| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Jack Sarfatti" |
| Date: |
06 Mar 2005 11:56:47 AM |
| Object: |
Feynman did it before Hawking |
I am driving back to San Francisco from Santa Barbara in a few minutes
but I want to get this down while it's fresh in my mind. I just had
breakfast with Alan Lightman, a delightful Southern intellectual, and
equally delightful Marsha Bartusiak (both from MIT). We were discussing
Phil Morrison, Bethe, Salpeter - old days at Cornell. It got around to
Hawking and what he will be remembered for. Then Alan Lightman, author
of "Einstein's Dreams" told us the following "narrative" (big theme at
Kavli meeting hosted by David Gross, who actually is a GOOD ACTOR. He
did a scene as Feynman in QED - good job.
In 1972 before Hawking came out with the Hawking radiation formula.
Feynman was meeting with Kip Thorne's grad students, Bill Press, Saul
Teukolsky & Lightman. They discussed a recent calculation of shining
light on a rotating black hole and getting more energy out then in at
expense of decreasing rotational energy of the hole. They all went back
to Lightman's office. Feynman said: "Hey this is like stimulated
emission. So he went to black board and did a A & B coefficient model
and then when angular momentum J of the black hole J -> 0 there was
still "A" spontaneous emission and it was the later Hawking formula!
A maid erased the board that night before Lightman and the others
realized they should have written down what Feynman wrote. Not even
Feynman thought it was important enough to write a paper about apparently.
.
|
|
| User: "newedana" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman did it before Hawking |
09 Mar 2005 01:50:20 AM |
|
|
Gravity has nothing to do with lights, the kinds of electromagnetic
waves. So it is stupid to believe that gravity can attract the light,
because these two physical entities are entirely different in
character. We can generate any kind of electromagnetic waves but we
cannot do the same job to generate the gravity. If man can create a
mass from energy then the gravitation can be generated, but it is also
foolish to believe that it is possible.
.
|
|
|
| User: "chosp" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman did it before Hawking |
09 Mar 2005 08:38:40 AM |
|
|
"newedana" <simplesong1004@hanmail.net> wrote in message
news:1110354620.497383.69900@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Gravity has nothing to do with lights, the kinds of electromagnetic
waves.
Wrong.
So it is stupid to believe that gravity can attract the light,
because these two physical entities are entirely different in
character.
Wrong.
We can generate any kind of electromagnetic waves but we
cannot do the same job to generate the gravity.
So?
If man can create a
mass from energy then the gravitation can be generated,
but it is also
foolish to believe that it is possible.
Wrong on every count.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Varney" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman did it before Hawking |
09 Mar 2005 03:39:32 PM |
|
|
"newedana" <simplesong1004@hanmail.net> wrote in message
news:1110354620.497383.69900@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Gravity has nothing to do with lights, the kinds of electromagnetic
waves. So it is stupid to believe that gravity can attract the light,
because these two physical entities are entirely different in
character. We can generate any kind of electromagnetic waves but we
cannot do the same job to generate the gravity. If man can create a
mass from energy then the gravitation can be generated, but it is also
foolish to believe that it is possible.
Hello moron.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman did it before Hawking |
09 Mar 2005 08:12:48 AM |
|
|
Dear newedana:
"newedana" <simplesong1004@hanmail.net> wrote in message
news:1110354620.497383.69900@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Gravity has nothing to do with lights, the kinds of
electromagnetic
waves.
GR provides that light does add to a gravitational field. The
expected contribution is small.
So it is stupid to believe that gravity can attract the light,
because these two physical entities are entirely different in
character.
It is not that gravity attracts light, but that light's path
*always* ends at a charge, and charged particles are always
massive. The more massive a body is, the more light ends (and
begins anew) there.
We can generate any kind of electromagnetic waves but we
cannot do the same job to generate the gravity.
Because it is hard to measure, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Research is going on to produce extremely intense laser pulses,
in hopes that (among other things) the self-gravity of the pulse
might be detectable.
