. Also, I’m pretty sure discovering the GR version of momentum (something that eluded other scientists for 80 years) is a pretty good example of his relevance in science.

I’ve never been (really, not even in first grade) one of those who confused abstractions like “one” from physical or theoretical things which it serves to enumerate.

Therefore, after reading your (IMO) grade-school level question, I did not mentally ask, “One what?” Nor did I ask, “One who?” or “One why?” I did ask, “Why on earth is this guy so fascinated by the trivial and irrelevant, when he clearly has a mind good enough to apply to more interesting questions? Is he afraid to challenge his dogmas? What is it that induces really brilliant and insightful individuals to run their excellent minds in the intellectual equivalent of wagon ruts?”

I was unaware that General Relativity was incapable of dealing with the property of momentum. Let me make it clear that I am not mathematically competent enough to understand the intricacies of the GR field equations, but do know that they have been used so solve a number of esoteric physics problems which by their very nature will involve the property of momentum.

So, if I’m wrong, and momentum has long been a relativistic mystery which Rizzi solved, then he has accomplished something of scientific relevance which I could not have accomplished. I will expect him to become a Nobel Laureate in physics for this work.

Then again, he may not be rewarded for his contribution. I, for example, will not be rewarded with anything other than vociferous complaints and angry vilification by dogmatists from all corners, for my integration of theology and physics, or for my explanation of the nature of dark energy.

 

[Jim_Baur]

GEddie:

I have asked many times: does math have extramental reality? There are many different answers. The two big ones–Yes and no.

 

[jdwood983]

Spoken like a true dogmatist, dependent upon authority for your beliefs and opinions, usually the mark of someone lacking imagination.

Inasmuch as my theories run entirely contrary to those of all religious belief systems, and to several cherished but false opinions of physics, and to Darwinism, it really does not matter whether I acquired my knowledge base through a dozen degree programs, or read some books while riding in on the turnip truck.

You might enjoy Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Then, since it shows how authority figures have been mostly warts on the posterior of scientific progress, you are more likely to disagree with it entirely. It may help you to know that Kuhn has a Ph.D in philosophy, that his book shows the expected scholarship and clear reasoning of an honest philosopher, and that while his theses remain somewhat controversial (what interesting ideas in philosophy do not?), he is a well respected academic, or was. Surely retired by now.

Lots of turkeys with Ph.D’s wrote complex equations describing phlogiston theory. The real laws of thermodynamics were discovered entirely by intelligent non-scientists who did not have their noses in some worthless perfesser’s backside.

So you have no degrees in anything relevant to the subject discussed in this thread, but you still think that your opinions are supreme because you read one guy (among many) with a PhD who says that other guys with PhDs aren’t necessarily correct. That sounds logical.

I have met more non-scientists holding bunk ideas than scientists holding bunk ideas. And there’s an extremely good reason for this: scientists are educated in science. If you like to think your ideas are right, you can get them published without holding a PhD–though I’m not sure if reputable journals publish non-degree holding authors.

Okay, so we’ve proven that you can be trusted to exaggerate, and are fond of non-standard mathematical forms. This is often the mark of a nit who is trying to obfuscate his way to impressing people. Or, it could simply be the style of an imaginative genius who goes his own way. I’ll await further insight, but remember, no one else’s opinion of you matters, especially mine.

Still don’t see how a y=0.5gtt equation is not in standard form. Are you really being anal enough that you want a “t^2” instead of "tt"?? If so, that is possibly the worst complaint about something I’ve written that I have ever seen. I personally find that, when discussing things in text online, t*t is a better format than t^2. Particularly when dealing only with quadratics. For cubes or higher, the power ought to suffice.

greylorn:

You have gotten it backward. The laws are attempts to fit mathematical equations to the observed behavior of things, and by doing so in the most general possible manner, to discover new mathematical laws which could not have been discovered from observation alone.

Perhaps I should amend my statement to, The nature of physical laws is to relate observations and mathematical equations. That way, you are correct in the left-to-right idea (observations led to equations), but I’m still right in that physical laws are not mathematical equations.

greylorn:

I bought Rizzi’s book expecting it to provide insights, but found its early chapters to be focused upon him telling us how smart he was from childhood, then treating obvious abstractions as if they were unique and valuable ideas. I quit a few chapters in. Time is precious and life is short.

If you know of an advanced chapter in which he says something not obvious, and insightful, kindly pass along the chapter numbers.

There is one thing I didn’t like about it: he indicates the possibility of a non-mechanical aether in which the twins paradox can be solved without SR (which is weird since he’s a GR theorist). Outside of that, I thought the whole book was genius. I suggest reading the book all the way through.
Sorry that I can’t pick and choose chapters for you, but if you have it, it’s worth the time to read it.

greylorn:

I’ve never been (really, not even in first grade) one of those who confused abstractions like “one” from physical or theoretical things which it serves to enumerate

You’re the one who is equating mathematical physics with reality of laws in your earlier posts. Mathematics is just a tool to understand observables, nothing more. Perhaps I underestimated your understanding of this concept, but the question remains strong for the others reading into it.

greylorn:

I was unaware that General Relativity was incapable of dealing with the property of momentum. Let me make it clear that I am not mathematically competent enough to understand the intricacies of the GR field equations, but do know that they have been used so solve a number of esoteric physics problems which by their very nature will involve the property of momentum.

So, if I’m wrong, and momentum has long been a relativistic mystery which Rizzi solved, then he has accomplished something of scientific relevance which I could not have accomplished. I will expect him to become a Nobel Laureate in physics for this work.

Then again, he may not be rewarded for his contribution. I, for example, will not be rewarded with anything other than vociferous complaints and angry vilification by dogmatists from all corners, for my integration of theology and physics, or for my explanation of the nature of dark energy.

It wasn’t that GR was incompatible with momentum, scientists just didn’t discover its form until Rizzi’s PhD dissertation. No idea if he;ll be rewarded outside of his awesome job as LIGO director (if I’m not mistaken, that is his job).

You also seem to think that dark matter/energy is real

 

[GEddie]

GEddie:

I have asked many times: does math have extramental reality? There are many different answers. The two big ones–Yes and no.

And I’d have to punt; I am not in any way a philosopher.

But I’d lean toward yes, in that even with no minds around, physical reality would remain and could be described through mathematics.

ICXC NIKA

 

[mafisher]

Hi Jim Bauer,

What is the nature of these physical laws?

In Genesis the author introduces Adam. In physical science, authorities have introduced the atom. The nature of each is identical. Adam serves as a basis of understanding what we cannot experience for ourselves. The atom serves as a basis of understanding what we can experience for ourselves. The result of Adam is us. The result of the atom is accumulated knowledge of the sum of our experiences concerning physical science. So, the result of atom is our world

Both Adam and atom are originations of faith. We only know of each because this faith has been kept alive. Neither Adam nor atom mean anything without keeping this faith. Neither one exist in our reality whatsoever. It is rational to know that each’s reality is the meaning we can be assured of due entirely of faith.

The atom is the model of meaning in the discipline of recording and conveying observation, and ultimately comprises the underlying nature of all physical law that we hold as real and actual. It therefore stands as testament to the value of human faith: that is the nature at the core of physical laws.

I’ll rest here.

 

[greylorn]

So you have no degrees in anything relevant to the subject discussed in this thread, but you still think that your opinions are supreme because you read one guy (among many) with a PhD who says that other guys with PhDs aren’t necessarily correct. That sounds logical.

I have met more non-scientists holding bunk ideas than scientists holding bunk ideas. And there’s an extremely good reason for this: scientists are educated in science. If you like to think your ideas are right, you can get them published without holding a PhD–though I’m not sure if reputable journals publish non-degree holding authors.

I find it unlikely that you’ve met anyone with interesting ideas, because whatever passes in you for mind seems closed to anything without a pedigree. I cannot imagine trying to have an honest conversation with anyone so stuffed full of his learning as you, at least not anymore. Tried that.

You are correct that no reputable publisher will publish my current book, despite that my first book sold a couple of million copies and was translated into several languages. But it was less controversial, with the ideas couched in story.

For the record, Einstein’s degree was inferior to mine. Nonetheless, his mind was significantly superior. Quality of intelligence, and sometimes the ability to look beyond dogma, not adherence to establishment beliefs, defines those thinkers who have made useful contributions to human understanding,

It is unlikely that I shall be one of them, but I will do my best to help uncover the serious mysteries behind the existence of this universe. While I’m working on that, how about you go play with your pet hamster?

Still don’t see how a y=0.5gtt equation is not in standard form. Are you really being anal enough that you want a “t^2” instead of "tt"?? If so, that is possibly the worst complaint about something I’ve written that I have ever seen. I personally find that, when discussing things in text online, t*t is a better format than t^2. Particularly when dealing only with quadratics. For cubes or higher, the power ought to suffice.

I prefer the form, y = 0.5gt[sup]2[/sup]

To learn how to generate the standard form, I, lacking an advanced Ph.D like those awarded to pretentious little snots who put in their time behind a DeVry University course screen, actually had to study up, which took a minute. Kindly forgive my abysmal ignorance, and pass my plea for forgiveness on to the Council of Drooling Elders of the Order of Exalted Nitwits at your next award ceremony.

You also seem to think that dark matter/energy is real

The proper verb form is the plural “are.”

 

[jdwood983]

I find it unlikely that you’ve met anyone with interesting ideas, because whatever passes in you for mind seems closed to anything without a pedigree. I cannot imagine trying to have an honest conversation with anyone so stuffed full of his learning as you, at least not anymore. Tried that.

That’s weird, I try being somewhat polite (I’ll admit that trashing ones authority one a subject might have been harsh, but PhDs are awarded for a reason) and you’ve been nothing but negative. And not just in this thread, in most others that I’ve seen you post in.
I don’t think I am stuffed full of my learning, but I damn well earned the PhD I will get due to hard work, and I’d rather not let some guy who has no such degree suggest that my PhD isn’t worth anything because some other PhD (Kuhn) says so (I read his book too, didn’t think much of it; Toulmin’s concept was better in that science is a gradually changing subject & not a drastic paradigm shift that Kuhn suggests).

You are correct that no reputable publisher will publish my current book, despite that my first book sold a couple of million copies and was translated into several languages. But it was less controversial, with the ideas couched in story.

What is the title of your first book?

For the record, Einstein’s degree was inferior to mine. Nonetheless, his mind was significantly superior. Quality of intelligence, and sometimes the ability to look beyond dogma, not adherence to establishment beliefs, defines those thinkers who have made useful contributions to human understanding,

It is unlikely that I shall be one of them, but I will do my best to help uncover the serious mysteries behind the existence of this universe. While I’m working on that, how about you go play with your pet hamster?

So you have a science degree that is greater than a PhD (Einstein was awarded a PhD from Zurich before his seminal papers were published, albeit the same year)? I have never heard of such a higher science degree. Or are you saying that you have a professional doctorate, such as a Medical-related Doctorate (optometry, pharmacy, etc)?

I am trying to challenge the paradigm that galactic cosmic rays come from supernova remnants, pretty sure that’s antithetical to the current “dogma” in this field.

I prefer the form, y = 0.5gt[sup]2[/sup]

To learn how to generate the standard form, I, lacking an advanced Ph.D like those awarded to pretentious little snots who put in their time behind a DeVry University course screen, actually had to study up, which took a minute. Kindly forgive my abysmal ignorance, and pass my plea for forgiveness on to the Council of Drooling Elders of the Order of Exalted Nitwits at your next award ceremony.

I wasn’t aware that CAF supported superscripts. I still think that it’s petty and a dumb thing to get upset about & nitpick. t*t = t^2 = t[sup]2[/sup]. It’s really a matter of preference. If I had a LaTeX editor available on this forum, I’d have used the itex format.

