<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588"></HEAD>
<BODY><!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT size=4>Dear colleagues,<BR><BR>The issue “Quark Communication” raised
by Bob and Howard etc. is interesting and radical; it can help us to clarify
that if there is a universal physical information problem besides black hole
information that only is studying by a few astrophysicists such as Stephen
Hawking etc. Here I provide some reference about “messenger particles” extracted
from Wikipedia under the term: “Force carrier” to this question:<BR></FONT><FONT
size=4><BR>The concept of messenger particles dates back to the 18th century
when the French physicist Charles Coulomb showed that the electrostatic force
between electrically charged objects follows a law similar to Newton's Law of
Gravitation. In time, this relationship became known as Coulomb's law. By 1862,
Hermann von Helmholtz had described a ray of light as the "quickest of all the
messengers". In 1905, Albert Einstein proposed the existence of a light-particle
in answer to the question: "what are light quanta?"</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>In 1923, at the Washington University in St. Louis, Arthur Holly
Compton demonstrated an effect now known as Compton scattering. This effect is
only explainable if light can behave as a stream of particles and it convinced
the physics community of the existence of Einstein's light-particle. Lastly, in
1926, one year before the theory of quantum mechanics was published, Gilbert N.
Lewis introduced the term "photon", which soon became the name for Einstein’s
light particle. From there, the concept of messenger particles developed
further.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4><BR></FONT><FONT size=4>Best
wishes,<BR><BR>Xueshan<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From:
fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es [</FONT><A
href="mailto:fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es"><FONT
size=4>mailto:fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es</FONT></A><FONT size=4>] On Behalf Of
Pedro C. Marijuan<BR>Sent: Monday, January 18, 2016 7:51 PM<BR>To:
'fis'<BR>Subject: Re: [Fis] Cho 2016 The social life of quarks<BR><BR>Dear
Howard and colleagues,<BR><BR>OK, you can say that quarks communicate, but
immediately we need to<BR>create another term for "real" communication. I mean,
there are quarks<BR>(fermions) and bosons (particle forces) everywhere: planets,
stars,<BR>galaxies, etc. Their multiple interactions constitute most of
the<BR>contents of physics. If you want to term "communication" to some
basic<BR>categories of physical interactions based on force exchange --of some
of<BR>the 4 fundamental forces, whatever-- we run into difficulties
to<BR>characterize the communication that entails signals, agents
and<BR>meanings, and responses. That's the "real" communication we find
after<BR>the origins of that singular organization we call life --essential
then<BR>for the later emergence of superorganisms, peaking order, memes,
etc.<BR>You have oceans of interacting fermions and bosons around, but the
new<BR>communicating phenomenology is only found in our minuscule
planet.<BR><BR>As an explanatory metaphor, it is not a good idea, almost wrong I
dare<BR>say. But as a free-wheeling, literary metaphor it belongs to
the<BR>author's choice. The problem is that both realms of information, so
to<BR>speak, have relatively overlapping components, depending on
the<BR>explanatory framework used (see the ongoing exchanges by Stan,
John,<BR>Terry, etc.) And that kind of apparent homogenization blurs the
effort<BR>to establish the distinctions and advance in a unifying perspective
(I<BR>think!!). In any case, it deserves more discussion. In your Jan.
14th<BR>message you ad more elements--I will think twice!.<BR><BR>All the
best--Pedro<BR><BR>PS. Clarifying the two messages per week rule (responding to
offline<BR>quests): the two messages should be counted along the
"international<BR>business week": starting on Monday until the end of Sunday,
Greenwich<BR>Time. Thanks to all for respecting this "boundary
condition"!<BR><BR>HowlBloom@aol.com wrote:<BR>> re:
quarks<BR>> <BR>> the big question for FIS is this: do quarks
communicate? and can<BR>> their communications be called
informational?<BR>> <BR>> are quarks more than just the first bits of
matter in the cosmos? are<BR>> they also the first
socializers? the first
team-makers?<BR>> <BR>> with oomph--howard<BR>>
____________<BR>> Howard Bloom<BR>> Author of: /The Lucifer Principle: A
Scientific Expedition Into the<BR>> Forces of History/ ("mesmerizing"-/The
Washington Post/),<BR>> /Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind >From The
Big Bang to the<BR>> 21st Century/ ("reassuring and sobering"-/The New
Yorker)/,<BR>> /The Genius of the Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of Capitalism/
("A<BR>> tremendously enjoyable book." James Fallows, National
Correspondent,<BR>> /The Atlantic/),<BR>> /The God Problem: How A Godless
Cosmos Creates/ ("Bloom's argument<BR>> will rock your world." Barbara
Ehrenreich),<BR>> /How I Accidentally Started the Sixties/ ("Wow! Whew!
Wild!<BR>> Wonderful!" Timothy Leary), and<BR>> /The Mohammed Code/ ("A
terrifying book…the best book I've read on<BR>> Islam." David Swindle,/ PJ
Media/).<BR>> www.howardbloom.net<BR>> Former Core Faculty Member, The
Graduate Institute; Former Visiting<BR>> Scholar-Graduate Psychology
Department, New York University.<BR>> Founder: International Paleopsychology
Project; Founder, Space<BR>> Development Steering Committee; Founder: The
Group Selection Squad;<BR>> Founding Board Member: Epic of Evolution Society;
Founding Board<BR>> Member, The Darwin Project; Founder: The Big Bang Tango
Media Lab;<BR>> member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association
for the<BR>> Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy
of<BR>> Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society,
International<BR>> Society for Human Ethology, Scientific Advisory Board
Member, Lifeboat<BR>> Foundation; Editorial Board Member, Journal of Space
Philosophy; Board<BR>> member and member of Board of Governors, National
Space Society.<BR>> <BR>> In a message dated 1/16/2016 11:48:34 A.M.
Eastern Standard Time,<BR>> logan@physics.utoronto.ca
writes:<BR>><BR>> Stan et al - you honour me by
asking the question. We know that<BR>> matter (and
here I do not include dark matter or dark energy)
is<BR>> made up of a small number of quarks and
gluons. As we go higher<BR>> and higher energy we
will continue to create these "freaks of<BR>> nature"
freaks in the sense that we create the conditions for
them<BR>> to come into existence using our high
energy colliders. I am sure<BR>> they sometimes occur
naturally in stars from time to time but they<BR>> do
not have any long term effects - they are a passing fancy,
a<BR>> novelty, and an amusing one at that. Perhaps
they will help us<BR>> understand the quark gluon
interaction. The analogy I see with the<BR>>
transition from prokaryotes to eukaryotes that I sent to
Malcolm<BR>> was my indulging in scientific based
poetry. BTW I teach an<BR>> undergrad course since
1971 called the Poetry of Physics (also the<BR>>
title of a book available on Amazon) to teach physics
to<BR>> humanities students without using math to
promote science literacy<BR>> among
humanists.<BR>><BR>> Another analogy that came to
mind was that of proliferation of<BR>> nucleic acids
made up of the same 4 elements: C, G, A, and
T.<BR>> They are the quarks of biology and
their chemical bonds the gluons. <BR>><BR>>
Metaphorically your - Bob Logan<BR>>
______________________<BR>><BR>> Robert K.
Logan<BR>> Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of
Toronto<BR>> Fellow University of St. Michael's
College<BR>> Chief Scientist - sLab at
OCAD<BR>> </FONT><A
href="http://utoronto.academia.edu/RobertKLogan"><FONT
size=4>http://utoronto.academia.edu/RobertKLogan</FONT></A><BR><FONT
size=4>>
www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan<BR>>
<</FONT><A href="http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan"><FONT
size=4>http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan</FONT></A><FONT
size=4>><BR>>
www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications<BR>>
<</FONT><A
href="http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications"><FONT
size=4>http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications</FONT></A><FONT
size=4>><BR>><BR>> On 2016-01-16, at 10:33 AM,
Stanley N Salthe wrote:<BR>><BR>>> One way to
complicate anything is to smash it into bits.
I<BR>>> wonder, Bob, if you would comment on this
point as a former<BR>>> particle
physicist!<BR>>><BR>>>
STAN<BR>>><BR>>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at
11:13 PM, Malcolm Dean<BR>>>
<malcolmdean@gmail.com <</FONT><A
href="mailto:malcolmdean@gmail.com"><FONT
size=4>mailto:malcolmdean@gmail.com</FONT></A><FONT size=4>>>
wrote:<BR>>><BR>>>
Yes. I don't know enough about Biology, but I noticed the
3+2<BR>>> business some
time ago. I'm automatically suspicious
of<BR>>> theories which
are "vexingly complex" (QCD) and
only<BR>>> "beautiful"
(String Theory) to a few people with certain
math<BR>>> backgrounds.
But the Two and the Three have been important
to<BR>>> humans for
thousands of years. I think Nature is
actually<BR>>> very
simple, but we get overwhelmed and confused by
its<BR>>> enormous scales
and by our attempts to manage observation
by<BR>>> (necessarily)
creating over-simplified
Objects.<BR>>><BR>>>
M.<BR>>><BR>>>
*Malcolm Dean*<BR>>>
/Member/, Higher Cognitive Affinity Group,
BRI<BR>>> <</FONT><A
href="http://www.bri.ucla.edu/research/affinity-groups/higher-cognitive-function-in-neural-integration-affinity-group"><FONT
size=4>http://www.bri.ucla.edu/research/affinity-groups/higher-cognitive-function-in-neural-integration-affinity-group</FONT></A><FONT
size=4>><BR>>>
/Research Affiliate/, Human Complex Systems,
UCLA<BR>>> <</FONT><A
href="http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Malcolm_Dean"><FONT
size=4>http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Malcolm_Dean</FONT></A><FONT
size=4>><BR>>>
/Member/, BAFTA/LA <</FONT><A href="http://baftala.org/"><FONT
size=4>http://baftala.org/</FONT></A><FONT
size=4>><BR>>> /On
Google Scholar<BR>>>
<</FONT><A
href="http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ZopY3eQAAAAJ&hl=en"><FONT
size=4>http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ZopY3eQAAAAJ&hl=en</FONT></A><FONT
size=4>>/<BR>>><BR>>>
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Bob
Logan<BR>>>
<logan@physics.utoronto.ca<BR>>>
<</FONT><A href="mailto:logan@physics.utoronto.ca"><FONT
size=4>mailto:logan@physics.utoronto.ca</FONT></A><FONT size=4>>>
wrote:<BR>>><BR>>>
eukaryote came about by two prokaryotes joining
together<BR>>>
and 5 quark combo can be thought of as a nucleon
(3<BR>>>
quarks) and a meson(2quarks) combining and the 4
quqrk<BR>>>
state as 2 mesons combining. By this logic perhaps
there<BR>>>
will be 6 quark beast if 2 nucleons
combine.<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>
On 2016-01-15, at 4:17 PM, Malcolm Dean
wrote:<BR>>><BR>>>>
Could you specify the
relata?<BR>>>><BR>>>>
Malcolm<BR>>>><BR>>>>
On Jan 15, 2016 5:31 AM, "Bob
Logan"<BR>>>>
<logan@physics.utoronto.ca<BR>>>>
<</FONT><A href="mailto:logan@physics.utoronto.ca"><FONT
size=4>mailto:logan@physics.utoronto.ca</FONT></A><FONT size=4>>>
wrote:<BR>>>><BR>>>>
Hi Malcolm - thanks for this article that
supports<BR>>>>
my notion that my former field of particle
physics<BR>>>>
is becoming like biology. The 4 and 5 quark
combos<BR>>>>
represent an analogy of the transition in
biology<BR>>>>
from prokaryotes to eukaryotes. :-) -
Bob<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>
On 2016-01-14, at 7:39 PM, Malcolm Dean
wrote:<BR>>>><BR>>>>>
</FONT><A
href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6270/217.summary"><FONT
size=4>http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6270/217.summary</FONT></A><BR><FONT
size=4>>>>>
Science 351(6270):217-219, 15 January 2016;
DOI:<BR>>>>>
10.1126/science.351.6270.217<BR>>>>>
*The social life of
quarks*<BR>>>>>
Adrian
Cho<BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
Particle physicists at Europe's CERN laboratory
in<BR>>>>>
Switzerland say they have observed bizarre
new<BR>>>>>
cousins of the protons and neutrons that make
up<BR>>>>>
the atomic nucleus. Protons and neutrons consist
of<BR>>>>>
other particles called quarks, bound by the
strong<BR>>>>>
nuclear force. By smashing particles at
high<BR>>>>>
energies, physicists have blasted into
fleeting<BR>>>>>
existence hundreds of other
quark-containing<BR>>>>>
particles. Until recently, all contained either
two<BR>>>>>
or three quarks. But since 2014,
researchers<BR>>>>>
working with CERN's Large Hadron Collider have
also<BR>>>>>
spotted four- and five-quark particles.
Such<BR>>>>>
tetraquarks and pentaquarks could
require<BR>>>>>
physicists to rethink their understanding
of<BR>>>>>
quantum chromodynamics, or they could have
less<BR>>>>>
revolutionary implications. Researchers hope
that<BR>>>>>
computer simulations and more collider studies
will<BR>>>>>
reveal how the oddball newcomers are put
together,<BR>>>>>
but some wonder whether experiments will
ever<BR>>>>>
provide a definitive
answer.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
...<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>><BR>>
=<BR>><BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>>
Fis mailing list<BR>>
Fis@listas.unizar.es<BR>> </FONT><A
href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis"><FONT
size=4>http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</FONT></A><BR><FONT
size=4>><BR><BR><BR>--<BR>-------------------------------------------------<BR>Pedro
C. Marijuán<BR>Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group<BR>Instituto
Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud<BR>Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón
(CIBA)<BR>Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X<BR>50009 Zaragoza, Spain<BR>Tfno.
+34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)<BR>pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es<BR></FONT><A
href="http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/"><FONT
size=4>http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/</FONT></A><BR><FONT
size=4>-------------------------------------------------<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Fis
mailing list<BR>Fis@listas.unizar.es<BR></FONT><A
href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis"><FONT
size=4>http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</FONT></A><BR></P></BODY></HTML>