Am I Crazy?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

TurboLung
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 04:43 am
@TurboLung,
Okay, so the Higgs Boson has not been found yet, but, physicists know it exists through mathematical equations and the way other particles work. From the extensive array of books I have read on physics, quantum mechanics and whatnot, scientists have no doubt it exists; it is just a matter of confirming it. This is a similar scenario for Super String Theory. If you read about Quantum Mechanics and experiments and observations conducted, there is no doubt that the Higgs particle is there.

Next, yes, I do think we will get closer to understanding why the universe is here through physics. Why wouldn't we? I mean, we have already worked out the Big Bang. This discovery was not discovered through ONE means. There are multiple ways we know about the Big Bang. I am sure the answer to the universe lies under a many layers and that once we discover one thing, we will be given three more questions to ponder about. That said, there will be a day when we understand.

Someone mentioned a dog being satisfied with being fed, but not needing to know where the food came from. Silly analogy. We are not dogs.

Super string theory for most physicists is the answer to some of our deepest questions. It is not yet testable; however, it answers too many questions perfectly not to be correct. We are close to being able to test String theory in experiments that will be revealed in the next few years.

I still maintain that people who think we are wasting our time chasing these answers are idiots and am sooooo glad they have no say in the matter.

www.godsayskill.blogspot.com

---------- Post added 06-08-2010 at 08:45 PM ----------

jeeprs;174568 wrote:
There are no atoms. Some bloke called Rutherford proved that in (I think) 1927.

Remember, 'atom' means 'indivisible'. We now have a 'particle zoo', which is not 'an atom'. Furthermore until the last piece turns up, we really don't have a complete zoo.


It sounds as though Rutherford is another in the long line of idiots.

Atoms do exist. Atoms are divisible. The word "atom" is derived from the greek word meaning "indivisable". So, if we had our time again, the strings in Super String Theory should really be called "atoms".

Anyway, atoms do exist. This isn't even an argument, because it is a proven fact.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 04:45 am
@TurboLung,
TurboLung;174584 wrote:
It sounds as though Rutherford is another in the long line of idiots.


I don't know anything about you, sir, but I suggest that if you have an encyclopedia, this might be a good time to refer to it.
 
TurboLung
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 04:47 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;174572 wrote:
Somebody will say, the electron is a particle. And then I will say, actually it is also a wave. And a wave is not a particle.



Oh, I get it, you are confused with Photons.

Photons are both waves and particles... LOL. Atoms are particles and DO exist.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 04:48 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;174586 wrote:
that is the kind of thing that I was referring to when saying that philosophy has not caught up with physics.


Why would it have to catch up with physics at all? Does taxidermy have to catch up with physics, too?
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 04:49 am
@TurboLung,
Quote:
In physics and chemistry, wave-particle duality is the concept that all matter exhibits both wave-like and particle-like properties. Being a central concept of quantum mechanics, this duality addresses the inadequacy of classical concepts like "particle" and "wave" in fully describing the behavior of quantum-scale objects. Orthodox interpretations of quantum mechanics explain this ostensible paradox as a fundamental property of the Universe, while alternative interpretations explain the duality as an emergent, second-order consequence of various limitations of the observer. This treatment focuses on explaining the behavior from the perspective of the widely used Copenhagen interpretation, in which wave-particle duality is one aspect of the concept of complementarity, that a phenomenon can be viewed in one way or in another, but not both simultaneously.


From Wave?particle duality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
TurboLung
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 04:49 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;174586 wrote:
I don't know anything about you, sir, but I suggest that if you have an encyclopedia, this might be a good time to refer to it.



Are you talking about the New Zealand Rutherford? I think this is who you mean. No, he did not "discover" that atoms do not exist.

I think you need to stick with creationism, wizards and voodoo-dolls and leave science to us.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 04:50 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;174590 wrote:
Why would it have to catch up with physics at all? Does taxidermy have to catch up with physics, too?


Whatever turns you on, I guess. Although I think that stuffed animals have played a somewhat less important role in the history of science than theories of the nature of matter.
 
TurboLung
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 04:51 am
@jeeprs,



Yes, photon, electrons and maybe neutrons behave both ways, but, definately NOT atoms. This is nothing new. Anyone who studies quantum mechanics can tell you this.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 04:52 am
@TurboLung,
TurboLung;174592 wrote:
Are you talking about the New Zealand Rutherford? I think this is who you mean. No, he did not "discover" that atoms do not exist..


Yes, Ernest Rutherford. Perhaps the long line of idiots you were referring to was Nobel winners? Because he was one of them. And I am saying that when the atom was split, it ceased to be an atom - that is not physics, it is philosophy, and I will defend it.
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 04:52 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;174568 wrote:
There are no atoms. Some bloke called Rutherford proved that in (I think) 1927.

Remember, 'atom' means 'indivisible'. We now have a 'particle zoo', which is not 'an atom'. Furthermore until the last piece turns up, we really don't have a complete zoo.


Sorry, but I don't think you know what you are talking about. Rutherford was responsible for the colloquial visualization of the atom. Rutherford model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Rutherford model was discovered to be inaccurate, and it is generally thought that the model involving the electron cloud which represents the probabilistic distribution of the electrons (this stemming from Heisenberg uncertainty, I believe) is the most correct.

The particle zoo refers to the fundamental particles, some of which (up and down quarks and electrons) constitute the hadrons (protons and neutrons) which occur in atoms. Though more fundamental than the atom, the atom is still regarded as a unit of matter. It is useful in chemistry for instance, to have a word for a structural unity of predictable sets of sub atomic particles with certain generally predictable properties and states.

To the OP, I agree that it's pretty ignorant to say that it doesn't matter. That is simply a false statement. All of science eventually finds itself in the center of public attention in the form of technology. Whether it's a new weapon that threatens your security (or ensures it) or a new toy/gadget. The origin of mass may not interest them, and probably for the better as it seems as though it would be quite difficult to understand the vibrant mathematical interaction of physical objects without the proper training and/or personal dedication to gaining such knowledge.

I would also ask you this, since you do seem to think this knowledge has special pertinance: When was the last time you studied foreign affairs and quickly done an in depth analysis to come to a highly informed opinion utilizing the intuition you have gained from the vast knowledge you have of history and politics/political science?

Can you say that you diligently pursue every area that is worth caring about, or only those that personally interest you? Have you placed your areas of interest on a pedestal, and forgotten that there are other important issues? Are you as well versed in the theories and facts of international politics and the ethical implications thereof as you are in physical theory and fact? If not, why? If so, we could move on to the next area of intellectual pursuit that affects us in one way or another.

Or maybe you are complaining about these certain persons not showing at least token interest in anything academic or even anything generally intellectual no matte how pertinent it is to them. That is some sort of mind-state that I have trouble identifying with, but I can roughly understand it. I would assume it has some sort of familial/social basis. Parents didn't read to them as kids or something, I suppose. To find more intellectual things interesting, it seems like you have to break a sort of mental barrier that would allow you to be more self-critical. Insofar as you are self critical, you would naturally be critical of others; wanting to hold them up to the same ideals that you hold yourself. Hence, frustration with those who still possess this mental barrier.

I am tempted to associate the barrier with automatic thinking, quick social judgments and confirmation seeking behaviors. A person like this, it seems, would be easily persuaded when removed from group support.

Perhaps the tendency to be self critical stems from some fundamental point of opposition that sets the self critical person apart from some majority of persons. It has often been said that the more intellectual personalities are alienated; is this by virtue of their facility with learning and reason or by a tendency towards learning and practicing reason, a habit given impetus by some more fundamental aspect of the person? Perhaps a bit of both.

I've found that many intellectual persons I've met give the impression of attempting to justify some aspect of themselves with external means, thereby raising that aspect of themselves outside of the realm of subjective criticism. I must admit that even in the case of myself, I give experimental support to this (and hence am biased towards it).
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 04:54 am
@TurboLung,
I am going to let this thread settle down a little here, but I will observe that there is a lot of temper flying in this matter - from the title of the thread, to all of the baying and braying about idiots. Why would that be? Why is it such an emotional issue? Already I am characterized as a voodoo child or ufo lover, for making some philosophical observations about the nature of matter. Why do you think that is?

---------- Post added 06-08-2010 at 09:01 PM ----------

actually, I think the reason what I said is so provocative, is that people believe in atoms. Have a think about that.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 05:03 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;174595 wrote:
Yes, Ernest Rutherford. Perhaps the long line of idiots you were referring to was Nobel winners? Because he was one of them. And I am saying that when the atom was split, it ceased to be an atom - that is not physics, it is philosophy, and I will defend it.


So, when we mapped the genome of the human, did humans cease to exist too? It is quite interesting you believe that, because we found out more about something, said thing ceases to exist.

Quote:
Whatever turns you on, I guess. Although I think that stuffed animals have played a somewhat less important role in the history of science than theories of the nature of matter.


