O explicatie pentru cei care se pling de lipsa de precizie a prognozelor meteo:
Of course the instruments of meteorology are physical instruments, and the development of experimental physics made these instruments possible, as was explained before. However, the theory of meteorology has never been satisfactorily worked out by the physicist. “Well,” you say, “there is nothing but air, and we know the equations of the motions of air.” Yes we do. “So if we know the condition of air today, why can’t we figure out the condition of the air tomorrow?” First, we do not really know what the condition is today, because the air is swirling and twisting everywhere. It turns out to be very sensitive, and even unstable. If you have ever seen water run smoothly over a dam, and then turn into a large number of blobs and drops as it falls, you will understand what I mean by unstable. You know the condition of the water before it goes over the spillway; it is perfectly smooth; but the moment it begins to fall, where do the drops begin? What determines how big the lumps are going to be and where they will be? That is not known, because the water is unstable. Even a smooth moving mass of air, in going over a mountain turns into complex whirlpools and eddies.
La cererea telespectatorilor pot include si o traducere in romana a textului. Filmul (recomand vizionarea in HD si full-screen) ar trebui, totusi, sa fie suficient. Altfel spus, crede cineva ca exista vreun calculator care sa calculeze cu precizie suficient de buna momentul in care va lovi urmatorul val digul de la 2 Mai, ce forma va avea el, cite picaturi se vor desprinde din el, ce dimensiuni si masa vor avea ele?
Si inca un citat din Feynman, despre limitele stiintei. Citat care ar putea servi drept raspuns problemei lui Vlad.
If you play chess you must know that it is easy to learn all the rules, and yet it is often very hard to select the best move or to understand why a player moves as he does. So it is in nature, only much more so; but we may be able at least to find all the rules. Actually, we do not have all the rules now. (Every once in a while something like castling is going on that we still do not understand.) Aside from not knowing all of the rules, what we really can explain in terms of those rules is very limited, because almost all situations are so enormously complicated that we cannot follow the plays of the game using the rules, much less tell what is going to happen next. We must, therefore, limit ourselves to the more basic question of the rules of the game. If we know the rules, we consider that we “understand” the world.
(Ambele citate sint din Feynman – Lectures on physics, vol. I)
Din fericire putem izola pe alocuri bucatele din infinita tabla de sah a universului si putem juca intre incepatori. Una peste alta, totusi, postarea asta este scrisa de pe un calculator, rezultat direct al teoriilor avansate ale fizicii; calculator care, de bine, de rau, se comporta destul de previzibil 😀 Ceea ce demonstreaza, Vlade (daca ajungi sa citesti), ca, desi imprecise si uneori cu rezultate dezastruoase, teoriile stiintifice nu sint chiar inutile. La fel si cu meteorologia. Poate ca nu ne poate spune cu precizie daca o sa ploua miine. Dar poate sa prevada suficient de bine directia de deplasare si evolutia unui uragan incit sa poata salva vieti. Doar uneori, din pacate.