Science is a constant process of simplification - split from counterargument against creationist

[tar]

SwansonT,

 

Sure you can get a BA or a BS and the two degrees are distinquishable from each other, but Strange was implying you cannot get anywhere with art, and that you can get somewhere with science. I was attempting to point out, that the two are different aspects of the same human endeavor, and if Science is a process of continual simplification as is the title of the thread, then "the goal" would be reached and the process would be complete as soon as E=MC squared is written. Since this does not seem to be the case, the unification of the forces and the tieing together of GR and SR into a "simple" pattern and formula, would NOT be the end of it. The universe would remain as huge, complex and longlived as it is, and the imagination of the Scientist would NOT trump the imagination of the Artist.

 

Regards, TAR

P.S. I only picked this thread up after the split. And was taking it for what it was as is, with no earlier thoughts related to creationist thinking involved. If my post was a non-sequitur to earlier thoughts I apologize, but I did not read the earlier thread.

[swansont]

SwansonT,

 

Sure you can get a BA or a BS and the two degrees are distinquishable from each other, but Strange was implying you cannot get anywhere with art, and that you can get somewhere with science.

 

 

That's not my reading of Strange's posts on the matter. The implication is that you can't simply substitute art for science. Pretty much what was posted.

 

FWIW, my physics degree is a BA. "Art" in"Bachelor of Arts" is not synonymous with what we're discussing.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Definitely not. (I mean definitely not knocking art!) You have said, and shown, some interesting things regarding art and even its relation to science. But art is not science and never can be.

 

 

 

Part of me want to say, "it's just a circle" but I will be intersted to see what you come up with.

I have contemplated. E to the j pi = 1. Or (-1) ...{ e to the i pi -1 = 0 }. i, j, k complex numbers in 3 dimensions

 

ORTHOGONALITY seems to be at the root of Eulers Theorem . Which itself is a very very interesting feature of reality . So although ORTHOGONALITY can cause a circle to be described , there is far more in there than meets the eye .

 

It would appear 3 dimensional space has ' self constructed '. Itself into those three dimensions BECAUSE of ORTHOGONALITY .

Namely in order to escape the constrictions of one particular dimension , a complex transform must be performed in order to go to the next dimension . And so forth into the third dimension .

 

Thus the three dimensions of. X,y,z, real. Are derived and/ or transformed into. i,j ,k complex dimensions

By the principle of ORTHOGONALITY . Euler

 

Link :- http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonhard_Euler

 

Mike

 

Ps I have personally conducted an experiment , inputting energy gradually into first one dimension , then two dimensions , then three dimensions , then above three dimensions on a ' string ' ( is this a proof of string theory ) ?

Edited January 21, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

What aspect of Art has no science as a part of it?

 

But that isn't what I said. Science and technology can and frequently do play an important role in art. And art can be inspired by science (and vice versa).

 

 

Art is thus real science, in the sense that the imagination is guided by the possible forms and shapes and interactions of reality.

 

But that is NOT science. Not even close.

 

 

If you think science is only the understanding of the complex equations required to figure a simple angle or shape, I think you might have the whole operation backward.

 

And that is not science either.

Sure you can get a BA or a BS and the two degrees are distinquishable from each other, but Strange was implying you cannot get anywhere with art, and that you can get somewhere with science.

 

No I wasn't. I would disagree with someone who claimed that.

[tar]

SwansonT and Strange,

 

I apologize, my post was obviously a non-sequitur as you suggested, and I did not properly understand Strange's intent, to boot.

 

I was mostly after backing Mike Smith Cosmos, as his contributions to this board and the inspiration I take from here are important and substantial to me, and I don't agree with you Strange, when you suggest that Mike is not a man of science, and that somehow you know what science is, and Mike does not. I suppose I take some personal offense when Mike is attacked for being unscientific, because I am a laymen compared to Mike, and I like to think I know enough to be on this board.

 

So. to explain the non-sequitur a little, I am myself on a quest to understand what Pi is, or why Pi is (I already know its the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its Diameter,) So I made a side connection between Euler and my investigation of the spherical rhombic dodecahedron. And if there is something to be learned about the world, by understanding its geometry, then Mike and I, in our investigations of orthogonality and intersecting hexagonal planes, might actually be making some progress, along the lines of the progress that scientists tend to make, in understanding the world and its rules, and how it fits together.

