| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jong Kim" |
| Date: |
13 Jun 2007 08:57:45 PM |
| Object: |
Positron and Electron |
"Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister" <user13@heathens.Org.uk> wrote:
Jong Kim <rhl71@hotmail.com> wrote:
"RetroProphet" <RetroProphet_member@newsguy.com> wrote:
No, he was not professing a belief in the
literal truth of the Genesis story, when
he used the term "Creator" in "Origin
of The Species" and later clarified what
he meant:
"I have long regretted that I truckled to public
opinion & used the Pentateuchal term of creation,
by which I really meant "appeared" by some wholly
unknown process. It is mere rubbish thinking,
at present, of origin of life; one might as well
think of origin of matter."
Charles Darwin / letter to J.D. Hooker
March 23, 1863
And when this is done, how much shall we have learned, and how much will
remain unknown, about the mechanism that builds matter from more
primitive
constituents? Are we not at this moment,
. . . like stout Cortez when with eagle eyes
He star'd at the Pacific - and all his men
Look'd at each other with a wild surmise -
Silent, upon a peak in Darien.
And now it only remains for me to say: Tack sa mycket for
uppmarksamheten.
[end of lecture]
~~Julian Schwinger (Physics Nobel Lecture, Dec. 11, 1965)
The esteemed Dirac, Schwinger's quantum-Nobel (1933) predecessor,
concluded
that it's aether, as had done the even more esteemed Clerk Maxwell:
Is there an Aether?
...
We must make some profound alterations in our theoretical ideas of
the vacuum. It is no longer a trivial state, but needs elaborate
mathematics for its description.
...
Thus with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather forced
to have an aether.
P. A. M. DIRAC
St. John's College,
Cambridge. Oct. 9.
*1* Proc. Roy. Soc., [A, 209, 291 (1951)].
~~NATURE November 24, 1951 Vol. 168, Pgs. 906-907
Which had been accomplished decades previously by James Clerk Maxwell,
specifically the formulation of his 20 quaternion equations, not 4
Relaxwell
'free space' equations (read -- cell phone induced brain cancer).
Encyclopedia Britannica (1984 ed.), "Maxwell, James Clerk"
(Macropaedia Vol. 11, p. 718):
To the physicist, the name Maxwell means Maxwell's equations, the basis
of
the field theory of electricity and magnetism.
...
Maxwell's theory led to advances in science and technology that have
transformed the modern world.
The library is full of monkeys again. Who let this lot out?
11 Scroope Terrace, Cambridge, 22d Nov. 1876.
MY LORD BISHOP-
....
Now the aether or material substance which fills all the interspace
between world and world, without a gap or flaw of 1/100000 inch anywhere,
and which probably penetrates through all grosser matters is the largest,
most uniform and apparently most permanent object we know, and we are
therefore inclined to suppose that it existed before the formation of the
systems of gross matter which now exist within it, just as we suppose
the sea older than the individual fishes in it.
But I should be very sorry if an interpretation founded on a most
conjectural scientific hypothesis were to get fastened to the text in
Genesis, even if by so doing it got rid of the old statement of the
commentators which has long ceased to be intelligible. The rate of change of
scientific hypothesis is naturally much more rapid than that of Biblical
interpretations, so that if an interpretation is founded on such an
hypothesis, it may help to keep the hypothesis above ground long after it
ought to be buried and forgotten.
....
J. CLERK MAXWELL.
~~The Life of James Clerk Maxwell (1882) by Campbell and Garnett, p. 190-191
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God,
so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
~~Paul the Apostle, a.k.a. Saul of Tarsus (King James Version Hebrews 11:3)
Atoms, particles, photons are but (local) singularities of the aether which
remain to be explained by differential equations.
~~About the Aether Concept (2003) by Maurice Allais, 1988 Economics Nobel
Laureate
The teachings of these three very credible men from three different eras are
entirely in agreement.
Of these three, Paul the Apostle had the most sure knowledge of the
foundation of matter, that it is all spiritual in nature.
Journal of Discourses, Vol.2, Pg.184, Brigham Young, February 18, 1855:
"There is a spirit in man; and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them
understanding," and many who do not hold the Priesthood have ideas which are
really true, yet they are not always certain whether they are true or not.
Title: The discovery of the positron
Authors: Demaria, M.; Russo, A.
Affiliation: Rome Univ. (Italy).
Publication: Unknown
Publication Date: 06/1985
Category: Atomic and Molecular Physics
Origin: STI
....
Abstract
The contribution of Dirac, Anderson, Blackett, and Occhialini to the
discovery of the positron are discussed. It is argued that the positron was
suggested by Dirac, discovered by Anderson, and confirmed by Blackett and
Occhialini.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985dipo.rept.....D
The positron (as opposed to the electron) is a related, saith the Lord (on
June 12, 2007), but different conformation or collocation of the anisotropic
aether.
conformation, n.
the way a thing is formed, its structure.
collocation, n.
placing together or side by side.
James Clerk Maxwell (Discourse on Molecules, Sep. 1873):
It is only when we contemplate, not matter in itself, but the form in which
it actually exists, that our mind finds something on which it can lay hold.
....
But that there should be exactly so much matter and no more in every
molecule of hydrogen is a fact of a very different order. We have here
a particular distribution of matter-a collocation-to use the expression of
Dr. Chalmers, of things which we have no difficulty in imagining to have
been arranged otherwise.
http://www.sonnetsoftware.com/bio/maxbio.pdf
Feynman's theory is mathematically equivalent to Dirac's, although the
interpretations are quite different. Which formalism a physicist uses when
dealing with antimatter is usually a matter of which form has the simplest
structure for the particular problem being solved.
Note that in Feynman's theory, there is no pair production or annihilation.
Instead the electron is just interacting with electromagnetic radiation,
i.e. light.
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/AntiMatter/AntiMatter.html
This paragraph is my personal, qualitative reflection on the positron, what
one may call philosophising:
I strongly believe the Feynman view, namely that an electron can become a
positron and vice versa (the amount of particle's constituent aether stays
the same) through a peculiar interaction with the surrounding aether, or
what we call electromagnetic wave/undulation (photon). It seems to me that a
positron goes into a more stable conformation of electron upon releasing
energy (i.e., emit EM radiation or photon), so that accelerating in some way
under certain circumstances (such as during a positron-electron collision),
a positron emits EM radiation and becomes an electron, instead of a normal
charged particle acceleration with a corresponding EM radiation while still
remaining a positron. My point being that (given the information I'm seeing
on the Dirac and Feynman theories), in this way, an additional Feynman view
of a positron being an electron traveling backward in time is unnecessary,
since traveling backward in time makes no sense. (Feynman's interpretation
of time was corrupted by his mentor, John Wheeler, he of the quantum foam
concept -- I just found a sentence from Feynman's Nobel lecture that this
going backward in time view of electron as being positron is not a necessary
view, but also giving credit to Wheeler for giving him this idea to have a
mathematical framework. Dirac's negative energy concept is nonsensical too,
except that it provided him a mathematical framework to describe elementary
particles and rather strongly anticipate something like a positron. These
things have a precedent in Newton's inverse square law, which does not
expressly account for the presence of aether.) Another thing to consider is
that the very existence of these anti-particles such as the positron appears
to be reflective of the more elementary aether itself, that the Universe is
anisotropic, or the non-uniformity of Nature.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html
Well, it seemed to me quite evident that the idea that a particle acts on
itself, that the
electrical force acts on the same particle that generates it, is not a
necessary one - it is a
sort of a silly one, as a matter of fact. And, so I suggested to myself,
that electrons cannot
act on themselves, they can only act on other electrons. ... if you insist
on thinking in terms of ideas like that of a field, this field is always
completely determined by the action of
the particles which produce it. You shake this particle, it shakes that one,
but if you want to think in a field way, the field, if it's there, would be
entirely determined by the matter which generates it, ... As a matter of
fact, when we look out anywhere and see light, we can always "see" some
matter as the source of the light. ... You see then that my general plan was
to first solve the classical problem, to get rid of the infinite
self-energies in the classical theory, and to hope that when I made a
quantum theory of it, everything would just be fine.
~~Richard P. Feynman (Physics Nobel Lecture, Dec. 11, 1965)
"Tomonaga, Schwinger, and Feynman," wrote F. J. Dyson in Science (1965),
"rescued the theory without making any radical innovations. Their victory
was a victory of conservation. They kept the physical basis of the theory
[the postulation of only electrons, positrons, and photons] precisely as it
had been laid down by Dirac, and only changed the mathematical
superstructure. By polishing and refining with great skill the mathematical
formalism, they were able to show that the theory does in fact give
meaningful predictions for all observable quantities."
http://www.answers.com/topic/sin-itiro-tomonaga
The mathematical physics accounting by these three gentlemen for the
observed Lamb shift and hyperfine splitting of the hydrogen gas spectrum
arguably represents the greatest success that the prevailing physical view
has accomplished without expressly accounting for the anisotropic aether
(though the dark matter and the quatum foam concepts have been introduced in
its place).
So, a few years ago, Steven Weinberg commented:
I have to admit that, even when physicists will have gone as far as they can
go, when we have a final theory, we will not have a completely satisfying
picture of the world, because we will still be left with the question 'why?'
Why this theory, rather than some other theory? For example, why is the
world described by quantum mechanics? Quantum mechanics is the one part of
our present physics that is likely to survive intact in any future theory,
but there is nothing logically inevitable about quantum mechanics; I can
imagine a universe governed by Newtonian mechanics instead. So there seems
to be an irreducible mystery that science will not eliminate. ... Once you
start trying to make small changes in quantum mechanics, you get into
theories with negative probabilities or other logical absurdities. When you
combine quantum mechanics with relativity you increase its logical
fragility. You find that unless you arrange the theory in just the right way
you get nonsense, like effects preceding causes, or infinite probabilities.
~~A Designer Universe? (1999) by Steven Weinberg, 1979 Physics Nobel
Laureate
http://www.physlink.com/Education/essay_weinberg.cfm
Weinberg knows about the principle of stationary action but chose to not
discuss it in his 1999 talk. Regardless, Economy of Heaven is the governing
principle of the Universe, mathematically or philosophically.
I think that the prevailing physical view worked up to this point, only
because both Feynman and Schwinger realized that the minimal or optimizing
Lagrangian-Hamiltonian action principle was the key, as did Dirac and other
quantum physicists, and they found a way to do it well enough, but Clerk
Maxwell expressly had modeled the aether by the same action principle
applied to fluid mechanics. Therefore, the Maxwell approach was more
fundamentally sound. Just enough truth in quantum mechanics to be a viable
mathematical model of reality, in many instances. But quantum theory is not
the truth in and of itself. The whole Maxwell electrodynamics (all 20
equations, not 4) along with the photon postulate forced upon Planck
(applied at least to transverse EM waves, most useful mathematically) and
the consequences thereof are the most truth man's physics (mathematical and
experimental) has been able to uncover, as practiced by very talented men,
as guided by the Spirit of God, according to each investigator's willingness
to be intellectually honest. No doubt there are more physics that we don't
know of, for we have much knowledge but an incomplete one. Now, I believe I
have demonstrated enough to the educated unbelievers, that they have good
reasons to take the Bible seriously and to pray to their Maker in heaven for
understanding to be given them, by the power of His Spirit. These things
they scoff at have been shown be plausible, at least.
James Clerk Maxwell, The Life of (1882), p. 192-193:
.... letter to Mr. Garnett, ... 9th July 1877, ...
I think it a pity that the old historical word Dynamics should, for mere
considerations of time, be split up into Kinematics, Kinetics, and Statics.
With respect to the divisions of the subject, I think they fall thus:-
1. Early attempts at founding the science, ancient Kinematics
(mechanical description of curves, etc.) generally correct.
Ancient Statics.- Archimedes.
Modern Dynamics.-Galileo, first founder. Descartes, good up to Kinematics
and Statics, failed in Kinetics.
....
NEWTON.
Three laws of motion. Form suggested by the laws of Descartes. Meaning
established by Newton's own copious and complete examples of using them.
Second statement of Newton's third Law.
My notions on the three laws are in "Matter and Motion."
....
Euler. The Bernoullis, etc. Laplace, the flower of this stage of
development.
Lagrange and Virtual Velocity.
This is the germ of the method of energy which was fully developed in
mathematical form in the Mecanique Analytique, but very little appreciated
outside the inner circle of
mathematicians till the physical theory of energy became generally known.
Mathematical development of higher dynamics. (See Cayley's Brit. *****.
Report, 1857 and 1862? specially Hamilton and Jacobi.
....
Kirchoff''s notions in beginning of Vorlesungen (not equal to Lagrange, but
worth noticing).
I also think that Clausius' equation and definition of "Virial" is
important.
The dynamics of other varieties of space than our own requires very brief
notice indeed.
-Yours truly,
J. CLERK MAXWELL.
.
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Positron and Electron |
14 Jun 2007 05:12:17 AM |
|
|
Get help.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Rev Dr. Hugh Jarse NLAHN." |
|
| Title: Re: Positron and Electron |
14 Jun 2007 12:35:08 PM |
|
|
On Jun 14, 11:12 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
Get help.
--
He can get help here:
http://www.vmh.com/Crisis_Management.asp
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Positron and Electron |
14 Jun 2007 04:29:34 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:35:08 -0700, "The Rev Dr. Hugh Jarse NLAHN."
<hugh.jarse@heathens.org.uk> wrote:
- Refer: <1181842508.586007.327420@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 14, 11:12 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
Get help.
--
He can get help here:
http://www.vmh.com/Crisis_Management.asp
Great advice, and sincere too.
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister" |
|
| Title: Re: Positron and Electron |
14 Jun 2007 01:00:29 AM |
|
|
Jong Kim <rhl71@hotmail.com> strained and strained
finally something went 'plop'.
This is what it smelled like:
"Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister" <user13@heathens.Org.uk> wrote:
Jong Kim <rhl71@hotmail.com> wrote:
"RetroProphet" <RetroProphet_member@newsguy.com> wrote:
No, he was not professing a belief in the
literal truth of the Genesis story, when
he used the term "Creator" in "Origin
of The Species" and later clarified what
he meant:
"I have long regretted that I truckled to public
opinion & used the Pentateuchal term of creation,
by which I really meant "appeared" by some wholly
unknown process. It is mere rubbish thinking,
at present, of origin of life; one might as well
think of origin of matter."
Charles Darwin / letter to J.D. Hooker
March 23, 1863
And when this is done, how much shall we have learned, and how much will
remain unknown, about the mechanism that builds matter from more
primitive
constituents? Are we not at this moment,
. . . like stout Cortez when with eagle eyes
He star'd at the Pacific - and all his men
Look'd at each other with a wild surmise -
Silent, upon a peak in Darien.
And now it only remains for me to say: Tack sa mycket for
uppmarksamheten.
[end of lecture]
~~Julian Schwinger (Physics Nobel Lecture, Dec. 11, 1965)
The esteemed Dirac, Schwinger's quantum-Nobel (1933) predecessor,
concluded
that it's aether, as had done the even more esteemed Clerk Maxwell:
Is there an Aether?
...
We must make some profound alterations in our theoretical ideas of
the vacuum. It is no longer a trivial state, but needs elaborate
mathematics for its description.
...
Thus with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather forced
to have an aether.
P. A. M. DIRAC
St. John's College,
Cambridge. Oct. 9.
*1* Proc. Roy. Soc., [A, 209, 291 (1951)].
~~NATURE November 24, 1951 Vol. 168, Pgs. 906-907
Which had been accomplished decades previously by James Clerk Maxwell,
specifically the formulation of his 20 quaternion equations, not 4
Relaxwell
'free space' equations (read -- cell phone induced brain cancer).
Encyclopedia Britannica (1984 ed.), "Maxwell, James Clerk"
(Macropaedia Vol. 11, p. 718):
To the physicist, the name Maxwell means Maxwell's equations, the basis
of
the field theory of electricity and magnetism.
...
Maxwell's theory led to advances in science and technology that have
transformed the modern world.
The library is full of monkeys again. Who let this lot out?
11 Scroope Terrace, Cambridge, 22d Nov. 1876.
<snip pasted screed>
I'll give you a banana if you *****.
While we're awaiting a response, here's some holding music.
http://www.midicenter.com/midi/view.php?id=24
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
