October 2020
M T W T F S S
« Jul    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

30 Responses

WP_Cloudy
  • Alan Yang Says:

    想請教李生睇法:對於我們宇宙(地球)會是出於一個極度巧合而演化出來?還是有做物者(上帝,神..)/外星高智慧生物(人)創做呢?
    另外,李生是否有任何宗教信仰呢?有否曾去理解過眾多宗教呢?
    因很多事物用科學未能解釋,很多人就用(上帝,神..)去解答
    如信,是否建基於個人信念或其他因素?
    不信?是否宗教並沒有十足科學,歷史根據去支持呢?

    請放心而我個人並非什麼基督教,有神論,無神論之人仕,
    只係有趣了解及思考我身處的宇宙多些而已……
    當然我亦知道這是沒有一個肯定的答案

    曾參加你科幻講座的楊聽眾上

  • Eddy Lee (李逆熵) Says:

    Dear Alan,

    Many thanks for your questions. On whether the origin of the Universe is a pure coincidence, we don’t really know, because there is only one Universe. In cosmology, there is a hypothesis postulating that the Universe we are living in is just one among many (the Multiverse Theory). The trouble is that there seems to be no way we could test the truth – or falsity – of this interesting hypothesis.

    On the origin of the Earth, or other Earth-like planets in the Universe, the situation is totally different. This is because we can study other stars, and see whether there are Earth-like planets circling around them. Significant progress has been made by astronomers in this regard during the last several decades. You can find out more about this exciting development in the “extrasolar planets” entry in Wikipedia.

    On the origin of life, the same situation applies i.e. it is a theoretical as well as empirical issue, which could in theory be settled – I mean the “pure coincidence” part – by the study of other lifeforms – as yet undiscovered – in other parts of the Universe. Again, you could find out a lot more about this via the “astrobiology” entry in Wiki.

    On the origin of humankind, there are huge amount of evidence showing that the great apes (gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobo apes, orang-utans) and us humans do share the same ancestry, and the ancesters of humans diverge from this common stock only around 5 million years ago. The entry “Huamn Evolution” in Wiki holds a wealth of information on this exciting area of study.

    I think the last point above – I mena the origin of humankind – is the most relevant in regard to religious beliefs. Yes, I have been interested in religion since my school days. I studied in a Catholic school from p.3 to F.5, and got a Distinction in Bible Studies in the HKCEE. I think I know my Bible rather well, but throughout the years, my personal interest lies really more with Buddhism. The main difference between the two systems of beliefs is whether there is a Personified Deity who is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-wise and all-kind, and who created this world for a specific purpose. For myself, I find such an idea highly unconvincing.

    To conclude, I think there is always a place for mysticism and spirituality in science, but they are not the kind being preached by the major religions in the wolrd today.

    Cheers!
    Eddy.

  • MOLE WONG Says:

    Dear professor Lee,

    I have never seen such a expert in science but love science fiction (SF) so much. Unlike you, I love Japanese robot anime and science fiction rahter than those in US, except George Lucas’s one.

    I have read your posts and strongly agreed with your views on “soft” and “hard” in SF. In order to be a peak in the SF mountains, science and creativity must be present and combined perfectly in both. For instances, Gundam (U.C.era) created a dream particle (mega) in Gundam’s world making particle/ion weapon could be applied on the Earth. Also, the GUNBUSTER use the old things but create a new world story (Sorry I have rodot mania). Yet, they fit your explanation very well.

    Nevertheless, on the view of origin of universe, human and religion, I am opposite from you and of course without evidences. For the universe, I believe there must be something far beyond it, ie.it was created. For human, evolution within species exits but evolution among species are ridiculous, even have 0.01% difference in DNAs, they are completely different. For religion, I don’t have any but I believe all the things in the universe must be present for equilibrium and purpose which we donno.

    “All the mountains were climbed and steped, my only thing which can be done is just to follow their footprints” HaHa, how about “build a unique new mountain for your own? even it is small one on the beach” think about it.

  • Eddy Lee (李逆熵) Says:

    Dear Mole,

    Thank you for your encouragement (referring to your last para.). Writing a full-length SF novel has long been my dream, but apart from the lack of a really great idea, others things always get in the way, so the dream is always pushed to the end of my queue of “things to do”…

    On the origin of the Universe, the obvious question to the postulate of a Creator is of course : “Who created the Creator?” If the answer is that the Creator does not need anyone to create it/him/her, then why can’t we just assume that the Universe could also exist by itself, and does no need an “outside” Creator?

    Conceptually, I agree that it’s hard for us to contemplate “eternal existence” without beginning or end. In terms of beginning, there’s always the urge to identify a “First Cause”. However, even if we subscribe to this view, this “First Cause” postulate is still a far cry from the postulate that the Creator is a Supreme Deity who is omniscient, omnipotent, all-wise, all-kind, and also possesses human emotions like love and hate, jealousy and anger etc.

    And what are your views on the origin of humankind? If not via a long process of evolution, then perhaps via a divine action of creation? But which creation myths (Chinese, Indian, Japanese, Hebrew?)comes closer to the truth?

    With Best Regards,
    Eddy.

  • MOLE WONG Says:

    Dear professor Lee,

    Your question of “who create the creator?” is the kind of question like “Do Egg or chicken exits first?” and for this kind of question, I always ask myself too that still haven’t got any answer yet.

    May be I give an example for analogy. Can you rationalise humans’ thought? Can you use codes or programmes for simulation of human emotionS?

    Of coz you have your own answer but for me ,it is silly to said no. Something in human can’t be calculated, say “How much C-14 in body can be counted but not how much love do you have.”. Then, if codes and programmes refers to science, minds and emotions are out of science. Then, how about philosophy? Also, it has its own blind spots. No matter how many theories exits in science and philosophy which are created by human and they are just part of the whole knowledge with lots of limitations, both of them can’t be used to proof the Truth. What do I want to point out is that try to jump out some of the infinity loops which always trap and constrain peoples’ thinkings and make them spending whole life for only one theory.

    Refer to your last para. ,I believe that human have existed on this earth for millions of years. Tonnes of civilizations were destroyed by 1)nature 2)human factors again and again. Each time there were only a very small amount of survivors left. They followed the rule of survival of the fittest under natural selection and then rebuilded another civilization. This cycle continues till one day all people become extinct completely. How about the ancestor? haha, maybe they are aliens. Who created the aliens ancestor? the god. Who create the god? back to the infinity loop with no solution. It’s time to jump out of this and back into reality again.

    I also have a wish to have my own robot anime one day, but living in reality , it’s almost impossible.

    Best Regards,
    Mole

  • Eddy Lee (李逆熵) Says:

    Dear Mole,

    I hope you will read the last chapter in my book 《格物致知》titled 「知識如何可能?」, and you will find some of my views on the questions posed by you in the last posting. The key issue here is to keep an open mind, and not settle on any easy answer – or even fall prey to dogmatism.

    Your views on human evolution is very interesting. Since you believe that humans have existed on Earth for millions of years, and the fossil evidence shows that humans living a million years ago – not to say several million years ago – were very different from us, then what is the reason to reject the theory that humans are the result of an even longer period of evolution i.e. we are descended from primates that began to flourish only after the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago? Do you feel that if we were descended from animals, that will make us less dignified?

    Yours Sincerely,
    Eddy.

  • Bob Behull Says:

    Dear Eddy,

    I lately wrote an article on industrial policy, commenting on a recent story by The Economist and critiquing its neoliberal stance. If you are interested, give me your e-mail address and I’ll send it to you. So far,I have only circulated it among friends and a few economists.

    Since this is your blog, I won’t post it here.

    Regards

    Bob

  • MOLE WONG Says:

    Dear professor Lee,

    Do you believe in soul? If yes, this is the main difference to distinguish human from animals. This was said by 孔子.

    “Do you feel that if we were descended from animals, that will make us less dignified?”
    Actually, my POV is completely opposite to this question. Human will not feel dignified about what they are but what the “good things” they have done. Human is the lord of creation that is just a shit said by some ignorant followers or overweening scientists. In nature, all things are the same but not the same simultaneously. Rock is not water, water is not air and human is not ameba. Each thing in this nature is unique, ie. human is not ape, ape is not human forever. Form the view of biology, different gametes of different species will not undergo fertilization to produce any offspring. This mechanism can ensure to prevent the ruin of the whole ecosystem.

    Evolution(micro-evolution) is widely accepted nowadays because it has some modern researches of existing creatures and showing linkage between them but not the fossil one. In fact, neither all these fossils among the whole ecosystem a million year ago are completely found nor the complete stages of fossil comparison via million of years, how can we say that evolution can be an evidence which proved that ape equal to human? The logic is as nonsense as I crop one sentence out from a long passage and comment on this passage just based on ONE SENTENCE.

    How to explain the similarity of ape and some ancient human? If you have seen some handicaps who can’t walk, please look at their arms which are abnormally stronger than normal people. Try to compare people by hairy skin and color in different location and places. All these are micro-evolution of adaptation in human within the species and you can think reversely that what kind of the environment were the ancient human living in. If the apes were living in an such an environment, why couldn’t the ancient human look likes them in order to survive in the same environment?

    Distinguish two species just from shape is not scientific enough. For DNA database analysis with molecular biology, ape and human have been proven to be two different species while some GENETIC INFORMATION OF HUMAN DOES NOT EVOLVE OR EVEN CHANGE A LITTLE BIT FOR 100 THOUSAND YEARS AND THESE INFORMATION WAS PROVED FROM ONLY ONE ANCESTOR. This implies that modern human has only a hundred thousand years history in this civilization.

    “I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance” by Socrates. Knowing the role of each things is the nature, knowing nothing about the nature is human. The more we have known, the more ignorant we are. Perhaps, you misunderstood what I have said to science and of course, I am not a dogmatist. Science is the way to know the nature but science is not the way to rule the nature. Science can make you know something behind you but science cannot be used to prove the things inside yourself. But actually, people really like to use a ruler to measure the air in reality.

    I cannot express my thought well in English. This is kind of language and knowledge limitation and result of my poor explanation, sorry.

    Best Regards,
    Mole

  • Eddy Lee (李逆熵) Says:

    Dear Bob,

    Sorry for this late reply to your post of 19 Aug. Would surely like to take a look at your article on industrial policy & neoliberalism. Pls send it to eddylwc@gmail.com.

    Cheers!
    Eddy.

  • 呂建球 Says:

    李教授:
    您好! 我是一個物理學的門外漢,餘下也會看書,是沒有計劃和系統的看,亦看過些物理的科普讀物;當然有看過閣下的大作,它們使在下有些物理學知識的皮毛。近來有一個想不通的問題,希望李教授能賜教指導。

    薛定諤的貓(SCHRODINGER’S CAT)是個提出近百年的思維實驗,當年薛定諤是想以這實驗來質疑量子力學的合理性;但後來的發展卻是,這實驗反而成為詮釋量子論對宏觀世界的模擬;量子學家認為於預計原子有一半機會衰變時,直到打開實驗的箱作觀察,期間貓是處於生死叠加狀態,由此引起以後更多擬似是哲學辯解的討論。 我所想不通的地方是:原子的衰變,除了會幅射出粒子外,還會釋放能量使整個實驗系統的温度上升;固只要在實驗的箱上放置温度探測儀,測量著箱的温度,在實驗期內任何時候,原子衰變,貓死了,箱的温度升高,探温儀就會作下紀錄;相反原子沒有衰變,貓未死,探温儀沒有升温的紀錄。 這和雙縫實驗不一樣,雙縫實驗只要在一條縫裝上測量儀器,干涉條紋就會消失;但貓的實驗是無論有沒有裝上探温儀,應該不會影響原子的衰變的機率;不過就算有也不會影響實驗的原意,當原子衰變,探温儀就會留下確定的紀錄,貓決不會處於生死叠加狀態。 而且不管你何時觀察,都可以確實知道貓在整個實驗期間的生死狀况;當然,這其實和用一個透明的箱子做實驗一樣,量子學家辯解,因為不斷的測量而使叠加狀態崩陷,而探溫儀的讀數紀錄,要等到做實驗的去觀察才會陷萎成有意義的數據;像這些解說、和討論針尖上可站立多少個的天使等同。 我相信一個物理系統內裡的變化,或多或少總會有些訊息傳至外部;如果不許測量,強說甚麽狀態,應該不是物理學的道統。 問題是、物理學的科普書藉論及量子力學時,總會涉及這個思維實驗,但如果以上的推論沒錯,這實驗基本是否定量子力學對宏觀世界的影響;物理學科普書藉的作者都是大師級學者,他們不可能不知道這道理,所以我覺得我的推想一定在甚麽地方弄錯,也曾向有學問的友人請教,亦在yahoo的知識問答發問,卻沒有人肯教,因而冒昧向教授請益。

