[MD] principle of complimentarity

[X Acto]

Ian, Marsha,
Disturbing flick, talk about your social patterns in intellectual matters.

The blind spots of the social patterns of an intellectual community.

The perils of inquirey. It illustrates the distinction between academic
inquiry and academic society.

-R



----- Original Message ----
From: Ian Glendinning <ian.glendinning at gmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 9:21:04 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] principle of complimentarity

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/
>
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/