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

#599745

Exactly, Odd.
QM has zero predictive power.

Predictions are stuff like,
Jupiter has a crust,
and
galaxies precess.

Right right?

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

#599759

On 10/6/2016 2:59 PM, john wrote:
> Exactly, Odd.
> QM has zero predictive power.

Bullshit, John. Where the fuck did you get that idea?

>
> Predictions are stuff like,
> Jupiter has a crust,
> and
> galaxies precess.

I don't think you know what a scientific prediction is, John.

Newton's gravity telling people exactly WHERE (quantitative azimuth and 
altitude) to find the previously unobserved planet Neptune was a prediction.

Pauli and Fermi predicting the existence of a neutrino, and that if you 
have a source like a nuclear reactor that should produce the neutrinos 
(if they exist) at a rate of 50 trillion neutrinos per second per square 
centimeter, and that flux is impinging on 200 liters of water, then you 
should see about 3 neutrino+proton interactions per hour -- that's a 
prediction.

Gell-Mann predicting that if the quark model is correct, then you should 
see a particle (not yet found) with mass about 1680 MeV, with specified 
lifetime and decay products, which was later found exactly where 
predicted -- that's a prediction.

Einstein predicting exactly HOW MUCH that light will be red-shifted if 
it is radiated from the ground and detected 22.6 meters higher in the 
Earth's gravitational field, and that being exactly the amount of shift 
seen at the Jefferson Lab when experimenters set it up -- that's a 
prediction.


>
> Right right?
>


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

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

#599764

Dne 06/10/2016 v 23:15 Odd Bodkin napsal(a):
> On 10/6/2016 2:59 PM, john wrote:
>> Exactly, Odd.
>> QM has zero predictive power.
> 
> Bullshit, John. Where the fuck did you get that idea?
> 
>>
>> Predictions are stuff like,
>> Jupiter has a crust,
>> and
>> galaxies precess.
> 
> I don't think you know what a scientific prediction is, John.
> 
> Newton's gravity telling people exactly WHERE (quantitative azimuth and
> altitude) to find the previously unobserved planet Neptune was a
> prediction.
> 
> Pauli and Fermi predicting the existence of a neutrino, and that if you
> have a source like a nuclear reactor that should produce the neutrinos
> (if they exist) at a rate of 50 trillion neutrinos per second per square
> centimeter, and that flux is impinging on 200 liters of water, then you
> should see about 3 neutrino+proton interactions per hour -- that's a
> prediction.
> 
> Gell-Mann predicting that if the quark model is correct, then you should
> see a particle (not yet found) with mass about 1680 MeV, with specified
> lifetime and decay products, which was later found exactly where
> predicted -- that's a prediction.
> 
> Einstein predicting exactly HOW MUCH that light will be red-shifted if
> it is radiated from the ground and detected 22.6 meters higher in the
> Earth's gravitational field, and that being exactly the amount of shift
> seen at the Jefferson Lab when experimenters set it up -- that's a
> prediction.
> 

Hm, AFAIK, scientific prediction is not ( only ) foretelling,
but generally it says what should be observed
(qualitatively or quantitatively ),
regardless of if it was observed already/known or not yet.

If predictions of already known observations fails,
something is wrong.

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

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

#599765

Dne 06/10/2016 v 23:41 Poutnik napsal(a):

> 
> Hm, AFAIK, scientific prediction is not ( only ) foretelling,
> but generally it says what should be observed
> (qualitatively or quantitatively ),
> regardless of if it was observed already/known or not yet.
> 
> If predictions of already known observations fails,
> something is wrong.
> 
I.e., prediction the Planet X will be at time t at position P
would not stop being prediction, if the planet was already discovered
and the time t already passed.

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

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

#599768

On 10/6/2016 4:41 PM, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 06/10/2016 v 23:15 Odd Bodkin napsal(a):
>> On 10/6/2016 2:59 PM, john wrote:
>>> Exactly, Odd.
>>> QM has zero predictive power.
>>
>> Bullshit, John. Where the fuck did you get that idea?
>>
>>>
>>> Predictions are stuff like,
>>> Jupiter has a crust,
>>> and
>>> galaxies precess.
>>
>> I don't think you know what a scientific prediction is, John.
>>
>> Newton's gravity telling people exactly WHERE (quantitative azimuth and
>> altitude) to find the previously unobserved planet Neptune was a
>> prediction.
>>
>> Pauli and Fermi predicting the existence of a neutrino, and that if you
>> have a source like a nuclear reactor that should produce the neutrinos
>> (if they exist) at a rate of 50 trillion neutrinos per second per square
>> centimeter, and that flux is impinging on 200 liters of water, then you
>> should see about 3 neutrino+proton interactions per hour -- that's a
>> prediction.
>>
>> Gell-Mann predicting that if the quark model is correct, then you should
>> see a particle (not yet found) with mass about 1680 MeV, with specified
>> lifetime and decay products, which was later found exactly where
>> predicted -- that's a prediction.
>>
>> Einstein predicting exactly HOW MUCH that light will be red-shifted if
>> it is radiated from the ground and detected 22.6 meters higher in the
>> Earth's gravitational field, and that being exactly the amount of shift
>> seen at the Jefferson Lab when experimenters set it up -- that's a
>> prediction.
>>
>
> Hm, AFAIK, scientific prediction is not ( only ) foretelling,
> but generally it says what should be observed
> (qualitatively or quantitatively ),
> regardless of if it was observed already/known or not yet.
>
> If predictions of already known observations fails,
> something is wrong.
>

Matching with previously known data is critically important but is AFAIK 
called postdiction. Any model that only does postdiction but cannot do 
any prediction is really in the category of a data-fitting exercise and 
not really a theory that shows deeper understanding. A theory that makes 
progress in understanding necessarily makes new predictions for 
observations that have not yet been made.

I'll note that many of John's "models" are already in conflict with 
existing data -- that is, they say things should be some way that 
measurements already say they are not -- but John doesn't really care.

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

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

#599808

Dne 07/10/2016 v 00:11 Odd Bodkin napsal(a):
> On 10/6/2016 4:41 PM, Poutnik wrote:

>>>
>>
>> Hm, AFAIK, scientific prediction is not ( only ) foretelling,
>> but generally it says what should be observed
>> (qualitatively or quantitatively ),
>> regardless of if it was observed already/known or not yet.
>>
>> If predictions of already known observations fails,
>> something is wrong.
>>
> 
> Matching with previously known data is critically important but is AFAIK
> called postdiction. Any model that only does postdiction but cannot do
> any prediction is really in the category of a data-fitting exercise and
> not really a theory that shows deeper understanding. A theory that makes
> progress in understanding necessarily makes new predictions for
> observations that have not yet been made.

But it is not in contrary with what I have said.

I say prediction is used in wider sense
than foretelling of not yet observed phenomena.

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

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

#599809

Dne 07/10/2016 v 07:14 Poutnik napsal(a):

> But it is not in contrary with what I have said.
> 
> I say prediction is used in wider sense
> than foretelling of not yet observed phenomena.
> 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction#Prediction_in_science

"In science, a prediction is a rigorous, often quantitative, statement,
forecasting what would happen under specific conditions; for example, if
an apple fell from a tree it would be attracted towards the center of
the earth by gravity with a specified and constant acceleration."

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

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

#599813

Dne 07/10/2016 v 07:20 Poutnik napsal(a):
> Dne 07/10/2016 v 07:14 Poutnik napsal(a):
> 
>> But it is not in contrary with what I have said.
>>
>> I say prediction is used in wider sense
>> than foretelling of not yet observed phenomena.
>>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction#Prediction_in_science
> 
> "In science, a prediction is a rigorous, often quantitative, statement,
> forecasting what would happen under specific conditions; for example, if
> an apple fell from a tree it would be attracted towards the center of
> the earth by gravity with a specified and constant acceleration."
> 

Conditions->theory->predictions

Disturbance in Uranus orbit->theory->
->predicted unknown planet of mass m at time t at position X

Planet found, named Neptune

Position of Mars on the sky after 6 months ? ->
->theory->predicted future position

Position of Mars on the sky before 6 months ? ->
->theory->predicted past already known position


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

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

#599792

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Exactly, Odd.
>QM has zero predictive power.

What do you mean?  QED accurately makes predictions to 10 decimal places.

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

#600709

On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 4:00:11 PM UTC-4, john wrote:
> Exactly, Odd.
> QM has zero predictive power.

WRONG  BZZT! Thank you for playing, but you lost.

QM is used to predict molecular bonds and shapes.
A lot of modern pharmaceuticals are based on proteins
that are Designed based on QM modeling.

> 
> Predictions are stuff like,
> Jupiter has a crust,
> and
> galaxies precess.
> 
> Right right?

Sure, go ahead. Keep thinking that.

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

#600712

Ed
"
QM is used to predict molecular bonds and shapes. 
A lot of modern pharmaceuticals are based on proteins 
that are Designed based on QM modeling. 
"

As the BEES go extinct from Big Pharmas
wionky poisons.
(Darvon just about got me.)

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

#600724

On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 11:18:34 AM UTC-4, john wrote:
> Ed
> "
> QM is used to predict molecular bonds and shapes. 
> A lot of modern pharmaceuticals are based on proteins 
> that are Designed based on QM modeling. 
> "
> 
> As the BEES go extinct from Big Pharmas
> wionky poisons.
> (Darvon just about got me.)

This doesn't seem to have anything to do with
what you quoted. Since you did not disagree, it implies that
you agree QM does work in designing molecules.

Glad we made some progress.

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

#600732

Ed
"
This doesn't seem to have anything to do with 
what you quoted. Since you did not disagree, it implies that 
you agree QM does work in designing molecules. 
"

Sure. "Designing" poisons. Nice

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

#600742

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Ed
>"
>QM is used to predict molecular bonds and shapes. 
>A lot of modern pharmaceuticals are based on proteins 
>that are Designed based on QM modeling. 
>"

>As the BEES go extinct from Big Pharmas
>wionky poisons.

Non sequitur.  And you're thinking of Big Agra anyway, not Big Pharma.

>(Darvon just about got me.)

Ancient drug, so not based on QM modeling.

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

#599789

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Odd
>You don't have a model.
>You have book keeping.

And yet again, you don't understand what a science model is.  You think a
science model is an animated .gif of a bunch of spinny things.  In
science, a model is often expressions and math.  For example, F=BIL is a
mathematical and science model of a current carrying wire in a magnetic
field at right angles to it. Multiply the magnetic field strength B by the
current I and the length of the wire L (actually the cross product of the
B vector and the length L, times I) and you get the force F.  You can
(should) have a diagram of the setup to help understand the setup, but the
diagram isn't the model itself.

Engineers use that model to design electric motors.  And guess what? The
model works, so so does the electric motor!

>Exactly like the situation before it
>was realized that the Sun
>doesn't go around the Earth.

No, that was an incorrect model of the solar system.  It was incorrect
in part because it was based on common sense.  Common sense says the
earth is stationary and the sun goes around it once per day.  (Do you
feel like you are spinning at hundreds of miles per hour?)

>Do able,
>but we need a model.

And we have excellent models!  But they are what science calls models,
not cutaways of internal combustion engines in children's museums, and
not animated gifs of spinny things.

>I suggest looking at the similarities 
>between galaxies and atoms.

And I see very little similarity.

>I bet galaxies precess FASTER (twice)
>than they rotate.

And observation of spectrums from galaxies tells us that is wrong.
And go see a shrink about your precessing spinny thing OCD.

>What does YOUR model predict?
>(Fuck all)

Science models predict how nature behaves.  And in so many cases does an
excellent job at doing so.  (Do electric motors work?)

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

#599834

No, that was an incorrect model of the solar system.  It was incorrect 
in part because it was based on common sense.  Common sense says the 
earth is stationary and the sun goes around it once per day.  (Do you 
feel like you are spinning at hundreds of miles per hour?) 
-----------

Depends on little pharma

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

#599811

On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 5:49:09 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 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?
> 
> 
>============================
nasty pig !!
what are you bubbling balls  
just boggle you own balls 
and not others  
YOU ARE A CRIMINAL AGAINST MANKIND !!!
Y.Porat
==================================
===============================

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

#599657

On Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 9:12:12 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 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.
> 
> ---------------------------
if there are many 
it is a good sign that
NON  OF THEM IS COMPREHANSIVE ENOUGH ????

============================================

NO MASS'' THE ONLY MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !!
==================================================
MASS IS THE MOTHER OF AL FORCES INCLUDING GRAVITY !!
====================================================

 Y.Porat
================================

> 

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

#599251

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

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

#599337

Odd quoted
"
of a quantum field that is defined over all space and time." 


Dee-fined o-vah ALL SPACE AND.....
      DA DA DA.......

TIME!!!
What a fucking crock of fucking shit.
No wonder you're such a basket

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

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

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web