 |
|
Current group: sci.misc
Re: 'Why' questions in physics, with special ref. to light speed
| Chris O'Riordan | | Tom Roberts | | Bill Hobba | | robert j. kolker |
|
|
| | From: | Chris O'Riordan | | Subject: | Re: 'Why' questions in physics, with special ref. to light speed | | Date: | 20 Jan 2005 09:24:38 -0800 |
|
|
 |
Chris O'Riordan wrote:
> When I posted the thread 'Why does nature impose a speed limit on
> itself?', one type of response was that 'why' questions are the
> province of philosophy, not science.
>
> I think most physicists would agree that questions such as 'why is
the
> sky blue?' and 'why does water boil at 100C?' are not metaphysical,
> but answerable (and long since answered in these particular cases) by
> science.
>
> Perhaps the question 'why does nature impose a speed limit?', being
> seemingly of a more general type, i.e. about a law of nature, might
> seem more 'philosophical'. But other facts of nature, once thought
of
> as independent laws, have been resolved into particular examples of
> more general laws. Why not enquire into the reason for the existence
> (and particular value) of the fundamental speed c?
>
> Chris O'Riordan
And (since Google Groups now allows it) I can add that "Why?" means,
"for what reason?" (Source: most any dictionary)
|
|
| | From: | Tom Roberts | | Subject: | Re: 'Why' questions in physics, with special ref. to light speed | | Date: | Fri, 21 Jan 2005 01:26:25 GMT |
|
|
| Chris O'Riordan wrote:
>>I think most physicists would agree that questions such as 'why is
>> the
>>sky blue?' and 'why does water boil at 100C?' are not metaphysical,
>>but answerable (and long since answered in these particular cases) by
>>science.
But science is powerless to answer those questions in the true and
ultimate sense of "why" -- science cannot tell you why there are
particulates of that particular size in the upper atmosphere[#], or why
humans interpret the resulting spectum as "blue".
[#] If one answers "because the distribution of particulate
sizes is continuous and larger ones fall out, and they are
generated by meteorite impacts (and volcanoes)", then still
science cannot answer why there are such meteorites....
Yes, science can often/usually give a "1 level deep" answer, and
occasionally 2 or 3 levels, but there is always a limit to the depth of
the answer. Just ask any 5 year old who keeps recursively asking "why?"
(which soon results in an exasperated "Because!" (:-)).
While asking "Why?" questions can be illuminating (mostly of one's
ignorance (:-(), working scientists prefer to get to work.... Otherwise
they would not be scientists.
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
|
|
| | From: | Bill Hobba | | Subject: | Re: 'Why' questions in physics, with special ref. to light speed | | Date: | Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:11:41 GMT |
|
|
|
"Chris O'Riordan" wrote in message
news:1106241878.085861.247100@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Chris O'Riordan wrote:
> > When I posted the thread 'Why does nature impose a speed limit on
> > itself?', one type of response was that 'why' questions are the
> > province of philosophy, not science.
> >
> > I think most physicists would agree that questions such as 'why is
> the
> > sky blue?' and 'why does water boil at 100C?' are not metaphysical,
> > but answerable (and long since answered in these particular cases) by
> > science.
> >
> > Perhaps the question 'why does nature impose a speed limit?', being
> > seemingly of a more general type, i.e. about a law of nature, might
> > seem more 'philosophical'. But other facts of nature, once thought
> of
> > as independent laws, have been resolved into particular examples of
> > more general laws. Why not enquire into the reason for the existence
> > (and particular value) of the fundamental speed c?
There is nothing wrong with asking why. The problem is when you see posts
along the lines of the theory in incomplete because is does not explain
'why' the speed of light is constant or what 'causes' gravity or things tike
that. Every theory, every single one, has things that are accepted as
premises. Thus every theory is 'incomplete' because it has things that we
do not know the 'cause' of (assuming it has a cause which it may not have -
which is in itself a big assumption). Those that understand science do not
see this as a problem and couch posts in such terms.
Bill
> >
> > Chris O'Riordan
>
> And (since Google Groups now allows it) I can add that "Why?" means,
> "for what reason?" (Source: most any dictionary)
>
|
|
| | From: | robert j. kolker | | Subject: | Re: 'Why' questions in physics, with special ref. to light speed | | Date: | Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:28:33 -0500 |
|
|
|
Bill Hobba wrote:
>
> There is nothing wrong with asking why.
There are two senses of the word why.
1. By what means or from what cause.
2. For what end or purpose.
Physics can answer a why question in sense 1 but not in sense 2.
Bob Kolker
|
|
|
| | |
|
 |