Brad,

"Then, for this bending of light to be intelligible or make sense then LIGHT (etc.) needs a MASS FOR A BASIS, FOR THERE TO BE A REASON, TO BEND -- as has been shown with star light around the sun during an eclipse."

A curved piece of wood forces a axe that moves through it to follow the grain of the wood - the path of the axe curves - not because of the properties of the axe, but because of the properties of the wood.

In General Relativity (which has a singularly fine record of predicting the outcome of tests which it is applied to) a light ray is deflected around a star not because of the light's *mass*, but simply because that is the nature of space around a massive object.

Dear James Garry

But, very recently (in long conversations), a Physics professor told me/us that the nature of space is simply: NOTHING . And he also told us that the particle in light is "mass-less" (though it is there, along with the "wave-nature" of light). [ BUT, this, of course, makes no sense w/r to laws of Physics (because all coherent physical entities HAVE mass). ] Given our understanding (actually: our lack of understanding):

Space cannot really (directly, OR, presently, in any sense) be the reason for how or why things bend BECAUSE we do not know that space is not NOTHING (or that such a thing as "space", as imagined, exists) and indeed space is said to be NOTHING. So, while the bending of light (proven as both you and I indicate) would NOT ("in theory", as they say) have to involve a property of the thing that is bent to bend, it does involve such a property, given our best, present understandings. Here's why: There is no mechanism available BUT WHAT WOULD HAVE TO INVOLVE a property of the bending object, because specifically: all we have for some sort of decent, intelligible "gravity", a definition of gravity we really understand, involves (or IS) acceleration. THIS nature and definition of gravity -- AND it is the only related occurrence-in-nature we really understand -- is thus, if possible (and it is at least VERY POSSIBLE _and_ probable), _THE_ good way to fully define "gravity" .

Brad,

> The proven or known nature of space is NOTHING

I wonder how one might prove that to be so: proving the absence of something is quite hard.

Indeed, one can do the reverse quite easily: our old friend the Casimir force suggests that the vacuum is most certainly not 'empty'. Indeed, a number of other phenomena (the Lamb shift) strongly suggest that the vacuum is a hotbed of activity far below our ability to sense it directly.

But I leave discussion of that to the Quantum Mechanists here on RG.

No, I take issue with the notion that " THE OBJECT PROPERTY _IS_ PERTINENT AND NECESSARY. "

It is not. The path taken by a small object in orbit about the Earth (say) is independent of its mass - the path is only influenced by the mass of the Earth.

Now, we might want to talk about the 'reality' of 'spacetime'. But in general, physics tries to find the simplest model that explains known data. And that, to the best of our ability, appears involve the tensors of General Relativity. It isn't 'common sense', but if there were a simpler model that was equally accurate, we would use it.

If you're willing to accept that mathematical models which turn out to be highly accurate (so far) in their predictions represent some fundamental truths, then it seems to be inescapable that 'spacetime' is at least as real as, say, a wavefunction. It has properties, which when probed by experiments, appear to be well-predicted by a set of equations.

Who could ask for more?

May I recommend General Relativity by Lewis Ryder? I was a student of his, and found his explanations to be very clear.

I also recommend French's Special Relativity - particular the last chapter where magnetic phenomena are shown to be electrostatic in nature (in a different frame).

The spacetime has curvature if and only if there is a concentration of energy-momentum there. And the photon is without mass because it is impossible to be accelerated, experimentally what seen that it has always the same velocity c with respect to every observer. These are physical behaviours able to be measured and no pure philosophical or mathematical concepts.

On the other hand there are many physical objects that they have no mass as the gravitational field, the electric field, the magnetic field or the electromagnetic field that we everyday see sourround us.

Dear James Garry

You say: "I wonder how one might prove that to be so: proving the absence of something is quite hard. " I am not talking about proving it, just that "space is nothing" is the state of the present knowledge.

You say: " The path taken by a small object in orbit about the Earth (say) is independent of its mass - the path is only influenced by the mass of the Earth. " I more than doubt that statement of yours; it is contrary to fundamental Physics laws.

I am not saying that General Relativity is not the best theory we have; I am only saying it is essential that we see real-for-sure vs/OR possible significant problems. Some of those latter clearly remain. Einstein did NOT well-answer all the questions about the physical world. What Einstein predicts and works, indeed works (and that is great); but there may remain questions (in "places") of the real "why" and it being clear that "they" (the researchers, with their "findings") are clearly taking "into account" the real full situation (that is: all that's possibly relevant and present "at hand"); there remain having good, clear, presentable explanations for exceptions (e.g. a particle without mass)).

You ask: " Who could ask for more? " Well, I am not even a physicist and I CAN/could "ask for more"; in my vie: , you too should "ask for more". AGAIN: No part of a science should simply be a religion. There should be consistency with established Laws or excellent and complete explanations for exceptions. If Physics has not been made so it is reasonably clear to the common man who has had any good Physics course, THEN IT SIMPLY IS NOT CLEAR (and is suspect).

And

Dear Daniel Baldomir

I am not disputing the way things look (and that there are those "findings") as when you say, " [the] photon is without mass because it is impossible to be accelerated, experimentally" and "... seen that it [(light, etc.)] has always the same velocity c with respect to every observer". I have simply, on the grounds of Physics LAWS, found those statements contrary to the Law(s) and thus more-than-debatable , especially given the presence of other possible known-types of factors that may influence these findings (and correspondingly the LACK of complete and sensible explanations for exceptions). These apparent findings, as I see them, are not true -- in the general overall context proposed (and perhaps not good in any particular context, either): the "findings" may be due to neglect of other possibilities, leading to "error in measurement" (and here: wrong, false measurements -- even if reliably found, using the methods and perspectives that ARE used) -- AND, I will believe THAT, UNTIL "things" are WELL-EXPLAINED OTHERWISE (allowing things sensibly to be contrary to Laws, if that is the case). And, it is never an argument being presented when people just say "it [just] is" and "that's wonderful [because it [just] is]". And (again) I am seeking to see consistency with established Laws -- both those honored by Einstein, but also those same ones honored by those preceding him (and MOST USUALLY by all others NOWADAYS).

And, you say: "There are many physical objects that they have no mass as the gravitational field, the electric field, the magnetic field or the electromagnetic field". Actually no one is saying these are objects (with the exception of the last one , when there are those who say it has a mass-less particle); but, at least for the most part, I and others recognize these phenomenon not as objects themselves but as properties of things that are objects ("created" by, or associated with, OBJECTS).

I shall do no reading at anyone's behest; if Physics has not been made so it is reasonably clear to the common man who has had any good Physics course (and I have, in my General Science major), THEN IT SIMPLY IS NOT CLEAR (and is suspect).

------------------

If there are good clear explanations for how and why Laws-otherwise have exceptions, please feel free YOURSELVES to present them.

Dear Brad,

I don't know what is clear. The photon has not mass because you cannot accelerate it and the curvature of the spacetime only exists if there is energy-momentum tensor there. Where is the problem? What physical law is broken here? Mass and matter are different concepts.

Dear Daniel Baldomir

I reject " The photon has not mass" because YOU cannot accelerate it . (WTF???) If YOU cannot do it, that to-me does not lead to the definite conclusion (AND which is contrary to the nature of EVERY OTHER PARTICLE FOUND OR KNOWN) that: the photon is "mass-less".

Does it have to be "spacetime"?? How can that even make sense, as if it [(spacetime)] is something that is, in some reasonable final analysis, real, when the method providing for timing and unit of time IS BASICALLY arbitrary, except in the key aspects of simple practicality. AND, space (given what we KNOW) appears to be NOTHING. Can you communicate for-real and address specifically and sensibly these conflicting "accounts".

You say: " Mass and matter are different concepts. ". I am not sure of this because they are necessarily connected and co-existing concepts OF EACH "self-same" thing [(except, "of course", for, SUPPOSEDLY, the particle IN light)]. They may be different concepts for convenience of separating out PROPERTIES, but this does not make the different (and actually separable) things, as you imply by your use of the word "concepts" -- or clearly seem to want to imply.

If you knowledgeable people cannot explain things YOURSELVES to a reasonably educated person, I see that as a clear indication of the problems I've cited ITSELF and I see the case of problems as basically "closed". Anything well-understood can also be explained clearly and even simply.

P.S. Dear Daniel Baldomir

I did edit/update my previous answer (the one BEFORE this present one) to some extent, even after your last (and following) Answer.

Hello Brad,

1.

You said: " The path taken by a small object in orbit about the Earth (say) is independent of its mass - the path is only influenced by the mass of the Earth. " I more than doubt that statement of yours; it is contrary to fundamental Physics laws. "

Well. Let's see.

I step outside the ISS in a good suit. I have a mass of perhaps 100kg, and the ISS masses a great deal more. Yet when I let go of the handrail, both I and the ISS continue to orbit along the same path.

Our masses are very different and yet we have the same orbit.

Similarly, if I drop a feather and a hammer while standing on the Moon, the 'orbit' of both objects is identical. Yet they have different masses.

If you can indicate which Physical law these phenomena defy, I'd like to know.

2.

You wrote: " And, you say: "There are many physical objects that they have no mass as the gravitational field, the electric field, the magnetic field or the electromagnetic field". "

I don't think that I said that.

Nope. I think that you are confusing me with Daniel.

Dear James Garry

There is no reasonable or understandable answer to my concerns in your #1 (the following parenthetical indicates that AND INDICATES THE __CONTRARY__ of what you somehow believe): [(NOTE: the hammer and feather also hit the ground at the same time on the moon, when dropped -- and this is AS IT IS , no doubt, in all cases of motion (and forces): MASS IS INVOLVED)]. (HEY: Force = mass times acceleration: and, since the hammer and feather accelerate the same, the force is greater for the one with more mass; NOTHING ELSE YOU COULD NOTE, even if I am unfamiliar with it, can violate this law; p.s. acceleration INCLUDES oftentimes just: change in direction (which requires force); same change involves proportionate force AND THAT IS related to mass (by the formula of LAW just stated). Thus, THIS WAY we TRULY get/have the orbits you speak of. )

I have no reason (at least yet) not to believe you just are trying to seem to defy what IS involved in the cases you noted (OR that YOUR 'LEARNING' IS MISTAKEN), because there is motion and force there (and thus mass involved). I am going to stick with Laws of Motion pertaining to MASS (and recognize no exceptions, ESPECIALLY based on a non-explanation.

Read carefully, darn it: I addressed "Dear Daniel Baldomir" SEPARATELY IN THAT SAME ANSWER you supposedly "read". You, perhaps are skimming too fast and failing to read. You also seem to fail to question some things and certainly FAIL TO ANSWER fully, cogently, and coherently (which is WAY too common here on RG -- I truly wonder who is here, almost constantly: there is just so very much "parroting" (like that of the worst of students), including the repetition of groundless things and falsehoods !!)

Brad,

I accept that I glossed over your answer. Mea culpa.

Indeed you did not confuse me with Daniel. I erred.

You wrote, " I am going to stick with Laws of Motion pertaining to MASS (and recognize no exceptions, ESPECIALLY based on a non-explanation. "

Well. That seems to be the problem.

You see, Newtonian mechanics are incomplete. They do not accurately predict the motion of objects close to very large masses, or the overall physics of objects travelling with great speed, or indeed the motion of light. And this last is the greatest of its problems.

By contrast, Special Relativity explains the motion of objects at *all* speeds. And, General Relativity (of which SR is merely a component) describes *why* the motions are as they are. Newtonian physics is utterly oblivious to a host of known phenomena (frame-dragging, time dilation, etc.) and superior models for the movement of objects are needed.

So. I can write down some tensor equations, which in the low speed regime are identical to Newtonian laws of motion. But I cannot 'describe' those equations in any way except through mathematics.

As for the parroting of groundless things, I simply point to the body of knowledge which shows that General Relativity has passed every experimental test that has been thrown at it so far. In no way can I describe them in a brief and complete fashion: hence my advocating a dip into Ryder.

So. I perhaps am too easily satisfied. I ask nothing of physics except that it deliver accurate models of how things appear to be. If those models turn out to be beautiful in some sense, that's a bonus. I have no reason to expect that they would conform to my prejudices of what should be 'reasonable'.

As for the feather and hammer, since the motion of the hammer and feather is identical, we see that their masses play no role in their motion. In the limit, of infinitesimal masses, those motions would be the same. No?

Now, the conceptual step to an object with zero mass, is harder. And we know that light has no mass in a classical ponderable sense.

http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html

And when a prediction for the deflection of starlight during an eclipse is satisfied by experiment (multiple times) then the model that made that prediction surely gains some, ah, weight, irrespective of how outrageous it may seem at first?

Dear James Garry

You say: "You see, Newtonian mechanics are incomplete. They do not accurately predict the motion of objects close to very large masses or the overall physics of objects travelling with great speed. " Well, if this is so, DON'T JUST STATE IT, but DETAIL it in a complete and cogent and reasonable EXPLANATION (with good associated, actually-relevant PHYSICAL OBSERVABLES). I, frankly, simply do not just-believe some of the "stuff" you say. AND: Your examples do NOT make your points, as I have shown, but rather conform to MY understandings.

And, you say: " But I cannot 'describe' those equations in any way except through mathematics. ". WELL, THAT IS JUST NOT GOOD ENOUGH and does not IN ITSELF (separate from associated DETAILED OBSERVABLES (observations)) argue for ANYTHING. There may be math for nonsense. (And (again), by the way: I dealt with the orbits example, indicating how such an observation WOULD BE ON "MY SIDE".)

And, you say: "General Relativity has passed every experimental test that has been thrown at it so far". I say: Nope. Wrong. But, perhaps the experimental tests do not (have not) and (as yet) cannot answer very reasonable and pressing Questions (AND THUS what the experiments "answer" IS INCOMPLETE), so, still: "Nope. Wrong." . LOOK AT WHAT I THREW AT IT (the theory) IN MY QUESTION BEGINNING THIS THREAD. ALL THE THINGS IN MY ORIGINAL QUESTION Einstein's theory cannot respectably explain or deal with (in any coherent, cogent, reasonable way, except to say: "that's the way it is" (i.e. "that is the way it must be with my theory" -- a theory that is obviously flawed in its ability to provide any good explanations to some pressing, obvious "issues" presented (a lack-of explanation for the issues in my Question, starting this thread); and, one should never believe other than the following: A competent normally-educated HUMAN CAN SEE GOOD EXPLANATIONS, IF THEY ARE AVAILABLE)).

Brad,

I'm not going to teach you General Relativity.

I mentioned the phenomena that Newtonian mechanics is blind to: each is well-described in any good textbook:

Time-dilation: A.P. French (Special Relativity)

Gravitational redshift: https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/9907017.pdf (note page 8)

Frame dragging: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0708/0708.0457.pdf (up to page 7)

We seem to be at an impasse. GR predicts the deflection of starlight in good agreement with reality: along with the phenomena I list above. For these reasons alone I would take GR over Newtonian mechanics as the better model of reality.

Welcome to modern physics.

I can imagine your consternation if I were to tell you that a massive photon would alter the inverse-square law of electrostatics (Proca's equation) - from what is known to be, to something more like a 1/r form for the potential. People have looked for mass in the photon, and the upper limit continues to fall.

I regret that I cannot satisfy your questions in any other way.

Cordially;

-JG

Dear James Garry

So you have only mumbo-jumbo for the common man, or even for the competent normally-educated person. WELL, I will state my official opinion (AND, as a major theorist myself in ANOTHER science): For a science, what you indicate does not "cut it"; that is NOT the way it should be (or should have to be) (AND likely is not the way it is for any complete full decent science).

As a non-physicist I am "done" here now (though important judgements should NOT require an expert; and judging a science, in my view, should NOT require an "expert" -- and it is damned-well time people realize and acknowledge this).

Still: I shall stop now, and leave it to you to try to "enlighten" others, if you have any "takers". (I doubt I will/would have any more to add.)

Brad Jesness,

Let me congratulate for trying to discuss about Physics thinking (perhaps) that there are models as in Psychology: Structuralism, Functionalism, the Gestalt Psychology, Behaviorism, Psychoanalysis, Humanism and Cognitive Psychology and .....In Physics there are not schools and the models are always for explaining facts (not concepts). For instance mass is just a relation between a force and an acceleration, nothing more!. But the important is that it can be measured and not what is actually the mass. The physicists cannot tell you more about what is mass because it is a fundamental concept in Nature. What worries them, for example, is that there are several fundamental particles as the electron, muon, quarks that they have a definite and well definend mass without knowing its origin. In some cases it is possible to explain it using a Higgs field, but not always, and even there are complementary methods to create mass as the topological ones (with don't need the breaking of symmetry or even the symmetry at all). These concepts are important and difficult because they need to know things as the Standard Model (for fundamental particles), Quantum Field Theory and a sophisticated quantity of Mathematics. Remember:

The important here is not to understand such concepts for explaining them in a simple form, the important is that they predict new results and contain the previous theories.

There are many things in Physics that nobody understand properly as can be that the photon is a wave and also a particle. In the past a discussion about this issue was due to Huygens (wave) and Newton (particle) when the light was not known as an electromagnetic field or a great set of photons. The photons carry energy and momentum but not mass, for you perhaps this is a contradiction because the momentum is mass per velocity in Classical Mechanics, and thefore if the mass would be zero then its momentum would be also zero. But no! There are more forms to define momentum without employing mass if we think in a wave! All these subtleties are difficult to explain even to advanced people in the faculties of Physics, at least in mine and you cannot pretend that in socratic talk you are going to be able to understand them.

For finishing, let me to say that matter doesn't need at all the motion for being defined and understood at difference of mass and their relationship is not so straightforward as you think. My advice is that you chose another different subject for discussion (economy, politics, history, sychology, ...) and don't enter in a science where it is necessary to know a lot of different experiments, facts and calculations before to be able to discuss on it. Have a good sunday!

Dear Daniel Baldomir

I must briefly respond to a couple of "things", since I have brief responses. You say: " in Classical Mechanics, and therefore if the mass would be zero then its momentum would be also zero. But no! There are more forms to define momentum without employing mass if we think in a wave". BUT right in that statement is a problem: if a wave has no particle (which is fine), it then in all cases I know of (or can/could understand) the wave USES THE MEDIUM IT "PASSES" THROUGH, here: space, BUT space is NOTHING. Physics really must find a way to conceptualize space as something other than NOTHING, yet thoroughly convincingly (that would not only help here, with the present issue, but help other ideation, such as the "effect of the 'shape' of space").

I will secondly reiterate, that NOTHING should not be explainable (and with THINGS THAT ARE CLEARLY OBSERVABLE TO AT LEAST SOME RELIABLE PEOPLE) ___AND___ at a level the common decently-educated person can understand in some significant sense * (as I say below: enough to have a starting point to "pursue" the overall Reality being addressed). Though my theory in Psychology (a general theory, for General Psychology and Developmental Psychology) is an entire paradigm change (or, more accurately: an ENTIRE paradigm presentation (a true and full theory), for a pre-paradigmatic field): it is still possible to intelligibly explain each and every part in enough detail for the common man to pursue the ideas and be put in the "right" direction to understand more. Good science can be expressed simply (and many great scientists have said this -- it is quite terrible that some science people have lost track of this important opinion, _AND_, that I and others see this simple explanatory nature as basically a FACT-OF-PROOF of good science *).

As previously indicated, I am seeking to be done with this thread myself (because I thought there was little more I could say -- but a couple of things in your most recent post inspired reiteration).

My field is PSYCHOLOGY (where I have been thoroughly immersed for decades). So, taking your advice, I will "go back" there (where there is always more than plenty to try to make clear -- often opposing unreasonable wrongful pseudoconcrete-attempts at 'understanding' "in thinking", and many a related unreasonable dualism).

-----------

* FOOTNOTE (used twice by the above content): The following general definition of SCIENCE might be helpful:

ALL science refers to the ability to replicate KEY OVERT OBSERVABLE circumstances and KEY OVERT OBSERVABLE PHENOMENON THAT, obvious to ALL (in a fully agreed-upon way), are necessary for best understanding later replicable overt observable circumstances AND corresponding later proximately-related key overt, observable PHENOMENON patterns ( so both "sides of the equation" are taken care of, so to speak ) -- BUT, ALSO this may well imply some more-than-believable mechanism(s) for some linkage(s) which would be of some reasonable nature, but that may not be fully or clearly discovered YET (

Dear Brad,

BJ: As a non-physicist I am "done" here now (though important judgements should NOT require an expert; and judging a science, in my view, should NOT require an "expert" -- and it is damned-well time people realize and acknowledge this).

To enter any discussion, you need to know the language being used. You say you are a non-physicist and your field is psychology so you should realise that the limitation you express in your original question is merely consequence of that.

BJ: Still: I shall stop now, and leave it to you to try to "enlighten" others, if you have any "takers". (I doubt I will/would have any more to add.)

What James Garry has explained to you is common knowledge and a basic introduction that makes perfect sense to anyone who has studied the subject.

James said "General Relativity has passed every experimental test that has been thrown at it so far". which is factually correct. You replied "I say: Nope. Wrong. ... a theory that is obviously flawed in its ability to provide any good explanations ..." but in the field of physics, explanations are not required at all. What matters is whether the numerical predictions of the theory match the experimental and observational results, nothing more.

Your basic problem is that you are trying to apply concepts from one field of study to another where they are not applicable, all your original questions only arise from your lack of study of this field.

Dear George Dishman

I know SCIENCE, as a type of thing in-general AND HAVE PROVIDED A GOOD GENERAL DEFINITION (in the post (Answer), above) . All that do not conform to this are off-track, at least as far as communicating their science BUT I suspect they have more lack-of-clarity than that (even some "for" themselves). I know most (but not all) Physicists believe the same thing (but Bohr's own son is an example of one NOT in the mainstream). Understanding the proof of the ability to communicate from phenomenally related observations * is what is always and actually required for really good science and OTHERWISE will likely lead to BIG problems in that science, no matter how developed and greatly "successful" it is (you are still LIMITED YET, and no matter how much your present theory now predicts (unfortunately, TOO MUCH JUST WITH MATH FORMULAS)).

You say: " ... but in the field of physics, explanations are not required at all. What matters is whether the numerical predictions of the theory match the experimental and observational results, nothing more." I cannot agree with this, and find this DEFICIENT, based on what I have said about science before, and given the good general definition, provided (in my previous post). I will predict that some day the full truth of my perspective will be "seen". Here is more on the problem: Math-matching individual results, ONE AT A TIME (and, in ways, clearly separate), no matter how numerous, is not sufficient , and it appears you quite often match the experimental and observational results that way -- JUST doing so basically ONE AT A TIME, conforming them ONLY with math [(AND thus still NOT having FULLY RELATED sets (of related observations, including more true (and progressing and progressive) indications of cause and effect; thus, the overall explanatory theory you have is NOT sufficient for a sufficiently clear and thorough perspective -- FOR ANYONE)].

I am a thorough-going theorist, myself (in Psychology), and know this.

One must have a full system, with all elements relevant to one another related. Physics fails some BIG places, by this standard (my theory is actually better than that in Physics). None of your tremendous "horn honking" (though great and tremendous), NOTWITHSTANDING.

Even in my ignorance of Physics (with just a couple of college courses), I still believe the above opinion should be of help. Your (plural) constant heavy-handedness (you and that of others here) is not thoughtful or helpful. It is MY Question, and I seek the ACTUAL clarity I seek, whether you like it or not (it is w/r to a good general definition, true of ALL decent science).

