#### TL;DR
- In this paper, the author argues about the importance...
Alpheus W. Smith was...
The first interpretations of Nature were animistic. Humans at the t...
Teleology is the explanation for something in function of its end o...
*...
**Euclidian geometry** - models the properties of shapes on a plane...
Here the author is describing the scientific method. It is a method...
For Newton space and time were absolute, there was nothing that cou...
Physicists believed that atoms were like indivisible perfect sphere...
A quick reminder of Newton's laws of motion:
#### 1. Newton's ...
A **physical theory is only useful if it describes reality and can ...
> ***“Each man's rainbow is a selection of his own eyes, a subjecti...
In physical thinking, the principles we develop must be in agreemen...
Here the author advocates for the application of the scientific met...
A scientific hypothesis is a tentative explanation about nature. Th...
> ***“Intelligence in itself has no power. It is intelligence integ...
Physics
as
a
Way
of
Thinking*
ALPHEUS
W
SMITHt
There
is
always
before
us
one
supreme
question.
From
what
angle
may
we
view
the
physical
and
social
world
so
that
it
may
be
reasonably
intelligible,
so
that
we
may feel
a
friendly
relation
to
it
and
accept
it
as
our
home.
The
Buddhist
finds
his
answer
in
a
toleration
for
what
he
may
neither
understand
nor
alter.
The
Greeks
like others
under
similar
conditions
asked
this
question
and
replied
with
a
lucidity
peculiar
to
them-
selves,
"It
is
something
like
myself."
In
such
an
answer
there
is
no
attempt
to
rise
above
immediate
human
needs
and
satis-
factions
and
to
find
universal
relations
which
are
independent
of
time
and
space.
The
physical
scientist
on
the
other
hand
must
thrust
aside
all
personal
and
social
implications
of
the
physical
world
and
address
himself
to
finding
order
and
system
among
physical
phenomena.
Here
it
is
proposed
to
look
at
some
of
the
more
essential
characteristics
of
physical
thinking,
to
trace
the
way
in
which
they
have
developed
and
to
suggest
how
this
way
of
thinking
may
have
validity
in
other
fields
of
thought.
Approached
in
this
way,
physics
is
considered
not
as
a
framework
which
determines
our
material
environment
but
as
a
type
of
thinking
which
penetrates
our
intellectual
atmos-
phere
-
not
as
a
record
of
achievements
and
tendencies
but
as
an indication
of
essential
characteristics
of
the
human
mind
in
its
attempt
to
build around
itself
an
ordered
and
organized
universe
which
will
be
an
agreeable
intellectual
habitation.
To
get
an impression
of
primitive
man's
approach
to
the
physical
universe
one
can
scarcely
do
better than
to
quote
from
G.
Lowes
Dickinson.
"When
we
try
to
conceive
of
the
state
of
mind
of
primitive
man,
the
first
thing
that
occurs
to
us
is
the
*
Much
which
this
paper
contains,
both
in
ideas
and
phraseology,
I
owe
to
Jeans,
Planck,
Eddington,
and
Dingle.
t
Chairman,
Department
of Physics
andAstronomy,
Ohio
State
University
242
LAW
JOURNAL-MAY,
1936
bewilderment
and
terror
he
must
have
felt
in
the
presence
of
the
powers
of
nature.
Naked,
homeless,
weaponless,
he
is
at
the
mercy,
every
hour,
of
this
immense
and
incalculable
Some-
thing,
so
alien
and
hostile
to
himself.
As fire
it
burns,
as
water
it
drowns,
as
tempest
it
hurries
and
destroys;
benignant
it
may
be
at
times,
in
warm
sunshine
and
calm
but
the
kindness
is
brief
and
treacherous.
Anyhow,
whatever
its
mood,
it
has
to
be met
and
dealt
with.
By
its
help
or
in
the
teeth
of its
resistance,
each
step
in
advance
must
be
won.
every
hour,
every minute
it
is
there
to
be
reckoned
with."
Here
we
have
the
background
of
an
animistic
interpretation
of
nature.
This
was
the
first
and
simplest
way
man
found
to
make
himself
at
home
in
the
physical
world.
To
do
it
he
called
forth
all that
was
alien
in
the
world
and
clothed
it
in
human
form,
converted
all
the
mysterious
powers
of
nature
into
beings
like himself
only more
powerful
and
thus
ended
by
making
the
world
of
nature
an
expression
or
an
enlargement
of
himself.
Thus
conceived,
the
physical
world
became
familiar
and
somewhat
comprehensible.
Starting
with this
picture
we
may
trace
the
history
of
physical
science
as
the
history
of
the
human
mind
adjusting
itself
by
an
infinite
series
of
steps
to
the
physical
world,
assimilating
here
a
bit
and
there
a
bit
of
material
and ever
trying
to
escape
the
apparent
chaos
which
surrounds
it.
The
animistic
period
represented
by
the
attitude
of
the early
Greeks
was
followed
by
a
long
period
ending
about
1550
A.
D.
in
which
there
was
comparatively
little
advance
in our
knowl-
edge
of
the
physical
universe.
In
this
period
domnated
by
Greek philosophy,
the
interpretation
of
nature
was
an
achieve-
ment
of
pure
thought
unsupported
by
observation
and
experi-
ment.
Man
was
the
center of
the
frame
of reference
to
which
all
physical
phenomena
were
referred.
Since
he
seemed
always
to
be
actuated
by
purposes,
it
was
assumed
that
the
universe
must
also
be
for
a
purpose.
Everything
existed
for
man's
pur-
pose.
The
sun
to
give
him
light
and
heat;
the
rain
to
insure
him
food
and
proper living
conditions;
the
plants
and
animals
PHYSICS
AS
A
WAY
OF
THINKING
243
for
his
comfort
or
pleasure.
In
brief,
the
physical
world
was
a
setting for
man's
destiny.
Referred
to
this
frame
of
reference
the
interpretation
of
physical
phenomena
became
an
unverified
achievement
of
the
human mind.
This
egocentric
and
teleo-
logical
point
of view
was
very
satisfying
and
persistent.
It
made man
the
center of
the
universe,
the
measure
of
its
mean-
ing and
the
observation
post
from
which
all
events
must
be
viewed.
