Hermes
2010-02-21 11:02:15 UTC
This is the last of my texts I wrote in 2009. I was first not
sure whether also to post it here, because the astrology is
maybe a little crude in it, because I wanted to reach also
scientists with the text. It is about finding symbolic
content in science, in its theories, its development, and
in the people who make discoveries, and so on.
With that I would also like to take a long break from posting,
maybe forever. Posting to usenet and publicity has very seldom
brought me luck or some form of happiness. An exception was
last autumn and early this year, thanks a lot for that.
I have started to read the Little Prince by St. Exupery (not
just now, already some time ago in little steps), and if
someone wonders, I really found a "magic pearl", a wax
pearl that I attached inside a self-made wristband so that it
presses on my radial nerve on my hand, and this often relaxes
the tension in the overstressed nerves in my left arm and
shoulder (and generally on my left side, where also the
oesophagus is hurt where it connects to the stomach, etc.)
Anyway, things are gradually getting better with swimming
daily, and other physical stuff here and there...
[Photo of my left hand with wristband and magic pearl]
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/MxzUJOMWV9XOWNRxXxUoUA?feat=directlink
Here is a brief excerpt from the current ephemeris of
asteroid Hermes:
19.02.2010 Hermes 25 pi 12'53.5642
20.02.2010 Hermes 25 pi 52' 2.1732
21.02.2010 Hermes 26 pi 31'30.3705
22.02.2010 Hermes 27 pi 11'18.4048
23.02.2010 Hermes 27 pi 51'26.5263
24.02.2010 Hermes 28 pi 31'54.9861
25.02.2010 Hermes 29 pi 12'44.0393
26.02.2010 Hermes 29 pi 53'53.9531
27.02.2010 Hermes 0 ar 35'25.0197
As you may have noticed, Hermes (my nickname and associated
with nerves) has met my natal Cheiron (=hand, chirality is
handedness, so left-right (moon-sun), and healing).
Best wishes,
)o+
-- BEGIN TEXT --
science revisited
Various symbolic takes at exact science, mostly related to
physics: Its theories, how they emerge, and the people involved.
Minimal style teasers for scientists...
Architecture of Physics
Consider this table that divides the world into 4 different
concepts (inspired by the 4 classical elements):
(1) individual imagination ("fire")
(2) logical consequences ("air")
(3) collective wishes ("water")
(4) physical reality ("earth")
At first sight, the conclusion would likely be that physics is
made of (2) and (4), mathematical descriptions based on
empirical evidence, without any (1) or (3).
But let me look a bit more in detail into these concepts.
Mathematical theories are for all that it appears purely (2),
just logic, independently of any empirical observations. Physics
uses math to describe logical connections between
observed/measured numbers. In that sense, observation or
measurement is fundamentally the process by which (4) is turned
into numbers, on which then (2) can operate. This has the maybe
somewhat unexpected consequence that math, (2), can a priori not
be applied to describe measurement, simply because there are no
numbers, yet.
The perception of what exactly is an acceptable measurement in
physics, is also not something that can be described by (2).
Acceptable measurements, like using a ruler or reading a dial
are just a minimal collective agreement, hence (3): the minimal
common denominator of which observations made by different
individuals can be considered independent of the individual who
makes them.
So there is a minimal amount of (3) in physics, and individual
observations may not always be free of (1), at least that
possibility cannot be formally excluded.
Research in physics usually involves quite a bit of (1) and (3).
Personal preferences and ideas, (1), are usually a main
motivator that determines the kind of experiments or theoretical
work a researcher conducts. Since research often needs funding
and some experiments, like most prominently in particle physics,
need machines bigger and more complex than any individual can
build in a lifetime, (3) is also an important practical factor
in research.
Of course, once a new theory is found, the (1) and (3) elements
involved in getting there no longer matter much. They become at
most a matter of taste interpretation of the meaning of the
theory, but they have no influence on specific predictions made
by the theory. So an established theory is 'condensed back' to
mostly (2) and (4).
Structured Research
In light of the considerations above, good research would be
characterized by a balance of the concepts above. If one
component is underdeveloped, the chance to find new science will
typically be reduced.
