Wave-particle duality is an illusion

[Brian]

<snip>

...I remember centrifugal force being replaced by centripetal...

<snip>

Another example of how our perceptions of reality are shaded by our understandings of reality.

 

It has been clear since the late 1600s that centrifugal force is a pseudo-force -- an illusion caused by inertia superimposed on a moving frame of reference. <link-to-article-you-won't-read> The concept of centrifugal force is very useful, however -- even though we know it is an illusion.

 

Same applies to other classical models -- we use Newton's gravitational law to describe the trajectory of celestial bodies, satellites, flying balls, etc., despite knowing that it is incomplete. It is useful in those situations where it is useful but it is not useful in those situations where its incompleteness presents a problem.

 

This goes for more esoteric theories, too. The rock you kick with your toe "being solid" is a perfectly functional model for the purposes of the rock-toe interaction but fails miserably at explaining how neutrinos can pass through the entire planet as if it wasn't there. The problem is not that the model of the rock as a solid object is "wrong" so much as "incomplete." All of our theories are incomplete, mind you, but they tend to become less and less incomplete as they are tested and revised or replaced by better theories. The current family of theories are incomplete, too -- and maybe completely naïve -- but the new & improved theories-to-come will need to maintain "backwards compatibility" with those aspects of the older theories which are still relevant. For instance, a unified theory collapsing gravity and the Georgi-Glashow SU(5) would need to satisfy everything we can currently predict from Maxwell's equations for electromagnetic radiation, from Newton's universal gravitation, from general relativity, from atomic modelling, etc. The bar gets raised higher and higher and the language more nuanced but the ability to explain why it hurts your toe when you kick a rock remains a requirement.

[Karl]

You are a cheeky sod 'link to an article you won't read' :-)

I do read them if I can, but usually they are so horribly maths dense all my neutrinos fall out. I'm preferring to stick to economics instead. I do enjoy the theoretical side of physics but it's not where I would choose to spend much time. It's only when it gets linked into new age beliefs that it intersects with philosophy and perks my ears up.

[Brian]

I hope you know, Karl, that my jab was a gentle one intended kindly (even if the hope was to goad you into reading it...) I wouldn't be engaging with you if I didn't respect you and consider you a friend.

[Karl]

I hope you know, Karl, that my jab was a gentle one intended kindly (even if the hope was to goad you into reading it...) I wouldn't be engaging with you if I didn't respect you and consider you a friend.

 

 

Hmmmmm

 

\mathbf{a}(t) = \frac{d^2 R}{dt^2} \begin{bmatrix} \cos (\omega t + \pi/4) \\ \sin (\omega t + \pi/4) \end{bmatrix} + 2 \frac {dR}{dt} \omega \begin{bmatrix} -\sin(\omega t + \pi/4) \\ \cos (\omega t + \pi/4) \end{bmatrix} - \omega^2 R(t) \begin{bmatrix} \cos (\omega t + \pi/4) \\ \sin (\omega t + \pi/4) \end{bmatrix}

=2s\omega \begin{bmatrix} -\sin(\omega t + \pi/4) \\ \cos (\omega t + \pi/4) \end{bmatrix} -\omega^2 R(t) \begin{bmatrix} \cos (\omega t + \pi/4) \\ \sin (\omega t + \pi/4) \end{bmatrix}

=2s\ \omega \ \mathbf{u}_{\theta}-\omega^2 R(t)\ \mathbf{u}_R \ .

 

Actually that was pretty good. I'm only a couple of weeks off a universal theory of everything ;-)

[Nikolai1]

Hi Brian

 

The semiconductors used to build virtually every electronic device you have encountered in the last 40 years (unless you still use vacuum tubes) are the direct result of quantum theory. Computers, calculators, watches, TVs, clocks, LED lights, flat-panel displays, you name it.

Lasers are the direct result of quantum theory.

Technology is never the direct result of the theory.  The theory merely provides a language to describe practical know-how.

 

There is no reason why lasers couldn't be described with the language of, say, orthodox Christianity.  Light we would call 'God'; the high coherence of the beam would be Truth; radiation would be 'holy spirit', and so on.  Any of these could be translated into simple symbols, as shorthand, and it would become maths.

 

It would be perfectly possible to accommodate complex technological understanding within a Christian narrative if there was sufficient flexibility surrounding defintions of existing Christian terminology, and there is the freedom to invent neoligisms which also have a theological flavour.  

 

The secular lnaguage of science was only necessary because the Christian priesthoods would not allow Christian terminology the linguistic fluidity needed.  Furthermore, they made the words of Scripture sacrasanct, which made it very difficult to adapt them to new technological breakthroughs.

 

Technological expertise has nothing whatsover to do with the secular scientific worldview.  It only appears to be the case because of Christian dogmatism at the time of the Renaissance. 

 

This is a point that people like Richard Dawkins completely miss - they are frequently heard saying that science is justified by the fact that it works.  These guys should study modern philosophy more, where all this is seen and taken for granted.

[Karl]

In many cases the reverse of theory to technology is true. Often the theory is added after inventing the technology. A light switch is a Good example, as is virtually everything electrical. We didn't need quantum theory to build a laser, though we might well utilise the theory to build a better version at some point. I'm certain slings and gravity were utilised before Issac Newton appeared.

 

In fact isn't most science really 'how does this work'. Then it gets cute in helping better and easier design. It would have been much harder to build a steam engine without some knowledge of pressure, materials and thermodynamics but it wouldn't have been impossible. Once science got to work then steam engines quickly improved performance.

 

Interesting thought that we could have had an entire catalogue of theological descriptions in science though. Would make a pretty good idea for a book.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Karl