Re: Virtual Particles and Light Duality principle
From: Franz Heymann (notfranz.heymann_at_btopenworld.com)
Date: 01/03/05
- Next message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Constant acceleration: solve for time given distance and velocity"
- Previous message: Franz Heymann: "Re: Pioneer anomaly revisited"
- In reply to: Franz Heymann: "Re: Virtual Particles and Light Duality principle"
- Next in thread: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Virtual Particles and Light Duality principle"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 20:10:17 +0000 (UTC)
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:crb3s1$rp6$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
>
> "Emwizsoon" <emwizsoon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1104700339.372884.321330@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Franz Heymann wrote:
> >
> > I'm Major in Psychology and physics is just one subject in
> > the whole course. I can't wait for 7 years to question
> > before thinking of the interpretation. I can use deductions
> > and all in the analysis.
>
> I most decidedly did not write that. I would not be seen dead in a
> soft science class. Don't snip the headers and don't mess up the
> attribution marks
>
> On the assumption that it is actually you who uttered that contested
> paragraph, I would comment as follows:
>
> Then you will have to stay without the answers. Unlike psychology,
in
> which you can pick from a menu, physics is a monolithic edifice of
> knowledge which is inaccessible
Idiot. Accessible
Franz
> only from the bottom upwards if you
> really want to get to grips with it. If your interest stops at pop
> level, then stop now.
>
> > > Not really. It is in the form of myriads of individual photons
> all
> > > occupying closely similar wave functions.
> > > If you had been talking about a coherent wave, as in a radio
wave
> or
> > a
> > > laser wave, I would have said that those photons are all belong
to
> > the
> > > same wave function.
> >
> > So when the light is travelling, the photons are not in form
> > of particles but waves.
>
> No. As best we know, photons are always point particles. Their
> dynamics is governed by a wave function.
> I have a feeling that you have been told this before. More than
once.
>
> >.. as if the individual photons just
> > became part of the unified wave. Is this why it can tell
> > whether to form interference pattern when 2 slits are open
> > versus one.
>
> The photons do not "become part of the unified wave". If they are
> coherent, they all share the same wave function.
> I have been known to detect them as individual photons.
>
> > I can accomodate the more unusual quantum interpretation
> > of course,
>
> Whether you can or cannot accomodate the usual quntum interpretation
> is a personal affair which is utterly irrelevant to the status of
> quantum mechanics.
>
> > I'm use to strange stuff dealing with the
> > mentally insane in my psychology field.
> >
> >
> > > I can offer you an absolute guarantee that you cannot rewrite QM
> in
> > > terms of Newtonian mechanics, except if you are willing to
accept
> the
> > > existence of the quantum potential introduced by Bohm.
> >
> > Waves is newtonian mechanics right,
>
> Quantum mechanical waves have complex amplitudes.
> Newtonian waves have real amplitudes.
>
> > the web site is saying
> > that waves interpretation can explain all the quantum data.
> > I'm interested in the details of course and still looking
> > into it.
>
> If you are referring to that infernal web site, then stick to it and
> go away with a seriouslty flawed semi-understanding of physics, and
> cease polluting this ng.
> >
> > > That web site makes a large number of serious conceptual
mistakes.
> >
> > Please show or give an example of the conceptual mistakes.
>
> Here it is
>
> Quote
> The whole atom is a standing wave in three dimensions, and all
known
> effects have to be described by electromagnetic standing wave
> geometry.
> Unquote
>
> It is undiluted horse dung of the foulest kind, spawned from a
> position of utter ignorance. The probability wave of an electron in
> an atom is a solution of Schrodinger's equation, and not of
Maxwell's
> equations. Maxwell's equations have real solutions and have to do
> with EM fields and hence with photons Schrodinger'e equation has
> complex solutions which refer to probability distributions of an
> electron in an atom in the chosen example.
>
> How much more wrong is it possible to be?
> I could dig up twenty even worse pieces of crap in your beloved
site,
> but I won't.
>
> > > Please lay your hands on a recognised textbook on modern physics
> > > instead of risking wasting your time on a website whose producer
> has
> > > no recognised credentials in the field. There are a large
number
> of
> > > crank websites, and the one you keep dragging up is one of them.
> >
> > I understand modern physics,
>
> No. You flatter yourself. Your assertion is not supported by the
> nonsense you indulge in by reading that crappy reference. Get a
book
> if you actually want to know any physics.
>
> > just looking for alternative
> > views that can explain the same thing.
>
> You won't find them until you have devoted five or more years of
full
> time study of physics.
>
> > The physics we
> > have now is not the final.
>
> This is the first sensible statement you have made for a long while.
>
> > Perhaps in looking at them
> > alternatively, we can come up with new ideas that may
> > even unify the 4 forces or interrelate them.
>
> See what I said above.
>
> > > That may be so, but after about ninety years later, we have not
> yet a
> > > framework in place for discussing matter in that way. On the
> other
> >
> > The web site offers the framework in the form of all particles
> > being standing wave of some kind. It shows many illustrations.
> > I'm waiting for it to be debunk on grounds of precise
> > scientific arguments.
>
> If you mention that confounded web site once again, I shall puke. I
> have no interest in it, except to ridicule it.
> >
> > > hand, we do have quantum mechanics, which has made tens of
> thousands
> > > of very precise predictions for the outcome of many types of
> > > observation and not a single experiment has ever yielded results
> > which
> > > are contrary to those predictions. Some of these predictions
have
> > > been verified to eight decimal figure accuracy.
> >
> > Can you show an example of these "tens of thousands of observation
> > of very precise predicitons"?
>
> The frequency of every spectral line in the hydrogen spectrum
> The frequency of all the lines of astronomical importance of very
atom
> up to approximately iron
> The intensities of all those lines as a function of temperature
> The frequency of every line in the positronium spectrum
> The lifetime of orthpositronium
> The kinematic details of the three gamma annihilation of
> orthopositronium
> The lifetime of parapositronium
> The magnetic moment of the electron
> The magnetic moment of the muon
> The Lamb shift in the hydrogen atom
> The Compton scattering differential cross section
> The elastic scattering differential cross section of electrons on
> electrons
> The elastic scattering differential cross section of electrons on
> positrons
> The elastic scattering differential cross section of electrons on
> protons
> The elastic scaterring differential cross section of electrons on
> heavy nucleii
> Radiative corrections to elastic scattering differential cross
> sections
> The pair production differential scattering cross section
> The bremsstrahlung cross section
>
> I could go on ad nauseam, but won't, since you will not recognise
many
> of those which I have listed, let alone ones I have not bothered to
> list.
>
> > I mean, I'm looking for alternative
> > theories that can explain the same predictions.
>
> In view of the fact that QM and QED are the best verified theories
in
> science, it is quite certain that any alternate theory would have to
> incorporate QM and QED as subsets. In other words, one has to know
> all of the present day content of those theories before being
enabled
> to find an alternative.
> Since you are not in that position, you would be well advised to
> spend your time more profitably.
>
> > One can use
> > many arbitrary constants to make predictions work but the
> > arbitary constants are cooked up to fit the data.
>
> That's what is known as phenomenology.
> We are discussing qm, which is not phenomenology.
> Apart from the known masses of the particles involved in a QED, the
> only externally supplied constant is the ubiquitous fine structure
> constant.
>
> > I'm not saying
> > flat out quantum mechanics is false,
>
> What you have to say about qm is utterly irrelevant. The blokes
> shouting from the sidelines do not score the goals.
>
> > just that it may be a subset
> > of something higher or involve hidden variables.
>
> It is not you who are saying that. It has been said before. It was
> initially explored, in the non-relativistic field, with success, by
> Bohm in the 1950's and further refined in the 70's and 80's by Bohm
> and Hiley to extend the interpretation into the relativistic domain
> With success.
>
> > Now these ten
> > of thousands of observations that are predicted. Are they in
> > terms of motions? probability of motion? or is it in terms of
> > how for example virtual photons can exist that can explain
> > attraction of the forces involved in Quantum Chromodynamics.
> > I'm interested what you mean by thousands of observations
> > predicted by quantum mechanics.
>
> I gave you a list of some of them higher up.
>
>
> Pls. explain in detail here.
>
> A suitable fee for continuing your education in the detail in which
> you seem to wish for would be in the region of 20 UKP per hour, and
I
> would insist on beginning at the beginning. That would add up to a
> total of an absolute minimum of 2,000 hours, or 40,000 UKP. Is it a
> deal? It would be cheaper for you to buy , borrow or steal
textbooks,
> written by acknowledged physicists. There are dozens to choose
from.
>
> Franz
>
>
- Next message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Constant acceleration: solve for time given distance and velocity"
- Previous message: Franz Heymann: "Re: Pioneer anomaly revisited"
- In reply to: Franz Heymann: "Re: Virtual Particles and Light Duality principle"
- Next in thread: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Virtual Particles and Light Duality principle"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
