When one talks about what an electron is “doing”, one implies what sort of a wave function is associated with it. But the wave function is not a physical object in the sense a proton or an electron or a billiard ball. In fact, the rules of quantum theory do not even allot a unique […]
Overcoming “Scientific” Superstition 5 Read More »
Prima facie, what Einstein and his colleagues argued was that under ideal conditions, observation (includes measurement) functions like a mirror reflecting an independently existing, external reality. The specific criterion for describing reality characterizes it in terms of objectivity understood as independence from any direct measurement. This implies that, when a direct measurement of physical reality
Overcoming “Scientific” Superstition 4 Read More »
In modern science, there is no unambiguous and precise definition of the words time, space, dimension, numbers, zero, infinity, charge, quantum particle, wave-function etc. The operational definitions have been changed from time to time to take into account newer facts that facilitate justification of the new “theory”. For example, the fundamental concept of the quantum
Overcoming “Scientific” Superstition 3 Read More »
However, the situation is completely reversed for the theory of the quarks and gluons that compose the strongly interacting particles in the atomic nucleus. While the natural energy scale of these particles, the proton, r meson, etc. is on the order of hundreds of millions of electron volts, the quark masses are about one hundred
Overcoming “Scientific” Superstition 2 Read More »
“It is easy to explain something to a layman. It is easier to explain the same thing to an expert. But even the most knowledgeable person cannot explain something to one who has limited half-baked knowledge.” ————- (Hitopadesha). “To my mind there must be, at the bottom of it all, not an equation, but an
Overcoming “Scientific” Superstition 1 Read More »