|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 24, 2011 22:27:19 GMT 1
at the quantum level, the idea of an electron tracing out a particular path, of whatever shape, is WRONG. The electrons are somehow everywhere around the atom, all at the same time, just some places are more likely that others. they are no longer particles moving in tidy orbits.
I see you neglected to address the question as to WHY a moving electron shouldn't radiate, and WHY your elliptical orbits should be stable in the first place..................
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Mar 24, 2011 22:57:03 GMT 1
@sta
So, you have no answer as to the actual path taken by an actual electron! Therefore you should have no difficulty in accommodating the idea that it might be based on an elliptical orbital path.
And, what is to stop there being a succession of stable elliptical orbits, each requiring higher energy-levels?
Oh, and why can't EM radiation take up an elliptical waveform? What would it take to see whether a naturally occuring EM wave has an elliptical or a purely sinusoidal waveform?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 25, 2011 2:25:44 GMT 1
Because the concept no longer applies at thre quantum level!
Plus you have still failed to tackle the question of WHAT makes your orbits STABLE (do you know what stable means?), because according to classical em, a moving and accelerating electron will radiate em energy, spiralling into the nucleus and the atom collapses.
As I've already SAID, an EM wave can be any shape, you just add enough sinusoids of varying wavelenths. But asking for an elliptical wave MAKES NO SENSE, because you can't have a single-valued graph in the shape of a whole ellipse....................
I don't think you're listening, because you keep asking the same questions over and over again, when I've already explained why your ideas are either doomed, or just plain make no sense.....................
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Mar 25, 2011 7:48:53 GMT 1
@sta So, you have no answer as to the actual path taken by an actual electron! Therefore you should have no difficulty in accommodating the idea that it might be based on an elliptical orbital path. And, what is to stop there being a succession of stable elliptical orbits, each requiring higher energy-levels? Oh, and why can't EM radiation take up an elliptical waveform? What would it take to see whether a naturally occuring EM wave has an elliptical or a purely sinusoidal waveform? Have we now dispensed with the nonsense that the amplitude of a moving point around the perimeter of an ellipse plotted against the angle it makes with the x axis when a line is drawn from the point to the centre of the ellipse, forms a sinusoid, (as it certainly does with a circle?) Good! ;D
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Mar 25, 2011 12:18:22 GMT 1
@sta,
I should like you to read this post very carefully.
I think that you have a problem with the concept of position, change of position, and rate-of-change of position.
Anyway;
Indeed that is so. But as you yourself said, a particle in an elliptical orbit will experience no acceleration ... hence will not emit radiation. Then you say;
But I had already asked you could synthesise the waveform of the velocity plot of the elliptical orbit ... ( remember, the one that looks like this: UUUUUU rather than the sinusoidal ~~~~~~ ?) .. using simple sinewaves? I doubt it.
And the root of your confusion is that you clearly have not visualised a YT graph of the VELOCITY of an elliptical orbit
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 25, 2011 16:37:31 GMT 1
Except it DOES (when it moves approriately on the ellipse), since the parametric equation of an ellipse can be writtem in the form:
x = a sin theta, y = b cos theta.
Which is certainly sinusoidal................
What is different is the actual answer for a point moving round an ellipse in a specific way other than this equal parameter in equal time case, such as planets moving in elliptical orbits under gravity.
So try and keep up NM, since the point about geometry versus dynamics was made at least twice.....................
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 25, 2011 16:43:21 GMT 1
I most certainly did NOT!
You seem to be confusing feeling an acceleration (like in a car), with being under acceleration. A particle in an orbit accelerates, either the magnitude of speed changing, or direction of motion, or both. you can't FEEL this in freefall, since you are not resisting the force that is causing you to accelerate.
If you really think a particle in an orbit isn't acclerating, then YOU are the one that needs to go all the way back to basic motion, and look-up the definitions of velocity and acceleration.
So, classical charged particle in orbit of any damn shape accelerates, hence should radiate, hence should not be stable. so atoms should not exist according to classical theory. And it was a bit of a bugger, not being able to explain something as to why matter existed at all...................
Fourier analysis. You can make up ANY shaped curve using simple sine waves, you just have to use enough of them.
Keep up? you haven't even started, if you really think that particles moving in orbits don't accelerate...........................
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Mar 25, 2011 20:13:18 GMT 1
@sta
Sketched out that YT graph of the VELOCITY of an elliptical orbit, yet?
And I love the idea that the satellite in elliptical orbit experiences no acceleration ...
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 26, 2011 13:37:10 GMT 1
Again, you need to go and learn what acceleration IS. I never said it didn't accelerate, just that you don't FEEL it, they are two different things.
Why keep repeating the same nonsense when I have already explained why you are wrong.......................
Plus I NEVER said that the motion of a planet in an eliptical orbit wasn't complicated, that is just Keplers laws but exact relation between positions and time is, although derived from forms using trigonometric functions, but itself it doesn't have a simple closed form.
I see you have so far also failed to address your own misunderstandings about Fourier analysis, or electron orbits, or the stability of electrons in orbit.................
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Mar 26, 2011 22:26:24 GMT 1
@sta,
Thank you for finally acknowledging that elliptical waveforms are in fact complicated and interesting. And... re Fourier... how many sinusoids are requires to synthesise the U-shaped elliptical-rate waveform? How many harmonics? What would it sound like? A noisy hiss by any chance?
And while we are on about electrons, .. let's have your take on how specular reflection works? And how those hydrogen absorbtion and emission lines are formed, and why they spread in the presence of electrical and magnetic fields?
As you say, classical electromagnetic theory, based on simple harmonic analysis ( i.e circular functions) has certain problems, which Dirac sought to solve by applying a Fourier synthesis just as you suggest.
However, there was a problem as these produced infinite series! So along comes a posse of eminent modellers including Feynmann and Dyson, who found a way of cancelling out these infinities to get a result.
As you know this mathematical technique of 'renormalisation' is at the heart of what we know as Quantum Electro Dynamics .. or simply, QED ...
But, here is an interesting quote;
"Even though renormalization works very well in practice, Feynman was never entirely comfortable with its mathematical validity, even referring to renormalization as a "shell game" and "hocus pocus"
Now it seems to me that if classical electrodynamics were based on elliptical functions rather than simple harmonic functions, OR that the renormalisation process of QED actually produces the output of an elliptical analysis, we might then see a great simplification of physics, which will force a complete re-evaluation of cosmology.
Now I know you are not a mathematician, or a serious physicist, but you might just have a sensible and productive relationship with either of these kind of specialist. And as a topic of speculative conversation among such colleagues, this proposition may be of interest.
At the least they may refer you ( and so us) to the appropriate published work, because this possibility cannot have been overlooked. [Stop Press; Googling reveals that the Bohr-Sommerfeld theory postulated that electron orbits are in fact elliptical. What seems to be the problem is that the mathematics is just not up to the task of producing a sufficiently predictive model for all but the simplest cases. Not only that, but it seems that the whole business of QM is not settled at all... and controversy rages.
And this pooh-poohing of the idea that elliptical orbits are of active interest, means that STA really cannot have had exposure to the field of theoretical physics ......]
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 28, 2011 13:01:13 GMT 1
Nope, this is just plain wrong!
Except classical electrodyanmics is just based on classic experiments! With wires and permanent magnets and loops of wire. The fact that you ended up with a wave equation (to which the basic solutions are sinusoids) was a secondary, derived result, NOT a foundation of Maxwells equations. It was this prediction of em waves that led Maxwell to speculate that they might be light.
Where sinusoids come in is that they happen to be a solution of the wave equation -- a wave equation that crops up in many fields. You can't just fudge together a different wave equation to try and get different sorts of waves. Plus the wave equation agrees with experimental results that waves of different frequencies persist at that frequency, and pass through each other without effect. This sort of behaviour limits the types of equation you cna have underlying the behaviour of these fields.
Except it was (just like the Bohr model), a fudge, and NOT a complete physical theory (unlike quantum theory which refined and indeed explained why the Bohr model approximately worked). Replacing circles in BOhr by ellipses obvious fudge wheh Bohr model didn't quite explain everything. ANd as WIki also says:
Quantum theory (which is the proper physical theory that explains atomic structure), doesn't have orbital paths, just a fuzzy cloud of probability.
I don't know what you think 'ellipse functions' are, but since (as I've already shown) ellipses are just stretched circles, and since the exact formulation of position against time in gravitationally bound orbits STILL rests on sinusoidal functions, there isn't anything much new here! In fact, in mathematical terms, there can't be! Sinusoids and the related hyperbolic functions all rest on the exponential. So, we have combinations of e^{x} and e^{-x} for hyperbolic, and combinations of e^{ix} and e^{-ix} for trigonometric functions.
The problem with the rather messy Jacobi elliptic functions is that they are the basic solutions of a set of NON-LINEAR differential equations, compared to the hyperbolic and trig functions, which are solutions of LINEAR differential equations.
So, thinking about exp for the moment, e^{kx} is the basic solution of:
d^{2}y/dx^{2} = k^{2}y
and e^{ikx} is the basic solution of d^{2}y/dx^{2} = -k^{2}y
SO why are LINEAR differential equations so important for basic physics? (Don't get confused with linear as in lines -- or even circles or ellipses, it s a mathematical property here that is associated with the use of the term linear!). The Shrodinger equation of quantum theory is a linear equation.
The point bout linear equations is that if we have two solutions, a sum of the two is another solution. Which accords with what we know about the PHYSICAL behaviour of light and em fields.
COnclusion -- you can't get anywhere by just naively assuming that since em theory seems to be based on sinusoids (which appear in circles), that you can get a new improved theory by using ellipses instead..........................That isn't how the maths underlying the physics fits together.
I suggest you stick to trying to understand basic high-school geometry, before trying to step into physics (or even theoretical physics), because all you've ended up with are silly analogies..........
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Mar 28, 2011 13:54:33 GMT 1
@sta
But, dear STA, elliptical orbits are not, as you yourself have pointed out.
And thanks for providing more proof that you are not a real physicist. It seems you have been stung into wiki-ing around .. yet you clearly did not have time to read all of the words ...
Then we have;
Yup, which is why I made the observation that the mathematical modelling was not up to the task,.. and why the boys wanted to stick with LINEAR differential equations (you know , the easy ones based on sinusoidal rates of change) .. and get up to preturbation analyses to discover a way of cancelling out those pesky infinities through the 'renormalisation' dodge. But, there remain those unresolved holes, and until the mathematics catches up, QED is still not a complete theory and still relies on what Feynmann calls a 'shell game' . And that they have to go back to fill in those holes, can be observed from a standing start by any idiot with access to the internet.
And also it means that your bid for a kind of hermetic academical intellectual social status .. of [glow=red,2,300]Physicist[/glow], is blown!
Babe, admit it! The 'fizz' just went out of 'fizzicks'. Ask the kidz. It's just a nice intellectual hobby, as it always was. A bit like macramé.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 28, 2011 14:51:33 GMT 1
As I have pointed out SEVERAL times, there are two things here -- the geometry of ellipses (stretched circles), and the particular way that objects orbits in ellipses under gravity........................ Nope, that ISN'T the reason at all, as I explained! There are physical and observational reasons for wanting LINEAR equations for em. It isn't just the case that the maths is easier...................... First, you have confused the infinite in Fourier space (which persist for ANY curve you want to approximate, apart from the trivial ones!), with the infinities that come in during renormalisation. You seem to be confusing classical physics and the physical observation that physics of em fields IS linear, with the mathematical complexities of renormalisation in quantum field theories, which is several degree above the simple point that you have still missed. ANd that is stil above the fact that you still haven't understood that Maxwell ISN'T based on sinusoids at all, but boring ole physics of wires and magnets -- the individual equations were there before Maxwell managed to put them all into a unified structure. He didn't KNOW, before he started, that what would come out was wave equations for em fields. Hence if you want to try and criticise Maxwell, the point to start at isn't the fact that it gives sinusoidal solutions (a RESULT of what MAxwell did), but why the basic physical observations give the linear equations they do.............. Attempting to link any of this with computational devices in quantum field theory is just a smokescreen, and a misunderstanding -- not every use of infinity means the SAMe infinity, and the problems of renormalisation (which, BTW, is on a sounder foundation than when Feynman was writing) are a different kettle of fish as to why basic em is linear..................... As I said above, the maths of the renormalisation group has been done, and things are now on a sound mathematical foundation. You wouldn't know a real one from a fraud, and are in no position to judge given your inability to understand basic maths and basic classical physics........................ I think (nope, I KNOW), you're just madly googling, starting from 'ellipse functions' from some false analogy (note that there is actually no such thing, there ARE elliptical functions and elliptic integrals, but no 'ellipse' functions,. just as there are no 'circle' functions, but trigonometric functions..............). Then you got all excited when you googled fourier analysis (remember, you FIRST claimed that it couldn't be done!), and somehow ended up with the sum over momentum space in QFT and got all excited when it came to renormalisation. Which is actually nothing to do with the main point, such as WHY physicists tend to use LINEAR systems of equations for physics, and in particular why em uses linear equations. You can't make that go away by just wittering on mistakenly about renormalisation........................... BTW, renormalisation is actually about scale and physical space, as you'd know if your googles had landed you on the appropriate WIkipedia page........... Since you seem to be offering yourself up as a specimen idiot, your posts just show how confused you can become trying to link things and understand things when you've actually NO IDEA of even the most BASIC ideas and terms. 'ellipse functions' my arse............... (Another point here is about general relativity, where the 'problem' there, even with the classical thery, is that the equations are NON-LINEAR. Which is why it is harder to find classical solutions than it is for linear sets of equations like Maxwells.) (I should also add that non-linear effects DO come into light, via the very perturbation theory that the above tries to diss: www.extreme-light-infrastructure.eu/High-field_5_2.phpExcept it is a higher-order QED effect, and NOT a basic property of classical em -- mind you, we never expected it to be, since we are still restricted by the fact that in classical experiments, em is observed to be linear anyway........................)
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Mar 28, 2011 15:40:24 GMT 1
@sta
Pity you can't differentiate the two, even in your own head! Which is why I used the term ellipse-functions to HELP YOU OUT from you stupidity in fixating on squashed circles .. and not on the YT graph of the velocity of ANY mass that is moving around another larger MASS .. in a STABLE orbit.
Have you managed to get over this pons asinorum of yours yet? This difficulty with first, second and third-order functions? The one that got you into all that trouble with gravity and gravitational fields? Remember? I hope so.
So, rather than linear equations, these things might be more explicable via nonlinear equations, not even via elliptical functions (your squashed circles) but by second-order elliptical nonlinear equations.
Again you fail to say that these things are far from settled, despite lapsing into the 'we' of brotherhoodspeak. Yet, how far away are YOU away from the coalface, eh? Any papers yet?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 28, 2011 16:35:02 GMT 1
A non-standard term you invented, that doesn't actually refer to anything useful, nor do you make it clear exactly what it was supposed to mean. I suspect it was more after the fact, you had some vague ideas circles were associated with sinusoids, hence there should be something more exciting associated with ellipses. Except when the GEOMETRY failed to yield anything other than squashed circles, and Kepler and equal areas gave us the actual 'elliptic integrals' (and hence elliptic functions stuff), you suddenly now claim that you were trying to be helpful...................
Again, you try to use the lingo, but get it WRONG. What people usually talk about (and what is relevant) are second-order, linear, partial differential equations (which is MOST of physics BTW). The LINEAR means something important from a physics point of view, as does the second-order bit. But 'second-order functions'?
Is that IT? Some vague waffle that we might need to try non-linear physics, even though classical results overwhelmingly support the observation that physics is mostly LINEAR, and what non-linear effects do occur (such as the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron, or photon-photon scattering) are already explained by current QFT.........................
Againm, you are ignoring the overwhelming evidence that physics is linear to several orders of approximation, so much so that you have to consider higher-order corrections to very specific things to find anything non-linear to predict and test. And where we do test this (such as electron magnetic moment), we get the best-tested prediction in all of physics! QED, which starts from linear em, gets the right answer to ten significant figures.
And you think this can be IMPROVED by making classical em non-linear! Ludicrous! Look at the experimental data and understand the nature of the problem before making such daft suggestions based on your ability to go from a circle to an ellipse (not that you have shown that Maxwell is BASED on circles in the first place, yet another of your misunderstandings!).
|
|