text:
Skip to content

idea pity, that now can not express..

9 thoughts on “ Food - 24 Ideas - Discografia Completa (Vinyl, LP)

  1. Explore releases from The J.B.'s at Discogs. Shop for Vinyl, CDs and more from The J.B.'s at the Discogs Marketplace.
  2. Montmany 25 Barcelona Spain Telf: Sites:, Bandcamp, Facebook, YouTube,,
  3. Originally FUTURE DAYS consisted of three tracks on side one of the vinyl LP; the title track, "Spray" and "Moonshake" with the second dedicated to the side long magnanimity of "Bel Air" which just shy of the 20 minute mark resulted in one of CAN's most memorable and well-crafted tunes of its entire career.
  4. Magma biography Founded in Paris, France in - Disbanded in - Reformed in MAGMA is a progressive group led by drummer/composer/vocalist Christian VANDER that has been active in the 'classic period' and in the 21th century. The music of MAGMA is often categorized as 'Zeuhl' (which means 'celestical' of 'heavenly' in Kobaïan, MAGMA's own language).
  5. Anzichè acquistareil solito LP, ho preso la stampa Japan del greatest Hits in Hi-res. Suona molto bene. Probabilmente il master era già fatto piuttosto bene di suo per cui la ristampa è stata ben curata. tutti i suoni sono piuttosto ben calibrati, la diinamica non è eccezionale, ma si apprezza data l'età di stampa/5().
  6. In Mexico, a limited edition CD was released as part of the Serie Millennium re-issues with a different picture sleeve. In , The Joshua Tree CD was re-issued with the clear band photo that appeared on the original vinyl LP rather than the blurred picture on the initial CD release.
  7. Oct 30,  · Vinyl share The band's tenth studio album, All That You Can't leave Behind was released on October 30th and following the less than overwhelming response to 's POP (and that was just from the band) it was instantly judged a triumphant return to form.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Content-Type: application/http; msgtype=response

WARC-Identified-Payload-Type: text/html

WARC-Type: response

text:
serving breckenridge, keystone, vail & beyond!

Breckenridge Floral & Event Design

Who: Jessi + Brandon

When: September 16th

Where: Lodge at Breckenridge

Decor Details: Bridal Bouquet, Bridesmaids Bouquets, Arch, Aisle Decor, Welcome Sign Flowers, Centerpieces, Cake Flowers, Mantle Flowers

Flower Spotlight: Quicksand Roses, Spray Roses, Burgundy Astilbe, Black Beauty Roses, White Dahlias, Viburnum Berries, Baby Eucalyptus, Smilax, Seeded Eucalyptus, Gunni, Italian Ruscus, Agonis

Photographer: Danna Frost Photography

Jessi + Brandon {Lodge at Breckenridge}

warcinfo:
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2020-50
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for November/December 2020
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-4.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.17 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/


text:
Tag Archives: George Zimmerman

Philadelphia Urban League, Sabrina Fulton and Stand Your Ground

Sabrina Fulton, mother of Travon Martin, spoke at the Urban League’s annual conference in Philadelphia on Friday July 26, 2013.  Ms. Fulton, during her speech criticized Florida’s “stand your ground” law. Blaming that law on George Zimmerman’s acquittal in the … Continue reading

Posted in Democrats, Gun, Gun Control, LIberal Agenda, Liberal Media, Media, National Politics, Politics, Race Relations, Stand Your Ground | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Eric Holder and The Liberal Agenda

I have been hearing a lot of noise from the Left about the George Zimmerman case and “Stand Your Ground” laws. The left along with their willing accomplices in the media are changing the narrative about the Zimmerman trial. George … Continue reading

Image | Posted on by | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

George Zimmerman Trial

So far this trial seems to be in favor of the defense. Most of the evidence so far has been corroborated by both prosecution and defense witnesses. George Zimmerman’s statements to police after the incident with Travon Martin has been … Continue reading

Posted in Liberal Media, Media, Media Bias, National Politics, Politics, Race Relations | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments


text:
New products just arrived

Birzman Maha Apogee IV Floor Pump, Green

Free Shipping!

Maha Apogee pumps feature the Snap-It Apogee pump head for easy attachment to a presta valve, and won't unthread your valve core. They are angled 5 degrees toward the user for comfortable use.

  • Base is highly durable polymer
  • Handle is tapered and varnished wood
  • CNC machined and stiff pump barrel for smooth action and long lasting performance
  • Snap-It Apogee valve quickly and gently engages presta valves preventing damage to valve core or valve extenders
  • Right angled valve fits into tight spaces


text:
Hamilton Captel 2400i Captioned Telephone Review

Mobile phones are the most basic devices we use to communicate with others over long distances. However, for people with hearing impairment it is difficult to use normal phones for communication. Elderly people also struggle to communicate using normal phones.

Check it on Amazon

Most of them are either hearing impaired or have poor vision. Finding a good phone for seniors to use is hard. Most phones claim to offer help but in the end, they are a disappointment. Certainly, no phone is perfect but at least a phone made for an elderly person must meet certain conditions.

For example, the sound of a phone made for an elderly person must be excellent for them to stand a chance to hear their callers. The phone also must be easy enough to use for such a group of people. Thanks to technology, elderly people now have phones made specifically for them and they actually deliver!

One of such phones is the Hamilton Captel 2400i Captioned Telephone. It is not the only captioned telephone available but it is one of the best because of how it works. Here is its full review answering questions you may have.

How is the Sound?

One of the key things on a phone for the hearing-impaired seniors is its sound. On this Hamilton Captel 2400i, the sound is excellent. Most customers who bought this phone for their hearing-impaired parents reported that they did not need to adjust anything for their parents to hear them well.

The sound is almost perfect out of the box. Most people will actually not need the captions because the sound is good enough. The ringing volume is loud. There is nothing to complain about it.

One drawback about the sound of this Hamilton Captel 2400i is that you get some echoes when you talk to a caller. The echoes are not so bad but they are there. The callers can still hear you well. Anyway, this captioned telephone does better than most other captioned phones.

How are the Captions?

The captions are the main feature on this phone. The caption screen is 10 inches wide. A good size for a display dedicated to seniors. There is nothing to worry about the brightness and clarity of this phone. Only a blind person will not see the captions on this screen.

Most people with vision impairment will find this screen very comfortable to use. The captions are written in a huge font just as you would expect on this type of a phone. The captions show up pretty fast when the caller is talking and the accuracy is impressive.

Of course, the captions depend on the internet speed in your house. You can save the captions to read them at a later time. An awesome feature if you want to get clarification from a previous conversation.

How easy is it to Use this Captioned Telephone?

Setting up this Hamilton Captioned Telephone is in between easy and hard. Some elderly people will struggle if they are to set it up on their own. But for any ordinary person with a little of tech knowledge, setting up this phone is easy.

Setting it up is just a matter of knowing where to fix which cable. If something does not work, quickly read instructions in the manual and sort it out. For serious issues beyond the basic setup procedure, customer care agents will assist you. It is rare though for setting up to go to such extents.

The caption screen is touch-sensitive. Navigating on it is simple and as easy as navigating on a phone can get. However, some seniors may struggle a bit with the touch screen. Certainly, nothing big can go wrong on the screen.

The buttons on this Captioned phone are big and decently spaced. Just by looking at them, you can tell this phone is suitable for an elderly person. Most functions can be accessed directly from the buttons without much scrolling through the menu. A significant feature for a phone made for seniors.

From hundreds of reviews written by people who bought this telephone, there is no major complain about the ease of use. A cordless phone such as Clarity XLC 3.4 has hundreds of complaints about its ease of use. It is a struggle even for some tech savvy youngsters.

How much does this Hamilton Captel 2400i Cost?

Now that you know this is a telephone worth buying, the big question is how much will it cost. This telephone retails at varying prices depending on where you buy it. However, expect to pay no more than $100 for a brand new unit.

If you get any seller selling this phone for anything less than $100, grab it for that may be the best price you will ever get for this telephone. Anyway, whatever amount you spend on this phone, it is money you will always appreciate having spent to buy this captioned telephone.

The captioning service is free. FCC will pay for it once you register your new handset with them. There are no hidden charges. Help an elderly person communicate with ease as soon as you can. Buy this phone for your old parents, aunt, uncle and whichever elderly person you know. It is one of the best gifts you can offer them.

What else do I need to Know about this phone?

You must have internet access for you to use this Hamilton captel captioned telephone. The captions are displayed on your screen only if you have internet access. If the internet access is slow, the captioning will also be slow.

You can only use this phone after you have registered it with FCC. This is common sense. Help your senior relatives to register this phone with FCC. You can do it online or through a phone call.

There are no other issues to worry about this captioned Hamilton Captel 2400i. If you have about $100 go right ahead and buy this telephone. Click here to buy it from Amazon.


text:
I have seen many camera review sites illustrate the effect of using different focal lengths on the same photograph using frames. There are also similar illustrations to compare different sensors (full frame vs APS-H vs APS-C vs micro 4/3). I find this kind of visualization to be very useful in comparing the actual effect of the longer focal length\different sensor size. Of course the ability to do a wider focal length visualization would also be equally useful, but that's not possible.

Is there any ready-made software or plugin that enables this? If not, is there any simple technique to visualize the effect of longer focal lengths on an image (one would of course have to use the zoom information in the image EXIF data to accurately represent this)? All I can think of is to use some trigonometry to do the necessary calculations for the frame sizes for cropping.

If using GIMP (and probably any other image editing software), then you could use the selection tool and set the size of the crop frame to a required size and aspect ratio. This way, you can see the relative sensor size superimposed on your image while letting you panning it around.

Note that this technique is good only for smaller-than-the-actual sensor sizes, unless you "cheat" by stating the original was shot with a bigger sensor than actual.

UPDATE: Unfortunately, using GIMP, you cannot simply set the ratio of the size if the selection box to match the crop factor (or focal lengths ratio). As @Stan Rogers commented, you'll have to set the size in pixels based on the simple focal length ratio. Then you can move the selection box to the desired location and if you like, add a rectangular frame to the image itself, so you can compare several selection sizes.

In order to add the rectangle, use the "Edit" -> "Stroke Selection..." dialog. The default settings will stroke a solid rectangle on your image.

| improve this answer | |
  • The question in this case is how do I determine the required size to crop the image? Say, I have an image taken at 18mm and I want to visualize the 50, 100 & 200 mm crops, then what should I be doing? – ab.aditya Feb 22 '11 at 8:41
  • 5
    For 50mm, the crop dimensions would be (18/50)*x, where x is the width or the height of the image in pixels. – user2719 Feb 22 '11 at 8:58
  • To the anonymous reader - I just noticed that there is one downvote on this answer. I don't really care about the vote itself, but PLEASE, can you tell WHY do you think there is a problem with the answer? This is generally true for all downvoters out there. To the benefit of the community, please try to explain your vote, and give the poster a chance to correct his potential mistakes. – ysap Feb 23 '11 at 2:52

Nikon has a simulator of lenses. Try it here. It supports up to 600mm

UPD: As John Cavan noticed (thanks to him):

Bear in mind that the Nikon DX format (APS-C) is actually a little larger than the Canon APS-C format. Not a huge difference, but it's there.

| improve this answer | |
  • 2
    Bear in mind that the Nikon DX format (APS-C) is actually a little larger than the Canon APS-C format. Not a huge difference, but it's there. Nevertheless, I've always thought Nikon's utility is pretty handy and good relative comparison. – John Cavan Mar 31 '11 at 2:23
  • Nikon's APS-C (DX) has 1.5x factor, Canon's is 1.6x. It's different but almost unnoticeable – t3mujin Mar 31 '11 at 17:54
  • Canon also has 1.3x crop sensors used in 1D. – Imre Apr 1 '11 at 17:54

You don't actually need trigonometry — just basic arithmetic. The zoomed-in focal length gives a field of view as if you'd cropped the image by the ratio of the old focal length over the new: that is, if you have an image taken at 50mm, you can see the field of view of a 75mm lens simply by cropping by ⁵⁰⁄₇₅ths — which is ⅔.

This simple relationship is why the "crop factor" (sometimes, unfortunately, called "focal length multiplier") works. If your sensor is ⅔ the width of a full-frame sensor, that's cropping by a factor of 1.5 (the inverse of ⅔). So, you get the field of view of a lens with 1.5× the focal length on full frame — a 50mm lens on APS-C gives you the same field of view as a 75mm lens on full frame.

To put some numbers to it: if your 50mm-focal-length starting point is a 6-megapixel 3000×2000 image, cropping it to 2000×1333 will give you the field of view of a 75mm lens: in pixels, 3000 × 50 ÷ 75 horizontally, and 2000 × 50 ÷ 75 vertically. (A tangent, if you pardon the trig pun: You'll notice that this is quite a big hit in resolution — you loose a number of pixels equal to the crop factor — the ratio between focal lengths — squared. This is why optical zoom is usually preferable to "digital zoom", which is just cropping. And, generally, smaller sensors cram more pixels into the smaller sensor in order to compensate for the crop, which, depending on the level of technology used works to some degree. But that's a whole different discussion.)

You can use simple (non-trig) geometry to demonstrate this.

You'll need a ruler with millimeter markings, and a blank sheet of paper. I could make some graphics showing all this, but I really strongly believe that it's an exercise which works better if you actually go through it in on actual physical paper. So, if you will humor me and work along....

  1. Along the very bottom edge of the paper, centered in the middle, draw a horizontal line 24mm long. This represents an APS-C sensor.

  2. Measure 50mm up from the very center of that line, and put a dot. This represents the gathering of light within an idealized 50mm lens. (Imagine it as a pinhole camera, if you like.)

  3. Now, draw a line from the left edge of the sensor through the "lens" dot, and continue up through to the top of the paper. Do the same from the right edge, giving you an X shape with the lens point at the center of the X. The top cone of the X represents the horizontal field of view of a 50mm lens on your APS-C sensor.

  4. You can measure the angle with a protractor, if you happen to have one — it should be about 27°. And you can measure the horizontal field of view in millimeters a given distance away from your "camera", by measuring across the cone at the top of the X. (At 10cm away from the idealized lens dot, it should be about 4.8cm.)

  5. Now, measure up 75mm from the middle of your "sensor" line and put another dot, representing an idealized 75mm lens.

  6. Draw an X from the sensor edges through this dot as well. If you measure this angle, it should be about 18.2 degrees, and again, 10cm up from the lens dot, if you measure across, it should be about 3.2cm.

  7. And hey presto: 4.8mm × ⁵⁰⁄₇₅ = 3.2mm. (Of course, your lines are not at the exact same distance from the sensor itself, since you're measuring from the dot representing the lens in order to get the math to come out so nicely. But here we're working with unusually close focusing distances — when you're talking about a subject at normal distances the difference is negligible.)

  8. So anyway, you can then extend your sensor to be 36mm across instead of 24mm — changing it from APS-C to full-frame. Now, draw lines from that new larger sensor through the existing 75mm "lens" point.

  9. Even without measuring, you should be able to see that the angle of view with the larger sensor through the 75mm lens is the same as that with the smaller sensor through the 50mm lens. So there's the "crop factor" equivalence right in front of you. Cool, huh?

Note that this only covers angle of view. Perspective won't change, because you're standing in the same place, but depth of field (and the distribution of the depth of field) will. And of course actual real-world different lenses will have different properties (like distortion) which aren't modeled by this.

But in terms of field of view, that's all there is to it. Nothing beyond middle-school math required.

| improve this answer | |
  • don't you mean "focal point" instead of "aperture"? – ysap Feb 23 '11 at 1:33
  • @ysap: it has been a ridiculously long time since I studied optics in, um, high school. But I think that a photographic lens doesn't properly have a focal point but rather a focal plane — at the image sensor. The point I'm talking about is (as I look this up quickly) a "nodal point". For the purpose of the simple drawing, I'm imagining a pinhole camera, where the "lens" actually is an aperture. – mattdm Feb 23 '11 at 1:51
  • @ysap: I've removed "aperture", since that could be misleading. Open to more suggestions on making it better. Thanks. – mattdm Feb 23 '11 at 1:58

Photo.net have a review of the Tamron SP AF200-500MM F/5-6.3 Di LD (IF) which handily covers the zoom range you discuss. Sample images are reproduced below available by following the link.

| improve this answer | |
  • How are these images licensed? – Evan Krall Mar 30 '11 at 5:05
  • you'd have to contact photo.net. I assume they made them, so they own the copyright on them. – jwenting Mar 30 '11 at 6:05
  • It says "© Copyright 2004 Bob Atkins (www.bobatkins.com)" under the review – Imre Mar 30 '11 at 6:06
  • Does this mean they need to be removed? Sorry, I'm not familiar with the photo.se policy on such things. – fmark Mar 30 '11 at 6:52
  • The "Legal" page says: "You agree that all Subscriber Content that You contribute to the Network will be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license." Since you don't have the copyrights for images, you may not give out licenses for them. As I understand, you should either ask Bob Atkins to grant the license, upload your own images, or remove the images and be satisfied with the link to photo.net review. – Imre Mar 30 '11 at 7:36

This wont be an accurate visualization as it only crops the image. It doesn't show the perspective difference between lenses (WA distortion, image compression,...). I don't think any consumer software could do that. Maybe NASA has something.

| improve this answer | |
  • 4
    "Telephoto compression" is merely a function of subject distance, not something that is inherent in the lens. As such, cropping will work as-is, out of the box. The corner stretching of rectilinear wide-angles is a lens effect, but should not be an issue for this application. – Staale S Feb 22 '11 at 17:28
  • There are plenty of consumer programs that can counteract or create wide-angle distortion. – Evan Krall Feb 23 '11 at 4:52
  • 1
    I think not. Take your favorite zoom lens. Take a shot of someone at it's widest setting, then zoom out and move so that the person fills the frame the same as they did on the previous shot. Is it the same photo? Not hardly. This is the perspective difference that mearly cropping a photo doesn't achieve. – Al Graham Feb 23 '11 at 15:51
  • Upon thinking on this a bit more, I suspect we're comparing apples and oranges. I'm talking about taking the same shot of a subject at different focal lengths, whereas you seem to be talking about zooming in on a subject (not the same shot). – Al Graham Feb 23 '11 at 16:06
  • 1
    @Al Graham - Perspective is controlled by one, and only one factor. This is the geometrical relationship between the photographer and the scene. In simple terms, it is all about where the camera is positioned in the scene (I suspect you know and agree with that from your 2nd comment). Any difference in the image of an object taken with different focal lengths is purely due to different lens distortion at the different lengths. In your 1st comment, you emphasized the "fills the frame" for the 2nd shot. You may want to emphasize that for the 1st shot too. – ysap Feb 24 '11 at 8:12

Tamron has made a focal length comparision page.

Or, you can crop your own images made with a shorter focal length to see how a picture made with a longer lens would look like. You should crop both height and width by the multiplier the other focal length is longer. For example, in order to preview how a picture made with 500mm would look like, you have to divide width and height of an image taken with 200mm by 500/200=2.5 and crop an area with calculated dimensions, preferrably from center of the original image to avoid "shift lens" effect. The resulting image shows you the field of view the 500mm would have. In a cropped image, the effective f-number is also multiplied the crop factor, so if you started with an image taken at 200mm f/4, depth of field in the preview will be similar to 500mm f/10.

| improve this answer | |
  • Minolta used to include such a thing in their lens catalogue. A single photo taken at each focal length between their smallest and largest lens, from the same position and in the same light. – jwenting Mar 30 '11 at 6:06
  • I remember that, going back to the '70s. Mount Rushmore was what they used then, starting with a circular fisheye that sort of let you know you were in a park of some sort with a bit of a hill at the end of a path, and ending with the 1600mm f/16 reflex lens looking at a part of Teddy Roosevelt's eyeglass frame. It really put things in perspective. – user2719 Mar 31 '11 at 21:14

Canon also has a visualization tool - http://www.usa.canon.com/app/html/EFLenses101/focal_length.html. This one is a step visualization tool unlike the continuous ones provided by Nikon & Tamron. It covers a longer range (15-1200mm) than the other two though, while Nikon has support for different body & lens types.

| improve this answer | |
  • I compared the angles with Nikon's tool mentioned by @Genius; it seems that Canon's comparison is based on full frame. – Imre Apr 1 '11 at 17:51

For a quick and dirty approach, back in the film days, you could hold an empty slide mount at the focal length from your eye.

Since a lot of fixed lens cameras quote focal length as the 35mm equivalent, that should still work today.

If you can't find a slide mount, you can always cut a 24 x 36mm hole out of a piece of card - or whatever size your sensor is (if working with a lens that quotes the actual focal length - or a suitable scaled 24x36 hole if working with 35mm equivalent focal lengths and a sensor with a different aspect ratio.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.


text:
Quantum physics is cargo cult science

Ethan Siegel wrote a blog post this week called This Is Why Quantum Field Theory Is More Fundamental Than Quantum Mechanics. I read it and sighed, because so much of it is misleading. This sort of thing has been in the air recently, because Lee Smolin gave a lecture on Einstein’s unfinished revolution. Smolin said quantum mechanics was incomplete, then doubled down and said it was wrong. I think he’s right, only more than he knows. So I thought I’d use Siegel’s post to show just how wrong quantum mechanics is, and quantum field theory. I’ll go through it step by step, giving his text in blue. He starts with a gif depicting virtual particles popping in and out of existence. Note the caption:

Visualization of a quantum field theory calculation showing virtual particles in the quantum vacuum. (Specifically, for the strong interactions.) Even in empty space, this vacuum energy is non-zero. As particle-antiparticle pairs pop in-and-out of existence, they can interact with real particles like the electron, providing corrections to its self-energy that are vitally important. On Quantum Field Theory offers the ability to calculate properties like this. (DEREK LEINWEBER)

The trouble with this is that virtual particles are not short-lived real particles. They are virtual. As in not real. They aren’t the same thing as vacuum fluctuations. The electron is not some point-particle with an infinite self-energy that’s corrected by particle-antiparticle pairs popping in and out of existence. Renormalization is a kludge. It was needed because Heisenberg and Pauli adopted Frenkel’s point-particle electron instead of Schrödinger’s wave in a closed path. Because Schrödinger was the enemy. Anyway, Siegel starts proper with something about what’s truly fundamental:

If you wanted to answer the question of what’s truly fundamental in this Universe, you’d need to investigate matter and energy on the smallest possible scales. If you attempted to split particles apart into smaller and smaller constituents, you’d start to notice some extremely funny things once you went smaller than distances of a few nanometers, where the classical rules of physics still apply.

No, you don’t start to notice some funny things. Especially since the electron’s field is what it is, so the electron isn’t actually small. Nor is the photon. It takes many paths just like a seismic wave takes many paths. Siegel carries on by saying reality becomes strange and counter-intuitive:

On even smaller scales, reality starts behaving in strange, counterintuitive ways. We can no longer describe reality as being made of individual particles with well-defined properties like position and momentum.

However it isn’t strange or counter-intuitive when you appreciate that particles are waves. They aren’t billiard balls. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems”, and “arises in quantum mechanics simply due to the matter wave nature of all quantum objects”. Next comes the quantum realm:

Instead, we enter the realm of the quantum: where fundamental indeterminism rules, and we need an entirely new description of how nature works. But even quantum mechanics itself has its failures here. They doomed Einstein’s greatest dream — of a complete, deterministic description of reality – right from the start. Here’s why.

No, they didn’t doom Einstein’s greatest dream of a complete, deterministic description of reality right from the start. Like Lee Smolin said, the Copenhagen school were anti-realists. They rejected all attempts to understand or describe what was really going on in subatomic physics. For example, they rejected electron spin, despite the evidence of electron and positrons tracing opposite curves in a magnetic field. Despite the evidence of the Stern-Gerlach effect. Despite Schrödinger. They won the day, they doomed Einstein’s dream, and here we are to this day. Moving on:

If we lived in an entirely classical, non-quantum Universe, making sense of things would be easy. As we divided matter into smaller and smaller chunks, we would never reach a limit. There would be no fundamental, indivisible building blocks of the Universe. Instead, our cosmos would be made of continuous material, where if we build a proverbial sharper knife, we’d always be able to cut something into smaller and smaller chunks.

That’s what we can do. Our cosmos is made of a continuous material called space, and like Einstein said, the contrast between space and matter would fade away. Space is not made out of chunks. A photon is a wave in space, and it doesn’t approach you in steps.

That dream went the way of the dinosaurs in the early 20th century. Experiments by Planck, Einstein, Rutherford and others showed that matter and energy could not be made of a continuous substance, but rather was divisible into discrete chunks, known as quanta today. The original idea of quantum theory had too much experimental support: the Universe was not fundamentally classical after all.

That’s wrong. Planck came up with the quantum nature of light. His constant of action is the h in photon energy E = hc/λ. It doesn’t mean light is made of discrete chunks. A photon has a wavelength, and it can have any energy you like. See Leonard Susskind talking about Planck’s constant in demystifying the Higgs boson. At 2 minutes 50 seconds he rolls his whiteboard marker round saying angular momentum is quantized. Think like this: ”roll your marker round fast or slow, but roll it round the same circumference, because Planck’s constant of action h is common to all photons regardless of wavelength”. The dimensionality of action can be expressed as momentum times distance. It’s like all photons have the same amplitude, that’s all. Take a look at some pictures of the electromagnetic spectrum. Note how the wave height is always the same regardless of wavelength. That’s Planck’s constant, hiding in plain sight. What’s next?

For perhaps the first three decades of the 20th century, physicists struggled to develop and understand the nature of the Universe on these small, puzzling scales. New rules were needed, and to describe them, new and counterintuitive equations and descriptions. The idea of an objective reality went out the window, replaced with notions like: probability distributions rather than predictable outcomes, wavefunctions rather than positions and momenta, Heisenberg uncertainty relations rather than individual properties.

Yes, reality went out of the window, because people like Niels Bohr willfully rejected any attempt to describe what a photon was, how pair production worked, and what an electron was. The wave nature of light and matter somehow morphed into some kind of probability wave for point-particles. It still thought of in such terms today, 8 years after work by the Lundeen lab that showed that wavefunction was real.

The particles describing reality could no longer be described solely as particle-like. Instead, they had elements of both waves and particles, and behaved according to a novel set of rules.

Not true. Pascual Jordan solved the issue of wave-particle duality in 1925. Particles are waves. That’s why we can diffract photons, electrons, neutrons, and other particles. See Pascual Jordan’s resolution of the conundrum of the wave-particle duality of light by Anthony Duncan and Michel Janssen dating from 2007. Read up on the double slit experiment. There’s no mystery to it once you know that detection involves something akin to a Fourier transform.

Initially, these descriptions troubled physicists a great deal. These troubles didn’t simply arise because of the philosophical difficulties associated with accepting a non-deterministic Universe or an altered definition of reality, although certainly many were bothered by those aspects.

They didn’t trouble physicists for long. The matter was settled by 1925. But in 1926 Heisenberg and Pauli adopted Frenkel’s point-particle electron, and it was downhill all the way after that.

Instead, the difficulties were more robust. The theory of special relativity was well-understood, and yet quantum mechanics, as originally developed, only worked for non-relativistic systems. By transforming quantities such as position and momentum from physical properties into quantum mechanical operators — a specific class of mathematical function – these bizarre aspects of reality could be incorporated into our equations.

There’s nothing bizarre about waves. What’s bizarre is turning your back on understanding and forgetting that the Schrödinger equation is a wave equation. Siegel then gives a gif of a particle in a box. The particle looks like a red billiard ball. That’s the wrong picture. Because the particle is a wave. Standing wave, standing field:

Trajectories of a particle in a box (also called an infinite square well) in classical mechanics (A) and quantum mechanics (B-F). In (A), the particle moves at constant velocity, bouncing back and forth. In (B-F), wavefunction solutions to the Time-Dependent Schrodinger Equation are shown for the same geometry and potential. The horizontal axis is position, the vertical axis is the real part (blue) or imaginary part (red) of the wavefunction. (B,C,D) are stationary states (energy eigenstates), which come from solutions to the Time-Independent Schrodinger Equation. (E,F) are non-stationary states, solutions to the Time-Dependent Schrodinger equation. Note that these solutions are not invariant under relativistic transformations; they are only valid in one particular frame of reference. (STEVE BYRNES / SBYRNES321 OF WIKIMEDIA COMMONS)

Then we have a little rewriting of history. Siegel suggests quantum mechanics faced some kind of existential threat because it wasn’t initially relativistic. That really wasn’t a big deal. I know this, because I’ve investigated the history of quantum mechanics, and the nature of time:

But the way you allowed your system to evolve depended on time, and the notion of time is different for different observers. This was the first existential crisis to face quantum physics.

It wasn’t an existential crisis, special relativity is straightforward. The real existential crisis was the problem of infinities. Again, that occurred because Heisenberg and Pauli were determined to adopt Frenkel’s point-particle electron instead of Schrödinger’s wave in a closed path. Because Schrödinger was the enemy. What’s next?

We say that a theory is relativistically invariant if its laws don’t change for different observers: for two people moving at different speeds or in different directions. Formulating a relativistically invariant version of quantum mechanics was a challenge that took the greatest minds in physics many years to overcome, and was finally achieved by Paul Dirac in the late 1920s.

Greatest minds in physics? Have you ever actually read any of Dirac’s papers? They are absolutely awful. In Dirac’s beautiful mathematical world, light doesn’t interact with light, light moving in a straight line is stationary, stationary waves have no energy, and there’s an infinite number of non-existent zero-state photons waiting to jump into existence. Sadly all of this nonsense sidelined Charles Galton Darwin’s 1927 paper on the electron as a vector wave. Siegel then gives some hyperbole on the Dirac equation:

The result of his efforts yielded what’s now known as the Dirac equation, which describes realistic particles like the electron, and also accounts for: antimatter, intrinsic angular momentum (a.k.a., spin), magnetic moments, the fine structure properties of matter, and the behavior of charged particles in the presence of electric and magnetic fields.

The Dirac equation explains nothing. Dirac really didn’t have a clue what an electron was. He still though of it as a point-particle in 1938, and in 1962 he thought it was a charged shell. In 1930 he came up with a theory of electrons and protons. That’s where space consists of an infinite number of negative-energy electrons per unit volume, some of which have infinite negative energy. All these negative-energy electrons are of course completely unobservable, just like the angels on the head of the pin. As for antimatter, Graham Farmelo talked about that in his 2010 article did Dirac predict the positron? He says Dirac’s “close friend Patrick Blackett, one of the leading players in the story’s denouement, denied it”. And that “very few physicists took Dirac’s hole theory seriously”. He also says “Victor Weisskopf later recalled the idea ‘seemed incredible and unnatural to everybody’”.

This was a great leap forward, and the Dirac equation did an excellent job of describing many of the earliest known fundamental particles, including the electron, positron, muon, and even (to some extent) the proton, neutron, and neutrino.

The Dirac equation doesn’t describe the electron at all. Or any other particle. If you beg to differ, describe the electron to me. And it definitely doesn’t apply to the neutron. Or to photons. But to his credit, Siegel includes a picture with a caption that says the Dirac equation doesn’t describe photon-photon interactions. If you don’t describe the photon, or the photon-photon interaction that creates the electron and the positron, you have no foundations. Especially when you don’t describe the electron either.

A Universe where electrons and protons are free and collide with photons transitions to a neutral one that’s transparent to photons as the Universe expands and cools. Shown here is the ionized plasma (L) before the CMB is emitted, followed by the transition to a neutral Universe (R) that’s transparent to photons. The scattering between electrons and electrons, as well as electrons and photons, can be well-described by the Dirac equation, but photon-photon interactions, which occur in reality, are not. (AMANDA YOHO)

Also to his credit, Siegel says in his own text that the Dirac equation doesn’t describe the photon or the photon-photon interaction:

But it couldn’t account for everything. Photons, for instance, couldn’t be fully described by the Dirac equation, as they had the wrong particle properties. Electron-electron interactions were well-described, but photon-photon interactions were not. Explaining phenomena like radioactive decay were entirely impossible within even Dirac’s framework of relativistic quantum mechanics. Even with this enormous advance, a major component of the story was missing.

The above is a paragraph I agree with. But I will say this: a major component of the story is still missing. Even to this day, quantum electrodynamics doesn’t describe the photon, or pair production, or the electron. Even to this day,  there’s a hole in the heart of quantum electrodynamics. How does a photon interact with another photon? By exchanging photons? No. How does it interact with itself and stay tied up as an electron? By exchanging photons? No.

The big problem was that quantum mechanics, even relativistic quantum mechanics, wasn’t quantum enough to describe everything in our Universe.

That isn’t the big problem. The big problem is that quantum mechanics wasn’t quantum enough to describe anything in our universe. Siegel then gives a picture that talks about a point particle and an electric field:

If you have a point charge and a metal conductor nearby, it’s an exercise in classical physics alone to calculate the electric field and its strength at every point in space. In quantum mechanics, we discuss how particles respond to that electric field, but the field itself is not quantized as well. This seems to be the biggest flaw in the formulation of quantum mechanics. (J. BELCHER AT MIT)

That’s misleading, because the electron is not a point particle. Its field is what it is. And that field is the electromagnetic field. Siegel then talks about classical electromagnetism:

Think about what happens if you put two electrons close to one another. If you’re thinking classically, you’ll think of these electrons as each generating an electric field, and also a magnetic field if they’re in motion. Then the other electron, seeing the field(s) generated by the first one, will experience a force as it interacts with the external field. This works both ways, and in this way, a force is exchanged.

You know, sometimes it feels like Maxwell was never born. No Ethan, the electron is an electromagnetic field construct. It isn’t some point-particle that generates an electric field. And no, if you’re thinking classically you’ll think of each electron as being a dynamical “spinor”, a double-wrapped electromagnetic wave in a spin ½ Möbius configuration with no apparent phase, so it looks like a standing electromagnetic field. Only it isn’t really standing, it’s more like an optical vortex, and two co-rotating vortices move around one another and away from one another.

This would work just as well for an electric field as it would for any other type of field: like a gravitational field. Electrons have mass as well as charge, so if you place them in a gravitational field, they’d respond based on their mass the same way their electric charge would compel them to respond to an electric field.

This is wrong because the massless photon responds to a gravitational field. And because the electron is an electromagnetic field construct – it doesn’t actually have an electric field, so electric charge is actually a misnomer.

Even in General Relativity, where mass and energy curve space, that curved space is continuous, just like any other field.

General relativity is not a theory where mass and energy curve space. Does nobody know how gravity works? Has nobody read Einstein’s Leyden Address? A concentration of energy, usually in the guise of a massive star, “conditions” the surrounding space, making it “neither homogeneous nor isotropic”. A gravitational field is inhomogeneous space where light curves because the speed of light is spatially variable”. The inhomogeneity is non-linear, hence spacetime curvature. The electromagnetic field is curved space – see what Percy Hammond said in the 1999 Compumag: “We conclude that the field describes the curvature that characterizes the electromagnetic interaction. Siegel then gives a picture where the caption gets gravitational blueshift wrong. Electron-positron annihilation at a lower elevation results in lower-energy photons, because of the mass deficit. If you include the kinetic energy of a falling electron-positron pair the photon energy is the same due to conservation of energy.

If two objects of matter and antimatter at rest annihilate, they produce photons of an extremely specific energy. If they produce those photons after falling deeper into a region of gravitational curvature, the energy should be higher. This means there must be some sort of gravitational redshift/blueshift, the kind not predicted by Newton’s gravity, otherwise energy wouldn’t be conserved. In General Relativity, the field carries energy away in waves: gravitational radiation. But, at a quantum level, we strongly suspect that just as electromagnetic waves are made up of quanta (photons), gravitational waves should be made up of quanta (gravitons) as well. This is one reason why General Relativity is incomplete. (RAY SHAPP / MIKE LUCIUK; MODIFIED BY E. SIEGEL)

This error is then used as some kind of justification for quantum gravity. For anybody out there working on quantum gravity, I recommend this course of action: understand gravity first, then electromagnetism, and then start working on something other than quantum gravity. Siegel carries on:

The problem with this type of formulation is that the fields are on the same footing as position and momentum are under a classical treatment. Fields push on particles located at certain positions and change their momenta. But in a Universe where positions and momenta are uncertain, and need to be treated like operators rather than a physical quantity with a value, we’re short-changing ourselves by allowing our treatment of fields to remain classical.

This is wrong too. The electron doesn’t move because some field is pushing on it. It falls down in a gravitational field because it’s like light going round a closed path, and the horizontal component curves downwards because of the gradient in the speed of light. It goes round and round in circles in a uniform magnetic field because it’s a dynamical “spinor” undergoing precession in what is effectively a rotor field. Siegel then gives a picture with a caption that says we expect GR’s successor will contain space that is quantized. Somebody just doesn’t understand gravity.

The fabric of spacetime, illustrated, with ripples and deformations due to mass. A new theory must be more than identical to General Relativity; it must make novel, distinct predictions. As General Relativity offers only a classical, non-quantum description of space, we fully expect that its eventual successor will contain space that is quantized as well, although this space could be either discrete or continuous.

Siegel then talks up second quantization, claiming it was some great advance. Does anybody seriously think that introducing creation and annihilation operators was some kind of substitute for actually understanding what actually happens in pair production and annihilation? I’m afraid the answer is yes. Siegel says this:

That was the big advance of the idea of quantum field theory, or its related theoretical advance: second quantization. If we treat the field itself as being quantum, it also becomes a quantum mechanical operator. All of a sudden, processes that weren’t predicted (but are observed) in the Universe, like: matter creation and annihilation, radioactive decays, quantum tunneling to create electron-positron pairs, and quantum corrections to the electron magnetic moment, all made sense.

It’s Emperor’s New Clothes. Matter is created when photons interact with photons and thence themselves to form fermion pairs of opposite chirality. Annihilation is the reverse process. Pair production is nothing to do with quantum tunnelling. Beta decay only makes sense if you understand the neutron, and know that electron capture does what it says on the tin. Then you pay attention to what James Chadwick said in 1933: “the electric field between a neutron and a nucleus is small except at distances of the order of 10-12 cm”. As for quantum corrections to the electron magnetic moment, they were a retrofit to match the observed value. Siegel then gives a picture of Feynman diagrams with a caption that says “The major way this framework differs from quantum mechanics is not merely the particles, but also the fields are quantized”. Somebody doesn’t know that the electron’s field is what it is. The foundations just aren’t there.

Today, Feynman diagrams are used in calculating every fundamental interaction spanning the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces, including in high-energy and low-temperature/condensed conditions. The major way this framework differs from quantum mechanics is that not merely the particles, but also the fields are quantized. (DE CARVALHO, VANUILDO S. ET AL. NUCL.PHYS. B875 (2013) 738-756)

In the next paragraph. Siegel seems to be admitting that particle exchange is just a calculation tool, and that Feynman diagrams offer only a perturbative or approximate calculation method:

Although physicists typically think about quantum field theory in terms of particle exchange and Feynman diagrams, this is just a calculational and visual tool we use to attempt to add some intuitive sense to this notion. Feynman diagrams are incredibly useful, but they’re a perturbative (i.e., approximate) approach to calculating, and quantum field theory often yields fascinating, unique results when you take a non-perturbative approach.

However a quick Google makes it clear that Seigel believes in particle exchange. He used the same picture of Feynman diagrams in another post on April 25th. The caption said electromagnetic interactions “are all governed by a single force-carrying particle: the photon”. It isn’t true. Hydrogen atoms don’t twinkle and magnets don’t shine. Siegel also says “the way the strong force works is by exchanging gluons”. Which is a bit tricky when the gluons in ordinary hadrons are virtual. Next:

But the motivation for quantizing the field is more fundamental than that the argument between those favoring perturbative or non-perturbative approaches. You need a quantum field theory to successfully describe the interactions between not merely particles and particle or particles and fields, but between fields and fields as well. With quantum field theory and further advances in their applications, everything from photon-photon scattering to the strong nuclear force was now explicable.

Quantum field theory doesn’t describe the interactions between fields. It doesn’t explain why the electron and the positron move rotationally and linearly in their annihilation dance of death. It doesn’t explain how a magnet works. It doesn’t explain anything. That’s why when I asked Siegel to explain the electron, he gave a non-explanation. Siegel then gives a diagram depicting neutrinoless double beta decay which has never been observed, and never will be:

A diagram of neutrinoless double beta decay, which is possible if the neutrino shown here is its own antiparticle. This is an interaction that’s permissible with a finite probability in quantum field theory in a Universe with the right quantum properties, but not in quantum mechanics, with non-quantized interaction fields. The decay time through this pathway is much longer than the age of the Universe.

That’s because the neutrino is not a Majorana particle, and because it’s a non-sequitur to say neutrino oscillations must mean neutrinos have mass. The get-out clause is in the caption: “the decay time through this pathway is much longer than the age of the Universe”. Very convenient. Next:

At the same time, it became immediately clear why Einstein’s approach to unification would never work. Motivated by Theodr Kaluza’s work, Einstein became enamored with the idea of unifying General Relativity and electromagnetism into a single framework. But General Relativity has a fundamental limitation: it’s a classical theory at its core, with its notion of continuous, non-quantized space and time.

People who promote quantum mysticism are always critical of Einstein, and his desire to actually understand what’s going on. Siegel says Einstein became enamored with unifying general relativity and electromagnetism, and suggested the problem was that general relativity is classical. But electromagnetism is classical too. There’s more:

If you refuse to quantize your fields, you doom yourself to missing out on important, intrinsic properties of the Universe. This was Einstein’s fatal flaw in his unification attempts, and the reason why his approach towards a more fundamental theory has been entirely (and justifiably) abandoned.

The opposite is true. When you believe in quantum field theory to such an extent that you don’t question it, or read up on the history of general relativity and electromagnetism as well as the history of quantum field theory, you doom yourself to pseudoscience. And wasting your time on quantum gravity, which is a castle in the air because it lacks foundation. The people who promote it don’t know how gravity works, and they don’t know how a magnet works. Siegel gives a depiction of quantum gravity:

Quantum gravity tries to combine Einstein’s General theory of Relativity with quantum mechanics. Quantum corrections to classical gravity are visualized as loop diagrams, as the one shown here in white. Whether space (or time) itself is discrete or continuous is not yet decided, as is the question of whether gravity is quantized at all, or particles, as we know them today, are fundamental or not. But if we hope for a fundamental theory of everything, it must include quantized fields.(SLAC NATIONAL ACCELERATOR LAB)

Next we have a touch of quantum snake oil. I am reminded of the myth that the internet was invented a CERN:

The Universe has shown itself time and time again to be quantum in nature. Those quantum properties show up in applications ranging from transistors to LED screens to the Hawking radiation that causes black holes to decay. The reason quantum mechanics is fundamentally flawed on its own isn’t because of the weirdness that the novel rules brought in, but because it didn’t go far enough. Particles do have quantum properties, but they also interact through fields that are quantum themselves, and all of it exists in a relativistically-invariant fashion.

The discovery of the transistor has nothing whatsoever to do with quantum field theory. Ditto for LEDs. And no, quantum properties do not show up in Hawking radiation. Nobody has ever seen any Hawking radiation. Which is no surprise, because when you dig into it you find it features negative-energy particles which don’t exist, and particles travelling back in time which don’t exist. It’s based on a thermodynamic analogy that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, and it ignores gravitational time dilation. It’s pseudoscience. See Yvan Leblanc’s paper on fake physics: black hole thermodynamics, the holographic principle and emergent gravity. Siegel finishes up talking about a quantum theory of everything along with quantum weirdness:

Perhaps we will truly achieve a theory of everything, where every particle and interaction is relativistic and quantized. But this quantum weirdness must be a part of every aspect of it, even the parts we have not yet successfully quantized. In the immortal words of Haldane, “my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose”.

He quotes John Haldane talking about a universe that’s queerer than we can suppose. Trust me, it isn’t. The only thing that’s queer is quantum physics. Because it’s a pack of lies to children. And because irony of ironies, it’s cargo cult science.

This Post Has 17 Comments

  1. Pavel Kudan

    Yes, John, it is really funny. They took things like atomic energy levels (which have definite values) or masses of particles (which also haves definite values) and proclaims that all should be quants :)))
    That may be natural for standing waves to have definite values of energies – different levels, but why any field should be quantum? :))) Absurd.
    However, this level of matter is really complicated. Very close to conversion of electromagnetic waves and standing waves – energy to matter.
    Really hard to measure which are element there. Too easy to mix ‘stones’ with ‘bridges’. Too low differences between monolithic ‘stones’ and composite ‘brigdes made of stones’. Cement gluing is too similar to ‘stones’.
    May be so, that proven, but not undersood by phycisists method of chemistry – deviding matter into ‘elements’ / ‘compounds’ does not work well here.
    The physical meaning of that method and its applicability – energy of bond between ‘elements’ should be much greater that energy of other interactions. The centers of particles/standing waves should be for that reason much closer then distances on nept level.
    Example – distance between molecules are greater than between atoms in molecule, interaction is weaker. So, we can consider molecule ‘composite’ and atom ‘elements’ for that level.
    Nucleus is binded stronger than atoms in molecule, so we can consider that atom ls are ‘composite’ and nucleus/electrons are ‘elements’ on that level.
    In turn, nucleus still can be considered ‘composite’ consisting of subnuclear particles, which may be considered as ‘elements’ for that level. Here, not only proton-neutron model is possible, but still.
    Yes, electron is ‘elementary’ for atomic level. But neither possible subelectron, nor possible subproton, nor possible subneutron particles are not known for sure. Different models possible and was ignored.
    Is electron, proton, neutron the end of that chain of ‘elements’ (really ‘elementary’) or they can be presented as combination of other particles + energies of interactions, that is most difficult question on that level. Too close to transformation to energy… To ‘wavy’…

    1. Yes Pavel, quantum physics is full of absurd “quantum” things. The photon has a quantum nature, hence the h in E=hf. But that doesn’t mean energy is delivered in lumps. It means all photons share a common attribute. It’s also why electrons are 511keV electrons. Because only one wavelength will suffice when you want to tie a photon in a trivial knot. But what’s really absurd is that quantum physics doesn’t understand that to turn energy into matter you convert a linearly-propagating electromagnetic wave into an electromagnetic wave that goes round and round. Don’t worry about your bridges and stones until you’ve got a handle on the electron. Don’t think that it’s made up of other components or “elements”. There’s no evidence for that. All the evidence says it’s a wave. One wave. Not two. Or three. The same goes for the proton. Nobody has ever seen a quark. Not ever. So is the electron at the end of the chain of elements? isn’t the most difficult question. It’s the easiest, and the answer is yes.
      Yes, I too think Einstein was right about the Copenhagen fairy tales. Amazingly though, Niels Bohr is considered to have “won”. So we ended up with the probabilistic pseudoscience. Ye Gods. Yes, the rubber arrow is a good analogy. Feynman used the hands of a clock in a similar analogy. LOL, yes, that will be a point with ‘magical’ probabilistic properties. As fro the multiverse, groan! No, a rubber arrow with steel pointer is not “elementary”. But a photon is.

