Re: Universal grammar
- From: haberg@xxxxxxxxxx (Hans Aberg)
- Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:21:13 GMT
In article <1162290527.866612.235790@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Franz
Gnaedinger" <frgn@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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. :-)
Sorry for the late reply, I was buzzy otherwise, formulating
a thesis on the Etruscans. The key term above is "physical
model." A model simplifies things, ...
This was what the stepping out of 19th century positivism achieved: in
modern view, one develops models about reality which are distinct from
reality itself.
...all potential differences
are ignored, ...
Not really: QM describes what is physically measurable. And if one cannot
distinguish things by physical measurement, how can it ever be practically
be done? Apart from creating theories, with no basis in reality, that is.
...and just the equalities considered. So-called
elementary particles follow the equation p = p = p = p = ...
You just state that there are such particles, without really
knowing - and it is an assumption that bears fruit, allows
progress in the sciences and in technology, as explained
in previous messages.
It is another feature of any physical theory: that it cannot be proved, in
view of that one cannot cover all examples. A theory is considered valid
in the interim if the scope it can give predictions if no exceptions are
known. Taking this scope into account, there are no known exceptions to
NM, QM and GR, though most think that GR in the very large needs to be
augmented.
It is a very useful assumption,
but not covering the whole truth, as it ignores potential
individualities of so-called elementary particles. Let me
say it like this. Richard P. Feynman had an ingenious idea.
Particles travel along every route from point A to point B.
A photon travels even backward in time - visiting Goethe
on his Italian travel, returning to the present, where it may
buzz around my head, and meet your eye just now, in this
very moment ...
Well, these time reversal particles of his theory are just a computation
method; or that is at least one view of it.
Light travels every way simultaneously,
but for practical reasons we just deal with the sum-over-
paths, and even the sum-over-paths are simplified, for
we can't measure out and calculate every of the infinitely
many 'reasonable' and 'crazy' routes a photon follows.
We assume an average. Now one might expand Richard
Feynman's idea and assume that a particle - its wave of
probability - can assume every shape, and again we are
just dealing with a sum-over-shape, an average shape
that we can't really calculate.
In QM, every particle has a quantum field, which is sort of an invisible
fairy describing its behavior. These quantum fairies cannot be observed;
one just assumes their existence in the theoretical modeling. So a
physical theory describes relations between physically measurable
quantities, but in the process, it may assume quantities that cannot be
observed.
For the time being this
will do. But we don't know whether in the future more
elementary particles, and then more-more elementary
particles, and then more-more-more elementary ones
will be needed, ad infinitum.
The foundations of QM is not expected to change much though, by such progress.
Consider the four elements
of the early Greeks: earth water air fire. If you got pure
earth, not mixed with any of the other elements, you got
elementary earth: earth is earth, always and everywhere
the same. Is that true? No, it was a good first approach,
but not true at all.
I guess these were the first important stepping stones of creating
systematic theories.
Professor Bar Leni at the University
of Lagany on Mars in the year 7129 AD may say much
the same of quantum mechanics in the Early Concrete
Age: It was a very good and successful approach, but
not good enough for us, that zoo of elementary particles
was a useful practical model, but way too simple for us
modern and real humans the Martians ...
As I said above, no physical theory is considered final nowadays. But one
has not found any counterexamples to NM, QM and GR. In fact, the GPS
system even makes use of GR time corrections.
I made my point once again, and we could go on forever,
but I prefer to read your discussion with Rob Freeman.
Perhaps I will one day understand what exactly either of
you are doing? Anyway, it seems to me that you might
work together, your views are complementing each other
- maybe I am wrong, but it would be nice.
I think I will just stick to my theorem prover/proof verifier or some
other such computer language designer. I try to avoid getting stuck on
something that is too difficult. :-)
--
Hans Aberg
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Franz Gnaedinger
- Re: Universal grammar
- Next by Date: Re: why god spells backward of dog?
- Next by thread: Re: Universal grammar
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
