Proton Radius Cannot Be Derived From Standard Model
in [Relativity]
|
From: mpc755 on 10 May 2010 18:46 On May 10, 5:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > The current model HAS to say that because that is what occurs. The issue is how to you describe how it IS ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit. Detectors are placed at the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). The C-60 molecule is detected exiting a single slit. Detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). The C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern. You are the only believer in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM who has answered this and your answer is absurd nonsense. You say the C-60 molecule enters one or multiple slits depending on if there will be detectors at the exits in the future. Think about this. You are the only person who chooses to believe in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM and your answer is the future determines the past. The C-60 molecule is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit because it ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. 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. > > > > > 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. The whole point of physics is understanding the physics of nature. > 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". Photons are detected as a quantum of mæther.
From: mpc755 on 10 May 2010 18:55 On May 10, 5:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > The current model HAS to say that because that is what occurs. The issue is how do you describe how it is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit. Detectors are placed at the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). The C-60 molecule is detected exiting a single slit. Detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). The C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern. You are the only believer in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM who has answered this and your answer is absurd nonsense. You say the C-60 molecule enters one or multiple slits depending on if there will be detectors at the exits in the future. You are the only person who chooses to believe in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM who is even willing to attempt to answer the question and your answer is the future determines the past. The C-60 molecule is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit because it ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. 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. > > > > > 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. The whole point of physics is understanding the physics of nature. It is obvious no one who chooses to believe in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM understands the physics of nature. If anyone did there would be a better answer then the C-60 molecule enters one or multiple slits depending upon what occurs in the future. > 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". Photons are detected as a quantum of mæther.
From: PD on 10 May 2010 18:56 On May 10, 5:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > The current model HAS to say that because that is what occurs. Yes, a theory has to match experimental data without disregarding it. And it does. You claimed the current theory disregards that data. That is another factual error. > > Think about this. You are the only person who chooses to believe in > the Copenhagen interpretation of QM and your answer is the future > determines the past. Don't be ridiculous. If I were the only person who believed it, wouldn't it be named after me? If I were the only person who believed in it, then why is it so readily available in books everywhere you look? Are you so brain-dead stupid that you can't see this? What you perhaps mean is that I'm the only person among the small class of people who will pay the slightest attention to you at all and that believes in it. But the small class of people who will pay the slightest attention to you at all doesn't span all of science at all. You must be under the impression that if you don't understand something, that science will fall all over itself in hordes to convince you and to help you understand. It does not occur to you that you are an insufferable human being that most people don't have the patience to interact with. > > The whole point of physics is understanding the physics of nature. Yes, indeed, but what I'm trying to discuss with you now is a statement that you made that is simply factually incorrect. You said that photons are always detected as particles. If you cannot get facts correct, then you will not be able to obtain any understanding of nature, as you'll be starting with factually incorrect statements. If you start with lies that you make up, then you will not arrive at a correct understanding of nature. PD
From: mpc755 on 10 May 2010 19:02 On May 10, 6:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 10, 5:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > The current model HAS to say that because that is what occurs. > > Yes, a theory has to match experimental data without disregarding it. > And it does. > You claimed the current theory disregards that data. That is another > factual error. > > > > > Think about this. You are the only person who chooses to believe in > > the Copenhagen interpretation of QM and your answer is the future > > determines the past. > > Don't be ridiculous. If I were the only person who believed it, > wouldn't it be named after me? No, because it is absurd nonsense. > If I were the only person who believed > in it, then why is it so readily available in books everywhere you > look? Are you so brain-dead stupid that you can't see this? > > What you perhaps mean is that I'm the only person among the small > class of people who will pay the slightest attention to you at all and > that believes in it. But the small class of people who will pay the > slightest attention to you at all doesn't span all of science at all. > You are the only person on this forum who chooses to believe in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM who has answered the question and your answer is the future determines the past. No one else on this forum can even answer the question. Therefore, anyone on this forum who chooses can not answer the question of chooses to believe the future determines the past does not understand the physics of nature. The future does not determine the past. The C-60 molecule ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. > You must be under the impression that if you don't understand > something, that science will fall all over itself in hordes to > convince you and to help you understand. It does not occur to you that > you are an insufferable human being that most people don't have the > patience to interact with. > > > > > The whole point of physics is understanding the physics of nature. > > Yes, indeed, but what I'm trying to discuss with you now is a > statement that you made that is simply factually incorrect. You said > that photons are always detected as particles. If you cannot get facts > correct, then you will not be able to obtain any understanding of > nature, as you'll be starting with factually incorrect statements. > A photon is detected as a quantum of mæther. A quantum of mæther is a particle. > If you start with lies that you make up, then you will not arrive at a > correct understanding of nature. > If you start with the future determines the past and a C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern in and of itself you will never understand the physics of nature.
From: mpc755 on 10 May 2010 19:06
On May 10, 6:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 10, 5:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > The current model HAS to say that because that is what occurs. > > Yes, a theory has to match experimental data without disregarding it. > And it does. > You claimed the current theory disregards that data. That is another > factual error. > > > > > Think about this. You are the only person who chooses to believe in > > the Copenhagen interpretation of QM and your answer is the future > > determines the past. > > Don't be ridiculous. If I were the only person who believed it, > wouldn't it be named after me? If I were the only person who believed > in it, then why is it so readily available in books everywhere you > look? Are you so brain-dead stupid that you can't see this? > > What you perhaps mean is that I'm the only person among the small > class of people who will pay the slightest attention to you at all and > that believes in it. But the small class of people who will pay the > slightest attention to you at all doesn't span all of science at all. > You are the only person on this forum who chooses to believe in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM who has answered the question and your answer is the future determines the past. No one else on this forum can even answer the question. Therefore, anyone on this forum who chooses to believe in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM who can not answer the question or chooses to believe the future determines the past does not understand the physics of nature. The future does not determine the past. The C-60 molecule ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. > You must be under the impression that if you don't understand > something, that science will fall all over itself in hordes to > convince you and to help you understand. It does not occur to you that > you are an insufferable human being that most people don't have the > patience to interact with. > > > > > The whole point of physics is understanding the physics of nature. > > Yes, indeed, but what I'm trying to discuss with you now is a > statement that you made that is simply factually incorrect. You said > that photons are always detected as particles. If you cannot get facts > correct, then you will not be able to obtain any understanding of > nature, as you'll be starting with factually incorrect statements. > A photon is detected as a quantum of mæther. A quantum of mæther is a particle. > If you start with lies that you make up, then you will not arrive at a > correct understanding of nature. > If you start with the future determines the past and a C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern in and of itself you will never understand the physics of nature. |