Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.


Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "ABOVE PARADIGMS: THE IDEAS OF SIMONYI, MARTINÁS & LUKÁCS ABOUT THE DYNAMICS OF ARISTOTLE AND NEWTON B. Lukács CRIP RMKI H-1525 Bp. 49., Budapest, Hungary."— Presentation transcript:


2 WARNING Simonyi is not Charles but Károly Martinás is not Dumitru but Katalin Lukács is not George but Béla

3 PSEUDO-HISTORY OF SCIENCE According to general opinion (since Enlightment): Aristotle did not know that bodies continue moving forever without force; but Galileo & Newton already did know. and This is the way how Progress throws ideas to the middenheap of History... Feynman (I read it in Magyar, did not find the English original, so I have to translate back): " the past argumentations had happened whether Earth can be in the center of the World, can She move around Sun, or is She at rest. The consequence was horrendous conflict, even war, and many complications." But the Thirty Year War was not about Galileo's cosmology. Its fundamental cause was the continuous conflict in the German Empire between the leagues of the Catholic and Lutheran Electors, landgraves &c.; the immediate cause was the Bohemian election of Christian of the Palatinate, the Winter King, brother-of-law of James I/VI, King of England/Scotland; and the formally internecine struggle in Papacy when the Spanish cardinals wanted the Pope becoming more involved against the Protestants (really for helping the Spanish & German Hapsburgs) and instead they got only the mock trial of Galileo. Proverbs (of Solomon) 11, 29, in KJV: He who troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind… If a physicist initiates ideological argumentations, then he invites professional ideological fighters to decide scientific questions. And then the scientific discussion will be decided unscientifically. Naturally Simonyi knew this.

4 BUT OF COURSE Aristotle did know that he does not yet understand something in the description of ballistics, Μεχανικα 32, Bk N° 858a14-18: "...Or is it absurd to discuss such questions, while the principle escapes us?" Simonyi did know that Aristotle describes the stationary motions in Mechanics, not the transients, p. 61, in my translation: "...We see that the velocity grows for a while, and then it asymptotically goes to a constant value, v~F/R. This value completely agrees with that given by the Peripatetic dynamics..." Lukács & Martinás did know that a physicist must be careful to keep the scientific questions strictly scientific, otherwise ideologists transform the physical statements into ideology and then... Martinás did know that the physical "motion" at Aristotle can be many things in our modern physical terminology, in the majority of cases rather thermodynamic changes, not mechanical motion; and that the physics of Aristotle, with laws of motion of first order, not second, is adequate in Thermodynamics even now. Quoting one of her colloquial private communication: "Aristotle already had one and half of the Three Laws of Thermodynamics“. Kuhn & Lakatos did know that Truth has strict meaning only within a paradigm. Statements of one paradigm generally seem false viewed from the another one. Что делать? (Chernyshevskii & Lenin)

5 WHAT ORBITS WHAT? Eudoxus, Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, Tycho Brahe &c: Sun orbits Earth Arguments e.g.: At Aristotle Earth is composed of heavy matter, therefore were she not around the Center of Gravity, she would tend to reach it. On the other hand Sun is composed from ether or 5th element (quintessence), so Gravity does not affect him. (Περι κοσμου, Bk N° 392a5- 30). Concluded anybody from mere astronomical data that Sun occupies the Center and heavy Earth orbits him, he would contradict Physics, especially the facts about Gravity. Pythagoras, Aristarchus of Samos, Copernicus &c: Earth orbits Sun. Arguments e.g.: Aristarchus measured Sun's diameter as at least 19 times that of Moon. Then Sun is bigger than Earth. It is absurd to assume that the big orbits the small. Einstein, 1916: This is simply a matter of choice of coordinates. Argument: The correct physical description is covariant. Now, covariance means that any coordinate transformation is permitted if the Jacobian does not degenerate. So a geocentric coordinate system is as permitted as a heliocentric one, with an infinite variety of others as well.

6 WHAT? GENERRAL RELATIVITY? From a dissertation for Doctor of Science in 1971: "Ez az álláspont azonban a feje tetejére állítja a fizika és a geometria valóságos viszonyát." "V. A. Fok ebben az utóbbi kérdésben részben már helyesen bírálja Einstein álláspontját és megvédi vele szemben a gravitációs egyenlet jobb oldalát. Sajnos azonban az egyenlet baloldalának értelmezésében változatlanul megtartja az einsteini álláspontot,..." "Íme: a hiposztazált Riemann-tér a maga görbültségével és egyéb meglepő tulajdonságaival, mint a mennyország szálláscsinálója!"

7 One of the most difficult questions of philosophy is the exact meaning of "Is". And the meaning is very language-dependent. Quine: “It is a green spot” is rare but it makes the episthemologist happy. Jaynes: "...In the second millennium B.C., we stopped hearing the voices of gods. In the first millennium B.C., those of us who still heard the voices, our oracles and prophets, they too died away. In the first millennium A.D., it is their sayings and hearings preserved in sacred texts trough which we obeyed our lost divinities. And in the second millennium A.D., these writings lose their authority. The Scientific Revolution turns us away from the older sayings to discover the lost authorization in Nature.... Science then... is not unlike... the same nostalgia for the Final Answer, the One Truth, the Single Cause.... And this essay is no exception."


9 CONTINUA OF PARADIGMS Here I refer a project 11 years old and not yet ready. The project was proposed in an email of Martinás to Lukács, 1999, very, very briefly summarized here as: A continuum of paradigms so that one end is Newtonian physics, the other is the Aristotelian one is possible. We need only one new term. Let us create this continuum!

10 FIRST STEP L = L(x, ∂x/∂t, t) d/dt{∂L/∂(∂x/∂t)} - ∂L/∂x = 0 md 2 x/dt 2 + Dx = 0 L N = (m/2)(dx/dt) 2 - (D/2)x 2 L(K) = L N *e Kt md 2 x/dt 2 + Kdx/dt + Dx = 0 In the simplest way of Mechanics, i.e. when the whole Equation of Motion is got from the Lagrangian, K=0 is Newtonian physics, and the limit K→∞ is the Aristotelian one. But one may create a Physics where Mechanics has an Universal Anti-Friction (an analogy is Krauss' 3 rd Force interpreting Galileo's gravity experiments benevolently), but in Physics K≠0. In the Aristotelian paradigm the Universe has a Prime Mover at the very periphery. See Περι κοσμου, Bk N° 397 b 10 - 401 b 29. Note that such a Force can counteract Heat Death, an unsolved problem for Newtonian physics.

11 ECONOMY Thermodynamics is first order theory. Scientists try to make Thermodynamics second order; and also try to get its fundamental equations from a variation principle. Now, the search for the thermodynamic variation method is a duty belonging to Dr. Martinás, so I rather show an analogy, quite actual at the tail of the Big Credit Crisis, namely Economics. Since an interesting result of J. Kovács & Ildikó Virág in 1981 (in Közg. Szemle, Vol. 28, p. 675) we know that a one-sector Harrod-Domar model economy with constant efficiency of capital yields maximal consumption (so e.g. well-being) on definitely non-uniform investment paths. Indeed, that oversimplified model yields it on investments of step-function shape. These mathematical facts may be behind economical cycles, overconsumptions and overinvestments. The society of course wants to maximize well-being. Y(t) = g(s(t))K(t) C(t) = (1-s(t))Y(t) dK/dt = s(t)Y(t) - λK(t) λ being the amortization, s the investment rate, and then the maximum of the well-being is the maximum of the integral of consumption C(t) for a fixed interval T. In the 80's & 90's Dr. Banai and myself published a lot of papers about this problem. dy/dt ≡ s(t)g(s(t)) – λ → L = F(dy/dt)e y {F''d 2 y/dt 2 + F'dy/dt - F}e y = 0 The final equation is of first order in s(t). So something is Aristotelian if you like so and still Newtonian/Lagrangian if we want and work for it.

12 CONCLUSION I think Quine's ideal can be approached, and Jaynes' ideal is viable too (independently of the historical role of the right hemisphere). Science can be done even without explicitly referring to Final Truth & such practically inoperative entities. A better theory explains easier the important observations, therefore will give more good predictions per manyear than the others for a while, resulting in new inventions, more PhD degrees and higher standard of life. When it is no more true, free researchers in free Science choose a better-working paradigm without heaping indignities on the builder of the previous one. Of course this is possible only if the new paradigm is not denounced being contrary to Bible as in the case of Galileo, or being billeting officer of Heaven as the Riemannian geometry.

13 REFERENCES, HALF 1 [1]Simonyi K.: A fizika kultúrtörténete, Gondolat, Budapest, 1981 [2]R. P. Feynman: A tudomány és a vallás viszonya. Term. Vil. 124, 175 (1993) [3]Aristotle: The Complete Works of Aristotle, ed. by J. Barnes, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1995 [4]K. Martinás: Aristotelian Thermodynamics. In: K. Martinás, L. Ropolyi & P. Szegedi (eds.): Thermodynamics: History and Philosophy. World Scientific, Singapore, 1991 [5]Elek T.: Marxizmus és relativitáselmélet. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 1973 [6]W. V. O. Quine: Methods of Logic. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1963 [7]G. L. Lewis: Teach Yourself Books. Turkish. English Universities Press, London, 1953 [8]J. Jaynes: The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1976 [9]M. Maróth: Aristoteléstől Avicennáig. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 1983 [10]W. V. O. Quine: On What There Is. Review of Metaphysics, 2, 21 (1948) [11]W. V. O. Quine: Two Dogmas of Empiricism. The Philosophical Review 60, 20 (1951) [12]J. Weinberg: The Geometry of Colors. Gen. Rel. Grav. 7, 135 (1976)

14 REFERENCES, HALF 2 [13]Feleki L.: Kő kövön... Magyar Téka, Budapest, s.d. [14]K. Martinás: Private communication, e-mail to B. Lukács, on May 8, 1998, 14h 33m 20s, subject: thermo [15]B. Lukács & K. Martinás: Callen’s Postulates and the Riemannian Space of Thermodynamic States, Phys. Lett. 114A, 306 (1986) [16]L. M. Krauss: The Fifth Force Farce. Physics Today 61, 53 (2008) [17]Banai M. & Lukács B.: Variációs elvek és mozgásegyenletek. Fiz. Szemle XXXVII, 337 (1987) [18]Banai M. & Lukács B.: Közgazdasági példák egzaktul megoldható variációs problémákra. Mat. Lapok 34, 307 (1991) [19]Banai M. & Lukács B.: Beruházási pálya és variációs módszerek. Közg. Szemle XXXIV, 432 (1987) [20]Banai M. & Lukács B.: Fogyasztásnövekedés, gesztációs és szabályozási késés. Közg. Szemle XXXV, 1307 (1988) [21]M. Banai & B. Lukács: Optimal Investment Strategy by Variational Principles. KFKI-1989-64 [22]M. Banai & B. Lukács: Attempts at Closing Up by Long Rasnge Regulators. In J. Kovács (ed.): Technological Lag and Intellectual Background: Problems of Transition in East Central Europe. Darthmouth, Aldershot, 1995, p. 311 [23]B. Lukács: Hadron Yields, Physical Reality and the Objective External World. In Budapest 2002 Workshop on Quark and Hadron Dynamics, eds. Judit Németh, I. Lovas & J. Zimányi, EP Systema, Debrecen, 2002, p. 309 [24]K. R. Gegenfurtner & L. T. Sharpe (eds.): Color Vision. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999


Similar presentations

Ads by Google