Re: IONS/metals pedagogy

["Bob Sciamanda" <trebor@velocity.net>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Ludwik Kowalski <kowalskiL@Mail.Montclair.edu>
To: phys-L@atlantis.uwf.edu <phys-L@atlantis.uwf.edu>
Date: Saturday, October 10, 1998 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: IONS/metals pedagogy


> Hi Bob, you wrote:
> > Your springs cannot be made without violating Earnshaw's theorem!
>
> 1) So does your QM. Why should wave functions and quantization
>    rules be more desirable than little springs? The abstract springs
>    represent forces which hopefully will be identified without QM.
> . . .
> Ludwik Kowalski

That's a great conjecture!  Perhaps all the weirdities of QM can be
avoided and Newtonian Mechanics can be saved simply by adding to our
repetoire of forces!  I am not being facetious - having never even
considered the implications, all I can say is "You Go Ludwik!"
(If it works, let me in on some of it!)

-Bob

Bob Sciamanda
Physics, Edinboro Univ of PA (ret)
trebor@velocity.net
http://www.velocity.net/~trebor