Sri: Srimathe Ramanujaya nama: Dear Devotees, Salutations to all. More feedback(to clarify)I classify myself as applied physicist(although I have done plenty of courses in Physics Dept,from electromagnetism-relativity-cosmology-quantum)b'coz I do research in fluid dynamics(it's more of applied physics rather than "pure" physics). Assume that events depend on the observer. Then one should be able to measure things accurately if one is "truly" knowledgeable. Since "position" is confined to a point in space it's particle nature while "momentum"(which tells which direction the electron is heading) is wave nature. So by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle(position- velocity relation),the accurate measurement of particle position introduces an error in the accurate measurement of velocity of the particle. According to QT,just before the observation,the electron was both a particle and a wave(dual natured). Only when the observer observes,it either assumes a particle or a wave nature. If it assumes a particle nature(position),then it's momentum(wave) can not be measured accurately. If something depends on observer/me alone,then if I have the accurate knowledge I can find anything. Nothing stops me in this world! But that's not what Niels Bohr and Heisenberg said. Many undergrad physics students are of the opinion that the uncertainty is in the limited knowledge of the observer. It's absolutely NOT. The uncertainty comes from the "NATURE" itself. Theory is the way one looks at the reality but subject to verifications. WHat's the certainty(?)that Bohr and Heisenberg saw the reality correctly that they concluded that Nature itself is uncertain(random/probability). Things not happening b'coz of the lack of observer was questioned by Einstein. He asked Heisenberg:"you're trying to understand this mysterious Uinverse which you didn't create" which violates the very Copenhagen View that it's the observer who creates reality! Reality is reality whether or not the observer exists. This is Einstein's standpoint and hence he insisted that any theory, irrespective of whether or not the observer is watching, should explain the physical reality. Before Isaac Newton, gravity existed(Sri EmperumAnAr walked to so many places by foot without falling!). So you can't say that it was Sir Isaac Newton who "created" gravity because he observed the falling apple!(the absurdity of quantum theory is this). He only gave explanation "why things fall" under the assumption that "gravity" exists. He didn't explain why gravity exists ab initia! We all call "Newton's laws of motion"(I love Newton though) instead of "God's laws of motion". Carl Sagan: If you want to make an applepie,first you need to create the Universe. Another drawback of QT is the "measurement setup" being classical. No physicist(be it Newton,Maxwell,Bohr,Heisenberg,Hawkings or you name it)with the exception of Einstein,had written a "thin" book on "Theory of Relativity" with hardly any mathematics in simple terms and words that any "Taylor and Cobbler" can understand(all he needs to know is spoken english). In layman's words(if you want to explain the so called quantum physics, otherwise that knowledge is a waste and goes to drainage),the information that's exchanged between particles, violating the "light cone",at best can only be compared to "telepathy". This word was not coined by me. Many physicists have used it before me. The EPR(Einstein-Padolsky-Rosenfeld) Paradox in opposition to QT being incomplete,is iteslf subtle. The thought experiment was purely Einstein's(not other two fellows)and the paper was logically put and written by Padolsky(Russian Mathematician)and when the paper came out, Einstein said:"My thought has been modified by Padolsky". It's a very very subtle thought experiment to verify. Who wins(Einstein or Bohr) in the long run? Already the different interpretations to Copenhagen have been recognized but to verify them requires sophisticated experimental devices which will take its own time. In this regard, Unified Field Thoery is not possible even in the distant future (quarks have not been observed directly so far but only indirectly and hence some physicists even doubt the existence of quark being a fundamental particle). Moreover if proton has to decay(to quarks),the particle accelerator needs to generate a mass of 10**14 GeV. With the "current" particle technology,it can only generate in the range of 100-1000 GeV! But of course physicists think that there could be indirect ways of testing proton decay. Anyway all these things are beyond the scope of this forum. Don't think I'm going bridge the gap between physics and God by a continous function. It's a discontinuity. All continuum assumptions break down! Theory of karma finds no place in Judaism/Christianity/Islam. Buddism is only karmic but anti-vEdic and hence we don't consider buddha as an "avatAra" although Srimad Bhagavatam mentions in the First Canto,Chapter two(don't remember the verses!). If any reader has doubts,send mail to the personal id. I would be able to explain more clearly(to the best of my ability). It's difficult to compress years of Physicists work in two/three posts. AzhvAr EmperumAnAr Jeeyar TiruvadigaLE saraNam nappinnai
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |