由买买提看人间百态

boards

本页内容为未名空间相应帖子的节选和存档,一周内的贴子最多显示50字,超过一周显示500字 访问原贴
TrustInJesus版 - [ZT] What is Real?
相关主题
康来昌:神的主权Re: 统一场论有戏吗?
We are all connected. [music]最puzzling藕的还是空间和物质的可分性
John 6 "I Am the Bread of Life"今年是费曼诞辰100周年
最让基督教致命的学科一个连美国大学物理系排名都不知道的读什么物理
犯罪是被造的? - brain scans reveal the criminal mindshwinger的八卦一则
主的信徒们有没有市场上的普通 router 可取代 Verizon Fios router
超乎想象的宇宙——量子力学篇真心求助几道本科无机试题
Men, Christianity is stupid.....哪里有问题?为啥别人质疑是胡扯和joke?
相关话题的讨论汇总
话题: real话题: theory话题: perceive话题: electron话题: yet
进入TrustInJesus版参与讨论
1 (共1页)
j*******7
发帖数: 6300
1
http://www-scf.usc.edu/~kallos/what_is_real.htm
What is real?
Take for example the first successful theory of gravity, Ptolemy's system of
epicycles. It was used before Newton to describe the motion of the planets,
by assuming that the earth was static in the center of the world and the
planets and the sun revolved around it. It gave relatively accurate results
for astronomical observations. Was it real? I guess not. It just helped the
calculations, correctly, to be carried out.
Then Newton's theory came about, with the sun in the center of the solar
system and the planets revolving around it in ellipses. It also gives
predictions for the motion of the heavenly bodies, much better than Ptolemy'
s theory did. Do we consider it real? Of course we do. We are somehow
convinced that the sun is really in the center and that the earth is
spinning and not the other way around, and also it feels real and we are
comfortable with these notions.
Then take as a second example the ether. When Maxwell derived his
electromagnetic equations, people naturally assumed that these EM waves must
be traveling in a medium, the ether. The equations worked pretty well with
the ether, although none had ever "seen" it, yet people considered it real.
Then experiments came a few years later and said that ether was not
necessary and that the waves can propagate on vacuum. Here goes the beloved
ether. Now, is this real? We tend to believe so, that indeed there is
nothing there so that the EM waves travel through.
Is energy real? When the concept of energy was first introduced, none had
ever seen or smelled or tasted energy. It was just a bunch of numbers that
told us something about things. Nobody back then believed that there was an
actual existence that was real and meant something. It was merely a
mathematical convenience. And where are we now, in the year 2004ad? We know
how to measure energy, we now how to predict where it goes, how it is
transferred, how to manipulate it, and we use it in our everyday lives (the
calories that we eat or the power of a light bulb). Yet none ever in the
history of mankind has been able to "see" energy, or to understand what it
is, or draw a picture of it. Under this sense, energy cannot be real,
although it is very convenient for us to take advantage of it.
My point is this: scientists propose theories, all of which tell us
something (usually in mathematics) about the world. However some of them are
not "real", although they might be giving accurate results (up to a point
maybe). The question is, where do you draw a line between a theory that is a
mathematical convenience and a theory that actually describes reality?
That question might not have been so tough before the theory of Quantum
Mechanics arrived in the first half of the 20th century. First of all, there
are at least 4 different equivalent mathematical descriptions of the theory
, each of which tells us how the atoms and the particles behave and move
around. Some of them are easier to grasp and understand, while others seem
distant and unfamiliar. Yet they all yield the exact same results, since
they are the different mirror images of the same reality. But then, which of
the theories can be called real? Is the matrix formulation, the quantum
numbers, the wave picture, or Feynman's many stories description more real?
In the Quantum version of electromagnetism, QED, although Feynman's idea
that a particle moving from one place to another follows ALL possible routes
at the same time seems absurd and unrealistic, this is the theory that
scientists use in order to make calculations, because it is easier than the
other theories, although 100% equivalent to them! Worse, in modern particle
physics, the only description we have and works almost perfectly in terms of
accurate predictions states that there are virtual particles, particles
that do not actually exist and pop out nowhere, and the exchange of
trillions of particles describes the forces of nature. No one has ever seen
a photon or a boson, we only perceive them through machines that tells us
that something was there. Even worse, take the quarks, the elementary
particles that comprise the protons. We will never be able to see a single
quark yet by assuming their existence we can explain some secondary effects
they produce accurately by looking through our excellent machines. Again,
the math works out well but can we tell that the quarks are real, and in
what sense since none of us will ever hold a quark in his hand?
Quantum Theory is so strange. In the electrons orbiting a nucleus, it tells
us that the electrons are not real unless we detect them. That means, when
we detect an electron we know that we have detected and electron, but if we
ask where the electron is then we do not have a definite answer. It might be
anywhere around the nucleus, and because of that we assume that the
electron is at the same time in many places! We can no longer imagine an
electron as a definite dot sitting somewhere outside the nucleus, the
answers we get are wrong. If we assume it's everywhere, we get correct
results. The dot-electron now isn't real, but the ghost-electron is, even if
we cannot perceive it?
Here are the cases for a certain theory:
1. The predictions are correct, we can perceive it, yet the theory is false
(Ptolemy and many more).
2. The predictions are correct, we can perceive it, and the theory is
probably correct (Newton, to some extent).
3. The predictions are wrong, we can perceive it, and the theory is (
obviously) false (Bohr's planetary orbiting picture of the atom).
4. The predictions are correct, we cannot perceive it, and the theory is
probably correct (Quantum Mechanics).
In cases 1, 2 and 3 something be perceive might be right or wrong, yet we
consider the correct case (2) to be real. Is #4 real? Is something real even
if we cannot perceive it? Einstein's answer to this question was no:
something we cannot perceive cannot be real, and he believed that Quantum
Mechanics will eventually yield definite, realistic, dot-like Newtonian
answers. Yet it was proved that it is not possible.
What is your answer?
r****z
发帖数: 12020
2
首先,您转的这篇文章想必您是看懂了。请给大家科普一下什么是"Ptolemy's system
of epicycles"?什么是"matrix formulation", "the quantum numbers", "the wave
picture", "Feynman's many stories description", "dot-electron", "ghost-
electron"? 我想大部分人都不懂这些。
其次,为什么您推荐这个人的文章?他是谁?先知吗?您的亲戚?还是您的马甲?
最后,这片文章和基督教有何关系?基督教不是讲罪和救赎的吗?
谢谢。
Update: 我发完此帖才发现楼主是个光转贴没观点的主。我的回帖看来是对牛弹琴了。

