Another thread caused me a divergent thought, so I just thought I'd see what the reactions are to it.
Until today I was largely interested in the historical aspects of the scientific search to explain gravity. What really intrigued me was that the "force at a distance" idea has bothered scientists for millenia. DeCartes didn't like it. Newton didn't like it (and was concerned he would be accused of promoting witchcraft because of some of the ideas he proposed). Einstein didn't like it. The list goes on.
My own opinion actually followed Newton's. Paraphrasing, it went like: OK, this probably isn't a description of reality, but the equation sure works awfully darned well, so I'll use it until something better comes along. My opinion was much the same about Einstein's curved space. Nice try, but it's still just an equation. How can something empty (space) curve?
Then (in this forum) I learned about quantum foam. OK. So space isn't really empty. It's full of a primordial (ethereal) soup that can curve. Now that I understand that, it makes for a very elegant solution to it all.
But now I've got a few new concepts: non-localization and quantum entanglement. So even though modern physics has better models than in the past, it still hasn't dealt with the issue of "force at a distance."
And here's the point. I've always just shrugged and thought, "Yeah, so the model isn't perfect. Big surprise." What had never occurred to me was the possibility that "force at a distance" may be the scientific observation that is pointing us to the existence of the nonmaterial. Cool.
Until today I was largely interested in the historical aspects of the scientific search to explain gravity. What really intrigued me was that the "force at a distance" idea has bothered scientists for millenia. DeCartes didn't like it. Newton didn't like it (and was concerned he would be accused of promoting witchcraft because of some of the ideas he proposed). Einstein didn't like it. The list goes on.
My own opinion actually followed Newton's. Paraphrasing, it went like: OK, this probably isn't a description of reality, but the equation sure works awfully darned well, so I'll use it until something better comes along. My opinion was much the same about Einstein's curved space. Nice try, but it's still just an equation. How can something empty (space) curve?
Then (in this forum) I learned about quantum foam. OK. So space isn't really empty. It's full of a primordial (ethereal) soup that can curve. Now that I understand that, it makes for a very elegant solution to it all.
But now I've got a few new concepts: non-localization and quantum entanglement. So even though modern physics has better models than in the past, it still hasn't dealt with the issue of "force at a distance."
And here's the point. I've always just shrugged and thought, "Yeah, so the model isn't perfect. Big surprise." What had never occurred to me was the possibility that "force at a distance" may be the scientific observation that is pointing us to the existence of the nonmaterial. Cool.
