Feynman, Rand and Popper

Hi everyone,

Since the old ‘Rand and Popper’ thread is moribund since July, I’d like to begin again, with a new twist.

Perhaps some of you might know of Feynman, while others not. Well, not only was he a remarkable Physicist, he was also a wonderful teacher, as my own father can attest. And although he passed away three years prior to my birth, his presence still serves as sort of a grise immanence around our house.

Now although Feynman insisted that the lingua franca of science is math (hence my early start, sort of like intellectual drown-proofing!), he was also an amazing explainer of both the material and of what he considered science to be as an enterprise.

Feynman is easily accessible on Youtube. Here, the best place to begin might be ‘Math and Physics, in which he more or less offers up an ontology.

Also, of course, you can easily find Surely you’re joking...his semi-auto biography….replete with cargo cult explanations, Japanese ‘politely’ doing the Dirac, safecracking, whatever!

Lastly, as it’s quite well known that Feynman hated philosophy, my ontology remark would not have sat well with him. Yet in truth, he was constantly badgered by his students—but once only per!-- that his statements did, indeed, constitute a philosophical position.

Harrumphing away, he’d warn them; on the second occasion he’d make them do the Dirac for homework.

I’ll post within several days, as study weekend begins tomorrow at 8, and I’ll need to collect my thoughts. Hopefully, others will have already posted, as I’m interested as to what Objectivism has to say about Sir Richard.

Ciao, Eva

Post 1

Saturday, January 11, 2014 - 10:06am

I read Surely You're Joking to my daughter for bedtime stories. It took a few attempts, but, I begged for patience, and got her to listen to the story of the boy with the big screwdriver. The rest of the book followed.

(She hated asking questions, she said, because every answer started with the history of the world. I thought that it was my own failing. But when Laurel and I were in civil engineering, one of our classmates was the daughter of a professor. Another student quipped that it must be nice to have someone to help you with your homework. "My father does not help me with my homework!" she said. "The last time I asked him for help, he suggested that I solve a quadratic by completing the square because it looked interesting.")

As for Feynman, he was a strict inductionist. He was firmly committed to the belief that no final answers exist in science, that ultimately, no certainties exist. Objectivism offers a different answer. That said, the finer granularity, of course is that he also lived the scientific method of theories that explain facts and experiments that test theories. That is the rational-empiricism of small-o objectivism.

In addition to the Gleick biography (which I just read a few months ago), and What Do You Care What Other People Think?I have Feynman's Final Lecture, his Six Not-so-Easy Pieces, and The Character of Physical Law.

(Eva and I discussed the Sokal Affair privately. I will refer to the Sokal Affair later in this discussion because some of his statements about it bear on the philosophy of science as suggested.)
(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 1/11, 10:07am)

Post 2

Saturday, January 11, 2014 - 11:23am

Michael,

For what it's worth, Feynman did seem to believe that nature would reveal her secrets--some day, and with great difficulty.

As for another great physicist who thought otherwise, the best example would be Wigner. For him, the proximity of math to quantum physics was far too close. Math-objects, which are mind -dependent, simply impose themselves on our sensory data.

Hence, the search for a 'naturalist model' within math, which is quite another story....see P. Maddy, for example.

Now back to Feynman: he was clear that absolutely no axiomatic system ('Greek') would help us find the best way to explain nature. Rather, we use all available methods, to see which one works best (Babylonian).

The classic Feynman example indicates that a combinatiion of field theory and Noether-based conservation of energies (ie Gen Rel) superceedes the old Newtonian model for gravity.

Feynam was also big on Popper-based refutability--although if he ever read Popper, he would not have admitted it! But more to the point, Feynamn believed in 'active' refutablity, in which scientists openly share results...a team effort, as it were.

My experience with physicists seems to indicate that small-o objectivism is the dominant mode of professional thought simply because it's a thought that's good for thinking. To this end, philosophy of science, like all philosophy, entitles itself to examine the broader issue of small 't' vs large Truths.