There is a paradox contained in a paradigm of balance: If
everything is balanced, then nothing is biased, thus there is an
imbalance between being balanced and imbalanced. In that sense,
optimal research would be something that can only be aimed for,
but never provably reached.
To some degree, however, a balance of the 4 concepts helps
already in itself. For example, (3), typically leads to 'fashion
waves' in research, to extended periods in time in which many
people try to reach the same goal with similar means. So (3)
rather creates bias, (1) rather reduces it.
At the onset, it is never clear which approach will bring new
science. In low energy quantum mechanics, for example,
relatively astonishingly most progress has come from (2), from
skillfully applying the math of the theory, which lead to Bell's
Inequalities and Decoherence. Especially the latter is becoming
important for technical realization of a new breed of quantum
mechanical devices.
In contrast, experiments (4) in that field have so far always
just reproduced what quantum theory predicts, not a single
exception has been observed. Thus in hindsight, the energy
invested in experiments was wasted. But only in hindsight.
Before conducting the experiments, nobody knew, and expectations
to find something useful by just applying the apparently so
simple linear theory seemed not to carry much potential at the
onset...
So, finding a balance will probably always remain a challenge.
What might help to reduce bias somewhat, though, would be to
keep an overview of research directions, ideally in a formalized
way, something like a global open database.
Ideally, such a database would also contain information about
theoretical and experimental approaches that lead nowhere,
failed attempts that today usually remain unpublished. Quickly,
and maybe anonymously, publishing what was tried and how and why
it failed, could spare other researchers some effort, in the
interest of all (3), but would, of course, sometimes also help
immediate competitors, hence would reduce (1) a bit. Such logic
tail-biters are what makes maintaining a healthy balance so
difficult...
Science in Time
In astrology, all things are considered to be bound in their
time to some degree. This would include science and even
astrology itself. Let me look at the long term history of
astrology and science from the point of view of astrology, more
precisely in terms of astrological ages.
Due to the precession of the earth's axis, the star sign that
rises above the horizon on the ecliptic at sunrise at the
beginning of spring, changes about every 2150 years. That time
span is believed by astrology to be strongly colored by the
respective star sign.
The last such transition was roughly around 0 CE and the next
one is due relatively recently in terms of the relevant time
scale. So very roughly the Age of Aries was until 0 CE, then the
Age of Pisces until about now, followed by the Age of Aquarius.
In my personal view, the second half of each age is increasingly
colored by the opposite star sign of the zodiac, i.e. Libra from
about -1000 to 0, Virgo from 1000 to 2000 and Leo might show
from about 3000 to 4000.
This would place the ancient Greek developments of mythology,
mathematics, philosophy, and also of a lot of astrology in
today's form, within the second part of the Age of Aries,
influenced quite heavily by Libra.
The association fits very well. Libra is an air sign, generally
considered to be related to logic, abstract thinking,
mathematics, etc. The zodiac of the ancient Greeks is an
abstraction from constellations, each sign has been given an
equal part of the zodiac, and each sign has an opposite sign
with in many respects opposite properties, opinions and
approaches. Hence all opposites balance each other, like in the
scales that Libra stands for.
Modern science, in turn, has evolved in the second part of the
Age of Pisces, and would thus be colored by Virgo. Spurred by
ancient knowledge brought to Middle Europe during the crusades,
during the renaissance people started to analyze the outer world
in all its aspects.
This fits well with Virgo, a quite pragmatic earth sign in
astrology, opposed to Pisces who is often afraid of knowing
things in detail, just like many people in the Middle Ages.
Initially, in science the primary focus has been on analysis, on
understanding how the world works. Technological applications
have only recently come into focus, maybe since about 200 years
or so, which would, again, fit very well with first signs of the
Age of Aquarius.
In astrology, Aquarius and its ruling planet Uranus, which was
discovered a bit more than 200 years ago, stand for progress,
for bringing knowledge in useful form to the masses, symbolized
by the water bearer Aquarius who is altruistically pouring water
for all of humanity.
Superimposed on that big picture in astrology, is the movement
of planets through the signs, which provides relatively short
term trends in society.
In recent years, several planets have dwelled quite a bit the
sign of Aquarius, which showed in a certain industrialization of
science. In the early 1990s when I was at IBM Research, a lot of
fundamental science was done there. In the past 20 years,
however, in most places, research has heavily shifted towards
technology, towards applying and refining already present
knowledge.
As always, such bias is both good and bad. Likely being aware of
it can be useful and helpful. Even if one doubts that different
times are colored in the way astrology predicts, the set of
opposites that astrology defines can in itself be very useful
for becoming aware of contemporary bias.
You can then decide to go with the flow, which means usually
easier funding, but less prospects of finding something really
new, or you can try to go your own way, maybe with a few
renegades with similar interests. (1) or (3).
Fundamental Questions
If you had asked a physicist in 1900 if the future is
predetermined, the answer would have been:
"Yes, once you know position, momentum and mass of all parts of
a system - and these can be measured with arbitrary precision -
you can predict the full state of the system at any time in the
future with certainty."
Since about 1930 that has changed, due to new experimental data
and the development of quantum mechanics. So today's answer is
the right one ?
Nobody can tell for sure. The general reason is in the
architecture of physics: It is (2) based on (4). Hence whenever
new observations are made, the laws of physics can change
fundamentally. Older theories remain useful as approximations,
like classical mechanics.
This makes science generally unable to answer any fundamental
question with certainty. But you can also get in many ways very
close. Almost certainly nobody would have come up with something
of the subtle beauty of quantum mechanics or relativity, had
these structures not been revealed by experiments and their
subsequent analysis...
Arguably physics is a bit like democracy:
"Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in
this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is
perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is
the worst form of government except all those other forms that
have been tried from time to time." - Winston Churchill in 1947
Measurement Inside
Current perception is that an objective measurement of things
inside the mind is not possible. Of course, a 1 : 1
transposition of the way things are measured outside is not
helpful. Imagine, say, measuring the height of an imaginary oak
tree with an imaginary ruler. You cannot give your ruler to the
next guy so that he can measure his imaginary oak tree and then
compare the results.
However, most people would agree that one can imagine an oak
tree and that one can imagine a ruler. So there is common ground
of a somewhat more abstract kind.
How the color red appears in my head and how it appears in yours
might be completely different things, but the concept of colors
and of a color red is shared.
So maybe a science based on words and their relations would be
possible: A mapping of shared inner concepts onto words, which
can then be shared and handled outside and inside the mind. This
would likely lead to a more scientifically structured
description of symbols than previously (Freud, Jung, astrology,
etc.), and maybe in points similar to some other things I am
playing with on this web site.
Anyway, here are two maybe a bit exotic ideas related to inner
and outer observations.
The first one is based on the experiences with observing dreams
that Richard Feynman describes in Surely, you're joking, Mr.
Feynman! (Bantam Books, 1985). While dreaming, often fantastic
things seemed possible, like to see a hair in much more detail
than would be possible with the naked eye. But when awake, such
experiences seemed to have been merely illusions. I suppose this
was also the reason why Feynman eventually gave up on this.
There is a possible twist however. Feynman observed that one can
influence what happens in dreams to some degree. So, why not try
to dream of future events, and maybe even gradually in ways in
which any other explanation than real precognition can be
excluded ?
It would not matter then if observations during such dreams were
objective or anything, all that would matter would be if what
you wrote down afterwards would correlate with future events.
Too far out ? Here's the second idea...
Currently, some physicist disagree about whether quantum
mechanics is an important part of how the brain works, at least
in terms of creating a conscious mind. Does any coherence in the
brain decay almost immediately due to interaction with the
environment, or is coherence a key necessity for life and
consciousness ?
Well, maybe that question can be answered with a stopwatch.
Algorithms have been developed that would allow a quantum
computer to solve certain tasks quicker than any classical
computer. Hence, if the brain is a quantum computer, maybe some
people can solve certain tasks quicker than would be possible
with a classical brain. And that could be measured, with simple
means.