If man can create a
mass from energy then the gravitation can be generated, but it
is also
foolish to believe that it is possible.
Which is foolish to believe is possible:
- man can create mass (done, pair creation & anti-hydrogen
produced)
- mass can generate "gravitation"?
Hard to measure =/= nothing to measure
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman did it before Hawking |
09 Mar 2005 09:01:15 AM |
|
|
In article <1110354620.497383.69900@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
newedana <simplesong1004@hanmail.net> wrote:
Gravity has nothing to do with lights, the kinds of electromagnetic
waves. So it is stupid to believe that gravity can attract the light,
because these two physical entities are entirely different in
character. We can generate any kind of electromagnetic waves but we
cannot do the same job to generate the gravity. If man can create a
mass from energy then the gravitation can be generated, but it is also
foolish to believe that it is possible.
And yet, gravity attracts light. Many measurements have been done of
light bending as it passes the Sun, gravitational lensing in the universe,
and the related phenomenon of gravitational redshifting.
How does that impact your argument?
--
"No one need be surprised that the subject of contagion was not clear to
our ancestors."-- Heironymus Fracastorius, 1546
.
|
|
|
| User: "newedana" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman did it before Hawking |
10 Mar 2005 03:04:19 AM |
|
|
And yet, gravity attracts light. Many measurements have been done of
light bending as it passes the sun, gravitational lensing in the
universe. and the related phenomenon of gravitational redshifting.
How does that impact your argument?
Light bends at the interface of different transparent materials with
different densities. It is not due to speed diffence of light passing
through them, but because of the reason, light is slitted by atomic
nuclei in the material system, and these slitted micro light beams
develope into numerous micro-sperical waves( though photon theory
ignores them) which constructively interfere to build a refractive
light. This is the real mechanism of building a refractive light.
The sun blows out the solar winds built with nuclear particles which
slit the light wave from the star behind the sun to build
micro-spherical waves which can build the refractive light with the
same mechanism.
The redshift of the refracted light is not due to its energy loss as
it escapes from solar gravitational field, but is due to the reason,
the refracted light proceeds for the earth along the direction the mass
particles run. In this case the wavelength of light turns out to be
elongated. It is foolish to belive that light wave once emitted from
its source can change its frequency in the space.
Lensing phenomenon shown by heavenly body is not due to the reason of
its gravitation, but because of the reason, it may blow out mass
particles like the solar wind. That is why every stars do not show such
a lensing character.
.
|
|
|
| User: "newedana" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman did it before Hawking |
11 Mar 2005 02:40:47 AM |
|
|
As one knows, Hawking's basic idea of black hole originates to the
theory of reativity proposed by Albert Einstein; photon is a kind of
mass particle, so the massive solar gravity might attract the photon
passing near the sun. He developed further the Einstein's idea by
assuming that if gravitation could attract the photon, then a giant
heavenly body built with a singularity material would be possible to
absorb completely all photons passing nearby, due to its tremendous
gravity. This is allegedly the black hole theory of Hawking. Since the
refraction of star light has nothing to do with the solar gravitation
as explained above, it is nonsense to believe that his black hole can
absorb lights. Another problem is his imaginary product of singularity
material. It is non-scientific. His singularity material starts from
his unlikely assumption, if cosmic gaseous elements such as hydrogen or
helium accumulate to build an ultra-giant gas block, then there would
occur a destruction of mass structure to produce such a singularity
material, due to their tremendous gravitational compression. However,
these light elements are impossible to gather automatically by
themselves to a plase in the cosmic space, unless they are mechanically
compressed. The thermodynamic third law says that gaseous materials do
not decrease their entrophy by decreasing their piling volume.
If a giant heavenly body is built with only neutrons it would have
the densest structure of all kinds, and can play a gravitational center
of a galactic universe, emitting a variety of electromagnetic
radiation, since it does not involve the empty space within its
structure. Why necessary the singularity material?
