Is it possible to split an indivisible particle?

[Olga]

Yes. A field is a thing that can have a range of values at each point in space, by definition. Moreover, those values can change at different times.

I thought you said you know what a field is, Olga. Why do I find myself explaining the basics to you, constantly?

Can't we talk about something more interesting?

I answered that question in post #18.

Do you have a problem with fields, Olga?

Why don't you tell me what your problem is, rather than asking all these questions?

Потому что эти "основы" не объясняют сами себя, Джеймс. У вас получается : электроны - это поля, а поля - это электроны. А, да! Ещё есть некая загадочная сущность, называется "энергия". Кстати, что это?

 

[James R]

Because these "basics" don't explain themselves, James. You get: electrons are fields, and fields are electrons.

Electrons are excitations of a field, in the quantum field theory model. We've already covered that.

Bear in mind that scientific models are attempts at describing the physical world. The entities in the models do not necessarily exist in exactly the way they are described, in the physical world. We use models to make useful predictions. They are useful to the degree to which their predictions match experimental and observational results from the real world.

Oh, yes! There is also a certain mysterious entity called "energy". By the way, what is it?

It's an accounting system. It's particularly useful because it turns out that in many cases you can calculate a number in a certain way at the start of some physical process and then calculate the number again at the end of the process and the number turns out to be the same at the start and at the end.

In general, in physics, there are many useful quantities that are conserved in various circumstances. Other examples include momentum and electric charge, for instance. Conserved quantities are very useful theoretical constructs, you see.

 

[Olga]

Electrons are excitations of a field, in the quantum field theory model. We've already covered that.

Bear in mind that scientific models are attempts at describing the physical world. The entities in the models do not necessarily exist in exactly the way they are described, in the physical world. We use models to make useful predictions. They are useful to the degree to which their predictions match experimental and observational results from the real world.

It's an accounting system. It's particularly useful because it turns out that in many cases you can calculate a number in a certain way at the start of some physical process and then calculate the number again at the end of the process and the number turns out to be the same at the start and at the end.

In general, in physics, there are many useful quantities that are conserved in various circumstances. Other examples include momentum and electric charge, for instance. Conserved quantities are very useful theoretical constructs, you see.

Угу, конструкции, не объясняющие сами себя. Предлагается просто поверить, что они действительно существуют. Физики, по видимому, создали свою религию со своими невидимыми и необъяснимыми сущностями. Никакой фантазии, могли бы уж тогда хотя бы что нибудь своё придумать.

 

[James R]

Uh-huh, constructions that do not explain themselves.

You're just telling me you don't understand the constructions.

You do have a point that they are often hard to understand, particularly for non-experts. Physics is not for everybody. If it's not for you, don't worry about it too much. Leave it to the experts.

It is suggested simply to believe that they really exist.

No. I already explained this to you, Olga. Science creates conceptual models to help us to explain (and control, to some extent) the world in which we live. It's not necessary to believe that all of the entities used in our conceptual models are actually real. It is only necessary to accept that they are useful, insofar as they give us results that match what we see in real-world experiments and such.

Physicists apparently created their own religion with their invisible and inexplicable entities.

Maybe that's a problem you have Olga: you don't know how to tell the difference between science and religion. Therefore, you imagine that they are the same. That is a mistake. You should learn more about what science is and why it is more useful than religion, if you want to understand the world.

No imagination, then they could at least come up with something of their own.

I'd say it takes a lot of imagination to come up with you own religion with invisible and inexplicable entities. Wouldn't you?

You can't have it both ways, Olga. Scientists imagined fields. You could never have imagined them. In fact, you're having trouble grasping what they are, even now. Your religion never imagined them.

Who lacks imagination, then, Olga?

 

[Olga]

You're just telling me you don't understand the constructions.

You do have a point that they are often hard to understand, particularly for non-experts. Physics is not for everybody. If it's not for you, don't worry about it too much. Leave it to the experts.

No. I already explained this to you, Olga. Science creates conceptual models to help us to explain (and control, to some extent) the world in which we live. It's not necessary to believe that all of the entities used in our conceptual models are actually real. It is only necessary to accept that they are useful, insofar as they give us results that match what we see in real-world experiments and such.

Maybe that's a problem you have Olga: you don't know how to tell the difference between science and religion. Therefore, you imagine that they are the same. That is a mistake. You should learn more about what science is and why it is more useful than religion, if you want to understand the world.

