Re: Binding Energy Question

On 26 fév, 22:10, higis <hg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 27, 10:27 am, srp2...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:



On 26 fév, 20:43, higis <hg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 27, 12:04 am, srp2...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 26 fév, 09:16, higis <hg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 26, 1:16 pm, srp2...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

is this accepted by the mainstream?

Mainstream being of the Copenhagen school
of thought, any explanation that involves
particles being localized as they are moving
is de facto rejected as impossible.

This is because of the wave nature of matter.
What is your explanation why matter has
wave like properties?

There is no question in my mind that matter
has wavelike properties. What the de Broglie
hypothesis shows, is that this is not at all
incompatible with particles being localized
at all times.

So you are a Bohmian?

I am not a Bohmian by any stretch of the
imagination.

If not. How does
your model differs to Bohmian. Specifically
how do you plan to alter the Schroedinger
Equation?

I wouldn't change the Shroedinger equation
in any manner. It has its uses.

If you believe only wave exists
and particle just node of it but the Schroedinger
Equation would produce electrons that would
spread out but experiment shows it is only
in one place.

Exactly. The equation has its uses, but I
don't see any useful purpose in attempting
to modify it. I think it is fine as it is.

But it is not compatible with your model.

It is compatible. Simply too general, just like
straight Maxwell's wave theory. Just like Newton's
kinetic equation is compatible, and, but too
restricted.

You were stating that particles are nothing but
waves right (like there is internal something
in the electron which produces the wavy thing).

No. I am stating that particles are quanta of
localized standing electromagnetically oscillating
energy.

Well. A hundred years ago physicists could have
shared your viewpoints but many experiments
like the double slit experiments changed all that.

There is no way any physicist could have shared
my viewpoint a hundred years ago. Up and down
quarks were unknown, de Broglie had not yet
issued his hypothesis on localized photons,
Pioneer 10 and 11 were not even a project.
The variation of earth's rotation rate and moon
orbit with the time of year was unknown, and
so on...

In the double slit single particle or atom experiment

The double slit experiment is way older than you
think.

it's like you are skiing down and there is a tree in
front of you and when nobody looks, you split into
two.

Come on. Copenhagen school baloney.

Not only that but Feynman multiple path says
that as you ski down the tree, all paths occured
and what happend on the other side is interference.
Your model can't cause this magick to happen.
Physics is magick. Since your model is just
simple newtonian based.

It is not newtonian based, it is Maxwellian based.

Then your model is wrong because it can't match
the magick which is physics.

Feel free to believe in magic.

The model doesn't need any underlying fields.
all electromagnetic properties are direct properties
of the localized EM quanta.

But you'd miss the quantum corrections or
the contributions of the virtual particles if you'd
bypass QFT.

No quantum corrections are needed in the model.
Virtual particles not required.

Gee. You are wrong dude. For example. Are you
aware of the gyromagnetic ratio experiments?
Calculated value differs to observed value by a
factor of 1.00115965219 to 1. One has to
include the virtual particles corrections in the
experiment to match that value. Using the
extra interaction vertexes in the feynman diagram,
one comes up with 1.0011596522. This is what
it means that QFT has accuracy of three parts
in 100 Billion! Something your model won't match
so you are wrong dude.

If I'm wrong, how come the model allows deriving
a correct relativistic equation from Newton's
kinetic energy that can account for the whole
spectrum of velocities for massive particles,
and also for photons?

Pls. write a paper or summarize what you are saying
in a web site so all can see it.

No. The only ones who will see (or have seen) it are
those that really are interested. All others can go
on going in little circles for what I care.

The reason I'm asking is I'd like to know if you know
at least the basic of the whole Standard Model.

I see. An exam. I submit to no exams.

Because
it is pointless to criticize something if you don't fully
understand (relativistic QFT and all the physics
categories it entails).

I don't criticize it. I simply don't need it. Not required
with my model. Useless.

This is the basic signature of a crackpot.

That's precisely the only argument I told you
that issued from orthodoxy.

And it's time consuming to spend time with a
crackpot.

Sure thing. So your best bet would be to
desist, no ?

But of course you may be a hidden genius so
we'd like to hear more from you.

Well, you shouldn't waste your time barking up
this tree. I am no genius, just a simple Joe out
of the street.

André Michaud

No. Either you are a genius or a crackpot. Because
you wanted to wipe out the Standard Model and
have a replacement for it. Either you are the mother
of all genius or the father or all crackpots. Haha...

If you believe in geniuses, you really are as disconnected
as the Copenhagen bunch.

Come on, develope your web site. What is the url
again?

Some others may give you one, but you will not
find much on it.

André Michaud
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Photons shapeshifting to wave prior to measurement
    ... Schrodinger Equation of the wave function. ... Prove that particles don't exist and they ... Electrons too and other particles since ... What I mean by this, is that if he required spacetime curvature to explain forces of gravity, then it is likewise required that spacetime curvature explain forces of electromagnetism. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • This Weeks Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 253)
    ... This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics ... particles using some math called "triality", ... Standard Model, together with gravity. ... makes the Lie algebra suinto a Lie subalgebra of so. ...
    (sci.math.research)
  • This Weeks Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 277)
    ... This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics ... When the wiggles are waves that are moving along, ... steps are called "particles". ... For example, the atoms may have an angular momentum, ...
    (sci.math.research)
  • Re: Tom Van Flandern and Newtonian Gravity
    ... etc. "Dressing" transformation a la Greenberg and Schweber ... describes real particles interacting via instantaneous ... > non-covariant gauge and if you change ... That's all we need to do physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Cranks on the endangered species list
    ... However, doing that does not automatically impart quality, ... little massive particles or a material fluid impinging on objects, ... phenomena from modern physics. ... concerning a physical phenomenon so as to enable mental visualization ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)