|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Atoms are 99.999999...% empty space!
On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 12:52:06 PM UTC-7, StarDust wrote:
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 LOL! http://punditcafe.com/wp-content/upl...n.pn g?x10418 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Atoms are 99.999999...% empty space!
Paul Schlyter:
Gotta be waves. Davoud: 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. That would be a spoiler. Read Feynman's "QED." https://www.amazon.de/Qed-Strange-Pr...ry/dp/06910241 70/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1508105446&sr=8-4&keywords=feynman+qed -- 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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Atoms are 99.999999...% empty space!
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 22:26:19 +0300, Paul Schlyter
wrote: 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... Because particles are described by wave functions. Particles behave in a probabilistic way. There is no particle-wave issue in QM. That is just a problem with people's intuition. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Atoms are 99.999999...% empty space!
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 19:09:39 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote: On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 22:26:19 +0300, Paul Schlyter wrote: 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... 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... There is no particle-wave issue in QM. That is just a problem with people's intuition. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Atoms are 99.999999...% empty space!
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. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Atoms are 99.999999...% empty space!
Paul Schlyter:
Which means they are not just particles, they are waves too. Particle-wave duality, you know... Illusory. My primary care quantum mechanician says "Fields. Every particle. It's all fields. The Universe is made of fields." -- 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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Atoms are 99.999999...% empty space!
On Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 5:57:12 PM UTC+1, 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. These qm things are mental tinsel until somebody comes to their senses and begins to look at electromagnetic properties which exist through creation and influence everything from planetary orbital motion to stellar evolution to crystal development. Penrose got it right to a certain degree that non periodic crystal development (quasicrystals are a misnomer) says more about the background conditions for crystal development than it says about the crystals themselves. If somebody would clue into the fact that it is not possible to isolate a quasicrystal as it needs a number of them to create the symmetry that is neither ordered nor random. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_tiling With the phony arguments of wave/particle wrecking havoc with the ability to discern a true duality of random/ordered , this productive area of research will remain moribund in early 20th century indulgences. The parent geometry which satisfies the arrangement of crystals is as encompassing as it is lovely. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Atoms are 99.999999...% empty space!
On 19/10/2017 17:57, 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. More accurately they are both. Which properties you see from a photon or an atom depends on the experiment that you choose to do. Eventually we may get a GUT that describes all the forces of nature in a single coherent way with quantum mechanics and gravitation neatly combined. -- Regards, Martin Brown |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Atoms are 99.999999...% empty space!
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? |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Atoms are 99.999999...% empty space!
On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:32:43 -0400, Davoud wrote:
Paul Schlyter: Which means they are not just particles, they are waves too. Particle-wave duality, you know... Illusory. My primary care quantum mechanician says "Fields. Every particle. It's all fields. The Universe is made of fields." And variations in these fields are... particles^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hwaves... |
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 |