| Our Challenge |
by Francisco J. Müller
After five days of intense lectures and discussions at a workshop this summer in the Canary Islands, I realized that we still lacked a sense of unity and direction of our efforts as a group. The variety of topics covered and the diverse ways in which each of the participants interpreted them could be a source of dismay, if one failed to recognize that’s precisely the environment encouraged by NPA. Topics were the priority of energy over force as a physical reality (defended by Peter Marquardt), or the opposite viewpoint (Johann Marinsek). Or, the relative character of all rotational phenomena defended by Andre Assis versus its absolute nature defended by others. Or even, the amount of relativistic “facts” that can be accepted as valid (Ron Hatch), or as plainly false (Hector Munera). Or, as explainable by alternative theories (many others). One (Neil Munch) argued it is best to fully define the problem before seeking its solution. This variety of viewpoints created some good debates among us, both openly or during the continued discussions at coffee breaks or at the restaurants. All of this, of course, was constructive and a sign of the vitality of the participants--indeed, a successful aspect of the meeting.
But certainly this is a sign that, at this stage of our efforts, we cannot expect concurrence of opinions, much less total agreement in all issues. In fact, the healthy variety among our ranks guarantees that if all of us are not 100% correct at least some might be on a good track. And, if collaboration continues on a friendly and open basis, these “right track” efforts will finally coalesce into two or three strong lines of development.
This, then, is what I wanted to stress as a final comment to the Canary Islands workshop: We need to somehow find some common ideas and conclusions which can “unify” us, if not totally at least in those partial problems and some topics. George Galeczki tried, in similar fashion, to propose some short, clear cut statements against relativity that everybody would accept. On my part I proposed, for future work at the NPA meetings, to establish some “sub-division” of topics, or some “regional” meetings convoked to tackle some very special problem in contemporary Physics. No specific propositions, however, have yet been implemented.
It seems that the only “unification” I could, and still can, describe at the moment is an “intentional” one, i.e., we all want something to change in contemporary physical science. If not, we would not have attended this workshop. But the nature, content, extent and timing of this change is still in the dark. As a challenge, I proposed the idea, at the opening section with Francisco Gonzalez Redondo (our host) that the year 2005 should be a sort of “deadline” for us. That year marks the 100th anniversary of Einstein’s special relativity theory (1905) and the 50th anniversary of his death, (1955). This coincidence “temps” us to see the “end” of the theory on the same occasion that we mourn the death of its author. But of course, nobody would accept any change if it is only the “death” or “dead-end” of a theory. A new one is absolutely necessary. If anything is clear in Thomas Kuhn’s familiar book, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, it is that no revolution has occurred nor will occur in the future unless there is a proposed alternative theory to replace the older one. The human spirit can not progress only by negative thoughts. It needs the positive food of truth, the elevation to new syntheses and visions of older and newer realities. Hence, it remains a challenge for all of us. So, I am asking all NPA members, “Are there any questions or theories upon which a majority of us can converge and coalesce…. by the year 2005”? . Let us hope so.
And if so, how do we reach that agreement and get that message to the scientific community?
-Francisco J. Müller
|
|
| Shopping Cart |
| Your cart is empty. |
|
