Origin of the Universe,,,,Bang or no Bang

[C1ay]

Well, I think that new science would be welcome to any science forum.

 

New "science" is welcome. Your unsupported opinion is not science though. What part of that is over your head?

[Jay-qu]

I did not say photons are affected by electric fields.

I did say that photons are transmitted through the electric fields.

 

Can you supply the data of the experiment that supports the Einstein M/E formula?

 

I would be curious to know what it is based on?

 

Energy as applied to light was introduced by the DeBroglei formula that is stated as:

 

E = hv......................Plancks Constant x frequency of light

This is a lot simpler formula and more realistic.

 

Mike C

 

.

Well yes, I have done the experiment myself. The relation of mass to energy is evident through pair production and annihilation. Which is consistent with E=hf also.

[Pluto]

G'day

 

This forum can become better and better without negative statements such as:

 

New "science" is welcome. Your unsupported opinion is not science though. What part of that is over your head?

 

If I'm out of line,,,,,,,,,,sorry.

[C1ay]

Actually such negative statements, as you call them, could make the forum better if they drive away those that want to endlessly proffer their unsupported faithful beliefs as science. Such people would also be more comfortable at a religious forum that one than expects you to restrain yourself to actual science.

[Jay-qu]

I fail to see how that is a negative statement?

 

This is science guys, there is no room for those that wish to blatantly ignore the scientific method.

[Pluto]

G'day

 

 

I agree to the science method and the rule to be applied to all.

[Mike C]

New "science" is welcome. Your unsupported opinion is not science though. What part of that is over your head?

 

What I write is from my background of what I know about science.

Most of my writings are derived from my home library and any new data I become familiar with .

I generally quote my sources for my articles with honest interpretations.

I do not force anyone to accept what I say and welcome honest criticism.

 

Mike C

[C1ay]

I have had this told to me before.

My conclusion is that the velocity of light is so great as to avoid any detectable bending because of this.

 

Your "conclusion" is equivalent to a claim that it is a fact that the velocity of light is so great as to avoid any detectable bending. Support your claim. Prove that this is in fact the case. Show, undeniably, that photons indeed have the charge that you claim. Just saying that its because you think so is not acceptable.

[Mike C]

Well yes, I have done the experiment myself. The relation of mass to energy is evident through pair production and annihilation. Which is consistent with E=hf also.

 

Jay

 

I am familiar with with this pair production and annihilation. Can you quote some sources that this happens naturally or is this just a mathematical creation?

Even it it was a natural phenomenon, this is just a rarity that hasn't any influence to the universe that I prefer to study and be familiar with.

 

I prefer DeBroglies simple formula for light energy to Einsteins questionable one.

It does not raise any questions .

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

Your "conclusion" is equivalent to a claim that it is a fact that the velocity of light is so great as to avoid any detectable bending. Support your claim. Prove that this is in fact the case. Show, undeniably, that photons indeed have the charge that you claim. Just saying that its because you think so is not acceptable.

 

C1ay

I answered this before.

Since photons can bump an electron to an outer orbit per Bohr's planetary model for the HA, then I would think that was sufficient.

 

If the photons did NOT have a charge, than they could NOT bump the electrons .

Do you think 'no mass' neutral photons could bump an electron?

 

Mike C

[C1ay]

C1ay

I answered this before.

Since photons can bump an electron to an outer orbit per Bohr's planetary model for the HA, then I would think that was sufficient.

 

If the photons did NOT have a charge, than they could NOT bump the electrons .

Do you think 'no mass' neutral photons could bump an electron?

 

Mike C

 

No! What you "think" is not sufficient. You can prove or refute your claim by posting the math behind it and/or the actual experiments and the results of those experiments. Show us the science....literally.

[Jay-qu]

Jay

 

I am familiar with with this pair production and annihilation. Can you quote some sources that this happens naturally or is this just a mathematical creation?

Even it it was a natural phenomenon, this is just a rarity that hasn't any influence to the universe that I prefer to study and be familiar with.

 

I observed pair production in the lab during an experiment, how is this unnatural? its not a mathematical phenomenon, its a well documented one. I will get my lab book and photocopy it if you like. Or there are some great bubble chamber pics on the web that show pair production.

