Re: Mass and Point



Steve Bell wrote:

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:28e3610b-e175-433d-be01-f80f932cd5ea@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jul 15, 1:58 pm, "Steve Bell" <sb...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"PD" <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:4f0014e9-a0a1-4ed1-8513-7f682b37f742@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Jul 15, 10:14 am, "Steve Bell" <sb...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:




"PD" <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:c3935598-12f6-4ee9-ba4b-a0c050b59c96@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Jul 14, 8:48 pm, "Steve Bell" <sb...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"PD" <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:a2a0eeec-38d6-47d6-a91c-6e0d2e36d9a1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Jul 14, 1:46 pm, "Steve Bell" <sb...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"PD" <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:6afd2b36-bc33-4daf-a21c-81abd8f9581b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Jul 14, 12:50 pm, "Steve Bell" <sb...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"mluttgens" <mluttg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:1d77a379-d1bd-411d-b902-65f7009d570d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

This lead you to interestingly conclude that there are two
kinds of dimensionless points, physical ones like the electron
and mathematical abstractions.

Marcel Luttgens

To me, there is even a third point. An empty point in space. It's very difficult to set a definition of distance between two
points,
and I don't mean the equation d = sqrt((x1-x2)^2 + (y1-y2)^2 + (z1-z2)^2), but what distance actually "is" in terms of the
word
"space."

In physics, one defines things in terms of measurable quantities. So
first you have to say carefully what you mean by the measurement.

I see two apples sitting on a table, with what looks to my brain as a "distance" between them. I think they physically
exist when I close my eyes. I think they physically exist when everyone closes their eyes. There is an external world that
has
this
"space" between things in it. Does space itself "physically exist"? All I can say it does in the sense that no two particles
can
occupy the same "piece" of it.

Interestingly, this turns out to be not true. It's true for apples,
largely because apples are made out of fermions. But for bosons, this
statement does not apply. One has to get a little away from everyday
experience to see a measurable case of this, since fermions seem to
infect just about everything, but it's certainly possible and has been
demonstrated.

Are you saying that we have actually "photographed" two particles in superposition? I thought that was not possible, the
actual
act
of washing EM over the superposition to "see" it broke the entanglement, causing wave collapse, and of course then, the two
particles are physically existing and "show up" at two separate locations.

No, that's true for fermions. Not for bosons. Look up Bose-Einstein
condensate. You can start with free online materials, but you won't
get decent or accurate material until you go offline. (Notice that
Einstein made significant contributions to quantum mechanics, even
though he had some basic conceptual difficulties with it.) It's a very
interesting subject, and it's also useful to see what care was put
into the experimental design to ensure that they were seeing what was
really going on.

PD

Ok, can I ask a straight question, have we ever "seen" (meaning observed in some way) an actual superposition of two particles,
I
don't care which, or even something as big as two atoms?

Yes! If you'd like another example, BCS superconductivity is rich with
observations.
Please consult the experimental literature. There is much you need to
catch up on.

I know about B-E condensates, and I bet you are not surprised, I think
something else is going on.

Well, that's fine if you think so. Here's how your alternative theory
would be put to test.
B-E condensates are a specific and *quantitative* prediction of a
prevailing theory. Your theory needs to demonstrate two things:
- That your theory makes the same *quantitative* predictions of the
same observed phenomenon, including the *values* of the measured
quantities.
- That your theory predicts something *different* than what the
prevailing theory predicts, under some conditions. That way, those
conditions can be set up in an experiment, letting the measurement
decide which model is correct.

This is how science is done.

If you find that onerous, too much work, then you need to find another
hobby.

It's funny how quickly you dance away from your own "theory" and what
you need to do with it, to talking about what prevailing theories have
done.

I'll talk about my theory after I show that QED makes an inaccurate prediction.


I've given you a reference. Show it from there.


I doubt if you would accept my explanation/theory,
if you didn't think there was a problem in the first place.


No, that's not the case. But you don't HAVE a theory yet, for the
reasons I just mentioned. When you have quantitative predictions from
your theory and you can show those are different than the quantitative
predictions of QED, and you can show that the experimental data are in
better agreement with your theory than they are with QED, then you've
got a theory. Not until then. Until then, you've got nothing worth
considering at all.


Fine, fine, fine, etc., more condescending crapola.

Great, no knowledge and a bad attitude. PD was telling you the
truth and it seems to hurt you.


If you'd like some detailed references you can read at your leisure
about what prevailing theories have done, I'd be happy to provide you
with some. These are best consumed outside of usenet, and usenet is a
terrible place to reproduce that exposition. Proper tool for the job,
and all.

I suggest Bjorken and Drell for the ground state of hydrogen data AND
calculations. This should be readily available to you in your library.

Thanks, I'll try to find it. Could you just quote here what they say is the experimentally determined hydrogen ground state binding
energy? If they report things correctly, there should be a single point estimate with a +/- around it.


One of the basic skills required as a *prerequisite* for making
scientific contributions is being able to do your own research of the
experimental and theoretical literature. No one does you any favors by
allowing you to bypass a prerequisite skill. There are no short cuts.

Look you freakin' condescending snob, you apparently have the book yourself, right? Can't you look up this simple experimental value and quote it here? Believe me, if has actual hydrogen spectroscopic data (does it?), I'll get a copy.

Yes, you certainly know how to sweet talk someone into doing you a
favor. I see why you are too lazy to have a real theory.


Steve Bell


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Mass and Point
    ... first you have to say carefully what you mean by the measurement. ... particles are physically existing and "show up" at two separate locations. ... prevailing theory predicts, under some conditions. ... When you have quantitative predictions from ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Mass and Point
    ... first you have to say carefully what you mean by the measurement. ... prevailing theory predicts, under some conditions. ... you need to do with it, to talking about what prevailing theories have ... When you have quantitative predictions from ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Mass and Point
    ... first you have to say carefully what you mean by the measurement. ... prevailing theory predicts, under some conditions. ... you need to do with it, to talking about what prevailing theories have ... When you have quantitative predictions from ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Mass and Point
    ... first you have to say carefully what you mean by the measurement. ... prevailing theory predicts, under some conditions. ... reasons I just mentioned. ... When you have quantitative predictions from ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Accuracy vs. Relevance
    ... >> measurement outcomes and viceversa, which might be relevant to discuss ... >> theory of GR can make meaningful statements and predictions at all. ... > This is certainly a major issue in quantum gravity. ... To compare GR ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading