Proton Radius Cannot Be Derived From Standard Model
in [Physics]
|
Prev: "Fabrication" or "Lie" in the IPCC AR4 WGI
Next: Chapt 3, Fiberglass Experiment; using only luminosity for distance measure #62; ATOM TOTALITY
From: PD on 11 May 2010 11:19 On May 11, 10:05 am, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > On May 11, 9:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 11, 8:07 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 11, 8:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 10, 6:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > 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. > > There must be at least 5000 physicists in the world. At least 99% of > them believe what experiments show, not what some mentally ill loner > asserts. > > PD, why do you bother conversing with this megalomaniac who lives in > his own solipsistic world? Is it obsessive-compulsive disorder? Yes, I believe it is! I shall have to work on it.
From: PD on 11 May 2010 11:22 On May 11, 9:38 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 11, 10:29 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 11, 8:24 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 11, 9:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 11, 8:07 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 11, 8:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 10, 6:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > 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. So what would you propose for an experimental test to *distinguish* the two theories why you don't get explanations? Consider it an exercise learning how to do things scientifically.
From: mpc755 on 11 May 2010 11:23 On May 11, 11:19 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 11, 10:05 am, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 11, 9:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 11, 8:07 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 11, 8:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 10, 6:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 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. > > > There must be at least 5000 physicists in the world. At least 99% of > > them believe what experiments show, not what some mentally ill loner > > asserts. > > > PD, why do you bother conversing with this megalomaniac who lives in > > his own solipsistic world? Is it obsessive-compulsive disorder? > > Yes, I believe it is! I shall have to work on it. You should also work on answering the following with an answer that does not require the future to determine the past. 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. For all you Copenhageners out there: A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Detectors are placed at the exits to the slits. The C-60 molecule is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit. A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits. The C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern in and of itself. How is this possible? It isn't. The C-60 molecule does not create an interference pattern in and of itself. The C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The C-60 molecule is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit because it ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. When the associated aether displacement wave exits the slits it creates interference which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no interference.
From: Stupidschit Hanson on 11 May 2010 11:24 On May 11, 7:22 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 11, 9:38 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 11, 10:29 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 11, 8:24 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 11, 9:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 11, 8:07 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 11, 8:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 10, 6:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > 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. > > So what would you propose for an experimental test to *distinguish* > the two theories why you don't get explanations? Consider it an > exercise learning how to do things scientifically. Of course I agree completely... With MPC!
From: PD on 11 May 2010 11:27
On May 11, 10:23 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 11, 11:19 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 11, 10:05 am, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > > > > On May 11, 9:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 11, 8:07 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 11, 8:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 10, 6:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > 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. > > > > There must be at least 5000 physicists in the world. At least 99% of > > > them believe what experiments show, not what some mentally ill loner > > > asserts. > > > > PD, why do you bother conversing with this megalomaniac who lives in > > > his own solipsistic world? Is it obsessive-compulsive disorder? > > > Yes, I believe it is! I shall have to work on it. > > 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. Time for you to read up on how this is possible. Would you like a reference to a really good book on this? PD |