 

Your argument of rarity is very naive. The rarity of an event in the physical universe has no bearing on how 'real' it is and how important it should be treated when forming a physical theory.

 

I prefer DeBroglies simple formula for light energy to Einsteins questionable one.

It does not raise any questions .

 

Mike C

 

De Broglies formula is consistent with E=mc^2, to reject one is to reject the other.

 

D.B formula:

 

lambda = h/(m*v)

 

for a photon:

c=lambda*f

and E = h*f

 

therefore:

lambda = h*c/E

 

equating this with the D.B formula and subbing v = c for a photon

 

h/(m*c) = h*c/E

rearranging:

 

E=mc^2

 

now tell me, what makes you more comfortable with an equation that was actually derived from Einstein's mass energy relation E=mc^2?

[Mike C]

I observed pair production in the lab during an experiment, how is this unnatural? its not a mathematical phenomenon, its a well documented one. I will get my lab book and photocopy it if you like. Or there are some great bubble chamber pics on the web that show pair production.

 

Your argument of rarity is very naive. The rarity of an event in the physical universe has no bearing on how 'real' it is and how important it should be treated when forming a physical theory.

 

 

 

De Broglies formula is consistent with E=mc^2, to reject one is to reject the other.

 

D.B formula:

 

lambda = h/(m*v)

 

for a photon:

c=lambda*f

and E = h*f

 

therefore:

lambda = h*c/E

 

equating this with the D.B formula and subbing v = c for a photon

 

h/(m*c) = h*c/E

rearranging:

 

E=mc^2

 

now tell me, what makes you more comfortable with an equation that was actually derived from Einstein's mass energy relation E=mc^2?

 

How does the mass figure into this DeBroglei equation?

 

It does not contain mass as a component.

The DF pertains to light energy and is a calculation of its energy as an effect of the forces that created the light.

The forces need not be shown because it is not necassary.

 

As I have said, energy is 'motion' that is visible to us. That is all that is necassary to make this calculation of light energy.

 

Mass plays no active part in light creation.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

No! What you "think" is not sufficient. You can prove or refute your claim by posting the math behind it and/or the actual experiments and the results of those experiments. Show us the science....literally.

 

Math does not substitute for a picture or visualization.

It is, as I have said before, that it is a 'sub' science.

 

What math symbol substitutes for 'bumping an electron?

 

Mike C

[freeztar]

Mike, take a look at this:

 

An important spectral line that radio astronomers study is the 21-cm line of neutral hydrogen. This line is emitted by the following transition: the hydrogen atom consists of one electron orbiting one proton in the nucleus. Both the electron and the proton have a "spin". In the lowest energy state, or "ground" state, the spins of both particles are in opposite directions. When the atom becomes excited, either by absorbing a photon of energy, or by bumping into other atoms, the electron absorbs a small amount of energy, and the spin of the electron "flips," so that the spins of both particles are in the same direction. When the atom reverts back to its natural state, it loses this energy by emitting a photon with a wavelength of 21 cm, in the radio region of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Radio Emission

[Mike C]

Mike, take a look at this:

 

 

Radio Emission

 

Thanks for the info.

However, the common use of the electron spin is that it refers to a 'one reserved' position within the higher elements and molecules.

So this is my interpretation.

The word 'spin' is not to be taken literally.

 

I am not disputing what you say above, because I never came up with an answer myself.

 

Mike C

[Overdog]

Mike C

 

Because electrons have a charge, an electron beam can be deflected by the magnetic fields created by the coils in the yolk of the picture tube. Likewise, the vacuum tubes Edison invented work because electrons have a charge, and we know that like charges repel each other and unlike charges attract each other.

 

If Photons had a charge, then these same technologies would work using photons. They do not. Beams of light are not deflected by magnetic fields, nor do parallel beams of light repel or attract each other as would be expected if photons had a charge. If photons had a charge then they would be deflected to the poles by the earths magnetic field, as other charged particles are. This doesn't happen. Finally, if photons had a charge, you should be able to fire a laser through a coil of wire and generate current flow in the coil. This doesn't work either!