Time-domains [Relativity]

Prev: A castigation of Napoleon Bonehead Green, Doctor of Phrenology,
Next: INDISPENSABLE FALSE AXIOMS?

From: Darwin123 on 4 Aug 2010 17:51

On Aug 4, 2:45 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Darwin123 wrote:
> > On Aug 2, 7:12 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> >> Well, if you look at the properties of inertia, and then
> >> look at quantum properties like uncertainty, the two are
> >> not compatible. The fact that an electron does not fall
> >> into the nucleus, can only be explained by saying that
> >> Newtonian-Einsteinian-, also called classical physics
> >> stops there.
> > One can carry classical physics a bit farther by assuming that the
> > universe is filled with "zero point energy." One can assume that the
> > universe is filled with a Lorentz invariant distribution of
> > electromagnetic radiation. In this model, the zero point energy obeys
> > classical laws. However, each mode has an amplitude and a phase that
> > is determined by a random variable.
> > The distribution of amplitudes is characterized by one universal
> > constant, h. The universal constant, h, happens to have the value of
> > Planck's constant.
> > The zero point radiation keeps kicking the electron in a hydrogen
> > atom away from the proton.
>
> Does not work, if it is a classical kick, the electron
> would emit radiation, while nothing is observed.
This is not true. If the electron accelerates, then it emits or
absorbs electromagnetic radiation. However, this merely contributes to
the Lorentz invariant radiation background. The only changes in energy
that can be perceived are those produce radiation that is not part of
the Lorentz invariant background. The observed energy has to be
distinguishable from zero point radiation.
>
> There is no energy difference for the electron in the
> entire orbital. It might get kicked, by ZPE or by
> thermal nucleus agitation, the fact is that the kick it
> receives does not justify the "motion" in the orbital,
> which does not look like motion at all, but more like
> being everywhere at the same time. This can also only be
> accomplished by having no inertia.
In the SED model, the electron actually moves around with a "well
defined" trajectory. Unfortunately, the "well defined trajectory: is
determined by a zero point field that has an infinite number of modes
and an infinite number of random phases. The random phases in the
Lorentz invariant background cause the uncertainty seen in "quantum"
measurements.
The random phases in the ZPT makes the trajectory look like it is
being everywhere at the same time. Note: the SED model is only a
model. I am not claiming that the electron actually moves around like
this, only that SED explains the experimental measurements up to a
certain point. There is no replacing QED just yet.
>
> This behavior is also seen in free particles, and they
> remain confined in their uncertainty region, if they
> would receive random kicks, it would more look like
> Brownian motion.
This is for a thermal distribution of electromagnetic energy. A
thermal distribution would kick the electron around so it takes a path
resembling Brownian motion. However, the ZPT in this model has a
Lorentz invariant distribution. A Lorentz invariant distribution of
classical radiation would have an infinite energy density, no low
frequency cut off, no high frequency cut off, and an infinite number
of random phases. The result is motion that does not resemble Brownian
motion.
>
> This confinement in their uncertainty region, is exactly
> what a failing inertia would do, exceed the uncertainty
> condition and inertia kicks in.
>
> Also, it neatly explains wave-particle duality, every
> object has an uncertainty cloud in which it is not bound
> to inertia, and thus obeys wave mechanics.
I am talking about a classical analogue for quantum mechanics. In
this classical analogue, the wave function of an electron is an
illusion. The behavior of the electron, which is a point particle, has
statistical properties that resemble the QED electron with the wave-
particle duality.
>
> How do you explain Aspects experiments with ZPE ?
I am not sure what you mean by Aspects experiments. Perhaps you
mean photon correlation experiments.
SED has been used to explain two photon correlation experiments.
The predictions of SED and QED are identical in experiments that
involve single photon transitions and two photon transitions.
QED and SED predicts different measurements in the case of
transitions that involve three or more photons. Experimental evidence
so far seems to favor QED. So quantum mechanics appears safe. However,
it is amazing that SED manages to explain so much without a true wave-
particle duality.
If you like, I can get you the title of an article describing
experiments where SED fails. QED still rules for three photon
transitions. I have no link to this article.
There is another thread here concerning the applicability of QED
to a radio antenna. Obviously, SED would explain most of the
properties of a radio antenna as well as QED. Not only that, it
probably would explain the properties of most radio frequency
phenomena even in the "quantum" realm.
I have been tempted start explaining things in the radio antenna
in terms of SED. However, this would confuse some people further than
they are already confused. The discussion is hot enough |:-)
>
> Uwe Hayek.
>
> > However, radiation reaction brings the
> > electron closer to the proton.
> > Many, although not all, quantum mechanical phenomena can be
> > explained using zero point radiation. If interested, look up:
> > "stochastic electrodynamics", SED, and "classical zero point
> > energy".
> > SED doesn't totally explain quantum mechanics. It is only a
> > classical analogue for quantum mechanics. However, it explains a good
> > deal.
> > The fact that an electron does not fall
> > into the nucleus, can be explained by saying that
> > Newtonian-Einsteinian-, also called classical, physics
> > works with the addition of a Lorentz invariant radiation
> > field. You don't have to throw away classical electrodynamics
> > entirely, just to explain orbitals.
>
> --
> We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate
> inversion : the stage where the government is free to do
> anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by
> permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of
> human history. -- Ayn Rand
>
> I predict future happiness for Americans if they can
> prevent the government from wasting the labors of the
> people under the pretense of taking care of them. --
> Thomas Jefferson.
>
> Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of
> ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue
> is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.

From: Darwin123 on 4 Aug 2010 17:57

From: Thomas Heger on 5 Aug 2010 07:16

Thomas Heger schrieb:
> Hayek schrieb:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> If 'spacetime is observer independent, than we could put one observer
>>> somewhere.
>>> This observer is provided with a clock. Now he would find, his clock
>>> seem to act differently on other positions. But he could find, that
>>> certain locations allow to keep other identical clocks synchronized.
>>> The set of these positions he calls a 'time domain' and because it
>>> his clock, that is his domain.
>>
>> Actually, you mean by this domain, a domain where inertia is constant,
>> a clock is just an inertial field meter.
>>
> Isn't mass a unit related to inertia?. So I call mass timelike stable.
> In the spacetime view velocity could be treated like an angle. So a
> massive object tends to stabilize its path.
> More mass meas also more energetic content. Since I wanted to model
> energy as rotation, more energy means more stability, or more mass.
> Since faster spin means smaller spheres, the nucleus of an atom is more
> massive than the shell.

To my surprise I found an experimental 'proof' of this assumption and
that is called 'coin shrinking':

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4fV6lXhyno&NR=1

The relation to my model is, that higher energetic content would make
things smaller. And pumping large amounts of energy into a coin would
make spin faster or raise the frequency, what means smaller spheres
(because of higher frequency). Actually it's easier to imagine, the coin
got kicked into another direction and undergoes length contraction, or:
Lorentz transforms in place (because it is still here - you could hold
it in you hand).

TH

First | Prev |
Pages: 1 2
Prev: A castigation of Napoleon Bonehead Green, Doctor of Phrenology,
Next: INDISPENSABLE FALSE AXIOMS?