🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jun 27, 6:29 pm, glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jun 27, 12:26 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <jirk/Physics/Fumbles>
> wrote:> glird wrote:
>
> > <An excellent message, Pentcho!
>
>  Please tell Harry Kroto that the answer to his question is YES!
>   Pretty soon metaphysics - the study of that which physically exists
> - >
>
>
>
> > Metaphysics is the introspective study of >imbeciles.
>
> > Jerk Vdm
>
> The rest of this message is copied from W2 ("What it all is and Why")
> by G Lebau.
>    Present physics thinks that "probability" is a component of the
> quantum, and, to a large degree, a physical component of "the way God
> made the world". They argue whether, due to probability and
> indeterminacy, God plays dice at the sub-atomic level.

   But, since they also use the most unlikey mathematics, like Wave-
Particle Statistics,
   that's also why the cranks are given the GM jobs, and the people
with
   actual post 1905 engineering-technology-medicine brains work on
GPS, Digital Terrain Mapping,
   Digital Fiber Optics Signalling, Stealth, Cell Phones, UAVs, AAVs,
Electronic Books,
   Microcomputers, Optical Computers, Laser Disk Libraries, SGML, XML,
USB,
   Flat Screen Software Debuggers, Distributed Processing Software
Development,
   C++, Blue Ray, HDTV, All-In-One Printers, Holographics, Holograms,
Drones,
   Cruise Missiles, Phalanx, Biodiesel, Pv Cell Energy, Solar Energy,
neo wind Energy,
   Cyber Batteries, Compact Flourescent Lighting, On-Line Banking, On-
Line Publishing,
   Self-Replicating Machines, and Self-Assembling Robots.






They suggest
> that indeterminacy {their inability to measure ("determine") both the
> position and velocity of a given electron simultaneously} is also a
> physical component of reality. They even provide the equations with
> which, according to them, this "10% indeterminacy" enters into atomic
> level phenomena.
> The equations {"laws"} about interacting masses were initially based
> on the actions of particulate things. Such laws do not apply to
> photons or to raw, unstructured matter. The quantum equations,
> tailored to ever closer approximations to experimental data, do
> closely fit, but the words and concepts for some of the symbols in the
> equations don't apply either.  The underlying metaphysical concepts,
> not the equations, are incorrect.
> "The World of the Atom" commentary concerning Schrodinger says on page
> 1064,
> "We may illustrate an eigenvalue problem in a simple way by
> considering a violin string. The vibrations of such a string can be
> described by a 'differential equation' that contains a constant, which
> can be chosen at will. However, it turns out that only those
> vibrations of the string are actually observed (that is, are possible)
> for which this constant is an integer. These integers are called the
> eigenvalues of the problem. Thus, although the string is continuous,
> its vibrations are governed by integers." [My emphasis.]
> After discussing the development of the wave versus particle aspects
> of light in his 1929 Nobel Prize Address, de Broglie said in "The
> Undulatory Aspects of the Electron" [pg 1050]:
> "Thus we see once again it had become necessary to assume two
> contradictory theories of Light, in terms of waves, and of corpuscles,
> respectively; while it was impossible to understand why, among the
> infinite number of paths which an electron ought to be able to follow
> in the atom according to classical ideas, there was only a restricted
> number which it could pursue in fact. Such were the problems facing
> physicists at the time when I returned to my studies.
> "When I began to consider these difficulties [1920] I was chiefly
> struck by two facts. On the one hand, the Quantum Theory of Light
> cannot be considered satisfactory, since it defines the energy of a
> light-corpuscle by the equation W = hv, containing the frequency, v.
> Now a purely corpuscular theory contains nothing that enables us to
> define a frequency; for this reason alone, therefore, we are compelled
> in the case of Light, to introduce the idea of a corpuscle and that of
> periodicity simultaneously. ... In this way, then, I obtained the
> following general idea ... that it is necessary in the case of Matter,
> as well as of radiation generally and of Light in particular, to
> introduce the idea of the corpuscle and of the wave simultaneously: or
> in other words, in the one case as well as in the other, we must
> assume the existence of corpuscles accompanied by waves. But
> corpuscles and waves cannot be independent of each other: in Bohr's
> terms, they are two complementary aspects of Reality: and it must
> consequently be possible to establish a certain parallelism between
> the motion of a corpuscle and the propagation of its associated wave.
> The first object at which to aim, therefore, was to establish the
> existence of this parallelism.
> "With this in view, I began by considering the simplest case: that of
> an isolated corpuscle, i.e. one removed from all external influence;
> with which we wish to associate a wave. Let us therefore consider
> first of all a reference system O xoyozo in which the corpuscle is at
> rest: this is the 'proper' system for the corpuscle according to the
> Theory of Relativity [the wet noodle].  Within such a system the wave
> will be stationary, since the corpuscle is at rest; its phase will be
> the same at every point [another limp noodle] and it will be
> represented by an expression of the form
> sin pivo(to - tauo)
> [the timelag, tauo, is the twisted relativistic timelag noodle inside
> this needle], to being the 'proper' time and tauo [the lie] a
> constant.
> "Now this is exactly the condition of atomic periodic motion,
> according to Planck. Thus the quantum conditions of stability appear
> as analogous to resonance phenomena, and the appearance of integers
> here becomes as natural as in the theory of vibrating cords and
> disks."
> From childhood on, most of us have been conditioned in our thinking by
> the kinetic atomic theory. This holds that all things are made of
> individual independent separate particles. That theory is totally
> false. ...
> For a particle to exist, i.e. a specific parcel of material locked
> into a lasting configuration, several requirements must be met. First,
> the given atom and/or molecule must be stopped from exchanging outer-
> shell material with its neighbors. They cannot, therefore, be part of
> a gas!  Second, the continuum of which they are a part cannot be in a
> fluid, easily flowing state in which outer-shells continuously
> rearrange their groupings and thus their shared material. They cannot,
> therefore, even be parts of a liquid!
> Only a solid state substance can be a true particle; a lastingly
> specific segment of matter. In order for such a solid particle to
> exist, multiple atoms and/or molecules have to be joined together to
> form it. The intervening material has to be denser than the shell-
> layers trapped within. The substance then is kept in place.
> The only time a molecule or atom is a particle, then, is when it is
> forced to be by the structure of the field of which it is a part.
> Otherwise they are configurations that more or less hold on to a semi-
> permanent, freely exchangeable portion of the material of the field.
> Conversely, as we study the actions of the field, which for an atom
> may be the molecule of which it is a part, the same hydrogen bomb
> revision in mental approach is required:  There is no such thing as a
> homogeneous field.
> There is no field at all, other than that made of the very substance
> of all the matter-units that fill the field. Indeed, for our purposes
> the term "field" merely denotes a given, abstract local volume. (There
> is no such thing as an "electromagnetic field" or "gravitational
> field", of themselves.  They are only variations in structure and
> actions of the things that fill a local environment.)
> We saw that Einstein held his relativistic field "homogeneous". That
> turns out to be the Rosetta Bimp!  No field, in nature, is
> homogeneous. All fields are made of the highly organized material
> portions that fill them. All highly organized material portions are
> therefore part of their field. They are part of a non-linear Navier-
> Stokes equilibrium with each other because:
> Particles and fields do not separately exist. They are different
> aspects of one and the same matter-filled-space, whether that be an
> atomic nucleus or the Cosmos.
>
> Our constructions will arrive at integer multiples of a constant times
> relative thicknesses and other things from layered shell to layered
> shell. Since we do intend to show that light-waves and other things
> really are the results of vibrations analogous to those released by
> vibrating chords and disks, I agree with de Broglie's conclusion. It
> is only fair to point out that his above "constant", (tauo actually
> equal to -vx/c2, the unchanging local time discrepancy) was present
> early in the development of quantum and electron theory and wasn't
> side stepped until Feynman switched to absolutes, world lines, to plot
> small scale relations. Even now, though, people still try to construct
> a relativistic set of equations for qed and in the process discover
> that they have to go back to "proper time" instead of relativistic
> "time". {In calculating the precession of the perihelion of Mercury,
> Einstein did the same thing!  Schwinger did it for quantum physics,
> some sixty years later.}
> The four dimensional vibrations are analogous, but the source is not.
> Cords and disks are solid state objects. The entire inside of an atom
> is a highly organized continuous fluid material. The actions that are
> the sources of the radiating vibrations take place throughout the
> entire volume of this material.
>
> The commentaries preceding Schrödinger's article said,
> "One could eliminate, so he thought, the idea of quantum jumps and
> replace it by another concept of transition from one mode of vibration
> to another. Schrodinger did not quite see how to do this before 1926,
> when he learned about de Broglie's wave theory of the electron through
> some words of praise written by Einstein."
> A transition from one mode of vibration to another is very probably a
> part of what does physically happen; but not by absolutely separate
> and discretely independent particles or layers. There are no such
> things.
> It isn't that a "particle" (the electron) is accompanied by waves, the
> electron IS a wave system and thus its precise location at a point IS
> "indeterminate".  {That's another misuse of semantics. It isn't really
> indeterminate; it just isn't at a point. A vibrating material
> continuum, no matter how small or localized, is not point sized nor,
> therefore, ever precisely "at a point".
> Another tunnel?  You like the twists and turns?  Try this:
> On page 507 Freeman's Physics says,
> "A brilliant yet simple explanation of the experimental facts of
> photoelectricity was given by Einstein in 1905. ... Later, the name
> photon was given to a quantum of radiant energy. The amount of energy
> of a photon is E ...
>
> read more »