For the first time-an inner contradiction found in QM !!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Y.Porat on 18 Feb 2010 05:08 On Feb 18, 10:04 am, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 18, 6:34 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > see my abstsrct > > it is mostly zooming into the nuc > > though the dimensions od th iner nuke are > > far smaller than the abiliy of out cureent tools > > to actually see it !! > > it is by acumulating information from differnt disciplines and cross > > verifying it ... > > ----------- > > I have looked more closely at your abstract. You have clearly spent a > lot of time on this and it is not easy to understand. ------------------- a lot of time ?? (:-) what you saw is an abstarct pf a few [ages my whole book is of about 150 pages like that!! i could sit with you a few semester dealing with it !!! anyway it seems to be that you are the 'type' that could get it nicely anyway as you felt in involves a lot of time btw do you know waht was th emost difficult part in my pioneering work :: it was TO GET RID OF SOME OF THE COMMON APRADIGMS !! fo r instance that in a heavy Atom th e number of Protons and electrons is the same !! and for that i had to conclude that while inner connections of protons and neutreons are done th e protons that are 'buried' inside with no free edge outwads - they loose their electric charge that is located on their edges !! (as another link on the 'chain') and for that i had to conclude that protons and neutrons are not spheres but something longish etc etc !! -------------------- Also, as I do > not have the relevant current physics at my fingertips so I find it > hard to comment on the quality either of your work or the > corresponding current state of physics in the areas you deal with. it is difficult to believe it but the current physics about geometric structure of the nuc and Atom is a 'hundred years'' behind me !!!.. and if it will go on like that it will be many hundred years behind me ... indeed there ar emany aspects that i didnt study and curent knowledge is much better than mine. waht i claime is a much better breakthrough knowledge about some important specific aspects !! ------------and you want believe me it gave me a much better understanding about MATTER AND ENERGY AS WELL !! and the interaction between them --------- ---------------- ------------- > But I certainly recognise the time and effort you have obviously spent at least 7 years sometimes days and deap into the nights i t nearly ruined my health .. but then i was younger and stronger .... ---------------- ----------------- > on it. > > You said you have used arithmetic and I can see that you have done > that for calculating energy levels using a (sort of?) difference > engine, or using multiple increments of a constant energy value. I ---------- there is one thing that you could not notice ie that all binding energies are actually mass losses that are some uknown subparticles that even those subaprticles are still sub divided IN A QUANTUM CHARACTER!! ie definite 'blocks' of mass sort of specific' bricks' that are building the struvcture as brick b brick wal by wall level by lever if your like like your metaphor of braiding our body but still our body is nothing to compare by its complexity !! te inorganic world is obviously much 'simpler"""" than the organic world !! ----------- > know very little about the distribution of protons and neutrons within > the atom but I can make a few comments as follows. > > You have the protons strung out in a line in the alpha nucleus. That > makes sense in termes of protons all having the same charge and > therefore repelling one another as far as possible while still > connected or 'touching', but what of the nuclear glue force? yes indeed it is not th eelecttric charge i told you that the electric charge is lost in inner connections of the nuc not in outer connections !! -------------- Wouldn't > that (if strong enough) bring them into a heap or cluster? no if you understand thatthe protons and neutrons are not sort of balls and they ar elongish and connected only at their edges the number of possible degrees of freedom for connections - bcomes ways less !! ---------------- Also, I > thought that protons morphed into neutrons and vice versa with the > exchange of smaller particles. That would be harder to do if they > were all strung out in two separate lines? A proton in the proton > line changing into a neutron would have to get out of the proton line > and into the neutron line? as you can see the forcess that conect it all are very 'directional " sort of beams spred out (linerar chain of orbitals as well) so if you get that Alpha particle tetrahedron no one is disturbing or interfering the other !! ------------ > > A question I have is what effect does interference between proton > charges have on the location of the electon? Two or more protons in a > nucleus should interfere where their pull on the electrons should be > banded into relatively stronger and weaker fringes? > ------------------- now Ben sorry we cant go and chew it all in one post on the net if youl ike we can do it privately step by step and IT WILL TAKE TIME ' (:-) !!! > > > > i ddin say that time is not a poperty of the universe > > i said that time is sort of being mystified as an > > independent creature for itself! > > time is not like say mass or length > > time is as i said > > motion comparison > > iow > > if there will be no motion- there will be no time !!! > > unlike say length or mass that will laways be > > let emtell you a thought experiment that i did > > while i was an\bouth 16 years old > > suppose that all motion in the universe > > stops completely simultaneously - > > for one tousand years > > (incuding the electrons quarks photons etc -in your body ...) > > and 'after that' will simultaneously beging again at once > > moving > > my question was: > > will you notice that in that case 1 billionyears passed ??!! > > so that is what i mean that time is motion comparison dependent > > This is not too unlike thoughts I have had in the last year. I too > have thought how very important movement was. My thought arose out of > trying to imagine multiverses. (All speculation and no physics, > alas.) An analogy is with the growth of a baby or cell culture. > Every so often there is mitosis or cell fission. For a baby both new > sets of cells are in its body, but say space fissured in a similar way > (though not limited to only two new quanta fro each old one). We > somehow have a choice of which new cell or quantum of space to jump > into. And these are alternatives. If we choose one then the others > are never again accessible. (This would be an instantaneous jump of > the sort we have been discussing.) The only way that I could think > for us to make that choice as to which one to 'pick' is through our > motion. Inanimate objects still have to choose but their motion is > decided for them by their inertia (Newton's first law of motion). We > are not picking from from a choice of entering say two or more > completely separateuniverses. The choice is made at each quantum of > space and there is no rule which says eg all type A quanta go into > universe A. It is a mix and match composite made quantum by quantum > eg we could have chosen AABBAABABBBAAAB ........etc for whichever > quanta our bodies occupy. > > If that process stopped for 1000 years as you suggest in a thought > experiment, then yes time would have stopped. But for me that is just > saying if time were to stop then it would stop. If everything in say > a particular rock were to stop moving (while the rest of the world > carried on) then in my speculation the rock could not make the > necessary choices of which quanta to move to. (Though the rock can't > really stop moving because of inertia, and all things are moving wrt > something else. If there is no such thing as absolute time and space > then where oh where could the rock be when it stopped?) Also, if a > rock had somehow 'lost' a thousand years, would we notice? > > > no htat is not how i understnt it > > i said > > the motion of some basics inside matter > > IS ALWAYS INMOTION WITH TH EINNER MOTION AT c > > aht happence is > > diverting that inner motion > > from inner motion - outwards !! > > sot of > > suppose a satellite orbiting around our earth > > now in order of sending it to say the moon > > you dont have to 'propell is from stand still position > > you have only to push it perpendicularly to its tangential direction > > of its movement !! > > But a photon has to get from non existence to moving at speed c > somehow. All I can think of is that it manages this within one > quantum of time. It must just show that a lot can happen in one > quantum of time? > > Regards > > Ben ----------------- Regards Y.P ----------------
From: Y.Porat on 18 Feb 2010 05:13 On Feb 18, 10:35 am, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 18, 6:34 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > etc > > PS > > I don't understand the count of the number of protons and neutrons you > have in your first diagram of your abstract, which is an alpha > particle? Unless you are showing the same protons at multiple > positions? ------------------- right an alpha is counted as 2 protons and 2 neutrons a proton is marked while' and a neutron is marked 'black " or else i would not find my hands and my leges in that mess that is bTW why i had to invent my hieroglyphic system of mapping in 2 D the 3D structure in short is is a work for a few Semesters to learn it ATB Y.Porat ---------------------
From: ben6993 on 19 Feb 2010 08:12 On Feb 18, 10:08 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > now Ben sorry > we cant go and chew it all in one post on the net > if youl ike we can do it privately I will attempt to look in detail at what you have written in your abstract on the alpha particle. At the worst, even if I end up disagreeing, it will still be very good for me to do some work on the alpha particle to see what I can learn about current theory. I will get back to you privately by email when I am ready to say something useful about the alpha particle. Regards Ben
From: Y.Porat on 19 Feb 2010 09:33 On Feb 19, 3:12 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 18, 10:08 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > now Ben sorry > > we cant go and chew it all in one post on the net > > if youl ike we can do it privately > > I will attempt to look in detail at what you have written in your > abstract on the alpha particle. At the worst, even if I end up > disagreeing, it will still be very good for me to do some work on the > alpha particle to see what I can learn about current theory. I will > get back to you privately by email when I am ready to say something > useful about the alpha particle. > > Regards > > Ben ---------------------- OK thanks Y.Porat -----------------------
From: Y.Porat on 19 Feb 2010 09:38
On Feb 19, 3:12 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 18, 10:08 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > now Ben sorry > > we cant go and chew it all in one post on the net > > if youl ike we can do it privately > > I will attempt to look in detail at what you have written in your > abstract on the alpha particle. At the worst, even if I end up > disagreeing, it will still be very good for me to do some work on the > alpha particle to see what I can learn about current theory. I will > get back to you privately by email when I am ready to say something > useful about the alpha particle. > > Regards > > Ben ---------------------- BTW Ben I invite you to join my new thread which i called : 'A copyright question ' ! TIA Y.Porat ---------------------- |