Spirituality
01 Jun 12
02 Jun 12
Originally posted by EAPOEI think you are still confused. You don't appear to know the Guy, either.
Schrödinger's cat unfortunately boarders on mythology. It was the most deceptive analogy ever made about the quantum world. An attempt to illustrate microscopic quantum events using a macroscopic model. It is no wonder people were left confused.
Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.
(Proverbs 26:12 NASB)
02 Jun 12
Originally posted by RJHindsGoto another thread then. There's plenty of others and you can even start one.
No. I never heard of the guy. 😀
Even though I did not start this one, I have felt insulted by your presence here and will remember this unwarranted trollery on your part.
(ps, there is a time for humour and there is a time for giving a straight answer. Thats for next time, dont come back into this one )
02 Jun 12
Originally posted by karoly aczelIn a grumpy mood, I see. Okay, I will give you guys a break from my witty humor.
Goto another thread then. There's plenty of others and you can even start one.
Even though I did not start this one, I have felt insulted by your presence here and will remember this unwarranted trollery on your part.
(ps, there is a time for humour and there is a time for giving a straight answer. Thats for next time, dont come back into this one )
02 Jun 12
Originally posted by karoly aczelI really enjoy not only learning some of the science I was never taught in school, like QM, but also the history behind it - at least from the perspective of, 'how the hell did they even think in that direction??'
I think there will be room for quantum and the other sciences. After all, everything has it's place and if you dont hang onto the knowledge of the past then you might just get a bit confused as to explain exactly why we ever go onto quantum?, (or other such enquiries ). So lets keep everything so that we can always quickly and readily be able to explain ...[text shortened]...
(pretty much agree with the rest of your post, I was just responding to the last 2 paragraphs)
02 Jun 12
1 edit
Originally posted by karoly aczelFor laymen such as myself, I recommend "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter" by Feynman (you can get by with a high-school/trig math level on this one). I also read a book by Styer that was not quite as good, but still gave some interesting background on the Stern/Gerlach and EPR experiments.
For one example you could have these self-replicating micro machines that could be used for virtually anything (prolly be good for cleaning and recycling unused resources). That is one of the basic theories of Quantum - that any thing can be made out of anything (that's putting it a bit too forcefully) , but more practically , I think that they are work t takes a while to get an understanding in/on. I would say more than one book on this one 😉
02 Jun 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitIt fills in holes for me too, some times in quite unexpected ways. But nevertheless, there it is. Individual comprehension is a must with quantum. You just cant sell it to some one.
I really enjoy not only learning some of the science I was never taught in school, like QM, but also the history behind it - at least from the perspective of, 'how the hell did they even think in that direction??'
02 Jun 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitThanks. i'll run that by my library, I may well have to go to the city library, but it will be an adventure either way 🙂
For laymen such as myself, I recommend "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter" by Feynman (you can get by with a high-school/trig math level on this one). I also read a book by Styer that was not quite as good, but still gave some interesting background on the Stern/Gerlach and EPR experiments.
02 Jun 12
Originally posted by SwissGambit"They" went that direction because
I really enjoy not only learning some of the science I was never taught in school, like QM, but also the history behind it - at least from the perspective of, 'how the hell did they even think in that direction??'
they were eager to get to know more about the ultimate nature of the universe; and first they had to find out what is the nature of the light. Empedocles back at 5th cent. BC was wrong, Lucretius (Nature of the Universe) was the first to propose that the light consisted of a stream of particles; too later on, along came Huygens, Hooke, Newton, Young, Fresnal, Maxwell, Planck... And in 1905 Einstein talked about "...energy quantas localised at points of space..." etc etc, then we heard of the non-locality and the Smiling Cat et al and after a while we just found ourselves herenow, creating bit by bit our holistic quantum philosopy;
I agree with you: it is easier to play with QM than with sunyatasaptati😵
02 Jun 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitIts my understanding that Kelly does not 'believe in' relativity. I presume this also means he doesn't believe in the implications of Quantum mechanics either - but I could be wrong here.
I heard Hugh Ross say in his 1999 debate with Hovind that some Young-Earth Creationists don't believe in Quantum Mechanics.
Dare I ask if there are any such people here?
02 Jun 12
Originally posted by karoly aczelWon't these things go 'rogue' and eat everything?
For one example you could have these self-replicating micro machines that could be used for virtually anything (prolly be good for cleaning and recycling unused resources). That is one of the basic theories of Quantum - that any thing can be made out of anything (that's putting it a bit too forcefully) , but more practically , I think that they are work ...[text shortened]... t takes a while to get an understanding in/on. I would say more than one book on this one 😉
02 Jun 12
Originally posted by divegeesterEverythings gotta be done right.
Won't these things go 'rogue' and eat everything?
Look at Chernobyl . But they could've done nuclear power right ,right?
(And I believe they do at a lot of places).
I can see your concern, but I believe some new moralities will evolve to guide us into using these new technologies the right way. In the end it is up to the same people who make will these decisions in the end.
If people cut corners and dont heed the consequences of their powerful research then it could be like the discovery of nuclear fission and the subsequent a-bomb that followed it , but times ten.
Responsible politcians and competent scientists and engineers can bring these potentials into a reality.
02 Jun 12
Originally posted by EAPOEIs this string theory part of quantum physics or is it a whole new ball of, umm, string.
Schrödinger's cat unfortunately boarders on mythology. It was the most deceptive analogy ever made about the quantum world. An attempt to illustrate microscopic quantum events using a macroscopic model. It is no wonder people were left confused.
02 Jun 12
Originally posted by black beetleThen President George H.W. Bush talked about the "thousand points of Light."
"They" went that direction because
they were eager to get to know more about the ultimate nature of the universe; and first they had to find out what is the nature of the light. Empedocles back at 5th cent. BC was wrong, Lucretius (Nature of the Universe) was the first to propose that the light consisted of a stream of particles; too later on, along ...[text shortened]... ntum philosopy;
I agree with you: it is easier to play with QM than with sunyatasaptati😵
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!
02 Jun 12
Originally posted by black beetle
"They" went that direction because
they were eager to get to know more about the ultimate nature of the universe; and first they had to find out what is the nature of the light. Empedocles back at 5th cent. BC was wrong, Lucretius (Nature of the Universe) was the first to propose that the light consisted of a stream of particles; too later on, along ...[text shortened]... ntum philosopy;
I agree with you: it is easier to play with QM than with sunyatasaptati😵
Whenever I hear someone mention Schrödinger's cat, I reach for my gun.
-Stephen Hawking