 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I simply had nothing new to add myself. I did not think I could add
anything that might help you understand each others point. I was clear
to me that everybody seemed intent to stick to their own
(mis)interpretation. So why bother?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> When a conversation is going basically nowhere, and especially when
> the tone of the text is not the most positive, people get tired of
> arguing.
Huh. I thought it was going. I learned a fair amount from it myself, at
least.
> People don't like being told in harsh words "that's not true, you
> are wrong", even if that's the case. Being too blunt about someone's
> error (especially if it's actually not completely clear if there *is*
> an error) is usually not going to get very positive feedback. People
> feel attacked. Sometimes someone may actually realise he's not
> completely right, but he still may feel that he doesn't deserve such
> a blunt response.
Thank you for explaining. I sincerely appreciate you telling me what
I'm doing wrong. Thanks!
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <4846afed$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] san rrcom 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> In article <4846afed$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
>>> This would allow a particle to both "pass through" two slits at the same
>>> 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 electron
>>> 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?
My emphasis was on "one experiment". There have been hundreds of
unintuitive results from experiments. Trying to explain just one, when
it contradicts a bunch of others, isn't likely to be too productive.
Fun, perhaps, but unproductive. :-)
> 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.
It has very few constraints, really. There are very few conditions where
probability is actually zero.
> Since that can't be in the middle of an existing particle,
Actually, it can, depending on the polarization.
> 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.
I don't know what you mean. Vacuum is full of other particles, and I'm
not sure what "normal space" would be.
> assumption has always been that virtual particles are not "real" in the
> same sense as normal ones,
I wasn't aware of that.
In any case, I can't follow what you're talking about. It's either too
far from the terms that everyone else uses, or too vague for me to have
any idea what you're trying to say.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I'm curious why many of these discussions which seem to me lively and
> interesting also seem to just ... stop without coming to any sort of
> explicit closure.
Didn't find anything to complain about.<G>
--
Hard work pays off in the future. Laziness pays off now.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <48473bcd$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
> > assumption has always been that virtual particles are not "real" in the
> > same sense as normal ones,
>
> I wasn't aware of that.
>
> In any case, I can't follow what you're talking about. It's either too
> far from the terms that everyone else uses, or too vague for me to have
> any idea what you're trying to say.
>
>
I mean real in the sense that they "stay put", instead of vanishing
again. You know, like a "virtual" thing that isn't always there? I
presume that is what they mean, otherwise you wouldn't have a vacuum
very long, particles would keep popping into it until it was full again.
So, one alternative to the idea that they *are* virtual, is that they
are in fact not popping into existence at all, they already "do" exist,
but that its the absence of a lot of, comparitively, dense materials
that allows "existing" particles to sometimes "show up", with a greater
odds of doing so, in the vacuum. However, since there is also nothing to
stabilize them in that location, they "pop" back to their original range
soon after, since there is nothing to keep them in the vacuum and the
attraction of the other particles where they where before is greater.
Sort of the opposite of dispersion you see with most things. Instead of
being attracted to places that 'do not' contain the substance, like with
osmosis, in this case, the lack of anything to attract them means they
can't stay there, even if they do occasionally "jump" into the empty
area very briefly.
But, just speculating. After all, the point, if you have one experiment
that doesn't make sense, and you can't resolve the difference, is to try
to unify the results, and that "may" mean reconsidering your assumptions
about what particles "appear" to do normally, rather than presuming that
you have just found some odd special case.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> I mean real in the sense that they "stay put",
According to the math, they don't "stay put". Virtual particles are
created when a "real" particle vanishes. Then the virtual particles bump
into each other again and turn back into the "real" particle.
> But, just speculating. After all, the point, if you have one experiment
> that doesn't make sense, and you can't resolve the difference, is to try
> to unify the results, and that "may" mean reconsidering your assumptions
> about what particles "appear" to do normally, rather than presuming that
> you have just found some odd special case.
Sure. Or do more experiments to figure it out.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> I question the assertion that it's been disproven. I think only a
> certain class of hidden variables have been shown not to exist. (Local
> vs non-local?)
Actually, this just out...
http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2008/06/the_reality_tests_1.php
It's a lack of reality, and not a lack of non-local interactions,
according to these guys. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <4848692d@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
> > I mean real in the sense that they "stay put",
>
> According to the math, they don't "stay put". Virtual particles are
> created when a "real" particle vanishes. Then the virtual particles bump
> into each other again and turn back into the "real" particle.
>
Not *quite* what I was getting at, in that my suggestion would, by this
logic, imply that some particle in a solid object nearby vanished,
generated two virtual particles, bumped into each other to make a real
one again, which you could detect in the vacuum, or, if unmolested,
vanished into two virtual ones again, just to "pop" back into being
inside the solid object where they started from. That would be actually
*more* disturbing than what I implied as a solution. lol
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> That would be actually *more* disturbing than what I implied as a solution. lol
Yep. That's pretty much what can happen.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
