Arrow of Time
in [Physics]
|
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 5 Jul 2010 12:38 On Jul 5, 11:26 am, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > 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. ------------------------------------------------------- You realize, of course, that when the term "forbidden" is used it does NOT literally mean forbidden. It means that a particular transition is unlikely, especially when more favored transitions are available. For RR Lyrae stars and their Atomic Scale analogues, I believe that they are undergoing magnetic dipole transitions, which are a different ballgame from electric dipole transitions, and have different levels of forbiddeness. Here is THE MAIN POINT. I observe RR Lyrae stars and their very specific behavior. I ask: do we observe something similar happening on the Atomic Scale. The answer is YES. Then I ask: do the analogues from different Scales obey the discrete self-similar scaling rules of Discrete Scale Relativity? The answer again is YES. THIS RESEARCH HAS NOW BEEN APPLIED TO 4 DIFFERENT CLASSES OF VARIABLE STARS. This research will stand the test of time and detailed objective evaluations, your closed-minded innuendoes notwithstanding. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 5 Jul 2010 12:45 On Jul 5, 9:26 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > > I think, that we have way too much output to arxiv.org and other > places. And we have not enough connections between these results. > To me this is just some other aspect of a nightmare, because it seems > almost impossible to fix this problem. That means, we have truckloads of > unrelated stuff, that nobody could ever read. This can't be the way, > things should be done. > There is only one way out of this and this would be some kind of > fundamental model, that describes nature as it really functions on the > most fundamental level possible. ----------------------------------------------- Thomas, No need to be dispondent. Science is self-correcting. A new paradigm will come along and sweep away all the Platonic and Ptolemaic deadwood and retain what is worthwhile in a new understanding of the cosmos. The new cosmological paradigm will be conceptually simple and mathematically elegant. In fact the basic principles, concepts and empirical evidence for the new paradigm already exist. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert Higgins on 5 Jul 2010 12:54 On Jul 5, 12:25 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > 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. But YOUR OWN paper uses n<11. > > 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. Well, there are no selection rules for transition of a planet (or monn) from one orbit to another - and that did not press me very hard. > > Solve the Schrodinger equation for the atomic system I identify and > you will see that I am correct. Obviously, the Schroedinger equation is UNSOLVABLE for lithium, as it is for ANY system with more than one electron. I know a bit about the methods for approximate (if very successful) solution of such systems. Which methods do you have in mind? > > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert Higgins on 5 Jul 2010 13:12 On Jul 5, 12:38 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On Jul 5, 11:26 am, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > 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. > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > You realize, of course, that when the term "forbidden" is used it does > NOT literally mean forbidden. It means that a particular transition > is unlikely, especially when more favored transitions are available. Yes, I realize very well what "forbidden" means. For any sufficiently complex system, there are so many extremely weak electronic transitions that you can find "self-similarity" anywhere. > > For RR Lyrae stars and their Atomic Scale analogues, I believe that > they are undergoing magnetic dipole transitions, which are a different > ballgame from electric dipole transitions, and have different levels > of forbiddeness. Not only do magnetic dipole transitions have different level of fobiddenness, they have different selection rules. First off, they still have the same spin selection rule, so that does not help your case. Second, it does not help with the delta J or Delta L rules, which are exactly the same as for electric dipole transitions (the most common and intense). Worse still, ALLOWED magnetic dipole transitions are something like 10^-4 as intense (as likely) as an allowed electric dipole transition. IOW, ALLOWED magnetic dipole transitions have about the same probability as a Laporte forbidden electric dipole transtion. WHile your at it, what about electric QUADRAPOLE transtions? > > Here is THE MAIN POINT. > > I observe RR Lyrae stars and their very specific behavior. I ask: do > we observe something similar "Something similar" that only happens for singly excited 4He in a medium level Rydberg state, undergoing spin- and otherwise-forbidden MAGNETIC DIPOLE transitions, and corresponds to one very specific type of variable star. "Similar" if you ignore things like selection rules. > happening on the Atomic Scale. The answer > is YES. Then I ask: do the analogues from different Scales obey the > discrete self-similar scaling rules of Discrete Scale Relativity? The > answer again is YES. No. Not to be critical, but if you submit such work to a journal, and it gets reviewed by a chemist, you'll get massacred. Maybe astronomers like this kind of stuff, but it is completely inadequate from the point of view of chemistry. > > THIS RESEARCH HAS NOW BEEN APPLIED TO 4 DIFFERENT CLASSES OF VARIABLE > STARS. What is the connection between each type of star and its atomic model? Do RR Lyrae stars have more 4He than any other star? Is the 4He in Rydberg states with n around 10? > > This research will stand the test of time and detailed objective > evaluations, your closed-minded innuendoes notwithstanding. "Close-minded"??? Hmmmm, no. I am giving you the benefit of a chemist's analysis. Your paper reads as if you a complete amateur in physical chemistry and spectroscopy. > > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: eric gisse on 5 Jul 2010 16:26
Robert Higgins wrote: [...] > > "Close-minded"??? Hmmmm, no. > I am giving you the benefit of a chemist's analysis. Your paper reads > as if you a complete amateur in physical chemistry and spectroscopy. It also reads that way as if he's a complete amateur in cosmology as well. The symmetry is appealing. > > >> >> RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |