yahya515 Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 (edited) when an object moves from point say A to point B , it disappears at that position which is A and appears in position B, it disappears to become energy and appears again as mass, this process is not noticeable because atoms disappear and appear in sequence, if we think of motion as above , i.e an atom moving by jumping from point a to point b, it will change into energy = mc^2 adding to it the energy which it possesses by force. friction: I said above an atom will change to energy at each jump and to mass again , and the total energy will be: mc^2+ 0.5 m v^2 , we notice that the kinetic energy is only (0.5*m*v^2) the quantity (mc^2) appears and disappears in something I call the jumping-system. And this equation will not work when the velocity is high, why? because if an object's atom energy is E joule equals mc^2, it will not be possible to add energy more than this quantity which is 0.5 *m* v^2 when v= C , i.e the energy -mass jumping and changing system will not be able to contain more energy than the energy of the mass itself. or even half it. in friction , when the mass changes into energy and adding to it the kinetic energy, it transfers some energy from the jumping-system to the object in contact. this energy is coming from the force acting on an object , the system will be able to transfer energy, because it is an energy-mass-jumping system , so it will be able to transfer energy to any object in contact, the energy or heat energy produced or even sound , etc will increase by the increment in normal force because for instance by pressing tightly more atoms will have the opportunity to contact with other atoms in the object.......... Edited February 16, 2015 by yahya515
Strange Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 an atom can't be divided and will not move less than its size which is 2r, and it means the less distance at a time an atom moves is its diameter, what happens is the atom (jump) from point a to point b at a discrete manner. Obviously not true. Atoms in a crystal lattice vibrate and move distance less than the size of an atom. Also, atoms can be divided.
imatfaal Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 this figure illustrates the concept: (attached) the spherical object is an atom, having a radius r,that I would like to move from point a to point b , the line between a and b equals 2r, it is not possible to move it continuously , i.e it is not possible to move it from point a to a point nearby to the left, why ? because its an atom and an atom can't be divided and will not move less than its size which is 2r, Atoms can be divided but we will let that slide. Why can it not move less than its size?
swansont Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 this figure illustrates the concept: (attached) the spherical object is an atom, having a radius r,that I would like to move from point a to point b , the line between a and b equals 2r, it is not possible to move it continuously , i.e it is not possible to move it from point a to a point nearby to the left, why ? because its an atom and an atom can't be divided and will not move less than its size which is 2r, and it means the less distance at a time an atom moves is its diameter, what happens is the atom (jump) from point a to point b at a discrete manner. Do you have a testable model that predicts this? 1
yahya515 Posted February 16, 2015 Author Posted February 16, 2015 (edited) Atoms can be divided but we will let that slide. Why can it not move less than its size? it will lose its contained energy, vibration is a kind of moving at small distances, it is a motion at small distance each time, when a bar of iron moves at small distance , which is vibration , according to its density and atom , it will loose kinetic energy to be sound energy, at half of the frequency it will loose some energy and at a number of vibrations it will loose more energy, this half vibration is moving in a small distance, for an atom moving at small distance one side will lead to loosing some of its contained energy, the atom to save itself it change into energy and jump to the nearest position which is its diameter , and return to mass again . Obviously not true. Atoms in a crystal lattice vibrate and move distance less than the size of an atom. Also, atoms can be divided. they can not be divided in normal states and reactions. Do you have a testable model that predicts this? no, but you can skip the figure illustration introduction. there is nothing called continuity ,everything is a collection , matter is a collection of atoms , molecules , light is a collection of photons, electricity is a collection of electrons running through a wire, charge is a collection of electrons, vibration is a collection of frequent motion each time ,the thing which made motion continuous is because it was left behind, and was accepted as being continuous , it is time to think about motion differently. Edited February 16, 2015 by yahya515
andrewcellini Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 charge is a collection of electrons explain charge of quark which is a fundamental particle.
