My sympathies for pantheism

[archangle]

Erm. What???

Whatever he's smoking -- I'll have some of that!

sven I thought you like science so I assumed you ... well, I am sorry, but you could have asked.

You could ask? instead of group mock ...

---

Erm. What???

everything we do is based off the standard model.
here is a good site that keeps it kind of simple:
Particle Physics 2: Creation and Annihilation Operators and Mass

basically, very basic ...

they use particle to measure other particles. When the particles get small enough the property of waving becomes very important. This is because they think that matter is frozen energy. And energy can be

transferred in several ways. Waves are one. Or, particles arise from fields. If you disturb the electromagic field you get a photon. electrons do this.

The baseball analogy is like trying to see an electron (that is as big as a baseball) flying across, let's say a football field, using a stream of baseballs. It is kind of like how you see a football flying in the air using a stream of photons.

image what happens when the baseballs in the stream hit the electron you are trying to see when they are the same size?

[Alex K]

everything we do is based off the standard model.[...]

Thanks for the video link. Just a little disclaimer tho: I'm a professional particle theorist
That wasn't the part I was confused about. Maybe if you can reiterate the thoughts of your post more clearly, because I just couldn't parse it.

[archangle]

everything we do is based off the standard model.[...]

Thanks for the video link. Just a little disclaimer tho: I'm a professional particle theorist
That wasn't the part I was confused about. Maybe if you can reiterate the thoughts of your post more clearly, because I just couldn't parse it.

lmao, sure you are.


The ideas presented were clear based on a baseline of "professional particle physicist". In fact, you could explain where my misunderstanding is.

I like learning.

please. pretty please even.

[Alex K]

lmao, sure you are.

Am too!!!

The ideas presented were clear based on a baseline of "professional particle physicist". In fact, you could explain where my misunderstanding is.

I like learning.

please. pretty please even.

Well, let me go through your post again and give my 2 cents or ask.

"waving" is a property. Like the color red. All matter seems to have it.

See, I don't even know what that means. It is even more confusing due to the fact that the color red is the property of a wave, namely the wavelength. So is that what you meant, or was it supposed to be a metaphor?

They can't measure its location because the particle they use to "measure" is close enough in size to the measrued particle that they can go anywhere when the hit eachother.

I might know what you mean. I was confused because afawk, elementary particles do not have measurable size, and may have zero size. What you might be alluding to is the size of the wave-packet of a particle, which is something else entirely, namely the uncertainty in its position. If you want to look at something small, you need a very narrow wave-packet, and for that you need a lot of energy, the smaller you want to look, the more energy you need to pump in.

However, whether we can measure the shape of the wave function at all, is to my knowledge a separate problem. To measure the shape of a wave function, you would have to know the probability of finding a particle at different points in space, which is thwarted by our inability to measure the particle more than once without having the wavefunction collapse as one would say in the usual interpretation. The only way out is to repeat the identical experiment very often, and gather statistics about the outcomes.

Like trying to throw a stream of baseballs to find another baseball.

But if you use a auto bb gun to "see" a truck. You would know exactly where it is and where it is going.

I'm beginning to see where you are going with this, as I said above, I don't think it's quite the same issue.

The double slit is the observation for waving. entanglement also becomes a problem at that scale..

Connection to what came above not clear to me

I think Human logic being substituted "universal logic" for how the universe work is a bad idea. It leads to some crazy sit. we don'y have any near a clear picture yet.

What is human logic and universal logic and what does it have to do with the preceding text?

[Mudhammam]

Alex, can you impart to me some of your fucking brilliance? Please?

[Alex K]

Alex, can you impart to me some of your fucking brilliance? Please?

I'd have to ask my wife.

Oh wait, that!

[sven]

Whatever he's smoking -- I'll have some of that!

sven I thought you like science so I assumed you ... well, I am sorry, but you could have asked.

You could ask? instead of group mock ...

I do like science! I thought his post was so confusing that I seriously believed he was joking or trolling. (Though I think I kinda see the point of the BB-gun now) It seems he wasn't joking, though. My bad.

[archangle]

yes, I am a poor writer.

I hope this aint one of those sites that focus on misplaced commas instead of information.

Yes, the BB gun to "see" a truck.

Then, use that BB gun to "see" another object moving through space time that is a similar size to the BB. Think about how that interaction would take place and the outcome of that event.

"waving" is a property of matter. That is on you, not my poor writing.

I suck at writing. I am a tad adrasive. I'ma worze ata these here spellerin things then anybody. That is true enouf ... can we move on?

[Alex K]

I hope this aint one of those sites that focus on misplaced commas instead of information.

It's ain't.






kidding!!!

[archangle]

lmao, sure you are.

Am too!!!

The ideas presented were clear based on a baseline of "professional particle physicist". In fact, you could explain where my misunderstanding is.

I like learning.

please. pretty please even.

Well, let me go through your post again and give my 2 cents or ask.

"waving" is a property. Like the color red. All matter seems to have it.

See, I don't even know what that means. It is even more confusing due to the fact that the color red is the property of a wave, namely the wavelength. So is that what you meant, or was it supposed to be a metaphor?

They can't measure its location because the particle they use to "measure" is close enough in size to the measrued particle that they can go anywhere when the hit eachother.

I might know what you mean. I was confused because afawk, elementary particles do not have measurable size, and may have zero size. What you might be alluding to is the size of the wave-packet of a particle, which is something else entirely, namely the uncertainty in its position. If you want to look at something small, you need a very narrow wave-packet, and for that you need a lot of energy, the smaller you want to look, the more energy you need to pump in.

However, whether we can measure the shape of the wave function at all, is to my knowledge a separate problem. To measure the shape of a wave function, you would have to know the probability of finding a particle at different points in space, which is thwarted by our inability to measure the particle more than once without having the wavefunction collapse as one would say in the usual interpretation. The only way out is to repeat the identical experiment very often, and gather statistics about the outcomes.

Like trying to throw a stream of baseballs to find another baseball.

But if you use a auto bb gun to "see" a truck. You would know exactly where it is and where it is going.

I'm beginning to see where you are going with this, as I said above, I don't think it's quite the same issue.

The double slit is the observation for waving. entanglement also becomes a problem at that scale..

Connection to what came above not clear to me

I think Human logic being substituted "universal logic" for how the universe work is a bad idea. It leads to some crazy sit. we don'y have any near a clear picture yet.

What is human logic and universal logic and what does it have to do with the preceding text?

Is human logic the absolute logic of the universe? I have little experience with formal logic but it seems to start at axioms. When we set the axioms in stone, then the lines of logic are indisputable. But if the axioms are in question then the line that follows can be questioned.

Like the bible as the word of god. If we set it as "yes". Then some different lines of logic make sense. For loving to hateful god. But the book is not the only word on the subject.

Now math axioms are much less ambiguous, but math is just another langue. And self evident math axioms sometimes do little to help us with "what is awareness" axioms.

How do it relate? Quantum mech seems counter intuitive. Maybe it is our axioms that are wrong and not quantum mech? I really don't know the answer to this. For now, probability seems to work.

@@@@

I tossed in waving because someone asked how do they know if they can't see them. They used the slit, easy guy, not that one.