Proof that All Photons are not Identical.
Henri Wilson
mirror. It is then reflected back to the source. The source observer also
has a plane mirror that he uses to reflect the 'reflected' light so it ends
up traveling in the same direction as the original.
Source |---<---->------------>-----------<----| moving mirror -->v
Mirror |--->--O (spectrograph).
A spectrograph reveals that photons from the two beams have different
colours, even though they were produced in the same way and are now
presumeably traveling at the same speed in the same direction.
The only possible explanation is that photons have an intrinsic structure
and that this changes during a doppler shift.
Either that, or the reflected photons are traveling at a different speed.
Old Man
news:gqocousil4qcs9580...@4ax.com...
Really Henry, they are not the same photons. At every
reflection, one gets a new photon. Go figure, Henry.
[Old Man]
David Thomson
news:gqocousil4qcs9580...@4ax.com...
Hi Henri,
You overlooked the possibility that the reflective surface altered the
photons. In order for the photons to change direction they must have been
influenced in some way. It may not be the Doppler shift that is
responsible.
For example, if the process for reflection involves absorbing and
re-emission by the reflective substance, then the photons will take on the
nature of the new emission and will not fully reflect the emission nature of
the source.
Also, a moving mirror will have vibration to some degree (due to the
mechanism moving the mirror and the air blowing around it.) It is well
known that light waves can be directly modulated with sound and used as a
carrier wave for communications. The shift in color may be the result of
modulation by stray vibrations.
One thing is for sure, there is not just one explanation for the color
shift.
Dave
Bilge
Proof that All Photons are not Identical. to usenet:
>Monochromatic light is emitted from a source towards a moving vertical
HenriWilson
wrote:
I have argued many times with Bilge and others who say that all photons are
identical. I have proved they cannot be.
I have just animated the process on my website.
See 'movingmirror.exe' at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
Henri Wilson.
Theoretical and applied Physicist.
HenriWilson
see movingmirror.exe at: http://www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
Henri Wilson.
Theoretical and applied Physicist.
See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
HenriWilson
wrote:
Well look who turned up!
If you have finally upgraded your computer Bilgey you can see my animation
'movingmirror.exe' at:
Uncle Al
[snip]
Nothing.
Any interactive physical intervention with a photon (e.g., reflection)
doesn't pop out the same photon. Lasers will pop out identical photons
re quantum numbers, but finite transition times give wavelength spread
no better than Heisenberg allows and usualy much worse.
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
David Thomson
news:vjudouk8r2ou27hci...@4ax.com...
> I have argued many times with Bilge and others who say that all photons
are
> identical. I have proved they cannot be.
You haven't succeeded in your proof until you have the mathematics to back
it up. Bilge always shoots my ideas down. But if he is arguing that all
photons are identical, then we are in complete agreement on this. Since
protons cannot be effective absorbers and emitters of angular momentum,
electrons are nearly the sole source of all photons. All photons are
produced with the full energy of the electron such that all photons have
.511MeV of energy. It is the rapidity of photon production that determines
the frequency of light.
It is important to realize that photons are not light. Photons are the
building blocks of light. Just like atoms are not people, atoms are the
building blocks of people. It is precisely because all atoms are made from
identical particles that the various molecular structures that make up
people can be predicted. Likewise, it is precisely because every photon is
identical that the various properties of light can be predicted.
> I have just animated the process on my website.
> See 'movingmirror.exe' at:
> http://www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
As I get to know you better I might try running one of your VB programs.
But as a matter of caution, I don't download and run privately written VB
programs unless the source code is provided and I can compile it myself. I
have too much time invested in my own research to risk getting a virus.
Perhaps you could put some still shots of your programs on a web page with a
description? I'm sure I can visualize the animation process. Also,
consider making an animated gif file.
> Henri Wilson.
> Theoretical and applied Physicist.
Don't consider my criticism as a put down. Keep coming up with ideas and
presenting them. But, just as I have to do, be prepared to defend your
ideas with mathematics and empirical evidence when appropriate.
Dave
David Thomson
news:slrnaoduh...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> There's no such thing as monochromatic light.
http://mossbauer.chem.cmu.edu/~eb7g/Test10.html
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/pds-electro-chemistry-technique.
html
Some people seem to think monochromatic light exists. A search on google
shows hundreds of respectable education facilities referring to
monochromatic light.
What are your ideas on monochromatic light?
Dave
HenriWilson
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>Nothing.
>
>Any interactive physical intervention with a photon (e.g., reflection)
>doesn't pop out the same photon. Lasers will pop out identical photons
>re quantum numbers, but finite transition times give wavelength spread
>no better than Heisenberg allows and usualy much worse.
I'm quite happy with that Al. As long as you accept they are not all
identical. That's all I'm proving.
>
>Idiot.
Indoctrinated deluded moron!
Henri Wilson.
Theoretical and applied Physicist.
HenriWilson
wrote:
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>news:vjudouk8r2ou27hci...@4ax.com...
>> I have argued many times with Bilge and others who say that all photons
>are
>> identical. I have proved they cannot be.
>
>You haven't succeeded in your proof until you have the mathematics to back
>it up. Bilge always shoots my ideas down. But if he is arguing that all
>photons are identical, then we are in complete agreement on this. Since
>protons cannot be effective absorbers and emitters of angular momentum,
>electrons are nearly the sole source of all photons. All photons are
>produced with the full energy of the electron such that all photons have
>.511MeV of energy. It is the rapidity of photon production that determines
>the frequency of light.
Well that's a new angle.
>
>It is important to realize that photons are not light. Photons are the
>building blocks of light. Just like atoms are not people, atoms are the
>building blocks of people. It is precisely because all atoms are made from
>identical particles that the various molecular structures that make up
>people can be predicted. Likewise, it is precisely because every photon is
>identical that the various properties of light can be predicted.
Sorry, cannot see the logic there.
>
>> I have just animated the process on my website.
>> See 'movingmirror.exe' at:
>> http://www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
>
>As I get to know you better I might try running one of your VB programs.
>But as a matter of caution, I don't download and run privately written VB
>programs unless the source code is provided and I can compile it myself. I
>have too much time invested in my own research to risk getting a virus.
>Perhaps you could put some still shots of your programs on a web page with a
>description? I'm sure I can visualize the animation process. Also,
>consider making an animated gif file.
Just run it from site. I wrote the bloody thing yesterday. It's a simple
Vbasic .exe program with about fifty lines of code. There is no virus on
it. How could there be? It only takes two seconds to run from site.
>
>> Henri Wilson.
>> Theoretical and applied Physicist.
>
>Don't consider my criticism as a put down. Keep coming up with ideas and
>presenting them. But, just as I have to do, be prepared to defend your
>ideas with mathematics and empirical evidence when appropriate.
>
>Dave
>
Henri Wilson.
Theoretical and applied Physicist.
Dirk Van de moortel
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:g13fouonb7d9pdsc8...@4ax.com...
[snip]
> Sorry, cannot see the logic there.
Perhaps you can see it in
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#LogicBull
Dirk Vdm
HenriWilson
I can feel another limerick coming on.
>
>Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:lr4foug9qvi0uog3o...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 20:23:49 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:g13fouonb7d9pdsc8...@4ax.com...
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> Sorry, cannot see the logic there.
> >
> >Perhaps you can see it in
> > http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#LogicBull
>
> I can feel another limerick coming on.
Careful, your bottom might burst.
Dirk Vdm
Ian Stirling
What about a single, isolated photon?
--
http://inquisitor.i.am/ | mailto:inqui...@i.am | Ian Stirling.
---------------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------
He who lives in a glass house should not invite he who is without sin.
David Thomson
> >It is important to realize that photons are not light. Photons are the
> >building blocks of light. Just like atoms are not people, atoms are the
> >building blocks of people. It is precisely because all atoms are made
from
> >identical particles that the various molecular structures that make up
> >people can be predicted. Likewise, it is precisely because every photon
is
> >identical that the various properties of light can be predicted.
>
> Sorry, cannot see the logic there.
Light is not quantum. Light is produced from quantum pulses (photons.)
Often you hear of people refer to the frequency of a photon. This is the
source of the confusion. "Photon" is used in two separate meanings. In one
case "photon" refers to a quantum unit of light. In another case "photon"
refers to the light itself.
If photons are quantum units, then they are single, individual units. There
is no frequency in a single unit. But several units produced at regular
intervals produce a stream of particles with a frequency.
If a single photon had frequency, it would have to look like a Ruffles
potato chip. The frequency would be stamped into the photon. But even then
it wouldn't be true frequency since there is no time period between the
peaks. They would all be connected in one unit.
I have recently developed a revised system of units for physics. The units
are based on quantum dimensions and has far more utility than our present
system. For example, light is defined as:
ligt = freq * h * c
(I use four letter abbreviations in my system to make it easier to follow.
I have left h and c alone since they do not change in my system.) freq is
equal to the quantum frequency of 1.236 x 10^20 Hz. One quantum unit of
ligt is equal to:
kg * m^3
ligt = 2.454 x 10^-5 ----------
sec^3
A single photon in my system is equal to h * c. Angular momentum of an
electron times the speed of light produces a photon. Multiplying the photon
by a frequency gives light. The utility of this method is seen when
dividing light by other units. For example, to find the power of light at a
given distance, divide ligt by the distance. To find the irradiance of
light divide it by the volume it fills. To find the angular momentum of
light near a massive object, divide light by the gravitational acceleration
for that particular object (the angular momentum of light decreases near
massive objects and this explains the redshifting of light traveling across
the universe.)
There are many other interesting and useful calculations that can be done
with light using my method. For that matter, the same applies across the
board in physics. I'm applying this same method to potential, magnetism,
inductance, rotating magnetic fields, surface tension, you name it. Using
my new units system everything in the universe can be related to everything
else and explained in very simple terms.
But the photon is just a building block of light. Photons must be produced
at a constant frequency in order for light to be produced. And in order for
the photons to make consistent light in various places of the universe, all
photons must be exactly identical in every respect.
Dave
Etherman
"David Thomson" <ne...@volantis.org> wrote in message
news:GkIh9.435$L35....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Its existence is not allowed under the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
We can get close though.
--
Etherman
AA # pi
EAC Director of Ritual Satanic Abuse Operations
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TÆ][A5][Lx][Sx][Bx][FD][P-][CC]
Stephen Speicher
>
> "David Thomson" <ne...@volantis.org> wrote in message
> news:GkIh9.435$L35....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > "Bilge" <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
> > news:slrnaoduh...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> > > There's no such thing as monochromatic light.
> >
> > http://mossbauer.chem.cmu.edu/~eb7g/Test10.html
> >
> >
> http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/pds-electro-chemistry-techniqu
> e.
> > html
> >
> > Some people seem to think monochromatic light exists. A search on
> > shows hundreds of respectable education facilities referring to
> > monochromatic light.
> >
> > What are your ideas on monochromatic light?
>
> Its existence is not allowed under the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
>
No problem. Just extend the wave back to t = -inf.
A perfect sinusoidal generator can output monochromatic waves,
as long as it has been operating forever. :)
Let's let David wait.
--
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
> reflection, one gets a new photon. Go figure, Henry.
> [Old Man]
How would you explain refraction of light, and the fact that light has
a different speed in transparent solids, liquids, and gases in
relation to a vacuum?
If it were the absorption and emission of quanta, you would expect
quantized speeds and net refraction indexes. If the interaction of
the light with the transparent medium were continuous, then it would
be non-quantized.
How is refraction and the differences in the speed of light between a
vacuum and another transparent medium like glass or air explained by
quantum mechanics?
Bilge
>
>No problem. Just extend the wave back to t = -inf.
>
>A perfect sinusoidal generator can output monochromatic waves,
>as long as it has been operating forever. :)
>
There is an additional catch. Such a wave must fill all of space
as well and is therefore not observable.
Bilge
Re: Proof that All Photons are not Identical. to usenet:
>Bilge <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote:
>>
>> Henri Wilson said some stuff about
>> Proof that All Photons are not Identical. to usenet:
>> >Monochromatic light is emitted from a source towards a moving vertical
>>
>> There's no such thing as monochromatic light.
>
>What about a single, isolated photon?
Stephen Speicher
So Frick and Frack's ("greywolf42" and Stowe) ether is really a
monochromatic wave. I like it!
Paul Cardinale
Oh come on.
That's true only if you use a strict interpretation of the word
"monochromatic";
which, in practice, virtually nobody does. In the real world, people
use the word to mean "a band so narrow that its width is negligible".
Paul Cardinale
HenriWilson
Please stick to the topic.
HenriWilson
wrote:
There are no photons at all you silly old bugger.
Bilge
Re: Proof that All Photons are not Identical. to usenet:
>> Proof that All Photons are not Identical. to usenet:
>> >Monochromatic light is emitted from a source towards a moving vertical
>>
>> There's no such thing as monochromatic light.
>
>Oh come on.
>That's true only if you use a strict interpretation of the word
>"monochromatic";
If the results depend upon the monochromaticity, then the results are
unphysical.
>which, in practice, virtually nobody does. In the real world, people
>use the word to mean "a band so narrow that its width is negligible".
That only works if the physics has nothing to do with the bandwidth.
But that's a somewhat different issue than henry, who is simply a troll,
confused by complexity.
Henry should be precise. He is confuses strict interpretations and
what is intended informally all the time. The only way to help him over
his confusion is to require that he be specific in order to understand
the differences in what confuses him.
Stephen Speicher
But since Henry does not live in the "real world," he is
particularly vulnerable to any opportunity to mock him.
Bilge
Re: Proof that All Photons are not Identical. to usenet:
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>news:vjudouk8r2ou27hci...@4ax.com...
>> I have argued many times with Bilge and others who say that all photons
>are
>> identical. I have proved they cannot be.
>
>You haven't succeeded in your proof until you have the mathematics to back
>it up. Bilge always shoots my ideas down. But if he is arguing that all
>photons are identical, then we are in complete agreement on this. Since
>protons cannot be effective absorbers and emitters of angular momentum,
>electrons are nearly the sole source of all photons. All photons are
>produced with the full energy of the electron such that all photons have
>.511MeV of energy. It is the rapidity of photon production that determines
>the frequency of light.
The scalar product of the four-momentum with itself is a property
of the photon and that happens to E^2 - (pc)^2 = 0, regardless of
what energy you measure. The only other propert of a photon is that
its spin is 1.
[...]
>
>Don't consider my criticism as a put down. Keep coming up with ideas and
>presenting them. But, just as I have to do, be prepared to defend your
>ideas with mathematics and empirical evidence when appropriate.
Henry is a moronic troll that once argued that changing from center of
mass coordinates to relative coordinates in classical mechanics violated
conservation of energy. He knowes less about physics than my 8 year old
niece.
David Thomson
news:HsRh9.348115$_91.4...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
>
> > Some people seem to think monochromatic light exists. A search on
> > shows hundreds of respectable education facilities referring to
> > monochromatic light.
> >
> > What are your ideas on monochromatic light?
>
> Its existence is not allowed under the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
> We can get close though.
The HUP is based on Niels Bohr's wrong assumption that the angular momentum
of subatomic particles refers to solid objects in orbit. Heisenberg thus
developed his principle without a solid foundation. Monochromatic light is
based on the simple idea of producing photons at a precise rate of
production. It seems far more likely that the production of monochromatic
light is the proof that the HUP is wrong rather than the other way around.
Dave
David Thomson
> >> There's no such thing as monochromatic light.
> >
> >What about a single, isolated photon?
>
> There is no such thing.
Why couldn't there be just one isolated photon?
If there can't be one photon, how many does there have to be before the
first photon can be produced?
Dave
Bilge
>
>is no frequency in a single unit. But several units produced at regular
>intervals produce a stream of particles with a frequency.
principle and special relativity.
[...]
>I have recently developed a revised system of units for physics. The units
>are based on quantum dimensions and has far more utility than our present
>system. For example, light is defined as:
>
>ligt = freq * h * c
\alpha = e^2/(\hbar c)
or \hbar\alpha c = e^2, where e is the electric charge.
[...]
>A single photon in my system is equal to h * c. Angular momentum of an
>electron times the speed of light produces a photon.
You keep re-inventing the wheel, except in an awkward way.
[...]
>There are many other interesting and useful calculations that can be done
>with light using my method. For that matter, the same applies across the
>board in physics. I'm applying this same method to potential, magnetism,
>inductance, rotating magnetic fields, surface tension, you name it. Using
>my new units system everything in the universe can be related to everything
>else and explained in very simple terms.
OK. Use it to explain wy the \pi+ and \pi- decay according to:
\pi+ -> \mu- + \nu
\pi+ -> \mu+ + \nubar
instead of:
\pi+ -> e- + \nu
\pi+ -> e+ + \nubar
Since the electron is 206 time lighter than than the muon which
normally would mean the decay to the electron should be much more
probable.
David Thomson
> David Thomson said some stuff about
> >
> >If photons are quantum units, then they are single, individual units.
There
> >is no frequency in a single unit. But several units produced at regular
> >intervals produce a stream of particles with a frequency.
>
> That is _almost_ correct. "Regular" has to be defined by the uncertainty
> principle and special relativity.
I think you mean "regular" needs to be defined by the quality of the
materials used in the circuit and the emitter and the amount of stray
interference the frequency generator receives? The poorer the quality of
the materials and the more interference, the more "irregular" the frequency
will be. The uncertainty principle is just a mathematical theory and has no
direct relationship to the actual process. It is conceivable that future
engineers will devise methods of producing perfectly pure materials and
operate signal generators in perfectly quiet spaces.
> Notice that the fine-structure constant, \alpha is given by:
>
> \alpha = e^2/(\hbar c)
>
> or \hbar\alpha c = e^2, where e is the electric charge.
That math doesn't work. Are you sure you have everything in there?
> >A single photon in my system is equal to h * c. Angular momentum of an
> >electron times the speed of light produces a photon.
>
> You keep re-inventing the wheel, except in an awkward way.
There's nothing awkward about it. It's really quite convenient.
> >There are many other interesting and useful calculations that can be
done
> >with light using my method. For that matter, the same applies across
the
> >board in physics. I'm applying this same method to potential,
magnetism,
> >inductance, rotating magnetic fields, surface tension, you name it.
Using
> >my new units system everything in the universe can be related to
everything
> >else and explained in very simple terms.
>
> OK. Use it to explain wy the \pi+ and \pi- decay according to:
>
> \pi+ -> \mu- + \nu
> \pi+ -> \mu+ + \nubar
Maybe by next year. Right now I'm only working with photons, electrons,
protons and neutrons. Do you have a problem like cosmological redshift, the
effects of light in a magnetic field, or something as simple to work on?
I haven't had time to verify all the weird particles claimed by physicists.
But just based on my unified charge equation I'm certain the w+ and w-
bosons don't exist. They appear to be mathematical constructs that are
misinterpreting the interaction between elementary charge and strong charge.
I don't doubt the existence of the muon at this point, but I'd like to find
a mathematical explanation for its existence before I tackle its particle
decay. Also, I'm still looking for another factor related to atomic
structure that hasn't yet been mathematically quantified in a manner that
can be used in algebraic equations. I need to mathematically define the
nuclear shell structure and then mathematically quantify the placement of
protons and neutrons in the various shells.
Once I have that I'm sure I'll quantify the alpha decay of the nucleus and
then I'll start looking at the beta decay of the neutron. When I get this
far I'll start looking at the short lived particles.
In the meantime I've just discovered a new system of units that is just
inundating me with new insights into all the units of physical interactions.
I could spend months investigating many of these new physical relationships.
Right now my son is winding a special coil to test some of my new theories
concerning magnetism and angular momentum.
I take it from the lack of criticism on my actual math relationships that
you at least agree that I have a handle on what I'm doing. I'm finding that
what my critics don't say is a form of flattery.
Dave
Old Man
news:2636c3ae.02091...@posting.google.com...
This absorption and re-emission of photons by atoms occurs
"off-shell". While remaining in their ground state, the atoms
are forced to perform transitions between (dipole) polarized
orbitals induced by the time dependent electric fields of the
incident radiation. [Old Man]
David Thomson
> > All photons are
> >produced with the full energy of the electron such that all photons have
> >.511MeV of energy. It is the rapidity of photon production that
determines
> >the frequency of light.
>
> All photons are identical, but energy is not a property of a photon.
> The scalar product of the four-momentum with itself is a property
> of the photon and that happens to E^2 - (pc)^2 = 0, regardless of
> what energy you measure. The only other propert of a photon is that
> its spin is 1.
I agree that photons are not energy, but photons do have energy. The
photon is equal to h * c which is equal to E * length. According to the
conservation of energy the energy used to make a photon is yielded up when
the photon is absorbed. Nothing is lost, nothing is gained.
As for (pc)^2, there is never any variable momentum in a photon. All that
varies is the frequency at which photons are absorbed or emitted. If you
want to go through the pointless exercise of E^2 - (pc)^2 = 0, then that is
your thing.
The photon does have a spin 1 property, but that is not all there is. The
photon also has strong charge. This strong charge manifests as magnetism
and or electricity depending on how the photon is observed.
> >Don't consider my criticism as a put down. Keep coming up with ideas
and
> >presenting them. But, just as I have to do, be prepared to defend your
> >ideas with mathematics and empirical evidence when appropriate.
>
> Henry is a moronic troll that once argued that changing from center of
> mass coordinates to relative coordinates in classical mechanics violated
> conservation of energy. He knowes less about physics than my 8 year old
> niece.
Well maybe you would be just as kind to Henry, then, as you would your
niece, and politely give him good instruction? Why should you be a mentor
to your niece but a monster to others? These public newsgroups are for
sharing ideas, not blasting strangers apart with keystrokes. I would rather
see 100 inquisitive minds exploring new ideas (even if the ideas are only
new to them) than any number of holier-than-thou physicists and engineers
tearing creative thought to shreds.
I will agree there are some inquisitive minds on these newsgroups that have
earned a place in my blocked senders list due to their rude method of
pushing opinions on to others. You can tell who they are because they never
get a response from me. But as long as people like Henry are being civil,
why not engage them in a meaningful way? Maybe there is more to human
interaction than being right or wrong?
Dave
Bilge
Re: Proof that All Photons are not Identical. to usenet:
>> reflection, one gets a new photon. Go figure, Henry.
>> [Old Man]
>
>How would you explain refraction of light, and the fact that light
>has a different speed in transparent solids, liquids, and gases in
>relation to a vacuum?
Photons scatter.
>If it were the absorption and emission of quanta, you would expect
>quantized speeds and net refraction indexes.
It isn't absorption and re-emission. Also, neither the velocity nor
the index of refraction are quantum obsevables. In fact the index of
refraction is clearly not quantum mechanical at all by virtue of what
it represents: a bulk property which is only made possible by averaging
to approximate a continuum.
> If the interaction of
>the light with the transparent medium were continuous, then it would
>be non-quantized.
Since the index of refraction is definined as a phenomenological
parameter from the geometric optics approximation, that's about the
size of it. Light was not quantized in classical mechanics, so any
classical approximation wipes out the quantization by virtue of
being a classical approximation.
>How is refraction and the differences in the speed of light between a
>vacuum and another transparent medium like glass or air explained by
>quantum mechanics?
The index of refraction (and the velocity) are phenomenological
parameters from classical geometric optics, where you aren't dealing with
photons and charges. The quantum picture is best described as a collective
motion of the charges propagating through the solid. Then, the index
of refraction is easy to understand because it relates directly to
the force required to displace the electrons from the positive charge
centers (the polarizability).
Bilge
>news:slrnaoi1h...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>> David Thomson said some stuff about
>> >
>> >If photons are quantum units, then they are single, individual units.
>There
>> >is no frequency in a single unit. But several units produced at regular
>> >intervals produce a stream of particles with a frequency.
>>
>> That is _almost_ correct. "Regular" has to be defined by the uncertainty
>> principle and special relativity.
>
>I think you mean "regular" needs to be defined by the quality of the
>materials used in the circuit and the emitter and the amount of stray
>interference the frequency generator receives?
>The poorer the quality of the materials and the more interference, the
>more "irregular" the frequency will be.
>The uncertainty principle is just a mathematical theory and has no
>direct relationship to the actual process.
Get back to me when you can explain why stable atoms exist and the
electron doesn't spiral into the nucleus.
David Thomson
D>>> If photons are quantum units, then they are single, individual units.
There
D>>> is no frequency in a single unit. But several units produced at
regular
D>>> intervals produce a stream of particles with a frequency.
B> > That is _almost_ correct. "Regular" has to be defined by the
uncertainty
B> > principle and special relativity.
D > I think you mean "regular" needs to be defined by the quality of the
D > materials used in the circuit and the emitter and the amount of stray
D > interference the frequency generator receives?
B No, that's not what I mean.
Then you're attributing the fuzziness of monochromatic light to a
metaphysical concept. You're actually a practitioner of a form of
numerology. Doesn't it strike you as odd that you are denying the cause of
fuzziness in monochromatic light has a physical origin? It certainly raises
my eyebrows to see you defending a metaphysical concept when the physical
causes were presented as an option.
> >The poorer the quality of the materials and the more interference, the
> >more "irregular" the frequency will be.
>
> Did I say "irregular" anywhere?
No, but I did.
> >The uncertainty principle is just a mathematical theory and has no
> >direct relationship to the actual process.
>
> Get back to me when you can explain why stable atoms exist and the
> electron doesn't spiral into the nucleus.
I've done that months ago. Subatomic particles are not little balls of mass
orbiting another mass. Subatomic particles can exist separate from atoms.
When subatomic particles are free roaming, there is nothing for them to
orbit around. This alone is solid proof that subatomic particles are not
little solid balls of mass.
Subatomic particles are angular momentum. The mass is evenly distributed
over an area. The elementary charge of the subatomic particles is at the
center of this circular angular momentum. The angular momentum of the
electron has a greater circumference than does the proton due to the masses
associated with the particles. The elementary charges of the electron and
proton are right on top of each other in the atom. What you have is
something that looks like two hoola hoops spinning concentric to each other
and their charges keep them concentrically aligned. The proton is a much
smaller hoop than the electron is. There is nothing that can spiral in to
the nucleus of an atom, that's why it doesn't occur.
Dave
Bilge
Re: Proof that All Photons are not Identical. to usenet:
>news:slrnaohsp...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>> > All photons are
>> >produced with the full energy of the electron such that all photons
>> >have .511MeV of energy. It is the rapidity of photon production
>> >that determines the frequency of light.
>>
>> All photons are identical, but energy is not a property of a photon.
>> The scalar product of the four-momentum with itself is a property
>> of the photon and that happens to E^2 - (pc)^2 = 0, regardless of
>> what energy you measure. The only other propert of a photon is that
>> its spin is 1.
>
>I agree that photons are not energy, but photons do have energy.
energy can't be a property of the photon. The kinetic energy is defined
by the relationship between objects, not by the objects themselves.
>As for (pc)^2, there is never any variable momentum in a photon. All that
>varies is the frequency at which photons are absorbed or emitted. If you
>want to go through the pointless exercise of E^2 - (pc)^2 = 0, then that is
>your thing.
If you think conservation of charge is pointless, that's your thing.
[...]
>
>Well maybe you would be just as kind to Henry, then, as you would your
>niece, and politely give him good instruction?
He's demonstrated that it's a waste of time. It's important to not
waste time on that which has proven repeatedly to fail in doing what it
was designed to do. Instead, one should re-evaluate the assumptions and
try something different which perhaps has different goals, based upon that
assessment. My assessment is that henry has no interest in physics, and
any goals which might involve that concept are certainly misguided, so
nothing useful could be accomplished by continuing to believe otherwise.
Rather than just talk about using common sense, I try to employ it.
>Why should you be a mentor to your niece but a monster to others?
You need to rephrase that as "Why should you be a mentor to your
niece but a monster to trolls?", in which case the answer should be
self-evident. Actually, even trolls aren't objectionable, since a
good troll requires thought. By nature, trolling has a certain risk
associated with it which is inversely proportional to the cleverness
of the troll and in henry's case, the risk just happens to be huge.
>These public newsgroups are for sharing ideas, not blasting strangers
>apart with keystrokes. I would rather see 100 inquisitive minds exploring
>new ideas (even if the ideas are only new to them) than any number of
>holier-than-thou physicists and engineers tearing creative thought to
>shreds.
There is nothing holier-than-thou about letting someone know when the
claims of "I'm only trying to learn" has been sabotaged by behaviour which
indicates that he/she is trying to do anything to avoid it while also
avoiding having to create a better line of bullshit. Personally, I'd call
that "unwarranted optimism, a lack of common sense and a martyr complex".
However, if you think that's a "holier-than-thou" attitude, then you won't
mind not being holier-than-thou for a moment so you can send me a
cashier's check for the title to my very profitable gold mine on mars.
>I will agree there are some inquisitive minds on these newsgroups that
>have earned a place in my blocked senders list due to their rude method
>of pushing opinions on to others. You can tell who they are because
>they never get a response from me. But as long as people like Henry
>are being civil, why not engage them in a meaningful way?
There is nothing civil about spamming the newsgroup and wasting
internet bandwidth and the diskspace of news servers all over the world
for the sole purpose of cluttering up the newsgroup so that anything
related to sci.physics.relativity is buried in the noise.
> Maybe there is more to human interaction than being right or wrong?
One of which is to not assume that everyone wants a response based
upon physics just because they posted to a physics newsgroup and instead,
try carefully to address what what was posted. Anything else would be
uncivilized.
Bilge
>The HUP is based on Niels Bohr's wrong assumption that the angular momentum
>of subatomic particles refers to solid objects in orbit.
No, it isn't.
>Heisenberg thus developed his principle without a solid foundation.
In that case, you have to dump all of quantum mechanics and start over,
since the basis of quantum mechanics is the substitution p = -i\hbar d/dx
and i\hbar d/dt, which immeadiately gives you the commutation relation,
[x, p] = i\hbar, which happens to be the uncertainty relations.
>Monochromatic light is based on the simple idea of producing photons at
>a precise rate of production.
(1) monochromatic light fails even in classical physics,
(2) lasers work because of, not in spite of, quantum mechanics,
central to which are the uncertainty relations,
(3) you need to learn about what you are trying to claim is incorrect
if you expect to ever make a statement that gives anyone a reason
to believe you know what your are talking about.
>It seems far more likely that the production of monochromatic light
>is the proof that the HUP is wrong rather than the other way around.
Good. Tell me how to produce it and when I have done so, I'll come back
and say I was wrong.
Bilge
Re: Proof that All Photons are not Identical. to usenet:
>news:slrnaogk1...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>> >> There's no such thing as monochromatic light.
>> >
>> >What about a single, isolated photon?
>>
>> There is no such thing.
>
>Why couldn't there be just one isolated photon?
meaningfully define a location?
>If there can't be one photon, how many does there have to be before the
>first photon can be produced?
You need a quantum mechanics book. What you think of as quantum mechanics
is nothing more than a restricted version of classical mechanics rather than
the other way around.
Bilge
A slight clarification: "collective motion of the charges propagating",
was intended to mean the propagation of the collective motions of the
charges, not any charges moving through the medium.
Stephen Speicher
>
> The elementary charge of the subatomic particles is at the
>
It is relatively easy to devise "theories" of physics when you
are not constrained by experimental and physical fact. Did you
ever think to _first_ look at high energy experiments _before_
you came up with your "theory?" The nucleon structure has been
probed for more than the past two decades, and I'm sorry to
inform you that charge in real particles does not seem to want to
conform to your preconceived notions. For god's sake, even the
neutron, which is considered to be electrically neutral overall,
exhibits a small postive charge at its center and a small
negative charge at its surface.
In another post you stated:
"I have clearly rebutted with solid principles and
solid math many of the cherished beliefs of the
so-called "well-known physicists" in the world."
The reason the "well-known physicists" ignore you is that
"principles" and "math" which contradict the physical facts are
the province of the deluded, which delusions, I must say, you
have displayed with abundance here on this group.
HenriWilson
wrote:
>"Bilge" <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
>> All photons are identical, but energy is not a property of a photon.
Thanks for the support David. I can assure you I can handle Bilgey on my
own. He knows he is wrong on this one and has been trying to wriggle out of
his error for two years now. I have proved many times that photons cannot
all be the same. My latest demo is so blatanly obviously correct that
Bilgey has nothing left in his armory than ridicule and diversionary
tactics. He thinks my proof will quietly go away after which his conscience
wont have to carry the burden of his self-delusion any longer.
Just look at my demo and you will see that the two photons cannot possibly
be identical.
Bilgey's standard reply is that "his computer cannot run microsoft
programs". Ha Ha!
>
>Dave
HenriWilson
wrote:
>David Thomson said some stuff about
>Re: Proof that All Photons are not Identical. to usenet:
> >"Bilge" <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
> >news:slrnaohsp...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> >> > All photons are
> >> >produced with the full energy of the electron such that all photons
> >> >have .511MeV of energy. It is the rapidity of photon production
> >> >that determines the frequency of light.
> >>
> >> All photons are identical, but energy is not a property of a photon.
> >> The scalar product of the four-momentum with itself is a property
> >> of the photon and that happens to E^2 - (pc)^2 = 0, regardless of
> >> what energy you measure. The only other propert of a photon is that
> >> its spin is 1.
> >
> >I agree that photons are not energy, but photons do have energy.
>
> Since the energy is observer dependent and the photon has no mass,
>energy can't be a property of the photon. The kinetic energy is defined
>by the relationship between objects, not by the objects themselves.
So when a photon from outer space strikes me afetr traveling for billions
of years, it carries with it the required information for the correect
doppler shift to occur, doesn't it Bilgey?
If that info is NOT carried by the photon, how else do I obtain it?
>
> >As for (pc)^2, there is never any variable momentum in a photon. All that
> >varies is the frequency at which photons are absorbed or emitted. If you
> >want to go through the pointless exercise of E^2 - (pc)^2 = 0, then that is
> >your thing.
>
> If you think conservation of charge is pointless, that's your thing.
>
>[...]
> >
> >Well maybe you would be just as kind to Henry, then, as you would your
> >niece, and politely give him good instruction?
>
> He's demonstrated that it's a waste of time. It's important to not
>waste time on that which has proven repeatedly to fail in doing what it
>was designed to do. Instead, one should re-evaluate the assumptions and
>try something different which perhaps has different goals, based upon that
>assessment. My assessment is that henry has no interest in physics, and
>any goals which might involve that concept are certainly misguided, so
>nothing useful could be accomplished by continuing to believe otherwise.
>Rather than just talk about using common sense, I try to employ it.
It must come as a shock to someone as skilled in maths and modern physics
HenriWilson
wrote:
>David Thomson said some stuff about
It must come as a shock to someone as skilled in maths and modern physics
as Bilgey to suddenly discover that there is an error in the first
paragraph of your knowledge.
>
> >Why should you be a mentor to your niece but a monster to others?
>
> You need to rephrase that as "Why should you be a mentor to your
>niece but a monster to trolls?", in which case the answer should be
>self-evident. Actually, even trolls aren't objectionable, since a
>good troll requires thought. By nature, trolling has a certain risk
>associated with it which is inversely proportional to the cleverness
>of the troll and in henry's case, the risk just happens to be huge.
Bilget couldn't educate anyone. He is a senile old bastard who surrounds
himself with books, extracts from which he quotes at random in an attempt
to confuse the opposition.
>
> >These public newsgroups are for sharing ideas, not blasting strangers
> >apart with keystrokes. I would rather see 100 inquisitive minds exploring
> >new ideas (even if the ideas are only new to them) than any number of
> >holier-than-thou physicists and engineers tearing creative thought to
> >shreds.
>
> There is nothing holier-than-thou about letting someone know when the
>claims of "I'm only trying to learn" has been sabotaged by behaviour which
>indicates that he/she is trying to do anything to avoid it while also
>avoiding having to create a better line of bullshit. Personally, I'd call
>that "unwarranted optimism, a lack of common sense and a martyr complex".
>However, if you think that's a "holier-than-thou" attitude, then you won't
>mind not being holier-than-thou for a moment so you can send me a
>cashier's check for the title to my very profitable gold mine on mars.
David, relativity has become a religion. Its followers cannot even
contemplate that any of it might be wrong. They are literally prepared to
KILL (-file) to preserve their faith.
>
> >I will agree there are some inquisitive minds on these newsgroups that
> >have earned a place in my blocked senders list due to their rude method
> >of pushing opinions on to others. You can tell who they are because
> >they never get a response from me. But as long as people like Henry
> >are being civil, why not engage them in a meaningful way?
>
> There is nothing civil about spamming the newsgroup and wasting
>internet bandwidth and the diskspace of news servers all over the world
>for the sole purpose of cluttering up the newsgroup so that anything
>related to sci.physics.relativity is buried in the noise.
>
> > Maybe there is more to human interaction than being right or wrong?
>
> One of which is to not assume that everyone wants a response based
>upon physics just because they posted to a physics newsgroup and instead,
>try carefully to address what what was posted. Anything else would be
>uncivilized.
>
David Thomson
news:Pine.GSO.4.42.0209191331310.24142-100000@sue...
> On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, David Thomson wrote:
> >
> > The elementary charge of the subatomic particles is at the
> > center of this circular angular momentum...
> It is relatively easy to devise "theories" of physics when you
> are not constrained by experimental and physical fact.
I agree that one needs experimental and physical fact to devise theories. I
also would posit that an open mind into the true nature of existence is also
necessary. Niels Bohr's simple-minded balls in orbit model was a dismal
failure. The experimental data did not agree with his model at all. And
yet today we're still using hbar in our physics calculations, even though
hbar was predicated on the balls in orbit model guessed by Bohr.
The only problem with my theory is that nobody has taken the time to
understand it. Today I used my physics model to come up with what appears
to be a fully functional gravitational red shift equation. I'm just waiting
on some data to verify the accuracy of the equation.
All my theories are based on fact. My strong charge equation accurately
predicts the nuclear strong charge measured in laboratories for about 100
years. My unified charge equation accurately shows the relationship between
the elementary charge, strong charge, and the weak interaction. All of
these values are accurately measured. My unified charge equation is what
predicts that elementary charge is in the middle of an angular momentum.
This is not an idle theory. My model, unlike Bohr's, is based on a fully
functional unified charge equation and the geometry is dictated by the
equation itself.
Here's how...
e^2 = 4 * pi * a * 2 * h * Cd
h is the angular momentum of the subatomic particle. As I describe in
detail on my web site, h has an area that is equal to 1/8pi of a sphere. h
* Cd is equal to strong charge. The strong charge thus has the same
proportion to a sphere as does its angular momentum. h also has a spin of
1/2. Multiplying h by 2 gives the area equivalent to 1/4pi of a sphere.
Multiply that area by 4pi and now strong charge has the equivalent area of a
sphere. The two sides are equal in geometry. Elementary charge is also a
sphere. The alpha constant is the proportion by which the strong charge
sphere needs to be reduced to equal the elementary charge sphere.
So you see, my theory is not a hair-brained scheme picked out of the night
sky because I like the sound of it. The concept of angular momentum as a
ribbon of mass is determined by the mathematics, not by me. The concept
that charge resides in the center of this angular momentum is determined by
the mathematics, not by me. Unlike Neils Bohr, I didn't start with the
model and then make the math try to fit (and end up with hbar and
wave-particle duality and HUP metaphysical concepts.) I started with the
math and let it dictate to me what the model should be.
> Did you ever think to _first_ look at high energy experiments _before_
> you came up with your "theory?"
What do you think? Do you think I could come up with a fully functional,
completely revised system of physics without first reviewing the data?
> The nucleon structure has been probed for more than the past two decades,
and I'm sorry to
> inform you that charge in real particles does not seem to want to
> conform to your preconceived notions.
I'm sorry to inform you, but the physics models you used for reviewing the
data were wrong. I'm further sorry to inform you that my model works quite
well. As far as I know, modern physics can't even produce a simple unified
charge equation or even describe the exact nature of the two different types
of charges.
BTW, that is why your system of physics doesn't integrate properly. After
100 years of trying to improve the balls in orbit model of physics, your
physicist role models still don't realize that there are two different types
of charge. Your physics looks at the elementary charge and mistakenly calls
it electromagnetism. The elementary charge plays almost no roll in physics
at all. The strong charge is real electromagnetic charge. When current
goes racing down a conductor or photons fly across the oceans, it's doing it
with strong charge (electromagnetic charge.) Elementary charge is static
charge. It does nothing in the circuits of microchips, radio waves, any AC
or DC circuits, electrochemical reactions, or most any electrical process
you can name except hold the atoms together. But interestingly enough,
somebody recently discovered a way to utilize elementary charge. Check this
out...
http://www.mnglobal.com/energy/pg2.htm
For as much as you (and all scientists,) think you know about charge, you
know precisely dick. (To paraphrase K in The Men in Black.)
> For god's sake, even the
> neutron, which is considered to be electrically neutral overall,
> exhibits a small postive charge at its center and a small
> negative charge at its surface.
That's what I've been saying all along. Both charges exist in a neutron,
even though they net out.
> In another post you stated:
>
> "I have clearly rebutted with solid principles and
> solid math many of the cherished beliefs of the
> so-called "well-known physicists" in the world."
>
> The reason the "well-known physicists" ignore you is that
> "principles" and "math" which contradict the physical facts are
> the province of the deluded, which delusions, I must say, you
> have displayed with abundance here on this group.
You are so dense, I'm going to name a new unit of density after you. When I
respond to your posts, I fill it with real math that truly adds up. You can
put my math into MathCAD and the software knows how to make it work. You
put Bohr's math, or half the trash in modern physics into MathCAD and the
program locks up or gives an entirely different answer than what we're told
to expect.
My math is based on real data obtained from NIST and well-known US
educational institutions. My equations produce values that modern science
expects to see. My equations are both mathematically correct and correspond
exactly to experimental data. And yet, my equations are unique and much
more utile than the present equations and theories used to explain the data.
I must say, the only reason you don't see this is because you choose not to.
You have a prejudiced mind that has been brainwashed to believe that physics
cannot be simple.
Dave
David Thomson
> Thanks for the support David. I can assure you I can handle Bilgey on my
> own.
You have my moral support, but Bilge has my academic support. I think Bilge
is academically right and I have the mathematics to prove it. I haven't
seen any mathematics from you yet.
> I have proved many times that photons cannot all be the same.
> My latest demo is so blatanly obviously correct that
> Bilgey has nothing left in his armory than ridicule and diversionary
> tactics.
I think Bilge may be frustrated, but not because he is wrong. What is the
math you use behind your animation? Presumably you have a mathematical
premise for designing your animation?
Dave
Stephen Speicher
>
> You can put my math into MathCAD and the software knows how to
> make it work. You put Bohr's math, or half the trash in modern
> physics into MathCAD and the program locks up or gives an
> entirely different answer than what we're told to expect.
>
Thanks for the laughs, but now it is time to get back to the real
world. Have a nice life, if you ever decide to do something with
it.
Patrick Reany
David Thomson wrote:
> "Stephen Speicher" <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.42.0209191331310.24142-100000@sue...
> > On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, David Thomson wrote:
> > >
> > > The elementary charge of the subatomic particles is at the
> > > center of this circular angular momentum...
> > It is relatively easy to devise "theories" of physics when you
> > are not constrained by experimental and physical fact.
>
> I agree that one needs experimental and physical fact to devise theories. I
> also would posit that an open mind into the true nature of existence is also
> necessary.
What do you mean by the "true nature of existence"?
Why do you think that this is the job of physics
rather than of metaphysics?
> Niels Bohr's simple-minded balls in orbit model was a dismal
> failure.
Are you talking about early QM and the atom?
> The experimental data did not agree with his model at all. And
> yet today we're still using hbar in our physics calculations, even though
> hbar was predicated on the balls in orbit model guessed by Bohr.
Are you saying that QM is not a good experimental
theory? If so, where did you get your sources of
authority to make this claim?
Bohr championed the phenomenological
notion of an electron, not a "ball" model.
I don't think you have any idea of the
Copenhagen interpretation of QM. Have
you heard of Max Planck?
Patrick
Robert Kolker
David Thomson wrote:
>
> I agree that one needs experimental and physical fact to devise theories. I
> also would posit that an open mind into the true nature of existence is also
> necessary. Niels Bohr's simple-minded balls in orbit model was a dismal
> failure. The experimental data did not agree with his model at all. And
> yet today we're still using hbar in our physics calculations, even though
> hbar was predicated on the balls in orbit model guessed by Bohr.
His model was a partial success. He was able to deduce the value of the
Rydberg constant from it.
Bob Kolker
HenriWilson
wrote:
>Paul Cardinale said some stuff about
> >
> >Oh come on.
> >That's true only if you use a strict interpretation of the word
> >"monochromatic";
>
> It also depends upon why one is using light which is "monochromatic".
>If the results depend upon the monochromaticity, then the results are
>unphysical.
>
> >which, in practice, virtually nobody does. In the real world, people
> >use the word to mean "a band so narrow that its width is negligible".
>
> That only works if the physics has nothing to do with the bandwidth.
>But that's a somewhat different issue than henry, who is simply a troll,
>confused by complexity.
>
> Henry should be precise. He is confuses strict interpretations and
>what is intended informally all the time. The only way to help him over
>his confusion is to require that he be specific in order to understand
>the differences in what confuses him.
Bilgey, it gives me considerable satisfaction to know that after 50 years
of being a physicist I still have the ability to reason, question and
create new concepts - unlike some who can only repeat, parrot fashion, the
very dubious knowledge with which they were indoctrinated.
_______
Bilgey, in my demo, let the mirror move at 0.9c. Do you think it matters
whether or not monochromatic light has a small statistical spread?
What a confused illogical mind you have Bilgey.
In future, will you please stick to the subject and not try to divert the
conversation onto something quite irrelevant.
Run the demo and then please tell me how and why the photons in the top ray
can possibly be identical to those in the bottom one.
David Thomson
news:3D8A6EEC...@asu.edu...
> > I agree that one needs experimental and physical fact to devise
theories. I
> > also would posit that an open mind into the true nature of existence is
also
> > necessary.
>
> What do you mean by the "true nature of existence"?
The true nature of existence is that there are two different types of
charge, elementary charge and electromagnetic charge. The true nature of
existence is that the strong charge that binds atoms together is, in fact,
the electromagnetic charge. The true nature of existence is that charge is
always distributed and does not exist in single dimensions. That's just for
starters.
> Why do you think that this is the job of physics rather than of
metaphysics?
Metaphysics is concepts like wave-particle duality and uncertainty
principles. Physics is the science of correctly identifying the structure
of the subatomic particles and showing how produce the world we see and
measure. Wave particle duality has nothing to do with physics. It is a cop
out. The same with the uncertainty principle. Uncertainty is only a
measure of ignorance.
