X-Message-Number: 22116 From: "michaelprice" <> References: <> Subject: Physical Infinities Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 09:36:46 +0100 I must commend Peter Merel on his entertaining dialogue between Achilles and the Tortoise about their fabled race. That's what I get for mentioning Aristotle! Still, a bit of light relief with a classical parable is always welcome. Unfortunately it relates to the subdivision of finite quantities and is, therefore, more about the existence of infinitesimals rather than the sort of physical infinities I'm interested in. > I used "faeries" because I don't want us getting stuck on the > particulars of the popular model. If we're reformulating the basics, > we might wind up with a physical model that has no counterpart > to a photon. Ah, but I must stick with a particular model, since the existence of physical infinities is, by definition, an empirical claim, not a logical claim. My claim relates to the number of (real) photons emitted when an electric charge is shaken. It difficult to imagine that any reformulation of "the basics" will eliminate the photon. The photon is the package of energy that light (or electromagnetic radiation generally) comes in. Photomultiplier tubes count photons in the same way that Geiger counters count alpha or beta particles. Any theory that tried to do away with photons would have to do away with the reality of everything else, it seems to me -- banishing reality to banish infinities seems a rather desperate course of action, to put it mildly. BTW it occurs to me, upon reflection, that Yvan Bozzonetti's categorisation of quantum field theory -- when its results to not agree with his own theories -- as a religion is quite ironic, since it is the opponents of cryonics who, being unable to produce a scientific refutation, resort to labelling cryonics as a religion. Cheers, Michael C Price ---------------------------------------- http://mcp.longevity-report.com http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22116