Kinetic energy of a nucleus

[Mordred]

Take a waveform. A long sinusiodal wave has no determinant length.

A spike or excitation restores to ground state in a finite region. Thats your pointlike Compton wavelength where the pointlike property becomes meaningless beyond.

Edited December 4, 2017 by Mordred

[Dubbelosix]

4 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Take a waveform. A long sinusiodal wave has no determinant length.

A spike or excitation restores to ground state in a finite region. Thats your pointlike Compton wavelength where the pointlike property becomes meaningless beyond.

Mordred, the world is not just a construction of waves?

 

And a string is cited as a spatially-extended object?

[Mordred]

Solid is the ultimate illusion sorry to tell you that

[Dubbelosix]

I agree, things like me and you only appear solid, because when objects tend to push together, electrostatic interactions push back. Gives things solidity on our level, but is really a composite system of much more complicated decohered systems owing their existence to entanglement and properties like the zeno effect in which evolution of wave functions do not happen. 

Though a misnomer, I do believe in wave particle duality, I prefer to call it, wave particle complimentarity. 

Edited December 4, 2017 by Dubbelosix

[Mordred]

Read that Hobbs paper again. It literally means there is no corpuscular (solid) property to a particle. The paper deals directly with the particle/wave duality.

I forgot to add the De-Broglie wavelength which applies to massive particles.

Edited December 4, 2017 by Mordred

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Thread split from here. Dubbelosix, please take note of the mod note I posted in that thread. 

 

[Dubbelosix]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

Read that Hobbs paper again. It literally means there is no corpuscular (solid) property to a particle. The paper deals directly with the particle/wave duality.

I forgot to add the De-Broglie wavelength which applies to massive particles.

The wave particle duality as seen in the double slit experiment shows that the particle is not always a wave, so this idea that waves is all there is means nothing to me, sorry. 

It's been suggested I am not posting mainstream science and I have contacted through the appropriate channels. Strange how I am being accused of being outside mainstream when I am posting quotes from other places which support this idea that rotation is a real property so long as there are internal degree's of freedom - by the way, I already said this had gone off topic when we started discussing ''my opinions'' on particles, yet I am shafted in the open even though I was somewhat baited into those discussions by Swansont. My original reply here stays, a nucleus can rotate and will have a rotational kinetic energy, anything that classical rotates, uses energy. 

[DeoxyRiboRobert]

To those whom it may concern, do not bother to try and tackle Dubbelosix's comments with the hopes of getting a response, as he has been banned a few hours ago.

8 hours ago, Mordred said:

Read that Hobbs paper again. It literally means there is no corpuscular (solid) property to a particle. The paper deals directly with the particle/wave duality.

I forgot to add the De-Broglie wavelength which applies to massive particles.

I was under the impression that the De-Broglie can theoretically apply to all particles regardless of their respective mass? Or are you saying that it is unlikely we'd witness any such wave-like behaviour unless the particle is massive?

See equation: y (Lambda) = h (Planck's constant) / mv (momentum), mass is a variable however there is seemingly no limit, except of course it must be greater than zero.

Edited December 4, 2017 by DeoxyRiboRobert

[Mordred]

here De-Broglie waves of matter waves.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave

Note the reference to wave particle duality

Then note the cutoff reference between the Compton and De-Brogle here

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength

In other words I should have more careful to make the distiction in the first place. However I was thinking of other questions Dubbelosix was asking on spin. So a little distracted, by his other questions

Edited December 4, 2017 by Mordred