His ideas seem to be extraordinarily popular, and he has quite a following, so my article has caused a bit of a stir. But to a lot of people, I get the feeling it looks like I'm just being horrid. Why else would someone pull another person to pieces? It's not very nice.
Little My: a bit horridAnd it might look a bit horrid to people who've never heard of him too. Why is Bob spending so much time pulling someone to pieces? Why doesn't he write about birds and stars like the good old days?
Anyway, aren't people entitled to hold differing views? Doesn't the human race already spend far too much time putting each other down?
I was thinking about this the other day and I came up with a little story.
Imagine you grew up speaking fluent Mandarin, as well as English. And you'd spent a lot of time in China, living among people in many different parts of the country.
One day, probably somewhere in the US of A, you come across someone giving public lectures on how to understand Mandarin. Lots of people are interested, it seems, because Mandarin is still quite alien to most people in English-speaking countries, yet it's a language that may prove increasingly valuable to learn for the future. You're curious, so you take a look.
What you see is someone making stereotypical Chinese-sounding noises. He utters words that sound vaguely Chinese, and explains what he thinks they mean. He tells his audience that he's studied this language for many many years, and has learned things that most teachers of Mandarin would never even realise. You do recognise some of his words, but they're not put together in a way that makes much sense to you.
You ask his students, who proudly tell you that this is the true Mandarin, and that what they teach in language schools is flawed. When you take issue with this, they insist that obviously that's because you're only able to see what you've been taught, and you've never thought outside of this box, and if you could see the bigger picture then you'd understand what he was saying and what a revolutionary understanding of the language it was. And the reason no other teachers of Mandarin teach this way is because of a massive conspiracy to put down creativity and keep the language in the control of the elite. Or something like that.
Anyway, who are you to tell people how they should speak Mandarin?
He has thousands of followers, and they all happily believe this is the true Mandarin. What do you do?
I guess most people in this situation would decide, after perhaps a little time trying to argue, that what we have here is a bunch of nutters, and walk away. And I probably would too, because, well, what can you do? If they're so keen on believing that this is the true Mandarin, then let them.
It was a little like this for me to find Nassim Haramein claiming he's speaking from years of cutting-edge physics research. The language of physics and mathematics and reasoning is one that I grew up with and use regularly, and I know enough of it to recognise clearly when someone is blagging it.
Science and mathematics is much more like a language than art or music. Learning it is first of all an attempt to get things right – you're trying to get at the way things are, using reason and evidence. Once you're fluent, you can be wonderfully creative with it, but first of all you have to learn to make some sense of the process of rational investigation. Otherwise, no matter how impressive it might sound to some people, you're being as transparently meaningless and ridiculous as the guy who claims that his Mandarin is more true than the one spoken in China.
* * *
I thought I'd devote some time to 'refuting' Haramein because it's clear that there are a good number of people who are curious about him and want to know more, and there's surprisingly little on the web that points out clearly why he's a fake.
I can understand why there's so little on the web analysing him critically and objectively. Firstly, he may have a huge internet presence but he's hardly a household name. Secondly, it's not especially enjoyable to listen to someone when you know they're talking rubbish – it does feel like an awful waste of time. Thirdly, efforts to communicate with his followers isn't entirely pleasurable either. And fourthly, you can end up looking like a proper spoil-sport, taking the side of run-of-the-mill pernickety correctness against the forces of liberated thinking.
Not everyone is a big fan of excessive rationality, but when most of us turn to newspapers, politicians or scientists, we don't appreciate being led up the garden path. However lovely someone might seem, if you can see that they're gathering a following and making money by misleading people, then you do start to feel for the people who are taken in by it.
Of course, we could always view him as a spiritual guide instead of a scientist, as some clearly do – so long as we don't mind our spirituality being served up with delusion, prejudice and an inflated sense of its own importance. (Some would argue that we have a long history of not minding this.)
That's a personal choice. I just wanted to put the information out, so there it is. I've tried not to be unpleasant with it, and to be as objective as I can.
