Recent content by werty

yes, but he electron has an exisistance without the definition of it! There might be things we are missing if we say "an electron is defined as this.." perhaps we don't know it all yet. Say someone discover some new quantum number that describes the electron what then? Should we change the...

This is my opinion aswell, its the electron that defines the definition not the other way arround. True! its not FALSE that electrons have arround 1837 times the mass of electrons! Its rest mass not gravitational mass we meassure and as we all know mass gives inertia. Miguel what are you...

we can't define an electron! This question has no answer in physics,, its shut up and calculate as previously mentioned.

I think its a really good question and I don't think that mass alone explains this, its not a law of nature that things with different masses can't interact in otherways than that of electron and proton. EDIT: added word mass

You have the correct idea for your first issue, the absolute square of the state-coefficients |C_{i}|^2 are interpreted as probability that state i is obtained after measurement and ni/N is just a statement that the law of large numbers works in probability theory eg. n_i/N tends to the...

Ok, its just that that all other particle theories give rise to 'shadowing'. Even if the particle is as quantum mechanical as it can be and still remain a particle It must obey some sort of solution near 'things' and those solution I believe must be dependent on shape and decomposition of the...

I mean that I think that non-geometric theory of gravitation must imply that gravitation mass should be dependent of the shape and composition of bodies. Eg. an object should be able to give gravitational shadow to another if it is explained with a particle theory however weakly interacting it...

I haven't read any courses about current particle theories but it seem to me that any theory with particles interacting with materials would have imply that the shape and type of material place a role. Like the neutrinos zipping through Earth they zipp through different material and different...

Does this mean that gravitons arent absorbed by the material in anyway?

gravitons ?? is the inertial mass proportinal to the gravitational mass in the graviton theory of gravitation ? I ask this because I can see easily how GR imply that the two masses must be equal since spacetime curvature acts at everypoint in the body. But with gravitons I can't understand how...

Theres not much else to do is there. For us to answer your question of what time it takes for interference to disappear we must consult QM and let it give us the answer and than you want to use that answer to figure out if QM is wrong or not ? Seems to be a kind of logical circle don't you think...

I think Feynman said to his students during lecture "I don't know why nature behaves in this perculiar way, nobody does!". And that's that with that, I think we will most probably never understand why nature behaves as it does and that's what I think bells theorem proved, there's no such...

Ive seen requirements to take relativistic qm before qft, what do you guys think of that ? Any more links to free books covering relativistic qm dextercioby ?

Ordinary calculus probably works, for both subjects. If you only want to understand it and make a few calculations. If you want to do research you need a lot more mathematics.

Im starting to see the complexity of this problem. Its true what you say that it isn't the same thing as throwing the results in the thrash, but to remove the which-path information you need to combine the paths with a 50-50 beamsplitter and we would than have the standard qm-erasure/delayed...