 

I am sorry for reacting the way I did and misrepresenting your intent, Strange, but this is my world too, and I am not an idiot, nor ignorant of Science, nor unthankful for the benefits to humanity that the scientific method has bestowed. It is not up to you to decide what is science and what is not.

 

Regards, TAR

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

By the principle of ORTHOGONALITY . Euler

Link :- http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonhard_Euler

Mike

Ps ? I have personally conducted several experiments , inputting energy gradually into first one dimension , then two dimensions , then three dimensions , then above three dimensions on a ' string ' ( is this a proof of string theory ) . As a second experiment ,model, this was then was modelled on the atom ?

.

This is where things get interesting . At 4 where does the energy go? Rotation ? Or where ?

 

Spherical complex rotation ? . . That is sort of what the experiment showed .

 

If you count back from 4 to 1 , things are getting Simpler .

 

Counting back. ( 4). complex spherical rotation , (3) movement in 3 dimensions , (2)movement in 2 dimensions , (1) movement in 1 dimension .

 

At 1 you just have Energy input . Simple !

 

Mike

Edited January 21, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

I was mostly after backing Mike Smith Cosmos, as his contributions to this board and the inspiration I take from here are important and substantial to me, and I don't agree with you Strange, when you suggest that Mike is not a man of science, and that somehow you know what science is, and Mike does not.

 

I didn't mean to say that. Mike makes many interesting contributions. But they are generally philosophical, artistic or just interesting points of view. Little of it is really scientific, even if it is often about science.

 

 

I suppose I take some personal offense when Mike is attacked for being unscientific, because I am a laymen compared to Mike, and I like to think I know enough to be on this board.

 

Being scientific isn't about how much you know. (I know very little.)

[tar]

Strange,

 

OK, yeah I see what you mean. General statements, like the kind Mike and I often make, are more Philosophical than particular and rigorous as a scientific statement would be.

 

In regards to this thread though, the progress toward simplicity would be toward the general statement and away from the ecsoteric details of the particular mathematical model. Here general statements, fittingly describing the nature of the world are perhaps the goal.

 

Regards, TAR

[Strange]

In regards to this thread though, the progress toward simplicity would be toward the general statement and away from the ecsoteric details of the particular mathematical model. Here general statements, fittingly describing the nature of the world are perhaps the goal.

 

That's an interesting point: as science (inevitably) becomes more complex and requires more mathematics, the public presentation of science has to work harder to explain it in simple terms. Once upon a time, the explanation given to a lay person could be pretty much the same as that used between the natural philosophers themselves. Sadly, that is no longer true.

[tar]

So, Strange,

 

Is it possible that the epicycle type of complication proposed by the OP is occuring now, and the more and more complex math required to explain things, an indication that a simplifying insight is in order, to maintain science's tack toward clarification and explaination, and away from complication and obstification.

 

I believe you are right, that it is sad that science can not explain itself so clearly to the layman as it once could, but while maintaining a healthy adoration for the work that has been done, and the beauty of peer review and reproducable experiments and all, it is my opinion that a certain amount of skeptism is healthy and allowed. Its OK to have a speculation section where old folks like Mike and I can raise some questions and make some general statements, and question accepted mainstream science a little, without harming the process in our woolyness, or lack of rigor. Neither of us is suggesting that things that are true are false. In fact, in PMs we have agreed that one important principle is that what is true, will remain true no matter what we say about it, or think about it. We just like things to add up, and make sense in more than one way, like every other scientist. And both Mike and I are on the last third of our lives, and would like to contribute something, if we can, to humanity.

 

I do not think we are hurting the process of scientific progress with our insights and questions and opinions and observations.

Maybe we are, but whatever progress science makes is only useful progress if most of the population of the Earth sees it as progress. Whether complex or simple its application to every man and woman's life is important. If it is too esoteric, and makes no sense, it is of questionable value.

 

For instance, of what value is the fact that universe is 97 percent made up of stuff we will never interact with. Is it not more prudent, scientifically speaking to concentrate on the stuff we do and will interact with? In this, the equation itself seems to me to have taken on more importance than the stuff the equations are supposed to be helping us grasp and use and notice and enjoy.

 

A little philosophy is good to mix in with the numbers, so that the meaning behind the numbers can be grasped and shared by everybody, and then science can remain the endeavor of the human race, and not the special pervue of an elite few, who "understand the math".

 

Regards, TAR

[Strange]

So, Strange,

 

Is it possible that the epicycle type of complication proposed by the OP is occuring now, and the more and more complex math required to explain things, an indication that a simplifying insight is in order, to maintain science's tack toward clarification and explaination, and away from complication and obstification.

 

It is possible but it seems more likely that the universe is just an immensely complex thing. (If it is so easy, why is there only one of them!)

Edited January 23, 2015 by Strange

[tar]

Strange,

 

I will go with immensely complex. Its evident.

 

Then perhaps the point is, that science is misguided when attempting to simplify, when it is the complexity that makes the place.

 

Perhaps it is a double edged sword that science attempts to wield. Find the patterns, but find the many patterns.

 

Simplification, as suggested in the thread title is not then the "goal". It is important to discover and push the boundries and limits of current technology to give others in the present, and those in the future, the tools and abilities to see farther and smaller, sense and record the tiny and the immense and hone the understanding of the rules by which it is apparent that the word operates in accordance to..

 

But there may be a misguided suggestion embedded in the OP. That there is an "insight", a simplification, that should and will bring everything into focus, that is currently blurry or out of sight. Some one equation that ties together GR and SR or that can predict the emergence of life. Some "final" goal. I suppose that is not in the cards. Everything we find out, every onion peel we remove, reveals on the one hand the underlying aspects of the previous peel, but reveals a new and different core to wonder about. It is unlikely, given the immensity of the place, that we will ever run out of universe to explore.

 

It is also evident that we are already able to bring the universe into focus. By opening our eyes, and our imaginations, to its wonders.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited January 23, 2015 by tar

[swansont]

 

For instance, of what value is the fact that universe is 97 percent made up of stuff we will never interact with. Is it not more prudent, scientifically speaking to concentrate on the stuff we do and will interact with?

 

Any evidence at all that this is not the actual state of affairs? How much research is being done on dark energy and dark matter, vs on normal matter?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I have contemplated. E to the j pi = 1. Or (-1) ...{ e to the i pi -1 = 0 }. i, j, k complex numbers in 3 dimensions

ORTHOGONALITY seems to be at the root of Eulers Theorem . Which itself is a very very interesting feature of reality . So although ORTHOGONALITY can cause a circle to be described , there is far more in there than meets the eye .

It would appear 3 dimensional space has ' self constructed '. Itself into those three dimensions BECAUSE of ORTHOGONALITY .

Namely in order to escape the constrictions of one particular dimension , a complex transform must be performed in order to go to the next dimension . And so forth into the third dimension .

Thus the three dimensions of. X,y,z, real. Are derived and/ or transformed into. i,j ,k complex dimensions

By the principle of ORTHOGONALITY . Euler

Link :- http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonhard_Euler

Mike

Ps I have personally conducted an experiment , inputting energy gradually into first one dimension , then two dimensions , then three dimensions , then above three dimensions on a ' string ' ( is this a proof of string theory ) ?

.

Maths in its presentation is a human construct. How it exists in nature may well be more fundamental . Perhaps in a form even a mathematician could not recognise or visualise.

 

-----------------------------..----------------

If I have my history of science right , it started in the Middle East , when grain was being stored in sacks. The locals used cuneiform wedge like marks in stone to represent bags of grain. ( IIIII ) representing 5 bags of grain . If I give you sir ( II) two bags for storing them , I am left with (III) three . He said moving a stone , with (IIIII) and another stone with (III) and another stone with (II) about the dusty ground . The Maths human construct (IIIII)-(II) = (III) , much easier to move small stones about , than great bags of grain while having the discussion. However at the end of the day each were more interested in the reality of vast bags of grain to feed their families.

 

. Reality in nature , we started with five sacks sitting there with grain in , I ended up with three bags of grain , and you two bags . I see these three fine bags of grain to feed my family . Reality ! The stones and cuneiform wedges on the stones merely a symbol of reality . As indeed are all the Artistic pictures and visual aids shown below , just symbols of the reality of recombination , not the actual event which has happened a long time ago!

 

So with Euler 's theorem ,we are in the human construct mode. Very easy to manipulate . Rather than sacks of grain. The question is what is the reality. The sacks of grain ?

---------------------- -------------------------------

 

THE BIRTH OF THE EARLY UNIVERSE .

 

I would surmise we are back at the recombination event . At approximately 300,000 years after the Big Bang . When free electrons , and hydrogen nuclei ,( with a small percentage of helium nuclei ) , namely protons were just sufficiently cooling . Thus to experience an orthogonal attractive force (electrons ) toward the protons.

 

 

courtesy of Pearson education

 

 

The result being a three dimensional , spherical surface in balance from the central proton , with the single captured electron buzzing about the nucleus ( proton) .

 

This all over the place in the great recombination event. Such was the reality event of the Euler mathematical construct. Say !

 

 

The previously trapped photons , existent within the (electron , nuclear plasma ) a bit like a (single super super massive single star) , were then released to shine out into the great dark age. Here huge , now hydrogen , clouds hung and under the influence of gravitational attraction ,slowly fell inwards to form some of the early first generation stars and galaxies.

 

As these stars shone the great age of darkness ended. And so on the collapse of the first generation massive stars , and the star birth of further generations of stars and galaxies , so came into existence the universe we see today .

 

Quite a spectacular result of Euler 's ( e to the j pi = -1 ) .

 

Of course along with all the other rules and constants underpinning the universe, that later on have been put into cuneiform style mathematical formulae , for manipulation purposes , rather than lugging around great heavy sacks of grain , or super massive stars, and black holes .!

 

 

Links : - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

 

Mike

Edited January 24, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[tar]

Mike,

 

Nice. I will have to read up on Euler. I liked in particular in the diagram of the last scattering, the two instances of the four spheres forming the tetraheral pattern. Simplicity forming complexity and vice-a-versa. Like (non-sequitur here) in my last year long investigation of the spherical rhombic dodecahedron and its internal relationships, I finally realized the internal pattern was that four ball tetrahedron. Something every 10 year old is aware of when they take the gum out of their mouth and press it solidly between the thumb and forefinger of each hand.

 

Dekan,

 

"Finding out Its source of power, learning all Its secrets. Subjugating It. Bending It to our Human will. Forcing It to confess. And finally - smashing It! So we finally get our own back for all the misery It's caused us. Then, when It's been disposed of, we humans will take over the Universe. And run things properly."

 

In light of Mike's sacks of grain vs cuniform distinction, its probably good to remember that you can hold the counters in your hand, but you can not actually grasp the universe. Your hand is not big enough.

 

Regards, TAR

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Mike,

 

Nice. I will have to read up on Euler. I liked in particular in the diagram of the last scattering, the two instances of the four spheres forming the tetraheral pattern. Simplicity forming complexity and vice-a-versa. Like (non-sequitur here) in my last year long investigation of the spherical rhombic dodecahedron and its internal relationships, I finally realized the internal pattern was that four ball tetrahedron. Something every 10 year old is aware of when they take the gum out of their mouth and press it solidly between the thumb and forefinger of each hand.

 

Dekan,

 

"Finding out Its source of power, learning all Its secrets. Subjugating It. Bending It to our Human will. Forcing It to confess. And finally - smashing It! So we finally get our own back for all the misery It's caused us. Then, when It's been disposed of, we humans will take over the Universe. And run things properly."

 

In light of Mike's sacks of grain vs cuniform distinction, its probably good to remember that you can hold the counters in your hand, but you can not actually grasp the universe. Your hand is not big enough.

 

Regards, TAR

.

Bingo!

 

We have done it again ! We have hit bedrock and 'the Motherload'

 

Euler in his Turban , brought a maths relationship together with 5 amazing things in a simple formula

 

e to the j pi plus 1 equals zero .

 

Look at the contents

 

.............................. . e. Is the exponential , the number that causes things to runs away with itself to infinity

.............................. J. The complex variable or ORTHOGONAL DOMAIN

.............................. Pi. The number that appears to go on for ever relating a strait line like a diameter

........................................... to a curved line like a circumference , to make a circle .

.................................... 1. The unit of measure

.................................... 0. The absence of everything

 

Go chew some more gum TAR , we have ourself a mother load here alright , no wonder Euler spent so much time on it, got cataracts on his eyes and goodness knows what .

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonhard_Euler

 

called "the most remarkable formula in mathematics" by Richard P. Feynman, or its single uses of the notions of addition, multiplication, exponentiation, and equality, and the single uses of the important constants 0, 1, e, i and π.[31] In 1988, readers of the Mathematical Intelligencer voted it "the Most Beautiful Mathematical Formula Ever".[32] In total, Euler was responsible for three of the top five formulae in that poll.[32]

 

Mike

Edited January 24, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[tar]

SwansonT,

 

Well I suppose it is absolutely evident that the universe is composed of mostly stuff we will never interact with, in several senses. No harm in finding that out mathematically and pointing it out. However the stuff that is currently "out there" in the cosmic present, is also right here, within our grasp, as we look up at it and see its arrangement and sense the frequencies of the photons and their energy and their vector, and build from that a model, an idea of, the place. In one sense, the cuniform is what we hold as the model. It represents the place, in an analog fashion. It is interestingly more important that we deal with the universe on the basis of the photons coming in from it, than consider it happening some other way.

 

Regards, TAR

Mike,

 

Just so you know. If you take three spherical rhombic dodecahedron diamonds and put them together at their 120 degree points you have a 1/4 of a sphere. Exactly the same as one finger or thumb in the gum ball tetrahedron illustration. Or another way to look at it. If you take two quarters of a sphere and put them together you have a PacMan with its mouth open looking shape. You make another identical PacMan with the other two quarters, turn them 90 degrees (orthogonically) and have them try to grasp each other, and you get your sphere back.

 

Regards, TAR

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Part of me want to say, "it's just a circle" but I will be intersted to see what you come up with.

 

Newton managed to identify that things traveled in a straight line , unless acted on by a force . The sort of orthogonal force playing in from the outside of a sphere , towards the centre of the sphere, all over its surface , is what is illustrated here . Should the surface vibrate , we perhaps have a model for the hydrogen atom with one ,ground state electron .

 

The higher hydrogen states no doubt force the shape to be more elaborate .

 

 

Mike

Edited January 26, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

image.jpg

 

Newton managed to identify that things traveled in a straight line , unless acted on by a force . The sort of orthogonal force playing in from the outside of a sphere , towards the centre of the sphere, all over its surface , is what is illustrated here . Should the surface vibrate , we perhaps have a model for the hydrogen atom with one ,ground state electron .

 

The higher hydrogen states no doubt force the shape to be more elaborate .

 

image.jpg

 

Mike

An Electron (s) in association with a central proton (s) makes up an Atom of Hydrogen . It can be considered as an Electron cloud.

 

Wikipedia describes it this way :-

Main articles: Atomic orbital and Electron configuration

 

 

 

 

 

A potential well, showing, according to classical mechanics, the minimum energy V(x) needed to reach each position x. Classically, a particle with energy E is constrained to a range of positions between x₁ and x₂.

The electrons in an atom are attracted to the protons in the nucleus by the electromagnetic force. This force binds the electrons inside an electrostatic potential well surrounding the smaller nucleus, which means that an external source of energy is needed for the electron to escape. The closer an electron is to the nucleus, the greater the attractive force. Hence electrons bound near the center of the potential well require more energy to escape than those at greater separations.

Electrons, like other particles, have properties of both a particle and a wave. The electron cloud is a region inside the potential well where each electron forms a type of three-dimensional standing wavea wave form that does not move relative to the nucleus. This behavior is defined by an atomic orbital, a mathematical function that characterises the probability that an electron appears to be at a particular location when its position is measured.^[46] Only a discrete (or quantized) set of these orbitals exist around the nucleus, as other possible wave patterns rapidly decay into a more stable form.^[47] Orbitals can have one or more ring or node structures, and they differ from each other in size, shape and orientation.^[48]

 

 

 

 

 

Wave functions of the first five atomic orbitals. The three 2p orbitals each display a single angular node that has an orientation and a minimum at the center.

 

 

 

 

 

How atoms are constructed from electron orbitals and link to the periodic table

Each atomic orbital corresponds to a particular energy level of the electron. The electron can change its state to a higher energy level by absorbing a photon with sufficient energy to boost it into the new quantum state. Likewise, throughspontaneous emission, an electron in a higher energy state can drop to a lower energy state while radiating the excess energy as a photon. These characteristic energy values, defined by the differences in the energies of the quantum states, are responsible for atomic spectral lines.^[47]

The amount of energy needed to remove or add an electronthe electron binding energyis far less than the binding energy of nucleons. For example, it requires only 13.6 eV to strip a ground-state electron from a hydrogen atom,^[49]compared to 2.23 million eV for splitting a deuterium nucleus.^[50] Atoms are electrically neutral if they have an equal number of protons and electrons. Atoms that have either a deficit or a surplus of electrons are called ions. Electrons that are farthest from the nucleus may be transferred to other nearby atoms or shared between atoms. By this mechanism, atoms are able tobond into molecules and other types of chemical compounds like ionic and covalent network crystals.^[51]

^link:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom as above and more

So our simple ( not so simple , but keeping it simple ) set of entities here are:-

1. : electrons , ------ 2, protons & neutrons , ~~~~~~ 3, photons

Making up atoms and their behavior from a simple perspective.

(All be it that) :- A substructure exists with its own simple relationships , maybe ?

??????? https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=russian+dolls&rlz=1C1RNNN_enGB356&espv=2&biw=1280&bih=709&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=osPGVMSsIYT_UMnugfAM&sqi=2&ved=0CF0Q7Ak#tbm=isch&tbs=rimg%3ACfC8koDO2cCrIjjX1S7JoGKoeWhLBF3fSDVVxHDPObESwWWEDRl-iKev-JXavFj2OuRq9U7dyNI-MWfUl0MvEXEd3ioSCdfVLsmgYqh5EX49p-TMXmkOKhIJaEsEXd9INVURC47Qwwxrba4qEgnEcM85sRLBZREloZFRIjnG3yoSCYQNGX6Ip6_14EWDNjUSbHheJKhIJldq8WPY65GoRWQAH91rXHxEqEgn1Tt3I0j4xZxFlYf6gwrwCZSoSCdSXQy8RcR3eEWLiAz3zwyJo&q=russian%20dolls&imgdii=_&imgrc=19UuyaBiqHnwBM%253A%3BNmJnt1Y5b39pkM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fcynthianewberrymartin.files.wordpress.com%252F2009%252F05%252Fblog-2-13.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fdriverlayer.com%252Fimg%252Fbabushka%252520dolls%252F149%252Fimage%253Ftab%253D1%3B3888%3B2592 ??????????

 

mike.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom"][/url].

 

.The electron when in its orbital , appears to be , being presented as NOT a particle .

 

I.e NOT CIRCULATING but just being some form of standing wave .

 

The standing wave of the hydrogen atom electron shell , must then be a standing wave on the surface of this sphere .

 

So does the e to the j pi make the electron shell surface and the energy content of the orbital derive its energy from the energy of the free electron before it went into the proximity of the nucleus ie when it first became a hydrogen atom at the recombination event?

 

Mike

Edited February 1, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

wikipedia.org/[/url]

 

So does the e to the j pi make the electron shell surface and the energy content of the orbital derive its energy from the energy of the free electron before it went into the proximity of the nucleus ie when it first became a hydrogen atom at the recombination event?

 

Mike

.

Is this the oscillator ? That works within the lowest electron orbital in Hydrogen ? If so which of the following three ?

 

link :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_harmonic_oscillator quantum oscillator

 

link :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_oscillator classical oscillator

 

link :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand%27s_theorem#Radial_harmonic_oscillator Radial harmonic oscillator

 

 

Mike

Edited February 1, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Definitely not. (I mean definitely not knocking art!) You have said, and shown, some interesting things regarding art and even its relation to science. But art is not science and never can be.

 

 

 

Part of me want to say, "it's just a circle" but I will be intersted to see what you come up with.

 

What do you think .? " Strange "

"

Quote" . But art is not science and never can be." ( your comment Strange )

 

Science is often linked very closely to maths. Because of the necessary rigidity of maths , the particular mathematical model gives ONLY a model of the the ridged side of reality. Thus we could be getting a one sided view of reality. Some Art , is able to give another different model , a less restrained , flexible view of reality , and thus possibly allow insight into a side of reality that could never be found by looking at a mathematical model of reality!

 

It could be like thinking all humans were male . Rather logical, practical , down to earth , ridged . If that were the case we would never recognise the beauty in women, their kindness , gentleness, warmth , comforting and all the other lovely attributes of our ladies.

 

So by the same token , we could be missing out on a whole other sphere of science seen mainly through the artists eye . ( perhaps that's why we have two parts to our brain , the right creative hemisphere, and the left logical, practical hemisphere?

 

So rather than Art not science , I would say Art half science( mostly as yet undiscovered and with our creative brain) ( half brain, )

 

Nicholas G. Chernyshevsky 1853

 

The Aesthetic Relations of Art to Reality[1]

 

Written: 1853;

Source: Russian Philosophy Volume II: The Nihilists, The Populists, Critics of Religion and Culture, Quadrangle Books 1965;

Transcribed: Harrison Fluss, February 2008.

 

The sea is beautiful; looking at it, we never think of being dissatisfied with it, aesthetically. But not everyone lives near the sea; many people never in their lives get a chance to see it. Yet they would very much like to see it, and consequently seascapes please and interest them. Of course, it would be much better to see the sea itself rather than pictures of it; but when a good thing is not available, a man is satisfied with an inferior one. When the genuine article is not present, a substitute will do. Even the people who can admire the real sea cannot always do so when they want to, and so they call up memories of it. But mans imagination is weak; it needs support and prompting. So to revive their memories of the sea, to see it more vividly in their imagination, they look at seascapes. This is the sole aim and object of very many (the majority of) works of art: to give those people who have not been able to enjoy beauty in reality the opportunity to acquaint themselves with it at least to some degree; to serve as a reminder, to prompt and revive memories of beauty in reality in the minds of those people who are acquainted with it by experience and love to recall it...

" Unquote "

----------------- -------

 

As for me , Mike :-

 

Because I wanted to be reminded of the great joining of Europe to Asia , I painted the seascape around Constantinople , the Vospherous where the Mediterranean Sea leads into the heart of Asia .

 

 

Mike

Edited February 3, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

What do you think .? " Strange "

 

Fascinating. Looks like a soap bubble in a tornado!

 

 

So by the same token , we could be missing out on a whole other sphere of science seen mainly through the artists eye .

 

In an argument about the costs of the LHC, one of my arguments for constructing it was just a stunning photograph of one of the detectors - definitely more art than science Any technology that can produce something so spectacular has to be worth pursuing!

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Fascinating. Looks like a soap bubble in a tornado!

 

 

 

In an argument about the costs of the LHC, one of my arguments for constructing it was just a stunning photograph of one of the detectors - definitely more art than science Any technology that can produce something so spectacular has to be worth pursuing!

Quite spectacular and to an engineers brain ' artistic '

 

Link to Alice :- http://cds.cern.ch/record/1436153/files/LRsaba_CERN_0212_3219.jpg

 

But I was not so much trying to say that some scientific apparatus can look artistic , but rather that if we look at nature in the environment , through an artistic eye , perhaps we can make an observation that leads to a scientific insight YET through the route of an ARTISTIC. Observation.

 

An example of this : why are flowers symmetrical , or at least with a broken symmetry , why do many flowers have five petals, , look beautiful. Why do both bees and women like flowers. And like men who give them flowers. The bee uses it as a guidance system to get in to the nectar. ( by using their special guidance system that detects , with precision , symmetry !

 

Do women like broken symmetry . Yes . They like beautiful flowers . They look in a mirror and make a good job of making their hair symetrical . Then they break the symmetry by putting a small quiff of hair out of place , or to one side .

 

The universe appears to have started with broken symmetry .

 

So all from an artistic observation of flowers bees , women, making their hair up , then breaking symmetry , liking to look .......good .

 

Mike

Edited February 3, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

But I was not so much trying to say that some scientific apparatus can look artistic , but rather that if we look at nature in the environment , through an artistic eye , perhaps we can make an observation that leads to a scientific insight YET through the route of an ARTISTIC. Observation.

 

An example of this : why are flowers symmetrical , or at least with a broken symmetry , why do many flowers have five petals, , look beautiful. Why do both bees and women like flowers. And like men who give them flowers. The bee uses it as a guidance system to get in to the nectar.

 

Do women like broken symmetry . Yes . They like beautiful flowers . Thy look in a mirror and make a good job of making their hair symetrical . Then they break the symmetry by putting a small quiff of hair out of place , or to one side .

 

The universe appears to have started with broken symmetry .

 

So all from an artistic observation of flowers bees , women, making their hair up , then breaking symmetry , liking to look .......good .

 

Mike

 

Agreed. There was a poet who complained that people who explained a rainbow had ruined it for him. I think that is a very shallow attitude: the more you understand about rainbows, flowers, bees, women ... the more layers there are to wonder at.

 

And, of course, science starts with wonder and with observation. The important (vital) point though, is that it doesn't stop there...