Re: Positrons
Y.Porat
> On 10/5/2011 2:46 AM, HardySpicer wrote:
>
> > If an electron+positron = photons, is the process reversable? Can you
> > get antimatter from photons?
>
> > Hardy
>
> Absolutely. It's called pair production. The threshold energy is 1.022 MeV.
-------------------
so from where is the mass of electron and positron ?? !!!! (:-)
Y.Porat
-------------------------
PD
Darwin123
> > > If an electron+positron = photons, is the process reversable? Can you
> > > get antimatter from photons?
>
> > > Hardy
>
> > Absolutely. It's called pair production. The threshold energy is 1.022 MeV.
than the combined rest mass of both the positron and electron.
Whoops, you don't believe in relativistic mass. Therefore, I take
back my claim. The mass of the electron and positron came from
nothing.
Are you happy now ?-)
Darwin123
created the pair has mass. The photon doesn't have "rest mass".
However, the it had mass.
Technically, the conservation of mass is the same as the
conservation of energy. According to relativity, energy in an
electromagnetic field has an inertial mass just like the energy in an
"electron-positron field."
I have read an essay where the physicist identified conservation
of mass as conservation of rest mass. However, this isn't the common
usage.
Obviously, rest mass isn't conserved in pair-production. The
initial photon has no rest mass. The final state has a rest mass twice
that of a single electron. Obviously, rest mass isn't conserved.
As an added complication, another particle is needed to carry away
the momentum of the initial photon. The photon has to collide with a
charged or magnetic particle to generate an electron-positron pair.
The initial charged particle can remain unchanged, but for kinetic
energy. The initial particle may take a small amount of kinetic
energy. This kinetic energy accounts for the balance of relativistic
mass.
Also note that pair production can take place when two charged
particles collide, with no photon. Here, the entire relativistic mass
of the electrons comes from the kinetic energy of the two charged
particles.
jon car
moving
surrounded by an spherical sign electric field moving with it.
Paul Cardinale
the word "mass", without a qualifier, refers to the quanitity more
precisely called 'invariant mass'. The quantity that you are refering
to when you use (inappropriately) the word "mass" is sometimes called
'relativistic mass', but that term is also deprecated (because the
quantity isn't really like mass). The prefered term for that quantity
is 'total energy'.
Paul Cardinale
PD
ITSELF cannot pair-produce, for *exactly* the reason you just cited.
(A virtual photon can, because it can have nonzero rest mass.) Pair
production occurs in the presence of another charged object. And in
that closed system, you find that invariant mass *is* conserved but it
is the invariant mass of the WHOLE SYSTEM.
And remember, a two-photon system (for example) can have nonzero
invariant mass, even though the individual photons each have zero
invariant mass.
Darwin123
> This points to an interesting observation. A single real photon ALL BY
> ITSELF cannot pair-produce, for *exactly* the reason you just cited.
> (A virtual photon can, because it can have nonzero rest mass.) Pair
> production occurs in the presence of another charged object.
I stated it a little too strong. In theory, two photons with equal
energy moving in opposite directions can collide and form an electron-
positron pair even in a vacuum. I say "in theory" because the cross
sectional area for this reaction is extremely small.
One can calculate the cross section for the "two photon
annihilation and pair production" using quantum electrodynamics.
However, it is far too small to to determine with current technology.
That is why I listed some other reactions that have been validated
with experiment, and address his implied question.
He was asking whether the reverse effect happens. The QED theory
predicts that the answer is "yes" but experiments to prove it are
impractical at present.
His more-general implied-question was whether particles with
zero rest mass could annihilate to form particles with positive rest
mass. There are reactions like this that are not only predicted by
QED, but have been detected experimentally. So I listed some reactions
that have been experimentally verified.
I suspect that photon annihilating photon reactions occurred when
the density of photons and electron-hole pairs was much larger. There
may have been a time a few short moments after the Big Bang when such
reactions were likely. However, I doubt whether there are any
astronomical observations that could support this.
The reaction of electron-hole pairs, or even mesons, in a
proton-proton collision are enough to prove that "invariant mass" can
be created from kinetic energy. Of course, relativistic mass is
equivalent to total energy. However, I think the concept of
"relativistic mass" has a certain heuristic value.
>And in
> that closed system, you find that invariant mass *is* conserved but it
> is the invariant mass of the WHOLE SYSTEM.
>
> And remember, a two-photon system (for example) can have nonzero
> invariant mass, even though the individual photons each have zero
> invariant mass.
Yes, they do. That is one reason that I think that relativistic
mass should be kept as a broad concept. A sealed box of photons is
"heavier" because it contains photons, even though each photon has no
rest mass. The sealed box has additional inertial mass when it traps
photons. The sealed box has extra inertial mass if the electrons in
the box are moving at high speed. So the energy trapped in the box can
be considered as contributing to the total inertial mass.
Byron Forbes
Good question.
Maybe an electron is created when a photon makes something in the aether spin?
The photon's energy is now manifest in the electron's spin?
Byron Forbes
This makes me think a little along the lines of mass/time.
Take a spherical particle, mass = m, orbiting something. It sweeps out a volume (ring) every revolution. As it's
speed approaches infinity, it is as though the particle is everywhere in that ring simultaneously. So the mass is the
density of the particle * ring volume.
Obviously, as the speed increases, the orbit would typically increase so.................
be...@iwaynet.net
> Good question.
>
> Maybe an electron is created when a photon makes something in the aether spin?
>
> The photon's energy is now manifest in the electron's spin?
So now that you are thinking ponder this sort of model. Suppose and
electron is some kind of spinning vortex in the aether. Suppose that
positron is the same vortex only spinning the other direction.
So what happens when those two items collide? Well one thing that COULD
happen would be like having two flywheels connected like a Yo Yo
spinning in opposite directions and you apply brakes between them. Spins
disappear and heat (EM radiation) is emitted. So we could think of a
model like this for matter-antimatter annihilation.
But wait. If we have a photon buzzing along alone it seems that we can
split it in the thing called "pair production" back into an electron and
a positron. So does this not say that flywheel-brake model is wrong. The
two spinning objects must keep spinning in the photon, because later if
they were stopped, you'd have to propose some sort of spin-up mechanism
to get them going again for pair production! It's simpler (Occam's
razor) to simply propose that photons are composed ot two spinning
particles whose spin effects cancel at a distance. However close to the
photon that might not be the case!
Food for thought.
jon car
How could we have observed a light wave become matter?
Compton says light energy can push matter faster not
that it can convert. Please show the measurements of
this phenomenon happeing. It is just a poor notion that
we have.
Positrons can't make it in the earth's atmosphere.
We have only matter to store anti matter but they
would react right on the spot. The anti matter debacle
is also a big emberassment to a science that thought
it knew what it was talking about.
PD
>
> How could we have observed a light wave become matter?
> Compton says light energy can push matter faster not
> that it can convert. Please show the measurements of
> this phenomenon happeing. It is just a poor notion that
> we have.
http://teachers.web.cern.ch/teachers/archiv/HST2002/Bubblech/mbitu/electron-positron.htm
jon car
> On 10/11/2011 4:35 PM, jon car wrote:
>
>
>
> > How could we have observed a light wave become matter?
> > Compton says light energy can push matter faster not
> > that it can convert. Please show the measurements of
> > this phenomenon happeing. It is just a poor notion that
> > we have.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Positrons can't make it in the earth's atmosphere.
> > We have only matter to store anti matter but they
> > would react right on the spot. The anti matter debacle
> > is also a big emberassment to a science that thought
>
> - Show quoted text -
That is funny. A track? Where did we get the original positron from?
What much can that track tell you seriously?
I believe there is more like 12 fundamental particles.
We are fooling ourselves about what we know by a bubble chamber guess.
If that's all we have?
Good luck!
Anti matter can't be contained with anything but itself. It is ruled
out bacsuse it would have to be handled by real matter and that means
anihilation.
Michael Moroney
>On Oct 11, 2:54 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/11/2011 4:35 PM, jon car wrote:
>>
>> > How could we have observed a light wave become matter?
>> > Compton says light energy can push matter faster not
>> > that it can convert. Please show the measurements of
>> > this phenomenon happeing. It is just a poor notion that
>> > we have.
>>
>> http://teachers.web.cern.ch/teachers/archiv/HST2002/Bubblech/mbitu/el...
>That is funny. A track? Where did we get the original positron from?
In the first photo they are from pair production, see the original
question. A high energy photon becomes an electron-positron pair.
In the second photo, the source of the first isn't specified but it's
probably from a high energy collision. It annihilates and the photon
created produces an electron-positron pair, the second positron.
>What much can that track tell you seriously?
Bubble chambers create a track when a charged particle passes through
them. Think of the tracks as "footprints" of the particle.
Add a magnetic field and the tracks will curve, and you can tell
the charge (by which way they curve) and the charge-mass ratio (by how
much they curve).
Bubble chambers are very old technology. Cloud chambers (similar idea)
are even older, amateurs have built them.
>I believe there is more like 12 fundamental particles.
Nobody cares what you believe. Science is about what can be measured.
Positrons have been measured.
>We are fooling ourselves about what we know by a bubble chamber guess.
It's not a guess, it's a measurement.
>If that's all we have?
No. Technology has come a long way since the 1950s, and there are much
more advanced ways to measure such things.
>Good luck!
Ever eat a banana? You got a mouthful of positrons from it from the
potassium-40 in them.
>Anti matter can't be contained with anything but itself. It is ruled
>out bacsuse it would have to be handled by real matter and that means
>anihilation.
Look at bubble chamber pictures and you'll see they don't last very long
before they find an electron to annihilate with.
jon car
wrote:
What is measured then?
> >If that's all we have?
>
> No. Technology has come a long way since the 1950s, and there are much
> more advanced ways to measure such things.
>
> >Good luck!
>
> Ever eat a banana? You got a mouthful of positrons from it from the
> potassium-40 in them.
>
> >Anti matter can't be contained with anything but itself. It is ruled
> >out bacsuse it would have to be handled by real matter and that means
> >anihilation.
>
> Look at bubble chamber pictures and you'll see they don't last very long
> before they find an electron to annihilate with.
You are bananas. There is no anti matter in a banana.
How could it hide itself in potassium?
jon car
I doubt that. What is a bubble chamber trails left behind composed of?
The tracks? how mant measurements could they perform?
No. We are set up to fool ourself if we think we are going beyond
just guesses.
> >We are fooling ourselves about what we know by a bubble chamber guess.
>
> It's not a guess, it's a measurement.
>
> >If that's all we have?
>
> No. Technology has come a long way since the 1950s, and there are much
> more advanced ways to measure such things.
Technology doesn't make anyone smart. It for your entertainment
system!
> >Good luck!
>
> Ever eat a banana? You got a mouthful of positrons from it from the
> potassium-40 in them.
>
> >Anti matter can't be contained with anything but itself. It is ruled
> >out bacsuse it would have to be handled by real matter and that means
> >anihilation.
>
> Look at bubble chamber pictures and you'll see they don't last very long
> before they find an electron to annihilate with.
Where again do positrons come from?
Michael Moroney
>On Oct 11, 4:49 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:
>>
>> It's not a guess, it's a measurement.
>What is measured then?
energies of the charged particles.
>> Ever eat a banana? You got a mouthful of positrons from it from the
>> potassium-40 in them.
>How could it hide itself in potassium?
natural decay of radioactive potassium-40. They don't get far before
annihilating with an electron.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium-40
Michael Moroney
>On Oct 11, 4:49 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:
>> Positrons have been measured.
>I doubt that. What is a bubble chamber trails left behind composed of?
Usually hydrogen, but it depends on what the working fluid of the chamber
is.
>The tracks? how mant measurements could they perform?
What can you tell about an animal from its footprints left in the
snow?
>> No. Technology has come a long way since the 1950s, and there are much
>> more advanced ways to measure such things.
>Technology doesn't make anyone smart. It for your entertainment
>system!
lost than I thought.
>Where again do positrons come from?
collisions. They can also come from the decay of certain radioactive
isotopes (such as K-40), or of things such as the positive muon etc.
jon car
wrote:
>
> It doesn't "hide" anywhere, positrons are (sometimes) created by the
> natural decay of radioactive potassium-40. They don't get far before
> annihilating with an electron.
natural decay to the creation of a positron. Only anti matter decays
to anti matter.
jon car
wrote:
> >On Oct 11, 4:49 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> >wrote:
> >> Nobody cares what you believe. Science is about what can be measured.
> >> Positrons have been measured.
> >I doubt that. What is a bubble chamber trails left behind composed of?
>
> Bubbles.
How can a particle blow bubbles along its way?
> Usually hydrogen, but it depends on what the working fluid of the chamber
> is.
>
> >The tracks? how mant measurements could they perform?
>
> Where it went, how massive it was and what its charge and energy was.
What does that tell us then? What new?
This is what I would question. Our measurements are quantum mechanics
based. Einstein knew that statistical accuracy does not lead to
knowledge whether it be in an accelerator or bubble chamber.
> What can you tell about an animal from its footprints left in the
> snow?
>
> >> No. Technology has come a long way since the 1950s, and there are much
> >> more advanced ways to measure such things.
> >Technology doesn't make anyone smart. It for your entertainment
> >system!
>
> If you think technology is only for entertainment systems, you're more
> lost than I thought.
>
> >Where again do positrons come from?
>
> I already told you. Some from pair production, some from energetic
> collisions. They can also come from the decay of certain radioactive
> isotopes (such as K-40), or of things such as the positive muon etc.
Prove that matter from bananas can create anti matter.
Supply the proof.
Matter decays into matter. If you think otherwise you are not smart.
Please show me where I am wrong.
PD
>
> That is funny. A track? Where did we get the original positron from?
> What much can that track tell you seriously?
difference between you and scientists. You dismiss all knowledge and say
that it is untrustworthy and inconsequential. You say we know nothing.
Scientists disagree, but that's because they believe data.
You don't, and so you'll never be in line with science.
Y.Porat
(:-)]
and from where does Energy take the mass ???.....
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------
Y.Porat
do you idiot parrot know waht you atr mumbling ???
you said above the individual
photon
WHAT IS AN INDIVIDUAL SINGLE PHOTON FOR YOU ???
2
what is in that energy of the photon
E=hf
what is there relativistic ??
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------
Y.Porat
(:-)
2
no answer is as well an answer !!
ie lack of ability to answer
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------
Y.Porat
so
the you say that the individual photons each have zero mass invraint
mass
and hocus phocus
they create NONZERO MASS
do you listen that you say ??
you create non Zero mass from zero mass
can mass be created from nothing !!??
------------------
2
E=hf is the energy of photon
WHERE AT ALL YOU SEE MASS IN IT
3
IF SO
WHERE DO YOU SEE *RELATIVISTIC MASS*
IN THE ABOVE FORMULA
----------------
> Yes, they do. That is one reason that I think that relativistic
> mass should be kept as a broad concept.
--------------
what is a'' broad concept'' ??
broad for what
that anyone will be able so say whatever he likes about it
are we in a philosophy NG
or lawyers tactics business ??
or in an accurate definite science
A sealed box of photons is
> "heavier" because it contains photons, even though each photon has no
> rest mass. The sealed box has additional inertial mass when it traps
> photons. The sealed box has extra inertial mass if the electrons in
> the box are moving at high speed. So the energy trapped in the box can
> be considered as contributing to the total inertial mass.
-================================-----
where in
E=hf
you see ANYTHING RELATIVISTIC ??!!
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------------
PD
> -----------------
> do you idiot parrot know waht you atr mumbling ???
>
> you said above the individual
> photon
> WHAT IS AN INDIVIDUAL SINGLE PHOTON FOR YOU ???
*observed* to be deposited all at once in one location. You find,
experimentally, that the smallest such lumps deposited all at once have
a value that is predictable from the wavelength of that light. If you
observe no smaller deposits of energy corresponding to that wavelength,
then you know you are seeing single photons, because that's what photons
are DEFINED to have.
PD
The mass comes from the *conversion* of energy TO mass.
jon car
>
> - Show quoted text -
Most measurements of what is considered important are tailored; some
to the truth.
Mitchell Raemsch
PD
> On Oct 11, 7:25 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> wrote:
>
> > jon car <jon.car...@gmail.com> writes:
> > >On Oct 11, 4:49 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> > >wrote:
> > >> Nobody cares what you believe. Science is about what can be measured.
> > >> Positrons have been measured.
> > >I doubt that. What is a bubble chamber trails left behind composed of?
>
> > Bubbles.
>
> What is inflating the little bubbles?
> How can a particle blow bubbles along its way?
>
You can look up how bubble chambers work. Particles ionize the liquid
as they pass through it. Releasing pressure on the liquid causes it to
boil, and boiling occurs where there are nucleation sites first. This
happens where there is ionization. It's a very well established
technology.
PD
Porat, you're going to have to get used to the idea that some people
have other things to do during the day.
jon car
What then is stealing electron's for these ions? and where do they go
then?
Mitchell Raemsch
PD
They are knocked out of the atoms of the liquid by the passing
particle. That's what ionizing MEANS.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch
Y.Porat
> On 10/12/2011 10:08 AM, Y.Porat wrote:
>
> > -----------------
> > do you idiot parrot know waht you atr mumbling ???
>
> > you said above the individual
> > photon
> > WHAT IS AN INDIVIDUAL SINGLE PHOTON FOR YOU ???
>
> An individual photon, Porat, is the lump of energy and momentum that is
> *observed* to be deposited all at once in one location.
nice
inpast you said that
E=hf
IS THE FORMULA OF THE SINGLE PHOTON
NOW YOU TALK ABOUT A LUMP OF ENERGY
why a lump ?? who dont you say as in your past
that it is a single smallest photon energy ?
it seems that you did some adavnce
yet not good enough and not cleaver enough to admit
who made that little change in your understanding
yet
it is still not good enough
so
let me ask you a few silly questions:
you say it is emitted ''AT ONCE''
so we are going to see about your
'AT ONCE' ...
now
leat take two cases:
case 1
a photon energy E=hf1
is emitted on an electric cell
for along **one second
case 2
the same photon energy E=hf1 is
emitted on the above same cell
for two seconds
my question is
in which of the above cases
more electrons will bee mitted from that cell
in case1
or in case 2 ??
2
**how much **quantitatively** more
will it be in case 2
--------
3
dont impress us about your being busy
in order of not answering a few simple questions
we can all of us notice that you sit
most of your time next to the computer
as if it was your income job ....
th e number of your responses
too '' various'' people tell it .
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------
Y.Porat
------------------
SO (:-)
i asked you from where does
ENERGY (Enrgy )
takes it s mass ??
you say 'relativistic mass??
so
1
were do you at all see
ANY mass in
hf ??
2
what in E=hf
IS RELATIVISTIC ???
if you are to busy
i dont mind if you take your time to answer
yet please after all
answer honestly
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------..
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------
------------
jon car
How do they unbond from the atom surface? What angle to the passing
particle strike and undo the bond? What is the dynamics of the
unbonding?
Does it take a weight? motion level?
There is new physics to be done. What is unbonding?
> particle. That's what ionizing MEANS.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mitchell Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mitchell Raemsch
PD
It doesn't need to find mass somewhere to make mass. Energy *becomes* mass.
>
> you say 'relativistic mass??
No, I did not say that. This is YOUR favorite whipping boy. I don't use
the term myself.
PD
It isn't done in a continuous process for 1 second. It is delivered ALL
AT ONCE.
That means that if a *single* photon is received at a receiver, it will
not matter whether you look at that receiver for 1 second or 100 seconds
or 0.0000000001 seconds, the amount of energy delivered by that single
photon will be the same -- that same small lump.
Now, I know you get confused and you say that sunlight shining on a car
will deliver twice as much energy in 2 seconds than it will in one
second. Do you know the difference between a photon and a stream of photons?
Let me put it to you this way, Porat:
If I tell you to pour water out of a hose into a bucket, then you will
get twice as much water in the bucket in two minutes compared with what
you get in one minute.
But if I tell you to put ONE DROP of water in the bucket, will it matter
if you wait one minute or two minutes or thirty minutes? No, you will
still have ONE drop.
PD
Sorry, so far all your questions are not new physics. They are OLD
physics, which you have yet to learn.
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-passage-particles-matter.pdf
Y.Porat
smarty
i deliberately ddint ask you how it is done
i asked you about experimental facts
i gave you case 1
and case 2
and asked you
will the **number** of electrons emitted from that photoelectric
cell
in case 1
will be the same inboth cases
2
if ther will be a change
can we say that in case of two seconds
the number of electrons will be
2 times more than in case 1??
please answer that
and we dont need and i intentially didnt ask your interpretaions about
how and why !!
(to be frank
in order o f not letting you to obfuscate the simple question
(ther will be room for interpretations
only at the nest stage !!)
so please answer my above
two cases question as experimental facts or expeimental experience
2
now if your right answer (imho )
will be
in case 2 there will be practically
two times more electrons emitted that case of one second
right ??
-------------------
> That means that if a *single* photon is received at a receiver, it will
> not matter whether you look at that receiver for 1 second or 100 seconds
> or 0.0000000001
----------
you forget a simple fact !!
if a photon is acting by E+hf1 only for one second
(ON A PHOTOELECTRIC CELL)
you wilL not detect **after** one second
ANY MORE ELECTRON EMITTED
AND THE SAME
if it will be acted by E=hf1 only for Exp -9 second
after say much less than half a second
you will NOT detect **any additional electrons emotion !!!**
so please dont let nonsense
and dont try to obfuscate the above
****simple*** question
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------
PD
They will be the SAME! Correction: They ARE the same, observationally.
There is only one energy deposit by a single photon in both cases. There
will only be one photoelectron emitted in both cases.
> 2
> if ther will be a change
> can we say that in case of two seconds
> the number of electrons will be
> 2 times more than in case 1??
No.
>
> please answer that
> and we dont need and i intentially didnt ask your interpretaions about
> how and why !!
> (to be frank
> in order o f not letting you to obfuscate the simple question
> (ther will be room for interpretations
> only at the nest stage !!)
> so please answer my above
> two cases question as experimental facts or expeimental experience
> 2
> now if your right answer (imho )
> will be
> in case 2 there will be practically
> two times more electrons emitted that case of one second
> right ??
No. That is wrong.
It is just like one drop of water in the bucket. It doesn't matter
whether you sit there for a minute or two minutes. There will still be
ONE drop of water in the bucket.
Y.Porat
> >> If I tell you to pour water out of a hose into a bucket, then you will
> >> get twice as much water in the bucket in two minutes compared with what
> >> you get in one minute.
> >> But if I tell you to put ONE DROP of water in the bucket,
idiotic wrong obfuscation answer !!
while the photon E=hf1
is active during two seconds on an electric cell
th excell will be emitting electrons for two seconds
you AND EVRY ONE can do THST SIMPLE EXPERIMENT IN HOME CONDITIONS !
take a lead torch keep it lited during
one of two seconds onsay
a pochet calculatir opperated by a
phootn electric cell
th calcuators digits will be seen for two seconds
but after two sconds it will be turned of
and you will not see the digits there
THE SAME WILL BE IF YOU LIGHT THE CELL FOR *HALF A SECOND!!
GOT IT armchair MUMBLER --
---->EVEN FOR HALF A SECOND !!!
the calculator will be turned off
***only ** after
half a second !!
ie
compatible with **duration **of light emission on it !!
-------
so just do it
it needs a proper light wave length
ie
the background light must be
with 'yellow' light
ie bigger wave length than the Led light !!...
and dont boggle our balls with idiotic
guesses !!
there is experimental data !!!
it is historically important by its meaning
and revolutionary important !!
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------
PD
> --------------
> idiotic wrong obfuscation answer !!
>
> while the photon E=hf1
> is active during two seconds on an electric cell
> th excell will be emitting electrons for two seconds
> you AND EVRY ONE can do THST SIMPLE EXPERIMENT IN HOME CONDITIONS !
No, Porat, that is NOT what's going on.
If you have a STREAM of photons on a electric cell, then you will have
twice as many electrons emitted in two seconds as you do in one second.
But if you have ONE photon hitting an electric cell, you will get
exactly the same number of electrons emitted in two seconds as you do in
one second.
You confuse a STREAM of photons with a SINGLE photon.
A stream of water is not a drop of water.
~buttercup~
> I suspect that photon annihilating photon reactions occurred when
> the density of photons and electron-hole pairs was much larger. There
> may have been a time a few short moments after the Big Bang when such
> reactions were likely. However, I doubt whether there are any
> astronomical observations that could support this.
How about SN2006gy? Thought to have been caused when a very massive
star's core got so hot, gamma rays spontaneously converted into
electron-positron pairs that, being massive, were much slower than the
photons and exerted less pressure, so the star suddenly could not
support itself against its gravity anymore, leading to the star's core
imploding.
If it occurred in a sufficiently hot stellar core, it would presumably
also have occurred shortly after the bang during the period when the
cosmic temperature was comparable.
eric gisse
news:j76ob8$fdq$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
[...]
I like how Porat can still manage to not understand physics that is older
than he is.
jon car
Not at all. They are questions we need to revisit. They are unfinished
bussiness.
If you think we are far along with anything you have something
comming.
>
> http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-passage-particles-matter.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
> >> particle. That's what ionizing MEANS.
>
> >>> Mitchell Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Mitchell Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mitcell Raemsch
Michael Moroney
>On Oct 13, 6:18 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/12/2011 10:08 PM, jon car wrote:
>> > There is new physics to be done. What is unbonding?
>>
>> Sorry, so far all your questions are not new physics. They are OLD
>> physics, which you have yet to learn.
>Not at all. They are questions we need to revisit. They are unfinished
>bussiness.
No, this is OLD stuff, known for decades. A highly energetic charged
particle passing through matter will disrupt electrons in the matter as
it passes, leaving a trail of ions. This is how radioactive substances
damage living things, the alpha and beta particles ionize things like
DNA.
jon car
wrote:
What do you mean highly energetic? Qualify that.
Why would ONLY an ionic state emit light for us to see in the trail?
Study up. You need to be smart if you want to pass the first test!
G=EMC^2
A single photon? Einstein saw photons going in a certain size packets.
Called "quanta" Maybe a single photon can go to a low energy
electron? I read that what we consider a single photon can go through
a million holes at once. We now know an electron is not a point but a
cloud.Hmmmm That means an atom's nucleus is inside a negatively
charge cloud. Might just call this cloud a "field" That answers some
hard questions TreBert
jon car
>
> - Show quoted text -
Einstein doubted his photon. In 1937 he said he could never finally
reconcile the wave and particle together. I think he was right to
question what he even won the Nobel prize for. Some Nobel prizes might
go in reverse based on our state of knowledge by the truth.
Mitchell Raemsch
Byron Forbes
I sort of disagree.
It seems other matter is always needed for pair creation - why? Matter seems to act as a catalyst.
I believe the energy can create pressure and spin to condense/spin something out of the aether.
Y.Porat
> On 10/13/2011 12:41 PM, Y.Porat wrote:
>
> > --------------
> > idiotic wrong obfuscation answer !!
>
> > while the photon E=hf1
> > is active during two seconds on an electric cell
> > th excell will be emitting electrons for two seconds
> > you AND EVRY ONE can do THST SIMPLE EXPERIMENT IN HOME CONDITIONS !
> No, Porat, that is NOT what's going on.
> If you have a STREAM of photons on a electric cell, then you will have
> twice as many electrons emitted in two seconds as you do in one second.
>
> But if you have ONE photon hitting an electric cell, you will get
> exactly the same number of electrons emitted in two seconds as you do in
> one second.
>
> You confuse a STREAM of photons with a SINGLE photon.
but MR PD
THAT IS EXACTLY THE CORE OF DISPUTE BETWEEN US !!
itis the question of
is he light WE SEE AND MEASURE
DURING MORE THAN A FRACTION OF SECOND
A STREAM OF PHOOTNS
OR A SINGLE PHOTONS CASE
MY CLAIME IS THAT
TH EVERY FACT WE CAN MEASURE OR EVEN NOTICE
ANY LIGHT
**THAT IS FOR ITSELF
again for itself
THEPROVE THAT IT IS A ***STREAM OF PHOTON PARTICLE UNITS **
AGAIN
***A STREAM** ***A
continuous STREAM OF PHOTON UNITS**
AND NOT
SINGLE PHOTONS emission PHENOMENON !!!
> A stream of water is not a drop of water.
-------------
exactly !!
yet as above
our case of seeing light even for a fraction of a second
IS it A STREAM OF PHOTON UNITS
AND NOT A DROP OF DROPS TO
YOUR BUCKET EXAMPLE !!
and i can give you even a much simper example
take a light torch
lite it on in two cases :
case 1
lightit on for 1/second and imediatelt afterthat turn it of
case 2
take THE SAME TORCH!!
light it on untill AND AS LONG AS
ITS BATTERY IS OFF
question
IN WHICH CASE MORE PHOTON ENERGY WILL BE EMITTED
in case 1
or in case 2
PLEASE NOTE THAT IN CASE 1
THE TORCH WAS ACTIVE ONLY
1/10 OF A SECOND !!
so what is your answer
until that point ?
now we go furtherin a following
the abovet rivial experiments
moe general question
is emission of light ENERGY -
TIME DEPENDENT OR NOT ??!!
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------
Y.Porat
> PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote innews:j76ob8$fdq$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>
> [...]
>
> I like how Porat can still manage to not understand physics that is older
> than he is.
-------------
(:-)
the crippled retarded PD's ass leeker
opened its mug
(:-)
Y.P
------------------------
Y.P
jon car
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
According to QM we only generate astronomical amounts of light waves
to be measured statistically. Einstein could explain why a statistical
theory was the lowest form. He would not go along with it unless
science demanded it. And that's what they did.
"Science knows only the odds. While God knows every outcome." Mitchell
Raemsch
Michael Moroney
>On Oct 13, 5:15 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:
>> >> Sorry, so far all your questions are not new physics. They are OLD
>> >> physics, which you have yet to learn.
>> >Not at all. They are questions we need to revisit. They are unfinished
>> >bussiness.
>>
>> No, this is OLD stuff, known for decades. A highly energetic charged
>> particle passing through matter will disrupt electrons in the matter as
>> it passes, leaving a trail of ions. This is how radioactive substances
>> damage living things, the alpha and beta particles ionize things like
>> DNA.
>What do you mean highly energetic? Qualify that.
Kinetic energy substantially more than the ionization energy (typically a
couple of eV). Particles whose energy is measured in keV, or MeV levels.
>Why would ONLY an ionic state emit light for us to see in the trail?
Bubbles don't "emit light". Read up on nucleation to read why they form.
>Study up. You need to be smart if you want to pass the first test!
I don't know WTF you are talking about.
jon car
>
> - Show quoted text -
My banana supply is comming in shipments.
Anti matter goes to pure energy!
I will either that or go solar michael.
jon car
wrote:
> jon car <jon.car...@gmail.com> writes:
> >On Oct 13, 5:15 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> >wrote:
> >> >> Sorry, so far all your questions are not new physics. They are OLD
> >> >> physics, which you have yet to learn.
> >> >Not at all. They are questions we need to revisit. They are unfinished
> >> >bussiness.
>
> >> No, this is OLD stuff, known for decades. A highly energetic charged
> >> particle passing through matter will disrupt electrons in the matter as
> >> it passes, leaving a trail of ions. This is how radioactive substances
> >> damage living things, the alpha and beta particles ionize things like
> >> DNA.
> >What do you mean highly energetic? Qualify that.
>
> Kinetic energy
> substantially more than the ionization energy (typically a
> couple of eV). Particles whose energy is measured in keV, or MeV levels.
What is the name of the particle?
> >Why would ONLY an ionic state emit light for us to see in the trail?
>
> Bubbles don't "emit light".
What is lighting up the bubble track? You claimed bubbles.
No. You do not know what you are talking about.
PD
And so you clearly do not know about detectors that can detect SINGLE
PHOTONS, not electric cells.
Electric cells can detect streams but not single photons. You CAN
detect single photons with appropriate detectors.
PD
> In article <j76o1n$do...@speranza.aioe.org>, thedraperfam...@gmail.com says...
Because you can't conserve momentum AND energy otherwise. Do the
calculations. You'll see.
Michael Moroney
>On Oct 13, 6:16 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:
>> >What do you mean highly energetic? Qualify that.
>>
>> Kinetic energy
>How fast?
The more energetic ones will be moving close to c.
The less energetic ones a small fraction of c.
>> substantially more than the ionization energy (typically a
>> couple of eV). Particles whose energy is measured in keV, or MeV levels.
>What is the name of the particle?
It depends on the experiment. The images that started this goofy
subthread show electrons and positrons.
>> >Why would ONLY an ionic state emit light for us to see in the trail?
>>
>> Bubbles don't "emit light".
>What is lighting up the bubble track? You claimed bubbles.
A light bulb? The flash bulb of a camera (triggered to the expansion
piston) ? Someone who knows the design details better than I will have to
answer this.
Y.Porat
-------------
and that s another proof that you are
an idiot crook demagogue
so actually BTW
smarty i new you might say that
but still that is stupidity and ignorance
so smarty i will ask you that in another way :
take the above experiment
light a** laser** torch that has only one wave length
and light tt withe very same torch
in identical conditions except one variable
ie time :
case 1
for 1/10 second
case 2
light it
all the way long untill its battery is of power
my question is :
IN WHICH CASE
MORE ***PHOTON ENERGY***WILL BE EMITTED
IN CASE 1
OR IN CASE 2
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------
Uncle Ben
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
This conversation suggests to me a conversation between a young,
impertinent pygmy who has never left his village with an astronaut
that landed off track in the jungle, debating the existence of space
vehicles.
Very amusing.
Uncle Ben
Androcles
"Uncle Ben" <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:10870a4a-9f44-4930...@e37g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Very amusing.
Uncle Ben
===========================================
You are not young, Bonehead. Impertinent and a pygmy, yes, never
left the backwoods of NewYork State, yes, but young does not describe
you at all.
PD
A laser torch provides a STREAM of photons.
What you need is a source of SINGLE photons.
Stop talking about photon-stream detectors like electric cells, and
photon-stream producers like lasers, and start talking about
SINGLE-PHOTON sources and SINGLE-PHOTON detectors.
PD
> On Oct 13, 6:18 am, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> They are knocked out of the atoms of the liquid by the passing
>>
>>> How do they unbond from the atom surface? What angle to the passing
>>> particle strike and undo the bond? What is the dynamics of the
>>> unbonding?
>>> Does it take a weight? motion level?
>>
>>> There is new physics to be done. What is unbonding?
>>
>> Sorry, so far all your questions are not new physics. They are OLD
>> physics, which you have yet to learn.
>
> Not at all. They are questions we need to revisit. They are unfinished
> bussiness.
Then revisit them yourself. Most other people have moved on, this being
established and old physics. Just because YOU have yet to learn it,
doesn't mean that everyone else needs to be on the same boat you're in.
PD
>
>>> Why would ONLY an ionic state emit light for us to see in the trail?
>>
>> Bubbles don't "emit light".
>
> What is lighting up the bubble track? You claimed bubbles.
A lamp inside the bubble chamber. Seriously.
Do you know how to google "bubble chamber"?
Uncle Ben
2011> wrote:
> Uncle Ben
>
> ===========================================
> You are not young, Bonehead. Impertinent and a pygmy, yes, never
> left the backwoods of NewYork State, yes, but young does not describe
> you at all.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
By crackee, you got me there, you young whipper-snapper, I am indeed
not young. And you may be pleased to note that I have often been
granted admission to the UK and have learned to appreciate your best
bitter as a perquisite to persons in your country.
As for you, I have been tempted to write an essay about the different
kinds of annoying persons who post in this newsgroupt. Usually I
ignore them, but it occured to me that there are two important scales
by which to measure them.
Take Dono, for example (aka Adrian Sfarti, computer scientist,
Sunnyvale, CA, USA). His principal characteristic is arrogance. He
knows just enough SR to make a fool of himelf, but he assumes the
mantle of expert, offering to educate me in the fundamentals of
physics. While I am certainly willing to learn from anyone qualified
to teach me something, his "efforts" are merely absurd.
As for you, you certainly outdo Dono in arrogance, since you think you
have uncovered an algebraic error or two in Einstein's 1905 relativity
paper, although your explanations are based on an elementary confusion
of FORs.
As for integrity, Dono has the annoying habit of changing his argument
(when confronted with proof of its absurdity) and then pretending that
he never said the absurd version at all.
An example in this thread is that when discussing the relativistic
phenomenon of a speeding rod's length, he first asserted that the
change of length depends on which end of the rod is the point of
application of a force. When corrected, he developed the idea that the
length of the rod depends only on its velocity, not its acceleration,
which is true, but he pretends that he never committed his former
error.
That is a lack of integrity. It is not a moral error to make a
mistake, but it is a moral error to lie about it. He has done that
with me before.
In your case, I have caught you only in one outright lie of any
importance: that you have a Ph.D. in mathematics. The lie is obvious
to any reader with even an undergraduate degree in mathematics, so I
do not need to quote the evidence.
Although you are generous with your insults as to integrity, you
cannot quote any lie of mine, aside from my teasing you occasionally
about being gay. In physics, I may make mistakes, but when I am shown
them, I confess and thank my teacher.
As for your knowledge of physics, you have the typical narrowness of
an autodidact. You know a lot about certain things, but you often
wander beyond your proper bounds and, like Dono, make a fool of
yourself. You have a weakness in that you cannot accept any
correction; you are completely ineducable, no matter how clever the
attempt to inform you.
So, on we go in the SPR funhouse, enjoying the amusements, learning
things occasionally from the real experts, and marvelling at the
psychopathology.
Uncle Ben
Uncle Ben
Dono's flip-flop was not in this thread but in the thread about length
contraction. The thread is just now slowing in its growth rate and
maybe is terminating.
Androcles
On Oct 14, 10:00 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics.October.
2011> wrote:
> Uncle Ben
>
> ===========================================
> You are not young, Bonehead. Impertinent and a pygmy, yes, never
> left the backwoods of NewYork State, yes, but young does not describe
> you at all.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
By crackee, you got me there, you young whipper-snapper, I am indeed
not young. And you may be pleased to note that I have often been
granted admission to the UK and have learned to appreciate your best
bitter as a perquisite to persons in your country.
===========================================
We are a kindly folk, we lay down the welcome mat to all. Unfortunately
the wogs (worthy oriental gentlemen) set up their mosques here and try
to change our way of life to theirs. But as you are only 6 hours away
and a redneck without any integrity, your short excursions into our green
and pleasant land to have a pint next door hardly counts as leaving your
village .
As for you, I have been tempted to write an essay about the different
kinds of annoying persons who post in this newsgroupt. Usually I
ignore them, but it occured to me that there are two important scales
by which to measure them.
Take Dono, for example (aka Adrian Sfarti, computer scientist,
Sunnyvale, CA, USA). His principal characteristic is arrogance. He
knows just enough SR to make a fool of himelf, but he assumes the
mantle of expert, offering to educate me in the fundamentals of
physics. While I am certainly willing to learn from anyone qualified
to teach me something, his "efforts" are merely absurd.
As for you, you certainly outdo Dono in arrogance, since you think you
have uncovered an algebraic error or two in Einstein's 1905 relativity
paper, although your explanations are based on an elementary confusion
of FORs.
==============================================
Arrogance? Ha! You are the fuckwitted faggot that boasted:
"If you want to know where I got my Ph D., look me up in American Men of
Science. I am not interested in being interrogated by an ignorant,
undisciplined, boor like you. Mental illness is no excuse." - Bonehead
Green Jr. Ph.D. physics 1956 Johns Hopkins "American Man of Science"
I didn't ask to know where you got your phrenology degree, Bonehead.
I may be arrogant, I may be undisciplined, I may even be a boor, but
I'm far from ignorant.
As for algebraic error, upsilon = xi/tau which you have no answer to,
being mentally ill and lacking the integrity of an intellectual pygmy as
you do.
As for integrity, Dono
=======================
I don't give a flying fuck about Dono, he's a shithead like you.
I only want to piss off an arrogant mentally ill intellectual pygmy
and integrity-less boor that can't fathom upsilon = xi/tau <> v = x/t.
"c+v is not the speed of anything w.r.t. anything" -- Bonehead Green, pygmy
redneck.
Who would imagine that this simple law [constancy of the velocity of
light] has plunged the conscientiously thoughtful physicist into the
greatest intellectual difficulties? -Chap. VII. Albert Einstein
Run away, cowardly Bonehead, like you always do.
Androcles
=================================================
Talking to yourself again, Bonehead? Mentally ill is no excuse.
jon car
wrote:
> jon car <jon.car...@gmail.com> writes:
> >On Oct 13, 6:16 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> >wrote:
> >> >What do you mean highly energetic? Qualify that.
>
> >> Kinetic energy
> >How fast?
>
> The more energetic ones will be moving close to c.
Atoms are not more energetic they are more massive by motion.
How have these speeds been measured and what is the cause of that fast
motion through the chamber?
I say they are not. Atoms are not energetic they just have different
sizes. They can expand under heat.
What about the atom qualifies it as energetic?
> The less energetic ones a small fraction of c.
>
> >> substantially more than the ionization energy (typically a
> >> couple of eV). Particles whose energy is measured in keV, or MeV levels.
> >What is the name of the particle?
>
> It depends on the experiment. The images that started this goofy
> subthread show electrons and positrons.
>
> >> >Why would ONLY an ionic state emit light for us to see in the trail?
>
> >> Bubbles don't "emit light".
> >What is lighting up the bubble track? You claimed bubbles.
>
> A light bulb?
The bulb is lighting up what? What blows the bubbles all along the
way?
How does a subatomic particle blow bubbles by striking subatomic
electrons?
Mitchell Raemsch
Uncle Ben
...
> have uncovered an algebraic error or two in Einstein's 1905 relativity
> paper, although your explanations are based on an elementary confusion
> of FORs.
> ==============================================
...
> being mentally ill and lacking the integrity of an intellectual pygmy as
> you do.
> I don't give a flying fuck about Dono, he's a shithead like you.
> I only want to piss off an arrogant mentally ill intellectual pygmy
> and integrity-less boor that can't fathom upsilon = xi/tau <> v = x/t.
> "c+v is not the speed of anything w.r.t. anything" -- Bonehead Green, pygmy
> redneck.
But for those who want to follow Einstein's calculation of the length
of a moving rod with respect to a stationary frame, it will be enough
to realize that the moving rod is at rest with respect to the *moving*
frame. Any beginner will understand that the length of the moving rod
with respect to the moving frame is therefore its proper length.
Einstein concludes that the length of the rod as measured in the
stationary frame is shorter, as Lorentz and Fitzgerald had discovered.
Androcles follows the algebra fine, and we all agree that the rod's
length w.r.t. the stationary frame is shorter than its length w.r.t.
the moving frame.
But Androcles MISidentifies which measurement gives the proper length
of the rod.
He cannot grasp that the "moving" rod is NOT moving w.r.t. the
"moving" frame.
Where Einstein correctly identifies the length of the rod in that
frame as the proper length, Androcles, drunk with glory at finding a
"mistake" in the great man's work, assigns the proper length of the
"moving" rod to the measurement w.r.t. the "stationary" frame.
Wrrrrooonnnnggg.
And since its length w.r.t. to the "moving" frame is longer than its
length in the moving frame, as we all agree, he concludes that the
length of the moving rod with respect to the moving frame has
*expanded* by a factor of gamma. This is the Einstein Expansion for
which Androcles awaits the Nobel Prize.
To give Androcles credit, Einstein could have named the FORs
differently, thus preventing Androcles from making this mistake. But
Einstein was writing for his colleagues in physics, not for arrogant
fools. And he had two more famous papers to write that same year 1905.
Uncle Ben
Uncle Ben
> And since its length w.r.t. to the "moving" frame is longer than its
> length in the moving frame
'And since its length w.r.t. the "moving" frame is longer than its
length in the "stationary" frame'
The serious reader will have caught that error, but Androcles will
harp on it so long as we both shall live. That's just the kind of guy
he is.
Androcles
...
> As for you, you certainly outdo Dono in arrogance, since you think you
> have uncovered an algebraic error or two in Einstein's 1905 relativity
> paper, although your explanations are based on an elementary confusion
> of FORs.
> ==============================================
Androcles replied, in part:
...
> As for algebraic error, upsilon = xi/tau which you have no answer to,
> being mentally ill and lacking the integrity of an intellectual pygmy as
> you do.
....
> I don't give a flying fuck about Dono, he's a shithead like you.
> I only want to piss off an arrogant mentally ill intellectual pygmy
> and integrity-less boor that can't fathom upsilon = xi/tau <> v = x/t.
> "c+v is not the speed of anything w.r.t. anything" -- Bonehead Green,
> pygmy
> redneck.
...
> Run away, cowardly Bonehead, like you always do.
I have explained your error to you countless times, to no avail.
Bwhahahahahaha!
g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = x' * g
tau = t/g
upsilon = x' *g^2 / t = x' * (1-v^2/c^2) /t
I have explained Einstein's error to you countless times, to no avail.
What's x', integrity-less boor?
Uncle Ben
.......
> ==========================================
> Bwhahahahahaha!
>
> g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> xi = x' * g
> tau = t/g
> upsilon = x' *g^2 / t = x' * (1-v^2/c^2) /t
>
>
> (Androcles:) What's x', integrity-less boor?
Ben:I am happy to provide some assistance. In Einstein's 1905
relativity paper, he distinguished the moving and stationary frames of
reference by using latin letters for the stationary FOR and greek
letters xi and tau for the moving FOR. The rod is at rest in the
moving frame, so the coordinates of the ends of the moving rod are
CONSTANTS 0 and xi in the moving frame. So xi = the proper length of
the rod. (Fools will be confused by this use of coordinate xi as a
length.) Think of xi as L0.
If we can find the the coordinates of the moving rod in the stationary
frame, we have our answer. But these coordinates are constantly
changing in the stationary frame because the rod is in motion. The
length of the rod in the stationary frame is a constant, of course,
that we wish to determine.
The coordinates of the moving rod in the stationary frame are not
constant, changing with the motion, but at t=0, they are constants 0
and x' in Einstein's notation. At arbitrary time t, they have moved a
distance vt on the x axis and are at x = (0 + vt) and x = (x' + vt).
By introducing x', we have expressed the constant length of the rod in
the stationary frame, the value of which is what we are looking for.
For modern readers, let us call it L.
(This is where Androcles first goes wrong. He thinks that x = x' + vt
is an undefined coordinate transformation(!), and the primed variable
is a coordinate in some third frame that Einstein forgot to define!
What an imagination! Androcles does not understand that the use of
primes instead of greek letters to denote transformed variable is
recent compared to 1905. In 1905, x' is just a particular value of x,
namely L.)
As Androcles says, x' = xi/g, where g is what is now universally
called gamma but what Einstein called beta in 1905. g is greater than
1, so x' is smaller than xi, which is the well-known Lorentz
contraction result. For modern readers, what Androcles calls
x' = xi/g might better be written L = L0/gamma.
Uncle Ben
Androcles
2011> wrote:
> "Uncle Ben" <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
>
.......
> I have explained your error to you countless times, to no avail.
> ==========================================
> Bwhahahahahaha!
>
> g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> xi = x' * g
> tau = t/g
> upsilon = x' *g^2 / t = x' * (1-v^2/c^2) /t
>
> (Ben:) I have explained Einstein's error to you countless times, to no
> avail.
>
Androcles: I have explained Einstein's error to you countless times, to no
avail.
Bonehead: I have explained your error to you countless times, to no avail.
> (Androcles:) What's x', integrity-less boor?
Snippety snip, Bonehead, you integrity-less boor, and ignore the
issue. I can snip what you write faster than you can snip what I write.
As I said and Bonehead carefully snipped (compliment returned,
I too can write "......."),
being mentally ill and lacking the integrity of an intellectual pygmy as
you do."
the train at velocity upsilon. Obviously he doesn't understand the PoR.
This is strange, he claims to have crossed the Atlantic and only need
look out of the window to see the world passing beneath him.
Perhaps he always chooses an aisle seat and engrosses himself in
the movie, never watching London come to the plane with velocity
upsilon = xi/tau.
What's x', integrity-less boor?
What's x, integrity-less boor?
Hint: It's the length of the road or rail or ocean that the plane
or train or car traverses in time t.
As for algebraic error, upsilon = xi/tau which you have no answer to,
being mentally ill and lacking the integrity of an intellectual pygmy as
you do.
Hint: It's the length of the road or track or ocean directly beneath the
plane or train or car. Einstein does not use xi', but it is instructive
to consider it's meaning.
What's xi, integrity-less boor?
Hint: It's the partial or extended length of the plane or car or
train that a point on the ground such as a church steeple
traverses in time tau.
As for algebraic error, upsilon = xi/tau which you have no answer to,
being mentally ill and lacking the integrity of an intellectual pygmy as
you do.
issue. I can snip what you write faster than you can snip what I write.
Byron Forbes
I am going with the idea that a photon is pure mechanical energy (KE) traveling through a medium and thus cannot
become mass.
So that means E = mc^2 is the relationship of how much energy "makes" x amount of mass.
So x amount of mass becomes evaporated aether + xc^2 energy
or x amount of energy becomes x/c^2 mass from condensed aether
So mass is not energy. And there is no such thing as standing energy.
Energy spins mass up out of the aether and creates a matter particle under the right conditions. This is most
probable or indeed possible only when in the vicinity of another particle which creates a pressure situation that might
play a role in the condensation also.
Uncle Ben
> - Show quoted text -
and it is good nettiquet. Now you have regressed to your old snip-o-
phobia.
I was addressing your Einstein Expansion error. Your Time Contraction
error is of the same kind.
Your rant about planes and trains is new material in this thread. I'm
not interested.
I don't spend all my time bantering with you, enjoyable as that is.
Snip anything you like, John. You can only snip in your posts, not
mine.
Uncle Ben
Androcles
Ok, I've learnt it. Done.
PD
> In article <05c22bdd-04f5-4f3e-b410-8b7528bdc...@t10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, thedraperfam...@gmail.com says...
calculate the maximum momentum of the ejected beta particle from the
decay of a cesium-137 nucleus, according to your model. Relativity can
produce that result with accuracy. Can you?
Michael Moroney
>On Oct 13, 8:39=A0pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>> jon car <jon.car...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >> Kinetic energy
>> >How fast?
>>
>> The more energetic ones will be moving close to c.
>Atoms are not more energetic they are more massive by motion.
>sizes. They can expand under heat.
>What about the atom qualifies it as energetic?
what's going on at all, do you?
>> >> >Why would ONLY an ionic state emit light for us to see in the trail?
>>
>> >> Bubbles don't "emit light".
>> >What is lighting up the bubble track? You claimed bubbles.
>>
>> A light bulb?
>The bulb is lighting up what?
>What blows the bubbles all along the
>way?
>How does a subatomic particle blow bubbles by striking subatomic
>electrons?
Unified_Perspective
> In article <31893a4b-19d1-425f-9b8a-ccd5c4d1e...@g29g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, drosen0...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 7, 2:49 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > This points to an interesting observation. A single real photon ALL BY
> > > ITSELF cannot pair-produce, for *exactly* the reason you just cited.
> > > (A virtual photon can, because it can have nonzero rest mass.) Pair
> > > production occurs in the presence of another charged object.
> > I stated it a little too strong. In theory, two photons with equal
> > energy moving in opposite directions can collide and form an electron-
> > positron pair even in a vacuum. I say "in theory" because the cross
> > sectional area for this reaction is extremely small.
> > One can calculate the cross section for the "two photon
> > annihilation and pair production" using quantum electrodynamics.
> > However, it is far too small to to determine with current technology.
> > That is why I listed some other reactions that have been validated
> > with experiment, and address his implied question.
> > He was asking whether the reverse effect happens. The QED theory
> > predicts that the answer is "yes" but experiments to prove it are
> > impractical at present.
> > His more-general implied-question was whether particles with
> > zero rest mass could annihilate to form particles with positive rest
> > mass. There are reactions like this that are not only predicted by
> > QED, but have been detected experimentally. So I listed some reactions
> > that have been experimentally verified.
> > I suspect that photon annihilating photon reactions occurred when
> > the density of photons and electron-hole pairs was much larger. There
> > may have been a time a few short moments after the Big Bang when such
> > reactions were likely. However, I doubt whether there are any
> > astronomical observations that could support this.
> > The reaction of electron-hole pairs, or even mesons, in a
> > proton-proton collision are enough to prove that "invariant mass" can
> > be created from kinetic energy. Of course, relativistic mass is
> > equivalent to total energy. However, I think the concept of
> > "relativistic mass" has a certain heuristic value.
>
> > >And in
> > > that closed system, you find that invariant mass *is* conserved but it
> > > is the invariant mass of the WHOLE SYSTEM.
>
> > > And remember, a two-photon system (for example) can have nonzero
> > > invariant mass, even though the individual photons each have zero
> > > invariant mass.
> > Yes, they do. That is one reason that I think that relativistic
> > mass should be kept as a broad concept. A sealed box of photons is
> > "heavier" because it contains photons, even though each photon has no
> > rest mass. The sealed box has additional inertial mass when it traps
> > photons. The sealed box has extra inertial mass if the electrons in
> > the box are moving at high speed. So the energy trapped in the box can
> > be considered as contributing to the total inertial mass.
>
> This makes me think a little along the lines of mass/time.
>
> Take a spherical particle, mass = m, orbiting something. It sweeps out a volume (ring) every revolution. As it's
> speed approaches infinity, it is as though the particle is everywhere in that ring simultaneously. So the mass is the
> density of the particle * ring volume.
>
> Obviously, as the speed increases, the orbit would typically increase so.................
Orbital mechanics work the other way. As the radius increases the
velocity decreases. This conserves angular momentum. Thus as the
"speed" increases the orbit decreases. This also conserves angular
momentum.
The implication of this is that the fastest electrons are in the n1s1
orbital, although these electrons appear to be the least "energetic".
It seems a surprising small percentage of physicist understand and
accept this apparent truth which may have helped lead to the rather
odd convention in current use of referring to electron orbital
energies an particle collision energies in Mev.
Using this convention works around the technical and mathematical
difficulties of transitions between the bound state in which the
electron appears to an outside observer as if it has an ambiguous
position and kinetic energy and the free state in which it appears to
an outside observer to have a relatively well defined position,
velocity, spin and momentum.
The very great likelihood is that in both the free and bound state the
electron has both a definite structure, position, spin, and velocity
but relativistic effects combined with transforms between kinetic and
potential energy states cause outside observers like ourselves to
observe the free and bound electron states even plus or minus a couple
of photons as having very different observable characteristics.
(The preceding paragraph is my personal working hypothesis. It is not
widely known nor well accepted and may in fact not be correct. I
obviously feel that the it may be correct, but I acknowledge that
neither I nor anyone of whom I am aware can mathematically resolve
electron orbitals in terms of conventional orbital mechanics, plus
relativity, along with electric and magnetic field interactions, let
alone electrothermo-dynamics.
In consequence, this hypothesis can not presently be accurately
modeled nor tested but that fact does not prove the model false.
Aristotle could not prove that his "atomic" hypothesis was correct,
Rutherford could.
Maxwell's molecular vortex hypothesis has been neglected and some feel
even discredited, but I find his centuries old work in many respects
far superior in terms of sensibility and clarity to many present day
theories of electrodynamics.)
jon car
> jon car <jon.car...@gmail.com> writes:
> >On Oct 13, 8:39=A0pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> >wrote:
> >> jon car <jon.car...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> >> Kinetic energy
> >> >How fast?
>
> >> The more energetic ones will be moving close to c.
> Nobody is talking about atoms.
> >> >> >Why would ONLY an ionic state emit light for us to see in the trail?
>
> >> >> Bubbles don't "emit light".
> >> >What is lighting up the bubble track? You claimed bubbles.
>
> >> A light bulb?
> >The bulb is lighting up what?
>
> The bubbles.
>
> >What blows the bubbles all along the
> >way?
>
> It's a superheated fluid.
blowing day?
> Just waiting for an excuse to form bubbles.
>
> >How does a subatomic particle blow bubbles by striking subatomic
> >electrons?
>
> Read up on nucleation sites.
Science doesn't know what it is doing.
There is not enough evidence in a trail to tell hardly anything.
They revert to so many guesses when it comes to the bubble chamber.
There are only a few particles that have been mistaken for many.
There is a proliferation of what is not really new particles; but a
basic
few.
Unified_Perspective
> On Oct 11, 2:54 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10/11/2011 4:35 PM, jon car wrote:
>
> > > How could we have observed a light wave become matter?
> > > Compton says light energy can push matter faster not
> > > that it can convert. Please show the measurements of
> > > this phenomenon happeing. It is just a poor notion that
> > > we have.
>
> >http://teachers.web.cern.ch/teachers/archiv/HST2002/Bubblech/mbitu/el...
>
> > > Positrons can't make it in the earth's atmosphere.
> > > We have only matter to store anti matter but they
> > > would react right on the spot. The anti matter debacle
> > > is also a big emberassment to a science that thought
> > > it knew what it was talking about.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> What much can that track tell you seriously?
> I believe there is more like 12 fundamental particles.
> We are fooling ourselves about what we know by a bubble chamber guess.
> If that's all we have?
> Good luck!
> Anti matter can't be contained with anything but itself. It is ruled
> out bacsuse it would have to be handled by real matter and that means
> anihilation.
CERN has demonstrated long term stable anti-matter in the form of
negatively charged proton like structures for special helium atoms and
further has documented very nearly all the decay and annihilation
intermediate states predicted by QED.
There is really quite a lot of experimental evidence supporting anti-
matter theory. Just because you have not read something does not
annihilate its existence nor does your not understanding something
"prove" it is false.
I believe you are somewhat correct in that no presently well accepted
theory that can explain the nearly complete dominance of matter over
anti-matter but scarcity is not proof of impossibility. At least, not
to most people.
jon car
Where is the anti atom of hydrogen? Helium wouldn't work.
> further has documented very nearly all the decay and annihilation
> intermediate states predicted by QED.
>
> There is really quite a lot of experimental evidence supporting anti-
> matter theory. Just because you have not read something does not
> annihilate its existence nor does your not understanding something
> "prove" it is false.
>
> I believe you are somewhat correct in that no presently well accepted
> theory that can explain the nearly complete dominance of matter over
> anti-matter but scarcity is not proof of impossibility. At least, not
> - Show quoted text -
Uncle Ben
> - Show quoted text -
Uncle Ben
Androcles
Bonehead, mathematics left you behind in first grade when your
senility set in. It's too late now, one can't teach an old dog new tricks.
No explanations please, just answer the question.
How long does a muon live for
a) when it is resting beside the clock on its bedside table?
No explanations please, just answer the question.
b) when it sees the clock, the deathbed and the bedroom spinning
past it at upsilon = 0.9994c and looks at its wristwatch?
No explanations please, just answer the question.
c) when it is going around the bedroom at v = 0.9994c and looks at the
clock?
No explanations please, just answer the question.
d) when it sees the Sun, the Moon and the stars turning overhead while
riding the rim of its rotating deathbed and looks at its wristwatch?
No explanations please, just answer the question.
Hint: according to Newton and experiment the answer in every
case is 64 microseconds.
Uncle Ben
> - Show quoted text -
of a muon, no matter what it is doing, depends on the measurers FOR,
and in its own frame of reference, it is always at rest. Furthermore,
the lifetimes of muons have been *measured* both w.r.t. its rest frame
and w.r.t. a frame in which it is moving rapidly. Your answer is wrong
in the first case. Muons CAN be brought to rest in the laboratory.
No one is blinder than him who will not see.
Y.Porat
> On 10/14/2011 3:26 AM, Y.Porat wrote:
>
> > On Oct 14, 4:29 am, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > -------------
> > and that s another proof that you are
> > an idiot crook demagogue
>
> > so actually BTW
> > smarty i new you might say that
> > but still that is stupidity and ignorance
> > so smarty i will ask you that in another way :
>
> > take the above experiment
> > light a** laser** torch that has only one wave length
>
> A laser torch provides a STREAM of photons.
littl idit crook!!
DID I EVER SAY THATY THE FORMULA
E=hf I SNOT A STREAM OF PHOTONS ??!!
--------------
now idiot
it deas not matter croky moron idit
it is isa steam or a single
lieten careful idiot crook
byw idit moron blockhead demagogue obfuscater
in any caase
NO MATTER IF IR AS A STYREAM OF SINGLES
NOT AT ALL
BECAUSE ::
no matter if single or stream of even a stream if different
frequencies !!!
because to torch is active for a fraction of a second or a secon
or 10 hours
**ALL OF THEM WILL BE LIMITED IN THEIR ACTIVITY THAT SECTION OF TIME
THAT THE TORCH IS DICTATING THEM
GOT IT PIG IDIOTCROOK
IMBECILE ??!!
sofor instance if the torch wil beactive during 1/10 of a second
non of them
single
or a stream of singles
or even a stream of various photon length
ALL OF THEM WILL BE ACTIVE
ONLY FOR 1/SECOND
no of them wilbe active more than 1/10 of a second
THAT IS ON THE TABLE
so you
r stream or not stream is a
Josef Goebbels tactics of cheating
and obfuscation !!
waht is right for a single in the above case
is right for a tream of singles
and that was my break through
method
that enablesme to dowaht animbecile parrot like you could not do !!
so piggy
just answer a simple question
and dont be the pupil of Josef !
(because you cant cheat all forever )!!
a quetion that any boy in secondary school will agree immediately
case 1
a light torch (no matter how many f s are there )
is active during 1/10 second
case 2
that exacly same torch
(ie** non of its variables is changes**!!))
except the time duration factor
so
in case 2
the same above torcjh will be active UNTIL the NEW INSERTED BATTERY
TO IT
WILL EMIT ENERGY TO THAT TORCH
(FOR LIGHT PRODUCTION)
ACTIVE
UNTIL THAT TORCH (WITH ITS NEW BATTERY)
WILL LOOSE ALL ITS ENERGY
FOR LIGHT PRODUCTION
and of you are tending to smarthguy again
i will sooner or later close all you fucken escape doors
ie
it can be even not until the battery is of its power
it can be even active for 2 seconds !!!
the question is in principle the same !!
so better answer sooner
without ''smartness''
SO
IN WHICH CASE
MORE ENERGY WILL BE
EMITTED TO THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE TORCH
IN CASE 1
OR IN CASE 2
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------
the AND THAT IS THE MAIN POINT
IN WITH question is
even if it is a steam or single
Androcles
Even politely saying 'please' doesn't help.
No explanations, you useless senile old cunt, just answer the fucking
question. We'll go into the explanations afterwards should we ever
get that far.
Byron Forbes
PD
> On Oct 14, 5:15 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10/14/2011 3:26 AM, Y.Porat wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 14, 4:29 am, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > -------------
> > > and that s another proof that you are
> > > an idiot crook demagogue
>
> > > so actually BTW
> > > smarty i new you might say that
> > > but still that is stupidity and ignorance
> > > so smarty i will ask you that in another way :
>
> > > take the above experiment
> > > light a** laser** torch that has only one wave length
>
> > A laser torch provides a STREAM of photons.
> > -------------------
>
> littl idit crook!!
>
> DID I EVER SAY THATY THE FORMULA
> E=hf I SNOT A STREAM OF PHOTONS ??!!
I'm talking about what a photon is OBSERVATIONALLY.
You keep talking about observations with lasers and electric cells,
which only deal with *streams* of photons.
If you want to see what a photon is OBSERVATIONALLY (not with an
equation, with experimental apparatus), then you need a single-photon
source and a single photon detector. Then you'll know what a photon
is.
PD
> In article <6af6a9de-87ec-4777-b9b4-7520ee9bc...@i19g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, thedraperfam...@gmail.com says...
card, Byron.
PD
different orbitals were the same. But they're not. Thus the statement
that the innermost orbitals have to have higher speed than the outer
ones is simply not the case.
The rest of your post is in error due to this simple mistake. Please
scrap what you have so far and start over.
jon car
> - Show quoted text -
their science superior when in fact Einstein was the right one. And in
the future history will say that judgment on Einstein was the loss of
science; not that of Einstein's objective genius.
Einstein is proven right in the end about QM and its statisctical
measurements. Such a theory is based on lowest math and really is a
first shot if you are honest about it.
We have a few first theories as of now. The future will revise those
and build where Einstein left off.
hanson
Paul "PD" (?) <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
A sealed box of photons is "heavier" because it contains
photons, even though each photon has no rest mass.
The sealed box has additional inertial mass when it traps
photons. The sealed box has extra inertial mass if the
electrons in the box are moving at high speed.
So the energy trapped in the box can be considered as
contributing to the total inertial mass.
>
... So, if we had the metrology, then such a hot box
would weigh less and less as it cools = radiates.
IOW this what we see and interpret to happen to/in
the life of a star.
>
What is though utterly fascinating, is that a ~ 2 lb heavy
lump of lipo/aqua molecules... (using the same kind
of electrons and photons), ...that merely exchange
amongst each other some transfers of charges, or
mostly only interact by induction (relative movement
of charges).... can produce what is called thoughts,
reason, logic and consciousness that generates our
pontifications about its environment, that include the
past, present and future, over vast distances & times.
>
The narrow energy bandwidth in which these neural
processes do occur is truly remarkable. Naturally, given
some few billions of years of trial and error (evolution)
of this kind of physics on a very vast scale, leads to
the specualtion that this is not a unique nor rare event...
>
Why the Bible beaters have to invoke some "intelligent
design" also shows how fragile the interpretation has
become at the more recent stage of evolution.
ahahaha....
Michael Moroney
>On Oct 15, 3:11 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:
>Then what?
to hold a conversation if you forget what it's all about halfway through!
>> >> A light bulb?
>> >The bulb is lighting up what?
>>
>> The bubbles.
>>
>> >What blows the bubbles all along the
>> >way?
>>
>> It's a superheated fluid.
>But just what blows the bubbles? A subatomic particle on a bubble
>blowing day?
>> >How does a subatomic particle blow bubbles by striking subatomic
>> >electrons?
>>
>> Read up on nucleation sites.
>Go blow your goofy bubbles.
>Science doesn't know what it is doing.
>There is not enough evidence in a trail to tell hardly anything.
>They revert to so many guesses when it comes to the bubble chamber.
>There are only a few particles that have been mistaken for many.
>There is a proliferation of what is not really new particles; but a
>basic
>few.
wrong. It only means you don't understand physics.
jon car
wrote:
I am saying they are really mostly made of guesses what they do.
I believe that very few particles exist in reality but they have
proliferated
them in the mind of science just as QM is a statistical theory.
Mitchell Raemsch
Y.Porat
imecile moron crook!!
lets start from the end
if for instance it will be shown thatthe mass of the single photon is
about
exp-90 Kilograms
wil any idiot like you
or nonidiot
willever be able to detect it ???!
-----------
so you have to canalize it in a way that a fucken mathematician
like you
never thought or neevr used !!
ie
YOU HAVE TO DO IT **INDIRECTLY
GOT IT IDIOT BLOCKHEAD - *INDIRECTLY*
BY EXPERIMENTS
and have the ability to do the right conclusions
in general :
how do you even in your fucken mathematics solve an quation with
MANY VARIABLES ??
you take that bundle of variables
KEEP ALL OF THOSE VARIABLES CONSTANT (AGAIN CONSTANT OR EVEN
AS CONSTANT AS POSSIBLE INDIFFICULT CASES
WITH IS NOT OUR CASE)
SO YOU KEEP ALL THE VARIABLES CONSTANTS
**EXCEPT ONLY ONE VARIABLE **
again
EXCEPT ONLY ONE VARIABLE !!
so that is why i limited the experiment to laser ligh t with jsut one
wavelength
yet you ddint understand it and ddi your best to obfuscate it
never mind
you want be able to cheat every one forever
so again to how we solve it
in that torch expseriemnt i kep th e sametorch
in order to KEP ALL THE VARIABLES CONSTANT
EXCEPT THE TIME VARIABLE
DOES AN IDIOT CROOK UNDERSTAND
OR ADMIT THAT BY THAT
I KEPT ALL THE VARIABLES CONSTANT
EXCEPT THE TIME VARIABLE ??
it is obvious that you are **dead scare** of that
time variable
because it will ruin your foul obfuscation claimes
please answer as anhonest pseronm for a change
and only then we can go on
(ot may be you feel the rope closing on your neck and that is why you
still strugling it and
doing fucken rotten foul escape maneuvers)
and BTW pigy hired gangster
IS IT CLEAR TO YOU THAT
NO TIME MOVEMENT - NO REAL PHYSICS ??!!
and if so
is it clear that in the above torch exprimemt
only the time duration VARIABLE is he name of the game
dealing with our innovation findings ??
-------------
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------
----------------------
Alfonso
> On Oct 5, 3:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/5/2011 2:46 AM, HardySpicer wrote:
>>
>> > If an electron+positron = photons, is the process reversable? Can you
>> > get antimatter from photons?
>>
>> > Hardy
>>
>> Absolutely. It's called pair production. The threshold energy is 1.022
>> MeV.
>
> -------------------
> so from where is the mass of electron and positron ?? !!!! (:-)
>
> -------------------------
Photons have mass because: That is why they have momentum. That is why
when they fall under gravity they gain energy (Pound Rebka). That is why
when they escape a massive object they lose energy (gravitational red
shift). That is why a beam of light is bent as it passes a massive
object.
Physics has had to redefine mass because, according to relativity, if a
photon did have mass travelling at c that mass would be infinite.
The evidence for this increase in mass with velocity involves the
accelerating of charged particles. The behaviour is consistent with an
increase in mass but alternatively with a decrease in the force between
charges with velocity. This latter makes more sense:
If the action at a distance force between charges has a maximum speed c
at which it can act then it cannot make a charged particle travel at
greater than c.
The basis of Waldron's Ballistic theory (1977) is that the speed of a
photon is c w.r.t the source and c+v relative to an observer travelling
towards the source at v. The energy of a photon is made up of two terms
the kinetic energy m((c+v)^2)/2 + internal energy mc^2/2. which in the
FoR of the source is a total of mc^2 which = hf.
The mass of a photon is thus hf/c^2. He shows how these simple equations
are completely consistent with the instances I quote above after
"Photons have mass because:"
According to Waldon's theory the mass does not change with velocity. It
is Coulomb's law which contains the gamma term not the mass term of the
equation.
Also according to Waldron the mass of the gamma photons produced by
positron electron interaction is the same as the combined mass of the
electron and positron. Mass is conserved and there is no need for
conversion of mass into energy at all. He shows that if you consider an
electron as consisting of a number of elements each with mass dm and
charge dq then the internal energy is the energy released when they fly
apart from each other. He puts forward no hypothesis as to why a
specific quantity of such elements is inherently stable i.e. = an
electron, but then Pauli never explained why the electron angular
momentum orbiting the nucleus is quantised. Some things one has to
accept, at least for the moment, "just are".
There is also the energy of attraction between the positron and the
electron. He produces the equation giving the total energy. His equation is
W = mc^2[a/(a+r) + a(a+2x)/(a+x)^2]
Where a is the classic radius of an electron, r is the actual radius of
an electron and x is the distance between the positron and electron when
they interact. This should equal the energy of the two photons 2mc^2
which it does if x and r are zero or very much smaller than the classic
radius. His theory therefore predicts that an electron is a point particle.
I may be out of my depth here but I think that classic theory said that
the internal energy of a photon is the same as its mass which means that
it has to have the classic radius. This mass/energy is converted into
the energy of the massless photon. Waldron says the electron has mass
*and* internal energy (hence it is smaller) which is converted into a
photon with the same mass and energy.
It is said that a photon has no rest mass and it is difficult to stop a
photon and measure it but if you stop or nearly stop a high energy
photon you have an electron and a positron.