Butch Posted December 22, 2017 Author Posted December 22, 2017 (edited) 20 minutes ago, swansont said: You have to make a specific prediction before you can compare it to experiment and draw this conclusion. e nucleus (you know what in the nucleus) must have minimum energy x, if e shell has energy, resultant of en + es <x, e resultant (standard model electron) does not violate probability, regardless of state. Will work on wave function, I can almost see it relating well, it will need to come into focus P.S. I was quite wrong about the neutron decay in tritium, it seems that electron would exchange energy via dipole interaction to form the stable hydrogen3, but I am getting ahead of myself, that is all guess work. Edited December 22, 2017 by Butch
swansont Posted December 22, 2017 Posted December 22, 2017 38 minutes ago, Butch said: e nucleus (you know what in the nucleus) must have minimum energy x, if e shell has energy, resultant of en + es <x, e resultant (standard model electron) does not violate probability, regardless of state. No model, no number. No prediction
John Cuthber Posted December 23, 2017 Posted December 23, 2017 3 hours ago, Butch said: Really has someone measured those forces in an atom? Yes.
Butch Posted December 24, 2017 Author Posted December 24, 2017 On 12/22/2017 at 7:30 PM, John Cuthber said: Yes. Check this out! https://physics.aps.org/articles/v10/72
swansont Posted December 25, 2017 Posted December 25, 2017 21 hours ago, Butch said: Check this out! https://physics.aps.org/articles/v10/72 And? They are testing properties of the strong force, the existence of which you have doubted.
Butch Posted December 26, 2017 Author Posted December 26, 2017 On 12/25/2017 at 7:37 AM, swansont said: And? They are testing properties of the strong force, the existence of which you have doubted. Not the existence of, the mechanism.
swansont Posted December 26, 2017 Posted December 26, 2017 5 minutes ago, Butch said: Not the existence of, the mechanism. They are refining QCD, not coming with a new mechanism
Butch Posted December 26, 2017 Author Posted December 26, 2017 Just now, swansont said: They are refining QCD, not coming with a new mechanism 1 minute ago, swansont said: They are refining QCD, not coming with a new mechanism I am aware of (although not studied) the quark models and interaction. I think however we might be getting ahead of ourselves. I have realized however that my "sisters" must have coherent dipoles, this affects average energies, although it disciplines my "modeling" task (disciplines may be read as simplifies).
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now