The Grim Realities of Theoretical Science

[Pentcho Valev]

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00...3/00/engtot.pdf :

"The Second Law made its appearance in physics around 1850, but a half century later it was already surrounded by so much confusion that the British Association for the Advancement of Science decided to appoint a special committee with the task of providing clarity about the meaning of this law. However, its final report (Bryan 1891) did not settle the issue. Half a century later, the physicist/philosopher Bridgman still complained that there are almost as many formulations of the second law as there have been discussions of it (Bridgman 1941, p. 116). And even today, the Second Law remains so obscure that it continues to attract new efforts at clarification. A recent example is the work of Lieb and Yngvason (1999)......The historian of science and mathematician Truesdell made a detailed study of the historical development of thermodynamics in the period 1822-1854. He characterises the theory, even in its present state, as 'a dismal swamp of obscurity' (1980, p. 6) and 'a prime example to show that physicists are not exempt from the madness of crowds' (ibid. p. 8).......Clausius' verbal statement of the second law makes no sense.... All that remains is a Mosaic prohibition ; a century of philosophers and journalists have acclaimed this commandment ; a century of mathematicians have shuddered and averted their eyes from the unclean.....Seven times in the past thirty years have I tried to follow the argument Clausius offers....and seven times has it blanked and gravelled me.... I cannot explain what I cannot understand."

Bryan Wallace :

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm :

"I expect that the scientists of the future will consider the dominant abstract physics theories of our time in much the same light as we now consider the Medieval theories of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or that the Earth stands still and the Universe moves around it."

Pentcho Valev

[MDT]

Science needs to speculate to open up new frontiers of thinking. However, when mutally exclusive theories begin to appear it should raise a red flag. If one is right and one is wrong, but nobodys know which is which, we are spending as much time and resources on Disney World as the Museum. We are an entertainment based culture, so maybe the truth is as important as the fantasy.

[Steveo]

I know Entropy is an abstract concept, and there are some sublties to it, but it is not so confusing as you make it sound. I have studied it, and understood it (maybe because I had a very good, thorough professor), and although if I tried to dive into complex calculations now I would screw up, I am confident if I reviewed some material on it I would come to fully understand it again. It is especially beautiful in its statistical interpretation, where you get things such as the ideal gas law from first principals, which before was an experimental fact only.

It may seem that today's theoretical physics is way out there, but I think it is amazing that such an abstract concept as math can describe so much about the physical world.