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: "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.
From: spudnik on 23 May 2010 14:49 why reply to BURNT, I ask you. why do I reply to you & your so-called theory, you could legitamitly answer! anyway, if you take your statement (beolwsville) seriously, then it would be an infinitessimal part of the wave, and you'd be back at the useless "point particles" of "classical physics" or just Newtonianism. it is certainly unfortunate that Einstein may have been thinking of this, when he coined the term, photon ... but, it's better to have your Theory of Everything be built upon a foundation of little rocks o'light, than to have a big pile of rocks on your toe. > There is only THE wave associated with a photon. The 'particle' > occupies a very small region of THE wave. thusNso: aside from "your English sucks, badly," I really don't know what you mean, because it changes from day to day. why would a photon have a minimum mass of 10^-90 kilograms, and what in Hell is the Dimensions Game?... well, if you cannot answer either question, Game Over! > about dimensions in physics formulas: > it seems that no one here understands > or understood the dimension 'game,' better than me. thsNso: quaternions have three signs (unary operators), i, j & k; now, if you wanted to get rid of the minus sign, as well, that would be an additional problem. since you do not propose to get rid of addition (binary operator) or multiplication (binary operator), but use the symbols for those operators in your hare-brained additions ... it just makes me feel bad, unless you can prove, that you don't need subtractions or negatives. on the wayside, i may not fully grok the idea of unary operators, but "exp()" and "ln()" are canonically such. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Hall_effect > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_quantum_Hall_effect thusNso there may not have been any exposition, but I didn't think of that, that his hare-brained attempt unconsciously obliterated the pythagorean theorem, iff it actualy did any thing, at all, that any one could comprehend, including doctor Martin. thusNso: is he trying to prove that all solutions to the Fermat curves, pass only through irrational points on the grid?... welcome to the club! well, he ceraintly didn't prove that, as far as I can see (but I'm wearing the oldstyle 3d glasses, so, y'never know .-) thusNso: yeah; first, do no harm, or assign yourself to an automatic "opt-in to your killfile, thank *me*." anyway, that is not Bucky's system, but Cliff's. at least, he is not among the fanatics, who beleive what Bucky saith, that he alleviated the need for math with Nature's Co-ordinating System -- as important as some of that is. "to remove me from your killfile, send your Social Security Number to tim(a)polysignosis.org; thank *you*." thsNso: "pressure equals a third of energy density" -- really?... well, a tetrahedron is a third of the volume of the parallelopiped that it's inscribed in; so, there. "spacetime" is a totally useless word for concepts, since it is merely phase-space of ordinary space; just use quaternions, real part as time. (funny thing: I just read that Hoagland's "hyperdimensional physics" was nothing but quaternions "a la Maxwell," Yahoo!TM .-) thusNso: I don't see any neccesary resaon for *any* irrational number to have a maximum run of any digit in what ever integral base; so, rake one coal over yourself for propitiating such a silly idea! on the wayside, 0.999.... does not = 1; it equals 1.000...., the "real"number, one; take a hop, a skip & a jump over Tony Robinson's bed of coals. thusNso: the second part of the question is clearly trivial, and the first part seems to be its inverse, or what ever. have Farey sequences ever been used for continued fractions, or does that make any sense, at all? > Example: The fraction 4 / 97 occur in the place 197 of > the Farey's sequence of order 113. How can I know it > without calculate all the smaller terms? --Pi, the surfer's canonical value -- good to at least one place! http://wlym.com
From: mpc755 on 23 May 2010 16:15 On May 23, 2:49 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > why reply to BURNT, I ask you. why do I reply > to you & your so-called theory, you could legitamitly answer! > > anyway, if you take your statement (beolwsville) seriously, then > it would be an infinitessimal part of the wave, and > you'd be back at the useless "point particles" of "classical physics" > or > just Newtonianism. The 'particle' occupies a very small region of the wave, not an infinitesimal part. > it is certainly unfortunate that > Einstein may have been thinking of this, when he coined the term, > photon ... but, it's better to have your Theory of Everything be built > upon a foundation of little rocks o'light, than > to have a big pile of rocks on your toe. > > > There is only THE wave associated with a photon. The 'particle' > > occupies a very small region of THE wave. > > thusNso: > aside from "your English sucks, badly," I really don't know > what you mean, because it changes from day to day. > > why would a photon have a minimum mass of 10^-90 kilograms, and > what in Hell is the Dimensions Game?... well, if > you cannot answer either question, Game Over! > > > about dimensions in physics formulas: > > it seems that no one here understands > > or understood the dimension 'game,' better than me. > > thsNso: > quaternions have three signs (unary operators), i, j & k; now, > if you wanted to get rid of the minus sign, as well, > that would be an additional problem. > > since you do not propose to get rid of addition (binary operator) or > multiplication (binary operator), but use the symbols > for those operators in your hare-brained additions ... > it just makes me feel bad, unless you can prove, > that you don't need subtractions or negatives. > > on the wayside, i may not fully grok the idea > of unary operators, but "exp()" and "ln()" are canonically such. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Hall_effect > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_quantum_Hall_effect > > thusNso > there may not have been any exposition, but > I didn't think of that, that > his hare-brained attempt unconsciously obliterated the pythagorean > theorem, > iff it actualy did any thing, at all, > that any one could comprehend, including doctor Martin. > > thusNso: > is he trying to prove that all solutions > to the Fermat curves, pass only through irrational points > on the grid?... welcome to the club! > well, he ceraintly didn't prove that, as far as I can see (but > I'm wearing the oldstyle 3d glasses, so, y'never know .-) > > thusNso: > yeah; first, do no harm, or assign yourself > to an automatic "opt-in to your killfile, thank *me*." > anyway, that is not Bucky's system, but Cliff's. at least, > he is not among the fanatics, who beleive what Bucky saith, > that he alleviated the need for math with Nature's Co-ordinating > System > -- as important as some of that is. > "to remove me from your killfile, > send your Social Security Number to t...(a)polysignosis.org; thank > *you*." > > thsNso: > "pressure equals a third of energy density" -- really?... well, > a tetrahedron is a third of the volume of the parallelopiped > that it's inscribed in; so, there. > "spacetime" is a totally useless word for concepts, since > it is merely phase-space of ordinary space; > just use quaternions, real part as time. (funny thing: > I just read that Hoagland's "hyperdimensional physics" was > nothing but quaternions "a la Maxwell," Yahoo!TM .-) > > thusNso: > I don't see any neccesary resaon for *any* irrational number > to have a maximum run of any digit in what ever integral base; so, > rake one coal over yourself for propitiating such a silly idea! > on the wayside, > 0.999.... does not = 1; > it equals 1.000...., the "real"number, one; > take a hop, a skip & a jump over Tony Robinson's bed of coals. > > thusNso: > the second part of the question is clearly trivial, and > the first part seems to be its inverse, or what ever. > have Farey sequences ever been used for continued fractions, or > does that make any sense, at all? > > > Example: The fraction 4 / 97 occur in the place 197 of > > the Farey's sequence of order 113. How can I know it > > without calculate all the smaller terms? > > --Pi, the surfer's canonical value -- good to at least one place!http://wlym.com
From: BURT on 23 May 2010 16:57
On May 23, 1:15 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 23, 2:49 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > why reply to BURNT, I ask you. why do I reply > > to you & your so-called theory, you could legitamitly answer! > > > anyway, if you take your statement (beolwsville) seriously, then > > it would be an infinitessimal part of the wave, and > > you'd be back at the useless "point particles" of "classical physics" > > or > > just Newtonianism. > > The 'particle' occupies a very small region of the wave, not an > infinitesimal part. > > > > > it is certainly unfortunate that > > Einstein may have been thinking of this, when he coined the term, > > photon ... but, it's better to have your Theory of Everything be built > > upon a foundation of little rocks o'light, than > > to have a big pile of rocks on your toe. > > > > There is only THE wave associated with a photon. The 'particle' > > > occupies a very small region of THE wave. > > > thusNso: > > aside from "your English sucks, badly," I really don't know > > what you mean, because it changes from day to day. > > > why would a photon have a minimum mass of 10^-90 kilograms, and > > what in Hell is the Dimensions Game?... well, if > > you cannot answer either question, Game Over! > > > > about dimensions in physics formulas: > > > it seems that no one here understands > > > or understood the dimension 'game,' better than me. > > > thsNso: > > quaternions have three signs (unary operators), i, j & k; now, > > if you wanted to get rid of the minus sign, as well, > > that would be an additional problem. > > > since you do not propose to get rid of addition (binary operator) or > > multiplication (binary operator), but use the symbols > > for those operators in your hare-brained additions ... > > it just makes me feel bad, unless you can prove, > > that you don't need subtractions or negatives. > > > on the wayside, i may not fully grok the idea > > of unary operators, but "exp()" and "ln()" are canonically such. > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Hall_effect > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_quantum_Hall_effect > > > thusNso > > there may not have been any exposition, but > > I didn't think of that, that > > his hare-brained attempt unconsciously obliterated the pythagorean > > theorem, > > iff it actualy did any thing, at all, > > that any one could comprehend, including doctor Martin. > > > thusNso: > > is he trying to prove that all solutions > > to the Fermat curves, pass only through irrational points > > on the grid?... welcome to the club! > > well, he ceraintly didn't prove that, as far as I can see (but > > I'm wearing the oldstyle 3d glasses, so, y'never know .-) > > > thusNso: > > yeah; first, do no harm, or assign yourself > > to an automatic "opt-in to your killfile, thank *me*." > > anyway, that is not Bucky's system, but Cliff's. at least, > > he is not among the fanatics, who beleive what Bucky saith, > > that he alleviated the need for math with Nature's Co-ordinating > > System > > -- as important as some of that is. > > "to remove me from your killfile, > > send your Social Security Number to t...(a)polysignosis.org; thank > > *you*." > > > thsNso: > > "pressure equals a third of energy density" -- really?... well, > > a tetrahedron is a third of the volume of the parallelopiped > > that it's inscribed in; so, there. > > "spacetime" is a totally useless word for concepts, since > > it is merely phase-space of ordinary space; > > just use quaternions, real part as time. (funny thing: > > I just read that Hoagland's "hyperdimensional physics" was > > nothing but quaternions "a la Maxwell," Yahoo!TM .-) > > > thusNso: > > I don't see any neccesary resaon for *any* irrational number > > to have a maximum run of any digit in what ever integral base; so, > > rake one coal over yourself for propitiating such a silly idea! > > on the wayside, > > 0.999.... does not = 1; > > it equals 1.000...., the "real"number, one; > > take a hop, a skip & a jump over Tony Robinson's bed of coals. > > > thusNso: > > the second part of the question is clearly trivial, and > > the first part seems to be its inverse, or what ever. > > have Farey sequences ever been used for continued fractions, or > > does that make any sense, at all? > > > > Example: The fraction 4 / 97 occur in the place 197 of > > > the Farey's sequence of order 113. How can I know it > > > without calculate all the smaller terms? > > > --Pi, the surfer's canonical value -- good to at least one place!http://wlym.com- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There is more than one wave in light. Light is both a magnetic wave at angles to an electric wave. Light is dual. Mitch Raemsch |