Richard Jernigan -> RE: emotion in music in general and flamenco in particular (Sep. 12 2013 18:39:38)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ricardo quote:
Furthermore, we have no way to combine the effects of gravity on space-time with particle physics which deals with the components of matter at subatomic levels. For me, duality simply IS TRUTH...it does not matter if we can't describe it in a singular way. Look at this way, if it were NOT truth, then it wouldn't exist. A quarter is 25 cents no matter if it is heads or tails. Newton is truth, and so is Einstein. Otherwise we would not be even using Newton anymore. Who says truth = complete knowledge of everything??? I don't know what you mean by the word "duality" here. Wave/particle duality? That's just a phrase that was cooked up to describe the deeply counter-intuitive subatomic world . It has no role in quantum field theory. Conflicting versions of truth being equally valid? I have a problem with that. The major problem with considering Newtonian physics as "truth" is that it is false. It is demonstrably, measurably false. It gives the wrong answer to the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html It's wrong in a number of other ways. If Newtonian physics were not demonstrably wrong, Einstein wouldn't have been famous. To find out how wrong Newtonian physics is, you have two alternatives: experiment, and employment of a more accurate theory. Experiment is the desideratum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity Newtonian physics gives approximately the right answer in many practical applications, and is easier to apply and more intuitive for most people. That's why it is still used. Not because it is true, in the sense that mathematical theorems are true. A slight detour: Euclidean geometry is true, regarded as mathematics: IF a THEN b. Euclidean geometry is useful for designing and building a house, because it comes close enough to the truth to enable drawing plans, ordering materials, cutting things up and nailing them together. The "IF a" part is not quite satisfied. But the usefulness of Euclidean geometry lies in the fact that you're pretty close to the "IF a" part, then the "THEN b" part can be pretty close to right as well. Note that I said "can be" not "is". Back to the main road: The problem with particle physics and general relativity is that when general relativity is applied to the subatomic world, experiments contradict its predictions. It is demonstrably false in this regime. Yet it is the most accurate theory of the universe at large scales devised so far. I have a hard time accepting the argument that something is true because it is still used. Consider an extreme case. There are four major religions flourishing on the planet. Each contradicts the others. They can't all be true. At least one of them has to be wrong. Yet each has billions of believers, whose behavior is influenced by their beliefs. I don't think that makes all of them true. Physical theories, like religions, are the products of the human intellect, a notoriously fallible entity. I have a hard time accepting that something is true just because people still use it. People think they can predict the stock market. They spend countless man-hours working at it, and lose billions of dollars betting on the results. Sometimes they get lucky, and they are declared to be geniuses. Other people imitate them and lose their a$$ and all the fixtures. The scientific attitude is one of the deepest possible skepticism. Theories are applied, but people are always on the lookout for a wrong prediction, and many are prepared to propose a modification of a theory, or to discard it altogether and start with a clean sheet of paper. When the discovery of the Higgs Boson was announced, there was a chorus of disappointment from many particle physicists. They regretted the disappearance of an opportunity for new discoveries. One of my close friends is a founder of the Academy of Forensic Engineering. He wins court cases all the time with Newtonian physics. I'm sure some judges and juries think his calculations are true. But if you ask him, he'll say the calculations are accurate enough to arrive at a legal decision. What's the difference between this result and truth? My friend knows how to calculate how close he has come to the truth. RNJ
|
|
|
|