Fundamental particles are all infinitely small
in [Physics]
|
From: alien8er on 31 May 2010 18:38 On May 30, 11:22 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 30, 5:05 am, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 29, 8:54 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 29, 8:46 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 29, 2:29 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 28, 11:12 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Leptons and the proton family are electric point particles. The > > > > > > > > > electron is a single point of mass while the proton is three > > > > > > > > > infinitely small points of energy infinitely dense. Mass is infinitely > > > > > > > > > dense energy in infinitely small particles. > > > > > > > > > Mitch, we've been through this. Quarks are confined, just like RF in > > > > > > > > a cavity. What's the "radius" of one of the many 2.45 gigahertz > > > > > > > > photons bouncing around in my microwave oven? > > > > > > > > frequency of a photon is imbecility > > > > > > > Except they're directly measurable. which means you believe > > > > > > measurement to be imbecility. > > > > > > > That doesn't leave much opportunity to do any physics. > > > > > > Please show how we measure a photon waving? > > > > > We've been through this too. You strive to learn nothing at all of > > > > the technologies involved. If you did want to learn something about > > > > it, you might start by looking up "antenna", but you'd apparently > > > > rather make stuff up. > > > > > > Show us what of the two waves the photon is in. > > > > > Is it in the magnetic wave or is it in the electric wave? > > > > > There are not "two waves". > > > > > Photons are not "in" waves at all. > > > > Light is defined appropriately by two orthogonal sin waves. > > > The two waves at right angles. They are electric and magnetic sin > > > waves. > > > Who defines light that way? > > > Physicists don't. > > > Microwave engineers don't. > > > Who does? You? Based on what? > > > > It cannot be outside of either of those waves. It must lie within the > > > form of light. > > > Now you want to talk about the "form" of light. Do you not marvel > > that NOBODY else talks about that? Or do you take it as evidence of > > your own genius? > > > > So which wave is it in? > > > I repeat, there are not "two waves". You keep saying there are, but > > offer no support. > > > > > They can be *measured* as waves. > > > > No. Sorry but you can't have it both ways. > > > What "both ways"? You don't like the fact that when we look at light > > as a wave, it looks like a wave but when we look at it like a > > particle, it looks like a particle? > > > Too bad. That's the way it is. Get over it. > > > Goofy theories don't matter. Experiment matters. Experiment tells us > > what reality *is*, no matter what we might *want* it to be. > > > I notice you continue to dodge my question about the "radius" of > > microwave photons. > > > I notice you offer no support for your contentions regarding the > > "infinite density" of electrons or quarks. > > > Reality freely shows us the nature of photons, but our > > preconceptions keep getting in the way. That's the real root of the so- > > called "wave particle duality" confusion. Photons aren't at all > > confused about what they are, *we* are confused because we keep trying > > to apply macroscopic preconceived ideas like "solid matter" and > > "immaterial waves" to light, when *neither* is appropriate. > > > Looking at introductory diagrams about orthogonal electric and > > magnetic "sinewave" fields, and assuming they have some deep > > fundamental meaning, is foolish. Such diagrams are primitive maps, and > > by now you ought to know that the map is *not* the territory. > > > Taking such diagrams to be exactly accurate is equivalent to holding > > on to primitive beliefs like phlogiston, N-rays, or caloric. > > > Let go of your preconceptions. They will only hold you back, and > > prevent you from understanding Nature's graceful, unending dance. > > > Mark L. Fergerson- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > No one has ever seen the actual wave or an actual particle. It is how > light behaves that shows its a wave. Einstein questioned what he won > the Nobel Prize for. In the 1930's he said he could not reconcile the > particle with the wave. So what? Einstein is *dead*, and even though he exposed and demolished many of the preconceptions in the physics of his time, he brought his own preconceptions with him which *he* couldn't let go of. > You don't need a particle for the nature of light absorption. The > light wave going into matter is enough to explain the photoelectric > effect. Then why is it that when a photon of a particular energy is found to be adequate to pop an electron loose in a given material, two photons each with half the energy of that first photon are never adequate to pop an electron loose? Mark L. Fergerson
From: BURT on 31 May 2010 18:48 On May 31, 3:38 pm, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 30, 11:22 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 30, 5:05 am, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 29, 8:54 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 29, 8:46 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 29, 2:29 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 28, 11:12 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Leptons and the proton family are electric point particles. The > > > > > > > > > > electron is a single point of mass while the proton is three > > > > > > > > > > infinitely small points of energy infinitely dense. Mass is infinitely > > > > > > > > > > dense energy in infinitely small particles. > > > > > > > > > > Mitch, we've been through this. Quarks are confined, just like RF in > > > > > > > > > a cavity. What's the "radius" of one of the many 2.45 gigahertz > > > > > > > > > photons bouncing around in my microwave oven? > > > > > > > > > frequency of a photon is imbecility > > > > > > > > Except they're directly measurable. which means you believe > > > > > > > measurement to be imbecility. > > > > > > > > That doesn't leave much opportunity to do any physics. > > > > > > > Please show how we measure a photon waving? > > > > > > We've been through this too. You strive to learn nothing at all of > > > > > the technologies involved. If you did want to learn something about > > > > > it, you might start by looking up "antenna", but you'd apparently > > > > > rather make stuff up. > > > > > > > Show us what of the two waves the photon is in. > > > > > > Is it in the magnetic wave or is it in the electric wave? > > > > > > There are not "two waves". > > > > > > Photons are not "in" waves at all. > > > > > Light is defined appropriately by two orthogonal sin waves. > > > > The two waves at right angles. They are electric and magnetic sin > > > > waves. > > > > Who defines light that way? > > > > Physicists don't. > > > > Microwave engineers don't. > > > > Who does? You? Based on what? > > > > > It cannot be outside of either of those waves. It must lie within the > > > > form of light. > > > > Now you want to talk about the "form" of light. Do you not marvel > > > that NOBODY else talks about that? Or do you take it as evidence of > > > your own genius? > > > > > So which wave is it in? > > > > I repeat, there are not "two waves". You keep saying there are, but > > > offer no support. > > > > > > They can be *measured* as waves. > > > > > No. Sorry but you can't have it both ways. > > > > What "both ways"? You don't like the fact that when we look at light > > > as a wave, it looks like a wave but when we look at it like a > > > particle, it looks like a particle? > > > > Too bad. That's the way it is. Get over it. > > > > Goofy theories don't matter. Experiment matters. Experiment tells us > > > what reality *is*, no matter what we might *want* it to be. > > > > I notice you continue to dodge my question about the "radius" of > > > microwave photons. > > > > I notice you offer no support for your contentions regarding the > > > "infinite density" of electrons or quarks. > > > > Reality freely shows us the nature of photons, but our > > > preconceptions keep getting in the way. That's the real root of the so- > > > called "wave particle duality" confusion. Photons aren't at all > > > confused about what they are, *we* are confused because we keep trying > > > to apply macroscopic preconceived ideas like "solid matter" and > > > "immaterial waves" to light, when *neither* is appropriate. > > > > Looking at introductory diagrams about orthogonal electric and > > > magnetic "sinewave" fields, and assuming they have some deep > > > fundamental meaning, is foolish. Such diagrams are primitive maps, and > > > by now you ought to know that the map is *not* the territory. > > > > Taking such diagrams to be exactly accurate is equivalent to holding > > > on to primitive beliefs like phlogiston, N-rays, or caloric. > > > > Let go of your preconceptions. They will only hold you back, and > > > prevent you from understanding Nature's graceful, unending dance. > > > > Mark L. Fergerson- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > No one has ever seen the actual wave or an actual particle. It is how > > light behaves that shows its a wave. Einstein questioned what he won > > the Nobel Prize for. In the 1930's he said he could not reconcile the > > particle with the wave. > > So what? Einstein is *dead*, and even though he exposed and > demolished many of the preconceptions in the physics of his time, he > brought his own preconceptions with him which *he* couldn't let go of. > > > You don't need a particle for the nature of light absorption. The > > light wave going into matter is enough to explain the photoelectric > > effect. > > Then why is it that when a photon of a particular energy is found to > be adequate to pop an electron loose in a given material, two photons > each with half the energy of that first photon are never adequate to > pop an electron loose? > > Mark L. Fergerson- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Since when do electrons pop loose? No such thing happens. It is an electron quantum jumping out of the atom with kinetic energy that came from absorbing the light wave. Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on 31 May 2010 18:55
On May 31, 3:38 pm, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 30, 11:22 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 30, 5:05 am, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 29, 8:54 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 29, 8:46 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 29, 2:29 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 28, 11:12 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Leptons and the proton family are electric point particles. The > > > > > > > > > > electron is a single point of mass while the proton is three > > > > > > > > > > infinitely small points of energy infinitely dense. Mass is infinitely > > > > > > > > > > dense energy in infinitely small particles. > > > > > > > > > > Mitch, we've been through this. Quarks are confined, just like RF in > > > > > > > > > a cavity. What's the "radius" of one of the many 2.45 gigahertz > > > > > > > > > photons bouncing around in my microwave oven? > > > > > > > > > frequency of a photon is imbecility > > > > > > > > Except they're directly measurable. which means you believe > > > > > > > measurement to be imbecility. > > > > > > > > That doesn't leave much opportunity to do any physics. > > > > > > > Please show how we measure a photon waving? > > > > > > We've been through this too. You strive to learn nothing at all of > > > > > the technologies involved. If you did want to learn something about > > > > > it, you might start by looking up "antenna", but you'd apparently > > > > > rather make stuff up. > > > > > > > Show us what of the two waves the photon is in. > > > > > > Is it in the magnetic wave or is it in the electric wave? > > > > > > There are not "two waves". > > > > > > Photons are not "in" waves at all. > > > > > Light is defined appropriately by two orthogonal sin waves. > > > > The two waves at right angles. They are electric and magnetic sin > > > > waves. > > > > Who defines light that way? > > > > Physicists don't. > > > > Microwave engineers don't. > > > > Who does? You? Based on what? > > > > > It cannot be outside of either of those waves. It must lie within the > > > > form of light. > > > > Now you want to talk about the "form" of light. Do you not marvel > > > that NOBODY else talks about that? Or do you take it as evidence of > > > your own genius? > > > > > So which wave is it in? > > > > I repeat, there are not "two waves". You keep saying there are, but > > > offer no support. > > > > > > They can be *measured* as waves. > > > > > No. Sorry but you can't have it both ways. > > > > What "both ways"? You don't like the fact that when we look at light > > > as a wave, it looks like a wave but when we look at it like a > > > particle, it looks like a particle? > > > > Too bad. That's the way it is. Get over it. > > > > Goofy theories don't matter. Experiment matters. Experiment tells us > > > what reality *is*, no matter what we might *want* it to be. > > > > I notice you continue to dodge my question about the "radius" of > > > microwave photons. > > > > I notice you offer no support for your contentions regarding the > > > "infinite density" of electrons or quarks. > > > > Reality freely shows us the nature of photons, but our > > > preconceptions keep getting in the way. That's the real root of the so- > > > called "wave particle duality" confusion. Photons aren't at all > > > confused about what they are, *we* are confused because we keep trying > > > to apply macroscopic preconceived ideas like "solid matter" and > > > "immaterial waves" to light, when *neither* is appropriate. > > > > Looking at introductory diagrams about orthogonal electric and > > > magnetic "sinewave" fields, and assuming they have some deep > > > fundamental meaning, is foolish. Such diagrams are primitive maps, and > > > by now you ought to know that the map is *not* the territory. > > > > Taking such diagrams to be exactly accurate is equivalent to holding > > > on to primitive beliefs like phlogiston, N-rays, or caloric. > > > > Let go of your preconceptions. They will only hold you back, and > > > prevent you from understanding Nature's graceful, unending dance. > > > > Mark L. Fergerson- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > No one has ever seen the actual wave or an actual particle. It is how > > light behaves that shows its a wave. Einstein questioned what he won > > the Nobel Prize for. In the 1930's he said he could not reconcile the > > particle with the wave. > > So what? Einstein is *dead*, and even though he exposed and > demolished many of the preconceptions in the physics of his time, he > brought his own preconceptions with him which *he* couldn't let go of. > > > You don't need a particle for the nature of light absorption. The > > light wave going into matter is enough to explain the photoelectric > > effect. > > Then why is it that when a photon of a particular energy is found to > be adequate to pop an electron loose in a given material, two photons > each with half the energy of that first photon are never adequate to > pop an electron loose? > > Mark L. Fergerson- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Only one light wave can be absorbed at a time. If it doesn't have enough energy the absorption will not cause the wave electron to quantum leap out of the atom. |