The central contention of physics has it that the building blocks of the universe will endure even if, or even when, the humans who tally them, and the planet we live on, all die. To see into the deathless universe is to try to see nothing so flamboyant as [William] Wordsworth’s favorite daffodils and walnut groves, but to peer into the coldest spaces, the black holes and the fractional electric charge of theoretical subatomic particles. These entities have no blood flow, of course, but also no DNA; they’re not susceptible to pandemics, however virulent, or the dividends and ravages of carbon. They don’t live, so they don’t die. To model the universe as precisely as possible is to try to see the one thing that even the strictest atheist agrees is everlasting — to try to achieve, in a lab, an intimation of immortality. | |
Back to the living world that’s under our feet. [Carlo] Rovelli is right to caution against the potential delusions of those who are greedy for eurekas. But, as a fellow physicist with a radical streak, he is also sympathetic to their ambitions, a drive to “learn something unexpected about the fundamental laws of nature.” To Rovelli, whose latest book describes quantum mechanics as an almost psychedelic experience, a truly radical discovery entails the observation of phenomena that fall outside three existing frameworks in physics: quantum theory, the Standard Model of particle physics, and general relativity. Only by blowing up one of those frameworks can one achieve the kind of immortality that scientists get, the glory of someone like Einstein or Heisenberg. | |
But to keep looking, as Rovelli has, as Fermilab has with this study on the muon’s magnetism, is also to apprehend hints. To follow hints. In that way, the physicist’s work and the poet’s are the same. And if Wordsworth is right, immortality can be found, of all places, in the hint — the staggering proposition by nature itself that, in spite of all the dying around us, something of all we love might be imperishable, might still flicker or shine or wobble when the rest of our world is gone. | |
— Virginia Heffernan | |
From her article: “Muonstruck“ | |
Appearing in: Wired Magazine; dtd: June 2021 | |
. | |
On This Day In: | |
2021 | Keep Growing |
I Keep Looking | |
2020 | I Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Plans |
One Earth | |
2019 | Beautiful Rules |
2018 | Skepticism |
2017 | WWGD? |
2016 | Growing Greatness |
2015 | When It Is Darkest |
2014 | Knowledge And Doubt |
2013 | Three Thoughts |
2012 | Gentle Reader |
2011 | Leave The Light On For Me Anyway |
Posts Tagged ‘physics’
Might Still Flicker Or Shine
Posted in Philosophy, Quotes, Science and Learning, tagged Albert Einstein, Carlo Rovelli, Daffodils, Fermilab, General Relativity, Muons, Muonstruck, Philosophy, physics, Quotes, Science, The Standard Model Of Particle Physics, Virginia Heffernan, Werner Heisenberg, William Wordsworth, Wired Magazine on April 28, 2022| Leave a Comment »
Just Not Sure, And That’s Okay
Posted in 2020 Book Review, Book Review, Reading, Reviews, Science and Learning, tagged 2020 Book Review, Big Bang Theory, Christine Roche, CMB, Cosmic Microwave Background, Cosmology, Felix Pirani, Introducing The Universe -- book review, Mathematics, physics, Science, Steady-State Theory on September 1, 2020| Leave a Comment »
“Introducing The Universe” (1993©) — book review | |
Today’s book review is for “Introducing The Universe“, written by Felix Pirani (writer) and Christine Roche (illustrator). While copyrighted in 1993, my version is a re-publication from 1999. (Dear Readers, I apologize in advance for the length of this review, which may seem longer than the book.) | |
I have a reasonably long history (ten to twenty years) of reading these “Introduction / Introducing” series of books about a host of different topics. The benefit of the series is you (generally) get a very quick (under 200 pages filled with mostly comics illustrations) and very general overview of whatever the specific topic is for the book. The negatives are reduced a number of important sub-topics, lack of breadth and depth for a specific sub-topic, and (occasionally) even I find the illustrations tedious (if not demeaning). Be that as it may… | |
This book is about cosmology (the science and study of the universe). Obviously, theories about the universe and creation pre-date “civilization”, and certainly pre-date reading and writing, let alone the start of modern science. This book covers all of this… up to publication date. | |
So, the two main theories of the universe are: 1) it has always existed pretty much as it is now; and, 2) the universe sprang into being at some point. The first theory is known as the “Steady-State” theory. The second is more popularly known as the “Big Bang” theory. Pre-1960(-ish), 1965 to be precise, the Steady-State theory held the reigns because there was no physical evidence to believe otherwise and it let scientists avoid the chicken-n-egg question of: “If the universe was created, that implies there was both reason for creation and a creator / intelligent designer. So, who was it?” This moves from the “hard” science which scientists like to think about, to the practice to philosophy – which may be logical, but is rarely scientific (from my experience anyway). | |
I call theory #2, “The God Theory“, because creation implies creator and it pre-dates modern science (as we know it). I call theory #1, “The Science Theory“, because not only do we not know what happened, it seems unlikely we will ever know. If you are comfortable with doubt and dealing with the unknowable, you can be comfortable with science. | |
Well, in 1965, a couple of radio guys at Bell Labs were looking at space and they found some background noise (aka “Cosmic Microwave Background” or CMB) which could not be easily explained. It seemed to fall under the predictions for residue background radiation from a terrific explosion. Hence: “The Big Bang“. With this data, and a corresponding space-race to the moon between the United States and the U.S.S.R., a lot of money was being poured into the coffers of universities (and companies) which would study these phenomena. (Note: the theory pre-dates the CMB evidence. The CMB, however, serves as the primary evidence supporting the theory. When I was a child and first learning about all of this, the Steady-State was THE primary theory for cosmology and the Big Bang was just beginning its ascendancy. It was a paradigm shift in cosmology based on new data, post theory.) | |
The problem is for pretty much all of the last 60 years, more and more study has produced more and more confusing results, and, in turn, more and more convoluted twists in the Big Bang theory to explain the exceptions to the predicted data. For example: we believe the universe is expanding, but we can’t identify a point of origin. All points seem to be moving away from each other at the same rate. | |
And, another: the stuff of the universe, which we can see, behaves in a way which predicts there should be a LOT more stuff. The mathematics works out that for the universe to function the way the theory says it should, there’s probably 90% or more of the stuff in the universe which is, as yet, unseen. Nobody knows what it is or where it is or why we can’t see (detect) it. And it’s not just “stuff”. The same seems to be true for “energy” which we also cannot detect. The scientists have named these two unseeable and unmeasureable things: “Dark Matter” and “Dark Energy” (cause they’re original that way). | |
Basically, the real and measurable data we’ve been gathering seem to contradict the Big Bang theory, but we’ve yet to come up with a theory to explain the data which the data could support (some theory other than the Big Bang theory and / or the Steady-State theory). The result is we are stumbling along with the philosopher Thomas Kuhn’s “normal science” while awaiting a new theory or “paradigm” which explains the evidence in terms of supporting the Steady-State theory. (Hence, String Theory / Super-String Theory and multi-dimensions and multiple universes.) | |
So, is this book any good? Is it interesting? Before I answer those two questions I must state: I am NOT a scientist and I entered the book with only the most high-school level knowledge of cosmology (let alone math / physics). Having said this: Yes, and YES! This is not a book which most physicists, math folks or cosmologists will find useful. Between the non-linear / non-chronological presentation and the use of mostly comic-book style illustrations, I imagine they would find it trivial if not insulting. I don’t know enough about the subject to find it such. | |
Final recommendation: strong! I am sure the target audience, the format and the length of the book precluded the author and illustrator’s ability to present as much as they might have liked to. Never the less, as a novice seeking a general overview which could be gained in a couple of hours of light reading, I felt the book covered the topic and reading it was a useful experience. | |
. | |
On This Day In: | |
2019 | The Right Questions |
Day 3: Still Difficult | |
2018 | A Thought For Those Continuing To Support President Trump |
Day 36: Pushing On | |
2017 | Imagining Humor |
2016 | So Go On And Deal With It |
2015 | From A Letter To A Friend |
2014 | Your Part (Here) |
2013 | Complements |
2012 | Sound And Light |
2011 | Two Politicians Visit A Farm… |
2010 | Labor Day And Honorable Men |
I’m Actively Irresponsible
Posted in Other Blogs, Quotes, Science and Learning, Work, tagged Actively Irresponsible, Cal Newport, Dr. Richard P. Feynman, Email, physics, Quotes, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Work, www.chronicle.com on February 25, 2019| 10 Comments »
To do real good physics work, you do need absolute solid lengths of time … it needs a lot of concentration … if you have a job administrating anything, you don’t have the time. So I have invented another myth for myself: that I’m irresponsible. I’m actively irresponsible. I tell everyone I don’t do anything. If anyone asks me to be on a committee … ‘no’ I tell them: I’m irresponsible. | |
— Richard Feynman | |
Quoted by: Cal Newport | |
In his on-line article: “Is Email Making Professors Stupid“ | |
Appearing on the site: The Chronicle of Higher Education, located at: www.chronicle.com | |
[LOL!!! It worked for me, too! — KMAB] | |
. | |
On This Day In: | |
2018 | I Will Love You… Forever |
2017 | Pebbles In Your Shoe? |
2016 | Resolute Will |
2015 | Absorbed And Civilized |
2014 | Relax And Lead |
2013 | Location, Location, Location |
2012 | Are You Really Good? |
2011 | Relatively Objective, Anyway |
Just Bake The Cake, Man
Posted in Politics, Quotes, tagged Civil Rights, Equal Protection, Geometry, physics, Politics, President Thomas Jefferson, Quotes, Religious Opinions on June 20, 2018| Leave a Comment »
Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry… | |
― Thomas Jefferson | |
. | |
On This Day In: | |
2017 | Visible Proof |
2016 | Poor Enough Means |
2015 | Still Standing |
Follow Your Heart | |
2014 | Just Reminded |
2013 | A Fine Balance |
2012 | One Measure |
2011 | Seeking The Common Ground |
In Brightest Day… | |
What If “c” Isn’t A Constant?
Posted in General Comments, Philosophy, Science and Learning, Serendipity and Chaos, tagged Albert Einstein, Big Bang, Creation, Philosophy, physics, Science, Serendipity and Chaos, Singularlity, thought experiments on October 4, 2010| Leave a Comment »
Rate this:
Share this:
Like this:
Read Full Post »