by use4d 138 Replies latest social current
The line has been crossed and we aren't even discussing the practical nature of everyday things.
Ah, but you assume there is no practical need to delve so close when by doing so we have already made incredible strides in practical uses for what we have discovered.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
Terry
That is why I disagree with you that we aren't just as sure of what a rock or a toenail clipping is just because a group of curious men invented a means of looking at those mundane objects too closely and contaminated the language and thought processes of everyday people. It is just jolly good progress for a scientist but a pain in the ass of ordinary people.
But what happens, if the "pain in the ass of ordinary people" in few years becomes standard technology? For instance, in quantum computers, see: http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~westside/quantum-intro.html
Or, if you use those (indeed!) "odd, weird, and strange" quantum effects for cryptography purposes in your computer system? See:
Phlyfischer
Danny BloemI'm sorry this was a bad joke. I was not refering to the EPR effect or whatever. I was refering to a quark with a property that is called strangeness. The name of the of teh quark is strange quark. That is why I put hat smily at the end. Bad joke, sorry.I read the QM and elementary particle are weird. No, bt they are strange.Whats the difference? Fact is, the results of QM researches are weird (or strange, or bizarre - in other languages it is the same word). Note: I said, the results. Definitely said, the results we can watch with scientific instruments and measurement units, are WEIRD. Or STRANGE. For instance, an EPR-effect (you can observe it in every physical institute!) is weird. I did not say, that e.g. elementary particles or quarks are weird (though definitely nobody had seen such a particle yet). For EPR-effect see link: http://molaire1.club.fr/e_quantic4.html
Besides: Einstein called this EPR quantum effect a "spooky action at a distance".
Plyfischer:
Danny Bloem
Even the probability function is QM have time and space properties in them, so does that not say the opposite?That is exactly the problem I wanted to make clear in this thread.
The main fault the present QM-scientists make, is that they are insisting on probability functions (including time and space; and "points in time" etc.) to explain and teach the QM-theory. In this way they make the QM-phenomenons extremely complicated to describe and calculate them. There are other - much more easier - possibilities do describe them. Probably, there are indeed relatively simple concepts to formulate a so-called TOE (theory of everything) - but it maybe would destroy the present philosophical mainstream, and for this reason -> that which must not, can not be...
I know thet are extremely difficult to calculate them. Even when using symplifications like bra's, kets and einstein conventions, they are long and difficult formulae. (I hated them sometimes)
I really would not know how you could write or formulate them differently, without losing it's implications.
Most QM scientists and students do not have a lot of feeling or time for the philosopical issues surrounding QM. They, in fact, hardly ever think of the reality behind the formula's.
I would like to have some simplifications here. If you have good suggestions, yu can make a lot of students happy.....
Danny
Danny Bloem
I would like to have some simplifications here. If you have good suggestions, yu can make a lot of students happy.....
Hello.
Consider: If I indeed would know the concepts for such simplifications, and I would make a lot of students happy, what advantage would it be for myself?
I read that QM and elementary particles are weird. No, bt they are strange. The strange quark is a second-generation quark with a charge of -(1/3)e and a strangeness of -1.
I'm sorry this was a bad joke. I was not refering to the EPR effect or whatever. I was refering to a quark with a property that is called strangeness. The name of the of teh quark is strange quark. That is why I put hat smily at the end. Bad joke, sorry
Don't worry Danny, i got it... and i'm quite ashamed to say that i did chuckle... Theres also a charm quark... but i can't think of a good enough joke for that one so i'll leave it for now, lol
Ah, but you assume there is no practical need to delve so close when by doing so we have already made incredible strides in practical uses for what we have discovered.Respectfully,
AuldSoul
No, I would put it a different way.
Man didn't have a "practical" reason to go to the moon and probably went too many times. But, the fallout from the technology developed to get him there and back safely trickled down to the rest of us in extraordinary advancements in computers and microtechnology, etc.
Locally here in Fort Worth/Dallas a huge facility was going to be built a number of years ago; a Superconducting Supercollider. Lavish spending of tax money on office decorations caused a scandal and the whole project was scrapped. Fact of the matter is there would have undoubtedly have been some trickle down benefits in nanontechnology and who knows what else had the facility and the experiments been green-lighted.
I'm not against science or investigation whatsoever. But, I am not so easily fooled that it is pretty much a noble profession and a straight line from ignorance to mastery of the universe.
We must have science. It is the only thing which has kept the Western world in a strong enough condition to fend off the radicals in the Eastern world. But, the seeds of much of the philosophical mindset inherent in the leaders of the scientific community is riddled with mysticism.
T.
I am severely disappointed, Terry, that you have dismissed most obvious degree of observation. The fundamental nature of curiosity is after having looked at the oldest, the farthest, the deepest, and the smallest, is to ask, "What is older?", "What is farther?" "What is deeper?", "What is smaller?", and "What does the BACK of the moon look like?"
I do wonder about clocks and time as well. Have you noticed that car clocks never stay accurate? Could it be that all that moving about at sublight speeds messes with the time constant?
I am severely disappointed, Terry, that you have dismissed most obvious degree of observation. The fundamental nature of curiosity is after having looked at the oldest, the farthest, the deepest, and the smallest, is to ask, "What is older?", "What is farther?" "What is deeper?", "What is smaller?", and "What does the BACK of the moon look like?"
I must be extraordinarily inept at expressing myself with clarity!
I have NOT DISMISSED curiousity. I am a critic of the LANGUAGE of MYSTICISM no matter where it appears. And it DOES APPEAR in science.
Curiousity is absolutely necessary for the rational mind to be fed.
However, there is an industry of popularization which practically died when Isaac Asimov left us. His wonderful insights and plain language have been replaced very often by deliberately spooky and ethereal claptrap passed off as "scientific discovery".
I AM ALL FOR SCIENCE.
It is the LANGUAGE of popularizers which is the target of my criticism.
T.
You are an evangelist, with all of the passion of faith in your cause.
But you are dismissing observation, because it does not fit your worldview.
