RE: Mathematics and the Universe
January 6, 2009 at 12:00 pm
(This post was last modified: January 6, 2009 at 3:26 pm by infidel666.)
I also think it is significant that the "fundamental" physics that is elegantly expressed arose from theory instead of experimentation, and is elegant because our minds seek symmetry. Some of that theory, such as relativity, has been taken as confirmed by certain observable phenomenon at the macroscopic level. But more advanced physics, and here I am speaking of quantum mechanics in particular, arose purely from experimental observance of extremely surprising, baffling phenomenon that cannot be described elegantly in mathematics. The theoretical school of physics cried foul as the experimental physicists presented their findings. But that theoretical school has been discredited to a large degree.
Her is what you find in quantum mechanics. You observe a small particle's position. It is stationary in that position. Then you look away briefly and observe it again. It is still in the same place. Then look away again for a a longer period of time. When you look back the particle has moved. Repeat and record the positions. You find there is an area in which the particle seems to move around.
Why does the particle not move when you are observing it? Perhaps it is because the act of observing it changes the nature of the particle. Observing the particle's position certainly seems to fix its position while it is being observed. And when you look away for a time and then observe the particle, why does it's position change? And why can't you predict the position?
Feynman suggested that there are many paths the particle can take to arrive at the new position. Which one does it take? Feynman said that it takes all of the paths. Some people took his comment perhaps a bit more seriously than he meant it, and said there must be multiple realities, and that observing the particle selects a subset of all the paths the particle could take to all the possible positions. It is a collision of possibilities in which those that conflict cancel out, and leave those that don't. And that is why I talk about unharmonius interractions not existing, especially at the macroscopic level. The interractions take on an elegant appearance as we observe them. But it breaks down a bit when the observations are made at the microscopic level.
Her is what you find in quantum mechanics. You observe a small particle's position. It is stationary in that position. Then you look away briefly and observe it again. It is still in the same place. Then look away again for a a longer period of time. When you look back the particle has moved. Repeat and record the positions. You find there is an area in which the particle seems to move around.
Why does the particle not move when you are observing it? Perhaps it is because the act of observing it changes the nature of the particle. Observing the particle's position certainly seems to fix its position while it is being observed. And when you look away for a time and then observe the particle, why does it's position change? And why can't you predict the position?
Feynman suggested that there are many paths the particle can take to arrive at the new position. Which one does it take? Feynman said that it takes all of the paths. Some people took his comment perhaps a bit more seriously than he meant it, and said there must be multiple realities, and that observing the particle selects a subset of all the paths the particle could take to all the possible positions. It is a collision of possibilities in which those that conflict cancel out, and leave those that don't. And that is why I talk about unharmonius interractions not existing, especially at the macroscopic level. The interractions take on an elegant appearance as we observe them. But it breaks down a bit when the observations are made at the microscopic level.
