Physicists Are Philosophers, Too

[Daylight63]

Physicists Are Philosophers, Too​

- In his final essay the late physicist Victor Stenger argues for the validity of philosophy in the context of modern theoretical physics -

In September 2010 physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow published a shot heard round the world—and not just the academic world. On the first page of their book, The Grand Design, they wrote: “Philosophy is dead” because “philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.”

The questions that philosophy is no longer capable of handling (if it ever was) include: How does the universe behave? What is the nature of reality? Where did all this come from? Did the universe need a creator? According to Hawking and Mlodinow, only scientists—not philosophers—can provide the answers.

The noted physicist and public intellectual Victor Stenger worked with two co-authors to pen an article for Scientific American. In it Stenger and co-authors address the latest eruption of a long-standing historic feud, an argument between physicists and philosophers about the nature of their disciplines and the limits of science. Can instruments and experiments (or pure reason and theoretical models) ever reveal the ultimate nature of reality? Does the modern triumph of physics make philosophy obsolete? What philosophy, if any, could modern theoretical physicists be said to possess? Stenger and his co-authors introduce and address all these profound questions in this thoughtful essay and seek to mend the growing schism between these two great schools of thought. When physicists make claims about the universe, Stenger writes, they are also engaging in a grand philosophical tradition that dates back thousands of years. Inescapably, physicists are philosophers, too.



This article, Stenger’s last, appears in full below.

Physicists Are Philosophers, Too

In his final essay the late physicist Victor Stenger argues for the validity of philosophy in the context of modern theoretical physics

www.scientificamerican.com

How about "in your own words"? Or does that only apply to OTHER posters?

 

[Daylight63]

As much as I like philosophy, it takes a distant back seat to science, religion, and literature as the systems that fuel human knowledge.

So why do you studiously avoid and denigrate the science that was presented in the discussion of morality and consciousness?

 

[Cypress]

How about "in your own words"? Or does that only apply to OTHER posters?

You post science papers you Googled without reading them.

I read every article I post, and then comment on it extensively through the thread.

 

[Cypress]

So why do you studiously avoid and denigrate the science that was presented in the discussion of morality and consciousness?

Perry, you've been angry ever since the day I demonstrated you hadn't read your own science paper and that the paper's conclusions actually supported what I've always been saying.

 

[Monad Portal]

Physicists Are Philosophers, Too​

- In his final essay the late physicist Victor Stenger argues for the validity of philosophy in the context of modern theoretical physics -

In September 2010 physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow published a shot heard round the world—and not just the academic world. On the first page of their book, The Grand Design, they wrote: “Philosophy is dead” because “philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.”

The questions that philosophy is no longer capable of handling (if it ever was) include: How does the universe behave? What is the nature of reality? Where did all this come from? Did the universe need a creator? According to Hawking and Mlodinow, only scientists—not philosophers—can provide the answers.

The noted physicist and public intellectual Victor Stenger worked with two co-authors to pen an article for Scientific American. In it Stenger and co-authors address the latest eruption of a long-standing historic feud, an argument between physicists and philosophers about the nature of their disciplines and the limits of science. Can instruments and experiments (or pure reason and theoretical models) ever reveal the ultimate nature of reality? Does the modern triumph of physics make philosophy obsolete? What philosophy, if any, could modern theoretical physicists be said to possess? Stenger and his co-authors introduce and address all these profound questions in this thoughtful essay and seek to mend the growing schism between these two great schools of thought. When physicists make claims about the universe, Stenger writes, they are also engaging in a grand philosophical tradition that dates back thousands of years. Inescapably, physicists are philosophers, too.



This article, Stenger’s last, appears in full below.

Physicists Are Philosophers, Too

In his final essay the late physicist Victor Stenger argues for the validity of philosophy in the context of modern theoretical physics

www.scientificamerican.com

stupid.

more evidence of masonic inspired scientism.

 

[Daylight63]

You post science papers you Googled without reading them.

I read every article I post, and then comment on it extensively through the thread.

Always good to have a justification.

