Prev: Clocks in relative motion cannot remain synchronized for anylength of time.
Next: The New Engima -- Dork Flow!
From: dlzc on 10 Mar 2010 19:07
Dear "Juan R." González-Álvarez:

On Mar 10, 1:40 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> dlzc wrote on Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:53:50 -0800:
....
> > Sniping, as in posting "Nope" to each statement
> > I made to the OP, with no helpful context.  Not
> > "snipping" / "removing" content that does not
> > apply to the OPs question.
>
> Ahhh, I stand corrected about "sniping" wich I
> miserably read as snipping with a typo, my
> apologies  :-D

None required. English is slippery enough on a good day.

> About your other message, well, "nope" is that
> kind of kindly response that *your "pearls*
> deserve:
>
>   "No quantum object has a "position", only a
> measurement of position with an uncertainty."
>
>   "Because it is difficult to measure a position
> [for photons], only means it is not at rest."
>
>   "Quantum mechanics does not care about position,
> speed, path, or duration."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation
.... hard to consider that QM would be interested in something that is
blithely paves over entirely. Of course, you will claim that I
misrepresented something. Again.

David A. Smith
From: BURT on 10 Mar 2010 19:20
On Mar 10, 4:07 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote:
> Dear "Juan R." González-Álvarez:
>
> On Mar 10, 1:40 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
>
> <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> > dlzc wrote on Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:53:50 -0800:
> ...
> > > Sniping, as in posting "Nope" to each statement
> > > I made to the OP, with no helpful context.  Not
> > > "snipping" / "removing" content that does not
> > > apply to the OPs question.
>
> > Ahhh, I stand corrected about "sniping" wich I
> > miserably read as snipping with a typo, my
> > apologies  :-D
>
> None required.  English is slippery enough on a good day.
>
> > About your other message, well, "nope" is that
> > kind of kindly response that *your "pearls*
> > deserve:
>
> >   "No quantum object has a "position", only a
> >    measurement of position with an uncertainty."
>
> >   "Because it is difficult to measure a position
> >   [for photons], only means it is not at rest."
>
> >   "Quantum mechanics does not care about position,
> >    speed, path, or duration."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation
> ... hard to consider that QM would be interested in something that is
> blithely paves over entirely.  Of course, you will claim that I
> misrepresented something.  Again.
>
> David A. Smith

The only valid quantum or light wave is a sin wave within a sphere.

Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on 10 Mar 2010 19:31
On Mar 9, 5:14 am, marcofuics <marcofu...(a)netscape.net> wrote:
> In my opinion only massive particles could be positioned, not
> massless.
> Massless particle does move at speed of light c; so it is unreachable
> by whatever observational-frame.. then for this reason each observer
> sees it moving at the same c speed. This means that for massless
> particles talk about position has no sense.
> Any idea?

If you get behind light at near light speed it flows ahead of your
flow by inches.

Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on 10 Mar 2010 19:40
On Mar 9, 5:14 am, marcofuics <marcofu...(a)netscape.net> wrote:
> In my opinion only massive particles could be positioned, not
> massless.
> Massless particle does move at speed of light c; so it is unreachable
> by whatever observational-frame.. then for this reason each observer
> sees it moving at the same c speed. This means that for massless
> particles talk about position has no sense.
> Any idea?

There is an idea. There is no stateless state and particle and light
have an objective position in space as they move.

Mitch Raemsch
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 11 Mar 2010 04:25
dlzc wrote on Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:07:55 -0800:

> Dear "Juan R." González-Álvarez:
>
> On Mar 10, 1:40 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> dlzc wrote on Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:53:50 -0800:
> ...
>> > Sniping, as in posting "Nope" to each statement I made to the OP,
>> > with no helpful context.  Not "snipping" / "removing" content that
>> > does not apply to the OPs question.
>>
>> Ahhh, I stand corrected about "sniping" wich I miserably read as
>> snipping with a typo, my apologies  :-D
>
> None required. English is slippery enough on a good day.
>
>> About your other message, well, "nope" is that kind of kindly response
>> that *your "pearls* deserve:
>>
>>   "No quantum object has a "position", only a
>> measurement of position with an uncertainty."
>>
>>   "Because it is difficult to measure a position
>> [for photons], only means it is not at rest."
>>
>>   "Quantum mechanics does not care about position,
>> speed, path, or duration."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation ... hard to
> consider that QM would be interested in something that is blithely paves
> over entirely. Of course, you will claim that I misrepresented
> something. Again.

This goes better:

"This article needs attention from an expert on the subject."

> David A. Smith





--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/

BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Clocks in relative motion cannot remain synchronized for anylength of time.
Next: The New Engima -- Dork Flow!