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
  #21  
Old October 15th 17, 08:54 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
StarDust
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 732
Default 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  
Old October 15th 17, 11:12 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Davoud[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,989
Default 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  
Old October 16th 17, 02:09 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default 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  
Old October 19th 17, 05:46 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Paul Schlyter[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,344
Default 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  
Old October 19th 17, 05:57 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default 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  
Old October 19th 17, 06:32 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...


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  
Old October 19th 17, 07:20 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,551
Default 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  
Old October 20th 17, 08:48 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Martin Brown[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 189
Default 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  
Old October 21st 17, 07:53 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Paul Schlyter[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,344
Default 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  
Old October 21st 17, 07:57 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Paul Schlyter[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,344
Default 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

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 10:20 AM.


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.