Science > Physics > Entanglement says space is illusion, what maintains the illusions?
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Potte" |
| Date: |
24 Aug 2005 06:18:19 PM |
| Object: |
Entanglement says space is illusion, what maintains the illusions? |
Nicholas Gisin of the University of Geneva created an
entanglement experiment which shows that the photons
can still be affected very far apart. If one has to model
a superluminal signal that can travel between the pair,
it has to be ten million times the speed of light.
Let's say it is instantaneous. And no superluminal
signal is really sent. This can give one conclusion.
Space is an illusion. What maintains the illusions?
Pls. give me all references which mentions about
space being an illusion. All models whether it is
created by the pure physicists to the insane crackpots
like many here, etc.
Thanks.
Potte
.
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: Entanglement says space is illusion, what maintains the illusions? |
24 Aug 2005 06:27:11 PM |
|
|
On 24 Aug 2005 16:18:19 -0700, "Potte" <photonmanual@yahoo.com> wrote:
Nicholas Gisin of the University of Geneva created an
entanglement experiment which shows that the photons
can still be affected very far apart. If one has to model
a superluminal signal that can travel between the pair,
it has to be ten million times the speed of light.
Let's say it is instantaneous. And no superluminal
signal is really sent. This can give one conclusion.
Space is an illusion. What maintains the illusions?
Pls. give me all references which mentions about
space being an illusion. All models whether it is
created by the pure physicists to the insane crackpots
like many here, etc.
Nasty Little Truth About Space:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm#Space
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Potte" |
|
| Title: Re: Entanglement says space is illusion, what maintains the illusions? |
24 Aug 2005 06:47:54 PM |
|
|
Traveler wrote:
On 24 Aug 2005 16:18:19 -0700, "Potte" <photonmanual@yahoo.com> wrote:
Nicholas Gisin of the University of Geneva created an
entanglement experiment which shows that the photons
can still be affected very far apart. If one has to model
a superluminal signal that can travel between the pair,
it has to be ten million times the speed of light.
Let's say it is instantaneous. And no superluminal
signal is really sent. This can give one conclusion.
Space is an illusion. What maintains the illusions?
Pls. give me all references which mentions about
space being an illusion. All models whether it is
created by the pure physicists to the insane crackpots
like many here, etc.
Nasty Little Truth About Space:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm#Space
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Interesting. Hmm... can the critics of Traveler pls.
share if he has any natural stubbornness like Porat
who ignores experimental data. Pls. comment what he
describes in the following:
"There is no spooky action at a distance because there
is no distance between particles. This is not the same
as saying that the distance is zero; distance simply
does not exist: it is abstract. More precisely, it is
the abstract vector difference between two positional
properties. The entangled polarities are facets of the
same coin. In other words, nonlocality is equivalent to
nonspatiality. Nature is able to apply its principles of conservation
"everywhere" because the universe is one.
Not one in the sense of a single point or location (there
is no location) but one in the sense of yin-yang
complementarity."
Others with similiar model, pls. come up. It is only
one way to make sense of entanglement. Don't ignore this
phenomenon in quantum mechanics for it can give us a clue
to the causal mechanisms of many things including Relativity.
What do you say about Relativity Traveler? Do you agree
with Einstein or not and why?
Potte
.
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: Entanglement says space is illusion, what maintains the illusions? |
24 Aug 2005 07:06:04 PM |
|
|
On 24 Aug 2005 16:47:54 -0700, "Potte" <photonmanual@yahoo.com> wrote:
What do you say about Relativity Traveler? Do you agree
with Einstein or not and why?
Of course, I agree with relativity. Having said that, I disagree with
90% of relativists' interpretation of relativity. Relativity explains
absolutely nothing. It's just a engineering math trick after the fact.
Nothing to get overly excited about.
There is neither space nor time. They are all illusions. There is only
the ever changing present. Real physics is about particles, their
intrinsic properties and their interactions. Everything else is
either abstract or voodoo.
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Entanglement says space is illusion, what maintains the illusions? |
28 Aug 2005 01:46:25 AM |
|
|
Potte wrote:
[remove]
Traveler is just a messed up druggy, just like his boyfriend Hanson.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Entanglement says space is illusion, what maintains the illusions? |
24 Aug 2005 09:40:29 PM |
|
|
Potte wrote:
Nicholas Gisin of the University of Geneva created an
entanglement experiment which shows that the photons
can still be affected very far apart. If one has to model
a superluminal signal that can travel between the pair,
it has to be ten million times the speed of light.
Let's say it is instantaneous. And no superluminal
signal is really sent. This can give one conclusion.
Space is an illusion. What maintains the illusions?
Pls. give me all references which mentions about
space being an illusion. All models whether it is
created by the pure physicists to the insane crackpots
like many here, etc.
Entanglement: The Greatest Mystery in Physics
Amir D Aczel
2002 John Wiley & Sons/Four Walls Eight
Windows 302pp 16.99/$28.00hb
There are two kinds of books about quantum
mechanics. There are those in which we learn
about abstract concepts such as Hilbert spaces,
state vectors and density matrixes, but where the
author never addresses - or only pays lip-service
to - the question of what quantum mechanics
actually means. This is the approach often taken in
textbooks. The other, quite opposite, approach
focuses on the interpretative question - drawing all
kinds of conclusions and analogies, talking about
telepathy and other mysteries, and perhaps even
claiming that quantum mechanics transcends
Western philosophy.
Neither approach is very helpful when one wants
to understand what quantum mechanics really
means in a deep philosophical sense. Amir Aczel's
new book on entanglement - falling as it does into
neither category - avoids such pitfalls.
Anton Zeilinger from the Institute of Experimental
Physics at the University of Vienna reviews the
book in the May issue of Physics World; email
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Rudiak-Gould" |
|
| Title: Re: Entanglement says space is illusion, what maintains the illusions? |
25 Aug 2005 06:30:14 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Entanglement: The Greatest Mystery in Physics
I looked at the beginning of this on amazon.com. Bad start:
| Is it possible that something that happens here will /instantaneously/
| make something happen in a far away location? If we measure something
| in a lab, is it possible that at the same moment, a similar event takes
| place ten miles away, on the other side of the world, or on the other
| side of the universe? Surprisingly, and against every intuition we may
| possess about the workings of the universe, the answer is /yes/.
Based on the above, I'm not expecting an intelligent treatment of the
subject from this book.
Another bad sign: Bertlmann is not mentioned in the index.
-- Ben
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Potte" |
|
| Title: Re: Entanglement says space is illusion, what maintains the illusions? |
25 Aug 2005 12:04:20 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Potte wrote:
Nicholas Gisin of the University of Geneva created an
entanglement experiment which shows that the photons
can still be affected very far apart. If one has to model
a superluminal signal that can travel between the pair,
it has to be ten million times the speed of light.
Let's say it is instantaneous. And no superluminal
signal is really sent. This can give one conclusion.
Space is an illusion. What maintains the illusions?
Pls. give me all references which mentions about
space being an illusion. All models whether it is
created by the pure physicists to the insane crackpots
like many here, etc.
Entanglement: The Greatest Mystery in Physics
Amir D Aczel
2002 John Wiley & Sons/Four Walls Eight
Windows 302pp 16.99/$28.00hb
There are two kinds of books about quantum
mechanics. There are those in which we learn
about abstract concepts such as Hilbert spaces,
state vectors and density matrixes, but where the
author never addresses - or only pays lip-service
to - the question of what quantum mechanics
actually means. This is the approach often taken in
textbooks. The other, quite opposite, approach
focuses on the interpretative question - drawing all
kinds of conclusions and analogies, talking about
telepathy and other mysteries, and perhaps even
claiming that quantum mechanics transcends
Western philosophy.
Neither approach is very helpful when one wants
to understand what quantum mechanics really
means in a deep philosophical sense. Amir Aczel's
new book on entanglement - falling as it does into
neither category - avoids such pitfalls.
Anton Zeilinger from the Institute of Experimental
Physics at the University of Vienna reviews the
book in the May issue of Physics World; email
anton.zeilin...@univie.ac.at
Well. Guess what. I just read the book you mentioned
yesterday. It was there I found out how the entanglement
experiment positive result sort of require (if there
is indeed non-local communication) something ten
million times the speed of light.. that's why one
possibility is that it is instantaneous. If it is.
Then space could be for all intent and purposes be
an illusion. Pls. enumerate all models using such
concepts.
Potte
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Entanglement says space is illusion, what maintains the illusions? |
26 Aug 2005 06:29:20 PM |
|
|
Potte wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Potte wrote:
Nicholas Gisin of the University of Geneva created an
entanglement experiment which shows that the photons
can still be affected very far apart. If one has to model
a superluminal signal that can travel between the pair,
it has to be ten million times the speed of light.
Let's say it is instantaneous. And no superluminal
signal is really sent. This can give one conclusion.
Space is an illusion. What maintains the illusions?
Pls. give me all references which mentions about
space being an illusion. All models whether it is
created by the pure physicists to the insane crackpots
like many here, etc.
Entanglement: The Greatest Mystery in Physics
Amir D Aczel
2002 John Wiley & Sons/Four Walls Eight
Windows 302pp 16.99/$28.00hb
There are two kinds of books about quantum
mechanics. There are those in which we learn
about abstract concepts such as Hilbert spaces,
state vectors and density matrixes, but where the
author never addresses - or only pays lip-service
to - the question of what quantum mechanics
actually means. This is the approach often taken in
textbooks. The other, quite opposite, approach
focuses on the interpretative question - drawing all
kinds of conclusions and analogies, talking about
telepathy and other mysteries, and perhaps even
claiming that quantum mechanics transcends
Western philosophy.
Neither approach is very helpful when one wants
to understand what quantum mechanics really
means in a deep philosophical sense. Amir Aczel's
new book on entanglement - falling as it does into
neither category - avoids such pitfalls.
Anton Zeilinger from the Institute of Experimental
Physics at the University of Vienna reviews the
book in the May issue of Physics World; email
anton.zeilin...@univie.ac.at
Well. Guess what. I just read the book you mentioned
yesterday. It was there I found out how the entanglement
experiment positive result sort of require (if there
is indeed non-local communication) something ten
million times the speed of light.. that's why one
possibility is that it is instantaneous. If it is.
Then space could be for all intent and purposes be
an illusion. Pls. enumerate all models using such
concepts.
Potte
One doesn't have to alter one's perception of space to
incorporate quantum entities that happen to be spread(ing)
over space. One thing I learned a long time ago... trying
to understand either relativistic or quantum phenomena in
Newtonian terms is counter productive. Feynman used to say
"shut up and calculate".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Orion" |
|
| Title: Re: Entanglement says space is illusion, what maintains the illusions? |
26 Aug 2005 06:54:48 PM |
|
|
Quantum entanglement? We're are not even sure that's what happens.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Orion" |
|
| Title: Re: Entanglement says space is illusion, what maintains the illusions? |
26 Aug 2005 07:21:58 PM |
|
|
New Scientist says that quantum entanglement may give objects mass...
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6558
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Entanglement says space is illusion, what maintains the illusions? |
26 Aug 2005 07:24:41 PM |
|
|
Orion wrote:
New Scientist says that quantum entanglement may give objects mass...
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6558
"New Scientist" doesn't have that good of record for reliable
information. Scientific accuracy is not their forte.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Orion" |
|
| Title: Re: Entanglement says space is illusion, what maintains the illusions? |
26 Aug 2005 07:35:15 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
"New Scientist" doesn't have that good of record for reliable
information. Scientific accuracy is not their forte.
It's speculative at best but it makes more sense than the Higgs field
theory.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Entanglement says space is illusion, what maintains the illusions? |
26 Aug 2005 07:38:31 PM |
|
|
Potte wrote:
Nicholas Gisin of the University of Geneva created an
entanglement experiment which shows that the photons
can still be affected very far apart. If one has to model
a superluminal signal that can travel between the pair,
it has to be ten million times the speed of light.
Let's say it is instantaneous. And no superluminal
signal is really sent. This can give one conclusion.
Space is an illusion. What maintains the illusions?
Note that illusions are not unreal.
An anomalous image of a body of water in the desert is a real
atmospheric anomaly: it's merely our interpretation of it which is
faulty.
Similarly, if following Kant, and you, space is an "illusion", it
doesn't mean that the apparent structure of spacetime has no basis in
reality: the overwhelming utility of this order in physics argues
otherwise. If there is some other -- dare we say "implicate" order --
it will have to explain very convincingly the utility of our normal
ordering.
And I should say that the cognoscenti deny entanglement requires any
signal to be sent -- either superluminally, or in some other local
background which makes space an illusion. They say the locality of
spacetime is essentially the same, if I understand this, but that what
propagates is "quantum logic" or "quantum networks" or so forth...
which states have the properties ascribed to entanglement.
I allow the possible logical consistency of this view, but I say the
behavior of these quantum network thingies is still non-local, in a
very broad, information theoretic sense of "local" -- stuff affecting
stuff nearby. They would claim just the opposite.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Entanglement says space is illusion, what maintains the illusions? |
27 Aug 2005 10:26:01 PM |
|
|
Entanglement has nothing to do with affecting. If you want to send a
signal faster than light, don't entangle but teleport by digging out
the vacuum.
There are no illusions; everything looks exactly how it's supposed to.
There are, however, delusions of the mind, like Traveler's.
Dammit, I already postulated that the electron was a black
hole--actually, a grey hole--in my treatise /Refutation of
Thermodynamic Laws/.
-Aut
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr Photon" |
|
| Title: Re: Entanglement says space is illusion, what maintains the illusions? |
25 Aug 2005 11:52:30 AM |
|
|
Potte wrote:
Pls. give me all references which mentions about
space being an illusion. All models whether it is
created by the pure physicists to the insane crackpots
like many here, etc
Einstein didn't quite say space was an illusion, but he did toy with
the idea that particles are actually wormholes
http://www.krioma.net/articles/Bridge%20Theory/Einstein%20Rosen%20Bridge.htm
"The purpose of the paper of Einstein and Rosen was not to promote
faster-than-light or inter-universe travel, but to attempt to explain
fundamental particles like electrons as space-tunnels threaded by
electric lines of force. "
and it is not hard to conjecture that entanglement between individual
particles could be a "joined wormhole" handle. Thus there could be a
very real connection between the two particles, and still space time is
not an illusion.
This view fell from favour, afaik, due to such wormholes being
unstable, but still you never know, there could be something to keep
them going.
How it explains entangled atoms is harder to see (well, actually, I
don't see it at all, but I'm not saying it's impossible).
br
p.s. it could be due to qi, did you ever consider that? ;)
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Sefton" |
|
| Title: Re: Entanglement says space is illusion, what maintains the illusions? |
26 Aug 2005 02:14:56 PM |
|
|
Dr Photon wrote:
Potte wrote:
Pls. give me all references which mentions about
space being an illusion. All models whether it is
created by the pure physicists to the insane crackpots
like many here, etc
Einstein didn't quite say space was an illusion, but he did toy with
the idea that particles are actually wormholes
http://www.krioma.net/articles/Bridge%20Theory/Einstein%20Rosen%20Bridge.htm
"The purpose of the paper of Einstein and Rosen was not to promote
faster-than-light or inter-universe travel, but to attempt to explain
fundamental particles like electrons as space-tunnels threaded by
electric lines of force. "
and it is not hard to conjecture that entanglement between individual
particles could be a "joined wormhole" handle. Thus there could be a
very real connection between the two particles, and still space time is
not an illusion.
This view fell from favour, afaik, due to such wormholes being
unstable, but still you never know, there could be something to keep
them going.
How it explains entangled atoms is harder to see (well, actually, I
don't see it at all, but I'm not saying it's impossible).
br
p.s. it could be due to qi, did you ever consider that? ;)
All atoms are holes. Protons are Black holes.
The inside of each proton is constantly being
actively evacuated to form huge numbers of mini-
black holes which conglomerate into mini suns and
planets and spiral away from their centers (its electron).
These mini-black holes are also atoms at
the next level down and their centers are constantly being
actively evacuated to form huge numbers of mini-miniBHs.
So its a layer of holes surrounded by a lower layer of holes
surrounded by an even lower layer of holes, etc.
It's ALL ******* holes, mate!
:-)
John
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Potte" |
|
| Title: Re: Entanglement says space is illusion, what maintains the illusions? |
26 Aug 2005 05:14:55 PM |
|
|
John Sefton wrote:
Dr Photon wrote:
Potte wrote:
Pls. give me all references which mentions about
space being an illusion. All models whether it is
created by the pure physicists to the insane crackpots
like many here, etc
Einstein didn't quite say space was an illusion, but he did toy with
the idea that particles are actually wormholes
http://www.krioma.net/articles/Bridge%20Theory/Einstein%20Rosen%20Bridge.htm
"The purpose of the paper of Einstein and Rosen was not to promote
faster-than-light or inter-universe travel, but to attempt to explain
fundamental particles like electrons as space-tunnels threaded by
electric lines of force. "
and it is not hard to conjecture that entanglement between individual
particles could be a "joined wormhole" handle. Thus there could be a
very real connection between the two particles, and still space time is
not an illusion.
This view fell from favour, afaik, due to such wormholes being
unstable, but still you never know, there could be something to keep
them going.
How it explains entangled atoms is harder to see (well, actually, I
don't see it at all, but I'm not saying it's impossible).
br
p.s. it could be due to qi, did you ever consider that? ;)
All atoms are holes. Protons are Black holes.
The inside of each proton is constantly being
actively evacuated to form huge numbers of mini-
black holes which conglomerate into mini suns and
planets and spiral away from their centers (its electron).
These mini-black holes are also atoms at
the next level down and their centers are constantly being
actively evacuated to form huge numbers of mini-miniBHs.
So its a layer of holes surrounded by a lower layer of holes
surrounded by an even lower layer of holes, etc.
It's ALL ******* holes, mate!
:-)
John
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/
It amuses me how people can believe in all kinds of nonsense :)
Anyway. For fun, let's grill Sefton and see how far he can still
makes sense.
1. John, How do you explain entanglement?
2. Neutrons and alpha particles can be emitted from for example
uranium. So are these emitted particles still black holes since
they are part of the nucleus??
3. Single protons such as hydrogen atoms have been probed by
scattering, they can see some lumps inside. What are those lumps
if they are not quarks?
4. What do you think is the pion... note pion has been used as
cancer therapy particles because when near the nucleus it can
disturb it enough much like neutrons being introduced to the uranium
causing instability and fission. So depending on pion therapy
behavior, it can destroy the nucleus.
5. What is your thought of the quantum vacuum.. how come proton-
anti proton particles can be created out of pure energy?
That's all for now. Answer each of them in details John.
Potte
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Sefton" |
|
| Title: Re: Entanglement says space is illusion, what maintains the illusions? |
28 Aug 2005 05:16:01 PM |
|
|
Potte wrote:
John Sefton wrote:
Dr Photon wrote:
Potte wrote:
Pls. give me all references which mentions about
space being an illusion. All models whether it is
created by the pure physicists to the insane crackpots
like many here, etc
Einstein didn't quite say space was an illusion, but he did toy with
the idea that particles are actually wormholes
http://www.krioma.net/articles/Bridge%20Theory/Einstein%20Rosen%20Bridge.htm
"The purpose of the paper of Einstein and Rosen was not to promote
faster-than-light or inter-universe travel, but to attempt to explain
fundamental particles like electrons as space-tunnels threaded by
electric lines of force. "
and it is not hard to conjecture that entanglement between individual
particles could be a "joined wormhole" handle. Thus there could be a
very real connection between the two particles, and still space time is
not an illusion.
This view fell from favour, afaik, due to such wormholes being
unstable, but still you never know, there could be something to keep
them going.
How it explains entangled atoms is harder to see (well, actually, I
don't see it at all, but I'm not saying it's impossible).
br
p.s. it could be due to qi, did you ever consider that? ;)
All atoms are holes. Protons are Black holes.
The inside of each proton is constantly being
actively evacuated to form huge numbers of mini-
black holes which conglomerate into mini suns and
planets and spiral away from their centers (its electron).
These mini-black holes are also atoms at
the next level down and their centers are constantly being
actively evacuated to form huge numbers of mini-miniBHs.
So its a layer of holes surrounded by a lower layer of holes
surrounded by an even lower layer of holes, etc.
It's ALL ******* holes, mate!
:-)
John
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/
It amuses me how people can believe in all kinds of nonsense :)
Anyway. For fun, let's grill Sefton and see how far he can still
makes sense.
1. John, How do you explain entanglement?
2. Neutrons and alpha particles can be emitted from for example
uranium. So are these emitted particles still black holes since
they are part of the nucleus??
3. Single protons such as hydrogen atoms have been probed by
scattering, they can see some lumps inside. What are those lumps
if they are not quarks?
4. What do you think is the pion... note pion has been used as
cancer therapy particles because when near the nucleus it can
disturb it enough much like neutrons being introduced to the uranium
causing instability and fission. So depending on pion therapy
behavior, it can destroy the nucleus.
5. What is your thought of the quantum vacuum.. how come proton-
anti proton particles can be created out of pure energy?
That's all for now. Answer each of them in details John.
Potte
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Sefton" |
|
| Title: Re: Entanglement says space is illusion, what maintains the illusions? |
28 Aug 2005 06:41:44 PM |
|
|
Potte wrote:
John Sefton wrote:
Dr Photon wrote:
Potte wrote:
Pls. give me all references which mentions about
space being an illusion. All models whether it is
created by the pure physicists to the insane crackpots
like many here, etc
Einstein didn't quite say space was an illusion, but he did toy with
the idea that particles are actually wormholes
http://www.krioma.net/articles/Bridge%20Theory/Einstein%20Rosen%20Bridge.htm
"The purpose of the paper of Einstein and Rosen was not to promote
faster-than-light or inter-universe travel, but to attempt to explain
fundamental particles like electrons as space-tunnels threaded by
electric lines of force. "
and it is not hard to conjecture that entanglement between individual
particles could be a "joined wormhole" handle. Thus there could be a
very real connection between the two particles, and still space time is
not an illusion.
This view fell from favour, afaik, due to such wormholes being
unstable, but still you never know, there could be something to keep
them going.
How it explains entangled atoms is harder to see (well, actually, I
don't see it at all, but I'm not saying it's impossible).
br
p.s. it could be due to qi, did you ever consider that? ;)
All atoms are holes. Protons are Black holes.
The inside of each proton is constantly being
actively evacuated to form huge numbers of mini-
black holes which conglomerate into mini suns and
planets and spiral away from their centers (its electron).
These mini-black holes are also atoms at
the next level down and their centers are constantly being
actively evacuated to form huge numbers of mini-miniBHs.
So its a layer of holes surrounded by a lower layer of holes
surrounded by an even lower layer of holes, etc.
It's ALL ******* holes, mate!
:-)
John
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/
It amuses me how people can believe in all kinds of nonsense :)
Anyway. For fun, let's grill Sefton and see how far he can still
makes sense.
1. John, How do you explain entanglement?
a.How do *you* explain it?
b.Accretion discs at the atom/galaxy center reach
a critical value or are perturbed and quasars/photons
are released in opposite directions as part of the
same wave.
2. Neutrons and alpha particles can be emitted from for example
uranium. So are these emitted particles still black holes since
they are part of the nucleus??
You mean no longer a part of the
nucleus? Does neutron decay release protons?
Do alpha particles contain protons?
3. Single protons such as hydrogen atoms have been probed by
scattering, they can see some lumps inside. What are those lumps
if they are not quarks?
Lumps are lumps. Is a spherical standing wave homogeneous or does it
have structure?
4. What do you think is the pion... note pion has been used as
cancer therapy particles because when near the nucleus it can
disturb it enough much like neutrons being introduced to the uranium
causing instability and fission. So depending on pion therapy
behavior, it can destroy the nucleus.
Do pions contain protons?
5. What is your thought of the quantum vacuum.. how come proton-
anti proton particles can be created out of pure energy?
Everything is energy. Different long-lived particles have
different patterns.
Different short-lived particles also have distinctive
patterns eg pions.
That's all for now. Answer each of them in details John.
Potte
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
