This makes more sense to me.
Posted on 09/14/2017 11:41:53 AM PDT by BenLurkin
Abstract
The asteroid belt contains less than a thousandth of Earth's mass and is radially segregated, with S-types dominating the inner belt and C-types the outer belt. It is generally assumed that the belt formed with far more mass and was later strongly depleted.
We show that the present-day asteroid belt is consistent with having formed empty, without any planetesimals between Mars and Jupiter's present-day orbits. This is consistent with models in which drifting dust is concentrated into an isolated annulus of terrestrial planetesimals. Gravitational scattering during terrestrial planet formation causes radial spreading, transporting planetesimals from inside 1 to 1.5 astronomical units out to the belt.
Several times the total current mass in S-types is implanted, with a preference for the inner main belt. C-types are implanted from the outside, as the giant planets' gas accretion destabilizes nearby planetesimals and injects a fraction into the asteroid belt, preferentially in the outer main belt.
These implantation mechanisms are simple by-products of terrestrial and giant planet formation. The asteroid belt may thus represent a repository for planetary leftovers that accreted across the solar system but not in the belt itself.
(Excerpt) Read more at phys.org ...
The asteroid belt contains less than a thousandth of Earth’s mass...
If that is true, using the word “belt” gives the wrong impression. Unless the belt around your waste was made up of a spec of dust ever few centimeters.
“Concentrated into an isolated annulus”
This is either a story telling us that asteroids are some kind of planetary turd or else it’s porn.
This is a possible mechanistic explanation, but not a material one.
Analogous to this is the explanation for how lightning is formed. It explains the mechanism for the bolts in the sky. But even this doesn’t tell us anything about the ultimate mechanism.
And most of all, we still don’t know what energy is.
But what about Uranus? I’ll start listening when they explain about Uranus.
waste -> waist
:-)
e=mc^2
Hope this helps.
Seriously, we do know that its carrier 'particle' is the photon, one of the many bizarre entities of the quantum realm which can behave as both a particle and wave phenomenon at the same time. That is, until someone or thing? 'looks' at it. Then it becomes 'real', whatever that means.
Any rule with that cool a name must be correct.
JK
The asteroid belt formed to keep the solar system up. Without it the solar system would fall down past uranus.
One thing I’ve never understood...
How does a little fuzzy dust, and some fine random gas
turn into a rock? Doesn’t some heat and compression need
to happen? Ok... Maybe a LOT of heat... But I just
don’t see how small rocks form from dust.
That suggests (to me, anyway) that the asteroid belt is
the rubble of a shattered planet — and maybe a water
world.
It wouldn’t stun me at all to hear somebody someday
finds a fossil inside a meteorite that is of provable
non-Earth origin.
Even the belt around your waist is mostly empty space, since the distance between each atom in the leather is much greater than the width of each atom.
Whew! I thought they said racially segregated which would have brought out the SJWs in force!
It’s what’s left after the crash with Nibiru.
Aw BS. Everyone knows that it was created when Niburu hit Tiamat. Sheesh. Don’t they know anything?
but NOT at the same rime.
Not once does this pair of Denialists mention man-made carbon pollution as the cause of this asteroidal confusion.
Big Oil never sleeps!
This makes more sense to me.
Wave–particle duality is an ongoing conundrum in modern physics. Most physicists accept wave-particle duality as the best explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena; however, it is not without controversy. Alternative views are also presented here. These views are not generally accepted by mainstream physics, but serve as a basis for valuable discussion within the community.
Both-particle-and-wave view
The pilot wave model, originally developed by Louis de Broglie and further developed by David Bohm into the hidden variable theory proposes that there is no duality, but rather a system exhibits both particle properties and wave properties simultaneously, and particles are guided, in a deterministic fashion, by the pilot wave (or its “quantum potential”) which will direct them to areas of constructive interference in preference to areas of destructive interference. This idea is held by a significant minority within the physics community.[39]
At least one physicist considers the “wave-duality” as not being an incomprehensible mystery. L.E. Ballentine, Quantum Mechanics, A Modern Development, p. 4, explains:
When first discovered, particle diffraction was a source of great puzzlement. Are “particles” really “waves?” In the early experiments, the diffraction patterns were detected holistically by means of a photographic plate, which could not detect individual particles. As a result, the notion grew that particle and wave properties were mutually incompatible, or complementary, in the sense that different measurement apparatuses would be required to observe them.
That idea, however, was only an unfortunate generalization from a technological limitation. Today it is possible to detect the arrival of individual electrons, and to see the diffraction pattern emerge as a statistical pattern made up of many small spots (Tonomura et al., 1989). Evidently, quantum particles are indeed particles, but whose behaviour is very different from classical physics would have us to expect.
The Afshar experiment[40] (2007) may suggest that it is possible to simultaneously observe both wave and particle properties of photons. This claim is, however, disputed by other scientists.[41][42][43][44]
Wave-only view
At least one scientist proposes that the duality can be replaced by a “wave-only” view. In his book Collective Electrodynamics: Quantum Foundations of Electromagnetism (2000), Carver Mead purports to analyze the behavior of electrons and photons purely in terms of electron wave functions, and attributes the apparent particle-like behavior to quantization effects and eigenstates. According to reviewer David Haddon:[45]
Mead has cut the Gordian knot of quantum complementarity. He claims that atoms, with their neutrons, protons, and electrons, are not particles at all but pure waves of matter. Mead cites as the gross evidence of the exclusively wave nature of both light and matter the discovery between 1933 and 1996 of ten examples of pure wave phenomena, including the ubiquitous laser of CD players, the self-propagating electrical currents of superconductors, and the Bose–Einstein condensate of atoms.
Albert Einstein, who, in his search for a Unified Field Theory, did not accept wave-particle duality, wrote:[46]
This double nature of radiation (and of material corpuscles) ... has been interpreted by quantum-mechanics in an ingenious and amazingly successful fashion. This interpretation ... appears to me as only a temporary way out ...
The many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is sometimes presented as a waves-only theory, including by its originator, Hugh Everett who referred to MWI as “the wave interpretation”.[47]
The Three Wave Hypothesis of R. Horodecki relates the particle to wave.[48][49] The hypothesis implies that a massive particle is an intrinsically spatially as well as temporally extended wave phenomenon by a nonlinear law.
Particle-only view
Still in the days of the old quantum theory, a pre-quantum-mechanical version of wave–particle duality was pioneered by William Duane,[50] and developed by others including Alfred Landé.[51] Duane explained diffraction of x-rays by a crystal in terms solely of their particle aspect. The deflection of the trajectory of each diffracted photon was explained as due to quantized momentum transfer from the spatially regular structure of the diffracting crystal.[52]
Neither-wave-nor-particle view
It has been argued that there are never exact particles or waves, but only some compromise or intermediate between them. For this reason, in 1928 Arthur Eddington[53] coined the name “wavicle” to describe the objects although it is not regularly used today. One consideration is that zero-dimensional mathematical points cannot be observed. Another is that the formal representation of such points, the Dirac delta function is unphysical, because it cannot be normalized. Parallel arguments apply to pure wave states. Roger Penrose states:[54]
“Such ‘position states’ are idealized wavefunctions in the opposite sense from the momentum states. Whereas the momentum states are infinitely spread out, the position states are infinitely concentrated. Neither is normalizable [...].”
Relational approach to wave–particle duality
Relational quantum mechanics has been developed as a point of view that regards the event of particle detection as having established a relationship between the quantized field and the detector. The inherent ambiguity associated with applying Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is consequently avoided; hence there is no wave-particle duality.[55]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality#Alternative_views
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.