Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yep, it could fit 2, possibly 3 earth diameters within it.Ok, this means the storm is bigger than the size of Earth, and is made of concentrated hydrogen.
Why does that have any bearing one whether bosons constitute matter?Because they do not occupy space in the same manner as bosons. If a fermion is occupying a state then that state is off limits to other fermions this is not the case for bosons.
Interference patterns are the results of the wave nature of individual photons, it has nothing to do with them interacting. If you run the double-slit while just releasing one photon at a time you will get the same pattern. It is a very basic conception in QM that the interference pattern has nothing to do with photon interactions.
Electrons feel a force from any charged particle, while photons only feel force from massive particles. It just so happens that electrons are charged, and photons are massless.Entanglement is a different issue but something which electrons also do. The photon does not experience a force from another photons, quarks and leptons do. This is the interaction that I was considering.
No. But do you agree that the nucleus is matter? If so, why? What about it makes it matter? It's a boson, isn't it?And if I accept that a Helium-4 nucleus is a boson then I can infer that quarks are bosons, right?
Who said I do? The only ontologically significant ones are those which are consistent with themselves and with reality. I'm not criticising your definition, I'm simply puzzled why you adhere to it.If there are many definitions of what constitutes matter then it is not reasonable to place ontological significance on model abstractions based on the claim that they are matter.
And nowadays we have the Standard Model, which explains phenomena in terms of particles. Do you really reject the existence of particles? Or do you just not understand the rather crucial difference between electrons and electron holes?Phenomenon are observable occurrences. We observe phenomenon and then explain them in terms of particles (or waves or natural selection or whatever). Particles are more than likely not a true reflection of reality but more a product of our limited reasoning. Had you been a physicist 150 years ago you would probably have put ontological significance onr luminiferous aether.
[LEFT said:Wiccan_Child[/left];54110443]Why does that have any bearing one whether bosons constitute matter?
Are you saying that wave-particle duality doesn't exist and particles are just "interacting" with themselves?The double-slit experiment shows that particles (such as electrons and photons) can interact with themselves, but that hardly shows they can only interact with themselves.
These are all due to the wave nature. Are you saying that the wave nature is the result of particles interacting with themselves? Do you have any papers that support this claim?The Michelson interferometer, Bragg diffraction, even rainbows, are all instances of interference patterns that occur because photons are interacting with other photons.
Electrons actualise the forces between each other by emitting and absorbing photons. Photons are the interactions of electrons and other charged particles.Electrons feel a force from any charged particle, while photons only feel force from massive particles.
While it just so happens that photons are massless it does not just happen they are free of charge.It just so happens that electrons are charged, and photons are massless.
Two Helium 4 nuclei cannot occupying the same space, they figure out that they are made of fermions if they are brought to close together.No. But do you agree that the nucleus is matter? If so, why? What about it makes it matter? It's a boson, isn't it?
Define consistency.Who said I do? The only ontologically significant ones are those which are consistent with themselves and with reality.
Which definition are you talking about. If it is my definition of matter I am just using the one that seem the most reasonable to me from the intuitive definition of matter. I personally would prefer to leave it with fermions and bosons. You understand that my definition of matter might include electron holes since they can be fermions and are not reducible to other particles (emergent but not reducible). I don't like it.I'm not criticising your definition, I'm simply puzzled why you adhere to it.
I do sort of. I reject that they must be or are definitely fundamental. I consider that what we call an electron might be an emergent phenomenon. I don't reject the idea of a electron in the same manner I don't reject the idea of a homo sapiens sapiens.And nowadays we have the Standard Model, which explains phenomena in terms of particles. Do you really reject the existence of particles?
IMO electron holes are a mathematical abstraction of the interaction of electrons and quarks. I also think that photons are a mathematical abstraction of the interaction of electrons and quarks.Or do you just not understand the rather crucial difference between electrons and electron holes?
So, is there a scientific explanation for all this?Ya just need to know how
Because, y'know, they'd all pass rigorous testing in a controlled environment...So, is there a scientific explanation for all this?
Did the glass melt for a few seconds?
Did the water become solid for a few seconds?
What about the air, did the air become solid for a few seconds?
I don't know about miracles, but the laws of physics certainly do appear to be behaving the way physicists says it shouldn’t.Oh please, Doveaman. You can't seriously believe that Angel is actually performing miracles, making the laws of physics work differently for him.
Maybe it's all just illusions, but how can you tell? The people nearby certainly couldn't.He's a professional illusionist.
You mean like a swimming pool with people swimming underneath?Because, y'know, they'd all pass rigorous testing in a controlled environment...
Does this mean you have no scientific explanation for what he did?Randi's $1,000,000 offer is still up for grabs, as are many other prizes.
Key word: appear. They're entertainers making money on TV. If they actually, genuinely could do what they claim to do, you think they'd settle for a quick buck on MTV?I don't know about miracles, but the laws of physics certainly do appear to be behaving the way physicists says it shouldnt.
Paid actors don't make for good witnesses. And, another key word there: illusions. They're designed to mislead you.Maybe it's all just illusions, but how can you tell? The people nearby certainly couldn't.
You mean like a swimming people with people swimming underneath?
No, it means charlatans have been around for millennia. That they cannot (or will not) do their stunts under controlled, experimental conditions is sufficient proof that they are charlatans.Does this mean you have no scientific explanation for what he did?
I don't know about miracles, but the laws of physics certainly do appear to be behaving the way physicists says it shouldnt.
Maybe it's all just illusions, but how can you tell? The people nearby certainly couldn't.
I don't know about miracles, but the laws of physics certainly do appear to be behaving the way physicists says it shouldnt.
Maybe it's all just illusions, but how can you tell? The people nearby certainly couldn't.
They would've if they were watching the show -- Angel explicitly explained the inspiration for the first trick.
Did he explain how he did it? Y'know, properly
OK, lets say he was hanging on wires for the air trick, and use sliding glass for the glass trick, but what about the water trick, any explanation for that?He said he got the inspiration from the "magic glass" trick from the children's magic kits.
I used to have one of those kits. the glass slides to hide the hole.
of course, the kind of people who think this is actual sorcery are the same ones who wonder how all those people fit inside their television sets...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?