![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sunday, 22 October 2017 21:24:15 UTC+2, Davoud wrote:
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. Nature isn't cough particular about the choice of terms. The mechanism must be truly universal and work in all possible conditions of gases, liquids and matter in all gravitational fields. It's lucky there is so much space for the "particles" to play out their lives. Just grazing in the fields and surfing the waves. Until somebody discovers their secrets and harnesses their energy to make a better widget. ;-) |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Watching qm turn into an open joke that it always was should be more enjoyable than it actually is. The proponents can live with grossly unhealthy assertions but will not engage themselves in these propositions when they arise from time to time at normal levels. Ask them at what point the direction of rotation stops such as found in the longitude system converge at the North and South poles. The human mind is not required to go there but these theorists exploit these things and unfortunately carry the wider population with them.
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 13:11:13 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote: 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. OK, let's return to light. You said it was neither particles nor waves, yet you want to call it particles. Why? |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:24:13 -0400, Davoud wrote:
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. If you ignore the wave aspect of light, how do you account for the fact that glass refracted light? |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I believe I settled all this well over a decade ago with John Baez who didn't hang around.
The issue of the Planck length as a geometric quantity works in with the non periodic structure of the Pi proportion where the number are neither random or ordered - 3.1415927.... In an attempt to set a lower geometric limit using the planck length as a diameter to create a greater circumference thereby creating the Pi proportion, it indicates that the Pi proportion is also periodic with a definite value rather than an infinite non periodic series. As a radius can be created out of a circle ,it puts an impossible strain on both arithmetic,language and geometry to assign lower limits to observations for a reasonable person would lose their minds. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 14:29:14 +0300, Paul Schlyter
wrote: OK, let's return to light. You said it was neither particles nor waves, yet you want to call it particles. Why? If you're going to use a plain English word, "particles" is best for light, since it's make up of photons, which the word fairly reasonably describes. But if you want to really understand things, you need to work with the mathematics of QM. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Davoud:
...doesn't matter. It's the particles that count. Paul Schlyter: If you ignore the wave aspect of light, how do you account for the fact that glass refracted light? I told you to read Feynman's "QED." It will explain all. Or almost all. -- 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 |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Monday, October 23, 2017 at 5:07:51 PM UTC+1, Davoud wrote:
I told you to read Feynman's "QED." It will explain all. Or almost all. -- These are merely a breed of chancers pointing to theorists who simply made things up as they went along. As Roemer's use of the Equation of Time in his assertions on Io and light speed was central to Newton's use of it his idiosyncratic and ultimately idiotic absolute/relative time, I saw this Feynmann try to put Roemer's work after Newton's - "...were ahead of schedule when Jupiter was close to the earth and behind schedule when it was far away, a rather odd circumstance. Mr. Roemer [Olaus Roemer, 1644-1710, Danish astronomer], having confidence in the Law of Gravitation, came to the interesting conclusion that it takes light some time to travel from the moons of Jupiter to the earth.." Character of Physical Law, Feynmann Of course clowns are only so good as their audience and because all of you are stuck with celestial sphere software and the mentality that drives it, I have to spend some time learning how to design the accurate software which accounts for observations outside the calendar driven RA/Dec celestial sphere convenience. All these lazy and silly fools strutting around with wordplays and I have to bring myself up to speed with computer language. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Monday, October 23, 2017 at 2:46:45 PM UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 14:29:14 +0300, Paul Schlyter wrote: OK, let's return to light. You said it was neither particles nor waves, yet you want to call it particles. Why? If you're going to use a plain English word, "particles" is best for light, since it's make up of photons, which the word fairly reasonably describes. But if you want to really understand things, you need to work with the mathematics of QM. This is all thumbsucking, the dark energy/matter stuff didn't work out so everyone is running home to mama (qm/relativity) but unfortunately destroying the last great astronomical spectacle in the process, in this case the supernova. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |