Pay attention to the voice of the storm to improve the level of thinking
Guide
The most fundamental reason for the success of modern science is to abandon the speculative fantasy and study the relationship between phenomena and phenomena in a down-to-earth manner, in which the mode of operation of phenomena is discovered, and the appropriate concepts and languages for describing phenomena are invented and created, and finally many phenomena are explained in a few principles.
The author excerpted a small section of the new book "The Value of Scientific Thinking" to share with the public.
In physics there are debates about what is called reductionism and emergence. The reductionist view holds that physical problems can be reduced to questions about the basic composition of matter and the interaction of fundamental components, and that complex things and phenomena can ultimately be explained by simple basic components and basic interactions. Reductionism is a way of thinking about everything in a small number of principles, which many people think is the traditional way of thinking of physics. This line of thinking is embodied in many aspects of physics, such as reducing matter to atomic molecules, atoms to nuclei and electrons, nuclei to protons and neutrons, and proton neutrons to quarks. The establishment of the Standard Model of particle physics eventually unified the electromagnetic force and the weak force, and made people realize that the electromagnetic force, the weak force and the strong force are all the same type of force, that is, the normative interaction, so the Standard Model of particle physics is generally regarded as a successful example of reductionist thinking.
The deductive view holds that the macroscopic scale problem is very complex, and the complex behavior of a large number of atoms and molecules cannot always be simply deduced from the properties of individual atoms and molecules in a reductive manner. On the contrary, the theory of evolution holds that[1]:
In every level of complexity is the need for new laws of physics, new concepts of physics, and new generalizations, and in terms of the creativity required, they are no less than other studies.
P. Anderson, a well-known condensed matter physicist and Nobel laureate in physics, W. Anderson's 1972 treatise More is different is recognized as a manifesto for the doctrine of evolution.[1] The cornerstones of contemporary condensed matter physics, L. D. Landau's Fermi liquid theory and K. G. Wilson's reformulation group theory of phase transitions, are considered successful examples of evolutionary ideas. Landau's Fermi liquid theory holds that a multiparty Fermi system with complex interactions can be regarded as a free multiparticle Fermi system consisting of free "quasiparticles" that can only "exist" in a multibody system, not alone. Landau's Fermi liquid theory, which describes the cryogenic physical properties of almost all known metals, has been surprisingly successful. This "quasiparticle" in Landau's Fermi theory of liquids is what Anderson calls a completely new physical concept emerging in complex multibody systems. Compared with the atomic and molecular electrons, which are the basic components of matter, the not-so-basic concept of "quasiparticles" is more suitable for describing the phenomena of multibody systems. There are a large number of such evolutionary concepts and physical laws based on such evolutionary concepts in modern condensed matter physics, such as the physics of phase transitions and critical phenomena[2], and the topological gauge field theory that describes the quantum Hall effect.
Many people believe that the idea of evolution in physics began in the 50s and 60s of the last century, with the development of condensed matter physics. For example, A. J. Leggett, a well-known condensed matter physicist and Nobel laureate in physics, believes that the invention of Landau Fermi's theory of liquids marks a paradigm shift in the study of condensed matter physics. He recalls[3]:
The importance of Landau's pioneering work is that instead of asking the question "How do we calculate the properties of macroscopic condensed matter systems from microscopic Hamiltonian quantities?", as most predecessors have done, he asked a different question: "How do we relate the different physical properties of macroscopic systems?".
