|
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Strange substances (Read 16484 times)
|
FakeMccoy
*Many bubbles*
 Offline
Posts: 203
|
In condensed matter, there are plenty of composite fermions with continuously varying energies, and this rule describes those.
I 100% guarantee you there is no truly continuous spectrum of energy in a closed atomic system. If you have a free particle in a wave packet or if you have something like beta decay with the kinetic energy being continuous, I could see what you're saying, but the quantinization of energy is the whole reason why new particle physics had to be developed to explain things like the ultra-violet catastrophe, why electrons don't spontaneously fall into the nucleus and there's even research, why only certain oscillation modes of light are measured as being emitted black bodies, of time and space being quantized as well. There's only specific oscillation modes of particles that can physically exist. Don't even try and use large quantum numbers as an excuse, that's just the distance between nodal surfaces decreasing so much we can't measure the distinction between oscillation modes which only makes energy appear continuous at larger values which in terms of research still leaves room for things like kinetic energy to be quantized.
In nucleons most of the mass is in the form of energy or in the nuclear bonds themselves in relativistic mass, not in the real mass Bonding energy is real mass. There's nothing fake about it. You can't wish it away, you can't cancel it out except by breaking the bonds. Of course, this sentence doesn't actually mean anything, which is worse than being wrong.
which you'd know if you applied quarter-way decent physical intuition for half a second.
Yeah in case you haven't noticed classical physical notions don't always mix will with atomic physics. I'm starting to think you are just flat out lying about having any experience. It's fine if you have some degree in physics which I'm sure took a lot of work and you forgot the specific implications of a few rules in atomic physics, personally I wouldn't think any less of you anyone for doing that, but there's no reason to go around trying to cover it up while also acting aggressively.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 20, 2013, 12:45:20 am by FakeMccoy »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
Paragraph 1: you're talking about individual systems. I'm talking about building different systems. Yes, each system is quantized. The ways these systems quantize vary continuously. I'm not even talking about energy levels here - I'm talking about effective mass, which is a relationship between wave number and energy level.
I'm pretty 200% sure I didn't say it can be wished away and it seems more like you have a straw-man than an argument, no one said anything about wishing anything away. you said it wasn't real. That which is real is that which doesn't go away if you stop believing in it. There's nothing fake about that nuclear binding energy and interaction energy. You're trying to draw some distinction between composite nucleons and single-particle leptons (as if leptons didn't have renormalization-group clouds), without any theoretical or experimental basis. Tunneling follows the same rules for composite particles like Cooper pairs and fractional quantum Hall sets, that are much much larger than atoms yet lighter, and are so composite that it makes nucleons look single-particle again. And those particles tunnel based on their effective mass, including all the interaction energy.
Nucleons don't get any shortcuts.
Unless you can provide any evidence my notion is fine ... and that is why you are clearly not a scientist. Anyone's failure to provide a counterargument you accept doesn't change the validity of your idea. It works or it doesn't.
Yeah in case you haven't noticed classical physical notions don't always mix will with atomic physics. I'm talking about quantum intuition here, but in this particular case classical will do fine: what benefit do you derive from getting rid of your screening electrons in crossing the coulomb barrier? None. Getting rid of the electrons makes the barrier higher and wider, neither of which helps you cross in classical or quantum mechanics.
I'm starting to think you are just flat out lying about having any experience.
PhD, University of Pennsylvania. Took quantum mechanics with Paul Langacker, Modern Quantum Optics with Jay Kikkawa, and quantum field theory with Burt Ovrut. Shall I give you my real name now? I can ask Millicent to confirm my graduation status if you want give her a call.
You know a lot of bits and pieces. But they'e not integrated. Like, you seriously challenged the meaningfulness of having a square root dependence of the tunneling length on mass, based on paucity of points? We don't reject the dependencies of the Bohr Radius formula just because it's only about Hydrogen atoms. Physicists are all about that sort of thing. Because they are meaningful. You just don't have a solid enough background to see why.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 20, 2013, 05:16:35 am by Death 999 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
FakeMccoy
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 203
|
you said it wasn't real. Real has different contexts and obviously it wouldn't make sense if the mass magically disappeared , like for instance the actually not real and truly imaginary mass of Higgs Bosons. That being said, saying I wished it away is obviously a strawman.
I'm pretty 200% sure I didn't say it can be wished away and it seems more like you have a straw-man than an argument, no one said anything about wishing anything away. you said it wasn't real. That which is real is that which doesn't go away if you stop believing in it. There's nothing fake about that nuclear binding energy and interaction energy. You're trying to draw some distinction between composite nucleons and single-particle leptons (as if leptons didn't have renormalization-group clouds), without any theoretical or experimental basis. Tunneling follows the same rules for composite particles like Cooper pairs and fractional quantum Hall sets, that are much much larger than atoms yet lighter, and are so composite that it makes nucleons look single-particle again. And those particles tunnel based on their effective mass, including all the interaction energy.
I'm pretty sure not interacting with the strong force makes leptons fundamentally different than quarks and these properties were discovered in particle colliders. As I said before it makes sense that lighter atoms are larger which is due largely to the uncertainty principal and why electrons are so much bigger than protons and also why higher mass leptons become smaller as you increase the mass. Tunelling may follow similar rules, but tunelling itself isn't the issue, the issue is the force needed to overcome the electro-static repulsion between hydrogen atoms. Muon catalyzed fusion as mentioned in the paper I posted before that you continuously ignored was also studied by scientists in the latter part of the 20th century, and the main problem with is it is inefficient because it takes too much energy to create muons to efficiently act as a catalyst, and not much more. And why are they catalysts? Because as I said before, it's their greater localization, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion. In a system of muon-catalyzed hydrogen atoms, it would not take as much energy for tunneling to take place even going so far as to say "effectively shields and reduces the electromagnetic repulsion between two nuclei". However you would be theoretically right with our current models if you said the kinetic energy wasn't quantized because of the infinitesimally small possible angles of which to measure a the relativistic velocity, but as we explore how time and space may be quantized it appears that could merely be due to a similar effect that appears in the seemingly continuous transition between oscillation modes of electrons involving high quantum numbers dealing with the Bhor correspondence principal except for quantized manifolds of space-time.
... and that is why you are clearly not a scientist. Anyone's failure to provide a counterargument you accept doesn't change the validity of your idea. It works or it doesn't.
If you cannot provide a fallacy then logically there is no proof it is wrong and thus it is a valid possibility. Besides, as a scientist you should know scientific laws can change and that a well made theory can carry more weight.
PhD, University of Pennsylvania. Took quantum mechanics with Paul Langacker, Modern Quantum Optics with Jay Kikkawa, and quantum field theory with Burt Ovrut. Shall I give you my real name now? I can ask Millicent to confirm my graduation status if you want give her a call.
Here's the problem: I can cite credible sources showing what I said and that cold fusion is possible, and then you say that's all rubbish. You seem to have some kind of in depth understanding, but saying it's all rubbish conflicts with the pages and pages and pages of articles I have, which you can find more easily if you go to google.scholar.com and type in muon-catalyzed fusion. Now, I'm having a harder time believing you work in a lab every day with this stuff considering that. Maybe you just didn't understand how cold fusion worked or something or maybe i just didn't describe my points well enough, but it definitely isn't complete rubbish, it's just not efficient right now.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 20, 2013, 06:28:32 am by FakeMccoy »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
If you think that mass is so real, then start treating it that way.
The reason I ignored muon-catalyzed fusion is that I have no problem with it. I'm actually rather fond of it. However, I'd be shocked if it can be made practical. The other thing is, it's not what people are talking about when they say 'cold fusion'. Similarly, using lasers to superheat a tiny volume is not cold fusion. I've got no problem with that either. Hence my not arguing about it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
Muons decay in 2.2µs. Taus decay in 290fs.
That factor of 10 million makes a really really big difference. Muons are already not living long enough to do all that much good, and they already do a good enough job at improving the screening (while they're there) that fusion can proceed at moderate temperatures.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]
|
|
|
|
|
