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 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

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#599466

On 10/4/2016 10:40 AM, HVAC wrote:
> john
> Mankind continues to be shot in the foot
> by the "it's all about me" mentality.
> Even Science. Especially Science.
>
> Everything rotates around Earth.
> -------
>
> Dispelled by science
>
>
> We are the biggest.
> ---------
>
> Dispelled by science
>
>
> We are the smartest.
> We are probably the ONLY!!
> -------
>
> Still true.
>
a fixed point of the universe has never been demonstrated.

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

#599383

On 10/4/2016 9:16 AM, john wrote:
> Mankind continues to be shot in the foot
> by the "it's all about me" mentality.
> Even Science. Especially Science.
>
> Everything rotates around Earth.
> We are the biggest.
> We are the smartest.
> We are probably the ONLY!!
>
> Organization smaller than particles?
> Nonsense, says QM.

QM says nothing of the kind. Now observation on the other hand....

> Organization on a Galactic scale?
> It's all Chaos, says QM.

QM says nothing of the kind, and I have no idea how you came to that 
nutty idea.

> Or if they don't, what do they say?

You know, they say that it's the info-beggar's strategy to post an 
incorrect answer to try to learn the correct answer.

John, you disappeared for a few days when an accurate assessment of how 
you think got posted up. But I see that you are back for more, following 
the same old patterns, still refusing to read.


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

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

#599382

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> tarded:

>Odd
>What you quantum kooks
>don't realize is that nothing-
>ever- is reduced to nothing.
>Did you not take math?
>Remember when the line
>got closer and closer to the graph
>edge but never hit it?
>Do you know what 'never' means, Odd?

That's an asymptotic limit, which applies SOMETIMES.  The function
Y=1,000,000,000,000,000-X does reach 0 at 1,000,000,000,000,000,
no "never hitting it".

>Atomic particles are not and cannot be
>the smallest bits. Reality continues,
>and continues to be organized no
>matter how small you go. Just because
>OUR smallest lightwave can't fit in
>there, means diddly-squat.

You keep babbling this over and over, but you have NEVER offered any
evidence or proof.  Why do you believe that?

>"All space and time", indeed. The guy
>might get hit by a bus before you, Odd.

"All space" just means the field exists everywhere, and "all time"
means it existed in the past, exists now, and will exist in the
future.

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

#599399

בתאריך יום שלישי, 4 באוקטובר 2016 בשעה 17:47:12 UTC+3, מאת Michael Moroney:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> tarded:
> 
> >Odd
> >What you quantum kooks
> >don't realize is that nothing-
> >ever- is reduced to nothing.
> >Did you not take math?
> >Remember when the line
> >got closer and closer to the graph
> >edge but never hit it?
> >Do you know what 'never' means, Odd?
> 
> That's an asymptotic limit, which applies SOMETIMES.  The function
> Y=1,000,000,000,000,000-X does reach 0 at 1,000,000,000,000,000,
> no "never hitting it".
> 
> >Atomic particles are not and cannot be
> >the smallest bits. Reality continues,
> >and continues to be organized no
> >matter how small you go. Just because
> >OUR smallest lightwave can't fit in
> >there, means diddly-squat.
> 
> You keep babbling this over and over, but you have NEVER offered any
> evidence or proof.  Why do you believe that?
> 
> >"All space and time", indeed. The guy
> >might get hit by a bus before you, Odd.
> 
> "All space" just means the field exists everywhere, and "all time"
> means it existed in the past, exists now, and will exist in the
> future.
=================
another ass leaking on the net 
Y.P
=================================

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

#599384

On 10/4/2016 8:47 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> What you quantum kooks
> don't realize is that nothing-
> ever- is reduced to nothing.
> Did you not take math?
> Remember when the line
> got closer and closer to the graph
> edge but never hit it?
> Do you know what 'never' means, Odd?

John, this is like your log paper statement.
You are referring to an asymptotic function, where the function 
approaches but never reaches the aymptote.
But there are other functions where the function passes right through 
the axis and becomes zero, where it is called a pole of the function.

You are claiming that everything in nature is like the asymptotic 
function and nothing in nature is like the function with a pole.

And my question to you is, how do you know?

And if you can't say how you know, why do you believe it anyway?

>
> Atomic particles are not and cannot be
> the smallest bits. Reality continues,
> and continues to be organized no
> matter how small you go. Just because
> OUR smallest lightwave can't fit in
> there, means diddly-squat.
>
> "All space and time", indeed. The guy
> might get hit by a bus before you, Odd.
>


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

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

#599395

Odd
"

You are claiming that everything in nature is like the asymptotic 
function and nothing in nature is like the function with a pole.

And my question to you is, how do you know? 

And if you can't say how you know, why do you believe it anyway? 
"
Because, in Nature, there is no zero.
It is All One.
You deny that, do you not?

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

#599405

On 10/4/2016 10:51 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> "
>
> You are claiming that everything in nature is like the asymptotic
> function and nothing in nature is like the function with a pole.
>
> And my question to you is, how do you know?
>
> And if you can't say how you know, why do you believe it anyway?
> "
> Because, in Nature, there is no zero.

There's another "law" you have invented. Why do you believe it?

Every heard of "absolute zero" on the temperature scale? You think 
nature knows nothing about it? Why would you think that?

> It is All One.

There's another "law" you have invented. Why do you believe it?

> You deny that, do you not?



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

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

#599639

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> Every heard of "absolute zero" on the temperature scale? You think
> nature knows nothing about it? Why would you think that?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero>

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#599385

On 10/4/2016 8:00 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> What does "defined over all time" even mean?
> Really
>

It means that fields do not die or have a finite lifetime, start or end.

Electrons also do not die or have a finite lifetime, start or end.

Why, what else would you think it means?
(And of course, if you think this is impossible, please tell me the law 
you believe is true that this would violate.)

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

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

#599396

בתאריך יום שלישי, 4 באוקטובר 2016 בשעה 16:00:22 UTC+3, מאת john:
> Odd
> What does "defined over all time" even mean?
> Really
==============
you are exaggerating
he has  no idea about that he is mumbling G 
Y.Porat
============================

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

#599881

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 8:00:22 AM UTC-5, john wrote:
> What does "defined over all time" even mean?

The English word is "always".

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

#599391

בתאריך יום שני, 3 באוקטובר 2016 בשעה 21:00:12 UTC+3, מאת Odd Bodkin:
> 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):
> "It is very important to know that light behaves as particles, 
> especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you were 
> probably told something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you 
> the way it _does_ behave -- like particles."
> 
> Gauge Fields: Introduction to Quantum Theory, L.D. Faddeev, A. A. 
> Slavnov (1980), p. 17:
> "Throughout we will adopt the customary convention that 'particle' and 
> 'field quantum' are interchangeable terms, in that anything that is 
> labeled as a fundamental particle is understood today in terms of 
> quantum field theory."
> 
> Modern Elementary Particle Physics: The Fundamental Particles and 
> Forces, Gordon Kane (1993), p. 3:
> "The combination of quantum theory and relativity leads to the 
> introduction of quantum fields and of associated particles....Instead, 
> as with electromagnetism and gravity, we say the pushed particle is the 
> source of various fields which carry energy, and perhaps other quantum 
> numbers, through the surrounding space; eventually the fields interact 
> with other particles. Because of the quantum theory, the energy (and 
> perhaps other quantum numbers) is carried by discrete quanta, which 
> become identified with the particles transmitting the force. Thus in a 
> quantum field theory, the elementary particle interactions are 
> interpreted in terms of exchanges of (some of) the particles themselves."
> 
> Fundamental Forces of Nature: The Story of Gauge Fields, Kerson Huang 
> (2007), p. 39:
> "The fundamental object in electromagnetism is the gauge field A;"
> 
> Relativistic Quantum Mechanics and Field Theory, Franz Gross (1993), p. 15:
> "The quanta associated with a quantum field...really are physical 
> particles which carry both momentum and energy."
> 
> Quantum Field Theory for the Gifted Amateur, Tom Lancaster, Stephen J. 
> Blundell (2014), p. 1:
> "Every particle and every wave in the Universe is simply an excitation 
> of a quantum field that is defined over all space and time."
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
====================
imbecile  parrot 
basic particles has nothing to do with relativity
so
you can stuff it in you know where 
2
see Google
'the Y Porat Model - an abstract '

that you can see in Google
yet it is only an abstract of my book 
===============
Y.Porat
=====================================

