Prev: Is this problem NP-hard?
Next: stability analysis, routh-hurwitz criterion, jacobi matrix [urgent]
From: Thomas Heger on 27 Jul 2010 04:11
BURT schrieb:
> But the radiation energy must come out of a single particle not the
> whole atom. So how does the difference in atom mass end up in one
> particle of the atom to be radiated? And what particle out of the many
> would get chosen for the energy difference and how?
>
> Mitch Raemsch

I think an atom is actually a standing wave. That could emit three types
of radiation: rays (gamma 'particles'), electrons (beta decay) or alpha
particles
And there remain our course the fragments, what is kind of emission,
too, even though large and slow.
Now an alpha particles could be a standing wave, too, but smaller. That
is in my view a cubic relation, because of three rotations, that fold
back into one object. An electron is a quadratic form (representing a
small circle) and a gamma photon has the topology of a helix, what is a
curved line.
Now the the three families of particles could be sorted into categories
of the exponents, meaning linear, quadratic and cubic 'operators'.
This means, particles do not really exist, but denote structures, that
would be created, if such an operator were a real thing. Its more a
'mapping device', that shifts the environment around.

TH

From: BURT on 27 Jul 2010 15:59
On Jul 27, 1:11 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
> BURT schrieb:
>
> > But the radiation energy must come out of a single particle not the
> > whole atom. So how does the difference in atom mass end up in one
> > particle of the atom to be radiated? And what particle out of the many
> > would get chosen for the energy difference and how?
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> I think an atom is actually a standing wave. That could emit three types
> of radiation: rays (gamma 'particles'), electrons (beta decay) or alpha
> particles
> And there remain our course the fragments, what is kind of emission,
> too, even though large and slow.
> Now an alpha particles could be a standing wave, too, but smaller. That
> is in my view a cubic relation, because of three rotations, that fold
> back into one object. An electron is a quadratic form (representing a
> small circle) and a gamma photon has the topology of a helix, what is a
> curved line.
> Now the the three families of particles could be sorted into categories
> of the exponents, meaning linear, quadratic and cubic 'operators'.
> This means, particles do not really exist, but denote structures, that
> would be created, if such an operator were a real thing. Its more a
> 'mapping device', that shifts the environment around.
>
> TH

The radiated energy must come out of one quantum particle not the
atom as a whole. But how does it get into only one particle?

No. There is no way for it to work. New energy is created at fission/
fusion. The particles masses remain fundamental and there is no extra
energy to be released.

Mitch Raemsch
From: Thomas Heger on 27 Jul 2010 19:57
BURT schrieb:
> On Jul 27, 1:11 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
>> BURT schrieb:
>>
>>> But the radiation energy must come out of a single particle not the
>>> whole atom. So how does the difference in atom mass end up in one
>>> particle of the atom to be radiated? And what particle out of the many
>>> would get chosen for the energy difference and how?
>>> Mitch Raemsch
>> I think an atom is actually a standing wave. That could emit three types
>> of radiation: rays (gamma 'particles'), electrons (beta decay) or alpha
>> particles
>> And there remain our course the fragments, what is kind of emission,
>> too, even though large and slow.
>> Now an alpha particles could be a standing wave, too, but smaller. That
>> is in my view a cubic relation, because of three rotations, that fold
>> back into one object. An electron is a quadratic form (representing a
>> small circle) and a gamma photon has the topology of a helix, what is a
>> curved line.
>> Now the the three families of particles could be sorted into categories
>> of the exponents, meaning linear, quadratic and cubic 'operators'.
>> This means, particles do not really exist, but denote structures, that
>> would be created, if such an operator were a real thing. Its more a
>> 'mapping device', that shifts the environment around.
>>
>> TH
>
> The radiated energy must come out of one quantum particle not the
> atom as a whole. But how does it get into only one particle?
>
> No. There is no way for it to work. New energy is created at fission/
> fusion. The particles masses remain fundamental and there is no extra
> energy to be released.
Wasn't relativity about the equivalence of mass defect and released
energy with E=mc�. Actually I prefer deltas in this formula and
energy/mass differences.
So in a way the energy had to be in the atom before the decay and the
release has a quadratic form related to c.

In spacetime view velocity is an angle and c refers to 45�. Two angles
of 45� describe a helix, what is actually a photon. That wave had to fit
in the atom somehow, what I think it would be like a 'wrapped up' (or
standing) wave. There is no particle with such a description, but a
piece of the atom itself would fit the description. That could be a
'mode' of such a wave, that paves away and leaves the rest at a lower
frequency.
Since 'standing wave' requires a stability condition to be fulfilled,
the remainder is 'quantized' as is the emitted particle.
From: BURT on 27 Jul 2010 20:08
On Jul 27, 4:57 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
> BURT schrieb:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 27, 1:11 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
> >> BURT schrieb:
>
> >>> But the radiation energy must come out of a single particle not the
> >>> whole atom. So how does the difference in atom mass end up in one
> >>> particle of the atom to be radiated? And what particle out of the many
> >>> would get chosen for the energy difference and how?
> >>> Mitch Raemsch
> >> I think an atom is actually a standing wave. That could emit three types
> >> of radiation: rays (gamma 'particles'), electrons (beta decay) or alpha
> >> particles
> >> And there remain our course the fragments, what is kind of emission,
> >> too, even though large and slow.
> >> Now an alpha particles could be a standing wave, too, but smaller. That
> >> is in my view a cubic relation, because of three rotations, that fold
> >> back into one object. An electron is a quadratic form (representing a
> >> small circle) and a gamma photon has the topology of a helix, what is a
> >> curved line.
> >> Now the the three families of particles could be sorted into categories
> >> of the exponents, meaning linear, quadratic and cubic 'operators'.
> >> This means, particles do not really exist, but denote structures, that
> >> would be created, if such an operator were a real thing. Its more a
> >> 'mapping device', that shifts the environment around.
>
> >> TH
>
> > The radiated energy must come out of one quantum  particle not the
> > atom as a whole. But how does it get into only one particle?
>
> > No. There is no way for it to work. New energy is created at fission/
> > fusion. The particles masses remain fundamental and there is no extra
> > energy to be released.
>
> Wasn't relativity about the equivalence of mass defect and released
> energy with E=mc². Actually I prefer deltas in this formula and
> energy/mass differences.
> So in a way the energy had to be in the atom before the decay and the
> release has a quadratic form related to c.
>
> In spacetime view velocity is an angle and c refers to 45°. Two angles
> of 45° describe a helix, what is actually a photon. That wave had to fit
> in the atom somehow, what I think it would be like a 'wrapped up' (or
> standing) wave. There is no particle with such a description, but a
> piece of the atom itself would fit the description. That could be a
> 'mode' of such a wave, that paves away and leaves the rest at a lower
> frequency.
> Since 'standing wave' requires a stability condition to be fulfilled,
> the remainder is 'quantized' as is the emitted particle.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

When Uraniuum splits into two decay products how do all their
particles get rearranged into the two new atoms shells? There is only
an aether process in time that could explain this.

Particles cannot deviate from their fundamental energies. The idea the
whole atom changes in energy and emits would mean that all the energy
ends up in one particle and is radiated. But this cannot work as a
physics. Therefore new energy created by aether is happening when
atoms fuse and split. The stars are producing new energy. And our atom
bombs are as well.


Mitch Raemsch

From: Thomas Heger on 28 Jul 2010 02:29
BURT schrieb:
> On Jul 27, 4:57 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
>> BURT schrieb:
>>
>>
>> wave, that paves away and leaves the rest at a lower
>> frequency.
>> Since 'standing wave' requires a stability condition to be fulfilled,
>> the remainder is 'quantized' as is the emitted particle.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> When Uraniuum splits into two decay products how do all their
> particles get rearranged into the two new atoms shells? There is only
> an aether process in time that could explain this.
>
> Particles cannot deviate from their fundamental energies. The idea the
> whole atom changes in energy and emits would mean that all the energy
> ends up in one particle and is radiated.

In my own model energy is related to spin.
Now imagine a circle with a pointer sweeping over its circumference from
the center. This would be a closed curve with some frequency associated.
A horizontal circle is timelike, hence stable. If shifted, it starts to
turn into a helix.
Now imagine a hydrogen-atom to be 'one thing', with a timelike axis and
spin around that axis. If that is flipped sideways, it would look like a
naked neutron, with an 'imaginary electron' (or neutrino) circling
around along the timeline.
If one large atom breaks apart, the remainders would have to
reconnect to fulfill the stability condition, what makes them
'quantized'. The radiation sent away is quantized, too, because it came
from that atom.
So a particle is an entity, that denotes a geometric relation. Those are
based on space and time, hence have frequency. A closed loop is not
always closed, so these things could pop in and out of existence. A
single loop could be spacelike and we call it an electron or lightlike
and we call it a photon or timelike and we call it a neutrino.

These particles keep of course their fundamental energy, because that is
what they are. We define particles that way, hence cannot strip that
spin away from them.

TH



> But this cannot work as a
> physics. Therefore new energy created by aether is happening when
> atoms fuse and split. The stars are producing new energy. And our atom
> bombs are as well.
>
>
>

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Is this problem NP-hard?
Next: stability analysis, routh-hurwitz criterion, jacobi matrix [urgent]