Quantum Physics for Upholsterers
Should you choose to investigate you are in a better position than to not question at all. By investigating you are more liable to find an answer, even if it is a wrong answer it still is an answer. By generating alternative answers you are in a better position because you can rule out one option by comparing options. You may need to rule out both options when you generate more alternative answers, this is the process. Options which could lead to many options to choose from. Following this process, eventually, you will remove all the wrong conclusions and only be left with one conclusion.
As is with Einstein’s ‘Theory of Everything’, there seems to be only one possible right conclusion based on everything we know in science at this very time in human history, i.e., there is no one right conclusion. The truth will be self-evident within a given set of circumstances.
Albert Einstein, when asked about the open-air detonation of nuclear weapons testing is reputed to have said, “We only use 10% of our brains.” If you can draw the same conclusion from this little experiment you might see why:
If you use 10% of your brain then that is 100% of its capacity.
A glass ten times bigger than the first.
A jug of water.
Fill the small glass with water, the water is equivalent to your brain. The small glass is there representing 100% of the potential of that glass.
Pour the water into the larger glass. The water is still equivalent to your brain (100% of the first glass). The capacity of the glass is 90% larger but the amount of water is the same, as is the initial metaphor for the size of the brain.
Were you to repeat the experiment with larger or smaller glasses, using the same ratio glasses, you will find the relationship stays the same. The glasses capacity may change but the quantities of water (brain) will remain the same.
While, for whatever reason, people might start off with differing capacities of potential. The 10% or 100% or percentages thereof the brain only applies to the relative size of the vessel it is kept in.
The proof is, were you to have a vessel that has a capacity of 1 litre and one vessel that has a capacity of 1,000 litres. Would you conclude, that under these parameters, by filling the 1-litre vessel and then pouring the water into the 1,000-litre vessel that we only can use 1% of the water, our brain? Regardless of the size of your vessel if you have 1 litre of water then that is 100% of your water. Reduce or increase the amount of water, it still is 100%. Our collective brains.
I personally feel that when Albert Einstein said, “we only use 10% of our brains” it was in light of his dismay that people could be so reckless in regards to the open-air detonation of nuclear weapons testing.
On some levels, people like to check up the quality of information based on the producer’s credentials and personal perspective on life. Based on this assumption I personally think that when Albert said, “We only use 10% of our brains.” He has no credibility what so ever!
Albert was a physicist. Completely irrational when it comes to business and delusional when a person of his standing, often said to be the most intelligent person that ever lived, starts to make bold statements on neuroscience, a field he is not known for. Supporting this, I don’t think he has ever written or presented any other information on neuroscience.
As a business person, had he design registered E=MC2 he could have stood to make millions, if not billions, by the so often reproduced image of his equation E=MC2. Just think of the royalties gained by its common use in merchandising: T-shirts, bumper stickers, E=MC2 magazines with candid pictures of Albert in a swimsuit and up to date information on fashion and accessories for the science world, royalties every time it was printed for commercial use, Albert Einstein dolls for kids and quirky collectors, science football cards, dividends from lawsuits against individuals and companies because of its use without proper authority. So many endless revenue streams for the possible period of the design register. It is mind-boggling!
Still, he has freedom of choice and chose to work as a university lecturer, with pay rates akin to university lecturer’s, teaching first-year science students physics. How smart could he be, completely irrational when it comes to money.
Albert’s other main achievement was the “Theory of Relativity”. For obvious reasons, based on the last three paragraphs, he has no idea about this as well!
All metric measurements are based on a piece of metal, in France, kept in a basement under strict temperature control, possibly humidity too (I don’t know, I’m an upholsterer and Australian so I can’t be bothered googling it).
Assuming humidity has got something to do with it, temperature and humidity will affect the length of this meter, even if it is only at the subatomic particle level. This doesn’t matter much as because this is the one and only true as well as exact meter, it can only be relative to itself. Every other meter can only be an approximation of this meter. For most of the purposes of this measurement in which it is commonly used it doesn’t make much difference in everyday life. This is providing you make this totally unavoidable consequence within tolerances suitable for use, i.e., fitness for purpose.
In the case of upholstery, tolerances make a difference but most of the measurements are not small tolerances. Most measurements are of little consequence to the overall grand scheme of things in the history of the world or subatomic particle theory.
In the case of constructing a building, tolerance can be a bit more critical. Just as important if your life depends on it, or your livelihood. Burj Khalifa – 828 arbitrary meters, 163 floors (Dubai). This the tallest building in the world this week. Tolerances for this project are a little bit more critical if you consider the aftermath of the World Trade Centre disasters in New York, 9/11.
Unlike upholstery, changing the decor or your office or home, 9/11 had massive ramifications. This was not only for the people of New York but the subsequent war and destabilisation of the Middle East. Not to mention the global fear of terrorists and terrorism.
Arguably, the designers could have built the World Trade Centres out of carbon fibre. Considering the total cost of 9/11 and its collective toll on the world, at a guess it would have been cheaper. With careful design and more stringent tolerances, needed for the use of carbon fibre, the buildings could have been designed to bounce the offending planes off. The only reason I can think of why they didn’t do this in the first place, is because next to nobody expected 9/11. Like Goliath, not expecting the relative power of David’s slingshot.
From the point of view of meters, tolerance and fitness for purpose, business is leading the way in the form of electronics. A recent furniture company I was doing some important work for, assembling components on a production line and sweeping the floor, there was an electronic device embedded in a chair which I had never seen before. The device was a fridge, a fridge designed to be small enough to house a stubby of beer, Okay.
As you may know from experience, contemporary business and design can accurately determine when your device breaks. In regards to electronics, they can accurately determine when your device breaks by designing parts, that within certain tolerances, will break exactly on cue, designed obsolescence. The tolerances may be a bit more exacting than a building made of carbon fibre but the principle is the same. A measurement based on a piece of metal in France.
What can you do?
I propose we form a posy and storm the basement in France and exchange the piece of metal for a bigger one. The Francs, the scientific community, industry and the world, as well as confused school children, will never know what hit them. Buffoons!
It will certainly work well for Australia and we could roll it out to the rest of the world. Design registering the new meter and charging exorbitant fees for every measurement ever made. Genius! If Albert Einstein is so intelligent, why didn’t he think of that?
The Cern Synchrotron in Switzerland, I suggest you research it yourself because if you base your knowledge on subatomic particle theory from an upholsterer’s point of view then there is something wrong with you. I do know this much, it is the largest and most expensive machine ever made.
Tolerances based on fitness for purpose and to the precision and accuracy of the projects humanly possible parameters are critical. I’m imagining safety might be a factor, maybe.
I wonder what would happen if a subatomic particle travelling at near the speed of light got loose? I’ve got no idea, the particle being so small I can’t imagine it would do much. I suppose I could go around the corner, to the one down the street near my house, and ask. I probably won’t get past the security but I’m sure security would know something about the particle accelerator’s safety procedures under the health and safety act. Security must have a disaster plan manual for such an event, it probably just says assemble in the car park and a map of where the fire extinguishers are.
I imagine Cern has a similar plan. Given the much-coveted qualities of a Swiss watch, staff will probably arrive at the car park at the same time, give or take a few nanoseconds. Given the much larger size of the Cern synchrotron, they probably have more fire extinguishers and a bigger car park.
It is obvious to me, and no doubt to you now, Albert Einstein is a complete fool, verging on idiot. I really ask you why isn’t an upholsterer federal minister for science in Australia? Tony Abbott was the federal minister for women, how could an upholsterer not be qualified enough to be the federal minister for science. I have no problem with this logic, I’ve covered the issues and now I’m going to make it your issue.
What of that other loathsome schlepper that probably can’t even wipe his bum, Stephen W. Hawkin. Same stock as good old Albert. Scientists, what would they know about science. In my mind, they all should have become upholsterers. At least I don’t have many significant issues with personal hygiene, nothing more needs to be said.
When it was stated previously;
“On some levels, people like to check up the quality of information based on the producer’s credentials and personal perspective on life. Based on this assumption I personally think that when Albert said, “We only use 10% of our brains.” He has no credibility what so ever!”
This is only true, an inevitability of science, depending on the weight you give it. Because if you change one single or many of the parameters of the study you will thus be affecting the entire result. From what I know of quantum physics this can be measured in an empirical way.
The proof is if you study Stephen W. Hawkin’s underpants to establish the quality of the research presented in his book “A Brief History of Time.” This is saying something more about your own abilities of logic and reason than it is about the quality of Stephen W. Hawkin’s research.
If you are still in doubt about Stephen W, Hawkin. It would be quicker to recreate the experiment and find out for yourself than it would be to psychoanalyse Stephen W. Hawking.
You, in an empirical sense under this assumption, would then need to psychoanalyse yourself and then get a second and third opinion about your own ability to reason. You would need to do it with suitably qualified psychiatrists. These psychiatrists would need to see subsequent suitably qualified psychiatrists to help them confirm and support all their own abilities to reason. It doesn’t stop.
That is not to say psychoanalysis has no merit but as yet it falls under the banner of the theory of relativity. It doesn’t take into account what we now know from quantum physics in an empirical sense, based on a piece of metal in France. An important piece of metal.
While Albert Einstein ran out of time developing the theory of everything his work was not lost. The science communities collective minds are greater than Albert Einstein’s alone in the establishment of the reality to the one theory of everything at the moment. To put it simply, there is no one theory of everything, some theories are more timely and more feasible. Subsequent theories can only be based on what we currently know, even an upholsterer can see that.
Having said that, I now need to go and break some furniture in order to establish whether the law of entropy applies to 4,500-year-old antiques from Egypt. If you are at all concerned about ethics then think about the following. The world needs to know what happens to 4,500-year-old antiques from Egypt, in relation to entropy, in case we find some more. If you’re worried about the efficacy then don’t worry, I’m an upholsterer, what could possibly go wrong. Under the federal occupational health and safety regulations, I’m guessing I’ll need a car park and some fire extinguishers. Hey, it pays the bills and you’ve got to make a living somehow.
When Albert Einstein was asked, in a press interview, his thoughts on the open-air detonation of nuclear weapons testing …the answer says more about the press, government and military than it does about science. Of the multitude of people that blindly repeat the fraise “10% of our…” with no investigation, of which I have happened to be one, stop it!
From this perspective, Albert Einstein could be accused of having a sense of humour, perhaps irony in light of a dark situation, a sense of humour non the less. Whatever it is, he shed a lot of light on the world.
As for Stephen W. Hawkin, I’m not finished with him…