Re: Repulsion binds atoms


Edward Green wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:

Hi Mr. Green, studied your post

More than it merits, I'm sure.

Edward Green wrote:

Ken S. Tucker wrote: <...>

would the effect of gravity be anti-entropy?

<...> it looks as if gravitational aggregation is increasing
"order", hence reducing entropy, but it's not so.

We cannot simply consider the configurational entropy of the dust, we
must consider the entire physical system. <...>

You've used the term "configurational entropy" twice,
so evidentially it's important <...>

Configurational entropy refers to an entropy term calculated based on
the configuration (distribution in space) of the bits of matter.

<reluctant large snip>

Suppose it does classically, the focus of the problem
is the question as to how repeling (LIKE) charges
radiate, and if they do, by what mechanism, then
we need to determine how they absorb photons.

We may at least ask the question purely classically, without a photon
in sight: I give the charge and the field an initial condition, I let
it go, and the system evolves according to the laws of electrodynamics.
I then ask of this solution "is there radiation"? Ambiguities, other
than our ignorance of the actual solution, stem from:

(1) meaning of a charge -- point or finite

(2) meaning of radiation

Perhaps

(1a) nature of mass (electromagnetic or inserted by hand)

<...>

Kindly put. I may repost this question in a fresh thread, on the
theory that most posters will loose interest in a lengthy dialogue, but
will at least give a new topic a once over. Maybe somebody can point
out the fly in my logic.

My sense is we should take care of thinking
classically or in terms of QM. We are naturally
prejudiced to the continuum by our indoctrination
into the newtonian differentials, however as I
pointed out above, Purcell's dW really becomes
Delta W in QM at the particle level.

For what it's worth, having put the question to experts, I'd say the
expanding spherical shell of charge does not radiate, a conclusion
backed with crushing force of logic, and that the expanding pair of
charges probably does radiate, a probability so far backed with
somewhat less than crushing force of logic, but some evidence
admissible in a civil trial. I reserve judgement.

By the Galaxy Theory,
atoms radiate in
the same way Quasars are produced.
There is a collection of energy at the center that always
radiates when it gets to a certain frequency, but may
be perturbed to radiate at less.

But the negatively-charged electron is represented
by the billions of stars in the galactic arm, and these
all radiate constantly until they die out and fall
back into the center as neutron stars.
Meanwhile plasma is being discharged all the time
along the magnetic jets and new stars are forming
from it.

So gravity is pulling neutron stars back into
the BH at the center, and magnetism is pushing
charged plasma ( which becomes
stars) out into the system.

Similarly, with atoms, the radiation of the electrons
is continually re-charged by their cycling back through
the proton, which is therefore somehow constantly
collecting energy.
Gravitational energy?
John
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Repulsion binds atoms
    ... Configurational entropy refers to an entropy term calculated based on ... I give the charge and the field an initial condition, ... expanding spherical shell of charge does not radiate, ... somewhat less than crushing force of logic, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Orbiting charge radiating...
    ... > You said only accelerated point charges must radiate. ... > accelerated point charge continuously distributed? ... First explain how your electron doesn't radiate. ... > Lorentz made him realize the wave pulse spread. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Orbiting charge radiating...
    ... an atom in its ground state does not radiate. ... > system of locally-accelerated charge that does not radiate. ... orbiting accelerating charge radiates... ... electron concept can't last in that configuration. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?
    ... > a dipole work from the same mechanism, charge moving in a non inertial ... magnet as two opposite magnetic charges; ... Ken was quite correct to note that not all accelerated charges ... radiate. ...
    (sci.physics)
Quantcast