Is physics rapidly leaving the realm of SCIENCE and RE-ENTERING the realm of MAGIC ?

Originally posted by playswithmachines
reply to post by tauristercus

 

Right, and that leads us to another interesting question, are the constants actually constant?

A very good question.
One would have to assume that the fundamental constants should be 'alterable' based on the assumption that they did not exist before the Big Bang occurred and that they're a direct result of the structure of space/time formed at that moment in time. This implies that the fundamental constants have had at least 2 'values' ... namely 'no value' prior to the Big Bang ... and their 'present value' post Big Bang.

... the electron is actually more like a cloud than a 'solid particle'-it therefore has a surface area 1000's of times greater than it's 'solid' counterpart.

How is an electron even capable of having 'any' kind of surface area when it's defined as apparently having no internal structure. In my mind, no internal structure implies no external structure which further implies no surface area.

The electron is a subatomic particle carrying a negative electric charge. It has no known components or substructure.

Wiki source: en.wikipedia.org...

I think i'll start a new thread called 'embarrassing questions to ask your physics teacher'

Great idea - I'll have plenty of items to add to such a thread

reply to post by FlyInTheOintment

I'm in complete agreement with this threads premise. Seems to me that the more experiments that are being done into unraveling the mysteries of science and the universe, the more complex the universe seems to becoming ... shouldn't it actually be the other way around in that the way the universe works should be getting simpler the deeper we look ?

Originally posted by freedomintruth
Reply to post by tauristercus

 

I am in the middle of 'free energy-secrets of the cold war' in which the author postulates that Tesla gave up his work on AC to experiment with what is called the aether. Fascinating read but to boil it down the thought is that our laws of thermodynamics are obsolete due to the nature of the aether. I will agree with the post- magic would be an accurate description relating to advanced technologies we simply don't grasp. Sometimes I wonder if 'the laws' are part of what hold science back. Almost in a skinner/hegalian aspect. Program the people to think in a certain vien and they can no longer use their own creativity to answer the most perplexing questions of life. Because certain hypothesis "couldn't possibly be right" they are thrown out never explored.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Well the aether would explain quantum entanglement sort of because everything would pass through it. special relativity states that information can never be transmitted faster than the speed of light without violating causality. So basically we cant have information travel faster then light but in the case of quantum entanglement it does just that. So this tells us were missing something. Im betting its the fact the sped of light isn't constant and we would find varies greatly depending on circumstances or more likely something manipulating it. Another variable?

Sorry i know i go over board sometimes, But people have no idea quantum mechanics is all ready paying off.Quantum computer comes to mind for one.Its just a matter of time before mankind will learn all the secrets of the niverse if we live long enough!

edit on 9/13/10 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by tauristercus

So, we employ the results of the universe without truly understanding the how ...

Which brings me to ask the question once again ...
Is physics rapidly leaving the realm of SCIENCE and RE-ENTERING the realm of MAGIC ?
to which I personally have to answer YES.

I would like to point out that this has always been true. In part, this is what has made hoaxers and "snake oil salesmen" successful. The researcher is off in some complex world that takes a lot of understanding to explain, but one that has attractive features with many unsolved problems (and problems that change as our tools (math and other tools) change.)

We know so much about science now that it has become subdivided into many subdisciplines. Each subdiscipline is so large that it's almost impossible to read all the literature in the area and know all the major researchers in the area. One of the results of Internet is the sharing of information and ease of access to papers in disciplines other than the one you're studying. This has led to a lot of cross-disciplinary research... and further fragmentation of science into even more subdisciplines.

It probably looks like magic, but it looks more like the growth of a (mathematical) tree such as a Cayley tree to me.

reply to post by tauristercus


Great thread , a finely crafted piece yet again tauristercus .
My faith in ATS has been renewed .

=============================================================================

Has our movement away from our more intuitive physics - relevant to our middle sized world ,rendered us `conceptually blind` .
I particularly like Richard Dawkins take on the problem .

Middle World -- the range of sizes and speeds which we have evolved to feel intuitively comfortable with -- is a bit like the narrow range of the electromagnetic spectrum that we see as light of various colors. We're blind to all frequencies outside that, unless we use instruments to help us. Middle World is the narrow range of reality which we judge to be normal, as opposed to the queerness of the very small, the very large and the very fast. We could make a similar scale of improbabilities; nothing is totally impossible.

====================================================

Will it be the next generations coming through that provide the impetus and imagination where others have failed .

I wonder whether we might help ourselves to understand, say, quantum theory, if we brought up children to play computer games, beginning in early childhood, which had a sort of make believe world of balls going through two slits on a screen, a world in which the strange goings on of quantum mechanics were enlarged by the computer's make believe, so that they became familiar on the Middle-World scale of the stream.

==================================================


Is the Universe "Queerer than we can suppose" ?

If the universe is queerer than we can suppose, is it just because we've been naturally selected to suppose only what we needed to suppose in order to survive in the Pleistocene of Africa? Or are our brains so versatile and expandable that we can train ourselves to break out of the box of our evolution? Or, finally, are there some things in the universe so queer that no philosophy of beings, however godlike, could dream them?

Interactive Transcript TED Talks

Originally posted by Byrd
We know so much about science now that it has become subdivided into many subdisciplines. Each subdiscipline is so large that it's almost impossible to read all the literature in the area and know all the major researchers in the area. One of the results of Internet is the sharing of information and ease of access to papers in disciplines other than the one you're studying. This has led to a lot of cross-disciplinary research... and further fragmentation of science into even more subdisciplines.

It probably looks like magic, but it looks more like the growth of a (mathematical) tree such as a Cayley tree to me.

I'm in total agreement with you that our rate of "accumulating" knowledge and experience on "how" to make use of the properties of the universe is increasing ... most likely, exponentially. But our "understanding" of how the universe works on a fundamental level is falling behind with every new discovery or revelation being made virtually on a daily basis.
We can fumble around with the "properties" and "laws" that we deduce and as a result invent almost unimaginable technology and devices that we use on a daily basis without hardly giving a thought to ... we simply accept them. However, I don't think we really have come all that way in the last 200 years in completely understanding the underlying deep down basis of our technology.
As an example ... we use lasers all over the place and this technology is based on our "finding out" through trial and error that electrons jumping between energy levels in an atom can absorb and then later emit photons of specific frequency/energy. But go down deep into the process and we're essentially ignorant as to what is really happening at the base level.
- We have no concrete/definitive explanation for an electrons composition (does it even have a structure ?)
- How is an electron created ? Is there a "recipe" for creating/building electrons ?
- How do energy levels really work ?
- What is the structure of an energy level and how is it created and maintained ?
- What is the "physical" structure of a photon ? Is there a "recipe" for creating/building a photon ?
- How does an electron physically absorb a photon ?
- How and where does an electron temporarily store that absorbed energy ? Does the structure of the electron also change ?
- Why are only specific quanta of energy able to be absorbed by an electron ?
- Is there a minimum distance that the photon and electron have to be before the photon can be absorbed by the electron ?
- Does the photon get completely absorbed by the electron instantaneously or does it happen over a period of time (no matter how small that time period is) ?
- How does an electron get from one energy level to another ? Does it take a finite amount of time or is it instantaneous with zero elapsed time ?
- Where is an electron physically when its moving between energy levels ?
- What triggers an electron to emit a photon ?
- How does the photon get created ? Does it take time or is it instantaneous ?
- What "mechanism" actually creates the photon ? Does the electron "build" the photon or does it simply materialize at some distance away from the emitting electron ?
- If the photon build process takes time (no matter how small), is the photon stationary or already moving during the creation process ?
- If the photon "materializes" fully built, is it already traveling at light speed or at some lesser speed and then it's velocity increases ?
- How is the direction that the newly created photon will head off in determined ?

