Size of a Proton and Electron

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


Are you sure? Because Dr. Hans A. Nieper would disagree. Found it here on page 62.




posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 


Just because there's a "Dr." in the name, doesn't make them credible...

www.quackwatch.org...



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


FDA? Those idiots only care about money, so far the good doctor only wants to help.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


Split, I need your opinion on this one.

What is the kind of force that is holding neutrons and protons together?



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


Split, I need your opinion on this one.

What is the kind of force that is holding neutrons and protons together?


Well we do know that the Bonds that hold Protons and Neutrons together are a result of a Complex form of Nuclear Fusion where all Heavy Elements that exist were formed as a result of Supernovas and that Light Elements such as Helium are formed in the Stellar Cores of Stars.

Although you can google the specific Scientific Representations of what Bonds Neutrons and Protons together the reality is much more ambiguous as this is a QUANTUM MECHANICS question and although there are many theories...the TRUE REALITY is really not understood. Split Infinity



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


I'm working on something wondering how many photons you could fit in a line one metre long? (one photon high)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peter Brake
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


I'm working on something wondering how many photons you could fit in a line one metre long? (one photon high)


You can't because it would have to be at rest and at rest it has no mass or dimension



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by Peter Brake
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


I'm working on something wondering how many photons you could fit in a line one metre long? (one photon high)


You can't because it would have to be at rest and at rest it has no mass or dimension


Bare with me - you have talked about mass but not size - given it's dimension, I'm guessing 100 million or so. Am I way off? - If it helps consider the metre long row of photons are all moving to the right



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peter Brake
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


I'm working on something wondering how many photons you could fit in a line one metre long? (one photon high)


The 1985–89 Hunter-Wadlinger electromagnetic theory of the photon predicted that the photon is a soliton-wave with the shape and size of a circular ellipsoid of length λ the wavelength), with a diameter of λ / π. This prediction is being tested by three diameter measurements: 1) those carried out in 1985–86 with microwaves, 2) in progress measurements on 10 micron photons from a CO2 laser, and 3) an imminent experiment with monochromatic visible light (400–800 nm).

So it's Diameter is relative to wavelength. Split Infinity



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peter Brake

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by Peter Brake
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


I'm working on something wondering how many photons you could fit in a line one metre long? (one photon high)


You can't because it would have to be at rest and at rest it has no mass or dimension


Bare with me - you have talked about mass but not size - given it's dimension, I'm guessing 100 million or so. Am I way off? - If it helps consider the metre long row of photons are all moving to the right


If you want them to be moving, and have the ability to make your line approach the speed of light, you can fit whatever number you want on it


Anywhere from 1 (or less) to infinity.... and beyond.... if you like Toy Story



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

Originally posted by Peter Brake
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


I'm working on something wondering how many photons you could fit in a line one metre long? (one photon high)


The 1985–89 Hunter-Wadlinger electromagnetic theory of the photon predicted that the photon is a soliton-wave with the shape and size of a circular ellipsoid of length λ the wavelength), with a diameter of λ / π. This prediction is being tested by three diameter measurements: 1) those carried out in 1985–86 with microwaves, 2) in progress measurements on 10 micron photons from a CO2 laser, and 3) an imminent experiment with monochromatic visible light (400–800 nm).

So it's Diameter is relative to wavelength. Split Infinity



Wiki says a De Broglie wavelength of about 10−13 m. Excuse my math so if I put 13 zeros together 10,000,000,000,000. I get 10 thousand billion to a metre. - Sound right?



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by Peter Brake

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by Peter Brake
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


I'm working on something wondering how many photons you could fit in a line one metre long? (one photon high)


You can't because it would have to be at rest and at rest it has no mass or dimension


Bare with me - you have talked about mass but not size - given it's dimension, I'm guessing 100 million or so. Am I way off? - If it helps consider the metre long row of photons are all moving to the right


If you want them to be moving, and have the ability to make your line approach the speed of light, you can fit whatever number you want on it


Anywhere from 1 (or less) to infinity.... and beyond.... if you like Toy Story



Hoping to keep track of the photons - which may prove differcult at the speed of light. Nice phrase though, does sort of leave "space" for anything (or conjecture non thing) - for what is not contained in infinity?



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Peter Brake
 


The math is right but a Photon is Oblong...so it would have a Minimum radius and a Maximum one. Also the specific Wave length of Light determines how Large the Oblong and therefor determines it's duel Radii. So it is relative. Split Infinity



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 


Explanation: It is the strong nuclear force ... its to do with quarks which have been renamed GLUONS because they tightly bind together [or appear to do so].

Quarks [aka gluons] are pretty much one thing but we only ever get to see one side of them at any one time, just like a 6 sided dice can only ever have one side face up ... there are 6 sides but we only ever see one side AND for us the dice is still rolling around ... so the faces seem to change randomly and that was percived as seperate individual particles [flavours and colours] but now we know better.

The weak nuclear force isn't really weak at all because it does over come the strong nuclear force [ie as the nuclear decay process of sub atomic particles] but takes a long time to do so and although the rates are known [ie halflives] for large groupings of like elements and sub atomic particles, generally we don't have a clear understanding of an individual sub-atomic particles weak force level since it was generated at an unkown point in time, and so for us its decay appears to happen randomly. Specifically we do know free-neutrons decay exactly in a set time period after they are created [see below for more info]. The randomness is apparent only due to lack of data [uncertainty at how long that sub-atomic particle has been in existence for.]

Protons as far as we can tell have NEVER decayed and so we don't yet know if they can.

This has implications for the end of the universe as we know it.

Here is how that plays out ...

Inflation expands everything so much that a single proton is left in the entire observable universe [with all the black holes having evaporated via hawkings radiation] ...

A proton being positively charged and having a definitive absolute mass means it exerts the force of gravity locally to it as well as its electrical charge + magnetic field [which would be a monopole btw ] and that sets up various event horizons a set radial distance away from the proton.

Now since we know for a fact that the entire substructure of the universe is bubbling and seething with virtual pair particles ... eventually a virtual pair will pop up [due to uncertainty of quantum mechanics] right on the fine lines of one of these event horizons ... lets assume a virtual pair of protons [ normal and anti-proton = same mass opposite electrical charges] .. what is the result of that?


Normally they would both annihilate each other and disappear back into the virtual substructure of space time itself ... but that can't happen at the event horizon as the horizon itself intereferes with that process.

Like charges repel and opposite charges attract [that why the virtual particles normally suddenly annihilate each other as opposites attract] and so the virtual proton will be repelled electrically and magnetically away from the real proton due to same charges repelling ... the opposite is true for the anti-proton which will be attracted to the real proton both by gravity and the electrical-magnetic attraction.

The real proton and the virtual anti-proton will meet and annhilate each other in a flash of photons in the gamma ray part of the emf spectrum and they will haul away at the speed of light to the ends of the observable universe.

The remaining virtual proton is then REALIZED and becomes the only remain thing that MATTERS again.

Now anybody entering our observable universe from the outside [the cosmos is far more bigger ..infinitely so ok] would not be able to discern where the energy for the gamma rays came from and that energy would APPEAR to have come from nowher and nothing at all.


Free Neutrons are not stable and do decay ...


While bound neutrons in stable nuclei are stable, free neutrons are unstable; they undergo beta decay with a mean lifetime of just under 15 minutes (881.5±1.5 s)


Personal Disclosure: I haven't provided any links at all and everything I have detailed above can be checked for its voracity via wiki.

I hope you can confirm the details above by doing your own research ok.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


Gluons are the so called GLUE that bind say two Quarks to the Hadrons. Now there are all different types of Quarks...Up, Down, Charmed, Strange...etc. Matter is said to use three Quarks those being Up, Down and Strange.

Protons and Neutrons are completely comprised of Quantum Particle/Wave Forms such as Quarks, Gluons, Hadrons, Leptons, Mesons...etc. Gluons hold together Quantum Particle Wave Forms but as far as an Atomic Nucleus that contains both Protons and Neutrons...as a single Hydrogen Atom has a Nucleus that contains a single Proton without a Neutron...yet it is interesting to note that Hydrogen tends to exist Naturally as H2 or an Elementary Molecule of two Hydrogen Atoms that share Electron Orbits.

This means that Gluons and Quarks cannot be the Reason that dictates Proton and Neutron bonding within an Atoms Nucleus. Split Infinity



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


Explanation: Uhmm?


Are you overlooking the fact that a hydrogen atom is electrically neutral?

1 + proton and 1 - electron = zero net charge!

And since protons have NEVER been observed to decay, then beta decay must be due to the instabilty created by the weak force acting on the neutrons ... which can and indeed are gravitationally bound to the atomic nucleus.

4 forces of nature ... Gravity ... Strong nuclear force ... Weak nuclear force ... Electromagnetic force.

Personal Disclosure: Did you just ignore gravity completely!
:shk:



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


No...I just cannot equate Gravity as a Force. All forces are the interaction of Quantum Fields. This is not the case of Gravity as it is an EFFECT...NOT a FORCE. It may be described as the Weak Force but that is a description to help people get a grip on a concept. Split Infinity



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


Explanation: Uhmmm?


Big Bang singularity EXPANDS under the affect of inflation [this affect I dont have much solid clues about
but its effects are well noted .. taps on reality to prove that point ok
] and therefor COOLS and gravity is clearly the fabric of space time CONTRACTING and shrinking as a result of that cooling [from infinitly hot and dense down to very cold and very expanded]!

Personal Disclosure: What don't you understand about heat, density and pressure dynamics?



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


A Great Deal actually...especially pressure and buoyancy as I am a Master Diver and deal with Boyle's Law all the time. I have also used Heliox as well as a Rebreather. My Girl is also an experienced diver and although we own our own Companion Dive Computers which are attached to our gear...I and she do the calculations manually when we are doing Multiple Dives at over 66 feet in depth.

One atmosphere of pressure is equal to 33 feet in Salt Water Depth so at 66 feet you are under 3 atm. of pressure...2 atm of Water and 1 atm of Air Column.

Things start to get dicey at around 120 to 140 feet deep depending on the person as Nitrogen Narcosis sets in if breathing compressed air. Although there are other trace amounts of gas in our air it is basically 20% Oxygen and 80% Nitrogen. Now when you go down undersea at a depth of 132 feet you are under 5 atm of pressure. So is your air tank so every breath you pull from your regulator still is at a ratio of 20% Oxygen and 80% Nitrogen but since the air is compressed to 5 atm. it means you are taking in per breath 5 times the amount of Nitrogen and Oxygen you normally would at sea level.

Nitrogen Narcosis is like getting drunk to the extent that you have no concerns whatsoever for your own life and if you do not come up or do not stop at 15 feet for decompression...you could get the Bends and die. Also...people should be careful when they travel out of the States as a Greedy Tourist Dive Master will take your money without telling a novice who does a deep wreck dive that if they FLY in a jet the next day...THEY WILL DIE!

Heliox is used at depths over 150 to 160 feet and this is a mixture of Oxygen and Helium...thus no Nitrogen. I have been down several hundred feet and have done both dives on JOBS as well as recreational wreck diving with My Girl.

So you see...I am VERY well familiar with Temp. Pressure and the resulting density of a substance. My Family owns Businesses in the Medical Arena thus I am also up on Chemistry and in particular Molarity of a substance as well as understanding how Temp. Pressure effects a substances state being Solid, Liquid, Vaporous, Gaseous, Plasma or a Bose–Einstein condensate which is another state of matter.

Split Infinity



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


Explanation: St*rred!

Awesome disclosure!


Personal Disclosure: So why did you over look the contraction of space time due to the cooling of expansion aka The force of GRAVITY?


Also since the weak force is repulsive not attractive in nature and so this makes little or no sense ...


It may be described as the Weak Force but that is a description to help people get a grip on a concept.


Gravity is extremely weak but has very long range and is attractive in nature.

The Stong force is extremely strong but acts over a very very short distance and is also attractive in nature.

The Weak force is extremely weak compared with the strong force but it is far greater in strength than gravity [beta decay proves this is so] and it works over a longer distance than the strong force but a shorter distance than either gravity or the electromagnetic force and it is REPULSIVE in nature! [could this just be an affect of inflation making the weak force a side effect of the expansion of the universe but at quantum nano and sub nano scales?
]

And finally the ElectroMagnetic force is very strong [more than gravity and the weak force but less than the strong force] and operates over medium distances [compared with gravity] and it is both atracive and repulsive [depending on charge value] in nature.

Please explain!

edit on 5-11-2012 by OmegaLogos because: Late Edit to fix borken bbcode for emoticons.









 
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join