User talk:FyzixFighter

Welcome

Hello, FyzixFighter, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Psy guy ^(talk) 21:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Mormonism article

The section on "Mormonism and Christianity" is deficient in many ways, particularly in its giving very limited reasons on why most Christians who have really studied Mormonism don't consider it Christian. The "plurality of gods" and "god/man" doctrines are major ways in which Mormonism differs from Christianity -- and the article ought to say so. That it's covered in greater depth elsewhere should not preclude its being included in a general overview article like this one. The pro-Mormon POV is pretty overt; could we have some balance? Thanks! RossweisseSTL (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

References for Joseph Smith, Jr. article

You may want to talk with User:Trödel, it seems like he was pretty active there. Another great resource, and I suspect has the longest history, would be User:Visorstuff. He is not only learned, but is great to work with; a depth of knowledge. Contact both of them and you will find your answers. Good Luck. Storm Rider 06:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Maybe when I've got a bit more time, and after the tempest of rhetoric has died down I'll devote more time and contact them. I noticed you took out the section on your talk page where I had placed some comments - hence me responding here. In the chance that you do look over here I hope you didn't mean to include me in the trolling comment. If you did, I'm sorry that my questions came across as such - it was never my intention to be inflammatory or annoying. --FyzixFighter 09:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I just read this, but it has been months since you made it; I apologize. I can assure you that you would never have been included in any kind of trolling accussation. I have always appreciated your level headed comments. Cheers! --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Smith, Jr.

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Joseph Smith, Jr., and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Dispute at anti-Mormon

In order to gain a consensus concerning the issue at anti-Mormon, would you please comment here? --uriah923^(talk) 04:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright issue with Temrec.png

Your imput was given at Wikipedia:Copyright problems regarding the image Temrec.png. The image is currently up for deletion, and thought you'd like to wiegh in your opinion at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2006_December_5#Image:Temrec.png_.28talk_.7C_delete.29. Cheers. -Visorstuff 22:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Mormonism and Jesus as extra-terrestrial from Pleiades star cluster

I am in the process of addressing your referencing concerns on Talk:Mormonism --24.57.157.81 03:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Moses

Thanks for the extra reverts. I didn't even bother looking, though I probably should have. The Krunk 04:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "LDS Scriptures = pseudepigrapha" crusader

Hi FyzixFighter -

Our "pseudepigrapha" crusader is still at it - thanks for your help with him thus far. I commented on it at User_talk:Val42#Re._LDS_Scriptures_.3D_.22pseudepigrapha.22, in case you would also like to comment. Thanks. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 18:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to the article Book of Mormon

Hello FyzixFighter:

I'm putting this note here because I saw your name in the edit history of the Book of Mormon article. There have been two "batches" of changes to the article recently. As I explained in the Talk, I reversed these changes, not because of the substance of the changes but because of the "process". Talk:Book of Mormon#Reversal of Changes

I'm hoping you and others will look at the substance of these changes. I don't want the people who made the changes to think their efforts were reversed and then simply ignored. (And I'm not able to comment seriously on the proposed changes.)

The two batches of changes I'm referring to are the ones made on December 15 by 24.2.75.193, and on December 17 by DJ Clayworth. (Because the changes were reversed, the best place to see them is through the article history.)

Thank you, Wanderer57 (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You might like to impress upon Wanderer57 not to reverse changes without cause. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverted your edit

I reverted your last edit on the Criticism of Mormonism page - I would like to discuss though in order to avoid an edit war. Please review and let me know what you think. Descartes1979 (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

Please weigh in on the merger proposal between Persons in the Book of Mormon and List of Book of Mormon people. You are receiving this notice since you were identified as a recent editor on one of those pages. Thanks! --Descartes1979 (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Book of Mormon figures

I saw that you were undoing a bunch of my recent edits - just wanted to make sure we are on the same page. The reason why I started adding the phrase, "The historicity of <name> is not generally accepted by non-Mormon historians..." is because I saw it on some of the more major Book of Mormon figures such as the Nephi article, and the Nephites article - and I was trying to make them all consistent. If everyone agrees to a different standard for consistency I am on board for whatever.

Also, why are you removing the category Book of Mormon people?

In general, these articles are a mess and need a lot of cleanup - you may have already seen that I have been cleaning up the List of Book of Mormon people article, and the links and circular redirects and other problems there.

Let me know your thoughts, and maybe we can tag team this effort.

--Descartes1979 (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason I was reverting the historicity remark was actually based in part on a previous discussion I was having with user:Salimfadhley over on Talk:Samuel the Lamanite, who I believe was one who originally added these statements. A standard was never agreed upon back then - User:Val42 tried to get some comment over on WP:LDS but no one responded. From looking at how other religious figures are handled from religious text like the Old Testament, such as those from Genesis or involved in the Exodus (both which have similar historicity issues as the BoM - look at most of the articles on the patriarchs b/n Adam and Noah), the standard appears to be to simply state "According to <religious text>...". Additional comments about historicity are usually only mentioned when specific to that subject, which is why I do think it's appropriate to have a historicity comment on the Nephite and Lamanite. When I recently sought input over on the village pump and WP:RELIGION, the responses (though few - two in fact) seems to agree that the pattern ("According to...") in the other religious figures articles is sufficient. It would definitely be worth getting some more input though.

As for the categorization, some of those were already in Category:Book of Mormon prophets which is a subcategory of Category:Book of Mormon people. Usually, articles need not appear in parent categories if they are already in the subcategory - there are exceptions, though I don't think these pages would qualify as such.

Oh, and I totally agree that a number of these articles are mess. The biggest problem I saw was the need for an expanded lead - IMO, in many cases the first paragraph/section, especially on the shorter articles, should be merged into the lead. I was also surprised that some of those articles even exist while other more notable (in terms of LDS culture and theology) don't have articles, like Hagoth. I think that's what for me makes for a more interesting article, not the story itself, but how the story has entered into the mormon mindset, culture, and teachings. I wouldn't mind tag-teaming, though I've got comps/quals coming up in about a week so really should be studying, but I might be able to throw in some effort in the meantime when my neurons glaze over from studying - curse you WP for making it so easy to distract myself from my studies! --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Centrifugal Force

FyzixFighter, there are no physics textbooks which say that centrifugal force is a term which applies to two different forces.

Secondly, centrifugal force is about the force which occurs in the centrifuge. It is about a force that can invoke Archimedes' principle.

It is not all about stationary objects as viewed from rotating frames of reference.

There are two distinct effects, but these are not the two that the article refers to.

You need to read the edits before you revert. The existing version is most unsatisfactory as it merely confuses the entire issue. David Tombe (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Enough

I have, Solomon-like, decided what the title of the thread is going to be. Please do not change the title of the thread again. You are disruptively edit warring. --barneca (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Understood. I apologize - my emotions got the better of me and I made a poor choice to continue that edit warring. However, does this mean that an administrator will now look into the original incident report of wikistalking? --FyzixFighter (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Situation reviewed. --barneca (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --FyzixFighter (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits on the LDS article

I saw you didn't like my edits on the main LDS article. I moved the discussion to the talk page - please weigh in on my proposal and help me understand your thoughts on why my edits are not acceptable. Thanks! --Descartes1979 (talk) 06:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a small thank you for your recent edits re: JSJr. NPOV is all about verifiable sources, no matter what they reveal - this recent stuff involves paragraph after paragraph of hearsay, which of course lessens the credibility of what everyone has done collectively. Best, A Sniper (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. Best, A Sniper (talk) 06:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Informal Mediation Requested: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-07-07 Children of Joseph Smith, Jr.

FYI. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Centrifugal force (planar motion)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Centrifugal force (planar motion), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centrifugal force (planar motion). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Centrifugal Force

FyzixFighter, if you can give me the title of the chapter that your page 176 is on, I might be able to find the equivalent page in my 1980 edition. It would also be very interesting to know which edition you are using and who wrote the preface. Your quote from page 176 contradicts itself by referring back to the very section 3.3 which attributes the cause to centrifugal force. David Tombe (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The 2002 edition is the 3rd edition - preface written by Herbert Goldstein, Charles P. Poole, John L. Safko. Page 176 is in section 4.10 "The Criolis effect" in chapter 4 "The Kinematics of Rigid Body Motion". The reference back to section 3.3 is probably related to the part that also discusses angular momentum/effective potential energy there, and not the 1-D equivalent force equation:

By Eq. (3.15) the motion of the particle is r is that of a one dimensional problem with a fictitious potential energy: $V=V'+{\frac {1}{2}}{\frac {l^{2}}{mr^{2}}}$

Eq. 3.15 is the conservation of energy equation with the theta-dot terms in the kinetic energy expressed in terms of l, the angular momentum and previously shown conserved quantity. That angular momentum is equivalent to centrifugal force is your own original synthesis. --FyzixFighter (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

FyzixFighter, I didn't say that angular momentum was equivalent to centrifugal force. I said that the angular momentum explanation for why the planets stay up is equivalent to the centrifugal force explanation. Angular momentum gives rise to centrifugal force.

By the way, the quote in the 2002 edition is considerably amended from the one in the 1980 edition. You can see the older version on the centrifugal force talk page. David Tombe (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Mountain Meadows Massacre PR

I note you've reversed several edits to the MMM Mormon PR page, particularly related to the destruction of the rock cairn, Governor Leavitt's order to re-inter the remains, and other objective, referenced information, claiming it's POV. Do you have a reference to support the assertion that "vandals" demolished the monument, or that it wasn't first done in the presence of Brigham Young? Seems to me that eliminating a documented report is inappropriate, and changing references to "some sources" is legitimate only if you have a competing reference. Otherwise, it appears that you're editing to support your own point of view.

If you have references that dispute the report that Brigham Young officiated at the 1861 destruction of the monument, why not present them, and let the article text incorporate them in a fair way?

If you have an argument for deleting the relevant, sourced reference to re-internment of the remains prior to completion of analysis, why not discuss it before deleting other peoples' work?

76.173.96.129 (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The Radial equation

FyzixFighter, I'll finish my reply here. Nobody was actually doubting that the planetary orbtial situation was equivalent to the co-rotating frame. That point had already been agreed. The argument was that you don't actually need to involve frames of reference at all, since the angular velocity belongs to the planet. Goldstein provided a source which treated the Kepler problem in the absence of any mention of rotating frames of reference, the point being that centrifugal force is a topic which in general doesn't have to be considered within the restricted context of rotating frames of reference. The main thrust of the debate was on the radial equation, A = B + C Everybody was in agreemnet that C is centripetal force. But the argument went,

A is not an acceleration.

OK then, call it Peter. But when circular motion occurs, Peter will be zero. Hence, for circular motion, we have,

0 = B + C

Then they would say, 'but B is only centrifugal force in the rotating frame'.

OK then, call it Billy in the inertial frame, but nevertheless, circular motion cannot take place on the basis of C alone. Because if you get rid of Billy, then Alfred comes back again and so we don't have circular motion.

And by the way, I did look at your reference. He was quite wrong when he said that centripetal force disappears in the co-rotating frame. Centripetal force does not disappear in the co-rotating frame. David Tombe (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Gender of God

I have changed your edit and removed the word Christian from the nontrinitarian paragraph. Though it is indeed correct, the entire section is about Christianity (which should reasonably be enough to settle the entire debate anyway), and it seems there's no advantage in labouring the point, in view of the fact that even this concession will probably still be disputed by some of the editors who seem to have significant bias against identifying nontrinitarians as Christian at all.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. As long as the "Most" at the beginning of the first paragraph remains, this is sufficient for me. --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The Stratton book

FyzixFighter, can you please go to the talk page on Faraday's law and discuss this matter. It is crucial as regards relating the two aspects of electromagnetic induction. We could perhaps find a better way of expressing the point. David Tombe (talk) 08:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

FyzixFighter, I managed to get a look at Stratton. I can't find anything that even remotely resembles the quote which I had purported to have been in Stratton. I was obviously misinformed by a secondary source. In section 23 of chapter 1 there was some related stuff, but it was quite distinct from the point that I was making.

