# Harriman doesn’t understand physics

In some respects, physics is not in a very good state. In particular, many physicists are instrumentalists: they see physical theories as instruments for predicting the results of experiments rather than as explanations of what is happening in reality.

There is some resistance to instrumentalism among some physicists and members of the public. But a lot of this resistance takes the form that the laws of physics have to conform to some version of common sense. But common sense is just knowledge that people currently happen to think ought to be uncontroversial. So to say that some idea doesn’t conform to common sense is not particularly relevant to judging that idea. Rather, the idea should be taken seriously as an explanation in its own right. This includes understanding the claims the theory makes about measurement. What sort of physical processes constitute measurements, what sort of limitations do those processes put on what attributes of a system can be measured and so on.

David Harriman is a common sense advocate, and has many of the weaknesses of such people. Harriman writes an article that includes dialogues between a physicist and a layman. The physicist is an intrumentalist and the layman is a common sense advocate.

First, I’ll look at a part of the dialogue about relativity:

P:  “There was a theory that treated length contraction and time dilation in that way. It was proposed by a Danish physicist named Hendrik Lorentz. On the basis of his theory, Lorentz derived some of the fundamental equations of relativity before Einstein did. But the Lorentzian theory was rejected and replaced by Einstein’s theory.”

L:  “Was Einstein’s theory accepted because it was better able to account for the observed facts?”

P:  “Not exactly. The basic advantage of Einstein’s theory is that it’s simpler. He dismissed the idea of explaining the phenomena of relativity by reference to any physical stuff in space (the so-called ether). Instead, we just say that moving bodies appear shorter and moving clocks appear to run slower—as perceived by a stationary observer. In other words, space contracts and time dilates by amounts that depend on the relative motion with respect to an observer.”

L:  “But I want to understand the cause of these effects. You say that length contraction and time dilation don’t refer to real physical changes in moving bodies. Do they instead refer to real effects on our measurement of lengths and times? I remember hearing a classical physicist explain that heating a ruler causes it to expand and thereby affects length measurements. Does motion also affect our physical means of measuring lengths and times? If so, I could make sense of relativity theory. There would still be real lengths of bodies and real time intervals; we merely have to account for and subtract the effects of motion on the measurements. After all, the actual properties and relationships of other bodies can’t change whenever I decide to move!”

If I take a picture of a book from two different angles, the measurements I make relative to the sides of the picture may be different, as in the two pictures below:

The book didn’t change as a result of my taking a photo from a different angle. The constitution of the camera didn’t change either, it still operated the same way after I turned it. The only thing that changed was the relationship between the book and the camera. So different relations between two objects can change the results of measurements even if the two systems operate the same way before and after the change. You can tell that the book remains the same because there are features of the book that remain the same in the two photos, such as the length of the bottom edge of the book compared to the letters on the cover. You could say that those are the real measurements of the book since they remain the same in the two photos, but it is also the case that there is a set of objective facts about the results of measurements on the two photos. Physics ought to tell us about both sets of facts. So the results of some measurements can depend on relations between two bodies.

The layman in the section of dialogue quoted above claims that the relationships between body 1 and body 2 don’t change when body 2 moves. This is a bizarre claim since the relative state of motion of two bodies is a relationship between them. So why shouldn’t some measurements change as a result of different states of relative motion? That is the explanation for the difference in length and time measurements given in standard accounts of special relativity, such as Special Relativity by A. P. French. Note also that as in the case of the photos book above, special relativity claims that some features of a system’s behaviour don’t depend on its relations to other objects. For example, if two atoms emit a photon, the time at which I see each atom emit the photon will in general depend on my state of motion relative to the atoms. And the distance I see between the atoms will also depend on my state of motion relative to the atoms. But the quantity $c^2\delta t^2-\delta x^2$ where $latex \delta x$ is the distance I measure between the atoms, and $\delta t$ is the time between the photons being emitted. Special relativity is different from what people expect from everyday life, but it is consistent and explains the world better than common sense.

In the dialogue on quantum mechanics his confusion is more understandable. The sort of nonsense the physicist in the dialogue utters is not very far from what a lot of physicists say about quantum theory. But this is a problem with how physicists explain the theory not with the content of the theory itself. And there is a notable symmetry between the two sides of the dialogue, illustrated by the quote below:

L:  “I still don’t understand. If you observe only specific entities with definite properties, and you know of no mechanism by which an inconceivable ‘nothing in particular’ could suddenly acquire such properties, why not accept the fact that these things possess real attributes before the observation?”

P:  “Because we’ve concluded it isn’t possible to develop a theory that explains our experimental results in terms of entities with specific, non-contradictory properties.”

Note that both sides of this dispute talk vaguely about properties, with specifying what properties they are discussing. Neither side gives any explanation of how reality actually works. There is no discussion of any specific experiment, nor of explanations for the outcomes of these experiments. Both sides are discussing the issue entirely in terms of abstractions that float free of all problems, all experimental results and all solutions to problems. There is an explanation of what quantum mechanics says about how the world works. But you can’t understand that explanation by starting with vague mumbo jumbo about properties, as do both Harriman and the standard physicist.

My name is Alan Forrester. I am interested in science and philosophy: especially David Deutsch, Ayn Rand, Karl Popper and William Godwin.

### 6 Responses to Harriman doesn’t understand physics

1. Nathalie Hanlin says:

Writer: Heather Eagar Mother and father and students are all the
time wanting for methods to enhance math expertise, particularly Algebra https://math-problem-solver.com/ .
It’s an emblem which helps us specific the quantity of objects, things,
and magnitude of real world measurements.

2. Mathew Orman says:

No, you do not understand physics…
See another nonsense work of Lorentz:

• You made a video linking to a paper, which doesn’t make sense. Just linking to the paper would be better. You paper uses symbols without providing an explanation that links them to physical measurable quantities. You don’t provide a circuit diagram of the experiments you performed. These flaws in your paper have the result that nobody can reproduce your results or check if you made a mistake. Another result of the flaws in your paper is that is unclear how and why your theories differ from the prevailing theory. Your paper gives me no reason to think that Lorentz was wrong.

• Mathew Orman says:

It is irrelevant as it fully describe physical relations between quantities involved. Person skilled in the art of physics has no problem to duplicate the experimental setup and several people did. The units used in Orman Force equations are shown in Matlab simulation script which link is included in the video description as well as the link to my paper in PDF format…
Lorentz never did any physical experiments and his work is total nonsense and that includes his ether and contraction ferry tail…
If you had red my paper you would notice that there is a page from 100 year old physics book which claim the exact equation of Motional EMF in method of measuring airplane speed by wire suspended from the airplane moving in Earths uniform magnetic field…
If that worked we would have inertial navigation systems 100 years ago…
In the end I do not care if you choose to remain in favor to Lorentz Motional EMF because it is useless and produces false EMF…

• > It is irrelevant as it fully describe physical relations between quantities involved.

No. That’s what physics is about. If you don’t want to give an account of what’s happening to produce the outcomes you claim to predict, then you’re not doing physics.

> Person skilled in the art of physics has no problem to duplicate the experimental setup and several people did.

Did those people write a proper description of your experiment? If so, could you refer me to their account of the experiment?

> Lorentz never did any physical experiments

Other people have tested Lorentz invariance, see

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

and references therein.

• Mathew Orman says:

No, you are not able nor willing to use logic in your thinking:
And you are quoting what you can find on the web…
You believe in magic and clock worshipers…
You ware taught ferry tail physics and are completely detached from reality…
I bet you do not understand Newton’s physics…