The
tenacity
with
which
man
clung
to
this point
of
view
is
evident
from
the
bitterness of
the
controversy
which
arose
when
Copernicus
proposed
to
use
the
sun
instead
of
the
earth
as
the
center
of
the
solar
system.
At
that
time
it
seemed
to
man
that
if he,
himself,
were
not
really
the
center of
the
universe,
then at
least
this
planet
on
which he
finds
himself
must
be
the
most
significant
spot
in
an
unexplored
universe
and
must
be
used
as
the
center
from
which
all
observations
are
made
and
all
results
are
evaluated.
Now
nothing
of this
point
of
view
is
left
in
modern
physics.
To
a
greater
or
less
degree
it
persists
in
the
biological
and
social
sciences.
But
just
as
physics
had
to
free
itself
from
a
teleological
point
of
view
so
also
must
these
other
sciences
free themselves
from
modes
of
thought
or types
of
reasoning
which
involve
emotion,
design,
or
purpose.
A
second
error
in
the
Greek
metaphysical
approach
to
na-
ture
arose
from
the
fact
it
assumed
perfection
for
the
universe
and
on
the
basis
of
inadequate
observations
tried
to
force
nature
to
fit into
this
hypothesis.
Objectionable
facts
were
over-
looked
and
principles
supported
when
observations
were
con-
trary
to
them.
Such
an
hypothesis
of
congealed
and
crystallized
perfection
removes
the
universe
from
all
change
and
allows
us
to proceed
as
if
we
were
dealing
with
a
fixed
and
unchangeable
group
of
physical
phenomena
for
which
a
final
interpretation
is
once
and
for
all
time
possible.
Such
an
approach,
even
when
supplemented
by
controlled
experiments
and
observations
in-
troduces
the
concept
of
an
absolute
and
fixed
mode
of
thought
in
which
it
is
assumed
that
man
can
penetrate
the
world
of
244
LAW
JOURNAL-MAY,
1936
sense-perceptions
and
reach
a
world
of
reality
which
has
some
kind
of
existence
independent
of
himself
-
a
real
and
absolute
world
to
which
we
may
approach
more
and
more
closely
with
ever
increasing
accuracy
The
contrast
between
Euclidean
geometry
and
Riemann
geometry
serves
as
an
illustration.
Euclidean
geometry
emanates
from
postulates
accepted
as
self
evident
and
leads
to
propositions
supposed
to
be
factually
true
about
physical
space.
Riemann
geometry
starts
from
another
set
of
postulates
and
leads
to
another
description
of
space.
If
we
accept
the
hypothesis
that
an absolute
interpretation
of
na-
ture
is
possible,
we
may
ask
which
of these
geometries
is
correct.
In
reality
the
question
has
no
meaning.
The
only
question
that
can
be
rationally
asked
is,
which
of
these
geometries
is
the
more
helpful
in
the
description
and
correlation
of
physical
phenomena.
Euclidean
geometry
is
and
must
remain
the
most
convenient
but
it
is
neither
more
nor
less
correct
than
Riemann
geometry.
Even
after
Galileo
and
Newton
had
shown
that
reasoning
about
physical
phenomena
must
begin
and
end
with
observation
and
experiment,
the
attempt
to
deduce
physical
phenomena
from
fixed
postulates
persisted
and
it
has
required
the
recent
developments
in
the
theory
of
relativity,
in
sub-
atomic
physics
and
quantum
mechanics
to
make
us
fully
realize
the
extent
to
which
our
thinking
has
been
colored
and
made
invalid
by
fallacious
underlying
postulates
for
which
there
were
insufficient
reasons
in
nature.
Without
a
clear
appreciation
of
this
fact
the
physical
sciences
would
never
have
realized
that
new
physical
propositions
cannot
be
arrived
at
by
any
form
of
syllogism
without
verification
by
observation
and
experiment
and
that
habit,
custom,
and
tradition
have
played
and
are
play-
ing
a
very important
part
in
comparison
with
intelligence
in
the
accepted
views
of
the
universe.
This
failure
to
press
the
physical
universe
into
a
precon-
ceived
pattern
designed
for
a
definite
purpose
or emanating
from
accepted
postulates,
has
wide
significance
in
other
fields
of
thought.
In
educational
discussions
we
frequently
set
out
PHYSICS
AS
A
WAY
OF
THINKING 245
from
a set of
postulates,
proceed
as
if
new
truth
can
be deduced
from
definitions
or
general
laws
from
a
study
of
phenomena
not
originally
included
in
the
formulation
of
the
law
The
progress of
the
physical
sciences
very
dearly
suggests
that
any
attempt
to
formulate
a
preconceived
scheme
of
education
good
for
a
hundred
years
is
doomed
to
complete
failure.
New
forces
will
be
in
operation,
new
situations
must
be
met
and
new
adjustments
made.
We
cannot
get
along
with
an educational
philosophy
which
emanates
from the
idea
that
a
knowledge
of
the
past
and
an
assimilation
of
the
culture
of
the
past
are
suffi-
cient.
We
must
know
vastly
more
than
the
fact
that
events
happened
in
the
past
in some
kind
of
sequence,
whether
this
is
a
sequence
in
time
or
in
space.
Writing
with
a
similar
thought
in
mind
Professor
Cook
says
that
courts
must
not
be
content
to
deduce
conclusions
from
fixed
principles
or
to derive
a
funda-
mental
principle
from
the
constitution
and
to
apply
it
some
new
form
of legislation.
They
must
be
able
to
abstract
a
new
rule
or
modify an
old
rule,
enrich
new
concepts
or
abandon
old
ones
so
that
social
justice
and
economic
well
being
may
be
conserved.
This
newer
and
more
scientific
method
is
seen
in
a
recent
de-
cision
handed
down
by
the
Supreme
Court
of
the
United
States
in
which
it
is
affirmed
that
"The
Constitution
does
not
secure
to
any
one
liberty
to
conduct
his own
business in
such
a
fashion
as
to
inflict
injury
on
the
public
at
large
or
upon
any
substantial
group
of
the
people.
Neither
property
rights
nor
contracts
rights
are
absolute,
for
government
cannot
exist
if
the
citizen
may
at will
use
his
property
to
the
detriment
of
his
fellows
or
exercise
his
freedom
of
contract
to
their
harm."
After
experiment
and
observation
have
supplied
the
neces-
sary
data
on
which
to
build,
the
first
essential
of
physical
rea-
soning
is
to abstract
from
this
data
concepts
which
can
be
used
as
invariants
for
the
description
of
the
phenomena
under
con-
sideration.
One
of
the
most
important
concepts
thus
abstracted
from
nature
is
the
concept
of
time.
Primitive
man
must
have
noticed
that
events
did
not
occur
simultaneously.
He
must
LAW
JOURNAL-
MAY,
1936
have
observed
the
rising
and
the
setting
sun
and
the
changes
of
the
seasons
and
acquired
some experience
in
noting
longer
or
shorter
intervals
of
time.
There
thus
developed
through
the
ages
an
experience
which
we
call
time.
Newton
thought
of
time
as
an
absolute
entity
but
we
only
know
of
the
stream
of
time
and
we
can
only
measure
time intervals,
that
is,
determine
whether
one
time
interval
is
long
or
short
as
compared
to
a
fixed
interval.
In
much
the
same
way
sense
perceptions
gave
us
the
concept
of
space.
Newton
thought
of
absolute
space
as
well
as
absolute
time,
but
after
all,
we
only
know
of
space
rela-
tions
or
the
relation
of
objects
to
each
other
in
space.
Here
we
have
abstracted
from
nature
two
concepts
-
time
and
space.
Newton
thought
of
them
as
absolute
and
independent.
Einstein
shows
that
they
are
relative
and
dependent
on
each
other.
This
process
of abstracting
invariant
concepts
from
complex
physical
phenomena
is
a
difficult
undertaking.
It
begins
by
removing
from
the
observations
all
the
qualities
except
the
most
essential
characteristics
which
are
common
to
them
all.
In
dealing
with
gross
matter
the
physicist
finds
the
concept
of
mass
valuable.
To
arrive
at
this
concept
he strips
from
matter
its
other
characteristics,
such
as
color,
hardness,
shape,
or
odor
and
saves
the
one
essential
characteristic,
the
amount
of
matter
in
the
body
The
real
difficulty
in
getting
on
in
physics
is
the
difficulty
of
stripping from
new
facts
or
concepts
a
mass
of
irrelevant
details
which
at
first
seems
indispensable
and
then
guessing
which of
the
essential
facts
will
furnish
a
key
for
understanding
physical
phenomena.
To
make
somewhat
more
concrete
this
procedure,
consider
two
important
physical
concepts,
particles
whether
atoms
or
electrons
and
waves.
Very
early
in
the
development
of
physical
science
our
sense
perceptions
gave
us
the
concept
of
particles,
grains
of
sand
or drops
of
water
But
as
smaller and
smaller
scale
phenomena
demanded
interpretation, for
example
the
diffusion
of
gases
or
the
law
of
multiple
proportions,
it
was
necessary
to reduce
the
size
of
the
unit
of
matter
to
smaller
and
246
PHYSICS
AS
A
WAY
OF
THINKING
247
smaller
dimensions,
ending
for
sometime
with
the
hypothetical
atoms
of
Dalton
which
were
not
only
unobserved
but
unob-
servable.
The
properties
to
be
assigned
to
these
atoms were
those
necessary
to
make
them
capable
of
correlating
the
physical
phenomena
under
consideration.
Initially
it
was
necessary
to
suppose
that
they
were
small,
hard,
perfectly
elastic
spheres,
moving
in
absolute
space
and
time
and
obeying
laws which
had
been
found
useful
instruments
of
description
for large
scale
phenomena.
These
entities
which
we
call
atoms
have
no
phys-
ical
reality
in
excess
of
that
attributed
to
them
for the
explicit
purpose
of
describing
phenomena.
When
new
and ampler data
were
revealed
by
experiment,
additional
and
unexpected
prop-
erties
were
assigned
to
these
atoms.
They
were
found
to
be
made
up of
other
particles,
some
charged with
positive
and
some
with
negative
electricity
Instead
of
being
solid
spheres
they
had
to
be
regarded
as
minature
solar
systems
with
central
suns
and small
negatively
charged
planets.
The
important
point
is
that
whatever
properties
were
assigned
to
these
atoms
and their
constituents were
just
those
properties
which
made
the
atoms
effective
instruments
of
description
for
the
physical
phenomena
under
consideration.
Sense
perceptions
gave
the
physicist
another
concept
which
has
proved
extremely
valuable
as
a
language
in
terms
of
which
to
describe
physical
phenomena.
Suppose
you
drop
a
pebble
into
the
surface of a
pool of
water.
You find
what
the
physicist
calls
a
system
of
waves
going
out
from
the
center of
this
dis-
turbance.
If
you
observe
the
characteristics
of
this
disturbance
you
find
a
certain set
of
properties
which
can
be
abstracted,
for
example
the
wave
length,
the
displacement,
the
frequency,
and
the
velocity
These
universal
characteristics
we
call
the
char-
acteristics
of wave
motion
and
we
find
them
useful
symbols
in
terms
of
which
to
describe
a
great
variety
of phenomena.
In
the
hands
of
Young
and
Fresnel
they
gave
an
interpretation
of
the
interference
and
diffraction
of
light.
In
the
hands
of
Max-
well
they
offer
a
basis
for
an
understanding
of
electromagnetic
waves
and paved
the
way
for
wireless
telegraphy
and
telephony
248
LAW
JOURNAL-MAY,
1936
But
these
two
concepts
did
not
prove
uniquely
supreme
in
their
original
fields
of
usefulness.
When
it
began
to appear
that
the
phenomena
of
light
could
be
successfully
interpreted
as
a wave
motion
new
facts
were
discovered
which
could
not
be
interpreted
in
terms
of
wave
motions,
and
it
was
necessary
to
reintroduce
into
radiation
phenomena
ideas
associated
with
particles
and
to
build
up
a
supplementary
description
of
radia-
tion phenomena
in
the
language
of
particles.
Similarly
when
it
appeared
that
the
language
of
the
particle
theory
was
about
to
prove
adequate
for
a
description
of
small
scale
phenomena
in
the
field
of
subatomic
physics,
it
was
discovered
that
it
was
necessary
to
use
the
language
of
waves
to
describe
some
of
the
characteristics
of
electrons
and
protons.
This
important
turn
in
physical
methods
very
forcibly
reminded
the
physicist
of
the
limitations
of
his
method,
emphasizing
the
fact
that
we
are
dealing
with
concepts
abstracted
from
gross
phenomena
and
then
using
these
concepts
for
the
description
and
correlation
of
phenomena
which
may
be
beyond
the
range
of
sense
percep-
tions.
There
is
now
no
more
reason
for
regarding
an
electron
as
entirely
a
particle
than
there
is
for
describing
radiation
en-
tirely
in
terms
of
waves.
The
result
is
that
both
the
concept
of
waves
and
the
concept
of particles
are
needed
to
describe
electrons
and
both
the
concept
of particles
and
of
waves
are
needed
to
describe
radiation.
These
simpler
and
more
concrete
types
of
abstractions
and
invariants
which
are
immediately
abstracted
from
physical
phenomena
have
proved
inadequate
to
meet
the
full
needs
of
modern
physics
and
it
has
been
found
necessary
to
supplement
them
by
hypothetical
abstractions
which
are
of
necessity
beyond
observation.
The
whole
structure
of
modern
physics
is
built
on
this
kind
of
abstractions.
The
spinning
electron
is
a
hypo-
thetical
abstraction
introduced
to
correlate
certain
spectroscopic
phenomena,
but
there
is
no
thought
that
direct
experiment
will
verify
or
disprove
its
hypothetical
spin.
Such
abstractions
are
essentially
conceptical
in
their
nature
without
any
properties
PHYSICS
AS
A
WAY
OF
THINKING
which
subject
them
to
experimental
laws.
They
can
be
en-
dowed
with
any
characteristics
which
enable
them to
correlate
phenomena.
They
are
neither
observable
nor
real
in
the
sense
that
ordinary
existences
are
observable
or
real.
They
are
very
different
from
potential
experiences.
They
are
a
kind
of
mental
edifice
into
which
has
been
introduced
any
rational
ideas
which
are
helpful
in
the
correlation
of
physical
phenomena.
The
sole
criterion
is
that
they
must
accommodate
experience
and
inter-
relate
phenomena.
After
fundamental
entities
or
invariants
have
been
ab-
stracted,
they
must
be
formulated
into
mathematical
laws
or
principles.
In
this
way
Newton
formulated
principles
which
were
inseparably
wedded
to
the
phenomena
they
described.
Whatever
could
not
be
deduced
from
the
phenomena
had no
place in
his
experimental
philosophy
Every
observer
before
Newton
must
have
inquired
about
the
conditions
which
deter-
mine
the
path
of
a flying
arrow
or
a
falling
stone.
It
took
the
genius
of
Newton
to
see
the
simple
rule
which
unites
and
inter-
prets
these
phenomena.
To
get
the rule
he
abstracted
from
the
phenomena
certain
unchanging
entities
in
terms
of
which
the
phenomena
could
be
described
and
then
put
these entities
together
in
a
simple
mathematical
formulation,
thus
abstracting
the
rule
from
the
phenomena
themselves.
Having
abstracted
time
and
space
as
fundamental
and apparently
independent
entities,
Newton
set
up
an
absolute
frame
of
reference
for
phys-
ical
phenomena
which
was
consistent
with
all
experience
up
to
Newton's
time,
but
when
high
speeds
with
which
Newton
had
no
occasion
to deal
were
observed,
it
was
necessary
to
abandon
the
concepts
of
absolute
time
and
space
and
replace
them
by
a
new abstraction
-
the
concept
of
time-space
as
a
single
entity,
remembering
that
the
way in which
they
are
to
be
united
de-
pends
on
experiment.
This
procedure
amounts
to
regarding
time
as
a
fourth
dimension
with
all
the
essential
properties
of
a distance.
The
result
is
as
if
we
had
formed
an
abstract
me-
dium
which has
four
dimensions,
length,
breadth,
thickness,
and
249
250
LAW
JOURNAL-
MAY,
1936
time
instead
of
two
media
-time
with
one
dimension
and
space
with
three
dimensions.
Now
absolute
time and
space
were
abstractions
from
observations.
In
just
the
same
way
time-
space
is
an
abstraction
from
observation.
The
latter
is
to
be
preferred
over
the
former
because
it
correlates
a
larger
range
of
observations
and
this
is
the
sole
test
of
its
correctness
or
in-
correctness.
Thus
Einstein
extends
the
method
of
Newton
into
regions
about
which
Newton
could
have
no
information,
but
he
did
vastly
more.
He
showed
that
an
absolute
frame
of
ref-
erence
could have
no
meaning,
that
two
persons
can
logically
differ
as
to
the
simultaneity
of
two
events
-
one
observing
that
the
events
occur
at
the
same
time
and
the
other
observing
with
equal
confidence
that
these
same
events
occur
at
different
times.
We
were
thus
forced
to abandon
those
fundamental
concepts
of
both
time
and
space
which
had
become
the
very
cornerstones
of
our
interpretation
of
nature.
At
the
same
time
we
aban-
doned
our
belief
in
any
real
meaning
of absolute
length
in
the
sense
that
one
set
of
measures
could
be
characterized
as
right
and
another
set
as
wrong.
There
are
an
infimte
number
that
may
be
considered
right
if
suitable
frames
of
references
have
been
chosen.
With
the
abandonment
of
our
ideas
of absolute
time
and
space
goes
also
the
abandonment
of
our
ideas
of
the
absolute
in
the
physical
universe.
There
may
be
an
infimte
number
of
interpretations
of
nature
depending
on
the
frames
of
reference
to
which
the
physical
phenomena
have
'been
re-
ferred.
The
physicist
tries to
express
the
laws
of
nature
so
that
no
matter
what
frame
of
reference
the
data are
referred
to,
we
always
get
the
same
results.
This
means
that
the
laws
must
be
invariant
under
any
transformation
from
one
system
of
coordi-
nates
to
another
This is
the
severest
test
of
correctness
and
universality
In
each
case
the
initial
conditions
must
be
specified
as
well
as
the
characteristics
of
the
frames
of
reference.
The
final
picture
may
seem
to
be
different
to
different
observers
but
the
description
of
the
facts
may
be
accurate
in
each
case.
To
one
observer
the
path
of
a
planet
may
appear
to
be
a
circle
i
PHYSICS
AS
A
WAY
OF
THINKING
251
to
another it
may
appear
to
be
an
ellipse.