3+1 in Nature
Many things in physics come in 3+1. Three dimensions of space
plus time. Three components of momentum plus energy, which are
all independently conserved. Three forces in nature have been
unified, electromagnetic, strong and weak interactions, but the
fourth force, gravitation, seems to be different: spin 2
symmetry (hence no negative charge), intertwined with space and
time, very weak.
A belief that 'the fourth is different' is apparently quite old
and related to the number π, which is believed to be related to
perfect harmony because it links the diameter of a circle to is
circumference, and the circle was often considered the most
perfect geometrical figure. In that view, the first 3 things are
similar, but the fourth is bound to be different, in fact about
4-π ≈ 6/7 different from the other three.
If you toss 4 coins, the chance to get 3+1 is really bigger than
any other result:
4+0 2/16 0.125
3+1 8/16 0.500
2+2 6/15 0.375
And if you use coins with skew probabilities you get this
distribution that suggests the same:
[image]
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/mtfOhSc41y_ahq-S-SQGeQ?feat=directlink
But if you do the same with 3 coins, you get a similar result,
too, i.e. 'the third is different'. And with more coins, it
simply turns out that the maximum is near the middle, at
(n/2+1)+(n/2-1) if n is even and at (n/2+1/2)+(n/2-1/2) if n is
odd. So, no, that cannot be the reason for 3+1 in nature, at
least not that alone. The question remains open.
But maybe it has still some predictive power. There are three
known families of quarks and leptons in particle physics. The
existence of a forth and similar family can be pretty much
excluded at the moment, but a sufficiently different fourth
family can, of course, not be ruled out and might even appear in
future experiments.
Sun and Discovery
Let me finish with something more closely related to astrology,
but applied to theories in physics and their discoverers. It is,
in my view, amazing how precisely the sun sign of discoverer and
the symbolism of the theory often match.
Let me present some examples. I am assuming that you are either
familiar with some basic sun sign astrology or have read the
corresponding parts of this web site.
Niels Bohr had the sun in Libra. His principle of
complementarity, a fundamental inseparability of wave and
particle properties in quantum mechanics, fits Libra, which
balances opposites, very well, also in further aspects.
Albert Einstein had the sun in Pisces. It is a general attribute
of the last water sign, Pisces, to consider practically
everything in the world relative, which fits obviously with
Einstein's most famous discoveries.
Erwin Schrödinger and Paul Dirac both had the sun in Leo, which
shows in the similar equations they discovered and in the
similar ways in which they did this.
Werner Heisenberg, who had the sun in Sagittarius, discovered
the same basic laws of quantum mechanics as Schrödinger, but in
his matrix calculation formulation the perception of nature is
fundamentally different: In the Schrödinger picture, the wave
function evolves and operators are constant, in the Heisenberg
picture, it is the other way round. This fits again very well
with the more philosophical perceptions of Sagittarius as
opposed to Leo.
The interaction picture in quantum mechanics is between the two,
reminding of Libra, which is in the middle between Leo and
Sagittarius in the zodiac.
The reason the sun sign apparently shows so prominently in these
discoveries is that the sun is typically considered in astrology
to be related to things that people put their heart into. What
exactly that is, may often not be obvious in the life of a
person from outside, but if it is a major discovery, then it
usually comes to light.
Of course, astrology would also allow to look in more detail
into how and why discoveries came to be. In the case of
Einstein, interesting topics might be why 1905 was so fruitful
for him and for which reasons he gave the money of his Nobel
Prize to his first wife...
leads
* Some ideas here were first publicly described in A few new
discoveries in physics in 2002. See archive (odyssey.zip).
http://www.exactphilosophy.net/odyssey.zip
-- END TEXT --
My google profile and most images will remain online:
http://www.google.com/profiles/alain.stalder.ch
It would make me very happy if someone would from time to
time visit and read my web site. I hope to write and paint
the basic content in the best possible way, "with my heart",
over time, and keep it small in the sense of St. Exupery:
"Il semble que la perfection soit atteinte non quand il n'y a
plus rien à ajouter, mais quand il n'y a plus rien à retrancher."
