Message 5 of Smt .Nappinnai: Questions

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama:

 

Dear BhAgavatas,

 

Just wanted to point out a couple of things (as I was

a Physicist for a while).

 

--- thirunarayanan parthasarathy iyengar

<shyamala45 wrote:

> Also, it is not correct to deny facts because you are not

> involved

 

This is not the argument of the quantum physicist. They

do not state that there was fact, but due to a lack of

observer it did not happen. Their stand is more fundamental

than that. It is that events themselves are dependent on

the observer. This is the famous Heisenberg Uncertainity

Principle. There is no such thing as an independent

observer (quite true in socio-political situations). The

observer has an effect on everything he observers

(Conversely, nothing happens without an observer

observing).

 

 

> what I'm going to order before-hand and keeps the pizza

> ready. Nobody

> will believe this

>

> # Telepathy is not required for this. Only common sense

> and business acumen

> will be sufficient. What kind of fantastic conclusions

> are being made!

 

The word telepathy conjures up a different notion.

What some physicists are claiming is that information

exchange happens via the postulation of a particle

called Tachyon that can and only travel faster than

the speed of light. Telepathy seems to deal with some

kind of supernatural phenomenon (and I am sure some

folks would argue the same way against Tachyons) -

so, we need to be careful with the word.

 

> It's only when the observer opens the

> box,does he

> determine the fate of the cat!

>

> # The conclusion should be either the cat has gone asleep

> or the mechanism has failed mysteriously. By the way what

> is the cause that will set the devise in motion and what

> is the basis it will work?

 

This again is the same issue as before. The cat is not

affected until observed. The cause is itself random.

Remember this is quantum mechanics where randomness

plays a huge role. Things may or may not happen in

Nature, which is why Einstein disgustedly said

"God does not play dice".

 

I too am waiting to see what Sowbhagyavati Nappinnai is

leading to. It is making for very interesting reading

thus far.

 

adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan

TCA Venkatesan

http://www.acharya.org

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Srimathe Ramanujaya nama:

 

Dear Devotees,

 

Salutations to all. More feedback(to clarify)I classify

myself as applied physicist(although I have done plenty of courses in

Physics Dept,from electromagnetism-relativity-cosmology-quantum)b'coz

I do research in fluid dynamics(it's more of applied physics rather

than "pure" physics).

 

Assume that events depend on the observer. Then one should be able to

measure things accurately if one is "truly" knowledgeable.

Since "position" is confined to a point in space it's particle nature

while "momentum"(which tells which direction the electron is heading)

is wave nature. So by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle(position-

velocity relation),the accurate measurement of particle position

introduces an error in the accurate measurement of velocity of the

particle.

 

According to QT,just before the observation,the electron was both a

particle and a wave(dual natured). Only when the observer observes,it

either assumes a particle or a wave nature. If it assumes a particle

nature(position),then it's momentum(wave) can not be measured

accurately.

 

If something depends on observer/me alone,then if I have the accurate

knowledge I can find anything. Nothing stops me in this world! But

that's not what Niels Bohr and Heisenberg said. Many undergrad

physics students are of the opinion that the uncertainty is in the

limited knowledge of the observer. It's absolutely NOT. The

uncertainty comes from the "NATURE" itself.

 

Theory is the way one looks at the reality but subject to

verifications. WHat's the certainty(?)that Bohr and Heisenberg saw

the reality correctly that they concluded that Nature itself is

uncertain(random/probability).

 

 

Things not happening b'coz of the lack of observer was questioned by

Einstein. He asked Heisenberg:"you're trying to understand this

mysterious Uinverse which you didn't create" which violates the very

Copenhagen View that it's the observer who creates reality!

 

Reality is reality whether or not the observer exists. This is

Einstein's standpoint and hence he insisted that any theory,

irrespective of whether or not the observer is watching, should

explain the physical reality.

 

Before Isaac Newton, gravity existed(Sri EmperumAnAr walked to so

many places by foot without falling!). So you can't say that it was

Sir Isaac Newton who "created" gravity because he observed the

falling apple!(the absurdity of quantum theory is this). He only gave

explanation "why things fall" under the assumption that "gravity"

exists. He didn't explain why gravity exists ab initia! We all

call "Newton's laws of motion"(I love Newton though) instead

of "God's laws of motion".

 

Carl Sagan: If you want to make an applepie,first you need to create

the Universe.

 

Another drawback of QT is the "measurement setup" being classical.

 

 

No physicist(be it Newton,Maxwell,Bohr,Heisenberg,Hawkings or you

name it)with the exception of Einstein,had written a "thin" book

on "Theory of Relativity" with hardly any mathematics in simple terms

and words that any "Taylor and Cobbler" can understand(all he needs

to know is spoken english). In layman's words(if you want to explain

the so called quantum physics, otherwise that knowledge is a waste

and goes to drainage),the information that's exchanged between

particles, violating the "light cone",at best can only be compared

to "telepathy". This word was not coined by me. Many physicists have

used it before me.

 

The EPR(Einstein-Padolsky-Rosenfeld) Paradox in opposition to QT

being incomplete,is iteslf subtle. The thought experiment was purely

Einstein's(not other two fellows)and the paper was logically put and

written by Padolsky(Russian Mathematician)and when the paper came out,

Einstein said:"My thought has been modified by Padolsky". It's a very

very subtle thought experiment to verify. Who wins(Einstein or Bohr)

in the long run? Already the different interpretations to Copenhagen

have been recognized but to verify them requires sophisticated

experimental devices which will take its own time. In this regard,

Unified Field Thoery is not possible even in the distant future

(quarks have not been observed directly so far but only indirectly

and hence some physicists even doubt the existence of quark being a

fundamental particle). Moreover if proton has to decay(to quarks),the

particle accelerator needs to generate a mass of 10**14 GeV. With

the "current" particle technology,it can only generate in the range

of 100-1000 GeV! But of course physicists think that there could be

indirect ways of testing proton decay. Anyway all these things are

beyond the scope of this forum.

 

 

Don't think I'm going bridge the gap between physics and God by a

continous function. It's a discontinuity. All continuum assumptions

break down!

 

Theory of karma finds no place in Judaism/Christianity/Islam. Buddism

is only karmic but anti-vEdic and hence we don't consider buddha as

an "avatAra" although Srimad Bhagavatam mentions in the First

Canto,Chapter two(don't remember the verses!). If any reader has

doubts,send mail to the personal id. I would be able to explain more

clearly(to the best of my ability). It's difficult to compress years

of Physicists work in two/three posts.

 

AzhvAr EmperumAnAr Jeeyar TiruvadigaLE saraNam

nappinnai