I continued with:
I haven’t done that at all with my thought experiment. Your only criterion in debunking it is that it’s unrealistic. But then again, so were Einstein’s thought experiments if you would examine them more closely. Neither he nor I were engaged in strawman arguments in using hypothetical set ups that couldn’t be realistic.
Hope that clarifies the issue of what’s a strawman argument.
Then I gave more examples of thought experiments that don’t exist in reality but are NOT strawman arguments.
Famous examples that are unrealistic or don’t exist in realty or can’t be done in reality.
1. Einstein’s elevator thought experiment showing the equivalence of an elevator accelerating at 1 Earth gravity in meters per second squared and Earth’s actual gravity are equivalent. Indeed many popular physicists seemed to have assumed this in teaching the topic.
Yet there are no elevators that accelerate at 1G. It seems to occur only in planes and missiles. So the elevator experiment when extended to 1G is quite unrealistic.
2. Einstein’s light box thought experiment.
From Wikipedia:
“At the sixth Congress of Solvay in 1930, the indeterminacy relation just discussed was Einstein’s target of criticism. His idea contemplates the existence of an experimental apparatus which was subsequently designed by Bohr in such a way as to emphasize the essential elements and the key points which he would use in his response.
Einstein considers a box (called Einstein’s box, or Einstein’s light box) containing electromagnetic radiation and a clock which controls the opening of a shutter which covers a hole made in one of the walls of the box. The shutter uncovers the hole for a time Δt which can be chosen arbitrarily. During the opening, we are to suppose that a photon, from among those inside the box, escapes through the hole. In this way a wave of limited spatial extension has been created, following the explanation given above.
In order to challenge the indeterminacy relation between time and energy, it is necessary to find a way to determine with adequate precision the energy that the photon has brought with it. At this point, Einstein turns to mass–energy equivalence of special relativity.
From this it follows that knowledge of the mass of an object provides a precise indication about its energy. The argument is therefore very simple: if one weighs the box before and after the opening of the shutter and if a certain amount of energy has escaped from the box, the box will be lighter.”
I continued with:
This thought experiment by Einstein talks about measuring the mass of a box from which a single photon escapes.
That simply can’t be done in reality.
3. Maxwell’s Demon.
Also a quote from Wikipedia:
“Maxwell imagines one container divided into two parts, A and B. Both parts are filled with the same gas at equal temperatures and placed next to each other. Observing the molecules on both sides, an imaginary demon guards a trapdoor between the two parts. When a faster-than-average molecule from A flies towards the trapdoor, the demon opens it, and the molecule will fly from A to B. Likewise, when a slower-than-average molecule from B flies towards the trapdoor, the demon will let it pass from B to A. The average speed of the molecules in B will have increased, while in A they will have slowed down on average. Since average molecular speed corresponds to temperature, the temperature decreases in A and increases in B, contrary to the second law of thermodynamics. A heat engine operating between the thermal reservoirs A and B could extract useful work from this temperature difference.
The demon must allow molecules to pass in both directions in order to produce only a temperature difference; one-way passage only of faster-than-average molecules from A to B will cause higher temperature and pressure to develop on the B side.”
I continued with:
Obviously demons from thought experiments, even if imagined by the genius Maxwell, don’t exist in reality.
There are more examples of thought experiments which can’t exist in reality, but these seem to be the most famous three.
Conclusion:
Once again:
Take two debaters discussing a subject, topic, or issue. Debater 1 takes up a position. Debater 2 sets up another off tangent or different subject or topic or issue. And then refutes it. Then he claims to also have refuted Debater 1’s position.
Debater 2 would have made a strawman argument. He would have completely veered off debating the subject or topic or issue at hand.
Debater 2 has set up another off tangent or different subject or topic or issue. This is the strawman. He then knocks down the strawman which is the off tangent or different subject or topic or issue. Then he illogically claims he has knocked down debater 1’s argument. He has not. He has just knocked down the off tangent or different subject or topic or issue that he inserted into the debate.
It seems many people throw around the term “strawman argument” without really understanding it. The above essay hopefully clarifies what it is. (Send comments and suggestions to mabuhibisaya2017@gmail.com)/PN
