Proton Radius Cannot Be Derived From Standard Model
in [Math]
|
From: PD on 13 May 2010 09:56 On May 12, 10:44 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > No one, except for the one person who insists the future determines > the past has been able to explain how it is the particle is ALWAYS > detected when detectors are placed at the exits to the slits while the > particle is in the slit(s) and the particle is able to create an > interference pattern when the detectors are placed and removed from > the exits. > You speak of delusional detachment of reality. There are at least a hundred books written by different authors that explain quantum mechanics, and how it is the particle is always detected when detectors are placed at the slits and how the particle is able to create an interference pattern when the detectors are removed from the slits. And yet you say that no one has been able to explain it. Who's delusional here. PD
From: mpc755 on 13 May 2010 10:08 On May 13, 9:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 12, 10:44 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > No one, except for the one person who insists the future determines > > the past has been able to explain how it is the particle is ALWAYS > > detected when detectors are placed at the exits to the slits while the > > particle is in the slit(s) and the particle is able to create an > > interference pattern when the detectors are placed and removed from > > the exits. > > You speak of delusional detachment of reality. > > There are at least a hundred books written by different authors that > explain quantum mechanics, and how it is the particle is always > detected when detectors are placed at the slits and how the particle > is able to create an interference pattern when the detectors are > removed from the slits. > > And yet you say that no one has been able to explain it. > > Who's delusional here. > > PD ALL of the books assume the particle exits both slits because it is assumed the particle creates the interference pattern in and of itself. The Copenhagen interpretation of QM is an assumption based upon an assumption. There is ZERO experimental evidence of the particle EVER exiting both slits. A moving particle has an associated wave. A moving particle has an associated external wave. A moving particle has an associated aether wave. The moving particle is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit because it ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. This is what ALL of the experimental evidence indicates. The associated aether wave enters and exits both slits and creates interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the particle travels. Detecting the particle causes decoherence of the associated aether wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no interference. The associated aether wave is supported by ALL of the experimental evidence. ALL of the experimental evidence indicates the particle ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit.
From: PD on 13 May 2010 10:35 On May 13, 9:08 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 13, 9:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 12, 10:44 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > No one, except for the one person who insists the future determines > > > the past has been able to explain how it is the particle is ALWAYS > > > detected when detectors are placed at the exits to the slits while the > > > particle is in the slit(s) and the particle is able to create an > > > interference pattern when the detectors are placed and removed from > > > the exits. > > > You speak of delusional detachment of reality. > > > There are at least a hundred books written by different authors that > > explain quantum mechanics, and how it is the particle is always > > detected when detectors are placed at the slits and how the particle > > is able to create an interference pattern when the detectors are > > removed from the slits. > > > And yet you say that no one has been able to explain it. > > > Who's delusional here. > > > PD > > ALL of the books assume the particle exits both slits because it is > assumed the particle creates the interference pattern in and of > itself. And yet you said there is no one who has been able to explain it. That was a lie, and you know it. There really is no point discussing physics with a pathological liar. You see what I mean about you not getting any answers because of your diseased personality? I'll point out that the above statement beginning "ALL of the books..." is ALSO a lie, because you've not read a single one of them. Enjoy your fantasy life. Lie all you want. Howzat working for ya? > > The Copenhagen interpretation of QM is an assumption based upon an > assumption. > > There is ZERO experimental evidence of the particle EVER exiting both > slits. > > A moving particle has an associated wave. A moving particle has an > associated external wave. A moving particle has an associated aether > wave. > > The moving particle is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit because > it ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. This is what ALL of the > experimental evidence indicates. > > The associated aether wave enters and exits both slits and creates > interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the > particle travels. Detecting the particle causes decoherence of the > associated aether wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no > interference. The associated aether wave is supported by ALL of the > experimental evidence. ALL of the experimental evidence indicates the > particle ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit.
From: mpc755 on 13 May 2010 11:59 On May 13, 10:35 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 13, 9:08 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 13, 9:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 12, 10:44 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > No one, except for the one person who insists the future determines > > > > the past has been able to explain how it is the particle is ALWAYS > > > > detected when detectors are placed at the exits to the slits while the > > > > particle is in the slit(s) and the particle is able to create an > > > > interference pattern when the detectors are placed and removed from > > > > the exits. > > > > You speak of delusional detachment of reality. > > > > There are at least a hundred books written by different authors that > > > explain quantum mechanics, and how it is the particle is always > > > detected when detectors are placed at the slits and how the particle > > > is able to create an interference pattern when the detectors are > > > removed from the slits. > > > > And yet you say that no one has been able to explain it. > > > > Who's delusional here. > > > > PD > > > ALL of the books assume the particle exits both slits because it is > > assumed the particle creates the interference pattern in and of > > itself. > > And yet you said there is no one who has been able to explain it. > That was a lie, and you know it. I said no one on this forum, except for the one poster who insists the future determines the past, can explain it. You do realize if the slits are long enough that it takes the particle a year to propagate through them you are insisting the particle will enter one slit or both slits depending upon what occurs a year in the future. > There really is no point discussing physics with a pathological liar. > You see what I mean about you not getting any answers because of your > diseased personality? > > I'll point out that the above statement beginning "ALL of the > books..." is ALSO a lie, because you've not read a single one of them. > > Enjoy your fantasy life. Lie all you want. Howzat working for ya? > It is typical of the state of all those who choose to believe in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. The Copenhageners exist in a state of delusional denial. Copenhageners can't even bring themselves to understand the obvious assumption based upon an assumption inherent in their interpretation of QM. ALL of the experiments ever performed in double slit experiment have ALWAYS detected the particle entering and exiting a single slit. Since the Copenhageners misinterpret wave-particle duality to mean the particle is the wave they are then forced to assume the particle creates the interference pattern in and of itself which forces them to assume the particle exiting both slits. de Broglie, who originated wave-particle duality, stated the particle has an EXTERNAL wave. The particle is NOT the wave. The moving particle has an associated EXTERNAL wave. The particle occupies a very small region of the EXTERNAL wave. In a double slit experiment the moving particle has an associated aether wave. The particle ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. A fact supported by ALL of the experimental evidence. The associated aether wave enters and exits both slits. The wave creates interference upon exiting the slits which alter the direction the particle, which exits a single slit, travels. Detecting the particle causes decoherence of the EXTERNAL wave (i.e. turns the EXTERNAL wave into chop) and there is no interference. > > > > The Copenhagen interpretation of QM is an assumption based upon an > > assumption. > > > There is ZERO experimental evidence of the particle EVER exiting both > > slits. > > > A moving particle has an associated wave. A moving particle has an > > associated external wave. A moving particle has an associated aether > > wave. > > > The moving particle is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit because > > it ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. This is what ALL of the > > experimental evidence indicates. > > > The associated aether wave enters and exits both slits and creates > > interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the > > particle travels. Detecting the particle causes decoherence of the > > associated aether wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no > > interference. The associated aether wave is supported by ALL of the > > experimental evidence. ALL of the experimental evidence indicates the > > particle ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. > >
From: spudnik on 13 May 2010 14:44
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! > Thorium has other interesting features. For example, in > oxide form as would probably be used, Thorium has a > higher thermal conductivity than Uranium oxide. That > means the fuel will be cooler for any given power output. > It's got interesting mechanical properties also. > There are a number of new reactor designs being touted. > http://thorium.50webs.com/ thus: Copenhagen's "reifiying" of the mere probabilities of detection, is the biggest problem, whence comes both "perfect vacuum" and "quantum foam" etc. ad vomitorium, as well as the brain-dead "photon" of massless and momentumless and pointy rocks o'light, perfectly aimed at the recieving cone in your eye, like a small pizza pie. thus: all vacuums are good, if they suck hard enough, but there is no absolute vacuum, either on theoretical or Copenhagenskooler fuzzy math grounds. thus: magnetohydrodynamics is probably the way to go, yes; not "perfect vacuum or bearings" -- and, where did the link about YORP, include any thing about the air-pressure?... seems to me, it's assuming Pascal's old, perfected Plenum. twist your mind away from the "illustrated in _Conceptual Physics/for Dummies_" nothingness of the massless & momentumless & pointy "photon" of the Nobel-winning "effect" in an electronic device -- yeah, CCDs -- the Committee's lame attempt to "save the dysappearance" of Newton's corpuscle. also, please don't brag about free God-am energy, til you can demonstrate it in a perpetuum mobile! > It stops because it has bad bearings. These asteroids thus: so, a lightmill is that thing with black & white vanes on a spindle in a relative vacuum? you can't rely on "rocks o'light" to impart momentum to these vanes, only to be absorbed electromagnetically by atoms in them; then, perhaps, the "warm side" will have some aerodynamic/thermal effect on the air in the bulb, compared to the cool one. thus: even if neutrinos don't exist, Michelson and Morely didn't get no results! > Could neutrino availability affect decay rates? thus: every technique has problems. like, you can't grow hemp-for haemorrhoids under a photovoltaic, without a good lightbulb. the real problem is that, if Santa Monica is any indication, the solar-subsidy bandwagon is part of the cargo-cult from Southwest Asia (as is the compact flourescent lightbub, the LED lightbulb etc. ad vomitorium). > Government subsidies, and fat returns on PVs? --Light: A History! http://wlym.com |