Not Even Wrong? - String Theory (Warning - A GUT Thread)

[NastyPierre]

misunderstanding

I'm not sure that I get Smolin's point. On the one hand, if some of the constants of nature are changing as a function of time, that would eventually be detectable, and in fact I think there's some discussion of that now with the discovery that the rate of the expansion of the universe seems to be is incrasing. I heard something about the possibility that the speed of light might be changing too, but I forget the details.

If all of the constants of nature are changing - for instance, space and time and mass and the speed of light- then it would make no difference and there'd be no operational way of detecting it.

Similarly, it really doesn't matter is there are an infinite number of universes out there "somewhere" unless we have some way of interacting with them. We may as well say that we're all surrounded by invisible angels who we can never see or detect. There's no way to demnstrate it, so science can't say anything about it. By definition, such a theory is unscientific.

It sounds to me like Smolin's getting very close to the Anthropic Principle, which says that the universe is the way it is because this is the universe that supports Us.

Maybe I'll read him again though. I didn't understand more than I understood, I think.

=========
Jenny--

I don't know why you say quantum mechanics hasn't been proven. The ability of quantum to correctly predict all sorts of physicial phenomenon has been well established for around 80 years now. The main problem with the practical use of quantum theory in chemistry is that doing the calculations is usually more difficult than doing the actual experiment, which is an example of another kind of limit in science. Our math isn't sophisticated enough.

And the problem I was trying to point out in string theory is that if it actually predicted anything, then it could be tested by seeing if those predictions are true or false. But as far as I know, ST is a model that describes but doesn't predict, and that's why physicists are so frustrated with it and why that one guy described it as "not even wrong".

I know that it's a pretty esoteric subject and doesn't affect us much one way or the other, but if ST turned out to be both true and predictive (heuristic, as they say, meaning it led to more knowledge), if we had the key to all matter and knew how all the forces in nature were related, that could be some pretty heavy and useful knowledge indeed.

But also, ST raises the question of just when does science reach its limits? As we try to find out what the universe is made of, will we just keep on finding particles made of particles made of particles going on forever? Or will we finally bang up against an absolute that says, this is it? And if so, what will that absolute look like? I think the limit will look something like this - a theory that can't be tested any further.

When I was first in school, we had your basic electron, proton, neutron, positron, maybe a neutrino or two, and thought that was pretty much it.

Then came some anti-particles, and mesons, pions, and then a whole explosion of some other ugly sons of bitches, all sorts of weights and charges and spins and half-lives, like some one had opened the asylum doors. I pretty much lost interest.

Then they got down to the nest level: quarks, and we really thought this was it - the ultimate. Quarks made some sense out of the whole mess and I really kind of hoped that was it. It was enough already.

And now we're down to the next level: string theory. Are we finally there? Or are we going to keep going? Does anyone still care?

Next level I'm sure is going to be Angels on Pinheads.


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


Well, they wouldn't even have to prove all that stuff. All they'd have to do would be to say, "According to my String theory, we should observe such-and-such an effect when so-and-so happens" and predict something that hadn't been observed before. That would at least give them some credibility and some reason to believe in their 11 dimensions.

===========


No offense, and I'm not exactly sure of the context that Pauli and Pohm were speaking in, because mass and energy can be treated alike on the quantum level and it just depends onhow you want to think of them, but this gets close to a common myth about quantum mechanics and consciousness: that at the quantum level, events are somehow determined by the observers consciousness and expectations, and that's a grave misunderstanding of quantum, still being perpetuated even by some PhD physicists who should know better.

The misunderstanding arose from the early days of quantum in the 20's when it was observed that the electron could behave both as a wave or a particle, depending on the experiment one subjected it to. If you treated it like a wave it acted like a wave. If you treated it like a particle, it acted like a particle. To the thinking of the day, it could not be both, and it drove physicists crazy. It seemed to know what the experimenter wanted to see and acted accordingly. There was talk of an "observer effect".

