Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum The law of conservation and transformation energy

Bill S

I agree , and I never questioned the part that you wrote in agreement to what I wrote.

I also find it hard to follow a discussion with so many out of context comments by passersby.

it seems that when it looks as if there might be a discussion available by a couple of people there are usually a couple of
out of context posters there to diminish the discussion, whether
on purpose or not , it may just seem that way.

its like trying to read a book with more advertisements than tv has commercials.

by the time you have read all the distractions your left wondering what the discussion was about in the first place.

I do understand that you also are concerned that the energy
in the photon absorption and emission process is not accounted for.

I have been able to follow that through all the distractions.

This reply is addressed to Paul.

I thought if I pressed the "reply" button, and the post said "Re Paul" at the top, you might realise it was for you. Obviously I was wrong.

I'm still learning where all this technology is concerned.

I will refrain from recommending anything for fixation amnesia lest the recommendation is seen as being directed to the wrong person.

Seizing the opportunity to return to the more serious content of this thread, I have to say that I think the energy "account" does balance. I just think it is not adequately explained in popular science books, and probably in other places.

Some of my posts seem to have appeared twice, I know not why.
I apologise for the repetition.

I dont understand what is so technical about it.

you pressed the reply button to one of socratus post to reply
and thats why it said re:socratus

yes, it balances out perfectly doesn't it , to zero energy loss.

and it even goes beyond that because it proves that overunity is possible and that a system can create energy.

it proves that the conservation of energy is wrong.

at least the conservation of mass still stands.

and it did all that without taking it into the quantum realm.

And here is one that requires some sort of proof, since it is in opposition to the extremely well tested law of conservation of energy. What I see is hand waving and positive statements, rather than any kind of proof. There is not even any kind of erroneous math given.

Bill Gill

Perhaps it needs taking into the quantum realm to stop it running amok.

why would erroneous math be needed , its just a simple math problem , why fake it.

where
ET = energy of electron transition between energy levels
EPH1 = the energy of the photon that is absorbed
EPH2 = the energy of the photon that is emitted
EPR = the energy of the proton

ET = (EPH1 + EPR) - (EPH2 + EPR)

ET = 0

since the electron does transit between energy levels
and since any motion requires energy according to the laws of physics.

ET cannot be represented as zero in the above because that does not allow for energy conservation.

the above is what science currently say's happens.

which is against physics laws.

you cant have both and have a stable foundation.

so the correct equation would be


where
ET = energy of electron transition between energy levels
EPH1 = the energy of the photon that is absorbed
EPH2 = the energy of the photon that is emitted
EPR = the energy of the proton
eTE1 = electron transition energy 1 ( to E1)
eTE2 = electron transition energy 2 ( to EO)

substituting the below values for ease of use.

eTE1 = .0001 J
eTE2 = .0001 J
EPR = .1 J
EPH1 = .01 J
EPH2 = .01 J

ET = (((EPH1 + EPR) - eTE1) - EPR) + (((EPH2 + EPR) - eTE2)- EPR)

ET = .0198 J

since the electron transition energy is determined above this allows for determining the energy of the emitted photon as the atom will assume its previous state.

EPH2 = ET - EPH1

EPH2 = .0098 J

so a loss of .0002 J has been accounted for and energy was conserved.

we all know that light causes an atom to get excited.
this causes heat , that heat is then transferred to the surroundings , using what physics say's about the energy
emitted by a atom when it emits a photon would result in the following occurrence.

the sun would strike a atom then the atom emits a photon with the same exact charge then that photon would hit another atom and another and another and there would be a constant build up of heat in our atmosphere and in a short while we would have all been toasted.

it would be a never ending chain reaction.

thankfully science is wrong about this.

This part of your reply is wrong. ET is the energy which is received by the electron from the photon, which then disappears. When the electron drops back down to the lower energy state it re-emits a photon of that exact energy. The total energy change for the electron is 0. That is

EL0 = energy of the electron in the lower energy state
ET = energy of electron transition between energy levels
EL1 = energy of the electron in the higher energy state
EPH1 = the energy of the photon that is absorbed
EPH2 = the energy of the photon that is emitted
EPR = the energy of the photon

So:
EL1 = ET = EL0 + EPH1
EPH2 = EL2 - ET = EPH1
EPR = ET = EPH1 = EPH2

And all measurements of the transition agree that the net energy coming out on the emitted electron is exactly the energy that went in on the absorbed electron. There is no loss of energy. ENERGY IS CONSERVED, absolutely.

Bill Gill

Bill,

That is because it is not a classical particle in an orbit, that is moved to another orbit.

It is a probability wave that transitions from one quantum state to another quantum state.

Am I right with those two thoughts?

Oops,

My previous was not meant to be a reply to Socratus.

I have a really hard time thinking about a photon moving at the speed of light hitting a electron moving at apx speed of light
there seems to be too much chance involved.

if we slow it down to a slow motion video we get almost no chance at all.

I think the photon is bent in to the proton by the gravity of the proton or nucleus, the proton absorbs the photon and its positive charge.

the protons charge increases and this increases (expands) the electromagnetic field that the electron is riding on , and that is why the electron moves out to EO2 from EO1

thats why I used ET

energy of electron transition between energy levels

not the energy that caused the transition which would be the energy of the photon but the energy that would be required to
move the electron from EO1 to EO2

Bill if you are going to body perhaps point out we can quantum mark each individual electrons in an atom, we can measure its energy we can even resonate it we can precisely knock it out of orbit.

We even stored 35 computer bits around a single electron in an atom back in 2009

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/quantum-holographic-storage-it-works/383

By 2011 they had produced 3D holographic probability maps of the electron orbitals confirming the predictions of QM.

http://phys.org/news/2011-01-scientists-holograms-atoms-electrons.html

In 2010 came the advent of attosecond spectroscopy and science started probing the individual electron photon interactions and energy in sort of photographic way

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.3863.pdf

From that point on almost every atom and valence shell has been probed a search on "Attosecond Time-resolved Electron Dynamics" will give some idea.

Hundreds of labs have sprung up in universities studying them because they give good easy images for students here is a typical example

http://www.attoworld.de/Home/ourResearch...copy/index.html

and an interview with one of the students might be interesting

http://www.attoworld.de/Home/ourTeam/Interviews/MatthiasKling/index.html

The attosecond imaging helps because you can think up some quirky QM things that theory says should happen if you setup and experiment and it always does.

BUT WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IS GOING ON ... WAVES HANDS

Edit: I should say this weeks announcement is going to push things along in this area
http://phys.org/news/2012-09-attosecond-extreme-ultraviolet-laser-pulse.html

==.
' Now take the electron. Even if its velocity is close to that
of light – 10^10 cm/s – it will have a momentum of only
about 10^-17 g cm/s. The gamma photon used for
illumination has a very short wavelength ( say, 6 10^13 cm)
and a momentum of 10^-14, which is thousands of times that
of the electron. So, when a photon hits an electron, it is like
a railway train smashing into a baby- carriage.’

/ ABC’s of quantum mechanics. By V. Rydnik. Page 98-99. /
==.

My post (45221) certainly says "Re Paul" on my computer. I will charitably infer that your computer has a mind of its own.

its really no big deal Bill s

it just helps when I can click on the (re whoever) link above to
read what the poster is replying to.

today mine says re paul also .
I suppose the data base is doing mysql editing on its own.
because later you stated that your post were being duplicated
and I cant find them either.

but as an example your following post 45222 is addressed to socratus.



it could be that as the databasse editor was deleting the extra post that you were seeing , the post numbers could have been adjusted also.

still that does not really matter , its just easier to be able to see what a poster is replying to when Im reading his reply.

my browser crashed while clicking the re links which might be due to someone editing the database who doesnt exactly know what their doing...maybe not.

my browser has never crashed before on this web site.



it would seem that its the server that the database is located on
that has a mind of its own , not my computer , actually it would be the mysql database itself , this forum and every word in it is stored in a mysql database , mysql is a very good very secure database as long as its editor also very good and takes proper precautions in secuing the database.

Reply to Orac, just to keep it straight.

My reply to Paul was a very simplified way of expressing it. It basically used the Bohr atom, which is way out of date. Of course the electrons aren't in orbits, they are in wave functions that don't look much like anything I can think of. Your link to the holographic probability map is about as close as we can come to actually visualizing what it would look like. But the Bohr atom seems to be about the level that Paul is looking at. And in this particular case it doesn't get too far out. Of course he is doing a lot of hand waving to claim I am wrong, but that is what he has been doing for many many years.

There are indeed a lot of things going on in the world of what used to be called atomic physics. Things are being measured with unprecedented precision and they are still getting answers consistent with the conservation of energy.

Bill Gill

Bill

your reply to orac referenced me , so I will give a reply to
your reference if thats ok with you.



in the below video there are actual scientist performing experiments on actual atoms , not simulated (programed sequences) that produce a image that the programmer wants the program to produce.




http://news.rice.edu/2012/01/25/rice-lab-mimics-jupiters-trojan-asteroids-inside-a-single-atom/



so , I suppose you have a choice to believe what you want whether
its computer programmed exeriments carried out on a computer that does not have everything accounted for , or the real thing.




I'm not claiming that your wrong , I'm claiming that I'm right!
also , you registered in 2010 , thats only 2 years , so how could I have been waving my hands and claiming that your wrong for many many years when you havent even been here for many many years?