| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Dr. Jai Maharaj" |
| Date: |
05 Jun 2005 05:29:45 PM |
| Object: |
Physics Principles Too Myopic, Nobel winner says |
Physics Principles Too Myopic, Nobel winner says
By Ashley Lawson
Science and Theology News
Thursday, June 2, 2005
Robert Laughlin thinks physics is
in crisis because physicists have
problems with their belief systems.
BOSTON - Physicists have problems with their belief
systems and the field of physics is in crisis because of
it, said Nobel Prize-winner Robert Laughlin at a recent
Boston University lecture.
"They have systems of belief just like everyone else," he
said. "There is a belief system problem here."
Laughlin, co-recipient of the Nobel Prize in physics in
1998, compared physicists to monotheists who hold one
belief and defend it even when presented with
contradictory evidence. Instead of questioning their
original belief, he said, they would question the
validity of the evidence challenging it.
"Physicists are kind of moralists," he said. "They're
worried about things making sense or being right."
This desire for one unified idea, he argued, causes
physicists to search for fundamental laws or what is
thought to be a "law that just is." However, many of
these laws that explain the organizational rules guiding
individual things are actually synergistic, or emergent,
said Laughlin.
All fundamental laws, he said, are actually derived from
observing collective events, and many do not accurately
describe the actions of the individual parts.
In his recent book, A Different Universe: Reinventing
Physics from the Bottom Down, Laughlin offers a tornado
as an example of an emergent property. By studying how
air molecules work together, not as individual molecules,
scientists learn how tornados work.
In the April lecture, he explained that Newton's law of
gravity is considered to be a fundamental law, but it is
impossible to observe this force in objects on a
nanoscale.
"When you get up close and take it apart to see how the
law works, you discover it's not there," he said.
Heat laws are also thought to be fundamental, he
explained, but the smallest particles do not obey them.
"Heat, conceptually, is like a painting of Monet; when
you get up close to see its parts, to see how the parts
work, you discover nothing but a lot of meaningless
dots," he said.
The distinction between fundamental and emergent laws
then becomes nonexistent and even basic assumptions
become mysterious. Because laws like those regulating
heat and gravity are only true for some matter, the
foundations of physics are becoming weak, he said.
"Physics is now in the midst of a crisis, an ideological
battle," he said. "The most fundamental things you know
may not be fundamental."
Laughlin also argued that, for mysteries like why atoms
are so uniform throughout the galaxy, physicists form
creation myths to explain away these quandaries.
Inflationary cosmology, he said, is the "myth" created to
solve this problem by saying that during the expansion
after the big bang, matter became uniform.
"That, on the face of it, is a pretty far-fetched theory,
but the reason we take this theory so seriously is the
depth of the crisis. In other words, we really need to
have an explanation for why this stuff is so uniform, and
we don't have it," he said. "I like to say that the
emergentist nature of the theories of the universe are
really an act of desperation."
The best chance at solving some of these mysteries of the
universe, Laughlin suggests in A Different Universe, is
to avoid the reductionist approach of studying particles
too minute to measure, and to look at the basic realities
of the natural world.
The exact characteristics of substances like ice or salt
is not fully understood, he said, but may reveal more
about the universe than the far reaches of space or the
first nanofraction of a second after the big bang.
http://www.stnews.org/articles.php?article_id=591&category=research
- - - - - - -
Posted on 6/01/2005 7:32:08 PM PDT by wallcrawlr
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
End of forwarded message
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
The terrorist mission of Jesus stated in the Christian bible:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not so send
peace, but a sword.
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in
law.
"And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
- Matthew 10:34-36.
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.
.
|
|
| User: "Dr. Jai Maharaj" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics Principles Too Myopic, Nobel winner says |
05 Jun 2005 05:34:44 PM |
|
|
Forwarded message
-To: The Ghost . . .
The best chance at solving some of these mysteries of
the universe, Laughlin suggests in A Different
Universe, is to avoid the reductionist approach of
studying particles too minute to measure, and to look
at the basic realities of the natural world.
