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: BURT on 24 May 2010 13:24 On May 24, 10:19 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > yeah, but you don't need the particle, at all; > your theory says nothing, at all, either, at least > til you attempt to make it do some thing. > > one way to "check" it, would be to explain permitivity & permeability > with the theory, if it is a theory & not just typing & macro-ing > practice. > > > The particle does not interfere with itself. The associated wave exits > > the both slits and creates interference which alters the direction the > > particle travels. > > thusNso: > being legally enjoined from using the googolplex, > what is YUV? > > thusNso: > complainant: there's a series of his books from Cambridge U. Press, > paperback, very nice, but they want $45 for the one > that I was peruzing at the bookstore! (I think, > I'd bought one of these, before, for about $25, although > I lost it.) > > the titles of these seem generally to be a list > of three subjects, _This, That and Another Thing_, although > also the usual format of several independent essays/chapters. > > r.i.p., MG. > > --Pi, the surfer's canonical value -- accept no others!http://wlym.com Einstein questioned what he won the nobel prize for. In the end he said he could not reconcile the wave of light with a particle. Mitch Raemsch
From: spudnik on 24 May 2010 13:27 Young's two-pinhole experiment was the thing that killed the corpuscle o'light, so that anomalous & highly particular (sik) set-ups with giant molecules are only of pecuniary interest ... er, what ever "pecuniary" means, you have to actually look at the "particulars" of the write-up with the fullerenes, to be able to say any thing of interest -- to make a hypothesis, beyond regurgtiating their delciious resultage. see, you did not even bother to deal with the whole idea of duality, that Pascal essntially created in projective geometry (cf., "two-column proofs" .-) another way to "check" your theory -- iff it is one -- would be to explain Snell's law, electromagnetically and/or with aether ... even if it is an "undefined element" of your axioms. > In a double slit experiment with a photon, if you place detectors at > the exits to the slits what is detected exiting a single slit and why > is it always detected exiting a single slit? > > The 'particle' associated with the photon wave enters and exits a > single slit. The 'particle' occupies a very small region of the wave. thusNso: yeah, but you don't need the particle, at all; your theory says nothing, at all, either, at least til you attempt to make it do some thing. one way to "check" it, would be to explain permitivity & permeability with the theory, if it is a theory & not just typing & macro-ing practice. > The particle does not interfere with itself. The associated wave exits > the both slits and creates interference which alters the direction the > particle travels. thusNso: being legally enjoined from using the googolplex, what is YUV? thusNso: complainant: there's a series of his books from Cambridge U. Press, paperback, very nice, but they want $45 for the one that I was peruzing at the bookstore! (I think, I'd bought one of these, before, for about $25, although I lost it.) the titles of these seem generally to be a list of three subjects, _This, That and Another Thing_, although also the usual format of several independent essays/chapters. r.i.p., MG. --Pi, the surfer's
From: spudnik on 24 May 2010 13:32 here is what I asked you to reply to, as in not just macro-ing the same ol', same ol' bull****. > well, that is where the problem with assigning a particle > to a wave, a la de Broglie et al, comes. the assumption, > that causes folks to say "particle," is that because a quantum > of light is absorbed by one atom of siver dioxide (say, > in the photographic emulsion; or, other detector) --some how-- > that it must be that a rock of light hit the electronic orbital > (although > this is never specified, as to how it could be, and the whole problem > of EM is also hard to describe, and variously is). > > this is really all of a confusion from Newton's "geometrical optics," > that is, the "ray" of light, which is just one "normal" > to the wave (or Huyghens wavelet). > > > You assume the particle exits both slits because you assume the > > particle creates the interference pattern in and of itself. > > thus: > about your five "cloture" events, the real problem is that > "the Fed" was never properly ratified (and is unconstitutional > for that reason, if not directly; it is modeled upon the Federal > Reserve System > of England). of coursel the 527 cmtes. have essentially taken > over the TV advertizing on all national issues & candidates, > through an Act that was passed unaanimously in both houses. > > > "Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" --http://GreaterVoice.org/60 > > thus: > I've been saying, for a while, that if "green" gasoline can > be made, and gasoline fuel cells, what is the problem > with Fossilized Fuels (TM), which ain't fossilized? ... anyway, > see "Green Freedom" in the article, > which is not quite what I was refering to! thusNso: Young's two-pinhole experiment was the thing that killed the corpuscle o'light, so that anomalous & highly particular (sik) set-ups with giant molecules are only of pecuniary interest ... er, what ever "pecuniary" means, you have to actually look at the "particulars" of the write-up with the fullerenes, to be able to say any thing of interest -- to make a hypothesis, beyond regurgtiating their delciious resultage. see, you did not even bother to deal with the whole idea of duality, that Pascal essntially created in projective geometry (cf., "two-column proofs" .-) another way to "check" your theory -- iff it is one -- would be to explain Snell's law, electromagnetically and/or with aether ... even if it is an "undefined element" of your axioms. > The 'particle' associated with the photon wave enters and exits a > single slit. The 'particle' occupies a very small region of the wave. thusNso: yeah, but you don't need the particle, at all; your theory says nothing, at all, either, at least til you attempt to make it do some thing. one way to "check" it, would be to explain permitivity & permeability with the theory, if it is a theory & not just typing & macro-ing practice. > The associated wave exits the both slits and creates interference > which alters the direction the particle travels. thusNso: being legally enjoined from using the googolplex, what's YUV? thusNso: complainant: there's a series of his books from Cambridge U. Press, paperback, very nice, but they want $45 for the one that I was peruzing at the bookstore! (I think, I'd bought one of these, before, for about $25, although I lost it.) the titles of these seem generally to be a list of three subjects, _This, That and Another Thing_, although also the usual format of several independent essays/chapters. r.i.p., MG. --Pi, the surfer's canonical value -- accept no other! http://wlym.com
From: mpc755 on 24 May 2010 14:44 On May 24, 1:19 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > yeah, but you don't need the particle, at all; Are you refuting your own statement? "the wave of light travels through both slits, whence it recombines through constructive interference, and collapses as a single quantum" The collapse of the wave as a "single quantum" is the photon 'particle'. The ability of the wave to collapse into a "single quantum" occupies a very small region of the wave itself and travels a single path. In a double slit experiment the photon 'particle' always enters and exits a single slit and the associated photon wave enters and exits both slits. The photon wave creates interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the photon 'particle' travels. Detecting the photon 'particle' causes decoherence of the associated photon wave (i.e. turns the wave into chop) and there is no interference.
From: BURT on 24 May 2010 15:00
On May 24, 11:44 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 24, 1:19 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > yeah, but you don't need the particle, at all; > > Are you refuting your own statement? > > "the wave of light travels through both slits, whence it recombines > through constructive interference, and collapses as a single quantum" > > The collapse of the wave as a "single quantum" is the photon > 'particle'. > > The ability of the wave to collapse into a "single quantum" occupies a > very small region of the wave itself and travels a single path. > > In a double slit experiment the photon 'particle' always enters and > exits a single slit and the associated photon wave enters and exits > both slits. The photon wave creates interference upon exiting the > slits which alters the direction the photon 'particle' travels. > Detecting the photon 'particle' causes decoherence of the associated > photon wave (i.e. turns the wave into chop) and there is no > interference. The proton has no radius. It is an infinitely small trio of point energies known of as quarks. Mitch Raemsch |