I'm not especially bothered about physics. What I'm bothered about really is the process of searching for truth. (I certainly don't confine this search to physics.) Integral to the search for truth, it seems to me, is the willingness to ruthlessly cast out whatever is obviously false, and then to gleefully jump up and down on its head if it tries to show its face again.
So, well, maybe that means I do enjoy being a little bit horrid sometimes. I'll leave that for you to decide.
You can see my article at http://bit.ly/haramein
(though you might not find it very interesting unless you happen to know who he is, or have a particular curiosity for people who like to pretend to be physicists).
* * *
In the process of trying to get my head around all this stuff, so that I can argue with people on YouTube and things like that, I've come across some great places to sharpen your understanding of real physics on the web. (I have genuinely been trying to find ways to remain open to everything I've heard Nassim and others say, from all sorts of perspectives... and the more I've tried, the crazier they've looked.)On YouTube now, not only can you watch the whole of Carl Sagan's Cosmos series, and several programs about the great Richard Feynman, and many other great science documentaries, but if you REALLY want to get to grips with the understanding of reality that modern physics has given us, there's a fabulous selection of lecture series by Stanford University's Leonard Susskind. He's done an entire 15 to 20 hour series on each of Classical Mechanics, Statistical Mechanics, Quantum Entanglements, Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, Quantum Field Theory, The Standard Model, General Relativity and Cosmology.
I'm working my way through his presentation of General Relativity as we speak, and it's extremely good. I've been scribbling away deriving Christoffel Symbols to my heart's content, and (when told to) even gone so far as to cut things out of cardboard to explore the nature of curved spaces.
A mostly-flat space with a pringularity at the centre(a negative curvature singularity; thanks to PV for the word)
As with all physics, though, many of the theories are essentially mathematical in nature, so it's perhaps not for everyone.
(This mathematical nature, oddly enough, isn't because of a massive conspiracy among scientists to keep their ideas out of the reach of those without mathematical training! I've read so much rubbish now, I'm starting to feel obliged to point these things out. It's because using mathematics is the only way to really see that the ideas you read in the popular science books actually work. If all you do is read the ideas in popular science books, you could easily think they're just ideas, and conclude that the ideas of some nutcase from Hawaii might be just as valid. It simply doesn't work like that. It's unfortunate that the only way you can be convinced of this is if you 'do the math'.)
Anyway, don't let me get started on all that stuff again. Give Leonard Susskind a try if you're feeling adventurous (and patient!). I've learnt a lot in the last few weeks, and in some peculiar way it's all down to our friend Mr Haramein. So there we are.
Feel free to think I'm horrid if it makes you happy. I think I'm lovely. (Come on, I used a picture of everyone's favourite mymble! How lovely is that?)
We can argue about it in the comments if you like.
Go to Haramein article
Back to Blog
34 comments:
That which you focus on, E X P A N D S. If you want Nassim to go away I would talk about birds and clouds and such. I'm beginning to think he must be paying you! :)
Namaste
I don't want anyone to go away, no. Presenting different points of view is a good thing.
But he's hardly going to get away with saying the outlandish things he says without people piping up and saying "hang on, that's wrong - and that - oh, and that - here's why - and hey, how is this guy calling himself a physicist?"
I doubt my little pipings would make Nassim rich and famous. It'd be a twisted world if they did.
i'd like to keep up a discussion, so to keep it simple, let's start with, do you believe that the world/univers should be measured with Euclidean or non-Euclidean geometry.
As I can understand it, basically, Euclidean is the measurement without the affect of gravity, non-Euclidean (hyperbolic and elliptic is the measurement with the affect of gravity.
It sort of like, I understand that people say about Haramein "Show me the proof"
but show me the proof that the parallel postulate holds true in the universe and not just in though and our creations
obviously this is the fundamental shift in thinking that Harameins wants us to absorb.
Hi Aaron.
I've never said of Haramein 'show me a proof'. I've seen and heard enough to be able to unequivocally demonstrate the falsehood of his views.
It would be silly to ask someone to prove what you can easily see is false. What could you possibly gain from asking someone to prove that the sky is always green? You just point to the sky and say look, it's not green, so you're wrong. End of story. Falsehood demonstrated.
Euclid's parallel postulate doesn't hold true in the universe, and gravitational lensing is a perfect demonstration of that.
If Haramein wants us to absorb a fundamental shift in thinking, he's got two options. He can either
(a) demonstrate that his new 'truth' has some value by showing that it predicts something or provides a clearer way of understanding something without any discrepancies from concrete facts that we already know, and present it to people who are willing and able to work through the implications in order to assess whether or not there is real truth in it;
or (b) demonstrate nothing, ignore the discrepancies, and present it to people who are willing to take it on trust because it sounds good.
Haramein has only ever succeeded at (b). He sells illusions to people who don't understand them. He makes money from the people who look up to him by lying to them. It's a lot easier than telling the truth. But it's a very low place to sink to.
Hello Bob.
Your articles are as water for the thirsty.
I feel as walking on the same path as you. I have had to do a lot of internet research to find your blog with a critic and skeptical point of view about the "scientific" postulates of Haramein.
Thanks to the Universe that you decide to analyse the Nassim's claims, because I have no idea of maths or phisics but most of the things that Nassims says... sound to me as quackery, mainly when He assumed as "obvious" the ET presence in our planet ( He surely has got the book from 70's Erich Von Daniken ).
I have my own humble blog in wich I try to dismount the falacies that I found in current life, mainly to offer, as you, some "common sense" and the help of the scientif methods to grow up in our knowledge.
I am very interested in show your research about Nassim. Would you permit me that I write down the spanish translation of your article in my blog? For sure I show all your credits and links to your blog. Thank you very much.
Struz.
Spain
Greetings Struz
Thank you for your comments, they're very much appreciated. I'd be delighted if you could translate any of it into Spanish - that would be excellent.
I do get a number of enquiries from Spanish-speakers. It would be great to be able to provide a link to your blog.
Haramein seems to have many Spanish-speaking fans. See for example what you find if you search for Haramein on Twitter:
http://twitter.com/#search?q=haramein
I notice from your blog that you're based in Andorra. The image at the top of my blog is a Lammergeier. I became fascinated with Lammergeiers after seeing one in Arinsal a few years ago - a breathtaking sight.
I believe Nassim is a crank. It's obvious how eager he is to jump to conclusions. That's not science.
However, Nassim does make a claim that has merit, in my view. I've become convinced that there is a UFO presence on Earth. There are quite many former and current military, aviation, defense, and political figures of high stature who are publicly stating that UFOs are real. You are in the UK? Admiral Lord Hill Norton was (died in 2004) one of these names. I find his remarks about the 1980 Rendlesham Forest UFO incident quite fascinating, along with the statements of the deputy base commander and several other airmen directly involved in the incident.
John Callahan was the Division Chief of Accidents and Investigations for the FAA (US) in 1986, during the time that a Japanese pilot reported a huge UFO (4 times as big as a 747) while flying over Alaska. The UFO was tracked on radar and Callahan maintained video taped and printed radar data of the event, which he has now shared with the public.
There are many other high quality witnesses like these people. I strongly suggest viewing the documentary work of James Fox on this topic.
Lots of information here:
http://www.hyper.net/ufo/video-documentaries.html
UFOs? Who knows. I only really concerned with the aspects of Haramein's presentations that I have some real clarity on - the maths and physics.
I'd certainly never look to him to find out things I'm not clear about. Once I've witnessed someone eagerly jumping to baseless crowd-pleasing conclusions, it kind of erodes any sense of trust in their integrity or soundness of mind.
I'd be more inclined to follow Neil Tyson's line of thinking:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfAzaDyae-k
Forgive my loose use of the term UFO. I should have written that I am convinced that the extraterrestrial hypothesis is very reasonable in a small percentage of UFO reports.
