- #1
member 11137
Question 1:
What is Theory Development ? An help for people who try to develop new theories? I do appreciate all commentaries that I could read in the different threads. There is a lot of things to learn for people like me (amateur). I personally try to develop a small theory but I am certain to do it on what everybody call the poor man way. It is certainly inside the normality for someone who leaved the University for about 20 years! One cannot stop the progress and it is a very good thing.
This said, I get the feeling, may be because of my reduced acknowledges in the mathematical world of today, and even if one cannot do physics without to have to manage with mathematics (I agree), that one tries to put the different pieces of the puzzle (GR, Quantum Theory, …) together with a super collection of very good mathematical theories but in forgetting the evidence of the reality. I try to explain: why are we sure that the connections between the different theories are to be found in a better mathematical model and not in a better analysis of the facts leading to a new theory of physics? Is it because this way of doing was successful in the past (e.g.: Electricity and magnetism with J.C. Maxwell; after that EM and Relativity with A. Einstein)? Is there not a risk that we built a beautiful house without real connections to the reality? Or said with other words: what are the recent experiments giving us the insurance that all these new theories (superstring, …) belong a little piece of the “not to wrong” explanation of our world?
Question 2:
I learned (GR) that there is no better frame than the others. That means, we get a free choice of the frame where we want to work into. Is there someone who knows in which type of frames the original Maxwell’s Laws for vacuum (No source) in the 3-dimensional versus are valid? If I refer to what I have read, to the history and to the logic, I would propose: in every Euclidian frame at rest? Is it correct?
Thanks / Blackforest
What is Theory Development ? An help for people who try to develop new theories? I do appreciate all commentaries that I could read in the different threads. There is a lot of things to learn for people like me (amateur). I personally try to develop a small theory but I am certain to do it on what everybody call the poor man way. It is certainly inside the normality for someone who leaved the University for about 20 years! One cannot stop the progress and it is a very good thing.
This said, I get the feeling, may be because of my reduced acknowledges in the mathematical world of today, and even if one cannot do physics without to have to manage with mathematics (I agree), that one tries to put the different pieces of the puzzle (GR, Quantum Theory, …) together with a super collection of very good mathematical theories but in forgetting the evidence of the reality. I try to explain: why are we sure that the connections between the different theories are to be found in a better mathematical model and not in a better analysis of the facts leading to a new theory of physics? Is it because this way of doing was successful in the past (e.g.: Electricity and magnetism with J.C. Maxwell; after that EM and Relativity with A. Einstein)? Is there not a risk that we built a beautiful house without real connections to the reality? Or said with other words: what are the recent experiments giving us the insurance that all these new theories (superstring, …) belong a little piece of the “not to wrong” explanation of our world?
Question 2:
I learned (GR) that there is no better frame than the others. That means, we get a free choice of the frame where we want to work into. Is there someone who knows in which type of frames the original Maxwell’s Laws for vacuum (No source) in the 3-dimensional versus are valid? If I refer to what I have read, to the history and to the logic, I would propose: in every Euclidian frame at rest? Is it correct?
Thanks / Blackforest