of
planets,
results
the

【在 j*******7 的大作中提到】
: http://www-scf.usc.edu/~kallos/what_is_real.htm
: What is real?
: Take for example the first successful theory of gravity, Ptolemy's system of
: epicycles. It was used before Newton to describe the motion of the planets,
: by assuming that the earth was static in the center of the world and the
: planets and the sun revolved around it. It gave relatively accurate results
: for astronomical observations. Was it real? I guess not. It just helped the
: calculations, correctly, to be carried out.
: Then Newton's theory came about, with the sun in the center of the solar
: system and the planets revolving around it in ellipses. It also gives

l**********t
发帖数: 5754
3
好文。
那个把“进化论”说成 “没有假设,全是事实“,”象 theory of gravity 一样正确
“的可以看看。

of
planets,
results
the

【在 j*******7 的大作中提到】
: http://www-scf.usc.edu/~kallos/what_is_real.htm
: What is real?
: Take for example the first successful theory of gravity, Ptolemy's system of
: epicycles. It was used before Newton to describe the motion of the planets,
: by assuming that the earth was static in the center of the world and the
: planets and the sun revolved around it. It gave relatively accurate results
: for astronomical observations. Was it real? I guess not. It just helped the
: calculations, correctly, to be carried out.
: Then Newton's theory came about, with the sun in the center of the solar
: system and the planets revolving around it in ellipses. It also gives

I******l
发帖数: 486
4
那些把基督教说成全是事实, 宇宙最高真理的基督徒看了吗?

【在 l**********t 的大作中提到】
: 好文。
: 那个把“进化论”说成 “没有假设,全是事实“,”象 theory of gravity 一样正确
: “的可以看看。
:
: of
: planets,
: results
: the

l**********t
发帖数: 5754
5

基督教信仰是不是科學,是基於信仰.
但有人喜歡把科學理論作為信仰。

【在 I******l 的大作中提到】
: 那些把基督教说成全是事实, 宇宙最高真理的基督徒看了吗?
I******l
发帖数: 486
6
信仰等于事实吗, 请问? 说得好像信仰就自动是事实一样.

【在 l**********t 的大作中提到】
:
: 基督教信仰是不是科學,是基於信仰.
: 但有人喜歡把科學理論作為信仰。

t*******r
发帖数: 2940
7
You miss the point, we do not have to understand all of those you have
quoted, yet we can still perceive the author's point:
“My point is this: scientists propose theories, all of which tell us
something (usually in mathematics) about the world. However some of them are
not "real", although they might be giving accurate results (up to a point
maybe). The question is, where do you draw a line between a theory that is a
mathematical convenience and a theory that actually describes reality?”
您问的其他问题更是和这篇文章无关。我们也许不能回答作者的提问,但何妨听听作者
的看法。

system

【在 r****z 的大作中提到】
: 首先,您转的这篇文章想必您是看懂了。请给大家科普一下什么是"Ptolemy's system
: of epicycles"?什么是"matrix formulation", "the quantum numbers", "the wave
: picture", "Feynman's many stories description", "dot-electron", "ghost-
: electron"? 我想大部分人都不懂这些。
: 其次,为什么您推荐这个人的文章?他是谁?先知吗?您的亲戚?还是您的马甲?
: 最后,这片文章和基督教有何关系?基督教不是讲罪和救赎的吗?
: 谢谢。
: Update: 我发完此帖才发现楼主是个光转贴没观点的主。我的回帖看来是对牛弹琴了。
:
: of

r****z
发帖数: 12020
8
作者问了个问题"What's real"。然后列了一些高深名词。下了一些也不知对也不对的
结论。若要讨论,显然应该搞清三件事.即作者的名词和论点有无关系?作者的
credibility值不值得重视?以及这和基督教有无关系?
我2楼问的三个问题正好和这些讨论重点一一对应,不知您如何下了断言“您问的其他问
题更是和这篇文章无关“?
您似乎还有点讨论的意思。但是您回避了文章里的主要内容。这样就成了空对空。当然
,喜欢空对空的讨论也不是错的,但是那我就没兴趣了.

are
point
a

【在 t*******r 的大作中提到】
: You miss the point, we do not have to understand all of those you have
: quoted, yet we can still perceive the author's point:
: “My point is this: scientists propose theories, all of which tell us
: something (usually in mathematics) about the world. However some of them are
: not "real", although they might be giving accurate results (up to a point
: maybe). The question is, where do you draw a line between a theory that is a
: mathematical convenience and a theory that actually describes reality?”
: 您问的其他问题更是和这篇文章无关。我们也许不能回答作者的提问,但何妨听听作者
: 的看法。
:

t*******r
发帖数: 2940
9
放松一点,你如果认为文章有错就给大家科普一下,不需要联想太多。

【在 r****z 的大作中提到】
: 作者问了个问题"What's real"。然后列了一些高深名词。下了一些也不知对也不对的
: 结论。若要讨论,显然应该搞清三件事.即作者的名词和论点有无关系?作者的
: credibility值不值得重视?以及这和基督教有无关系?
: 我2楼问的三个问题正好和这些讨论重点一一对应,不知您如何下了断言“您问的其他问
: 题更是和这篇文章无关“?
: 您似乎还有点讨论的意思。但是您回避了文章里的主要内容。这样就成了空对空。当然
: ,喜欢空对空的讨论也不是错的,但是那我就没兴趣了.
:
: are
: point

r****z
发帖数: 12020
10

我认为这篇文章和基督教毫无关系。在二楼我的第三个问题就是问这个的。结果不但楼
主不回答,您还认为这么重要的问题是无关问题。现在又说"放松一点"。您以为这是
Joke版吗?
既然和基督教无关,剩下的科普看来也没什么必要了。
其实作者就是开了个玩笑,堆砌了一堆谁也不明白的名词来骗人的。对信仰持"放松一
点"态度的人一下子就上当了。呵呵。

【在 t*******r 的大作中提到】
: 放松一点,你如果认为文章有错就给大家科普一下,不需要联想太多。
j*******7
发帖数: 6300
11
Before I decided to believe in Jesus, I asked the same question: what is
real? The various science theories are useful to some extent, but nobody
can gurantee they are correct. Basically no science theory can say good
enough things about the most important things about our life. But Holy Bible
and Jesus really touched my heart and make me satisfied.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkKEOJTDFx0
t*******r
发帖数: 2940
12
是觉得你在开玩笑。

【在 r****z 的大作中提到】
:
: 我认为这篇文章和基督教毫无关系。在二楼我的第三个问题就是问这个的。结果不但楼
: 主不回答,您还认为这么重要的问题是无关问题。现在又说"放松一点"。您以为这是
: Joke版吗?
: 既然和基督教无关,剩下的科普看来也没什么必要了。
: 其实作者就是开了个玩笑,堆砌了一堆谁也不明白的名词来骗人的。对信仰持"放松一
: 点"态度的人一下子就上当了。呵呵。

l**********t
发帖数: 5754
13

我认为这篇文章和基督教的关系,类似于 进化论和基督教的关系

【在 r****z 的大作中提到】
:
: 我认为这篇文章和基督教毫无关系。在二楼我的第三个问题就是问这个的。结果不但楼
: 主不回答,您还认为这么重要的问题是无关问题。现在又说"放松一点"。您以为这是
: Joke版吗?
: 既然和基督教无关,剩下的科普看来也没什么必要了。
: 其实作者就是开了个玩笑,堆砌了一堆谁也不明白的名词来骗人的。对信仰持"放松一
: 点"态度的人一下子就上当了。呵呵。

1 (共1页)
进入TrustInJesus版参与讨论
相关主题
哪里有问题?为啥别人质疑是胡扯和joke?犯罪是被造的? - brain scans reveal the criminal mind
这个背景容易找工作吗? (转载)主的信徒们
6个包子求文献,谢谢超乎想象的宇宙——量子力学篇
这个背景容易找工作吗? (转载)Men, Christianity is stupid.....
康来昌:神的主权Re: 统一场论有戏吗?
We are all connected. [music]最puzzling藕的还是空间和物质的可分性
John 6 "I Am the Bread of Life"今年是费曼诞辰100周年
最让基督教致命的学科一个连美国大学物理系排名都不知道的读什么物理
相关话题的讨论汇总
话题: real话题: theory话题: perceive话题: electron话题: yet