Squares

General FreeBASIC programming questions.
albert
Posts: 4243
Joined: Sep 28, 2006 2:41
Location: California, USA

Re: Squares

Postby albert » Mar 22, 2018 0:50

@Richard

In particle accelerators they split atoms , they split them so that the output goes into a bank of magnetized hydorgen..
They x-ray the particles as the atom explodes and bits travel into the hydrogen chamber..

The neutral items go straight through the hydrogen chamber
The positive items go to the south pole.
The negative items go to the north pole.
Or the other way around..

So they can tell if a particle is positive or neutral or negative.
The particles are real 3D objects , theres no energy or waveforms to consider.. Either they go north , south , or straight through.

In the 3D x-ray , they often find that particles traveling into the hydrogen chamber , travel in a corkscrew , having spin..
And they have observed spin in quarks , +1 , -1 , etc..
So quarks are a real particle , and not an energy transfer , or energy manifestation...They are a real life 3D particle existing in real time and in real space.

And they claim that quarks are possibly made up of gluons??
I'm searching for a way to describe magnetism in the nucleons , it might come from the gluons or quarks interactions??
Richard
Posts: 2817
Joined: Jan 15, 2007 20:44
Location: Australia

Re: Squares

Postby Richard » Mar 22, 2018 17:16

Well, you have got most of that backwards, or sideways.
Albert wrote:They x-ray the particles as the atom explodes and bits travel into the hydrogen chamber.

Not really. They accelerate a charged particle to close to the speed light. That projectile particle enters a target volume where it might collide with a hydrogen atom (= proton + electron), in the target. There is a magnetic field through the target tank that deflects charged bits sideways in a circular or helical path. Fragments of the projectile and the hydrogen atom take different paths based on their mass and charge. Those bits usually have a short life, before they release the high impact energy as a high energy photon with short wavelength = x-ray. The path of the fragments along with the orientation and the energy of the x-rays characterise each fragment detected.

A charged particle entering a magnetic field will be deflected sideways, to circle around the magnetic field lines between the poles, not towards the pole. If it does not arrive at exactly 90° to the magnetic field, it will take a helical path. Neither the circular, nor the helical path has anything to do with quantum spin. That is simple magnetic deflection as was used to deflect the electron beams in CRT displays.

Before General Relativity, Einstein came up first with Special Relativity. That was to explain the electric and magnetic fields described mathematically by Maxwell 30 years earlier. Magnetism is due to one thing only, that is the movement of charges or charged particles. Some magnetism is made by atoms that have an electron imbalance that looks like a very small current. Three elements, Fe, Ni and Co, are so unbalanced that they can produce really strong magnetic fields which can be enhanced by rare earth elements such as neodymium. Things that do not have charge will not have, and will not be deflected by a magnetic field.
Albert wrote:I'm searching for a way to describe magnetism in the nucleons , it might come from the gluons or quarks interactions??
Good luck. You will need to overturn the work of Maxwell and Einstein, both advanced mathematicians.
albert
Posts: 4243
Joined: Sep 28, 2006 2:41
Location: California, USA

Re: Squares

Postby albert » Mar 22, 2018 19:20

@Richard

Since all particles , to be called particles , they need to spin to wind up the ether..
If you stop a particle from spinning or disect the particle , it will explode back into ether at rest. This ether at rest , can then turn into another particle..

I guess the way the ether works , is that you can only have a certain number of particles forming , in a cubic angstrom.
There might be some "Conservation of Ether" law that could be applied??
albert
Posts: 4243
Joined: Sep 28, 2006 2:41
Location: California, USA

Re: Squares

Postby albert » Mar 22, 2018 23:13

@Richard

I've been studying quarks and gluons...

It seems that quarks are made up of gluons.
For some reason the force between quarks gets stronger with distance..

So , if you put two quarks side by side there not much force between them.
If you separate them by an amount , the force pulling them back together gets stronger..
Like a rubber band , left alone theres not much force , pull it apart and the force pulling it back to rest , gets stronger and stronger with distance pulled.

I call this rubber band effect, the "elasticity of the ether" , it works just like a rubber band.

I read somewhere that gluons come in pairs, and if you separate the pair , each single gluon will generate another gluon to make another pair.
So gluons are a binary system.


So if ether wound up creates a particle, how does a particle get properties like electric and magnetic or neutral?
How do particles differ from one another , if they are all balls of ether?
They should all have the same properties , or properties depending on composition?
Maybe 1,000 layer ball of ether has 1 volt and a 1,000,000 layer ball of ether has 100 volts??
Maybe magnetism is similar, depending on the number of layers in the ether ball?? Or there might be a particle called a magneton?

If magnetism is particulate , it may be that magnetons , form the photon valences around the atom.. magnetons then are way smaller than photons..
If so , then if you bind certain atoms at certain valences, the magneton valences interact and release magnetons outside the atom...

Your conservation of energy theory would state that , if an electron has a photon orbiting , when you pull that one photon off , that electron can never produce another photon..
This would lead to a world of darkness, as all the electrons in the universe would have released their 1 photon by now.
Richard
Posts: 2817
Joined: Jan 15, 2007 20:44
Location: Australia

Re: Squares

Postby Richard » Mar 23, 2018 2:22

Albert wrote:Your conservation of energy theory would state that , if an electron has a photon orbiting , when you pull that one photon off , that electron can never produce another photon.
This would lead to a world of darkness, as all the electrons in the universe would have released their 1 photon by now.
The “Conservation of Energy” is not a theory, it is a Law. The “Heat death of the Universe” is in no way connected to “Conservation of Energy”. The “Ether” was once a hypothetical background that was later rejected and became unnecessary to explain physical phenomena.
The Ether cannot be demonstrated or detected by any physics experiment.

I do not theorise that photons orbit electrons, that is wrong. Photons are packets of energy. When a photon delivers energy to an atom, an electron is lifted to a higher energy state. If that electron later drops to a lower available energy level in the atom, it releases the energy of that drop, which is not necessarily the same as the original photon that excited it.
If the electron takes time before it falls it is called phosphorescence, if very fast it is called florescence. The energy of photon released is fixed by the chemistry which is why the wavelength, hence colour is always the same for the same energy step or transition.

Photons are bundles of Energy = h * frequency. Where h is the Plank Constant. If you drop an electron charge of e, over a step between any two orbitals with a height of V volts, it will release a photon with an energy of e∙V when it settles at it's new lower level. The wavelength of the photon will be, in nanometres = 1239.84 / V. The voltage needed to make an LED glow is decided by the chemistry of the LED material, which is why different materials with different energy steps make different colours. Energy, wavelength and colour are intimately connected to voltage by the charge on the electron.
albert
Posts: 4243
Joined: Sep 28, 2006 2:41
Location: California, USA

Re: Squares

Postby albert » Mar 23, 2018 2:57

@Richard

My theory is that photons are created by flow of ether..
Every proton generates the same photons in the same valences.
Every neutron generates the same photons in the same valences.

The photons range from UV valences on the innermost and IR valences on the outermost..
Neutrons and Protons differ in the frequencies they develop at different valences.

The neutrons and protons spin in 3D space and the photon valences thus follow the equator of the nucleon and also spin.
So all atoms look like a sphere , but in reality each nucleon is flat like a solar system.
The way these overlapping solar systems interact , cancel out some of the photon bands , so all atoms have different emission spectra..

If the sun rotated in 3D space and you put another sun beside it , also rotating in 3D space, and both suns have a planet in an overlapping orbit , those overlapping planets would neutralize each other, so the color of the solar system would be minus those planets color..

Possible experiment to detect color: adding a neutron to a hydrogen atom should changer its emission and absorption spectra..( don't know if it does , but it should.)

Possible experiment to detect ether: build a cube of atoms and let it sit for a time , it should fill in with 1 or more particles or a whole atom.


Since photons orbit the atom in bands by frequency , you can't pull an electron out of an orbit without releasing photons..
if you exite an innermost electron , it will release UV photons, and as those UV photon leave the atom they will bump into other photons in outer bands and also release other photons...
So it would be impossible to have a single frequency laser...When you exite the laser it emits the entire emission spectra..

Your law or theory , would stipulate , that if you exite a 7th valence electron it will release a certain photon of a certain freq.

In my theory , exiting a 7th valence electron , would cause the whole emmision spectra beyond that valence to be released , many photons and not just one.

Your theory , is that , if you explode a hydrogen atom it will emit only 1 photon..
Richard
Posts: 2817
Joined: Jan 15, 2007 20:44
Location: Australia

Re: Squares

Postby Richard » Mar 23, 2018 6:16

Albert wrote:My theory is that photons are created by flow of ether..
Every proton generates the same photons in the same valences.
Every neutron generates the same photons in the same valences.
You live in a parallel universe to mine, in yours, all the electrons are on strike and management is trying to do the impossible. Your Universe has an Ether, my Universe does not need one.

Albert wrote:The photons range from UV valences on the innermost and IR valences on the outermost..
There is no such thing as UV or IR valencies. Electrons changing state may need energy or release energy in the form of photons with a wavelengths in the IR, visible or UV band. It takes more energy to completely remove the innermost electrons. Outer electrons are easier to remove.

Albert wrote:Neutrons and Protons differ in the frequencies they develop at different valences.
No. The valency is the count of electrons needed to fill or empty the outer electron shell only. Common salt, NaCl, is common because the Cl– ion has one electron to lend to the Na+ ion that has a somewhere to keep it. That makes them both happily neutral, and so stable, until something with sufficient energy upsets the partnership.
Neutrons and Protons do not have valency as they are hiding behind each other in the nucleus, well away from the surrounding cloud of pesky reactionary electrons.

Albert wrote:Since photons orbit the atom in bands by frequency , you can't pull an electron out of an orbit without releasing photons..
Yes I can. I must deliver a photon with sufficient energy to pull an electron out of it's low energy state. Photons do not orbit the atom in bands by frequency. Electrons do the orbiting. Electrons are excited to higher energy states by photons that then cease to exist. The electrons will release that energy when they fall back to a lower energy level.

Albert wrote:Your law or theory , would stipulate , that if you exite a 7th valence electron it will release a certain photon of a certain freq.
7 has nothing to do with it. Any photon emitted later would carry the energy appropriate for the transition back to an available lower energy level. It might get back to where it came from in several steps.

Albert wrote:Your theory , is that , if you explode a hydrogen atom it will emit only 1 photon..
No.
To dismantle a hydrogen atom would require a huge amount of energy which would come from a collision with a high velocity particle. Some of the fragments will release the energy delivered during the collision as photons later when they are slowed down by interaction with other particles.
albert
Posts: 4243
Joined: Sep 28, 2006 2:41
Location: California, USA

Re: Squares

Postby albert » Mar 24, 2018 1:20

@Richard

Every hydrogen atom has the exact same absorbtion and emission spectra.
If you take the one electron out , it still has the same emission spectra.

Single protons and single neutrons both have an absorbtion and emission spectra..
And ionized hydrogen atom has the same emission spectra as non-ionized hydrogen atom..
So the electron in the hydrogen atom doesn't affect the emission spectra..
When burned , both atoms will release the same color spectrum.

As the flat proton solar system rotates in 3D space , the photon valences follow the spin , to make a it into a sphere , like fan blades ,appear to make a circle..

As a free electron approaches the system , it will settle into a valence.. ( can't tell which valence , so they call it an electron cloud of probability..)

In your theory , the atom will release a photon of frequency ## , based on valence of the electron..
So if the electron is in a different valence it will release a different photon freq.

Your theory says that :
If you put the electron in valence "A" and exite it , it will produce a photon in one freq.
If you put the electron in valence "B" and exite it , it will produce a photon in another freq.

Your theory would state that :
Since we can't tell which valence the one electron is in , every hydrogen atom when burned will shine a different color, as the electrons are in different valence in different atoms.

My theory states that:
Every proton and every neutron is a solar system and photons are like planets, every proton and every neutron always creates the exact same orbitals , the flow and ebb of the ether is always the same , so that all atoms of a particular element are all the exact same composition..
Every proton is the same and establishes the exact same photon / electron valences.
Every neutron is the same and establishes the exact same photon / electron valences.

When you put one proton next to another , the valences are slightly overlapped by the diameter of the "core void" , this overlapping , cancels out some photon valences and affects the absorbtion and emission spectra of the atom..
So all atoms have a different spectra depending on the number of nucleons..

Protons , neutrons and electrons , i think are all made up the same way, each existing of gluons of different sizes and quarks..

