0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: BilboGrabbins on 21/08/2021 17:10:09"I'd rather have answers which can be questioned, rather than questions that cannot be answered."Nice idea, but you got it wrong.He actually said “I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.”And yet you tell me that I should believe what it says in the textbooks.Quote from: BilboGrabbins on 21/08/2021 16:51:04 Nearly any textbook will disagree with your skewered view on the non-existence of the corposcular nature of particles. Did you understand the quote from R.F.?Telling me that the textbook is right makes it "an answer which can not be questioned"; exactly what Feynman said we shouldn't want.
"I'd rather have answers which can be questioned, rather than questions that cannot be answered."
Nearly any textbook will disagree with your skewered view on the non-existence of the corposcular nature of particles.
. I'll never now forget your statement that a particle can only be a particle if it had a radius.
the well established doctrine
If an electron was a particle, it would have a radius.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 21/08/2021 16:57:23If an electron was a particle, it would have a radius.As you can see, you did . Are you trolling me, lying or just plain old slow in the brain, dotty even?
If an electron was a particle, it would have a radius.Attempts to measure that have, so far, given a result of "too small to measure, and quite possibly zero".
If you are a scientist, I'd hate to be taught under you to be quite frank.
This only means an electron had aspects of waves and particles. It is actually neither. An electron is nothing like you have ever seen and as such any attempt to visualize it is bound to fail.
it is you who said electrons are not particles because they have zero radius