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: spudnik on 28 May 2010 23:10 OK, you have to be "such a clown" -- I, myself, am well-known, locally, as a Shoe Clown. you waffle back & forth on something which is of utterly no need; of course, it has to have a mass, to have a momentum; without the assumption, the energy-accounting is not paradoxical. it is not that "the particle needn't be a particle," as you aver, but that "the quantum need not be a particle;" quantum is number, with properties to be determined by experimental combination with all of the "known" quantifications of the theory. Schroedinger's cat deosn't want you to kick the box, if she's still alive. > A particle which is a very small region of the wave itself has > momentum. The downgraded photon pair which consists of two 'particles' > may very well occupy a very small region of the wave itself maintain > the original photon 'particles' momentum. > > The photon 'particle' does not have to be a "rock o'light" in order to > have momentum.
From: mpc755 on 28 May 2010 23:53 On May 28, 8:51 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 28, 6:11 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 27, 5:57 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 26, 1:40 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On May 26, 4:34 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 26, 1:30 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Explain how what you choose to believe occurs physically in nature: > > > > > > This is a good example of you having to be right rather than what is > > > > > right. You insist that nobody has something as right as you. You are > > > > > an hypocrite. > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > A wave proton is a three point energy time form that vibrates at two > > > slow rates. As such all particles are infinitely small. They all > > > vibrate slower in slower two-time. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > "Wave proton". > > > A moving proton has an associated wave. The proton particle enters and > > exits a single slit in a double slit experiment. The wave associated > > with the proton enters and exits both slits in a double slit > > experiment. The wave creates interference upon exiting the slits which > > alters the direction the proton particle travels. Detecting the proton > > particle causes decoherence of the associated wave (i.e turns the wave > > into chop) and there is no interference. > > > A moving proton has an associated aether wave. > > A moving proton has an associated aether displacement wave.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > A wave electron and a wave proton can collapse because of light's > electric flow over their electric fields. Light flow cannot collapse > a wave neutron. It is not electric. > > Mitch Raemsch The moving electron particle has an associated wave. The moving proton particle has an associated wave. The moving photon particle has an associated wave. The electron/proton/photon particle travels a single path. The electron/proton/photon particle enters and exits a single path in a double slit experiment. The associated wave enters and exits both slits in a double slit experiment. The wave creates interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the electron/proton/ photon particle travels. Detecting the electron/proton/photon particle causes decoherence of the associated wave (i.e. turns the wave into chop) and there is no interference.
From: mpc755 on 29 May 2010 00:01 On May 28, 11:10 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > OK, you have to be "such a clown" -- I, myself, am well-known, > locally, as a Shoe Clown. > > you waffle back & forth on something which is of utterly no need; of > course, > it has to have a mass, to have a momentum; without the assumption, > the energy-accounting is not paradoxical. it is not that > "the particle needn't be a particle," as you aver, but that > "the quantum need not be a particle;" quantum is number, > with properties to be determined by experimental combination > with all of the "known" quantifications of the theory. > > Schroedinger's cat deosn't want you to kick the box, > if she's still alive. > > > A particle which is a very small region of the wave itself has > > momentum. The downgraded photon pair which consists of two 'particles' > > may very well occupy a very small region of the wave itself maintain > > the original photon 'particles' momentum. > > > The photon 'particle' does not have to be a "rock o'light" in order to > > have momentum. > > Quantum is not a number. Quantum is an amount of material. Quantum is an amount of mæther. Quantum is the amount of mæther associated with a photon which interacts with matter.
From: spudnik on 29 May 2010 00:07 thank you, Maetherwocky! > > Schroedinger's cat deosn't want you to kick the box, > > if she's still alive. > Quantum is not a number. Quantum is an amount of material. Quantum is > an amount of mæther. Quantum is the amount of mæther associated with a > photon which interacts with matter.
From: mpc755 on 29 May 2010 00:11
On May 29, 12:07 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > thank you, Maetherwocky! > > > Quantum is not a number. Quantum is an amount of material. Quantum is > > an amount of mæther. Quantum is the amount of mæther associated with a > > photon which interacts with matter. No prob. You heard it here first. |