classical physics vs relativity: parallel electron beams

[Physicist]

The solution to this conundrum lies in how the electromagnetic field tensor transforms under a Lorentz transformation.

The simple frame of reference is when both lines of charge (electrons, if you like) are at rest. There is no magnetic field because there is no current, and the the lines of charge repel each other: simple electrostatic repulsion.

The less simple frame of reference is the frame in which both lines of charge are moving, thereby constituting currents. The current does indeed generate a magnetic field, and the lines of charge, being like currents, are attracted to each other. But before we come to the conclusion that two different things happen in two different frames of reference, let's have a look at that electrostatic repulsion in the new frame of reference. Is it still the same? Well, no it's not. The reason why is that the two lines of current appear Lorentz-contracted, and therefore their line charge densities are greater than they are in the simple frame. So the electrostatic repulsion is greater than it was in the simple frame - and if you do the math you find out that this increase in electrostatic repulsion exactly cancels out the magnetic attraction. So the physics is exactly the same in both frames.

The lesson to be learned is that the electric and magnetic fields are not relativistically invariant objects. They are like components of a vector (in fact they are components of an antisymmetric tensor of rank 2) - by rotating the axes, you can mix them up. But however you mix them up, the physics always comes out the same. The names have been changed, but the plot is the same.

[mharratsc]

Ok, YOU need to hang around, Physicist! You put that more succinctly than just about anyone else I've seen try!

Thanks for that!

[Physicist]

You're welcome! While I'm here I thought I might correct another small misunderstanding. Followed by a rather larger misunderstanding!

On a different identification - calling elementary particles "points" is a result of physicists' constant confusion between math and the real world of real things. And while we are talking dualities +, don't forget that gravity forces accompany those particles which we postulate to have mass. Also, how can a "point" have a spin, which implies revolution at some distance from a center (where, mathematically, the "point" resides!)

Because elementary particles have angular momentum that is NOT related to "revolution at some distance from a center".

A particle like an electron has two distinct types of angular momentum.

Firstly, it has ORBITAL angular momentum. That's the usual momentum you learn about in freshman physics - an electron in an atom has it, for example, because the electron's wavefunction is moving around the nucleus - at least loosely speaking.

Secondly, the electron also has SPIN angular momentum. This is entirely distinct from orbital angular momentum. An electron always has the same amount of spin angular momentum, regardless of how small a volume we confine it to - hence the references to "point" particles. We know this angular momentum cannot be orbital angular momentum because it exhibits certain rather unintuitive properties. For example, when an electron is rotated through 360 degrees, the spin part of its wavefunction is not back to where it started. In fact it's changed sign.

Now the veiled accusation I see here (and elsewhere on this board) is that the abstract mathematics that physicists use has somehow got out of hand and become "separated from physical reality", as you put it. The truth is that the mathematical models physicists use to model reality are always the SIMPLEST ONES POSSIBLE. In the case of electron spin, the mathematics involved is the matrix group SU(2). That is what is needed to successfully model electron spin - no more and no less.

[seasmith]

Physicist wrote:

Secondly, the electron also has SPIN angular momentum. This is entirely distinct from orbital angular momentum. An electron always has the same amount of spin angular momentum, regardless of how small a volume we confine it to - hence the references to "point" particles. We know this angular momentum cannot be orbital angular momentum because it exhibits certain rather unintuitive properties. For example, when an electron is rotated through 360 degrees, the spin part of its wavefunction is not back to where it started. In fact it's changed sign.

So far correct... the wave function confirms "orbital angular momentum",
and tensor transform math will model electron spin using a point as the math transform term.

What the math does not do, is explain the real physical Extension of electron (or photon) volume, mass or charge;
in real physical terms.

s

[Aristarchus]

Now the veiled accusation I see here (and elsewhere on this board) is that the abstract mathematics that physicists use has somehow got out of hand and become "separated from physical reality", as you put it. The truth is that the mathematical models physicists use to model reality are always the SIMPLEST ONES POSSIBLE.

The reliance on mathematics and a priori deductive reasoning in cosmology is not only a dialectic pertaining to proponents of the EU or plasma cosmology, but there are other renown scientists that question the presumptions of this predominant methodology currently in vogue in the consensus scientific establishment.

One example, is Robert B. Laughlin, awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics relating to his research into fractional quantum Hall effect, writes in his book, A Different Universe: reinventing physics from the bottom down (viz.),

Greek creation myth satirize many things in modern life, particularly cosmological theories. Exploding things, such as dynamite or the big bang, are unable. Theories of explosions, including the first picoseconds of the big bang, thus cross Barriers of Relevance and are inherently unfalsifiable, notwithstanding widely cited supporting “evidence” such as isotopic abundances at the surfaces of stars and the cosmic microwave background anisotropy. One might as well claim to infer the properties of atoms from the storm damage of a hurricane. Beyond the big bang we have really unfalsifiable concepts of budding little baby universes with different properties that must have been created before the inflationary epoch, but which are now fundamentally undectable due to being beyond the light horizon. Beyond even that we have the anthropic principle – the “explanation” that the universe we can see has the properties it does by virtue of our being in it. It is fun to imagine what Volataire might have done with this material. In the movie Contact the Jodie Foster heroine suggests to her boyfriend that God might have been created by humans to compensate for their feelings of isolation and vulnerability in the vastness of the universe. She would have been more on target had she talked about unfalsifiable theories of the origin of the universe. The political dynamic of such theories and those of ancient Greeks is one and the same.

The political nature of cosmological theories explains how they could so easily amalgamate with string theory, a body of mathematics with which they actually have very little in common. String theory is the study of an imaginary kind of matter built out of extended objects strings, rather than point particles, as all known kinds of matter – including hot nuclear matter – have been shown experimentally to be. String theory is immensely fun to think about because so many of its internal relationships are unexpectedly simple and beautiful. It has no practical utility, however, other than to sustain the myth of the ultimate theory. There is no experimental evidence for the existence of strings in nature, nor does the special mathematics of string theory enable known experimental behavior to be calculated or predicted more easily. Moreover, the complex spectroscopic properties of space accessible with today’s mighty accelerators are accountable in string theory only as “low-energy phenomenology” – a pejorative term for transcendent emerging properties matter impossible to calculate from first principles. String theory is, in fact, a textbook case of the Deceitful Turkey, a beautiful set of ideas that will always remain just barely out of reach. Far from a wonderful technological hope for a greater tomorrow, it is instead the tragic consequence of an obsolete belief system – in which emergence plays no role and dark law does not exist.

Laughlin, Robert, B. (2005). Chapter six: The quantum computer. A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books. pp. 211-212.

[Physicist]

What the math does not do, is explain the real physical Extension of electron (or photon) volume, mass or charge;
in real physical terms.

Seasmith - If you go to the lab and perform an experiment on an electron to measure its "real physical extension" (and I can think of a few candidates for what that actually means), I suspect you will find results entirely in accordance with what quantum mechanics predicts. And yes, there is math associated with quantum mechanics - again, neither more nor less than is required to successfully model the real physical world.

The reliance on mathematics and a priori deductive reasoning in cosmology is not only a dialectic pertaining to proponents of the EU or plasma cosmology, but there are other renown scientists that question the presumptions of this predominant methodology currently in vogue in the consensus scientific establishment.

One example, is Robert B. Laughlin, awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics relating to his research into fractional quantum Hall effect, writes in his book, A Different Universe: reinventing physics from the bottom down (viz.),

This argument by analogy fails for fairly obvious reasons.

String theory is certainly speculative science. Many physicists (including me) are deeply skeptical of the whole program, because the empirical predictions, such as they are, lie beyond reasonable energy scales.

Skepticism of things like the quantum mechanics, and to a slightly lesser extent general relativity, are however an entirely different kettle of fish. These theories have been put to the (experimental) test time and time again, and have always passed with flying colors.

As for cosmology - the methodology is NOT of the type your string theory skeptic alludes to. Cosmology is an empirical science. Observations are made, and people come up with theories to explain those observations. Then more observations are made that put those theories to the test.

[seasmith]

Physicist-

If you go to the lab and perform an experiment on an electron to measure its "real physical extension" (and I can think of a few candidates for what that actually means), I suspect you will find results entirely in accordance with what quantum mechanics predicts. And yes, there is math associated with quantum mechanics - again, neither more nor less than is required to successfully model the real physical world.

Leave out your "entirely", and that is about what i just said.
Now why are the funded quantum physicists still looking for the "God Particle" ?

Higgsboson

[Aristarchus]

As for cosmology - the methodology is NOT of the type your string theory skeptic alludes to.

He is not 'my skeptic.' He is Robert B. Laughlin, awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics relating to his research into fractional quantum Hall effect, author of the book, A Different Universe: reinventing physics from the bottom down.

The main tenant of the book is that there are emerging properties of the universe, in other words, it breaks down to emergence vs. reductionism. His problem is not simply with string theory, although, yes, a central theme for interpretation of his work, but his focus is also the reliance and weight convoluted mathematics receives in physics:

On page 113, he writes:

Despite all this evidence that the reductionists paradigm in physics is in trouble, subnuclear experiments are still generally described in reductionist terms. This is especially curious considering that much of the thinking built into the standard model reflects the idea that the vacuum is a phase and that the laws of physics are reasonably simple and straight forward at the nuclear scale - but not beyond - because they are universal properties of the phase.

Reading my emphasis in the author's quote above, let's revisit what you stated previously - and correct me if I'm wrong:

The truth is that the mathematical models physicists use to model reality are always the SIMPLEST ONES POSSIBLE.

The author continues -

Nonetheless, instead of low-energy universality, physicists speak of effective field theory. Instead of phase transitions, the unification of forces. The situation reminds me of a hospital where no one ever dies but instead experiences "negative patient care outcome" or "failure to achieve wellness potential." In either case the confusion is ideological. The death of a patient is an unthinkable failure of the hospital's mission to preserve life.

It appears the author disagrees with your assessment, but he continues:

The subordination of understanding to principles of phase organization is a similarly unthinkable failure of one's mission to master the universe with mathematics. In situations that matter, mythologies are important powerful things, and sometimes we humans go to enormous lengths to see the world as we think it should be, even when the evidence says we are mistaken.

Laughlin, Robert, B. (2005). Chapter six: The quantum computer. A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books. pp. 113-114.

Ergo, there appears to be schism in the field of physics pertaining to the questions and the implications this has for continuing towards the reductionist search for a grand unifying theory, as opposed to various theories in accordance with emerging properties. The discussion/disute rests with those that are in your field, and it doesn't bode well for your assertion that there is straight forward correlation with that proposed in cosmology as theory and its comparison with observation. In fact, you're responding in such generalities, I don't want to broach it for the fact that it will serve as a derailment to what I actually stated.

The only line of reasoning you will be able to extrapolate from the above, is to provide counter evidence that the crisis does not exist in cosmology, and then to simply present your case.

[Physicist]

Now why are the funded quantum physicists still looking for the "God Particle" ?

Higgsboson

Scientific curiosity, I would think.

He is not 'my skeptic.'

Well I didn't think you kept him in your closet, if that's what you mean

Ergo, there appears to be schism in the field of physics pertaining to the questions and the implications this has for continuing towards the reductionist search for a grand unifying theory, as opposed to various theories in accordance with emerging properties. The discussion/disute rests with those that are in your field, and it doesn't bode well for your assertion that there is straight forward correlation with that proposed in cosmology as theory and its comparison with observation. In fact, you're responding in such generalities, I don't want to broach it for the fact that it will serve as a derailment to what I actually stated.

The only line of reasoning you will be able to extrapolate from the above, is to provide counter evidence that the crisis does not exist in cosmology, and then to simply present your case.

I find it difficult to extrapolate any line of reasoning from the above because you have mixed up three independent concepts rather badly. They are:

1. Reductionism vs Emergence
2. Convoluted math vs non-convoluted math
3. Following the scientific method vs not following it

Pick either option from the first two - but always pick the first option in (3). Following the scientific method may then decide (1) and (2) for you - and either could go either way.

It appears the author disagrees with your assessment

You mean that physicists always choose the simplest possible mathematical structure?

No, I don't think he'd disagree with that. Please provide your counterexample below.

[Aristarchus]

Well I didn't think you kept him in your closet, if that's what you mean

Actually, I keep his book dog eared on my night stand. The index in the back of the book come in handy, too.

I find it difficult to extrapolate any line of reasoning from the above because you have mixed up three independent concepts rather badly. They are:

1. Reductionism vs Emergence
2. Convoluted math vs non-convoluted math
3. Following the scientific method vs not following it

Nope. No mix up on my part. Reductionism vs. Emergence is one of the central themes in Laughlin's book. Laughlin is on the side of emergence, since he states that reductionism has lead to a reliance on mathematical equations, although beautiful, are convoluted in that they do not represent the observations of Nature.

I'm not alone in this view:

http://physicscentral.org/explore/writers/laughlin.cfm

The Transition to the Age of Emergence brings to an end the myth of the absolute power of mathematics. This myth is still entrenched in our culture, unfortunately, a fact revealed routinely in the press and popular publications promoting the search for ultimate laws as the only scientific activity worth pursuing, notwithstanding massive and overwhelming experimental evidence that exactly the opposite is the case. We can refute the reductionist myth by demonstrating that rules are correct and then challenging very smart people to predict things with them. Their inability to do so is similar to the difficulty the Wizard of Oz has in returning Dorothy to Kansas. He can do it in principle, but there are a few pesky details to be worked out. One must be satisfied in the interim with empty testimonials and exhortations to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. The real problem is that Oz is a different universe from Kansas and that getting from one to the other makes no sense. The myth of collective behavior following law is, as a practical matter, exactly backward. Law instead follows from collective behavior, as do things that flow from it, such as logic and mathematics. The reason our minds can anticipate and master what the physical world does is not because we are geniuses but because nature facilitates understanding by organizing itself and generating law.

Thus, the Age of Emergence puts aside any unified theory in favor of theories applied to specific laws emerging in Nature.

You mean that physicists always choose the simplest possible mathematical structure?

No, I don't think he'd disagree with that. Please provide your counterexample below.

Nah. The onus is on you to provide a counter example. It would be silly for me to offer a counter example against something I already posited. It was already clearly articulated that Laughlin doesn't agree with your position when I quoted the following:

Nonetheless, instead of low-energy universality, physicists speak of effective field theory. Instead of phase transitions, the unification of forces. The situation reminds me of a hospital where no one ever dies but instead experiences "negative patient care outcome" or "failure to achieve wellness potential." In either case the confusion is ideological. The death of a patient is an unthinkable failure of the hospital's mission to preserve life.

The subordination of understanding to principles of phase organization is a similarly unthinkable failure of one's mission to master the universe with mathematics. In situations that matter, mythologies are important powerful things, and sometimes we humans go to enormous lengths to see the world as we think it should be, even when the evidence says we are mistaken.

What part of the metaphor of a patient dying in a hospital did you not understand?

BTW, I realize that Laughlin does not adhere to the EU model, but I find him a prime example of someone within the field of physics that contradicts the assertions you have put forth on this thread. Obviously, if Laughlin concludes that reductionism doesn't represent anything that comports to the observations of Nature, he surely wouldn't agree that the current consensus in cosmology as being something strongly supported by empirical evidence.

Are you familiar with the phenomena of subconscious/unconscious data selection?

Statistical Consequences of Data Selection

Data selection can result from unconscious biases or preferences on the part of experimenters, or from deliberate efforts to skew the apparent character of an experimental database. In either case the same formalism can be applied to compute the statistical signature of the selection process. Since the result of a suitably chosen selection process can be arbitrarily close to any desired distribution of experimental outcomes, it also is necessary to take into account the fraction of data that would have had to be discarded. When the selection formalism is applied to the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) benchmark random event generator (REG) database, it is found that no selection model examined is consistent with the data. An unusual subset of these data, produced by a single operator, which has in the past been the target of suspicion, is likewise inconsistent with any selection hypothesis, even under a worst-case scenario of deliberate fraud.

[seasmith]

seasmith-
Now why are the funded quantum physicists still looking for the "God Particle" ?
Higgsboson

Physicist-
Scientific curiosity, I would think.

Pricey hobby e h?


You know of course, that it is a quest to understand the nature of mass. One that is not helped by an imaginary point/instant math that allows stuff like virtual particles and probability densities, but doesn't have the theoretical background to resolve a mass-charge equivalence, or a common progenitor.

But hey, curiosity is the first step,
and i applaud the mathematician's energy.

s

[Physicist]

BTW, I realize that Laughlin does not adhere to the EU model, but I find him a prime example of someone within the field of physics that contradicts the assertions you have put forth on this thread. Obviously, if Laughlin concludes that reductionism doesn't represent anything that comports to the observations of Nature, he surely wouldn't agree that the current consensus in cosmology as being something strongly supported by empirical evidence.

First of all to say that "reductionism doesn't represent anything that comports to the observations of Nature" is kind of silly. All the pillars of modern science are best described as reductionist.

Now it is certainly true that many phenomena in condensed matter physics exhibit emergent behavior. And mathematical techniques from condensed matter physics have somewhat unexpectedly spilled over into adjacent fields of late. So I am certainly sympathetic to the idea that emergent phenomena in fundamental physics are undervalued. But do not be under the illusion that the mathematical models associated with emergent phenomena are unsophisticated. Try looking at any condensed matter theory textbook.

As for cosmology - yes, I believe he has lots of wacky ideas about that, quite independent of the reductionism/emergence business. To be fair to him we'd have to debunk them individually. In fact I believe Leonard Susskind has done exactly that.

Nope. No mix up on my part. Reductionism vs. Emergence is one of the central themes in Laughlin's book. Laughlin is on the side of emergence, since he states that reductionism has lead to a reliance on mathematical equations, although beautiful, are convoluted in that they do not represent the observations of Nature.

I'm sorry, but I think there's a big mixup here

Laughlin's attack is not on the equations themselves. They model nature, and they do so accurately. Nor is it an attack on the "convoluted" nature of the fundamental equations - they are not convoluted. Rather, his attack is on the UTILITY of the equations. The point is that if we wish to model the physics of say 10^24 particles, we could in principle solve 10^24 (at least) differential equations subject to 10^24 boundary conditions, each of which we would have to know with exquisite accuracy. That is not feasible. That's why when we design car engines we use thermodynamics rather than 10^24 pages of Newtonian mechanics.

Physicist wrote:
You mean that physicists always choose the simplest possible mathematical structure?

No, I don't think he'd disagree with that. Please provide your counterexample below.

Nah. The onus is on you to provide a counter example.

Ha! I think you can't provide a counterexample because there isn't one.

Perhaps we can start with the mathematical description of electron spin? What model is simpler than SU(2)? I notice the poster who ridiculed spin is conspicuous by his absence

Or perhaps something a bit more complicated? Like general relativity? What simpler model passes all the experimental tests that general relativity has passed? I have seen claims in this forum that gravity is simply an electromagnetic effect. Is that the prevailing wisdom here?

Are you familiar with the phenomena of subconscious/unconscious data selection?

Statistical Consequences of Data Selection

With all due respect, I'm not so interested in the usual litany of psuedoscience propaganda. I've already dealt with the "X doubts mainstream theory Y, therefore pseudoscientific theory Z must be correct" thing at some length for you.

However I'm honestly interested to see the answers you guys can come up with to the questions I've raised above. If "Electric Universe" is ever to be taken seriously, at some point the potshots at "convoluted math" must end and the substance must begin.

[Aristarchus]

As for cosmology - yes, I believe he has lots of wacky ideas about that, quite independent of the reductionism/emergence business. To be fair to him we'd have to debunk them individually. In fact I believe Leonard Susskind has done exactly that.

You offer no specifics, but simply restate positions that are based on implied authority and are propagated through insistence. This is a non-starter for any constructive dialectic. The premise of the book and other papers from Laughlin are based on the emergence/reductionism dispute. Merely stating something along the lines of don't believe my lying eyes is only convincing to the adherent believer, but doesn't represent a strong argument.

Nor is it an attack on the "convoluted" nature of the fundamental equations - they are not convoluted. Rather, his attack is on the UTILITY of the equations.

Am I to assume that you have read the book, A Different Universe? Be that as it may, turn to page four of the book in question, and you find the following:

We are the proud owners of a set of mathematical relationships that, as far as we know, account for everything in the natural world bigger than an atomic nucleus. They are very simple and beautiful and can be written in two or three lines. But then you find that this simplicity is highly misleading.

See my underlined emphasis? "HIGHLY misleading."

He continues:

-- rather like those inexpensive digital wristwatches with only one or two buttons. The equations are devilishly difficult to manipulate and impossible to solve in all but a handful of instances. Demonstrating that they are correct requires arguments that are lengthy, subtle, and quantitative.

If the above quote doesn't serve as a dictionary representation for the word convoluted, i.e., "complicated; intricately involved: a convoluted way of describing a simple device," then what others definitions do you have to offer? Sheesh, he even drops a huge hint with the word "device" when Laughlin refers to the wristwatch.

Laughlin continues:

It also requires familiarity with a huge body of work done after the Second World War. While the basic ideas were invented by Schrodinger, Bohr, and Heisenberg in the 1920's, it was not unitl powerful electronic computers were developed and armies of technically competent people were generated by governments that these ideas could be tested quantitatively against experiment over a wide range of conditions.

Bode well for your argument? Perhaps not, for Laughlin continues on page five:

Thus eighty years after the discovery of the ultimate theory we find ourselves in difficulty. The repeated, detailed experimental confirmation of these relationships has now officially closed the frontier of reductionism at the level of everyday things. Like the closing of the American frontier, this is significant cultural event, causing thoughtful people everywhere to debate what it means for the future of knowledge. There is even a best-selling book exploring the premise that science is at an end and that meaningful fundamental discovery is no longer possible. At the same time, the list of even very simple things found "too difficult" to describe with these equations continues to lengthen alarmingly.

See that? "Lengthen alarmingly." Mind you, I'm not advocating Laughlin's position, but merely to demonstrate that experts in the field of physics do not seem to comply with some of the assertions you have made in this thread. Namely, as you write (viz.), "First of all to say that "reductionism doesn't represent anything that comports to the observations of Nature" is kind of silly. All the pillars of modern science are best described as reductionist."

I will concede that stating "anything" might have been hyperbole on my part, but really, for you to state that there isn't a position of conflict between the concepts of emergence and reductionism is to simply ignore what some leading scientists are discussing within you field.

Or perhaps something a bit more complicated? Like general relativity? What simpler model passes all the experimental tests that general relativity has passed? I have seen claims in this forum that gravity is simply an electromagnetic effect. Is that the prevailing wisdom here?

If time permits for the concatenation of this thread, perhaps we can revisit this issue. I have not brought it up, and thus can only chalk it up as deflection on your part.

With all due respect, I'm not so interested in the usual litany of psuedoscience propaganda. I've already dealt with the "X doubts mainstream theory Y, therefore pseudoscientific theory Z must be correct" thing at some length for you.

I noticed that my link might not be working to the paper in question, but a simple Bing or Google search of the title supplied will find that it is a paper written by Y. H. Dobyns Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research School of Engineering and Applied Science, Princeton University, Princeton NJ 08.544-5263.

You consider this as pseudoscientific?

However I'm honestly interested to see the answers you guys can come up with to the questions I've raised above.

I would like to see specifics from you to establish points of reference. I can't speak for others on this forum, but I'm not going to be trapped into a game of deflection. I suspect it is your hope to establish yourself as representing an authority of science in a deceptive game of having me/us in a Sisyphus game of having to convince you. With your background, I would imagine you keep yourself apprised of the philosophical arguments taking place in the field of cosmology and physics.

If "Electric Universe" is ever to be taken seriously, at some point the potshots at "convoluted math" must end and the substance must begin.

Yes, when all else fails, play the victim card. Again, not very convincing. In addition, all things being equal, the question is not simply the math involved, but how it is trumping other aspects of the philosophical difference and other applications of scientific methodology. I have quoted extensively from an authority on the subject, i.e., Robert B. Laughlin, and this is not to state that you're not entitled to counter this position, but beginning with such statements from you, as you wrote in the following, "I find it difficult to extrapolate any line of reasoning from the above because you have mixed up three independent concepts rather badly." is really a non-starter, and not one that garners much sympathy from me in turn. I would also say that what you wrote in the above is probably the closest thing to what would be termed as a, "potshot." It's okay by me - like water on a duck, but, c'mon, you must admit that you have a passion for your point, as those also in the EU camp. These things happen in the course of a discussion amongst those devoted to their field of study.

[Physicist]

Aristarchus - I find that your quotes here simply serve to support what I told you. The fundamental equations themselves are beautifully simple. Solving the equations for 10^24 particles is terribly complicated. End of story.

Furthermore - no, I don't see a conflict between reductionism and emergent properties. There would be a conflict between the two if a "reductionist" theory predicted one thing and an "emergent" theory predicted another. Perhaps what you are missing is that your perceived "conflict" is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. Us scientists are pragmatists. We'll take anything that works!

Speaking of deflection, I can't help but notice that you again failed to provide a counterexample to my assertion.

Nor did you answer my query regarding gravity as an electromagnetic effect. If you can show that it is, there's doubtless a Nobel Prize in it for you! But wait a minute - that would have to be a reductionist theory, reducing gravity to electromagnetism! Oops!!

[fosborn]

This is better than the NFL!!
The fans go wild, lets all do the wave!