It was discovered that the electron (all moving matter in fact, only it's most noticeable with the smallest particles) has a wave associated with it, so it's neither a particle or a wave but both and neither. Treat it like a wave, it acts like a wave. Treat it like a particle, it acts like a particle. No observer effect. The electron knows what it is, even if the observer doesn't. The electron (and the universe) still exists even when the physicist goes to sleep. It's not all in our heads. The universe and the electron really exist.

By the way, it's this wave nature of particles that's responsible for Heisenberg's Indeterminacy Principle (populaerly known as the Uncertainty principle) which says that you can't know both a particle's position and momentum at the same time. Its wave nature makes it impossible to pinpoint.

But there's still plenty of room for a writer in the universe, thank God.

The “misunderstanding” arises because individuals yet cling to the belief they are examining an ‘object’ rather then an ‘image’. i agree energy is neither a wave or a particle (and both); it is a ‘third’ beyond the ‘range’ of consciousness, which our ever-growing array of instruments (for bringing things closer) proves by splitting every ‘thing’ we eventually find. Whether or not what you believe to exist would if consciousness did not, is a metaphysical subject. To suggest the universe is ‘as we see it’ is childish. To suggest we can ‘know’ matter ‘in and of itself’ is superstitious. The only thing we can say as humans is, so to speak: that memories taking shape through the images we form of the potential appearing to exist is our reality. To ‘objectify’ images is psychological stagnation, petrifaction. Do ‘objects’ possess color? i think not. Can you learn from a book? i think not. Such beliefs are remnants of our more primitive psychology. Do not get me too wrong, i realise we have the ability to differentiate, and this has contributed to the illusion of autonomy which tends to separates us from the whole. But can we be separate? i think not. For me, Quantum physics and Analytical psychology are disciplines of consciousness that deal with the same ‘object’ (i prefer “potential”) from two opposite points of view. They represent a peek at the next ‘order’ of thinking. Classical Physics is an order that works well in its domain, but needs to be left at the gate, otherwise it stands like a dogma and becomes a religion, complete with rituals meant to keep those who follow it in check. Just as libido is the driving force of life, and always forward moving, so too is consciousness evolving. Sorry, need to keep this shorter. hope to hear from you soon
NP

 

[dr_mabeuse]

The “misunderstanding” arises because individuals yet cling to the belief they are examining an ‘object’ rather then an ‘image’. i agree energy is neither a wave or a particle (and both); it is a ‘third’ beyond the ‘range’ of consciousness, which our ever-growing array of instruments (for bringing things closer) proves by splitting every ‘thing’ we eventually find. Whether or not what you believe to exist would if consciousness did not, is a metaphysical subject. To suggest the universe is ‘as we see it’ is childish. To suggest we can ‘know’ matter ‘in and of itself’ is superstitious. The only thing we can say as humans is, so to speak: that memories taking shape through the images we form of the potential appearing to exist is our reality. To ‘objectify’ images is psychological stagnation, petrifaction. Do ‘objects’ possess color? i think not. Can you learn from a book? i think not. Such beliefs are remnants of our more primitive psychology. Do not get me too wrong, i realise we have the ability to differentiate, and this has contributed to the illusion of autonomy which tends to separates us from the whole. But can we be separate? i think not. For me, Quantum physics and Analytical psychology are disciplines of consciousness that deal with the same ‘object’ (i prefer “potential”) from two opposite points of view. They represent a peek at the next ‘order’ of thinking. Classical Physics is an order that works well in its domain, but needs to be left at the gate, otherwise it stands like a dogma and becomes a religion, complete with rituals meant to keep those who follow it in check. Just as libido is the driving force of life, and always forward moving, so too is consciousness evolving. Sorry, need to keep this shorter. hope to hear from you soon
NP

Okay. I can live with that.

The thing that drives me crazy are the people who claim that the observer exerts some mysteriou psychic effect on the electron that tells it how to behave. They usually go on from there to use this "phenomenon" to explain esp and telekinesis.

These are usually the same people who misinterpret Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle to mean that we really can't know anything about anything, and so all bets are off and anything is possible.

Ultimately, science cannot tell us what things "are". It can tell us how they behave and what properties they have, but that's all it can do. I can tell you how an electron will behave under a certain set of conditions, but all I can say bout what it "is", is that it's an electron.

But if you're saying that the elctron exists only as a concept in my head, I have to respectfully disagree. We may not agree n the color of an object, but I believe that if we measure the wavelength of the light reflected from its surface, we'll come up with the same number.

 

[JustaJerk]

And here I thought Don Adams already gave us the answer.
It's 43.

Umm... Now what was the question?

 

[gauchecritic]

But if you're saying that the elctron exists only as a concept in my head, I have to respectfully disagree. We may not agree n the color of an object, but I believe that if we measure the wavelength of the light reflected from its surface, we'll come up with the same number.

Before putting words in someone else's mouth I'll just say that this is my own view of what Pierre is aiming at. (Although I obviously didn't do a very good job of my last post)

The only things that can be proven are those that are proven at that point. It's provable that light travels at 186,000 miles per second (in a vacuum without gravitational distortion). What isn't provable is that it always has or that it always will.

So what ever your instrumentation may say from one day to the next, or years or decades, cannot be siad to be absolutely true for all times and all circumstances, however useful and unbending it may be at this point in time.

Any measurement you take with whatever instrument you choose is referenced only by itself and not by what is being measured.

A long time ago a guy came into the stores where I was working to draw a piece of equipment. He had with him an oscilloscope. I asked him what it did. He told me it measured current, gave a picture of what a current looks like.
I asked him how. He told me that it forms a graph with an x axis (time) and a y axis (voltage) and the brightness represents the intensity sometimes called the z axis.

I asked him how it actually made the pattern on the screen. He said the voltage draws the light beam from side to side and up and down as it moves across the screen. (what do I know, he was probably generally correct in the language he was using to a layman)

I asked him "But how do you know that's what voltage looks like?" Now I don't know if he understood the question I intended or if he gave the answer as simply as he could when he said "Because that is what the machine is made to measure."

I've just come to realise (through this thread) is that what he meant is; That is what the machine can usefully represent.

So electricity may or may not actually look like that. Atoms may or may not superficially resemble solar systems. But they can be usefully represented as such.

 

[3113]

Stanislaw Lem's, a wonderful sci-fi author, created brilliant stories all based around the question of what we can know and cannot know. The Investagation, for example, exemplifies this question of being able to measure things vs. knowing, for certain, the laws of the universe. Fascinating story about a man trying to find out why bodies seem to be getting up and walking around. No one ever sees them walking around, but the evidence seems to suggest it.

In the end, the only person able to give him any answers is a guy who measures how far the bodies travel and where they end up. Nothing else can be said for sure.

 

[cantdog]

I never had the patience to wade through one of Lem's.

 

[NastyPierre]

fair enough

[/I]

~~~~

There seem to be so many 'non absolutes' on this forum and almost every one begins by making an 'absolute' statement, rejecting absolutes, sooner or later you folks are gonna realize you lose your argument the moment you do so.

Secondly you state an opinion as if it were fact, it is not: "...Abstraction to me is a process begining with perception and is dependent on your psychology..." and you include, "dependent on your psychology." as if that had some meaning...do you imply that ones psychology is instinctual or cannot be known?

Your entire statement is without meaning or merit.

Try this small statement on for size as a rational, logical, reasonable presentation of basic philosphy:

One begins with an Aristotelian axiomatic statement, A is A, or, a thing is that which it is, or, existence exists. That means that an objective reality exists independent of any perceiver or of the perceiver's emotions, feelings, wishes, hopes or fears. One holds that reason is man's only means of perceiving reality and his only guide to action. Reason being that faculty which identifies and integrates the information provided by man's senses.

Now compare your opening statement and the above...which is more understandable, more accurate and more precise?

amicus...

Hello again, try this....
Consciousness is in its infancy and extremely fragile, forever on the
verge of becoming dissociated, fragmented, and worse. I have no intent on disparaging your belief in an 'absolute', which is the same as
attacking one's faith in god. I have come to understand how important it is for human consciousness to have a healthy god-image, and or a belief in something concrete. For me concretism is prison. I provided no more than a definition of a 'concept' using 'signs' we collectively call 'words'. In turn, you abstracted these signs, took from them what your psychology found of value, and interpreted the image they formed. You then made a judgment and labeled them a statement of absolutism, which they were not. But never did you ever possess more than an image. It began with your perception, and being dependent on your psychology, was provided a meaning different than mine, nothing more. I do not use the term instinct (except as a pointer) in relation to human psychology. Until defined- A is only A- which says nothing more.

 

[NastyPierre]

Hi Dr_mabeuse

Okay. I can live with that.

The thing that drives me crazy are the people who claim that the observer exerts some mysteriou psychic effect on the electron that tells it how to behave. They usually go on from there to use this "phenomenon" to explain esp and telekinesis.

These are usually the same people who misinterpret Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle to mean that we really can't know anything about anything, and so all bets are off and anything is possible.

Ultimately, science cannot tell us what things "are". It can tell us how they behave and what properties they have, but that's all it can do. I can tell you how an electron will behave under a certain set of conditions, but all I can say bout what it "is", is that it's an electron.

But if you're saying that the elctron exists only as a concept in my head, I have to respectfully disagree. We may not agree n the color of an object, but I believe that if we measure the wavelength of the light reflected from its surface, we'll come up with the same number.

Dr,,,
Never allow anything or anyone to 'drive you crazy'. To empower others
by allowing them authority over you is crazy in itself. That aside, what do you know about experiments demonstrating the ability of particles to exist in two places at once? This is no mere theoretical abstraction, but a very real aspect of how the subatomic world works, and it has been experimentally confirmed many times over. One of the clearest demonstrations comes from a classic physics setup called the double-slit experiment. One atom can influence another instantaneously even if they are on opposite sides of the universe. i will return to 'color'. i do not enjoy juggling too many topics at once.

 

[Oblimo]

Science is not a belief. It is simply a method, using reason and logic, by which to ask questions.

Just popping in to say that amicus is, in my opinion, absolutely and completely correct...as far as these two sentences are concerned. It reminds me of Stephen J. Gould's definition of science: a method of asking answerable questions.

 

[Oblimo]

The thing that drives me crazy are the people who claim that the observer exerts some mysteriou psychic effect on the electron that tells it how to behave. They usually go on from there to use this "phenomenon" to explain esp and telekinesis.

These are usually the same people who misinterpret Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle to mean that we really can't know anything about anything, and so all bets are off and anything is possible.

Gah, I can sympathize. The HUP isn't mystical at all. It's not some psychic consciousness of an observer that results in uncertainty. It's the physical interactions between the observer and observed that render observations uncertain. When you bump a tape measure against a wall when you're trying to measure it, the effects are negligible. Subatomic particles are a wee more delicate than a brick wall, is all.

Nonlocality isn't psychic, either, it just means that the physical interactions of the subatomic realm are even weirder than Einstein thought they were.

Ultimately, science cannot tell us what things "are".

Ooh, perfect set up for a Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle joke! Ahem:

But science can tell us what things were!

But if you're saying that the electron exists only as a concept in my head, I have to respectfully disagree. We may not agree n the color of an object, but I believe that if we measure the wavelength of the light reflected from its surface, we'll come up with the same number.

...within a standard deviation, of course. But then, some people take probability the wrong way, too, arguing that empirical measurement's reliance on probability means we can never "know" anything, when all they are doing are defining "knowledge" in such an unscientific way as to prove their point for them.

 

[NastyPierre]

mmmmm

Before putting words in someone else's mouth I'll just say that this is my own view of what Pierre is aiming at. (Although I obviously didn't do a very good job of my last post)

The only things that can be proven are those that are proven at that point. It's provable that light travels at 186,000 miles per second (in a vacuum without gravitational distortion). What isn't provable is that it always has or that it always will.

So what ever your instrumentation may say from one day to the next, or years or decades, cannot be siad to be absolutely true for all times and all circumstances, however useful and unbending it may be at this point in time.

Any measurement you take with whatever instrument you choose is referenced only by itself and not by what is being measured.

A long time ago a guy came into the stores where I was working to draw a piece of equipment. He had with him an oscilloscope. I asked him what it did. He told me it measured current, gave a picture of what a current looks like.
I asked him how. He told me that it forms a graph with an x axis (time) and a y axis (voltage) and the brightness represents the intensity sometimes called the z axis.

I asked him how it actually made the pattern on the screen. He said the voltage draws the light beam from side to side and up and down as it moves across the screen. (what do I know, he was probably generally correct in the language he was using to a layman)

I asked him "But how do you know that's what voltage looks like?" Now I don't know if he understood the question I intended or if he gave the answer as simply as he could when he said "Because that is what the machine is made to measure."

I've just come to realise (through this thread) is that what he meant is; That is what the machine can usefully represent.

So electricity may or may not actually look like that. Atoms may or may not superficially resemble solar systems. But they can be usefully represented as such.

gauchecritic,
greetings.
i tend to be of the opinion, that this quote of yours.... ""I've just come to realise (through this thread) is that what he meant is; That is what the machine can usefully represent. So electricity may or may not actually look like that. Atoms may or may not superficially resemble solar systems. But they can be usefully represented as such.[/QUOTE]"...... isums up what Quantum theorists meant when they speak of consciousness. Consciousness does not deny reality, but it cannot know reality 'in and of itself', ergo, consciousness uses instruments, sets variables, and so forth, at first straining simply to detect a disturbance; and later, how it wishes to 'see' the disturbance in measurement and ratio. Experimentation is 'conscious interference', and instead of being ignored it is realized. It is not mystical.
NP

 

[NastyPierre]

Hello, all...

Okay. I can live with that.

The thing that drives me crazy are the people who claim that the observer exerts some mysteriou psychic effect on the electron that tells it how to behave. They usually go on from there to use this "phenomenon" to explain esp and telekinesis.

These are usually the same people who misinterpret Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle to mean that we really can't know anything about anything, and so all bets are off and anything is possible.

Ultimately, science cannot tell us what things "are". It can tell us how they behave and what properties they have, but that's all it can do. I can tell you how an electron will behave under a certain set of conditions, but all I can say bout what it "is", is that it's an electron.

But if you're saying that the elctron exists only as a concept in my head, I have to respectfully disagree. We may not agree n the color of an object, but I believe that if we measure the wavelength of the light reflected from its surface, we'll come up with the same number.

dr_mabeuse,
hello again. No i am not suggesting an electron exists only as a 'concept' in your head. What i am attempting to point out is, that an 'image' is all that can ever be presented to your mind; not the 'object'. And no matter how deeply you delve, your mind will only possess an image. Seems petty but from a psychological point of view, indispensable. In my opinion, you must take into account the reality of your subjective psychology. For instance, when it comes to color: Our 'instruments' provide measurements identifying 'wavelengths', the ‘objects’ reflected, but we do not see 'wavelengths', we see what we see best and in this case it's 'color', our conscious interpretation of the 'wavelengths'. But 'color'is not in the 'object'. This ‘projection’ represents the 'personal psychological equation' so often mistaken as 'mystical' by those who have not yet come to terms with ‘personal psychology’ in its proper relationship to ‘observation’. Your 'personal psychological equation' begins with the act of observation. And asserts itself in the presentation and communication of your observations, and in abstract expositions of empirical material. Pure observation is impossible, except by instruments, and so, what is required is a practiced well-balanced sense of being able to see both objectively and subjectively. This is what the Quantum Physicists realized withou fully understanding.

 

