|Subject: RE: Quantum physics
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 22:44:36 -0600
I don't take so much a "position", as to take up the best
model I can find for the phenomena being studied.
One of the real problems is that folks tend to "lock
into" a model as "right or wrong".
That's not the way it is.
A model is either useful or not useful, to varying degrees.
There is no such thing as a perfect model, and never will be
not only is time important, but it can be engineered directly.
But not in classical electrodynamics or orthodox electrical
engineering. Indeed, all
EM energy in 3-space comes from the time domain, as fundamentally
shown by Whittaker in 1903, once one reinterprets correctly the phase
conjugate portion of his fundamental biwave.
That turns out to be the solution to the long vexing
"source charge" problem. Time, it turns out, has the same
energy density as mass.
are at least four major models, e.g., for the photon.
It is not a matter of which is "right" or
"wrong", but where one applies and the others doesn't, then
another, etc. So the
physicists just use the one that works, and quit worrying about it.
problem is that "either-or" thinking (Aristotelian logic)
also is seriously flawed, and is incapable of answering any ultimate
question. There are much
better systems of logic available.
what one has to do is let the experiments tell him which model or
"view' is good enough to describe the experimental phenomena
sufficiently to make predictions, and have an "engineering"
model. That one, one
develops a technology. Never
mind whether it is a wave or a particle (that either-or trap again);
just use whichever one works and fits the experiment.
we do not use that approach, then we practice dogma because we lock in
on a particular model and then fight all others.
That is not a scientific view.
It's a dogmatic view.
to big bangs or whimpers, etc., use whatever works in a given case,
and fits the phenomenology. Regardless,
none of the models answers the question, well, before there was a
physical universe, and there was no energy or time or mass, WHAT WAS
THERE? How can something
even be if it is not "being" or "persisting" in
time? What does
"being" mean, when there is no time in which to be being?
And so on. Aristotelian
logic can never get one out of such morasses.
I'm not worried so much about what someone believes, as long as he
is not engaging in ad hominem attacks etc.
Every model is useful, in its own domain.
Outside its domain, we need a different model.
other thing is to realize that thought itself is a functional model.
So this makes one confront the bane of the philosophers: the
difference between something that is thought (or observed, or
perceived, whatever as the output or characteristic of some operation)
and the notion of the "thing in itself, whether or not thought or
of the philosophical schools ever solved any of that, including any
fundamental problem (nature of mind, nature of being, nature of time,
etc.) Instead, they split
into schools where each school had a "position" and a very
clever way of "stating" their position and
they argued like the dickens or had cur dog fights. All really about
who was going to be the big monkey.
of science today is conducted the same way, with many "defenders
of the faith" (lots of different kinds of faith).
Consequently, it turns ever more into a cur dog fight.
use whatever model is convenient and fits the experiments, and allows
one to design and apply a technology.
If it doesn't do that, it's still an hypothesis only.
that is the view I take. And
one thing more: If the
experiments start to refute the model, we are supposed to realize we
have hit the limits of that model, and either extend the model or
change it to a better one that does fit.
At least for that purpose.