Is Newtonian physics secretly Keplerian?
Published by admin March 19th, 2008 in Physics, Doctors of Philosophy, Newton, Lisi Affair, Puns, KeplerFor physicists Newton’s laws are sacred.1 When Nature contradicts Newton’s laws physicists add an amendment to the law to save Newton’s authority. String Theory is such an amendment invented to explain an imaginary singularity2 in Newton’s force definition. It never occurs to physicists to discard Newtonian legislature no matter how strongly Nature rejects it.
In practice, physics is Keplerian. Physicists emulate Kepler’s method of model building, not Newton’s method of world building.
Let’s compare Kepler and Newton.
Kepler tried to fit the database of observations into a geometric model. Wikipedia has a very good description of Kepler’s attempts to fit planets into regular polyhedra. Just change the names and you would get Garrett Lisi trying to fit known particles into E8.
Physicists who are in the business of designing Theories of Everything are emulating Kepler’s Cosmographic Mystery. And just like Kepler, because they fit some particular database into a model, they claim to have revealed “God’s mathematical plan for the universe.”
Today physicists use analytical models instead of geometric ones. The endeavor is trivial regardless of the kind of model is used.
Now let’s look at Newton.
Newton did not try to fit the database of observations to a geometric model. He made definitions and called them laws. And he fit Nature into his laws.
Newton recognized Kepler’s Rule as the philosophers stone he was looking for. He divided the rule into several parts and labeled each part with new Newtonian labels. This was the greatest branding campaign in the history of science.
This fundamental difference between the Keplerian and the Newtonian methods is explained very nicely by Peter Rowlands (Thanks to Kea for the reference).
A ‘unified’ theory, however, means something very particular. It means a theory which derives all its results from a single source, not simply one in which we put all our known results into a single comprehensive package. This is a crucial distinction which is not always made in discussions of the subject; but, in principle, a truly unified theory cannot come from an act of unification; that is, we cannot, for example, create a truly unified theory simply by combining quantum mechanics and general relativity in a new mathematical superstructure.
Modeling some particles into a geometric model is not fraud, it is just an exercise in mathematical diversion. What is fraud is to call your mathematical model a theory of everything as if it were the god-given unified theory of everything.
Corrupting the word everything is not science, it is polemical sophistry. Physicists are charlatans who build local models and market them as ultimate true God-given models
After all this is what Newton did when he sold Kepler’s Rule branded as Newton’s laws as the universal law of Nature he discovered. Physics as a profession has been a corrupt business from the beginning.
- More generally, legal physics code is sacred. [↩]
- If we deny Newton’s authority and accept Kepler’s Rule as is the singularity disappears. [↩]
5 Responses to “Is Newtonian physics secretly Keplerian?”
- 1 Pingback on Mar 24th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
- 2 Pingback on Mar 26th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
On the basis of Rowlands’ distinction, I’m afraid I’m squarely on the side of Newton. I consider it the duty of a theorist to find a mathematical formulation based on few principles that is then, when reasonably well understood, and only then, capable of fitting much data. In order to reach such a formulation, I believe the empirical science is an essential guide, so I am certainly more Keplerian than many, but solid technological progress only arises from both steps.
This is not clear from gravity, so I can sympathise with your point of view. In fact, come to think of it, it doesn’t follow from quantum physics either, because the SM is more empirical than not. Hmmm. I guess I just don’t take the 20th century as a good guide to how science should be conducted. Think of Faraday and his field diagrams: you might say this is empirical, but to me the leap in abstraction, independent of any particular set of data, makes this more ‘Newtonian’ than Keplerian, and it was certainly useful.
Think of Faraday and his field diagrams . . .
Thanks. Good example. I will have to read more about Faraday. Interesting that in physics, if I’m not mistaken, the real abstraction is attributed to Maxwell for codifying Faraday’s discoveries.
Yes, it is a little sad that Maxwell is so much better known than Faraday.