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 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 > >
From: PD on 11 May 2010 15:09 On May 11, 1:30 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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'. That's fine, but that isn't the double slit experiment. And in the double slit experiment, the interesting behavior is what is *observed* when there is no detector at either slit. > > 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. No, it provides experimental evidence that a particle always exits a single slit when there is a detector placed at a slit -- that's all. In order to test whether a particle exits a single slit when there is no detector at the slit, you're going to have to find a way to do it without a detector at the slit. Don't be a doofus. This should be obvious. > > 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. But I'm looking at more experimental evidence than your stupid, restricted "detector experiment" evidence. I'm also including other experiments like the double slit experiment, including the configuration when there is no detector at either slit. Geez, what an ignoramus. > > > > 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 15:56 On May 11, 3:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 11, 1:30 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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'. > > That's fine, but that isn't the double slit experiment. And in the > double slit experiment, the interesting behavior is what is *observed* > when there is no detector at either slit. > > > > > 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. > > No, it provides experimental evidence that a particle always exits a > single slit when there is a detector placed at a slit -- that's all. > In order to test whether a particle exits a single slit when there is > no detector at the slit, you're going to have to find a way to do it > without a detector at the slit. > > Don't be a doofus. This should be obvious. > It is obvious if you conclude the particle exits both slits when there are no detectors at the slit then you are disregarding the experimental evidence arrived at from the 'Detector Experiment'. That is what you do when you perform experiments. The arrive at conclusions based upon the experiment. In the 'Detector Experiment' the particle is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit so the 'Detector Experiment' provides experimental evidence the particle ALWAYS exits a single slit. Now, you can conclude the particle exits both slits when you do not detect it but that is an assumption that is not based upon any experimental evidence. The experimental evidence is the particle ALWAYS exits a single slit. The reason why ALL of the experimental evidence supports the conclusion the particle ALWAYS exits a single slit because whenever an experiment is executed in order to determine if the particle exits one slit or both slits the particle is ALWAYS detected exiting 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. > > But I'm looking at more experimental evidence than your stupid, > restricted "detector experiment" evidence. I'm also including other > experiments like the double slit experiment, including the > configuration when there is no detector at either slit. > > Geez, what an ignoramus. > > > > > > > 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: PD on 11 May 2010 16:52
On May 11, 2:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 11, 3:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 11, 1:30 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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'. > > > That's fine, but that isn't the double slit experiment. And in the > > double slit experiment, the interesting behavior is what is *observed* > > when there is no detector at either slit. > > > > 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. > > > No, it provides experimental evidence that a particle always exits a > > single slit when there is a detector placed at a slit -- that's all. > > In order to test whether a particle exits a single slit when there is > > no detector at the slit, you're going to have to find a way to do it > > without a detector at the slit. > > > Don't be a doofus. This should be obvious. > > It is obvious if you conclude the particle exits both slits when there > are no detectors at the slit then you are disregarding the > experimental evidence arrived at from the 'Detector Experiment'. No, we are not. The currently accurately predicts what will be observed when there are detectors at the slits. Hence that data is not being disregarded. It also accurately predicts what will be observed when there are no detectors at the slits. > > That is what you do when you perform experiments. The arrive at > conclusions based upon the experiment. In the 'Detector Experiment' > the particle is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit so the 'Detector > Experiment' provides experimental evidence the particle ALWAYS exits a > single slit. No, that would be extrapolating a conclusion beyond what you have data for. You have data for the class of circumstances in which there is a detector at the slits. This data does not allow you to conclude what happens when there is no detector at the slits. You have no data for that in your "detector experiment". You need a different experiment to test what happens when there are no detectors at the slits. Any bonehead would be able to see that? Are you not even able to see what a bonehead can see? > > Now, you can conclude the particle exits both slits when you do not > detect it but that is an assumption that is not based upon any > experimental evidence. The experimental evidence is the particle > ALWAYS exits a single slit. The reason why ALL of the experimental > evidence supports the conclusion the particle ALWAYS exits a single > slit because whenever an experiment is executed in order to determine > if the particle exits one slit or both slits the particle is ALWAYS > detected exiting a single slit. In experimental science, one learns not to extrapolate findings into circumstances beyond which you have direct experimental support. You are guilty of scientific fraud here. > > > > > > 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. > > > But I'm looking at more experimental evidence than your stupid, > > restricted "detector experiment" evidence. I'm also including other > > experiments like the double slit experiment, including the > > configuration when there is no detector at either slit. > > > Geez, what an ignoramus. > > > > > > 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 > > |