Understanding the universe.

[petemcewan 27]

So,if all material    objects are made up of particles with wave like properties, why don't we see dogs difracting around trees ?  If a stream of electrons can diffract off two rows of atoms ,why can we not see a dog run a around both sides of a tree simultaneously  ?  Good doggy!

[Nightbird 0]

On ‎30‎/‎05‎/‎2019 at 08:59, Annie Bynnol said:

Mavericks, outsiders, independents and serendipity all move science forward and it would be a very dark day for understanding if this changed. Wallace and Darwin developed their theories of evolution independent of each other, independent of any institution, in isolation thousands of miles apart in the remotest parts of the world.

They submitted their work to public scrutiny and without publicity. They did not mock or rubbish previous work or the opinions of their peers. Over the decades they accepted change to their theories from new evidence. Neither became 'institutionalized' and rejected most of the gongs and honours offered.  That's being an outsider. That's getting it right.

 

This lot love institutions, conferences, publishing  papers and award ceremonies so much they create their own.

They are desperate to belong  to the mainstream but have been rejected. 

 

They have been rejected because science relies on  the rigorous testing.  So far their peers from around the  world  have shown that they have failed to meet these standards.

Isaac Newton said that "I saw further than others because I stood on the shoulders of giants".

Edited July 4, 2019 by Nightbird

[Cyclone 10]

2 hours ago, petemcewan said:

So,if all material    objects are made up of particles with wave like properties, why don't we see dogs difracting around trees ?  If a stream of electrons can diffract off two rows of atoms ,why can we not see a dog run a around both sides of a tree simultaneously  ?  Good doggy!

Did you imagine that the particles that made up a dog were moving very far?  Far enough to somehow interact with the particles that make up a tree?

[petemcewan 27]

Cyclone,

 

I'll leave it a little longer before I jump back in . It apparently has to do with "Wavelength".

Let's see what others have to say.

[Cyclone 10]

Perhaps you could try to measure the wavelength of a dog.  Try not to lose your fingers.

[Halibut 12]

7 hours ago, Cyclone said:

Perhaps you could try to measure the wavelength of a dog.  Try not to lose your fingers.

Despite the fact it's six thirty a.m. and I'm not long out of bed, that made me laugh out loud.

[petemcewan 27]

 

 

Wavelength is determined by momentum, and a dog has a lot more  momentum than an electron.

The wavelength of a material object is given by Planck’s constant divided by the momentum,which is mass multiplied by velocity.

The wavelength of a 20kg dog -out for a stroll- is about 10 to the power minus 35 metres.That is about a millionth of a billionth of a billionth of the wavelength of, say the electrons that make up a wafer of nickel..

How does this compare to the size of a tree ? A dog’s wavelength when compared to the distance between two atoms is like the distance between two atoms to the distance of the solar system.  There’s no way of seeing the wave associated with a dog diffract off a crystal of nickel,never mind pass around both sides of a tree at the same time.

Cutting to the chase, As the mass of a particle increases,its wavelength gets shorter,and it gets harder to  see wavelength effects directly . A dog-or for that matter a person- is a collection of biological molecules which have wave like properties-just like everything else

Everything is made of waves

Are electrons really particles that act like waves,or are photons waves behaving like particles ?

Electrons and photons are both examples of a third sort of object in space. Our third object- let us call it the “Bonzo “ particle- has wave like properties at the same time as it has particle like properties.

 

Note: “Crystal to the physicist refers to any solid object with a regular and order arrangement

of atoms inside it.”

“Diffraction patterns are an unmistakable sign of  wave behaviour.”

Davisson and Thomson shared a Nobel  Prize in 1937 for demonstrating the wave nature of the electron.

Alternative name for the particle mentioned  above , "the Bonio particle."

Source:How To Teach Quantum Physics To Your Dog.

Author:Chad Orzel..ISBN 978-1-85168-779-4

Reprint 2010.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 5, 2019 by petemcewan

[crookesjoe 10]

I don't believe the human brain has the ability to comprehend even 1% of existence/universe/whatever is actually out there.

 

Even people who inexplicably believe in God, can never answer what was before god, who created god?

 

The same way an evolutionist can't answer what was before the big bang, and what was before that and so on....

 

The human race will be extinct before those questions will ever be answered.

Edited July 6, 2019 by crookesjoe
Typo

[petemcewan 27]

CrooksJoe,

 

You have a very philosophical point in you first sentence.

Religious people do not "inexplicably" believe in God.

They have Theology to back them up.

 

 

You'll like the vid as an explanation regarding the Big Bang and what came before it.

 

Extinction Rebellion  are on your side vis-a-vis  the import  of your last sentence.

Edited July 7, 2019 by petemcewan

[crookesjoe 10]

2 hours ago, petemcewan said:

CrooksJoe,

 

You have a very philosophical point in you first sentence.

Religious people do not "inexplicably" believe in God.

They have Theology to back them up.

 

 

You'll like the vid as an explanation regarding the Big Bang and what came before it.

 

Extinction Rebellion  are on your side vis-a-vis  the import  of your last sentence.

Thanks for the video link. I've watched countless similar presentations like this, each one keeps me glued from start to finish.

 

I'm an advocate for all forms of research and theorem. 

 

However, we can't even begin to speculate on the origins of existience, when we can't even fully explain even gravity yet. 

 

We look back on previous era's and scoff at how stupid they must've been to believe the earth was flat, or drowning witches, or putting caterpillars on trial for eating crops (yes actually used to happen).

 

I suspect in a 1000 years time we will be looked upon with similar amounts of riducule for our lack of sophistication. 

 

Every generation believes they are at the cutting edge of science, it's such an ignorant mindset.

 

Case in point, the US patent office nearly closed down in 1899 as they thought there was nothing left to invent.

Edited July 7, 2019 by crookesjoe

[melthebell 863]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/parallel-universe-portal-mirror-world-science-stranger-things-oak-ridge-a8987681.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1562236998

 

Interesting, yet mindbending

[Annie Bynnol 612]

5 hours ago, crookesjoe said:

Case in point, the US patent office nearly closed down in 1899 as they thought there was nothing left to invent.

Myth created in 1981 and you are confusing science with technological development

1899 The year  I.R. Johnson patents the bicycle frame and J.S. Thurman patents the motor-driven vacuum cleaner.

A Patent Office is there to protect the intellectual property of an individual or company over decades in every country traded with. Pre world war prosperity in the USA was based around innovation and invention eg Thomas Edison.

 

There is no evidence at all that Charles Duell, the Commissioner of the United States Patent Office between 1898 to 1901 said anything of the sort.

Coincidently a 1899 edition of Punch Magazine (a publication famous for its comedy and satire  between a "genius" and a junior office worker in a Publishers office set sometime in the future.

 

".....Genius. Isn't there a clerk who can examine patents?"

  Boy.  Quite unnecessary, Sir. Everything that can be invented has been invented.

..."

 

As for the rest of the post  you use "we" as if you are speaking on behalf of humanity. 

Your overview of the state of human knowledge is deeply flawed.

 

Gravity a fundamental and observable phenomena. Gallileo described it, but it was the mathematical description by Newton enabled thousands of others to explain other phenomena. When the accuracy of the mathematical description was found to be wanting others like Einstein and Hawking build a better version.  This enables even more thousands of people to investigate.

None of these people are stupid enough to think that the history of understanding is approaching some kind of conclusion- Newton and his generation saw further because they stood on the shoulders of others "we" see futher because of them and subsequent generations.

 

 

Edited July 7, 2019 by Annie Bynnol