Re: Binding Energy Question

On 26 fév, 20:43, higis <hg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 27, 12:04 am, srp2...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:



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.

You were stating that particles are nothing but
waves right (like there is internal something
in the electron which produces the wavy thing).

No. I am stating that particles are quanta of
localized standing electromagnetically oscillating
energy.

Therefore the image point or particle of a
mechanical system can be represented by
a wave group called the wave packet.

Not in my model. No wave packet in sight.

The image point or particle moves with the group
velocity of the wave packet.

Not in my model. The quantum, if massive,
moves at a relativistic velocity determined
by half the energy in excess of rest mass.

If free energy (carrying no mass), it moves at
c, a velocity determined by the fact that half
of its complement of energy is kinetic and
directed while the other half is locally standing
and electromagnetically oscillates at the
frequency determined by the total complement
of energy of the quantum.

It looks like a
particle but it's really a superposition of
thousands of waves as de broglie described.

Not so, no "waves" in sight. the particles
in my model are totally localized and remain
localized as they move.

This may work in the atom but not a free
electron.

It sure does. See above.

Do you think a wave packet really
stay together and describe a moving electron?

You are trying to restrict my model to wave
mechanics. No go. Unrelated.

Wave packets will spread with time and your
idea of representing particles completely in
terms of the superposiion of waves is invalid.

What you say sure is invalid. You obviously
have no idea of de Broglie's hypothesis.

The wave function does spread out as time
increases. So you model is not compatible
with the Schoedinger Equation. Show why
I'm wrong and prove why it is compatible by
giving the details.

Not possible without extensive setting up.

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.

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.

Electronic stability is because of HUP. It can't fall down
to the nucleus because as position becomes more
well know, momentum increases so just when the
ball is about to hit the basket, it is propel across
the room. This would make the ultimate celebacy
chastity belt.

This is meaningless in my model. That's assimilating
QM as being physical reality (that's precisely the
Copenhagen irrational drift) instead of what it really is,
a simple approximate mathematical method.

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.

Gee. You are wrong dude. For example. Are you
aware of the gyromagnetic ratio experiments?
Calculated value differs to observed value by a
factor of 1.00115965219 to 1. One has to
include the virtual particles corrections in the
experiment to match that value. Using the
extra interaction vertexes in the feynman diagram,
one comes up with 1.0011596522. This is what
it means that QFT has accuracy of three parts
in 100 Billion! Something your model won't match
so you are wrong dude.

If I'm wrong, how come the model allows deriving
a correct relativistic equation from Newton's
kinetic energy that can account for the whole
spectrum of velocities for massive particles,
and also for photons?

But feel free to think it is wrong.

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.

Cohenhagen is really a brain numbing mathematical protocol
to prevent physicists from landing in the land of oz.

My view always was that it did exactly that, getting them
right into fantasy land.

Unfortunately, there is negative consequences in that they
miss other phenomena that is in plain sight.

My view entirely.

Enough time has been wasted. Research must resume.

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 by assuming gauge principle itself and
the particle existences, it automatically created
not just the U(1) EM fields but also the SU(2)
electroweak field and SU(3) strong field.

That's your opinion. Not mine. Virtual particles
have no role to play in my model, except possibly
as a handy mathematical artifact with QED.

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.

The reason I'm asking is I'd like to know if you know
at least the basic of the whole Standard Model.

I see. An exam. I submit to no exams.

Because
it is pointless to criticize something if you don't fully
understand (relativistic QFT and all the physics
categories it entails).

I don't criticize it. I simply don't need it. Not required
with my model. Useless.

This is the basic signature of a crackpot.

That's precisely the only argument I told you
that issued from orthodoxy.

And it's time consuming to spend time with a
crackpot.

Sure thing. So your best bet would be to
desist, no ?

But of course you may be a hidden genius so
we'd like to hear more from you.

Well, you shouldn't waste your time barking up
this tree. I am no genius, just a simple Joe out
of the street.

André Michaud
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Helical Particle Waves.
    ... > Why would an electron follow a helical path in a uniform magnetic field ... > momentum interacts with the uniform magnetic field. ... Then it must be a wave of forces and the ... > or else how can particles be created from nothingness if they were not ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • 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: Question concerning Speed of Light
    ... molecules can exhibit wave like properties. ... have Henri Wilson's light particles. ... absorbing a quantum of energy, ... needed to remove the electron from the substance. ...
    (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)