| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Rich Sondheim" |
| Date: |
10 Mar 2006 05:28:00 AM |
| Object: |
Examples of Coincidence as Misleading Explanation |
Hey,
I was wondering if anyone could give me one or more good examples
where, in the history of physics, coincidence was mistakenly accepted
as a legitimate explanation for a phenomenon that ended up not being
the least bit coincidental --- or a phenomenon was simply ignored
because it did not conform to the generally accepted theory.
(Could the wave properties of light be considered an example of the
latter case, given that it called the then generally accepted particle
theory into question ?)
Thanks very much in advance.
Rich
.
|
|
| User: "John Bailey" |
|
| Title: Re: Examples of Coincidence as Misleading Explanation |
11 Mar 2006 06:40:21 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 06:28:00 -0500, Rich Sondheim
<sondheim74@comcast.net> wrote:
I was wondering if anyone could give me one or more good examples
where, in the history of physics, coincidence was mistakenly accepted
as a legitimate explanation for a phenomenon that ended up not being
the least bit coincidental --- or a phenomenon was simply ignored
because it did not conform to the generally accepted theory.
Yours was a good question. I was hoping for more answers than have
appeared.
I did run across this example.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Eddington.html
Eddington cooked up pseudoscientific "proofs" on "physical" grounds
that the fine structure constant alpha was exactly 1/136. When
experiments yielded a more accurate value, Eddington produced another
proof...
Not a very good example since his original theory was not widely
accepted. N rays ( http://mikeepstein.com/path/nrays.html) might
provide a better example but that's only a possible hint.
Your question smacks of a bias in the Anthropic Principle debate.
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0407213 vs
http://xyz.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0407266
Many versions of Anthropic Principle conclusions undoubtably propose
that certain physical constants could only be just so because of a
selection process or result. (when is an anthropic result a
cooincidence?) Later, it is likely many of these will be explained by
a feature of the theoretical structure which explains their value.
(which came first, the mass of the electron or the four fermion
coupling constant?) Aka, which is the value explained by theory,
which is the result of coincidence?
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Examples of Coincidence as Misleading Explanation |
11 Mar 2006 07:55:06 AM |
|
|
"John Bailey" <john_bailey@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:7gf512lorqf51s1ju4q314ubl7hla3hd3d@4ax.com...
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 06:28:00 -0500, Rich Sondheim
<sondheim74@comcast.net> wrote:
I was wondering if anyone could give me one or more good examples
where, in the history of physics, coincidence was mistakenly accepted
as a legitimate explanation for a phenomenon that ended up not being
the least bit coincidental --- or a phenomenon was simply ignored
because it did not conform to the generally accepted theory.
Yours was a good question. I was hoping for more answers than have
appeared.
I did run across this example.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Eddington.html
Eddington cooked up pseudoscientific "proofs" on "physical" grounds
that the fine structure constant alpha was exactly 1/136. When
experiments yielded a more accurate value, Eddington produced another
proof...
Not a very good example since his original theory was not widely
accepted. N rays ( http://mikeepstein.com/path/nrays.html) might
provide a better example but that's only a possible hint.
Your question smacks of a bias in the Anthropic Principle debate.
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0407213 vs
http://xyz.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0407266
Many versions of Anthropic Principle conclusions undoubtably propose
that certain physical constants could only be just so because of a
selection process or result. (when is an anthropic result a
cooincidence?) Later, it is likely many of these will be explained by
a feature of the theoretical structure which explains their value.
(which came first, the mass of the electron or the four fermion
coupling constant?) Aka, which is the value explained by theory,
which is the result of coincidence?
John
The most recent accusations of forgery made against Ptolemy came from Newton
in [12]. He begins this book by stating clearly his views:-
This is the story of a scientific crime. ... I mean a crime committed by a
scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, a betrayal of the ethics
and integrity of his profession that has forever deprived mankind of
fundamental information about an important area of astronomy and history.
Towards the end Newton, having claimed to prove every observation claimed by
Ptolemy in the Almagest was fabricated, writes [12]:-
[Ptolemy] developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that they
were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, he
deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could
claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every
scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and it
is a crime against science and scholarship.
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Ptolemy.html
The most recent accusations of forgery made against Einstein came from
Androcles. He begins this accusation by stating clearly his views:-
This is the story of a scientific crime. ... I mean a crime committed by a
scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, a betrayal of the ethics
and integrity of his profession that has forever deprived mankind of
fundamental information about an important area of astronomy and history.
Androcles, having claimed to prove every observation claimed by Einstein in
the theory of relativity was fabricated, writes:-
Einstein developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that they
were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, he
deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could
claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every
scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and it
is a crime against science and scholarship.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: Examples of Coincidence as Misleading Explanation |
11 Mar 2006 07:38:32 AM |
|
|
Rich Sondheim wrote:
Hey,
I was wondering if anyone could give me one or more good examples
where, in the history of physics, coincidence was mistakenly accepted
as a legitimate explanation for a phenomenon that ended up not being
the least bit coincidental
It is the nature of human intelligence to *seek* patterns in the
behvior of the observable universe. This vastly reduces the amount of
anecdotal evidence that must be memorized, allowing a large set of
similar experiences to be replaced in the conceptual model of the
universe by a simple 'rule.' Physics itself may be described as the
search for such rules.
To accept 'coincidence' as an explanation for something to which there
*is* a legitimate rule is to act in a decidedly *unintelligent* manner.
--- or a phenomenon was simply ignored
because it did not conform to the generally accepted theory.
For reasons that should be obvious, there is no available information
on anything which is ignored. Once a record is created noting a
phenomenon, it is no longer 'ignored.'
(Could the wave properties of light be considered an example of the
latter case, given that it called the then generally accepted particle
theory into question ?)
Wave properties of light have *always* been considered in the history
of the study of the nature of light. So have particle properties. The
best answer we have so far is that a 'photon' is a quantized amount of
energy that is best modeled as a travelling wave in Minkowski
four-space, which can exhibit the properties of *either* a particle
moving at c in three-dimensional space *or* a three-dimentional wave,
depending on which properties are being examined (energy, wavelength,
polarization, angular momentum, etc.) and under what conditions
(absorbtion, diffraction, refraction, etc.) Mathematicians can show
this is true of a four-tensor. What is not obvious is what a
four-tensor 'looks like.'
"Analogies are like ropes; they tie things together prett ywell, but
you won't get very far if you try to push them." - Thaddeus Stout
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Examples of Coincidence as Misleading Explanation |
10 Mar 2006 12:44:47 PM |
|
|
Rich Sondheim wrote:
Hey,
I was wondering if anyone could give me one or more good examples
where, in the history of physics, coincidence was mistakenly accepted
as a legitimate explanation for a phenomenon that ended up not being
the least bit coincidental --- or a phenomenon was simply ignored
because it did not conform to the generally accepted theory.
(Could the wave properties of light be considered an example of the
latter case, given that it called the then generally accepted particle
theory into question ?)
Thanks very much in advance.
Rich
I'm not sure I know what you mean. I don't think in any case
coincidence is scientifically accepted as a "legitimate explanation" of
two things. When they say two things are correlated but only by
coincidence, what they are saying is that there *isn't* a good
explanation for why two things are connected.
The correlation between the increase in global temperatures and the
decrease in the incidence of pirates over the last 400 years is an
example of that.
Now, there have been lots of cases where things we thought were
unconnected turned out to be connected after all. Electricity and
magnetism, for example. Electromagnetism and beta decay, for example.
Space and time, for example. Mass and energy, for example.
What are you driving at?
PD
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
