Ok, but does your audio gear have rotons (metamaterials)?
There were no typing courses at Case Tech and I've never mastered the skill of paragraphs, on this site. My tab key doesn't function in here and my typing stinks, anyway. Still: no one interested in actually learning something, should have the least bit of trouble following the lines. Only those many, in here, that have chosen to ignore (remain willfully ignorant of) the history of Physics. Back in 1927 Vienna, at the fifth Solvay Conference on Physics, some of the greatest minds on the planet (ie: Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Curie, etc) got together, to discuss things like photons and electrons. Arguments quickly ensued between those that wanted the universe to make sense, based on classical Physics and/or Relativity and those that were theorizing about quanta (packets of energy) and how so many things, observed in their experiments and in their theorems, based on such as Planck's Constant and Heisenberg's Uncertainty, seemed irrational. Every day: Einstein would come up with an objection, as to why such must be in error and by evening: Bohr would have an answer. As an example: Wave-Particle Duality. Einstein wanted electrons to just be solid particles, all the time. Bohr asserted that they existed as fuzzy/indistinct waves, with no particular position. Only a multitude of possibilities, until observed or detected, at which time, they become particles. Einstein replied, "So, you're telling me the moon doesn't exist, until I look at it?" Anyway, that's a miniscule, much simplified slice, of what took place then. What followed that conference, is a matter of history and experimentation. Some proved Einstein's assertions. Others: Bohrs Probably: the resultant inventions that are most notable, whether you believe them to be evil or not, were the Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs. Obviously Quantum Mechanics works. One of the arguments, of which I was most interested, back in the 60's, while studying Physics, was that of Entanglement (if a photon or electron are split into two entities, each when detected/observed, will exhibit identical properties, whether across the room, or across the universe. Einstein called it, "spooky action at a distance". To make it fit with Relativity, his universal speed limit (speed of light) and make any sense, at all: he postulated that when a photon is split in two, both (at the source) already have those properties determined. Quantum Mechanics stated they exist as wave functions and don't exhibit any properties until observed/detected, at which point the information is instantaneously communicated (again: regardless of distance). No one had a theorem, by which to test that, until a guy named Bell (who I believe to have actually been ambivalent about the whole thing) came up with one. He lacked the means, by which to test his math, however. Then: a couple guys at Berkley, California cobbled some equipment together and proved the Quantum Mechanics view correct, using Bell's theorem. You can deny the facts, until you're blue in the face, BUT, without what's been gleaned from the study of Quantum Mechanics: we wouldn't have a few of the inventions that I'll just bet most of you have in in your homes. ie: LASERs, GPS, anything digital (computers, cellphones, smartphones), semiconductors (ie: diodes, transistors, ICs, etc), the electron microscope, and MRI (well, maybe those two, not in your home). The list could go on. About Nicola Tesla: make fun, if you will, but he's to be thanked for the AC you're enjoying, in your home. His inventions and genius took the likes of you, kicking and screaming, into the Twentieth Century. Everything in this post can be EASILY VERIFIED, on the Net. PROBABLY: the first objection will be, "Too long to read!"
|
@rodman99999 I really enjoyed your post. Thanks for putting the time into it. Without basic scientific research -- hypothesis, theory, testing, invention, etc. -- we’d lack so much that makes live both livable and survivable. Of course, technology giveth and taketh away, too (our clock is close to midnight), so one can only hope that the non-scientists among us can emulate some of the tolerance and rational debate that allows science to form collaborative communities through discussion and debate. |
"...one can only hope that the non-scientists among us can emulate some of the tolerance and rational debate that allows science to form collaborative communities through discussion and debate." Not much tolerance is exhibited in here, nor was during that Vienna conference (from what I understand), but: AMEN!
|
