Re: Physics is simple...we complicate it

reany_at_asu.edu
Date: 01/13/05 

Date: 13 Jan 2005 11:58:38 -0800

Mitch Perkins wrote:
> reany@asu.edu wrote:
> > Mitch Perkins wrote:
> > > robert j. kolker wrote:
> > > > reany@asu.edu wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In some sense a phenomenal model used in theoretical physics
> can
> > be
> > > > > defined as a representation of some phenomena by which the
> > > phenomena
> > > > > can be understood. Why? Because models are things that are
> > > > > understandable in the first place.
> > > >
> > > > They are our very own brain children.
> > > >
> > > > It is rather disconcerting to see people who do physics confuse
> man
> > > made
> > > > artifacts (instruments, models and theories) with the Real
Thing
> > > which
> > > > we can never know more than a small part of. And even with our
> > clever
> > >
> > > > instruments we are 15 orders of magnitude away from Planck
> Length.
> > >
> > > How many orders of magnitude are we away from the largest such
> scale?
> > >
> > > > Face
> > > > it, we are never going to get to the bottom of things.
> > >
> > > Maybe we're *at* the bottom of things.
> > >
> > > Mitch
> >
> > Do our things have a top? If so, what is it?
> >
> > Patrick
>
> The bottom?
>
> I would still like to know how many orders of magnitude we are away
> from the largest scale theorized, but not observed. An infinite
number?
> Mitch

That particuar argument of scale is Kolker's. I'll let him reply to
you.

Patrick