It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

page: 82
80
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 09:38 PM

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I just got through explaining how I don't see electrons behaving much like the balls in Newton's cradle. So you ask me a question about electrons behaving like balls in Newtons cradle and ask me if I understand the question?

The balls in a Newton's cradle have a discrete size and can physically strike each other. I don't see how you can extrapolate that behavior to a dimensionless point particle like an electron.
It's modeled as a dimensionless particle but it's actual behavior belies that description.

The electron has no known substructure.[1][73] and it is assumed to be a point particle with a point charge and no spatial extent.[8] In classical physics, the angular momentum and magnetic moment of an object depend upon its physical dimensions. Hence, the concept of a dimensionless electron possessing these properties might seem paradoxical and inconsistent to experimental observations in Penning traps which point to finite non-zero radius of the electron. A possible explanation of this paradoxical situation is given below in the "Virtual particles" subsection by taking into consideration the Foldy-Wouthuysen transformation. The issue of the radius of the electron is a challenging problem of the modern theoretical physics. The admission of the hypothesis of a finite radius of the electron is incompatible to the premises of the theory of relativity. On the other hand, a point-like electron (zero radius) generates serious mathematical difficulties due to the self-energy of the electron tending to infinity.[74] These aspects have been analyzed in detail by Dmitri Ivanenko and Arseny Sokolov.
Observation of a single electron in a Penning trap shows the upper limit of the particle's radius is 10−22 meters.[75] There is a physical constant called the "classical electron radius", with the much larger value of 2.8179×10−15 m, greater than the radius of the proton. However, the terminology comes from a simplistic calculation that ignores the effects of quantum mechanics; in reality, the so-called classical electron radius has little to do with the true fundamental structure of the electron.[76][note 5]
There are elementary particles that spontaneously decay into less massive particles. An example is the muon, which decays into an electron, a neutrino and an antineutrino, with a mean lifetime of 2.2×10−6 seconds. However, the electron is thought to be stable on theoretical grounds: the electron is the least massive particle with non-zero electric charge, so its decay would violate charge conservation.[77] The experimental lower bound for the electron's mean lifetime is 4.6×1026 years, at a 90% confidence level.[78][79]

posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 09:40 PM

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
It's modeled as a dimensionless particle but it's actual behavior belies that description.

QM is a pesky thing. Photons don't have physical extent,either.

posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 09:46 PM

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Newtons cradle analogy = photon particle field densely packed at every unit of space

Except photons are also point particles and don't "newton's cradle" at all, since they don't push on each other at all. At least electrons interact through fields. You can't have stationary arrays of photons anyway, they're all moving at the speed of light.

Before a photon is created what is it?

Take us play by play; An electron exists and is stationary or moving at a constant speed (if there is a difference answer the question twice, once for each difference).

Before the electron is accelerated, understanding that the entire point of this discussion will be to understand the nature of how EM radiation is created, what it is, how it exists etc.; Before the electron is accelerated, where are the photons that will become existant upon acceleration? In what sort of non nothing state do they exist in? Where do they come from? Virtual photon field you say? Relatively stationary array of photons I say.
edit on 21-3-2015 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 09:48 PM
why does the neutron have a half life of 12 minutes?? that is, when not contained in a nucleus within the island of stability.

posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 09:50 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

Before a photon is created what is it?

When someone jumps off a bridge, where are they?

eta: there ARE no stationary photons. every mother's son of them is going somewhere at C. Nor is there an aether. And you can have an empty space with nothing in it, yet the space will still occupy volume.

And if you'd learn some math, you'd understand. Try to understand things with English, not so much.

Come to the dark side, brother. All this text/visualization error will go away.
edit on 21-3-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 09:51 PM

originally posted by: darkstar57
why does the neutron have a half life of 12 minutes?? that is, when not contained in a nucleus within the island of stability.

Oh. That's because neutrons are actually hydrinos. They just decompose back to ground state hydrogen after they absorb enough zero point energy to recover into hydrogen.

posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 09:51 PM

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi

The EM field is photon soup and when an electron is accelerated in the photon soup, it causes a break in the liquidity of the photon medium, and this break is called a particle.

You really don't need an aether to explain things, you know. EM doesn't propagate as waves through an aether.

So just so we are clear. The difference between the notion of light aether, and EM field, is that the EM field has space holes in it, where as theory of light aether is perfect sealed dense every planck length full of light at all space and time? EM field suggest that it is more a network connection of webs and lines of light, rather than a densely packed energy medium that when the electron moves unavoidably amidst this light field it is coupled to, the light field shakes with the energy signature the electron shook with?

posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 09:52 PM

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi

Before a photon is created what is it?

When someone jumps off a bridge, where are they?

Exactly where they are at all times

posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 09:54 PM

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi

Before a photon is created what is it?

eta: there ARE no stationary photons. every mother's son of them is going somewhere at C.

What is the photon before it comes into existence?

posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 09:55 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi

Before a photon is created what is it?

When someone jumps off a bridge, where are they?

Exactly where they are at all times

Where are they? On the bridge, or off, when they jump?

edit on 21-3-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 09:55 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi
What is the photon before it comes into existence?

Before it comes into existence, it's a twinkle in it's own eye. If it doesn't exist yet, it isn't.

posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 09:56 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi
So just so we are clear.

You're trying to fit it into what you can visualize. That's what is clear. The problem is, you can't.

We all face that epiphany at some point in physics. I...can't...depend...on...what...I...can...describe...verbally.

Once you make the breakthrough, you can get on with it. It's sort of like that point where you quit trying to parse dots and dashes and just listen to the rhythm, and then you can copy faster Morse.
edit on 21-3-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 09:57 PM

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi

Before a photon is created what is it?

When someone jumps off a bridge, where are they?

eta: there ARE no stationary photons. every mother's son of them is going somewhere at C. Nor is there an aether. And you can have an empty space with nothing in it, yet the space will still occupy volume.

And if you'd learn some math, you'd understand. Try to understand things with English, not so much.

Come to the dark side, brother. All this text/visualization error will go away.

I would kill myself before considering a non dimensional point can exist, not to mention nearly infinitely many of them. Truth is the only master I serve, I dont care for 'close enough', whatever works, and whatever gets the job done.

posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 10:00 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

I would kill myself before considering a non dimensional point can exist, not to mention nearly infinitely many of them. Truth is the only master I serve,

These two statements are in conflict.

posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 10:02 PM

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi
So just so we are clear.

You're trying to fit it into what you can visualize. That's what is clear. The problem is, you can't.

The problem is you cant visualize reality, therefore you assume it cant be done.

A few hundred years ago germs couldnt be visualized, subatomic particles couldnt be visualized either. Think of all the inventions of the future you cant visualize right now. You cant visualize the center of the earth, doesnt mean it doesnt exist. That which exists is visible, not in the fashion of eyes, but in the fashion of comparative understanding. Math is visualization. The numbers represent substance, quantity and quality, very symbolically, without all the flair and detail of course. There is a difference between visualizing color and visualizing color only using numbers. There is a difference between the world seen and visualized, and the world expressed with number in braille to a blind man, though you dont seem to agree.

posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 10:04 PM

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi
What is the photon before it comes into existence?

Before it comes into existence, it's a twinkle in it's own eye. If it doesn't exist yet, it isn't.

The photon has greater than 0 energy. The photon is not nothing (even though in equation you have set it as being what is equal to 0 mass), the not nothingness that causes the not nothingness of photon to come into existence, must be not nothingness and must come from not nowhere.

So what is the format of energy, of not nothing, that exactly is the source of the creation of the existence of photon? At one moment photon does not exist. The electron begins to be accelerated, and now photons exist. Where did the photons come from?

posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 10:07 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi
So just so we are clear.

You're trying to fit it into what you can visualize. That's what is clear. The problem is, you can't.

The problem is you cant visualize reality, therefore you assume it cant be done.

Watching you post for the last year, I can tell you are stuck in the same sorts of places. Not only can you not visualize it, you're limited in your visualization by your native language. You'd visualize things differently if Russian or German were your first languages, and if it were Tagalog, you would have to think about it in another language altogether.

Even worse, even as you learn math, the language you need for this task, you will repeatedly come up against the same things, trying to visualize things whilst using math as a sort of band-aid. Like convolution, or gradient, or curl, or divergence. In the end, you find your intuition and visualization is not up to the task.

posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 10:08 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi
The photon has greater than 0 energy. The photon is not nothing (even though in equation you have set it as being what is equal to 0 mass), the not nothingness that causes the not nothingness of photon to come into existence, must be not nothingness and must come from not nowhere.

That whole no-thing thing you do is yet more proof that visualization or verbalization of the problem has failed you.

Math, my brother, math.

posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 10:08 PM

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi

Before a photon is created what is it?

When someone jumps off a bridge, where are they?

Exactly where they are at all times

Where are they? On the bridge, or off, when they jump?

To comprehend the absolutely most objective truth you would have to slow the universe down into planck lengths by planck lengths and planck times by planck times, and correlate it on all points in the perspective of all quantas, and cross check with each planck length and planck time skipped forward one notch. It could get hairy exactifying as how many atoms do you think would be touching the railing and each shoe, and then when the feet begin to lift a smaller surface area of atoms would be touching. We might even have to argue that wah wah wah atoms never really touch. But if we did the planck by planck step by step, we would come to a frame, where if we go forward one step there are no atoms on the feet touching the rail, and if we go back a step there are. This correlated to all perspectives of all quanta, and all time signatures, as in surveillance footage has time signatures, would determine most precisely the time and space parameters of when the jumper went from 'on the rail' to 'off the rail'.

posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 10:11 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi
But if we did the planck by planck step by step, we would come to a frame, where if we go forward one step there are no atoms on the feet touching the rail, and if we go back a step there are.

And in one view, he has not jumped yet, and in the other he has, and in no way can you find "jump" in there, no matter how you dice it.

It's the same with your photon.

top topics

80