Re: Existence
Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 2:58 am
Oh dear, Keith. You're beginning to sound a bit flustered, a bit peeved. I guess having spent a few years at uni it must be horribly deflating when a lumpen prole, a jumped up chav, like my good self, puts you right on key issues of physics - never mind highlighting anomalies in your reasoning. I included the humorous bit at the end because I appreciate physics and cosmology are not everyone's cup of tea, so I thought it would be cool to lighten the mood a little - just like they do on news broadcasts. But I never mentioned, ?class? - 'tis you who brought that into the, er, equation ('Equation'...'Physics'. Get it? Ha, ha, ha... You should be paying me for this.)
"You'd love to be middle class"
Hey, steady on, Keith... What, middle-class, me? - and have to attend all those pretentious protest marches? Have to pretend I gave a dam about the fate of the Hubba, Hubba tribe and their Lesbian Drop-in Centre in darkest Um-Bongo Land? Be middle-class and make out like I was a skint, underprivileged, spokesman of the oppressed, while wearing a Che Guevara hat? Not on your Nellie. I'm OK as I am - a ?super chav? - that's a chav capable of abstract thought, for your info.
"and also by talking about things you haven't the faintest idea about as though you do have an insight."
I say, Keith. That's an awfully arrogant, patronising, condescending thing to say, isn't it? Aren't lumpen proles like me allowed to have opinions and insights into such elevated matters? Are you one of those middle-class folk who believe that the common people should be seen and not heard? That we should stick to discussing matters more suited to our limited intellects - the Jeremy Kyle show, perhaps? Oh dear. I never thought I'd hear it. What's become of 'Equal Opportunities" and the 'Respect Agenda', hey? I thought you were an advocate of political correctness? I'm sure you wouldn't be denigrating me in such a brutally heinous fashion if I were black or gay, or both.
"Having a bit of dosh doesn't make you middle class."
My dear Sir, that's been my theme since I first applied myself to a keyboard. After all my scribblings, and despite your university education, you don't seem to have cottoned on to what I am about or where I'm coming from.
"The Shrodinger's cat experiment is meant to illustrate duality, but it is also a leg-pull too."
The Schr?dinger?s cat experiment is a hypothetical experiment meant to illustrate the seeming paradox between subatomic and macroscopic systems and the incompleteness of the theory of quantum mechanics. Physicists are still arguing over what it means and the implications for the macroscopic world to this day. Here's a quote regarding this issue from Answers.com - "A final consensus on this point among physicists seems still to be out of reach."
Wave-Particle Duality in quantum mechanics relates to the theory that light and matter simultaneously exhibit the properties of both waves and particles. Though Wave-Particle Duality is a central point of quantum mechanics, it's not what Schr?dinger conceived his experiment to illustrate. The only amusing facet of this experiment - as far as I can divine, is that it involves a cat that may (or may not) be gassed with cyanide.
"Quantum physics describes the signature energy levels of electrons attained uniquely by individual elements."
Ha, ha, ha. Chortle, chortle. You're waffling, Keith. In fact quantum mechanics is a branch of physics that deals with the behavior of particles in atomic and subatomic systems. Since it states that the position of a subatomic particle cannot be determined with any certainty at any one time it has led to a drastic reappraisal of the concept of objective reality - and therefore has huge implications for philosophy and religion.
"It is well understood and has nothing to do with relativity."
I thought I'd already dealt with the issue of it (not) being understood, by quoting a Nobel prizewinning physicist, Richard Fryeman, and pointing out that even Einstein would not have it, saying, "God does not play dice with the universe"? Also, I asked you to point out the learned folk that do, as you allege, fully understand it, so that we can go to their web page and see what they have to say on the matter.
The issue of quantum mechanics and relativity having anything to do with one another is one of the most hotly debated and contentious areas of modern physics. The problem is that we believe each theory (quantum mechanics - the theory of the very small, and Relativity - the theory of the very large) to be correct, as they have been tested by experiment and observation. But they appear to disagree with each other. The holy grail of contemporary physics is to unite these two competing theories into a single 'Unified Field Theory'.
?The more you talk the more you reveal your ignorance?
Au contraire, Keith. I'm a veritable encyclopedia of knowledge and a fountain of insight, while you appear to be bluffing and waffling.
"and knowledge gleaned from watching TV."
I don't watch Channel 5. In fact I don't watch much TV at all nowadays.
"Reading a book wouldn't hurt now would it?"
Sir, contrary to your patronising assumption of me as an ignorant prole, I'll have you know that I'm a compulsive reader of popular science books - like Hawking's 'Brief History of Time'. Indeed I've just finished a very interesting one on cosmology called 'PARALLEL WORLDS' by physicist, Michio Kaku, in which he discuses multiple universes, parallel worlds, M Theory and multi dimensional space. And hey, I can tell yer? - It's well cushty. Also, I occasionally buy the ?New Scientist? - if it?s cover features a particularly interesting article, as indeed it did a few weeks ago. This was an article that put forward a fascinating new theory that basically suggested that subatomic particles were in fact ripples and knots in space-time. The starling implications of this theory are that we are all made of, well, nothing.
Hey, Keith. Chill out, dude. I'm only messin' with ya?.
Officer Dibble
"You'd love to be middle class"
Hey, steady on, Keith... What, middle-class, me? - and have to attend all those pretentious protest marches? Have to pretend I gave a dam about the fate of the Hubba, Hubba tribe and their Lesbian Drop-in Centre in darkest Um-Bongo Land? Be middle-class and make out like I was a skint, underprivileged, spokesman of the oppressed, while wearing a Che Guevara hat? Not on your Nellie. I'm OK as I am - a ?super chav? - that's a chav capable of abstract thought, for your info.
"and also by talking about things you haven't the faintest idea about as though you do have an insight."
I say, Keith. That's an awfully arrogant, patronising, condescending thing to say, isn't it? Aren't lumpen proles like me allowed to have opinions and insights into such elevated matters? Are you one of those middle-class folk who believe that the common people should be seen and not heard? That we should stick to discussing matters more suited to our limited intellects - the Jeremy Kyle show, perhaps? Oh dear. I never thought I'd hear it. What's become of 'Equal Opportunities" and the 'Respect Agenda', hey? I thought you were an advocate of political correctness? I'm sure you wouldn't be denigrating me in such a brutally heinous fashion if I were black or gay, or both.
"Having a bit of dosh doesn't make you middle class."
My dear Sir, that's been my theme since I first applied myself to a keyboard. After all my scribblings, and despite your university education, you don't seem to have cottoned on to what I am about or where I'm coming from.
"The Shrodinger's cat experiment is meant to illustrate duality, but it is also a leg-pull too."
The Schr?dinger?s cat experiment is a hypothetical experiment meant to illustrate the seeming paradox between subatomic and macroscopic systems and the incompleteness of the theory of quantum mechanics. Physicists are still arguing over what it means and the implications for the macroscopic world to this day. Here's a quote regarding this issue from Answers.com - "A final consensus on this point among physicists seems still to be out of reach."
Wave-Particle Duality in quantum mechanics relates to the theory that light and matter simultaneously exhibit the properties of both waves and particles. Though Wave-Particle Duality is a central point of quantum mechanics, it's not what Schr?dinger conceived his experiment to illustrate. The only amusing facet of this experiment - as far as I can divine, is that it involves a cat that may (or may not) be gassed with cyanide.
"Quantum physics describes the signature energy levels of electrons attained uniquely by individual elements."
Ha, ha, ha. Chortle, chortle. You're waffling, Keith. In fact quantum mechanics is a branch of physics that deals with the behavior of particles in atomic and subatomic systems. Since it states that the position of a subatomic particle cannot be determined with any certainty at any one time it has led to a drastic reappraisal of the concept of objective reality - and therefore has huge implications for philosophy and religion.
"It is well understood and has nothing to do with relativity."
I thought I'd already dealt with the issue of it (not) being understood, by quoting a Nobel prizewinning physicist, Richard Fryeman, and pointing out that even Einstein would not have it, saying, "God does not play dice with the universe"? Also, I asked you to point out the learned folk that do, as you allege, fully understand it, so that we can go to their web page and see what they have to say on the matter.
The issue of quantum mechanics and relativity having anything to do with one another is one of the most hotly debated and contentious areas of modern physics. The problem is that we believe each theory (quantum mechanics - the theory of the very small, and Relativity - the theory of the very large) to be correct, as they have been tested by experiment and observation. But they appear to disagree with each other. The holy grail of contemporary physics is to unite these two competing theories into a single 'Unified Field Theory'.
?The more you talk the more you reveal your ignorance?
Au contraire, Keith. I'm a veritable encyclopedia of knowledge and a fountain of insight, while you appear to be bluffing and waffling.
"and knowledge gleaned from watching TV."
I don't watch Channel 5. In fact I don't watch much TV at all nowadays.
"Reading a book wouldn't hurt now would it?"
Sir, contrary to your patronising assumption of me as an ignorant prole, I'll have you know that I'm a compulsive reader of popular science books - like Hawking's 'Brief History of Time'. Indeed I've just finished a very interesting one on cosmology called 'PARALLEL WORLDS' by physicist, Michio Kaku, in which he discuses multiple universes, parallel worlds, M Theory and multi dimensional space. And hey, I can tell yer? - It's well cushty. Also, I occasionally buy the ?New Scientist? - if it?s cover features a particularly interesting article, as indeed it did a few weeks ago. This was an article that put forward a fascinating new theory that basically suggested that subatomic particles were in fact ripples and knots in space-time. The starling implications of this theory are that we are all made of, well, nothing.
Hey, Keith. Chill out, dude. I'm only messin' with ya?.
Officer Dibble