Re: Where is the mathematical beauty of relativity !!!

On Jul 27, 10:11 am, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com"
<tttppp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]

Sue...

- Tim

Glad you brought up the phonon. How'd we get that one model for heat
and sound when the two are so starkly different? Simply throw in
different constants without telling anyone. Where is the discussion in
thermodynamics of this discrepancy between sound and heat? It is
nonexistent because it paints a conflict. I'm just putting my nickel
on the track. To derail the train something larger will be needed.


<< Phonons are a quantum mechanical version of a
special type of vibrational motion, known as normal
modes in classical mechanics, in which each part of
a lattice oscillates with the same frequency. >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon

QM works because atoms can measure out countable
quanta to which then yield to statistical techniques.

But once the noise and unknown factors diminish
by averaging many samples. What remains can then
be ported to some uncountable application as
Feynman did. QED can derive Snell's law even
tho it has no dependence on atomic absorbion
or emission.

<< each phonon is a "collective mode" caused
by the motion of every atom in the lattice.
This may be seen from the fact that the ladder
operators contain sums over the position and
momentum operators of every atom. >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon#Phonons

Can lattice structures measure out quanta of heat?
If so, there is a basis to use statistics to
swamp out the noise and unknowns to achive
high accuracy and low understanding. :o)

I'm
pretty sure that something is a cleaner solution. People tend to
develop their work in the context of the outer branches tendrilling
out further and further from a built core. This is dangerous if the
core is faulty. We are all free to pursue what we wish to and I'm just
pointing my finger in at the core and finding a soft spot that is a
bit smelly and may fester out into quite a nasty injury. On the other
hand maybe it's just a normal abrasion that looks bad to me. I am
happy that you are willing to consider the problem though the more
material you throw at it and the wider your diversions go the less
impressed I am. In an atomic solid should a short wavelength
propagate? If the atoms are bound into a crystalline solid then isn't
it foolhardy to attempt such a distinction? Upon entering the
electrical realm rather than slow things down we have speeded them up.
This seems to point more to a principle of self action. In terms of
experimental knowledge I have no doubt that the models in use are good
guidance for further experiments. It is the theoretical description
that I am questioning, especially the interpretation of heat or
temperature as translating atoms whose velocities vary. I do wish that
it made more sense. Since it does not make much sense to me then I am
left questioning the whole train of thought and how people can accept
this incongruence. I may be wrong, but then shouldn't your argument be
as straightforward as the information that I refute? I guess this
could break down into some sort of contrapositive logical description
but I'm comfortable just keeping it above that layer. When conflicts
arise is it not possible to argue them out cleanly? Physics is
challenging and all that we would have to do is step back in time a
couple of hundred years to accept this fact. Then, travelling forward
from that time would we wind up with the same body of theory that
exists today? Almost certainly not. I think science has taken some
arbitrary paths. We could happily go down these roads enjoying the
scenery but the goggles we are wearing are growing a bit dim with
accumulation. We should seek to collapse existing theory. This is not
a destructive argument, or if it is it is in the superior next state
that the motivation comes from. To build the next clean theory means
destroying some of existing theory, not propping it up where it is
cracked. Could this be one of the failings of the string theorists?
Rather than challenge existing theory they've put themselves down
beneath it where they cannot effect it. As the Abrahamic religions
broke up should we expect the same of physics? Will we be forced to
swear allegiance to one sect? No. But just the same sincere belief
differences do exist and that psychological tension is somewhat the
same as the religious tension. Physicists will tend to agree that the
truth of existence occurs regardless or one's belief system and is
universal. Either religion or physics is subject to human behavior
mechanisms and this common denominator has to be accepted by
physicists who will tend to deny it. And the same for those damn
mathematicians.

Ya have to remember, no matter how elegant our equations look,
nature carries on without ever giving them a glance.
As hairy and inelegant as something like QED can be,
conformity with experiment is always the bottom line.
Or it ain't science.

Sue...



- Tim

.

Relevant Pages