greater than > light speed? The small

[fredreload]

We agree that the smaller the particles the faster it moves? We got photon traveling at the speed of light. And electrons that orbit the atom sometimes even above light speed, speculation. And we further theorized the constitution of electrons, photons, and neutrons making out of quarks. What do you think is the moving speed of these quarks? If quarks do move on the border line of light speed, what does it say about the smallest fundamental particles? Is it a form of energy?

[Strange]

13 minutes ago, fredreload said:

We agree that the smaller the particles the faster it moves?

No. 

13 minutes ago, fredreload said:

And electrons that orbit the atom sometimes even above light speed

Things with mass cannot travel at or above the speed of light. 

14 minutes ago, fredreload said:

And we further theorized the constitution of electrons, photons, and neutrons making out of quarks.

Photons and electrons are not made of quarks. 

 

[Ghideon]

12 minutes ago, fredreload said:

We agree that the smaller the particles the faster it moves?

No. Why does size matter?

13 minutes ago, fredreload said:

We got photon traveling at the speed of light.

yes.

13 minutes ago, fredreload said:

And electrons that orbit the atom sometimes even above light speed, speculation.

They do? Do you have a reference for that or is it part of a new idea we can investigate?

14 minutes ago, fredreload said:

And we further theorized the constitution of electrons, photons, and neutrons making out of quarks.

Electrons are not made of quarks in current models as far as I know. Electrons are fundamental particles. Photons are not made of quarks.  Do you have a reference for that or is it part of a new idea we can investigate?

 

[fredreload]

2 hours ago, Ghideon said:

No. Why does size matter?

yes.

They do? Do you have a reference for that or is it part of a new idea we can investigate?

Electrons are not made of quarks in current models as far as I know. Electrons are fundamental particles. Photons are not made of quarks.  Do you have a reference for that or is it part of a new idea we can investigate?

 

I think it was a random video on orbiting electrons that it sometimes disappear from moving too fast. But for something this small you really have to consider how fast it moves or spins.

[Ghideon]

45 minutes ago, fredreload said:

I think it was a random video on orbiting electrons that it sometimes disappear from moving too fast.

Ok, then I think it was a random video with not so reliable content if it implies velocities greater than speed of light in vacuum. Or did you draw the conclusion about velocities greater than speed of light?

46 minutes ago, fredreload said:

But for something this small you really have to consider how fast it moves or spins.

I think velocities and spin is included in detail in current models. Can you be more specific?

[Strange]

1 hour ago, fredreload said:

I think it was a random video on orbiting electrons that it sometimes disappear from moving too fast. But for something this small you really have to consider how fast it moves or spins.

Electrons do not really move in orbits. Perhaps the video was saying that if they did, then they would have to move faster than light? This is just one of many problems that quantum theory solves. (If they were moving in orbits, they would radiate and lose energy and fall into the nucleus, neither of which happen.)

Spin is important. It is what dictates the structure of electron shells in atoms. And a main contribution to why solid materials feel ... well, solid. (Both because of the Pauli exclusion principle.)

[fredreload]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

Electrons do not really move in orbits. Perhaps the video was saying that if they did, then they would have to move faster than light? This is just one of many problems that quantum theory solves. (If they were moving in orbits, they would radiate and lose energy and fall into the nucleus, neither of which happen.)

Spin is important. It is what dictates the structure of electron shells in atoms. And a main contribution to why solid materials feel ... well, solid. (Both because of the Pauli exclusion principle.)

Well, based on the precessing model for MRI in which water molecules spin at random. If theoretically a magnetic or electric field could be induced to make the water molecule spin slower or faster, what do you think it could do with smaller molecules like electrons? Btw the water molecule is spinning at 50000 times per second based on somewhere I read. Being a SuperNerd you must understand what I am saying Strange  If the same energy is applied to an electron, I wouldn't know what would happen. It could easily make it spin 1 million times per second

https://science.howstuffworks.com/mri3.htm

Edited August 24, 2019 by fredreload

[Bufofrog]

10 minutes ago, fredreload said:

Btw the water molecule is spinning at 50000 times per second based on somewhere I read.

You should quit trying to recall half remembered things and supply links for evidence to back up your idea.

It seems that you are thinking of electrons as little spinning tops, that is not what is meant when physicists talk about spin.

