Re: Why is Quantum Mechanics so successful?
From: Franz Heymann (notfranz.heymann_at_btopenworld.com)
Date: 01/06/05
- Next message: Franz Heymann: "Re: There must be an after-undergrad HTSC book?!"
- Previous message: Bill Hobba: "Re: Lorentz transformations - a derivation"
- In reply to: Y.Porat: "Re: Why is Quantum Mechanics so successful?"
- Next in thread: Lawrence: "Re: Why is Quantum Mechanics so successful?"
- Reply: Lawrence: "Re: Why is Quantum Mechanics so successful?"
- Reply: Y.Porat: "Re: Why is Quantum Mechanics so successful?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 23:10:25 +0000 (UTC)
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1105033022.973323.161200@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> there is something that you apparently dont know
> that should cool down a bit you enthusiasm:
>
> qm cannot solve all along the heavy atoms
> it does not go much further away from the iron element
> yet qm true beleivers hide that fact
> and they have the 'excuse' - no suficient comuter power!!
Porat, you are drivelling, as is your custom.
The programme for computing atomic wavefinctions was instigated and
conducted by an international group of physicists with a very specific
interest in studying stellar spectra in great detail. There is
relatively little astronomical interest in the spectra of elements
heavier than iron. That is the sole reason why the programme was
stopped at that stage. The computation of the wavefunctions of even
just *one* element uses hundreds of hours of supercomputer time, and
the funds for that will be granted to a group only if they can make a
cast iron case for the necessity of the calculation. The physicists
involved, being very reasonable people, did not attempt to make a
spurious case for continuing the work after their objectives were
reached.
> so rt of 'jst give me a leaning point
> and i will lift thewhole world' (Archimedes)
> yet that is far from true
> that is not because lack of computer power
> it is because of wrong basic assumptions
> that if not corrected will never let it do the whole job
You have not even the foggiest of ideas of what you are talking about.
I, on the other hand, do know what I am talking about here, since the
leader of the group was a member of my Department, and I was the
chairman of the selection panel for allocating computer time on one of
the supercomputers which was used in this project.
The rest of what ypou had to say is as much horse dung as what you
said higher up, so I delete it.
[snip]
Franz Heymann
- Next message: Franz Heymann: "Re: There must be an after-undergrad HTSC book?!"
- Previous message: Bill Hobba: "Re: Lorentz transformations - a derivation"
- In reply to: Y.Porat: "Re: Why is Quantum Mechanics so successful?"
- Next in thread: Lawrence: "Re: Why is Quantum Mechanics so successful?"
- Reply: Lawrence: "Re: Why is Quantum Mechanics so successful?"
- Reply: Y.Porat: "Re: Why is Quantum Mechanics so successful?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|