[MD] principle of complimentarity

[MarshaV]

Ian,

Not skeptical of your opinion, skeptical of all opinion when to my mind it
is at its most perfect "not this, not that".  But being imperfect, I am
interested to see how it will all fall out, and maybe cheering for the
underdog, Big Thud.  


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 1:27 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] principle of complimentarity

Not sure what you are being sceptical about Marsha.

The LHC will be a failure if it fails to find the Higgs "God" Particle
- even significant probability evidence. (If it manages to somehow
prove it's non-existence that would be welcome news - a success in
some eyes - but I can't imagine how it could do that).
It can never be a "complete failure" we will always learn somthing -
even if it is how not to prioritize science project funding.
Of course if it just opens up some hole in the fabric of space-time
and we all disappear through it into oblivion - that might count as a
disaster ;-)

Are you sceptical of my opinion or sceptical of the value of any LHC
findings ?
Ian

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 5:56 PM, MarshaV<valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Ian,
>
> But it is a question of what constitutes failure?  I admit my knowledge
base
> is puny, but from what I understand it was from 15,000,000 trials that
> success was claimed from 6 events.  I don't know much about probability
> either, but that would be an error probability of plus or minus what?  The
> fact that the LHD has been built to find the Higgs boson may have a great
> influence on its being successfully found.
>
>
> Cynically and skeptically yours,
>
> 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 9:21 AM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> 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/
>
> 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/