-----Original Message----- From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson > I suspect it is nevertheless tempting for most skeptics to focus on the > original meaning of the word and glibly conclude that his use of the word (to > describe dynamic states of an atom's nucleus) must mean Dr. Z is nothing more > than a unformed deluded kook.
No. That is not the case. The meaning is very specific and "sound" cannot be excluded in a nucleus, due to other mundane connotations or semantics. Sound waves are longitudinal waves - not electromagnetic. The waves have the same direction of vibration as their direction of travel, which means that the movement of the medium is in the same direction as or the opposite direction to the motion of the wave. You can see how this would present conceptual problems for a nucleus composed of quarks or extra dimensions... OR in the case where you want to employ electromagnetic theory (when it can best serve you). However, one cannot cherry-pick the desirable features from sound and/or EM waves, in one muddled hybrid, and maintain credibility. There are many models of the nucleus, and in string theory longitudinal waves are possible IF there is anything to displace, but also are said to vibrate in many dimensions, making displacement difficult to imagine. IOW it is not impossible, but it adds a heaping layer of disbelief on top of everything else. But mostly the problem seems to be in going from longitudinal to electromagnetic: back-and-forth as if they were the same. I cannot imagine why one would want that extra confusion, if there was clear validity to a fundamental constant like megahertz-meter, which cannot possibly benefit from more obfuscation. Jones
