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: 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.
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 |