|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Atoms are 99.999999...% empty space!
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 09:53:56 +0300, Paul Schlyter
wrote: On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 10:57:10 -0600, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 19:46:13 +0300, Paul Schlyter wrote: Because particles are described by wave functions. Particles behave in a probabilistic way. Which means they are not just particles, they are waves too. Particle-wave duality, you know... They are neither. Both words are just English approximations of the physical description. So then we need a new word to label them. Any suggestions? No, the existing labels are just fine. The concepts are only fully described by mathematics. Any discussion of QM in non-technical, non-mathematical language is at best an approximation, something intended to get the broad concept across. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Atoms are 99.999999...% empty space!
On Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 4:05:18 PM UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 09:53:56 +0300, Paul Schlyter wrote: On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 10:57:10 -0600, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 19:46:13 +0300, Paul Schlyter wrote: Because particles are described by wave functions. Particles behave in a probabilistic way. Which means they are not just particles, they are waves too. Particle-wave duality, you know... They are neither. Both words are just English approximations of the physical description. So then we need a new word to label them. Any suggestions? No, the existing labels are just fine. The concepts are only fully described by mathematics. This phony dithering around looks out of place these days unless people want to waste another 100 years caught up in wordplays that entertain theorists at the expense of astronomy and the links to terrestrial sciences. I freely offer the partitioning of perspectives of direct/retrogrades motions between Venus and Mercury seen from a slower moving Earth as distinct from the direct/retrograde motions of Mars,Jupiter and Saturn ect as this hasn't been done before. That being said it is almost complete other than accounting for the Earth's orbital motion in respect to the faster moving Venus and Mercury. https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html http://www.popastro.com/images/plane...ary%202012.jpg Real objects to look at and interpret the solar system structure and the motions of the planets in a descriptive way that appeals to normal judgments of motion. There is enough there for all sorts of modelling but this notion that mathematicians have some insight denied the wider population is finished and seen to be finished. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Atoms are 99.999999...% empty space!
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 09:05:18 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote: On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 09:53:56 +0300, Paul Schlyter wrote: On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 10:57:10 -0600, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 19:46:13 +0300, Paul Schlyter wrote: Because particles are described by wave functions. Particles behave in a probabilistic way. Which means they are not just particles, they are waves too. Particle-wave duality, you know... They are neither. Both words are just English approximations of the physical description. So then we need a new word to label them. Any suggestions? No, the existing labels are just fine. The concepts are only fully described by mathematics. Any discussion of QM in non-technical, non-mathematical language is at best an approximation, something intended to get the broad concept across. So what's your objection against describing them as both particles and waves? That's the best non-mathematical term giving a hint of the complexity of the matter, isn't it? |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Atoms are 99.999999...% empty space!
The theorists cast pathetic figures these days but on the bright side some researchers are just going ahead and looking at electromagnetic signatures for planetary dynamics anyway. The 'theory of gravity' was a nondescript use of observations for wishful thinking anyway so it is no surprise to see the tone of the followers here who try their hand at the usual voodoo.
Probably the inability to actually use the Earth's magnetic field and its shifting location is one of the great collateral damage of the late 17th century wordplays but that too looks like it is changing back to a more familiar view where observers once were focusing on the effects of the motion of larger objects in space on smaller objects - "The Sun and the Earth rotate on their own axes...The purpose of this motion is to confer motion on the planets located around them;on the six primary planets in the case of the Sun,and on the moon in the case of the Earth.On the other hand the moon does not rotate on the axis of its own body,as its spots prove " Kepler People who give up the pretense just go ahead and look at electromagnetic signatures or something similar so that experimental sciences take a back seat at the moment. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Atoms are 99.999999...% empty space!
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:32:29 +0300, Paul Schlyter
wrote: No, the existing labels are just fine. The concepts are only fully described by mathematics. Any discussion of QM in non-technical, non-mathematical language is at best an approximation, something intended to get the broad concept across. So what's your objection against describing them as both particles and waves? That's the best non-mathematical term giving a hint of the complexity of the matter, isn't it? 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. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Atoms are 99.999999...% empty space!
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 07:14:41 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote: On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:32:29 +0300, Paul Schlyter wrote: No, the existing labels are just fine. The concepts are only fully described by mathematics. Any discussion of QM in non-technical, non-mathematical language is at best an approximation, something intended to get the broad concept across. So what's your objection against describing them as both particles and waves? That's the best non-mathematical term giving a hint of the complexity of the matter, isn't it? 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? |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Atoms are 99.999999...% empty space!
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? |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Atoms are 99.999999...% empty space!
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. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Atoms are 99.999999...% empty space!
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. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Atoms are 99.999999...% empty space!
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. -- 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Empty Space is NOT Empty | StarDust | Amateur Astronomy | 2 | January 6th 17 07:47 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 03:20 AM |
Is Space Really Empty | h v mohanlal | Space Station | 1 | November 16th 12 10:58 PM |
Space and Why it Seems Empty ??? | G=EMC^2 Glazier | Misc | 3 | January 28th 07 02:46 PM |