Meir Achuz

"Annihilation" is not only to photons. Hadronic annihilation is rarely to photons, but usually to mesons. In HEP "instantaneous" generally means faster can be measured. For instance the \Delta++ which has a width of about 120 MeV (giving it a lifetime ~ 10^-23 sec) is said to decay instantaneously. If an antineutron struck a nucleus (or neutron an antinucleus) , the annihilation would be faster than this. Gezundheit.

The randomness of the surface of the ribs is so large compared to lambda, that there would be no diffraction.

Sorry, but I have to ask who are "they", and what does "either" mean in this context?. I understand the other words.

My dictionary says "soon to happen, imminent", but I don't want to nitpick.

If there were any particles (other than anti-particles) in an anti-nucleus, lit would instantly annihilate.

The number of particles allowed in a state is 2j+1, so 10 in g_9/2 and 8 in g_7/2.

A spinning wheel cannot be treated in SR. In principle, it should be treatable in GR, but I don't know of anything definitive in the past 80 years.

The rotation of PPL by a magnetic field was demonstrated by Faraday in 1845. If you put <"Farady effect" rotation> into google, you will get info on it. Some advanced EM textbooks also have it.

The Rydberg Eq. covers all bound states of Hydrogen, and cases of ionized atoms with only one electron left. It does not apply if there is more than one electron present. It would also start to fail a bit, due to relativity, if Z got too large.

There is no simple formula because it depends on too many factors: The type of ferromagnetic material, its history, its shape, etc. The point is that the dipole atoms are locked in place by a cooperative mechanism. In the case of repulsion, the opposing field tries to unlock them. The extent to which this happens is different in different cases. Its like what happens to the electorate after a state of the union speech. I did see a website of a company that sold magnets that did list attraction and repulsion for the magnets they sold. I don't remember its URL. I think I put "magnets" into google.

Of course, but I just wanted to answer the question asked.

When you bring two bar magnets (of roughly equal strength) together with N facing S, the magnetic field of the second magnet is in the same direction as the magnetization vector (M) in the first magnet. Therefore it tends to increase that magnetization, increasing the attractive force between the magnets. If you bring them together with N facing N, the field in the second magnet opposes the magnetization vector in the first magnet and tends to weaken it. This makes the repulsive force less than the corresponding attractive force.

Don't try to boost the performance of any electrical appliance. At some point in the circuitry, you will overload it, usually causing the fires you see on the AM news.

"If the electrons were given motion so they occupy the 2P orbitals but there was no such thing as the magnetic force, the electrons would reamin fluffed out, but the extra electron would be slung out faster than pure charge repulsion due to the centrifugal force. " I am not sure what you are talking about, but can say this: The magnetic forces in the fluoride anion are not very important. They are of order v/c times the electric forces and v/c is less than about 1/10. They do not play a major role in keeping the ion together.

I'm sorry. I thought you understood what the magnetization vector field in a permanent magnet was. I am afraid I will have to get a bit technical. The magnetization vector, M, is what determines the magnetic properties of a ferromagnet. The concept of "magnetic charge" is a mathematical abstraction that behaves like a charge, but does not really exist as a physical entity. The "magnetic charge density" at the surface of a magnet equals the normal component of the magnetization at the surface. If the magnetization vector were perpendicular to the plane of the magnetized disk, then there would be positive (called "north") magnetic charge spread over one face and negative magnetic charge (called "south") spread over the other face. It would look like the top face were a north magnetic pole. (Even then, the "pole" would not be at one point, but would be spread out over th etop face.) In the case of your magnetized disks, the manetization vector is in the plane of the disk. Then positive (north) magnetic charge is spread out over one half of the circumference of the disk, and negative (south) magnetic charge is spread out over the other half. There is no single "pole", but a spread out distribution of magnetic charge. The density of the magnetic charge varies like sin\theta, which is why you see a sin\theta depndence of the force in your experiment of rotating one disk with respect to the other.

The main flaw of the Bohr model was it it was just a model based on ad hoc postulates (mvr=nh, etc.) that had no justification except that it worked. This flaw was corrected by QM, in which Bohr's postulates are derived.

Does that include Farady, who never wrote down an equation??

The most recent I know of is in "Classical Electromagnetism" by Franklin, section 16.5. The book may be advanced, but that section should be readable for natural units

The conversion constant for energy and time is hbar which has the units Mev-sec. What I am trying to say that just as you can describe your height in meters or feet and can convert from one unit to the other, you can describe the lifetime of an unstble particle in MeV and use hbar if you want it in seconds. Using MeV for the lifetime can be more useful because it directly gives the width of the spectral line. I am not making this up. Natural units like this have been used for 50 years in elementary particle physics. Do you want a reference on natural units?

You have said that twice, BUT: Your experiment demonstrates that the magnetization is directed along a diameter of the disk. Do you have any experiment to indicate that the magnetization is along the axis of the disk?

Electric charge is dimensionless. The squared charge of the electron is \alpha=1/137 in any system of units.

"The magnets are oriented in the vertical direction. Thus north poles face each other. " How do you know that?

In QM, E and t are connected by Fourier trasform, so the product E*t is inherently dimensionless. hbar is just a conversion constant used because E and 1/t are usually given in different units. Again, its just like inches and cm. If you use cm and I use inches, it looks lik we are taking about different things, but we are not. Electric charge is dimensionless. alpha=e^2=1/137 in natural units. If charge were not dimensionless, we could not talk about its strength, since that would depend on what units we were using. Georgi (the inventor of SI) thoght electric charge ws s;pecial, but now we know it is the same thing as the "strong charge" and the "weak charge", all of which are dimensionless.

The magnetizaton in each magnet is probably in the plane of the magnet. Then as you rotate the force between them would be a sine curve.

Einstein's physics was just following Galielo's physical principle of relativity. Einstein updated the mathematics for the time equation from t'=t to t'=\gamma(x-vt).