Re: Mass and Point

On Jul 16, 2:44 pm, "Steve Bell" <sb...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:4f3b4bc5-10a5-435e-91f9-ab64053fa2cd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Jul 16, 12:56 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.

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.

I've examined the B&D text, and as far as I can see, nowhere does it present an experimentally determined hydrogen ground state
binding energy value, which is clearly what I asked you to find. So, you sent me on a wild goose chase. I suspect you really do
not
understand the scientific method.

Really? Or did you just read the extracts of the B&D text given by
someone else, which were explicitly aimed toward the QED predictions?
Are you SURE the book does not have the experimental data? Boy, you
sure whine quickly if things aren't spoon-fed to you.

Note that another reference was given to you by someone else for the
experimental data. And so, given two references for the experimental
data, what is your complaint exactly?

Stop whining and get to work, like EVERYBODY ELSE in this field.

I can make the definite logical conclusion from what you say, that you already know an experimental value. Afterall, why would you
point me to references that you say you have already read, and hence supposedly know the number I want is in these references? So
please quote your point estimate and its +/-. Goddamn, it's hard to pin a QM person down. I guess it's because they are in
superposition.

Let's see, you've asked me for this before, and I've explained exactly
why I don't want to do that, and you respond by asking again.

Do the work, Steve. No excuses, no deflections.


Look, as I have clearly stated, *I* am not going to present any numbers right now on purpose. The reason is because of you maniacs,
not me. I am going to force you to see from your own damn accepted literature, QED is nuts. If you don't get an experimental value,
this exercise stops here.

Is anyone else interested in my allegation that QED makes an inaccurate prediction for ground state hydrogen's binding energy? If
you say I'm wrong, be prepared to show the opposite, that QED *does* in fact very accurately predict this energy. And be prepared to
rigorously follow the scientific method. I will not accept anything else.

Aha, so now we degenerate to "I'm going to say whatever I want, and if
you disagree, it's up to you to prove me wrong." Aha.


Steve Bell

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Mass and Point
    ... prevailing theory predicts, under some conditions. ... given two references for the experimental ... Is anyone else interested in my allegation that QED makes an inaccurate prediction for ground state hydrogen's binding energy? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Mass and Point
    ... prevailing theory predicts, under some conditions. ... given two references for the experimental ... Is anyone else interested in my allegation that QED makes an inaccurate prediction for ground state hydrogen's binding energy? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Mass and Point
    ... prevailing theory predicts, under some conditions. ... If you'd like some detailed references you can read at your leisure ... Are you SURE the book does not have the experimental data? ... Is anyone else interested in my allegation that QED makes an inaccurate prediction for ground state hydrogen's binding energy? ...
    (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. ... given two references for the experimental ... Is anyone else interested in my allegation that QED makes an inaccurate prediction for ground state hydrogen's binding energy? ...
    (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. ... If you'd like some detailed references you can read at your leisure ... Are you SURE the book does not have the experimental data? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)