P.S. YOU say: " What James Garry has explained to you is common knowledge and a basic introduction that makes perfect sense to anyone who has studied the subject. " BUNK. B.F. Skinner also did such "common-knowledge explanation", that made perfect sense to many in the field; he is now seen generally as silly (though there are some strange "hold-outs" BECAUSE of continuing deficiencies in the field). [ Conforming to math predictions does not [necessarily] make for good theory; can you at least acknowledge that ? (Newton's math works, but he was "wrong" in the sense of being incomplete; today's math can have the same sort of "yield" -- which is incomplete (and this shows OR is at least clearly indicated in some nonsensical conceptualizations in Physics -- some mentioned in my original Question).) ] In my view, some here in this thread are simply unreasonable. ]

* FOOTNOTE: I know some me see me as "too concrete", BUT THEY ARE MISTAKEN.

Dear Brad,

BJ: Understanding the proof of the ability to communicate from phenomenally related observations * is what is always and actually required for really good science and OTHERWISE will likely lead to BIG problems in that science, no matter how developed and greatly "successful" it is (you are still LIMITED YET, and no matter how much your present theory now predicts (unfortunately, TOO MUCH JUST WITH MATH FORMULAS)).

That is where you are wrong. There is no obligation on nature that its rules must be understandable to the limited human mind, and quantum mechanics is the obvious and commonly used example. It is only our natural arrogance to imagine that nature must conform to our needs, our that we are so intelligent that it is impossible for there to be aspects that are beyond our current understanding. Physics acknowledges this by requiring only that it produce mathematical that mimic nature, and then treats the aim of adding a layer of understanding on top of those mathematical theories.

BJ: You say: " ... but in the field of physics, explanations are not required at all. What matters is whether the numerical predictions of the theory match the experimental and observational results, nothing more." I cannot agree with this, ..

It is your right to disagree with me and the rest of the scientific community, I have no dispute with that.

BJ: I will predict that some day the full truth of my perspective will be "seen".

Ah, so you are right and the rest of the world is wrong. OK.

BJ: Math-matching individual results, ONE AT A TIME (and, in ways, clearly separate), no matter how numerous, is not sufficient , and it appears you quite often match the experimental and observational results that way -- JUST doing so basically ONE AT A TIME, conforming them ONLY with math ...

That is all you can do when you are conducting a single single experiment, you use the standard theories and apply them to the case in point. What you are missing though is the second step, all valid theories must match every such experimental and observational result. A single (repeatable) failure "falsifies" the theory and will prompt a revision or replacement of the theory.

BJ: I am a thorough-going theorist, myself (in Psychology), and know this.

Again, that is a very different discipline, you don't have instrumentation capable of measuring brain functions in the way that we have in physics so the standards applied are appropriate to that situation.

BJ: ... my theory is actually better than that in Physics ...

You seem to forget that the word "theory" in physics consists of:

• a mathematical relationship between physical variables,
• a definition of each variable in terms of measurements that can be made objective by calibrated instruments,
• a body of evidence that the theory accurately predicts the results of all known repeatable experiments and observations.

By all means post your "better" equation.

BJ: Your (plural) constant heavy-handedness (you and that of others here) is not thoughtful or helpful.

I apologise for that but I think being forthright and unambiguous in science is a better policy than trying to be fuzzy in what one says to avoiding hurting people's feeling. I find it avoids a lot of wasted discussion.

BJ: It is MY Question, and I seek the ACTUAL clarity I seek, whether you like it or not (it is w/r to a good general definition, true of ALL decent science).

That's fine, I would be entirely happy to address your specific questions if you like, I had the impression that you had decided to draw that part to a close. What I noted which I think is highly unprofessional was ehere you said "So you have only mumbo-jumbo for the common man, or even for the competent normally-educated person." when he posted some simple science that should provide a pointer to anyone wishing to start learn basic undergraduate level material. If you consider that "mumbo-jumbo", that is an indication only of your own level of competence in the field, not of the content of his post.

BJ: Conforming to math predictions does not [necessarily] make for good theory; can you at least acknowledge that ?

No, that is the standard by which theories are judged in physics.

BJ: Newton's math works, but he was "wrong" in the sense of being incomplete;

No, Newton's maths was very close but not quite accurate. The decider was Eddington's observation of the bending of starlight where Newton's law predicted a value and Einstein's maths predicted twice as much. The observation matched Einstein's figure and ruled out Newton's maths. That is a good example of how the process works, we still use Newton's law in most everyday situations as an entirely adequate approximation but we still know with absolute certainty that it is not correct, Eddington's observations "falsified" that theory. To date, no observation has ever differed from Einstein's maths, it is not falsified.

Dear Brad,

P.S. You may find theis article on Popper of interest, especially sections 2 and 3:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#BackHisThou

Dear George Dishman

Sorry to take so long to respond (I had a 2-day vacation). You say: "There is no obligation on nature that its rules must be understandable to the limited human mind". [ (YET, we are, apparently (according to you) able to INDIRECTLY understand "nature" (this is actually a BELIEF of a MYTHOLOGICAL nature (of a meta-physical nature, aka of a superstitious nature). This actually and truly IS what you say, citing your huge over-friendliness about math. )] But, really, we are not talking ultimately about nature (or Ultimate Nature), but we are ALWAYS (if we have good sense) talking about science (AND nothing transcends good science). Essential to good science is who and what it is really for: Who is science for, etc.?: It is clear communication between people, reliable AND VALID, __AND__ requires clarity, both in terms of internal consistency and minimally connected via recognized AND applicable principles (when necessary) -- AND neither of these 2 latter criteria do you necessarily conform to (again, math is not enough) [(nor, ironically, would you clearly always conform to the first 2 standards (reliability and validity) -- in a likely "long run")]. (My Newton example WAS a good illustration here, whatever you say)).

At least you should know better than to give hardy any credit to any philosopher. I do recognize some exceptions on clearly limited, relatively small points for some "analytic philosophers"; but I see my larger point as so much true that I never do, nor never will, mention a philosopher (much less quote one) (nor will I quote philosophy in any general way) -- but perhaps myself (if YOU must consider me a philosopher, which many MUST).

[ Popper, a lightweight (I am a better philosopher than that). ]

Now to address some of your perhaps slightly-lesser nonsense :

You SAY: "[math] is the standard by which theories are judged in physics." NO. It is more important (and essential) that science conform to A FULLY AND CLEARLY EMPIRICALLY-based set of what has come to be defined THROUGH observations of THE SUBJECT, itself (this, is always as it is, ultimately); and (again) science is also seen reliable AND CONNECTED VALIDLY (AS especially detailed in my general definition of science, in another post, and below). So little and uncertain is the "edge" any math gives, that it is clearly not essential for much good science (and ALL science is basically the same for me BECAUSE IT __IS__ all basically the same -- not because I AM SIMPLE, but because I reason wisely); not only do I believe that, but I am confident that progress in Physics, itself, will rely more on conforming to a good general definition of science (like mine): quoting an earlier post of mine: [(If you read it and appreciated it before , you may skip this next paragraph.)]

ALL science refers to the ability to replicate KEY OVERT OBSERVABLE circumstances and KEY OVERT OBSERVABLE PHENOMENON THAT, obvious to ALL (in a fully agreed-upon way), are necessary for best understanding later replicable overt observable circumstances AND corresponding later proximately-related key overt, observable PHENOMENON patterns (so both "sides of the equation" are taken care of, so to speak ) -- BUT, ALSO this may well imply some more-than-believable mechanism(s) for some linkage(s) which would be of some reasonable nature, but that may not be fully or clearly discovered YET (

Dear Brad,

BJ: Sorry to take so long to respond (I had a 2-day vacation).

No problem, everyone has other commitments so responses in forum like this are often fragmented.

BJ: You say: "There is no obligation on nature that its rules must be understandable to the limited human mind".

Yes, I hope you wouldn't dispute that.

BJ: [ (YET, we are, apparently (according to you) able to INDIRECTLY understand "nature" (this is actually a BELIEF of a MYTHOLOGICAL nature (of a meta-physical nature, aka of a superstitious nature). This actually and truly IS what you say, ...

No, I said nothing of the kind. We have an extensive understanding already but there are many areas where there remain fundamental aspects that we do not understand, and may never resolve. The merger of gravitational and quantum theory is the glaring example here but there are many others such as the masses of fundamental particles.

BJ: Essential to good science is who and what it is really for: Who is science for, etc.?

Science in general has many uses but here I am talking only about physics. Clearly, for example, the "theory of evolution" is scientific but it cannot easily be expressed as a simple mathematical equation. Physics is a subset of science and its form is different from other fields while the "Scientific Method" still applies to the means by which its results are derived.

Physics is understanding that can be put to different uses by different people but in general we describe its use as "engineering" or "technology". The transistors in whatever device you use depend for their design on physics such as quantum theory and Maxwell's Equations, that is "what physics is for".

BJ: My Newton example WAS a good illustration here, whatever you say.

What you said of Newton's gravity was:

BJ: Newton's math works, but he was "wrong" in the sense of being incomplete;

That is not true, for the model he had, his equation was complete, it gives a specific and unambiguous result for the motion of any system of bodies interacting solely by gravity, but that number is "wrong" in the meaning of physics because it differs from what is observed, the orbit of Mercury being an example.

BJ: At least you should know better than to give hardy any credit to any philosopher.

I do (and did) give great credit to Popper, his contribution to the philosophy of science is probably greater than any other and his principle of falsification remains at the heart of the discipline of physics. His views are not accepted unanimously, I agree, but no other approach has been adopted to any great extent.

BJ: [ Popper, a lightweight (I am a better philosopher than that). ]

Look up the "Dunning-Kruger effect", that is a good example.

Going back to a previous post and reply:

BJ: Conforming to math predictions does not [necessarily] make for good theory; can you at least acknowledge that ?

GD: No, that is the standard by which theories are judged in physics.

BJ: You SAY: "[math] is the standard by which theories are judged in physics."

No, that is not what I said. You said "[observations] Conforming to math predictions does not [necessarily] make for good theory" and I disagree, if observations and the theory are in agreement in all cases then in physics the theory is considered acceptable and useful. If they differ then the theory is considered false by Popper's criterion.

You continued: "It is more important (and essential) that science conform to A FULLY AND CLEARLY EMPIRICALLY-based set of what has come to be defined THROUGH observations of THE SUBJECT, itself ...". That is essentially what I said because in physics whether the theory and observation conform is a simple test of mathematical equality, nothing else.

BJ: I am confident that progress in Physics, itself, will rely more on conforming to a good general definition of science (like mine): quoting an earlier post of mine: [(If you read it and appreciated it before , you may skip this next paragraph.)]

I read it but it is no more than a long-winded expression of what I said:

BJ: " ALL science refers to the ability to replicate KEY OVERT OBSERVABLE circumstances and KEY OVERT OBSERVABLE PHENOMENON ..."

Again, the test of whether a theory in physics "replicates" what is observed is mathematical equality of prediction versus instrumental measurement so we have no dispute so far but then you say:

BJ: BUT, ALSO this may well imply some more-than-believable mechanism ...

No, that is where most laymen go wrong. There is no requirement for there to be any mechanism, credible or otherwise and again quantum mechanics is the obvious example See these articles for more on that:

(Serious)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

(Fun)

https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/tom%E2%80%99s-top-10-interpretations-quantum-mechanics

BJ: ALL THAT is the minimal empiricism for science.

The word empiricism in the modern understanding describes understanding based on observation alone, specifically without the imposition of any assumed mechanism.

BJ: You speak simply (and I do mean simply, as well as crudely) like what is known as a "true believer" -- more that way than as a good scientist. You, to me, show poor science aptitude (I couldn't care less about your "formal status").

Of course you cannot care about "formal status" because you have none in the field and that conflicts with your over-estimation of your own ability. Your resorting to ad hominem insults shows only that you cannot refute what I have said, but I suspect you are stating an honest belief so I am reciprocating similarly:

BJ: P.S. Also, no more of the condescending attitudes, please. I am the one who is lesser like a "child" here, in my view.

On the other hand, in my honest view, you are merely making the same old mistakes I have seen from numerous naive laymen coupled with the arrogance symptomatic of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Your original question included 6 points which, to you, you say make no sense but at the level of an undergraduate student, all the points do make sense, your lack of understanding comes across as nothing but ignorance of physics and the desire to have a "mechanism", a laudable aim at any level but one which leads to the infinite regression of the child's question "... but what makes that happen?".

All your questions could be answered but you would need to learn some humility and gain a genuine desire to advance your knowledge rather than merely promote and defend your own opinions.

Dear George Dishman

You say: Physics is a subset of science and its form is different from other fields while the "Scientific Method" still applies to the means by which its results are derived. " [(Like a parrot "quoting" his status quo teacher.)] The problem here is that SCIENCE is much more than what most people 'understand' is the "scientific method" (models and experiments; and, some see science as JUST experiments (I have seen many such cases)). This "models-and-experiments (at best)" is ALSO what many people 'think' IS SCIENCE (totally) -- beyond just a method; SCIENCE is more than the scientific method (as you, and the others I noted, seem to see it)(science being as the general definition I provide describes).

Again, we need and should be able to have a GENERAL DEFINITION OF SCIENCE, which is true for ALL science fields and when abided by and never violated keeps one's empiricism as good as possible (yet keeps one with a critical (doubting) perspective on one's theories). I claim my general definition (and associated good attitudes, below), provide for THAT (you cannot substantiate a counter-view).

I do say: " BUT, ALSO this may well imply some more-than-believable mechanism ... " BUT apparently you do not read, see, or understand the word, "MAY" . I also most often expressly say essentially "only when necessary" (and I mean, effectively: absolutely necessary) (I also clearly say that any implied/believed-in "mechanism" MUST BE IN ACCORD WITH RELEVANT PRINCIPLES IN THE SCIENCE); I have the great contempt for the WAY of, and nature of, 'models' in Psychology. Why? BECAUSE the models UNNECESSARILY precede findings OR what should be first discovered (and likely could be, one way or another -- AND, NECESSARY). My theory involves no model and no predictions or forecasts of the sort such models provide. Here again, your reading or understanding of my perspective and approach is very lacking (and, here, presumptuous); I, in fact, more than dislike present Psychology models and the related "mechanisms" thought to be associated with what's "happening"; in nature (whatever science field), the mechanisms should "pop out" of the findings (or collection of findings -- more commonly) and not be something a theorist or researchers "defines". [ I , for similar reasons, have contempt for hypothetico-deductive systems, conjured in anyone's mind: I SEE (and do mean REALLY "SEE") the primacy of INDUCTIVE views vs the bogus, poorly-founded hypothetico-deductive systems; hypothetico-deductive systems are things which MUST follow ONLY OUT OF NECESSITY FROM inductive reasoning FROM OBSERVATIONS AND SHOWN-RELATED SETS OF OBSERVATIONS (see, again, my GENERAL DEFINITION OF SCIENCE).

I cannot imagine how you get an idea I am a "model-lover" (a sort of true believer, in the usual bad connotation) FROM " ... ALL THAT is the minimal empiricism for science. " YOU are the one who wants to believe with the status quo, not me. This is why, like a brute, you simply keep saying the same KNOWN INCOMPLETE things OVER AND OVER [(and they are all old, tired, well-known views (also, by the way, well-known to me))].

About math, again: yes, I agree that when that is providing perfect descriptions/predictions of phenomenon, IT can be (even IS) THE BEST SIGN OF GOOD EMPIRICISM; BUT, TO ACTUALLY BE THE BEST: the view (and/or) the math must cover ALL RELEVANT PHENOMENON expressly and clearly. Space (or worse, spacetime) is the height of lack-of-clarity but involved (SOMEHOW, as "nothing") in the "story" YOU tell. A particle with "no mass" traveling with/in a "wave "of some sort and this "wave" propagating through the empty space (literally, nothing) makes no sense TO ANYBODY. Again, this is not a good part of "the story"; it has not been properly "swept in" with other very good observations (and, thus clearly: the math does NOT prove your "story" IS totally both complete as well as correct); again, Newton's math [sometimes] always worked TOO, but his account was more incomplete than the present account -- BUT which YOU really have to come to acknowledge is CLEARLY INCOMPLETE too. (Newton's numbers, like in some Physics now, were only sometimes wrong.)

I would not argue with you IF you talk about math AS ____A____ ... "standard by which theories are judged in physics" [or any other science for that matter]. BUT IT DOES NOT (OBVIOUSLY) INDICATE A COMPLETE SOLUTION AS A SUMMARY OF THE ASPECTS OF RELEVANT NATURE IT is said to DESCRIBE (and OBSERVATIONS ALWAYS remains fundamental). [ I am very glad not to be as dumb as you continuously think I am. ]

I have NEVER, EVER seen you provide as good a general definition of science as I do. To say so, is just pretending. PLUS, your over-concluding of "the happy [present] story" of Physics (as essentially near perfection) does NOT EVEN SHOW A SUFFICIENT APPRECIATION FOR THE GOOD DEFINITION I PROVIDE. Your [(very temporarily seeming modest)] statement about physics theory being basically just "acceptable and useful", thus good; that is betrayed by all your other absolutest statements, such as you INSISTENCE that theory in different sciences are just-plain DIFFERENT (in some apparent ABSOLUTE WAY), which is HOGWASH (UNsubstantiate-able) . Your lack of appreciation for the likelihood PHYSICS will have to "bust out of its [present] math" (basically just to include other relevant observations, providing good definitions of all the problematic stuff) is noteworthy (it is very and truly analogous to being a Newtonian and set-in and happy with that) * .

If you must falsely/carelessly read/skim my writing and stereotype me to continue pounding away with JUST your already-well-known arguments, please just stop.

* FOOTNOTE: YET, I will tell you: When I taught high school Physics in 1981, I used what very many considered the BEST TEXTBOOK. Einstein was not (in ANY substantial way) in there (nor did I bring him up) -- ALL for which I am very glad. Basic Physics is still covered by Newton.

P.S. I hope you are not operating with pay when you respond to me; if so, you should rightfully send me half that pay (because I am not paid now).

Dear Brad,

GD: Physics is a subset of science and its form is different from other fields while the "Scientific Method" still applies to the means by which its results are derived.

BJ: [(Like a parrot "quoting" his status quo teacher.)]

The words are my own, that you again have to resort to ad hominem attacks only reflects on you.

BJ: The problem here is that SCIENCE is much more than what most people 'understand' is the "scientific method" (models and experiments; and, some see science as JUST experiments (I have seen many such cases)). This "models-and-experiments (at best)" is ALSO what many people 'think' IS SCIENCE (totally) -- beyond just a method; SCIENCE is more than the scientific method (as you, and the others I noted, seem to see it)

That is how how scientists define science and since they are the ones doing, that is their perogative.

BJ: Again, we need and should be able to have a GENERAL DEFINITION OF SCIENCE, which is true for ALL science fields and when abided by and never violated keeps one's empiricism as good as possible ...

BJ: I have NEVER, EVER seen you provide as good a general definition of science as I do.

Yes, I would agree with that, and the definition I would would be simply that science is the acquisition of knowledge by application of the Scientific Method. That is well documented by many sources and while I would certainly not consider Wikipedia to be authoritative, the references and 'further reading' are a good starting point:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

BJ: I do say: " BUT, ALSO this may well imply some more-than-believable mechanism ... " BUT apparently you do not read, see, or understand the word, "MAY".

I saw it as a qualifier but considered it to be unimportant, no mechanistic explanation is ever necessary. If the theory gives us one then that is all to the good, but we must always bear in mind that it may be completely wrong, an alternative explanation may give the same empirical relationships, or it may be that it is just plain wrong and we don't have an alternative, there is always the possibility that future improved measurements will falsify the explanation while leading only to a refinement of the mathematical model. I give an example at the end of this post.

BJ: Space (or worse, spacetime) is the height of lack-of-clarity but involved (SOMEHOW, as "nothing") in the "story" YOU tell.

To you perhaps, to me it is simple. As Einstein said, "time is what a clock reads", I could as easily say "temperature is what a thermometer reads", the meaning is that the fundamental tenet of physics is that all variables must relate back to instrument readings either directly or indirectly. Similarly I could say "distance is what a ruler measures", those are empirical statements with no presumption of the nature of what is being measured hence no philosophical baggage about the "existence" of spacetime. There is no lack of clarity in those definitions.

BJ: A particle with "no mass" traveling with/in a "wave "of some sort and this "wave" propagating through the empty space (literally, nothing) makes no sense TO ANYBODY.

Speak for yourself. There are two aspects to that, the classical view and the quantum view and if you looked at the references I gave you on "interpretations of quantum mechanics", you'll realise that it "makes sense" to many people, but none of them can agree on a single interpretation. However, in the classical view, it is really quite simple so let's look at that first point of yours.

First we need a definition of "mass". The Newtonian definition was simple, it was the ratio of acceleration to force. A moving mass also carried energy and momentum as you know.

In Einstein's theory, Newton's definition is less useful but there is a simple relationship that provides a robust alternative. The total energy of a moving body can be expressed as:

E2 = (mc2)2 + (pc)2

where E is energy, m is mass and p is the magnitude of the momentum vector. For any object at rest, momentum p=0 hence you get the famous equation

E = mc2

To make it easier to write, we can use consistent units such as measuring time in seconds and distance in light-seconds hence c=1 and we can omit it, then turning the equation round gives a definition of mass as:

m2 = E2 - p2

The standard equation for the momentum of a photon is p = E/c or p=E in these units and m=0. In terms of spacetime, the mass is the norm of the energy-momentum 4-vector and must be zero if the speed is to be c.

The same equation is true for any particle with non-zero mass as well and acceleration in space is nothing more than a rotation of the 4-vector in spacetime. The whole thing makes perfect sense to me, and the thousands or probably millions of other students who looked at Minkowski's geometric interpretation* of Einstein's work and followed it straight away. If that doesn't "make sense" to you, that is your own limitation, not any shortcoming in the physics, and certainly you have no right to say it "makes no sense TO ANYBODY.".

That is also an example where we do have mechanistic (or rather geometric) explanation of the theory but most scientists assume that will be replaced by a quantum theory where the geometry is only emergent, we just don't have it yet.

* Historically Minkowski had the solution it first but Einstein published the simpler version before him.

In this context I have asked few questions at research gate .I am from medical side .

One such question is what is the source of energy when light accelerate after exiting from denser medium to lighter in reference to reflective index.

Another question is what is the shape of electron ,being particle it must have some defined shape.

There is difference in spectrum of light directly received from Sun and reflected from moon which can be seen in sky

Dear Satish Narula

Thank you for your added questions. It would be nice if someone summarizes intelligibly (as much as possible) at least most of all the uncertainties in Physics (this would also likely aid this person (her/himself) greatly). When/after providing such a summary (or summaries) they could go on to say more, if anything like that would be useful for the lay person.

Dear George Dishman

I shall let the following quote from me, followed by an absolutely unacceptable answer from YOU, speak for your typical state or character. This [(your)] Answer, I strongly believe, is unacceptable for any individual who has a history of truly reasoning and thinking.:

BJ: The problem here is that SCIENCE is much more than what most people 'understand' is the "scientific method" (models and experiments; and, some see science as JUST experiments (I have seen many such cases)). This "models-and-experiments (at best)" is ALSO what many people 'think' IS SCIENCE (totally) -- beyond just a method; SCIENCE is more than the scientific method (as you, and the others I noted, seem to see it)"

In response, YOU say:

That is how how scientists define science and since they are the ones doing, that is their perogative.

BJ (me, now) : That is just plain absolutely WRONG. Perfect, your case is dealt with; your real credibility is GONE. Effectively you are not a good-thinking person. (I am a scientist, by the way, too, so ... ) You are clearly a person that let's (and/or needs to let) OTHERS "properly" inform you -- and your mind uses only that "information", EVEN WHEN IT IS IRRELEVANT. to try to just brutishly push the point that all major people SEEM satisfied with Physics as it is.

See my description of the regular and long-term acceptance of a whole "camp" of Psychologists (theorist and researchers) OF UNACCEPTABLE VIEWS, below.

-----------

On another thing: You say: " no mechanistic explanation is ever necessary". I am very much inclined to AGREE with that (more than any behavioral scientist you could find) -- this is, unless the thing is mechanical.

----------

I never said time was not clear and well-measureable, I just said (as a large number of physicists do) that time is not something unto itself (thus it's some sort of "epi-phenomenon" -- and not really in or with anything else noteworthy; and, it is findable and usable in many places, many ways and these are ARBITRARY (not the nature of something real unto itself)). I have NEVER said or indicated there is a lack of clarity in the definition (time IS clear, like those of other measures, as you said).

What you do is make a "straw man" again and again, and incompetently.

You trying to repeated declare me stupid FALSELY: THAT speaks about YOU. (You can have no complaints about my supposed ad hominem by comparison.) You falsely represent me to slander or lack mental capabilities to well-process information. AND: Often what you do is make a "straw man" again and again, and incompetently and, otherwise, basically make noise for distraction -- not dealing (or able to deal) with true "issues" (not responding to the questions; fortunately someone has given you some easy ones). You offer me nothing; can't you see that??

George Dishman : You have a bachelor's degree; I have masters (I outrank you, objectively-speaking). So, let me say: in some most important regards, YOU are very wrong. Just please try for a little improvement instead of repeatedly "rattling off" basically irrelevant (though acknowledged) FACTS. (I have seen and heard those facts, or most of them, before -- THAT is not what allows major progress and for a field to move on in major ways. You have similarly "rattled off" many times, that being very analogous to someone making noise to disrupt a speech.)

-----

George Dishman , I am not surprised that people agree with you; they simply are agreeing with what they have heard before (this, given what is apparently your/their "THE scientific method" which "is a joke" (as they say)). Go off and relish that, irrationally (as you likely will not find hard to do). There are others of your ilk:

I find Psychology people FORMALLY AND PUBLICLY AND REPEATEDLY agreeing with preposterous things, totally ignoring some of the strongest best FINDINGS IN THE FIELD (on the Memories): THEY saying (believing, "thinking") such as: "all representation is not truly THAT (representational images, etc.) in the brain" [(the LATTER as indicted via the extremely well-researched Memories)], BUT, rather, representation is what they, [(many nowadays (a whole camp of psychologists)], say is basically a strange sort of representation -- IN the only way they can accept it -- IN THE BODY [(otherwise, not so much the brain at all)] in "SENSORIMOTOR FORM." * People can be real jackasses.

It is to them (really) as if we have NO real Memories (apparently they totally lost or never read ALL the established findings on the Memories). Plus, there position has been assessed and criticized by several PEERS as undemonstrable AND inherently never provable, as well, due to its poor definitional nature (I guess you could say; clearly unempirically-based). Yet such views have been held and have spread for a couple decades now. These people seem to me like YOU George.

*FOOTNOTE: This is "the only way they can accept it" BECAUSE they cannot (since "the rules" forbid it) believe ANY new innate guidances emerge during ontogeny (development) -- thus, to them, its all "learning" (terribly varied and, all but the simplest, ill-defined) and actions recreated in-the-body must be "representation". (You, George, apparent "know" some rules too.)

Dear Satish,

SN: One such question is what is the source of energy when light accelerate after exiting from denser medium to lighter in reference to reflective index.

The energy depends on the frequency of the light which doesn't change in going from one refractive index to another.

SN: Another question is what is the shape of electron ,being particle it must have some defined shape.

That is too complex a question to answer here but Google will give you information on that.

SN: There is difference in spectrum of light directly received from Sun and reflected from moon which can be seen in sky

The spectrum of any light reflected from any surface is changed according to the colour of the object. The Moon is not perfectly white of course.

Dear Readers (of me)

Let me (again) apologize for editing an Answer for a whole hour plus. I apparently (unfortunately) am not a good writer (at least at times). I make this post only to alert you that there were additions and edits.

I will also take this opportunity to let people who follow me know that I would follow you back, for sure, if I could. But, I have "maxed-out" the number of people one is allowed to follow and thus am allowed to follow no more.

Dear Brad,

GD: That is how how scientists define science and since they are the ones doing, that is their perogative.

BJ (me, now) : That is just plain absolutely WRONG.

No, it is correct and simply a statement of fact. My job title is "Senior Principal Engineer" and I consider myself to be a design engineer. Other people that I consider to be engineers and doing engineering work also call me an engineer. What we do as engineers is defined by the engineering community. If someone outside our industry decides that by their understanding I should be called a "dentist", they are wrong. Similarly, scientists have the right to decide what "being a scientist" means.

BJ: See my description of the regular and long-term acceptance of a whole "camp" of Psychologists (theorist and researchers) OF UNACCEPTABLE VIEWS, below.

I will not comment either way on your field of expertise as I have no background in that. It is not relevant to our discussion anyway.

BJ: On another thing: You say: " no mechanistic explanation is ever necessary". I am very much inclined to AGREE with that (more than any behavioral scientist you could find) -- this is, unless the thing is mechanical.

Mechanics is more engineering than physics though they are of course closely related. Mechanics for example may use the conservation of momentum without explaining it.

BJ: I never said time was not clear and well-measureable, ...

I have never suggested that you said that, your suggestion is a straw man.

BJ: I have NEVER said or indicated there is a lack of clarity in the definition (time IS clear, like those of other measures, as you said).

You said: "Space (or worse, spacetime) is the height of lack-of-clarity"

BJ: You trying to repeated declare me stupid FALSELY

I have never suggested that you were stupid, again that is a straw man.

BJ: You falsely represent me to slander or lack mental capabilities to well-process information.

I have never suggested that, again that is a straw man.

BJ: Often what you do is make a "straw man" again and again, and incompetently and, otherwise, basically make noise for distraction -- not dealing (or able to deal) with true "issues" (not responding to the questions; fortunately someone has given you some easy ones). You offer me nothing; can't you see that??

I responded directly to what I think is the key point you make in your question (1):

BJ: ... THE PARTICLE IS SAID TO BE MASS-LESS (it is said to have NO mass) -- which, just plain, makes no sense (and is a violation of Physic's Laws itself

The relevant laws are E2 = (mc2)2 + (pc)2 and p = E/c for a photon so m=0 is not in conflict with the laws as you state, instead it is a consequence of those laws.

BJ: You have a bachelor's degree; I have masters (I outrank you, objectively-speaking).

No, you have a masters presumably in some psychology related discipline while I have nothing so you "outrank" as you put it me in that field, I certainly don't disagree with that. On the other hand I have an honours BSc in physics so I "outrank" you in that field, and it is purely physics that I am discussing.

BJ: So, let me say: in some most important regards, YOU are very wrong. Just please try for a little improvement instead of repeatedly "rattling off" basically irrelevant (though acknowledged) FACTS.

Facts are never wrong, your opinions are what is wrong if they conflict with the facts.

BJ: I have seen and heard those facts, or most of them, before -- THAT is not what allows major progress and for a field to move on in major ways.

Progress is never made when it is contrary to the facts. Progress occurs when new theories are a better match to the facts than previous ones.

Dear George Dishman

YOU said, "...how scientists define science and since they are the ones doing, that is their prerogative." and I said:

"That is just plain absolutely WRONG." Now, here, ELABORATING: It is not wrong that it is their prerogative, but is IS WRONG-doing when certain outstanding issues ARE involved in certain cases at hand, and WE JUST HAVE the statement of 'these facts' , i.e. when the equations are attempted WHERE IN at least some major contexts, there are some major aspects, aspects related to the "issues" I brought up in the Question, involved AND these are NOT dealt with. Question: What would "dealing" with these issues" involve?: "the 'FACTS' " would CONTINUE to be clear / fully sufficient in some of the usages of the equations (essentially perfect OR perfect (if you like)); but, ideally it would be better not just seeing the equation work the many places it does, BUT also (somehow) making the unknowns known (or better known) -- and somehow perhaps better incorporating other things we now do not understand well into considerations (and even ending up with somewhat altered equations -- not only as predictive, but more-generally predictive). (THAT IS specifically how the advancement of science works -- otherwise your view is basically not allowing for advancement (and, by the way, you basically even say what I just did HERE AND NOW).) (But perhaps you do not fully believe that equations need not be absolute (vs as those going from being Newtonians to being Einsteinians DID realize): no matter how perfect they are for predictions now (in a limited "arena): I would like you to have some fuller appreciation (some/somehow) for that incompleteness (recall my educated assertion that Newtonian Physics is enough to learn basic Physics -- and extrapolate from there (there is a good analogous situation there (AS (also) IS in this last statement of mine -- in this paragraph))).

When I said, "Space (or worse, spacetime) is the height of lack-of-clarity" -- that was solely because of the supposed TIME factor (as something being treated as not only a property of space, but an aspect (as a particular "thing unto itself" -- when, in actuality how you measure it is arbitrary, but in one key aspect). P.S. Sorry, but I do have something also against space (just space): It is said to be NOTHING, and I find that unacceptable.

YOU say : "I responded directly to what I think is the key point you make in your question... " NO, I do not believe that is true. Burt let me "start" this way: for some or all considerations, I would say (and this may pleasantly surprise you): I am not the one to have brought the Question (one with more knowledge and a good-deal more understanding should have brought it up). (IN FACT: I did have ulterior motives: I "figured" if I took on the "big dog" (Physics), and showed it has major problems yet to come to properly understand and more information to embrace, and bring into the "fold", people might more likely indeed see this could easily be and IS a problem for Psychology).

You, even as the best of engineers, are ALSO one not having the appropriate "deeper" knowledge and understanding (a more thorough understanding __AND__ WITH A MORE THOROUGH PERSPECTIVE) needed to Answer [what's in] the Question (beginning this thread) . This is not your fault or a disgraceful lacking of some kind; So, DO NOT THINK I AM EVER SAYING YOU ARE DEFICIENT IN PHYSICS in ANY way, given your good profession; probably just as "lacking" are [even] some nuclear physicists, in their knowledge and perspective.

You say. "Facts are never wrong". In a sense that is true, because reliability is reliability and some commonly ever-shown-again-and-again validity IS validity; but, there have got to be cases where the FACTS (compared to encompassing all they should or need to) are NOW encompassing an incomplete representation of all that is critically involved.

A "consequence" basically means a prediction is reliably true; IT DOES NOT MEAN WE UNDERSTAND ALL THAT IS INVOLVED OR ALL THERE IS NEEDED FOR THE BEST UNDERSTANDING (generally, in Physics). This final point that Einstein is exactly correct in all predictions is the status quo itself (and thus NOT completely relevant (actually, completely NOT RELEVANT) to answer the questions in my starting Question). (If you continue to do USE THAT SORT OF ABSOLUTEST ATTITUDE, kindly do not address me.)

You say: " Progress is never made when it is contrary to the facts. Progress occurs when new theories are a better match to the facts than previous ones * ". [ Hey: When things are "a better match to the 'facts' ", THESE FACTS CHANGE (we do not just keep doing add-on calculations, leaving "the facts" (as they are)). THUS: Your statement is agreeable from a certain perspective BUT not so much when the previous understanding is updated or corrected some places. (Try not to forget that FACTS are "things" as understood by humans, and never complete.)

OK. Done (PLEASE). Can you please not try to "help" me anymore. I have managed not to insult you with this response/Answer AND I AM THUS HOPING THAT THIS IS NOW A SATISFACTORY SITUATION where we can be friendly AND YOU NEED NOT ADDRESS ME ANYMORE. I hope I have left you with a perspective (on you and me) which you can accept.

NOTE : Not only should I not have been the one to bring up the set of issues (obviously lacking knowledge and perspective), but you should not be the one that should be able see themselves as proving SOLUTIONS , and good OR better, full and complete, answers on these issues.

Why don't you see if any others come on the thread? You deal very well with question Physics can now seemingly totally "handle" -- and that is useful, to say the least. And, let us, in kindness and with some sort of mutual (bi-directional) understanding, RETIRE FROM ADDRESSING ONE ANOTHER.

I may well never agree with you, because I can't, while retaining basic outstanding issues in mind (and THOSE are always my interest). And, you will never tell me more than most Physicists could (and THAT is not surprising) and that will not be enough to approach the problems. You simply must stop assertions that equations are certainly "right" (when that would include in the situations where some pertinents are undefined, under-defined, or non-intelligibly "defined" things and yet those are significantly in play).

* FOOTNOTE: You are, in effect, self-contradictory here (see * above) , and with your statement on how scientific progress made. These are in opposition to your hard attitude taken that "facts are facts".

Dear Brad,

BJ: OK. Done (PLEASE). Can you please not try to "help" me anymore. I have managed not to insult you with this response/Answer AND I AM THUS HOPING THAT THIS IS NOW A SATISFACTORY SITUATION where we can be friendly AND YOU NEED NOT ADDRESS ME ANYMORE.

I'm happy to leave the discussion there and I have no problem with us remaining on friendly terms. However, I will leave you with something to consider on your own time:

BJ: When I said, "Space (or worse, spacetime) is the height of lack-of-clarity" -- that was solely because of the supposed TIME factor (as something being treated as not only a property of space, but an aspect (as a particular "thing unto itself" ...

The question for you to ponder is this: in your understanding of the terms, do you think that "space is a particular thing unto itself"?

Present science does not yet answer that question (most might say it is philosophical) but it does say that whatever answer you give to that question applies equally to time. That is why the term "spacetime" is applied to the 4-dimensional combination of both.

Best regards,

George

GR and QFT have not agreed on the nature of space and time, although they could reach an agreement through the principle of partitioned energy. Penrose and Hawking didn't agree on nature of space and time either. Albert Einstein didn't reach agreement with Niels Bohr, although each has some validity in a part of science.

Physics is not fundamentally flawed. It is simply incomplete. Progress is made but not the major unification of contending factions.

It is not surprising to find lack of understanding among liberal arts majors, when science majors have not reached agreement.

Science has become so large that some type of specialization is necessary. Contending factions have specialized in different aspects of physics, to the point that they are not able to resolve disagreements.

My interest in space and time is for high speed transport in deep space, where disagreements can not be ignored. It leads to resolution, but maybe after some years and experiments.

I remember an old science teacher decades ago was asked about the nature of space and time. He replied "if space was truly empty, then the concept of distance would have no meaning."

Dear George Dishman

You ask: "do you think that "space is a particular thing unto itself"? "

I most assuredly do not know with any confidence about "space". BUT, I guess ("philosophizing"): It DOES seem that it needs to be something and that, even though it is not known to me (or others?), it seems NOT to be connected to any particular thing or type of thing, that is to say, not connected to any "just-a-subset" of things; RATHER "it" very much appears it is 'connected' to things, generally (all things). Yet, I surely would not know enough to guess much more. Yet, let me "go on" (!!??!!):

Thus (again), my best guess (which I really have no right to attempt) is that it seems to be "something", or at least a phenomenon, essentially onto itself (as at least a separate definite PROPERTY of [ all (?) ] other things). It is NOT just arbitrary, with just some arbitrary nature, with just an aspect that's important just because it is "usable" (what I have previously called an "epi-phenomenon") -- i.e. it is not of the nature of some "artifact" we just use (like I see time). But, of course, obviously: IT IS WAY BEYOND MY GRASP.

I have basically enjoyed our conversation. I thank you for your friendly salutation. I probably have embarrassed myself here (I did loose 2 followers during my "term" here -- they likely just want to hear from me about what I know WAY more about, and I have been "off-task").

Thank you for you efforts, kindness, and your interaction.

P.S. There is an aspect of 4-dimentional "space" where it has (apparently) at least a side effect which cannot be accepted: in particular: the past, present, and future are all really present and in existence NOW (right now). I believe this defeats at least any further thinking stemming from that -- which is not ok. I thus "believe" only in 3-dimentional space, though I know I am ignorant and this view may be less than popular.