Re: Quantum physics
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008, Euan Ritchie wrote: Ooops, that non-sequitor was meant for another list. It was fine here, as far as I'm concerned. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Quantum physics
On Nov 29, 2008, at 6:08 AM, Julia Thompson wrote: On Sat, 29 Nov 2008, Euan Ritchie wrote: Ooops, that non-sequitor was meant for another list. It was fine here, as far as I'm concerned. Coordinated nicely with Rob's Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations post of yesterday. Dave What Does it Matter Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Quantum physics
Original Message: - From: Euan Ritchie [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 12:56:55 +1300 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Quantum physics Recently some physicists announced the result of some serious number crunching that is evidence that the majority of the universes mass is the interaction between quarks that form protons and neutrons. Well, that's not really news, right? We've known ever since the quark theory was well established (with the November 1974 revolution in particle physics), that the pion was a quark-antiquark pair (ups and downs) with a mass of 140 Mev, while the proton and neutron had 3 quarks (ups and downs) and a mass close to 940 Mev. Made of gluons that transmit the strong nuclear force this interaction is the 'quantum foam' of bubbling particles popping in and out of existence - in theory. I don't like that theory. Not that I'm even remotely qualified to have much of an opinion. I find the concept of particles popping in and out of existence unsatisfying and inelegant. I would only accept it as true if it's merely a way of expressing something deeper (m-branes bending in and out of our dimension for instance). So, I take it you don't even like QED, which has been verified to a zillion places, because the polarization of the vacume and renormalization? It's been around for 50-60 years. Indeed, virtual particles are so inherent in quantum theory, I can't think of how to explain the last 80 years of physics without them. Maybe Rich knows of such a theory, but I know how Weinberg talked about the fact that while one can come up with different theories slighly different than special and general relativity that are close to right, that one cannot do the same with QM. You need to remember that the only purpose of physics is to model observations. Discussion what is real and what isn't is metaphysics. Thus, the arguements over the interpretation of QM are metaphysical arguements. Dan M. myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and application hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Quantum physics
I can't believe nobody mentioned Stephen Baxter's book (he is one of the Bs, after all!). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_Diagrams Now somebody has. I certainly enjoyed the book, especially the title story. Weird, being on-topic, isn't it? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Quantum physics
Recently some physicists announced the result of some serious number crunching that is evidence that the majority of the universes mass is the interaction between quarks that form protons and neutrons. Made of gluons that transmit the strong nuclear force this interaction is the 'quantum foam' of bubbling particles popping in and out of existence - in theory. I don't like that theory. Not that I'm even remotely qualified to have much of an opinion. I find the concept of particles popping in and out of existence unsatisfying and inelegant. I would only accept it as true if it's merely a way of expressing something deeper (m-branes bending in and out of our dimension for instance). I'd be much happier if the explanation was about more about the shaping of space than the exchange of particles. Here's a page summarising the news... http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Quantum physics
Ooops, that non-sequitor was meant for another list. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Quantum physics
On 29 Nov 2008, at 00:06, Euan Ritchie wrote: Ooops, that non-sequitor was meant for another list. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l It was perfectly suitable for here actually. All topics Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Most people have more than the average number of legs. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
