robert bristow-johnson
Nov29-04, 02:51 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>in article 5p1qd.4876\\$NU3.2460@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink .net, John T\nLowry at jlowry100@earthlink.net wrote on 11/28/2004 07:01:\n\n> As ordinarily understood (for the past 80 or more years) the\n> Correspondence Principle refers to the classical/quantum interface. Of\n> course one can extend almost any concept to new realms, but doing so\n> fuzzifies fine distinctions.\n\nokay, now my question is what do you call this when you apply a new theory\n(but not quantum mechanics) to a well defined physical situation where an\nolder theory was shown to be valid to a high degree of experimental\naccuracy. doing this for relativistic physics would be showing that when\nspeeds are slow (relative to light) and space is reasonably flat, that SR or\nGR breaks down to Newtonian mechanics. since "correspondence principle" is\nnot the term (although i recall that my Elementary Modern Physics text said\nit was), what would the correct term for this be?\n\n--\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>in article 5p1qd.4876$NU3.2460@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.n et, John T
Lowry at jlowry100@earthlink.net wrote on 11/28/2004 07:01:
> 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.
okay, now my question is what do you call this when you apply a new theory
(but not quantum mechanics) to a well defined physical situation where an
older theory was shown to be valid to a high degree of experimental
accuracy. doing this for relativistic physics would be showing that when
speeds are slow (relative to light) and space is reasonably flat, that SR or
GR breaks down to Newtonian mechanics. since "correspondence principle" is
not the term (although i recall that my Elementary Modern Physics text said
it was), what would the correct term for this be?
--
r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
Lowry at jlowry100@earthlink.net wrote on 11/28/2004 07:01:
> 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.
okay, now my question is what do you call this when you apply a new theory
(but not quantum mechanics) to a well defined physical situation where an
older theory was shown to be valid to a high degree of experimental
accuracy. doing this for relativistic physics would be showing that when
speeds are slow (relative to light) and space is reasonably flat, that SR or
GR breaks down to Newtonian mechanics. since "correspondence principle" is
not the term (although i recall that my Elementary Modern Physics text said
it was), what would the correct term for this be?
--
r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."