Comprehending the Universe Would Be Nice, But It Could Be Impossible–Or Of No Real Value

Comprehending the Universe Would Be Nice, But It Could Impossible--Or Of No Real Value As we learned in the early 20th Century, depending on the circumstance, light can behave either as a particle or a wave. Want to see the wave nature of light?  Set up a double slit experiment (see photo on left) and notice that particles would not produce these interference patterns.  Want to see  light behave as a particle?  Consider solar PV, and notice that particles of a certain energy can dislodge electrons in the semiconductor substrate materials. 

So, what should we make of this duality?  Is light really two different things?  Possibly, but it seems far more likely that light is actually one consistent phenomenon and that the apparent disconnect results from the inability of the human mind to comprehend it.

Now, to a number of people, this is an unacceptable answer.  Science needs only to progress to a point that it uncovers a new paradigm by which we understand light, they might say.

OK, but explain how the human mind is supposed to wrap itself around string theory–that suggests that there are 11 dimensions in the reality of the basic nature of building blocks of the universe, when our minds are limited to perception of three spatial dimensions plus one dimension of time. Comprehending the Universe Would Be Nice, But It Could Impossible--Or Of No Real Value

You and I are here because we evolved over billions of years of life on this planet, and over the last 100,000 as Homo sapiens.  15,000 years ago we were hunter gatherers, using our brains to build primitive tools and kill game, and now we’re supposed to be able to intuit the essence of particle physics and human consciousness? What makes us believe this is possible?

I for one will not be frustrated to learn that human evolution has put us in a box where we have no access to the knowledge of things like these.

As if we needed another hurdle to cross, let’s not forget about language. As Ludwig Wittgenstein, the granddaddy of all linguistic philosophers reminded us: “The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.”  We certainly don’t have a word that combines the notion of waves and particles; maybe that’s part of the problem.

Of course, one could argue that all this is moot anyway, given that humankind clearly has bigger fish to fry when it comes to preserving itself as a species on this planet.  If we can’t address climate change, ocean acidification, loss of biodiversity, and the other aspects of environmental degradation, we’re going be out of here very soon anyway; comprehending the wonders of the universe will not do us a damn bit of good.  Further, if our civilization stays on track with where it seems to be headed with fascism and the sociopathic fanaticism of our leaders in the context of nuclear weapons, we could be faced with a life that’s not worth living. Intuiting time and space in 11 dimensions will be the least of our worries.

 

Tagged with: , , ,
One comment on “Comprehending the Universe Would Be Nice, But It Could Be Impossible–Or Of No Real Value
  1. Breath on the Wind says:

    A very interesting post. Also I was recently pondering the fact that being in the world and part of it may limit our perspective about the world.

    It is the lack of certainty about the world and things like this duality of light that allows me to give a little wiggle room for things like the EM drive.