Why not Discard Special Relativity?
This second post in my series on the superluminality observed (or suspected) at CERN looks at why we cannot accept it.
Physics was my first love. This category contains the posts closest to my heart. Twenty years from now, if this blog survives, this category will probably hold my most enduring insights. And two hundred years from now, if I am remembered at all, it will be for these insights; not for the kind of person I am, the money I make, nor anything else. Only for my first and last love…
This second post in my series on the superluminality observed (or suspected) at CERN looks at why we cannot accept it.
When they discovered particles going faster than light at CERN, they didn’t want to believe themselves. They were practically begging the rest of the community to find a mistake in this discovery. Why would they do that? This post and its follow ups will try to shed some light on this strange lack of faith.
This post is an expanded version of a Web interview regarding my blog. It attempts to answer the question why I blog. And why one should take philosophy seriously. Seriously!
About a fifty-year old Parker pen that held an important lesson for me. A lesson in how to be a good father. What it takes is infinite patience.
I recently made my first book available on Amazon. I thought I would post this article, which is a good summary of the book. This article was published in a magazine in Singapore.
Some beliefs are superstitions, while some others are scientific theories. What exactly is the difference between them? Let’s listen to what Pirsig has to say about it.
Here is an unreal look at the what and why of time. Why do we have a sense of time when none of our five senses can sense it?
When philosophers look at anything, it becomes a bit technical. Their technical analysis may sound boring and irrelevant. Here is an attempt to tilt things in their favor.
What do we mean by rationality? Why do we think it is a good thing to be rational?
Blind-sight is an interesting neurological syndrome, and a philosophical conundrum. It shows how we may have senses that we are not consciously aware of. If there are senses that we can be unaware of, how sure can we be of the “sensed”? Or of our “delusions”?
Here is a concept of God that doesn’t violate the known principles of science, and should therefore be consistent with the so-called scientific worldview. Mind you, plausibility of the concept says nothing about its veracity; but it may say something about it being a delusion.
Mathematical finance is built on a couple of assumptions. The most fundamental of them is the one on market efficiency. Is it wise to trust this assumption? Are there limits to it? Are we operating at the right scale to ignore the shakiness of the market efficiency assumption?