Chip wrote:
>Your [Jim's] argument is specious and inappropriate. Its kernel contends that we have
>little if any basic understanding of the physics of the universe. That was
>true with the Indians--who didn't have physics.
I don't want to be an advocate for Jim, sho can speak for himself - but surely the point is not that we don't *any* physics, but that we only know *some*. Most people would say that we don't know how much we don't know. What we have is a theoretical model which is (mostly) in agreement with our observations of the universe - but then, no one was looking for gravitational lensing before Einstein, no one could explain x-rays when Roentgen created them, no one expected photographic plates to get fogged when they were kept in a drawer with uranium.
A better instrument, or a better theory, could happen at any time - and when it does, we all chorus, 'oh we knoweverything now...' - until the next time it happens. Physics theory and observation keep roughly in step. Frankly, we cannot guarantee we know it all until we have built the ultimate instrument, or a theory with no holes whatsoever. Neither of these has happened yet.
>
>We do. We have knowledge which exists as universal cornerstones on the medium
>of communications across cosmic distances. If not, then tell us where it is
>lacking. Don't use some simplistic argument about smoke signals. Tell us
>about
>how Maxwell's equations are lacking in this regard.
All physics gets refined or superceded. Einstein's work transformed Newton's, and opened thousands of new possibilities. No one is saying Maxwell is wrong, but surely you have to accpet that there might be deeper physical truths which are compatible with Maxwell's laws but throw up some surprising new possibilities in other direction.
An example: Maxwell knew nothing of quantum mechanics - or, therefore, of photon entanglement. Now, photon entanglement may not make a useful communication system - but can you *really* say that absolutely no future development in physics will lead to a more efficient communication system than radio? Or that on some other world, they might consider that system more appropriate than radio? I really don't see how you can. Quantum mechanics doesn't mean Maxwell was wrong, it just means that new knowledge keeps cropping up. Our own history proves it. To imply that we have now reached the pinnacle of physical knowledge is dangerously hubristic - it has been said throughout the history of science, and it usually something astonishing happens shortly afterwards.
Chip, you know a @$£@% of a lot more physics than me, probably than most of us - but I have to say that on this occasion it really sounds to me more like it is your argument which is specious and inappropriate, not Jim's. Smoke signals may not be the best analogy, but nevertheless Jim has a good point.
Richard
__________________________________________
Richard and Valerie Burke-Ward
26 Edgarley Terrace, London, SW6 6QD, UK
Richard work: (+44) 171-736 7662 (Tel/Fax)
Valerie mobile: (+44) 705-020 4565
Home: (+44) 171-731 5496
__________________________________________