The relative velocity of photon and moving frame:SR heresy.

This has gotten to the point where I am not sure who is arguing what point. I would just like to point out that in Quantum Physics there is a level of probability that a particular particle CAN be found anywhere in the universe. Granted, as you move further away spacially and temporally from the obviously predicted path of the particle the probability that the particle will appear becomes exponentially smaller, BUT the possibility does exist, however minute. Saying with absolute certainty that something can not happen in a universe defined by probability is a damned ballsy thing to do. But, argue away you are free to define your universe as you will. Some say it is all a matter of perspective anyway, yes? Sayannora.

- KitNyx

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You may have hit upon the solution between our arguements. "Uncertainty and Probability". I believe I mentioned earler or just recently in another thread, such possibilities turn into propabilities over infinite amounts of time.

i.e. - A glass will reassemble after having fallen from a table and broken or a spilled cup of coffee will jump back into the cup.

However, I find basing ones discussion on such extreme theoreticals is actually deceptive.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thank you for showing us links that support my claim that the probability for an electron to be anywhere in space is not zero. The electron position probability density is not given by a delta function, but since it is given by the electron wave function (in fact it is the square of the absolute value of this function), it is not confined to be exactly at discrete distances from the nucleus.

According to the links you gave it can.

Originally Posted by 1100f
2. You didn't show me any place where in the transition, the electron is classically not alowed to be. [/quote]

I did.
[/quote]
Sorry, you didn't.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you are content to argue the extreme mathematical possibilities and not the day to day realities so be it. Electrons are confined to select zones or orbitals and donot just fly around anywhere they choose. They are also restricted where they can be by the Pauli exclusion Principle.

I'm still waiting for the day that my spilled cup of coffee suddenly jumps back into the cup. Mathematically not only is that possible but given adequate time span it becomes probable. Yet I hardly think it is prudent to mislead others to believe that it is a realistic view.

You could have made the point but qualified it and I would not object; however, your tendancy to argue such position with claims that others are not aware of such mathematical possibilities is deceptive.

I choose to be more forthright and productive in my posts and to not try and be so clever and obnoxious.

The issue here was the electron jumping from one condition to another without existing intermittently in any condition inbetween such terminal points, not that such points are predetermined. You are distorting this issue and argueing a totally different point.

Get over it. We all know you claim to be highly educated in such matters, now show that your education came with a bit of humility and isn't just an inflated ego.

 

Take for example the hydrogen atom, you can find the wave function in any book in quantum mechanics. If you don't have any, you can read them from this link: http://www.phys.unm.edu/~finley/P262/Hydrogen/WaveFcns.html.

Take for example the first state (the ground state). You can use it to calculate for example the probability for the electron to between 0 and say a₀/2. Where a₀/2 is the Bohr radius of the atom in the ground state. If you calculate this probability, you will find it to be about 8%. Well this is not the same order of magnitude as the probability that your spilled cofee will jump back to the cup. If you don't know how to calculate the probability, I'll be happy to show you the steps on how to find it.

If you look at the hydrogen atom, and replace the proton in the nucleus by a positron, you get something similar to an hydrogen atom, called positronium. The wave functions, energy levels etc are similar for positronium as for the hydrogen atom, with a difference due to scaling. The probability for the positron and electron to anihilate is proportional to the wave function at zero separation. If this probability was negligible as you claim (of the order of magnitude of your spilled coffeee to jump back to the cup), then positronium would have been stable. As you know, positronium is not stable.

 

Nobody is challenging the science. I am challenging the fact that you are pushing virtually irrelevant issues to the topic (or statements made) in general.

Even with such probabilities you still have electron orbitals and incremental or descrete movements. The atom and nuclear physics nor QM function in an analog manner which is what your statements tend to suggest.

 

MacM,

This is not true. Electrons are not confined in a certain surface. The surface that you saw in the books or web sites represent probability density, do not represent the actual position of electron.

Again you mention about Pauli Exclusion Principle. Such principle does not indicate that electron is restricted on certain location or surface.

If you are unsure on something, it is best to refrain yourself from making your own assumption.

Can you provide a rough estimate for probability for such event?

QM principles are known to work only for microscopic scale. Application to larger scale such as your "spilled coffee jumping back incident" may not be true (personally I think it is not), although someone may be able to provide a probability estimate that turn out to be very very small and so we think it is logical but if QM is actually only valid for microscopic scale, such estimate is just plain irrelevant.

