Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 20:32:39 GMT
In article <57jcvl$g4s@uni.library.ucla.edu>, zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk (Patrick Juola) writes:
>>zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>>>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>>zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>>>>>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>>>>>>Observable means affecting other things. If it does, you'll notice
>>>>>>it. Of course you can postulate something that , while in principle
>>>>>>observable, will never be observed since the effects are too small.
>
>>>>>No, observable means observable. If Shimony and other interactionists
>>>>>are right, minds are extra-physical and non-observable substances that
>>>>>affect material things.
>
>>>>And if they're wrong?
>
>>>Irrelevant. A definition is vitiated by the mere logical possibility
>>>of satisfying the definiens without falling under the definiendum.
>
>>If they interact with material things, then they're not non-observable,
>>since their presence can be deduced from the interactions. Unless
>>you are also going to postulate that the fashion in which they affect
>>material things is *also* non-observable, in which case I question
>>your (improper) use of "affect."
>
>The interaction of mental causes with physical effects is not
>observable as such, and neither is any other causal relation.
>And if the world of physical processes and events is causally
>complete and closed, there will always be a physical cause for
>each physical effect.
>
Few comments here, just to keep it going a bit longer:
1) "if the world of physical processes and events is causally
complete and closed" is a big if indeed. See QM as an example.
2) The interaction of mental causes with physical events is
observable through its effects. Granted, it is not amenable (so far
at least) to scientific observation since objective evaluations are
extremely difficult, perhaps impossible. Which is not the same as
'nonobservable". Denying exiatance to things we cannot explain
doesn't strike me as a proper approach, not even as a proper
scientific approach.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: Re: Reader's Digest on deconstruction
From: tprepsky@pepvax.pepperdine.edu (Todd)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 96 20:53:09 GMT
In article <57crop$dtj@netnews.upenn.edu>, weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) wrote:
>David O' Bedlam (thedavid@clark.net) wrote:
>: brian artese (b-artese@nwu.edu) wrote:
>: [...]
>
>: : The phrase 'oscillating against each other' is a bit clumsy as well.
>
I believe this phrase works. Take, for instance, the common example of the
drum head. It is the "difference" between "sound" and "not sound," yet it is
neither of the two. In a deconstructive reading of a text, we would look to
reduce the binary opposition (or several binary oppositions, depending on the
text) to this level, so that it could be reduced no further, hence setting it
back on the other, creating a kind of oscillation. Think of a standing wave
in a parallel-walled room bouncing back and forth between the surfaces.
Todd
Subject: Re: ARROW OF TIME
From: Hermital
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 13:38:26 -0800
Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D. wrote:
> Right. I suppose the only way to create the vacuum |0> from ZERO i.e.,
> what I have been calling the "VOID" is with something infinite. But
> wait, there is still something interesting here.
>
> a|0> = 0 i.e., the usual a, boson or fermion, of second quantization
> destroys its associated vacuum mode |0> to a real zero as you show
> above. What is the relation of a annihilation to its Hermitian conjugate
> a* creation incompatible (complementary) partner? In almost all cases
> but this one we can think of a* as a time reversal of a. Thus if I
> destroy a quantum forward in time, run the film backwards and I have
> created that same quantum backwards in time! But this fails for the
> vacuum. Clearly, the a* cannot create the vacuum from the void even
> though it's conjugate partner merrily can annihilate that vacuum into
> the void! Therefore, we have an ARROW OF TIME implicit in the standard
> algebra of second quantization which I have never seen mentioned before
> in any text book or lectures I attended in graduate school. There is a
> real assymetry between a and a* that seems to give a direction to time -
> breaking the time-reversal symmetry in a really fundamental way. I
> started out sleep-walking here trying to keep the symmetry and as you
> point out above that is impossible. That is, it is the VOID that causes
> the arrow of time. We can condemn structures to the VOID of no return,
> to wax poetic :-), but, like Orpheous vaninly trying to rescue Eurydice
> we cannot return from the VOID. Something to nothing, but not nothing to
> something without the MIRACLE of God's Infinite Love which breaks our
> cute little a, a* algorithm and gives new meaning, perhaps, to Penrose's
> claim that "understanding" surpasses all finite algorithms giving us a
> little touch of infinite Divinity. :-)
Hello. Jack:
Knowing from your writings that a younger Sarfatti resisted Einstein
Causality, it is good to see the more mature man moving toward the
scientifically rational position that causes precede their effects
absolutely in all frames of reference in time as well as space.
Keep on keeping on.
--
Alan
Egoless pure consciousness, unconditioned pure energy, uncreated
absolute pure being pre-exists: All else is supervenient.
Subject: REDSHIFT
From: "B Gill"
Date: 28 Nov 1996 20:20:41 GMT
Here's another idea regarding Redshift. The 1st paragraph is the same as a
previous post but the balance is different.
Ever since Hubble devised his law, there has been a controversy as to
whether observed redshift Z for QSO's, is entirely due to recessional
velocity, or due in part to another effect. If Z is entirely recessional,
the massive energy requirements for QSO's is suspect. Also current
estimates of Hubbles constant derived from observed redshift suggests a
Universe too young to be compatable with stellar ages.--Gravitational
components--slow light--high local velocities, have all been suggested as
alternatives. (ARP, Tift & others).
I'll present it in the form of a thought experiment and use strickly Flat
space Newtonian mechanics.
Imagine yourself at the centre of the earth and disregard everything but
gravitational effects. In this frame of reference one would be waitless, as
gravity would pull in all directions equally, thus cancelling itself. You
could effectively say that, "gravitationally" you do not know the earth is
there, it is invisible, it may as well not exist. However as you ascend
towards the surface the mass you leave behind exerts an increasing pull.
This gravitational force would simply be due the mass contained within
radius R (earth centre to yourself). The mass beyond this radius R is still
not noticed as it cancels itself. As you ascend further, you will be
steadily climbing out of a gravitationl potential well, with the
gravitational force reaching a max at the earths surface.
I would now like to apply this concept to the Universe as a whole with its
associated density. One of the corner stones of the Big Bang theory is that
every frame of reference essentially sees itself at the centre of an
infinite universe. In the above analogy one should be able to change the
variables (ie. density and radius) to any value and the arguement should
still hold. So lets reduce the density of the earth example to the present
density of the universe. Lets now increase the radius to approach infinity.
What we have now done, is converted the climbing out of the centre of the
earth analogy to climbing out of the universe. The same arguement should
apply for both, and we should experience a redshift in both situations.
I would then argue that any photon created at point P would find itself at
the centre of a gravitational well (just as you would at the centre of the
earth) and irregardless of its direction of propogation would now
experience a gravitational redshift which would be independent of any
recessional velocity redshift. The two would add.
I have worked out the math for this useing current estimates of universe
density, and for nearby objects the redshift is almost entirely
recessional, but as Z (obs) increases towards 1 and above, the
gravitational component increases to become the dominant effect.
I would be interested to know if GR would also take this effect into
account.
gilmour@interlynx.net
Subject: Re: Universal Coordinate System
From: odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner)
Date: 28 Nov 1996 22:04:48 GMT
In <329CE84B.9FA@mail.ic.net> Peter Diehr writes:
>
>Allen Meisner wrote:
>>
>> Here is a thought experiment that decides the matter once and
for
>> all. You are in a spaceship traveling at 1000 meters per second.
There
>> is a laser in the nose of the ship that is pointed in the direction
>> perpendicular to the direction of travel. The laser operates in the
>> pulse mode.
>>
>
>Is traveling at 1000 m/s wrt what? Is anybody else watching, or
>is it just the people on board?
>
>Suppose it is just the people on board. Then instead of firing
>the laser out the port hole, shoot it across the room, at a mirror.
>Does each pulse come back to its origin? We can test this by
>putting in a beam splitter, and constructing an interferometer.
>Then watch for fringe shifting.
>
>What do we see? We see no deviation at all. Einstein and Galileo
>agree: being in an inertial frame of reference, the beams bounce
>back.
>
>But to somebody in a _different_ inertial reference frame,
>it will look a bit different. But still, the beam returns
>whence it came (beam or pulse, makes no difference).
>
>You can do the same experiment, by tossing a ball up and
>then catching it while riding in a car, a boat, or an
>airplane.
>
>> At time t=0 that laser begins emitting pulses and the
>> thrusters are turned on giving the ship a 10 meter per second
squared
>> acceleration. After 1000 seconds, the ship has traveled 6,000,000
>> meters. Will the first pulse still be aligned with the nose? If you
say
>> yes, you must account for the horizontal component of the light by
>> inertia. If this is true, all the laws of electromagnetism must be
>> revised to take this inertia into account.
>
>No, it will not be aligned. The argument for its being curved
>comes straight from one of Einstein's thought experiments: the
>falling elevators. If you use the beam beating back and forth
>between the mirrors, you will find that it must "slip backwards"
>with the acceleration. After all, the beam is not being
>accelerated with the ship ... it is not part of the rigid body.
>If there is air in that part of the ship, their may be some
>carrying of the beam by the interaction with the air ... so
>use an evacuated storage hold for the experiment.
>
Mr Diehr, you agree that the light will describe a curved path. Do
you agree that if you take the derivative of the equation of the curve,
then you will have the instantaneous velocity at any given point in
time? Isn't that so, Mr. Diehr?
Regards,
Edward Meisner
If you say that special relativity does not apply to accelerated
>> frames, then special relativity is wrong, or deficient, isn't it?
>
>Special Relativity does apply to this type of reference frame.
>Why shouldn't it? SR's defect is that it assumes a constant
>spacetime metric, which is incompatible with the requirements
>of a complete theory of gravitation.
>
>> Velocity is merely the first derivative of acceleration.
>
>You meant to say it the other way around, I'm sure.
>
>Best Regards, Peter
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 28 Nov 1996 22:18:47 GMT
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>>patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk (Patrick Juola) writes:
>>>zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>>>>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>>>zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>>>>>>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>>>>>Observable means affecting other things. If it does, you'll notice
>>>>>>>it. Of course you can postulate something that , while in principle
>>>>>>>observable, will never be observed since the effects are too small.
>>>>>>No, observable means observable. If Shimony and other interactionists
>>>>>>are right, minds are extra-physical and non-observable substances that
>>>>>>affect material things.
>>>>>And if they're wrong?
>>>>Irrelevant. A definition is vitiated by the mere logical possibility
>>>>of satisfying the definiens without falling under the definiendum.
>>>If they interact with material things, then they're not non-observable,
>>>since their presence can be deduced from the interactions. Unless
>>>you are also going to postulate that the fashion in which they affect
>>>material things is *also* non-observable, in which case I question
>>>your (improper) use of "affect."
>>The interaction of mental causes with physical effects is not
>>observable as such, and neither is any other causal relation.
>>And if the world of physical processes and events is causally
>>complete and closed, there will always be a physical cause for
>>each physical effect.
>Few comments here, just to keep it going a bit longer:
>
>1) "if the world of physical processes and events is causally
>complete and closed" is a big if indeed. See QM as an example.
It seems to me that counterexamples to causal completeness and closure
of the physical universe will not be forthcoming from QM, but at best
from particular interpretations of QM.
>2) The interaction of mental causes with physical events is
>observable through its effects. Granted, it is not amenable (so far
>at least) to scientific observation since objective evaluations are
>extremely difficult, perhaps impossible. Which is not the same as
>'nonobservable". Denying exiatance to things we cannot explain
>doesn't strike me as a proper approach, not even as a proper
>scientific approach.
It strikes me that you are conflating denial of existence with denial
of observability. I no more doubt the existence of the number 2 or
the virtue of courage, than I fancy being able to observe them in a
nice pair of tits or bravery under fire. Even so, your insistence on
equating observation with inferring causes from effects strikes me as
excessively expansive. After all, in the normal course of events, the
causal inference proceeds in the opposite direction, from observing
constantly conjoined succession of event-types, to hypothesizing that
the former type causes the latter, to developing a theoretical account
of the underlying processes. And after three centuries of dualistic
ruminations, we are not appreciably closer to a theory of mental
causation than was Descartes with his pineal gland.
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: Re: faster than light travel
From: Alexander Borghgraef
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 23:33:52 +0100
Jean-Joseph JACQ wrote:
> Some "things" can be made to travel faster than light. For instance, if
> I use a laser to shine a spot on the moon, if I then rotate the laser at
> a speed of more than 1/3 revolution per second (not very fast even for
> an old chappie like myself), the spot on the surface of the moon will
> travel about twice as fast as light (since the moon is more than 300000
> km away).
> So the spot can be made to travel faster than light. The speed of the
> spot being V = 2*Pi*(3*10^8)*(1/3).
> This does not mean that information or energy can be passed at a faster
> speed than light. And the speed limit is now considered to apply only to
> mass/information transfer.
>
Excuse me, but that is not true. A laser beam is not a solid rod, it
is a beam of particles moving at the speed of light. When you aim a
continuous laser beam on a spot on the moon and then you start moving
it, the spot doesn't move rightaway, because it takes a while for the
photons that are emitted under the new angle to get to the moon.
The spot won't move faster than light. Even if you aplly this thought-
experiment on a solid rod from here to the moon, it won't work, because
the force applied on one end to move the rod is transferred through the
rod by a stresswave travelling at the sound of speed in the material the
rod is made of, so no information is transferred at a higher speed than
c.
A very tired physics student.
Subject: Re: The unit 'mole %'
From: "Eric Lucas"
Date: 28 Nov 1996 22:51:06 GMT
Steven Arnold wrote in article
<329DE89E.4165@evansville.net>...
> R wrote:
> >
> > In article <3298F83D.6472@hvi.uu.se>, Anders Larsson
says:
> > >
> > >When reading an old paper from J. Chem. Phys. I encountered 'mole %'
as
> > >the unit for water concentrations in air. Can anyone give a definition
of
> > >this unit? Thanks.
> > >
> > >/Anders
> > >
> > >--
> > >Anders Larsson Anders.Larsson@hvi.uu.se
> > >Institute of High Voltage Research, Uppsala University
> > >Tel: +46 18 532702 Fax: +46 18 502619
> > >URL: http://www.hvi.uu.se
> >
> > Mole percent and volume percent are identical. One gram mole of any gas
> > occupies about 22.4 litres at 1 atmos pressure. If you have a mixture
> > consisting of 1 volume of gas A and 9 volumes of gas B you have 10
volume
> > percent and therefore 10 mole percent of A in the mixture.
> >
> > R.
>
> Mole percent and volume percent are only identical for ideal solutions.
No, they are identical for ideal *gas* mixtures only, as can be derived
from the ideal gas law. Mole % and volume % are in general *very*
different for condensed phases, even if there isn't change of volume on
mixing. For them to be the same for liquids, the liquids that are mixed
would have to have approximately the same molar volume, and in general,
liquids have very different molar volumes. Mass % and volume % are more
nearly equal for liquid solutions, as most common liquids have densities
somewhere around 1 g/mL (there are obviously exceptions to this.)
Eric Lucas
Subject: EVERYONE READ THIS, VERY IMPORTANT, PLEASE READ THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
From: "Intrepid"
Date: 28 Nov 1996 16:05:59 GMT
This is not a joke. Serious business, guys. Please read and take
some action.
>>>>A group of NEO-NAZIS are trying to form a newsgroup on Usenet called
>>>>"rec.music.white-power", so that they can get their message of hate out
>>>>to young people using the Internet. Newsgroups are public discussions
on
>>>>the Internet and their formation requires enough support from the
Internet
>>>>community.
>>>>
>>>>EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US HAS ONE VOTE when it comes to creating a new
>>>>Usenet group. I hope you will vote NO and thereby tell these NAZIS we
>>>>don't want their stuff on the net. Below is the procedure, please
repost
>>>>this plea and get the NO vote out. If you want to see the official
call
>>>>for votes, you can try on "news.group".
>>>>
>>>> DO NOT VOTE TWICE - that would constitute voting fraud.
>>>>
>>>> HOW TO VOTE:
>>>>
>>>> Send e-mail (posts to newsgroups are invalid) to:
>>>>
>>>> music-vote@sub-rosa.com
>>>>
>>>> This is an impartial, third party vote taker.
>>>> Please check the address before you mail your vote. Your mail
>>>> message, to be accepted by the counting computer, must
>>>> contain only the following statement with no signature:
>>>>
>>>> I vote NO on rec.music.white-power
>>>>
>>>> Vote counting is automated. Failure to follow these directions
>>>>may mean that your vote does not get counted. If you do not receive
>>>>an acknowledgment of your vote within three days contact the votetaker
>>>>about the problem. It's your responsibility to make sure your vote is
>>>>registered correctly.
>>>>
>>>> Here's what Canada's George Burdi, of the neo-Nazi Heritage
>>>>Front, had to say about this vote, on February 21, on his RESISTANCE
>>>>mailing list:
>>>>
>>>> "There is a call for votes coming on rec.music.white-power
>>>> in the next week or so, and you will be notified in a special
>>>> issue of RREN exactly what to do. FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS
>>>> TO THE LETTER. Let me be perfectly blunt and state that we have
>>>> more than enough net-nazis to win this thing handsdown. But every
>>>> one of you must vote YES! And just voting yes means nothing unless
>>>> you do it properly. So you have been forewarned. The instructions
>>>> are coming to your email box soon, and they are not complicated.
>>>> Just follow them as told, and we will have a WP music newsgroup
>>>> finally!"
>>>>
>>>>If Mr. Burdi's confidence disturbs you, please give this letter the
>>>>widest possible distribution, and help us deliver the largest NO vote
>>>>in the history of the UseNet.
--
Second Star to the right, and straight on till morining.
Subject: VERY IMPORTANT!! PLEASE READ THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
From: "Intrepid"
Date: 28 Nov 1996 16:12:12 GMT
This is not a joke. Serious business, guys. Please read and take
some action.
>>>>A group of NEO-NAZIS are trying to form a newsgroup on Usenet called
>>>>"rec.music.white-power", so that they can get their message of hate out
>>>>to young people using the Internet. Newsgroups are public discussions
on
>>>>the Internet and their formation requires enough support from the
Internet
>>>>community.
>>>>
>>>>EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US HAS ONE VOTE when it comes to creating a new
>>>>Usenet group. I hope you will vote NO and thereby tell these NAZIS we
>>>>don't want their stuff on the net. Below is the procedure, please
repost
>>>>this plea and get the NO vote out. If you want to see the official
call
>>>>for votes, you can try on "news.group".
>>>>
>>>> DO NOT VOTE TWICE - that would constitute voting fraud.
>>>>
>>>> HOW TO VOTE:
>>>>
>>>> Send e-mail (posts to newsgroups are invalid) to:
>>>>
>>>> music-vote@sub-rosa.com
>>>>
>>>> This is an impartial, third party vote taker.
>>>> Please check the address before you mail your vote. Your mail
>>>> message, to be accepted by the counting computer, must
>>>> contain only the following statement with no signature:
>>>>
>>>> I vote NO on rec.music.white-power
>>>>
>>>> Vote counting is automated. Failure to follow these directions
>>>>may mean that your vote does not get counted. If you do not receive
>>>>an acknowledgment of your vote within three days contact the votetaker
>>>>about the problem. It's your responsibility to make sure your vote is
>>>>registered correctly.
>>>>
>>>> Here's what Canada's George Burdi, of the neo-Nazi Heritage
>>>>Front, had to say about this vote, on February 21, on his RESISTANCE
>>>>mailing list:
>>>>
>>>> "There is a call for votes coming on rec.music.white-power
>>>> in the next week or so, and you will be notified in a special
>>>> issue of RREN exactly what to do. FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS
>>>> TO THE LETTER. Let me be perfectly blunt and state that we have
>>>> more than enough net-nazis to win this thing handsdown. But every
>>>> one of you must vote YES! And just voting yes means nothing unless
>>>> you do it properly. So you have been forewarned. The instructions
>>>> are coming to your email box soon, and they are not complicated.
>>>> Just follow them as told, and we will have a WP music newsgroup
>>>> finally!"
>>>>
>>>>If Mr. Burdi's confidence disturbs you, please give this letter the
>>>>widest possible distribution, and help us deliver the largest NO vote
>>>>in the history of the UseNet.
--
Second Star to the right, and straight on till morining.
Subject: Re: faster than light travel
From: devens@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens)
Date: 28 Nov 1996 23:58:08 GMT
Alexander Borghgraef (aborghgr@eduserv2.rug.ac.be) wrote:
: Jean-Joseph JACQ wrote:
: > Some "things" can be made to travel faster than light. For instance, if
: > I use a laser to shine a spot on the moon, if I then rotate the laser at
: > a speed of more than 1/3 revolution per second (not very fast even for
: > an old chappie like myself), the spot on the surface of the moon will
: > travel about twice as fast as light (since the moon is more than 300000
: > km away).
: > So the spot can be made to travel faster than light. The speed of the
: > spot being V = 2*Pi*(3*10^8)*(1/3).
: > This does not mean that information or energy can be passed at a faster
: > speed than light. And the speed limit is now considered to apply only to
: > mass/information transfer.
: >
: Excuse me, but that is not true. A laser beam is not a solid rod, it
: is a beam of particles moving at the speed of light. When you aim a
: continuous laser beam on a spot on the moon and then you start moving
: it, the spot doesn't move rightaway, because it takes a while for the
: photons that are emitted under the new angle to get to the moon.
: The spot won't move faster than light. Even if you aplly this thought-
: experiment on a solid rod from here to the moon, it won't work, because
: the force applied on one end to move the rod is transferred through the
: rod by a stresswave travelling at the sound of speed in the material the
: rod is made of, so no information is transferred at a higher speed than
: c.
The intersection of the beam with the surface of the moon can move faster
than light because it is not an object, but a sequence of events which
are occuring because of other events (the swinging of the laser on Earth)
which are occuring in an allowed fashion.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron, | "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,| But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion, +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down! | "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Size of Thought
From: eli27@earthlink.net
Date: 28 Nov 1996 23:02:22 GMT
"Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D." wrote:
>The Size of Thoughts Essays by Nicholson Baker
>I just discovered this great writer late last night (Nov 26, 1996) in
>Lawrence Ferhlinghetti's City Lights Book Store after Tapas at Enrico's
>on Broadway and a full day in Caffe Trieste working on the Feynman
>Project from my wireless laptop.
>
>"Each thought has a size, and most are about three feet tall, with the
>level of complexity of a lawnmower engine, or a cigarette lighter, or
>those tubes of toothpaste that, by mingling several hidden pastes and
>gels, create a pleasantly striped product ... But a really large
>thought, a thought in the presence of which whole urban centers would
>rise to their feet, and cry out with expressions of gratefulness and
>kinship; a thought with grandeur, and drenching, barrel-scorning
>cataracts, and detonations of fist-clenched hope, and hundreds of
>cellos, a thought that can tear phone books in half, and rap on the iron
>nodes of experience until every blue girder rings; a thought that may
>one day pack everything noble and good into its briefcase, elbow past
>the curators of purposelessness, travel overnight toward Truth, and
>shake it by the indifferent marble shoulders until it finally whispers
>its cool assent-- this is the size of thought worth thinking about."
Uhhh...thoughts don't have SIZE no matter how endearing it is to think
about them as having size.
Concepts of space and time cannot be expropriated from the world of sense
experience and applied to things like 'mind' and thought. My 'mind' does
not exist over here vs. your 'mind' existing over there. I do not have
thoughts large or small. There are thoughts born of nothing more than
psychological reflex and there are thoughts born of the observation of
those reflexes in motion. Some might call them 'small' thoughts vs.
'large' thoughts. But that does not provide any more information than
you had in the beginning. More importantly, it tends to re-inforce the
idea that an 'mind' that 'thinks' large thoughts is larger than a 'mind'
that 'thinks' small thoughts.
Michael (Daniel 12:1, Sura 2:98, Column XVII of 1QM)
Subject: Re: faster than light travel
From: "Shan Sinha"
Date: 29 Nov 1996 01:14:19 GMT
Jean-Joseph JACQ wrote in article
<329DBB63.B36@ozemail.com.au>...
> Alan Anderson wrote:
> >
> > In ,
> > ZBA2410 writes:
> >
> > >Who still thinks that nothing can travel faster than c???
> >
> > Almost everyone who doesn't think Star Trek is real. (I'm a Trek fan
> > myself, but I recognize that Trek physics doesn't match the way the
> > world as we know it works.)
> >
> > >C is just a relative velocity, that's all.
> >
> > Not according to Relativity, it isn't. C is special. It's constant.
> > It's the same thing relative to *everyone*, no matter how slow or fast
> > each observer is moving relative to the other observers.
> >
> > >There are probably particles out there
> > >travelling THROUGH our known matter at velicities 1000000x that of c!
> > >(And we would never know because there is no way to prove it...)
> >
> > If we can observe such particles, we can measure their velocity, and we
> > could certainly prove that they were going that fast. We don't observe
> > any, which implies that either they do not exist or their existence is
> > somehow independent of what we can observe and measure. If they don't
> > show up on any of our sensors, they cannot affect us and are
irrelevant.
> >
> > >It is possible to exceed c, but it would be easier by reducing the
total
> > >mass of the object in question - this would require less energy.
> >
> > Unless its mass is exactly zero, it takes infinite energy to accelerate
> > something to the velocity of light. It takes more than infinite energy
> > to exceed c -- which is only one of the several nonsensical answers one
> > gets when trying to deal with faster than light velocities using the
> > mathematical tools at our disposal.
> >
> > >However, you face the problem of gravity wells and cosmic debri that
> > >would - even sitting still - would render your FTL object destroyed.
> > >There would have to be a way of avoiding hazards such as these, while
> > >maintaining a course straight as possible...
> >
> > This would be exactly the same problem faced by slower-than-light
travel,
> > but with the relative velocity increased. It's not suddenly a problem
> > for FTL speeds. But if you try out the math of FTL collisions, you
have
> > the interesting puzzle of what imaginary mass implies for kinetic
energy.
> >
> > = === === === = = = === === === === = = === = = = === = = ===
=
> > # Alan Anderson # Ignorance can be fixed, but stupidity is permanent.
#
> > (I do not speak for Delco Electronics, and DE does not speak for me.)
>
> This is not exactly correct. The energy for a non zero mass to reach the
> speed of light is infinite. However, should something be travelling at a
> larger speed than c, its energy would be finite (though imaginary unless
> the mass itself is imaginary) and the faster it went the lesser would
> the energy be. The problem for such a particle would be that to slow it
> down to C would require infinite energy.
> Not that this implies I believe in tachyons. I don't.
>
I have heard a theory (well I won't say theory... statement) that if some
"thing" comes into existence at the speed of light or faster than or
whatever, the physics are not violated... does anyone know about this or if
this has any merit?
Subject: Re: The unit 'mole %'
From: Steven Arnold
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 20:18:38 -0800
Eric Lucas wrote:
>
> Steven Arnold wrote in article
> <329DE89E.4165@evansville.net>...
> > R wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <3298F83D.6472@hvi.uu.se>, Anders Larsson
> says:
> > > >
> > > >When reading an old paper from J. Chem. Phys. I encountered 'mole %'
> as
> > > >the unit for water concentrations in air. Can anyone give a definition
> of
> > > >this unit? Thanks.
> > > >
> > > >/Anders
> > > >
> > > >--
> > > >Anders Larsson Anders.Larsson@hvi.uu.se
> > > >Institute of High Voltage Research, Uppsala University
> > > >Tel: +46 18 532702 Fax: +46 18 502619
> > > >URL: http://www.hvi.uu.se
> > >
> > > Mole percent and volume percent are identical. One gram mole of any gas
> > > occupies about 22.4 litres at 1 atmos pressure. If you have a mixture
> > > consisting of 1 volume of gas A and 9 volumes of gas B you have 10
> volume
> > > percent and therefore 10 mole percent of A in the mixture.
> > >
> > > R.
> >
> > Mole percent and volume percent are only identical for ideal solutions.
>
> No, they are identical for ideal *gas* mixtures only, as can be derived
> from the ideal gas law. Mole % and volume % are in general *very*
> different for condensed phases, even if there isn't change of volume on
> mixing. For them to be the same for liquids, the liquids that are mixed
> would have to have approximately the same molar volume, and in general,
> liquids have very different molar volumes. Mass % and volume % are more
> nearly equal for liquid solutions, as most common liquids have densities
> somewhere around 1 g/mL (there are obviously exceptions to this.)
>
> Eric Lucas
Thanks, of course you're right. That's what I get for trying to cover
too many points without properly engaging the brain!
Steven Arnold
Subject: Abian vs Einstein
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Date: 29 Nov 1996 01:23:20 GMT
In article <2sralfacwq.fsf@berlioz.eurocontrol.fr>,
Steve Jones - JON wrote:
>abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>
>> Again, I fundamentally differ with Einstein and thus do not consider
>> the Cosmos as being a four dimensional manifold, considering
>> Time on a par with a spatial coordinate.
>> --
(some irrelevancies omitted)
>
>Third Point. Do you have the Maths behind this and the experimental data
> that backs you up ? Or even just the who maths not just one trite
> equation using unknown units.
>
Abian answers:
"the who maths not just one trite equation using unknown units" yourself.
-------------
Now, as far as what backs me up - it is my observations, reasoning and
imagination. Most probably you have not read my many previous explanations.
I try to avoid repeating and repeating my explanations - but it seems that
some people still demand my explanations. Thus, once more my explanations:
As everything else, TIME also has the tendency of maintaining the
status quo of its present instant. This is another way of saying that
Time has inertia and is another manifestation of Mass. In fact, there
is an equivalence of Mass and Time. However, Time moves throughout the
entire Cosmos and to overpower of Time's tendency of maintaining the
status quo of its present instant
(A) A certain m Abian units of Cosmic mass is (perhaps) irretrievably
lost to move Time forward T Abian units
(A*) An Abian unit (i.e.,1 Abian) is taken as the mass Mo of the Cosmos at
the Big Bang, i.e., at T = 0 Abian. For practical considerations
Mo can be taken as 1O^n (for a suitable n) Abian units. Thus,
(1) Mo indicates the Mass M (in Abians) of the Cosmos at T = 0 (Abian).
So, by TIME, I mean an absolute Cosmic Time which is as much of a
universal entity as Mass is.
Clearly (A) violates the "Conservation of Cosmic mass-energy Law". But
the latter was never, never proved.
In view of (A), it is natural to assume that mass M of the Cosmos
decreases exponentially with the passage of Cosmic time T. Moreover,
since I believe that the Cosmic mass which is spent to move Time forward
is lost irretrievably, and since I believe that Cosmos will never
vanish, I assume that
(2) 0 0 in (3). Therefore, M
decreases exponentially with the passage of Cosmic Time T.
Let us observe that by (2), we have T < Mo. Nevertheless,
substituting T = Mo in (3) we obtain M = Mo exp 1/(k-1). This must be
interpreted as saying that the Cosmos will never vanish and its mass
will always be greater than Mo exp1/(k-1).
The value of the scalar k in (3) must be determined experimentally.
Of course difficulties are to be expected since (3) involves the mass M
of the Cosmos at various cosmic times T. This circumstance is at
present the most vulnerable point in (3) - not conceptually, but as far
as quantification is concerned. I wish there be a "Cosmic Massmeter" to
determine M appearing in (3).
Next, based on (3), we give a mathematical formulation of m mentioned
in (A). From (A) it follows that m = Mo - M where M is given by (3).
Thus
(4) m = Mo - M = Mo (1 -exp( T/(kT - Mo)))
from which it follows 1 - (m/Mo) = exp (T / (kT - Mo)) and therefore
(5) T = -Mo(Log (1 -(m/Mo))/(1 - k Log(1 - (m/Mo))
where Log is the natural e-log.
We note that (4) as well as (5) expresses the equivalence of Mass and
Time. For instance they say that m Abian units of Cosmic mass is
spent to produce T Abian units of Cosmic Time.
No pretenses are made that (3) is the best possible formula, Far
from it. I devised it as an attempt to give a mathematical formulation
to the assertion of the "Equivalence of Mass and Time" which I believe
is the case contrary to all the accepted concepts of time by the
past and present establishments of Physics and Astronomy. This, in
particular emphasizes the statement Abian vs Einstein.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABIAN MASS-TIME EQUIVALENCE FORMULA m = Mo(1-exp(T/(kT-Mo))) Abian units.
ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP GLOBAL DISASTERS AND EPIDEMICS
ALTER THE SOLAR SYSTEM. REORBIT VENUS INTO A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT
TO CREATE A BORN AGAIN EARTH (1990)
Subject: I hate it when they do this!
From: prince@pcpros.net (Mike Harder)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 01:58:43 GMT
It seems like math teachers are always changing their minds.
In grade school, they told me I couldn't subtract a larger number from
a smaller. Later, they told me that negative numbers actually do
exist. In junior high, I was told that the square root of a negative
number didn't exist. Later, they told me about imaginary numbers.
Being a senior in high school, I figured that teachers would stop
"surprising" me by now. Well, yesterday in my calc-based physics
class, my teacher talked about the "infinity point", a point an
infinite distance away from a body. He also talked about an escape
velocity, the velocity at which a body must move to *just* escape the
effects of another body's gravity, or to *just* make it to the
infinity point. He substituted infinity into equations freely. I'm
confused!
For years, my math teachers have been telling me "Infinity
isn't a number; you can't just substitute it into equations." My
physics teacher told me, and I quote directly, "Infinity is just
another number if you modify the rules slightly. You'll understand
when you learn more math." He also said that if a body travels at
greater than the escape velocity, it will go *past* the infinity
point. I'm confused! Please help me sort this all out.
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck)
Date: 29 Nov 1996 02:04:16 GMT
Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
: Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
: >No, the point rather is that none of these speculations will lead you to
: >the morally good; unless you want to assign moral goodness to the mating
: >dances of mosquitoes. Once we are in a framework where every action is
: >determined by considerations of survival, we are in a framework that
: >doesn't admit of the opposition of good and evil.
: The mating dances of mosquitoes are undeniably good for the mosquitoes.
"good" and "good for something," as you know, are not synonyms.
: My personal disdain for all immanent approaches to morality in no way
: warrants me to dismiss an entire spectrum of philosophical treatments
: of values with a foot-stomping snit fit. Obviously, your intellectual
: standards differ. So who is arrogating moral certainty now?
Not me; I'm just arguing a different tradition.
S.
: 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: Virial expansion of the Beattie Bridgeman Equation?
From: mgjk@isys.ca (Mike)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 20:54:58 GMT
Greetings,
Yeah, this is a homework problem, I have broken the rules, I'm posting
a question bout my homework...
The Beattie Bridgeman Equation
How does one do a virial expansion that yeilds the coefficents of the
aforementioned?
I have checked several different references, and all I read is that it
is a modified virial expansion, with cofficents;
A = A_o(1-a/v)
B = B_o(1-b/v)
epsilon = c/v*Theta^3
then it states that these constants are material dependant... joy, I
can implement it... but it doesn't help my math, nor my understanding
of the equation.
By the way, the equation the book gives (after applying the above
substitutions):
R Theta (1 - epsilon) (v + B) A
p = ----------------------------- - ----
2 2
v v
(for all you symbolic mathemeticians:)
p = ((R*Theta*(1-epsilon))/v^2)*(v+B)-A/v^2;
in what way is this a virial expasnion? if those are indeed the
coefficents, I see no expansion, unless by modified they mean
truncated!?
please, send a copy of the reply, (and all flames) via email, below.
Thanks.
------------------======++++++++=======-----------------
Environmentalism contributes to the heat death of the universe.
Subject: Re: Universal Coordinate System
From: Peter Diehr
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 21:43:35 -0500
Allen Meisner wrote:
>
> The please tell me, where did the horizontal component of the light
> come from and what is the meaning of the statement that the "velocity
> of light is source independent" mean exactly.
>
The postulates of Special Relativity do not discuss the "velocity of
light"; they discuss the "speed of light". Only in a one-dimensional
system are the two equivalent (up to sign).
Where does the horizontal component come from? If we consider the
beam within the space ship traveling at constant speed, there is
no horizontal component ... it just goes back and forth.
But for the person tied to some other inertial reference frame
(i.e., a planet), why they will naturally see the velocity split
up into different components. Different observers can always
split a vector up differently.
