Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Configuration Space

Expand Messages
  • Phil Warnell
    Jonathan, ... make ... If you think of the wave in a lineal fashion that would be true. There is another clasisical way to conceptualize this and that is as a
    Message 1 of 43 , Dec 9, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Jonathan,

      --- In bell_bohm@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan Lang" <dataweaver@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > Travis Norsen wrote:
      > > A more complete description *of what*? The only answer is: of what
      > > is physically real. But that just begs the question. Would you
      make
      > > a similar argument about the potentials in E&M by the way?
      >
      > My understanding is that an electromagnetic wave _can_ be described
      > entirely by the electrical and magnetic fields; there are no
      > "entangled E-and-M" states. That is, if you take a cross-section of
      > an electromagnetic wave, you'll find an electrical field oscillating
      > one way and a magnetic field oscillating at right angles to it; but
      > you won't find anything at, say, a 45-degree angle - there's nothing
      > "in between" to debate about.

      If you think of the wave in a lineal fashion that would be true. There
      is another clasisical way to conceptualize this and that is as a
      circular wave captured within two planes of polarization. This is the
      one I prefer in that the electric component and the magnet component are
      actually to be considered as just different aspects of the same thing.
      Here are a few web sites that include some animated explanations and
      comparisions between the two concepts:


      http://webphysics.davidson.edu/Applets/EMWave/EMWave.html

      http://www.enzim.hu/~szia/cddemo/edemo0.htm

      -Phil
    • Phil Warnell
      Jonathan, ... Yes as you say its mentioned in the Goldstein and company paper. Also, I have always been aware of the postulate in dBB. What I wasn t aware of
      Message 43 of 43 , Dec 11, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Jonathan,

        --- In bell_bohm@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan Lang" <dataweaver@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > In the papers that Travis pointed to in the "Configuration Space"
        > thread, there was a discussion about this sort of thing. The
        > impression that I got is that we "just happen" to live in a region
        > with a "quantum equilibrium distribution" for the same sort of reason
        > that coin tosses "just happen" to produce a mix of heads and tails,
        > rather than a constant string of one or the other. Check out the
        > papers and let me know what you think.

        Yes as you say its mentioned in the Goldstein and company paper. Also, I
        have always been aware of the postulate in dBB. What I wasn't aware of
        is that there is some reason to suspect that there could exist some
        matter that doesn't hold to this. As for your head and tails thing as
        Valentini explains it boils down to a chicken and egg thing. However in
        this scenario nonequalibrium ruled the early universe and we come to
        where we are over time. I find that interesting for one of the problems
        with cosmology is what's called the horizon problem where it's had to
        explain the current similarity throughout the universe if communication
        within it is limited in terms of speed. I find it interesting that dBB
        could offer a plausible explanation for this.

        > Also, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that "nonequilibrium" doesn't
        > get conserved: that is, if you take a sample of matter in a
        > nonequilibrium distribution and bring it into contact with a sample
        > in an equilibrium distribution, it's entirely possible that the latter
        > would convert into the former. In effect, "nonequilibrium" is
        > unstable, while "equilibrium" is stable.

        That to is interesting for what would actually be the reaction. Let's
        speculate for a minute that WIMP's actually represent this stuff. If
        that were the case we would not get hardly any reaction at all for
        that's why they are called such (weak interacting massive particles).
        This really means they don't interact much with regular matter or
        themselves(at least not in the normal way). Then we have anti-matter
        where the reaction is so strong that all one ends up with are photons.
        I'm not as certain as you are in all this. With current evidence in
        cosmology suggesting that what we take as regular matter and regular
        energy only making up 4 percent of the sum total are you sure which side
        of the looking glass we are on?

        -Phil
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.