I'd say it takes a lot of imagination to come up with you own religion with invisible and inexplicable entities. Wouldn't you?

You can't have it both ways, Olga. Scientists imagined fields. You could never have imagined them. In fact, you're having trouble grasping what they are, even now. Your religion never imagined them.

Who lacks imagination, then, Olga?

У меня всё в порядке с пониманием, Джеймс. Разве не физик Фейнман сказал, что "если вы не можете что либо доступно объяснить даже ребёнку, это значит, что вы сами этого не понимаете"?

Джеймс, я могу придумать такое, что вам и во сне не приснится, только зачем? В науке не нужны все эти "поверьте на слово". Наука должна объяснять, а не постулировать. Для этого существует логика и анализ. А в противном случае она так и будет ходить по кругу, как она это делает последние лет сто.

 

[James R]

I'm okay with understanding, James. Didn't physicist Feynman say that "if you can't explain something even to a child, then you don't understand it yourself"?

Some kids are very stupid, though.

Science does not need all these "take my word for it". Science should explain, not postulate.

Science is built on a base of repeatable, testable observations of the natural world. Professional scientists peer review each other's published work to try to increase the chances that suitable standards are met when it comes to accepting new theories or alleged results.

Clearly, Olga, you can't have read many peer-reviewed scientific papers. If you had read some, you would see how careful scientists are about explaining and giving justifications for their claims. Which is not to say that they never get anything wrong.

There is logic and analysis for this. Otherwise, she will continue to go around in circles, as she has been doing for the last hundred years.

Isn't it obvious to you that you're wrong, Olga? We wouldn't have all this marvellous modern technology we have these days if science had been going around in circles for the last 100 years. Clearly, there have been many significant scientific advances. In fact, more than in any previous century, by a long way.

 

[Olga]

Some kids are very stupid, though.

Science is built on a base of repeatable, testable observations of the natural world. Professional scientists peer review each other's published work to try to increase the chances that suitable standards are met when it comes to accepting new theories or alleged results.

Clearly, Olga, you can't have read many peer-reviewed scientific papers. If you had read some, you would see how careful scientists are about explaining and giving justifications for their claims. Which is not to say that they never get anything wrong.

Isn't it obvious to you that you're wrong, Olga? We wouldn't have all this marvellous modern technology we have these days if science had been going around in circles for the last 100 years. Clearly, there have been many significant scientific advances. In fact, more than in any previous century, by a long way.

Ну, я не самый глупый "ребёнок" в этом мире, Джеймс. По крайней мере, мне хочется так думать.

Один такой профессиональный учёный собирался подавать статью, в которой он описывал мою модель, в рецензируемые журналы. Сомневаюсь, что ему это позволили. Хотя, не знаю, сайт закрыли без объяснения причин. Первоначально у меня тоже были не частицы, а поля. Он так и собирался подавать статью, с полями. Принцип равновесия оставался.

Джеймс, разве вы не видите, что я не опровергала никаких теорий? Я просто постаралась дать им немного другую интерпретацию. Заслуга инженеров очевидна, они научились использовать данные экспериментов очень эффективно. Проблема у теоретиков, они не могут объяснить множество явлений, и начинают придумывать разные "костыли", в виде "тёмных энергий", "тёмных материй", и пр. Физика превратилась по сути в бухгалтерию и статистику, это вы и сами заметили. Напрасно из неё убрали философию. Когда то так не было, и наука была живой.

Я сейчас над одной задачкой голову ломаю. Как получить поля мне примерно понятно. Как получить замедление полей(частицы)?

 

[Pinball1970]

Ну, я не самый глупый "ребёнок" в этом мире, Джеймс. По крайней мере, мне хочется так думать.

Один такой профессиональный учёный собирался подавать статью, в которой он описывал мою модель, в рецензируемые журналы. Сомневаюсь, что ему это позволили. Хотя, не знаю, сайт закрыли без объяснения причин. Первоначально у меня тоже были не частицы, а поля. Он так и собирался подавать статью, с полями. Принцип равновесия оставался.

Джеймс, разве вы не видите, что я не опровергала никаких теорий? Я просто постаралась дать им немного другую интерпретацию. Заслуга инженеров очевидна, они научились использовать данные экспериментов очень эффективно. Проблема у теоретиков, они не могут объяснить множество явлений, и начинают придумывать разные "костыли", в виде "тёмных энергий", "тёмных материй", и пр. Физика превратилась по сути в бухгалтерию и статистику, это вы и сами заметили. Напрасно из неё убрали философию. Когда то так не было, и наука была живой.

Я сейчас над одной задачкой голову ломаю. Как получить поля мне примерно понятно. Как получить замедление полей(частицы)?

Why do you not assess what science has a achieved already? The things that work? General relativity, Quantum mechanics, Atomic theory, Germ theory? The standard model?

It is easy to pick a hole and say well ok bu they still do not know what dark matter is, well give them a chance! That problem is only decades old and came about because of advances in observations and the understanding of GR at that time.
They found a new question because of what they learned about the universe, the same with dark Energy, that was an advance not a brick wall and both DE and DM yielded Nobel prizes such was the gravity of those discoveries. (no pun intended and also a quick mention of the great Vera Rubin who deserved a Nobel for her contributions to that work)

 

[Pinball1970]

Ну, я не самый глупый "ребёнок" в этом мире, Джеймс. По крайней мере, мне хочется так думать.

Один такой профессиональный учёный собирался подавать статью, в которой он описывал мою модель, в рецензируемые журналы. Сомневаюсь, что ему это позволили. Хотя, не знаю, сайт закрыли без объяснения причин. Первоначально у меня тоже были не частицы, а поля. Он так и собирался подавать статью, с полями. Принцип равновесия оставался.

Джеймс, разве вы не видите, что я не опровергала никаких теорий? Я просто постаралась дать им немного другую интерпретацию. Заслуга инженеров очевидна, они научились использовать данные экспериментов очень эффективно. Проблема у теоретиков, они не могут объяснить множество явлений, и начинают придумывать разные "костыли", в виде "тёмных энергий", "тёмных материй", и пр. Физика превратилась по сути в бухгалтерию и статистику, это вы и сами заметили. Напрасно из неё убрали философию. Когда то так не было, и наука была живой.

Я сейчас над одной задачкой голову ломаю. Как получить поля мне примерно понятно. Как получить замедление полей(частицы)?

Science is not just finding out about the universe it is also finding out new questions that have to be answered. Early massive galaxies are a great example, they built Webb to look at these very distant objects like this but they did not know they were that large, well developed, abundant and old. JWST found some new exiting questions for the scientific community to have a look at.

 

[Olga]

Science is not just finding out about the universe it is also finding out new questions that have to be answered. Early massive galaxies are a great example, they built Webb to look at these very distant objects like this but they did not know they were that large, well developed, abundant and old. JWST found some new exiting questions for the scientific community to have a look at.

Какие вопросы вы имеете ввиду?

 

[Pinball1970]

Какие вопросы вы имеете ввиду?

Ones we have discussed. What is dark energy? What is Dark matter? Does Lambda CDM need to be upgraded? Can we probe the BB with gravity waves? Is the Hubble tension really a tension? Will the Muon G-2 yield new physics or is the SM complete? Has Super symmetry failed? Do we live in a flat Universe? Can we solve the measurement problem? And most important of all "Is there life on Maaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrs."

 

[Olga]

Ones we have discussed. What is dark energy? What is Dark matter? Does Lambda CDM need to be upgraded? Can we probe the BB with gravity waves? Is the Hubble tension really a tension? Will the Muon G-2 yield new physics or is the SM complete? Has Super symmetry failed? Do we live in a flat Universe? Can we solve the measurement problem? And most important of all "Is there life on Maaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrs."

Ну, даже если на Марсе нет жизни, можно устроить там платное кладбище для креативных миллиардеров типа Маска. А чё, внуки будут говорить, глядя в небо, с полным основанием: дедушка смотрит на нас с небес!

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

In a way it's possible to make other particles from electrons.
Take a group of electrons, add positrons, use energy created to create other particles.

 

[Olga]

In a way it's possible to make other particles from electrons.
Take a group of electrons, add positrons, use energy created to create other particles.

Их сталкивают, и получают фотоны.

 

[James R]

Olga:

One such professional scientist was going to submit a paper describing my model to peer-reviewed journals.

But he didn't.

I doubt that he was allowed to do so.

Maybe he thought it wouldn't get through the peer review process, due to the lack of good arguments for the model or any evidence in support of it.