I could come up with lots more questions but do you get my point yet ? We build lasers but don't fundamentally understand the process by which they work.

We can build a laser and get it to work ... but deep down we're basically ignorant of what's going on "behind the scenes" making that electron absorb then emit energy. How many of the above questions can current physics answer completely and fully down to the last detail ? Not many, I would guess ...

And in parting, here's a simple question to ponder that surely we must be able answer down to the last decimal place ... how does a mirror reflect a photon ? We've been using this simple device for 1000's of years so surely we know everything there is to know about the subject of reflection, from the macroscopic level all the way down to the sub-atomic level ?

Anyone game to have a go at answering ?

reply to post by tauristercus


I sometimes entertain the idea that physics may have taken a wrong turn somwhere towards the end of the 19th century. Somewhere between Maxwells equations for electromagnetic propagation and Einsteins special theory of relativity something went wrong. Now so much later down the road it can be very difficult to backtrack to that pivotal moment as much of modern physics is based on what is now concidered close to axiomatic truth with multiple layers of theories stacked on top. I am not calling it a fundamental flaw but merely a slight imperfection in our understanding that gets compounded as our attempt to concolidate our knowledge progress.

I will perhaps flesh out this idea with more facts and detail at a later stage.

I do not agree with physics rapidly leaving the realm ofSCIENCE and RE-ENTERING the realm of MAGIC...

My answer lies in the way we agreed upon what the meaning of the word magic is.

MAGIC:

1 (the charms, spells etc used in) the art or practice of using supernatural forces: “The prince was turned by magic into a frog.”

2 the art of producing illusions by tricks: “The conjuror's magic delighted the children.”

3 fascination or great charm: “the magic of Turner's paintings.”
used in or using magic: “a magic wand”


Even if it is possible to turn the prince into a frog I strongly belief that eveything that happens in the physical (including other dimesions ect.) world is explainable although it can give the impression there is magic at work.

And what is magic? Ask someone on the street if they belief in magic....Some say yes and some will say no..
Let us just assume that magic does excist and works.....It should be understood as the appliance of the forces in nature of which the mechanics are not understood.....but it works.

The fact that it is possible to use the .'stuff' available in the universe to achieve a desired goal makes it part of reality and not something fiction.

Because we do not understand the workings yet, or never will should not mean we should put a sticker on it which says magic.

Magic is strongly related to fantasy and fiction......unreal, fake and impossible, the rest is part of the real world and is in some way to be scientifically explained.....no matter how strange it might be.

reply to post by Clavicula

I sometimes entertain the idea that physics may have taken a wrong turn somwhere towards the end of the 19th century.

I agree... which in a way lends to the idea that indeed we are being misled - whether intentionally or unintentionally is hard to know.... if only we could get all of those receipts from the Black Budget programs...

Tesla was an aether physicist, Keely was an aether physicist.

Einstein also soberly acknowledged the possibility of an aether - as he was involved with the debate over Zero Point Energy (which is very aether-like, and demonstrated through the Casimir Effect). And also, he was confronted with Quantum Mechanics in its youth.

But Zero Point Energy means that there is no such thing as a 'vacuum' - so why didn't we go back and address the Michelson - Morley experiment?

Because if there is no such thing as a vacuum in nature(nature abhors a vacuum...) then there is no such 'vacuum' for light to travel through.

The weak force has been thrown out in electro-weak theory.

Ed Leedskalnin claimed that electricity is itself just a mis-understood phenomenon of magnetism.

Many physicists now, in the fringe and the mainstream, suggest that the strong force must be due to some kind of quantum gravity.

So that leaves us with 2 forces:

Electromagnetism(perhaps we may find out it is just magnetism...)

and

Gravity.

Are they separate forces? Will Einstein's idea of and push for a Unified Field Theory end up reconciling the two in one dynamic/system?

