You are here: SriPedia - Ramanuja - Archives - Oct 2002

Ramanuja List Archive: Message 00070 Oct 2002

 
Oct 2002 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


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





[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list