Matthew 7:3

 

[Daylight63]

Perry, you've been angry ever since the day I demonstrated you hadn't read your own science paper and that the paper's conclusions actually supported what I've always been saying.

Who is Perry????

I read the papers I posted and I posted them to support my point. YOU mischaracterized my point and then failed to find support for YOUR MISCHARACTERIZATION and complained about me for some reason.

See, Cypress, when you undertake STRAWMEN ARGUMENTS you are failing your own point. You can't misrepresent my point and then claim you can't find support for your misrepresentation in my posts. That's not how solid reasoning works.

Perhaps you could try honestly debating the points on their merits instead of just making up lies about other people's position and then excoriating them for it.

 

[Cypress]

Who is Perry????

You are the poster Perry the PhD with a new screen name.

Remember when you were posting as Perry and you denied having the sock puppet Novojank?

Same thing here.

 

[Cypress]

No phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon. We are participants in bringing into being not only the near and here, but the far away and long ago. — John A. Wheeler, physicist

Wheeler described photons of light as a great smoky dragon. “The mouth of the dragon is sharp, where it bites the counter. The tail of the dragon is sharp, where the photon starts, What the dragon does or looks like in between we have no right to speak.”

In this way, at the fundamental level, our world is not entirely physical. The material Universe is constructed out of infinitesimal bubbles of virtual particles (transient quantum fluctuations of spacetime) which Wheeler named quantum foam. This deep layer of existence is governed by the uncertainty principle. Under this principle, all forms of matter/energy exist simultaneously (superposition) until observed. Our participation summons the world into existence. The observer-participancy creates the information upon which our Universe is based.

https://unbox-your-soul.medium.com/the-smoky-dragons-of-reality-adfffaf92221

This post is a retort to the idea that science in only limited to conducting experiments in accordance with the scientific method, and never includes philosophy, intuition, thought experiment.​

 

[goat]

Physicists Are Philosophers, Too​

- In his final essay the late physicist Victor Stenger argues for the validity of philosophy in the context of modern theoretical physics -

In September 2010 physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow published a shot heard round the world—and not just the academic world. On the first page of their book, The Grand Design, they wrote: “Philosophy is dead” because “philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.”

The questions that philosophy is no longer capable of handling (if it ever was) include: How does the universe behave? What is the nature of reality? Where did all this come from? Did the universe need a creator? According to Hawking and Mlodinow, only scientists—not philosophers—can provide the answers.

The noted physicist and public intellectual Victor Stenger worked with two co-authors to pen an article for Scientific American. In it Stenger and co-authors address the latest eruption of a long-standing historic feud, an argument between physicists and philosophers about the nature of their disciplines and the limits of science. Can instruments and experiments (or pure reason and theoretical models) ever reveal the ultimate nature of reality? Does the modern triumph of physics make philosophy obsolete? What philosophy, if any, could modern theoretical physicists be said to possess? Stenger and his co-authors introduce and address all these profound questions in this thoughtful essay and seek to mend the growing schism between these two great schools of thought. When physicists make claims about the universe, Stenger writes, they are also engaging in a grand philosophical tradition that dates back thousands of years. Inescapably, physicists are philosophers, too.



This article, Stenger’s last, appears in full below.

Physicists Are Philosophers, Too

In his final essay the late physicist Victor Stenger argues for the validity of philosophy in the context of modern theoretical physics

www.scientificamerican.com

stimulated emission or absorption of gravitons by light

Ralf Schützhold
Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Bautzner Landstrae

Abstract
We study the exchange of energy between gravitational and electromagnetic waves in a Sagnac type geometry, in analogy to an “optical Weber bar.” In the presence of a gravitational wave (such as the ones measured by LIGO), we find that it should be possible to observe signatures of stimulated emission or absorption of gravitons with present day technology. Apart from marking the transition from passively observing to actively manipulating such a natural phenomenon, this could also be used as a complementary detection scheme. Non-classical photon states may improve the sensitivity and might even allow us to test certain quantum aspects of the gravitational field.

----------------------------------------

What I think this means is with better technology, experimental physicists may be able to understand quantum gravity. If so it would mean Einstein is wrong and physicists would have to rethink relativity.

