Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #600103 > unrolled thread

Linear motion as a quantum property?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Linear motion as a quantum property? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-10-09 12:59 +0000
    Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 15:16 +0200
      Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-10-09 15:12 +0000
        Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 17:21 +0200
          Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 17:33 +0200
          Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-10-09 15:34 +0000
            Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 18:01 +0200
              Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-10-09 18:39 +0000
                Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 20:53 +0200
                  Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-10-10 21:09 +0000
            Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 18:02 +0200
              Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-10-09 18:35 +0000
                Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 20:47 +0200
                  Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-10-09 18:50 +0000
                    Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 20:54 +0200
                      Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-10-10 21:12 +0000
            Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 18:02 +0200
              Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-10-09 18:37 +0000
                Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 20:51 +0200
                  Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? "Richard D. Saam" <rdsaam@att.net> - 2016-10-09 18:42 -0500
                    Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-10 17:42 +0200
                      Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-10-10 08:53 -0700
      Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-10-10 03:14 -0700
        Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-10-10 21:19 +0000
          Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-10-11 00:19 -0700
    Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-10-10 13:10 -0400
      Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-10-10 21:15 +0000
        Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-10-16 10:26 -0400
      Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-10-11 00:14 -0700
      Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? THE STINGER - AKA 'KING OF AUK' <bzz.bzz.bzz@sting.sting.sting> - 2016-10-11 09:43 +0200
      space hath atoms, secondpower of the speed of light numerosity noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 11:58 -0700
    Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-10-10 11:38 -0700
      Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-10-10 11:46 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#600103 — Linear motion as a quantum property?

Linear motion as a quantum property?
------------------------------------

I don't understand any of this.

I'm trying to figure out linear motion as a property
of matter. But now I'm really stuck.

Basically it starts off by concluding linear
motion reduces to a property of matter.

In order for it to be a property, it can only
be ON or OFF.

The OFF state is anything that travel at the speed of light
contrary to where I want to start :(

There is no reference point to conclude you have
linear motion which is why the OFF state is
given to objects travelling at speed of light.

Then what does ON mean?

It seems to mean that when these particles
combine with other object and they face each other
then you get the ON state.

This logic just sucks and sucks.

When two objects face each other to cancel linear
motion they stand still.
And when they combine with more collections of such
particles you get various linear motion vectors.

The moment a particle has one of its linear motion
particle properties reversed in a particle collision of high 
energy, it is possible, they just accelerate until
its torn to pieces.

If that is the case, then may be some day we can reverse
the properties of just a few particles by just a little and hold 
on to it some way.

A sheet of this material would then accelerate slowly
assuming the force of acceleration can be evenly
distributed throughout the material (otherwise it would
rip itself to pieces if it is a point source).

Much like a sheet of plastic can be charged up
electrostatically or some materials form into magnets,
this material will accelerate in the specific directions
set into at the time its manufactured, and you
point it in the direction you want to travel.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#600105

Dne 09/10/2016 v 14:59 7 napsal(a):
> Linear motion as a quantum property?
> ------------------------------------


> I don't understand any of this.
> 
> I'm trying to figure out linear motion as a property
> of matter. But now I'm really stuck.
> 
> Basically it starts off by concluding linear
> motion reduces to a property of matter.

Linear motion ( like of argon atoms in air )
is not quantized, therefore is is not quantum property.

Also, linear motion is relative phenomena,
as there is no absolute linear motion nor rest.

If an object is in state of linear motion,
and what is its linear velocity
is NOT a property of object.

It is property of the frame of reference,
where the object state is evaluated.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600106

Poutnik wrote:

> Dne 09/10/2016 v 14:59 7 napsal(a):
>> Linear motion as a quantum property?
>> ------------------------------------
> 
> 
>> I don't understand any of this.
>> 
>> I'm trying to figure out linear motion as a property
>> of matter. But now I'm really stuck.
>> 
>> Basically it starts off by concluding linear
>> motion reduces to a property of matter.
> 
> Linear motion ( like of argon atoms in air )
> is not quantized, therefore is is not quantum property.

Argon atoms are quantum objects.

> Also, linear motion is relative phenomena,
> as there is no absolute linear motion nor rest.

Which is why you should read the original post:


Linear motion as a quantum property?
------------------------------------

I don't understand any of this.

I'm trying to figure out linear motion as a property
of matter. But now I'm really stuck.

Basically it starts off by concluding linear
motion reduces to a property of matter.

In order for it to be a property, it can only
be ON or OFF.

The OFF state is anything that travel at the speed of light
contrary to where I want to start :(

There is no reference point to conclude you have
linear motion which is why the OFF state is
given to objects travelling at speed of light.

Then what does ON mean?

It seems to mean that when these particles
combine with other object and they face each other
then you get the ON state.

This logic just sucks and sucks.

When two objects face each other to cancel linear
motion they stand still.
And when they combine with more collections of such
particles you get various linear motion vectors.

The moment a particle has one of its linear motion
particle properties reversed in a particle collision of high 
energy, it is possible, they just accelerate until
its torn to pieces.

If that is the case, then may be some day we can reverse
the properties of just a few particles by just a little and hold 
on to it some way.

A sheet of this material would then accelerate slowly
assuming the force of acceleration can be evenly
distributed throughout the material (otherwise it would
rip itself to pieces if it is a point source).

Much like a sheet of plastic can be charged up
electrostatically or some materials form into magnets,
this material will accelerate in the specific directions
set into at the time its manufactured, and you
point it in the direction you want to travel.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600107

Dne 09/10/2016 v 17:12 7 napsal(a):
> Poutnik wrote:

>> Linear motion ( like of argon atoms in air )
>> is not quantized, therefore is is not quantum property.
> 
> Argon atoms are quantum objects.

Sure they are, but linear motion is not quantum property,
as it is not property of the object, quantum or not.
> 
>> Also, linear motion is relative phenomena,
>> as there is no absolute linear motion nor rest.
> 
> Which is why you should read the original post:

What did make you imply I had not ?
I was sliding to nonsense.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600108

Dne 09/10/2016 v 17:21 Poutnik napsal(a):
> 
> What did make you imply I had not ?
> I was sliding to nonsense.
> 
It..  :-)

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600109

>>> Linear motion ( like of argon atoms in air )
>>> is not quantized, therefore is is not quantum property.
>> 
>> Argon atoms are quantum objects.
> 
> Sure they are, but linear motion is not quantum property,
> as it is not property of the object, quantum or not.
>> 
>>> Also, linear motion is relative phenomena,
>>> as there is no absolute linear motion nor rest.
>> 
>> Which is why you should read the original post:
> 
> What did make you imply I had not ?

This is a post trying to say linear motion could
be quantized. You seem to justify it is continuous
without explaining why.
Hence you forgot to read and take in the original post.

> I was sliding to nonsense.

More reasons to read the original post
and absorb the details before posting:

Linear motion as a quantum property?
------------------------------------

I don't understand any of this.

I'm trying to figure out linear motion as a property
of matter. But now I'm really stuck.

Basically it starts off by concluding linear
motion reduces to a property of matter.

In order for it to be a property, it can only
be ON or OFF.

The OFF state is anything that travel at the speed of light
contrary to where I want to start :(

There is no reference point to conclude you have
linear motion which is why the OFF state is
given to objects travelling at speed of light.

Then what does ON mean?

It seems to mean that when these particles
combine with other object and they face each other
then you get the ON state.

This logic just sucks and sucks.

When two objects face each other to cancel linear
motion they stand still.
And when they combine with more collections of such
particles you get various linear motion vectors.

The moment a particle has one of its linear motion
particle properties reversed in a particle collision of high 
energy, it is possible, they just accelerate until
its torn to pieces.

If that is the case, then may be some day we can reverse
the properties of just a few particles by just a little and hold 
on to it some way.

A sheet of this material would then accelerate slowly
assuming the force of acceleration can be evenly
distributed throughout the material (otherwise it would
rip itself to pieces if it is a point source).

