Re: test
- From: "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:25:51 -0700 (PDT)
I think what Princess did is to expound in her own way
a frustration, about requiring a continuum for a derivative,
when the problem is dX = 0 and X <> constant, and our
old differential calculus does NOT apply.
Mathematical techniques have a domain of appliance.
In physics we say Power = dEnergy/dTime = Watts,
but in the Quantum realm, when I switch on a 60 watt
light bulb, *photons* are emitted, and there is no such
thing as a derivative of a photon.
The bulb is actually doing DE/DT , (D is increment),
and the summation of Energy is E=DE1+DE2+DE3...
where the DE's are transfered via photons of various
energies. Since the derivative d(DE)=0, it follows the
derivative dE=0.
The differential calculus was invented to apply to
macroscopic bodies, especially astronomical and
then gradually was successfully applied to many
other fields, where a *continuum* can be *assumed*
I think it's important to understand that Power which
by another name is the "flow of energy", is quantized
just as the flow of current - either electrical, or a fluid,
is also quantized.
It appears to me, physicists are racking their brains
out to merge differential calculus and Quantum Theory,
but what if that's not possible?
That problem reminds me of trying to trisect an angle,
using a ruler and compass, and I'm still trying in spite
of Gauss proving it cannot be done.
So we need to prove differential calculus and QT can
merge, to make sense of,
dX = 0 and X <> constant
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: test
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: test
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
- Next by Date: Re: Is there length contraction in SRT, uncle Ben?
- Previous by thread: Re: test
- Next by thread: Re: test
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|