QUOTE (prometheus+Jul 16 2008, 02:44 PM)
Dude, you can't even spell and you're trying to write the theory of everything - something physicists have been trying to do for centuries. It's really not going to happen is it?! 
Only what they do - they write comletly bullshit of quantum mechanic. I already debunk entanglement and wave-particleduality and for sure 'electromagnetic' waves colapse. And you saying some bullshit to me? Also I debunk HUP and create theory of air type waves, instead rambling bullshit about quants and over nonsenses.
Only what they do - they write comletly bullshit of quantum mechanic. I already debunk entanglement and wave-particleduality and for sure 'electromagnetic' waves colapse. And you saying some bullshit to me? Also I debunk HUP and create theory of air type waves, instead rambling bullshit about quants and over nonsenses.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 16 2008, 09:56 AM)
Only what they do - they write comletly bullshit of quantum mechanic.
Wrong, they have derived expressions and theories that correctly predict and match experimental evidence. You have no experimentation, no expressions (you can't even make equations that are dimensionally consistent, that means they're wrong). Fail #1
Wrong, for the reasons above. Fail #2
Wrong, for the reasons above. Fail #2
Also I debunk HUP and create theory of air type waves, instead rambling bullshit about quants and over nonsenses.
Wrong, for the reasons above. Fail #3
Wrong, they have derived expressions and theories that correctly predict and match experimental evidence. You have no experimentation, no expressions (you can't even make equations that are dimensionally consistent, that means they're wrong). Fail #1
QUOTE
I already debunk entanglement and wave-particleduality and for sure 'electromagnetic' waves colapse.
Wrong, for the reasons above. Fail #2
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I already debunk entanglement and wave-particleduality and for sure 'electromagnetic' waves colapse. |
Wrong, for the reasons above. Fail #2
Also I debunk HUP and create theory of air type waves, instead rambling bullshit about quants and over nonsenses.
Wrong, for the reasons above. Fail #3
Nobody measure actualy waves radiated energy by particle and thus quantum crancks speculating, that without acceleration flying particles don't radiating wavse, but they do. And in radios there the same scheme like in air waves, where bigger frenquency and speed means bigger electron traveling distance and thus amplitude so can either more electrons at same frenquency travel shorter distance or less electrons with same frenquency, but with bigger speed can travel longer distance and will be radiated the same frenquency and amplitude 'electromagnetic' wave - exactly like in air waves.
So nobody know, what energy radiating particles and such information no in wikipedia.
but there is also another assumtion, that particles actualy don't have mass and particles radiating energy 0.5mv^2 and everybody thinking, that this is particles kinetic energy, but this is actualy possible radiated energy needed to accelerate. But seems, that there established, that electrons more radiating, than protons, because heavier so everything then depend on size, but maybe this is not precisly measured and sciencists just thant that it would fit.
So nobody know, what energy radiating particles and such information no in wikipedia.
but there is also another assumtion, that particles actualy don't have mass and particles radiating energy 0.5mv^2 and everybody thinking, that this is particles kinetic energy, but this is actualy possible radiated energy needed to accelerate. But seems, that there established, that electrons more radiating, than protons, because heavier so everything then depend on size, but maybe this is not precisly measured and sciencists just thant that it would fit.
So, you're saying that because it's not on Wikipedia, scientists aren't doing it? 
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 16 2008, 04:02 PM)
So, you're saying that because it's not on Wikipedia, scientists aren't doing it?
YES. Show me some information about electron radiated energy!!! How much it radiates!?!?!? This is very hard to check, because in wires most energy need to atract electrons from atoms and friction and heat...
And to measure accelerated electrons energy is also hard, because wave spreading like spheres quadraticaly they amplitude decreasing and hard to check it and measure... To accelerate electrons and to stop is also hard, because you don't know, what was energy or kinetic creating waves or deacceleration. So actualy seems, taht there is so much formulas, but still living with knowleges like in midle ages. At all I almost don't trust to coliders results, becuase there can be many electrosn and unknow number of them and so on... But there must be some roughly formula to calculate radiated electrons energy. I suggesting that possible that this radiated energy is equal to electron kinetic energy and deaceleration also the same energy like kinetic. And then electron don't have mass if flying without acceleration.
Or possible that electron radiating like say very small energy and when flying at some speed also radiating, but nnot very much and thus almost don't loosing energy.
YES. Show me some information about electron radiated energy!!! How much it radiates!?!?!? This is very hard to check, because in wires most energy need to atract electrons from atoms and friction and heat...
And to measure accelerated electrons energy is also hard, because wave spreading like spheres quadraticaly they amplitude decreasing and hard to check it and measure... To accelerate electrons and to stop is also hard, because you don't know, what was energy or kinetic creating waves or deacceleration. So actualy seems, taht there is so much formulas, but still living with knowleges like in midle ages. At all I almost don't trust to coliders results, becuase there can be many electrosn and unknow number of them and so on... But there must be some roughly formula to calculate radiated electrons energy. I suggesting that possible that this radiated energy is equal to electron kinetic energy and deaceleration also the same energy like kinetic. And then electron don't have mass if flying without acceleration.
Or possible that electron radiating like say very small energy and when flying at some speed also radiating, but nnot very much and thus almost don't loosing energy.
Okay, found, that electron or few electrons orbiting around nuclear radiating ~0.6*10^{-7} J/s=0.6*10^{-7} J/s W. Untill electron(s) faling into nuclear he radiating ~2*10^{-13} J. Kinetic energy then have 2*10^{-18} J.
m*a=m*v^2 /r =k*Z*e^2 /r^2.
But this is leading nothere. There no any comparitions with kinetic and radiation energy. They don't giving any coeficients, how possible to be such stupid when writing textbook? I think, they don't know this koeficient, but how they to calcualte some joules?
So radiating prety much energy at aceleration, because falling into nuclear faster than per 1 second. But if particle flying witout acceleration then possible it radiates much less energy, I think nonody know this rpecisly and imposible to measure it precisly, because at diferent speed or aceleration radiating diferent energy amaount. I am suggesting that at v speed particle raiting v 'watts' energy. Maybe or particle radiation equal to kinetic energy.
m*a=m*v^2 /r =k*Z*e^2 /r^2.
But this is leading nothere. There no any comparitions with kinetic and radiation energy. They don't giving any coeficients, how possible to be such stupid when writing textbook? I think, they don't know this koeficient, but how they to calcualte some joules?
So radiating prety much energy at aceleration, because falling into nuclear faster than per 1 second. But if particle flying witout acceleration then possible it radiates much less energy, I think nonody know this rpecisly and imposible to measure it precisly, because at diferent speed or aceleration radiating diferent energy amaount. I am suggesting that at v speed particle raiting v 'watts' energy. Maybe or particle radiation equal to kinetic energy.
Okay, maybe I will calculate this comparition of kinetic energy and radiating energy.
So on orbit particle/electron radiating 0.6/10^7 W energy. So to accelerate to such energy seems need 0.6/10^7 J energy. So angular velocity is energy mv^2 /r, hydrogen radius (of first orbit) is 5/10^11 m. Electron mass roughly 1/10^30 kg. Velocity of electron is roughly c/30=10^7 m/s. So electron kinetic energy is
mv^2 /r=10^11 * 10^14 /(5*10^30)=0.000002 J=2*10^{-6} J. And power will be also 2 microW. So radiated energy 6 microJ and 600 microW power. So about 100 times less radiating than accelerating. I think all calcualte correctly, but this not very fits with my theory about very small radiation, when particle just flying without acceleration. So since there nobody measure precisly radiated electron energy I can conclude, that radiated energy is the same as kinetic energy and that particles don't have mass if they don't moving and that particles kinetic energy is actualy energy, which will be radiated, when particle will deaccelerate. So proton and neutron have about 2000 times bigger kinetic energy, because radiating electromagnetic waves 2000 times stronger. All this ramblings, that electron more loosing it energy is wrong and possible, that at relativistic speed particles radiating more energy, which is equal to kinetic energy of particle. So someone can ask, if to accelerate particle to kinetic energy it will radiates energy mv^2 /2, when how by deacelereated he can give also mv^2 /2 energy? So it's like twice it giving mv^2 /2 energy? When accelerated radiating and when deacelerated radiating. Well, its like you loosing energy when accelerating and giving when deacelerating, or not? But there is such thing as mc^2, which can give you energy to accelerate, so there is like mv^2, hm.... Possible that's why imposible to accelerate to speed c, because need energy mc^2=mv^2, so in closed system imposible to fly faster than light. So mv^2 /2 is for newton mechanic if not quanting radiated energy and for my theory mechanic need energy to accelerate to speed v is mv^2. So to accelerate spaceship to speed v need energy mv^2, which is equal to energy of spaceship (in anihilation with antispaceship). But why is imposible to accelerate electron in coliders to c speed? Well, because limitation of speed of coliders processors, joking... Well, maybe because particles which accelerating electron also loosing they energy, radiating mc^2, but just nobody know this, because for many particles it's almost invisible... Because beamoming stronger atraction force, but no,just relativity probably... So at big speed clse to c particle radiates energy to reach v speed is mc^2 /(1-(v/c)^2)^0.5 - mc^2 and this equal mv^2 /2 for small speed. And by deaccelerating particle radiates energy also mc^2 /(1-(v/c)^2)^0.5 - mc^2 . But then at bigger speed particle should stop in time linarly depnding on speed and not according to enshtein, but according to v^2, but maybe time stoping don't realted with radiation? maybe. Or time stoping just don't exist because don't exist all this mesons. Then according to my theoryto accelerate to speed v need mv^2 energy and possible, that any speed is possible, but any object which flying with big speed and pushing must also waste mv^2 energy and thus seems, that with any kinetic force inposible to acelerate to c speed, because also will need mv^2=mc^2 energy. But why not with magnetic field? Or why not, when bigger object giving his energy to smaler object? Well, because bigger object giving it energy through wave, and only the same small surfeace of waves can be absorbed so it's wil not work. How then with electric field to accelerate? Well, electric field alsogiving only energy of small ray, but no you say. When field acting particles loosing they mass between themselfs, so at very big field they becoming almost without mass (how this can be also for gravity?). And yes they still each atracting only with small ray. Then need bigger and bigger energy, but they are many, but there no many tricks to overcome faster than light comincation in particles accelerators, because all this stuff must work faster than light and thus imposible to accelerate particle to bigger than c speed. So I it explain with logic and without enshtein formula. Increasing mass? No! Time going slower? No! Particles becmoming shorter? NO! Enshtein was wrong? Particularly, because his part mc^2 is right, but all over rambling is wrong and it only mean somthign pseudo and not ture... So seems, taht mesons and leptons don't exist, huh (since neutron imposible to accelerate to relativistic speed)? When how about spin amount safing law? Well, maybe law is wrong or maybe there is two electrons and one proton in neutron (neutron mass then still bigger). Then those electrons spins antialigned and they are atracted by proton (because electrons can't ahve the same spin). So one electron in one side of neutron and one in over. Or just law about conservation spin is wrong, nature is law, not math...
So on orbit particle/electron radiating 0.6/10^7 W energy. So to accelerate to such energy seems need 0.6/10^7 J energy. So angular velocity is energy mv^2 /r, hydrogen radius (of first orbit) is 5/10^11 m. Electron mass roughly 1/10^30 kg. Velocity of electron is roughly c/30=10^7 m/s. So electron kinetic energy is
mv^2 /r=10^11 * 10^14 /(5*10^30)=0.000002 J=2*10^{-6} J. And power will be also 2 microW. So radiated energy 6 microJ and 600 microW power. So about 100 times less radiating than accelerating. I think all calcualte correctly, but this not very fits with my theory about very small radiation, when particle just flying without acceleration. So since there nobody measure precisly radiated electron energy I can conclude, that radiated energy is the same as kinetic energy and that particles don't have mass if they don't moving and that particles kinetic energy is actualy energy, which will be radiated, when particle will deaccelerate. So proton and neutron have about 2000 times bigger kinetic energy, because radiating electromagnetic waves 2000 times stronger. All this ramblings, that electron more loosing it energy is wrong and possible, that at relativistic speed particles radiating more energy, which is equal to kinetic energy of particle. So someone can ask, if to accelerate particle to kinetic energy it will radiates energy mv^2 /2, when how by deacelereated he can give also mv^2 /2 energy? So it's like twice it giving mv^2 /2 energy? When accelerated radiating and when deacelerated radiating. Well, its like you loosing energy when accelerating and giving when deacelerating, or not? But there is such thing as mc^2, which can give you energy to accelerate, so there is like mv^2, hm.... Possible that's why imposible to accelerate to speed c, because need energy mc^2=mv^2, so in closed system imposible to fly faster than light. So mv^2 /2 is for newton mechanic if not quanting radiated energy and for my theory mechanic need energy to accelerate to speed v is mv^2. So to accelerate spaceship to speed v need energy mv^2, which is equal to energy of spaceship (in anihilation with antispaceship). But why is imposible to accelerate electron in coliders to c speed? Well, because limitation of speed of coliders processors, joking... Well, maybe because particles which accelerating electron also loosing they energy, radiating mc^2, but just nobody know this, because for many particles it's almost invisible... Because beamoming stronger atraction force, but no,just relativity probably... So at big speed clse to c particle radiates energy to reach v speed is mc^2 /(1-(v/c)^2)^0.5 - mc^2 and this equal mv^2 /2 for small speed. And by deaccelerating particle radiates energy also mc^2 /(1-(v/c)^2)^0.5 - mc^2 . But then at bigger speed particle should stop in time linarly depnding on speed and not according to enshtein, but according to v^2, but maybe time stoping don't realted with radiation? maybe. Or time stoping just don't exist because don't exist all this mesons. Then according to my theoryto accelerate to speed v need mv^2 energy and possible, that any speed is possible, but any object which flying with big speed and pushing must also waste mv^2 energy and thus seems, that with any kinetic force inposible to acelerate to c speed, because also will need mv^2=mc^2 energy. But why not with magnetic field? Or why not, when bigger object giving his energy to smaler object? Well, because bigger object giving it energy through wave, and only the same small surfeace of waves can be absorbed so it's wil not work. How then with electric field to accelerate? Well, electric field alsogiving only energy of small ray, but no you say. When field acting particles loosing they mass between themselfs, so at very big field they becoming almost without mass (how this can be also for gravity?). And yes they still each atracting only with small ray. Then need bigger and bigger energy, but they are many, but there no many tricks to overcome faster than light comincation in particles accelerators, because all this stuff must work faster than light and thus imposible to accelerate particle to bigger than c speed. So I it explain with logic and without enshtein formula. Increasing mass? No! Time going slower? No! Particles becmoming shorter? NO! Enshtein was wrong? Particularly, because his part mc^2 is right, but all over rambling is wrong and it only mean somthign pseudo and not ture... So seems, taht mesons and leptons don't exist, huh (since neutron imposible to accelerate to relativistic speed)? When how about spin amount safing law? Well, maybe law is wrong or maybe there is two electrons and one proton in neutron (neutron mass then still bigger). Then those electrons spins antialigned and they are atracted by proton (because electrons can't ahve the same spin). So one electron in one side of neutron and one in over. Or just law about conservation spin is wrong, nature is law, not math...
