A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Atoms are 99.999999...% empty space!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old October 23rd 17, 07:11 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris.B[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 798
Default Atoms are 99.999999...% empty space!

On Sunday, 22 October 2017 21:24:15 UTC+2, Davoud wrote:
Paul Schlyter:
Which means they are not just particles, they are waves too.
Particle-wave duality, you know...


Davoud:
Illusory. My primary care quantum mechanician says "Fields. Every
particle. It's all fields. The Universe is made of fields."


Paul Schlyter:
And variations in these fields are...
particles^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hwaves...


No, variations in those fields give the illusion of being particles.
And particles may sometimes give the illusion of being waves. But that
doesn't matter. It's the particles that count.


Nature isn't cough particular about the choice of terms.

The mechanism must be truly universal and work in all possible conditions of gases, liquids and matter in all gravitational fields.

It's lucky there is so much space for the "particles" to play out their lives. Just grazing in the fields and surfing the waves.
Until somebody discovers their secrets and harnesses their energy to make a better widget. ;-)
Ads
  #42  
Old October 23rd 17, 07:46 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 889
Default Atoms are 99.999999...% empty space!

Watching qm turn into an open joke that it always was should be more enjoyable than it actually is. The proponents can live with grossly unhealthy assertions but will not engage themselves in these propositions when they arise from time to time at normal levels. Ask them at what point the direction of rotation stops such as found in the longitude system converge at the North and South poles. The human mind is not required to go there but these theorists exploit these things and unfortunately carry the wider population with them.
  #43  
Old October 23rd 17, 12:29 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Paul Schlyter[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 986
Default Atoms are 99.999999...% empty space!

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 13:11:13 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 21:49:06 +0300, Paul Schlyter
wrote:


On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 11:59:20 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 19:38:26 +0300, Paul Schlyter
wrote:


Well, they are not waves at all. Photons are particles, and

one
of
the
consequences of QM is that particles have certain wave-like
properties.

Which would imply that the recently discovered gravitational

waves
aren't waves at all. They are particles - grsvitons. Well, how

many
grsvitons per square meter and second did we receive during

these
events? How do we find that out?


Why would you make that inference?


Because QM predicts gravitons, and you seem to prefer particles

over
waves.


QM most certainly does not predict gravitons. Assuming that QM and
gravity can be unified (which is desired based on arguments of
elegance, but is by no means required by the Universe), gravitons
become a possible solution. That's all.


OK, let's return to light. You said it was neither particles nor
waves, yet you want to call it particles. Why?
  #44  
Old October 23rd 17, 12:31 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Paul Schlyter[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 986
Default Atoms are 99.999999...% empty space!

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:24:13 -0400, Davoud wrote:
Paul Schlyter:
Which means they are not just particles, they are waves too.
Particle-wave duality, you know...


Davoud:
Illusory. My primary care quantum mechanician says "Fields.

Every
particle. It's all fields. The Universe is made of fields."


Paul Schlyter:
And variations in these fields are...
particles^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hwaves...


No, variations in those fields give the illusion of being particles.
And particles may sometimes give the illusion of being waves. But

that
doesn't matter. It's the particles that count.


If you ignore the wave aspect of light, how do you account for the
fact that glass refracted light?
  #45  
Old October 23rd 17, 02:27 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 889
Default Atoms are 99.999999...% empty space!

I believe I settled all this well over a decade ago with John Baez who didn't hang around.

The issue of the Planck length as a geometric quantity works in with the non periodic structure of the Pi proportion where the number are neither random or ordered - 3.1415927....

In an attempt to set a lower geometric limit using the planck length as a diameter to create a greater circumference thereby creating the Pi proportion, it indicates that the Pi proportion is also periodic with a definite value rather than an infinite non periodic series. As a radius can be created out of a circle ,it puts an impossible strain on both arithmetic,language and geometry to assign lower limits to observations for a reasonable person would lose their minds.

  #46  
Old October 23rd 17, 02:46 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,502
Default Atoms are 99.999999...% empty space!

On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 14:29:14 +0300, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

OK, let's return to light. You said it was neither particles nor
waves, yet you want to call it particles. Why?


If you're going to use a plain English word, "particles" is best for
light, since it's make up of photons, which the word fairly reasonably
describes. But if you want to really understand things, you need to
work with the mathematics of QM.
  #47  
Old October 23rd 17, 05:07 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Davoud[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,915
Default Atoms are 99.999999...% empty space!

Davoud:
...doesn't matter. It's the particles that count.


Paul Schlyter:
If you ignore the wave aspect of light, how do you account for the
fact that glass refracted light?


I told you to read Feynman's "QED." It will explain all. Or almost all.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
  #48  
Old October 23rd 17, 08:17 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 889
Default Atoms are 99.999999...% empty space!

On Monday, October 23, 2017 at 5:07:51 PM UTC+1, Davoud wrote:


I told you to read Feynman's "QED." It will explain all. Or almost all.

--



These are merely a breed of chancers pointing to theorists who simply made things up as they went along. As Roemer's use of the Equation of Time in his assertions on Io and light speed was central to Newton's use of it his idiosyncratic and ultimately idiotic absolute/relative time, I saw this Feynmann try to put Roemer's work after Newton's -

"...were ahead of schedule when Jupiter was close to the earth and
behind schedule when it was far away, a rather odd circumstance. Mr.
Roemer [Olaus Roemer, 1644-1710, Danish astronomer], having confidence
in the Law of Gravitation, came to the interesting conclusion that it
takes light some time to travel from the moons of Jupiter to the
earth.." Character of Physical Law, Feynmann

Of course clowns are only so good as their audience and because all of you are stuck with celestial sphere software and the mentality that drives it, I have to spend some time learning how to design the accurate software which accounts for observations outside the calendar driven RA/Dec celestial sphere convenience. All these lazy and silly fools strutting around with wordplays and I have to bring myself up to speed with computer language.

  #49  
Old October 24th 17, 07:57 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 889
Default Atoms are 99.999999...% empty space!

On Monday, October 23, 2017 at 2:46:45 PM UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 14:29:14 +0300, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

OK, let's return to light. You said it was neither particles nor
waves, yet you want to call it particles. Why?


If you're going to use a plain English word, "particles" is best for
light, since it's make up of photons, which the word fairly reasonably
describes. But if you want to really understand things, you need to
work with the mathematics of QM.


This is all thumbsucking, the dark energy/matter stuff didn't work out so everyone is running home to mama (qm/relativity) but unfortunately destroying the last great astronomical spectacle in the process, in this case the supernova.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Empty Space is NOT Empty StarDust Amateur Astronomy 2 January 6th 17 08:47 PM
The Space Between Atoms StarDust Amateur Astronomy 27 September 15th 16 12:00 PM
Is Space Really Empty David Spain Science 18 February 27th 13 04:20 AM
Is Space Really Empty h v mohanlal Space Station 1 November 16th 12 11:58 PM
Space and Why it Seems Empty ??? G=EMC^2 Glazier Misc 3 January 28th 07 03:46 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.