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: Kumar on 28 Mar 2010 09:48 On Mar 28, 8:00 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 28, 4:16 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 27, 4:23 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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!). > > > > 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? > > > > 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? > > > > (It is interesting to find Androcles giving free physics lessons > > > here.  But I do understand there are no free lunches.) > > > Thanks. It may be proper to first know, what causes electron to decay > > back--either due to leaving photons or due to nucleor energy(protons)? > > Second question will be, how electrons are compensated after electrons > > leave an atom after it crosses binding energy of that atom? > > ------------------ > the electrons are  'compensated' by energy > not after they left the Atom > but Before they did it !!! > iow > in  order of be detached from the Atom > the binding energy must be broken > and it is broken in inserting > some external energy tothe Atom > at the point of the electron is connected > > **had you understood that electrons > are not orbiting the nuc > you would understand it better !!** > see my abstract > about the structure of matter > and **binding energies** > > http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > > ATB > Y.Porat > ------------------------------ > > > > > One more question: How wave formed by electrons differ with wave from > > photons(being all electrons can be alike)?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Sorry I am unable to open link properly. Anyway, does following quote explain electron's movements? "The electron has an intrinsic angular momentum or spin of 1â2.[7] This property is usually stated by referring to the electron as a spin-1â2 particle.[64] For such particles the spin magnitude is â3â2 ħ. [note 3] while the result of the measurement of a projection of the spin on any axis can only be ±ħâ2. In addition to spin, the electron has an intrinsic magnetic moment along its spin axis.[7] It is approximately equal to one Bohr magneton,[68][note 4] which is a physical constant equal to 9.274 009 15(23) à 10â24 joules per tesla. [7] The orientation of the spin with respect to the momentum of the electron defines the property of elementary particles known as helicity.[69]..An electron generates an electric field that exerts an attractive force on a particle with a positive charge, such as the proton, and a repulsive force on a particle with a negative charge. The strength of In quantum electrodynamics the electromagnetic interaction between particles is mediated by photons. An isolated electron that is not undergoing acceleration is unable to emit or absorb a real photon; doing so would violate conservation of energy and momentum. Instead, virtual photons can transfer momentum between two charged particles. It is this exchange of virtual photons that, for example, generates the Coulomb force.[92] Energy emission can occur when a moving electron is deflected by a charged particle, such as a proton. The acceleration of the electron results in the emission of Bremsstrahlung radiation.[93 --]this force is determined by Coulomb's inverse square law.[86] When an electron is in motion, it generates a magnetic field.[87] ... ....Here, Bremsstrahlung is produced by an electron e deflected by the electric field of an atomic nucleus. The energy change E2 â E1 determines the frequency f of the emitted photon.An elastic collision between a photon (light) and a solitary (free) electron is called Compton scattering. This collision results in a transfer of momentum and energy between the particles, which modifies the wavelength of the photon by an amount called the Compton shift. ......An electron can be bound to the nucleus of an atom by the attractive Coulomb force. A system of several electrons bound to a nucleus is called an atom. If the number of electrons is different from the nucleus' electrical charge, such an atom is called an ion. The wave-like behavior of a bound electron is described by a function called an atomic orbital. Each orbital has its own set of quantum numbers such as energy, angular momentum and projection of angular momentum, and only a discrete set of these orbitals exist around the nucleus. According to the Pauli exclusion principal each orbital can be occupied by up to two electrons, which must differ in their spin quantum number. Electrons can transfer between different orbitals by the emission or absorption of photons with an energy that matches the difference in potential.[101] Other methods of orbital transfer include collisions with particles, such as electrons, and the Auger effect.[102] In order to escape the atom, the energy of the electron must be increased above its binding energy to the atom. This occurs, for example, with the photoelectric effect, where an incident photon exceeding the atom's ionization energy is absorbed by the electron.[103] The orbital angular momentum of electrons is quantized. Because the electron is charged, it produces an orbital magnetic moment that is proportional to the angular momentum. The net magnetic moment of an atom is equal to the vector sum of orbital and spin magnetic moments of all electrons and the nucleus. The nuclear magnetic moment is, however, negligible in comparison to the effect from the electrons. The magnetic moments of the electrons that occupy the same orbital (so called, paired electrons) cancel each other out.[ .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron "
From: ben6993 on 28 Mar 2010 09:49 On Mar 28, 3:16 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 27, 4:23 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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!). > > > 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? > > > 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? > > > (It is interesting to find Androcles giving free physics lessons > > here. But I do understand there are no free lunches.) > > Thanks. It may be proper to first know, what causes electron to decay > back--either due to leaving photons or due to nucleor energy(protons)? > Second question will be, how electrons are compensated after electrons > leave an atom after it crosses binding energy of that atom? > One more question: How wave formed by electrons differ with wave from > photons(being all electrons can be alike)?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Please treat my ideas with caution as I admit that I don't know much physics. If A and B are in relative motion then there is KE in both A's frame and B's frame. But the KE lies in the frame, not in either A or B individually. Likewise the nucleus must be involved somehow in the proceedings. But does the energy you seek lie in the nucleus or in the electron(s) or, rather, just in the atom as a whole? In another thread I was puzzled at how the photon could be emitted instantaneously, while the electron travelled much more slowly to its new position in a less energetic system. Because the transaction of how much energy was used needed to be done up front in that first instant. That is like paying a workman completely for a job before the work is done: unsound. Now I wonder why an electron should walk if it could take a fast car? It is more likely that the electron travels at speed c to its new position in the atom while dressed as a photon. So there may be two transactions occurring? Converting an electron into a photon (electron + positron = 2 photons) while in the high energy state. Then converting back to a photon in the lower energy state. So if the second transaction cannot be done then there would be no emmision. Don't ask for details as this is a new thought for me. Thinking of the electron as a standing wave in the atom, this would mean that the new standing wave would be instantaneously formed at the instant of the second of the above two transactions. But this may be rubbish. Someone else ought to answer your last question. Maxwell's equations cover photon transmission while electron waves need quantum equations eg schrodinger. But what you are asking must be more complicated than that.
From: PD on 28 Mar 2010 14:20 On Mar 27, 12:55 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 26, 5:55 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 25, 10:12 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 25, 6:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 24, 10:20 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 24, 7:37 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 23, 10:18 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > 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)? > > > > > > > > Pls tell me about basis of equal & opposte at basic level. > > > > > > > That's too broad a question. Perhaps you need to start with Newton's > > > > > > first law. Please look that up and then ask questions about that, if > > > > > > you do not understand it.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > Do you mean that things in action come to their natural/origional > > > > > position? > > > > > No, quite the opposite. The statement you made is the one that > > > > Aristotle made. > > > > Galileo made the claim (and it is borne out) that the OPPOSITE > > > > happens. That things in motion do NOT come to rest in their natural/ > > > > original position, but continue to move *forever*, unless acted on by > > > > an external force. > > > > Aristotle was proven wrong. The statement that objects in motion tend > > > > to arrive at their natural/original position on their own is WRONG. > > > > I think it is missing applicable natural forces. I think that > > > persistance of bodies either at rest or in motion as per ist law can > > > be valid if no forces are applicable & do not account applicable > > > natural forces. Look a how an electron decay back. It do not remain in > > > motion because atomic natural forces remains applicable on it? > > > > > > 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" > > > > > You see? This is Galileo's law above. > > > > I don't know whether it account applicable natural forces or not? > > > Yes it does. An object does not need an applied force on it to keep > > moving. This has been known for 400 years. > > > > > > 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?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > But natural forces- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Will such motions(without applied forces) not be considered as natural > motions? Eg. an electrons of an atom at lowest energy levels. Still > motions are there in an atom. Conservation of momentum also applies to electrons in atoms. What is your point?
