Re: Surviving Einstein.

From: Stonelock (crypto_stonelock_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 07/26/03

  • Next message: Stonelock: "Re: Surviving Einstein." 
    Date: 26 Jul 2003 09:20:33 -0700

    Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> wrote in message news:<bfsonj$n7p$5@reader1.panix.com>...
    > 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.

    I don't see where it not right; would you care to explain how it is
    destroyed?

    > 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.

    Isn't this contrary to fact? For example we know that certain
    molecules are hydrophile or hydrophobe. Molecules do not seem to be
    shielded completely and as neutraly as you think. Hydrophile implies
    that the proton isn't shielded completely since certain molecules are
    attracted to the protons of the water molecule.

      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.

    That I do not buy.
     
    > If you move ions (charged atoms or molecules) through
    > space they do indeed radiate electromagnetic energy.

    As I said before, breaking particles radiate photons; if you are
    basing yourself on cyclotron experiments then you would have a
    constant radiation indeed as you would not have a equivalent speed for
    ALL accelerated particles; the reason for this this is that since the
    electric and magnetic fields are alternated at very specific
    frequencies in function of the speed of particles as to accelerate
    them, some particles will be accelerated more and others less for
    different considerations resulting in constant photon emission from
    the breaking particles.

    Stonelock

  • Next message: Stonelock: "Re: Surviving Einstein."

    Relevant Pages

    • 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)
    • Re: QM/absorbtion lines puzzle
      ... If your incident radiation is a Fock state, ... that depend on the fact there is really more than one atom. ... inversely proportional to the lifetime of the electron in this state. ... different frequency than the incident radiation. ...
      (sci.physics.research)
    • Re: Does element mass = # of electron + neucleons??
      ... the atom as a whole, one obtains different positions (except possibly ... charged and bound in the atom, if the electron "moves" then it must be ... no acceleration what so ever. ... That's where synchrotron radiation comes from. ...
      (sci.physics.relativity)
    • Re: Surviving Einstein.
      ... >interactions with the electron. ... revolving around the nucleus of an atom in a planetary orbit. ... electron is not accellerated and there is no radiation. ... move an electron from one standing wave pattern to ...
      (sci.crypt)
    • 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)