Discussion:
How do electron clouds quantum leap?
(too old to reply)
m***@gmail.com
2018-03-13 03:33:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Electron's positions jump and bond to the next shell without a cloud.
How do electron clouds conduct to the next atom surface
in the phenomenon of electricity?

Quantum mechanics hasn't known what it is talking about.
Einstein knew better. QM clouds are not real. Particles
do have definite positions that move continuously.
Quantum Mechanics has been a so called scientific
fairy tail...

No one should believe anymore that Einstein lost the
argument to the world...

Mitchell Raemsch
john
2018-03-13 13:57:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Mitch
"Electron's positions jump and bond to the next shell without a cloud.
How do electron clouds conduct to the next atom surface
in the phenomenon of electricity?

Quantum mechanics hasn't known what it is talking about.
Einstein knew better. QM clouds are not real. Particles
do have definite positions that.."
Yes, electrons behave as particles.
But they are a cloud. I think that what keeps all the bits of the individual electron together is their common spin. All Matter has a common spin, but each electron was created from a different place in the Universe, which gives it an initial cohesive spin characteristic, like a fingerprint.

Every electron is different.
john
2018-03-13 14:08:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I was going to talk about photons, and end up with "original spin".
Haha.
No, I think that photons accrete at an atom's Center, pulling the electrons' arms gradually inward and speeding
them up. Like when a skater pulls in her arms in a spin. Then, when the photon release takes place, the electrons suddenly stretch out again and slow down.

I'm sure Odd has definitive proof that this is incorrect, but I need advanced maths to comprehend it.
Odd Bodkin
2018-03-13 14:14:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
john <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was going to talk about photons, and end up with "original spin".
> Haha.
> No, I think that photons accrete at an atom's Center, pulling the
> electrons' arms gradually inward and speeding
> them up. Like when a skater pulls in her arms in a spin. Then, when the
> photon release takes place, the electrons suddenly stretch out again and slow down.
>
> I'm sure Odd has definitive proof that this is incorrect, but I need
> advanced maths to comprehend it.
>

Depends on what you mean by “advanced maths”. If you mean more than 3rd
grade arithmetic, yeah probably so.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable that ideas that are just wrong would
require more than 3rd grade arithmetic to explain why they’re wrong. Do you
think wrong ideas should be shown clearly wrong at the 3rd grade level?

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
m***@gmail.com
2018-03-14 00:48:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 7:08:13 AM UTC-7, john wrote:
> I was going to talk about photons, and end up with "original spin".
> Haha.
> No, I think that photons accrete at an atom's Center, pulling the electrons' arms gradually inward and speeding
> them up. Like when a skater pulls in her arms in a spin. Then, when the photon release takes place, the electrons suddenly stretch out again and slow down.
>
> I'm sure Odd has definitive proof that this is incorrect, but I need advanced maths to comprehend it.

Spin only goes half way... sometimes...
It is a failed mind concept because
particles don't have radiuses.

Mitchell Raemsch
Edward Prochak
2018-03-14 14:38:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 9:57:39 AM UTC-4, john wrote:
[]
> Yes, electrons behave as particles.
> But they are a cloud. I think that what keeps all the bits of
> the individual electron together is their common spin. All Matter
> has a common spin, but each electron was created from a different
> place in the Universe, which gives it an initial cohesive spin
> characteristic, like a fingerprint.
>
> Every electron is different.


How do they differ? Is it something measurable? Or perhaps its aura?

Lets see, Do they differ in mass?
Well many experiment measure the mass resulting in over 10 digits of
precision. So if they differ in mass it is 0.000000001% or less.

how about charge?
Oh, you have a SLIGHTLY better chance here. Yhe charge is 9 digits
of precision, so electrons could differ by 0.00000001% or less
and still look the same in charge experiments.

Maybe since you call it spin, you mean they differ in magnetic moment?
that has to be it right?
Well then, that fingerprint is pretty small. It would have to be
a difference in magnetic moment of 0.0000000000001% or less.

I don't know John. Where is this fingerprint hiding?

Ed
john
2018-03-14 14:47:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Ed
"On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 9:57:39 AM UTC-4, john wrote:
[]
> Yes, electrons behave as particles.
> But they are a cloud. I think that what keeps all the bits of
> the individual electron together is their common spin. All Matter
> has a common spin, but each electron was created from a different
> place in the Universe, which gives it an initial cohesive spin
> characteristic, like a fingerprint.
>
> Every electron is different.


How do they differ? Is it something measurable? Or perhaps its aura?

Lets see, Do they differ in mass?
Well many experiment measure the mass resulting in over 10 digits of
precision. So if they differ in mass it is 0.000000001% or less.

how about charge?
Oh, you have a SLIGHTLY better chance here. Yhe charge is 9 digits
of precision, so electrons could differ by 0.00000001% or less
and still look the same in charge experiments.

Maybe since you call it spin, you mean they differ in magnetic moment?
that has to be it right?
Well then, that fingerprint is pretty small. It would have to be
a difference in magnetic moment of 0.0000000000001% or less.

I don't know John. Where is this fingerprint hiding?

Ed "

So you think all electrons are identical?
Whyever would you think that?
Edward Prochak
2018-03-14 16:11:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 10:47:47 AM UTC-4, john wrote:
> Ed
> "On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 9:57:39 AM UTC-4, john wrote:
> []
> > Yes, electrons behave as particles.
> > But they are a cloud. I think that what keeps all the bits of
> > the individual electron together is their common spin. All Matter
> > has a common spin, but each electron was created from a different
> > place in the Universe, which gives it an initial cohesive spin
> > characteristic, like a fingerprint.
> >
> > Every electron is different.
>
>
> How do they differ? Is it something measurable? Or perhaps its aura?
>
> Lets see, Do they differ in mass?
> Well many experiment measure the mass resulting in over 10 digits of
> precision. So if they differ in mass it is 0.000000001% or less.
>
> how about charge?
> Oh, you have a SLIGHTLY better chance here. Yhe charge is 9 digits
> of precision, so electrons could differ by 0.00000001% or less
> and still look the same in charge experiments.
>
> Maybe since you call it spin, you mean they differ in magnetic moment?
> that has to be it right?
> Well then, that fingerprint is pretty small. It would have to be
> a difference in magnetic moment of 0.0000000000001% or less.
>
> I don't know John. Where is this fingerprint hiding?
>
> Ed "
>
> So you think all electrons are identical?
> Whyever would you think that?

Haven't found a different one yet!
8^)
Ed
john
2018-03-14 16:18:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Ed
"- show quoted text -
Haven't found a different one yet!
8^)
Ed "
Boasting about failure- QM indoctrinate
Michael Moroney
2018-03-14 18:06:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
john <***@gmail.com> writes:

>Ed
>"- show quoted text -
>Haven't found a different one yet!
>8^)
> Ed "
>Boasting about failure- QM indoctrinate

No, John, that's not how science works. Not finding something
that doesn't exist is not a failure if you are trying to figure
out whether it exists or not.
Edward Prochak
2018-03-14 22:14:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 12:18:21 PM UTC-4, john wrote:
> Ed
> "- show quoted text -
> Haven't found a different one yet!
> 8^)
> Ed "
> Boasting about failure- QM indoctrinate

It is not my failure if you cannot find what you are looking for.
Ed
Odd Bodkin
2018-03-14 22:18:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Edward Prochak <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 12:18:21 PM UTC-4, john wrote:
>> Ed
>> "- show quoted text -
>> Haven't found a different one yet!
>> 8^)
>> Ed "
>> Boasting about failure- QM indoctrinate
>
> It is not my failure if you cannot find what you are looking for.
> Ed
>

More like John launching diatribes against people who won’t look for things
only he believes are there.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Michael Moroney
2018-03-14 18:00:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
john <***@gmail.com> writes:

>So you think all electrons are identical?
>Whyever would you think that?

Because every single time we measure the properties of the
electrons, we *always* get the same answer (within an extremely
small error range)? They all have the same mass & charge to within
9-10 decimal places. They even all have the same measured radius
(extremely tiny, consistent with 0). That's how science works, John.

Here's another problem for you.
Do you think all values of 2 are identical?
p***@gmail.com
2018-03-13 16:35:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 5:33:15 AM UTC+2, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> Electron's positions jump and bond to the next shell without a cloud.
> How do electron clouds
------
first thing
here is no electron clouds and no electron schlowdes

conduct to the next atom surface
==
no first and no second surface !!
===
> in the phenomenon of electricity?
>
> Quantum mechanics hasn't known what it is talking about.
> Einstein knew better. QM clouds are not real
=
right
no clouds and no sclaudes ~
===

. Particles
> do have definite positions that move continuously.
====================================================
nothing is really moving!
-A LOT IS VIBRATING !!
THE MATHEMATICAL FORMULA OF A 'CIRCLING 'OBJECT ARE THE DAME OF A VIBRATING OBJECT !!!
SEE
http://sites/google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract
======

> Quantum Mechanics has been a so called scientific
==
> fairy tail...
it looks like a fairy tail
===
>
> No one should believe anymore that Einstein lost the
> argument to the world...
>
> Mitchell Raemsch
================================
TIA
Y.Porat
===================================
p***@gmail.com
2018-03-13 16:45:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 6:35:30 PM UTC+2, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 5:33:15 AM UTC+2, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > Electron's positions jump and bond to the next shell without a cloud.
> > How do electron clouds
> ------
> first thing
> here is no electron clouds and no electron schlowdes
>
> conduct to the next atom surface
> ==
> no first and no second surface !!
> ===
> > in the phenomenon of electricity?
> >
> > Quantum mechanics hasn't known what it is talking about.
> > Einstein knew better. QM clouds are not real
> =
> right
> no clouds and no sclaudes ~
> ===
>
> . Particles
> > do have definite positions that move continuously.
> ====================================================
> nothing is really moving!
> -A LOT IS VIBRATING !!
> THE MATHEMATICAL FORMULA OF A 'CIRCLING 'OBJECT ARE THE DAME OF A VIBRATING OBJECT !!!
> SEE
> http://sites/google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract
=====
sorry typo
(just one'pips and you are lost ...

so :

http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract

i hope this time it is right
--
TIA
Y.P
================================
> ======
>
Michael Moroney
2018-03-13 17:04:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
***@gmail.com writes:

>Electron's positions jump and bond to the next shell without a cloud.
>How do electron clouds conduct to the next atom surface
>in the phenomenon of electricity?

There is no "surface" to bond to. It is simply a jump in energy
level.

There is no real "how". The Feynman diagram is a simple 3 line point
vertex, e+gamma->e or e->e+gamma.

Remember, electrons, like photons, have both a wavelike and particlelike
nature. Orbitals show the wavelike nature of electrons. (Electrons,
because they have a small but nonzero mass, act more particlelike than
photons, but they still act wavelike. See the electron microscope as an
example)
m***@gmail.com
2018-03-13 19:16:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 10:04:43 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> ***@gmail.com writes:
>
> >Electron's positions jump and bond to the next shell without a cloud.
> >How do electron clouds conduct to the next atom surface
> >in the phenomenon of electricity?
>
> There is no "surface" to bond to. It is simply a jump in energy
> level.

Wrong. All atoms have their solid surface...
where electricity without a cloud takes place.
The same with a quantum leap.

Probability clouds are ruled out.

>
> There is no real "how".

Backing out of "reality" when you can't admit science doesn't
have all the answers? Shame on you...



> The Feynman diagram is a simple 3 line point
> vertex, e+gamma->e or e->e+gamma.
>
> Remember, electrons, like photons, have both a wavelike and particlelike
> nature. Orbitals show the wavelike nature of electrons. (Electrons,
> because they have a small but nonzero mass, act more particlelike than
> photons, but they still act wavelike. See the electron microscope as an
> example)
p***@gmail.com
2018-03-14 00:35:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 12:16:20 PM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:

> Wrong. All atoms have their solid surface...

Mitch, you are just making this up as you go along, again...
john
2018-03-14 00:41:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Nothing is solid and continuous
The smaller you look, the more space you see
Edward Prochak
2018-03-14 14:41:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 8:41:38 PM UTC-4, john wrote:
> Nothing is solid and continuous
> The smaller you look, the more space you see

Yeah! You got that one right JOHN!!!
Congratulations.
Ed
m***@gmail.com
2018-03-14 00:51:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 5:35:08 PM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 12:16:20 PM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Wrong. All atoms have their solid surface...
>
> Mitch, you are just making this up as you go along, again...

You are the one of science that does not have a possession
of his own mind. I stand by atoms having a solid surface
where weight science occurs...
Michael Moroney
2018-03-14 17:52:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
***@gmail.com writes:

>On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 10:04:43 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> ***@gmail.com writes:
>>
>> >Electron's positions jump and bond to the next shell without a cloud.
>> >How do electron clouds conduct to the next atom surface
>> >in the phenomenon of electricity?
>>
>> There is no "surface" to bond to. It is simply a jump in energy
>> level.

>Wrong. All atoms have their solid surface...

And just why do you say that? Is this yet another case of
"It's True Because I Said So!!!"

Or do you have any actual evidence of that? Didn't think so.

>where electricity without a cloud takes place.
>The same with a quantum leap.

>Probability clouds are ruled out.

Just how? It is a successful part of quantum theory, hardly "ruled
out".

>> There is no real "how".

>Backing out of "reality" when you can't admit science doesn't
>have all the answers? Shame on you...

Wrong. You are assuming a method or process where this happens,
then the electron does this, then that. That's not how it works,
there ia juat before and after.

>> The Feynman diagram is a simple 3 line point
>> vertex, e+gamma->e or e->e+gamma.

The lack of detail at the vertex indicates there are no complex
events going on.
p***@gmail.com
2018-03-14 06:17:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 7:04:43 PM UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> ***@gmail.com writes:
>
> >Electron's positions jump and bond to the next shell without a cloud.
> >How do electron clouds conduct to the next atom surface
> >in the phenomenon of electricity?
>
> There is no "surface" to bond to. It is simply a jump in energy
> level.
>
> There is no real "how". The Feynman diagram is a simple 3 line point
> vertex, e+gamma->e or e->e+gamma.
>
> Remember, electrons, like photons, have both a wavelike and particlelike
> nature. Orbitals show the wavelike nature of electrons. (Electrons,
> because they have a small but nonzero mass, act more particlelike than
> photons, but they still act wavelike. See the electron microscope as an
> example)
--=======================
in general -i tend to agree !

yet you remain too abstract !
nature and ***particles**re not may be that or may be that
they are very definite unequivocal !!
the confusion is only in some minds
---
2
once again :

THE FORMULA OF AN'ORBITING PARTICVLE
AND A **VIBRATING ENTITY
**ARE THE SAME *!!!!!
SO
SEE AGAIN THE
CHAIN OF***GLOBAL )**ORBITALS SYSTEM
THAT WORK ALALONG !!!:
CHEMISTRY CRYSTALLINE NUCLEAR SYSTEMS !!

http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract

(that is just an abstract of a book )
old copyright
Y.Porat
=============================================
p***@gmail.com
2018-03-14 07:44:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 8:17:30 AM UTC+2, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 7:04:43 PM UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > ***@gmail.com writes:
> >
> > >Electron's positions jump and bond to the next shell without a cloud.
> > >How do electron clouds conduct to the next atom surface
> > >in the phenomenon of electricity?
> >
> > There is no "surface" to bond to. It is simply a jump in energy
> > level.
> >
> > There is no real "how". The Feynman diagram is a simple 3 line point
> > vertex, e+gamma->e or e->e+gamma.
> >
> > Remember, electrons, like photons, have both a wavelike and particlelike
> > nature. Orbitals show the wavelike nature of electrons. (Electrons,
> > because they have a small but nonzero mass, act more particlelike than
> > photons, but they still act wavelike. See the electron microscope as an
> > example)
> --=======================
> in general -i tend to agree !
>
> yet you remain too abstract !
> nature and ***particles**re not may be that or may be that
> they are very definite unequivocal !!
> the confusion is only in some minds
> ---
> 2
> once again :
>
> THE FORMULA OF AN'ORBITING PARTICVLE
> AND A **VIBRATING ENTITY
> **ARE THE SAME *!!!!!
> SO
> SEE AGAIN THE
> CHAIN OF***GLOBAL )**ORBITALS SYSTEM
> THAT WORK ALALONG !!!:
> CHEMISTRY CRYSTALLINE NUCLEAR SYSTEMS !!
>
> http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract
>
> (that is just an abstract of a book )
> old copyright
> Y.Porat
> =============================================
and more !!
does the chain of orbitals system ''
remend yu as well
the 'sting theory as well ??!!
==
TIA
Y.Porat
==============================
Edward Prochak
2018-03-14 14:26:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 11:33:15 PM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> Electron's positions jump and bond to the next shell without a cloud.

This is a simplified view of what is happening in an atom.

> How do electron clouds conduct to the next atom surface
> in the phenomenon of electricity?

First you are not clear. Are you discussing the electron cloud
that forms around a hot filament (as in a light bulb)?
OR
the free electrons in a bulk material like a metal?
(This second case is not usually called a cloud.)

>
> Quantum mechanics hasn't known what it is talking about.

Jumping to conclusions already.

> Einstein knew better. QM clouds are not real. Particles
> do have definite positions that move continuously.

Einstein thought he knew better. But even he admitted
that he could make mistakes and that nature has the
final word.

Under the right conditions they appear to follow
clear trajectories, but in other cases, the word
"definite" cannot be used.

Watch again the Feynman lecture on the two slit experiment.


> Quantum Mechanics has been a so called scientific
> fairy tail...
>
> No one should believe anymore that Einstein lost the
> argument to the world...
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

Sorry but until you can explain the two slit experiment,
Mother nature shows you are wrong.

Ed
john
2018-03-14 14:31:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Ed
"

Sorry but until you can explain the two slit experiment,
Mother n"
Electrons don't fly straight
Odd Bodkin
2018-03-14 15:21:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
john <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ed
> "
>
> Sorry but until you can explain the two slit experiment,
> Mother n"
> Electrons don't fly straight
>

Indeed. This goes with the thing you scoff at, that electrons don’t have
definite straight line trajectories.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
john
2018-03-14 15:48:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Odd
"
> Mother n"
> Electrons don't fly straight
>

Indeed. This goes with the thing you scoff at, that electrons don’t have
definite straight line trajectories.
- show quoted text -"

Each electron has spin.
They are shot without regard to that spin.
So
Michael Moroney
2018-03-14 18:03:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
john <***@gmail.com> writes:

>Indeed. This goes with the thing you scoff at, that electrons don't have
>definite straight line trajectories.

>Each electron has spin.
>They are shot without regard to that spin.
>So

So you don't understand what QM spin is if you say that.
m***@gmail.com
2018-03-14 20:37:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 7:26:21 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 11:33:15 PM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > Electron's positions jump and bond to the next shell without a cloud.
>
> This is a simplified view of what is happening in an atom.
>
> > How do electron clouds conduct to the next atom surface
> > in the phenomenon of electricity?
>
> First you are not clear. Are you discussing the electron cloud
> that forms around a hot filament (as in a light bulb)?
> OR
> the free electrons in a bulk material like a metal?
> (This second case is not usually called a cloud.)
>
> >
> > Quantum mechanics hasn't known what it is talking about.
>
> Jumping to conclusions already.
>
> > Einstein knew better. QM clouds are not real. Particles
> > do have definite positions that move continuously.
>
> Einstein thought he knew better. But even he admitted
> that he could make mistakes and that nature has the
> final word.
>
> Under the right conditions they appear to follow
> clear trajectories, but in other cases, the word
> "definite" cannot be used.
>
> Watch again the Feynman lecture on the two slit experiment.
>
>
> > Quantum Mechanics has been a so called scientific
> > fairy tail...
> >
> > No one should believe anymore that Einstein lost the
> > argument to the world...
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
>
> Sorry but until you can explain the two slit experiment,
> Mother nature shows you are wrong.
>
> Ed

Oh really Ed? There is a new interpretation of Two Slits...

Light waves at the slits are what collapse the waves of
electrons... Removing their wave interference

Without the light the electrons retain their full
size waves and continue to interfere...


That is why there are two results at the
detection screen. Observer Created Reality is out
like Einstein knew it had to be.

Mitchell Raemsch
Edward Prochak
2018-03-14 22:21:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 4:37:22 PM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 7:26:21 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
[]
> > Sorry but until you can explain the two slit experiment,
> > Mother nature shows you are wrong.
> >
> > Ed
>
> Oh really Ed? There is a new interpretation of Two Slits...
>
> Light waves at the slits are what collapse the waves of
> electrons... Removing their wave interference

And thus cannot tell you what happens when such
detectors are not positioned at the slits. This
is covered by Feynman.
>
> Without the light the electrons retain their full
> size waves and continue to interfere...
>
Yes classical QM. So you agree that QM is correct,
that is progress.

>
> That is why there are two results at the
> detection screen. Observer Created Reality is out
> like Einstein knew it had to be.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

Sorry but you reached the wrong conclusion. Please watch
the video. Feynman explains the problem very clearly.

There is not solution outside of QM. As Feynman says,
that's just the way it works.

IOW, nature tells us the rules and in this case they are QM
Ed
m***@gmail.com
2018-03-14 22:53:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 3:21:27 PM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 4:37:22 PM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 7:26:21 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
> []
> > > Sorry but until you can explain the two slit experiment,
> > > Mother nature shows you are wrong.
> > >
> > > Ed
> >
> > Oh really Ed? There is a new interpretation of Two Slits...
> >
> > Light waves at the slits are what collapse the waves of
> > electrons... Removing their wave interference
>
> And thus cannot tell you what happens when such
> detectors are not positioned at the slits. This
> is covered by Feynman.
> >
> > Without the light the electrons retain their full
> > size waves and continue to interfere...
> >
> Yes classical QM. So you agree that QM is correct,
> that is progress.
>
> >
> > That is why there are two results at the
> > detection screen. Observer Created Reality is out
> > like Einstein knew it had to be.
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
>
> Sorry but you reached the wrong conclusion. Please watch
> the video. Feynman explains the problem very clearly.
>
> There is not solution outside of QM. As Feynman says,
> that's just the way it works.
>
> IOW, nature tells us the rules and in this case they are QM
> Ed

Einstein was right to disagree with the stupidity of Observer Created Reality
Copenhagen interpretation philosophy of QM.

It doesn't matter if anyone sees the light at the two holes.

It doesn't work backward in time. It is a new light phenomenon
collapsing electron's waves giving the two results detected.

Path integral is also something that depends on working
backward in time. But both it and OCR are the most absurd
ideas or orders supposedly in the quantum universe.

Mitchell Raemsch
Edward Prochak
2018-03-15 16:52:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 6:53:29 PM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 3:21:27 PM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
[]
> > Sorry but you reached the wrong conclusion. Please watch
> > the video. Feynman explains the problem very clearly.
> >
> > There is not solution outside of QM. As Feynman says,
> > that's just the way it works.
> >
> > IOW, nature tells us the rules and in this case they are QM
> > Ed
>
> Einstein was right to disagree with the stupidity of Observer Created Reality
> Copenhagen interpretation philosophy of QM.

So you merely dispute this particular interpretation of QM.
Okay.
>
> It doesn't matter if anyone sees the light at the two holes.

Actually it does. If there is a detector at even one of the slits,
you get different results.

>
> It doesn't work backward in time. It is a new light phenomenon
> collapsing electron's waves giving the two results detected.

It is not clear what you mean by "new light phenomenon" and
"the two results detected". Elaborate please.

>
> Path integral is also something that depends on working
> backward in time. But both it and OCR are the most absurd
> ideas or orders supposedly in the quantum universe.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

Can you define what you mean above?
By path integral, are you making a vague reference to Feynman diagrams?

I am not a QM expert. but the only meaning I have for OCR is Optical
Character Recognition? So Please explain what you mean by OCR above.

I cannot agree or disagree with you when what you say is so unclear.

ed
m***@gmail.com
2018-03-15 22:13:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, March 15, 2018 at 9:52:19 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 6:53:29 PM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 3:21:27 PM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
> []
> > > Sorry but you reached the wrong conclusion. Please watch
> > > the video. Feynman explains the problem very clearly.
> > >
> > > There is not solution outside of QM. As Feynman says,
> > > that's just the way it works.
> > >
> > > IOW, nature tells us the rules and in this case they are QM
> > > Ed
> >
> > Einstein was right to disagree with the stupidity of Observer Created Reality
> > Copenhagen interpretation philosophy of QM.
>
> So you merely dispute this particular interpretation of QM.
> Okay.
> >
> > It doesn't matter if anyone sees the light at the two holes.
>
> Actually it does. If there is a detector at even one of the slits,
> you get different results.
>
> >
> > It doesn't work backward in time. It is a new light phenomenon
> > collapsing electron's waves giving the two results detected.
>
> It is not clear what you mean by "new light phenomenon" and
> "the two results detected". Elaborate please.
>
> >
> > Path integral is also something that depends on working
> > backward in time. But both it and OCR are the most absurd
> > ideas or orders supposedly in the quantum universe.
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
>
> Can you define what you mean above?
> By path integral, are you making a vague reference to Feynman diagrams?
>
> I am not a QM expert. but the only meaning I have for OCR is Optical
> Character Recognition? So Please explain what you mean by OCR above.
>
> I cannot agree or disagree with you when what you say is so unclear.
>
> ed

Light collapses matter wave of electrons at the two slits...

Mitchell Raemsch
john
2018-03-16 02:43:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Ed
"cannot agree or disagree with you when what you say is so unclear. "
Okay, there are two slits.
There are electrons being shot through space at these slits.
Space can have enough energy at some places to create electron-positron pairs- these would be like whitecaps on the waves that are implicitly admitted to be everywhere.
So I would say it's the wavelike pattern of Space itself combined with electrons being fired without some necessary constraints that gives the variation.
It's like throwing frisbees by the gazillions with varying conditions and spin directions.
Overrated
p***@gmail.com
2018-03-16 11:57:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 4:43:45 AM UTC+2, john wrote:
> Ed
> "cannot agree or disagree with you when what you say is so unclear. "
> Okay, there are two slits.
> There are electrons being shot through space at these slits.
> Space can have enough energy at some places to create electron-positron pairs- these would be like whitecaps on the waves that are implicitly admitted to be everywhere.
> So I would say it's the wavelike pattern of Space itself combined with electrons being fired without some necessary constraints that gives the variation.
> It's like throwing frisbees by the gazillions with varying conditions and spin directions.
> Overrated
==================
and what makes us be sure
that it is really only one electron ???
2
how about the possibility that
electrons from the slits are not involved in it ???
Y.Porat
==================================
Edward Prochak
2018-03-16 17:30:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 7:57:14 AM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 4:43:45 AM UTC+2, john wrote:
> > Ed
> > "cannot agree or disagree with you when what you say is so unclear. "
> > Okay, there are two slits.
> > There are electrons being shot through space at these slits.
> > Space can have enough energy at some places to create electron-positron pairs- these would be like whitecaps on the waves that are implicitly admitted to be everywhere.
> > So I would say it's the wavelike pattern of Space itself combined with electrons being fired without some necessary constraints that gives the variation.
> > It's like throwing frisbees by the gazillions with varying conditions and spin directions.
> > Overrated
> ==================
> and what makes us be sure
> that it is really only one electron ???
> 2
> how about the possibility that
> electrons from the slits are not involved in it ???
> Y.Porat
> ==================================

Interesting question Porat.
I would guess you make the slit out of something without
material. I wonder if you can form the slits as two holes
in a magnetic field barrier?

Ed
p***@gmail.com
2018-03-17 05:32:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 7:30:13 PM UTC+2, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 7:57:14 AM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 4:43:45 AM UTC+2, john wrote:
> > > Ed
> > > "cannot agree or disagree with you when what you say is so unclear. "
> > > Okay, there are two slits.
> > > There are electrons being shot through space at these slits.
> > > Space can have enough energy at some places to create electron-positron pairs- these would be like whitecaps on the waves that are implicitly admitted to be everywhere.
> > > So I would say it's the wavelike pattern of Space itself combined with electrons being fired without some necessary constraints that gives the variation.
> > > It's like throwing frisbees by the gazillions with varying conditions and spin directions.
> > > Overrated
> > ==================
> > and what makes us be sure
> > that it is really only one electron ???
> > 2
> > how about the possibility that
> > electrons from the slits are not involved in it ???
> > Y.Porat
> > ==================================
>
> Interesting question Porat.
> I would guess you make the slit out of something without
> material. I wonder if you can form the slits as two holes
> in a magnetic field barrier?
===============
may be
yet
i don t understand
what(and how ?) do you expect from a magnetic field to do in that case ??
YIA
Y.Porat
========================
?

>
> Ed
Edward Prochak
2018-03-16 17:30:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, March 15, 2018 at 10:43:45 PM UTC-4, john wrote:
> Ed
> "cannot agree or disagree with you when what you say is so unclear. "
> Okay, there are two slits.
> There are electrons being shot through space at these slits.
> Space can have enough energy at some places to create electron-positron
> pairs- these would be like whitecaps on the waves that are implicitly
> admitted to be everywhere.
> So I would say it's the wavelike pattern of Space itself combined with
> electrons being fired without some necessary constraints that gives
> the variation.
> It's like throwing frisbees by the gazillions with varying
> conditions and spin directions.

You are describing the pilot wave interpretation of QM.
It is an interesting interpretation.

> Overrated

Which is "overrated"? the pilot wave theory?
or throwing frisbees?

I can agree throwing frisbees is overrated.
I much prefer volleyball.
ed
john
2018-03-16 18:02:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Ed
"- show quoted text -
You are describing the pilot wave interpretation of QM.
It is an interesting interpretation.

> Overrated

Which is "overrated"? the pilot wave theory?
or throwing frisbees?

I can agree throwing frisbees is overrated.
I much "
The trajectory of each electron will depend on its specific spin as well as the 'wind'- both vary.
Too many variables
Edward Prochak
2018-03-16 18:21:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 2:02:34 PM UTC-4, john wrote:
> Ed
> "- show quoted text -
> You are describing the pilot wave interpretation of QM.
> It is an interesting interpretation.
>
> > Overrated
>
> Which is "overrated"? the pilot wave theory?
> or throwing frisbees?
>
> I can agree throwing frisbees is overrated.
> I much "
> The trajectory of each electron will depend on its specific spin as well as the 'wind'- both vary.
> Too many variables

Ah so you don't prefer pilot wave interpretation. You prefer
hidden variable theory. Too bad you do not understand mathematics.
Bell's theorem proves hidden variable theory doesn't work.

Ed
Odd Bodkin
2018-03-16 21:45:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
john <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ed
> "cannot agree or disagree with you when what you say is so unclear. "
> Okay, there are two slits.
> There are electrons being shot through space at these slits.
> Space can have enough energy at some places to create electron-positron
> pairs- these would be like whitecaps on the waves that are implicitly
> admitted to be everywhere.
> So I would say it's the wavelike pattern of Space itself combined with
> electrons being fired without some necessary constraints that gives the variation.
> It's like throwing frisbees by the gazillions with varying conditions and spin directions.
> Overrated
>

You’ve just given a very qualitative description that basically says, yeah,
stuff spreads out.

Compare this with quantum mechanics, which not only gives more detailed
qualitative information, but also quantitative information, like how far
apart will the maxima of the distribution be? what will be the relative
intensities of this maxima? how do those change if the slit spacing
changes? how do those change if the momentum of the electrons is increased?

Then here’s where you say you don’t care about bean counting and you don’t
care that quantum mechanics gets all that right because you just don’t
believe the basic tenets of quantum mechanics.

But a scientist (which you are not) will say that the quantitative
hitting-it-on-the-nose is the best compelling argument there is that the
basic tenets of quantum mechanics are right.

So John, you have it all completely backwards. You decide first what basic
tenets you want to believe, and then let that dictate to you which data are
important to look at. Scientists look at the data first and let that
dictate which basic tenets to believe.

No way to make you start thinking like a scientist. You’re too inside out
for that.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
john
2018-03-17 00:29:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Odd
"So John, you have it all completely backwards. You decide first what basic
tenets you w"
Someone has something backwards, yes
Loading...