Proton Radius Cannot Be Derived From Standard Model
in [Relativity]
|
From: mpc755 on 11 May 2010 11:40 On May 11, 11:27 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 11, 10:23 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > You should also work on answering the following with an answer that > > does not require the future to determine the past. > > Why? The model accounts for all the experimental evidence. It works > just fine. > > > You should also > > work on understanding what experimental evidence is. If a C-60 > > molecule is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit in a double slit > > experiment this is evidence the C-60 molecule ALWAYS exits a single > > slit. > > No, it isn't. Sorry, it just isn't. It is evidence that the molecule > exits a single slit *when* there is a detector there -- nothing more, > nothing less. The presence or absence of the detector changes that > claim. > The presence of the detector IS the experiment. The experimental evidence associated with the experiment is the particle ALWAYS exits a single slit. Only in the absurd nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM do you perform an experiment, where the result is the particle ALWAYS exits a single slit, then say the opposite occurs when the experiment is NOT performed, AND say that that supports the experimental evidence. > Time for you to read up on how this is possible. Would you like a > reference to a really good book on this? > > PD
From: PD on 11 May 2010 13:41 On May 11, 10:29 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 11, 11:22 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 11, 9:38 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > Correction: No one else on this tiny little forum WISHES to answer the > > > > > > > > question for you, because you have a severely repellent personality. > > > > > > > > No one else answers the question because it requires the stating of > > > > > > > absurd nonsense such as the future determines the past. > > > > > > > No one else answers it because hardly anyone with any sense talks to > > > > > > you at all. > > > > > > No one else answers the question because it requires the stating of > > > > > absurd nonsense such as the future determines the past. > > > > > > Let's try it again and see what occurs > > > > > Yes, let's. It's my theory that hardly anyone with any sense likes to > > > > talk with you at all. This leads to the prediction that no one will > > > > answer your question. Let's see if my theory is supported by > > > > experimental results. > > > > We can add this to your list of experimental results you can not > > > interpret correctly. > > > Perhaps. Then, you see, what science would do is to take the two > > theories, mine and yours about why you don't get any explanations upon > > your whining demands, and see if there is an experimental test where > > the two theories would DISAGREE on the measurable result. Here, the > > measurable result for the two theories is the same: you'll get no > > answers. > > The measure result is the C-60 molecule is ALWAYS detected exiting a > single slit. You're wandering off topic again. The experiment to be performed is to distinguish between the two theories about why you do not get answers in response to your whining.
From: PD on 11 May 2010 13:43 On May 11, 10:33 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 11, 11:27 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 11, 10:23 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > You should also work on answering the following with an answer that > > > does not require the future to determine the past. > > > Why? The model accounts for all the experimental evidence. It works > > just fine. > > In any double slit experiment the particle is ALWAYS detected exiting > a single slit. This is experimental evidence the particle ALWAYS exits > a single slit. No, it isn't. We've just discussed this, and now you're repeating the same error. You may want to read my correction again. > Your model does not support the experimental evidence. But it does. It fully predicts that the particle will be *observed* exiting one slit when there is a detector at the slit. Note experimental results are about *observations*, they are not about presumptions about what happens when you're not observing.
From: PD on 11 May 2010 13:44 On May 11, 10:40 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 11, 11:27 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 11, 10:23 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > You should also work on answering the following with an answer that > > > does not require the future to determine the past. > > > Why? The model accounts for all the experimental evidence. It works > > just fine. > > > > You should also > > > work on understanding what experimental evidence is. If a C-60 > > > molecule is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit in a double slit > > > experiment this is evidence the C-60 molecule ALWAYS exits a single > > > slit. > > > No, it isn't. Sorry, it just isn't. It is evidence that the molecule > > exits a single slit *when* there is a detector there -- nothing more, > > nothing less. The presence or absence of the detector changes that > > claim. > > The presence of the detector IS the experiment. Nonsense. That's not the experiment at all. Do you not understand the double slit experiment? > The experimental > evidence associated with the experiment is the particle ALWAYS exits a > single slit. No, it isn't. We've just been through that. > > Only in the absurd nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM do > you perform an experiment, where the result is the particle ALWAYS > exits a single slit, then say the opposite occurs when the experiment > is NOT performed, AND say that that supports the experimental > evidence. Sorry, that isn't the experiment at all. Perhaps you need to remind yourself what the experiment is. > > > Time for you to read up on how this is possible. Would you like a > > reference to a really good book on this? > > > PD > >
From: mpc755 on 11 May 2010 14:30
On May 11, 1:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 11, 10:40 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 11, 11:27 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 11, 10:23 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > You should also work on answering the following with an answer that > > > > does not require the future to determine the past. > > > > Why? The model accounts for all the experimental evidence. It works > > > just fine. > > > > > You should also > > > > work on understanding what experimental evidence is. If a C-60 > > > > molecule is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit in a double slit > > > > experiment this is evidence the C-60 molecule ALWAYS exits a single > > > > slit. > > > > No, it isn't. Sorry, it just isn't. It is evidence that the molecule > > > exits a single slit *when* there is a detector there -- nothing more, > > > nothing less. The presence or absence of the detector changes that > > > claim. > > > The presence of the detector IS the experiment. > > Nonsense. That's not the experiment at all. Do you not understand the > double slit experiment? > In order to determine if the particle exits one or both slits in a double slit experiment, an experiment is performed. The experiment to detect if the particle exits a single slit or both slits places detectors at the exits to the slits. The experiment is called the 'Detector Experiment'. The 'Detector Experiment' is performed over and over again with all types of particles. After thousands and thousands of executions of the 'Detector Experiment' with hundreds of different types of particles the particle is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit. The 'Detector Experiment' provides experimental evidence the particle ALWAYS exits a single slit. If you do not perform the 'Detector Experiment' and you assume the particle exits both slits your assumption is not supported by the 'Detector Experiment' experimental evidence. > > The experimental > > evidence associated with the experiment is the particle ALWAYS exits a > > single slit. > > No, it isn't. We've just been through that. > > > > > Only in the absurd nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM do > > you perform an experiment, where the result is the particle ALWAYS > > exits a single slit, then say the opposite occurs when the experiment > > is NOT performed, AND say that that supports the experimental > > evidence. > > Sorry, that isn't the experiment at all. Perhaps you need to remind > yourself what the experiment is. > > > > > > Time for you to read up on how this is possible. Would you like a > > > reference to a really good book on this? > > > > PD > > |