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

Groups > sci.physics > #599074 > unrolled thread

Re: Particle physics

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 15:52 -0500
    Re: Particle physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-10-02 00:09 +0200
      Re: Particle physics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 07:33 +0200
        Re: Particle physics poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-10-04 08:44 -0700
        Re: Particle physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-10-05 10:15 +0200
          Re: Particle physics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 17:14 +0200
            Re: Particle physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-10-05 17:21 +0200
              Re: Particle physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 09:03 -0700
                Re: Particle physics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 19:43 +0200
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 13:12 -0500
                  Re: Particle physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 18:04 -0700
                    Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 09:00 -0500
                      Re: Particle physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 07:20 -0700
                        Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 09:49 -0500
                          Re: Particle physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 08:11 -0700
                            Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 10:41 -0500
                              Re: Particle physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 09:21 -0700
                                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 11:43 -0500
                                  Re: Particle physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 10:25 -0700
                                    Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 12:51 -0500
                                      Re: Particle physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 12:59 -0700
                                        Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 16:15 -0500
                                          Re: Particle physics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 23:41 +0200
                                            Re: Particle physics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 23:45 +0200
                                            Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 17:11 -0500
                                              Re: Particle physics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 07:14 +0200
                                                Re: Particle physics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 07:20 +0200
                                                  Re: Particle physics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 07:59 +0200
                                        Re: Particle physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-07 00:50 +0000
                                        Re: Particle physics edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-10-13 07:47 -0700
                                          Re: Particle physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-13 08:18 -0700
                                            Re: Particle physics edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-10-13 10:21 -0700
                                              Re: Particle physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-13 10:44 -0700
                                            Re: Particle physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-13 18:26 +0000
                                Re: Particle physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-07 00:40 +0000
                                  Re: Particle physics HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 04:31 -0700
                          Re: Particle physics poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-10-06 22:56 -0700
                  Re: Particle physics poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-10-05 23:30 -0700
      Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 13:00 -0500
        Re: Particle physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 17:21 -0700
          Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 07:28 -0500
            Re: Particle physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 06:00 -0700
              Re: Particle physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 06:47 -0700
                Re: Particle physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 07:16 -0700
                  Re: Particle physics HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 07:40 -0700
                    Re: Particle physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-10-04 19:05 -0400
                  Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 09:53 -0500
                Re: Particle physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-04 14:47 +0000
                  Re: Particle physics poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-10-04 08:58 -0700
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 09:53 -0500
                  Re: Particle physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 08:51 -0700
                    Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 11:14 -0500
                      Re: Particle physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-10-06 04:04 +0200
              Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 09:53 -0500
              Re: Particle physics poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-10-04 08:51 -0700
              Re: Particle physics rockbrentwood@gmail.com - 2016-10-07 10:22 -0700
        Re: Particle physics poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-10-04 08:41 -0700
          Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 10:59 -0500
            Re: Particle physics poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-10-04 11:10 -0700
        Re: Particle physics poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-10-04 08:48 -0700
          Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 11:12 -0500
        Re: Particle physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-10-05 10:28 +0200
          Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 07:21 -0500
            Re: Particle physics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 18:47 +0200
              Re: Particle physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-10-10 13:31 +0100
                Re: Particle physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-10 05:53 -0700
                  Re: Particle physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-10 07:43 -0700
            Re: Particle physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-10-10 13:22 +0100

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#599074 — Re: Particle physics

On 10/1/2016 10:01 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> […] Physicists do NOT say that light is a wave. They say it is a quantum
>> field.
>
> Cite evidence.

QED, by Fenyman. Want more sources?

>
> F'up2 <news:sci.physics>
>


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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#599085

Odd Bodkin wrote on 01.10.2016 22:52:
> On 10/1/2016 10:01 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> […] Physicists do NOT say that light is a wave. They say it is a quantum
>>> field.
>>
>> Cite evidence.
> 
> QED, by Fenyman. Want more sources?

A referenced quote from this source and from another source (you said
“physicist*s*”) corroborating your claim would be sufficient.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#599105

Dne 02/10/2016 v 00:09 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
> Odd Bodkin wrote on 01.10.2016 22:52:
>> On 10/1/2016 10:01 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> […] Physicists do NOT say that light is a wave. They say it is a quantum
>>>> field.
>>>
>>> Cite evidence.
>>
>> QED, by Fenyman. Want more sources?
> 
> A referenced quote from this source and from another source (you said
> “physicist*s*”) corroborating your claim would be sufficient.

The Quantum electrodynamics as the Quantum field theory
applied on EM interaction is not a one man show.

In QFT context, all particles are features
of the respective quantum field,
with defined coupling between the fields.

While light is a quantum field,
it can still be approached in macroworld as a wave,
via Correspondence principle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_principle

Even I as a non physicist know this basic info,
so you need not really the references.
-----------------------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics
"In particle physics, quantum electrodynamics (QED) is the relativistic
quantum field theory of electrodynamics."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory
"In theoretical physics, quantum field theory (QFT) is the theoretical
framework for constructing quantum mechanical models of subatomic
particles in particle physics and quasiparticles in condensed matter
physics. QFT treats particles as excited states of the underlying
physical field, so these are called field quanta."

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#599393

בתאריך יום ראשון, 2 באוקטובר 2016 בשעה 08:33:26 UTC+3, מאת Poutnik Fornntp:
> Dne 02/10/2016 v 00:09 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
> > Odd Bodkin wrote on 01.10.2016 22:52:
> >> On 10/1/2016 10:01 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> […] Physicists do NOT say that light is a wave. They say it is a quantum
> >>>> field.
> >>>
> >>> Cite evidence.
> >>
> >> QED, by Fenyman. Want more sources?
> > 
> > A referenced quote from this source and from another source (you said
> > “physicist*s*”) corroborating your claim would be sufficient.
> 
> The Quantum electrodynamics as the Quantum field theory
> applied on EM interaction is not a one man show.
> 
> In QFT context, all particles are features
> of the respective quantum field,
> with defined coupling between the fields.
> 
> While light is a quantum field,
> it can still be approached in macroworld as a wave,
> via Correspondence principle
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_principle
> 
> Even I as a non physicist
=
right 
=======
 know this basic info,
> so you need not really the references.
> -----------------------------------------
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics
> "In particle physics, quantum electrodynamics (QED) is the relativistic
> quantum field theory of electrodynamics."
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory
> "In theoretical physics, quantum field theory (QFT) is the theoretical
> framework for constructing quantum mechanical models of subatomic
> particles in particle physics and quasiparticles in condensed matter
> physics. QFT treats particles as excited states of the underlying
> physical field, so these are called field quanta."
>====================================
There is Much more ***stability**in the structure of the Atom
than you imagine  

ATB
Y.Porat
=================================
>

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

#599514

Poutnik wrote on 02.10.2016 07:33:
> Dne 02/10/2016 v 00:09 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>> Odd Bodkin wrote on 01.10.2016 22:52:
>>> On 10/1/2016 10:01 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> […] Physicists do NOT say that light is a wave. They say it is a quantum
>>>>> field.
>>>> Cite evidence.
>>> QED, by Fenyman. Want more sources?
>> A referenced quote from this source and from another source (you said
>> “physicist*s*”) corroborating your claim would be sufficient.
> 
> The Quantum electrodynamics as the Quantum field theory
> applied on EM interaction is not a one man show.

Mindless babble.

> In QFT context, all particles are features
> of the respective quantum field,
> with defined coupling between the fields.

Tell me something that I do not know yet.

> While light is a quantum field, […]

It is not.

> […]
> Even I as a non physicist know this basic info,
> so you need not really the references.

Again, you have read what you wish to read and not what was written.

It is hard to continue to attribute that to your *utter* *inability* *to*
*understand* *English*.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#599524

On 10/05/2016 10:15 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
 >
 > It is hard to continue to attribute that to your *utter* *inability* *to*
 > *understand* *English*.
 >
..while it is still easy to attribute it
to your personal instability and lack of social intelligence.

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

#599526

Poutnik wrote on 05.10.2016 17:14:
> On 10/05/2016 10:15 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >
> > It is hard to continue to attribute that to your *utter* *inability* *to*
> > *understand* *English*.
>
> ..while it is still easy to attribute it
> to your personal instability and lack of social intelligence.

Whatever /ad hominem/ arguments you throw at me (in contrast to me,
BTW: put politely, you have quoted me selectively; so much for “social
intelligence”), they do not change the fact that *you* have misread,
and that light is _not_ a quantum field.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#599533

"In theoretical physics, quantum field theory (QFT) is the theoretical framework for constructing quantum mechanical models of subatomic particles in particle physics and quasiparticles in condensed matter physics. QFT treats particles as excited states of the underlying physical field, so these are called field quanta."

What is "the underlying physical field"?

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

#599546

Dne 05/10/2016 v 18:03 john napsal(a):
> "In theoretical physics, quantum field theory (QFT) is the theoretical framework for constructing quantum mechanical models of subatomic particles in particle physics and quasiparticles in condensed matter physics. QFT treats particles as excited states of the underlying physical field, so these are called field quanta."
> 
> What is "the underlying physical field"?
> 
None, as it need not any underlying physical field.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#599553

On 10/5/2016 11:03 AM, john wrote:
> "In theoretical physics, quantum field theory (QFT) is the theoretical framework for
> constructing quantum mechanical models of subatomic particles in particle physics and
> quasiparticles in condensed matter physics. QFT treats particles as excited states of
> the underlying physical field, so these are called field quanta."
>
> What is "the underlying physical field"?

There isn't just one. There are several. There is the electromagnetic 
field, the chromodynamic field, the Higgs field, to name three of 
several. You should not read the statement above to mean that there is 
only one. Each field is described by its own quantum field theory, but 
they are all quantum field theories.




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

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

#599635

Bod said
"
- show quoted text -
There isn't just one. There are several. There is the electromagnetic 
field, the chromodynamic field, the Higgs field, to name three of 
several. You should not read the statement above to mean that there is 
only one. Each field is described by its own quantum field theory, but 
they are all quantum field th..."

In other words, you need more
than two hands to wave.
Or there is none.
Glad you guys got 'er down!

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

#599672

On 10/5/2016 8:04 PM, john wrote:
> Bod said
> "
> - show quoted text -
> There isn't just one. There are several. There is the electromagnetic
> field, the chromodynamic field, the Higgs field, to name three of
> several. You should not read the statement above to mean that there is
> only one. Each field is described by its own quantum field theory, but
> they are all quantum field th..."
>
> In other words, you need more
> than two hands to wave.
> Or there is none.
> Glad you guys got 'er down!
>

You asked. I suppose that it's a problem for you, John, that there's 
more than one species of animal, too. Probably is a Sefton law that says 
"all animals are one" because more than that would be hand-waving.


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

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

#599673

Odd
So- basically- QM says that there are
a whole bunch of "fields" out there,
and they bang on each other
randomly, and particles pop out?
That about it? No virgins?

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

#599676

On 10/6/2016 9:20 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> So- basically- QM says that there are
> a whole bunch of "fields" out there,

Yes, so far.

> and they bang on each other
> randomly, and particles pop out?

No, fields don't bang into each other. The fields have fluctuations in 
them, and those fluctuations are quantized, and the quantized 
fluctuations propagate.

And yes, the propagating field quanta for one field interact with the 
propagating field quanta for a different field.

> That about it? No virgins?

There's quite a bit more to it, actually. If you could stand to read a 
couple hundred pages, you'd find out quite a bit more.

Now, John, what's with the irresistible temptation to mock anything you 
do not understand?


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

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

#599682

So QM is book keeping.
There are a whole bunch of "fields"
and they are measured and
recorded as they interact,
and then the scientist has a better
idea of what will happen next time?

Should work.

But what's your MODEL?

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

#599686

On 10/6/2016 10:11 AM, john wrote:
> So QM is book keeping.

So is biology, given all those animal and plant species.

> There are a whole bunch of "fields"
> and they are measured and
> recorded as they interact,
> and then the scientist has a better
> idea of what will happen next time?

Yes, exactly.

>
> Should work.

Well, you don't know that until you confront quantitative predictions 
against measurement. Then you know it works. Fortunately, that's been 
done pretty elaborately with quantum field theories.

>
> But what's your MODEL?

That's what a scientific model IS, John. Providing the description of 
what natural things are and how they work, tested by confronting 
quantitative predictions against measurement.

Scientific models are NOT visualizations or animations or cutaway models 
like what you see in a children's science museum. I know that's what you 
WANT them to be, but they just aren't.


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

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

#599688

Odd
You don't have a model.
You have book keeping.
Exactly like the situation before it
was realized that the Sun
doesn't go around the Earth.
Do able,
but we need a model.

I suggest looking at the similarities 
between galaxies and atoms.
I bet galaxies precess FASTER (twice)
than they rotate.
What does YOUR model predict?
(Fuck all)

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

#599692

On 10/6/2016 11:21 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> You don't have a model.
> You have book keeping.

John, you keep saying "You don't have a model" because you have a 
particular idea about what you want in a model that PHYSICISTS DO NOT 
CARE about. And what physicists call a model you steadfastly say is not 
a model.

> Exactly like the situation before it
> was realized that the Sun
> doesn't go around the Earth.
> Do able,
> but we need a model.
>
> I suggest looking at the similarities
> between galaxies and atoms.
> I bet galaxies precess FASTER (twice)
> than they rotate.
> What does YOUR model predict?

Quantum electrodynamics has a long list of predictions, along with 
experimental verifications, some of them to the 10th decimal place. So 
when you say quantum field theories predict "fuck all", you don't know 
what the fuck you're talking about.

Now it is true that quantum field theories do not predict that galaxies 
precess twice as fast as they rotate. That's all yours, baby. Might want 
to see if there's any data on that, because that's what counts in a 
SCIENTIFIC model.

> (Fuck all)
>


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

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

#599701

Book keeping generates
predictions on things happening again
that have happened before.
Weathermen predict.

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

#599710

On 10/6/2016 12:25 PM, john wrote:
> Book keeping generates
> predictions on things happening again
> that have happened before.
> Weathermen predict.
>

But that's not of scientific value. The kinds of predictions that are 
valuable in science is predicting things that have NOT been observed 
before. Like the prediction of neutrinos back in the 1930s.

John, you really don't know much about science at all, do you?

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

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

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web