School probably taught you that an atom looks like a tiny solar
system. You'd be wrong, but never fear: researchers have engineered an
atom that looks just like you think it should. When the atomic
nucleus was discovered a century ago, the solar system analogy was
obvious. The nucleus's mass and charge would force electrons to circle
it, just as the sun's gravity holds orbiting planets. Quantum
mechanics maintained that electrons would smear out over large areas
of space. We can now trap electrons and make them parade around a
nucleus. Lagrange points - regions of space where gravity from
different sources cancels out were the inspiration. They achieved a
similar effect with an electron by using microwaves to counteract the
force of the nucleus. This created an electron pocket like a Lagrange
point, which they guided around the nucleus by rotating the microwave
source (Physical Review Letters, vol 102, p 103001). Thus we can make
quantum systems rather classical. Work like this does not rely on the
ancient thinking of features of appearance, though the word topology
is in vogue. We now question reality and expect it to provide answers
in miraculous experiments, sometimes that can only be conducted in
thought, and language that sometimes escapes shorthand terms like time
and space. There is time in science, relating to rods and clocks in
event horizon, and observation states of observers in event horizon
temperature and so on. There is a difference between these
considerations of what we understand and take to be and someone
thinking he knows the train is late (though in the UK we all get to
feel that!). Considerable Platonic dispute remains in science on
whether there is a reality beyond appearance.
On 25 Mar, 12:17, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
> One can, of course, perceive the reality of an illusion - perhaps the
> 'notwithSATANding' above!
>
> On 25 Mar, 09:26, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > What the topic raises ( uh, umpteen time ! ) is that, while the "
> > thing i.e.reality " is never in doubt, we yet do not know what it is.
> > What it appears, in experience or science, is only what we see,
> > believe, surmise or establish ( on concrete consequential evidence,
> > too ), is just that : appearance.
>
> > For most of us, this appearance of reality is adequate. Very, very few
> > refuse to rest at that ; they want to know the reality, as it is, not
> > as it appears, believability notwithsatanding.
>
> > Yes, KC, Space and Time is what we understand, define and take it to
> > be. They are a part or, more exactly, features of the " appearance."
>
> > On Mar 25, 12:14 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > That's really only the start of the argument Craig, though a sensible
> > > introduction that assumes a circular form rather too quickly. Most
> > > arguments like this 'return to the subject', yet within subjectivity
> > > we then insist on objectivity - relativity insisting that it describes
> > > space-time everywhere and so on. Actor-network theory (for instance)
> > > claims to be ontologically relativist and epistemologically empiricist
> > > - which is not a statement of there being no reality apart from space-
> > > time, but rather one that allows speculation on the nature of reality
> > > under rules of evidence. In principle, legal systems operate in a
> > > similar matter, being led to conclusion by evidence (though in reality
> > > they are often really a mess of lies and human interests- that is
> > > ideological). Modern relativism has reached a conclusion a bit like
> > > yours in that it believes the reality hypothesis is implicit in its
> > > reasoning, questioning what appears the inevitable theory-ladenness of
> > > observations. I suspect we would often agree on what the evidence in
> > > a case is, assuming we could get some reliable investigation done -
> > > that is we assume there is common ground and crucial evidence. It
> > > could be interesting here to compare a criminal case with the
> > > scientific case that we live in a world that is a shadow of reality.
>
> > > On 25 Mar, 02:36, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Reality is a word that has meaning. Where did that meaning come
> > > > from? Hasn't it come from our experience? What kind of experience
> > > > could we have other than an experience in space and time? There is no
> > > > reality apart from space and time. They are implicit in the very
> > > > notion of reality.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
