I wouldn’t say I’m in a sort of a doldrums right now, but it’s sort of a doldrums out there, nature photography-wise for me this time of year. No hawks around; couple of months until they return, meadows and creeks drying out, same-ol’ same-ol’ birds…
So I came across this old diary of mine, not a Daily Bucket, written before I joined the Daily Bucket as a contributing editor. Whether it was worth salvaging, well, you be the judge.
The Daily Bucket is a nature refuge. We amicably discuss animals, weather, climate, soil, plants, waters and note life’s patterns.
We invite you to note what you are seeing around you in your own part of the world, and to share your observations in the comments below.
Each note is a record that we can refer to in the future as we try to understand the phenological patterns that are quietly unwinding around us. To have the Daily Bucket in your Activity Stream, visit Backyard Science’s profile page and click on Follow.
|
On Physics
Forrest R. Prince
May 6, 2017
Among other giants of science, Richard Feynman has been described as “the most feared and original mind in modern physics”, in search of “the ultimate constituents of the world.” (Yorkshire Television, Take the World from Another Point of View, Simon Welfare, interviewer; 1972.)
Feynman did not discover the ultimate constituents of the world. As of this day, no one has. It may now be accurate to say that such a search is moot; even if we were to stumble across the ultimate constituents of the world we may not be able to recognize or describe them. For instance, we recognize that “dark matter” and “dark energy” are two things that exist, but we still have no idea what these things really are and cannot describe them much better than lamely labeling them with the vaguest of terms. We are, however, of no doubt that these two things do exist because we observe their unmistakable effects.
I am not a scientist. I do consider myself to be a student of science. I have an Associate in Science degree in Environmental Studies. And I love the science of physics. I will refrain here from stultifying readers with comments on such esoteric topics as quantum mechanics, “String Theory”, M-branes, and the like. For one, I am in no way qualified to do so. For another, even such great communicators of science as Feynman realized that the vast majority of people are simply not interested in physics.
Feynman considered the real world, the truth, to be fascinatingly more interesting than any myth or story of the world and the universe regardless of how mind-boggling or captivating or sensible such stories might be. Being of like mind, I too consider even the mundane atom, with its protons, neutrons, and electrons as way more sexy than eight-armed demon killing fictions such as Chamunda. That does not mean I don’t appreciate and enjoy great fiction; quite the contrary, fiction happens to be another love of my life. It’s just that I get really steamed when people not only conflate truth with fiction, but then impose fiction into law and expect me to conform to unreality.
Science, especially the science of physics, can at times be in utter conflict with fiction, yet at the same time there are at least two things science and fiction have in common: mystery and awe. Untold things there are, awaiting to be discovered by science, great mysteries abound clamoring for solution. When solved, awe is often the resulting sensation. So also in fiction: for instance, murder mysteries fascinate me. How, I wonder, did the author ever think that up? Sexy? You betcha. But not as sexy as the Large Hadron Collider, at least not to me.
One other fundamental difference between fiction and science occurs to me. It is probable that every conceivable fictional story plot has already been written, even though endless variations remain to be thought up and written out. I believe reality, on the other hand, has surprises in store for us which we cannot even imagine. Not mere plot twists, but whole new dimensions of thought, things and places which will astound. We may even discover for a certainty that somewhere other than Earth there exists (or existed) other forms of life, of sentience, of intelligence, of technology. Who knows? Who can say? But, maybe not. Maybe we are alone in this universe, however improbable that may be. To quote Arthur C. Clarke, “Sometimes I think we’re alone in the universe, and sometimes I think we’re not. In either case the idea is quite staggering.”
We may even discover the ultimate constituents of our physical world. If we do, I’m not sure that staggering will be sufficient to mark the moment. We’ll probably have to invent an entire new word for it. In any case, the path we tread toward such knowledge is sure to be mysterious and awesome.
*****
In the five years since I wrote that, we’ve finally seen the James Webb Space Telescope deployed, and we’re perhaps now just that much closer to answering the question of whether we’re alone in the universe. Regardless, there will be physics, and on a cosmological scale.
The James Webb Space Telescope has four key goals:
--wikipedia
*****
In life, regrettably, we don’t get do-overs, but if we did I sure would love to be able to go back to my days of school youth, study and work much harder, and become a physicist. I like to believe I’d have turned out much like the person I consider to have been the greatest physicist to have ever lived.
Now it’s your turn.
What’s been happening in your fizzics lately?
Please share your observations, and include your location in your comments.
Warp Factor Nine, Scotty!