Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
questions about Atom Totality and the psi probability function #1016 New Physics #1136 Atom Totality 5th ed
13 views
Skip to first unread message
Archimedes Plutonium
Nov 7, 2012, 1:50:48 AM11/7/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Nov 6, 9:01 pm, Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com-> wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> > > > where dots of the electron dot cloud are galaxies
> > > but, what i'd still like to know, is
> > > how do you propose to assign an integral spin quantum state
> > > to a dust cloud?
> >
Hi Tim, I did not see this post in sci.physics.electromag and it
appears that your post and thread has been flagged
for abuse and hidden (trashed).
It is easy to assign a spin to a electron that is in 10^40 pieces. It
is easy to link magnetic monopoles with spin
and that these magnetic monopoles can come in 10^40
entities.
But if you put the argument the other way, your way, how do you keep
Special Relativity with a hard ball electron visiting 10^40 sites
around the nucleus and still maintain the speed of light. You cannot.
I can envision your hardship in comprehending this, simply because the
Interpretation of the psi function is that it is probability and that
is a duality. So that the electron is both a particle and wave, but
you want to have only a particle, a hard ball particle. Your trouble
is not alone, for everyone who visits this part of physics wants to
have a
"human commonsense viewpoint and human understanding" whereas,
physics, at this level is beyond human thought and understanding other
than to say, the electron is both, particle and wave and when the atom
is in a copper wire with electron flow, it is a hard ball but when it
is the atom of the Atom Totality itself, the electron is a dot-cloud.
(snipped)
>
> i just happen to have an earlier copy of halliday and resnick
> and the way they describe this "probability" is that a
> particulate electron in the hydrogen atom is simply,
> more "likely to be" found at or around the "Bohr radius"
> and not that it is definitely =there=.
>
Right, what they are saying is that the electron is both hard ball and
dot cloud where the the dot cloud is interpreted as a 10^40 pieces of
the electron as waves, magnetic monopoles having the electron mass
divided by
10^40.
> teh "interpretation" of psi is this statistical 'maybe'
> as opposed to an 'exact' location.
>
> it's a matter of the precision of knowledge
> that may be had for a single particulate.
>
Well, here again, you think a human mind can penetrate the ultimate
meaning of particle wave duality and be smarter than the atom and its
electron. Whereas the psi being a probablity function is saying the
opposite, that we have reached the limit of a human mind knowing any
deeper than the duality of particle and wave.
You see, in the Atom Totality, atoms are God, and it is pretentious
for any human to think they can attain knowledge and understanding
that penetrates God itself. We can penetrate to particle and wave
duality, but we cannot penetrate deeper than particle and wave
duality.
> the electron -is- a single hard body whose position and momentum
> are statistical probability patterns, and not that an electron
> exists as a hard ball sometimes and as 10^40 slivers at any other time.
>
Well, now you are speaking around the edges of the Complimentarity
Principle. Where in one set up of an experiment, we highlight the wave
nature and in another setup we pull out the particle nature, but in no
experiment can we have both in full force. So, here again, you are
asking your human mind and my human mind to be better than God's mind
(atoms are God). We can reach the duality, but you want more, you want
why and how God works. You are not satisfied that God is more
intelligent than any of us and that our puny minds will somehow
understand and penetrate even further than the mind of God itself.
(Sorry for preaching but tomorrow is Plutonium Day and that is the
most holy day of all.)
> > So, Tim, you talk as if the Probability is a feature of a ball
> > electron. The Probability in physics and the Schrodinger Equation is
> > there because we have to "interpret the electron" not that the
> > electron is a pre-existing hard ball and given a chance of finding it
> > at one location rather than another location.
>
> no, your pals halliday and resmnick don't "interpret the electron"
>
> they =interpret= the meaning of psi and psi squared, and that
> interpretation reveals that a statistical understanding of
> the electron's whereabouts in reality is the best we can hope for.
Well, H&R never speak of a Atom Totality, but they do speak of the
idea of duality in those pages and that the interpretation is both a
particle and wave and why you necessarily need a dot cloud.
>
> > So, which is the better interpretation, yours or mine? You interpret
> > the electron to be a hard ball and the dots are a probability of
> > finding that hard ball a specific location. I interpret the electron
> > to be a smashed to smithereens particle in the ground state, and where
> > all those tiny bits and pieces of the electron form a dot-cloud, so
> > that you ask me what is the chance of finding the electron at a point
> > in space, and I answer with a chance that a piece of the electron is
> > at that particular point in space.
>
> you'd be claiming that you could solve the position and momentum
> for these slivered pieces of electrons when you certainly cannot
> solve this for an electron in it's entirety.
>
You can easily take parameters of a electron hard ball with mass of
0.5 MeV and momentum and position and then translate that into 10^40
magnetic monopoles as waves with sum total of 0.5 MeV and parameters
to match momentum and position.
> you'd be saying, "at such and such a point, this -sliver-
> is moving with such and such a simulataneous, -knowable-
> position and momentum" and -then- turn around and tell
> me that you -cannot- know these same facts
> for a solid ball electron.
>
Well, one of the reasons there is a duality of particle and wave is
that the electron must have perpetual motion as it whizzes around the
nucleus, and that is why you have Uncertainty, because if you had
Certainty, then you had to have "stopped" the electron, but you
cannot stop to measure.
So no, I am not saying any of what you put in my mouth above. I am
saying that as you reach particle and wave duality where the electron
is either a particle hard ball or a
dot cloud equal to waves, is the moment you cannot dive deeper into
understanding.
> your "interpretation" takes a problem that is unsolvable
> for a single entire electron, and makes it solvable for
> the smaller fractional -pieces- of that same electron.
>
You think it is unsolvable because it is a law of physics like the
Coulomb law. It is not a law of physics, for duality is the limit at
which the human mind cannot go deeper than Nature itself.
The understanding of Physics during the time of Jesus could not know
of the Schrodinger Equation and psi, not because it did not exist, for
it did exist, but that the minds of humans during the century of Jesus
are minds that was undeveloped to be able to know the psi function.
> you'd think that this was -obviously- erroneous...
>
> and i dare say, that halliday and resnick are not
> responsible for this "interpretation" of yours.
>
No, the word Interpretation appears often in physics. For the Born
Interpretation or the Bohr Interpretation, are different
interpretations of the psi. There is even the Everett Interpretation
of many worlds.
> did you ever hear anyone say that a bowling ball's
> motion would have a measurable wavelength if you
> could get a grating to accomodate the value?
>
If someone had a special glasses that if you put it on it would reveal
matter and mass as that of waves of magnetic monopoles, then the
bowling ball would be interpreted as a large number of waves, of dot
clouds.
> this is saying that a solid bowling ball, already should -have-
> an associated wavelength and not that the same bowling ball,
> suddenly -behaves- as if it were an ethereal wave pattern
> under cetrainconditions, whereupon, it returns to it's
> bowling ball condition after midnight.
>
> > Now, look at the night sky as if it were an atom and you see the stars
> > and galaxies as tiny white dots. Does that night sky look like just
> > one single huge large hard ball in the sky next to empty Space. Or,
> > does the night sky look like a huge large ball, that was smashed into
> > 10^40 tiny other things and then spread across the night sky?
>
> trouble is, you can -see- precisely where these dots are and
> where these dots are going and that no such "probability"
> is associated with their position and momentum.
>
> so, once again, if you claim that the -electron- behaves
> as a mass of 10^40 slivers, each of whose positions and momenta,
> -can be- known simultaneously, you are taking a much more
> difficult problem and sayingit is easier to solve for
> the unsolvable nature of the ball type electron.
>
> you'd be saying that, though we cannot know the position
> and momentum of a ball electron simultaneously, you
> -can- know these same phenomenon for the fractured
> -pieces- of a ball electron.
>
> and, isn't this what you are saying?
>
> and, isn't this "interpretation" self contradictory?
>
> > Now most students of physics, as they study it and learn it, are
> > confused with this chapter on the probability density function of the
> > Schrodinger Equation. The are confused because they do not understand
> > that it is a "interpretation" and the way that Bohr interprets the
> > wavefunction is that he realizes it is (the electron) is both a hard
> > ball at times such as in electricity flowing in a wire and we call it
> > the collapsed wavefunction, or it is a dot cloud where the electron
> > has been smashed into 10^40 tiny pieces.
>
> Bohr actually solved an -orbit- for a single electron
> in the hydrogen atom trouble is, that this falls apart
> as we leave the 1s state.
>
> i doubt very highly that Bohr promulgated an idea that the
> electron is or even ever behaves as if it were 10^40
> slivered fragments.
>
> the electron doesn't change form based on -how- 'we' try to look at it.
>
> the hard ball electron -has- a wave pattern associated with it's mechanics.
>
> the travels -of- the hard ball -has- aspects which can be
> mathematically derived -as- a wavelength and a frequency.
>
> =if= an electron were imagined and interpretted to be 10^40 smithereenies,
> those 10^40 smithereenies -travel- in unison as -if- they were a single
> mass and the greater probability of finding the entire mass of
> smithereenies is at the Bohr radius and then all the
> various solutions -to- psi, and so, for all practical purposes,
> even =if= you could interpret an electron as a smithereenies blob,
> that blob would still -behave- as if it were a single
> rather uniform entity.
>
> etc.
>
> > When students read that and
> > walk away with the impression that the electron is a hard ball with a
> > chance of being at a location represented by a dot cloud, then they
> > failed to understand this physics, failed to understand the use of
> > "probability" as meaning "interpretation".
>
> that's probably because probability doesn't mean that we get
> to interpret the electron into a fragmentary blob that fills
> the -entire- spacial region that it is 'most likely' to
> be inhabitting as -it- wobbles around the nucleus.
>
> the probability density is a function of the
> uncertainty of location and motion.
>
> we don't really think that the six pi electrons
> are actually -shaped- like a dumbell
>
> or are a mass of ethereal particles
> in a balloon of space.
>
> we really suggest that the electron, which
> is a singular entity, is 'somewhere'
> inside that balloon of space, we just cannot
> shrink the size of that balloon of space
> to exactly enwrap that singular entity.
>
> > The electron is both the
> > hard ball and the dot cloud, but it is not a hard ball with a chance
> > of being at a specific location. When you want the electron with a
> > chance at a specific location, the electron is no longer a hard ball,
> > but a smashed to smithereens 10^40 tiny pieces and when you find a
> > piece of the electron there at a specific point in space, you have not
> > found the total electron as a hard ball, but you found 1/10^40 of the
> > electron.
>
> again, you are implying that you -can- find a smithereenie fragment
> of an electron at a specifiable location moving in a specifiable path,
> and this is already shown not to be the case -for- the hard
> ball singular entity.
>
> the chances of specificity for the smithereenie is
> no more probable than the chances of finding
> the singular entity.
>
> your 'interpretation, seeks to invent a specificity
> that is already lost on the larger object.
>
> it has no real value, either as a descriptive device
> nor as a verifiable aspect of reality.
>
> > So that if I point to the night sky a faraway galaxy or faraway star
> > in the Milky Way, I am pointing to a piece of the last electron of a
> > Plutonium Atom Totality.
>
> actually, you are pointing to a large blob of atoms and these
> atoms occupy a continuous spectrum of gravitational energy
> states and -not- discrete electromagnetic energy states.
>
> > Now to answer all your other questions, I can make a quick brief
> > summary:
> > (1) The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation comes in a 2.71 Kelvin
> > temperature, but the most important feature of that temperature which
> > all the other physicists and astronomers know, is the feature that the
> > temperature is blackbody. Blackbody radiation can exist in only one
> > circumstance, in that a cavity, a inside interior has to exist to form
> > blackbody radiation. That means the Big Bang is an utter fake theory
> > for the universe since it says the Universe is in an explosion state.
> > You cannot have a explosion for the Universe and have the microwave
> > radiation be blackbody. So the Universe is the "inside of something" a
> > cavity, and what cavity could possible be the Universe? The only
> > logical choice is an atom, a single large atom that has all the other
> > atoms inside itself as a cavity. If the radiation had not been
> > blackbody, the Big Bang theory could live a day longer, but ever since
> > the physicists first reported that the Microwave Background Radiation
> > of the Cosmos was blackbody radiation, the Big Bang theory was dead,
> > not buried yet, for it takes time for scientists to understand what
> > had happened when the news of blackbody came in.
>
> the problem here is that you'd be suggesting that the material 'portion'
> of teh physical universe simply came to exist in a pre-existing infinity
> of an open spacial region, when it can easily be said that the spacial
> region in which the material universe finds itself
>
> came in to existiance -as- teh material came in to existence and was
> not 'always' there and the matter simply popped into a space that
> was already there.
>
> no, we do not speak of a spacial vacuum that became inhabbitted
> by matter, we speak of a spaceless epoch into which was spawned
> both space and matter.
>
> in this respect, you -can- say that the material universe
> is encapsulated in a spacial cavity within a space-less domain.
>
> we beginn from a spaceless and matterless state
>
> and both space and matter come to be simultaneously
> and so, to speak of a cavitation is not contradicted.
>
> > (2) Is there another major clue that the Cosmos is a gigantic atom
> > rather than the blackbody radiation? Well yes, there are dozens of
> > major clues. The second major clue is what is known as "solid body
> > rotation or rigid body rotation". It is seen first in astronomy
> > history by the spiral galaxies and barred spiral galaxies for the
> > telescopes observed these spiral arms having solid body rotation. That
> > is rotation which many of us growing up in the 1960s remember as the
> > vinyl record player that the music disc spins on a record player.
>
> trouble is, that some claim that materials are pouring in to the hole
> in the center of these record albums and are -not- rigidly held at bay.
>
> in the atomic model, electrons do -not- pour into the nucleus
> where they may be obliterated by gravitational puckers.
>
> > Now
> > the only way one can get solid body rotation for it requires a huge
> > amount of energy to make solid body rotation is in the Maxwell
> > Equations the EM force which is 10^40 stronger than the force of
> > gravity.
>
> the moon is not held in orbit by an elecromotive force.
>
> "classical mechanics" simply does not work as the 'best explanation'
> when applied to teh behaviors of very small things, like electrons,
> and, so-called "quantum mechanics" was developed to provide a more
> correct explanation for phenomenon associated with
> very small objects and light.
>
> as the moon travels around the earth
>
> any electrostatic interaction/s
>
> will be buried under the much
>
> larger gravitational forces.
>
> if you shrink the earth and moon
>
> to very tiny proportions,
>
> there comes some point when
> the gravitational forces
>
> are somewhat comparable to
> the electrostatic interactions.
>
> at this point, the gravtitational forces
> would be so small and not enough to hold
> the earth and moon in orbit about each other,
>
> and the tendency would be for the
> moon to fly away from the earth
>
> sort of like, if you had a ball on
> a string and were spinning it
> around your finger,
>
> and, if you cut the string,
>
> the ball would go flying off away from you.
>
> but now, with the really
>
> very tiny moon and earth
>
> with a gravitational force that
> would tend towards them flying apart,
>
> the electorstatic interaction starts
> to play a significant role
>
> and the two bodies, with nearly
> equal and opposite charges
>
> are being held together by this force, while
> at the same time, trying to fly apart from
> each other because the gravity is very
> weakly unable to hold them together,
>
> but, the two bodies do not simply become
> glued together and form a de facto single body,
>
> because, in this dimensional range,
>
> the two forces, gravity and
> electrostatic interactions
> are so ideally matched
>
> that, the flying apart
>
> and the attracting together
>
> are bound up in a "harmonic oscillation"
>
> sort of like the electrostatic interaction
> constitutes what amounts to a tiny spring
> string which holds the two together even
> as they would be flying apart.
>
> and the two oscillate with "harmonics"
>
> very much like the "harmonics"
> of musical instrumentation.
>
> see, another problem is, let's say the moon
> is slowly drifting away from the earth, not
> entirely hypothetical as some people suggest
> that the moon is, in fact, slowly drifting
> away from the earth,
>
> ok, so, in this drifting, the moon is passing
> thru a continuous spectrum of energy states
>
> and is -not- doing what electrons seem to do,
>
> which appear in one state, a ground state lets say,
> and then, appear in a higher -discrete- energy state
> and never make an appearance in some
> state -between- ..say, 1S and 2Px
>
> so, the stars and galaxies and planets and all that space dust
> is not found in discrete energy states, but...apparently,
> in a rather continuous spectrum of energy states.
>
> and this behavior is not at all -like- a universal plutonium atom.
>
> we wouldnt be getting pelted with meteorites if there was
> such a discrete set of possible energy states as on the atomic level.
>
> > The force of gravity can never get your vinyl record to spin
> > as solid body rotation but EM can. So when astronomers started
> > observing Solid Body Rotation in galaxies and in clusters of galaxies,
> > what they then did was really saddening, and what they did was show
> > that they have little logic in order to be a scientist. They saw Solid
> > Body Rotation and instead of saying "throw out gravity and replace
> > gravity with EM-gravity", and instead of being logical, what they did
> > was say that the Cosmos must be filled with dark matter and dark
> > energy in order to make those galaxies spin in solid body rotation.
>
> there are other explanations for galactic spin.
>
> God's finger spinning them like a top is possible. etc.
>
> > So, I ask you, if the radiation is blackbody and that means a Cosmic
> > cavity, and if the Cosmos has many examples of solid body rotation and
> > that means EM, then who in their right mind would select the Big Bang
> > when it is already trashed by blackbody radiation and by Solid Body
> > Rotation.
>
> i'm not married to a big bang.
>
> so, i feel no need to offer up a compelling defense for it.
>
> i -do- suggest that this material universe had a
> very definite beginning from not being there,
>
> but the actual mechanics involved, i don't
> speak of a random accident caused by -nothing-
>
> > But, let me give you one more, for I have time for one more now. If
> > the Universe is a Atom Totality, a single huge atom of plutonium, the
> > isotope 231 Pu to be specific, if the universe is this one big atom
> > and what we see is the last electron the 94th electron of this huge
> > single atom, then we should see a feature of "spin" in the Night Sky.
> > We should see a feature of "all the galaxies" heading for one
> > direction.
>
> first of all, you haven't shown that an electron is ever actually
> 10^40 slivers, this is just your 'interpretation' of a probability
> density which you simply state it as fact but show no real
> physical phenomena which demonstrates this.
>
> second, if you did have a 10^40 slivered electron, and you claimed
> that it 'occupied' the entire spacial region known as electronic
> orbitals, you would have a smoothly dispersed array of fragments,
> which the visible material universe clear is not.
>
> you would claim that anywhere within an electronic orbitals geometry,
> you would be able to find such a sliver and so, your 10^40 slivers
> must be evenly dispersed.
>
> you would not 'see' clusters of electronic fragments and interstitial
> spacial regions within an orbital, but you do see such clustering
> and spacial regions in the material universe.
>
> so, your two interpretations don't seem to
> fit together as well as you'd like to suggest.
>
> in fact, they are entirely -different-
>
> your interpretted electron dust cloud could not
> -look- like the material universe does look.
>
> and this based on what you -do- actually say.
>
> you say this above;
>
> > I interpret the electron
> > to be a smashed to smithereens particle in the ground state, and where
> > all those tiny bits and pieces of the electron form a dot-cloud, so
> > that you ask me what is the chance of finding the electron at a point
> > in space, and I answer with a chance that a piece of the electron is
> > at that particular point in space.
>
> see, you'd be claimig that whatever 'point' in the
> spacial region encompassed by an electronic orbital,
>
> you you could tell me thata sliver of an electron
> is occupying that point, and this is not at all
> what the night sky looks like.
>
> not even close
>
> > (3) In an Atom Totality, a quantum spin must exist, a direction in
> > which all the Matter of the Universe is moving towards. Does such a
> > feature occur? Well, last I looked, everything, every piece of Matter
> > that we know of is moving in the direction of what is called the Great
> > Attractor. Now if the Universe was a Big Bang, it would be silly to
> > think that after the explosion event that all the shot out Matter
> > would be coming together, as if one fired a shotgun at another person
> > standing a distance away with an empty shotgun and that the fired
> > pellets out of the first shotgun would be ending up down the barrel of
> > the 2nd shotgun.
>
> look at this first; then see if you still think that every
> thing that you see in the night sky is actually "there"
>
> ==
>
> given that the average distance from earth
> to the moon is 384400 km and the speed of
> light is 299792.458 km/s,
>
> on average, it takes 1.28 seconds for
> light from the moon to reach the earth.
>
> so, hypothetically speaking, if you had a human being,
> standing on the moon pointing a flashlight at the earth,
> which you could see through a telescope on the earth,
>
> and that person, shut off the flashlight,
>
> there would be a lag time of over 1 second
> between the time that person turned that
> flashlight off, and the time -you- on earth,
> stopped seeing the light from that flashlight.
>
> so, for over one second, you'd still think that
> the person was flashing a light at you after that
> person had already shut that light off.
>
> so now,
>
> let's say that we have a person
> on some further distant 'moon'.
>
> let's say that 'moon' is 384400000000 km from earth
> and the speed of light is still pretty much the same.
>
> now it takes 1280000 seconds for us to realize
> that that person has shut off the flashlight.
>
> it will take nearly -15 days- for us to realize
> that the person has turned off the flashlight.
>
> so, if we say that we 'see the flashlight'
>
> we still cannot say that the flashlight is still -on- 'now'
>
> where 'now' is -our- immediate time frame.
>
> now, convince yourself that the light from
> a distant Star 10 billion light years 'away'
>
> is most assuredly a Phantom of a light that
> has been turned off X number of billions
> of years -before- 'we' see that light 'now'
>
> or, at least, if you saw what was
> a yellow star like the sun, -then-
> it would be long beyond yellow and
> converted to a red giant by 'now'
>
> well, actually, if you saw a yellow star like
> the sun 10 billion light years away, that star
> would be long gone 'now' inasmuch as estimates
> for the life of the sun is ~5 billion more years.
>
> so, you'd be seeing a light artifact
> of a sun which is not there anymore.
>
> so, what you may conclude is that much
> of what some people are seeing through
>
> telescopes isn't -there- 'now' ...
>
> one other little thing,
>
> up to a point, it seems like
> you are looking 'out there'
>
> and up to a point, you may very
> well be looking 'out there'
>
> but at a certain point,
>
> you have to be looking 'in there'
>
> which is to say, you look
> out to 'nearby' galaxy
>
> and it is 'out there'
>
> but, looking much farther 'out'
>
> you flip around and are looking
> -into- a more distant -past-
>
> and, if you believe that
> the material universe has
> been expansive, then, in
>
> the more distant -past-
>
> you flip around and are looking -inwards-
>
> as if you are on the crest of a wave that
> is moving -away- from any possible
> 'central region'
>
> in any attempt to visualize this, you should
> -not- try to place the earth in the -center-
> of the universe
>
> after a point, the optical illusions take precedence
> and -you- are on the -outer edge- looking -inward-
>
> always remembering that you'd be looking
> -inwards- to a past that isn't there anymore.
>
> like you're in the outer edge crust
> of pie that's been eaten, only you
> seem to see a pie still there.
>
> at least some of the pie is eaten already.
>
> but you -seem- to be seeing the whole pie.
>
> and you may -expect- that stuff in
> the more remote -past- would appear
> to be moving -faster-
>
> and that it is this -outer edge earth-
> that is, in fact, 'slowing down'
>
> just as would be expected.
>
> what may give you trouble is;
>
> "why aren't we seeing the empty null region
> outside of the universe if we are out along
> the edge and not in the center?"
>
> right, if 'we' really are more out along
> the periphery of the material universe
> and -not- in some central region which
> may not even be 'there' anymore,
>
> then, we are seeing the edge, and that is -us-
> and we are also seeing some illusions which
> have disappeared into time, and, any
> 'empty null region' wouldn't be 'visible'
> to -us- anyway inasmuch as it has nothing
> we can relate to with our instruments.
>
> seeing, hearing etc.
>
> but that's drifting off...
>
> back to square one.
>
> all that and, though the
> 'speed of light' may
> be constant,
>
> the velocity of light is not,
> and, the interstellar miasma
> is just that,
>
> not a vacuum, but more like
> a dirty swimming pool but that's
> another difficulty entirely.
>
> ==
>
> > In an Atom Totality, we expect a spin and that spin would show up as a
> > Great Attractor where all the Matter is converging upon. The Great
> > Attractor makes no sense in a Big Bang theory.
>
> trouble is, all 94 electrons of a plutonium atom are -not-
> 'converging' anywhere, they are distanced in discrete spacial
> regions where the likelyhood of finding them is high and
> f d and p and s orbitals are not being sucked into the nucleus.
>
> can you comprehend this?
>
> > Now I covered just three evidences, but the book covers about 10 or
> > more evidences that the Atom Totality is the only proper theory for
> > the Universe.
>
> you didn't cover "evidences" you stated some sort of
> "interpretations" stacked upon other "interpretations"
> and made secondary claims based on primary suppositions
> which were simply -treated- as fact.
Tim, make these replies shorter, for I do not have the time for such
long lists.
No, those were Evidences, for the Microwave Background Radiation never
needed to be a blackbody radiation. The galaxies never needed to be
Solid Body Rotation, for gravity of Newton nor gravity of General
Relativity never give Solid Body Rotation. But Solid Body Rotation is
a common fact of astronomy. Saturn's Ring is even solid body rotation,
whether in part or whole. The movement of all Matter towards the Great
Attractor is not some interpretation but reality and fact.
These are facts, and facts that destroy the Big Bang theory. These are
facts that point to only one true theory-- the Universe itself is a
big atom.
Now I have to take a day off and simply worship. .
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> > > > where dots of the electron dot cloud are galaxies
> > > but, what i'd still like to know, is
> > > how do you propose to assign an integral spin quantum state
> > > to a dust cloud?
> >
Hi Tim, I did not see this post in sci.physics.electromag and it
appears that your post and thread has been flagged
for abuse and hidden (trashed).
It is easy to assign a spin to a electron that is in 10^40 pieces. It
is easy to link magnetic monopoles with spin
and that these magnetic monopoles can come in 10^40
entities.
But if you put the argument the other way, your way, how do you keep
Special Relativity with a hard ball electron visiting 10^40 sites
around the nucleus and still maintain the speed of light. You cannot.
I can envision your hardship in comprehending this, simply because the
Interpretation of the psi function is that it is probability and that
is a duality. So that the electron is both a particle and wave, but
you want to have only a particle, a hard ball particle. Your trouble
is not alone, for everyone who visits this part of physics wants to
have a
"human commonsense viewpoint and human understanding" whereas,
physics, at this level is beyond human thought and understanding other
than to say, the electron is both, particle and wave and when the atom
is in a copper wire with electron flow, it is a hard ball but when it
is the atom of the Atom Totality itself, the electron is a dot-cloud.
(snipped)
>
> i just happen to have an earlier copy of halliday and resnick
> and the way they describe this "probability" is that a
> particulate electron in the hydrogen atom is simply,
> more "likely to be" found at or around the "Bohr radius"
> and not that it is definitely =there=.
>
Right, what they are saying is that the electron is both hard ball and
dot cloud where the the dot cloud is interpreted as a 10^40 pieces of
the electron as waves, magnetic monopoles having the electron mass
divided by
10^40.
> teh "interpretation" of psi is this statistical 'maybe'
> as opposed to an 'exact' location.
>
> it's a matter of the precision of knowledge
> that may be had for a single particulate.
>
Well, here again, you think a human mind can penetrate the ultimate
meaning of particle wave duality and be smarter than the atom and its
electron. Whereas the psi being a probablity function is saying the
opposite, that we have reached the limit of a human mind knowing any
deeper than the duality of particle and wave.
You see, in the Atom Totality, atoms are God, and it is pretentious
for any human to think they can attain knowledge and understanding
that penetrates God itself. We can penetrate to particle and wave
duality, but we cannot penetrate deeper than particle and wave
duality.
> the electron -is- a single hard body whose position and momentum
> are statistical probability patterns, and not that an electron
> exists as a hard ball sometimes and as 10^40 slivers at any other time.
>
Well, now you are speaking around the edges of the Complimentarity
Principle. Where in one set up of an experiment, we highlight the wave
nature and in another setup we pull out the particle nature, but in no
experiment can we have both in full force. So, here again, you are
asking your human mind and my human mind to be better than God's mind
(atoms are God). We can reach the duality, but you want more, you want
why and how God works. You are not satisfied that God is more
intelligent than any of us and that our puny minds will somehow
understand and penetrate even further than the mind of God itself.
(Sorry for preaching but tomorrow is Plutonium Day and that is the
most holy day of all.)
> > So, Tim, you talk as if the Probability is a feature of a ball
> > electron. The Probability in physics and the Schrodinger Equation is
> > there because we have to "interpret the electron" not that the
> > electron is a pre-existing hard ball and given a chance of finding it
> > at one location rather than another location.
>
> no, your pals halliday and resmnick don't "interpret the electron"
>
> they =interpret= the meaning of psi and psi squared, and that
> interpretation reveals that a statistical understanding of
> the electron's whereabouts in reality is the best we can hope for.
Well, H&R never speak of a Atom Totality, but they do speak of the
idea of duality in those pages and that the interpretation is both a
particle and wave and why you necessarily need a dot cloud.
>
> > So, which is the better interpretation, yours or mine? You interpret
> > the electron to be a hard ball and the dots are a probability of
> > finding that hard ball a specific location. I interpret the electron
> > to be a smashed to smithereens particle in the ground state, and where
> > all those tiny bits and pieces of the electron form a dot-cloud, so
> > that you ask me what is the chance of finding the electron at a point
> > in space, and I answer with a chance that a piece of the electron is
> > at that particular point in space.
>
> you'd be claiming that you could solve the position and momentum
> for these slivered pieces of electrons when you certainly cannot
> solve this for an electron in it's entirety.
>
You can easily take parameters of a electron hard ball with mass of
0.5 MeV and momentum and position and then translate that into 10^40
magnetic monopoles as waves with sum total of 0.5 MeV and parameters
to match momentum and position.
> you'd be saying, "at such and such a point, this -sliver-
> is moving with such and such a simulataneous, -knowable-
> position and momentum" and -then- turn around and tell
> me that you -cannot- know these same facts
> for a solid ball electron.
>
Well, one of the reasons there is a duality of particle and wave is
that the electron must have perpetual motion as it whizzes around the
nucleus, and that is why you have Uncertainty, because if you had
Certainty, then you had to have "stopped" the electron, but you
cannot stop to measure.
So no, I am not saying any of what you put in my mouth above. I am
saying that as you reach particle and wave duality where the electron
is either a particle hard ball or a
dot cloud equal to waves, is the moment you cannot dive deeper into
understanding.
> your "interpretation" takes a problem that is unsolvable
> for a single entire electron, and makes it solvable for
> the smaller fractional -pieces- of that same electron.
>
You think it is unsolvable because it is a law of physics like the
Coulomb law. It is not a law of physics, for duality is the limit at
which the human mind cannot go deeper than Nature itself.
The understanding of Physics during the time of Jesus could not know
of the Schrodinger Equation and psi, not because it did not exist, for
it did exist, but that the minds of humans during the century of Jesus
are minds that was undeveloped to be able to know the psi function.
> you'd think that this was -obviously- erroneous...
>
> and i dare say, that halliday and resnick are not
> responsible for this "interpretation" of yours.
>
No, the word Interpretation appears often in physics. For the Born
Interpretation or the Bohr Interpretation, are different
interpretations of the psi. There is even the Everett Interpretation
of many worlds.
> did you ever hear anyone say that a bowling ball's
> motion would have a measurable wavelength if you
> could get a grating to accomodate the value?
>
If someone had a special glasses that if you put it on it would reveal
matter and mass as that of waves of magnetic monopoles, then the
bowling ball would be interpreted as a large number of waves, of dot
clouds.
> this is saying that a solid bowling ball, already should -have-
> an associated wavelength and not that the same bowling ball,
> suddenly -behaves- as if it were an ethereal wave pattern
> under cetrainconditions, whereupon, it returns to it's
> bowling ball condition after midnight.
>
> > Now, look at the night sky as if it were an atom and you see the stars
> > and galaxies as tiny white dots. Does that night sky look like just
> > one single huge large hard ball in the sky next to empty Space. Or,
> > does the night sky look like a huge large ball, that was smashed into
> > 10^40 tiny other things and then spread across the night sky?
>
> trouble is, you can -see- precisely where these dots are and
> where these dots are going and that no such "probability"
> is associated with their position and momentum.
>
> so, once again, if you claim that the -electron- behaves
> as a mass of 10^40 slivers, each of whose positions and momenta,
> -can be- known simultaneously, you are taking a much more
> difficult problem and sayingit is easier to solve for
> the unsolvable nature of the ball type electron.
>
> you'd be saying that, though we cannot know the position
> and momentum of a ball electron simultaneously, you
> -can- know these same phenomenon for the fractured
> -pieces- of a ball electron.
>
> and, isn't this what you are saying?
>
> and, isn't this "interpretation" self contradictory?
>
> > Now most students of physics, as they study it and learn it, are
> > confused with this chapter on the probability density function of the
> > Schrodinger Equation. The are confused because they do not understand
> > that it is a "interpretation" and the way that Bohr interprets the
> > wavefunction is that he realizes it is (the electron) is both a hard
> > ball at times such as in electricity flowing in a wire and we call it
> > the collapsed wavefunction, or it is a dot cloud where the electron
> > has been smashed into 10^40 tiny pieces.
>
> Bohr actually solved an -orbit- for a single electron
> in the hydrogen atom trouble is, that this falls apart
> as we leave the 1s state.
>
> i doubt very highly that Bohr promulgated an idea that the
> electron is or even ever behaves as if it were 10^40
> slivered fragments.
>
> the electron doesn't change form based on -how- 'we' try to look at it.
>
> the hard ball electron -has- a wave pattern associated with it's mechanics.
>
> the travels -of- the hard ball -has- aspects which can be
> mathematically derived -as- a wavelength and a frequency.
>
> =if= an electron were imagined and interpretted to be 10^40 smithereenies,
> those 10^40 smithereenies -travel- in unison as -if- they were a single
> mass and the greater probability of finding the entire mass of
> smithereenies is at the Bohr radius and then all the
> various solutions -to- psi, and so, for all practical purposes,
> even =if= you could interpret an electron as a smithereenies blob,
> that blob would still -behave- as if it were a single
> rather uniform entity.
>
> etc.
>
> > When students read that and
> > walk away with the impression that the electron is a hard ball with a
> > chance of being at a location represented by a dot cloud, then they
> > failed to understand this physics, failed to understand the use of
> > "probability" as meaning "interpretation".
>
> that's probably because probability doesn't mean that we get
> to interpret the electron into a fragmentary blob that fills
> the -entire- spacial region that it is 'most likely' to
> be inhabitting as -it- wobbles around the nucleus.
>
> the probability density is a function of the
> uncertainty of location and motion.
>
> we don't really think that the six pi electrons
> are actually -shaped- like a dumbell
>
> or are a mass of ethereal particles
> in a balloon of space.
>
> we really suggest that the electron, which
> is a singular entity, is 'somewhere'
> inside that balloon of space, we just cannot
> shrink the size of that balloon of space
> to exactly enwrap that singular entity.
>
> > The electron is both the
> > hard ball and the dot cloud, but it is not a hard ball with a chance
> > of being at a specific location. When you want the electron with a
> > chance at a specific location, the electron is no longer a hard ball,
> > but a smashed to smithereens 10^40 tiny pieces and when you find a
> > piece of the electron there at a specific point in space, you have not
> > found the total electron as a hard ball, but you found 1/10^40 of the
> > electron.
>
> again, you are implying that you -can- find a smithereenie fragment
> of an electron at a specifiable location moving in a specifiable path,
> and this is already shown not to be the case -for- the hard
> ball singular entity.
>
> the chances of specificity for the smithereenie is
> no more probable than the chances of finding
> the singular entity.
>
> your 'interpretation, seeks to invent a specificity
> that is already lost on the larger object.
>
> it has no real value, either as a descriptive device
> nor as a verifiable aspect of reality.
>
> > So that if I point to the night sky a faraway galaxy or faraway star
> > in the Milky Way, I am pointing to a piece of the last electron of a
> > Plutonium Atom Totality.
>
> actually, you are pointing to a large blob of atoms and these
> atoms occupy a continuous spectrum of gravitational energy
> states and -not- discrete electromagnetic energy states.
>
> > Now to answer all your other questions, I can make a quick brief
> > summary:
> > (1) The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation comes in a 2.71 Kelvin
> > temperature, but the most important feature of that temperature which
> > all the other physicists and astronomers know, is the feature that the
> > temperature is blackbody. Blackbody radiation can exist in only one
> > circumstance, in that a cavity, a inside interior has to exist to form
> > blackbody radiation. That means the Big Bang is an utter fake theory
> > for the universe since it says the Universe is in an explosion state.
> > You cannot have a explosion for the Universe and have the microwave
> > radiation be blackbody. So the Universe is the "inside of something" a
> > cavity, and what cavity could possible be the Universe? The only
> > logical choice is an atom, a single large atom that has all the other
> > atoms inside itself as a cavity. If the radiation had not been
> > blackbody, the Big Bang theory could live a day longer, but ever since
> > the physicists first reported that the Microwave Background Radiation
> > of the Cosmos was blackbody radiation, the Big Bang theory was dead,
> > not buried yet, for it takes time for scientists to understand what
> > had happened when the news of blackbody came in.
>
> the problem here is that you'd be suggesting that the material 'portion'
> of teh physical universe simply came to exist in a pre-existing infinity
> of an open spacial region, when it can easily be said that the spacial
> region in which the material universe finds itself
>
> came in to existiance -as- teh material came in to existence and was
> not 'always' there and the matter simply popped into a space that
> was already there.
>
> no, we do not speak of a spacial vacuum that became inhabbitted
> by matter, we speak of a spaceless epoch into which was spawned
> both space and matter.
>
> in this respect, you -can- say that the material universe
> is encapsulated in a spacial cavity within a space-less domain.
>
> we beginn from a spaceless and matterless state
>
> and both space and matter come to be simultaneously
> and so, to speak of a cavitation is not contradicted.
>
> > (2) Is there another major clue that the Cosmos is a gigantic atom
> > rather than the blackbody radiation? Well yes, there are dozens of
> > major clues. The second major clue is what is known as "solid body
> > rotation or rigid body rotation". It is seen first in astronomy
> > history by the spiral galaxies and barred spiral galaxies for the
> > telescopes observed these spiral arms having solid body rotation. That
> > is rotation which many of us growing up in the 1960s remember as the
> > vinyl record player that the music disc spins on a record player.
>
> trouble is, that some claim that materials are pouring in to the hole
> in the center of these record albums and are -not- rigidly held at bay.
>
> in the atomic model, electrons do -not- pour into the nucleus
> where they may be obliterated by gravitational puckers.
>
> > Now
> > the only way one can get solid body rotation for it requires a huge
> > amount of energy to make solid body rotation is in the Maxwell
> > Equations the EM force which is 10^40 stronger than the force of
> > gravity.
>
> the moon is not held in orbit by an elecromotive force.
>
> "classical mechanics" simply does not work as the 'best explanation'
> when applied to teh behaviors of very small things, like electrons,
> and, so-called "quantum mechanics" was developed to provide a more
> correct explanation for phenomenon associated with
> very small objects and light.
>
> as the moon travels around the earth
>
> any electrostatic interaction/s
>
> will be buried under the much
>
> larger gravitational forces.
>
> if you shrink the earth and moon
>
> to very tiny proportions,
>
> there comes some point when
> the gravitational forces
>
> are somewhat comparable to
> the electrostatic interactions.
>
> at this point, the gravtitational forces
> would be so small and not enough to hold
> the earth and moon in orbit about each other,
>
> and the tendency would be for the
> moon to fly away from the earth
>
> sort of like, if you had a ball on
> a string and were spinning it
> around your finger,
>
> and, if you cut the string,
>
> the ball would go flying off away from you.
>
> but now, with the really
>
> very tiny moon and earth
>
> with a gravitational force that
> would tend towards them flying apart,
>
> the electorstatic interaction starts
> to play a significant role
>
> and the two bodies, with nearly
> equal and opposite charges
>
> are being held together by this force, while
> at the same time, trying to fly apart from
> each other because the gravity is very
> weakly unable to hold them together,
>
> but, the two bodies do not simply become
> glued together and form a de facto single body,
>
> because, in this dimensional range,
>
> the two forces, gravity and
> electrostatic interactions
> are so ideally matched
>
> that, the flying apart
>
> and the attracting together
>
> are bound up in a "harmonic oscillation"
>
> sort of like the electrostatic interaction
> constitutes what amounts to a tiny spring
> string which holds the two together even
> as they would be flying apart.
>
> and the two oscillate with "harmonics"
>
> very much like the "harmonics"
> of musical instrumentation.
>
> see, another problem is, let's say the moon
> is slowly drifting away from the earth, not
> entirely hypothetical as some people suggest
> that the moon is, in fact, slowly drifting
> away from the earth,
>
> ok, so, in this drifting, the moon is passing
> thru a continuous spectrum of energy states
>
> and is -not- doing what electrons seem to do,
>
> which appear in one state, a ground state lets say,
> and then, appear in a higher -discrete- energy state
> and never make an appearance in some
> state -between- ..say, 1S and 2Px
>
> so, the stars and galaxies and planets and all that space dust
> is not found in discrete energy states, but...apparently,
> in a rather continuous spectrum of energy states.
>
> and this behavior is not at all -like- a universal plutonium atom.
>
> we wouldnt be getting pelted with meteorites if there was
> such a discrete set of possible energy states as on the atomic level.
>
> > The force of gravity can never get your vinyl record to spin
> > as solid body rotation but EM can. So when astronomers started
> > observing Solid Body Rotation in galaxies and in clusters of galaxies,
> > what they then did was really saddening, and what they did was show
> > that they have little logic in order to be a scientist. They saw Solid
> > Body Rotation and instead of saying "throw out gravity and replace
> > gravity with EM-gravity", and instead of being logical, what they did
> > was say that the Cosmos must be filled with dark matter and dark
> > energy in order to make those galaxies spin in solid body rotation.
>
> there are other explanations for galactic spin.
>
> God's finger spinning them like a top is possible. etc.
>
> > So, I ask you, if the radiation is blackbody and that means a Cosmic
> > cavity, and if the Cosmos has many examples of solid body rotation and
> > that means EM, then who in their right mind would select the Big Bang
> > when it is already trashed by blackbody radiation and by Solid Body
> > Rotation.
>
> i'm not married to a big bang.
>
> so, i feel no need to offer up a compelling defense for it.
>
> i -do- suggest that this material universe had a
> very definite beginning from not being there,
>
> but the actual mechanics involved, i don't
> speak of a random accident caused by -nothing-
>
> > But, let me give you one more, for I have time for one more now. If
> > the Universe is a Atom Totality, a single huge atom of plutonium, the
> > isotope 231 Pu to be specific, if the universe is this one big atom
> > and what we see is the last electron the 94th electron of this huge
> > single atom, then we should see a feature of "spin" in the Night Sky.
> > We should see a feature of "all the galaxies" heading for one
> > direction.
>
> first of all, you haven't shown that an electron is ever actually
> 10^40 slivers, this is just your 'interpretation' of a probability
> density which you simply state it as fact but show no real
> physical phenomena which demonstrates this.
>
> second, if you did have a 10^40 slivered electron, and you claimed
> that it 'occupied' the entire spacial region known as electronic
> orbitals, you would have a smoothly dispersed array of fragments,
> which the visible material universe clear is not.
>
> you would claim that anywhere within an electronic orbitals geometry,
> you would be able to find such a sliver and so, your 10^40 slivers
> must be evenly dispersed.
>
> you would not 'see' clusters of electronic fragments and interstitial
> spacial regions within an orbital, but you do see such clustering
> and spacial regions in the material universe.
>
> so, your two interpretations don't seem to
> fit together as well as you'd like to suggest.
>
> in fact, they are entirely -different-
>
> your interpretted electron dust cloud could not
> -look- like the material universe does look.
>
> and this based on what you -do- actually say.
>
> you say this above;
>
> > I interpret the electron
> > to be a smashed to smithereens particle in the ground state, and where
> > all those tiny bits and pieces of the electron form a dot-cloud, so
> > that you ask me what is the chance of finding the electron at a point
> > in space, and I answer with a chance that a piece of the electron is
> > at that particular point in space.
>
> see, you'd be claimig that whatever 'point' in the
> spacial region encompassed by an electronic orbital,
>
> you you could tell me thata sliver of an electron
> is occupying that point, and this is not at all
> what the night sky looks like.
>
> not even close
>
> > (3) In an Atom Totality, a quantum spin must exist, a direction in
> > which all the Matter of the Universe is moving towards. Does such a
> > feature occur? Well, last I looked, everything, every piece of Matter
> > that we know of is moving in the direction of what is called the Great
> > Attractor. Now if the Universe was a Big Bang, it would be silly to
> > think that after the explosion event that all the shot out Matter
> > would be coming together, as if one fired a shotgun at another person
> > standing a distance away with an empty shotgun and that the fired
> > pellets out of the first shotgun would be ending up down the barrel of
> > the 2nd shotgun.
>
> look at this first; then see if you still think that every
> thing that you see in the night sky is actually "there"
>
> ==
>
> given that the average distance from earth
> to the moon is 384400 km and the speed of
> light is 299792.458 km/s,
>
> on average, it takes 1.28 seconds for
> light from the moon to reach the earth.
>
> so, hypothetically speaking, if you had a human being,
> standing on the moon pointing a flashlight at the earth,
> which you could see through a telescope on the earth,
>
> and that person, shut off the flashlight,
>
> there would be a lag time of over 1 second
> between the time that person turned that
> flashlight off, and the time -you- on earth,
> stopped seeing the light from that flashlight.
>
> so, for over one second, you'd still think that
> the person was flashing a light at you after that
> person had already shut that light off.
>
> so now,
>
> let's say that we have a person
> on some further distant 'moon'.
>
> let's say that 'moon' is 384400000000 km from earth
> and the speed of light is still pretty much the same.
>
> now it takes 1280000 seconds for us to realize
> that that person has shut off the flashlight.
>
> it will take nearly -15 days- for us to realize
> that the person has turned off the flashlight.
>
> so, if we say that we 'see the flashlight'
>
> we still cannot say that the flashlight is still -on- 'now'
>
> where 'now' is -our- immediate time frame.
>
> now, convince yourself that the light from
> a distant Star 10 billion light years 'away'
>
> is most assuredly a Phantom of a light that
> has been turned off X number of billions
> of years -before- 'we' see that light 'now'
>
> or, at least, if you saw what was
> a yellow star like the sun, -then-
> it would be long beyond yellow and
> converted to a red giant by 'now'
>
> well, actually, if you saw a yellow star like
> the sun 10 billion light years away, that star
> would be long gone 'now' inasmuch as estimates
> for the life of the sun is ~5 billion more years.
>
> so, you'd be seeing a light artifact
> of a sun which is not there anymore.
>
> so, what you may conclude is that much
> of what some people are seeing through
>
> telescopes isn't -there- 'now' ...
>
> one other little thing,
>
> up to a point, it seems like
> you are looking 'out there'
>
> and up to a point, you may very
> well be looking 'out there'
>
> but at a certain point,
>
> you have to be looking 'in there'
>
> which is to say, you look
> out to 'nearby' galaxy
>
> and it is 'out there'
>
> but, looking much farther 'out'
>
> you flip around and are looking
> -into- a more distant -past-
>
> and, if you believe that
> the material universe has
> been expansive, then, in
>
> the more distant -past-
>
> you flip around and are looking -inwards-
>
> as if you are on the crest of a wave that
> is moving -away- from any possible
> 'central region'
>
> in any attempt to visualize this, you should
> -not- try to place the earth in the -center-
> of the universe
>
> after a point, the optical illusions take precedence
> and -you- are on the -outer edge- looking -inward-
>
> always remembering that you'd be looking
> -inwards- to a past that isn't there anymore.
>
> like you're in the outer edge crust
> of pie that's been eaten, only you
> seem to see a pie still there.
>
> at least some of the pie is eaten already.
>
> but you -seem- to be seeing the whole pie.
>
> and you may -expect- that stuff in
> the more remote -past- would appear
> to be moving -faster-
>
> and that it is this -outer edge earth-
> that is, in fact, 'slowing down'
>
> just as would be expected.
>
> what may give you trouble is;
>
> "why aren't we seeing the empty null region
> outside of the universe if we are out along
> the edge and not in the center?"
>
> right, if 'we' really are more out along
> the periphery of the material universe
> and -not- in some central region which
> may not even be 'there' anymore,
>
> then, we are seeing the edge, and that is -us-
> and we are also seeing some illusions which
> have disappeared into time, and, any
> 'empty null region' wouldn't be 'visible'
> to -us- anyway inasmuch as it has nothing
> we can relate to with our instruments.
>
> seeing, hearing etc.
>
> but that's drifting off...
>
> back to square one.
>
> all that and, though the
> 'speed of light' may
> be constant,
>
> the velocity of light is not,
> and, the interstellar miasma
> is just that,
>
> not a vacuum, but more like
> a dirty swimming pool but that's
> another difficulty entirely.
>
> ==
>
> > In an Atom Totality, we expect a spin and that spin would show up as a
> > Great Attractor where all the Matter is converging upon. The Great
> > Attractor makes no sense in a Big Bang theory.
>
> trouble is, all 94 electrons of a plutonium atom are -not-
> 'converging' anywhere, they are distanced in discrete spacial
> regions where the likelyhood of finding them is high and
> f d and p and s orbitals are not being sucked into the nucleus.
>
> can you comprehend this?
>
> > Now I covered just three evidences, but the book covers about 10 or
> > more evidences that the Atom Totality is the only proper theory for
> > the Universe.
>
> you didn't cover "evidences" you stated some sort of
> "interpretations" stacked upon other "interpretations"
> and made secondary claims based on primary suppositions
> which were simply -treated- as fact.
Tim, make these replies shorter, for I do not have the time for such
long lists.
No, those were Evidences, for the Microwave Background Radiation never
needed to be a blackbody radiation. The galaxies never needed to be
Solid Body Rotation, for gravity of Newton nor gravity of General
Relativity never give Solid Body Rotation. But Solid Body Rotation is
a common fact of astronomy. Saturn's Ring is even solid body rotation,
whether in part or whole. The movement of all Matter towards the Great
Attractor is not some interpretation but reality and fact.
These are facts, and facts that destroy the Big Bang theory. These are
facts that point to only one true theory-- the Universe itself is a
big atom.
Now I have to take a day off and simply worship. .
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Timothy Sutter
Nov 7, 2012, 9:48:19 AM11/7/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > > whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> > > > > where dots of the electron dot cloud are galaxies
> > > > but, what i'd still like to know, is
> > > > how do you propose to assign an integral spin quantum state
> > > > to a dust cloud?
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > > whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> > > > > where dots of the electron dot cloud are galaxies
> > > > but, what i'd still like to know, is
> > > > how do you propose to assign an integral spin quantum state
> > > > to a dust cloud?
> It is easy to assign a spin to a electron that is in 10^40 pieces. It
> is easy to link magnetic monopoles with spin
> and that these magnetic monopoles can come in 10^40
> entities.
> But if you put the argument the other way, your way, how do you keep
> Special Relativity with a hard ball electron visiting 10^40 sites
> around the nucleus and still maintain the speed of light. You cannot.
now, the electron is called a "lepton"
> is easy to link magnetic monopoles with spin
> and that these magnetic monopoles can come in 10^40
> entities.
> But if you put the argument the other way, your way, how do you keep
> Special Relativity with a hard ball electron visiting 10^40 sites
> around the nucleus and still maintain the speed of light. You cannot.
and a "lepton" is said to be an "elementary particle"
and an "elementary particle" shows itself
as not composed of smaller particles.
so, your "interpretation" doesn't seem indicative
of what is actually observed of leptons.
apparently, you can smash a proton into
a -handful- of smaller fragments
but, to date, the electron, which is a "lepton"
has not been smashed in to any smaller particles.
Timothy Sutter
Nov 7, 2012, 11:08:35 AM11/7/12
to
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> (snipped)
> > i just happen to have an earlier copy of halliday and resnick
> > and the way they describe this "probability" is that a
> > particulate electron in the hydrogen atom is simply,
> > more "likely to be" found at or around the "Bohr radius"
> > and not that it is definitely =there=.
> Right, what they are saying is that the electron is both hard ball and
> dot cloud where the the dot cloud is interpreted as a 10^40 pieces of
> the electron as waves, magnetic monopoles having the electron mass
> divided by 10^40.
now, see if you can comprehend this;
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> (snipped)
> > i just happen to have an earlier copy of halliday and resnick
> > and the way they describe this "probability" is that a
> > particulate electron in the hydrogen atom is simply,
> > more "likely to be" found at or around the "Bohr radius"
> > and not that it is definitely =there=.
> Right, what they are saying is that the electron is both hard ball and
> dot cloud where the the dot cloud is interpreted as a 10^40 pieces of
> the electron as waves, magnetic monopoles having the electron mass
> divided by 10^40.
==
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/articles/kullander/
Refined measurements of the size of the electron using
electron-positron colliders have shown that the charge
of the electron is confined to dimensions at least
1,000 times smaller than the size of the proton...
==
see, this suggests that the charge of the electron
is =confined= to physical dimensions smaller that
the size of the proton.
'kay?
==
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton
The proton is about 1.6–1.7 fm in diameter.
==
now, i femtometer is equal to 10-15 meters.
here we see the general radius of
the various hydrogenlike electronic orbitals.
==
http://www.chm.davidson.edu/vce/atomicorbitals/size.html
n Shell radius
(angstroms) Nbr. Electrons
1 K 1.4 2
2 L 4.8 8
3 M 10.3 18
4 N 17.8 32
==
as you see, the orbitals are on the order
of "angstroms" or 10^-10 meters
so, what we have, is a particle, the electron,
whose charge is confined to dimensions on
the order of 10^-15 to 10^-16 meters
wandering about in an orbital schmear
that is on the order of 10^-10 meters.
which is to say that the spacial region which
encapsulates the chargeed particle is over
5 orders of magnitude the size of
the particle itself.
with me so far?
this means that the orbital is about 100000 times
larger than the -charge- confinement of the particle,
and so, we do not have a diffuse band of
smithereenies in a cloud the size of a given orbital
but a rather -small- solid object wandering
about in a balloon of space that is upwards
of 100000 times as large as the particle itself.
the "cloud" does -not- speak of a smithereenied electron
but that the most _likely_ =neighborhood= where we
may find this object, is upwards of 5 orders
of magnitude the size of the object itself,
and all we can say is;
"=it= is -in- there somewhere"
'kay?
Timothy Sutter
Nov 7, 2012, 11:47:30 AM11/7/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
the electron charge is confined to
a space on the order of 10^-18 meters.
not 10^-15 meters.
and the orbitals are in the 10^-10 region,
so, teh electron is wandering about in a balloon
about 10 million times as large as teh electron itself.
sort of like a person who is six feet tall
swimming in an ocean way larger than the entire earth.
and all you can say is the guy is somewhere in the vast ocean...
gimme numbers, that ocean may be from hear to the moon
mean distance from earth to moon is 384,400 km
this ocean would be in the millions of kilometers
so, there's maxwells demon, about 6 feet rtall
swimming in an ocean from here to the moon and beyond
and yet, maxwell's deamon is known to be confined
to that six feet and is -not- schmeared
all throughout tha ocean.
=now= do we see?
mawell's deamon is swimminhin a very very large cloud
and you can't -see- the daemon, but, you
can say that he's in that cloud bank somewhere.
'KAY?
good, fine, now i get it....
Archimedes Plutonium
Nov 8, 2012, 2:40:59 AM11/8/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Nov 7, 10:08 am, Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com> wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snipped)
force is usually in terms of say 2 MeV whereas a typical covalent bond
force of chemistry is of 2 eV.
In other words, the Chemical Bond and the Strong Nuclear Force is one
and the same only on different distance scales.
Maybe you had read some of my earlier pages and was just now referring
to that similarity of a factor of 10^6 difference.
Google's New-Newsgroups censors AP posts but Drexel's Math Forum does
not and my posts in archive form is seen here:
http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986
> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snipped)
>
> The proton is about 1.6 1.7 fm in diameter.
> ==
>
> now, i femtometer is equal to 10-15 meters.
>
> here we see the general radius of
> the various hydrogenlike electronic orbitals.
>
> ==http://www.chm.davidson.edu/vce/atomicorbitals/size.html
> The proton is about 1.6 1.7 fm in diameter.
> ==
>
> now, i femtometer is equal to 10-15 meters.
>
> here we see the general radius of
> the various hydrogenlike electronic orbitals.
>
>
> n Shell radius
> (angstroms) Nbr. Electrons
> 1 K 1.4 2
> 2 L 4.8 8
> 3 M 10.3 18
> 4 N 17.8 32
> ==
>
> as you see, the orbitals are on the order
> of "angstroms" or 10^-10 meters
>
> so, what we have, is a particle, the electron,
> whose charge is confined to dimensions on
> the order of 10^-15 to 10^-16 meters
>
> wandering about in an orbital schmear
> that is on the order of 10^-10 meters.
Tim, earlier in this book, I made the argument that the strong nuclear
> n Shell radius
> (angstroms) Nbr. Electrons
> 1 K 1.4 2
> 2 L 4.8 8
> 3 M 10.3 18
> 4 N 17.8 32
> ==
>
> as you see, the orbitals are on the order
> of "angstroms" or 10^-10 meters
>
> so, what we have, is a particle, the electron,
> whose charge is confined to dimensions on
> the order of 10^-15 to 10^-16 meters
>
> wandering about in an orbital schmear
> that is on the order of 10^-10 meters.
force is usually in terms of say 2 MeV whereas a typical covalent bond
force of chemistry is of 2 eV.
In other words, the Chemical Bond and the Strong Nuclear Force is one
and the same only on different distance scales.
Maybe you had read some of my earlier pages and was just now referring
to that similarity of a factor of 10^6 difference.
Google's New-Newsgroups censors AP posts but Drexel's Math Forum does
not and my posts in archive form is seen here:
http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986
Timothy Sutter
Nov 8, 2012, 6:43:01 AM11/8/12
to
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > so, what we have, is a particle, the electron,
> > whose charge is confined to dimensions on
> > the order of 10^-15 to 10^-16 meters
> > wandering about in an orbital schmear
> > that is on the order of 10^-10 meters.
> Tim, earlier in this book, I made the argument that the strong nuclear
> force is usually in terms of say 2 MeV whereas a typical covalent bond
> force of chemistry is of 2 eV.
> In other words, the Chemical Bond and the Strong Nuclear Force is one
> and the same only on different distance scales.
try again;
> > so, what we have, is a particle, the electron,
> > whose charge is confined to dimensions on
> > the order of 10^-15 to 10^-16 meters
> > wandering about in an orbital schmear
> > that is on the order of 10^-10 meters.
> Tim, earlier in this book, I made the argument that the strong nuclear
> force is usually in terms of say 2 MeV whereas a typical covalent bond
> force of chemistry is of 2 eV.
> In other words, the Chemical Bond and the Strong Nuclear Force is one
> and the same only on different distance scales.
now, the electron is called a "lepton"
and a "lepton" is said to be an "elementary particle"
and an "elementary particle" shows itself
as not composed of smaller particles.
so, your "interpretation" doesn't seem indicative
of what is actually observed of leptons.
apparently, you can smash a proton into
a -handful- of smaller fragments
but, to date, the electron, which is a "lepton"
has not been smashed in to any smaller particles.
now, see if you can comprehend this;
==
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/articles/kullander/
Refined measurements of the size of the electron using
electron-positron colliders have shown that the charge
of the electron is confined to dimensions at least
1,000 times smaller than the size of the proton...
==
see, this suggests that the charge of the electron
is =confined= to physical dimensions smaller that
the size of the proton.
'kay?
==
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton
==
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/articles/kullander/
Refined measurements of the size of the electron using
electron-positron colliders have shown that the charge
of the electron is confined to dimensions at least
1,000 times smaller than the size of the proton...
==
see, this suggests that the charge of the electron
is =confined= to physical dimensions smaller that
the size of the proton.
'kay?
==
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton
The proton is about 1.6�1.7 fm in diameter.
==
now, i femtometer is equal to 10-15 meters.
here we see the general radius of
the various hydrogenlike electronic orbitals.
==
http://www.chm.davidson.edu/vce/atomicorbitals/size.html
n Shell radius
(angstroms) Nbr. Electrons
1 K 1.4 2
2 L 4.8 8
3 M 10.3 18
4 N 17.8 32
==
as you see, the orbitals are on the order
of "angstroms" or 10^-10 meters
so, what we have, is a particle, the electron,
whose charge is confined to dimensions on
the order of 10^-15 to 10^-16 meters
wandering about in an orbital schmear
that is on the order of 10^-10 meters.
==
now, i femtometer is equal to 10-15 meters.
here we see the general radius of
the various hydrogenlike electronic orbitals.
==
http://www.chm.davidson.edu/vce/atomicorbitals/size.html
n Shell radius
(angstroms) Nbr. Electrons
1 K 1.4 2
2 L 4.8 8
3 M 10.3 18
4 N 17.8 32
==
as you see, the orbitals are on the order
of "angstroms" or 10^-10 meters
so, what we have, is a particle, the electron,
whose charge is confined to dimensions on
the order of 10^-15 to 10^-16 meters
wandering about in an orbital schmear
that is on the order of 10^-10 meters.
which is to say that the spacial region which
encapsulates the chargeed particle is over
5 orders of magnitude the size of
the particle itself.
with me so far?
this means that the orbital is about 100000 times
larger than the -charge- confinement of the particle,
and so, we do not have a diffuse band of
smithereenies in a cloud the size of a given orbital
but a rather -small- solid object wandering
about in a balloon of space that is upwards
of 100000 times as large as the particle itself.
the "cloud" does -not- speak of a smithereenied electron
but that the most _likely_ =neighborhood= where we
may find this object, is upwards of 5 orders
of magnitude the size of the object itself,
and all we can say is;
"=it= is -in- there somewhere"
'kay?
encapsulates the chargeed particle is over
5 orders of magnitude the size of
the particle itself.
with me so far?
this means that the orbital is about 100000 times
larger than the -charge- confinement of the particle,
and so, we do not have a diffuse band of
smithereenies in a cloud the size of a given orbital
but a rather -small- solid object wandering
about in a balloon of space that is upwards
of 100000 times as large as the particle itself.
the "cloud" does -not- speak of a smithereenied electron
but that the most _likely_ =neighborhood= where we
may find this object, is upwards of 5 orders
of magnitude the size of the object itself,
and all we can say is;
"=it= is -in- there somewhere"
'kay?
0 new messages