F1technical.net

=D>

I "believe" QM and am breaking my head reading about superstring theory..

The best thing about science is that you can take a complex idea, extract the parameters, place those parameters as variables in an even more complex framework to make predictions about things that we don't even realise we don't know ... once we have shown a gap in our knowledge based on extrapolation from a theoretical model, we can then design experiments that will confirm or invalidate our hypothesis.

The best that religion can offer are linguistic tricks like the ontological argument; nonsensical at the extreme.

Has anyone on this board heard about the E8 model? I think that the mathematical structure behind the E8 model is one of the most beautiful structures in modern physics.

If you have any interest in quantum mechanics and have 20 minutes spare, please follow this link and watch the video (it is fairly friendly to the layman, but contains something for anyone scientifically minded) : http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/garr ... thing.html

The model he describes is quite stunning in my eyes; I am monitoring his research with keen interest.

Guess what.
It is still not clever enough to sort out Mercs tyre problems or McLarens blown diffuser.
Praying might well achieve more faster.
I am sure that most Spaniards would sooner believe the predictions of a German Octopus, so where is your logic gone.

Tyre problems and diffuser issues are just a matter of time, research and track testing, all of which have been artificially restricted in order to level the playing field; there is no level playing field in the realm of science vs religion, as theories have to stand on their own relative merit.

I don't see anyone calling in the Rabbi when they need structural analysis performed.
An Immam isn't going to help much with lubricant formulation.
Nobody turns to a priest for help in calculating an optimum weight distribution.

If that is the best you can do then you really are grasping at straws, but maybe I should take a leaf out of your book ...

Where is my logic? Right here buddy

If the tyre and diffuser problems are a result of artificial input, then this encourages a guess at the answer.
This can factualy be described as a religious response.
Either by praying, which is requesting an answer from a higher power, or casting spells which is ordering the answers from a higher power.
Where is the difference in the deity of choice, between any religion and science?
In guess work there is no leader of choice with more data and facts, they do not exist.

How do you bring your logic to bear on a pure guess?
Dont tell me by considering what is known.
It is because you do not know that a guess is made.
IMO QM is full of such guess work, so full of religion.

Haven't you ever heard about the empirical method? The difference between gathering data to draw extrapolations and simply praying for a divine response is so massive that there is no way that your statement can hold any merit.

If this is how you go about your reasoning, there is no way that I would ever sit in a car that uses your much vaunted transmission concept : upon closer investigation, it would probably turn out to be constructed out of meccano and gaffer tape.

Seriously, can you just leave this thread to people who appreciate rational deduction?

Of course I have heard of the empirical method.
It can only work with data.
The thread title is, do you 'believe' in Quantum Mechanics'?.
Believe, is a very strong word for such a science.

Your comments about my engineering ability and your presumably 'emipirical' deductions that any car I designed would be constructed of meccano and gaffer tape are not factual, other than using gaffer tape on occasion, I do not think I have used meccano, though it is a useful construction medium for some projects.
I suggest you go back to guess work.

You may already have sat in a car that has had my design input.
A very good chance in fact.
Can you work it out?

Well, I've sat in a Reliant Robin ... that was a machine with the kind of build quality I'd expect from someone who believes that prayer and scientific reasoning are equivalent and interchangeable.

Can you stop polluting this thread now?

Hahah

So do you 'believe' in Quantum Mechanics Gridwalker?

There have been some very educated posts on the subject on this thread.
Care to add your conceptual expertise.

I believe that it currently provides the best framework for explaining the observable phenomena at specific scales, but I also believe that the model will have to be revised and updated as more experimental data comes in.

Unlike religion, QM does not rely upon dogmatic superstitions, but evolves with new information that becomes available; hence my link to the E8 model, which has been used to predict the existence of particles that were not previously postulated.

Nobody ASKED the E8 model to predict anything (where the octopus you referenced is given a choice of picking from two fixed options) however the data that was entered into the mathematical model showed gaps in a regular pattern that experimental data confirmed should be filled.

This is not about expecting the hand of god to come down and guide us to some kind of technological enlightenment; it is about the work of humans over many generations, seeking answers to questions that could not be answered by wrote from the "great" texts of their day.

Quite the discussion. Further up in this thread someone questioned the application that Quantum Mechanics has in our daily lives. I thought that quantum mechanics was in the realm of nanoengineers, dealing with stuff like "spooky actions at a distance" and all? In other words, I thought nanoengineers were already being tasked with applying the math behind quantum mechanics? Is quantum mechanics not being applied in nanotechnologies? I should think that it is.

When you get two wires and put them in contact with your hand, there's Quantum Mechanics. There's actually a potential barrier caused by Copper Oxide, which is traspassed due to Quantum Tunneling.

The resistivity of a cable can only be explained by Quantum Mechanics.

Autogyro, one of the first things I learned when I was doing my degree was that Engineering is not science, the lecturer was sure to emphasize that fact.

Engineering is based on scientific and mathematical principles, but a large number of assumptions and estimations are made. The scientist's job cannot have any estimations or broad assumptions, experiments must be done and it must be near exact, for the engineer the theory just has to be good enough under some conditions to meet a certain requirement.
I was taught that Engineering is basically man manipulating math and science and applying it to the betterment of man. Basically humans using science (our understanding the universe) to analyse problems or creating things. Trying to play God. But our knowledge and technology is crude and limited, so engineering will never be perfect. Man's creations are never perfect. (I guess that is why Mercedes cannot solve the tyre issue. The car itself was not made from an exact science. Maybe if Ross applied quantum mechanics to the tyres? lol)


To me Science is not a religion. There is no soul to science. There is nothing to worship, there are no entities to follow (be a disciple of) in science. You can believe it and have faith in it,but cannot use it to purify your soul. Science is just a method of understanding the universe.

Quite humorously, I think Atheism is becoming a religion nowadays. The Aetheists are worshiping an Anti-god.

Our environment provide us with all the observational data we require. Without our environment... we'd know nothing since there'd be nothing to know. In Whichever manner we choose to rationalize our observations, that becomes a part of our systems of beliefs... like atheism. Science is about observing and collecting the data. In whatever way humans choose to interpret that data/observations it becomes subjective no matter how you slice it. But, to me science isn't religion, what I choose to do with the data probably is. Anyway....

n smikle wrote:Autogyro, one of the first things I learned when I was doing my degree was that Engineering is not science, the lecturer was sure to emphasize that fact.

Engineering is based on scientific and mathematical principles, but a large number of assumptions and estimations are made. The scientist's job cannot have any estimations or broad assumptions, experiments must be done and it must be near exact, for the engineer the theory just has to be good enough under some conditions to meet a certain requirement.
I was taught that Engineering is basically man manipulating math and science and applying it to the betterment of man. Basically humans using science (our understanding the universe) to analyse problems or creating things. Trying to play God. But our knowledge and technology is crude and limited, so engineering will never be perfect. Man's creations are never perfect. (I guess that is why Mercedes cannot solve the tyre issue. The car itself was not made from an exact science. Maybe if Ross applied quantum mechanics to the tyres? lol)


To me Science is not a religion. There is no soul to science. There is nothing to worship, there are no entities to follow (be a disciple of) in science. You can believe it and have faith in it,but cannot use it to purify your soul. Science is just a method of understanding the universe.

Quite humorously, I think Atheism is becoming a religion nowadays. The Aetheists are worshiping an Anti-god.

Saying engineering is not science is a cop out. All your lecturer was saying was engineering uses more guess work than science. (conclusion subjective statement)
Depends how 'good' (god) either discipline is applied. Neither tells absolute truth and both are subject to later alteration.
What is the difference between relying on certain scientific or engineering standards and worshiping an idea? Both are guess work.