In article <4846afed$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> > This would allow a particle to both "pass through" two slits at the sam
e 
> > time, and yet, *not* have done so, but only if the slits where within a
 
> > the maximum distance in which such fluctuations would allow the electro
n 
> > to fluctuate.
> 
> I think you're looking at one experiment that gives very un-common-sense
 
> results, and trying to come up with a common-sense explanation based on
 
> popular understanding of what's known about how it works.
> 
Umm, yeah. Kind of figured that is what science is supposed to do right? 
lol But, I think it scales well anyway. If an electron is passing 
through a wire, some "escapes" when it gets near the edge, otherwise it 
has constraints on "where" it can show up. Since that can't be in the 
middle of an existing particle, and other forces seem to deny it 
appearing "too close to" another one, its only real option is to shove 
something out of the way, or stay where it is (more or less). Which one 
it does depends on the level of stability inherent in the other 
particles around it, and the forces thus being applied to it. In that 
sense you obviously "can" narrow its allowed area of fluctuation, and 
increase it by firing it through less dense materials.

> > The only question is then, what about diffusion? Would diffusion be 
> > explained by an increase in the effective diameter of possible 
> > fluctuations, as velocity is lost, kind of like bullets wobble more as
 
> > their spinning slows?
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by "diffusion" here. Diffusion happens 
> without wobble or loss of velocity, so you might be talking about 
> something else.  There is no "effective diameter of possible 
> fluctuations" if I understand what you mean by that properly.
> 
Well, I suppose its more like what I describe above. Your right though, 
I over extended it a tad. lol

Or, maybe not. If you have a vacuum, one of the properties of that 
vacuum is that there are no other particles to "force" any particles 
left in it to "stay" within the "normal" space they occupy. So, maybe 
they are not "virtual" so much as, existing, but with an increased range 
of "wobble" that is now in meters, instead of millimeters? The 
assumption has always been that virtual particles are not "real" in the 
same sense as normal ones, but what if they already exist, just the lack 
of material density lets some existing particles "drift", at least 
temporarilly, outside the bounds that their normal constraints would 
allow? Not sure how the heck you would test that though. Look for 
virtual electrons while simultaneously looking at every object for 5 
feet in all directions to see if it "temporarilly" lost one?

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message