Mailing List Archive

Mailing List: techdiver

Message Display

Well, at least we're all going to be a well educated bunch of tech divers...


CHKBOONE@ao*.co* wrote:

> Devin,
>
> In a message dated 97-11-17 10:34:08 EST, you write:
>
> << Actually....
>
>  electromagnetic radiation is a particle..... and a wave.....
>
>  -D
>
>  really, sort of... >>
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> Technically you're right.   But then, actually, we're all wrong.   (again;
> really, sort of)
>
> You have just entered the realm where men have to write entire books just to
> define one term, get a seemingly simple point across, or say what they mean
> without being misunderstood.
>
> Elemental matter and energy exhibit properties of both waves and particles.
>
> Actually, we have no earthly idea what anything really "is" - no knowledge of
> the deep realities of the universe.   So, all we can ultimately say about
> these entities is that they exhibit properties of this or that and we can
> only describe them (and most other phenomena) by describing how they react
> under the influence of other phenomena, which we also have no real
> understanding of.
>
> Since we don't know what an electron actually "IS", and never can, we are
> stuck having to define it by what it appears to "do".   Quantum theory is an
> attempt on the part of physicists to deal with this dilemma and still be able
> to work with matter and energy in some seemingly meaningful way in spite of
> the fact that it defies intuition.   Just like Newton's set of laws these too
> will be found wanting some day and modified accordingly.
>
> Matter and energy are mathematically expressible in the same terms and by the
> same formulas at this level and the quantum concept of a wave takes a book to
> describe (and turns out not to be exactly what we normally think of as
> waves).
> There is no quantum concept of a particle that satisfactorily cross
> references to our intuitive ideas.
>
> I "think" one of the things we can say about electrons and protons that we
> can not say about gamma rays (in spite of the fact that they all exhibit
> properties of both waves and particles) is that they are easily stopped by
> other matter and seem to remain intact as when they pile up on a surface
> creating a charge or strike this screen I am looking at and bleed off, still
> actually in the circuit.   Gamma rays, however, are not so much stopped by
> matter as absorbed, whereupon they become non existent as separate
> independent entities.  (please don't go into wave functions and probable
> position / velocity / direction ).
>
> It's rough having only 5 pitiful short range senses and an inquiring mind
> that you can't always trust.   Nature is cruel !   Then again, maybe it is
> very kind to allow us our delusions ?
>
> All very stimulating stuff, but you realize, of course, that if we go much
> further with this heavy theory stuff were going to be drummed off the list.
>   At the speeds we're dealing with we better stick with Newton's summation of
> the situation.
>
> Good response, but I don't have time to bite right now.   This is just a
> nibble on the line.   Maybe we can get Esat going ?
>
> Chuck
>
> --
> Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
> Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.



--
Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.

Navigate by Author: [Previous] [Next] [Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject: [Previous] [Next] [Subject Search Index]

[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]

[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]