Re: Surviving Einstein.

From: Paul J Gans (gans_at_panix.com)
Date: 07/26/03

  • Next message: Dan Girard: "Re: U-Boat Enigma procedure(Long)" 
    Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:23:47 +0000 (UTC)

    Stonelock <crypto_stonelock@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >AE <hidden@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<3F1D87A5.8000102@nospam.com>...
    >> Stonelock wrote:
    >> > AE <hidden@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<3F17F968.1020004@nospam.com>...
    >> >>
    >> >>You claimed they were irregular enough to allow shielding inmore than
    >> >>two dimensions
    >> >
    >> > Listen; Imagine this. The electron revolves around the atom at about
    >> > 20 000 km/s. I don't know if you can imagine how fast this is; I know
    >> > I have trouble doing so; all I am able to perceive is a density
    >> > surrounding the atom. If you touch a spinning thoothed spinning wheel
    >> > revolving at a rate of 480 to 680 per second, then all you feel
    >> > touching the 'tooths' is a smooth continuous line. This revolving rate
    >> > is much less than that of the electron on its orbit all around the
    >> > atom.
    >>
    >> Speed doesn't matter at all - the interesting point is a different one:
    >>
    >> In case the electron would be a particle orbiting the proton in a way
    >> that centrifugal force and electrostatic attraction would equal each
    >> other the orbit would describe an ellipse, that way more or less
    >> shielding the proton in the plane but not in any other direction.

    >Yes, now consider this. atoms are not alone in the universe; they are
    >surrounded by other atoms all constantly moving in different
    >directions, at different speeds, different molecules, etc., This also
    >means that there will be electrostatic interactions between all these
    >constantly changing processes. It is absolutely impossible to have a
    >plane orbit in such circumstances. Thats a first thing to consider.
    >The other important factor is a lil bit more complex and involves the
    >constituant of the proton, their dynamic structure and their
    >interactions with the electron.

    I've not followed this thread in any detail, but you are clearly
    making a known mistake.

    The argument you present was first noted over 100 years ago. This
    is the argument that destroyed the notion of the electron
    revolving around the nucleus of an atom in a planetary orbit.

    Although Bohr worked up a "patch" for this problem in his
    discussion of the hydrogen atom, the real fix came in the
    1920s (yes, that long ago) with quantum mechanics.

    The electron in an atom is NOT in a planetary orbit. It is
    (as near as can be described in English) a standing three-
    dimensional wave. The crucial thing here is that it is
    a STANDING WAVE. As such the wave is not moving, the
    electron is not accellerated and there is no radiation.

    One cannot have standing waves just anywhere. Only
    certain particular standing waves can exist. If you
    move an electron from one standing wave pattern to
    another, radiation will be emitted or absorbed,
    depending on whether the new level is higher energy
    than the old one or not.

    This is a hard concept to wrap one's mind around and
    many have trouble with it. But it is nevertheless
    true and has been verified both indirectly and directly
    many many times.

    Now when an atom or molecule itself moves, one must
    remember that the atom or molecule is electrically
    neutral. Put another way, any electromagnetic radiation
    emitted by the electron motion with the movement of the
    atom is exactly cancelled by the radiation from the
    nucleus, which has an equal and opposite charge.

    If you move ions (charged atoms or molecules) through
    space they do indeed radiate electromagnetic energy.

       ---- Paul J. Gans

  • Next message: Dan Girard: "Re: U-Boat Enigma procedure(Long)"

    Relevant Pages

    • johnreed take 25 - Part-2 - Modified September 30, 2008
      ... So we built the 3D atom from 3D charged objects in equilibrium, ... of mass, momentum, and energy. ... Led by J.J. Thompson's isolation of an emitted electron and supported ... terms of a standard unit we call charge. ...
      (sci.physics.electromag)
    • johnreed take 25 - Part-2 - Modified September 30, 2008
      ... So we built the 3D atom from 3D charged objects in equilibrium, ... of mass, momentum, and energy. ... Led by J.J. Thompson's isolation of an emitted electron and supported ... terms of a standard unit we call charge. ...
      (sci.physics.particle)
    • Re: The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics, Section 9b
      ... The Atom as a Compacted Electromagnetic Field Structure - Part 2 ... classical "object-space" properties of mass, momentum, and energy. ... Led by J.J. Thompson's isolation of an emitted electron and supported ... terms of a standard unit we call charge. ...
      (sci.physics)
    • The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics, Section 9b
      ... The Atom as a Compacted Electromagnetic Field Structure - Part 2 ... Led by J.J. Thompson's isolation of an emitted electron and supported ... energy experimental collisions. ... terms of a standard unit we call charge. ...
      (sci.physics)
    • Re: Acceleration of charge
      ... for electrons in an atom this "radiation" has never been observed, ... The lack of a transition over some measurable time interval only reflects the fact that ambient radiation is fairly neutral wrt the atom over that interval, and any radiation emanating from the orbital electron has no effect whatsoever on itself. ... Momentum and energy are globally conserved only, and moreover they are Newtonian, and thus not real in any fundamental sense, and certainly don't apply on this level. ...
      (sci.physics.relativity)