# Przemyslaw.Gruchala

Senior Members

241

## Posts posted by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

### Electron And Positron

What is the difference between the two shapes?

Like they said - they don't model it using different shapes..

Just reversed sign.

If you have waves f.e. +sin(x) and -sin(x) and they overlap, result is +sin(x)-sin(x)=0..

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

### Electron And Positron

But what you are doing here is rather like this...

You and I are discussing what a tiger looks like. I produce a picture of an elephant and say this is what a tiger looks like.

You reply, no it doesn't, a tiger doesn't look anything like that picture.

So I ask, in that case what does a tiger look like...

You produce a blank piece of paper and add: this is an accurate picture of a tiger, since, as you can see, it has no discrepancies with what a tiger looks like!?

(I know... an electron has no size and shape, therefore a blank picture of an electron is correct!)

They believe in fields: one for photons, electrons, positrons, and yet another for quarks, and yet another for higgs...

So what do you expect from them?

It's not their own ideas, but what they learnt in schools from teachers.

They're just repeating it.

So back to the the electron and positron...

You argue that the electron is not made of "stuff", it is "what it is".

Fair enough, so I note: The electron is what it is, and the positron is what it is; and my referring to "what it is" as being "stuff" is incorrect, since "stuff" has shape and size, whereas "what it is" has no shape and no size.

From their point of view electron is wave on field with negative amplitude, and positron is wave on field with positive amplitude.

So from overlapping two such +wave and -wave there is nothing left (at least in that field).. Instead new waves are made in other fields..

In light of QFT, they are quanta of different fields and so we have no reason to expect them to have identical properies, at low energies anyway.

There is actually needed just one field for everything.

If you sit on decay table of the all particles and work it out with open mind..

### Hi, im new, and in highschool, and im wondering if this makes sense

a false atomic nuclei must be created, and its charge

must at least match that of the atomic nucleus being disassembled.

What you're writing sounds to me like annihilation when particle and its antiparticle is colliding and producing photons.

The only currently officially know way to create antiproton, is acceleration of proton to v > 0.9c and colliding it with proton at rest which results in:

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

From two protons there are made three protons and one antiproton.

### Model for spin

Toroid is unnatural shape.

Everything in nature wants to be sphere as close as possible.

Nature is full of examples: stars, planets, asteroids (with enough time, with enough of collisions they're more and more looking like sphere; liquid, plasma in cosmic space vacuum is quickly forming sphere), molecules, atoms. Sphere is optimal shape.

In toroid shape you would have to explain why particles don't collapse to inside.

Your theory also doesn't explain what happens to electron bound to nucleus when it's absorbing photon, and what happens when it's emitting photon.

You're modeling spin in electron. But every particle has spin, not just electron. Photon, electron, positron, proton, neutron, neutrino, all have spin which we can directly measure in devices.

If toroid shape is causing spin in electron, toroid shape must be also shape of all other Standard Model particles?

Do you saw this video?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Quantum_spin_and_the_Stern-Gerlach_experiment.ogv

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern%E2%80%93Gerlach_experiment

### Cosine identity for energy transmission of waves and speed of waves.

Also, what is the difference between the speed of waves defined as v = (wavelength)*(frequency) and v= square root of (tension/linear density)? My book says the speed is related to wavelength and frequency, but it is set by properties of the medium, which is the tension and linear density. Can someone explain this clearer?

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

v = wavelength * frequency = c - in vacuum (because refractive_index of vacuum is 1)

and

v = c / refractive_index = wavelength * frequency / refractive_index - in some medium

f.e. refractive index of water is 1.333

so

v = c / 1.333 = 0.75c

and also

wavelength = wavelength in vacuum / 1.333

### Electron And Positron

Not quite. They are modeled that way and the models work. The experimental evidence is in agreement with the model. To say that there is no scientific way to examine it is wrong.

I disagree. Annihilation of them and then absorption of gamma photons and then emission at lower frequencies is physical evidence of current Standard Model particles are made of even smaller elementary particles.

You have 1 electron with E=511 keV, and 1 positron with E=511 keV, they annihilate, two gamma photons each E=511 keV are produced.

Then gamma photon is colliding with other particle, which is emitting photon at lower frequency, and from 1 gamma photon with f0 we have 2 gamma photons with f0=f1+f2, then this process can be repeated over and over again, and result is such that energy accumulated in single point like electron and positron is spread across millions of particles as their kinetic energy..

### Electron And Positron

Swansont, the key question here is: How can two point-like particles

differ from each other? I don't understand how this possible.

Electron and positron are self antiparticles.

Result of collision of particle and its antiparticle is annihilation and production of gamma photons.

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

And reverse- collision of gamma photon with other gamma photon with enough energy produces particle and its antiparticle.

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

Other example of particles and their antiparticles are:

muon- and muon+

tau- and tau+

pion- and pion+

kaon- and kaon+

proton and antiproton

This list is long for 260+ entries, because scientists gave different name to bunch of energies that live as short as f.e. 10^-22 second.

List of baryons

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

List of mesons

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

Leptons particles and antiparticles are modeled in Standard Model as having no internal structure, because there is no scientific way to examine it.

### Why "modern physics actually doesn't have why gravity works"?

A wrong theory gives answers that disagree with what is observed. GR is not wrong by that metric. It also lacks a mechanism, as does Newtonian gravity. GR says that spacetime is curved, but does not explain why that happens. Just how much, and in what way.

I said GR is wrong? Rather reverse..

"If spacetime curvature is true, then it should happen at any scale, also quantum scale".

Which means that electron should be "orbiting" "around" proton because of its influence on spacetime curvature.

Shared electrons are orbiting around molecule couple atoms, because spacetime "blended" between atoms.

With 2 spatial dimensions it should looks like this:

On the left is object (proton) with 1836.15 higher energy than on right (electron). Up axis represents influence on curvature. Red circle represents hypothetical orbit around proton (with 3 spatial dimensions of course red circle wouldn't be circle anymore)

Electron can absorb only photons with correct frequencies.
If they're absorbed, electron gains kinetic energy and is starting orbiting farther from nucleus.
And in extreme situation escaping and nucleus is becoming ion.

4 protons

8 protons:

12 protons:

The more protons, neutrons, nucleus, the more influence on time space. And the higher density.

Notice how "ground" surrounding them is going up. That's summed up their influence.

Photon passing through such concentration of nucleus is affected as well, and we observe it as slowing down of light.

Refractive index higher than 1.0 is physical evidence of gravity existing at quantum level.

You just have to stop modeling it as constant absorption and emission of photon passing through transparent material and route to QM gravity is open..

The question is how do you prove that gravitons don't exist.

Proving is job for somebody believing in graviton, not somebody not believing in it.

But if graviton exists it should be fired by any massive object, black holes (escaping it), also the largest black holes in the center of any galaxy and then going to entire Universe, in the all directions, and then going back to original particle that fired it. Of course such idea is violating speed of light limit and not possible to escape black hole by anything rule.

Influence of 100 protons.

### Why "modern physics actually doesn't have why gravity works"?

Split from "Is physics about "why?""

Furthermore, to be extremely pedantic, modern physics actually doesn't have why gravity works.

Because you're using incorrect model since beginning.
And you can't move further with it, cause it's wrong. Going in circles.
Bending of space must happens at any scale either quantum, macro and cosmic scale.
When light is passing through water which has refractive index = 1.333, v=c/1.333=0.75c
Every mainstream physics is saying that c is const, but while passing through some transparent material photons are constantly absorbed and emitted. That's wrong basement. We know how such absorptions and emissions are looking like in electrons: spectral lines, missing photons at one wavelength, and more photons at other wavelength.
When nucleus is absorbing photon it's accelerated and we see it as increased temperature.

And it's lost from point of view photons passing through transparent material to other side.

If you would model from beginning that any particle is attracting any other particle, the less distance is between them, you could explain slowing of time, slowing of velocity of photons in water and other transparent materials, and also understand true nature of gravitation at quantum level.

We have proposed ideas like the graviton, but no gravitons have been detected to date.

It is impossible to detect something that doesn't exist.

So, you in fact have picked as your example of something simple enough to explain and understand as something we don't have a complete explanation and understanding of. Kind of ironic, really.

It's very good example! It shows that mainstream physicists are ignoring what they don't understand pretending it's not existing, and not wanting to discuss weaknesses of current model.

newts doesn't understand relativity, can't even calculate relativistic velocity what he showed in thread "Relativity".
But that's different story.

But he at least doesn't ignore weaknesses of current model that you ignore everyday.
When mainstream physics are founding, yet another violation of their rules, they're 1) ignoring it 2) trying to mix it to inside of mainstream by finding yet another 'symmetry'. And it's going and going. C, CP, CPT..

Do you want to break Baryon Number conservation? That's easy. Just make quark-gluon plasma.
Take f.e. 100 hydrogen, so B=100, make quark-gluon plasma.
Split it to half. You will never be able to measure energy at half with precision 50:50, it'll be 49.999:50.001 if you're lucky.
from one "half" quark-gluon plasma will form 49 hydrogen back, and from another "half" 50. And remaining 1 will create other particles that will quickly decay to smaller.
And you have violation of Baryon Number, one of the main rules in QM!

What we do have is an excellent model of gravity in that we can make
very accurate predictions of how the gravity force affects objects.

Which is nice to hear.
But why are not you using it where it's the most influencing particles at quantum level?
Because some said that c is const, and you're continuing repeating it over and over again, without rethinking how it's possible that light in water (18 protons+neutrons; density 1g/cm3) is travelling 0.75c, in silicon (28 protons+neutrons; density 2.33g/cm3) is travelling 0.25c. etc. etc.

What really irritates me, newts, is your lack of respect for known confirmed data. Whether you think quarks are fantasy or not, it is undeniable that the quark model as it exists today makes predictions that agree pretty darn well with experimental data.

That was me who complained about quark model, not newts.

I gave you already much easier model that can be used to simulate over 260 particles baryons and mesons, leptons, their decay models that are in SM long for another hundred possibilities, and transformations to photons. And from photons to them back.

And that was probably you who said, you don't imagine proton made of billion of billion elementary particles, if I recall correctly. Energy-E is quantity of elementary particles, when you divide it by Planck const h, and multiply by 2. Charge is excess of one of kind of elementary particles. When there is excess of positive particle above negative, there is e+, muon+, tau+, pion+, K+, B+, p+ etc. etc. When there is excess of negative particles, there is e-, muon- etc. etc.

Using this model it's completely logical how K+ can decay to pion+, pion- and pion+ and other time to pion 0 + pion+ etc. etc.

And whatever model replaced, supplants, or enhances the quark model will
also make predictions that agree really well with experimental data. If
the replacing, supplanting, or enhancing idea didn't, it would be
rejected outright as demonstrably less useful.

Scientists made from the each piece of energy independent particle, even if it's living 10^-20 s, gave it its own name and then analysing how it's breaking apart, to another hundred possibilities.

In normal world if you would come to somebody and give list of possible f.e. B meson decay models long for hundred possible cases, you would be laughed. Prediction must be precise. Input source giving precise result on output. Prediction of thousands of possible cases, it's not prediction. It's total lack of precision.

Collisions of particles remind me car/airplane crash tests- you don't know in which direction each newly "created" chunk/debris of car/airplane will fly, until you actually destroy it. You can only predict it with quite low precision.

If you have "particle" composed of 1 million elementary particles, it can be split only to elements with less elementary particles (not more). It's what you call conservation of energy.
f.e. particle with 0.5mln of positive, 0.5mln of negative elementary particles, can split to two also neutral 0.25mln of positive, and 0.25 mln of negative,
And you have decay model similar to f.e.

Kaon 0 short K0s-> pi0 + pi0

or

Kaon 0 long K0l -> pi0 + pi0 + pi0

or

pion0-> y + y

If it'll split to 249999 positive and 250001 negative and another one with 250001 + and 249999-, quantity still match, but charge is different, in each of newly made particle.

And you have decay model similar to f.e.

pion0 - > e- + e+ + y

or

K0 -> pi+ + pi-

Then they exist a fraction of time, and again split to smaller and smaller pieces, until you have bunch of photons, electrons, positrons, and neutral neutrinos. And what is funny, none of them has any quarks inside.

And electrons and positrons can also be converted to high energetic gamma photons.
And gamma photons can also be converted to less energy photons by absorption and emission at lower frequency. Hundred and thousands times absorbed and emitted at lower frequencies. From annihilation of just 2 the smallest leptons "elementary in Standard Model" there can be accelerated thousands or millions particles.

Decaying should stop at particles with charge -1e and frequency 1 Hz, and +1e 1 Hz. If -1/+1e is charge of elementary particle. Or at -1/3e and +1/3e if there is needed 3 of them to sum to -+1e.

I can argue back (without using maths as well) that the answer

importantly is "Yes", since light can be made using an electron and

positron, or light can be made using a proton and an anti-proton.

Excellent logic. But you need to bear in mind that physics-believers do not believe in logic, they believe in imaginary beings, so they would argue that protons are made of quarks, but electrons are not, therefore your hypothesis is wrong.

Then somebody should come and say that:

- pion 0 is supposed to be made of quarks, but it's decaying to 2 gamma photons, or other time decaying to electron and positron and gamma photon.

- pion+ is supposed to be made of up quark and antidown quark, but it's decaying to muon+ and muon neutrino, or other time decaying to positron and neutrino, and other time to pion 0, positron and neutrino..

(etc. etc. countless examples of decay modes)

And then interlocutor, usually mod, will press negative arrow on such post..

### Number of Dimensions

I can't make experiments, I am not a trained scientist, or a trained engineer. I can only quote what authors with Ph.D.'s say in their books.

Everybody can make experiments.

Prism costs $10. Laser pointer$3-$30 Building cloud chamber cost$13 (at least here) for detecting particles.

How have I become "OP"? Original Poster or Operation Manager?

Unbelievable..

### Number of Dimensions

The day that Jesus Christ died, the Calendar changed from AD to BC.

Do you know at all what AD and BC means?

BC = Before Christ

Calendar didn't change.

People hundred years later did that.

Roman Empire people used its own calendar for hundred years after Christ (dating from the founding of Rome)

### Number of Dimensions

Please, explain how and why you say, that Science isn't a Democracy. Because, from your perspective, if if I have understood it correctly, Science is Science and Democracy is the Government. Right or wrong? Then, please explain to me, or is it that the Democracy can keep its mouth shut ,while Science is better left to the Aliens?

It's all because of you mentioning quantity of your nation.

In science quantity of nation doesn't matter, but quality of individuals.

Bad/none educated nation is less capable to discovery and 1.2 billion of people with large part not even capable to read, has less chance to find something than 100 PhD in western country.

Experiments are so neccessary, to prove and to validate things, that they even have a word for that, which you may certainly be familiar with. Empiricism?

So you should make experiments confirming existence of your dimensions, and show us results for verification.

Btw, what is an OP?

Original Poster. You.

### Number of Dimensions

With the second largest population in the world,

Quality is more important than quantity, when it comes to knowledge and technology.

One Einstein is worth more than billion cave mans.

### Nature has designed us to live indefinitely

However, we need a new Manhattan project to fight death.

It would break whole economy - imagine billions of people taking annuity for life. Immortality = infinity long taking money from government...

If governments would work at it, they wouldn't tell this to people, and it wouldn't be freely available for everybody.

### How light waves explain Photo-electric effect (not particles).

I still don't see the reason for having to assume it is a particle.

1 micron wavelength photon has E=h * 3*10^8 / 1*10^-6 = h * 3*10^14

1.24 micron photon has E=h * 3*10^8 / 1.24*10^-6 = h * 2.42*10^14

1 micron wavelength photon is not causing effect, even though it has 24% more energy than 1.24 micron wavelength photon.

Another way to put it is that the lower frequency light propagates more directly, yet with less distortion to space, hence when "traveling" through a medium can propagate more quickly in the direction it is going. The higher frequency light creates more distortion to space and thus in a medium its direction becomes more bent.

You can see with this then that the higher frequency is bending more of space, causing the translation of energy to occur.

Frequency must match. Not just being higher.

### How light waves explain Photo-electric effect (not particles).

It's like having a heavy object sit ontop of sand inside a jar, it won't sink to the bottom until you begin to shake it with enough frequency.

That's completely different story..

By shaking you're making space - matter-sand cannot overlap taking the same space as other.

### How light waves explain Photo-electric effect (not particles).

I don't understand why that has to be considered particle-like.

Imagine we have light source with radius 1m emitting 1 million photons.

It has sphere area = 4*PI*r^2 = 4*PI*1=~12.56 m^2

1 mln photons/12.56 = ~79,618 photons per m^2 of sphere in the all directions.

We can measure that 2 meter from the center we will have

4*PI*2^2=~50.26 m^2 sphere area

1 mln photons / 50.26 = ~19,894 photons per m^2 at distance 2m from center.

4x less.

4 meters from center:

4*PI*4^2=~201.06 m^2 sphere area

1 mln photons / 201.06 = ~4974 photons per m^2
16x less.
And so on so on, with higher distances.
Each of these photons have exactly the same energy/frequency/wavelength as it had at source.
Just their quantity per area unit dropped with distance.
Repeat this thought experiment with waves on water:
If you drop stone to water, you will see waves in the all directions, and amplitude constantly going lower and lower with distance from center and suddenly disappearing.
Wave on water is continuous.
If photons would be just waves, we could not see stars million or billion light years from here. Amplitude of wave-only light would be ~0.

### How light waves explain Photo-electric effect (not particles).

But as you make the field stronger, you have more energy. Why doesn't the light interact with atoms, except at specific frequencies? That's not wave behavior.

Exactly.

When photon in absorbed by particle, particle is accelerated. Photon is giving it, its kinetic energy.

And reverse, if photon is emitted by particle, it's slowed down.

If absorbed photon has too small energy to eject it, electron is simply going to higher orbit around nucleus. And we see this as spectral lines in element spectrum.

### How would this kill him?

F1 drivers have bottles with water, which they can drink any time from straw.

How about sabotaging water with some poison.

He is starting shaking, loosing conscience and thus crashing and exploding.

Autopsy is confirming he has been poisoned.

### How would this kill him?

- He's travelling at about 350 km/h (219 mph).

-He's 62 years old, weighs about 195 lbs,

How would these factors kill him?

Heart attack. Too old for such excitement..

### When is NOW . Is it NOW all over the Universe right NOW ?

So on reading through the various slants on NOW / ( PRESENT ) on Wikipedia it seems very closely linked with conscious recognition of the moment as described above.

Conscious was ridiculous idea since beginning..

Anti science idea.

Like, If there were no conscious beings around , would there not be a NOW anywhere at all ?

Your computer at 3 GHz is doing f.e. 3 billion operations per second, so in time t0 it's reading memory at address x, then 1/3 billion of second later it's reading address x+4 (f.e.), then 2 * 1/3 billion of second later it's reading address x+8 etc. etc.

Is it stopping working when you're going elsewhere leaving computer running?

You can't even tell which part of code your computer is working at the moment 'now'. After 1/3 billion of second it's completely different. And after 3 billion operations later (for you just 1 second later), it's far far away..

The most of time computer procedures are loops, waiting for user action. It has to wait billions of operations from its point of view, for you doing something like clicking mouse, pressing key, constantly doing same operations (wait loop).

f.e.

while( user_clicked == false )

{

sleep( 1 mili second );

}

And before Humans appeared on Earth , was there no NOW around on Earth ?

Going that path you will start wondering whether Earth is simulation where humans are living, but there is other thread about it

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/74454-could-reality-be-a-computer-simulation/

Computer games render only part that are directly seen by players. There is no sense rendering something what is not visible. It's waste of resources. If we're living in simulation made especially for us, then cat or dog that you leave at home, doesn't exist when you're closing doors. It should disappear to not waste resources for rendering something meaningless.

What about up on some moon , near some distant star with no life on it, is there no NOW there ? Is there no NOW at all ( clearly there is as I can feel it, sense it ! )

Since Einstein time is dimension. So 'now' is some t0. You can't catch any dimension. Neither x,y,z nor t.

Position x,y,z on Earth, even it's object at rest from our perspective, in reality is constantly changing.

Earth is orbiting around Sun, Sun is orbiting around galaxy, and galaxy is moving in the space.

So any x,y,z,t0 on Earth, is not the same as x1,y1,z1,t1, all coords are different.

### If we used 100% of our brain.?

We already use 100% of our brain.

I am full to such level, that I have to use hard disk in mine computer to store data..

### Could reality be a computer simulation?

all in all, this is nothing more than a matrix thought(the movie)

You took red or blue pill?

### Could reality be a computer simulation?

Which brings me to my real question; why make a simulation that is so awful for so many?

In Counter-Strike for example you're living approximately 20-25 seconds when you're in "rush mode" (try to kill as many as you can with f.e. Uzi, and get killed)..

Maximum life time is 120 seconds (end of round).

"Normal life" is much "safer" in comparison with our own games..

Well, if we are part of a simulation, didn't the simulator program what we see, hear, and feel?

Why?

Simulator should program how particles interact with others, and press run. He doesn't have to worry about anything else. Even single molecule can be single identifier in computer memory - instead of storing info about hydrogen, another hydrogen, oxygen, and electron configuration of every particle, just store data of whole object f.e. 32 bit unsigned integer, telling it's "water". Until something happens like electrolysis program doesn't have to worry about internal of molecule. Saving computer time and memory.

You're looking from perspective that humans are final result of simulation. And simulation is just for us.

×