Re: Physics as learning computer language (and infinite orgasms)
- From: "hep" <hephops@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 16 Sep 2006 15:13:05 -0700
Jim Black wrote:
hep wrote:
Physics is like learning a new computer language such as C++,
pascal... You have to learn the syntax, format, algorithm, etc.
It has almost no relation to understanding reality.
Well, it's good that you say "almost no relation." To extend your
analogy, high-level computer languages do have a relation to what the
machine does, but they don't specify the exact operations the computer
performs. That stuff is left for the compiler to decide. But that's
okay for the programmer, because he's only worried about the way the
computer interacts with the user. Likewise, physicists can only guess
at the inner workings at the universe; all we have to go off of are the
results of experiments. If physicists ever learn as much about reality
as a programmer in a high-level language needs to know about his
computer, we'll be a lot more knowledgeable than we are right now, but
there will still be open questions. Unfortunately, it's possible that
that's as far as the scientific method will be able to take us.
What is reality
when you have to add all feynman diagrams which can all
contribute to the interaction energies.
There are various different proposals for how to make sense out of
quantum mechanics, or more specifically, how to translate the
formalisms of quantum-mechanics into statements about the real world,
as opposed to mere calculations with no meaning other than their
significance in predicting the results of experiments. Of the stuff
I've seen so far, the many-worlds and Bohmian interpretations have
seemed comprehensible and self-consistent to me, but at the moment,
there's little scientific evidence to go off of, so any ideas in this
field are speculative.
For me, Many-worlds are too "extravagant" as they say. Anti
Ockham Razor. MW has high probability of being unlikely in the
possibility chart. About Bohmian interpretations. They can't
even make a QFT and Gauge Theory versions of it. Also
it violates HUP. Remember there is an irreducible uncertainty
and what's where the Planck's constant enters. So Bohmian
with the position and momentum of the particle exactly
known is already somewhat a dead on arrival. Also I
read this paper where the trajectories of particles in Bohmian
doesn't match up to the ones detected by experiments
and supported by Quantum Mechanics. I reviewed all
the other interpretations such as Transactional I, Consistent
Histories, etc. But they are not satisfying.
So the 1 million (or more) dollar question is, what happens
to the electron or molecule as it "moves" in between the
source and detector of the double slit experiment.
Copenhagen Int doesn't want to explore it. And by not
doing so, they may not reach any TOE as it may very
well be a part of it (in case there is a physical correlate
which can make them dead wrong). No wonder we are
in a situation when the unification of Quantum Mechanics
and General Relativity is without any definite answer.
Superstrings has so many loose ends. Anyway. The
Large Hadron Collider will be our guiding light for what
path in physics in the future. Meanwhile. Fishing by the
lake would be a more refleshing experience than
sleepless nights comprehending complicated equations.
hep
It's exactly like having
1 billion or infinite orgasms by having 5 minute sex where
every position, every movement can occur in that 5 minute
period to give the sum of energies just like QFT calculations
of the final interaction energy. This is madness or something
worse than sorcery or magick. And it's proven too such
as the value of the gyromagnetic ratio by taking into account
all those feynman interaction vertexes. And to think that the
entire billions of galaxies once in a size smaller than an
electron (or planck scale). This is bizarreness to the max.
At least I can comprehend what that means, as opposed to quantum
mechanics, where we do things like operate on a state vector with a
momentum operator, without knowing what they mean at all. So I would
say that is not "bizarreness to the max," because quantum mechanics is
so much more bizarre. Nor would I count the fact that I've never seen
anything like billions of galaxies in a space that small as very strong
evidence against the idea, because that was a long time ago and the
universe has changed a lot since then.
No wonder why we have many people almost going
crazy here (our cranks company). They want to save
their sanity by making more newtonian models and believing
the world makes sense.
Most such people don't know enough physics to go crazy from. The
facelessness of Usenet is a far greater risk to their sanity.
But it's possible that no mechanical
process can explain the core of reality.
Quantum mechanics is still mechanics, just with different rules. After
learning that gears are made of particles and fields, it would be odd
to insist that particles and fields must be made of little gears
(something James Driscoll, a.k.a. "Spaceman," once suggested).
In the real world,
things are in superposition where cat can both be alive
and dead but because of decoherence where the wave
function is in superposition with everything else in the
environment cancelling the off-diagnoal matrices. The
superpositions are prohibited hence you don't have cat
both alive and dead. Not because it can't exist but because
of the wave function superposition getting more global and
hence losing the coherence.
It's very possible there is no newtonian world and everything
is a emergence of a totally outrageous and weird reality.
And the only way to understand them is by learning the
programming languages of reality and the syntax such as
Gauge theory, renormalization group, pertubation calculations,
effective field theories, etc. These are nothing but understanding
the syntax of a programming language and not really
understanding reality at the causal level. The syntax is also
what's driving the Superstrings craze. We can't blame them
because it's like an extension of the programming language
they are using.
There are many nights when we have to figure out what lies
beneath reality and just can't believe this is happening.. that
somehow the real world is not real and everything is not what
it seems. For those who feel this (the regular cranks here
including anti-Relativists). Maybe we can just give it up and
go to other hobbies? This is driving us nuts. The normal
physics folks are somehow immuned to this because their
focus on mathematics have somehow diverted their
attention from the reality defying fact that reality is not what
it seems.
Whatever gave you that weird idea?
There may not even be a reality.
I'm sure I exist in some form or another; therefore, there is a
reality, and it has me in it. I'm pretty sure everyone else exists,
too. A little bit of critical thinking and analysis goes a long way in
terms of separating sane ideas from insane ones. If I can't think of a
rational answer to a question, I must accept that it's still a mystery
to me, rather than embracing illogical thinking. Sometimes I stay up
late at night pondering the mysteries, but on most nights I get some
sleep, the universe continues to do its job, regardless of whether I
understand it, and I can think about it more in the morning.
Maybe we can to go to fishing by the lake as hobby and
forget physics before we lost our mind. What do you say?
Or something like:
"Going into physics was the biggest mistake of my life. I should've
declared CS. I still wouldn't have any women, but at least I'd be
rolling in cash."
<http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~kovar/hall.html>
It's a thought that occurs to me from time to time, but for now I think
I'll stick with the physics.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Physics as learning computer language (and infinite orgasms)
- From: Jim Black
- Re: Physics as learning computer language (and infinite orgasms)
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: The mark of the educated mind
- Next by Date: Re: Rest mass for a photon in a medium?
- Previous by thread: Re: Physics as learning computer language (and infinite orgasms)
- Next by thread: Re: Physics as learning computer language (and infinite orgasms)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
