does the Correspondence Principle refer only to quantum mechanics? [Archive]

robert bristow-johnson

Nov27-04, 06:39 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>i\'ve always thought what has been stated in my Modern Physics texts\nthat, even though originated by Bohr (referring to how quantum mechanics\nsuperceded Newtonian mechanics), that the Correspondence Principle\napplie= s to any modern theory as it is applied to a situation where an\nolder theor= y was shown to be valid. Googling "correspondence\nprinciple" gets me a few different definitions but most of them say\nsomething like:\n\nCorrespondence Principle: any new theory, whatever its character--or\ndetails--should reduce to the well-established theory to which it\ncorresponds when the new theory is applied to the circumstances for\nwhich the less general theory is known to hold. This principle was first\napplied to the theory of atomic structure by Niels Bohr in l923.\n(Weidner and Sells, l960, p. 29) The principle can be applied to great\nadvantage in relativity theory and in quantum mechanics.\n\nhere\'s another from Encyclopedia Britannica:\n\nCorrespondence Principle: philosophical guideline for the selection of\nnew theories in physical science, requiring that they explain all the\nphenomena for which a preceding theory was valid.\n\n\nso what do the physikers here say about that. is it only for quantum\nmechanics or can the term be applied to special or general relativity?\nmight someday, the principle be applied to string theory to break it down to\nquantum mechanics in some domain where quantum mechanics is known to be\nvalid?\n\n--=20\n\nr b-j rbj@audioimagination.com\n\n"Imagination is more important than knowledge."\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>i've always thought what has been stated in my Modern Physics texts
that, even though originated by Bohr (referring to how quantum mechanics
superceded Newtonian mechanics), that the Correspondence Principle
applie= s to any modern theory as it is applied to a situation where an
older theor= y was shown to be valid. Googling "correspondence
principle" gets me a few different definitions but most of them say
something like:

Correspondence Principle: any new theory, whatever its character--or
details--should reduce to the well-established theory to which it
corresponds when the new theory is applied to the circumstances for
which the less general theory is known to hold. This principle was first
applied to the theory of atomic structure by Niels Bohr in l923.
(Weidner and Sells, l960, p. 29) The principle can be applied to great
advantage in relativity theory and in quantum mechanics.

here's another from Encyclopedia Britannica:

Correspondence Principle: philosophical guideline for the selection of
new theories in physical science, requiring that they explain all the
phenomena for which a preceding theory was valid.

so what do the physikers here say about that. is it only for quantum
mechanics or can the term be applied to special or general relativity?
might someday, the principle be applied to string theory to break it down to
quantum mechanics in some domain where quantum mechanics is known to be
valid?

--=20

r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

robert bristow-johnson

Nov27-04, 12:34 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>little or nothing to do with the actual\nfocus of the effort.\n\nAnd when a person made the\nwatch list, any conversations\n\nEVEN MENTIONING\n\nthat person are scooped up.\n\n\nP333: By now, the names of U.S. citizens on NSA\'s many watch lists for\nfighting the drug war had grown from the hundreds into the thousands.\n\nEven when Noel Gayler took over as Director of the NSA in August 1969,\nNSA personnel waited a year or so before briefing even him on the NSA\nwatch list program.\n\n\nP381-382: NSA Director General Allen testified to Congress that there is no\nstatute that prevents the NSA from interception of domestic communications.\nAsked whether he was concerned about the legality of expanding greatly its\ntargeting of American citizens, the NSA replied: "Legality? That particular\naspect didn\'t enter into the discussions."\n\n\nP459: Innocent Americans - people neither targeted nor watch-listed - are\nscooped up into the NSA\'s giant vacuum cleaner. This happens with\nconsiderable frequency because of the way in which names and phrases are\njam-packed into the computers. Even though NSA\'s specialized supercomputers\nhave enormous storage capacities, the tremendous number of targets forces\nthe Agency to squeeze the watch lists together as tightly as possible.\n\n\nP462-465: Its power to eavesdrop, the NSA had always insisted, came under no\nearthly\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>little or nothing to do with the actual
focus of the effort.

And when a person made the
watch list, any conversations

EVEN MENTIONING

that person are scooped up.

P333: By now, the names of U.S. citizens on NSA's many watch lists for
fighting the drug war had grown from the hundreds into the thousands.

Even when Noel Gayler took over as Director of the NSA in August 1969,
NSA personnel waited a year or so before briefing even him on the NSA
watch list program.

P381-382: NSA Director General Allen testified to Congress that there is no
statute that prevents the NSA from interception of domestic communications.
Asked whether he was concerned about the legality of expanding greatly its
targeting of American citizens, the NSA replied: "Legality? That particular
aspect didn't enter into the discussions."

P459: Innocent Americans - people neither targeted nor watch-listed - are
scooped up into the NSA's giant vacuum cleaner. This happens with
considerable frequency because of the way in which names and phrases are
jam-packed into the computers. Even though NSA's specialized supercomputers
have enormous storage capacities, the tremendous number of targets forces
the Agency to squeeze the watch lists together as tightly as possible.

P462-465: Its power to eavesdrop, the NSA had always insisted, came under no
earthly

robert bristow-johnson

Nov27-04, 03:15 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>accountability.\n\nIn response to an FOIA asking why this happened, the Secret Service\nresponded: "We are sure no one knows why we had the meeting disrupted".\n\nThey have made a mockery of FOIA.\n\nThis mockery of FOIA is still being litigated by EPIC.\n\nAn intentional illegal government surveillance program...it just never stops.\n\nMarc Rotenberg has gotten the Secret Service to admit in court that this was\ndone to "investigate hacking into a company\'s telephone switch."\n\nSince when did the "investigative" techniques used by the Secret Service\nbecome valid for use in the United States? Going up to a bunch of mall\npatrons and DEMANDING IDENTIFICATION from them and searching them?\n\nHow exactly was this supposed to further investigate a switch hacking?\n\nFor extended details of this governmental persecution of the politically\nincorrect, see http://www.2600.com.\n\n\n******************************* ***********************************************\n\ n\nSecret Service: Vile Persecution of Ed Cummings\n------ ------- ---- ----------- -- -- --------\n\nSource material from http://www.2600.com, by someone calling themselves\n"Emmanuel Goldstein", which in the book \'1984\' was known as the\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>accountability.

In response to an FOIA asking why this happened, the Secret Service
responded: "We are sure no one knows why we had the meeting disrupted".

They have made a mockery of FOIA.

This mockery of FOIA is still being litigated by EPIC.

An intentional illegal government surveillance program...it just never stops.

Marc Rotenberg has gotten the Secret Service to admit in court that this was
done to "investigate hacking into a company's telephone switch."

Since when did the "investigative" techniques used by the Secret Service
become valid for use in the United States? Going up to a bunch of mall
patrons and DEMANDING IDENTIFICATION from them and searching them?

How exactly was this supposed to further investigate a switch hacking?

For extended details of this governmental persecution of the politically
incorrect, see http://www.2600.com.

************************************************** ****************************

Secret Service: Vile Persecution of Ed Cummings
------ ------- ---- ----------- -- -- --------

Source material from http://www.2600.com, by someone calling themselves
"Emmanuel Goldstein", which in the book '1984' was known as the

robert bristow-johnson

Nov27-04, 03:50 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>report regarding the Internet (a public wire)\ntraffic of Salomon Brothers, which is monitored for security/compliance.\n\nOn Jul 3 1996, sara xxxxxxxxx of XXX-NJ emailed over the unprotected\nInternet 38,696 lines of OASYS C++ code to vendor RogueWave for tech support\n\nThis code was clearly marked:\n\n" This SOFTWARE is proprietary and confidential to \\n"\n" SALOMON BROTHERS INC. and may not be duplicated, \\n"\n" disclosed to third parties or used for any purpose \\n"\n" not expressly authorized by Salomon Brothers Inc.. \\n"\n" Any unauthorized use duplication or disclosure is \\n"\n" prohibited by law and will result in prosecution. \\n";\n\nSISS sincerely hopes noone was positioned to monitor this Internet\ntraffic, because they would have picked up the full transfer.\n\n************************************* ******************************************\n****** ************************************************** ***********************\n************************* ************************************************** ****\n\nThere are plenty of alternatives to\n\na) sending our proprietary code over the unprotected Internet\nb) disclosing our code to a third party\n\nThe answer to a) is: don\'t do it. Get MD/SOO permission to use a courier.\n\nThe answer to b) is:\n\no Isolated the bug(s) to the smallest amount necessary to reproduce\nthe error. According to the previous email traffic between these\n\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>report regarding the Internet (a public wire)
traffic of Salomon Brothers, which is monitored for security/compliance.

On Jul 3 1996, sara xxxxxxxxx of XXX-NJ emailed over the unprotected
Internet 38,696 lines of OASYS C++ code to vendor RogueWave for tech support

This code was clearly marked:

" This SOFTWARE is proprietary and confidential to \n"
" SALOMON BROTHERS INC. and may not be duplicated, \n"
" disclosed to third parties or used for any purpose \n"
" not expressly authorized by Salomon Brothers Inc.. \n"
" Any unauthorized use duplication or disclosure is \n"
" prohibited by law and will result in prosecution. \n";

SISS sincerely hopes noone was positioned to monitor this Internet
traffic, because they would have picked up the full transfer.

************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** *************************************

There are plenty of alternatives to

a) sending our proprietary code over the unprotected Internet
b) disclosing our code to a third party

The answer to a) is: don't do it. Get MD/SOO permission to use a courier.

The answer to b) is:

o Isolated the bug(s) to the smallest amount necessary to reproduce
the error. According to the previous email traffic between these

John T Lowry

Nov28-04, 06:01 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"robert bristow-johnson" <rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote in message\nnews:BDCD019D.23ED%rbj@audioimagination.c om...\n> i\'ve always thought what has been stated in my Modern Physics texts\n> that, even though originated by Bohr (referring to how quantum\n> mechanics\n> superceded Newtonian mechanics), that the Correspondence Principle\n> applie= s to any modern theory as it is applied to a situation where\n> an\n> older theor= y was shown to be valid. Googling "correspondence\n> principle" gets me a few different definitions but most of them say\n> something like:\n>\n> Correspondence Principle: any new theory, whatever its\n> character--or\n> details--should reduce to the well-established theory to which it\n> corresponds when the new theory is applied to the circumstances for\n> which the less general theory is known to hold. This principle was\n> first\n> applied to the theory of atomic structure by Niels Bohr in l923.\n> (Weidner and Sells, l960, p. 29) The principle can be applied to\n> great\n> advantage in relativity theory and in quantum mechanics.\n>\n> here\'s another from Encyclopedia Britannica:\n>\n> Correspondence Principle: philosophical guideline for the selection\n> of\n> new theories in physical science, requiring that they explain all\n> the\n> phenomena for which a preceding theory was valid.\n>\n>\n> so what do the physikers here say about that. is it only for quantum\n> mechanics or can the term be applied to special or general relativity?\n> might someday, the principle be applied to string theory to break it\n> down to\n> quantum mechanics in some domain where quantum mechanics is known to\n> be\n> valid?\n>\n> --=20\n>\n> r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com\n>\n> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."\n>\n\nAs ordinarily understood (for the past 80 or more years) the\nCorrespondence Principle refers to the classical/quantum interface. Of\ncourse one can extend almost any concept to new realms, but doing so\nfuzzifies fine distinctions.\n\nJohn Lowry\nFlight Physics\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"robert bristow-johnson" <rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote in message
news:BDCD019D.23ED%rbj@audioimagination.com...
> i've always thought what has been stated in my Modern Physics texts
> that, even though originated by Bohr (referring to how quantum
> mechanics
> superceded Newtonian mechanics), that the Correspondence Principle
> applie= s to any modern theory as it is applied to a situation where
> an
> older theor= y was shown to be valid. Googling "correspondence
> principle" gets me a few different definitions but most of them say
> something like:
>
> Correspondence Principle: any new theory, whatever its
> character--or
> details--should reduce to the well-established theory to which it
> corresponds when the new theory is applied to the circumstances for
> which the less general theory is known to hold. This principle was
> first
> applied to the theory of atomic structure by Niels Bohr in l923.
> (Weidner and Sells, l960, p. 29) The principle can be applied to
> great
> advantage in relativity theory and in quantum mechanics.
>
> here's another from Encyclopedia Britannica:
>
> Correspondence Principle: philosophical guideline for the selection
> of
> new theories in physical science, requiring that they explain all
> the
> phenomena for which a preceding theory was valid.
>
>
> so what do the physikers here say about that. is it only for quantum
> mechanics or can the term be applied to special or general relativity?
> might someday, the principle be applied to string theory to break it
> down to
> quantum mechanics in some domain where quantum mechanics is known to
> be
> valid?
>
> --=20
>
> r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
>
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
>

As ordinarily understood (for the past 80 or more years) the
Correspondence Principle refers to the classical/quantum interface. Of
course one can extend almost any concept to new realms, but doing so
fuzzifies fine distinctions.

John Lowry
Flight Physics