Zensim,
You seem very humble. An excellent book for average people like you and I is:
E=Mc2: A Biography of the World's Most Famous Equation
by David Bodanis
Its sort of a history book that covers all the discoveries of the big hitters like Maxwell, Einstein, and all the people they stood on the shoulders of.
You can get it for a few bucks on half.com.
Another very good book in my opinion is "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson.
It shows how miraculous it is that we are here at all. Some christains use it to promote intelligent design.
From the wiki:
"A Short History deviates from Bryson's popular travel book genre, instead describing general sciences such as chemistry, paleontology, astronomy, and particle physics.
Bill Bryson wrote this book because he was dissatisfied with his scientific knowledge — that was, not much at all. He writes that science was a distant, unexplained subject at school. Textbooks and teachers alike did not ignite the passion for knowledge in him, mainly because they never delved in the whys, hows, and whens."
A New Theory of the Universe
by BurnTheShips 57 Replies latest jw friends
-
catbert
-
zensim
Thanks Catbert. I haven't read a Bill Bryson book for years. You are about the third person to recommend that book to me in as many months - so I guess I better take the hint
The quote from Bryson was helpful. I think my problem is that I do read a lot of science (and philosophy, spirituality, psychology) and I am a very creative thinker (ie evolving). But unlike the other subjects, which seem to come more naturally to me - the problem with science for me is that I seem to be lacking the very basic building blocks of science.
For instance, just today I was reading about Double Dark Theory. Which is all very well - but I barely even know the basics of dark matter and dark energy. When it comes to science I always feel like I am jumping in the deep end before I have even learnt to swim.
So I will take your swimming instructors and curb my impatience.
-
VoidEater
A very accessible and popular work on The Theory of Everything may be found in The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene:
To illustrate the gap between quantum theory and relativity, I offer this:
"The problem is that gravity is not represented in the mathematics of the micro world and the three forces of the micro world are not inlcuded in celestial mechanics nor Einstein's general relativity, their respective mathematics are not compatible. The math of the atomic forces does not explain gravity, though it is believed it should becuase gravity is generated by the same atomic particles responsle for the other three forces of nature. Realizing this, Einstein unsuccessfully tried to unify the two in a Grand Unification Theory. Some time after Einstein's death, coming from an entirely new direction, this effort was renewed and came to be known as The Theory of Everything. Current effort in this direction now goes by the label of Super String Theory. This theory is to show how the many particles of matter and the known four forces of nature, including gravity, can be expressed with a single unified theory." -personal communication
-
catbert
What I like about The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene is, no math!
-
Caedes
The Bose-Einstein Condensate is an example of quantum effects on a macro scale. A supercooled fluid has constituent atoms actually "materialize" outside the container walls.
BTS,
Whilst I would be very interested to read any link you might have on the above, you are missing my point. I have no doubt that quantum mechanics produce real world effects and that we will eventually have quantum computers etc. The main thrust of the original article you quoted is that Heisenbergs uncertainty principle can be applied to everything and that reality is shaped by our observation of it as a consequence of uncertainty.
Since uncertainty is a consequence of particles acting like particles at some times and like waves at others, on the level that we observe (in day to day life outside of the laboratory) particles act like particles. Because of this when you get out of bed and stub your toe on the dresser, the individual atoms in your dresser may be a cloud of probability but their particle nature on the human scale means that you are still going to swear. As I see it the application of uncertainty at the macroscopic level is fundamental to the author's contention, what he has failed to take into account is that the full implications of his application of uncertainty (which is a fundamental mathematical problem related purely to the description of waves) to the flight of his arrow is that Newton's laws of motion are incorrect.
I will be very interested to see what the results are of your other link.
I am not saying this is wrong, but I am not so sure this is right. Newtonian physics are I think, an empirical formula of sorts. Newtonian physics do not truly describe the underlying reality behind phenomena such as planetary motion, but are "accurate enough" under normal circumstances (and simple enough to use) that they can get used with a very close approximation to the truth for these sorts of things. "Good enough for governement work". Under more extreme circumstances, Newtonian physics breaks down. Actually, not even that extreme. Inaccuracies in predicting the transit of Mercury were one of the first things that led people to think that Newtonian physics was missing something.
That is correct, Newtonian physics is based on number of principles that are usually expressed by formula although Newton himself didn't. The formula are approximations when it comes to planetary bodies, which were corrected by Einstein's relativity. You are correct, Newtonian physics can't explain all planetary motion and Newton always shied away from attributing a cause to gravity (even from attributing it to god which, considering his faith, tends to suggest to me that his faith in science to explain the phenomenon at a later date was greater)
Zensim,
I think what I find difficult is that all of you are talking at a level I can't comprehend, but it is blatantly obvious that you don't all agree. So from my viewpoint - how do I know which person/theory to trust when it comes to science, if I can't even make sense of it in the first place? Obviously none of you are completely right (and maybe all of you are wrong), but for the purpose of me learning more and having some guidance as to which path of thought is the most 'reasonable' - I would need to choose at least one or two of you as a model to learn from.
I think we are all out of our depth, quantum mechanics is a subject that science is probably only starting to scratch the surface of, it will take a while before there is a consensus within science regarding any theory of everything (that is a theory that explains the relationship between the four fundamental forces in the universe) Any theory of everything has to be compatible with our existing empirical data which means that it can refine Newtonian physics but it can't throw it out of the window as the original article in this thread appears to attempt.
Anything on the cutting edge of science could be wrong, but it is highly doubtful that fundamental principles such as Newtonian mechanics is going to change due to the overwhelming amount of empirical data that supports it.
My advice is to read up on the subject if it interests you, there are plenty of popular science books out there, just be a little wary of the ones that claim to be a new theory of everything that is at odds with fundamental principles of physics.
I wouldn't worry about not understanding things, I find it usually takes a couple of months of studying related topics before things start to drop into place and I begin to truly understand something new.
-
jgnat
zenism: "I often get feelings, intuitions or flashes of 'insight' about the nature of the universe, life, existence. But I am painfully aware that these are just snatches of a vastness that my individual whole cannot integrate currently."
BTS "I do too.It's describing it that is difficult."
I encourage you, BTS, to make the effort. Often in the struggle of describing, revelations become clear. Clear writing, clear thinking.
-
Gill
Thank you for that, BurnTheShips!
It is a fantastic read.
We are limited in our perception by our senses and yet, the possibilities of what is around is are endless.
Some may never grasp that simple thought, but the reality is far more breathtaking than we can imagine and this article helps everyone to understand that.
Quantum physics is beginning to unlock some of the possibilities that exist but it cannot do it all without the other sciences and I think that is what is slightly holding physics back. It needs to expand and enroll with biology and chemisty and then.....well, the options become limitless.
Parallel universes, alternate dimensions, etc
As these are uncovered, what was once considered 'magic' and 'superstition', just like the mobile phone, and robotic surgery, can become reality.
-
Farkel
For those who are interested, here is an very interesting site:
www.whatthebleep.com
I've watched both DVDs they've produced and consider them thought provoking and even fascinating. Also, they present their case in an entertaining but still enlightening way that even dumb schmucks like me can understand. Their thesis is that scientists have not discovered "the observer." WE observe, but what is actually doing the observing? It's not the eyes. They are merely cameras. It's not the brain, or at least science has not yet discovered any part of the brain that does the observing.
Years ago I heard of a concept that WE are the creators, creating all people and events in our life who are in turn, creating US creating THEM!
Makes my head spin!
Farkel