Ben: > On Dec 11, 2016, at 6:44 PM, Benjamin Udell <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jerry, you said that you knew of no mathematical or physical or chemical > reasons for the unmeasurability of lengths smaller than the Planck length; > you asked whether the maths of electric field theory are constrained by the > physical principles (i.e., quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle) > that motivate the conclusion about the Planck length; and you blamed > scientific epistemologies and Wikipedia for the impression that there are > such reasons. So I quoted from a Fermilab article for the general public > about the measurement limit, and said that I imagined that, if electrical > field theory contradicts quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle, > then it is valid (at most) only in a classical limit. You replied that the > foundation of electrical field theory preceded W. Heisenberg by several > decades. That's to say that the foundation remains valid only in the > classical limit, if at all. Or do you reject the uncertainty principle either > in general or in more-specific terms of its leading to the unmeasurability of > positional separations smaller than the Planck length? > Best, Ben > We are not communicating.
My pragmatic position is simple. Theory is theory and independent of measurement. That is, symbolic manipulations are merely that. Nothing more or less. The connection between beliefs about symbols and beliefs about measurements lies at the very heart of CSP’s philosophy. The putative “uncertainty principle” is a statement about beliefs in measurements, given the current state of beliefs of some physicists. In more general terms, the inverse square laws of Newton and Coulomb seem to work quite well. But, when the number of parts of the whole is large, (that is, greater than five), the mathematics difficulties are substantial. Contrast that fact with the ability of chemical equations to solve the structures of DNA with over a BILLION atoms. Given the grandiose conjectures of physicists, which appear and disappears with alarming regularity, I choose to reserve judgment about the limits of measurements. Cheers Jerry > On 12/11/2016 6:43 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: > >> Ben: >> >> The foundation of electrical field theory preceded W. Heisenberg by several >> decades. >> >> Cheers >> >> Jerry >> On Dec 11, 2016, at 3:05 PM, Benjamin Udell <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: >> >>> Jerry, list, >>> >>> It has to do with the uncertainty principle. Here's an excerpt from a >>> discussion "Planck length, minimal length?" by Don Lincoln, Friday, Nov. 1, >>> 2013, at Fermilab Today [here's the link that I belatedly included in a >>> subsequent message: >>> http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2013/today13-11-01_NutshellReadMore.html >>> >>> <http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2013/today13-11-01_NutshellReadMore.html> >>> ]: >>> >>> [Quote] >>> Now that we understand what Planck length is, we can turn our attention to >>> the question of whether it is the smallest possible length. For that, we >>> need to turn to quantum mechanics and, specifically, a thing called the >>> Heisenberg uncertainty principle. This general principle of the universe >>> states that it is impossible to measure position and momentum >>> simultaneously with infinite precision — measure one well and the other >>> will be measured poorly. >>> >>> Mead used the uncertainty principle and the gravitational effect of the >>> photon to show that it is impossible to determine the position of an object >>> to a precision smaller than the Planck length. >>> >>> So why is the Planck length thought to be the smallest possible length? The >>> simple summary of Mead's answer is that it is impossible, using the known >>> laws of quantum mechanics and the known behavior of gravity, to determine a >>> position to a precision smaller than the Planck length. >>> [End quote] >>> >>> There's also discussion of why the Planck length is a natural unit, and >>> also various qualifications. "Smallest possible length" should be taken in >>> the sense of measurability of position. Beyond that, I know little, I'm not >>> a physicist and haven't authored any Wikipedia physics articles. But I >>> would imagine that electric field theory, if it contradicts quantum >>> mechanics and the uncertainty principle, is valid only in some classical >>> limit. >>> Best, Ben >>> >>> On 12/11/2016 3:36 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: >>> >>>> Ben, List: >>>> >>>>> On Dec 11, 2016, at 1:48 PM, Benjamin Udell <[email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> According to Wikipedia, the Planck length is, in principle, within a >>>>> factor of 10, the shortest measurable length – and no theoretically known >>>>> improvement in measurement instruments could change that. But some >>>>> physicists have found that that's not quite as much of a barrier as it >>>>> may seem to be. >>>>> >>>> Your post is unclear. I know of no mathematical nor physical nor chemical >>>> reason for such a conclusion about measurements commensurabilities. >>>> Is the mathematics of electric field theory constrained by the physical >>>> principles that motivate this conclusion about this measurement of >>>> Planck’s constant? >>>> >>>> Perhaps others may be able to expand on the origin of this conjecture. >>>> >>>> But, from my perspective, it is merely another example of the problems of >>>> scientific epistemologies and Wikipedia’s style of informing public >>>> opinion. >>>> >>>> Historically, this issue has arise on this list serve with respect >>>> controversial Wikipedia articles that appear to be authored by a member of >>>> Peirce-L. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Jerry >>>> > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] > . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] > with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at > http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
