I had to go check that this was real - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41557-023-01300-3, because it could have as easily been a marketing site for the next Marvel movie for all I could ground it in my understanding of experimentation.
It's a (very) weird way to write the same equations as Newton. It happens to be easier to solve on some cases, because calculus works like that.
It's conceptually not very different from using a Fourier or Laplace transformation to simplify some signal handling. But 400 years ago they didn't have any easy way to understand it, so it got an aura of magic that never got away.
(But you probably already know all that. You probably just didn't internalize it because of that aura.)
Spoiler: E=m_rest c2 + E_kinetic unless you redefine the mass as a function of velocity. Something that people used to do a century ago but is unusual to it nowadays
I thought I would do differently and everyone else was doing wrong. I was the one doing wrong. I didn't learned much from all these original manuscript. I also lost precious years which I could have obtained real Masters degree. It is super important to understand that original manuscripts have tons of noise and baggage that only make sense in historical context. They also have unbacked goods which are super hard to digest, if you can digest at all. A ton of experts have already spent their lives distilling these original writings that fits with everything else, easy to digest and doesn't have all that noise. So, get a good textbook and follow that. Stop chasing original manuscripts.
Also, the fashion of physics changes. Back in the day, physicists seemed much more comfortable writing long intuitive arguments with lots of words, and were always happy with a strong connection to classical physics which they obviously had a strong understanding of (since at the time, that was all physics). These days, it's far more common to prefer a more mathematical oriented approach; people prefer to see an equation rather than paragraphs of intuition dumping. Also, we don't care so much about a connection to classical physics, since most physicists are now quite comfortable with quantum mechanics.
Even as a physics researcher it can be painful and difficult to go back to the original papers for things. This is also reflected in the popularity of wikipedia among physicists. It's much more likely that I'm going to understand the explanation of (for example) Bell's theorem on wikipedia than reading his original paper "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox." People have come up with better examples, emphasised important points better, and refined the understanding.
We also can't forget the impact that LaTeX (or equation typesetting in general) has had on physics. Reading some of these old typewritten equations can add unnecessary cognitive load.
Now, this is unique to physical sciences. None of this can be relied on with philosophy (at least, continental philosophy). Sure, there are good modern summaries like on SEP, but you can never really be sure that your interpretation of the author will be the same.
I can't. I tried reading e.g. Plato and I just want to argue with him forever. He starts with assumptions which were "obvious" then, but are just obviously wrong now. It's much better to read a modern interpretation / summary which takes the bits which are still relevant, and Contextualize them with what we know today.
(Note - if you want to study history of something, by all means do read original texts. But if you actually want working knowledge of the subject, it's a horrible horrible way to go).
That’s the whole point of reading Plato. You’re being exposed to the Socratic method.
If I take a philosophy class, I can talk to teacher, discuss things,explore questions and Contradictions. And I do :-).
When Plato says "let us all agree there exists a perfect blue independent of any real world blue", I want to argue that no, "blue" is a human construct and dependent on accidental biology. We can't even make sure thay we all experience the same blue and what "blue" is, is purely definitional. There exists no inherent "blue" other than us arbitrarily taking a chunk of EM spectrum and attaching a loose meaning of "blue" to it.
Plato did not know of EM spectrum or cones in our eyes. half the things he starts as "it is obviously true that..." I scream"no it is not! I challenge your key assumptions ".but he's dead and can't argue with me :-). So for me, that's not the whole point of reading Plato - it's the whole frustration.
-----
Edit : you've added "that way you're exposed to Socratic method " which changes the gist of the comment, but I'll still argue it's a horrible way to do so. I understood Socratic method for a decade if not two before I tried Plato. If I tried Plato first, the dubious and implausible arguments would have turned me off completely. Both the teacher's and the student's proposals are frequently at odds with our current understanding, so as a reader I'm not invested in either and the argument feels farcical as opposed to logical.
My point is:
If somebody asks "what is Socratic method", pointing them to Plato is a horrible (and frankly elitist / gatekeeping) way to go. It can rather be explained in a few minutes with excellent, understandable modern examples. You can get working knowledge quickly and effectively. There are circumstances and situations where reading the original is relevant! But if you want to understand the basics, or even intermediate knowledge of actual subject, reading original newton and original Plato are not great ways to start.
But you’re alive and you can supply both sides of the argument, if you believe the topic is interesting. The concept of “perfect blue” is beautiful and powerful - even if it’s wrong! It can lead to very interesting ideas, such as “universe as a mathematical structure”, or having a soul. Just play along and be flexible.
Also, you can prompt GPT-4 to argue with you as Plato would.
Assuming some premise for the sake of an argument is not just a plato thing, and its not particularly relavent if the specific premise is true.
I find it most productive when the assumption is asked and granted for something uncertain, interpretable, subjective, etc. Or when we are just having fun :-)
If a) you are building a serious proposedmodel of reality and b) start with something demonstrably false, I'd have to be in a pretty specific mood to go with it :-D
You've fallen into the age old trap of reacting, to written text.
His argument might well be farcical, suspend disbelief like you would watching some Micheal Bay nonsense.
Do you let people get to the end of their sentence irl? I've noticed more that some people wont tolerate a building narrative in basic sentences, and want to deal only in conclusions.
I really do miss the days when people regularly had multi-layered, long running conversations. Now everything has to be said in discrete steps, one by one.
(To your very last sentence, I'd venture that kind of fees like the Socratic method :-)
But to the rest of the post, can you elaborate? Are you suggesting relaxing the skepticism / logic muscle and reaction for a while, and reading to see where it goes? I'd be willing to discuss that approach, though I'm also aware that's exactly what my cousin pishing deepak chopra keeps saying :-P.
In the finite time we have on this earth, how does one choose where and when to relax the filters, as opposed to saying "this is not bringing value, there are better materials to ingest?".
And the other context, which I feel we still haven't addressed is - lateral to whether there is any advanced and isolated value in reading Plato, do we really feel it's a good suggestion to get somebody introduced to concepts? I still feel there are way better ways to get somebody introduced to core ideas, and then advanced readers who want to zero-in, experience the original material and immerse themselves into context of the times (and the good / bad / ugly / archaic thay goes with it), can certainly choose to do so.
Thx again!
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/University_Physics/B...