[MD] principle of complimentarity

[Ian Glendinning]

Marsha, I think I love you ...
"there is much too much invested in the Standard Model"
... is a very shrewd summing up - that's why we have to wait for LHD to fail.

Dark Matter - not seen yet, but on my list to check out.
Ian


On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 2:33 PM, MarshaV<valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> Ian,
>
> The zeros are there and cannot be ignored (one would think), but from what I
> heard of the Top Quark discovery at Fermilab it doesn't take much for them
> to cry Victory, there is  much too much invested in the Standard Model.  Did
> you happen to see the movie 'Dark Matter'?  I know it's just a movie, but
> it's making legitimate claims about the ???  Well, if you get a chance see
> the movie.
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----  From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Ian Glendinning
> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 8:21 AM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] principle of complimentarity
>
> Hi Ron, Marsha,
>
> I like that
> "Objectivly speaking, reality is a dream within a dream within a
> dream...et infinum"
>
> I have used
> "The dreams that stuff are made from" to bastardize the bard - though
> I didn't coin that version.
>
> Just for the record the limitations are not within the "measuring
> devices" - but with the very concept of measurement, given current
> received wisdom of fundamental physics.
>
> FYI - my current view is one level lower than either particles or
> waves - quantum information - where wave-particle complemenarity are
> just two views of the same information. We'll have to wait for that
> expensive piece of kit in Switzerland to be a complete failure (or
> disaster) before much of the world notices though. The guys with the
> funding have the wrong maths - Einstein corrected his error, but still
> very few have noticed post-Copenhagen.
>
> Ian.
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 2:09 PM, X Acto<xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
>> Marsha,
>>
>> I believe it seems to exclude a particles momentum or trajectory simply
> because
>> of the limits of the measuring devices and the gravitational effects it
> has on them.
>>
>> For starters, mainly because particles are not really entities or
> substances but an intersection
>> of fields of force.
>> As I understand it, particles are layers apon layers of said intersections
> built up from a backround
>> of these fields of "force" for lack of a better word,  manifesting in
> strong and weak atomic forces.
>>
>> The popular theory at the moment, which the super collider hoped to
> verify, was that all of this
>> is a manifestation of the field of space, or string theory, that space is
> composed of fluctuating
>> quantum rings.
>> Objectivly speaking, reality is a dream within a dream within a dream...et
> infinum
>>
>> so measuring is a bit of a problem, objectivly. Complimentrarity, says
> that these particles
>> and forces only exist in relation to eachother. to isolate them and
> calculte their trajectory
>> is misunderstanding them, it creates paradox. like the particle/wave
> duality, the duality
>> lies in how the phenomena is measured not in the phenomena itself.
>>
>> So to conclude, the problem is in how physicists understand particles and
> the limits of the
>> methods of measurement.
>>
>> -Ron
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 6:27:27 AM
>> Subject: [MD] principle of complimentarity
>>
>> Greetings,
>>
>>
>>
>> Why is it that if we perform an experiment to determine a quantum
> particle's
>> position, it excludes knowing only the particle's momentum and not
>> everything else?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Marsha
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _____________
>>
>>
>>
>> "He who neglects the present moment throws away all he has."
>>   (Friedrich von Schiller)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>