Why we don’t have Philosophy of Physics ?

[s0cratus]

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 is 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.
Then one "mathematical point" ( particle) interacts with another
"mathematical point" the physicists say:
" The micro-world is paradoxical."
==========
Therefore I wrote :

Particle and its shadow Math Point.

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. (?!)
===.
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
=.
In 1915 Einstein connected Mass with Geometry.
Maybe now, in 2012, 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
.
=====…

 

[MissQuote]

I am reading a book on QED by Feynman (I forgot I was reading it for a week or two because it got buried under some stuff and just remembered I was last night and started again)

It is really simplified complicated stuff. The simplified layman's version of complicated stuff. Anyway, all I keep thinking is whether I can use the methods of calculating quantum behavior probability to calculate the probable behavior of humans. Then I laugh at myself because, well, because I am kind of absurd with the ideas I think up sometimes.

That has little to do with what you said, but it is what Philosophy of Physics made me think of.

I think he did mention something though about people getting too wound up in their math to remember that the math was not in fact the actual particle, but only a means for predicting probability of behavior- not absolute of behavior. (I was actually getting rather confused while reading and then remembered that I was mixing up the idea of the math with the idea of the imaginary photon and I remembered just a paragraph before he mentioned this that the imaginary photon in my head existed as something a little more real that the imaginary math about the imaginary photon, so then I laughed when he pointed that out in the next paragraph)

Are you sure no one has considered any geometrical forms?

 

[s0cratus]

I am reading a book on QED by Feynman
(I forgot I was reading it for a week or two because it got buried under
some stuff and just remembered I was last night and started again)

It is really simplified complicated stuff.
The simplified layman's version of complicated stuff.
Anyway, all I keep thinking is whether I can use the methods
of calculating quantum behavior probability to calculate the
probable behavior of humans.
Then I laugh at myself because, well, because I am kind of absurd
with the ideas I think up sometimes.

That has little to do with what you said,
but it is what Philosophy of Physics made me think of.

I think he did mention something though about people getting
too wound up in their math to remember that the math was not
in fact the actual particle, but only a means for predicting probability
of behavior- not absolute of behavior.
(I was actually getting rather confused while reading and then
remembered that I was mixing up the idea of the math with the idea
of the imaginary photon and I remembered just a paragraph before
he mentioned this that the imaginary photon in my head existed as
something a little more real that the imaginary math about the
imaginary photon, so then I laughed when he pointed that out
in the next paragraph)

Are you sure no one has considered any geometrical forms?

I read book ‘ The secrets of Universe’ .
Russian professor V.P. Seleznev tried to explain photon
using toroidal model. / page 379./
Another explanation of toroidal model you can read on the site:

Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?
http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf

But the conclusion is:
‘ Photon still hides in itself many puzzles.’
/ page 386 /
=.
P.S.
‘ All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me
no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it,
but he is mistaken. ‘
/ Einstein /
#
"Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates:
One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy
and universality of the speed of light.
Could the first postulate be true and the other false?
If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make two
postulates. But I don't think many people realized until recently
that you could have a consistent theory in which you changed only
the second postulate."
/ Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics, p. 226. /

===.

 

[scorpiomover]

We do. It's called epistemology.

Albert Einstein said:

How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? Is there not some more valuable work to be done in his specialty? That's what I hear many of my colleagues ask, and I sense it from many more. But I cannot share this sentiment. When I think about the ablest students whom I have encountered in my teaching — that is, those who distinguish themselves by their independence of judgment and not just their quick-wittedness — I can affirm that they had a vigorous interest in epistemology. They happily began discussions about the goals and methods of science, and they showed unequivocally, through tenacious defense of their views, that the subject seemed important to them.

Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they might come to be stamped as "necessities of thought," "a priori givens," etc. The path of scientific progress is often made impassable for a long time by such errors. Therefore it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analysing long-held commonplace concepts and showing the circumstances on which their justification and usefulness depend, and how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. Thus their excessive authority will be broken. They will be removed if they cannot be properly legitimated, corrected if their correlation with given things be far too superfluous, or replaced if a new system can be established that we prefer for whatever reason.

 

[s0cratus]

We do. It's called epistemology.

Albert Einstein said:

Philosophy is a step-daughter of physics.

=.

 

[DetachedRetina]

I am reading a book on QED by Feynman (I forgot I was reading it for a week or two because it got buried under some stuff and just remembered I was last night and started again)

It is really simplified complicated stuff. The simplified layman's version of complicated stuff. Anyway, all I keep thinking is whether I can use the methods of calculating quantum behavior probability to calculate the probable behavior of humans. Then I laugh at myself because, well, because I am kind of absurd with the ideas I think up sometimes.

That has little to do with what you said, but it is what Philosophy of Physics made me think of.

I think he did mention something though about people getting too wound up in their math to remember that the math was not in fact the actual particle, but only a means for predicting probability of behavior- not absolute of behavior. (I was actually getting rather confused while reading and then remembered that I was mixing up the idea of the math with the idea of the imaginary photon and I remembered just a paragraph before he mentioned this that the imaginary photon in my head existed as something a little more real that the imaginary math about the imaginary photon, so then I laughed when he pointed that out in the next paragraph)

Are you sure no one has considered any geometrical forms?

I found this book to be slightly better than "a brief history of time" but I still found it frustrating to read." Not Feynman's fault, it just seems difficult to boil down Quantum electro-dynamics to somebody with no background in one tiny booklet.

 

[gilliatt]

The two are so things I have wondered about is, What makes the speed of light constant? Another is how are planets formed? Is there a mathematical formula for a sun to balance itself in the space that it is in? One more, can electrons think or have a psychology? Just one more, let's take all of mankind's accomplishments and we die and in our graves. It just don't seem logical, I don't think we know the whole story. Philosophy studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man, & of man's relationship to existence. Physics deals with particulars of science, philosophy deals with those aspects of the universe which pertain to everything that exists. In the realm of cognition, the special sciences are the trees, but philosophy is the soil which makes the forest possible.