Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: mirrors: two or more?



From: Michael Edmiston <edmiston@BLUFFTON.EDU>

John Denker described some alternative types of mirrors, and asked how we
know they do not exist. That might be a fun thing to think about, but it
does not seem relevant to the question at hand. It seems the question at
hand pertains to a "standard flat mirror." I do not know if we will
discover, or someone will invent, other kinds of mirrors. But I certainly
assumed Abhishek Roy was talking about a standard mirror. If that is not
correct, he will have to tell us.

Yes and No. I was talking about describing a phenomenon (that of
handedness) in a clear, general and independent manner. That description
could then be applied to a (standard) mirror. However after reading John
Denker's post, I realise that I was simply overlooking a point. If you treat
enantiomorphs and mirrors as mathematical constructions, then you *must*
consider the alternative mirrors, that he describes. Of course, there is no
reason to believe that your conclusions would not correspond to physical
reality i.e a pair of 'opposite' objects, and only one basic mirror. But I
believe that we have to start with a general definntion of both 'mirror' and
'enantiomorph' and then relate them together instead of using a circular
inter-dependent method. I thought that using the higher dimensional flip to
switch between mirror images, may be a way to do it. But I am not sure since
I don't know sufficient mathematics.

If the formula for constructing the physically-real mirror image of a
physically-real original object is to put identical atoms at all the same
coordinate locations, but for each atom change the sign of one and only
one
axis coordinate (for the same axis for all atoms)... there is only one way
to do this. There is a unique one-to-one correspondence between the
location of each atom in the first object and the location of each atom in
the second object. There is only one mirror image. And I maintain this
is
indeed the correct formula/process for constructing the mirror image.
John
or others can dream up any other process they want, but it will not
describe
a standard flat mirror.
I cannot speak for John S. Denker, but I don't think he is trying to
describe a "standard flat mirror". His hypothetical mirrors are as real the
familiar ones if you can't prove that they are non-existent (mathematically
not physically).

Regards,
Abhishek Roy






__________________________________________________

Do You Yahoo!?

Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.

http://im.yahoo.com