Wed, 25 Aug 1999 01:54:29 EDT
In a message dated 8/24/99 11:05:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> Subj: Re: [time 563+] Re: Comments
> Date: 8/24/99 11:05:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> From: Paul.Marmet@Ottawa.com (Paul Marmet)
> To: WDEshleman@aol.com
> Hi Bill,
> First, I am sorry I gave you an incorrect address of my site the last time.
> My correct address is:
> >> WDEshleman@aol.com wrote:
> >> > Stephen,
> >> > I tend to wonder what the maths would took like if Dr. Marmet
> >> > had chosen for the size of atoms to decrease with the absorption
> >> > of kinetic energy instead.
> I have NOT made any choice about increasing or decreasing the size of
> atoms with the absorption of kinetic energy. I had no choice at all. I
> had to be coherent. In fact, at first, this result surprized me. This is
> a NECESSARY consequence of principle of mass-energy conservation. This is
> described in chapter three and eleven of my book: Einstein's Theory of
> Relativity versus Classical Mechanics. You might agree with me that the
> mathematics of quantum mechanics leads to correct predictions. If you
> chose the size of the atoms to decrease (instead of increasing) with
> absorption of kinetic energy, you find, either quantum mechanics is wrong
> or/and mass-energy is not conserved.
> This result can be described physically quite easily. Two physical
> phenomena are involved. They work in opposite directions. In a few words,
> we see that there is an increase of electron mass with energy (which
> changes the de Broglie wavelength of the electron) and the other is
> negative, because the ELECTRICAL energy between the electron and the
> nucleus is NEGATIVE (as everyone knows) which decreases the mass of the
> combined electron-proton particle. Since we find in calculations that the
> effect of the change of electrical energy is twice as large as the effect
> of the increase of electron mass, the atom MUST increase in size because
> mass-energy is conserved. I have not made any choice. It is just a
> logical consequence of quantum mechanics and mass-energy conservation.
> >> Umm, I must say that I have no problems at all with the physics of Dr.
> >> Marmet, it is just his philosophy. As to "the size of atoms decreasing
> >> with the absorption of kinetic energy",
> This is not a philosophy. This is a mathematical and logical consequence
> of quantum mechanics. The only thing that can be called "philosophy" is my
> belief in mass-energy conservation and in the de Broglie's mechanism
> (demonstrated in 1920).
> >> well, that would imply that the
> >> size of atoms would increase upon "emission" of kinetic energy. How
> >> would that be observed?
> This has already been observed (proved) thousands of times.
> For example, the energy of atomic clocks depends on atomic energy levels of
> atoms. It is well shown that clocks slow down when they (their atoms) move
> at large velocities. That slowing down of clocks is a direct consequence
> of the increase of size of atoms. For example, the GPS system of
> satellites has been built at a different rate (on the Earth surface) before
> sending them in orbit around the Earth because they knew that they would
> run at a slower rate when orbiting at high velocity around the Eearth. You
> can read that information from some reports of NASA and many other
> scientific reports. That change of rate (due to velocity and gravitational
> potential) is exactly the one given by the equations in my book.
> >> What would absorption and emission processes be? Acceleration and
> >> deceleration respectively. Umm, special relativity does not treat
> >> accelerated frames.
> Yes, SR does not treat acceleration. This is the reason for which,
> mass-energy conservation is irrelevant and then not conserved in SR (as
> well as in GR).
> >> My whole point about Dr. Marmet is that he seems to be a naive
> >> believing that "if a thing does not have its own existence, independent
> >> of the observer, it is logically impossible that all independent
> >> observers who are not aware of each other can always give a compatible
> >> description by chance."
> Thank you. Congratutations, you understand what I wrote. As you know,
> Galileo and Newton were also naive realist. I believe "firmly" that it is
> so. I do not believe in ghosts and in the absurdities of the Copenhagen
> interpretation in which you do not exist unless I see you. (at the
> collapse of the wave function). In a few centuries, I believe the 20th
> century will be remembered for that absurdity just as for the similar
> absurdities of the mediaval times. I am absolutely convinced that all
> physical phenomena can be explained logically (which means compatible with
> physical reality) without magic.
> >> We can not just say, well we measure a change in X with respect to the
> >> Universe! Why not? Because the Universe in-itself has no properties, No
> >> size, shape, charge, mass, hardness, etc., none. It just exists.
> I disagree. The reason for which we have discussions about the universe,
> is because it has properties as size, mass, shape, gravitational fields,
> etc. Galactic magnetic fields have been measured, also electric fields.
> We know that the atoms, in extremely remote galaxies, have the same
> structure as on Earth because we observe exactly the same optical spectrum.
> There were no surprise when we collected and measured the atoms on the
> Moon. There would be no susprise if we would go the other stars because we
> know that these stars emit exactly the same spectrum as matter on Earth.
> The universe is made of the same kind of atoms everywhere in the Universe.
> Our own body and our brain are made of the same kind of matter as the one
> found in stars and in remote galaxies. Th8is is shown by spectroscopy of
> light coming from stars.
> Best Regards,
> E-Mail: Paul.Marmet@Ottawa.com
attached mail follows:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:30 JST