I'm not sure yet where magnetism comes from , it might be a particle like the photon only smaller.
Richard
Posts: 2817
Joined: Jan 15, 2007 20:44
Location: Australia

Re: Squares

Postby Richard » Mar 24, 2018 2:05

Albert wrote:If you take the one electron out , it still has the same emission spectra.
No. It takes a photon of energy to move an electron out to a higher energy orbital. That is an absorption spectrum, like the Fraunhofer lines, which are dark absorption bands in the Sun's spectrum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_lines

An electron emits a photon of energy when it drops into an available lower energy orbital closer to the nucleus. Once the inner orbital is occupied, only transitions between the 2'nd orbital and all above are possible so the Lyman series of lines will be missing. The spectrum will be different, it will be simpler.

Transitions between orbital n'=1 and all others give the Lyman series. Transitions between orbital n'=2 and all above gives the Balmer series. Transitions between orbital n'=3 and all above gives the Paschen series; then the Brackett, Pfund and Humphereys series. You really need to look at the pictures here;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series
albert
Posts: 4243
Joined: Sep 28, 2006 2:41
Location: California, USA

Re: Squares

Postby albert » Mar 24, 2018 2:39

@Richard

Electrons don't seem to affect absorbtion or emission spectra..

Gold is always a yellowish color , no matter how many or few electrons it has..
You can charge it to millions of volts positive or negative , and it stays the same color.
Carbon is always black , no matter how many electrons it has. Charge it positive or negative and it stays the same color.

I can't explain why electrons don't affect color , any orbital in the atom would intersect photon bands and affect color..
Unless theres voids between photon bands that allow for electrons to fit in?

Maybe it's like our solar system , with planets and asteroids.. The photons are the planets and the asteroid belts are electron valences.
Richard
Posts: 2817
Joined: Jan 15, 2007 20:44
Location: Australia

Re: Squares

Postby Richard » Mar 24, 2018 9:29

Albert wrote:Electrons don't seem to affect absorbtion or emission spectra..
In my parallel anti-universe it is quite the opposite. Here electrons are the only things that affect the spectra.

Albert wrote:Gold is always a yellowish color , no matter how many or few electrons it has..
You can charge it to millions of volts positive or negative , and it stays the same color.
The colour of a solid material in reflected light is determined by it's conductivity, not it's valency. A conductive metal is like a sponge saturated with clouds of electrons. It does not really matter how much you charge the metal surface, it will remain a conductor because there are so many more electrons available inside.

Albert wrote:Carbon is always black , no matter how many electrons it has. Charge it positive or negative and it stays the same color.
Carbon is black because it does not reflect light very well, unless it is a diamond which is not black, even though it is pure carbon.

Albert wrote:Unless theres voids between photon bands that allow for electrons to fit in?
If the electrons were stable in between orbitals, there would be sharp spectrum lines for those prohibited energy levels. So they could not be prohibited and would be valid orbitals. There are no blurry broadband energy emissions that would be expected from electrons in vague indeterminate voids.
albert
Posts: 4243
Joined: Sep 28, 2006 2:41
Location: California, USA

Re: Squares

Postby albert » Mar 24, 2018 21:20

@Richard

My solar system theory , with photons orbiting the nucleons in bands , would suggest speed differences.
That would mean that UV photons travel faster than IR photons.

The photons closest to the nucleus , would traverse around the core faster , than the photons further away..
At that small of a system , the speed difference might only be an angstrom or so a second difference.
But there should be a difference..

So , not all light , is created equal. This might be why a prism separates light into bands, by speed??


Also electrons in different valences would travel at different speeds..

With the proton and neutron , the photons orbiting them ; the innermost orbital is a certain distance form the core particle.
I call this distance the "Core Void" , like there's a gap between the sun and mercury. You can put in more nucleons to fill the "core void".
Once the "core void" is full , if you add another nucleon , that nucleon will bump against the innermost photon band and cause a emission of photons.
( Like adding another sun to ours , it would bump against mercury , and cause an emission collision..)
It should cause an emission of the highest frequency photons orbiting the nucleus ; UV B...
But those UV B photons exiting , might cause a release of lower frequency photons as well. So you might get a spectrum of emission..

The U.S. govt. invented a molecule called "Strontium Barium Titanate" the molecule glows green when IR photons hit it...Night Vision..
Contrary to popular belief , the IR photons don't change frequency , they just cause the molecule to release green photons.
Photons can't change frequency , each frequency photon is a different size or composition , and each is unique.
But the protons and neutrons will instantly re-spawn another photon in a certain valence , if one is lost..
So an atom never runs out of its photons. They regenerate... like lizards regenerate legs..

I was doing particle research on the MIT website. They say that the nucleons are particles and everything else are frequencies..
But frequency cannot traverse a vacum.
A frequency is an wave in a substance ( expansion / contraction ) ..
So for MIT to be correct , their has to be an ether for the frequencies to manifest in.
albert
Posts: 4243
Joined: Sep 28, 2006 2:41
Location: California, USA

Re: Squares

Postby albert » Mar 26, 2018 1:39

I Read the wikipedia on x-rays and gamma rays..
It seems that both ranges are photons of real high frequency..

You get X-rays by bouncing electrons , off a surface.
X-Ray machines use polished gold foil to bounce the electrons off of.

Gamma rays , it says , are caused by nucleons returning from an exited state to a normal state.
( it doesn't say what the exited state is? ( is it spin or voltage? )

With my theory:
The proton is a solar system with orbitals.
The neutron is a solar system with orbitals.
The electron is a solar system with orbitals.

That would mean that photons orbit the protons and neutrons , Lowest freq ( IR ) to highest freq , (UV B)
The x-ray photon bands orbit the electron..
The Gamma photons orbit the neutron or possibly the quarks..

So theres 3 types of solar systems that can exist in the ether.
Proton,
Neutron,
Electron.

And as a system , each particle is made up of other particles and has orbitals..
Typically x-rays are emitted when the voltage driving them exceeds 13,000 Volts..
Most old-timey TV tubes , used 32,000 volts , and produced a lot of x-rays , when the electron beam hit the charged grid.
Richard
Posts: 2817
Joined: Jan 15, 2007 20:44
Location: Australia

Re: Squares

Postby Richard » Mar 26, 2018 3:18

Albert wrote:So , not all light , is created equal. This might be why a prism separates light into bands, by speed??
You can measure the speed of any wavelength light in an empty space and you will get exactly the same value. It is so exact that it is now defined as an integer c = 299 792 458. metres per second.

When inside condensed materials, near atoms, or stray electrons, the permittivity of the space is slightly different and so the speed of light will be slower. The permittivity varies slightly for different wavelengths depending on how much mass is present and how well it is tied down. The refractive index is therefore wavelength dependent, which is why prisms separate light by wavelength.

“Photon” is the name given to a packet of energy. It only comes into existence when the energy is available. Photons then travel in straight lines until their energy is accepted, when they instantly cease to exist. Photons weigh nothing since they travel at the speed of light which according to Einstein's Relativity is impossible for any mass. Since photons are pure energy and have no charge or mass, they are not attracted to orbit the mass or charge of an atomic nucleus.

Quantum Mechanics is like a complex gearbox. You can take it apart to find out how it works and which bits connect with which other bits. If you put it together in the right order it will function correctly. If you put it together wrongly it will not fit together and it will not predict the observations we see in this universe.
In my parallel universe, your theories appear to be random bags of bits that rattle when you shake them. They certainly do not represent the universe where computers function and this forum exists.
albert
Posts: 4243
Joined: Sep 28, 2006 2:41
Location: California, USA

Re: Squares

Postby albert » Mar 26, 2018 22:34

@Richard

The wiki says that gamma rays , are emitted , when an excited nucleon , drops from a high energy state back to a normal state.
It says that only 1 single gamma photon , is created in the slope of energy transition.

The wiki says that photons , are emitted , when an excited electron , drops from a high energy state back to a normal state.
It says that only 1 single photon , is created in the slope of energy transition.

It doesn't say how you excite the nucleon , is it excited by magnetism or voltage? for gamma release.
It doesn't say how you excite the electron , is it excited by magnetism or voltage? for photon release.

X-Rays are created when you bounce electrons off a surface that's charged with 13,000 or higher volts.
old timey TV picture tubes , range from 13,000 to 32,000 volts positive , on the front screen grid. and produce x-rays.
Microwave ovens usually run at 50,000 volts in the magnetron tube. and produce x-rays. more so than a TV tube.
oscillascopes use a negative screen grid voltage , to prevent dust from attracting to it. and use a low voltage of about 10,000 volts so no x-rays are produced..

!!~~OFF TOPIC~~!!
My BIOS POST is claiming that my hard drive is about to fail..( back up and replace your hard drive , it says..)
So , i went to Best Buy and got a new 500GB Hard Drive it only cost $45..
I got to install it yet.

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests