jerrygg38 Posted October 26, 2008 Posted October 26, 2008 Let us calculate the Einsteinian energy of the Bohr orbit. We know the answer to be 13.58 electron volts. The orbit velocity is approximately C/137 so we get 137 revolutions per cycle. the difference in mass/energy is M = Mo / (1-(V/C)^2)^0.5 where Mo = 0.510999MEV for V - C/137 the Einsteinian correction factor is 0.999732 Therefore M= 0.510999/0.99997336 = 0.51101261 MEV the differential mass/energy is Delta mass = 13.61 electron volts If we use a speed of C/137.036 we get Delta mass = 13.606 MEV The result is that the binding energy of the hydrogen atom is identical with the Einsteinian mass/energy relationship. This is important because when we look at the relationships between the u-mesons, and the pi-mesons and all the other particles, the Einsteinian energy is important. This shows that the electrical energy is being converted into mass and visa versa.
Klaynos Posted October 26, 2008 Posted October 26, 2008 What? I'm glad I'm not alone in my sentiments.
D H Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Let us calculate the Einsteinian energy of the Bohr orbit. Jerry, While you claim you are old, but you certainly are not so old as to have been taught the Bohr theory is anything but an obsolete scientific theory. It does an OK job of modeling transitions in hydrogen atom. It is not even a particularly good picture of the hydrogen atom. You start on a bad footing and go downhill fast.
jerrygg38 Posted October 27, 2008 Author Posted October 27, 2008 Let us calculate the Einsteinian energy of the Bohr orbit. We know the answer to be 13.58 electron volts. The orbit velocity is approximately C/137 so we get 137 revolutions per cycle. the difference in mass/energy is M = Mo / (1-(V/C)^2)^0.5 where Mo = 0.510999MEV for V - C/137 the Einsteinian correction factor is 0.999732 Therefore M= 0.510999/0.99997336 = 0.51101261 MEV the differential mass/energy is Delta mass = 13.61 electron volts If we use a speed of C/137.036 we get Delta mass = 13.606 MEV The result is that the binding energy of the hydrogen atom is identical with the Einsteinian mass/energy relationship. This is important because when we look at the relationships between the u-mesons, and the pi-mesons and all the other particles, the Einsteinian energy is important. This shows that the electrical energy is being converted into mass and visa versa. Error Sorry 13.606 electron volts not MEV Jerry, While you claim you are old, but you certainly are not so old as to have been taught the Bohr theory is anything but an obsolete scientific theory. It does an OK job of modeling transitions in hydrogen atom. It is not even a particularly good picture of the hydrogen atom. You start on a bad footing and go downhill fast. JG: I may be going on 70 this year but in reality I do not feel much different than when I was going to school. When I was younger I thought 70 was quite old but except for a little pain here and there and a little slower, I really feel little difference than when I was much younger. The Bohr Model is a simple tool to describe the hydrogen atom. Of course the mathematicians have produced detailed formulas over the years which have helped to calculate things better. However the simple Bohr model is readily understood. My calculation shows that the electron gains 13.58 electron volts of mass/energy form the Einsteinian formula in the first Bohr orbit. Thus the ionization energy is identical in magnitude with the Einsteinian energy. This is important because the same effect happends as the electron merges into the proton to form the neutron. At the proton radius the electron reaches a speed of 0.9186C. This mass/energy increase negates the need for a neutrino of the mass/energy difference. only a smaller mass/energy neutrino is required. The Bohr model when you add the Einsteinian energy tells you what is happening. The mathematicians may have other answers but this does not help to understand how to obtain the protons energy for the future power source.
Klaynos Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 The bohr model is fundementally flawed on many many counts. Not least of which the fact it requires for accelerating charges, and as we all know accelerating charges radiate, this means they must lose energy and very very quickly they'd fall into the nucleus....
