sci.physics.particle

On Feb 27, 9:01=A0am, srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 27 f=E9v, 01:17, higis wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 27, 12:19 pm, srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On 26 f=E9v, 22:10, higis wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 27, 10:27 am, srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > On 26 f=E9v, 20:43, higis wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 27, 12:04 am, srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On 26 f=E9v, 09:16, higis wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Feb 26, 1:16 pm, srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is this accepted by the mainstream?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mainstream being of the Copenhagen school
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of thought, any explanation that involves
> > > > > > > > > > > > > particles being localized as they are moving
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is de facto rejected as impossible.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > This is because of the wave nature of matter.
> > > > > > > > > > > > What is your explanation why matter has
> > > > > > > > > > > > wave like properties?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > There is no question in my mind that matter
> > > > > > > > > > > has wavelike properties. What the de Broglie
> > > > > > > > > > > hypothesis shows, is that this is not at all
> > > > > > > > > > > incompatible with particles being localized
> > > > > > > > > > > at all times.
>
> > > > > > > > > > So you are a Bohmian?
>
> > > > > > > > > I am not a Bohmian by any stretch of the
> > > > > > > > > imagination.
>
> > > > > > > > > > If not. How does
> > > > > > > > > > your model differs to Bohmian. Specifically
> > > > > > > > > > how do you plan to alter the Schroedinger
> > > > > > > > > > Equation?
>
> > > > > > > > > I wouldn't change the Shroedinger equation
> > > > > > > > > in any manner. It has its uses.
>
> > > > > > > > > > If you believe only wave exists
> > > > > > > > > > and particle just node of it but the Schroedinger
> > > > > > > > > > Equation would produce electrons that would
> > > > > > > > > > spread out but experiment shows it is only
> > > > > > > > > > in one place.
>
> > > > > > > > > Exactly. The equation has its uses, but I
> > > > > > > > > don't see any useful purpose in attempting
> > > > > > > > > to modify it. I think it is fine as it is.
>
> > > > > > > > But it is not compatible with your model.
>
> > > > > > > It is compatible. Simply too general, just like
> > > > > > > straight Maxwell's wave theory. Just like Newton's
> > > > > > > kinetic equation is compatible, and, but too
> > > > > > > restricted.
>
> > > > > > You were stating that particles are nothing but
> > > > > > waves right (like there is internal something
> > > > > > in the electron which produces the wavy thing).
>
> > > > > No. I am stating that particles are quanta of
> > > > > localized standing electromagnetically oscillating
> > > > > energy.
>
> > > > Well. A hundred years ago physicists could have
> > > > shared your viewpoints but many experiments
> > > > like the double slit experiments changed all that.
>
> > > There is no way any physicist could have shared
> > > my viewpoint a hundred years ago. Up and down
> > > quarks were unknown, de Broglie had not yet
> > > issued his hypothesis on localized photons,
> > > Pioneer 10 and 11 were not even a project.
> > > The variation of earth's rotation rate and moon
> > > orbit with the time of year was unknown, and
> > > so on...
>
> > > > In the double slit single particle or atom experiment
>
> > > The double slit experiment is way older than you
> > > think.
>
> > > > it's like you are skiing down and there is a tree in
> > > > front of you and when nobody looks, you split into
> > > > two.
>
> > > Come on. Copenhagen school baloney.
>
> > > > Not only that but Feynman multiple path says
> > > > that as you ski down the tree, all paths occured
> > > > and what happend on the other side is interference.
> > > > Your model can't cause this magick to happen.
> > > > Physics is magick. Since your model is just
> > > > simple newtonian based.
>
> > > It is not newtonian based, it is Maxwellian based.
>
> > Well. Actually. Bohm and Hiley have already applied
> > your approach where intially they kinda believe particles are
> > quanta of localized standing electromagnetically
> > oscillating energy.
>
> Yes.
>
> > However for it to be compatible
> > with the double slit single photon/electron at a time
> > experiment and Aspect entanglement experiments,
> > Bohm/Riley have to propose the "quantum potential",
>
> Bohm and Riley thought that QM =A0could not be
> surpassed as far as precision goes. They felt
> they must remain QM compliant at all cost.
>
> Not my conclusion as already indicated.
>
> QM does not take into account c as a limit
> velocity nor does it take into account the
> inertia of moving particles.
>
> Too general. Can't describe physical reality
> with enough precision.
>
> Besides, they didn't know about quarks up and down
> nor about the Pioneer 10 and 11 so-called anomalies.
>
> They did not stand a chance of coming up with
> the right geometry.
>
> > something ad hoc that can determine all the
> > experimental setup including width, dimensions,
> > length, everything.. an almost omnipresent field.
> > Not only that. It has to violate the spirit of Special
> > Relativity because in principle you can send signal faster
> > than light as the quantum potential is flexible. So you
> > see. By using your model. It creates unnecessary
> > complications that require more ad hoc making
> > it more bizarre than the Copenhagen you want to
> > exorcise. Unless you can show what happens
> > behind the scene in the one electron at a time
> > double slit experiment. Do you know what is
> > the reason why the electron (or even atom) can
> > interfere with itself in the double slit experiment?
>
> I know the standard reason. but interfering
> with itself is nonsense to start with. Meaningless.
> Useless.
>
> > Note this differs from multiple particle double
> > slit experiments where you can say it is
> > the ensemble of the particles that
> > interfere much like water being made to pass
> > thru 2 slits. But in one particle at a time double
> > slit experiment. That's where the complication
> > arises.
>
> complication for anyone who wants to split
> hair on a bald skull. Meaningless time waster.
>
> > What is your explanation of this including
> > entanglement?
>
> Entanglement. This one made me laugh quite
> a bit.
>
> Instant communication adhered to by
> people who spend their life arguing that
> GR must be it since instant force at a distance
> is impossible.
>
> Andr=E9 Michaud- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

---------------
well Andre
you are making progress .......

2
we must come tothe conclusion that
th eelectron is not a 'finit point particle'
but composed of subparticles !!
(probably in a chain )

Y.Porat
---------------------------