Arrow of Time
in [Physics]
|
From: Sam Wormley on 6 Jul 2010 01:50 On 7/5/10 11:27 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jul 5, 10:07 pm, Yousuf Khan<bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> Which is why it's considered a _transition_ point from quantum to >> classical behaviour. > -------------------------------------------------- > > Near the transition point. > > Both systems are quantum/classical systems. There is no observable evidence that the solar system, as a whole, shows behavior modeled by the quantum mechanics. > > Most people do not recognize the quantum nature of the Solar System, > but it is there for anyone to see, just as in the case of the atom. Cite you evidence please. > > RLO > www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: G. L. Bradford on 6 Jul 2010 13:39 "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rloldershaw(a)amherst.edu> wrote in message news:a48e4d66-1041-41dc-b532-23ed6061b856(a)b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... On Jul 5, 10:07 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > > Which is why it's considered a _transition_ point from quantum to > classical behaviour. -------------------------------------------------- Near the transition point. Both systems are quantum/classical systems. Most people do not recognize the quantum nature of the Solar System, but it is there for anyone to see, just as in the case of the atom. RLO ==================== Regarding the macroscopic, you don't begin to realize anything like the "quantum nature" of it until you begin to realize planes of the macroscopic, and dual and multiple universes (such as the "observable universe" and the 'unobservable universe' slightly to titanically forward of it in space and time (to perceive and identify just one dual nature of the macroscopic that just barely begins to edge into it)). GLB ====================
From: Robert Higgins on 6 Jul 2010 16:51 On Jul 6, 12:22 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On Jul 5, 1:12 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > "Close-minded"??? Hmmmm, no. > > I am giving you the benefit of a chemist's analysis. > > ---------------------------------------- > > Ok then look at the papers in this list that deal with variable stars > (2 have been published in a peer-reviewed physics journal). > > http://arxiv.org/a/oldershaw_r_1 > > START with the SX Phoenicis stars paper. The lack of standard spectroscopic notation makes this paper very hard to follow, since there are often two electron transfers undergone simultaneously. Without use of the proper term symbols, it's impossible to tell immediately which transitions are allowed. It is helpful to use chemistry terminology and notation when making a chemical argument. > > Read it with an open mind. I doubt that you can attribute this unique > match-up between the stellar and atomic analogues to random chance or > cherry-picking or forcing. But I am willing to listen to your > arguments. There are two things which I don't follow: 1) Why are some variable stars "similar" to singly excited helium and others to doubly excited carbon? 2) How your examples, even if they were more compelling, constitute "self-similarity". This somewhat connects to point (1). Are there any stars which are primarily singly excited Rydberg state helium? doubly excited Rydberg state carbon? > > Let's take it ONE issue at a time. > > We may both learn something. Unfortunately, I don't have easy access to your source for the Rydberg helium data. Nevertheless, I suspect that there is no clear correlation between the intensities of the electronic transitions, and the "intensity" of some period of the star. > > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: BURT on 6 Jul 2010 17:45 On Jul 6, 10:39 am, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...(a)insightbb.com> wrote: > "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote in messagenews:a48e4d66-1041-41dc-b532-23ed6061b856(a)b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 5, 10:07 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Which is why it's considered a _transition_ point from quantum to > > classical behaviour. > > -------------------------------------------------- > > Near the transition point. > > Both systems are quantum/classical systems. > > Most people do not recognize the quantum nature of the Solar System, > but it is there for anyone to see, just as in the case of the atom. > > RLO > > ==================== > > Regarding the macroscopic, you don't begin to realize anything like the > "quantum nature" of it until you begin to realize planes of the macroscopic, > and dual and multiple universes (such as the "observable universe" and the > 'unobservable universe' slightly to titanically forward of it in space and > time (to perceive and identify just one dual nature of the macroscopic that > just barely begins to edge into it)). > > GLB > > ==================== The subatomic of the solar system is vibrating except when in quantum jump of wave or matter wave surrpession by light aether flow contact. Mitch Raemsch
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 6 Jul 2010 22:41
On Jul 6, 4:51 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > There are two things which I don't follow: > 1) Why are some variable stars "similar" to > singly excited helium and others to doubly > excited carbon? > 2) How your examples, even if they were more > compelling, constitute "self-similarity". This > somewhat connects to point (1). Are there any > stars which are primarily singly excited Rydberg > state helium? doubly excited Rydberg state carbon? ---------------------------------------- Discrete Scale Relativity predicts that for every type of Atomic Scale phenomena there are exact self-similar analogues on the Stellar Scale. Since there are helium atoms undergoing single-level transitions in nature, AND since there are doubly excited carbon atoms undergoing 2- photon transitions in nature, then we should observe Stellar Scale systems doing the same thing. Right? I think the above answer should your question #2. To put it even more baldly: Everything we observe on the Atomic Scale will be exactly repeated on the Stellar Scale, and the Galactic Scale, and the Subquantum Scale, and for every cosmological Scale of the infinite self-similar hierarchy of conformally invariant Scales constituting nature. It is an idea that goes back to Democritus, Kant, Spinoza, Hermann Weyl, G. de Vaucouleurs, etc., etc., ... Finally we may have enough observational evidence to make this worlds-within-worlds paradigm a serious contender. It certainly makes more sense than the hackneyed postmodern pseudoscience that theoretical physicists keep trying to force-feed us. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |