What I find most interesting about super collider experiments is the ability to predict the types of outcomes expected. The hole idea is to have some standardized means of detection that actually may preclude having any unexpected detectable events. It seems strange that with an array of macro level detectors that sub-sub-sub particles are going to be detected and not just pass though , between or beyond detection? To the extent that the results are predictable might really be more important than exactly what might be deduced as happening. The actual results are in a sort of black box from which a lot of inferences are required to try to understand what ever happens inside that box. Predictability is a sure sign that probability is acting as a sequencer of events. Meanwhile I am wondering why we don't grow crystals guided by some computer medium. I am thinking of a 3-D equivalent of a flat screen tv matrix. Crystals develop their characteristic geometric faces because they are in a medium for growth and not outside of some medium. It is important when looking at a quartz crystal to realize it did not assume it's characteristics out in some vacuum. Those perfect looking geometric facets of crystals form at an interface with the medium. I was looking for probabilities when it comes to quartz crystal growth because those crystals tend to grow in the company of many others exactly like the rest with plenty of variation deviations. I still can not find any mathematic formula to generate crystals as a computer simulation.
No comments:
Post a Comment