Okay, I have another reason why imposible to accelerate to c, because if there radiated waves from spaceship by somthing burning like anihilation then those waves radiated equaly in all directions and thus only half or less will be used for pushing spacehsip. Thus only <mc^2 /2 nergy will be used for accelerating body. And only reflected waves pushing twice stronger and aborbed will push twice weaker... In short there will be emited all spaceship mass-energy. But as far as I know spaceship efiecency far wouldn't be 50%, but some 0.5% or 0.005%.
And everything is correct with theory, that particle kinetic energy is radiated energy. Just to accelerate particle to kinetic energy mv^2 /2 will be radiated mv^2 /2 energy. If want particle deaccelerate also need mv^2 / 2 energy, and if particle will bounce at somthing then there will be radiated energy, which is tahnks not to particle but to object, which don't moving, but anyway, when particle radiating energy they also they abosrbing and energy don't going nother (small amount maybe going, but this is exaclty deaf of universe after very long time). Neutrons and protons have bigger mass because they have bigger size and actualy all particles don't have mass. So even without enshtein (realativistic) formula imposible to fly faster than light. BTW according to formula
mc^2 /(1-(v/c)^2)-mc^2=mv^2 on small speads. So if is right 1/(1-(v/c)^2) instead 1/(1-(v/c)^2)^0.5, then there is mc^2 /2 instead mc^2 !
Watch this:
m=m_0/(1-(v/c)^2)=m_0/[(1-0.5*(v/c)^2)^2-0.25*(v/c)^4],
Small value 0.25*(v/c)^4 is eliminated:
m=m_0/(1-(v/c)^2)=m_0/[(1-0.5*(v/c)^2)^2],
m=m_0/[(1-0.5*(v/c)^2)^2],
m=m_0/[1-0.25*(v/c)^2 - 0.25*(v/c)^4],
Again small value 0.25*(v/c)^4 eliminated:
m=m_0/[1-0.25*(v/c)^2],
Both sides times c^2:
mc^2=m_0[c^2-0.25*v^2],
2*mc^2=2*m_0*c^2-0.5*m_0*v^2,
hm, I was wrong, then W=2*m*c^2 .
And everything is correct with theory, that particle kinetic energy is radiated energy. Just to accelerate particle to kinetic energy mv^2 /2 will be radiated mv^2 /2 energy. If want particle deaccelerate also need mv^2 / 2 energy, and if particle will bounce at somthing then there will be radiated energy, which is tahnks not to particle but to object, which don't moving, but anyway, when particle radiating energy they also they abosrbing and energy don't going nother (small amount maybe going, but this is exaclty deaf of universe after very long time). Neutrons and protons have bigger mass because they have bigger size and actualy all particles don't have mass. So even without enshtein (realativistic) formula imposible to fly faster than light. BTW according to formula
mc^2 /(1-(v/c)^2)-mc^2=mv^2 on small speads. So if is right 1/(1-(v/c)^2) instead 1/(1-(v/c)^2)^0.5, then there is mc^2 /2 instead mc^2 !
Watch this:
m=m_0/(1-(v/c)^2)=m_0/[(1-0.5*(v/c)^2)^2-0.25*(v/c)^4],
Small value 0.25*(v/c)^4 is eliminated:
m=m_0/(1-(v/c)^2)=m_0/[(1-0.5*(v/c)^2)^2],
m=m_0/[(1-0.5*(v/c)^2)^2],
m=m_0/[1-0.25*(v/c)^2 - 0.25*(v/c)^4],
Again small value 0.25*(v/c)^4 eliminated:
m=m_0/[1-0.25*(v/c)^2],
Both sides times c^2:
mc^2=m_0[c^2-0.25*v^2],
2*mc^2=2*m_0*c^2-0.5*m_0*v^2,
hm, I was wrong, then W=2*m*c^2 .
So my solution is that particle energy is 0.5mc^2 don't depending on what speed particle flying... And enshtein formula is just some intuition, that imposible to fly faster than ligh and about mc^2, but it all is wrong and no any time slowing. Don't matter how much big charge of electrons will be proton still never will be accelerated to speed of light, because charge power deacrease quadraticaly with distance and working in only small ray and when electron flying farhter charge becmoing quadraticaly weaker and weaker... With such trick like coliders alos imposible to accelerate to speed of light, because of finit speed of processors and so on... So more possible that all this mezons and hardrons and resonanse and leptons and over stupdions and cranckeons don't exist and this, which sciencists wahtcing is some over speed and energy particles or rays... Thye just like small kids very which, that there would be this particles, but they just don't exist. They just fiting they experimental rambling into some stupid theories and thinking, that they create somthing. There is some atoms "very precise" decaying measured speed, but this is just iliusion. No any time stoping exist. Exist just my mentioned law, that particles energy is mc^2 /2 and kienetic energy is radiation... There exist only 3 fundamental particles proton, electron and neutrons. And there probably no any law of conservation spin.
Theory about possible quantization of spin. Since particles don't have mass and they radiating kinetic energy only when moving, then possible, that for particle rotation don't need radiation of waves and thus spin alignation becmoming instantly, because particles radiating waves only when moving and rotation is not moving. Imagine, that you take perfect spherical ball and rotating it in air and waiting some sound. And sound will not be, just like with spin! So my conclusion that strong force is spin and that's why neutron can decay or somthing and electrons in superconductors becoming in pairs and this spins is probabilistic... Yes, spin are quantized, but not in superposition... So what is spin energy? No! This is not spin energy, but kinetic energy, which goten, when spin atracting each over and this energy radiated with waves. But since spin is probabilistic then they alligning always to little bit stronger field and thus in normal conditions, where field changing rapidly spins don't 'decaiding' where to aling. In atoms many electrons exchanging they magnetic fields and so on and don't fusing because of probabilistic unprecision... In superconductors possible all electrons aligning into one or over direction, but since electrons are in loop, then they can't decaide in which direction and thus possible this is "quantum superposition" in superconductors, which is just probabilistic playing of electrons spins and they fusing in pairs, because of better force at optimal distance...
So where it leads? To smallest balls theory of course. And to possibility, that gravity is random spins rambling. Imagine, spins aligning each time to more effient possition and thus always tend to hold and to fuse. So spins always very fast aligning, but since they frenquency is speed of light probably so we don't fell any very fast magnetic field. So, yes, spins are gravity!
So where it leads? To smallest balls theory of course. And to possibility, that gravity is random spins rambling. Imagine, spins aligning each time to more effient possition and thus always tend to hold and to fuse. So spins always very fast aligning, but since they frenquency is speed of light probably so we don't fell any very fast magnetic field. So, yes, spins are gravity!
According to my some postulates, even if particle flying into charged atracting matter, like proton flying to charged negative matter, then this matter each particle acting with same force as each over and thus they tend to spread or somthing... And thus they spreading and they charge deacreasing... and particle radiating some waves, which pushing it it. And thus particle never will bounce with bigger than c speed. Possible even taht in atoms electrons falling and radiating waves, which reflected from nuclear and thus protons don't fuse with electrons and with each over, but only with neutrons. Maybe sometimes fuse, who know there thery dificult processes, which involving spins and over electrons charges... Neutrons possible at all can be created only form waves... Possible antiparticles don't exist.
Possible, that my spin model explains, why is heavier separate particle than fused, because more spin power concentrated on holding nuclears, bu another explanation can be, that total value of nuclear is smaller or bigger. but possible, that nay smaller or bigger mass don't exist, just errors in measurment and all depending on energy of charge or spin. And if anihilation don't exist (positron-proton, etc) then no any strong evidence about, this, but only rambling about smaller mass from enshtein formula. How much can be smaller if there will be very storng gravity? Mass disapear? So mass model is wrong. But possible, that particles are not very spherical and thus when fusing two neutrons, then they making smaller gaps also with protons, because big value sphere have smaller surface, than many same value small spheres, so it's possible explain, that then smaller radiation energy, because surface is smaller, but value the same. But then it somthing means about deformation of particles, why not? But why not inprecision in measurmnets? Less more electrons and mass defect replaced...
Why electron(s) don't falling into nuclear? Because there is many waves around radiated from over particles, but still must deacelerate, unless rotation in orbit is not angular velocity like rotation of spin don't radiating waves, because only motion of particle radiating and not rotation in one place like air waves... So in air angular velocity is when one part of particle moving faser than over with orbital speed... But this don't counts! Need that particle would move with acceleration and not will rotates with acceleration. So it is very possible, that according to my theory electron don't radiating waves like earth if rotating at angular acceleration. Icentric... So my theory about, that kinetic energy is radiation explainging, why electron don't radiating waves and why spin can align with speed of light without any particle rotation. Acceleration is only if particle moving with acceleration in physical place and not if just rotates, everything depends of speed and not of acceleration directly... If particle moving faster and faster then he radiating electromagnetic waves and if he don't moving faster and faster like in atom electron, then he don't radiating electromagnetic waves. Radiation of waves like h*f can be if electron and proton structure somehow difracting or somthing beter absorbing waves then atoms absorbing and radiating because of atom structure only some waves much better than over. This all depending on electrons configuration and this somehow relates with waves, which is bunch of balls, which prefering more some structures beter and like there is some resonanse or somthing... The same like resonanse in radio or somthing.... So schrodinger equation using electrons phase and wavefunction and in my theory no any phase and wavefunctions. I don't know maybe schrodinger equation is correct, because it's use some very match data from experiments like emision spectr, quantum numbers likein borh model, but it can be wrong... And this phases cna mean something over...
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 17 2008, 12:27 PM)
Why electron(s) don't falling into nuclear?
Why don't satellites plummet to the earth?
Do you know ANY physics?
Why don't satellites plummet to the earth?
Do you know ANY physics?
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 17 2008, 05:31 PM)
Why don't satellites plummet to the earth?
Because they don't flying with faster and faster speed but flying always with same speed and according to my theory if object don't increasing speed, then he don't radiating 'electromagnetic' waves. Accoding to classical theory seems, that earth must to fall into sun, huh? Why nobody analaizing it? Because accoding to current oficial theory particle radiating electromagnetic waves 100-10000 times weaker energy than kinetic energy (0.001*0.5mv^2). But then it must will fall satelities according to current theory unlees angular acceleration is very small, but still...
And according to my theory particles radiating energy whcih exactly equal to kinetic energy 0.5mv^2, because nobody precisly and correct measure radiation. According to my theory particles don't radiating energy at angular/orbital speed, because angular/orbital speed always keeping the same velocity! Of course possible, that according to current theory orbital acceleration is very small, distance to sun is 8 minutes of light so 60*8=480 s. 480*3*10^8=1.44*10^11 m. So orbital acceleration is mv^2 /r=6*10^24 (kg)*(465)^2 (m/s)^2 /(1.44*10^11 m)=9*10^18 Ws=9*10^18 J. So nuclear reactor have about 10^9 W power and earth should radiate about quadraticaly more power 9*10^18 W. Or at least if according to current official theory some 10^15 W. Maybe if earth is big this is not big deal, but through bilions years earth should radiate about 10^35 J energy. This energy equal to 'anihilation' of almost all earth like 10^18 kg and earth mass is 6*10^24 kg, so through billions years earth should radiate energy of anihilation all moon (according to mc^2)!
So my theory explains, that earth don't radiating waves like moon and like satelite.
Edit: 465 m/s is angular earth speed and orbital is much bigger 29873 m/s, so radiated energy would be only even bigger!...
My physic now is much more advanced than current incoherent rambling of crancks...
Now about rockets. For rockets need air, air density is small and I think, that that's why impsoible for any rocket to reach c speed. For rocket to rach c speed need fuel bilions times more than all rocket weight without fuel. So I think this is ridiculouse and nobody will not reach this speed even if enshtein relativity theory is wrong. First of all need to overcome gravity of earth and even from moon this will not work. I just think, that there would be energy waisting untill will be wasted such energy, that speed c will not be reached. And there no need any mass formules but only what we know from physic liek charge force spin(strong) force... Such amount of energy with air just deformate rocket walls and rocket will be damaged and fuel will goes out... There no any time stoping and lenght and mass increase. there is just finite speed of light and possible, that more particles without 3 ones don't exist, because diferent proton size creating diferent smallest balls combination and this combination acting diferently than electron smaller balls combiantion... Possible that neutron don't decayin, but possible that neutron can be created from proton and electron... Possible, that to kill and to produce all particles can only very very strong big low frenquency big amplitude very big amplitude wave, which will create some very big gap between spheres that electrons and protons and neutrons will just becmome random rambling of spheres without any information, which will be just taked and involved into this wave... Possible that two such waves bounce produce universe or somthing, but even possible that even such wave can't exist if per all universe there is only one gap of half sphere. So then just there exist those particel and nothing can stop them... Just they was from some combinations and nothing them can kill... Then universe just becmome when many particles by they gravitation spin forces become to atract each oevr and when they produce somthing realy nice...
Because they don't flying with faster and faster speed but flying always with same speed and according to my theory if object don't increasing speed, then he don't radiating 'electromagnetic' waves. Accoding to classical theory seems, that earth must to fall into sun, huh? Why nobody analaizing it? Because accoding to current oficial theory particle radiating electromagnetic waves 100-10000 times weaker energy than kinetic energy (0.001*0.5mv^2). But then it must will fall satelities according to current theory unlees angular acceleration is very small, but still...
And according to my theory particles radiating energy whcih exactly equal to kinetic energy 0.5mv^2, because nobody precisly and correct measure radiation. According to my theory particles don't radiating energy at angular/orbital speed, because angular/orbital speed always keeping the same velocity! Of course possible, that according to current theory orbital acceleration is very small, distance to sun is 8 minutes of light so 60*8=480 s. 480*3*10^8=1.44*10^11 m. So orbital acceleration is mv^2 /r=6*10^24 (kg)*(465)^2 (m/s)^2 /(1.44*10^11 m)=9*10^18 Ws=9*10^18 J. So nuclear reactor have about 10^9 W power and earth should radiate about quadraticaly more power 9*10^18 W. Or at least if according to current official theory some 10^15 W. Maybe if earth is big this is not big deal, but through bilions years earth should radiate about 10^35 J energy. This energy equal to 'anihilation' of almost all earth like 10^18 kg and earth mass is 6*10^24 kg, so through billions years earth should radiate energy of anihilation all moon (according to mc^2)!
So my theory explains, that earth don't radiating waves like moon and like satelite.
Edit: 465 m/s is angular earth speed and orbital is much bigger 29873 m/s, so radiated energy would be only even bigger!...
QUOTE
Do you know ANY physics?
My physic now is much more advanced than current incoherent rambling of crancks...
Now about rockets. For rockets need air, air density is small and I think, that that's why impsoible for any rocket to reach c speed. For rocket to rach c speed need fuel bilions times more than all rocket weight without fuel. So I think this is ridiculouse and nobody will not reach this speed even if enshtein relativity theory is wrong. First of all need to overcome gravity of earth and even from moon this will not work. I just think, that there would be energy waisting untill will be wasted such energy, that speed c will not be reached. And there no need any mass formules but only what we know from physic liek charge force spin(strong) force... Such amount of energy with air just deformate rocket walls and rocket will be damaged and fuel will goes out... There no any time stoping and lenght and mass increase. there is just finite speed of light and possible, that more particles without 3 ones don't exist, because diferent proton size creating diferent smallest balls combination and this combination acting diferently than electron smaller balls combiantion... Possible that neutron don't decayin, but possible that neutron can be created from proton and electron... Possible, that to kill and to produce all particles can only very very strong big low frenquency big amplitude very big amplitude wave, which will create some very big gap between spheres that electrons and protons and neutrons will just becmome random rambling of spheres without any information, which will be just taked and involved into this wave... Possible that two such waves bounce produce universe or somthing, but even possible that even such wave can't exist if per all universe there is only one gap of half sphere. So then just there exist those particel and nothing can stop them... Just they was from some combinations and nothing them can kill... Then universe just becmome when many particles by they gravitation spin forces become to atract each oevr and when they produce somthing realy nice...
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 17 2008, 06:24 PM)
My physic now is much more advanced than current incoherent rambling of crancks...
I love the irony of this sentence.
I love the irony of this sentence.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 17 2008, 01:24 PM)
Accoding to classical theory seems, that earth must to fall into sun, huh?
No, you fuc*ing idiot! You don't even KNOW classical theory, you have no idea what it says!
Wrong.
Wrong.
impsoible for any rocket to reach c speed.
Correct, wrong reason
Surprisingly, you actually got something correct.
Surprisingly, you actually got something correct.
First of all need to overcome gravity of earth and even from moon this will not work.
Wrong, overcoming the gravity of the Earth is very possible, even from the moon. Learn physics.
No, you fuc*ing idiot! You don't even KNOW classical theory, you have no idea what it says!
QUOTE
For rockets need air
Wrong.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| For rockets need air |
Wrong.
impsoible for any rocket to reach c speed.
Correct, wrong reason
QUOTE
For rocket to rach c speed need fuel bilions times more than all rocket weight without fuel.
Surprisingly, you actually got something correct.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| For rocket to rach c speed need fuel bilions times more than all rocket weight without fuel. |
Surprisingly, you actually got something correct.
First of all need to overcome gravity of earth and even from moon this will not work.
Wrong, overcoming the gravity of the Earth is very possible, even from the moon. Learn physics.
QUOTE (prometheus+Jul 17 2008, 06:37 PM)
I love the irony of this sentence.
I love, that you become to love my theory.
I love, that you become to love my theory.
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 17 2008, 06:38 PM)
No, you fuc*ing idiot! You don't even KNOW classical theory, you have no idea what it says!
Wrong.
Correct, wrong reason
Surprisingly, you actually got something correct.
Wrong, overcoming the gravity of the Earth is very possible, even from the moon. Learn physics.
bla bla bla
Wrong.
Correct, wrong reason
Surprisingly, you actually got something correct.
Wrong, overcoming the gravity of the Earth is very possible, even from the moon. Learn physics.
bla bla bla
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 17 2008, 01:52 PM)
bla bla bla
I'm right, you're wrong. Try again soon.
Preferably after you learn physics.
I'm right, you're wrong. Try again soon.Preferably after you learn physics.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 17 2008, 06:52 PM)
bla bla bla
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 17 2008, 06:50 PM)
I love, that you become to love my theory.
You don't understand basic English. How do you expect to understand cutting edge physics. I really think you need to see a doctor about your delusions. Honestly, I'm not kidding.
You don't understand basic English. How do you expect to understand cutting edge physics. I really think you need to see a doctor about your delusions. Honestly, I'm not kidding.
QUOTE (prometheus+Jul 17 2008, 07:00 PM)
You don't understand basic English. How do you expect to understand cutting edge physics. I really think you need to see a doctor about your delusions. Honestly, I'm not kidding.
I think you need to see more dimensions to debunk my theory...
I think you need learn more psychology instead physics!
I think you need to see more dimensions to debunk my theory...
QUOTE
DavidD explained: DavidD's confesssion
I think you need learn more psychology instead physics!
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 17 2008, 02:06 PM)
I think you need to see more dimensions to debunk my theory...
I think you need to learn physics and math before you can actually present a realistic theory.
I think you need to learn physics and math before you can actually present a realistic theory.
I'm not joking. Please do yourself a favour and make an appointment to see a GP.
QUOTE (prometheus+Jul 17 2008, 07:28 PM)
I'm not joking. Please do yourself a favour and make an appointment to see a GP.
Go away if you don't joking...
Go away if you don't joking...
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 17 2008, 07:27 PM)
I think you need to learn physics and math before you can actually present a realistic theory.
I think you need learn to think... 
Okay, new law for my theory. If particle don't changing speed, but only some force changing particle direction like in orbital or angular velocity, then particle don't radiating waves, but still need energy to change direction. This energy in earth or rotated disk is molecular forces which holding particles... So if you will rotate disk in vacum without/outside gravity then it will rotate forever (if no small atoms friction exist). So my this laws explaining why particle don't radiating waves, when rotating around nuclear or why earth don't radaiting 'electromagnetic waves'.
About magnetism in feromagnetic and paramagnetics, which caused by spins.
Feromagnetism is caused by atoms nuclears magnetism, because in nuclears there is already configured spins and they force much stronger than outside force, which hplding them, but to align them all - all nuclear need force, because in alignation proccess will be radiated waves, because in nuclears will move faster then slower and stop! Then for derotation this spins of nuclear need energy, because in derotation will be radiaed electromagnetic waves... Somthing similar can be with electrons, but electrons are prety separated and so electrons (spins) probably don't playing role in magnetism/feromagnetism, because they spins aligning to any magnetic field without any radiation of waves, because like I say in previous post for rotating (about his axis) spherical particle like electron don't need energy, because he don't radiating electromagnetic waves and spin can aling in any direction, just where magnetic field is bigger/stronger!
I think you need learn to think...
Okay, new law for my theory. If particle don't changing speed, but only some force changing particle direction like in orbital or angular velocity, then particle don't radiating waves, but still need energy to change direction. This energy in earth or rotated disk is molecular forces which holding particles... So if you will rotate disk in vacum without/outside gravity then it will rotate forever (if no small atoms friction exist). So my this laws explaining why particle don't radiating waves, when rotating around nuclear or why earth don't radaiting 'electromagnetic waves'.
About magnetism in feromagnetic and paramagnetics, which caused by spins.
Feromagnetism is caused by atoms nuclears magnetism, because in nuclears there is already configured spins and they force much stronger than outside force, which hplding them, but to align them all - all nuclear need force, because in alignation proccess will be radiated waves, because in nuclears will move faster then slower and stop! Then for derotation this spins of nuclear need energy, because in derotation will be radiaed electromagnetic waves... Somthing similar can be with electrons, but electrons are prety separated and so electrons (spins) probably don't playing role in magnetism/feromagnetism, because they spins aligning to any magnetic field without any radiation of waves, because like I say in previous post for rotating (about his axis) spherical particle like electron don't need energy, because he don't radiating electromagnetic waves and spin can aling in any direction, just where magnetic field is bigger/stronger!
Okey, my spin model predicts, that object can travel with infinity speed untill he rotates about some very big object with very big gravitation or somthing... So if our all universe rotating about very very big some over object and with speed much bigger than c, then there no any problem for as and for them... No time decrease no mass increase nor lenght decrease. Why I doubt about relativistic speed? Because time stoping was measured outside eath in cosmos or maybe in rocket, but earth traveling at some 300 km/s. So let's calculate time dilation:
1/(1-(300000/(3*10^8)^2)^0.5=1/(1-0.000001)^0.5=1/0.99999949999987499993749996093747=~1.0000005.
Per 1 hour =3600 seconds time will be 0.99999949999987499993749996093747*3600= 3599,9981999995499997749998593749.
After 24 hours time will be 86399,956799989199994599996624998 s instead 86400 s. After one mount = 30 days time will be normaly 30*86400=2592000 s, but stoped: 2591998,7039996759998379998987499 s.
2592000/3600=720 hours = 43200 minutes.
2591998,7039996759998379998987499/3600= 719,99963999990999995499997187498 hours = 43199,978399994599997299998312499 minutes.
So still will not be delay even one minute (after mounth)!
Okay, let's calcualte delay after year
normaly: 43200*12=518400 minutes;
relativisticaly: 43199,978399994599997299998312499*12= 518399,74079993519996759997974999 minutes.
So delay will be 26% of minute after year! 26%=x; 100%=60 s, 26*60/100=15.6 seconds delay will be after year! But who realy have so much energy to keep rocket in cosmos from gravity of sun or eart? And also need mv^2 /2 energy to deacelerate rocket from 300 km/s speed to 0 m/s, so need energy if rocket mass 100000 kg: 100000*300000^2 /2=4.5*10^15 J. This energy equal to nuclear reactor 1GW produce energy within about mounth. Not so much, huh?
To say, that they measure time delay of micro or nanoseconds is ridicolous. There no bigger precision possible than second or milisecond... Particles acceleration of course is just more particles atraction from walls of colider... And thus more those GeV...
But I think maybe more possible, that faster than light speed imposible, because some laws don't letting to create body, which would be able to capture very fast rotation about him smallest objects, because such big body would somehow split to smaller bodies or somthing...
But maybe enshtein theory is right and particles just radiating bigger amplitude waves, when flying with acceleration and when flying without deaceleration then just harder to slowdown them, because they will radiate bigger amplitude waves, because more smashed smallest balls will be with bigger speed/energy...
1/(1-(300000/(3*10^8)^2)^0.5=1/(1-0.000001)^0.5=1/0.99999949999987499993749996093747=~1.0000005.
Per 1 hour =3600 seconds time will be 0.99999949999987499993749996093747*3600= 3599,9981999995499997749998593749.
After 24 hours time will be 86399,956799989199994599996624998 s instead 86400 s. After one mount = 30 days time will be normaly 30*86400=2592000 s, but stoped: 2591998,7039996759998379998987499 s.
2592000/3600=720 hours = 43200 minutes.
2591998,7039996759998379998987499/3600= 719,99963999990999995499997187498 hours = 43199,978399994599997299998312499 minutes.
So still will not be delay even one minute (after mounth)!
Okay, let's calcualte delay after year
normaly: 43200*12=518400 minutes;
relativisticaly: 43199,978399994599997299998312499*12= 518399,74079993519996759997974999 minutes.
So delay will be 26% of minute after year! 26%=x; 100%=60 s, 26*60/100=15.6 seconds delay will be after year! But who realy have so much energy to keep rocket in cosmos from gravity of sun or eart? And also need mv^2 /2 energy to deacelerate rocket from 300 km/s speed to 0 m/s, so need energy if rocket mass 100000 kg: 100000*300000^2 /2=4.5*10^15 J. This energy equal to nuclear reactor 1GW produce energy within about mounth. Not so much, huh?
To say, that they measure time delay of micro or nanoseconds is ridicolous. There no bigger precision possible than second or milisecond... Particles acceleration of course is just more particles atraction from walls of colider... And thus more those GeV...
But I think maybe more possible, that faster than light speed imposible, because some laws don't letting to create body, which would be able to capture very fast rotation about him smallest objects, because such big body would somehow split to smaller bodies or somthing...
But maybe enshtein theory is right and particles just radiating bigger amplitude waves, when flying with acceleration and when flying without deaceleration then just harder to slowdown them, because they will radiate bigger amplitude waves, because more smashed smallest balls will be with bigger speed/energy...
Some info from my webpage:
"Another author statements:
1. Electromagnetic waves are the same waves like in air.
2. Flying particle untill speed v, radiating energy 0.5mv^2.
3. Particle which don't moving don't radiating energy and thus because for spin magnetic moment rotation don't need energy.
4. Thus because spin energy is gravitation force, because spins rapidly aligning without energy loosing to each over and thus creating gravity.
5. Spins holding nucleons in nuclears.
6. Any object or particle which flying with some speed, but without acceleration don't radiating electromagnetic waves; thus electrons don't falling into nuclear, because electrons flying with same speed; if particle flying without acceleration then for changing it direction, but don't changing speed, need energy - this explains electrons rotation in atom, that they have mass.
7. Feromagnetism is nuclear rotation, for what need energy, but nuclear nucleons spins don't rotating instead all nuclear, because spins force is stronger than outside magnetic field."
"Another author statements:
1. Electromagnetic waves are the same waves like in air.
2. Flying particle untill speed v, radiating energy 0.5mv^2.
3. Particle which don't moving don't radiating energy and thus because for spin magnetic moment rotation don't need energy.
4. Thus because spin energy is gravitation force, because spins rapidly aligning without energy loosing to each over and thus creating gravity.
5. Spins holding nucleons in nuclears.
6. Any object or particle which flying with some speed, but without acceleration don't radiating electromagnetic waves; thus electrons don't falling into nuclear, because electrons flying with same speed; if particle flying without acceleration then for changing it direction, but don't changing speed, need energy - this explains electrons rotation in atom, that they have mass.
7. Feromagnetism is nuclear rotation, for what need energy, but nuclear nucleons spins don't rotating instead all nuclear, because spins force is stronger than outside magnetic field."
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 18 2008, 04:04 AM)
6. Any object or particle which flying with some speed, but without acceleration don't radiating electromagnetic waves; thus electrons don't falling into nuclear, because electrons flying with same speed;
Anything in an orbit is constantly accelerating you fuc*ing idiot. Learn physics.
Anything in an orbit is constantly accelerating you fuc*ing idiot. Learn physics.
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 18 2008, 11:23 AM)
Anything in an orbit is constantly accelerating
I dont' understood this sentence.
I dont' understood this sentence.
If something is in orbit it is changing direction constantly. If it is changing direction then it is accelerating because the definition of acceleration is the rate of change of velocity and velocity is a vector quantity (acceleration is also a vector).
You really need to get back to school.
You really need to get back to school.
QUOTE (prometheus+Jul 18 2008, 12:43 PM)
If something is in orbit it is changing direction constantly. If it is changing direction then it is accelerating because the definition of acceleration is the rate of change of velocity and velocity is a vector quantity (acceleration is also a vector).
You really need to get back to school.
This according to official theory. According to my theory, when body or particle flying without acceleration, but only changing direction like in orbital rotation, then particle don't radiating electromagnetic waves, because he don't changing speed (twy to vibrate air without changing speed!).
According to your official current theory then Earth must radiate electromagnetic waves, because rotating about sun and spining aroun it axis... Then earth must slow donw and fall into sun, but this don't hapening and you know why? Because according to my theory earth don't changing speed and atoms within net don't changing speed and thus no radiation!!!
You really need to get back to school.
This according to official theory. According to my theory, when body or particle flying without acceleration, but only changing direction like in orbital rotation, then particle don't radiating electromagnetic waves, because he don't changing speed (twy to vibrate air without changing speed!).
According to your official current theory then Earth must radiate electromagnetic waves, because rotating about sun and spining aroun it axis... Then earth must slow donw and fall into sun, but this don't hapening and you know why? Because according to my theory earth don't changing speed and atoms within net don't changing speed and thus no radiation!!!
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 18 2008, 02:16 PM)
According to your official current theory then Earth must radiate electromagnetic waves, because rotating about sun and spining aroun it axis... Then earth must slow donw and fall into sun, but this don't hapening and you know why? Because according to my theory earth don't changing speed and atoms within net don't changing speed and thus no radiation!!!
No, if the earth was charged then it would emit EM waves. It is not, therefore it doesn't. It certainly is accelerating though. You're arguing with Newton about that.
No, if the earth was charged then it would emit EM waves. It is not, therefore it doesn't. It certainly is accelerating though. You're arguing with Newton about that.
QUOTE (prometheus+Jul 18 2008, 02:26 PM)
No, if the earth was charged then it would emit EM waves. It is not, therefore it doesn't. It certainly is accelerating though. You're arguing with Newton about that.
Bla bla bla, how you smart, because nuclears are in atom and they also don't radiating and nothing radiating and electron alsways, probably somebody turn on magic?
Bla bla bla, how you smart, because nuclears are in atom and they also don't radiating and nothing radiating and electron alsways, probably somebody turn on magic?
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 18 2008, 02:16 PM)
This according to official theory. According to my theory, when body or particle flying without acceleration, but only changing direction like in orbital rotation, then particle don't radiating electromagnetic waves, because he don't changing speed (twy to vibrate air without changing speed!).
First off, acceleration don't cause the emission o EM radiation. I dunno where ya got that from, but it's akin to sayin drinkin soda causes radiation poisoning; it jes don't make any sense, plus it's known to be wrong through experimental observation. (tape an amprobe to yerself, get a readin, then start drivin around in yer car an get readins as ya accelerate, to prove that idea wrong.)
Second, yer not jes arguin with Newton, as Prometheus said, but arguin with experimentally verified mathematics.
Acceleration
Velocity
Vector
If yer theory predicts that orbital motion contains no acceleration, then yer theory has already been experimentally falsified.
In other words, we already know it's wrong.
First off, acceleration don't cause the emission o EM radiation. I dunno where ya got that from, but it's akin to sayin drinkin soda causes radiation poisoning; it jes don't make any sense, plus it's known to be wrong through experimental observation. (tape an amprobe to yerself, get a readin, then start drivin around in yer car an get readins as ya accelerate, to prove that idea wrong.)
Second, yer not jes arguin with Newton, as Prometheus said, but arguin with experimentally verified mathematics.
Acceleration
Velocity
Vector
If yer theory predicts that orbital motion contains no acceleration, then yer theory has already been experimentally falsified.
In other words, we already know it's wrong.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jul 18 2008, 03:09 PM)
First off, acceleration don't cause the emission o EM radiation. I dunno where ya got that from, but it's akin to sayin drinkin soda causes radiation poisoning; it jes don't make any sense, plus it's known to be wrong through experimental observation. (tape an amprobe to yerself, get a readin, then start drivin around in yer car an get readins as ya accelerate, to prove that idea wrong.)
Second, yer not jes arguin with Newton, as Prometheus said, but arguin with experimentally verified mathematics.
Acceleration
Velocity
Vector
If yer theory predicts that orbital motion contains no acceleration, then yer theory has already been experimentally falsified.
In other words, we already know it's wrong.
In what you langueage talking some german or somthing (because I don't see any diference between british or us)? I even can write more correctly than you...
Yes it do, acceleration cause radiation of electromagnetic waves and my theory is absolutly right!!!
All experimental observations are in most cases wrong, I just was thinkg about it and was want to point some inportnat point, but you seems yourself ask...
You don't see all car radiated electromagnetic waves, because it radiates very much diferent frenquency waves and you all have no any chance to detect!!!
So yes, all objects radiating much more than we thinking also radiowaves maybe even shorter and so on...
For example if you will through two balls, then they will give not all they radiated energy to each over due to deacceleration! They will give only very small part of this energy, but since this energy will be all absorbed by over matter, then it's like it goe back and actualy this energy which was radiated when car was accelerated or deaccelerated now is used for heating you and your room to keep room temperature... So this energy nother disapearing! Thats because sciencists estimate that radiated by acceleration energy is about 100-1000 times smaller than kinetic energy... So it's like mass is bigger, but you have / there comes more energy from over sources like your car deaceleration and only small part of radiated energy, when car is deaccelerated is "used" for push car and deaccelerate. So possible, that benzine have more energy, than we think, much more and nuclear also...
Second, yer not jes arguin with Newton, as Prometheus said, but arguin with experimentally verified mathematics.
Acceleration
Velocity
Vector
If yer theory predicts that orbital motion contains no acceleration, then yer theory has already been experimentally falsified.
In other words, we already know it's wrong.
In what you langueage talking some german or somthing (because I don't see any diference between british or us)? I even can write more correctly than you...
Yes it do, acceleration cause radiation of electromagnetic waves and my theory is absolutly right!!!
All experimental observations are in most cases wrong, I just was thinkg about it and was want to point some inportnat point, but you seems yourself ask...
You don't see all car radiated electromagnetic waves, because it radiates very much diferent frenquency waves and you all have no any chance to detect!!!
So yes, all objects radiating much more than we thinking also radiowaves maybe even shorter and so on...
For example if you will through two balls, then they will give not all they radiated energy to each over due to deacceleration! They will give only very small part of this energy, but since this energy will be all absorbed by over matter, then it's like it goe back and actualy this energy which was radiated when car was accelerated or deaccelerated now is used for heating you and your room to keep room temperature... So this energy nother disapearing! Thats because sciencists estimate that radiated by acceleration energy is about 100-1000 times smaller than kinetic energy... So it's like mass is bigger, but you have / there comes more energy from over sources like your car deaceleration and only small part of radiated energy, when car is deaccelerated is "used" for push car and deaccelerate. So possible, that benzine have more energy, than we think, much more and nuclear also...
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 18 2008, 03:42 PM)
In what you langueage talking some german or somthing (because I don't see any diference between british or us)? I even can write more correctly than you...
Wrong. If you were right, you'd have said "What language are you typing in, German? (I don't know of any differences between British English and American English.) Even I can write more correctly than you."
An ya wouldn't have misspelled "language" or "difference"
No, it doesn't. Try the experiment I mentioned, son.
No, it doesn't. Try the experiment I mentioned, son.
All experimental observations are in most cases wrong,
Ok, now yer tied with Zarkov fer the most idiotic thing I've ever seen posted on this forum. If that's true, then all theories in all sciences (includin yer own theory, dummy) would be pointless, as there's no way to prove any of them correct.
It would also indicate a complete breakdown of reality an the universe.
That would violate conservation of momentum.
That would violate conservation of momentum.
For example if you will through two balls
Here we go with the durn balls again... We already know mine are bigger
Gibberish.
Gibberish.
Thats because sciencists estimate that radiated by acceleration energy is about 100-1000 times smaller than kinetic energy...
Without a source, this is jes bullsh*t. Even if ya have a source, yer source is prolly jes bullsh*t. Meanin: This claim is jes bullsh*t. Period.
Wrong. If you were right, you'd have said "What language are you typing in, German? (I don't know of any differences between British English and American English.) Even I can write more correctly than you."
An ya wouldn't have misspelled "language" or "difference"
QUOTE
Yes it do, acceleration cause radiation of electromagnetic waves and my theory is absolutly right!!!
No, it doesn't. Try the experiment I mentioned, son.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Yes it do, acceleration cause radiation of electromagnetic waves and my theory is absolutly right!!! |
No, it doesn't. Try the experiment I mentioned, son.
All experimental observations are in most cases wrong,
Ok, now yer tied with Zarkov fer the most idiotic thing I've ever seen posted on this forum. If that's true, then all theories in all sciences (includin yer own theory, dummy) would be pointless, as there's no way to prove any of them correct.
It would also indicate a complete breakdown of reality an the universe.
QUOTE
You don't see all car radiated electromagnetic waves, because it radiates very much diferent frenquency waves and you all have no any chance to detect!!!
That would violate conservation of momentum.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You don't see all car radiated electromagnetic waves, because it radiates very much diferent frenquency waves and you all have no any chance to detect!!! |
That would violate conservation of momentum.
For example if you will through two balls
Here we go with the durn balls again... We already know mine are bigger
QUOTE
then they will give not all they radiated energy to each over due to deacceleration!
Gibberish.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| then they will give not all they radiated energy to each over due to deacceleration! |
Gibberish.
Thats because sciencists estimate that radiated by acceleration energy is about 100-1000 times smaller than kinetic energy...
Without a source, this is jes bullsh*t. Even if ya have a source, yer source is prolly jes bullsh*t. Meanin: This claim is jes bullsh*t. Period.
I lazy to copy and answer for crancks...
There no any conservation law broken...
About 100-1000 I conclude from textbook, if you have better and more precise parameters then show me them. But I think nobody actualy have them...
Distance between particles (nuclears) is smaller... They have more energy. But this energy you unable to detect, because of imprecision of your detectors!!!! Think in this way: if you detect one photon, then actualy there is in each point the same photon energy, but a litle little smaller amount and thus it is undetected for some time... So actualy there is much more energy in waves form around, but we can use only very small part from it. Why you can't create benzine? Because it have 1000 or maybe even milions times more energy than you think, but in your car driving there is used only 0.001% of energy. You eat food and you eat bilions times more energy than you think, but this energy was in reactions almost all radiated aoutside. Only very small amount of energy was taken for holding your live. Now you want to push some object. You coeficient of effiecncy pushing is some 0.001%. But from around, from infrared, radiowaves, gamma rays, xrays from sun uv waves from all over waves coming induction energy into your muscule cells and almost you doing for free all this. So you actualy is like radio, which consuming energy from outside/environment! Energy from food possible have much more energy, but still much mroe than you need to push.
To simplificay, think in this way: all reactions and so on have thousunds times more energy, but they effiecency is thousunds time smaller. I think now got it?
There no any conservation law broken...
About 100-1000 I conclude from textbook, if you have better and more precise parameters then show me them. But I think nobody actualy have them...
Distance between particles (nuclears) is smaller... They have more energy. But this energy you unable to detect, because of imprecision of your detectors!!!! Think in this way: if you detect one photon, then actualy there is in each point the same photon energy, but a litle little smaller amount and thus it is undetected for some time... So actualy there is much more energy in waves form around, but we can use only very small part from it. Why you can't create benzine? Because it have 1000 or maybe even milions times more energy than you think, but in your car driving there is used only 0.001% of energy. You eat food and you eat bilions times more energy than you think, but this energy was in reactions almost all radiated aoutside. Only very small amount of energy was taken for holding your live. Now you want to push some object. You coeficient of effiecncy pushing is some 0.001%. But from around, from infrared, radiowaves, gamma rays, xrays from sun uv waves from all over waves coming induction energy into your muscule cells and almost you doing for free all this. So you actualy is like radio, which consuming energy from outside/environment! Energy from food possible have much more energy, but still much mroe than you need to push.
To simplificay, think in this way: all reactions and so on have thousunds times more energy, but they effiecency is thousunds time smaller. I think now got it?
On the over hand charges pushing each over when two objects bounce and when object deaccelerating, but this is the same, but charges exsit always...
So okay, everything like was, but just kinetic energy is radiated energy by particles... So possible in particles and objects interaction the major and general role playing charge and magnetic force and radiated kinetic energy is just for fun. But since kinetic energy of particles in deacceleration is radiation then charge force is the same force like radiated pushing energy, only by small point. So nothing don't changing, except, that particles acceleration is radiation... Nobody precisly measure it and nobody know it for sure...
So okay, everything like was, but just kinetic energy is radiated energy by particles... So possible in particles and objects interaction the major and general role playing charge and magnetic force and radiated kinetic energy is just for fun. But since kinetic energy of particles in deacceleration is radiation then charge force is the same force like radiated pushing energy, only by small point. So nothing don't changing, except, that particles acceleration is radiation... Nobody precisly measure it and nobody know it for sure...
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 18 2008, 05:36 PM)
I lazy
Yer spellin, grammar an comprehension o physics ensured I already knew that.
By absolutely no definition o the word am I a crank. I don't have any crank theories, I don't whine about dogma an elitism in mainstream physics, I don't buy pseudo-scientific theories, an I accept scientific consensus as likely true.
By absolutely no definition o the word am I a crank. I don't have any crank theories, I don't whine about dogma an elitism in mainstream physics, I don't buy pseudo-scientific theories, an I accept scientific consensus as likely true.
There no any conservation law broken...
Qualitatively, yer claim breaks conservation laws. If ya wanna prove that it don't, ya need maths to do so. I know fer a fact that ya don't have maths to do so.
Sayin "a textbook" ain't citin a source. It's jes another bit o bullsh*t intended to lend credence to the last bit o bullsh*t ya tried to feed me.
Sayin "a textbook" ain't citin a source. It's jes another bit o bullsh*t intended to lend credence to the last bit o bullsh*t ya tried to feed me.
Distance between particles (nuclears) is smaller... They have more energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_confinement
That's arm wavin. Ya have to spell out exactly which detectors, exactly what sort o imprecision an exactly why they have this imprecision, considerin that those scientists an engineers operatin em disagree with ya.
That's arm wavin. Ya have to spell out exactly which detectors, exactly what sort o imprecision an exactly why they have this imprecision, considerin that those scientists an engineers operatin em disagree with ya.
Think in this way: if you detect one photon, then actualy there is in each point the same photon energy, but a litle little smaller amount and thus it is undetected for some time...
"Photon" is not a unit o measurment o energy content.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
Ya have to provide a model which shows this is so.
Ya have to provide a model which shows this is so.
Why you can't create benzine?
We can.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzine
Arm wavin again... Provide a model or yer jes bullsh*ttin.
Arm wavin again... Provide a model or yer jes bullsh*ttin.
all reactions and so on have thousunds times more energy, but they effiecency is thousunds time smaller. I think now got it?
Wrong. Photovoltaic cells operate at about 10-15% efficiency. That's two orders o ten greater times efficiency than ya claim is possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaic_cell
Yer spellin, grammar an comprehension o physics ensured I already knew that.
QUOTE
to copy and answer for crancks...
By absolutely no definition o the word am I a crank. I don't have any crank theories, I don't whine about dogma an elitism in mainstream physics, I don't buy pseudo-scientific theories, an I accept scientific consensus as likely true.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| to copy and answer for crancks... |
By absolutely no definition o the word am I a crank. I don't have any crank theories, I don't whine about dogma an elitism in mainstream physics, I don't buy pseudo-scientific theories, an I accept scientific consensus as likely true.
There no any conservation law broken...
Qualitatively, yer claim breaks conservation laws. If ya wanna prove that it don't, ya need maths to do so. I know fer a fact that ya don't have maths to do so.
QUOTE
About 100-1000 I conclude from textbook, if you have better and more precise parameters then show me them. But I think nobody actualy have them...
Sayin "a textbook" ain't citin a source. It's jes another bit o bullsh*t intended to lend credence to the last bit o bullsh*t ya tried to feed me.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| About 100-1000 I conclude from textbook, if you have better and more precise parameters then show me them. But I think nobody actualy have them... |
Sayin "a textbook" ain't citin a source. It's jes another bit o bullsh*t intended to lend credence to the last bit o bullsh*t ya tried to feed me.
Distance between particles (nuclears) is smaller... They have more energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_confinement
QUOTE
But this energy you unable to detect, because of imprecision of your detectors!!!!
That's arm wavin. Ya have to spell out exactly which detectors, exactly what sort o imprecision an exactly why they have this imprecision, considerin that those scientists an engineers operatin em disagree with ya.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But this energy you unable to detect, because of imprecision of your detectors!!!! |
That's arm wavin. Ya have to spell out exactly which detectors, exactly what sort o imprecision an exactly why they have this imprecision, considerin that those scientists an engineers operatin em disagree with ya.
Think in this way: if you detect one photon, then actualy there is in each point the same photon energy, but a litle little smaller amount and thus it is undetected for some time...
"Photon" is not a unit o measurment o energy content.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
QUOTE
So actualy there is much more energy in waves form around, but we can use only very small part from it.
Ya have to provide a model which shows this is so.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So actualy there is much more energy in waves form around, but we can use only very small part from it. |
Ya have to provide a model which shows this is so.
Why you can't create benzine?
We can.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzine
QUOTE
Because it have 1000 or maybe even milions times more energy than you think, but in your car driving there is used only 0.001% of energy. You eat food and you eat bilions times more energy than you think, but this energy was in reactions almost all radiated aoutside.
Arm wavin again... Provide a model or yer jes bullsh*ttin.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Because it have 1000 or maybe even milions times more energy than you think, but in your car driving there is used only 0.001% of energy. You eat food and you eat bilions times more energy than you think, but this energy was in reactions almost all radiated aoutside. |
Arm wavin again... Provide a model or yer jes bullsh*ttin.
all reactions and so on have thousunds times more energy, but they effiecency is thousunds time smaller. I think now got it?
Wrong. Photovoltaic cells operate at about 10-15% efficiency. That's two orders o ten greater times efficiency than ya claim is possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaic_cell
You should read my last post instead posting this... Too bad
So okay, what for you is wrong with fact, that any object moving with acceleration (not angular or orbital...) radiating energy which is equal to kinetic energy 0.5mv^2 ? For example to accelerate 1 kg object to 1000 m/s speed need 0.5*1*1000^2=5*10^5 J, this energy would be radiated. Prove that this is not true!!!
Sciencists don't detect such amount of energy, because waves GOING through matter instead just alway making photoeffect, which probably more likely making electrons or protons or neutrons. You think all energy is going to detectors, huh? Tons of it going though detectors and tons is reflected and possible at all sciencists detecting only some electrons... Also many energy going deep into matter and becoming thermal energy instead just making for them photoeffect for they wishes and detectors. I give fine theory, that particle radiating energy mv^2 /2 and no you no any else can debunk it, because there no such information!!!!!!!!!
So okay, what for you is wrong with fact, that any object moving with acceleration (not angular or orbital...) radiating energy which is equal to kinetic energy 0.5mv^2 ? For example to accelerate 1 kg object to 1000 m/s speed need 0.5*1*1000^2=5*10^5 J, this energy would be radiated. Prove that this is not true!!!
Sciencists don't detect such amount of energy, because waves GOING through matter instead just alway making photoeffect, which probably more likely making electrons or protons or neutrons. You think all energy is going to detectors, huh? Tons of it going though detectors and tons is reflected and possible at all sciencists detecting only some electrons... Also many energy going deep into matter and becoming thermal energy instead just making for them photoeffect for they wishes and detectors. I give fine theory, that particle radiating energy mv^2 /2 and no you no any else can debunk it, because there no such information!!!!!!!!!
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 18 2008, 06:51 PM)
You should read my last post instead posting this... Too bad
I did. It was more of the same idiocy.
1. The whole thing.
2. orbital motion contains constant acceleration.
3. The whole thing.
4. 0.5mv^2 is 0.25mv. It's also an arbitrary amount o electrical energy which is not a physical constant in any way, despite the fact that ya use it like one.
5. The whole thing.
6. The idea that acceleratin bodies emit electromagnetic radiation.
7. The whole thing.
1. The whole thing.
2. orbital motion contains constant acceleration.
3. The whole thing.
4. 0.5mv^2 is 0.25mv. It's also an arbitrary amount o electrical energy which is not a physical constant in any way, despite the fact that ya use it like one.
5. The whole thing.
6. The idea that acceleratin bodies emit electromagnetic radiation.
7. The whole thing.
For example to accelerate 1 kg object to 1000 m/s speed need 0.5*1*1000^2=5*10^5 J, this energy would be radiated. Prove that this is not true!!!
That 'equation' is barely even an equation, an it's certainly not a correct one. 0.5*1*1000^2 is almost gibberish, an the solution is not 5*10^5 J. Let me explain:
1. 0.5*1 is exactly 0.5. the *1 is extraneous.
2. 1000^2 is useless over complexity which would be better and properly expressed as 10^6.
3. J is not defined. It can either be a variable, a constant, or an abreviation of Joules.
4. There is no constant J that I know of, therefore, it must be a variable or Joules.
5. Since you do not define any parameter which J corresponds to, it must mean Joules.
6. In that case, the first half of the equation must be some other measurement o energy, an from the nature o yer earlier writins, I must assume ya mean millivolts.
7. The conversion o millivolts to joules is not possible without specifyin amperage.
8. The conversion o milliwatts (1mv @ 1a) to joules is not possible without specifyin a duration o time.
9. The conversion o milliwatts to joules is 10^6(T) where T is time in seconds, not 5*10^5.
Photons an electrons do interact with matter, at all energy levels.
Photons an electrons do interact with matter, at all energy levels.
You think all energy is going to detectors, huh?
No, some is burned off as heat or electromagnetic radiation. Jes not cause anythat was acceleratin.
O course. They only detect the electrons inside the detector. Those outside don't show up.
O course. They only detect the electrons inside the detector. Those outside don't show up.
Also many energy going deep into matter and becoming thermal energy instead just making for them photoeffect for they wishes and detectors.
Irrelevant, an nigh incomprehensible.
1. it's already been debunked, idiot. As I already explained.
2. Ya ain't given me no theory, jes a bunch o arm-wavey gibberish an a pitiful excuse fer an equation.
What? What you saying? Deep inelasting stupiding?
I it explain in over places many times, it can be anything and any eror and any scatering over any thing like all this mesons with diferent speed...
So what are mesons made of? You really are making no sense.
I have my doubts of technological subspace as well.
I did. It was more of the same idiocy.
QUOTE
So okay, what for you is wrong with fact, that any object moving with acceleration (not angular or orbital...) radiating energy which is equal to kinetic energy 0.5mv^2 ?
1. The whole thing.
2. orbital motion contains constant acceleration.
3. The whole thing.
4. 0.5mv^2 is 0.25mv. It's also an arbitrary amount o electrical energy which is not a physical constant in any way, despite the fact that ya use it like one.
5. The whole thing.
6. The idea that acceleratin bodies emit electromagnetic radiation.
7. The whole thing.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So okay, what for you is wrong with fact, that any object moving with acceleration (not angular or orbital...) radiating energy which is equal to kinetic energy 0.5mv^2 ? |
1. The whole thing.
2. orbital motion contains constant acceleration.
3. The whole thing.
4. 0.5mv^2 is 0.25mv. It's also an arbitrary amount o electrical energy which is not a physical constant in any way, despite the fact that ya use it like one.
5. The whole thing.
6. The idea that acceleratin bodies emit electromagnetic radiation.
7. The whole thing.
For example to accelerate 1 kg object to 1000 m/s speed need 0.5*1*1000^2=5*10^5 J, this energy would be radiated. Prove that this is not true!!!
That 'equation' is barely even an equation, an it's certainly not a correct one. 0.5*1*1000^2 is almost gibberish, an the solution is not 5*10^5 J. Let me explain:
1. 0.5*1 is exactly 0.5. the *1 is extraneous.
2. 1000^2 is useless over complexity which would be better and properly expressed as 10^6.
3. J is not defined. It can either be a variable, a constant, or an abreviation of Joules.
4. There is no constant J that I know of, therefore, it must be a variable or Joules.
5. Since you do not define any parameter which J corresponds to, it must mean Joules.
6. In that case, the first half of the equation must be some other measurement o energy, an from the nature o yer earlier writins, I must assume ya mean millivolts.
7. The conversion o millivolts to joules is not possible without specifyin amperage.
8. The conversion o milliwatts (1mv @ 1a) to joules is not possible without specifyin a duration o time.
9. The conversion o milliwatts to joules is 10^6(T) where T is time in seconds, not 5*10^5.
QUOTE
Sciencists don't detect such amount of energy, because waves GOING through matter instead just alway making photoeffect, which probably more likely making electrons or protons or neutrons.
Photons an electrons do interact with matter, at all energy levels.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Sciencists don't detect such amount of energy, because waves GOING through matter instead just alway making photoeffect, which probably more likely making electrons or protons or neutrons. |
Photons an electrons do interact with matter, at all energy levels.
You think all energy is going to detectors, huh?
No, some is burned off as heat or electromagnetic radiation. Jes not cause anythat was acceleratin.
QUOTE
Tons of it going though detectors and tons is reflected and possible at all sciencists detecting only some electrons...
O course. They only detect the electrons inside the detector. Those outside don't show up.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Tons of it going though detectors and tons is reflected and possible at all sciencists detecting only some electrons... |
O course. They only detect the electrons inside the detector. Those outside don't show up.
Also many energy going deep into matter and becoming thermal energy instead just making for them photoeffect for they wishes and detectors.
Irrelevant, an nigh incomprehensible.
QUOTE
I give fine theory, that particle radiating energy mv^2 /2 and no you no any else can debunk it, because there no such information!!!!!!!!!
1. it's already been debunked, idiot. As I already explained.
2. Ya ain't given me no theory, jes a bunch o arm-wavey gibberish an a pitiful excuse fer an equation.
I think you just don't understood at all waht I mean to say...
Imagine this: for aceelration 1 kg object in cosmos to speed 1000 meters/second need 0.5*m*v^2=0.5*1*1000^2=5*10^5 Joules ernergy. Now imagine that particle don't have mass! But when he flying (with acceleration) he radiating electromagnetic waves and so to accelerate particle from 0 m/s to 1000 m/s need energy 5*10^5 Joules. This energy can be coloumb (charge) force, but during this acceleration from 0 m/s to 1000 m/s will be radiated 5*10^5 joules of energy in electromagnetic waves phorm and particle will got 1000 m/s speed. Is this so hard to understood?
Imagine this: for aceelration 1 kg object in cosmos to speed 1000 meters/second need 0.5*m*v^2=0.5*1*1000^2=5*10^5 Joules ernergy. Now imagine that particle don't have mass! But when he flying (with acceleration) he radiating electromagnetic waves and so to accelerate particle from 0 m/s to 1000 m/s need energy 5*10^5 Joules. This energy can be coloumb (charge) force, but during this acceleration from 0 m/s to 1000 m/s will be radiated 5*10^5 joules of energy in electromagnetic waves phorm and particle will got 1000 m/s speed. Is this so hard to understood?
Possible, that electrons, protons and neutrons is just bubble gaps in smallest spheres structure. Those gaps such aranged smallest spheres, that they formating bubble for gaps electron mayby is smaller gaps, protons bigger and thus those gaps is like particles and have some properties depending on structure... And yes, I negeletic of existing any over particles except proton, neutrons and electron and even they antiparticles. Thus those gaps don't have mass and don't have kinetic energy, but for stoping them need/ will be radiation of electromagnetic waves mv^2 /2... Who know how big those gaps are, maybe there not size but structure somehow depending what electron radiating much less energy due acceleration... Thus whose gaps have some smallest spheres organization, which somehow creating around structure of smallest spheres, which is electric, magnetic field. Also creating strange law like lorence force...
Mystery of neutron spin is solved. Neutron consits of proton and electron. Proton is about 2000 times bigger value than electron.
Proton and electron spins in neutron are aligned not in this way:
SSSSeNNNN-SSSSpNNNN, where e and p means electron and proton. They aligned in this way:
SSSSeNNNN
NNNNpSSSS .
Then if aligned in second variant there is not 1/2+1/2=1, but there is (0.5+0.5)/2=0.5 ! If there is magnetic field then such combination aligns at 45 degres!
SSeNN
NNpSS
______N
_______N
________N
_________N
__________N
___________Magnetic field outside.
Thus efect will be like 0.5 spin!
So I prove that neutron consist of proton and electron.
Proton and electron spins in neutron are aligned not in this way:
SSSSeNNNN-SSSSpNNNN, where e and p means electron and proton. They aligned in this way:
SSSSeNNNN
NNNNpSSSS .
Then if aligned in second variant there is not 1/2+1/2=1, but there is (0.5+0.5)/2=0.5 ! If there is magnetic field then such combination aligns at 45 degres!
SSeNN
NNpSS
______N
_______N
________N
_________N
__________N
___________Magnetic field outside.
Thus efect will be like 0.5 spin!
So I prove that neutron consist of proton and electron.
Neutron usualy don't decaying and no reasons to decay probably except one big reason, when neutron flying in magnetic field then lorenze force electron and proton 'pushing' in oposit directions and thus proton and neutron spliting at big speed and in strong magnetic field, which can be field of some atoms nuclears... But in free izolated state seems there no any reasons for neutron decay!
Thus all matter consist of proton and electron!!! Thuts all light two poles of magnetism and two charges and lorence force and don't need any more laws to explain all physics!!
Thus all matter consist of proton and electron!!! Thuts all light two poles of magnetism and two charges and lorence force and don't need any more laws to explain all physics!!
Why electricity producing magnetic field? Because if electrons moving in wire then electrons spins with speed of light aligning to each over without any energy loosing and thus there is like river-long magnet. Thus this explains electromagnetism!
What about deep inelastic scattering experiments that prove the existence of quarks? Nature is wrong again huh?
Lorence forse can be inperfection of magnets, where on edges magnetism is tronger than in midle of magnets and then spins aligning and flying to eacdges... Anyway lorence force is not used in electric motors nor in speakers dynamics. So maybe lorence force is wake? Lorence force is big whiches of scoencists? Why nature should create lorence force if everything is possible to do with electrons spins, like motors or speakers or even "lorence force" with bigger magnetism of mangets on eadges...
Watch this:
___________N____
_________--__--__
______---______---___
___----___________----______
There magnet is like circle and on eadges magnetism is stronger, thus this can explain lorence force, which actualy accodring to my theory is spins of electrons.
When through wire going electricity all spins of electrons aligns to magnetic field or to each over if there no field...
So according to my theory possible electrons going to any direction or aligning to magnetic field of over wire spins... So lorence force accoding to my theory don't depending on electricity direction in wire...
Lorecne force is not needed for any reasons, because it can be simulated with circled magned (except maybe motion direction of wire). so maybe there is some wrong data about lorece force about direction of force depending on electricity direction in wire? Why nature create it if it is not usefull?
Also as I said electric field don't generating magnetic, but it doing electrons spins!
It can't be that nature create lorence force only for neutron decaying (but probably it can decay in circle magnet even without lorence force, yes!).
Watch this:
___________N____
_________--__--__
______---______---___
___----___________----______
There magnet is like circle and on eadges magnetism is stronger, thus this can explain lorence force, which actualy accodring to my theory is spins of electrons.
When through wire going electricity all spins of electrons aligns to magnetic field or to each over if there no field...
So according to my theory possible electrons going to any direction or aligning to magnetic field of over wire spins... So lorence force accoding to my theory don't depending on electricity direction in wire...
Lorecne force is not needed for any reasons, because it can be simulated with circled magned (except maybe motion direction of wire). so maybe there is some wrong data about lorece force about direction of force depending on electricity direction in wire? Why nature create it if it is not usefull?
Also as I said electric field don't generating magnetic, but it doing electrons spins!
It can't be that nature create lorence force only for neutron decaying (but probably it can decay in circle magnet even without lorence force, yes!).
QUOTE (prometheus+Jul 19 2008, 11:35 AM)
What about deep inelastic scattering experiments that prove the existence of quarks? Nature is wrong again huh?
What? What you saying? Deep inelasting stupiding?
I it explain in over places many times, it can be anything and any eror and any scatering over any thing like all this mesons with diferent speed...
What? What you saying? Deep inelasting stupiding?
I it explain in over places many times, it can be anything and any eror and any scatering over any thing like all this mesons with diferent speed...
Okay now! Here is revolution idea! Charge does not exist! All charge can be explained with particles spins, when bigger magnet is less magnetic than smaller and thus charge is spins of electrons and protons...
this is new idea and somthere I can be now wrong, but thinking that nature is very simple there is good idea, that charge doesn't exist... Now I just give this revoliutional idea and then I will publish true it or not later...
but now i don't hary to see some imposiblities. Maybe it will explain lorence for maybe and so... But I now see, that then need asumtion, that in some direction particle always flying with some alignation of spin to that direction in which he flying, but damn if this idea is right then how revolutinoistic it would be
this is new idea and somthere I can be now wrong, but thinking that nature is very simple there is good idea, that charge doesn't exist... Now I just give this revoliutional idea and then I will publish true it or not later...
but now i don't hary to see some imposiblities. Maybe it will explain lorence for maybe and so... But I now see, that then need asumtion, that in some direction particle always flying with some alignation of spin to that direction in which he flying, but damn if this idea is right then how revolutinoistic it would be
Okay about atom emision with turno on and of magnetic field, where spin is higher or lower than usual line of emsion line. If magnetic field is on then some electrons which is closer to magnetic field going up from atom and thus aborbed or radiated line is diferent and which is farther from atom on another side of nuclear i mean, then is radietd higer line, i think you understood, so this don't negletic existation of spin-nuclear force, which holding electrons and atoms. Neutrons can be proton and electron fusion by spin, but can be just protons more in nuclear but they still have totla spin the same like in deuterium and thus still electron atracted the same (you don't see two protons system without neutron?).
Here I found model how possible electrons radiating some frenquency waves. Since nuclear have his own spin, then for rotation it need energy and this is not enough of electron (except hydrogen atom). Thus electron flying closer or farther. He then of course radiating electromagnetic waves, this is bad side of this mode and it still don't explains hydrogen atom, except if proton created of many electrons But then this neutrons making some domens like nucleons making atoms and more nucleons can't create atom bigger than some ~250 nucleons, but here somthing can be diferent and only stable are single electron and proton and neutorn mass subatoms... So if falling more neutrons into proton it becoming neutron and if in neutron falling even more electrons then it decaying to proton and electron...
But then this neutrons making some domens like nucleons making atoms and more nucleons can't create atom bigger than some ~250 nucleons, but here somthing can be diferent and only stable are single electron and proton and neutorn mass subatoms... So if falling more neutrons into proton it becoming neutron and if in neutron falling even more electrons then it decaying to proton and electron...
electricity is aligned spins of electrons, when electron go some amount, when there is gap which spin is over electrona taracted...
For charged positive objects energeticaly is not good be in such position and thus they pushing any over nuclears, but atracting electrons, which don't consits of somthing. electrons cloud around object possible making electrons to fuse and then also push, but somehow to be atracted by positive object, which atracting, this is hard calculations... This is like in egdesof magnet force is stronger because better arnagment... This is very hard and nobody can disprove... For example since magnet can't be inside smaller than outside then is pushed anotehr electrons from negative charged object... But at least I can't to put this idea in recycled bin now... Maybe it wrong maybe right
If right then our universe and word have rely simple shape: only one type of particles - electrons and only two magnetic poles for whcih rotation don't need force (or very small and it going on with speed of light) and if they flying in some direction then some pole is in fron and some in back. With this possible explain magnetism, gravity, electricity, lorence force atoms nucelars and so on. Only waves are just air type very simple waves and don't have any mysteries. Electrons at least must consist of 3 spheres, which configuration somehow creating all laws... So then between neutorn and proton seems no diference and between electron, but matter should interact all, but electron for realy diferently, but about proton and electron I am not sure, maybe diferently, but maybe the same... So possible there from sun coming many protons neutrons electrons, which is UV... Possible all light radiating them...
For charged positive objects energeticaly is not good be in such position and thus they pushing any over nuclears, but atracting electrons, which don't consits of somthing. electrons cloud around object possible making electrons to fuse and then also push, but somehow to be atracted by positive object, which atracting, this is hard calculations... This is like in egdesof magnet force is stronger because better arnagment... This is very hard and nobody can disprove... For example since magnet can't be inside smaller than outside then is pushed anotehr electrons from negative charged object... But at least I can't to put this idea in recycled bin now... Maybe it wrong maybe right
If right then our universe and word have rely simple shape: only one type of particles - electrons and only two magnetic poles for whcih rotation don't need force (or very small and it going on with speed of light) and if they flying in some direction then some pole is in fron and some in back. With this possible explain magnetism, gravity, electricity, lorence force atoms nucelars and so on. Only waves are just air type very simple waves and don't have any mysteries. Electrons at least must consist of 3 spheres, which configuration somehow creating all laws... So then between neutorn and proton seems no diference and between electron, but matter should interact all, but electron for realy diferently, but about proton and electron I am not sure, maybe diferently, but maybe the same... So possible there from sun coming many protons neutrons electrons, which is UV... Possible all light radiating them...
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 19 2008, 12:35 PM)
What? What you saying? Deep inelasting stupiding?
I it explain in over places many times, it can be anything and any eror and any scatering over any thing like all this mesons with diferent speed...
So what are mesons made of? You really are making no sense.
QUOTE (prometheus+Jul 19 2008, 02:36 PM)
So what are mesons made of? You really are making no sense.
Of nothing, because they don't exist, it just over energy protons...
Of nothing, because they don't exist, it just over energy protons...
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 19 2008, 02:41 PM)
Of nothing, because they don't exist, it just over energy protons...
Over energy protons?, please elucidate.
Over energy protons?, please elucidate.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 19 2008, 02:41 PM)
Of nothing, because they don't exist, it just over energy protons...
Your theory is not even close to consistent. Mesons hold nuclei together. If they didn't exist then nuclei wouldn't exit.
Your theory is not even close to consistent. Mesons hold nuclei together. If they didn't exist then nuclei wouldn't exit.
QUOTE (prometheus+Jul 19 2008, 03:09 PM)
Your theory is not even close to consistent. Mesons hold nuclei together. If they didn't exist then nuclei wouldn't exit.
bla bla, there tons of diferent mesons, pions, miuns and so on?
Hey, I found very interesting considence? that if lorece force wroking accoding my circle magnets theory, that on edges magnetism is bigger then it's explains positron, because then positron is actualy electron and electron can fly in any direction in magnetic field due "lorence force". So ery possible that lorence force is wrong. But only very hard to debunk lorence force in wires if it is realy properly observed. Maybe if only spins angle some diferent and all experiments for lorence force is maded with magnet like moon/bannana you know like half circul, then in such magnet there realy possible to explain lorence force without magic, but only with electrons spins, hm...
bla bla, there tons of diferent mesons, pions, miuns and so on?
Hey, I found very interesting considence? that if lorece force wroking accoding my circle magnets theory, that on edges magnetism is bigger then it's explains positron, because then positron is actualy electron and electron can fly in any direction in magnetic field due "lorence force". So ery possible that lorence force is wrong. But only very hard to debunk lorence force in wires if it is realy properly observed. Maybe if only spins angle some diferent and all experiments for lorence force is maded with magnet like moon/bannana you know like half circul, then in such magnet there realy possible to explain lorence force without magic, but only with electrons spins, hm...
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 19 2008, 03:22 PM)
bla bla, there tons of diferent mesons, pions, miuns and so on?
Hey, I found very interesting considence? that if lorece force wroking accoding my circle magnets theory, that on edges magnetism is bigger then it's explains positron, because then positron is actualy electron and electron can fly in any direction in magnetic field due "lorence force". So ery possible that lorence force is wrong. But only very hard to debunk lorence force in wires if it is realy properly observed. Maybe if only spins angle some diferent and all experiments for lorence force is maded with magnet like moon/bannana you know like half circul, then in such magnet there realy possible to explain lorence force without magic, but only with electrons spins, hm...
DavidD, are you for real or just a comedy sketch?
Hey, I found very interesting considence? that if lorece force wroking accoding my circle magnets theory, that on edges magnetism is bigger then it's explains positron, because then positron is actualy electron and electron can fly in any direction in magnetic field due "lorence force". So ery possible that lorence force is wrong. But only very hard to debunk lorence force in wires if it is realy properly observed. Maybe if only spins angle some diferent and all experiments for lorence force is maded with magnet like moon/bannana you know like half circul, then in such magnet there realy possible to explain lorence force without magic, but only with electrons spins, hm...
DavidD, are you for real or just a comedy sketch?
QUOTE (Geoff Mollusc+Jul 19 2008, 02:56 PM)
Over energy protons?, please elucidate.
Meson is the same as proton, just lighter, thus it is faster or slower...
Meson is the same as proton, just lighter, thus it is faster or slower...
QUOTE (Geoff Mollusc+Jul 19 2008, 03:33 PM)
DavidD, are you for real or just a comedy sketch?
Accoding my theory lorence force with one magnet instead two shouldnt' work...
Accoding my theory lorence force with one magnet instead two shouldnt' work...
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 19 2008, 03:35 PM)
Meson is the same as proton, just lighter, thus it is faster or slower...
Faster or Slower , thanks for your concise 'nail-on-the head' 'thoughts'
Faster or Slower
, thanks for your concise 'nail-on-the head' 'thoughts'
Okay, I realy now not sure does for rotating electron speed don't need energy, but still possible, that electrons spin aligning to most 'magnetic' position and he doing it very fast, because spin prety powerfull, but for sure can say, that at electron alignation he don't radiating electromagnetic waves.
So how to explain hydrogen atom? Proton is in center and he is like magnet of many electrons of spins, but which making all spin still 1/2, because of not veryu good alignation within... So when proton spin is this then electron flying around some static orbit and don't radiating electromagnetic waves because of mentioned law about direction changing, but speed don't changing don't making radiation, but for direction change need energy. So when electron flying around proton he always aligning with spin to proton spin and was always flying in same orbit. But sometimes this electron spin somehow changing net magnetism of proton and proton "recently" relaizing, that he consist of many electrons and making some smaller or bigger spin and thus electron jumping in over 'quantized' orbit with radiation electromagnetic waves. This jumps can more depend on all atoms spins configuration and not on absorbtion of waves. But on the over hand waves can push electron closer or farther to proton and thus proton will change spin size and will radiated be 'photon'. In short, if photon coming "from center" of atom then electron is pushed outside and if coming into atom then electron is pushed inside and then spins configuring it "quantizedly" and radiated some concrete wavelenght photon. The same for any over atoms... So my spin model, that proton consist of many thousunds(?) electrons explaining quantization of emited waves. Now with absorbtion of certain type of waves can be more dificult/complicated. Possible even that absorbtion is not related with some frenquency and so on and for example eye absorbing some frenquency waves and decoding some vibrations with neurons like in radio waves... But how grass absorbing over colourse and leaving only green, reemising? Well, possible, that grass them at all don't absorbing, but just some waves like was say pushing electron and electron then depending on spin in proton size changing it value and radiating say green waves and so there no any absorbtion but just radiation. Absorbing they I think almost all waves equaly and eyes probably working like I say, like radio. How you can know, that it was absorbed, hm? So no absorbtion of certain frenquency waves, but just radiation of certain frenquency waves, which probably can more depend on random "wishes" of proton and thermal and vibration processes of atoms they spin plays, than on incoming waves...
So my spin model very good explaining all quantized radiation. Also it explaining electricity, that spin of electrons going in some direction and they if going then some pole is first always! Lorence force I acn't explain logicaly, but it seems no diference does there is charge or spin effect. Neutron if consist of proton and electron then lorence force is in oposit direction and thus it spliting neutron to proton and electron.
For crancks this theory also have present, this all over mesons hardrons and barions and over crankeons can be result of many electrons, but they are because of spins not stable. But then very hard to explain positron and neutrino, except then everything consist of (electron) neutrino... But I think better just use electron like elementar particle and over doubfull things to leave for mistificators...
Now why neutron is not acting in electrical field, but proton do? Well possible, that electron very good rotates about proton in neutron and just they spins is like shoe/say in 45 deggress and no some one spin direction and thus neutron is not atracted nor by... hm somthing wrong... Maybe just energeticaly is not effiecnt for neutron to be atracted by positive or negative "charge". Maybe electron flying to it, but then relizing, that there he don't fit... Since magnetic field is like some equal alignation and charge is some electrons or protons disbalance then since neutron have both them then he don't fits here and it is as hard to explain as charge with spin, but also hard to debunk this... since neutron can consist of many electrons with diferent/dificult configurations...
So how to explain hydrogen atom? Proton is in center and he is like magnet of many electrons of spins, but which making all spin still 1/2, because of not veryu good alignation within... So when proton spin is this then electron flying around some static orbit and don't radiating electromagnetic waves because of mentioned law about direction changing, but speed don't changing don't making radiation, but for direction change need energy. So when electron flying around proton he always aligning with spin to proton spin and was always flying in same orbit. But sometimes this electron spin somehow changing net magnetism of proton and proton "recently" relaizing, that he consist of many electrons and making some smaller or bigger spin and thus electron jumping in over 'quantized' orbit with radiation electromagnetic waves. This jumps can more depend on all atoms spins configuration and not on absorbtion of waves. But on the over hand waves can push electron closer or farther to proton and thus proton will change spin size and will radiated be 'photon'. In short, if photon coming "from center" of atom then electron is pushed outside and if coming into atom then electron is pushed inside and then spins configuring it "quantizedly" and radiated some concrete wavelenght photon. The same for any over atoms... So my spin model, that proton consist of many thousunds(?) electrons explaining quantization of emited waves. Now with absorbtion of certain type of waves can be more dificult/complicated. Possible even that absorbtion is not related with some frenquency and so on and for example eye absorbing some frenquency waves and decoding some vibrations with neurons like in radio waves... But how grass absorbing over colourse and leaving only green, reemising? Well, possible, that grass them at all don't absorbing, but just some waves like was say pushing electron and electron then depending on spin in proton size changing it value and radiating say green waves and so there no any absorbtion but just radiation. Absorbing they I think almost all waves equaly and eyes probably working like I say, like radio. How you can know, that it was absorbed, hm? So no absorbtion of certain frenquency waves, but just radiation of certain frenquency waves, which probably can more depend on random "wishes" of proton and thermal and vibration processes of atoms they spin plays, than on incoming waves...
So my spin model very good explaining all quantized radiation. Also it explaining electricity, that spin of electrons going in some direction and they if going then some pole is first always! Lorence force I acn't explain logicaly, but it seems no diference does there is charge or spin effect. Neutron if consist of proton and electron then lorence force is in oposit direction and thus it spliting neutron to proton and electron.
For crancks this theory also have present, this all over mesons hardrons and barions and over crankeons can be result of many electrons, but they are because of spins not stable. But then very hard to explain positron and neutrino, except then everything consist of (electron) neutrino... But I think better just use electron like elementar particle and over doubfull things to leave for mistificators...
Now why neutron is not acting in electrical field, but proton do? Well possible, that electron very good rotates about proton in neutron and just they spins is like shoe/say in 45 deggress and no some one spin direction and thus neutron is not atracted nor by... hm somthing wrong... Maybe just energeticaly is not effiecnt for neutron to be atracted by positive or negative "charge". Maybe electron flying to it, but then relizing, that there he don't fit... Since magnetic field is like some equal alignation and charge is some electrons or protons disbalance then since neutron have both them then he don't fits here and it is as hard to explain as charge with spin, but also hard to debunk this... since neutron can consist of many electrons with diferent/dificult configurations...
I have my doubts of technological subspace as well.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric March 01+)
ALL of quantum systems have been ACCURATELY modelled using the notions of field theory and superpositions. QED explains all electromagnetic interactions and it's built on superposition. The description of the nucleus is built upon superposition and it's accurate enough to allow us to build nuclear reactors.
Posted by: thezman May 3 2005, 07:35 PM ...
QUOTE
The thought is why has Bohmian Mechanics not been more popular in the past? One reason (other than he is a "fruitcake") is there is no absolute mapping (one to one and onto) of measurables from our reference frame to that "particle/wave" reference frame........... The question is if Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity is entirely relevant to this problem and then is Einstein's Theory of General Relativity entirely relevant as well. If so what modifications would be necessary to bring them both "up to speed" (if any?)?
We can make a mapping if we can agree that the wave functions and superpositions represent an actual distribution of some or all of the quantum systems actual properties. This should make quantum mechanics more compatible with SR and GR. Furthermore, this distribution would be continuous. Where it would seem not to be continuous, like spin formulations and EPR and zones of zero probability of occurance, the continuity is hidden in the structure of the basic scalar/vector/vector spin fields.
As long as the so-called wave packets are compatible with this view I would think the formulation method does not matter, as long as it works.
Forum= 16 Showtopic= 374 ---->Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories > The impossibility of something faster than light
Posted by: DavidD March 6 2008, 01:04 PM...
1 Department of Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
2 D-Wave Systems, Inc., 4401 Still Creek Drive, Suite 100, Burnaby, BC V5C 6G9, Canada.
3 Chemical Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA.
* These authors contributed equally to this work.
To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: alan@aspuru.com
...
On classical computers, resource requirements for complete simulation of the time-independent Schrödinger equation scale exponentially with the number of atoms in a molecule, limiting such full configuration interaction (FCI) calculations to diatomic and triatomic molecules (7). Computational quantum chemistry is therefore based on approximate methods that often succeed in predicting chemical properties for larger systems, but their level of accuracy varies with the nature of the species, making more complete methods desirable (8).
Could quantum computation offer a new way forward for exact methods? Despite the formal promise, it has not been demonstrated ...
The phase-estimation algorithm (PEA) of Abrams and Lloyd (3, 4) can be used to obtain eigenvalues of Hermitian operators; we address issues concerning its implementation for molecular Hamiltonians.
...
The molecular wave function may be represented by a state of S in two basic ways. In the direct mapping, each qubit represents the fermionic occupation state of a particular atomic orbital, occupied or not. In this approach, a Fock space of the molecular system is mapped onto the Hilbert space of the qubits. This mapping is the least efficient but has advantages discussed later. In the more efficient compact mapping, only a subspace of the Fock space with fixed electron number is mapped onto the qubits. The states of the simulated system and of the qubit system are simply enumerated and equated.
...
The overlap of the initially prepared state with the exact state can be systematically improved by an adiabatic-state-preparation (ASP) algorithm, relying on the adiabatic theorem (10–12). The theorem states that a system will remain in its ground state if the Hamiltonian is changed slowly enough...
The accuracy and quantum-gate complexity of the algorithm depend on the specific gate decomposition of the unitary operators k, defined above. The factorization of unitary matrices into products of one- and two-qubit elementary gates is the fundamental problem of quantum circuit design. ...
The advantage of the direct mapping is that, at most, controlled four-qubit unitary operations are required. The number of one- and two-qubit elementary gates required to represent an arbitrary four-qubit gate has been shown to be always less than 400 (14); the structure of a controlled four-qubit unitary operation will allow a decomposition into a similar order of magnitude in the number of gates.
We have found that chemical precision can be achieved with modest qubit requirements for the representation of the wave function and for the readout register. The ASP algorithm has been shown to systematically improve the probability of success of the PEA. Although exponentially difficult on a classical computer, extension to larger molecules requires only linear growth in the number of qubits.
...
To repeat the calculations performed here with a high-quality basis set (cc-pVTZ) would require S to consist of 47 or 22 qubits for H2O or LiH, respectively, using the compact mapping of the full Hilbert space. For most molecules and basis set combinations shown in Fig. 1, an FCI calculation is certainly classically intractable. An FCI calculation for H2O with cc-pVTZ would be at the edge of what is presently possible. This demonstrates an often-stated conjecture, that quantum simulation algorithms with 30 to 100 qubits will be among the smallest applications of quantum computing that can exceed the limitations of classical computing.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Here is a long link{250+kb},
http://individual.utoronto.ca/prugovecki/E...rspectives.html
that I found for this thread,
however, I did not have complete success;
"In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 74 already displayed. ...
Your search - "borel summability" "quantum computers" "no go theorem" - did not match any documents."
Anyway, this is striking (from someone who might have reason to take mathematics and negative energy seriously OR )...
"Unfortunately, after the Second World War this attitude towards epistemology and foundational issues in quantum physics became reversed2, as leading physicists of the post-war generation obviously decided that, contrary to the opinions of their great predecessors, it was legitimate to secure “the adaptation of the theory to the facts by means of additional artificial assumptions”. Thus, soon after the “triumph” of renormalization theory, Dirac (1951) felt compelled to point out in print that: “Recent work by Lamb, Schwinger and Feynman and others has been very successful . . . but the resulting theory is an ugly and incomplete one.”
He reiterated and expanded on this theme on many occasions. For example, in a 1968 lecture entitled “Methods in Theoretical Physics”, in which he explained the methodology and epistemology of his approach to developing new physical theories, he stated3: “The difficulty with divergencies proved to be a very bad one. No progress was made for twenty years. Then a development came, initiated by Lamb's discovery and explanation of the Lamb shift, which fundamentally changed the character of theoretical physics. It involved setting up rules for discarding the infinities, rules which are precise, so as to leave well-defined residues that can be compared with experiment. But still one is using working rules and not regular mathematics.
Most theoretical physicists nowadays appear to be satisfied with this situation, but I am not. I believe that theoretical physics has gone on the wrong track with such developments and one should not be complacent about it.”"
Your mileage may vary,
MrB.
Posted by: thezman May 3 2005, 07:35 PM ...
QUOTE
The thought is why has Bohmian Mechanics not been more popular in the past? One reason (other than he is a "fruitcake") is there is no absolute mapping (one to one and onto) of measurables from our reference frame to that "particle/wave" reference frame........... The question is if Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity is entirely relevant to this problem and then is Einstein's Theory of General Relativity entirely relevant as well. If so what modifications would be necessary to bring them both "up to speed" (if any?)?
We can make a mapping if we can agree that the wave functions and superpositions represent an actual distribution of some or all of the quantum systems actual properties. This should make quantum mechanics more compatible with SR and GR. Furthermore, this distribution would be continuous. Where it would seem not to be continuous, like spin formulations and EPR and zones of zero probability of occurance, the continuity is hidden in the structure of the basic scalar/vector/vector spin fields.
As long as the so-called wave packets are compatible with this view I would think the formulation method does not matter, as long as it works.
Forum= 16 Showtopic= 374 ---->Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories > The impossibility of something faster than light
Posted by: DavidD March 6 2008, 01:04 PM...
1 Department of Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
2 D-Wave Systems, Inc., 4401 Still Creek Drive, Suite 100, Burnaby, BC V5C 6G9, Canada.
3 Chemical Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA.
* These authors contributed equally to this work.
To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: alan@aspuru.com
...
On classical computers, resource requirements for complete simulation of the time-independent Schrödinger equation scale exponentially with the number of atoms in a molecule, limiting such full configuration interaction (FCI) calculations to diatomic and triatomic molecules (7). Computational quantum chemistry is therefore based on approximate methods that often succeed in predicting chemical properties for larger systems, but their level of accuracy varies with the nature of the species, making more complete methods desirable (8).
Could quantum computation offer a new way forward for exact methods? Despite the formal promise, it has not been demonstrated ...
The phase-estimation algorithm (PEA) of Abrams and Lloyd (3, 4) can be used to obtain eigenvalues of Hermitian operators; we address issues concerning its implementation for molecular Hamiltonians.
...
The molecular wave function may be represented by a state of S in two basic ways. In the direct mapping, each qubit represents the fermionic occupation state of a particular atomic orbital, occupied or not. In this approach, a Fock space of the molecular system is mapped onto the Hilbert space of the qubits. This mapping is the least efficient but has advantages discussed later. In the more efficient compact mapping, only a subspace of the Fock space with fixed electron number is mapped onto the qubits. The states of the simulated system and of the qubit system are simply enumerated and equated.
...
The overlap of the initially prepared state with the exact state can be systematically improved by an adiabatic-state-preparation (ASP) algorithm, relying on the adiabatic theorem (10–12). The theorem states that a system will remain in its ground state if the Hamiltonian is changed slowly enough...
The accuracy and quantum-gate complexity of the algorithm depend on the specific gate decomposition of the unitary operators k, defined above. The factorization of unitary matrices into products of one- and two-qubit elementary gates is the fundamental problem of quantum circuit design. ...
The advantage of the direct mapping is that, at most, controlled four-qubit unitary operations are required. The number of one- and two-qubit elementary gates required to represent an arbitrary four-qubit gate has been shown to be always less than 400 (14); the structure of a controlled four-qubit unitary operation will allow a decomposition into a similar order of magnitude in the number of gates.
We have found that chemical precision can be achieved with modest qubit requirements for the representation of the wave function and for the readout register. The ASP algorithm has been shown to systematically improve the probability of success of the PEA. Although exponentially difficult on a classical computer, extension to larger molecules requires only linear growth in the number of qubits.
...
To repeat the calculations performed here with a high-quality basis set (cc-pVTZ) would require S to consist of 47 or 22 qubits for H2O or LiH, respectively, using the compact mapping of the full Hilbert space. For most molecules and basis set combinations shown in Fig. 1, an FCI calculation is certainly classically intractable. An FCI calculation for H2O with cc-pVTZ would be at the edge of what is presently possible. This demonstrates an often-stated conjecture, that quantum simulation algorithms with 30 to 100 qubits will be among the smallest applications of quantum computing that can exceed the limitations of classical computing.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Here is a long link{250+kb},
http://individual.utoronto.ca/prugovecki/E...rspectives.html
that I found for this thread,
however, I did not have complete success;
"In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 74 already displayed. ...
Your search - "borel summability" "quantum computers" "no go theorem" - did not match any documents."
Anyway, this is striking (from someone who might have reason to take mathematics and negative energy seriously
OR )..."Unfortunately, after the Second World War this attitude towards epistemology and foundational issues in quantum physics became reversed2, as leading physicists of the post-war generation obviously decided that, contrary to the opinions of their great predecessors, it was legitimate to secure “the adaptation of the theory to the facts by means of additional artificial assumptions”. Thus, soon after the “triumph” of renormalization theory, Dirac (1951) felt compelled to point out in print that: “Recent work by Lamb, Schwinger and Feynman and others has been very successful . . . but the resulting theory is an ugly and incomplete one.”
He reiterated and expanded on this theme on many occasions. For example, in a 1968 lecture entitled “Methods in Theoretical Physics”, in which he explained the methodology and epistemology of his approach to developing new physical theories, he stated3: “The difficulty with divergencies proved to be a very bad one. No progress was made for twenty years. Then a development came, initiated by Lamb's discovery and explanation of the Lamb shift, which fundamentally changed the character of theoretical physics. It involved setting up rules for discarding the infinities, rules which are precise, so as to leave well-defined residues that can be compared with experiment. But still one is using working rules and not regular mathematics.
Most theoretical physicists nowadays appear to be satisfied with this situation, but I am not. I believe that theoretical physics has gone on the wrong track with such developments and one should not be complacent about it.”"
Your mileage may vary,
MrB.
Showtopic= 22218 & Forum= 13 ----->
www.rochester.edu/College/RTC/Borge/overview.html
In the language of the Quantum Field Theory branch of Physics, one can show that the residual polarization rotation can be generated by a coupling of the so-called "electromagnetic field tensor" to a new, four-dimensional vacuum field, whose "spatial part" is the anisotropy vector we discovered. Furthermore, when subjected to coordinate transformations such as "time reversal" and "space inversion," this new field behaves in the same manner that the intrinsic spin of an atom or elementary particle does, when the atom or particle is subjected to such transformations. One may therefore affix some sort of "spin" to the new vacuum field.
However, at this point in time, the question of what is truly underlying the effect we see is as wide open as Space itself. In nature, there are many experimentally verified imperfections, like "parity violations" of kaon decays for example. The fundamental conclusion from our finding is that our world seems to exhibit another special type of imperfection, or asymmetry, called "anisotropy." Nature never ceases to amaze us.
www.rochester.edu/College/RTC/Borge/overview.html
In the language of the Quantum Field Theory branch of Physics, one can show that the residual polarization rotation can be generated by a coupling of the so-called "electromagnetic field tensor" to a new, four-dimensional vacuum field, whose "spatial part" is the anisotropy vector we discovered. Furthermore, when subjected to coordinate transformations such as "time reversal" and "space inversion," this new field behaves in the same manner that the intrinsic spin of an atom or elementary particle does, when the atom or particle is subjected to such transformations. One may therefore affix some sort of "spin" to the new vacuum field.
However, at this point in time, the question of what is truly underlying the effect we see is as wide open as Space itself. In nature, there are many experimentally verified imperfections, like "parity violations" of kaon decays for example. The fundamental conclusion from our finding is that our world seems to exhibit another special type of imperfection, or asymmetry, called "anisotropy." Nature never ceases to amaze us.
QUOTE
Also entangled(?) atoms talking through phonons (high frenquency sound), what is very strange. All this problems with entanglement of two atoms or electrons sounds very imposible. So I think 50% that maybe entangled elctrons was been demostrated.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Also entangled(?) atoms talking through phonons (high frenquency sound), what is very strange. All this problems with entanglement of two atoms or electrons sounds very imposible. So I think 50% that maybe entangled elctrons was been demostrated. Why is it strange? Phonons are a well understood phenomena. They are experimentally verified. |
QUOTE
Phonons indeed can't create superposition or entanglement.
Quantum mechanic is indeed noisy and thus shrodinger equations are wrong about exponentional wave function, which describing quantum particles and they interaction.
Decoherence of a Superposition of Macroscopic Current States in a SQUID
E. M. Chudnovsky1
and A. B. Kuklov2
1 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Lehman College, City University of New York,
250 Bedford Park Boulevard West, Bronx, New York 10468-1589
2 Department of Engineering Science and Physics, The College of Staten Island,
City University of New York, Staten Island, New York 10314
Any degree of freedom that interacts with the coherently oscillating variable can be the source of decoherence. One can divide all such sources into two groups, avoidable and unavoidable. Examples of avoidable sources are, e.g., nuclear spins and non-thermal noise. In this paper we study generic mechanisms of decoherence which are controlled by the conservation laws 10,11. In application to SQUIDs, such mechanisms are unavoidable as they originate from the fundamental symmetries of free space. ...
It is easy to see, however, that for a current oscillating at a high frequency, e.g., f0~ 109-10 10s-1, the analogy with the Mossbauer effect breaks down. Indeed, during the period of oscillations, the elastic deformation cannot travel more than a distance vs/f0 away from the current; vs being the speed of the transverse sound.
For, e.g., vs~ 5×10 3 m/s and f0~ 5×10 9 s-1 one obtains vs/f0~ 1 µm. Thus, the part of the solid involved in the conservation of the angular
momentum is small, not macroscopically large. Consequently, the torsional oscillations of the part of the solid matrix “co-wiggling” with the current must generate phonons of frequency f0 in the surrounding matter.
As long as the speed of sound is finite this should result in a decoherence of quantum oscillations of the current. Similar effect exists due to the interaction of the magnetic moment of the current with vacuum photons. The difference from the phonon problem is that at f0~ 5×109 s-1 the wavelength of the light, ?l= c/f0, is about five orders of magnitude larger than ?s. Consequently, the vacuum properties of the photons depend strongly on the geometry of the experiment, in particular, on the metal shielding of the SQUID.
The above picture is quasiclassical. From the quantum mechanical point of view, the states of the tunneling SC current are not classified by specific values of the angular momentum. The interaction of the current with the solid matrix entangles the angular momentum states of the current with the angular momentum states of the matrix. In the absence of the external noise, the total angular momentum is, of course, a well-defined conserved quantum number. In this respect, it is important to understand why the external noise acting on the macroscopic solid matrix (like, e.g., vibration of the building) does not instantaneously destroy the quantum entanglement between the angular momentum states of the current and the angular momentum states of the matrix. We will discuss this issue in the context of the local versus global mechanisms of decoherence.
Quantum mechanic is indeed noisy and thus shrodinger equations are wrong about exponentional wave function, which describing quantum particles and they interaction.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE | ||
| Phonons indeed can't create superposition or entanglement. Quantum mechanic is indeed noisy and thus shrodinger equations are wrong about exponentional wave function, which describing quantum particles and they interaction. Phonons exhibit quantum properties, they are quantised sound oscillations. Find me a published paper showing classical mechanics can accurately explain phonons.
|
Decoherence of a Superposition of Macroscopic Current States in a SQUID
E. M. Chudnovsky1
and A. B. Kuklov2
1 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Lehman College, City University of New York,
250 Bedford Park Boulevard West, Bronx, New York 10468-1589
2 Department of Engineering Science and Physics, The College of Staten Island,
City University of New York, Staten Island, New York 10314
Any degree of freedom that interacts with the coherently oscillating variable can be the source of decoherence. One can divide all such sources into two groups, avoidable and unavoidable. Examples of avoidable sources are, e.g., nuclear spins and non-thermal noise. In this paper we study generic mechanisms of decoherence which are controlled by the conservation laws 10,11. In application to SQUIDs, such mechanisms are unavoidable as they originate from the fundamental symmetries of free space. ...
It is easy to see, however, that for a current oscillating at a high frequency, e.g., f0~ 109-10 10s-1, the analogy with the Mossbauer effect breaks down. Indeed, during the period of oscillations, the elastic deformation cannot travel more than a distance vs/f0 away from the current; vs being the speed of the transverse sound.
For, e.g., vs~ 5×10 3 m/s and f0~ 5×10 9 s-1 one obtains vs/f0~ 1 µm. Thus, the part of the solid involved in the conservation of the angular
momentum is small, not macroscopically large. Consequently, the torsional oscillations of the part of the solid matrix “co-wiggling” with the current must generate phonons of frequency f0 in the surrounding matter.
As long as the speed of sound is finite this should result in a decoherence of quantum oscillations of the current. Similar effect exists due to the interaction of the magnetic moment of the current with vacuum photons. The difference from the phonon problem is that at f0~ 5×109 s-1 the wavelength of the light, ?l= c/f0, is about five orders of magnitude larger than ?s. Consequently, the vacuum properties of the photons depend strongly on the geometry of the experiment, in particular, on the metal shielding of the SQUID.
The above picture is quasiclassical. From the quantum mechanical point of view, the states of the tunneling SC current are not classified by specific values of the angular momentum. The interaction of the current with the solid matrix entangles the angular momentum states of the current with the angular momentum states of the matrix. In the absence of the external noise, the total angular momentum is, of course, a well-defined conserved quantum number. In this respect, it is important to understand why the external noise acting on the macroscopic solid matrix (like, e.g., vibration of the building) does not instantaneously destroy the quantum entanglement between the angular momentum states of the current and the angular momentum states of the matrix. We will discuss this issue in the context of the local versus global mechanisms of decoherence.
You can don't respond to my old post, because my opinion about some thigns and laws now changed radicaly...
Entanglement don't exist, like I prove(?) in over thread... Don't exist any superposition or waveparticle duality or photons... Exist only electromagnetic waves of diferent frenquency, but all flying with speed of light. This all waves are like sound waves in air!
Quantum computer imposible, because entanglement don't exist (maybe also because superposition don't exist...).
Don't need to simulate quantum mechanic, because quantum enetanglement don't exist.
_________
About hydrogen atom with spin theory. Possible, that even don't need proton more spins... Proton have spn 0.5, so first ground orbit of electron can be when there is 2 electrons and 1 proton in hydrogen, then they atracting each over and there is like long magnet... Second orbit can be 3 eleectrons and 1 proton, then electrons probably are little farther or maybe first orbit is with 3 electrons, whatever... Orbit number-3 is one proton and one electron and they spins are aligned in this way:
SSSSeNNNN-SSSSpNNNN, where e is electron and p is proton.
Orbit number 4 can be when spin of electron and proton is aligned in this way:
SSSSeNNNN
NNNNpSSSS,
or visaversa or two electrons in this way...
Orbit number 5 can be
SSSSeNNNN-NNNNpSSSS
Then electron and proton spin psuhing each over, but in this orbit electron don't being long time.. This is when over some electron magnetic field or somthing atracting electron...
So actualy there is so hard that for speculations end don't exist... But then proton in hydrogen very possible have more than one electron usualy. In heavier atoms possible becoming some over domination of closly spin atoms nuclears and so on, because for me now is unclear does proton spin can be rotated without radiating electromagnetic waves, because it can consist of electrons...
Entanglement don't exist, like I prove(?) in over thread... Don't exist any superposition or waveparticle duality or photons... Exist only electromagnetic waves of diferent frenquency, but all flying with speed of light. This all waves are like sound waves in air!
Quantum computer imposible, because entanglement don't exist (maybe also because superposition don't exist...).
Don't need to simulate quantum mechanic, because quantum enetanglement don't exist.
_________
About hydrogen atom with spin theory. Possible, that even don't need proton more spins... Proton have spn 0.5, so first ground orbit of electron can be when there is 2 electrons and 1 proton in hydrogen, then they atracting each over and there is like long magnet... Second orbit can be 3 eleectrons and 1 proton, then electrons probably are little farther or maybe first orbit is with 3 electrons, whatever... Orbit number-3 is one proton and one electron and they spins are aligned in this way:
SSSSeNNNN-SSSSpNNNN, where e is electron and p is proton.
Orbit number 4 can be when spin of electron and proton is aligned in this way:
SSSSeNNNN
NNNNpSSSS,
or visaversa or two electrons in this way...
Orbit number 5 can be
SSSSeNNNN-NNNNpSSSS
Then electron and proton spin psuhing each over, but in this orbit electron don't being long time.. This is when over some electron magnetic field or somthing atracting electron...
So actualy there is so hard that for speculations end don't exist... But then proton in hydrogen very possible have more than one electron usualy. In heavier atoms possible becoming some over domination of closly spin atoms nuclears and so on, because for me now is unclear does proton spin can be rotated without radiating electromagnetic waves, because it can consist of electrons...
Okay here is about electron spin resonance, that is very important in my spintheory...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/molecule/esr.html
Since with changing magnetic field possible to rotate spin and electron spin rotation will radiate some 20 GHz radiowaves. Then it'
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/molecule/esr.html
Since with changing magnetic field possible to rotate spin and electron spin rotation will radiate some 20 GHz radiowaves. Then it'