Much like a sheet of plastic can be charged up
electrostatically or some materials form into magnets,
this material will accelerate in the specific directions
set into at the time its manufactured, and you
point it in the direction you want to travel.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600111

Dne 09/10/2016 v 17:34 7 napsal(a):
>
> 
> In order for it to be a property, it can only
> be ON or OFF.
> 
In order to be a property of the object,
it must depend solely on the state of object.

If there are red and blue standing cars at street,
there is no motion for each wrt the other.

If the red car drives away,
the blue ones starts moving wrt the red one.

Is the motion of the blue one wrt red one
a property of the car ? No, it is not.


-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600135

Poutnik wrote:

 
>> In order for it to be a property, it can only
>> be ON or OFF.
>> 
> In order to be a property of the object,
> it must depend solely on the state of object.
> 
> If there are red and blue standing cars at street,
> there is no motion for each wrt the other.
> 
> If the red car drives away,
> the blue ones starts moving wrt the red one.
> 
> Is the motion of the blue one wrt red one
> a property of the car ? No, it is not.

Fatal error of logic there is that you
are assuming you can construct
something out of blue or red that can
verify the one or the other occurred.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600150

Dne 09/10/2016 v 20:39 7 napsal(a):
> Poutnik wrote:
> 
>  
>>> In order for it to be a property, it can only
>>> be ON or OFF.
>>>
>> In order to be a property of the object,
>> it must depend solely on the state of object.
>>
>> If there are red and blue standing cars at street,
>> there is no motion for each wrt the other.
>>
>> If the red car drives away,
>> the blue ones starts moving wrt the red one.
>>
>> Is the motion of the blue one wrt red one
>> a property of the car ? No, it is not.
> 
> Fatal error of logic there is that you
> are assuming you can construct
> something out of blue or red that can
> verify the one or the other occurred.
> 
Fatal error of logic is assuming
linear motion is property of an object.
-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600290

Poutnik wrote:


>>>> In order for it to be a property, it can only
>>>> be ON or OFF.
>>>>
>>> In order to be a property of the object,
>>> it must depend solely on the state of object.
>>>
>>> If there are red and blue standing cars at street,
>>> there is no motion for each wrt the other.
>>>
>>> If the red car drives away,
>>> the blue ones starts moving wrt the red one.
>>>
>>> Is the motion of the blue one wrt red one
>>> a property of the car ? No, it is not.
>> 
>> Fatal error of logic there is that you
>> are assuming you can construct
>> something out of blue or red that can
>> verify the one or the other occurred.
>> 
> Fatal error of logic is assuming
> linear motion is property of an object.

That is the leap that hasn't been made yet
but being made by me without
fatality with these assertions as posted
in the original post:


Linear motion as a quantum property?
------------------------------------

I don't understand any of this.

I'm trying to figure out linear motion as a property
of matter. But now I'm really stuck.

Basically it starts off by concluding linear
motion reduces to a property of matter.

In order for it to be a property, it can only
be ON or OFF.

The OFF state is anything that travel at the speed of light
contrary to where I want to start :(

There is no reference point to conclude you have
linear motion which is why the OFF state is
given to objects travelling at speed of light.

Then what does ON mean?

It seems to mean that when these particles
combine with other object and they face each other
then you get the ON state.

This logic just sucks and sucks.

When two objects face each other to cancel linear
motion they stand still.
And when they combine with more collections of such
particles you get various linear motion vectors.

The moment a particle has one of its linear motion
particle properties reversed in a particle collision of high 
energy, it is possible, they just accelerate until
its torn to pieces.

If that is the case, then may be some day we can reverse
the properties of just a few particles by just a little and hold 
on to it some way.

A sheet of this material would then accelerate slowly
assuming the force of acceleration can be evenly
distributed throughout the material (otherwise it would
rip itself to pieces if it is a point source).

Much like a sheet of plastic can be charged up
electrostatically or some materials form into magnets,
this material will accelerate in the specific directions
set into at the time its manufactured, and you
point it in the direction you want to travel.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600112

Dne 09/10/2016 v 17:34 7 napsal(a):
> There is no reference point to conclude you have
> linear motion which is why the OFF state is
> given to objects travelling at speed of light.

ANd this is total nonsense.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600131

Poutnik wrote:


>> There is no reference point to conclude you have
>> linear motion which is why the OFF state is
>> given to objects travelling at speed of light.
> 
> ANd this is total nonsense.

That is for you to prove and not declare. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600145

Dne 09/10/2016 v 20:35 7 napsal(a):
> Poutnik wrote:
> 
> 
>>> There is no reference point to conclude you have
>>> linear motion which is why the OFF state is
>>> given to objects travelling at speed of light.
>>
>> ANd this is total nonsense.
> 
> That is for you to prove and not declare. 

No, you have made a statement
in direct contradiction with Special relativity,
so it is on you to prove...

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600147

Poutnik wrote:


>>>> There is no reference point to conclude you have
>>>> linear motion which is why the OFF state is
>>>> given to objects travelling at speed of light.
>>>
>>> ANd this is total nonsense.
>> 
>> That is for you to prove and not declare.
> 
> No, you have made a statement
> in direct contradiction with Special relativity,
> so it is on you to prove...

So I'm breaking special relativity.

Here is my write up of it:

Linear motion as a quantum property?
------------------------------------

I don't understand any of this.

I'm trying to figure out linear motion as a property
of matter. But now I'm really stuck.

Basically it starts off by concluding linear
motion reduces to a property of matter.

In order for it to be a property, it can only
be ON or OFF.

The OFF state is anything that travel at the speed of light
contrary to where I want to start :(

There is no reference point to conclude you have
linear motion which is why the OFF state is
given to objects travelling at speed of light.

Then what does ON mean?

It seems to mean that when these particles
combine with other object and they face each other
then you get the ON state.

This logic just sucks and sucks.

When two objects face each other to cancel linear
motion they stand still.
And when they combine with more collections of such
particles you get various linear motion vectors.

The moment a particle has one of its linear motion
particle properties reversed in a particle collision of high 
energy, it is possible, they just accelerate until
its torn to pieces.

If that is the case, then may be some day we can reverse
the properties of just a few particles by just a little and hold 
on to it some way.

A sheet of this material would then accelerate slowly
assuming the force of acceleration can be evenly
distributed throughout the material (otherwise it would
rip itself to pieces if it is a point source).

Much like a sheet of plastic can be charged up
electrostatically or some materials form into magnets,
this material will accelerate in the specific directions
set into at the time its manufactured, and you
point it in the direction you want to travel.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600151

Dne 09/10/2016 v 20:50 7 napsal(a):
> Poutnik wrote:
> 
> So I'm breaking special relativity.
> 
> Here is my write up of it:
> 
> Linear motion as a quantum property?
> ------------------------------------

Repeating of nonsense does not give more sense to it.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600291

Poutnik wrote:


>> So I'm breaking special relativity.
>> 
>> Here is my write up of it:
>> 
>> Linear motion as a quantum property?
>> ------------------------------------
> 
> Repeating of nonsense does not give more sense to it.

Money for old rope doesn't make for progress either.
You have to read and make deductions without
holding on to old rope:


Linear motion as a quantum property?
------------------------------------

I don't understand any of this.

I'm trying to figure out linear motion as a property
of matter. But now I'm really stuck.


Basically it starts off by concluding linear
motion reduces to a property of matter.

In order for it to be a property, it can only
be ON or OFF.

The OFF state is anything that travel at the speed of light
contrary to where I want to start :(

There is no reference point to conclude you have
linear motion which is why the OFF state is
given to objects travelling at speed of light.

Then what does ON mean?

It seems to mean that when these particles
combine with other object and they face each other
then you get the ON state.

This logic just sucks and sucks.

When two objects face each other to cancel linear
motion they stand still.
And when they combine with more collections of such
particles you get various linear motion vectors.

The moment a particle has one of its linear motion
particle properties reversed in a particle collision of high 
energy, it is possible, they just accelerate until
its torn to pieces.

If that is the case, then may be some day we can reverse
the properties of just a few particles by just a little and hold 
on to it some way.

A sheet of this material would then accelerate slowly
assuming the force of acceleration can be evenly
distributed throughout the material (otherwise it would
rip itself to pieces if it is a point source).

Much like a sheet of plastic can be charged up
electrostatically or some materials form into magnets,
this material will accelerate in the specific directions
set into at the time its manufactured, and you
point it in the direction you want to travel.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600113

Dne 09/10/2016 v 17:34 7 napsal(a):
> 
> This is a post trying to say linear motion could
> be quantized. You seem to justify it is continuous
> without explaining why.

Yes, linear translational motions can be quantized,
but is not quantized by nature,
in contrary to rotation and vibration
that are quantized natively.

There is no need of the reposts.
I have the original.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600133

Poutnik wrote:

> Dne 09/10/2016 v 17:34 7 napsal(a):
>> 
>> This is a post trying to say linear motion could
>> be quantized. You seem to justify it is continuous
>> without explaining why.
> 
> Yes, linear translational motions can be quantized,
> but is not quantized by nature,
> in contrary to rotation and vibration
> that are quantized natively.


Rotation and vibrations are measurable because
the experiment does not run off anywhere.

If linear motion is quantized, the two choices
are to stay put or to run off accelerating towards c.

Read the post and you might understand the gist of the
problem:

Linear motion as a quantum property?
------------------------------------

I don't understand any of this.

I'm trying to figure out linear motion as a property
of matter. But now I'm really stuck.

Basically it starts off by concluding linear
motion reduces to a property of matter.

In order for it to be a property, it can only
be ON or OFF.

The OFF state is anything that travel at the speed of light
contrary to where I want to start :(

There is no reference point to conclude you have
linear motion which is why the OFF state is
given to objects travelling at speed of light.

Then what does ON mean?

It seems to mean that when these particles
combine with other object and they face each other
then you get the ON state.

This logic just sucks and sucks.

When two objects face each other to cancel linear
motion they stand still.
And when they combine with more collections of such
particles you get various linear motion vectors.

The moment a particle has one of its linear motion
particle properties reversed in a particle collision of high 
energy, it is possible, they just accelerate until
its torn to pieces.

If that is the case, then may be some day we can reverse
the properties of just a few particles by just a little and hold 
on to it some way.

A sheet of this material would then accelerate slowly
assuming the force of acceleration can be evenly
distributed throughout the material (otherwise it would
rip itself to pieces if it is a point source).

Much like a sheet of plastic can be charged up
electrostatically or some materials form into magnets,
this material will accelerate in the specific directions
set into at the time its manufactured, and you
point it in the direction you want to travel.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600149

Dne 09/10/2016 v 20:37 7 napsal(a):
> Poutnik wrote:
> 
>> Dne 09/10/2016 v 17:34 7 napsal(a):
>>>
>>> This is a post trying to say linear motion could
>>> be quantized. You seem to justify it is continuous
>>> without explaining why.
>>
>> Yes, linear translational motions can be quantized,
>> but is not quantized by nature,
>> in contrary to rotation and vibration
>> that are quantized natively.
> 
> 
> Rotation and vibrations are measurable because
> the experiment does not run off anywhere.

Roation and vibrations are not inertial motion.
And they are quantized by QM principles.
Translational motion is not

> 
> If linear motion is quantized, the two choices
> are to stay put or to run off accelerating towards c.

It could be funny to read it elaborated.

BTW, One copy of your post is enough.
But it needs multiple copies of this statement to get it.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600189

On 10/9/16 1:51 PM, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 09/10/2016 v 20:37 7 napsal(a):
>> Poutnik wrote:
>>
>>> Dne 09/10/2016 v 17:34 7 napsal(a):
>>>>
>>>> This is a post trying to say linear motion could
>>>> be quantized. You seem to justify it is continuous
>>>> without explaining why.
>>>
>>> Yes, linear translational motions can be quantized,
>>> but is not quantized by nature,
>>> in contrary to rotation and vibration
>>> that are quantized natively.
>>
>>
>> Rotation and vibrations are measurable because
>> the experiment does not run off anywhere.
>
> Rotaion and vibrations are not inertial motion.
> And they are quantized by QM principles.
> Translational motion is not
>
Is superconductive particle translational motion
quantized?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web