On Feb 27, 9:01*am, wrote:
On 27 fév, 01:17, higis wrote:





On Feb 27, 12:19 pm, wrote:

On 26 fév, 22:10, higis wrote:

On Feb 27, 10:27 am, wrote:

On 26 fév, 20:43, higis wrote:

On Feb 27, 12:04 am, wrote:

On 26 fév, 09:16, higis wrote:

On Feb 26, 1:16 pm, wrote:

is this accepted by the mainstream?

Mainstream being of the Copenhagen school
of thought, any explanation that involves
particles being localized as they are moving
is de facto rejected as impossible.

This is because of the wave nature of matter.
What is your explanation why matter has
wave like properties?

There is no question in my mind that matter
has wavelike properties. What the de Broglie
hypothesis shows, is that this is not at all
incompatible with particles being localized
at all times.

So you are a Bohmian?

I am not a Bohmian by any stretch of the
imagination.

If not. How does
your model differs to Bohmian. Specifically
how do you plan to alter the Schroedinger
Equation?

I wouldn't change the Shroedinger equation
in any manner. It has its uses.

If you believe only wave exists
and particle just node of it but the Schroedinger
Equation would produce electrons that would
spread out but experiment shows it is only
in one place.

Exactly. The equation has its uses, but I
don't see any useful purpose in attempting
to modify it. I think it is fine as it is.

But it is not compatible with your model.

It is compatible. Simply too general, just like
straight Maxwell's wave theory. Just like Newton's
kinetic equation is compatible, and, but too
restricted.

You were stating that particles are nothing but
waves right (like there is internal something
in the electron which produces the wavy thing).

No. I am stating that particles are quanta of
localized standing electromagnetically oscillating
energy.

Well. A hundred years ago physicists could have
shared your viewpoints but many experiments
like the double slit experiments changed all that.

There is no way any physicist could have shared
my viewpoint a hundred years ago. Up and down
quarks were unknown, de Broglie had not yet
issued his hypothesis on localized photons,
Pioneer 10 and 11 were not even a project.
The variation of earth's rotation rate and moon
orbit with the time of year was unknown, and
so on...

In the double slit single particle or atom experiment

The double slit experiment is way older than you
think.

it's like you are skiing down and there is a tree in
front of you and when nobody looks, you split into
two.

Come on. Copenhagen school baloney.

Not only that but Feynman multiple path says
that as you ski down the tree, all paths occured
and what happend on the other side is interference.
Your model can't cause this magick to happen.
Physics is magick. Since your model is just
simple newtonian based.

It is not newtonian based, it is Maxwellian based.

Well. Actually. Bohm and Hiley have already applied
your approach where intially they kinda believe particles are
quanta of localized standing electromagnetically
oscillating energy.

Yes.

However for it to be compatible
with the double slit single photon/electron at a time
experiment and Aspect entanglement experiments,
Bohm/Riley have to propose the "quantum potential",

Bohm and Riley thought that QM *could not be
surpassed as far as precision goes. They felt
they must remain QM compliant at all cost.

Not my conclusion as already indicated.

QM does not take into account c as a limit
velocity nor does it take into account the
inertia of moving particles.

Too general. Can't describe physical reality
with enough precision.

Besides, they didn't know about quarks up and down
nor about the Pioneer 10 and 11 so-called anomalies.

They did not stand a chance of coming up with
the right geometry.

something ad hoc that can determine all the
experimental setup including width, dimensions,
length, everything.. an almost omnipresent field.
Not only that. It has to violate the spirit of Special
Relativity because in principle you can send signal faster
than light as the quantum potential is flexible. So you
see. By using your model. It creates unnecessary
complications that require more ad hoc making
it more bizarre than the Copenhagen you want to
exorcise. Unless you can show what happens
behind the scene in the one electron at a time
double slit experiment. Do you know what is
the reason why the electron (or even atom) can
interfere with itself in the double slit experiment?

I know the standard reason. but interfering
with itself is nonsense to start with. Meaningless.
Useless.

Note this differs from multiple particle double
slit experiments where you can say it is
the ensemble of the particles that
interfere much like water being made to pass
thru 2 slits. But in one particle at a time double
slit experiment. That's where the complication
arises.

complication for anyone who wants to split
hair on a bald skull. Meaningless time waster.

What is your explanation of this including
entanglement?

Entanglement. This one made me laugh quite
a bit.

Instant communication adhered to by
people who spend their life arguing that
GR must be it since instant force at a distance
is impossible.

André Michaud- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

---------------
well Andre
you are making progress .......

2
we must come tothe conclusion that
th eelectron is not a 'finit point particle'
but composed of subparticles !!
(probably in a chain )

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

On Feb 27, 12:29 am, "Y.Porat" wrote:
On Feb 27, 9:01 am, wrote:



On 27 fév, 01:17, higis wrote:

On Feb 27, 12:19 pm, wrote:

On 26 fév, 22:10, higis wrote:

On Feb 27, 10:27 am, wrote:

On 26 fév, 20:43, higis wrote:

On Feb 27, 12:04 am, wrote:

On 26 fév, 09:16, higis wrote:

On Feb 26, 1:16 pm, wrote:

is this accepted by the mainstream?

Mainstream being of the Copenhagen school
of thought, any explanation that involves
particles being localized as they are moving
is de facto rejected as impossible.

This is because of the wave nature of matter.
What is your explanation why matter has
wave like properties?

There is no question in my mind that matter
has wavelike properties. What the de Broglie
hypothesis shows, is that this is not at all
incompatible with particles being localized
at all times.

So you are a Bohmian?

I am not a Bohmian by any stretch of the
imagination.

If not. How does
your model differs to Bohmian. Specifically
how do you plan to alter the Schroedinger
Equation?

I wouldn't change the Shroedinger equation
in any manner. It has its uses.

If you believe only wave exists
and particle just node of it but the Schroedinger
Equation would produce electrons that would
spread out but experiment shows it is only
in one place.

Exactly. The equation has its uses, but I
don't see any useful purpose in attempting
to modify it. I think it is fine as it is.

But it is not compatible with your model.

It is compatible. Simply too general, just like
straight Maxwell's wave theory. Just like Newton's
kinetic equation is compatible, and, but too
restricted.

You were stating that particles are nothing but
waves right (like there is internal something
in the electron which produces the wavy thing).

No. I am stating that particles are quanta of
localized standing electromagnetically oscillating
energy.

Well. A hundred years ago physicists could have
shared your viewpoints but many experiments
like the double slit experiments changed all that.

There is no way any physicist could have shared
my viewpoint a hundred years ago. Up and down
quarks were unknown, de Broglie had not yet
issued his hypothesis on localized photons,
Pioneer 10 and 11 were not even a project.
The variation of earth's rotation rate and moon
orbit with the time of year was unknown, and
so on...

In the double slit single particle or atom experiment

The double slit experiment is way older than you
think.

it's like you are skiing down and there is a tree in
front of you and when nobody looks, you split into
two.

Come on. Copenhagen school baloney.

Not only that but Feynman multiple path says
that as you ski down the tree, all paths occured
and what happend on the other side is interference.
Your model can't cause this magick to happen.
Physics is magick. Since your model is just
simple newtonian based.

It is not newtonian based, it is Maxwellian based.

Well. Actually. Bohm and Hiley have already applied
your approach where intially they kinda believe particles are
quanta of localized standing electromagnetically
oscillating energy.

Yes.

However for it to be compatible
with the double slit single photon/electron at a time
experiment and Aspect entanglement experiments,
Bohm/Riley have to propose the "quantum potential",

Bohm and Riley thought that QM could not be
surpassed as far as precision goes. They felt
they must remain QM compliant at all cost.

Not my conclusion as already indicated.

QM does not take into account c as a limit
velocity nor does it take into account the
inertia of moving particles.

Too general. Can't describe physical reality
with enough precision.

Besides, they didn't know about quarks up and down
nor about the Pioneer 10 and 11 so-called anomalies.

They did not stand a chance of coming up with
the right geometry.

something ad hoc that can determine all the
experimental setup including width, dimensions,
length, everything.. an almost omnipresent field.
Not only that. It has to violate the spirit of Special
Relativity because in principle you can send signal faster
than light as the quantum potential is flexible. So you
see. By using your model. It creates unnecessary
complications that require more ad hoc making
it more bizarre than the Copenhagen you want to
exorcise. Unless you can show what happens
behind the scene in the one electron at a time
double slit experiment. Do you know what is
the reason why the electron (or even atom) can
interfere with itself in the double slit experiment?

I know the standard reason. but interfering
with itself is nonsense to start with. Meaningless.
Useless.

Note this differs from multiple particle double
slit experiments where you can say it is
the ensemble of the particles that
interfere much like water being made to pass
thru 2 slits. But in one particle at a time double
slit experiment. That's where the complication
arises.

complication for anyone who wants to split
hair on a bald skull. Meaningless time waster.

What is your explanation of this including
entanglement?

Entanglement. This one made me laugh quite
a bit.

Instant communication adhered to by
people who spend their life arguing that
GR must be it since instant force at a distance
is impossible.

André Michaud- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

---------------
well Andre
you are making progress .......

2
we must come tothe conclusion that
th eelectron is not a 'finit point particle'
but composed of subparticles !!
(probably in a chain )

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

....and what is your evidence for this?

On Feb 27, 11:46*am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Feb 27, 12:29 am, "Y.Porat" wrote:





On Feb 27, 9:01 am, wrote:

On 27 fév, 01:17, higis wrote:

On Feb 27, 12:19 pm, wrote:

On 26 fév, 22:10, higis wrote:

On Feb 27, 10:27 am, wrote:

On 26 fév, 20:43, higis wrote:

On Feb 27, 12:04 am, wrote:

On 26 fév, 09:16, higis wrote:




- Show quoted text -

---------------
well Andre
you are making progress .......

2
we must come tothe conclusion that
th eelectron is not a 'finit point particle'
but composed of subparticles !!
(probably in a chain )

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

....and what is your evidence for this?-
----------------------
you cant play a double game with me!
if i am a nothing for you -
dont ask me questions and dont discuss with me
2
if at the end of the day i seem for you
an interesting thinker

you have to behave accordingly
you cant hold the long string on both of its edges

3
if soemone else will ask me
i will try to answer

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