Prev: In history the fact that the moon fits over the sun was proof of God
Next: Einstein - Special Relativity - a bird's eye view
From: Sam Wormley on 5 Jun 2010 21:28
On 6/5/10 7:12 PM, Huang wrote:
> On Jun 5, 9:16 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/5/10 8:59 AM, Huang wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Western science has a very heavy bias in favor of seeking models which
>>> are deterministic...
>>
>> One of the biggest pillars of modern physics is anything but
>> deterministic!
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
>
>
> Yes - I know. Probability theory based on random variables. But you
> didn't address the indeterminacy (ahem, generality) which is inherent
> to the very concept of "number".
>
> Why should I believe that probability theory is the only source of
> indeterminacy when numbers themselves are so nondescript (ahem,
> "general) that they might safely be regarded as employing
> indeterminacy themselves.
>

You are not making any sense, man!
From: Huang on 5 Jun 2010 22:32
On Jun 5, 8:28 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/5/10 7:12 PM, Huang wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 9:16 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On 6/5/10 8:59 AM, Huang wrote:
>
> >>> Western science has a very heavy bias in favor of seeking models which
> >>> are deterministic...
>
> >>     One of the biggest pillars of modern physics is anything but
> >>     deterministic!
> >>      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
>
> > Yes - I know. Probability theory based on random variables. But you
> > didn't address the indeterminacy (ahem, generality) which is inherent
> > to the very concept of "number".
>
> > Why should I believe that probability theory is the only source of
> > indeterminacy when numbers themselves are so nondescript (ahem,
> > "general) that they might safely be regarded as employing
> > indeterminacy themselves.
>
>    You are not making any sense, man!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


lol Sam, now you're talking like an old hippie :)

A number is a way to distinguish various quantities, but because the
concept of number can be applied to "anything in general" one could
argue that it is indeterminate as to exactly what numbers are
quantifying unless you specify this in some particular context, but
those particular contexts are of no use to someone who is trying to
define what numbers are because of course mathematicians love the
power of "generality".

There does seem to be a connection to indeterminacy, but this is
completely ignored on philosophical grounds and reasons relating more
to tradition than any sensible reason.




From: Sam Wormley on 5 Jun 2010 22:59
On 6/5/10 9:32 PM, Huang wrote:
> On Jun 5, 8:28 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/5/10 7:12 PM, Huang wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 5, 9:16 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 6/5/10 8:59 AM, Huang wrote:
>>
>>>>> Western science has a very heavy bias in favor of seeking models which
>>>>> are deterministic...
>>
>>>> One of the biggest pillars of modern physics is anything but
>>>> deterministic!
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
>>
>>> Yes - I know. Probability theory based on random variables. But you
>>> didn't address the indeterminacy (ahem, generality) which is inherent
>>> to the very concept of "number".
>>
>>> Why should I believe that probability theory is the only source of
>>> indeterminacy when numbers themselves are so nondescript (ahem,
>>> "general) that they might safely be regarded as employing
>>> indeterminacy themselves.
>>
>> You are not making any sense, man!- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> lol Sam, now you're talking like an old hippie :)
>
> A number is a way to distinguish various quantities, but because the
> concept of number can be applied to "anything in general" one could
> argue that it is indeterminate as to exactly what numbers are
> quantifying unless you specify this in some particular context, but
> those particular contexts are of no use to someone who is trying to
> define what numbers are because of course mathematicians love the
> power of "generality".
>
> There does seem to be a connection to indeterminacy, but this is
> completely ignored on philosophical grounds and reasons relating more
> to tradition than any sensible reason.
>


Mathematics is the working language of physics, Huang. If you get
confused about the uses of mathematics in the physical sciences,
stick with philosophy. That would make these the wrong newsgroups
for you.

-Sam



From: Y.Porat on 5 Jun 2010 23:55
On Jun 4, 5:02 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/3/10 1:34 PM, rick_s wrote:
>
> > A photon is not a little piece of dust. It is a wave packet. It has some
> > length to it. It is a wave. A short wave. So? Cut it in half and you have
> > two waves. Make a small enough effect and it will interfere with itself..
>
> > People are sure stuck on this notion that matter is like little pieces of
> > rock. It has never ever been shown to exist in that way.
>
>    These are misunderstandings on your part, rick_s.
>
>    Background on the Photon
>      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
>      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Physical_properties

---------------------
see the end of your quote:

quote (a quote from your quote )

to very high precision.[19] A null result of such an experiment has
set a limit of m≲10−14 eV.[20]

Sharper upper limits have been obtained in experiments designed to
detect effects caused by the Galactic vector potential. Although the
galactic vector potential is very large because the galactic magnetic
field exists on very long length scales, only the magnetic field is
observable if the photon is massless. In case of a massive photon, the
mass term \scriptstyle\frac{1}{2} m^2 A_{\mu}A^{\mu} would affect the
galactic plasma. The fact that no such effects are seen implies an
upper bound on the photon mass of m < 3×10−27 eV.[21] The galactic
vector potential can also be probed directly by measuring the torque
exerted on a magnetized ring.[22] Such methods were used to obtain the
sharper upper limit of 10−18eV given by the Particle Data Group.[23]

These sharp limits from the non-observation of the effects caused by
the galactic vector potential have been shown to be model dependent.
[24] If the photon mass is generated via the Higgs mechanism then the
upper limit of m≲10−14 eV from the test of Coulomb's law is valid.

------------
end of quote!!
i ddint need that quote
i Proved that the photon has mass
*the only mass that exist!!
the mass of photon i suggested is
about exp -90 Kilogram !!

and energy of the real **single* photon
about exp-70 Joule
(based on the Plank time multiplying h !! )
and
(energy /c = mass)
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------

From: Huang on 6 Jun 2010 08:39
On Jun 5, 9:59 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/5/10 9:32 PM, Huang wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 8:28 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On 6/5/10 7:12 PM, Huang wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 5, 9:16 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com>    wrote:
> >>>> On 6/5/10 8:59 AM, Huang wrote:
>
> >>>>> Western science has a very heavy bias in favor of seeking models which
> >>>>> are deterministic...
>
> >>>>      One of the biggest pillars of modern physics is anything but
> >>>>      deterministic!
> >>>>      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
>
> >>> Yes - I know. Probability theory based on random variables. But you
> >>> didn't address the indeterminacy (ahem, generality) which is inherent
> >>> to the very concept of "number".
>
> >>> Why should I believe that probability theory is the only source of
> >>> indeterminacy when numbers themselves are so nondescript (ahem,
> >>> "general) that they might safely be regarded as employing
> >>> indeterminacy themselves.
>
> >>     You are not making any sense, man!- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > lol Sam, now you're talking like an old hippie  :)
>
> > A number is a way to distinguish various quantities, but because the
> > concept of number can be applied to "anything in general" one could
> > argue that it is indeterminate as to exactly what numbers are
> > quantifying unless you specify this in some particular context, but
> > those particular contexts are of no use to someone who is trying to
> > define what numbers are because of course mathematicians love the
> > power of "generality".
>
> > There does seem to be a connection to indeterminacy, but this is
> > completely ignored on philosophical grounds and reasons relating more
> > to tradition than any sensible reason.
>
>    Mathematics is the working language of physics, Huang. If you get
>    confused about the uses of mathematics in the physical sciences,
>    stick with philosophy. That would make these the wrong newsgroups
>    for you.
>
>   -Sam- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Working language or not, mathematics is structured reasoning based on
a certain philosophy. And the cantral "assumption" is that things
either exist or they do not - there is no middle ground.

Mathematics is predicated on these philosophical assumptions.

Why would a philosopher care if a modification of mathematics is
equivalent to math ? If I invent a tool (other than math) which can
successfully model physical processes, then I would call that physics.

Bohm attempted to do all of this with the concept of "be-ables".
Things which were "able to be". But it appears that he failed to push
it far enough and beables are presently little more than a curiosity.
Bohm was a victim of the mathematical monopolistic mafia.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Prev: In history the fact that the moon fits over the sun was proof of God
Next: Einstein - Special Relativity - a bird's eye view