The two paradoxes of point-like nature

You are talking about violating first principles, starting with superposition.

You have too much confidence in yourself and you are too unwilling to correct your errors.
What you think you know is wrong.

Without the prerequisite courses in math and physics you cannot understand what you "read". Furthermore, you need to understand the principles which requires a minimum of several years of university training.

Introductory texts in physics contain the principles you need to know which are "fully described by a number of physicists".

Proof that you don't comprehend the basics.

All of your efforts here are counterproductive. You can not alter the laws of nature, nor can you convince educated people that your home schooling has been successful.

OK.

Before you can hope to follow Schwinger's ideas you need to tackle first principles.

Try Reply/Go Advanced then if the editor comes up you can bold it as usual. Otherwise use the [ b ] and [ /b ] around the text you want to bold (without the spaces I added as escapes.)

You may need to enable cookies. Or maybe you get the editor after so many posts.

In addition they have the disposition of a child going through the terrile twos. They simply refuse to be shown in error. Another pattern I've seen are the posters who remain stuck on stupid for, say, 10 years of posting the same crap. In all that time they could have gotten enrolled in a class. They seem to think they can short-circuit the college experience.

Arrogance was rare among actual students as I recall. Most of us were overwhelmed by the endless loads of work being piled on us, scrambling to make the cut at the next exam, or to finish the lab assignment in the allotted time. That plus all the piles of books and research material we were expected to wade through. In any case the people that weren't sweating could express the principles clearly and tended to lead the study groups, and even to ace out. Any of us would excuse mild arrogance on those grounds, but as a pretense for claiming scientific genius is probably pathological.

The trick is to have the honesty of admitting to yourself that you are wrong, when you are wrong, and learning from your mistakes. Then the you have a pretty good chance of actually learning those first principles in the same way that all of us can freely toss them around with little or no controversy about what they say and what they mean.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I try give a layman explanation for what I think is the source of the confusion. The fact is that photons don't collide. Particles collide, when they collide they interact.

We have a confusing duality in quantum physics: wave-particle duality and because of this it is possible to interpret
particles as waves. So one could say that because photons are particles, they collide.

Some clever physicist found a way out of this paradox and defined photons as bosons and particles as fermions.
But this does not mean that we have boson-fermion duality even if we have wave-particle duality.
As a consequence, bosons don't behave as fermions. ( The string theorists have introduced supersymmetry to
explain how bosons turn into fermions, but supersymmetry is not yet proved).

There is an interference pattern in the double slit experiment if electrons are used. Electrons seem to interfere
with themselves just like waves producing an interference pattern. Feynman said that an electron interacts with itself. I think this is the source of confusion: is an electron capable of interfering with itself if it can interact with itself. We are conflating interference
with interaction.

Apparently an electron behaves the same way as a photon in the double slit experiment. If an electron behaves as a wave,
it should not collide with another electron. But it is also a fact that an electron is a particle, and thus it can collide with another
electron and interact with another electron. But how an electron decides when it is a particle and when it is a wave?
The wave-particle dualism does not answer this question. Instead, the wave-particle dualism implies the existence
of the confusing wave-particles (photons, electrons).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Though nothing you have said is not true, there is no confusion with me. I know that physicists don't picture particles interacting directly. The equations that describe them describe the fields of particles interacting, not the particle directly interacting with a particle.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

clearly you were not refering to your own posts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I only responded so we I didn't see 'Trapped' in the physics section - it seemed to diminish the stature of the section.

 

Well I think he was a good poster.

A lot better than some.

 

Birds of a feather, I suppose....

 

I think Trapped could learn things. He just needed to do that [more often] rather than trying to impress with his personal style of bullshit. He responded positively several times to rpenner and to me once. IE accepting he made a mistake but he needed to be trapped. Farsight is a lost cause in comparison.

 

It seems he was probably right about the issue whether only fields interact, not particles (I have to break up link)

http

://

arxiv.org/abs/1204.4616

 

Welcome Nightshift. I hope this is the first time you have posted here....

Geeze, I figured Reiku would be back for 6 weeks, I sure hope I didn't guess wrong by 6 weeks!

 

So let me get this right, reading your last posts, are you actually keeping the thread alive for any reason? Is there any reason, you've started really conversing with anyone in the thread?

Is it because... the poster is no longer here to say anything?

lol

 

No

No

No, I stated my reason in my post.

I know, fun isn't it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Semantic bullshit from somebody full of semantic bullshit.

Art Hobson
"Physics: Concepts & Connections, a socially conscious liberal-arts physics textbook emphasizing modern physics, used on over 130 campuses."

Read the abstract Trapped. Guess what you're not probably right.

 

BTW I figured when I said you might not be a lost cause I was messing up. Since my self worth doesn't ride on 'being right' I'm going to treat it as a learning experience.

 

Werll trapped said he learned this information only from the very best papers written very early on when some of the best giants where about. Is it possible, that perhaps you are wrong on this instance?

The only learning curve involved here is someone's ego.

 

Actually I think it's quite sad you didn't appear to have a single word to add when he was around but you only attack what you don't understand ... after he get's banned.

Real sign of balls that is!

 

Brucep

May I suggest you actually read the paper I gave you, there are some semantic arguments, but it runs deeper than that. As an appeal to authority, Einstein was already aware of this problem and advocated only fields. Particles or pointlike interaction appears because of a localization of the field.

 

Sock puppet.

 

Fine, then don't read it.

 

In particle colliders, do point particles interact? The larger starting particles break down into smaller sub-particles, all of which of these, may not be fully defined by the original field(s) that were interacting. If it is only fields interacting, wouldn't that suggest that the substructure of matter is really an artifact of fields and not really the particles we assume they come from?

 

Thankfully, it isn't a semantic argument like Bruce claims, because particles are nothing more than excitations of a field.