jerrygg38 Posted October 27, 2008 Author Posted October 27, 2008 The bohr model is fundementally flawed on many many counts. Not least of which the fact it requires for accelerating charges, and as we all know accelerating charges radiate, this means they must lose energy and very very quickly they'd fall into the nucleus.... JG: Not necessarily so. It is true that accelerating charges on the large scale radiate energy. Thus the physics of antennas produce radio waves, radar pulses, etc. The Bohr model may not be perfect but let us look at the electrons charge revolving around the proton. You may be happier with standing waves for the orbits but mathematically the Bohr model would give good results. The electron will produce a spherical DC field which is modulated. It will react with space dots continually. There will be continuous mass to electrical energy transformations which is the basis of the Heisenberg principle. What you end up with is a very complex space time interaction in which the electron will radiate mass/energy and absorb mass/energy all along its cycle. The net result is zero net radiation. In effect the electron/proton hydrogen atom has continuous changes as it moves within the Bohr orbit. Certainly the Bohr orbit is simple but it is my belief that it is correct. The mathematicians have produced great equations to explain things from a mathematical perspective. The universe operates from a physical perspective. The mathematical laws are excellent representations of the physical effects. It is just very difficult to formulate the interactions which depend upon statistical methods. Thus every electron has a different mass/charge from every other electron at every split second of time. Einsteins mass/energy formulas when applied to the Bohr orbit yield very interesting results. At least they tell us what is happening from a physical perspective.
D H Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Certainly the Bohr orbit is simple but it is my belief that it is correct Science is not about beliefs. It is about evidence. The evidence is that Bohr model fails badly when applied to anything but the hydrogen atom. It is a fundamentally flawed model.
Klaynos Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 JG: Not necessarily so. It is true that accelerating charges on the large scale radiate energy. Thus the physics of antennas produce radio waves, radar pulses, etc. Yes actually accelerating charges WILL radiate this is a simple result of maxwells equations whether you've 10100 or a single charge it WILL radiate if it accelerates. Things in orbit such as the electron in the Bohr model are accelerating, so WILL radiate.
D H Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Things in orbit such as the electron in the Bohr model are accelerating, so WILL radiate. Bohr axiomatized this radiation away. The biggest shortcoming of the Bohr model in my mind is not the radiation (it doesn't happen in the Bohr model) but its limited applicability. It fails to explain details like the fine structure and it fails miserably when applied to nuclei with more than one electron.
swansont Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 This is important because the same effect happends as the electron merges into the proton to form the neutron. At the proton radius the electron reaches a speed of 0.9186C. This mass/energy increase negates the need for a neutrino of the mass/energy difference. only a smaller mass/energy neutrino is required. You have two spin-1/2 particles merging to form another spin-1/2 particle. Where does the lost angular momentum go? Angular momentum, BTW, is one way the Bohr model fails. ——————— The electron will produce a spherical DC field which is modulated. It will react with space dots continually. There will be continuous mass to electrical energy transformations which is the basis of the Heisenberg principle. Dots, and any other speculative framework, are off-limits outside of their own thread. You have been warned about this before, and will not be warned again.
jerrygg38 Posted October 27, 2008 Author Posted October 27, 2008 (edited) You have two spin-1/2 particles merging to form another spin-1/2 particle. Where does the lost angular momentum go? Angular momentum, BTW, is one way the Bohr model fails. JG: Good question. You may not like my answer but I will give it to you. Since you do not like dots let us say that within the proton and electron are subparticles with internal spins. Let us say they are the product of strings which are very small. The spins of the proton are the product of its internal spins. The proton has a spin of 1/2 and the electron has a spin of 1/2, the neutron has a spin of 1/2. Thus it was assumed that the electron could not have emerged into the proton because it would have to have a spin of 1. Within the structure of the proton one finds a large amount of spins in assorted directions. Some parts of the proton structure form an aligned spin of 1/2. The same is true of the electron although the electron has much less subparticles of assorted spins. Once the proton and electron join, there is a transfer of energy between the aligned and unaligned spins of the subparticles. The net result is that the electron loses its internal spin components. The electron and the proton are fused together within the neutron. ——————— Hope this answers your question. Edited October 28, 2008 by swansont fix quote tag
mooeypoo Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 My goodness. Have you even opened a physics book in your life? Ever? The electron and the proton are fused together within the neutron. No. No. No. They're not. (source: http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect20/A1.html) Also, http://www.nyu.edu/pages/mathmol/textbook/atoms.html http://www.chem4kids.com/files/atom_structure.html http://www.aboutnuclear.org/view.cgi?fC=The_Atom,Structure_of_the_Atom http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch6/atom_emrframe.html http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/physics17/chapter13/chapter13.html http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~acarpi/NSC/3-atoms.htm http://www.edinformatics.com/math_science/atom.htm So tell me, please, my dear jerrygg38: in which universe do you live that the electron and proton are fused together within the neutron? Because it's definitely not in the universe we live in.
