Hi Jorge But the rock is a special example of a relatively static pattern but is never completely static in terms of position, heat levels, the particles composing it (these interchange constantly with the environment). That's my point nothing about the normal behaviour of rocks as we experience them.
David M ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jorge Goldfarb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 5:01 PM Subject: [MD] Patterns > David M. writes (Feb. 22): > > "I think quantum theory tells us that > when the rock is not being measured > it is spreading out as a mere probability > of being a rock, so not so static or present?" > ===== > > Jorge: Yes David, quantum theory says something of the > sort. It uses some cute equations called wave > functions which relate to a particle by saying that > the probability of finding a particle, within a given > volume element, is proportional to the size of that > volume element. > > If we were to call a rock a particle, the size of > the particle (rock) is so large that, for all > practical purposes, the said probability is as closest > to 'absolute certainty' as one could get. > As 'absolutely certain' of winning all the prizes of a > (honest) lottery if we buy all the tickets. > Put in other words: quantum mechanics would consider > said rock as being pretty much static and/or present > in a given portion of space. In other words there is > no detectable 'spreading out of the probability' > regarding the position of the rock. > > Since, for the case of a rock, Quantum Mechanics > and Classical (Newtonian) Mechanics give exactly the > same description, we don't use Quantum Mechanics for > rocks. Contrary to widespread opinion, scientists much > prefer simple equations to complicated ones; no point > of using a hefty wave function if an alternative > concise, simple, equation would give exactly the same > results. > > You are probably aware of this, but for the > benefit of others that keep bringing-in Q.T., it might > be convenient to say here that the above > considerations hold not only for a rock but for a > grain of sand and even for a particle a millionth's > times smaller than a grain of sand. Meaning that, for > all practical purposes in our daily lives we can > blissfully forget about quantum mechanics and rely > entirely on old Newton's. > > > > > __________________________________________________________ > Sent from Yahoo! Mail. > A Smarter Inbox. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
