elfmotat

 

I think we need to take a holistic view, and think of the electron and the proton as a pair, this way the overall energy is not lost.

I said local energy conservation.

Nearly everything is science

That's just so wrong that I don't even know where to begin.

You realize that electrons gaining mass over time would violate local energy conservation, right?

You can even build particle detector at home for 50 usd or so. Here is example instruction (in half hour or less):

That's pretty cool.

Bergen here. I'm actually going to be in Monmouth this weekend.

I won't be . I'm at school until Thanksgiving.

Couldn't you say that the speed of time is number of seconds per 'base second', where a 'base second' is a second on a clock that has no velocity and is not near a large mass?

 

No velocity according to who?

Speculation allows the mind to have fun, to run free, sometimes something comes out of the wildest ideas, It what makes us human.

That's all well and good, as long as you don't try to call it "science."

but that is in the place of the rate in m/s of the expansion of the universe.

How does that make it any less undefined?

And E^(NC)or M^(NC) are neutral representations.

Define "neutral representation."

 

 

We do? In what context?

Phase space of a single particle I'm guessing.

A little symplectic and Poisson geometry in relation to the Hamiltonian description of classical mechanics would be useful for canonical quantisation. Connections, geometric phase, gauge transformations etc come later and not as an introduction I would say.

That's true, but it's probably not something the OP should devote a massive amount of time to if he just wants to get a good feel for QM. Though I'd say it's definitely worth spending the time on once he gets into relativistic QM and QFT.

My high school in New Jersey did not.

Haha, where in NJ? Monmouth county reporting.

Maybe, but it sounds like it would be a terribly inefficient (and probably dangerous) way of doing things.

And energy does not have speed, either.

Damn. Missed one.

• There are lots of different constants: permittivity of free space, Planck's constant, the speed of light, the gravitational constant, the fine structure constant, etc. So it's not clear what you mean by "second constant."

I've heard it tastes charm.

Really? I've heard it tastes strange.

but even ground potential is gradually falling by around 0.5 millivolts per year, so to MigL's reply above, even the proton will eventually decay.

WHAT?! What in the world are you talking about?

Do you know the position-space equations of motion for the mass? Do you know how to find them? What are your thoughts from here?

For that matter the neutron is heavier than the proton

Free neutrons aren't stable though.

"observers rest mass plus momentum is mc^2"

It's wrong, I make mistakes too

Okay, but what about the rest of the comments/questions you've received? You seem to be selectively ignoring the parts that don't bode well for your "idea." Nobody has the slightest clue why you keep insisting that velocity is somehow equal to some kind of electrostatic potential. Your "equations" look like they came about by taking several disparate quantities you found while browsing wikipedia for a few minutes, and trying to staple them together without any real understanding of what they mean.

Ajb,

Bring me a stable fermion heavier than the proton, and I shall reconsider my case

Steven

What does that have to do with his question?

Alternatively you could examine a particle with larger mass, which, assuming it is stable, will make quantum effects less apparent.

At every time t an object will have an associated velocity vector, v(t). We define the speed of the object at time t as |v(t)|. It's a definition, so it's not really something you can ask "why" about.

The magnitude of velocity is equal to speed by definition.

Pick up differential geometry

Why would he need differential geometry for intro QM? I mean, more math knowledge can only help, but that seems like a strange recommendation.

There is uncertainty in observable quantities like acceleration. Plus, acceleration is not really a useful concept in QM. I think a better question to ask would be, "what is the probability for an electron to start at A and be detected at B in time t?" The answer is an amplitude called the "propagator," which is defined as: [math]K(x,x',t)= \langle x'|e^{-iHt/\hbar} |x \rangle[/math]. The amplitude squared gives you the probability.

In the UK some very very basic quantum mechanics is taught at high school. They don't see the Schroedinger wave equation, operators or anything like that. They meet wave particle duality, electron diffraction, the photoelectric effect, Planck's law and atomic spectra. There you are, if one is looking for a place to start one could google these terms.

Yeah, my high school in New Jersey taught basically the same stuff to the upperclassmen.

It means "derivative of v with respect to time." So yes, acceleration.

 

Possibly with a wink in my direction.

I was joking as well.

 

Then you're both in wrong section.

Joke section is here

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/3-the-lounge/

 

I just wanted to show you experiment, that everybody is learning at school, but nobody is performing in real - after all how many of you have vacuum chamber with dozen meters height...

 

Oh boy, sorry about the thread derail.