A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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
  #31  
Old October 21st 17, 04:05 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default 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  
Old October 21st 17, 09:39 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,551
Default 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  
Old October 22nd 17, 08:32 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Paul Schlyter[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,344
Default 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  
Old October 22nd 17, 09:31 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,551
Default 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  
Old October 22nd 17, 02:14 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default 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  
Old October 22nd 17, 05:38 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Paul Schlyter[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,344
Default 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  
Old October 22nd 17, 06:59 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default 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  
Old October 22nd 17, 07:49 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Paul Schlyter[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,344
Default 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  
Old October 22nd 17, 08:11 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default 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  
Old October 22nd 17, 08:24 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Davoud[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,989
Default 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

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 09:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.