For as confidently as Neil Tyson speaks about the subject, he clearly isn't aware of such compelling cases. (Or else he's using a strawman argument, with deliberate intent to deceive, something I won't accuse him of.) His skepticism would be rational if all UFO reports are as he characterizes them – ambiguous and without corroborating evidence. But this simply isn't the case. Not only are there high-quality reports from all over the world, made by highly credible, trained observers, of unambiguous, unidentifiable flying craft moving in utterly inexplicable ways, but in many of these cases there is corroborating radar data, corroboration from multiple witnesses in multiple locations, and even soil compression analysis and background radiation analysis from landing sites revealing anomalies, performed by competent military and scientific teams. There are many formerly classified government documents from around the world which also corroborate some of these incidents.
These witnesses include high-ranking military officers and other military personnel, pilots, air traffic controllers, cosmonauts/astronauts, government officials, police officers, defense and intelligence officials, space agency officials, and astronomers, among others. Over the last ten years, there have been an increasing number of these individuals speaking publicly about these incidents.
Consider the cases I mentioned in my previous post. They are just a tip of the iceberg. Also, consider the French COMETA report. Actual documents: http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/Cometa.htm
Summary from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COMETA
[begin quote]
COMETA was a high-level French UFO study organisation from the late 1990s, composed of high-ranking officers and officials, some having held command posts in the armed forces and aerospace industry. The name "COMETA" in English stands for "Committee for in-depth studies." The study was carried out over several years by an independent group of mostly former "auditors" at the Institute of Advanced Studies for National Defence, or IHEDN, a high-level French military think-tank, and by various other experts.
The group was responsible for the 'COMETA Report' (1999) on UFOs and their possible implications for defence in France. The report concluded that about 5% of the UFO cases they studied were utterly inexplicable and the best hypothesis to explain them was the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH). The authors also accused the United States government of engaging in a massive cover-up of the evidence.
[end quote]
This all has a lot to do with people like Haramein. Make no mistake, I believe he is a crank. But he is taking advantage of an important idea which stems from the consideration that some UFOs are indeed interplanetary spacecraft. If this is true, and they indeed are able to fly in ways which seemingly defy our current laws of physics, then our laws of physics which tell us this is not possible are probably somehow an incomplete picture of reality. That's pretty much where I stop agreeing with him.
I failed to mention previously that I very much enjoyed your post on Haramein, and also appreciate your response to my previous post. Thanks!
Thanks for your thoughts.
We've always known that our laws of physics are an incomplete picture of reality. QFT and GR seem to agree to extremely high precision with virtually everything we're able to observe or create, but we know they give conflicting accounts of extreme conditions, so they can't both be true. It's really not true that any serious scientist thinks they've got all the answers. Physicists have been trying for decades to find or create something - anything - that conclusively and measurably disagrees with QFT or GR. What's annoying isn't that the theories are flawed - that's accepted - what's annoying is that they keep stubbornly getting everything right.
Critics of 'mainstream physics' are generally unaware of how stunningly consistently accurate these theories are at predicting virtually all the results of even our wildest experiments. Pointing out problems is easy - but anyone thinking of 'changing the paradigm' had better get wise as to the strength of what they're up against.
Haramein, of course, hasn't a clue - his strategy is to ridicule these silly theories and convince scientists that they should replace them with his own ideas that have no rationale or evidence basis, conflict with observation at every turn, predict nothing at all, and also happen to be attractive to lots of paying, scientifically-illiterate members of the public. I don't think it'll catch on.
I don't know about UFOs, and I don't really want to get into a debate about them here. You're right, though - Haramein is tapping into a lot of people's fascination here. He knows which buttons to press.
I guess to me it just doesn't seem remarkable that a handful of the billions of people on this planet have seen something inexplicable. It would be truly remarkable if they hadn't.
It could be that Nassim is sincere in his approach but misleads his audience because of his own misunderstandings. Over the last year or more, he got me thinking about a fractal Universe.
He may be sincere but perhaps doesn't completelyknow how a fractal Universe could work.
Geometry is a fundamental principle.
I suppose, why all this talk about string theory, when it is wackadoo sounding theory in it's own right, but it even speaks of very small dimensions at a much smaller scale, all the way down the rabbit hole forever and ever perhaps if it were a fractal Universe. Making it almost, not interesting how small a particle we can measure.
Lisi shows the same in his diagrams, and I am not gonna lie to you it's just geometric dimensions by points created further down the rabbit hole you go. Perhaps even dimensions are created when you measure them.
Why is it that Geometry is never used in the principle thought structure of everyone, when it seems to be the most basic principle of Physics?
I'm starting to think Nassim probably does genuinely believe that he's doing serious science research, leading a revolution in physics, answering age-old mysteries about the pyramids, solving crop-circles, receiving communications from aliens, and finding the secret connections that link them all with hidden subtexts within the Bible...
It's considerably better than outright manipulativeness, I'll grant him that.
You're right about geometry. I don't know why... it just appears to be the case that the laws of nature seem to be amenable to some of the laws of geometry. Along with abstract algebra, tensor calculus and all sorts of other peculiar animals that are not natural to our minds at all. We can only experience them fully by training our minds over years and years, building up these increasingly subtle mathematical constructions.
We don't naturally think that way because our minds evolved with other priorities. What's amazing is that human beings are capable of learning to let these priorities go sufficiently that they can work with these animals on their own terms. And it turns out that they hold keys to some of the secrets of the universe. I think it's remarkable that we can do that.
It's sure as hell not easy though.
I am interested in your thoughts about Causal Dynamic Triangulation (CDT). Thank you.
It's not a theory I understand except in a very superficial (meaning non-mathematical) way, Mali. It's a very nice idea. I don't know of any reasons not to keep pursuing it all the way, until either it becomes inconsistent or it brings insights that are verifiable by experiment.
Hi Bob,
I thought I'd do you a small favour and point out a few fundamentals that might have eluded you so far.
1- Read more philosophy, you might learn something!
2-Problems of foundation are still at the core of physics and still unresolved! Or did you not know?
3-To remedy a severe state of misplaced confidence, may I suggest some introductory reading;
The problem with physics (Lee Smolin) - The end of time (Julian Barbour), might be a good start.
Who knows you might even develop some independence of sought...Bob you revolutionary you!
What in heaven made you think I believe that physicists know everything? Of course they don't. That's why they do physics. What's your point?
Hi Bob
It's Zoe here.
I'm really pleased to have found your site because although, I loved Nassim's presentation and believe lots of what he said, the skeptical comments make me question some of the technical aspects.
I want to find answers and some of the links you have provided look great! :-))))) I will go through them all when I have time.
I am slowly going through everything to do with Nassim and your posts/links to find the truth.
In response to the post about being horrid, I think you are being a little bit, but I understand.
I liked your story about Mandarin, but I couldn't help thinking that it's not really the same. I agree that maths is a set language but scientific ideas change with time to account for things that we didn't know about earlier.
Sure, we can't fake maths. It is what it is, but a theory of everything, no matter where is comes from will prob give us some uncomfortable changes?
I liked the point about the green sky.
I hope you don't mind me using the same point to give you my perspective:
As the light from the sun scatters through the atmosphere, blue is the wavelength that scatters most efficiently through the N and O. The other colours of the spectrum are not scattered as well, so we see the sky as being blue. It does however, contain some elements of green, so to say the sky is green is not 100% false.
I'm sure you already know this and you were just making a point, but what I'm saying is that our senses filter out so much information about what is really out there, the truth about reality is bound to be wacky.
Zoe
Thanks Zoe.
Let me clarify the language example... I'm not comparing the language of Mandarin and the language of science. The analogy is between the objective reality of the way Mandarin speakers communicate, and the objective reality of the way the universe is.
If you deny there's an actual Mandarin language that's worth learning, or an actual nature of the universe that's worth investigating, then you're not going to have a lot of useful insight into either of those things.
There's absolutely no value at all in teaching your own fabricated version, unless your only concern is gaining followers who know no better and you don't care that you're misleading them.
Regarding green sky... yes, the truth about reality is going to be wacky, but insisting that the sky is always green isn't the kind of thing that's going to help you investigate it. :)
All science aside the language reference seems to break down as long as the mandarin taught had the some connotation as that in say Taipei. All language is different and yet all (well most) will have words that sound completely different yet produce the same outcome when uttered around like speaking. The world is reference, difference, comprehension.
If you don't get the language reference, it doesn't matter. There's no point saying "all science aside" when I'm trying to use an analogy in order to explain something about science.
Haramein is presenting an idea about the universe, and it's plain wrong. It can be shown scientifically in all kinds of ways, and there are many ways of trying to explain it to people who don't understand the science, which is what I was trying to do here. But all you need to know is that the guy is wrong, he's clueless, he's misleading people, he's making money out of them by pretending to be something he's not, and I thought it would be good if someone pointed this out. That's all.
Bob
Keep searching for the truth.
You might be wrong, but to accept claims uncritically abandons our Enlightenment progress.
Remember Goya's title for one of his paintings: The sleep of reason breeds monsters.
Bob, Im new to your blog, who are you and from what basis of origin are you giving your opinions? A Scientist? Physicist? Author? Internet Maven? Curious Intellectual? Professor? just want to know from where you have gained your postulations.
Hi Anonymous.
I prefer to encourage you to focus on what's written, rather than who the writer might be or claim to be. I have an anonymous blog - I could make up anything about who I am... but none of it should matter.
I don't believe in arguments from authority, and I'd never claim that anyone should believe me or attach any importance to my personal views.
I've presented information to throw light on a situation, which you may take as you will. Whenever I've asserted something, I've tried my best to explain why. I don't wish anything to be taken on faith. If there's any doubt regarding anything I've said, I'd like you to check out my reasoning, investigate it yourself, and interrogate me if you wish; or ask the opinion of someone you trust who has a working understanding of the subject.
I can't deny that I've expressed some of my own views on this blog. But I'd like to get one thing very clear: The statements I've made regarding the falsehood of Haramein's fake research, the pretence of his expertise and pretentiousness of his claims, and the fraudulence of the image he has cultivated of himself as a scientist - these are not matters of opinion.
It's up to you how you respond to an assertion like that. I've given lots and lots of reasons to back it up. There are some who claim otherwise. You could (as most people seem to) just go with whoever you like best, or whoever says what you already think, as if it's a political debate where taking sides is appropriate, and who said what to whom matters. It really isn't like that.
My hope is always that people are willing and able to do far more than settle for that. Let me know how you get on, ok?
Hello Blog, Someone has said, 'There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come and second in power to it, an idea whose time has gone and refuses to leave.'
Everyone likes a great theory and a great argument, ie. Darwin vis a'vis intelligent creation. By taking an interdisciplinary approach incorporating the interpretation of varied traditions of sacred history and spiritual consciousness and relating its metaphysics to a quest to the solution of the current schiezophrenia of the current orthodox physics(despite its extremely successful conquest the local solar system) in its unreconciled state with the the physics of subatomic matter energy behavior.
It is suggested that the growing inkling of reconciliation is in the awareness that consciousness preceeds mathmatics.
My sense is that it is a thrilling voice ennouncing the possibility of a new Exodus from the bondage of OIL. That should cause anyone who has to look forward to paying upwards of $5/gal for gasolene with a growing awareness that our society could have been having ZERO point energy a la Nicola Testa since 1904.
Go figure.
David
Hi David. Thanks for your thoughts.
One question: what are you talking about?
I'm late to this party, but, nonetheless, many thanks for the sanity inducing clarity of thought.
I have several friends who are 'intuitively' convinced of the rightness of Nassim's arguments. Being a Humanities grad with a paucity of math, but a love and appreciation of science and scientific method, I have been hunting for reasonably formulated rebuttals.
Alas, some of these folks are convinced that aliens journey thousands of light years to communicate via crop circles or that Atlantis was located smack dab in the middle of the Atlantic. "Sea floor spreading? Mid Atlantic ridge? Mere trifling details! It was there I tell you!"
In my opinion the Mandarin analogy works perfectly. A major problem is that science education which should begin with the start of formal schooling, is next to non-existent in most of the Anglo-Saxon world. Thus, my friends are at the mercy of people like Nassim and the others of his ilk--Intelligent Designers, climate change deniers, Young Earthers, et al.
Cheers!
Thank you so much for the way you think and what you believe!
and thank you for the link to the physics lectures we've been looking for something to use in our freeskool.
