 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / August 2005The HUP can be pypassed!!
If i come to a 'standard educated physicist ' and tell him: the HUP can be bypassed he will immediately jump and say you are an ignorant!! now i tell that man ; easy man dont be jumpy lets not be parrots and study my statement more intensively: now i use to take a simple example, because a simple one might be better understood: i take the Deuteron example and claim: the shape Of the deuteron is longish the conventional answer will be : you can never know it because of the HUP!! 'its dimensions are too small to know its geometric shape!! OK Lt's study it ; we know the Deuteron is composed of proton and neutron. now how can they be located geometrically?? is it one inside the other?? than which is inside which?? and while they are disconnected how it is done? if one inside the other it means one becomes 'swollen' and the other 'contracted' does it compatible with experimental data?? and how is the electric charge act in that swollen apple ?? what is more difficult for them neutron and proton: to 'penetrate' to one other? what happens to the structure of the 'penetrated one' of the two?is it not reasonable to think that if one of them will be 'penetrated' it will blow up?!!! etc etc questions now we come to another alternative; may be it is 'side by side' structure?? ((to be honest my primitive mind never thought about another alternative but that is only because i am a primitive man !! (:-))) so lets see about the side by side structure: some people say : but there is a connection between the proton and neutron in the Deuteron so they are not completely separated!! very nice i agree Even to that but th main body of those two sub particles remain - side by side!! (the main body!! while you mate with your wife- your main bodies remains side by side - i hope so (:-)) so how come ?? here comes the new understanding (may be bit all new) the nucleid - proton or neutron- is not a billiard ball but composed of sub particles now in addition to that i have my 'chain of orbits theory' that stated That most particles are composed as 'chains of orbitals' connected mostly linearly!! (time will say if i am right about it but even if not linearly then if still makes the Deuteron as a side by side composition. if you dont agree please bring here your alternative!1 and now comes the more important theoretic punch line: if so *the HUP can be bypassed by additional experimental data* !! and not to mention the logic consideration of simplicity etc now it is crucially for the advance of science to internalize it and go further to more complicated examples like; the Alpha particle to be a tetrameter etc etc etc . TIA Y.Porat ( a known crackpot - crack sometimes is the ability to crack paradigm !! so i am proud to be a crackpot) ---------------------------- >From Osher Doctorow Y. Porat typed: >Y.Porat ( a known crackpot - crack >sometimes is the ability >to crack paradigm !! so i am proud to be a >crackpot) Well said! The word "crackpot", unless used in the sense that you've described, doesn't belong in science or mathematics. It also doesn't belong in psychology. It probably belongs in Islamist Terrorist dogma in which everybody outside the in-group is an enemy, or in the large section of Academia that sympathizes with them. Bureaucrats label and BS, scientists are supposed to theorize and/or experiment but as teachers/professors they usually turn out to Bureaucratize and as publish-or-perishers they imitate like apes. As for students - well, take about a dozen friends with you to class to keep out the propaganda from professors and students, and do the same on the internet unless you learn to be deaf and blind (not a bad talent in the Planet of the Apes). Osher sorry to top post 1 Thank you osher 2 the title must be corrected to - bypassed.... sorry! even the spell checker didnt save me from that mistake.. so corrected it Y.Porat ---------------- > >From Osher Doctorow > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Osher > If i come to a 'standard educated physicist ' and tell him: > [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > to crack paradigm !! so i am proud to be a crackpot) > ---------------------------- Hey dude. We know the shape of the deuteron from QM and billions worth of particle experiments especially in scattering. They never detected any eel or snakes inside the atom. It's not directly to do with HUP. It appears your brain is hopelessly newtonian and classical and can no longer accomodate quantum. First what is HUP. I wrote the following to Lockyer. Maybe you should be briefed too on the real world. HUP is not some belief that people just worshipped as erroneously conceived by for example Porat. It has a solid conceptual and mathematical basis. Particle always come with a wave side to it. In a sine wave, momentum is precisely known, but the wavefunction and probability of finding the position will spread across all spaces. So to localize the position... from Fourier, it has to compose of waves of different wavelength. This means the momentum is spread out. This is why position and momentum can't be known at the same time. It's not the fault or limitation of the instruments but built into the nature of the particle themselves. If you could measure exactly where an electron was, so that the position is known, the momentum would be infinite. This is why we can't know for certain the position of a particle. The more we know its position, the more the momentum is spread out. Now in the case of the electron being located inside the nucleus. The energy to do that would be 3.77 GeV. This is thousand of times as observed in nuclear processes. Imagine what would happen if the electron would be confined inside the size of a neutron. The energy would be so enormous from the formula E=p^2/2m where p is the change in position or the diameter of the nucleus or neutron. (Note also that the smaller and lighter is a particle, the more HUP sensitive it is. This is why proton and neutron (with mass much larger than electron) being confined in the nucleus has less energy than an electron.) This electron confinement in nucleus or neutron space is against all observations and experimental results. The rest mass would increase million folds from the mass energy relationship. Note the above is specifically directed at Lockyer. For Porat. Ponder on it. There is no such thing as pure particles. All are fields, waves and particles combined. Integrate this to your thinking. Note we are not parrots. For some of us who can precipitate matter out of the fields by tunneling in extra energy to a region of the quantum vacuum from outside space/time. We know the teaching of particle physics is 99% true. It is a subset of a higher reality.. something you can't comprehend if you maintain newtonian mode of thinking. p6 > > If i come to a 'standard educated physicist ' and tell him: > > [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > billions worth of particle experiments especially in scattering. > They never detected any eel or snakes inside the atom. -------- Hi P6 (btw why are you hiding Bering a false name ??)) thank you for you long detailed respond yet it seems that you are talking to yourself and not to me (:-) it seems that you didnt read my post!! did you see there an Eel model or Snake for the deuteron?? we are dealing only with the Deuteron! 