Reaction-Action-Activities relationship?
in [Physics]
|
Prev: easy proof for rectangular-wedge tiler Re: the revised Maximum Tiler conjecture in 2D and 3D #522 Correcting Math
Next: Band GAP energy
From: ben6993 on 27 Mar 2010 11:55 On Mar 27, 1:02 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_x> wrote: > "ben6993" <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:9a844ba6-fa2e-4013-951c-721be6c04f8c(a)g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 27, 9:37 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > <snip for brevity> > > If I believed in the aether, which I don't necessarily, I could think > of the light emitted almost as an earthquake wave after a land slip. > With the slip being equivalent to the readjustment of the electron's > position. As an earth slip occurs at the weakest point, so the point > size electron is the first to give way. Then the wave (the photon) > ripples through the space structure until it is eventually halted. > But I don't know yet enough maths/physics to visualise that without > the aether (or with the aether, either!). > > =============================================== > Before you can understand AC you need to understand DC. > Here is a bar magnet and a compass needle. > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/spin.gif > Does it need any aether? > =============================================== > > I used vaguely to think that the moving electron somehow, in itself, > created the emission. Ie the motion of the electron charge being > enough to create the necessary EM disturbance. But that was before I > knew that the emission was instantaneous. But, with or without > 'instantaneousness', there must be something causing the electron to > move and the photon to emit. Just as there must be unseen pressure > causing an earthslip in a particular place at a particular time. > > ----- > > In the coin analogy, I assume that if a shopkeeper doesn't have the > right change in his till then he can't give you two 2ps or four 1ps, > even though he may have 10ps and 5ps. I.e. the quanta are for ever > immutable, even in the cash till, and not merely immutable while > dressed up as photons? > ============================================== > > In hypothetical sentences introduced by 'if' and referring to > past time, where conditions are to be deemed 'unfulfilled', > the verb will regularly be found in the pluperfect subjunctive, > in both protasis and apodosis. > -- Donet, "Principles of Elementary Latin Syntax" > > Hint: Your hypothetical question was introduced by "if". > ============================================== > > Also, if energy can be lessened (or increased) by change of frame, and > there is no absolute frame of reference, are the changes in energy as > viewed in different frames also quantised? I.e the difference in > energy from one frame to the next is quantised? > > =============================================== > Look at the continuous spectrum. > http://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys401/bedaque06/discrete_spectra.... > If you are only seeing the black lines what about all the colour that's > emitted? > You get spectral lines from a gas, but a solid such as tungsten in an > incandescent > light bulb emits a continuous (i.e. non quantized) spectrum. What's > different? > In a metal conducting electricity the atomic nuclei are swimming in a sea of > electrons, whereas in a gas the electrons are bound to the nucleus and the > atom as a whole is floating in nothing, bouncing off other atoms. You get > spectral lines from mercury VAPOUR, and a continous spectrum from > SOLID tungsten. > Now... you can detect the velocity of a star by a Doppler shift in its > quantised > spectrum, but there is no visible shift in the continuous spectrum. > http://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/oconnell/astr121/im/dopp-shifts-s.... > The shift IS there, but the colour of an emission spectral line changes so > that you cannot see it; colour and frequency are the same thing, a shift in > frequency is a shift in colour. > =============================================== > > (It is interesting to find Androcles giving free physics lessons > here. But I do understand there are no free lunches.) > ============================================== > You can pay me if you like, I won't mind. You've probably got the > wrong idea about me from the morons you've been listening too. > Never judge a book by its cover. Thank you for the grammar lesson. As an author, 'can't' must have grated on you in that sentence, but I posted in haste, dragged away from the PC to eat out for lunch. A nice bar magnet graphic, though I don't understand how that points to an aether or not. My thoughts are that the maths may not explicitly have an aether in it, but it may be implied at some subtle level that is not understood. Silmilar to Pythagoras finding his rational numbers had pesky, as yet undefined, irrational numbers lurking alongside them. The aether must be in a good hiding place, if it exists, which is rather odd for a supposed structure. I have had a brief look at continuous spectra and need to spend more time on it. I am starting at square one on my view of what energy is. Just a very minor point is that frequency determines colour but is not the same thing. Colour only exists in the mind. But that is a side issue.
From: Androcles on 27 Mar 2010 13:07 "ben6993" <ben6993(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a26b3d24-00e0-4b5d-a5fd-e23e57eb6478(a)l36g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... On Mar 27, 1:02 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_x> wrote: > "ben6993" <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:9a844ba6-fa2e-4013-951c-721be6c04f8c(a)g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 27, 9:37 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > <snip for brevity> > > If I believed in the aether, which I don't necessarily, I could think > of the light emitted almost as an earthquake wave after a land slip. > With the slip being equivalent to the readjustment of the electron's > position. As an earth slip occurs at the weakest point, so the point > size electron is the first to give way. Then the wave (the photon) > ripples through the space structure until it is eventually halted. > But I don't know yet enough maths/physics to visualise that without > the aether (or with the aether, either!). > > =============================================== > Before you can understand AC you need to understand DC. > Here is a bar magnet and a compass needle. > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/spin.gif > Does it need any aether? > =============================================== > > I used vaguely to think that the moving electron somehow, in itself, > created the emission. Ie the motion of the electron charge being > enough to create the necessary EM disturbance. But that was before I > knew that the emission was instantaneous. But, with or without > 'instantaneousness', there must be something causing the electron to > move and the photon to emit. Just as there must be unseen pressure > causing an earthslip in a particular place at a particular time. > > ----- > > In the coin analogy, I assume that if a shopkeeper doesn't have the > right change in his till then he can't give you two 2ps or four 1ps, > even though he may have 10ps and 5ps. I.e. the quanta are for ever > immutable, even in the cash till, and not merely immutable while > dressed up as photons? > ============================================== > > In hypothetical sentences introduced by 'if' and referring to > past time, where conditions are to be deemed 'unfulfilled', > the verb will regularly be found in the pluperfect subjunctive, > in both protasis and apodosis. > -- Donet, "Principles of Elementary Latin Syntax" > > Hint: Your hypothetical question was introduced by "if". > ============================================== > > Also, if energy can be lessened (or increased) by change of frame, and > there is no absolute frame of reference, are the changes in energy as > viewed in different frames also quantised? I.e the difference in > energy from one frame to the next is quantised? > > =============================================== > Look at the continuous spectrum. > http://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys401/bedaque06/discrete_spectra... > If you are only seeing the black lines what about all the colour that's > emitted? > You get spectral lines from a gas, but a solid such as tungsten in an > incandescent > light bulb emits a continuous (i.e. non quantized) spectrum. What's > different? > In a metal conducting electricity the atomic nuclei are swimming in a sea > of > electrons, whereas in a gas the electrons are bound to the nucleus and the > atom as a whole is floating in nothing, bouncing off other atoms. You get > spectral lines from mercury VAPOUR, and a continous spectrum from > SOLID tungsten. > Now... you can detect the velocity of a star by a Doppler shift in its > quantised > spectrum, but there is no visible shift in the continuous spectrum. > http://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/oconnell/astr121/im/dopp-shifts-s... > The shift IS there, but the colour of an emission spectral line changes so > that you cannot see it; colour and frequency are the same thing, a shift > in > frequency is a shift in colour. > =============================================== > > (It is interesting to find Androcles giving free physics lessons > here. But I do understand there are no free lunches.) > ============================================== > You can pay me if you like, I won't mind. You've probably got the > wrong idea about me from the morons you've been listening too. > Never judge a book by its cover. Thank you for the grammar lesson. As an author, 'can't' must have grated on you in that sentence, but I posted in haste, dragged away from the PC to eat out for lunch. A nice bar magnet graphic, though I don't understand how that points to an aether or not. ============================================== It was a simple question... does it need an aether? ============================================== My thoughts are that the maths may not explicitly have an aether in it, but it may be implied at some subtle level that is not understood. Silmilar to Pythagoras finding his rational numbers had pesky, as yet undefined, irrational numbers lurking alongside them. The aether must be in a good hiding place, if it exists, which is rather odd for a supposed structure. ============================================== William of Ockham: Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", roughly translated as "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity". Newton: RULE