 

Damn, some people just refuse to be pragmatic.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Of course electron position is shown as a probability, it is generally equated to a fuzzy cloud.

The density of the cloud is proportional to probability. Now tell us something that we don't know and how that overturns the general discrete orbital concept. That is the issue here and that is electrons jumping from one orbit to another.

If your arguement were realistic no such statistical orbital changes (energy jumps) would be occurring and many things we accept on a daily basis would not be happening.

Show me where I have said it does. I said it excludes two electrons from having like quantum numbers. Is that wrong? If not then what is your problem with the statement?

The ONLY thing I am unsure of is if you and 1100f are really this blinded or have an agenda in your posts.

Not necessary. It is a common often spoken of function of physics when probability is discussed. We all know that being mathematically possible, even probable over infinite time, doesn't mean it will happen. It is not my example. I am just relaying it.

On this we can agree. But saying electrons do not have discrete orbitals because such orbitals theoretically can exist at any distance is grossly misleading and even suggests to the unknowing that the atomic structure is purely analog. That is totally false. Discussing discrete orbital changes in no way alters or denies the statistics about the size or location of such orbits. This all is a bunch of hot air to argue for arguements sake.

 

A relatively fast moving frame is the emerging endpoint or wavefront of a photonic waveguide:

Like a few others pointed out, clearly I had misinterpreted the NEC/Wang report pertaining to the 310X"c" performance. Although the original report and of many that followed made no point of specifying that their primary beam/waveguide was slowed to 9.67e5 m/s by way of energizing the Cesium-133 medium.

Never the less, realizing that the experiment did in fact create a chain or waveguide of spinning Cesium-133 atoms, in which the primary beam of photons created a photonic activated waveguide, upon which a secondary pulse of photons/packets was introduced, in which they too had to endure/migrate the same environment as the primary beam, yet managed to emerge at nearly the velocity of "c", thus achieving the 310 fold improvement.

This clearly demonstrates that NEC/Wang did in fact create such a moving frame off an initial waveguide of photons, thus creating a relatively fast moving frame/wavefront of 9.76e5 m/s, from which endpoint emerged packets of photons traveling at nearly "c" regardless of the fact that those individual packets had to travel through the very same environment which had slowed the original beam to roughly 9.67e5 m/s.

Since then, I've also reaffirmed that through diamond light travels at 0.4"c" or 1.199e8 m/s, which is clearly indicating that the wavefront of such a beam traveling through diamond is in fact influenced by it's near-solid environment, though of still creating a moving frame that remains capable of conduction or delivering/communicating other packets at something of nearly "c" with respect to that of our originating frame of existence.

Thus it stands to reason if the original wavefront or endpoint of such an alignment of spinning atoms (creating a photonic waveguide) were progressing along at nearly 2.998e8 m/s, thus offering a fast moving frame of existence that's clearly in motion with respect to our frame of existence, accommodating those secondary photon packets as introduced from our frame of existence would in fact become conducted as capable of their being amplified and accelerated to speeds much greater than "c" as emerging from the endpoint or wavefront of the primary beam.

Of course, the effort and technology required of detecting such fast moving packets is phase two, as it'll do us little good as to be creating such packet performance if we can't manage to detect the end result of what's being conducted and thus communicated at speeds faster than "c"

Naturally, the Special Relativity borgs of the "mainstream status quo" are going absolutely ballistic over anything that's merely suggesting the thought of exceeding their precious "c". Of course, their photons seemingly have absolutely no mass whatsoever, regardless of their frequency or modulation, thus a 1e-3 hz packet will supposedly offer the exact same zero mass as a 300e12 hz packet, which is rather odd since other mass an/or energy can easily influence the progress of said packet, even block it altogether, and/or divert the path of a given packet, which is clearly suggesting that such a packet either has mass or that it hauls mass about (at least in the form of energy), as otherwise no amount of external mass should be capable of affecting the space-time-continuum of a given packet.

Obviously photons (trillions upon trillions more than atoms) must coexist with atoms, and can only exist with respect to our frame of existence because of atoms.

In deep nullification space there's supposedly as few as 1e6 atoms/m3, although there's no limits as to the numbers of photons/m3 (active, resting or otherwise elongated), of which this near vacuum of space gives room for the individual atomic coulomb influence as to expand into filling a ccm, whereas the orbiting velocity of the core atom/ccm is capable of offering any available photon a faster than "c" ride-through or super-conduction mode of capability because, the field of coulomb influence at such greater distance from the core atom is in fact having to travel at greater than "c", as otherwise the atom itself might cease to exist.

 

In deep nullification space there's supposedly as few as 1e6 atoms/m3, although there's no limits as to the numbers of photons/m3 (active, resting or otherwise elongated), of which this near vacuum of space gives room for the individual atomic coulomb influence as to expand into filling a ccm, whereas the orbiting velocity of the core atom/ccm is capable of offering any available photon a faster than "c" ride-through or super-conduction mode of capability because, the field of coulomb influence at such greater distance from the core atom is in fact having to travel at greater than "c", as otherwise the atom itself might cease to exist.

hehe - Its funny to read those who have a tenuous grasp of physics try to talk like their real smart.

 

And once again (Q), and as usual, what part of your contribution doesn't belong within your intellectual space toilet?

I believe a maximum effort accomplished by a shuttle mission obtained 1e9 atoms/m3, although that was situated way under the Van Allen zone of death, and otherwise obviously well within the confines of our solar system.

I have suggested that perhaps within a nullification zone (such as the one between us and Sirius), might accommodate a few as one atom/m3, although perhaps more than likely it's at best 1e6 if not a greater number.

Since you're so "all knowing", perhaps you'd care to speculate?

BTW, at least my tenuous grasp of physics is better off than your vasillated grasp of a certain privet part.

 

Since you're so "all knowing", perhaps you'd care to speculate?

OK, you'll never learn.

Shall we put this speculation to the test?

 

Here's something else (Q)'s cesspool of zero contributions isn't going to like.

From: eshal (un ty@yahoo.com.au)
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=a...-8&selm=3d51b6c7_1@news.iprimus.com.au&rnum=9
(the speed of light - since that is what is spinning to form the particle)

Spin frequency of electron = 1.236e20/sec

"If we "load down" a photon (give it energy to increase its frequency) with the rest mass energy of an electron we get a photon with an energy of (since E=mc^2): 9.109e-31 kg x c^2 = 8.198e-14 joules. Dividing by Plank's constant we find the resonant frequency of this photon is: 8.198e14 j / 6.626e-34 j/sec. = 1.236e20/sec = photon resonant frequency."

"The reason you haven't heard that much about this is because it completely contradicts Relativity and academia would rather believe Relativity than reality"

OK folks, and of my fellow snookered humanity, it looks as though I'm not the only lose photon-cannon on the poopdeck of the good ship LOLLIPOP, as now I'm understanding why NASA/HQ and the other supposed institutions of higher standards and accountability have all of those enforced "NO SMOKING" rules, as with their having all of that intellectual flatulence as concentrated within their Special Relativity or Bust cults, sure as hell if anyone dared to light up, as such their entire complex would be incinerated on the spot, if not blown clean off Earth.

Obviously there's something to being kindly said about the reality of "photonic energy to matter", and perhaps there's an even better reality of the ever expanding coulomb zone or outer shells of influence that'll yield upon the likes of what the NEC/Wang FTL outcome has suggested, as into a "c+" packet adventure. Though obviously the likes of this incest "Skull and Bones" cultism isn't about to share their overflowing intellectual space toilet with anyone (thank God).

 

Ah yes... I too believe everything I read on usenet. Especially from unidentified chronic crossposters with a Yahoo address...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

(Q) & Pete, two terrific borgs of a kind (interchangable body parts and all),
Seems the collective pool of incest DNA/RNA is on track, as in staying the course, and in no time will soon discover all them WMD.

Meanwhile, as in back at the reality of physics-101, such as where the following topic was actually attempting to make a difference, rather than accommodating another butt-suck-up vortex like you two individuals seen to relish;

Superconducting Photons via Atomic Oort Zones
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=37921

Of course, within this topic is where I'm honestly trying to learn, as well as give and take on the issues of frames of existence, of photons being conducted at "c+" as rather than physically traveling, and of dark-matter or perhaps dark-energy being the soup of photons rather than anything atomic (possibly the binder of all things atomic).

Naturally that leaves the "spin" and "dog-wagging" damage-control freaks out of the loop.

So, until you've got a moral squat worth of something to share, don't bother.

BTW; whom are those "unidentified chronic crossposters" you speak of?

Regards, Brad Guth (BBCI h2g2 U206251) http://guthvenus.tripod.com/update-242.htm