The proof in question appears in a January 1984 paper written by myself, and published in a magazine called the Toth-Maatian Review. I was quite surprised when I read about Stratton in a recently published paper, and that a line which they quoted as being in Stratton, 1941, was an identical proof to what I had published in the Toth-Matian Review in 1984.

So you are correct that I misrepresented Stratton, and I apologize for doing so. But I was misinformed by a recently published article, and I am now investigating the matter. I have written to the authors in order to get them to clarify the reference. The proof in question is original research, but in many respects it's already there in front of us, in that the total time derivative version of Faraday's law contains both the partial time derivative version as per the modern Maxwell's equations, and the vXB term which appeared in Maxwell's original papers. David Tombe (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If you still have access to the book, check Chapter 5 - problem 23, which is what I presume your secondary source was referring to. It's a problem though, so drawing extreme conclusions about what Stratton was saying is difficult. However, I still don't think this supports your argument but rather shows when the Maxwell-Faraday equation and the Lorentz force law are combined, that in the frame of the moving charge (where v=0), the curl of the electric field reduces to the full time derivative of the magnetic field (which is expected when dB/dt is expanded in terms of the partial derivatives, v=0 kills all but the ∂B/∂t term). Jackson, on pages 209-211 (in the 3rd edition), does a more complete derivation and explanation of what the problem is trying to teach as I understand it. I think most physicist would agree that the equation in question in Maxwell's original papers is simply the combination of the Maxwell-Faraday equation and the Lorentz force law, with E being understood as a "total measured electromotive force" including both the induced EMF (both tranformer and motional) and the electromotive force due to an already present electric field. Jackson was an interesting read for me on this topic; he is very explicit in stating that E and B in the M-F equation are defined to be in the same frame, and that when the equation is transformed to another inertial frame such that the conductor is moving, it takes the form that Maxwell original wrote, so I don't really see any vast coverup or hinky physics/math going on. Anyways, cheers. --FyzixFighter (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

FyzixFighter, Thanks. That's interesting because the guys that quoted the Stratton reference were not in full approval of Stratton's slant on the issue. They were referring to it in a slightly derogatory tone. They had their own reasons for wanting to use total time derivatives in Maxwell's equations. But I instantly noticed that the quote from Stratton was mathematically identical to what I had published in 1984, whether or not the physical interpretation was the same. My attitude is simply that the flux rule with its total time derivative, incorporates both the partial time derivative, which is the Maxwell-Faraday law (terminology as per wikipedia) plus the vXB effect.

I'm sure you are aware that Maxwell didn't talk about charge. His electromotive force term is therefore not strictly identical to the modern electric field E, but it is close enough for the purposes of illustrating the link between the two aspects of EM induction in question. Theoretically we can write E = vXB. It's not a format which is in common use, but if we take the curl of E = vXB -(partial)dA/dt, we get -dB/dt. As to whether my interpretation is the same as Stratton's, well my interpretation would be that v is the velocity of a charged particle relative to Maxwell's sea of molecular vortices. So if a particle is at rest in that medium, v=0, and so Faraday's total derivative law reduces to the partial derivative Maxwell-Faraday law. Regarding the issue of cover up, the thing is, that this very simple classical approach totally undermines any need for the more complex relativistic approaches which are supposed to deal with a problem which doesn't really exist when we look at it all as per Maxwell's approach. I'll have a look at that Jackson reference too.

I still think that the debate going on at Faraday's law, regarding the Feynman quote and the issue of the two aspects, can best be illustrated by that analysis above. The problem of course is legitimacy over the question of sources.

Steve, doesn't like using the term 'Faraday's law' for the flux rule, but he acknowledges that many textbooks do. I think that can all be cleared up in an appendix of terminologies. Too many debates get stifled due to terminological tripwires. David Tombe (talk) 06:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad I could help. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the meaning of v. If I'm recalling Jackson's derivation correctly (sorry, don't have the text with me at the moment), it seem irrelevant what v is relative to; assuming a classical Galilean invariance is enough to say that v is the velocity of the conductor within the frame where E and B are measured, ie there is no need for an absolute frame. It's hard to know if Maxwell meant his v to be in reference to the molecular vortices or not, since by 1864 he reformulates his theory without any specific mechanism - using Lagrange's method to get around not knowing internal connections involved.

I'd also be careful to note that while Maxwell uses molecular vortices as a model to explain electromagnetic phenomena, he falls short of saying that the molecular vortices physically cause the phenomena. In other words, he uses the model of molecular vortices (and tiny idle wheels between the vortices) as a mode of connection which is mechanically conceivable, but does not put it forward as the true mechanism for the connection existing in nature; it's an analogy that explains electromagnetism, but doesn't purport to be physical reality. So I wouldn't say his 1861 paper gives two separate "physical" explanations for induction, but that the model/analogy has separate mechanisms for the two phenomena. Subtle I know, but IMO significant as Maxwell himself made the distinction.

If you haven't already, I'd highly recommend "Electrodynamics from Ampere to Einstein" by Olivier Darrigol, which looks to be a pretty exhaustive history of EM theory. I'm currently working my way through it and have found it quite enlightening. You also might find Ivan Tolstoy's biography of Maxwell, which I've only skimmed, but appeared to do a pretty good job of showing the evolution of Maxwell's ideas. --FyzixFighter (talk) 08:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

FyzixFighter, Thanks for that information. I wouldn't actually have been planning to put my own interpretation of the meaning of v into the article. It was more just a case of wanting to put the maths proof in, and leaving it for readers to make up their own minds as to what it meant.

As regards Maxwell and EM induction, there is a long section in the latter half of part II of his 1861 paper where he gives a detailed explanation of each of the two aspects in terms of those molecular vortices. The moving wire explanation is easy enough to follow. In a magnetic field, the vortices will be aligned. The wire will move in the equatorial plane of the vortices. The vortices will not go through the wire. They will go around the wire. The pressure in front of the motion will contract the vortices, whereas the rarefaction behind the wire will expand them. A kind of Kepler's second law comes into play in which the contraction pressure causes an angular acceleration in the vortices in front of the wire and an angular deceleration in the vortices behind the wire. This vortex gradient gives rise to a flow of aether along the wire at right angles to the direction of motion of the wire. The right angle deflection is no doubt tied up with the Coriolis force that compliments the angular acceleration as per Kepler's second law, except that it's Faraday's law because the angular momentum is not being conserved when the wire is being pushed through the field. That's where Lenz's law and work done comes into it. At any rate we get the Coriolis vXH coming into play, with H being the vorticity of the molecular vortices.

The time varying aspect is more about a wave of angular acceleration being transmitted as EM radiation and discharged at right angles into a wire. Hence it is the same effect. But it is formulated using the other side of the Kepler's second law coin. It is formulated using the angular force -(partial)dA/dt aspect. Where A is aether field momentum and curl A = B.

We can't really put all that in the article, but it can be noted legitimately that Maxwell did deal with this exact problem. If challenged, a few quotes can be produced.

Maxwell's weakness in my opinion was that he didn't specify the sources and sinks in his vortices. His electric particle idea came late, in part II. He didn't have those particles in his hydrodynamics section at part I. Hence he lost the full significance of the generation of charge under pressure, that comes out of those vortices when tangential force is applied. And he gave up. And as you rightly point out, Lagrangian is a fudge which ignores cause. It balances out energy. But coservation of energy is only an irrotational phenomenon. We lose all the information on the tangential forces, such as Coriolis force.

So we see these tangential terms vXH + (partial)dA/dt in Faraday's law and Kepler's second law. The latter concerns conservation of angular momentum, whereas the former is rate of change of angular momentum, or torque. Hence even in a kitchen sink, these two terms apply in the water as it swirls out. But not cyclonically of course. David Tombe (talk) 11:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Centrifugal force

Do you a current best version of your proposed short section? Let's go ahead and replace the long Brews section with a short one, and try to keep Brews and David from messing up the article too much from there. If I don't hear from you, I'll try to do it from the one on the talk page and maybe a few edits. Dicklyon (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. I nearly did put it in after Brews' "diatribe" which was just plain bad physics. However, some much more important real life issues (getting a couple of papers I'm co-authoring ready and submitted to journals) have taken precedence, to the point that I haven't even tried to follow any of the discussion since my last post. I'll try to find some time to review the current version, but I'm pretty sure that there won't be much that I can add if you and some of the other anti-bloat editors have been your usual excellent selves. I also never thanked you and some of the others for the feedback, support, and general words of encouragement - so thank you for that. I can't guarantee my ability to follow the editing or discussion in the next few months, but if the debate escalates to official or unofficial mediation or guided group dispute resolution, please be sure to let me know either here or via email so I can be sure to participate. Thanks again. --FyzixFighter (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not participate in any further edit wars on Centrifugal force. Reverting another editor's contributions should be reserved for clear violations of policy, and the specific policy should be cited in the edit summary. It is often a good idea (and given this page's history of edit warring, always a good idea on this article) to discuss the revert on the talk page. I have urged all this article's editors to discuss BEFORE reverting, and again I implore you to adhere to this practice, in order to prevent further edit warring. Edit warring is not helpful to Wikipedia in any way. I have asked nicely on the article's talk page, now I am asking on specific editors' talk pages. Thank you. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Wilhelm but I disagree with your assessment of the situation. The topic was still being discussed when David decided to insert the disputed text despite my very clear reservations. The relevant policies were stated in the initial reverts [1]. Attempts to discuss this topic in a civil manner resulted in the following interesting responses:

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]

Such responses are completely uncivil and disregard WP:AGF. I'm willing to discuss sources and edits, but such discussion is pretty much pointless when the other editor throws out all modern sources as "rubbish" and refuses to engage in the appropriate dispute resolution channels. This is not a case of POV-suppression. David has yet to provide a reference that states explicitly that the non-reactive centrifugal force is real in the inertial (non-accelerating) frame. Whereas, we have multiple references going back over 100 years saying the opposite, that the centrifugal force arises not from the motion of the object but from the rotation of the reference frame. From the Roche article you removed:

I have identified at least three interpretations of centrifugal force in the literature: a valid meaning in physics, an entirely different but equally valid meaning in engineering, and a cluster of false meanings.

which he clarifies later:

There is, however, a valid concept of centrifugal force in physics. If the observer in a frame of reference rotating with the Earth pretends for mathematical convenience that it is an inertial frame, then it becomes necessary to postulate a fictitious outwards force on a geostationary satellite to explain why it does not plunge to Earth. This is the centrifugal force of physics, an entirely fictional force.

and from the Kobayashi reference:

The term centrifugal force simply implies the force away from the center of rotation and is therefore obscure. Let us consider the point mass moving in a circular path with respect to the inertial frame. The term centrifugal force then has two meanings: one is the inertial force due to the rotation of the noninertial frame relative to the inertial frame and the other is the reaction force of the centripetal force to produce acceleration toward the center of rotation.

As has been show by the various History of Physics type references, the Leibniz's concept of a real centrifugal force is seen as a result of his adopting a reference frame attached to the rotating body - ie, he was not using an inertial frame, but a co-rotating frame. The only POV not being expressed in the article is that Leibniz's centrifugal force and the rotating reference frame centrifugal force are different. However, no references have been provided that directly support this POV, and the multiple sources provided later in the article actually contradict this.

I also find it troubling that you placed the above warning on only the talk pages of the users on one side of the dispute and not on David's page nor on the anon that has rotating IP address. This does not help your appearance of being impartial. While I applaud your attempt to end the edit war, I disagree with your method which removed statements directly sourced to reliable sources. IMO the lead should be reverted to the consensus- and source-supported "two concept" sentence in the lead per WP:RS and WP:V. Besides attempting the edit war, do have any other reasons for removing the sourced statements? --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Look again at David's talk page and the anon IP user. I didn't just pick on one side. The problem I have with the statement in the lead, besides the fact that it is a limiting statement while sources do exist that suggest there is a third concept, is the history of the statement. It was first inserted saying that there were two concepts - one used in physics and one used in engineering (and one of those sources provided), but then the words "physics" and "engineering" were removed but the "two concepts" wording remained for some reason. When this was reworded and the second source added, it looked like the statement as it was later rendered was probably weakly supported (if at all) and the second source was added to prop up the first. Honestly, I don't know how well the statement is supported as I do not have these sources to refer to. The main problem I have with the sentence, by far, however, is the constant back and forth over it. I say let's find something we can agree on and come back to it. I think my edit history on this page bears out the fact that I have no agenda here but getting the editors to work together and produce the best possible article for the reader. If you have any suggestions on how I can better achieve that, I will always give equal weight to the comments and advice left on my talk page. I don't bear any hard feelings toward you or any of the other editors, I just want you all to find a way to work together. I have been trying to get David to come half way, but he feels like everyone else is united against him. I know you two have quite a checkered past, and I'm trying to be sensitive to that, but you guys really can't go around reverting each other (nor being rude to each other). I'll keep talking to David, and if he needs to be reminded about his role in all this, I will try to be there to remind him. I'm asking you to be as sensitive to his side of things as you want him to be to yours. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you are favoring a side, but your warning to David made no mention of edit-warring - perhaps you meant it to be understood - I'd have appreciated everyone getting the exact same warning. What sources suggest there is a third concept distinct from the other two? None has been provided. There has been some discussion that the polar coordinates concept could be a third option, but no sources provided despite my request. Provided sources do treat this as a subset of the rotating frame. How can you say that the sentence is probably weakly supported when you haven't even checked the sources? I've provided the relevant quotes above. Where is the weakness in the above quotes? When have I ever been rude to David within the last several months of our interaction? Please, point them out to me so that I can correct my behavior. I think a comparison of David's comments and mine will reveal a great disparity in the level of civility we each show one other. Again, I do not think removal of a sourced statement is an acceptable way to end an edit-war. Additional reliable sources that directly support David's position is one acceptable way, or any of the other dispute resolution avenues - which David seems to have summarily dismissed. --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It was not my intention to permanently and unilaterally strike the passage from the lead, but to at least temporarily remove the immediate source of controversy and declare a "time out" to get these differences worked out before we just continue reverting and re-reverting. I know you may feel like you've been slighted because your version of the passage was removed, but very likely the other side feels equally slighted because their version also was removed. Notice IP user 72... wasted little time reverting my edit although my intentions were stated in the edit summary. Also, to clarify, I did not mean to suggest you have been rude to David. I hope there are not serious hard feelings between you two, but I can tell David has been getting very frustrated and his civility has sometimes worn thin. I really think he has the potential to be an invaluable editor, but his methods are sometimes questionable. I think he sometimes puts the cart before the horse and then assumes that because there is consensus against the way he presents information in the article it must be a consensus against the material itself, but it doesn't do much to dispel his fears when some of the talk page comments bear this out. The long and the short of it is, there may be some irreconcilable differences between the ideas of the several editors here, but there is never a need for incivility and edit warring. I do not intend to give anyone a free pass on perpetuating these behaviors, not David, not the anon editors, not the major contributors. If my responses to different editors are somewhat varied, it is because they have displayed various behaviors. As to the sources for a third approach, I will let that dispute work itself out on the talk page. I was not so much disputing the references as acknowledging the dispute and moving to diffuse the edit war. I freely admit that I have not read the source passages. If you could quote them directly, on the article's talk page, you would do us all a service, and this could be a starting point for an obviously needed discussion over this disputed passage specifically. Again I will remind you that I did not merely remove your sourced statement. I also removed the IP editor's statement, and he too was apparently upset by this. If I have united everyone in disagreeing with me, at least I have given you all something to agree about. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

In rereading my posts, I realize I may have been a little too short in my response. I apologize for that, and thank you for responding in a level manner. I am still though of the opinion that you are coddling David too much. From my view, the reason the centrifugal force debates are so heated is because David does not know how to act civilly with other editors. If people disagree with him, he immediately accuses them of being idiots or of being part of a conspiracy to suppress information (this isn't just limited to his interactions on physics pages either). For example, when a simple request for a source is met by this kind of response [5], I find it impossible to pursue any meaningful discussion with him. In fact, usually when I get this kind of response from David, I stop responding to him in that thread. You've called him on such behavior before. I'd like the discussion to move forward, but without such uncivil rants and such total disregard of WP:AGF. Since if any of us call him on it he'd ignore it, and since you think that David can become a meaningful contributor, would you mind reminding him again that such behavior is neither appropriate or helpful. Honestly, I'm getting sick of these repetitive rants of his, and am close to asking uninvolved admins to take a look at his behavior and take appropriate action but, out of respect for you and your recent attempts to help David, I'll wait to see if he'll respond to your guidance. --FyzixFighter (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I go further, we know from his previous interactions on the other centrifugal and coriolis pages that he genuinely is a crank. The sole purpose for his presence here is simply to put his OR and other misunderstandings into the wikipedia. He contributes to no other pages, and he has been suspended and then banned multiple times; the last time was an indefinite ban. I disagree completely with the last administrator that took it upon himself to unban him; this is nothing but harmful for the wikipedia.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Same here. He's a nut, and nothing but disruptive. I think it's time for a community topic ban for him on CF-related articles. Dicklyon (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

In case you're still watching this page Wilhelm, I'd rather put some comments here rather than trying to go point-counterpoint with David on your talk page or somewhere else where it would detract from that page's discussion. I see that David has made you aware of the current report and topic ban discussion over on ANI. I had no interaction with the editor that filed the report nor did I ask anyone to initiate such, but it appears that the report was precipitated by a report I made over on WP:WQA. Despite multiple warnings from sympathetic and neutral editors like yourself, David continues to behave in a manner that prevents and disrupts cooperative editing. This response is all that is needed to see that David is being hoisted by his own petard in this situation. Save him from himself if you can, but I fear that, like previous warnings, it will fall on deaf ears. --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Reported to Administrator's Noticeboard

FyzixFighter, I'm just letting you know that I've reported you at the administrator's noticeboard for wiki-hounding. The evidence is quite clear cut. You have been putting false information into physics articles which I have been trying to improve. You tried to convert the centrifugal force in the radial planetary orbital equation into a centripetal force. And yesterday, you removed sourced edits of mine and replaced them with information which you now admit to be in error. It is not possible to write a coherent article when somebody like yourself is continually trampling over the edits and playing out some clever game with so called reliable sources while at the same time refusing to discuss the topic and claiming not to have opinions. David Tombe (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

You ae being discussed here [6] Cardamon (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The existence of the Muulekites

The existence of the Muulekites is completely rejected by non-Mormon historians, archaeologists, anthropologist and theologians. This is because there is no trace of them except in the Book of Mormon; they are supported by absolutely no external evidences at all and there is no mention of them until the 19th century.

How odd… this statement I made is completely accurate. Only those with an LDS slant accept the existence of theses storybook people. And until the “Prophet” from Palmyra, they had never even been heard of. But instead of countering, you in a very Gestapo act simply delete these facts.

None of the mythological book of Mormon people exist outside the book of Mormon, much the way Frodo never existed outside the Lord of the Rings. Therefore, instead of facing facts you attempt to sweep it away in a Stalin like action. Wow. Well I guess those who use Wikipedia are lucky to have such a dishonest nazi like you ready to edit truth when it threatens your fairy tales. (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.27.175 (talk)

Invitation

I invite you to read my comment (No. 48) to "Faraday's Law of Induction." Mike La Moreaux (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Faraday's Law

FyzixFighter, I never stated that there was anything wrong with the one of Maxwell's Laws responsible for transformer emf. That is not the version of Faraday's Law which is stated at the beginning of the article. The cutting of magnetic field lines occurs in the homopolar generator but not in the example of the toroidal transformer. But then, there is no emf induced in that example for just that reason. Mike La Moreaux (talk)

Then I guess I'm a little confused by which Faraday's Law you are saying is false. The form of the law mentioned at the beginning of the article covers both transformer (stationary circuit) and motional EMF, so the homopolar generator is not a counter-example of the law stated in the article. The toroidal transformer is definitely an interesting example, and my guess is that the line integral used to calculate the EMF or the flux does something weird at the slip-ring, it being a strange disconnect in the geometry. The best thing to do would be to find a reliable source that treats that problem to see whether or not modern physics sees it as a counter-example of Faraday's law.

But let me leave aside the toroidal example, and let's look at the homopolar generator. At the beginning of the article, Faraday's Law is stated in words (in the quote box) and in mathematical formula. Are we in agreement on the semantics that the presentations are identical? If so, then it can be shown that the vxB term that causes the current in the homopolar generator is hidden in the full time derivative of the flux in the equation for Faraday's Law:

${\mathcal {E}}=-{\frac {d\Phi _{B}}{dt}}$.

By the way, Jackson covers this proof on pp. 208-211 of his graduate text; unfortunately Griffiths' undergraduate text brushes the distinction under the rug, turning the full derivative into a partial derivative without commentary. So following Jackson's proof, the magnetic flux linking the circuit is defined by

$\Phi _{B}=\int _{S}\mathbf {B} \cdot \mathbf {n} da$

where S is the surface bounded by the circuit C.

We also have to make use of the identity:

${\frac {d}{dt}}={\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}+\mathbf {v} \cdot \mathbf {\nabla }$.

This leads to

${\frac {d\mathbf {B} }{dt}}={\frac {\partial \mathbf {B} }{\partial t}}+(\mathbf {v} \cdot \mathbf {\nabla } )\mathbf {B} ={\frac {\partial \mathbf {B} }{\partial t}}+\nabla \times (\mathbf {B} \times \mathbf {v} )+\mathbf {v} (\nabla \cdot \mathbf {B} )$.

The third term gives the contribution of sources of the vector field, ie magnetic monopoles, swept over by the moving circuit. We can therefore rewrite the full time derivative of the flux as

${\frac {d}{dt}}\int _{S}\mathbf {B} \cdot \mathbf {n} da=\int _{S}{\frac {\partial \mathbf {B} }{\partial t}}\cdot \mathbf {n} da+\oint _{C}(\mathbf {B} \times \mathbf {v} )\cdot d\mathbf {l}$

where the v is the velocity of the element dl of the circuit. This gives us for Faraday's law that

${\mathcal {E}}=-\int _{S}{\frac {\partial \mathbf {B} }{\partial t}}\cdot \mathbf {n} da+\oint _{C}(\mathbf {v} \times \mathbf {B} )\cdot d\mathbf {l}$.

The first term on the right gives the transformer EMF contribution (from electric fields induced by time-varying B-fields) and the second term is the motional EMF contribution. Again, this proof is essentially covered in Jackson's "Classical Electrodynamics" (3rd ed) pp.208-211. Therefore the homopolar generator, which relies on a motional EMF, is not a counter-example of Faraday's Law as it is first introduced in the article. Does this make sense? Are there any points in the proof where we would disagree?

As for the toroidal wrapping with slip-ring, I don't know how the math really would treat the slip-ring. It is an interesting example, but I'm sure someone has looked at it before and answered the question of whether or not it is a counter-example to Faraday's Law. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

FyzixFighter, we are in agreement that the verbal and mathematical presentations of Faraday's Law at the beginning of the article are identical. In the case of the homopolar generator, B is a constant and so is a. Therefore the flux is a constant. Therefore the time rate of change of the flux is zero. Faraday's Law only explicitly deals with the time rate of flux change. The thing is that in the operation of the homopolar generator, there is obviously no flux change. Therefore Faraday's Law gives an emf of zero. What is so difficult to understand about this? The problem with the derivation is that the fourth equation involves the curl of vxB. In the case of the homopolar generator, the curl of vxB is zero because vxB does not define an electric field. This is a perfect example both of not seeing the forest for the trees, but also of forgetting the physics in the pursuit of the mathematics. (Moment has the units pound feet, and work has the units foot pounds. They are mathematically identical and physically completely different. Mike La Moreaux (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

When we say time rate change of the flux, does "time rate of change" refer to a full derivative or a partial derivative? The distinction is very important as shown in the proof above. If it's a full derivative then Faraday's law as stated in the article does give a non-zero emf for the homopolar generator. This is because as the flux is an integral, a non-zero full time derivative of the flux can be achieved by motion of the boundary/surfacewhile the value of the flux itself remains constant. The homopolar generator is a special case where Phi_B is constant, (partial)dPhi_B/dt is zero, but (full)dPhi_B/dt is non-zero.

As for the fourth equation, it follows directly from the identity in the third equation. Do you disagree with this identity? The fourth equation is merely expanding the full derivative in terms of the partial derivatives. If you think that the curl Bxv should not be in the fourth equation, then you disagree with the understood relationship between partial and full derivatives. Also, I never said the vxB term defines an electric field - I was very cautious to not mention electric field at all during the derivation. I did talk about EMF, but EMF and a line integral of the electric field are not the same thing. Like you said, just because EMF and electric potential (which is a line integral of the electric field) have the same units, they are not the same thing. We can say that

${\mathcal {E}}=\oint _{C}\mathbf {E'} \cdot d\mathbf {l}$,

but in this definition of EMF, $\mathbf {E'}$ is the electric field in the rest frame of the element dl. However, convention is to define E and B in the same frame, so E and E' are the same in this equation only when the circuit is stationary. Looking at the final form of the EMF in fact shows that, if we interpret the EMF as the line integral of the force per unit charge, then only the first term has to be due to an induced electric field, which is what the Maxwell equations predict. Note that this is not an approach to the problem that I have used my own faculties to invent, but is what is found in a very well-known and standard graduate level EM textbook. Therefore, according to this reliable source (WP standard for inclusion), the motional EMF of the homopolar generator is not a counter-example of Faraday's Law as stated in the article. Do you have a reliable source that says that the homopolar generator is a counter-example of how Faraday's Law is stated in the article?

From my point of view, your claims that the article's presentation that Faraday's law is false is due to not paying close enough attention to the mathematics used to describe the physics. When you are careful about the distinction between partial and full derivatives, the homopolar generator is no longer a counter-example. The question then becomes a matter of semantics, ie does "time rate of change" mean a partial or full derivative. I imagine that something similar happens with regards to the toroidal transformer, that a complete and proper mathematical treatment of how the integral and full time derivative will yield a zero time rate of change of the flux. --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

If the time rate of change of the flux is zero by inspection of the physical situation, then it does not matter whether we are talking about the partial or total time derivative. They are both zero. In the homopolar generator, the circuit boundary/surface is fixed. Only the conductor moves. There is no electrostatic field here, so potential is not involved. In any case, the line integral of a static electric field strength around a closed path is always zero. emf is the line integral of the electric field strength around a closed path and can be non-zero. Richard Feynman states that the homopolar generator is a counter example to the "flux rule," which is what we are calling Faraday's Law, in his "Lectures on Physics." Mike La Moreaux (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks like we disagree on some very basic foundational principles, namely:

1. the significant difference between a partial and a full derivative and the relation between the two,
2. the definition of emf, the usual definition being the line integral of the electromagnetic force per unit charge (not of the electric field strength) around a closed path
3. what constitutes the boundary of the surface - in all references I've found, the conductor is the boundary, so if it's moving, the boundary is moving.

Therefore, it is pretty much pointless arguing from first principles and using rigorous mathematical analysis to respond to your assertion, so I won't argue math anymore, just reliable sources. Here are three sources I found pretty easily that clearly state that the homopolar generator can be explained by Faraday's Law and that define Faraday's Law as it is stated in the article:

1. "Magnetic fields: a comprehensive theoretical treatise for practical use", Heinz Knoepfel, pg 324 specifically [7]
2. "Introduction to electromagnetic theory: a modern perspective", Tai L. Chow, pp 183-184 [8]
3. "Electromotive force again", American Journal of Physics, vol 32 (1962) pp 209-310

The first one follows the proof above that I adapted from Jackson. The second and third one use a slightly different approach to show that when the circuit loop is not fudged, the total change in flux is not zero. To quote the third reference: "The 'homopolar generator' seems more complicated, but the essential physical situation becomes apparent...if the usual metal Faraday disk is replaced by an insulating disk with a single radial wire connecting the axis and the rim, with shich the external circuit makes a sliding contact. The results are unchanged by this modification of the usual experiment." What is the page number and quote from Feynman, I'd really like to compare these sources to see where the disconnect is. --FyzixFighter (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not have access to a copy of "Lectures on Physics," but if you go to my comment, No. 48, "Faraday's Law is False!," on the discussion page to the article, Steve's link No. 1 in his comment of 15 September will take you to the relevant pages. The boundary of the surface of the circuit of the homopolar generator is fixed, while the conductor (the disk) moves. There is where Feynman states that the homopolar generator is a counter example to the "flux rule." I have not had time, yet, to check your referenced sources. Mike La Moreaux (talk) 01:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Your second reference has a bogus calculation. It would have us believe that the flux increases without limit as the disk of the homopolar generator rotates - a clear absurdity. Mike La Moreaux (talk) 01:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Mike, I have to go along with FyzixFighter 100% on this issue. He has described the situation pretty well. I have had a tangle with both FyzixFighter and Steve Byrnes in the past over this issue, but it has been more over the manner of explaining the physics, rather than the physics itself, which none of us have been in disagreement with. FyzixFighter's mathematical proof above is correct. I would however have drastically simplified it at the point where he splits the total time derivative into the partial time derivative and the (v.grad)B term. I would simply have drawn attention to the fact that (v.grad)B is the curl of vXB. I know that you have argued that curl(vXB) is zero. It may well be. In fact it would certainly be zero for a constant magnetic field if we could have such a thing. But that doesn't in anyway undermine the fact the curl E = -(total)dB/dt covers for both the time varying case and the motionally induced case.

As for the toriodal/slip ring example, I am a bit confused about the geometry and so I can't really comment. I suspect that there will be some magnetic field, and that there will be a vXB force induced somewhere in the circuit if an EMF is induced. David Tombe (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

FyzixFighter's point is that full attention must be paid to the distinction between the total time derivative and the partial time derivative. That is the crucial point that Mike doesn't seem to get. As long as v×B is non-zero, it doesn't matter if curl(v×B) =(v.grad)B = 0. Maxwell didn't actually have a Faraday's law in his original eight equations. Equation (D) in Maxwell's original eight was his equation for EMF. It read E = grad (phi) -(partial)dA/dt + v×B, where E was EMF, and hence it catered for both the time varying and the motionally induced kinds. Maxwell's EMF was actually a quantity that was closer to the modern electric field than it was to the modern EMF. The modern EMF is actually a voltage. Maxwell didn't use charge, but the relevant electromagnetic/electrostatic ratio was built into his equations and evaluated from the experiment in 1856 of Weber and Kohlrausch.

FyzixFighter was indeed very careful not to explicitly use the expression E = v×B at any stage of his manipulations. In my opinion, he wouldn't have been wrong if he had done so, but it wouldn't have been politically correct to have done so. Take the curl of Maxwell's equation (D) and you end up with the full total time derivative Faraday's law. David Tombe (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

In the case of the homopolar generator, the magnetic field is constant. If the curl of E is zero, then the emf is zero. But we know there is a motional emf by inspection of the physical situation, and therefore Faraday's Law is proved wrong. Mike La Moreaux (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Toroidal transformer

To make this easier to follow I've added this subsection. Anyways, I think I've found the problem with the toroidal transformer and slip-ring scenario. However, this is my own thoughts not backed up yet by any reliable source. The problem with the scenario is that there is a huge disconnect in the geometry of the surface of the flux integral that occurs every time the wire goes around the slip ring. Essentially, a section of the surface is be pinched off and then removed, which places it outside the realm where Faraday's Law is even applicable. It's like have an elliptical loop of wire in a magnetic field normal to the plane of the loop, pinching the loop together in the middle and then cutting off and throwing away half of it. The flux in the circuit decreased (smaller area), but no one would try to apply Faraday's Law to this scenario to say that the reduction in flux caused by the pinch-and-cut induces an emf. As Steve already noted, the slip-ring is a geometry outside of Faraday's Law. I'm guessing thought that we'll disagree on this, though, so a reliable source is probably the only way to resolve this. --FyzixFighter (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

FyzixFighter, This is interesting. Let's get it back to the Faraday's law talk page. I think I know what Mike is saying now. Also, in the toroidal scenario, I think you are correct in stating that it is a scenario which is outside the realms of Faraday's law. I'll make my views back on the Faraday's law talk page. David Tombe (talk) 09:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Oustanding work

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		An incredible display of consistent effort to improve and maintain the quality of Wikipedia. I tip my hat. StormRider 18:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANEW

John, that now makes 5 reverts within 24 hrs. Note that the 3RR policy states that "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the same material is involved." Therefore I have reported it at WP:ANEW. --FyzixFighter (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that the 3RR rule was operative only for reversions of the same material, not different material on the same page. I'll be more careful in the future.--John Foxe (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Congrats

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For fighting the most insidious and furtive types of vandalism. Cheers! —Eustress talk 22:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Quantum teleportation

I take it that writing about a fringe theory is alright, but that writing a fringe theory about a fringe theory is a no-no. I'm wondering if you know of any processes that involve a discontinuity of the position line of a particle in an S versus T Spacetime chart.WFPM (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Quantum teleportation is hardly a fringe theory - it is a widely accepted and investigated theory in modern physics. However, it appears from the edit I reverted and from your comment above that you misunderstand somewhat the nature of quantum teleportation. Quantum teleportation does not mean that a particle disappears and suddenly appears somewhere else such that the two events (the disappearance and re-appearance) are space-like. Rather it involves a transport of a quantum state from one quantum system to another. The system is not transported, only the quantum information. Therefore I don't see how quantum teleportation involves a "discontinuity of the position line of a particle in an S versus T Spacetime chart". Also, Feynmann diagrams are not spacetime diagrams. --FyzixFighter (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

When you mention Quantum I think Quantum. That's a package of energy/matter? First it's here, and then it's over there. And you're calling that translation of distance "teleportation". Maybe in this peculiar situation you don't think energy/matter? but instead an entity called "information", which I, of course have no concept of but I still think that it involves something being moved from here to there. But you seem to think that something that is here can affect something that's over there without any means of connection or translation of anything, kind of like instant mental telepathy; which I consider to be a fringe science. And The creating of a logical deduction process related to how the system works doesn't impress me. And when you use the word "Quantum", which I interpret to be an amount of something, even information, I hope I can be excused for thinking it is something that has to be transported.WFPM (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, there is a misunderstanding of what "Quantum Teleportation" means. The opening paragraph of the article itself addresses some of the confusion:

Quantum teleportation, or entanglement-assisted teleportation, is a technique used to transfer quantum information from one quantum system to another. It does not transport the system itself, nor does it allow communication of information at superluminal (faster than light) speed. Neither does it concern rearranging the particles of a macroscopic object to copy the form of another object. Its distinguishing feature is that it can transmit the information present in a quantum superposition, useful for quantum communication and computation.

