Common words and physics terms
So now scientists, specifically physicists, are closing in on entering a parallel universe. Whatever that means, I am still working on the difference between the physics terms, mass and weight. I gave up on the difference between Uranium 235 and 238 in high school. I’ve never looked back.
Then I got to thinking about this parallel universe thing.
What does parallel mean? I know what it means when we are talking about geometry: “Two equidistant lines” or lines that never meet.
Does it mean that there is another universe that replicates the one that we are aware of, the one in which Earth and its inhabitants are a part?
Are these universes floating out there, wherever “there” is, equidistant from each other, never destined to meet?
This is the main reason why physics confounds me. It gives incomprehensible definitions to common words.
If parallel is obtuse, take the word charm. I know what charm means or so I thought.
In my patois, charm is a personality trait or a piece of jewelry. Then I read that atomic particles have charm. What? Why was I ever even reading anything about physics? Why don’t they stick with their own jargon?
To wit, remembering what protons or neutrons are is not hard. These words are owned by the science. But what the heck is String theory? String? I have a ball of it in my utility drawer.
This universe thing is persistent though. I’ve read about it online, in the newspaper and watched a news reader look intelligent as he reported the almost breakthrough.
So, I have some questions.
Which universe was here first or did both occur at the same time?
Is this parallel universe a duplicate of us or are we a duplicate of “them?” Am I in that parallel universe?
Am I thinner in the other universe? Does my lawn need mowing in that universe too?
In many ways it’s like being told that there are facts and then there are alternate facts.
Is there a presidential election in 2020 in that universe?
And what qualities do the inhabitants of class C planets in this parallel place, three planets from a sun, require for those who are aspiring to be elected leaders? Morality, honesty, consistency, intelligence, stability, statesmanship?
Or in this parallel universe, do politicians exhibit personal weaknesses, dissembling, influence peddling, nepotism, personal aggrandizement, parochialism, etc.?
How do they value family, children, compassion?
Looking at the comparison, one wonders which universe we are in.
While I may take a rather casual look at physics, revealing my own inadequacies, I am certain that the science is valuable. Questioning the validity of physics, chemistry, biology, ecology, etc. is the work of peer scientists and not people who know little or nothing about the science. Believe me there are no shy violets among the varying scientific communities.
It’s worrisome to me that valid and reliable research, that proven scientific strategies are being assaulted by individuals and groups on the basis of “feelings.” bogus research or some vague idea that the “common man (woman)” knows more. Kind of like asking your plumber diagnose a rash.
Do you believe that you get cancer from wind turbines? That vaccines cause autism? That climate change is a fiction being spread by China?
It’s worrisome that the science around climate change has been politicized. Ask yourself who profits from stopping research or its dissemination when we will all be faced with the very real effects of climate change very quickly?
There is a term, “luddite,” derived from a movement in early 19th century Great Britain when workers destroyed new machinery that they thought was taking jobs away from them.
I fear there are luddites afoot now whose fears may or may not have anything to do with job economics, more to do with fear of change in general, fear of conspiracies by large corporations, fear of manipulation, fear that technology will leave them behind…some fears having at least a basis in fact, but not the facts that are based on good science, on research without a sponsorship that preordains the results.
The question here is, who thinks they will lose out? Who benefits when we cling to limited supplies of fossil fuels and decry the development of sustainable nonpolluting energy sources?
So, if there is or are parallel universe(s), one wonders if each is the same or does each represent an alternative course of action? If we could poke through, could we see what happens when we ignore science?
Of course there is another physics term that may apply to this discussion, “strangeness”…but then I think I am confusing common words with the physics term.
