Marsha, I think I love you ... "there is much too much invested in the Standard Model" ... is a very shrewd summing up - that's why we have to wait for LHD to fail.
Dark Matter - not seen yet, but on my list to check out. Ian On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 2:33 PM, MarshaV<[email protected]> wrote: > Ian, > > The zeros are there and cannot be ignored (one would think), but from what I > heard of the Top Quark discovery at Fermilab it doesn't take much for them > to cry Victory, there is much too much invested in the Standard Model. Did > you happen to see the movie 'Dark Matter'? I know it's just a movie, but > it's making legitimate claims about the ??? Well, if you get a chance see > the movie. > > > Marsha > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ian Glendinning > Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 8:21 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] principle of complimentarity > > Hi Ron, Marsha, > > I like that > "Objectivly speaking, reality is a dream within a dream within a > dream...et infinum" > > I have used > "The dreams that stuff are made from" to bastardize the bard - though > I didn't coin that version. > > Just for the record the limitations are not within the "measuring > devices" - but with the very concept of measurement, given current > received wisdom of fundamental physics. > > FYI - my current view is one level lower than either particles or > waves - quantum information - where wave-particle complemenarity are > just two views of the same information. We'll have to wait for that > expensive piece of kit in Switzerland to be a complete failure (or > disaster) before much of the world notices though. The guys with the > funding have the wrong maths - Einstein corrected his error, but still > very few have noticed post-Copenhagen. > > Ian. > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 2:09 PM, X Acto<[email protected]> wrote: >> Marsha, >> >> I believe it seems to exclude a particles momentum or trajectory simply > because >> of the limits of the measuring devices and the gravitational effects it > has on them. >> >> For starters, mainly because particles are not really entities or > substances but an intersection >> of fields of force. >> As I understand it, particles are layers apon layers of said intersections > built up from a backround >> of these fields of "force" for lack of a better word, manifesting in > strong and weak atomic forces. >> >> The popular theory at the moment, which the super collider hoped to > verify, was that all of this >> is a manifestation of the field of space, or string theory, that space is > composed of fluctuating >> quantum rings. >> Objectivly speaking, reality is a dream within a dream within a dream...et > infinum >> >> so measuring is a bit of a problem, objectivly. Complimentrarity, says > that these particles >> and forces only exist in relation to eachother. to isolate them and > calculte their trajectory >> is misunderstanding them, it creates paradox. like the particle/wave > duality, the duality >> lies in how the phenomena is measured not in the phenomena itself. >> >> So to conclude, the problem is in how physicists understand particles and > the limits of the >> methods of measurement. >> >> -Ron >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ---- >> From: MarshaV <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 6:27:27 AM >> Subject: [MD] principle of complimentarity >> >> Greetings, >> >> >> >> Why is it that if we perform an experiment to determine a quantum > particle's >> position, it excludes knowing only the particle's momentum and not >> everything else? >> >> >> >> >> >> Marsha >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _____________ >> >> >> >> "He who neglects the present moment throws away all he has." >> (Friedrich von Schiller) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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/ >> > 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/ > 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/
