Albert Einstein

[Reg Edwards]

Albert did the easy bit : E = m*c^2

Just look at the horrible incomprehensible mess he bequeathed us other poor
mortals to sort out . . . .
----
Reg.

 

Reg Edwards wrote:

Albert did the easy bit : E = m*c^2

Just look at the horrible incomprehensible mess he bequeathed us
other poor
mortals to sort out . . . .

I think you've got it wrong. Einstein effectively wasted his old age in
a misdirected search for the theory of everything precisely because he
rejected the messy realities of the quantum world, where all you can
predict are statistical expectations. Quantum electrodynamics isn't
actually completely incomprehensible, but it is certainly full of
counter-intuitive features.

-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote (in
<1107689730.976919.255570@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com&gt about 'Albert
Einstein', on Sun, 6 Feb 2005:

Quantum electrodynamics isn't
actually completely incomprehensible,

It is, if you really understand it. (;-)
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Gregory L. Hansen]

In article <1107689730.976919.255570@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

Reg Edwards wrote:
Albert did the easy bit : E = m*c^2

Just look at the horrible incomprehensible mess he bequeathed us
other poor
mortals to sort out . . . .

I think you've got it wrong. Einstein effectively wasted his old age in
a misdirected search for the theory of everything precisely because he
rejected the messy realities of the quantum world, where all you can
predict are statistical expectations. Quantum electrodynamics isn't
actually completely incomprehensible, but it is certainly full of
counter-intuitive features.

When I was taking classes I thought the worst thing about quantum
mechanics was that it worked. That meant I had to learn it.

--
"Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler."
-- Albert Einstein

 

[Peter O. Brackett]

NO!

It was Euler who did the easy bit telling us how the five primary
mathematical constants [ j, pi, e, 0 and 1 ] are related.:

exp(jpi) + 1 = 0

By introducing the imaginary to the real and leaving the solution of real
problems to the rest of us.

I wonder, which is more fundamental E = mc^2 or exp(jpi) + 1 = 0?

--
Pete


"Reg Edwards" <g4fgq.regp@ZZZbtinternet.com> wrote in message
news:cu4uhp$k2s$1@titan.btinternet.com...

Albert did the easy bit : E = m*c^2

Just look at the horrible incomprehensible mess he bequeathed us other
poor
mortals to sort out . . . .
----
Reg.

 

Peter O. Brackett wrote:

NO!

It was Euler who did the easy bit telling us how the five primary
mathematical constants [ j, pi, e, 0 and 1 ] are related.:

exp(jpi) + 1 = 0

By introducing the imaginary to the real and leaving the solution of
real
problems to the rest of us.

I wonder, which is more fundamental E = mc^2 or exp(jpi) + 1 = 0?

Euler wins hands down. E = mc^2 only has to be true in this particular
universe.

-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Peter O. Brackett <none@no-such-
domain.nul> wrote (in <ifrNd.3278$wK.1660@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.n
et&gt about 'Albert Einstein', on Sun, 6 Feb 2005:

I wonder, which is more fundamental E = mc^2

.... might not be true in another universe;

or exp(jpi) + 1 = 0?

.... is true irrespective of where you are.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Reg Edwards]

e raised to the power of j * Pi = minus 1 is known as the Eutectic Point
of Mathematics.

It introduces negative quantities.

The phrase was stolen from metallurgists.

 

[Peter O. Brackett]

Hey Reg:

So then... who was the greatest, Euler or Einstein?


Me? I vote for Euler!

--
Pete


"Reg Edwards" <g4fgq.regp@ZZZbtinternet.com> wrote in message
news:cu5hpi$5c9$1@hercules.btinternet.com...

e raised to the power of j * Pi = minus 1 is known as the Eutectic
Point
of Mathematics.

It introduces negative quantities.

The phrase was stolen from metallurgists.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 22:51:52 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken
Smith) wrote:

[snip]

Schottky did a lot of the work on semiconductors but he was a flaming
racist and left some nasty ideas behind.

[snip]

Eh? That would be SHOCKLEY, not Schottky.

Actually, Shockley may have been technically correct about racial
differences, just not politically correct in his method of expression.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <gRqNd.181$Ub4.49672@news20.bellglobal.com>,
Kim Sleep <ksleep@sympatico.ca> wrote:

Could be worse...just look at all the crap Tesla left us. People are still
wandering around trying to make something useful out of his mess.

He also left us much that was very useful.

Schottky did a lot of the work on semiconductors but he was a flaming
racist and left some nasty ideas behind.

Edison made a practical electric light but he had a recifier tube in his
hand and missed the point. If he hadn't electronics would have been
several years ahead.



--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 22:51:52 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken
Smith) wrote:

[snip]

Schottky did a lot of the work on semiconductors but he was a flaming
racist and left some nasty ideas behind.


[snip]

Eh? That would be SHOCKLEY, not Schottky.

Actually, Shockley may have been technically correct about racial
differences, just not politically correct in his method of expression.

Heheh- you and the other eugenicists (Seim) ...

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <o48d015k167gkdtt4i8dn0qbn9101j9f46@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 22:51:52 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken
Smith) wrote:

[snip]

Schottky did a lot of the work on semiconductors but he was a flaming
racist and left some nasty ideas behind.

[snip]

Eh? That would be SHOCKLEY, not Schottky.

Yes, my error.

Actually, Shockley may have been technically correct about racial
differences, just not politically correct in his method of expression.

No.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[keith]

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 16:01:09 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 22:51:52 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken
Smith) wrote:

[snip]

Schottky did a lot of the work on semiconductors but he was a flaming
racist and left some nasty ideas behind.

[snip]

Eh? That would be SHOCKLEY, not Schottky.

Actually, Shockley may have been technically correct about racial
differences, just not politically correct in his method of expression.

Oh, my! You'll never be the president of a university! Tsk! tsk!

--
Keith

 

[Reg Edwards]

"Peter O. Brackett" wrote -

So then... who was the greatest, Euler or Einstein?


Me? I vote for Euler!

=======================

Euler may be exact whereas Einstein, like Newton, might only be approximate.

But I'll vote for DeMoivre :

e raised to the power j * Theta = Cos(Theta) + j * Sin(Theta)

which is more embracing and universal.

 

[Reg Edwards]

Maxwell's equations are not wrong. Its just that nobody at the time could
understand them. Far too complicated! And the predicted radio waves had
not yet been generated.

But the reasoning is far better expained by Oliver Heaviside's, 25 years
later, much simplified, more practical interpretation as now appears in ALL
the world's educational text books but for which, self-educated genius
Heaviside seldom gets the credit.

Heaviside, a hard of hearing recluse, by mathematical reasoning, also
predicted the existence of the ionospheric layers via which short-wave radio
propagation was to become possible.
----
Reg.

 

[Clifford Heath]

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

...it is more difficult to compensate someone who has been falsely
convicted if they have been executed rather than locked away for life.

On the contrary, it's much easier for being impossible .

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <7ogd01thqdfj41nd61r0nmdfitigb637t9@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:
[...]

Actually, Shockley may have been technically correct about racial
differences, just not politically correct in his method of expression.

No.


"The profoundest of all infidelities is the fear that the truth will
be bad!" -Herbert Spencer

Shockley said better and worse not just different. Too often he
considered what us white folks had was better. Often it is not or is a
trade off with a judgement call.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

In article <btENd.41704$K7.22736@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <N9vNd.38499$K7.10964@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
Reg Edwards wrote:

Oh dear. This is simply irrelevant, and does a major disservice to
the dude. It don't look like you really understand the issues
involved. Just saying, its "statistical" doesn't bring out what the
fundamental problem *is*.

Suppose we knew *exactly* the position and momentum of a particle
at time t0. QM says the new position and momentum cannot be known
exactly. This means cause and effect has *failed*. This is *key*.
It says that the particle could be in a new state for *no* reason
whatsoever. This is what is hard to deal with. That things can
happen with no cause. That is, there is no way to determine *why* a
particle is in one position rather then another.

It's better than that.

Oh?

Your description suggests that the particle
does have a definite position and momentum, even if they change and
we don't know what they are.

I know, I *specifically* worded it this way to avoid the common
misconception that you put below.

Too bad, you were misleading.

Oh... In what way?

But the position is not only unknown,
it doesn't exist.

Not according to the ensemble interpretation. The question is open.

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/quantummechanics/index.html

Kevin Aylward's interpretation, it seems.

What part of Leslie E. Ballentine, Professor at Simon Fraser University,
and writer of the text book "Quantum Mechanics, A Modern Development"
ISBN981-02-4105-4? did you have trouble understanding?

Or Dr Willem M. de Muynck
http://www.phys.tue.nl/ktn/Wim/qm11.htm#ind%20part%20int,

or http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/#2.3

On first glance, the two-slit experiment seems to be intractable in
the ensemble interpretation.

Nonsense. The ensemble interpretation gives correct predictions. Period.

If we think in terms of classical
particles that sometimes go through one slit and sometimes goes
through the other, we do not get a diffraction pattern.

What has classical particles got to do with anything? Listen up dude,
the ensemble interpretation, now get this, is not classical, its
quantum. Classical arguments are meaningless in the ensemble
interpretation.

If the
distance between slits narrows by an angstrom or two, it does not
result in the considerable widening between peaks on the CCD (or
whatever you're measuring with).

Oh dear, you don't understand the ensemble interpretation do you.

The punchline of quantum mechanics is that a sequence of events as in
a diffraction experiment cannot be reduced to a sequence of
classsical BBs whose positions and momenta are simply imperfectly
known.

And your point would be? Go and read the Ballentine's book if you want
to understand the ensemble interpretaion before you put your foot in it
again.

The ensemble interpretation does not give a classical account of why/how
particles are where they are. It does not address that issue in the
slightest. It jsut calculates what the results are. I think you are
confusing the quantum ensemble interpretation with some other classical
ensemble.

Note reference 2, which highlights *actual* measurements made
*better* then HUP.

This may be usefull as well
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/#2.3

Diffraction of electrons from a crystal depends on
the electron sampling a large enough region that the arrangement of
atoms matters.

This is meaningless. There is no physical description of how a
particle produces the pattern it makes. Its just how the sums work
out.

It means that small crystals have wide Bragg peaks and large crystals
have narrow Bragg peaks, so it must matter to the electrons how big
the crystal is-- they interact over extended regions, they don't just
bounce off of one atom.

Sure, but there is no accepted *physical* way to describe how or why the
peaks and troughs result. Its just the way the numbers work out from the
equations. The statement says, essentially nothing. It don't give
anything but the most rudimentary idea.

The old question of classical atomic physics was why doesn't the
electron radiate away all its energy and fall into the nucleus.

This is trivial. Maxwell's Equations are *wrong*. End of story.

The correct equations that describe E&M is QED. Maxwell's Equations
are just a continuous *approximation* to QED.

Guess what... QED still uses Maxwell's equations,

In a sense yes, Maxwell's Equations are derived from QED, as an
approximation. Nothing changes, Maxwell's Equations simply cannot
explain the photo electric effect, ergo, they are *wrong*. What part of
that are you having difficulty with?

but with the state
describe by a vector in Hilbert space rather than in phase space.
Promote variables to operators, slap kets on it for the operators to
operate on. Most texts start with the Maxwell Lagrangian, but review
the derivation and see where it says Maxwell was wrong.

What's your point? Either Maxwell's Equations explain the photo electric
effect and black body radiation, or they don't. Guess what, they don't.

Greiner's
text "Field Quantization" makes the similarities between classical
and quantum field theory very clear.

Again, what's your point? Classical theory is wrong. It don't agree with
experiment. So, there there are some similarities, so what.

The
answer is that it already had radiated away as much energy energy as
it can, it's fallen as far into the nucleus as the uncertainty
principle will let it go.

This is a meaningless answer. It just doesn't say anything.

Sure it does. It means the electron cannot make a transition to a
lower energy state, and it cannot get closer to the nucleus than it
already is.

It doesn't offer any more insight then simply stating that QM says it
don't radiate. It don't say why. Its like saying the water stops flowing
from the tap because its turned off. Or, like those daft TV science
programs that explain water is wet because it is wet.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <l02f011urek65lt76msv2h1tvmmnv23nod@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:
[...]

I do think environment accounts for most of the difference. The
blacks have been their own worst enemy... their matriarchal structure
reeks havoc on black males.

This is something more specific to US blacks than blacks elsewhere in the
world. Slavery has left deep scars in both the black and white
sub-cultures in the US. With any luck, someone of mixed race will someday
stand up and say "Get over it! What your granddad did doesn't matter. It
is what you do with the hand you are dealt today that counts."

Perhaps we should have a law requiring everyone to marry outside their
race. We'd all end up chinese if we did.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge