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

#409358

On 02/15/2017 06:11 PM, Sanjuanita Peeples wrote:
> 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.

Tom was speaking about Rutherford scattering at gold atomic kernels.
Please, learn how it was done  why DLS is not applicable.

BTW, a colleague of mine in macromolecular chemistry institute
worked on DLS in 1991-3.

-- 
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]

#409359

Poutnik wrote:

>> What are we talking about. Please learn what a DLS stands for and why.
> 
> Tom was speaking about Rutherford scattering at gold atomic kernels.
> Please, learn how it was done  why DLS is not applicable.
> BTW, a colleague of mine in macromolecular chemistry institute worked on
> DLS in 1991-3.

My dear friend, Potty. Then you should have no difficulties in telling the 
population what a DLS is all about and used for. Here is a hint: size 
matter in Physics.

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

#409365

Dne 15/02/2017 v 18:31 Sanjuanita Peeples napsal(a):
> Poutnik wrote:
> 
>>> What are we talking about. Please learn what a DLS stands for and why.
>>
>> Tom was speaking about Rutherford scattering at gold atomic kernels.
>> Please, learn how it was done  why DLS is not applicable.
>> BTW, a colleague of mine in macromolecular chemistry institute worked on
>> DLS in 1991-3.
> 
> My dear friend, Potty. Then you should have no difficulties in telling the 
> population what a DLS is all about and used for. Here is a hint: size 
> matter in Physics.
> 
Exactly, and that is reason why DLS is out of game.
I understand why you cannot withstand any of your fake names.

-- 
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]

#409116

On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 3:45:33 AM UTC+9, tjrob137 wrote:
> 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

My points are:
- A quantum, which is assumed to be a wave, can reduce to a point or 
  an extremely small area.
- The assumption that, in an area of a quantum whose size is not 
  extremely small, there exist extremely small elementary particles 
  (regardless of whether point-like or string) in reality is false.

Thanks for your serious-minded answer.

SEKI

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

#409123

SEKI wrote:

> My points are:
> - A quantum, which is assumed to be a wave, can reduce to a point or
>   an extremely small area.
> - The assumption that, in an area of a quantum whose size is not
>   extremely small, there exist extremely small elementary particles
>   (regardless of whether point-like or string) in reality is false. 
> Thanks for your serious-minded answer. SEKI

You cannot assume that. Please assume something else.

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

#409127

Dne 13/02/2017 v 22:47 Sanjuanita Peeples napsal(a):
> SEKI wrote:
> 
>> My points are:
>> - A quantum, which is assumed to be a wave, can reduce to a point or
>>   an extremely small area.
>> - The assumption that, in an area of a quantum whose size is not
>>   extremely small, there exist extremely small elementary particles
>>   (regardless of whether point-like or string) in reality is false. 
>> Thanks for your serious-minded answer. SEKI
> 
> You cannot assume that. Please assume something else.

If you insist on nymshifting, change also your phraseology.


-- 
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]

#409135

On 2/13/17 2/13/17   3:24 PM, SEKI wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 3:45:33 AM UTC+9, tjrob137 wrote:
>> 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
>
> My points are:
> - A quantum, which is assumed to be a wave, can reduce to a point or
>   an extremely small area.
> - The assumption that, in an area of a quantum whose size is not
>   extremely small, there exist extremely small elementary particles
>   (regardless of whether point-like or string) in reality is false.
>
> Thanks for your serious-minded answer.
>
> SEKI

Physics is a quantitative science. Until you formulate a quantitative model you 
have nothing useful. All you are doing is hand waving.

Tom Roberts

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

#409157

W dniu wtorek, 14 lutego 2017 01:19:59 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:


> Physics is a quantitative science. Until you formulate a quantitative model you 
> have nothing useful.

From another post of poor idiot Tom:

>  You keep OMITTING important conditions and caveats. In
> particular, you must SPECIFY what you mean by "distance" and what you mean by
> "time", and most importantly HOW THEY ARE TO BE MEASURED.

How do you think - does poor idiot Tom have a quantitative model?

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

#409161

2017年2月14日火曜日 9時19分59秒 UTC+9 tjrob137:
> On 2/13/17 2/13/17   3:24 PM, SEKI wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 3:45:33 AM UTC+9, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> 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
> >
> > My points are:
> > - A quantum, which is assumed to be a wave, can reduce to a point or
> >   an extremely small area.
> > - The assumption that, in an area of a quantum whose size is not
> >   extremely small, there exist extremely small elementary particles
> >   (regardless of whether point-like or string) in reality is false.
> >
> > Thanks for your serious-minded answer.
> >
> > SEKI
> 
> Physics is a quantitative science. Until you formulate a quantitative model you 
> have nothing useful. All you are doing is hand waving.

The title of the topic is "Can We Believe in Modern Physics Theories?".
What if the theories are constructed on shaky basis?

Do you have a lot of vacant time dealing with a guy doing hand waving?

Thanks for your leisure time.

SEKI

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

#409118

On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 3:45:33 AM UTC+9, tjrob137 wrote:
> 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

My points are:
- A quantum, which is assumed to be a wave, can reduce to a point or 
  an extremely small area.
- The assumption that, in an area of a quantum whose size is not 
  extremely small, there exists an extremely small elementary particle 
  (regardless of whether point-like or string) in reality is false.

Thanks for your serious-minded answer.

SEKI

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

#409177

On 2/13/2017 11:18 AM, SEKI wrote:
> 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?
>

The understanding of "elementary particles" is not as classical 
particles but as quantum fields. In fact, the use of the term 
"elementary particles" is a bit of an anachronism and the community 
would do well to just call them "elementary quantum fields" 
consistently, IMO. But language moves slowly sometimes.

"Extremely small" has no real concrete meaning in modern physics with 
regard to these fields.

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

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

#409206

On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 9:43:20 PM UTC+9, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/13/2017 11:18 AM, SEKI wrote:
> > 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?
> >
> 
> The understanding of "elementary particles" is not as classical 
> particles but as quantum fields. In fact, the use of the term 
> "elementary particles" is a bit of an anachronism and the community 
> would do well to just call them "elementary quantum fields" 
> consistently, IMO. But language moves slowly sometimes.
> 
> "Extremely small" has no real concrete meaning in modern physics with 
> regard to these fields.

As I stated in a reply to another poster, my points are:
- A quantum, which is assumed to be a wave, can reduce to a point or
  an extremely small area.
- The assumption that, in an area of a quantum whose size is not
  extremely small, there exists an extremely small elementary particle
  (regardless of whether point-like or string) in reality is false.

So, I consider that the word "particle(s)" is inappropriate,
and that the word "quantum"/"quanta" should be used instead.

Thank you.

SEKI

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

#409230

On 2/14/2017 9:55 AM, SEKI wrote:
> So, I consider that the word "particle(s)" is inappropriate,
> and that the word "quantum"/"quanta" should be used instead.
>
> Thank you.

Here, I agree with you, but that is a matter of semantics and language 
shift.

Historically, this is not really a priority with physicists. Two 
examples that come to mind are quantum mechanical "spin", which has 
nothing to do with the ordinary meaning of an extended object turning in 
a circle around an axis, and chromodynamic "color" which has nothing to 
do with light wavelengths. Same has happened with "particle" where now 
physicists just mean something different than what conventional usage 
indicates. This is fine for the physicist community where they all 
understand that shift. For us amateurs, though, they just expect us to 
catch up. Asking them to use language that we won't get confused by is 
just going to go nowhere.

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

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

#409316

On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 2:55:39 AM UTC+9, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/14/2017 9:55 AM, SEKI wrote:
> > So, I consider that the word "particle(s)" is inappropriate,
> > and that the word "quantum"/"quanta" should be used instead.
> >
> > Thank you.
> 
> Here, I agree with you, but that is a matter of semantics and language 
> shift.
> 
> Historically, this is not really a priority with physicists. Two 
> examples that come to mind are quantum mechanical "spin", which has 
> nothing to do with the ordinary meaning of an extended object turning in 
> a circle around an axis, and chromodynamic "color" which has nothing to 
> do with light wavelengths. Same has happened with "particle" where now 
> physicists just mean something different than what conventional usage 
> indicates. This is fine for the physicist community where they all 
> understand that shift. For us amateurs, though, they just expect us to 
> catch up. Asking them to use language that we won't get confused by is 
> just going to go nowhere.
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Quite recently, I got an impression that many (probably most) physicists 
believe that "there exist extremely small elementary particles 
(regardless of whether point-like or string) in reality".

Is it right?

Thank you in advance.

SEKI
- An older dropout

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

#409383

On 2/15/2017 1:21 AM, SEKI wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 2:55:39 AM UTC+9, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 2/14/2017 9:55 AM, SEKI wrote:
>>> So, I consider that the word "particle(s)" is inappropriate,
>>> and that the word "quantum"/"quanta" should be used instead.
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>
>> Here, I agree with you, but that is a matter of semantics and language
>> shift.
>>
>> Historically, this is not really a priority with physicists. Two
>> examples that come to mind are quantum mechanical "spin", which has
>> nothing to do with the ordinary meaning of an extended object turning in
>> a circle around an axis, and chromodynamic "color" which has nothing to
>> do with light wavelengths. Same has happened with "particle" where now
>> physicists just mean something different than what conventional usage
>> indicates. This is fine for the physicist community where they all
>> understand that shift. For us amateurs, though, they just expect us to
>> catch up. Asking them to use language that we won't get confused by is
>> just going to go nowhere.
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Quite recently, I got an impression that many (probably most) physicists
> believe that "there exist extremely small elementary particles
> (regardless of whether point-like or string) in reality".
>
> Is it right?

I don't think that is accurate.
I notice quotation marks around this. From where did you cite this?

>
> Thank you in advance.
>
> SEKI
> - An older dropout
>


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

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

#409405

On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 5:58:46 AM UTC+9, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/15/2017 1:21 AM, SEKI wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 2:55:39 AM UTC+9, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 2/14/2017 9:55 AM, SEKI wrote:
> >>> So, I consider that the word "particle(s)" is inappropriate,
> >>> and that the word "quantum"/"quanta" should be used instead.
> >>>
> >>> Thank you.
> >>
> >> Here, I agree with you, but that is a matter of semantics and language
> >> shift.
> >>
> >> Historically, this is not really a priority with physicists. Two
> >> examples that come to mind are quantum mechanical "spin", which has
> >> nothing to do with the ordinary meaning of an extended object turning in
> >> a circle around an axis, and chromodynamic "color" which has nothing to
> >> do with light wavelengths. Same has happened with "particle" where now
> >> physicists just mean something different than what conventional usage
> >> indicates. This is fine for the physicist community where they all
> >> understand that shift. For us amateurs, though, they just expect us to
> >> catch up. Asking them to use language that we won't get confused by is
> >> just going to go nowhere.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > Quite recently, I got an impression that many (probably most) physicists
> > believe that "there exist extremely small elementary particles
> > (regardless of whether point-like or string) in reality".
> >
> > Is it right?
> 
> I don't think that is accurate.
> I notice quotation marks around this. From where did you cite this?

You referred to a posting that I deleted.
Instead, I posted the following.

----------------------------------------
Quite recently, I got an impression that "many (probably most) physicists
believe that there exist extremely small elementary particles
(regardless of whether point-like or string) in reality".

Is it ("many ...") right?

Thank you in advance.

SEKI
- An older dropout 

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

#409491

On 2/15/17 2/15/17 - 5:40 PM, SEKI wrote:
> Quite recently, I got an impression that "many (probably most) physicists
> believe that there exist extremely small elementary particles
> (regardless of whether point-like or string) in reality".

Sure. Because EXPERIMENTS show their existence. "Extremely small" is smaller 
than ~ 10^-18 m.

     The strings in string theory are ~ 10^17 times smaller than
     that upper limit.

Of course we also know that these elementary particles are NOT "particles" in 
the classical sense, they are of course quantum objects.

Our best model of this is a quantum field theory known as the standard model; 
its elementary particles are quarks, gluons, leptons, and fundamental bosons. It 
is consistent with all particle experiments to date [#]. However it does not 
include either "dark matter" or "dark energy" (which of course might not be 
particles at all).

     [#] when one includes the extension for neutrino oscillations.

Tom Roberts

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

#409507

Tom Roberts wrote:
> SEKI wrote:
> >
> > Quite recently, I got an impression that "many (probably most)
> > physicists believe that there exist extremely small elementary
> > particles (regardless of whether point-like or string) in
> > reality".
>
> Sure. Because EXPERIMENTS show their existence. "Extremely small"
> is smaller than ~ 10^-18 m.
>
>      The strings in string theory are ~ 10^17 times smaller than
>      that upper limit.

String theory's been abandoned. Why do you appeal to it?

> Of course we also know that these elementary particles are NOT
> "particles" in the classical sense, they are of course quantum
> objects.

Theory is not knowledge. You know no such thing.

----snip----

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

#409574

On 2/16/17 2/16/17   2:39 PM, Ned Latham wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Of course we also know that these elementary particles are NOT
>> "particles" in the classical sense, they are of course quantum
>> objects.
>
> Theory is not knowledge. You know no such thing.

But EVERYTHING you think you "know" about the world is actually a theory, a 
model. That is what knowledge _IS_ -- models which work [#]. And the theory 
called the standard model works VERY well, so it is no loss to consider it 
knowledge. Of course like everything else, what we know today can be supplanted 
by better knowledge in the future....

	[#] Excepting logic and math, which aren't about the real world,
	and dreams and fantasies which aren't models....

For instance, you surely have an excellent MODEL about where your bed is located 
in your domicile. But at base it is only a MODEL; you use that model (which you 
surely consider knowledge) to navigate to your bed at night.

Tom Roberts

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

#409630

Tom Roberts wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > >
> > > Of course we also know that these elementary particles are NOT
> > > "particles" in the classical sense, they are of course quantum
> > > objects.
> >
> > Theory is not knowledge. You know no such thing.
>
> But EVERYTHING you think you "know" about the world is actually a
> theory, a model.

Wrong. Cogito, ergo sum.

> That is what knowledge _IS_ -- models which work.

Wrong. Knowledge is Descartes' axiom and what you have that follows
from it.

> And the theory called the standard model works VERY well,

In its particular area. So does the wave model of light.

Doesn't make either of them knowledge.

---snip----

> For instance, you surely have an excellent MODEL about where your
> bed is located in your domicile. But at base it is only a MODEL;
> you use that model (which you surely consider knowledge)

No, I consider it a model, for three reasons: first; I might have
moved it and forgotten that; second, because I'm sometimes absent
from my domicile, and who knows what happens in their absence?
and third, I don't know everything about existence and forces -
it could change, move, or even vanish under influences beyond my
ken.

(Descending order of probability)

Note that I have not said that it doesn't follow from Descartes'
axiom.

> to navigate to your bed at night.

Can't remember the last time I missed.

Doesn't make the standard model knowledge.

Ned

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

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

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

csiph-web