Could they be two effects from a similar cause? Could Gravity be explained by magnetism? Magnetism has two effects from one cause...

Condense/Expand
Absorb/Radiate
Negative/Positive

And of course in the mid-20th century Wilhelm Reich(formerly associated with Freud) was busy with his 'discovery' of a biological orgone energy (aka Chi) which throws everything off - unless it is similar in a way to the idea of 'animal magnetism' that many scientists had held in the centuries before. I suspect it is the same, under many different names.

Some more quotes:

Matter which we perceive is merely nothing but a great concentration of energy in very small regions. We may therefore regard matter as being constituted by the regions of space in which the field is extremely intense. . . . There is no place in this new kind of physics both for the field and matter for the field is the only reality. -Einstein (Capek, Milic page 319 The Philosophical Impact of Contemporary Physics.)

“If, then, it is true that the axiomatic foundation of theoretical physics cannot be extracted from experience but must be freely invented, may we ever hope to find the right way? Furthermore, does this right way exist anywhere other than in our illusions? May we hope to be guided safely by experience at all, if there exist theories (such as classical mechanics) which to a large extent do justice to experience, without comprehending the matter in a deep way?

To these questions, I answer with complete confidence, that, in my opinion, the right way exists, and that we are capable of finding it. Our experience hitherto justifies us in trusting that nature is the realization of the simplest that is mathematically conceivable. I am convinced that purely mathematical construction enables us to find those concepts and those lawlike connections between them that provide the key to the understanding of natural phenomena. Useful mathematical concepts may well be suggested by experience, but in no way can they be derived from it. Experience naturally remains the sole criterion of the usefulness of a mathematical construction for physics. But the actual creative principle lies in mathematics. Thus, in a certain sense, I take it to be true that pure thought can grasp the real, as the ancients had dreamed.”
-Einstein

wiki aether
leedskalnin.com

edit to add Hegel quote:

It is a natural assumption that in philosophy, before we start to deal with its proper subject-matter, viz. the actual cognition of what truly is, one must first of all come to an understanding about cognition, which is regarded either as the instrument to get hold of the Absolute, or as the medium through which one discovers it. A certain uneasiness seems justified, partly because there are different types of cognition, and one of them might be more appropriate than another for the attainment of this goal, so that we could make a bad choice of means; and partly because cognition is a faculty of a definite kind and scope, and thus, without a more precise definition of its nature and limits, we might grasp clouds of error instead of the heaven of truth. ... For, if cognition is the instrument for getting hold of absolute being, it is obvious that the use of an instrument on a thing certainly does not let it be what it is for itself, but rather sets out to reshape and alter it. If, on the other hand, cognition is not an instrument of our activity but a more or less passive medium, then again we do not receive the truth as it is in itself, but only as it exists through and in this medium.

Originally posted by zatara
I do not agree with physics rapidly leaving the realm ofSCIENCE and RE-ENTERING the realm of MAGIC...

My answer lies in the way we agreed upon what the meaning of the word magic is.

MAGIC:

1 (the charms, spells etc used in) the art or practice of using supernatural forces: “The prince was turned by magic into a frog.”

2 the art of producing illusions by tricks: “The conjuror's magic delighted the children.”

3 fascination or great charm: “the magic of Turner's paintings.”
used in or using magic: “a magic wand”

I think you must have missed reading my opening statement, let me repeat it here for you ....

By using the term magic, I'm in no way implying a mystical or supernatural explanation behind the observed behaviour of the universe and its constituent parts. Rather I'm using the term in a manner consistent to that expressed many years ago by Arthur C. Clark when he made the (now famous) comment:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

For the purpose of this thread, the entire set of rules governing the creation and workings of the universe are to be considered analogous to Clark's use of the term "advanced technology".

As you can read, I am in NO way using the word MAGIC in it's normally understood, supernatural meaning.

I believe science is just a form of magic. To be completely honest think about how much of the brain we use and how it's an exponential growth rate for compacity and understanding. I know it was just a movie but for those of you who haven't seen The Sorcerers Apprentice I recomend it lol. It explains what might be possible if we could only use the other 90% of our brain compacity. Maybe if we understand more about the science/magic, then instead of physically manipulating the matter with our tools and hands(which our brains created), we could possibly do it using our minds and our understanding of the matter.

Like making something combust. What happens to an atom when it gets heated up? It shakes, fast... So you imagine the atom and its molecular structure and shake it. Boom! Catches fire.

reply to post by tauristercus


Abolutely!
These are questions we should be asking. Personally, i believe that Tom Bearden is on to something, he claims that electrons constantly emit & absorb 'virtual' photons-they are energy transfer particles.
Now i'm not a PHD but i have concluded that 'charge' can be 'uncoupled' from the electron, which is merely 'holding' the charge. The upshot of this is that what we call 'electricity'-the movement of electrons through wires-is totally unnecessary.
We all know the electrons don't travel that fast, and they only travel on the surface of the wire, the actual 'current' is the 'knock on' effect of electrons passing energy down the line. Large amounts of this energy is kinetic, gets turned into heat, & is therefore wasted.
The actual 'work' is being done by the transfer of 'charge', i.e. potential difference (voltage). This is also proven by the new 'lenzless' generators appearing on Utube, wired for high voltage, they have much less back-emf, or 'drag' than generators wired for high current.
And this is just D.C. don't get me started on AC or HF or resonance
Beardens theory of the 'dipole' being the actual source of the energy, & we destroy that dipole by returning electrons to it, appears to be true. I have encountered 'negative resistance' in my research, which would indicate 'overunity'. Of course it sounds like magic, but it's just using the charge without those bothersome electrons!. In practical terms it would mean circuits 400-500 times more efficient..
Since there will be no heat generated, it could be made incredibly small & require virtually no energy to run.
Maybe that's what they are trying with the 'quantum computer' thing (i'll have to read it some time).
Sounds like they've stolen my idea
Back to The Topic: Magic? According to Bearden, using this tech we could literally manipulate matter & energy at will, & therefore time & space as well. I would say that qualifies as being criteria for a god
Great post!

Originally posted by playswithmachines
reply to post by tauristercus

 

Absolutely!
These are questions we should be asking. Personally, i believe that Tom Bearden is on to something, he claims that electrons constantly emit & absorb 'virtual' photons-they are energy transfer particles.
Now i'm not a PHD but i have concluded that 'charge' can be 'uncoupled' from the electron, which is merely 'holding' the charge.

There's no doubt that electrons do function in the role of energy transfer as the basis of our entire technological society is constructed around our 'ability to shuttle vast quantities of electrons from one location to another and thereby being able to construct such marvels as computer, plasma tv's, mobile (cell) phones, playstations, etc, etc.

But when you stop to examine whats really going on down at the electron level, we basically have no idea at all. Sure, we've "learned" through trial and error how to accumulate, store then push electrons around, creating in the process all sorts of wonderful effects. But even after more than a 100 years of being aware of an electrons existence, we have no idea at all of what an electron really is, nor can we completely explain the concept of charge and how its created and stored or even the concept of spin.
In fact, for one of the 1st elementary particles discovered, we still have no idea how to create an electron (or proton or neutron) from scratch ... using a "recipe" so to speak.

And as you mentioned, if electrons do constantly emit and absorb virtual photons, then the "pit of questions" that physics is continuously digging for itself just got a little bit deeper.

Originally posted by deadred
Magic is little more than the unknown. In a sense, it is all magic to those who don't have some understanding of how science works.

I quite agree!

On the other hand, quantum "mechanics" is a contradiction of terms really, isn't it? What's mechanical about quantum mechanics?

Mechanics is the science of describing the motion of material points under the influence of forces, so "quantum mechanics" is a very fitting term. That's what it does.

Quantum field theory, as the name indicates, deals with fields and how they propagate.