morp

In many textbooks we read Rutherford said a rotating dipole should radiate energy by the Maxwell laws. The hydrogen atom being an rotating electric dipole must therefor radiate energy. But the Poynting Vector of the field of a rotating electric dipole is null,showing there is no energy radiation . My question is:: Iis it possible Rutherford was wrong or did he not make that mistake abd are those, who cite him,lying?

Morp

There too many posts to reply at once. Most posst suppose some misunderstaning.

E.g. the ULTRAVIOLETCATASTROFE is based on the hypothesis molecules are similar to steel or marble spheres. When the elastcity of molecules is taken into account,solids ,liquids and gases are mechanically low-pass filters that do not transmit high frequencies.

I must point out that molecules or atoms do not radiate, only Charges radiate , in this case the electrons.

Dipoles radiate when the dipole moment is changed A dipole does not radiate when it is moved or rotated. A general belief is that a rotating dipole radiates but by E.M laws it should not.

It is said also that the hydrogen atom contradicts the Maxwell laws.I should like to hear or to see a more precise accusation.

The hydrogen spectrum is derived simply from old classical principles or laws, the photon hypothesis requires other improbable hypotheses such as the quantisation of orbits. The consequence of this hypothesis is that only lines can be radiated in a discontinuous spectrum .A continous spectrum as radiated in reality and iexplained by classical physics cannot be explained logically by QM.

The hydrogen spectrum is explained by improbable hypotheses that cannot be used for other elements. By classical physics thermal radiation and atomic spectra are explained by the same old laws. If the temperature of any element is lowered to reduce thermal radiation, the atomic spectrum of that element is radiated, showing the radiation laws are all the same.

By classical physics you need only pre-Einstein laws and principles Why the difficult QM -way?

Morp

Morp

In calm air It certainly is possible. The only problem is the compressed air container. Y should use a plastic cylinder, not a metal one A metallic container will be too heavy for your helium baloon.

After reading a number of scientific articles about far distant galaxies and the

estimated age of the universe I began wondering how we could supposedly

see light from objects that are 12 billion light years or so away. This is

supposed to be light from nearly the beginning of time and space.

 

If we agree to believe that the big bang actually happened then this would

mean that at some point we were much closer (cosmologically speaking)

to those distant objects.

 

Since matter travels at a mere fraction of the speed of light is seems

somewhat dubious that any light emitted from that object at the beginning

of time, as we know it, would not already have passed us a long, long, long

time ago.

 

We have developed many tools for measuring distance from relatively

nearby objects. I suspect that these work well up to a point, at which

they start to break down somehow.

 

Could it be that using light to measure distance works well when

objects have been relatively close together since the beginning and

then breaks down when objects become very far apart ?

 

Maybe the big bang never happened and objects that are far away have

always been far away ?

 

Doesn't the fact that these supposed far distant objects are 12 billion light

years away mean that the universe is far older than 14 billion light years

or have these objects been moving at the speed of light ?

 

I found an article in Wikipedia which attempts to explain this but I'm not

sure I buy it. Look for 'Metrical_expansion_of_space'.

There are many conflicting Big Bang theories.

Only a theory holding that physical laws have always been the same can the the base of a scientific discussion.

With that hypothesis big bang must have been an explosion at a given moment at a given place.From the actual velocities etc. of stars we can deduce the coordinates of the big bang .The conclusion then is that,depending on the choice of stars, the BB did not occur at a single moment or at a single place, but at several or many different places and times..

Another problem is the velocity problem

By hypothesis all initial mass would in one point.By leaving that point the velocities of the stars would decrease by the Newton laws. Considering actual speeds we can calculate the speeds1.000 years ago, .2.000 years ago etc. We then find that,not so long ago, several stars must have had velocities of 2c,3c etc., c being the velocity of light.

Therefore we must conclude the BB never happened

Aristotle wrote down the opinion of most Ancient Philosophers : The cosmos was never created, had always existed and had always been varying.

Actually the Aristotle theory is the only theory of the origin of the world that is not contradicted by science or religion

This I just bugging me. I dont see how anything, photons, kinetic energy, whatever, can go about In getting concentrated amounts of electrons In a wire while not simultaneously making the inductor and/or the magnet an ion.

 

Can anyone help?

 

Thanks.

We do not understand your problem. What do you mean by energy and by electricity?

On a bicycle energy comes from the legs and electricity goes to the lamp.There are nowhere concentrated amounts of electrons, electrons are just flowing.

imagine a universe consisting entirely of particles that have no other properties than a simple internal state that is either on or off. call them bits. each bit observes 2 other bits and changes its state (time itself would be discrete) according to what it sees. it does not matter 'where' these other 2 bits are at. (think quantum entanglement). in fact the whole concept of 'where' would be meaningless to them. space itself would not exist.

 

to make it more interesting we would have to imagine that the bits can somehow increase in numbers by dividing in two. we could imagine that the whole thing began with a single bit which divided repeatedly forming a vast chaotic sea of bits in which life could conceivably evolve.

 

now I dont know if such a universe does or even could exist but I do propose that the concept of 'space' might not be as fundamental as it is usually thought to be.

You should start by a new definition of EXISTENCE

Now we believe existence implies SPACE

Hello everyone,

 

I understand wavelength,frequency but not the amplitude. Can anyone here explain what do they mean by the amplitude. In some places they say it is the maximum displacement of a particle but isn't this the wavelength. My other confusion with sound is this

 

 

Ok here the amplitude is the top bit from the graph. So it is maximum change in pressure. So why is it measured in m. Can anyone tell me what does this mean in particle level.

 

 

If this is how sound spreads in all directions. I don't get it. Shouldn't sound follow a straight path like the longitudinal wave in the top picture. I thought sound was a longitudinal wave then why is travelling circular like this. Can anyone relate the longitudinal wave with this pic and tell how are they related. Is the wavelength in this case the distance between two waves or

Inside each ripple is their a longitudinal wave?

 

Any help in any of these questions would be much appreciated :-) :-)

In a sound wave You have nine amplitudes.You have displacements of molecules, velocities of molecules,velocities and air pressure, each with components in 3 dimensions. for sound in air, in water,in wood,etc. Each component has its own frequency,Amplitude etc.. For amplitude we ha ve peak a., mean a., effective a., mean square a. hreskold

amplitide legal loudness limits .etc

Is this clear enough ?

Morp

I am close to understand Electromagnetism (in the basic sense)

 

What i am not getting is the interaction of the field with the force and the interaction with photons.

 

Let's have a simple ciruit here.

 

+ ================= -

 

I know a magnetic field can produce and electric field and vise versa.

 

So what happens when you connect a battery to the terminals? Is a electric field generated? Electrons rush to the postitive terminal...If it is an electric field generated is it within the wire soley? and if it's in the wire, doesnt that create a magnetic field (perpendicular to the electrical field)?

 

Then how do photons actually interact? Do photons actually carry the electromagnetic force from the field to the charged particles? Are the particles charged before or after the interaction. Do we know what causes particles to be charged?

 

I am trying to figure out how even the atom holds the protons and electrons together, there has to be a field presents somewhere...does that mean that there is some field I am in right now? Can I exist without an EM field...does that also mean that you can create other fields with greater intensity, or can you strength a localized portion of this general field?

 

SORRY lots of questions.

-----------------------------------------------

It is quite simple.Stay with Maxwell and forget QM

When you connect a wire to a battery electrons will rush into the wire or into the battery depending on the initial potentials. The corrent that foltows the connection will be an exponential or oscillating one, depending on the connected Load. A simple wire without load is a load also with ll, C,R, The resulting current wil create a circular magnetic field around your wire that will propagate into space together with with the electric field as a short living E.M. wave.

Owing to Maxwell a small E;M wave will propagate into space, dying out with distance. The photons your are thinking about, are useless fictions .

Morp

I know no atomic phenomenon that cannot be explained simply by Maxwell laws.

But I know several lies told about Maxwell laws

For example in books it is written,and attributed to Rutherford, the hydrogen atom , a rotating electric dipole, should radiate energy.

This lly comes from people who do not know the Maxwell laws or dont understand them.;

An electric or magnetic dipole, with a given magnetic or electric dipole moment, will not radiate even wen accelerating., not in reality and not by Maxwell laws.

Proof:the stability of the hydrogen atom.

Mawell did not know either about Mikroskopic or Makroskopic worlds.

There is only one physical world.

Morp

.

By the hypothesis of Maxwell,Light is an E.M. wave, every optical phenomenon can be explained.

Most optical phenomena,e.g. the Rainbow,,cannot be explained bij quantum physics.

Why that preference for quanta.

Fashion?

Morp

The Physics of Aristotle and Ptolemaios are, or were, "Accepted physics"

All known phenomena can be explained by traditional, normal, physics.

But many cannot be explained by "Accepted physics"

What is ,for exemple ,the difference between green photons and red photons ?

By traditional physics it is quite simple,it is a matter of frequency,4 Ghz for green

3Ghz for red.

And by "Accepted Physics" ???

For most chemical elements atomic structures and atomic spectra are known.

By normal physics the spectrum of an atom can be deduced from its structure and vice versa.. No one can do that by "Accepted physics"

It is a physical reality dat light is an E.M. wave an that Photons never existed not now and not in the time of Aristotele

Morp

The answer is yes and no.Dependenig on the liquid the prssure will at first no rise witkh temp.Above the boiling temp. the pressure will increase rapidly with temp. Above the "Critical point" the liquid/vapor will behave as a gas, GAS LAWS Will apply.

IF your question is a bit more precise i can gi!ve a more precise answer.

Morp

Photons do not exist

Litterature gives a single "proof" of their existence:the foto-electric effect.

If this effect existed really , it would not prove the existence of photons.

But the so called photoelectric effect is a thermal effect dependeing only on temperature.

The "foto-electric effect"occurs also in complete darkness.

See Nobel prize winner Richardson. who left a formula ( from about 1900 ) for the ionic emission

Morp

a man could be modified to sail or to glide but not to fly like a bird.. To make a flying man many modifications would he needed. The bones must be lighter,the heart,he lungs ,the muscles must be heavier etc. the only part of the human body that could be reused to fly is his brain

What is a new theory?

Bohr and many others stumbled on atomic spectra because they did not understand the two "nabla" 's of Maxwell . They did not see the difference between a changing field and an E M wave.

Is an explanation of the hydrogen spectrum from Maxwell a new theory?

Everybody may have it. (.pdf 150 kb )

foofaa

(e-mail fb254383@skynet.be