Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 27 Oct 1996 04:56:13 GMT
brian artese writes:
>Michael Zeleny wrote:
>>>Descartes was a decent mathematician, no? Yet Descartes' metaphysical
>>>statements -- which are based on grammatical rules, not mathematical
>>>ones -- are easily demystified.
>>Then demystify them.
>I did. I dumped your "Cogito ergo sum" like a bag of goat dung, as have
>most 20th-century philosophers.
You seem to be laboring under a tiresome presumption that "dumping
like a bag of goat dung" is an intellectually respectable way of
"demystifying" a philosophical argument. You claim that most 20th
century philosophers are skeptical about personal identity? Would
you care to conduct an opinion poll? And while you are at it, would
you care to guess at the standing of postmodern "scholarship" in the
philosophy departments worldwide?
>>Tell me how to choose between arguments in favor
>>of Cartesian dualism such as are advanced by Saul Kripke, Wilbur Hart,
>>George Bealer, or David Chalmers, and counterarguments that defend
>>materialism such as are put forth by Michael Levin, Daniel Dennett, or
>>Paul and Patricia Churchland. Since you purport to have an infallible
>>device for resolving ancient metaphysical controversies, you could make
>>yourself immortal by ending this particular conflict right here and now.
>>A straightforward way to do so would be conclusively to resolve the
>>debate between Bealer and Levin, which appears on pp 185-208 and 314-323
>>in the 1994 volume of _The Journal of Philosophy_. Go for it.
>Weren't you the one berating me for asking you to read books? And now you
>claim that the only way for me to demystify the cogito is to read your
>favorite second-hand sources? Why don't you transcribe something from the
>_Meditations_ that can answer my critique? Better to let Descartes argue
>for himself if you can't.
Actually, reading books is one of my favorite pastimes. What I was
berating you for was an attempt to substitute name-dropping for
dialectics. As long as you pull your own weight in this discussion,
I will be grateful for any apposite references that you might supply.
As regards the Meditations, I am by far my favorite secondary source.
And instead of a mere transcription, I have so far generously given
you two interpretations of Cartesian arguments. Let's stick to the
issues at hand.
>Besides, I don't need to answer Bealer and Levin. I've got "Cogito ergo
>sum" right here; as a premise and a conclusion supposedly derived from
>that premise, it claims to be self-sustaining. That's why you've got it
>in your signature field, right? It's an argument unto itself, and an
>easily deflatable one at that.
Once again, this approach is inadequate. Descartes explicitly states
in his replies to the Objections that "when we become aware that we
are thinking things, this is a primary notion not derived from any
syllogism" (AT VII 140). Hence to divide the cogito into premisses
and conclusion is inconsistent with its author's account of its
nature.
>>... [Y]our
>>characterization of the Cartesian project in the Meditations is
>>potentially misleading. Descartes' proof has nothing to do with the
>>God of Biblical revelation. The entity in question is simply that
>>than which none greater can be conceived. But as borne out by the
>>work of Spinoza, no attribute of personhood such as capacity for
>>perception, cognition, or volition, apply to this sort of being.
>I never said that what's laugable about your God is the presumption of his
>(its) cognition or volition. What's laughable about this "being" is its
>supposed ahistoricity and its naive totalizing function. Has there ever
>been empirical evidence of any ahistorical thing, or for any
>ultimate totality? Nope.
Has there ever been empirical evidence of mass, or energy, or force,
or spacetime, or the continuum, or any other ahistorical Platonic
universal? Certainly there has. The manifest success of scientific
theories that intimately depend on these explanatory concepts is
evidence enough to sustain the inference of their existence. Can you
conceive of any empirical evidence to the contrary? I doubt it.
As regards the naivety of totalizing, consider applying your epithets at
home. What have Gorgias or Heidegger or Derrida given us to compare with
the legacy of Aristotle and Galileo and Descartes and Einstein? And what
could be more naively, corrosively totalizing than consistent skepticism?
>>Moreover, Descartes' ontological argument, like his proof of dualism,
>>can be readily translated into the mathematical formalism of symbolic
>>logic.
>Yes, I recognize that mathematics as a man-made abstraction can readily
>yield 'proofs' of other man-made abstractions.
Please explain the process of man-made abstraction. Wherein consists
the facticity of the number 2? What sort of fabric is it made of,
and what kind of glue holds it together?
>>...
>>Since Goedel's work in formal logic is so often misapplied in support
>>of the postmodern credo, you may want to come to terms with the fact
>>that his philosophy was antithetical to the neo-Sophistical revival
>>advocated by Derrida and his cronies.
>I've read Derrida and plenty of his French cronies, and I've never come
>across any reference to Goedel. I suspect they don't give a shit. I hope
>I can come to terms with that...
Your suspicion is unfounded in fact. See Deleuze, _La condition postmoderne_.
>You seem to think that continental philosophy waits breathlessly for the
>next batch of crumpled papers that your favorite mathematicians,
>symbolists and metaphysicians have handed over upon emerging from their
>locked rooms. The Frenchies are much more interested in, say, history,
>philosophy and literature -- and especially in the history *of* these
>(yes, there is a history of history: a history of how history has been
>written in different eras) -- all of which are mediated entirely through
>*language* (except, of course, when they have to talk about the
>metaphysicians who ignore any kind of history). Mathematics is,
>comparatively, of little importance.
Your trend meter is badly in need of calibration. Strangely enough,
metahistory no longer enjoys the status it had a decade ago. Blame
it on the fall of the Evil Empire or on the pernicious influence of
Hollywood, but academics are churning out narrative history as they
have not done since the heyday of Michelet and Ranke. To take one
example, Maurice Lever recently sold his grand biography of Sade to
the studios for over a million dollars. Does Hayden White stand a
chance of getting a quarter for the movie rights to the _Tropics of
Discourse_? Face it -- the writings of your ideological brethren
exhibit all the vivacity and charisma of Bob Dole on triple Valium.
In any event, mathematics is of paramount importance to anyone
wishing to understand Platonism. And I am told that purporting to
refute something you cannot understand is an egregious breach of
etiquette.
>>>... A signifier is a sensible thing -- ink on the page or sound from a
>>>mouth. The signified refers to de Saussure's notion of some "meaning"
>>>that "hovers above" the signifier. This dichotomy allows us to have
>>>the signifier right in front of us, and yet still ask the question
>>>"What does it mean?" The traditional assumption is that the signifier
>>>has *a* meaning, a single meaning that grounds it. But when we answer
>>>the question, for instance, "What does 'furious' mean?" we can only
>>>answer by saying something like "it means 'angry'" or "it means
>>>'hopping mad'" or "it means 'livid'" In other words, we never get to a
>>>signified, we only get more signifiers. It turns out that the
>>>signifier does not work 'metaphorically' -- that is, as a pointer to
>>>some proper meaning that is its 'final foundation' -- it works
>>>*associatively*, in relation to other signifiers.
>>This is silly in at least two ways. First of all, you have given no
>>reason to suppose that the meaning of a given signifier is identical
>>with its explanation.
>It's not up to *me* to account for this transcendental 'meaning' that can
>never be articulated! If you propose the existence of such a beast, *you*
>have to account for it. What we are *given*, in the empirical world, are
>signifiers and mute objects that don't have a name until we give them one
>-- that is, until we assign them a signifier. So where's this signified,
>this 'meaning' that is supposedly in exact correspondence with the
>signifier, but is not the signifier itself?
Nowhere in particular - the same place as mass or charge or number.
The history of the universals controversy is evidence enough of its
resilience to sophomoric taunts of this sort.
>>This is just plain dumb. To adapt Denyer's example, if a child asks
>>me for a puppy, I will not be able to gratify him by paraphrasing the
>>term `puppy'. I will not accept Derrida's insistent claims to the
>>contrary until and unless he accepts from his publisher the sequence
>>of letters `A', `R', `G', `E', `N', and `T' in lieu of his royalties.
>The 'meaning' of the word 'puppy' cannot *be* that puppy I see over there.
> That puppy over there is not a 'meaning', not a universal, it's a
>particular thing, a referent. A particular referent, which is always
>located in space and time, is not the same thing as a signified or a
>'meaning.' That particular thing can be said to *partake* of a
>universal, to partake of a category. Another word for category is
>'label'; the label we're talking about is entirely represented by -- and
>has no existence apart from -- the *word* 'puppy'. There is no signified,
>no Platonic form, no third thing in addition to (1) the signifier, and (2)
>that particular referent over there. There is no 'meaning' independent of
>the signifier.
Since the child might as well have asked me for a unicorn or a round
square, the object of his desire is not identifiable with any actual
or even possible concrete particular. (Though this point is commonly
credited to Brentano, its locus classicus is in the Sophist around
242d.) To account adequately for the discussion of wants and needs,
universals are indispensable. Note also that mute or unarticulated
strivings rule out the possibility of reducing these universals to
their verbal expression and vitiate Derrida's charge that "en
dernière instance, la différence entre le signifié et le
signifiant _n'est rien_". Besides, the argument works just as well
with a proper name of a particular puppy as it does with the common
name of the young canis familiaris.
>So we can talk all we want about signifiers, signifieds, categories,
>meanings and Everlasting Platonic forms. But what we find is that we only
>*need* two of those terms to adequately explain signification -- the terms
>signifier and category -- and it turns out that 'categories' have their
>existence only as signifiers.
Actually, it turns out that if your explanation of signification is
to incorporate the logical standard of demonstrative reasoning, its
restriction to signifiers cannot be sustained. The reason for that
is that any sort of proof theory depends on a criterion of type-
identity between sign-tokens, which cannot be a particular by
definition. This point came to be recognized in the wake of failure
of the Quine-Goodman program of constructive nominalism in the early
Forties.
>(A note to those literate in poststructuralism: forgive me for stopping
>short in my explanation here by retaining 'intact' one half of the
>dichotomy under erasure. But you must understand who I'm talking to: I
>have to go one step at a time.)
Have you tried the Stairmaster? So far you appear to be running in place.
>>Generally speaking, things are not identical
>>with their explanations,
>Uh... yeah. Did I say they were? As a 'pomo' I tend to argue *against*
>propositions of identity, not for 'em.
Your explanation presupposed that they were.
>> and there is no reason to suppose that
>>meanings differ in this regard. Indeed, to assume that meanings are
>>reducible to equivalence classes of synonymous explanatory terms is to
>>assume a form of nominalism. As before, such tacit assumptions stand
>>in need of rational support.
>Again, the only thing in need of rational support is your positing into
>existence this sovereign thing called 'meaning'. You agree with me that
>the sensible things called 'signifiers' exist -- and those are the only
>things that I'm claiming are in operation. As I said before, the word
>'meaning' should be replaced with 'a signifier that hasn't happened yet.'
> So I haven't posited anything that we don't agree exists. But you, on
>the other hand, are insisting on the existence of this *other* thing, this
>'meaning' that is not identical to the signifier. Where is it?
You are being silly again. If meaning is a signifier[-token] that
hasn't happened yet, you have posited a thing that doesn't exist.
That the world could come to an abrupt end after I produce but before
you interpret this text, does not imply that my production is
potentially bereft of meaning.
>>Secondly, if you were to reformulate your question by applying what the
>>philosophers call a disquotation schema, to read "What does it mean to
>>be furious?", it is by no means obvious that an exhaustive answer would
>>not be forthcoming purely in terms of physical objects and events. For
>>instance, being furious might be exemplified by Clinton's state of mind
>>at a Whitewater press conference, or Yeltsin's state of mind upon being
>>informed of Lebed's behavior. Arbitrarily fine distinctions between
>>different kinds of states could be conceivably sustained by seemingly
>>similar counterexamples.
>What allows you to talk about "states of mind"? Have you seen them? Or
>are, once again, just positing them into existence?
Not at all. I am INFERRING their existence from their apparent
indispensability in psychological explanation. If you want to argue
that mass is a social construct, the onus is on you to prove that
mechanical explanation can proceed on the basis of, and reduced to,
contingent and arbitrary social conventions. Mutatis mutandis, the
same goes for wants and needs, sights and sounds, affects and
beliefs, and other cognitive, conative, and perceptual categories.
Besides, you are the one carrying on "what we are *given*, in the
empirical world." Here is a newsflash: what we are given are not
"signifiers and mute objects", but the contents of thought and
perception, from whose deliverances the existence and presence of
material objects must be inferred.
>>And it is a basic tenet of cognitive science
>>that such mental states are identical with electrical activities in the
>>C-fibers of their bearers' central nervous systems.
>They've discovered 'mental states,' have they? No doubt they'll be
>discovering the everlasting soul next. What they've 'discovered' is a way
>to register *something* going on in the brain. This registry sometimes
>yields isolatable patterns, and sometimes we can match certain broad
>emotive behaviors to those patterns. But, over and above this, your habit
>of totalization makes you presume that this registry is the trace of some
>prior totality you call 'mind'. You take a collection of effects --
>behaviors and electrical patterns -- and pretend to have discovered their
>source.
Psychology is an inchoative discipline. But the practice of inference
to the best explanation exemplified by the above is the very model of
scientific reasoning. Newton took a collection of effects handed down
by Copernicus and Kepler, and inferred their source in the force of
gravity. If you know of a better way to advance knowledge, please
share it.
>> By contrast, an
>>advocate of Cartesianism would say that in so far as this identity is
>>subject to rational doubt, it cannot realize in nature. After all, it
>>seems that such doubt implies that mental states possibly differ from
>>physical states.
>I'm assuming 'this identity' refers to the identity between the electrical
>activities and the 'mental states' that you've manufactured. Since I have
>no reason to accept their existence, I have to get off the train after
>this sentence.
I am not sure what you intended the anaphoric pronoun to stand for.
My claim is that the existence of mental states is equally well
certified by observing human behavior as the existence of electrical
activities by direct measurement. In each case the underlying cause
is inferred by abduction. In each case this inference is
indispensable for further explanation.
>>And it is a theorem of a wide class of modal logics
>>that the possibility of A and B being distinct implies their actually
>>being distinct.
>Ah yes, the tedious tautaulogy of identity theories: "I'm going to posit
>these distinct, self-identical things called A and B. Now: How could
>anybody but a lunatic claim that A and B are not distinct and self
>identical?"
We posit any number of entities on the basis of observation. My
latest practical posit is that of one Brian Artese, a rational animal
to whom I impute the ability to grasp the meaning of the theses you
are advancing. Am I jumping to conclusions? You tell me.
>>>Think of another signifier: say, a particular speech of Hamlet's.
>>>Even when we have the speech right in front of us -- let's say we've
>>>just read it -- somebody can ask "What does it mean?" The assumption
>>>is, just like with a single word, that it points to something beyond
>>>what it says -- or that there is something "underneath" the text which
>>>is its meaning or foundation. But what happens when somebody tries to
>>>"get at" this meaning in Hamlet's speech? Well, he paraphrases the
>>>speech. In other words, he offers up another articulation -- another
>>>speech -- that claims to explain the first one. But then somebody can
>>>read that second articulation, that paraphrase, and ask "What does
>>>THAT mean?" And then a third party will paraphrase the paraphrase.
>>>And then somebody can ask of that third articulation "What does THAT
>>>mean?", etc. So it becomes clear that meaning is achieved through
>>>diachronic paraphrases (i.e., paraphrases that follow one another in
>>>time) -- which topples the notion that the meaning or the signified
>>>exists *at the same time* as the signifier. But that very
>>>contemporaneousness is the necessary basis of the signifier/signified
>>>dichotomy.
>>Once again, you are arbitrarily importing your temporal sensibilities
>>into your analysis of the grasp of meaning.
>Well, since it's true that signifiers can only be comprehended in
>succession, it's not too arbitrary a concern, is it?
This claim, found in Kant's First Critique, is as far as I can tell
not grounded in reason or experience. As far as reason is concerned,
the order of temporal succession makes no difference in the validity
of an argument. As far as empirical data goes, there is plenty of
evidence that the textual units of expressed meaning can be more or
less arbitrarily expanded or constricted according to the receiver's
cognitive and perceptual abilities, as happens e.g. during speed
reading. So neither the order of signifiers nor their succession
appear to be germane to comprehension.
>>... there is no valid way to make the logical leap from the necessarily
>>diachronic nature of verbal communication to the summary denial of the
>>synchronic faculty of understanding, just as there is no way to conclude
>>that electronic banking is impossible since the Phoenicians have taught
>>us to rely on tangible coins of the realm.
>You should write more carefully: when you say 'the synchronic faculty of
>understanding,' I can only assume you mean 'the faculty of understanding,
>in which thoughts exist synchronically.' Again; I have no reason to
>accept the existence of this 'space' where several thoughts exist 'at the
>same time.' Thoughts are unspoken words. I don't know about you, but
>even when I do away with grammar (which is most of the time, with thought)
>I can only 'think' one word at a time (although the succession happens
>much more quickly than speech or writing). Any thoughts that are not
>articulatable in the future are not thoughts. They're sensations and
>feelings.
I do write more carefully; try reading on the same level. I meant the
faculty of understanding that is not essentially temporal. The key point
here is that your implicit presupposition of essential dependence requires
proof, since the logical content of understanding is not so dependent.
>> I need not have read
>>"any of Derrida's 40-odd books" to know that he based his critique
>>of Husserl on all of thirty pages he excerpted and translated from
>>_Die Krisis der europaeischen Wissenschaften und die transzendentale
>>Phaenomenologie_. By this standard of critical concern, the first
>>chapter of _De la grammatologie_ should suffice to return the favor.
>Quite admirable.
>>Like I said, I would not expect the notion of being responsible for
>>your own beliefs to be areeable to you. Rationalism is a question
>>of cognitive norms, of which parrhesia is the first and foremost.
>It's like a religious guy telling someone else that he's incapable of
>telling the truth because he's not of the faith. (In fact, it *is* a
>religious guy, and that's exactly what he's telling me!)
I am telling you that your profession of faith is logically inconsistent
with belief in a standard of truth. If you are incapable of telling the
difference between logic and religion, so much the worse for you.
>>Since a rhetorician labors under an obligation to serve any cause
>>that retains his services, he must exempt himself from the duty of
>>honest truth-telling.
>You think I'm getting paid for this?
It seems reasonable to assume that material gratification would
supplant truth-telling in those who implicitly or explicitly reject
the possibility of aiming at telling the truth. One of the things
that came out most clearly in the Sokal controversy is the concern of
the social constructionists for their shrinking budgets.
>>Unfortunately for you, this medium promotes
>>the preservation and reproduction of your utterances in a way that
>>serves as a natural remedy against prevarication and dissimulation.
>If only it were a remedy against verbal padding and inflated diction.
Padding and inflation implies superfluity. I welcome any suggestions
of conveying the same message more concisely.
>>So on the Usenet, the responsibility for your own beliefs is forced
>>upon you by the nature of their expression.
>Your 'their' doesn't agree with the suject of your sentence. And, honest
>to God, it doesn't make sense at all.
Your understanding of anaphora seems very limited. So does your overall
comprehension. Perhaps your God is preventing you grom grasping a very
simple point?
>>You post, therefore you are.
>In sickness and in health, 'til death do us part.
>>>The cogito is not a logical inference? Then what is that "therefore"
>>>doing in there?
>>Just read the book. It's all explained there in black and white.
>I have read it, and I don't remember him explaining how 'ergo' could
>signify anything other than 'a logical conclusion follows from this
>premise.'
See above.
Cordially, - Mikhail | God: "Sum id quod sum." Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum."
Zeleny@math.ucla.edu | Popeye: "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum."
itinerant philosopher -- will think for food ** www.ptyx.com ** MZ@ptyx.com
ptyx ** 6869 Pacific View Drive, LA, CA 90068 ** 213-876-8234/874-4745 (fax)
Subject: Cubic Equation Tool For Atom Patterns?
From: davk@netcom.com (David Kaufman)
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 05:10:50 GMT
CLS
DEFDBL A-Z
DIM x(100), y(100), u(100)
100
PRINT " This QBasic software program is a useful tool #1"
PRINT " for k-12 students, teachers and others"
PRINT " to explore the properties of atoms, math and ethics."
PRINT
PRINT " C by David Kaufman, Oct. 25, 1996"
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT "Note: This program is an evolving useful form for other science or"
PRINT "atom explorations. Those with GW-Basic can add numbers on left by 1's."
PRINT
PRINT "Note: This program reads okay until 1800. Then between 1800 and 2000"
PRINT " is a useful program on creating cubics from 4 special points."
PRINT
PRINT " Lines 2200 to 2400 is another program to find the ratio of"
PRINT " body atoms to half its surface atoms for FCC cubes."
PRINT
PRINT " Other programs to be included are still under construction."
PRINT
PRINT "Students and others can build some interesting FCC structures with"
PRINT "Christmas balls as outlined in sections 1200, 1300 and 1400 below."
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT " Press Enter, for Main Menu."
INPUT xx: CLS
200
PRINT "Main Menu:"
PRINT
PRINT "1. Background on FCC cubes and cubic equations for space patterns."
PRINT
PRINT "2. Find a cubic equation from: (1, y1), (2, y2), (3, y3), (4, y4)."
PRINT " or one for the number of atoms in large FCC cubes."
PRINT " Get up to 100 points for the cubic equation and see their plot."
PRINT " Then send these observed results to printer, if desired."
PRINT
PRINT "3. Body atoms / 0.5 Surface atom for FCC cubes."
PRINT
PRINT "4. "
PRINT " "
PRINT
PRINT "5. "
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT "6. To quit, enter 6."
PRINT
INPUT "Enter Number from Main Menu above."; mu
IF mu = 6 THEN END
IF mu <> 1 AND mu <> 2 AND mu <> 3 AND mu <> 4 AND mu <> 5 THEN CLS : GOTO 200
IF mu = 1 THEN CLS : GOTO 1000
IF mu = 2 THEN CLS : GOTO 1800
IF mu = 3 THEN CLS : GOTO 2200
IF mu = 4 THEN CLS : GOTO 4000
IF mu = 5 THEN CLS : GOTO 5000
300
1000
PRINT
PRINT "Menu 1000: "
PRINT
PRINT "1. Reasons to explore the FCC structure."
PRINT " How to create FCC structures."
PRINT
PRINT "2. Construction of cube FCC-63 with 63 atoms."
PRINT " Challenge to disprove a new model of xenon atom built from FCC-63."
PRINT
PRINT "3. How can 5 points (x, y) be recognized as fitting a cubic equation?"
PRINT " Show that the number of atoms in FCC cubes fit a cubic equation."
PRINT
PRINT "4. How can the cubic equation be found for any 4 points?"
PRINT
PRINT "5. Find any cubic equation or one for the atoms in large FCC cubes."
PRINT " Get up to 100 points for the cubic and see their plot."
PRINT " Then send these observed results to printer, if desired."
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT "6. To return to Main Menu, Enter 6."
PRINT
PRINT
INPUT "Enter Number from Menu 1000 above."; mx
IF mx = 6 THEN CLS : GOTO 200
IF mx <> 1 AND mx <> 2 AND mx <> 3 AND mx <> 4 AND mx <> 5 THEN mxx = 2
IF mxx = 2 THEN CLS : GOTO 1000 ' Menu waits for proper response.
IF mx = 1 THEN CLS : GOTO 1100
IF mx = 2 THEN CLS : GOTO 1300
IF mx = 3 THEN CLS : GOTO 1500
IF mx = 4 THEN CLS : GOTO 1700
IF mx = 5 THEN CLS : GOTO 1800
1100
PRINT "Reasons to explore the FCC structure:"
PRINT
PRINT "Many metal elements have their atoms arranged into the Face Centered"
PRINT "Cubic (FCC) structure. For example, aluminum's atoms when solid and"
PRINT "x-rayed are observed in an FCC pattern."
PRINT
PRINT "When aluminum melts at 660 Celsius, what sized structures move about "
PRINT "in the liquid? To attempt to answer this question, the properties"
PRINT "of various sized FCC cubes will be discussed. Perhaps the deductions"
PRINT "that will be made can be tested."
PRINT
PRINT "By examining the FCC, not only will metals be understood and liquids"
PRINT "explored, but gases can be easily analyzed because on average the FCC"
PRINT "is where individual, isolated atoms are most likely to be located."
PRINT
PRINT "Press Enter, to Continue. This is screen 1 of 8 screens."
PRINT "Enter 6, to go to Main Menu.": INPUT xx: CLS : IF xx = 6 THEN 200
1200
PRINT " How to create FCC structures:"
PRINT
PRINT "The FCC structure can be constructed with Christmas tree balls made"
PRINT "of polystyrene wound with colored thread. Pointed toothpicks at each"
PRINT "end can easily bind 2 balls to represent the binding of 2 atoms."
PRINT "A drop of glue at the point where the balls meet can make the bond"
PRINT "more secure."
PRINT
PRINT " Construction of FCC-14 atoms."
PRINT
PRINT " Front Middle Back "
PRINT " layer layer layer "
PRINT
PRINT " O O O O O "
PRINT " O O O O "
PRINT " O O O O O "
PRINT
PRINT " 5 atoms + 4 atoms + 5 atoms = 14 atoms"
PRINT
PRINT "Press Enter, to Continue. This is screen 2 of 8 screens."
PRINT "Enter 6, to go to Main Menu.": INPUT xx: CLS : IF xx = 6 THEN 200
1300
PRINT " Construction of FCC-63 atoms"
PRINT " With Blue (B), White (W), Yellow (Y) and Red (R) balls."
PRINT
PRINT " Front Second Middle Fourth Back "
PRINT " layer layer layer layer layer"
PRINT
PRINT " B Y B W W Y Y Y W W B Y B"
PRINT " W W W R W R R W R W W W"
PRINT " Y Y Y R R Y Y Y R R Y Y Y "
PRINT " W W W R W R R W R W W W"
PRINT " B Y B W W Y Y Y W W B Y B "
PRINT
PRINT " 13 atoms + 12 atoms + 13 atoms + 12 atoms + 13 atoms "
PRINT
PRINT " Note: The edge of FCC-63 has 2 FCC-14 cubes on its edge."
PRINT
PRINT " How many atoms are on the surface of FCC-63?"
PRINT
PRINT " If the edge of a cube has 3 FCC-14 cubes on its edge,"
PRINT " how many atoms will it contain?"
PRINT
PRINT "Press Enter, to Continue. This is screen 3 of 8 screens."
PRINT "Enter 6, to go to Main Menu.": INPUT xx: CLS : IF xx = 6 THEN 200
1400
PRINT "Challenge to disprove a new model of xenon atom built from FCC-63."
PRINT
PRINT "Note: If the 8 corner blue balls are removed above, a cuboctahedron is"
PRINT " created with 14 faces (8 triangles and 6 squares)."
PRINT " (And the 12 red balls make a smaller sized cuboctahedron.)"
PRINT
PRINT " This figure with 54 spheres about a center sphere is an "
PRINT " alternate model of the atom xenon with its 54 electrons."
PRINT " This model explains why xenon is a noble gas. Its outer layer"
PRINT " is completely closed. It also explains the 14 rare earth"
PRINT " elements and the f shell with 14 electrons because the"
PRINT " cuboctahedron's 14 large faces can each accommodate an"
PRINT " electron location. Remember, the electrons of xenon are not"
PRINT " in their ground state but in an electron energy dance whose"
PRINT " average electron structure might be what I call 8-6 Hedron-54."
PRINT
PRINT " Even if my xenon atom model (outlined above) is wrong, students"
PRINT " and others could learn a lot about chemistry and quantum ideas"
PRINT " in proving my alternate model of xenon inadequate."
PRINT
PRINT "Press Enter, to Continue. This is screen 4 of 8 screens."
PRINT "Enter 3, to go to previous screen 3."
PRINT "Enter 6, to go to Main Menu.": INPUT xx: CLS : IF xx = 6 THEN 200
IF xx = 3 THEN 1300
1500
PRINT " How can 5 points (x, y) be recognized as fitting a cubic equation?"
PRINT
PRINT " By examining the differences between successive y values as shown"
PRINT " below, if u = v, then any (x, y) can be found with a cubic equation."
PRINT
PRINT " x | y linear square cubic"
PRINT " __|__ "
PRINT " 1 | y1 y2 - y1 = j k - j = r s - r = u "
PRINT " 2 | y2 y3 - y2 = k l - k = s t - s = v "
PRINT " 3 | y3 y4 - y3 = l m - l = t "
PRINT " 4 | y4 y5 - y4 = m "
PRINT " 5 | y5 "
PRINT " When j = k = l = m, then"
PRINT " all points (x,y) lie on the straight line: y = Ax + B."
PRINT " When r = s = t, then"
PRINT "points (x,y) lie on the graph of a square equation: y = Axx + Bx + C."
PRINT " When u = v, then"
PRINT "points (x,y) plot a graph of a cubic equation: y = Axxx + Bxx + Cx + D"
PRINT
PRINT "Press Enter, to Continue. This is screen 5 of 8 screens."
PRINT "Enter 6, to go to Main Menu.": INPUT xx: CLS : IF xx = 6 THEN 200
1600
PRINT "Show that the points in the table below lie in a cubic equation."
PRINT "The points were obtained by examining layers of spheres in FCC cubes."
PRINT
PRINT " # FCC-14 Cubes (n) | # atoms (A) | Points "
PRINT "(on edge of large cube) | (in large cube) | (x, y) = (n, A) "
PRINT "------------------------|------------------|-----------------------"
PRINT " 1 | 14 | (1, y1) = (1, 14)"
PRINT " 2 | 63 | (2, y2) = (2, 63)"
PRINT " 3 | 172 | (3, y3) = (3, 172)"
PRINT " 4 | 365 | (4, y4) = (4, 365)"
PRINT " 5 | 666 | (5, y5) = (5, 666)"
PRINT
PRINT "Subtract differences between the y values as follows:"
PRINT "y5 = 666"
PRINT "y4 = 365 y5 - y4 = 301 = m"
PRINT "y3 = 172 y4 - y3 = 193 = l m - l = 104 = t"
PRINT "y2 = 63 y3 - y2 = 109 = k l - k = 84 = s t - s = 24 = v"
PRINT "y1 = 14 y2 - y1 = 49 = j k - j = 60 = r s - r = 24 = u"
PRINT
PRINT "The series of 5 points above is on a cubic because u = v = 24."
PRINT
PRINT "Press Enter, to Continue. This is screen 6 of 8 screens."
PRINT "Enter 6, to go to Main Menu.": INPUT xx: CLS : IF xx = 6 THEN 200
1700
PRINT " How can the cubic be found for any 4 points as follows:"
PRINT " (1, y1), (2, y2), (3, y3), (4, y4)?"
PRINT
PRINT " For cubic equation: y = Axxx + Bxx + Cx + D"
PRINT "Find A, B, C, and D by solving for them in the following 4 equations:"
PRINT " y1 = A + B + C + D "
PRINT " y2 = 8A + 4B + 2C + D "
PRINT " y3 = 27A + 9B + 3C + D "
PRINT " y4 = 64A + 14B + 4C + D "
PRINT
PRINT " The Solution for A, B, C, and D is written in Basic as follows: "
PRINT " A = (-y1 + 3 * y2 - 3 * y3 + y4) / 6 "
PRINT " B = (3 * y1 - 8 * y2 + 7 * y3 - 2 * y4) / 2 "
PRINT " C = (-26 * y1 + 57 * y2 - 42 * y3 + 11 * y4) / 6 "
PRINT " D = 4 * y1 - 6 * y2 + 4 * y3 - y4 "
PRINT
PRINT " Many FCC properties can be generalized easily with the above tool. "
PRINT " For example, if the number of atoms contained in the 1st 4 FCC Cubes"
PRINT " is known, then the atoms in any sized FCC cube is easily retrieved. "
PRINT " Knowing (5, y5) before hand acts as a check that the cubic is correct."
PRINT
PRINT " Press Enter, to Continue. This is screen 7 of 8 screens."
PRINT "Enter 6, to go to Main Menu.": INPUT xx: CLS : IF xx = 6 THEN 200
1800 ' Return to 1800 to create new cubic equations.
PRINT "Find any cubic equation or one for the atoms in large FCC cubes."
PRINT
PRINT "The number of atoms in small to larger FCC cubes is as follows:"
PRINT " y1, y2, y3, y4, y5 = 14, 63, 172, 365, 666"
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT "To find the cubic for points: (1, y1), (2, y2), (3, y3), (4, y4)"
PRINT
INPUT "Enter 4 values in form: y1, y2, y3, y4 "; y1, y2, y3, y4
A = (-y1 + 3 * y2 - 3 * y3 + y4) / 6
B = (3 * y1 - 8 * y2 + 7 * y3 - 2 * y4) / 2
C = (-26 * y1 + 57 * y2 - 42 * y3 + 11 * y4) / 6
D = 4 * y1 - 6 * y2 + 4 * y3 - y4
1840 ' Return to 1840 to find more y values from x.
CLS
PRINT " For points: (1,"; y1; "), (2,"; y2; "), (3,"; y3; "), (4,"; y4; ")"
PRINT " The cubic equation is as follows: "
PRINT
A! = A: B! = B: C! = C: D! = D ' Converting from 16 digit calculation
' to 7 digit presentation.
PRINT " y = "; A!; "xxx + "; B!; "xx + "; C!; "x + "; D!
PRINT
PRINT " Enter x values (up to 100 to find their y values) in form: a, b, c"
PRINT
INPUT " Where x = a to b step c "; aa, bb, cc
CLS
' Return to 1860 to reprint heading for next monitor screen.
1860 ' Heading of x, y table and y-axis -20 to 20.
yy = 0 ' Every 19 lines yy = 19 to fit screen. Count from zz = 0 again.
PRINT " FOR x = "; aa; "TO"; bb; "STEP"; cc;
PRINT TAB(40); "y plotted values = (20) (y value) / ymax"
PRINT " x"; TAB(15); "| y"; TAB(33); "|"; TAB(39); "-20"; TAB(49); "-10";
PRINT TAB(60); "0"; TAB(70); "10"; TAB(79); "20"
PRINT "--------------|-----------------|------|---------|---------|---------|";
PRINT "---------|"
IF myy = 1 THEN 1920 ' Way to return after getting heading for next screen.
n = 0 ' Counts number of x's each time from 0 for each new request.
ym = 0 ' Each new request starts the maximum value of ym at 0.
FOR x = aa TO bb STEP cc
n = n + 1 ' n x's are counted
x(n) = x 'Stores x values as y maximum (ym) is sort.
y = A * x ^ 3 + B * x ^ 2 + C * x + D
y(n) = y
IF ABS(y) > ym THEN ym = ABS(y) 'Finds ym = maximum absolute value of y.
NEXT x
m = n ' gives m the value of n counted above.
FOR n = 1 TO n ' Values stored above are now retrieved.
u(n) = y(n) * 20 / ym ' u = unit to plot y point (ym = 20 units).
x = x(n): y = y(n): u = CINT(u(n)) ' u is rounded to nearest integer.
x! = x: y! = y ' Going from 16 digits to 7 digits.
'Below x, y values go into table and y is plotted as * (+ or -20) from 60.
PRINT x!; TAB(15); "| "; y!; TAB(33); "|"; TAB(u + 60); "*"
yy = yy + 1 ' Counts lines put into table
IF yy = 19 THEN myy = 1 ' Way to get same heading for next screen.
IF myy = 1 THEN PRINT "Press Enter, to continue.": INPUT yy: CLS
IF myy = 1 THEN 1860 ' Goes to 1860 to get heading for next 19 lines.
1920
myy = 0 ' myy = 1 after next 19 lines.
NEXT n ' get the next stored x, y values.
ym! = ym
PRINT "|ymax| = "; ym!;
PRINT TAB(25); "(1,"; y1; "), (2,"; y2; "), (3,"; y3; "), (4,"; y4; ")"
PRINT "y = "; A!; "xxx + "; B!; "xx + "; C!; "x + "; D!
PRINT "----------------------------------------------------------------------"
INPUT "Press Enter, to continue. "; xx: CLS
1930 ' Go to 1930 to print results on screen.
IF mxx <> 11 THEN 1960 ' If mxx is not 11, then no printing.
LPRINT
LPRINT
LPRINT " For points: (1,"; y1; "), (2,"; y2; "), (3,"; y3; "), (4,"; y4; ")"
LPRINT " The cubic equation is as follows: "
LPRINT
A! = A: B! = B: C! = C: D! = D
LPRINT " y = "; A!; "xxx + "; B!; "xx + "; C!; "x + "; D!
LPRINT
LPRINT " FOR x = "; aa; "TO"; bb; "STEP"; cc
LPRINT
LPRINT " x"; TAB(15); "| y"; TAB(33); "|"; TAB(38); "-20"; TAB(48); "-10";
LPRINT TAB(59); "0"; TAB(69); "10"; TAB(79); "20"
LPRINT "--------------|-----------------|-----|---------|---------|---------|";
LPRINT "---------|"
FOR n = 1 TO m ' Values stored above are now retrieved.
u(n) = y(n) * 20 / ym ' u = unit to plot point (ym = 20 units).
x = x(n): y = y(n): u = CINT(u(n)) ' u is rounded to nearest integer.
x! = x: y! = y
LPRINT x!; TAB(15); "| "; y!; TAB(33); "|"; TAB(u + 59); "*"
NEXT n
ym! = ym
LPRINT "|ymax| = "; ym!; TAB(40); "y plotted values = (20) (y value) / ymax"
LPRINT "---------------------------------------------------------------------"
1960
mxx = 0
PRINT "Menu 1800: Command to printer is now OFF."
PRINT
PRINT "Enter 1, to Review points just viewed."
PRINT
PRINT "Enter 2, to Find more y values from x."
PRINT "Enter 3, to Create another cubic equation from: y1, y2, y3, y4."
PRINT
PRINT "Enter 4, to Print points just viewed."
PRINT
PRINT "Press Enter, to Continue. "
PRINT "Enter 6, to Go to Main Menu.": INPUT xx
IF xx = 1 THEN CLS : GOTO 1860
IF xx = 2 THEN 1840
IF xx = 3 THEN CLS : GOTO 1800
IF xx = 4 THEN mxx = 11: CLS : GOTO 1930
CLS : IF xx = 6 THEN 200
2000
mx = 0
PRINT
PRINT "Menu 2000: "
PRINT
PRINT "1. Body Atoms in FCC Cube / 0.5 Surface Atoms on FCC Cube."
PRINT
PRINT "2. "
PRINT
PRINT "3. "
PRINT
PRINT "4. "
PRINT
PRINT "5. "
PRINT
PRINT "6. To return to Main Menu, Enter 6."
PRINT
INPUT "Enter number from menu above."; mx
IF mx = 6 THEN CLS : GOTO 200
'(To send results to printer, Enter 22 first.)
'IF mx = 22 THEN CLS : PRINT "Enter number below to send its results to printer"
'IF mx = 22 THEN PRINT : PRINT "To cancel sending results to printer, Enter 33."
'IF mx = 22 THEN mxx = 11: PRINT : GOTO 2100
'IF mx = 33 THEN mxx = 0: CLS : GOTO 2100
IF mx <> 1 AND mx <> 2 AND mx <> 3 AND mx <> 4 AND mx <> 5 THEN 200
IF mx = 1 THEN CLS : GOTO 2200
IF mx = 2 THEN 2400
'IF mx = 3 THEN 2600
'IF mx = 4 THEN 2800
'IF mx = 5 THEN
2100 ' 2100 to 2200 not in use yet.
CLS
PRINT "To enter x values from k to l in steps of m as follows:"
PRINT
PRINT " FOR x = k TO l STEP m."
PRINT
INPUT " Select 3 numbers in form: k, l, m "; kk, ll, mm
CLS
PRINT " FOR x = "; kk; " TO "; ll; " STEP "; mm
PRINT
PRINT " To enter these x values above: Press Enter."
PRINT
PRINT " To choose 3 other numbers for x values: Enter 1. "
PRINT
INPUT xx
IF xx = 1 THEN CLS : GOTO 2100
CLS : GOTO 2000
2200
PRINT "Press enter to see: Body Atoms / 0.5 Surface Atoms for FCC cubes"
PRINT " with edges of FCC-14 cubes from 1 to 38."
PRINT
PRINT "Then select or print whatever values of interest."
PRINT
INPUT xx: CLS
rr = 1
ss = 38
tt = 1
2220
zz = 0
CLS
PRINT "Body Atoms in FCC Cube / 0.5 Surface Atoms on FCC Cube."
PRINT ""
a1$ = "x = # Cube-14": a2$ = "Body Atoms ": a3$ = "Surface Atoms"
b1$ = "On Cube Edge ": b2$ = "In FCC Cube": b3$ = "1 / 2 Only "
a4$ = "Body / Surface": a5$ = "L = # Layers"
b4$ = "BAC / SAC ": b5$ = "L = 2x + 1 "
'c1 =
PRINT a1$; TAB(16); a2$; TAB(32); a3$; TAB(48); a4$; TAB(64); a5$
PRINT b1$; TAB(16); b2$; TAB(32); b3$; TAB(48); b4$; TAB(64); b5$
IF mxx = 1 THEN GOTO 2300
2250
FOR x = rr TO ss STEP tt
BAC = 4 * x ^ 3 + 6 * x ^ 2 + 3 * x + 1 ' # Body Atoms in FCC Cube.
SAC = 6 * x ^ 2 + 1 ' # Surface Atoms on FCC Cube.
c1! = x: c2! = BAC: c3! = SAC: C4! = BAC / SAC: c5! = 2 * x + 1
PRINT c1!; TAB(16); c2!; TAB(32); c3!; TAB(48); C4!; TAB(64); c5!
zz = zz + 1
IF zz = 18 THEN mxx = 1
IF mxx = 1 THEN PRINT "Press Enter, to continue.": INPUT xx
IF zz = 18 THEN zz = 0
IF mxx = 1 THEN 2220 'to get proper heading for next 18 lines
2300
mxx = 0
NEXT x
PRINT "Press Enter, for Menu 2200.": INPUT xx
GOTO 2370 ' To Menu 2200
2320
gg = 0
LPRINT "Body Atoms in FCC Cube / 0.5 Surface Atoms on FCC Cube."
LPRINT ""
LPRINT a1$; TAB(16); a2$; TAB(32); a3$; TAB(48); a4$; TAB(64); a5$
LPRINT b1$; TAB(16); b2$; TAB(32); b3$; TAB(48); b4$; TAB(64); b5$
LPRINT
2350
FOR x = rr TO ss STEP tt
gg = gg + 1
BAC = 4 * x ^ 3 + 6 * x ^ 2 + 3 * x + 1 ' # Body Atoms in FCC Cube.
SAC = 6 * x ^ 2 + 1 ' # Surface Atoms on FCC Cube.
c1! = x: c2! = BAC: c3! = SAC: C4! = BAC / SAC: c5! = 2 * x + 1
LPRINT c1!; TAB(16); c2!; TAB(32); c3!; TAB(48); C4!; TAB(64); c5!
IF gg = 10 THEN gg = 0: LPRINT
NEXT x
mxx = 0
2370
CLS
PRINT "Menu 2200: Command to printer is now OFF."
PRINT
PRINT "Enter 1, to Review values just viewed."
PRINT
PRINT "Enter 2, to Select different range of values to view."
PRINT
PRINT "Enter 3, to Print values just viewed."
PRINT
PRINT "Enter 5, to Go to Main 2000."
PRINT
PRINT "Enter 6, to Go to Main Menu.": INPUT xx
IF xx = 1 THEN CLS : GOTO 2220
IF xx = 2 THEN CLS : rrr = 1: GOTO 2390
IF xx = 3 THEN mxx = 11: CLS : GOTO 2320
IF xx = 5 THEN CLS : GOTO 2000
CLS : IF xx = 6 THEN 200
2390
IF rrr <> 1 THEN CLS : GOTO 2370
PRINT "Select new range of values from x = r to s step t."
PRINT
INPUT "Select whole number values in form: r, s, t. "; rr, ss, tt
rrr = 0
GOTO 2220
2400
PRINT "Press Enter, to go to 2400.": INPUT xx: CLS
GOTO 2400
PRINT ""
PRINT ""
PRINT ""
PRINT ""
2600
2800
3000
4000
5000
CLS : PRINT "Under Construction Still.": PRINT : GOTO 200
--
davk@netcom.com
Subject: Re: The Sagnac Effect
From: mkluge@wizard.net (Mark D. Kluge)
Date: 27 Oct 1996 06:41:12 GMT
In article <54ss8f$c1s@nuacht.iol.ie>, flemingp@iol.ie says...
> mkluge@wizard.net (Mark D. Kluge) wrote:
> >In article <54r71f$3l7@nuacht.iol.ie>, flemingp@iol.ie says...
> >>The Sagnac effect was discovered by the French scientist G. Sagnac in
> >>1910. In his experiment a light signal (photons)is sent around a path
> >>on a rotating disc, both clockwise and anti-clockwise, simultaneously
> >>by means of a beam splitter. In both cases the path length is the
> >>same. However, the beams take different times to return to the source.
> >>The effect is seen by means of an interferometer placed on the
> >>rotating disc, in the same position as the beam splitter. A fringe
> >>effect is seen. It is seen irrespective of whether the observer
> >>rotates with the disc, or is stationary in the laboratory. Subsequent
> >>tests have established that the effect is also seen with electrons
> >>(Hasselbach et al) and neutrons (Werner et al).
> >>I wish to put forward an explanation based on the Coriolis effect and
> >>the de Broglie/Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics. The Coriolis
> >>acceleration acts on a body (mass) rotating on a disc,
> >And since the light is not rotating with the disk, there is no Coriolis
effect
> >on the light.
I stated this badly. What I meant, and should have said, is the trivial
statement that in the laboratory frame, in which it is most convenient to do
the analysis, there is, obviously, no Coriolis force on the light. In the
laboratory frame the light propagates rectilinearly between reflections by the
mirrors that guide the light’s path and move with the disk. Under these
circumstances the light’s interaction with the rotating disk consists in the
light’s reflection from the mirrors. This can be considered an impulsive
interaction-the light reflecting off of moving mirrors whose instantaneous
velocities in the laboratory frame are determined by the rotational speed of
the disk and their instantaneous positions on that disk. The reflection of
light off of moving mirrors is well-understood. One can calculate the path of
the light around the disk as a function of the disk’s angular velocity
entirely in the laboratory frame of reference. One doesn’t need even to think
about Coriolis acceleration.
Of course one could attempt the calculation in the rotating frame of reference
of the disk. In that frame of reference one must consider the Coriolis
acceleration of the light. In the rotating frame the light follows a curved
path. Of course the analysis ultimately has to produce the same interference
pattern as that based upon the laboratory frame. It might even be necessary if
the light travels through some refractive medium which rotates with the disk
rather than through vacuum, to do the calculation primarily in the comoving
frame.
>
> >>in a tangential direction.
>
> >
>
> >>If the tangential velocity of the disc is v1 and the velocity of the
> >>particle is v then, when the particle and the disc are moving in the
> >>same direction, the velocity of the particle is v1+v relative to an
> >>observer on the disc. When the particle and disc are moving in
> >>opposite directions the velocity of the particle is v1-v. Therefore
> >>the magnitudes of the Coriolis accelerations acting on the particles
> >>are different.
>
> >
>
> >>As the effect is produced on all particles, photons, neutrons,
> >>electrons etc, and since it is mass that acceleration operates on, one
> >>questions the alleged zero rest mass of the photon. Bass et al (1955)
> >>and Goldhaber et al (1971) suggested a rest mass for the photon. This
> >>has been endorsed by Vigier (1996).
>
> >As noted above, there is no Coriolis effect on the light, which is not
> >connected to the rotating disk.
Again, working in the laboratory frame of reference.
> >
>
> >>The above analysis, if correct, indicates the non-zero mass of the
> >>photon and the validity of the de Broglie/Bohm interpretation of
> >>quantum mechanics.
>
> >The analysis is wrong, and suggest nothing about the rest mass of the
photon.
Even if it were necessary or desirable to consider Coriolis accelerations in
the rotating frame of reverence in the analysis, it would say nothing about
the mass of the photon. The Coriolis acceleration is a purely kinematic effect
relating the motion of objects in two different coordinate systems. The
Coriolis acceleration does not depend upon the mass of the object being
accelerated.
It is true that sometimes one needs to associate a Coriolis force with objects
undergoing Coriolis acceleration in a rotating frame of reference. The
Coriolis force is then defined as the product of the mass of the object and
its Coriolis acceleration. This fictitious "force" is defined so that Newton’s
second law of motion formally holds in the rotating frame of reference.
When considering the motion of massless objects in a rotating frame of
reference, however, (such as the motion of an abstract point) one can still
speak of its Coriolis acceleration without reference to any corresponding
Coriolis force.
In looking at your post again, I think I see where your most serious
misapprehension lies. You write above:
> >>As the effect is produced on all particles, photons, neutrons,
> >>electrons etc, and since it is mass that acceleration operates on, one
> >>questions the alleged zero rest mass of the photon.
The phrase, "since it is mass that acceleration operates on", is wrong.
Acceleration is simply the second derivative of position with respect to time.
It matters not what, if anything, has the position being differentiated. One
can reasonably speak of the acceleration of the midpoint joining the earth and
moon, although there is no mass associated with that point, although, if one
cannot meaningfully associate a mass with that point, one cannot define a
force acting upon it in accordance with Newton’s second law.
In conclusion, even if it were useful or necessary to speak of a Coriolis
acceleration of the light in analyzing the Sagnac effect, there would be no
basis for introducing a Coriolis force unless it had been previously
established that there was a mass to be associated with the light.
(Your remarks on the Coriolis effect below are Okl. They are just irrelevant
to the Sagnac effect.)
Mkluge
> Thank you for your comments.
> The Coriolis force in an inertial force that arises whem a body moves
> in a rotating frame of reference. For example it must be taken into
> account when considering motion relative to the earth's surface. Here
> are some examples:
> i) because the earth rotates, a fluid that flows along the earth's
> surface is influenced by the Coriolis acceleration. In the northern
> hemisphere low pressure storm systems spin counterwise. In the
> southern hemisphere they spin clockwise because the direction of the
> Coriolis acceleration is reversed;
> ii) the same effect applies to a vortex in a bath, but the magnitude
> of the effect is so small that it does not normally influence the
> direction of flow. The effect can be seen in carefully controlled
> expeiments;
>
> iii) the effect must be taken into account in calculating the
> trajectories of long-range ballistics.
> None of these bodies is "connected" to the rotating platform. The
> earth can be consicered a series of rotating discs. My analysis holds.
Subject: Re: Quantum Physics:Illusion and Reality
From: davidelm
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 03:46:03 -0700
Peter Diehr wrote:
>
> Gillian Megaughin wrote:
> >
> > I am a fourth year student at Edinburgh Uni doing a lab on the subject of
> > QP:illusion adn Reality. We have a basic idea of what needs to be done, it's
> > seems that it is based on the EPR paper and a paper published by Bell in 1969.
> > We are having trouble tracking these down.
> >
> > We would be most grateful if anyone could enlighten us as the the content or
> > where to obtain these on-line.
> >
> > If anyone can help, would it be possible to mail me directly?
> >
> > Thanx
>
> "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?"
> by Albert Eienstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen, Physical Review, 47, 777-80 (1935).
>
> "On the Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics", John S. Bell, Reviews of
> Modern Physics, 38, 447-52 (1966).
>
> These are also reprinted in many collections, such as "Quantum Theory and Measurement",
> J.A. Wheeler and W.H. Zureck, editors, (1983), (Princeton University Press).
>
> See your reference librarian for how to find these in your university library.
>
> For popular renditions, check out Nick Herbert's "Quantum Reality", or David Mermin's
> "Boojums all the way through".
>
> Best Regards, Peter
In my opinion, the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox has been solved.
See:
1. http://www.tiac.net/users/davidelm/epr.htm
Or if you want to check out the current 'scientific' view you can
check out these other web pages on Bell's Inequality:
2. http://info.uibk.ac.at/c/c7/c704/qo/photon/_3path/./
The fiber optics test at Innsbruck, Austria a real EPR test going
on now?
3. http://www.indirect.com/www/mburns/bohr.html
Neil Bohrs Defense of Orthodoxy
4. http://www.reed.edu/~rsavage/epr.html
Rhett at http://www.reed.edu/~rsavage/
5. http://www.teleport.com/~rhett/quantum-d/posts/qix_9-28.html
Gerard 't Hooft as documented by rhett in Quantum-d
6. http://hermes-op.com/inscirev/fall95/quanmeas.html
Quantum Measurement as Experience by Joel Henkel
7.
http://emu.con.wesleyan.edu:80/~eric/sparrow/physics/EPR.Paradox.html
John Blanton as documented by Eric Buddington
8. http://mist.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_45.html
The Freedman-Clauser Experiment
by John G. Cramer at University of Washingtom
9.
http://nucleus.ibg.uu.se:80/elektromagnum/web/physics/LudwigPlutonium/AtomWholeFAQs/FAQ4
Superdeterminism by Archimedies Plutonium
10. http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/vjs/www/visual.txt
Visualizing the quantum world by Victor J. Stenger at Hawaii
11.
http://www.xmission.com:80/~gastown/the-computer-inside-you/ciy1-4.html
Instantaneous Communication by Kurt Johmann
(the-computer-inside-you)
12.
http://eve.physics.ox.ac.uk/QCresearch/communication/communication.html
Artur Ekert on quantum communication
13. http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~dstrek1/
Dmitry V. Strekalov Moscow State University
14. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bells_inequality.html
John Baez The EPR Paradox and Bell's Inequality Principle
15. http://www.nikhefk.nikhef.nl/~jona/epr/epr.html
Philippe Eberhard as documented on Jona's EPR page.
16. http://math.rutgers.edu/~oldstein/
Sheldon Goldstein at Rutgers in NJ
17. http://physics1.berkeley.edu/research/chiao/research.html
The Chiao Group at Berkeley
18. http://www.hia.com/hia/pcr/eprbell.html
Jack Sarfatti on the logic of the original EPR paper.
19. http://www.mtnmath.com/physics.html
Paul Budnick Jr Physics facts and speculation
20. http://www.hia.com/hia/pcr/mts.html
Mind matter interaction by Jack Sarfatti
21. http://www.phy.cam.ac.uk/www/research/mm/articles/Bell.psi
Biological Utilisation of Quantum NonLocality
22. http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/
Brian D. Josephson
23.
http://www.eff.org/pub/Net_culture//Consciousness/the_quantum_brain.article
Science within conscienceness, by Amit Goswami
24. http://vesta.physics.ucla.edu/~smolin/papers/concentration.html
Charles H. Bennett. et al. Concentration
25. http://seidel.ncsa.uiuc.edu:80/phys150
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Experiment by Peter Leppik
26. http://www.itr.ch:8000/~pheinzma/quantlit.html
A Bibliography of Quantum Cryptography
by Gilles Brassard at University of Montreal
27. http://www.io.org/~randall/Indiscernibles/
Quantum superpositionan, by Allan Randall
28. http://mars.ark.com/~mkernagh/kospec/node6.html
Michael Kernaghan
University of Western Ontario, Canada
29. http://www.lightlink.com/vic/field.html
On the Physics and Psychology of the Transference as an
Interactive Field by Victor Mansfield at
Colgate University, Hamilton, NY
Or if you can get to a good university physics library you may find
one of these fine References:
1. Quantum Theory and Measurement
Princeton University Press, 1983.
edited by John Wheeler and Wojciech Zurek
[This is the very best collection of technical papers on EPR tests.
W&Z;
includes the important papers of Einstein (and Podosky and Rosen),
Bell,
Bohm, Clauser, Fry and Thomson, Aspect, and others.]
2. Quantum Reality 1985
Nick Herbert See p. 211-231
[This is the very best popularization I have found. Herbert covers
the
entire physical layout of the experimental setup in simple language.
]
3 . Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics
J. S. Bell especially fig 2 on page 85
4. Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics
Bernard d'Espagnat see p. 103-120
5. The Cosmic Code 1982
Heinz Pagels See p. 137-152
6. The dancing Wu Li Masters 1979
Gary Zulkav p. 281-314
7. The New Physics 1989
Edited bt Paul Davies See p. 382-389
8. The Interpetation of Quantum Mechanics 1973
Michael Audi See p. 72-99
9. Quantum Mechanics Lecture Notes 1990-1991
Eugene D. Commins See p.32-52
10. Particles and Paradoxes 1987
Peter Gibbins see p. 116-125
11. Quantum Mechanics an Introduction 1989
W. Greiner see p. 326-336
12. The Description of Nature 1987
John Honner see p.125-141
13. Structure and Interpetation of Nature 1989
R. I. G. Hughes see p. 237-258
14. Principles of Quantum Mechanics 1990
Hans O'Hanian see p. 368-381
15. Quantum Mechanics 1992
P. J. E. Peebles see p. 242-257
16. Quantum Mechanics Illusion or Reality? 1986
Alastair Rae see p. 28-47
17. Incompleteness, Nonlocality, and Realism
Michael Redhead see p. 82-118
18. Quantum Mechanics from General Relativity
Mendel Sachs see p. 22-38
19. The Problems of Physics 1987
A. J. Leggett see p. 157-172
20. The meaning of Quantum Theory
Jim Baggot
21. Quantum Mechanics 1990
Leslie Ballentine see p. 437-456
(Explains Clauser and Horne's improvements on the EPR experiments)
22. Quantum Profiles 1991
Jeremy Bernstein
23. Quantum States and Profiles 1992
George H. Duffey Ph.D. see p. 338-358
24. The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics
Max Jammer see p. 253-339
25. Quantum Measurement and Chaos 1986
edited by E. R. Pike and Sarben Sarkar see p. 59-63
26. Problems in Quantum Physics, Gdansk '89
edited by Mizerski, Posiewnik, Pykacz, Zukowski see p. 453-460
27. Superposition and Interaction
Richard Schlegel see p. 139-155
28. A Modern Approach to Quantum Mechanics 1992
John S. Townsend see p. 120-146
29. Quantum Mechanics an Empiricist View
Bas C. van Fraassen
30. Quantum Implications 1987
edited by B. J. Hiley and F. David Peat
31. Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory - Reflections on Bell's
Theorem
edited by James Cushing and Ernan McMullin
32. Quantum Mechanics I 1989
A. Galindo and P. Pascual see p. 376-385
33. The Metaphysics of Quantum Theory 1987
Henry Krips see p. 63-88, 161-165
DAVID ELM's HOME PAGE
http://www.tiac.net/users/davidelm
You may also send EMAIL:
davidelm@tiac.net
72624.1024@compuserve.com
..