Questing Posted January 7, 2016 Author Posted January 7, 2016 Ok let's stop right here... redshift isn't the only evidence of an expanding universe. Cosmologists use redshift as merely a guideline measurement. We confirm that redshift data with various parallax methods. However the most telling piece of evidence that the universe is expanding is thermodynamic laws. pV=nRt. We see the universe cooling as a direct result of an expanding volume. I've lost count on the number of proposed "the universe isn't expanding models" that fail to account for the thermodynamic laws. Secondly using the Bose-Einstein statistics one can calculate the number density of photons at a given time via the temperature. For example using the CMB temperature. This can be done for any bosons. For fermions you use the Fermi-Dirac statistics. These two formulas use the number of degrees of freedom of a particle, it's entropy density, chemical reactions etc. It's applications of those two formulas is extremely well tested. You can find the procedure in chapter 3 of this article http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:"Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis Just a side note you can see the energy-density to pressure influence on how the universe will expand in the FLRW metric acceleration equation [latex]\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=-\frac{4\pi G\rho}{3c^2}(\rho c^2+3p)[/latex] You stopped reading! Well then you wont know the adequacy or inadequacy of my explanation. You place conventional theory in front of me, as if you assume I haven't been exposed to it. I'm afraid there are other potential interpretations for CMB radiation etc. I too used to appreciate and awe at big bang cosmology, and the assumptions that lead from it. It was part of what fueled my original interest in science. My thread introduction explains how the space field can expand (redshift photons) without increasing overall volume of the universe. By way of matter absorbing the fields energy. And later on I go into more detail on the subject, however perhaps you didnt read that far? Thats a big document full of math you linked me. How much use is it without my comprehension of the math? I might get a chance to look through it after work.
Mordred Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 (edited) I got as far as the first few paragraphs of your post and found errors. Which you never addressed or asked for clarification. Not too supportive of your idea. Photons decays follows rules within particle physics. So does temperature measurement. These rules are well tested and established. You can't Willy nilly them away simply because they don't agree with your idea. By the way I'm supplying the tools to advance your idea. By providing you the mathematical formulas you will need to learn. Edited January 7, 2016 by Mordred
Questing Posted January 7, 2016 Author Posted January 7, 2016 (edited) As I stated no physicists pays attention without some math as a guideline. You're quick to speak for everybody. Could be famous last words. Your giving me a lot of attention and homework for somebody who hasnt read my thread. I'm not sure thats very fair Edited January 7, 2016 by Questing
Mordred Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 Lol I've been on forums since the 80s and have studied physics for 30 years. No model ever gets far without mathematical predictibility. Mathematics is the language of physics. I'll eventually read your thread, but you will need to be willing to address the issues I raised. Not just Willy nilly them away Here perhaps this will help. http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0406095v2.pdf"The Cosmic energy inventory" the above values in this article is time tested numerous times. http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf:"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellido http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf"Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde These will also help. If you like I can post several MOND texts The one thing you will need to understand is cosmology obeys the conservation laws. Energy/momentum Charge Lepton number Parity Color Flavor Isospin etc a field requires particle to particle interactions. You never answered AJBs post on what kind of field your model uses. This is probably too advanced but it's handy http://arxiv.org/abs/hepth/9912205: "Fields" - A free lengthy technical training manual on classical and quantum fields The point is your trying to compete with models that have mathematical support. With one that doesn't. This won't have a chance. This try this question. We use Doppler redshift everyday in radar guns yet you don't feel cosmological redshift is valid. Why? What about gravitational redshift? Does this mean you don't feel the Sache Wolfe effect is valid in CMB measurements? That the temperature anistropies are inaccurate in our measurements? How do you account for intergalactic parallax tests of redshift accuracy? Do you honestly believe cosmology relies solely on redshift data in distance measurements? Particularly since we can have gravitational redshift and Doppler shift interferance in those measurements. Our own planetary motion has to be factored out on those measurements.
Questing Posted January 7, 2016 Author Posted January 7, 2016 (edited) Lol I've been on forums since the 80s and have studied physics for 30 years. No model ever gets far without mathematical predictibility. Mathematics is the language of physics. I'll eventually read your thread, but you will need to be willing to address the issues I raised. Not just Willy nilly them away Thank you for the information. It hasn't escaped me, help from a dark energy physicist is certainly a novel resource. Even better if he would read my idea, I might hope haha. But as you choose. I'll welcome a conversation with you, and do my best not to be willy nilly. I'm confident in as much as I have posted, and was forward thinking enough to admit limits of my knowledge and ability upfront. And am not to proud to say I dont know something. So I more or less feel comfortably fortified. I hope you and others will attempt to undermine my ideas in a genuine sort of fashion, and if I am wrong I will be glad to know it too. a field requires particle to particle interactions. You never answered AJBs post on what kind of field your model uses. I'll have another look at AJBs post now, however I feel my explanation provides a good deal of information regarding nature of the field. I describe the relationship the field shares with the void, and the causal relationship with magnetism and electricity. Which accounts for totality of everything universal, simple being emergent from. How the field is an evolved state, and the implication this has for what can be considered truly fundamental in our universe, or what is not fundamental being more the point. Its all there. So hopefully I can just relax now and more or less just point out what I have already stated. Just joking, kinda. I should hope that nobody would bet their life on this, as we know the Bohr model is both incomplete and wrong There is no energy conservation problem. What work are you referring to? Electricity does not flow perpetually within an atom. You appear to be "solving" a nonexistent problem. We have our standards Nice to start out with an agreement. I think there is an energy conservation problem. Perpetual photon exchange maintains the bond between positively charged proton, and negatively charged electron. Photon being an electrical entity no less, so not dissimilar to lightning. Atomic electric fields, elemental bonds work very hard and dont tire. I think this slightly embarrassing issue has been swept under the carpet. Or, highlights peoples ability for denial. If my theory resolved the dark matter crisis, then this energy conservation issue is a bitter pill which must be swallowed along with it. Well I have had a quick look at it... you propose some extra field in the Universe but do not describe this in any detail. There is no way to give a real critique to your idea. You need to build the model properly otherwise you have nothing but a fanciful story. I have no idea what you mean by 'most primitive form' for a field. What does it mean for a 'field to replicate'? What does it mean for fields 'to find themselves experiencing competition for habitat and resource'? What does it mean for 'fields to adapt'? Truthfully I am lost... you are using terms that are not standard or familiar to people who have some idea about classical and quantum field theory. You will need to define all this much more mathematically. I have posted the following twice, but I wanted you to be sure I was answering to you. I feel my explanation provides a good deal of information regarding nature of the field. I describe the relationship the field shares with the void, and the causal relationship with magnetism and electricity. Which accounts for totality of everything universal, simple being emergent from. How the field is an evolved state, and the implication this has for what can be considered truly fundamental in our universe, or what is not fundamental being more the point. As for your questions about the primitive field, replication, adaptation, habitat etc. Dont over think it. Think of the field in terms of the relationship I describe, that it shares with magnetism and electricity. I assume you believe dark energy is somehow emergent of the void of space, as conventional theory prescribes? But how? My suggestion is that it emerges sequentially from parent to progeny. If it does, then inherited traits, and sequential change over time might be considerations. My non standard terminology. My first time playing texas holdem poker at the casino, I was taking a good share of the tables winnings, when I overheard a guy who turned to his friend to say "see, you dont need to know how to play this game to be a winner". He had misinterpreted my unfamiliarity of casino, and holdem's terminologies, as an indication I was clueless about cards. However as it turns out, I'm not to bad at tracking probabilities. Until I've had one to many burbons, then its time to give back. Edited January 7, 2016 by Questing
Strange Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 I have confidence in my imagination, because of the multitude of confirmed physical correlations of nature, which my theory successfully conforms too. And in such a simple and self supporting way. You say this but then Perpetual photon exchange maintains the bond between positively charged proton, and negatively charged electron. Photon being an electrical entity no less, so not dissimilar to lightning. Which is about as far from reality as it is possible to get. I think this slightly embarrassing issue has been swept under the carpet. Or, highlights peoples ability for denial. Maybe you should consider the far more likely possibility: your imagination has let you down.
Questing Posted January 7, 2016 Author Posted January 7, 2016 I tried, but you are not using the language or formalism that is required. I am lost at an early stage as you have not defined many terms at all, and for sure not in a way I am able to understand. The early questions must be What is the nature of this field? (Bosonic, fermionic, scalar, tensor, something else?) What is the Lagrangian for this field? (Or if it does not have a Lagrangian, what are the equations of motion) What does ''its most simple primitive form'' mean for this field? What does ''ability to self-replicate'' mean for a classical or quantum field? What does ''generational change'' mean for a classical or quantum field? What does ''divergence of species'' mean for a classical or quantum field? It seems that all you have done is throw some biology words at field theory! And this is just in your section 'Field Emergence'. I would rather you address these questions before we move on. I would like my last reply to encompass these questions. There is a certain amount you are going to have to infer, analogous too and borrowed from your understanding of biological Darwinian evolution. As my opening statement declared..... "Imagine the difficulty biological scientists would have understanding biology in this day and age, if we were still in a time pre-Darwinian evolution? Can you see how biologists would suffer in much the same way that current day physicists and cosmologists are?" Consider the principles of evolution as a possible way to explain complexities of the atomic world. You say this but then Which is about as far from reality as it is possible to get. Maybe you should consider the far more likely possibility: your imagination has let you down. Which bit of the following is so obviously wrong? Perpetual photon exchange maintains the bond between positively charged proton, and negatively charged electron. Photon being an electrical entity no less, so not dissimilar to lightning.
Mordred Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 As for your questions about the primitive field, replication, adaptation, habitat etc. Dont over think it. Think of the field in terms of the relationship I describe, that it shares with magnetism and electricity. I assume you believe dark energy is somehow emergent of the void of space, as conventional theory prescribes? But how? My suggestion is that it emerges sequentially from parent to progeny. If it does, then inherited traits, and sequential change over time might be considerations. No conventional theory states dark energy emerges from empty space or void. That's pop media literature at fault. Probably due to the once held theory on virtual particle production methods. Which isn't precisely crazy. But here is the news flash you cannot have virtual particles without energy exchange. Particles do pop in and out of existance, including virtual particles but they still follow the conservation laws. Space isn't some substance on its own. It's simply a volume. That volume containing our standard model particles etc.
ajb Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 Having read the explanation and taken some time to contemplate, a physicist will have no trouble comprehending. I am sorry to say that you are just wrong here. You have thrown some biology words at field theory and cosmology and hope that we can all follow. Without a more mathematical framework we are all lost. I have no idea how some of these biology words fit with calculation in quantum or classical field theory. You need to at least to answer the questions I posed earlier. These came from an early section of your work. I am sure that many more poorly defined thing can be found later on. The theory is written in terms of simple and intuitive relationships of natural phenomena, and their observations. Without a mathematical model you do not have a theory. And again, all you seem to have done is thrown some disconnected biology terms with some physics terms. The results is a mess that nobody understands. It is more likely that the simplicity of my explanations will grate the typical physicist more than anything else. Scientists in general welcome simple explanations, but you have not offered anything like that. How do you suggest I express an evolutionary process using mathematics? Moot you say! You do not need to mathematically model biological evolution, but if you claim to have some physical theory then you do need some mathematics. Anyway, my suggestion is that you pick up some books on theoretical physics aimed at graduate students. It will give you some idea of what is expected. I have confidence in my imagination, because of the multitude of confirmed physical correlations of nature, which my theory successfully conforms too. You have made numerical predictions in your imagination that have now been verified by experiment/observation? I have a theory. You just haven't realized it yet Okay, but you have not shown it here. In fact, the best thing is that you don't and submit it to a reputable journal.
Questing Posted January 7, 2016 Author Posted January 7, 2016 No conventional theory states dark energy emerges from empty space or void. That's pop media literature at fault. Probably due to the once held theory on virtual particle production methods. Which isn't precisely crazy. But here is the news flash you cannot have virtual particles without energy exchange. Particles do pop in and out of existance, including virtual particles but they still follow the conservation laws. Space isn't some substance on its own. It's simply a volume. That volume containing our standard model particles etc. What are you saying, dark energy isnt energy? Space is nothingness but nothingness increases in volume expanding the universe? Doesn't violate energy conservation laws while it expands the universe despite its dramatic influences, because you have declared it nothingness? I'm not going to argue with you, after all you are the dark energy theorist. I would be interested in your preferred interpretation of what dark energy is please? Do you have something written up? What or how do you suggest dark energy is expanding the universe, while conserving energy laws?
ajb Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 I feel my explanation provides a good deal of information regarding nature of the field. Then you are mistaken. I describe the relationship the field shares with the void, and the causal relationship with magnetism and electricity. Which accounts for totality of everything universal, simple being emergent from. How the field is an evolved state, and the implication this has for what can be considered truly fundamental in our universe, or what is not fundamental being more the point. You really have not. Again, you seem to have just thrown some words together. I have no idea what many of your terms mean in relation to field theory. As for your questions about the primitive field, replication, adaptation, habitat etc. Dont over think it. Wow, so you don't actually want anyone to try to understand the mess you have written? Once again, without some mathematical framework we have no idea what you are talking about. Also, you have not described the nature of this 'primitive field'. I suggest you take a look at quantum field theory 101 and come back to us more prepared. See if you can give some answers to my earlier questions, please.
Mordred Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 (edited) What are you saying, dark energy isnt energy? Space is nothingness but nothingness increases in volume expanding the universe? Doesn't violate energy conservation laws while it expands the universe despite its dramatic influences, because you have declared it nothingness? I'm not going to argue with you, after all you are the dark energy theorist. I would be interested in your preferred interpretation of what dark energy is please? Do you have something written up? What or how do you suggest dark energy is expanding the universe, while conserving energy laws? One of the leading hypothesis is in the arxiv articles I posted above. The universe could be infinite or finite. We simply don't know. I posted the acceleration equation above showing how an energy density can influence expansion. Here's a news flash take a toy universe of nothing more than photons. That universe will expand. The cosmological constant aka dark energy isn't required to cause a universe to expand. It's needed to explain the accelerating rate of expansion. The clues are in the equations of state. Site Articles (Articles written by PF and Site members) http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry Misconceptions (Useful articles to answer various Cosmology Misconceptions) http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/: A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf:Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446:"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808:"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf:"Misconceptions about the Big bang" also Lineweaver and Davies http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.3966"why the prejudice against a constant I suggest reading these misconceptions articles. If you truly wish an undergrads textbook with moderate math. Barbera Rydens Introductory to Cosmology is excellent. Edited January 7, 2016 by Mordred
Questing Posted January 7, 2016 Author Posted January 7, 2016 I am sorry to say that you are just wrong here. You have thrown some biology words at field theory and cosmology and hope that we can all follow. Without a more mathematical framework we are all lost. I have no idea how some of these biology words fit with calculation in quantum or classical field theory. You need to at least to answer the questions I posed earlier. These came from an early section of your work. I am sure that many more poorly defined thing can be found later on. Without a mathematical model you do not have a theory. And again, all you seem to have done is thrown some disconnected biology terms with some physics terms. The results is a mess that nobody understands. Scientists in general welcome simple explanations, but you have not offered anything like that. You do not need to mathematically model biological evolution, but if you claim to have some physical theory then you do need some mathematics. Anyway, my suggestion is that you pick up some books on theoretical physics aimed at graduate students. It will give you some idea of what is expected. You have made numerical predictions in your imagination that have now been verified by experiment/observation? Okay, but you have not shown it here. In fact, the best thing is that you don't and submit it to a reputable journal. And so it seams, you are to be the one playing role of mathematical fundamentalist! No math, no science!!! I heard it said recently, and quoting Swampyanky. That's been used as a completely unjustified insult against people like field scientists for decades, not least by Rutherford. A better aphorism would be "no data, no science," although this may well exclude some currently accepted-as-science physics hypotheses. Is this all you are going to repeatedly say? because its kind of a narrow argument, that the typical person doesn't really believe. It excludes so many potentials of the human mind as being un-useful.