 

[Jim_Baur]

greylorn:

What is the name of your book?

I would love to buy it and read it.

Thanks!

 

[Jim_Baur]

Greylorn:

I honestly would like to read your book.

What is the title?

Thanks!

 

[greylorn]

That’s weird, I try being somewhat polite (I’ll admit that trashing ones authority one a subject might have been harsh, but PhDs are awarded for a reason) and you’ve been nothing but negative. And not just in this thread, in most others that I’ve seen you post in.

I’ve had the opportunity to work with a number of Ph.Ds, most of them in your field. About 10% of them actually had interesting minds. Most were mediocre, and about 40% weren’t competent enough to do anything except teach their field at the “1a” level to non-scientists, thereby preventing those non-scientists from even thinking that science might be interesting.

Your style of “politeness” is the smarmy, condescending sort I’ve come to associate with the bottom 40%. The director of the laboratory where I first worked had a more direct style of politeness, which amounted to, "I think you’re pretty much full of s–t, but if you want to take your stuff seriously, you can buy the first two rounds of my martinis tonight.

That man was an awesome genius, so you can bet that I bought his martinis. He corrected many flaws in my theories, so the booze money was well spent.

He also provides a fine example of the difference between a real Ph.D and a hack. Lots of astronomy grad students came through our lab. One’s Ph.D thesis was to develop a way of mapping the sensitivity of a photomultiplier (PM) tube, each of which was different. (Obviously this was before Aikens learned how to use CCD’s for precision astronomy.) The grad student figured out a protocol using detailed sensitivity experiments on a given tube, to produce a crude cardboard xyz model of the characteristics. It took 3 weeks per tube, yielded 20% results.

Our lab director had been unaware of the thesis until I brought it to his attention with the comment that there had to be a better way. After the astronomer was awarded his degree, the director invited me into his darkened personal lab one afternoon, where a tiny light source, attenuated, and sent into an off-the-shelf PM tube, produced the identical xyz plot on an ordinary oscilloscope screen, complete with voltage levels. Resolution: 100x better. Error bars: 1.5%.

I offered to connect his output into some ADCs and feed them into a computer, but he said no, and ordered me to tell no one what he had done because it would have damaged the self-esteem of the newly anointed Ph.D.

As I learned later, there were political reasons involved. So yes, I know what it takes for the ordinary student to earn an establishment-level Ph.D. My brother in law has one, obtained via an “off-campus” degree program from a university which has no campus. Cost him $10,000 and about 200 hours of grunt work (the cost of a Ph.D) and has earned him over a million based entirely upon formal credential value, nothing to do with actual knowledge.

The same Laboratory Director introduced me to Bored of the Rings, as well as Charles Fort’s interesting books which I’d never have read otherwise. You would not like any of them so don’t bother.

I don’t think I am stuffed full of my learning, but I damn well earned the PhD I will get due to hard work, and I’d rather not let some guy who has no such degree suggest that my PhD isn’t worth anything because some other PhD (Kuhn) says so (I read his book too, didn’t think much of it; Toulmin’s concept was better in that science is a gradually changing subject & not a drastic paradigm shift that Kuhn suggests).

I would expect exactly that of you, or anyone incapable of paradigm-changing thought. I expect that you’ll earn your Ph.D through lots of grunt-work, and by kowtowing to the profs on your exam committee, but not by the imaginative thought which is what the big degree was originally about. You’re an agreement-monger who will never have an imaginative thought, because you’re afraid of it. Bleaching your tongue won’t help.

You probably never heard of Max Planck, paradigm changer. You probably think that the guys who invented modern thermodynamics were “official” scientists, instead of smart guys trying to figure out how things worked. You forget that when Einstein published his four major papers, he was a patent clerk, not a “scientist.” You establishment people are all alike, no different from minor military officers wearing a pressed uniform emblazoned with braid, insignia, and little mickey-mouse ribbons who’ve never killed an enemy in combat.

What is the title of your first book?

That would disclose its author, which seems inadvisable.

Continued…