[Physics] Why is a new beginning in physics necessary? *

[Ilja Schmelzer]

2016-12-13 17:23 GMT+01:00, Tufail Abbas <tufail.abbas at gmail.com>:
> *Quote*: And this theory(SM) has sufficient observational support to
> survive time.
>
> *Unquote*: Ability to survive time, based upon observation support is not a
> gurantee that every aspect of the theory is correct.

Full agreement.  All what is required is that the established theory survives
as an approximation.

And here it is sufficient to remember that Einstein's GR gives Newtonian gravity
as an approximation, which gives Kepler's laws as an approximation, which gives
Kopernikus and Ptolemeus as approximations.

And, even more shocking, that quantum theory gives (at least in some
interpretations and if done accurately) classical theory as an approximation.

So, approximations may appear very different from the approximated theories.

As my ether theory of gravity, as my ether model for the SM are also nice
illustrations of such great differences.

My point is that alternative scientists have a hard job, and cannot avoid this:
They have to show that their theories give the established theories as
approximations.  The differences may be big.  But, however big - to show
this they have to know the established theories good enough, and they have
to show how they appear as approximations of their own alternative theories.

> *Quote*: Say, Einstein knew that inertial mass and gravitational mass are
> equal in Newtonian gravity, and used this as a starting point for developing
> a completely new theory.
>
> *Unquote*: There is lot of difference between two properties being measured
> equal and actually being equal.

Of course.  Their actual equality is a purely theoretical hypothesis.
Whatever the
observational support for their equality, it remain a hypothesis.  And in making
such a hypothesis, the scientist needs some luck.

> I don't think there was any need to
> use two different terms , if they were 100% sure that Gravitational and
> Inertial Mass are fundametally the same.

Yes.  Newton used different terms because he understood that they, in
principle,
may be different. In case of the electric force, they are actually different.

> *Quote*: Nonetheless, to have a chance to find that better theory, one has
> to *know* the SM, and to use it as a starting point.
>
> *Unquote*: The word 'know' here is very subjective. There is no objective
> definition of 'know'.

Even if there is none, there is a quite good approximation for such knowledge.
If you have made a course in GR in some reasonable university and finished
it successfully, this would be one approximation for "knowing GR".

If you are able to prove that the GR equations appear as some limit of
the equations of your own alternative theory, this would also count as
evidence for "knowing GR".

The comparison with "knowing the ocean" is misleading, because
this would be about "knowing" some part of reality, while my point
is only about knowing some particular theory of reality.  Theories
are human creatures, much easier to understand and know than
reality itself.