It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by playswithmachines
reply to post by tauristercus
Right, and that leads us to another interesting question, are the constants actually constant?
... the electron is actually more like a cloud than a 'solid particle'-it therefore has a surface area 1000's of times greater than it's 'solid' counterpart.
The electron is a subatomic particle carrying a negative electric charge. It has no known components or substructure.
Wiki source: en.wikipedia.org...
I think i'll start a new thread called 'embarrassing questions to ask your physics teacher'
Originally posted by freedomintruth
Reply to post by tauristercus
I am in the middle of 'free energy-secrets of the cold war' in which the author postulates that Tesla gave up his work on AC to experiment with what is called the aether. Fascinating read but to boil it down the thought is that our laws of thermodynamics are obsolete due to the nature of the aether. I will agree with the post- magic would be an accurate description relating to advanced technologies we simply don't grasp. Sometimes I wonder if 'the laws' are part of what hold science back. Almost in a skinner/hegalian aspect. Program the people to think in a certain vien and they can no longer use their own creativity to answer the most perplexing questions of life. Because certain hypothesis "couldn't possibly be right" they are thrown out never explored.
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
Well the aether would explain quantum entanglement sort of because everything would pass through it. special relativity states that information can never be transmitted faster than the speed of light without violating causality. So basically we cant have information travel faster then light but in the case of quantum entanglement it does just that. So this tells us were missing something. Im betting its the fact the sped of light isn't constant and we would find varies greatly depending on circumstances or more likely something manipulating it. Another variable?
Sorry i know i go over board sometimes, But people have no idea quantum mechanics is all ready paying off.Quantum computer comes to mind for one.Its just a matter of time before mankind will learn all the secrets of the niverse if we live long enough!
edit on 9/13/10 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by tauristercus
So, we employ the results of the universe without truly understanding the how ...
Which brings me to ask the question once again ...
Is physics rapidly leaving the realm of SCIENCE and RE-ENTERING the realm of MAGIC ?
to which I personally have to answer YES.
Middle World -- the range of sizes and speeds which we have evolved to feel intuitively comfortable with -- is a bit like the narrow range of the electromagnetic spectrum that we see as light of various colors. We're blind to all frequencies outside that, unless we use instruments to help us. Middle World is the narrow range of reality which we judge to be normal, as opposed to the queerness of the very small, the very large and the very fast. We could make a similar scale of improbabilities; nothing is totally impossible.
I wonder whether we might help ourselves to understand, say, quantum theory, if we brought up children to play computer games, beginning in early childhood, which had a sort of make believe world of balls going through two slits on a screen, a world in which the strange goings on of quantum mechanics were enlarged by the computer's make believe, so that they became familiar on the Middle-World scale of the stream.
If the universe is queerer than we can suppose, is it just because we've been naturally selected to suppose only what we needed to suppose in order to survive in the Pleistocene of Africa? Or are our brains so versatile and expandable that we can train ourselves to break out of the box of our evolution? Or, finally, are there some things in the universe so queer that no philosophy of beings, however godlike, could dream them?
Originally posted by Byrd
We know so much about science now that it has become subdivided into many subdisciplines. Each subdiscipline is so large that it's almost impossible to read all the literature in the area and know all the major researchers in the area. One of the results of Internet is the sharing of information and ease of access to papers in disciplines other than the one you're studying. This has led to a lot of cross-disciplinary research... and further fragmentation of science into even more subdisciplines.
It probably looks like magic, but it looks more like the growth of a (mathematical) tree such as a Cayley tree to me.
I sometimes entertain the idea that physics may have taken a wrong turn somwhere towards the end of the 19th century.
Matter which we perceive is merely nothing but a great concentration of energy in very small regions. We may therefore regard matter as being constituted by the regions of space in which the field is extremely intense. . . . There is no place in this new kind of physics both for the field and matter for the field is the only reality. -Einstein (Capek, Milic page 319 The Philosophical Impact of Contemporary Physics.)
“If, then, it is true that the axiomatic foundation of theoretical physics cannot be extracted from experience but must be freely invented, may we ever hope to find the right way? Furthermore, does this right way exist anywhere other than in our illusions? May we hope to be guided safely by experience at all, if there exist theories (such as classical mechanics) which to a large extent do justice to experience, without comprehending the matter in a deep way?
To these questions, I answer with complete confidence, that, in my opinion, the right way exists, and that we are capable of finding it. Our experience hitherto justifies us in trusting that nature is the realization of the simplest that is mathematically conceivable. I am convinced that purely mathematical construction enables us to find those concepts and those lawlike connections between them that provide the key to the understanding of natural phenomena. Useful mathematical concepts may well be suggested by experience, but in no way can they be derived from it. Experience naturally remains the sole criterion of the usefulness of a mathematical construction for physics. But the actual creative principle lies in mathematics. Thus, in a certain sense, I take it to be true that pure thought can grasp the real, as the ancients had dreamed.”
It is a natural assumption that in philosophy, before we start to deal with its proper subject-matter, viz. the actual cognition of what truly is, one must first of all come to an understanding about cognition, which is regarded either as the instrument to get hold of the Absolute, or as the medium through which one discovers it. A certain uneasiness seems justified, partly because there are different types of cognition, and one of them might be more appropriate than another for the attainment of this goal, so that we could make a bad choice of means; and partly because cognition is a faculty of a definite kind and scope, and thus, without a more precise definition of its nature and limits, we might grasp clouds of error instead of the heaven of truth. ... For, if cognition is the instrument for getting hold of absolute being, it is obvious that the use of an instrument on a thing certainly does not let it be what it is for itself, but rather sets out to reshape and alter it. If, on the other hand, cognition is not an instrument of our activity but a more or less passive medium, then again we do not receive the truth as it is in itself, but only as it exists through and in this medium.
Originally posted by zatara
I do not agree with physics rapidly leaving the realm ofSCIENCE and RE-ENTERING the realm of MAGIC...
My answer lies in the way we agreed upon what the meaning of the word magic is.
1 (the charms, spells etc used in) the art or practice of using supernatural forces: “The prince was turned by magic into a frog.”
2 the art of producing illusions by tricks: “The conjuror's magic delighted the children.”
3 fascination or great charm: “the magic of Turner's paintings.”
used in or using magic: “a magic wand”
By using the term magic, I'm in no way implying a mystical or supernatural explanation behind the observed behaviour of the universe and its constituent parts. Rather I'm using the term in a manner consistent to that expressed many years ago by Arthur C. Clark when he made the (now famous) comment:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
For the purpose of this thread, the entire set of rules governing the creation and workings of the universe are to be considered analogous to Clark's use of the term "advanced technology".
Originally posted by playswithmachines
reply to post by tauristercus
These are questions we should be asking. Personally, i believe that Tom Bearden is on to something, he claims that electrons constantly emit & absorb 'virtual' photons-they are energy transfer particles.
Now i'm not a PHD but i have concluded that 'charge' can be 'uncoupled' from the electron, which is merely 'holding' the charge.
Originally posted by deadred
Magic is little more than the unknown. In a sense, it is all magic to those who don't have some understanding of how science works.
On the other hand, quantum "mechanics" is a contradiction of terms really, isn't it? What's mechanical about quantum mechanics?