.
|
|
|
| User: "newedana" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman did it before Hawking |
12 Mar 2005 02:23:43 AM |
|
|
newedana finds in Dr.yoon's book titled " Natural Science founded on a
New Atomic Model (www.yoonsatom.net) that the quantum mechanical theory
and the theory of relativity have distorted signicantly all the
principles of natural science today. One basic example was
non-scientific logical foundation of Shrodinger's wave equation. Why is
the equation out of science? In order to find out the orbital electron
moving three dimentionally with the same probability, it has to move at
a speed of many thousand times the Bohr's orbital electron. So the
kinetic energy of orbital electron can no more balanc out with its
potential energy. But the equation made them in balance. The other was
the unlikely assumption of gravity that can attract light, as mentioned
previously.
.
|
|
|
| User: "newedana" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman did it before Hawking |
20 Mar 2005 04:57:06 PM |
|
|
I find in Dr. Yoon's book <www.yoonsatom.net> that the mechanism of
slitting light wave by notch lines of a diffraction grating is the same
as the action of atomic nuclei in a glass prism, in terms of slitting
the incoming light into numerous micro light beams which develope into
numerous micro spherical waves that build component mono-chromic lights
due to their constructive phase interference. If the spacing between
each notch line is less than a half wavelength of incoming light, and
the sodium D-light is irradiated upon the grating face, its reflection
angle corresponds to the refration angle in the same air phase, as it
passes through a micro spacing grid of notch lines. That is, light can
refract even in the same air phase if it passes through a micro spacing
grids with less than a half wavelength.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman did it before Hawking |
09 Mar 2005 12:37:53 PM |
|
|
the naswer is the simplest possible
photons has mass
it will take another millenium for the parrots to get it !1
Y.Porat
----------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman did it before Hawking |
09 Mar 2005 12:57:52 PM |
|
|
Dear Y.Porat:
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1110393473.966539.7460@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
the naswer is the simplest possible
photons has mass
It has 30 orders of magnitude less mass than E/c^2, if even that
much. There are very successful theories that hold that for the
photon to have mass, would end up violating conservation of
charge.
it will take another millenium for the parrots to get it !1
No comment. Since this is just about the exact same phrase you
keep repeating.
Which reminds me of a joke...
A lady had house plumbing problems, and called a plumber. Then
she forgot she made the call and left the house for some
shopping.
The plumber arrives and rings the bell.
The parrot says "Who is it?"
The plumber says "It is the plumber."
.... suffice it to say this is repeated many times. The plumber
gets angrier and angrier, so much so that he has a heart attack
and dies.
Ignoring the clothing, tools, and the truck pulled out up front;
the police detective asks the lady "Who it it?"
The parrot says "It is the plumber, @#!& it!"
Maybe it is how you tell it...
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman did it before Hawking |
10 Mar 2005 12:01:27 AM |
|
|
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Y.Porat:
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1110393473.966539.7460@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
the naswer is the simplest possible
photons has mass
It has 30 orders of magnitude less mass than E/c^2,
----------
how do you know it ??
if even that
much. There are very successful theories that hold that for the
photon to have mass, would end up violating conservation of
charge.
--------------------------
why do you think it has anything to do with charge??
and which charge??
it is much more basic than charge!!
iow while ligh t was created charge was not even in its
'errotic status ' .......
are you sure you understand properly the structure of matter??
and energy??
----------------
it will take another millenium for the parrots to get it !1
No comment. Since this is just about the exact same phrase you
keep repeating.
Which reminds me of a joke...
very nice but i a m not sure
who is the parrot here .....(:-)
all the best
Y.Porat
-------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman did it before Hawking |
10 Mar 2005 08:25:41 AM |
|
|
Dear Y.Porat:
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1110434487.144513.254680@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Y.Porat:
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1110393473.966539.7460@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
the naswer is the simplest possible
photons has mass
It has 30 orders of magnitude less mass
than E/c^2,
----------
how do you know it ??
Published experimental value.
if even that
much. There are very successful theories that hold that for
the
photon to have mass, would end up violating conservation of
charge.
--------------------------
why do you think it has anything to do with charge??
and which charge??
Electric charge.
it is much more basic than charge!!
EM radiation... is about movement of charge. What more basic do
you require?
iow while ligh t was created charge was not even in its
'errotic status ' .......
By some Playboy models, perhaps. But light is charge motion, so
if there is no charge to emit it, and no charge to absorb it...
it sort of begs the question.
are you sure you understand properly the structure of matter??
and energy??
I know what has been revealed by experiment. A photon has no
mass, to within our ability to resolve. And as I indicated, it
is much less than E/c^2 for a given photon.
Non-codirected (heading in different directions) photons DO have
a non-zero rest mass... in pairs. One alone does not have rest
mass.
....
----------------
it will take another millenium for the parrots to get it !1
No comment. Since this is just about the exact same phrase
you
keep repeating.
Which reminds me of a joke...
very nice but i a m not sure
who is the parrot here .....(:-)
I'm pretty sure I know. It is the plumber! ;>)
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman did it before Hawking |
12 Mar 2005 04:33:26 AM |
|
|
1 photons are deviated while passing close to the sun
2 photons are capable of producing massive particles!
3 photons has momentum -what is momentum??
are you able to think something beside mtemathics ??
have a good time chewing what others feed you
and always wahtch that you are on the mainstream
btw were from you get your income ?are you concent dependant for your
income ??
(i was not sure but just whanted to check a posibility (:-)
Y.Porat
-----------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman did it before Hawking |
09 Mar 2005 08:43:24 AM |
|
|
nothing is created !!!
it is all just trasfomrmations of the same
basic thing
anything(physical entity) that can be sensed
directly or indirectly throuhg our senses
*has mass*
and everything is just mass in motion-
wether visible or wether unvisible
ie intrinsic movement.
there is some basic mass that is always in morion
probably with the velocity of light.
(all those entities that 'suddenly ' appear with the velocity of light
are doing not 'suddenly'
it is alwayes there with the velocity of light
just sometimes *deviated outside*
so we can identify that motion.
A 'Circlon' is a good cantidate to explain it all.
Y.Porat
-----------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman did it before Hawking |
10 Mar 2005 09:19:05 PM |
|
|
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
I am driving back to San Francisco from Santa Barbara in a few
minutes
but I want to get this down while it's fresh in my mind. I just had
breakfast with Alan Lightman, a delightful Southern intellectual, and
equally delightful Marsha Bartusiak (both from MIT). We were
discussing
Phil Morrison, Bethe, Salpeter - old days at Cornell. It got around
to
Hawking and what he will be remembered for. Then Alan Lightman,
author
of "Einstein's Dreams" told us the following "narrative" (big theme
at
Kavli meeting hosted by David Gross, who actually is a GOOD ACTOR. He
did a scene as Feynman in QED - good job.
In 1972 before Hawking came out with the Hawking radiation formula.
Feynman was meeting with Kip Thorne's grad students, Bill Press, Saul
Teukolsky & Lightman. They discussed a recent calculation of shining
light on a rotating black hole and getting more energy out then in at
expense of decreasing rotational energy of the hole. They all went
back
to Lightman's office. Feynman said: "Hey this is like stimulated
emission. So he went to black board and did a A & B coefficient model
and then when angular momentum J of the black hole J -> 0 there was
still "A" spontaneous emission and it was the later Hawking formula!
A maid erased the board that night before Lightman and the others
realized they should have written down what Feynman wrote. Not even
Feynman thought it was important enough to write a paper about
apparently.
*Chuckle* Although it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Feynman had,
in fact, hit upon Hawking radiation before even Hawking himself did, I
must insist- that it's all too tidy a story to say "A maid erased the
board...".
I surely doubt that the housekeeping staff at Caltech has ever been in
the habit of summarily erasing the professors' works in progress. I
also have to doubt that Kip's grad students were too inept at physics
not to have been able to piece back together the elements of the
argument... or for that matter too ignorant of communications
technology to just make a phone call to Feynman asking what it was he'd
shown them. An anectdote such as this is nothing more than urban
legend. *Yaaawwn*
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "alphabeta" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman did it before Hawking |
12 Mar 2005 07:29:52 AM |
|
|
I don't come to Google Groups discussions much these days (to post), so
can't remember if the format now top posts for one or not (think it
does). Point is: apologies for top posting and more for barging in off
topic. I see, though, I might catch J.S. here.
Jack Sarfatti, I haven't seen QED and don't have Mpeg 3...but have kept
my edition of "Space-Time and Beyond." I have a simple question. Saw
something on the tube recently about string theory. Don't know if
Feynman still says it's all nebulous or if you do either. I noted re
this broadcast that animated simulation of the strings was mainly of
loop variety. Are these anything similar to the mini-black holes and
mini white holes that old tome discussed?
alphabeta
Mark Martin wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
I am driving back to San Francisco from Santa Barbara in a few
minutes
but I want to get this down while it's fresh in my mind. I just had
breakfast with Alan Lightman, a delightful Southern intellectual,
and
equally delightful Marsha Bartusiak (both from MIT). We were
discussing
Phil Morrison, Bethe, Salpeter - old days at Cornell. It got around
to
Hawking and what he will be remembered for. Then Alan Lightman,
author
of "Einstein's Dreams" told us the following "narrative" (big theme
at
Kavli meeting hosted by David Gross, who actually is a GOOD ACTOR.
He
did a scene as Feynman in QED - good job.
In 1972 before Hawking came out with the Hawking radiation formula.
Feynman was meeting with Kip Thorne's grad students, Bill Press,
Saul
Teukolsky & Lightman. They discussed a recent calculation of
shining
light on a rotating black hole and getting more energy out then in
at
expense of decreasing rotational energy of the hole. They all went
back
to Lightman's office. Feynman said: "Hey this is like stimulated
emission. So he went to black board and did a A & B coefficient
model
and then when angular momentum J of the black hole J -> 0 there was
still "A" spontaneous emission and it was the later Hawking
formula!
A maid erased the board that night before Lightman and the others
realized they should have written down what Feynman wrote. Not even
Feynman thought it was important enough to write a paper about
apparently.
*Chuckle* Although it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Feynman
had,
in fact, hit upon Hawking radiation before even Hawking himself did,
I
must insist- that it's all too tidy a story to say "A maid erased the
board...".
I surely doubt that the housekeeping staff at Caltech has ever been
in
the habit of summarily erasing the professors' works in progress. I
also have to doubt that Kip's grad students were too inept at physics
not to have been able to piece back together the elements of the
argument... or for that matter too ignorant of communications
technology to just make a phone call to Feynman asking what it was
he'd
shown them. An anectdote such as this is nothing more than urban
legend. *Yaaawwn*
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman did it before Hawking |
12 Mar 2005 08:22:55 AM |
|
|
I read that Hawking's is a bit of a copy cat. Don;t get me wrong he is a
great physicist. He just thinks another persons good idea(theory)
belongs to him. Bert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman did it before Hawking |
12 Mar 2005 09:48:56 AM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
I read that Hawking's is a bit of a copy cat. Don;t get me wrong he
is a
great physicist. He just thinks another persons good idea(theory)
belongs to him. Bert
It's entirely possible that more than one theorist has hit upon black
hole radiation independently. I doubt that Hawking ever stole the idea
from someone else. His claim to that particular fame may simply be that
he thought of it- and then published it, realising that it was a
non-trivial clue to the connection between quantum mechanics & general
relativity.
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman did it before Hawking |
12 Mar 2005 09:43:39 AM |
|
|
alphabeta wrote:
I don't come to Google Groups discussions much these days (to post),
so
can't remember if the format now top posts for one or not (think it
does). Point is: apologies for top posting and more for barging in
off
topic. I see, though, I might catch J.S. here.
Jack Sarfatti, I haven't seen QED and don't have Mpeg 3...but have
kept
my edition of "Space-Time and Beyond." I have a simple question. Saw
something on the tube recently about string theory. Don't know if
Feynman still says it's all nebulous or if you do either. I noted re
this broadcast that animated simulation of the strings was mainly of
loop variety. Are these anything similar to the mini-black holes and
mini white holes that old tome discussed?
Most people on the boards don't appreciate top posting, just to
clarify.
As for Richard Feynman, he passed away February '88, so he says very
little these days on the issue of string theory. But to address your
question, no, mini-black holes aren't thought to be the same as
closed-loop strings. On the other hand, string theorists propose that
strings make for a natural solution for the problem of the singularity
inherent in classical black hole theory, this being that strings are of
finite scale, and so precluding and infinite number of them in a small
region of space. The mass density of a black hole would reach a
saturation point.
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "alphabeta" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman did it before Hawking |
12 Mar 2005 01:03:42 PM |
|
|
Mark Martin wrote:
alphabeta wrote:
I don't come to Google Groups discussions much these days (to
post),
so
can't remember if the format now top posts for one or not (think it
does). Point is: apologies for top posting and more for barging in
off
topic. I see, though, I might catch J.S. here.
Jack Sarfatti, I haven't seen QED and don't have Mpeg 3...but have
kept
my edition of "Space-Time and Beyond." I have a simple question.
Saw
something on the tube recently about string theory. Don't know if
Feynman still says it's all nebulous or if you do either. I noted
re
this broadcast that animated simulation of the strings was mainly
of
loop variety. Are these anything similar to the mini-black holes
and
mini white holes that old tome discussed?
Most people on the boards don't appreciate top posting, just to
clarify.
As for Richard Feynman, he passed away February '88, so he says very
little these days on the issue of string theory. But to address your
question, no, mini-black holes aren't thought to be the same as
closed-loop strings. On the other hand, string theorists propose that
strings make for a natural solution for the problem of the
singularity
inherent in classical black hole theory, this being that strings are
of
finite scale, and so precluding and infinite number of them in a
small
region of space. The mass density of a black hole would reach a
saturation point.
-Mark Martin
Thanks for the updates. I see it still makes sense not to top post
under the new layout.
Lately I've been busy with ideas of JK Galbraith, Peter Orszag, and
Pete Peterson (latter's well meaning but imo mistaken re privatized
accounts). Before these it was something else. For the moment perhaps
there is a space to breathe--old cosmological quandries pop into my
head. Must have forgotten Feynman had left us, if I'd read it. How
about his interpretation of the double-slit experiment; in the current
thinking do the electrons still follow all the trajectories
simultaneously?
alphabeta
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman did it before Hawking |
12 Mar 2005 03:35:15 PM |
|
|
alphabeta wrote:
Must have forgotten Feynman had left us, if I'd read it. How
about his interpretation of the double-slit experiment; in the
current
thinking do the electrons still follow all the trajectories
simultaneously?
It's very difficult for someone such as myself to speak for the
predominant "thinking", in this respect, by the physics community at
large. As far as I can tell it's certainly true that Feynman's path
integration is accepted as one of the most powerful pictures, in
principle, of quantal processes, and is adapted by field theorists on a
daily basis. But it's also true that this method of computation is less
tractible for most applications than just solving Schrodinger's
equation, so most of the time that's what they do, with great success.
A lot of working physicists may not even have much familiarity with the
mathematical tools of path integration.
I've also read stuff by professionals in which they interpret Feynman's
system as delivering *only* the relative probability of various
experimental outcomes, insisting that the picture of a particle
following literally all of an infinity of paths is *only* a model which
yields accurate numbers, with the actual behavior of the particle
between emission & detection being wholly undefined. All that really
matters is that it delivers the goods reliably. How people interpret it
is their own affair.
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dishman" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman did it before Hawking |
13 Mar 2005 05:22:25 AM |
|
|
"Mark Martin" <qed100@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110663315.938871.61140@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
<snip details>
I've also read stuff by professionals in which they interpret Feynman's
system as delivering *only* the relative probability of various
experimental outcomes, insisting that the picture of a particle
following literally all of an infinity of paths is *only* a model which
yields accurate numbers, with the actual behavior of the particle
between emission & detection being wholly undefined. All that really
matters is that it delivers the goods reliably. How people interpret it
is their own affair.
That's a nice example of the difference between
science and philosophy IMHO.
George
.
|
|
|
| User: "alphabeta" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman did it before Hawking |
13 Mar 2005 10:20:44 AM |
|
|
George Dishman wrote:
"Mark Martin" <qed100@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110663315.938871.61140@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
<snip details>
I've also read stuff by professionals in which they interpret
Feynman's
system as delivering *only* the relative probability of various
experimental outcomes, insisting that the picture of a particle
following literally all of an infinity of paths is *only* a model
which
yields accurate numbers, with the actual behavior of the particle
between emission & detection being wholly undefined. All that
really
matters is that it delivers the goods reliably. How people
interpret it
is their own affair.
That's a nice example of the difference between
science and philosophy IMHO.
George
Thanks, MM, for taking the time to explain this.
I think I remember Brian Greene describing Feynman's view on the paths
travelled as literal, and not postulating only a model that works. It
definitely seems to me that one viewpoint implies one thing
philosophically, and the other something else.
BTW, what's the easiest way to get to one thread where the discussion
on this page appears besides using the search and besides pasting the
long url? I now get a page of starred threads when I click the group
names tagged to search page citings. Do you just keep going to next
pages or what? Guess I'll try searching with part of title and put url
in fav places for now.
alphabeta
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman did it before Hawking |
20 Mar 2005 05:35:07 PM |
|
|
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
I am driving back to San Francisco from Santa Barbara in a few
minutes
but I want to get this down while it's fresh in my mind. I just had
breakfast with Alan Lightman, a delightful Southern intellectual, and
equally delightful Marsha Bartusiak (both from MIT). We were
discussing
Phil Morrison, Bethe, Salpeter - old days at Cornell. It got around
to
Hawking and what he will be remembered for. Then Alan Lightman,
author
of "Einstein's Dreams" told us the following "narrative" (big theme
at
Kavli meeting hosted by David Gross, who actually is a GOOD ACTOR. He
did a scene as Feynman in QED - good job.
In 1972 before Hawking came out with the Hawking radiation formula.
Feynman was meeting with Kip Thorne's grad students, Bill Press, Saul
Teukolsky & Lightman. They discussed a recent calculation of shining
light on a rotating black hole and getting more energy out then in at
expense of decreasing rotational energy of the hole. They all went
back
to Lightman's office. Feynman said: "Hey this is like stimulated
emission. So he went to black board and did a A & B coefficient model
and then when angular momentum J of the black hole J -> 0 there was
still "A" spontaneous emission and it was the later Hawking formula!
Hawking will be remembered long after Einstone or
Feynmann will, or the other Euclid moron Diffo-Lawyers
that have run phyiscs since Descartes.
Since he was the very first mathematician in the
psycho-ville known as Archimedes and Physics that
recognized that the formula wasn't a formula,
but rather a relation between Von Neunmann's
Quantum Mechanics and Marcoscopic Entropy.
A maid erased the board that night before Lightman and the others
realized they should have written down what Feynman wrote. Not even
Feynman thought it was important enough to write a paper about
apparently.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
