Chapter 1 - Why the question? - Generally Looks Good – Specifically Bad Science

Generally Looks Good – Specifically Bad Science

Perhaps of the most well know Physicists, Einstein stands out the most in recent history. Einstein is considered by almost all untrained Physicists as the father of the theory of Relativity. Few that have never studied Physics formally understand the theory, however, large portions of the population know that the theory exists. The facts behind Relativity and its discovery are a wonderful parallel to racial classification theories based on older Anthropology models.

Einstein, like Newton, was attempting to derive a theory for physical phenomena that could, with a high degree of precision, predict the natural laws of motion. It is commonly believed –incorrectly - that this eccentric scientist stood alone and derived a solution that significantly alters our physical and philosophical world around us. Just as it is a myth that an apple fell upon the head of Newton thus providing impetus to the classical model of Mechanics, Einstein had more than an epiphany about light and Relativistic theory.

In the mid 17th century Newton had provided a suggested set of laws in his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. The laws provided by Newton became the basis of Mechanics (using mathematics to model motion and gravitation). As technology advanced it became clear that Newton’s laws were best described not as the laws of Mechanics but rather the Classical Laws of Mechanics. Once his laws were formulated (largely on the basis of the mathematics done by the French Mathematician Decartes), other scientist began evaluating both the general and the specific application of his theoretical laws. In order for a scientific theory to hold true it must meet a rigorous set of conditions. First and foremost the theory must be repeatable. In the case of Newton’s laws this is largely true. Next the theory must be either confined for a specific condition (in which case it is more of a model) or it must hold true for all general conditions. For almost 200 years Newton’s laws of motion were considered to be correct for all general conditions. However, questions raised in the late 19th century regarding the transmission of light revealed some real problems with the generality of Newtonian Mechanics. When I teach Physics to beginning college students, I address this conditional understanding of generality versus specificity. The notion is simple. In the beginning stages of learning physics, the distance equation is a fundamental understanding of motion.

s = xo + vot + 1/2at2

In this equation s is the distance traveled.
The initial displacement from the reference plane origin is represented by xo.
The initial velocity of the object is represented by vo and its acceleration is a.
Time is expressed by t.

This is the most general case equation that represents the motion of the object as it moves through time when evaluated in a classical sense. It is easiest to apply a specific case in which the object has no acceleration and the initial displacement is at the origin.

In that case the xo and 1/2at2 equal zero and the equation becomes s = vot.

Although the general equation can be applied against a specific case, the specific equation can not be applied against the general case with any degree of accuracy. Any theory that is more than a specific case model must adhere to the most general case application. Newton’s attempt to model all forms of motion through his classical laws have done an excellent job specifically with classical motion. When pressed with the specific cases of very small measurements, very large velocities and very large accelerations, Newton’s laws fail to properly describe motion.

For almost 200 years Newton’s laws went unquestioned. This does not suggest that they were untested, but rather, in every test Newton’s mathematical representations were found to provide a significant level of accuracy. The breakdown of the model began in the late 19th century. It had been known for some time that sound required a medium for transport. It was assumed that light, like sound, would also need a medium of transport. This suggested medium was entitled ether and science began a search to determine its properties. Prompted by the mathematics completed in the 1850s and 1860s by James Clerk Maxwell, a host of physicists and mathematicians, namely Michelson, Morley, FitzGerald, Voigt and Lorentz led to the affirmation of Michelson’s statement:

The result of the hypothesis of a stationary ether is shown to be incorrect, and the necessary conclusion follows that the hypothesis is erroneous.

To this day this is a strong statement. What it concludes is that our understanding of physical measurements was incorrect. As Lorentz worked diligently to create a more general case to explain the lack of ether, FitzGerald published in 1889 a short non-technical discussion entitled The ether and the earth's atmosphere:

... the length of material bodies changes, according as they are moving through the ether or across it, by an amount depending on the square of the ratio of their velocities to that of light

By 1898 Lorentz finally published the more general mathematical expressions associated with these length transformations in a set of equations that we all now know as the Lorentz transformations. By 1905 Einstein began to present the physical meanings of the Lorentz transformations and the public began slowly to understand the ramifications of Relativity. When Einstein presented this information about the lack of existence of ether, it was clear to individuals like Plank that this was a special case of relativity. As the Lorentz equations were evaluated and presented in something called a Tensor form, it became more evident that a more general condition would arise that not only disproved the existence of ether but more importantly Newton’s entire explanation of gravity was in question. Today science maintains both a Special and General Theory of Relativity. Crudely stated, the Special Theory applies to velocities and the General Theory applies to acceleration.

I have spent a significant time discussing Relativity from the historical perspective of its development. The attentive reader may ask why such entries are warranted on a discussion of Anthropology and racial classification. Do not look at the discussion as an attempt to explain Relativity, but rather as a method to demonstrate scientific processes that result in developing more generalizations associated with modeling. There are several items to be learned from this discussion.

First, most individuals that have not studied Physics in great detail will quickly relate that Einstein is solely responsible for the leap to Relativity. A quick review of the historical facts clearly indicates Lorentz provided the mathematical transformations that determined the Physics of Relativity and it was the experiments of Michelson and Morley and the equations of Maxwell that propelled him. This is why the math that underpins Relativity is refereed to as the Lorentz transformations and not the Einstein equations. (It should also be noted here that much of Newton’s mathematics was obtained from Decartes. This is why the coordinate system used for classical representation is called Cartesian and not Newtonian). Hence, it is clear, those educated in a topic will often see a different perspective than the popular culture. Things such as racial classification can not be left to political popularity. The voting booth and political advertisements are not the place for scientific determination. If what were popular made for good science then the earth may still be considered to be the center of the Universe. Scientific perspective and methods must be employed to determine such things as taxonomic differences. To express more on this at this time propels me ahead of my story, and must wait for more discussion.

Secondly, we must return to evaluate the quote by Gary Zukav at the beginning of this chapter.

The first man to see an illusion by which men have flourished for centuries surely stands in a lonely place.

Lorentz spent years not publishing his mathematical model of transformation. In the beginning Lorentz disagreed with the outcomes of Michelson first experiments although his mathematics told him otherwise. It was not until, Michelson teamed with Morley to provide substantially more evidence, and FitzGerald teamed with Lorentz did Lorentz expose what he knew. Lorentz was in a delicate position. He knew the math behind Newton’s science was flawed. He knew that the Newtonian method by which people had lived for 200 years was sufficiently accurate for a specific case however, it was not accurate for the more general case. In order to explain the more general case Lorentz would create a notion that time was interconnected with space and matter. This leap was a difficult one even when others in his area of study were supporting him. The Lorentz transformations created a new philosophical understanding of our existence. Claiming this revelation is a dangerous action for any scientist. Crossing such an abyss is not easy for any person no matter how sure they are of the facts.

The third and final point of the discussion presents that any model must live to the rigors of testing for its generality. If the model can not maintain a general case review – in other words live up to all cases -, then the model is only accurate for the specific notions of applications. Something as complex and recently developed as Relativity maintains two distinct classifications, the General Theory and the Special Theory of Relativity. These laws of relativity in no way suggest that Newton was wrong. Rather they indicate that he was inaccurate when considering objects in motion at high speeds or when experiencing large accelerations. However, this inaccuracy led to the notion of the existence of something called ether. Searching for that ether consumed countless hours of science. Explaining the world with ether prevented mankind to see the connection between space and time. When Lorentz and others began to determine that there were such relations, it became dangerous to their careers to suggest what they knew. This has been true for Anthropology as well. Anthropologists like Dubois, Black, and Broom all stood on treacherous ground with the introduction of Homo Erectus. In some cases these geniuses, died lonely and misunderstood. In some cases they died consumed with their work. In all cases, they met significant resistances to their finds. Perhaps today Wolpoff with his position on Neanderthal and Walker on his position of speech place them on that same path. In any case one thing is certain, scientific classification will be tested to general evaluations and in many cases determined to be too specific a theory to meet all the criteria to be discovered afterwards.

Unlike the disciplines of Physics and Mathematics, which have been around for millennia, the scientific pursuit of human origins, Anthropology, has only been an official discipline since the middle of the 19th century. Until the middle of the 20th century, anti-evolutionary laws and mindsets thwarted formal education of the matter. One might assume that if Anthropology is a discipline as difficult to understand as Physics or Mathematics, it has a long road of development to match the accuracy obtained in other areas of study. Although Anthropology has made tremendous strides in the last 100 years, it is not difficult to show that there are limited understandings of our origins and subsequently the methods used to taxonomically differentiate people. This statement is not a disparaging remark against the fundamentals of Anthropology, but rather an assumption based on the relative newness of the science. One only needs look at the alterations of scientific notions based on relatively recent mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) research. More substantially, notions of Neanderthal, origins from Asia versus Africa, Homo erectus speech and even understanding of consciousness have changed drastically in the past 50 years alone. Today we maintain a taxonomic racial classification process patterned after old and largely incomplete knowledge of Anthropologic study. These processes were developed under the influence of limited anthropologic fossil record, and political and religious influence. Today our understanding of this science shakes the foundations of these classification methods. To continue with our present popular definitions is little different than to propound the existence of ether and the flatness of the earth.