Strange Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 there is nothing called continuity There is no evidence for this.
yahya515 Posted February 16, 2015 Author Posted February 16, 2015 explain charge of quark which is a fundamental particle. an atom is neutral because IT CONSISTS OF negative electrons and positive nucleus ,a nucleus is positive because IT CONSISTS OF protons which are positive , and neutrons which are neutral , a proton is positive because IT CONSISTS OF of two 'up' quarks and one 'down' quark , and an up quark is positive because IT CONSISTS OF ............. the key is the phrase CONSIST OF , if we know what it consists of or what it is deeply we will be able to explain its charge. -2
andrewcellini Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 (edited) an atom is neutral because IT CONSISTS OF negative electrons and positive nucleus ,a nucleus is positive because IT CONSISTS OF protons which are positive , and neutrons which are neutral , a proton is positive because IT CONSISTS OF of two 'up' quarks and one 'down' quark , and an up quark is positive because IT CONSISTS OF ............. the key is the phrase CONSIST OF , if we know what it consists of or what it is deeply we will be able to explain its charge. the point i was trying to make is that charge and electron are not synonymous. electrons have charge, so do quarks (among other particles). it seemed as though you were equivocating the two in your idea, when you said "charge IS a collection of electrons." quarks are fundamental and they have charge. they do not consist of any other particles. charge is the property that allows something to interact electromagnetically (when placed in E/B fields), not a separate physical object. Edited February 16, 2015 by andrewcellini
yahya515 Posted February 16, 2015 Author Posted February 16, 2015 (edited) the point i was trying to make is that charge and electron are not synonymous. electrons have charge, so do quarks (among other particles). it seemed as though you were equivocating the two in your idea, when you said "charge IS a collection of electrons." quarks are fundamental and they have charge. they do not consist of anything. negative charge is gaining ELECTRONS, positive charge is losing ELECTRONS, the charge can be determined by the number of ELECTRONS, so if we have a charge of x coulombs there are number of ELECTRONS in this object, there are a collection of ELECTRONS representing this particular charge. if one ELECTRON is lost from this collection charge will be affected. Edited February 16, 2015 by yahya515 -3
Strange Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 Also the muon, tau and W boson have charge (and are not made of electrons). 1
andrewcellini Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 negative charge is gaining ELECTRONS, positive charge is losing ELECTRONS, the charge can be determined by the number of ELECTRONS, so if we have a charge of x coulombs there are number of ELECTRONS in this object, there are a collection of electrons representing this particular charge. this view could work for visualizing how the charge on a species in a chemical reaction can appear, but it's not the case for fundamental particles.
yahya515 Posted February 16, 2015 Author Posted February 16, 2015 this view could work for visualizing how the charge on a species in a chemical reaction can appear, but it's not the case for fundamental particles. they are fundamental they have the role to make other complicated things simple, not to be explained in a complicated way , their charge should not be explained they EXPLAIN other charges.
andrewcellini Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 (edited) they are fundamental they have the role to make other complicated things simple, not to be explained in a complicated way , their charge should not be explained they EXPLAIN other charges. again, i ask how this can explain the charge of quarks? the up quark for example is +2/3, are you saying that it is missing 2/3 of an electron? the electron cannot be the fundamental progenitor of "charge" then because it must be broken up in or to make a quark. are you saying that the electron is broken into "pieces?" the electron is a fundamental particle. Edited February 16, 2015 by andrewcellini
yahya515 Posted February 16, 2015 Author Posted February 16, 2015 (edited) again, i ask how this can explain the charge of quarks? the up quark for example is +2/3, are you saying that it is missing 2/3 of an electron? the electron cannot be the fundamental progenitor of "charge" then because it must be broken up in or to make a quark. are you saying that the electron is broken into "pieces?" the electron is a fundamental particle. but charge needs something to carry it , like electrons if we want negative charge we gain it by adding electrons , we can not split the charge from electrons , also charge can not be split from a quark , a charge is an identity for an electron the up quark is called so because it positive, what does an electron without negative charge mean Edited February 16, 2015 by yahya515
andrewcellini Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 (edited) but charge needs something to carry it , like electrons if we want negative charge we gain it by adding electrons , we can not split the charge from electrons , also charge can not be split from a quark , a charge is an identity for an electron the up quark is called so because it positive, what does an electron without negative charge mean so do you now disagree with your former statement that "charge is a collection of electrons?" the way this sentenced is phrased along with subsequent statements, it seems as though you are saying that charge (in all things) arises from the gain and loss of electrons. now you seemed to have changed your tune a bit. i'm somewhat confused. Edited February 16, 2015 by andrewcellini
yahya515 Posted February 16, 2015 Author Posted February 16, 2015 (edited) i'm somewhat confused. I said "charge is a collection of electrons" as an example of discrete quantities in my above post whether "in all things" (as you said above) or not, you said " not everything can be explained as discrete or collection as the quark can not be explained as being formed of simple particles carrying charges" I said " it is fundamental it explain and not be explained" you said "the up quark for example is +2/3, are you saying that it is missing 2/3 of an electron? " I said " the quark or an electron are particles carrying charges , pure charge is nothing, if we want to add a charge we add electrons without spliting the charge from them , and if we want to add +2/3 charge we add some quarks!!!! do you know how to add quarks to obtain positive charge Edited February 16, 2015 by yahya515
Sensei Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 (edited) this figure illustrates the concept: (attached) the spherical object is an atom, having a radius r,that I would like to move from point a to point b , the line between a and b equals 2r, it is not possible to move it continuously , i.e it is not possible to move it from point a to a point nearby to the left, why ? because its an atom and an atom can't be divided and will not move less than its size which is 2r, What do you mean by "atom radius"? Van der Waals radius? ionic radius? Covalent radius? Calculate degrees of freedom for f.e. Gold atom with covalent radius 135 pm, In your "hypothesis" it would have just 1.9683e-29 possible "positions" in 1m3 piece of Gold.. Start from learning this f.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_radius Edited February 16, 2015 by Sensei
swansont Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 no, but you can skip the figure illustration introduction. there is nothing called continuity ,everything is a collection , matter is a collection of atoms , molecules , light is a collection of photons, electricity is a collection of electrons running through a wire, charge is a collection of electrons, vibration is a collection of frequent motion each time ,the thing which made motion continuous is because it was left behind, and was accepted as being continuous , it is time to think about motion differently. Then why should this thread remain open? Without a way to test the idea, there's no science, just assertion.
yahya515 Posted February 16, 2015 Author Posted February 16, 2015 Then why should this thread remain open? Without a way to test the idea, there's no science, just assertion. the thread is not about how atoms behave during discrete motion, however it is a description of the concept of discrete motion itself. What do you mean by "atom radius"? Van der Waals radius? ionic radius? Covalent radius? Calculate degrees of freedom for f.e. Gold atom with covalent radius 135 pm, In your "hypothesis" it would have just 1.9683e-29 possible "positions" in 1m3 piece of Gold.. Start from learning this f.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_radius thread edited.
swansont Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 the thread is not about how atoms behave during discrete motion, however it is a description of the concept of discrete motion itself. If you don't want to use atoms as your test, fine. Use something else. Is there another way to test this?
Sensei Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 (edited) Yahya, imagine energy levels of photons are quantized. Say, E=h, E=h*2 Hz,E=h*n Hz, etc. etc. where n is positive integer (n real number forbidden) or [math]E=\hbar*n, n \in N^+[/math] In such model molecule, atom or particle can be accelerated only by this energy by very small amount. But it's billions of billions smaller than your original post version. I don't think so it's possible to prove or disprove this in theory in math. It's job for laboratory experiment, f.e. electron gun *), with precisely regulated voltage on electrodes to find out quantization of velocity of free electrons, with unknown now precision.. The bigger particle or molecule, the smaller jumps in velocity will be observed by absorbing same amount of energy from f.e. laser with exact photon energy. Let's say we have one Oxygen O2 molecule, it has mass 5.31*10^-26 kg And hitting it by green laser 532 nm. Photon is absorbed and molecule is accelerated to E.K=3.7339*10^-19 J That's v=3749 m/s for O2. But for single free electron it would be 905395 m/s... *) Electron gun has everybody who has RTV junk.. So you should have plentiful of them around. Edited February 16, 2015 by Sensei
yahya515 Posted February 17, 2015 Author Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) we would like to move this atom or particle or any smallest amount could be, from point a to point b , there are only two possible ways to move this object, classical mechanics continuous motion and Yahya's discrete motion there is not any other ways for this particle to move , if it did not move by continuous motion , and if it actually moved then it indeed moved by Yahya's discrete motion. if it moves by Yahya's discrete motion, it will be as simple as jumping from a point a to a nearby point say c , this point is specified , having a particular X distance .OK. if it moves continuously it should first move to a nearby point this point is not Yahya's point c , it is the point having the smallest distance x.OK. This small distance is approaching zero. OK so if we want to move this object we should first move to a nearby point which is smaller as tending to zero. the time is something moving and does not care about any of us, if this object remain at this point which is a , time will pass without the particle moving , I think its 15 minutes now writing my post and our object did not move, earth moved some angle , some people are having some fun, and time measured all this events by some velocities , and it refuses to measure our object motion , to say for example 5 meters per each of my unit which is one second, because it should move first to the smallest distance which approaches zero, so this object will not move by continuous motion , instead it will move by discrete motion , by a specific jump. OK. show that mathematically. the ΔX quantity will be zero , however the time will not , time passes whether our object moves or not, we can make some reference time and it should not be zero, suppose that 2e46 seconds passed when time first started, if we want calculate , what object velocity is , it moves 10 meters after 5 seconds from this absolute time reference , it will be simply 10/ (2e46 + 5) - (2e46+0) = 2 m/s !!! if it did not move after this 5 seconds, it will be (0)/ (any desired time interval you want), the result will be zero, for example, what is its velocity after 1 hour, ? (0)/ (2e46+3600) = 0 , the result will be the same (0). however our previous object and because Mr Sawnsont said that the nearby point should be the smallest point to the left in order for this object to move continuously , one scientist suggested it should be 5e-60 meters , because if we suggest something greater we will follow yahya's discrete motion theory, they continued suggestions without the object moving and our time reference became, 4e46 seconds, that means they spend (4e46-2e46) = 2e46 seconds =(approximately) 6e36 years. and the object did not move and will never move by this concept. another thing is how this will have a solution : ΔX/Δt , both the denominator and numerator approaches zero. this quantity should equal zero because the object is at stationary, how this quantity ΔX/Δt ,will equal zero while both denominator and numerator approaches zero , I would like to know the instantaneous velocity for our poor object which did not move until now. according to my theory this quantity ΔX/Δt equals (0)/(0) which is undefined because the process of jumping did not even occur. the instantanous velocity at this particular moment is undefined . but according to continuous motion the instantanous velocity should be zero, if it is zero after 5 seconds , and it was zero at that instance , and remain zero all the time , the force will be zero, and that is true no force is acting on this object, if it was not zero, and became zero after a moment, it has some accelaration and some force is acting on this object and that is not true. so it should be zero, how that is possible mathematically? give me a logical assertion for that so that I will stop giving assertions without tests. Edited February 17, 2015 by yahya515
yahya515 Posted February 17, 2015 Author Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) If you don't want to use atoms as your test, fine. Use something else. Is there another way to test this? I want a clear explanation for the above problem. and in my opinion you won't find one, because with your all knowlege of atomic physics and quantum mechanics, you are like the others , left classical mechanics uncomplete and jumped to atomic physics and quantum mechanics leaving classical mechanics uncomplete and poor. I am the one who will focus on classical mechanics and explain it deeply . Edited February 17, 2015 by yahya515
Mordred Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) Experimental proof show that classical mechanics is insufficient to fully explain the quantum dynamics. What you are being asked to do is supply testable predictions that shows your model to be better than the existing models. The existing model is extremely robust and predictive. Thousands of physicists developed our current models, not through philosophy, but due to experimental proof and observations. We always favor Occams razor when possible. Provided the simplest model has the same degree of accuracy. Edited February 17, 2015 by Mordred
Recommended Posts