0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Your track lines do not show anti-proton in any sense, it shows something which we could subjectively make up something about the something. That does not make it so.......I can show you a particle of rice, I can show you a particle of a box of smarties. You can not really show me quantum particles in such a way. If you could show me all the particles in the box of ''smarties'', of course I would accept it to be the truth. However I do not even think particles exist because in reality they do not need to exist to create ''objects'' of solidity. Atoms in my eyes are 2 combined energies that give the energies physicality. I propose the proton field and the electron field become 1 to form solidity, the particle in a sense of substance not existing.
Quote from: Thebox on 24/09/2017 15:10:10Your track lines do not show anti-proton in any sense, it shows something which we could subjectively make up something about the something. That does not make it so.......I can show you a particle of rice, I can show you a particle of a box of smarties. You can not really show me quantum particles in such a way. If you could show me all the particles in the box of ''smarties'', of course I would accept it to be the truth. However I do not even think particles exist because in reality they do not need to exist to create ''objects'' of solidity. Atoms in my eyes are 2 combined energies that give the energies physicality. I propose the proton field and the electron field become 1 to form solidity, the particle in a sense of substance not existing. So you do believe in a conspiracy by the scientific community to fabricate the existence of particles then?
Objectively in the experiment Bored Chemist provided of the anti-proton, we could not say with a 100% truth value that we are actually observing anti-protons.
There is a magnetic field involved for one and it could be field fluctuations of the magnetic field. However I would not be 100% of that either.
What I was saying is that particles are just energies/fields that seem to be objects. I.e the proton does not emit a field it is the field..
Quote from: Thebox on 24/09/2017 15:19:20Objectively in the experiment Bored Chemist provided of the anti-proton, we could not say with a 100% truth value that we are actually observing anti-protons.You can never be 100% certain of anything. QuoteThere is a magnetic field involved for one and it could be field fluctuations of the magnetic field. However I would not be 100% of that either.That's not how that works. They are not measuring fluctuations in a magnetic field, they are measuring the response of particles to that field. Random magnetic fluctuations would not conveniently have the exact same mass as a proton. If they did, then anytime a particle experiment was run which involved magnetic fields then "antiprotons" would always be detected. They aren't.QuoteWhat I was saying is that particles are just energies/fields that seem to be objects. I.e the proton does not emit a field it is the field..That interpretation does nothing to refute the existence of other particles. If you're going to look at a proton as a field then you'll just have to look at an antiproton as a field as well. You can't accept the proton and reject the antiproton without creating a double standard on acceptable evidence.
There is a magnetic field involved for one and it could be field fluctuations of the magnetic field.
Quote from: Thebox on 24/09/2017 15:19:20There is a magnetic field involved for one and it could be field fluctuations of the magnetic field. That's just silly for two reasons.The first is that there's nothing that would cause the field to vary significantly, the second s that the same field affects both the positron and the electron, but it affects them differently.If the field was variable- either in space or in time, the paths of the particles wouldn't be arcs of circles.So, why put forward and impossible "explanation"?If it's because you don't understand what you are talking about, why not just accept that, and learn from those who do?
Ok , noted that there may be an anti proton, ''may'' being the word there and knowing it is not 100% axiom values as well. That is all I was saying, the experiment itself is not really 100% proof.
I do believe though we can be 100% axiom on certain things. i.e things ''fall'' to the ground or likewise obvious truths. p.s Uncertainty is anything less than 100%
Quote from: Thebox on 24/09/2017 15:35:19Ok , noted that there may be an anti proton, ''may'' being the word there and knowing it is not 100% axiom values as well. That is all I was saying, the experiment itself is not really 100% proof.Then you shouldn't believe 100% in any subatomic particle, including electrons or protons
I have observed atoms.
For example say I and you were ''fiddling'' about with plasma mechanics.Do you think I would just jump in and start fiddling?
Quote from: Thebox on 24/09/2017 22:04:30 I have observed atoms.How?
Not really, some things have better proof that other things, I have observed atoms.
Quote from: Thebox on 24/09/2017 22:04:30Not really, some things have better proof that other things, I have observed atoms.Have you observed protons and electrons?
Quote from: Kryptid on 25/09/2017 01:19:20Quote from: Thebox on 24/09/2017 22:04:30Not really, some things have better proof that other things, I have observed atoms.Have you observed protons and electrons?I believe so, what I observed having an inner and outer circle. A dark inner with a ''glowing'' outer.
Quote from: Thebox on 25/09/2017 02:01:49Quote from: Kryptid on 25/09/2017 01:19:20Quote from: Thebox on 24/09/2017 22:04:30Not really, some things have better proof that other things, I have observed atoms.Have you observed protons and electrons?I believe so, what I observed having an inner and outer circle. A dark inner with a ''glowing'' outer. When and how? You know that atoms and their constituents are too small to see with the naked eye (or even conventional microscopes), right?
Yes I know they are too small to see by the eye.
It was a while back I did it and I did have a video of it somewhere if I have not deleted it . I used angles of the camera and light to observe atoms. Well I am almost sure they were atoms because they looked like atoms and there was no other explanation to what they were. I will try to find the video to see what you think of the result and you can reach you own conclusion. If I can't find the video I will wait till a sunny day and repeat the experiment.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 24/09/2017 22:27:08Quote from: Thebox on 24/09/2017 22:04:30 I have observed atoms.How?By using a phone camera and a shiny black shoe , catching the glare off the sun.