Sensei

The best software you can have, is your own software. You can change it any time you need and want.. And it's free..

Transverse conductivity, from sheet to sheet: that's not very difficult anyway. Electrons can pass by tunnel effect. The distance between the sheets is bigger than would be comfortable, but still within reach. One atomic distance makes tunneling easy (this defines an atomic distance), two would only be difficult. So it doesn't formally need a chemical bond nor even a definite intermolecular bond: proximity would suffice.

This theory should be easy to check..

Place piece of graphite parallel and then perpendicular to applied current.

If you're right, results should differ.

ps. What I coincidence. I was just two hours ago checking what magnetic field lines will be created by piece of graphite through which we are passing 2 A current.

---- What is the result of disintegration of Muon? One electron, one anti- neutrino, one neutrino.

Not exactly.

It's muon's neutrino.

or muon's anti-neutrino.

Depending on charge.

There are three types of neutrinos discovered so far:

electron neutrino, or anti-neutrino.

muon neutrino, or anti-neutrino

and

tau neutrino, or anti-neutrino.

You won't detect muon's or tau's neutrino using neutrino detector designed for electron's neutrino. f.e. Chlorine-37 based neutrino detector will react only with electron's neutrinos with E >= 0.813 MeV.

If neutrino has less energy (f.e. produced in ordinary fusion of Hydrogen) neutrino's detector won't be triggered.

Hydrogen atom has 2 electrons in the level s (hydrogen molecule)

 

Ionized hydrogen atom has one electron (the molecule is broken)

Bond-dissociation energy of Hydrogen is completely different thing.

4.52 eV per molecule, and 436 kJ/mol.

It's three times lower than ionization energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond-dissociation_energy

If you will dissociate molecule:

H₂ -> H⁺ + H^-

You will have one proton with 2 electrons, and one proton with 0 electrons.

Being the electron in the level n=1, the hydrogen atom cannot absorb two different photons with 12.75 eV and 10.2 eV

12.75 eV excites electron in Hydrogen from n=1 to n=4 as has been showed in previous post.

and

10.2 eV excites completely different electron in completely different Hydrogen from n=1 to n=2.

After excitation, it's releasing photon, and goes back to ground state.

Then it can absorb another one.

1) 50% of chance to find the cat alive

 

2) 50% of chance to find the cat dead

Where did you get that 50%??

Made up by yourself...

Suppose we repeat the experiment, several times, with many different cats.

 

In 50% of the cases, we open the box and we find the cat alive, and when we play the video we find the cat alive too.

 

But in 50% of the cases, we open the box and we find the cat alive, while when we play the video we find the cat dead.

 

 

Therefore, in 50% of the cases Quantum Mechanics is wrong.

 

So... ?

Nobody is saying about 50% probability in case of any radioactive isotope...

Are you familiar with calculation of decay rate using half-life?

[latex]I = I_0 * 2^{-\frac{t}{t_1/2}}[/latex]

I₀ - initial quantity of radioactive isotope (or unstable particles)

I - current quantity of radioactive isotope

t - current time

t_1/2 - half life time

2) Sometimes the electron has energy E(1) and it goes from n=1 to n=4

I am repeating:

Electron absorbed photon with energy equal to

[latex]E = \frac{13.6 eV}{1^2} - \frac{13.6 eV}{4^2} = \frac{13.6 eV}{1} - \frac{13.6 eV}{16} = 13.6 eV - 0.85 eV = 12.75 eV[/latex]

3) Sometimes the electron has energy E(2), and it goes from n=1 to n=2

Electron absorbed photon with energy equal to

[latex]E = \frac{13.6 eV}{1^2} - \frac{13.6 eV}{2^2} = \frac{13.6 eV}{1} - \frac{13.6 eV}{4} = 13.6 eV - 3.4 eV = 10.2 eV[/latex]

Send photon with energy E = 13.6 eV and you will permanently ionize Hydrogen atom. It means we will have free proton and free electron not bound together.

13.6 eV * 1.602*10^-19 = 2.17872E-018 J * 6.022141e23 mol^-1 = 1312056 J/mol = 1312 kJ/mol

And such value you can see on element's ionization table f.e. here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionization_energies_of_the_elements_(data_page)

That's energy needed to make plasma from the all Hydrogens in 1 mole of particles.

The absorption spectrum shows that a photons emitted in a level has always the same wavelenght of the photon absorbed in that level.

Once particle is proceeding other particle, thus photon emitted will be blue shifted, and other time it's receding other particle, thus photon emitted will be red shifted and won't be able to be absorbed by that 2nd particle. It's relativistic Doppler shift.

This is what makes spectrum lines wider.

The faster particles are moving the wider spectral line.

If your argument was valid, it would be impossible to get the absorption spectrum of the Sun.

If you send beam of photons with E = 12.75 eV to Hydrogen, you will receive photons with E=10.2 eV and E=2.55 eV

If you send beam of photons with E = 13.6 eV to Hydrogen, you will receive photons with E=10.2 eV, E=2.55 eV, E=1.88 eV, and many many others that you can calculate by yourself using above equation.

See this screen-shot what energy photons you will receive:

Ionized hydrogen atom has only one electron

Nope. Ionized Hydrogen atom has no electrons. There is free proton, and somewhere else there is free electron.

However, sometimes it emits photons from n=1 to n=4, and sometimes it emits photons from n=1 to n=2

 

Therefore the hydrogen atom does not obey to the rules of Quantum Mechanics

Where did you get such information that atom in ground state will be emitting photons?

Nucleus can emit gamma photons, but that's completely different than what we're speaking about.

What the cause of such a sequence is? (....)

So, Quantum Mechanics is phantasmagoric. It works without physical causes.

Do you even know how these results are obtained in lab?

By ionization of gas in tube by high voltage, then passing it through prism, and then after zooming to screen.

If you send photon with specific energy, you will excite atom(s) to specific maximum level.

Excited electrons in atom will emit photons. Some photons might be absorbed by other atoms, and new photons emitted.

Excited electron might not be able to return to initial level, because it's already taken by other electron (after emitting other photon with different energy). They will swap their "locations".

Cause is high voltage.

You can build your own spectral lines tube using f.e. glass test tube and fill it by Hydrogen, Oxygen from electrolysis. And connect it to Cockcroft-Walton generator. And see it on your own eyes.

Search on eBay for "discharge tube" or "spectral line tube"

f.e.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-Spectrum-Discharge-Tube-x-2-Spectrum-Analysis-Gas-Spectrum-Tube-set-of-2-/171435386822

$45 for two tubes is good price IMHO.

But there is not, in QM, any cause responsible for some specific sequence. For instance, why sometimes does the electron go from n=1 to n=2, and sometimes it goes from n=1 to n=4? From the theory there is no way to find the physical cause for the reason why, from a starting point at the same initial level n=1, sometimes the electron goes to n=2, sometimes it goes to n=3, and sometimes it goes to n=4.

???

Electron goes from n=1 to n=2,3,4,5.... infinity (theoretically) when it absorbs energy, usually from photon. And from higher n to lower, when it's releasing photon.

Energy of photon (E=h*f) defines to which level electron will be able to go.

f.e.

[latex]E = \frac{13.6 eV}{n_1^2} - \frac{13.6 eV}{n_2^2}[/latex]

For n₁=1 and n₂=2

[latex]E = \frac{13.6 eV}{1} - \frac{13.6 eV}{4} = 10.2 eV[/latex]

For n₁=2 and n₂=3

[latex]E = \frac{13.6 eV}{4} - \frac{13.6 eV}{9} = 1.88889 eV[/latex]

This is actually in visible spectrum, wavelength = 656 nm

Red spectral line in spectrum of Hydrogen.

For n₁=2 and n₂=4

[latex]E = \frac{13.6 eV}{4} - \frac{13.6 eV}{16} = 2.55 eV[/latex]

This is in visible spectrum, wavelength = 486 nm

There is theoretical work that limits distance cosmic rays with relativistic speeds can travel.

It's based on theory that when relativistic particle will collide with background radiation photon, there might be created pion particle because of large relativistic Doppler blue shifting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greisen%E2%80%93Zatsepin%E2%80%93Kuzmin_limit

The last thirty years or so have seen the rise of corporate efficiency expertise. Wealthy firms that need to get even wealthier hired the best penny-pinchers around, and incrementally over the last few decades, the practices they've instituted have grown profits to record levels.

 

But after these financial wizards removed the low-hanging fruit, they turned their sights on other ways to save. They started paying less and made it clear that the workers were lucky to have a job. Over time, we've seen a good deal of money that should have gone to the middle class get reallocated to the execs and shareholders, where tax loopholes and the best attorneys decrease the amount of revenue the government can claim.

 

They discovered they could make an even bigger profit by writing their own legislation and lobbying it through Congress. They lobby for subsidies, no-bid contracts, and other sweetheart deals that corrupt the spirit of a free market. They get to de-regulate themselves and loosen restrictions even more. Now the financial guys are trying to move headquarters to more tax favorable havens so they can make even more money at the expense of taxpayers they still want as customers.

 

I don't think it's a matter of evil corporations, I think it's a matter of smart people taking advantage of ambivalent voters and a poorly monitored system. But how long can we continue to let these mega-corporations suck the life out of our tax revenue and our purchasing power while still enjoying access to our country's infrastructure and all the benefits that entails? At a certain point, don't you think corporations owe their country's more than just job-making? Shouldn't there be a certain allegiance to the country who holds your corporate charter?

Greed. One of the worst est sins.

Because of greed people kill others to get their worthless wallet with a few bucks..

"Financial wizards" destroy people with white gloves. f.e. buying companies near bankruptcy (or perfectly stable! but below price of their assets), and instead of doing everything the best to resurrected company, firing majority of crew, and selling the rest of equipment. That's how "joining" with other company looks like in many examples. By basically wiping it out.

Autodesk behave like that. Bought half of world's 3d application making companies (competitors!), sucked their technology, fired crew and shut them down.

Now it's doing so with XSI/Softimage

https://www.facebook.com/AutodeskSoftimage/posts/10151924084585877

(see also comments from users on the bottom)

To make stock holders happy now on you won't be buying software, you will be lending it for a year, month or week! Then it'll be stopping working, and you will have to pay again, and next year again, and again. Otherwise it'll be not working anymore. Instead of having software for many years/forever, customers will pay hundred times more to be able to even use it.

That's why every major software company is pushing more and more on moving on to cloud - software won't be even on your own disk!

Anne Applebaum comment about "War in Ukraine"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/anne-applebaum-war-in-europe-is-not-a-hysterical-idea/2014/08/29/815f29d4-2f93-11e4-bb9b-997ae96fad33_story.html?wprss=rss_anne-applebaum

(she is privately wife of Polish foreign minister and laureate of Pulitzer prize)

But right now we just hope that things will calm down soon...

How can they calm down when western countries constantly are showing their weakness? That's invitation to do even more..

Today I read Obama's statement that US won't send troops to help Ukraine. That's outrageous. He could as well said "take Ukraine, we don't care".. That's what pretty normal russian read from today statement after translation between words. He want to be remembered as XXI century Chamberlain.. ?

There is only one way to stop putin.

You know what I mean...

Rapid acceleration, deceleration might kill.

When your body is decelerating brain in head is continuing flying in previous direction, hitting your skull and smashing, causing damage and internal bleeding.

Yes, of course. I didn't meant that it's binary exclusive feature.

Let's see f.e. radioactive decay.

In one moment unstable parent isotope mass is contributing a bit to overall mass of Earth,

then when it decays part of that mass is changing to relativistic kinetic energy of alpha, proton, neutron, electron or positron (depending on decay mode).

If relativistic kinetic energy doesn't contribute to overall mass of Earth, it would means that masses of planets, stars and any objects in cosmic space are decreasing with time.

The more radioactive isotopes they have (with short half-lives), the more they would be losing mass. *)

Billions of billions of decays per second happens in Earth's core.

f.e.

Uranium-238 -> Thorium-234 + alpha + 4.26992 MeV

4.26992 MeV is equivalent to 7.6118*10^-30 kg mass lost per particle that decayed.

*) It happens evidently in decays where neutrino is escaping Earth with speed ~c.

Suppose so we have black hole and two protons, one with relativistic velocity, second one with a few km/s.

After dragging them to inside of hole - they're increasing in both cases mass of dark hole by 1.67*10^-27 kg? or by total energy.. ?

I am for total energy..

 

That thread confirms what I thought: relativistic mass does not increase gravitation (see post #6 for example).

Counter-argument is in results from particle accelerators:

Relativistic proton hitting another proton is creating yet another pair of proton and antiproton.

p+ + p+ -> p+ + p+ + p+ + p-

From kinetic energy of particle, two new particles are created.

Negative mass is not existing, antiproton doesn't cancel proton's mass!

Theory behind device shouldn't be needed to patent any device.

Nobody knew about electrons and photons nor magnetics and electrics, but early XIX century electromagnets worked (made in 1824)..

So IMHO inventor filling a patent obligation is to describe "how to build device", not "how it works" (and theory behind it).

In bart's discussion about LENR, I have provided my vision how and why Rossi device might work (with decay energies (in MeV) calculated using my application, analyzed different isotopes): it's spending energy for making free neutrons, and they are absorbed by nucleus (releasing a bit of decay energy), then newly produced isotopes are also unstable, and decay again releasing even more energy (this time significant more, than spend). And we have overall result - energy on output (as heat) is higher than energy on input..

There was not a bit of speculation in it.

Wlad's showed discussion with Rossi, where he appeared to be pretty mainstream physicists, judging his comments.

Thirdly, you have blown your chance of obtaining a patent by publishing the information. The good news is that you have also prevented anyone else patenting the information (unless they have already done so).

This would basically disallow patenting anything that is new...

Suppose so, I have found something that disagree with currently known physics.

Patent office will reject it, because it can't work their opinion based on known physics.

So there is no way to patent it! And I can't publish paper to scientists community otherwise will lose patent ability.

Endless loop.

Rossi (or other Cold Fusion scientists) complained that patent office doesn't want to accept his device because office specialists claim it can't work.

If it really can't work, he will just waste money on patent, and nobody will be able to utilize it, including himself.

But at least he will be able to show device internals to public without risking losing patent ability.

I like early (f.e. XIX century) patent office approach: inventor had to include working device to get patent for it..

Then there is no risk it's fraud.

I am currently a fourth year student in a mathematics department. I am aware that only science can help to survive humans in future.

How do we attract more young people to science? I want to start to do something for it.

I want to lecture in university to train younger students, but I afraid that many will laugh at me.

Lessons in primary & secondary schools can't be boring. They must be entertaining.

f.e. on lessons about optics every student should get four lasers R/G/B/White, polarization filters, diffraction granting, single & double slits. And that should be in primary school physics.

f.e. on lessons about electricity there should be showed electrons from radioactive decay in Cloud Chamber. Every school should have multiple such devices. Put them in hall, so students can see it during breaks between lessons. With buttons to turn on magnets/electromagnets, slider to control current and therefor strength of electromagnet.

On lesson about electricity and magnetics students should build their own electromagnets, their own electric engine from wires and bars of steel.

Build their own Volta's batteries, build their own array of compasses to visualize magnetic field lines.

I was only wondering, how prime numbers can be determined in Binary, if all Binary numbers can only be divided by "1"

 

I still don't quite get it, but am content to dumbly accept Sensei's explanation. Thanks again!

Can you divide in binary?

Then you can check whether some number is prime or not.

%110 = 6

try divide it by:

%001

%010

%011

%100

And it's dividable by %10 (2) and %11 (3)

If number in binary has some visible pattern, it'll be for sure dividable by that pattern f.e.

%10011001 (153)

It will be dividable by %1001 (9)

Can you tell in decimal whether 153 is dividable by 9 from memory? Unlikely unless you're genius or have calculator..

But in binary it's immediately visible.

And result will be:

%00010001 (17)

See that "1" is always where is beginning of pattern.

Is

%100110011001100110011001100110011001

dividable by %1001 ?

Is 41231686041 dividable by 9??

Of course! It's clearly visible in binary..

And result will be:

%100010001000100010001000100010001

4581298449

 

edit: I think the wiki article is assuming colinear motion, as it's a scalar equation, so it's not surprising that they find a contradiction. Momentum is a vector, and you have to treat it as such. Solving it as a scalar is the same as assuming 1D.

Yes, I know momentum is vector (similar like velocity is vector).

Sorry, but please show me using vector math how incoming photon with E = 510999, with wavelength=2.42 pm, and momentum p= h / 2.42*10^-12 = 2.738e-022 (let's simplify it that it's going in +x axis)

will lead to electron with higher momentum p = m_e * 0.8 * 299792458 * 1.6666 = 3.6408e-022 (Relativistic kinetic energy = 340 keV)

and scattered photon with E = 170500 eV, wavelength = 7.27 pm, and momentum p = h / 7.27*10^-12 = 9.11139e-023.

(these data are result of Compton scattering formula for angle = 180 degrees)

It's also a matter of a photon having momentum, which is classically the connection with there being a force (or impulse). [...]

 

A photon incident on e.g. a bare electron cannot be absorbed, because momentum and energy can't be simultaneously conserved. The photon is scattered.

You're probably thinking about angular momentum, not linear momentum.

Because in Compton scattering most certainly linear momentum is not conserved.

It's even more or less visiblely said in article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering

Quote from article:

"Note that the momentum gained by the electron (formerly zero) exceeds the momentum lost by the photon:"

After making calculations for f.e. angle = 180 degrees ([latex]\frac{h}{m_e*c}*2[/latex]) we can see that incoming photon with E=511 keV (wavelength=2.42 pm) is giving 340 keV to electron (it's now on its kinetic energy), and new photon with 170.5 keV (wavelength=7.27 pm) is created (Inquisitive person would ask how long it takes such scattering, how long photon is fully absorbed prior emitting new one).

Electron with K.E.=340510 eV has gamma=1.666 and v=0.8c

Momentum of incoming photon: 2.73804545454545E-022

Momentum of incoming electron: 0

Momentum of outgoing photon: 9.11139146152144E-023

Momentum of outgoing electron: 3.64081441381092E-022

A photon being absorbed relies on there being an internal structure to system to allow for an excitation.

Example Compton scattering on electrons shows that particle doesn't need to have internal structure to being accelerated.

In early quantum physics proton was also thought to have no internal structure.

It also might change with electron, when somebody will find out incontrovertible experimental proof.

But there is needed open mind to be able to realize it in the first place.

ps. I am attaching OpenOffice SpreadSheet, so anyone can quickly reproduce calcs.

Compton Scattering Angle 180 Calcs.zip

Observation means measurement.

f.e. passing light through polarization filter.

f.e. absorbing photons (and converting them to electric impulses that can be counted)

Please note that I have no argument against ‘Kinetic theory of gas’. My doubt (expressed in my first post) is how come an assumption used in it has transformed itself into a real fact without a proper mechanism that relates them and lead towards equating energy with motion (by many).

Isn't it basic observation that you can perform in f.e. kitchen, not to mention lab.. ?

Burned fuel (typically methane) is releasing energy via reaction:

CH₄ + 2 O₂ -> CO₂ + 2 H₂O

Input molecules have little kinetic energy (especially if we're burning liquid or solid fuel), and products are highly accelerated gas molecules.

You can reverse this process, by cooling down gas molecules, and they will be back liquid. Which is used quite often in distillation.

I think it is only fair that a logical mechanism of action is required before equating them. In other words, I am interested to know how does energy move a matter-particle.

Photon has energy E=h*f.

When it's absorbed by charged particle such as proton or electron, it's disappearing from the system, but energy must be conserved, therefor particle that absorbed it is accelerated.

It can scatter to other particles and give them all or part of kinetic energy, and larger and larger amount of particles is accelerated. Suddenly absorbed energy is spread across billions of particles/molecules.