Subsequently, the success of the reorganization group theory of phase transitions and the development of universal and symmetrical ideas further demonstrated the power of the evolutionary approach. The famous theoretical physicist Leo Kadanoff has a comment on this development[3]:
The practice of physics has changed from solving problems to seeking relationships between problems.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="12" > the pattern of operation of the phenomenon and the reasons behind the phenomenon</h1>
However, if we examine the history of physics carefully, we can see that the idea of evolutionary theory is essentially a phenomenological one. This phenomenological idea is not a new idea, but a line of thought that has long existed in the blood of physics, which can be said to be the most typical research idea that physics has had since its birth, and it is also a line of thought that exists widely in many branches and histories of physics. Comparing the contributions of Galileo, Kepler and Newton, we can clearly find that the discoveries of Galileo and Kepler can be said to have discovered the "mode of operation of phenomena", while Newton's establishment of a comprehensive system of mechanics and the discovery of universal gravity can be said to be the discovery of the "reasons behind the phenomenon", and these two are two aspects of phenomenological thinking. The research idea discussed in the theory of evolution is actually the idea of discovering the "mode of operation of phenomena", which is an aspect of the phenomenological idea.
Newton's system of integrated mechanics and the inverse square law of gravity reduce many phenomena of motion from heaven to earth into a few principles. In particular, the introduction of the concept of mass allows one to compare the different motions of different objects under the action of different forces, so that they are linked together and are attributed to the same kinematic principles. In this sense, Newton's synthesis does indeed find the "reason behind things". Newtonian mechanics is regarded as a model of science precisely because Newtonian mechanics succeeded in demonstrating the possibility of attributing many phenomena to a few principles. Newton's synthesis can be said to be the establishment of a correlation between phenomena and phenomena through causes, i.e
Phenomena ⇐⇒ Causes Behind Phenomena ⇐⇒ Phenomena,
In this sense, we can also say that Newton's system of mechanics was an initial success story of reductionism.
In contrast to Newton, Galileo and Kepler's main contribution was to reveal the mode of operation of phenomena at the level of phenomena. What they do is to reveal the mode of operation of phenomena through the correlation between phenomena and phenomena, and to establish more correlations between phenomena and phenomena through the patterns of phenomena. Kepler's discovery of the three laws of planetary motion is clearly the pattern of planetary motion, which Kepler only revealed from observational data. Of course, revealing this pattern requires a lot of thinking and imagination, but these laws are not the "reasons behind the movements" of the planets. Kepler did want to attribute the planet's orbit to his geometric model, but without success.
In the dialogue on the first day of the book Dialogue on Two New Sciences, Galileo reconstructed his intuition about motion by comparing the motion of different objects in different media, such as mercury, water, and air, and concluded that any object would fall the same in a vacuum. Galileo noted that objects with different specific gravities exhibited different movements in different media, and he summed up the relevant experiments and observations through salviati and made conjectures.[5]
Salviati: · · · · · · We have seen that the rate difference between objects of different specific gravities is most pronounced among the most retardant media; In mercury, for example, gold not only sinks to the bottom faster than lead, but is also the only substance capable of sinking, and all other metals, as well as stones, will rise and float on the surface. On the other hand, in the air, the difference in the velocity of gold balls, shot put balls, copper balls, stone balls, and other heavy materials is so small that in a 100-wrist ruler fall, a golden ball does not advance from a copper ball to the distance of 4 fingers. Having observed this, I have come to the conclusion that in a medium of completely no resistance, substances will fall at the same rate.
Galileo believed that there was no vacuum in nature, so it was practically impossible to make experimental observations and test movement in a vacuum. However, he argues that the motion of an object in a vacuum can be inferred by thinking about and comparing the motion of objects in different media. The reason is that in a denser medium (such as mercury, water) different objects show different movements, while in thin air with different proportions of gold balls, shot put balls, wooden balls, etc. show almost the same drop. Therefore, it can be judged that the denser medium has a greater impact on the movement of the object, while the thin air has less effect on the movement of the object, there is no obstacle of the medium in the vacuum, and the movement of the object in the vacuum should be closer to the movement of gold balls, shot put balls, wooden balls and so on in the air. According to this reasoning, in a vacuum wool and lead blocks will fall at the same rate, although what one sees in the air is that wool falls very slowly. This is an extrapolated approach to thinking about this problem, typical of experiments and observations correcting intuition about physical problems, and then inferring the situation in a vacuum with intuition. If only the movement of objects in the air is considered, people can not actually or difficult to establish a correct intuition for the problem of motion, and after experimental observation and comparison of the movement of different objects in different media, people have the opportunity to reconstruct the intuition of the problem of motion and discover the law of motion.
We see that Galileo's study of free fall motion is to discover patterns of motion through the association between phenomena and phenomena. Galileo also established the correlation between motion along a slope and vertical free fall motion, studying the motion caused by gravity by studying the motion along the slope, and then studying the motion of the projectile. These studies of the problem of object motion eventually formed a holistic image, linked to more phenomena, and became supportive of heliocentric and geokinetic theories. This pattern can be expressed simply as
Phenomena ⇐⇒ Patterns of operation of phenomena ⇐⇒ phenomena.
Galileo also revealed that the motion caused by gravity on the Earth's surface is uniformly accelerated motion. He was not satisfied with the results of experimental observations, that is, the distance of motion was proportional to the square of time, but through complex reasoning and imagination, he finally attributed this motion to gravity to produce uniformly accelerated motion. This is the abstraction of the law of experience into an abstract law of a more general meaning [4]. But this law is not far from the empirical law, and it can be said that it is still descriptive, a law that describes the original appearance of the phenomenon of motion. What Galileo did was to reveal the nature of phenomena seen on a daily basis through experiments and complex reasoning and imagination, and to find the right language to describe the phenomena. In the dialogue on the third day of the book Dialogue on Two New Sciences, Galileo expressed this view. He said [5]:
· · · · · · In this belief, we are largely supported by the idea that we see that the results of the experiment correspond and correspond exactly to these properties that we have proved one after the other. Finally, in the exploration of naturally accelerated motion, we follow the habits and ways of nature itself as if we were led by our own hands, applying only the most ordinary, the simplest, and the easiest means according to its various other processes.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="25" > the correlation between the phenomenon and the phenomenon</h1>
It should be noted that the achievements of Galileo and Kepler were the basis for Newton's success. It was precisely because of the revelation of the phenomenon of movement and the invention of suitable language that Newton's comprehensive system of mechanics was possible. So, discovering the "pattern of phenomena" is the basis for discovering the "causes behind phenomena." Physics, in a deeper and broader sense, is the study of "phenomena and phenomena". The term has two meanings, namely "the mode of operation of phenomena" at the phenomenal level and "the causes behind phenomena" that transcend the phenomenal level. The term indicates both the goal of physics research, namely to discover the "cause behind the phenomenon," and the pathway to discovery, the discovery of "the pattern of the phenomenon's operation."
This point is a very clear reflection of the characteristics of physical thinking and the essence of the anti-metaphysics of physics .[4] For example, the theory of the reorganization of quantum field theory reflects this characteristic of thinking very clearly. The main point of the theory of reformulation is to redefine the parameters in quantum field theory, eliminate the theoretical dependence on the "naked quantity" that cannot be measured, establish the relationship between observable physical quantities and physical quantities, and finally predict other physical quantities by measuring some physical quantities. Although this theory has the so-called infinity divergence problem, which is mathematically difficult to understand, its correlation at the level of observable physical quantities is limited and can be clearly calculated. This theory has a very strong predictive power, and experiments have confirmed many of the predictions of the reorganization theory, which has achieved unimaginable brilliant success.
J. Schwinger, one of the founders of quantum electrodynamics and a Nobel laureate in physics, recalls his study of the connection between the waveguide problem during World War II and his later invention of the theory of reformation.[6]
"During the war, I also studied the electromagnetic problems of microwaves and waveguides. I also started with the physicist's method, which included using scattering matrices. But long before those three years were over, I started speaking in the language of engineers. I think that for me and Asahina, these years of distraction are not without beneficial lessons. Waveguide studies have shown the effectiveness of recombinant theory in separating internal structures that cannot be detected under given experimental conditions. This lesson was soon applied to the description of the effective range of nuclear forces, and it was this idea that led to the idea of self-consistent subtraction or reformulation of quantum electrodynamics. ”
Both Schwinger and S. Tomonaga, another architect of quantum electrodynamics, worked on microwaves and waveguides during World War II. They all found that Maxwell's equation contained too much information for the waveguide problem, and the direct use of Maxwell's equation into the waveguide problem made the problem very complex and difficult to solve, but because the experiment only cared about a small amount of macroscopic information, it was actually possible to use a more symbolic language to simplify the problem in this problem, which was directly related to the observational measurement. This is actually similar to the idea of scattering matrices mentioned in the quotation, that is, abandoning the idea of starting with a fundamental interaction and making associations directly at the level of observable physical quantities. These research experiences ultimately inspired Schwenger to make important contributions to the theory of the reformation of quantum electrodynamics. Of course, scattering matrix theory goes further down this path, and quantum electrodynamics or the reorganization theory of quantum field theory does not push this idea to the extreme like scattering matrix theory.
We can see that such an idea of studying the relationship between phenomena and phenomena at the level of phenomena has not only a long history in physics, but also has a huge impact before the transformation caused by condensed matter physics, as Kadanov said, and the scattering matrix theory and the theory of reformulation reflect the influence of this line of thought. In fact, this influence is deeply rooted in the soil of the development of physics, which is reflected in the fact that the main path of scientific discovery is actually to discover the "mode of operation of the phenomenon" and then to discover the "reason behind the phenomenon".
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="32" > phenomenology: from the pattern of the phenomenon's operation to the cause behind the phenomenon</h1>
It should be noted that the difference between discovering the "pattern of the phenomenon working" and discovering the "cause behind the phenomenon" is not an optional language game. There are many examples in the history of physics that illustrate the difference between the two, and these examples also illustrate that the main path of discovery is to first discover the "mode of operation of phenomena" and then to discover the "reasons behind phenomena", which is the path through which many scientific discoveries have passed, which is the idea of phenomenology emphasized in this article.
A typical example is the contrast between thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. Thermodynamics uses concepts such as heat, temperature, pressure, volume, work, energy, and equilibrium to describe the thermal and mechanical behavior of a system. Although thermodynamics discusses problems in an abstract and mathematical way, the concepts used in thermodynamics are at the phenomenon level, a direct abstraction of phenomena. The content of thermodynamics is the result of an abstract study of macroscopic phenomena and is completely independent of what the composition of matter is. The content of thermodynamics is typical of revealing "the patterns of phenomena in which they operate". Statistical mechanics is the interpretation of the thermal and mechanical properties of macroscopic systems in terms of the motion of a large number of invisible atoms and molecules and the principles of the microscopic world, and is typical of explaining phenomena in terms of "the reasons behind the phenomena". For example, the ideal gas equation of state is a typical representation of the mode of operation of a gas phenomenon, while Clausius's interpretation of the ideal gas state equation based on the atomic molecule hypothesis is to seek the reason behind the phenomenon to explain this mode of operation, and use this as evidence to support the atomic molecule hypothesis. Thermodynamics and statistical mechanics follow different lines of thought, and the history of the development of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics tells us very clearly that the thermodynamics of discovering "the patterns of phenomena" is the basis for the discovery of the "causes behind phenomena".
Particle physics and nuclear physics study the basic composition and basic forces of matter, and it seems that particle physics and nuclear physics are typical of the study of "the reasons behind phenomena". This is a very typical misconception that confuses goals with means and paths. In fact, there is a lot of purely phenomenon-based research in the study of particle physics versus nuclear physics that reveals the patterns of composition and interaction of elementary particles. On the basis of the patterns revealed, more fundamental principles were further proposed to construct theories about elementary particles. A very good example is isotopic rotational symmetry.
At the beginning of the last century, it was recognized that atoms are composed of atomic nuclei and extranuclear electrons, and that atomic nuclei are composed of two kinds of nucleons, protons (p) and neutrons (n). Experiments have found that the mass difference between protons and neutrons is very small, for example modern measurements show that the ratio of neutron mass (mn) to proton mass (mp) is
mn/mp ≈ 1.001378.