ydoaPs Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 .....but what about beta minus decay? /me hides
swansont Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 .....but what about beta minus decay? /me hides Don't hide. The beta energy spectrum should be quantized if there is no neutrino. JG: Good question. You may not like my answer but I will give it to you. Since you do not like dots let us say that within the proton and electron are subparticles with internal spins. Let us say they are the product of strings which are very small. The spins of the proton are the product of its internal spins. The proton has a spin of 1/2 and the electron has a spin of 1/2, the neutron has a spin of 1/2. Thus it was assumed that the electron could not have emerged into the proton because it would have to have a spin of 1. Within the structure of the proton one finds a large amount of spins in assorted directions. Some parts of the proton structure form an aligned spin of 1/2. The same is true of the electron although the electron has much less subparticles of assorted spins. Once the proton and electron join, there is a transfer of energy between the aligned and unaligned spins of the subparticles. The net result is that the electron loses its internal spin components. The electron and the proton are fused together within the neutron. ——————— Hope this answers your question. You have provided no evidence that this could be true. The evidence we have says that the spins are not "assorted" and that the electron has no structure.
jerrygg38 Posted October 28, 2008 Author Posted October 28, 2008 My goodness. Have you even opened a physics book in your life? Ever? JG: Every day I open my Elementary Modern Physics by Weidner & Sells 1960. I do not study later books. Your picture is interesting. Where is your picture of the neutron? I agree that within an atom some electrons are outside. Some electrons encircle the proton/neutrons in shared states. The neutron standing alone has an electron within the structure. Thus it fuzes together. However it is unstable and the electron will pop out in free space. "So tell me, please, my dear jerrygg38: in which universe do you live that the electron and proton are fused together within the neutron?" JG: In this universe neutrons flowing into space from within stars have fused proton/electons for a split second. Then they become protons and electrons. Often both become photonic energy.
insane_alien Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 jerry, you do realise that any textbook with the word elementary in it just covers the basic concepts and glosses over a whole lot of stuff? i think to update and advance your reading material.
iNow Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 Also, what was "elementary" in 1960 is often "wrong" today. Scientific knowledge evolves and changes, and discards ideas proven false.
jerrygg38 Posted October 28, 2008 Author Posted October 28, 2008 Don't hide. The beta energy spectrum should be quantized if there is no neutrino. JG:I would have to study what you mean. My studies are limited and designed to understand the proton to photonic converter. In my calculations I have a neutrino of only 0.20178MEV since most of the mass for the neutron is caused by the electrical field as the electron becomes part of the proton to form the neutron. I do not know what beta energy spectrum quantization means. This has not been part of my studies. My primary study is the production of new energy sources from the proton. "You have provided no evidence that this could be true. The evidence we have says that the spins are not "assorted" and that the electron has no structure. " JG:Evidently I have been told not to discuss dot wave theory all over the place. If we go to string theory which is similar to dot wave, we will find that way down the food chain are tiny subparticles which make up all the subparticles you like. I am only interested in the food chain at the very bottom. If we move to the very small we will find tiny spins and tiny charges. These make up the big spins. As soon as we go down to 2.15941E-29 meters we find the basis of spin. If you look at a compass we find a large field. However this large field is the result of much smaller fields. In this manner within the electron at the smallest level of string theory or dot-wave theory, internal spins exist. The sum total of these spins produce the spin terms. The proton has a total spin of 1/2. Great. This is the product of 2.27883E41 little spins. A proton standing alone in free space will self synchronize their spins. The electron in free space will self synchronize. Once we add the electron to the proton in the hydrogen atom the spins will align with each other in different planes. There are a lot of complications and phase angles involved. This produces very interesting absorption spectra along with the many other characteristics of the fields. In Doppler Space Time I described many equations for the various interactions. However that was in 2000 and I must rewrite the work in light of the new Dot-wave theory of 2008. When the proton merges with the electron in the neutron, a new realignment occurs. Electrical energy has converted into mass and we get less aligned spins. Thus the neutron has the spin of the proton. Once you get below the subparticles then you really are at the basics of physics. Of course the ordinary mind cannot do this. You have to have a special mind that can swing to the smallest subparticle and the largest dimensions of the universe. Few people can do this. However once the ideas are presented many people more brilliant than myself can readily understand. It is just that my mind is not limited to what I have been taught or what I can see or measure. My mind is unlimited. I have the ability to see what others cannot see.
