Proton Radius Cannot Be Derived From Standard Model
in [Math]
|
From: bert on 14 May 2010 11:41 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 .-) > > > I have the experimental evidence. Whenever an experiment is performed > > the particle is always detected exiting a single slit. > > thus: > NB, Lanczos used quaternions in _Variational Mechanics_ > for special relativity, and it's just "real time" and > "three ('imaginary') axes of space;" but, > this is just the original "vectors." so, > compare Lanczos' biquaternions > with the "Cayley-Dickerson doubling" procedure, > to go from real to complex to quaternion to octonion. anyway, > "worldlines" are just the crappola in Minkowski's "pants," > totally obfuscatory outside of a formalism -- > time is not a dimension; time is awareness & mensurability > (of dimensionality !-) > > thus: > Gauss meaasured the curvature > of Earth with his theodolite *and* a chain measure > of distance (working for France in Alsace-Lorraine, > triangulatin' that contested area .-) > > thus: > notice that no-one bothered with the "proofs" that I've seen, and > the statute of limitation is out on that, but, anyway, > I think it must have been Scalia, not Kennedy, > who changed his little, oligarchical "Federalist Society" mind. > > thus: > sorry; I guess, it was Scalia who'd "mooted" a yea on WS-is-WS, but > later came to d'Earl d'O. ... unless it was Breyer, as I may > have read in an article about his retirement. > > > I know of at least three "proofs" that WS was WS, but > > I recently found a text that really '"makes the case," > > once and for all (but the Oxfordians, Rhodesian Scholars, and > > others brainwashed by British Liberal Free Trade, > > capNtrade e.g.). > > what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic; > > his real "proof" is _1599_; > > the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up -- > > especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1. > >http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co..... > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.com > > --Waxman's capNtrade#2 [*]: "Let the arbitrageurs raise the cost > of your energy as much as They can ?!?" * His first such bill was > in '91 under HW on NOx & SO2 viz acid rain; so? To All Photon size will be an unknown Size of its waves Will always be known. Size of photon waves is what we see. What we have machines to detect,and what tells use both size and age of universe. That is reality TreBert
From: spudnik on 14 May 2010 19:21 see?... you absolutely refuze to use these fora for dialogue; so, what can anyone do, except to be amuzed with the catfight between you & the other guy, who refuzes to engage or do any of the math. (not to say, I know how to explain peermitivity & permeability, or or how to explain, say, Snell's law with them, but a) I probably could, and b) you're the one who is supposed to show that your so-called theory has any utility, at all. so, have a no0tehr nice day with your propoganda! thus spoke: 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. --Light: A History! http://wlym.com
From: spudnik on 14 May 2010 19:22 yeah, yeah; you know how to use those macros.
From: mpc755 on 14 May 2010 19:45 On May 14, 7:21 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > thus spoke: > 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. > The above is correct. I realize you can not distinguish between the 'particle' portion of the photon being part of the wave itself and insist the 'particle' portion of the photon is a rock of light. If you want to remain conceptually deficient then that is your choice. Everything I have stated is correct where the photon 'particle' occupies a very small region of the wave itself.
From: mpc755 on 14 May 2010 20:20
On May 14, 7:21 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > thus spoke: > 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. > 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. Everything I have stated is correct where the photon 'particle' occupies a very small region of the wave itself. |