7,157
edits
The Evolution of the Physicist’s Picture of Nature - Paul Dirac: Difference between revisions
The Evolution of the Physicist’s Picture of Nature - Paul Dirac (edit)
Revision as of 20:50, 8 October 2025
, 8 October 2025→On X
No edit summary |
(→On X) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | ||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |username=EricRWeinstein | ||
|content=@lpfeed @monadical @lexfridman @Zev__Weinstein You aren’t understanding then. Paul Dirac made this point in 1963 (Sci am). I’d read that before trying to dismiss it. Theory vs instantiation. | |content=@lpfeed @monadical @lexfridman @Zev__Weinstein You aren’t understanding then. '''Paul Dirac made this point in 1963 (Sci am)'''. I’d read that before trying to dismiss it. Theory vs instantiation. | ||
|timestamp=4:30 AM · Feb 26, 2021 | |timestamp=4:30 AM · Feb 26, 2021 | ||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
|content=Notice this style of article. It confuses the *instantiation* of an idea which experiment *can* probe w/ the idea *itself* which experiment *cannot* probe. This is one of the most basic errors in science, philosophy of science & science reporting. | |content=Notice this style of article. It confuses the *instantiation* of an idea which experiment *can* probe w/ the idea *itself* which experiment *cannot* probe. This is one of the most basic errors in science, philosophy of science & science reporting. | ||
Read Dirac’s 1963 SciAm essay. | '''Read Dirac’s 1963 SciAm essay.''' | ||
|timestamp=5:34 PM · Jan 31, 2021 | |timestamp=5:34 PM · Jan 31, 2021 | ||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
That is simply untrue. I mean it sounds superficially reasonable in a kind of Wolfgang Pauli hard ass way…but it is clearly wrong. And I gave 3 examples which I could be sure we both knew. I could have given 10 more without too much effort. Feel free to challenge them. | That is simply untrue. I mean it sounds superficially reasonable in a kind of Wolfgang Pauli hard ass way…but it is clearly wrong. And I gave 3 examples which I could be sure we both knew. I could have given 10 more without too much effort. Feel free to challenge them. | ||
Combatting this hardline belief and any simplistic reliance on the Scientific Method was the entire point of Dirac’s famous 1963 essay quote about mathematical beauty being more important than agreement with experiment. We don’t appreciate Dirac’s revolutionary point if all we repeat is the quote. Here is the context for the quote which makes the argument against the danger of letting experiment or consistency dictate that something is ‘fundamentally wrong’ as you say in your reponse to Elon: | Combatting this hardline belief and any simplistic reliance on the Scientific Method was the entire point of '''Dirac’s famous 1963 essay quote''' about mathematical beauty being more important than agreement with experiment. We don’t appreciate Dirac’s revolutionary point if all we repeat is the quote. Here is the context for the quote which makes the argument against the danger of letting experiment or consistency dictate that something is ‘fundamentally wrong’ as you say in your reponse to Elon: | ||
“I think there is a moral to this story, namely that it is more important to have beauty in one's equations than to have them fit experiment. If Schrodinger had been more confident of his work, he could have published it some months earlier, and he could have published a more accurate equation. That equation is now known as the Klein-Gordon equation, although it was really discovered by Schrodinger, and in fact was discovered by Schrodinger before he discovered his nonrelativistic treatment of the hydrogen atom. It seems that if one is working from the point of view of getting beauty in one's equations, and if one has really a sound insight, one is on a sure line of progress. If there is not complete agreement between the results of one's work and experiment, one should not allow oneself to be too discouraged, because the discrepancy may well be due to minor features that are not properly taken into account and that will get cleared up with further developments of the theory.” | “I think there is a moral to this story, namely that it is more important to have beauty in one's equations than to have them fit experiment. If Schrodinger had been more confident of his work, he could have published it some months earlier, and he could have published a more accurate equation. That equation is now known as the Klein-Gordon equation, although it was really discovered by Schrodinger, and in fact was discovered by Schrodinger before he discovered his nonrelativistic treatment of the hydrogen atom. It seems that if one is working from the point of view of getting beauty in one's equations, and if one has really a sound insight, one is on a sure line of progress. If there is not complete agreement between the results of one's work and experiment, one should not allow oneself to be too discouraged, because the discrepancy may well be due to minor features that are not properly taken into account and that will get cleared up with further developments of the theory.” | ||