[Janus]

2 hours ago, fredreload said:

Well, based on the precessing model for MRI in which water molecules spin at random. If theoretically a magnetic or electric field could be induced to make the water molecule spin slower or faster, what do you think it could do with smaller molecules like electrons? Btw the water molecule is spinning at 50000 times per second based on somewhere I read. Being a SuperNerd you must understand what I am saying Strange  If the same energy is applied to an electron, I wouldn't know what would happen. It could easily make it spin 1 million times per second

 

The "classical radius" of an electron is 2.8e-15m. Spinning at 1,000,000 rps would have the points at its "equator" moving at ~ 1.8e-8 m/sec,   Even if you had it "orbiting" at a radius equal to the largest atom,  1,000,000 rps would only equate to a electron velocity of 0.000016 m sec.  This is quite literally slower than a snail's pace.

If you calculate the speed an electron orbiting in a an hydrogen atom would need using purely Newtonian physics in order to maintain its orbit,  you get a something over 10m/sec.  Still nowhere near c, let alone greater than c. And this not even considering Relativity or QM.

Even if you were to spin the water molecule, with its much larger than a single atom radius, up to 1,000,000 rps,  the fastest any part of it could be moving would be 0.0017 m/sec.

High rates of spin simply do not equate to high velocities when dealing with entities with such extremely small radii.

Let's also work it out in terms of energy.  If we have a water molecule, with a mass of  2.9e-26 kg with a radius of 2.75e-10 m, spinning at 50,000 rps, and we assumed that all the mass was located at the radial distance*, you get a kinetic energy of 1.1e-34 joules.  All of this energy applied to accelerate an electron would give it a speed of 0.015 m/sec.

So even just a quick examination of the numbers show that to claim that electrons ever exceed c while orbiting a atom is bogus, without even having to invoke Relativity.

 

* this gives you the maximum KE.   

[fredreload]

3 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

You should quit trying to recall half remembered things and supply links for evidence to back up your idea.

It seems that you are thinking of electrons as little spinning tops, that is not what is meant when physicists talk about spin.

Yes, I know the physicists have a different term for 1/2 spin or 2/3 spin(without fully understanding). From what I can recall the water molecule is spinning pretty fast with a high tesla magnetic field. And from a quantum angle of things, since I've read into nanomachines a bit. They react pretty much as though they are in a vacuum, I mean air is a molecule. We can't really define electron as an entity except a cloud or a wave function. But we can define a packet of photon or a neutron or a proton.

Yes, I've never heard of a spinning neutron or proton, but I've heard of a precessing water molecule. Any smaller than that I wouldn't know if it revolve(not to be confused with spin) or not.

7 minutes ago, Janus said:

The "classical radius" of an electron is 2.8e-15m. Spinning at 1,000,000 rps would have the points at its "equator" moving at ~ 1.8e-8 m/sec,   Even if you had it "orbiting" at a radius equal to the largest atom,  1,000,000 rps would only equate to a electron velocity of 0.000016 m sec.  This is quite literally slower than a snail's pace.

If you calculate the speed an electron orbiting in a an hydrogen atom would need using purely Newtonian physics in order to maintain its orbit,  you get a something over 10m/sec.  Still nowhere near c, let alone greater than c. And this not even considering Relativity or QM.

Even if you were to spin the water molecule, with its much larger than a single atom radius, up to 1,000,000 rps,  the fastest any part of it could be moving would be 0.0017 m/sec.

High rates of spin simply do not equate to high velocities when dealing with entities with such extremely small radii.

Let's also work it out in terms of energy.  If we have a water molecule, with a mass of  2.9e-26 kg with a radius of 2.75e-10 m, spinning at 50,000 rps, and we assumed that all the mass was located at the radial distance*, you get a kinetic energy of 1.1e-34 joules.  All of this energy applied to accelerate an electron would give it a speed of 0.015 m/sec.

So even just a quick examination of the numbers show that to claim that electrons ever exceed c while orbiting a atom is bogus, without even having to invoke Relativity.

 

* this gives you the maximum KE.   

It doesn't require energy to revolve(only for acceleration), just like it does not require energy to have a velocity in space. More of a constant velocity type of thing, but right, thanks for taking the time to read my post. As for the snail, it's not like the electron get stuck to have an infinite energy. It's like beads giving off energy or some sort. No offense, I just find the snail electron speed a bit ridiculous going at how fast air moves. And if this is a joke by itself, that the speed of electron does answer my question as a point of relativity, then I might have to review my high school physics lol

Edited August 24, 2019 by fredreload

[swansont]

2 hours ago, fredreload said:

Yes, I know the physicists have a different term for 1/2 spin or 2/3 spin(without fully understanding).

There is no spin 2/3, which would be part of your lack of full understanding.

There are integral spins and half-integral spins. They behave differently, stemming from what would happen if you swapped two identical particles.

2 hours ago, fredreload said:

From what I can recall the water molecule is spinning pretty fast with a high tesla magnetic field. And from a quantum angle of things, since I've read into nanomachines a bit. They react pretty much as though they are in a vacuum, I mean air is a molecule. We can't really define electron as an entity except a cloud or a wave function. But we can define a packet of photon or a neutron or a proton.

Yes, I've never heard of a spinning neutron or proton, but I've heard of a precessing water molecule. Any smaller than that I wouldn't know if it revolve(not to be confused with spin) or not.

Quantum spin isn’t physical, so it’s good that you haven’t heard of them physically spinning. But they have intrinsic angular momentum, so they behave as if they were spinning.

2 hours ago, fredreload said:

It doesn't require energy to revolve(only for acceleration), just like it does not require energy to have a velocity in space.

If you have a nonzero velocity, you have kinetic energy.

 

[fredreload]

Alright, the idea about centripetal force is that. The atom would probably tear itself apart at a high revolving speed. But things are possible to achieve a faster speed at a quantum realm. Here is an example.

The circumference of my belly is around 40cm(yes I am fat), if I am trying to match the speed of light, I would be spinning at (3x10^8)/40cm, simple right.

The circumference of an atom is around 1nm(let's just assume 1nm), if it is trying to match the speed of light, it would be spinning at (3x10^8)/(1x10^-9), assuming the atom does not break.

If you use the scale of an atom to run a computer, how fast do you think it would work? Or a nanofactory? It would match the speed of an enzyme reaction, or enzyme like helicase at 1000 nucleotides per second. What do you think about doing one thousand things per second in the human realm(not quantum)? Whether the quantum realm has a faster frame is something I can't prove.

Edited August 25, 2019 by fredreload

[Mordred]

As Strange has correctly mentioned no particle with mass can move at c. 

[fredreload]

23 minutes ago, Mordred said:

As Strange has correctly mentioned no particle with mass can move at c. 

Yes, I do not thing there is anything important with the revolving idea now, clearly the cloaking idea is much better

[Mordred]

Doesn't matter particles don't spin like a top. A ball only takes 360 degrees before it arrives at its original state. An electron requires a 720 degree rotation to reach its original polarity stare.  Orbiting an atom won't change the last comment I made (electrons aren't orbiting. The orbital refers to the standing wave probability of locating an electron  it is a mathematical probability density function. I have no idea what you mean by cloaking idea. This isn't science fiction. The quantum world obeys GR.

Edited August 25, 2019 by Mordred

[swansont]

7 hours ago, fredreload said:

Alright, the idea about centripetal force is that. The atom would probably tear itself apart at a high revolving speed. But things are possible to achieve a faster speed at a quantum realm. Here is an example.

The circumference of my belly is around 40cm

Well, no, I doubt that. A 32” waist is pretty skinny, and that’s about 80 cm.

7 hours ago, fredreload said:

The circumference of an atom is around 1nm(let's just assume 1nm), if it is trying to match the speed of light, it would be spinning at (3x10^8)/(1x10^-9), assuming the atom does not break.

If you use the scale of an atom to run a computer, how fast do you think it would work? Or a nanofactory? It would match the speed of an enzyme reaction, or enzyme like helicase at 1000 nucleotides per second. What do you think about doing one thousand things per second in the human realm(not quantum)? Whether the quantum realm has a faster frame is something I can't prove.

You can calculate the speed a classical particle would have from the KE. But this is QM. We don’t have classical trajectories 

[Janus]

22 hours ago, fredreload said:

It doesn't require energy to revolve(only for acceleration), just like it does not require energy to have a velocity in space.

It doesn't require an input of energy for an object to continue a constant rotation or a constant linear velocity, but this does not mean there is no energy involved, just that the energy of the object is constant.    If an object is moving or rotating as measured from a frame of reference, then that object has a non-zero KE as measured in that frame.   Once you said that a water molecule spins at 50,000 rps, you have established that there is a frame from which you are making that determination. And from that frame, the water molecule has a certain rotational KE.  And that KE,  would equate to a certain velocity relate to the frame if contained by an electron instead.

The point is that there is no evidence or argument that supports your initial claim that electrons of an atom ever exceed the speed of light.

And while it is apparent that you do need to go back and review Newtonian physics,  Newtonian physics is insufficient at the atomic level where QM rules.