Re: Just how much can we magnigy?

From: Aaron (nghy_at_comcast.net)
Date: 02/15/05

  • Next message: Gary G: "Re: Just how much can we magnigy?" 
    Date: 14 Feb 2005 20:26:04 -0600

    There is one point alluded to by others, that I would like to
    underscore. It deals with your question directly.

     It is the nature of observations, that something is directed at the
    specimen and the results are detected.. With light microscopes that
    something is light. With an electron microscope it is electrons.
    With the particle accelerator it is other sub atomic particles. Etc.
    Etc.

    At the quantum level, we cannot make observations without affecting
    what we are observing. This fact of life is embodied in the
    Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. As of now science does not think it
    possible to zoom in as much as we want without reaching a point where
    we are modifying the object of our studies by making the observation..

    For the past century scientists have treated sub-atomic particles as
    points. This approach has led ultimately to results which conflict
    with experimental observations. The latest theorectical work is
    focused on the implications of the smallest particles being other
    than single points. Some thinkers have suggested the Heisenberg
    Priciple is a concequence of the "particles are points" assumption.
    Now a new set of mathematical expressions are being created to deal
    with particles that have other shapes and dimentions. This process
    is what I alluded to as the role of language in framing issues, i.e.
    the invention of new terms and expressions to explain our world.
    According to the new theories the smallest elements of the universe
    are no smaller than the Planck length..

    If these ideas interest you, I suggest that you read Brian Greene's
    "The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality".
    It is a layman's introduction to some of these ideas.

    Aaron

    On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 12:52:15 -0000, "Phil C."
    <phildc2005@NOSPAMhotmail.co.uk> wrote:

    >Fascinating answers from all who replied...thank you!
    >
    >The inspiration for my question came from a documentary I saw the other day
    >that went on to discuss the very essence of conciousness was burried deep in
    >the brain, magnified an enourmous amount in something called the micro
    >tubules, where particles exist in two states at one time...the fascinating
    >thing about this research is that there is evidence that the mind lives on
    >after the brain dies.
    >
    >Anyway, it got me thinking that surely everything we discover must be made
    >of a component part, even empty space itself...the question itself was not
    >about the limits of our technology, but more theoretical about whether like
    >the universe, could we just go on and on zooming in to things finding their
    >component parts.
    >
    >Phil
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >"Aaron" <nghy@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >news:co1v01ts2q09mb8m1u2r0lcftq513ram1b@4ax.com...
    >> This is one of the most interesting threads. Thanks for the question,
    >> Phil and thanks to all who have added to the discussion taking it to a
    >> higher level. The answers are fast approaching the limits of
    >> philosophy, metaphysics, and science simultaneously.
    >>
    >> Modern philosophy places great importance on the role of language (in
    >> a very broad sense) in defining any issue. In short, how we describe
    >> the problem suggest answers and limits other interpretations. We are
    >> reaching the point where the intent of your question is not clear.
    >>
    >> There is a hint of "reductio ad absurdum" in the question you ask,
    >> "Would we ever stop finding things or would we hit a point of
    >> nothingness?" Do you mean that we could be looking at ever smaller
    >> structures until we are looking at "nothiing at all". Good joke, but
    >> let's go beyond that.
    >>
    >> Are you asking if we might find the smallest structure in our cosmos
    >> and thereafter find nothing smaller? Or is your question about the
    >> structure of space/time, i.e. are there any parts which are totally
    >> devoid of anything? Or are you asking about the density of our cosmos,
    >> ie how much is matter/energy versus something else. And will we ever
    >> discover "the something else"? Or is your question aboutl some other
    >> issue.
    >>
    >> The Eskimos have more than twenty terms for snow. Those terms had to
    >> be invented to meet their needs. The fact is we are still inventing
    >> the languages, mathematical and otherwise, to deal with questions
    >> about the very smallest sturcture of our universe. Once our language
    >> become clearer the answers will become clearer. String theory and
    >> Quantum chromodynamics are examples of modern language used to address
    >> some of the issues raised. At this point the language is provisional
    >> and being revised. IMHO, the answer to your question from today's
    >> science is "We don't have the answers yet, but we are working on
    >> it.".
    >>
    >> Aaron
    >>
    >>
    >> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:50:06 -0000, "Phil C."
    >> <phildc2005@NOSPAMhotmail.co.uk> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Hi,
    >> >I was wondering if we were able to zoom in to things as far as we wanted,
    >> >what would be beyond the atom, and beyond that etc etc? Just how far
    >could
    >> >we go...would we ever stop finding things or would we hit a point of
    >> >nothingness?
    >> >
    >> >...just curious!
    >> >
    >> >Phil
    >> >
    >>
    >

  • Next message: Gary G: "Re: Just how much can we magnigy?"

    Relevant Pages