Sherlock Holmes' Impacted Physics?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Peter Nielsen</i>
". . . Holmes may have been a key influence upon 20th Century physics via Einstein. [My Theoretical Physics Professor H. A.] Buchdahl had been one of Einstein's researchers.

20th Century physics my thus be largely Holmes-Einsteinian. And I cannot see how we could do better than continue this Holmes-Einsteinian way of approaching and solving mysteries:
1. Regard the Universe as a catastrophic scene.
2. Weigh and eliminate all but one possible explanation.
3. Speculate further on this remaining most likely explanation.
4. Weigh and eliminate all but one of its refinements and so on."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> I find your Holmes-Einsteinian approach to be self contradictory. Holmes’s methodology was to defined the problem, complied the possible suspects and eliminate who could not have committed the catastrophe thereby “solving” the mystery. Einstein however, created a “mystery” to which there is no solution and offered it up as a “solution” of which there is no mystery, better known to us as Special Relativity, (SR). SR’s mystery is allusion and its solution is confusion. Now, I fully realize that you, or others, might not agree with me and require of some sort of “proof” of may allegations, to which I will gladly reply. But first, I will request that you, or anyone else seeking that proof, define to me what the “mystery” is that SR is allegedly solving and the mystery I refer to must be found within the pages of “ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES” and not your, or anothers, perception of what the mystery is.
thebobgy

Thanks Thebobgy, Firstly, I've updated that "Holmes-Einsteinian way of approaching and solving mysteries" as follows:

1. Regard the Universe as a catastrophic scene.
2. Weigh and eliminate all but one possible explanation.
3. Speculate further on this remaining most likely explanation.
4. Weigh and eliminate all but one of its refinements.
5. Look out for contradictions to this existing theory, in which case go back to Step 1) else go back to Step 3).

Briefly: Einstein's thought experiments showed up contradictions in Newtonian Physics (a "crime scene") and Relativity theory, first Special and then General Relativity theory resolved these contradictions. Now, after almost a century of great achievement, serious contradictions are looming large, putting us into those new loops, which are <font color="yellow">still Holmesian</font id="yellow"> of Step 5, as Pushing Gravity and so on.

<i>Originally posted by Peter Nielsen</i> 14 Jul 2006 : 00:32

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Briefly: Einstein's thought experiments showed up contradictions in Newtonian Physics...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Peter, my point is that Einstein did not “show” a contradiction in Newton’s physics, he, (Einstein) created the contradiction. I read your original post as if Einstein had used Holmes’s methodology when preparing SR, which he did not. The Holmesian methodology only employed one principal, which is; “Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth. <i>source</i> (<i>The Sign of the Four</i>)” which is your #2; “2. Weigh and eliminate all but one possible explanation.”. Your additional three (3) steps may very well be helpful when solving a mystery but the are not Holmes’s style.
thebobgy

Thanks thebobgy,
Yes, as you say, "Your additional [step 5] may very well be helpful when solving a mystery but the are not Holmes' style". But that's only because Holmes'was portrayed as a sort of superman, a dandy and so on. And I do not recall any particular examples of my Step 5 being practiced by Holmes, but I would be very surprised if research would not reveal such practice, so obvious to us today.

Surely we didn't learn Step 5 from Karl Popper?!?!? Somebody should research this, find out who started this important step, Popper, Holmes . . .??

On second thoughts, its true what I wrote earlier about Einstein, that "Einstein's thought experiments showed up contradictions in Newtonian Physics (a "crime scene") and Relativity theory, first Special and then General Relativity theory resolved these contradictions". So Einstein was already Popperian, did indeed anticipate Popper as I'd suggested in 5.7, my Step 5.

Furthermore, Einstein's thinking here would have been Holmesian, my Steps 1-4, because his thought experiments must surely have been comprehensively many, in both Special and General theories, for Einstein to have found those few thought experiments that showed up the contradictions that led him to develop Relativity to resolve them.

And those Steps 1-5 are the Method that underlies the great achievements of 20th Century Physics. So, all we need to do to prove my thesis that 20th Century Physics was also Holmesian, Holmes-Einsteinian, is to find one or more "particular examples of my Step 5 being practiced by Holmes", as I wrote last time, it would be a good idea to look for.

<i>Originally posted by Peter Nielsen</i> 13 Jul 2006 : 12:52 and 00:49:
<br />Thanks thebobgy,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">... And I do not recall any particular examples of my Step 5 being practiced by Holmes, but I would be very surprised if research would not reveal such practice, so obvious to us today.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I don’t think much research is required Peter, because we are dealing with two different sciences, criminology and physics. Holmes was a criminalist, Einstein a physicist. Holmes’s work ended with step 2) and no further investigation was required. The Holmes stories always ended with the competition of step 2). Holmes always confronted the criminal and effected a confession which precluded the need of a trial and the possibility of being found not guilty. Have you ever read of a Holmes story overturned on appeal? It would make some interesting sequels but ruin the image of the “perfect” detective. The study of physics should always be ongoing investigation. And Einstein was decidedly no Sherlock Holmes.
thebobgy