![]() As it states equations 1 through 3 use the Dirac formalism i.e. If you based it on the paper you provided in the link to then it is certainly not QED based. I took this to mean you had used QED to derive the grating equation. I personally would prefer to understand the more accurate description. I am sure Feynman would not have bothered with QED had he thought classical electromagnetism adequately "explained" reflection, refraction, diffraction of light. Well that depends on what you mean by "explain". In my opinion Wittgenstein's later philosophy has a lot more going for it than logical positivism. (but we don't need to be logical positivists for that to be the case!) Though I agree with the conclusion of your argument that our physicals theories are models of the real world. ![]() The paper also gives references to the works of Dirac and Feynman you can refer to:Īlso I thought logical positivism as a philosophy died a long time ago - even Wikipedia says it is dead - so it must be true and its final supporter A J Ayer admitted that most of it was wrong. ![]() ![]() In terms of the grating equation the following optics paper is available for free and derives the grating equation - no problems with renormalization, perturbation theory or numerical methods I can see here. "From a long view of the history of mankind - seen from,say, ten thousand years from now - there can be little doubt that the most significant event of the 19th century will be judged as Maxwell's discovery of the laws of electrodynamics". In fact to quote from Feynmans lectures on physics (vol 2): well probably more respect than the university I went to (Aberdeen) who made him lose his chair when two of the colleges were amalgamated. Of course Feynman would have respected Maxwell and his equations. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |