Conservation ??? Transformation ???
jerrygg38 wrote on 23/06/2009 :
The Heisenbery uncertainty principle shows that linear momentum
is not conserved. The reason is that at any interaction linear
momentum
can transform into angular momentum. However my dot-waves also
oscillated from a radius to the Plank radius. The contraction and
expansion of the dot-wave either in a plane surface or a spherical
surface I call spherical momentum.
Therefore in order to conserve momentum and agree with the
Heisenbergy principle, it is clear that one solution is that the
total sum
of all momentums is constant,
Therefore when two dot-waves interact or two particles interact,
we cannot tell what direction the particles will go within the
uncertainty.
A photon can enter the electron, the energy of the photon becomes
part of the energy level of the electron.
However the momentum is not guaranteed.
#
My comment.
#
jerrygg38
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle shows that linear momentum
is not conserved.
====.
S.
!!!
========== .
jerrygg38
The reason is that at any interaction linear momentum
can transform into angular momentum.
========== .
S.
And vice versa.
=============== .
jerrygg38
However my dot-waves also oscillated from a radius to the Plank
radius.
========= .
S.
Is it possible to say what this process goes around the Plank radius ?
========== .
jerrygg38
The contraction and expansion of the dot-wave either in a plane
surface or a spherical surface I call spherical momentum.
======== .
S.
Is this process goes around the Plank radius (spherical surface ) ?
Is this spherical momentum connected with spherical surface ?
========= .
jerrygg38
Therefore in order to conserve momentum and agree with the
Heisenberg principle, it is clear that one solution is that the total
sum of all momentums is constant,
========== .
S.
Something here is wrong.
Why?
You say:
1.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle shows that linear momentum
is not conserved.
2.
The reason is that at any interaction linear momentum
can transform into angular momentum.
It means that according to Heisenberg principle neither linear
momentum nor angular momentum are constant parameters.
But you try to conserve momentum.
Why?
Is it because from school we were studied about the law
of momentum’s conservation, energy conservation . . etc ?
And then you say: ‘it is clear that one solution is that the total
sum of all momentums is constant,’.
But the law is named :
" The law of conservation and transformation energy / mass"
And nobody in the school taught us : ‘What does the Law of
Transformation energy / mass means according to one single
quantum of light or to one single electron ?’
============= .
jerrygg38
Therefore when two dot-waves interact or two particles interact,
we cannot tell what direction the particles will go within the
uncertainty.
===== .
S.
In my opinion the Heisenberg principle shows that particles
can have different momentums.
========= .
jerrygg38
A photon can enter the electron, the energy of the photon becomes
part
of the energy level of the electron.
======= .
S.
Questions:
Can photon and electron be one and the same particle
in different conditions ?
Can the difference between photon and electron depends
only from frequency ?
Answer:
May 23, 2009.
I think not just frequency, but phasing and polarity will differ.
David M. Rountree, AES
Scientific Paranormal Investigative
Research Information and Technology
www.spinvestigations.org
So.
Not just frequency, phasing , polarity but momentum also
will be differ when electron ( or photon) changes its behavior.
=============================== . . .
jerrygg38
However the momentum is not guaranteed.
====== .
S.
However the conversation of momentum (as well as frequency,
phasing , polarity and charge ) is not guaranteed and is not
constant parameter .
========== .
#
>From an email.
Since linear momentum and angular have different units,
I don't understand how one can transform into the other.
/ R. . . . PhD /
=== . .
So: continuation.
#
jerrygg38 wrote:
Therefore in order to conserve momentum and agree with the
Heisenberg principle, it is clear that one solution is that the total
sum of all momentums is constant,
======= .
S.
We have two momentums:
linear momentum and angular momentum ( maybe more).
And jerrygg38 says:
‘ that the total sum of all momentums is constant,’.
How it was saying simply . . ‘ sum of all momentums ‘ !!!
Ones Sir Arthur Eddington said:
We used to think that if we knew one, we knew two,
because one and one are two. We are finding
that we must learn a great deal more about `and '.
In others words, when we have one linear momentum
and one angular momentum that we must learn a great
deal more about `sum’. Because ‘sum’ must be some Law,
which connected the ‘one’ and ‘ one’ to ‘sum’.
============ .
Regards.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
