"MorituriMax" wrote in message ...
"Y.Porat" wrote in message
om...
here is my sixth postulate:

'A messenger in physics, cannot be bigger or stronger
than the entity that sent it'

a little comment:
i hope it is obvious why, and what for and against what
i coined that postulate.

There aren't enough trite one-liners out there?
---------
just follow the tread and you will see much more than one line
anyway some truths (sorry the spelling ??) can sometimes
be coind very shortly.
btw do you by anychance make your living out of the standard Model?
---------
all the best
Y.Poprat
------------

"Y.Porat" wrote in message
m...
"MorituriMax" wrote in message
...
"Y.Porat" wrote in message
om...
here is my sixth postulate:

'A messenger in physics, cannot be bigger or stronger
than the entity that sent it'

a little comment:
i hope it is obvious why, and what for and against what
i coined that postulate.

There aren't enough trite one-liners out there?
---------
just follow the tread and you will see much more than one line
anyway some truths (sorry the spelling ??) can sometimes
be coind very shortly.
btw do you by anychance make your living out of the standard Model?


Everyone that makes a living, makes a living
out of the standard model.....



---------
all the best
Y.Poprat
------------

"Paul R. Mays" wrote in message ...
"Y.Porat" wrote in message
m...
"MorituriMax" wrote in message
news
i hope it is obvious why, and what for and against what
i coined that postulate.

There aren't enough trite one-liners out there?
---------
just follow the tread and you will see much more than one line
anyway some truths (sorry the spelling ??) can sometimes
be coind very shortly.
btw do you by anychance make your living out of the standard Model?


Everyone that makes a living, makes a living
out of the standard model.....
-----------------------
have you ever heared about the story about the elephant and the flea?

if not heare it is :
(dont wory it is very short):
i met once a flea riding on the back ofa dashing elephant-
than i heared a strange unexpected loud voice from the
flea (on the dashing elephant) :
it shouted :
'look look what a big dast we make!!'

is the methaphore clear?
is not (again in very short)
the elephant is the expernental scince big labouratories
of private companies etc.

the flea is qm and even a smaller flea is the stabdard Model
(anyway much samller than its big mouth)

an elphant as you know does not do much noic\se compaired to
its real size.
i dont think i have to remind the examples that are on my mined
of to whom credit realy belongs.
and btw simce you mentioned it
imho theory is half a century behind experimental scince
and *engineering*
and much of that blame is in thoeories like the standard Model
its arrogant people-
its w bossons etc ,that are sucking the blood and merrow of peoples energy.

if you dont realize it - sory for you.
(or else you make some good living out of it better than
the 'common people' on the street-they enjoy much better the
engineering achievemnts)
btw the electricity that you enjoy is due to a humble
(non titled) son of a blacksmith his name is Michel Faradey)

all the best
Y.porat
------------------
---------------------

(Y.Porat) writes:

i have some news for you:
there are issues in physics, that come *before* the uncertainty principle
is for instance : conservation of energy!!! and matter !!!.
noting can be born bigger from something that is smaller.
not for a nano second and not for a nano nano nano second.
can you stick it to your mind ??

As I suspected, you couldn't wrap your mind around that.
As to conservation of mass/energy, first, it is conserved.
The mass/energy is the same before and after the short delta-t.
Second, we know that tunneling (another variation of 'borrowing'
energy) does happen. Many electronic devices, perhaps even the
computer you are using to read this, would not work without
'tunneling', essentially 'borrowing' energy to overcome a barrier.
Yes it's weird when thought of on a macroscopic scale. Kind of
like a car halfway up a hill getting to the bottom of the hill
on the other side by itself, as if somehow 'borrowing' energy to
get to the crest. Also virtual particles do work, look at any
instance where two charged objects attract or repel each other.
The only difference between this force (transferred by virtual
photons) and virtual W's is the photons, being massless can
'borrow' infinitesimal amounts of energy, thus their delta-T
can be very long, so can be in existence for very long time and
can traverse long distances. The W, being in the 90GeV range,
cannot do that, thus a very short range.

As for massive particles 'coming from' something with much less
mass, what about an energetic photon (zero mass) becoming an
electron/positron pair (~1MeV total mass). Happens all the
time. Disproves your 'postulate' big time.

