Theory for cause of metastable state - Establishing causality in nature again -

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

 

if one speaks of the devil…

 

 

The man with the pistol said:

"Atomic metastable states happen because energy is no the only conserved quantity involved in a transition. Systems "want" to be in the lowest energy state, but electrons in atoms get there by undergoing transitions that typically involve the electromagnetic interaction — the release of a photon. "

 

 

But great - you found a second possibility to gave the electron a direction: an electromagnetic field.

Congratulation

 

The man with the pistol said:

“There's some truth to this, in a crude sense. Space is isotropic, so there's a symmetry, and there will be no preferred direction. But that's true for normal states as well, that readily decay — not just for metastable states."

 

Perhaps you are right again and my new law is right for “normal states” also.

I have to think about it.

Edited April 13, 2013 by Wolfhart Willimczik

[swansont]

"Atomic metastable states happen because energy is no the only conserved quantity involved in a transition. Systems "want" to be in the lowest energy state, but electrons in atoms get there by undergoing transitions that typically involve the electromagnetic interaction — the release of a photon. "

 

 

But great you found a second possibility to gave the electron a direction: an electromagnetic field.

 

What electromagnetic field?

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

What electromagnetic field?

 

You just introduced it by writing ....that typically involve the electromagnetic interaction....

[swansont]

You just introduced it by writing ....that typically involve the electromagnetic interaction....

 

And that's supposed to mean what? We were discussing metastable states.

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

And that's supposed to mean what? We were discussing metastable states.

you wrote. "Atomic metastable states happen because energy is no the only conserved quantity involved in a transition. Systems "want" to be in the lowest energy state, but electrons in atoms get there by undergoing transitions that typically involve the electromagnetic interaction — the release of a photon. "

 

I hope you know what your writing means.

[swansont]

I hope you know what your writing means.

 

Likewise, I'm sure. Is there a point you wish to make?

 

Have I, or have I not, given an explanation for why we have metastable states in atomic transitions?

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

Have I, or have I not, given an explanation for why we have metastable states in atomic transitions?

If even yourself don’t know what you have given, how shell somebody else know it?

[John Cuthber]

If even yourself don’t know what you have given, how shell somebody else know it?

Easy,

Look through the previous posts. When you find this one

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/74196-theory-for-cause-of-metastable-state-establishing-causality-in-nature-again/?p=738699

you will know that he has, in fact, given an explanation.

I think he was using irony to illustrate the fact that you don't seem to have read what he has written.

Perhaps you should since it actually explains the metastable states without needing any new mumbo jumbo explanation.

[swansont]

If even yourself don’t know what you have given, how shell somebody else know it?

 

Asking you a question doesn't mean I don't know the answer.

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

Asking you a question doesn't mean I don't know the answer.

If you have the answer - why asking?

[John Cuthber]

Teachers often ask students questions. Do you know why?

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

Teachers often ask students questions. Do you know why?

He is not my student.

I have other ones.

[John Cuthber]

Teachers often ask students questions. Do you know why?

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

Teachers often ask students questions. Do you know why?

I had ones a student in the test - he could not answer any question, but I was forced to let him though – by political reasons. He was from Egypt and became minister for science! In this way there are today some people with a false Diploma in Physics.

 

(We are off topic!)

[John Cuthber]

Teachers often ask students questions. Do you know why?

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

John Cuthber stated:

 

"I think he was using irony to illustrate the fact that you don't seem to have read what he has written.

Perhaps you should since it actually explains the metastable states without needing any new mumbo jumbo explanation."

 

I am not used to it that my work is called "mumbo jumbo" without any explanation.

In my age I don’t take such defamation any more.
It is an éclat ant violation of the rules.

[John Cuthber]

How fortunate then, that I gave an explanation for my assertion.

There is already an accepted explanation of metastable states, backed up by evidence.

I'm not sure why you think your age has anything to do with it.

 

By the way, refusal to answer a question is also a breach of the rules.

Teachers often ask students questions. Do you know why?

[swansont]

John Cuthber stated:

 

"I think he was using irony to illustrate the fact that you don't seem to have read what he has written.

Perhaps you should since it actually explains the metastable states without needing any new mumbo jumbo explanation."

 

I am not used to it that my work is called "mumbo jumbo" without any explanation.

 

The reason should be quite clear: you claim that metastable states are unexplained, and this is not the case.

 

In my age I don’t take such defamation any more.

It is an éclat ant violation of the rules.

 

Which rule, exactly?

[Phi for All]

John Cuthber stated:

 

"I think he was using irony to illustrate the fact that you don't seem to have read what he has written.

Perhaps you should since it actually explains the metastable states without needing any new mumbo jumbo explanation."

 

I am not used to it that my work is called "mumbo jumbo" without any explanation.

In my age I don’t take such defamation any more.

It is an éclat ant violation of the rules.

 

!

Moderator Note

Attacking an idea is NOT an attack on the person who has it. There is no rules violation here.

 

Your explanations have not been backed up properly, as has been pointed out. This creates confusion, which is the definition of "mumbo jumbo".

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

!

Moderator Note

Attacking an idea is NOT an attack on the person who has it. There is no rules violation here.

 

Your explanations have not been backed up properly, as has been pointed out. This creates confusion, which is the definition of "mumbo jumbo".

 

Reading the last few posts, what ever Wolfhart is proposing, how he is being treated at this juncture is a bit over the top. He is trying to have a sensible scientific discussion, but clearly by attacking something , even if not him personally is not really very pleasant.

 

................... I suggest a public apology is in order .

Edited April 14, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[John Cuthber]

Reading the last few posts, what ever Wolfhart is proposing, how he is being treated at this juncture is a bit over the top. He is trying to have a sensible scientific discussion, but clearly by attacking something , even if not him personally is not really very pleasant.

 

................... I suggest a public apology is in order .

I don't understand, why do you think he's "trying to have a sensible scientific discussion" when he's refusing to answer a simple question?

If you don't answer people, it's not a discussion, it's preaching.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I don't understand, why do you think he's "trying to have a sensible scientific discussion" when he's refusing to answer a simple question?

If you don't answer people, it's not a discussion, it's preaching.

 

Zeal for his life long work , he is bound to be enthusiastic , I would be if I thought I was supporting Einsteins idea.

 

I am not necessarily agreeing with everything he says. I actually think there is a lot of probability based bits in the systems. But I still think and support Wolfhart and his publishing of his ideas. In a civil way. By discussion.

Edited April 14, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

!

Moderator Note

Attacking an idea is NOT an attack on the person who has it. There is no rules violation here.

 

Your explanations have not been backed up properly, as has been pointed out. This creates confusion, which is the definition of "mumbo jumbo".

In the German culture it is a clear insult. Even his "question" is an insult!

I had the hope for a serious discussion.

But okay, I found just a definition:

mumbo jumbo:

speech or writing that is nonsense or very complicated and cannot be understood

What is it now – nonsense or to complicated for this reader?

Edited April 14, 2013 by Wolfhart Willimczik

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

This is science, people. Check your egos at the door. Cultural concepts, personal bias and assumptions should not be part of a scientific discussion. Answering questions and supplying evidence for assertions is mandatory in this section.

 

If you have a problem with a moderator note, please use the Report Post function rather than taking the discussion off-topic.

[swansont]

I have explained some basics of atomic metastable states, Wolfhart. This is the point where you acknowledge that, admit you were mistaken, and modify your thesis. (The point was actually several posts back, in #26, but there was this silly detour)