You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Light and How It Travels to Reach Earth
Its very interesting post. I had followed lectures on physics from Leonard Susskind in You-tube. He had said that, the gravitational lensing theory gonna be proved. Later, they proved it.
Thank you!!
Thanks. I don't know if I have heard him talk about gravitational lensing, but I'd be interested in hearing his take. I do not agree with quantum mechanics in general, string theory, or any theory that says the small is different than the large or vice versa (like string theory), but I'll have to try to check it out. Feel free to link if you easily can find it. :)
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=leonard+susskind+general+relativity
In this lecture series somewhere.
I think you have wrong perception about quantum mechanics. It is equally valid for particles from nano to the macro celestial bodies. It is just that it is not observed in daily life.
Thanks!
To be fair, quantum mechanics is a sea of theories. Generally speaking, they hinge on the idea of probabalistic behavior in the quantum world, while we see deterministic behavior in the world around us.
I was talking more about string theory which claims the universe to be made of vibrating "strings" rather than particles. In reality, it is particles all the way down, though these function observably as waves in summation when sufficiently small relative to atoms.
What do you mean by "valid" but "just that it is not observed"? How can these coexist?
I don't know about string theory just the basics.
We cannot observe the subatomic particles but we can observe their effects. From that, we model their behavior. The theory given becomes valid with mathematical foundation. Can you relate?
My question to that would be what about other mathematical foundations such as classical mechanics? What makes quantum mechanics carry more validity? To me, hidden behind the mask of elaborate mathematical formulas that attempt to explain the quantum world are very fundamental errors. The mathematics of quantum mechanics is founded, for example, on an equation that uses imaginary numbers to explain the real world. I am no expert in quantum mechanics, but I have exposed myself to it to a degree where my conclusion regarding it is that it is a best-fit approximation of some systems that falls apart the further from the specific range of observations that it is best applied to that we look. However, in my opinion, it does not describe the actual reality we live in but, in being an approximation, it describes a non-reality. To me, nothing about it is actually fundamentally accurate; the universe is simple and elegant rather than mysterious and complex. Our interpretations can lead to descriptions of it that are this way, but that does not mean that it is fundamentally such. My two cents, though I will admit that my exposure to quantum mechanics is rudimentary. I hinge my stance on logic and reason which I fall back to as a basis for my interpretations extensively when it comes to quantum mechanics.