No offense, but this statement indicates that you don't understand the fundamentals of quantum mechanics. I'd suggest that you study the subject (from actually textbooks) before you criticize it and propose alternate explanations. Your 'billiard ball' explanation for the wave nature of electrons requires continuity in the path taken by the electron. Consider an electron in the dz^2 orbital around an atom. There are three continuous regions in which it can exist; two large lobes along the z-axis and a ring that lies along the x-y plane. These three regions don't touch each other, but the electron can appear in any of the three regions without traveling through the space in-between. Quantum physics is able to explain it. How would your aether model account for this phenomenon?
Hmmm? I know what the answer is but it may be difficult to convey so I would like to try an analogy. Helium has 4 nucleons 2 proton and 2 neutrons? At any one time which of the 4 is which? I have read but you'll correct me if I am wrong, that some of the time (50%?) the proton acts like a proton and some of the time a neutron but at any one time there are 2 p and 2n which resonate back and forth. In the case you describe, According to aether theory,#1 -atoms are not empty space (another misconption of yep, present day theory) but a huge (relative to the core) rotating cloud of the aether spheres (or whatever you prefer to call them -Nasor orbs, primary spheres). Inside this huge cloud are resonanting waves of ossilations of the spheres in any pattern that is consistent with Wave mechanics AND not self destructive as in the case of radioactive decay. THEREfore there is a sphere which has the POTENTIAL to be an electron in any of those locations you describe, HOWEVER, depending on the energy state of the atom at that time of measurement, the electron (the sphere which has required the necessary energy level AKA oscillation to qualify as an electron) may or will appear in the appropriate cloud AND disappear from the previous due to transfer of energy, conservation of E within the atom. If you want to take it is step further, absorption-emission lines are movement of a sphere, electron, from a lower enery level to a higher position in the cloud and vice-versa and ONLY certain positions are allowed or possible because of the structure and fixed volume of each sphere = quantum position change. Perhaps you can help here, but I believe this position energy change is mostly a surface area change which is directly correlated to a volume change. Any ideas? Whichever it is - it is directly correlated to h or Plancks constant. sincerely deweyb (What travels through the what you claim is the non-contiguous space is the energy wave on the NON-electron contiguous spheres until the proper Electron energy state pops up.
Perhaps a nuclear quantum physicist will correct me on this, but this seems highly unlickely. If a proton converts to a neutron and then back, this would violate the conservation of charge. What can happen is so called beta-decay, which can convert a neutron into a proton and an electron (and a neutrino) and the other way around. However, this is radioactive decay and not "resonating" between states. Who ever said that atoms are empty space ? As a matter of fact, even the simples atoms are quite complicated because the wavefunctions of the electron stretches out from the core to far outside. Not much ofcourse, the electrons are concentrated on their orbits, but they "leak" out a bit. Well, replace some words by their scientific equivalents, add some mathematics and you more or less have the quantum theory of the atom. Except that we don't talk about clouds, spheres (ill defined in QM), ... What volume change ? Of the atom ? ... Well, in some very particular sense this is correct: if you have a hydrogen atom and you excite the electron to higher orbits, the "distance" between the proton and the electron becomes larger (on the average, for those who know a bit about QM). So in a sense you could say that the "volume" of the atom has grown... even though it consists only of two particles Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. This is not correct when you have two electrons: suppose that one electron is highly excited and orbits far from the nucleus -- it is the "outer" electrn. You can change the energy by putting the other electron close to the nucleus or a bit farther away. This way, you don't change "the volume" (bad choice of words... ) but yet you change the energy. Ofcourse the energy is related to h or h-bar, any decent quantum formula has that in it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Bye! Crisp
it sounds like aetherdew might be referring to Werner Heisenberg's theory of isospin of the nucleons. in this theory a nucleon has isospin 1/2, and can either be in an isospin up (proton) or isospin down (neutron) state. isospin is a vector, and its three components are noncommuting observables, so if you check along one isospin axis and decide that a particle is a neutron, and then look again, but choose a different isospin axis, you might find that it is a proton. so in some sense, you can't tell the difference between a neutron and a proton. but of course, as Crisp points out, one of them is charged and the other is not, so not only do you have a way tell them apart, if they switched places, they would violate conservation of charge!! well, isospin symmetry is not an exact symmetry of nature. only the strong interaction respects this isospin symmetry, not the electroweak interaction. so we can only use this symmetry in the approximation where we neglect the electroweak interaction, and in this case, we can neglect conservation of (electroweak) charge. Murray Gell-Mann used isospin to predict a whole bunch of new particles, and got a Nobel for it. it is worth pointing out that this concept was later co-opted for other symmetries, so now we have weak isospin, and color SU(3), both of which are exact symmetries. this concept is the heart of what a gauge theory is.
Do you actually know anything about astronomy? Actually, don't answer that, it was rhetorical. Other stars in the galaxy, and other galaxies in the universe produce the exact same light the we have here. We can easily tell by looking at a spectrum what kinds of atoms are producing the light in a distant star. This is because electrons can only hold certain energy levels, and therefore when they are excited, such as in the photosphere of a star, they give off characteristic emission lines. These exact lines can be reproduced in laboratories here on earth. So we have proof that the matter out there is the same as here. As for proof of whether or not the light is the same? Well, go out and look at the night sky. That's not "local" light, the starlight you're seeing came from those distant stars years ago. We can measure it and it's the same as normal light in every way. As for your comment about the structures of galaxies, it's true that we have trouble describing the forms that galaxies take using newtonian mechanics, because there seems to be too much gravity for the amount of mass observed. That's where the idea of "dark matter" comes from. We know there's something holding galaxies together more tightly than expected. This doesn't mean the laws of nature are different in different galaxies, it just means we don't understand them entirely.
Hey, lethe, Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I can use this kind of help. And - No it doesn't violate conservation of charge because as I said, there are always 2 p and 2 n so if the there is a "charge" gluon or whatever its called, it would pass back and forth as the p and n change costumes (the physical qualities that define each). It really is quite simple in that sense. I might comment on Crisp's concern with volume later, so I know you're all on the edge of your keyboard waiting to see what comes out of MN next. As my senior daughter's motto reflects, you just never know. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! take care dew
