Re: Surviving Einstein.

From: Stonelock (crypto_stonelock_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 07/16/03 

Date: 16 Jul 2003 12:17:57 -0700

AE <hidden@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<3F13BC66.50802@nospam.com>...
> Stonelock wrote:
> > AE <hidden@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<3F0EFE79.2060400@nospam.com>...
> >...
> >>What we are using is based on pragmatism - like in "using the simplest
> >>possible description of a system that fits to the results of our
> >>experiments" - and on theories allowing us to predict the results of
> >>experiments and experiments allowing us to strengthen our believe in a
> >>theory or to disprove a theory.
> >
> >
> > It seems there is more to it than this, and i'm not certain pragmatism
> > is fundamental.
>
> Oh yes: There are some requirements for best practice: Every experiment
> has to be reproducable, for example :-)
>
> But it's a matter of fact that these things - the simplest possible
> description and the combination of theories predicting results of
> experiments and experiments strengthening or disproving theories - are
> the complete base of our current sciences. No other claims necessary.
>
> Pragmatism is fundamental in so far as it causes us to create a
> minimalistic model of our world, using the absolute minimum of
> speculation necessary to describe what we are measuring.

If you can describe it easily with other words than it is not
fundamental it is a higher order abstraction that takes its root in
the undefined terms.
 
> There are always speculations in form of variables that cannot yet be
> predicted - like the cosmologic constant - and in form of symmetries
> that are claimed but not yet proven - like until five years ago the
> existance of the top quark.
>
> But they are known to be speculations and well described as not yet
> being facts - and they are subject of scientific work until they can be
> observed or disproven.
>
> >>What we know - just to use an example from this thread - is that
> >>electrons cannot be described as particles on a scale close to
> >>Heisenberg's uncertainty:

There is no such scale as Heisenberg's uncertainty's scale.
 
> > They cannot according to current theories.
>
> The expression "particle" describes a model including different
> properties - like the idea it is (different to a wave) located on one
> place at any time.

Yes, a very important one.
 
> It's proven that exactly these properties do not fit in the results of
> our measurements.

No such thing was proven. The only thing that can be said to be true
is that physicists were not able to construct a satysfying model based
on particles because of lack of information AT THAT TIME.
 
> Due to this fact something that possesses the properties described by
> "particle" cannot behave the way an electron does on very small scales.

I keep repeating myself.
 
> >>This was disproven as soon as it became clear
> >>that the orbit of an electron in a hydrogene atom would collapse in case
> >>the electron would be a particle.

It does not collapse since it becomes stable at some point on
eliptical orbits all round the atom. The electron could not collapse
on the atom on its own even if you wanted it to because of
magnetostatic interactions which become very important at close range.
You'd get an elastic rebound making the electron miss the proton (in
the hydrogen atom) and this balet would eventually lead to 'stable'
eliptical orbits.
 
> > Such a conclusion is not founded on true-to-fact premisses. True, the
> > orbit would not be circular as circular orbits are not possible in
> > this world but an electron would definately not collapse on a proton
> > as the energy of the electron is constantly renewed because of the
> > coulombian interaction.
>
> Coulomb interaction does not produce energy as long as the distance
> between charges doesn't change - in case of opposite charges it would be
> a reduction of difference that produces energy.
>
> But exactly this - the continuous reduction of distance between positive
> and a negative charge that would effectively increase the kinetic energy
> of the electron - is the collaps of the atom.

As explained earlier this is actually what would eventually make the
electron go sideways around the proton the energy spend orbiting would
eventually be compensated by the energy renewal of coulombic
interactions.
 
> Of course you can once again claim our current model of electromagnetic
> interaction would be wrong, but you can't use it to explain one effect
> and at the same time claim it is basically wrong.
>
> The correct meaning of what you are saying is:
>
> Physics during the last twohundered years was completely wrong:
> Instead of the interation claimed by Coulomb and Maxwell there is a new,
> completely different form of interaction - let's call it
> Stonewall-interaction, that allows us to produce infinite amounts of
> energy - oh, btw: of course this means Boltzmann, Einstein, Heisenberg,
> Schrödinger and many others were wrong, too.
> So let's start defining our universe following the Stonewall-model ...
>
> >>On the other hand the description of an electron as a wave allowed us to
> >>predict different properties - like the interference of electrons
> >
> > Which might not be an interference pattern at all if we consider them
> > as being particles but simply deviation according to certain angles in
> > function of different considerations.
>
> It doesn't matter how you are calling it. Important is that the
> behaviour of an electron can be predicted very well with our model while
> the classic approach describing an electron as a particle would predict
> a different behaviour that does not fit to our measurements.
>
> > ...
> > Theories which are already based on false-to-fact premisses.
>
> This is true.
>
> But what premises are you talking about?

They are legion; in einstein's relativity: time contraction leading to
a closed theory that can not adapt to the world around us; QM
calculation method: considering particles and photons being PHYSICALLY
statistic instead of realizing that the only thing statistic about
them is OUR statistic description of them; Particle not PHYSICALLY
following trajectories to get from one point to another is in the same
line of thought, etc..
 
> > ...
> >>Maybe it would be interesting to learn more about your metaphysical
> >>framework :-/
> >
> > Mine is based on 'order'. 'Order' as in mathematical 'betweenness' as
> > in (a, b, c), b being 'between' a and c.
> > ...
>
> That's not base of a metaphysical framework

Then you do not structurally understand metaphysical-frameworks.

- it's just a description of
> something that fits in a very narrow area. In every other aspect it will
> just be a dogma that could - and obviously does - misdirect you.

Stonelock

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The clock malfunctioned.
    ... made up of other smaller particles) have been proven ... that of the electron ... mass of the nucleons diminish accordingly. ... in with high energy scattering with known ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The densities of a subatomic particle
    ... I have a simple minded theory of elementary particles that people may be ... with more energy had more nodes in the waves thus more waves around the ... of a particle as a photon going in a circle trapped by its own self gravity. ... to the Shroedinger equation for an electron orbital, ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • I was Leucotomised For Producing this
    ... I have a simple minded theory of elementary particles that people may be ... with more energy had more nodes in the waves thus more waves around the ... of a particle as a photon going in a circle trapped by its own self gravity. ... to the Shroedinger equation for an electron orbital, ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Particles for Sue and Sal
    ... I have a simple minded theory of elementary particles that people may be ... with more energy had more nodes in the waves thus more waves around the ... of a particle as a photon going in a circle trapped by its own self gravity. ... to the Shroedinger equation for an electron orbital, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The electron and the photon.
    ... electromagnetic particles velocities, 1) electron at rest, ... electron at any velocity up to ... asymptotic c and 3) photons energy always moving at c. ... of elementary particles be accepted as physical reality. ...
    (sci.physics)