    骰寶是澳門賭場很受歡迎的賭戲,賭的方法很簡單,應該不用細說;在莊家的荷官開始搖動骰盅直到停止,期間骰子的點數確實是處於叠加狀態 (supperposition),但當骰盅搖動停止後直至開彩,人們皆相信骰子的點數是確定的,所以不少賭徒想辦法知道這時的點數以嬴得賭博,道聽塗說以前曾有人以聽骰方法於賭場贏錢。 近年賭塲更增加了不少電子賭博機器,其中亦有自動的骰寶博彩機,它們大致分成两種型號,一種是讓賭客先投注,然後待停止投注的時限到了後,盛載著骰子的透明骰盤振動起來,內裡的骰子不斷翻滚,這時就可以親眼目睹甚麽是叠加狀態,等骰盤的振動停止,骰子向上的點數就決定賭客的輸嬴; 另一種是完全如一般骰寶賭檯的運作,只是沒有了荷官,機器自動操作,待上一個回合的派彩完畢,用金屬盅盍著的骰盤就會自動搖動,等搖動停下來後就接受投注,到一定時限停止投注,然後那金屬盅會自動升起,骰盤的骰子向上的點數論勝敗;對普通的賭客來說這两種機器的輸嬴和派彩的機率是沒有分別,但月前有賭徒在察覺賭場監視鬆懈的時候,竟然用手把第二種機器的骰盤金屬盅揭起,然後按點數下注,再把金屬盅放下,而機器亦照常派彩;當然很快就會被賭塲發現,那些賭徒被捕。 賭博不是好的嗜好,我是一個普通人,有不少壞嗜好,賭是其中之一;很多時在骰寶賭檯傍,不其然就會想起薜定諤貓的實驗,依稀我就是實驗裡的貓,嬴了就是活的貓,輸就是死了的貓,不知教授然否?

    讀者:呂建球上

  • Eddy Lee (李逆熵) Says:

    Dear Mr. Lui,

    Many thanks for your comment. In the famous Schroedinger’s Cat “thought experiment”, it does not matter if could look at the whole thing by using a glass box, or we just measure the temperature rise outside the box if we couldn’t see inside. The main “trigger” for the theoretical “collapse of the wave function” (meaning the actualization of a certain reality) is “the act of observation” itself. This could be achieved by either (1) opening the box, or (2) turning our eyes to look at the glass box, or (3)turning our eyes to look at the thermometer etc. Even if we use a videocamera to record everything happening inside the box, and send the signals to a monitor, the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics states that the outcome is still in principle undecided, until somebody take a look at the monitor display.

    Of course this verges onto mysticism. What if the “somebody” is a 5-month old baby? or a severely mentally-retarded person? or a very intelligent chimpanzee? This is exactly why most scientists find the Copenhagen Interpretation so hard to swallow!

    Cheers!
    Eddy.

  • 路人甲 Says:

    你好,
    我想問既同上面既呂建球一樣,關於量子力學
    用電子做既雙狹縫實驗中,以我所知,我地觀測時由於實驗過程必須由光子反射入我地既眼中,而光子影響左電子既量子行為,所以係觀測既時候會令波函數塌縮,以致我地觀察唔到電子既干涉既情況
    不過實際上,又係以我所知,實驗既系統不可能係絕對零度,所以設施之間必定會有熱輻射,咁既話即使唔觀察電子亦會有光子撞擊電子,影響電子既行為
    又係同呂建球一樣,我覺得我既諗法一定係有d地方出錯,但係錯係邊呢?
    可以既話希望你用中文答覆,thanks!
    p.s.李逆熵呢個名有咩意思?熵字係咪出自熱力學既「熵」?
    基孝中學路人甲 上

  • Eddy Lee (李逆熵) Says:

    Dear 路人甲,

    按照正統的哥本哈根詮釋,波函數塌縮與光子對電子所作的干擾無關。而所謂「干擾導致波函數塌縮」仍然是一種經典物理學的看法而非量子力學的看法。

    這實在是一個十分深奧的問題,我建議大家正式找一些有關的科普著作一看。Brian Greene 的 The Elegant Universe 好像已有中譯本。大家不妨找來一讀。(另外 David Deutsch 的 The Fabric of Reality 也很值一讀,但卻好像未有譯本。)

    Regards,
    Eddy.

