| Author |
Message |
Ken Smith
Guest
|
 Posted:
Mon Feb 07, 2005 4:43 pm Post subject:
Re: Albert Einstein |
|
|
In article <l02f011urek65lt76msv2h1tvmmnv23nod@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:
[...]
| Quote: | I do think environment accounts for most of the difference. The
blacks have been their own worst enemy... their matriarchal structure
reeks havoc on black males.
|
This is something more specific to US blacks than blacks elsewhere in the
world. Slavery has left deep scars in both the black and white
sub-cultures in the US. With any luck, someone of mixed race will someday
stand up and say "Get over it! What your granddad did doesn't matter. It
is what you do with the hand you are dealt today that counts."
Perhaps we should have a law requiring everyone to marry outside their
race. We'd all end up chinese if we did.
--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gregory L. Hansen
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Feb 07, 2005 6:09 pm Post subject:
Re: Albert Einstein |
|
|
In article <x3NNd.43361$K7.33499@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <btENd.41704$K7.22736@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <N9vNd.38499$K7.10964@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
Reg Edwards wrote:
Oh dear. This is simply irrelevant, and does a major disservice to
the dude. It don't look like you really understand the issues
involved. Just saying, its "statistical" doesn't bring out what the
fundamental problem *is*.
Suppose we knew *exactly* the position and momentum of a particle
at time t0. QM says the new position and momentum cannot be known
exactly. This means cause and effect has *failed*. This is *key*.
It says that the particle could be in a new state for *no* reason
whatsoever. This is what is hard to deal with. That things can
happen with no cause. That is, there is no way to determine *why* a
particle is in one position rather then another.
It's better than that.
Oh?
Your description suggests that the particle
does have a definite position and momentum, even if they change and
we don't know what they are.
I know, I *specifically* worded it this way to avoid the common
misconception that you put below.
Too bad, you were misleading.
Oh... In what way?
|
If for no other reason than because you proposed your favorite
interpretation not as an unproveable picture competing (not very
successfully) for the attention of the scientific community today, but as
The Way Things Really Are. Your description gave no hint that an
additional set of fields are needed, which is not the usual formulation of
QM.
| Quote: |
But the position is not only unknown,
it doesn't exist.
Not according to the ensemble interpretation. The question is open.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/quantummechanics/index.html
Kevin Aylward's interpretation, it seems.
What part of Leslie E. Ballentine, Professor at Simon Fraser University,
and writer of the text book "Quantum Mechanics, A Modern Development"
ISBN981-02-4105-4? did you have trouble understanding?
Or Dr Willem M. de Muynck
http://www.phys.tue.nl/ktn/Wim/qm11.htm#ind%20part%20int,
or http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/#2.3
On first glance, the two-slit experiment seems to be intractable in
the ensemble interpretation.
Nonsense. The ensemble interpretation gives correct predictions. Period.
If we think in terms of classical
particles that sometimes go through one slit and sometimes goes
through the other, we do not get a diffraction pattern.
What has classical particles got to do with anything? Listen up dude,
the ensemble interpretation, now get this, is not classical, its
quantum. Classical arguments are meaningless in the ensemble
interpretation.
|
It's classical particles following classical trajectories determined by a
new kind of classical field.
| Quote: |
If the
distance between slits narrows by an angstrom or two, it does not
result in the considerable widening between peaks on the CCD (or
whatever you're measuring with).
Oh dear, you don't understand the ensemble interpretation do you.
|
Well, I'd only read your web page at the time.
| Quote: |
The punchline of quantum mechanics is that a sequence of events as in
a diffraction experiment cannot be reduced to a sequence of
classsical BBs whose positions and momenta are simply imperfectly
known.
And your point would be? Go and read the Ballentine's book if you want
to understand the ensemble interpretaion before you put your foot in it
again.
The ensemble interpretation does not give a classical account of why/how
particles are where they are. It does not address that issue in the
slightest. It jsut calculates what the results are. I think you are
confusing the quantum ensemble interpretation with some other classical
ensemble.
Note reference 2, which highlights *actual* measurements made
*better* then HUP.
This may be usefull as well
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/#2.3
Diffraction of electrons from a crystal depends on
the electron sampling a large enough region that the arrangement of
atoms matters.
This is meaningless. There is no physical description of how a
particle produces the pattern it makes. Its just how the sums work
out.
It means that small crystals have wide Bragg peaks and large crystals
have narrow Bragg peaks, so it must matter to the electrons how big
the crystal is-- they interact over extended regions, they don't just
bounce off of one atom.
Sure, but there is no accepted *physical* way to describe how or why the
peaks and troughs result. Its just the way the numbers work out from the
equations. The statement says, essentially nothing. It don't give
anything but the most rudimentary idea.
The old question of classical atomic physics was why doesn't the
electron radiate away all its energy and fall into the nucleus.
This is trivial. Maxwell's Equations are *wrong*. End of story.
The correct equations that describe E&M is QED. Maxwell's Equations
are just a continuous *approximation* to QED.
Guess what... QED still uses Maxwell's equations,
In a sense yes, Maxwell's Equations are derived from QED, as an
approximation. Nothing changes, Maxwell's Equations simply cannot
explain the photo electric effect, ergo, they are *wrong*. What part of
that are you having difficulty with?
|
You have that backwards. QED was derived from Maxwell's equations.
Sure, nowadays they impose U(1) symmetry on the Lagrangian and show that
QED falls out. But that's a more recent development. QED was derived by
taking Maxwell as the foundation and quantizing the fields. There's
various ways to do that, but it's usually done through the Lagrangian.
The Maxwell Lagrangian is
L = -1/4 F_ab F^ab - J^a A_a
in both the classical and quantum theories. The action is minimized in
both the classical and quantum theories, leading to Euler-Lagrange
equations that are the same in both the classical and quantum theories.
The stress tensor is defined the same way, the momentum and angular
momentum are derived from the stress tensor in the same way for the
classical and quantum theories.
Here's a link to a QFT problem set. The only reason it's quantum
instead of classical is because this stuff usually isn't covered in
classical courses on E&M.
http://www.wooster.edu/physics/lindner/Ph377Spring2003HW/HW2.pdf
| Quote: |
but with the state
describe by a vector in Hilbert space rather than in phase space.
Promote variables to operators, slap kets on it for the operators to
operate on. Most texts start with the Maxwell Lagrangian, but review
the derivation and see where it says Maxwell was wrong.
What's your point? Either Maxwell's Equations explain the photo electric
effect and black body radiation, or they don't. Guess what, they don't.
|
Maxwell's equations exist in a mechanical context-- the transformation
rules and the description of state are imposed externally. In the 19th
century they were used in a Galilean paradigm. When we went Einsteinian
that didn't change Maxwell's equations any more than relativity changes
F=dp/dt. When we go quantum we say A_a no longer represent the field,
they represent operators that act on the kets. But the equations of
motion still look like Maxwell's equations.
| Quote: |
Greiner's
text "Field Quantization" makes the similarities between classical
and quantum field theory very clear.
Again, what's your point? Classical theory is wrong. It don't agree with
experiment. So, there there are some similarities, so what.
|
There aren't just "some" similarities, and it's no coincidence that those
similarities exist. Nearly the entire theoretical machinery of quantum
field theory is lifted straight from classical field theory. The fields
become operators, the Poisson brackets are multiplied by i*hbar and called
commutators, and off we go.
You'd never know that after taking a course in quantum field theory. Very
little of that was probably covered in the classical course, and it's
introduced in the quantum course on an as-needed basis. So the students
are delving deeper into field theory than they had before, possibly
working in the second quantized formulation in a significant way for the
first time in their lives, introduced to Green's function methods in the
guise of photon propagators for the first time except maybe for a short
section on scattering in their introductory QM class, solving
particle-particle interactions in the quantum context that are more
complicated than they had worked with in their classical class... And you
wind up with students that can follow some recipies and think they learned
stuff that only applies to QM.
--
"I fart for joy and I laugh more than if I had cast my old age, as a
serpent does its skin." -- Aristophanes, Peace, 421 BC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin Aylward
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Feb 07, 2005 9:05 pm Post subject:
Re: Albert Einstein |
|
|
Reg Edwards wrote:
| Quote: | Maxwell's equations are not wrong.
|
YES THEY ARE. Its not debatable.
Look, dude The photo electric effect is simple *impossible* to explain
using Maxwell's Equations. Period. End of Story. Finito.
| Quote: | Its just that nobody at the time
could understand them. Far too complicated!
|
Show me where "h" appears in Maxwell's Equations?
| Quote: | And the predicted radio
waves had not yet been generated.
|
Whats this got to do with the issue?
| Quote: |
But the reasoning is far better expained by Oliver Heaviside's, 25
years later, much simplified, more practical interpretation as now
appears in ALL the world's educational text books but for which,
self-educated genius Heaviside seldom gets the credit.
|
But not by those truly knowledge in this particular matter. Those of us
*all* know about Heaviside's great contributions, e.g. the final vector
form of Maxwell's Equations, operational calculus before it was known to
be the Laplace transform etc...etc...
Just about every Tom, Dick and Harry go around claiming that Heaviside
is unknown. Well guess what, I know about him, as do 10,000's of others.
Sure, many more don't, but so what.
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Thompson
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Feb 07, 2005 9:29 pm Post subject:
Re: Albert Einstein |
|
|
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 14:45:57 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken
Smith) wrote:
| Quote: | In article <7ogd01thqdfj41nd61r0nmdfitigb637t9@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:
[...]
Actually, Shockley may have been technically correct about racial
differences, just not politically correct in his method of expression.
No.
"The profoundest of all infidelities is the fear that the truth will
be bad!" -Herbert Spencer
Shockley said better and worse not just different. Too often he
considered what us white folks had was better. Often it is not or is a
trade off with a judgement call.
--
|
As I said, he made a terrible presentation of what should have been a
good scientific study.
I do think environment accounts for most of the difference. The
blacks have been their own worst enemy... their matriarchal structure
reeks havoc on black males.
Here, in Arizona, with a _very_ minority black population, there are
very few gangs for black males to run with, thus they end up in
professional jobs just like the white peer group.
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ken Smith
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Feb 07, 2005 10:16 pm Post subject:
Re: Albert Einstein |
|
|
In article <8f7f015nuehl3jj4shvkptkqea35mbhu5g@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:
[...]
| Quote: | I always kid my wife, that the reason we have such neat kids, is her
family ancestry and mine have absolutely no overlaps... vastly
different originating parts of Europe, different settlement on this
side of the pond.
|
Its extra important for us humans since we went through that choke point a
few 100K years ago so we don't have all that wide of a gene pool.
--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ken Smith
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Feb 07, 2005 10:19 pm Post subject:
Re: Albert Einstein |
|
|
In article <R5qBYFF5G6BCFwa6@jmwa.demon.co.uk>,
John Woodgate <noone@yuk.yuk> wrote:
| Quote: | I read in sci.electronics.design that Ken Smith
kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote (in <cu85qs$abc$3@blue.rahul.net>)
about 'Albert Einstein', on Mon, 7 Feb 2005:
Perhaps we should have a law requiring everyone to marry outside their
race. We'd all end up chinese if we did.
The Chinese wouldn't.
|
Logic applied to a silly quip: I think they are the largest minority in
the world so fairly quickly everyone would be some part Chinese.
--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ken Smith
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Feb 07, 2005 10:21 pm Post subject:
Re: Albert Einstein |
|
|
In article <bm7f01d2un64hc77dv3kscvdf8sjs375g5@4ax.com>,
Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
[...]
| Quote: | Chinese are only 25% or so of the world total. We'd end up kind of a
golden brown with black hair and brown eyes. They are going to have a
huge shortfall of females in China, so they may end up having to
intermarry. Probably mostly with SE Asian women, but I understand
Russian blondes are in high demand too.
|
They could kill of a chunk of the male population by having a war. Large
numbers of unmarried males are not good for stability.
--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin Aylward
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Feb 07, 2005 10:54 pm Post subject:
Re: Albert Einstein |
|
|
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
| Quote: | In article <btENd.41704$K7.22736@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <N9vNd.38499$K7.10964@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
Reg Edwards wrote:
Oh dear. This is simply irrelevant, and does a major disservice to
the dude. It don't look like you really understand the issues
involved. Just saying, its "statistical" doesn't bring out what the
fundamental problem *is*.
Suppose we knew *exactly* the position and momentum of a particle
at time t0. QM says the new position and momentum cannot be known
exactly. This means cause and effect has *failed*. This is *key*.
It says that the particle could be in a new state for *no* reason
whatsoever. This is what is hard to deal with. That things can
happen with no cause. That is, there is no way to determine *why* a
particle is in one position rather then another.
It's better than that.
Oh?
Your description suggests that the particle
does have a definite position and momentum, even if they change and
we don't know what they are.
I know, I *specifically* worded it this way to avoid the common
misconception that you put below.
Too bad, you were misleading.
|
Oh... In what way?
What part of Leslie E. Ballentine, Professor at Simon Fraser University,
and writer of the text book "Quantum Mechanics, A Modern Development"
ISBN981-02-4105-4? did you have trouble understanding?
Or Dr Willem M. de Muynck
http://www.phys.tue.nl/ktn/Wim/qm11.htm#ind%20part%20int,
or http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/#2.3
| Quote: |
On first glance, the two-slit experiment seems to be intractable in
the ensemble interpretation.
|
Nonsense. The ensemble interpretation gives correct predictions. Period.
| Quote: | If we think in terms of classical
particles that sometimes go through one slit and sometimes goes
through the other, we do not get a diffraction pattern.
|
What has classical particles got to do with anything? Listen up dude,
the ensemble interpretation, now get this, is not classical, its
quantum. Classical arguments are meaningless in the ensemble
interpretation.
| Quote: | If the
distance between slits narrows by an angstrom or two, it does not
result in the considerable widening between peaks on the CCD (or
whatever you're measuring with).
|
Oh dear, you don't understand the ensemble interpretation do you.
| Quote: |
The punchline of quantum mechanics is that a sequence of events as in
a diffraction experiment cannot be reduced to a sequence of
classsical BBs whose positions and momenta are simply imperfectly
known.
|
And your point would be? Go and read the Ballentine's book if you want
to understand the ensemble interpretaion before you put your foot in it
again.
The ensemble interpretation does not give a classical account of why/how
particles are where they are. It does not address that issue in the
slightest. It jsut calculates what the results are. I think you are
confusing the quantum ensemble interpretation with some other classical
ensemble.
| Quote: |
Note reference 2, which highlights *actual* measurements made
*better* then HUP.
This may be usefull as well
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/#2.3
Diffraction of electrons from a crystal depends on
the electron sampling a large enough region that the arrangement of
atoms matters.
This is meaningless. There is no physical description of how a
particle produces the pattern it makes. Its just how the sums work
out.
It means that small crystals have wide Bragg peaks and large crystals
have narrow Bragg peaks, so it must matter to the electrons how big
the crystal is-- they interact over extended regions, they don't just
bounce off of one atom.
|
Sure, but there is no accepted *physical* way to describe how or why the
peaks and troughs result. Its just the way the numbers work out from the
equations. The statement says, essentially nothing. It don't give
anything but the most rudimentary idea.
| Quote: |
The old question of classical atomic physics was why doesn't the
electron radiate away all its energy and fall into the nucleus.
This is trivial. Maxwell's Equations are *wrong*. End of story.
The correct equations that describe E&M is QED. Maxwell's Equations
are just a continuous *approximation* to QED.
Guess what... QED still uses Maxwell's equations,
|
In a sense yes, Maxwell's Equations are derived from QED, as an
approximation. Nothing changes, Maxwell's Equations simply cannot
explain the photo electric effect, ergo, they are *wrong*. What part of
that are you having difficulty with?
| Quote: | but with the state
describe by a vector in Hilbert space rather than in phase space.
Promote variables to operators, slap kets on it for the operators to
operate on. Most texts start with the Maxwell Lagrangian, but review
the derivation and see where it says Maxwell was wrong.
|
What's your point? Either Maxwell's Equations explain the photo electric
effect and black body radiation, or they don't. Guess what, they don't.
| Quote: | Greiner's
text "Field Quantization" makes the similarities between classical
and quantum field theory very clear.
|
Again, what's your point? Classical theory is wrong. It don't agree with
experiment. So, there there are some similarities, so what.
| Quote: |
The
answer is that it already had radiated away as much energy energy as
it can, it's fallen as far into the nucleus as the uncertainty
principle will let it go.
This is a meaningless answer. It just doesn't say anything.
Sure it does. It means the electron cannot make a transition to a
lower energy state, and it cannot get closer to the nucleus than it
already is.
|
It doesn't offer any more insight then simply stating that QM says it
don't radiate. It don't say why. Its like saying the water stops flowing
from the tap because its turned off. Or, like those daft TV science
programs that explain water is wet because it is wet.
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Thompson
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Feb 07, 2005 11:00 pm Post subject:
Re: Albert Einstein |
|
|
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 16:43:08 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken
Smith) wrote:
| Quote: | In article <l02f011urek65lt76msv2h1tvmmnv23nod@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:
[...]
I do think environment accounts for most of the difference. The
blacks have been their own worst enemy... their matriarchal structure
reeks havoc on black males.
This is something more specific to US blacks than blacks elsewhere in the
world. Slavery has left deep scars in both the black and white
sub-cultures in the US. With any luck, someone of mixed race will someday
stand up and say "Get over it! What your granddad did doesn't matter. It
is what you do with the hand you are dealt today that counts."
Perhaps we should have a law requiring everyone to marry outside their
race. We'd all end up chinese if we did.
|
Inbreeding is, indeed, very bad.
I always kid my wife, that the reason we have such neat kids, is her
family ancestry and mine have absolutely no overlaps... vastly
different originating parts of Europe, different settlement on this
side of the pond.
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Woodgate
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Feb 07, 2005 11:09 pm Post subject:
Re: Albert Einstein |
|
|
I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward
<salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote (in <6tLNd.43327$K7.23412@fe2.news.bl
ueyonder.co.uk>) about 'Albert Einstein', on Mon, 7 Feb 2005:
| Quote: | Reg Edwards wrote:
Maxwell's equations are not wrong.
YES THEY ARE. Its not debatable.
Look, dude The photo electric effect is simple *impossible* to explain
using Maxwell's Equations. Period. End of Story. Finito.
|
Now we get into requiring to define 'wrong'! Maxwell's Equations are not
universally applicable. They don't include the concept of 'particle',
still less 'sub-atomic particle', and are concerned only with non-
discontinuous fields (none of the partial differentials may become
infinite). But within their domain of applicability they give correct
results.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Woodgate
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Feb 07, 2005 11:13 pm Post subject:
Re: Albert Einstein |
|
|
I read in sci.electronics.design that Ken Smith
<kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote (in <cu85qs$abc$3@blue.rahul.net>)
about 'Albert Einstein', on Mon, 7 Feb 2005:
| Quote: | Perhaps we should have a law requiring everyone to marry outside their
race. We'd all end up chinese if we did.
|
The Chinese wouldn't.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spehro Pefhany
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Feb 07, 2005 11:21 pm Post subject:
Re: Albert Einstein |
|
|
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 16:43:08 +0000 (UTC), the renowned
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
| Quote: | Perhaps we should have a law requiring everyone to marry outside their
race. We'd all end up chinese if we did.
|
Chinese are only 25% or so of the world total. We'd end up kind of a
golden brown with black hair and brown eyes. They are going to have a
huge shortfall of females in China, so they may end up having to
intermarry. Probably mostly with SE Asian women, but I understand
Russian blondes are in high demand too.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin Aylward
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Feb 08, 2005 2:00 am Post subject:
Re: Albert Einstein |
|
|
Jim Thompson wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 16:43:08 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken
Smith) wrote:
In article <l02f011urek65lt76msv2h1tvmmnv23nod@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:
[...]
I do think environment accounts for most of the difference. The
blacks have been their own worst enemy... their matriarchal
structure reeks havoc on black males.
This is something more specific to US blacks than blacks elsewhere
in the world. Slavery has left deep scars in both the black and
white sub-cultures in the US. With any luck, someone of mixed race
will someday stand up and say "Get over it! What your granddad did
doesn't matter. It is what you do with the hand you are dealt today
that counts."
Perhaps we should have a law requiring everyone to marry outside
their race. We'd all end up chinese if we did.
Inbreeding is, indeed, very bad.
|
Actually its not that bad. Popular misconception. For example, the
probability of having a good child in a normal relationship is around
99%, for one in an incestuous relationship, its 98%. So a 1% difference.
However, such a small consistent difference over 1000's of generations
will result in the meme/genes of incestuous relationships being weeded
out.
Yeah, so what's wrong with incest, its a game all the family can play...
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin Aylward
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Feb 08, 2005 2:01 am Post subject:
Re: Albert Einstein |
|
|
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
| Quote: | In article x3NNd.43361$K7.33499@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk,
Too bad, you were misleading.
Oh... In what way?
If for no other reason than because you proposed your favorite
interpretation not as an unproveable picture competing (not very
successfully) for the attention of the scientific community today,
but as The Way Things Really Are.
|
Nope. I have made many posts on the the non absolute nature of models.
| Quote: | Your description gave no hint that
an additional set of fields are needed, which is not the usual
formulation of QM.
|
What additional set of fields did you have in mind?
| Quote: |
But the position is not only unknown,
it doesn't exist.
Not according to the ensemble interpretation. The question is open.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/quantummechanics/index.html
Kevin Aylward's interpretation, it seems.
What part of Leslie E. Ballentine, Professor at Simon Fraser
University, and writer of the text book "Quantum Mechanics, A Modern
Development" ISBN981-02-4105-4? did you have trouble understanding?
Or Dr Willem M. de Muynck
http://www.phys.tue.nl/ktn/Wim/qm11.htm#ind%20part%20int,
or http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/#2.3
On first glance, the two-slit experiment seems to be intractable in
the ensemble interpretation.
Nonsense. The ensemble interpretation gives correct predictions.
Period.
If we think in terms of classical
particles that sometimes go through one slit and sometimes goes
through the other, we do not get a diffraction pattern.
What has classical particles got to do with anything? Listen up dude,
the ensemble interpretation, now get this, is not classical, its
quantum. Classical arguments are meaningless in the ensemble
interpretation.
It's classical particles following classical trajectories determined
by a new kind of classical field.
|
Nope. Nine. No. No. No.
As I said, you don't understand what the ensemble interpretation
actually is at all. I know where your coming from, there is classical
ensemble approach used in the past, but the ensemble described by
Ballentine, Einstein, has *absolutely* *nothing* to do with that
version. It certainly does *not* propose any trajectories for particles
in the slightest. You must be confusing the ensemble with some other
approach, like Bohmian mechanics.
The ensemble approach simple says, essentially, that the state vector
does not apply to an individual system. That's it. Trajectories are just
as undefined in the ensemble approach as they are in the standard
approach.
| Quote: |
The old question of classical atomic physics was why doesn't the
electron radiate away all its energy and fall into the nucleus.
This is trivial. Maxwell's Equations are *wrong*. End of story.
The correct equations that describe E&M is QED. Maxwell's Equations
are just a continuous *approximation* to QED.
Guess what... QED still uses Maxwell's equations,
In a sense yes, Maxwell's Equations are derived from QED, as an
approximation. Nothing changes, Maxwell's Equations simply cannot
explain the photo electric effect, ergo, they are *wrong*. What part
of that are you having difficulty with?
You have that backwards. QED was derived from Maxwell's equations.
|
Maxwell's equations were used as a guide. QED contains more information
then Maxwell's equations. Sure, QED was *motivated* by Maxwell's
Equations as a tool, just as many equations are motivated by incorrect
ideas. What you are claiming is essentially, that the shrodinger
equation was derived from the Borh model of the hydrogen atom, which of
course, fails on other atoms.
| Quote: | Sure, nowadays they impose U(1) symmetry on the Lagrangian and show
that QED falls out. But that's a more recent development. QED was
derived by taking Maxwell as the foundation and quantizing the
fields. There's various ways to do that, but it's usually done
through the Lagrangian.
|
Simple irrelevent.
| Quote: |
but with the state
describe by a vector in Hilbert space rather than in phase space.
Promote variables to operators, slap kets on it for the operators to
operate on. Most texts start with the Maxwell Lagrangian, but
review the derivation and see where it says Maxwell was wrong.
What's your point? Either Maxwell's Equations explain the photo
electric effect and black body radiation, or they don't. Guess what,
they don't.
Maxwell's equations exist in a mechanical context-- the transformation
rules and the description of state are imposed externally. In the
19th century they were used in a Galilean paradigm. When we went
Einsteinian that didn't change Maxwell's equations any more than
relativity changes F=dp/dt. When we go quantum we say A_a no longer
represent the field, they represent operators that act on the kets.
But the equations of motion still look like Maxwell's equations.
|
Look mate, do Maxwell's Equations, as is, explain the photo electric
effect and black body radiation, or not?
Nothing you say changes these facts.
| Quote: |
Greiner's
text "Field Quantization" makes the similarities between classical
and quantum field theory very clear.
Again, what's your point? Classical theory is wrong. It don't agree
with experiment. So, there there are some similarities, so what.
There aren't just "some" similarities, and it's no coincidence that
those similarities exist. Nearly the entire theoretical machinery of
quantum field theory is lifted straight from classical field theory.
The fields become operators, the Poisson brackets are multiplied by
i*hbar and called commutators, and off we go.
|
Yes. I am quite familiar with Poisson brackets and their commutators
etc. So whats your point? We use the mathematical tools that already
exist. The fact that symbolically they look similar, has no baring on
whether there is any real connection. For me, its more a matter of luck.
| Quote: |
You'd never know that after taking a course in quantum field theory.
Very little of that was probably covered in the classical course,
|
It was covered in my "advanced" mechanics course, e.g. H. Goldstein.
| Quote: | and
it's introduced in the quantum course on an as-needed basis. So the
students are delving deeper into field theory than they had before,
possibly working in the second quantized formulation in a significant
way for the first time in their lives, introduced to Green's function
methods in the guise of photon propagators for the first time except
maybe for a short section on scattering in their introductory QM
class, solving particle-particle interactions in the quantum context
that are more complicated than they had worked with in their
classical class... And you wind up with students that can follow
some recipies and think they learned stuff that only applies to QM.
|
Sure.
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Woodgate
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Feb 08, 2005 3:10 am Post subject:
Re: Albert Einstein |
|
|
I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward
<salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote (in <MOPNd.44084$K7.1630@fe2.news.blu
eyonder.co.uk>) about 'Albert Einstein', on Mon, 7 Feb 2005:
| Quote: | What additional set of fields did you have in mind?
|
John, Sid, Gracie, Killing....
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in