Sri: Srimathe Ramanujaya nama: Dear KK, I am restricting my replies here(with the exception of few) and would prefer private communication if there is a need to stretch the topic. > I beg to disagree. Please give relevant details when > you say that physicists are appreciating our religion. > I've read Bohr, Heisenberg, Hawkins, Penrose, Weinberg > ( all physicists ) and Darwin, Dawkins and countless > other evolutionary biologists ( Physics & Biology are > my current favorite pure sciences. I started my > fascination with chemistry though - I have to admit My professor(retired now) is a particle physics guy. He used to tell lot of stories about these physicists. I only said quarks had not been detected in laboratory. Did I say "directly" or "indirectly"? It has not been detected directly.............I may skip many things when I write for brevity to save time. It is the reader who has to cross check. This is the "standard problem" that comes up when a reader "reads" a book by an author. This can highly lead to misunderstanding. In the recent years,physicists have got some exposures to other religions. In the olden days,there were very few who really used to read and one among the few was Oppenheimer. He used to read BG and even on the day he died,he had Bhagavad Gita in his hand. His classes always used to be packed and would quote BG (apart from physics) to the students. I have lot of foreigners who ask me about our religion. Einstein did believe in God apart from his fascination for symmetry. Whether Science finds the solution or not,God only knows(I'm not going to live long to see who wins the race!). Science goes by evidence! The very EPR argument suggests,for the example that Einstein suggested,the twin particles which are separated far off can not affect each other's measurement instantaneously,because nothing can travel faster than light. Alain Aspect's findings might confirm once again QM yet it has not confirmed staunchly that there are independent particles that can move faster than the light. QM deals with statistical averages. Some individual particles may travel faster than light but the statistical average is always less than or equal to c,the speed of light. Yes. Bohr brainwashed many. So many articles even after his death (till 1960's when Bell came up with his inequality) would be turned down if it was any way related to Copenhagen Interpretation. Don't forget Eddington was a block for Chandrashekhar. Chandrashekhar used to shift his field itself every decade. Einstein's theory is not tested in a "very strong" gravitational field. To test theories,sphisticated instruments are needed. Newtonian theory couldn't answer the "perihelion of mercury" and for particles/observer at the the speed of light Newtonian thoery fails to answer. To confirm this,it took almost two centuries. Yet on a day to day scale it/Newtonian Mechanics is still valid. For example,time clock of a person standing on 100th floor will be different from that of a person who is standing in the basement and this time difference due to gravity can be measured by sensitive nuclear clocks to confirm Einstein's thoery about the effect of gravity on matter but this time difference is so small that it can be neglected in classical sense. Similarly QM(probabilistic theory)only has to be the limiting case of EInstein's theory not the other way round. Again this depends on what one wants to see/believe in reality. BTW I have read Weinberg's on First three minutes and is an interesting book. > 6. Neils Bohr, Copenhagen interpretation. > Your comments are quite wrong. Bohr pointed out that > it is meaningless to ask questions like - "What is the > position and momentum of an electron before I make a > measurement". He proposed that "position" and > "momentum" form complimentary pieces of a puzzle and > knowledge of one excludes the knowledge of other. > Nothing more. Nothing less. > It is a stretch of imagination to extend copenhagan > interpretation to mean that Bohr denies reality > altogether. This is the precise incompleteness in thought or whatever you call it that Einstein disliked it to the core and he also said it will crumble like Newtonian Mechanics after some years. Any theory which has statistics/probability as a building block can not sustain for long. That was Einstein's view. It all depends on one's experience(in reality!)what to believe/expect and what not to believe about reality. > 8. Well, I wouldn't call Bohr brainwashed physicists. > He merely pointed out, it is futile to engage in wild > speculations and philosophies if you cannot prove by > experiment. I think he follwed occam's razor > principle. > Also note that "reality denial" is only one > interpretation of QM. You have not one not two but > infinite realities in "Many worlds interpretation" > proposed by Everett. :) I only mentioned Copenhagen(Bohr) according to which the reality is denied. Now you have so many versions of even superstring theory but nothing is yet concrete to favor one or the other. Even when the "so called" quantum gang of 1920's and 1930's were all involved in nuclear physics,it was "only" Einstein who started thinking about Unifying gravity with other forces. It is this gravity which poses lot of difficulty as it's strength is way off from the strengths of the other three. The other three have been unified sucessfully but still the quest for the "superforce" is ongoing. Last but not the least science is full of surprises. One fellow will propound the theory and another may prove/disprove that theory. It is a matter of time. No matter how far they succeed still scientists can not explain certain things. Whether or not, Bohr believed that it is futile to engage in wild philosphical speculations,the Quantum theory leads to philosophical implications only. Best Regards AzhvAr EmperumAnAr JIyar thiruvadigaLE sharaNam NC Nappinnai
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |