| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Nth Complexity" |
| Date: |
03 Aug 2005 11:26:39 PM |
| Object: |
The Future of Theoretical Physics |
Patty wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Patty wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
A 'Point particle ( or a 'Finite particle') cannot behave like a wave
!!
Damn straight Porat! Modern crackpot physicists claim elementary
particle ensembles to be equivalent to quantum fields, but even they
must admit that:
1. Photons aren't particles. First of all, photons lack the very
essential characteristic of a free particle, which is a well-defined
position. They can't even construct a mathemagical quantum mechanical
Hilbert space position operator for it.
2. No particles at all. Electrons are often described as
being "clothed" in a cloud of "virtual" photons. Truth is, even
physicists have to admit that the so-called electron and photon
particles are really no more than lines on their Feynman diagrams, and
they represent terms in their field theory, after the field has
undergone a convenient Fourier transform.
3. No Fock space. Some people try to pretend that these wavy lines on
diagrams represent energy and momentum eigenstates of particles. This
is wholly false. The convenient delusion of Fock space breaks down the
moment you insert an interaction term to the Lagrangian, and goes to
Hell in a handbasket if curved space gets involved. True energy
eigenstates never do anything, by definition. That isn't the real
world.
4. Electrons aren't a field. A field assigns a number to each point
in space. What sort of a number is zero when squared? How do you
measure a Grassman variable? When was the last time you saw a
physicist take out his Diracometer and read off "4.35 zeta"?
5. No fields. A field is a mathematical function that assigns a
number to every point in space. Quantum field theory says that the
field value at any given point is a divergent sum. That ain't no
number, friend.
(copyright Y.P 3-8-05) unless someone was preceding me...)
now let's see how long it will take you to make the right conclusions-
out of that assertion.
to make *conclusions* out of it seems to be only my copyright idea
......
PS Uncle Al stay away ............
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------
Let me educate you as you are so lost.
Imagine you are boiling water, bubbles are being formed. The
bubbles represent the electrons,
Your pathetic attempt at symbology not only fails to convey anything
that is not conveyed by the bozo physicists' catch-phrase "excitation
of a field," but also makes it clear even to the uneducated that you
are blowing stuff out your pompous *****.
-----------
i just wonder who is lost.......
why should i take your primitive metaphor as representing the
electron??
common pompous dude:
don't you parrot mathematician that considers himself a teacher in
physics
realize that *(listen carefully Poppy)*
a bubble is not a finite particle!!
got it idiot?? do you have some reading comprehension??
it is composed of millions of sub particles got it pompy??
air bubble i mean
No, you meant, "This is a stupid metaphor and I will now proceed to
spank myself 317 times."
and the boiling water the
field.
----------
from when on boiling water is a field??
The quantum vacuum has micro fluctuations like boiling water.
Sounds like a half-assed mixture of a sci-fi "quantum foam" picture
with the less far-out sci-fi "loops on a Feynman diagram" picture.
You're not getting to the point. How is bad physics going to help you
sell your "Pranic Healing" services?
The field is one of its inbodiment.
I take it drugs are easy to come by in the Phillippines. Plus they
believe you when you tell them you're a medical professional.
When one say an electron
has wave properties. It is because it is part of the field.
This means the particle is just a secondary effect of the field.
Without any field, there is no particle.
In your case. you are trying to model the particle like its
some classical object like a baseball. In this way, you conclude
a point particle can't have wave properties... which is erroneous.
Get it now?
Einstein, Dirac, Born, Feynman, etc. These folks are almost
living imbodiments of God. So parrotting is like praying to
them and God.
Also note our parrotting talies with billions of dollars worth
of experiments and mathemetical model which is the language of
reality. Where's your evidence or proof, genius? Stop wasting
time imagining things. Study some basic physics stuff.
Patty
Now you're getting the idea, Pranic Healing Boy! If crackpot
physicists can get billions of dollars to play around with cool toys
that are dead-end as far as research is concerned ... And if laymen
who read folks like Sagan or Hawking come off with the impression that
Einstein, etc., are gods ... And if those same people, misled by those
same books, are convinced the art the gods practice, quantum mechanics,
is a form of magic ... And if many are already ready, out of
desperation, to swallow claims of magical healing techniques ... Then
how much money can be made by claiming that modern theoretical physics
backs up your Qi ***** (these statements not evaluated by the fda,
product not intended to diagnose, treat, or cure any disease)?
Now all the world can see what theoretical physics has become: A
giant, shameless, money-making game. Despicable!
2 if an electron behaves *in a real field* -- like a wave
may be it is from some other reasons than a parrot can imagine??!!
-----
So electrons are more like oscillations of the Dirac
field.
-----------
electrons never hear ed about Dirac got it mathematics parrot??
electrons are natures creation that an idiot like you didn't got until
now
the Dirac field might be just a poor model of it !!
The field is primary, particles are just quantized part of it.
particles are quantized parts of a field Eh ???
and without a field there is no particles??
had you asked yourself just that simple question you would not
bring here your stupidity.
Don't you understand??
no i don't understand what you dint understand!!
before educating others educate yourself with reasonable thinking
not just stupid parroting.
Don't worry. I'd send you a free book I'm writing now called
"Cranks, crackpots and the Standard model" where you will be
you should read your book first
so ***** of my mack and deal with your idiotic Friends
not with me
because i don't what to deal with you or alike you anymore!!
let more open minded people than you and more cleaver get in
Y.Porat
--------------------
Ovnf wppw nonxth gh hpmcpuc lgwc Sg Bpi vcxc clgkgblc dpx? Vpo nbpef
fvc hpjwzezzcf puc?
-- Nth Complexity --
-- Have A Nice Day! --
"The teaching of science and mathematics must be purged of its
authoritarian and elitist characteristics, and the content of these
subjects enriched by incorporating the insights of the feminist,
queer, multiculturalist and ecological critiques." -- A.D.S.
--
Sent by nth_complexity from yahoo subpart from com
This is a spam protected message. Please answer with reference header.
Posted via http://www.usenet-replayer.com
.
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: The Future of Theoretical Physics |
04 Aug 2005 03:56:43 AM |
|
|
Nth Complexity wrote:
Patty wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Patty wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
A 'Point particle ( or a 'Finite particle') cannot behave like a wave
!!
Damn straight Porat! Modern crackpot physicists claim elementary
particle ensembles to be equivalent to quantum fields,
Perhaps "modern crackpot physicists" claim that, I don't know.
Fortunately, *real* physicists don't claim that.
[snip more nonsense and straw men]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: The Future of Theoretical Physics |
04 Aug 2005 04:23:21 AM |
|
|
just in short
the man shows all the signs of insanity
(or alternatively a sophisticated crock!)
he puts in my mouth things i never said
he hides himself under a false name
only God known what a cook
'quantum vacuum Eh .....?.....
so just ignore him
TIA
Y.Porat
------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patty" |
|
| Title: Re: The Future of Theoretical Physics |
04 Aug 2005 05:10:38 AM |
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
just in short
the man shows all the signs of insanity
(or alternatively a sophisticated crock!)
he puts in my mouth things i never said
he hides himself under a false name
only God known what a cook
'quantum vacuum Eh .....?.....
so just ignore him
TIA
Y.Porat
------------
My message to Porat is just knee jerk reaction of his
ridiculous eel model which he keeps spewing for over
10 years.
Let me re convey it in more porat free ridiculousness.
It is said that photons are quanta of the electromagnetic
field. Pions are quanta of the strong field. W+,W-,Z are
quanta of the weak field. Via the de_broglie particle-wave
relationship in photons and electrons. Then the electrons
must be quanta of electron matter field. This means particles
are for all intent and purposes part of the fields which is
more primary. So without fields, there are no particles.
Disagree, why? Electrons may be fermions and the others
bosons but they obey the debroglie relationship just the
same.
About the boiling water. We know that virtual particle
pairs can pop in and out of the quantum vacuum. These
fluctuations can be likened to boiling water. Even an
electron has virtual particle pair popping in and out of
its electric field.
In a nutshell. Fields are more primary. Particles need
it. What Porat and others are emphasizing are giving
a classical pictures to the electrons as balls with
subparticles inside. If you will treat it as just quanta
of the electron matter field, then you don't have to
speak about its classical side which it isn't.
This is why light and matter can behave as particle
and as waves. What almost all cranks are doing are
separating the particles from the fields and justifying
why the particles are constructed in a certain way.
Lastly. From the Kochen Specker Theorem. There
seems to be a deeper reality behind fields and space/time
itself.. it's as if they are just projections of some kind
where locality is just an illusions (this is why non-locality
doesn't exist because locality is just some kind of
illusion).
This gives me some idea that reality may be some kind
of Matrix in more sophisticated fashion where things
are not what they appear to be.
Patty
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: The Future of Theoretical Physics |
04 Aug 2005 06:13:53 AM |
|
|
Patty wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
just in short
the man shows all the signs of insanity
(or alternatively a sophisticated crock!)
he puts in my mouth things i never said
he hides himself under a false name
only God known what a cook
'quantum vacuum Eh .....?.....
so just ignore him
TIA
Y.Porat
------------
My message to Porat is just knee jerk reaction of his
ridiculous eel model which he keeps spewing for over
10 years.
----------------
hear is a mathematical prove that you are a lier!!
(at the good case if you give you the benefit of doubt
you are an irresponsible and unreliable person):
my Eel model was not born much before this year!!!
anyone can realize it through Goggle
now what have you to say about it for your defense???
if to follow my memory i called it :
'the Eel model of the electron'
and of course you are unable to understand how sophisticated it is ....
---------
---------
Let me re convey it in more Porat free ridiculousness.
quantum vacuum Eh??? who is ridiculous ??
----------
It is said that photons are quanta of the electromagnetic
field. Pion's are quanta of the strong field. W+,W-,Z are
quanta of the weak field.
very nice !!
thank you for mentioning the W bosons.....
------
Via the de_Broglie particle-wave
relationship in photons and electrons. Then the electrons
must be quanta of electron matter field.
-----
that is until now the closest to reasonable thing you
said until now
provided that you will say many quanta'
which is too abstract and does not advance us too much
anyway at least you are able to fix things quickly with the skill of a
Camel ion!!
--------
This means particles
are for all intent and purposes part of the fields which is
more primary.
here you are wrong:
fields are residual results of particles
and not vice versa!!
yet i count on you that you will correct yourself quick enough!!
though i agree that there is some common stuff
both in fields and particles!!
and that fits my understanding that
fields are residuals of the particles and particle properties.!!
------------
So without fields, there are no particles.
completely wrong!!
just show me another scientist that agrees with you
about that OK??
Disagree, why? Electrons may be fermions and the others
bosons but they obey the Broglie relationship just the
same.
About the boiling water. We know that virtual particle
pairs can pop in and out
just give me a break with virtual particles
you parrot that stupidity and fraud of others!!
--------
of the quantum vacuum. These
fluctuations can be likened to boiling water. Even an
electron has virtual particle pair popping in and out of
its electric field.
so you indirectly agree with me
that the electron is not a finite particle but
composed of sub constituents??!!
right ??
---------
In a nutshell. Fields are more primary. Particles need
it. What Porat and others are emphasizing are giving
a classical pictures to the electrons as balls with
sub particles inside.
balls !!!
just go to my site and see there are no 'balls'
it is round orbitals and 'chins of orbitals'
that never occurred to you as an idea.
just remember
one of my interesting findings and suggestions is that
;chains of orbitals'
and dont forget from whom you hared about it the first time.!!
though this is relay i preach for it something like 10 years!1
--------
---------
If you will treat it as just quanta
of the electron matter field, then you don't have to
speak about its classical side which it isn't.
my suggestions are far from classical !!
-----
This is why light and matter can behave as particle
and as waves.
what i didnt say until now is that
particles behave like waves is just because
they are conglomeration of sub constituents
and here might come the Eel!!
------------
What almost all cranks are doing are
separating the particles from the fields and justifying
why the particles are constructed in a certain way.
----------
the only crank that joints unconditionally
particles and fields is .......you alone !! got it ??
a field is a 'son' of a particle!!
----------
--------
This gives me some idea that reality may be some kind
of Matrix in more sophisticated fashion where things
are not what they appear to be.
----------
that is the best sober paragraph i hared from you until now
good for you you are advancing nicely!!
PS may be you let us know what is your real identity???
why are you have to hide it ??
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patty" |
|
| Title: Re: The Future of Theoretical Physics |
04 Aug 2005 07:40:15 AM |
|
|
(Porat Mode On)
Y.Porat wrote:
Patty wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
just in short
the man shows all the signs of insanity
(or alternatively a sophisticated crock!)
he puts in my mouth things i never said
he hides himself under a false name
only God known what a cook
'quantum vacuum Eh .....?.....
so just ignore him
TIA
Y.Porat
------------
My message to Porat is just knee jerk reaction of his
ridiculous eel model which he keeps spewing for over
10 years.
----------------
hear is a mathematical prove that you are a lier!!
(at the good case if you give you the benefit of doubt
you are an irresponsible and unreliable person):
my Eel model was not born much before this year!!!
anyone can realize it through Goggle
now what have you to say about it for your defense???
if to follow my memory i called it :
'the Eel model of the electron'
and of course you are unable to understand how sophisticated it is ....
So summarize all the rubbish you have been spewing for 10 years.
So it's the eel model this year. How about those years prior.
I made it a point not to remember what cranks say as it's
just absurd to the max.
Well. This is not being personal. I just hated cranks because
they made me waste 2 years studying their stuff. I realized
the Standard Model/QM/Relativity is the only one with enough
flexibility and mechanism to explain the physics of qi.. which
I now understand as simply Kochen Specker-Kaluza Klein Energy
(due to its multidimensional and matrix combination).
---------
---------
Let me re convey it in more Porat free ridiculousness.
quantum vacuum Eh??? who is ridiculous ??
----------
It is said that photons are quanta of the electromagnetic
field. Pion's are quanta of the strong field. W+,W-,Z are
quanta of the weak field.
very nice !!
thank you for mentioning the W bosons.....
------
Via the de_Broglie particle-wave
relationship in photons and electrons. Then the electrons
must be quanta of electron matter field.
-----
that is until now the closest to reasonable thing you
said until now
provided that you will say many quanta'
which is too abstract and does not advance us too much
anyway at least you are able to fix things quickly with the skill of a
Camel ion!!
--------
This means particles
are for all intent and purposes part of the fields which is
more primary.
here you are wrong:
fields are residual results of particles
and not vice versa!!
yet i count on you that you will correct yourself quick enough!!
though i agree that there is some common stuff
both in fields and particles!!
and that fits my understanding that
fields are residuals of the particles and particle properties.!!
------------
So without fields, there are no particles.
completely wrong!!
just show me another scientist that agrees with you
about that OK??
Tell me. Can photons exist without electromagnetic wave??
Can electron exist without electron matter wave?? Well.
Maybe let's say they must exist together. Pull one out
and the others vanish. It's not called wave/particle
duality for nothing. So without fields, there are no particles.
Disagree, why? Electrons may be fermions and the others
bosons but they obey the Broglie relationship just the
same.
About the boiling water. We know that virtual particle
pairs can pop in and out
just give me a break with virtual particles
you parrot that stupidity and fraud of others!!
But in electric field attractions, the virtual particles
effect is real. So virtual particles can be said not to be
a fantasy.
--------
of the quantum vacuum. These
fluctuations can be likened to boiling water. Even an
electron has virtual particle pair popping in and out of
its electric field.
so you indirectly agree with me
that the electron is not a finite particle but
composed of sub constituents??!!
right ??
---------
Naw. The electric field has virtual electron-positron popping
in and out.. it doesn't mean it is inside the electron. Your
model that an electron is composed of sub constituents simply
meant you don't understand the basic idea that photons
and even electrons are just quantum of the fields. This
is why they appear as point particle. It's just to give
the fields more solidity. Apparently. It is possible to
alter the field itself and adjust the electron behavior
and this is what qi or Kochen Specker-Kaluza Klein energy
is all about. Let me emphasize that I don't use it to treat people
or for any commercial purposes. It's for my own understanding
so I can do more effective sorcery on cranks such as you...
hahaha..
Patty
In a nutshell. Fields are more primary. Particles need
it. What Porat and others are emphasizing are giving
a classical pictures to the electrons as balls with
sub particles inside.
balls !!!
just go to my site and see there are no 'balls'
it is round orbitals and 'chins of orbitals'
that never occurred to you as an idea.
just remember
one of my interesting findings and suggestions is that
;chains of orbitals'
and dont forget from whom you hared about it the first time.!!
though this is relay i preach for it something like 10 years!1
--------
---------
If you will treat it as just quanta
of the electron matter field, then you don't have to
speak about its classical side which it isn't.
my suggestions are far from classical !!
-----
This is why light and matter can behave as particle
and as waves.
what i didnt say until now is that
particles behave like waves is just because
they are conglomeration of sub constituents
and here might come the Eel!!
------------
What almost all cranks are doing are
separating the particles from the fields and justifying
why the particles are constructed in a certain way.
----------
the only crank that joints unconditionally
particles and fields is .......you alone !! got it ??
a field is a 'son' of a particle!!
----------
--------
This gives me some idea that reality may be some kind
of Matrix in more sophisticated fashion where things
are not what they appear to be.
----------
that is the best sober paragraph i hared from you until now
good for you you are advancing nicely!!
PS may be you let us know what is your real identity???
why are you have to hide it ??
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: The Future of Theoretical Physics |
04 Aug 2005 05:55:00 AM |
|
|
Patty wrote:
[snip]
Pions are quanta of the strong field.
Careful here. When one talks about the strong interaction nowadays,
one usually means the strong "colour" interaction mediated by gluons.
And even if one talks about the strong nuclear force, it is not a good
idea to say that pions are the mediators of that. It *can* be modeled
by mediating pions, but in the end that's just a quite crude model
which does not capture many effects of the nuclear strong force.
[snip]
This means particles
are for all intent and purposes part of the fields which is
more primary.
More to the point, particles (with definite energy and momentum)
correspond to excitation states of the fields.
[snip]
About the boiling water. We know that virtual particle
pairs can pop in and out of the quantum vacuum. These
fluctuations can be likened to boiling water.
Strange analogy.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patty" |
|
| Title: Re: The Future of Theoretical Physics |
04 Aug 2005 06:24:52 AM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Patty wrote:
[snip]
Pions are quanta of the strong field.
Careful here. When one talks about the strong interaction nowadays,
one usually means the strong "colour" interaction mediated by gluons.
And even if one talks about the strong nuclear force, it is not a good
idea to say that pions are the mediators of that. It *can* be modeled
by mediating pions, but in the end that's just a quite crude model
which does not capture many effects of the nuclear strong force.
Good points. I haven't gone into details of QCD yet. For the cranks
like porat and lockyer the following statement by Griffiths gives
a good case.
"In Yukawa's original theory (1934) the mediator of strong
forces was the pion, but with the discovery of heavy mesons
this simple picture could not stand; protons and neutrons
could now exchange rho's and eta's and K's and phi's and all
the rest of them. The quark model brought an even more radical
revisions, for if protons, neutrons, and mesons are complicated
composite structures, there is no reason to believe their
interaction should be simple. To study the strong force at
the fundamental level, one should look, rather, at the
interaction between individual quarks. So the question
becomes: What particle is exchanged between two quarks, in
a strong process. This mediator is called the gluon, and
in the Standard Model there are eight of them. As we shall
see, the gluons themselves carry color, and there (like
the quarks) should not exist as isolated particles. We can
hope to detect gluons only within hadrons, or in colorless
combinations with other gluons (glueballs). Nevertheless,
there is substantial indirect experiment evidence for the
existence of gluons: The deep inelastic scattering experiments
showed that roughly half the momentum of a proton is carried
by electrically netural constituents, presumably gluons;
the jet structure characteristic of proton scattering at
high energies can be explained in terms of the disintegration
of quarks and gluons in flight; and glueballs may be
conceivably have been observed. But no one would say that
the experimental evidence is really compelling at this stage."
Note Griffith's "Introduction to Elementary Particles" is
written in 1987. After many billions more of accelerator
developments. Are there any "compelling" evidence now? Or
any improvements to the above statements by newer theoretical
findings?
Patty
[snip]
This means particles
are for all intent and purposes part of the fields which is
more primary.
More to the point, particles (with definite energy and momentum)
correspond to excitation states of the fields.
[snip]
About the boiling water. We know that virtual particle
pairs can pop in and out of the quantum vacuum. These
fluctuations can be likened to boiling water.
Strange analogy.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The Future of Theoretical Physics |
04 Aug 2005 10:48:12 AM |
|
|
Patty wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Patty wrote:
[snip]
Pions are quanta of the strong field.
Careful here. When one talks about the strong interaction nowadays,
one usually means the strong "colour" interaction mediated by gluons.
And even if one talks about the strong nuclear force, it is not a good
idea to say that pions are the mediators of that. It *can* be modeled
by mediating pions, but in the end that's just a quite crude model
which does not capture many effects of the nuclear strong force.
Good points. I haven't gone into details of QCD yet. For the cranks
like porat and lockyer the following statement by Griffiths gives
a good case.
"In Yukawa's original theory (1934) the mediator of strong
forces was the pion, but with the discovery of heavy mesons
this simple picture could not stand; protons and neutrons
could now exchange rho's and eta's and K's and phi's and all
the rest of them. The quark model brought an even more radical
revisions, for if protons, neutrons, and mesons are complicated
composite structures, there is no reason to believe their
interaction should be simple. To study the strong force at
the fundamental level, one should look, rather, at the
interaction between individual quarks. So the question
becomes: What particle is exchanged between two quarks, in
a strong process. This mediator is called the gluon, and
in the Standard Model there are eight of them. As we shall
see, the gluons themselves carry color, and there (like
the quarks) should not exist as isolated particles. We can
hope to detect gluons only within hadrons, or in colorless
combinations with other gluons (glueballs). Nevertheless,
there is substantial indirect experiment evidence for the
existence of gluons: The deep inelastic scattering experiments
showed that roughly half the momentum of a proton is carried
by electrically netural constituents, presumably gluons;
the jet structure characteristic of proton scattering at
high energies can be explained in terms of the disintegration
of quarks and gluons in flight; and glueballs may be
conceivably have been observed. But no one would say that
the experimental evidence is really compelling at this stage."
Note Griffith's "Introduction to Elementary Particles" is
written in 1987. After many billions more of accelerator
developments. Are there any "compelling" evidence now? Or
any improvements to the above statements by newer theoretical
findings?
Patty
Oh, yah. Any particle physics book that is older than about five years
old crosses my threshold for being out of date.
The "compelling" evidence for gluons were three-jet events at the ISR,
where the 3rd jet could only come from the fragmentation of a gluon.
Moreover, the event topologies, event rates, and energy spectra agreed
profoundly with QCD-based simulations, which include events with gluon
jets.
Since then, there has been a large number of studies of gluons in HEP
collisions, to the point where we have a much better understanding of
their momentum distribution inside hadrons and how that distribution
depends on the energy scale.
PD
[snip]
This means particles
are for all intent and purposes part of the fields which is
more primary.
More to the point, particles (with definite energy and momentum)
correspond to excitation states of the fields.
[snip]
About the boiling water. We know that virtual particle
pairs can pop in and out of the quantum vacuum. These
fluctuations can be likened to boiling water.
Strange analogy.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
