Proton Radius Cannot Be Derived From Standard Model
in [Math]
|
From: mpc755 on 9 May 2010 08:09 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. My preferred concept of a photon is as a directed/pointed wave which collapses and is detected as a particle. > > 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?
From: spudnik on 9 May 2010 16:02 in the meantime, I realized a fromalism for the "splitting" of the fullerene. anyway, you are simply wrong about the detection of a photon; that is merely a prevailing interpretation of a "beep" in the electronics; you could just as well say, the beep is a "phonon." whether the splitting of a fullerene actually might occur in the experiment, would require more detail; but, I'm sure you could tell, what degree of "preparation" is needed to do the experiment, and how much artifice is involved. that is, how did they get a bunch of pure C-60, or how pure was it, in the first place? the real question is, Can you actually explain a property of light, such as permitivity & permeability, or Snell's law of refraction, or can we explain the latter two in terms of one another, in the first place?... or is it just a nicety of poesy, that you think that you have created out of no air (vacuum) ?? and, we've seen your prefered pictograph, the one that is the same as de Broglie's attempt (a linear "wave" -- an oscilloscope trace, actually -- with a "particle" at its tip, like an arrow that was aimed at your cone-head .-) > A photon is detected as a particle. My preferred concept of a photon > is as a directed/pointed wave which collapses and is detected as a > particle. thus: there is a standard answer to the question, Am you on drugs?... which is, Ask my God-am lawyer, Fool! there is also a very standard answer to, How many "holes" are there in the ozone, although it is quite silly, or merely inadequate, but not "one;" do you recall this "news?" > > > How many "holes" in the ozonosphere, are there? 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?
From: mpc755 on 9 May 2010 16:59 On May 9, 4:02 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > in the meantime, I realized a fromalism > for the "splitting" of the fullerene. anyway, > you are simply wrong about the detection of a photon; > that is merely a prevailing interpretation of a "beep" > in the electronics; you could just as well say, > the beep is a "phonon." > > whether the splitting of a fullerene actually might occur > in the experiment, would require more detail; If the C-60 molecule actually split in the experiment and you placed detectors at the exits to the slits the instant prior to the C-60 molecule exiting the slit then the C-60 molecule would not be detected exiting a single slit. Detectors are placed at the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). The C-60 molecule is detected exiting a single slit. Detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). The C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern. Now, I realize you like all others, except for one poster who insists the future determines the past, can not answer this question. The reason why you can not answer this question is because the C-60 molecule ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit in a double slit experiment and it is the aether displacement wave which enters and exits multiple slits. When detectors are placed at the exits to the slits the C-60 molecule is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit because the C-60 molecule ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. The detectors at the exits to the slits cause decoherence of the associated aether displacement wave and there is no interference. Placing and removing the detectors from the exits to the slits allows the associated aether displacement wave to create interference which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. The C-60 molecule does not split. If it did split there would be experimental evidence of it. The C-60 molecule is ALWAYS detected entering and exiting a single slit in a double slit experiment because the C-60 molecule ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. > but, > I'm sure you could tell, what degree of "preparation" is needed > to do the experiment, and how much artifice is involved. that is, > how did they get a bunch of pure C-60, or how pure was it, > in the first place? > > the real question is, > Can you actually explain a property of light, such > as permitivity & permeability, or Snell's law of refraction, or > can we explain the latter two in terms of one another, > in the first place?... or is it just a nicety of poesy, > that you think that you have created out of no air (vacuum) ?? > > and, we've seen your prefered pictograph, > the one that is the same as de Broglie's attempt > (a linear "wave" -- an oscilloscope trace, actually -- > with a "particle" at its tip, like an arrow that was aimed > at your cone-head .-) > > > A photon is detected as a particle. My preferred concept of a photon > > is as a directed/pointed wave which collapses and is detected as a > > particle. > > thus: > there is a standard answer to the question, > Am you on drugs?... which is, > Ask my God-am lawyer, Fool! > > there is also a very standard answer to, > How many "holes" are there in the ozone, although > it is quite silly, or merely inadequate, but not "one;" > do you recall this "news?" > > > > > How many "holes" in the ozonosphere, are there? > > 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?
From: BURT on 9 May 2010 17:08 On May 9, 1:59 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 9, 4:02 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > in the meantime, I realized a fromalism > > for the "splitting" of the fullerene. anyway, > > you are simply wrong about the detection of a photon; > > that is merely a prevailing interpretation of a "beep" > > in the electronics; you could just as well say, > > the beep is a "phonon." > > > whether the splitting of a fullerene actually might occur > > in the experiment, would require more detail; > > If the C-60 molecule actually split in the experiment and you placed > detectors at the exits to the slits the instant prior to the C-60 > molecule exiting the slit then the C-60 molecule would not be detected > exiting a single slit. > > Detectors are placed at the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule > is in the slit(s). The C-60 molecule is detected exiting a single > slit. Detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits > while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). The C-60 molecule creates > an interference pattern. > > Now, I realize you like all others, except for one poster who insists > the future determines the past, can not answer this question. The > reason why you can not answer this question is because the C-60 > molecule ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit in a double slit > experiment and it is the aether displacement wave which enters and > exits multiple slits. When detectors are placed at the exits to the > slits the C-60 molecule is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit > because the C-60 molecule ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. The > detectors at the exits to the slits cause decoherence of the > associated aether displacement wave and there is no interference. > Placing and removing the detectors from the exits to the slits allows > the associated aether displacement wave to create interference which > alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. > > The C-60 molecule does not split. If it did split there would be > experimental evidence of it. > > The C-60 molecule is ALWAYS detected entering and exiting a single > slit in a double slit experiment because the C-60 molecule ALWAYS > enters and exits a single slit. > > > > > but, > > I'm sure you could tell, what degree of "preparation" is needed > > to do the experiment, and how much artifice is involved. that is, > > how did they get a bunch of pure C-60, or how pure was it, > > in the first place? > > > the real question is, > > Can you actually explain a property of light, such > > as permitivity & permeability, or Snell's law of refraction, or > > can we explain the latter two in terms of one another, > > in the first place?... or is it just a nicety of poesy, > > that you think that you have created out of no air (vacuum) ?? > > > and, we've seen your prefered pictograph, > > the one that is the same as de Broglie's attempt > > (a linear "wave" -- an oscilloscope trace, actually -- > > with a "particle" at its tip, like an arrow that was aimed > > at your cone-head .-) > > > > A photon is detected as a particle. My preferred concept of a photon > > > is as a directed/pointed wave which collapses and is detected as a > > > particle. > > > thus: > > there is a standard answer to the question, > > Am you on drugs?... which is, > > Ask my God-am lawyer, Fool! > > > there is also a very standard answer to, > > How many "holes" are there in the ozone, although > > it is quite silly, or merely inadequate, but not "one;" > > do you recall this "news?" > > > > > > How many "holes" in the ozonosphere, are there? > > > 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?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - How many kinds ot aether waves are there?
From: mpc755 on 9 May 2010 17:15
On May 9, 5:08 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 9, 1:59 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 9, 4:02 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > in the meantime, I realized a fromalism > > > for the "splitting" of the fullerene. anyway, > > > you are simply wrong about the detection of a photon; > > > that is merely a prevailing interpretation of a "beep" > > > in the electronics; you could just as well say, > > > the beep is a "phonon." > > > > whether the splitting of a fullerene actually might occur > > > in the experiment, would require more detail; > > > If the C-60 molecule actually split in the experiment and you placed > > detectors at the exits to the slits the instant prior to the C-60 > > molecule exiting the slit then the C-60 molecule would not be detected > > exiting a single slit. > > > Detectors are placed at the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule > > is in the slit(s). The C-60 molecule is detected exiting a single > > slit. Detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits > > while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). The C-60 molecule creates > > an interference pattern. > > > Now, I realize you like all others, except for one poster who insists > > the future determines the past, can not answer this question. The > > reason why you can not answer this question is because the C-60 > > molecule ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit in a double slit > > experiment and it is the aether displacement wave which enters and > > exits multiple slits. When detectors are placed at the exits to the > > slits the C-60 molecule is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit > > because the C-60 molecule ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. The > > detectors at the exits to the slits cause decoherence of the > > associated aether displacement wave and there is no interference. > > Placing and removing the detectors from the exits to the slits allows > > the associated aether displacement wave to create interference which > > alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. > > > The C-60 molecule does not split. If it did split there would be > > experimental evidence of it. > > > The C-60 molecule is ALWAYS detected entering and exiting a single > > slit in a double slit experiment because the C-60 molecule ALWAYS > > enters and exits a single slit. > > > > but, > > > I'm sure you could tell, what degree of "preparation" is needed > > > to do the experiment, and how much artifice is involved. that is, > > > how did they get a bunch of pure C-60, or how pure was it, > > > in the first place? > > > > the real question is, > > > Can you actually explain a property of light, such > > > as permitivity & permeability, or Snell's law of refraction, or > > > can we explain the latter two in terms of one another, > > > in the first place?... or is it just a nicety of poesy, > > > that you think that you have created out of no air (vacuum) ?? > > > > and, we've seen your prefered pictograph, > > > the one that is the same as de Broglie's attempt > > > (a linear "wave" -- an oscilloscope trace, actually -- > > > with a "particle" at its tip, like an arrow that was aimed > > > at your cone-head .-) > > > > > A photon is detected as a particle. My preferred concept of a photon > > > > is as a directed/pointed wave which collapses and is detected as a > > > > particle. > > > > thus: > > > there is a standard answer to the question, > > > Am you on drugs?... which is, > > > Ask my God-am lawyer, Fool! > > > > there is also a very standard answer to, > > > How many "holes" are there in the ozone, although > > > it is quite silly, or merely inadequate, but not "one;" > > > do you recall this "news?" > > > > > > > How many "holes" in the ozonosphere, are there? > > > > 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?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > How many kinds ot aether waves are there? There aether behaves as a one something. As such there are only aether waves in the aether. |