The
question
of
correctness
or
incorrectness
is
not
raised.
The
accuracy
and
the
sufficiency
of
the
description
is
all
that
we
can
insist
upon.
The
equations
describing
these
physical
phenomena
may
have
differ-
ent forms
according
to
the
frame
of
reference to
which
they are
referred.
The
answer
is
the
same
but
the
form
of
expression
is
different.
Hence
a
physicist
can
tell
from
the
form
of
the
equations
whether
Maxwell's
equations are
referred
to
fixed
or
moving
system
of
axes
or
to
a
Newtonian
or
an
Einstein
frame of
reference.
So
Newtonian
mechanics
is
extended
by
relativistic
mechan-
ics
and
the
concept
of
the
absolute
is
replaced
by
the
concept
of
the
relative.
The
point
of view of
Newton
proves
to
be
too
nar-
row
but
besides
clarifying
most
large
scale
phenomena
it
led
to
the
belief or
faith
that
there
is
an
order
in
nature,
that
Venus
will
follow
the
same
orbit
whether or
not
we
are observing
her,
that
the
spectrum
of
hydrogen
is
the
same
on
the
sun
as
in
the
laboratory
Furthermore
this
new
method
established
the right
of
the
human mind
to
deal
directly
with
physical
phenomena
without
the
acceptance
of
external
authority.
The
authority
of
tradition
was
replaced
by
the
authority
of
experiment
and
observation.
With
these
developments
physicists
ceased
to
be
interested
in
a
possible
world
of
reality
which
might
lie
behind
the
world
of
sense
perceptions.
Such
an
abstraction
perhaps
necessary
to
satisfy
some
modes of
thought
has
not
proved
helpful
in
the
clarification
of
physical
phenomena.
On
the
other
hand,
the
physical
world
is
not
considered
as
something
apart
from
the
physicist
who
studies
it,-something
to
be
explored
from
a
dis-
tance,
somewhat absolute
both
in
time
and
space,
something
which
had
been
before man
appeared and
will
be
the
same when
the
last
man
disappears.
This
new
attitude
may
be
stated
in
an
abridged
quotation
from
Jeans,
"The
ancient
Hebrew,
the
ana-
logue
of
the
nineteenth century
physicist,
saw
the
rainbow
as
an
objective
structure
set
in
the
heavens
for
all
men
to
behold
the
252
LAW
JOURNAL-MAY,
1936
token
of a
covenant between
God
and
man
and
as
objective
as
the
signature
on
a
check.
We
know
that
the
objective
rainbow
is
an illusion.
Raindrops
break
the
sunlight
up
into
rays
of
many
colors
and
the
colored
rays
which
enter
any
man's
eyes
from
the
rainbow
form
the
rainbow
he
sees
but
the
rainbow
which
enters
one
man's
eyes
can
never
enter
those
of
a
second
man.
No
two
men
can see
the
same
rainbow.
Each
man's
rain-
bow
is
a
selection
of
his
own
eyes,
a
subjective
selection
from
an
objective
reality
which
is
not
a
rainbow
at all."
It
is
much
the
same
in
all
physical
phenomena.
We
are
less concerned
with
the
absolute
and
more
with
the
relative.
We
have
learned
that
all
we
can
ever
hope
to
know
is
the
relation
of
physical
phenom-
ena
to
each
other.
We
have
also
learned
to
be
liberal minded,
to
consider
all
sides
of a
question, to
suspend
judgments
and
be
prepared
for
a
reversal
of
opinions
with
the
introduction
of
new
experimental
evidence.
There
are
no necessary
laws.
One
pattern
or
design
is
not
to
be
preferred
over
another,
except
as
one
is
more
inclusive
or
more
precise
than
the
other.
We
realize
now
that
we
are
viewing
the world
through
human
spectacles
and
that
we
must
recognize
the
distortion
which
they
may
introduce.
Much
of
the
simplicity, intimacy
and
certainty
of
our
earlier
explanations were
introduced
by
our
way
of
look-
ing
at
phenomena
and
are
not
really inherent
in
nature itself.
We
further
realize
that
man
is
a
creature
in
the
process
of mak-
ing
himself
and
that
he must not
tie
himself
down
to
what
he
knows
and
ignore what
he
does
not
know
His
divinations
and
guesses
may
be
more
important
than
his
certainties.
He
must
direct
his
attention
to
dealing
with
phenomena
in
terms
of
con-
cepts
abstracted
from
the
phenomena
themselves
and
he
must
be
willing
to
refer
these phenomena
to
any
frame
of reference
which has
the
essential
characteristics
of
convenience
and
sim-
plicity
"The
world
of
physics
is
then,"
as
Planck
says,
"a
deliber-
ate
hypothesis
put forth
by
a finite
mind
in
an
attempt
to
reduce
the
facts
of
observation
to
a
system
based
on
certain
physical
PHYSICS
AS
A
WAY
OF
THINKING
253
principles
such
that
known
phenomena are
necessary
conse-
quences
of
the
system."
The
basic
principles
are
chosen on
ex-
perimental
grounds.
Whether
they are
true
or
false
in
the
absolute
sense
is
not
a
pertinent
question.
Their
consequences
must
agree
with
nature.
They
are working
hypotheses
which
are
to
be
discarded
whenever
they
cease
to
be
effective
or
help-
ful.
Progress
means
bringing
new
sets
of
observations
with
the
system
in
a way
to
give
a
complete
mathematical
description
of
physical
phenomena
in
terms
of
the
fewest
principles
or entities,
that
is
to
find
in
a
variety
of
physical
phenomena
essential
rela-
tions
from
which
future
phenomena
can
be
predicted.
Physics
is
thus
a
result
of
our
quest
for
order
and
harmony among
phys-
ical
phenomena.
It
is
man's
best
attempt
to
think
vigorously
whatever
permits
of
vigorous
thinking.
It
is
not
fixed
but
is
subject
to
change
and
evolution.
Whatever
comes
out must
go
back
to enrich
the
soil
from
which
it
came.
The
successes
which
have
followed
this
approach to
nature
and
the
possibilities which
lie
ahead are
evident.
Never
before
has
our intellectual
horizon
been
so
extended
as
it
has
since
these
modes
of
thought
began to
be
applied.
In
the
direction
of
large
scale
phenomena
we
have
arrived
at
almost
limitless
space
populated
by
spiral
nebulae,
more
or
less
uniformly
dis-
tributed,
through
a
sphere
which
is
a
million
or
more
light
years
in radius.
In
the
direction
of
small
scale
phenomena,
we
have
determined
the
essential
constituents
of
the
atom and
their
arrangement
with
respect
to
each
other and
are
now
addressing
ourselves to
the
more
difficult
problem
of
the
nu-
cleus,
with
increasing evidence
of
success.
An
unlimited
number
of
problems
still
lie
between
these
extremes,
awaiting
an attack
by
an
extension
of
these
methods.
The
possibilities
are
limited
only by
the
imagination,
experimental
skill
and
intellectual
ingenuity of man.
Just
as
the
Copernican
theory
assigned
a
different
place
to
man
in
the
universe,
so
also
modern
physics
and
astronomy
are producing
immense
changes
in
man's
out-
look
on
the
universe,
revealing
to
him
new
types
of
thinking
254
LAW
JOURNAL-MAY,
1936
and adding
new
meaning
to
human
life.
The
development
of
quantum
mechanics
has
given
a
knowledge
of
the
internal
char-
acteristics
of
the
atom
which
is
nearly
as
complete
and
self
con-
sistent
as
our
knowledge of
celestial
mechanics.
This
develop-
ment
was
only
possible
after
the
introduction
of
a
new
and
strange
form
of
physical
analysis
which
gave
a new
meaning
to
physical
explanation.
The
sublime
order
which
is
thus
emerg-
ing
from
the
former
chaos,
must
be
somewhat
inherent
in
the
world
of
sense
perceptions.
It
can
not
be
merely
the
working
of
man's
mind.
Now
this
process
of abstracting
significant
and
universal
characteristics
from
phenomena
is
not
peculiar
to
the
physical
sciences
but
in
them
it
has
found
its
most
perfect
development.
The
biologists
have
abstracted
such
concepts
as
cells
and
genes
and
used
them
for the
explanation
of
living
organisms.
Artists
and
musicians
must
avail themselves
of
this
method
of
proced-
ure
and
a
great
poet
must
have caught
something
from
the
situ-
ation
which
is
to
be
universal
and
invariant
through
the
ages.
The
economists
are
concerned
with
purchasing
power
but
this
is
only an
attempt
to
find
a
concept
which
is
universal
in
its
characteristics
without
asking
what
particular
goods
or
services
are
involved.
In
psychology
consciousness
is
an
abstraction
from
mental
behavior
just
as
time
and
space
are
abstractions
from
sense
perceptions.
Justice
is
an abstraction
from
social
relations
for the
description
of
social
phenomena
and
one
does
not
undertake
to
express
it
in
terms
of
physical
abstractions.
Social
and
economic
laws
just
as
physical
laws
must
rest
on
direct
observation
and
on
a
study
of
the
actual
structure
and
function
of
our
modern
social
and
economic
life.
They
must
correlate
facts
which
actually
exist-not
those
which
are
espe-
cially
desired
or
fancied
by
some
prejudiced
observer.
These
laws
must
be
expressed
in
terms
of
social concepts
abstracted
from
the
phenomena
themselves.
What
the
social
scientist
wants
is
not
descriptions
in
terms
of
nebulous
and ill-defined
ideas.
The
political
theorist
can
not
get
on
with
abstractions
PHYSICS
AS
A
WAY
OF
THINKING
255
like
the
people,
sovereignty,
electorate,
liberty,
public
welfare
without
a
clarification
of
these
concepts.
He
must
know
how
human
beings
inter-act
and
these inter-actions
must
be described
in
terms
of
social,
economic,
and
political
abstractions,
not
in
terms
of physical
or
biological
abstractions.
Nor
will
it
be
enough
to
apply
pre-existing
concepts
and
terms
to
which
fixed
meanings
have
become
attached.
The
excessive
use
of
the
indivisible
atom
speaks
strongly
against
such
a
procedure.
With
each
new
advance
in
the
theory
of
matter,
this atom
has
been
remoulded
and
enriched
with
new
and
important
properties.
In
like
manner
it
will
be
necessary
for
the
social
scientist
to
enrich
his
terms
and
concepts,
to
make
them
describe
new
rela-
tions
and
satisfy
the
ends
for
which
they
were created.
In
dealing
with
social
and
economic
data
it
will
be
found
necessary
to
parallel
another
recent
development
in
physics.
The
essence
of
this
development
is
the
attempt
to
discard
from
physics
any
material
which
is
purely
speculative
and
leads
to
conclusions
which
cannot
be
tested
by
experiment.
The
pre-
diction
of
every
physical
theory
must
be
capable
of
proof
or
disproof
by
an
appeal
to
observation.
This
condition
requires
that
every
theory
or
explanation
must
rest
primarily
on observ-
able
entities.
If
the
human
mind
is
to
find
a
way
to
think
itself
out
of
its
social
and
economic
difficulties
it
must
more
and
more
follow
this
example
of
the
physical
sciences
and formulate
its
laws
in
terms
of
verifiable
relations.
When
we
have
the
same
kind
of
analytical
study
of
the
social
sciences
that
we
have
of
the
physical
sciences
we
will
find
less
indifference
to
the
lessons
they
teach.
Whatever
indifference
man
has
had
to
the
past
as
a
teacher
he
has been
duly
respectful
of
the
message
expressed
in
the
chemical
forces
released
in
high
explosives
or
the
elec-
trical
forces
manifested
in
lightning.
If
the
conclusions
of
his-
tory
were
equally
certain
we
might
not need
to
consider
the
quotation
attributed
to
Hegel.
"We
learn
from
history,"
said
Hegel,
"that
we
learn
nothing
from
history"
Such
a
statement
means
that
we
have
not
learned
to
abstract
from
social
phe-
LAW
JOURNAL-MAY,
1936
nomena
concepts
in
terms
of
which
social
phenomena
can
be
described
with
certainty
and
future
social
phenomena
predicted.
The
progress
of
the
physical
sciences
teaches
us
dearly
that
if
we
are
to
avoid
a
muddled
state
of
mind
we
must
recognize
that
we
are
not
living
in
a
fixed
environment
and
that
our
habits
of
thought
must
continually
adjust
themselves
to
a changing
world
controlled
largely
by
advances
in
scientific
technology
At
the
present
rate
of
advance
a
given
individual
will
be
called
upon
to
face
more
and
more
situations
which
have
little
parallel
with
the
past.