  • 呂建球 Says:

    李教授:
    您好!謝您的回應;不過我還是不明所以。

    好像費曼說過沒有人真正了解量子學,我不過是個有點好奇心的人。 原諒我的囉嗦和浪廢您的篇幅請您指導。 先說我自以為的一些量子學淺薄認識:
    譬如把原子想像成骰寶的骰盅,基本粒子想像為骰子 (抱歉!賭徙總是想起賭博),賭場的荷官把骰盅搖動,然後放下骰盅,待賭客下注後,打開骰盅開彩定輸嬴,跟著把骰盅盍起再次搖動,盅內的骰子又再滾動,過程周而復始;骰子開出的點數介乎3點至18點,每種點數勝出的機會大約比它的賠率多些;賭場會供應些表格讓賭客記下每次開彩的點數,賭客都喜歡用表格的紀錄來推算下次開彩的點數下注 (這些紀錄不可能對開彩的點數有任何影響,這只是加添賭博的趣味和氣氛)。
    假設時間是變化的量度單位,荷官搖動骰盅使骰子滾動變化,骰子的時間在運行,荷官放下骰盅,骰子停止滾動變化,它的時間也停頓了;荷官打開骰盅開彩 {相對於作測量的行為},賭客了斷勝負,然後在表格上記下開出的點數,延續了骰子過去勝出點數的歷史 {成就了宏觀的時問}。
    波函數崩坍可以比擬在股票市場做股票的買賣,交易的股價只代表有對手願意已此價做交易,確認了的買賣股價和市場內同樣的股票股價沒有直接關係;事實上股票的股價在開市的時段因不少對手在交易而不停變動,也有不少冷門股票沒有人買賣,股價長期不動,然而有人燒冷灶投機妙賣,股價就起波動。
    量子學起源於基本物質不是粒也是粒、不是波也是波的波粒二象之說;通常都把基本物質看成粒子,若把基本物質看作為球型的波,它有向外擴展的勢能,波頻就是時間,運行的範圍衍生空間,波與波的互動顯現了粒子性。(我知,愛因斯坦場的學說沒成功,不要獻世了)

    一篇胡言,笑死物理學者,望教授不介意,若能有空指正教導就更感謝!至於看有關量子學的書,真的是看不懂,而且是越看越胡塗。

    再者,想請教若光線以波的型態在太陽傍邊經過,它的繞射角度和廣義相對論所算出的角度有多少的差別。

    讀者:呂建球上

  • Eddy Lee (李逆熵) Says:

    Dear 呂建球,

    Your examples are drawn from the macroscopic world, which for most instances are fully deterministic. Indeterminacies arise when we are dealing with the very small – the microcosmic, sub-atomic world which can only be fully described by quantum mechanics. The Schrodinger’s Cat experiment is just a set up to “amplify” the “quantum indeterminacies” so that it would show up as a macroscopic phenomenon.

    According to my knowledge, the agreement between observation and theory on the bending of light by gravity is very good.

    Regards!
    Eddy.

  • Tim Lau Says:

    李生您好,

    據聞全球黯化會使溫度降低,

    那麼可否以毒攻毒,適度減少對污染微粒排放的控制,

    以達到抵銷全球暖化的結果?

  • 呂建球 Says:

    李教授:您好!唔介意我呢嗰煩人又來煩您!

    謝您的回應。 “帕松亮斑” 和 “對日照” 這兩種無疑是光繞射的現象,請教是否光在如恒星級數的質量傍邊經過需應用廣義相對論、而一般情況下就運用繞射的原理?

    以下一個不知所謂的猜想,請教授賜教:

    假設亞原子是幅射性的球狀電磁波,有向四周擴展的勢能,它的波頻幅度就是時間的根源,它的活動衍生出體積(所謂空間);當粒子活動的跨度擴闊,需更多的波頻幅度去運行,系統的單位時間就多了(系統的時鐘走得快使時間收縮);當粒子活動的跨度收窄,運行的波頻幅度減少,時間就少了(時鐘走得慢使時間澎漲)。

    日常生活上的活動變化,離不開化學作用及物理作用,這些作用變化,絕大部份都是電子活動在作功,我們的時空可以說是電子活動的舞台;宏觀的時間和空間都是電子運動以近似”碎型數學”堆積起來。

    一個剛體的體積其實是不斷地有輕微的改變,溫度的高低,使原子內的電子運動跨度擴闊或收窄,體積就會有所增減;這是熱漲冷縮原理。

    每次乘坐的交通工具開行時,都會因為慣性的關係,而感到一陣後座力(G力效應)把我們的身軀壓向座椅,喜歡飃車的所謂推背力。

    假設任何物體的速度都經歷加速期間,加速一個三維剛體,它的原子會向著它加速方向的底部壓縮,使物體的長度向加速方向縮短,原子的電子運動跨度收窄 {當粒子活動的跨度收窄,運行的波頻幅度減少,時間就少了(時鐘走得慢使時間澎漲)},待加速完畢後作均速運動,物體的電子運動跨度,仍保持著加速時所做成的狀態,物體的系統時鐘就走得慢了;當然減速可以回復物體的長度並使時鐘走得快些,伹不斷地減速其實是作反方向的加速;之所以”孿生子吊詭”裡在地球上的弟弟年紀較長,因他生活在均速的地球上,沒有作過大幅度的加速和減速,而在宇航器上的哥哥,為了旅程所需曾作過大幅度的加速和減速,然後長期的高速飛航,使宇航器的電子運動跨度,長期保持著相對夾少的狀態,系統時鐘因而走得慢了,旅程完畢回到地球發覺比地球上他的弟弟還要年輕的現象。 然而,理論上可以不斷地把物體加速至光速,此時組成該物體的粒子的運動跨度會被完全壓縮,物體會成為一個二維的質點體,它的系統時鐘冰結起來 (實際上是不可以,三維剛體會未達光速前已成為黑洞,因為電子已完全被質子吸附著),所以光速就是這個宇宙的最快速度,不過每秒卅拾萬公里的光速,只是相對於觀察者的一個常數,若能以光速旅行,到甚麽地方都是話到即到,相對論的地域牲在此失效;當觀察者測量到光走了卅拾萬公里,其實只是代表著觀察者的系統時鐘走了地球時間的一秒。

    運作一件機器工作時,我們都知道輸入機器的能量是不能百份之百作功,更多的是想把工作做得完美,能量耗費在機器的運作比輸出還要多。

    加速物體時也一樣,用於加速時的能量,一部份是耗費在被加速物體的組織結構內;物體加速使它的電子運動跨度收窄,也是在消費加速的能量,在低速情況下加速,三維剛體晶格內的電子運動跨度收窄很微,電子與電子的距離變化不大,它們的電磁斥力保持在限度之內,耗能較少,能量大部份為加速作功,不過在高速時續繼加速,剛體晶格內的電子運動跨度徐著加速不斷繼續收窄,電子與電子的距離愈來愈少,電子與電子的磁塲斥力按麥士維程式以幾何級數增強,剛體內結構能量的耗費與能量為加速作功的比較,此長彼消;如不斷地加速直至最後,加速的能量完全被加速物體的組織結構所耗費,這物體就只能保持一定的速度,速度無法再增加了,根據牛頓的質量定義,質量的大少是取决同一能量施加於不同的物體的加速度能力,可快加速,則質量少,加速得慢,質量大。因此速度愈大,質量就會變大了。

    這個猜想應該是承傳著洛侖兹的思路,不過也是不需要”以太”作為介質。

    讀者:呂建球上

  • Eddy Lee(李逆熵) Says:

    Dear Tim Lau,

    There are actually suggestions to spread sulfate particles in the upper atmosphere, so as to produce light-reflecting (and hence temperature-reducing) sulfate aerosols. This will be discussed in a later article on “geoengineering schemes” in this series.

    Regards,
    Eddy.

  • Ng Ka Yee Says:

    李教授:

    您好!

    今天並非為全球暖化、科學探秘等大問題而來。
    而是碰巧看見一篇遊戲感文中提及教授的名字,心中亦有相類似的疑惑,
    故特此請教您的看法,希望不會令教授感到冒犯。

    久仰教授不但對科學的認識甚廣,本身更是一名科幻小說、電影愛好者,
    曾赴您所主持的若干講座,期間亦深深體會到您對科幻的熱誠。
    惟甚少聽見教授對圍繞科幻主題的動漫畫,以至科幻遊戲作出評價。
    今時今日,由於各樣媒體技術日趨發達,許多科幻題材已捨紙筆書本而去,
    絕大部分優秀的科幻故事更已移植至遊戲之中,《Fallout》系列便是一絕佳例子。

    對此,本人有兩個問題:
    熱愛科幻的教授是否承認小說、電影以外的科幻作品在科幻界的角色?
    又會否願意進一步接觸《Fallout》等科幻遊戲?

    p.S. 文首提及的遊戲感文:
    http://www.cuhkacs.org/~henryporter/blog/read.php?740

  • Ng Ka Yee Says:

    啊 漏了一句:
    Merry Christmas and Happy New Year=)

  • Eddy Lee (李逆熵) Says:

    Dear Ka Yee,

    Many thanks for your message and the hyperlink. I enjoy reading SF anime, if their underlying SF concepts are attractive to me. I confess that I’ve never played any computer/online SF games, the main reason being the lack of time. Maybe I would conduct a seminar sometime in the future, and invite enthusiasts of such games to share their views… :-)

    Wishing you a Happy New Year!

    Eddy.
    P.S. From the link, the game “Fallout” does seem to be well-thought out and designed. My main worry is the amount of time it will soak up. The opportunity cost is probably too high for me…

  • John Yim Says:

    李教授:
    你好,今天見你在我學校演講的內容很專業,我在聽完你講解後,我曾經來找你問一些關於天文學的問題,但是我還有一個問題我想問你,就是在法國與瑞士之間,有一個離子加速器,在這,有一次好像發現了一種粒子可達光速,不知李教授可不可以解答我的問題.

  • John Yim Says:

    可不可以用中文解答我問題,因為我的英文不太好

  • 李逆熵 (Eddy Lee) Says:

    Dear John,

    Sorry for this much belated reply. Pls refer to the following Wiki entry on 「超光速」:

    http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%B6%85%E5%85%89%E9%80%9F

    就以我所知,「超光速中微子」(faster-than-light neutrinos)的存在還未受到科學界的一致承認。但如能證實的話,將會對相對論作出重大修正,為人類對大自然的認識再次帶來一趟深刻的革命。

    With Best Regards,
    Eddy.

  • Alan Yeung Says:

    Dear Eddy,

    Rumor has it that you are considering to host a popular-science type program online; I can’t wait to hear your insightful opinions again! You are probably the only speaker in town capable of explaining such complicated scientific ideas in plain and simple chinese language, and in such a vivid and interesting way, as heard on your guest appearance on “OurRadio神秘之夜”.

    Besides, can you please suggest a few contemporary sci-fi authors? I know that it’s hard to top the Big 3: Clark, Asimov, Heinlein, but with the scientific advances of the past couple decades, I bet there are a few new comers you’d appreciate.

    Best wishes,

    Al

  • Andrew Cheung Says:

    李教授:
    你好。看以上問答有點不敢問。其實小弟是文科生,一直很想學習甚至自學科普/科學知識(因為覺得科學知識實在很重要),請問我應該找理科生的書來讀,還是有甚麼書可讀讀?謝謝。

  • 李逆熵 (Eddy Lee) Says:

    Dear Andrew,

    There’s no need to read the textbooks of the science students. See if you could find Christopher Llyod’s “What On the Earth Happened?” from the libraries for a start. Then you could follow up with Richard Dawkins “The Selfish Gene” and “The Greatest Show on Earth”, plus Jared Diamond’s “The Third Chimpanzee” and “Guns, Germs and Steel”. For a bit more physics, a must-read is George Gamow’s “Thirty Years that Shook Physics”. This could be followed by Simon Singh’s “Big Bang – The Origin of the Universe”.

    Good Reading!

    Eddy.

  • 李逆熵 (Eddy Lee) Says:

    Dear Alan,

    The programme hosted by me will be launched in 香港人網 pretty soon, so it’s something in the pipeline and not just rumour. ;-p

    As for Western SF writers worth reading after the Big Three, do try Dan Simmons’ “Hyperion” (but not the sequels), David Brin’s “Uplift” trilogy (“Sundiver”, “Startide Rising”, “The Uplift Wars”), Orson Scott Card’s “Ender’s Game” trilogy (“Ender’s Game”, “Speaker for the Dead”, “Xenocide”), Vernon Vinge’s “A Fire Upon the Deep”, Robert Charles Wilson’s “Spin” trilogy (“Spin”, “Axis”, “Vortex”).

    Good Reading!

    Eddy.

  • Alan Yeung Says:

    Dear Eddy,

    Thanks for the suggestions! I will surely look them up.

    Best wishes to your new endeavor at HK reporter. Looking forward to it.

    Cheers,

    Al

  • 李逆熵 (Eddy Lee) Says:

    Dear Alan,

    I forgot to mention the monumental “Mars Trilogy” by Kim Stanley Robinson comprising “Red Mars”, “Green Mars” and “Blue Mars”.

    Good Reading!

    Eddy.

Leave a Comment

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.