info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
How was it?. Two electrons colliding, one at relative rest, verify relativity?
236 views
Skip to first unread message
Richard Hertz
Jan 15, 2023, 6:16:42 PM1/15/23
to
Let me see:
- One electron is at relative rest, wrt the lab frame.
- A second electron approaches at v speed almost c.
- It's ALLEGED that In Newtonian mechanics, if one particle collides with an
equal mass particle initially at rest, the angle between the directions of
motion of the two particles after collision will be equal to 90°. Momentum
and energy conserved. But THIS newtonian mechanics IS NOT for charged
particles, nor is meant to be used in the quantum world.
- It's ALLEGED that relativistic mechanics, the angle depends on the velocity
and scattering angle of the incident particle, and is always less than 90°.
But, this theory IGNORES the effect of electrostatic repulsion. Even more,
it doesn't account for the losses of de-acceleration, NOR the fact that an
electron "at relative rest" IS BOUNDED to the atom where it has stability.
THEN, what about the WORK wasted to knock-off an electron of such atom?
How this expenditure of energy is integrated into the formulae that "proves"
relativity at its best?
I QUOTE FROM THE PAPER THAT prokaryotic CITED IN A FORMER THREAD:
"Consider the incident electron to have a velocity v₁ with respect to the observer and the stationary electron and let β₁ = v₁/c . Let the final directions of motion of the two electrons be inclined at θ and φ to the initial direction of motion of the incident electron and the velocities in these two directions correspond to β₂ and β₃ respectively. Then from the relativistic momentum and energy relations
(1) β₁γ₁ = β₂γ₂ cos θ + β₃γ₃ cos φ
"
It's ALLEGED THAT, due to relativity, θ + φ < 90°.
It's ALLEGED that the relativistic momentum and energy are conserved.
Something has been fishy for 91 years, and nobody screamed claiming foul.
- And the effect of electrostatic repulsion?
- And the effect of energy lost by the colliding electron decelerating?
- And the effect of the work to move the electron "at relative rest"?
Were/are those effects considered in any way?
If those effects are incorporated in the formulae for "newtonian" approach
to the collision (one e moving and the other e at relative rest), YOU CAN BET
that the 2D post-collision angle between both electrons is LOWER than 90°.
So? What is all this fuss about relativity?
PROPAGANDA. EFFORTS TO SUSTAIN THE NARRATIVE THAT PHYSICS
CHANGED SINCE 1905 DUE TO A "WISE GUY".
- One electron is at relative rest, wrt the lab frame.
- A second electron approaches at v speed almost c.
- It's ALLEGED that In Newtonian mechanics, if one particle collides with an
equal mass particle initially at rest, the angle between the directions of
motion of the two particles after collision will be equal to 90°. Momentum
and energy conserved. But THIS newtonian mechanics IS NOT for charged
particles, nor is meant to be used in the quantum world.
- It's ALLEGED that relativistic mechanics, the angle depends on the velocity
and scattering angle of the incident particle, and is always less than 90°.
But, this theory IGNORES the effect of electrostatic repulsion. Even more,
it doesn't account for the losses of de-acceleration, NOR the fact that an
electron "at relative rest" IS BOUNDED to the atom where it has stability.
THEN, what about the WORK wasted to knock-off an electron of such atom?
How this expenditure of energy is integrated into the formulae that "proves"
relativity at its best?
I QUOTE FROM THE PAPER THAT prokaryotic CITED IN A FORMER THREAD:
"Consider the incident electron to have a velocity v₁ with respect to the observer and the stationary electron and let β₁ = v₁/c . Let the final directions of motion of the two electrons be inclined at θ and φ to the initial direction of motion of the incident electron and the velocities in these two directions correspond to β₂ and β₃ respectively. Then from the relativistic momentum and energy relations
(1) β₁γ₁ = β₂γ₂ cos θ + β₃γ₃ cos φ
"
It's ALLEGED THAT, due to relativity, θ + φ < 90°.
It's ALLEGED that the relativistic momentum and energy are conserved.
Something has been fishy for 91 years, and nobody screamed claiming foul.
- And the effect of electrostatic repulsion?
- And the effect of energy lost by the colliding electron decelerating?
- And the effect of the work to move the electron "at relative rest"?
Were/are those effects considered in any way?
If those effects are incorporated in the formulae for "newtonian" approach
to the collision (one e moving and the other e at relative rest), YOU CAN BET
that the 2D post-collision angle between both electrons is LOWER than 90°.
So? What is all this fuss about relativity?
PROPAGANDA. EFFORTS TO SUSTAIN THE NARRATIVE THAT PHYSICS
CHANGED SINCE 1905 DUE TO A "WISE GUY".
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
Jan 15, 2023, 8:04:02 PM1/15/23
to
trajectories because loss of energy means that the collisions
will not be completely elastic. I am working on a computer
program to explore the extent to which this will have made
the angles deviate from 90°.
My approach will be to assume completely Newtonian
mechanics and the non-relativistic Larmor formula.
There may be a way to solve the differential equations
analytically, but if there is a way, I am not talented enough
to see it. Hence my use of numerical methods.
So far as the energy required to knock an electron off an
atom, this energy is on the order of dozens of electron volts
versus hundreds of thousands of electron volts for the
beta particles that Champion was studying. It is absurd for
you to contend that this should have altered the angles that
Champion observed by more than tiny fractions of a degree.
Richard Hertz
Jan 15, 2023, 8:45:29 PM1/15/23
to
> So far as the energy required to knock an electron off an
> atom, this energy is on the order of dozens of electron volts
> versus hundreds of thousands of electron volts for the
> beta particles that Champion was studying. It is absurd for
> you to contend that this should have altered the angles that
> Champion observed by more than tiny fractions of a degree.
One thing are "valence" electrons, and a different one is with "atomic" electrons, below the valence "sphere". Energies
involved vary in a wide range and depend on the element used in the test.
You need much more than dozens of eV to knock-out inner electrons.
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
Jan 15, 2023, 9:16:44 PM1/15/23
to
On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 7:45:29 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 10:04:02 PM UTC-3, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> > To a certain extent, Bremsstrahlung will affect electron
> > trajectories because loss of energy means that the collisions
> > will not be completely elastic. I am working on a computer
> > program to explore the extent to which this will have made
> > the angles deviate from 90°.
> >
> > My approach will be to assume completely Newtonian
> > mechanics and the non-relativistic Larmor formula.
> >
> > There may be a way to solve the differential equations
> > analytically, but if there is a way, I am not talented enough
> > to see it. Hence my use of numerical methods.
> I understand that Larmor formula is for v << c, and don't forget synchrotron radiation (Magneto-Bremsstrahlung).
You need the relativistic formula for large v, but since you
> On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 10:04:02 PM UTC-3, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> > To a certain extent, Bremsstrahlung will affect electron
> > trajectories because loss of energy means that the collisions
> > will not be completely elastic. I am working on a computer
> > program to explore the extent to which this will have made
> > the angles deviate from 90°.
> >
> > My approach will be to assume completely Newtonian
> > mechanics and the non-relativistic Larmor formula.
> >
> > There may be a way to solve the differential equations
> > analytically, but if there is a way, I am not talented enough
> > to see it. Hence my use of numerical methods.
> I understand that Larmor formula is for v << c, and don't forget synchrotron radiation (Magneto-Bremsstrahlung).
contend that relativity doesn't work, it would be rather
absurd to me to be using Liénard–Wiechert potentials,
now wouldn't it? I am sticking to strictly non-relativistic
formulas for a reason.
> > So far as the energy required to knock an electron off an
> > atom, this energy is on the order of dozens of electron volts
> > versus hundreds of thousands of electron volts for the
> > beta particles that Champion was studying. It is absurd for
> > you to contend that this should have altered the angles that
> > Champion observed by more than tiny fractions of a degree.
> I think that it depends on which electron is hit, according to its orbital energy.
>
> One thing are "valence" electrons, and a different one is with "atomic" electrons, below the valence "sphere". Energies
> involved vary in a wide range and depend on the element used in the test.
>
> You need much more than dozens of eV to knock-out inner electrons.
hundreds of eV, which is still insignificant compared with
the hundreds of thousands of eV beta emissions with which
Champion was working.
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
Jan 16, 2023, 12:28:25 AM1/16/23
to
On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 8:16:44 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > You need much more than dozens of eV to knock-out inner electrons.
> Even from the n=1 level, you are still talking about only
> hundreds of eV
The cloud chamber was filled with oxygen or nitrogen.
> > You need much more than dozens of eV to knock-out inner electrons.
> Even from the n=1 level, you are still talking about only
> hundreds of eV
I had originally guess-timated "hundreds of eV" based on
my knowledge that the ionization energy for an electron
in the ground state bound to an otherwise bare oxygen
nucleus should be Z^2 times the ionization energy
for hydrogen. This gives 870 eV as an upper limit, but
due to shielding effects by the other electrons in an
oxygen atom, the ionization energy for an n=1 electron
in an oxygen atom should actually be considerably less.
Now I've found a reference. The 1s ionization energy for
oxygen bound in an O2 molecule is about 543 eV, so my
guess-timate was pretty decent.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0368204821000578
J. J. Lodder
Jan 20, 2023, 8:31:15 AM1/20/23
to
Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let me see:
>
> - One electron is at relative rest, wrt the lab frame.
>
> - A second electron approaches at v speed almost c.
>
> - It's ALLEGED that In Newtonian mechanics, if one particle collides with an
> equal mass particle initially at rest, the angle between the directions of
> motion of the two particles after collision will be equal to 90°. Momentum
> and energy conserved.
Nothing alleged about it, and it has nothing to do with Newton,
> Let me see:
>
> - One electron is at relative rest, wrt the lab frame.
>
> - A second electron approaches at v speed almost c.
>
> - It's ALLEGED that In Newtonian mechanics, if one particle collides with an
> equal mass particle initially at rest, the angle between the directions of
> motion of the two particles after collision will be equal to 90°. Momentum
> and energy conserved.
or with any particular kind of mechanics.
It is due to Huygens, and it depends on the conservation laws only.
> But THIS newtonian mechanics IS NOT for charged
> particles,
(and electromagnetism does conserve Energy-momentum)
> nor is meant to be used in the quantum world.
The idea that conservation laws hold on averge only,
and not for individual events is known as:
"the last stand of the old quantum mechanics"
It was demolished theoretically by the new quantum mechanics
and experimentally for the first time by Compton.
(see under Compton scattering)
The validity of the conservation laws in individual collisions
is the basis for all of high energy physics.
(and tested daily in billionfold at CERN)
[snip more shouted nonsense]
Jan
Message has been deleted
Volney
Jan 20, 2023, 3:24:02 PM1/20/23
to
On 1/20/2023 9:38 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> You know perfectly well what I'm referring to. Or do you pretend that call it "huygean mechanics", asshole?
It comes out of the math. The nature of the force is irrelevant. If both
energy and momentum are conserved and the masses equal, the only
solution possible is that there is a 90° angle after collision.
Electromagnetism conserves both energy and momentum, so it, too, obeys
the 90° rule.
Because the electric repulsion doesn't act at an instant but over the
entire time, you'll have to take the asymptotic limit of the path, the
path the particles take at a distance large enough so the force at that
distance can be disregarded. You do understand limits, don't you? Don't
you? Dick?
> This is why assholes like you deserve, directly, a good punch in the nose that forces you to breathe through your asshole, asshole.
> You can't dismiss a repulsive force to goes toward infinity as particles approach. Who taught you elementary physics?
Speaking of ad hominem attacks, how would you classify these quotes of
yours, from the post I'm replying to? And all the others in your other
posts, of course. It looks to me to be an extreme case of psychological
projection to me. Very common with the mentally ill.
>> Don't play the "wise guy" role, because it makes you appear even more stupid than usual.
>> Nonsense? Who the fuck are you impersonating this time? Feynman? Spock?
> This is why assholes like you deserve, directly, a good punch in the nose that forces you to breathe through your asshole, asshole.
> On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:31:15 AM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Let me see:
>>>
>>> - One electron is at relative rest, wrt the lab frame.
>>>
>>> - A second electron approaches at v speed almost c.
>>>
>>> - It's ALLEGED that In Newtonian mechanics, if one particle collides with an
>>> equal mass particle initially at rest, the angle between the directions of
>>> motion of the two particles after collision will be equal to 90°. Momentum
>>> and energy conserved.
>
>> Nothing alleged about it, and it has nothing to do with Newton,
>> or with any particular kind of mechanics.
>> It is due to Huygens, and it depends on the conservation laws only.
>
> Don't play the "wise guy" role, because it makes you appear even more stupid than usual.
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Let me see:
>>>
>>> - One electron is at relative rest, wrt the lab frame.
>>>
>>> - A second electron approaches at v speed almost c.
>>>
>>> - It's ALLEGED that In Newtonian mechanics, if one particle collides with an
>>> equal mass particle initially at rest, the angle between the directions of
>>> motion of the two particles after collision will be equal to 90°. Momentum
>>> and energy conserved.
>
>> Nothing alleged about it, and it has nothing to do with Newton,
>> or with any particular kind of mechanics.
>> It is due to Huygens, and it depends on the conservation laws only.
>
> You know perfectly well what I'm referring to. Or do you pretend that call it "huygean mechanics", asshole?
It comes out of the math. The nature of the force is irrelevant. If both
energy and momentum are conserved and the masses equal, the only
solution possible is that there is a 90° angle after collision.
>
>>> But THIS newtonian mechanics IS NOT for charged particles,
>> Nonsense, the kind of interaction is irrelevant.
>> (and electromagnetism does conserve Energy-momentum)
>
> Nonsense? Who the fuck are you impersonating this time? Feynman? Spock?
>>> But THIS newtonian mechanics IS NOT for charged particles,
>> Nonsense, the kind of interaction is irrelevant.
>> (and electromagnetism does conserve Energy-momentum)
>
Electromagnetism conserves both energy and momentum, so it, too, obeys
the 90° rule.
Because the electric repulsion doesn't act at an instant but over the
entire time, you'll have to take the asymptotic limit of the path, the
path the particles take at a distance large enough so the force at that
distance can be disregarded. You do understand limits, don't you? Don't
you? Dick?
> This is why assholes like you deserve, directly, a good punch in the nose that forces you to breathe through your asshole, asshole.
> You can't dismiss a repulsive force to goes toward infinity as particles approach. Who taught you elementary physics?
>
>>> nor is meant to be used in the quantum world.
>> So you don't understand quantum mechanics either.
>
> Stupid, out of place, ad-hominem attack.
>>> nor is meant to be used in the quantum world.
>> So you don't understand quantum mechanics either.
>
Speaking of ad hominem attacks, how would you classify these quotes of
yours, from the post I'm replying to? And all the others in your other
posts, of course. It looks to me to be an extreme case of psychological
projection to me. Very common with the mentally ill.
>> Don't play the "wise guy" role, because it makes you appear even more stupid than usual.
>> Nonsense? Who the fuck are you impersonating this time? Feynman? Spock?
> This is why assholes like you deserve, directly, a good punch in the nose that forces you to breathe through your asshole, asshole.
Richard Hertz
Jan 20, 2023, 3:43:03 PM1/20/23
to
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 5:24:02 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
> On 1/20/2023 9:38 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
<snip>
> On 1/20/2023 9:38 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
YOU CAN'T DISMISS THE EFFECT OF ELECTROSTATIC REPULSION, AS IT CAN BE MUCH HIGHER THAN
THE MOMENTUM OF THE COLLIDING ELECTRON!!!
Trajectories follow an asymptotic path and DO NOT VERIFY 90".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_scattering
> > Stupid, out of place, ad-hominem attack.
>
> Speaking of ad hominem attacks, how would you classify these quotes of
> yours, from the post I'm replying to? And all the others in your other
> posts, of course. It looks to me to be an extreme case of psychological
> projection to me. Very common with the mentally ill.
If you weren't such a bitter prune, you'd find it funny too.
>
> >> Don't play the "wise guy" role, because it makes you appear even more stupid than usual.
> >> Nonsense? Who the fuck are you impersonating this time? Feynman? Spock?
> > This is why assholes like you deserve, directly, a good punch in the nose that forces you to breathe through your asshole, asshole.
JanPB
Jan 20, 2023, 5:27:53 PM1/20/23
to
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 12:43:03 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 5:24:02 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
> > On 1/20/2023 9:38 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> <snip>
>
> YOU CAN'T DISMISS THE EFFECT OF ELECTROSTATIC REPULSION, AS IT CAN BE MUCH HIGHER THAN
> THE MOMENTUM OF THE COLLIDING ELECTRON!!!
> Trajectories follow an asymptotic path and DO NOT VERIFY 90".
I recommend learning physics before posting critiques of it.
> On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 5:24:02 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
> > On 1/20/2023 9:38 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> <snip>
>
> YOU CAN'T DISMISS THE EFFECT OF ELECTROSTATIC REPULSION, AS IT CAN BE MUCH HIGHER THAN
> THE MOMENTUM OF THE COLLIDING ELECTRON!!!
> Trajectories follow an asymptotic path and DO NOT VERIFY 90".
You are wasting your time.
--
Jan
Richard Hertz
Jan 20, 2023, 6:19:04 PM1/20/23
to
It's you who are wasting your time messing with concepts that, even almost 200 years old, neither
you understand it clearly NOR you did experimental work at a lab with this subject. I did, at a very
good college lab equipped with "top notch" equipment, 50 years ago. And it was just Physics I, dictated
in two semesters. Then it followed Physics II and Physics IIIa (another three semesters). They dealt
extensively with mechanics, optics, acoustics, thermodynamics and electromagnetism. I skipped the
2 hours wasted teaching relativity (a serious university).
After these courses, the serious stuff started with quantum physics, solid state physics and else.
Recalling those days, all five semesters were divided in 60% theoretical classes and 40% lab practices.
Meanwhile, when you went to college, your lab practices were: Sudoku, Bingo, and other nonograms
like: Griddlers, Hanjie, Picross, etc.
JanPB
Jan 20, 2023, 6:55:49 PM1/20/23
to
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 3:19:04 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 7:27:53 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 12:43:03 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > YOU CAN'T DISMISS THE EFFECT OF ELECTROSTATIC REPULSION, AS IT CAN BE MUCH HIGHER THAN
> > > THE MOMENTUM OF THE COLLIDING ELECTRON!!!
> > > Trajectories follow an asymptotic path and DO NOT VERIFY 90".
>
> > I recommend learning physics before posting critiques of it.
> >
> > You are wasting your time.
> JanPB, you're a mathematician, not a physicist or an EE.
And what does it have to do with what you or I wrote?
> On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 7:27:53 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 12:43:03 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > YOU CAN'T DISMISS THE EFFECT OF ELECTROSTATIC REPULSION, AS IT CAN BE MUCH HIGHER THAN
> > > THE MOMENTUM OF THE COLLIDING ELECTRON!!!
> > > Trajectories follow an asymptotic path and DO NOT VERIFY 90".
>
> > I recommend learning physics before posting critiques of it.
> >
> > You are wasting your time.
> JanPB, you're a mathematician, not a physicist or an EE.
I notice that you have no answers, just personal attacks.
You are wasting your life away on an idiotic quest.
> It's you who are wasting your time messing with concepts that, even almost 200 years old, neither
> you understand
--
Jan
Ciro Di pietro
Jan 20, 2023, 7:18:29 PM1/20/23
to
JanPB wrote:
>> YOU CAN'T DISMISS THE EFFECT OF ELECTROSTATIC REPULSION, AS IT CAN BE
>> MUCH HIGHER THAN THE MOMENTUM OF THE COLLIDING ELECTRON!!! Trajectories
>> follow an asymptotic path and DO NOT VERIFY 90".
>
> I recommend learning physics before posting critiques of it.
> You are wasting your time.
that *_fake_money_shithole_*, schwitzerland, looks like a shithole.
>> YOU CAN'T DISMISS THE EFFECT OF ELECTROSTATIC REPULSION, AS IT CAN BE
>> MUCH HIGHER THAN THE MOMENTUM OF THE COLLIDING ELECTRON!!! Trajectories
>> follow an asymptotic path and DO NOT VERIFY 90".
>
> I recommend learning physics before posting critiques of it.
> You are wasting your time.
Greta Thunberg - Like You've Never Seen Her Before ｜ Rebel News
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/a5NQnzP9OFh5
ohh my butt, such a shithole. They are criminals.
Richard Hertz
Jan 20, 2023, 7:32:07 PM1/20/23
to
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 8:55:49 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 3:19:04 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
<snip>
> On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 3:19:04 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > JanPB, you're a mathematician, not a physicist or an EE.
> And what does it have to do with what you or I wrote?
> I notice that you have no answers, just personal attacks.
>
> You are wasting your life away on an idiotic quest.
> > It's you who are wasting your time messing with concepts that, even almost 200 years old, neither
> > you understand
> Stop fantasising. Learn physics first. Then you can write critiques.
Levi-Civita-Grosmann-Hilbert GR equations, which have eaten most of your brain in the last 20 years, FOR NOTHING.
No difference between you and a C+++ programmer. NO, wait!. He really creates valuable stuff, and you do nothing.
Every day the same wording, JanPB. You are aging BADLY.
Ciro Di pietro
Jan 20, 2023, 7:49:29 PM1/20/23
to
Volney wrote:
> On 1/20/2023 9:38 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> Don't play the "wise guy" role, because it makes you appear even more
>> stupid than usual.
>> You know perfectly well what I'm referring to. Or do you pretend that
>> call it "huygean mechanics", asshole?
>
> It comes out of the math. The nature of the force is irrelevant. If both
> energy and momentum are conserved /_and_the_masses_equal_/, the only
> On 1/20/2023 9:38 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> Don't play the "wise guy" role, because it makes you appear even more
>> stupid than usual.
>> You know perfectly well what I'm referring to. Or do you pretend that
>> call it "huygean mechanics", asshole?
>
> It comes out of the math. The nature of the force is irrelevant. If both
> s̶o̶l̶u̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ p̶o̶s̶s̶i̶b̶l̶e̶ i̶s̶ t̶h̶a̶t̶ t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ i̶s̶ a̶ 90° a̶n̶g̶l̶e̶ a̶f̶t̶e̶r̶ c̶o̶l̶l̶i̶s̶i̶o̶n̶.
idiot, that's a */_stagnation_point_/*. You know physics like a PLC
programmer. Send more tanks to nazi uKraine.
WOW! M1A2 Abrams Shows How Unstoppable It Would Be In Russian Winter War
Theatre
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/5t3UohuVbR0C/
these manned moon landing fakers are idiots. They make pigs fly.
Maciej Wozniak
Jan 21, 2023, 12:35:01 AM1/21/23
to
On Friday, 20 January 2023 at 21:24:02 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 1/20/2023 9:38 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:31:15 AM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Let me see:
> >>>
> >>> - One electron is at relative rest, wrt the lab frame.
> >>>
> >>> - A second electron approaches at v speed almost c.
> >>>
> >>> - It's ALLEGED that In Newtonian mechanics, if one particle collides with an
> >>> equal mass particle initially at rest, the angle between the directions of
> >>> motion of the two particles after collision will be equal to 90°. Momentum
> >>> and energy conserved.
> >
> >> Nothing alleged about it, and it has nothing to do with Newton,
> >> or with any particular kind of mechanics.
> >> It is due to Huygens, and it depends on the conservation laws only.
> >
> > Don't play the "wise guy" role, because it makes you appear even more stupid than usual.
> > You know perfectly well what I'm referring to. Or do you pretend that call it "huygean mechanics", asshole?
>
> It comes out of the math.
Speraking of math, it's always good to remind
> On 1/20/2023 9:38 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:31:15 AM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Let me see:
> >>>
> >>> - One electron is at relative rest, wrt the lab frame.
> >>>
> >>> - A second electron approaches at v speed almost c.
> >>>
> >>> - It's ALLEGED that In Newtonian mechanics, if one particle collides with an
> >>> equal mass particle initially at rest, the angle between the directions of
> >>> motion of the two particles after collision will be equal to 90°. Momentum
> >>> and energy conserved.
> >
> >> Nothing alleged about it, and it has nothing to do with Newton,
> >> or with any particular kind of mechanics.
> >> It is due to Huygens, and it depends on the conservation laws only.
> >
> > Don't play the "wise guy" role, because it makes you appear even more stupid than usual.
> > You know perfectly well what I'm referring to. Or do you pretend that call it "huygean mechanics", asshole?
>
> It comes out of the math.
that your bunch of idiots had to announce its
oldest and very important part false, as it didn't
want to fit the madness of your insane guru.
Volney
Jan 21, 2023, 11:50:28 AM1/21/23
to
On 1/20/2023 3:43 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 5:24:02 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
>> On 1/20/2023 9:38 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> YOU CAN'T DISMISS THE EFFECT OF ELECTROSTATIC REPULSION, AS IT CAN BE MUCH HIGHER THAN
> THE MOMENTUM OF THE COLLIDING ELECTRON!!!
Bzzzzt! FAIL.
> On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 5:24:02 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
>> On 1/20/2023 9:38 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> YOU CAN'T DISMISS THE EFFECT OF ELECTROSTATIC REPULSION, AS IT CAN BE MUCH HIGHER THAN
> THE MOMENTUM OF THE COLLIDING ELECTRON!!!
Repulsion is a force and cannot be compared to momentum! Similarly I
cannot compare a hectare to an hour and say a hectare is much larger
than an hour.
I thought you said you were an engineer.
> Trajectories follow an asymptotic path and DO NOT VERIFY 90".
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_scattering
proportional to mv^2.
Now go back for a remedial high school physics class before humiliating
yourself further.
>
>>> Stupid, out of place, ad-hominem attack.
>>
>> Speaking of ad hominem attacks, how would you classify these quotes of
>> yours, from the post I'm replying to? And all the others in your other
>> posts, of course. It looks to me to be an extreme case of psychological
>> projection to me. Very common with the mentally ill.
>
> I find it funny, but you can think otherwise.
> If you weren't such a bitter prune, you'd find it funny too.
The usual crank trick. When called out on doing something wrong, claim
>>> Stupid, out of place, ad-hominem attack.
>>
>> Speaking of ad hominem attacks, how would you classify these quotes of
>> yours, from the post I'm replying to? And all the others in your other
>> posts, of course. It looks to me to be an extreme case of psychological
>> projection to me. Very common with the mentally ill.
>
> I find it funny, but you can think otherwise.
> If you weren't such a bitter prune, you'd find it funny too.
it was just a joke. Sorry, if it was a joke, you wouldn't be doing that
every single time which you get backed into a corner (which is daily).
>
>>
>>>> Don't play the "wise guy" role, because it makes you appear even more stupid than usual.
>>>> Nonsense? Who the fuck are you impersonating this time? Feynman? Spock?
>>> This is why assholes like you deserve, directly, a good punch in the nose that forces you to breathe through your asshole, asshole.
>
> I like the cadence of the final part of the sentence.
>
Again, your "it is all humor" claim doesn't fly.
>>
>>>> Don't play the "wise guy" role, because it makes you appear even more stupid than usual.
>>>> Nonsense? Who the fuck are you impersonating this time? Feynman? Spock?
>>> This is why assholes like you deserve, directly, a good punch in the nose that forces you to breathe through your asshole, asshole.
>
> I like the cadence of the final part of the sentence.
>
Richard Hertz
Jan 21, 2023, 12:22:21 PM1/21/23
to
Message has been deleted
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
Jan 22, 2023, 1:50:45 AM1/22/23
to
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 2:43:03 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 5:24:02 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
> > On 1/20/2023 9:38 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> <snip>
>
> YOU CAN'T DISMISS THE EFFECT OF ELECTROSTATIC REPULSION, AS IT CAN BE MUCH HIGHER THAN
> THE MOMENTUM OF THE COLLIDING ELECTRON!!!
> Trajectories follow an asymptotic path and DO NOT VERIFY 90".
> On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 5:24:02 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
> > On 1/20/2023 9:38 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> <snip>
>
> YOU CAN'T DISMISS THE EFFECT OF ELECTROSTATIC REPULSION, AS IT CAN BE MUCH HIGHER THAN
> THE MOMENTUM OF THE COLLIDING ELECTRON!!!
> Trajectories follow an asymptotic path and DO NOT VERIFY 90".
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 2:43:03 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 5:24:02 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
> > On 1/20/2023 9:38 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> <snip>
>
> YOU CAN'T DISMISS THE EFFECT OF ELECTROSTATIC REPULSION, AS IT CAN BE MUCH HIGHER THAN
> THE MOMENTUM OF THE COLLIDING ELECTRON!!!
> Trajectories follow an asymptotic path and DO NOT VERIFY 90".
This post replaces a deleted post for which I provided an incorrect link
> On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 5:24:02 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
> > On 1/20/2023 9:38 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> <snip>
>
> YOU CAN'T DISMISS THE EFFECT OF ELECTROSTATIC REPULSION, AS IT CAN BE MUCH HIGHER THAN
> THE MOMENTUM OF THE COLLIDING ELECTRON!!!
> Trajectories follow an asymptotic path and DO NOT VERIFY 90".
(the second one)
Because of other activities (including taking my wife to see The Lion King
and various personal projects) I haven't had a chance to work on my
simulation. What I -have- done is do a few math calculations to get an idea
of what I may expect when I finally get around to programming this thing.
I'll start by using a simple Euler method for numerically solving the
differential equations. A fundamental rule of computer programming that
I always follow is to avoid premature optimization. I am perfectly capable
of using more sophisticated methods including fourth and sixth-order
Runge-Kutta, and I've done some exploration of symplectic integrators,
but going to those methods prematurely would be a waste of time until
I get the basic algorithm right.
I am presuming that the total acceleration on each electron of an
interacting pair is the sum of acceleration due to a force directed along
the line between the two electrons, a_n, and deceleration of each
electron due to loss of energy by Bremsstrahlung, b_n. In implementing
the Euler method, I calculate the n+1 step from the n step as follows:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1K5TeRETg3veTs5H34TppdcTShJCGYX_I/view?usp=share_link
I calculate a_n from Coulomb's law, and I calculate b_n using the non-
relativistic Larmor formula. As I've explained before, I am avoiding the
correct relativistic expression because the whole point of this exercise
is to see whether Champion's results can be explained as a result of
non-relativistic effects. Can you check over my math? Thanks!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14OhPPsV5IR22PpxQ6sY6w5nrSqM5jLMc/view?usp=share_link
I can directly compare a_n versus b_n. It turns out that b_n is usually
much less than a_n except when when the two electrons approach to
within two classical electron radii from each other, i.e. when they actually
collide. When they actually collide, the Coulomb and Larmor accelerations
are comparable.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MzNc6ojitWBims3FUULtukVf5xixrKjc/view?usp=share_link
I would expect from these preliminary calculations that the angle between
two electrons in Champion's cloud chamber experiment should deviate
perceptibly from 90 degrees as a result of Bremsstrahlung. That is why the
Akerlof et. al experiment that I presented later is important. Since protons
are -vastly- less subject to the effects of Bremsstrahlung than electrons,
their results -cannot- be "explained away" in the manner than you would
want to "explain away" Champion's results.
It's apparent from these results that I need not follow the "asymptotic path"
of the electrons further than, say, 100-1000 times the classical radius, say
to around 10e-12 m. On the other hand, from the dramatic way that the
accelerations change as the electrons approach to within 2 r_e of each other,
it is evident that I want to use small step sizes, no more than than 0.001 r_e
so that I'll typically be integrating over a million steps. This means a fair
amount of accumulated error in the Euler solution. In other words, I may
wish to go to Runge-Kutta.
Maciej Wozniak
Jan 22, 2023, 2:46:40 AM1/22/23
to
On Sunday, 22 January 2023 at 07:50:45 UTC+1, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> I calculate a_n from Coulomb's law, and I calculate b_n using the non-
> relativistic Larmor formula. As I've explained before, I am avoiding the
> correct relativistic expression because the whole point of this exercise
> is to see whether Champion's results can be explained as a result of
> non-relativistic effects.
A lie, of course - the whole point of your exercise
> I calculate a_n from Coulomb's law, and I calculate b_n using the non-
> relativistic Larmor formula. As I've explained before, I am avoiding the
> correct relativistic expression because the whole point of this exercise
> is to see whether Champion's results can be explained as a result of
> non-relativistic effects.
is to lie that they can't.
You know very well that non-relativistic LET gives an
explaination to the same effects your SR shit does.
Don't you?
mitchr...@gmail.com
Jan 22, 2023, 4:55:32 PM1/22/23
to
On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 3:16:42 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Let me see:
>
> - One electron is at relative rest, wrt the lab frame.
A lab frame IS in motion. Just as a world line shares Earth's rotation motion
> Let me see:
>
> - One electron is at relative rest, wrt the lab frame.
the lab frame shares Earth rotation and even orbit.
If there are more than one motions how would rest apply?
>
> - A second electron approaches at v speed almost c.
>
Multiple levels of motion together is motion principle.
Mitchell Raemsch
Richard Hertz
Jan 22, 2023, 5:17:17 PM1/22/23
to
what results from a collision with one electron at relative rest, the other approaching at NON relativistic
speed (say c/100). Also, it would be interesting to extend the problem to an alpha particle hitting an He
atom (but maybe this one is too much difficult, because of electrons).
Maybe, an intermediate theory between newtonian and relativistic can be derived, to compare. You may
ignore Bremsstrahlung. Just 2D newtonian kinematics and electricity together.
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
Jan 23, 2023, 6:06:21 PM1/23/23
to
On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 4:17:17 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 3:50:45 AM UTC-3, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I would expect from these preliminary calculations that the angle between
> > two electrons in Champion's cloud chamber experiment should deviate
> > perceptibly from 90 degrees as a result of Bremsstrahlung. That is why the
> > Akerlof et. al experiment that I presented later is important. Since protons
> > are -vastly- less subject to the effects of Bremsstrahlung than electrons,
> > their results -cannot- be "explained away" in the manner than you would
> > want to "explain away" Champion's results.
> >
> > It's apparent from these results that I need not follow the "asymptotic path"
> > of the electrons further than, say, 100-1000 times the classical radius, say
> > to around 1e-12 m. On the other hand, from the dramatic way that the
> On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 3:50:45 AM UTC-3, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I would expect from these preliminary calculations that the angle between
> > two electrons in Champion's cloud chamber experiment should deviate
> > perceptibly from 90 degrees as a result of Bremsstrahlung. That is why the
> > Akerlof et. al experiment that I presented later is important. Since protons
> > are -vastly- less subject to the effects of Bremsstrahlung than electrons,
> > their results -cannot- be "explained away" in the manner than you would
> > want to "explain away" Champion's results.
> >
> > It's apparent from these results that I need not follow the "asymptotic path"
> > of the electrons further than, say, 100-1000 times the classical radius, say
> > accelerations change as the electrons approach to within 2 r_e of each other,
> > it is evident that I want to use small step sizes, no more than than 0.001 r_e
> > so that I'll typically be integrating over a million steps. This means a fair
> > amount of accumulated error in the Euler solution. In other words, I may
> > wish to go to Runge-Kutta.
> I'd like to see, if you can develop the equations that are required for the part of electrostatic repulsion,
> what results from a collision with one electron at relative rest, the other approaching at NON relativistic
> speed (say c/100). Also, it would be interesting to extend the problem to an alpha particle hitting an He
> atom (but maybe this one is too much difficult, because of electrons).
>
> Maybe, an intermediate theory between newtonian and relativistic can be derived, to compare. You may
> ignore Bremsstrahlung. Just 2D newtonian kinematics and electricity together.
I was hoping that somebody would review my scribblings to catch me on a
> > it is evident that I want to use small step sizes, no more than than 0.001 r_e
> > so that I'll typically be integrating over a million steps. This means a fair
> > amount of accumulated error in the Euler solution. In other words, I may
> > wish to go to Runge-Kutta.
> I'd like to see, if you can develop the equations that are required for the part of electrostatic repulsion,
> what results from a collision with one electron at relative rest, the other approaching at NON relativistic
> speed (say c/100). Also, it would be interesting to extend the problem to an alpha particle hitting an He
> atom (but maybe this one is too much difficult, because of electrons).
>
> Maybe, an intermediate theory between newtonian and relativistic can be derived, to compare. You may
> ignore Bremsstrahlung. Just 2D newtonian kinematics and electricity together.
(possibly/probably) incorrect assumption in my math.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14OhPPsV5IR22PpxQ6sY6w5nrSqM5jLMc/view?usp=share_link
I assumed that vector b_n would be antiparallel with v_n, meaning that
Bremsstrahlung photons would preferentially be emitted in the direction
of electron motion. Should b_n perhaps instead be at right angles with
respect to a_n? Or some other angle? Champion mentioned a few
instances where the emergent electrons were distinctly non-coplanar,
with rather interesting implications concerning the direction of any
emitted photons in these cases.
Richard Hertz
Jan 23, 2023, 6:18:07 PM1/23/23
to
in opposite directions. They moved at almost the speed of light, and the Bremsstrahlung photons were quite
abundant. It was never clarified, in scientific MSM and journals which were the direction of the photons.
This is another article, from 2019, on this phenomenon of photon-photon scattering.
A collision of light
https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/a-collision-of-light
For most of the year, the LHC collides protons, but for about a month each fall, the LHC switches things up and collides heavy atomic nuclei, such as lead ions. The main purpose of these lead collisions is to study a hot and dense subatomic fluid called the quark-gluon plasma, which is harder to create in collisions of protons. But these ion runs also enable scientists to turn the LHC into a new type of machine: a photon-photon collider.
“This result demonstrates that photons can scatter off each other and change each other’s direction,” says Peter Steinberg, and ATLAS scientist at Brookhaven National Laboratory.
Maciej Wozniak
Jan 24, 2023, 1:08:44 AM1/24/23
to
your bunch of idiots had to announce its oldest
part false, as it didn't want to fit your madness.
JanPB
Jan 24, 2023, 3:44:44 AM1/24/23
to
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 4:32:07 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 8:55:49 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 3:19:04 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> <snip>
> > > JanPB, you're a mathematician, not a physicist or an EE.
> > And what does it have to do with what you or I wrote?
> > I notice that you have no answers, just personal attacks.
> >
> > You are wasting your life away on an idiotic quest.
> > > It's you who are wasting your time messing with concepts that, even almost 200 years old, neither
> > > you understand
> > Stop fantasising. Learn physics first. Then you can write critiques.
> You should learn physics, delusional relativist asshole. You're a mathematician HAUNTED by "the mathematical beauty" of
> Levi-Civita-Grosmann-Hilbert GR equations, which have eaten most of your brain in the last 20 years, FOR NOTHING.
Stop spinning fantasies about people you cannot argue with.
> On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 8:55:49 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 3:19:04 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> <snip>
> > > JanPB, you're a mathematician, not a physicist or an EE.
> > And what does it have to do with what you or I wrote?
> > I notice that you have no answers, just personal attacks.
> >
> > You are wasting your life away on an idiotic quest.
> > > It's you who are wasting your time messing with concepts that, even almost 200 years old, neither
> > > you understand
> > Stop fantasising. Learn physics first. Then you can write critiques.
> You should learn physics, delusional relativist asshole. You're a mathematician HAUNTED by "the mathematical beauty" of
> Levi-Civita-Grosmann-Hilbert GR equations, which have eaten most of your brain in the last 20 years, FOR NOTHING.
> No difference between you and a C+++ programmer. NO, wait!. He really creates valuable stuff, and you do nothing.
--
Jan
Faustino Biondo
Jan 24, 2023, 4:52:59 AM1/24/23
to
JanPB wrote:
> S̶t̶o̶p̶ s̶p̶i̶n̶n̶i̶n̶g̶ f̶a̶n̶t̶a̶s̶i̶e̶s̶ a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ p̶e̶o̶p̶l̶e̶ y̶o̶u̶ c̶a̶n̶n̶o̶t̶ a̶r̶g̶u̶e̶ w̶i̶t̶h̶.
the */_stupid_polaker_Duda_/* is occupying a large portion of the nazi
shithole named uKraine. Get out of that Russian territory, you criminal
*_state_terrorists_*. You *_blew_up_the_energy_pipelines_* of the entire
continent, the nazi europe, you *_disgusting_sack_of_shit_*. Siberia is
waiting for you soon, you traitor sondre bitch.
Ukrainians welcomed the Polish *_sack_of_shit_president_* who came to Lviv
to occupy the country https://youtu.be/qySqUhpmKb8
> S̶t̶o̶p̶ s̶p̶i̶n̶n̶i̶n̶g̶ f̶a̶n̶t̶a̶s̶i̶e̶s̶ a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ p̶e̶o̶p̶l̶e̶ y̶o̶u̶ c̶a̶n̶n̶o̶t̶ a̶r̶g̶u̶e̶ w̶i̶t̶h̶.
>
>> No difference between you and a C+++ programmer. NO, wait!. He really
>> creates valuable stuff, and you do nothing.
>
> F̶o̶r̶e̶v̶e̶r̶ f̶a̶n̶t̶a̶s̶i̶e̶s̶, n̶o̶ a̶r̶g̶u̶m̶e̶n̶t̶s̶.
>> No difference between you and a C+++ programmer. NO, wait!. He really
>> creates valuable stuff, and you do nothing.
>
the */_stupid_polaker_Duda_/* is occupying a large portion of the nazi
shithole named uKraine. Get out of that Russian territory, you criminal
*_state_terrorists_*. You *_blew_up_the_energy_pipelines_* of the entire
continent, the nazi europe, you *_disgusting_sack_of_shit_*. Siberia is
waiting for you soon, you traitor sondre bitch.
Ukrainians welcomed the Polish *_sack_of_shit_president_* who came to Lviv
to occupy the country https://youtu.be/qySqUhpmKb8
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
Jan 24, 2023, 7:58:59 AM1/24/23
to
On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 4:17:17 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Maybe, an intermediate theory between newtonian and relativistic can be derived, to compare. You may
> ignore Bremsstrahlung. Just 2D newtonian kinematics and electricity together.
Sorry, the *ONLY* reason why observed results might deviate
> Maybe, an intermediate theory between newtonian and relativistic can be derived, to compare. You may
> ignore Bremsstrahlung. Just 2D newtonian kinematics and electricity together.
from the simplistic textbook special relativistic prediction is
energy losses due to Bremsstrahlung (taking the term in its
broad sense to include synchrotron radiation and cyclotron
radiation, rather than the arbitrary subdivisions into separate
categories that I see in some references) so that the collisions
are not purely elastic.
My expectation is that observable deviations from the simplistic
textbook prediction may be observable in electron-electron
scattering, but *not* in scattering of larger particles. Particle
physicists have had far too many decades of experience in
interpreting collision results to expect otherwise.
Does anybody here have any guidance to offer me in my question
in my Jan 23 post?
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/DmKIt7bk9O8/m/qz4ClJG5CgAJ
It seems quite certain to me that my original assumption that
I could set b_n antiparallel to v_n must be wrong. But my mastery
of the mathematics falls considerably short of what it would
take for me to work out the correct answer.
Here is a thought experiment: If I set an electron at the origin
of an xy plane and set it bobbing up and down along the z axis,
EM will be radiated in all directions except along the z axis.
In other words, photons emitted as a result of Bremsstrahlung
may be emitted in almost any direction. If I set this oscillating
electron in motion, the EM radiation will be Doppler shifted.
So evidently there will be a drag effect.
My mathematics skills fail to take me beyond this mental
visualization. Help!
Richard Hertz
Jan 24, 2023, 8:24:33 AM1/24/23
to
as used widely in RF engineering.
What you described, with the single electron jumping up and down on its z axis of reference is, in
many ways, what a bunch of electrons do (horizontally) on a single dipole used in amateur radio.
Maybe, by seeking about mathematical expressions of the NEAR FIELD radiation of a 10 Mhz, single
wave transmitter, can give you some interpretations of what you want, using Maxwell-Hertz LAWS
(not theory anymore). You'll see that the magnetic field is dominant in the proximity of the antenna.
Electrons are accelerated on the axis of the dipole, and emit EM radiation.
Hope this can help you.
Message has been deleted
Dono.
Jan 25, 2023, 2:41:03 PM1/25/23
to
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
Jan 25, 2023, 5:21:14 PM1/25/23
to
It was evident looking over my scribbles that although I was accounting
for the energy losses due to radiation, that I was violating conservation
of momentum. Not very good at all.
0 new messages