You've just been pinged.
Posted on 6/01/2005 7:33:35 PM PDT by wallcrawlr
(http://www.bionicear.com)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
End of forwarded message
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Jai Maharaj" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics Principles Too Myopic, Nobel winner says |
05 Jun 2005 05:49:00 PM |
|
|
Forwarded message
-To: wallcrawlr
I've been saying this for 20 years.
Posted on 6/01/2005 8:10:07 PM PDT by derheimwill
(Love is a person, not an emotion.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
End of forwarded message
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Jai Maharaj" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics Principles Too Myopic, Nobel winner says |
05 Jun 2005 05:57:51 PM |
|
|
Forwarded message
-To: wallcrawlr
"That, on the face of it, is a pretty far-fetched theory,
but the reason we take this theory so seriously is the
depth of the crisis. In other words, we really need to
have an explanation for why this stuff is so uniform, and
we don't have it," he said. "I like to say that the
emergentist nature of the theories of the universe are
really an act of desperation."
God. Did. It.
Now, that that's out of the road you can start
concentrating on the "how" question and go back to having
fun.
Posted on 6/01/2005 8:23:39 PM PDT by Tribune7
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
End of forwarded message
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Jai Maharaj" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics Principles Too Myopic, Nobel winner says |
05 Jun 2005 06:09:20 PM |
|
|
Forwarded message
-To: wallcrawlr
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/1998/october14/nobel1014.html
Robert B. Laughlin, professor of physics and applied
physics and the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor in
the School of Humanities and Sciences, said he wants the
public to understand that nature is a wonderful thing
that has many surprises. He also wants people to know
that providing tax money to scientists to enable them to
make fundamental discoveries about nature is vital.
"I owe a debt of gratitude to the taxpayers in my
parents' generation," Laughlin told a roomful of
reporters and well-wishers, including his mother, wife
and son, at a news conference Oct. 13 in Tresidder Union.
"I accuse my generation of not living up to their
responsibility to support basic research for future
generations."
The academic is happy that he was able to spend
taxpayer's dollars to get what he wanted. Says a lot.
Laughlin shares the 1998 Nobel award with Horst L.
Störmer, a professor at Columbia University and Bell
Laboratories, and Daniel C. Tsui, a professor at
Princeton University. All three scientists worked
together at AT&T's Bell Laboratories in the early 1980s.
In a 1982 experiment, Störmer and Tsui discovered that
the electrons in a semiconductor could be forced to
behave like a liquid made of quasi-particles, with only
one-third of the electrical charge of individual
electrons. That was something no one had even dreamed was
possible.
Although it is unlikely the phenomenon, known as the
fractional quantum Hall effect, will ever have any
practical applications, Laughlin said it has important
cosmological implications.
Put all those cosmological implications in one hand, and
your morning defecation in the other, and see which one
fills up first.
<bullsh_t>
When he was pressed to expand on its significance,
Laughlin turned on the professorial charm.
"You have ordinary particles, obeying ordinary quantum
mechanical laws, in ordinary conditions, that behave in
unprecedented ways," he said.
</bullsh_t>
Posted on 6/01/2005 8:30:20 PM PDT by solitas
(So what if I support a platform that has fewer flaws
than yours? 'Mystic' dual 500 G4's, OSX.3.7)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
End of forwarded message
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Jai Maharaj" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics Principles Too Myopic, Nobel winner says |
05 Jun 2005 06:10:07 PM |
|
|
Forwarded message
-To: wallcrawlr
"Heat laws are also thought to be fundamental, he
explained, but the smallest particles do not obey
them."
This is a very good point.
Newton's Second Law which is cited as the reason a device
with zero antrophy cannot be possible, does not apply "if
the particle is not small compared to the atomic level OR
not slow compared to the speed of light". - General
Theory states.
Magnetic lines of flux move (it is assumed) at the speed
of light and have NO mass.
Therefore they conform to The General Theory NOT
Newtonian Law.
A magnet not doing work and one doing work both loose
strength at EXACTLY the same rate therefore no antrophy
(conversion to heat) can be demonstrated.
Most scientists still have their basic ideas lodged in
the nineteenth century dispite playing lip service to
Enstein's theories.
Modern science is still very unscientific and prone to
illogical dogma.
Many basic belief are flawed and easily domonstrated to
be false.
Even the Earth's magnetic field cannot be as stated. As
no materials magnetic moments remain in alignment
(magnetic) when subject to high heat it is quite
impossible for the Earth core to be magnetic and for flux
lines to flow through it. The flux circuit must complete
it's path via some shallow level path through the
Earth's crust
This is so obvious and easily demonstrated I cannot see
how the idea still is accepted without challenge.
Rant over.
Posted on 6/02/2005 1:16:55 AM PDT by David Lane
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
End of forwarded message
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Jai Maharaj" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics Principles Too Myopic, Nobel winner says |
05 Jun 2005 06:14:27 PM |
|
|
Forwarded message
-To: David Lane
"I like to say that the emergentist nature of the
theories of the universe are really an act of
desperation."
Because current theories are flawed does not mean a
correct theory cannot be possible.
Much of the problem came when Maxwell was considered
wrong regarding sub quantum energy (Ether).
I believe E=MC2 is really a definition of the spectrum of
human perception of matter NOT of matter itself in a
strict sense.
Matter is a relative structure and requires both it's own
structure AND a perception structure (memory) to exist.
It takes two to Tango.
If matter has no size or 'speed' limit, it's quantity is
a product of the speed of perception and 'one' can be any
quantity (relative to the perception of it) if it moves
at above the speed of light, thus making creation a
default structure.
In short nothing created the Universe, as it had an equal
chance of existing or not existing. As the potential was
EXACTLY equal both options, both had to take place.
Only one is of interest to us.
Posted on 6/02/2005 1:39:36 AM PDT by David Lane
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
End of forwarded message
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Jai Maharaj" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics Principles Too Myopic, Nobel winner says |
05 Jun 2005 06:23:28 PM |
|
|
Forwarded message
-To: solitas
"You have ordinary particles, obeying ordinary quantum
mechanical laws, in ordinary conditions, that behave in
unprecedented ways," he said.
</bullsh_t>
You are right and wrong. Quantum particles DO obey
Newtonian laws but magnetic forces (the actual lines of
flux) do not.
The reason is obvious. They are not quantum (no mass) in
the Newtonian sense.
A law of quantum physics is exactly that. A law of the
physics of mass.
It does not apply to sub quantum physics.
The trouble is that many scientists seem to forget this
and that is when things start to fall apart.
Gravity and magnetics are not quantum physics even if
structures in elastic tension with the wave or field (the
magnet itself) are.
A magnet's material structure conforms to the Second Law
but it's lines of force do not.
Posted on 6/02/2005 1:57:09 AM PDT by David Lane
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
End of forwarded message
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
Re: Physics Principles Too Myopic, Nobel winner says NANOTECHNOLOGY NOT NEW TO BHARAT, SAYS NOBEL LAUREATE Nobel Prize physicist says quantum computers will never work reliably Re: Diamonds have oceanic origin, says University of Toronto geologist Coulomb Unification of Forces, unlike Standard Model, says protons areinfinitely stable Re: How can one believe the Earth to be 13,000 years old when the data says otherwise? Saddam's WMD hidden in Syria, says Iraq survey chief Re: Sollog says Pluto - Quaoar and DW 2004 only MOONS
| Hawking says he's solved black-hole riddle NASA scientist says Bush stifles global warming evidence Re: Humans are main cause of warming, scientist says! BHARAT CAN BECOME WORLD'S KNOWLEDGE ENGINE, SAYS MANMOHAN Tell the Martians that Eddie says 'Hi' [Follow-up] China says the Internet is 'doomed' if they are not put in charge of it NOW. HUP Says We Lack Quantum Knowledge/Perception, So Can't Be Used As Explanation
|
|
|