Challenge to mathematicians and scientists

What is making the atoms vibrate (resonate)? "heat" aint a property of nature.

ah ... fields, but the particle itself, aint doing it, right?

Do you know the wavelength of that field?

and what did Bohr say, of the "bohr analogy", that for an electron to change, even a shell, what must it absorb or release?

ALL CASES!!!!!!!!

What is 'heat'? You cant just say the mass is vibrating as something upon that mass. is causing it.

the fields are what are causing the mass to resonate. Even of friction, it is the fields associating. The mass, never touches even when you rub, all day long!


dood, you are on the losing train ............................... even thru to chemistry.

 

Of course the Mass...ie...Atomic Nucleus does not touch! THAT IS MY POINT! From WIKI

Pair production refers to the creation of an elementary particle and its antiparticle, usually when a photon (or another neutral boson) interacts with a nucleus. For example an electron and its antiparticle, the positron, may be created. This is allowed, provided there is enough energy available to create the pair – at least the total rest mass energy of the two particles – and that the situation allows both energy and momentum to be conserved. Other pairs produced could be a muon and anti-muon or a tau and anti-tau. However all other conserved quantum numbers (angular momentum, electric charge, lepton number) of the produced particles must sum to zero – thus the created particles shall have opposite values of each other. For instance, if one particle has electric charge of +1 the other must have electric charge of −1, or if one particle has strangeness of +1 then another one must have strangeness of −1. The probability of pair production in photon-matter interactions increases with increasing photon energy and also increases with atomic number approximately as Z2.

In nuclear physics, this occurs when a high-energy photon interacts with a nucleus. The energy of this photon can be converted into mass through Einstein’s equation, E=mc2; where E is energy, m is mass and c is the speed of light. The photon must have enough energy to create the mass of an electron plus a positron. The rest mass of an electron is 9.11 × 10−31 kg (0.511 MeV), the same as a positron. Without a nucleus to absorb momentum, a photon decaying into electron-positron pair (or other pairs for that matter) can never conserve energy and momentum simultaneously.[1]

This explains how IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PHOTON TO HAVE MASS!

It also explains how an Electron is created when a Photon interacts with an Atoms Nucleus.

AboveAlpha

 

You didnt answer a single question and cut - n - paste is getting old.

Without a nucleus to absorb momentum, a photon decaying into electron-positron pair (or other pairs for that matter) can never conserve energy and momentum simultaneously

is bonafide gibberish!

 

Bish...a Photon only obtains Angular Spin Momentum. It does not obtain momentum as a particle of mass at a specific acceleration or velocity thus...F=MA does not apply to it.

You are bringing up issues that have nothing to do with your being able to provide even the tiniest shred of proof that Photons have Mass...because they don't as it is impossible.

Just think about this PLEASE if you would.

You would agree that anything that has Mass will obtain a greater amount of momentum, greater amount of Kinetic Energy and a greater amount of IMPACT FORCE the greater the acceleration or velocity of that thing of mass obtains correct?

If you agree please say yes or no and I will then continue from there as to not waste time....OK?

AboveAlpha

 

so now a 'massless' thing, is spinning?

Must be 'god', right?

but relativity, says it 'falls' (bent space)

I said it once before......... lookup the lamb shift (experiments) and find that you reallllllly dont know.

I do, everyday.

nope as CERN unknowingly provides the evidence.

add the velocities of the particles, when smashed .................... does the addition exceed the maximum of alleged 'c' (speed of light).

It is what makes that whole idea of physics, obsolete. But it takes integrity, to hold onto reality versus allowing the (many) interpretations to just be accepted.

i have told you over and over that the existing model of physics is wrong and yu are witnessing presented evidence (logic and verifiable), that what many have been led to believe is wrong.

ie.... f=ma has nothing to do with comprehending what 'gravity' (entanglement) is

Newton himself, had no idea but dam he loved the 'light'

 

Bish...there is no sense continuing our talk as I can see you just do not have either the knowledge or the ability to use logic to form understandings.

Unfortunate.

AboveAlpha

 

Actually the unfortunate are the people that you still mislead.

How can a 'wave' have an Angular momentum?

 

Dude, you're so lost that it isn't funny. "Spin" in particle physics doesn't refer to the particle actually spinning around like a globe. Maybe if you didn't come across as entirely ignorant about the subject AA wouldn't mind explaining that to you.

 

Oh really?

In which theorem?

That is like an incorporeal preacher, making you a believer.

 

In which theorem, what? In particle physics, "spin" does not refer to particles spinning around like tops. Go look up what "spin" means.

 

Which example of spin? Do you even know what ties the particle - spin renditions together with the mechanics?

be honest, you dont know what you are saying, but posted for (what reason)?

Dont say that you believe the AA. Please dont tell me that you think he is describing nature.

 

Dude, you are going to have to be more specific with what you're saying.

 

Specifically? OK............ shut up, as you have no clue what you are saying!

The AA, is lost and actually believes QM is correct.

 

Bishadi, you thought that "spin" in particle physics refers to the particle actually spinning around, and you have the gall to tell me to shutup because I don't know what I'm talking about? The irony.

 

i know it aint spinning unless a structure (molecule)

It aint me, that brought up angular momentum as spin. Bark at the AA.

I already know that model is wrong.

Do you?

 

Spin IS a type of angular momentum in quantum mechanics. However, particles are not spinning on their axes like you seemed to suggest in your previous post. What model are you talking about and why is it wrong? You seem to be caught up still in the 1930s when Einstein and pals brought up the EPR paradox, which I've seen you bring up. You do know that the EPR paradox didn't say that quantum mechanics was wrong, right?

 

Wow!

EPR is a brilliant analogy, to prove qm is wrong. (i bet you didnt know that either)

Do you even know the divide held at the Copenhagen Meetings?

Which type of spin is AM?

Share your thoughts

 

Except that wasn't the purpose of the EPR paradox, so you clearly have no friggin' idea of what you're talking about. Einstein was trying to point out that QM was an incomplete explanation, not a false one.

Spin, in general, is a form of angular momentum.

 

he (and the boys) had more cooth, than i do.

The problem you are having, is admitting what is true; qm is wrong.

And I have pointed out why (2LoT) incorporated into the paradigm (belief/math/theorem ..... of energy itself)

torque to mass (structure spinning)

but am is like an amplitude to energy (em), caused by a combining of energy in wavelengths (the field(s) of electric and magnetic are increasing by the combining), perhaps look up what a coherance of energy is.

The direction is based on the source. ie.... like a vector (per se), that is still entangled



It is the comprehension of what it (energy) is, that is hurting you.

it's light, not a particle


.

 

Well, it's hard to admit it's wrong when you haven't provided any evidence for why it is wrong. You claimed that the EPR paradox proved it was wrong, but that isn't true since that isn't what the paper was trying to do in the first place. That already makes me question your knowledge. Now you bring up the Second Law of Thermo. Are you claiming that this law somehow proves QM wrong?

Dude, the particles aren't actually spinning on an axis. Not sure what you don't get about that.

What the hell does "it's light, not a particle" mean? What is light if not a wave-particle?

 

Sure i have but you're being obtuse.

Do you know what entanglement is?

Sure it was. I trust Einstein had feelings. Not to mention a bit more integrity, than the idiots walking the planck.

please, I dont want anyone to just accept what i have to say.
Your problem is you are too lazy to work.

QM would not exist as it does, without the second law, which is incorrect, in the first place.

that would be a mean knuckle ball at 97mph.

I suppose the particle 'spinning' at cern are all knuckle balls to you right?

em aint a particle

That would be like my aunt having balls; she'd be my uncle.

Light aint a particle. ie... double slit experiment is wrong. It aint the emitter shooting a particle, but that the receptor indicates a unit (ie... particle). The method of proving this is to change the receptor mass, and the pattern (particle) has a different threshold (photo electric effect). Color, proves that each mass, has its own range and why the black body (radiation curve) changes based on the mass (elements of the black body).

Both experiments are misdescribed as well light is incorrectly described if even claimed as a 'particle'.

ie.... did maxwell or faraday show the particle?

"The next theory was provided by the brilliant Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell (1831 to 1879). In 1864, he predicted the existence of electromagnetic waves, the existence of which had not been confirmed before that time, and out of his prediction came the concept of light being a wave, or more specifically, a type of electromagnetic wave. Until that time, the magnetic field produced by magnets and electric currents and the electric field generated between two parallel metal plates connected to a charged capacitor were considered to be unrelated to one another. Maxwell changed this thinking when, in 1861, he presented Maxwell's equations: four equations for electromagnetic theory that shows magnetic fields and electric fields are inextricably linked. This led to the introduction of the concept of electromagnetic waves other than visible light into light research, which had previously focused only on visible light

http://www.canon.com/technology/s_labo/light/001/11.html

All em, in one wavelength or another is the cause of motion to mass, any time. ie.... the fields are what are interacting.

The term electromagnetic wave tends to bring to mind the waves emitted from cellular telephones, but electromagnetic waves are actually waves produced by electricity and magnetism. Electromagnetic waves always occur wherever electricity is flowing or radio waves are flying about. Maxwell's equations, which clearly revealed the existence of such electromagnetic waves, were announced in 1861, becoming the most fundamental law of electromagnetics. These equations are not easy to understand, but let's take an in-depth look because they concern the true nature of light


It is what shared one of original forms of mechanics to represent a d/t speed to light but as a wave.

The reason this is important to understand is, this is usable to comprehend what light is, with all the experimental evidence (cell phones) you like.

Go over the link and learn, then we can come back to the idiots of particle physics trying to convert a 'displacement' to am.

 

i read the whole page and what needs to be settled is Einstein, did not create the particle model, he learned and showed others how to use it, via theorem but died trying to find the correct analogy.

He knew he didnt have it all combined but damn he was one of the closest as he understood the entanglement of a system (spooky action at a distance). He just didnt break that single threshold to realize, that the em is what causes an entanglement between mass (the gravity itself).

The logic is simple when observing that fission proves that mass is just energy itself (ie... E=mc2 is what assisted in defining the missing energy (light) of a fission.

 

http://www.physics.csbsju.edu/370/thermionic.pdf

This document has numerous concepts to be understood and in a practical application as well the experiment, computer analysis of the data, which assist in thermionic emission - black body radiation.

Note the vacuum, aint empty space.

The Hysteresis, and even the temp derived from a voltage.

This is physics appied and each area of concern that i pointed out in these threads, regarding the mass being relevant to emission, thru to equilibrium (state of mass), each are addressed.

it's a 30 page pdf but this paper shows application to the physics.


.

here is another that I was reading on photoelectric emission

http://www.virginia.edu/ep/SurfaceScience/PEE.html

This guy is sharp but tough

 

Tell that to the people sunbathing at a sunny beach or to the traveler who is lost in the middle of a desert. Not so meaningless to them now is it, given your analogy of the brightness of a shadow at noonday and a shadow appearing under a full moon?

 

Obviously you did not read the OP else you are attempting to change the parameters laid out in the OP.