Hello archytas> Good to hear from you again. I will have to study the topics you mention if I can locate something I recognize as relevant. Thanks for the response. I will get back asap. Have a good time. johnreed
On Aug 25, 3:59 pm, archytas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > John - it strikes me a lot of chemistry-physics is exploring something > like what you are on about - with femto lasers and the rest - and is > even managing to stabilise nuclei without the electron fields and so > on. A lot of this is experimental in the soundest senses an could be > subjected to some rigorous thinking. Otherwise I agree with Georges. > > On 20 Aug, 09:28, Georges Metanomski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > --- On Tue, 8/19/08, johnlawrencereedjr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > From: johnlawrencereedjr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Subject: [epistemology 9226] johnreed take 25 - August 17, 2008 > > > To: "Epistemology" <[email protected]> > > > Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2008, 9:43 PM > > > johnreed take 25 > > > The Atom as a Compacted Electromagnetic Field Structure - > > > =============== > > Impressing and sad. > > Impressing, because of the enormous and apparently sincere > > endeavor. > > Sad, because based on wrong foundations and thus amounting > > to useless rediscovering of boiling water. > > > If you skipped QM which is a recipe of formulas void of > > phenomenal sense and looked a bit at the Quantum Field > > Theory (QFT), you would find that it said longtime before > > you all what you say, only better. BTW, not only said, > > but vastly and successfully applied. > > > You would see that QFT considers “particle” as a state of > > the Field such that a particle detector may register it. > > It faces mathematical > > problems, because the states of Field registered as > > Particles are its singularities and there is no > > non-linear Algebra allowing to represent singularities. > > All we can do for the moment is to "normalise" them, > > procedure no less than dubious in Dirac's opinion: > > > "When you get a number turning out to be infinite which > > ought to be finite, you should admit that there is > > something wrong with your equations, and not hope that > > you can get a good theory just by doctoring up that > > number." > > (We need) "some fundamental change in our ideas, > > probably a change just as fundamental as the passage > > from Bohr's orbit theory to quantum mechanics." > > > This change will probably entail on the one hand a > > singularity compatible Algebra and, on the other hand, > > the unification of four known Fields, > > > It seems that these two areas encompass most, if not all > > currently possible development of fundamental, theoretical > > Physics. If I had your age and drive, I'd move there > > rather than tediously rediscover QFT. > > > Georges. > > =============- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
