sci.physics.particle

On Feb 28, 5:17=A0pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
> srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> > Relativistic Newtonian mechanics simply turned out as
> > a subset of expanded Maxwellian geometry.
>
> Relativistic [in the way physicists use the word] Newtonian [in the
> way physicists use the word] mechanics is a contradiction in terms.
>
> Maxwellian geometry doesn't exist.
>
> [...]
>
> > Wheeler beeing of the opinion that the universe blinks
> > in and out of existence as he blinks his eyes, I wouldn't
> > trust that teleportation would be a fact before kingdom
> > come.
>
> Do you know this because he said it, or do you believe it to be true
> because he ascribes to a philosophy whose interpretations you take to
> the illogical extreme?
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> > Don't confuse QM with the Copenhagen interpretation. QM
> > is fine although general and limited, while the Copenhagen
> > interpretation is pure irrational gunk,
>
> To you. Do you consider yourself more well informed than the past four
> generations of physicists?
>
> [...]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > It is just a thought. I don't know what's behind QM
> > > > > whether it's Bohmian or Many Worlds or other
> > > > > more exotic principle which may need Witten level
> > > > > math to understand.
>
> > > > If de Broglie was right, and I have all reasons to
> > > > believe he was, =A0what is behind QM as you say
> > > > is knowledge that will allow powered space flight,
> > > > and a new source of energy.
>
> > > I like this kind of physics as it is more cool.
> > > Morphogenetic field is actually boring physics because
> > > you just deal and treat disorders in the field. A new
> > > source of energy and fuelless space flight has more
> > > action where we can terraform other planets. How does
> > > your model support such possibilities? What's
> > > the new source of energy possible in your model?
>
> > Very simple. You get a high enough local density of
> > thermal electron-positron pairs created by a properly
> > tuned FEL laser and the fist thing you will notice is
> > hydrogen seemingly coming out of nowhere.
>
> Really? That's neat!
>
> Do you have a literature citation for this huge violation of
> conservation of mass-energy and angular momentum?
>
>
>
> > Making matter from energy. Get any threesome
> > of a mix of thermal electrons and positrons that
> > are not energetic enough to escape each others
> > attraction and the first thing you see is not positronium,
> > but irrepressible acceleration until they reach
> > electromagnetic equilibrium as a proton, or
> > neutron, or antis.
>
> Literature citation?
>
>
>
> > Do you have any idea of the trust that an engine
> > gushing out hydrogen can deliver ?
>
> Still an order of magnitude less than a nuclear pulse drive or a
> hybrid rocket & ion engine.
>
> [...]
>
> > > Because it seems you don't even believe it has
> > > wave properties that can do those double slit experiment
> > > tricks.
>
> > On thing is for sure. It can't enter both slits at the same time.
> > If is permanently localized even as it moves.
>
> Is it? Explain the Ahranov-Bohm effect, then.
>
> If the electron was /actually/ permanently localized, then it wouldn't
> pick up an extra bit of phase as it travels around a magnetic field.
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> > > Pls. explain how single molecule at a time
> > > experiment works where it can interfere with
> > > itself.
>
> > That simply doesn't exist.
>
> So electron self-interference experiments are a sham?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > Gee. Do you think that by ignoring the experimental
> > > > > results, the world and nature would change conforming
> > > > > to your thinking. Come on, physics is not like arts
> > > > > or fashion where you can choose to accept experimental
> > > > > data and not others.
>
> > > > The results you are talking about are not real results
> > > > with individual photons, but statistical estimates transposed
> > > > to individual photons.
>
> > > Shoot individual photons to the double slit one at a time,
> > > how come after hours or days, there is interference pattern?
> > > How does each photon know whether or not to land in
> > > the dark or white areas?
>
> > It doesn't know. The slits have a certain surface area
> > and thickness that incoming photons can't possibly all
> > enter in the exact same manner. Photons being electromagnetic
> > just as the molecules that make up the lining of the
> > slit walls, there is no way that they will not interact
> > according to the relative interaction equilibrium that
> > each meets depending on where it crosses the
> > area of the slit. The statistical spread can only end
> > up producing the well know interference =A0patter.
>
> Do you have a derivation supporting this rather interesting assertion?
>
> Plus it'd be fairly simple to test your assertion by using materials
> with differing crystal structures. That'd be an easy test for you -
> are you going to do it, or are you above doing experiments?
>
>
>
> > The distance between the slitted wall and the sensitive
> > target has to be very finely calibrated for the pattern
> > to appear.
>
> Uh, no, it doesn't.
>
> [...]
>
> > That's where the Copenhagen interpretation hits the wall.
> > No progress possible.
>
> Where "progress" is carefully defined as to exclude what rational
> people would consider progress.
>
> [...]- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

---------------------
progress is not done by little incurable parrots

Y.P
------------------------------------