Military Review

Limit of knowledge

76
Limit of knowledgeThe crisis in complex areas of science may be due to the imperfections of our brain. He no longer wants and cannot invent anything new.

Recessions are not only in economics - in some areas of science they have been going on for a century. Thus, a number of modern physicists with regret admit that over the past century scientists have managed to add little to the baggage of knowledge about the Universe, which has been accumulated by predecessors. Ideas ended after Einstein and Max Planck. If from the period of the early New Age, when science for the first time stories gained a rational and precise methodological apparatus and firmly on its feet, theoretical physics developed incrementally, then in the twentieth century its progress seems to have stopped. Experts offer different versions of why this happened - ethical, economic, social ... One of the most interesting hypotheses is biological, according to which the human brain has already reached the limit of its cognitive abilities.

BMW OR "ZAPOROZHETS"?

A look at the human brain as a universal machine of knowledge is unscientific. He is the heritage of religion: it is the sacred books that claim that a person is fully endowed with the ability to distinguish good from evil. Rene Descartes, one of the greatest thinkers of the New Age, believed that the Lord had created the human mind so that it would serve as “natural light”, capable of illuminating all corners of the Universe and learning all its laws. However, modern biology is no longer so idealistic: we acquired a developed brain in the process of evolution, which means that this organ met the needs of our ancestors in the longest, earliest stages of anthropogenesis. The needs were simple - to survive and multiply. Mastering speech, fire, instruments of labor helped a person to solve such problems, but does quantum physics contribute to this? The answer is negative: modern evolutionary psychologists are absolutely sure that the reasoning about complex matters has not helped anyone survive and that is why most people's brains are not well adapted to scientific knowledge.

The American-Canadian psychologist Steven Pinker gives an excellent example — an illustration of this thesis: being a professor at Harvard University, he often asked different groups of students a problem of formal logic. The conditions were as follows: biologists and mathematicians are sitting in the audience. None biology - not a mathematician. All biologists play chess. Question: what judgment can be deduced from these conditions? For many years of his work, almost none of the students gave the correct answer. Meanwhile, a computer program trained in formal logic will easily find it: some of those in the audience play chess. Why did our brain not think about it before? It is easy to guess: this formal conclusion is so obvious that no one will take it into account. The brain is not "sharpened" for such "meaningless" tasks, because the ability to formal logic was simply useless for the survival of our ancestors.


Another task from the same field: Linda goes to rallies to protect women's rights, studies the history of women's struggle for their rights and protests against harassment in companies. The probability of a fact above: a) Linda works in a bank or b) Linda works in a bank and at the same time is a feminist? The vast majority of respondents choose the second option, while from the point of view of logic it is obvious that the probability of a single fact (working in a bank) is always higher than two facts at the same time (working in a bank and being a feminist). But our brain does not feel this: it pays attention primarily to the psychological, rather than logical relationship, trying to determine the nature of this Linda by her actions.


It is the tasks of practical importance and relation to real life that our brain snaps like nuts: a series of experiments conducted by one of the founders of the American Center for Evolutionary Psychology, Leda Cosmides, found that our brain works best with examples where one of the actors He is trying to deceive anyone. “For a person as a social being, the ability, on the one hand, to lie, and on the other, to recognize someone else’s deception is one of the central ones,” says Victor Znakov, deputy director for scientific work at the Institute of Psychology, Russian Academy of Sciences.


Meanwhile, such “useless” tasks are just the basis of any science. The psychologists of the first half of the twentieth century, conducting an IQ survey among the indigenous peoples of Africa and South America, were amazed at how low the intelligence of these savages is. "Ethnographers who worked in Siberia in the early twentieth century, give the following example: when they asked the natives a task like" All people in Africa are black. Baramba lives in Africa. What color is his skin? ”, The invariable answer was:“ We didn’t see it, how did we know it? ”Says ethnologist Stanislav Mikhailovsky. It was these answers that finally formed the common opinion that dark and uneducated hunters and gatherers have logical abilities worse than those of civilized whites.

However, in reality, the Aboriginal intelligence is no lower than that of white people. The fact is that scientists, being university graduates, are perfectly trained in formal logic, while the Aborigines simply don’t need it. And the fact that all tests are based on the use of formal logic, and resulted in low results of the natives. “There is no single definition of intelligence,” says Professor Yuri Alexandrov, head of the neurophysiological psychology foundations of the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. “In my opinion, the most valuable kind of intelligence is the ability to solve unusual tasks in a non-trivial way.” This is one of the main differences between humans and animals: it does not just adapt to the environment - it creates its own habitat.

ILLUSION OF EVIDENCE

The same Stephen Pinker gives an interesting explanation of why American schoolchildren studying in a country with one of the most democratic education systems invariably occupy the last places at international mathematics competitions, while South Korean, whose training is based on cramming, on the contrary, traditionally in number of winners. It would seem that the American model encourages the creative process, teaches the child to think. However, in reality, the orientation toward independent thinking works against the result: the trouble is that the average person cannot rediscover the laws of mathematics — he can only learn them. The discovery of these laws is the merit of those whose cognitive abilities markedly exceeded the average level. Alas, the inequality of people is not a fascist invention at all. But even a cohort of geniuses took thousands of years to build the building of mathematics, which American schools propose to create in an academic hour.

The more abstract the field of knowledge, the more difficult it is for our brain to think about it. Gerhard Vollmer, one of the luminaries of evolutionary epistemology, introduced the concept of “mesocosm”: this is the world that our brain perceives through the senses. It is three-dimensional, all substances in it are divided into solid, liquid and gaseous. It has color, smell and taste, its objects are whole and non-discrete. But recent scientific theories claim that there are much more dimensions (according to string theory, the most authoritative in modern science, their 10 or even 11). Objects consist of particles, and those, in turn, - from other particles. Many phenomena are not what they seem to our senses: thus, the color that our eye sees, and infrared radiation, which our skin feels like heat, are in fact close parts of the same electromagnetic spectrum.

Why do we perceive the mesocosm, and not the true world? The answer is obvious: for living beings, there is no need to take 11 measurements or to register individual particles with the senses. Any abilities that do not help survival will be rejected by evolution. We not only cannot see the true picture of the Universe - it is difficult for us to think and reason about it, because our brain works in accordance with the logic acting in the mesocosm. “For example, it is known that a person is a visual creature: 90% of all images that the brain uses in its work are visual,” says Lyubov Ryndina, Ph.D. “It helps us a lot in everyday life, but if you are talking about elementary particles, it will confuse you: we represent electrons with solid balls and subconsciously project on them all the same features inherent in solid balls of our macroworld, whether it be footballs or cannonballs. " It is even more difficult for us to understand the causal relationships characteristic of the quantum level of matter. In mesocosm after all how? The object is either there or it is not there; it cannot arise from nowhere and also sink into nowhere. And in the world of elementary particles anything can happen. Moreover, many particles can simultaneously exist and not exist (as an atom in Schrodinger's famous example), or simultaneously be in different places (like an electron inside an electron cloud), or simultaneously be a particle and a wave (like photons). We immediately make an important caveat: all these arguments about the wave-particle nature of photons or the simultaneous presence of an electron in several places are just euphemisms, invented by us precisely because we can neither understand nor imagine how the particles actually behave.

And it imposes the most severe restrictions on the work of our brain with complex mathematical and physical problems. “Already, scientists are creating nanodevices not on the basis of technical solutions from the first principles of physics, but by typing: work — work, but how — it is not clear,” notes the senior researcher at the Institute of Physics and Technology named after them. A.F. Ioffe RAS Stanislav Ordin. In order to develop science further, people have to use a kind of “artificial limbs” - computers that do things that our brains cannot do. And yet they are not capable of much, because scientific knowledge involves not only complex calculations, but also hypothesizing, and this machines are not available.

CHURCH 25-GO FRAME

Fortunately, man learned not only to live with the similar natural limitations of the brain, but also to use it for his own pleasure. It is well known that we, people, are able to watch TV and movies precisely because of the imperfection of our eyes and brain: at an update rate of about 24 frames per second, we do not notice that the image on the screen does not actually move, but is a series of pictures or There are a lot of “lines” that the vacuum tube beam writes at a huge speed on the screen. The explanation for the limitations is the same: the ability to see moving objects with a higher frequency in real life is absolutely useless for humans (for example, for cats it is very valuable - 50 should be updated once per second to deceive their eyes and brain).

But if this “flaw” is far from the only one that distinguishes our brain, are there any other phenomena like television and cinema or, for example, images of “impossible” figures who are able to deceive our brain? There are a lot. French anthropologists Pascal Boyer and Scott Atran believe that a person’s ability to believe in the supernatural is just one of the consequences of such imperfections. Scientists lead trail yuschee comparison. A person can see a painted animal in several curved lines on a piece of paper due to the fact that his brain is “equipped” with the natural ability to complete the contour of an object, part of which is hidden (the ability to notice a deer in the thickets from which its horns stick out, undoubtedly, came in hand during evolution) . In the same way, the useful ability of the brain to combine the actions of people and animals in their psychological characteristics has a side effect: we see logical and psychological connections where they really do not exist: we begin to fear a black cat or we guess in a series of life failures that have befallen us .

The conclusion that suggests itself from this concept is perhaps even more pessimistic than the one that follows from Vollmer’s speculation: belief in supernatural and related anti-sentimentism, which is still characteristic of most people on the planet, probably will not go away, despite all the successes of enlightenment. It is more convenient for them to believe that, for example, global warming is not due to the release of industrial gases, but because Predictoria has suffered. And fortunately (or unfortunately), this view of the world does not prevent these people from living at all.

As for the complex areas of theoretical science, whether they will develop further and whether revolutionary discoveries will follow in them, based not only on new facts, but also on the ingenious work of thought, it is extremely difficult to predict. There is hope: Grigory Perelman was found on the Poincaré hypothesis, which remained unproved for more than 100 years. The successful combination of talent and good education still works wonders. The only trouble is that over time such miracles will happen less and less. Will mankind be able to create a "general theory of everything" before even the most ingenious brains encounter the reinforced concrete barrier of the restrictions imposed by nature on our cognitive abilities? This question is even more complicated than the most damned problems of theoretical physics.
Author:
Originator:
http://magazine.rbc.ru/2012/11/15/technology/562949985142162.shtml
76 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Engrim
    Engrim 21 November 2012 08: 09
    +5
    Thanks for the article, really interesting.
    1. alexng
      alexng 21 November 2012 10: 43
      +3
      The article put a plus, already in just one verbal revolution
      global warming is not due to the release of industrial gases, but because what Predictamus has been upset.

      good
      Yes, and I liked the article itself.
      1. crazyrom
        21 November 2012 19: 49
        +1
        It’s a really interesting article, it’s already difficult to move progress here, and in addition - the Anglo-Saxon policy of global fooling peoples, this certainly does not get any better.
    2. I think so
      I think so 21 November 2012 15: 57
      0
      Thanks for the comment, it is even more interesting to us all here ...
  2. smel
    smel 21 November 2012 08: 17
    +5
    Everything will be - and great discoveries, and great achievements in science, and the use of everything that has been achieved for the benefit of man. It’s just that the time has not come yet, Einsteins and Newtons were not born. After all, they are not born every century. We would have to curse ourselves from the legacy of the Gorbachevs
    1. tronin.maxim
      tronin.maxim 21 November 2012 08: 19
      +2
      As they say to all their time! smile
    2. vadimN
      vadimN 21 November 2012 11: 23
      +3
      Quote: smel
      Everything will be - and the discoveries are great, and huge achievements in science, and the use of all that has been achieved for the good of man.


      Well, if only Fursenko and others like him send science and education away ... am
    3. Kaa
      Kaa 21 November 2012 12: 02
      +6
      Quote: smel
      Everything will be - and discoveries are great, and huge achievements in science, and the use of everything achieved for the good of man

      Well, yes, based on world history, I would venture to suggest that, for example, if the same "string theory" materializes, a string will be created, and, accordingly, an anti-string weapon. And there will be treaties limiting the use of the 10th or 11th string without prior notice to all interested parties. I don't know how about formal logic. but from the informal side, humanity has always used the principles of "big stick", "shield and sword" much more willingly than "love your neighbor" ...
      1. Ross
        Ross 21 November 2012 12: 26
        +1
        Kaa,
        Good point! A plus. While a person develops only the left hemisphere, imaginative thinking is closed to him, and then there is only one way for such an industrial civilization - self-destruction.
        1. Kaa
          Kaa 21 November 2012 17: 05
          0
          Quote: Ross
          While a person develops only the left hemisphere,

          Well, this is a controversial question, maybe it's good that it doesn't develop, otherwise you never know what images will come into your head. In addition, there is an opinion that women in everyday life already use two hemispheres, and in men - the "netting" hemisphere plays the role of a "watch" - is included in active activity only in emergency situations. With one "working" hemisphere - and how many wars, and if two start working ?! belay stop soldier
  3. Was mammoth
    Was mammoth 21 November 2012 08: 17
    +2
    A lot and nothing. Knowledge about a person is as small as about everything else. The time has come for the new. And that the brain will not be able in the future, machines will be able.
    1. tan0472
      tan0472 21 November 2012 10: 09
      +1
      Quote: There was a mammoth
      what the brain cannot do in the future, machines can.

      And people will create these machines (with the help of the brain). So the author's thought that "the human brain has already reached the limit of its cognitive abilities. " - wrong.
    2. 11Goor11
      11Goor11 21 November 2012 18: 31
      +1
      At the end of the 18th century, the idea that all the laws of the physical world were already open was also circulated in the scientific community.
      And then, like gravity, the nature of light, etc.
      The article is simply riddled with attempts to equalize humans and animals.
      The question is more serious than it seems: if all our moral values ​​are far-fetched, then why not revise them from time to time, depending on the situation? For example, "Is the human life of individuals who do not represent any special economic benefit for society so valuable?" You can go too far.
      As for me, from the text of the article liberal horns just stick out.
      By the way, does this not apply to our human ability to see danger in different intricacies? laughing
      1. ikrut
        ikrut 22 November 2012 03: 17
        +1
        11Goor11,
        Agree with you. The article is a kind of liberal pseudoscientific opus.
        Take, for example, the phrase "Ideas ended after Einstein and Max Planck ..."
        And why is that? And who said that the "ideas" of Einstein and Planck are an unambiguous milestone in the knowledge of reality? Modern physics shows that it is not at all. And the development is very interesting. The same "string theory" was. What discoveries does quantum mechanics make? It is generally a matter of a world outlook revolution.
        I think there is no special stagnation. Although, probably, there is a massive deception of the majority of the world's population. Including similar opuses.
        Liberals raised to the banner of Einstein, as once Newton. Although they were related to the creation of only certain MODELS of reality. Let satisfying certain pressing practical goals and visions.
        Scientific schools maintain a certain ideological basis in society. Serious violations of it are fraught with violations of even the basis of the social. therefore, it is very difficult for new scientific ideas to "punch" their way. It is more profitable for the ruling liberal society to support the "cognition crisis" paradigm. And against this background, sometimes to release "geniuses". And more often it is precisely those "geniuses" who are in the stream of "leading and guiding line". The whole history of mankind is full of this. Copernicus. Bruno, Gallileo, etc.
        No need to worry. Human knowledge is constantly evolving, but to the extent of the needs of humanity in this knowledge. I think this process will be completed only with the completion of the history of mankind itself. IMHO.
    3. alexdol
      alexdol 21 November 2012 22: 22
      0
      There was a Mammoth RU 'The knowledge about man is as small as about everything else. "
      Totally agree with you. I can only quote my verse "At the Edge"

      Today I write almost nothing, but here
      After watching the movie "Fantastic Weapon"
      For the series Impact, the following was written:

      Here we are at the edge
      And it is not known what is behind him:
      Will we see the gates of Paradise
      Or maybe in the abyss please?

      Human Brain - The Riddle
      We know little about him,
      There will be many mysteries
      As soon as we understand ourselves ...

      02.04.2009g.

      I invite everyone to my lit. page http://stihi.ru/avtor/alexdol
  4. Jungar
    Jungar 21 November 2012 08: 57
    +4
    In my opinion, the question is not that the abilities of the human brain have reached their limit. The same Perelman argues that this is not so, besides, we know that the human brain, even among geniuses, uses only part of its potential. What the brain is really capable of, no one knows. And the thing is that our time is generally very poor for outstanding, brilliant people. This applies not only to the field of science. Take anything, be it politics, art, music ... everywhere the same picture - there are no great contemporaries. There are probably many reasons — the decline in moral values, the poor ecology, the crisis of faith, the seizure of world power by merchants who established the dictatorship of money, etc. But this wretched time will pass, I hope our children will see a different picture.
    1. arkady149
      arkady149 21 November 2012 09: 26
      +3
      Quote: jungar
      everywhere the same picture, no great contemporaries
      . And so says each generation. The great, as a rule, is buried by the slag of momentary and only Time, washing it reveals the essence of greatness. Vaud said that he himself had become terribly terrible.
  5. Averias
    Averias 21 November 2012 08: 58
    +3
    And what have we actually invented so "revolutionary" since the invention of the wheel? Yes, absolutely nothing, all that has been invented is "tuning" the wheel and nothing more. Examples, please. Many will say radio followed by mobile phones and electronics in general, but where did it come from, but from what - the radio could run on batteries, it's a fact, but powerful transmitters required a lot of energy. From here, generators, dinomo-machines, thermal power plants, hydroelectric power plants, nuclear power plants were invented - and what is the driving force in them is right, the wheel. Airplanes - all the same wheel (even with a propeller, even with a turbine), Weapons, rockets and so on - so here the same wheel is involved, (milling and turning machines, etc.). Medicine, of course yes, but remember the story, how many people died until they accidentally discovered penicillin? I repeat - by accident. And then that, yes, nothing, leprosy (leprosy), cancer, AIDS, psoriasis, cerebral palsy and a bunch of other things - how they did not treat and do not cure, they cannot even establish the reason. The same collider and the one in the form of a wheel (circle). But wherever you spit - one wheel. So we run in this wheel - like squirrels, in a circle. As the smart man said, Science is a way to realize your ambitions at someone else's expense. Now we are just seeing this. How many people shouted at us about NANO, like, well, now, just a little bit more and that's it, and there will be robots, there will be space elevators, and much more. And in the end, as a result, nano-concrete, nano-paint (which the Japanese seem to have slammed), created carbon nanotubes, and that's all, as they were nano and remained, they cannot be tied into a rope for an orbital elevator. Where is the breakthrough, where is the revolutionary and novelty of discoveries - but they are not there and when they will be unknown. May be negative, but fact is fact.
    1. arkady149
      arkady149 21 November 2012 09: 32
      +4
      Hence the conclusion: A square tastes better than blue.
      PS It is not possible to minus- fact.
      1. Averias
        Averias 21 November 2012 09: 42
        -1
        Name at least one revolutionary invention after atom fission. That which would fundamentally affect the development of civilization. At least from the alternative energy, Tokomak does not count, since what time he has been working only for himself, the magnetic field restrains the plasma, and all the energy received takes this. Then you can take your minus, and this is just a snort and a demonstration of the impasse of thought processes.
        1. Averias
          Averias 21 November 2012 09: 48
          +3
          That the "genius" and radicals were discovered by the fundamentalists - nothing. They put a lot of money into the collider, and that, as the boson was theoretical, it remained, neutrinos can also be included there, there is a particle, we register it for good. The same paradoxes in astrophysics as they were the "dark forest" are. "Black hole" if we discard the crazy ideas from the REN-TV channel, in fact, there is the "Black Gift" for science. They are fussing about something about antimatter (antiprotons), but to the point, and even then, they are fussing about the fact that the United States has an obsession with making an antiproton cannon. Until we discover a new type of energy, we will be marking time. Many smart people agree that at some point scientific thought took a wrong turn. And now ambitions do not allow to admit this fact. Cons of this example.
          1. arkady149
            arkady149 21 November 2012 12: 04
            +1
            Flongiston was also theoretically sound. Let the direction of development of science be determined by scientists, and not "trained" politicians, and minus the opponent is not an argument in the dispute.
          2. baltika-18
            baltika-18 21 November 2012 12: 35
            -1
            Quote: Averias
            Many smart people agree that at some point, scientific thought has turned the wrong way. And now ambitions do not allow to admit this fact. Cons are an example.

            I also agree with this. Approximately the 18th century. The idea of ​​the primary element was rejected, called ether, somehow. The point is not that. Science has always been moved forward by single geniuses. In each century there appeared its own genius that made a breakthrough in science. It will appear in 21 century, it has just begun, there is still time ahead. And for some reason I have a hunch that in Russia and that pretty soon, in about 5-10 years.
        2. Rumata
          Rumata 21 November 2012 12: 07
          +3
          Quote: Averias
          That which would fundamentally affect the development of civilization.

          I can name hundreds, but let's say polyethylene. Did the creation of plastic affect the development of civilization?
          Quote: Averias
          snorting and demonstrating the impasse of thought processes.

          Now we are on the verge of a third scientific revolution, I don’t know if you have anything to do with science, but what is happening now is a breakthrough, all of this will come into use in 10-15 years, but what we have achieved in nano and biochemistry, protein engineering, pharmacology is definitely a breakthrough and talk about the dullness of mental processes, at least silly
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 21 November 2012 12: 11
            -1
            Add more silicone. And composite materials. True, all this is only raised quality level already invented ... (insert what you need). The breakthrough is not yet visible.
            1. Rumata
              Rumata 21 November 2012 12: 17
              +1
              Quote: Wedmak
              The breakthrough is not yet visible.

              Personally, I do not think that there will be many big breakthroughs. I am sure that everything will develop gradually, without leaps, but very quickly. I don’t think that they will come up with teleportation sharply, for example, it seems to me that the evolution of science will approach this gradually and it will not be a sharp leap, but what has been on the horizon for many years and finally created
              1. Wedmak
                Wedmak 21 November 2012 12: 24
                +1
                Well, sharply and quickly in history - relative concepts. 1942 year - the first electronic computer, how much time has passed?
              2. Averias
                Averias 21 November 2012 12: 47
                -1
                Hehe, about teleportation, in which year I don’t remember, 1 bit of information was hastily teleported. The scream was scary (say, well, the science fiction dream came true), then the Tokmas were gone, pondered and dejected, and in general the conversation went that it wasn’t a mistake and a program malfunction. Here is a teleportation. The same thing about anti-gravity, they shouted the issue is resolved, they say a little more and that’s all. And also, remember when we discovered the effect of superconductivity - there was noise, because there really was a breakthrough discovery, and what we have, and also absolutely nothing from the potential laid down in superconductivity, mainly for warriors. Exactly everything, how the fig was so, the fig, from what angle don't look at it.
                1. carver
                  carver 21 November 2012 15: 52
                  +1
                  Averias,

                  Well, how is a whole 10 kV superconducting line now being tested ...

