Quantum History
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Atomic clock behaviour in a gravitational field explained with 1905 Relativity
Next: The force of Gravity
From: Painius on 23 Jun 2010 20:24 "HVAC" <mr.hvac(a)gmail.com> wrote... in message news:hvtrno$aq$1(a)hvac.motzarella.org... > "Painius" <starswirlernosp(a)maol.com> wrote in message > news:4c226684$0$15851$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >> >> I believe the great man's name is spelled "Planck". >> >>> on his version of the theory where he made the conjecture that energy >>> was made of individual units which he referred to as quanta. Plank took >>> his version of the quantum theory a step further and derived a universal >>> constant which famously became known as Planck's >> >> Thank you, that's much better. >> >>> constant which is used to describe the sizes of quanta in quantum >>> mechanics. Planck's constant states that the energy of each quantum is >>> equal to the frequency of the radiation multiplied by the universal >>> constant (6.626068 � 10-34 m2 kg / s). >>> c.. In 1905, Albert Einstein theorized that not just the energy but the >>> radiation was also quantized in the very same manner and summarized that >>> an electromagnetic wave such as light could be described by a particle >>> called the photo >> >> Do you mean "photon"? >> >>> with a discrete energy dependent on it's frequency. >>> d.. Ernest Rutherford discovered that most of the mass of an atom >>> resides in the nucleus in 1911. Niels Bohr refined the Rutherford model >>> by introducing different orbits in which electrons spin around the >>> nucleus. >>> e.. In 1924, the development of the principle of wave-particle duality >>> by Louis de Broglie stated that elementary particles of both matter and >>> energy behave, depending on the conditions, like particles or waves. >>> Many other people have since contributed to the advancement of the >>> theory including Max Born, Wolfgang Pauli, Harlow Campbell >> >> And what, precisely, have you, Harlow, contributed to >> the advancement of quantum theory? I mean, besides >> your inability to spell better than a first grader? > > I didn't write the article. So... *somebody else* wrote that you contributed to the advancement of quantum theory along with Max Born, Wolfgang Pauli, Louis de Broglie, Ernest Rutherford, Albert Einstein, Max Planck, Werner Heisenberg, Richard Feynman and so many others. Someone *else* considers *your* contribution to be important enough to mention alongside all these *other* great men. Who? Harlow, who wrote the article? Can you include a link to the article, so we can see for ourselves? Or don't you consider your credibility important enough? happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S. "Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less." > Marie Curie--chemist & physicist P.P.S.: http://www.painellsworth.net http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth
From: Painius on 25 Jun 2010 01:11 "Painius" <starswirlernosp(a)maol.com> wrote in message... news:4c22a5d3$0$14289$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > "HVAC" <mr.hvac(a)gmail.com> wrote... > in message news:hvtrno$aq$1(a)hvac.motzarella.org... >> "Painius" <starswirlernosp(a)maol.com> wrote in message >> news:4c226684$0$15851$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >>> >>> I believe the great man's name is spelled "Planck". >>> >>>> on his version of the theory where he made the conjecture that energy >>>> was made of individual units which he referred to as quanta. Plank took >>>> his version of the quantum theory a step further and derived a >>>> universal constant which famously became known as Planck's >>> >>> Thank you, that's much better. >>> >>>> constant which is used to describe the sizes of quanta in quantum >>>> mechanics. Planck's constant states that the energy of each quantum is >>>> equal to the frequency of the radiation multiplied by the universal >>>> constant (6.626068 � 10-34 m2 kg / s). >>>> c.. In 1905, Albert Einstein theorized that not just the energy but >>>> the radiation was also quantized in the very same manner and summarized >>>> that an electromagnetic wave such as light could be described by a >>>> particle called the photo >>> >>> Do you mean "photon"? >>> >>>> with a discrete energy dependent on it's frequency. >>>> d.. Ernest Rutherford discovered that most of the mass of an atom >>>> resides in the nucleus in 1911. Niels Bohr refined the Rutherford model >>>> by introducing different orbits in which electrons spin around the >>>> nucleus. >>>> e.. In 1924, the development of the principle of wave-particle duality >>>> by Louis de Broglie stated that elementary particles of both matter and >>>> energy behave, depending on the conditions, like particles or waves. >>>> Many other people have since contributed to the advancement of the >>>> theory including Max Born, Wolfgang Pauli, Harlow Campbell >>> >>> And what, precisely, have you, Harlow, contributed to >>> the advancement of quantum theory? I mean, besides >>> your inability to spell better than a first grader? >> >> I didn't write the article. > > So... *somebody else* wrote that you contributed to > the advancement of quantum theory along with Max > Born, Wolfgang Pauli, Louis de Broglie, Ernest > Rutherford, Albert Einstein, Max Planck, Werner > Heisenberg, Richard Feynman and so many others. > Someone *else* considers *your* contribution to be > important enough to mention alongside all these > *other* great men. > > Who? Harlow, who wrote the article? Can you include > a link to the article, so we can see for ourselves? Or > don't you consider your credibility important enough? Credibility and integrity -- Who wrote the article, Harlow, and placed you so high in the rafters of quantum physics? Or did you put your name there as a joke? Maybe to see if anybody would actually "catch it"? That would, of course, be forgiveable -- even "funny". happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S. "Living at risk is jumping off the cliff and building your wings on the way down." > Ray Bradbury P.P.S.: http://www.painellsworth.net http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth
From: Double-A on 25 Jun 2010 13:53 "Painius" <starswirlernosp(a)maol.com> wrote in message news:4c243a9d$0$5031$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > "Painius" <starswirlernosp(a)maol.com> wrote in message... > news:4c22a5d3$0$14289$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >> "HVAC" <mr.hvac(a)gmail.com> wrote... >> in message news:hvtrno$aq$1(a)hvac.motzarella.org... >>> "Painius" <starswirlernosp(a)maol.com> wrote in message >>> news:4c226684$0$15851$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >>>> >>>> I believe the great man's name is spelled "Planck". >>>> >>>>> on his version of the theory where he made the conjecture that energy >>>>> was made of individual units which he referred to as quanta. Plank >>>>> took his version of the quantum theory a step further and derived a >>>>> universal constant which famously became known as Planck's >>>> >>>> Thank you, that's much better. >>>> >>>>> constant which is used to describe the sizes of quanta in quantum >>>>> mechanics. Planck's constant states that the energy of each quantum is >>>>> equal to the frequency of the radiation multiplied by the universal >>>>> constant (6.626068 � 10-34 m2 kg / s). >>>>> c.. In 1905, Albert Einstein theorized that not just the energy but >>>>> the radiation was also quantized in the very same manner and >>>>> summarized that an electromagnetic wave such as light could be >>>>> described by a particle called the photo >>>> >>>> Do you mean "photon"? >>>> >>>>> with a discrete energy dependent on it's frequency. >>>>> d.. Ernest Rutherford discovered that most of the mass of an atom >>>>> resides in the nucleus in 1911. Niels Bohr refined the Rutherford >>>>> model by introducing different orbits in which electrons spin around >>>>> the nucleus. >>>>> e.. In 1924, the development of the principle of wave-particle >>>>> duality by Louis de Broglie stated that elementary particles of both >>>>> matter and energy behave, depending on the conditions, like particles >>>>> or waves. >>>>> Many other people have since contributed to the advancement of the >>>>> theory including Max Born, Wolfgang Pauli, Harlow Campbell >>>> >>>> And what, precisely, have you, Harlow, contributed to >>>> the advancement of quantum theory? I mean, besides >>>> your inability to spell better than a first grader? >>> >>> I didn't write the article. >> >> So... *somebody else* wrote that you contributed to >> the advancement of quantum theory along with Max >> Born, Wolfgang Pauli, Louis de Broglie, Ernest >> Rutherford, Albert Einstein, Max Planck, Werner >> Heisenberg, Richard Feynman and so many others. >> Someone *else* considers *your* contribution to be >> important enough to mention alongside all these >> *other* great men. >> >> Who? Harlow, who wrote the article? Can you include >> a link to the article, so we can see for ourselves? Or >> don't you consider your credibility important enough? > > Credibility and integrity -- > > Who wrote the article, Harlow, and placed you so high > in the rafters of quantum physics? > > Or did you put your name there as a joke? Maybe to > see if anybody would actually "catch it"? > > That would, of course, be forgiveable -- even "funny". > > happy days and... > starry starry nights! > > -- > Indelibly yours, > Paine Ellsworth Still waiting for some citations for his published papers in refereed science journals as one would expect of a man put in a class with those other great men of science. Double-A
From: Painius on 26 Jun 2010 13:59 "Double-A" <double-a3(a)hush.com> wrote... in message news:i02qf2$ngp$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> "HVAC" <mr.hvac(a)gmail.com> wrote... >>> in message news:hvtrno$aq$1(a)hvac.motzarella.org... >>>> >>>> . . . I didn't write the article. Yes, that much is known... http://bigthink.com/ideas/20525 > Still waiting for some citations for his published papers in refereed > science journals as one would expect of a man put in a class with those > other great men of science. > > Double-A We might be waiting for the same length of time for physicists to harness gravitational energy ! happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S. "Living at risk is jumping off the cliff and building your wings on the way down." > Ray Bradbury P.P.S.: http://www.painellsworth.net http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth
From: Thomas Heger on 29 Jun 2010 18:42
HVAC schrieb: > "In fact, it is often stated that of all the theories proposed in this > century, the silliest is quantum theory. Some say that the only thing that > quantum theory has going for it, in fact, is that it is unquestionably > correct." > The problem with QM is, that they calculate something and don't know what it means. This is result of bad strategies, that lie deep buried in the way physics is done. It starts with the introduction of the 'quant' by Planck to explain some behavior of light on basis of a wrong understanding of light. This wrong understanding is codified into a formula, but the process itself isn't really understood. Than the method of quants was fixed and the subsequent developments were based on that formula. This method inherits the fault of not properly understanding the phenomenon in the first place and physics got trapped. The next more sever turn in the wrong direction came from the introduction of real particles. To question the 'realness' of these things is now impossible, because an entire century was wasted upon this assumption and almost everybody in the 'business' is bound to this, because he or she devoted his career to such problems and now don't want the problem to disappear. The possibility to correct faults of any kind is severely hindered by the way that science is done and how personal, financial or other interests try to steer the boat in favor of their own interests. Critics are blocked or belittled on a regular basis. Then we have the problem of a kind of flood of publications, that nobody could ever read and that are in no way consistent to each other. So there might be good ideas, but they are just wasted in an enormous amount of - well- junk. So, this is how it goes. TH |