Heavy element production in MM

EBTX, I searched the link you posted for the answer and found nothing to indicate even knowing this problem exists. Everyone knows both conditions exist so why is there not an explaination? Maybe the answer is an extension of UP? I guess this is too dumb for QM guys.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />EBTX, I searched the link you posted for the answer and found nothing to indicate even knowing this problem exists. Everyone knows both conditions exist so why is there not an explaination? Maybe the answer is an extension of UP? I guess this is too dumb for QM guys.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You have to follow the links. The webpage branches out as relevant
topics come into discussion. The strong force is what holds the
nucleus together in the Standard model. In the Standard model,
forces are mediated by exchange particles, which for the strong
force are called pions. The exchange mechanism is usually illustrated in texts by the example of two people playing catch with a basketball on ice skates in a rink. Supposedly, these "basketballs" when thrown, provide NEGATIVE momentum so that
the catchers are brought closer and closer together, resulting
in the observed attractive force, believe it or not.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jan</i>
<br />123,

Thanks for the link.

"it is no longer valid to consider a particle like a hard sphere, because the smaller the dimension, the more wave-like it becomes. It no longer makes sense to say that you have precisely determined both the position and momentum of such a particle."

So, from what I gather, uncertainty says that measuring forms below certain scales shows that these forms are not point-like but distributed entities instead. Simply put, suppose we are on a boat and look at the waves from a distance, then these waves look like entities themselves, but if we come close enough, we are likely just to see water and not those waves. No?


<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Well, regardless of whether you portray electrons (and other
physical phenomena) as localized particles or distributed waves, it's unimaginable to me how these THINGS can interact with each other at all if they are not even spatially connected from instant to instant, i.e. if they did not know each other's momentums, positions, energies and any other internal properties precisely at every moment in time.

Seems that we are asked to believe, viz. QM, that the physical laws
we observe are an illusion created by a very big random number generator. How randomness can generate persistent patterns
seems pretty doubtful to me.

123,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Well, regardless of whether you portray electrons (and other
physical phenomena) as localized particles or distributed waves, it's unimaginable to me how these THINGS can interact with each other at all if they are not even spatially connected from instant to instant, i.e. if they did not know each other's momentums, positions, energies and any other internal properties precisely at every moment in time. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This is an interesting point you make here. Actually, in control engineering, it is well-known that any model uncertainty increases the possibility of unstable dynamics considerably: Uncertainty within a model can introduce certain frequency phase lags, which imply possible modes of instability. For example, if an electron is not allowed to "know" the precise location of the nucleus and other components of the atom while orbiting the nucleus, how do these orbits remain so stable at all times? As far as my current understanding goes, the electron does surely sense where it fits in, such as the orbit it belongs to etc. To put it in general terms, how do forms remain so stable if uncertainty plays an important role?


Thus, dynamic interaction together with uncertainty and remaining stable at the same time are not highly compatible concepts ...

Another good reason to have doubts about uncertainty ...

Uncertainty is really not a problem in the context of the MM. Location, detection, and "photographic" resolution of particles is not possible if they are part of the elysium matrix. Resolution of those particles by a system not influenced by the elysium matrix (like a graviton based system) would allow easy resolution of those particles. Resolution of scales at or larger than ours that are within our technological grasp are fine until the limits are reached. Trying to use light to see light effects is not practical and will lead to mathematical anomolies like the Uncertainty Principle. If a graviton microscope could be developed, resolving electrons would be child's play since that resolution would not influence the electron. Bacteria don't notice when we shine a little light on them and look through a microscope, they don't die, they don't move more, anything! MV