(September 24, 2015 at 7:45 am)Rhythm Wrote: You've been given that description..and decided instead to reject -your- x, y, and z. If QM/QFT weren't well defined then they would be unacceptable as scientific theories. If a particle was not well defined it would be unacceptable as the driving component of that scientific theory.I've been given nothing of the sort. I haven't been told whether a "particle" is really a particle, or a wave, or a field. I haven't been told its size or shape. Most importantly, given that I've said an idealistic world view happily subsumes all of science, I haven't been told exactly what about any of these (experienced ideas we call) observation demonstrate that ANY of it requires the view that these super-well defined particle/wave/fields which we cannot model in spatial dimensions, whose position we cannot predict (lol) are more than an expression of fundamental ideas.
Quote: An electron -is- a QM particle..and we observe them pushing back. Both bubble chambers and the LHC provide us with the results that they do by means of observing those particles in a decidedly material fashion, within a decidedly material substrate, in a decidedly material framework. There's nothing ambiguous in this. If there's no matter...the electron is -not- doing what we observe it to be doing, and QM/QFT cannot then be argued to be true.You keep saying "decidely material" and I keep hearing "assumedly material."
Quote:You should be embarrassed, you've been given what you're asking for and decided to reject it anyway.Awww man, there I was saying that particles were only describable in mathematical (specifically, statistical) terms, and could not be represented unambiguously in 3D space, and it turns out that they are totally observable, unambiguous and unmysterious. Now I have to go back through all these pages and find where you linked the picture.
