[Fis] _ RE: Cho 2016 The social life of quarks

[Xueshan Yan]

Dear colleagues,

The issue “Quark Communication” raised by Bob and Howard etc. is interesting
and radical; it can help us to clarify that if there is a universal physical
information problem besides black hole information that only is studying by
a few astrophysicists such as Stephen Hawking etc. Here I provide some
reference about “messenger particles” extracted from Wikipedia under the
term: “Force carrier” to this question:

The concept of messenger particles dates back to the 18th century when the
French physicist Charles Coulomb showed that the electrostatic force between
electrically charged objects follows a law similar to Newton's Law of
Gravitation. In time, this relationship became known as Coulomb's law. By
1862, Hermann von Helmholtz had described a ray of light as the "quickest of
all the messengers". In 1905, Albert Einstein proposed the existence of a
light-particle in answer to the question: "what are light quanta?"

In 1923, at the Washington University in St. Louis, Arthur Holly Compton
demonstrated an effect now known as Compton scattering. This effect is only
explainable if light can behave as a stream of particles and it convinced
the physics community of the existence of Einstein's light-particle. Lastly,
in 1926, one year before the theory of quantum mechanics was published,
Gilbert N. Lewis introduced the term "photon", which soon became the name
for Einstein’s light particle. From there, the concept of messenger
particles developed further.


Best wishes,

Xueshan

-Original Message-
From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [ 
mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Pedro C. Marijuan
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2016 7:51 PM
To: 'fis'
Subject: Re: [Fis] Cho 2016 The social life of quarks

Dear Howard and colleagues,

OK, you can say that quarks communicate, but immediately we need to
create another term for "real" communication. I mean, there are quarks
(fermions) and bosons (particle forces) everywhere: planets, stars,
galaxies, etc. Their multiple interactions constitute most of the
contents of physics. If you want to term "communication" to some basic
categories of physical interactions based on force exchange --of some of
the 4 fundamental forces, whatever-- we run into difficulties to
characterize the communication that entails signals, agents and
meanings, and responses. That's the "real" communication we find after
the origins of that singular organization we call life --essential then
for the later emergence of superorganisms, peaking order, memes, etc.
You have oceans of interacting fermions and bosons around, but the new
communicating phenomenology is only found in our minuscule planet.

As an explanatory metaphor, it is not a good idea, almost wrong I dare
say. But as a free-wheeling, literary metaphor it belongs to the
author's choice. The problem is that both realms of information, so to
speak, have relatively overlapping components, depending on the
explanatory framework used (see the ongoing exchanges by Stan, John,
Terry,  etc.) And that kind of apparent homogenization blurs the effort
to establish the distinctions and advance in a unifying perspective (I
think!!). In any case, it deserves more discussion. In your Jan. 14th
message you ad more elements--I will think twice!.

All the best--Pedro

PS. Clarifying the two messages per week rule (responding to offline
quests): the two messages should be counted along the "international
business week": starting on Monday until the end of Sunday, Greenwich
Time. Thanks to all for respecting this "boundary condition"!

howlbl...@aol.com wrote:
> re: quarks
> 
> the big question for FIS is this: do quarks communicate?  and can
> their communications be called informational?
> 
> are quarks more than just the first bits of matter in the cosmos?  are
> they also the first socializers? the first team-makers?
> 
> with oomph--howard
> 
> Howard Bloom
> Author of: /The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the
> Forces of History/ ("mesmerizing"-/The Washington Post/),
> /Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the
> 21st Century/ ("reassuring and sobering"-/The New Yorker)/,
> /The Genius of the Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of Capitalism/ ("A
> tremendously enjoyable book." James Fallows, National Correspondent,
> /The Atlantic/),
> /The God Problem: How A Godless Cosmos Creates/ ("Bloom's argument
> will rock your world." Barbara Ehrenreich),
> /How I Accidentally Started the Sixties/ ("Wow! Whew! Wild!
> Wonderful!" Timothy Leary), and
> /The Mohammed Code/ ("A terrifying book…the best book I've read on
> Islam." David Swindle,/ PJ Media/).
> www.howardbloom.net
> Former Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute; Former Visiting
> Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University.
> Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; Founder, Space
> Development Steering Committee; Founder: The Group Selection Squad;
> Founding

[Fis] _ Re: Cho 2016 The social life of quarks

[Jerry LR Chandler]

Koichiro, Bob U., Pedro:

Recent posts here illustrate the fundamental discord between modes of human 
communication.  Pedro’s last post neatly addresses the immediate issue. 

 But, the basic issue goes far, far deeper.

The challenge of communicating our meanings is not restricted to just 
scientific meaning vs. historical meaning.  Nor, communication between the 
general community and, say, the music (operatic and ballad) communities.

Nor, is it merely a matter of definition of terms and re-defining terms as 
“metaphor” in another discipline.

Pedro’s post aims toward the deeper issues, issues that are fairly known and 
understood in the symbolic  logic and chemical communities.  In the chemical 
community, the understanding is at the level of intuition because ordinary 
usage within the discipline requires an intuitive understanding of the way 
symbolic usage manifests itself in different disciplines.  

(For a detailed description of these issues, see, The Primary Logic, 
Instruments for a dialogue between the two Cultures. M. Malatesta, Gracewings, 
Fowler Wright Books, 1997.)

The Polish Logician, A. Tarski, recognized the separation of meanings and 
definitions requires the usage of METALANGUAGES.  For example, ordinary public 
language is necessary for expression of meaning of mathematical symbolic logic. 
 But, from the basic mathematical language, once it grounded in ordinary 
grammar, develops new set of symbols and new meanings for relations among 
mathematical symbols.  Consequently, mathematicians re-define a long index of 
terms that are have different meanings in its technical language. 

 The meaning of mathematical terms is developed from an associative logic that 
is foreign to ordinary language.  From these antecedents, the consequences are 
abundantly clear. The communication between the meta-languages fail. The 
mathematicians have added vast symbolic logical structures to their symbolic 
communication with symbols. In other words, the ordinary historian and 
scientist are not able to grasp the distinctive meanings of mathematical 
information.  

Physical information is restricted to physical units of measure and hence 
constrained to borrowing mathematical symbols and relating to the ordinary 
language as its meta-language.

The perplexity of chemical information theory is such that it is not 
understandable in any one meta-language or any pair of meta-languages.  In 
order for symbolic chemical communication to occur, the language must go far 
beyond such simplistic notions of a primary interaction among forces, such as 
centripetal orbits or even the four basic forces.  

The early metalanguage of chemistry was merely terms within ordinary language, 
such as the names of elements. Or, the common names for oils from various 
sources. Around the turn of the 19 th Century, the metalanguage of chemistry 
started it century-long journey to become a meta-language of mathematics with 
the development of the concepts of atomic weights for each singular elements 
and molecular weight, and molecular formula for each different molecule. 

The critical distinction that separates the meta-language of chemistry from 
other metalanguages is the absolute requirement for specification of the name 
of any object on the basis of it’s distinction from other signs or collections 
of signs. 

Thus, chemical information theory, in terms of metalanguages, requires the 
exact usage of the meta-languages of both physics and mathematics in order to 
define the origin of its symbolic logic, as well as the natural metalanguage of 
ordinary human communication. 

Biological information theory is grounded on chemical information theory, using 
a particular encoding of meaning within dynamical systems, to communicate among 
the 5 essential metalanguages necessary for the practice of the medical arts.  
And, I might add, for human history. 

The failure of luke-warm physics to serve as a foundation for a generalized 
information theory is the lack of terminology that can be used to communicate 
among the symbolic logics used in more advanced modes of human communication.

In summary, in the 21 st Century, the foundation of human symbolic 
communication  requires multiple metalanguages and symbol systems, that is, a 
generalized information theory.  Such a generalized theory  of information must 
necessarily include the symbolic logic of chemistry, which is essential to span 
the  symbolic gaps between the disciplines. 

(For those of you who are familiar with my background, this email illuminates 
some of the reasoning behind the development of the perplex number system and 
perplex systems theory within the associative symbolic logic of graph theory.)

Cheers

Jerry 


> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: "Pedro C. Marijuan" 
> Subject: Re: [Fis] Cho 2016 The social life of quarks
> Date: January 18, 2016 at 5:50:40 AM CST
> To: 'fis' 
> 
> Dear Howard and colleagues,
> 
> OK, you can say that quarks communic