BTW Marsha, I'm reading the Lindley book. It is very good, very readable, all the usual suspects, a history of "subatomic" physics and the philosophical weirdness that arisess. Recommended.
Regards Ian On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:15 AM, MarshaV<[email protected]> wrote: > > Ian, > > Yes, they are all there. It must have been very dynamic times, indeed. War > and hate everywhere, and they were safe within their abstract concepts. I > understand that isn't really a fair statement. - It is a very enjoyable > book. I have another one like it next in the queue. I'm only beginning to > understand the language. > > > Marsha > > > p.s. Page 86 of the paperback edition. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ian Glendinning > Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 5:01 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] 'Uncertainty > > Absolutely Marsha, > > Einstein, Heisenberg and Bohr, not to mention Schroedinger and Born, > all I believe (and have said before) got the metaphysical implications > of the weirdness before them - the lack of intrinsic reality for any > of us. > > Trouble is Copenhagen, (and "many worlds" and the like) created > mathematical recipe books, that simply ignored them - LHC continues to > ignore them. > > (I shall have to take a look at that Lindley reference.) > > Regards > Ian > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 9:49 AM, MarshaV<[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >From 'Uncertainty: Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr, and the Struggle for the > Soul >> of Science' by David Lindley: >> >> >> >> " . "When it comes to atoms," Bohr concluded enigmatically, "language > can >> be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with >> describing facts as with creating images and establishing mental >> connections." >> >> This, to Heisenberg, was strange and revelatory. Only a generation >> earlier, Boltzmann and his allies had argued strenuously for the atom as a >> concrete .thing., not a theoretical abstraction, still less a poetical >> allusion. Was Bohr now saying that physicists couldn't hope to describe >> atoms concretely, that they must make do with analogies and metaphors? > That >> the intrinsic reality of an atom was inaccessible to them? That perhaps > it >> was meaningless even to talk about the intrinsic reality of an atom?" >> >> >> >> >> >> The other day I heard a physicist, talking about the equations to > calculate >> spin, say "This isn't just mathematics, this is real". Huh? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _____________ >> >> >> >> "There are things that are so serious that you can only joke about them." >> >> (Werner Karl Heisenberg) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Moq_Discuss mailing list >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >> Archives: >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ >> > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
