On Feb 3, 7:24*pm, wrote:
Bosons would be emitted simultaneously from every direcftion
continuously if they are to create force. They cannot aim as in a
Feynman diagram.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

They don't aim. What on earth gives you the idea that they aim?
If you explode a shrapnel grenade, and one of the bits of shrapnel
kills a squirrel in a tree, and you draw a line showing the path of
the shrapnel from the grenade to the squirrel that accounts for why
the squirrel suddenly fell from the tree, why would you conclude that
you aimed that bit of shrapnel at the squirrel?

PD

On Feb 4, 6:11*pm, PD wrote:
On Feb 3, 7:24*pm, wrote:

Bosons would be emitted simultaneously from every direcftion
continuously if they are to create force. They cannot aim as in a
Feynman diagram.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

They don't aim. What on earth gives you the idea that they aim?
If you explode a shrapnel grenade, and one of the bits of shrapnel
kills a squirrel in a tree, and you draw a line showing the path of
the shrapnel from the grenade to the squirrel that accounts for why
the squirrel suddenly fell from the tree, why would you conclude that
you aimed that bit of shrapnel at the squirrel?

PD

----------------------
idiot crook!!

no particle of physical entity that moves in a straight line
can produce any attraction force
so just say that we know a **** about the**physical * cuase
of any attraction force
and by saing it you would contribute your humble
contribution (very very humble !!) to the advance of science!!

no more cheatings by proffesional liers !!!
that make livingand careers from lies !!

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

On Feb 4, 11:44*am, "Y.Porat" wrote:
On Feb 4, 6:11*pm, PD wrote:





On Feb 3, 7:24*pm, wrote:

Bosons would be emitted simultaneously from every direcftion
continuously if they are to create force. They cannot aim as in a
Feynman diagram.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

They don't aim. What on earth gives you the idea that they aim?
If you explode a shrapnel grenade, and one of the bits of shrapnel
kills a squirrel in a tree, and you draw a line showing the path of
the shrapnel from the grenade to the squirrel that accounts for why
the squirrel suddenly fell from the tree, why would you conclude that
you aimed that bit of shrapnel at the squirrel?

PD

----------------------
idiot crook!!

no particle of physical entity that moves in a * straight line
can produce any attraction force

First of all, no one says the virtual particles move in straight
lines. It might help for you to read a short and friendly book by
Richard Feynman called "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter"
so that you have a little better idea what the theory actually says.

Secondly, another poster has already given a sizable hint which you no
doubt missed: What is the behavior of time-reversed repulsion?

so * just say that we know a **** about the**physical * cuase
of any attraction force
and by saing it you would contribute your humble
contribution (very very humble !!) *to the advance of science!!

no more cheatings *by proffesional liers *!!!
that make livingand careers *from lies !!

Y.Porat
-----------------------------
-------------------------------- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

PD wrote:
On Feb 3, 7:24 pm, wrote:
Bosons would be emitted simultaneously from every direcftion
continuously if they are to create force. They cannot aim as in a
Feynman diagram.

They don't aim. What on earth gives you the idea that they aim?
If you explode a shrapnel grenade, and one of the bits of shrapnel
kills a squirrel in a tree, and you draw a line showing the path of
the shrapnel from the grenade to the squirrel that accounts for why
the squirrel suddenly fell from the tree, why would you conclude that
you aimed that bit of shrapnel at the squirrel?

Moreover, the usual Feynman diagram is in MOMENTUM SPACE -- "aim" does
not apply in momentum space (e.g. all objects that are not moving in the
reference frame are at the origin, regardless of where they are
located). And also: it is implicit in the rules of the diagram that
EVERY vertex is integrated over ALL POSSIBLE momenta (this moves each
vertex independently over all 3 dimensions of {Px,Py,Pz}). So the
directions the lines happen to be drawn is of no significance whatsoever
-- all that matters is the topology. Note that Feynman diagrams need not
be planar (but simple ones usually are).


Tom Roberts

On Feb 4, 8:11*am, PD wrote:
On Feb 3, 7:24*pm, wrote:

Bosons would be emitted simultaneously from every direcftion
continuously if they are to create force. They cannot aim as in a
Feynman diagram.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

They don't aim. What on earth gives you the idea that they aim?
If you explode a shrapnel grenade, and one of the bits of shrapnel
kills a squirrel in a tree, and you draw a line showing the path of
the shrapnel from the grenade to the squirrel that accounts for why
the squirrel suddenly fell from the tree, why would you conclude that
you aimed that bit of shrapnel at the squirrel?

PD

Feynman diagrams aim.

On Feb 4, 5:23*pm, wrote:
On Feb 4, 8:11*am, PD wrote:





On Feb 3, 7:24*pm, wrote:

Bosons would be emitted simultaneously from every direcftion
continuously if they are to create force. They cannot aim as in a
Feynman diagram.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

They don't aim. What on earth gives you the idea that they aim?
If you explode a shrapnel grenade, and one of the bits of shrapnel
kills a squirrel in a tree, and you draw a line showing the path of
the shrapnel from the grenade to the squirrel that accounts for why
the squirrel suddenly fell from the tree, why would you conclude that
you aimed that bit of shrapnel at the squirrel?

PD

Feynman diagrams aim.

Uh, no, they don't. Sorry. Repeating the same bonehead statement twice
in a row does not make it more true, especially coming from someone
who doesn't know the first thing about Feynman diagrams or what they
mean.

PD

On Feb 4, 3:51*pm, PD wrote:
On Feb 4, 5:23*pm, wrote:





On Feb 4, 8:11*am, PD wrote:

On Feb 3, 7:24*pm, wrote:

Bosons would be emitted simultaneously from every direcftion
continuously if they are to create force. They cannot aim as in a
Feynman diagram.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

They don't aim. What on earth gives you the idea that they aim?
If you explode a shrapnel grenade, and one of the bits of shrapnel
kills a squirrel in a tree, and you draw a line showing the path of
the shrapnel from the grenade to the squirrel that accounts for why
the squirrel suddenly fell from the tree, why would you conclude that
you aimed that bit of shrapnel at the squirrel?

PD

Feynman diagrams aim.

Uh, no, they don't. Sorry. Repeating the same bonehead statement twice
in a row does not make it more true, especially coming from someone
who doesn't know the first thing about Feynman diagrams or what they
mean.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes they do.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

On Feb 4, 4:01 pm, wrote:
On Feb 4, 3:51 pm, PD wrote:



On Feb 4, 5:23 pm, wrote:

On Feb 4, 8:11 am, PD wrote:

On Feb 3, 7:24 pm, wrote:

Bosons would be emitted simultaneously from every direcftion
continuously if they are to create force. They cannot aim as in a
Feynman diagram.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

They don't aim. What on earth gives you the idea that they aim?
If you explode a shrapnel grenade, and one of the bits of shrapnel
kills a squirrel in a tree, and you draw a line showing the path of
the shrapnel from the grenade to the squirrel that accounts for why
the squirrel suddenly fell from the tree, why would you conclude that
you aimed that bit of shrapnel at the squirrel?

PD

Feynman diagrams aim.

Uh, no, they don't. Sorry. Repeating the same bonehead statement twice
in a row does not make it more true, especially coming from someone
who doesn't know the first thing about Feynman diagrams or what they
mean.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes they do.

Cite reference.

--
Jan Bielawski

On Feb 4, 4:35*pm, JanPB wrote:
On Feb 4, 4:01 pm, wrote:





On Feb 4, 3:51 pm, PD wrote:

On Feb 4, 5:23 pm, wrote:

On Feb 4, 8:11 am, PD wrote:

On Feb 3, 7:24 pm, wrote:

Bosons would be emitted simultaneously from every direcftion
continuously if they are to create force. They cannot aim as in a
Feynman diagram.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

They don't aim. What on earth gives you the idea that they aim?
If you explode a shrapnel grenade, and one of the bits of shrapnel
kills a squirrel in a tree, and you draw a line showing the path of
the shrapnel from the grenade to the squirrel that accounts for why
the squirrel suddenly fell from the tree, why would you conclude that
you aimed that bit of shrapnel at the squirrel?

PD

Feynman diagrams aim.

Uh, no, they don't. Sorry. Repeating the same bonehead statement twice
in a row does not make it more true, especially coming from someone
who doesn't know the first thing about Feynman diagrams or what they
mean.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes they do.

Cite reference.

--
Jan Bielawski- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The reference is any Feynman diagram.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

PD wrote:
First of all, no one says the virtual particles move in straight
lines. It might help for you to read a short and friendly book by
Richard Feynman called "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter"
so that you have a little better idea what the theory actually says.

Secondly, another poster has already given a sizable hint which you no
doubt missed: What is the behavior of time-reversed repulsion?

This is getting ridiculous.

Time reversed repulsion is still repulsion, and time reversed attraction
is still attraction. (If time reversed attraction was repulsion, the
time reversal of the pitcher throwing to the second baseman with the
ball arcing up and then down due to gravity would be the second baseman
throwing the ball and watching it curve up, up, and away -- obviously
nonsense. In fact, it's because attraction and repulsion forces differ
by a sign flip of a second degree partial differential equation, one
with dt^2. Of course, flipping the sign on t doesn't flip the sign on
t^2, or dt^2 for that matter.)

On the other hand, Feynman diagrams certainly can (and do) explain
attractive forces. Virtual particles can be "off-shell" and thereby
behave very strangely. In particular they can essentially carry a
momentum vector that points backwards. One might consider that they
exploit quantum uncertainty to briefly have negative mass, so that when
they hit something they exert a pull instead of a push; they owe an
energy debt instead of having an energy surplus like real particles.

I think they can even carry momentum vectors oriented at angles to their
direction of travel. Their direction of travel isn't even well-defined;
Feynman diagrams may have neat straight lines in them but it's really a
fuzzy quantum-mechanical mess down at those scales. The particle has a
nonzero amplitude for circling around behind the target and then
shooting into it from behind. Classical notions of trajectory and
momentum really don't even apply all that much down there at the
femtoscale and below.

Heck, force carriers don't always physically shove things around at all.
Sometimes they convey information and change the identities of their
targets instead (consider the weak force bosons).

Putting things more simply: you're both wrong.

--
There's only four things you can be certain of: taxes, change, spam, and
death.