Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Silkroad -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SteveG who wrote (264)	3/3/1999 8:14:00 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 626

SteveG, Real good to see you here. Thanks for that personal note on my behalf. And you're right about the independence position, although I saw no need to make this disclaimer in the recent past here: DISCLAIMER: For those thread participants who don't know me from the other boards, my ethics and business practices preclude me from owning or shorting individual stocks, either directly or through proxy, or arguing positions on same in a public forum.This holds especially true in those sectors where I practice business telecomm and datacomm consulting. I don't consider this discussion an argument of advocacy, for or against, as much as it is a pursuit to understand what this technology is all about and what it has to offer. At the same time there are no tradable shares on the open market, which makes this discussion superficial to some extent. But sometimes a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do, and our recent distraction here has necessitated this clarification. You will note that I am exercising a great deal of forbearance here, in my classical style, in the interest of furthering discussion of the core topic. ----- SG, I'm not sold on this pup, by any means. Only encouraged, thus far. And I'm now seeing the justification for those courses I elected to avoid at all costs in the very distant past. I'm also learning what is meant by work-hardening of the cranial cavity (an area of the anatomy I know that you are expert in, from a medical perspective). But I'll get there at some point. To this extent, AHhaha's rants along with those of the others here have been helpful to me, in that they've at least pointed me to the areas that I should be concerned with, in order to realize just how much I still don't know. At the same time I'm also encouraged to find out that many of the masters are at odds with one another on many of the issues, which sorta alleviates the drag, somewhat. -g- I'm optimistic about seeing additional breakaway schemes like this one, if not this specific one, come to fruition. Most new technology in this sector only mimics the old ones to death, without really breaking any new ground. In other words, it would be refreshing for me to see an iconoclastic event take place here, as I'm sure it would be for others as well. I have no qualified foundation for saying that this particular SR tech will or wont fly, however. Frankly, I'm rather hopeful that it will. But I must continue to remain objective on the potential of its outcome. Your questioning and scrutiny of the SR model is important, as George S. and others have done. It speaks to the core purpose of the thread. I would hope that after you've had an opportunity to digest the DQ report, you will not only have a more informed opinion to share with us, but perhaps you might share some of the contents of the report with us as well. I, for one, do not receive it. Regards, Frank Coluccio PS - Why don't you see if you can shake Dr. Levy loose from that wireless thread for a moment, to join us in discussion here. Okay? Hi, Bernard!

To: SteveG who wrote (264)	3/3/1999 2:34:00 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 626

represented by a pure momentum state, which implies that the photon is uniformly spread over space There are representations and then there are other representations. If the photon is spread over space, what is spread? Momentum? Or what we must say is the spread is composed of spacetime points. It begs the question. If that which is spread over space has angular momentum which is not spin,intrinsic angular momentum, that which is spread must be undergoing angular momentum. It is E x B that rotates. The spreading or smearing is a relativistic effect, but the photonic entity's Lagrangian is quantized to Planck's constant. To claim the photon is not particulate means the action integral is infinite. QED is accurate because the point-like idealization of the photon is effective. This is an old controversy. We either try to preserve the semi-classical picture or the quantum picture. In transmission photonics you stay with semi-classical, because the quantum theory DeBroglie Wave momentum 1-form picture is not as helpful. Then there is also a position space where the position is initially localized to a point and the momentum is spread out over momentum space. As above what is initially localized to a point? It looks like position space and momentum space are disjoint. Nature isn't. We use this way of representation since it is consistent with experiments and relations of reality done in the macro world. A pure position state evolves immediately into a non-local position wave function. Position, spacetime point, is not a state. States are pure numbers and are the parameters that govern transition from one spacetime point to another. You are mixing classical and quantum representations. In either representation one can construct a wave packet. The wave packet is the attempt to represent both representations in a unified picture which humorously attempts to retain the macro classical picture in an ad hoc way. You don't need a Fourier Transform; it is merely a mathematical convenience. The uncertainty relation falls out of the wave packet picture and is governed by the unit of quantum action, Planck's constant. Arguing that spin requires spatial extent seems an incorrect understanding of spin. There is the quantum number, spin, nh/2Pi, which you have mentioned, and then there is angular momentum of the tangible energy field. When we talk about the nucleus its spin is the total angular momentum. Please give me your definition of spin. A particle's spin determines its angular momentum and is not associated with physical extension of the quantum particle. An electron with a spin 1/2... You mean intrinsic angular momentum. There is historical confusion caused by the evolution of these concepts and also due to the translation of classical picture into quantum picture. Uhlenbeck and Goudsmidt innocently started the confusion trying to get away from 2 eigenfunction models. The quantum number or operator, intrinsic angular momentum, is caused by an unknown mechanism. It may yet drop out of string theory or M + N theory as a geometrodynamical entity. What I'm talking about is k*E x B per unit volume. It is areal and it rotates.