Electron-positron annihilation

[john]

When an electron and a positron
annihilate to form two gamma photons,
they don't 'become' photons- they already
were.
But instead of travelling in a straight line,
they were travelling in a complete circle
every cycle.
The length of the wave has everything
to do with being an electron

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:

>When an electron and a positron
>annihilate to form two gamma photons,
>they don't 'become' photons- they already
>were.

Depending on the spin state, there may be 3 gammas. Antiparallel spin produces
2 gammas, parallel spin produces 3 gammas. Higher decay modes are possible
(but relatively unlikely), antiparallel spin produces an even number, parallel
spin produces an odd number.

And photons don't have charge.

>But instead of travelling in a straight line,
>they were travelling in a complete circle
>every cycle.
>The length of the wave has everything
>to do with being an electron

I don't understand this babble.

[Odd Bodkin]

For John, his postings fit into the category of "Far out, man. Wouldn't
it be cool if...."
Facts are irrelevant. Stuff that even third-graders know is irrelevant.
These things suck the joy out of bullshit speculation.

[john]

I know you guys spend zero effort
actually trying to understand what's
happening down there.
I blame QM for telling you you can't

[Odd Bodkin]

John, somewhere sometime you read something in a comic book that quantum
mechanics says that nothing is known at that scale, and that everything
is random and nothing makes any sense. Since that fit in with your
confusion, then this comic book blurb has fixed in your head.

Never mind that it's nonsense bullshit. It's still fixed in your head,
and so you can't shake it.

What actually happens down there is actually pretty well understood. Not
completely finished, but a whole lot better than just blank slate. Of
course, you can't seem to get that understanding because it can't be
presented to you on a single page using everyday words, which you think
is a crime.

But that's no reason to just lie about it, is it, John?

[john]

Odd

"
is a crime.

But that's no reason to just lie about it, is it, John? "

Oh, Ok Odd.
Tell me, then, about how QM views
the photons structure and how
that structure predicts a circular polarity?
That must have been in a different comic book

[john]

Please speak to me, Odd!
Do you think a photon actually
has a structure?
If not, please explain how different
things can be different without having
internal structure?

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:

>I know you guys spend zero effort
>actually trying to understand what's
>happening down there.

So, tell us, why do YOU think you know what's happening down there?
Why do you believe you know more than a gaggle of scientists whose job is
to figure out "what's happening down there"?
And why do your answers always involve precessing spinny things?

Do you believe in physics by proclamation? That is, "if John Sefton says it,
it is true!" ?

[edpr...@gmail.com]

Well then your goal is simple: show us how to get past
the Heisenberg uncertainty limit. If you do, I promise
I will call the Nobel committee myself to nominate you.

[noTthaTguY]

the area of the wavefront, after one second,
is just pi times the secondpower of 37,20,00 miles "around,"
using the nonphysics-illiterate aspect of pi viz area

[benj]

You are as usual just spewing a bunch of drooling blather. The comic
books are Correct. Nothing is known on that scale. Bell says there are
no "hidden variables". There is nothing knowable on that level.
Furthermore Bell says that Einstein is wrong. Relativity is wrong. The
moon is not there if nobody looks at it. That is the FACT of your text
books.

As for electron-positron interactions John has it right. An electron is
a vortex in the aether in one direction, a positron is one in the
opposite direction. When they interact the total motion cancels. But the
energy stored in each vortex does NOT cancel and is released as
vibrations (waves) being transmitted away in the medium known as the
luminiferous aether.

Yes, it's really that simple which is why you can't understand it.

[thugst...@gmail.com]

the waves are bosonically mod pi: a)
circumferentially, b)
areally

[thugst...@gmail.com]

of course, although a pith is less than a third,
hence pi is more than three, say, thirty-one tenths, but
22/7 is still less than pi, and
that's a rather small gore

[Poutnik]

On 01/12/2017 11:36 PM, benj wrote:

> As for electron-positron interactions John has it right. An electron is
> a vortex in the aether in one direction, a positron is one in the
> opposite direction. When they interact the total motion cancels. But the
> energy stored in each vortex does NOT cancel and is released as
> vibrations (waves) being transmitted away in the medium known as the
> luminiferous aether.

In the Alice wonderland


--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

[john]

Pout
"In the Alice wonderland "
So- when electron-positron
annihilate, the energy DOESNT
travel away as radiation?
It that what ur pouting?

[Odd Bodkin]

Sure, John. Now, as you know, stuff like this can't be explained on one
page in plain conversational English, so I'll be referring you to
something to read that explains in the course of dozens of pages.

Relativistic Quantum Mechanics and Field Theory, Franz Gross, starting
around section 8.4 and onward.

Now, tell me again how quantum mechanics has no explanation of what's
going on down there and tells people to not even try.

[edpr...@gmail.com]

he is saying your spinning vortex model of electrons is
something from a dream land.

So just go back to sleep John.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 1/12/2017 4:36 PM, benj wrote:
>
> You are as usual just spewing a bunch of drooling blather. The comic
> books are Correct.

Because SOMEBODY has to defend the loon, and you're just the guy to do it.

[benj]

Yes I am. I am a scientist interested only in science. Your religion
does not interest me.

[benj]

Odd have you been looking at the moon again? I noticed it's still out
there.

[thugst...@gmail.com]

KA-blammo

[noTthaTguY]

abuse of notation, multiply those three factors
for unit-areal surfactant (sik)

> that's a rather small gore
>
> > the area of the wavefront, after one second,
> > is just pi times the secondpower
> > of 37,20,00 miles "around,"

37,20,00
3
-------- ... oh, and
by i/pi_dollars = (-1/i*pi)*1/dollars

[john]

ed

"he is saying your spinning vortex model of electrons is
something from a dream land. "

This is how electrons move
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/2electronorbital.GIF

I use the same path for my Benzene model

[john]

This is the same orbital from 4 different
angles- the top left being the one
shown by the animation
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/1-2orbit.jpg

(Sorry it's so dark- should have used yellow)

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:

>This is how electrons move
> http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/2electronorbital.GIF

Of course you have excellent scientific proof of that. You also have
excellent scientific explanations why an electron moving like that doesn't
radiate all its energy away as EM radiarion the way a charge moving like
that normally would.

What? It's just your usual babbling nonsense fed to a graphics program?
And all it's good for is a proof of GIGO? Never mind.

[john]

Here's a better look at that pathway
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/Onepathway.GIF

[john]

MikeHunt said

"
Of course you have excellent scientific proof of that. You also have "

Worked for Benzene

[john]

MikeHunt fluffed

"
Of course you have excellent scientific proof of that. You also have "

Read some science history.
When electrons were first found,
everyone had ideas on how they moved
and interacted. Most of these systems
could MODEL simple molecules,
but the Holy Grail was Benzene-
and nobody could do it.
Of course, later on- in the days of
the (excellent scientific proof) DM et al,
'delocallization' was brought forward-
electrons didn't need pathways at all-
they simply go WHEREVER they're needed!!
Majik!!

'tards

[Michael Moroney]

No it didn't. You haven't provided a shred of scientific proof that your
pretty .gif has anything to do with an actual benzene model, plus it
contradicts what the standard model successfully models. Plus, once
again, you have no explanation why your benzene model doesn't radiate
its energy away as EM radiation. Just like this one.

[john]

Mike said

"
again, you have no explanation why your benzene model doesn't radiate
its energy away as EM radiation. Just like this one. "

All things radiate.
All things absorb.

Just because our Science is myopic
doesn't mean that radiation/absorption
cycle isn't happening.

HVAC posted "QPO" several years ago
that clarified that whole cycle:
burnt out electron material/stars
fall into the centre and are
re-energized and shoot back out
as jets, which interact with Hydrogen
clouds and form new stars/electron material!

IT. IS. A. CYCLE. MICHAEL.

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:

>Read some science history.
>When electrons were first found,
>everyone had ideas on how they moved
>and interacted. Most of these systems
>could MODEL simple molecules,
>but the Holy Grail was Benzene-
>and nobody could do it.

So you are saying that because in the early days many people had silly or
incorrect ideas, we should accept your silly, incorrect ideas?

>'tards

Why are you speaking about yourself in the plural?

[john]

Mike

"So you are saying that because in the early days many people had silly or
incorrect ideas, we should accept your silly, incorrect ideas? "

I'm saying- they gave up finding
a classical (read 'logical') model
and started the
bullshit: delocalization, Uncertainty Principal,
RANDOM electron movement.
Bullshit which you can't even vocalize,
because it can't be explained simply
without sounding stupid-
which is why you and Odd defer all
"how does it work?' questions to
books.

If you can't explain it simply,
you don't understand it.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 1/18/2017 11:42 AM, john wrote:
> I'm saying- they gave up finding
> a classical (read 'logical') model
> and started the
> bullshit: delocalization, Uncertainty Principal,
> RANDOM electron movement.
> Bullshit which you can't even vocalize,
> because it can't be explained simply
> without sounding stupid-
> which is why you and Odd defer all
> "how does it work?' questions to
> books.

John, you are under some massive delusion that everything that is
correct can be explained simply, using ordinary commonplace language.

This is a denouncement of expertise, declaring that any truth that
exists should be perceivable and understandable by ANYONE without the
least bit of training or prep work.

It is the declaration that an architect should not need a license,
because enough of the principles of architecture to actually do
architecture should be understandable by anyone with a pamphlet.

Same with medicine. Same with law. Same with aerospace engineering.

Pamphlets for everyone! No veiling of truth behind a wall of schooling!
Boo to schools! Boo to licenses!

[edpr...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 5:40:30 PM UTC-5, john wrote:
> ed
> "he is saying your spinning vortex model of electrons is
> something from a dream land. "
>
> This is how electrons move
> http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/2electronorbital.GIF

Pretty picture. However, it looks like you are using
circular orbits (IOW Bohr model). It's a little outdated.

>
> I use the same path for my Benzene model

Could you share the equation used for the calculations?
That would indicate the model you are using.

the Bohr model fails for larger atoms. Physics moved
past the Bohr model a long time ago (about 70 years ago).

ED

[john]

Odd

"
Pamphlets for everyone! No veiling of truth behind a wall of schooling!
Boo to schools! Boo to licenses! "

No, Odd.
I am saying that
IF YOU UNDERSTAND SOMETHING,
you will be able to explain it simply.

For instance: Gravity/Inertia is caused
by the vibrations of matter being
absorbed by other matter. Full stop.

[edpr...@gmail.com]

I assume you are talking about descriptions about
benzene like the one on this site:

http://chem.libretexts.org/Textbook_Maps/Organic_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Map%3A_Organic_Chemistry_With_a_Biological_Emphasis_(Soderberg)/Chapter_02%3A_Introduction_to_organic_structure_and_bonding_II/2.2%3A_Molecular_orbital_theory%3A_conjugation_and_aromaticity

Not magic. simple application of QM.

ed

[Odd Bodkin]

On 1/18/2017 12:19 PM, john wrote:
> Odd
> "
> Pamphlets for everyone! No veiling of truth behind a wall of schooling!
> Boo to schools! Boo to licenses! "
>
> No, Odd.
> I am saying that
> IF YOU UNDERSTAND SOMETHING,
> you will be able to explain it simply.

John, then it would be available on a pamphlet, and everyone could do
architecture or law or surgery or aerospace engineering or physics, just
by reading the simple explanation on a pamphlet.

Sorry, John, life just does not work that way.

It is NOT TRUE that if you understand something, you will be able to
explain it simply. What you WANT to be true just is not true. Fantasy land.

[edpr...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 12:42:04 PM UTC-5, john wrote:
> Mike
> "So you are saying that because in the early days many people had silly or
> incorrect ideas, we should accept your silly, incorrect ideas? "
>
> I'm saying- they gave up finding
> a classical (read 'logical') model
> and started the
> bullshit: delocalization, Uncertainty Principal,
> RANDOM electron movement.

It is simply following the best models.
If classical models fail to produce correct results
and QM models successfully produces correct results,
then we choose the model (equations) that are successful.

> Bullshit which you can't even vocalize,
> because it can't be explained simply
> without sounding stupid-
> which is why you and Odd defer all
> "how does it work?' questions to
> books.

because you refuse to accept the simple descriptions.
The fact is, subatomic features ARE COMPLEX.

just remember Murphy's fifth law:
Mother nature is a bitch.

>
> If you can't explain it simply,
> you don't understand it.

false premise, false conclusion.
Don't get mad at Odd and Michael.
They didn't make it complex, mother nature did.

ed

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:

>Mike said
>"
>again, you have no explanation why your benzene model doesn't radiate
>its energy away as EM radiation. Just like this one. "

>All things radiate.
>All things absorb.

Your inability to come up with an explanation noted. Accelerating
electric charges radiate EM radiation, John. Period.

[edpr...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 1:19:08 PM UTC-5, john wrote:
> Odd
> "
> Pamphlets for everyone! No veiling of truth behind a wall of schooling!
> Boo to schools! Boo to licenses! "
>
> No, Odd.
> I am saying that
> IF YOU UNDERSTAND SOMETHING,
> you will be able to explain it simply.

you have been given the simple explanations.
just because you don't accept them isn't our fault.

>
> For instance: Gravity/Inertia is caused
> by the vibrations of matter being
> absorbed by other matter. Full stop.

Going off the deep end with lead weights there John.
Climb back out and stay on track.

[john]

Ed

"> For instance: Gravity/Inertia is caused
> by the vibrations of matter being
> absorbed by other matter. Full stop.

Going off the deep end with lead weights there John.
Climb back out and stay on track. "

Put YOUR explanation forward. In two
simple sentences.

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:

>If you can't explain it simply,
>you don't understand it.

Sorry, John, but science just doesn't work like that. Some things are
simply extremely complicated, even if it may seem simple at first glance.
A closed form solution for the three body problem, for example.

For many things, a simple explanation either means you don't understand
the problem, or you are trying to really dumb things down for someone
ignorant of the field.

[john]

Odd

"
John, then it would be available on a pamphlet, and everyone could do
architecture or law or surgery or aerospace engineering or physics, just
by reading the simple explanation on a pamphlet.

Sorry, John, life just does not work that way"

No. It certainly does not.
A simple explanation does not confer
a complete knowledge of a subject.
I have no idea how you jump to
such crazy conclusions.
Little Johnny:"Daddy Odd- how does a car work?"
Daddy Odd: "Well, Johnny, a motor transfers
power to an axle."
Little Johnny (the next day): I got a job as a
mechanic!!

Your brain, Odd!!!
I really can't imagine how you think!!!
You are SO black or white!!!!!!

[Odd Bodkin]

On 1/18/2017 12:48 PM, john wrote:
> Odd
> "
> John, then it would be available on a pamphlet, and everyone could do
> architecture or law or surgery or aerospace engineering or physics, just
> by reading the simple explanation on a pamphlet.
>
> Sorry, John, life just does not work that way"
>
> No. It certainly does not.
> A simple explanation does not confer
> a complete knowledge of a subject.

Or even BASIC knowledge of a subject in many cases. Quantum mechanics is
a great example.

That's where you miss the point.

[Odd Bodkin]

Gravity is the effect of freefall motion in curved spacetime, where the
curvature at any location is determined by the proximity of mass and
momentum/energy. The curvature in one location is constrained by the
curvature in nearby locations by geometrical laws of continuity.

There, that's two, in language as plain as I can make it.

Now, you can say, "That's not enough for me to understand what's going
on." And then we're back to the statement I made earlier, that there are
some things that CANNOT BE EXPLAINED so that everyone will understand
it, in two sentences.

[Odd Bodkin]

Or, as is your habit, you might respond, "OK I understood what you said,
but it cannot be right because it is in conflict with these other things
that I am sure are true, and therefore what you said is nonsense."

In which case, it's not a matter of explaining it, it's a matter of
explaining it in a way that is consistent with your beliefs, whether
your beliefs are true or not. And that NOBODY has any responsibility for.

[john]

Odd

"> A simple explanation does not confer
> a complete knowledge of a subject.

Or even BASIC knowledge of a subject in many cases. Quantum mechanics is
a great example.

That's where you miss the point.

- show quoted text -"

So QM can't be explained simply?
Superposition of states.
But- like you say- it's wrong

[Odd Bodkin]

That, brother, is not even close to a description of quantum mechanics.
It is a sound bite from one, tiny aspect of quantum mechanics.

That's like saying a description of vascular medicine is: "Scalpel.
Hemostat. Sutures."

[Odd Bodkin]

On 1/18/2017 2:35 PM, john wrote:

Get it through your head, John, that expertise takes 10,000 hours of
dedicated work. Working knowledge takes 2,000 hours of dedicated work.
Passing familiarity takes 500 hours of dedicated work. Two hours of
dedicated work gets you a couple of YouTube links in your browser history.

Reading two sentences of a simple explanation gets you blink-whoosh peek.

[john]

Odd
I know you love QM.
But it really doesn't provide any
easy answers- like you say.
That's why it will never be
and never can be the
final answer.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 1/18/2017 3:05 PM, john wrote:
> Odd
> I know you love QM.
> But it really doesn't provide any
> easy answers- like you say.

Right. Easy answers aren't the key.

> That's why it will never be
> and never can be the
> final answer.

Oh, John, John, John. Ever hopeful that the final answers will all be
EASY answers, that everyone will understand. No work needed.

Who raised you?

[john]

Odd Odd Odd
The answer is what I've been telling you:
the Universe is a Fractal
based on Atom-Galaxy.
Simple.

[noTthaTguY]

that's only two thirds of three choices

if one takes only a static Euclidean framework,
if only merely a referent, the Gaussian definition is fine, and
one does not need to refer to timennspacenn,
the serious screw-up of Minkowski, that I know of

> >> by the vibrations of matter being
> >> absorbed by other matter. Full stop.

[noTthaTguY]

as it is so tiny, obviously,
observation would easily knock it about, but
there are certainly more prosaical pairs of covariant variables,
than position & momentum ... any old pair
of covarying variables will do it,
esp. when applied to a single atom

> Well then your goal is simple: show us how to get past
> the Heisenberg uncertainty limit. If you do, I promise
> I will call the Nobel committee myself to nominate you.

[Odd Bodkin]

Sorry, John, but coughing up an answer that you like because it is an
easy answer is worthless.

The final answer, likely not to be easy, will be validated by something
other than being expressible in two sentences. Any idea what that
validation method is?

Your philosophy ("The final answer will be easy, and therefore writing
down an answer that is easy is likely to be the right and final one") is
a fantasy that caters to your intellectual laziness.

[john]

Odd

"
a fantasy that caters to your intellectual laziness. "

Who is the one here with ideas
and who is thumping books?
You are the non-thinker.

[Odd Bodkin]

John, let me advise you on something else. Learning is work. Thinking
without reading is cheap, easy, and lazy. It requires no investment.

A head full of ideas, plus $2, will buy you a coffee at Tim Hortons.

You think having ideas is more valuable than learning from books. I
think this is a lazy-ass, concrete-headed, childish fantasy. It is the
excuse of the incompetent and the lazy to defend why they do not try to
learn.

You can spin this excuse all day long if you want to. It'll bring
nothing but a stern look from grown-ups.

[john]

Odd
You don't know what I've read
or experienced.
So far, you're just a guy who
defends the Status Quo
against any and all comers,
no matter.
You don't think.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 1/18/2017 4:23 PM, john wrote:
> Odd
> You don't know what I've read
> or experienced.

I know what you have read about relativity and quantum mechanics or
physics. Which is to say, not a lot at all.

What you have read about herbal cures and about UFO conspiracies and
about correcting posture gives you no expertise, no working knowledge,
not even passing familiarity about relativity or quantum mechanics or
physics.

> So far, you're just a guy who
> defends the Status Quo
> against any and all comers,
> no matter.
> You don't think.

The status quo does not need defense against new and original and
hopelessly shallow ideas. Those are like shiny pennies, offered to
engineer a manned visit to Mars. They are like fingerpaintings,
submitted to a museum of fine art. They contribute no value.

What learning from books does is that it teaches you how to think
VALUABLY. You don't want to do that. You want to just think your cute
new thoughts without having to learn. And that is your laziness talking,
and that is why you aren't producing anything of VALUE.

[john]

Odd

"
VALUABLY. You don't want to do that. You want to just think your cute
new thoughts without having to learn. And that is your laziness talking,
and that is why you aren't producing anything of VALUE.
"

?
No value to a closed mind, yes.

[edpr...@gmail.com]

Wrong or right is not the issue.
As I told you before: all theories are wrong, but some are useful.
Useful meaning it works and produces results that match what
mother nature throws back at us in the lab and the universe.

QM describes the behavior of materials based energy, momentum and other parameters that have discrete values (quanta). It successfully describes the behavior of subatomic particles such as electron orbitals within atoms and the corresponding atomic spectrum.

That's about as short and simple as I can make it using English.
To really get an understanding of any physics topic you really
need to understand the mathematics of it.

ed

[edpr...@gmail.com]

Who said QM was the "final answer"?

If they did they were clearly wrong
because the final answer is 42.




We are here only to try to figure out the question.
8^)

[john]

QM?
It's not an answer- it's BS

[Odd Bodkin]

I have no problem having a closed mind to shiny pennies offered to
engineer a manned mission to Mars. I have no problem having a closed
mind to fingerpaintings submitted to a museum of fine art. I have no
problem having a closed mind to cheap, lazy, useless ideas generated
without any interest in learning.

As well as wanting the final answer to be easy, it's a hallmark of the
intellectually lazy that they want people to be open-minded to cheap,
lazy, useless ideas. That way, even the people who have done no work get
some notice for just being there.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 1/19/2017 7:55 AM, john wrote:
> QM?
> It's not an answer- it's BS
>

That's a remarkable position to hold, John, given that you don't even
know what QM is.

[john]

Odd

I know what it isn't- an answer to gravity.

[Odd Bodkin]

No, you don't know that EITHER, because you don't even know what QM is.

What you know is what you've read in comic books, that a working model
of quantum gravity has not been developed. This does NOT mean QM is not
an answer to gravity because it's not in hand TODAY.

[noTthaTguY]

I will see if I can find another pair, although
I'm sure that it has been done, before, and
I may have done it, three ... notify the panel!

> than position & momentum ... any old pair
> of covarying variables will do it,
> esp. when applied to a single atom
>
> > Well then your goal is simple: show us how to get past

> > the Heisenberg uncertainty limit. If you do, I promise nothin'at atll

[edpr...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 8:55:20 AM UTC-5, john wrote:
> QM?
> It's not an answer- it's BS

Then you are hopeless. You clearly do not understand science.

There is a sphere of knowledge. It has a boundary beyond which
is all that we do not know. As the circle gets bigger we see
the boundary expand. The conclusion?
The more we know, leads us to realize
how much more there is to learn.

So if you are looking for "THE ANSWER" all I can tell you is 42.

ed

[HVAC]

Poor John says
Do you think a photon actually
has a structure?
If not, please explain how different
things can be different without having
internal structure?
--------------

Many many ways. Different frequency is just one.

[benj]

Good one. Now tell us how behavior doesn't need anything to do the
behaving.

OF course I remind everyone that HVAC already demonstrated that John
knows WAY more science than HVAC. HardBlow can't even solve the simplest
high school science problem. He's like
Bert in that he knows nothing but thinks he deserves TWO Nobel prizes.
Only HVAC is DUMBER than BERT! PROVED!

[Michael Moroney]

Odd is correct. You are too lazy to read about what we know already and
how we know it, plus you are too lazy to see if your "ideas" pass the
smell test with what we already know. You just throw your kooky crap
out here without checking if it even makes sense.

[noTthaTguY]

the secondpower of the speed of light,
is the rate of growth of the wavefront, mod pi;
big secret ... I only want three prizes!

> > If not, please explain how different
> > things can be different without having
> > internal structure?
> > --------------
> >
> > Many many ways. Different frequency is just one.