quantum , electromagnetic or magnetic field

Discussion in 'Chemistry' started by river, Nov 11, 2011.

  1. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    always new theories have have to take the non-sense and diatribe of the few

    just insults with no back up , even though he is the one that brought up the subject
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    ah I stand corrected , good

    but in the photoelectric explaination , nowhere did I see the mention of quantum energy
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Except that new theories have evidence to support them. They are NOT idle uninformed speculation.
    I take it that you're also unaware that new theories do tend to come from people who are thoroughly educated and conversant with the subject in which they propose the new theory?
    That valid new theories don't originate from ignorant cranks who can't be bothered to learn the subject?

    No back up?
    You couldn't be bothered to read links?
    This from the guy who has consistently skirted the issue of evidence (and reason)?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Which just shows how much you need an education (and reading lessons).
     
  8. river

    Messages:
    17,307

    this does not make sense

    so you want me to read about ( links ) people who have supposably thought of this before and then ask for my evidence of ....

    explain
     
  9. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    The only thing not making sense here is you.

    I've told you about "people thinking of your ideas before" in an earlier post (see post #51).
    My reply was about your complaint that I don't provide back up. That's what my links are. Evidence that you are wrong.

    YOU are the one that provides no back up.
     
  10. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    I looked back and read the link on your post #51

    it didn't explain the quantum world within the atom , it talked about light , a form of quantum energy

    the quantum energy within the atom though , is what I'm trying to discuss
     
  11. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    And you still haven't explained exactly what you mean by "quantum world within the atom".

    Then try saying something sensible about it.
    What do you mean by "quantum energy within the atom" if you're not referring to such things a quanta of light and the photoelectric effect?
    You appear, still, to be misusing the term and attempting to apply it, as said previously, as some sort of panacea.
     
  12. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Quantum

    from my dictionary

    2) any of the very small increments or parcels into which many forms of energy are subdivided

    thats where I am in my thinking
     
  13. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    In other words your "thinking" consists of reading a dictionary (and, apparently not reading anything available from science sites or text books on the subject).
    Hardly "thinking" then, is it?

    And if this is as far as you've "thought" about the subject why do you think you're qualified to and make claims about fusion?
    Or that there's a "quantum world within the atom"?
     
  14. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    and we know that every proton and electron has the quantum inside it
     
  15. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Pardon?
    Could you please link me to any source that states this.
     
  16. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    look it up

    I did years ago

    the proton has quarks within it

    the electron only recently
     
  17. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    You made the claim, you support it.

    So what?
    I think you've misremembered.

    Yes. And your point here would be?

    Um, no. The electron has always had quarks in it.
     
  18. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    perfect

    and quarks do not like to be seperated at all

    therefore there must be an energy , of a form , that resides there

    either as a field or electric force of direction , meaning that, the field is 360 degrees , whereas electric force is concentrated energy , below 360 degree of a sphere or both

    I think both




    I mean't that only recently have I known this
     
  19. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Do you know what the word quantum means?
     
  20. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    your behind post #69

    ( my mistake , I orginally wrote post #59 )

    sorry , people
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2011
  21. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Yes, the strong force.
    So what?

    Huh?

    But you haven't bothered to check?

    Sorry, I mis-spoke. There are no quarks in an electron.
    Quarks only make up hadrons.


    Still waiting for you to back up your claim that
    Considering that YOU have stated that quantum is
    What do you think the quantum is that's "inside a proton or electron"?
    Don't you think that (as per your definition) most types of energy are quantised?
    Do you think that protons are energy?
     
  22. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Yes, I caught that.

    Have you ever given any consideration to learning any physics before you make yourself look like an ignorant fool? (whoops, too late)
     
  23. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    well what is the form of this strong force , where does it come from ?

    can you explain
     

Share This Page