Electron and proton attraction by opposite charge
in [Relativity]
|
From: Androcles on 28 May 2010 18:31 "ben6993" <ben6993(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4562b6f2-b758-4d89-a625-648209a90e26(a)o15g2000vbb.googlegroups.com... On May 28, 10:55 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "ben6993" <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > You are entitled to your own crazy assumptions. I can only pity > you. I cannot help you, I have no qualifications in psychiatry. That was a very sad comment. I don't know why, but I expected more decency from you. Bye. ========================================== My apologies. I deeply regret I cannot help you, but as I stated, I am not qualified to do so. I live in the real world and have an engineering and mathematical background, not your fantasy world of 'crazy assumptions' (your words). And yes, it is sad. Goodbye and good luck to you.
From: spudnik on 28 May 2010 18:40 Mz. Nettikkett, DON'T TOP-POST, please. > > > > > > > > > > =============================================== > > > > > > > > > > You really should learn the difference between > read more » thusNso: why does the inherent necessity of Uncertainty, in measuring any correlated pair of properties, mean that teh math must be r e i f i e d into, "this is what the particles really do/are?" why cannot we just say, that the uncertainty is solely in the apparatus & observation, and that the system that was observed has been "Englished" out of our little phase-space diagrams?... stick, for now, to momentum & location; thank *you*. as for Minkowski's slogan-and-then-he-died about time & space, just use quaternions (for a point). > by "theoretical appeal" I mean that these "virtual particles" > and "vacuum fluctuations" are the bread and butter of thsuNso: yeah (you meant); the pair of not-nessecarily-particulate-photons will have correlated polarizations. as for momentum, that is the profound nonsense of assuming that a quantum, called "photon," has to be a corpuscle -- and using an equation about the energy, that uses "momentum" (and thereby assumes a rest-mass). > Yes, EP&R were correct. There is no instantaneous action at a > distance. When a downgraded photon pair are created, in order for > there to be conservation of momentum, the original photons momentum > must be maintained. That is why detecting on photon means its pair > will always be detected with the opposite spin. thusNso: interesting thread; is one cycle of the wave, to be considered the wavelength and quantum of "photon?" note that the OP immediately falls to the typical linearization of the "wave" (in space), as with de Broglie's "guidewave" for the self- assumed particulate meaning of "photon;" cause that's what Einstein, thought at the time -- is it in the 1905 paper? there is certainly one place where a lightwave of pure frequency, looks like a sine-wave: in an oscilloscopic trace of a wire, or other "spacetime" referent -- Death to the lightconeheads; long-live Minkowski! > >> Like absolute zero, Planck offered a minimum distance. Which is > >> therefore a minimum wavelength. has anyone figured out what the > >> resulting maximum frequency mite be? > > Correct about maximum temperature, although > E = hí thusNso: time isn't reversible, just because you can draw a "worldline" on a piece of "1+1dimensional paper;" that is just a kind of phase-space, strictly a mathematical fromalism a la hamiltonians & lagrangians. yes, phase-spaces in electronics e.g. might be formally "reversible," but, so, What?... you mean, like the "space-time flipbook" of Lawd Rees? thusNso: "retrodiction" of Bode's law for atoms? hey, Kepler was far more correct than is allowed, even though he only had the seven planets of astrology -- and, he was Court Astrologer. there was an article in *Fusion*, that had a formularium that worked for all of the planets, and all of the moons of all of the plants, as I recall. (of course, they/we are a bunch of platonists, anyway .-) thusNso: as Tim LocquaciousHand implies, "composition" of two rotations, one after the other, is not commutative, as the demonstration also can be modeled with quaternion multiplications; in any case, two rotations resolve into one, about a different axis. the question is, if you try to do them simultaneously, what happens? and, please, see if you can show it with quaternions, instead of this interminable blabfest; thank *you*. thusNso: Dear woould-be replacer of Jerry "no oil, except from Texas etc." Brown: no change from Jerry Brown's '69 "platform," eh? it is intolerably strange, insofar as we do need "fossilized fuels TM (sik)," to not get our share from our own "reserves." really, though, it is merely biomass, and the techniques have progressed since '69. Dubya's bro's ban offshore of Florida (and Louisiana) seemed like a tactical maneuver to support the oilcos' scarcity programme in our state. (why O why O why do folks believe, that the oilcos did not support the Kyoto Protoccol, which was just another cap'n'trade "free trade" nostrum, that Dubya'd have undoubtdely signed, if he had been told?) British Petroleum, the balls-out advocate of cap'n'trade, "Beyond Petroleum," is also the biggest company in the Alaska North Slope -- doesn't any body wonder, why no-one asked Palin about her BP-employed hubbie, and his Seccesionist ideals? one must take into consideration, with all of the hype about it, that oil comes out of the ground underwater in "seeps," under pressure. so, how much would come out, if BP et al ad vomitorium were not pumping like crazy? Waxman's current cap'n'trade bill just mandatorizes the huge, voluntary cap'n'trade since 2003 -- tens of billions in hedging per annum. what the Liberal Media (Ownwd by consWervative) don't talk about, is that he brought the first cap'n'trade bill in '91, under HW (who worked with Gore on the Kyoto cap'n'trade). what it amounts to, as Waxman basically admitted to, when he was at UCLA, is "let the arbitrageurs raise the price of energy, as much as they can in the 'free market' -- free beer, freedom!" a small, adjustable carbon tax would achieve the same ends -- as I even read "in passing" in a guest editorial in the WSUrinal, as well as from an "expert" in a UCLA seminar, but who said that it was (some how) "politically impossible" -- without being the Last Bailout of Wall Street (an the City of London). thusNso: I never read a word about Palin's hubbie's Seccesh "movement" in the Liberal Media (Owned by consWervatives) and that is sort-of the issue in AZ. I'm all for kids whose parents managed to sneak across the border & give birth, but I was taken aback by the "sense of entitlement" that the older kids have, about college (the DREAM Act; I stated to a group of them, that crossing the border is essentially a Mexican "rite of passage," and it is certainly not very dangerous as a proper hike, if you check the FAQs and maps & so forth from the Mexican goment (and those advocacy/ haven groups in the USA; it may be difficult in the summer, though). well, it's either that or college *in* Mexico, or you'll probably be made to join a gang. La Raza d'Atzlan are openly racist, not just by their title; at least, that's the impression that I got, attending one of their meetings at UCLA, two or three years ago -- it's in their God-am constitution. of course, teh real problem is "free trade," and this is already here to roost; the little spill in the Gulf is being used by British Petroleum -- which is also the #1 driller in the Alaska North Slope, that Ted Palin works for -- to create an "outsourcing" mandate to solve the problem, because we can't do it with our post-industrial cargo cult. well, iscrew that! read LaRouche, if you want to know the history with Lincoln and his "Spot Resolutions;" Cinco de Mayo should be a pan-american holiday! --Light: A History! http://wlym.com
From: BURT on 30 May 2010 16:49
If proton and electrons are attractive in opposite charge why do they need to be forced together? Something is wrong with the theory since they never come together of their own accord. Mitch Raemsch |