Nobody could know less about this than I do, I fear. But I used to find the wave / particle duality useful as (of course) an analogy to help students break down novels and see them as something other than "stories" or plots. It didn't have to be true (I assumed it was, since anything associated with science intimidated me) but as an analogy it worked, the flow of time vs. an instant. Especially with writers like Woolf and Faulkner the analogy promoted analysis. Thanks for a challenging essay!
Glad you enjoyed, Allen. Without a doubt, the potential for analogy is imminently there, which is very much the reason why the wave-particle idea is so popular. It's a brain teaser worth the thought experiment. Equally fun are the critiques of this concept, which open up new possibilities. I do find it fun as well to bring Lit. approaches to science writing and semiotics.
Like an impetuous kid in a candybox sampler, i like all the different ideas but one usually jumps out at me. This time it was "...The duality is a figment of the experiment.....". That's so satisfying.
I mean...in some sense, *everything* has a wave/particle duality. Is it a bunch of leaves, or isn't the tree really "waving at me"? Are the evanescent mesmerizing shifting of contrasts in a murmuration a wave, or isn't it really "just a bunch of birds"? Scale matters, in both time and space.
A bit out of left field, this, but:
I do SO wish I could read a physics journal from 200 years from now about how we finally figured out Carver Mead (Collective Electrodynamics) or Williamson/Van der Mark (Quicycle approach) was exactly correct and that all this "dark" nonsense and hyper-mathematical elk-fighting would come to an end.
I took your advice, dear Asa, and read the Siegel article before reading your critique. In fact I've been reading about the 'wavicle' for a while now and I still don't get it. As a science 'newbie' or somebody who lacks knowledge and self-confidence when it comes to reading about science, I nonetheless suspect that the wavicle is nonsense. Still I find myself wondering, 'Gee whiz, but that Siegel guy sounds pretty smart as he summarizes what sounds like a very complex scientific theory, maybe too complex for my science-ignorant brain to understand, so shouldn't I defer to what he says with his use of all that technical terminology about this impressive-sounding 'wave-particle duality' theory which maybe lies beyond my comprehension?' I mean, shouldn't I be humble and open-minded when it comes to knowledge way out of my wheelhouse? But if the wavicle still sounds silly after reading about it for a while, then where does the folly lie? After the covid scam and the climate scam and the overpopulation scam and all the other scams being foisted on us by the religion of science, it seems that people like myself with little background in science should nonetheless start having more confidence in ourselves as independent thinkers. If you take the time to read as much as you can about the 'wavicle' and it still sounds like bullshit, then maybe that's because it is. Reading your essays every week certainly gives me more confidence in that regard.
It's a difficult situation and I do try to keep my observations to elements within my grasp. It has helped to discover David Berlinsky and his critique of math and modern physics. Even if I'm getting something wrong, I believe we ought to challenge scientists to explain themselves more. We should demand more of them. I'd be happy if someone felt they could bring some critical issues to the table that challenge my critiques and propositions. But as we know, that sort of discourse just isn't going on, and it's even discouraged. Instead, we get name calling... because... only stupid people ask questions in the postscientific sciency age.
Nobody could know less about this than I do, I fear. But I used to find the wave / particle duality useful as (of course) an analogy to help students break down novels and see them as something other than "stories" or plots. It didn't have to be true (I assumed it was, since anything associated with science intimidated me) but as an analogy it worked, the flow of time vs. an instant. Especially with writers like Woolf and Faulkner the analogy promoted analysis. Thanks for a challenging essay!
Glad you enjoyed, Allen. Without a doubt, the potential for analogy is imminently there, which is very much the reason why the wave-particle idea is so popular. It's a brain teaser worth the thought experiment. Equally fun are the critiques of this concept, which open up new possibilities. I do find it fun as well to bring Lit. approaches to science writing and semiotics.
Like an impetuous kid in a candybox sampler, i like all the different ideas but one usually jumps out at me. This time it was "...The duality is a figment of the experiment.....". That's so satisfying.
I mean...in some sense, *everything* has a wave/particle duality. Is it a bunch of leaves, or isn't the tree really "waving at me"? Are the evanescent mesmerizing shifting of contrasts in a murmuration a wave, or isn't it really "just a bunch of birds"? Scale matters, in both time and space.
A bit out of left field, this, but:
I do SO wish I could read a physics journal from 200 years from now about how we finally figured out Carver Mead (Collective Electrodynamics) or Williamson/Van der Mark (Quicycle approach) was exactly correct and that all this "dark" nonsense and hyper-mathematical elk-fighting would come to an end.
Thanks, RDM. You're last suggestion would make a great premise for a book, or even a short story.
I like your birds-wave duality, that captures the poetry of it.
I took your advice, dear Asa, and read the Siegel article before reading your critique. In fact I've been reading about the 'wavicle' for a while now and I still don't get it. As a science 'newbie' or somebody who lacks knowledge and self-confidence when it comes to reading about science, I nonetheless suspect that the wavicle is nonsense. Still I find myself wondering, 'Gee whiz, but that Siegel guy sounds pretty smart as he summarizes what sounds like a very complex scientific theory, maybe too complex for my science-ignorant brain to understand, so shouldn't I defer to what he says with his use of all that technical terminology about this impressive-sounding 'wave-particle duality' theory which maybe lies beyond my comprehension?' I mean, shouldn't I be humble and open-minded when it comes to knowledge way out of my wheelhouse? But if the wavicle still sounds silly after reading about it for a while, then where does the folly lie? After the covid scam and the climate scam and the overpopulation scam and all the other scams being foisted on us by the religion of science, it seems that people like myself with little background in science should nonetheless start having more confidence in ourselves as independent thinkers. If you take the time to read as much as you can about the 'wavicle' and it still sounds like bullshit, then maybe that's because it is. Reading your essays every week certainly gives me more confidence in that regard.
It's a difficult situation and I do try to keep my observations to elements within my grasp. It has helped to discover David Berlinsky and his critique of math and modern physics. Even if I'm getting something wrong, I believe we ought to challenge scientists to explain themselves more. We should demand more of them. I'd be happy if someone felt they could bring some critical issues to the table that challenge my critiques and propositions. But as we know, that sort of discourse just isn't going on, and it's even discouraged. Instead, we get name calling... because... only stupid people ask questions in the postscientific sciency age.