Consider this: you toss a ball straight up ... it comes straight
down. Do this in the parking lot. Now do it on the subway.
Or do it on board an airplane, or a space ship. For you, the
ball just goes up ... and down. This only requires that the
object carrying you is in steady motion; that means stopped, or
constant velocity.
Now have a friend stay in the parking lot, and take a video of
you tossing the ball. The video shows the ball going up and
down while you are still in the parking lot. But in all the other
situations, it will show the ball following a parabolic arc ...
that is, there is a longitudinal component to the motion of the
ball. You share that longitudinal motion exactly. What is the
speed of the longitudinal motion? It is the relative velocity
of the two reference frames.
Surely you already know this? This is Galileo's understanding,
and the basis for the law of inertia (Newton's First Law of Motion).
> You cannot pretend that the spaceship is at rest using special
> relativity, because the ship is accelerating. The only way you
> can come up with an horizontal component is by asserting that the
> light has inertia.
I don't understand your concern. BTW, I've not been discussing
the accelerating case here, though my previous response included
some discussion of it.
> If this is so, all the laws of electromagnetism have to be
> revised in order to take this inertia into account.
I'm not aware of any required changes. I don't have any trouble
determining the electromagnetic fields associated with moving
objects ... the methods were worked out long ago: you use the
method of retarded times. The method can be tedious, but it does
work. And Maxwell's equations are fully relativistic already,
so Special Relativity does not require any changes to them.
However, SR does shed new light on their interpretation.
> If you can supply a definition for source independence of
> light that is not self-contradictory then could you give me the
> equation for the relativistic vector sum of light?
Do you see this as a mathematical problem? I assure you that
it is not. My first advice to you is to get a copy of Taylor
and Wheeler's "Spacetime Physics", 2nd edition, and spend 6 weeks
reading it, and doing all the problems.
Then you will know that in relativity we don't use 3-vectors:
we use 4-vectors. For example, using conventional units we
get the 4-momentum of a beam of light as (E/c,px,py,pz) in
some reference frame. If you want to know what it is in
another reference frame, you perform a Lorentz transformation
upon it. This is nothing more than a linear transformation
based upon the connection between the two reference frames.
Now you have a new 4-vector, in the reference frame of interest
to you. Since we've expressed it in rectangular coordinates,
you can simply add the components of any two (appropriate)
4-vectors _given that all are being expressed in terms of the
same reference frame_.
> My intuition is that you can not perform a vector sum for
> anything that is moving at the speed of light.
>
Then your intuition is wrong ... there is no mathematical
problem in doing this ... and there is no physical problem.
Best Regards, Peter
Subject: Re: Universal Coordinate System
From: Peter Diehr
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 21:52:14 -0500
Allen Meisner wrote:
>
> In <329CE84B.9FA@mail.ic.net> Peter Diehr writes:
> >
> >No, it will not be aligned. The argument for its being curved
> >comes straight from one of Einstein's thought experiments: the
> >falling elevators. If you use the beam beating back and forth
> >between the mirrors, you will find that it must "slip backwards"
> >with the acceleration. After all, the beam is not being
> >accelerated with the ship ... it is not part of the rigid body.
> >
>
> Mr Diehr, you agree that the light will describe a curved path.
>
Yes, it will curve.
> Do you agree that if you take the derivative of the equation of the
> curve, then you will have the instantaneous velocity at any given
> point in time?
>
We can take it as a definition, if you like. What is your point?
Do you have a problem with the idea that a beam of light appears
to be accelerated? Please note that the _speed of light_ isn't
changing here ... only the direction. And it is the speed of
light that is a constant in SR: most everything else is up for
grabs.
Best Regards, Peter
Subject: Re: I hate it when they do this!
From: Peter Diehr
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 22:07:59 -0500
Mike Harder wrote:
>
> It seems like math teachers are always changing their minds.
> In grade school, they told me I couldn't subtract a larger number from
> a smaller. Later, they told me that negative numbers actually do
> exist. In junior high, I was told that the square root of a negative
> number didn't exist. Later, they told me about imaginary numbers.
> Being a senior in high school, I figured that teachers would stop
> "surprising" me by now.
>
As they may someday tell you, you were being introduced to different
systems of numbers: the natural numbers do not include negatives, or
fractions. The integers include the negative numbers, but still not
the fractions. The rational numbers include all of the above, including
fractions. But there are still types of "numbers" that cannot be
written: the square root of 2 being one of them. So mathematicians
keep augmenting the number system until they can represent all
geometrically meaningful numbers. The result is the "real number
system".
But the reals don't include infinities, and they don't include
imaginaries (like square root of -1). The imaginaries are included
when we go to the complex numbers (made up of pairs of real numbers).
These are very handy in the study of electrical engineering, and
many other areas of physics (such as quantum mechanics).
Infities are also useful ... so one often "augments" the real
numbers, or the complex numbers with infinity. With the reals,
put in a + and a - infinity. For the complex numbers, just stick
in one infinity ... it is the edge of the complex plane, no matter
which way you go.
But these are still not "numbers" like the others, since they
follow different rules. And you can avoid them if you care to
work really hard at it. But they make life easy, and so we
take the easy way out.
> Well, yesterday in my calc-based physics
> class, my teacher talked about the "infinity point", a point an
> infinite distance away from a body. He also talked about an escape
> velocity, the velocity at which a body must move to *just* escape the
> effects of another body's gravity, or to *just* make it to the
> infinity point. He substituted infinity into equations freely. I'm
> confused!
I'll write infinity as 00 ... then the following are valid:
x/00 = 0. if x>0, then x*00 = 00; if x<0, then x*00 = -00.
But 0*00 might be anything.
1/0 = 00 (or sometimes -00). But 0/0 might be anything.
x + 00 = 00; x - 00 = -00. 00 + 00 = 00. But 00 - 00 might
be anything.
> For years, my math teachers have been telling me "Infinity
> isn't a number; you can't just substitute it into equations." My
> physics teacher told me, and I quote directly, "Infinity is just
> another number if you modify the rules slightly. You'll understand
> when you learn more math."
You evaluate the formula by taking the _limit_ as x goes to infinity.
The rules for this are gone over in your calculus book.
> He also said that if a body travels at
> greater than the escape velocity, it will go *past* the infinity
> point. I'm confused! Please help me sort this all out.
Well, on this last point, I'd say that you misunderstood what
your instructor said, for this certainly isn't so.
Print this out and have him go over it with you if you are still
confused.
Best Regards, Peter
Subject: Re: The Physics of Absolute Motion
From: briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 16:15:30 -0700
In article <32a217c8.1685272@ksts.seed.net.tw>,
savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) wrote:
>[1st Repost. Possible problem with news server]
>
>[Please post all follow-ups to sci.physics.relativity only]
>
>In article , Cees Roos
> wrote:
>
>>Louis Savain wrote:
>>>
>>> Definition: Absolute motion is the opposite of relative motion.
>>> It is independent from other motions and is invariant under geometric
>>> transformations.
>>
>>Mr. Savain,
>>I don't understand your definition. You say that absolute motion is
>>not relative.
>
> If it were relative, it would not be absolute, would it? :-)
>
>> In that case I don't understand your concept of motion.
>>As far as I can see motion can only be relative.
>>Speaking of unrelative motion sounds to me like speaking of a one ended
>>rope.
>
> Only if one insists on having either absolute motion or relative
>motion, *exclusively*. Certainly the rope does have two ends, and
>they are the relative and the absolute. The two ends are
>complementary opposites. The problem I see here is the idea that
>motion can only be relative to a frame and that absolute motion is
>relative to an absolute frame. I don't like to think of it that way
>because it is confusing (but then again, maybe I'm the one who's
>confusing everyone). I like to think of motion as a constant or
>repeated change in position. Position is the entity that can be
>either absolute or relative. If one is considering relative position,
>one must choose a frame (a coordinate system) for it to be relative
>to. This frame may or may not be in absolute motion. If, OTOH, one
>is referring to absolute position, this position is merely a set of
>independent signed numbers.
>
>>Could you try to elaborate a bit, and clarify your concept of motion.
>
> Relative motion is an abstract mathematical concept. Absolute
>motion is the only motion that is non-abstract, i.e., physical.
>Physicists do not "observe" relative motion as some of them claim.
>They only observe ancillary phenomena such as light rays bouncing off
>objects and they infer a mathematical formalism to describe what they
>see. Relative motion (the mathematical formalism) is a direct
>consequence (the effect) of absolute motion (the cause).
> Now, if you had asked me why I believe that only absolute motion is
>real and why I think relative motion is abstract, I would have given
>you my customary explanation which is based on quantum nonlocality.
>Relative motion can be described as a change in relative position.
>Relative position, an abstract concept, is not an intrinsic property
>of particles. It is a property of "space", the abstract entity to
>which physicists have traditionally ascribed locality, i.e., position
>or "place". Now this was fine and dandy until Einstein, Podolsky, and
>Rosen, not satisfied with the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics
>(spacetime being 100% deterministic and God refusing to play dice and
>all that jazz), came up with their famous EPR paradox as a sort of
>challenge to QM. Well, the whole thing backfired when John Bell
>proposed his famous Bell's inequality and Alain Aspect conducted his
>now famous, paradigm busting experiment to confirm this inequality.
>To make a long story short, Aspect's experiment confirmed what
>Einstein et al (too bad he did not live long enough to be shown the
>error of his ways) dreaded: communication between particles is not
>limited to the speed of light through "space". In reality what Bell
>and Aspect showed was that the conservation of spin between two
>particles holds instantaneously across vast distances, as if there
>were no distance between the particles whatsoever. IOW, no space. Uh
>oh! But isn't space necessary for the concept of position? IOW,
>isn't space the quintessential, sine qua non of locality?
> This is a truly embarrassing turn of events for the die-hard
>localists. Too bad. Quantum nonlocality (as confirmed by Aspect and
>others) is the final hard, cold and unforgiving nail in the coffin of
>locality, i.e., space. [I'm not mourning. :-)] So if there is no
>space, what is left? Answer: particles, of course. But whence comes
>the idea of a particle's position and motion (change in position) if
>there is no space? Well, the answer to this most important question
>is inescapable and rather obvious: Position must be an intrinsic
>property of particles, like mass, spin or any other property. As
>such, it must be absolute. If position is absolute, so is change in
>position, i.e., motion. Is this motion observed? No. It is
>inferred. What we observe as the relative motion between two
>particles is simply the vector differences between the absolute motion
>of the two particles in a chosen relative frame. Relative motion is
>not the be-all of reality. Quantum nonlocality forbids it.
> There is a lot more to this story. It touches upon concepts such as
>momentum and dimensionality. How many dimensions (degrees of freedom)
>are they and how does intrinsic position fit into the picture? Well,
>a three-faceted intrinsic position would give rise to a 3-D "spatial"
>universe, a four-faceted (my choice) to a 4-D universe, etc.. It also
>touches upon such eternal thorns on the sides of physicists as inertia
>and the cause of inertial motion. If a particle's position is an
>intrinsic property of the particle (a mere number or quantity), what
>causes a change in that property? IOW, what causes inertial motion?
>To be continued...
>
>Best regards,
>
>Louis Savain
If you review Bell's theorem and its aftermath, you will find that it only
requires non-locality if you assume that the results of an experiment can be
determined before the measurement is made. That is, the theorem rules out
local, hidden variable theories. There is nothing in QM that violates SR.
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 03:19:00 GMT
Rather than follow all the bizarre non-sequiturs tsar introduced last post,
I'll simply try to stick to the central point, which is this:
: tsar@ix.netcom.com
: Throopw may well object that he does not understanding what I'm
: talking about ...
I suppose I "might well", but that's not what I'm doing. What tsar said
seems clear enough. The fact that he's wrong seems clear enough. His
subsequent meanderings are non-sequitur, but seem clear enough.
Note tsar's original claim:
:: the meaning of "absolute" is "unqualified" and/or invariant within
:: the frame of the particular observer.
Tsar said "the meaning of" unqualified; he didn't say "I mean by" or "my
intended meaning of". Thus, implicitly, he seemed to be making a claim
about the usual meaning, the meaning folks in general attach to the usage.
Specifically, the meaning folks earlier in the thread *had* attached
to its usage in the thread.
And about that tsar is mistaken. "Absolute" isn't normally used of a
single observer's measure, but of measures that remain constant across
observers. I gave examples, and explained how this usage is related to
the usage in other contexts. I don't see how I could have been more
clear, nor how tsar's subsequent bluster and harumpf could be more
out-of-the-blue.
: As to "tradition", this is pretty much irrelevant in this context.
: I've made my case as to the better term to use for the concept being
: conveyed. Agree ... disagree; whatever; it's done.
It's also counterproductive and obfuscatory.
True, tsar can coin "better" terms, but his statement was
"the meaning of ``absolute'' is [...]", implying that the prior
uses should have been interpreted that way.
I maintain that those prior uses should not be interpreted tsar's novel way.
--
Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
throopw@cisco.com
Subject: Re: I hate it when they do this!
From: Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz
Date: 29 Nov 1996 03:53:55 GMT
prince@pcpros.net (Mike Harder) wrote:
> It seems like math teachers are always changing their minds.
>In grade school, they told me I couldn't subtract a larger number from
>a smaller. Later, they told me that negative numbers actually do
>exist. In junior high, I was told that the square root of a negative
>number didn't exist. Later, they told me about imaginary numbers.
>Being a senior in high school, I figured that teachers would stop
>"surprising" me by now. Well, yesterday in my calc-based physics
>class, my teacher talked about the "infinity point", a point an
>infinite distance away from a body. He also talked about an escape
>velocity, the velocity at which a body must move to *just* escape the
>effects of another body's gravity, or to *just* make it to the
>infinity point. He substituted infinity into equations freely. I'm
>confused!
> For years, my math teachers have been telling me "Infinity
>isn't a number; you can't just substitute it into equations." My
>physics teacher told me, and I quote directly, "Infinity is just
>another number if you modify the rules slightly. You'll understand
>when you learn more math." He also said that if a body travels at
>greater than the escape velocity, it will go *past* the infinity
>point. I'm confused! Please help me sort this all out.
There are countable infinties (the number of integers, where the number
of even OR odd integers is identical to the total number of even AND odd
integers), and there are uncountable infinities (the number of points on
a line).
If we replace "infinity" with "asymptotic limit," we seque into calculus
wherein deltas and epsilons may venture where zero dare not go. Of
course, big words like that are political violations of American
zero-goal education (where everybody gets an A and the teachers cannot
pass the standardized exams).
