Thanks Richard. I claim nothing more than ignorance in the field of physics. I was using macro/micro loosely in my own patois as it were. I gather the recent CERN activity was trying to learn about the big bang (macro) by messing with subatomic particles (micro).
So I was trying to save time and words. Always happy to have a scientist in our company.
Richard Seddon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Quantum Physics does not currently tell us anything about any "interconnection" of the macro with the micro. That is the problem of unified theory that has stumped people since Einstein. Quantum Gravity may provide the connection but it is still being formalized and may never get there. String theory is another candidate but it so far is not accepted as good science because it does not provide questions to test it.
>I think Eliot got his "light" ideas from the same Neoplatonic sources that Pound did.
>From: T. S. Eliot Discussion forum. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of P
>Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 1:48 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: TS Eliot: "Light / Light"
>Could you not get anything from the Eliot texts to which CR is pointing? CR has very kindly highlighted texts in Eliot which relate to light and a poetic rendering of E's intuitions about light. There is a parallel, or perhaps better an analogy between those intuitions and what quantum physics is telling us about the connections between the macro and micro dimensions of the universe. If that is meaningless to you then I am sorry for the paucity of your understanding. I prefer to think that you are just posturing.
>Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>After forty-odd years of teaching, I find myself tending to agree with
>>Eliot. Still, I can't help wondering what his response to the deduction
>>of the big bang would have been. P.
>>With what are you agreeing. I couldn't extract a proposition from CR's