Electrons ALL emit packets of energy just like photons, but much smaller scale.
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Tomorrow they are ready to start the LHC collider. The Earth can ?be exploded in a 1000 seconds!
Next: 473 nm
From: Inertial on 28 Feb 2010 02:56 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:eb60131d-30bf-48d3-a007-9ea1aef65dec(a)j27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 27, 8:33 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Feb 26, 9:35 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Feb 25, 6:00 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: >> >> > > What do we call these tiny photon-like packets of energy >> > > coming off every electron? >> > > Nanophotons? >> > > I think they have already been named: >> >> > > Magnetons. >> >> > > john >> >> > see my thread >> > 'A new corrected definition for a ' real single photon' energy >> > emission >> >> > it is >> > ======================= >> > E single photon = n hf >> > while >> > 0 < n <<<< 1.0000 >> > ======================= >> > ATB >> > Y.Porat >> > ------------------------ >> >> Set H bar to zero and the energy of light is all in its frequency. >> >> Mitch Raemsch > -------------------------- > frequency is a scalar associated with time > > therefore frequency in itself is > time duratiion dependent NOPE .. the frequency is the same regardless of the time duration > or if you like -- > the number of wave lengths per second Its just UNITS. It does NOT mean that frequency depends on time duration AT ALL > if you want to say that f is defining > th e ***amount** of energy > then i am with you!! It says nothing of the sort. F says what the frequency of the EMR is. E = hf defines the energy in a single photon corresponding to EMR of frequency f > you must be more accurate .... You have NO idea what you're talking about.
From: PD on 2 Mar 2010 15:09
On Feb 28, 12:25 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > On Feb 27, 10:54 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 27, 10:39 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > On Feb 26, 12:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 26, 10:49 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 25, 3:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 25, 10:00 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > > > > What do we call these tiny photon-like packets of energy > > > > > > > coming off every electron? > > > > > > > Nanophotons? > > > > > > > I think they have already been named: > > > > > > > > Magnetons. > > > > > > > > john > > > > > > >- I know you believe everything that exists is made of smaller pieces, > > > > > > -but it is useful to characterize them in a way that distinguishes them > > > > > > -from the assembly and you haven't done that here. As far as anyone can > > > > > > -tell from what you've written, you're only talking about smaller > > > > > > -photons. Small dogs are still dogs, they're not pieces of bigger dogs. > > > > > > OK, let's call them magnetons. > > > > > Why call smaller photons magnetons? When do they cease becoming > > > > describable as photons and start becoming describable as magnetons? > > > > Because you suggested that > > > there be a way to differentiate > > > them from regular photons? > > > So what is the measurable feature that distinguishes a photon from a > > magneton. > > Scale. What's the dividing line, and why? A small NaCl crystal is still a salt crystal. It doesn't become a "saltino" just because it's small. > Photons are put out by the stars in the arms of galaxies. > Magnetons are put out by the orts in electrons. I said a *measurable* distinction between a magneton and a small photon. What's the *measurable* difference? > > > > A harmonic that is generated in > > > something when a note is > > > played is not the same note, is it? > > > They are both notes, if you define a note as being a sound frequency. > > When you play a piano key, you generate lots of notes. One of those > > notes happens to dominate the intensity and is called the fundamental > > (note) and the other notes are called the harmonics (notes), but they > > are all notes. > > But they come from different > scales. If I play middle C on the piano, > and then I play high C, and I tell > you these are the same note, > but also different notes, I'm right on > both counts. Don't be ridiculous John. They're different notes. Just because you choose to LABEL the notes with a repeating pattern doesn't make them the same note. If you name every third child Peter, does it make every third child the same? > > > > > > They are not regular photons. > > > They are miniatures. > > > > Regular photons pour out from stars in all directions at c. > > > > Magnetons pour out from the orts of electrons in > > > all directions at ~30c. > > > And how did you come up with that ~30c? And is it measurable? Under > > what circumstances? > > Because of the evidence I have seen that quasars > go almost 10,000 kilometers per second. OK, so that's well below c. Where did the ~30c come from? > > I am equating atoms with galaxies. > So to what does a photon equate? > To quasars. > > The accretion discs grow until they > shoot two quasars away, one in each direction. > An excited atom shoots two photons away in > opposite directions. > > So quasars 10,000km/sec. > Photons 300,000km/sec. > Magnetons 9,000,000km/sec Evidence for ANYTHING going 9,000,000 km/s? > > john |