Electron’s puzzles.
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Stardust in the Solar Wind
Next: Perhaps added rest mass keeps photons moving at c and only c.
From: glird on 24 Apr 2010 17:45 On Apr 23, 11:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 23, 10:28 am, maxwell <s...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > > Could you supply one reference (preferably online) which MEASURES the gravitational effects on a single electron? This effect seems very unlikely as the ratio of the EM to gravitational force on an electron is at least 10**40. > > > > http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977RScI...48....1W I looked at the referenced page and found nothing about HOW the g- force is measured. Thinking that perhaps it might be treated in "physics today", I picked up the nearest issue and opened it to -- of all things -- "Universal insights from few-body land" by C. H. Greene. I started to read the article and found its main thesis ("The universal properties of systems having short-range interactions -- be they among cold atoms or nucleons or molecule -- connect in turn to the beautiful but mysterious effect discovered by nuclear theorist Vitaly Efimov ... in 1969") fascinating. On studying the article after being intrigued by its next sentence ("Within the past four years, progress has erupted in exploring the Efimov effect and related phenomena through the manipulation of dilute atomic gases near a Fano-Feshbach resonance") I read the rest of the page and the next one, studying its Figures 1 and 2 and trying to understand what it was talking about even though its math is WAY over (or under?) my head. Then I turned to the next page (62, of this March, 2010 issue) and was reading the part entitled "The Smoking Gun" and then, when I got to the place where it said "in 2009 several experiments managed to obtain completely convincing and unambiguous evidence -- smoking guns of universal physics" I looked at Figure 3 across the entire top of the page; and WHAMM!! There, in deep blue, was a line tracing out EXACTLY THE SAME pattern hand drawn as the structural pattern of all mono-nuclear matter-units, from atoms to galaxies, in my 1965 book, The Nature of Matter and Energy (Figure 41-4 on page 320). Here is one of the sentences ... Sorry! On looking for ONE key sentence I found myself back at pg 211, and it is now an HOUR or so later and i am still too fascinated by my own words to pick out one sentence for you, here. As to an electron, that story is complicated. glird
From: franklinhu on 30 Apr 2010 17:20 On Apr 21, 7:55 am, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > On Apr 21, 10:02 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 4/21/10 6:50 AM, socratus wrote: > > > > What is an electron ? > > > The best description comes from the equations > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron > > Gee, Thanks for the official reference, Sam. Are you sure you don't > have any literature from the "electron promotion society" you can try > to pass off as a scientific paper? > > But now I've got another problem. I can't figure out what this thing > electrons have called "charge" is! Well, I don't know what an electron is made out of or how it is structured, but I can tell you that it acts like a tiny bell which rings out at a specific frequency when it collides with something. Positrons are identical except they ring 180 degress out of phase from the electrons. The attraction you see as 'charge' is really just the phase interaction between the electron and positron. When the waves from a positron/electron come together, they cancel creating a low pressure region which causes the electron/positron to move towards each other. Similarly, 2 electrons create a high pressure region and repel. 'Charge' is just this constant high frequency em ringing of the electron. fhucharge
From: glird on 9 May 2010 18:10 On May 8, 3:28 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 8, 1:37 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote: > > On May 8, 10:18 am, PD wrote: > > > On May 8, 2:48 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote: ><<< The spin for a given quantum state is usually represented by a vector, where the components are the expectation values of the spin operator -- not a tensor. > ><< Not quite, as far as I know, that has yet to be determined, Ken >< I don't think so. Yes, I know tensors, Ken, but spin is not a tensor.> snip >< Well Paul, I'm not sure we can simplify spin to your level of understanding, but if you're serious we can go to "spin connections" in Weinberg's QFT Vol.3, Eq.(31.5.17). > > Indeed. A spin connection is not a spin vector. > A spin connection is a connection in a spinor bundle. > It helps to know what the words mean, Ken. >> The math is a bit detailed, but the concept is straight-forward, but my impression is you (Paul) enjoy science on a superficial level, so that's why I avoid math with you ... you post for some relaxation, fine with me. Regards Ken S. Tucker > I find both of you reasonable and well informed. Both of you seem logically AND mathematically adept. Even so, PD is right in saying "It helps to know what the words mean". Until you both know exactly what the following words mean, you can't understand your own subjects: mass, energy, quantum state, renormalization, expectation value, probability, photon, point-sized, etc etc. Here is an example: In his 1905 SR paper Einstein wrote an equation, tau = a(), in which he said that a is a function of v; which he expressed as phi(v). A bit later he said that phi(v) = 1. He never did say what "a" denotes all by itself. If we let a denote acceleration, then a = phi(v) = 1 denotes acceleration = d(dx/dt) = 1. That means that for any given change in the value of v, the value of _a_ changes by an identical amount. However, after writing eta = phi(v)y and finding that phi(v) = 1, instead of realizing that this means that the value of phi(v)y, thus of eta, CHANGES as v does; he DELETED the symbol from his equations. Although that did leave him with the LTE, in which eta and zeta are independent of v or any change in it, neither he nor anyone since seems to have realized that the latter requires that phi(v) = 0; i.e. that there is NO change in the value of a = phi(v) as v changes. Regards to both of you, glird
From: glird on 12 May 2010 15:11 On May 9, 8:24 pm, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: glird: >< In his 1905 SR paper Einstein wrote an equation, tau a(t - vx'/(c^2 - v^2) in which he said that a is a function of v; which he expressed as phi(v). A bit later he said that phi(v) = 1. He never did say what "a" dnotes all by itself. > W: He never did because he showed it doesn't denote anything. It's just a constant function of v which always equals one. >< If we let a denote acceleration, > You can't just decide to give an arbitrary meaning and then start drawing conclusions. Well, you can but you'll just end up with nonsense. Garbage in garbage out. >< then a=phi(v)=1 denotes acceleration = d(dx/dt) = 1. > Actually acceleration = (d/dt)(dx/dt) or (d^2/dt^2)x or, since we are talking physics here, dx/dt = v so acceleration = dv/dt of course I realize none of this means anything to you since you refuse to learn calculus. >< That means that for any given change in the value of v, the value of _a_ changes by an identical amount. > now you don't know basic physics and you're contradicting yourself. You have set a = phi(v) = 1. One is a constant, constants don't change (didn't you learn that in algebra class?) Constant acceleration (one is a constant, right?) means velocity is always increasing at a constant rate. However that last point is moot since _a_ is not acceleration. True. As I said, Einstein never did define what _a_ denotes. Neither did you. > However, after writing eta=phi(v)y and finding that phi(v) = 1, instead of realizing that this means that the value of phi(v)y, thus of eta, CHANGES as v does; > How can you say phi(v) is constant (one is a constant, right?) and then say it changes? ALMOST the same way you did when you wrote, "Constant acceleration (one is a constant, right?) means velocity is always increasing at a constant rate." Btw, how do you think that E got from "eta = a{c/sqrt(c^2-v^2)}y" to "eta = phi(v)y"? To be explicit, even if a = phi(v) allowed him to replace a with phi(v), how come c/sqrt(c^2-v^2) disappeared? >< he DELETED the symbol from his equations. > W: What's the point of writing one times something, you do realize multiplying by one doesn't change the expression, right? Do you realize that the only way for c/sqrt(c^2-v^2) to equal 1 is that v = 0? If so, then why bother with transformation equations at all? >< Although that did leave him with the LTE, in which eta and zeta are independent of v or any change in it, neither he nor anyone since seems to have realized that the latter requires that phi(v) = 0; i.e. that there is NO change in the value of a = phi(v) as v changes. > W: Well, zero is also a constant but phi(v) is being MULTIPLIED in each expression. If you multiply by zero you'll just set everything to zero, not what you want. Or is it you don't know what phi(v) = 0 means? Thank you for taking the time to answer me. (I knew that my wording was misleading, and hoped that someone would correct it.) Perhaps it would have been clearer if I'd written it this way: Since eta and zeta are independent of v or any change in it, neither he nor anyone since seems to have realized that the latter requires that da/dv = 0; i.e. that there is NO change in the value of a as v changes. The point is this: If a = phi(v) means that a is a function of v, and if a(v) means the same thing, and if da/dv is another way to express that relation; then if phi(v) = da/dv = 1, and dv = 4 or 3 or 6 then da = 4 or 3 or 6 also. But if there is no change in the relation between eta and y as v changes, as is the case in the LTE, then that relation is NOT a function of v! Btw, E's "proof" that "phi(v) = 1" was defective anyhow. glird
From: waldofj on 14 May 2010 10:39