2 do you know the shape of the deuteron ?? than welcome what is it ?? can you know from your data if it is a side by side combination or may be a hybrid one ?? if you agree with me that is is a side by side and longish than very nice you have no dispute with me !! and you just now bypassed that HUP isn't that ?? now if you know so much from QM base: what is according to QM the geometric shape of the Alpha particle?? ------- It's not > directly to do with HUP. there is a QM expert called Feuerbacher who climes that my model is dead by arrival* because of the HUP do you agree with him?? It appears your brain is hopelessly > newtonian and classical and can no longer accomodate quantum. > --------- have you ever saw something of my model? do you see there anything like the Newtonian physics ?? may be the Circlon idea ??? (:-) are you thinking about what you are writing?? ------------- > First what is HUP. ---- thank you for telling me what is the HUP is but save it to all of us you are grinding water!! do you agree with me that we can know about some geometric properties of the nuc by gathering experimental data + some logical thinking ?? can we know that the Deuteron is a side by side longish shape?? --------- > I wrote the following to Lockyer. Maybe you should be briefed > too on the real world. please go on write to Lokyer that belongs to him it is not relevant to me so you are wasting bandwidth. ----------- > HUP is not some belief that people just worshipped as erroneously > conceived by for example Porat. It has a solid conceptual and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > wave function and probability of finding the position will > spread across all spaces. ---------- and you call that knowledge or parroting?? --------- > So to localize the position... from Fourier, it has to compose > of waves of different wavelength. This means the momentum is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The more we know its position, the more the momentum is spread > out. so can you know by that the geometric shape of the Alpha particle?? i can know !! ---------- > Now in the case of the electron being located inside the nucleus. > The energy to do that would be 3.77 GeV. This is thousand please stop just here we are not dealing with the electron!!! --------------- > of times as observed in nuclear processes. Imagine what would > happen if the electron would be confined inside the size [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > The rest mass would increase million folds from the mass > energy relationship. ----------- no you started to talk nonsense!! no mass is inflating!! you are parroting anyway it is not relevant to our topic 2 there are some surprises even to you dude!!though you seem to know every thing and yet you are talking about dudes!! -------- ---------- > this > to your thinking. Note we are not parrots. you are not parrots you are BIG parrots ---------- For some of us > who can precipitate matter out of the fields by tunneling > in extra energy to a region of the quantum vacuum from > outside space/time. We know the teaching of particle physics > is 99% true. -very nice that you know only 99 and not 100 percent where from is that modesty that fell on you suddenly?? go impress someone else not me !! -------- It is a subset of a higher reality.. do you have some phone line with God ?? higher reality Eh ??? something > you can't comprehend if you maintain Newtonian mode of > thinking. ---------- nothing Newtonian except his right rules that i dont use at all in my model. you are mumbling irresponsibly!! about my claims) and again can QM know the geometric shape of the Alpha particle and if yes what is it and how do you get it from QM ?? anyway thank you for your response and for pumping some adrenaline to that thread (:-) TIA Y.Porat ------------- > > > If i come to a 'standard educated physicist ' and tell him: > > > [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] > thank you for you long detailed respond > yet it seems that you are talking to yourself and not to me (:-) We sorcerers don't advertise ourselves. We only want to learn the technical details so we can improve our abilities and tactical skills. We are like the Sith Lords in star wars, get the idea? > it seems that you didnt read my post!! > did you see there an Eel model or Snake for the deuteron?? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > if you agree with me that is is a side by side and longish than > very nice you have no dispute with me !! Say, do you know how an electron moves in the nucleus?? It doesn't have a continuous pathway. The wave of the electron matter field dictates the dynamics. The particle position is just statistical. So in your deuteron. The position of the proton and neuron is unpredictable too. It is the wave part that is really the main show. Now can 3D wave form geometrical shapes. Think of it more like clouds or probability space. Try to study QM first before dealing with geometrical position. Did Bjoern tell you your model is dead on arrival due to the HUP? Maybe it's for the above reason. Hey, try to do away with the idea of particles. Pure particles don't exist. Always think of waves when you think of particles. Also fourier, or how many waves can form superposition. This means when the position is known. The rest of the waves are so spread out hence the momentum. Try to master this concept as it has everything to do with physics. > and you just now bypassed that HUP isn't that ?? > now if you know so much from QM base: > what is according to QM the geometric shape of the Alpha particle?? > ------- Think of probability clouds. Don't think of shapes. Learn to think quantumly and not classically. That's the way to master the Force. > It's not > > directly to do with HUP. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > may be the Circlon idea ??? (:-) > are you thinking about what you are writing?? Gee. Come on, don't waste so much time on your delusions. Try to study QM, QED, QCD and Supersprings. Time is of the essence, you are getting old dude. Soon all your hair will drop. Then when you are confined in bed unable to move in your 90s, you will regret all those 30 years you have fantasized about the circlon. > ------------- > > First what is HUP. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > can we know that the Deuteron is a side by side longish shape?? What the heck is the matter to you. What is your arguments of the longist shape based on knowledge of quantum mechanics? Don't think classically.. meaning don't assume quantum particles are like ping pong balls or classical objects. > --------- > > [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > do you have some phone line with God ?? > higher reality Eh ??? Yeah. We deal with laws of nature not known even to scientists. For example. Our arts include the materialization of solid objects from the quantum vacuum. It may involve shadow matter from Strings E8xE8 Gauge Symmetry group and some conversions to make it become pseudo matter (via a possible fifth force that can serve as interface between the two worlds) so it is possible we may not be dealing exactly with materialized matter with quarks. Still finding out. Always remember Shakespeare "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of by your philosophy".. or physics. p6 see the data Hansen brought above it is confirming my predictions about side by side of proton and neutron in the Deuteron nuc it is not your mumbling!! one picture is worth a thousand mumbling words now if you what to do some physics show us how the QM is predicting what i predicted more than 10 years ago that the shape of the Alpha particle is *a tetraheder*!! (and this is only the tip of the iceberg-only the preliminary steps - of my findings so you can see only some hints of it in my site it is unprecedented! provided you are cleaver enough to appreciate it ! even by your intuition if you have one .) ATB Y.Porat ----------- > see the data Hansen brought above > it is confirming my predictions about side by side of proton and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > one picture is worth a thousand mumbling words If the electron orbital has certain shape.. such as elliptical meaning the probability space for the electron is elliptical. Perhaps the nucleus quarks confinement has some kind of probability space too?? Then this probability space is the shape, no? Since there are 3 quarks.. they form triangle shape... but I think they move fast by exchange colors that this smear their positions? How do you imagine the quarks to be like.. do they dance around or just fixed in position? But they can't be fixed in position according to the HUP. Remember also that each quark of each proton also interacts with each quark of the neutron. There are endless interactions among them by the exchange of gluons. I wonder if the gluons influence the probability shape too. Anyway. I'll review what the QM geniuses have to say about it.. about how the quarks exactly behave under confinement and return to you exactly what shape it should maintain that "matches the prediction of quantum mechanics". Or maybe Hansen can tell us how it can match the prediction of quantum mechanics allowing certain shapes for the nucleons. p6 > now if you what to do some physics > show us how the QM is predicting what i predicted more than 10 years [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Y.Porat > ----------- > > see the data Hansen brought above > > it is confirming my predictions about side by side of proton and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > probability space too?? Then this probability space is the > shape, no? yes only now you start to ask questions good for you because only now you realized that you and me are not in a position to give answers but more in a position to ask questions!!! that is the position of all existing nuclear science and let no pompous chest drummer delude you that he relay knows whats going on there !! now to your questions may be i have some good *guesses*: all that probability taking as actually as well *bypassing of the HUP * i hope you realize that !! and indeed QM was using that 'smart' system all along!! its trick was to speak as abstract as possible in that way as you ark every abs tact you have a smaller chance to be wrong!! that is lawyers practice!! but should not be honest scientists practice the serious and responsible ones should say: 'God didnt play the dice' matter is very distinctively defined and unequivocally!! the probability games is only because of no other better choice!! now being abstract is 'smart but it has a price: *the more abstract you are the less useful you are and less chance to make real advance !! it is because of our huge lack of knowledge!! now probability , i agree with you is because most like ly we are dealing with *moving objects* that are moving tremendously fast! in that case it is very difficult if at all to pin point at any moment its exact location but still even so we are not as hopeless as it seems because though the tremendous move net most of it is 'sub movement' IE movement inside the orbitals while the orbital itself is much less 'dynamic' just metaphorically take th movement of our earth around the sun: inside that orbit we change position very fast but if you take the whole orbit as one 'ring' it is much less 'changing' compared or relative to the sun!! hope you got my idea. IE th Sun is 'steady' the earth is solid' it is only the relative position earth sun that is changing much more vigorously now another point in it that in many cases we are nor interested in that motion inside the orbit! we are More interested in the *orbit itself* even most of it is *imaginary* because most of the time *it is empty* it is just imaginary. but still teaches us a lot about whats going on there so here comes my chain of orbitals' suggestions see it in my side graphically and abstractly the special thing about my suggestion is that most particles we know are actually 'chins of subprbitsls' and more original idea is that those orbits are in most cases *connected linearly*!!!! so if you ask me about the quarks the y are connected linearly !! as a chain and-once you have a chin you can connect it to another chain and we can start to forget all about all those 'spheres'!! you have as well to keep In ind that 3 quarks experimentally has only about 10 percent of the proton mass!! Thai means the other 90 percent is unknown!1 'gluons' are irresponsible mumbling of ignorance so i assume that there is still 90 percent of sub particles that are still unknown and they as well are just other chain of other orbitals now of you follow me a chain of a proton is connected to another chain of orbitals that is called a neutron and you get the .... Deuteron!! it is side by side while some of the suborbital are as you imagined -- overlapping making the connection no if we go one step forward if you take 'my' nucleid it is no problem to combine them to a tetraheder: they are connected at one 'point' (IE a very small volume of 4 connections( while the main body of those protons and neutrons are spread out in 4 direct ins to make a tetraheder now please note that it is an imaginary tetraheder only the imaginary cover of it id that famous 'pyramids that we usually call a tetraheder and that i a wonderful structure because i guess you still dont know that this 3d structure with 108 space deg between *each of all those 4 'arms'-- is th only possibility geometrically to get such a structure provided that all angles between each of those arms will be the same (108 deg!!) it is wonderfully ed symmetric symmetric i any direction you take it and that is one of the secrets of its *spherical stability*! IE absolute symmetry! now please tell me if QM is able to do that prediction of the tetraheder structure of the alpha particle?? or may be it already did it ?? if yes where is the evidence for it?? and i didnt tell you yet that this alpha structure was just the 'babies first step that i did on the long way to much more important advance! now since one picture is worth a thousand words just get to my site and stsrt to look at it with 'new eyes' and that site is only as abstract of my book!! in which many information is still kept ;confidential... and not published. bottom line to our discussion do you start to understand my claim that the HUP can be*AND SHOULD BE *- bypassed?? --------------- ---------------- ------------ > > among them by the exchange of gluons. I wonder if the gluons > influence the probability shape too. > > Anyway. I'll review what the QM geniuses have to say about > it.. about how the quarks exactly behave under confinement and > return to you exactly what shape it should maintain that "matches OK GO AHEAD !! > the prediction of quantum mechanics". Or maybe Hansen can > tell us how it can match the prediction of quantum mechanics > allowing certain shapes for the nucleons. good luck!! btw my new spell shecker save me from at least a 100 mistakes ans i still see some of them there but too lazy to fix them so excuse my age... (;-) ---------- ATB Y.Porat ---------------- > p6 > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Y.Porat > > ----------- > > > see the data Hansen brought above > > > it is confirming my predictions about side by side of proton and [quoted text clipped - 130 lines] > > ---------------- Porat. I think you don't get some basic facts straight. What HUP means is simply that the nucleons don't have definite position in the nucleus. This means there is a rough geometrical shape of the nucleus. It's just that the positions inside are not defined or fixed. Well. I focused mainly on electron dynamics in the atom. I'm just starting to touch the nucleus. I want to know how Lockyer can get all the binding energies values right with a possibly wrong model. Maybe there is some kind of pattern in mathematicals where you can cook things up? In Gell-Man Eightfold Way, the hadron's arrangement made him predict the quarks. In Lockyer. He can predict the binding energies. They can't be true at the same time. This bothers me. Lockyer doesn't just use x=x maths. He really derives it as stated by the particle wizard Freddy. Do you know what I'm talking about? You know Lockyer right? Can you get him to send us the DVDs which Bjoern threw away? :) About your model Porat. What books in nuclear physics or even QM do you have at home. I think you are quite confused on a lot of things.. .and mixing them up together to make almost ridiculous statements. First know the in and out of the HUP and what it is all about. Actually. I too as I don't know how HUP relates to the quarks and the gluons and in such a small space. Why can electron confinement in the nucleus produces such almost impossibly gigantic electron volt energy values while the quarks don't? later, p6 > ------------ > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > > Y.Porat > > > ----------- > you have as well to keep In ind that 3 quarks experimentally > has only about 10 percent of the proton mass!! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > still unknown and > they as well are just other chain of other orbitals The other 90% are virtual excitations of the same. Go get a particle listings book and see how many versions of the same particle there are. > it is wonderfully ed symmetric > symmetric i any direction you take it > and that is one of the secrets of its *spherical stability*! > IE absolute symmetry! > now please tell me if QM is able to do that prediction > of the tetraheder structure of the alpha particle?? Absolute sferes don't exist. Everything is asummetric. -Aut > This is why position and momentum can't be known at the same > time. It's not the fault or limitation of the instruments > but built into the nature of the particle themselves. If you > could measure exactly where an electron was, so that the > position is known, the momentum would be infinite. So if we could exactly measure its momentum then its position would be infinite? :-) Bob  Signature"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein 1 an opportunity to fix the typing mistake of the title bypassed instead of pypassed..(:-) 2 people didnt yet got my point that in many cases HUP can be bypassed and lead to a lot of advance!! for instance in my model i do not use at all an exact length dimension!! it is only relative position of sub particles so THE HUP IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT and yet a lot of new revolutionary knowledge is done!! and it is a new important principal understanding!!! (may be a revolutionaly principle in science - that the HUP can be bypassed!!) see www.geocities.com/porat_y/mypage.html ATB Y.Porat -------------------- >If i come to a 'standard educated physicist ' and tell him: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >OK Lt's study it ; http://www.physicscentral.com/pictures/pictures-02-1.html http://www.jlab.org/highlights/nuclear/Nuclear.html Signature"No one need be surprised that the subject of contagion was not clear to our ancestors."-- Heironymus Fracastorius, 1546 Thank you Hansen now my question is : what that shape of the deuteron as found experimentally (if i understood it correctly) is it a longish shape?? if yes give me some credit point!! because i never new about that experimental data i actually predicted it and you could see it step by stem how i came to it just by thinking!! 2 about the second link does it say anything about the geometric shape of the deuteron?? 3 do QM predicted that shape?? 4 now i go a further step and predict the Alpha particle shape to be tetrahedral!! it is in my site is QM predicting that shape of the Alpha particle ? is it at all possible to do it under the HUP as the other guys claim we cannot know ?? TIA Y.Porat --------------------------- and the answer is ?? if no answer it means QM cannot answer those questions!1 yet there are people why *can * answer those question!! so the conclusions of it are ?? TIA Y.Porat -------------------------- >and the answer is ?? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Y.Porat >-------------------------- Easy there, pardner! I was away from the computer for the remainder of yesterday. Yes, that's the shape of the deuteron as found experimentally. It's not spherical, but I don't know if it's "longish" as you've imagined it. Looks like the aspect ratio is less than 2. The second link mentions the shape of the deuteron near the bottom of the page. I included it because it has more information, and references. From the first link, "Recent tests have shown no deviations in the predictions of standard nuclear physics." I don't know what QM predicts is the shape of the alpha particle. And Google doesn't seem to know, either. A tetrahedron seems reasonable since that's an efficient packing geometry. But the protons will repel electrostatically, which I would think will distort that shape. Signature"Work hard, be curious and persistent, and you will prevail." -- Howard Schilit, "Financial Shenanigans" 2nd ed. > >and the answer is ?? > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > It's not spherical, but I don't know if it's "longish" as you've imagined 1 the moment it is side by side -it is longish unless you insist of being a smatguy!! 2 how do you know 'what i imagined? are you sure you know my model?? i am sure you dont !! > it. Looks like the aspect ratio is less than 2. so ......?? ------- > The second link mentions the shape of the deuteron near the bottom of the > page. I included it because it has more information, and references. > > From the first link, "Recent tests have shown no deviations in the > predictions of standard nuclear physics." how come by being specific ?? it seems that you behave a good typical QM man 1 how is that experimental data live in Peace with the HUP??(that is our title ..) as usual you evade elegantly the 'difficult problems' 2 as a good QM man - you are determined of not allowing me any credit!! but it wont help you one day you will do it unwilingly!!... ------ --- > I don't know what QM predicts is the shape of the alpha particle. And better start to ask yourself if it is at all possible by the existing QM or may be once it will be found to be a tetraheder QM smarts will quickly 'find the way' to 'predict it in *retroactive* as big prophets do !! (:-) ----------- > Google doesn't seem to know, either. no wonder!! A tetrahedron seems reasonable since good for you !! but did you had to wait for crackpot Porat to tell you that ?? ---- > that's an efficient packing geometry. i wouldn't say it is self demanding ---- But the protons will repel > electrostatically, which I would think will distort that shape. wrong again!! your imagination is wrong!! some shocking news for you:At his point the electric charge is not what was in your imagination not what it was in QM 'imagination' surprise think about the fantastic possibility that ... the electric charge of the Proton is not evenly spread!! did it ever occurred to you ?? and if so the electric charge is sort of a 'fountain *directed only to the out wards direction!!! so no interference with each other !!! how about that ?? 2 did it ever occurred to you that i know much more about the nuclear geometric structure much more than you imagined?? can you stand such a situation that a 'crackpot knows better than you about some aspects of nuclear physics ?? ---------- > -- > "Work hard, be curious and persistent, and you will prevail." -- Howard > Schilit, "Financial Shenanigans" ND ed. well said and TIA Y.Porat ---------------- >> >and the answer is ?? >> > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >i am sure you dont !! Me, too. That's why I said "I don't know". >> it. Looks like the aspect ratio is less than 2. > >so ......?? If you'd imagined two billiard balls touching side by side, that aspect ratio would be 2. >------- >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >how come by being specific ?? >it seems that you behave a good typical QM man Yes. Good, typical QM men can read. >1 how is that experimental data live in Peace >with the HUP??(that is our title ..) > >as usual you evade elegantly the 'difficult problems' I don't understand what you think the problem is. They measured the wavefunction. The bigger the uncertainty in position is, the bigger the wavefunction would be. As I'd told you before, that's why a hydrogen atom has a nucleus surrounded by an electron cloud rather than an electron surrounded by a nuclear cloud. The electron is lighter than the nucleus, so the position uncertainty is larger, but an electron orbital still has a shape. In fact, it's easier to measure because it's larger. Signature"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin > In article <1124089178.686110.318350@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > >> >yet there are people why *can * answer those question!! [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > If you'd imagined two billiard balls touching side by side, that aspect > ratio would be 2. -------------- see in my site the 'chain of orbitals' protons and neutron in my wild imagination are chain of orbitals much more than just 3 quarks 3 quarks are only 10 percent of the nucleid glone are another word for not having a green idea so the other 90 percent are other chain of orbitals that have not been fount yet (and i have a deep suspicion that even the 3 quarks were not found yet- but that is only a side remark) so it i snot at all two spheres it is long chin of orbitals now you have to keep in mind that not all those sub chains are of the same magnitude of mass th more massive a re shorter chains and the less massive (the electron for instance is much less massive but much bigger in length!! so may be that in that experiment that you brought the electrons are not Shawn because they are much lass massive and less mass per unit length so they are not seen there as they are and you see only the massive parts that are more concentrated in volume closer to the 'center' of the Deuteron's center of mass. ----------- > >------- > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Yes. Good, typical QM men can read. so what are the predictions of QM that will say that the deuteron is a side by side proton and neutron?? and not say one inside the other does that ' combined wave function can tell you that ?? ---------- > >1 how is that experimental data live in Peace > >with the HUP??(that is our title ..) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > so the position uncertainty is larger, but an electron orbital still has a > shape. In fact, it's easier to measure because it's larger. again running away from th issue: we are not dealing now with the electrons we are dealing with the proton and neutron if they are so small is size the HUP tels you that you canto know anything about their geometric shape nor even the question if they are side by side or one inside the other!! you can tell nothing about that and once you reals that they are side by side you actually *bypassed the HUP' right?? and now you forgot to answer me about the possibility of QM to tell the shape of the Alpha particle if it is a tetraheder or not ?? i can tell it so i bypassed the HUP and may be QM as well?? TIA Y.Porat ------------------ > -- > "Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." > -- Benjamin Franklin >> In article <1124089178.686110.318350@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, >> > >> >yet there are people why *can * answer those question!! [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > >so it i snot at all two spheres it is long chin of orbitals Did the ellipsoid in the picture look like your long chain of orbitals? >now you have to keep in mind that not all those sub chains >are of the same magnitude of mass [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >and not say one inside the other >does that ' combined wave function can tell you that ?? I haven't worked out any predictions for a deuteron. But two particles could be one inside the other unless there's a short-range repelling force. The hydrogen atom is an example of one particle inside the other-- in the ground state, the magnitude of the electron wavefunction is greatest at the center. If there isn't a force that repels them, why shouldn't one particle be inside another? >---------- > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >you actually >*bypassed the HUP' right?? No. If the position uncertainty is big enough they might look like two big balls side by side rather than two small balls side by side. Or your scattering peaks might be wide rather than narrow. >and now you forgot to answer me about the possibility of QM >to tell the shape of the Alpha particle >if it is a tetraheder or not ?? I don't know what the alpha particl looks like. Tetrahedron is reasonable, but I can't back that up. >i can tell it so i bypassed the HUP and may be QM as well?? You can tell me what you think it is, but can you tell me the experimental result that confirms it? Signature"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong." -- Henry Louis Mencken > >> In article <1124089178.686110.318350@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > >> > >> >yet there are people why *can * answer those question!! [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Did the ellipsoid in the picture look like your long chain of orbitals? i explained to you that those chain of orbitals are not of the same mass intensity so it might well be that the sllipsoids you see there are only parts of those chains the trst of it i s not shown because it ios too deluted to be seen i dont think and it does not look like that the electrons for instance are shown there yet the electrons are part of my chain of orbitals hope you got me at last. ---------- > >now you have to keep in mind that not all those sub chains > >are of the same magnitude of mass [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > I haven't worked out any predictions for a deuteron. i dont expect you to to do all of it my question was if it was already done ??!! i guess it wasnt and not accidentally. --------------- But two particles > could be one inside the other unless there's a short-range repelling > force. so you say that acording to Qm two particles can be one inside the other?? not a good sign fo rsucha a theory!! The hydrogen atom is an example of one particle inside the other-- > in the ground state, the magnitude of the electron wavefunction is > greatest at the center. If there isn't a force that repels them, why > shouldn't one particle be inside another? need i to remind you that we are not talking about proton and electron but prpton and *neutron* does your theory alow a proton to be inside a deutron??!! just remember the Pauli excution law and just expand it to the nuc !! no need to be a genious in order of understanding that the chances of a proton to be inside the neutron or viceversa is null or else it will explode !!?? so here agin i add my claim that we have to use some of our general knowledge of phisics in order of excluding and diminishing the number of possibilities thjat seem absurdic.(toour previous gemeral knowlwdge iow simple words-- to look first of all for simplicity !! and not over 'smatguyness' ----------- > >> >1 how is that experimental data live in Peace > >> >with the HUP??(that is our title ..) [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > No. If the position uncertainty is big enough they might look like two > big balls side by side rather than two small balls side by side. but what can you do and we know(by other experimental data - that they are not big but small?? this is exactly an example of which i claim that we must use *other experimental data * in order to exclude unlikely possibilities! and that is exactly what i call; bypassing the HUP. and morover the HUP prevents you from knowing they are side by side as well!because side by side is geometric *knowlwdge*.it is knowlwdge not uncertainty!. so that knowledge is actually bypassing the HUP. ----------- ---------- Or your > scattering peaks might be wide rather than narrow. see again my explantion about my chain of orbitals that are not of the same density it seems you didnt internalised it yet --------- > >and now you forgot to answer me about the possibility of QM > >to tell the shape of the Alpha particle > >if it is a tetraheder or not ?? > > I don't know what the alpha particl looks like. Tetrahedron is > reasonable, but I can't back that up. for that you have to folow all my model it is a system of acumulative data only if you get the meaning of all that *acumulative evidence* you can get it it start with guesses but those guesss are confirmed by verifications and unexpected unprecedented cross verifications it is not undestood imediately it needs investment of studying it. actually i did it by a long process of trial and error i was testing hundreds may be thousand rial and error posibilities during 10 years of hard work. and mind you iteration and trial and error looks not respectable for scince but peiole do not realise thast even the most sophisticated computer systems use actually that system of trial and error in a tremendous velocity testing millions of posibilites and filtering them that is unprecedented in nuclear physics (i admit that guilt of being unprecedented and even unconventional (;-)) ps sory not to spellcheck i am tired and on my way to bad !! (:-) ATB Y.Porat ----------------- ----------- ---------- > >i can tell it so i bypassed the HUP and may be QM as well?? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong." > -- Henry Louis Mencken In sci.physics, Y.Porat <maporat@012.net.il> wrote on 12 Aug 2005 22:47:03 -0700 <1123912023.561043.154020@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>: > If i come to a 'standard educated physicist ' and tell him: > > the HUP can be bypassed > he will immediately jump and say you are an ignorant!! Actually, I'm going to jump in here and say *I* am ignorant. Just what is "HUP" in this context? - Harvard University Press? - Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania? - Home Use Program? - Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? Ah...OK. That must be it. > now i tell that man ; easy man dont be jumpy > lets not be parrots and study my statement more intensively: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > now how can they be located geometrically?? What is a proton? What is a neutron? One might see just the three up and three down quarks, and a bunch of gluons. Of course the HUP is far more general than that. http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08b.htm which explains a "gamma ray microscope" thought experiment, is illustrative of a typical application. [rest snipped] Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. > In sci.physics, Y.Porat > <maporat@012.net.il> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Actually, I'm going to jump in here and say *I* am ignorant. > Just what is "HUP" in this context? -------------- according to QM experts ('or experts') the HUP prevents us from knowing a definite geometric structure of the nuc. because the dimensions there are too small that is not my claim my claim is that we can know quite a lot of the unequivocal geometric structure of the nuc. so definite as your address is definite in your street your city and your country each proton or neutron has its unequivocal address in the nuc map got it man?? does it look known and trivial to you ?? it is in my model not from this year but from more than 10 years ago!! and you could realize just above some of my minor predictions there are there much more meaningful ones. !! (the HUP denies such a possibility not according to me but to 'physics experts'' )) so if i am right and not the others it is a breakthrough in physics !! --------- ATB Y.Porat ----------------- > - Harvard University Press? > - Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania? [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > [rest snipped] >From Osher Doctorow mdoctorow@comcast.net Y. Porat typed: >my claim is that we can know quite a lot of the unequivocal geometric >structure of the nuc. Y. Porat, your critics seem to be trying to say that Newtonian or Classical physical thinking is boundary-type, non-probabilistic, non-statistical, and non-anomalous, while Quantum thinking is boundaryless, probabilistic, statistical, anomalous. They're only half right, and I doubt whether they have the faintest idea why. Probability and statistics and fuzziness as in fuzzy multivalued logic and to some extent (less) fuzzy sets are part of the new thinking that comes with both quantum physics and almost all nondeterministic sciences or their branches. They totally don't understand anomalies/paradoxes, and I've been explaining some of that in my recent posts. As for boundaryless and the types of anomalies or paradoxes in particle-field or wave-particle duality (which aren't quite the same), there's really a Physics (and even Mathematics) "War" going on between advocates of Locality and Nonlocality, a War that goes back to the days of Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Prince De Broglie, Planck, Born, Bohm, etc. On the Locality side are Local Quantum Physics, Local Quantum Algebra or just Quantum Algebra, David Deutsch's Local school, my Probable Influence (PI) Theory, even arguably Sir Roger Penrose's version of "substantive" as opposed to purely "relational" Quantum Theory and GR, Einstein's GR, Professor Nimtz' and Professor Mittelstaedt's school at U. Cologne/Koln Germany, etc. On the Nonlocality side are the David Bohm admirers and obsessors who are especially common in Germany alongside the Local Theorists, the U.K. alongside the Local Theorists, the USA in Rutgers University and to some extent in the State of Pennsylvania (I wonder why :>), Jack Sarfatti and his admirers although he has to keep pretending partial neutrality for reasons that he will hopefully explain (into which group Uncle Al seems to jump in and out). If you do want to read something extra, read my threads as far back as you can in sci.physics, and you'll find references to not only Locality people but an entire Local group that's international. Internationally, the Nonlocal people tend to be Plurality-Oriented, like the Russians who grow up with a "moral corset" that tends to ignore the Individual for the sake of group Conformity, and China's attempt to brainwash its people. The Local people tend to be either balanced between Individual and Plurality like me or Individual-Oriented more than Plurality-Oriented. The stakes in this "game"? If the Nonlocalists take over Harvard and Stanford and Princeton and Chicago, then the next U.S.A. President may well be a descendant of Neville Chamberlain who gave away Europe to Hitler. Osher Doctorow Hi Osher i agree with many of your assertions yet my occupation is less abstract and philosophical IE i do my most efforts to be practical you know we are fed up with abstract theories that contribute nearly nothing to our everyday life not to mention everyday survival!! see for instance how energy crisys is coming with a threatening pace the prises of oil are souring and no one 'rings the bell' until it will be too late!! anyway i agree and preach about that th world of matter is not a probability game!! probability science in physics is the science of *lack of knowledge* i hesitate to say science of too much holes and ignorance as Einstein was putting it very concisely: 'God didnt play the dice' !!! so people keep on parroting their abs tact formulas and paradigm like the HUP that was alleged to prevent us of knowing the 'unequivocal structure of matter' The Atom and nucleus are not just probability clouds they are very specific steady structures it is not a 'boiling porridge' !!! and my model seems to be marching on by more and more verified predictions!. like the Deuteron shape and the next coming the Alpha particles and 'you ain't seen nothing yet!! all these are peanuts' compared to the rest of it !! including its possible application to our everyday welfare and not everyday mumbling!! ------------ ATB Y.Porat --------------- ATB Y.Porat ------------- >From Osher Doctorow mdoctorow@comcast.net Y. Porat typed: >the prises of oil are souring >and no one 'rings the bell' >until it will be too late!! Israeli Anti-Terrorists have found out that the Bush Administration is being more or less held hostage by Saudi oil because of (a) the low production and instability of Iraqi oil, (b) the Venezuela and similar places' turn toward Cuba, (c) the dawning realization that Iran's "liberals" are a farce. You should have seen V.P. Cheney and Colin Powell and Bush kissing the new Saudi King. I mostly agree with you about physics theory except that my theory is oriented toward intuitive clarity and very precise definitions without obscurity. I recently criticized both Heisenberg and Einstein for "arrogance," and that is correct, although Einstein gave us GR and Heisenberg in my opinion gave us nothing (his matrix mechanics was in my opinion an imitation of Schrodinger's wave mechanics using algebra, although historians try to reverse the time sequence sometimes). I have also been arrogant in my life, although I am gradually coming out of it - faster than physics elitists seem to be coming out of theirs. Osher Doctorow > > In sci.physics, Y.Porat > > <maporat@012.net.il> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > in the nuc map > got it man?? Porat. Pls. read very careful. So long as you keep misunderstanding what the HUP is, you will be in perpetual confusion in your conveyance of your ideas to people. QM didn't say we can't know the geometric structure of the nucleus. What it simply says is that we can't know the definite position of the nucleons inside the nucleus. That doesn't mean there is no geoemetric shape. It means the positions is fuzzy. But the fuzziness can have shapes too. So the geometric shape includes boundary of the fuzziness. Pls. try to understand this. For 10 years I can't believe you can't understand this. It seems you have some kind of mental block. Pls. read the following carefully. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/uncer.html Pls. tell me what it says. If you still can't understand it after reading it several times. Go to cooking or fishing for your hobby. Physics knows no stubbornness. BTW... earlier I asked how come the electron can't be confined inside the nucleus without so much energy required compared to the quarks. It has to do with their masses. From the formula E=p^2/2m. The quarks or proton has larger mass than electrons. Can you understand this??! p6 > does it look known and trivial to you ?? > it is in my model not from this year but from more than 10 years ago!! [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > #191, ewill3@earthlink.net > > It's still legal to go .sigless. > > > In sci.physics, Y.Porat > > > <maporat@012.net.il> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > QM didn't say we can't know the geometric structure of the > nucleus. 1 if that is the case you have no dispute with me that was the nasty claim of Feuerbacher against my model on grounds that 'it is dead by arrival' because of the HUP so go argue about it with the genius from Heidelberg i am the last one on this earth that *anything * can on the long run prevent us from knowing the nuclear structure and my model is the best known prove for it !! --------------- What it simply says is that we can't know the > definite position of the nucleons inside the nucleus. That > doesn't mean there is no geometric shape. here rather you are wrong because knowing the shape is knowing it is some *certainty of location*!! it is not the uncertainty!! It means the > positions is fuzzy. what i show in my model is not fuzzy at all it is very definite but without length scale !! if you agree with me about such possibility the again i am th last one on that world that you have argument with about it !! ------ But the fuzziness can have shapes too. no Sir that is your private understanding (influenced by me !! (:-) --------- > So the geometric shape includes boundary of the fuzziness. no sir 'boundaries of the fuzziness are geometric and location knowledge so you have to decide who is right me or Feuerbacher(and i guess he is not the only one with that position!!) if you are on my side .... welcome !! ---------- > Pls. try to understand this. For 10 years 10 years ???!! wow do i know you for 10 years?? than common tell us who you relay are !! why are you hiding? that is not a respectable behavior !! I can't believe > you can't understand this. It seems you have some kind of > mental block. Pls. read the following carefully. just above you realized that i understand it even a bit more than you because i made use of it much further than you see my model did you by any chance got my book? if yes than reveal your real face --------- > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/uncer.html > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > inside the nucleus without so much energy required compared > to the quarks. some news for you : the nucleus is full of electrons !!!(and positrons and more It has to do with their masses. From the > formula E=p^2/2m. The quarks or proton has larger mass than > electrons. --- see my 'chain of orbitals' and get wiser! ------- > Can you understand this??! yes see the chain of orbitals!! ATB Y.Porat ----------------- > p6 > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > > #191, ewill3@earthlink.net > > > It's still legal to go .sigless. get get of my back ........ Y.Porat ------------------------ [snipped] Can you even state the HUP? Because I'm doubting it. Socks |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.