IRT: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto- mona/message/47868
JitenDa
I think confusion has arisen. My points were pretty simple. Let me summarize:
1. Kamal Das was not wrong in calculating the de Broglie wavelength of a 1 kg particle but you were. 2. Theoretically large objects also display wave properties although that is not observable because of negligibly low wavelength. 3. If you want to follow terminology, you have to distinguish between subatomic and nuclear particles. 4. I have never said that planets are quantum particles. It is you who said that a cat with a speed close to that of light turns into a quantum particle. Kamal Das simply said that high speed has nothing to do with characterizing an object as a quantum object. 5. Newtonian mechanics is the limiting case of both relativistic and quantum mechanics.
JitenDa, motion of planets, stars and galaxies cannot be described by the same theory of mechanics. You are now talking about planets whereas I talked about stars and galaxies. Planets can be treated as classical objects because of their comparatively low speed (average speed with which the earths revolves around the sun is 1/10000th of that of light) but stars and galaxies can't be. For the latter you need the general theory of relativity which was able to predict the existence of black holes.
With kindest regards
Subimal Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe __,_._,___ Blog Archive
Link List
AddvertiseReffaral Link |