|
Post by eamonnshute on Sept 12, 2010 17:36:47 GMT 1
‘I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics'
In one sense it is true that we do not understand it - in the Double Slit experiment each photon travels through both slits but ends up at one point on the detector. This is one example of quantum weirdness that it is impossible to get your head round - it is nothing like the behaviour of everyday objects. But, on the other hand, we do understand it - for any given arrangement of light source and slits we can calculate the resulting diffraction pattern, and the probability that a photon will end-up at a given area of the detector. I am sure Hawking understands M-theory in the same sense.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 12, 2010 18:47:46 GMT 1
I think I might know for the reason for this and it is this:
Human beings (possibly among other sentient beings elsewhere in the universe) are part of that bit of it that has attained consciousness and a need to discover. As such, science has made 'models' of how the universe seems to work but such models are not self-evident and have had to be constructed by way of scientific observations and experiments. However, the very process of such scientific activity has created new patterns in nature that (in my view, anyway) did not exist beforehand. This is why such discoveries seems impossible to understand - they are new ways of modelling nature, so good old commonsense has been sidelined because commonsense was and is only really applicable to the old, traditional experiences of human beings.
In a nutshell, you could say that science is the universe's way of discovering itself and crucially, in the process, changed.
|
|
|
Post by alanseago on Sept 12, 2010 21:34:20 GMT 1
Who will ever know 'The answer', when it keeps evolving?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 12, 2010 21:40:42 GMT 1
I'll have a go at the answer: You're born, you live for a while then you die. It matters not what you do in your life as long as you do something. "The most important thing is work" - Andy Warhol.
|
|
|
Post by alanseago on Sept 12, 2010 21:49:17 GMT 1
That sounds like one of my old superiors. How about "The most important thing is to learn and pass on your learning".
|
|
|
Post by eamonnshute on Sept 12, 2010 21:56:02 GMT 1
It matters not what you do in your life as long as you do something. "The most important thing is work" - Andy Warhol. Andy must surely have approved of Adolf Hitler then. (With apologies to Mike Godwin).
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 12, 2010 22:00:26 GMT 1
A good philosophy for a teacher. Another one: Truth is everything, without it, we have nothing.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 12, 2010 22:03:26 GMT 1
Eamonn, I think "do" (something semi-virtuous) is a given.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Sept 13, 2010 17:36:43 GMT 1
Well, seems this discussion has descended into the usual slough of ignorance all based on what is actually a fairly standard statement in physics -- that god is not a necessary hypothesis.
And in the process, we have those who would rather question all of quantum theory than admit that Hawking had a point............
Spontaneous creation of stuff -- happens all the time in quantum theory, which as I keep saying is the most accurately tested theory in ALL of physics, and theory agrees with experiment.
SO, to bolster up their need for belief, seems that some people will go to almost any lengths, but I kind of knew that already. And then they have the gall to accuse scientists of being arrogant............
Scientists may sometimes seem arrogant, but as far as I am concerned, it is only scientists who are prepared to ditch a whole system, however fond of it they are, when facts disagree with them. Whereas others are prepared to dismiss or doubt facts, and agree to whatever convoluted pseudo-reasoning is required, as long as their particular belief system is not assailed.
No point arguing with some people, when faced with that kind of response.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 13, 2010 19:00:54 GMT 1
"it is only scientists who are prepared to ditch a whole system, however fond of it they are, when facts disagree with them"
I take it the IPCC climatologists re not included amongst the "scientists", then?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 13, 2010 19:36:23 GMT 1
[snip] "..it is only scientists who are prepared to ditch a whole system, however fond of it they are, when facts disagree with them." Then there are the eco-pseudo scientists who manipulate the "facts" to agree with an ideologically driven hypothesis. They used to be called frauds. [snip] Welcome STA and I mean that sincerely.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 15, 2010 8:57:07 GMT 1
Which neither proves or disproves His existence. What it does seem to show is the limitation of science.
Which is based soley on observations, not explanations!
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Sept 15, 2010 13:23:16 GMT 1
This latest posting takes the biscuit for s[snip]
Solely on observations? What ELSE are you going to base anything on, to have a firm foundation?
But we already know, don't we -- belief and wishful thinking.
And the supposed limitations of science are just saying that if you ditch observation as the nail on which everything must hang, then you can make up ANY old stuff you want (no limitations how wonderful!).
You can neither prove nor disprove the existence of god though, even though various frankly rather stupid people keep trying...............
And I might add, the point of science is explanations of observations.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 15, 2010 19:03:47 GMT 1
You seem to forget STA that the various competing interpretations of QM have not had a firm foundation otherwise there would exist only one of them. Observations have not, to date, provided any consensus regarding the nature of QM. So much for observations!
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Sept 15, 2010 19:18:13 GMT 1
[snip]
If different interpretation give the same predictions for experiments, then they are just equivalent ways of saying the same thing. If there are ways to distinguish between them, just that we can't do the experiments, then observations can't help us BUT NEITHER CAN ANYTHING ELSE.
What do you think is the magic way of determining the truth, and can show you show that it is anything more than just wishful thinking? I doubt it.
|
|