      1. Pavel Kudan

        Absolutly agree on reason of single mass for electron. As well absolutly agree with the statment that matter finally made of waves. Standing may be not better term for that local construct, but still we unerstand what we mean
        But to distinguish bridges (composites of particles) and single stones is important, Jonh.
        You say, that no evidence are that particles are composite and see single alternative for composite – quark model.
        I disagree with both.
        First. On opposite, it should be proved that subatomic particles are elementary and should be taken that composite by default for correct considirations. Before modelling particles from waves. Exactly opposite. Agregates of matter (substances) consist of molecules and atoms. Molecules consist of atoms. Atoms consist of electrons an nuclei. Nuclei consist of protons and one other particle. Neutron or negative pion. If you state thet this is the end and no subelectron particles, as well as no subproton particles or no subparticles for that debatable partner of proton exists, you should prove that they do not exists. As all levels upper are composite.
        We just did with you one of the check. Found possible candidates to subelectron particles and showed that idea failed. So, we proved, that electron cannot be represented it terms of dynamics of subparticles, as neutrino is not particle but wave. That means, that to our knowledge, electron is elementary particle. Must be constructed from field. We checked and proved.
        That is not so obvious for proton. But also checkable. Although, more complicated.
        If you are trying to consider composite of several particles with its inner dynamics to represent as single particle, you will fail.
        Quark model is just speculation, but it is not only alternative for composite proton, fir example. Too many honor for it to believe that it is only possibility.

  2. Pavel Kudan

    Also, I think, that Albert Einstein was absolutely right in strugling with Copenhagen fairy tales and joking about ‘God gambling’.
    The reason for probabilistic results of particle / standing wave, which understood by Copenhagen as mystical materialisation of particle-point with magic property to be free from any measurement may be much simpler.
    If you speak about standing wave (oscillating/rotating field), than a phase of such standing wave at the moment of collision determine the result of collision.
    Yes, the phase is random at that random moment. The result is fully deterministic physically, but as initial conditions are random, so result is probablistic.

    Consider rubber arrow with steel pointer at the end quickly rotating. When it will face the wall, result of collision will depend on phase of rotation at the moment. Rubber part or steel part faced the wall? Which are angles?

  3. Pavel Kudan

    Imagine the troubles of one, who will declare that rubber arrow with steel pointer is single point :)))
    That will be a point with ‘magical’ probablistic properties :)))
    Then one will declare that ‘God gambling’ to explain and will speak a stuff about multiple universes with multiple results of collision of this arrow :)))
    That is similar to Copenhagen and followers parroting ))))

  4. Pavel Kudan

    Here is a question on ‘composite’ / ‘elementary’ too.

    Is rubber arrow with steel pointer ‘elementary’? Or it ‘composite’ consisting of rubber stick and steel end?
    How to investigate it, if arrow is rotating quickly?

    1. Yes, it’s the wave nature of matter. And yes, it’s important to understand what the various particles are. How can anybody propose a selectron when they don’t know what an electron is? How can anybody propose a squark when they’ve never seen a quark? There is no evidence for quarks, Pavel. People say there is, but there isn’t.
      As for proving that subatomic particles are elementary, how can an electron be elementary or fundamental when we can make them and destroy them in pair production and annihilation? Elementary means “I don’t understand the electron and I won’t even try to understand it”. Yes, I’m saying the hierarchy comes to an end with protons. Physics is not turtles all the way down. When we break a proton, we don’t see three quarks come flying out. Or any quarks. Or any gluons either. Quarks and gluons are fairy stories, as is quark confinement. I don’t need to prove that they don’t exist, just as I don’t need to prove that unicorns don’t exist. If you think they do exist, show me the evidence.
      The electron is constructed from a field variation, a wave. When you annihilate it with a positron you see that wave, a photon, moving linearly again. When you perform low-energy proton/antiproton annihilation, you see the same. You don’t see quarks. You see photons. You may see pions, but not for long. You can reduce everything down to photons and neutrinos. They’re the particles that are really elementary. I think TQFT is essentially correct, it’s related to knot theory. I also think the proton is merely a more complicated knot than the electron.
      Yes, Einstein was right to oppose the Copenhagen fairy tales. But the Copenhagen quacks won. We still have their fairy tales to this day. Even though the truth is in the old papers by Schrodinger and Charles Galton Darwin and Max Born and Leopold Infeld. And Louis de Broglie of course. What a tragedy.
      Yes, declaring the rubber arrow with a steel point to be a point particle is going to lead to problems. It’s the same when you try to treat waves as point particles. History will not be kind to all this mumbo jumbo. I shake my head at the multiverse.
      A rubber arrow with a steel point is not elementary. It’s composite. But a photon is not. You investigate it by looking at the evidence. The evidence is there. See What is a photon? and The photon
      Sorry, I have to go out now. I’ll look at your other comments later. Please can you combine them, like I combine my replies. I’m on holiday this week.

  5. Pavel Kudan

    I also think that quark model is absurd. Confiment is just cover for this myth. Looks like religion, not science.
    But I also think that the quark model is not only solution for composite neutron, for example.
    Considering proton – electron difference, also muon and taon should be taken into account.
    If electron is knot and proton is treeknot what muon is?
    By the way – positive proton is matter, but positive positron is antimatter, as well positive muon and tau are.
    Muon and tau are analogues of electron, proton and its analogues looks like different chain.
    Very complicated.
    On composite particles, you are right that at high energy collisions elements should be observable. As idea of compounds between elements means that inside elements bound is stronger than between elements.
    For example, if neutron is ‘compound’ of proton and negative pion, then at sufficient energy of scattering (very big, more than 130 MeV) dissociation to elements should take place. Neutral neutron cannot be accelerated so yet.
    But for atomic nuclei must be the same, if so. Also hidden between pair formation, process: neutron —> proton + negative pion should be observable at nuclei collisions near 140 MeV, if the Rutherford-Kudan model is adequate.
    Thank you so much, John, we may have different opinions sometimes, but conversations with you are so essential for understanding.

  6. Pavel Kudan

    For example, if the Rutherford-Kudan model is adequate, in scattering of deuteron with proton at energy approx. 140 MeV (binding energy in the Rutherford-Kudan model) and above, the reaction:
    2H+ + 1H+ = 3 1H+ + π-
    should take place.
    (Deuteron and proton should give three protons and negative pion at collision 140 MeV and higher), which is equal to reaction: neutron = proton + negative pion.
    Quite a moderate energy for collisions of nuclei.
    Formation of electron/positron pairs as well as formation of neutral pion will be possible byprocesses, but as energy is too low for formation of pair negative pion/positive pion, negative pion formation should be well seen, if exists.
    Thank you, John, for your help in understanding that 🙂

  7. Pavel Kudan

    That is interesting, John, but physical experiments on neutrons developed well, and in our days suddenly sophisticated experiments with accelerated neutrons appeared to be available in Dubna.

    Reaction like I would like to see are known. Neutron colliding proton gives two protons and negative pion.

    Dissociation of composite neutron consisting of proton and negative pion (the Rutherford-Kudan model) to elements – proton and negative pion fits well and may be one of possible explanations for that reaction.

    That is the type of decay (forced by energy) like that you would like to see for composite particle to elements as one of proofs of composite nature.
    Particle reactions, however, is very flexible process, reaction like this cannot be regarded as direct evidence of the Rutherford-Kudan model validity.

    1. Sorry to be slow replying Pavel. I’ve been busy renovating my parquet floor. Yes, the quark model looks like religion, not science. But I don’t care much about the muon and tau. They’re just ephemera. It’s ephemera that led to the quark model, and to a lack of understanding of the stable particles, along with mass and charge. If the electron is a knot, what’s a muon? Well, the muon decays quickly into an electron, an antineutrino, and a neutrino. A neutrino is a spin wave, so the muon is a tumbling electron.
      I agree that the positron is antimatter. But I think of the proton as antimatter. Yes I really do. See this: https://physicsdetective.com/the-mystery-of-the-missing-antimatter/ .
      What’s a tau? I’m not sure. I haven’t studied it. But the most common decay is the 25.49% decay into a charged pion, a neutral pion, and a neutrino. Look at the decay products, then look at how they decay. When you get to particles that don’t decay, work backwards.
      I think you can learn a lot about a particle from how it decays, but high energy collisions don’t tell you so much. Increase the energy and you can make more and more complicated particles. Or perhaps I should say pretty ephemeral patterns which soon fall apart. Studying them is as useful as studying firework patterns in the sky on New Year’s eve. It won’t teach you anything about gunpowder.
      The neutron isn’t a ‘compound’ of a proton and a negative pion. If it was, you’d see a pion in free neutron decay, and you don’t. Not ever. Pions decay into muons plus other things, but in free neutron decay you don’t see muons either. The idea of a neutron being a proton and a pion dates back to the days of Heisenberg and isospin. It’s just wrong. I’m sorry Pavel. That was the nuclear disaster. The nuclear force isn’t due to a “pion exchange”. It’s electromagnetic. That’s why the beta particle is an electron, not a pion.
      Yes, physical experiments on neutrons developed well. The paper you mentioned is here: https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.physletb.2012.05.002. It doesn’t mean the neutron is proton+pion combination. A decay forced by energy is not a decay. It’s making pretty ephemeral patterns which soon fall apart.

      1. Pavel Kudan

        In one phrase, John – you cannot expect decay where it is not energetically profitable.
        Example – neutron decays beta. Deuteron not.
        If you wants to see deuteron beta decay, you should pay energy. Deuteron will give you a couple of protons, electron and antineutrino. If you will give energy for that. Forced beta-decay vs spontaneous beta-decay.
        Are not you surprised that deuteron does not decay, are you?
        That is the same.

  8. Pavel Kudan

    We may consider ephemera particles like neutral pion. Which decays to photons. So, desappears.

    Particles with charge cannot be considered ephemera. As they do not disappear. Just transform. That a property of charge. Antiparticle needed to disappear.

    Tau is really something not well known. But we have a raw – electron, muon and tau.
    At least, if we say about inner structures of electron and proton, muon would be great to have explained, to be sure that proton is explained correctly.
    Also, we live at approximatly absolute zero, comparing to stars. Low energy. At more energetic different temperature / electromagnetic energy environment, molecules would not exist and more energetic patricles than proton and electron would be dominating.
    About expectations on decay of negative pion bounded with protons you are not right, John.
    It decays to electron and antineutrino – that what we see. Which is only energetically profitable. As it more profitable for negative pion to stay bonded with proton, than brake the bond and decay to muon. If you want to see something like that, you should give energy for it. And you expect to see it for free? Not correct expectation.
    If neutron reseaving energy from collision, decays to free proton and free negative pion, it is exactly the same process you mean, but with your error corrected.
    If at collisions neutron accepting energy can give proton, muon and muonic neutrino it may be considered as muonic pathway of negative pion beta decay, which you mentioned.
    But to see it, you have to pay energy, John 🙂
    For negative pion it is more energetically profitable to be bounded with proton (to give neutron) than to decay to muon and muonic antineutrino. So, neutron does not decay spontaneously to muon. Energy needed for that from outside.
    But as well, for negative pion it is more energetically profitable to decay to electron and electronic antineutrino, than to be bonded with proton. So, neutron decay to proton, electron and electronic antineutrino. Energy releasing at that.
    In chemistry there are terms – ‘endothermic reaction’ and ‘exothermic reaction’. Sorry, John, but some reactions needs energy and that is normal.

    1. John Duffield

      No, I’m not surprised that the deuteron does not decay. The proton grips the neutron with a binding energy of 2.224 MeV. But when you have one proton and two neutrons, you have a triton, with a binding energy of 8.4818 MeV. One proton can’t keep a grip on two neutrons. One of the neutrons can undergo beta decay, and what’s left is a helion comprised of two protons and one neutron. One neutron is gripped by two protons, and now it’s stable. You can work out something about the structure of these things, see https://physicsdetective.com/the-nuclear-force/.
      I consider any particle that doesn’t last long to be ephemera. That includes neutral pions with a lifetime of circa 9 × 10ˉ¹⁷ seconds. The point to note is that a particle with mass is, in simple terms, “light going round and round”. (Forget about neutrinos for a minute). That light is moving at the speed of light. It doesn’t get far in 9 × 10ˉ¹⁷ seconds. It moves 3 x 10ˉ⁹ metres. The neutral pion is little more than a transient eddy that soon falls apart into two gamma photons. A charged pion lasts longer at 2.6 × 10ˉ⁸ seconds, so it isn’t quite so ephemeral. But we are talking about 2.6 hundred millionths of a second. That’s still ephemeral. As is the muon. The electron isn’t. The charge persists, because the electron is a knot, and the pion is not a knot.
      Yes, it would be good to describe all the particles. Maybe I’ll look at the muon sometime. I haven’t done so because I don’t care much for ephemera. I think particle physics made a big mistake focussing on the emphemeral particle zoo instead of focussing on the stable particles. That mistake gave us the quark model, with a lame excuse for why we’ve never seen a quark, not in fifty years.
      Temperature is just motion. A hot gas is one where the particles are moving fast. It doesn’t feel like fundamental physics. It leaves me cold. LOL!
      We’ll just have to agree to differ on the negative pions bound with protons. It’s electron capture, not pion capture. The nuclear force plot matches the neutron charge distribution. We see an electron and an antineutrino coming out of beta decay. We’ve never seen a pion coming out of beta decay, not in fifty years. Please stop posting multiple comments promoting the idea.

      1. Pavel Kudan

        We may introduce the ‘ephemera scale’ for our usage, John 🙂 To understand better 🙂

        Ephemera = virtual particle. Pure fantasy. Matter should be real.

        Halfephemera = real particle which decays to energy (photons or lighter particle/antiparticle pair). These are real, but can be ignored yet. Some intermediate form between energy and matter. Something like embryons of particle/antiparticle pairs. Examples – neutral pion, neutral kaon etc.

        Not ephemera = real particles which cannot decay to energy only is not ephemera. But we do not understand them yet. Some reactions convert those to other particles. We do not understand that reactions yet. But, still, that particles does not disappear complitely, so cannot be considered ephemera.

        Most easy are stable particles, of course. Those do not have reactions which whould convert further. Most easy case.

        Hope, you understand what I mean, John. After all, that is not very easy things for physicist.

        1. Pavel Kudan

          To feel what is ephemera and what is not ephemera, consider a piece of radioactive isotope.
          Is it real or ephemera?
          It is real. And radioactive isotopes are very important for physics. If physicists would ignore them and would work with only stable isotopes, what would be physics today?
          Has radioactive isotope short lifetime? Yes. Not stable. But still, it should not be ignored for that reason. It leaves another isotopes after decay. It cannot be ephemera just because of short lifetime.

  9. John Duffield

    Yes, an ephemera scale doesn’t harm. But note that ephemeral means lasting for a very short time. So a virtual particle isn’t ephemeral. However a neutral pion is. So are most of the baryons in the list of baryons. Ditto for the mesons. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_baryons and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mesons. There are no stable mesons. When when you know that a particle like the electron is energy going round and round at the speed of light, you can reason that the same is true for the kaon. Now ask yourself how far that energy gets in 3.26 ×10ˉ²³ seconds. Making pretty patterns out of these things doesn’t tell you anything about the proton. Hence my gunpowder analogy.
    Yes, the charged pion is less ephemeral, and so is the muon. Like I said, maybe I’ll write something about that. Maybe I should write something about the particle zoo, starting with the longer-lasting particles. We’ll see. But how many baryons are not ephemeral? One. Or two if you include the antiproton. As for the neutron, I don’t think it counts as a baryon, because it looks like a proton composite. Like a squeezed down hydrogen atom with a twist. It’s stable when it’s gripped by protons, but if not, it’s the jumping popper of particle physics. However with a lifetime of circa 15 minutes. I wouldn’t call that ephemeral. 15 minutes isn’t a very short time. So a piece of radioactive isotope is not ephemeral. It decays due to beta decay, which is neutron decay.

Leave a Reply


text:
Reading Time: 4 minutes

Targeting Advanced IC Manufacturing Nodes Support; 7nm, 5nm & Upcoming 3nm

SAN DIEGO, Sept. 18, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — GBT Technologies Inc. (OTC PINK: GTCH) (“GBT” or the “Company”), announced that together with its Joint Venture partner, Alpha EDA, LLC (“Alpha”), that it is now in the process of updating its Epsilon, IC (integrated circuit) reliability clean-by-construction program, preparing for advanced manufacturing nodes.

As foundries are now offering advanced IC manufacturing processes, fabless customers will have to decide whether to design and manufacture their next microchips around the current stable process or to move to a different one at 5nm and the upcoming 3nm. As 7nm is stable and already in successful use by semiconductor companies, the path to further advanced nodes, like 3nm is still convoluted due to the fact that foundries are still working on its breakthroughs. In general, manufacturing of any of these nodes will be very expensive, and benefits are not always clear-cut. At advanced nodes, 7nm/5nm processes using today’s FinFet (Fin Field-Effect Transistors) transistors that when compared to traditional planar transistors, are 3D-like structures with better performance and lower leakage. 5nm (nanometer) process is well defined and being offered by TSMC and Samsung since 2019.

The 5nm node is based on multi-gate MOSFET (MuGFET) technology, with FinFETs devices. The 3nm technology however, is a game changer. At 3nm, the FinFet device is to be replaced by a new transistor architecture called a nanosheet FET, which is an evolution of the FinFet and has been proposed by IBM Research. Foundries are currently still evaluating 3nm technology challenges, looking into factors like advanced packaging as a possible scaling option.

“GBT decided to enhance its Epsilon reliability software package, preparing for advanced nodes like 5nm and the upcoming 3nm. This is a major decision since 7nm and 5nm are still a traditional FinFet approach, but with the upcoming 3nm is another device architecture. We believe that now is the time to get prepared for manufacturing nodes beyond 7nm and 5nm,” stated Danny Rittman, GBT CTO.

“Alpha and the Company took a decision that involves implementation of a new technology phenomenon, making our Epsilon reliability program capable of providing accurate analysis and correction. Alpha and the Company are implementing new algorithms and flows which we believe is an evolutionary step from the traditional FinFets. This upcoming node will create major design challenges, yet it will provide significant higher performance, and lower power consumption. These are critical when it comes to advanced ICs. The new transistors will be more difficult to make, expensive, and the migration will be painful, but it’ll be worth it. This will able to put more devices on silicon, consuming less power and with much higher performance. Together, we are now planning to update our Epsilon software, ensuring on-the-fly reliability check for upcoming future microchips. With these upcoming processes Alpha will have to take into account new physics challenges and phenomenon in order to make these chips reliable and working at optimal conditions. Alpha plans to implement the Company’s machine learning technology as a key factor to study and analyze circuitries including their weak spots, taking into account physics aspects. Epsilon is expected to provide reliability alerts and corrections suggestions, early during the design phase. The Company’s AI engine will be trained with new reliability models, adapting to advanced processes, based on physics-of-failure mechanisms. It is intended to identify weak thermal spots, predicting potential reliability failures, check for Electromigration (EM), Self heat and voltage (IR) Drop phenomenon, providing the ultimate reliability-aware IC design environment. We believe in early design stage reliability analysis and predictions, early addressing and auto-correction, which will become a key player when designing modern chips, especially with the upcoming 5nm and 3nm manufacturing processes. In these nodes, chips can overheat, perform poorly or fail and manufacturers will need to be well prepared; the sooner, the better,” added Mr. Rittman.

About GBT Technologies Inc.

GBT Technologies Inc. (OTC PINK: GTCH) (“GBT”) ( ) is a development-stage company which considers itself a native IoT creator, developing Internet of Things (IoT) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) enabled mobile technology platforms. GBT has a portfolio of Intellectual Property that, when commercialized, will include smart microchips, mobile and security applications and protocols, and supporting cloud software. GBT’s system envisions the creation of a global mesh network. The core of the system will be its advanced microchip technology that can be installed in any mobile or fixed device worldwide. GBT envisions this system as a low-cost, secure, private mesh network between any enabled devices, providing shared processing, advanced mobile database management/sharing and enhanced mobile features as an alternative to traditional carrier services.

Forward-Looking Statements

Certain statements contained in this press release may constitute “forward-looking statements”. Forward-looking statements provide current expectations of future events based on certain assumptions and include any statement that does not directly relate to any historical or current fact. Actual results may differ materially from those indicated by such forward-looking statements as a result of various important factors as disclosed in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission located at their website ( In addition to these factors, actual future performance, outcomes, and results may differ materially because of more general factors including (without limitation) general industry and market conditions and growth rates, economic conditions, governmental and public policy changes, the Company’s ability to raise capital on acceptable terms, if at all, the Company’s successful development of its products and the integration into its existing products and the commercial acceptance of the Company’s products. The forward-looking statements included in this press release represent the Company’s views as of the date of this press release and these views could change. However, while the Company may elect to update these forward-looking statements at some point in the future, the Company specifically disclaims any obligation to do so. These forward-looking statements should not be relied upon as representing the Company’s views as of any date subsequent to the date of the press release.

Dr. Danny Rittman, CTO
GBT Technologies Inc.
Media: [email protected]

Powered by WPeMatico


text:
Shopping Cart
Quick view
Search for products on our site
See more

OPEN for

Click & Collect shopping!

Order online and we will be in touch to arrange collection at a convenient time.

Also local delivery and UK FREE postage available.

Please use code Keep Smiling at checkout ( Minimum order £30)

Thank you for supporting us.

Take Care..

Love the Pickles & Lillies Team xx

Lovely 2 Pack Muslin
Lovely 2 Pack Muslin
On Sale

Lovely 2 Pack Muslin

Super absorbent, breathable and lightweight, this handy two pack of Lovely Organic Cotton Muslins are a great go-to for all those everyday mucky messes! Available in two different designs and prints, these muslins will add a fun splash of Frugi colour to your changing bag.

  • Made from 100% GOTS certified Organic Cotton Muslin
  • Our muslin squares are gentle on baby's sensitive skin
  •  Inspired by the mythical fairies that live in toadstools and feature in Scottish tales, these muslins have a Mushrooms all over print on one and a coordinating Rainbow Stars on the other
  • 65cm x 65cm approx.
  • -0%
  • Regular price £14.00
    Tax included.


text:
PayPal and Queer Eye Celebrity Designer Bobby Berk Help Millennials & Gen-Z Cope with Life at Home | News

SAN JOSE, Calif., Nov. 16, 2020 /PRNewswire/ — PayPal announced today they are partnering with Queer Eye’s home design expert, Bobby Berk, to help Americans confined at home find new ways to configure their space and plan for the holidays. In a new “Berking from Home” content series launching today, Berk unveils design solutions, product recommendations and how to budget responsibly for common household challenges like homeschooling the kids, self-care, remote working, and bringing joy into the holidays at home this year.

New research, conducted by PayPal, reveals that consumers are struggling as they share spaces with family and housemates in new ways amidst the ongoing pandemic. The survey found 27 percent of millennials and Gen-Z now work from their bedrooms, and nearly a quarter work from their living rooms, likely leaving limited room for relaxation, fitness, or communal space. More than one in three people who work

Read More


text:
Start Your Order

All Deliveries Are Contactless.

XS App Module

All Deliveries are Contactless.

Domino’s National Coupons

Sorry, there are no offers available at this time. Check back soon!

Where to Order Sandwich Delivery in Canton, OH

Everyone knows that Domino's delivers amazing pizzas. But only a few people know that we also deliver hot sandwiches in Canton for when two slices of bread sound way better than one. From hearty vegetarian sandwiches to Philly-approved cheese steaks, Canton Domino's has sandwiches to satisfy your cravings. Plus, like our pizzas, Domino's sandwiches are made with love and the best ingredients like shredded mozzarella, delicious veggies, feisty Italian sausage, and zesty ranch. And you don't have to go halfway across Canton (or even leave the house) to eat a delicious, hot sandwich. Get sandwich delivery or carryout from Domino’s — your go-to sandwich shop in Canton, OH.

What Kinds of Sandwiches Does Domino's Deliver in Canton?

Our menu gives most Canton sandwich shops a run for their money — at a fraction of the price! If you want comfort food, choose our Chicken Parm sandwich. It has grilled chicken breast, flavorful marinara, and a tantalizing blend of provolone, mozzarella, and asiago cheese — all between two slices of fresh-baked artisan bread.

Is Chicken Parmesan not your favorite sandwich? Surprise your taste buds with the Italian Sandwich. It combines some of your favorite pizza ingredients like pepperoni, salami, banana peppers, and provolone cheese. It’s flavorful, packed with cheese, and sprinkled with spices.

Trying to stay away from meat? You won't be hungry for long with the Mediterranean Sandwich — it includes roasted red peppers, crisp banana peppers, diced tomatoes, chopped onions, and spinach on a bed of melted provolone and American cheese with a dash of crumbly feta. It's an amazing vegetarian sandwich that even meat-lovers can't resist.

Want a Philly Cheese Steak, but don't want to work for it? Order cheese steak delivery in Canton, OH! Just like the original, our sandwich features tender sliced steak, melty provolone and American cheese, and green peppers, fresh onions, and mushrooms on oven-baked artisan rolls.

But wait, there's more! Our Buffalo Chicken and Chicken Habanero Sandwiches have just the perfect balance of spicy and savory. Get the Buffalo Chicken Sandwich if you want a spicy but creamy fusion of hot sauce and blue cheese dressing on grilled chicken breast, crowned with onions, and a blend of provolone and cheddar. For a little extra twist, go for the Chicken Habanero Sandwich's sweet and spicy blend of jalapenos, pineapple chunks, mango habanero sauce, and melted cheddar and provolone on grilled chicken breast sandwiched between two slices of baked artisan bread.

You can't overlook another combo of favorite flavors — the Chicken Bacon Ranch Sandwich. It blends the savoriness of crispy bacon with the creaminess of zesty ranch. It’ll make your taste buds jump for joy with grilled chicken, provolone, and oven-toasted bread. With so many great subs, picking one isn't easy, but ordering sandwich delivery in Canton is! Place your order online now.

Get Canton, OH Sandwich Delivery for Any Occasion

Forgot your lunch at home? No problem. Get hot sandwiches delivered to your workplace in Canton, OH. If you're placing an order for the whole office, make sure there's something for everyone to eat including pizza-lovers, sandwich savants, and vegetarian devotees, ordering a well-rounded mix of subs, pasta, and pizza might help you earn some brownie points with everyone.

Whether you're having friends over or just trying to get a convenient dinner without leaving the house — your nearest Domino’s has your back with sandwich delivery in Canton, OH And if you’re out on the town, you can order carryout or have your Philly Cheese Steak or Mediterranean Veggie Sandwich delivered to a Domino's Hotspot® near you.

Make Domino's your go-to sandwich shop in Canton for delicious, hot sandwiches delivered or to-go. Say goodbye to the deli meats in the back of your fridge and embrace the tastiness of our hot sandwich menu. You don’t have to take our word for it! Try our sandwiches for yourself! Order Canton sandwich delivery or carryout today.

XS App Module

All Deliveries are Contactless.

Start Your Order

Get The Domino's Pizza App


text:
Yellow and curled leaves on a plum, no aphids

Plum and prune    South America

I planted this plum a few months ago and it has a lot of new growth, but most of the leaves are yellow and curled. I didn't find any aphids or any other sign in the leaves. Does anybody have an idea of what it could be? I hope not a virus...

Thanks a lot!

Posted by: Nick Dit (1 point) Nick Dit
Posted: October 20, 2014

A virus is one of the things that comes to mind, and if so, it is not going to be curable. Another possibility is herbicide exposure - any chance something has been sprayed in the vicinity? There may be evidence (similar symptoms) on nearby plants too. If you see new leaves emerging that are more normal looking - green and not twisted - then lean toward herbicide injury. This probably calls for a wait and see approach.

Posted by: Charlie B. (2 points) Charlie B.
Posted: October 21, 2014

Nick Dit commented,
Thanks a lot Charlie. The plant was grown in an organic farm and I'm not surrounded by anyone that could have sprayed. I'm afraid it looks like a virus. Should I wait or try to destroy the plant before the virus spreads to other? I didn't plant any other plums nearby but I have a few pears, almonds and apple trees close. Do you think there's any risk?
about 6 years ago.

Charlie B. commented,
I am afraid that it may be a virus too, in which case, it would be best to pull the tree now. The most risk to neighboring trees would be to other stone fruits (plums, cherries, peaches, almonds). Stone fruits share some diseases and pome fruits (apples, pears) share others. I don't think there is much overlap between stone and pome fruit diseases, although I am willing to be corrected if someone knows more.
about 6 years ago.

Nick Dit commented,
Thanks again Charlie. Appreciated.
about 6 years ago.

You need to log in if you'd like to add an answer or comment.
PlantVillage PlantVillage logo


text:
Pedro was stretchered off during the FA Cup final after injuring his shoulder

Chelsea forward Pedro has undergone successful surgery after dislocating his shoulder during his side’s FA Cup final loss to Arsenal.

Pedro, 33, who came on as a second-half substitute, collided with Gunners goalkeeper Emiliano Martinez in the closing stages of the match at Wembley.

The Spain forward is leaving the Blues after five years and is reportedly set to join Serie A side Roma.

“The surgery went well, I will be back soon,” Pedro wrote on Instagram.