 

[AProudLefty]

Correct. All scientists are philosophers but not all philosophers are scientists. The key distinction is that science is falsifiable philosophy that predicts nature, so it's very specific/focused.




This is a stupid comment. Hawking might have had a brilliant doctoral thesis but he sure made some bonehead remarks that were not well contemplated, with this being one of them.

One of the weaknesses of unfalsifiable philosophy is that it isn't very useful. Science, however, being falsifiable, is immensely useful, specifically for developing technology. Technology, in turn, is immensely useful for discovery.

... and scientists don't do the discovering. Researchers do the discovering. Scientists make the science based on the discoveries. Engineers build the technology based on science.


All of this is stupid. Some of these questions ask for somewhat subjective characterizations/descriptions which obviously precludes science. Other questions involve the past tense which obviously precludes science.


This has been answered by math. Kurt Goedell proved that it is not a question of "revealing" anything, but of the impossibility of any set of statements to be complete, even an infinite set.


How does physics "triumph"?


Answer: science


OK. Yep.

Here we have someone pretending to be a physicist and and a philosopher.

Too funny.

Too funny.

 

[IBDaMann]

Here we have someone pretending to be a physicist and and a philosopher. Too funny. Too funny.

^^ Here we have someone pretending to have an education.

 

[IBDaMann]

stimulated emission or absorption of gravitons by light

Your first reaction should have been to call booooooolsch't. Are you able to see why?

Abstract
We study the exchange of energy between gravitational and electromagnetic waves

Is gravity energy? Can gravity "exchange" energy? Can gravity waves be absorbed by electromagnetic waves?

Are you calling booooooolsch't yet?

in a Sagnac type geometry, in analogy to an “optical Weber bar.”

Is there such a thing as an optical Weber bar? Can there ever be such a thing as an optical Weber bar? Can electromagnetic waves ever emulate gravity?

In the presence of a gravitational wave (such as the ones measured by LIGO), we find that it should be possible to observe signatures of stimulated emission or absorption of gravitons with present day technology.

Can you recognize gibberish when you read it?

Yes or no, have you called booooooolsch't yet?

 

[Cypress]

stimulated emission or absorption of gravitons by light

Ralf Schützhold
Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Bautzner Landstrae

Abstract
We study the exchange of energy between gravitational and electromagnetic waves in a Sagnac type geometry, in analogy to an “optical Weber bar.” In the presence of a gravitational wave (such as the ones measured by LIGO), we find that it should be possible to observe signatures of stimulated emission or absorption of gravitons with present day technology. Apart from marking the transition from passively observing to actively manipulating such a natural phenomenon, this could also be used as a complementary detection scheme. Non-classical photon states may improve the sensitivity and might even allow us to test certain quantum aspects of the gravitational field.

----------------------------------------

What I think this means is with better technology, experimental physicists may be able to understand quantum gravity. If so it would mean Einstein is wrong and physicists would have to rethink relativity.

I suspect we are a long way off from having a quantum theory of gravity. The only realistic contender is string theory and that's been floundering for three decades.

I don't think Einstein will be proven wrong, it will be just that he didn't have the entire story mapped out.

 

[goat]

Your first reaction should have been to call booooooolsch't. Are you able to see why?


Is gravity energy? Can gravity "exchange" energy? Can gravity waves be absorbed by electromagnetic waves?

Are you calling booooooolsch't yet?


Is there such a thing as an optical Weber bar? Can there ever be such a thing as an optical Weber bar? Can electromagnetic waves ever emulate gravity?


Can you recognize gibberish when you read it?

Yes or no, have you called booooooolsch't yet?

Quantum gravity is proving to be impossible. Do you even know what it is?

 

[goat]

I suspect we are a long way off from having a quantum theory of gravity. The only realistic contender is string theory and that's been floundering for three decades.

I don't think Einstein will be proven wrong, it will be just that he didn't have the entire story mapped out.

I tried reading the paper and watching the experiments but it's way over my head. What I think they are trying to do is separate particles such as photons from wave-particle duality and are failing with today's technology.