Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Gary Forbat's Avatar
    Gary Forbat Guest

    Default new paradigm for physics update



    Here is a preview. Otherwise find it on www.geocities.com/garyforbat
    Placed in a fictional setting
    Ch1 on micro matter
    Ch2 on macro matter

    ================================================== ================

    DIALOGUES ON SPACE AND MATTER


    Copyright (C) Gary Forbat 2000 - 2004 all rights reserved,


    Chapter 1

    Will we, as humans ever be able to know and understand reality, is
    that what you are asking?

    Yes that is the idea, though I meant the physical reality that we
    perceive through our senses, the environment of space and matter we
    find ourselves in as human beings.

    I must admit it is not the subject I most often think about, but now
    you mention it, it looks to me as though we may have to settle for
    never understanding it. It seems on normal everyday scales our
    perceptive experience gives an accurate enough view for our survival
    and living purposes, but on micro scales as well as on grand universal
    scales perception based thinking has been discredited and now the only
    access we have to probe the nature of matter is through abstract
    mathemathics.

    That is just what I mean. Does it inspire confidence for the future of
    humanity to think there will always be some sort of confusion, amid a
    permanent environment of uncertainty, as though groping around,
    surrounded by a fog where we are unable to see past our noses? How
    about a thousand years from now, or ten thousand?

    On current thinking it it is not likely, but I am sure we will learn
    to manipulate it to a much greater degree. Right now we are making
    rapid progress, and civilisation can and has functioned successfully
    without the need for that understanding. So long as we can manipulate
    and rearrange it to our advantage it makes little difference what it
    is made of.

    But there can be huge differences in the degree of clarity between
    different ways of conceiving the world. Newton's theory gave us a
    certain sense of comfort, though now it turns out to be a
    simplification. Since then we have descended into a world of
    abstraction and a kind of mental surreality and puzzlement with
    conceptual images that make no sense. Think about the big bang and
    space expansion, and instantaneous electron jumps, action at a
    distance, space warping or curvature, to mention just a few.

    Why be so concerned if we cannot change the it? The evidence suggests
    that these conceptually untenable effects do actually occur. We have
    their meaning through mathemathics and continue to progress more
    rapidly than ever despite our limitations. Let the scientists and
    theoreticians do their work and we can concentrate on the human
    reality, since social and historical developments affect us in our
    daily life much more than the physical.

    I don't entirely disagree about that, but think about it, if we had a
    full explanation of the physical environment and the nature of matter,
    would that not make a difference to our way of thinking and doing
    things?

    I am not sure what you are getting at. As I see it, there is no point
    in speculating about it . We are actually in the here and now, and
    what happens to be is what we need to consider the most.

    I prefer not to speculate on difficult questions either, but I must
    tell you that something has intervened to disturb my peace. That is
    why I have come at this short notice to seek your advice on an idea
    that has influenced me more than I had expected.

    My door is always open to an old friend. What kind of idea are we
    talking about?

    The other day I came across a new theory, a way of looking at space,
    matter and the entire reality, which has made me think deeply. I may
    not be a scientific genius, but you know I am not entirely without
    knowledge. This idea has rocked the foundations of my thinking about
    reality and has introduced a mindset which seems to clarify and
    resolve a host of previously unfocused issues.

    A new idea about space and matter? What kind of idea? .

    Where can I start? This new perspective has given me the clearest view
    of the physical world, what it is ad how it works. I could never have
    imagined that one day there can be a complete explanation, and even
    more so, that we ca do it at such an early stage of our civilisation.

    That is a big statement to make. A huge statement…It is not like you,
    not at all.

    I say it after the most serious consideration.

    With due respect, now I do think you need my help and I am glad you
    came. I'm sure we'll have this sorted in no time. Now tell me some
    more about this theory.

    Now that you mention it, it is such a huge statement that it leaves me
    reeling. I cannot come to terms with having suddenly unlocked the
    greatest mystery of all.

    There are hundreds of views that make a sort of sense and can impart a
    satisfying psychological impression. It is another thing to prove it
    in some acceptable terms to convince scientific community and the
    intellectual world in general.

    As you know well, I am a realist and not into any form of mysticism or
    unfounded belief systems. This new theory is not I the clouds. It is
    based on the latest accumulation of observational evidence, in fact
    reinterpretation of their meaning based on a new framework derived
    from that very same evidence. But I must tell you its most striking
    feature is that it is all explained with common sense intuitive
    concepts and logic

    No, that cannot be, now I am sure you have strayed off into error of
    some kind.

    That is what I thought at first, but I have come to the conclusion
    that it works. Perhaps I have overlooked something. That is why I am
    here

    Classical Newtonian theory has been long superceded, I cannot see a
    turnaround in that direction.

    Call it what you like: classical, intuitive, common sense logic, but
    it is definitely not Newtonian. The author of this theory thinks of
    Newton's ideas a simplification by limits applied to the naturally
    infinite. Newton in the 17th Century had much less evidence to go on.
    Had he the evidence about matter available today, he may have come up
    with a different conclusions.

    Now I'm getting confused. Classical, intuitive, but not Newtonian? Are
    you suggesting that with the use of the latest evidence we can
    regenerate the intuitive framework in physics?

    As far as I am concerned it looks like a fait accompli anyway. It will
    lead to rapid advances in our knowledge and understanding of matter.
    It also offers a unified framework for physics. From this perspective,
    the current ideas about relativity and quantum theory need to be
    revised. To explain, do you still remember the Moon made of green
    cheese argument?

    That was many years ago, …let me think...in an early lecture on
    symbolic logic wasn't it?. it demonstrated how a false foundation
    premises can lead to a range of ridiculous, though as far as logic is
    concerned, perfectly valid conclusions. One could then imagine ‘Moon
    rock' eaten with coffee after dinner, and the quarantine regulations
    that may be necessary to prevent mice overruning and devouring the
    Moon in an extasy of cheese orgy.

    That is just the point. Current theories are not built on pre-existing
    foundations. Their foundations are projected from the state of the
    structure itself. It is like the problem with the Leaning Tower of
    Pisa. The Instead of building from a sound set of foundations based on
    soil analysis, the tower was constructed with a serious flaw. Now, in
    modern times we have the science to have built it correctly, but now
    face a different problem. To rescue the Tower a new set of foundations
    had to be projected based on the current state of the structure. That
    will patch up the problem but clearly it is not the true foundations
    that the Tower should have had. Our author thinks we are in somewhat
    similar situation with physics.

    I see what you mean, but that is how science evolved over time. The
    historical reality unfolds differently from the ideals we may project.
    Now tell me, where can I find this new theory, in which journal, in
    what book, and of course, who by? If this theory is so good, I cannot
    believe I have missed hearing about it.

    You may think it strange but I heard about it at a dinner party.

    A dinner party?..heh, in the 21st century discussing the nature of
    matter and reality at a dinner party.

    I know it's not dinner party conversation, but in this case the entire
    company became so intrigued with it all that we ended up going into it
    at length.

    Yes, I can just see it, some dinner party that must have been -
    discussing life and the meaning existence, the nature of matter,
    relativity and quantum physics,, heh heh,, That would have been
    interesting, with discussion of complex mathemathical issues and
    whatever else.

    There was no mathemathics, nothing requiring a specialist. It is based
    on concepts derived from general features of all scientific evidence.
    The ideas have complex logical structures which are then subject to
    analysis.

    I suppose it is only at a dinner you could come across something so
    different and unlikely: probably some underground theory, shunned by
    the establishment in fear of creating waves or even ripples in the
    intellectual environment, or at least, that is how it's made out to
    be. It is in fact probably full of holes, at best a case of clever
    sophism with confusing nuances I the language. How can it not be,
    given what you claim it can do.

    I was as sceptical as you when I first heard about it. It was supposed
    to be just a bit of dinner party entertainment. When I arrived, the
    hosts informed me that the author of a theory of reality had been
    invited that night and I was asked to encourage discussion on his
    ideas. It appears they had heard about it from a friend and aroused
    their curiosity. As a good guest I obliged and began my approach by
    sowing the seeds during dinner. As things arranged themselves I
    happened to be placed alongside our author, so I opened with a light
    mention that someone here must be impressed with his ideas as they had
    mentioned it to me. "Impressed or amused?" was his reply. "I can't
    really be sure until you tell me a little about it" I said. "Maybe
    another time" replied the author. "it isn't suitable for dinner party
    conversation" he added. The moment had passed and we resumed a light
    sociable air over dinner. Later that night, over coffee, the
    opportunity arose again when the hosts announced the visiting
    "thinker, scientist, philosopher" and asked him to say a few words
    about his latest theory. The author showed the same reluctance,
    claiming the topic too complex to cover in a night's casual
    discussion. "it will only lead to confusion rather than clarity" he
    said. We insisted and then he added that he had been for a time
    devising a method of explaining the idea to the general public, but he
    did not think it perfected yet. It was as if we all saw the
    opportunity at once, we all at once insisted he try his method this
    night. "Let us be your guinea pigs" we all insisted, begged and
    entreated until he finally relented. He then proceeded to tell us the
    method he developed was based on a question and answer session
    somewhat like a Socratic dialogue. That sounds good said the host as
    we could experience an ancient method in a modern setting. At this
    point all fell silent. We waited in anticipation, expecting something
    spectacular, but the first question turned out to be the simplest of
    questions imaginable. Our thinker asked whether we agreed that the
    atomic structure was a composite system of parts? From there we went
    on a journey of thought and a couple of hours later we all stood in a
    daze of amazement and in the morning I had a clearer vision than
    before. The haziness brought about by the alcohol had lifted and I
    could feel the idea settling over me. I could not believe it could be
    so simple. So simple, yet so complex at the same time. I kept going
    over and over it since then to get a better vision, or at least to
    find some faults in the argument. In my early confusion my moods would
    swing. It was all too much to absorb in such a short time. I worked at
    it and at first I was only getting glimpses of the reality, then as I
    developed it I could hold the concept for seconds, then minutes, until
    it opened up in its full glory and I saw its huge number of
    ramifications. Mystified and stunned by everything I never expected,
    at times I tried to shake it out of my mind. I could not dislodge it.
    The old world I knew had been swept away and familiarity gave way to
    unfamiliarity. Despite its inconsistencies, paradoxes and its
    mysteries the old world was the ‘furniture of life' I grew up with and
    offered psychological comforts which I would now be deprived. I felt
    like a foreigner in a strange land. On the other hand, I found comfort
    with the new clarity and wanted to explore its possibilities.

    That is all well, but now you have me curious enough to ask that you
    explain this theory to me now. I don't expect surprises. My curiosity
    is to see how you may have fallen into an error of thinking. I don't
    for a moment entertain that the theory could ever impress me as it has
    you and your friends over dinner.

    Perhaps you are right. I certainly ask for no favours, no sympathy. If
    I had fallen into error I would certainly want to be the first to know
    about it. On the other hand, you may get a surprise as well.

    It would be refreshing but I don't contemplate it. But do tell me
    about this theory.................
    ...........
    ...

    continue on www.geocities.com/garyforbat

  2. #2
    radical reptile's Avatar
    radical reptile Guest

    Default new paradigm for physics update

    That's not original - it's just
    Chapter 4 of "Finnegan's Wake."


  3. #3
    Brian Tung's Avatar
    Brian Tung Guest

    Default new paradigm for physics update

    radical reptile wrote:

    It most certainly is not. (Besides, Finnegans Wake is spelled without
    the apostrophe.) It is obviously part of a recently rediscovered writing
    of Plato, covering an imagined dialogue between Socrates and Milkcrates.

    Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu>
    The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
    Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
    The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
    My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

  4. #4
    Edith Head's Avatar
    Edith Head Guest

    Default new paradigm for physics update

    HAL I assume?


    Brian Tung wrote:



 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Astro-Tech 8mm Paradigm Dual ED?
    By wallcreeper in forum Telescope Eyepieces Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-28-2011, 01:40 AM
  2. AT Paradigm 25/18mm mini-review..
    By Djarum in forum Telescope Eyepieces Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-05-2009, 03:10 PM
  3. New Astro Tech Paradigm Eyepieces
    By RussL in forum Telescope Eyepieces Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-11-2009, 03:46 PM
  4. The Paradigm Shift Revolution of Physics
    By Stephen Mooney in forum Amateur Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-31-2004, 03:30 AM
  5. Physics News Update -- Number 658, October 21, 2003
    By Sam Wormley in forum Amateur Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-22-2003, 04:18 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0
Powered by vBulletin®
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:51 PM.