tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2185235733013765586.post2238819602686423542..comments2011-06-11T12:21:42.418-07:00Comments on thinking...: The "enlightened" saint, the "about to die" junkie and the "nobel-winning" physicist.Shubhendu Bhardwajhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17219361471078494909noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2185235733013765586.post-51238330244232290842010-08-26T00:29:52.832-07:002010-08-26T00:29:52.832-07:00brilliant man, very disturbingly though provoking,...brilliant man, very disturbingly though provoking, but more interesting were the comments that followed...oynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07024989270809956530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2185235733013765586.post-28596061044029950582010-04-01T21:52:30.877-07:002010-04-01T21:52:30.877-07:00@banik....
well the character of physicist is defi...@banik....<br />well the character of physicist is definitely weak and he is a little frustrated and frankly speaking I dint know too much physics to make his character strong... :) I might need your help in next this type of post...<br /><br />Anyway, the idea of the blog is not to propagate the idea that we should just sit down and not ask questions, but is to present other side of the story; The areas that science never recognized as scientific. The forgotten tradition of unity of science and philosophy.<br /><br />And about identifying the important information than the unimportant ones; If I am not wrong one of the aims of physics is to come up with the consistence Unified theory- a single theory explaining every phenomenon in this universe- movement of particle to movement of galaxies. If you consider that way you will find present physics is far from that. There is no theory that can provide the nature of the things at macro and micro level both... Chaos seems to have answers (refer chaos theory by James Glieck/ and other books like Tao of physics by Fritjof Capra)<br /><br />About agnostic view of quantum mechanical interpretation question-<br />Well if I ask the question "What was before Big bang?" Someone might answer- there was no time before Big Bang so there was no concept of "before and after". So this " question is absurd " that would be right. So why is agnostic view wrong? (unless its not encouraging spirit of asking questions)... its just that our questions are absurd because we are thinking in wrong framework ...<br /><br />I would love to read your blogs on physics ... if not writing yet .. start soon :)Shubhendu Bhardwajhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17219361471078494909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2185235733013765586.post-90304677498263636132010-04-01T08:40:44.618-07:002010-04-01T08:40:44.618-07:00Nicely written, but the physicist has a very weak ...Nicely written, but the physicist has a very weak character, ie. he is unable to provide the apt reasons and cogent arguments to the questions and statements of the saint eg: the discovery of quarks never made a mess, infact it strengthened and completed the standard model that we know today. The physicist is quite whiny, since its apparent that he is a bit irritated because Rutherford proved Dalton wrong and expanded the realm of Atomic physics, he should have been happy and excited to know the truth. Yes there were many ad-hoc rules in particle physics but they were back in 1960's, now we have a consistent theory the standard model which explains the behavior of the known particles precisely, ofcourse the realm of the confluence of quantum field theory and gravitation is still hazy, but thats what we are working on. The very statement "there are no constancy in this universe" is I think the best answer to pursue further in physics, if things were constant, there would be no beauty in nature, the constant need to update and upgrade things and ideas is the driving force of science. True intuition plays an important role in research, but the only way to prove one's intuition correct is by logic, otherwise, different people have different intuition, how can we then generalize all such intuitions? in that case every other person will have his or her own picture of the universe, which is absurd. About australia's perimeter and chaos: I think we should learn to identify the important information than the unimportant ones eg: say we have a container filled with gas, finding its pressure and temperature, rms velocity are important and observable parameters, but if one tries to find the velocity of individual particles then its hopeless since the motion IS chaotic, but ofcourse there are many phenomena which are chaotic and are of importance and thus we do have chaos theory and the non-linear dynamics. Trying to make everything clear and representable for everyone is the basic aim of science, thus I can't really go with the Chinese saying "One who knows cannot speak, and one who speaks does not know." If we don't question and try to explain things, then its like the classic agnostic view of the quantum mechanical interpretation question "where is the particle when we are not looking at it?" agnostic view: "this question is absurd should not be answered, its like asking how many angels can sit on a point of needle". I might as well add "A silent audience is a dangerous one"<br /><br />Overall this blog reminds me of the classic conversation based experiment of Galileo for finding the speed of light in the "Dialogue concerning two chief world systems"blackcat007https://www.blogger.com/profile/06100094767500718671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2185235733013765586.post-72971862974457422002010-03-31T22:33:22.174-07:002010-03-31T22:33:22.174-07:00haa .. expected to be :) taht way .. couldn't ...haa .. expected to be :) taht way .. couldn't make it more concise ....Shubhendu Bhardwajhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17219361471078494909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2185235733013765586.post-87044114235871128012010-03-31T20:19:25.727-07:002010-03-31T20:19:25.727-07:00bhayanak !! at half way point itself ..exhausting ...bhayanak !! at half way point itself ..exhausting man !too many questions ...too few answershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01081174776377379748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2185235733013765586.post-63104419606949039862010-03-31T11:33:59.147-07:002010-03-31T11:33:59.147-07:00bhayanak!!!!bhayanak!!!!dream weaverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01654836925512603616noreply@blogger.com