This
is
no
world
for
a
man
of
fixed
ideas
either
in
the
physical
or
the
social
sciences.
The
abstractions
which
were
valid
as
effective
means
of description
of
either
social
or
physical
phenomena
must
be
changed.
Absolute
time
and
abso-
lute
space
had
to
be
replaced
by
relative
time
and
space.
Lib-
erty
and equality
were
originally
concepts
abstracted
by
Locke
and
Rousseau
from
a
social
order
characterized
by
small
peas-
ants
and
proprietor.
When
we
try
to
apply
these
abstractions
to
an
industrial
order
they
cannot
be
made
to
fit
without
modification.
As
modern
physics
gave
up
absolute
time
and
space
and
replaced
Newtonian
mechanics
by
relativistic
mechanics,
we
must
be
prepared
to
hear
less
of
absolute
justice
enthroned
on
high
and
the
eternal
and
inalienable
rights
of
man.
Justice
is
an
abstraction
from
social
phenomena
and
there
is
nothing
absolute
about
it.
We
can
only
have
relative
justice
which
is
an
abstraction
from
social
phenomena
to
describe
a
social
world
out
of
social
equilibrium
and
trying
to
regain
it.
It
is
more
like
saying
the
entropy
of
the
system
is
a
maximum.
When
social
equilibrium
has
been
reached,
social
justice
or
the
social
entropy
of
the
system
is
a
maximum.
Human
rights
are
neither
eternal
nor
inalienable.
Just
as
the
law
of
gravitation
is
a
relation
abstracted
from
physical
phenomena
so
these
eternal
and
inalienable
rights
are
relations
abstracted
from
social
phenomena
to
describe
conditions
which
should
obtain
in
the
normal
state.
The
eternal
and
inalienable
256
PHYSICS
AS
A
WAY
OF
THINKING
257
rights
of
man
are
no
more
than
a
description
of
the
relations
of
man
to
man
in
a
changing
world.
Any
attempt
to
formulate
them
as
a
permanent
framework
must
fail
just
as
the
attempt
to
force
thinking
about
the
physical
world
into
the
Aristotelian
pattern
failed.
The
most
we
can
do
is
to
discover
the
rules
according
to
which
social
groups
function
and
order
our
be-
havior
accordingly
If
the
phrase
in
the
Constitution
"to
pro-
mote
the
general
welfare
and
insure
the
blessings
of
liberty
to
ourselves
and
our
posterity"
is
reared
against
the
background
of
the present
social
order
as
we
would
reread
the
law
of
gravi-
tation
in
light
of
our
present
physical
knowledge,
we
wonder
whether
we
are
as
ready
to
accept
its
new implications
as
we
are
ready
to
accept
the
new
implications
of
the
law
of
gravita-
tion.
When
the
law
of
gravitation
requires
that
we
admit
a
new
planet
like
Neptune
or
Pluto
into
the
solar
system
it
is
done
not
only
without
hesitation
but
with
a
good
deal
of
satisfaction,
but
when
we
have
passed
from
an
agricultural
to
an
industrial
order
and
find
that
an
attempt
to
insure
domestic
tranquillity
or
promote
the
general
welfare
requires
that
the
government
insure
a
reasonable
opportunity
for
every
man
to
work
at
a
minimum
wage,
we
think
we
are
on
the
eve
of a
revolution
in
social
thinking.
We
tardily
recognize
the
ability
of
our
fore-
fathers
to
make
universal
and
penetrating
generalizations
which
are
valid
for
all
time.
If
Lincoln
can
say
with
general
approval
"A
nation
cannot
long
survive
half
slave
and
half
free,"
we
might admit
that
the
framers
of
the
Constitution
could
see
that
a
nation
could
not
long
survive
half
employed
and
half
unem-
ployed.
Now
modern
theoretical
physics
dearly
teaches
that
phys-
ical
theory
of
itself
has
little
power.
It
becomes
powerful
only
when
it
is
integrated
into
some
system
of
data
experimentally
deterrrned,
some
system
of
engineering
needs
or
human
wants.
It
is
then
and
only
then
it
begins
to
really
function.
If
it
is
conceived
as
something
complete
within
itself,
it
is
essentially
a
brilliant
but
futile
intellectual
adventure.
If
there
were
a
258
LAW
JOURNAL-MAY,
1936
divorce
between
theory
and
practice in
the
physical
science,
progress
would
be
an
impossibility
This
only
means,
as
Dewey
points
out,
that
intelligence
in
itself
has
nopower.
It
is
intelli-
gence
integrated
into
some
form
of
human
needs
and
demands
that
makes
it
effective.
It
has
been
one
of
the
major
errors
of
much
of
our
social,
cultural, and
educational
thinking
that
we
have
thought
of
education,
intelligence,
and
culture
as
set
apart
from
action
as
entities
existing
in
a
vacuum,
as
reserves
against
the
day
of
decisive
action.
We
know
nothing
of
such
segrega-
tion
and
such
differentiation
between
theory
and
practice.
We
do
not
call
one
subject
cultural
and
the
other
non-cultural
any
more
than
we
would
differentiate
between
one
part
of
the
body,
the
heart
and
the
brain.
It
is
much
safer
to
keep
them
together
and
functioning
as
part
of
a
unity.
If
the
relation
of
the
phys-
ical
sciences
to
the
engineering
sciences is
to
teach
any
thing
to
the
social
sciences
at
this point,
it
must
be
this,
using
the
words
of
Dewey.
"There
must
be
a
change
in
the
prevailing
concep-
tion
of
social
knowledge
and
an
abandonment
of
the
idea
that
knowledge
comes
first
and
action
later.
They
must
be
inti-
mately
associated
both
in
the
process
of acquiring
them and
in
the
process
of
making
them
function.
The
crucial
problem
is
how
intelligence
may
gain
necessary
power
through
incorpora-
tion
with
wants
and
interests
that
we
are
already
operating."
That
is
precisely
how
physical
knowledge
and
engineering
ap-
plications
have
acquired
their
power
and
this
is
the
only
method
by
which
traditionalism
based
on
self-interest
can
be
eliminated
from
our
social
and
economic
life.
It
is
our
opinion
that
the
thinking
characteristic
of
modern
physics
gives
a
firm foundation
on
which
to
base
our
outlook
on
nature
and
that
its
methods
have
much
of
meaning
in
them
for
the
less
exact
fields of
knowledge.
If
the
biological
and
social
sciences
can
be
as
successful in
interpreting
and
correlating
human
experiences
and
behavior
as
the
physical
sciences
have
been
in
interpreting
physical
phenomena
we
may
yet
build
an
intellectual
habitation
which
takes
account
of
the
fact
that
we
PHYSICS
AS
A
WAY
OF
THINKING
259
are
human
beings
living
in a
physical
world.
According
to
the
physicists
here
"lies
the
path
of
advance
to
a
clear
purposed
goal
but
it
leads up
a
long
steep
journey."
Its
appeal
lies
in
its
certainty,
and
its
challenge
to
the
best collective
and
cooper-
ative
thinking
which
can
be
achieved
through the
progressive
development
of
the
human
mind.
How old is this article? When i discuss this article with high school students, how can i be certain the relevance of this article in parts or whole?
A **physical theory is only useful if it describes reality and can be applied to obtain predictions.** A theory must give the same predictions independently of the frame or reference or the time when it is being applied (here or the moon, today or 100 years ago), this is achieved with invariance. Invariance is a property of a system which remains unchanged under certain transformations.
The first interpretations of Nature were animistic. Humans at the time perceived all things - from animals, plants, rivers, and weather - to be animated and alive. Animism was the best interpretation of Nature at the time it dates back to the Paleolithic Age and is considered to be one of the oldest religions.
**Euclidian geometry** - models the properties of shapes on a plane.
**Riemannian geometry** - models the properties of shapes in a space that curves back on itself, like on the surface of a sphere.
For Newton space and time were absolute, there was nothing that could alter them. Einstein showed that space and time are actors in the events happening in the Universe. Large masses like the Sun can distort space and affect the flow of time.
To learn more about Einstein Vs. Newton on Space and Time watch the video below:
[](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-ZtaG7OqO8)
Physicists believed that atoms were like indivisible perfect spheres. Today we know that atoms are composed protons, neutrons and electrons; and furthermore that protons and neutrons are composed of quarks. Our knowledge evolved over time and new properties attributed to atom by sheer observations. It is interesting to note that the neutron was discovered only 4 years before this paper was published and quarks were yet to be discovered.
A scientific hypothesis is a tentative explanation about nature. The two primary features of a scientific hypothesis are **falsifiability** and **testability**. These hypotheses have the ability to be supported or refuted through observation and experimentation. The notion of the scientific hypothesis as both falsifiable and testable was proposed by Austrian-born British philosopher Karl Popper.
In physical thinking, the principles we develop must be in agreement with our observations of nature. It does not matter if they are "absolutely" correct, they are temporary best guesses at a description of Nature. These principles/guesses are to be discarded when new better theories are found.
> ***“Intelligence in itself has no power. It is intelligence integrated into some form of human needs and demands that makes it effective.“***
We need to combine theory and observation/experimentation in our pursuit of knowledge. Theory alone as no power if it is not tested against reality and cannot make viable predictions. The advantage of physical thinking if the close relation of theory and abstract ideas with experimentation and observation of Nature.
Teleology is the explanation for something in function of its end or its goal. Classical philosophy claims that natural entities (things like a seed, a molecule, or an electron...) have an intrinsic purpose regardless of human use or opinion.
Learn more here: [Teleology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology)
Here the author is describing the scientific method. It is a method of knowledge development which has characterized the development of natural science since the 17th century.
The scientific method involves:
1. Observing some aspects of the universe.
2. Coming up with tentative explanations for what is observed: Hypothesis.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test these predictions by experiments or further observations.
Quoting Feynman:
> ***It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.***
Alpheus W. Smith was an American physicist who was a Fellow of the American Physical Society and of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He received numerous awards including the Distinguished Service Citation from Ohio State University, the Air Force Medal of Exceptional Civilian Service.
Learn more about Alpheus Smith here: [Prof. Alpheus Smith (1876-1968) Biography
](https://physics.osu.edu/prof-alpheus-smith-1876-1968-biography)
Here the author advocates for the application of the scientific method to the social and economic sciences. He argues that social and economic sciences ***should rest on direct observation of modern social and economic life***, and should be more concerned with real phenomena that actually exist than with abstract made-up ideas.
#### TL;DR
- In this paper, the author argues about the importance of physical thinking as a way to produce knowledge and advance our understanding of nature.
- Universal knowledge involves a combination of theoretical, abstract thinking and observation and experimentation.
- He describes the scientific method:
1. observe the world
2. create a theory that is tentative explanation of observations
3. attempt new predictions
4. test your theory
- Any new theory/hypothesis should have two main features: falsifiability and testability.
> ***“Physics is thus a result of our quest for order and harmony among physical phenomena. It is man's best attempt to think vigorously whatever permits of vigorous thinking. It is not fixed but is subject to change and evolution. Whatever comes out must go back to enrich the soil from which it came.“***
*Copernicus's schematic diagram of his heliocentric theory of the Solar System*
Nicolaus Copernicus was a mathematician and astronomer who formulated a model that placed the Sun rather than the Earth at the centre of the Universe. His model was published in his book "On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres" in 1543 and was received with much controversy. It was a major event in the history of science and was an important contribution to the Scientific Revolution.
Learn more here: [Nicolaus Copernicus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus)
A quick reminder of Newton's laws of motion:
#### 1. Newton's first law
The first law (law of inertia) states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force.
#### 2. Newton's second law
The second law describes how the velocity of an object changes when it is subjected to an external force. This law defines a force to be equal to the change in momentum as follows:
$$ F = m \cdot a$$
where **m** is the mass of the object, **F** is the force acting upon it and **a** is the acceleration.
#### 3. Newton's third law
The third law (action-reaction) states that for every action in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction. If an object A exerts a force on object B, then object B also exerts an equal force on object A.
> ***“Each man's rainbow is a selection of his own eyes, a subjective selection from an objective reality which is not a rainbow at all." It is much the same in all physical phenomena. We are less concerned with the absolute and more with the relative. We have learned that all we can ever hope to know is the relation of physical phenomena to each other.“***