The Grand Design

[Hysteresis]

If you are like me, a science graduate of the 70's, or an amateur physicist, who finds the unification of Quantum Mechanics, Relativity(Einstein) and Classical Physics(Newton) rather difficult to get to grips with, then may I strongly recommend a book I have just finished and about to read again.
That book is 'The Grand Design' by those brilliant minds of Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow.
Still a difficult concept to comprehend, and I do not pretend to understand it enough to disagree with it, but this book helps a long way in beginning to appreciate a glimmer of the concepts.
Where Hawking's 'A brief History of Time' became a bit of a cult book that the vast majority of purchasers did not ever read, this book is a totally different presentation which manages to present an extremely difficult and obscure theory almost understandable to a 'Numpty' such as myself.

 

[joe-90]

You can get it as a talking book too. FFS - it's not HIM narrating is it?

You can pick it up as an ebook for free at the usual places.

 

[Hysteresis]

You can pick it up as an ebook for free at the usual places.

What are the Good 'Usual Places'? The Apple 'Free' Books are not usually the good books.

 

[joe-90]

Norty places.

 

[pred]

If you had half the inteligence you credit yourself with you would realise reading between the lines that is, your article, which i'm sure is very interesting was over my head, it would be the same as me putting a topic up regarding engines, my trade training started with steam engines through to gas turbines including everything inbetween, piston, rotary, ram air, and rocket, but i didn't want to bore the pants off everyone so lets talk about politics , religion and sex

 

[Hysteresis]

On the contrary Pred, if you read my original posting, I do not credit myself with any intelligence, as I don't understand the concepts to which I refer either.
In so far as inane comments, the posting was for interest and information, and if readers do not want the information then they are at liberty to ignore it.
So as degeneration of the posting has started then I will remove myself from the Watching list.

 

[pred]

Spoilsport have you got Germanic genes coursing through your viens? the reason i ask is they also have no sense of humour.

 

[Space cat]

You posted on the wrong forum for that kind of topic.

Sad but true. You might be better off here:

//www.diynot.com/forums/word-games/poetry-music-books-and-all-things-good.309447/

I'm not sure how many of the book fans are into theoretical physics but at least they're a civil lot.

As pred says, GD is mostly full of politics, religion, sex and football. It's like being in a virtual pub. Bring your own beer.

 

[Hysteresis]

Spoilsport have you got Germanic genes coursing through your viens? the reason i ask is they also have no sense of humour.

Funny you should say that, but YES I do have Germanic/Teutonic Roots.

 

[Hysteresis]

Thanks for the suggestion Space Cat.
At least GD does have some contributors who are polite.

 

[chapeau]

Where Hawking's 'A brief History of Time' became a bit of a cult book that the vast majority of purchasers did not ever read

I got as far as when he started going on about strings and then thought I'd had enough. I got grade As at A level physics and A level maths in the 1970s when a grade A was incredibly hard to get. I got a grade 1 S level in physics at the same time and would often explain the answers of test questions to my phd educated teachers. Not to boast, just to say that even people who were allegedly once good at this sort of thing couldn't neccessarily understand it.

I don't know anybody who finished the book.

, this book is a totally different presentation which manages to present an extremely difficult and obscure theory almost understandable to a 'Numpty' such as myself.

I've yet to read one of these books about quantum mechanics, string theory etc etc which is easy to understand unless you have a university education in physics at a good university.

It is all just too weird.

 

[Hysteresis]

I've yet to read one of these books about quantum mechanics, string theory etc etc which is easy to understand unless you have a university education in physics at a good university.

It is all just too weird.

I have a degree in physics from one of the Top Universities of the 70's, when a degree really meant something, and I still don't understand these weird theories. Quantum Mechanics fundamentals are OK, but I sink into very deep water when the Clever guys start their mutterings. I truly believe there are very few people who understand these strange concepts. It almost becomes Mathematical Philosophy as the concepts are so Abstract.
What my original posting was meant to convey was that this book is nearly comprehendible, not quite, but it is the best I have read.
I apologise, but I should have had the posting in a different forum as suggested by Space Cat

 

[chapeau]

Just ordered the book, thanks for the idea.

Re quantum fiziks.

One remembers being introduced to slits and electrons during A-level days. This same experiment appears to be the basis of 'Quantum Mechanics for Dummies'. So even A-level was (is ??? ) touching on the subject.

I watched that TV show recently where Brian Cox was attempting to explain quantum mechanics to an audience of laymen and I thought he did a good job. One thing he did say which I found interesting was that due to the Pauli exclusion principle no two electrons could occupy the same state.

Fair enough, but I thought that was in a single atom. But no, Cox said clearly that if you shift an electron in one atom, all electrons in the universe have to make sure they aren't in the same state. And it's pretty instantaneous.

Which would mean information being transfered at greater than the speed of light, which is supposed to be a big no-no.

Maybe I misheard, but I don't think I did.

Quantum mechanics is just wacky, but means that anything is possible. So it explains the Big Bang. In fact it requires the Big Bang to happen.

Just weird ****.

 

[Space cat]

I truly believe there are very few people who understand these strange concepts.

That reminds me of an old quote, though I can't remember who said it, which went something like this:

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics then you don't."

Here's another one that I just made up - I think:

"The more you learn about one aspect of quantum mechanics, the less you can know about the rest."

Cox said clearly that if you shift an electron in one atom, all electrons in the universe have to make sure they aren't in the same state. And it's pretty instantaneous.

That is indeed what the Pauli Exclusion Principle implies. The effects on electrons in distant atoms are vanishingly small but that's not the point. So is the mass change in a compressed spring. The big dilemma is in the word "instantaneous". I queried that in a solid state physics lecture back in the eighties. We were learning about the Fermi sphere and I wanted to know how an electron at one end of a long wire could know the energy states of all the others at all times. The answer came back two weeks later: We'd solved Schrodinger's equation in three space dimensions only so time didn't figure in the solutions. Obvious really. The flaw was in the mathematical modelling, not the physics.

PS: The Pauli Exclusion Principle is only a fundamental postulate. It might be wrong.

Which would mean information being transfered at greater than the speed of light, which is supposed to be a big no-no.

Surely the speed of light is only a limiting factor for two things: light itself (obviously) and anything with mass because you can't get past that point of infinite momentum. I believe the speed of gravity is still in dispute.

 

[Hysteresis]

I didn't see the Brian Cox presentation, but he does a good programme trying to put these weird concepts into everyday understanding which is rather difficult as the principles are hardly everyday stuff.
As Space Cat says, the principles are nothing more than Mathematical Models. When observations are made which are not consistent with the Model, the model is modified. The explanation of the models is trying to put the Mathematics into physical terms we can comprehend. The mathematics which is far beyond me, throws up conclusions that our universe is 10 dimensional, we of course can't comprehend that, but these guys come up with ideas that seven of the dimensions of 'our' universe are curled up such that we are not conscious of them but they are still there because the Maths says they are. In other Universes, they may not be curled up and totally different 'Laws' of physics are applicable in those universes. The idea of Multiverses is the popular concept now, and that is even more weird.
As we do not know what Light, Magnetism or Electromagnetic Radiation actually is demands that observation produces the Mathematics to predict future events. Physical Models are developed to try to make the observations understandable, the more the detailed observations produces more detailed Mathematics and subsequent changes to the Physical Model, or a completely new model. Hence the Newton to Einstien to Schrodinger to Feynman developments. I find problems with the Feynman Principles, but they are My problems of not understanding. But in the end they are ALL models. The duality of light in Waves and Photons is a typical example of inadequate models. One satisfies some phenomena but not others.
Not knowing what light or Magnetism is maybe means that there will never be a model to describe it because there just isn't one.
Maybe someone some day will determine what Light etc is, in the same way as electrons and Quarks (also Models) were never thought about in Newtons day. I only wish I was the smart arse who determined it.
Have a look at this link, which rather puts the Universe from the ridiculously small to the very large into perspective.
http://htwins.net/scale2/scale2.swf?bordercolor=white.
It is more than weird OR is it just that the models are weird?