I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes. Einstein: Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler. ============================================== I have had a brief look at continuous spectra and need to spend more time on it. I am starting at square one on my view of what energy is. ============================================== The magnet rotates and that causes the compass needle to rotate. Does it need any aether? Simple question, answer it with a yes or a no. If no, then fine, we can stop discussing aether. If yes, explain why the entity is necessary (Ockham), why a magnetic force is not sufficient to explain the phenomenon (Newton), why a magnetic force is not simple enough (Einstein). ============================================== Just a very minor point is that frequency determines colour but is not the same thing. Colour only exists in the mind. But that is a side issue. ============================================== The eye detects a frequency in a narrow range of energy, the compass needle detects the motion of the magnet. The mind interprets signals from the retina as colour, the compass needle heats its tiny bearings which have a friction and then they radiate energy which it obtained by turning the magnet. Aether only exists in your mind. But that is a major issue. Is it required to "push" or "pull" the compass needle by direct contact, as with a thread or a rod, or perhaps water? If so, wouldn't it have inertia and mass and turbulence and a host of other undetectable magical properties? Action at a distance is a fact, no matter how puzzling it may be. Science and engineering is about making use of the way Nature behaves, like this: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/spindistance.gif And to make efficient use of it you need mathematics, not daydreaming about aether.
From: ben6993 on 27 Mar 2010 14:04 On Mar 27, 5:07 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_x> wrote: > "ben6993" <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:a26b3d24-00e0-4b5d-a5fd-e23e57eb6478(a)l36g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 27, 1:02 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_x> wrote: > > > > > > > "ben6993" <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:9a844ba6-fa2e-4013-951c-721be6c04f8c(a)g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com.... > > On Mar 27, 9:37 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > <snip for brevity> > > > If I believed in the aether, which I don't necessarily, I could think > > of the light emitted almost as an earthquake wave after a land slip. > > With the slip being equivalent to the readjustment of the electron's > > position. As an earth slip occurs at the weakest point, so the point > > size electron is the first to give way. Then the wave (the photon) > > ripples through the space structure until it is eventually halted. > > But I don't know yet enough maths/physics to visualise that without > > the aether (or with the aether, either!). > > > =============================================== > > Before you can understand AC you need to understand DC. > > Here is a bar magnet and a compass needle. > >http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/spin.gif > > Does it need any aether? > > =============================================== > > > I used vaguely to think that the moving electron somehow, in itself, > > created the emission. Ie the motion of the electron charge being > > enough to create the necessary EM disturbance. But that was before I > > knew that the emission was instantaneous. But, with or without > > 'instantaneousness', there must be something causing the electron to > > move and the photon to emit. Just as there must be unseen pressure > > causing an earthslip in a particular place at a particular time. > > > ----- > > > In the coin analogy, I assume that if a shopkeeper doesn't have the > > right change in his till then he can't give you two 2ps or four 1ps, > > even though he may have 10ps and 5ps. I.e. the quanta are for ever > > immutable, even in the cash till, and not merely immutable while > > dressed up as photons? > > ============================================== > > > In hypothetical sentences introduced by 'if' and referring to > > past time, where conditions are to be deemed 'unfulfilled', > > the verb will regularly be found in the pluperfect subjunctive, > > in both protasis and apodosis. > > -- Donet, "Principles of Elementary Latin Syntax" > > > Hint: Your hypothetical question was introduced by "if". > > ============================================== > > > Also, if energy can be lessened (or increased) by change of frame, and > > there is no absolute frame of reference, are the changes in energy as > > viewed in different frames also quantised? I.e the difference in > > energy from one frame to the next is quantised? > > > =============================================== > > Look at the continuous spectrum. > >http://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys401/bedaque06/discrete_spectra... > > If you are only seeing the black lines what about all the colour that's > > emitted? > > You get spectral lines from a gas, but a solid such as tungsten in an > > incandescent > > light bulb emits a continuous (i.e. non quantized) spectrum. What's > > different? > > In a metal conducting electricity the atomic nuclei are swimming in a sea > > of > > electrons, whereas in a gas the electrons are bound to the nucleus and the > > atom as a whole is floating in nothing, bouncing off other atoms. You get > > spectral lines from mercury VAPOUR, and a continous spectrum from > > SOLID tungsten. > > Now... you can detect the velocity of a star by a Doppler shift in its > > quantised > > spectrum, but there is no visible shift in the continuous spectrum. > >http://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/oconnell/astr121/im/dopp-shifts-s... > > The shift IS there, but the colour of an emission spectral line changes so > > that you cannot see it; colour and frequency are the same thing, a shift > > in > > frequency is a shift in colour. > > =============================================== > > > (It is interesting to find Androcles giving free physics lessons > > here. But I do understand there are no free lunches.) > > ============================================== > > You can pay me if you like, I won't mind. You've probably got the > > wrong idea about me from the morons you've been listening too. > > Never judge a book by its cover. > > Thank you for the grammar lesson. As an author, 'can't' must have > grated on you in that sentence, but I posted in haste, dragged away > from the PC to eat out for lunch. > > A nice bar magnet graphic, though I don't understand how that points > to an aether or not. > > ============================================== > It was a simple question... does it need an aether? > ============================================== > > My thoughts are that the maths may not explicitly > have an aether in it, but it may be implied at some subtle level that > is not understood. Silmilar to Pythagoras finding his rational > numbers had pesky, as yet undefined, irrational numbers lurking > alongside them. The aether must be in a good hiding place, if it > exists, which is rather odd for a supposed structure. > > ============================================== > > William of Ockham: > Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed > to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of > Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should > make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no > difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or > theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae > ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda > praeter necessitatem", roughly translated as "entities must not be > multiplied beyond necessity". > > Newton: > RULE I. > We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true > and sufficient to explain their appearances. > > To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and > more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity, > and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes. > > Einstein: Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler. > ============================================== > > I have had a brief look at continuous spectra and need to spend more > time on it. I am starting at square one on my view of what energy is. > ============================================== > The magnet rotates and that causes the compass needle to rotate. > Does it need any aether? > Simple question, answer it with a yes or a no. > If no, then fine, we can stop discussing aether. > If yes, explain why the entity is necessary (Ockham), why a magnetic > force is not sufficient to explain the phenomenon (Newton), why a > magnetic force is not simple enough (Einstein). > > ============================================== > Just a very minor point is that frequency determines colour but is not > the same thing. Colour only exists in the mind. But that is a side > issue. > ============================================== > The eye detects a frequency in a narrow range of energy, the compass > needle detects the motion of the magnet. The mind interprets signals > from the retina as colour, the compass needle heats its tiny bearings > which have a friction and then they radiate energy which it obtained > by turning the magnet. > Aether only exists in your mind. But that is a major issue. > Is it required to "push" or "pull" the compass needle by direct contact, > as with a thread or a rod, or perhaps water? If so, wouldn't it have > inertia and mass and turbulence and a host of other undetectable > magical properties? Action at a distance is a fact, no matter how > puzzling it may be. Science and engineering is about making use of > the way Nature behaves, like this: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/spindistance.gif > And to make efficient use of it you need mathematics, not daydreaming > about aether.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I certainly can put aether aside while learning the maths of physics, and that currently does not need an aether. I completely acccept Occam's Razor too. I don't believe in the aether. But there are two aspects which make me wonder if one day the maths of an aether might be needed. Action at a distance is not instantaneous: <=c. Would anyone think an aether was necessary if action was instantaneous at any distance? The intervening space would then not seem to intrude. Also, empty space is not really empty: e.g. quantum foam. Empty space is probably required for action at a distance. Until someone can try an experiment outside spacetime we won't really know. If a non-null, so-called empty, space were a requirement for action at a distance, that to me would be be all I meant by an aether.
From: Kumar on 27 Mar 2010 21:57 On Mar 27, 2:34 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 25, 5:23 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 24, 8:02 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 24, 5:18 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 23, 6:41 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 22, 10:10 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 22, 9:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 21, 10:04 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mar 21, 11:41 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 8:45 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 7:49 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 19, 11:00 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 1:44 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 18, 11:29 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail..com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 18, 6:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail..com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 18, 5:28 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 18, 9:49 am, Saimhain Moose <samhainmo...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 18, 12:21 am, Kumar <lordshiva5....(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are activities not dependant on applied forces? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly what do you mean by "activities"? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Something done as an action or a movement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They're not the same. A movement (specifically a change in movement) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is the *response* to a force. The force is the cause, the acceleration > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is the effect. Motion is not a cause. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the differance between acceleration & motion? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Motion includes any change in position, which can be done at constant > > > > > > > > > > > > > velocity (for which the acceleration is zero) or with changing > > > > > > > > > > > > > velocity (for which the acceleration is nonzero).- > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us see it with an example. Exiting of an electron by application > > > > > > > > > > > > of energy & its decaying back on emitting photons. Are both of these > > > > > > > > > > > > are motions & acceleration or just exiting is acceleration but its > > > > > > > > > > > > decaying back not? > > > > > > > > > > > > When an electron is emitted, the momentum transferred to the electron > > > > > > > > > > > is equal and opposite to the momentum transferred to the atom. > > > > > > > > > > > Likewise, when a photon is emitted, the same thing happens. > > > > > > > > > > > Do you mean to say that applied energy/momentum to atom which caused > > > > > > > > > > excitation of its electrons is equal & opposite to energy released+ > > > > > > > > > > energy required for travelling of electrons/photons? > > > > > > > > > > Yes, though it may happen in more than one step. > > > > > > > > > Btw, Do any energy need any external aid for traveling or it is just > > > > > > > > its property? > > > > > > > > No, it does not need any external aid for traveling. > > > > > > > > Heck, a baseball does not need any external aid for traveling.. > > > > > > > > You'll notice most satellites have been in orbit for years, and they > > > > > > > don't consume any fuel to keep moving. > > > > > > > This means that photons don't need external aid for traveling into > > > > > > universe spped of light. > > > > > > Nothing needs external aid for traveling at a constant speed. Nothing. > > > > > Look up Newton's First Law, which was actually discovered by Galileo, > > > > > in the 1600's. > > > > > > Perhaps you need to catch up a little. > > > > > > > So calculation will be; Applied energy/ > > > > > > momentum to atom which caused excitation of its electrons is equal & > > > > > > opposite to energy released ( not energy required for travelling of > > > > > > electrons/photons)? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Pls tell me about basis of equal & opposte at basic level. > > > > --------------------- > > > i willtell you how i see it: > > > according to my understanding of all > > > forces > > > forces are done by COLLISION OF PARTICLES > > > even the attraction forces (see the Circlon idea) > > > now > > > if we have the conservation law of momentum > > > the momentum that both th e coliding particle on each other is the > > > same > > > and the time dirtion that was on each one of them > > > is the same (it cannot be otherwise ) > > > so > > > if dp dt = dm dv (momentum) > > > then dp > > > for both of them is the same > > > > (btw > > > i ddint bother to read all other messages > > > if it was already said > > > i apologize ) > > > ATB > > > Y.Porat > > > --------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Sorry & thanks. Above is very deep. In simple language as I posted in > > last post; > > > Is it due to that things in action due to applied force tend to come > > back to their natural/origional position? > > > Newton's laws of motions: > > First law: "Every body persists in its state of being at rest or of > > moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled > > to change its state by force impressed" > > Second law:A body will accelerate with acceleration proportional to > > the force