Modern physics doesn't even have the proper dimensions of charge in their
units, let alone know the difference between elementary charge and
electromagnetic charge.
> > Niels Bohr's simple-minded balls in orbit model was a dismal
> > failure.
>
> Are you talking about early QM and the atom?
Yes, I am talking about the early models. I'm talking about the early
models because hbar was derived from the early models. Even though science
admits that the balls in orbit model is incorrect, they're still using hbar,
which was a result of the balls in orbit assumption.
> Are you saying that QM is not a good experimental
> theory? If so, where did you get your sources of
> authority to make this claim?
QM was a good start. But it hasn't been taken far enough yet. I get my
sources and authority from my own research and discoveries. My theories
began from QM and use the quantum values and constants maintained by NIST.
The values my equations produce agree with the experimental data.
> Bohr championed the phenomenological
> notion of an electron, not a "ball" model.
> I don't think you have any idea of the
> Copenhagen interpretation of QM. Have
> you heard of Max Planck?
Of course I have heard of Max Planck, but you probably meant Max Born. The
Copenhagen interpretation was mostly attributed to Niels Bohr and
Heisenberg. As for whether physicists choose to call the electron a ball,
point, sphere, chunk, or uncertainty, they're still referring to it in their
mathematics as though it were a condensed thing that moves like a planet in
orbit. Whether they describe the shape or refrain from describing it, they
still refer to the mass of subatomic particles in their mathematics as
though it were a ball. So call it whatever name you would like, tell me
whatever name they liked. Their math still calls it a ball.
Dave
David Thomson
news:3D8A70F2...@attbi.com...
Hi Robert,
I don't mean to put Niels Bohr down as a failure. Far from it. Even though
his model was not entirely correct, it was correct enough to build an atomic
bomb and quickly end our war with Japan. Much progress has been made in
physics because of Niels Bohr (and Arthur Compton, Max Born, Heisenberg,
Einstein, and several others.)
My beef is with the people today who still rely on outdated, poorly
constructed physics theories. I have already provided several excellent
corrections to physics and I am working on several more. I can get rid of
the wave-particle duality and uncertainty principle metaphysics from
physics. I can correctly identify charge and its correct dimensions in
units. I can correctly model the atomic structure.
Some constants in modern physics are not constants at all, but mistakes in
appropriation of dimensions in units. For example, there is no g-factor in
a subatomic particle. The g-factor is the result of using only one
dimension of charge in the magnetic moment unit when it should be
distributed charge.
I'm also working on the spectral lines equations, so I'm familiar with the
Rydberg constant. Bohr's theory of energy levels was one of his greater
successes.
Dave
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
>... So call it whatever name you would like, tell me
> whatever name they liked. Their math still calls it a ball.
Like the electron that hits the phosphor on my monitor screen?
David A. Smith
Bilge
Re: Proof that All Photons are not Identical. to usenet:
>news:slrnaoj6t...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>
>D>>> If photons are quantum units, then they are single, individual units.
>There
>D>>> is no frequency in a single unit. But several units produced at
>regular
>D>>> intervals produce a stream of particles with a frequency.
>B> > That is _almost_ correct. "Regular" has to be defined by the
>uncertainty
>B> > principle and special relativity.
>D > I think you mean "regular" needs to be defined by the quality of the
>D > materials used in the circuit and the emitter and the amount of stray
>D > interference the frequency generator receives?
>B No, that's not what I mean.
>
>Then you're attributing the fuzziness of monochromatic light to a
Stephen Speicher
Please do not confuse the issue with physical facts. Afterall,
the man is busy working on his "theory."
Old Man
news:3Fwi9.3997$k27.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Congratulations! Dave just graduated onto Old Man's troll
and crackpot list, right along with JosX and Spaceman.
[Old Man]
Robert Kolker
David Thomson wrote:
>
> My beef is with the people today who still rely on outdated, poorly
> constructed physics theories.
These "poorly constructed theories" are supported by experiment. Since
the one and only criterion of success in physics is to predict the
outcome of experiments before they are done, what is the problem? The
definition of a "poor theory" is one that predicts one thing and the
experiment indicates another, or is so over loaded with ad hocs that no
one believes them. All of the current theories used in physics are
overdetermined. They have fewer parameters than the number of cases to
which they are applied, so they are not kept afloat by adding epicycles
(so to speak). So what is the problem?
These "poorly constructed theories" have grounded the technology
wherewith you complain about how poorly constructed they are. Any
science that can produce fast computers that work reliably and complex
circuits that will fit up your nose can't be that poor.
Do you have a theory that makes a quantitative prediction not made by
other theories AND is supported by a reproduced experiment? If so, where
are the details published (I mean in a refereed journal). If not, what
alternative do you offer that is worth the bother?
Bob Kolker
josX
>David Thomson wrote:
>> My beef is with the people today who still rely on outdated, poorly
>> constructed physics theories.
>
>These "poorly constructed theories" are supported by experiment.
Where is your proof for c'=c ?
"Next to experimenta proof for eternal-same-velocity+zero-force" ?
> Since
>the one and only criterion of success in physics is to predict the
>outcome of experiments before they are done, what is the problem?
The problem is you lying: a physics /math-model/ only needs to predict,
a physics /conjecture/ or /discovery/ (like what is the speed of light,
and in what is it waving, or do atoms exist) needs to be /correct/, TRUE.
Relativity is something of the second nature, it is not a curve-fitting.
> The
>definition of a "poor theory" is one that predicts one thing and the
>experiment indicates another, or is so over loaded with ad hocs that no
>one believes them.
That's relativity: overloaded with ad hoc "forbidden thought's/forbidden
counter arguments".
> All of the current theories used in physics are
>overdetermined. They have fewer parameters than the number of cases to
>which they are applied, so they are not kept afloat by adding epicycles
>(so to speak). So what is the problem?
Relativity *is* kept afloat by adding more and more complications to keep
the people busy trying to understand it.
>These "poorly constructed theories" have grounded the technology
>wherewith you complain about how poorly constructed they are. Any
>science that can produce fast computers that work reliably and complex
>circuits that will fit up your nose can't be that poor.
Complete nonsense from the man who thinks Newton did not experiment, but
merely postulated F=m*a.
>Do you have a theory that makes a quantitative prediction not made by
>other theories AND is supported by a reproduced experiment?
Yes: curve fit all known data.
Relativity will not come out of that.
> If so, where
>are the details published (I mean in a refereed journal). If not, what
>alternative do you offer that is worth the bother?
Except for usenet and private conversation, there is no crebidle debate
that i know off in physics about these things that matter.
--
jos
Patrick Reany
David Thomson wrote:
> "Patrick Reany" <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
> news:3D8A6EEC...@asu.edu...
> > > I agree that one needs experimental and physical fact to devise
> theories. I
> > > also would posit that an open mind into the true nature of existence is
> also
> > > necessary.
> >
> > What do you mean by the "true nature of existence"?
>
> The true nature of existence is that there are two different types of
> charge, elementary charge and electromagnetic charge.
How do you KNOW "the true nature of existence"?
What's your proof? How do you KNOW that the
human mind, or indeed the method of science, is
able to capture this notion of "the true nature of
existence"?
> The true nature of
> existence is that the strong charge that binds atoms together is, in fact,
> the electromagnetic charge. The true nature of existence is that charge is
> always distributed and does not exist in single dimensions.
How do you know this?
> That's just for
> starters.
>
> > Why do you think that this is the job of physics rather than of
> metaphysics?
>
> Metaphysics is concepts like wave-particle duality and uncertainty
> principles. Physics is the science of correctly identifying the structure
> of the subatomic particles and showing how produce the world we see and
> measure. Wave particle duality has nothing to do with physics. It is a cop
> out. The same with the uncertainty principle. Uncertainty is only a
> measure of ignorance.
How does one KNOW that one has been "correctly
identifying the structure of the subatomic particles"?
What do you mean by "Uncertainty is only a
measure of ignorance"?
> Modern physics doesn't even have the proper dimensions of charge in their
> units, let alone know the difference between elementary charge and
> electromagnetic charge.
> what "dimensions" are those?
>
> > > Niels Bohr's simple-minded balls in orbit model was a dismal
> > > failure.
> >
> > Are you talking about early QM and the atom?
>
> Yes, I am talking about the early models. I'm talking about the early
> models because hbar was derived from the early models. Even though science
> admits that the balls in orbit model is incorrect, they're still using hbar,
> which was a result of the balls in orbit assumption.
hbar lives in all modern QM theories, such as embodied
in the Dirac equation of the electron. This stuff is
VERY accurate and in no way a dismal failure. QM
has simply evolved from the structure of the atom,
to the structure of the nucleus, to the "structure"
of the fundamental particle as it relates to other
particles of the same family. There is no failure here,
except to a metaphysician. The fact that some theory
didn't go as far as you wanted it to doesn't make it
a failure. No theory is a theory of everything in
terms of explaining everything. No theory can explain
its own postulates.
> > Are you saying that QM is not a good experimental
> > theory? If so, where did you get your sources of
> > authority to make this claim?
>
> QM was a good start. But it hasn't been taken far enough yet. I get my
> sources and authority from my own research and discoveries.
So, you're claiming to have an equation better than
the Dirac equation for the electron?
Can you briefly explain to us the general purpose of your
research program and what principles and postulates
you are employing in your theory?
> My theories
> began from QM and use the quantum values and constants maintained by NIST.
> The values my equations produce agree with the experimental data.
Well, those "values" of QM employ hbar. What do
you have against hbar?
Patrick
Patrick Reany
josX wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Relativity is something of the second nature, it is not a curve-fitting.
>
True. SR and GR we NOT motivated by fitting
some data curve, yet they do indeed fit the
data curves all over the place. The question
is "So what, josX?" They get the job done
in the end.
Einstein did not sit down one day after 1905 and
say to himself, "Hey, what unexplained data is out
there for me to explain?" What he did do is to say
to himself, "Hey, why is it that we implicitly accept
the notion of an absolute acceleration space,
and how should I go about turning Newton's
scalar gravity into a legitimate covariant field
theory?" But this question was every bit as
valid as asking for some unexplained data,
such the the anomalous precession of Mercury,
and finding a theory to explain it. OK, josX,
why don't you take the anomalous precession of
Mercury data and invent an explanation of
it by using pure curve-fitting? Show your work.
Patrick
josX
>josX wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> Relativity is something of the second nature, it is not a curve-fitting.
>
>True. SR and GR we NOT motivated by fitting
>some data curve, yet they do indeed fit the
>data curves all over the place. The question
>is "So what, josX?" They get the job done
>in the end.
What job, fooling people? scamming the taxmoneys in pockets? Selling books?
Making a good living while peddling nonsense (so much easier) ?
>Einstein did not sit down one day after 1905 and
>say to himself, "Hey, what unexplained data is out
>there for me to explain?" What he did do is to say
>to himself, "Hey, why is it that we implicitly accept
>the notion of an absolute acceleration space,
>and how should I go about turning Newton's
>scalar gravity into a legitimate covariant field
>theory?"
oh my, you make me laugh.
> But this question was every bit as
>valid as asking for some unexplained data,
>such the the anomalous precession of Mercury,
>and finding a theory to explain it. OK, josX,
>why don't you take the anomalous precession of
>Mercury data and invent an explanation of
>it by using pure curve-fitting? Show your work.
An explanation requires more then just a curve-fitting,
it needs to find a force that exists.
Perhaps it has to do with the force that holds the solar system
stable while it wouldn't be with only gravity and momentum.
This kind of research is killed off by the relativity pseudo
"explanation". Relativity isn't an explanation, it only seems to be
one because the obfuscation is so deep people get burried in it and
feel things get "explained".
Relativity is a pseudo philosophical/emotional drama, and it has
characteristics of pop-star admiration too, the SR-gang being the band.
--
jos
David Thomson
beginning)> wrote in message
news:1Ywi9.84156$Pf7.2...@news1.west.cox.net...
> >... So call it whatever name you would like, tell me
> > whatever name they liked. Their math still calls it a ball.
>
> Like the electron that hits the phosphor on my monitor screen?
Is there some logic in this statement you would like to share? How does the
fact that an electron strikes your monitor prove that it is a ball?
Dave
Patrick Reany
josX wrote:
> Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote:
> >josX wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> Relativity is something of the second nature, it is not a curve-fitting.
> >
> >True. SR and GR we NOT motivated by fitting
> >some data curve, yet they do indeed fit the
> >data curves all over the place. The question
> >is "So what, josX?" They get the job done
> >in the end.
>
> What job, fooling people? scamming the taxmoneys in pockets? Selling books?
> Making a good living while peddling nonsense (so much easier) ?
The job of having a theory that conforms to
experiment.
> >Einstein did not sit down one day after 1905 and
> >say to himself, "Hey, what unexplained data is out
> >there for me to explain?" What he did do is to say
> >to himself, "Hey, why is it that we implicitly accept
> >the notion of an absolute acceleration space,
> >and how should I go about turning Newton's
> >scalar gravity into a legitimate covariant field
> >theory?"
>
> oh my, you make me laugh.
What part of what I said is so funny to you? And
why is it funny to you?
> > But this question was every bit as
> >valid as asking for some unexplained data,
> >such the the anomalous precession of Mercury,
> >and finding a theory to explain it. OK, josX,
> >why don't you take the anomalous precession of
> >Mercury data and invent an explanation of
> >it by using pure curve-fitting? Show your work.
>
> An explanation requires more then just a curve-fitting,
> it needs to find a force that exists.
So, your entire research program for physics reduces
to this: Find the forces and fit the data to a curve, right?
Does your program include a definition of a "law of
physics," or a "general law of physics"? How do they
fit into your program?
OK, find the forces that explain the anomalous precession
of Mercury for us. I'm sure we'd all like to know this.
> Perhaps it has to do with the force that holds the solar system
> stable while it wouldn't be with only gravity and momentum.
> This kind of research is killed off by the relativity pseudo
> "explanation". Relativity isn't an explanation, it only seems to be
> one because the obfuscation is so deep people get burried in it and
> feel things get "explained".
Seeming explanations are the best we can ever
hope for, unless you can prove otherwise. Care
to prove otherwise for us?
Patrick
David Thomson
> > The true nature of existence is that there are two different types of
> > charge, elementary charge and electromagnetic charge.
>
> How do you KNOW "the true nature of existence"?
> What's your proof? How do you KNOW that the
> human mind, or indeed the method of science, is
> able to capture this notion of "the true nature of
> existence"?
If you're going to get into a philosophical debate, there is no knowledge.
Nobody knows anything. Experiments don't truly yield knowledge. Everything
is interpreted.
If you're going to look at knowledge as the most consistent explanation of
an observation, then my unified charge theory is entirely consistent. There
are no paradoxes and no metaphysical concepts. The math is entirely
consistent, simple, and it predicts the correct results. My math predicts
results not predicted by previous methods, which are also consistent with
observation.
The proof of my "knowledge" is in the fact that the theory predicts the
correct results consistent with observation. What else can I say? What
else do you want to hear? Why not come back with something like, the math
doesn't work because..., or there can't be two forms of charge because...,
or you're predictions for strong charge are off because..., you know, say
something scientific instead of reactionary.
> > The true nature of
> > existence is that the strong charge that binds atoms together is, in
fact,
> > the electromagnetic charge. The true nature of existence is that charge
is
> > always distributed and does not exist in single dimensions.
>
> How do you know this?
I created a system of units based entirely on quantum values. I have posted
a preliminary page outlining the basics of this unit system at
http://www.tesla-coil-builder.com/characteristics_quantum_physics.htm
When using quantum values of charge for magnetic moment it is found that
magnetic moment is based on the elementary charge. Also, magnetic moment
has only a single dimension of charge. The unified charge equation that I
discovered, and the associated strong charge equation, clearly show that
mass is related to charge when charge is in distributed dimenions. I have
not found one fundamental instance that demonstrates that mass is ever
related to charge when charge is a single dimension.
When using distributed charge in all the units instead of single dimension
charge, not only do all the usual equations like Ohm's law still work, but
magnetic units suddenly work quite well with inductance and capacitance.
Inductance, capacitance, and Coulomb's constant have been in the right units
all along, but the standard units such as resistance, volts, amps, magnetic
moment, magnetic flux, etc have not. This has prevented the ability to
calculate frequency of a circuit based solely on potential and inductance,
for example. But this revised system of units allows for the calculation of
frequency (potential divided by inductance equals 4 pi frequency squared.)
The proof is in the pudding. You need to check the system out and see how
it works. It will be a while before I'll be able to provide a comprehensive
text book showing all the calculations this system will do. Right now I'm
working on a gravitational redshift equation that is possible with the
revised system of units and that is not possible with the present system.
But the reason why a gravitational redshift equation is possible in my
system is because I have identified the unit of light correctly as h * c *
freq. The present system of units incorrectly identifies the photon and
light as the same thing. They're not. The photon is true EMR and is simply
h * c. So light isn't truly EMR. Light is no more EMR than force is
acceleration.
You don't have to take my word for it. Do the math yourself and see if it
works. Like I said, I'm discovering all kinds of physics equations that
have eluded the brightest minds in physics for over 100 years. And I'm not
the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree by a long shot. But simply because
I have not been indoctrinated into the present day systems of physics I was
able to use common sense to discover what has been missed all along.
I'm not trying to sell anything. If you don't want to check this out and
verify it for yourself, then don't. Eventually I'll ignore your ignorance
and continue to wait for someone else to come along with an open mind who
will look into this.
> > Metaphysics is concepts like wave-particle duality and uncertainty
> > principles. Physics is the science of correctly identifying the
structure
> > of the subatomic particles and showing how produce the world we see and
> > measure. Wave particle duality has nothing to do with physics. It is a
cop
> > out. The same with the uncertainty principle. Uncertainty is only a
> > measure of ignorance.
>
> How does one KNOW that one has been "correctly
> identifying the structure of the subatomic particles"?
> What do you mean by "Uncertainty is only a
> measure of ignorance"?
I know I am correctly identifying the structure of the subatomic particles
because my models agree with observation. My concept of c^2 looks just like
a Bose - Einstein condensate. My atomic model looks exactly like the
deuteron. My theory predicts the nanotube phenomenon. My closed system
pulse model looks like a Pulsar. My pulse model predicts gamma rays and
gamma ray bursts. The mechanics of my model looks like real world
structures, for example, the subatomic particle produces a magnetic field
that exactly looks like a permanent magnet magnetic field. My bi-spinning
angular momentum subatomic particle model mirrors the technology used in
magnetic resonance imaging technology. And I didn't go looking at
technology to work backward to the model. I went straight to the
mathematics and let the mathematics determine the model. It just turns out
the model agrees fully with observation. When you have this degree of
consistency, the odds are pretty good you have a winning theory.
Uncertainty is a measure of ignorance because it attributes real world
phenomena to metaphysical concepts. For example, the uncertainty principle
states that there cannot be a true monochromatic light source. The only
reason there isn't a true monochromatic light source is because the
materials of the light source are not pure and because there is stray
radiation. If a light source were truly engineered with absolutely pure
molecular engineered materials, and the circuit perfectly shielded, it would
be possible to generate a pure monochromatic beam of light. To say that we
can't produce monochromatic light due to our poor level of engineering is
science. To say that we can't produce monochromatic light because of a
mathematical uncertainty principle is pseudoscience (ignorance.) The more
we rely on a metaphysical uncertainty principle to guide our engineering,
the greater our ignorance is.
> hbar lives in all modern QM theories, such as embodied
> in the Dirac equation of the electron. This stuff is
> VERY accurate and in no way a dismal failure. QM
> has simply evolved from the structure of the atom,
> to the structure of the nucleus, to the "structure"
> of the fundamental particle as it relates to other
> particles of the same family. There is no failure here,
> except to a metaphysician. The fact that some theory
> didn't go as far as you wanted it to doesn't make it
> a failure. No theory is a theory of everything in
> terms of explaining everything. No theory can explain
> its own postulates.
How you KNOW that stuff? The truth is, you don't. You just have developed
a certain degree of acceptance of the idea. You believe it because others
believe it. but you don't know how accurate today's physics really are.
Yes, hbar lives in all modern QM theories. That is why there is no accurate
model of the atom today. By accurate, I'm talking about a model that
explains nanotechnology, MRI physics, GRB, and a host of other scientific
"mysteries." By an accurate model, I'm talking about why modern physics has
to deal with wave-particle duality, uncertainty principles, and photons that
have no charge but have electromagnetism. There is a failure in the modern
atomic model. It doesn't work. It isn't consistent. It relies on
metaphysical concepts.
You speak with such authority in saying that no theory is a theory of
everything. I agree that it may not be possible for a theory to explain all
of its postulates, but it is possible for a single theory to explain a
single universe. There is no reason why a single universe, built upon a
singular event, shouldn't have a single physics model. And for a universe
that originated from a single place, there is no reason why the physics to
explain it should be complex as the physics we have today. It is totally
illogical that a single event could give rise to a complex subatomic physics
and then revert to a simple mechanical physics to explain the macro world.
Even a child should see error in this chain of events.
> So, you're claiming to have an equation better than
> the Dirac equation for the electron?
It depends on what you are looking for in the electron. I have some of the
electron values worked out such as magnetic moment, charge, some of the spin
characteristics, and mass with respect to the proton. I'm presently working
on energy states. The Dirac equation is not provable. But what I have
already discovered is provable. And when I get done with the energy levels,
they too will be provable. Everything I'm doing is built from the ground
up, starting with the basic geometry of the universe. Each time I secure a
concept, it leads to the solution of another concept.
I can explain why 1 spin has 720 degrees. Can you?
> Can you briefly explain to us the general purpose of your
> research program and what principles and postulates
> you are employing in your theory?
I started from a very basic premise. E=mc^2. I realize the relativistic
energy is not included in this equation. But I'm not ready to tackle the
relativistic implications yet. I have already found that angular momentum
adds an interesting twist to relativity and I want to fully understand
angular momentum and its interaction with physical systems before pushing it
to the speed of light.
The basic principle is that c^2 is not merely a conversion constant. It has
various real world meanings. The basic meaning of c^2 is that it is the
geometry by which mass is converted to energy. But how does a solid object
become a wave? I found the answer in angular momentum. Photons, electrons,
protons, and neutrons (and other particles) have angular momentum, in fact,
they ARE angular momentum. However, the photon is angular momentum times
the speed of light. I then showed how the angular momentum of electrons is
converted to the angular momentum of photons using c^2. So mass isn't
really mass it is angular momentum. And electromagnetic radiation (photon)
isn't really energy, it is angular momentum times c. Energy itself is a
true conversion factor. Units convert to other units mainly by an energy
transaction.
For example, potential moves charge to produce energy, magnetic flux moves
current, presure moves a volume, force moves a length, magnetic flux density
moves magnetic moment, and dozens of others. There are other types of
transactions as well with power, force, and light (to name a few,) but
energy is the main transactor.
There are postulates. For example, the four primary dimensions are
postulates. All four primary dimensions have been rigorously verified by
QM. But there are no metaphysical postulates. Everything in my theory is
built upon solid ground. Even when I describe things like the aether, it is
all based on mathematics with solid grounding in QM. I choose to speak of
the vacuum in terms of aether to both honor scientists like Maxwell, Tesla
and Einstein who were certain of its existence, and because it does have a
definite effect on this universe. Just because the aether does not have a
particulate or energetic nature does not mean it doesn't exist.
The purpose of beginning this research was to search for alternative energy
sources. It had occurred to me that our present system of physics was
severely limited and I wanted to see if there was something wrong with it.
It turns out that I found lots wrong with modern physics and what I have
discovered is turning out to be a project that will last for several years,
if not the rest of my life. And by the way, I have discovered several new
methods for maintaining and transfering energy. I'm building experiments as
we speak that will be patentable and provide evidence for new concepts I
have discovered.
> > My theories
> > began from QM and use the quantum values and constants maintained by
NIST.
> > The values my equations produce agree with the experimental data.
>
> Well, those "values" of QM employ hbar. What do
> you have against hbar?
I have explained this a dozen times already. hbar is a value Bohr pulled
out of the air to satisfy an equation for angular momentum. The equation
was setup under the assumption that a subatomic particle is a ball orbiting
something. Of course, a free particle has nothing to orbit. The form of
the equation was based on an error in assumption. As a result, hbar is a
value that divides the angular momentum into radians and assumes that all
the mass of a subatomic particle exists in one point in the "orbit." This
is not true. The mass of an electron, proton, and neutron is spread out
over half of the "orbit". This is why the particle has half spin.
As it turns out the angular momentum and the particle are the same thing.
The angular momentum is a ribbon of mass that begins in one moment of time
and ends in the very next quantum moment of time and covers a quantum area.
You can visualize this by holding a pencil vertically in front of you and
quickly moving the pencil sideways. You can imagine the mass of the pencil
being spread over the area scanned. Not only does the mass have a beginning
and ending position, it also has a beginning and ending time. Next imagine
that the pencil is broke in half and the top half goes one direction
sideways and the bottom half goes the other direction. But the two halves
meet on the opposite side of a circle. This is half spin. Now have the two
halves continue to the original point on the circle and that is 1 spin.
Between the two halves they have scanned an angle of 720 degrees in 1 spin.
This bi-spinning action of the subatomic particles is one of the meanings of
c^2; two velocities of light at an angle to each other (180 degrees or 1/2
spin.) This bi-spinning characteristic of the subatomic particles is
carried into the atomic structure. As is seen clearly in computerized
models of the deuteron, there are two levels of opposing spin in an atom and
the charge is in the center. BTW, this bi-spinning action of the atom is
the mechanical action that makes binding energy possible and also generates
a magnetic field. All permanent magnets have atoms aligned such that the
atomic magnetism is cumulative and produces a macro magnetism. This is why
when objects are heated they lose their magnetism, the atoms turn out of
alignment. This also explains why non-ferrous atoms can produce magnetism
just as well as ferrous materials. Ferrous material is nothing more than an
atomic structure predisposed to magnetic alignment.
I can go on and on with all sorts of correspondence between my atomic model
and the real world. But the point is that hbar is an impediment to seeing
angular momentum for what it really is. hbar is a primary reason why modern
physics is so "out of sync" with reality.
Dave
David Thomson
news:TAxi9.18282$Rf3.1...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> Congratulations! Dave just graduated onto Old Man's troll
> and crackpot list, right along with JosX and Spaceman.
> [Old Man]
And you'll soon be on my blocked senders list.
Dave
David Thomson
> > My beef is with the people today who still rely on outdated, poorly
> > constructed physics theories.
>
> These "poorly constructed theories" are supported by experiment. Since
> the one and only criterion of success in physics is to predict the
> outcome of experiments before they are done, what is the problem?
Predicting one outcome is not the success of a theory. The theory must
predict all outcomes relevant to the theory. The Balmer series are
predicted by one form of an equation. The Lyman series are predicted by a
slightly different form of the same equation. There aren't two separate
theories here. Nor is hydrogen the only atom where a proper spectral
equation will work. It is pretty obvious that there must be a better form
of the equation that will work for all atoms and predict all spectral lines.
The problem is that physicists are patting themselves on the back because
they can produce an equation that predicts just one series of spectral lines
for a hydrogen atom. That isn't a theory, it's a lucky guess.
The mathematics and physics I am working on will provide a single, universal
equation for all spectral lines because my physics are fully integrated.
> The
> definition of a "poor theory" is one that predicts one thing and the
> experiment indicates another, or is so over loaded with ad hocs that no
> one believes them.
No, a theory that produces wrong answers is not a theory at all. A poor
theory is one that provides one answer out of many and only for one
condition.
> All of the current theories used in physics are
> overdetermined. They have fewer parameters than the number of cases to
> which they are applied,
My point exactly, they have fewer parameters than the number of cases to
which they are applied. That is the problem. The physics used today are
based on some wrong assumptions and that is part of the reason why the full
set of parameters is not available.
> These "poorly constructed theories" have grounded the technology
> wherewith you complain about how poorly constructed they are. Any
> science that can produce fast computers that work reliably and complex
> circuits that will fit up your nose can't be that poor.
Are you saying science is beyond criticism because they do good things? I
do good things with my physics, and you criticize me. The physics have to
stand on their own. We cannot be complacent because a few lucky guesses
have given us a few successes. Granted, there are inumerable successes in
science, but there are inumerable mysteries and unknowns as well. The
successes are due to the hard work of inumerable engineers and scientists,
not to a perfectly successful physics theory.
> Do you have a theory that makes a quantitative prediction not made by
> other theories AND is supported by a reproduced experiment?
God yes. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes,
yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. I've produced it dozens of times, to you
even. I have produced a unified charge equation that accurately predicts
the strong charge and unifies it with the weak interaction and the
elementary charge. The experiments were done decades ago that prove the
values I'm generating are accurate. My strong charge equation shows how
strong charge is directly proportional to angular momentum and conductance
of the aether. Neither of these equations have ever been produced before
and both produce pefectly accurate results.
> If so, where are the details published (I mean in a refereed journal).
No, I'm still in the research phase. I'm sharing my notes online as a
generosity to others who might also want a piece of the action. There are
so many discoveries within my easy grasp (more than those I have already
grasped) that it will take years for me to fully develop this revised
physics on my own. I'm being generous to you in the extreme. I'm giving
you, and all others reading these newsgroups, and unparalleled opportunity
to get in on the ground floor of scientific discovery. The physics of the
next 1000 years is being developed right in front of your eyes and you treat
it like its trash. Future generations will read these archives and look at
the difficulty of creative thought and new discoveries. University courses
will be designed around this very conversation. Your name will be infamous
and probably synonomous with words you would rather not be associated with.
> If not, what alternative do you offer that is worth the bother?
If you are so dense as to not be able to figure this out, then why bother?
Just sit back and make your points based on whatever means suits you best.
If I find them offensive or a waste of my time, I'll add you to my blocked
senders list, too. In the meantime, I will continue to share my notes for
those with a sense of adventure and the desire to make the world a better
place to live.
Dave
Robert Kolker
David Thomson wrote:
The purpose of beginning this research was to search for alternative energy
sources. It had occurred to me that our present system of physics was
severely limited and I wanted to see if there was something wrong with it.
It turns out that I found lots wrong with modern physics and what I have
discovered is turning out to be a project that will last for several years,
if not the rest of my life. And by the way, I have discovered several new
methods for maintaining and transfering energy. I'm building experiments as
we speak that will be patentable and provide evidence for new concepts I
have discovered.
I replied:
You will let us know when you have them, won't you? Once you are
protected by patent, describe your devices for us. There's a good fellow.
Bob Kolker
Spaceman
>Congratulations! Dave just graduated onto Old Man's troll
>and crackpot list, right along with JosX and Spaceman.
>[Old Man]
All who refuse to research clocks seem to want to do this.
seems they are all lost in "time" and have no clue about it.
<LOL>
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
Spaceman
>And you'll soon be on my blocked senders list.
>
>
Don't bother,
you may miss some of the "jokes of relatvity he posts".
He is quite funny and illogical at times.
Don't block something you can laugh at so easily.
:)
Patrick Reany
David Thomson wrote:
> "Patrick Reany" <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
> news:3D8B0692...@asu.edu...
> > > The true nature of existence is that there are two different types of
> > > charge, elementary charge and electromagnetic charge.
> >
> > How do you KNOW "the true nature of existence"?
> > What's your proof? How do you KNOW that the
> > human mind, or indeed the method of science, is
> > able to capture this notion of "the true nature of
> > existence"?
>
> If you're going to get into a philosophical debate, there is no knowledge.
> Nobody knows anything. Experiments don't truly yield knowledge. Everything
> is interpreted.
How come when I just question you on your
"true nature of existence" that THAT'S
"philosophy" in your mind, but your having
proclaimed it in the first place isn't??
If you're going to use any term, be always
prepared to define it and even justify it!
> If you're going to look at knowledge as the most consistent explanation of
> an observation,
I do not.
> then my unified charge theory is entirely consistent. There
> are no paradoxes and no metaphysical concepts. The math is entirely
> consistent, simple, and it predicts the correct results. My math predicts
> results not predicted by previous methods, which are also consistent with
> observation.
I'll leave that up to the physicists you'll
have to convince.
> The proof of my "knowledge" is in the fact that the theory predicts the
> correct results consistent with observation. What else can I say? What
> else do you want to hear? Why not come back with something like, the math
> doesn't work because..., or there can't be two forms of charge because...,
> or you're predictions for strong charge are off because..., you know, say
> something scientific instead of reactionary.
You have to be willing to define the terms you
yourself employ, when you are asked you define
them. It's only intellectual honest.
> > > The true nature of
> > > existence is that the strong charge that binds atoms together is, in
> fact,
> > > the electromagnetic charge. The true nature of existence is that charge
> is
> > > always distributed and does not exist in single dimensions.
> >
> > How do you know this?
>
> I created a system of units based entirely on quantum values. I have posted
> a preliminary page outlining the basics of this unit system at
> http://www.tesla-coil-builder.com/characteristics_quantum_physics.htm
You tell me that your theory has no metaphysics,
yet now you tell me that it deals with existence.
That's metaphysics.
> [snip]
So, what you mean by "correctly identifying the
structure of the subatomic particles" is just that
it works to match experiment.
> Uncertainty is a measure of ignorance because it attributes real world
> phenomena to metaphysical concepts. For example, the uncertainty principle
> states that there cannot be a true monochromatic light source. The only
> reason there isn't a true monochromatic light source is because the
> materials of the light source are not pure and because there is stray
> radiation. If a light source were truly engineered with absolutely pure
> molecular engineered materials, and the circuit perfectly shielded, it would
> be possible to generate a pure monochromatic beam of light. To say that we
> can't produce monochromatic light due to our poor level of engineering is
> science. To say that we can't produce monochromatic light because of a
> mathematical uncertainty principle is pseudoscience (ignorance.) The more
> we rely on a metaphysical uncertainty principle to guide our engineering,
> the greater our ignorance is.
Well, I defer the question of true monochromatic
light to experimentalists.
> > hbar lives in all modern QM theories, such as embodied
> > in the Dirac equation of the electron. This stuff is
> > VERY accurate and in no way a dismal failure. QM
> > has simply evolved from the structure of the atom,
> > to the structure of the nucleus, to the "structure"
> > of the fundamental particle as it relates to other
> > particles of the same family. There is no failure here,
> > except to a metaphysician. The fact that some theory
> > didn't go as far as you wanted it to doesn't make it
> > a failure. No theory is a theory of everything in
> > terms of explaining everything. No theory can explain
> > its own postulates.
>
> How you KNOW that stuff? The truth is, you don't.
I said a lot above and you've lumped it all together.
Please disambiguate it for me. Are you saying
that a theory can explain its own postulates?
> You just have developed
> a certain degree of acceptance of the idea. You believe it because others
> believe it.
What is this "it" you refer to?
> but you don't know how accurate today's physics really are.
I take on faith the claims of the physicists.
Are you claiming they are wrong? Lying about it?
In a huge conspiracy to fool the masses?
> Yes, hbar lives in all modern QM theories. That is why there is no accurate
> model of the atom today. By accurate, I'm talking about a model that
> explains nanotechnology, MRI physics, GRB, and a host of other scientific
> "mysteries." By an accurate model, I'm talking about why modern physics has
> to deal with wave-particle duality, uncertainty principles, and photons that
> have no charge but have electromagnetism. There is a failure in the modern
> atomic model. It doesn't work. It isn't consistent. It relies on
> metaphysical concepts.
Again, I leave that to the physicists to decide if
things are as bad in nanotechnology as you allege.
But the physicists claim that you are wrong in
your opinion, which is afterall subjective, right?
> You speak with such authority in saying that no theory is a theory of
> everything. I agree that it may not be possible for a theory to explain all
> of its postulates, but it is possible for a single theory to explain a
> single universe.
Then that explanation is of necessity incomplete,
because of those unexplained postulates.
> There is no reason why a single universe, built upon a
> singular event, shouldn't have a single physics model.
I never said it couldn't. But every theory just starts
somewhere arbitrarily and abruptly. It's NOT
the universe that is incomplete; its our ability
to characterize it in rational terms that is necessarily
incomplete.
> And for a universe
> that originated from a single place, there is no reason why the physics to
> explain it should be complex as the physics we have today. It is totally
> illogical that a single event could give rise to a complex subatomic physics
> and then revert to a simple mechanical physics to explain the macro world.
> Even a child should see error in this chain of events.
Maybe that depends on the nature of that
so-called "single event."
> > So, you're claiming to have an equation better than
> > the Dirac equation for the electron?
>
> It depends on what you are looking for in the electron. I have some of the
> electron values worked out such as magnetic moment, charge, some of the spin
> characteristics, and mass with respect to the proton. I'm presently working
> on energy states. The Dirac equation is not provable.\
So, what *is* provable?
> But what I have
> already discovered is provable.
Yeah, right. But to be successful is NOT the
same as to be TRUE.
> And when I get done with the energy levels,
> they too will be provable. Everything I'm doing is built from the ground
> up, starting with the basic geometry of the universe. Each time I secure a
> concept, it leads to the solution of another concept.
>
> I can explain why 1 spin has 720 degrees. Can you?
Irrelevant to my questions, predictably. This is
such a typical response of the cranks. They
can't just reply to the questions asked of
them without slipping into a full defense of their
pet theory all over again. So, if you want people
to seriously listen to your theory, answer the
questions put to you without preaching your
pet theory at the drop of a nano-hat.
> > Can you briefly explain to us the general purpose of your
> > research program and what principles and postulates
> > you are employing in your theory?
>
> I started from a very basic premise. E=mc^2. I realize the relativistic
> energy is not included in this equation. But I'm not ready to tackle the
> relativistic implications yet. I have already found that angular momentum
> adds an interesting twist to relativity and I want to fully understand
> angular momentum and its interaction with physical systems before pushing it
> to the speed of light.
How can you formulate a general law of physics
without using relativity? Even Newton couldn't
do that.
> The basic principle is that c^2 is not merely a conversion constant. It has
> various real world meanings. The basic meaning of c^2 is that it is the
> geometry by which mass is converted to energy. But how does a solid object
> become a wave? I found the answer in angular momentum. Photons, electrons,
> protons, and neutrons (and other particles) have angular momentum, in fact,
> they ARE angular momentum. However, the photon is angular momentum times
> the speed of light. I then showed how the angular momentum of electrons is
> converted to the angular momentum of photons using c^2. So mass isn't
> really mass it is angular momentum. And electromagnetic radiation (photon)
> isn't really energy, it is angular momentum times c. Energy itself is a
> true conversion factor. Units convert to other units mainly by an energy
> transaction.
>
> For example, potential moves charge to produce energy, magnetic flux moves
> current, presure moves a volume, force moves a length, magnetic flux density
> moves magnetic moment, and dozens of others. There are other types of
> transactions as well with power, force, and light (to name a few,) but
> energy is the main transactor.
>
> There are postulates. For example, the four primary dimensions are
> postulates. All four primary dimensions have been rigorously verified by
> QM. But there are no metaphysical postulates.
You mean like the existence of "dimensions"?
Sounds metaphysical to me.
> Everything in my theory is
> built upon solid ground. Even when I describe things like the aether, it is
> all based on mathematics with solid grounding in QM. I choose to speak of
> the vacuum in terms of aether to both honor scientists like Maxwell, Tesla
> and Einstein who were certain of its existence, and because it does have a
> definite effect on this universe. Just because the aether does not have a
> particulate or energetic nature does not mean it doesn't exist.
So, ether isn't "metaphysical" either, huh?
> The purpose of beginning this research was to search for alternative energy
> sources.
Laudable.
> It had occurred to me that our present system of physics was
> severely limited and I wanted to see if there was something wrong with it.
Quite a conclusion based on intuition. Why is it that
people who want to "improve" the state of physics
think that best way to do that is to overthrow it
completely and start all over?
> It turns out that I found lots wrong with modern physics and what I have
> discovered is turning out to be a project that will last for several years,
> if not the rest of my life. And by the way, I have discovered several new
> methods for maintaining and transfering energy. I'm building experiments as
> we speak that will be patentable and provide evidence for new concepts I
> have discovered.
Also laudable.
> > > My theories
> > > began from QM and use the quantum values and constants maintained by
> NIST.
> > > The values my equations produce agree with the experimental data.
> >
> > Well, those "values" of QM employ hbar. What do
> > you have against hbar?
>
> I have explained this a dozen times already. hbar is a value Bohr pulled
> out of the air to satisfy an equation for angular momentum. The equation
> was setup under the assumption that a subatomic particle is a ball orbiting
> something.
All right, I'll put it this way. What difference does it
make what the origin of a concept or constant is
as long as it is useful for the development of
physical theories that work?
I wish I had the time to fully investigate your
theory, but alas I do not. Please just answer my
questions or else just ignore them altogether.
Patrick
Randy Poe
>
> "Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:3D8AE459...@attbi.com...
> > > My beef is with the people today who still rely on outdated, poorly
> > > constructed physics theories.
> >
> > These "poorly constructed theories" are supported by experiment. Since
> > the one and only criterion of success in physics is to predict the
> > outcome of experiments before they are done, what is the problem?
>
> Predicting one outcome is not the success of a theory. The theory must
> predict all outcomes relevant to the theory. The Balmer series are
> predicted by one form of an equation. The Lyman series are predicted by a
> slightly different form of the same equation. There aren't two separate
> theories here. Nor is hydrogen the only atom where a proper spectral
> equation will work. It is pretty obvious that there must be a better form
> of the equation that will work for all atoms and predict all spectral lines.
> The problem is that physicists are patting themselves on the back because
> they can produce an equation that predicts just one series of spectral lines
> for a hydrogen atom. That isn't a theory, it's a lucky guess.
I take it from this you believe that the visible part of the
hydrogen atomic spectrum is the only successful application
of the Schroedinger equation.
- Randy
David Thomson
> How come when I just question you on your
> "true nature of existence" that THAT'S
> "philosophy" in your mind, but your having
> proclaimed it in the first place isn't??
I anticipated your strategy to do the exact same thing to me. The phrase
"true nature of existence" is at best a metaphor in any discussion. It
conveys a certain reference to the object being discussed as being real
assuming that the context in which the object exists is also real. Of all
the scientific things that I said, I found it odd that you focussed on the
philosophical thing. It looked like a classic bait and switch argument.
You get me to reply based on one interpretation and then counter using a
different interpretation of the same phrase and try to make my argument look
wrong.
In fairness to us both, I replied to both interpretations of "true nature of
existence."
> > The proof of my "knowledge" is in the fact that the theory predicts the
> > correct results consistent with observation. What else can I say? What
> > else do you want to hear? Why not come back with something like, the
math
> > doesn't work because..., or there can't be two forms of charge
because...,
> > or you're predictions for strong charge are off because..., you know,
say
> > something scientific instead of reactionary.
>
> You have to be willing to define the terms you
> yourself employ, when you are asked you define
> them. It's only intellectual honest.
Now that that is done, how about a scientific inquiry from you? Don't you
also believe that it is intellectually honest to engage a discussion fully?
Are you just going to sit on the sidelines and correct my form and not
comment on the content?
> You tell me that your theory has no metaphysics,
> yet now you tell me that it deals with existence.
> That's metaphysics.
Explaining existence is metaphysics? What does physics explain then,
non-existence? Come clean and explain yourself in clear terms.
See, you just did it here. You used the bait and switch method of argument.
You found a word with more than one meaning, asked a question, and then
regardless of my answer, you came back with an argument using a different
meaning of the same word in an attempt to make me look wrong. You're not
interested in science. You have a manipulative ego that is only interested
in playing mind games.
> So, what you mean by "correctly identifying the
> structure of the subatomic particles" is just that
> it works to match experiment.
I said that I found mathematics that predicted the correct results and that
the mathematics were in complete agreement with experimental results.
> Well, I defer the question of true monochromatic
> light to experimentalists.
You defer anything related to science to someone else and retain the right
to manipulate others for yourself.
> > > hbar lives in all modern QM theories, such as embodied
> > > in the Dirac equation of the electron. This stuff is
> > > VERY accurate and in no way a dismal failure. QM
> > > has simply evolved from the structure of the atom,
> > > to the structure of the nucleus, to the "structure"
> > > of the fundamental particle as it relates to other
> > > particles of the same family. There is no failure here,
> > > except to a metaphysician. The fact that some theory
> > > didn't go as far as you wanted it to doesn't make it
> > > a failure. No theory is a theory of everything in
> > > terms of explaining everything. No theory can explain
> > > its own postulates.
>
> I said a lot above and you've lumped it all together.
> Please disambiguate it for me. Are you saying
> that a theory can explain its own postulates?
Read the last sentence.
> What is this "it" you refer to?
Look, I've answered enough mind game questions. If you don't have a valid
scientific interest in my theories, the discussion is over.
> Then that explanation is of necessity incomplete,
> because of those unexplained postulates.
You did the bait and switch thing again. No theory can explain its
postulates. But because my theory can't explain its postulates, then my
theory is incomplete.
> > There is no reason why a single universe, built upon a
> > singular event, shouldn't have a single physics model.
>
> I never said it couldn't. But every theory just starts
> somewhere arbitrarily and abruptly. It's NOT
> the universe that is incomplete; its our ability
> to characterize it in rational terms that is necessarily
> incomplete.
You did it again.
> > And for a universe
> > that originated from a single place, there is no reason why the physics
to
> > explain it should be complex as the physics we have today. It is
totally
> > illogical that a single event could give rise to a complex subatomic
physics
> > and then revert to a simple mechanical physics to explain the macro
world.
> > Even a child should see error in this chain of events.
>
> Maybe that depends on the nature of that
> so-called "single event."
And you're setting up another bait and switch manuever.
> > > So, you're claiming to have an equation better than
> > > the Dirac equation for the electron?
> >
> > It depends on what you are looking for in the electron. I have some of
the
> > electron values worked out such as magnetic moment, charge, some of the
spin
> > characteristics, and mass with respect to the proton. I'm presently
working
> > on energy states. The Dirac equation is not provable.\
>
> So, what *is* provable?
And setting up yet another.
> > But what I have
> > already discovered is provable.
>
> Yeah, right. But to be successful is NOT the
> same as to be TRUE.
And setting up yet another.
> > I can explain why 1 spin has 720 degrees. Can you?
>
> Irrelevant to my questions, predictably.
And when science comes along, you split. One more post like this and you're
blocked. I don't have time for people with character problems.
> This is such a typical response of the cranks. They
> can't just reply to the questions asked of
> them without slipping into a full defense of their
> pet theory all over again.
What is the topic of discussion here? Is it science or your view of my
discussion skills? You may have a serious problem in life. My experience
tells me that if you do this with one person, you likely do it with many
people in your life. If I were to profile you, I would guess you are a
paternalistic manipulator who preys on other peoples weaknesses in order to
develop a sense of strength. You are a parasite on the psyches of others.
The odds are very great that you particularly prey upon the weaknesses of
women. In all honesty, you really should visit a psychotherapist to verify
whether or not this is an accurate appraisal of your condition.
> So, if you want people to seriously listen to your theory, answer the
> questions put to you without preaching your pet theory at the drop of a
nano-hat.
If people want me to listen to their criticisms of my terminology, they had
first better try criticizing my theory and not me.
> How can you formulate a general law of physics
> without using relativity? Even Newton couldn't
> do that.
Another bait and switch setup.
> You mean like the existence of "dimensions"?
> Sounds metaphysical to me.
Another bait and switch setup.
> So, ether isn't "metaphysical" either, huh?
And yet another.
> > The purpose of beginning this research was to search for alternative
energy
> > sources.
>
> Laudable.
One halfway decent comment of my character. There is hope.
> Quite a conclusion based on intuition. Why is it that
> people who want to "improve" the state of physics
> think that best way to do that is to overthrow it
> completely and start all over?
Another bait and switch setup.
> > It turns out that I found lots wrong with modern physics and what I have
> > discovered is turning out to be a project that will last for several
years,
> > if not the rest of my life. And by the way, I have discovered several
new
> > methods for maintaining and transfering energy. I'm building
experiments as
> > we speak that will be patentable and provide evidence for new concepts I
> > have discovered.
>
> Also laudable.
It is obvious you really don't have any concern for the science.
> > > Well, those "values" of QM employ hbar. What do
> > > you have against hbar?
> >
> > I have explained this a dozen times already. hbar is a value Bohr
pulled
> > out of the air to satisfy an equation for angular momentum. The
equation
> > was setup under the assumption that a subatomic particle is a ball
orbiting
> > something.
>
> All right, I'll put it this way. What difference does it
> make what the origin of a concept or constant is
> as long as it is useful for the development of
> physical theories that work?
Are you really interested in what I have to say?
> I wish I had the time to fully investigate your
> theory, but alas I do not. Please just answer my
> questions or else just ignore them altogether.
Patrick, if you don't have the time to fully investigate my theories, I
don't have any desire to answer any more of your questions, let alone the
time.
Dave
David Thomson
news:3D8B5014...@atl.lmco.com...
> I take it from this you believe that the visible part of the
> hydrogen atomic spectrum is the only successful application
> of the Schroedinger equation.
No.
Dave
Randy Poe
OK, then please explain what you are alluding to by:
"Predicting one outcome is not the success of a theory."
and
"physicists are patting themselves on the back because
they can produce an equation that predicts just one
series of spectral lines for a hydrogen atom."
That sure sounds like you're saying the only time the
Schroedinger equation has ever been used is to predict
one series of spectral lines for a hydrogen atom.
- Randy
David Thomson
> OK, then please explain what you are alluding to by:
>
> "Predicting one outcome is not the success of a theory."
> and
> "physicists are patting themselves on the back because
> they can produce an equation that predicts just one
> series of spectral lines for a hydrogen atom."
The fact that Balmer was able to predict one set of spectral lines for
hydrogen does not mean he has a successful theory. If Balmer, or Lyman, or
Paschen would have generated an equation that predicted all spectral lines
for all atoms then that would be a successful theory. The fact that they
can't, clearly indicates they have not succeeded in fully understanding the
physics involved.
> That sure sounds like you're saying the only time the
> Schroedinger equation has ever been used is to predict
> one series of spectral lines for a hydrogen atom.
I didn't say anything of the kind.
Dave
HenriWilson
wrote:
>Hi Henry,
>
>> Thanks for the support David. I can assure you I can handle Bilgey on my
>> own.
>
>You have my moral support, but Bilge has my academic support. I think Bilge
>is academically right and I have the mathematics to prove it. I haven't
>seen any mathematics from you yet.
>
>> I have proved many times that photons cannot all be the same.
>> My latest demo is so blatanly obviously correct that
>> Bilgey has nothing left in his armory than ridicule and diversionary
>> tactics.
>
>I think Bilge may be frustrated, but not because he is wrong. What is the
>math you use behind your animation? Presumably you have a mathematical
>premise for designing your animation?
Why don't you look at it. Only logic is needed. The only maths involved is
a doppler equation. I don't care which one you use.
See "movingmirror.exe" at my site. Run it from site. it only takes a few
seconds to download..
I think you will agree it conclusively shows that all photons cannot be
identical.
I seem to have silenced Bilgey anyway.
>
>Dave
>
Henri Wilson.
Theoretical and applied Physicist.
See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
Bilge
Re: Proof that All Photons are not Identical. to usenet:
>news:3D8AE459...@attbi.com...
>> > My beef is with the people today who still rely on outdated, poorly
>> > constructed physics theories.
>>
>> These "poorly constructed theories" are supported by experiment. Since
>> the one and only criterion of success in physics is to predict the
>> outcome of experiments before they are done, what is the problem?
>
>Predicting one outcome is not the success of a theory.
model have had successful outcomes.
> The theory must
>predict all outcomes relevant to the theory. The Balmer series are
>predicted by one form of an equation. The Lyman series are predicted by a
>slightly different form of the same equation. There aren't two separate
>theories here.
> Nor is hydrogen the only atom where a proper spectral
>equation will work. It is pretty obvious that there must be a better form
>of the equation that will work for all atoms and predict all spectral lines.
lead.
>The problem is that physicists are patting themselves on the back because
>they can produce an equation that predicts just one series of spectral lines
>for a hydrogen atom. That isn't a theory, it's a lucky guess.
The various series of spectral lines is nothing more than a convenient
enumeration of transitions to a given energy level.
E = 13.5 eV [(1/n) - (1/n')]
n' = 0-infinity
lyman n = 1
balmer n = 2
etc.
>> All of the current theories used in physics are
>> overdetermined. They have fewer parameters than the number of cases to
>> which they are applied,
>
>My point exactly, they have fewer parameters than the number of cases to
>which they are applied. That is the problem. The physics used today are
>based on some wrong assumptions and that is part of the reason why the full
>set of parameters is not available.
Uh, the point is to have as few parameters as possible. Anyone
can fit N data points with N parameters.
[...]
>No, I'm still in the research phase. I'm sharing my notes online as a
>generosity to others who might also want a piece of the action. There are
>so many discoveries within my easy grasp (more than those I have already
>grasped) that it will take years for me to fully develop this revised
Unfortunately, because you won't make any attempt to learn any
of the physics developed over the past century, those will be
"re-discoveries".
Bilge
Re: Proof that All Photons are not Identical. to usenet:
>news:3D8B5FAC...@atl.lmco.com...
>> OK, then please explain what you are alluding to by:
>>
>> "Predicting one outcome is not the success of a theory."
>> and
>> "physicists are patting themselves on the back because
>> they can produce an equation that predicts just one
>> series of spectral lines for a hydrogen atom."
>
>The fact that Balmer was able to predict one set of spectral lines for
>hydrogen does not mean he has a successful theory. If Balmer, or Lyman, or
>Paschen would have generated an equation that predicted all spectral lines
>for all atoms then that would be a successful theory. The fact that they
>can't, clearly indicates they have not succeeded in fully understanding the
>physics involved.
long since dead, so you've left out the time frame. Also, those
series are not theories. They're empirical enumerations of specific
transitions and the only one known before the bohr model of the atom,
was the balmer series. The bohr model predicted the rest. The bohr
model has also been dead for a long,long time. Quantum mechanics
replaced it. So, you're competing with the bohr model of the atom,
but trying to extend it to other atoms.
David Thomson
> >The fact that Balmer was able to predict one set of spectral lines for
> >hydrogen does not mean he has a successful theory. If Balmer, or Lyman,
or
> >Paschen would have generated an equation that predicted all spectral
lines
> >for all atoms then that would be a successful theory. The fact that
they
> >can't, clearly indicates they have not succeeded in fully understanding
the
> >physics involved.
>
> Uh, they didn't understand the physics. Of course, they are also
> long since dead, so you've left out the time frame. Also, those
> series are not theories. They're empirical enumerations of specific
> transitions and the only one known before the bohr model of the atom,
> was the balmer series.
I happen to be studying spectral signatures right now. The hydrogen series
are not empirical enumerations, they are calculated frequencies.
The equation for the all three series is the same:
( 1 1 ) 1
Ra * ----------- = ------
( l^2*n^2) w
where l is a value from 1 to 3 and n is a value of l+1 to 6.
When l equals one you have the Paschen series, l equals 2 is the Balmer
series, and l equals 3 is the Lyman series. w is the wavelength for each
value of n.
> The bohr model predicted the rest. The bohr
> model has also been dead for a long,long time. Quantum mechanics
> replaced it.
QM is said to have replaced the Bohr model, but QM still uses hbar which is
defined by the Bohr model. So QM hasn't truly replaced the Bohr model. The
Bohr model is far from dead. If it were dead it wouldn't be taught in high
school and freshman college courses around the US.
Besides, in fairness to Bohr, his electron shell model is incorporated into
QM as it appears to be a correct interpretation of electron energy states.
> So, you're competing with the bohr model of the atom,
I'm just pointing out the physics being used today has a long way to go
before it is the best physics it can be. My theories are intended as
improvements to QM physics, not as a replacement or competitor.
Dave
Patrick Reany
David Thomson wrote:
> [snip]
> > > > Well, those "values" of QM employ hbar. What do
> > > > you have against hbar?
> > >
> > > I have explained this a dozen times already. hbar is a value Bohr
> pulled
> > > out of the air to satisfy an equation for angular momentum. The
> equation
> > > was setup under the assumption that a subatomic particle is a ball
> orbiting
> > > something.
> >
> > All right, I'll put it this way. What difference does it
> > make what the origin of a concept or constant is
> > as long as it is useful for the development of
> > physical theories that work?
>
> Are you really interested in what I have to say?
Very much so, but as I already stated, not
in every aspect. So, if you don't want me
to talk about your criticisms of Bohr's early
models and his use of hbar, then don't
mention them in the first place. I was, in
fact, ONLY replying to what YOU said
about them. Are you saying I made that up
about Bohr and hbar? You have a very
bad habit of making many positive statements
that you are unwilling to defend when time
comes to do so. I'll put it to you simply: Don't
make any positive statement of knowledge
that you're not willing to defend! That's what
a crank would do. And if you make subjective
criticisms of other people's work, you're fair
game to be criticized back for doing so. Or
are you the type that can dish it out, but can't
take it yourself?
So, if you prefer not to respond to my
criticisms of your posts, I don't care if you
refuse to reply to them. Nothing new
about that on these NGs.
Patrick
Robert Kolker
David Thomson wrote:
>
> QM is said to have replaced the Bohr model, but QM still uses hbar which is
> defined by the Bohr model. So QM hasn't truly replaced the Bohr model. The
> Bohr model is far from dead. If it were dead it wouldn't be taught in high
> school and freshman college courses around the US.
The Bohr Atom is no longer current. Bohr's model assumed definitive
trajectories for the electrons. Now this is replaced with a
probabalistic wave function that tells you the odds of an electron being
here or there. The Bohr Atom (part of the so-called Old Quantum Theory)
is of historical interest being the second atomic model to invoke
Planck's quantum. Einstein's photon theory wsa the first.
In the modern theory it is not possible to assign a genuiine orbit or
trajectory to electrons because of the H.U.P.
Bob Kolker
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
> > >... So call it whatever name you would like, tell me
> > > whatever name they liked. Their math still calls it a ball.
> >
> > Like the electron that hits the phosphor on my monitor screen?
>
> Is there some logic in this statement you would like to share? How does
the
> fact that an electron strikes your monitor prove that it is a ball?
It is localizable. It has mass, so it must be accelerated. It must be
aimed, so it has charge. It delivers a specific momentum to the screen
phosphor, so it expresses momentum. It does have wave properties, but they
are well described by uncertainty (sorry, I know you hate that) and the
total energy.
It is not a ball, but it is located approximately at a series of points in
the e-beam stream and does not dissipate. Yes the e-beam itself spreads,
but the single electron "geometry" does not.
David A. Smith
Patrick Reany
David Thomson wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > The bohr model predicted the rest. The bohr
> > model has also been dead for a long,long time. Quantum mechanics
> > replaced it.
>
> QM is said to have replaced the Bohr model, but QM still uses hbar which is
> defined by the Bohr model. So QM hasn't truly replaced the Bohr model.
You have once again employed a phrase which
is nonstandard: What does it mean to "truly
replace one model by another"? The answer
should be in a general context.
Patrick
David Thomson
> > Is there some logic in this statement you would like to share? How does
the
> > fact that an electron strikes your monitor prove that it is a ball?
>
> It is localizable. It has mass, so it must be accelerated. It must be
> aimed, so it has charge. It delivers a specific momentum to the screen
> phosphor, so it expresses momentum. It does have wave properties, but
they
> are well described by uncertainty (sorry, I know you hate that) and the
> total energy.
>
> It is not a ball, but it is located approximately at a series of points in
> the e-beam stream and does not dissipate. Yes the e-beam itself spreads,
> but the single electron "geometry" does not.
Well, if you say the electron is not a ball, I have no problem with that.
We agree at least on that much.
Dave
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
> Well, if you say the electron is not a ball, I have no problem with that.
> We agree at least on that much.
Well, I'm also not saying that they are not balls either. They exhibit no
behaviour to make anyone think they have any "handles" on them (other than
magnetic moment and charge). In other words, they have all the
characteristics of being little spheres, with mass distributed about their
"position" very uniformly.
If they are not balls, they are not far from it... at least far from an
"orbital".
David A. Smith
Bilge
>I'm just pointing out the physics being used today has a long way to go
>before it is the best physics it can be.
You really have no idea what physics exists. What you are pointing out is
physics that's almost a century old. Let me know what you find wrong with
qed, then get back to me.
David Thomson
> Well, I'm also not saying that they are not balls either. They exhibit no
> behaviour to make anyone think they have any "handles" on them (other than
> magnetic moment and charge). In other words, they have all the
> characteristics of being little spheres, with mass distributed about their
> "position" very uniformly.
>
> If they are not balls, they are not far from it... at least far from an
> "orbital".
Electrons as subatomic particles are described by their angular momentum.
The only dimensions available for describing the electron are its mass, a
length, and the velocity of light. Working with the experimentally derived
value of the angular momentum, its measured mass, and the known velocity of
light, the length turns out to be exactly one Compton wavelength.
The only configuration that I can find that uses these dimensions, and these
dimensions only, is that the electron is a ribbon of mass that scans an area
over a period of time.
This means the electron does not only exist in space, but it also exists in
time. The beginning of the electron is in one moment and the end is in the
very next quantum moment.
I can mathematically show that the electron is actually a split ribbon with
velocity in opposing directions. That the angular momentum of the electron
generates a strong charge. And that a full spin of strong charge scans an
area 1 / (4 * pi) the area of a sphere with equal radius as the angular
momentum. In other words, the electron is a ribbon of mass where a full
spin is 1/4pi the area of a sphere. The free electron dimensions of the
ribbon are a height of .159 * radius and a circumference of 2 pi * radius.
Subatomic particles are capable of changing their shapes in order to
conserve angular momentum when changing their "orbital" radius. We know the
"orbital" radius changes because electrons move from freedom to small atoms
and to large atoms and back with no difficulty.
Dave
David Thomson
> You really have no idea what physics exists. What you are pointing out
is
> physics that's almost a century old. Let me know what you find wrong with
> qed, then get back to me.
When you have the time to read my actual postings, get back to me and we
will continue the discussion into QED. You still don't see that hbar is a
century old and originated in the old physics. That was the point I was
making and that you missed.
Dave
HenriWilson
wrote:
>"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>> These "poorly constructed theories" have grounded the technology
>> wherewith you complain about how poorly constructed they are. Any
>> science that can produce fast computers that work reliably and complex
>> circuits that will fit up your nose can't be that poor.
>
>Are you saying science is beyond criticism because they do good things? I
>do good things with my physics, and you criticize me. The physics have to
>stand on their own. We cannot be complacent because a few lucky guesses
>have given us a few successes. Granted, there are inumerable successes in
>science, but there are inumerable mysteries and unknowns as well. The
>successes are due to the hard work of inumerable engineers and scientists,
>not to a perfectly successful physics theory.
I see you are starting to realize the kind of opposition you get from these
SRian deadheads David.
You will get nothing but criticism from these people. They are not
scientists. They don't have any creative ability whatsoever. They are
people who have read a lot about relativity and think physics has reached
the end of the road. They have closed indoctrinated minds similar to those
of religious fanatics. They will do anything to defend their blind faith in
the establishment.
Please don't be disheartened by their criticisms.
Just let them play their games of ridicule and distraction and have a good
laugh at their total inability to do anything that might further the cause
of science..
You will find the so called 'trolls and cranks' in this group are the only
ones with any imagination.
Robert Kolker
HenriWilson wrote:
> You will find the so called 'trolls and cranks' in this group are the only
> ones with any imagination.
>
You will forgive me if I do not believe in the hamburger until I see the
meat and the bun. Claims are many and substantial proofs are few.
Bob Kolker
David Thomson
> I see you are starting to realize the kind of opposition you get from
these
> SRian deadheads David.
No matter how bad it gets, I don't want to get dragged into a name calling
contest. I'll just remain patient and focussed. Since I have the science
and the mathematics to back it up, time is on my side.
> You will get nothing but criticism from these people. They are not
> scientists. They don't have any creative ability whatsoever. They are
> people who have read a lot about relativity and think physics has reached
> the end of the road. They have closed indoctrinated minds similar to those
> of religious fanatics. They will do anything to defend their blind faith
in
> the establishment.
I fully agree with your assessment, however. It amazes me that these same
type of critics were earlier asking for mathematics to back up my theories.
Now that I have the mathematics, and they are excellent mathematics, they
are hiding behind their own ignorance. It just proves to me that these guys
are not the big guns. I'll just continue sharing my notes and working on my
theories until I'm ready to present a paper. If these folks don't want to
join me in the glory, I'll do it without them. There are at least a couple
fortunate guys who are helping me on this project. They'll get credit for
their contributions.
> Please don't be disheartened by their criticisms.
Not at all. There have been times when I let it get to me, but then all I
had to do was look at the theory again and another discovery presented
itself. At this point of the game I look on these guys with pity. Many of
them have the hope of landing a big one and getting positive attention from
their discovery. I'm giving them a whole field of opportunities for major
discoveries and they are ignoring it. I still feel disheartened, but now it
is for their own sake. Ten years from now many of these people will look
back with deep regret. And to some extent, I'm going to feel a sense of
responsibility for their unhappiness.
> You will find the so called 'trolls and cranks' in this group are the only
> ones with any imagination.
There are some things that bother me. Being called names is not one of
them. I've had bad words thrown at me all my life and I haven't got one
scratch to show for it.
Dave
Franz Heymann
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
news:amgpouo46kmc4v0d5...@4ax.com...
[snip]
> You will find the so called 'trolls and cranks' in this group are the
only
> ones with any imagination.
And invariably they would come across better if they would back up their
imagination with some knowledge and understanding.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
"Anonymous" <ax1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2636c3ae.02091...@posting.google.com...
> > Really Henry, they are not the same photons. At every
> > reflection, one gets a new photon. Go figure, Henry.
> > [Old Man]
>
> How would you explain refraction of light, and the fact that light has
> a different speed in transparent solids, liquids, and gases in
> relation to a vacuum?
>
> If it were the absorption and emission of quanta, you would expect
> quantized speeds and net refraction indexes. If the interaction of
> the light with the transparent medium were continuous, then it would
> be non-quantized.
>
> How is refraction and the differences in the speed of light between a
> vacuum and another transparent medium like glass or air explained by
> quantum mechanics?
Your worries are dealt with comprehensively in any decent text book on
optics. Try Ditchburn "Light".
Franz Heymann
Bilge
>
>I fully agree with your assessment, however. It amazes me that these same
>type of critics were earlier asking for mathematics to back up my theories.
>Now that I have the mathematics, and they are excellent mathematics, they
>are hiding behind their own ignorance.
That simply isn't the case. As I've pointed out, what you have are
a collection of expression which were around almost 100 years ago and
which you've chose to write in an awkward way by defining multiple
new constants that end up cancelling out for any physical measurement.
Basically, you have worked backwards to undo a century's worth of physics
and along the way, ended up at various points that compelled physicists
at those points in time do the physics you've undone.
You seem to be largely unaware of the physics which is underneath the
formulae found in a modern physics text. You take bits and pieces and
string them together without knowing why. When you find something that
matches or comes close, you define new constants and try to use those
to explain more things. However, if you undefined all of the stuff you
defined, the expressions would end up with even fewer constants, because
they would cancel. But, I'll predict the future here, and point out
something you say you haven't solved yet, according to your web site.
The magic numbers 2,8,20,28,50,82 have a well-known origin and eventually
you may even guess the answer, especially since I've included a hint
below.
Nuclei are not atoms. An electron is very light compared to a nucleus
which provides the mean field in which the electron moves which makes
that nominally a central field. The weak spin-orbit and spin-spin
coupling between the electron and the nucleus means the levels defined
by the radial quantum number, n, are split only a small amount compared
to the difference in energies for different n values.
The nuclei move in their own mean field. It's not a central potential
except as an approximation, the force is spin dependent and the spin
orbit coupling is not weak. Shells are determined by the larger gaps in
the energy levels, not the radial quantum number. In atoms, the large
gaps occur for n, so in an atom the shells correspond to the radial
quantum number. The gaps don't occur there in nuclei and furthermore,
the orbital quantum numbers are not restricted to be less than the
radial quantum number. You end up with level crossings. The enegies for
the first few levels look like:
____ etc
/
0g ---- |
\ ===============
\____ 0g_9/2 _______ 10
____ 1p_1/2 _______ 2
/
1p ----- | ___ 0f_5/2 _______ 6 22 + 28 = 50
\/
/\___ 1p_3/2 _______ 4
0f------ |
\ ================
\
\__ 0f_7/2 _______ 8 8 + 20 = 28
================
1s ------ __ 0d_3/2 _______ 4
\/
/\__ 1s_1/2 _______ 2 12 + 8 = 20
0d------ |
\___ 0d_5/2 _______ 6
================
+---- 0p_1/2 -------- 2 6 + 2 = 8
0p ------|
+---- 0p_3/2 -------- 4
================
0s ----------- 0s_1/2 -------- 2 2
>It just proves to me that these guys are not the big guns.
What it proves is that you have no intention of listening to anyone,
regardless of what you think it proves.
>I'll just continue sharing my notes and working on my theories until
>I'm ready to present a paper. If these folks don't want to join me
>in the glory, I'll do it without them.
I'll wait for the show trial, where I'm forced to publically recant.
> There are at least a couple
>fortunate guys who are helping me on this project. They'll get
>credit for their contributions.
>
>> Please don't be disheartened by their criticisms.
>
>Not at all. There have been times when I let it get to me, but then all I
>had to do was look at the theory again and another discovery presented
>itself.
You'd do better by learning from the mistakes of others rather than
make the same ones that have already been made.
HenriWilson
wrote:
>Hi Henry,
Excellent post David.
Incidentally, I have been considering that 'mass' might be nothing more
than a volume of 'reverse field' inside another field.
Henri Wilson.
Theoretical and applied Physicist.
Also BSc(psychology, genetics)
HenriWilson
wrote:
>David Thomson said some stuff about
>
> >
> >I fully agree with your assessment, however. It amazes me that these same
> >type of critics were earlier asking for mathematics to back up my theories.
> >Now that I have the mathematics, and they are excellent mathematics, they
> >are hiding behind their own ignorance.
>
>
> You'd do better by learning from the mistakes of others rather than
>make the same ones that have already been made.
>
Bilgey, when are you going to comment on my demonstration showing that all
photons cannot be identical?
How can two photons that originate from the same source and strike the same
observer be identical if they exhibit different wavelengths?
Henri Wilson.
Theoretical and applied Physicist.
Also BSc(psychology, genetics)
David Thomson
> That simply isn't the case. As I've pointed out, what you have are
> a collection of expression which were around almost 100 years ago and
> which you've chose to write in an awkward way by defining multiple
> new constants that end up cancelling out for any physical measurement.
But you haven't done that, Bilge. What you have done is put out expressions
with mass in both the numerator and denominator, it is THESE expressions
that are backward and cancel out. When you put the same value in the
numerator and in the denominator of a fraction it is the same thing as
multiplying the remainder of the expression by 1. That is why
mathematicians simplify their work. Apparently some physicists don't
understand this very simple concept.
My expressions are completely simplified. They are solved to their most
fundamental form. I wouldn't have it any other way.
The constant of conductance that I derived by factoring permeability,
permittivity, and the speed of light from Coulomb's constant is a
fundamental constant. It represents conductance, a real component of the
vacuum.
> Basically, you have worked backwards to undo a century's worth of physics
> and along the way, ended up at various points that compelled physicists
> at those points in time do the physics you've undone.
No other physicist has defined conductance of the vacuum at any time in
history that I am aware of. No other physicist has defined strong charge in
terms of angular momentum and conductance at any time in history that I am
aware of. No other physicist has ever mathematically identified two
different types of charge and distinguished between them as elementary
charge and electromagnetic charge, as I have. Maxwell couldn't have done it
because the speed of light was not accurately measured back then, neither
could Coulomb for the same reason.
> You seem to be largely unaware of the physics which is underneath the
> formulae found in a modern physics text. You take bits and pieces and
> string them together without knowing why.
This is your opinion based on a lack of understanding of what I have
accomplished and intend to accomplish. I am very confident that calculus
(that measures change) is far inferior in utility to simple dimensional
algebra. The more I work with dimensional algebra and identify various
units, the clearer and simpler physics becomes. My interest is only in
modern data. There are many reasons why I think modern physics is off
track. After studying physics for over two decades I came to this
conclusion. You don't honestly think that someone who just cracked open a
book could simplify 100 years of unnecessarily complicated physics and
develop unique and novel equations? And that these equations would not only
predict accurate values in correct units but also predict values empirically
derived but not previously calculated?
You seem to be saying that it really doesn't matter if my novel equations
work or not, or that my simplified expressions are more accurately written
than standard expressions, or that I'm predicting values for strong charge
that were previously calculated as easily, or that I can mathematically
deliniate the difference between elementary charge and electromagnetic
charge. All that matters is that you don't like it, and therefore it is
wrong. You can't find any mathematical errors in my work. The only logical
explanation for your illogical responses is that you are in some way jealous
of my discovery and afraid that someone has truly found a simpler and more
accurate physics than you paid big bucks to learn.
> When you find something that
> matches or comes close, you define new constants and try to use those
> to explain more things.
That is not a complete thought. Find what that matches what? Explain what
"things?" Why are you so vague? Are you resorting to smear tactics because
you don't have any technical ammunition?
> However, if you undefined all of the stuff you defined
"All that stuff?" What in particular are you talking about?
>, the expressions would end up with even fewer constants, because they
would cancel.
Wrong! I clearly showed you before that when you put mass in the numerator
and the same mass in the denominator they cancel. And yet, this is what you
"simplified" my equation to. My equation IS simplified. Your equations
were not.
> Nuclei are not atoms.
And donkeys aren't elephants. Are you saying that it is my belief that
nuclei are atoms? Get it together and speak specifics. If you're referring
to the fact the nuclear binding energy equation on my website doesn't
account for the electron mass, that is only one of three equations I have
found that come close to predicting the binding energy. I have one equation
that does include the electron mass in the equation. The reason why I
posted the equation without the electron mass is because the Standard Model
clearly states that the mass of the electron is too insignificant to
contribute anything meaningful to the binding energy of the nucleus. I have
since discovered that elementary charge plays an important part in
determining the binding energy of the nucleus. So I have put the electron
into my equations and included an expression that accounts for charge
distribution.
> The weak spin-orbit and spin-spin
> coupling between the electron and the nucleus means the levels defined
> by the radial quantum number, n, are split only a small amount compared
> to the difference in energies for different n values.
The electron is not as weak an influence as you think it is. If an electron
gets knocked out of orbit the net charge in the nucleus is no longer neutral
and causes the protons to exert a force against each other. The lower the
ratio of neutrons to protons, the greater influence the charge change has on
nuclear stability. Just a single electron jumping out of orbit can set off
a chain reaction that causes certain isotopes to split apart into an alpha
decay. Likewise, the addition of an extra electron can offset the charge of
the nucleus enough in certain isotopes where a neutron emits an electron and
decays to a proton. I'm way ahead of you on making progress in nuclear
mechanics and structure. I just haven't posted my notes on this topic yet.
> In atoms, the large gaps occur for n, so in an atom the shells correspond
to the radial
> quantum number. The gaps don't occur there in nuclei and furthermore,
> the orbital quantum numbers are not restricted to be less than the
> radial quantum number. You end up with level crossings.
Thanks for sharing that. I didn't realize this before. You're right, the
number of electrons in an orbit are determined by the radial quantum number.
I can see that clearly. And because the nucleus doesn't have an internal
structure to force it into a fixed quantum structure, it can rearrange its
own structure as needed. It makes perfect sense.
> The enegies for the first few levels look like:
The ASCII diagram wasn't much help. Did you get this from a web page
somewhere?
> >It just proves to me that these guys are not the big guns.
>
> What it proves is that you have no intention of listening to anyone,
> regardless of what you think it proves.
Nonsense. This is your own sense of pride talking because I won't sit down
at your feet and accept everything you have to say. If you have the correct
solution, the math will speak clearly for itself. Your explanation of
electrons having radial quantum numbers was a good example, and I learned
something from you there. But your explanations of equations with the same
units in the numerator and denominator are not worth anything, and I'm not
too shy to say so. If you have the right answers, the right answers will
witness for themselves, the right answers don't need your opinions to
proclaim them right. So just provide the right answers, and not your
opinions.
> You'd do better by learning from the mistakes of others rather than
> make the same ones that have already been made.
That's my philosophy, learn from the mistakes of others. If I make any
mistakes, they will be completely new mistakes. My unified charge equation
is not a mistake, the conductance constant is not a mistake, the strong
charge equation is not a mistake, my revised system of quantum units is not
a mistake, these are all valid discoveries.
One mistake I did make, and that I corrected last week after I produced a
new system of units a couple weeks ago, was in realizing that I was
confusing energy with the photon much like modern physicists confuse the
photon with light. But I have this corrected and now I have correctly
identified energy, photon, and light as their own units with unique quantum
dimensions. I'm sure I'll make more unique mistakes in the future and have
probably already made other unique mistakes. But by continuing to research
and develop my theories I'll eventually work out the bugs so that you and
others won't end up making the same mistakes I've made.
Dave
David Thomson
> Incidentally, I have been considering that 'mass' might be nothing more
> than a volume of 'reverse field' inside another field.
Can you explain that more clearly? I'll listen to any concept about the
origin of mass.
Dave