Do you happen to know of a concise way (youtube video or otherwise) to explain to the average person that the human brain is unable to actually truly conceive of the difference in size of sub atomic "world" and the one we operate in daily? That it is actually okay and not freaky weird that sub atomic particles "don't obey the laws of physics".
Altho i guess one might not be able to stop people being fascinated with mysteries they can't see and have to imagine...
anyshway thanks,
-eli of CRIChouse.
Thanks eliV!
My favourite video for that is this one. Check out the first 7 minutes or so. It's the intro to a 16-hour course on quantum mechanics... but 7 minutes is enough for most people :-)
Sub-atomic particles do obey the laws of physics. Absolutely definitely they do. They don't obey the laws of physics for tennis balls and cycling and hosepipes and things we're familiar with - they have their own laws of physics, which seem very strange to us because they're different to our normal experience.
Our intuition has evolved and grown up with things like tennis balls and cycling and hosepipes. They seem sensible to us.
Subatomic particles have their own laws, and scientists have learned how to understand them and chow to train others to understand them. People who work with these particles know these laws very well - they have to, it's their everyday job - and the particles obey these laws perfectly.
There are still mysteries, of course, just as there are still mysteries in the Solar System, but the laws of physics are very well known by now.
Also there are always limits to what we know, areas where we really don't know what the particles will do. But these days we need to build these huge machines 17 miles long in order to reach those limits!
So the human brain is capable of conceiving a lot of what goes on down there. It takes a lot of training, like playing a classical concert piano, before the workings of the quantum world become intuitive. But people do it and, like learning the piano, they do it because they love it, because some people are fascinated enough to devote themselves to it.
Playing classical concert piano isn't for everyone, and neither is quantum physics. So it is okay and not freaky if you don't understand the subatomic world, just the same as it's okay and not freaky if you can't play Rachmaninov's piano concertos. You can't expect it to work by watching a few videos about it and trying to read a book about it.
It's not something to be surprised about, if you can't intuitively see how the laws of subatomic particles work.
But I think it is worth marvelling at the fact that some people can.
And when you've finished marvelling, you can go back to doing the things you do best, and hopefully feel a little more joy at how diverse and wonderful the human race is, and how much more must going on, deep inside everything around us, than we could hope to imagine.
I am math student and I have to confirm Bob's math, so Bob is right and Nassim is wrong (at least abouth SP math). Then I went out in my backyard and wrote in grass with big letters: TELL ME, WHAT DO I NEED TO KNOW ABOUT NASSIM HARAMEIN? Six months later, I am still waiting for the answer. It maybe that those up there that are watching us and deciding who is gonna come down here (I swear I will not shoot you guys, come down here for a coffee or something) just do not care about me, who knows?
Thank you. My intuition was righ. I like your analogy.
well you,ve f....ed me right up.you see 50 years ago my dad told me that the earth is actually travelling backwards in space and that there was another planet?planet x [wormwood]he said so don,t read too much into the stars as although scientists ,don,t recognise these facts,why don,t they? because a 100 years ago,the agreed one set,that was hamony beween astrology and astromony
and before you all write your dad may have been wrong,soz jack skelhorn was never wrong,he was a unrecognized genius, he knew about the world,he knew about life,he knew and cured people, that doctors could not cure,he educated people,he was bombastic,but indeed highly intelligent,i met peole who where also educated and the said to me ?your jack skelhorn's lad? he's one clever man,he helped me,he loved poetry,earth things and helping,although dead but not forgotten,his spirit lives on,rip dad
Backwards? You mean there's a 'forwards' in space?
Not 100 but 4 or 500 years ago there was more harmony between astronomy and astrology. It's true. Because back then, neither of them had the first clue what was going on out there.
Since then astronomers have learned how to look and have discovered much that is wondrous and true about our universe; and astrologers have ignored the universe and just made up shit. Shouldn't be a surprise that they don't get along...
The "truth" will never be told, because telling needs a language - which is always cultural, temporary and (only) a way of communication.
The search for it, though, is honourable.
V.
Post a Comment