ON QUANTUM MECHANICS AND OBJECTIVE REALITY
a rough trip to the
quantum mechanical world.
It is a basic premise of
Einstein's relativity theory that nothing (no signal)
can exceed light speed (about 300,000 kilometers per second).
For example, the nearest star to earth is 4 million light years away,
which means
we are seeing it
as it was 4 million years ago,
and it probably no longer
exists.!
(a light year is nearly 6,000,000,000,000 miles,
equivalent to about 9 million return trips to the moon).
Time is believed to be slowed by gravity, and so moves faster in space.
The faster an observer travels, the slower time passes.
This implies that there is no universal "now", and that time is relative.
Louis de
Broglie (1892–1987), the father of quantum
wave theory,
who
won the
showed that all matter can be described as waves
with infinitesimally
small frequencies,
and that all bodies of matter wave to a certain extent.
Later quantum physicists showed that the waves emitted from a particle
cover the whole universe,
and their crests show
where the
particle is most likely to be
at any given time...
...When light is shined through an opaque object with two parallel slits in it,
classical physics predicts that there will be two bands of
light
showing on the wall behind the object.
Experiment shows that an interference pattern results .
If the frequency of the light is reduced so that
only
one photon is emitted every ten seconds,
the interference
pattern still appears,
but only
after enough photons have reached the wall .
This means that light is both a wave and a particle,
and that light particles
can interfere with each other
even after they’ve collided with a surface.
This applies to all subatomic particles.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
(for which he was given a Nobel prize in
1932)
states that sub-atomic (quantum) particles of matter flit in, and out
of
existence and mostly
exist as waves.
Only when observed/measured do they "freeze" into existence.
But quantum mechanics merely provides mathematical probabilities of experimental
outcomes.
It explains nothing.
Mathematics is a useful tool once the physical concepts are correct,
but it isn't physics.
Some theoretical physicists work on a "theory of everything".
(the so-called String and M theories, with their multiple parallel universes !).
But can it be possible to have a theory of everything
until we know
everything
about the universe?
Even David Gross (American theoretical physicist 1941- ),
a major proponent of String theory,
who received a Nobel Prize in 2004 for his work on the strong
nuclear force,
admitted in Dec.
2005 that "we don't know what we're talking about."
Astronomy prof. Herbert Dingle (1904-1978) wrote in 1953 :
"I am not yet convinced that facility in performing mathematical operations
must
inevitably deprive its possessor of the power of elementary reasoning,
though
the evidence against me is strong."
Further doubt is cast by Kurt
Gödel's (1935)
Incompleteness Theorem,
which
basically shows that :
"there exist meaningful mathematical statements
that are neither provable nor
disprovable,
now or ever,
because the very nature of logic renders them incapable of resolution."
Equally,
"any theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic
cannot be both
consistent and complete.",
or
"For any formal system, there are certain self-referencing assertions about the
system
that can never be evaluated as either wholly true or false."
It would seem, because of Gödel's incompleteness theorem,
we will never be able to explain
consciousness.
That is, reach an understanding of the universe through the
use of symbolic
(linear) logic,
since logic is the product of an objective,
self-referencing system
based on
words and symbols.
Thus every
word in a dictionary is defined by another
word !
This paradox (word uncertainty principle) is attributed
to the Cretan Epimenides,
who pointed out that the statement "I am lying" is undecidable.
If it is true that I am lying, then it is false,
and if it is false that I am lying, then it is true.
Zen
koans rely on similar "logic".
It is also self-evident (without recourse to Gödel's mathematics)
that
one cannot use a human
brain to analyze /research a human brain.
Something of a higher order of "magnitude" is needed,
of which ipso facto, we cannot ever conceive
by linear (sequentially
processed) means.
TOP
Enlightenment and Endarkenment must concede each other.
This is the tao of Zen.
bob harbinson
©2006 bob harbinson
and Silver Pipe Productions S.A.
All site images protected by digital watermark.
Please
make contact
from the homepage
for permission to copy content.
(your email address will be protected from spammers).
The researched information in this article is published in good faith.
Corrections are welcomed.
for sources and resources go to homepage index ...
