Proton Radius Cannot Be Derived From Standard Model
in [Relativity]
|
From: mpc755 on 10 May 2010 17:09 On May 10, 3:21 pm, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > Your statement that the photon is always detected as a particle is > > still factually false. > > I thought that was always the case. Of course I'm thinking in terms of > the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. When is a photon not detected as > a particle? The Copenhagen interpretation of QM is incorrect. In a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule the Copenhagen interpretation of QM is the C-60 molecule creates the interference pattern in and of itself. de Broglie Wave Mechanics is a more correct understanding of the physics of nature. The C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory Louis de BROGLIE' http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf "I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case of an external field acting on the particle." "This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is located." de Broglie's definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of the wave. A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit in a double slit experiment while the associated aether displacement wave enters and exits multiple slits. The wave creates interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no interference.
From: glird on 10 May 2010 17:25 On May 10, 4:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >< Light consists of photons, but an assembly of photons has a property called wavelength, which can be directly measured with a grating spectrometer with great precision. The wavelength of a single photon is not measurable with a grating spectrometer, though the energy or momentum is.> The latter sentence proves that the prior one is false. (If light consists of waves with measurable lengths, but a photon does not, then light is NOT an assembly of photons.) < Thus, when I measure the wavelength of light, is it a fair statement to say I'm detecting light as a particle? > Obviously not. < Light has a litany of properties, including some that are particle- like and some that are wave-like. It is improper to say that when light is exhibiting particle-like properties, that's when it consists of photons. It consists of photons all the time.> No, PD, light is always a wave system. When the pattern of its waves happens to match that of an electron it is passing through, the REACTION will exhibit particle-like behavior; i.e. a specific quantity of energy will be released or absorbed, That quantity, called a quantum of energy, is equal to hf, where h is a quantum of action and f is the frequency of the wave system wrt to the reacting electron,. < But photons behave in ways that are unlike a usual particle description. > That's because they aren't particles of matter. Indeed, they aren't particles of energy either; they are quantities that exist only at the instant an electron reacts with a transient bit of light. < Alternatively, you could say that photons are particles, but that the term "particle" now has to be completely redefined to mean something other than what it did in the 19th century. > Yes, you could say that a word means whatever you want it to mean, whether it means that or not. glird
From: glird on 10 May 2010 17:34 On May 10, 3:21 pm, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > Your statement that the photon is always detected as a particle is > > still factually false. > > I thought that was always the case. Of course I'm thinking in terms of > the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. When is a photon not detected as > a particle? Although a photon is a quantity of energy emitted or absorbed by a given object (electron); a quantity of energy is not a particle. glird
From: PD on 10 May 2010 17:41 On May 10, 4:25 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On May 10, 4:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >< Light consists of photons, but an assembly of photons has a property called wavelength, which can be directly measured with a grating spectrometer with great precision. The wavelength of a single photon is not measurable with a grating spectrometer, though the energy or momentum is.> > > The latter sentence proves that the prior one is false. (If light > consists of waves with measurable lengths, but a photon does not, then > light is NOT an assembly of photons.) No, that is not correct. Not all properties of the assembly are exhibited by the constituents. Temperature, for example, is a property of a large sample of gas molecules. An individual gas molecule does not have a temperature. > > < Thus, when I measure the wavelength of light, is it a fair statement > to say I'm detecting light as a particle? > > > Obviously not. > > < Light has a litany of properties, including some that are particle- > like and some that are wave-like. It is improper to say that when > light is exhibiting particle-like properties, that's when it consists > of photons. It consists of photons all the time.> > > No, PD, light is always a wave system. Waves do not exhibit properties that are compatible with the photoelectric effect and a wide range of phenomena that photons exhibit. > When the pattern of its waves > happens to match that of an electron it is passing through, the > REACTION will exhibit particle-like behavior; i.e. a specific quantity > of energy will be released or absorbed, > That quantity, called a quantum of energy, is equal to hf, where h is > a quantum of action and f is the frequency of the wave system wrt to > the reacting electron,. Waves inherently do not exhibit this behavior. Waves deposit energy continuously. What you are doing is similar to what I said below about using the word "particle". You are calling photons waves, but in so doing completely redefining what the word "wave" means, compared to what it meant in the 19th century. Why not just call them photons, rather than trying to massage the meaning of "particle" or "wave" so that you can shoehorn photons into one of those two categories? More importantly, why does it make any sense about whether it is better to massage the meaning of "wave" than it is to massage the meaning of "particle"? > > < But photons behave in ways that are unlike a usual particle > description. > > > That's because they aren't particles of matter. Indeed, they aren't > particles of energy either; they are quantities that exist only at the > instant an electron reacts with a transient bit of light. > > < Alternatively, you could say that photons are particles, but that > the term "particle" now has to be completely redefined to mean > something other than what it did in the 19th century. > > > Yes, you could say that a word means whatever you want it to mean, > whether it means that or not. > > glird
From: PD on 10 May 2010 17:44
On May 10, 4:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 10, 2:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 10, 1:38 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 10, 2:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 10, 1:24 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 10, 2:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 10, 1:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 10, 1:47 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 10, 12:24 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 10, 11:49 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 10, 9:42 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 10, 10:27 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 9, 7:09 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 9, 12:22 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is too bad that U.Al cannot engage in debate, because > > > > > > > > > > > > > > he certainly has a valid "point" about the duality, and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that is your only real problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > admittedly, it is more of a quandary with fullerenes, but > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there is not even any "where," there, with the "photon" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- unless you think that a Nobel is an adequate laurel, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to resurrect Sir Isaac's nutty corpuscle (the one > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that goes faster in denser media .-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more precisely, E's neologism of "quantum > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of light, I shall call, photon," does not neccesitate that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "the photon must be a particle (zero-dimensional, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no mass, no momentum QED .-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A photon is detected as a particle. > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, it's not. Where did you get that idea? > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics > > > > > > > > > > > by the double solution theory > > > > > > > > > > > Louis de BROGLIE'http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > Some work has been done in detecting photons since this was written. > > > > > > > > > > Do catch up. > > > > > > > > > > Do you mean the like the absurd nonsense which causes you to believe > > > > > > > > > the future determines the past? > > > > > > > > > They're called experimental measurements. Regardless, the statement "A > > > > > > > > photon is detected as a particle" is a false statement and is > > > > > > > > unsupportable with current information. > > > > > > > > > Feel free to continue to make any false statements you would prefer to > > > > > > > > be true as long as you wish. I'm sure it feels good. > > > > > > > > Experimental measurements is determining a C-60 molecule ALWAYS enters > > > > > > > and exits a single slit because it ALWAYS detected exiting a single > > > > > > > slit. > > > > > > > I'm sorry, but you've drifted from the topic. The topic is whether a > > > > > > photon is detected as a particle. That is a false statement. > > > > > > > This is separate from the other boondoggle you referred to. > > > > > > > PD > > > > > > The following is the reason a photon is detected as a particle. > > > > > > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics > > > > > by the double solution theory > > > > > Louis de BROGLIE'http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf > > > > > > "I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the > > > > > wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case > > > > > of an external field acting on the particle." > > > > > > "This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present > > > > > theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave > > > > > where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite > > > > > natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always > > > > > be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is > > > > > located." > > > > > > de Broglie's definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave > > > > > and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of > > > > > the wave. > > > > > > You then went on to say this is old and there is a new 'understanding' > > > > > of what a photon is. I am simply stating that your present > > > > > 'understanding' of nature requires you to ignore the experimental > > > > > evidence of a C-60 molecule ALWAYS being detected exiting a single > > > > > slit and your present 'understanding' of nature which requires the > > > > > future to determine the past. > > > > > > I am explaining to you how your present 'understanding' of nature is > > > > > incorrect and de Broglie wave mechanics is a more correct > > > > > understanding of the physics of nature. > > > > > Nah. de Broglie didn't have access to the experimental information we > > > > now have. After all, he's been dead a long time. So, apparently, have > > > > you. > > > > > And no, I'm not ignoring any information obtained in experiment. The > > > > current model is fully consistent with experimental data. > > > > > And no, I didn't say there was a "new understanding". What I said is > > > > that there is more and newer experimental information available than > > > > what de Broglie had at the time he tried to understand things. New > > > > information is useful for coming up with an improved understanding. > > > > Only in your state of delusional denial would having to disregard the > > > experimental evidence of the C-60 molecule ALWAYS being detected > > > exiting a single slit and having to choose to believe the future > > > determines the past would that be considered an improved understanding > > > of the physics of nature. > > > I'm not disregarding anything. The current model is FULLY consistent > > with all the experimental data, with none of it disregarded. > > It is not consistent with the C-60 molecule ALWAYS detected exiting a > single slit. Yes, it is. It is COMPLETELY compatible with the C-60 molecule always being detected at a single slit when a detector is placed at the slit(s). In fact, the current model says that's exactly what should happen. > > > Your statement that the photon is always detected as a particle is > > still factually false. > > Your 'understanding' of the physics of nature is more incorrect than > de Broglie wave mechanics. > The "understanding" of nature is not the question put here. It is whether it is an experimental FACT that photons are always detected as particles. That statement is factually incorrect, and has nothing to do with the "correctness" of an "understanding". |