Theoretics
I am a scientist. I respect the scientific method. The first two steps of this method are to observe and then to postulate a theory that would explain your observations. I may be young, but I have noticed the goings on of the world, and I feel it necessary to present my theories on these subjects.
I see many things around me happening that cannot be adequately explained by science. Many would claim that this is because they are out of the reach of science. I do not believe this to always be the case. There are four main branches of science: biology, chemistry, humanology, and physics. Among these disciplines many sub-disciplines arise. Psychology and sociology fall under humanology, bio-physics spans three and perhaps humanology as well, and astronomy falls under physics. As long as there has been writing these three subjects have been studied. Within the last three hundred years most of them were created. Who is to say that the current disciplines are the only disciplines that exist? Someone who said that five-hundred years ago would have been stating that psychology, sociology, anthropology, E&M, String Theory, and Relativity are all not science. While the first three and string theory could be argued to be too imprecise and untested to be called true science yet, there is no denying that many branches of science that are now integral were discovered very recently. However, the main four branches have always been around.
What then will the future bring? What new branches of science will emerge?
I believe that one of the most exiting will be that of Empathy. Take the tsunami in the Indian Ocean of early 2005. The animals took shelter before the tsunami was detected by current scientific equipment. Twins seperated can still feel the other's emotions at times. How can we harness this power? Genetically engineer rats to serve as faster-than-light communications? Have early catastrophy warning systems in every city? Silent communications for special ops? This new branch will fall under either biology or humanology, and perhaps both. The implications of this field would be immense, perhaps larger than electricity. Imagine having an empathic revolution, rivalling the Industrial Revolution. It may not spew as much coal dust into the air, also.
There are more than three dimentions. We can concieve of ours, the second, and if we try really hard, the first. The fourth we can only conceive of theoretically, thinking of examples from our three dimentions. (Consequentially, the fourth is like a row of slides. each slide is a three dimentional universe as it existed at that point in time, and the slides are arranged in chronological order so that if you ever viewed the fourth dimention from afar, you could look at the evolution of the universe from singularity to its destruction.) We may never be able to conceive of the higher dimentions in a tangible way because our brains just aren't built to take it. Just because we can't conceive of something doesn't mean that we can't model it mathematically, though. Take QED: the main physicist who made the greatest leaps in the field once said, "If anyone tells you they understand QED, they are lying. I don't even understand it." Yet we have formulae from QED that accurately predict how subatomic particles will behave. I think the same can happen with the higher dimentions. Perhaps the base number needs to change in our math, and perhaps it will come to no direct value (i.e. time travel, wormholes, foldspace, bags of holding), but some benefit will come out of it I am sure.
I see many things around me happening that cannot be adequately explained by science. Many would claim that this is because they are out of the reach of science. I do not believe this to always be the case. There are four main branches of science: biology, chemistry, humanology, and physics. Among these disciplines many sub-disciplines arise. Psychology and sociology fall under humanology, bio-physics spans three and perhaps humanology as well, and astronomy falls under physics. As long as there has been writing these three subjects have been studied. Within the last three hundred years most of them were created. Who is to say that the current disciplines are the only disciplines that exist? Someone who said that five-hundred years ago would have been stating that psychology, sociology, anthropology, E&M, String Theory, and Relativity are all not science. While the first three and string theory could be argued to be too imprecise and untested to be called true science yet, there is no denying that many branches of science that are now integral were discovered very recently. However, the main four branches have always been around.
What then will the future bring? What new branches of science will emerge?
I believe that one of the most exiting will be that of Empathy. Take the tsunami in the Indian Ocean of early 2005. The animals took shelter before the tsunami was detected by current scientific equipment. Twins seperated can still feel the other's emotions at times. How can we harness this power? Genetically engineer rats to serve as faster-than-light communications? Have early catastrophy warning systems in every city? Silent communications for special ops? This new branch will fall under either biology or humanology, and perhaps both. The implications of this field would be immense, perhaps larger than electricity. Imagine having an empathic revolution, rivalling the Industrial Revolution. It may not spew as much coal dust into the air, also.
There are more than three dimentions. We can concieve of ours, the second, and if we try really hard, the first. The fourth we can only conceive of theoretically, thinking of examples from our three dimentions. (Consequentially, the fourth is like a row of slides. each slide is a three dimentional universe as it existed at that point in time, and the slides are arranged in chronological order so that if you ever viewed the fourth dimention from afar, you could look at the evolution of the universe from singularity to its destruction.) We may never be able to conceive of the higher dimentions in a tangible way because our brains just aren't built to take it. Just because we can't conceive of something doesn't mean that we can't model it mathematically, though. Take QED: the main physicist who made the greatest leaps in the field once said, "If anyone tells you they understand QED, they are lying. I don't even understand it." Yet we have formulae from QED that accurately predict how subatomic particles will behave. I think the same can happen with the higher dimentions. Perhaps the base number needs to change in our math, and perhaps it will come to no direct value (i.e. time travel, wormholes, foldspace, bags of holding), but some benefit will come out of it I am sure.
posted by Duncan Ohio at 9:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home