From: Dr. Blake Nelson (bnelson301@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu Jul 03 2003 - 09:20:08 EDT
Not that it matters, but generally, it is much easier
to get included in an edited volume, especially since
this was a symposium and I would imagine *every* paper
presented at the symposium will be in the volume, than
it is to get in a top-tier journal.
Of course, since I don't have a "horse in this race"
(i.e., I have no position on the underlying debate), I
probably should just lurk quietly.
--- Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:
> Hi Richard, you wrote in the last message:
>
> >How Tegmark ever got his article past peer review
> is beyond me. When I
> first looked at
> >his basic claim, I knew it was false. It took only
> minutes to prove it
> false.
>
> I have done some very simple research. Tegmark has
> gotten his ideas past
> peer review. A more technical article will appear in
> Science and Ultimate
> Reality: From Quantum to Cosmos, honoring John
> Wheeler's 90th birthday,
> J.D. Barrow, P.C.W. Davies, & C.L. Harper eds.,
> Cambridge University Press
> (2003)
>
> Having been involved in trying to get an article
> published in such a volume,
> I know they are peer-reviewed. The article can be
> found at:
>
>
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0302/0302131.pdf
>
> If you are correct, then I would challenge you to
> write a letter or article
> to a PEER-REVIEWED physics journal pointing out the
> simple and supposedly
> stupid error that Tegmark made. It would be good
> for you to go through the
> same peer review so that we can be sure that your
> criticisms are valid.
>
> You further wrote in this message:
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
> >Behalf Of Richard McGough
> >Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 5:52 PM
>
> >Glen,
> >
> >You seem to be repeating Tegmark's mistake. The
> fact that there
> >are a finite number of eigenstates corresponding to
> an energy less
> >than 10^8k does not mean that there is not an
> infinite number of
> >distinct physical configurations corresponding to
> linear
> >superpositions of said eigenstates. You failed to
> address my
> >points and my calculations. If a single electron
> can exist in a
> >continuous infinity of states, do you really think
> a tiny little
> >finite number like 2^10^118 really represents all
> the physical
> >configurations possible in a Hubble volume with
> 10^50 interacting
> >particles? I repeat, Tegmark's calculations are
> patently absurd.
>
> Gee, then I guess, G.F.R. Ellis, a 'minor' figure in
> cosmology today, makes
> the same mistake. His views, explaind by George
> Gale, are as follows:
>
> "The simplest spatial MWT is developed in a series
> of papers by G. F. R.
> Ellis and various colleagues. In these articles
> Ellis has defended the idea
> that the observational evidence suggests that we
> live in a low density,
> hyomogeneous, open and infinite universe. In the
> most recent article, he
> and Brundrit consider the possibilities of life in
> such a universe. On the
> assumption that we take seriously the conditions
> specified, especially
> homogeneity and infinity, then 'we can obtain
> non-zero probabilities for
> occurrences of conditions within any specified
> finite neighborhood of [-=
> with any specified degree of similarity to] those on
> earth.' Indeed the
> similarity collapses to identity, since 'it is
> highly probable that there
> exist infinitely many worlds on whcih there are
> 'duplicate' populations to
> that on our own world.'" George Gale, "cosmological
> Fecundity, Theoreis of
> Multiple Universes," in Modern Cosmology and
> Philosophy, ed. by John Leslie
> (another minor figure in cosmology), (Amherst:
> Prometheus Books, 1998),
> p.201
>
> And so dows
> >
> >Re: Peer review. Ooops, I didn't realize sciam was
> not peer
> >reviewed. Of course, the general principle implied
> by peer review
> >is really what I had in mind, which is that
> somebody who knew
> >first year quantum physics should have mentioned
> that physical
> >states generally involve infinite superpositions of
> eigenstates.
>
> Well I have had first year quantum physics. And what
> I read doesn't agree
> with what you are saying. there is only an infinite
> summation if there are
> an infinite number of different states for the
> system. If there are a finite
> set of states then the summation is finite, e.g., a
> electron two-slit
> experiment which has only two states. indeed the
> pattern seen is due to the
> superposition of exactly 2 states. The summation is
> finite. Thus, I suspect
> you are assuming what you wish to prove, i.e. you
> assume there are an
> infinity of states and then criticise others for not
> accepting your
> assumption.
>
> I would quote Eisberg and Resnick,
>
> "Just as we are accustomed to adding wave function
> (E1+E2=E) for two
> superposed electromagnetic waves whos resultant
> intensity is given by E^2,
> so we shall add wave functions for two superposed
> matter waves (psi1 +psi2
> =psi) whose resultant intensity is given by psi^2.
> That is, a principle of
> superposition applies to matter as well as to
> radiation." Robert Eisberg and
> Robert Resnick, "Quantum Physics of Atoms,
> Molecules, Solids, Nuclei, and
> Particles, ((New York: John Wiley and sons) p. 64
>
> Note that the summation was finite, not infinite.
> And also remember from
> first year quantum the concept of
> distinguishability? If two protons are in
> the same quantum state, they are indistinguishable?
> What Tegmark did was
> count the distinguishable states. Here is what he
> says:
>
> "This is an extremely conservative estimate, simply
> count-
> ing all possible quantum states that a Hubble volume
> can have
> that are no hotter than 10^8K. 10^115 is roughly the
> number of
> protons that the Pauli exclusion principle would
> allow you
> to pack into a Hubble volume at this temperature
> (our own
> Hubble volume contains only about 10^80 protons).
> Each of
> these 10^115 slots can be either occupied or
> unoccupied, giving
> N = 2^(10^115) 10^(10^115) possibilities, so the
> expected distance to
> the nearest identical Hubble volume is
> N^1/3~10^(10^115)
> Hubble radii 10^(10^115) meters. Your nearest copy
> is likely to be
> much closer than 10^(10^29) meters, since the planet
> formation
> and evolutionary processes that have tipped the odds
> in your
> favor are at work everywhere. There are probably at
> least
> 1020 habitable planets in our own Hubble volume
> alone." Max Tegmark,
> "Parallel Universes," in Science and Ultimate
> Reality: From Quantum to
> Cosmos, honoring John Wheeler's 90th birthday, J.D.
> Barrow, P.C.W. Davies, &
> C.L. Harper eds., Cambridge University Press (2003)
>
> I would also point out that a first year quantum
> book speaking of a system
> of particles (which most assuredly our region of the
> observable universe is)
> does not engage in an infinite summation of wave
> functions. David Saxon,
> Elementary Quantum Mechanics, (Cambridge:Holden Day,
> 1968), p. 245 says:
>
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jul 03 2003 - 09:20:19 EDT