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: Y.Porat on 29 Mar 2010 06:05 On Mar 24, 5:17 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 23, 10:23 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 22, 5:16 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 22, 12:30 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 21, 1:51 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 21, 3:08 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 21, 3:37 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 11:17 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 5:46 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 19, 5:06 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > mass is motion- is a cause.-- > > > > > > > > > > > > while it collides with something > > > > > > > > > > > > > momentum as well is mass in motion > > > > > > > > > > > > Y.P > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > Can it be there that application of energy to atoms causing > > > > > > > > > > > excitation as action then they are decaying back releasing photons as > > > > > > > > > > > reaction? > > > > > > > > > > > ------------- > > > > > > > > > > yes i t could be > > > > > > > > > > but the problem is to make some > > > > > > > > > > reasonable 'mechanism' > > > > > > > > > > that will show it all along the way > > > > > > > > > > > but in generally and abstractly i think you are right !! > > > > > > > > > > Does it justify equal & opposite reaction to any action at basic or > > > > > > > > > atleast atomic level level? Rest we can look thereafter. > > > > > > > > > ----------------------- > > > > > > > > yes > > > > > > > > i think that at he bottom line > > > > > > > > it is always > > > > > > > > action = reaction > > > > > > > > that is one of the basics of the physical world !! > > > > > > > > > ATB > > > > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > > > > ---------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > btw have you ever heard about > > > > > > > > > > the Bootstrap theory ?? > > > > > > > > > > > it is in generally compared to the zoological world !! > > > > > > > > > > in which each creature is eating the other one > > > > > > > > > > and uses its flesh material to build its > > > > > > > > > > ]own body !! > > > > > > > > > > sorry the nasty comparison > > > > > > > > > > I have not heard about it but it looks to be natural theory rather > > > > > > > > > than social theory. > > > > > > > > > > > but it i s not **my* invention > > > > > > > > > > but in generally it is very compatible to my > > > > > > > > > > world of mater and particle and EVEN ENERGY > > > > > > > > > > world understanding > > > > > > > > > > and that is why i always say > > > > > > > > > > > ''No mass no real physics'' > > > > > > > > > > even for energy and photons !!! > > > > > > > > > > > what you suggested above > > > > > > > > > > fits in a general way --that theory !!! > > > > > > > > > > Thanks we can try to look it as a basic thought than we can try > > > > > > > > > linking it at gross level. How this theory can be linked at > > > > > > > > > complex( molecular, substances, things & beings) levels?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > What about the involvement of gravitation force in equal & opposite > > > > > > > consideration? > > > > > > > ------------------ > > > > > > i told you > > > > > > i am a structural engineer > > > > > > and i could not do a single step in my profession without that > > > > > > weight == reaction from the foundation!! > > > > > > > and not only in the foundation part > > > > > > any single part of that what ever complicated structure > > > > > > with a certain weight > > > > > > must be balanced by exact > > > > > > opposite* reactions**(with an upwards component * !! > > > > > > from the other parts that are holding it in rest > > > > > > ATB > > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > > -------------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > If we climb up high on a hill, we can either fall or descend down to > > > > > plains. Is it not equal & opposite due to gravitational force? > > > > > ---------------- > > > > may be > > > > actually no one now knows exactly > > > > what is going on there > > > > we can know it only abstractly !!! > > > > just remember that most people think about the electron as a point > > > > particle (:- > > > > th e nuc as a sphere > > > > eelctrons orbiting in 3 4 5 6 shells > > > > etc etc etc > > > > ie playing chess with themselves > > > > Y.P > > > > ---------------------- > > > > Y.P > > > > ---------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Electron orbiting is one basis of most understandings. Do you mean no > > > one knows or sure about this basic understanding? > > > -------------------- > > quite the contrary!!! > > it was at the beginning of 20 th century > > to day > > most scientist understand that it is not orbiting > > btw > > mind you > > th e formula of an orbiting object > > is quite the same as > > a vibrating object !!! > > ATB > > Y.Porat > > --------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Common languge is used. Anyway, what will be the basis of equal & > opposte at basic level? ------------------- iam not sure i understood your question but anyway action comes **before** reaction !! because according to me **nothing is done INSTANTANEOUSLY !!! (:-) ATB Y.Porat ------------------------------------
From: Kumar on 29 Mar 2010 06:45 On Mar 29, 3:05 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 24, 5:17 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 23, 10:23 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 22, 5:16 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 22, 12:30 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 21, 1:51 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 21, 3:08 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 21, 3:37 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 11:17 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 5:46 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 19, 5:06 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > mass is motion- is a cause.-- > > > > > > > > > > > > > while it collides with something > > > > > > > > > > > > > > momentum as well is mass in motion > > > > > > > > > > > > > Y.P > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can it be there that application of energy to atoms causing > > > > > > > > > > > > excitation as action then they are decaying back releasing photons as > > > > > > > > > > > > reaction? > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------- > > > > > > > > > > > yes i t could be > > > > > > > > > > > but the problem is to make some > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable 'mechanism' > > > > > > > > > > > that will show it all along the way > > > > > > > > > > > > but in generally and abstractly i think you are right !! > > > > > > > > > > > Does it justify equal & opposite reaction to any action at basic or > > > > > > > > > > atleast atomic level level? Rest we can look thereafter.. > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------- > > > > > > > > > yes > > > > > > > > > i think that at he bottom line > > > > > > > > > it is always > > > > > > > > > action = reaction > > > > > > > > > that is one of the basics of the physical world !! > > > > > > > > > > ATB > > > > > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > > > > > ---------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > btw have you ever heard about > > > > > > > > > > > the Bootstrap theory ?? > > > > > > > > > > > > it is in generally compared to the zoological world !! > > > > > > > > > > > in which each creature is eating the other one > > > > > > > > > > > and uses its flesh material to build its > > > > > > > > > > > ]own body !! > > > > > > > > > > > sorry the nasty comparison > > > > > > > > > > > I have not heard about it but it looks to be natural theory rather > > > > > > > > > > than social theory. > > > > > > > > > > > > but it i s not **my* invention > > > > > > > > > > > but in generally it is very compatible to my > > > > > > > > > > > world of mater and particle and EVEN ENERGY > > > > > > > > > > > world understanding > > > > > > > > > > > and that is why i always say > > > > > > > > > > > > ''No mass no real physics'' > > > > > > > > > > > even for energy and photons !!! > > > > > > > > > > > > what you suggested above > > > > > > > > > > > fits in a general way --that theory !!! > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks we can try to look it as a basic thought than we can try > > > > > > > > > > linking it at gross level. How this theory can be linked at > > > > > > > > > > complex( molecular, substances, things & beings) levels?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > What about the involvement of gravitation force in equal & opposite > > > > > > > > consideration? > > > > > > > > ------------------ > > > > > > > i told you > > > > > > > i am a structural engineer > > > > > > > and i could not do a single step in my profession without that > > > > > > > weight == reaction from the foundation!! > > > > > > > > and not only in the foundation part > > > > > > > any single part of that what ever complicated structure > > > > > > > with a certain weight > > > > > > > must be balanced by exact > > > > > > > opposite* reactions**(with an upwards component * !! > > > > > > > from the other parts that are holding it in rest > > > > > > > ATB > > > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > > > -------------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > If we climb up high on a hill, we can either fall or descend down to > > > > > > plains. Is it not equal & opposite due to gravitational force? > > > > > > ---------------- > > > > > may be > > > > > actually no one now knows exactly > > > > > what is going on there > > > > > we can know it only abstractly !!! > > > > > just remember that most people think about the electron as a point > > > > > particle (:- > > > > > th e nuc as a sphere > > > > > eelctrons orbiting in 3 4 5 6 shells > > > > > etc etc etc > > > > > ie playing chess with themselves > > > > > Y.P > > > > > ---------------------- > > > > > Y.P > > > > > ---------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Electron orbiting is one basis of most understandings. Do you mean no > > > > one knows or sure about this basic understanding? > > > > -------------------- > > > quite the contrary!!! > > > it was at the beginning of 20 th century > > > to day > > > most scientist understand that it is not orbiting > > > btw > > > mind you > > > th e formula of an orbiting object > > > is quite the same as > > > a vibrating object !!! > > > ATB > > > Y.Porat > > > --------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Common languge is used. Anyway, what will be the basis of equal & > > opposte at basic level? > > ------------------- > iam not sure i understood your question > but anyway > action comes **before** reaction !! > > because according to me > **nothing is done INSTANTANEOUSLY !!! > (:-) > > ATB > Y.Porat > ------------------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Yes. Whether energy exposure to atoms is not instantaneous?
From: Kumar on 29 Mar 2010 06:56
On Mar 28, 6:49 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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. Caution may be needed in everyone case till understandings become absolute. > 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? I think protons being opposite charge to electrons may effected in some manner on electron absorbing applied energy? I think, till electrons decay back or leave atom, it may lie within 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.- Hide quoted text - I think electrons need chractristic energy to it which may be relevant. > - Show quoted text - |