Proton Radius Cannot Be Derived From Standard Model
in [Math]
|
From: mpc755 on 13 May 2010 21:32 On May 13, 8:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 13, 5:44 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 13, 5:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 13, 3:05 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 13, 2:54 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 13, 10:59 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > What you said is directly above, quoted. > > > > > It appears you lie even to yourself. > > > > You see why I don't spend much time on you? You can't even acknowledge > > > your lies. > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > That's what the delayed choice experiments have shown, yes. It's > > > > > remarkable what actual, in-front-of-your-eyes experimental data will > > > > > do for you. It'll amaze you and convince you of the most astounding > > > > > things. > > > > > > But then again, what's the point of talking to someone who lies > > > > > incessantly? > > > > > It is easy to understand what occurs physically in nature in a > > > > 'delayed choice quantum eraser' experiment by understanding the > > > > 'particle' travels a single path and the associated aether wave > > > > propagates the available paths, exactly as is support by ALL of the > > > > experimental evidence. > > > > This does not change what I said about delayed choice experiments, and > > > the fact that quantum mechanics accurately describes every observation > > > made in all sorts of experiments. > > > QM assumes the particle exits both slits because it assumes the > > particle creates an interference pattern in and of itself. > > > de Broglie, the originator of wave-particle duality, stated the moving > > particle has an associated EXTERNAL wave. > > No, he did not. But nice try. > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory Louis de BROGLIE' http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf "When in 1923-1924 I had my first ideas about Wave Mechanics I was looking for a truly concrete physical image, valid for all particles, of the wave and particle coexistence discovered by Albert Einstein in his "Theory of light quanta". I had no doubt whatsoever about the physical reality of waves and particles." "Such is, in its main lines, the present state of the Wave mechanics interpretation by the double-solution theory, and its thermodynamical extension. I think that when this interpretation is further elaborated, extended, and eventually modified in some of its aspects, it will lead to a better understanding of the true coexistence of waves and particles about which actual Quantum mechanics only gives statistical information, often correct, but in my opinion incomplete." "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." The EXTERNAL field acting on the particle is the EXTERNAL wave associated with the particle. 'LOUIS DE BROGLIE The wave nature of the electron Nobel Lecture, December 12, 1929' "I thus arrived at the following overall concept which guided my studies: for both matter and radiations, light in particular, it is necessary to introduce the corpuscle concept and the wave concept at the same time. In other words the existence of corpuscles accompanied by waves has to be assumed in all cases." The 'particle' associated with the photon exists at all times, travels a single path, and always occupies a particular point in space. However, without detection, it can not be determined exactly where that point is in three dimensional space. > > With this understanding of > > the physics of nature it is easy to understand why the particle is > > ALWAYS detected entering and exiting a single slit. The reason being, > > because the particle ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. > > Easy for YOU to understand perhaps. > You are unable to understand the fact that the particle is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit is evidence the particle ALWAYS exits a single slit? How long must you adhere to the absurd nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM before you get into such a state of denial as to not understand the impact of experimental evidence? > > > > With the understanding a moving particle has an associated EXTERNAL > > wave, it is easy to understand what occurs in a 'delayed choice > > quantum eraser' experiment. It is easy to understand nothing is > > delayed, nothing is erased. > > Then you do not know how the delayed choice experiments are done. Nice > try, though. The following is an explanation of what occurs in nature in a 'delayed choice quantum eraser' experiment. Following the explanation are two experiments which will provide evidence of Aether Displacement. In the image on the right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experiment When the downgraded photon pair are created, in order for there to be conservation of momentum, the original photons momentum is maintained. This means the downgraded photon pair have opposite angular momentums. We will describe one of the photons as being the 'up' photon and the other photon as being the 'down' photon. One of the downgraded photons travels either the red or blue path towards D0 and the other photon travels either the red or blue path towards the prism. There are physical waves in the aether propagating both the red and blue paths. The aether waves propagating towards D0 interact with the lens and create interference prior to reaching D0. The aether waves create interference which alters the direction the photon travels prior to reaching D0. There are actually two interference patterns being created at D0. One associated with the 'up' photons when they arrive at D0 and the other interference pattern associated with the 'down' photons when they arrive at D0. Both 'up' and 'down' photons are reflected by BSa and arrive at D3. Since there is a single path towards D3 there is nothing for the wave in the aether to interfere with and there is no interference pattern and since it is not determined if it is an 'up' or 'down' photon being detected at D3 there is no way to distinguish between the photons arriving at D0 which interference pattern each photon belongs to. The same for photons reflected by BSb and arrive at D4. Photons which pass through BSa and are reflected by BSc and arrive at D1 are either 'up' or 'down' photons but not both. If 'up' photons arrive at D1 then 'down' photons arrive at D2. The opposite occurs for photons which pass through BSb. Photons which pass through BSa and pass through BSb and arrive at D1 are all either 'up' or 'down' photons. If all 'up' photons arrive at D1 then all 'down' photons arrive at D2. Since the physical waves in the aether traveling both the red and blue paths are combined prior to D1 and D2 the aether waves create interference which alters the direction the photon travels. Since all 'up' photons arrive at one of the detectors and all 'down' photons arrive at the other an interference pattern is created which reflects back to the interference both sets of photons are creating at D0. Figures 3 and 4 here: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9903/9903047v1.pdf Show the interference pattern of the 'up' and 'down' photons. If you were to combine the two images and add the peaks together and add the valleys together you would have the interference pattern of the original photon. This is evidence the downgraded photon pair maintain the original photons momentum and have opposite angular momentums. Nothing is erased. There is no delayed choice. Physical waves in the aether are traveling both the red and blue paths and when the paths are combined the waves create interference which alters the direction the photon 'particle' travels. Experiments which will provide evidence of Aether Displacement: Experiment #1: Instead of having a single beam splitter BSc have two beam splitters BSca and BScb. Have the photons reflected by mirror Ma interact with BSca and have the photons reflected by mirror Mb interact with BScb. Do not combine the red and blue paths. Have additional detectors D1a, D2a, D1b, and D2b. Have the photons reflected by and propagate through BSca be detected at D1a and D2a. Have the photons reflected by and propagate through BScb be detected at D1b and D2b. If you compare the photons detected at D1a and D1b with the photons detected at D0, the corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an interference pattern. If you compare the photons detected at D2a and D2b with the photons detected at D0, the corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an interference pattern. What is occurring is all 'up' photons are being detected at one pair of detectors, for example D1a and D1b, and all 'down' photons are being detected at the other pair of detectors, for example D2a and D2b. Interference patterns do not even need to be created in order to 'go back' and determine the interference patterns created at D0. Experiment #2: Alter the experiment. When the downgraded photon pair are created, have each photon interact with its own double slit apparatus. Have detectors at one of the exits for each double slit apparatus. When a photon is detected at one of the exits, in AD, the photon's aether wave still exists and is propagating along the path exiting the other slit. When a photon is not detected at one of the exits, the photon 'particle' along with its associated aether wave exits the other slit. Combine the path the aether wave the detected photon is propagating along with the path of the other photon and its associated aether wave. An interference pattern will still be created. This shows the aether wave of a detected photon still exists and is able to create interference with the aether wave of another photon, altering the direction the photon 'particle' travels.
From: spudnik on 13 May 2010 23:34 see my reply to you, today, above, on the unfortunate de Broglie photonthingie. (like, if there is *one thing* that is not a particle, it is light. as an exercise, find one thing that might not have a wave-function .-)
From: mpc755 on 13 May 2010 23:44 On May 13, 11:34 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > see my reply to you, today, above, > on the unfortunate de Broglie photonthingie. (like, > if there is *one thing* that is not a particle, > it is light. as an exercise, > find one thing that might not have a wave-function .-) A moving particle has an associated aether wave. The particle occupies a very small region of the wave. The particle ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit in a double slit experiment. The associated aether wave enters and exits both slits. The wave creates interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the particle travels. Detecting the particle causes decoherence of the associated aether wave and there is no interference. If you want to conceptually consider the 'particle' associated with a photon to be a very small region of the wave itself where it is detected as a particle then that is correct. The 'particle' associated with a photon ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit and the wave associated with a photon enters and exits both slits. The particle does not interfere with itself. The associated wave exits the both slits and creates interference which alters the direction the particle travels.
From: spudnik on 13 May 2010 23:57 see my reply, above, and answer *it*, there. anyway, a wave of light just does not need a particle (to guide it, as de Broglie might have said), other than those of the "vacuum" taht it dysturbs, electromeagnetically; what could be simpler than that? the wave "always" enters all slits. just like water through breakwaters. > If you want to conceptually consider the 'particle' associated with a > photon to be a very small region of the wave itself where it is > detected as a particle then that is correct. The 'particle' associated > with a photon ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit and the wave > associated with a photon enters and exits both slits. > > The particle does not interfere with itself. The associated wave exits > the both slits and creates interference which alters the direction the > particle travels.
From: mpc755 on 14 May 2010 00:05
On May 13, 11:57 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > see my reply, above, and answer *it*, there. anyway, > a wave of light just does not need a particle (to guide it, > as de Broglie might have said), '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." de Broglie is saying the wave guides the particle. de Broglie is also saying this "guidance formula" thought of as an external field acting on the particle. The wave and the particle co-exist, but they do not have to be one in the same. For something as complex as a C-60 molecule, the external field acting on the particle is the associated aether wave. > other than those > of the "vacuum" taht it dysturbs, electromeagnetically; > what could be simpler than that? > > the wave "always" enters all slits. > just like water through breakwaters. > The wave associated with a photon enters and exits both slits but the 'particle' associated with a photon enters and exits a single slit. In terms of a photon, consider the 'particle' to be a very small region of the wave itself. |