Jump to content

Nuclei of a atom


ivylove
 Share

Recommended Posts

How can a nuclear proton represented with an electromagnetic field that is expanding maintain a particle structure of a nuclei as time increases. Does the nuclear electromagnetic magically not expand as time increases? What may I ask what is happening here? Some smart girls needs to do some cleaning to this sloppiness that the boys have made.

Edited by ivylove
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, ivylove said:

How can a nuclear proton represented with an electromagnetic field that is expanding maintain a particle structure of a nuclei as time increases. Does the nuclear electromagnetic magically not expand as time increases? What may I ask what is happening here? Some smart girls needs to do some cleaning to this sloppiness that the boys have made.

Nonsense, it is the augean stables that need cleaning of trolls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does an electromagnetic field based on Faraday's induction effect expand. Please, explain what you are assuming is "nonsense".  It is the electromagnetic theory of modern physics or something else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ivylove said:

Does an electromagnetic field based on Faraday's induction effect expand. Please, explain what you are assuming is "nonsense".  It is the electromagnetic theory of modern physics or something else?

What do you call someone who cannot tell the difference between singular and plural ?

Edited by studiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you not avoiding the question that is being presented to you? I have clearly stated the question at hand and you seem to be reluctant in answering the said problem that I have exposed regarding physics and since this is a physics forum and not a English grammar forum I believe that typo errors are not a sufficient reason to avoid answering the question. Perhaps you should allow the numerous people with much more superior knowledge regarding physics have a chance to respond or may you could email a physics prof from MIT or Stanford, or Harvard to answer the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In Einstein's paper, "The Principle of Relativity and Its Consequences in Modern Physics" (1910), Einstein describes an electromagnetic ether.


"When it was realized that a profound analogy exists between the elastic vibrations of ponderable matter and the phenomena of interference and diffraction of light, it could not be doubted that light must be considered as a vibratory state of a special kind of matter. Since, moreover, light can propagate in places devoid of ponderable matter, one was forced to assume for the propagation of light a special kind of matter that is different from ponderable matter, and that was given the name "ether." (Einstein4, § 1).


"The introduction of the electromagnetic theory of light brought about a certain modification of the ether hypothesis. At first the physicists did not doubt that the electromagnetic phenomena must be reduced to the modes of motion of this medium. But as they gradually became convinced that none of the mechanical theories of ether provided a particularly impressive picture of electromagnetic phenomena, they got accustomed to considering the electric and magnetic fields as entities whose mechanical interpretation is superfluous. Thus, they have come to view theses fields in the vacuum as special states of the ether" (Einstein4, § 1).

 

Einstein describes an electromagnetic ether but Maxwell's electromagnetic field originates from Faraday's induction effect that is not luminous. Also, Maxwell's electromagnetic field that is propagating at the velocity of light conflicts with Fresnel's diffraction mechanism that is based on interfering light waves formed by the vibration of an ether that remains stationary after the light waves propagate through the ether
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, ivylove said:

Are you not avoiding the question that is being presented to you? I have clearly stated the question at hand and you seem to be reluctant in answering the said problem that I have exposed regarding physics and since this is a physics forum and not a English grammar forum I believe that typo errors are not a sufficient reason to avoid answering the question. Perhaps you should allow the numerous people with much more superior knowledge regarding physics have a chance to respond or may you could email a physics prof from MIT or Stanford, or Harvard to answer the problem.

You made no typo since you made the same error in the thread that was closed and twice in the opening post of this thread.

I did however overlook the grammatical error "a atom"

An atom has one nucleus.

Edited by studiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No the EM field does not expand.

The field is 'there', and if enough energy is localized ( excitation of the field ) at a particular position, we have the real 'particle' of that field.
If that excitation is 'stabilized' by other particles/excitations of their particular fields, it can remain localized ( in a nucleus, say ).

There are no 'boys' here, like you might be used to dealing with.
Just men and women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

Ivylove

Stop the infantile girl power / silly boys routine - it is embarrassing.    Start asking questions that interest you and not poached from random places on the internet - if you cannot debate and interact with the other posters without ripping stuff off from other people's work then this thread will be locked too. 

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.