and inversely proportional to the mass. > > Third Law: Every action has a reaction equal in magnitude and opposite > > in direction." > > > "The term intrinsic denotes a property of some thing or action which > > is essential and specific to that thing or action, and which is wholly > > independent of any other object, action or consequence. A > > characteristic which is not essential or inherent is extrinsic." > > > Whether first law suggest intrinsic and 2nd & 3rd law extrinsic > > nehaviour? > > --------------------- > the third law suggest extrinsic because ... > an external actor cam in !!.. > so in the third law case > we have 2 actors > one intrinsic > and one extrinsic!! > (simple isnt that simple ??!) > > ATB > Y.Porat > ---------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Which is intrinsic one? Is it nucleor/proton force? (Truth is simple. Truth is difficult though simple)
From: Kumar on 27 Mar 2010 21:58
On Mar 27, 3:56 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 27, 11:37 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 27, 12:07 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_x> > > wrote: > > > > "Kumar" <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:1a5325df-e2b4-411c-bfc9-cc0d06bdb883(a)k5g2000prg.googlegroups.com.... > > > On Mar 26, 2:14 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_w> wrote: > > > > > "Kumar" <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > >news:1c8bb6cd-7803-4756-b179-dc542b0e2d28(a)a10g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > > > > On Mar 26, 12:27 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_w> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > "Kumar" <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > >news:26dbb8cc-24f7-4023-8221-cbcb84f80b59(a)k36g2000prb.googlegroups..com... > > > > > On Mar 25, 9:26 pm, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 21, 7:46 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 21, 3:26 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mar 21, 10:57 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 16, 9:34 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 16, 7:35 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > Newton's third law is frequently stated > > > > > > > > > > > > "Action and reaction are equal and opposite > > > > > > > > > > > To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" > > > > > > > > > > > > Law is defined as; > > > > > > > > > > > > The term law is often used to refer to universal principles > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > describe the fundamental nature of something, to universal > > > > > > > > > > > properties > > > > > > > > > > > and relationships between things, or to descriptions that > > > > > > > > > > > purport to > > > > > > > > > > > explain these principles and > > > > > > > > > > > relationships.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_(principle) > > > > > > > > > > > > I have some questions:- > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Is it also true that "to every reaction there is equal > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > opposite > > > > > > > > > > > action"? > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Can we consider action or reaction as activities or > > > > > > > > > > > motions > > > > > > > > > > > and as > > > > > > > > > > > law hold universal application, whether above action > > > > > > > > > > > reaction > > > > > > > > > > > relationship will apply to all our activities? > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes. > > > > > > > > > > > It applies to forces. Almost nothing else.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > Will you tell how equal & opposte effect relates to fundamental > > > > > > > > > forces. I have discussed about EM. What about other three? > > > > > > > > > > "The interaction of radiation with matter involves the > > > > > > > > > absorption, > > > > > > > > > scattering, and emission of photons". Does it not suggest that > > > > > > > > > excitation of electrons related to just absorption & emission to > > > > > > > > > their > > > > > > > > > decaying back? > > > > > > > > > --------------------- > > > > > > > > for me the answer is very simple!! > > > > > > > > 1 > > > > > > > > it seesm to me that most people here still didnt got it that > > > > > > > > nothing > > > > > > > > is done instantaneously > > > > > > > > iot means that > > > > > > > > even that time is very short > > > > > > > > it has > > > > > > > > its beginning > > > > > > > > its all the middle points > > > > > > > > and its end!! > > > > > > > > each of the above is different !!! > > > > > > > > just immagine that you strech that tiny time > > > > > > > > to a whole hour !! (:-) > > > > > > > > so > > > > > > > > an ypoint on that one hour is a different story: > > > > > > > > the start point can be > > > > > > > > either start of the process > > > > > > > > or the end of it !!! > > > > > > > > so that **start point ** can be > > > > > > > > either the start of excitation > > > > > > > > or the end of excitation!! -- > > > > > > > > that leads to decay > > > > > > > > > metaphorically > > > > > > > > > you can START climbing a mountain (excitation) > > > > > > > > and you can as well > > > > > > > > > **start **descending a mountain !!!...(decay process ) > > > > > > > > or vice versa ?? !! > > > > > > > > ATB > > > > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > Yes but decay process only emit photons. Not so?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > Kumar, decay processes can emit many things besides photons. > > > > > > > You need to learn basic physics before trying to discus physics in > > > > > > this newsgroup. Go to school!- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > Pls tell me more about it or provide link. However we are discussing > > > > > here about if decaying back can be considered as a reason to equal & > > > > > opposite reaction. [Spritually, equal & opposte reaction can have some > > > > > relavance to Causality-cause and effect or Karma theory] > > > > > "Causality is the relationship between an event (the cause) and a > > > > > second event (the effect), where the second event is a consequence of > > > > > the first.["http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality > > > > > > ============================================== > > > > > Kumar, there is no problem with discussing physics here, that's a > > > > > learning process too. Bonehead Green is a worthless bigot without any > > > > > integrity and nobody's uncle. He doesn't have any integrity because he > > > > > refuses to admit it when he's been proven wrong. He's no scientist, > > > > > he's a dumb ex-schoolteacher. > > > > > > You are correct that decay processes emit photons (packets of energy), > > > > > although not "only" photons. > > > > > Decaying "back" would require the photon returning and that doesn't > > > > > happen too often in nuclear decay. However, in principle this is not as > > > > > impossible as it may at first seem, many chemical reactions can be > > > > > thought > > > > > of as decay processes, with hydrogen and oxygen "emitting" water as well > > > > > as heat. Some reactions are endothermic. > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endothermic > > > > > There are 118 (to date) elements and it is commonly thought that most > > > > > of these were produced from hydrogen in the core of a star which later > > > > > exploded. Whatever the process, they do exist and if they contain energy > > > > > as uranium does then that energy must have gone into the process.- Hide > > > > > quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Thanks. However I am taliking about decaying back of electrons after > > > > excitation due to some applied energy to atoms. Whether this also emit > > > > other things than photons? > > > > =============================================== > > > > Not really, although the atom as a whole can be knocked around a bit. > > > > The easiest way to understand quantum theory is to think of it in terms > > > > of money. Let coins represent quantities of energy, and you have no > > > > coins that have fractional values. If I give you 10 you can spend 10 or > > > > spend 5, 3, 2 or spend 1 ten times, but you can never spend 4 or 6 or 7 > > > > or 8 or 9. If you want to spend 4 then you must spend 1 four times, 2 > > > > twice > > > > or 3 and 1. Giving a photon to an atom (excitation) is like giving it a > > > > coin. > > > > Once it has the coin (energy) the only thing it can do is spend it or keep > > > > it > > > > for a rainy day, but it can spend part of the energy as long as it is an > > > > allowed quantity. We know this from the spectrum, which is different > > > > for each element. > > > >http://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys401/bedaque06/discrete_spectra... > > > > Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Thanks. Good example. It also cover corresponding elergy levels. > > > However pls tell how atoms keep energy or remain in excitation for > > > prolonged time? Is there a tendancy to decay back after excitation & > > > come to their natural/lowest level? Regards. > > > =============================================== > > > Science is the observation, investigation and explanation of natural > > > phenomena. Questions in the form of "how...?" or "why...?" based > > > on your assumptions may have no answer, especially if your assumption > > > is incorrect. How does the Moon stay in orbit around the Earth? Is > > > there a tendency for it to fly off into space? Well, yes there is, and > > > it stays in orbit because gravity keeps it there. So why doesn't it fall > > > to Earth? Because it has a tendency to fly off into space! But we cannot > > > say what gravity *is*, we can only say what it does. This is enough to > > > enable us to launch artificial satellites into orbit, but not enough to > > > say how gravity works. We have to accept that it does. So... what is a > > > "prolonged time"? Why should there be a "natural/lowest" level? > > > Perhaps the natural level is the highest level! Why should 2 be more > > > than 1? How does a chicken lay eggs? Why do you get tears in your > > > eyes when you are sad? Why do you laugh? (Think about it, it's a > > > very silly thing to do, coughing up puffs of air to express pleasure.) > > > Atoms keep energy for a prolonged time because they did NOT change. > > > Tendencies are not certainties, they are instead a statistical measure of a > > > change, there is no guarantee that tossing a coin will come up heads, > > > but one expects it to happen for half of the number of trials IF it is > > > tossed.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > By natural I mean an inherant sense or right & wrong. Anyway, what > > cause electrons to decay back & come to lower level & leave photons? > > ------------------ > fo r the similar reason why > your cattle becomes colder with time > Y.P > ----------------- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - or heated water become colder or ice become water? |