Am I Crazy?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 12:43 pm
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;174708 wrote:
Well, what is your reader supposed to conjecture that you might mean by "a problem for philosophy"? If you're pointing out that QM raises philosophical problems, this seems to be an entirely trivial observation. The only alternative interpretation that I can think of is that you're claiming that QM poses a threat to the existence of philosophy as an activity. Is this latter what you're suggesting? If so, Jeeprs doesn't seem to me to have suggested this, and I'd like to see a supporting argument.


Yes, I am curious about this too. That philosophical issues could be raised from a discovery, doesn't mean that there is now a problem for philosophy as an activity.

Twirlip, instead of trying to calm everyone down, just tell us what you mean. Smile
 
fast
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 12:49 pm
@TurboLung,
I was in the water, and something brushed up against me. I may not know what to call that which brushed up against me, but I do know that whatever it's called, there was definitely something there. Assuming that it was made of either particles or waves and not both, then there was definitely something there.

I don't know what the word "particle" means, and I don't know what the word "wave" means, but at the moment, I don't care what those words mean. I do care, however, whether or not those words refer.

We were taught to believe that the word "particle" has a referent, and for many years, we have continued to believe that which we were taught to believe, but now a new theory has surfaced that purports to tear apart that which we have learned and come to accept. Could it be that the word "particle" has no referent?

Could it be that there are no particles but instead only waves? The implications would be staggering! But, be that as it may, and supposing (for giggles) that there are no particles, then we still ought not forget that where we thought there were particles but were none still doesn't render it so that there was never anything where we thought particles were, for there [is] definitely something there.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 12:54 pm
@fast,
fast;174733 wrote:
I was in the water, and something brushed up against me. I may not know what to call that which brushed up against me, but I do know that whatever it's called, there was definitely something there. Assuming that it was made of either particles or waves and not both, then there was definitely something there.

I don't know what the word "particle" means, and I don't know what the word "wave" means, but at the moment, I don't care what those words mean. I do care, however, whether or not those words refer.

We were taught to believe that the word "particle" has a referent, and for many years, we have continued to believe that which we were taught to believe, but now a new theory has surfaced that purports to tear apart that which we have learned and come to accept. Could it be that the word "particle" has no referent?

Could it be that there are no particles but instead only waves? The implications would be staggering! But, be that as it may, and supposing (for giggles) that there are no particles, then we still ought not forget that where we thought there were particles but were none still doesn't render it so that there was never anything where we thought particles were, for there [is] definitely something there.


Fast, you do know quantum mechanics describes how particles interact at a subatomic level, right?
 
Twirlip
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 12:58 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;174731 wrote:
Twirlip, instead of trying to calm everyone down, just tell us what you mean. Smile

I have already said exactly what I mean. And as you know perfectly well, I only urged calm upon one person who was posting acronyms for swear words in bold red type.
 
fast
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 03:00 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;174734 wrote:
Fast, you do know quantum mechanics describes how particles interact at a subatomic level, right?


You say particles, but you mean energy and matter, right?

No? I didn't think so. So, I guess I don't know that quantum mechanics describes how particles interact at a subatomic level.

If quantum mechanics does in fact do what you say, then there really shouldn't be any question about the existence of particles.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 03:14 pm
@fast,
fast;174815 wrote:
If quantum mechanics does in fact do what you say, then there really shouldn't be any question about the existence of particles.


There is no question about the existence of particles. Particles definitely exist, and I don't know where you heard otherwise.

The wave-particle duality (which means that things exhibit wave-like and particle-like properties) of energy and matter is one of the ways in which QM helps to explain the behavior of particles, such as photons and electrons (particles), at a subatomic level. QM in no way undermines the particle - if anything it further establishes it.

Quote:
You say particles, but you mean energy and matter, right?


Of course I do. What else would particles be?

Quote:
So, I guess I don't know that quantum mechanics describes how particles interact at a subatomic level.


Not the best source, but:

"Quantum mechanics was initially developed to provide a better explanation of the atom, especially the spectra of light emitted by different atomic species."

Quantum mechanics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By the way, the constituents of an atom (like protons and electrons) are regarded as subatomic particles. You may have heard of the quantum theory of the electron (particle), in which there is a probability distribution that explains where an electron is likely to be in its orbital.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 04:17 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetetic11235;174619 wrote:
I would be VERY VERY careful making such extrapolations from physics. As far as I know this is only speculation made on the peculiar Copenhagen interpretation of QM. I also believe there is much confusion in taking the Copenhagen interpretation to macroscopic conclusions about the observer independence of reality.


I don't think I posted anything rash, other than my 'scare headline' about atoms not existing, which I proceeded to explain. I am not confused about the Copenhagen interpretation. I don't say I understand it completely, but I am certain that it is incompatible with naive realism, at the very least. In fact I think the only people who are 'confused' about it are those who won't admit that point.

I don't speak math, but have just spent a few weeks laboring through On Physics and Philosophy by Bernard D'espagnet, and I think he would agree that QM defeats naive realism (I have returned it to the library so can't quote from it.)

TurboLung;174689 wrote:
Okay. I will calm down. I always get like this after smoking crack. Anyway, I don't get the whole phylosophy thing. What is the connection with what we are talking about?


Whether the world is made of atoms and, if not, what. Whether discovering a 'basic unit of reality' is philosophically plausible.

Jebediah;174693 wrote:
Well, this is sort of off topic because we were discussing it in another thread. But jeeprs, you see what happens when you use a word in a way that doesn't match the common usage definition? A page of arguing, insinuations of UFO belief Very Happy


Yeah you're right. But the basic point is still good though. My theory in all of this is that there is a widespread belief in the modern world that reality is constituted from atoms. I am questioning that belief. This is why it hits so many hot buttons. But, hey, sure got the conversation started!

Twirlip;174707 wrote:
jeeprs (or anyone), what is the Zen way to respond to this? I'm serious. I'm completely at a loss. It is clear that anything I might say in response will be wilfully misconstrued. I have discarded several possible replies, all of which promise only to lead further into a wilderness of bickering sidetracks, all heat and noise, and no light


Don't sweat it. All the heat comes from criticizing ideas that most people take for granted, but that is very much what the point of the Forum is, in my view. I am slowly learning to detach my adrenal glands from my fingers, but it takes a lot of doing.

mark noble;174718 wrote:
There is only one particle in the entire universe - It is responsible for all energy and all matter, it only appears to be many different things at once because of it's ability to locate itself at all available locations.


One-electron universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And now a word from Werner Heisenberg, whom I would regard as an authority on the questions of philosophy and physics. This is in an essay called The Debate between Plato and Democritus. Democritus, as we will recall, was one of the earliest protagonists of philosophical atomism.

Quote:
...the inherent difficulties of the materialist theory of the atom, which had become apparent even in the ancient discussions about smallest particles, have also appeared very clearly in the development of physics during the present [20th] century.

The difficulty relates to the question of whether the smallest units are ordinary physical objects, whether they exist in the same way as stones or flowers. Here, the development of quantum theory...has created a complete change in the situation. [This theory shows] clearly that our ordinary intuitive concepts cannot be applied to the smallest particles. All the words and concepts we use to describe ordinary physical objects ...become indefinite and problematic. ...But it is important to realise that...the language of mathematics is still adequate for a clear-cut account of what is going on. .....

I think that on this point modern physics has definitely decided for Plato. For the smallest units of matter are, in fact, not physical objects in the ordinary sense of the word: they are forms, structures, or - in Plato's sense - Ideas, which can unambiguously be spoken of only in the language of mathematics.
Reprinted in Quantum Questions, ed Ken Wilber, Pp 50-51.

Now note this phrase that sub-atomic particles don't 'exist in the same way' as macroscopic objects. There was a big debate a few months ago as to whether 'things can exist in a different way'. The naysayers, led by Kennethamy, insisted that existence cannot be modulated; a thing either exists, or it doesn't. It is a binary value. Those for the case, including yours truly, argued that there are different modes of existence and that some things exist only in an intelligible or intellectual way. Classical metaphysics recognizes modes of existence; materialism does not.

In all of this, the discoveries of QM have, at the very least, shown that the view of what might be called 'binary materialism' is not sustainable. So it is forcing science back to considering metaphysics, which it had attempted to abandon.
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2010 12:03 am
@Zetherin,
Turbolung: I am asserting that the fact that you place theoretical physics above international affairs and global issues is nothing more than a personal preference. Both of these aspects of scholarship can affect humanity profoundly; you just have a bias towards one over the other. If you disagree, I would like to see your argument.

Science is necessary in a fundamental way to the improvement of our quality of life as a species. Medical science continually improves the duration and quality of our lives. Physical science is called on in many medical technologies. Space exploration is another area of great importance. Maybe of ultimate importance in terms of ensuring humanity survives for the longest period possible.

Why would the vigilant eye of a political analyst that exposes actualities of foreign policy and blatantly agenda-driven ideological positions taken by those in power be less relevant to society than experimentally vindicating theoretical physics? Certainly public policy directly affects each and every one of us. Certainly such issues can have direct affect on the quality of life of many, many persons.

In terms of material progress, science is only relevant insofar as it allows us to manipulate nature to accomplish a practical goal. A well informed political public that is self critical and critical of the power structures that govern it is a highly desirable thing, and so political science is relevant insofar as it can aid the accurate analysis of current and past events by such a vigilant public, and insofar as it can facilitate the mobilization of the public as a political force.

In physics, the curiosity driven research is what the more 'practical' applied research is built on. So there is a direct link to the progress of scientific knowledge and the progress of technological achievement.

In political science, more theoretical and rigid structures are suspect as they often try to encapsulate the laws of interaction at the top level, and hence risk broad inaccuracies. That doesn't mean that studying scholarship related to political science will impede you in making a careful analysis of a political issue. Quite the opposite. So there is direct societal worth to political science.

I see importance and relavance in many academic areas, and I find it quite difficult to take seriously the claim that theoretical physics has more relevance, in it's current stage, than any of those other academic areas. I have certainly heard nothing sound enough to allow anyone to reasonably take the title of physicist as some mantle signifying moral superiority over those who choose to pursue other disciplines.

---------- Post added 06-09-2010 at 02:21 AM ----------

jeeprs;174847 wrote:
I don't think I posted anything rash, other than my 'scare headline' about atoms not existing, which I proceeded to explain. I am not confused about the Copenhagen interpretation. I don't say I understand it completely, but I am certain that it is incompatible with naive realism, at the very least. In fact I think the only people who are 'confused' about it are those who won't admit that point.

I don't speak math, but have just spent a few weeks laboring through On Physics and Philosophy by Bernard D'espagnet, and I think he would agree that QM defeats naive realism (I have returned it to the library so can't quote from it.)


Now note this phrase that sub-atomic particles don't 'exist in the same way' as macroscopic objects. There was a big debate a few months ago as to whether 'things can exist in a different way'. The naysayers, led by Kennethamy, insisted that existence cannot be modulated; a thing either exists, or it doesn't. It is a binary value. Those for the case, including yours truly, argued that there are different modes of existence and that some things exist only in an intelligible or intellectual way. Classical metaphysics recognizes modes of existence; materialism does not.



I'll state outright that I am downright suspicious of anyone speaking about physics that understands the subject matter only through analogies and simplifications doled out by writers of popular science books. Myself being trained in mathematics and logic, I can easily conceive of a description of a mathematical relationship exhibited by physical entities being very skewed when described in plain English without any specialized language.

That being said, I would ask whether the word 'exists' is being used correctly here. Sub-atomic particles may not behave in the world in a way that is consistent with how macroscopic objects do. That does not mean that they exist in different ways, only that they behave in different ways.

I also read a bit of that debate. It seems to me that your position treats expressions that speak of the relationship between other objects and relations as objects in their own right. A mathematical formula is not something to which the predicate 'Exists' applies. 'X^2 -2 = 0 exists' Has no meaning. Mathematics is a language that can describe the relationships between interacting objects or interacting sub-relations. It is not itself an object. I see the confusion here arising from the conflation of descriptions of relationships with objects that can or cannot exist. A relationship is a potential state of being between a group of objects or other relationships between objects, it does not 'exist' in the colloquial sense of the term unless it is confused with an object.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2010 01:05 am
@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic11235;174942 wrote:
I'll state outright that I am downright suspicious of anyone speaking about physics that understands the subject matter only through analogies and simplifications doled out by writers of popular science books. Myself being trained in mathematics and logic, I can easily conceive of a description of a mathematical relationship exhibited by physical entities being very skewed when described in plain English without any specialized language.

That being said, I would ask whether the word 'exists' is being used correctly here. Sub-atomic particles may not behave in the world in a way that is consistent with how macroscopic objects do. That does not mean that they exist in different ways, only that they behave in different ways.

I also read a bit of that debate. It seems to me that your position treats expressions that speak of the relationship between other objects and relations as objects in their own right. A mathematical formula is not something to which the predicate 'Exists' applies. 'X^2 -2 = 0 exists' Has no meaning. Mathematics is a language that can describe the relationships between interacting objects or interacting sub-relations. It is not itself an object. I see the confusion here arising from the conflation of descriptions of relationships with objects that can or cannot exist. A relationship is a potential state of being between a group of objects or other relationships between objects, it does not 'exist' in the colloquial sense of the term unless it is confused with an object.



Heisenberg does not dispute that the science of the matter can be expressed precisely in mathematics. The point he makes is exactly one of whether such things as electrons can be said to exist in the same way as do stones and flowers (and presumably every other type of phenomena).

In saying this I don't think he is using the term 'exist' wrongly at all. The very fact that the word cannot be used unambiguously in regard to such things as electrons is exactly what I meant when I said that atoms don't exist. The significance of atomism is that the atom represents the most fundamental level of reality. But I don't think that this view has been supported by physics, since the atom was split. I am making a point about the philosophical significance of the 'unsplittable' being 'spilt' that I don't think many people are willing to acknowledge. Most people are still philosophical materialists, but the nature of 'matter' is no longer at all obvious. Remember that the rejection of metaphysics by the French philosophes was mainly so we could concentrate on what is 'really there', bodies in motion. But now it is not at all clear that these 'bodies' have any real substance.

Most physicists have long ago given up on ontology, have they not? Isn't the main approach nowadays simply instrumentalism?

And your point about the nature of mathematics also supports Heisenberg's argument. He says, again that 'the smallest units of matter are, in fact, not physical objects in the ordinary sense of the word: they are forms, structures, or - in Plato's sense - Ideas, which can unambiguously be spoken of only in the language of mathematics.' And he is not alone in saying that. Similar ideas have been expressed by James Jeans, Pauli, Schrodinger, Wigner, and many others. So the fact that numerical relationships, and numbers themselves, do not exist - which is not to say they are not real - but that many of the entities we are considering can only be understood in these terms, again goes to the ambiguous nature of the existence of these so-called particles.
 
TurboLung
 
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2010 05:23 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;174847 wrote:

Whether the world is made of atoms and, if not, what. Whether discovering a 'basic unit of reality' is philosophically plausible.


Sorry, I am flabagasted by your question. Yes, there are atoms. They are 100% proven in a myriad of ways. They are particles and not waves. The "objects" within the atom can behave like particles and behave like waves. I am certain this is the case with photons, although, not 100% with protons, neutrons etc [Yes, I realise photons do not make up atoms].

What science believe now, and have VERY GOOD reason to believe is in Super String Theory. Basically that on a smaller scale imaginable [so small we can not test it YET] that all particles are made of vibrating strings of energy. The strings are open strings and closed strings. These strings are attached to a 3D membrane, which is the universe.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2010 05:41 am
@TurboLung,
Hey, we're philosophers. We are supposed to question things that everyone takes for granted. I think there are phenomena that answer to the name 'atoms' and that atomic scientists study them. Obviously atomic chemistry and atomic physics are real disciplines with real objects. But look into the history of materialism and what the atom was supposed to be. It is not nearly so clear cut as we would like to make out. Atoms, in the sense posited by traditional philosophy, were the fundamental particles out of which everything is made. And I don't think there is such a thing. In fact I'm experimenting with the idea that reality is not made of anything. But that's for another thread.

As for string theory, multiverses, and all the rest of it, I don't know if it it is possible to find out if they are real or not. And there are much greater thinkers than I who have similar views. Have a look at The Trouble with Physics, by Lee Smolin.

---------- Post added 06-09-2010 at 09:46 PM ----------

Be sure to read the top review of The Trouble with Physics.
 
TurboLung
 
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2010 06:17 am
@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic11235;174942 wrote:
Turbolung: I am asserting that the fact that you place theoretical physics above international affairs and global issues is nothing more than a personal preference.

Incorrect assertion.

Both of these aspects of scholarship can affect humanity profoundly; you just have a bias towards one over the other. If you disagree, I would like to see your argument.

You are falsely assuming I care about the "affect on humanity". In fact, even if we one day discover "the meaning of life", I don't think it matters one bit whether it helps us or not. The mere fact that we understand the meaning of life would be the greatest feat of human achievement forevermore.


Science is necessary in a fundamental way to the improvement of our quality of life as a species. Medical science continually improves the duration and quality of our lives. Physical science is called on in many medical technologies. Space exploration is another area of great importance. Maybe of ultimate importance in terms of ensuring humanity survives for the longest period possible.

Possibly. This does not refute my claim though, but, I appreciate your thoughts.

Why would the vigilant eye of a political analyst that exposes actualities of foreign policy and blatantly agenda-driven ideological positions taken by those in power be less relevant to society than experimentally vindicating theoretical physics? Certainly public policy directly affects each and every one of us. Certainly such issues can have direct affect on the quality of life of many, many persons.

Comparing trivial matters like politics to the meaning of life is like comparing a creationist to Einstein, or, a turd to a chunk of gold.

In terms of material progress, science is only relevant insofar as it allows us to manipulate nature to acucomplish a practical goal.

And?

A well informed political public that is self critical and critical of the power structures that govern it is a highly desirable thing, and so political science is relevant insofar as it can aid the accurate analysis of current and past events by such a vigilant public, and insofar as it can facilitate the mobilization of the public as a political force.

I am lost as to the direction you are taking in politics. I don't care about politics. It does not rate to the discovery of the meaning of life.

In physics, the curiosity driven research is what the more 'practical' applied research is built on. So there is a direct link to the progress of scientific knowledge and the progress of technological achievement.

Yes.

In political science, more theoretical and rigid structures are suspect as they often try to encapsulate the laws of interaction at the top level, and hence risk broad inaccuracies. That doesn't mean that studying scholarship related to political science will impede you in making a careful analysis of a political issue. Quite the opposite. So there is direct societal worth to political science.

No offence, but I don't follow.

I see importance and relavance in many academic areas, and I find it quite difficult to take seriously the claim that theoretical physics has more relevance, in it's current stage, than any of those other academic areas. I have certainly heard nothing sound enough to allow anyone to reasonably take the title of physicist as some mantle signifying moral superiority over those who choose to pursue other disciplines.

I would agree, but again, this is irrelevant to my initial post.
ant to my claim.



....................
 
Twirlip
 
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2010 06:26 am
@TurboLung,
TurboLung;174984 wrote:
Sorry, I am flabagasted by your question. Yes, there are atoms. They are 100% proven in a myriad of ways. They are particles and not waves.

Do try to inform yourself about a subject before presuming to condescend to someone better informed than yourself. Ignorance and arrogance are both excusable, but their combination is not.

Alastair Rae, author of the standard textbook Quantum Mechanics, now in its 5th edition, writes, in his popular exposition Quantum Physics: Illusion or Reality? (page 3 of the second edition, 2004):
Quote:
Some of the implications of quantum physics, however, are even more radical than this. Traditionally, one of the aims of physics has been to provide an ontology, by which is meant a description of physical reality - things as they 'really are'. A classical ontology is based on the concepts of particles, forces and fields interacting under known laws. In contrast, in the standard interpretation of quantum physics it is often impossible to provide such a consistent ontology. [...] So crucial is this that some people have been led to believe that it is the actual human observer's mind that is the only reality - that everything else, including the whole physical universe, is an illusion. To avoid this, some have attempted to develop alternative theories with realistic ontologies but which reproduce the results of quantum physics wherever these have been experimentally tested. Others have suggested that quantum physics implies that ours is not the only physical universe and that if we postulate the existence of a myriad of universes with which we have only fleeting interactions, then a form of realism and determinism can be recovered. Others again think that, despite its manifest successes, quantum physics is not the final complete theory of the physical universe and that a further revolution in thought is needed.
(And there's not only quantum ontology, there's quantum logic as well! I find all this very disturbing myself, because I'm a dyed-in-the-wool realist who believes in classical logic. But a real, logical realist has to be realistic enough to face the reality of even a real threat to his beloved realism.)

Even the most cursory research on the Internet would turn up countless similar statements, all made by respected authorities. For God's sake, do some homework before shooting your mouth off!
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2010 06:27 am
@TurboLung,
TurboLung: You think that at CERN, they're trying to find the "meaning of life"?
 
TurboLung
 
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2010 06:34 am
@Twirlip,
Twirlip;174993 wrote:
Do try to inform yourself about a subject before presuming to condescend to someone better informed than yourself. Ignorance and arrogance are both excusable, but their combination is not.

Alastair Rae, author of the standard textbook Quantum Mechanics, now in its 5th edition, writes, in his popular exposition Quantum Physics: Illusion or Reality? (page 3 of the second edition, 2004):
(And there's not only quantum ontology, there's quantum logic as well! I find all this very disturbing myself, because I'm a dyed-in-the-wool realist who believes in classical logic. But a real, logical realist has to be realistic enough to face the reality of even a real threat to his beloved realism.)

Even the most cursory research on the Internet would turn up countless similar statements, all made by respected authorities. For God's sake, do some homework before shooting your mouth off!



Huh? Tell me in one plain, comprehensible sentence what you are saying. What do I need to "inform" myself about? :sarcastic:

---------- Post added 06-09-2010 at 10:45 PM ----------

ughaibu;174994 wrote:
TurboLung: You think that at CERN, they're trying to find the "meaning of life"?


The Higgs particle, which makes up the suspected Higgs ocean is ONE of the main things being searched for, which, will go alot to explaining the composition of the universe. The whole search for the Higgs and other particles, the graviton etc are all because we want to unify Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. The whole reason we want to unify the two areas is that once we do, we can know what happened prior to the Big Bang and also other side dishes like what happens in a black hole.

Super String Theory should gain a lot more evidence and support from CERN.

Of course, our quest could be like opening up those little Russian dolls. Once we open this one, another will present itself.

My answer to your question is yes.
 
Twirlip
 
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2010 06:45 am
@TurboLung,
TurboLung;174996 wrote:
Huh? Tell me in one plain, comprehensible sentence what you are saying. What do I need to "inform" myself about? :sarcastic:

If Rae's not good enough for you, I refer you back to the short, comprehensible sentence by Richard Feynman which I quoted earlier. The book from which it is taken is excellent.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2010 06:53 am
@TurboLung,
TurboLung;174996 wrote:
The whole search for the Higgs and other particles, the graviton etc are all because we want to unify Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity.
There is no unifying theory, as far as I'm aware, so there are no experimental results that can confirm such a theory. In any case, a unified theory is not "the meaning of life", as far as I'm concerned, do you think that it is?
TurboLung;174996 wrote:
The whole reason we want to unify the two areas is that once we do, we can know what happened prior to the Big Bang
Please cite your sources for this claim.
 
mark noble
 
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2010 08:12 am
@TurboLung,
TurboLung;174996 wrote:

Of course, our quest could be like opening up those little Russian dolls. Once we open this one, another will present itself.
.


Hi Turbolong,
I absolutely agree with you on this. Can we define the 'russian dolls' parallel, by the way? Infinite interiors and infinite exteriors - potentially fractilian too...

And, in SS-theory, should we perceive the strings as we perceive galaxies? I do - That's how I relate to and expand from... There's more, by the way, but I'm still drawing conclusions - so wont submit until complete.

Thank you, and have a great day.
Mark...
 
TurboLung
 
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2010 09:04 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;175002 wrote:
There is no unifying theory, as far as I'm aware, so there are no experimental results that can confirm such a theory. In any case, a unified theory is not "the meaning of life", as far as I'm concerned, do you think that it is?Please cite your sources for this claim.


As I stated, there is no unifying theory. That is what they are trying to do; unify the theories. Did you even read what I wrote? String Theory is the most solid hypothesis yet.

Did you read what I wrote about the Big Bang? Obviously not. The reason for all this reasearch is primarily to move beyond the Big Bang. The beginning of our universe. This is also closely linked to perhaps a meaning to our universe. Do you want me to break it down further?

The latest story in the link below is a great reference to what I am trying to convey:


God Says Kill



Also, you want me to reference why physicists want to unify General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics? It is common knowledge amongst physicists. It is the Holy Grail of their work. Pick up any general book on Physics and read it.

---------- Post added 06-10-2010 at 01:10 AM ----------

mark noble;175020 wrote:
Hi Turbolong,
I absolutely agree with you on this. Can we define the 'russian dolls' parallel, by the way? Infinite interiors and infinite exteriors - potentially fractilian too...

And, in SS-theory, should we perceive the strings as we perceive galaxies? I do - That's how I relate to and expand from... There's more, by the way, but I'm still drawing conclusions - so wont submit until complete.

Thank you, and have a great day.
Mark...


Mark, from what I have read about SS-Theory, there is nothing smaller than a "string". If you went smaller, its meaning would be the same as asking, "Is the number 9 happy?" So, physisits believe that space and time are not infinitely divisible. Also, just as a thought, we know as a fact that time does NOT flow. It is just there like a block of ice.
 
mark noble
 
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2010 09:23 am
@TurboLung,
TurboLung;175032 wrote:

Mark, from what I have read about SS-Theory, there is nothing smaller than a "string". If you went smaller, its meaning would be the same as asking, "Is the number 9 happy?" So, physisits believe that space and time are not infinitely divisible. Also, just as a thought, we know as a fact that time does NOT flow. It is just there like a block of ice.


Hi Turbolung,
I know what physicists believe, but they are confined to believing only what is measurable by them, I am not governed by said principle.
Do you think a string cannot be halved? I don't believe anything cannot be halved, nor not doubled either.

Anyway, thank you for taking time to reply, I am grateful, indeed.
Have a fantastic day, sir.
Mark...
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 03/08/2021 at 09:41:10