The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Re: Why don't an atom's electrons fall into the nucleus and stick to the protons?  (Read 133 times)

jccc

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 219
    • View Profile
Did you noticed that I predicted space expending, spiral galaxy magnetic field, light speed without math?

A negatived charged particle connects all the dots.

Book anyone can read, read and think, so to find out deeper truth.

If you really understand QM, put it into simple concepts that I can understand.

PmbPhy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
If you really understand QM, put it into simple concepts that I can understand.
You have an irrational belief that everything can be explained with no education, only a good simple description. If that was the case then nobody would have to learn quantum mechanics. They'd just pick up a book that explains questions in simple terms. Sorry, but as much as you'd like it to be that way, it's impossible.

jccc

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 219
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
If you really understand QM, put it into simple concepts that I can understand.
You have an irrational belief that everything can be explained with no education, only a good simple description. If that was the case then nobody would have to learn quantum mechanics. They'd just pick up a book that explains questions in simple terms. Sorry, but as much as you'd like it to be that way, it's impossible.

Was your education enough to explain space expending? Spiral galaxy produces magnetic field? Why light speed is C?

PmbPhy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
Was your education enough to explain space expending? Spiral galaxy produces magnetic field? Why light speed is C?
Those are facts. But you haven't been asking about mere facts. You've been asking about the mechanisms for those facts and explanations and descriptions. That's different than merely stating facts.

jccc

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 219
    • View Profile
You think those are facts. Because you believe the evidences observed by scientists.

I believe those facts will happen because I understand the principle/mechanism.

All things follows force, all nature laws is law of force.

In atom theory, I see the force to compress the atom into a nucleus size ball, but in reality an atom radius is 10^5 bigger.

My confusion is not alone, or I am just crazy.

PmbPhy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
You think those are facts.
First off all, no. I didn't see where you predicted space expending, spiral galaxy magnetic field, light speed without math?

Is this what you think? Do you think that I can't explain myself because I'd have to use math and you want an explanation without math? That's not it at all. It's just very involved. There books that explain quantum mechanics which don't require the reader to know math. E.g. Quantum Reality - Beyond the New Physics by Nick Herbert. Even if you read a small fraction if it you'd be reading well over 50 pages of text. I can't exactly post 50 pages of text in a post or even in a thread. It's too long for one post and the thoughts would be too scattered in a thread. Not to mention it takes a specific question to direct the answer to and I can't exactly do that for every question that I answer. That's why you don't think we don't know what we're talking about. It certainly isn't the case that we're ignorant on the subject matter my friend. But go back to post #55 in the thread  http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=26362.0  and on and see how I described it.

What do you mean when you say that predicted light speed without math? Since that's a mathematical result then how can you make that claim other than speculating that light is an electromagnetic wave?

Moving on - Please don't take offense at my response here jccc because you're my buddy and I don't want you to think I'm being rude. I'm just being honest. If you think I'm being rude then please send me a PM and let me know what I said and I'll try to rephrase it next time. Okay?

So, the problem is that you don't get the scientific process very well nor how we as physicists are trained and how we accept what we believe. A lot of cynics think that we're just brainwashed robots and just accept what we're told to believe and we blindly believe it. That's the farthest thing from the truth and they have no right to make such accusations. It's solely based on their ignorance and not reality, that's for sure

Let's consider a specific example. The Second Principle of Relativity - The invariance of the speed of light; I know the history of electrodynamics and that includes the problems physicists ran into before Einstein published his theory of relativity. For certain reasons they thought that there was something that they referred to as the luminiferous ether[/I] which supported electromagnetic waves. Michelson and Morely did some experiments which were supposed to detect the motion of the ether. However it couldn't be detected. Rather the results were consistent with the hypothesis that there's no either at all. So Einstein put forward two principles:

1) Principle of Relativity - The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference
2) Invariance of the speed of light - The speed of light has the same value in all frames of reference, i.e. independent of the source of the light.

You say you principle/mechanism. So what? It's trivial to understand a principle because in physics a principle is merely described as follows
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle
Quote
A principle is a law or rule that has to be, or usually is to be followed, or can be desirably followed, or is an inevitable consequence of something, such as the laws observed in nature or the way that a system is constructed. The principles of such a system are understood by its users as the essential characteristics of the system, or reflecting system's designed purpose, and the effective operation or use of which would be impossible if any one of the principles was to be ignored
So if you understand the second principle of relativity then all you really understand is that the speed of light has the same value in all frames.

You also say that you understand the mechanism. Mechanism of what? Those few things? What did I say about mechanisms? They can be explained only when they aren't a law of physics. For example; we know the mechanism behind the question "Why is the sky blue" but not behind the principle of the conservation of energy.

Here's the basic way the scientific community comes to accept various things and in what it means to be a scientific fact;

At first we hypothesize they are as such (I don't know about the galaxy thing because I'm not an astrophysicist. With that hypothesis we begin a great deal of investigation and experimentation and when it appears that it's extremely unlikely that it's not any other way then we have a very good reason to believe it is. So we merely assume that it is. That is, until we assume its that way until prove otherwise.

Read this about scientific facts - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Fact_in_science

Quote from: jccc
Because you believe the evidences observed by scientists.
Oy, Joey! Please don't put words into my mouth like this, okay?

Quote from: jccc
In atom theory, I see the force to compress the atom into a nucleus size ball, but in reality an atom radius is 10^5 bigger.
You need to get over the idea of forces at the sub atomic level. The idea falls apart at that scale. What really matters is the potential.

jccc

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 219
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
Was your education enough to explain space expending? Spiral galaxy produces magnetic field? Why light speed is C?
Those are facts. But you haven't been asking about mere facts. You've been asking about the mechanisms for those facts and explanations and descriptions. That's different than merely stating facts.

Pete, you said those are facts. Based on what?

I didn't put words into your mouth. I assume you believe those findings by scientists are true, so you can say those are facts.

The theory for space expending is dark matter at work, no theory for the galaxy magnetic field. From wiki. 

My theory for light speed? Simple, space is filled a medium for EM wave progressing, therefore fixed speed.


PmbPhy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
Pete, you said those are facts. Based on what?
I already gave you an example of what it means to be a scientific fact when I used the invariance of the speed of light as an example and showed you the Wiki page on the meaning of scientific fact. It means we observe it in the lab and its consistent with everything we know. In case you're worried it doesn't mean such a fact may not be proved wrong some day.

Quote from: jccc
The theory for space expending is dark matter at work, no theory for the galaxy magnetic field. From wiki. 
Then you came to the right conclusion by a false deduction. Dark matter has nothing whatsoever to do with space expanding.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

Dark matter is what is causing the anomalous rotation curves in galaxies. It was found a long time after the expanding of the universe. And its completely logical to have an expanding universe with zero dark matter.

Quote from: jccc
My theory for light speed? Simple, space is filled a medium for EM wave progressing, therefore fixed speed.
You're wrong. I already explained this to you too. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether#End_of_aether.3F

If there was a medium, like a luminiferous ether, then the speed of light would depend on the frame of reference chosen. Think of water waves. If you're sitting on the shore of a large lake then the speed of the water waves wouldn't depend on the source of the waves. However the speed of the wave would change when you changed your frame of reference. For example; if you were in a boat that was moving with a wave then the wave would be at rest in the boats frame of reference.

So far everything you've speculated on is wrong. I don't know what you're thinking about galaxies though or where you got your ideas about them.

jeffreyH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 889
    • View Profile
Not many people think it is necessary to put in the work to understand the mathematics. If they did then they would see exactly why science describes certain things as facts and others as theories.

PmbPhy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
    • View Profile
Not many people think it is necessary to put in the work to understand the mathematics. If they did then they would see exactly why science describes certain things as facts and others as theories.
Thanks Jeff. It's nice to know that some people understand that fact. :)

 

SMF 2.0 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines