First photograph of light as both a particle and wave

[Gort]

Can I make a suggestion? Instead of letting your mind wander in all sorts of directions at odds with current knowledge why not learn about that current knowledge?

If certain minds didn't wander from current knowledge, there would be little progress in science. Michael Faraday and Maxwell come to mind. Learning about current knowledge is good. But so is wandering. And asking questions. And, hopefully, putting those questions in the form of real experiments.

 

[TrickyDicky]

Michael Faraday and Maxwell come to mind.

Actually much more Faraday than Maxwell. Faraday even came up with probably the first "theory of everything" in the modern sense, too bad he lacked the math to support it. Maxwell used Faraday's insights but departed from Faraday's theory to construct Maxwell's equations as close to the Newtonian ideas as he could.

 

[mfb]

Learning about current knowledge is good. But so is wandering. And asking questions. And, hopefully, putting those questions in the form of real experiments.

Yes, but without the first step it does not work.

 

[Gort]

Yes, but without the first step it does not work.

I might question the "does not work". Maybe has a low probability amplitude. But I think there could be a case made for not being shackled with the beliefs of the past. I know progress is usually made "on the shoulders of giants". But perhaps, if someone is blissfully unaware of some current line of research, that person could go off on a fruitful tangent.

 

[mfb]

I might question the "does not work". Maybe has a low probability amplitude.

The number of successful theories from persons who did not know the previous theories is zero. At least I never saw an example (and I did search).
Even the weaker question "who found something new without being in contact with experts" just lead to one example.
But that is too far away from the topic of this thread I think.

 

[bhobba]

Instead of letting your mind wander in all sorts of directions at odds with current knowledge why not learn about that current knowledge?

The highlighted bit is the issue.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Shri13]

Can you explain to me in what way Euclidean geometry hasn't defined what space is? Even curved space is locally Euclidean. Minkowski space assumes space is Euclidean in inertial frames. It really is the foundation on which our conception of space and space-time is built

Sir bhobba,
Thank you very much for your help in trying to make me understand about space.
But I think none of you has understood the TRUE point of my question.

According to Sir Bhobba, yes I of course agree that Euclidean geometry, minkowski,etc... have really defined the space to their best, but in mathematical way!

What I am saying is that space is not defined structurally ( like how an atom is structally defined well i.e it has nucleons, electrons, orbitals, etc...).
My query is that we don't know what actually the SPACE is made of!
I would have been satisfied if space was somewhat defined as following ( just an e.g.):-
"Space is made up of fundamental numerous space cells known as 'pixons' ( you can compare them with pixels or the tiniest led of a computer screen) arranged in 3-dimensional grid, which can vary their energy content and other attributes to resemble the existence, motion, actions, etc... of an entity ( entities like electron, quarks or macro scaled planets, galaxies,etc.)" {This is comparable to our computer screen, we know how a cs represents various graphical objects in virtual reality. I wish we also had knowledge of how our space does that structurally.}[Here you can presume a pixon to be of Planck length and a group of them considered together resemble an entity. The group doesn't moves when the entity moves in space. The info and attribute gets transferred to further pixons which resembles its motion.]
( this is not a theory and I just gave an e.g, of how our space should have actually be defined in a rather structural way...I hope some unnecessary Q's don't arise on the above quoted content.)

Wouldn't such structural definition of space help us to find out more and improve our present day physics? ( I think we do need to think OOB and approach newer ideas. Of course without neglecting the CORRECT results of earlier theories.)
[ for e.g such a structural definition, may even help us to define what gravity is... like considering above quoted theory, one can say gravity is actually attraction of less energy pixon to higher energy pixon so as to stabilise the later, as pixons itself are fundamental of space, we see that space is curved.(here energy can be taken as the mass of the entity represented by group of pixons. The higher energy pixon may be at the centre of mass of that entity, which pulls other low energy pixon and hence curves the surrounding space.)] (I am just giving an e.g. I don't want to make any fuss.)

Thanks guys.

 

[bhobba]

My query is that we don't know what actually the SPACE is made of!

First you need to show, not with philosophical waffle, but an actual physical argument, it needs to be made of anything. Then you need to experimentally verify it - otherwise all you have is conjecture and opinion - which basically means diddley squat.

BTW we already have tons of conjectures along those lines eg LQG, probably even string theory - but that's all they are.

If you want to join the ranks of those that conjecture on that sort of thing - be my quest - but - as MFB said - to actually do that you need to understand current physics a lot better than your posts indicate you do.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

have really defined the space to their best, but in mathematical way!

Whenever I see such statements my hands go over my face and a sigh escapes - its involuntary.

Mathematics, like English, is a language - much more precise and perfect for logical thought - but still a language. Experience has shown its the best language for expressing physical concepts. Over in another thread , before it was closed (correctly IMHO), we spent a lot of time basically trying to explain simple ideas in Linear Algebra that are really the basis of QM. You can't do it without the math.

Now I have to ask what exactly is to be gained by ignoring that language and describing issues in a non mathematical way - presumably by English? And your idea of space having a structure - that needs mathematical development as well - so nothing is gained.

I get the VERY strong feeling those that harp on about such for some reason don't like math or don't want to learn it. Sorry - you will not make progress in physics, either learning it or trying to form new theories (which should not be done until you have learned a lot of it) without the language of math.

Statements like its just math, defined in a mathematical way etc etc are silly, yes silly. You must use some language and English has proven woefully inadequate to the task.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Shri13]

I get the VERY strong feeling those that harp on about such for some reason don't like math or don't want to learn it. Sorry - you will not make progress in physics, either learning it or trying to form new theories (which should not be done until you have learned a lot of it) without the language of math.

Hey, I think even after "showing each nerve of my brain", none of you quite understood my point.
First of all Sir Bhobba, maths is my most favourite subject and I can sacrifice everything of my life to learn it whole. Even if I don't understand high level maths ( like tensors, spinors, etc...) right now, but I am interested in learning it. I just love its concept of symbolising complex ideas into compact form like equations.
For me, maths is the language of universe, and it must be the language in which our universe is actually written!
No doubt I accept sir that no other language will be perfect for representing physics laws, but that was not my point.
What I asked was that (for e.g.) didn't structural knowledge of atom helped us to reach this level of quantum physics? What would have happened if we just have stopped after knowing mathematically that atom is sphere of so and so radius, situated on so and so axis, with so and so volume, etc...
Would such mathematical definition have helped us to develop QED, QCD,etc.?

What I am saying is together with mathematical knowledge shouldn't we work to retrieve structural knowledge of space too.?

I know there are some persons who just want to stick what is already known, and neglect everything else. They just make theoretical predictions based on known facts, that this should happen, that supposed to exist, etc... without even seeing what new directions are showing us. This would just make us to rotate our brain around the sun again and again , showing the same things in different views.

I know there are experts who are working on this, may even have found something new, but I am not here to argue on anything or anyone. I just want to share my views on science especially physics. I am still learning and want to learn more...
I hope everyone has understood my point.

I would suggest to stop discussing about questions arising from my posts, and resume back to the original theme of these featured forum.

Thanks guys for giving me place in this forum.

Goodbye.

 

[bhobba]

What I am saying is together with mathematical knowledge shouldn't we work to retrieve structural knowledge of space too.?

Cant you see what you are doing? You are assuming there is a structural aspect to space (whatever that is) then saying shouldn't we work to retrieve it. Its a logical fallacy and a very obvious one at that.

I know there are some persons who just want to stick what is already known, and neglect everything else.

Don't know too many of those and that is not the issue with what you write.

Thanks
Bill

 

[vanhees71]

Whatever "structural aspect to space" means, it's described by the mathematics of space. There's no other precise description of objective reality than in terms of mathematics. It's the only way so far known to talk about physics in the needed precision.