On May 12, 3:11 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On May 9, 8:24 pm, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > glird: >< In his 1905 SR paper Einstein wrote an equation, > tau a(t - vx'/(c^2 - v^2) > in which he said that a is a function of v; which he > expressed as phi(v). A bit later he said that phi(v) = 1. He never did > say what "a" dnotes all by itself. > > > W: He never did because he showed it doesn't denote anything. It's > just a constant function of v which always equals one. > > >< If we let a denote acceleration, > > > You can't just decide to give an arbitrary meaning and then start > drawing conclusions. Well, you can but you'll just end up with > nonsense. Garbage in garbage out. > > >< then a=phi(v)=1 denotes acceleration = d(dx/dt) = 1. > > > Actually acceleration = (d/dt)(dx/dt) > or (d^2/dt^2)x or, since we are talking physics here, > dx/dt = v so acceleration = dv/dt > of course I realize none of this means anything to you since you > refuse to learn calculus. > > >< That means that for any given change in the value of v, the value of _a_ changes by an identical amount. > > > now you don't know basic physics and you're contradicting yourself. > You have set a = phi(v) = 1. One is a constant, constants don't change > (didn't you learn that in algebra class?) Constant acceleration (one > is a constant, right?) means velocity is always increasing at a > constant rate. However that last point is moot since _a_ is not > acceleration. > > True. As I said, Einstein never did define what _a_ denotes. > Neither did you. that's correct. As I said above it turns out that _a_ doesn't denote anything so there's nothing to define. btw we have both been making a mistake when we write a = phi(v). that implies that a is a variable that is being set to the value returned by phi(v). That's not what it is. We should be using the symbol for "is the same as" (I can't reproduce it here with ascii text) instead of equals. In other words, _a_ is just a typographical substitution for phi(v), easier to type _a_ than phi(v). As to what _a_ is (here we go again) _a_ is a mathematical artifact that arises from the method used to derive the equations, nothing more, nothing less. It requires a subsequent analysis of the problem to determine if it denotes anything or not. As it turns out, _a_ doesn't denote anything. > > > However, after writing eta=phi(v)y and finding that phi(v) = 1, instead of realizing that this means that > > the value of phi(v)y, thus of eta, CHANGES as v does; > > > How can you say phi(v) is constant (one is a constant, right?) and > then say it changes? > > ALMOST the same way you did when you wrote, "Constant acceleration > (one is a constant, right?) means velocity is always increasing at a > constant rate." that doesn't make any sense. > Btw, how do you think that E got from > "eta = a{c/sqrt(c^2-v^2)}y" to "eta = phi(v)y"? > To be explicit, even if a = phi(v) allowed him to replace a with > phi(v), how come c/sqrt(c^2-v^2) disappeared? good question. I have commented on this before but I don't mind repeating myself. "I ain't proud, or tired" first of all c/sqrt(c^2-v^2) is just beta so I'll just write beta if you don't mind. (actually nowadays it's called gamma but I'll stick to the old terminology for this discussion). If you look at the equations on page 45 in the dover publication and then look at the equations at the top of page 46 you will see that beta has been divided out of all four equations. This step has been skipped and no explanation is given for it. That's why I say a page is missing from the dover publication. The short answer: this is done to make the equations compatible with the principle of relativity while maintaining compatibility with the constancy of the speed of light. If you want the long answer, ask me in a different thread. > > >< he DELETED the symbol from his equations. > > > W: What's the point of writing one times something, you do realize > multiplying by one doesn't change the expression, right? > > Do you realize that the only way for c/sqrt(c^2-v^2) to equal 1 is > that v = 0? If so, then why bother with transformation equations at > all? who says beta should equal one? > > >< Although that did leave him with the LTE, in which eta and zeta are independent of v or any change in it, neither he nor anyone since seems to have realized that the latter requires that phi(v) = 0; i.e. that there is NO change in the value of a = phi(v) as v changes. > > > W: Well, zero is also a constant but phi(v) is being MULTIPLIED in > each expression. If you multiply by zero you'll just set everything to > zero, not what you want. > Or is it you don't know what phi(v) = 0 means? > > Thank you for taking the time to answer me. (I knew that my wording > was misleading, and hoped that someone would correct it.) Perhaps it > would have been clearer if I'd written it this way: > Since eta and zeta are independent of v or any change in it, neither > he nor anyone since seems to have realized that the latter requires > that da/dv = 0; i.e. that there is NO change in the value of a as v > changes. > > The point is this: If a = phi(v) means that a is a function of v, it does > and if a(v) means the same thing, it does > and if da/dv is another way to > express that relation; stop right there, it most definatly is not > then if phi(v) = da/dv = 1, and dv = 4 or 3 or > 6 then da = 4 or 3 or 6 also. But if there is no change in the > relation between eta and y as v changes, as is the case in the LTE, > then that relation is NOT a function of v! phi(v) = 1 means phi(v), or _a_ , or a(v) (all the same thing) is a constant function such as: (0 * V) + 1 no matter what value I put in for v it always returns 1 you said above: > Since eta and zeta are independent of v or any change in it, neither > he nor anyone since seems to have realized that the latter requires > that da/dv = 0; i.e. that there is NO change in the value of a as v > changes. of course everyone realized that, that's the behavior of a constant function > > Btw, E's "proof" that "phi(v) = 1" was defective anyhow. no, only your assumptions about it are defective. > > glird |