Essay Abstract

This paper seeks to report developments in "ToK" (the Theory of Knowledge) and, where feasible, apply them to long-standing problems in physics. One key issue is to explain the nature of observation/perception, and hence criticize the 1900s' emphasis on experimental observation as harmfully overzealous empiricism. Meanwhile theory (and hidden-but-indispensible processes) have both been undervalued and their processes misunderstood. Much of the impetus for this work came from the late Professor J.Piaget, best known for the impact of his work on developmental psychology; but he also argued that similar principles apply to society-as-such (including the collective scientific-world) -- and that amounts to a new approach to "Scientific Method" which has been used with apparent success in the biological sciences closest to physics, including neurophysiology. The account concludes with a brief application of this approach to two old problems in physics (Special Relativity, and Wave/Particle indeterminacy) -- meanwhile noting other work which seems to have produced plausible models by actually breaking those "taboos" criticized here.

Author Bio

I am now "retired" (at least according to SOME definitions), but I am actively persuing several inter-related lines of interdisiplinary enquiry. I had started with physics, but then spread my interest into the social sciences, thence to the biological sciences, and then back to physics again, meanwhile becoming a fan of both Heaviside (cable theory), and Piaget (knowledge theory). When I find the time, I sometimes appear onstage (mostly musicals these days) or participate in walking-or-cycling activities.

Download Essay PDF File

Hi Robert,

Your essay will either be praised or condemned, 聽nothing in between. I am in the camp of support. Not surprising, I am one of those, as you put it, "just another irritating mutation".

Remember, Copernicus was exactly such an irritant, however his evidence overwhelmed the common believe.聽

Sooner or later, a theory will emerge that will gain popular support outside the academia and may seriously challenge the "lucky few". 聽聽

It is unwise by the professionals to ignore the ideas from the non-academics. I can understand why, the shear volume is too huge to handle. I am sure that a voluntary hierarchical pyramid like structure of 聽bottom-up vetting can be introduced to filter and pass only the best ideas to the top.聽

Regards

Anton @ ( 聽../topic/1458 聽)

    Robert,

    As I stated in my bio, topic 1294, I thought I had retired. After retirement, outside of the system, it gives one the opportunity to think about the conformities that one had to stay within, otherwise one could find themselves outside of the system even though still physically within it.

    In your essay, Section 4.1, you raise the issue of measurements. It is not just the scale used for a measurement, it is what the scale is related to and how the scale is implemented. It would be beneficial if SI units had a base "unit of energy" by which all energy, regardless of electromagnetic (EM) spectrum position, could be related to.

    Even though some point in the EM spectrum could be used to establish a "base unit of energy", apparently, there is no agreement where this point should be. A mathematically derived solution is available. It was not apparent from the basic formulation where this "spectrum position" was until it was translated to the SI second.

    An IEEE paper titled, "A methodology to define physical constants using mathematical constants" provides a precise point in the EM spectrum that can be used to establish a "unit of energy." A search on the title will identify the IEEE publication and my webpage (~ancient) which provides a link to the postprint. Also, I provide links to the publications in the comments of topic 1294.

      23 days later

      Robert

      Someone told me you needed a plumber for your ' hidden-but-indispensible processes'. I agree consistent theory and process 'have ...been undervalued and ...misunderstood', and I present one that works in my own essay. But I'm afraid it shows the old ones seem to need a bit of a clear out! I loved reading your essay and your part 4.2 is shown as pretty spot on by the model. A top score for that alone! Frames can move relative to local background frames, which can move relative to local background frames. Analagous to 'flexible ether', and with real evidence of boundaries (see also Kinsgley-Nixy essay and his Fig 2). It also also agrees waves are more fundamental.

      The ontological construction built from solid epistemoligical elements needs support (and a top placing) to get noticed. (scoring ending soon!). At present it seems it's just too 'unfamiliar' to be taken on board by any physicist.

      From reading your excellent essay and analysis I think you're one of the minority here who'll understand and put together the mechanisms. (Do also read my latest post to Pentcho).

      Many thanks in advance for reading mine, and best wishes.

      Peter

        If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process.

        Sergey Fedosin

        Thanks Anton,

        I'm gald to hear about your agreement on these points.

        (For moe unaccountable reason, I've not been able to access your essay --- at least not from here. I'll maybe try another route later on.)

        Best Wishes,

        Bob Traill

        Regarding your "1294" essay: I Certainly agree about the difficulty in getting a change in official beliefs and doctrines, including methodology. That leaves the question of what (if anything) can be done about it.

        [Adjusting the use of units may have its place, tho its role is surely fairly minor. So where is the MAIN Problem?]

        I have suggested difficulties within practical Knowledge-Acquisition procedures, but maybe these too are only part of the problem!!

        I guess there may also be vested interests which do not WANT major change since that could leave them with "stranded assets". What do you think?

        At any rate, I don't yet see much political will towards reform; --- or have I missed something???

        Regards,

        Bob Traill