Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2015 - 10:44am PT
|
As for Feynman, he like many smart and well known people got tempted to pronounce on things he didn't understand, and because of celebrity, people listened. Hollywood stars don't necessarily understand science or politics and physicists don't necessarily understand all aspects of human intellect or emotions. The main problem I have with him however, is his arrogant attitude toward anyone who doesn't focus on science. That's exactly what turns so many people off of science and scientists. While fun for the scientist to feel superior, in the end such an attitude damages science, particularly the kind of theoretical work Feynman was engaged in. Fortunately, that video will never be seen by the general public.
I much prefer Ed's attitude of being interested in the material world and confining himself to that out of personal preference. I find that world view too confining personally, but see it as a matter of taste, not any particular truth about reality.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2015 - 10:48am PT
|
Ed: But my interests are to simply accept the constraint that there is nothing more than "the physical universe" and see how far that goes, and what the difficulties are in explaining various phenomenon.
Fair enough. IMO, that leaves many doors open to others holding other visions of / approaches to reality. Any of us might become accomplished novices of one vision or another—as long as our visions are grounded in experience. Experience helps keep imaginations in-check and triangulating reality with closer approximations.
I’ve been reading disparate subjects these last few weeks (urban development / planning; and management / leadership). In both areas, there are scads of examples where rational points of views seem just wrong (idealistic, biased, authoritarian, efficiency-oriented) and create unintended consequences equal to the problems they were supposed to solve, particularly so in non-linear environments (high complexity).
I’m reading or have completed the following books recently, and they are all saying the very same things in my view:
Team of Teams, by General Stanley McChrystal (2015)
The End of the Suburbs, by Leigh Gallagher (2013)
The Great Inversion, by Alan Ehrenhalt (2012)
Walkable City, by Jeff Speck (2012)
The Death and Life of Great American Cities, by Jane Jacobs (1961)
McChrystal’s book is terrific in so many ways.
Jacobs’ book is brilliant (and she without a degree in the field—just great observation).
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2015 - 10:55am PT
|
Anyway, the urge to build machines.... is it a reproductive urge?
Biologic reproduction and machine/tool building are two separate things, originating in very separate spheres of human life, and therefore can only be bridged as metaphors.
Some people have the tendency to let metaphors overthrow clear distinctions, and clear thinking.
However ,DMT's question above is essentially an almost Freudian one and fair to ask in a broader psychological sense.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2015 - 11:00am PT
|
(1) I don't read MikeL.
(2) The posts by Jan and Ward are just silly if not off-putting.
Both quite out to lunch regarding science, its impassioned participants and their attitudes toward them.
Quite.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2015 - 11:04am PT
|
Both quite out to lunch. ;)
How so? Go into greater detail?
Tell me how I got the science wrong ?
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2015 - 11:07am PT
|
First, it's your commas, man.
Okay, I admit I'm not a good writer.
How did I get the science wrong?
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2015 - 11:09am PT
|
is at its core as necessary to us as the biological imperative.
I agree.
its impassioned participants
Let your passion flow over us like a horny male gorilla,seeking only to reproduce!
Give us an example of the impassioned thing you speak of?
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 16, 2015 - 11:43am PT
|
DIngus declares: Never does it reduce to nothing...
What does it mean when the scientists say, "It has no physical extent."
Take a photon. What is the difference between a photon and its effect (luminosity)?
Are you thinking that the effect is the very same phenomenon as "physical extent."
JL
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2015 - 12:28pm PT
|
What does it mean when the scientists say, "It has no physical extent." (JL)
(1) How many scientists actually say that?
(2) And if they do, then do they mean in an absolute sense or simply that "it" cannot be measured because it falls below a certain measurable threshhold?
But when a meditator reaches that conclusion I would give them the benefit of the doubt, for they are only talking about what happens in the confines of their own mind - not actual physical reality. Although they may confuse the two.
Autonomous machines and babies are comparable like computers and mind. Some superficial similarities.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2015 - 12:29pm PT
|
What are the signs of both life and intelligence? How do we distinguish between the constructions of non living matter and those constructions of living beings and then the remarkable intelligence associated with humanity? There seems to be a distinct difference between what non living matter becomes and the mark of some kind of intelligence.
Here the mark of humanity against the aggregate chaos of nature.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2015 - 02:00pm PT
|
But Smithson's earthwork is something beyond the instinctual behavior of bees in a hive. The Spiral Jetty is an unnecessary, impractical and superfluous illustration (a necessary communication) of an idea... a kind of behavior of production unseen in any life form with the exception of humanity.
If the Mar's Rover came across such a construction we would know immediately Mars held some kind of higher life form; if it was seen in photos of Pluto we would be stunned.
The constructions and achievement of humanity exhibit a higher form of sentience.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2015 - 02:13pm PT
|
There seems to be a distinct difference between what non living matter becomes and the mark of some kind of intelligence.
Yes but we've got to remember it was nature itself that created man and by proxy the works of man. Therefore nature owns the category of "creative"--- since it can be shown there can be no creation without nature.
Not bad for a force normally considered chaotic.
Of course it takes nature a much , much longer time.(working alone)
Even longer than Michaelangelo on the Sistine chapel.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2015 - 02:30pm PT
|
Yes and I can see VR technology in the future radically speeding up the neural entrainment of motor skills responsible for becoming proficient at the mastering of musical instruments.
A precise feedback mechanism would make minute corrections in one's fingers and hands in the playing of a violin, or cello, or piano.
Of course such a system could not teach true artistry, only mechanical virtuosity .
HFCS, pop quiz for you, and don't look it up:
Who coined the term "virtual reality" ?
Your.....time.......is ....up
It was Jaron Lanier
That's him, all of him.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2015 - 02:55pm PT
|
Nice spelling correction.
My foray into self-deprecation was spake in the heat of the polemic in order to dispose of it as the distraction in which it was obviously intended. I didn't believe it for a minute. LOL
That I write well, coming from you, is an especially high attribution.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 16, 2015 - 03:03pm PT
|
"No physical extent" means it has no rest mass. That is, a given phenomenon will reduce down to no-thing, or "that with no mass." A photon is the easiest and most readily available example of a phenomenon that fits the bill of "no physical extent." And to answer John G's question, ALL scientists I have ever heard say that a photo has no rest mass (reduces down to that which has no physical extent). I can't show my work, but I gots friends who can. Dig it:
The formula E=mc2 applies only particles at rest in an inertial frame of reference.
Since there is no rest frame for a photon, no inertial reference frame in which a photon is at rest, one cannot apply the formula E=mc2 to a photon. IOWs, in this context, energy has to "equal" to mass, since there is none.
In more detail, the four-momentum of a particle has components (Ec,p⃗ )
The four-momentum for a photon is, of course, light-like which means that the 'length' of the photon four-momentum is zero
E2γ−(pγc)2=0
where the γ subscript indicates the energy and momentum of a photon.
Thus, we immediately get the result
Eγ=pγc
The photon energy and momentum are proportional.
Now, for a time-like four-momentum, the 'length' of the four-momentum is non-zero and is proportional to the invariant mass of the particle
E2−(pc)2=(mc2)2
This is the origin of the relativistic energy-momentum relation
E=(pc)2+(mc2)2‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾√
Note that setting the invariant mass to zero yields the photon energy-momentum relation given earlier. Thus, we say that the invariant mass of a photon is zero.
Also, note that, for non-zero invariant mass, setting the momentum equal to zero (particle is at rest) yields the famous E=mc2.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2015 - 03:23pm PT
|
"No physical extent" means it has no rest mass. That is, a given phenomenon will reduce down to no-thing, or "that with no mass." A photon is the easiest and most readily available example of a phenomenon that fits the bill of "no physical extent." (JL)
OK, I'd like to defer to Ed and ask if this argument implies that ALL material things reduce to "no physical extent?" I.e., no-thing is the ultimate bedrock of the physical world. If so, in the future I will not meddle with your metaphysics in this regard.
;>)
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2015 - 03:31pm PT
|
No physical extent" means it has no rest mass.
The term " no physical extent" seems to me at first glance to be a philosophical or even literary designation or construction--- and therefore in the context of physics to be entirely arbitrary.
Correct me if I am wrong but "no physical extent" is not the same as saying " does not exist"?
Also I have a basic physics/biology question: Given F= ma would it be correct to assume that if one were lifting a barbell and more acceleration were involved (lifting a given amount of weight m faster rather than slower) would result in more force resulting in more muscle activity resulting in more anabolic muscle response?
I know there are many types of voluntary muscle fibers, for example slow and fast twitch; and that these two respond to different stimulation patterns. But I was still wondering what the overall general muscular response would be per my question.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2015 - 03:53pm PT
|
Yes but we've got to remember it was nature itself that created man and by proxy the works of man. Therefore nature owns the category of "creative"--- since it can be shown there can be no creation without nature.
So true... and in that thought is the ever deeper mystery.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!