Philosophy and physics are two entirely different disciplines, and I have no clue why you would think philosophy has to catch up to physics.

Quote:
actually, I think the reason what I said is so provocative, is that people believe in atoms. Have a think about that.


Yes, it is often the case with us reasonable people that we believe things which there is evidence for. I know, fascinating concept. :whistling:
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 05:08 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;174600 wrote:
So, when we mapped the genome of the human, did humans cease to exist too? It is quite interesting you believe that, because we found out more about something, said thing ceases to exist.


No, because it was of the nature of atoms that they were fundamental. If you study the history of materialism, from Democritus until now, the assumption was that the atom was a fundamental unit, indivisible and imperishable. Now it turns out not to be true. I don't think the implications of that are really clear to many people.

Furthermore, as I said a few posts ago, the philosophical implications of quantum theory are exceedingly profound. We don't know what matter is, any more.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 05:09 am
@TurboLung,
jeeprs wrote:
No, because it was of the nature of atoms that they were fundamental. If you study the history of materialism, from Democritus until now, the assumption was that the atom was a fundamental unit, indivisible and imperishable. Now it turns out not to be true. I don't think the implications of that are really clear to many people.


Yes, people did not know much about the atom back then, and without the proper instrumentation, probably assumed many things. Again, so what?

That we learned more about atoms doesn't mean atoms don't exist. It just means we've learned more about atoms.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 05:11 am
@TurboLung,
When I say, people believe in atoms, they think we know what reality is made of, so to speak. But we really don't. After all, physical cosmology cannot account for 95% of the mass of the universe.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 05:14 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;174605 wrote:
When I say, people believe in atoms, they think we know what reality is made of, so to speak. But we really don't. After all, physical cosmology cannot account for 95% of the mass of the universe.


Are you claiming that quantum mechanics in and of itself discredits everything we've learned about matter, and the universe, thus far?
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 05:15 am
@jeeprs,
It's still the case that 'atom' in it's technical meaning has a referent. Namely, a class of amalgamations of fundamental particles which form a step in the hierarchical organization of matter. So, in stating that 'atoms do not exist', especially without clarification, you are making a misstep. Atoms do exist, but not as they were originally conceived.

The argument here is purely linguistic. You wish to debate nothing more than the adequacy of the terminology used to accurately describe it's referent. This is really moot, as those who work with atoms are well aware of the fact that 'atom' is a misnomer. It's simply another term etched in the altar of tradition until someone uproots it.

I do not see any further depth to the position you are taking. No one here is confused about the flaw in the usage of the term atom. You may wish to clarify your position.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 05:16 am
@TurboLung,
Zetherin;174607 wrote:
Are you claiming that quantum mechanics in and of itself discredits everything we've learned about matter, and the universe, thus far?


Not at all. Not in the least. I think it discredits materialism, which is a big deal.

---------- Post added 06-08-2010 at 09:17 PM ----------

QM has also undermined the idea that reality exists independent of an observer. But this only vindicates Schopenhauer and Kant, and as we are philosophers, that really ought not come as a surprise.

---------- Post added 06-08-2010 at 09:19 PM ----------

Hence my argument. Krumple said he knows God doesn't exist, I say there are no atoms, in the sense that they were originally intended and understood, namely as fundamental units of reality. And there aren't.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 05:21 am
@TurboLung,
jeeprs wrote:
Hence my argument. Krumple said he knows God doesn't exist, I say there are no atoms, in the sense that they were originally intended and understood, namely as fundamental units of reality. And there aren't.


The word "atom" refers to atoms then, just as the word "atom" refers to atoms now. That we did not understand the nature of the atom then, is another matter entirely.

As for god... well, na, I'm not even going to go there. But let's just say a birdie told me there's more evidence for the atom existing.
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 05:22 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;174605 wrote:
When I say, people believe in atoms, they think we know what reality is made of, so to speak. But we really don't. After all, physical cosmology cannot account for 95% of the mass of the universe.


Why does it matter what an uninformed group of persons thinks if they are uninterested in learning? Why not focus on what you believe? I would say that if a person knows less than what the Science channel has to say about cosmology then they need to flip through the channels once in a while or Google a few things. I'd be more concerned about what I think about the universe and physical reality.

So a bunch of people are unaware of dark energy. What do you expect when you have full-grown adults who don't know anything about world affairs, basic facts about history or countless other areas that affect their daily lives.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 04/17/2021 at 09:20:58