Mordred Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 (edited) Side note AJB has several peer reviewed articles on Arxiv and is recognized for his mathematical credentials. Several ppl posting on this site have various levels of degrees including up to PH.D level. You might want to listen, I for one gave read several of his published papers Edited January 7, 2016 by Mordred
Questing Posted January 7, 2016 Author Posted January 7, 2016 Then you are mistaken. You really have not. Again, you seem to have just thrown some words together. I have no idea what many of your terms mean in relation to field theory. Wow, so you don't actually want anyone to try to understand the mess you have written? Once again, without some mathematical framework we have no idea what you are talking about. Also, you have not described the nature of this 'primitive field'. I suggest you take a look at quantum field theory 101 and come back to us more prepared. See if you can give some answers to my earlier questions, please. Well, you have admittedly not read it. So little early to state what you believe I have or haven't explained. Your words here, pretty empty of content. "Oh, so you dont want anyone to try to understand" lol. I think I'm going to ignor you
ajb Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 And so it seams, you are to be the one playing role of mathematical fundamentalist! No math, no science!!! In truth, no mathematics means no physical theory, which means it is hard to understand what you are actually trying to present to us. Is this all you are going to repeatedly say? because its kind of a narrow argument, that the typical person doesn't really believe. I have tried to ask you for some clarification of your terms, alas I think you have completely no idea how to start to answer them. I do not follow your 'narrow argument, that the typical person doesn't really believe' comment. If we are discussing physics, cosmology and alike then everyone believes that models are key. It excludes so many potentials of the human mind as being un-useful. Not at all. Anyway, you are moving off topic in some attempt to avoid addressing the questions and comments put to you. I really do wonder why you have decided to post here at all? If you were looking for praise of your wonderful ideas then you are mistaken. We like to discuss science here. Mordered and I have given you some food for thought. I suggest you digest that and see how you can improve your loose ideas.
Questing Posted January 7, 2016 Author Posted January 7, 2016 Side note AJB has several peer reviewed articles on Arxiv and is recognized for his mathematical credentials. Several ppl posting on this site have various levels of degrees including up to PH.D level. You might want to listen, I for one gave read several of his published papers Thank you. I do appreciate you saying so. However I dont buy his opinion. I think he has a bit of a mathematical complex -2
ajb Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 (edited) Well, you have admittedly not read it. So little early to state what you believe I have or haven't explained. Your words here, pretty empty of content. "Oh, so you dont want anyone to try to understand" lol. I was completely stumped by the early parts of your post! That has meant that I only skimmed through the rest. Still, you are ignoring the points and questions that two of us have made. However I dont buy his opinion. I think he has a bit of a mathematical complex Then seek the opinion of other experts in mathematical and theoretical physics, cosmology etc. All will tell you that a mathematical model is key. Your 'story' should be an interpretation. That is a description in words of the mathematical constructs and calculations you have made. In order to do this, even if your theory is not fully developed, we need some idea of the terms you have used. Again, I have no idea what many of the terms mean, and that is before anyone can really start to make a critique. So what does 'So a quantum of primitive primordial field emerges from process I know not what. Begins to multiply, change, adapt and evolve. Divergent species materialize and compete with one another for habitat and resource, and evolutionary arms race ensues' mean? What does it mean for a field to multiply, change, adapt and evolve? Edited January 7, 2016 by ajb
Strange Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 Which bit of the following is so obviously wrong? Perpetual photon exchange maintains the bond between positively charged proton, and negatively charged electron. Photon being an electrical entity no less, so not dissimilar to lightning. Pretty much all of it. 1. The exchange is of virtual photons, not photons (arguably, these are just a mathematical tool) 2. Photons are not "electrical entities" 3. Photons are nothing like lightning (which is a flow of charged particles) I get the impression that you have picked up your knowledge from skimming popular science articles and books. This inevitably means you think you know more than you do. If you are interested in learning the basics, you could start here: http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/fields-and-their-particles-with-math/ However I dont buy his opinion. I think he has a bit of a mathematical complex That is essential if you want to do physics. 1
Questing Posted January 7, 2016 Author Posted January 7, 2016 (edited) Pretty much all of it. 1. The exchange is of virtual photons, not photons (arguably, these are just a mathematical tool) 2. Photons are not "electrical entities" 3. Photons are nothing like lightning (which is a flow of charged particles) 1. Arguably 2. Photons are electromagnetic 3. Photons are electric, lightning is electric. As I said, not entirely dissimilar I do love pop Edited January 7, 2016 by Questing
ajb Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 3. Photons are electric, lightning is electric. As I said, not entirely dissimilar This again maybe your insistence on loose terminology. Photons are the quanta of the electromagnetic field, so yes they are something to do with electromagnetic theory. Lightning is related to the flow of charged particles. Calling photons electric maybe a bit misleading.
Mordred Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 (edited) Photons are the force carrier of the electromagnetic force but do not have a charge. Where as an electron and proton do. Cross posted with ajb Edited January 7, 2016 by Mordred
Questing Posted January 7, 2016 Author Posted January 7, 2016 Photons are the force carrier of the electromagnetic force but do not have a charge. Where as an electron and proton do. Cross posted with ajb thank you mordred That other guy needs to loosen up. see the lighter side. I'm not going to be drawn in to his sillyness -3
swansont Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 I think there is an energy conservation problem. Perpetual photon exchange maintains the bond between positively charged proton, and negatively charged electron. Photon being an electrical entity no less, so not dissimilar to lightning. Atomic electric fields, elemental bonds work very hard and dont tire. I think this slightly embarrassing issue has been swept under the carpet. Or, highlights peoples ability for denial. If my theory resolved the dark matter crisis, then this energy conservation issue is a bitter pill which must be swallowed along with it. A photon is not an "electrical entities", and it is not "not dissimilar to lightning". Photons have no charge. There is no current flow with photons. There is no work done in maintaining bonds. "Work" has a specific meaning within physics; the energy of the system is constant, so no work needs to be done. There is absolutely no issue with conservation of energy here. You simply don't know what you're talking about.
Questing Posted January 7, 2016 Author Posted January 7, 2016 (edited) A photon is not an "electrical entities", and it is not "not dissimilar to lightning". Photons have no charge. There is no current flow with photons. There is no work done in maintaining bonds. "Work" has a specific meaning within physics; the energy of the system is constant, so no work needs to be done. There is absolutely no issue with conservation of energy here. You simply don't know what you're talking about. An electrical field might be termed an electrical entity. Charge is a property of a particles electric field. Elemental bonds perform hard work for long duration of time, and yet conventional theory doesn't expect they should give something of themselves to perform this work. I stand by my assertion, its an unresolved issue. Following is something I posted earlier Energy conservation and comparing gravity, to the atoms electric field and electron. If it is your preferred interpretation of general relativity, that mass curves space and time to create a gravitational field, and so an orbiting body experiences no force upon it, because there is no force. Its just a body moving along a straight line in curved space? An interesting way to get around energy conservation laws by the way, for the alternative would require that if gravity was a force, its value would also have to factor duration. But we’re not talking about General Relativity, so we don’t have any such trick to circumvent energy conservation laws when talking about an atoms electric field and electron interaction. There are a lot of ways this could be argued, however simple is best. An electron has mass? So it experiences inertia, and especially so because it moves very fast? So requires energy to change its direction of motion, and continual energy for continual change in inertial motion? Assuming an electric field can persist without an energy source in the first instance, then how does an Atoms electric field overcome an electrons inertial mass, without performing work? And of cause an atoms ability to overcome electron inertial mass is of minor significance, when compared to its full potential expressed in elemental bonds. The vagueness of QM cant save the argument, because energy conservation laws apply to that domain also. Edited January 7, 2016 by Questing
Recommended Posts