1

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / What Is the wave nature of matter?

« on: 11/06/2011 16:26:22 »

Last night I had several friends come come over and we got into a discussion about physics. We got to talking about the wave nature of a particle and one of them asked, "If a particle sometimes acts like a wave does that mean it is a wave?" and of course my response, "No it is a particle it's just that some observations see it as a wave.". Later thinking about my response I wondered is that really true. Isn't it possible the exact opposite is true, that it is really a wave and some observations see it as a particle?

2

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Is there a Universal time?

« on: 04/05/2011 17:47:47 »

This was also posted here http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=39022.msg354554#msg354554

A clock just outside the event horizon of a black hole will appear to be almost stopped to an observer far away. That same clock will appear to run faster on Earth, faster on the moon and faster in empty space. Those four locations will have an average rate which suggests the Universe has an average rate based on the matter energy density of the Universe. In space I have a device that will emit a beam of light which I call device A. Three hundred thousand kilometers away I have a detector which I call device B. Some distance away I have a clock which is entangled with device A and B such that when A emits the beam my clock starts and when device B detects the beam my clock stops. I trigger device A to fire and my clock shows a time of one second determining the speed of light to have it's current value. I now move my clock to the edge of the event horizon of a black hole and trigger device A again. If my logic is correct don't I measure c to be almost infinite?

3

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / What is inflation during the BB?

« on: 25/04/2011 14:53:46 »

At 10^-50seconds after the BB wouldn't time being running very very slow and if so the Universe would appear to be in a period of inflation?

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / F = KeQ1Q2/r2 ?

« on: 04/04/2011 23:50:38 »

The equation, F = K_eQ₁Q₂/r² as everyone knows, is used to determine the force between two charged particles at some distance r. Suppose Q₂ was racing around inside a donut shaped tube, would that change the force on Q₁?








Mod edit: I included the equation in the post title to attract the appropriate attention !

5

New Theories / Did Bohr shout physics into the dark ages for over eighty years?

« on: 22/03/2011 21:04:29 »

This pretty well explains my own view.  http://laputan.blogspot.com/2003_09_21_laputan_archive.html

6

General Science / Does a charged particle moving at 95% of the speed of light emit radiation?

« on: 14/01/2011 16:55:06 »

Does a charged particle moving at 95% of the speed of light emit radiation? Let's assume there is no radiation anywhere along it's path.

7

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / What is the time interval for photon emission of the electron ?

« on: 04/11/2010 14:54:06 »

A photon of a 122nm is absorbed by the hydrogen atom, how long does it take for the electron to re-emit that photon?

8

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Why is a constant sometimes required in a formula?

« on: 02/11/2010 14:47:36 »

The reason the equation F = ma was proposed by Newton is because F had been determined enough times in experiments to validate his equation so that no constant of proportionality was required. He fully understood all the parameters that made up the equation. Doesn't this suggest that an equation requiring a constant means that we don't fully understand the phenomenon we are trying to describe?

9

New Theories / How does a star make the neutron?

« on: 16/10/2010 16:21:31 »

Vern, I am astounded. That is very close to what I've been thinking. The neutron is very interesting in that we need to figure out how the hydrogen atom can be turned into the neutron in a star. One idea I've been toying with is that the temperature and pressure of a star can collapse the electron wave into a figure eight with the proton at the center of one loop. This would produce a particle that is slightly polarized which is exactly what some new experiments suggest.

10

New Theories / Shoud we change gears?

« on: 06/10/2010 18:53:54 »

I'll start with yor on's last post.

Okay Geezer. Nice question, 'what happens to an atom at 0K'.
The easy answer is that we can't reach that temperature. but the relevance is still there. What happens to it? And I like mine too How does it decompose if it never 'radiates' by itself?

Bohr's model of an atom is not the one used by QM it seems? It have instead been replaced by a 'probability model' based on Louis de Broglie question about if light could behave like both waves and particles, why shouldn't particles also behave like waves?

"Thus, electrons in an atom were not moving in orbits but filled an orbit as standing waves. Familiar electromagnetic radiation, like light, exists as traveling waves, moving through space at the velocity of light. A standing wave does not move, but vibrates between fixed points, like the string on a violin."

While Bohr's model of the atom could account for spectral lines, it still could not account for why electrons had quantacized angular momentum in atoms and why electrons could be in orbit in atoms, which would involve acceleration around the nucleus, without radiating away all their energy, which accelerated electrical charges do. The atom could simply not be a little solar system, based on charge rather than gravity, since electrons, on classical principles, would lose energy and fall into the nucleus.

Familiar electromagnetic radiation, like light, exists as traveling waves, moving through space at the velocity of light. A standing wave does not move, but vibrates between fixed points, like the string on a violin. The sine wave at right represents a whole wavelength. It has a portion with a positive magnitude, a portion with a negative magnitude, and a node, which has zero magnitude.

The ends of the wave, which also have zero magnitude, are usually not considered to be nodes. Half a wavelength would have no nodes; one and a half wavelengths, two nodes; and two whole wavelengths, three nodes. A one dimensional wave has nodes that are points, and it vibrates into two dimensions. Similarly, a two dimensional wave, like a wave of water on the ocean, has nodes that are lines, and it vibrates into three dimensions.

A three dimensional wave, which is what electrons in an atom would be, has nodes that are surfaces. Such surfaces can be planes, cones, or spheres. By analogy, we might want to say that a three dimensional wave would vibrate into four dimensions, but this aspect of the matter does not seem have been much discussed or explored. In electron waves, each non-spherical node represents a quantum of angular momentum.

Thus, a half wavelength, with no non-spherical nodes, is 0 angular momentum; a full wavelength, with one non-spherical node, is angular momentum; a wavelength and a half, with two non-spherical nodes, is 2 angular momentum; etc. "

But it still doesn't answer the question about an atoms dissipation of energy if left alone?

From the Quantacized Atom


Now take a look here conservation_of_energy

What we read here is firstly 'energy can neither be created (produced) nor destroyed by itself. It can only be transformed.' All of this I presume to build on the idea of a closed system naturally but under that assumption it makes good sense to me. then we come to 'In quantum mechanics energy is expressed using the Hamiltonian operator. On any time scales, the uncertainty in the energy ... is similar in form to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (but not really mathematically equivalent thereto, since H and t are not dynamically conjugate variables, neither in classical nor in quantum mechanics).

So, how am I supposed to understand this. Is this a suggestion that an atom is on that indeterminate 'scale' that it gets its 'energy' from HUP (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle)? And as HUP is outside Planck scale it is free to violate times arrow, which means that all bets on an atoms energy is open to interpretation? And if so, what regulates that 'energy' to a 'consistent system' differing for different atoms under our arrow of time.

Don't know if I made this clear enough, but I hope you can follow it?
You have to remember that when I'm looking at it, I differ between the 'arrow of time' and 'time' in itself. 'Time' is what exist, like a pool of undifferentiated water, where the stream we see will be our 'arrow of time' defining us macroscopically.
 

This thread had approached the limit of what is considered a new theory. There is more I would like to discuss so I will start a new thread in New Theories.

11

New Theories / How is a photon created?

« on: 03/10/2010 19:13:16 »

An accelerated charged particle will emit radiation perpendicular to the direction of acceleration. http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/mrr/MRRtalk.html It seems reasonable to think that accelerating a charged particle changes the position of it's field with respect to it's original position and that change propagates at C. I propose that change is what we call a photon and it will propagate without the need of virtual particles as the medium. The medium is the charged particle's own field. The particle must be accelerated with respect to any observer to emit radiation. If the observer is accelerated at the same rate as the particle then the field lines of the observer change at the same rate as the particles and therefore the observer does not see the particle emitting radiation.

It should be understood that a charged particle has an electric field extending from it three hundred and sixty degrees in all directions. The diagram below is a simple illustration to show how a photon is formed.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

The vertical blue line above the blue stationary charged particle represents the collapsing (at C) electric field. The red dashed line represents a changing electric field. The red line above the red accelerating charged particle represents an expanding (at C) electric field. The angle of the dashed red line is just to show that the energy of the photon is dependent upon the acceleration of the charged particle. It should be noted that accelerating an atom or molecule will produce wave fronts according to the number of charged particles involved. To an observer the red dashed line would appear as the magnetic component of the photon and the red line as the electric component of the photon. It should be understood also that a three dimensional picture of the photon would resemble an expanding torus. Using this picture of the photon I will explain the photon double slit experiment and the electron double slit experiment.