--
-Mike

(Michael Moroney) wrote in message ...
(Y.Porat) writes:

i have some news for you:
there are issues in physics, that come *before* the uncertainty principle
is for instance : conservation of energy!!! and matter !!!.
noting can be born bigger from something that is smaller.
not for a nano second and not for a nano nano nano second.
can you stick it to your mind ??

As I suspected, you couldn't wrap your mind around that.
As to conservation of mass/energy, first, it is conserved.
The mass/energy is the same before and after the short delta-t.
-------------
let me start again with : thanks Mike
at least you are curious and thorough.
but again there is a lot of your basic assumptions that
imho are misleading you.
if mass and energy are conserved (asboth of us agree) than
there is no 'inflation of mass'
if you say that some mass was borrowed but still you dont show how
and why and from whom, it is in other words- you dont know !!!.
and that is exactly the real situation:
people today dont know (to srcratch ) anything real about
any attraction force, it is just an accedental partial sucess
of EM explanations, but it is only acidental and partial
the fact id once you want to extent it to nuclear or gravitation-
you fail. so what does it means?!
it means - there is a lot missing in basic understanding even
the most basic secrets of physics.
yet to pretent that 'anything ids under control, at least
for me - is a sort of a crime!.(because it is chieting people-
to lie down on their lourals).
i can agree with the uncertainly principle. ie threre are
very small microcosm volumes that we cannot(as is now) enter
into it! but please try to understand what i claim aginst it:

the fact that we cannot get into it *does not mean* that you can

'fill that vacum' with any assumption that
*you suggest* ie once me and you dont know , does not mean thjat
your guesses are better than mine!.
and even if you have some occational partial sucess, does not mean
you are right *all along the way*.
i think that my sixth postulate is based on the most basic
understanding of the world of matter.
now time will judge who is right.
-------

Second, we know that tunneling (another variation of 'borrowing'
energy) does happen. Many electronic devices, perhaps even the
computer you are using to read this, would not work without
'tunneling', essentially 'borrowing' energy to overcome a barrier.
Yes it's weird when thought of on a macroscopic scale. Kind of
like a car halfway up a hill getting to the bottom of the hill
on the other side by itself, as if somehow 'borrowing' energy to
get to the crest.
-------
your examples are nice yet:
even if the results are proven experimentally- it does not mean
you understand to the scrach why and how
i understand that a process can 'borrow mass or energy'
but than you have to realise that it was borrowed from 'outside'
ie there was and 'outside' to borrow from so
1 you say outside but you dont define that ouside
again IOW you dont understand the whole process
now you can say 'please God i understand part of the process'
thats very nice, but still you have to internalise that
you dont have in your hands *the whole story*
now once that is the case. upu have to say it loud and clear.
' know only a oart of the story' and not least important:
*there is a lot missing*
more over:
you have to say: once i whant to extend mu success to other issues-
i failed! so ask youself and others : why did i failed?
because, i have only an uncomplete story.
i can understand that in tunneling the process is borowing
energy from the environment, yet i can understand and even 'touch'
that environment- there is a lot od matter around it to borrow from
(still dont forget that again you are not mastering the whole story
and that is a lot slipping under your nose that you didnt detect)
now once we are going to the smaller microcosm the situation is
alike, but may be even worse (from understanding point of view)
you are walking in darkness you dont know what is your objects
you dont know what ore the *neighbours of that object*
you dont know how of if something can be borrowed
in short:
there is much more that you dont know rather than you know.
now in such a situation to claim that you do know- is *iresponsible*

and i still insist on my basic postulate:
that at the end of the day a meseenger cannot be bigger
or stronger than the entity that sent it.
once you have something in contradiction to that:
a red light of warning has to be litted
ie to say :
something in my story is wrong!!.
(and have to be revised)

so i think (with all the modesty) that that postulate of mine
should be a simple cryteria for warning about things that
go in a wrong or cryppled direction.
all the best
Y.Porat
-----------

(Y.Porat) wrote in message . com...
(Michael Moroney) wrote in message ...
(Y.Porat) writes:

i have some news for you:
there are issues in physics, that come *before* the uncertainty principle
is for instance : conservation of energy!!! and matter !!!.
noting can be born bigger from something that is smaller.
not for a nano second and not for a nano nano nano second.
can you stick it to your mind ??

As I suspected, you couldn't wrap your mind around that.
As to conservation of mass/energy, first, it is conserved.
The mass/energy is the same before and after the short delta-t.
-------------
let me start again with : thanks Mike
at least you are curious and thorough.
but again there is a lot of your basic assumptions that
imho are misleading you.
if mass and energy are conserved (asboth of us agree)

Err, mass isn't conserved. Only energy is. This is nicely shown by
every beta decay.


than there is no 'inflation of mass'

What is this supposed to mean?


if you say that some mass was borrowed but still you dont show how
and why and from whom, it is in other words- you dont know !!!.

"Borrowing" of energy is just an attempt to find a common language
expression for what's really going on there. In reality, there is no
such borrowing - the energy of the particle simple isn't fixed, but
"uncertain", and therefore it can penetrate barriers which should in
principle be too high for it.


and that is exactly the real situation:
people today dont know (to srcratch ) anything real about
any attraction force, it is just an accedental partial sucess
of EM explanations, but it is only acidental and partial


Why only partial? Do you know of any electromagnetic phenomenon which
can't be explained by Quantum Electrodynamics?

And how could this success by accidential, if theory and experiment
agree to about 10 significant figures?


the fact id once you want to extent it to nuclear or gravitation-
you fail.

Err, we don't fail when we extend it to nuclear forces. Why do you
think so?


so what does it means?!

That you, as usual, don't have a clue what you are talking about?


it means - there is a lot missing in basic understanding even
the most basic secrets of physics.
yet to pretent that 'anything ids under control, at least
for me - is a sort of a crime!.(because it is chieting people-
to lie down on their lourals).

*yawn*

i can agree with the uncertainly principle.

Well, you obviously don't understand it (you demonstrated this above),
so how can you agree with it?


ie threre are
very small microcosm volumes that we cannot(as is now) enter
into it!

Huh? Sorry, that's not what the uncertainty principle says.


but please try to understand what i claim aginst it:

the fact that we cannot get into it *does not mean* that you can

'fill that vacum' with any assumption that
*you suggest* ie once me and you dont know , does not mean thjat
your guesses are better than mine!.

Well, our "guesses" are shown to be consistent with very great
precission, with experimental results...


and even if you have some occational partial sucess, does not mean
you are right *all along the way*.

Please point out only *one* experiment where the predictions of QED
disagree with the experimental results.


i think that my sixth postulate is based on the most basic
understanding of the world of matter.
now time will judge who is right.

Why do you propose new theories, although there are no signs that the
old ones are wrong?


Second, we know that tunneling (another variation of 'borrowing'
energy) does happen. Many electronic devices, perhaps even the
computer you are using to read this, would not work without
'tunneling', essentially 'borrowing' energy to overcome a barrier.
Yes it's weird when thought of on a macroscopic scale. Kind of
like a car halfway up a hill getting to the bottom of the hill
on the other side by itself, as if somehow 'borrowing' energy to
get to the crest.
-------
your examples are nice yet:
even if the results are proven experimentally- it does not mean
you understand to the scrach why and how

Depends on what you mean by "to the scrach [sic]". Tunneling is nicely
described by the Schroedinger equation, essentially by the fact that
particles have wave-like properties.


i understand that a process can 'borrow mass or energy'
but than you have to realise that it was borrowed from 'outside'
ie there was and 'outside' to borrow from so

No. *You* have to understand that this borrowing is only figuratively.


1 you say outside but you dont define that ouside
again IOW you dont understand the whole process

See above: described by the Schroedinger equation.


now you can say 'please God i understand part of the process'
thats very nice, but still you have to internalise that
you dont have in your hands *the whole story*

Why do you think so? I bet you even don't know the Schroedinger
equation, right?


now once that is the case. upu have to say it loud and clear.
' know only a oart of the story' and not least important:
*there is a lot missing*

How do you know?


more over:
you have to say: once i whant to extend mu success to other issues-
i failed!

Where did we fail, please? Be specific.


so ask youself and others : why did i failed?
because, i have only an uncomplete story.

Only in your dreams.


i can understand that in tunneling the process is borowing
energy from the environment,

Then you understand wrongly.

[snip repetitions]


and i still insist on my basic postulate:
that at the end of the day a meseenger cannot be bigger
or stronger than the entity that sent it.

Well, no one says it can (that's only your own misunderstanding about
W and Z bosons), so where is the problem?


once you have something in contradiction to that:

Well, we don't have.


a red light of warning has to be litted
ie to say :
something in my story is wrong!!.
(and have to be revised)

The red light shines over *your* story.


so i think (with all the modesty) that that postulate of mine
should be a simple cryteria for warning about things that
go in a wrong or cryppled direction.

Before making postulate, first learn what the theories actually say!!!


Bye,
Bjoern

(Y.Porat) writes:

(Michael Moroney) wrote in message ...

As I suspected, you couldn't wrap your mind around that.
As to conservation of mass/energy, first, it is conserved.
The mass/energy is the same before and after the short delta-t.
-------------
if mass and energy are conserved (asboth of us agree) than

Mass-energy (one thing, due to E=mc^2) is conserved. Not conserved
separately.

if you say that some mass was borrowed but still you dont show how
and why and from whom,

'Borrowed' is not a literal term. Energy, due to uncertainty, becomes
available, but is not 'taken' from some other entity.

any attraction force, it is just an accedental partial sucess
of EM explanations, but it is only acidental and partial

Partial? How? It explains it just fine.

the fact id once you want to extent it to nuclear or gravitation-
you fail. so what does it means?!

What do you mean? It works great for nuclear forces. Gravity is so
weak on a quantum scale it remains uncertain if it works as well.

i think that my sixth postulate is based on the most basic
understanding of the world of matter.

It is merely an attempt to try to extend macroscopic physics to the
quantum world. Doesn't work, things work differently at that scale.

now time will judge who is right.

It has already judged in favor of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle/
tunneling. We build devices based on them all the time now.

your examples are nice yet:
even if the results are proven experimentally- it does not mean
you understand to the scrach why and how
i understand that a process can 'borrow mass or energy'
but than you have to realise that it was borrowed from 'outside'
ie there was and 'outside' to borrow from so
1 you say outside but you dont define that ouside
again IOW you dont understand the whole process

As I stated, 'borrowing' is not a literal term, there is no entity
borrowed from.

--
-Mike

(Michael Moroney) wrote in message ...
(Y.Porat) writes:

(Michael Moroney) wrote in message ...

As I suspected, you couldn't wrap your mind around that.
As to conservation of mass/energy, first, it is conserved.
The mass/energy is the same before and after the short delta-t.
-------------
if mass and energy are conserved (asboth of us agree) than

Mass-energy (one thing, due to E=mc^2) is conserved. Not conserved
separately.

if you say that some mass was borrowed but still you dont show how
and why and from whom,

'Borrowed' is not a literal term. Energy, due to uncertainty, becomes
available, but is not 'taken' from some other entity.
--------------
please explain what that 'borrowing' is
or else it is not more than hand waiving.(about the unknown)

btw once speaking on 'borrowing' i can of hand coin another postulate
which i think might be sensible as well:

*a particle (or physical entity) cannot borrow mass or energy
that are bigger or stronger than itself*!

if explanations will be needed- i will suply that.

TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------

(Bjoern Feuerbacher) wrote in message . com...
(Y.Porat) wrote in message . com...
(Michael Moroney) wrote in message ...
(Y.Porat) writes:

i have some news for you:
there are issues in physics, that come *before* the uncertainty principle
is for instance : conservation of energy!!! and matter !!!.
noting can be born bigger from something that is smaller.
not for a nano second and not for a nano nano nano second.
can you stick it to your mind ??

As I suspected, you couldn't wrap your mind around that.
As to conservation of mass/energy, first, it is conserved.
The mass/energy is the same before and after the short delta-t.
-------------
let me start again with : thanks Mike
at least you are curious and thorough.
but again there is a lot of your basic assumptions that
imho are misleading you.
if mass and energy are conserved (asboth of us agree)

Err, mass isn't conserved. Only energy is. This is nicely shown by
every beta decay.


than there is no 'inflation of mass'

What is this supposed to mean?
-------------------
Hi Traitor

Y.Porat
-------------------

(Michael Moroney) writes:

'Borrowed' is not a literal term. Energy, due to uncertainty, becomes
available, but is not 'taken' from some other entity.

Such "borrowing" was only required under the "old-fashioned" interpretation
of "virtual" processes in perturbation theory, whcih no one uses any more.

In Feynman's version of perturbation theory, energy and momentum
are =ALWAYS= and =EXACTLY= conserved, at every interaction vertex.
"Virtual" process proceed by allowing the "virtual" particles to be
"off their mass shell" --- which is not nearly so problematic
as allowing energy conservation to be "temporarily" violated,
since rest-mass is not conserved anyway!


-- Gordon D. Pusch

perl -e '$_ = \n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'