"It would seem that perfection is attained not when no more
can be added, but when no more can be removed."
http://www.exactphilosophy.net/
sure whether also to post it here, because the astrology is
maybe a little crude in it, because I wanted to reach also
scientists with the text. It is about finding symbolic
content in science, in its theories, its development, and
in the people who make discoveries, and so on.
With that I would also like to take a long break from posting,
maybe forever. Posting to usenet and publicity has very seldom
brought me luck or some form of happiness. An exception was
last autumn and early this year, thanks a lot for that.
I have started to read the Little Prince by St. Exupery (not
just now, already some time ago in little steps), and if
someone wonders, I really found a "magic pearl", a wax
pearl that I attached inside a self-made wristband so that it
presses on my radial nerve on my hand, and this often relaxes
the tension in the overstressed nerves in my left arm and
shoulder (and generally on my left side, where also the
oesophagus is hurt where it connects to the stomach, etc.)
Anyway, things are gradually getting better with swimming
daily, and other physical stuff here and there...
[Photo of my left hand with wristband and magic pearl]
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/MxzUJOMWV9XOWNRxXxUoUA?feat=directlink
Here is a brief excerpt from the current ephemeris of
asteroid Hermes:
19.02.2010 Hermes 25 pi 12'53.5642
20.02.2010 Hermes 25 pi 52' 2.1732
21.02.2010 Hermes 26 pi 31'30.3705
22.02.2010 Hermes 27 pi 11'18.4048
23.02.2010 Hermes 27 pi 51'26.5263
24.02.2010 Hermes 28 pi 31'54.9861
25.02.2010 Hermes 29 pi 12'44.0393
26.02.2010 Hermes 29 pi 53'53.9531
27.02.2010 Hermes 0 ar 35'25.0197
As you may have noticed, Hermes (my nickname and associated
with nerves) has met my natal Cheiron (=hand, chirality is
handedness, so left-right (moon-sun), and healing).
Best wishes,
)o+
-- BEGIN TEXT --
science revisited
Various symbolic takes at exact science, mostly related to
physics: Its theories, how they emerge, and the people involved.
Minimal style teasers for scientists...
Architecture of Physics
Consider this table that divides the world into 4 different
concepts (inspired by the 4 classical elements):
(1) individual imagination ("fire")
(2) logical consequences ("air")
(3) collective wishes ("water")
(4) physical reality ("earth")
At first sight, the conclusion would likely be that physics is
made of (2) and (4), mathematical descriptions based on
empirical evidence, without any (1) or (3).
But let me look a bit more in detail into these concepts.
Mathematical theories are for all that it appears purely (2),
just logic, independently of any empirical observations. Physics
uses math to describe logical connections between
observed/measured numbers. In that sense, observation or
measurement is fundamentally the process by which (4) is turned
into numbers, on which then (2) can operate. This has the maybe
somewhat unexpected consequence that math, (2), can a priori not
be applied to describe measurement, simply because there are no
numbers, yet.
The perception of what exactly is an acceptable measurement in
physics, is also not something that can be described by (2).
Acceptable measurements, like using a ruler or reading a dial
are just a minimal collective agreement, hence (3): the minimal
common denominator of which observations made by different
individuals can be considered independent of the individual who
makes them.
So there is a minimal amount of (3) in physics, and individual
observations may not always be free of (1), at least that
possibility cannot be formally excluded.
Research in physics usually involves quite a bit of (1) and (3).
Personal preferences and ideas, (1), are usually a main
motivator that determines the kind of experiments or theoretical
work a researcher conducts. Since research often needs funding
and some experiments, like most prominently in particle physics,
need machines bigger and more complex than any individual can
build in a lifetime, (3) is also an important practical factor
in research.
Of course, once a new theory is found, the (1) and (3) elements
involved in getting there no longer matter much. They become at
most a matter of taste interpretation of the meaning of the
theory, but they have no influence on specific predictions made
by the theory. So an established theory is 'condensed back' to
mostly (2) and (4).
Structured Research
In light of the considerations above, good research would be
characterized by a balance of the concepts above. If one
component is underdeveloped, the chance to find new science will
typically be reduced.
There is a paradox contained in a paradigm of balance: If
everything is balanced, then nothing is biased, thus there is an
imbalance between being balanced and imbalanced. In that sense,
optimal research would be something that can only be aimed for,
but never provably reached.
To some degree, however, a balance of the 4 concepts helps
already in itself. For example, (3), typically leads to 'fashion
waves' in research, to extended periods in time in which many
people try to reach the same goal with similar means. So (3)
rather creates bias, (1) rather reduces it.
At the onset, it is never clear which approach will bring new
science. In low energy quantum mechanics, for example,
relatively astonishingly most progress has come from (2), from
skillfully applying the math of the theory, which lead to Bell's
Inequalities and Decoherence. Especially the latter is becoming
important for technical realization of a new breed of quantum
mechanical devices.
In contrast, experiments (4) in that field have so far always
just reproduced what quantum theory predicts, not a single
exception has been observed. Thus in hindsight, the energy
invested in experiments was wasted. But only in hindsight.
Before conducting the experiments, nobody knew, and expectations
to find something useful by just applying the apparently so
simple linear theory seemed not to carry much potential at the
onset...
So, finding a balance will probably always remain a challenge.
What might help to reduce bias somewhat, though, would be to
keep an overview of research directions, ideally in a formalized
way, something like a global open database.
Ideally, such a database would also contain information about
theoretical and experimental approaches that lead nowhere,
failed attempts that today usually remain unpublished. Quickly,
and maybe anonymously, publishing what was tried and how and why
it failed, could spare other researchers some effort, in the
interest of all (3), but would, of course, sometimes also help
immediate competitors, hence would reduce (1) a bit. Such logic
tail-biters are what makes maintaining a healthy balance so
difficult...
Science in Time
In astrology, all things are considered to be bound in their
time to some degree. This would include science and even
astrology itself. Let me look at the long term history of
astrology and science from the point of view of astrology, more
precisely in terms of astrological ages.
Due to the precession of the earth's axis, the star sign that
rises above the horizon on the ecliptic at sunrise at the
beginning of spring, changes about every 2150 years. That time
span is believed by astrology to be strongly colored by the
respective star sign.
The last such transition was roughly around 0 CE and the next
one is due relatively recently in terms of the relevant time
scale. So very roughly the Age of Aries was until 0 CE, then the
Age of Pisces until about now, followed by the Age of Aquarius.
In my personal view, the second half of each age is increasingly
colored by the opposite star sign of the zodiac, i.e. Libra from
about -1000 to 0, Virgo from 1000 to 2000 and Leo might show
from about 3000 to 4000.
This would place the ancient Greek developments of mythology,
mathematics, philosophy, and also of a lot of astrology in
today's form, within the second part of the Age of Aries,
influenced quite heavily by Libra.
The association fits very well. Libra is an air sign, generally
considered to be related to logic, abstract thinking,
mathematics, etc. The zodiac of the ancient Greeks is an
abstraction from constellations, each sign has been given an
equal part of the zodiac, and each sign has an opposite sign
with in many respects opposite properties, opinions and
approaches. Hence all opposites balance each other, like in the
scales that Libra stands for.
Modern science, in turn, has evolved in the second part of the
Age of Pisces, and would thus be colored by Virgo. Spurred by
ancient knowledge brought to Middle Europe during the crusades,
during the renaissance people started to analyze the outer world
in all its aspects.
This fits well with Virgo, a quite pragmatic earth sign in
astrology, opposed to Pisces who is often afraid of knowing
things in detail, just like many people in the Middle Ages.
Initially, in science the primary focus has been on analysis, on
understanding how the world works. Technological applications
have only recently come into focus, maybe since about 200 years
or so, which would, again, fit very well with first signs of the
Age of Aquarius.
In astrology, Aquarius and its ruling planet Uranus, which was
discovered a bit more than 200 years ago, stand for progress,
for bringing knowledge in useful form to the masses, symbolized
by the water bearer Aquarius who is altruistically pouring water
for all of humanity.
Superimposed on that big picture in astrology, is the movement
of planets through the signs, which provides relatively short
term trends in society.
