0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
If you view two atoms seperated by space say the hydrogern atom, both with electrons spinning around them in a clockwise direction they will in effect be emitting eltromagnetic waves towards and away from each other.
When the waves make contact they be viewed as 2 helices or a vortices rather than sinusoidal electric and magnetic waves ...
The formulae for a helix is along the lines of x = sin(t) y = cos(t) Z = t, which are the equivalent of maxwells idea re electro magnetic radiation.
.. electons orbit around a nucleus and will present a +ve then a -ve polarity in space which will generate a pulsating electric field ...
which will of course on average cacel out but not without generating an electromagnetic wave, I think Debroglie assigned a frequency to all matter, relating E = hf, I dont know how to assign this to a planet.
But im pretty sure if an atoms transmitting radio waves it will do it if its an atom in space or viewed from the size of a planet in space. As I think i said my maths is a bit rusty.
One last thing QEd is on the minute scale, i used the bohr model to try to make it clear what i was talking about.
Therefore QED ISNT applicable therefore you missed the point. 
One last thing QEd is on the minute scale, i used the bohr model to try to make it clear what i was talking about. Therefore QED ISNT applicable therefore you missed the point. 
The problem with the Bohr model is that it predicts the emission of EM radiation, which doesn't happen.
Also, as the electron spirals inward, the emission would rapidly increase in frequency as the orbit got smaller and faster. This would produce a continuous smear, in frequency, of electromagnetic radiation. However, late 19th century experiments with electric discharges have shown that atoms will only emit light (that is, electromagnetic radiation) at certain discrete frequencies.To overcome this difficulty, Niels Bohr proposed, in 1913, what is now called the Bohr model of the atom. He suggested that electrons could only have certain classical motions:1.Electrons in atoms orbit the nucleus.2.The electrons can only orbit stably, without radiating, in certain orbits (called by Bohr the "stationary orbits") at a certain discrete set of distances from the nucleus. These orbits are associated with definite energies and are also called energy shells or energy levels. In these orbits, the electron's acceleration does not result in radiation and energy loss as required by classical electromagnetics. The Bohr model of an atom was based upon Planck's quantum theory of radiation.3.Electrons can only gain and lose energy by jumping from one allowed orbit to another, absorbing or emitting electromagnetic radiation with a frequency ν determined by the energy difference of the levels according to the Planck relation: ...
Therefore it's a bad starting point for any further discussion and has little scientific value.
Quantum mechanics builds mathematical models of what actually happens, and is very useful.
Hmm. I thought atomic magnetism was all about unpaired spins, not orbits, and electromagnetism was all about delocalised charge carriers.
Ampere was the first to suggest that microscopic "molecular currents" are responsible for the magnetic fields produced by matter. Today, we understand this to be true for systems where an external field is needed to bias the direction of microscopic or macroscopic circulating currents to produce a non-zero net magnetic moment. In quantum mechanics, every electron in an eigenstate with orbital wave function Psi(r) contributes a steady, dissipationless, current density (13. <Author gives current density in terms of wave function, i.e. jk(r) = ...>Each jk(r) describes a closed current loop and thus a magnetic moment.
two atoms ...both with electrons spinning around them in a clockwise direction cause attraction
PmbPhy: I) your assertions/assumptions are wrong, (2)the Bohr model is wrong, (3)quite wrong (4)claiming that QED isn't applicable is wrong, (5) as a parametric trajectory is quite wrong, (6) your point is incorrect since,(7) you don't understand
PmbPhy: The first one postulated that the electron could only move in certain orbits, known as stationary states, without radiating. The second postulate requires that the atom can only radiate when it makes a transition from one stationary state to another.
You forgot to mention that when an electron is revolving around the nucleus it is a charged particle that is accelerating and should therefore be radiating.
In physics, a virtual particle is an explanatory conceptual entity that is found in mathematical calculations about quantum field theory.
I maybe wrong about this ...
..and I am pretty sure going by the evidence that you won’t be shy about telling me so BUT think about it, maybe its you that is wrong once in a way.
One may agree with this statement OR disagree with it BUT there is one crucial difference; in philosophical arguments it is not allowed to say ‘you are wrong’ or ‘that is wrong’ because if something like that is said then it would have to be shown why it was said and on what grounds. Since, the question of whether an electron might or might not radiate according to whether it was being observed or not is very much a debatable topic, the use of the term ‘you are wrong’ or ‘you are incorrect’ might be too strongly worded for a philosopher.
Some of what i note has recently be confirmed on some atom basher a recently. Ie photons can recombine producing higher energy atoms.
Space is made up of dipole magnets which can exist all the time come into existence and disappear it doesnt matter.
Due to random events these little dipoles join together aquiring energy so that we become aware of their mass, if the spin pole over pole they are photons if they spin radially they are either electrons or positrons, if they join together in a toroid shape they can become protons neutrons have trapped an electron.
Sorry had too mmuch to drink and was annoyed by some teling me that qed is scientific fact andd not a useful mathemmatical tool to give useful answers fopr something you dont understand.
I have more assertionds than you would believe,. my wife has recently checked my spelling and suggested i shouldnt fuel my head with drink. Kind regards Aquarius. Debate to follow, ? ride the wave or be sucked back by the undercurrent. xxxxxc
If you view two atoms seperated by space say the hydrogern atom, both with electrons spinning around them in a clockwise direction
they will in effect be emitting eltromagnetic waves towards and away from each other.
When the waves make contact they be viewed as 2 helices or a vortices ...
probability is a mathematical workaound for something you dont understand,
And don't write silly sentences as "Ok I do have a book on QED and String theory i was starting to read , ill get on reading it and maybe come back in a couple of weeks". Given the level of knowledge of quantum physics you show in your posts (very close to zero), it's totally improbable that you could learn such subjects "in a couple of weeks".