[CharleyH]

there are no ways to test these theories. There are no expriments you can do, and no predictions that they make than can be verified or disproved.

I think the human mind runs it limit, Doc. I believe we all know whats out there, but we can't put it to math or myth, so we don't like to REALLY think. We all know though.

 

[Seattle Zack]

Well, I don't think atoms resemble solar systems, that's a way of trying to impose our notions of classical physics on "things" which have, for all intents and purposes, no mass.

An electron doesn't loop around a nucleus in a grand eliptical orbit, subject to the forces of gravitation. Rather, it's probably some bizarre light/matter mass, that sort of reverberates in a "shell," the constraints of which can be discerned by mathematical probability. We can predict and speculate, with X% probability, that this particle will appear in this particular space and time, but it can't be predicted with absolute certainty.

All in all, it's thoroughly confounding, and it goes to the nature of our existence, and I find it really fascinating. Existential musings aside, science just fucking rocks.

--Zack

 

[NastyPierre]

fascinated.

Well, I don't think atoms resemble solar systems, that's a way of trying to impose our notions of classical physics on "things" which have, for all intents and purposes, no mass.

An electron doesn't loop around a nucleus in a grand eliptical orbit, subject to the forces of gravitation. Rather, it's probably some bizarre light/matter mass, that sort of reverberates in a "shell," the constraints of which can be discerned by mathematical probability. We can predict and speculate, with X% probability, that this particle will appear in this particular space and time, but it can't be predicted with absolute certainty.

All in all, it's thoroughly confounding, and it goes to the nature of our existence, and I find it really fascinating. Existential musings aside, science just fucking rocks.

--Zack

--ZACK,
that's what i have tried to say, consciousness cannot know what 'things' actually 'look' like. We interpret images that are dependent on how well our senses work, and considering how much our instruments have demonstrated we cannot 'see' directly, our senses, though complex, are very limited. This means a truly scientific mind needs to take what they 'see' as a 'potential' and no more. Anyway, the ideal of science is not to give the most exact possible description of facts, but in establishing certain laws which are abbreviated expressions for many diverse processes which are yet conceived as being somehow correlated. This aim is taken beyond what is empirical by means of the 'concept', which, though proven valid in general, will always be a product of 'subjective psychology' constellated by the investigator. i felt what you wrote above touched on another subject avoided by scientists; the 'implicate' order.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Well, I don't think atoms resemble solar systems, that's a way of trying to impose our notions of classical physics on "things" which have, for all intents and purposes, no mass.

An electron doesn't loop around a nucleus in a grand eliptical orbit, subject to the forces of gravitation. Rather, it's probably some bizarre light/matter mass, that sort of reverberates in a "shell," the constraints of which can be discerned by mathematical probability. We can predict and speculate, with X% probability, that this particle will appear in this particular space and time, but it can't be predicted with absolute certainty.

All in all, it's thoroughly confounding, and it goes to the nature of our existence, and I find it really fascinating. Existential musings aside, science just fucking rocks.

--Zack

Right. Science builds "models". Atoms aren't billiard balls, but if you want to understand certain behaviors of atoms, it's useful to think of them as little billiard balls. That's a model.

When the structure of the atom was first discovered, the prevailing model was that they were like little the solar systems. That didn't work out too well for the physicists though, so then they started thinking of electrons as standing waves, which is what led to quantum theory and gave rise to this whole wave-particle controversy.

For chemists, though, the solar system model (with certain modifications) is generally more useful in their work than the wave model, and that's what they use. We know atoms aren't really like solar systems, but because that model lets us make accurate predictions and explain things without the truly horrendous math involved in the more "realistic" quantum mechanics, that's what we prefer to use.

Where we get in trouble is when our models stop corresponding to the world of everyday macro objects we're familiar with and we're forced to deal with purely mathematical concepts. That's where string theory is now with its multiple dimensions we can't even imagine

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[Seattle Zack]

What I'm trying to point out (badly, most likely) is that maybe string theory isn't at a wall, it just needs a more realistic mirror. Maybe a new face to look into it. It's no secret that the "young lions" are the ones who often come up with something the "old heads" have been working at for ages. Perhaps string theory will suddenly come into really being like quantum mechanics. A little fresh air is all it might need, or a new perspective on it by one of those "young lions" yet to come, or in the wings.

(edit to correct spelling)

Well, that's pretty much Smolin's argument in a nutshell, is should this "new breed" of quantum physicists embrace this sexy new theory and "bumble around in a darkened room" (paraphrasing his argument) or rely on the tried and true methods of scientific discovery that have worked so well in the past. Eleven dimensions (or twenty-five, depending on who you read) is really only necessary because the math works.

See, for mathemiticians, this argument is irrelevant. A dimension is only another variable, to be included in a formula and integrated from zero to infinity to see what comes out. That's the purity of math, it exists on its own merits. When we ever make contact with aliens, we'll communicate through mathematics, not through language. Absolutes like Pi and e transcend language. Hell, the Voyager spacecraft was sent out with a binary representation of the hydrogen atom on its front page.

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[dr_mabeuse]

One of the big complaints against string theory is that it's become the reigning orthodoxy in physics and now actually stands in the way of further progress. Physicists are loathe to abandon it because it's so elegant, even thought it can neither be proven nor disproven. But it's so pervasive in physics now that if you're a young physicist who has different ideas, you're pretty much shit out of luck when it comes to getting a job.

That was the original point of this thread. Not that we've run out of ideas or we can't figure things out, but we've run out of experiments we can do to verify our theories. In that situation, one theory is as good or bad as another, and if this is the case, then we really have gone as far into explaining the nature of matter as it's possible for us to go.

 

[Seattle Zack]

For chemists, though, the solar system model (with certain modifications) is generally more useful in their work than the wave model, and that's what they use. We know atoms aren't really like solar systems, but because that model lets us make accurate predictions and explain things without the truly horrendous math involved in the more "realistic" quantum mechanics, that's what we prefer to use.

Now that's what I always liked about organic chemistry. The carbon atom in particular, so beautiful in its simplicity, yet such a building block. It's no wonder we're carbon-based lifeforms. It turns out the carbon atom is like the crack whore of atomic particles, trolling around with four equidistant penetratable points. Any random free radical with an electron or two spinning about is drawn to the seductive carbon. And it turns out, plastic straws might be a pretty good model for the attraction between atoms.

Playing with hydrocarbons in the lab is a lot like LEGOs. It'll never get me a job, but I could draw you a 1-3 dimethyl benzene ring on a cocktail napkin.

 

[Seattle Zack]

I'm not swift on math, but is pi the odd critter in math that just happens to fit and can't be done without?

No, dear. Pi isn't just the odd critter that happened to fit, it's a fundemental ratio that's central to Euclidian mathematics. Pi r-squared is the area of a circle. Always.

It's a unique, non-repeating ratio that illustrates our effort to conquer the unknown.

For example, suppose we try to calculate the area underneath a curve. Using integration, we can postulate X number of rectangles under the curve, which would give us a good approximation of the area involved. Suppose we increase the number of rectangles to infinity, with each having a width of zero, that should give us an exact measure of the area underneath the curve.

Here comes Pi again, raising its ugly head. Turns out that ratio is inviolate, a circle will always maintain that margin.

e is even more incredible, another non-repeating infinite decimal that defines modern physics. Ain't numbers great? No bullshit there.

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[Seattle Zack]

--ZACK,
that's what i have tried to say, consciousness cannot know what 'things' actually 'look' like. We interpret images that are dependent on how well our senses work, and considering how much our instruments have demonstrated we cannot 'see' directly, our senses, though complex, are very limited. This means a truly scientific mind needs to take what they 'see' as a 'potential' and no more. Anyway, the ideal of science is not to give the most exact possible description of facts, but in establishing certain laws which are abbreviated expressions for many diverse processes which are yet conceived as being somehow correlated. This aim is taken beyond what is empirical by means of the 'concept', which, though proven valid in general, will always be a product of 'subjective psychology' constellated by the investigator. i felt what you wrote above touched on another subject avoided by scientists; the 'implicate' order.

Dude, until you learn capitalization, no one's going to take you seriously. Presentation is everything, don't you know that? I didn't read half of what you just wrote, and I'm willing to bet no one else did. Compose yourself and try it at an eigth-grade reading level. These breathy diatribes may be fulfilling, but they ain't getting your point across, know what I'm saying?