Re: Universal grammar
- From: haberg@xxxxxxxxxx (Hans Aberg)
- Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 12:10:53 GMT
In article <1161858852.901788.39420@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Franz
Gnaedinger" <frgn@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
When I was a teenager I got a book on quantum physics.
A footnote said that the basic formula of mathematics,
q equals q, has not yet been investigated. So I began to
ponder this equation. What does it say? It speaks of a thing
or a being named q, and of another thing or being called q,
and it claims that both are identical. Are there any identical
things or beings? really identical ones? Apples vary in form,
size, color and taste.
Actually, there is a principle in QM saying that particles are physically
identical if their invariants are identical. For example, if one swaps two
electrons (including physical characteristics), the physical model becomes
the same. In other words, there is no way one may put a mark on an
electrons, and them use that mark to distinguish them. Light passing
through media does that (by current QM theory) by the photons being
absorbed and reemitted by the atoms in the media. By this process, there
is no way to tell where it is is the original or a new photon that
passes through the media.
In contrast, the QM excludes the possibility of making exact copies of say
human beings, which has to do with the non-observables not being preserved
(leading to the Heisenberg uncertainty and stuff). Perhaps one can at most
do QM teleporting. :-)
--
Hans Aberg
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Franz Gnaedinger
- Re: Universal grammar
- References:
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Hans Aberg
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Rob Freeman
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Hans Aberg
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Herman Rubin
- Re: Universal grammar
- Prev by Date: Re: Universal grammar
- Next by Date: Brush up on your Navajo
- Previous by thread: Re: Universal grammar
- Next by thread: Re: Universal grammar
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|