Get a globe. Start at the North Pole, choose two lines of longitude,
follow them down to the equator. Now you have a triangle wherein the two
base angles are 90 degrees each and there is a bunch more at the apex
angle. What did Euclid have to say about the sum of the interior angles
of a triangle?
The Russians called it "pravda." We have Official truth. Learn
something while the process is still lawful - such as it is. To date 31
children have been Officially killed and more than 200,000 people
Officially seriously injured by airbag deployment. Official truth has
protected them to death.
--
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Subject: Field theories
From: 745532603@compuserve.com (Michael Ramsey)
Date: 29 Nov 1996 03:54:42 GMT
Field theory is the structure on which much of our current physical theories
are based. Field theories are based on a manifold (a series of points), a
topology, and a metric defined on the points. Physics first defines
operations upon each point and then provides laws which govern the time
evolution of these operations. For GR, the manifold is a four dimensional
space-time and the point operations are a metric tensor and the stress-energy
tensor. Their time evolution is govorned by Einstein's gravitaional field
equations. The Minkowski formulation of SR is a good example of a field
theory (see "Flat and curved space-times", by Ellis & Williams, pp.174-180).
A key point of field theory is that the "points" are separate from each other
(e.g. the metric tensor). The first signal principle of SR says that
information cannot flow from one point to another faster than c.
Now my question. Given the success of the Bell program (as culminated by
Aspect) in demolishing field theory's assumption that points are separable,
what is next? Are folks willing to throw in the towel on quantum field
theories? What is the program now being pursued?
--Best regards,
--Mike Ramsey
Subject: Re: I hate it when they do this!
From: glhansen@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory Loren Hansen)
Date: 29 Nov 1996 04:06:38 GMT
In article <329e3f04.464229@news.pcpros.net>,
Mike Harder wrote:
[math teachers change their minds]
You are the victim of math teachers simplifying things to make them easier
to understand.
> For years, my math teachers have been telling me "Infinity
>isn't a number; you can't just substitute it into equations." My
>physics teacher told me, and I quote directly, "Infinity is just
>another number if you modify the rules slightly. You'll understand
>when you learn more math." He also said that if a body travels at
>greater than the escape velocity, it will go *past* the infinity
>point. I'm confused! Please help me sort this all out.
The slight modification to the rules is taking the limit. For instance,
in an equation like E=k/r, you can't simply stick in r=oo. Nor can you
stick in r=0. But you can take the limit as r goes to oo and as r goes to
zero.
lim k/r = 0
r->oo
The reason you can't just stick infinity in there is because for a lot of
equations that would be undefined. For instance,
y = x / (x+1)
if x=oo, then y=oo/oo. What does that mean? Nothing really. But if you
take the limit as x->infinity, you find the answer is 1. If you have
y = 2*x / (x+1)
and stick in x=infinity, you still get y=infinity/infinity. Is that the
same answer? If you take the limit, you'll find y->2. Likewise, the
limit as x goes to infinity of
y=x^2/(x+1)
is infinity, and the limit as x goes to infinity of
y=x/(x+1)^2
is zero. Without properly taking the limit, every one of these equations
would have given you y=infinity/infinity. You would have been tempted to
just cancel the infinities as if they were regular numbers, and except for
one case you would have gotten the wrong answer every time.
When your teacher says an object moving at escape velocity will go to
infinity, what he means is there is no point where the object will stop,
turn around, and return. That, by definition, would be less than escape
velocity. It really doesn't make sense to say the object could go past
infinity, but go easy on your teacher. He was just trying to say the
object has more than escape velocity.
--
Physics is good for you.
Subject: Re: Universal Coordinate System
From: odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner)
Date: 29 Nov 1996 04:05:26 GMT
In <329E4DD7.5CBC@mail.ic.net> Peter Diehr writes:
>
>Allen Meisner wrote:
>>
>> The please tell me, where did the horizontal component of the
light
>> come from and what is the meaning of the statement that the
"velocity
>> of light is source independent" mean exactly.
>>
>
>The postulates of Special Relativity do not discuss the "velocity of
>light"; they discuss the "speed of light". Only in a one-dimensional
>system are the two equivalent (up to sign).
>
>Where does the horizontal component come from? If we consider the
>beam within the space ship traveling at constant speed, there is
>no horizontal component ... it just goes back and forth.
>
Mr. Diehr, please get a hold of your thoughts! If there is no
horizontal component, then you will not see the light, "just go back
and forth"! You will see the light go diagonally back and miss the
mirror altogether. This is really a shocking error for one who is so
intelligent otherwise.
Regards,
Edward Meisner
>But for the person tied to some other inertial reference frame
>(i.e., a planet), why they will naturally see the velocity split
>up into different components. Different observers can always
>split a vector up differently.
>
>Consider this: you toss a ball straight up ... it comes straight
>down. Do this in the parking lot. Now do it on the subway.
>Or do it on board an airplane, or a space ship. For you, the
>ball just goes up ... and down. This only requires that the
>object carrying you is in steady motion; that means stopped, or
>constant velocity.
>
>Now have a friend stay in the parking lot, and take a video of
>you tossing the ball. The video shows the ball going up and
>down while you are still in the parking lot. But in all the other
>situations, it will show the ball following a parabolic arc ...
>that is, there is a longitudinal component to the motion of the
>ball. You share that longitudinal motion exactly. What is the
>speed of the longitudinal motion? It is the relative velocity
>of the two reference frames.
>
>Surely you already know this? This is Galileo's understanding,
>and the basis for the law of inertia (Newton's First Law of Motion).
>
>> You cannot pretend that the spaceship is at rest using special
>> relativity, because the ship is accelerating. The only way you
>> can come up with an horizontal component is by asserting that the
>> light has inertia.
>
>I don't understand your concern. BTW, I've not been discussing
>the accelerating case here, though my previous response included
>some discussion of it.
>
>> If this is so, all the laws of electromagnetism have to be
>> revised in order to take this inertia into account.
>
>I'm not aware of any required changes. I don't have any trouble
>determining the electromagnetic fields associated with moving
>objects ... the methods were worked out long ago: you use the
>method of retarded times. The method can be tedious, but it does
>work. And Maxwell's equations are fully relativistic already,
>so Special Relativity does not require any changes to them.
>
>However, SR does shed new light on their interpretation.
>
>> If you can supply a definition for source independence of
>> light that is not self-contradictory then could you give me the
>> equation for the relativistic vector sum of light?
>
>Do you see this as a mathematical problem? I assure you that
>it is not. My first advice to you is to get a copy of Taylor
>and Wheeler's "Spacetime Physics", 2nd edition, and spend 6 weeks
>reading it, and doing all the problems.
>
>Then you will know that in relativity we don't use 3-vectors:
>we use 4-vectors. For example, using conventional units we
>get the 4-momentum of a beam of light as (E/c,px,py,pz) in
>some reference frame. If you want to know what it is in
>another reference frame, you perform a Lorentz transformation
>upon it. This is nothing more than a linear transformation
>based upon the connection between the two reference frames.
>
>Now you have a new 4-vector, in the reference frame of interest
>to you. Since we've expressed it in rectangular coordinates,
>you can simply add the components of any two (appropriate)
>4-vectors _given that all are being expressed in terms of the
>same reference frame_.
>
>> My intuition is that you can not perform a vector sum for
>> anything that is moving at the speed of light.
>>
>
>Then your intuition is wrong ... there is no mathematical
>problem in doing this ... and there is no physical problem.
>
>Best Regards, Peter