In the photon double slit the experimenter designed the emitter device to emit a single photon, but according to the above description of the photon the experimenter was releasing a complete wave that would always pass through a single or double slit producing the corresponding interference pattern.

In the case of the electron double slit the details of exactly how the devise was designed is relatively inadequate. The emitter releases an electron that is accelerated toward a positive plate that has the double slit. Again, from the above, we know the electron will produce a wave that will pass through a single or double slit producing the corresponding interference pattern.

12

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / HOW DOES AN UP QUARK TURN INTO A DOWN QUARK?

« on: 29/08/2010 01:00:53 »

The caterpillar has a genetic code sensitive to certain environmental conditions that tell it to build a cocoon and then tells the cells to rearrange into a butterfly.
An imaginary picture of the hydrogen atom, the proton is composed of two red up quarks and one blue down quark with the electron being a yellow point. What do you suppose the code is that mixes the electron with one of the red quarks turning into a blue quark and thus a neutron?

13

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Magnets?

« on: 11/08/2010 15:01:28 »

Suppose we had two magnets made of an exotic material that would allow them to pass through each other never touching except via the field of each. Each would be made in the shape of a washer or doughnut and ones diameter is several hundred times smaller than the other but the field strength of each is identical. If they are separated out in space by say by 20cm when released what would you suppose their final position with respect to each other would be?

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / What would a graphic representation of time dilation for a spinning doughnut be?

« on: 11/05/2010 15:11:22 »

Let's assume there are no side effects of spinning at C. Looking at the top side of the hole, time would speed up in the direction of spin and slow in the opposite direction. The other side of the doughnut would be exactly opposite giving the doughnut a sort of north and south temporal pole. Does that sound like a reasonable analysis? Help me out here, I have a feeling this is much deeper than I think.

15

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How much does the beam of electrons disperse in a CRT?

« on: 03/05/2010 15:56:31 »

Say we had a CRT that is 5 meters long, what would the dot on the phosphor look like?

16

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Is there a limit on time?

« on: 19/04/2010 17:15:16 »

Time is malleable. As a clock falls into a gravity well it slows with respect to an observer that is stationary with the gravity well. If a clock is accelerated it slows with respect to a stationary observer. Is there a limit as to how slow or fast time can flow? In the case of slow time, no matter if you put all the energy and mass of the entire Universe into a black hole, the flow of time would still not completely stop it could only approach zero. So the limit in this case is unobtainable. Is there a limit in the other direction. I would think the same condition would apply, that it could approach infinitely fast.

17

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How was the direction of force lines determined?

« on: 15/04/2010 14:38:19 »

I have read that the field force lines of an electron point to the electron and away from the proton. Can someone tell me the experiment that determined this or was it just a matter of convention?

18

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Does a particle moving near C emit radiation?

« on: 24/03/2010 13:09:49 »

I've looked online but have been unable to find the answer.

19

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / What happens when anti-matter and matter species meet?

« on: 15/03/2010 22:11:02 »

     If we had a hydrogen atom and an anti-hydrogen atom located in close proximity would the repulsion between the electron and anti-proton, and the repulsion between the anti-electron and proton be enough to prevent annihilation?

20

New Theories / The Photon

« on: 10/02/2010 23:30:57 »

An accelerated charged particle will emit radiation perpendicular to the direction of acceleration.  http://www.cv.nrao.edu/course/astr534/LarmorRad.html   It seems reasonable to think that accelerating a charged particle changes the position of it's field with respect to it's original position (observer) and that change propagates at C. I propose that change is what we call a photon and have shown that it can propagate without the need of virtual particles as the medium. The medium is the charged particle's own field. One should ask the question, " If that is true why doesn't the particle emit radiation just moving through space? ". The particle must be accelerated with respect to any observer to emit radiation. If the observer is accelerated at the same rate as the particle then the field lines of the observer change at the same rate as the particles and therefore does not see the particle emitting radiation.