My Math Forum  

Go Back   My Math Forum > Science Forums > Physics

Physics Physics Forum


Thanks Tree2Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
November 17th, 2016, 11:11 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Joined: Dec 2012

Posts: 908
Thanks: 21

Thanks,

Sorry I'm not able to explain at all...

No I think to an electron as an air vortex, whirlpool call it in english as you prefer.

It means it's very far from Bohr and from Cloud that are BOTH well defined items.

A vortex, as I wrote change the space around it TILL AN INFINITE DISTANCE... it means it interact with ALL the other "thinks" around it.

So a Comet, better than a cloud, let you think you've a most dense area, plus a long (infinite !) tail... ALL THAT is the electron, so it means we are now reducing it to an item of finite dimensions, and this let think more simple, but more stupids...


More clear now ?

Thanks
ciao
Stefano
complicatemodulus is offline  
 
November 17th, 2016, 11:43 PM   #12
Math Team
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2013
From: The Astral plane

Posts: 1,490
Thanks: 557

Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by complicatemodulus View Post
Thanks,

Sorry I'm not able to explain at all...

No I think to an electron as an air vortex, whirlpool call it in english as you prefer.

It means it's very far from Bohr and from Cloud that are BOTH well defined items.

A vortex, as I wrote change the space around it TILL AN INFINITE DISTANCE... it means it interact with ALL the other "thinks" around it.

So a Comet, better than a cloud, let you think you've a most dense area, plus a long (infinite !) tail... ALL THAT is the electron, so it means we are now reducing it to an item of finite dimensions, and this let think more simple, but more stupids...


More clear now ?

Thanks
ciao
Stefano
I do know what a vortex is, but you still haven't answered why you think an electron should be some sort of vortex. How would such an entity behave in an electric potential? What properties would the vortex have? There is a lot of basic theory you aren't talking about. You can't just say "I think this is it"...You have to show how it replicates known results. (And makes predictions for how it behaves in new situations.)

-Dan
topsquark is offline  
November 18th, 2016, 12:17 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Joined: Dec 2012

Posts: 908
Thanks: 21

As for the easy proof of Fermat / Beal, I simply ...need several years to answer you to all that...

But I'm working on, and I hope I'll find ll the answers in time ...

Before that, there is to anser to the old question of Navier-Stokes...

We are still not able to solve simple problem with "air-mass" so the way for sub-materials will be long...

Unfortunately the "basic" for Navier are much more complicate than the one for Fermat and Beal, and I lost the good period of my life when brain is flexible and react faster... night are sleepfull and home is quiet, at any hour...

Thanks
ciao
Stefano
complicatemodulus is offline  
November 18th, 2016, 02:36 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Joined: Apr 2014
From: Glasgow

Posts: 1,839
Thanks: 593

Math Focus: Physics, mathematical modelling, numerical and computational solutions
There are models that treat electrons as a fluid, but they only approximate what's really happening at the macro-scale. There are some applications where this treatment is valid (e.g. Bose-Einstein condensates) but when it gets to collections of particles of order unity or individual particles, quantum mechanics is the only way to get results.

It might be worth taking note that all leptons (of which the electron is one example) have no substructure. That is, they can be considered to be point particles. To be specific, if you consider some observables (like mass and electric charge) they are adequately described as points in the space with that property; there is no variation of that property in space. Only if you consider observables such as position and momentum do you start to see a distribution of possible observables.

In quantum mechanics, you can derive which observables achieve a Heisenberg uncertainty formula by testing the commutativity of the position and momentum operators after being applied to the wavefunction.

Therefore, you're "vortex" theory needs to be able to explain those results. Good luck with that!
Thanks from topsquark
Benit13 is offline  
November 18th, 2016, 03:00 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Joined: Dec 2012

Posts: 908
Thanks: 21

Thanks,

Will be a long way to tipperary...

Ciao
Stefano
complicatemodulus is offline  
Reply

  My Math Forum > Science Forums > Physics

Tags
electron, jumps, model



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Proton to Electron Mass Ratio phxmarker Physics 14 March 4th, 2016 07:01 PM
Another try at a classical electron J Thomas Physics 0 February 2nd, 2015 09:55 AM
Which has the most Negative electron affinity? girlbadatmath Chemistry 1 November 24th, 2014 04:13 AM
electron - a wave and a particle TwoTwo Physics 19 July 8th, 2014 06:18 AM
Magnitude of force between electron & proton sivela Physics 1 January 27th, 2011 05:51 PM





Copyright © 2017 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.