Neutrons and protons are strongly interacting particles, and the difference in mass between the two is so small. Heisenberg realized that it was actually difficult to distinguish the difference between protons and neutrons in strong interactions, although protons were charged and neutrons were not. In other words, in the phenomenon of strong interaction, protons and neutrons are like identical twins, and it is difficult to distinguish between people. Specifically, if protons and neutrons are exchanged in a strong interaction, the difference should not be discernible except for the effects caused by the charge. If you replace the neutron generation in a physical process with protons, the proton generation with neutrons, that is
p ←→ n,
The new physical process obtained by substitution has almost the same physical properties as the old physical process such as scattering section. In professional language, the exchange of protons and neutrons in strong interactions is symmetrical, and this symmetry is called isotopic rotation symmetry. Further, nucleons such as protons and neutrons interact strongly through π mesons, and if the isotopic spin symmetry is correct, similar symmetry properties should be present in π mesons. There are three types of π mesons, with positive, negative, and zero charges, namely π+, π- and π0. Experiments have found that the masses of these three π mesons are very close, for example modern measurements show that the ratio of the mass of the charged π meson (mπ±) to the mass of the uncharged π meson (mπ0).
mp± /mb0 ≈ 1.03403。
This suggests that in strong interactions, π mesons are also triplets that are difficult to distinguish. Heisenberg recognized that protons and neutrons should be treated as two components of " something " ( N ) in strong interactions , just as a vector on a plane has two components , i.e. representations
This is called the dual state of the isospin, i.e. the proton and neutron are the two components of N, and the three π mesons should be written together in a similar way to become the triplet state of the isospin. Heisenberg's proposal is a leap forward in thought, and he actually suggests that when people write the theory of the strong interaction of protons and neutrons, they should follow a rule, that is, the use of isotropic spin diagonal N. Isotopic rotational symmetry has played a very important role in the development of particle physics and nuclear physics. To this day, this symmetry is still one of the basic concepts and basic research methods for the study of nuclear physics and hadron physics.
We can see that Heisenberg's isospines are the result of typical phenomenological studies. The rules he proposed were based on phenomena and were abstractions of phenomena. This rule is not "the cause behind the phenomenon", but merely an abstract expression of the "mode of operation of the phenomenon". Yang Zhenning was impressed by the success of isotopic cyclonic symmetry, he tried to find a principle that can understand strong interactions, he generalized the normative symmetry in electromagnetic interactions to isoisocy, and in the 1950s proposed a non-Abel gauge theory based on isotopic cyclonic symmetry, that is, Yang-Mills theory. Although this theory was misused and did not succeed immediately, in later developments it was recognized that the edifice of particle physics could be built on the principles of the Jan-Mills gauge theory, which thus became a fundamental principle of physics.
Another typical example we can see is that M. Gell-Mann and Y. Ne'eman proposed methods for classifying hadrons based on experimental results on the masses and quantum numbers of hadrons. Gell-Mann called it the octet method, in which eight hadrons form an octet with approximate properties that forms octets. This is a symmetry similar to that of an isospin, but a greater symmetry. Gell-Mann used this symmetry to predict a new particle, which was confirmed experimentally. Gell-Mann also won the 1969 Nobel Prize in Physics for his contributions to the classification of hadrons. The octet method uses the octet state of this symmetry, and it is mathematically clear that this symmetry can also have a triplet state. On the basis of the success of the eightfold method, and inspired by others, Gell-Mann and his student G. Zweig proposed what is now known as the quark model, that is, the upper quark, the lower quark and the singular quark formed this symmetrical triplet state (Note: At that time, some Chinese physicists believed that hadrons should be composed of smaller elementary particles and proposed the layer model). As we can see, the process from hadron classification to quark model is also a typical process from discovering "the pattern of operation of phenomena" to discovering "the causes behind phenomena". In addition, important languages in hadron physics that describe phenomena at the phenomenal level include Björkian scalability proposed by J. Bjorken and some submodels proposed by R. P. Feynman. These studies of phenomena opened up an understanding of the internal structure of hadrons, and quantum chromodynamics based on the Young-Mills specification theory could be established.
It is important to note that looking for "patterns of phenomena" is not about not creating concepts. In fact, one often had to create entirely new and appropriate concepts to describe phenomena, such as Galileo's introduction of the concept of acceleration and Heisenberg's introduction of the concept of isotopic rotation. But these concepts do not express the "reasons behind the phenomenon", but only the laws at the phenomenon level, which is a direct abstraction of the phenomenon. Such concepts are not even necessarily inevitable, such as the concept of isospines. The Standard Model of Particle Physics argues that isotopic rotational symmetry originates from the small masses of up and down quarks and is actually independent of fundamental interactions. From the point of view of the fundamental interaction, the isoisocy is an accidental symmetry that would not exist if the masses of the upper and lower quarks were larger. But this accidental symmetry has played an important role in history and remains one of the basic concepts in the study of nuclear physics and hadron physics even today. This is because the nature of hadrons is very complex, and it is very difficult to understand the properties of hadrons directly from the basic principles, but the use of phenomenological languages such as isotopes can obtain a lot of valuable information. This is the fundamental reason why phenomenological concepts such as isospines and partial sub-concepts are widely used. In this sense, the controversy between the so-called reductionist and the evolutionary theory mentioned above is of little significance. We see that the use of isomorphic language is in fact similar to the study of problems in the form of evolutionary theory, that is, the language of evolution rather than the study of problems from the basic principles. Studying the relationship between phenomena and phenomena requires people to create appropriate conceptual descriptions of phenomena, which in fact already include the possibility of describing phenomena in the language of evolution. Particle physics and nuclear physics, although they want to build the edifice of physics from the most basic level in a reductionist way, also need many such concepts of evolution in practice. The theory of evolution is close to describing phenomena and understanding phenomena in terms of the "mode of operation of phenomena" at the phenomenon level, while reductionism is close to understanding phenomena in terms of "the reasons behind phenomena", both of which are the ideas needed for scientific research, and both are an aspect of the relationship between phenomena and phenomena. Of course, it is undeniable that there is also a complete abandonment of the idea of explaining phenomena in terms of "the reasons behind the phenomena", such as Heisenberg's theory of quantum scattering mentioned above. Quantum scattering theory attempts to completely abandon the language and related theories hidden behind phenomena, such as the wave function of quantum mechanics, and to establish directly the correlation between physical observable measurements at the level of phenomena. This is an effort to understand natural phenomena entirely in terms of "phenomenal modes of operation," and so far this theory has yielded some very useful results, but it is still a long way from success.
If we are not confined to the history of physics, we can clearly see the important role of these two lines of thought and their interrelationships on a broader scale. For example, Mendeleev discovered the periodic arrangement of elements and made a periodic table of elements. It was decades later that the discoveries of atomic nuclei, protons, and neutrons, as well as the invention of atomic theory, led to the recognition that the periodicity of elements stemmed from the formation of nuclei by protons and neutrons. For example, Darwin proposed evolution based on extensive observations of biological phenomena, Mendel discovered the genetic properties of organisms, and it took almost a hundred years for people to find molecular substances that carry genetic information. These major discoveries all follow the process from discovering the "pattern of operation of the phenomenon" to discovering the "cause behind the phenomenon". The discovery of the "pattern of the operation of the phenomenon" set up a road signpost, gave specific clues, inspired future generations to continue to think in the right direction, and finally discovered the "reason behind the phenomenon".
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="48" > conclusion</h1>
Discovering the "pattern of operation of phenomena" is the basis for discovering the "causes behind phenomena", and neither of these ideas can be abandoned. If one fails to recognize the difference between these two lines of thought, and in particular the importance of discovering "modes of phenomena's workings" at the level of phenomena, scientific research is likely to fall into fantasy. Ancient Greek philosophers discussed the question of nature and essence, focusing on the "reasons behind phenomena", not knowing the need to first discover the "mode of operation of phenomena", and it was difficult to make substantial progress. Some modern disciplines, inspired by the success of physics, have tried to build grand theories that explain many phenomena by a few principles, as Newton did, but they have difficulty succeeding. These studies largely skip the stage of discovering the "pattern of the operation of phenomena", and the desire to go directly to the discovery of the "causes behind phenomena" is essentially close to the utopia of the ancient Greek philosophers. This effort is actually intended to skip the stage of Galileo and go straight to the stage of Newton. According to the lessons learned from the history of physics research, no matter how advanced mathematics is used, no matter how reasonable and self-explanatory the principles used, such research is difficult to succeed.
The most fundamental reason for the success of modern science is to abandon the speculative fantasy and study the relationship between phenomena and phenomena in a down-to-earth manner, in which the mode of operation of phenomena is discovered, and the appropriate concepts and languages for describing phenomena are invented and created, and finally many phenomena are explained in a few principles. Discovering "patterns of phenomena" is the cornerstone of what science is possible. We can go a step further and say whether we have learned to explore based on the discovery of "patterns of phenomena" that essentially illustrate whether a discipline is a science.
In short, "the mode of operation of phenomena" and "the reasons behind phenomena" are two aspects of phenomenological research in physics, one represents the path and method of physics research, and the other represents the goal and motivation of physics research, and people should not oppose these two aspects. More discussion of the phenomenology of physics can be found in the author's book The Value of Scientific Thinking: The Rise of Physics, the Scientific Method, and Modern Society.
[1] P. W. Anderson, Science 177: 393, 1972。
[2] Yu Shu, Hao Bolin, Chen Xiaosong, Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena, Science Press, 2005.
[3] A. J. Leggett, Science Bulletin 63(2018)1019。
[4] Wei Liao, The Value of Scientific Thinking: The Rise of Physics, The Scientific Method, and Modern Society, Science Press, 2021.
[5] Galileo Galilei, A Conversation on Two New Sciences, translated by Goege, Peking University Press, 2016.
[6] J. Schwinger, Address presented as the Nishina Memorial Lecture at the Maison Franco-Japanese (Tokyo), on July 8, 1980, Lect. Notes Phys. 746, 27–42 (2008)。
This article is excerpted from Liao Wei's recent popular science work "The Value of Scientific Thinking: The Rise of Physics, The Scientific Method and Modern Society", which mainly takes the main scientific discoveries of Galileo, Newton and others as examples, and describes the characteristics of scientific thinking and scientific methods and their value to people, the main contents include the value of experimental science for rational understanding, how scientists think, the connection and important difference between scientific thinking and ancient wisdom, and the relationship between science and technology promoting each other. Technology presents modern society with challenges and opportunities, as well as technology and art. With a few concrete examples, this book demonstrates the art of scientific thinking and shows that although scientific thinking is a profound and rich method of thinking, it is also a very simple thought.
This popular science book only needs the foundation of junior high school physics to follow the masters of classical physics to think about problems and perceive scientific thinking. I believe this book will give you some inspiration!
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="60" > Extended reading:</h1>
What is the meaning of physics for life? | Liao Wei
Background: The author Liao Wei graduated from the Department of Physics of Wuhan University in 1996 and received his Ph.D. from the Institute of Theory of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in 2001; then worked at the International Center for Theoretical Physics in Italy and the Canadian National Laboratory for Particle Physics and Nuclear Physics; since 2007, he has been a professor at East China University of Science and Technology; mainly engaged in the research of particle physics iconography, including neutrino physics, dark matter, and new physics beyond the Standard Model. This article was published on September 27, 2021 on the WeChat public account Modern Physics Knowledge Journal (Phenomenology of Physics), and is reprinted with permission from Voice of the Wind.
Editor-in-Charge: Zhu Yang