Its central principle in QM shows that science never
goes away from uncertainty. Or why do they believe
the principle of uncertainty of measurement?

Mitchell Raemsch

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote:

Its central principle in QM shows that science never
goes away from uncertainty. Or why do they believe
the principle of uncertainty of measurement?

Mitchell Raemsch

There are some things that are certain, and one of them is that you are
a babbling moron.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 21-July-23 11:38 am, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

Its central principle in QM shows that science never
goes away from uncertainty. Or why do they believe
the principle of uncertainty of measurement?

Mitchell Raemsch

That, of course, is a mischaracterise of what QM says. There is no
fundamental limit on how accurately you can measure a particular
quantity. Instead there is a limit on how accurately you can
simultaneously measure a particular quantity and its conjugate. Further,
QM is not saying this is a limitation on the process of measurement
itself, but rather that the two values do not simultaneously exist
beyond that limit of precision. That is, you cannot measure it more
accurately, because it's not there to be measured.

Sylvia.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 11:20:48 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 21-July-23 11:38 am, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

Its central principle in QM shows that science never
goes away from uncertainty. Or why do they believe
the principle of uncertainty of measurement?

Mitchell Raemsch

That, of course, is a mischaracterise of what QM says. There is no fundamental limit on how accurately you can measure a particular
quantity. Instead there is a limit on how accurately you can
simultaneously measure a particular quantity and its conjugate. Further,
QM is not saying this is a limitation on the process of measurement
itself, but rather that the two values do not simultaneously exist
beyond that limit of precision. That is, you cannot measure it more accurately, because it's not there to be measured.

Sylvia.

Well, let us state the Uncertainty Principle in a far better manner, to get all the blemishes and philosophy out of it, so that the common layperson like MitchR cannot trip all over himself.

We have Sigma Error in physics, which simply means in experiments we get close to some convergent point. The classic example is that the Muon is the true electron of Atoms because we see in the Old Physics the proton rest mass is 938 MeV while neutron is
940MeV and muon is 105MeV. Now if we multiply 9 times 105 we end up with 945, and the Sigma Error for neutron is 945/940 = 1.005 for an error of 0.5%. And in Physics we define Sigma Error as being 0.5% or less as being equal.

Meaning, that the Neutron, and proton are so close to 945, that those are actually nine muons. And we further analyze this to mean that the true electron is the muon with the true proton is a 840MeV torus of coils with muon inside thrusting through doing
the Faraday law. This means the stars and our Sun shine not from fusion, but the Faraday law going on inside each and every proton inside the Sun or stars.

Now, getting back to Uncertainty Principle, you can start in the microscope scale and talk about one conjugate variable affecting the other, and thus you cannot measure both with exacting precision.

Or, well, you can see Uncertainty Principle in the Macroscale of physical reality. That as we measure the rest mass of neutron and we come up with 940MeV when in reality it is exactly 945MeV and muon is exactly 105MeV and dividing is exactly 9.

In both directions, we have error-- error in microscopic as position affects momentum and error in macroscopic as we use the entire rest of the background to measure the rest mass of neutron and it does not come out to be 945MeV exactly, because our
instruments are electromagnetic and skew the reading to 940MeV.

So I prefer to teach the Uncertainty Principle in both the microscopic and the macroscopic. When we teach Uncertainty Principle UP in only microscopic we end up with the majority of fools, of laypersons waxing away philosophically. When we teach UP as
sigma error and that the entire background noise of the Universe has its tiny thumb into the measuring of neutron as 940MeV when it is truly 945MeV along with muon exactly being 105MeV. When that layperson fool begins to understand the Macroscopic notion
of Uncertainty, that fool is less likely to begin to salivate from the mouth with his philosophical b.s. as diarrhea from the mouth.

Uncertainty Principle has both a macroscopic and microscopic view, and when we teach both, it eliminates much of that nauseating philosophy by weak minds.

P.S. Uncertainty is usually taught by Feynman's double slit experiment. Which is a horrible way of teaching Uncertainty and only adds to the philosophy b.s. For Feynman made a mistake. The light wave is not a straight arrow ray with a head and tail. The
Light wave is a closed loop circuit, a pencil ellipse. And if Feynman had realized Light Waves are circuits (which easily explains quantum entanglement), if Feynman had realized Light Waves are circuits-- those thin, extremely thin pencil ellipses, then
that takes all the mystery and conundrum out of the Double Slit paradox. There is no paradox in Double Slit once you inject the idea Light Waves themselves are circuits not arrows. With arrows, you get the paradox.

AP

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 3:15:48 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 11:20:48 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 21-July-23 11:38 am, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

Its central principle in QM shows that science never
goes away from uncertainty. Or why do they believe
the principle of uncertainty of measurement?

Mitchell Raemsch

That, of course, is a mischaracterise of what QM says. There is no fundamental limit on how accurately you can measure a particular
quantity. Instead there is a limit on how accurately you can simultaneously measure a particular quantity and its conjugate. Further, QM is not saying this is a limitation on the process of measurement itself, but rather that the two values do not simultaneously exist
beyond that limit of precision. That is, you cannot measure it more accurately, because it's not there to be measured.

Sylvia.

Well, let us state the Uncertainty Principle in a far better manner, to get all the blemishes and philosophy out of it, so that the common layperson like MitchR cannot trip all over himself.

We have Sigma Error in physics, which simply means in experiments we get close to some convergent point. The classic example is that the Muon is the true electron of Atoms because we see in the Old Physics the proton rest mass is 938 MeV while neutron

is 940MeV and muon is 105MeV. Now if we multiply 9 times 105 we end up with 945, and the Sigma Error for neutron is 945/940 = 1.005 for an error of 0.5%. And in Physics we define Sigma Error as being 0.5% or less as being equal.

Meaning, that the Neutron, and proton are so close to 945, that those are actually nine muons. And we further analyze this to mean that the true electron is the muon with the true proton is a 840MeV torus of coils with muon inside thrusting through

doing the Faraday law. This means the stars and our Sun shine not from fusion, but the Faraday law going on inside each and every proton inside the Sun or stars.

Now, getting back to Uncertainty Principle, you can start in the microscope scale and talk about one conjugate variable affecting the other, and thus you cannot measure both with exacting precision.

Or, well, you can see Uncertainty Principle in the Macroscale of physical reality. That as we measure the rest mass of neutron and we come up with 940MeV when in reality it is exactly 945MeV and muon is exactly 105MeV and dividing is exactly 9.

In both directions, we have error-- error in microscopic as position affects momentum and error in macroscopic as we use the entire rest of the background to measure the rest mass of neutron and it does not come out to be 945MeV exactly, because our

instruments are electromagnetic and skew the reading to 940MeV.

So I prefer to teach the Uncertainty Principle in both the microscopic and the macroscopic. When we teach Uncertainty Principle UP in only microscopic we end up with the majority of fools, of laypersons waxing away philosophically. When we teach UP as

sigma error and that the entire background noise of the Universe has its tiny thumb into the measuring of neutron as 940MeV when it is truly 945MeV along with muon exactly being 105MeV. When that layperson fool begins to understand the Macroscopic notion
of Uncertainty, that fool is less likely to begin to salivate from the mouth with his philosophical b.s. as diarrhea from the mouth.

Uncertainty Principle has both a macroscopic and microscopic view, and when we teach both, it eliminates much of that nauseating philosophy by weak minds.

P.S. Uncertainty is usually taught by Feynman's double slit experiment. Which is a horrible way of teaching Uncertainty and only adds to the philosophy b.s. For Feynman made a mistake. The light wave is not a straight arrow ray with a head and tail.

The Light wave is a closed loop circuit, a pencil ellipse. And if Feynman had realized Light Waves are circuits (which easily explains quantum entanglement), if Feynman had realized Light Waves are circuits-- those thin, extremely thin pencil ellipses,
then that takes all the mystery and conundrum out of the Double Slit paradox. There is no paradox in Double Slit once you inject the idea Light Waves themselves are circuits not arrows. With arrows, you get the paradox.


Now, today I am going to explore the idea that the Planck's constant both 4.135*10^-15 eV*Hz^-1 and 6.582*10^-16 eV*s are directly related to the shape and geometry of a Pencil Ellipse Closed Loop Circuit of any given Light Wave.

AP

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 6:38:45 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

Its central principle in QM shows that science never
goes away from uncertainty. Or why do they believe
the principle of uncertainty of measurement?

Mitchell Raemsch

Why did they find uncertainty as their central science principle?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

I think there is a direct link of Planck's constant with a pencil ellipse
On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 2:45:32 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Now, today I am going to explore the idea that the Planck's constant both 4.135*10^-15 eV*Hz^-1 and 6.582*10^-16 eV*s are directly related to the shape and geometry of a Pencil Ellipse Closed Loop Circuit of any given Light Wave.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 6:38:45 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

Its central principle in QM shows that science never
goes away from uncertainty. Or why do they believe
the principle of uncertainty of measurement?

Mitchell Raemsch

Why did they find uncertainty as their central science principle?

Who is "they" and what makes you think that, other than you are a
babbling moron?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In physics it is E = h*freq in math it is eccentricity of ellipse e=c/a where c = sqrt(a^2-b^2) for ellipse formula of x^2/a^2 + y^2/b^2 = 1. In other words, physics energy of wave is a pencil ellipse.


On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 4:18:31 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

I think there is a direct link of Planck's constant with a pencil ellipse
On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 2:45:32 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Now, today I am going to explore the idea that the Planck's constant both 4.135*10^-15 eV*Hz^-1 and 6.582*10^-16 eV*s are directly related to the shape and geometry of a Pencil Ellipse Closed Loop Circuit of any given Light Wave.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 7:24:42 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

In physics it is E = h*freq in math it is eccentricity of ellipse e=c/a where c = sqrt(a^2-b^2) for ellipse formula of x^2/a^2 + y^2/b^2 = 1. In other words, physics energy of wave is a pencil ellipse.
On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 4:18:31 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

I think there is a direct link of Planck's constant with a pencil ellipse On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 2:45:32 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Now, today I am going to explore the idea that the Planck's constant both 4.135*10^-15 eV*Hz^-1 and 6.582*10^-16 eV*s are directly related to the shape and geometry of a Pencil Ellipse Closed Loop Circuit of any given Light Wave.

Alright so we have in physics E = h*freq, and in math we have eccentricity of ellipse = distance from center to foci / semimajor axis. Sad,sad indeed that math geometry has external artifices the directrix to define ellipse eccentricity when it should be
defined only from "internal parts of the ellipse". So confusing to youngsters, but math professors are never prone to dispelling confusion rather they keep piling on more confusion.

Never use a directrix in defining ellipse eccentricity, simply use just internal parts of the ellipse.

So we have eccentricity = c/a where c is distance from center to a foci. And a is semimajor axis.

So in physics we have Energy = h*freq and in geometry math we have Eccentricity = c/a, and we make that be c = E*a. So is eccentricity the Planck's constant?

A Pencil Ellipse is a ellipse eccentricity of 0.999 or more nines, for eccentricity of 1 is a straightline segment.

AP

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 12:22:33 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 7:24:42 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

In physics it is E = h*freq in math it is eccentricity of ellipse e=c/a where c = sqrt(a^2-b^2) for ellipse formula of x^2/a^2 + y^2/b^2 = 1. In other words, physics energy of wave is a pencil ellipse.
On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 4:18:31 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

I think there is a direct link of Planck's constant with a pencil ellipse
On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 2:45:32 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Now, today I am going to explore the idea that the Planck's constant both 4.135*10^-15 eV*Hz^-1 and 6.582*10^-16 eV*s are directly related to the shape and geometry of a Pencil Ellipse Closed Loop Circuit of any given Light Wave.

Alright so we have in physics E = h*freq, and in math we have eccentricity of ellipse = distance from center to foci / semimajor axis. Sad,sad indeed that math geometry has external artifices the directrix to define ellipse eccentricity when it should

be defined only from "internal parts of the ellipse". So confusing to youngsters, but math professors are never prone to dispelling confusion rather they keep piling on more confusion.

Never use a directrix in defining ellipse eccentricity, simply use just internal parts of the ellipse.

So we have eccentricity = c/a where c is distance from center to a foci. And a is semimajor axis.

So in physics we have Energy = h*freq and in geometry math we have Eccentricity = c/a, and we make that be c = E*a. So is eccentricity the Planck's constant?

A Pencil Ellipse is a ellipse eccentricity of 0.999 or more nines, for eccentricity of 1 is a straightline segment.

I do not know where in the history of math geometry, someone injected the directrix when such a item never needed to be injected. Has the directrix ever been of help to physics??

Because to my idea of teaching science, we want to always reduce to simple form. And simple form for ellipse eccentricity is the internal parts of distance length from center to focal point divided by distance length of semimajor axis.

Almost every where one goes in mathematics these days, finds clutter that does not help students but only serves to confuse them and put them off of math and science.

AP

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Alright, there is a physics application of Directrix for a parabola, such as a ball in motion described by a parabola the directrix is the energy.

But there is no application of directrix of ellipse for physics, as far as I know. When there is no application, then it is best to drop directrix in teaching the ellipse.

AP

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 12:42:01 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Alright, there is a physics application of Directrix for a parabola, such as a ball in motion described by a parabola the directrix is the energy.

A ball in motion takes a freefall parabola path that is predetermined at its beginning impetus.
That is what man is using to aim by instinct.
In cosmology... orbits are predetermined ellipses that continue to repeat the same.

Mitchell Raemsch

But there is no application of directrix of ellipse for physics, as far as I know. When there is no application, then it is best to drop directrix in teaching the ellipse.

AP

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)