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: mpc755 on 10 May 2010 14:24 On May 10, 2:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 10, 1:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 10, 1:47 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 10, 12:24 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 10, 11:49 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 10, 9:42 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 10, 10:27 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 9, 7:09 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 9, 12:22 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > it is too bad that U.Al cannot engage in debate, because > > > > > > > > > he certainly has a valid "point" about the duality, and > > > > > > > > > that is your only real problem. > > > > > > > > > > admittedly, it is more of a quandary with fullerenes, but > > > > > > > > > there is not even any "where," there, with the "photon" > > > > > > > > > -- unless you think that a Nobel is an adequate laurel, > > > > > > > > > to resurrect Sir Isaac's nutty corpuscle (the one > > > > > > > > > that goes faster in denser media .-) > > > > > > > > > > more precisely, E's neologism of "quantum > > > > > > > > > of light, I shall call, photon," does not neccesitate that > > > > > > > > > "the photon must be a particle (zero-dimensional, > > > > > > > > > no mass, no momentum QED .-) > > > > > > > > > A photon is detected as a particle. > > > > > > > > No, it's not. Where did you get that idea? > > > > > > > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics > > > > > > by the double solution theory > > > > > > Louis de BROGLIE'http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf > > > > > > Some work has been done in detecting photons since this was written. > > > > > Do catch up. > > > > > Do you mean the like the absurd nonsense which causes you to believe > > > > the future determines the past? > > > > They're called experimental measurements. Regardless, the statement "A > > > photon is detected as a particle" is a false statement and is > > > unsupportable with current information. > > > > Feel free to continue to make any false statements you would prefer to > > > be true as long as you wish. I'm sure it feels good. > > > Experimental measurements is determining a C-60 molecule ALWAYS enters > > and exits a single slit because it ALWAYS detected exiting a single > > slit. > > I'm sorry, but you've drifted from the topic. The topic is whether a > photon is detected as a particle. That is a false statement. > > This is separate from the other boondoggle you referred to. > > PD The following is the reason a photon is detected as a particle. 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory Louis de BROGLIE' http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf "I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case of an external field acting on the particle." "This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is located." de Broglie's definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of the wave. You then went on to say this is old and there is a new 'understanding' of what a photon is. I am simply stating that your present 'understanding' of nature requires you to ignore the experimental evidence of a C-60 molecule ALWAYS being detected exiting a single slit and your present 'understanding' of nature which requires the future to determine the past. I am explaining to you how your present 'understanding' of nature is incorrect and de Broglie wave mechanics is a more correct understanding of the physics of nature. A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit in a double slit experiment while the associated aether displacement wave enters and exits multiple slits. The 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 (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no interference.
From: PD on 10 May 2010 14:36 On May 10, 1:24 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 10, 2:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 10, 1:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 10, 1:47 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 10, 12:24 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 10, 11:49 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 10, 9:42 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 10, 10:27 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 9, 7:09 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 9, 12:22 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > it is too bad that U.Al cannot engage in debate, because > > > > > > > > > > he certainly has a valid "point" about the duality, and > > > > > > > > > > that is your only real problem. > > > > > > > > > > > admittedly, it is more of a quandary with fullerenes, but > > > > > > > > > > there is not even any "where," there, with the "photon" > > > > > > > > > > -- unless you think that a Nobel is an adequate laurel, > > > > > > > > > > to resurrect Sir Isaac's nutty corpuscle (the one > > > > > > > > > > that goes faster in denser media .-) > > > > > > > > > > > more precisely, E's neologism of "quantum > > > > > > > > > > of light, I shall call, photon," does not neccesitate that > > > > > > > > > > "the photon must be a particle (zero-dimensional, > > > > > > > > > > no mass, no momentum QED .-) > > > > > > > > > > A photon is detected as a particle. > > > > > > > > > No, it's not. Where did you get that idea? > > > > > > > > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics > > > > > > > by the double solution theory > > > > > > > Louis de BROGLIE'http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf > > > > > > > Some work has been done in detecting photons since this was written. > > > > > > Do catch up. > > > > > > Do you mean the like the absurd nonsense which causes you to believe > > > > > the future determines the past? > > > > > They're called experimental measurements. Regardless, the statement "A > > > > photon is detected as a particle" is a false statement and is > > > > unsupportable with current information. > > > > > Feel free to continue to make any false statements you would prefer to > > > > be true as long as you wish. I'm sure it feels good. > > > > Experimental measurements is determining a C-60 molecule ALWAYS enters > > > and exits a single slit because it ALWAYS detected exiting a single > > > slit. > > > I'm sorry, but you've drifted from the topic. The topic is whether a > > photon is detected as a particle. That is a false statement. > > > This is separate from the other boondoggle you referred to. > > > PD > > The following is the reason a photon is detected as a particle. > > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics > by the double solution theory > Louis de BROGLIE'http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf > > "I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the > wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case > of an external field acting on the particle." > > "This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present > theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave > where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite > natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always > be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is > located." > > de Broglie's definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave > and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of > the wave. > > You then went on to say this is old and there is a new 'understanding' > of what a photon is. I am simply stating that your present > 'understanding' of nature requires you to ignore the experimental > evidence of a C-60 molecule ALWAYS being detected exiting a single > slit and your present 'understanding' of nature which requires the > future to determine the past. > > I am explaining to you how your present 'understanding' of nature is > incorrect and de Broglie wave mechanics is a more correct > understanding of the physics of nature. Nah. de Broglie didn't have access to the experimental information we now have. After all, he's been dead a long time. So, apparently, have you. 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. You don't seem to be particularly in tune with any of that newer information. The statement "a photon is detected as a particle" is a claim about experimental FACT. No "reason" informs the truth of this statement. No "interpretation" makes it true or not. You listed it as a fact. It is an incorrect statement, because more recent information than what was available in 1924 shows that a photon is not always detected as a particle.
From: mpc755 on 10 May 2010 14:38 On May 10, 2:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 10, 1:24 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 10, 2:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 10, 1:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 10, 1:47 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 10, 12:24 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 10, 11:49 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 10, 9:42 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 10, 10:27 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 9, 7:09 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 9, 12:22 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > it is too bad that U.Al cannot engage in debate, because > > > > > > > > > > > he certainly has a valid "point" about the duality, and > > > > > > > > > > > that is your only real problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > admittedly, it is more of a quandary with fullerenes, but > > > > > > > > > > > there is not even any "where," there, with the "photon" > > > > > > > > > > > -- unless you think that a Nobel is an adequate laurel, > > > > > > > > > > > to resurrect Sir Isaac's nutty corpuscle (the one > > > > > > > > > > > that goes faster in denser media .-) > > > > > > > > > > > > more precisely, E's neologism of "quantum > > > > > > > > > > > of light, I shall call, photon," does not neccesitate that > > > > > > > > > > > "the photon must be a particle (zero-dimensional, > > > > > > > > > > > no mass, no momentum QED .-) > > > > > > > > > > > A photon is detected as a particle. > > > > > > > > > > No, it's not. Where did you get that idea? > > > > > > > > > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics > > > > > > > > by the double solution theory > > > > > > > > Louis de BROGLIE'http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf > > > > > > > > Some work has been done in detecting photons since this was written. > > > > > > > Do catch up. > > > > > > > Do you mean the like the absurd nonsense which causes you to believe > > > > > > the future determines the past? > > > > > > They're called experimental measurements. Regardless, the statement "A > > > > > photon is detected as a particle" is a false statement and is > > > > > unsupportable with current information. > > > > > > Feel free to continue to make any false statements you would prefer to > > > > > be true as long as you wish. I'm sure it feels good. > > > > > Experimental measurements is determining a C-60 molecule ALWAYS enters > > > > and exits a single slit because it ALWAYS detected exiting a single > > > > slit. > > > > I'm sorry, but you've drifted from the topic. The topic is whether a > > > photon is detected as a particle. That is a false statement. > > > > This is separate from the other boondoggle you referred to. > > > > PD > > > The following is the reason a photon is detected as a particle. > > > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics > > by the double solution theory > > Louis de BROGLIE'http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf > > > "I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the > > wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case > > of an external field acting on the particle." > > > "This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present > > theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave > > where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite > > natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always > > be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is > > located." > > > de Broglie's definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave > > and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of > > the wave. > > > You then went on to say this is old and there is a new 'understanding' > > of what a photon is. I am simply stating that your present > > 'understanding' of nature requires you to ignore the experimental > > evidence of a C-60 molecule ALWAYS being detected exiting a single > > slit and your present 'understanding' of nature which requires the > > future to determine the past. > > > I am explaining to you how your present 'understanding' of nature is > > incorrect and de Broglie wave mechanics is a more correct > > understanding of the physics of nature. > > Nah. de Broglie didn't have access to the experimental information we > now have. After all, he's been dead a long time. So, apparently, have > you. > > 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. The following is the reason a photon is detected as a particle. 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory Louis de BROGLIE' http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf "I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case of an external field acting on the particle." "This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is located." de Broglie's definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of the wave. You then went on to say this is old and there is a new 'understanding' of what a photon is. I am simply stating that your present 'understanding' of nature requires you to ignore the experimental evidence of a C-60 molecule ALWAYS being detected exiting a single slit and your present 'understanding' of nature which requires the future to determine the past. I am explaining to you how your present 'understanding' of nature is incorrect and de Broglie wave mechanics is a more correct understanding of the physics of nature. A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit in a double slit experiment while the associated aether displacement wave enters and exits multiple slits. The 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 (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no interference. > You don't seem to be particularly in tune with any of that newer > information. > > The statement "a photon is detected as a particle" is a claim about > experimental FACT. No "reason" informs the truth of this statement. No > "interpretation" makes it true or not. You listed it as a fact. It is > an incorrect statement, because more recent information than what was > available in 1924 shows that a photon is not always detected as a > particle.
From: PD on 10 May 2010 14:40 On May 10, 1:38 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 10, 2:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 10, 1:24 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 10, 2:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 10, 1:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 10, 1:47 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 10, 12:24 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 10, 11:49 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 10, 9:42 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 10, 10:27 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 9, 7:09 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 9, 12:22 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is too bad that U.Al cannot engage in debate, because > > > > > > > > > > > > he certainly has a valid "point" about the duality, and > > > > > > > > > > > > that is your only real problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > > admittedly, it is more of a quandary with fullerenes, but > > > > > > > > > > > > there is not even any "where," there, with the "photon" > > > > > > > > > > > > -- unless you think that a Nobel is an adequate laurel, > > > > > > > > > > > > to resurrect Sir Isaac's nutty corpuscle (the one > > > > > > > > > > > > that goes faster in denser media .-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > more precisely, E's neologism of "quantum > > > > > > > > > > > > of light, I shall call, photon," does not neccesitate that > > > > > > > > > > > > "the photon must be a particle (zero-dimensional, > > > > > > > > > > > > no mass, no momentum QED .-) > > > > > > > > > > > > A photon is detected as a particle. > > > > > > > > > > > No, it's not. Where did you get that idea? > > > > > > > > > > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics > > > > > > > > > by the double solution theory > > > > > > > > > Louis de BROGLIE'http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf > > > > > > > > > Some work has been done in detecting photons since this was written. > > > > > > > > Do catch up. > > > > > > > > Do you mean the like the absurd nonsense which causes you to believe > > > > > > > the future determines the past? > > > > > > > They're called experimental measurements. Regardless, the statement "A > > > > > > photon is detected as a particle" is a false statement and is > > > > > > unsupportable with current information. > > > > > > > Feel free to continue to make any false statements you would prefer to > > > > > > be true as long as you wish. I'm sure it feels good. > > > > > > Experimental measurements is determining a C-60 molecule ALWAYS enters > > > > > and exits a single slit because it ALWAYS detected exiting a single > > > > > slit. > > > > > I'm sorry, but you've drifted from the topic. The topic is whether a > > > > photon is detected as a particle. That is a false statement. > > > > > This is separate from the other boondoggle you referred to. > > > > > PD > > > > The following is the reason a photon is detected as a particle. > > > > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics > > > by the double solution theory > > > Louis de BROGLIE'http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001..pdf > > > > "I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the > > > wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case > > > of an external field acting on the particle." > > > > "This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present > > > theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave > > > where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite > > > natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always > > > be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is > > > located." > > > > de Broglie's definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave > > > and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of > > > the wave. > > > > You then went on to say this is old and there is a new 'understanding' > > > of what a photon is. I am simply stating that your present > > > 'understanding' of nature requires you to ignore the experimental > > > evidence of a C-60 molecule ALWAYS being detected exiting a single > > > slit and your present 'understanding' of nature which requires the > > > future to determine the past. > > > > I am explaining to you how your present 'understanding' of nature is > > > incorrect and de Broglie wave mechanics is a more correct > > > understanding of the physics of nature. > > > Nah. de Broglie didn't have access to the experimental information we > > now have. After all, he's been dead a long time. So, apparently, have > > you. > > > 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. Your statement that the photon is always detected as a particle is still factually false.
From: waldofj on 10 May 2010 15:21
> Your statement that the photon is always detected as a particle is > still factually false. I thought that was always the case. Of course I'm thinking in terms of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. When is a photon not detected as a particle? |