|November 17th, 2016, 11:11 PM||#11|
Joined: Dec 2012
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 ?
|November 17th, 2016, 11:43 PM||#12|
Joined: May 2013
From: The Astral plane
Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
|November 18th, 2016, 12:17 AM||#13|
Joined: Dec 2012
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...
|November 18th, 2016, 02:36 AM||#14|
Joined: Apr 2014
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!
|electron, jumps, model|
|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|