No Big Bang

[KrazyHorse]

As to fermions etc.:

Leptons are elementary fermions which do not experience the strong force (they are colour neutral)
Quarks are elementary fermions which do experience the strong force (they carry colour)
Hadrons are non-elementary particles which experience the strong force, but are colour neutral. They are composed of non-colour neutral elementary particles, and their strong force interaction proceeds via a mechanism somewhat like electrical polarisation.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Regular people have a hard enough time learning Newtonian mechanics on any meaningful level.

Tru dat. I 'member breezing through Classical newtonian physics, optics, electromagnetics etc. For grins and giggles took QM. The math was a huge step change from simple calculus required for the entry level Physics. Still did well but within universities even doing well is not necessarily learning. I believe I got an A for QM but for the life of me can't even remeber how I derived Heisenberg Uncertainty equations.

Sorry to say my math skillz have long since atrophied that I merely understand (and that prolly is a huge overstatement) basic QM concepts. I doubt I could derive anything anymore where I used to have to do this time in time out. Quantum physics, PChem 1 and PChem 2,. Thermo (all 4-5 times in various forms) all have slipped into the recesses of memory.

[_BuRjaCi_]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Regular people have a hard enough time learning Newtonian mechanics on any meaningful level.

A strong argument for the genetic modification of humans.

[Impaler[WrG]]

KHAAAAAAANNNN!!!!

[_BuRjaCi_]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
KHAAAAAAANNNN!!!!

He really wasn’t that bloodthirsty a dictator.

Hey, if you where left on a desert planet with mind controlling parasites for a decade, you would be cranky too.


And the worst guys are usually not that smart ones, just look at Stalin or Hussein.

[MrFun]

Hey KrazyHorse, what books on physics would be good reading for people who are not specialists in physics? Introductory books? Books on the dilemma of reconciling relativity with quantum mechanics? Books on the ambiguous dimensional space of our entire universe?

Books that would not be boring to read.

[Geronimo]

Don't you get the impression that KH doesn't think people should bother learning anything about physics at all if it's from some layman directed source?

I'd be surprised if he would recommend anything at all.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Geronimo
Don't you get the impression that KH doesn't think people should bother learning anything about physics at all if it's from some layman directed source?

I'd be surprised if he would recommend anything at all.

He talked about bad books that do a poor job in explicating the principles of physics to lay readers. But I thought maybe he knows of some exceptional, good books that do a great job.


Anyway, I look forward to seeing what he reccomends -- if he thinks there are any good books out there for lay readers.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


The problem is that regular people will never understand what we do. They don't have the tools to judge for themselves.

Don't be so shy - what you really means is that ordinary peoples brain isn't twisted enough to grasp the concepts

I guess that you are familiar with the name Holger Bech Nielsen. He has on several occations tried to explain what he was doing to ordinary people, and while I could follow him a long way, I usually got lost at some point. Wonder if your aggresiveness is a parallel to his very loud voice

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by MrFun



He talked about bad books that do a poor job in explicating the principles of physics to lay readers.

No, I didn't.

I said that any explanation which can be understood by the lay public of any theory more complicated than Newtonian mechanics is going to be necessarily fundamentally meaningless.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by BlackCat
I guess that you are familiar with the name Holger Bech Nielsen.

No.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


No.

ever heard about string theory ?

[KrazyHorse]

Yes.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


No, I didn't.

I said that any explanation which can be understood by the lay public of any theory more complicated than Newtonian mechanics is going to be necessarily fundamentally meaningless.

how would you define a "meaningful" explanation? in you view would an explanation only be "meaningful" if it allowed someone to debate the finer points of the theories involved with those who are engaged in current research into the areas of science involving those theories?

[BlackCat]

Nielsen-Olesen Vortex ?