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

Groups > sci.physics > #550325 > unrolled thread

Fastest Light Pulses Show Electrons Are Sluggish

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Fastest Light Pulses Show Electrons Are Sluggish Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 15:38 -0600
    Re: Fastest Light Pulses Show Electrons Are Sluggish shan <shan@enterapps.org> - 2016-02-03 22:18 +0000
    Re: Fastest Light Pulses Show Electrons Are Sluggish "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 14:25 -0800
      Re: Fastest Light Pulses Show Electrons Are Sluggish john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 14:51 -0800
        Re: Fastest Light Pulses Show Electrons Are Sluggish Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 18:30 -0600
    Re: Fastest Light Pulses Show Electrons Are Sluggish "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 15:00 -0800
      Re: Fastest Light Pulses Show Electrons Are Sluggish john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 15:15 -0800
        Re: Fastest Light Pulses Show Electrons Are Sluggish Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 18:06 -0600
          Re: Fastest Light Pulses Show Electrons Are Sluggish Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-04 21:07 -0600
          Re: Fastest Light Pulses Show Electrons Are Sluggish john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 19:47 -0800
            Re: Fastest Light Pulses Show Electrons Are Sluggish john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 03:39 -0800
            Re: Fastest Light Pulses Show Electrons Are Sluggish moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-02-05 14:56 +0000
              Re: Fastest Light Pulses Show Electrons Are Sluggish john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 07:11 -0800
                Re: Fastest Light Pulses Show Electrons Are Sluggish Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 09:18 -0600
                Re: Fastest Light Pulses Show Electrons Are Sluggish Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 09:31 -0600
              Re: Fastest Light Pulses Show Electrons Are Sluggish HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 08:04 -0800
                Re: Fastest Light Pulses Show Electrons Are Sluggish john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 11:56 -0800
                Re: Fastest Light Pulses Show Electrons Are Sluggish moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-02-06 05:58 +0000
                  Re: Fastest Light Pulses Show Electrons Are Sluggish john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 01:25 -0800
                    Re: Fastest Light Pulses Show Electrons Are Sluggish moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-02-07 04:58 +0000
                  Re: Fastest Light Pulses Show Electrons Are Sluggish HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 04:42 -0800
    Re: Fastest Light Pulses Show Electrons Are Sluggish "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 13:08 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#550325 — Fastest Light Pulses Show Electrons Are Sluggish

Fastest Light Pulses Show Electrons Are Sluggish
> http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/semiconductors/optoelectronics/fastest-light-pulses-show-that-electrons-react-slowly-to-light


> Electrons move fast, especially within an atom. But they have their
> limits, and those limits might put a top speed on future
> optoelectronic circuits. In this week’s issue of Nature  a team of
> scientists from the Max Planck Institute (MPI) of Quantum Optics in
> Garching, Germany, the Texas A&M University in College Station,
> Texas, and the Lomonosov Moscow State University report that it takes
> electrons in krypton atoms slightly more than 100 attoseconds to
> respond to extremely short light pulses. It is the first direct
> measurement of the electron’s innate sluggishness.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#550336

Sam Wormley wrote:

> Fastest Light Pulses Show Electrons Are Sluggish
>> http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/semiconductors/optoelectronics/
fastest-light-pulses-show-that-electrons-react-slowly-to-light
> 
> 
>> Electrons move fast, especially within an atom. But they have their
>> limits, and those limits might put a top speed on future optoelectronic
>> circuits. In this week’s issue of Nature  a team of scientists from the
>> Max Planck Institute (MPI) of Quantum Optics in Garching, Germany, the
>> Texas A&M University in College Station,
>> Texas, and the Lomonosov Moscow State University report that it takes
>> electrons in krypton atoms slightly more than 100 attoseconds to
>> respond to extremely short light pulses. It is the first direct
>> measurement of the electron’s innate sluggishness.

'Mini' black holes could power world's electricity, but destroy 
civilization – Stephen Hawking 
https://www.rt.com/news/331165-hawking-black-holes-electricity/

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

#550339

On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 1:38:43 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Fastest Light Pulses Show Electrons Are Sluggish
> > http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/semiconductors/optoelectronics/fastest-light-pulses-show-that-electrons-react-slowly-to-light
> 
> 
> > Electrons move fast, especially within an atom. But they have their
> > limits, and those limits might put a top speed on future
> > optoelectronic circuits. In this week's issue of Nature  a team of
> > scientists from the Max Planck Institute (MPI) of Quantum Optics in
> > Garching, Germany, the Texas A&M University in College Station,
> > Texas, and the Lomonosov Moscow State University report that it takes
> > electrons in krypton atoms slightly more than 100 attoseconds to
> > respond to extremely short light pulses. It is the first direct
> > measurement of the electron's innate sluggishness.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.                                                                                                                                                                  Out of my structure of an electron came the energy of photon's speed of c. It tells where photons get there great energy.Why a gamma photon came first.Then X-ray then heat photons.and last radio.Why white light is a mixture of all photon wave lengths. It all fits with reality.TreBert

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

#550350

100 attoseconds is the period of an electron.
It is 10^31 times faster than the period of the
galaxy, which is 10^31 times the size of the atom

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

#550373

On 2/3/16 4:51 PM, john wrote:
> 100 attoseconds is the period of an electron.
> It is 10^31 times faster than the period of the
> galaxy, which is 10^31 times the size of the atom
>

   You got a reading problem, John? 100 attoseconds is NOT the period
   of an electron. The word "period" is NOT part of the article.

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#550572

On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 1:38:43 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Fastest Light Pulses Show Electrons Are Sluggish
> > http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/semiconductors/optoelectronics/fastest-light-pulses-show-that-electrons-react-slowly-to-light
> 
> 
> > Electrons move fast, especially within an atom. But they have their
> > limits, and those limits might put a top speed on future
> > optoelectronic circuits. In this week's issue of Nature  a team of
> > scientists from the Max Planck Institute (MPI) of Quantum Optics in
> > Garching, Germany, the Texas A&M University in College Station,
> > Texas, and the Lomonosov Moscow State University report that it takes
> > electrons in krypton atoms slightly more than 100 attoseconds to
> > respond to extremely short light pulses. It is the first direct
> > measurement of the electron's innate sluggishness.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

All photons go at c.Sluggest electrons O ya  TreBert

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

#550576

100 attoseconds IS the period of an electron, Sam

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

#550582

On 2/4/16 5:15 PM, john wrote:
> 100 attoseconds IS the period of an electron, Sam
>


   Dear John,

   Electrons don't orbit the atoms.
   You cannot calculated its period,
   because it doesn't have a defined
   period. As your buddy treBert would
   say, "get the picture"?



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#550604

On 2/4/2016 6:06 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 2/4/16 5:15 PM, john wrote:
>> 100 attoseconds IS the period of an electron, Sam
>>
>
>
>    Dear John,
>
>    Electrons don't orbit the atoms.
>    You cannot calculated its period,
>    because it doesn't have a defined
>    period. As your buddy treBert would
>    say, "get the picture"?
>
>
>

an Electron has a shell it is in, and the shell had dimentions about 100 
pm and the speed of light is c, so you can bound it into a range, you 
can estimate its period.

figure it out

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

#550607

They don't orbit or move at all, hey Sam?
Cause otherwise it would take energy, hey Sam?
Schizo science!!

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

#550654

Sam said 
"  Electrons don't orbit the atoms. 
   You cannot calculated its period, 
   because it doesn't have a defined 
   period. As your buddy treBert would 
   say, "get the picture"? "

He's YOUR buddy, Sam.
When you decided to quit posting, so did he.

""Diamagnetism is caused by the orbital motion of electrons creating tiny current loops, which produce weak magnetic fields, according to HyperPhysics. When an external magnetic field is applied to a material, these current loops tend to align in such a way as to oppose the applied field. This causes all materials to be repelled by a permanent magnet; however, the resulting force is usually too weak to be noticeable. There are, however, some notable exceptions. " 
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/Onepathway.GIF 
The current goes the same way through the
two loops.

Okay, Sam- how does diamagnetism happen
if electrons don't move?
How does "random " beget "align"?

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

#550674

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>They don't orbit or move at all, hey Sam?
>Cause otherwise it would take energy, hey Sam?
>Schizo science!!

Your mistake, once again, is thinking that the electron orbits the
nucleus like the Earth orbits the sun, with a period of 100 attoseconds,
or whatever that number was that you pulled out of your butt.  Quantum
Mechanics doesn't work like that. A planet orbiting its sun (or a little
ball electron orbiting its bigger ball nucleus) has a definite position
at any point in time, its location in some orbit.  At the same time, it
has a definite momentum, forward along its orbit.  Heisenberg's 
Uncertainty Principle tells us we cannot know the uncertainty to more
than a certain accuracy (hbar).  For something as large as a planet, this
is irrelevant. However, for an electron, if you try to nail down its
position to a certain spot in some orbit, the uncertainty in its momentum,
and therefore energy, will be huge, and you have no idea which way it
is going or how fast, and it will likely have to have more energy than
it needs to escape the atom.  Similarly, if you constrain the momentum
to be smaller than a certain number (so it doesn't have enough energy
to escape), you won't know where the heck it is. Oh, you'll know it
will be nearish the nucleus, this is what gives atoms their size, but
you will have no idea where it is beyond that.

The Bohr model has been dead for over 100 years.  Get with 21st century
science!

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

#550675

So- diamagnetism works how?
You are basing the atom on randomness,
so how can it exhibit diamagnetism or
have its electrons' periods measured
(they are doing that, Michael), or even
remain neutral- there would be huge
fluctuations in its fields.

QM is the champion of "we don't know,
we can't know". QM is total hogwash, designed 
to keep us stagnant

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

#550680

On 2/5/2016 9:11 AM, john wrote:
> So- diamagnetism works how?

Electrons have quantum mechanical angular orbital momentum which is not 
associated with going around in a loop around the nucleus. This quantum 
mechanical angular orbital momentum is what interacts with an external 
magnetic field (there is torque between a field and a charge field 
carrying angular momentum), and that's what causes diamagnetism.

> You are basing the atom on randomness,

No, not at all. This is a basic misconception on your part. You think 
that quantum mechanics says that everything is totally random and that 
you know NOTHING about where it is or what it's doing. Quantum mechanics 
does not say that, and it never has. It's something you've made up.

> so how can it exhibit diamagnetism or
> have its electrons' periods measured
> (they are doing that, Michael), or even
> remain neutral- there would be huge
> fluctuations in its fields.

When you say "huge fluctuations", can you quantify that?

>
> QM is the champion of "we don't know,
> we can't know". QM is total hogwash, designed
> to keep us stagnant
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#550682

On 2/5/2016 9:11 AM, john wrote:
> QM is the champion of "we don't know,
> we can't know".

John, where did you get this impression? I've NEVER seen anything about 
quantum mechanics that says
- everything is totally random
- we don't know, and we can't know

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#550696

Your mistake, once again, is thinking that the electron orbits the 
nucleus like the Earth orbits the sun, with a period of 100 attoseconds, 
or whatever that number was that you pulled out of your butt.  Quantum 
Mechanics doesn't work like that. A planet orbiting its sun (or a little 
ball electron orbiting its bigger ball nucleus) has a definite position 
at any point in time, its location in some orbit.  At the same time, it 
has a definite momentum, forward along its orbit.  Heisenberg's 
Uncertainty Principle tells us we cannot know the uncertainty to more 
than a certain accuracy (hbar).  For something as large as a planet, this 
is irrelevant. However, for an electron, if you try to nail down its 
position to a certain spot in some orbit, the uncertainty in its momentum, 
and therefore energy, will be huge, and you have no idea which way it 
is going or how fast, and it will likely have to have more energy than 
it needs to escape the atom.  Similarly, if you constrain the momentum 
to be smaller than a certain number (so it doesn't have enough energy 
to escape), you won't know where the heck it is. Oh, you'll know it 
will be nearish the nucleus, this is what gives atoms their size, but 
you will have no idea where it is beyond that. 

The Bohr model has been dead for over 100 years.  Get with 21st century 
science! 
-------------

Mr Moroney has an excellent way of explaining things to kooks.

I wish I had this ability. I'm far too busy laughing at them, but I do wish to become a better human being

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

#550748

We know that is your wish, HVAC.
Someday,
someday

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

#550832

HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> writes:

>Mr Moroney has an excellent way of explaining things to kooks.

>I wish I had this ability. I'm far too busy laughing at them, but I do 
>wish to become a better human being

Thanks.

I actually like arguing with kooks, it's entertaining and I learn a lot.
Part of me wants to say that if I explain things well, they'll see the
errors of their ways and learn something.  So sometimes I do.  But the
logical part of my mind knows that that's completely wrong, kooks never
learn and they continue to kook.  John, for example, will never learn
science, he will be enamored by precessing spinny things forever, like the
autistic kid I once knew was fascinated by the ceiling fan in his house.

Hopefully, some lurkers will learn from what I write, but I will never
know.

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

#550851

Several years ago, I told Michael that
jets resulted in new stars as part of
a CYCLE. Recently, this has been found.

Wait for them to determine that galaxies
precess, perhaps by reevaluating their
star velocity patterns.

Even then, Michael won't  change his mind.
History shows that proponents of old,
wrong theories never give up on them.
They just die, and Science moves forward.

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

#551022

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Several years ago, I told Michael that
>jets resulted in new stars as part of
>a CYCLE. Recently, this has been found.

Well, that article you refer to does discuss how BH jets sometimes
induce galactic clouds to start collapsing and forming stars.  Not quite
a cycle, but interesting.  Lots of things induce clouds to start forming
stars.

>Wait for them to determine that galaxies
>precess, perhaps by reevaluating their
>star velocity patterns.

What is this with your obsession with precessing spinny things?

You never did explain how galaxies could precess if all their stars orbit
at different rates, where the torque to cause them to precess comes from
and so forth.

>History shows that proponents of old,
>wrong theories never give up on them.
>They just die, and Science moves forward.

This is true.  Someday you will get old and die, and your precessing
spinny thing foolishness will die with you.  But science won't necessarily
be safe.  There will likely be a dozen kooks ready to take your place.

I hope you have a cool pathway of a point on a precessing spinny thing
on your tombstone, that will be cool.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web