A small taste

I am currently reading a supervision book that actually delves into the idea of quantum physics. There are two main areas of physics: Newtonian and quantum physics (yes dad, I tried to use a colon instead of a comma, but I miss the comma, and don't think I used the colon correctly). Newtonian is the traditional physics that most people learn in high school or in lower level college courses. It works, most of the time, and is much easier to understand.

Quantum physisc is that branch of physics that most people have tasted with a "that's wierd" after taste. It is the area that brought us fun words like anti-neutrino, quark, and string theory. No, this last one has nothing to do with cheese. It brings us cool things like when time is no longer a constant, and you thought time just seemed to drag when you are working.

Newtonian physics assumes that each atom acts as an individual unit, it can be affected only in certain ways, and at certain times by other atoms. Quantum physics assumes that all atoms are on one energy plane. When this assumption is made no changes in this plane can be made without changing all of the atoms. It is ironic that the area that has a name base on the idea that anything can be broken down into a basic unit (quanta) is the one that has everything relating.

Now stick with me it is late, and I am tired, but I swear there will be a point somehwere in this rambling.

Social sciences stress the importance of a person being an individual. Teachers must teach to the individual student, individual rights, great artists and writers are always thought of as strong individuals. Heck, they even have individual pizzas, so people can get what they want without having to agree with anyone they are with.

Descartes' "cogito, ergo sum" I think therefore I exist, has an innate autonomy to it (I hope I used that word right). If a person admits to being part of the whole, some would say they give there very individuality (is that even a word?).

Let us review:
Modern theoretical physics believes that atoms (things that can't think and have no personality) are totally dependent on each other. Whereas, social theory believes people (things that can think and have a personality... at least most) should be totally independent.

This is just the start of me trying to make an arguement that we are all connected to each other and to the environment in which we live...give me time, I hope to make more sense later.

An after thought: Do you think if trees could talk, the saying "how much wood can a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood", would be talked about more often?


ps Sergiovanni's book Supervision a Redfinition is where some of this thought process was rekindled. This book relates best to people interested in or currently in education.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0072406631/qid=1117340043/sr=2-4/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_4/103-7932916-1361451