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

#599400

On 10/4/2016 10:41 AM, poraty350@gmail.com wrote:
> ====================
> imbecile  parrot
> basic particles has nothing to do with relativity
> so
> you can stuff it in you know where

All current successful, tested theories of particles and interactions 
are relativistic quantum field theories, with the exception of gravity.


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

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

#599415

בתאריך יום שלישי, 4 באוקטובר 2016 בשעה 18:59:27 UTC+3, מאת Odd Bodkin:
> On 10/4/2016 10:41 AM, poraty350@gmail.com wrote:
> > ====================
> > imbecile  parrot
> > basic particles has nothing to do with relativity
> > so
> > you can stuff it in you know where
> 
> All current successful, tested theories of particles and interactions 
> are relativistic quantum field theories, with the exception of gravity.
=====================================interactions 
may be 
yet even that 
you an never show that mass was created by movement
and  WHILE th e moment movement was stopped 
the ;;excessive mass 

''DISAPEARED MAGICALLY'' 
INCREASE OF MASS'' 'IS ACTUALLY INCREASE OF THE ***ENEGY NEEDED **FOR HIGHR VELOCITY 
iow
belongs to the other side of the energy /mass equation
sort of
F = gamma  m a 
is actually
F/Gamma = m a 
and  '' m''' remains constant !!!
======================
Y.Porat
===========================

> 
>

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

#599394

בתאריך יום שני, 3 באוקטובר 2016 בשעה 21:00:12 UTC+3, מאת Odd Bodkin:
> 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):
> "It is very important to know that light behaves as particles, 
> especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you were 
> probably told something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you 
> the way it _does_ behave -- like particles."
> 
> Gauge Fields: Introduction to Quantum Theory, L.D. Faddeev, A. A. 
> Slavnov (1980), p. 17:
> "Throughout we will adopt the customary convention that 'particle' and 
> 'field quantum' are interchangeable terms, in that anything that is 
> labeled as a fundamental particle is understood today in terms of 
> quantum field theory."
> 
> Modern Elementary Particle Physics: The Fundamental Particles and 
> Forces, Gordon Kane (1993), p. 3:
> "The combination of quantum theory and relativity leads to the 
> introduction of quantum fields and of associated particles....Instead, 
> as with electromagnetism and gravity, we say the pushed particle is the 
> source of various fields which carry energy, and perhaps other quantum 
> numbers, through the surrounding space; eventually the fields interact 
> with other particles. Because of the quantum theory, the energy (and 
> perhaps other quantum numbers) is carried by discrete quanta, which 
> become identified with the particles transmitting the force. Thus in a 
> quantum field theory, the elementary particle interactions are 
> interpreted in terms of exchanges of (some of) the particles themselves."
> 
> Fundamental Forces of Nature: The Story of Gauge Fields, Kerson Huang 
> (2007), p. 39:
> "The fundamental object in electromagnetism is the gauge field A;"
> 
> Relativistic Quantum Mechanics and Field Theory, Franz Gross (1993), p. 15:
> "The quanta associated with a quantum field...really are physical 
> particles which carry both momentum and energy."
> 
> Quantum Field Theory for the Gifted Amateur, Tom Lancaster, Stephen J. 
> Blundell (2014), p. 1:
> "Every particle and every wave in the Universe is simply an excitation 
> of a quantum field that is defined over all space and time."
>=============================
nothing to do with no relativity
and not schmelativity !! 

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

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

#599404

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

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

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

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] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web