Monistic Panentheism
-
I never said anyone who's a scientist is an atheist by default. I simply said one cannot use science to cover their faith is all.
Noted. I was simply clarifying my own point.
They don't 'understand'? What are you talking about? Which part of quantum mechanics (most of which is observable) escapes the 'understanding' (I use this word loosely here, since it is not a necessity) of modern science?
Pretty much all of quantum mechanics escapes understanding. It is the area of physics that defies logic and "reason." Outcomes are observable, yes. But understood, no, not really. As you said, understanding is not a necessity. It is enough that the equations work and produce results, because the empircal evidence is quite bizarre.
Relativity is different. It makes much more sense than quantum mechanics. We could wait until we landed on the moon, then do the experiments and see that things worked the way they should according to Einstein's theories. Relativity is elegant; quantum mechanics is messy and nonsensical.
Pi is an irrational number and is 'infinite' in its own right (it shares many qualities with 'infinite', such as undefinable, not properly divisible, it is used as a limit, etc.); anyway, that makes sense because I'm guessing the 3D graph of the function would expand out to an asymptote thereby filling an 'infinitely small' region (and thus keeping a 'finite' volume, even if it's not an exact volume). My counter to this point would be that 1. nature isn't continuous (I explained why before, because I knew something like this would come up) and 2. This analogy isn't sufficient to explain a soul which is said to be infinite, but enclosed within a body which is finite. Nonetheless, gabriel's horn does sound interesting and I'll be using some matlab to check it out some more. Thanks for the heads up.
Since f(x)=1/x, the asymptote is avoided by not using x=0. The graph only becomes interesting when you look at it three-dimensionally as it rotates around the x-axis. Or y-axis, if you prefer.
And be careful...pi is pi. Irrational though it may be, it is not infinite. I understand what you're saying...just watch your language around a purist! lol
As to the rest of your point, I'll leave that to Tay. He is far more informed and better able to discuss this matter than I am. I only had a passing thought about Gabriel's Horn when I first heard about it in class years ago, and I didn't quite remember the paradox correctly when I first mentioned it here. Plus, math classes were bad about not having any time for lingering spiritual thoughts. Those pesky differential equations took all my concentration.
-
Noted. I was simply clarifying my own point.
Fair enough.
Pretty much all of quantum mechanics escapes understanding. It is the area of physics that defies logic and "reason." Outcomes are observable, yes. But understood, no, not really. As you said, understanding is not a necessity. It is enough that the equations work and produce results, because the empircal evidence is quite bizarre.
It doesn't really defy reason if you think about it. One interpretation of Schrodinger's Cat states that we never quite know whether the cat is dead or alive until we open the box. This, coupled with Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty is thought to insinuate that reality is 'nothing' until observed and even when observed we don't really know anything. This is not true. All SC (Schrodinger's Cat, that's the abbreviation I'll use from now) and UP (Uncertainty Principle) implies is that 1. we cannot measure a quantum-entity's velocity/momentum/energy-content with absolute certainty concurrently due to its inherent claustrophobia, and 2. States can only be measured when observed - this point doesn't go against logical reasoning at all. Also, it is worthwhile to note that these rules are relevant only in a picoscopic world and in the macroscopic world they don't mean much of anything since the various discrepancies caused by point 1. balance out. This is why a tank doesn't suddenly disappear.
Relativity is different. It makes much more sense than quantum mechanics. We could wait until we landed on the moon, then do the experiments and see that things worked the way they should according to Einstein's theories. Relativity is elegant; quantum mechanics is messy and nonsensical.
Actually, without relativity, we could never land on the moon. Also, relativity does get REALLY tricky when it is put side to side with Newton's theories of gravity. The disparity may not be as large as QM and ToR but it is still quite a large discrepancy.
"Elegance" and its converse are in the eyes of the beholder. p
Since f(x)=1/x, the asymptote is avoided by not using x=0. The graph only becomes interesting when you look at it three-dimensionally as it rotates around the x-axis. Or y-axis, if you prefer.
And be careful...pi is pi. Irrational though it may be, it is not infinite. I understand what you're saying...just watch your language around a purist! lol
As to the rest of your point, I'll leave that to Tay. He is far more informed and better able to discuss this matter than I am. I only had a passing thought about Gabriel's Horn when I first heard about it in class years ago, and I didn't quite remember the paradox correctly when I first mentioned it here. Plus, math classes were bad about not having any time for lingering spiritual thoughts. Those pesky differential equations took all my concentration.
I don't quite see it as a mathematical paradox because the volume of the incasing being pi makes sense to me. A function (with a surface area that is infinite) who's volume reduces to an irrational number does so beacuse the volume under the graph approaches 0, but never quite reaches it (as it gets closer and closer to the asymptote). Hence, the volume isn't a real number because the volume can never be calculated. To call it a finite number would be inaccurate, however one could say it has a finite value (or could one? That's a whole other debate...).
And yes, I should have said "pi", not "Pi".
-
Peace Anwar,
You stated
The CPU is likened to the brain. I can hardly see how the CPU is likened to the mind.
As Neo stated, they are one and the same.
Anyway, what is the state of the mind when the human being is conceived? Is there any experience filed away for it to refer to in the future at that time? When were those experiences filed away for the first time, if any? In other words, when do the mind come into existence.
It is my understanding that the mind/brain, just as all life forms in this physical realm, must evolove. It must learn to learn, if you will. The brain begins developing in the early embryonic stages. It wouldn't surprise me if an ocassional person had some memories of being in the womb. There is no concrete time set for learning to begin, although I believe psychologists generally agree that children begin storing long-term memories around 3-4 years old. Forgive me if my memory has failed me here. wink
And how would you know all that?
Me personally?? Reading. Most of this mind-stuff is psych 101. The soul-stuff is from the Qur'an, experience, and more reading, as well as just pondering, trying to make sense of it all.
When does the soul come in the picture to be the silent observer of the mind?
That seems to be the question we're all working on. I don't know bro. Initially, I believed that God said "Be" and the soul was created. Now I'm thinking there's more to it. I'm thinking god said "Be" and the human body & mind were created or evolved, and the soul inhabiting this physical entity is just a part of the process.
Let me ask you Do you recall making a covenant with God previous to this life? This would help tremendously.
Do they come as pairs? And besides all this, does the mind linger on even after death? Again how would you know all that?
It seems you're getting testy here. I hope I'm mistaken. In any case, no, the mind does not linger because the mind is made up of cells that decay once the soul has departed. How do I know the mind is not lingering? I project the future of those cells as they become compost, digested by worms and insects, which in turn are digested by birds and reptiles and other insects, and so on and so forth. if the mind lingers on, it is lingering in the bodies of literally billions of organisms.
So what's your view? Please explain your understanding of the mind, the brain, the body, the soul, and the Hereafter, so we may learn from each other.
Thanks,
Tay -
Peace Neo,
Thank you for being so articulate in your explanation. I understand you loud and clear and admit that I cannot find fault in your reasoning at this point. I will, however, not concede that humans had a starting point just yet. My reasons are somewhat fanciful when put into words but they are starting to come into focus in my own mind.
Inshallah, I'll be able to put forward my understanding shortly.
Peace,
Tay -
I'm careful with my wording, and I did say "pretty much" not "all" of quantum mechanics defies reason.
For Schrodinger's Cat, the next step beyond is that both realities exist. The cat is both alive and dead. We may be used to this by now, but it is not something most people would find reasonable. Neither would they think it reasonable that when they are taking their measurement, the wave function of the electron collapses but it returns when measurements aren't being taken (as seen by interference with other waves). Nobody understands that, yet it is what happens.
On the other side (since Dirac and some others would take exception to your "coupling" Heisenberg and Schrodinger together), for the Uncertainty Principle, yes, it seems quite reasonable in theory. Yet, in practice, in application, that's not always the case. It can be downright frustrating, even though it is best not to ignore it or violate it. And the Uncertainty Principle is not an insinuation that reality is nothing until observed. It is fundamentally a statement about the way things are.
As for the rest of quantum mechanics, no one knows why electron probability waves are able to tunnel through potential barriers. But they sometimes do and this information can be used--not understood but used. No one understands why a single electron seems to pass through two slits simultaneously, yet the evidence says it does. The equation for summing up all the paths works, although my reason tells me that the electron couldn't be taking every single path there is from the source to the screen, at the same time. And two particles each seem to know what the other is doing, when I am observing them. Yet, if I turn my back on them, they apparently have no clue about each other's whereabouts.
No one knows what happens to an electron making a quanum jump. It's at this state...it's at that state. Nothing in between. To add to this, we can't even find the exact location of the electron when its moving around the nucleus of an atom. We are left only with waves of probability.
Acceptance of this information is one thing--understanding it is quite another.
Look at this way...in Newton's Law of Gravity, the force of gravity between two masses is directly proportional to the product of the masses (times a gravitational constant) and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. By way of explanation, I can say to you that what is happening here is that two masses are exerting a force on each other that gets weaker as the distance between the two masses increases.
Or force being equal to mass times acceleration...you accelerate your car toward a tree, you hit the tree with more force. Understandable.
But if I say to you that an electron (or its probatility wave) without enough energy to pass through a potential energy barrier somehow manages to get through anyway...what's that all about? In a double potential well, the electron goes right on through the barrier between the two wells, even though it doesn't have enough energy to do so. It should, classically speaking, get trapped. Somehow, it creates a tunnel and acts as if it had enough energy to get through. It does not! I do not understand this, even though I accept that it happens and that calculations based on this acceptance are useful in certain applications.
There is nothing reasonable or logical or understandable about an electron passing right through a barrier. No sane person would expect to see a ball thrown at a wall go through the wall and out the other side. Looking at the same scene in the subatomic world makes it no less baffling. It's still a case of, "Wow. Didn't think THAT would happen!"
Actually, without relativity, we could never land on the moon. P Also, relativity does get REALLY tricky when it is put side to side with Newton's theories of gravity. The disparity may not be as large as QM and ToR but it is still quite a large discrepancy.
No, we went to the moon with Newton's laws. Why would relativity be needed for a trip to the moon any more than it would be needed for a trip to the grocery store?
I'm not sure what you mean about relativity getting tricky when put side by side with Newton's theories of gravity. Why put them side by side? The view of gravity put forth by Einstein in the general theory of relativity is understandable and reasonable.
I don't quite see it as a mathematical paradox because the volume of the incasing being pi makes sense to me. A function (with a surface area that is infinite) who's volume reduces to an irrational number does so beacuse the volume under the graph approaches 0, but never quite reaches it (as it gets closer and closer to the asymptote). Hence, the volume isn't a real number because the volume can never be calculated. To call it a finite number would be inaccurate, however one could say it has a finite value (or could one? That's a whole other debate...).
And yes, I should have said "pi", not "Pi".
lol You can call it "Pi" or "pi"...just don't call it infinity. That is imprecise and full of assumptions.
And your argument above makes perfect sense, if we were just talking about our personal views or discussing semantics. In mathematics, however, Gabriel's Horn is a paradox. You cannot talk a mathematical function out of being what it is or interpret its graphs based on how you think they might turn out. That luxury belongs to philosophers and not to mathematicians.
Then, again, maybe I've just learned to settle. After I was allowed to take the square root of -1, I felt such wild abandonment, I dared not let myself go further. sniff
-
For Schrodinger's Cat, the next step beyond is that both realities exist. The cat is both alive and dead. We may be used to this by now, but it is not something most people would find reasonable. Neither would they think it reasonable that when they are taking their measurement, the wave function of the electron collapses but it returns when measurements aren't being taken (as seen by interference with other waves). Nobody understands that, yet it is what happens.
On the other side (since Dirac and some others would take exception to your "coupling" Heisenberg and Schrodinger together), for the Uncertainty Principle, yes, it seems quite reasonable in theory. Yet, in practice, in application, that's not always the case. It can be downright frustrating, even though it is best not to ignore it or violate it. And the Uncertainty Principle is not an insinuation that reality is nothing until observed. It is fundamentally a statement about the way things are.
As for the rest of quantum mechanics, no one knows why electron probability waves are able to tunnel through potential barriers. But they sometimes do and this information can be used--not understood but used. No one understands why a single electron seems to pass through two slits simultaneously, yet the evidence says it does. The equation for summing up all the paths works, although my reason tells me that the electron couldn't be taking every single path there is from the source to the screen, at the same time. And two particles each seem to know what the other is doing, when I am observing them. Yet, if I turn my back on them, they apparently have no clue about each other's whereabouts.
No one knows what happens to an electron making a quanum jump. It's at this state...it's at that state. Nothing in between. To add to this, we can't even find the exact location of the electron when its moving around the nucleus of an atom. We are left only with waves of probability.
Wow sytalls I did not realise that you are such a mathematics and physics whizz!!! -)
No, we went to the moon with Newton's laws. Why would relativity be needed for a trip to the moon any more than it would be needed for a trip to the grocery store?
I was going to say that! Newton's laws even allows us to send and land probes on moons of Neptunes.
But tell me sytalls, does not the quantum mechanics say that particle flit in out of existence from the vacuum of space itself continually? If this is the case then something does come out of nothing?
Regards,
-
Reality dictates logic, what happens in reality is thus inherently logical. With that said...
For Schrodinger's Cat, the next step beyond is that both realities exist. The cat is both alive and dead. We may be used to this by now, but it is not something most people would find reasonable. Neither would they think it reasonable that when they are taking their measurement, the wave function of the electron collapses but it returns when measurements aren't being taken (as seen by interference with other waves). Nobody understands that, yet it is what happens.
What most people find "reasonable" is not being discussed here - what's being discussed is whether quantum mechanics escapes the cluthces of logic and reason. There's no way to gauge a statement like "most people won't find it reasonable". 2000 years ago, most people found it unreasonable to think the Earth was spherical. About the collapse of the electron's wave function why is it illogical? It's not.
On the other side (since Dirac and some others would take exception to your "coupling" Heisenberg and Schrodinger together), for the Uncertainty Principle, yes, it seems quite reasonable in theory. Yet, in practice, in application, that's not always the case. It can be downright frustrating, even though it is best not to ignore it or violate it. And the Uncertainty Principle is not an insinuation that reality is nothing until observed. It is fundamentally a statement about the way things are.
You misunderstand me. I didn't say the UP is what insinuated 'reality is nothing', that's SC. UP dictates that we can't never know anything 'for certain' due to the claustrophobia of the elementary particles. However, this claustrophobia is only present in the quantum world and has no practical implications in the macroscopic world. This is a fact.
As for the rest of quantum mechanics, no one knows why electron probability waves are able to tunnel through potential barriers. But they sometimes do and this information can be used--not understood but used. No one understands why a single electron seems to pass through two slits simultaneously, yet the evidence says it does. The equation for summing up all the paths works, although my reason tells me that the electron couldn't be taking every single path there is from the source to the screen, at the same time. And two particles each seem to know what the other is doing, when I am observing them. Yet, if I turn my back on them, they apparently have no clue about each other's whereabouts.
Not knowing why doesn't make it illogical and/or beyond reason. My argument was never that QM was 'absolutetly understood' (such an argument has no basis in science to begin with), but that none of it escapes logic. Yes there are many gaps in our knowledge and surely the more we know the more we'll uncover that which we don't - but none of that makes QM illogical.
Look at this way...in Newton's Law of Gravity, the force of gravity between two masses is directly proportional to the product of the masses (times a gravitational constant) and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. By way of explanation, I can say to you that what is happening here is that two masses are exerting a force on each other that gets weaker as the distance between the two masses increases.
Or force being equal to mass times acceleration...you accelerate your car toward a tree, you hit the tree with more force. Understandable.
But if I say to you that an electron (or its probatility wave) without enough energy to pass through a potential energy barrier somehow manages to get through anyway...what's that all about? In a double potential well, the electron goes right on through the barrier between the two wells, even though it doesn't have enough energy to do so. It should, classically speaking, get trapped. Somehow, it creates a tunnel and acts as if it had enough energy to get through. It does not! I do not understand this, even though I accept that it happens and that calculations based on this acceptance are useful in certain applications.
Again, just because you understand one theory better because it's been around the last 400 years doesn't make it more logical. In fact, with the evidence on hand it's apparentl that Newton's theory of gravity is not as accurate as Einstein's even though at the time, Einstein's theory went "beyond common sense".
There is nothing reasonable or logical or understandable about an electron passing right through a barrier.
No sane person would expect to see a ball thrown at a wall go through the wall and out the other side.
Dude, you're applying the concepts incorrectly. Quantum mechanics is called quantum mechanics because it deals with the world of the small, thus its laws cannot be applied to the macroscopic world. Also, there are many theories which explain why an electron tunnels, for example the erraticness of space-time within a very small volume. The reason we find tunnelling so "weird" is because we assume the space-time continuum to be smooth whereas in reality it's not. String/M theory also attempts to answer these questions.
No, we went to the moon with Newton's laws. Why would relativity be needed for a trip to the moon any more than it would be needed for a trip to the grocery store?
Einstein's theory of relativity applies when you're working in anything beyond day-to-day activity (which is why Newton's laws are still used, because in our everyday affairs f = ma is a 'perfectly fine' equation). Man made satellites use einstein's ToR, rockets use it for time keeping, accurate watches are made by Einstein's ToR, etc. Would we make it to the moon had Einstein not been born? That's a difficult question to answer, but Einstein sure did contribute to our scientific growth.
Also, a trip to the moon is a bit more complex than a trip to the grocery store, let's not water down science to unreasonable levels.
I'm not sure what you mean about relativity getting tricky when put side by side with Newton's theories of gravity. Why put them side by side? The view of gravity put forth by Einstein in the general theory of relativity is understandable and reasonable.
You put them side by side because they both attempt to explain gravity but Einstein's ToR explains it MUCH better than Newton's. Some implications of ToR which defy common sense time travel, time dialation, slowed aging, 'infinite density', black holes, forces not acting instantenously, etc. These are all concepts which were new and as such garnered a big "WTF" from the 'general community'. But, like I've said - science is not restricted to our 'common sense' and neither is logic/reason.
lol You can call it "Pi" or "pi"...just don't call it infinity. That is imprecise and full of assumptions.
As long as you don't call it a real value because that would be even more imprecise and inconcise.
And your argument above makes perfect sense, if we were just talking about our personal views or discussing semantics. In mathematics, however, Gabriel's Horn is a paradox. You cannot talk a mathematical function out of being what it is or interpret its graphs based on how you think they might turn out. That luxury belongs to philosophers and not to mathematicians.
How is it a 'paradox' when its volume depends on an asymptote? ? Here's Gabriel's Horn for people that are confused
http//www.mathcurve.com/surfaces/trompette/gabriel2.gif
Here's what Wikipedia says about this so called paradox
At the time this was discovered, it was considered a paradox. The apparent paradox has been described informally by noting that it seems it would take an infinite amount of paint to coat the interior surface, but it also seems that it would be possible to simply fill the interior volume with a finite amount of paint and so coat the interior surface. The resolution of the paradox is that the implication, that an infinite surface area requires an infinite amount of paint, presupposes that a layer of paint is of constant thickness; this is not true in theory in the interior of the horn, and in practice much of the length of the horn is inaccessible to paint, especially where the diameter of the horn is less than that of a paint molecule. - If the paint is considered without thickness, it would further take infinitely long time for the paint to run all the way down to the "end" of the horn.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel's_horn
Apparently not everyone, even in the mathematical world, thinks it's a proper paradox.
...does not the quantum mechanics say that particle flit in out of existence from the vacuum of space itself continually? If this is the case then something does come out of nothing?
A vacuum isn't 'nothing' because a vacuum can contain energy.
-
Brain = mind.
Peace,
This equation doens't seem correct to me. The brain is a physical organ, a mind is not so physical. Moreover, there are people with brains but no minds (no cognitive abilities).
If someone looses a part of his brain, does he loose a part of his mind??
Is the mind contained in the brain?
Mind
1 RECOLLECTION, MEMORY <keep that in mind> <time out of mind>
2 a the element or complex of elements in an individual that feels, perceives, thinks, wills, and especially reasons b the conscious mental events and capabilities in an organism c the organized conscious and unconscious adaptive mental activity of an organism
3 INTENTION, DESIRE <I changed my mind>
4 the normal or healthy condition of the mental faculties
5 OPINION, VIEW
6 DISPOSITION, MOOD
7 a a person or group embodying mental qualities <the public mind> b intellectual ability
8 capitalized, Christian Science GOD 1b
9 a conscious substratum or factor in the universe--
-
Peace,
This equation doens't seem correct to me. The brain is a physical organ, a mind is not so physical. Moreover, there are people with brains but no minds (no cognitive abilities).
If someone looses a part of his brain, does he loose a part of his mind??
Is the mind contained in the brain?
Well, the conscious mind is a part of the brain. The brain has many functions - conscious thought, logical thinking, creative thinking, and memory management is just one of them. Our concscious thought streams and short term memory reside within the frontal lobe; our long-term memory cells reside within the hypothalamas (it's been a while since I've read up on this so please feel free to correct me), etc. . Others include the motor neurons (letting us get about), interpreting what we see with our eyes, interpreting what we hear, what we feel, etc. So yes, the brain does contain the mind, which is a summation of our thoughts, experiences, and capacity for convergent and divergent thinking. (to put it simlpy). However, the brain is a very adaptive organ so it can usually change function/geography when it needs to so our cognitive thinking processes don't always have to be handled by the frontal lobe.
Our thoughts, scientifically speaking, are the result of a very complex neural network system. Thus we have the abstract ('thoughts') rising out of the tangible (brain/neural network). If someone loses a part of their brain, they may lose a part of their mind yes (for example, stroke victims).
Mind
1 RECOLLECTION, MEMORY <keep that in mind> <time out of mind>
2 a the element or complex of elements in an individual that feels, perceives, thinks, wills, and especially reasons b the conscious mental events and capabilities in an organism c the organized conscious and unconscious adaptive mental activity of an organism
3 INTENTION, DESIRE <I changed my mind>
4 the normal or healthy condition of the mental faculties
5 OPINION, VIEW
6 DISPOSITION, MOOD
7 a a person or group embodying mental qualities <the public mind> b intellectual ability
8 capitalized, Christian Science GOD 1b
9 a conscious substratum or factor in the universeNo offence, but I don't believe in things such as "Christian science" or "Science of the Hadith" because they don't work via the rules of science.
-
neo, I have thoroughly enjoyed the discussion. Thank you.
You wanted to know what I meant when I said that much of quantum mechanics is used but not understood. I explained what I meant...not in terms of whether people would accept quantum mechanics as commonplace in the future but for where we are now. Most physicists would agree with my position.
You misunderstand me. I didn't say the UP is what insinuated 'reality is nothing', that's SC.
My apologies. I was responding to what you said, which was as follows
One interpretation of Schrodinger's Cat states that we never quite know whether the cat is dead or alive until we open the box. This, coupled with Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty is thought to insinuate that reality is 'nothing' until observed and even when observed we don't really know anything.
Here is the question you originally asked me
What are you talking about? Which part of quantum mechanics (most of which is observable) escapes the 'understanding' (I use this word loosely here, since it is not a necessity) of modern science?
When I answered you, stating those parts that are not understood, you turned the argument around with this
Not knowing why doesn't make it illogical and/or beyond reason. My argument was never that QM was 'absolutetly understood' (such an argument has no basis in science to begin with), but that none of it escapes logic. Yes there are many gaps in our knowledge and surely the more we know the more we'll uncover that which we don't - but none of that makes QM illogical.
"Absolute understanding" was not the point. Those "gaps in our knowledge" you mentioned above were the very things I was talking about...since "gaps in knowledge" implies a lack of understanding about certain things.
Then you decided to leave out a key component of my statement about observations in the subatomic world and how they compare with our everyday world. Here is the quote from me you gave
There is nothing reasonable or logical or understandable about an electron passing right through a barrier.
No sane person would expect to see a ball thrown at a wall go through the wall and out the other side.
Dude, you're applying the concepts incorrectly. Quantum mechanics is called quantum mechanics because it deals with the world of the small, thus its laws cannot be applied to the macroscopic world.
First...I'm not a "dude," unless you are using the term in a non-gender specific sort of way.
Second...since my brain has been through the experience of nearly exhausting its limited potential while grappling with the math involved in quantum mechanics, I did sort of get the vague idea of what it's all about--that dealing with the world of the small.
Now, here is the critical part you left off in order to lecture me about what quantum mechanics deals with
No sane person would expect to see a ball thrown at a wall go through the wall and out the other side. Looking at the same scene in the subatomic world makes it no less baffling. It's still a case of, "Wow. Didn't think THAT would happen!"
And here is precisely what you said about going to the moon
Actually, without relativity, we could never land on the moon.
And I said...
No, we went to the moon with Newton's laws. Why would relativity be needed for a trip to the moon any more than it would be needed for a trip to the grocery store?
Then you wanted to tell me about relativity.
Einstein's theory of relativity applies when you're working in anything beyond day-to-day activity (which is why Newton's laws are still used, because in our everyday affairs f = ma is a 'perfectly fine' equation). Man made satellites use einstein's ToR, rockets use it for time keeping, accurate watches are made by Einstein's ToR, etc. Would we make it to the moon had Einstein not been born? That's a difficult question to answer, but Einstein sure did contribute to our scientific growth.
Also, a trip to the moon is a bit more complex than a trip to the grocery store, let's not water down science to unreasonable levels.
You made the declaration that we could not have landed on the moon without relativity, which I countered. You did not introduce the philosophical question about the influence of Einstein's birth.
And I didn't water down anything. Using Newton's Laws of Motion, I can make calculations about a trip to the grocery store or the moon. They are the same basic equations. When I add in the variables and account for the conditions, my calcuations for each of the above trips will yield different results. However, I start at the same place for both--putting something in motion.
What's more, I can make my calculations for the trip to the moon or the grocery store without the use of any of Einstein's equations. Although I can't say whether or not my ability to do so would have been influenced by Einstein's presence on this earth.
You put them side by side because they both attempt to explain gravity but Einstein's ToR explains it MUCH better than Newton's. Some implications of ToR which defy common sense time travel, time dialation, slowed aging, 'infinite density', black holes, forces not acting instantenously, etc. These are all concepts which were new and as such garnered a big "WTF" from the 'general community'. But, like I've said - science is not restricted to our 'common sense' and neither is logic/reason.
You are mixing your relativity theories in the above statement. And Newton's gravitational law does not fit on the same shelf with Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.
But if you look at something from your list, say, "forces not acting instantenously," Einstein did explain why this occurred as part of his theory. He gave a quantitative and qualitative explanation. This is not the case with, say, a quantum jump. We know it occurs, there are equations to use to calculate changes in energy states, yet there is no qualitative explanation.
As for the paradox of Gabriel's Horn, I shared it with you as an interesting mathematical tidbit, something I remembered from calculus class, along with a thought I had at that time. If you are currently in school, you will see it somewhere along the line--can't remember if it's second or third semester calculus or even advanced differential equations. If not, then it probably has no relevance.
You showed the resolution to the paradox, which has nothing to do with the value of pi. My point was that you cannot go outside the scope of the mathematical argument by thinking in terms of "as good as" or "almost" when it comes to infinity and a number, no matter how irrational that number may be.
-
neo, I have thoroughly enjoyed the discussion. Thank you.
Likewise.
You wanted to know what I meant when I said that much of quantum mechanics is used but not understood. I explained what I meant...not in terms of whether people would accept quantum mechanics as commonplace in the future but for where we are now. Most physicists would agree with my position.
My original standing was that QM does not defy logic, to which you replied with "we don't understand it".
This is what you initially said
Quantum mechanics accepts practically everything on blind faith. Physicists accept things work the way they do without understanding exactly why.
My argument was that even if we don't understand 'everything', it doesn't mean physicists take it on blind faith. Like I've said, absolute understanding is impossible and understanding isn't a necessity in terms of a theory being logical. You've posted a list of concepts we apparently don't understand (even though some of it we do) and I could just as easily post a list of quantum phenomena we do understand - but what would that prove? Only that there are facets of QM that are understood and facets that aren't. However, none of that means that it is accepted in blind faith because faith escapes tangibility and science does not. Scientists believe in QM because it provides concrete data, which is anathema to the concept of 'faith'. Also, as I've stated in the first line of my previous post - logic reflects reality, thus whatever happens in reality is inherently logical. There's nothing logical about blind faith. This was reiterated here
It doesn't really defy reason if you think about it.
Also, much of what you've mentioned do have qualitative definitions. For example, electron tunneling happens due to the erratic and volatile surface of the space-time continuum in a very small scale. I'm not sure what the exact qualitative explanation for the wave form collapse is but I'm sure if I hunt around on google I'll find something. Your argument for showing that QM is accepted on blind faith pretty much rests on the fact that it defies common sense, this is not a very tight argument especially in the realm of science.
You misunderstand me. I didn't say the UP is what insinuated 'reality is nothing', that's SC.
My apologies. I was responding to what you said, which was as follows
One interpretation of Schrodinger's Cat states that we never quite know whether the cat is dead or alive until we open the box. This, coupled with Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty is thought to insinuate that reality is 'nothing' until observed and even when observed we don't really know anything.
I see. I should have used the word "respectively" and not left it ambiguous.
When I answered you, stating those parts that are not understood, you turned the argument around with this...
You answered me yes, but your answeres were strictly in the domain of 'common sense'.
"Absolute understanding" was not the point. Those "gaps in our knowledge" you mentioned above were the very things I was talking about...since "gaps in knowledge" implies a lack of understanding about certain things.
Yes, and you used the 'gaps in knowledge' idea to insinuate that QM is accepted on blind faith which is false. There are gaps in knowledge in every facet of science, does that mean everything scientific is accepted on blind faith? Absolutely not.
There is nothing reasonable or logical or understandable about an electron passing right through a barrier.
No sane person would expect to see a ball thrown at a wall go through the wall and out the other side.
Dude, you're applying the concepts incorrectly. Quantum mechanics is called quantum mechanics because it deals with the world of the small, thus its laws cannot be applied to the macroscopic world.
First...I'm not a "dude," unless you are using the term in a non-gender specific sort of way.
Second...since my brain has been through the experience of nearly exhausting its limited potential while grappling with the math involved in quantum mechanics, I did sort of get the vague idea of what it's all about--that dealing with the world of the small.
So if you know about it, why are you comparing them? ? It doesn't seem like a valid comparison to me. For an analogy to be valid it has to contain the same properties and attributes and your examples don't. You're comparing an electron to a ball - that's not a valid analogy. In the quantum world an electron tunneling makes sense, in the macro world a ball tunneling doesn't. You're insinuating that if an electron can tunnel then a ball should be able to tunnel as well - but if you know about QM, which you claimed you do, you wouldn't make a statement like that because you should know why that implication doesn't hold. The reason a ball doesn't tunnel is because it's large in size and the erraticness of the quantum world do not apply to the macroscopic world because the macroscopic world is relatively 'smooth' and balanced. I don't see what's so illogical about this. ?
No sane person would expect to see a ball thrown at a wall go through the wall and out the other side. Looking at the same scene in the subatomic world makes it no less baffling. It's still a case of, "Wow. Didn't think THAT would happen!"
I only left it out because I've addressed it before. See my argument against using 'common sense' to gauge a scientific theory.
And here is precisely what you said about going to the moon
Actually, without relativity, we could never land on the moon.
And I said...
No, we went to the moon with Newton's laws. Why would relativity be needed for a trip to the moon any more than it would be needed for a trip to the grocery store?
Then you wanted to tell me about relativity.
Einstein's theory of relativity applies when you're working in anything beyond day-to-day activity (which is why Newton's laws are still used, because in our everyday affairs f = ma is a 'perfectly fine' equation). Man made satellites use einstein's ToR, rockets use it for time keeping, accurate watches are made by Einstein's ToR, etc. Would we make it to the moon had Einstein not been born? That's a difficult question to answer, but Einstein sure did contribute to our scientific growth.
Also, a trip to the moon is a bit more complex than a trip to the grocery store, let's not water down science to unreasonable levels.
You made the declaration that we could not have landed on the moon without relativity, which I countered. You did not introduce the philosophical question about the influence of Einstein's birth.
And I didn't water down anything. Using Newton's Laws of Motion, I can make calculations about a trip to the grocery store or the moon. They are the same basic equations. When I add in the variables and account for the conditions, my calcuations for each of the above trips will yield different results. However, I start at the same place for both--putting something in motion.
What's more, I can make my calculations for the trip to the moon or the grocery store without the use of any of Einstein's equations. Although I can't say whether or not my ability to do so would have been influenced by Einstein's presence on this earth.
You left out the "=P" so it wasn't precise (the "=P" denoted a facetious remark so I was only half serious...). And if relativity is used for satellites (which I've mentioned) then I think it's safe to assume that it was used to send humans into space. Also, a trip to the local grocery store does not need calculations of 0 gravity. And correct me if I'm wrong, but did Einstein not expell the notion of ether (definitively)? In that case, that would have certainly played a part in the trip to the moon because scientists wouldn't have to calculate for invisible masses. Anyway, I am speculating because I don't know the exact mathematics involved in planning a space flight - but do you really think that relativistic maths, which is essential for keeping satellites in orbit and were used for a long time before the idea of a manned mission to the moon was even properly considered, would suddenly be totally abandonned for maths that isn't as accurate?
You are mixing your relativity theories in the above statement. And Newton's gravitational law does not fit on the same shelf with Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.
They both explain gravity but Einstein's one does it better and can predict things Newton's one can't. Newton's gravity theory assumes force is instantaneous however Einstein's doesn't and this is why Einstein's is 'better'.
But if you look at something from your list, say, "forces not acting instantenously," Einstein did explain why this occurred as part of his theory. He gave a quantitative and qualitative explanation. This is not the case with, say, a quantum jump. We know it occurs, there are equations to use to calculate changes in energy states, yet there is no qualitative explanation.
Again, just because one facet of QM is without an explanation for the laymen doesn't mean the entire theory is accepted on 'blind faith' and is 'nonsensical'. Also, like I've mentioned before people are developing qualitiative definitions. Just beause we don't have them now doesn't mean QM is 'illogical'.
Relativity is elegant; quantum mechanics is messy and nonsensical.
The crux of your argument is the part in bold - to which I say so what? This doesn't facilitate any of your drawn conclusions which are 1. QM is accepted on blind faith, and 2. QM is nonsensical.
As for the paradox of Gabriel's Horn, I shared it with you as an interesting mathematical tidbit, something I remembered from calculus class, along with a thought I had at that time. If you are currently in school, you will see it somewhere along the line--can't remember if it's second or third semester calculus or even advanced differential equations. If not, then it probably has no relevance.
You showed the resolution to the paradox, which has nothing to do with the value of pi. My point was that you cannot go outside the scope of the mathematical argument by thinking in terms of "as good as" or "almost" when it comes to infinity and a number, no matter how irrational that number may be.
With all due respect, you just said that it was a 'paradox' without really exlpaining what the paradox was and the facts you gave were that it fills pi volume with an infinite surface area. I therefore concluded that 1. the volume is an irrational number, and 2. the surface area converges and becomes a one dimensional value thus not contributing to the volume ("because I'm guessing the 3D graph of the function would expand out to an asymptote thereby filling an 'infinitely small' region"). As it turns out, my second assumption was correct even if it wasn't the most articulate. P
The reason I mentioned the value of pi is because it's an irrational number, meaning it's impossible to fill anything to pi amounts. With an infinite surface area that makes sense. Do you think such an equation would ever yeild a value like "1"? No. At best it would generate an answer in the form of "the volume approaches 1" which is a limit; and surely enough, the volume of GH's is indeed a limit. And I don't really remember using "almost" or "as good as" anywhere in my argument. This is what I said
Pi is an irrational number and is 'infinite' in its own right (it shares many qualities with 'infinite', such as undefinable, not properly divisible, it is used as a limit, etc.); anyway, that makes sense because I'm guessing the 3D graph of the function would expand out to an asymptote thereby filling an 'infinitely small' region (and thus keeping a 'finite' volume, even if it's not an exact volume). My counter to this point would be that 1. nature isn't continuous (I explained why before, because I knew something like this would come up) and 2. This analogy isn't sufficient to explain a soul which is said to be infinite, but enclosed within a body which is finite. Nonetheless, gabriel's horn does sound interesting and I'll be using some matlab to check it out some more. Thanks for the heads up.
I don't quite see it as a mathematical paradox because the volume of the incasing being pi makes sense to me. A function (with a surface area that is infinite) who's volume reduces to an irrational number does so beacuse the volume under the graph approaches 0, but never quite reaches it (as it gets closer and closer to the asymptote). Hence, the volume isn't a real number because the volume can never be calculated. To call it a finite number would be inaccurate, however one could say it has a finite value (or could one? That's a whole other debate...).
Anyway, this is going off topic. The original argument was you claiming QM is
- accepted on blind faith
- illogical
And I countered both of them.
Counter to point 1.
My argument was that even if we don't understand 'everything', it doesn't mean physicists take it on blind faith. Like I've said, absolute understanding is impossible and understanding isn't a necessity in terms of a theory being logical. You've posted a list of concepts we apparently don't understand (even though some of it we do) and I could just as easily post a list of quantum phenomena we do understand - but what would that prove? Only that there are facets of QM that are understood and facets that aren't. However, none of that means that it is accepted in blind faith because faith escapes tangibility and science does not. Scientists believe in QM because it provides concrete data, which is anathema to the concept of 'faith'. Also, as I've stated in the first line of my previous post - logic reflects reality, thus whatever happens in reality is inherently logical. There's nothing logical about blind faith. This was reiterated here
Counter to point 2
Reality dictatas logic/logic reflects reality, thus whatever is observable is inherently logical.
-
Wow sytalls I did not realise that you are such a mathematics and physics whizz!!! -)
Thank you, LT. I majored in physics and went to school with true math and physics whizzes; however, I was merely competent. While the whizzes went on to grad school and post-grad and pursue dreams of Nobel Prizes, I became a writer.
I was going to say that! Newton's laws even allows us to send and land probes on moons of Neptunes.
But tell me sytalls, does not the quantum mechanics say that particle flit in out of existence from the vacuum of space itself continually? If this is the case then something does come out of nothing?
Regards,
Yes, you are right about the probes and Newton's Laws.
For particles that come in and out of existence, it can be a little misleading to think of them in ordinary terms. They have to do with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle for a vacuum. And, no, they don't come out of nothing.
Your question is a very interesting one from the opposite side--when something turns into nothing. Either way, there is a violation of the rule that matter/energy can't be created or destroyed.
Usually, particles and anti-particles are discussed in relation to the event horizon of a black hole and Hawking radiation (which is made up of bunches of different particles). Stephen Hawking reversed his position not too long ago about particles that fell into black holes and out of existence. He now says the particles (or energy, since they are equivalent) are spit back out in some mangled form.
There has been a conflict between Hawking and the particle physicists over this issue of the disappearance of energy, and it is the same one that exists between quantum mechanics and relativity. The two don't mix, which is a big problem around a black hole's horizon, where they do. hmm That's clear as primordial mud, isn't it?
The problem of virtual particles may be solved by string theorists one day or possibly with the holographic theory that Tay and I discussed recently--something that unifies quantum mechanics and relativity, whether around a black hole's horizon or anywhere else!
-
Hello sytalls,
Thank you, LT. D I majored in physics and went to school with true math and physics whizzes; however, I was merely competent. While the whizzes went on to grad school and post-grad and pursue dreams of Nobel Prizes, I became a writer.
I must admit though your writing is very clear and engaging! -)
Writer? Science writer? Have you published any books that I can read?For particles that come in and out of existence, it can be a little misleading to think of them in ordinary terms. They have to do with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle for a vacuum. And, no, they don't come out of nothing.
Did not the Big Bang Event come out of Nothing? If so then something does come out of Nothing?
Your question is a very interesting one from the opposite side--when something turns into nothing. Either way, there is a violation of the rule that matter/energy can't be created or destroyed.
Yes, I always was found this notion difficult. Energy is neither created nor destroyed. Therefore energy must have always existed?
There has been a conflict between Hawking and the particle physicists over this issue of the disappearance of energy, and it is the same one that exists between quantum mechanics and relativity. The two don't mix, which is a big problem around a black hole's horizon, where they do. hmm That's clear as primordial mud, isn't it?
Not at all. I have studied much of all this myself a while ago. But I won't say I understood any of it correctly like a physicist would, especially the bizzare world of quantum mechanics. I am still learning. But may be one day, when you yourself write a good book -) (you have sparked my interest to study all this again -))
The problem of virtual particles may be solved by string theorists one day or possibly with the holographic theory that Tay and I discussed recently--something that unifies quantum mechanics and relativity, whether around a black hole's horizon or anywhere else!
Yes, I have looked into this Holographic Principle since Tay mentioned to me a while ago. It does have very serious implications to our present understanding of reality. If science is saying there is no objecitve reality then they are talking in the language of mystics! May be one day there might be a synthesis between the two?
Regards,
-
My original standing was that QM does not defy logic, to which you replied with "we don't understand it".
This is what you initially said
Quantum mechanics accepts practically everything on blind faith. Physicists accept things work the way they do without understanding exactly why.
My argument was that even if we don't understand 'everything', it doesn't mean physicists take it on blind faith.
Okay. I'll concede that point.
Also, much of what you've mentioned do have qualitative definitions. For example, electron tunneling happens due to the erratic and volatile surface of the space-time continuum in a very small scale. I'm not sure what the exact qualitative explanation for the wave form collapse is but I'm sure if I hunt around on google I'll find something. Your argument for showing that QM is accepted on blind faith pretty much rests on the fact that it defies common sense, this is not a very tight argument especially in the realm of science.
Please do find me a qualitative explanation for the wave form collapse Also one on wave/particle duality. And I don't mean a description of what these are, because I know what they are. You've given me a possible explanation for tunneling, now I'm ready for more explanations.
As to my statement about not understanding quantum mechanics, It is best here to let greater voices say what I've been trying to say, starting with "common sense""
Albert Einstein
Common sense is a collection of prejudices acquired by age 18.Carl Sagan
The testimony of our common sense is suspect at high velocities.And about understanding quantum mechanics
Richard Feynman
I can safely say than nobody understands quantum mechanics ... Do not keep saying to yourself ... "But how can it be like that?" because you will get "down the drain," into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.Max Born
No language which lends itself to visualizability can describe the quantum jumps.Erwin Schrodinger
Had I known that we were not going to get rid of this damned quantum jumping, I never would have involved myself in this business!Bertrand Russell
Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little; it is only its mathematical properties that we can discover.The mathematician John von Neumann says about math what I was trying to say about quantum mechanics"...in mathematics you don't understand things, you just get used to them."
For my statement about tunneling, you said
So if you know about it, why are you comparing them? ? It doesn't seem like a valid comparison to me. For an analogy to be valid it has to contain the same properties and attributes and your examples don't. You're comparing an electron to a ball - that's not a valid analogy.
If you read what I wrote, you will notice that I was not making an analogy. An analogy would have been, "an electron tunneling through a barrier is like a ball going through a wall." I never said that. I only compared the reaction to what was being observed--not the events themselves.
No sane person would expect to see a ball thrown at a wall go through the wall and out the other side. Looking at the same scene in the subatomic world makes it no less baffling. It's still a case of, "Wow. Didn't think THAT would happen!"
Okay, neo, let's go to the moon.
You left out the "=P" so it wasn't precise (the "=P" denoted a facetious remark so I was only half serious...). And if relativity is used for satellites (which I've mentioned) then I think it's safe to assume that it was used to send humans into space.
I don't think it is a safe assumption. But since I'm having trouble understanding, why don't you tell me which equations from relativity would be used for space flight?
Also, a trip to the local grocery store does not need calculations of 0 gravity. And correct me if I'm wrong, but did Einstein not expell the notion of ether (definitively)? In that case, that would have certainly played a part in the trip to the moon because scientists wouldn't have to calculate for invisible masses. Anyway, I am speculating because I don't know the exact mathematics involved in planning a space flight - but do you really think that relativistic maths, which is essential for keeping satellites in orbit and were used for a long time before the idea of a manned mission to the moon was even properly considered, would suddenly be totally abandonned for maths that isn't as accurate?
Again, you didn't read what I said about calculations for rocket launches and grocery store trips.
They are the same basic equations. When I add in the variables and account for THE CONDITIONS, my calcuations for each of the above trips will yield different results. However, I start at the same place for both--putting something in motion.
As for the rest and accounting for zero gravity and "invisible masses," I don't have any idea what you mean, so I can't answer.
It isn't that the math used in Newton's equations isn't accurate. Einstein used the same math. Newton invented the Calculus to do physics. So the math itself hasn't changed.
Their theories are different. However, Newton's equations for calculating velocity and acceleration are still accurate. Even the idea of relativity is covered by Newtonian physics. Einstein's special theory of relativity and general theory of relativity are his theories, even though the concept of relativity itself is not. wink It's all "relative."
With all due respect, you just said that it was a 'paradox' without really exlpaining what the paradox was and the facts you gave were that it fills pi volume with an infinite surface area.
Yes, I did. My apologies. I did make the assumption that you would recognize f(x)=1/x and would take it from there.
-
Erm...you didn't respond to any of my counter-arguments regarding QM being taken on "blind faith" and "nonsensical", but that's okay - I'll assume you're respond to them in your next reply, hopefully. You asked about the qualitative definition of the wave/particle duality and the collapse of the waveform - well, one leads to the other but what you're asking for is essentially asking "why is an electron an electron?" or "find me a qualitative definition on why we exist?". Considering the answer is not really relevant to our course of discussion, I don't see much point of hunting through pages and pages of information on Google for it. However I will take a look at a book I have regarding string theory because I'm sure I read a tidbit about this (it was almost a year back) - just never paid too much attention to it. I can't get it for you right now because I don't have the book with me but I can tell you that the explanation will involve strings - something which I wanted to avoid in this topic because it's difficult to substantiate them (even if it has a lot of steam in the modern physics community.). Also, like I've said - simply giving me a list of things that aren't understood currently doesn't nearly prove your point. All it's saying is that we don't know everything - which happens to be a corollary of science.
I'll borrow a quote from a person who said it better than I
"QM does not defy logic. You mean to say it defies common sense, and that it requires you to significantly rearrange your concepts about how the universe works. However, the universe is not obligated to make sense to you."
This is the crux of quantum mechanics and this is the concept you are debating - that it isn't 'logical' or 'reasonable' because you believe logic/reason/reality must conform to your evryday perspective of the world. This is also why you've made the point of comparing a person's reaction to a principle of quantum mechanics (the ball going through the wall), or how it defies so called 'common sense'.
Albert Einstein
Common sense is a collection of prejudices acquired by age 18.Carl Sagan
The testimony of our common sense is suspect at high velocities.I fail to see how this supports your argument of 'common sense'.
Richard Feynman
I can safely say than nobody understands quantum mechanics ... Do not keep saying to yourself ... "But how can it be like that?" because you will get "down the drain," into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.Max Born
No language which lends itself to visualizability can describe the quantum jumps.Erwin Schrodinger
Had I known that we were not going to get rid of this damned quantum jumping, I never would have involved myself in this business!Bertrand Russell
Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little; it is only its mathematical properties that we can discover.Again, all you're doing is reiterating your point of how it doesn't comform to 'common sense'. I never said it did. But science is not obligated to conform to our common senses, so taking a theory based on observation and calling it "illogical" and saying it's accepted in "blind faith" is erronous (I've already explained thrice why).
I don't think it is a safe assumption. But since I'm having trouble understanding, why don't you tell me which equations from relativity would be used for space flight?
I have a better idea since you seem to have a fair bit of knowledge about space flights (whereas I openly acknowledged my assumptions), why don't you tell us the exact equations used in the moon mission - starting from fuel consumption and the final landing moment? I think that would be better as you seem to have a better grasp on the mission to moon than I. I'd actually be quite interested in this because not much of what I've studied went very deep into the science of space flights.
Also, I based my assumption of the trip to the moon on the fact that the GPS system we use nowadays use the special and general theory of relativity.
Again, you didn't read what I said about calculations for rocket launches and grocery store trips.
The mission to the moon wasn't 'just a rocket launch', was it? It involved people in space and that still a daring endavour at the time. Hence you are watering down the science quite a fair bit. According to you, a school kid could launch a manned mission to the moon because most school kids learn these things at 12. The concepts may be similar, but they are not the same - not in terms of scale and scale is quite important.
As for the rest and accounting for zero gravity and "invisible masses," I don't have any idea what you mean, so I can't answer.
0 gravity - space
Invisible mass - the mythical ether, which as far as I know was in concordance with Newton's theory of gravity but not with Einstein's.It isn't that the math used in Newton's equations isn't accurate. Einstein used the same math. Newton invented the Calculus to do physics. So the math itself hasn't changed.
Apologies, I should have said equations.
Their theories are different. However, Newton's equations for calculating velocity and acceleration are still accurate.
Only in relatively low velocities.
Even the idea of relativity is covered by Newtonian physics. Einstein's special theory of relativity and general theory of relativity are his theories, even though the concept of relativity itself is not. wink It's all "relative."
Yes, the concept of 'relativity' is Gallileo's and perhaps older but what does that have to do with anything? They are all "standing on the shoulders of giants" anyways, right?
Yes, I did. My apologies. I did make the assumption that you would recognize f(x)=1/x and would take it from there.
Fair enough. I haven't practiced calculus in a while but my guess of the paradox wasn't exactly far off. p Either way, my answer to the so-called paradox which you initially dismissed based on subjective reasoning was actually correct, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by the way of a 'paradox' here...? If you're trying to prove/show/highlight/introduce the concept of a soul being infinite then I think you're quite far off from it...
Anyway, I'll be anticipating your responses to my counters to your points regarding QM; your points being
- acceptance on blind faith
- illogical.
-
shock What are you still arguing for, neo? You won! handshake
If you read what I wrote, you would see that I conceded the blind faith point right at the top of my post. Which is why I didn't respond to your counterpoints. I'd simply be rolling over worn tire tracks.
The rest of my post was just clean-up of minor things. And the quotes from the physicists were to say that I was not alone in my opinion--just in case someone was inclined to ask, "Where does she get those crazy ideas?!" The quotes express the sheer awe (and bafflement) at what I learned back in school. That was a time when I didn't, as Newton put it, stand on the shoulders of giants, but merely put my feet down in their footsteps and look at the wonders of what they discovered on their own journeys.
For the launch of probes and lunar landing modules, I wasn't trying to take away from the accomplishments or water anything down. But those accomplishments are in the realm of engineering. How do NASA engineers (or others involved in space flight programs around the world) do what they do? I don't know...but they start with F=ma. A few equations later, they leave me in the dust.
I can give it to you in general terms, although you will likely get bored with it before I finish. First, those "relatively low velocities" you spoke of include the speed at which the lunar module was lanched into space, since it got nowhere near the speed of light. A sufficient amount of power is needed to hurl to spacecraft through our atmosphere and achieve escape velocity...again, nowhere near the speed of light. If you look at things simply, where the entire spacecraft is reduced to a point mass, you would ask how much force is needed to push this really large point mass into space.
Once "free" of the earth's gravitational force, when the initial rockets have done their work (force x distance), the spacecraft will move at a constant velocity. This is where "zero" gravity comes in, since momentum is conserved. If the gravitational force is zero, then you don't have to use "mg" in your motion equations. A body in motion will stay in motion, until it is acted upon by a force. (law of inertia) Without the force of gravity (F=mg), a body in motion will just keep on going at a constant rate of speed (zero acceleration). So you can see if a=g=0, then F=0.
Force is used again to change the acceleration of the spacecraft as it approaches the moon. You then use a complex form of "falling bodies" equations to land, changing the value of "g" for the moon's smaller value for the acceleration due to gravity. Reverse this for taking off again, where escape velocities are way, way smaller. Apply the force needed to push the entire spacecraft back into space and toward earth, expending fuel to change acceleration (slow down) as you approach and enter earth's atmosphere.
So, if you look at the basic equation for the special theory of relativity (since our little spacecraft isn't the size of a planetary body, hence not large enough for the general theory), you will see that E=mc(2) isn't practical for space flight. It takes a tremendous amount of energy just to achieve escape velocity for a spacecraft, so I wouldn't even want to attempt to push it up near the speed of light. Because what happens then is that the mass gets larger and larger as you approach the speed of light. It's hard enough to push an electron around a particle accelerator at high speeds, much less an entire spacecraft. Therefore, classical mechanics works much better for bulky spacecraft.
This is a rough explanation and doesn't at all account for inertial frames of reference (which gives me a headache just thinking about the math) or thermodynamics or the many, many, many precise and detailed calcuations for space flight. It is merely meant to illustrate that Newton's laws are all that is needed for a nice little jaunt to the moon and back. The ether need not be accounted for, because it was only used as a convenience in explaining certain things in the "old days."
Okay, then...I will be waiting for an explanation about why wave collapsing and quantum jumping occur. wait
And for more discussion about the infinity of the soul, which I am not at all qualified to speak on. D That is best left to others here who have a far better grasp of the subject than I do.
-
Peace sytalls,
And the quotes from the physicists were to say that I was not alone in my opinion--just in case someone was inclined to ask, "Where does she get those crazy ideas?!"
lol I don't think the ideas presented here are all that crazy, I learnt a lot from this discussion between you guys...now if we could only take it back to the infinite soul
Nadia
-
Hello, LoteTree!
Thank you for what you said about my writing. D And I wholeheartedly return the compliment. There are quite a few good writers on this forum, which makes for interesting (and sometimes lively) exchanges of opinions.
I have no books out, since I have spent most of my career as a scriptwriter and comedy writer.The past few years, I've switched to corporate work, where I do get a chance to handle scientific subjects more often--but they primarily end up being in the medical field. I'm sort of a "de-technical" writer, in that my job is usually to decipher the science and present it to people who prefer to be entertained while being taught.
Really great science writers understand physics in a way that I do not. They have the gift of taking their vast knowledge and sharing it with others.
Modern physics definitely crosses into the realm of the mystics. Or should I say, it confirms what the mystics have been saying all along, especially about objectivity and perception and "reality."
Gary Zukav's "Dancing Wu Li Masters" addresses this quite well. And you may want to check out David Bohm's writing. Along with Tay's suggestions, since he gave me some I hadn't seen before.
As for the Big Bang...well, what can I say, LT? The theory has a few loose threads. lol It's a useful picture, but I suspect it is one that will change as more progress is made on newer theories. Physicists don't like loose ends. There is always the overriding question...where did all this energy around us really come form?
Which takes us right back to the spiritual realm.
peace
-
..now if we could only take it back to the infinite soul
Nadia
peace Nadia
I wholeheartedly concur. hug Let the "soulful" discussion continue! I was very interested in some of the points you and Tay were making.
Should I blow the paradoxical horn to announce the return of the topic?