Re: Binding Energy Question

On 26 fév, 09:16, higis <hg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 26, 1:16 pm, srp2...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:



is this accepted by the mainstream?

Mainstream being of the Copenhagen school
of thought, any explanation that involves
particles being localized as they are moving
is de facto rejected as impossible.

This is because of the wave nature of matter.
What is your explanation why matter has
wave like properties?

There is no question in my mind that matter
has wavelike properties. What the de Broglie
hypothesis shows, is that this is not at all
incompatible with particles being localized
at all times.

So you are a Bohmian?

I am not a Bohmian by any stretch of the
imagination.

If not. How does
your model differs to Bohmian. Specifically
how do you plan to alter the Schroedinger
Equation?

I wouldn't change the Shroedinger equation
in any manner. It has its uses.

If you believe only wave exists
and particle just node of it but the Schroedinger
Equation would produce electrons that would
spread out but experiment shows it is only
in one place.

Exactly. The equation has its uses, but I
don't see any useful purpose in attempting
to modify it. I think it is fine as it is.

But it is not compatible with your model.

It is compatible. Simply too general, just like
straight Maxwell's wave theory. Just like Newton's
kinetic equation is compatible, and, but too
restricted.

If you apply it to your model. Your electron
literally spreads so what the founding
father of QM does is to kinda propose that
the particle only materializes during
measurement. Before measurement. It is
in limbo. See below.

What could mean applying a mathematical
equation from one model to another model ?

Nothing.

Both apply to physical reality in their own way.

You put similar charge particles close to one
another, they repel.

Yes. But since the force induces energy directed
outwards as the inverse square of the distance,
the total complement of induced energy quickly
exponentially maxes out, which causes repulsion
to really be effective only at rather close range.

I don't understand this. Any illustration in your
web site?

No. And I don't have a website explaining all of this.

It is in a book.

What book?

The book that fully describes the model of course.
Thousands of copies already are floating about all
over the big ball.

Difficult to describe out of context. The model is based
on the notion that force does not directly cause
motion. Force induces energy in charged particles
directed either towards each other (for opposite
sign charge pairs) or away from each other (for similar
sign charge pairs). It is the energy that causes
the particles to move.

Hmm... I'll ponder on it.

Sure, ponder away. As I said, difficult to describe out of
context. This is to be coupled with the fact that in the
model, any change of direction of particles involves
expenditure of some energy (2nd law of thermo).
Maximum expenditure occurs on rest orbitals in atoms,
totally compensated by the energy induced at that
distance from nuclei.

Like all others, you probably will argue that angular
momentum is conservative. I know. Old classical
mechanics partial understanding of physical reality.

"Appearance" of proof for compensated electrostatically
or gravitationally induced rotation or translation, but
proven false for uncompensated mechanically induced
rotation (the so-called anomaly of the Pioneer 10 and
11 crafts axial rotation).

Anyway, that's what explains electronic stability in the
model. Summarily put, an electron moving any closer
is induced with more energy, which causes it to move
away, moving too far away and it is induced with too
little energy to compensate the expenditure and moves
closer.

They move in the direction that the vectorial sum
of all interactions with all other particles indicate.

Anyway. What is your background in the Standard
Model? What part have you studied in depth?

All of it.

Since all known stable matter is made up of only
scatterable electron, positron, quark up, quark down
and photons, only those are required to build the
universe. All other scatterables are excited states
that end up as these.

The model defines their structure and interactions
between them.

How about relativistic quantum field theory?

Not required.

The model doesn't need any underlying fields.
all electromagnetic properties are direct properties
of the localized EM quanta.

But you'd miss the quantum corrections or
the contributions of the virtual particles if you'd
bypass QFT.

No quantum corrections are needed in the model.
Virtual particles not required.

It seems you touch classical electrodynamics and
after that bypass quantum mechanics,

I don't. I only subject it to the restriction that no
energy can move faster than c.

QM simply doesn't apply any limit to the wave
spread. Do you really think that it makes sense
that a fraction of a second before function collapse,
a particles energy is spread all over the place and
that a fraction of a second later at actual collapse,
it suddenly instantly regroups to be localized ?

No. QM doesn't claim the particle spread. Instead
the particle just materializes to this universe during
measurement (something physicists don't want to
think about but instead they want to numb their
mind with the "shut up and calculate" attitute.
Before measurement, it is in potential form.

That's the Copenhagen school view.

Tfffft... (spitting)

This is how tunneling is supposed to work. For
example. When standing against a concrete wall,
the wave function of my body has a tiny billion of
a chance to get over the wall... just like alpha particle
tunneling effect. Anyway. What is your thought about
tunnelling?

Simply a pipe dream. A Copenhagen flavored interpretation
of what is happening.

I don't.

So the actual spread can only be way more
restricted for a moving particle than the theoretical
QM spread allows.

From de Broglie's hypotheses, there is only one
way for this to occur. Local EM quantum oscillation
that cannot possibly allow the energy to exceed c
as it transversally oscillates, and that must account
for the energy inertia.

QFT and the entire 100 years of advancement
in physics.

All discoveries regarding actual scatterable elementary
particles must be accounted for, of course.

Btw.. what is your comment about the Gauge
Principle? How come local invariance of phase
need the electromagnetic potential produces
the QED U(1) and the invariance in isospin produces
SU(2) of the electroweak and the SU(3) describing
the strong force. Are these just mathematical
tricks? If so, how come they can describe
experiments down to 2 parts in 100 billions
accuracy? Does your model also describe
and predict experiments without those gauge
theory? How?

I have no comment on this other than that
no one could ever formulate the equations of QCD
with sufficient precision to correctly describe a
nucleon.

Well. The gauge principle powers up the Standard
Model and is the core of modern physics. If you
want to wipe it off the planet, try to explain why
U(1), SU(2), SU(3). Before you can explain it.
You must master it first of course.

Since the model is fully Maxwell compliant and
totally compatible with QED, I don't see why it
could possibly not be gauge invariant.

But I have other horses to flog than to follow
anyone else's agenda besides mine.

You prove that it is not gauge compliant, if
you feel the need.


A dead end.

If the model wasn't sound, it never would have
allowed expanding Newton's kinetic energy
equation to relativistic form by means of
deBroglie's hypothesis on localized moving
photons.

Anyway. I'll ponder on what could be going on in
your mind.

Sure, ponder away.

Can you list all the books you read on physics?

Are you kidding ! Why don't you list all those you
read first ? How much time would you care to
spend looking up all of your stuff and then
carefully type the list to an obvious very superficially
interested stranger, anonymous at that, to try
to impress him? To what purpose ?

I am not out to impress you nor anyone else.

I answer questions from anyone who remains civil
and coherent, within the limits of the little time I
care to spend on ngs.

André MIchaud

You are way much better than say
Porat who doesn't read any book at all. He
wants to build everything up from scratch.

higis
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The clock malfunctioned.
    ... made up of other smaller particles) have been proven ... that of the electron ... mass of the nucleons diminish accordingly. ... in with high energy scattering with known ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The densities of a subatomic particle
    ... I have a simple minded theory of elementary particles that people may be ... with more energy had more nodes in the waves thus more waves around the ... of a particle as a photon going in a circle trapped by its own self gravity. ... to the Shroedinger equation for an electron orbital, ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • I was Leucotomised For Producing this
    ... I have a simple minded theory of elementary particles that people may be ... with more energy had more nodes in the waves thus more waves around the ... of a particle as a photon going in a circle trapped by its own self gravity. ... to the Shroedinger equation for an electron orbital, ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Particles for Sue and Sal
    ... I have a simple minded theory of elementary particles that people may be ... with more energy had more nodes in the waves thus more waves around the ... of a particle as a photon going in a circle trapped by its own self gravity. ... to the Shroedinger equation for an electron orbital, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Question about Vacuum Gravity
    ... >> why should his conclusion that particles only escape a BH back ... >> But since you are involving REAL particles, energy IS conserved, ... lower-frequency photons. ... of the Casimir plates, virtuals are popping. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)