jeudi 26 juillet 2012

Electron spiralling is related to the earth’s magnetic field. Due to the convergence of the field lines, electrons are, in general, continuously accelerated towards the equatorial plane. The first object of the present investigation has been to determine how far along a particular field line (to the North or to the South) the spiralling electrons travel—that is, the distance to the ‘mirroring point’ at which their longitudinal velocity is reduced to zero and the reversed spiralling motion begins. This mirroring point is expressed in terms of the co-latitude 0, and is dependent on the ratio (u/v)0, that of longitudinal to transverse electron velocity at the equatorial plane.
See http://xumfak.my1.ru/Model_of_Tubes_of_Force_of_the_Earth.pdf for details.
To be continued...
Publié par à 02:47 0 commentaires

samedi 21 juillet 2012


    • In the case of the "hydrogen atom" (wich is the only atom we can analytically describe with physics), you really need quantummechanics and abandon the idea of classic "orbits" and "trajectories" since there are no real trajectories of electrons bounded in an atom. There are shells and orbitals and suborbitals. But this is not the same as an orbit since an orbit has a trajectory on wich the particle moves, while the electrons in an atom have quantised energies and have a set of quantum numbers and they must be described as probability densities (wich is done with the Schrödinger equation).

      I tried to tell you that using classic physics on the electrons in an atom is a bad and incorrect idea, while quantummechanics is the way you should use to describe them. If you believe you can use classic physics for it, sure go ahead but then you will never be able to describe the atom correctly. It's good you don't want to believe just whatever i say. But if you would try to explain for example emission spectra of exitated atoms, then you will notice that your classic description wont be able to explain this.
  • 12 hours ago
    Nils Baeté
    • Maybe that might be interesting. If you tried to explain something like that with your classic view on the atom. Interesting ... would it work or not ...
Publié par à 00:33 0 commentaires

vendredi 20 juillet 2012

DIRACS EQUATION- ARGUMENT THAT ORIGINAL EQUATION WAS NOT RIGHT


    • Zaccheus was clamourously foolish when he said he would repay those he had defrauded double but we can be like him about forgiveness...You need the teachers of the bible to understand the truth you can't understand it on your own..........We can try to forgive those who owe us doubly.
  • Wednesday
    Joe Blogs
    • You need to do a course in searching the net you have to be good with the net to pass a college course..........And not waste time.
    • Searching for nothing in particular.
  • Wednesday
    Joe Blogs
    • Don't waste time searching the bible for nothing in particular you have to know what you are searching for so how can you know what it is saying without a teacher.
    • Now that they have found the higgs boson the standard theory is complete and Einsteins thoery is not so they will need to use the standard theory to explain it all instead of Einsteins thoery this is a mistake we still need to work on completing Einsteins unifed field theory.
    • And maybe the higgs will help complete EInsteins theory too.
  • Wednesday
    Nils Baeté
    • Correction ... Bohr's model is actually quantummechanics. Since the energies of the electrons can only have discrete (quantised) values. The shells and orbitals are actually the result of the quantummechanic behavior of electrons and can't be described by classic mechanics.
    • LOL you put my ... "infinity stuff" on that page xD
  • Wednesday
    Nils Baeté
    • Wow there is a lot of bullshit on that page.
      1) Electrons and protons can't annihilate since they're not each others anti-particles.
      2) protons and electrons do not have equal mass.
  • Yesterday
    Joe Blogs
    • yeah hold it Nils in a big crunch supergravity overcomes the repulsion between electrons and you get massive superelectrons is the thoery.
    • Then they have equal mass with a proton.Electrons and protons have opposite charges so if an electron spirals into the nucleus it results in neutrons agrred.
    • The charges cancel.
    • I have explained why equal mass can work for them.
  • Yesterday
    Joe Blogs
  • Yesterday
    Joe Blogs
    • If Greg Plesand can only call people that are dead if you answer the phone you must be dead if you do not answer you may still be alive like schrodengers cat only you can both answer the phone and not answer the phone so you can't be both alive and dead.
    • Watch this movie that I had a hand in making.
    • I suggested the idea for the movie.
    • Maybe my thoey doesn't work in practice maybe you get electrons that are too massiive for the proton or not quite as massive........Electrons repel but when gravity overcomes replusion they can be in the same space at the same time and be supermassive the same as a proton.
    • Plesant.
  • Yesterday
    Joe Blogs
    • Jesus did not have the option on not believing in his father how can a son not believe in His father but he had the option of denying Him which he choose not to exercise.
    • Don't know if my explianation makes sense that the replusion between electrons is overcome by supergravity making superelectrons thta have the same mass as a proton and so annihilate when they collide which they do in a 10 large spacial dimensions universe with circular orbits.
    • If not dirac knew all about the mass of electrons when he formulated his 1938 equation for electron proton annihilation.and Oppenheimer was known to browbeat scientists to get them to change their mind so maybe diracs equation could work in a big crunch universe is all that Iam saying.We can agree to disagree on whether it would work in practice but I think it is worth a try.
  • Yesterday
    Joe Blogs
    • The antichrist may have gone back in time to tempt Jesus in the wilderness and offered him presidency of the whole world if he would bow to Satan...............So the devil believed in him that he was the king and believed in his power and wanted to share in that.
    • So it doesn't make sense not to believe in God every little child believes when he is told of Jesus so we have to humble our intellect like little children and just accept the fact of Gods existance by faith.
    • the antichrist may have build a time machine so he could go back in time and tempt Jesus Christ when he was most vulnerable when he had been fasting for 40 days and 40 nights.
  • Yesterday
    Joe Blogs
  • Yesterday
    Joe Blogs
    • Here is what may have been time travel the antichrist tempts Jesus in the wilderness..................
    • But could not overcome him because Jesus quoted the bible it is written it is written it is written.
  • Yesterday
    Joe Blogs
  • Yesterday
    Joe Blogs
    • Jesus was also tempted in the garden.
  • Yesterday
    Joe Blogs
    • The devil made an offer to Jesus that he could be his second in command.
    • As long as he would bow to him and call him dark lord...........
    • never underestimate the power of the light side of the force Jesus overcome him by quoting the bible that is why it is wise to memorise scripture.
    • Commit it to memory so you will have it in the dark days where you can't get a bible even for a thousand dollars on the black market.
  • Yesterday
    Joe Blogs
    • never underestimate the power of the dark side the antichrist may have bent time and space to go back and tempt Jesus in the wilderness and at gethsemene......But Jesus prevailed and overcome the devil so never underestimate the light side.
    • The clock is an example of a prophet newton speaking presumptuously.
    • And it is the work of the devil like a big mac fries and a coke It is in as much as it points to a thoery of evolution which could not be understood if it came only from the light side.
  • Yesterday
    Joe Blogs
  • Yesterday
    Joe Blogs
    • Yeah I inlcuded your stuff on infinity LOL.
  • Yesterday
    Nils Baeté
    • Sorry i prefer the theory i've seen at university.

      Btw electrons protons really can't annihilate each other. An electron can only annihilate a positron (anti-electron), and a proton can only annihilate an antiproton (negatron).
      And yes this has been experimentally verified so there is no way around.

      Annihilation only appears between a particle and its corresponding antiparticle. A particle and antiparticle have the same mass and opposite electric charge.

      An electron and positron have the same mass and have opposite charge (electron has charge -e, positron has charge +e)
      A proton and antiproton have same mass and have opposite charge (proton has +e, antiproton has -e)
      A proton is made up of 2 up quarks and 1 down quark (uud). An antiproton is made up of 2 anti-up quarks and 1 anti-down quark (ūūđ).
  • Yesterday
    Joe Blogs
    • Yes but diracs equations began with one for electron proton annihilation so I assume this can be right the 1938 equation in a big crunch universe what is wrong with this assumption if it is proven not to work in a ten large spacial dimensions with circular orbits then fine that is OK.........
  • Yesterday
    Joe Blogs
    • Oppenheimer has a reutation for browbeating other scientists.
    • So maybe he got dirac to do a backdown on his original equation I did not come up with the idea for electron proton annihilation but it was diracs orginal idea.....
    • But anyway if an electron can spiral into the nucleus in a big crunch universe maybe they don't annihilate but the charges cancel resulting in neutrons which then form a singularity and results in a big bang.
    • You need to think outside the square you need to learn to think cirtically about the text books many text books can be wrong about the assumtions that they make they can be presumptuous.............that means make too many assumptions
    • If we could make electrons and protons annihilate we could produce endless free energy without harmful radiation...............the only product would be neutrons.
    • That is why it is important to think outside the square.
    • Of course I could be wrong but it is worth gambling that Iam right when there is supergravity.
    • Watch the temptation of Christ in the wilderness by the antichrist maybe a form of time travel...............
    • Iam not an expert even in diracs equation is is just a suggestion that we started out with this equation for annihilation of electrons and protons and what if with supergravity there mass could equal and we could get annihilation.
    • What a wonderful result that would be................A gave up trying to solve the fusion problem billions have been spent and thought the 1938 dirac equation may be a solution to cheap fee energy.
    • You can't blame me for trying just becuase the text books say it is impossible does not mean it is not possible in some other universe with some other set of equations.
  • 20 hours ago
    Nils Baeté
    • No you only know half of the story about the Dirac equation, and you probably mix some things up.

      Diracs equation didn't began with electron-proton annihilation.
      His equation provided a description for spin-1/2 particles, such as the electron. His theory implied the existence of "negative energy" particles. At first scientists saw this as a paradox ofcourse.
      Dirac tried to explain it by what is sometimes called "hole theory": The vacuum is the many-body quantum state in which all the negative-energy electron eigenstates are occupied. This description of the vacuum as a "sea" of electrons is called the Dirac sea.
      Dirac further reasoned that if the negative-energy eigenstates are incompletely filled, each unoccupied eigenstate – called a hole – would behave like a positively charged particle. The hole possesses a positive energy, since energy is required to create a particle–hole pair from the vacuum.

      Dirac initially thought that the hole might be the proton (just like you think).
      But Hermann Weyl pointed out that the hole should behave as if it had the same mass as an electron, whereas the proton is over 1800 times heavier.
      The hole was eventually identified as the positron, experimentally discovered by Carl Anderson.

      Knowing this Dirac's equation implies a whole new class of particles: antimatter!

      I hope you now understand that it is not the proton, but the positron that is the antiparticle of an electron and that can annihilate eachother.
  • 20 hours ago
    Nils Baeté
    • Yes it was Dirac's ORRIGINAL idea. But it wasn't the right idea. It was the positron, and not the proton. And with that Dirac's beautifull equation implied many new particles: antimatter.
  • 20 hours ago
    Nils Baeté
    • That's science right, sometimes you have an idea and it might work or maybe not. And even if it worked at first, there might come a time when people see that it can't be correct after all and then they need to adjust the theory or make a new one.
      All real scientists know this and support this idea, and i'm pretty sure Dirac did as wel.
  • 20 hours ago
    Nils Baeté
    • Your view about electrons in an atom is more like a classic view. With classic mechanics. This does not work out.
      Electrons canot "spiral" since their orbitals are quantised. They can transit between orbitals ... but they don't have a measurable path from one orbital to another since we canot exactly measure an electron's position and momentum with enough precision at the same time.
      And anyway ... measuring means influencing it since you force it in an eigenstate when you observe it.
  • 20 hours ago
    Nils Baeté
    • You tell me i have to be critical about what i see at university.
      But shouldn't i also be critical about what you tell me. Why should i blindly believe you instead?
  • 20 hours ago
    Nils Baeté
    • Sadly enough it is impossible for a single person to reproduce ALL scientific experiments to verify the theory we see at university or in books in 1 sinlge lifetime.
      If i had many many lifetimes then sure, i would do reproduce the experiments to verify the theory for my own so i would know it is consistent.
      But as i said, it's impossible for me to do them all.

      So i assume the scientists who did the experiments before where honest enough to share the correct experimental results with the world, and not some scientific complottheory. I have no other choice. It's either that and becoming a scientist on my own, or not becoming an acknowledge scientist at all. And it's not like i have 1000 years to verify all the experiments right?

      So asume that the serious experimental results are "true". Then i can see if the theory is consistent with them right? And sometimes i notice that something you said is inconsistent with experiments, and so is incorrect.

      It's not that i don't want to think ... how you called it ... "outside the square". It's just that i want to see that scientific theories are consistent with experiments first. And electron-proton annihilation is not consistent with experiments so yeah thats why i don't share the same idea with you regarding electrons in an atom.
  • 20 hours ago
    Nils Baeté
    • electron-proton conversion to neutrons is not annihilation. It's called "weak interactions". You might wantto look up some things about it if you want. You probably find enough things about it if you look for "weak interactions" or "beta decay" or "nuclear reactions".
  • 20 hours ago
    Nils Baeté
    • It's not just the mass that matters in annihilation. An electron is a lepton, while a proton is a baryon. So there is no way they can annihilate each other.
      Yeah maybe in other universes i dont know, does it even matter if you can think of a universe in wich it is possible?
  • 6 minutes ago
    Joe Blogs
    • No thats what I mean about other universes.Of course it is possible that Iam wrong about electron proton annihilation and Iam not lying when I said Diracs original belief before oppenhemier proved it wrong was that electrons and protons could annihilate.And As I have explianed the charges can annihilate leaving nuetrons without the particles actually annihilating.I will look up weak interactions or beta decay like you said............
  • 2 minutes ago
    Joe Blogs
    • The big crunch universe is in 10 spacial dimensions with supergravity so does this make a difference when it comes to annihilation you say mass makes all the difference then when I prove that the masses can be the same with supergravity you say mass does not matter it is leptons and baryons...........I will print your rebuttal in my blog
    • Annihilation would mean limitless power that is why Iam interested in Diracs original idea.............
    • If we can't make it work with supergravity than that is too bad so sad your dad maybe we will solve the problem of energy with the higgs.
Publié par à 05:59 0 commentaires
Inscription à : Articles (Atom)