Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #403766 > unrolled thread

Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-01-02 02:27 -0800
    Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-02 03:32 -0800
    Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-02 14:04 +0000
      Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-01-02 09:27 -0800
        Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-01-02 20:35 +0100
          Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-02 12:02 -0800
            Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Demetrice Barren <teercere@tmerunin.tme> - 2017-01-02 20:10 +0000
              Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-01-02 21:13 +0100
              Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-01-02 21:16 +0100
                Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-02 12:28 -0800
                Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Demetrice Barren <teercere@tmerunin.tme> - 2017-01-02 20:43 +0000
        Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-03 01:46 +0000
    Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-02 11:03 -0800
    Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-03 17:23 -0600
      Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-01-03 19:46 -0500
        Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Ermelinda Haymond <nmam@idandly.id> - 2017-01-04 01:00 +0000
      Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 06:06 -0800
        Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-04 06:18 -0800
        Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-06 09:36 -0600
          Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Aubrey Primmer <myr@ejmr.info> - 2017-01-06 15:51 +0000
          Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 23:54 -0800
    Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-01-04 07:38 -0800
      Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-04 11:21 -0800
      Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-01-07 19:19 -0800
        Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-07 19:31 -0800
    Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 07:55 -0800
      Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 17:37 +0100
        Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-01-14 00:29 -0800
          Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-01-16 07:24 +0100
      Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-13 10:15 -0800
      Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-14 08:31 -0600
        Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-01-14 22:21 -0800
          Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-01-14 22:58 -0800
            Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-15 14:52 -0600
              Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-01-15 13:36 -0800
          Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-15 14:48 -0600
            Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-01-16 00:24 -0800
              Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-16 13:08 -0600
                Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-16 19:39 +0000
                  Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-01-16 12:20 -0800
                Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-01-16 19:31 -0800
        Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-15 10:13 -0800
          Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-17 12:21 -0800
            Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-17 12:59 -0800
              Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 12:40 -0800
                Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-19 10:57 -0800
                  Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 12:01 -0800
        Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-16 14:03 -0800
          Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 00:03 +0100
          Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-16 21:22 -0600
            Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-17 11:35 -0800
          Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 00:05 -0800
    Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 23:49 -0800
      Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-13 00:11 -0800
        Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 00:31 -0800
          Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-13 00:47 -0800
            Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 02:09 -0800
              Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-13 03:19 -0800
                Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 06:45 -0800
      Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 07:21 -0600
        Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 14:26 +0100
        Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 06:51 -0800
          Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 09:26 -0600
            Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 07:37 -0800
              Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 09:55 -0600
                Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 09:10 -0800
                  Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 18:44 +0100
                    Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-13 18:33 +0000
                      Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 20:11 +0100
                        Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-13 19:21 +0000
                          Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 20:43 +0100
        Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 07:11 -0800
      Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-13 10:56 -0600
        Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 09:18 -0800
          Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-13 12:45 -0600
            Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-13 20:44 +0000
              Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-14 09:40 -0600
                Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-15 16:13 +0000
                  Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 17:34 +0100
                    Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-15 17:11 +0000
                      Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 18:23 +0100
                        Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-15 17:31 +0000
                          Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 20:01 +0100
            Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 13:24 -0800
              Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-13 21:47 +0000
                Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 23:01 +0100
              Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-13 18:19 -0600
                Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-13 23:24 -0800
                Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 23:53 -0800
            Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 13:30 -0800
          Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 06:43 -0600
            Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 07:55 -0800
              Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 11:55 -0600
                Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 23:21 -0800
                  Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 14:58 -0600
                    Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 15:40 -0800
                      Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-16 13:14 -0600
                        Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-16 20:39 +0000
                          Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-16 21:21 -0600
                            Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-17 11:55 +0000
                              Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-17 03:57 -0800
                                Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-17 21:42 +0000
                                  Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-18 01:20 -0800
                                    Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-18 16:31 +0000
                                      Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-18 11:58 -0800
                              Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-19 08:47 -0600
                        Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 23:59 -0800
                          Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-17 12:18 +0000
                          Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-19 09:01 -0600
                        Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-17 04:52 -0800
                          Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-17 12:57 +0000
                          Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-19 09:49 -0600
                            Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-19 09:58 -0800
                      Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 07:52 -0600
                        Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 09:03 -0800
                          Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 11:28 -0600
                            Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 09:51 -0800
                              Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 12:22 -0600
                Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 00:23 -0800
                  Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 11:09 +0100
                    Re: Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-15 02:14 -0800

Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7  Next page →

#409023

On 02/13/2017 02:21 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
> I don't see any reason to try to force a decision. The fact is, these
> are quantum fields, which are NEITHER particles nor waves but a third
> kind of thing that exhibit wavelike and particlelike properties.

What some people may do not like,
as it removes the entertainment in the clash of ideas.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#409035

On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 10:21:38 PM UTC+9, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/13/2017 1:49 AM, SEKI wrote:
> > Considering single particle (quantum) interference in a double slit
> > experiment, we can't deny the fact that a quantum is more of a wave
> > than anything.
> > In case where a quantum (wave) is localized in a small area, it can
> > be seen as a particle.
> >
> > To me, most physicists seem to be obsessed by the particle model.
> >
> > It should be noted that most of so-called quantum paradoxes can be
> > resolved by abandoning the particle model.
> > (Of course, the Bell's inequality is an exception, though can never
> > be resolved with the particle model.)
> >
> > Anyway, quantum theories are constructed as theories of waves, and
> > particles appear only in interpretations.
> 
> I don't see any reason to try to force a decision. The fact is, these 
> are quantum fields, which are NEITHER particles nor waves but a third 
> kind of thing that exhibit wavelike and particlelike properties.

Basically, you are right.
I wrote:
> > In case where a quantum (wave) is localized in a small area, it can
> > be seen as a particle.

The wave model can double with the particle model.

Thanks

SEKI

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#409042

On 2/13/2017 8:51 AM, SEKI wrote:
> On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 10:21:38 PM UTC+9, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 2/13/2017 1:49 AM, SEKI wrote:
>>> Considering single particle (quantum) interference in a double slit
>>> experiment, we can't deny the fact that a quantum is more of a wave
>>> than anything.
>>> In case where a quantum (wave) is localized in a small area, it can
>>> be seen as a particle.
>>>
>>> To me, most physicists seem to be obsessed by the particle model.
>>>
>>> It should be noted that most of so-called quantum paradoxes can be
>>> resolved by abandoning the particle model.
>>> (Of course, the Bell's inequality is an exception, though can never
>>> be resolved with the particle model.)
>>>
>>> Anyway, quantum theories are constructed as theories of waves, and
>>> particles appear only in interpretations.
>>
>> I don't see any reason to try to force a decision. The fact is, these
>> are quantum fields, which are NEITHER particles nor waves but a third
>> kind of thing that exhibit wavelike and particlelike properties.
>
> Basically, you are right.
> I wrote:
>>> In case where a quantum (wave) is localized in a small area, it can
>>> be seen as a particle.
>
> The wave model can double with the particle model.

Or you can do what physicists do these days and stay away from BOTH the 
particle model and the wave model and instead use the model of quantum 
fields. That's what they appear to be, actually. The third thing, not 
some combination of the first two things.

>
> Thanks
>
> SEKI
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#409043

On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 12:26:40 AM UTC+9, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/13/2017 8:51 AM, SEKI wrote:
> > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 10:21:38 PM UTC+9, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 2/13/2017 1:49 AM, SEKI wrote:
> >>> Considering single particle (quantum) interference in a double slit
> >>> experiment, we can't deny the fact that a quantum is more of a wave
> >>> than anything.
> >>> In case where a quantum (wave) is localized in a small area, it can
> >>> be seen as a particle.
> >>>
> >>> To me, most physicists seem to be obsessed by the particle model.
> >>>
> >>> It should be noted that most of so-called quantum paradoxes can be
> >>> resolved by abandoning the particle model.
> >>> (Of course, the Bell's inequality is an exception, though can never
> >>> be resolved with the particle model.)
> >>>
> >>> Anyway, quantum theories are constructed as theories of waves, and
> >>> particles appear only in interpretations.
> >>
> >> I don't see any reason to try to force a decision. The fact is, these
> >> are quantum fields, which are NEITHER particles nor waves but a third
> >> kind of thing that exhibit wavelike and particlelike properties.
> >
> > Basically, you are right.
> > I wrote:
> >>> In case where a quantum (wave) is localized in a small area, it can
> >>> be seen as a particle.
> >
> > The wave model can double with the particle model.
> 
> Or you can do what physicists do these days and stay away from BOTH the 
> particle model and the wave model and instead use the model of quantum 
> fields. That's what they appear to be, actually. The third thing, not 
> some combination of the first two things.

You don't seem to understand the gist of my arguments.
Did you read the first posting on this topic?

Thanks anyway.

SEKI

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#409052

On 2/13/2017 9:37 AM, SEKI wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 12:26:40 AM UTC+9, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 2/13/2017 8:51 AM, SEKI wrote:
>>> On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 10:21:38 PM UTC+9, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 2/13/2017 1:49 AM, SEKI wrote:
>>>>> Considering single particle (quantum) interference in a double slit
>>>>> experiment, we can't deny the fact that a quantum is more of a wave
>>>>> than anything.
>>>>> In case where a quantum (wave) is localized in a small area, it can
>>>>> be seen as a particle.
>>>>>
>>>>> To me, most physicists seem to be obsessed by the particle model.
>>>>>
>>>>> It should be noted that most of so-called quantum paradoxes can be
>>>>> resolved by abandoning the particle model.
>>>>> (Of course, the Bell's inequality is an exception, though can never
>>>>> be resolved with the particle model.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, quantum theories are constructed as theories of waves, and
>>>>> particles appear only in interpretations.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see any reason to try to force a decision. The fact is, these
>>>> are quantum fields, which are NEITHER particles nor waves but a third
>>>> kind of thing that exhibit wavelike and particlelike properties.
>>>
>>> Basically, you are right.
>>> I wrote:
>>>>> In case where a quantum (wave) is localized in a small area, it can
>>>>> be seen as a particle.
>>>
>>> The wave model can double with the particle model.
>>
>> Or you can do what physicists do these days and stay away from BOTH the
>> particle model and the wave model and instead use the model of quantum
>> fields. That's what they appear to be, actually. The third thing, not
>> some combination of the first two things.
>
> You don't seem to understand the gist of my arguments.
> Did you read the first posting on this topic?

Yes, I did.

You're missing the point. You keep talking about particle models and 
wave models. These days, NEITHER model is used. Instead, as of about 
1928, a wholly different third model is used: quantum field model.

>
> Thanks anyway.
>
> SEKI
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#409073

On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 12:55:25 AM UTC+9, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/13/2017 9:37 AM, SEKI wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 12:26:40 AM UTC+9, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 2/13/2017 8:51 AM, SEKI wrote:
> >>> On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 10:21:38 PM UTC+9, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> On 2/13/2017 1:49 AM, SEKI wrote:
> >>>>> Considering single particle (quantum) interference in a double slit
> >>>>> experiment, we can't deny the fact that a quantum is more of a wave
> >>>>> than anything.
> >>>>> In case where a quantum (wave) is localized in a small area, it can
> >>>>> be seen as a particle.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To me, most physicists seem to be obsessed by the particle model.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It should be noted that most of so-called quantum paradoxes can be
> >>>>> resolved by abandoning the particle model.
> >>>>> (Of course, the Bell's inequality is an exception, though can never
> >>>>> be resolved with the particle model.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Anyway, quantum theories are constructed as theories of waves, and
> >>>>> particles appear only in interpretations.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't see any reason to try to force a decision. The fact is, these
> >>>> are quantum fields, which are NEITHER particles nor waves but a third
> >>>> kind of thing that exhibit wavelike and particlelike properties.
> >>>
> >>> Basically, you are right.
> >>> I wrote:
> >>>>> In case where a quantum (wave) is localized in a small area, it can
> >>>>> be seen as a particle.
> >>>
> >>> The wave model can double with the particle model.
> >>
> >> Or you can do what physicists do these days and stay away from BOTH the
> >> particle model and the wave model and instead use the model of quantum
> >> fields. That's what they appear to be, actually. The third thing, not
> >> some combination of the first two things.
> >
> > You don't seem to understand the gist of my arguments.
> > Did you read the first posting on this topic?
> 
> Yes, I did.
> 
> You're missing the point. You keep talking about particle models and 
> wave models. These days, NEITHER model is used. Instead, as of about 
> 1928, a wholly different third model is used: quantum field model.

Probably, your interpretation of "wave/particle model" is different
from mine. In my terminology, you can interpret the quantum field 
theory either with the wave model or with the particle model.

Anyway, in the context of this topic, my points are that the assumption 
that there exist extremely small elementary particles (regardless of 
whether point-like or string) in reality is false, and that a wave 
function is not to give existence probability of a particle but to 
represent the substance of a quantum.

Do you agree?

Than you.

SEKI

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#409076

On 02/13/2017 06:10 PM, SEKI wrote:

> Probably, your interpretation of "wave/particle model" is different
> from mine. In my terminology, you can interpret the quantum field
> theory either with the wave model or with the particle model.
>

By none of them.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#409083

Poutnik wrote:

> On 02/13/2017 06:10 PM, SEKI wrote:
> 
>> Probably, your interpretation of "wave/particle model" is different
>> from mine. In my terminology, you can interpret the quantum field
>> theory either with the wave model or with the particle model.
>
> By none of them.

You never know.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#409096

Dne 13/02/2017 v 19:33 Sanjuanita Peeples napsal(a):
> Poutnik wrote:
> 
>> On 02/13/2017 06:10 PM, SEKI wrote:
>>
>>> Probably, your interpretation of "wave/particle model" is different
>>> from mine. In my terminology, you can interpret the quantum field
>>> theory either with the wave model or with the particle model.
>>
>> By none of them.
> 
> You never know.

There is not known any such a model yet that can.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#409098

Poutnik wrote:

> Dne 13/02/2017 v 19:33 Sanjuanita Peeples napsal(a):
>> Poutnik wrote:
>> 
>>> On 02/13/2017 06:10 PM, SEKI wrote:
>>>
>>>> Probably, your interpretation of "wave/particle model" is different
>>>> from mine. In my terminology, you can interpret the quantum field
>>>> theory either with the wave model or with the particle model.
>>>
>>> By none of them.
>> 
>> You never know.
> 
> There is not known any such a model yet that can.

No? Indeed, YOU never know. QM is inherently probabilistic amplitude wave 
function model. Go to school, young man.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#409102

Dne 13/02/2017 v 20:21 Sanjuanita Peeples napsal(a):
> Poutnik wrote:
> 
>> Dne 13/02/2017 v 19:33 Sanjuanita Peeples napsal(a):
>>> Poutnik wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 02/13/2017 06:10 PM, SEKI wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Probably, your interpretation of "wave/particle model" is different
>>>>> from mine. In my terminology, you can interpret the quantum field
>>>>> theory either with the wave model or with the particle model.
>>>>
>>>> By none of them.
>>>
>>> You never know.
>>
>> There is not known any such a model yet that can.
> 
> No? Indeed, YOU never know. QM is inherently probabilistic amplitude wave 
> function model. Go to school, young man.

Wave functions should not be confused
with wave nature of quantum objects.

So you did not pay much attention in school,
being busy changing nicks.

BTW, I graduated 27 years ago.


-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#409039

On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 10:21:38 PM UTC+9, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> I don't see any reason to try to force a decision. The fact is, these 
> are quantum fields, which are NEITHER particles nor waves but a third 
> kind of thing that exhibit wavelike and particlelike properties.

I wrote:
> > Considering single particle (quantum) interference in a double slit
> > experiment, we can't deny the fact that a quantum is more of a wave
> > than anything.
> > In case where a quantum (wave) is localized in a small area, it can
> > be seen as a particle.

The above can be paraphrased as follows:
Considering single particle (quantum) interference in a double slit
experiment, the particle model as of the Copenhagen interpretation is
not acceptable.
The wave model can double with the particle model.

Thank you.

SEKI

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#409071

On 2/13/17 2/13/17 - 1:49 AM, SEKI wrote:
> Anyway, quantum theories are constructed as theories of waves, and
> particles appear only in interpretations.

Neither "particle" nor "wave" accurately captures the concepts of quantum field 
theory. All your blather cannot change that, and your attempts to apply those 
labels to the theory are doomed.

The quantum realm is QUITE different from the world we see around us in our 
everyday lives. Live with it (after all, you have no choice!). Word meanings 
that apply to our everyday lives need not apply in regimes far removed from our 
everyday experience, and in many cases they don't -- such as "wave" and 
"particle" (and many more)....

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#409074

On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 1:56:08 AM UTC+9, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 2/13/17 2/13/17 - 1:49 AM, SEKI wrote:
> > Anyway, quantum theories are constructed as theories of waves, and
> > particles appear only in interpretations.
> 
> Neither "particle" nor "wave" accurately captures the concepts of quantum field 
> theory. All your blather cannot change that, and your attempts to apply those 
> labels to the theory are doomed.

Then, you agree that the assumption that there exist extremely small 
elementary particles (regardless of whether point-like or string) in reality 
is false.  Right?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#409087

On 2/13/17 2/13/17 - 11:18 AM, SEKI wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 1:56:08 AM UTC+9, tjrob137 wrote:
>> Neither "particle" nor "wave" accurately captures the concepts of quantum field
>> theory. All your blather cannot change that, and your attempts to apply those
>> labels to the theory are doomed.
>
> Then, you agree that the assumption that there exist extremely small
> elementary particles (regardless of whether point-like or string) in reality
> is false.  Right?

Nope.

Experiments measuring scattering from a gold foil show that nearly all of the 
mass is concentrated in extremely tiny nuclei, ~ 7E-15 meters in radius, spaced 
~ 3E-10 meters apart. Experiments measuring neutrino deep inelastic scattering 
show that inside the nucleus there are pointlike scatterers no larger than ~ 
1E-19 meters in diameter. Experiments measuring electron elastic scattering show 
the electrons have diameters no larger than ~ 1E-19 meters.

So there is direct evidence of extremely small "particles". But these do not 
have all of the attributes one would expect from an ordinary "particle", such 
as: one cannot identify, label, or count them (one can measure the total # 
present, but not put them 1-to-1 with integers), one cannot locate them 
precisely, etc.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#409110

Tom Roberts wrote:

> Experiments measuring scattering from a gold foil show that nearly all
> of the mass is concentrated in extremely tiny nuclei, ~ 7E-15 meters in
> radius, spaced ~ 3E-10 meters apart. Experiments measuring neutrino deep

How are these numbers not dependent on the thickness of the foil??

> inelastic scattering show that inside the nucleus there are pointlike
> scatterers no larger than ~ 1E-19 meters in diameter. Experiments
> measuring electron elastic scattering show the electrons have diameters
> no larger than ~ 1E-19 meters.

How would you know the deepness of that "pointlike" scatter??

> So there is direct evidence of extremely small "particles". But these do
> not have all of the attributes one would expect from an ordinary
> "particle", such as: one cannot identify, label, or count them (one can
> measure the total # present, but not put them 1-to-1 with integers), one
> cannot locate them precisely, etc. Tom Roberts

Absolutely indeed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#409202

On 2/13/17 2/13/17 - 2:44 PM, Sanjuanita Peeples wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>
>> Experiments measuring scattering from a gold foil show that nearly all
>> of the mass is concentrated in extremely tiny nuclei, ~ 7E-15 meters in
>> radius, spaced ~ 3E-10 meters apart.
>
> How are these numbers not dependent on the thickness of the foil??

In such scattering experiments, the fraction of the incoming beam that scatters 
is related to the thickness of the foil. The angular distribution of the 
scattering process is not, as long as the foil is thin enough that multiple 
scatters are unlikely (this can be corrected for when necessary). The angular 
distribution can be used to determine the diameter of the scattering centers, 
with the result I mentioned above.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#409345

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 2/13/17 2/13/17 - 2:44 PM, Sanjuanita Peeples wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>
>>> Experiments measuring scattering from a gold foil show that nearly all
>>> of the mass is concentrated in extremely tiny nuclei, ~ 7E-15 meters
>>> in radius, spaced ~ 3E-10 meters apart.
>>
>> How are these numbers not dependent on the thickness of the foil??
> 
> In such scattering experiments, the fraction of the incoming beam that
> scatters is related to the thickness of the foil. The angular
> distribution of the scattering process is not, as long as the foil is
> thin enough that multiple scatters are unlikely (this can be corrected
> for when necessary).
> The angular distribution can be used to determine the diameter of the
> scattering centers, with the result I mentioned above. Tom Roberts

This seemingly is easy for you, but not for a one like me. The foil is 
assumed rigid, hence the DLS (dynamic laser scattering) is not applicable 
in the evaluation of the targets size/thickness. Hence the scattered 
particles (neutrons?) must be dependent on the crystalline structure of 
the gold foil. How many atoms are there along the radial cross-section? I 
don't know. How are those aligned? I don't know.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#409352

On 02/15/2017 05:13 PM, Sanjuanita Peeples wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>
>> On 2/13/17 2/13/17 - 2:44 PM, Sanjuanita Peeples wrote:
>>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>
>>>> Experiments measuring scattering from a gold foil show that nearly all
>>>> of the mass is concentrated in extremely tiny nuclei, ~ 7E-15 meters
>>>> in radius, spaced ~ 3E-10 meters apart.
>>>
>>> How are these numbers not dependent on the thickness of the foil??
>>
>> In such scattering experiments, the fraction of the incoming beam that
>> scatters is related to the thickness of the foil. The angular
>> distribution of the scattering process is not, as long as the foil is
>> thin enough that multiple scatters are unlikely (this can be corrected
>> for when necessary).
>> The angular distribution can be used to determine the diameter of the
>> scattering centers, with the result I mentioned above. Tom Roberts
>
> This seemingly is easy for you, but not for a one like me. The foil is
> assumed rigid, hence the DLS (dynamic laser scattering) is not applicable
> in the evaluation of the targets size/thickness. Hence the scattered
> particles (neutrons?) must be dependent on the crystalline structure of
> the gold foil. How many atoms are there along the radial cross-section? I
> don't know. How are those aligned? I don't know.
>
The scattering was first done by alfa particles
in the Rutherford laboratory in 1911.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/rutsca.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_scattering

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#409354

Poutnik wrote:

>> This seemingly is easy for you, but not for a one like me. The foil is
>> assumed rigid, hence the DLS (dynamic laser scattering) is not
>> applicable in the evaluation of the targets size/thickness. Hence the
>> scattered particles (neutrons?) must be dependent on the crystalline
>> structure of the gold foil. How many atoms are there along the radial
>> cross-section? I don't know. How are those aligned? I don't know.
>>
> The scattering was first done by alfa particles in the Rutherford
> laboratory in 1911. 
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/rutsca.html 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_scattering

What are we talking about. Please learn what a DLS stands for and why.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web