NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/sci/physics/18275

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-07 | 6.0 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!dtix!mimsy!prometheus!pmk
From: [e-mail] (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: The size of electrons, and misc
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 6 Nov 92 08:32:42 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Paul M. Koloc)
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.
Lines: 115

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>>

>>an infinite information density, that is space is "grainy" and
>>therefore, it is not  pointwise continuous.  Consequently, a "point
>>particle" would more often than not, fall through the vacant spaces
>>between the grains of such a manifold.  Another way to view this
>>is that there is not enough information (due the sparse grain density)
>>to locate a particle at any particular arbitrary position with infinite
>>precision.  A point particle must exist at a point (grain) in space, so
>>that most of space would not be available since it is empty of points.

Oops .. chopped to much here something like: [much unavailable space?]

On the availability of a grainy space, that can be handled by
spreading the operating function aspect (or its "foot print")
of the particle. So for example if we speed up an electron,
it can become of smaller "size" since it can intercept it's
"grain quota" for each time frame by taking on a smaller cross
section. Flexible little buggers. Of course techniquely
speaking, electrons are not complete particles, more like half
particles.

That's we they can't be removed from a universe without remaining
"connected".  They must be removed in conjugate pairs.  (electron/
positron)

>     It only suggests this to me in some vaguely defined 'information
>     space' composed of localized noncommuting variables.  You seem to be
>     talking about physical space.  In physical space, one can certainly
>     locate a particle with arbitrary accuracy.  The point is that
>     one cannot do, say, position and momentum at the same time.  This
>     in no way implies a grainy manifold in which 'most of space would
>     not be available'.

Ouch! you're correct.. sloppy .. I should have said it implies
a limit of information for each four volume of time/space.  So
you CAN be located as having been there but "WHEN? for WHAT TIME
EXTENT??".  If we say that you (as an electron) were passing
through a room (bit of space) for a minute (*10-12) sometime
yesterday then were you there at exactly 1300?

Things are fuzzy wuzzy, and it will be reflected in our drive to
develop optical computors. That is the grainy information limited
fundamental property of matter is reflected throughout our
universe and shows up in macro effects.

>     In fact, I challenge you to even determine Heisenberg uncertainty
>     in a physically acceptable way on such a 'grainy' manifold.

First it's not just the "space array (metric)" that's grainy, it's also
the operator distribution that interacts with that information that's
limited.  The product of the two gives you the uncertainty result.

>[stuff deleted]
>>The mechanics used to describe classical macro or quantum micro
>>events should be resolved into a grander and more comprehensive
>>yet simpler description.

By analogy: there is a time quantized (though global) system
that has a spatial array that can be manipulated by an operator
distribution which in turn generates another "next time" space
array, which .. .

                 DO THIS SIMPLE  DEMONSTRATION

One would think that a grey screen of a tv monitor would not
produce much imagery even after it begins to display an image of
its OWN screen seen from a vcr camera viewing it in a darkened
room.  But that strangely is not the case.  If you are really a
curious knowledge seeker of new ways of understanding reality,
perhaps you can write up the logic rules for the fantastic and
dynamic effects that develop.  (PS it helps to make the screen
symmetric by rotating the scan line alignment of the camera to
say 30 degrees (or some other multiple) skew of the monitor's
scan lines.   Also a circular mask on the screen may help.

The information density is limited, and can be controlled
through a variable resistive feed (the higher the resistance,
the more grainy the picture). The monitor/camera pair sort of
slave the operator/array aspects of what I see as a particle.
It's not the same since the annihilation is dumb function in
the case of the monitor/camera (phospor signal decay).

If you really want to get into it, a variety of optical masks
can be utilized, as well as color control. Best to start with
black and white.

>     Maybe so, but you ain't talking current, or even well-defined
>     theory here.

No question, but it's about time for another major revision of
physics over the next twenty or thirty years so I wouldn't hurt
to start some serious speculation and see if we can widen the
cracks.  The old paradym is getting hardening of the arteries
and becoming more certain and absolute than reality itself.
It's becoming a sort of strictive religion.

Sorry friends, but that is how I see it.

>                            dale bass
>--
>C. R. Bass                                           [e-mail]
>Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
>University of Virginia
>Charlottesville, Virginia                            [phone]


+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| Paul M. Koloc, President, Prometheus II, Ltd.           +Commercial*
|                   Bx 222, College Park, MD 20740-0222   ***FUSION***
| mimsy!promethe!pmk        [e-mail]  ***in the***
| [phone]            promethe=prometheus           **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************