|
楼主 |
发表于 2017-4-15 23:55:58
|
显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 coolboy 于 2017-5-10 23:13 编辑
说一说白居易《浪淘沙》中的“浪”
http://www.cfluid.com/thread-166159-1-1.html
In the above link, I mentioned a book by James Lighthill (1924-1998):
Lighthill, M. J., 1978: Waves in Fluids. Cambridge University Press, London and New York, 504 pp.
Specifically, I provided the following text shown in Lighthill’s book:
++++++++++++++
“It is extremely instructive to watch those outside waves. Anyone observing, however carefully, the progress of one of the crests will suddenly lose sight of it! It seems an optical illusion at first; the possible result of mistaken identity between that crest and the next one coming along behind, to which the observer's gaze is now transferred; but then this next crest, too, disappears! Meanwhile, crests are coming along thick and fast behind. Indeed, at the inside edge of the concentric pattern, new crests are appearing ‘from nowhere’; that is, from the now calmed central water. [p. 240]”
++++++++++++++
It was argued that the above text gave a vivid description on the behavior of deep-water waves observed by a Chinese poet Bai, Juyi (白居易:772–846) shown in his well-known poem (“一重浪灭一重生”). This is an interesting example showing that sometimes a poet or an artist, through his careful observations to a natural phenomenon, is able to draw insightful scientific conclusions. Of course, in my opinion, the major difference between an artist and a scientist on scientific research or knowledge is that the former generally possesses, if any, only sporadic knowledge whereas a true scientist sees and thinks the world comprehensively, systematically, and logically. A well-known example is given by physicist Richard Feynman’s view on the beauty of a flower:
++++++++++++++
Feynman, R. P., 1988: “What Do You Care What Other People Think?” Further Adventures of a Curious Character. Penguin Books Canada Ltd, Ontario, 255 pp.
I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say "look how beautiful it is," and I’ll agree. But then he’ll say "I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing." I think that he’s kind of nutty.
First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe. Although I might not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is, I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. But at the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I can imagine the cells inside, which also have a beauty. There’s beauty not just at the dimension of one centimeter; there is also beauty at a smaller dimension.
There are the complicated actions of the cells, and other processes. The fact that the colors in the flower have evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; that means that insects can see the color. That adds a question: does this aesthetic sense we have also exist in lower forms of life? There are all kinds of interesting questions that come from a knowledge of science, which only adds to the excitement and mystery and awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts. [p. 11]
++++++++++++++
|
|