0.9k
1.1k
788
404
1kDoes anyone else have problems with the bazaar explanations that many in the scientific community expect the non-scientists to accept?
For example many scientists try to convince the uninformed and less educated that we and all other things exist only after a human has observed them. Well that’s not quite true. According to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, particles only come into existence after they have been observed by a conscious being.
I wish I had know that before that tree branch that I and no one else observed fall on me last year because it would have save me a trip to the emergency room. You see the tree branch is made up of particles. Therefore according to quantum mechanics it did not exist because no one had observed it or the particles that make it up as it was falling.
Some will try to justify this lunacy by telling you the "reality" of that tree limb is a result of mathematical equations. However, I define its reality in terms of the cast on my arm.
My father used to tell me that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck it probably is a duck.
All kidding aside I feel that scientist’s especially physicists should spend more time in the real world instead of the Alice and Wonderland one they create with mathematics
For example one of the more outrageous claims made by some physicists is that one-dimensional strings define our reality. String theory, as this idea has come to be called is a mathematical construct that defines all forms of energy and therefore "reality" in terms of the vibratory patterns of one-dimensional strings. But have you ever seen a one-dimensional string. I know I have not
Has anyone else noticed that recently things seem to appear and disappear without rhyme or reason in physics similar to what happened in Lewis Carroll’s "Wonderland" when Alice first discovers the golden key is the only thing on the table, but the next time she looks there is also the bottle marked ‘drink me’ or when the Cheshire Cat that appears and disappears with dizzying speed
Physics as the name implies is the science that deals with physical properties matter, energy, motion, and force and not with abstract mathematics. Therefore, physicists should look to the observable properties of realty instead of the unobservable abstract proprieties of mathematics to define it.
The reason assuming the existence of one dimensional strings is without rhyme is because it is based on abstract mathematics which is a creation of the human intellect and can be used to create almost anything one desires. If one desires to find a quantitative solution to a physical question one can always manipulate them in one’s mind to that end. However, those manipulations should "rhyme" or at least have some connection to the physicality of the questions they are answering.
While the only reason I can see for assuming that our world is made up on one-dimensional strings is to force that "reality" on nature because some feel it is the only way they can explain what we observe in it.
However, that is not a valid one because as mentioned earlier physics is the science that deals with physically observable properties of nature and most humans except those who might happen to live in Alice’s world of make believe have ever observed a one-dimensional string.
A quote from "The Cheshire Cat" that Lewis Carroll created in "Alice and Wonderland" brings out this point "When is a croquet mallet like a Billy club? I’ll tell you: Whenever you want it to be!" In other words "When can an equation based on the existence of a one-dimensional string define our world? Whenever you want it to.
Most of those who become physicists have a desire to understand the mechanisms involved in defining the reality of the universe however they should always keep in mind that if it doesn’t walk like a duck, quack like a duck or look like a duck it probably is not and never can or will be a duck.
Later Jeff
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2011
0.9k1.1k7884041k
Feynman explained with a piece of chalk on the blackboard (here http://vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8 ) that the foton is corpuscular. It only looks like a wave because it behaves probabilistically. The video says fotons are both particles and waves. Feynman disagrees: he says they made up their minds, they are definitely particles!
Will buy the books. Great blog.