After all, I have asked you many times about what evidence you have for your claims. Each time I have asked you, you have just ignored the question. I suppose that is because you have nothing and you're embarrassed to admit it.

Although, I don't know, the site was closed without explanation.

They closed a whole site because of your dangerous idea?

It's all a conspiracy!

Initially, I also had not particles, but fields. He was going to submit an article, with margins. The principle of equilibrium remained.

Why didn't you submit your work?

James, don't you see that I didn't refute any theories?

I see that.

I just tried to give them a slightly different interpretation.

Okay. As far as I can tell, your slightly different interpretation doesn't improve on the existing models in any way. Admittedly, though, you haven't given us much to work with here. No mathematics. Nothing testable. Just some vague ideas.

The merit of the engineers is obvious, they have learned to use the data of experiments very effectively.

How have you used data from experiments, Olga?

The problem is with theorists, they cannot explain many phenomena, and they begin to come up with various "crutches", in the form of "dark energies", "dark matter", etc.

Dark energy, dark matter and so on are hypotheses that might explain certain observations. They are not assumed to exist. Scientists are trying very hard to determine whether they are real or not. They are literally spending millions of dollars in the effort to collect experimental evidence that will settle the question one way or the other.

There are competing hypotheses that claim that dark matter and/or dark energy doesn't exist, which suggest other possible explanations. These hypotheses, also, need to be tested.

This is how science is done. There is nothing unusual here.

It was in vain that philosophy was removed from it. Once it was not like this, and science was alive.

You seem to be in denial about the huge advancements science has made over the past 100 years, Olga. Why is that? Are you not aware of modern technology? You claim to be an engineer, but you're unaware of how engineering has developed in the past 100 years as a direct result of scientific advances?

 

[Olga]

Olga:

But he didn't.

Maybe he thought it wouldn't get through the peer review process, due to the lack of good arguments for the model or any evidence in support of it.

After all, I have asked you many times about what evidence you have for your claims. Each time I have asked you, you have just ignored the question. I suppose that is because you have nothing and you're embarrassed to admit it.

They closed a whole site because of your dangerous idea?

It's all a conspiracy!

Why didn't you submit your work?

I see that.

Okay. As far as I can tell, your slightly different interpretation doesn't improve on the existing models in any way. Admittedly, though, you haven't given us much to work with here. No mathematics. Nothing testable. Just some vague ideas.

How have you used data from experiments, Olga?

Dark energy, dark matter and so on are hypotheses that might explain certain observations. They are not assumed to exist. Scientists are trying very hard to determine whether they are real or not. They are literally spending millions of dollars in the effort to collect experimental evidence that will settle the question one way or the other.

There are competing hypotheses that claim that dark matter and/or dark energy doesn't exist, which suggest other possible explanations. These hypotheses, also, need to be tested.

This is how science is done. There is nothing unusual here.

You seem to be in denial about the huge advancements science has made over the past 100 years, Olga. Why is that? Are you not aware of modern technology? You claim to be an engineer, but you're unaware of how engineering has developed in the past 100 years as a direct result of scientific advances?

Я не знаю, сделал он это, или нет. Но он написал статью. Хотя, тогда это была ещё "сырая" идея. Сейчас я её немного дополнила.

Ну, я не всегда игнорировала ваш вопрос. Один раз, по вашей просьбе, я попыталась отправить вам одну статью в сжатом виде, хотя сделать это с телефона было непросто, и потратив на это два часа своего времени, получила ответ: "у нас возникли проблемы, ваш текст больше 10 000 знаков". Я не буду высчитывать буквы в тексте, это глупое занятие. И два часа, это очень много.

У нас сейчас многие сайты закрыли. По известным причинам. На этом общались и новички, и "мастодонты от науки". Им тоже было интересно общаться с новичками, у которых по меткому выражению одного из них "взгляд не замылен". Был ещё другой сайт поменьше, его тоже закрыли. На ваш я попала случайно, по чьей то ссылке. Видимо, кто то из русских был здесь и до меня.

Я не умею писать статьи. И к тому же у меня нет на это времени. Да и какая разница, кто это сделает?

Идеи не смутные. Идеи нормальные. Их надо немного доработать. У меня самой ещё есть некоторые вещи, которые я хочу понять. Можно и без этого уже сложить общую картину, но лучше уже дойти до сути.

Я вижу, как делается наука. Вам нужно пойти по другому пути - от простого к сложному. Здание должно начинать строиться от фундамента, а не с крыши. Мир в основе своей устроен максимально просто. Такова природа вещей.

Я не отрицаю этих достижений. Я просто не хочу, чтобы на них всё закончилось. Научились пользоваться огнём, изобрели колесо, не задумываясь о сути вещей.

 

[DaveC426913]

Science doesn't need all this "take my word for it." Science should explain, not postulate. That's what logic and analysis are for. Otherwise, it will just keep going in circles, as it has for the last hundred years.

A very revealing statement from Olga. It strikes at the very heart of her hypocrisy.

This reveals that she DOES know postulates are not explanations.

She DOES know that "take my word for it" holds no water.

She DOES know just stating God exists without any explanation is insufficient.

She DOES know that simply postulateing souls live in our bodies, undetectable, while controlling our thoughts and actions - like the rat in Ratatouille - is just fantasy.

She DOES know that souls communicating with other souls thousands of miles away is mere whimsy unless it has an explanation ro go with it.

She DOES know that an infinite universe containing duplicate DaveC426913's can't influence each other without some sort of explanation as to these alleged superluminal properties.

And she DOES know that not providing explanations for any of her wild ideas - Olga Particles, OlgaGod, OlgaSouls and OlgaFTLRadio leads the conversation in circles, exacy as she said.

So this is deliberate. Olga, you're busted. By your own words.

You're trolling.

 

[James R]

I see how science is done. You need to take a different path - from simple to complex. The building should start from the foundation, not from the roof. The world is basically as simple as possible. This is the nature of things.

I don't understand what you're talking about, Olga.

What science does is that it builds theoretical models of the natural world. The question of whether those theoretical models is any good can only be answered by comparing the predictions of the models with the results of real-world observations and/or experiments.

It doesn't really matter too much where a theory comes from - whether it is from "simple to complex" or "complex to simple". As long as it makes testable predictions, either way is fine. Both approaches to theory in science have yielded very fruitful results, historically.

 

[Olga]

I don't understand what you're talking about, Olga.

What science does is that it builds theoretical models of the natural world. The question of whether those theoretical models is any good can only be answered by comparing the predictions of the models with the results of real-world observations and/or experiments.

It doesn't really matter too much where a theory comes from - whether it is from "simple to complex" or "complex to simple". As long as it makes testable predictions, either way is fine. Both approaches to theory in science have yielded very fruitful results, historically.

Физика сейчас в основном описывает события, а не даёт им объяснения. Это неправильно.

 

[James R]

Physics now mainly describes events, and does not explain them. This is wrong.

I disagree. Accurate quantitative models provide us with explanations for physical processes.

You can complain, if you like, that science doesn't answer ultimate "why" questions. But nobody can do that, with any certainty.

Let me give you an example. Ask the question "Why is the sky blue?"

There are lots of answers that people might give to that. For example, one answer might be that God wants the sky to be blue. Another answer - a scientific one - is that it is due to Rayleigh scattering of sunlight in the atmosphere.

The scientific model, in this case, is testable and it explains why the sky overhead looks blue rather than some other colour. Moreover, it is a quantitative model. It predicts, in a testable way, how much light of different wavelengths will be scattered by various media, for instance.

In contrast, the answer "God likes blue skies" doesn't explain anything. It just shifts the mystery, so that we still need to ask "How does God make the sky blue?" We have no answers at all to that question, and we're left to speculate about why a God would want blue sky and whether there even is a god in the first place. Nothing is testable. No testable predictions can be made. For all we know, God could change his mind tomorrow and change the sky to green.

Now, suppose you understand enough physics to be able to explain and derive the Rayleigh scattering formula. Somebody can still ask "Yes, but why does light scatter like that?" Then, maybe you could draw on a further description of the behaviour based on a quantum mechanical model of light. But they could still ask "But why is light quantum-mechanical?"

At some point in this chain of questions, science has no answers. The world just is quantum mechanical, as far as we can tell. We can't get at any "ultimate reason" for it. All we can do is to make extremely accurate quantitative models to describe how it works.

I don't know why you would prefer complete ignorance over a detailed descriptive and quantitative model. I don't know why you think that magic would be a better explanation than the scientific one. Magic doesn't actually explain anything.