Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Fri, 09 Nov 2007 00:41:46 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> 
> did spake, saying:
> 
>> Phil Cook wrote:
>>> On a more serious note can anyone explain refraction in terms of 
>>> particles.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>
http://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Princeton-Science-Library/dp/0691125759/ref=pd_bbs_1

>>
> Thanks, though I note one commentator said "The problem is that we never 
> get an explanation for why the vectors point the way the do, are rotated 
> just so, etc. 

That's the wrong book for *that* question. You asked "can anyone explain 
refraction in terms of particles". That's what the book answers.

That person is complaining that we don't know why the laws of physics 
are the way they are. Well, yes. But I don't think you'll ever solve 
that for the most current theories.

The book for that is this:

http://www.amazon.com/Character-Physical-Law-Modern-Library/dp/0679601279/ref=pd_bbs_10/105-9307687-6115653

I also recommend "six easy pieces" and "six not so easy pieces".

 > Without that it's simply voodoo, and nothing has been
> explained." 

He gives you a handful of rules (simplified to ignore polarization) to 
tell you how to figure out what's going to happen. This is stuff you 
determine by making measurements. He doesn't explain why the universe 
picked those rules, no.

never mind. Amazon UK stocks it, but I'll check out my local
> store first.

It's cool. Check out the two "six pieces" parts too.

The lectures on computation are from a very physical POV, fwiw. Stuff 
like explaining the quantum tensors that would let you build a truly 
quantum computer. I got very little out of it except for one or two 
insights that aren't really very useful unless you're arguing about 
turing machines or perfect randomness or some such.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message