Proton Radius Cannot Be Derived From Standard Model
in [Logic]
|
Prev: The purpose of the Peano Axioms
Next: Abbreviating First Order Logic With Identity and Membership
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
From: PD on 13 May 2010 14:54 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 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? > > > 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: mpc755 on 13 May 2010 16:05
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 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. 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. > > > > > 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. > > |