Compatable with Feynman, to a point, would be N. Cartwright: 'How the laws of pyhsics lie', in particular.
No to rational deductive (Hempel's umbrella),
Yes to praxiology (Neurath's boat).

But also no to the assumption that a few grand laws tell us much of anything as to how things work. Somewhat akin to axiology, this is just a human trait to simplify, and to make artifically elegant: truth=beauty and all that.

Eva

Post 3

Sunday, January 12, 2014 - 2:50am

Feynman does not offer us a theory of induction. He offers us mathematical tools for integrating the data of observations. Feynman has no explicit methodology. He has an implicit one involving conceptual integration, but he doesn't know how to articulate it so he resorts to describing. He showed how we could balance the books. He gave us a book-keeping device and a picture to serve as a memory aid: the Feynman diagram. If he genuinely believed in Popperian guessing, he would have told his students that virtual particles ARE what's going on but he pled agnosticism. He knew it worked. He knew that the concept of virtual particles was sound. If you want to deal with nature in a way that's good for us, we need entities and quantities so account for nature in chunks in discrete units.If you want to know how many electrons do a waltz under certain circumstances, fire many and account for every possible path the electron could take. The more possibilities you consider, the better your probability prediction will be. But he NEVER told his students to take virtual particles for anything but a memory aid, a way to account: book-keeping device. I do think Feynman was limited by Popper. He was not sure how science worked exactly, so he provided leads in his books. He took careful notes for how he developed QED. Insofar as you concoct tests, tests do falsify. More specifically, they outline boundaries. They tell you about predicates, as Bacon pointed out.

Overall he was an awesome scientist.
(Edited by Michael Philip on 1/12, 2:57am)

Post 4

Sunday, January 12, 2014 - 11:20am

Thanks, Michael P. I have QED but have not read it. Clearly, I should. Feynman was tapped briefly to review textbooks for public schools. It gave him fits. Later, in an interview, he derided the modernist idea that it does not matter if you get the right answer as long as you follow the right method. Feynman used any method he could to get the right answer. The right answer was most important. The method was whatever worked.

In fact, on that point objectivism (small-o or Capital-O) asserts that every valid method must of necessity return the same correct answer; and the engagement of those several methods are the means by which we validate the claim in question.

Post 5

Sunday, January 12, 2014 - 5:37pm

Michael M, how is this not a tautology?

>>>>every valid method must of necessity return the same correct answer<<<<

and...

>>>>engagement of those several methods are the means by which we validate the claim in question<<<,

Well, actually, the lecture on 'physics and math' makes it clear that some methods are better than others by virtue of simplicity: standard Newtonian calculus is too awkward.

OTH, presumablty you mean that if several methods give various results, there's a problem.
More often than not, it's either a mis-measurement or a coefficient that's unacounted for.

Re the latter, perhaps the best example are Lamb shifts that cause a slight tweak in the Dirac: perturbation of the of the quantum vaccuum cause a slight difference in S2 and D2 potentials....

Eva

(Edited by Matthews on 1/12, 5:59pm)

Post 6

Sunday, January 12, 2014 - 5:58pm

Michael P,

You wrote,

>>>>If he genuinely believed in Popperian guessing, he would have told his students that virtual particles ARE what's going on but he pled agnosticism. He knew it worked. He knew that the concept of virtual particles was sound<<<<

I believe that you're referring to 'normalization', which Feynman comared to voodoo.
So if the math that works to obtain excellent measurements indicates a field of waves, that's what we know.

Agnosticism suggests that there's more to know. or 'uncertainty'. But Feynman's point seems to be more like that of Heisenberg, correcttly stated--'indeterminate.' This means that all the facts are in, unless there's an unforseen, remarkable breakthrough that somehow discovers 'particles'.

Yet as far as we can tell, field /wave equations are the best we'll ever have because all research has pointed to 'waves within waves'.; the more we know, the less particular QM becomes.

And yes, this doesn't really square with a genre of materialism that insists that inside of balls you'll find smaller balls....

Eva

Post 7

Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - 8:17am

Eva:

re: 'waves within waves.'

There is a fringe area of research into something called 'oscillons' at a much higher scale of reality: vibrating granular media, sand, brass beads.   The phenomena is not simply like constrained vibrating modes(as in, sand on a steel plate with modal resonances.) Rather, when a box of granular media or slurry is shaken over some amplitudes and frequencies, what results is not just vibrating media at the scale of the media, but visible structures that have phase and size much larger than the individual media, These structures migrate freely over the surface of the vibrating media(and so, are not fixed modal resonance points), and also have rules of interaction. Depending on phase, they might repel or attract each other.

It is an interesting area of observational physics, but the 'take away' for me is the fact that there is a large discrete jump in scale, of one type of vibrating mass/energy at one scale to a totally independent type of mass/energy at another scale. (These larger scale phenomena are called 'oscillons', and over their lifetimes, as they move, they do not consist of the same component smaller bits of vibrating media.)    They are 'solutions' of some kind, and they exist because they can exist, but it is interesting that the jump in scale is large and discrete. (There do not appear oscillons over a large range of sizes...there are discrete jumps.) As well, they persist over time. So, they are not simply random statistical peaks of broadband frequencies coalescing into a local large peak; they do so and then... persist over time.   They might bleed energy, but they are also fed energy. They persist as 'particles' with identity over time.

So, from a distance, if we were to look at this, all we would see is the larger oscillons, interacting and repelling and attracting.    And these oscillons, though they have identity and beahviours and motion, consist not of newtonian bits of vibrating media, but rather of some process solution passing through those bits.

And, apparently, if we look closer at the bits... a similar thing at a smaller scale. (That is always intriguing.) They are still mostly 'nothing' but pure process, composed of smaller bits of something that, when we look at the something, it is lather, rinse, repeat. At the higher scale, there is a set of observable rules of interaction repulstion/attraction -- that is not simply a scale up of the same rules at the smaller scale.

If you've never looked into 'oscillons' they are worth a peak. They provide an accessible real world visual analog for the idea of 'waves within waves.'

regards,
Fred

Post 8

Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - 9:59am

Fred,

Thanks for the informative post and yes, 'oscillons' are far over my head.

The most I can gather is that this phenomena might have something to do with 'dissapative systems', in which order emerges out of chaos, at a higher state of complexity...you know, the Prigogine stuff (?).

His real work --Nobel prize, mid 50's--demonstrated that as a thermodymanic system approaches equlibrium, small, seemingly chaotic shifts occur. mapping these out, as it were, he discovered observable waves within waves.

But unlike what you've described, I--physicist only by familial osmosis!--am not familiar with any real-particle example.

So I'll look it up & get back...

Eva

Post 9

Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - 11:38am

Eva:

Some cool numerical work at Cornell http://www.dartmouth.edu/~cosmos/oscillons/

... and an illustrative numerical simulation here from same link: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~cosmos/oscillons/symmetric.mp4

Quicktime is best for those, but one of the samples will also run on Windows Media Player with the right codec.

Some simuilations on YouTube.

Also cool looking examples are from vibrating media. (My son made the attempt in JH for a science fair project; he obtained a wide range of types of granular media -- a company that manufactured sand blasting material was really helpful in provideing a wide range of samples after he wrote to them and asked.   Then he built a little shaker table, and tried to realize instances of 'oscillons', actually had some measure of success, but they were fleeting/transient and difficult for him to 'capture.' He wasn't able to achieve long lived examples. He learned from the attempts, however. It was a very accessible bit of physics. He's 26 so that was about a dozen years ago at this point. He was so taken by the experience that he eventually double majored in economics and psych. (D'OH!)

Maybe or maybe not anything to do with oscillons, but another year, his project was based on the elastity of golf balls as a function of temperature. He was slowly migrating to his true interests...golf. It was a simple experiment, very accessible, and he actually realized interesting results; golf balls have the highest elasticity (non-dissipation of collision energy) at some optimum temperature that is near a reasonable temperature. Too hot, and they dissipate more energy. Too cold, and they dissipate more energy.   In the middle, around normal outside playing temps, they have an optimim elasticity. He measured this indirectly, by thermal soaking golf balls over a range of temperatures, then measuring how long it took for a bouncing golf ball dropped into a four foot high test rig with a 2 inch steel plate a the bottom to stop bouncing.   He took lots of samples, averaged them, and the numbers were so far apart that significance was obvious. A non dissapative golf ball with pefect elasticity and no friction would bounce forever. Think of it this way; imagine a golf ball made of nearly molten steel and one made of hardened steel at a normal temperature. Both are steel. Which one would it be easier to transfer energy to from a moving golf club head and convert that energy into pure kinetic energy? The result of his experiment? Golf ball manufactureres, at least, know what they are doing.

Why does or does this not relate to oscillons? Well, not sure, but one characteristic of oscillons in vibrating media is, they are long lived. The smaller media are for sure colliding, and oscillons themselves can collide(and even, survive the collision by passing 'through' each other.   If the nature of these collisions was dissapative, then it would be much harder for oscillons to be long lived.

Not his results, but an example here:

http://www.scholarpedia.org/w/images/thumb/f/fe/Fig12_soliton.jpeg/400px-Fig12_soliton.jpeg

Here is a link to an article positing cosmological significance. http://phys.org/news/2012-07-early-universe-dominated-bobbing.html#jCp

regards,
Fred

Post 10

Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - 2:56pm

Fred,

The most important thing that I discovered relative to what I already sparsely know is that the plates emit oscillons at certain frequencies.

This might be somewhat analogous to vocal overtones (yes, Hungarian & Greek music!) as well as Stradavarius, et al, trying to find the right wood to sustain a vibrato for a long time with the correct warm sound. In other words, the harmonics of a 'overtone' last longer than 'expected'.

As for the astrophysics (way over my head!) what I can understand, as just researched, is that within standard Lie-SU2 that defines Higgs, oscillons are found to 2x scale. The god particle just humms along...

Congrats on your son, you must be proud of both his intellect & focus. My momndad, btw, consider me a complete dissipate/dilletante, on alternate days, a la Copenhagen, albeit all-A. At least sissy writes excellent poetry...

Eva

Post 11

Thursday, January 23, 2014 - 5:42am

~~Eva~~:

Yes, I am very proud of my son, and his focus.   Both my bookend sons, in fact.   One with an IQ over 140, the other with an IQ less than 60. (See? On average, we are average.)   My youngest has ~~Williams~~ Syndrome, and sees the world much differently than his older brother.   But he is always showing it to me fresh, through his unique eyes and voice.   My younger son is who kept my older son from being an asshole like his father. They adore each other, which is as good as it gets.

I never overtly encouraged my oldest son to follow me into technology; in fact, in the current environment, I have to admit that I might have slightly discouraged him.   He put forth just as much effort in his other subjects.    I gave him a little speech when he went off to kindergarten-- pretty much the same speech I was given by my steelworker father. "It's not enough to show up at school and merely do what you are asked.   You must politely do that at least, but you must also reach up out of your seat and go after your own education by the throat, as if your life depended on it, because it does."   Because education is primarily taken not given. It is, at most, well offered by excellent teachers.    My oldest got two Bs in his life; one in Jr High, one in college. And still, it is his younger brother who seems to put forth the most effort. From a distance, everything seems easy to my oldest son, but I know that isn't true. I can't complain that he didn't listen to me.   I always taught him, first and ~~foremeost~~, that this special thing in his hands is his life and he should treat it well.

It sounds to me like someone must have given you a similar speech at some point in your life.   As I've told both my sons, well done.

regards,
~~Fred~~

Post 12

Thursday, January 23, 2014 - 7:24pm