The law of conservation and transformation energy/mass
=.
Somebody says: The law of energy conservation
There isn’t such law in physics. There is
' The law of conservation and transformation energy/mass.'
=.
‘ The Law of preservation and transformation of energy/ mass’
is a law about a symmetry and asymmetry in the Nature.

If somebody think that , “ The Law of preservation
and transformation of energy/ mass “ is a simple
bookkeeping calculation of debit-credit he is mistaken.
It is a primitive judgment about one of the most
important Law in Nature. It is merchant’s opinion.
Why?
Because on the one hand the bookkeeping calculation
of debit-credit is “ a symmetry law”. ( like 1$ is 100 cents )
But on the other hand the life in the Universe begins with
disturb of symmetry.
The occurrence of Life in the Universe is connected not with
symmetry, but with breaking of symmetry.
For something to happen there has to be a "broken symmetry".
( It means 1$ is not equal to 100 cents.)
Here the effect of ‘transformation’ appears.
===============.
If somebody takes only one part of the whole law (preservation)
and ignore the second part of it (transformation) then he is falsifier.
=.

socratus, you are using terms such as 'flat universe' and 'symmetry breaking' as if you believe you understand them. Moreover, you seem to be attempting to reinvent physics and the universe to fit some peculiar personal fantasy and mythology. To any inquiring mind curious to know what these things really mean, I'd earnestly recommend that (1) they totally disregard your posts and (2) study a range of reputable sources (easily accessible on the net). Perhaps your own time might be better spent on asking questions of authoritative sources and paying careful heed to the answers. Please do the world of science education a favour and quit spewing forth these endless streams of garbage and misinformation.

Unfortunately Socratus what redewenur says is how anyone in science will view you. I suspect it is because your physics understanding is incomplete, inaccurate and very old or outdated.

Repeating easily identifiable scientific errors is plain just annoying and sometimes leads to you people getting upset, abusing you or getting you banned from forums which you have been on a great number.

The law of conservation of energy is nothing more than a bookkeeping function is a science fact.

WHY?

Because there is no explaination for why the law should exist and by definition at science it can not be more than that if it offers no understanding.

We had a law of gravity which we had no understanding of why it worked until recently that lead to the discovery of the higgs particle.

So gravity over the next years of research will move from nothing more than a bookkeeping function to something we understand and can make extreme predictions with.

PREDICTION

Prediction is what comes from understanding being able to isolate weird and unusual things that would not be obvious without the specific knowledge.

Until we understand the law of conservation it is nothing more than a bookkeeping law that we believe to be true.


So now we come to your errors or undecipherables in this post



Discuss the logic and evidence for these statement because thats just mindless science jargon to me that makes no sense.

"symmetry" ... symmetry of what?

I am happy to be a falsifier, the devil and any other title you choose to give me but unfortunately it won't change the fact that many of your posts are totally undecipherable rubbish.

Edit: Ethan put up a relatively layman friendly version of science view of the early universe so I provide the link

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/08/27/say-something-smart/

You will note he deals with conservation of energy in a very matter of fact way it is just a bookkeeping function



You might also notice he kills the infinite universe without really explaining its just reported as a fact.

What was funny is he commited a no no and changed reference frames and mathematics in simplifying the problem down when he made this statement



He just violated the conservation of energy :-)

The frames of reference issues and the mathematics problem for light in space is well known and always leads to lively debate ... I did laugh the QM fringe are going to tear him apart.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news...-optics-dilemma

practice what you preach is another famous quote.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_qu...1ac.vV2evN7lF_w

you guys seem to enjoy discrediting people with your garbage.
one mans garbage is another mans treasure I suppose.

some people call other people retarded on this forum.
some people just make it clear.



We had a law of gravity

and how long will it be before we can say

We had a law of conservation of energy!

I admit I usually just skim the rambling animadversions of some posters, often including those of Socratus, but perhaps I might have a go at unravelling this bit, just to see if I have grasped the underlying intent.

If one assumes that life on Earth is the only life in the Universe, then it follows that the Universe developed for billions of years without life. During that time it followed the laws that govern the development of inanimate matter. This following of natural laws may be seen as a symmetry.

Life does not follow this long established set of laws, so the arrival of life disrupted the ordered flow (symmetry) of the Universe by introducing something new and different.

Socratus, please tell me if I have missed the point.

There is something I need to clarify, for my own understanding of the situation.

It is proposed that because the Universe has no net energy (+ve = -ve energy) no energy had to be found to bring the Universe into existence.

Surely, in order to create a universe that had both +ve and -ve energy one would have to "create" both types of energy in exactly the same quantities.

Im about to watch a movie right now , I just checked in to see if
there was anything interesting before I started.

the first few minutes looks like it will be a quality movie
its the new frankenstein movie.

I will tell you this , Im pretty much dissatisfied with the
forum lately.

so you and red and orac have at it.

hows that

Question:
How does electron obey ‘ The law of conservation
and transformation energy/mass’ if according to Planck /
Einstein its energy is E=h*f and according to Dirac its
energy is +/- E=Mc^2 ?
==..

It's a classic physics bullshit problem Socratus probably dates back to about your age if I recall you are about 68.

It's the same as lots of classical phyics totally wrong because they didnt know and understand relativity.

If you derive hf=mc2 from the above it is wrong the two energies simply share the same letter they are not the same thing.

Where are you dragging all this old garbage up from.


The E for energy in E=MC2 includes both the kinetic energy and rest mass energy for a particle. It's a simplification and einstein clearly defined E which many science whackjobs forget.

The funny thing is Einstein in his paper E is actually given the symbol L throughout his papers.

You can look at digital copies of his papers online (http://www.alberteinstein.info/) it is in german of coarse.

This is a translation you might be able to read
(http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/)

Here let me cut and paste the exact expression

L = (Mb – Ma )c2 = (delta)mc2


Mb was the kinetic energy Ma was the rest energy which in the specific example he was doing being the universe which has no reference frame and can't move reduces to L = mc2

An electron is not stationary you can not use the reduced form use the proper expanded form

L = (Mb – Ma )c2

or in your want to use modern symbols


E = Kinect mass x C2 + Rest mass x C2

Now the discrepency between dirac and einstein disappears because you have the correct equation

hf = Kinect mass x C2 + Rest mass x C2


The fact this garbage gets recycled astounds me ... any other old garbage you want to bring out.

Why don't you try reading and understanding rather than google searching for every high school kids great problem they found in classic physics.

has anyone thought about this?

when an atom is excited by a photon causing an electron to (move)
to a higher orbit.

there is an amount of energy required to move that electron.

when that atom later emits a photon it is said that it emits a photon of the same magnatude of energy compared to the energy of the photon that it previously absorbed.

where is energy conserved when this occurs?

the energy required to move the electron to an outer orbit
must be accounted for.

also the energy required to move the electron to an inner orbit
must be accounted for.

the photon that is emitted could not have the same magnatude of
energy as it is emitted if conservation of energy is correct.

this would be like a person throwing a baseball to the batter
and the batter hits the ball causing the ball to move at the same
speed that the ball was thrown at without using any energy.


if we think of the atom as a spring then we still have to consider that a spring uses up energy in the form of heat.

and if we throw a baseball at a spring the baseball never has the same amount of energy as it leaves the spring than it had before it impacted the spring.

I linked you the answer a number of times which you refuse to read I am not getting involved in another stupid and inane Paul make up physics session.


So this is the science answer accept it or not I don't care it's not up for discussion and the answer revolves around QM.

This is the answer to your problem of why certains atoms only "hear" precise frequencies as your genius in your youtube video called it.

If an incoming energy of a photon matches the energy level difference between two levels of that particular atom it will absorb it and the atom becomes excited.

Any frequency that doesn't match this difference is rejected because there is no way to deal with left over bits of energy.

So the conservation of energy in the absorbtion is what makes certain atoms only absorb certain frequencies. Thats what gives rise to spectral lines and how you can detect substances by spectroscopy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_line

This is also the reason you can't just keep absorbing photons because the atom would get more and more excited like in your original crazy answer we would end up with an atom with a -10 000 charge because it absorbed 10 000 photons without ever re-emitting them. Ever heard of an atom with 10000 electrons?

When the electron drops back down it causes a re-emission of the exact same frequency it absorbed which is the effect you didn't want to think about because the genius on youtube video didn't discuss it. It's covered under spectral lines.

So the absorbing and re-emmission maintains perfect conservation of energy and that was the whole problem I was trying to get you thru.

Visually try this => http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/122/images/absorption-emission.mp4

This stuff is all beyond doubt by you and is easy enough to read up on and I don't intend to discuss modified Paul physics on it so accept it or not I really don't care.

sorry orac

that does not explain where the energy came from to move
the electron 2 seperate times.

conservation of energy has obviously failed.

Ok 1 time just incase you really aren't trolling

In the movie E=hv which is the energy of a photon of light socratus describes it in the conversation that started this garbage.

Conservation of energy only fails in Paul brand physics it has never failed EVER in science brand.

orac

what has that got to do with the question I asked?

where does the electron get the energy from to move
when the electron moves?

its obvious that the electron moves to an outer orbit , then back again isnt it?

and energy is required to move mass , and an electron has mass.

so where does the energy come from?

Paul.
Think of Earth orbiting the Sun. If you could increase the orbital energy, it would assume an orbit farther from the Sun. If you could then reduce the orbital energy it would take on an orbit closer to the Sun.

Q: Where does the energy come from to move it closer to the Sun?
A: gravitational attraction.

In the case of the electron, it's electromagnetic attraction. The location of the electron is described as a probability distribution, and the energy levels are quantized (hence the equality of gain and loss via the photon) but I expect you can see the parallel.

My feeling is that the forum is, to a great extent, what we - the posters - make it. We can choose to have reasonable discussions, or slanging matches. We can listen to, and learn from others, or we can make everything competitive and insist on "winning" arguments.

Even if we believe we lack free will we can at least enjoy the illusion of choice.

If we do not get the responses we need from others, perhaps we should say what it is we need; it could help.

For better or worse, we have a lot more freedom of expression on this forum than on most serious discussion forums; it’s up to each of us to use that to the best advantage.

^^^ What both of them said.

Apology I didn't even think about that bit needing explaining the energy of the photon is not so obvious.

Explaination start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_level

I would also add if you physics is really that bad you should be just asking questions not trying to answer ANY questions which is why I assume you are just trolling.

red

that still does not tell us where the energy came from.

1) the photon has a 1 unit of energy

2) the photon is absorbed by the atom

2.a) the electron moves outward into a higher orbit. (requires energy)
2.b) the electron moves inward into a lower orbit. (requires energy)

3) a photon is emitted from the atom with 1 unit of energy.


during all of the above , and all of the interactions , the photon leaves the atom with the same exact charge that it had when it was absorbed.

that clearly says that the conservation of energy failed.

otherwise

I can drive my car to the race track at 100 kh.
drive it around the race track several laps at 100 kh.
then drive it off the race track at 100 kh.

and all the time I spend driving around the race track does not
consume any gasoline...

Perhaps you need to put on glasses and go an re-read what redewuner poseted.

You were also given a link for energy levels but hey you won't even discuss what that says which is also quite clear.

However lets face it you are just trolling trying to make issues with science because you are so insecure in your religion that you see science as a threat.

Im sorry orac , did you forget to write a bunch of stuff that
has no bearing on the discussion?

CPT violation,
Quantum tunneling ,
Vacuum fluctuation,
‘ . . a simple question as where did the electron get the energy
from when it moved to the outer orbit. ‘
==.
Is a symmetry or asymmetry process ?
==.
P.S.
If A-bomb can destroy cities like Hiroshima and Nagasaki
it is because E=Mc^2 and not because E=h*f.
Is interaction between E=Mc^2 and E=h*f
a symmetry or asymmetry process ?
==.

You query the whole of science like your LHC example, I query your conviction in your religion ... same dog isn't it.

As for socratus that is another undecipherable post.

Orac, re paul's venomous contributions:


I'm bound to say that you're right, Orac. Here's further jusification (as if it were needed) for your comments. Paul's post, as it arrived in my email, since edited:


It's a despicable attitude, consistent with just about every response I've ever had from him.

I gave Paul the benefit of the doubt originally that he was just poorly schooled in science perhaps something to do with his religion.

My view has changed he is just a religious troll like socratus who needs to cast science in bad light because of there own religious insecurities.

The easiest way to deal with them is troll them back about religion and their little god or ignore .. take your pick.

Notice they don't want to discuss religion or anything sensible because because they don't know how to defend it.

I know some have issue with Rev but he not out to troll he is interested in discussions and exchanges. I may not agree with Rev on some things but at least you can have an honest sensible conversation.

Just a quick note about Paul. He has been on this forum for a very long time. During that time he has posted a lot of stuff that just doesn't work because he apparently doesn't understand the things that have been proved about physics. Many of us have tried to point out where he is wrong and how it has been proved he is wrong. He has never accepted any of the explanations and/or proofs that have been given to him. I occasionally respond to some of his posts, but I don't really expect him to accept anything I point out. I do keep hoping that other people who are reading SAGG will notice the corrections and realize that he is wrong and not be mislead by his posts. I think that is about the best we can hope for from responses to his posts.

Bill Gill

sorry red , orac

that does not explain where the energy came from to move
the electron 2 seperate times.

conservation of energy has obviously failed.

ranting about people is also not the answer.
peoples religion is not the answer.

you two obvious geniuses should be capable of delivering
a correct answer.

instead you just rant.
or is it that you dont have an answer , which is what I think is the reason you cant give an answer.

which is why I edited my post and only left the part that
is in context with the discussion.

I didnt feel as if what I wrote was a contribution to the discussion , in much the same way that I feel that what you guys write are for the most part not contributions.

so , do you have a answer or do you just have rants?

it is extremely easy to figure out that conservation of energy
fails in this simplest of examples.

in order for the photon to stop --> energy is required.
in order for the electron to move outwards --> energy is required
in order for the atom to emit a photon --> energy is required
in order for the electron to move inwards --> energy is required

that is 4 energy requirements so far that are not accounted for!

when the atom returns to its original state
that means it has the original amount of energy that it
had before the photon was absorbed.

and

when the atom emits a photon , it emits a photon or a
cascade of photons with the same amount of energy that the absorbed photon had.

there are no losses in this transaction.

you are talking about a system that is more than 100% efficient
and physics states that that is not possible.

so where does the extra energy come from?

socratus

are there any plans to put this CPT type experiment into a zero g environment?

http://physics.princeton.edu/romalis/CPT/

I would like to get your opinion on the below.



this video shows the sphere as it departs



I feel as if your opinion would be valuable , I have always considered our solar system as being a good model of a huge atom.

which particle of an atom would you say that this sphere best represents?

would this sphere best represent a photon being emitted?

note: I am not addressing this to those who choose to clog up
discussions with rants and worthless self image bolstering information.

I am addressing this particular post to socratus.

here are some more videos of the sphere

Even under the assumptions of the Bohr atom the objects orbiting the nucleus are electrons. In Bohr's atom all electrons are the same, same size, same shape, same mass. This has no resemblance to the solar system. The electrons all orbit in precisely defined orbits, and they can't move back and forth except between specific energy levels. The Solar system is enormously more complex than that.

The only place where I have ever seen any suggestion that the atoms look like solar systems is in science fiction. There was a time when there was a bit of a vogue for that sort of thing. Our Hero would travel down in size and have an adventure on an electron that was just like Earth. That fashion is fortunately long gone.

Bill Gill

I did say not a perfect model.





electrons in different orbits , have different energy levels
so their mass must also be greater.
which corresponds with our solar system very well.







interesting results




http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/orbital.htm

it might be that electrons do not just gain kinetic energy as they move outwards , they may in fact be gaining a combination of mass and kinetic energy.

according to the solar system atom model.

“By their fruits you shall know them.”



A disappointing response, Paul. Perhaps you don’t agree that the quality of a forum is largely established by its regular posters.

Look to the left, to the five names of those who have contributed most posts over the past 30 days. We, and those other regular posters who happen not to be currently in the “top five”, are largely responsible for the ethos of the forum. If we post rubbish, it’s a rubbish forum. If we turn it into a sniping ally that is what it will be. Each of us has to acknowledge his/her own responsibility. It’s our forum, if we want to attract serious, knowledgeable contributors then we have to create a forum to which they will be attracted. If that idea is a matter for derisive laughter, perhaps those of us who are looking for reasonable, open discussion in a friendly atmosphere, with a bit of humour thrown in are in the wrong place. I hope not.

Only we know they dont look anything like that rubbish we have a repeated extremely tested theory and images

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_atom)




SO WE KNOW YOU ARE JUST TROLLING.


So lets talk about proofs that god doesn't exist I know of at least 3 besides the "heavy rock paradox"

1.) God is absolute and all powerful and can do anything right so can god kill himself.

Whichever answer you choose he is therefore not absolute god.


2.) Can god create a being more powerful than himself.

Whichever answer you choose he is therefore not absolute god.


3.) The famous Epicurus's riddle

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?


Join in lets see how many we can get for Paul.

LOL

quite amusing orac.



its a computer generated image!

using yoric! orac!


http://yorick.sourceforge.net/

heres a few more by the same author




I didnt read the rant part of your post.

I will ask the moderators to see if they can convince you to refrain from your constant rantings about my personal beliefs.

OK, enough philosophy, already; let’s get back to the nitty-gritty!

The introduction of orbiting bodies to the mix recalls a long running discussion of the past in which I tried the patience of a number of posters (including Rede and the long vanished Kallog) by trying to sort out the energy used in a system such as the Earth/moon, simply to hold the moon in orbit. An orbit curves continuously, so the moon is constantly accelerating. Acceleration requires energy input. Where does that energy come from?

Can the same question and its possible answer be applied to an electron “orbiting” the nucleus of an atom?

I suspect not, for the following reason. (Someone please put me right if my reasoning is off track)

An electron is a quantum object (quon), therefore it cannot be said to be in any specific place when it is not being observed.

It is not accurate to talk of an electron orbiting a nucleus; rather, it can only be said to occupy an energy level which exists at a specific distance from the nucleus, and even that is subject to probability.

The greatest possibility is that a given electron occupies a specific energy level, but there is a small degree of probability that it could be anywhere in the Universe.

The closer one looks at this, the less it seems to resemble a planetary orbiting system. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the energy equations are not the same.

This is really just the start of a train of thought, but it seems prudent to open this bit for comment before digging deeper.

the earth and moon orbit each other.
so that would not really be a good example.

also the moon always faces the earth with the same side.

electrons spin.

the earth sun system would make a more realistic example.

the earth spins.

where does the energy come from that causes the earth to orbit the sun?

gravity is the reason the earth orbits the sun , the kinetic energy of the motion of the earth is the energy that acts against the forces of the suns gravity , that energy was given to the earth as the earth formed.

like an electron has kinetic energy as it orbits an atom
due to its motion and an electron has a negative charge.

the earth also has kinetic energy due to its motion
as it orbits our sun and the earth also has a negative charge.



http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=detecting-the-earths-elec

I believe that the earth sun system would be the right choice vs the earth moon system.

wouldnt you?

No Bill S I am making a point about how trolling can offensive and denigrating to others beliefs.

Paul believes in a pathetic little god who we as scientist can apply a litlle logic to and show doesn't exist.

I mean if the was a god would he let his most trusted clergy sexually molest young children and then let the church protect those offenders.

It is quite clear he is not a god he is the devil.

We scientist shall use such logic to bring these sorts of things out to the open because we are free to think as we have not been brainwashed by the devil.

So lets discuss YOUR DEVIL Paul ... dare you too.



Ask away I will ask them that your garbage be similarly moderated out I don't need devil worshippers invading my science forum with there constant rantings.

I will be as polite and insistant that we discuss these matters as I feel they are important to science my behaviour will certainly no worse than Socratus or yours.

You will notice I have not been rude or personally attacking you in this discussion so I can't see how I could be moderated and if it was to be so I would ask for clarification of moderation rules because it is no better or worse than your posts.

No, since there is absolutely no comparison between the gravitationally bound Solar System of many discrete objects of varying size and composition and the electromagnetically bound atom, composed of a nucleus and a handful of electrons which are all the same. The Solar System is controlled by gravitational attraction which can be explained quite satisfactorily with classical physics. The atom is controlled by quantum effects which operate in a completely different mode.

Bill Gill

sorry bill

I was replying to the post that bill s made.

bill s was trying to think of a example to use in the discussion.
and that is who I was replying to , however if you think that the earth moon system would be a better choice than the earth sun system to use as a model of an atom then perhaps you could tell us why.

my thoughts on this matter are as follows.

1) the moons negative charge varies according to the side that the sun is shining on.
2) the earth is negatively charged.

thus both are negatively charged so the earth moon system could not work because the charges are mostly the same.

the earth moon system would be like using a system inside a system or a atom inside an atom which would not represent a atom model very well.

also the suns positive charge more closely resembles the positive charge of an atoms nucleus.

I still think that the sun earth system is better suited but you may have more reasons that you would like to post.

What is important in all science discussions is honesty and integrity.

I am sure Rev K could tell us all about how the devil is full of nothing but tricks and dishonesty. Rev may well talk about

Lying and Deceit: What Does the Bible Teach?
(http://www.gospelway.com/morality/lying.php)


Thus when we look at scientific evidence we must ask of ourselves is this the truth.

As being one of the truth seekers I personally feel one must look at any science argument and ask is this person telling the truth or have they been seduced by the devil.

Devil worshippers are common throughout science forums they seek to disinform through lying and deceit.

So when one looks at arguments one must ask is plausable or is this the work of the devil.

you should be able to look at the scientific evidence and tell if the evidence is the truth.

the person who gathered the scientific evidence does not matter to science.

it is the scientific evidence that matters to science.



LOL



this is a science forum orac.

try to at least act scientific.

Yes we are discussing science ethics.

Rev K would probably say lies even in the name of god or the devil in your case are wrong and a sin but lets stick to science ethics.

So would you describe your discussion as open and truthful and ethical at science Paul and is it morally and ethical Paul?

I mean if we were to have a moral ethical discusion it is interesting that the non believers are more truthful and honest which is rather interesting is religion just an excuse to be able to lie and decieve in a supposed gods name?

Paul, I take your points about orbiting bodies, etc, but I think you were responding to what you thought I said, rather than to what I actually said.



There are several other things relating to electrons in atoms that are going round in my head, but I would appreciate someone's comments on the other part of my post before progressing.

May I suggest that discussions about gods, devils and people's theological beliefs would be better placed in NQS.

Tell that to Pre.

Why it's not like we can have any actual serious physics discussion with the continual garbage from Paul and Socratus which is there intention to derail science discussion in the name of there stupid god(s).

Haven't you worked out thats there agenda.

from your lasst reply to me :

1) Acceleration requires energy input. Where does that energy come from?

the kinetic energy of rotation was put into the earth and the moon when they were formed.

the moon is sort of like a ball on a string attached to the earth
by gravity.

the kinetic energy of the earths rotation has been decreasing ever since its gravity has been tugging on the moon , keeping its one side facing the earth.

it may seem like alot of energy is required to keep the moon
facing the earth , but because the moon does have rotation
( we just dont see it )
it also has kinetic energy in the direction of its rotation.

so it has already almost enough momentum and the extra kinetic energy is supplied by the earths gravity.

just like a ball on a string.


2)Can the same question and its possible answer be applied to an electron “orbiting” the nucleus of an atom?


sure we could use a hydrogen atom !

even better deuterium.

a hydrogen atom with only 1 proton 1 neutron, and 1 electron.

the problem would be the spin of the electron would not resemble the spin of the moon.

so the earth sun system would better represent an atom.




I agree , perhaps a reply to the offender would be a more effective approach.

Im thinking about making a web browser that will filter out
certain members post , this way I can enjoy discussing science on this science forum.

because I would be able to cause them to completely disappear from the forum , even the side bars.

LOL

"It takes two to tango". Whatever anyone puts on the rail, we will be derailed only if we elect to drive over it, rather than ignoring in.

Hey I ignore ones like Preearth there is no hope with him, but I would have thought with a group that supposedly stands for truth, honesty and integrity I stood a chance to put a mirror up and get them to see that there behaviour is against there own religion.

As I said I have had many a sensible discussion with Rev K and it's actually quite interesting.

However there is obviously also a dark side to some religions that this is deemed fair game because they in there own puny mind they view science as against the church. I can see why they have trouble with there seniors of the church if this is an indication of the "lets do anything to protect the church" attitude.

All I can say is thank the god of science I am an atheist :-)

Anyhow I will leave you to it.

Bull excrement.


if a mad scientist were to begin murdering people with
a virus he made , would that say to you that science as a whole is
evil?

if you want to discuss the evils of today's
scientist vs todays priest and the number of
people murdered or injured in any way by
priest vs the number of people murdered or
injured in any way by scientist , then start a thread , I will
gladly participate.

the reason you want to discuss peoples beliefs is because you
are incapable of carrying on a scientific discussion.

Paul, thanks for your comments about orbits etc. If I remember rightly that is about the point we reached last time. Taking it any further would probably only serve to distrace us from looking at things on a quantum scale.



Orac, I hope that doesn't mean you are bowing out of this discussion. If we can avoid the distractions, I think we are just getting to the interesting bit.

yes , the interesting bit.

now we might be able to discuss the question I originally asked

where does the energy come from when the electron moves out and then moves back in?

it must come from somewhere , surely you can agree with that.

using the atom solar system model , the electron would be a planet.

there would be energy required to move a planet say the earth further out into say mars orbit.

in the below video from Rice University an atom is excited until it size is the size of a period(.)

interesting stuff.

No problem I will start a thread on deaths from science versus religion in NQS for you.

Before you get there be aware the official total from UN research is approximately 800 million people have died in religious wars. A far larger total have died from political wars but strangely enough science hasn't listed as a category so perhaps go do some research and get me some numbers.

Pehaps this is another of your truths.



Discussions with you never invlove science they involve Paul crazies I believe you have been told that in this thread by many above comments.

I have no intention to feed a stupid troll.

of course I did say ( todays ) not since the begining of time.

lets just make it the last 20 years , that would better reflect
today vs since the begining of time.
also finding statistics on either side would be difficult.
especially finding the murders by scientist since scientist used to be scientist
that worked to find cures not control
methods as todays so called scientist do.


for starters first your side needs to catch up.

you find 100,000 each year , like I have found then we can move on to the next occurance.

http://www.alternet.org/story/147318/100...panies_get_rich

I posted that bit above since you dont have the thread started yet.

Quick reply I will start the thread in a bit need to go do some reading from UN

I know the death toll on the war in somalia is over 500,000

A quick look at the islamic site

http://www.islam101.com/terror/christianViolence.htm

They blame christians for

Witness the slaughter of 900,000 Rwandans in 1994 in a population that was over 90 % Christian

The genocide of over 300,000 Muslims and systematic rape of over 100,000 Muslim women by Christian Serbs

I make that 1.7 million and thats just 3 conflicts in the last 20 years and I haven't even got the claims back from christians thats one sided.

Christians and Musleums love each other so much I am certain you are on a hiding to nothing on this issue but science is the great modern killer :-)

Anyhow go do some reading and we will start a new thread in NQS.

Edit: This may be a useful start point as it is somewhat independant

http://www.cissm.umd.edu/papers/files/deathswarsconflictsjune52006.pdf

And please read up on Kony and tell me whether you are happy we class him as a christian army, he is a great ambassador for christianity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Resistance_Army

The honest answer has to be "I don't know", but in spite of that I have started putting together some thoughts. I have numbered the points for ease of response.

Conservation of energy in quantum systems.

1. Let’s consider a hydrogen atom. The usual image is of a nucleus with an electron orbiting it like a planet orbiting a star.

2. This analogy is not good because the electron is better thought of as occupying a specific energy level (EL) in relation to the nucleus, rather than an orbit.

3. The electron cannot be said to be at a specific point within that energy level. It would be better to think of it as being everywhere within that “shell”; or perhaps nowhere, if it is not being observed.

4. Consider the electron in its ground state; it occupies EL0. An input of exactly the right quantum of energy is needed to excite the electron so as to raise it to EL1.

5. Currently accepted wisdom says that a photon, of precisely the right wavelength can provide the energy to raise the electron from EL0 to EL1.

6. The electron promptly emits a photon which is the same wavelength (i.e. has the same energy) as the absorbed photon. The electron then returns to the ground state.

7. This appears to violate the law of conservation of energy because energy was used to move the electron from EL0 to EL1. Also energy must be exchanged when the electron returns to EL0.

8. Perhaps we can dispense with the problem of the return energy by arguing that an electromagnetic force associated with the nucleus brings the electron back, much as gravity brings things back towards the Earth, without net expenditure of energy.

9. There is still the question of where the energy comes from to raise the electron from EL0 to EL1 if the emitted photon caries the same energy as the incident photon.

10. If an orbiting planet moves to a more distant orbit, energy is required for the move. The planet moves through space. It can be tracked, so there is never any question as to where it is, or how the energy is being used.

11. The same cannot be said of the electron. At t=0 it is in EL0; at t=1 it is at EL1. There is no measurable or observable transition. There is no point at which the electron can be observed as being partly in EL0, and partly in EL1. In fact it can be argued that the electron does not exist in transition.

12. How much energy can be used by something that probably does not exist, possibly doing something it cannot really be said to be doing anyway?

Somewhere in this mix is uncertainty.

13. When the electron is at EL0, we cannot be absolutely sure it is at EL0. By far the greatest probability may be that it is there, but it might also be elsewhere. There is a non-zero possibility it could be on the other side of the Universe.

14. The photon is also a quon, so although the overwhelming probability is that it is on a collision course with the electron at EL0, it could be on the other side of the Universe.

15. We know the wavelength of the light involved, and thus of the specific photon; therefore we know its energy. How could the same packet of energy move the electron from EL0 to EL1,on the one hand, or from the other side of the Universe to EL1, on the other hand?

16. It could be argued that if the electron were on the other side of the Universe, the photon would not hit it; but what if they were both on the other side of the Universe? It begins to look as though discussing the energy necessary to bring about a quantum transition might have a lot in common with arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin!

There is no violation of the conservation of energy because the energy that causes the translation from EL0 to EL1 is the energy of the photon which causes the translation. After that translation the photon is no longer present. The electron remains at the EL1 energy level for some time, possibly but not necessarily, very short, but the translation back to EL0 does not occur instantaneously. When the translation back to EL0 occurs the photon that is emitted carries away the extra energy that the electron had in the EL1 state. This is exactly the energy of the original electron. The whole thing about this is that the electron has to have the exact energy to raise the electron to the next energy level. Other photons, which have other energies (that is wave lengths) will have no effect on the electron.

Bill Gill

that was looking pretty interesting until the other side of the universe crept in.

see if my thoughts might somehow fit in.



the rice video show's clearly that the electron orbits.
a strobe is used to freeze frame the atom and the electron.




"unless it is observed" I think that the video also answers that.




ok



we cant do that because there is an expenditure of energy.



that might just be the answer!
I thought that several times , but science says the energy is the same.

if the energy of the emitted photon is lower than the absorbed photon then the exchange energy can be found through experimentation.

ie...how much energy is exchanged.



I believe the scientist around the world are finding ways to
actually see what is happening without the assumptions.
like in the Rice video.

I personally would not bet a penny that the electron does not exist during transition , that just does not agree with my reasoning.



the odds that the photon hits the electron are extremely minute.



alot of things could be argued , for instance suppose the photon enters the gravitational field of the proton and since it is light it is bent into the proton.

there may be something to this , the effects would be that the proton gains energy and extra positive charge thus more mass.

since the electron is in its orbit due to the amount of charge of the proton the electron would be moved out to EL1 to agree with the protons higher electromagnetic field.

the electron might just move along with the electromagnetic field as it expands.

now the electron needs to move back.
the atom stabilizes by emitting a photon and as the proton emits the photon its charge decreases and the electromagnetic field shrinks and the electron moves with the electromagnetic field.

everything is back to normal , no assumptions needed , and we didnt have to pay the energy required to travel to the other side of the universe.

but energy was used up in the process , conservation of energy stands.
conservation of mass stands.

science is back to normal once again.

ROFL ... You are being trolled beautifully guys.

Notice everything is "might", "possibly" etc he leaves as many gaps to crawl out as he can because he never makes a definitive on how it occurs.

Thats why on the laser cooling I trapped him because he made the mistake of defining absolutely how the process worked because I got him angry and he made that mistake.

Seriously give it up it's just a troll from a religious whackjob.

Orac

the moderators of this forum may not know that the type of
harassment that you are engaged in is defended by the
Western Australia Internet Association

this web site may not have in its terms of use policy a section
regarding harassment of other members due to their religious beliefs.

but the storage mechanism , where the data on this web site is stored does have rues that must be followed , also the ISP that provides you with internet access or the location where you recieve internet access also has rules they must follow.


https://www.waia.asn.au/resources/acceptable-use-policy



you may want to refrain from your continuous harassing remarks
concerning religion.

also there are organizations that defend peoples religious beliefs on the internet.

I just though I would advise you on this matter.

Bill, that’s a good concise explanation of what happens, but it still leaves Paul’s question unanswered. Granted, the energy to move the electron comes from the incident photon, but if the emitted photon has the same energy, then the electron has been moved without expenditure of energy. Orac may be right, Paul may be trolling, but every unanswered question is a gift of troll-space. (Is that a working term, or have I just invented one?)

I think what you are thinking about is that none of the energy is lost to other things, such as friction or what have you. That's because this is a quantum effect, not a classical effect. All I can say to that is that the quantum world doesn't work the same way that the classical world does. The main thing is that all of the energy is accounted for.

As for trolls. Well, you will never satisfy them. They don't want to be satisfied. If you brought them into a physics lab and conducted an experiment right in front of them and carefully showed exactly how it worked they would still find fault with it. They don't want to hear what the correct interpretation is, they just want to start arguments for the pleasure of reading themselves in print, and causing other people to waste time in correcting their deliberate errors. And if they can get somebody to start a shouting match that is even better. That is where they really get their jollies.


Bill Gill

you must be talking about orac , bill

or are you and bill s agreeing and claiming that I am a troll in this forum.

we can carry this further and see what happens , frankly Im
sick and tired of this forum anyway , there is no discussion without all the interruptions and harassment and name calling.



the forum can be renamed to trollagogo because that would best describe the forum these days anyway.

the science bit it seems is only there to lure people in amongst the trolls for a measure of harassment.

Paul, I didn't call any body a troll. I just described how they work. If it sounds like I'm talking about you maybe you should look and see if you match the description.

Bill Gill

I never said that you did!

when you responded , you were responding to what Bill S wrote


am I not correct?

that is why I posed the question to you and Bill S below





thats why I questioned you and Bill S about it , for clarity
because I know Im not trolling.

HaHa I could respond to this ridiculous assertion even if I were subject to the laws in Western Australia where I no longer live I would have to be making a specfic insult to a specfic group being "ANTI-GOD" doe not really qualify.

So people insisting and posting theres is a god on a SCIENCE forum like our mate Socratus is different from me posting there is a god is it?

Anyhow since we seem to have got your "panties in a twist" and thats your words I will refrain from having any conversations with you because I do not wish to cause distress.

You may consider this the last conversation because I would hate to offend your sensibilities.

No , I do agree to that, also the quality of forum posters in this forum is pretty low.

this thread shows clearly what I mean.

go to the start of this thread and read each post 1 by 1
and mark on a seperate sheet of paper how many instances you find that show bad quality.

also total them up by the posters name.

you will also be in the list several times along with others such as the leader of bad quality orac.

Im not calling anyone any names , Im simply stating facts.

that can easily be validated , you want that to happen?

Oh yeah I am da bad boy of SAGG ... yeah.

I even threatened to make Bill S not exist in another thread top that you jive @#$% honkies.

Happy to wear the title ... now get over it and get on with your life.

I am completely happy to put you in the Preearth bucket and shall refrain from any discussion.

As I have said to Pre on a number of occasions, I am here to learn.

Please point out my transgressions. I think that would be a great learning experience.

I have looked around a bit and cannot find where you were trolling.

my accusation to you was for the most part erroneous.

I would like to point out that you and Bill extrapolated orac's trolling by agreeing with him or pointing out that he might be right when he was saying that I was trolling.

all the while saying nothing to the one who was actually being a
troll.

agreeing with someone in a discussion is like being an accomplice

ie.. you may not be the person who committed the crime , but you
certainly did not try to stop the crime.

but that's fine I understand how the wolf pack operates in these so called discussion forums.

the wolf pack circles the victim , nipping at the victim , tiring him down , then the alpha male moves in for the kill.

if the alpha male does not get the kill the remainder of the pack
continues to tire the victim down while the alpha male regains strength.

this is pretty much how the wolf pack on this forum operates

I can proudly say that I have been in this forum for many years
but I cannot say that I am proud to have been a participating member of this forum.

the reason I use the term proud is because the wolfpack has never claimed me as a kill.

the wolves on this forum are not as intelligent as I am , they are just consistent.


I will remain a member of this forum until I am banned
and I would like to let those members who are not active participating members know that if they would like to begin a discussion on a topic or join in on a current topic but they
fear the harassment from the wolfpack , this old badger will be keeping both eye's on the wolfpack.

For the most part? So you have some examples you can quote, as part of the learning process?



If you would care to look back through my posting history you will find I have pointed out to Orac instances where his posts were unhelpful. I have certainly been less inclined to do that to you. I think you will find I have called no one a troll.

You took my comment to the effect that “Orac may be right” completely out of context. Perhaps this was a mistake, rather than anything deliberate.



I doubt that you will be banned for the transgressions of other posters, so remaining on the forum is in your hands.

Perhaps you have not implicitly called anyone a troll
but the below sure has the appearance of an accusation.




I dont see how I took it out of context , my reasoning is below.





to me it looks like I did not take it out of context.
it was well within context.

Bill, that is good. But remember that you should keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out. That means that you should require convincing proofs of any claims made by members of SAGG. The most convincing proofs are those that have been verified by members of the scientific community. Some extremely well verified ideas are the various conservation laws. Those include energy and angular momentum. When you get down to lower levels there are a number of laws in the quantum domain which are also thoroughly verified. The main thing is that any time somebody makes a claim that they can show these laws to be wrong you should start with the assumption that the claimant is wrong. You should require that they demonstrate positively that their claim is correct. Many times they will write up a lot of stuff that doesn't show how the scientists are wrong, they just ask a lot of questions without bothering to show that their claims are correct. So be very wary of any body making claims that don't agree with the extremely well validated laws of physics. They are almost undoubtedly wrong.

By the way many times these claimants will provide a word picture of an experiment that will topple the known laws of physics. But they will never perform the experiment. That is a pretty good sign that they are wrong, but it isn't really required. For them to show they are right they MUST provide experimental proof of their claim.

Bill Gill

Bill S

heres something I found that was really odd to me.

I could not find the word troll in most all of these pages!
even though they show up in a google search using the search forums search box at the top left.

type in troll bill s

and look at all the results.

Im not saying that you said anyone was a troll but look at the
descriptions of all the older pages , then look at any page and try to find the word troll

http://www.google.com/cse?cx=partner-pub...&gsc.page=2

sry it was a browser error , it only finds a word if you retype it in each time.

I am assured that evening primrose oil has a calming effect and is helpful in the treatment of over sensitivity.

If a poster were trolling and in the course of so doing asked a question; then, if another poster responded without answering that question, that action would provide an opportunity for further trolling.

Would you agree with this?



Would it not seem a little paranoid to fail to recognise that this statement actually supports your position.

Bill S

was the oil recomendation mine or Bill's

forgive me , but it's hard to tell who your addressing your comment to.

Absolutely! However, as one who has a habit of questioning everything in the hope of understanding it better, I like to know why poeple who make such claims think as they do.

If a poster were trolling and in the course of so doing asked a question; then, if another poster responded without answering that question, that action would provide an opportunity for further trolling.

Would you agree with this?



Would it not seem a little paranoid to fail to recognise that this statement actually supports your position.

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?

Yes Bill you are correct and I understand what you are saying now thank you for that clarification.

I expressed in another thread once that the whole model of atoms as something like little planetary systems seems so bizarre, most realized back then it was wrong and yet such a silly concept has gained such acceptance with the public.

I once did an excercise to try and work it out because it was suspected it was wrong in 1913 they knew it was definitely wrong in 1917 and by the time Pauli had finished his work in 1925 it was dead and buried and yet it survived and haunts us today.

Disney even made films about this rubbish and cemented the idea with the public and so today we have people still convinced atoms look like bohr's crazy atom.

I had to laugh even if you go to the dummies guide

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/atomic-structure-the-bohr-model.html



No kidding because the Bohr model is garbage thats is why we use the quantum model so why has the Bohr model not been buried and given it's last rites.

It's not that hard to teach the quantum model and usually it makes a hell of a lot more sense once the students understand it.

My only answer I can come up with is the word Quantum scares people because apparently Quantum Mechanics is a scary thing.

Oh I should say dummies does do a good job on the quantum atomic model ... see not that scary

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/atomic-structure-the-quantum-mechanical-model.html

I note even our mate Socratus noted there is something wrong with Bohr's model as per his ABC on QM book quote ... I wonder if he read on further and understand how QM solves the problem and even why QM can explain why it will only react with certain frequencies.

I should also say this is my favourite image of an atom because for people it makes it clear the idea of the electrons being not interconnected to the nucleus is removed which to me is the biggest misleading part of the rutherford and bohr models.

I have only been registered for 2 years. I have been lurking for many many years. I finally registered when somebody said something so ridiculous that I felt I had to respond. So I can recall many many times when you have done your hand waving attempting to convince people that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong.

Bill Gill

then perhaps you should have clarified that in your post.



my waving my hand is not as good as the rest of the world waving their hand?

you call it waving your hand as if to taunt me , am I wrong about that?

am I waving my hand when I ask that question?

is there another sentence you could have used that would not have caused me to think that your choice of words was a taunt?

its as if you are trying to extract an emotional response from me.

I agree completely. It just seems a shame that so many non-science things appear to become big deals.

I know that I hit the reply button on your post orac , but Im replying to the image you posted , not anything that you included
as text in your post condemning the bohr atom.



if the above is a model of an atom , and the electron
(or whatever quantum mechanics has converted it into) is probably somewhere in the universe at some point in time , or somewhere in the vicinity of the nucleus traveling inside the red balloon looking orbital things pictured above.

1) the electrons charge must be changing levels almost as fast as the speed of light.

2) what causes the energy level changes that obviously must be occurring?

3) are there no energy levels anymore in QM?

4) are there still electrons in QM?

5) does the electron actually orbit the nucleus or does it
pass through the nucleus , or does it get close to the nucleus then fly away because of some QM effect?

Im just curious , I welcome anyone to reply , but please keep it civil.

I agree also , I think its mainly just filler.

but it does turn out to have a snowball effect.

so , lets agree to agree that we agree to end this.
or at least that we agree to end this , do you agree?

LOL

Maybe he is measuring time in internet years. An internet year can seem like ten years, so 2 years can seem like 20 subjectively. :-)

I think I first registered on SAGG in the summer of 1999 , that was back when Amaranth Rose I was on the forum.

it does seem like a long time ago even though it was only 13 years.

I show up as registering in 2006 now I think because the site
dropped it's database , remember that?
it happened several times.

Drat, I lost the post I was trying to put together.

I used to post fairly regularly back before SAGG started requiring registration to post. I kept looking in regularly even though I wasn't posting. Then as I said above I registered to respond to a particularly bad post.

Bill Gill

Paul I have always been willing to civil so long as things don't become a troll excercise.

I am usually quite explicit about what science consensus believes and what I believe I do have some discrepencies with science consensus like all scientists do but I can't prove my beliefs so they are unproven ideas of mine.

Really understanding the model is extremely easy the link provided does it.

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/atomic-structure-the-quantum-mechanical-model.html

What is important here is not whether you or I believe it but that experimentation proves it to be the fact. Again science is not a popularity vote and noone has been able to prove the model wrong.

Infact only this week for example now that getting temeprature near absolute zero has become mundane thanks to laser cooling scientists worked out they could seperate gases based on there quantum spin property of the model

http://phys.org/news/2012-08-one-way-street-atoms.html

and we now even watch the transistions between classic phases of matter

http://phys.org/news/2012-09-ultracold-atoms-reveal-quantum-effects.html


So again it's not up to me to convince you the Bohr model is wrong science has already done that and thrown it in the bin.

If you want the Bohr model back at science you must explain each and everyone of the thousands of experiments that currently prove substaintive proof of the quantum model you can't just wave hands at it and say I don't know but I don't like it. Einstein disliked Quantum Mechanics and as good a scientist as he was we didn't let him do it either.

So science has assigned the Bohr model to the bin the reality is that it should have been done so in 1925 and it certainly should not be appearing in current text books.

For me the reason it does because of past historic disquiet over QM from great scientists like Einstein. People trusted Einstein in this case he was wrong and in someway that legacy will take time to eliminate.

I did my early science years as an Einstein GR/SR junkie and disliked QM. However as experiment after experiment result rolled in throught the early 2000's you could see that QM was not only correct and not going to go away or be explained away.

Now I study QM and it is a most interesting area because it is moving so fast and getting faster because with QM understanding has come the ability to simplify the equipment.

Laser cooling has change the landscape in getting down to absolute zero the enormous cryogenic labs of the past which limited which universities had the ability to do research have gone. QM experimentation is now within the reach of any university and thus the field has exploded.

Looking back to the '70s and early 80s when I was trying to explain very basic mineralogy to young people, many of whom had a distinctly limited learning ability, the Bohr model was an ideal tool for getting the idea over. It was all that was needed for the task. You could then feel as though you were doing your bit for science by adding something like: "it's not really as simple as that, but it gives a reasonable picture of how the chemistry works".

I suppose I, and people like me, have to take some blame for keeping the Bohr model "kicking", if not actually alive.

I am going to take a chance and reply to the dummies link
you provided , hopefully you can answer my question about the
wording on the page and its assoiated image.

please dont include the history of QM as my question does not require a full history , only a simple answer.







I can fully understand (a) in the above image of a QM model.

moving on to (b) I get lost
there is no 3p shown!

would the 3p if shown only represent a smaller orbital?

plus: the web page did not make me really understand the model.
the only thing that the web page showed me was that the electron orbits in the same way as it always has.


the 2p..3p ... and so on are only probability orbitals , not electron orbitals , and are only used to estimate where electrons
might be as they orbit in 1s ...2s ....3s ... etc using mathematics.

maybe that's why they use ( p ) for probability.

if QM is just a means of estimation that can be utilize in actual equipment used to carry out experiments then it cannot claim that
the bohr atom is incorrect as a atom model.

the bohr atom model would be an incorrect model of a QM probability model however.

using QM math to trigger a strobe light is probably how
actual scientist see electrons as they orbit in s1..s2..s3 orbitals.

but I think it is safe to say that actual electrons in orbit around an actual nucleus do not follow the orbital paths
p , d shown in the QM atom model.

You need to remember its 3D so they have mark x,y and z axis for (b) the electrons have 3 possible axis if they were all full they would form 3 clouds along each axis. There will be plenty of movies etc on youtube about it I am sure.

Electrons don't orbit in the planetary way you want to make them which is where you are running into problems. These are historic errors that come from you being taught errors. They spin in wave like patterns within those strange orbital shapes.

The problem dates back to 1922 and this experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern%E2%80%93Gerlach_experiment

The bohr model was dead the moment that experiment was done and no amount of explaining could save it the result is inconsistant with what would happen with a bohr type atom.

Since then we have experiment after experiment to isolate the quantum parameters and as I have said Bohr model is dead and buried.

There is also an obvious inconsistancy in Bohr model with antiparticles. How do you make an antipartilce molecule what the big protons orbit the small electrons in the middle :-)

So you have a choice now read about the various experiments that provide science proof of what is happening and try and understand it or do the Paul hand wave and stay with some outdated and clearly wrong idea.

So which is it to be try and understand or stick your head in the sand?

here is a actual image of an atom.
it clearly shows that electrons orbit atoms the way planets orbit a sun.



doesnt look anything like one of the computer generated QM probability atom model's now does it.

could it be that the model only focuses on the probability areas that the electron might be found in?


a shadow of a Yb ytterbium atom




6 rings Yb ytterbium atom



as for hand waving I'm posting up mostly actual images of actual atoms other than a chart type image here and there
as the above Yb atom chart.

you are posting up computer generated images of imaginary atoms.

I wouldn't call actual images of actual atoms hand waving or sticking my head in the sand.
I would like to point out that your imaginary atoms must be somewhere in the sand , can you see them.

do you see how your trolling extracted an emotional response from me above?

this is why trolling is not allowed , granted I have been guilty of the same things in the past , I admit that , but I
am trying to refrain from trolling , but your trolls are creeping in again , building momentum with your trolls.

theres no need to include the type of language you use on a science forum.

http://www.networlddirectory.com/blogs/p...-bohr-atom.html



I'm going to say that bohr was right all along and the sand bucket has been very busy for a long time.

I can accept that the QM probability model of an atom can be
used in determining where an electron might be in an atom.

but I cant accept that the electrons could orbit an atom the way you seem to be trying to say that they do.

it might be clear to QM but I just cant see that up here
where the sand doesn't block my vision and perception.

Despite a reluctance to back up the resident troll, I have to point out that even in the Bohr model an antiparticle molecule would consist of atoms with their constituent particles in the same relative locations as in normal atoms, with the same masses. Only the particles' charges would be be reversed. Positrons would be in orbit around anti-protons. Of course, in no way does that support the Bohr model, which as a matter of fact is now well and truly defunct, whether or not Paul likes it. But as we shall no doubt be reminded, Paul knows better than mere physicists.

the remark you made about a resident troll is a troll!

at least your post focuses on the scientific content and not the social aspects of the discussion.

perhaps this forum might just survive as a science forum vs a social forum.

or is that anti social forum!

Sorry as you can imagine this is all sort of confusing to me because it's not often I would get into discussion about how people percieve stuff that is wrong.

It doesn't make alot of sense so what is "elementary charge" something that just occurs in the model like static electricity?

Science says

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern%E2%80%93Gerlach_experiment

YOU ARE WRONG .... BOHR MODEL HAS BEEN FALSIFIED.

END OF STORY

Not important what I and science believe the Bohr model is false and can not be upheld.

If you can devise and experiment to falsify QM atomic model knock yourself out it's that simple and I would have to accept your result.

The rules of science are that simple.

LOL

I suppose that's the body of your argument.

well , if there were a atom on a space ship traveling at near
the speed of light.

say .9 c

wouldnt the atoms electrons that travel at near the speed of light be traveling around the atom's nucleus faster than the speed of light durring 1/2 of each orbit or orbital in either or any model you choose?

just suppose the electron were only traveling at .9 c
around the nucleus.

.9c + .9c = 1.8c !!!



will the electron borrow some anti speed from the other side of the universe as it rounds the turn , just to prove that
QM is correct even when its clearly wrong?

LOL

of course your talking about the spin of the electron and the above only talks about the electron as it orbits the nucleus.

when we add in the speed of the surface of the electron that
is traveling at 1.8c what would the surface speed be then.

because the surface speed of 1/2 of each spin will probably be in the direction of travel at some point in time.



its funny how the impossible can become possible so quickly.



I dont know about that , hide and watch!

you guys are going to have to stop setting limits on things you dont have a clue about.

We are setting limits on things ( for example: c=1, T=0K )
that we don’t have a clue about.
From these two parameters (c=1, T=0K ) was started
all modern speculations in Physics.

==..

socratus

modern speculations , good one

its like they want to have a dream world where everything is possible , as long as they can convince themselves that its possible.

or it's like their trying to convince themselves that their dream is possible.

then when reality peeks through they quickly run and hide
and they gather together and invent another dream to use
to convince themselves that the bit of reality that they were seeing peeking through their dream wasnt really seen.

ie...

what is shown on the photographic image of the atom couldnt
be seen because we have already determined back in 1922 that
its not possible and this occurrence disagrees with modern physics so we don't actually see it every time we look at it and see it , we can probably develop a probability that can prove to us that its some other part of the universe peeking through the space time continuum dream that we developed to cover up some other realization that occured in the past...

hmmmm , lets find a way to fix that camera so that it cannot
show reality the way it does , because reality seems to be interfering with our belief system.


its like stacking up cow patties , eventually the whole crock
of cow patties will come crashing down.

Yeah well at least we don't need ridiculous child molesters to tell us how to think and what to make of things ... ROFL.

And now my we are definitely done before you start crying that everyone is picking on your GOD and religion again.

I would suggest you take my warning seriously because I will take no prisoners if you insist on going back to trolling.

If you think my response is harsh go back and re-read what you have written which is nothing more than a long insult at science and scientists and therfore your GOD is fair game.

Lets end this discussion because there is no common ground any of us can find for civil discussion your views are offensive to my belief in science and they should not be in a science forum and my views are offensive to your belief in religion and they should also not be in a science forum.

If you wish to continue open a thread up in NQS and I will be happy to engage in a lively debate.

A quick glance over the notes I have been keeping for a few years reveals instances where I have suggested that science is inclined to invent things to explain the unexplainable. However, as long as everyone realises that these inventions are only ideas, until experiments prove (OK, I know you can’t really prove anything) or disprove them, this seems to be a reasonable form of progress.



You surprise me, Paul. Even without QM, this doesn’t work. Time dilation???

How an electron ( slower than c ) emits photon at c?
=.

I suppose the pictured moving clock consist of atoms , some of
which have an electron that is traveling in the direction
of clock motion

therefore , logic dictates that

clock speed .87c + electron speed .9c = >c


sorry , time dilation only slows time as measured by two observers , not electrons ...LOL

if the observer is outside the spaceship

and he can see the surface spin of the electron as the spacship passes in front of him.

and he takes a measurement of the surface speed of the electron as the electron is traveling in the direction of spaceship motion.

the speed of the surface of the electron would be that
of the speed of the atom + the speed of the orbit of the electron + the speed of the surface of the electron as it spins.

.9c + .9c + electron surface speed = >c

next

if the observer is inside the spaceship

and he takes a measurement of the surface speed of the electron as the electron is traveling in the direction of spaceship motion.

the speed of the surface of the electron would be that
of the speed of the atom
( .9c he looks at the spaceships speedometer)+ the speed of the orbit of the electron + the speed of the surface of the electron as it spins.

.9c + .9c + electron surface speed = >c

PS

I'm ignoring orac , hes getting upset again.

its nice to know that there are people in physics that
use logic along with physics such as socratus in the discussion.



thats just it , the dream has stop sign's in it.
take the stop sign's and speed limits down and then you can progress.

setting or determining speeds is fine , but setting speed limits is wrong as described above.

setting limits is wrong.

speed limits should only be set after ( PROPER ) verification has been performed , however you will never find any real speed limits.

this is pretty clear...

if you believe that ( NOTHING ) can travel faster than the speed of light , then nothing , not even an atom could move at all according to your belief system.

because electrons travel at or near ( in the vicinity <=> ) the speed of light.

not counting the surface speed of the electron.

every time I type on this keyboard part's of me and the keyboard are moving faster than the speed of light!!!

then there's the speed of the spin of the earth
the speed of the earth as it orbits the sun
the speed of the solar systems orbit in the galaxy
the speed that the galaxy is moving inside this universe
the speed that this universe is moving inside the cosmos.

There you go again Paul. Completely ignoring the facts of life that have been conclusively demonstrated to be true. All you have to do is to read the quote that you included and then just use a little imagination to transfer the facts into the frame of reference of the atoms/ electrons and you will find that there is absolutely no problem with electron motion and spin.

Also of course when we talk about electron spin we aren't really talking about a physical spin as if we were spinning a ball. Electron spin is a quantum effect and there is no clear comparison between that and a spinning ball. It is much harder to spin a wave function than it is to spin a ball.

But then you don't seem to be able to see beyond your own mind set and figure out what reality is all about.

Bill Gill

Paul, this looks like a clever way round the relative speed limit of c, but is it?

Suppose you had access to an enormously long space craft that was capable of travelling at ninety percent of the speed of light. Inside this, you have a small craft which is capable of twenty percent of light speed. According to your example, all you need to do is fly both of these craft, one within the other, and you will be exceeding the speed of light relative to the Earth.

It seems logical, remember that although the speed we are using for the big craft is its speed relative to the Earth, the speed of the small craft is its speed relative to the big craft.

If I am on a train travelling at sixty miles per hour, and I run, in the same direction at ten miles per hour, then my speed relative to the track must be seventy miles per hour. So why would the same reasoning not work for space craft?

The truth is that the same reasoning does work for both; it is the earthbound example that is wrong, but because the speeds involved are so small in comparison to the speed of light, the straightforward addition is so close it makes no real difference. However, when we are dealing with speeds that are appreciable fractions of the speed of light, the difference becomes significant and we have to use the relativistic velocity addition formula.

The formula is expressed as: v prime = (v1 +v2) over 1+(v1.v2).

V prime is the speed of the small craft relative to the Earth.
V1 is the speed of the big craft relative to the Earth. (90%c)
V2 is the speed of the small craft relative to the big craft. (20%c)

Do the maths and I think you will find that v prime does not exceed c.

Why would the speed of the electron influence the speed of the photon?

If I am holding a flashlight that is stationary relative to the Earth, it emits photons at c.

I must have missed something! Who let child molesters into the discussion?

I'm sorry bill s but the atom example is what I used , I'll stick to that.

and I was using the point of the observer , not the earth.

besides the earth would be orbiting the sun and its distance would be constantly changing.



that formula would not be the correct formula would it?

lets try it out with an aircraft and a missile...


The formula is expressed as:
v prime = (v1 +v2) over 1+(v1.v2).

V prime is the speed of the missile relative to the Earth.
V1 is the speed of the aircraft relative to the Earth. (300kph)
V2 is the speed of the missile relative to the aircraft(300kph)


V prime = (300kph + 300kph) / (1 + (300 kph x 300 kph)) = 0.00666659259341562871523649737225 kph

so the speed of the missile is only
0.00666659259341562871523649737225 kph relative to the earth.
but the aircraft is traveling at 300 kph relative to the earth , is that how you intended it to work out for you?

as soon as the missile is launched from the aircraft it
starts going behind the aircraft at a really slow speed...LOL

is that the way scientist do things?

or is that just the way you do things when your stumped by someone on a science discussion forum?

next



I can say your right on that one bill s , LOL
but only if I use that formula.

let me try one

V Still = the speed of the missile relative to the missile.

V Still = (1 + (300kph + 300kph)) minus (1 + (300kph + 300kph)) = 0 kph

would that work better , at least that way we can show that the missile never even moves , relative to the missile that is.

Paul, you left out c^2. That always has to be included in equations involving special relativity. Wikipedia -Special relativity has an article on the subject. You can skip down to the Composition of Velocities section to find the correct formula for calculating relative velocities.

Bill Gill

Paul,

I see Bill S answered you but since I already looked,

try: v prime = (v1 + v2) over 1+(v1 x v2)/c^2.

No Bill S. This is EVA. (Einstein Velocity Addition)... Not time dilation. (Length contraction perhaps)

.9C + .9C = 0.994475138121547C

(Like Bill & Pokey said.)

I think that Paul is using Galilean Velocity Addition.

BTW... who is this Pokey anyway? 14 posts in 5 years. You found the right formula rather quickly.

Pleased to meet you.

hey Kirby

its been awhile.



I havent took the time to do the formula , but from the
looks of it , its not the right formula anyway.

there are 3 velocities.

so which formula would you use?

and would you happen to have another one of those calculators?

I'm just curious how much would 1c + 1.1c = .99999999999c perhaps?

of course you guys do realize that using that formula you will never get a correct answer dont you?

its designed to never allow any number to be greater than the speed of light.

as long as you use 2 numbers lower than the speed of light the answer will never be higher than the speed of light.

its a scam formula though up by scam artist.

also , Im not the type of guy that believes in special relativity
because it requires special people that somehow can believe in that type of stuff.

but what if you use 2 numbers higher than the speed of light?

Come on surely you have heard it is a white collar crime :-)

It was I who left out the c^2. Mea culpa. Can't blame Paul for that one. Although I suppose he should have spotted it.

I believe I was right by not spotting it.

those who spotted it have been taught it or just picked it up.

its part of math that fancies fantasy.

I havent bothered to learn it , nor do I feel a need to , it
would be like learning to do math in a way that only supports
a man and his theories.

not reality.

as bill said all special relativity formulas include the c^2 bit

I think I'll spread it out on excell and see if it applies to all reality not just special relations.

I may build a theory of reality that is based on reality and
non special relations.

“hey Kirby

its been awhile.”

It may seem that way but I have been reading these boards religiously.

“would you happen to have another one of those calculators?”

Sure; why reinvent the wheel?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/einvel2.html#c2

Well gentle readers. Her goes Paul in denial again. This ground has been covered over and over during the years. Paul for some reason cannot or will not see that there is an enormous amount of experimental proof of relativity, both Special and General. So he keeps going around in the same circles, making the same general claims over and over. This note is just to let you know that when Paul makes a claim it should be taken with a very large grain of salt.

Bill Gill

Kirby

thanks for the link.

I just finished making a spreadsheet to do it , and it shows
the exact numbers you get.

using
90% c 167400 mps and 90% c 167400 mps

I use mph because Im an old fart thats used to it.

still it gives s = 184972.37569060800000000000
which is as you posted
0.994475138121547000000000000000 c

that doesnt mean that it is correct however.

it just means that its deliberate.

let me try it out on some more numbers to check the consistancy.

ok , when I use two velocities higher than c I get a constant
reduction in s


186,001 and 186,001 = 0.999999999985547000000000000000 % c

so by increasing the two velocities by 1 mile per second
you slow the speed down to below c !!!

190,000 and 190,000 = 0.999773678850289000000000000000 % c

so by increasing the 2 velocities by 4000 miles per second
you slow the speed down even further below c


if I use 100000000000.00 mps for each velocity then s goes
to 0.69191999999760600000
and the % of c = 0.000003719999999987130000000000

it's an obvious fallasy , that will probably kill us all.

especially when its believed to be correct by people that work
with this type of thing at the LHC.





so it can roll?

You get a hold of some cool graphics. Glad to see that you maintain a sense of humor under a hail of fire.

I don’t want to digress too much from the OP.

Do you think that we’re all of the opinion that the laws of conservation is the best bet?

Hi, Kirby, good to see you posting again. You are absolutely right, of course. I really should consult my notes, and possibly even think before posting, but sometines it's a matter of rushing in a quick post between other things. I thought I would have time to do things in a relaxed way when I retired. Now I wonder how I had time to work.

“You are absolutely right, of course.”

That’s debatable even in this context…just didn’t want to waste our previous investments on the speed of C in alternate mediums thread. I hope that I didn’t come off as authoritive and an opportunist.

Although I can’t contribute much due to time constraints, I am still learning from these boards by staying on top of it.

Perhaps someday I can regain the crown of #1 crackpot.

I hope that when the opportunity arises that we can revisit the important issues of infinity and the nature of time.

I wish you luck with that; the competition is stiff.



At present I'm struggling with the QM concept of time. Trouble is, our resident Orac-le is off doing his "bad boy" stuff.

is that a fact , you know you cant just come waltzing in here
expecting to tumble the throne like its just some kind of personal
prize to you , people work really hard on these
forum's to gain that recognition and believe me you can
expect a tooth and nail , knock down and drag out fight buddy.



see , stiff competition.

Kirby , where were you born anyway?
do you have a birth certificate to prove it.

for all we know you might be from some other planet...

Kirby



I can only speak for myself.

I haven't found where it has been broken , unless I look
at what the QM folk say.

but you see the kind of bogus math they use to make things work
out in their favor.

I have read where someone on the forum uses the term snake oil
while defending QM , maybe he was trying to
point something out , or maybe he believes
that what he is selling is the real
deal , but to me it is only snake oil , dream land , fantasy world stuff.

lets do this , why don't we find a correct way to account for
the time differential in space travel.

lets start with this...

do you think it could be the division in the formula we have been using is simply dropping values?

ie...c^2 starts with a 3 ( 34596000000 ) using 186,000 mps

maybe physics could use a good calculator that uses binary vs decimal while calculating.

something like I posted a few weeks ago to correct the issue.

we all know you cant divide 1 by 3 and then get a 1 again by multiplying by 3

but you can divide the binary of 100 by 3
and then get a 100 again by multiplying by 3
then converting back to decimal you get 100 again.

100 decimal = 01100100 binary
01100100 / 3 = 366700
366700 x 3 = 01100100 binary
01100100 binary = 100 decimal

how many issues could be corrected that way.

Lies ... just not much to discuss about some whacked out junk that a 10 year old can see is wrong no comment neccessary from me.

I asked one question which for the life of me I can't work out for those who believe in the crazy Bohr atom which is what is elementary charge ... how does an electron and proton get charge. I tried net searching but so many crazy whackjobs I can't find any sort of consensus what they think just more crazy on crazy.

Waiting for you to catch up with the QM stuff so infinity can meet uncertainty should be interesting :-)

Edit: Mind you even the uncertainty principle came under challenge last week so perhaps we will have to get more wild

http://phys.org/news/2012-09-scientists-renowned-uncertainty-principle.html

Did you get crazy brave and try the postulates I am sure you will be able to read around the mathematics?

That wouldn't work with 101 decimal would it?

I'm prepping for an important job interview tomorrow...reality calls.

101 / 3 = 33.666666666666666666666666666667

it gives a number that I don't trust.

it will go back to 101 but its rounded by the calculator.

33.666666666666666666666666666667 x 3 = 101

I like using the binary 01100100 for a decimal 1 better because
the result when dividing by 3 = 366700
theres no messy decimal to deal with.

maybe all thats needed right away is a replacement
for c^2 just for use in the special relativity formulas.



good luck

"for all we know you might be from some other planet..."

Very perceptive...I'm from New Jersey.

Is that in our Solar System?

It's probably too late now to wish you luck with your interview, and my time machine is playing up, but good luck, anyway.



Yes!?!?! I've just posted in the other thread.

this is some whacked out junk , some would say its da bomb!

Im sure if you keep looking in the forum you will find something
that is wrong , dont give up , eventually you'll find something
that is wrong and then you can comment on it.

orac , I had no idea you were only 10 years old , you seem to be older than that , I was thinking your age was around 15 - 16 judging from your reactions to post.

now it all makes sense.



the bohr atom is an imaginary atom , so it has imaginary charges.

so you can use QM to let it borrow its charges whenever it needs a charge.

I'm almost certain that you can find the correct formula in one
of the special theories , they have a formula for everything you can think of.

if you cant find one , just make one up yourself , that seems to
be the norm among the special circles.

No special people are religious people

Fact for the day:

Gene Abel and Nora Harlow in there 2001 study that found 93% of nearly 4,000 convicted child molesters described themselves as ‘religious’ or ‘extremely religious. 77% of offender were or had been married and 79% are caucasian. There was no particular religion that was dominate.

So white married religious people who apparently believe in GOD have in their midst the most messed up special there is.

I am atheist, not white and never been married so I rest my defence on my mental stability.

I am also in high demand as a babysitter and as proof I present a youtube proof in typical Paul fashion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRi7RmCrcag

Google search it ... rather funny.

Please don't bother complaining you were given fair warning you start trolling me or science like in your above post that I would not pull punches based on your GOD sensitivity.

86% of the worlds population is religious.

2.3% are anti religious or atheist

that makes atheist people special and religious people common.
http://richleebruce.com/mystat.html

Current Population Clock
World 7,038,456,464
15:28 UTC (EST+5) Sep 10, 2012

http://www.prisonstudies.org/info/worldbrief/wpb_stats.php?area=all&category=wb_poptotal

WORLD POPULATION TOTAL 7038456464.00
WORLD PRISON TOTAL 10142368.00

WORLD RELIGIOUS PERCENTAGE 86% of world population
WORLD RELIGIOUS TOTAL 6053072559
WORLD RELIGIOUS CRIMINALS 0.001675574 as percentage of world population

WORLD ATHIEST PERCENTAGE 2.3% of world population
WORLD ATHIEST TOTAL 161884498.7
WORLD ATHIEST CRIMINALS 0.062651879 as percentage of world population



athiest 0.062651879%
religious 0.001675574%

the chances are higher for a athiest being a criminal than they
are for a religious person being a criminal.

here's one of my favorite scenes from The Invasion.




there are a lot of videos on you tube made by people with biased
opinions concerning religion , they love to cherry pick through the data that is easily available on the internet and the result is the type of video that you posted.

You can try all the stats you like it does not change the fact the religious are an artificially high number of child molesters even off your own figures 86% religious and yet we have 93% representation in child molesters.

You will also note that numbers of caucasian child molesters is massively high compared to there representation even if you limited the representation to that of race and ethnicity mix of USA.

You can't hide from the fact there is something going on in the caucasian religious community that sees them overrepresented and infact there are studies underway to look at that.

So your statement from above is actually incorrect in the specific case of caucasian religious males.

The question you have avoided and the thing that hit me when I first saw the figures if religion is all about being a better more moral just person why aren't their representation numbers lower than the average.

It is also why I question your religious morality because on this forum you are one of the most opionated, egotistical and aggressive and yet you are supposedly a pillar of religious virtue. You will say the same of me I am sure but the difference is I AM DELIBERATELY TRYING TO BE THAT TOWARDS YOU TO MAKE A POINT so if you aren't trying then you have serious issues.

Rev K is very religious and interacts in a normal civil way with people on the forum so being religious does not preclude being civil on science forums a lesson perhaps Rev K could teach you.

Once again I give you a blunt warning you start trolling science or people with insults and I will react and you won't enjoy it.

your the only troll here orac , I'm only defending my religion , this isnt a religion forum , every time you troll
about someones religion just shows what a troll you are.

we know that the reason you troll about religion is because your an athiest , you have already stated that.

the next time I read anything in any of your post that is directed against my religion , I will ask that you be banned
from the forum due to abuse.

why?

You may go ahead and appeal to the moderators I have been very specific how you can stop it .. improve your behaviour.

Intersting that everyone else is abusive but never you ... perhaps you may want to go back and read what you posted above.

My warning stands I will not hesitate if that results in my being banned so be it.

Now having dealt with that lets get back to our little electron and perhaps you can answer the question of what elementary charge is in your Paul physics.

You will note in our QM world we test our theories to extreme precision and check that the charge value we predict for an electron matches the theory we have a good reason for the charge to exist and it's value

http://phys.org/news/2012-09-electron-magnetic-moment-precisely.html

So perhaps you could give us how Paul physics predicts and confirms the elementary charge of its Bohr atom model.

Simple question there should be no need to get involved in silly side issues and heated exchanges I really only interested in that answer because it's not clear to me.

So lets see if you can answer a straight forward question.

Paul Physics states that after everything was created the first time
it never goes away.

it never will go away , it will always be somewhere in some form.

so therefore , thus , and hitherto , the bohr atom model is a mirror of atoms that exist naturally throughout the galactic plains inside the cosmos.

given to interactions with and between other entities that naturally exist through the exchange of energy , furthermore
Paul Physics also states that nothing natural shall be construed
as having a set of properties that cannot be changed.

to answer your question



was created.

I am not sure I am following completely and I am not trying to troll here so bear with me and I am strictly trying to understand your physics without making any judgement.

It sounds from the above we have some sort of conservation of stuff that is created is that matter (atoms), energy or a bit of both?

Is the universe infinite or finite in the statement "everything was created the first time it never goes away"?

Your Bohr atom have a preset created elementary charge, is there any way you can create fractional charges in your atom?

Can matter and energy exchange and does E=MC2 hold?

Last question so QM is mistake or wrong to you?

in that case I will try to give my best opinion's on the question's.



atoms ( atoms have both mass and energy )



infinite ( nothing ever goes away )
even when atoms are split and release their energy
their energy and matter remains.



I prefer to think of the bohr atom model as a construction set
to be used to configure any model atom you could ever imagine.
and the bohr atom can also be used to represent any solar system.

just input the charges the way you want to configure the atom
and let the atom stabilize itself or transform into another atom.

using computer programming of course.



matter is constantly converting into energy by the sun.
the light from that conversion shines on the earth.
plants convert that energy into matter( mass ).

its an exchange



the speed of natural light holds.
but it can be changed.
light can be slowed down by passing light
through a transparent medium.

and it can be speeded up by passing light through a
light accelerating medium such as cessium.

so since c can be manipulated then c^2 would be a big
difference in the result of the formula.
so the formula couldnt be correct , it is almost correct.

perhaps E=MLS^2

LS being the speed at which light is traveling in the experiment.



I will have to wait until I'm finished with the program I'm making
that will not drop values due to a formulas specific elements and layout.

for now I can safely say that the intentions may be right
but the foundation is weak because of the math involved.

I assume that 'cessium' is a typo and you mean the element cesium. But how does this work? I have heard of light traveling slower through any medium other than a vacuum, but I have not heard of it speeding up. Can you explain this?

Bill Gill

sry , your right it is cesium.

but as a gas or vapor.

a smooth light pulse is passed through a small chamber with cesium gas inside it , let me find an article.

it was back in 2000 I think at princeton, new jersey.

heres some of the articles.



http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en#hl=en&...280&bih=616

this tells me that a time capable air vehicle could appear in front or beside you heading at an angle that should cause the craft to impact with the ground , the craft then slips behind a tree line , you brace for the impact but nothing happens , not even sound.

so in effect you have a vehicle that can re negotiate its position instantaneously to avoid the impact.

but that would all be dream land stuff , not that I have seen anything like that.

LOL

Re superluminal photon pulses.

From Dec 14th, 2000:

http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences/Dossiers/FTL/About%20Lijun%20Wang%92s%20experiment%20-%20tut.pdf

"Wang published a document on the issue, in which he ruled out superluminal signalling but the discussion as to whether it will be possible to send information faster than light is still ongoing." ***

"(IV) Conclusion.
When Dr. Lijun Wang’s experiment was first released to the media, it was sensationalised
with headlines such as “Eureka! Scientists break the speed of light”. The papers spoke of
how Wang and his team had broken the speed of light, proved Einstein “wrong” and showed
that there were inconsistencies in his theory of Relativity. This created a wrong impression of
what Wang was actually doing.
All aspects of the “Gain Assisted Superluminality” experiment can be explained by existing
laws of physics. No laws of physics were broken and no new laws were created. Even Wang
himself says that the experiment is not “at odds” with Relativity [2]. The prospect of
projecting light superluminally using anomalous dispersion had been with us well before
Wang embarked on this project."

*** As far as I know, information has never been transmitted superluminally.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/nov/18/neutrinos-still-faster-than-light

cern

sent through the ground from Cern near Geneva to the Gran Sasso lab in Italy 450 miles (720km) away seemed to travel faster than light.



neutrino's are not massless , yet they seem to be able to
travel faster than c.

of course c is the speed of light , not the speed of mass.

I wonder if the mass of the neutrino's increased as they approached c.

and how much time dilation occurred.

I wonder why they keep using the word appeared.

haven't they fully tested the clocks they use , I would think that the clocks would be fully tested and calibrated by now.

the article is a year old.

I would think that they have ran light speed test from point a to point b by now to determine if things are really happening or seeming to appear to happen.

why dont they just come right out and admit it?

all this seeming and appears makes me wonder if the world should allow them to continue with the experiments if they dont know what they're doing.

Paul,

There have been several articles like this of late.

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/06/once-again-physicists-debunk.html

<"Enough already. Five different teams of physicists have now independently verified that elusive subatomic particles called neutrinos do not travel faster than light. New results, announced today in Japan, contradict those announced last September by a 170-member crew working with the OPERA particle detector in Italy's subterranean Gran Sasso National Laboratory. The OPERA team made headlines after they suggested neutrinos traveled 0.002% faster than light, thus violating Einstein's theory of special relativity. The OPERA results were debunked months ago, however. So instead of the nail in the coffin of faster-than-light neutrinos, the new suite of results is more like the sod planted atop their grave.">

I see they had a bad connection , but how could a bad connection give a early time?

and how many time's did they do the experiment?


and would you happen to know how a particle that has mass can be accelerated to the speed of light.

what happened to time dilation and increasing mass and all the
special relativity stuff?

the formula for adding velocities never allow anything to even reach the speed of light.

you can get really close but you can never get there.
so they would need to have all the energy there is left on the planet to get something that has mass to travel at the speed of light , but we still have energy.

so how did they get the mass to travel at the speed of light?

Paul when I see answers like yours to the questions I posed there are two basic questions that always come up.

1.) How do you think thousand of scientists and thousand of experiments failed to confirm your theory as it is far simpler than what is proposed currently and in many experiments your theory has been falsified.

2.) Why do you bother pursuing and discussing your theory it is never going to be accepted by science because of question 1 so why is it so important to you?

the math they use is bogus , let me prove that to you.

I theorize that the speed of a car is 10 mph
and that nothing can move faster than the speed of a car.

if Im driving my car at 1/2 the speed of a car (5 mph)
and I put the pedal down but the car will only accelerate to 10 mph then the Special relativity formula stands true.

insert any numbers you want for v1 and v2 you will never
get the car or anything to exceed 10 mph.

I designed the formula that way in order to support my theory.
I have never been proven wrong either!
and the speed of a car will never be broken
the only way I can ever be wrong is if they figure out that my math was wrong.

cs = the speed of a car = 10mph
s = (v1+v2) / 1+(v1xv2)/cs^2

we all know that the speed of a car is more than 10 mph.

the underhanded trick in the above formula is that you can insert any number in the element that represents cs^2 and s will never result in a number higher than the number that you inserted for cs^2.

its clear that the math was created for the sole purpose of supporting the theory.

but whats so scary about it is that the scientist use the math
in the programming that measure's c.

so how can speeds ever be correctly measured?



its not a theory , its pure fact.

if you think Im wrong then prove to me that anything can travel
faster than the speed of cars using my speed of cars and my math.

why build another slow poke spacecraft , they should just let me build the propulsion system and it could be there and back in a week or less.

it could go out to the voyager1 and use some super glue to stick it to the spacecraft , then give voyager1 a light speed or two push.

then come back.

or go push pioneer 10 and voyager2 to light speed 2

Paul that doesn't really answer either question.

There are thousand of scientists and thousand of experiments on all aspects of your theory not just speed of light that falsify it. For example the Bohr atom which has been completely falsified so there would almost need a conspiracy for that many people to get this all that wrong?

Remember if a scientist could prove what you propose they would be guaranteed a Nobel prize. What you propose isn't complicated so why hasn't anyone taken up the idea?

Your so called fact will never be accepted by science because you won't publish a paper or construct an experimental proof or any of the normal things science requires.

From what I can tell you have convinced no one of any of you idea and you have exactly zero chance of changing science by posting on a science forum.

So I question what it is you hope to achieve in all this?.

they just all need to use the same math.
and they would all get it wrong.

BTW , since that one formula is bogus , what does that say about the rest of the formulas?

Gentle Readers: Here again Paul justifies his errors by claiming that every body else is wrong. This of course means that a great many things that work wonderfully according to real science are completely impossible. We are going to have to give up all the things that we use that depend on the bogus science that Paul is attacking and figure out ways to do it in accordance with Paul's science. This may be a big problem since I for one don't want to give up all the modern technology that won't work under Paul.

Bill Gill

what errors are you speaking about?

The fact that a multitude of simple experiments show your theory doesn't hold!

Thats a little hard to get past Paul and why you haven't convinced anyone.

The whole argument is essentially going circular here in a mexican stand-off so I am not sure there is much people can add other than trade insults.

then it should be easy to find one and post it up so I
can prove to myself that I am wrong.
besides I dont have a theory.

heres something I found.



is that how they decide if the particle is gaining mass?

or is the gain in mass detected at the moment of the collision?

there may not be any gain in mass , the time that the particle is under the influence of the accelerating mechanism would be shorter and shorter with each acceleration increment.

and that does not tell me that the energy went into an increase in mass.

if there is no detected gain in mass at the moment of collision then there is no gain in mass.

this is all that cern has to say about particle detectors.

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/research/Detector-en.html

mass x velocity !

if the speed of the particle x its mass or its kinetic energy
is equal to the impact energy produced by the collision then
thats a clear closed door on any gain in mass.

if its higher than it's speed x its mass then it is a gain in mass.

anyone know where the particle types speeds and impact energies can be found?

I tried that it becomes a pointless excercise because I can't even enough basic agreement on fundemental physics to discuss what is going on. Bluntly I am not going to waste my time again.



The most obvious proof of a particle gaining mass as it gets faster is what you have to do in a particle accelerator

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclotron



No doubt you have some other explaination however which I am really not interested in because it will turn into another long and inane discussion the conclusion of which will be beyond any sort of proof I or any scientist will or can accept.

This is basically the path the rest of you post begins to take and so we will end up in another pointless excercise which I am beyond caring about.

I dont need one , its just above the portion you posted.




that says the particles mass is constant.

which makes loads more sense to me and my logic.

there must be another example in the multitude you speak of
I can only find things that are really obvious or should I say
things that would actually occur.

dont stop trying just because Im asking for one more of the multitudes of experiments that prove R.

heres your chance , and if it is in one of the other links you posted then you know which one it is , so just re-post it.

thats pretty simple to do for you , but it would be kind of hard for me to find , since I stopped clicking on your links when I
clicked on one that automatically downloaded a file to my computer , I couldn't delete the file until I killed the explorer process on my computer.

but I put the file in storage first on a usb drive.

which is why I didnt click on your links after that.

so if you dont mind , do like you did in your last post and
include the portion of the web page that you believe to have
the pertinent information that I should look at.

Gentle readers: Again Paul ignores the part of the quote that suggests that he is wrong. I enlarged the relevant text so that he should be able to see it. What they are talking about is an approximation, not reality. It works as long as you keep the velocity low. As it increases you need to use the relativistic calculation.

Bill Gill

You are correct Bill and he is just circular trolling again and I am now entering him into the preearth category and shall treat accordingly.

Time to let a thread die.

Bill

I guess I'll have to point this out...

The cyclotron is only capable of accelerating particles up to a few percent of the speed of light.

so there is no R , GR or SR needed.

If the particles become fast enough , the beam becomes out of phase with the oscillating electric field, and cannot receive any additional acceleration.

the motive force of a cyclotron is not adjustable.

which backs up what I said earlier about the time spent in the
area that provides the motive force.

increasing this motive force is the only way you can get additional acceleration.

that has nothing to do with gaining mass.

the intentionaly structured math of SR can possibly be used to
set the needed amounts of motive force in an adjustable cyclotron
as in the isochronous cyclotron , still the proof of a gain in mass would be seen in the collision.

also the particle may be producing a type of shock wave that travels in front of the particle that could be interacting with the walls of the spiral tube.

this would cause layer's of a resistive force to be applied to
the particle.

also...
just because we say its in a vacuum doesnt mean its in a vacuum
we have never made a 100% vacuum.

so there is stuff in the tube.

claiming that mass increases is one thing but proving that mass increases is another.

but the proof should be there in the collision , thats why I asked for the proof , I can do without the claims.

Go ahead and retreat , orac

that only gives me your answer.

which is you have no answer.

and there is no multitude of experimental evidence as you claim.

and why do you call people a troll when you cant answer their question's?

through all the decades that particles have been slammed into wall's and all the claims that the particles mass has been increasing when approaching c , there must be some data on the energy of the collisions.

that data could quickly prove R , SR correct.

wouldnt you think , or could it be that data like that is not
something desired in the maintainence of theories like that...

I don't religious trolls and there pathetic attempts to do what they see as protecting there pathetic little god Paul.

That simple.

Your explaination is troll garbage and not worth responding too.

I suppose you meant

as if that is going to somehow make or break a discussion
in a science forum.



I dont like the way you keep bringing up religion in every topic I try to have a discussion in , I've reminded you on several occasions that this is a science forum , if you want to spread your hate towards religion then why don't you troll on over to a religious forum.

I don't think you even believe your Paul's physics you are just a religious nutter trolling because you hate science.

So I will just troll your pathetic god back.

Now I believe we are done on this thread unless you have something you would like to troll more on.

I should also say you don't complain about Rev K and Socratus with there pro religion posts so why pick on me because I am on the other side. Tell you what I will take your complaint seriously when you start complaining to them.

“To YOU I’m an atheist; to God, I’m the Loyal Opposition.” ... Woody Allen

you have a right to think what you want orac.

I dont hate science , the only reason I post about things concerning science that I believe to be wrong about science, is because I care about science.

you keep saying "we" as if you are the master of science.

and all of science and all scientist follow your logic.

if thats the case then science needs to just close the doors.

if you "meaning you" are done with the thread , then just be done with it , that does not mean that the thread should be closed just because "you" cant answer a question.

besides your just a follower so when you do say something its
because your requesting to be noticed , I happen to be a leader
so when I say things people take notice , I dont need to request to be noticed.

there may be others who comprise the we "meaning everyone other than you" who might want to contribute to the thread.

most likely there just picking through what I have said and they
simply scroll down to my next post without even reading the trash that you post.

Rev and socratus do not post inflammatory remarks like you have posted , and their religious belief's do not bother me because
I am stable "meaning unmoveable" in what I believe.

I am not questioning your belief or non belief , I am only questioning science because I think science to be incorrect.

I ask some very pertinent questions , you respond with trash.

if you can only respond with trash , why do you bother responding at all.

you cannot win a discussion using the type of trash and worthless iformation that you use to reply with.

if I squeeze an apple , I expect to get apple on my hands.
if I squeeze an orange, I expect to get orange on my hands.
if I squeeze science, I expect to get science not trash.

Why .... why not I say ... is there a law against such things I don't see a whole pile of anything intelligent in Socratus posts.

As for questions I don't do troll questions ... sorry ... you don't like it tough.

You can lay into science go ahead you are perfectly entitled to I won't stop you and similarly I will lay into a stupid pathetic god that doesn't exist. Is it your GOD that is so weak and feeble that he can't handle a few questions or your faith perhaps?

My input into these threads shall be just as useful as socratus, preearth input I am sure. Hence I don't see why I should leave there are plenty of inane posts I shall blend in with the crowd as they say.



They are completely inflamatory to me I am an aetheist or don't we have feelings or do only religious people have feelings?

They say GOD exists to an aetheist, I say GOD doesn't exist to a religious person. I am inflamatory they aren't ... right that makes sense ... Paul logic yet again.

So for now sorry I shall be around to haunt your threads and be socratus useful.

Perhaps I can slip a science question in between the Paul/Orac religious exchange, as I think that was what the thread was about, originally.

I’m thinking as I go, here, so I am numbering points for ease of reference, correction etc.

1. Neutrinos (excluding the anti- and sterile varieties) come in three flavours.
2. It is known that neutrinos have mass.
3. The masses of individual neutrinos are not known precisely.
4. Cosmological studies indicate that the combined mass of all three flavours is not less than 0.5 eV.
5. Also, the heaviest neutrino flavour cannot be less massive than about 0.05 eV.
6. It seems there is a considerable difference between the masses, with a very slight possibility (mathematically?) that the lightest could be massless.
7. The flavours in order of ascending mass are: electron-, muon- and tau-neutrinos.
8. It appears that as they travel through space, neutrinos mutate between flavours.

Now for the question! When the mutation sequence is tau > muon > electron, where does the mass/energy go? Similarly, where does the energy come from when the sequence is reversed?

My guess is that vacuum energy might come in here somewhere, but that would raise questions about the extent to which vacuum energy plays a part in the conservation of energy generally.

Madness Bill a real question ... and I was having so much fun with the trolls :-)

This one is going to go thru to a divid within even science you have given close enough to the GR/SR and many particle physics version.

Ok the QM version goes like this there isn't a nuetrino that suddenly and randomly become a muon or tau neutrino. It is just a flavor (electron, muon or tau) of the neutrino which is in an indeterminate state, meaning that it is not necessarily any particular one of these. That problem of people wanting to make virtual particles solid and real again.

The nuetrino doesn't react much with matter because it is much more of a wavelike than particle like and the probability of finding one of the flavours similarly is simply a probability function.

I would also point out that the electron, muon, and tau neutrinos do not have well-defined masses and QM actually says the mass will always be somewhat fuzzy because the dufferent flavours have survivability probabilities.

More extensive background =>
http://t2k-experiment.org/neutrinos/oscillations-today/

I should also point out from a QM perspective this is not going to be an unusual effect from what we understand. The concept was expected to be part of a wider QM behaviour and the effect has similarly been noticed on electrons in solids where the electrons appear to split into quasiparticles.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120418134847.htm

So there is quite a gulf between QM and some particle physicists on what is going on here Bill. I am sure if we put certain groups in the same room we would get a very lively debate over this one :-)

Time as always will settle the debate for science.

LATE EDIT: Matt Strassler has a much better discussion of the effect

http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-an...-what-are-they/

BTW Bill you haven't got back to me about what you decided about energy in our other thread.

Thank Orac; much food for thought there.

Sorry I have not got back to you on the other thread. I've been seriously distracted, but will see if I can pick up the ends again soon.

from your link...

Three flavours correspond to a three-dimensional rotation, which involves three angles (roll, pitch and yaw in the terminology of aircraft and boats), three mass differences (one of them being the sum of the other two), and one phase.

The relationship between the three neutrino mass states (v1,v2,v3) and the three flavour states (ve,vu,vt) is usually expressed as a 3×3 matrix known as the PMNS matrix

Basics of Oscillation Experiments
Neutrino oscillation experiments are designed specifically to study changes in neutrino flavour

....

that says that a neutrino experiences changes between states and
that is the basic reason for the experiment.

so the question that Bill S asked was feasible.




I wonder why?

just think you could be there shouting your anti religious trash around the room while they are trying to have the debate...
it would be a long debate.
your side might win the debate due to a lack of interest
development among the debaters because of the trash talkers
you would be sort of like a science lobbyist.

isn't that what you do best anyway?

As dementia closes in: remind me, which thread do I have to go back to?

While the first link demonstrates some of the difficulties of working with such elusive entities as neutrinos, I am still wondering where the conservation of mass/energy is dealt with, unless it is in the maths, which go over my head.

I read about the splitting of the electron before, and this seems to indicate that the electron is not a fundamental particle, which surprised me.

I intend spending a bit of time on the third link to see what I can make of it.

Thanks, Paul; the answer is out there!



Not helpful!

I'm still stuck trying to find any particle collision energy data that shows the speed before impact and the mass of the particle before the particle was accelerated.

It seems however that the accelerators have a set rating.
ie... some are 30 Gev some are 207 Gev and there are 7 Tev
per beam accelerators such as the LHC.

I wonder if all particles that are collided have the same
collision rating as the accelerator..

in other words do all collisions energy of impact result in the accelerator energy rating.

it would make sense.

still I would need the speed of the particle.
and the mass or energy (Ke) of the particle.

for instance a electron has a mass of

Mass of electron: 9.10938291 * 10-31 kg
Mass of proton: 1.67262 * 10-27 kg
Mass of neutron: 1.67493 * 10-27 kg

any gain in mass can be found from those two properties of the particle just before it impacts.

No it is fundemental it's just it is composed of different QM spins and as such it is subject to the usual QM rules which like entanglement includes being able to seperate it yet it remain acting as if it is single entity. Thats all that is happening in the experiment that was being done you can consider it a form of entaglement if it makes it easier to consider.

Normally the two spins have a helicity which "classically" you can consider as a continuous spin representation or fundemental particle.

However it is a naive view to think it never shows off it's QM credentials even when travelling in a normal electron beam and that is the issue Matt Strassler was dealing with in

http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-an...-what-are-they/



All of this is easily detectable by experimentation it's just like entanglement it causes problems to us in that we don't perceive the world that way we crave for "solid world representation".

For QM the fundemental nature of an electron is based upon it's average behaviour but like any average it is subject to conditions that bring about that average and careful tinkering with QM properties can make the average behaviour look very different.

Your nuetrino's average behaviour is normal for QM but it is very hard to deal with under a classical framework.

I should also say if you read on in Matt's discussion about photon behaviour you will probably also better understand a earlier discussion which got sidetracked in this thread of why certain frequency photons interact with certain atomic structures something that is not very easy to understand when you use classic solid world physics.

OK, so is a proton a fundamental particle? Could it be that quarks are just QM entities that have no separate existence?

This shall be my last post Bill S save my main goodbye post and I wish you well on your endevours.

Quarks are never found in isolation under "normal" conditions they require special QM media or setups for that to happen thus they are not considered fundemental.

I have enjoyed our exchanges and will miss them. You have an excellent ability to deduce and follow the logic of science and I am sure you will learn much more in the years to come.

There are very very few things that offend me as you know but holocaust denial is one of the very thing things that will offend me. As you are probably aware from other threads I am a member of Amnesty International and I can not in good faith participate on a site where moderators will give me a warning for calling someone "mentally retarded" yet allows a discussion of "whether the holocaust really happened".

The site moderators are a disgrace there should not even need to be a thought about it and so I must leave.

this is a science forum whether you believe it or not , orac
the holocaust is not a science topic , if you participated in
a thread about the holocaust, which I'm sure you did then you
participated because of your personal belief system what ever belief system that is.

the moderators warned you because calling
SOMEONE "mentaly retarded" is harassment.

you are a disgrace orac , not the moderators.

the moderators are only doing what they must do in order to
comply with internet rules and regulations.

In your opinion, then, would the Mods not have been “doing what they must do in order to comply with internet rules and regulations” if they had done what you think they should have done?

I've just got round to reading this article. I recommend it to other "hitch-hikers". Given time, I intend working through the responses, that may answer some of the multitude of questions that the article stirs up.

It the moment I'm thinking that the flavour changing of neutrinos is something akin to the exchange of virtual particles described in the article. At least, that's the direction my thinking will be going in for the present.

Any comments will be welcome.

Just some preliminary thoughts.

1. A neutrino is a neutrino… is a neutrino… is a neutrino… The flavours do not represent different types of neutrino.

2. The neutrino flavours indicate different relationships between the particulate (massive) facet of the neutrino and its associated wave package.

3. Most of the energy associated with a neutrino is kinetic energy; it can, therefore, be ignored when considering the actual mass/energy of the neutrino.

4. If one considers the particulate facet of the neutrino as containing the mass, and the associated wave as containing the energy; changes of flavour simply signify changes in mass/energy proportions.

5. A possible drawback to this model is that a less massive flavour will necessarily have greater energy than will a more massive flavour. Is this really a problem?

Comments (preferably reasonably polite) please.

So much for trying to drag this thread back in the direction of science. Should I have mentioned Gods, Mods or Trolls in order to elicit a response?

ok, I was wondering if you meant

less massive flavour will (not) necessarily have greater energy.

because the energy is kinetic.
the neutrino mass does not actually change does it?

was I wrong in thinking that way?

I agree on the flavor assessment however.
the three flavors are the 3 neutrino states
pitch , yaw, roll and the 3 mass states
corresponding to the 3 flavors.

I was thinking that if the energy/mass remained constant, as it would have to if energy were conserved, the less massive flavours would have to have greater energy in order to maintain the balance. This is not what one would expect, which is why I considered it as a drawback.

If, as seems to be the case, the masses of the different flavours are eigenstates, both energies and masses must change, and the changes must be measurable.

It would seem that any uncertainty regarding neutrino (flavour) mass(es) must arise as a result of shortcomings on the part of our equipment and/or ability to make the necessary measurements.

I dont know much about this stuff.

I can only go by what little bit I have read.

but classical physics is going to fall in there no matter what
is always my opinion , the flavors are only motions of the neutrino as in pitch , roll , yaw.

its such a tiny mass that the least amount of influence will
spin it it a direction.

as it is in motion it is constantly changing its spin , and these
changes in motion are the three flavors.

these changes can have a effect on the kinetic energy of the
neutrino much like a gyroscope effect has on a rocket.

now lets consider the reason the neutrino flavor changes.

perhaps , and I've never read this anywhere , but to me
it would be a classical way to examine these changes of spin
direction.

1) the neutrino has a shell that is charged both + and -
one side positive one side negative.
causing the shell to interact with any near particle's charge
and changing its flavor.

2) the neutrino has a shell that is more massive on one side.
like our moon.
causing the shell to interact with any near particle's gravity
field and changing its flavor.

3) the neutrino has a internal particle or particles that
interact with the neutrinos shell due to charges , mass / gravity
causing the shell to interact with the internal particles
charge or gravity field and changing its flavor.

even a combination of the above , including magnetic fields
surrounding the particles.

light stimulating the particles , giving them a massive change
in energy , the particles then reassessing their position due to
the increased energy.

when they do find out out why the neutrino changes its flavor
there will be a classical reason that is observed.

the above is my opinion on the neutrino and its flavor changes
I cant link to any info.

but in my opinion the energy/mass does change in magnatude
due to the absorption of light energy and the gyro effect
of the unknown shell and internal particles.

of course you wont find any of that in a book.
its just my opinion.

That seems to jibe with current thinking, but leaves the question as to why a change in spin direction should bring about a change in mass.



Presumably this should result in a change of speed. Has that been detected?

I always like to come across ideas that are not mainstream! Have you thought of running your neutrino ideas past the “boffins” on Physics Forums?

nope , hadn't given it a thought.
got to maintain my low profile.
your welcome to it , if you want.

It looks as though a change of speed might be involved. I'll do a bit more digging.



Thanks; don’t you think I get enough stick for my own off-beat ideas?

Paul, I just looked closer at your reply here and I noticed this part of it. What is the gyroscope effect on a rocket that has an effect on kinetic energy?

Bill Gill

a gyroscope is used to maintain a rockets orientation.

gyroscope's can also be used to direct the rocket in a direction.

to keep it simple , if the neutrino has a shell which is more massive on one side and the shell slips around because of an attraction or repulsion of an external or internal force , then the movement of the more massive side of the shell away from the direction of neutrino motion would temporarily increase the neutrino's overall kinetic energy or its speed because of the overall momentum of the neutrino.

kind of like temporarily lessening the load until the more massive side has completed its move due to the external or internal attraction or repulsion.

But , think about it this way , you could have a good story to
tell everyone in the retirement home some day.

I guess you've already noticed the changing in speed.

I never likely to be able to afford a retirement home; but if your theory turns out to be correct I could always "do an Einstein" and claim credit.

Would it not be the case that when the heavier side was at the front or back the "load" would be the same?

Only when the heavy side was moving front to back would there be a temporary lessening, but that would be countered by an increase when the heavy side was going back to front.

Assuming that we are talking about a launch system, not some small rotation stabilized rocket, the gyroscope does not directly affect the momentum or direction of the rocket. Gyroscopes are part of the guidance system. They are used to detect changes in orientation of the rocket and the signal from the inertial measurement unit (IMU) (which contains the gyros) is used to determine how the attitude thrusters are fired to achieve or maintain the desired orientation. So the gyroscopic effect directly on the rocket, which is what your previous statement implied, is not a factor.

On small rockets a rotation can stabilize the trajectory of the rocket just as it does a bullet, because it keeps it pointed in the same direction. In this case of course the rotation is imparted as part of the firing sequence.

Bill Gill

Actually a rotating system with an imbalance will wobble badly. Just think about your car when you have wheel out of balance.

Bill Gill

its called a control moment gyroscope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_moment_gyroscope

that's right , and I can back you up on that!

dont you remember when you PM'ed me a while back?

LOL

that's it.

only if the shell was spinning would it wobble.
I'm not talking about the shell constantly spinning
it only moves when under the influence of some exterior or internal object.

it moves like pitch , roll , yaw...

it may be moving in several of the three at one time
depending on the number of objects influencing it.

Thanks, that was interesting.

Bill Gill

Schrodinger's cat .
Can we see situation in this way ?

If schrodinger's cat is alive it has energy E=h*f.
If schrodinger's cat is dead it has energy E=Mc^2
What energy can the cat have during quantum diagnosis ?
#
In other words.
There are a potential and an active energy.
Question :
How can potential and active energy be connected together ?
Can “ The law of conservation and transformation
energy/mass” give answer to this question ?
==.

Schrödinger and his cat have a lot to answer for; or, at least, subsequent interpretations of this scenario do.

Obviously, your reasoning cannot be applied to a cat. Applying it to a quon is a very different matter. You appear to have greater facility than I in maths, so I shall leave the equations to you. I wish you luck applying maths to a particle that might be in a superposition of quantum states, without making an observation that would destroy that superposition.