"Causality" or "determinism"?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ARINDAM BANERJEE, THE greatest cuckoo of all time
Next: How is SR this probability problem explained?
From: Greg Goss on 6 Mar 2010 15:24 Tue Sorensen <sorensonian(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Don't get this. Don't you believe in an objective universe? You're saying that the cat has to be either alive or dead, even before someone looks in the box? That's what Schroedinger thought, too. -- Tomorrow is today already. Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
From: Greg Goss on 6 Mar 2010 15:34 Peter Knutsen <peter(a)sagatafl.invalid> wrote: >On 05/03/2010 21:20, Luke Campbell wrote: >> On Mar 4, 5:37 pm, Tue Sorensen<sorenson...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> 2. >>> Isn't it obvious to anybody that mammals are more complex than, say, >>> amphibians? >> >> No. Not obvious at all. >> >> This is an example of species chauvinism with no biological support. >> In fact, the biochemistry of amphibians tends to be more complex than >> that of mammals, if for no other reason than they need proteins which >> work over a wide temperature range, whereas we mammals can hyper- >> specialize to a very narrow temperature range at which to carry on our >> bio-chemical processes necessary to life. > >I wondered too, about that one. I believe I know that mammalian lungs >are more sophisticated, and also mammalian brains, but beyond that, I >don't know of any great difference, although of course I should have >thought of the protein thing. > >Are there any examples, other than lung structure and brains, where >mammals are more complex than amphibians? Do you have some examples, Tue? How far down the tree do antibody based immune systems run? I think that antibodies are only in mammals, too, but it's not my field. -- Tomorrow is today already. Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
From: Tom Roberts on 6 Mar 2010 16:06 Wayne Throop wrote: > : Erik Max Francis <max(a)alcyone.com> > : A better way to say it is: All particles contain energy. Photons are a > : particular type of particle that really isn't much more than energy itself. > > Yes, though it's always best to keep in mind that the *amount* of energy > "contained" in a particle is observer (that is, coordinate system) > dependent, not invariant. Which always makes me less than sanguine to > say that particles "contain" energy. But maybe that's just me. It's not just you. Essentially anybody who has thought much about it realizes that coordinate-dependent quantities cannot possibly be intrinsic properties of anything. And don't forget that photons carry spin, which acts as an intrinsic angular momentum. And they couple only to charged particles. So there's more to photons than "just a bundle of energy", or rather, than just the ability to transfer energy and momentum. Tom Roberts
From: Erik Max Francis on 6 Mar 2010 18:02 Tue Sorensen wrote: > On 5 Mar., 23:27, thro...(a)sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote: >> : Erik Max Francis <m...(a)alcyone.com> >> : A better way to say it is: All particles contain energy. Photons are a >> : particular type of particle that really isn't much more than energy itself. > > So why not just call them energy? Because they're not synonymous. Energy exists in systems that contain no photons at all. Lift a book off the table; you've added gravitational potential energy, but they're not in the form of photons. -- Erik Max Francis && max(a)alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis History is a bucket of ashes. -- Carl Sandburg
From: Tue Sorensen on 6 Mar 2010 18:20
On 7 Mar., 00:02, Erik Max Francis <m...(a)alcyone.com> wrote: > Tue Sorensen wrote: > > On 5 Mar., 23:27, thro...(a)sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote: > >> : Erik Max Francis <m...(a)alcyone.com> > >> : A better way to say it is: All particles contain energy. Photons are a > >> : particular type of particle that really isn't much more than energy itself. > > > So why not just call them energy? > > Because they're not synonymous. Energy exists in systems that contain > no photons at all. Lift a book off the table; you've added > gravitational potential energy, but they're not in the form of photons. Okay, that's a good point. I'll have to give that some thought. - Tue |