On Thursday, March 9, 2017 at 1:04:34 PM UTC-5, pora...@gmail.com wrote:   
   > On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 5:52:01 PM UTC+2, pora...@gmail.com wrote:   
   []   
   > > ============================   
   > > does the Feynman diagram explain why  the change in direction   
   > > (after collision )   
   > > is in angle say ''x''   
   > > and not angle ''y ''   
   > > iow   
   > > why just the angle he is suggesting ??   
   > > ==========================   
   > >   
   > > TIA   
   > > Y.P   
   > > ===============================================   
   > >   
   > > [[Mod. note --   
   > > * 9 excessively-quoted lines snipped here.   
   > > * To answer the poster's question, this depends on how precisely the   
   > >   initial conditions are specified.  If they are specified sufficiently   
   > >   precisely [so that the impact parameter of the incoming particle   
   > >   (i.e., the lateral offset of its incoming trajectory with respect   
   > >   to a collision) is known; obviously the uncertainty principle imposes   
   > >   restrictions on just how well this can be done] then yes, the particle's   
   > >   future trajectory (including the change in direction) can be computed.   
   > >   
   > >   But in the usual case the impact parameter is completely unspecified   
   > >   (we *don't* know the incoming particle trajectory's lateral position   
   > >   to ultra-high accuracy) and in this case even classical mechanics can't   
   > >   do what you ask.   
   > ==============================   
   > in other words   
   > my above  question  has no answer   
   > in current science !!  ??   
   > ===   
   > TIA   
   > Y.Porat   
   > =====   
   > > -- jt]]   
      
   I would say:   
   current science says there is a limit to how   
   precisely we can calculate the trajectory.   
      
   Ed   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)