Thursday, February 17, 2005
Space? Time? Spacetime?!
So we all exist in space. Further it seems that time is manadtory. Eisten said it's even a bit more than that. Space and time are linked and what happens in space effects time (and vice versa).
I went to go see Brian Greene tonight. He is a physicist who has popularized string theory, because of his ability to make it accessible to people without math backgrounds. A couple of the highlights of the show were:
1. Just because we percieve it doesn't mean that's all there is.
2. There is a big difference between knowing something and predicting something.
3. If you know a lot about physics be prepared to be asked strange quesitons.
So point 1. Dr. Greene pointed out that Newton explained the world as he (and everyone else) percieved it. Einstein explained why gravity, space and time are all linked. The difference between Einstein and Newton is that things predicted by Einstein don't necessarily make themselves obvious. For example: A clock on board the International Space Station doesn't match with the national atomic clocks on earth. Why? Well space and time are linked and if you move in space you "drag" time with you. So if you extend this out, you could say that the present of the satellite is the past of people on earth. Whoa. That means that the ISS inhabitants are living in the past! Get with the times men (and women)! So the point is that perception (seeing hearing... believing) is not all there is. The math of physics predicts a more precise world. Which leads to the next point....
Predictions versus knowing. We know there will be weather, but wouldn't it be nice to know WHAT the weather is? That's the beauty of sceince. Deterministic (and probabilistic) understandings of the world allow us to predict what will be. But what is a prediction? It is to know the outcome, as opposed to random which is to not know the outcome. Physics has a strong ability to predict thefuture because it builds off of the very probable existance of the phsyical world. When we wake up tomorrow gravity will still be there and there will probably still be three dimensions that we can move in. I can predict that, so can science. Physics however, can predict some really crazy things (take the previous paragraph as an example), but sometimes we don't need that. Sometimes we just know it. Life goes on. Somethings are good some are bad. These are statements that are true, but they don't tell us what will be. BUT THAT'S OK.
Climate change is an example of prediction versus knowing. We know the climate is changing. Without a doubt. Change happens. What will come of the change is to be debated. Some predict a global heating that causes catastrophic failure, while other warn of irreversible changes. But we don't know know what will ACTUALLY happen. So to know something exists does not indicate knowledge of what will happen.
Finally my lasy point. Dr. Greene got asked a crazy question. You know the statement, "There are no stupid questions"? Well. Aaah. There might be. I truly feel there are no stupid questions, if the intention is to gain an understanding, but some poeple ask questions because they don't agree. Furthmore, they REALLY DON'T agree. So it's not really a question, but an oppurtunity to prove you wrong.
Dr Greene: String theorist's hope to show that energy is lost in super high energy collisions of particles.
Audience question: I don't think anything can be shown by breakingthings, you can only combine things, what do yout think?
Embarassingly, the audience laughed the man off the microphone. But for good reason. The tone of his question was not "what do you think?", but "say something that I can show you're wrong"
so there you have it. It must be tough being Dr. Greene.
I went to go see Brian Greene tonight. He is a physicist who has popularized string theory, because of his ability to make it accessible to people without math backgrounds. A couple of the highlights of the show were:
1. Just because we percieve it doesn't mean that's all there is.
2. There is a big difference between knowing something and predicting something.
3. If you know a lot about physics be prepared to be asked strange quesitons.
So point 1. Dr. Greene pointed out that Newton explained the world as he (and everyone else) percieved it. Einstein explained why gravity, space and time are all linked. The difference between Einstein and Newton is that things predicted by Einstein don't necessarily make themselves obvious. For example: A clock on board the International Space Station doesn't match with the national atomic clocks on earth. Why? Well space and time are linked and if you move in space you "drag" time with you. So if you extend this out, you could say that the present of the satellite is the past of people on earth. Whoa. That means that the ISS inhabitants are living in the past! Get with the times men (and women)! So the point is that perception (seeing hearing... believing) is not all there is. The math of physics predicts a more precise world. Which leads to the next point....
Predictions versus knowing. We know there will be weather, but wouldn't it be nice to know WHAT the weather is? That's the beauty of sceince. Deterministic (and probabilistic) understandings of the world allow us to predict what will be. But what is a prediction? It is to know the outcome, as opposed to random which is to not know the outcome. Physics has a strong ability to predict thefuture because it builds off of the very probable existance of the phsyical world. When we wake up tomorrow gravity will still be there and there will probably still be three dimensions that we can move in. I can predict that, so can science. Physics however, can predict some really crazy things (take the previous paragraph as an example), but sometimes we don't need that. Sometimes we just know it. Life goes on. Somethings are good some are bad. These are statements that are true, but they don't tell us what will be. BUT THAT'S OK.
Climate change is an example of prediction versus knowing. We know the climate is changing. Without a doubt. Change happens. What will come of the change is to be debated. Some predict a global heating that causes catastrophic failure, while other warn of irreversible changes. But we don't know know what will ACTUALLY happen. So to know something exists does not indicate knowledge of what will happen.
Finally my lasy point. Dr. Greene got asked a crazy question. You know the statement, "There are no stupid questions"? Well. Aaah. There might be. I truly feel there are no stupid questions, if the intention is to gain an understanding, but some poeple ask questions because they don't agree. Furthmore, they REALLY DON'T agree. So it's not really a question, but an oppurtunity to prove you wrong.
Dr Greene: String theorist's hope to show that energy is lost in super high energy collisions of particles.
Audience question: I don't think anything can be shown by breakingthings, you can only combine things, what do yout think?
Embarassingly, the audience laughed the man off the microphone. But for good reason. The tone of his question was not "what do you think?", but "say something that I can show you're wrong"
so there you have it. It must be tough being Dr. Greene.
