Atoms are 99.999999...% empty space!

On 12/10/2017 18:32, Davoud wrote:
Bill Gill:
That's if you assume that electrons and nuclei are solid objects.
In reality they are ripples in fields which completely fill the space
they occupy (and quite a bit of the space around the atoms).

³I want to emphasize that light comes in this form‹particles. It is
very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially
for those of you have gone to school, where you probably learned
something about light behaving like waves. IÅ’m telling you the way it
*does* behave‹like particles.² ‹Richard Feynman in "QED: The Strange
Theory of Light and Matter." (Emphasis his.)

The trouble with that is that even things we think of as particles can
behave as waves when it suits them (when the experiment asks the right
question). Wave particle duality describes this odd behaviour.

Quantum mechanics is strange - things behave like a wave to decide where
to go (approximately along the path of least time) and then like a
particle when they get there to deliver a quantum of energy.

Electrons, silver atoms and even buckeyballs will obey diffraction in
the Young's slit experiment once you make the slits small enough. They
have pushed the size up a bit since I last looked too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E...ar ge_objects

They can show diffraction of molecules up to about 10000 amu now.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 8:19:54 AM UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:

Quantum mechanics is strange - things behave like a wave to decide where
to go (approximately along the path of least time) and then like a
particle when they get there to deliver a quantum of energy.



People are strange sometimes but creation isn't. Basalt like that of the Giants Causeway in Antrim, Northern Ireland form as hexagons while pyrite crystals form as cubes.

Until a few decades ago it was thought that no natural form could generate pentagonal geometry as pentagons don't fit together neatly like cubes of hexagons but an alloy of aluminium and magnesium produced a geometry that showed pentagonal traits with the trade-off being non periodicity, where the arrangement of crystals and neither ordered or random. Of course the quantum mechanic dudes spoil this by invoking their usual 'is it a bird,is it a plane' spiel but they are best left to their own devices.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasic...iffraction.JPG

The antecedent of the misnamed quasicrystals was Penrose tiling where 4 angles acted like geometric DNA in creating the patterns which are found in alloys and not just schematics on paper. I found a way to account for an encompassing geometry that satisfies why inanimate crystals follow a non-periodic development far removed from each other but this solution would only appeal to those who are visually enchanted by the tiling patterns -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Quasicrystal

I may as well show a picture of Elvis Presley to readers here for all the good it does them but the arrangement of the Penrose tile angles in sequence around a parent 432° geometry is a wonderful story that takes in beauty and efficiency observed throughout nature from the small crystals to stellar evolution.

Davoud quoted Feynman:
"I want to emphasize that light comes in this form--particles. It is
very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially
for those of you have gone to school, where you probably learned
something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it
*does* behave--like particles.² --Richard Feynman in "QED: The Strange
Theory of Light and Matter." (Emphasis his.)

Martin Brown lectured Davoud as if he were a child who never heard of
QM:

The trouble with that is that even things we think of as particles can
behave as waves when it suits them...

Quantum mechanics is strange...

I have a good layman's grasp of QM, thank you. I think that Feynman was
focused on the real world in which photons interact with other matter
-- as particles. That's very important to me, as I am a photographer
and I have a bevy of photon generators, reflectors, diffusers, and
finally, sensors. My cameras wouldn't work if waves were striking my
sensors. Gotta be particles.

--
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

On Friday, 13 October 2017 15:06:22 UTC+2, Davoud wrote:
Davoud quoted Feynman:
"I want to emphasize that light comes in this form--particles. It is
very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially
for those of you have gone to school, where you probably learned
something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it
*does* behave--like particles.² --Richard Feynman in "QED: The Strange
Theory of Light and Matter." (Emphasis his.)

Martin Brown lectured Davoud as if he were a child who never heard of
QM:

The trouble with that is that even things we think of as particles can
behave as waves when it suits them...

Quantum mechanics is strange...

I have a good layman's grasp of QM, thank you. I think that Feynman was
focused on the real world in which photons interact with other matter
-- as particles. That's very important to me, as I am a photographer
and I have a bevy of photon generators, reflectors, diffusers, and
finally, sensors. My cameras wouldn't work if waves were striking my
sensors. Gotta be particles.


Y'all might like to consider that Mr Brown was talking over your head to the vast, assembled crowd of eager listeners.
I seriously doubt he was actually trying to teach his Colonial grandma [several times removed] to suck eggs! ;-))

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 09:06:03 -0400, Davoud wrote:
My cameras wouldn't work if waves were striking my
sensors. Gotta be particles.

Likewise your camera wouldn't work if particles were striking your
lens. Gotta be waves.

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 13:53:13 +0300, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 09:06:03 -0400, Davoud wrote:
My cameras wouldn't work if waves were striking my
sensors. Gotta be particles.

Likewise your camera wouldn't work if particles were striking your
lens. Gotta be waves.

Why do you say that? We fully understand how refractive optics work by
treating photons as particles.

Davoud:
My cameras wouldn't work if waves were striking my
sensors. Gotta be particles.

Paul Schlyter:
Likewise your camera wouldn't work if particles were striking your
lens. Gotta be waves.

Yet Feynman earned his Nobel for explaining, with two other physicists,
how those particles pass through a lens. AFAIK the matter is considered
settled and is no longer the subject of debate.

--
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

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 11:23:06 -0400, Davoud wrote:
Paul Schlyter:
Likewise your camera wouldn't work if particles were striking
your
lens. Gotta be waves.

Yet Feynman earned his Nobel for explaining, with two other
physicists,
how those particles pass through a lens. AFAIK the matter is
considered
settled and is no longer the subject of debate.

So please explain why particles should change direction just because
they change speed.

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 07:33:16 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 13:53:13 +0300, Paul Schlyter
wrote:


On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 09:06:03 -0400, Davoud wrote:
My cameras wouldn't work if waves were striking my
sensors. Gotta be particles.

Likewise your camera wouldn't work if particles were striking your
lens. Gotta be waves.

Why do you say that? We fully understand how refractive optics work
by
treating photons as particles.

Then please explain why particles should change direction just
because they change speed. In that respect they behave just like
waves...

On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 2:35:06 PM UTC-7, StarDust wrote:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=....astro.amateur

In reality, we are empty space, pure energy!
We have to eat each other to keep this energy going!

Atoms are mostly empty space.
https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qim...2e9b17b73a70-c