Re: Surviving Einstein.
From: AE (hidden_at_nospam.com)
Date: 07/17/03
- Next message: AE: "Re: Surviving Einstein."
- Previous message: Randy Howard: "Re: New LibTom releases"
- In reply to: Stonelock: "Re: Surviving Einstein."
- Next in thread: Stonelock: "Re: Surviving Einstein."
- Reply: Stonelock: "Re: Surviving Einstein."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:39:56 +0200
Stonelock wrote:
> AE <hidden@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<3F13BC66.50802@nospam.com>...
>> ...
> It does not collapse since it becomes stable at some point on
> eliptical orbits all round the atom.
Now you are back to eliptical orbits?
Not long ago you claimed they would be irregular :-/
>> ...
>>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;
Einstein's relativity was never a premise: It's a theory based on the
observation speed of light measured is independent of the movement of
oneself. The theory allowed to predict the results of different
experiments including the change of observed lifetime in fast-moving
particles.
Interestingly these theory showed to allow a very precise description of
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
Once again: QM was never a premise.
Instead after having proven (sorry for repeating this, but it's a
fundamental fact) that electrons on their orbit are not located in the
way particles are there was a need to find a better description.
The problem was that the classic approach allows to use statistics only
on a large number of particles while the effects observed in quantum
mechanics frequently include only a single particle (like the electron
in an hydrogene atom) or a small number of particles (like the electrons
in other atoms).
One might see this model as a crude simplification or whatever -
nevertheless it allows to predict the behaviour of electrons where the
classic approach fails.
> Particle not PHYSICALLY following trajectories to get from
> one point to another is in the same line of thought, etc..
Nevertheless the occurence of a single electron after being deflected
follows the rules of interference which cannot be explained usig the
classic approach.
>>>...
AE
- Next message: AE: "Re: Surviving Einstein."
- Previous message: Randy Howard: "Re: New LibTom releases"
- In reply to: Stonelock: "Re: Surviving Einstein."
- Next in thread: Stonelock: "Re: Surviving Einstein."
- Reply: Stonelock: "Re: Surviving Einstein."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
