Proton Radius Cannot Be Derived From Standard Model
in [Relativity]
|
From: eric gisse on 20 May 2010 22:16 PD wrote: [...] > If that's the case, then you're just trolling here, muttering "I don't > believe it, I don't believe it, I don't believe it." It's not the > objective of science to get you to believe. > >> >> Mitch Raemsch Why people - including you - respond to him at all much less treat him like he is saying something worth reading baffles me.
From: spudnik on 21 May 2010 00:06 matter is some how composed of light, no particles involved, whatsoever (that is just a nonmathematical assumption about a "quantum" of light ... so, what is it about Pascal's duality (interchangeability of the words "point" and "line" in any theorem of the projective plane), that makes you think that photons "exist" in the sense of Newton's balls? perhaps the Standard Model with quarks & gluons, subsuming the inherent symmetry of things, does not directly express that part of "the mass is equivalent to the Energy of the light, divided by the second power of the speed of it (the increment in the area of the wavefront, c.f. Are Buckafka Fullofit .-) > The 'particle' occupies a very small region of THE wave. thusNso: not only that, but Australia is an island; I mean, what is the highest mountain? not only was Ahrrenius's "model" never actually created, but there is a fatal assumption that was shown in the '30s to be an assumption, that glaciation requires "cooling." thusNso: maether decompreththing aether createth light waveth, and there'th too much thibbilanth in hear. A=mcc -- ba-doom! thusNso: on the wayside, one should preliminarily determine what a "beam" is, that is split by the beamsplitter; people, who habitually think of a particle, when use of the word, quantum, is made for the click of a geigercounter (well, those might be ions) or what ever. that is, a laser beam is just a very special case, a highly modified or shaped set of waves, or a standing wave of some sort, frequency, polarity of lightwaves ... not Newton's clacking balls! can a photon be only one cycle of light? thusNso: hey; maybe they'd let you look at your trophy with your old 3d glasses! thusNso: dood, my valu of pi is lots simpler to calculate than yours -- seven cans of beer & a string! thusNso: nice cartoon; is there only one beamsplitter in Sagnac? --Pi, the surfer's canonical value, is not constructible with a pair of compasses .. but, could be with a pair and a half of compasses; dyscuss.
From: mpc755 on 21 May 2010 00:13 On May 21, 12:06 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > matter is some how composed of light, > no particles involved, whatsoever > (that is just a nonmathematical assumption > about a "quantum" of light ... so, what is it > about Pascal's duality (interchangeability > of the words "point" and "line" > in any theorem of the projective plane), > that makes you think that photons "exist" > in the sense of Newton's balls? > I am not saying a photon 'particle' exists in the sense of Newton. I am saying the photon 'particle' occupies a very small region of the wave. The photon 'particle' may very well occupy a very small region of the wave itself. The following is an image of a photon: http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/foton.gif The very small region of the wave, which in the image is represented by the very center of the wave, is the 'particle'. It is what is detected. The very small region of the wave which is able to be detected exiting a single slit is the 'particle'. Answer this question. If a photon exists as an ocean wave with nothing that would constitute a 'particle' the if detectors are placed at the exits to the slit while the photon wave is in the slits, why is the photon ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit? What is it about the photon which allows for it to be detected ALWAYS exiting a single slit? The reason why the photon wave is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit is because a very small region of the wave behaves as a particle. This very small region of the wave may very well be a very small portion of the wave itself. > perhaps the Standard Model with quarks & gluons, > subsuming the inherent symmetry of things, > does not directly express that part of "the mass > is equivalent to the Energy of the light, > divided by the second power of the speed of it > (the increment in the area of the wavefront, > c.f. Are Buckafka Fullofit .-) > > > The 'particle' occupies a very small region of THE wave. > > thusNso: > not only that, but Australia is an island; I mean, > what is the highest mountain? > > not only was Ahrrenius's "model" never actually created, but > there is a fatal assumption that was shown in the '30s > to be an assumption, that glaciation requires "cooling." > > thusNso: > maether decompreththing aether createth light waveth, and > there'th too much thibbilanth in hear. A=mcc -- ba-doom! > > thusNso: > on the wayside, > one should preliminarily determine what a "beam" is, > that is split by the beamsplitter; people, > who habitually think of a particle, when use > of the word, quantum, is made for the click > of a geigercounter (well, those might be ions) or what ever. > > that is, a laser beam is just a very special case, > a highly modified or shaped set of waves, or > a standing wave of some sort, frequency, polarity > of lightwaves ... not Newton's clacking balls! > > can a photon be only one cycle of light? > > thusNso: > hey; maybe they'd let you look at your trophy > with your old 3d glasses! > > thusNso: > dood, my valu of pi is lots simpler to calculate > than yours -- seven cans of beer & a string! > > thusNso: > nice cartoon; is there only one beamsplitter in Sagnac? > > --Pi, the surfer's canonical value, is not constructible > with a pair of compasses .. but, could be with a pair and > a half of compasses; dyscuss.
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 21 May 2010 07:01 eric gisse wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 19:16:30 -0700: > PD wrote: > > [...] > >> If that's the case, then you're just trolling here, muttering "I don't >> believe it, I don't believe it, I don't believe it." It's not the >> objective of science to get you to believe. >> >> >>> Mitch Raemsch > > Why people - including you - respond to him at all much less treat him > like he is saying something worth reading baffles me. I cannot talk by PD, but I can say that I respond you because it is very funny to see your dissispirate attempts to cover your mistakes eact time you are caught saying some glaring nonsense (which is very often unless when you post ad hominems and attacks on others posters :-) -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: PD on 21 May 2010 11:09
On May 20, 5:34 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 20, 3:28 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 20, 4:42 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 20, 6:49 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 19, 8:25 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 19, 3:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 19, 4:18 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 19, 1:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 19, 1:19 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 19, 3:08 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 19, 1:34 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > weren't you the one who was complaining > > > > > > > > > > > about paradoxical things in QM?... so, > > > > > > > > > > > you seem to be able to have it both ways, > > > > > > > > > > > having your wave & your little pizza pie, two, > > > > > > > > > > > when they were only ever just dual, mathematical representations > > > > > > > > > > > of one thing; you just don't need to use them, > > > > > > > > > > > at teh same time, and will probably not be able to > > > > > > > > > > > in any realistic way. certainly, no-one else has! > > > > > > > > > > > de Broglie originated wave-particle duality. In de Broglie wave > > > > > > > > > > mechanics, the 'particle' occupies a very small region of the wave. In > > > > > > > > > > a double slit experiment the wave enters and exits multiple slits > > > > > > > > > > while the 'particle' enters and exits a single slit. The wave creates > > > > > > > > > > interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the > > > > > > > > > > 'particle' travels. Detecting the 'particle' causes decoherence of the > > > > > > > > > > associated wave (i.e. turns the wave into chop) and there is no > > > > > > > > > > interference. > > > > > > > > > > > Why is the 'particle' ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit when > > > > > > > > > > detectors are placed at the exits to the slits while the 'particle' is > > > > > > > > > > in the slit(s)? > > > > > > > > > > > Because the 'particle' ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. > > > > > > > > > > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. > > > > > > > > > > > How is a C-60 molecule able to create an interference pattern in a > > > > > > > > > > double slit experiment? > > > > > > > > > > > Because the C-60 molecule ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit and it > > > > > > > > > > is the associated aether displacement wave which enters and exits > > > > > > > > > > multiple slits. The associated aether displacement 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 and there is no > > > > > > > > > > interference. > > > > > > > > > > > Why is the C-60 molecule ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit when > > > > > > > > > > detectors are placed at the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule > > > > > > > > > > is in the slit(s)? > > > > > > > > > > > Because the C-60 molecule ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. > > > > > > > > > > > > anyway, arguing with you guys makes me into > > > > > > > > > > > that "exotic negative mass" stuff, > > > > > > > > > > > that could build an Einstin-Rosen superbridge > > > > > > > > > > > to when God-am ever. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The above is correct. The 'particle' portion of the photon can be > > > > > > > > > > > > considered to be part of the wave itself. The 'particle' portion of > > > > > > > > > > > > the photon does not have to be a rock of light. > > > > > > > > > > > > thus prove: > > > > > > > > > > > prove and/or define the most canonical "law > > > > > > > > > > > of cosines" in trgionometry taht you can; > > > > > > > > > > > you can define canonical, two. > > > > > > > > > > > > well, I just read the definition > > > > > > > > > > > of the law, or the supposed outcome of formula, > > > > > > > > > > > in a large dictionary (of English). > > > > > > > > > > > > thus: > > > > > > > > > > > I haven't proven that the Bible Code was a hoax; > > > > > > > > > > > only a hueristical argument about any ring > > > > > > > > > > > of letters of "all of the letters" ... not the Object or > > > > > > > > > > > Bunny Rings, neccesarily. however, > > > > > > > > > > > the biblical topic is "skip codes." > > > > > > > > > > > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.com-Hidequotedtext- > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > The proton is an infinitely small trio of quarks. It has no radius. > > > > > > > > > Actually, that's counter to experiment. The radius of the proton has > > > > > > > > been measured to be about 1E-15m. > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > No. All particles are infinitely small. We can't predict a seperation > > > > > > > of the trio of quarks or 3 points of energy. > > > > > > > > How acccurate is the measurement you talk about? How can we observe > > > > > > > anything that small in the first place. No. we can't. > > > > > > > We don't have the ability. > > > > > > > Oh, sure we can. The proton size has been measured since the late > > > > > > 1960s. > > > > > > Can you prove it? > > > > > Sure. The documentation is in the library, written by Robert > > > > Hoftstadter. The work was actually done in the 1950's by the way. > > > > > He became quite famous for it.http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1961/hofstadter-... > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Can you demonstrate the accuracy of such a measurement? > > > You seem to think we have something more than we really do at the > > > library. > > > > Science measurements are not very old and cannot be expected to be > > > very accurate. So your attitude that it does is unfounded. > > > No, it's quite accurate. The accuracy is actually documented in the > > paper. > > > If it's your contention that science is not to be believed because it > > cannot explain everything, and that science is not to be believed > > because all measurements are inaccurate, then you're just basically > > saying that you don't buy the scientific process at all. > > > If that's the case, then you're just trolling here, muttering "I don't > > believe it, I don't believe it, I don't believe it." It's not the > > objective of science to get you to believe. > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I don't think so. We have no accurate measurments of subatomic > entities and there is no reason that it should be any different at > this time. That is simply not true. We have measurement precision to 1E-18 m. That is 100,000,000 times smaller than the atom. If you can measure something to one part in 100,000,000, that's pretty darned accurate. Mitch, you simply refuse to believe that we know anything, we can measure anything, we can do anything. You want the rest of the world to be as nonproductive as you. Don't tear down the accomplishments of others, just so you can feel better, please. |