                  It’s just one thing to discover the effect, and another thing to test the technology and make it really profitable to use ...
            2. Averias
              Averias 21 November 2012 12: 43
              0
              Here I am about the same thing, what Mr. Rumata is talking about, this only added "lubrication" to the wheel, but "it did not make it spin differently. Well, you understand what I mean."
          2. Averias
            Averias 21 November 2012 13: 29
            0
            It is polyethylene, of course, yes, it is of course a very necessary invention, without it we can’t at all (and how we lived before that), and the fact that we dirtied the planet with this polyethylene, that sea turtles eat from this polyethylene (bright packaging) and die - that's what we don't give a damn, how much, we invented polyethylene. Won how. Damn, then -Toilet paper - that's truly a "breakthrough invention" one benefit, though we cut down trees but that's nothing, we have a lot of forests.: ((
      2. arkady149
        arkady149 21 November 2012 12: 20
        +1
        The discovery of semiconductors made it possible to create a material base for computing and communications at an incredible speed. In the lifetime of only one generation, an information revolution has occurred. Regarding energy, we are only at the entrance to the energy impasse of chemical reactions, although it is not a fact that this is an impasse, but already (since the time of the Obninsk NPP) we have the technologies for the decay of heavy elements, come close to the realization of synthesis, what next? Annihilation? And you say regression.
        1. Averias
          Averias 21 November 2012 12: 50
          0
          From the field of atomic energy, so far the most promising is a fast neutron reactor, but there is one thing, but the efficiency was still low. And I didn’t talk about regress, then yes, but no more. It seems that something is bothering us or someone. Like a bad dancer :))
          1. arkady149
            arkady149 21 November 2012 13: 51
            0
            I like the politically incorrect version more: "Eggs interfere with the humpbacked dancer"
            1. 11Goor11
              11Goor11 21 November 2012 18: 47
              0
              arkady149
              I like the politically incorrect version more: "Eggs interfere with the humpbacked dancer"

              May I supplement it?
              "But worse for a slender dancer who does not interfere with anything" wassat
    2. baltika-18
      baltika-18 21 November 2012 09: 50
      0
      Quote: Averias
      And what have we actually invented so "revolutionary" since the invention of the wheel?

      I put you a plus. The course of your thoughts is original, of course I don’t agree with everything that you wrote, but the main thing you caught
      Quote: Averias
      Yes, wherever you spit - one wheel. So we run in this wheel - like squirrels, in a circle.
      1. Averias
        Averias 21 November 2012 09: 56
        +1
        Thank you, it’s always nice to deal with a sane person. After all, I did not write koment in order to say that everything is bad. And just to show that we have been mixing water in a mortar for a long time. Specially written with black humor - to see the learned people did not understand this. That's minus. Although I have the opportunity to communicate with nuclear physicists, my conception caused such a storm in them, but then, throwing my emotions away, I came to the conclusion that, in general, I am right.
        1. Igarr
          Igarr 21 November 2012 11: 50
          +1
          No, Averias, you're right, no doubt.
          Even if we flatten the wheel, we get a caterpillar.
          Remember the wheel - get a heart.
          Tear and straighten - you get an arrow. Or axle for wheels.
          Which, "wheels" can be rolled. Or swallow.
          And, as they become square - drag and turn.
          ...
          A joke, a joke.
          the reasoning is indeed true, but I liked the replica of Arcadia.
          ...
          And I recall how in the institute we were huddled about the development of a hyperbole ... of science. On the exponential growth of KNOWLEDGE.
          Just 30 years ago.
          Then there was ... one "black hole". Now they came up with strings and thongs. Which are worn instead of swimsuits.
          ...
          Dialectics is the best science. Development is spiraling.
          So ... wait a bit - and again trample everything. Because so ..
          Predicamus has been troubling.
          1. Rumata
            Rumata 21 November 2012 12: 19
            +3
            Quote: Igarr
            Even if we flatten the wheel, we get a caterpillar.
            Remember the wheel - get a heart.

            And if you take very small wheels, then from them you can draw anything at all ...
            1. 11Goor11
              11Goor11 21 November 2012 18: 50
              0
              Rumata
              And if you take very small wheels, then from them you can draw anything at all ...

              And this is nanotechnology! In a good sense of the word. laughing
          2. arkady149
            arkady149 21 November 2012 15: 42
            +1
            Quote: Igarr
            I recall how at the institute we were encouraged about the development of a hyperbole ... of science. On the exponential growth of KNOWLEDGE.
            Then collapse and ... get a new quality, after which a new development cycle. So the epicycloid in development, including science is respected, you are right
            Quote: Igarr
            Dialectics is the best science. Development is spiraling.
        2. Rumata
          Rumata 21 November 2012 12: 11
          +2
          Quote: Averias
          Although I have the opportunity to communicate with nuclear physicists,

          Hello at the entrance? What is your education and what do you do? If you graduated from MEPhI and are engaged in theoretical physics, or are you a biologist?
          1. Averias
            Averias 21 November 2012 13: 10
            0
            At one time he was closely engaged in subatomic physics and questions of quantum mechanics, until he rested his horn and came to the conclusion that somewhere at the "dawn" we turned the wrong way. As well as lasers (optical computers), the effect of reversibility of the magnetic field of high intensity. And to others, different, little by little.
            1. AK-47
              AK-47 21 November 2012 17: 25
              +2
              Averias
              At one time he was closely engaged in subatomic physics and questions of quantum mechanics, until he rested his horn and came to the conclusion that somewhere at the "dawn" we turned the wrong way. As well as lasers (optical computers), the effect of reversibility of the magnetic field of high intensity. And to others, different, little by little.


              Do not be afraid of perfection - it does not threaten you at all.
    3. Rumata
      Rumata 21 November 2012 12: 02
      +3
      Quote: Averias
      And what have we actually invented so "revolutionary" since the invention of the wheel?

      Not ashamed to write this? Or is it something philosophical and deep? If you think like that, you haven’t created anything in the whole history ... what is so revolutionary about rovers on Mars, it’s just the logical evolution of the wheel =))

      Quote: Averias
      but powerful transmitters required a lot of energy. From here invented generators, dynamo machines

      You are a little confused, all this was created before and not at all as a power source for transmitters. It was created for the industrial revolution that pulled us from the Middle Ages.
      Quote: Averias
      Aircraft - all the same wheel (even with a propeller even with a turbine)

      wassat
      Quote: Averias
      And then what, nothing, leprosy (leprosy), cancer, AIDS, psoriasis, cerebral palsy, and a bunch more - they have not been treated and are not treated, they cannot even determine the cause.

      Probably leprosy and psoriasis is a human scourge, millions die ... Most cancers are treated, AIDS is inhibited, but why there is no mention of diseases that not only won, but which ceased to exist and have not been sick for decades.

      Quote: Averias
      from the same collider and the one in the shape of a wheel (circle).

      Yes, the most difficult part in creating the collider was the wheel, the rest is garbage. on the knee can be pulled ... For a long time I have not read such
      Quote: Averias
      It can be minus, but the fact is a fact.

      There are no facts. There is complete nonsense.
      1. Averias
        Averias 21 November 2012 12: 32
        0
        As I understand it, problems with imaginative thinking and a sense of humor? Up to the "wheel" they ran on foot and shook them with spears, lit up with splinters, were treated by healers. After the "wheel" we drive on typewriters, shoot with bullets, light up with bulbs, and get treatment in hospitals. And as you stumbled in orbit and stumbled about, about the treatment of cancer and AIDS, it is you who bent your own, it is you wishful thinking. Chemotherapy and radiation prolongs the life of the patient, but does not cure in any way. Isolated cases, so they have always been. Loud statements by geneticists are just loud statements. So far, we have not received anything "worthwhile" in the acre of GMOs. Progress began when the "wheel" was invented - and then we began to invent all sorts of gadgets for this "wheel" so that it "spun by itself", so that the brains would not strain (computers, communications, etc.). And at key points that, yes, nothing - we learned to control the nuclear reaction, built a nuclear power plant - such a power of energy simply boils water and steam turns a turbine - the crown of creation and a genius of scientific thought :)) We invented the Tokamak installation and made a prototype, and that - yes nothing. Works for itself. And before the development of cold thermonuclear fusion, we, as to Tau Kita, on foot on their haunches. So, for which I should be ashamed, for the fact that children with computers are banal in their minds do not know how to count, that powerful computers are collected only in order to contemplate cool graphics in shooters. All that we invent is for the most part - indulging our laziness (let the computers count, let the robots work hard). And so it is not far from the "Golden Age" - I hope you know the end.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 21 November 2012 12: 35
          0
          Plus you. We are waiting for the third scientific and technological revolution. Or biological. Here it’s trampling ....
        2. Rumata
          Rumata 21 November 2012 12: 52
          +1
          Quote: Averias
          You have bent your native, it is you wishful thinking. Chemotherapy and radiation prolongs the life of the patient, but does not cure. Isolated cases, as they have always been.

          One of the areas in which I work is cancer, do not say no more that they are not treated, or that there are only a few such cases, since this is not so. They were treated before, but with the advent of new monoclonal antibodies in drugs, tyrazine kinase inhibitors, we are facing a major breakthrough. By the way, chemotherapy is also a treatment, like surgery, cutting out a tumor is a very complicated process, especially if it’s the brain or gland, you need special medicines, equipment and trained personnel
          1. Averias
            Averias 21 November 2012 13: 03
            0
            A small question, where is the general availability of these techniques? But these words - we are facing a major breakthrough - I have heard for a bunch of years. And they say that the development of the planets is already here, and free energy and other utopian ideas. Where is it all, or hiding, for the elite only. You look at world statistics and not only in the field of oncology, where are all these breakthroughs? Out of Israel (to what tricks are best) we say we develop and implement solar panels (by the way, our development, those who ran there and grabbed ideas with them), they say we honed the technology and brought it to perfection (someone can clearly tell me what is perfection). They say that efficiency is just a fairy tale, but for some reason these panels are placed (massively) in Africa, why, in Israel, there is little sun? And the answer is as simple as brick, the production of these panels is a very environmentally dirty process and toxic. Here are such breakthroughs. Words, sensations, and the result of which we don’t see) We do not take iPhones and Ay pads into account :)))
            1. Rumata
              Rumata 21 November 2012 13: 36
              +1
              Read Science or Nature, these works skip there. All this takes time, the human gene was deciphered not so long ago, and time is needed. The regular Press does not write about this. For example, scientists were able to return cells that passed specification, back, this is also a breakthrough, which means that now we can turn skin cells into mice like stem cells, which can then be sent to any specification, muscles, nerve tissue, and so on. Theoretically, it will be possible to regenerate damaged tissues, even if it seems fantastic, there are real results in laboratories, scientists just need time. There are a lot of similar examples, only those who are interested in the field or work in it simply know about them. The same thing, for example, with quantum computers, they are moving slowly, but still moving.

              Another example is superconductors operating at room temperature, 10 years ago it was fantastic, now they have already reached temperatures close to 0. Yes, these are very expensive materials, but there is progress. Everyone is waiting for mega leaps, but there will be practically none, there will be an evolution of science
          2. revnagan
            revnagan 21 November 2012 16: 09
            +1
            Quote: Rumata
            One of the areas in which I work is cancer, do not say no more that they are not treated, or that there are only a few such cases, since this is not so.

            Forgive me for interfering, but the point is a little different (as it seems to me). All this is great, new discoveries help save lives, but ... not all people, but only those who, as Matroskin said, "pay more." For example, an acquaintance of mine, a simple worker, refused chemotherapy for the simple reason that after the operation he had no money left for chemotherapy. I mean that progress, its fruits should be available to everyone, not just the wealthiest members of society. i.e., if a super drug for a terrible disease has been invented, then a person should just go to the pharmacy and buy a pill, and not go broke from such a purchase, but after being treated, recover (well, I'm exaggerating this). Otherwise, it turns out that he (progress) will be only where you can make a profit at once and a lot. The same areas of science that do not promise immediate profits do not develop. A gap occurs, science begins to work in the interests of a small group of people who "pay" this science. And "free" directions in deep ... stagnation.
            1. Rumata
              Rumata 21 November 2012 16: 54
              0
              Quote: revnagan
              An example is my acquaintance, a simple worker, refused chemotherapy for the simple reason that after the operation he did not have money left for chemistry. I mean that progress, its fruits should be available to everyone, and not just the most affluent members of society

              This is already a state problem. Modern medicines using non-run-in technologies are very expensive to manufacture and their creation is even more expensive (a billion dollars to create a medicine. Not a ceiling, it happened more). Chemotherapy in many countries is free or shareware, covered by insurance. If the Ministry of Health and the budget can’t afford it somewhere, the researchers have nothing to do with it, and whatever you say, an expensive medicine is better than not having it at all ...
              Quote: revnagan
              That is, if a super medicine for a terrible disease was invented, then a person should just go to the pharmacy and buy a pill,

              But what if the company invested $ 500 million in research, and if it doesn’t return it within a couple of years, it will bend? I agree that often the prices are a bit overpriced, but mostly it is not.
        3. 11Goor11
          11Goor11 21 November 2012 19: 06
          +1

          As I understand it, problems with imaginative thinking and a sense of humor? Up to the "wheel" they ran on foot and shook them with spears, lit up with splinters, were treated by healers.

          Dear Averias, I positively evaluated your first post "ON THE GREATness of the WHEEL" as a good joke.
          but if one tries to draw serious conclusions from it that "further attempts to develop the WHEEL are pointless" then it is simply unreasonable!
          "our wheel" is capable of many more tasks, to master other planets, to build giant orbital "city wheels" with artificial gravity, for sure it will be able to convert matter into pure energy and vice versa energy into any matter, and somehow (which we do not yet know ) will help us travel between the stars.
          What for? Well, we are like that - we bring with us the usual reliable things, trying to settle and survive.
          The "wheel" has too much potential for modernization to take this and deny it in further scientific development. wink
          1. Averias
            Averias 21 November 2012 21: 00
            0
            And I didn't say a word about the fact that development is meaningless, by no means. I just said that at the peak of euphoria from the opening prospects (after the invention of the wheel), we imagined that everything was available to us and under our power, on our ambitions, pride and imaginary omnipotence (especially when the atom was split) we invented utopian prospects for ourselves - and in as a result, we have what we have, stagnation. If earlier this "wheel" was spinning at a fantastic speed, now you can clearly hear this grinding and grinding not from the notorious "wheel" with him, then everything is in order, but from rusted brains. Those who convulsively cling to the postulates that are convenient for them (invented by them) and do not want to think alternatively, moving away from non-working schemes. After all, the great Einstein never claimed that his theory was 100% correct, he just needed a fulcrum, a starting line or something like that. And nothing more. And then it became convenient, it explained a lot, a lot, but not everything. And not all of them. And most importantly, she did not explain where the energy comes from. Something like that.
  6. arkady149
    arkady149 21 November 2012 09: 42
    0
    An article is necessary and useful, if only because it encourages reflection. To the author +++++ and my respect. I would like to see more often the articles by Ilya Nosyrev which are also informatively emotionally balanced.
  7. Brother Sarych
    Brother Sarych 21 November 2012 10: 09
    +5
    Guys, are you seriously about how interesting this article is? Just became curious ...
    Well this is nonsense of pure water (wait, put your hand down for a minus, and the moderators, do not ban me, they say, all the articles are nonsense to him and stupidity)!
    What is the article about? Yes, nothing!
    Firstly, the author painstakingly stirs up the essence with a multitude of surnames and links to some unknown research. Secondly, the idea is insistently insisted that everything around is fools, but there are some who can do research ...
    Even the above examples give even rotten meat - the same test, what color is Barramba or who is there if he lives in Africa! And the aborigines correctly said that we must look! I live in Uzbekistan, but not an Uzbek - and such a simple thought occurred to seemingly dark people, but not enlightened researchers ...
    In general, the psychology of pseudoscience, as pseudoscience is still a lot of what seems to be sciences - and to believe that warming occurs only because of industry, is a sign of a limited mind and excessive credulity to paid research ...
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 21 November 2012 10: 47
      +2
      Well, about psychology you are in vain. But as for the examples, I completely agree.
      By the way, I notice more and more that some kind of informational chaos is beginning to creep around us. They carry complete nonsense, and nonsense mixed with facts, and the facts themselves distort ...
      In general, by all means, they try to cloud the mind and prevent people from using their brain for the purpose - to think, understand, reason reasonably, invent, etc.
      PS
      I did not like the article. Another nonsense far-fetched.
  8. soldat1945
    soldat1945 21 November 2012 10: 19
    +1
    I, on my everyday level, consider that for further development we need to change the concept of consciousness, for example, in the Middle Ages everything went from religious dogmas and all discoveries were when a new technocratic concept was formed, now we are dependent on technocracy, when we move on to a new concept, it will be a sharp jump in discoveries!
    1. 916-th
      916-th 21 November 2012 15: 40
      0
      Pavel, your thoughts echo the conclusions of Mikhail Khazin, one of the authors of the theory of the political and economic crisis. He generally believes that scientific and technological progress is a product of the capitalist stage of development of mankind and has exhausted itself along with capitalism. According to Khazin, a further breakthrough in knowledge is possible only with the transition to the next, post-capitalist stage of human development.
  9. Wedmak
    Wedmak 21 November 2012 10: 23
    0
    How can abstract tasks and research drive progress forward? They are interesting in terms of brain training, no more.
    At the heart of any breakthrough technology is their applicability in real life. Take, for example, the creation of an airplane: everyone knows that the idea was based on studying the flight of birds. However, no plane flies its wings like a bird - slightly different principles of movement were used. Although the fundamental foundation was the study of aerodynamics.
    So let the "prohvessor" continue to carry out his experiments, it is not clear to whom.
  10. rate
    rate 21 November 2012 10: 47
    +3
    What is supernatural? The world is all possible. Everything is possible, both superconductivity and uncertainty, a lot of things we have to learn. Whoever says this no, well, it means to him to live like that. Everything that man has created is “impossible and impossible” across.
  11. Middle-brother
    Middle-brother 21 November 2012 10: 57
    +1
    I liked the article. Interesting. But for myself I was once again convinced that psychology is pseudoscience
    1. skullcap
      skullcap 21 November 2012 19: 46
      0
      Well, I wouldn't say that.
      Recall the recent material about the Moldavian teacher.
      What high class do you need to be a psychologist so that Russian (Little Russia and Belarusians, as well as Pomorians with Siberians, I consider Russians) to convince Kravchenko that he is a Moldovan and bring up such a burning hatred for his native people?
      And he's not the only one. But even the natural Moldovans are the descendants of the Russian tribes of the streets and the Tiverts who lived earlier in this region.
      The same can be said about the Balts, which before the arrival of the Russian German barons hung like dogs on their estates, but, however, they, regardless of life experience, are again drawn to the west, and the Russians are also hated.
      I'm not talking about the Georgians, whom the Turks would have already been slaughtered as Armenians, if not for the Russians - and again inadequate ingratitude.
      With such art to manage human behavior - what kind of deep knowledge of psychology should one have? !!
      And you say - pseudoscience.
      (Although I have to admit that looking at all these Balts, Moldovans and Galicians, seditious thoughts began to visit me - can a slave soul really come to a number of peoples?)
  12. Andrey_K
    Andrey_K 21 November 2012 11: 51
    +2
    "Theory of relativity" and "Quantum mechanics" are pseudoscientific nonsense, for 100 years, at least, slowing down the further progress of physics.
    They attribute to these hoaxes many achievements of modern technology - but this is not true - all modern achievements were obtained experimentally not because of, but contrary to theory.
    Delirium and adjustment to the result - these are the realities of modern physics.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 21 November 2012 11: 54
      0
      Now they are engaged in more fundamental physics. Currently, no applied tasks are being done. In any case, breakthroughs.
      1. Andrey_K
        Andrey_K 21 November 2012 12: 09
        0
        Who is involved?
        What else is "fundamental physics"?
        Where are the applied tasks not done?
        Everywhere only applied tasks are being done - new processors from IBM based on new technological principles, new materials (metamaterials based on the good old classic 100 electromagnetism of a long time ago), robotics, etc.
        New computers and cars - is it "no applied tasks" in your opinion?
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 21 November 2012 12: 21
          0
          I meant something breakthrough. Let at the stage of test samples, but breakthrough. After all, this is the essence of the article?

          Everywhere only applied tasks are being done - new processors from IBM based on new technological principles, new materials (metamaterials based on the good old classic 100 electromagnetism of a long time ago), robotics, etc.
          New computers and cars - is it "no applied tasks" in your opinion?

          What are the new principles, what are you talking about? As lithography was, it remained. The process technology has only changed. Where are the biochips? In the laboratories ... Where are the engines on new principles? There or not at all. Materials? This is not a revolution, this is evolution.
          Bring something new, what did the prototype invent and build, what will change the world in the near future in the same way as the appearance of the computer?
          And fundamental physics is research: elementary particles, transuranic elements, optics, all sorts of theories ...
          1. Andrey_K
            Andrey_K 21 November 2012 12: 42
            +2
            Well, what new technologies can be if brains are clogged with pseudoscience?
            100 years ago physics followed the path of mysticism and idealism - and nothing new can be discovered on these principles - anything can be "explained".
            This is what all fundamental physics is doing now - it adjusts the theory to the result with zero practical output.
            A theory that can explain anything is incapable of predicting anything and therefore revealing.

            But new technologies are emerging - by typing.
            There is no need to find fault with metamaterials - this is a breakthrough discovery made contrary to official science, because from the point of view of quanta, the changed surface should not exhibit any special properties, and radio technology had its own niche, from which it should not protrude into optics.
            And suddenly a "miracle" - it turns out that visible light exhibits the same properties as radio waves - an "amazing discovery" that now threatens to give a new round of technology.
            And all is not thanks, but contrary to theorists.
            To move on, you need to go back a hundred years ago and start all over from this point.
            1. arkady149
              arkady149 21 November 2012 14: 02
              0
              Quote: Andrey_K
              And all is not thanks, but contrary to theorists.
              Dear Andrey K, You confuse theorists with academic officials-generals from science. IMHO.
              1. Andrey_K
                Andrey_K 21 November 2012 14: 32
                +1
                Of course, there are theoreticians-engineers studying sopromat, crystal physics, chemistry, etc. - These theorists really move science.
                But I'm talking about the abstruse theories of two-dimensional time and parallel worlds - TO and KM.
                These theories sit at the top, like the "king of the hill," and push any sanity off of it.
      2. arkady149
        arkady149 21 November 2012 12: 37
        +1
        Currently, no applied tasks are being done. Anyway breakthrough
        Until a "critical mass" of information is accumulated sufficient for a breakthrough or a genius that will find application for discoveries at the intersection of scientific fields. There are many of us, we want to survive as a species; a) we create a weapon that regulates our numbers; b) we modify nature and ourselves for harmonious coexistence. Both are impossible without fundamental research, although in the first we have clearly succeeded more.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 21 November 2012 17: 53
          0
          It is true that is what he meant.
    2. arkady149
      arkady149 21 November 2012 15: 45
      0
      Quote: Andrey_K
      Delirium and adjustment to the result - these are the realities of modern physics.

      Do you have a different method of cognition? Make humanity happy-share.
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 21 November 2012 17: 56
        0
        Well, actually there is. Experiments. Theoretical substantiation of the experiment. Testing the theory. Experiments. Confirmation or denial. Again theories. And so on until the theories find their application in the "hardware".
      2. Andrey_K
        Andrey_K 21 November 2012 19: 24
        0
        Greek philosophers came up with this method - logic - induction and deduction.
        In physics, 100 years ago, another principle was proclaimed: "For a theory to be correct, it must be insane."
        Hence the delirium about "wave = particle", etc. - common sense was sent to a landfill and mathematical tricks were put at the forefront.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 21 November 2012 21: 37
          0
          And this is because no one actually knows what light is ... moreover, we use a completely unknown force, we know how to receive it, how it works, how to transmit and store it - electricity. (The motion of electrons is not suggested, this is a theory.)
          1. Andrey_K
            Andrey_K 21 November 2012 21: 56
            0
            There is uncertainty and there is impossibility.
            A triangle cannot be a circle, a line cannot be a point, and a particle cannot be in two places at the same time.
            1. Rumata
              Rumata 22 November 2012 01: 49
              -1
              Quote: Andrey_K
              and the particle is simultaneously in two places.

              Smoke the manual, if you do not understand what is meant by "being in two points at the same time" in quantum physics, this does not mean that it is not correct, it is much more likely that you are a teapot in this matter ...
            2. Wedmak
              Wedmak 22 November 2012 10: 24
              0
              What two places are we talking about? I only remember that in the parameters of particle motion it is possible to determine with confidence only either the velocity or its location. But nothing at all both at the same time. (also, by the way, is rather strange)
              1. Andrey_K
                Andrey_K 22 November 2012 11: 56
                0
                Let me explain:
                The fact is that the assertion that the light is divided into photons and cannot have energy less than a quantum is refuted by a simple experiment: radiation, in the size of just one quantum, shines on a translucent plate and is divided in half - passing along two paths and converging into it interferes with a common point by itself, which could not have happened if the photon reflected from the plate either one way or the other.
                To explain this embarrassment, physicists have come up with a whole theory of "parallel worlds" - at every point where there is a choice for a photon - to fly to the right or to the left, it flies ... in both directions (bifurcates) and so it exists in such a bifurcated state, until any observer detects it, then instantly, one of the copies of the photon will disappear from its alternative reality, and only one photon will remain - the one that was caught.
                What is most curious is that the travel of copies of a photon through matter (refraction, reflection from inanimate obstacles, etc.) is not considered an observation, but only what the experimenter "assigns" to, for example, passing through a slit or something else. what will be consistent with experiment and its understanding of what can and cannot be considered observation.
                1. Rumata
                  Rumata 23 November 2012 02: 17
                  0
                  Quote: Andrey_K
                  having traveled along two paths and converging at a common point, it interferes with itself, which could not have happened if the photon reflected from the plate either one way or the other.

                  Maxwell's equations will help you, everything is mathematically proven both about defractions and about interference and about other "oddities" associated with a single photon.
                  1. Andrey_K
                    Andrey_K 24 November 2012 00: 30
                    0
                    The first time I hear that Maxwell's equations have something to do with photons.
                    Judging by this phrase of yours, you do not understand anything in either classical or quantum physics.
                    Why argue then?
                    The behavior of a single photon is described not at all by Maxwell's equations, but by the Schrödinger equation for the wave function.
        2. Rumata
          Rumata 22 November 2012 01: 45
          -1
          Quote: Andrey_K
          here and the nonsense about "wave = particle"

          The example is not successful, the particle is not wave and corpuscular at the same time, this is no one when it is not seriously stated. This was invented to explain some processes to people far from physics and the theory of relativity. It’s like a Schrödinger cat - it’s only necessary to explain something to those who are not in the subject using the example

          Corpuscular-wave duality - the principle according to which any object can exhibit both wave and particle properties. It was introduced in the development of quantum mechanics. to interpret the phenomena observed in the microworld from the point of view of classical conceptsй
          1. arkady149
            arkady149 22 November 2012 09: 52
            0
            Quote: Rumata
            It’s like a Schrödinger cat - it’s only necessary to explain something to those who are not in the subject using the example
            Or a spherical horse in a vacuum.
          2. Andrey_K
            Andrey_K 22 November 2012 12: 09
            0
            No, it was invented so as not to explain how an extended object can exhibit the properties of a point - the postulate and all things.
            For example, we take such a property of light as frequency - the presence of frequency means the periodic influence of a certain process on the sensor (on the oscillatory circuit) - if the spectrum band is narrow, it means that there were thousands of oscillations, if not millions.
            The distance between these oscillations is also very large - a few centimeters - for the diameter of an electron it is like the size of the solar system in comparison with the size of a person.
            And here it is claimed that this periodic process can suddenly transfer all its energy in a collision in a single way - like some kind of billiard ball!
            Like what?
            Impossible!
            There is one answer to all questions - "wave-particle dualism".
            You can even come up with an anecdote: "Please explain: how did you buy a house with your salary, at a cost of several million dollars?
            Answer: this is wave-particle dualism - my salary has both large and small properties.
            (I can't tell you the details) "
            1. Rumata
              Rumata 23 November 2012 02: 13
              0
              You are confused, dualism was created to explain certain things from the point of view of classical physics. When explaining such things as the bending of light or the "pressure" of photons in quantum physics, they use their own concepts that are not understandable to a person familiar only with classical physics, therefore dualism was invented as an approximate explanation of what actually happens, but with incorrect concepts ...
              From the point of view of quantum theory, objects are neither waves nor particles, just some of their properties are more suitable for a classical wave, some for a particle. It's like explaining what green is, using his concepts to a blind man because he doesn’t know the colors, so you’re trying to explain it to him roughly
  13. aleksey
    aleksey 21 November 2012 12: 06
    +2
    In general, scientists did acknowledge that for 100 years they have not advanced in the study of the Universe in principle, which is not surprising, because for 300 years a purely materialistic view of the world and of ourselves has prevailed in science.
    The point of view is surprising that if I don’t know something, then this does not exist .. the science does not allow the existence of the spiritual sphere, although it may be that knowledge that is intuitively felt by a person, is lacking there ..
    To acknowledge this, a person must conquer pride and acknowledge the existence of the Creator, otherwise all his attempts remind him of a "race after the shadow" - meaningless and useless.


    I’ll see - I believe, - said the Man.
    Believe it, you will see, ”said the Lord.

    The man has so far stopped at the first step.
    1. baltika-18
      baltika-18 21 November 2012 12: 44
      +1
      Quote: aleksey
      I’ll see - I believe, - said the Man.
      Believe it, you will see, ”said the Lord.

      Original. Plus.
  14. s1н7т
    s1н7т 21 November 2012 12: 20
    0
    "The successful combination of talent and good education still works wonders
    ______________
    Alas, there really is not a long time left, because we no longer have a good education ... sad
  15. Averias
    Averias 21 November 2012 13: 19
    +2
    All comments for this article are a clash of ardent and inveterate fundamentalists for whom E = mc2 is an unshakable fact, the basis of all foundations and alternative, flexible in thinking people. But if they were chatting live - in general, there would be battles :))
    1. Rumata
      Rumata 21 November 2012 13: 39
      +4
      Quote: Averias
      E = mc2 is an unshakable fact

      Raised on a holy hand, monster =)
  16. s.cot
    s.cot 21 November 2012 14: 14
    0
    I enjoyed reading both the article and the comments. wink More would be, but more often.
  17. George
    George 21 November 2012 14: 21
    +3
    It seems to me that our scientific elite just in their opinion has reached a peak and ossified in their titles. An academician sitting on his dogmas (and fiercely defending them from other people's encroachments) be warmer, more comfortable and more profitable than a seeker, inquisitive, receiving "bruises" and "bumps "to scientists.
    Scientist Bosch said that the engine can run on water. The result is sad. For bosh.
    The intention of the mighty of this world in the desire to control the "gray mass" is traced, but I think that our smartest people will break through this centuries-old veil of ignorance and false teachings.
    The truth is always one, but it is multifaceted.
    1. arkady149
      arkady149 21 November 2012 15: 53
      0
      Quote: GEORGE
      It seems to me that our scientific elite just in their opinion has reached a peak and ossified in their titles. An academician sitting on his dogmas (and fiercely defending them from other people's encroachments) be warmer, more comfortable and more profitable than a seeker, inquisitive, receiving "bruises" and "bumps "to scientists.
      But here physiology is already, after 35-40 years, the assimilation of new ideas, including their own, is significantly slowing down, critical reflection of the experience accumulated earlier comes to the fore and if it weren’t for us to maintain this quality it would be impossible, ergo, the matter is in balance.
    2. Wedmak
      Wedmak 21 November 2012 17: 59
      0
      Dogmas have never been a driver of progress. And the desire to be above all - it all came from the dark ages. When only they came down from the trees, otherwise there was no way to survive. It is necessary to tie up with this matter. And the faster we tie, the faster our starships will reach other stars. Or we can even do without them.
  18. I think so
    I think so 21 November 2012 15: 45
    0
    The stagnation in modern physics can be easily explained - the monopoly of the Jewish mafia on truth. Now science is more labor-intensive than ever, energy-intensive, material-intensive, etc. You need a lot of money to check something ... Only Jews have extra money, they pay all kinds of bonuses and voice the "leading" scientists. It is practically impossible for any other not from among them not only to achieve something, but even simply PUBLISH something new without risking falling into "schizophrenics", "pseudoscientists." In principle, it is impossible to get either an academic title or a prestigious place if your ideas run counter to those currently recognized, i.e. Jewish. Einstein is a Jew - it has long been no secret that his theory led physics to a complete dead end for as long as a century ... but NOBODY dares to say that the KING IS NAKED. Anyone will be pulverized. This is the reason for the "stagnation in science". The state of affairs is such that if the discovery was made by a non-Jew, then no one will ever know about it until the traces of the discovery are destroyed and a person of the "correct nationality" makes it again. Selya vie - a monopoly on money gives rise to a monopoly on everything else, including the science of discovery ... Gruston, but this is the reality of today's world ...
    1. Rumata
      Rumata 21 November 2012 16: 55
      -1
      Quote: I think so
      Asta in modern physics simply explains - the Jewish mafia's monopoly on truth

      And then the Jews are to blame =)))
  19. skullcap
    skullcap 21 November 2012 16: 26
    +1
    Article - undoubted +. Thanks to the author, who, like a bug in an anthill, stirred up our rather stagnant environment.
    The article is not only interesting, but also quite bold. What in this century of the liberal-democratic dictatorship is the recognition that "inequality of people is not a fascist invention". This is not a basis for discrimination and the exploitation of some people by others, but if we don’t want to deceive ourselves and others and build our lives out of realities, then we must admit it.
    Although, of course, to her a number of issues that have already been raised here. About the same people who “feel more comfortable in believing that, for example, global warming is not due to the release of industrial gases, but because Predictorus has suffered”.
    It was as if there were no warming on Earth before a person appeared, or everyone who is progressive seems to be indisputable to believe in “independent media,” diligently promoting the hypotheses of “independent scientists” in people’s brains, which are extremely beneficial for TNC philanthropists.
    The problem also raises questions: “Can humankind create a“ general theory of everything ”before ... encounters ... an obstacle to the limitations imposed by nature on our cognitive abilities”.
    Where does such confidence come from, that it is nature that imposes these restrictions on us, and not ourselves with our education and research systems or some societies that control knowledge like the Illuminati? (The topic of conspiracies has long caused allergies in a significant part of people, but the fact that knowledge is power and that their owners are trying to keep secret knowledge, I hope, no one will reject. Otherwise, all the intelligence services of the world would not hunt for scientific developments and rivals and allies - such as the atomic bomb, etc.).
    Well, with regard to the correctness of references to authorities, Einstein, apparently, must be left alone.
    Academician Shafarevich I.R. in the book “The Three Thousand-Year Enigma” reports that the priority in the development of the theory of relativity (TO), which the world media unconditionally ascribes to Einstein, belongs to other scientists.
    Namely: a special MOT was published by the great mathematician, physicist and philosopher Poincaré (I draw your attention on the basis of his earlier works) on 2 weeks before Einstein, and the derivation of the basic equation of the general MOT was published by Einstein without his mathematical inference, which at the same time carried out the largest mathematician of the time - Hilbert. With the latter, Einstein corresponded. There are no references to the works of Gilbert in Einstein, but his later letter to Gilbert of a “conciliatory” character was preserved.
    At the same time, I.R. Shafarevich specifically clarifies that of all the existing versions of the relationships of these scientists, he cites the most favorable for Einstein.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 21 November 2012 18: 02
      0
      There is an inequality of people, only it is not what they understand it - there are no higher and lower, there are different ones. You do not need to see this as a flaw, you need to turn it to good.
      1. skullcap
        skullcap 21 November 2012 19: 14
        0
        Thank. You correctly formulated my thought, which I expressed insufficiently clearly ..
  20. 916-th
    916-th 21 November 2012 18: 02
    +1
    One of the modern barriers to cognition is the complication of systems - both objects of cognition and, accordingly, the means and methods used. The more complex the objects, the less reliable the funds raised. This is clearly seen in the example of the development of astronautics. How much more complicated are the space rocket systems for flights to the moon and to other planets than the first royal "seven"! Modern systems are so complex that they contain thousands and thousands of nodes and subsystems operating in a complex. Failure of one element leads to failure of the entire system as a whole. While the situation is saved by multiple redundancy, it is impossible to duplicate functions indefinitely!

    Mankind is looking for a way out of the deadlock of managing complex technical systems in the priority development of information technologies. In the triune object of cognition “matter-energy-information” now the emphasis is on the information component. And here the progress is obvious. Perhaps along this path it will be possible to solve the problem of the complexity and reliability of technical cognition systems.

    More fundamental, in my opinion, the obstacles to further cognition are the disharmony between the material and spiritual development of man. Unfortunately, material needs in the modern world of consumption and market relations completely crushed the spiritual component. There is a suspicion that the Creator simply will not let us go further along the path of knowledge until we develop a spiritual beginning in ourselves. And in a market economy, this is simply impossible.

    As for Russia and its science, they, unfortunately, de facto found themselves in the wake of the global trend, leading to a dead end. Although socialism provided an excellent platform for spiritual development!
  21. taseka
    taseka 21 November 2012 19: 13
    0
    "Grigory Perelman was found on the Poincaré hypothesis, which remained unproven for more than 100 years." - It's scary that there can be a complete idiot, a drop of the virus in the ocean and that's it! Will you- " Vollmer's speculation: belief in the supernatural and associated anti-scientism "
  22. wax
    wax 21 November 2012 21: 46
    0
    The author, it seems, has not studied either formal or dialectical (Hegelian) logic, otherwise he would not have cited trivial examples from the foundations of formal logic to illustrate the limitations of the human brain (I would also like to cite a couple of jokes from blondes). Science builds on previous discoveries and advances. To move on, you need an appropriate education, so as not to reopen the "wheel". Perhaps there is now some kind of educational crisis. The second necessary component is the number of scientists themselves, so that the entire line of achievements can be covered. 2rd component - financing. That is why breakthroughs occur in such a way that the necessary concentration of funds and scientists is achieved. The author of the article did not indicate the highest scientific achievement of recent decades - the decoding of the human genome. Astrophysics is developing rapidly. What we can agree with is that the time when purely speculatively it was possible to come across a non-trivial scientific "insight" is a thing of the past. The time of the "encyclopedists" is also a thing of the past.
  23. mamba
    mamba 21 November 2012 22: 10
    0
    the color that our eyes see, and the infrared radiation that our skin feels like heat, are actually close portions of the same electromagnetic spectrum.
    By the way, although our eye does not see the near infrared radiation, but with sufficient power it is perceived as red. For example, if we observe the radiation of a crystal of a semiconductor laser operating at a wavelength of 0,85 μm, then, taking into account the first harmonic, we will see a beautiful crimson glow.
  24. Kite
    Kite 21 November 2012 22: 35
    +1
    Solid cons article. And for examples with the brain and for pessimism, while waiting for breakthroughs in theory, and examples with formal logic caused a smile.
    If from the point of view of biology, then there is not a single animal on the planet with such a disproportionately developed brain, the development in most cases is limited to hunting and breeding breeds. Somehow, the little forces of science are aimed at this task.
    The multidimensionality of space and parallel cosmos in theories required? But then the conclusion about the imaginability of our world, an infinitesimal size-shadow of the true value, will automatically follow. Again we come across a puzzle with our brain (what is it really like?)
    Are polls on formal logic compiled for those who are under pressure? They try to say "smart things" when answering, and therefore there is no correct irony in such a situation.
  25. 123dv
    123dv 22 November 2012 00: 21
    0
    And you try these very disappointed physicists and others to say well, at least something, except for the postulates they have learned, and you will see a reaction ......
    She, their reaction, you will not like ....
  26. Black
    Black 22 November 2012 00: 29
    0
    Stupid article. Agnostics breshet- and the caravan is coming!
  27. StolzSS
    StolzSS 22 November 2012 03: 21
    0
    And that, in principle, correctly says. In general, wait and see.