Arrow of Time
in [Physics]
|
From: bert on 5 Jul 2010 09:16 On Jul 5, 12:16 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On Jul 4, 1:12 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > > > > > > > For particle anti-particle annihilation I assume the opposite behavior > > of 'un-trapped patterns'. As I assume a generally left-handed behavior > > of spacetime, right-handed substructures are the anti-entities. Those > > are possible, but unlikely. That is like a particle in a mirror. > > > > Just make sure your proposed physical events are fully ordered by > > > causality. This constitutes the real "arrow of time". > > > The very counter-intuitive aspect of this concept is, that it could have > > timelines, that are 'perpendicular' to ours. That means something like > > Wick rotation to our timeline, where a new and different space appears. > > With such a shift all other relations are shifted, too. That means the > > connections and the vortices could be exchanged. And the change could be > > done smooth. That means, we could alter the temporal context of a state.. > > So there are no 'real arrows of time', because time is a local concept > > for any such state. > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Hi Thomas, > > You are certainly a font of ideas! > > If you want scientists to seriously consider your ideas, then you must > offer them some nice elegant retrodictions, and hopefully one or two > definitive predictions. > > There are so many new ideas floated out every day from arxiv.org and > the web that one needs a way to sift the wheat from the chaff. Science > does this via retrodictions and predictions/testing. > > Saying the uinverse is a 143-dimensional hyper-vuvuzela is dandy, but > if it can't be tested empirically what good is the idea? > > So I would encourage you to work towards a few good retrodictions and > predictions for your ideas. > > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Cosmos has two big balancing acts. Spacetime can run foreward,and backwards equally,and so it does. This is the heart of my 5th field force theory TreBert
From: Yousuf Khan on 5 Jul 2010 09:30 On 7/5/2010 10:02 AM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jul 4, 2:03 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Obviously not fractal. Atoms don't behave anything like planetary >> systems and irregular galaxies. - SW > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Sam, I can show you atoms that behave very much like planetary > systems, in fact the atomic physicists who study them call them > "PLANETARY ATOMS". Ever heard of them? > > They are atoms in highly excited Rydberg states. They involve particle- > like electron wavefunctions, planarity, and orbiting just like the > Solar System. Though that's true, Rydberg atoms are actually very good examples of where the transition from the quantum state to the macroscopic state occurs. The electrons in Rydberg atoms are so far away from their nuclei, that they are far outside the quantum realm. They are just balancing on the edge of becoming completed ionized. In the uncontrolled daily life on Earth, Rydberg atoms would be ionized right away, as their binding energy would be far less than the thermal energy of the background. Yousuf Khan
From: Huang on 5 Jul 2010 10:04 On Jul 5, 8:30 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > On 7/5/2010 10:02 AM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > > > On Jul 4, 2:03 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Obviously not fractal. Atoms don't behave anything like planetary > >> systems and irregular galaxies. - SW > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > Sam, I can show you atoms that behave very much like planetary > > systems, in fact the atomic physicists who study them call them > > "PLANETARY ATOMS". Ever heard of them? > > > They are atoms in highly excited Rydberg states. They involve particle- > > like electron wavefunctions, planarity, and orbiting just like the > > Solar System. > > Though that's true, Rydberg atoms are actually very good examples of > where the transition from the quantum state to the macroscopic state > occurs. The electrons in Rydberg atoms are so far away from their > nuclei, that they are far outside the quantum realm. They are just > balancing on the edge of becoming completed ionized. In the uncontrolled > daily life on Earth, Rydberg atoms would be ionized right away, as their > binding energy would be far less than the thermal energy of the background. > > Yousuf Khan If you bend space enough I believe that the Rutherford atom may be salvageable, but nobody would ever agree with me until they see it on paper. Rightly so. And although I have a general methodology for bending space like that, it's very unorthodox and people would bawlk at that for many years to come whether true or false.
From: Robert Higgins on 5 Jul 2010 11:26 On Jul 5, 12:02 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On Jul 4, 2:03 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 7/4/10 12:57 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > The statement was not 'the universe is a fractal'. It was: the universe > > > has a fractal structure. > > > The difference is, that the universe means: everything. > > > The assumption is, that the universe is organized with kind of steps, > > > that are self-similar. The steps we know of are: sub-atomic, atoms, > > > planets, planetary systems, galaxies, galaxy clusters, super-clusters.. > > > -TH > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Obviously not fractal. Atoms don't behave anything like planetary > > systems and irregular galaxies. - SW > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Sam, I can show you atoms that behave very much like planetary > systems, in fact the atomic physicists who study them call them > "PLANETARY ATOMS". Ever heard of them? > > They are atoms in highly excited Rydberg states. They involve particle- > like electron wavefunctions, planarity, and orbiting just like the > Solar System. > > Here is a direct quotation from a Physical Review paper: > > "We predict the existence of a self-sustained one-electron wave packet > moving on a circular orbit in the helium atom. The wave packet is > localized in space, but does not spread in time. This is a realization > within quantum theory of a classical object that has been called a > "Rutherford atom," a localized planetary electron on an unquantized > circular orbit under the influence of a massive charged core." > > "[W]e provide the first demonstration of the existence of what has > been called [14] a "Rutherford atom," i.e., the wave function for a > single electron moving on an unquantized stable and nonspreading > planetary orbit about a massive charged core." > ----------------------------------- > > I can also show you atoms and stars displaying unique and rigorous > discrete self-similarity, including masses, shapes, physical behavior > and frequency spectra that match up amazingly well. See: > > http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0510/0510147.pdf Why should these variable stars be "similar" to singly excited 4He Rydberg atoms, and not singly excited 3He Rydberg atoms? Why not DOUBLY excited 4He, for that matter? (This is an easy question to answer). You know, of course, that Rydberg atoms have a rather shorter lifetime than RR Lyrae stars, particularly at the temperature of a star. > > The problem is that you are still thinking in terms of mid-20th > century atoms. We have learned alot about atoms since then. True. You use a very confusing method to represent the electronic states you are talking about. The term symbols you use seem to be for the final state, and you left out the J values. If you had written out the electronic transitions in standard term symbols, it would have jumped out that almost all the transitions you describe are forbidden. Many of them are strongly spin forbidden. Either you don't know anything at all about electronic transitions, or you are being deliberately dense here. Even for the transitions that are not spin forbidden, the s -> s transitions for the second electron are all Laporte forbidden, and forbidden because they violate the law of conservation of angular momentum. For electronic transition, delta L is required to be 1 or -1. Delta J can be 0, 1, or -1, but you can't have J=0 go to J=0, which is exaclty what you have for all the s ->s transitions. You cherry-picked the delta n =1 rule, since it is NOT a selection rule. If you use any other values, you would not get the "agreement" you are looking for. This is the problem with all your work - it is cherry-picking of completely unrelated data, in service of a "just so" story. > > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 5 Jul 2010 12:25
On Jul 5, 9:30 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > > > They are atoms in highly excited Rydberg states. They involve particle- > > like electron wavefunctions, planarity, and orbiting just like the > > Solar System. > > Though that's true, Rydberg atoms are actually very good examples of > where the transition from the quantum state to the macroscopic state > occurs. The electrons in Rydberg atoms are so far away from their > nuclei, that they are far outside the quantum realm. They are just > balancing on the edge of becoming completed ionized. In the uncontrolled > daily life on Earth, Rydberg atoms would be ionized right away, as their > binding energy would be far less than the thermal energy of the background. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- You offer a rather mediocre understanding of atomic physics. A Rydberg atom with n = 10 or even n = 30 is still very much a quantum system. When you get to n =/> 100 then classical behavior tends to dominate, but quantum behavior is still there. If you compare a lithium atom with electrons having principle quantum numbers of 1, 5 and 168, and with l ~ m ~ n-8, with the Solar System, you would be hard pressed to find ANY difference between these two analogues EXCEPT THEIR RELATIVE SCALES. Solve the Schrodinger equation for the atomic system I identify and you will see that I am correct. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |