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

Groups > sci.physics > #599074 > unrolled thread

Re: Particle physics

Started byOdd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
First post2016-10-01 15:52 -0500
Last post2016-10-10 13:22 +0100
Articles 8 on this page of 68 — 10 participants

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 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

#599404

FromOdd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date2016-10-04 11:12 -0500
Message-ID<nt0kd3$1ebe$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#599394
On 10/4/2016 10:48 AM, poraty350@gmail.com wrote:

!
>
> nasty  book seller

I sell furniture, toys, and tools. I do not sell books.

> keep your  books for yourself
> for the rest of your life
> yet do not disturb some real advance !!
> Y.Porat
> =================================

People who make real advances in physics read the books. Without 
exception. Don't fool yourself.

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

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

#599515

FromThomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date2016-10-05 10:28 +0200
Message-ID<57F4B9B9.7050605@PointedEars.de>
In reply to#599251
Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 10/1/2016 5:09 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, Richard P. Feynman (1985), 
> p. 15 (Introduction): […]
> Gauge Fields: Introduction to Quantum Theory, L.D. Faddeev, A. A. Slavnov
> (1980), p. 17: […]
> Modern Elementary Particle Physics: The Fundamental Particles and Forces,
> Gordon Kane (1993), p. 3: […]
> Fundamental Forces of Nature: The Story of Gauge Fields, Kerson
> Huang (2007), p. 39: […]
> Relativistic Quantum Mechanics and Field Theory, Franz Gross (1993), p. 15:
> […]
> Quantum Field Theory for the Gifted Amateur, Tom Lancaster,
> Stephen J. Blundell (2014), p. 1: […]

Thank you.  And there we have it (again):

Exactly *none* of the sources that you cited and quoted corroborates your
claim that “Physicists […] say [that] *light* *is* a quantum field.”
(emphasis mine)  Not even one.  It is not verbatim in any quotation, and it
cannot reasonably be concluded from any combination of statements from the
quotations.

    [What can be concluded from them is (what I already knew): Light
     (like every electrostatic, electrodynamic and magnetic phenomenon)
     can be understood as an excitation of the electromagnetic field,
     and that photons are the quanta (elementary excitations) of that
     field; they are “field quanta”.]

You have completely misunderstood what you have read (e.g. reading “quantum
field” where it is written “field quantum”); assuming that you really have
read it.  That does not surprise me.

I strongly suggest that you start with the basics first:

<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/optmod/qualig.html#c1> pp.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#599840

FromOdd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date2016-10-07 07:21 -0500
Message-ID<nt8400$1p2l$2@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#599515
On 10/5/2016 3:28 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> On 10/1/2016 5:09 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, Richard P. Feynman (1985),
>> p. 15 (Introduction): […]
>> Gauge Fields: Introduction to Quantum Theory, L.D. Faddeev, A. A. Slavnov
>> (1980), p. 17: […]
>> Modern Elementary Particle Physics: The Fundamental Particles and Forces,
>> Gordon Kane (1993), p. 3: […]
>> Fundamental Forces of Nature: The Story of Gauge Fields, Kerson
>> Huang (2007), p. 39: […]
>> Relativistic Quantum Mechanics and Field Theory, Franz Gross (1993), p. 15:
>> […]
>> Quantum Field Theory for the Gifted Amateur, Tom Lancaster,
>> Stephen J. Blundell (2014), p. 1: […]
>
> Thank you.  And there we have it (again):
>
> Exactly *none* of the sources that you cited and quoted corroborates your
> claim that “Physicists […] say [that] *light* *is* a quantum field.”
> (emphasis mine)  Not even one.  It is not verbatim in any quotation, and it
> cannot reasonably be concluded from any combination of statements from the
> quotations.
>
>     [What can be concluded from them is (what I already knew): Light
>      (like every electrostatic, electrodynamic and magnetic phenomenon)
>      can be understood as an excitation of the electromagnetic field,
>      and that photons are the quanta (elementary excitations) of that
>      field; they are “field quanta”.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
First sentence.

>
> You have completely misunderstood what you have read (e.g. reading “quantum
> field” where it is written “field quantum”); assuming that you really have
> read it.  That does not surprise me.

I'm a little surprised that you think quantum field theory does not use 
both the terms "quantum field" and "field quantum". See additional 
material from books cited.

>
> I strongly suggest that you start with the basics first:
>
> <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/optmod/qualig.html#c1> pp.
>


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

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

#599869

FromPoutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com>
Date2016-10-07 18:47 +0200
Message-ID<nt8jiq$nkv$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#599840
On 10/07/2016 02:21 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 10/5/2016 3:28 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:


>
>>
>> You have completely misunderstood what you have read (e.g. reading
>> “quantum
>> field” where it is written “field quantum”); assuming that you really
>> have
>> read it.  That does not surprise me.
>
> I'm a little surprised that you think quantum field theory does not use
> both the terms "quantum field" and "field quantum". See additional
> material from books cited.
>

Thomas does not read English as well as he thinks....   :-)

"In quantum field theory, quantum mechanical interactions between 
particles are described by interaction terms between the corresponding 
underlying quantum fields. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory
line 3
-----------

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_%28physics%29#Quantum_fields

------

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

#600232

FromThomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date2016-10-10 13:31 +0100
Message-ID<57FB8A0D.6060701@PointedEars.de>
In reply to#599869
Poutnik wrote:
> On 10/07/2016 02:21 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 10/5/2016 3:28 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> You have completely misunderstood what you have read (e.g. reading
>>> “quantum field” where it is written “field quantum”); assuming that
>>> you really have read it.  That does not surprise me.
>> I'm a little surprised that you think quantum field theory does not use
>> both the terms "quantum field" and "field quantum". See additional
>> material from books cited.
> 
> Thomas does not read English as well as he thinks....   :-)

By comparison, you cannot understand English at all.  The claim by "Odd
Bodkin" was “light is a quantum field (and physicists say so)”.  This was
*wrong* to begin with and has been *disproved by their own references*.

Instead, light is a phenomenon that is currently understood to be a
self-propagating *excitation of* a field.  The field this phenomenon is *an
excitation of* is the *electromagnetic* field.  Its (field) quanta are
called “photons” (from the Greek word for “light”).

-- 
PointedEars

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

#600233

Fromjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date2016-10-10 05:53 -0700
Message-ID<934f7b26-df15-4dee-bf51-fdfebccbce38@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#600232
You guys and your fields.
The fields are everywhere, right?
But just not detectable, except where "being
excited"?
That about right?

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

#600248

Fromjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date2016-10-10 07:43 -0700
Message-ID<0876c14c-b7b5-4085-a4b7-ef544b804a91@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#600233
It's like a mix of 1984
and only ever seeing anything as its negative.
Interesting.

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

#600231

FromThomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date2016-10-10 13:22 +0100
Message-ID<57FB881D.3020203@PointedEars.de>
In reply to#599840
Odd Bodkin wrote on 07.10.2016 13:21:
> On 10/5/2016 3:28 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Exactly *none* of the sources that you cited and quoted corroborates your
>> claim that “Physicists […] say [that] *light* *is* a quantum field.”
>> (emphasis mine)  Not even one.  It is not verbatim in any quotation, and it
>> cannot reasonably be concluded from any combination of statements from the
>> quotations.
>>
>>     [What can be concluded from them is (what I already knew): Light
>>      (like every electrostatic, electrodynamic and magnetic phenomenon)
>>      can be understood as an excitation of the electromagnetic field,
>>      and that photons are the quanta (elementary excitations) of that
>>      field; they are “field quanta”.]
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
> First sentence.

Yes, and you still do not understand is that this correct sentence still 
does not mean that “light is a quantum field”, contrary to what you claimed.

>> You have completely misunderstood what you have read (e.g. reading “quantum
>> field” where it is written “field quantum”); assuming that you really have
>> read it.  That does not surprise me.
> 
> I'm a little surprised that you think quantum field theory does not use 
> both the terms "quantum field" and "field quantum". See additional 
> material from books cited.

Unfortunately, you have no clue what you are talking about.

-- 
PointedEars

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web