In recent years, several planets have dwelled quite a bit the
sign of Aquarius, which showed in a certain industrialization of
science. In the early 1990s when I was at IBM Research, a lot of
fundamental science was done there. In the past 20 years,
however, in most places, research has heavily shifted towards
technology, towards applying and refining already present
knowledge.
As always, such bias is both good and bad. Likely being aware of
it can be useful and helpful. Even if one doubts that different
times are colored in the way astrology predicts, the set of
opposites that astrology defines can in itself be very useful
for becoming aware of contemporary bias.
You can then decide to go with the flow, which means usually
easier funding, but less prospects of finding something really
new, or you can try to go your own way, maybe with a few
renegades with similar interests. (1) or (3).
Fundamental Questions
If you had asked a physicist in 1900 if the future is
predetermined, the answer would have been:
"Yes, once you know position, momentum and mass of all parts of
a system - and these can be measured with arbitrary precision -
you can predict the full state of the system at any time in the
future with certainty."
Since about 1930 that has changed, due to new experimental data
and the development of quantum mechanics. So today's answer is
the right one ?
Nobody can tell for sure. The general reason is in the
architecture of physics: It is (2) based on (4). Hence whenever
new observations are made, the laws of physics can change
fundamentally. Older theories remain useful as approximations,
like classical mechanics.
This makes science generally unable to answer any fundamental
question with certainty. But you can also get in many ways very
close. Almost certainly nobody would have come up with something
of the subtle beauty of quantum mechanics or relativity, had
these structures not been revealed by experiments and their
subsequent analysis...
Arguably physics is a bit like democracy:
"Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in
this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is
perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is
the worst form of government except all those other forms that
have been tried from time to time." - Winston Churchill in 1947
Measurement Inside
Current perception is that an objective measurement of things
inside the mind is not possible. Of course, a 1 : 1
transposition of the way things are measured outside is not
helpful. Imagine, say, measuring the height of an imaginary oak
tree with an imaginary ruler. You cannot give your ruler to the
next guy so that he can measure his imaginary oak tree and then
compare the results.
However, most people would agree that one can imagine an oak
tree and that one can imagine a ruler. So there is common ground
of a somewhat more abstract kind.
How the color red appears in my head and how it appears in yours
might be completely different things, but the concept of colors
and of a color red is shared.
So maybe a science based on words and their relations would be
possible: A mapping of shared inner concepts onto words, which
can then be shared and handled outside and inside the mind. This
would likely lead to a more scientifically structured
description of symbols than previously (Freud, Jung, astrology,
etc.), and maybe in points similar to some other things I am
playing with on this web site.
Anyway, here are two maybe a bit exotic ideas related to inner
and outer observations.
The first one is based on the experiences with observing dreams
that Richard Feynman describes in Surely, you're joking, Mr.
Feynman! (Bantam Books, 1985). While dreaming, often fantastic
things seemed possible, like to see a hair in much more detail
than would be possible with the naked eye. But when awake, such
experiences seemed to have been merely illusions. I suppose this
was also the reason why Feynman eventually gave up on this.
There is a possible twist however. Feynman observed that one can
influence what happens in dreams to some degree. So, why not try
to dream of future events, and maybe even gradually in ways in
which any other explanation than real precognition can be
excluded ?
It would not matter then if observations during such dreams were
objective or anything, all that would matter would be if what
you wrote down afterwards would correlate with future events.
Too far out ? Here's the second idea...
Currently, some physicist disagree about whether quantum
mechanics is an important part of how the brain works, at least
in terms of creating a conscious mind. Does any coherence in the
brain decay almost immediately due to interaction with the
environment, or is coherence a key necessity for life and
consciousness ?
Well, maybe that question can be answered with a stopwatch.
Algorithms have been developed that would allow a quantum
computer to solve certain tasks quicker than any classical
computer. Hence, if the brain is a quantum computer, maybe some
people can solve certain tasks quicker than would be possible
with a classical brain. And that could be measured, with simple
means.
3+1 in Nature
Many things in physics come in 3+1. Three dimensions of space
plus time. Three components of momentum plus energy, which are
all independently conserved. Three forces in nature have been
unified, electromagnetic, strong and weak interactions, but the
fourth force, gravitation, seems to be different: spin 2
symmetry (hence no negative charge), intertwined with space and
time, very weak.
A belief that 'the fourth is different' is apparently quite old
and related to the number π, which is believed to be related to
perfect harmony because it links the diameter of a circle to is
circumference, and the circle was often considered the most
perfect geometrical figure. In that view, the first 3 things are
similar, but the fourth is bound to be different, in fact about
4-π ≈ 6/7 different from the other three.
If you toss 4 coins, the chance to get 3+1 is really bigger than
any other result:
4+0 2/16 0.125
3+1 8/16 0.500
2+2 6/15 0.375
And if you use coins with skew probabilities you get this
distribution that suggests the same:
[image]
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/mtfOhSc41y_ahq-S-SQGeQ?feat=directlink
But if you do the same with 3 coins, you get a similar result,
too, i.e. 'the third is different'. And with more coins, it
simply turns out that the maximum is near the middle, at
(n/2+1)+(n/2-1) if n is even and at (n/2+1/2)+(n/2-1/2) if n is
odd. So, no, that cannot be the reason for 3+1 in nature, at
least not that alone. The question remains open.
But maybe it has still some predictive power. There are three
known families of quarks and leptons in particle physics. The
existence of a forth and similar family can be pretty much
excluded at the moment, but a sufficiently different fourth
family can, of course, not be ruled out and might even appear in
future experiments.
Sun and Discovery
Let me finish with something more closely related to astrology,
but applied to theories in physics and their discoverers. It is,
in my view, amazing how precisely the sun sign of discoverer and
the symbolism of the theory often match.
Let me present some examples. I am assuming that you are either
familiar with some basic sun sign astrology or have read the
corresponding parts of this web site.
Niels Bohr had the sun in Libra. His principle of
complementarity, a fundamental inseparability of wave and
particle properties in quantum mechanics, fits Libra, which
balances opposites, very well, also in further aspects.
Albert Einstein had the sun in Pisces. It is a general attribute
of the last water sign, Pisces, to consider practically
everything in the world relative, which fits obviously with
Einstein's most famous discoveries.
Erwin Schrödinger and Paul Dirac both had the sun in Leo, which
shows in the similar equations they discovered and in the
similar ways in which they did this.
Werner Heisenberg, who had the sun in Sagittarius, discovered
the same basic laws of quantum mechanics as Schrödinger, but in
his matrix calculation formulation the perception of nature is
fundamentally different: In the Schrödinger picture, the wave
function evolves and operators are constant, in the Heisenberg
picture, it is the other way round. This fits again very well
with the more philosophical perceptions of Sagittarius as
opposed to Leo.
The interaction picture in quantum mechanics is between the two,
reminding of Libra, which is in the middle between Leo and
Sagittarius in the zodiac.
The reason the sun sign apparently shows so prominently in these
discoveries is that the sun is typically considered in astrology
to be related to things that people put their heart into. What
exactly that is, may often not be obvious in the life of a
person from outside, but if it is a major discovery, then it
usually comes to light.
Of course, astrology would also allow to look in more detail
into how and why discoveries came to be. In the case of
Einstein, interesting topics might be why 1905 was so fruitful
for him and for which reasons he gave the money of his Nobel
Prize to his first wife...
leads
* Some ideas here were first publicly described in A few new
discoveries in physics in 2002. See archive (odyssey.zip).
http://www.exactphilosophy.net/odyssey.zip
-- END TEXT --
My google profile and most images will remain online:
http://www.google.com/profiles/alain.stalder.ch
It would make me very happy if someone would from time to
time visit and read my web site. I hope to write and paint
the basic content in the best possible way, "with my heart",
over time, and keep it small in the sense of St. Exupery:
"Il semble que la perfection soit atteinte non quand il n'y a
plus rien à ajouter, mais quand il n'y a plus rien à retrancher."
"It would seem that perfection is attained not when no more
can be added, but when no more can be removed."
http://www.exactphilosophy.net/
