link to check out

[iFred]

http://nov55.com/ener.html

Then discuss it....

[windstuffnow]

   Have you ever done any programming in hex?  It's quite tedious but very effective to overcome the limitations of a binary system or a base 10 system.  Anyway... I see potential energy as a binary system.   Like a rubber band stretched between two nails... potential energy.. or two opposing magnets placed between the same nails.  There is potential energy because something was put into it to begin with.  To create work your working with a base 3 system.  There is always a third element that is added... you cut the rubber band and it goes flying... you pull a nail and the magnet flys or flips.  Once the work is done the rubber band and magnets become dormant until something is added.

It seems to me, I'm not a physisis by any means, that once energy is used or released any waste is stored in another form to be used in a different way.  

Havin' Fun as usual

Windstuff Ed

[jerry02]

 And how is it that electrons, which have mass, never lose velocity. The atom on some level must function like a machine. But how can it function without adding energy (to keep the physicists happy)if something has mass it is subject to gravity. Or is the atom some sort of perpetual motion machine powered by it's own forces. If so why can't someone come up with a functional model of how it and make a machine that works like it.

jerry

[JD]

ifred;

That is pretty lame, in my opinion, to dump a link with absolutely no comment. except if you just like attention. Unless you include a synopsis its not much of a story and just looks like attention seeking.

Just an opinion.

JD

[Chagrin]

Who said electrons never lose velocity? This is just not true.

[iFred]

Seems to me that in the past, if I said something then everyone got mad, so then I just post a link and say nothing and you get mad. Seems that it don't matter what I do, I can't do it right. So maybe not posting anything at all in the future might be the way to go. I wish you all the best! Bye!

[jacquesm]

There is some obscure, but pretty hard proof that atoms (and electrons themselves !) in fact do decay, but this 'half-life' of ordinary matter is so long that to all practical intents and purposes you can safely ignore it.

There is for instance no chance that my modem is suddenly going to des

NO CARRIER

[tecker]

 Return your focus to your math proof you dug up  please and away from opinion .

 You can't bond to opinion . There are no yields and will constantly squelch your efforts . A mutual admiration society is too predictable and has no negative , destruction  or reconstitution and as you know  this recombination is a  natural usage you get warmed as in a fire . So unless things or thinking come apart energy is in a Quiescent state.

You might be on the brink of discovery.

I think (unless I have totally misplaced the directive of this forum)  what we are seeking is to define the bonds of mater and and pressure them to give us usable energy.  

 

[windstuffnow]

   I for one enjoy reading your posts.  My interest isn't just in one area, it spans a number of area's... which could be why I'm slow getting things done.  In any case, I wouldn't let a couple gripes keep you from posting.  At the very least, post your comments, idea's or whatever to my email address....

Have Fun

Windstuff Ed

[TomW]

Gee, fred, you gotta have a thicker skin to be online these days. Don't get discouraged. Opinions are like anuses, everyone has one and usually they think the others stink.

This particular story seemed like you were hedging your own opinion waiting for others to comment. Oops, there's another opinion.

You never did say what you thought of the info on that page. I won't offer mine since I am pretty sure it will not be popular. Since you posted it I think you should follow up with some kind of post about how you feel about it.

Again, just an opinion.

T

[JF]

Dear Friends

Although personally agreeing with the dialectical historical materialism approach - I however fully tend to agree with what I believe Shakspere once wrote - "There are more things between heaven and Earth - than are contained in your philosophy"

As one who has learnt and understood much from the different discussion topics here on this most highly valued discussion board and including the many interesting contributions or remarks from Mr iFred - may I offer my opinion - "to agree to differ"

For myself I highly regret when remarks are or become perhaps a little too personal - as the present remarks to and fro concerning Mr iFred demonstrate - we are all a little weakened and lessened when this occurs and especially at this present time - when few of us can neither need nor afford the luxury of squabbles [however basic and important they may appear to be or seem] when the house is burning down around our ears.

"May the force be with you [and us]"

Greetings to all - JF

[elvin1949]

JD

i don't know what you are drinking

BUT you need to change brand's

later

elvin

[finnsawyer]

Why haven't they come up with equations for the fields/energy of a photon?  After all these interact with atoms and must be simpler in structure.  According to classical electrodynamics one charge orbiting another will radiate energy.  Well an atom doesn't.  If it doesn't lose energy it can exist forever in the state it's in.  It doesn't need any kind of energy input.  It's almost as if the electron is smeared into a negatively charged shell surrounding the nucleus and the atom acts like it has no net charge.

[jacquesm]

> It's almost as if the electron is smeared into a negatively charged shell surrounding the nucleus and the atom acts like it has no net charge.

that's exactly it, dead on. That's called a 'probability wave' and captured electrons are governed by it.

[finnsawyer]

So, what happens when that nasty little photon hits the probability wave?  I guess what I'm saying is that while we can't tell where the electron is and what its velocity is, there is no fundamental law that says we can't deduce the nature of what it's doing. That is, we could deduce the laws or equations that govern its behavior.  In principle assuming initial conditions should allow us to simulate its behavior even though we could never actually observe it.  The same holds for the photon-atom interaction.  Or are we forever condemned by the dictates of quantum theory and probability to not knowing.  That is, the electron behavior is erratic.  It changes spontaneously in random ways.  Personally I find the last view untenable since there are definite energy relationships between atoms and light.  The atoms can only have certain energy states.  That means the electron behavior in the atom is constrained as are the interactions with photons.  This gives me hope that the mystery can be unraveled.

[jacquesm]

the probability wave expands briefly, emits another photon while it collapses back.

It's annoying, but observations on that scale are very very hard.

Basically what you are saying - please correct me if I'm wrong - that there are intermediary states between quantum states that we can not observe. Sort of an analog vs digital issue. But even if we can not observe them they are real.

This all really boils down to the discrete time argument.

There is a 'basic' unit of time, a 'quantum' of time, below which on our macroscopic level of the world things move from one discrete state to another. Whether or not all the atoms in the universe change state in lockstep or whether or not they all have their own little sense of 'time' is afaik an unknowable.

And as long as that is true we are doomed to interact within the framework, and access to any sublevels is automaticaly denied.

For an analogy, think of a building with an elevator. You can get off at the floors, but not 'between' floors, and whatever is between the floors is invisible to you, even if you can speculate about them being there, and arguably they MUST be there. As far as you know the world changes 'discrete' from one floor to another and you can not break out of the elevator without technically 'stopping time' and living outside of time. All the equipment we have is constrained by the same rules, we'd need something that's already operating on that level interacting with the real world in a measurable way in order to interact with it indirectly, and we'd need to be able to change something into that 'intermediate' state in order to interact with it directly.

I don't know if I'm making any sense here, that's as clear as I can express myself on this subject, which is far from my real field (software) but I'm interested in it enough to try to understand.

[finnsawyer]

When two charges interact we can, using classical electrodynamics, solve for the electric and magnetic fields.  We get a near field called the induction field and a far field called the radiation field which takes energy away from the system.  The question is: can we have two charges interact such that the radiation field is always zero everywhere?  O.k. This brings us to the atom which does just that.  The hydrogen atom has a particular structure.  The proton is large and massy compared to the electron.  Also the distance between the electron and proton is large compared to their dimensions.  One suspects that these relationships are necessary for the stability of the system.  One could, in principle, solve for the equations of motion.  Radiation would result.  However at this scale the speed of the electron is so high that as it orbits the proton it may encounter its own electric and magnetic fields which propagate at the speed of light.  Interacting with these fields may be the key that turns off the radiation field.  In other words one should really use relativistic electrodynamics or at least consider the finite speed of propagation of the near fields.  The interaction of the electron with its own magnetic field may act to cause a change in the orbit of the electron to give the smeared out effect.  I guess I'm saying that the physical structure of the hydrogen atom is such as to make one wonder whether electrodynamics would work.  Are there solutions for charge interactions that don't exhibit radiation fields?