From: Kumar on 28 Mar 2010 23:01 On Mar 28, 11:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 27, 12:55 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 26, 5:55 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 25, 10:12 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 25, 6:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 24, 10:20 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 24, 7:37 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 23, 10:18 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 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)? > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me about basis of equal & opposte at basic level. > > > > > > > > That's too broad a question. Perhaps you need to start with Newton's > > > > > > > first law. Please look that up and then ask questions about that, if > > > > > > > you do not understand it.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > Do you mean that things in action come to their natural/origional > > > > > > position? > > > > > > No, quite the opposite. The statement you made is the one that > > > > > Aristotle made. > > > > > Galileo made the claim (and it is borne out) that the OPPOSITE > > > > > happens. That things in motion do NOT come to rest in their natural/ > > > > > original position, but continue to move *forever*, unless acted on by > > > > > an external force. > > > > > Aristotle was proven wrong. The statement that objects in motion tend > > > > > to arrive at their natural/original position on their own is WRONG. > > > > > I think it is missing applicable natural forces. I think that > > > > persistance of bodies either at rest or in motion as per ist law can > > > > be valid if no forces are applicable & do not account applicable > > > > natural forces. Look a how an electron decay back. It do not remain in > > > > motion because atomic natural forces remains applicable on it? > > > > > > > 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" > > > > > > You see? This is Galileo's law above. > > > > > I don't know whether it account applicable natural forces or not? > > > > Yes it does. An object does not need an applied force on it to keep > > > moving. This has been known for 400 years. > > > > > > > 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?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > But natural forces- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Will such motions(without applied forces) not be considered as natural > > motions? Eg. an electrons of an atom at lowest energy levels. Still > > motions are there in an atom. > > Conservation of momentum also applies to electrons in atoms. What is > your point?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Yes but such state(electrons at lowest energy levels) may be the natural position of atom to which applied forces are not there?
From: PD on 29 Mar 2010 04:33
On Mar 28, 10:01 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 28, 11:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 27, 12:55 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 26, 5:55 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 25, 10:12 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 25, 6:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 24, 10:20 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 24, 7:37 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mar 23, 10:18 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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)? > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me about basis of equal & opposte at basic level.. > > > > > > > > > That's too broad a question. Perhaps you need to start with Newton's > > > > > > > > first law. Please look that up and then ask questions about that, if > > > > > > > > you do not understand it.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > Do you mean that things in action come to their natural/origional > > > > > > > position? > > > > > > > No, quite the opposite. The statement you made is the one that > > > > > > Aristotle made. > > > > > > Galileo made the claim (and it is borne out) that the OPPOSITE > > > > > > happens. That things in motion do NOT come to rest in their natural/ > > > > > > original position, but continue to move *forever*, unless acted on by > > > > > > an external force. > > > > > > Aristotle was proven wrong. The statement that objects in motion tend > > > > > > to arrive at their natural/original position on their own is WRONG. > > > > > > I think it is missing applicable natural forces. I think that > > > > > persistance of bodies either at rest or in motion as per ist law can > > > > > be valid if no forces are applicable & do not account applicable > > > > > natural forces. Look a how an electron decay back. It do not remain in > > > > > motion because atomic natural forces remains applicable on it? > > > > > > > > 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" > > > > > > > You see? This is Galileo's law above. > > > > > > I don't know whether it account applicable natural forces or not? > > > > > Yes it does. An object does not need an applied force on it to keep > > > > moving. This has been known for 400 years. > > > > > > > > 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?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > But natural forces- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Will such motions(without applied forces) not be considered as natural > > > motions? Eg. an electrons of an atom at lowest energy levels. Still > > > motions are there in an atom. > > > Conservation of momentum also applies to electrons in atoms. What is > > your point?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Yes but such state(electrons at lowest energy levels) may be the > natural position of atom to which applied forces are not there? No. |