Newsgroup sci.physics 244457

Directory

On Fri, 27 Jun 1997 16:06:41 +0200, Klaus Kassner
 wrote:
>Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> 
>> An electron, in fact is not a particle. 
>
>It is a particle by definition. It is *not* a *classical* particle.
>
>> It's not a wave either. It
>> behaves analogously to Shrodinger's equation but quantum mechanics
>> doesn't _explain_ the electron, or it's behaviour. 
>
>It does explain its behaviour pretty well.
>
No, predict, describe but not explain.
>
>That depends on what kind of answer you'd be satisfied with.
>
>> Indeed, if it's really an elementary particle
>> it isn't composed of anything.
>
>So what. Is it then inexplicable?
Yes. Scientific explanations are always reductionist, explaining
composite entities in terms of the behaviour of their components. You
can't do this with elementary entities.
---------------------------------+----------------------------------
I was born weird:  This terrible | Like Pavlov's dogs we are trained
compulsion to behave normally is | to salivate at the sound of the
the result of childhood trauma.  | liberty bell.
---------------------------------+----------------------------------
Malcolm

On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, lkhst wrote:
> Craig Chilton wrote:
>   If we evolved from lower life
> > forms, then so what?  Why should we care?  It's what we are NOW that
> > counts!
> 
> In order for you to understand who you are now, you need to know where
> you are coming from.
> 
> 
> 
While I admit that there is gain in knowing how we came into being, I do
not agree with your statement that this enhances our knowledge about
ourselves. Physically there is no gain, because we already know what our
bones look like and in our studies of earlier humanoid species, we use our
own bodies as reference. Emotionally I think there is little gain because
we have evolved to much from our ancestors to compare our mind and social
structures with theirs. Ofcourse here, it also the other way around. We
learn about them by comparing them with us. I am not arguing the
importance of research in this area. I think it's good to know about the
world and it's history and I think that's justification enough.
Dries van Oosten
Eat any good books lately?

On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 11:29:08 -1000, you wrote:
>Ph@buds wrote:
>> 
>> JUKKA wrote:
>> > Somebody is again trying to make humans something more than other
>> > animals.
>> > I don't believe that. Humans are only more complex but
>> > they basicly function according to the same principes. Soul is
>> > just a word. Have you ever seen any? Human is like playing chess.
>> > He is a machine and a computer like Deep Blue can easyly mimic all
>> > that what we call a will, soul or whatsoever "high".
>> >
>> > JOJ
>To JOJ:
>Of course you are right -- humans *are* animals functioning
>according to similar principles as the other animals.  As for
>soul, those who assume humans have one may assume that
>all animals as well as plants, rocks & who knows what else
>also contain or are contained by soul. 
>Soul is "just" a word but then so is science.
Science is the attempt to find somewhere to hang your hat.  Not
everything is currently understandable, but science is the attempt to
identify, classify, and hopefully understand that which IS
understandable.  Scientists start with nomenclature, but progressively
revise and improve that nomenclature to fit observable and repeatable
experiments using the objects of that nomenclature, namely material
things and their interactions.
Religionists also start with nomenclature, but there is no requirement
that such nomenclature be subject to experiment.  The objects of the
nomenclature more often are described as "invisible," "unobservable,"
"ineffable," "spiritual," "otherwordly," "supernatural," etc., thus
avoiding the need to actually observe any of those objects, or to
repeatably demonstrate any causal link between such objects and the
material world.  Thus, the nomenclature and the claimed causal links
to the real world are seen (in their eyes) as unprovable,
undemonstrable (except to those with "faith", i.e. belief which does
not require evidence,) and thus, in their minds, unassailable.
>And how does one mimic what does not exist?
I think JUKKA meant that a computer like Deep Blue can easily mimic
all OBSERVABLE EFFECTS that others might ASCRIBE to something like a
will or soul.
Actually, I disagree with his statement, too, but only on the grounds
that such computers/programs are not YET available, although I think
in the future, such will most likely occur.
>To: Ph 
>>    When I read your reply I first thought of all "animals" following
>> certain "laws" as analogous to the idea that if we could ever know the
>> exact state of the universe at any one time we could predict past and
>> present states.  Except we have to throw in Heisenberg!  To this I say
>> the there are only so many "levels beneath" an atom, quark, gluon, or
>> whatever is the latest discovery.  These "levels" that we cannot see we
>> can simply attribute to Heisenberg and "uncertainty".  There is nothing
>> wrong with attributing these dark spots in our theories to a soul or in
>> the sense if the universe THE soul.
>Certainly not -- science with its self imposed limitations governed by 
>very particular methods & an exclusive focus on the measurable/repeatable,
>cannot possibly hope to answer all questions, nor does it seem important
>to do so for most scientists.  Mapping the territory of soul falls to
>others: poets, artists, dreamers, lovers, mystics.  I like what you
>said about the hidden levels beneath phenomena -- the mystery which
>beckons but is never revealed.
This is certainly true at some level, since there is always a boundary
beyond which science has not currently progressed.  The interesting
thing in my mind is that neither the scientists nor all the poets and
artists and mystics will ever be certain WHICH areas might eventually
be mapped out by science.  Science itself is still doing the work of
determining where it can be useful and where (if anywhere) it cannot.
One thing is certain: the areas where science will not travel are
those areas which are found to be wholly and uniquely individual and
subjective.  This is why the results of working in the artistic/
mystical/poetic/dreaming worlds can only be transmitted to others in a
freely-given, take-it-or-leave-it context.  Such knowledge cannot be
flawlessly transmitted to another, because such results are
subjective, and what is received depends as much on the receiver as on
the sender.
Science deals with those elements of reality which are observed in
essentially the same way by the majority of humans.  If we can agree
on some aspect of an observation, then that aspect is almost certainly
fair game for scientific investigation.  Science discovers aspects of
reality which are invariant among observers, those which are
essentially objective.  If I fail to understand or believe in
Bernoulli's principle, I can still board a commercial airliner, and
its capacity for flight will remain undiminished.  If I fail to
understand combustion reactions, my car will still run.  If I
disbelieve that gravity exists, falling off a cliff would proceed the
same for me as it would for a Ph.D. physicist (assuming the physicist
had the same physical characteristics as me!  :)
This is the power of science; it works for believers and non-believers
alike.
JeffMo
"A valid argument is not formed solely by ignorance." -JeffMo
"A valid argument is not formed solely by assertion." -JeffMo
Religion : Science :: Methamphetamine : Exercise
For email replies, remove the "dipstick." from my eddress.
It should be self-evident that I am not a dipstick.  ;-)

In article <5omomf$29j@crcnis3.unl.edu>,
Dan Freimund <00124962@bigred.unl.edu> wrote:
>: john baez wrote:
>: > Ah, but what are the dimensions of this (unit)?  It depends on where
>: > our unit disc lives.  If the unit disc is in actual physical space,
>: > the x and y coordinates have units of length, so our (unit) has units
>: > of length.
>
>If the unit disc lives in the US, it's ft^2, anywhere else m^2.
I think they keep the actual unit disc in Paris, in which case it
would be m^2.  I heard it's made out of platinum (hence the expression
"going platinum" for rock records).  Here's a little-known true story:
in 1979 a thief broke into the vault and shaved off the edge of the
unit disc when nobody was looking, leaving only an open disc.  The
unit circle resurfaced on the black market in 1985; an eccentric Texan
billionaire was going to buy it to measure the value of pi to more
significant digits than ever before, but he was apprehended by a crack
team of commandos from NIST.  The unit circle was then returned to Paris,
where it was carefully glued on to the open disk.

In article <5ov2mt$jv1@sun001.spd.dsccc.com>,
Mike McCarty  wrote:
>In article ,   wrote:
>)Okay, this is the weirdest thing I've read in a while.
>
>You think like a physicist. 
Please, let's not get unnecessarily insulting here.
To physicists, I mean.  The physicists I know wouldn't find 
the idea of the unit circle in momentum space weird --- or
space whose coordinates have any units you like!   
>You might also study Measure Theory a little bit.
And if you still think like a physicist after that, see your doctor.