iNow Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 I have the ability to see what others cannot see.Have you considered taking medications prescribed by a psychiatrist to rectify this issue?
insane_alien Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 Also, what was "elementary" in 1960 is often "wrong" today. Scientific knowledge evolves and changes, and discards ideas proven false. heck, a lot of stuff in my chemistry books from a year ago are out of date now.
mooeypoo Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 My goodness. Have you even opened a physics book in your life? Ever? JG: Every day I open my Elementary Modern Physics by Weidner & Sells 1960. I do not study later books. Your picture is interesting. Where is your picture of the neutron? I agree that within an atom some electrons are outside. Some electrons encircle the proton/neutrons in shared states. The neutron standing alone has an electron within the structure. Thus it fuzes together. However it is unstable and the electron will pop out in free space. "So tell me' date=' please, my dear jerrygg38: in which universe do you live that the electron and proton are fused together within the neutron?" JG: In this universe neutrons flowing into space from within stars have fused proton/electons for a split second. Then they become protons and electrons. Often both become photonic energy.[/quote'] Do you know the concept of "REFERENCING"? You're stating things that are unfounded. They're either crap, or they're true. They will remain crap until you prove them. Cite, substantiate or give reference to what you're talking about. I don't think I'll ever understand your logic, jerry. Seriously. You admitted, yourself, that: You've never learned physics in your life, but you think you know better than people who studied this for years. The only book you are reading about physics is a 1960s book, obviously you haven't heard of the "big scientific boom" in the past 100 years and how the amount of scientific discoveries in the past 100 years surpassed that of the past 1000. Every year there's something new, Jerry. You just don't know, because you don't read it. You refuse to write proper units and insist on inventing your own; is that written in that book of yours? I don't see your logic AT ALL. I've argued and debated with a lot of people who had 'weird' or 'different' theories. Few actually managed to convince me that there MIGHT be something to their theories if they just worked on proving it or substantiating more. Very few were as arrogant as to admit they know nothing and insist they know everything. And then refuse to prove anything. Nice job. ~moo
Klaynos Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 Don't hide. The beta energy spectrum should be quantized if there is no neutrino. I'd like to see a response to this.... And to all your points where you say things like "the spins realign themselves" I'd quite like to know how this happens. Mathematically, you'll probably need to solve some wave equations... Should be interesting...
jerrygg38 Posted October 28, 2008 Author Posted October 28, 2008 Also, what was "elementary" in 1960 is often "wrong" today. Scientific knowledge evolves and changes, and discards ideas proven false. JG: The big problem is that the path of science often goes astray. Good ideas are discarded and replaced by what seems correct but really is a dead end. Where are you teaching that the forward mass in front of a moving object is larger than the rearward mass? Are you teaching it now? Or is it still locked away???? Unfortunately there are a lot of things which are not allowed to be taught. Are you aware that there are libraries with information that the public cannot enter?? So the proven false ideas are not necessarily proven false. The powers that be often prefer to keep the masses ignorant. Those with the keys to the knowledge are often content to keep the masses unaware of the truth. So there are different levels of truth allowed by the authorities. Often they seem happy to teach and preach certain half truths. So by whose authority are things given the stamp of approval of being correct or incorrect? We end up with the party line. those in power produce the truths whether or not they are true. They serve the vested interest and they serve to befuddle those who are not party to the real truth. People sell their souls to the highest bidder. They will preach the truth according to those in power. The real truth must always be locked away under wraps. The Catholic Church took this approach long ago during the dark ages. The US Government takes this approach today. People will be taught to believe half truths. It is funny. If you have ever been in the "secret libraries" then things are much different. Most professors are quite afraid to deny the party line. It means their jobs. they will preach what they are taught. They will not look beyond the preached truths.
Recommended Posts