The only "superluminal" stuff going on with this is the quantum non-local connection between the two entangled states, ie the measurement of the state on one of the quantum systems of an entangled pair instantly forces the other system to be measured in the complementary state. This is an accepted outcome of quantum mechanics, first demonstrated experimentally by Alain Aspect in 1981 and 1982 (and more recently in 2008 where. However, do note that, as the intro paragraph states, it doesn't allow for superluminal communication. The alternate name, as indicated in the intro, is probably the more descriptive of what is going on. It's not called "quantum" teleportation because a quantum of whatever is being teleported, but because quantum mechanics effects are being used (entanglement) to teleport the quantum state from one system/particle/quantum fiddly-bit to another. --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I wish you would read a story by Isaac Asimov named "The Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thalitimoline", about the transfer of information. I use it as a standard reference regarding the subject of the movement of anything with, of course, the next question which is Why Not? You're arguing that it is alright for the same idea to occur at two different places at the same time as a means of synchronizing activities? I'd call that a coincidence and a doubtful means of communication.WFPM (talk) 02:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I have read that short story - in High School and a couple of times since. I fail to see how it relates since your responses continue to show a misunderstanding/misreading of the article and of what I've said above. Neither the article nor I state that the non-local collapse of the waveform of the entangled particles at two different places at the same time due to measurement at one place is a means of synchronizing activities. Quantum teleportation#A summary provides a somewhat layman's description of the quantum protocol used, which includes no synchronizing (as I understand the word). Quantum teleportation#The result gives a little more in-depth quantum mechanical description using Dirac notation. This is not just theory, but has been demonstrated experimentally with both photons and atoms, and is a major element in attempts at quantum computing. --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I'll go with the definition of the word Quantum contained in Wikipedia. If you think that Information can be teleported or that the Quantum has a "Contingency" property that can influence it physically I wont argue the point. But you eleminated my point that it is doubtful that a real Quantum, what ever it is, can be teleported, and that's not a fringe concept.WFPM (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I will also agree with you that the diagrams I am talking about are not Feynman diagrams, but rather S versus T Space-time diagrams, where the position versus time location of particles is simple enough for me to understand, and I still can't understand how there could be a discontinuity in the line related to the motion of a real physical particle.WFPM (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

(after EC)I removed your edit for 3 main reasons:

1. You misrepresented what is meant by "quantum teleportation" by implying that it refers to a particle ceasing to exist in one place and then suddenly showing up in another. The article itself goes to great lengths to clarify that it is the quantum state that is being teleported and not the individual particles/quanta/system. Why make a point that something (that a real Quanum can be teleported) is doubtful when neither the article nor the mainstream meaning of the phrase "quantum teleportation" argue in favor of such a thing?
2. You misrepresented Feynmann diagrams as spacetime diagrams (you do acknowledge the point above).
3. You synthesized a wholly original argument about Feynmann diagrams and quantum teleportation based on these misunderstandings. The best solution to reinstate the point you want to make is to find reliable source that makes such a point.

In the end, no one is arguing that "quantum teleportation" involves a discontinuity in the line related to the motion of a real physical particle. All the particles continue to exist, but their states have changed (C's state being teleported to B). You, not me, not the article, and not any of the physics articles on the subject, are the only one who has ever brought up the idea of a quantum teleportation involves a particle disappearing in one place and instantly appearing in another. --FyzixFighter (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

No but you are arguing that a "contingency" property of a real physical entity can disappear from one place and popping up in the other, and I fail to make the distinction, like in the Thalitimolitine article. I believe that the Quantum is a real physical entity, or rather a package of real physical entities, such that you can catch one or more and keep them or throw them away. I don't see how somebody can influence them from a distance without some transmission to me. You're evidently thinking that you can send them to me and then throw a switch that you have that changes their identity. We call that "Remote Control" which involves us in systems for sending things like light quanta which you know about. And I have read with interest stories about how people could transmit their perceptions of letters etc by a thought process, but I didn't believe them like I cant understand and/or believe this.WFPM (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC) And I didn't know that a contribution to the talk section required a reliable source of an idea or opinion and I thought I was permitted to dream it up by myself.WFPM (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so it's the whole quantum entanglement and non-local connection thing that you don't like. Well, Einstein did call it spooky action at a distance. But experiments can be done that show that it really is happening and not a case of hidden variables. If we produce two photons such that they must have random but opposite polarizations, then the instant I measure the polarization of one photon, the other photon instantly assumes the opposite polarization. Before any measurement both photons are in a superposition of states, but after measurement on just one photon, both photons assume a single state. However, I can't control which state they collapse to. The influence does happen at a distance, instantaneously without a transmission but no one can control what the influence is.

For teleportation, if A and B are entangled, then measuring the A and C pair in a certain way puts B into 1 of 4 states related to C's initial state (at least, that's what the math says) because of this effect. But the holder of B can't know which one until the holder of A and C tells him the results of the AC measurement.

And your edit, which I reverted, was not on the talk page but on the article itself. --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right and I lose on that technicality. I mistakenly contributed to the article. My apologies. But of course my argument stands. And you're an EE like I am so I thought I'd engage you on it. Cheers!WFPM (talk) 03:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I am an EE now but my undergraduate degree is in physics, so I straddle both worlds. If you're interested in a somewhat layman explanation of quantum entanglement and the non-local wavefunction collapse (essentially the EPR paradox), I would suggest this video. --FyzixFighter (talk) 06:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay so I'm a determinist. But I agree with Bohr's original orbit theories as I point out in my talk section about the details of the Whirlpool Galaxy. And the mass of a Planck's constant energy carrying particle calculates to be 10 to the - 47 gms as I pointed out in Talk: Photon. And you're not helping any by calling it an indeterminate particle. And the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle says that you affect the motion of an electron by trying to measure it. So what? The electron has a function related to the physical creation of the atom, probably as a means of getting rid of excess angular momentum. If you're interested in a physics problem, you might consider my desire to do a 3 dimensional Michelson-Morley experiment. That's where you reflect light from all 3 orthogonal directions instead of just 2. And we need a 4th direction relationship to the other 3 directions to do that. And there aren't 4 orthogonal directions. But note that the cube has a diagonal direction that is equal angled to the other 3 directions. And if we sent a light from the corner of a cube to mirrors in the 3 adjacent corners and analyzed them like in the 2 dimensional test it would be the same. But in the 3 dimensional test case the direction of time would be congruent with the diagonal line, and the Lorentz space-time calculation would be carried out about motion in the area plane where the light paths are at 120 degree angles with each other and I don't think the mathematics is the same, and I need a mathematician to figure it out.WFPM (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC) I also like Boolean algebra and that it usually gives a yes or no answer and very few maybees. And I don"t think you could sell this idea to a computer program dedicated to real physical entity calculations.WFPM (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC) And they're playing around with predetermined spin quantities in their discussion about identity association. I had to consider that when I was making my models in Talk:Nuclear model. And I noticed that the idea of spin is related to an idea of direction. So if you say an entity has a positive spin you have to add that's looking down at the top. Because if I look at it from the bottom it has a negative spin. So in isolation what could I say about an item's spin that would be significant to some other frame of reference?WFPM (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You cut a really broad swath but I'll try and hit each point but no guarantees (in fact, I think I'll do this in subheadings to try and localize the discussion by topic so the dialog can be easier to follow). On a few points I don't understand your use of terminology or the connection with previous discussion:

Re: Bohr orbit model

Your argument for Bohr's original orbit model is circular (no pun intended), ie saying it doesn't radiate and that it's total energy doesn't change is saying the same thing, but the conundrum remains for why it still doesn't radiate. Classically, all accelerating charges radiate (eg, only when the current is varied will an antenna radiate), and any orbit, be it circular or elliptical involves a radial-inward acceleration.--FyzixFighter (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC

Can't agree. Don't think Earth radiates energy due to acceleration in it's path around the sun. Things radiate energy when they lose it. And and electron's circular path in an electrostatic field would be a constant electrostatic energy level path.WFPM (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Then you need to review basic electrodynamics (like the Larmor formula) and antenna theory (constant currents don't radiate in an antennae, only oscillating currents do). Acceleration=radiation is a well known fact in any text on electrodynamics. The earth has very little, if any, charge so it won't radiate electromagnetically, but according to general relativity, it should radiate gravitational waves. There are macroscopic examples that contradict your argument, like wigglers and undulators and synchrotrons, where a charged particle radiates (usually called synchrotron radiation) because it follows a curved path (ie, undergoes centripetal acceleration) due to magnetic fields but no change in electrostatic potential (in the case of wigglers, the electric field is zero, so no change in electric potential and magnetic fields don't have a potential energy field for charged particles). --FyzixFighter (talk) 06:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll buy that as an admission that the constant velocity motion of an electron in an electrostatic field doesn't result in emissions as long as the field has the same static strength.WFPM (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC) But there's a saying that "if you shake an electron you'll get radiation" implying that it can translate without radiating, but not turn or even acelerate. And when the electron gets to the top end of it's path through a Marconi antenna and has to stop, I guess it's the cause of the radiant energy radiated away from the antenna. But in ac currents, the electrons don't radiate, just the constituents of the field.

I've never argued anything differently, I've only ever argued for emissions from charged particles undergoing acceleration. Constant velocity motion never produces radiation because in those cases acceleration is zero. But orbits, even perfectly circular orbits, are not cases of constant velocity motion. Speed is constant in those scenarios, but not direction therefore acceleration is non-zero. Even electrons in a perfectly circular synchrotron with no external field (therefore traveling along a path that is equipotential) will generate synchrotron radiation. Again, this is accepted classical electrodynamics that was known before the advent of both relativity and quantum mechanics. --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Please!! A circular orbit certainly involves a constant velocity motion along the tangent line to the circle. I don't see how you can question that. And in gravitationally induced circular orbits, the lost free energy level value of the orbit remains constant and no orbital energy is lost. Then if electrons radiate energy as the result of this motion, and I thought that their radius of motion remained constant for a constant velocity, we're going to have to dream up some other reason for the occurrence.WFPM (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Circular orbits involve constant speed motion. Do you understand what the difference is between speed and velocity? Velocity is a vector - it has both magnitude and direction. If either (or both) of those change, then it cannot be constant velocity motion. Constant velocity implies zero net force and straight line motion (Newton's first law). Circular orbits satisfy neither of these--there is a net force inward towards the center of the orbit (gravitational in the case of planets, and electrostatic for Bohr orbits), and the motion is not straight line. Perhaps you're confusing the radiation theory for atoms with general electrodynamic radiation. In atoms, electrons will radiate when they transition between energy levels, but this categorically not a classical concept. Radiation classically is not a way for particles to get rid of excess energy when it moves across a non-uniform potential. Radiation classically, according to Maxwell, Hertz, Larmor, and all the pre-quantum mechanics/relativity physicists and engineers, is due to charges undergoing acceleration. Any basic physics/engineer textbook will attest to these two classical concepts (circular orbits are not constant velocity motion & accelerating charges radiate). Are you saying the textbooks are wrong? --FyzixFighter (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking that velocity is Ds/Dt and in a circular orbit is not changing. And why it is changing in direction is a different matter. Maybe we can adopt Pauli's concept and say there has to be emissions perpendicular to the tangent of motion so that the net directional momentum remains constant. And maybe Yukawa can argue that his meson has the power to convince the nucleons that they should throw material away from a center of "attraction" so that they can move closer together. And in space time considerations I think about the implications of graphs on the time versus distance TS plane. And if there's a force involved in the consideration, I visualize it as a line vector sticking up out of the paper plane. So stationary is a perpendicular line, and straight line motion is a slanted line. And accelerated motion is a curved line. And an Impulse is an area equal to the area of the time vector times the force vector. And the force vector times the lateral distance is the Force times time or the work area. So as a force chases a freely moving particle it is giving it kinetic energy of motion at an increasing rate. But if is truly a freely moving particle, I dont see why it should be doing anything other than storing up the acquired kinetic energy given it by the force vector. And if you apply a side directed force on the particle as they do in mass determination equipment, the side force also adds kinetic energy of side motion to the previous linear motion of the particle as per the calculations. So nature's ability to retain the kinetic energy of velocity through a circular orbit has made me cautious about the ideas about when it can radiate energy. And the elliptical orbits are the same except that each orbit involves the presumably 100% efficient conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy and back again.WFPM (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC) And I think that the textbooks are maybe wrong about the rest mass of the Plank particle. But since they don't have a concept thereon it is not to worry.WFPM (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC) And if I'm pressed, I might do like Tombe and argue that the Vsquared value could go up faster than the mass value goes down and so a particle's kinetic energy could exist at some very low value of mass. WFPM (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Circular orbits and acceleration

To make this easier to focus on a single topic of disagreement I'm going to decouple the whole circular orbits and acceleration question from the the general radiation question and create this new sub-subheading. Let's ignore the radiation question for a minute and just look at orbits. First of all I need to ask you what you think the difference is between speed and velocity? You're nearly correct in how you think about velocity, it is Ds(vector)/Dt (the time derivative of the position vector). I generally don't like working in a TS plane for classical mechanics, but we can and by your own argument then an orbit is undergoing accelerated motion. Think about the usual TS representation of the earth orbit - it's a corkscrew spiral, which is in fact a curved line. A force only increases the kinetic energy of a particle if it acts in the same direction as the spatial displacement (see Work (physics)). In the special case of circular orbits, the force is constantly parallel to the displacement so the kinetic energy doesn't change. But since the central force (gravity for the earth, electrostatic for an electron in Bohr's orbit model) is the only force acting on the electron, then according to Newton's 2nd law the non-zero net force produces an acceleration. So to sum up some the important points and the points where I think we disagree:

1. Velocity is the derivative of the position vector, is a vector itself, and is different than speed.
2. Acceleration happens when velocity changes either in magnitude and/or in direction. (see 1st paragraph of Acceleration)
3. The net force in a circular orbit is always radially inward, so the acceleration is also radially inward (Newton's 2nd law).
4. The acceleration of a particle in a circular orbit like we're discussing is non-zero.
5. An applied force will only increase the kinetic energy if it has some component that is parallel to the displacement/velocity.
6. An applied force that is perpendicular to the displacement/velocity will not change the kinetic energy.
7. The net force in circular orbits is always perpendicular to the displacement/velocity.

If you disagree with any of these statements then you do not believe in classical Newtonian mechanics. In which case, I would say go back and read your college mechanics textbooks and review the basic kinematic and dynamic concepts of mechanics. --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I just talked about acceleration in my above discussion. If you're on the TS plane plane and pushing with a force in a straight line to cause acceleration, you are adding something to the particle that is called inertia, and has the same units as kinetic energy of motion. So it first changes it's time rate of change of the velocity, which is called acceleration, and as the velocity increases it continues to accumulate the inertia and the amount of displacement. But why should it emit radiant energy? There's no other force. And it's accumulating inertia as fast as it's coming in, I think. Do you know of any reason why it should radiate energy? And our electrostatic theory of sideways deflection of motion of a particle says that the sideways force adds a sideways motion to the particle proportional to the amount of sideways direction inertia acquired, also I think. And in that case it would involve a change of velocity due to the increased inertia that it has in it's new path.( At least the action is called an acceleration in my Kaplan's Nuclear Physics book, and of course Newton was the one who developed the theory that orthogonal motions functioned independently of each other). But in electromagnetic and light energy deflection situations we're able to get around that by assuming that for some reason or angle of force direction the force is always such as to change the direction while maintaining the standard velocity. I hadn"t heard that summary of dynamic motion principles and I'll have to think about them some more and look in my Robeson again. But that's enough for now.WFPM (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Think I cant agree with #6 based on Kaplan.

Which Kaplan book are you talking about? Is it Irving Kaplan's "Nuclear Physics"? What statement in Kaplan do you feel contradicts #6? If that is the same book, I'd also invite you to look at the example Kaplan gives on the bottom of page 84 (this is in the 1962 edition) and continues on the top half 85, which addresses the original point of dispute:

"Assume that the electron revolves about the nucleus in a circular orbit of radius a, and that the velocity of the electron is such that the attractive force between the electron and the nucleus provides just the centripetal force required. The system, nucleus and electron, should then be mechanically stable. The electron, however, is subject to a constant acceleration toward the nucleus, and, according to electromagnetic theory, the electron should radiate energy. The energy of the system should then decrease; the electron should gradually spiral in toward the nucleus, emitting radiation of constantly increasing frequency, and should eventually fall into the nucleus."

Kaplan does talk a little bit about the relationship between force and kinetic energy on pg 124 (equation 6-31), but implicit in this is that F and dx are in the same direction (Kaplan isn't explicit but he does say that F*dx is the work done on the particle, and the full formula for work is F*dx*cos(theta), so theta (the angle between dx and F) in this example has to be 0). What other physics-related texts do you trust and have access to? I've got access to a university library (where I found Kaplan) and I much prefer to rely on texts that we both trust so it's not either of us having to trust in the intellect of the other, and so we can use an agreed upon vocabulary. --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you have Kaplan 'cause he's my detail man and he's sometimes over my head and I know I can keep learning as I read him. And on page 84 he's talking about the electromagnetic theory, which I mentioned, and on page 124 he's talking about the equivalence of rest mass to kinetic energy such that the "effective" mass of a moving particle can be representative by the sum of the 2 values. And note that he goes on to say that the constituents of a photon cannot have a rest mass because then the equivalence mass of a moving particle would become infinite in accordance with 6-27. And of course I cant agree with that because I think that the energy of light is transported by a stream of planck particles which are boring their way through space and whatever. And now we come to page 200 where he talks about the ability of an electrostatic field to cause an electron to accelerate in the direction of the field. Well consider the implications of that. The particle has a lateral velocity and associated kinetic energy, and now it accelerates at right angles to some increased velocity at an angle, (just like in ballistics), which results in it's having an increased kinetic energy of translation. I think that it was Newton who developed that concept in his Principia. So I don't think your #6 will stand up under scrutiny.WFPM (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC) If you think about this, you can see why Newton stuck to his theory about the particulate nature of light transmission. He probably just couldn,t imagine a small enough particle to do the job. PS I finally found a reference in Wikipedia. Look in Trajectory of a projectile at the velocity calculation where the 2 right angle velocities are added at right angles to each other to get a combined increase in the projectile velocity and resultant kinetic energy of motion.WFPM (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Two points:

1. Comparison to ballistics only works part way. In #6 I specifically argue that the applied force has to be perpendicular to the velocity vector. This isn't true in a ballistic trajectory unless the projectile is fired off with enough speed to go into a bound orbit. But the math from that article is useful, so let's go through the math and see what happens. In cartesian coordinates, the kinetic energy (T) is written:

(1) $T={\frac {1}{2}}m|v|^{2}={\frac {1}{2}}m(v_{x}^{2}+v_{y}^{2}+v_{z}^{2})$

Now let's take the time derivative of this to see what are the condition for the kinetic energy to change

(2) ${\frac {dT}{dt}}=m({\frac {v_{x}}{dt}}v_{x}+{\frac {v_{y}}{dt}}v_{y}+{\frac {v_{z}}{dt}}v_{z})$

By Newton's 2nd law F=ma along the axis.

(3) ${\frac {dT}{dt}}=F_{x}\cdot v_{x}+F_{y}\cdot v_{y}+F_{z}\cdot v_{z}$

If the velocity is always perpendicular to the velocity, this sum will always be zero, and the kinetic energy will be constant despite an applied force and induced acceleration. The math doesn't lie.

2. It seems more and more like a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, or maybe I'm misunderstanding what the original dispute was. It seems to me that Kaplan, in the text from page 85 I quoted above, explicitly makes a statement that contradicts your original argument. Kaplan states that according to classical mechanics and electromagnetics, an electron in a circular orbit, while mechanically stable, would still radiate and spiral in. Mechanically stable means that if the electron didn't have a charge, it would be a stable orbit (but then there would be no electrostatic force keeping it in orbit). So, even Kaplan says that the Rutherford-Bohr orbit model is not classically stable and will radiate. Am I misreading Kaplan (if so, how?), or are you saying that Kaplan is wrong? --FyzixFighter (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The formula you're using says the initial lateral velocity is conserved and the side velocity added by the side force is added at the applied angle to create a new + or - new velocity and associated kinetic energy of motion, and I agree. And that violates #6WFPM (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC) At least the perpendicular part of the side velocity violates #6 and I'm being more general, and I could see how you might have a force that maintains the translational velocity of the particle but it wouldn't be a perpendicular force. And most level balistical trajectories follow a parabolic path into the ground and thus deliver the initial kinetic energy of the level velocity plus that acquired in the falling process.WFPM (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Your intuition is wrong, you don't understand calculus, and you are dodging the math. The equation I give above (I've labeled it eq-3) clearly shows that if the applied force is perpendicular to the instantaneous velocity, the kinetic energy is constant, which supports my statement #6. So here are two questions. 1) Where do you disagree with this math? 2) What is the net force acting on a particle in a circular orbit and, if it's not zero, what direction does it point? --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Still would love a response from you to these two questions. --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Planck mass and the photon

I'm not sure how you did your calculations. In order to get from the Planck constant to energy you need a time scale or a delta-t of some sort. This is usually obtained by combining it with other physical constants as seen in Planck mass. Additionally, the mass of a photon has been experimentally shown to be less than 1e-18 eV, which comes out to be (by my calculations) about 1.7e-51 grams, which is a few orders of magnitude smaller than the number you give.--FyzixFighter (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm talking about a hypothetical mass particle whose kinetic energy (mvsquared)/2 would be equal to planck's constant. I got that to be about 10e-47 grams. =((6.6xe-27)/10e+21)/2.WFPM (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I still don't follow your calculations exactly. So the mass of your particle will then be m=2*E/v^2, right? How did you choose E and v? Was it just the Planck constant and the speed of light, respectively? Since the Planck constant is not an amount of energy (it doesn't have units of energy), how did you get the energy equivalent of it? What are the units and sources for the numbers (6.6e-27 and 10e+21) you use? I ask because I think if you keep track of the units attached with the numbers you want to use, it won't come out to be units of grams. --FyzixFighter (talk) 07:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Planck's theory is that radiant energy is quantized. His formula says the quantity is equal to a number of Planck's value unit of action (erg-seconds). But the theory is that the action amount is acquired during a very short time period. And action is energy times time, or lets say the integral of energy accumulated during a time period. So lets say that the Photon is not 1 seconds worth of energy particles, but rather an equivalent amount of energy accumulated in a short time in a few particles, with each particle having a planck's constant value of energy. So we have a planck's constant =6.6 times 10e-27 erg-sec = 6.6 times 10e-27 dyne cm squared/sec squared all accumulated at once, or 6.6 times 10e-27 dyne cm squared. And if it was kinetic energy acquired the v squared value is 10e+21 cm squared/second squared. So the m/2 value would be 6.6 times 10 e -27 -21 which equals 6.6 times e-48, So m = 1.32 times 10e-47 grams. I hope!!! This higher mathematics gets me down. And we would have the photon being the energy contained in the wavelength's frequency value of planck particles, except that that value would be contained within the length of 1 wavelength. And you can see why I would rather have the computer do the dirty work and just give me the answer.WFPM (talk) 09:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Planck's theory was that radiant energy is quantized, but quantized based on the frequency. In other words, give me any energy and I can create a photon with that energy as long as I pick the appropriate frequency. I don't see in the theory where it says that the action amount is acquired during a very short time period. Where do you see this in the theory? As for units, you're playing a little loose with units, ie an erg-sec is not equal to a dyne-cm squared/sec squared but a dyne-cm-sec (an erg on it's own is a dyne-cm, right?). You can't just change units at will without some kind of conversion factor. If we want the energy of the action to be accumulated in a very short amount of time, we'd actually have to divide the action by that amount of time (action=energy * time duration, ergo energy=action/time). So shorter amounts of time leads to larger energy values, and an all at once instance leads to an infinite amount of energy. Does that make sense? Also, if v is meant to be the speed of light, then v^2 is about 10e20 (or 1e21) cm squared/second squared (I think this is a confusion over what the ##e## notation means. The "e" here means "times 10^". The Planck constant is 6.6e-27 erg-sec, also written as 6.6 times 10^-27 erg-sec). --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

An erg on it's is 1dyne cmSquared per secondsquared. That's (F times S squared)/ T squared.WFPM (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No, see erg, specifically the line where it says 1 erg = 1 dyn cm. A dyne is a unit of Force, an erg a unit of work or energy. If we want to follow a little dimensional analysis for what an erg (work or energy) consists of we can use some standard physical relationships: kinetic energy=mv^2/2 => M(mass, not force)*(S squared)/(T squared), gravitational potential energy=mgh => M*(S/T squared)*S, or work done by a force=F*d => F*S. It appears in your dimensional analysis that you've confused force and mass - perhaps this is a confusion on the difference between weight (a force) and mass? You do understand that weight and mass are not the same thing, correct? --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I just changed the above, so look at it again.70.244.238.120 (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC) I occasionally drop out of being logged in while contributing and then Wiki gives me this contributer number. Why is that?WFPM (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It still doesn't scan. If a photon is made up smaller planck particles, then frequency can only occur in discrete, integer values, which it doesn't. Maybe there's something in QFT or QED that quantizes frequency in any way, but AFAIK there is no reason for the allowable frequency values to be a continuous, non-discretized spectrum. That a photon is made up of smaller particles is not consistent IMO with Planck's original statistical argument for quantization. Nor am I aware of any evidence that a photon is made up smaller pieces. --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: electron

I'm sorry but I don't really follow or see what you're trying to argue with your comments about the electron, the Heisenberg Uncertainty, and the creation of an atom. What indeterminacy that apparently I've talked about are are you referring to here? How does your argument hold for electrons created with no corresponding created atom (like a muon or when a photon creates electron-positron pairs)?--FyzixFighter (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm talking about the idea that the uncertaincy of measurements of the location and/or momentum of an electron might mean that it doesn't exist. And if it exists, then whatever that creates it must also exist. See Lucretius. So when we create these force carrying hyopthetical particles, that pop into and out of space time we tend to dematerialize the whole process. And I particularly don't see how you send out a force of attraction from the attraction center. That sound like a bank shot problem to me.WFPM (talk) 06:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: 3D michelson-morley experiment

I also don't completely understand your desire to do a 3D michelson-morley experiment. What kind of information are you hoping to get that combining the results from two standard 2D M-M experiments, one vertical and one horizontal, would give you? Doing 3D would be a bit difficult - you couldn't use a half-silvered mirror for a beamsplitter. I imagine you could use a volume grating of some kind that would diffract an incident beam into the three directions. When you say that the diagonal of the cube is congruent to the "direction of time", I think you're confusing the vertical time axis of a spacetime diagram with an actual spatial axis. What do you mean when you say that the direction of time is congruent to the diagonal of the cube? Could you also be more clear about what you mean by "Lorentz space-time calculations"? I think I have an idea of where you're going, but I'm not certain.--FyzixFighter (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Michelson-Morley experiment experiment showed some results, just not enough to be significant. And the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction calculation is calculated related to the time of orthogonal motion on the measurement plane. But with a 3 orthogonal direction test within a cubic volume of space, and using the cube diagonal as the time ordinate, the calculation would be made about motion within the plane containing the point of origen and the location of the 3 light instant locations and would involve their motion at a 120 degree angle of separation from each other. This would change the math of the Lorentz=Fitzgerald calculation, and I haven't been able to figure out how much, and it's an interesting physics/mathematical problem. And I live in a 3 dimensional universe and am not positive that my point of view and/or time line of existence is perpendicular to any particular 2 dimensions of space. So how's that for complicated?WFPM (talk) 07:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so I follow about half of your argument. I don't think anyone has done a Michelson-Morley experiment that showed a significant result larger than their apparatus' experimental error. Most modern attempts at the experiment having further driven down the limits from what the initial experiment's limits were and still no significant result. I don't see how the cube diagonal is the time ordinate. In the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction calculations, the only thing that ties the time ordinate to a specific direction is the vector v, which in Lorentz's initial formulation was the system's velocity relative to the ether. If you want v to be along the cube's diagonal, I think what you're looking for would be found at Lorentz transformation#Matrix form where it gives the matrix form for the Lorentz equations with a boost in an arbitrary direction. For a boost along the cube diagonal, Beta_x=Beta_y=Beta_z=Beta/sqrt(3). I think that this would be compatible with Lorentz's derivation of his transformation. But I still think you could very easily look at the results from two three 2D M-M experiments (one for each combination of two axes) to determine the direction of the vector v if it isn't aligned along one of the axes chosen. --FyzixFighter (talk) 07:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

But if you use the diagonal as the time line and a plane carrying the origin and equaldistance points as the Lorentz-contraction calculating area, (and they are orthognal to each other), you note that the light position lines move out at 120 degree angles to each other. And the contraction calculation becomes the comparison of a lateral line alongside the river? to a 60 degree oblique line into the river and back. And I've been unable to make this calculation and would like to have some help.WFPM (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see why the diagonal has to be the time line. In the Lorentz-contraction equations the "time line" is tied to a spatial direction based on the direction of the velocity of the system relative to the ether. If we want the "time line" to be along the diagonal, then we are stating that the system is moving in that direction relative to the ether (or that the ether wind is along the diagonal). So by my math the Lorentz-contraction equations would be:

${\begin{cases}t'&=\gamma \left(t-{\frac {v}{c^{2}{\sqrt {3}}}}(x+y+z)\right)\\x'&=x-\gamma \,vt{\frac {1}{\sqrt {3}}}+{\frac {\gamma -1}{3}}\left(x+y+z\right)\\y'&=y-\gamma \,vt{\frac {1}{\sqrt {3}}}+{\frac {\gamma -1}{3}}\left(x+y+z\right)\\z'&=z-\gamma \,vt{\frac {1}{\sqrt {3}}}+{\frac {\gamma -1}{3}}\left(x+y+z\right)\end{cases}}$

I did this first in the matrix notation and I hope I transferred it right to separate equations. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Boolean logic

I'm not certain where Boolean logic enters in exactly, but I'm guessing it's with respect to quantum stuff. I'm also not certain what you mean when you talk about having "a computer program dedicated to real physical entity calculations". Is this in reference to my mention of quantum computing? Boolean logic tends to break down with quantum mechanics. Some examples of this are the double-slit experiment with electrons, the sequential Stern-Gerlach experiment, or sequential non-orthogonal polarization measurements of a photon. Quantum computing relies on the ability to put a bit into both a 1 and a 0 at the same time, but it's only good for solving a few limited problems and not running standard computations. A good book that I enjoyed for discussing quantum computing and its limited applications is "Ultimate zero and one: computing at the quantum frontier" by Williams and Clearwater.--FyzixFighter (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Boolean logic involves the theory of sets. And as far as I can see, all information, all communicated scientific information can fit into either or both of the two categories fact, or opinion. So when I get information, I immediately try to fit it into those 2 category sets. But I'm human and live with uncertaincies, and believe in luck, and have hunches etc, which are not consistent with Boolean logic. And I've dealt with the mathematics of probability and know that if we went through that formalized process every time we had to make a decision we'd never get anything done. So as senator Eagleton said about action in the Senate "We muddle along". But using strict Boolean logic in today's concepts about scientific phenomena wouldn't get us very far. It would bog down at the travelling twins paradox. But if we took a computer and told it "Stick to rigid physical logic and go as far as you can and then call me, rather than jumping into hypothetical nonmaterial alternatives, we might be able to move the level of real physical entity calculations down into the level of detail that it would need to really explain some of these natural events.WFPM (talk) 07:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

So what you're arguing is that if we knew more details, knew the physical attributes of the particles involved with more certainty, we wouldn't need quantum mechanics? That the uncertainty isn't inherent in the system, but is just the case of hidden variables because we have measured the state precisely enough? If that is an accurate summary of your argument, then I would respond that an experiment has been devised that can distinguish between these two views of quantum mechanics (it's talked about both in the book "Ultimate Zero and One" I mention below, and in the video I linked to above) and the results don't support the hypothesis that the uncertainty is due to not knowing enough detail. Instead, the results support quantum mechanics' claim that the uncertainty is inherent and outcomes truly unpredictable. --FyzixFighter (talk) 08:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Uncertaincy of measurement I'll buy. Uncertaincy of existence I wont. I'll go with Lucretius, except that there's a lot more variables than he could imagine. And likewise with Newton and the moon.WFPM (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

My idea concerning this is like considering what can happen if we throw 50 pennies up in the air and ask you how they are going to come down. You get all excited and start making calculations on the distribution of probabilities related to each of the discrete possible occurrences and wind up with a probability summary totaling 100%. Do you think nature goes through that process? of course not! The individual and maybe the collective mass of pennies go through the physical process of doing what they should do under the circumstances and the end result is whatever is the result of the details of that process. And the only reason that a fast computer couldn't do this is that it doesn't have a sufficient description of the details of the process. I remember the programming problem related to the generation of a random number by the computer, but that we wanted to repetitively generate the same series of random numbers for debugging purposes, so we had to seed a number overflow program so we could always begin at the same point for analysis.WFPM (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but once again no, you're wrong. Did you even watch the video or look at the experiments I talked about above? If you did you would know that there are simple experiments where quantum mechanics and the hidden variable (not enough detail of the process) produce different probability distributions. These experiments have been carried out many, many times and the statistical distribution matches quantum mechanics, confirming that the observed uncertainty is inherent in the state of the particle and not due to not knowing enough about the state to predict how it evolves. I'm more than willing to entertain multiple models, but once an experiment is performed that contradicts a model, it's time to throw out that model. The experimental evidence contradicts your arguments, therefore you're wrong. --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I contributed about the Stern-Gerlich Experimemt in the next section and in the talk section thereon. It sounds like a process of organizing two different orientation of spin into two different groups and sending them to different target locations. I haven't read the book. But I have read the story "Skewered" by Isaac Asimov and noted his developed of the multiplicity of time interval events that can occur within a scene the size of control volume of a neutron during the lifetime of the universe, and I've lost interest in other additional possibilities for the occurrence of an event. So events occur as the result of a sequence of causative factors. And as a means of keeping track of this process about an event of interest, we have to monitor the discernible entities of nature, and which as far as I can see involves matter moving around in space. So I don't believe in even the temporary discontinuity of existence of either the space or the matter, although it might be that the matter might get smaller than I can discern, like when it's very small and moving very fast like in electromagnetic energy generation and transmission. And I can't see instantaneous translation in space, because the time value interval related to motion is already from some upper physical limit to practically zero, and I don't know anything in nature that can be subdivided into a number of zero magnitude subentities. And it can be that our 3 dimensional concept physical laws of motion might be wrong due to some quirk of nature, such as a lack of orthogonality of spacial dimensions in our spacial location, and maybe the space plenum volume is expanding with time as is the hypothesis. But the fundamental process is that of mass entities moving within a volume of some kind of space, and as IBM used to say "It's all battery and ground and the rest is details".WFPM (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I've responded to your SG experiment comment below (again, you don't understand the physics of the experiment) and awhile back to your planck particle idea (would require frequency to be quantized, which experimentally it isn't). This has nothing to do with a discontinuity in space or time of a particle, as I've mentioned ad nauseum. If you watched the video where the type of experiment is explained you would understand this. The results of the experiment are random, but since two entangled, quantum mechanical particles are involved, the measurements on the two particles are related. As I've said time and time again, and you continue to not understand apparently, is that the experiment would produce different statistical distribution of the results if quantum mechanics is right (the uncertainty in state is inherent to the particle) or the hidden variable interpretation is right (the uncertainty is only because we don't know enough details about the particle). Experimental evidence does not match up with the hidden variable interpretation, but does match up with quantum mechanics. Therefore we throw out the model that doesn't match experiment, and keep the one that does. In this experiment, as with all other experiments that distinguish between quantum mechanics and your arguments both about this and about the physical model of the nucleus, Quantum mechanics wins out. --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Spin and nuclear model

I'm not sure what you mean by the discussion of the identity association. Who are "they" in that sentence and what is the "identity association" they are discussing? Inherent when anyone talks about spin-up or spin-down is the type of measurement made which includes the observer's point of view (spin-up and spin-down being the eigenstates of the measurement). See again the Stern-Gerlach experiment. As to your physical nuclear model, the main problem is it doesn't match up with experimental scattering data, as pointed out by User:Sbharris here, ie that the "electron scattering experiments show the charge in He-4 nuclei is a smooth exponential function, maximal in the center and tailing off outward". Quantum mechanical model of the nucleus predict this behavior, your model (as I understand it) does not.--FyzixFighter (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I just can't buy that the protons in an atom can all clump in the same location. We discussed that in Spherical packing. Also if you allow that concept how are you going to explain that Q=Z times e, and is thus divisible into parts. Consider the gravitational attraction problem between that of a 1 gram of gas entity and a 1 gram point particle, that are each enclosed in a 1 cm dia volume of space and in contact with each other. If you sent a particle through between the 2 spheres at the point of contact, the moving particle wouldn't have a net force in either direction. It's only when you analyze the bias of the net force of the concentrated particle with relation to the variance in passage locations than you begin to understand the capability of matter concentration to bias motion in it's direction of existence. So your trying to tell me that a sphere of marble material is the same size as an equal mass volume of accumulated marbles, and I refer you to the spherical packing article.WFPM (talk) 08:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, all I can say is that experimental evidence does not match your physical nuclear model. Inverse scattering problems do exactly as you suggest, taking into account the bias of the net force on the variance in passage locations. When electrons are scattered off of He-4 nuclei and we extrapolate back to what the charge distribution has to be to give us that kind of scattering distribution, we find that the positive charge is not localized to two separate spheres, but is spherically symmetric around the center of the atom with an exponential drop off with radius. Thus classical images of separate particles fail to model known charge distributions in very small nuclei. You might not be able to buy this, but it is what experiments tell us. --FyzixFighter (talk) 08:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't see that I have a conceptual problem. Maybe a communications problem. And you have the conceptual compatibility problem. And my thoughts about the properties of the magnetized models are leading me in what I think is the right direction towards understanding physical reality. And we'll see. And thanks for communicating.WFPM (talk) 09:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The power of any model is its predictive capability. That's why physicists have a love/hate relationship with string "theory" - there are currently no new, realistically testable predictions. AFAIK it makes some predictions, but the experimental conditions required are very much outside of our current capabilities. The best way to prove your model over that of quantum mechanics is for it to explain experimental data that either current quantum mechanics can't or in a manner more elegant (channeling Dirac) than quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is nice IMO because it is not specific to a certain scenario but it is this kind of general set of rules that when applied to various scenarios correctly predicts a variety of behavior. Since you said you had a penchant for Asimov (I too read a lot of Asimov as a teenager), I would also recommend another set of books on these topics which have a very Asimov-esque feel to them. They are George Gamow's Mr. Tompkins series of books (the first two which deal with physics can be found together in "Mr Tompkins in Paperback"). --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I have Gamow's "The Atom and it's nucleus" and some others and I admire his sense of humor and think he argued in favor of the pairing of the proton and neutron, although I can't find it as a reference.WFPM (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

(I hope this does not come across as wiki-stalking/wik-hounding - if so, I apologize) I notice also that you seem to claim here that the rationale for the next block in the ADOMAH PT table being 18 blocks is not apparent with quantum mechanics. On the contrary, quantum mechanics does predict that the next block should be 18 blocks wide. Each expansion part of the ADOMAH table corresponds to the filling of the next orbital subshell type (hence the labels at the top) and is as wide as the number of electrons that will fit in that subshell. The solutions to the Schrondinger equation for a central potential are characterized by three parameters: n, l, m_l (there is a fourth parameter for spin up/spin down, but that will just add in a factor of 2 at the end). The first parameter, n, can have any positive integer value and is the number for the "electron shell". The second parameter, l, can have integer values from 0 to n-1. Each l value corresponds to a different subshell: l=0 is s, l=1 is p, l=2 is d, l=3 is f, and so on. The third parameter, m_l, can have integer values from -l to +l. Therefore for a given subshell, the number of unique solutions within the subshell is 2*l+1. Multiplying by a final factor of 2 for the up/down spins, we get that the total number of electrons that can fit in a subshell is 2*(2*l+1). For s(l=0), this is 2; for p(l=1), it's 6; for d(l=2), it's 10; for f(l=3), it's 14; and for the next orbital g(l=4), it would be 18. So, as I see it, quantum mechanics predicts logically an 18 unit expansion concept. --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Boy!!! I'd just rather build an octahedral model of the filled 8 square (32 element) model series with the Z = 120 element, and then note that for additional elements I have to start a new 10 square series that will involve 50 more deuteron additions, starting with 18 around the periphery. And since 2 layers of additions are required to form a base for the next layer I also know how to extend the table if I want to.WFPM (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Your octahedral model might be a nice mathematical crutch, but it cannot be what corresponds to physical reality. The way one model wins out over another is based on its predictive power. What predictions does your model make that quantum mechanics doesn't (or predicts something differently)? Because experimental evidence (electron scattering experiments) shows that the charge distribution in the nucleus is not localized to packed spheres, but "smeared" like quantum mechanics predicts (the nucleons being non-localized), therefore I will gladly take the quantum model over your model. Unless you can explain how your model is consistent with these experimental results, your model will never be more than a mathematical crutch for people who are either incapable of understanding or unwilling to put in the effort to understand quantum mechanics. --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

When I asked V Smith, bless him, to help me get my image into my atomic model discussion, I argued that a cognitive picture is worth a thousand words in generating interest and understanding, and thus even disagreement about subject matter. And that goes for your ADOMAH PT image, because I don't see how you can sell an 18 unit addition to the structure. And I'm not too in love with the shell theory such that it's parameters control my thinking about the structure of the atom. And I cant understand orbitals without angular momentum, unless you'll consider maybe tethered orbits, which you probably wont. So we lack a way to make sensible comparisons of different concepts, so lets consider them both and let the best one win out. And note that spin involves the existence of 2 positive energy entities in such a way that the direction of motion vectors are opposite to each other. And does that mean that the contained energy of motion will cancel out? Of course not!! It just means that if they intersect without being properly aligned the angular motion properties of the pair will cease to exist as it probably didn't in the first place. It's just compatibility of motion that counts.WFPM (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC) And if you had a particle (like a nucleon?) that was spinning and had an appendage on each end, and you assumed that the free end of the appendage was the "top" of it, then you would have to say that one of them had a positive spin and the other one had a negative spin. And you might think about that.WFPM (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

IMO, the structure is only apparent if you start to accept that in quantum mechanics, particles are non-localized until you try to measure their positions. Until then, they act more like fields. The funny thing about angular momentum in quantum mechanics is that no two individual components of quantum angular momentum can be simultaneously specified for a given system, whereas the total angular momentum can be simultaneously specified along with any one of the operator's components. This applies to the angular momentum of orbitals as well as spin. The up/down when we talk about spin isn't in reference to the total angular momentum, but only the z-direction (ie the axis along which we're measuring) components. The angular momentum components along the other two axes become indeterminate when the measurement is made, hence the results of sequential stern-gerlachs.

I don't understand what you mean by 2 positive energy entities. Can clarify what you mean by this? Are you talking about the angular momentum of the orbital and angular momentum of the spin? As to the idea of appendages, it doesn't work so much because while the total angular momentum is quantized, the angular momentum around any axis you measure will also be quantized (but is always less than the total angular momentum). I'm not sure if that addresses some of your statements - I really don't understand what you mean by a two appendage structure. Are you saying the electron has a dumbbell-like structure, and the two ends are free to rotate independent of one another? --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I was about to add to the discussion that I dreamed up last night. It's that if I had a spinning radiation emitting particle that emitted a theoretical up spin emitted sub particle from one end and a theoretical down spin emitted sub particle from the other, and I wanted to reconnect those particles, then I could design a simple axial connection device and install them on the particles such that either of the sub particles could be axially connected to either end of the emitting particle. And in doing I would have made the sub particle to become identical to each other such that you could not have distinguished them from each other. Which means that up and down spinning motion along a given axial direction is identical motion except for the end of connection relationship. And I'm saying that the emitting particle would have to emit the particles away from either of it's two axial point locations such that the emitted particle leaves with the same direction of rotation of its components as did the emitting particle.WFPM (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Let's call that end emission, as opposed to peripheral emission, which even so might work the same way.WFPM (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Such a structure does not match with experimental observations of electrons. For one thing the total angular momentum of the structure is zero. It would also not have the dipole structure that we observe for electrons, but instead has a higher multipole moment. In experiments like the Stern-Gerlach, electrons look somewhat like bar magnets. If we take a random assortment of free electrons and pass them through a Stern-Gerlach apparatus, they'd split into two groups based on whether north or the south of the "bar magnet" is on top relative to the axis of the Stern-Gerlach. The structure you're proposing would look like two bar magnets attached along the joining axis so that they have the same pole (north or south) in the middle. This kind of structure would behave completely differently in a Stern-Gerlach apparatus. --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The Stern-Gerlach process sounds like an alignment process to me. You're running a stream of particles through a machine that wants them to be aligned either up or down, say due to a spinning appendage on one end. And after they're aligned you add a deflection process that deflects the ups in one direction and the downs in the other. And in the beginning, they could be identical except for their spin orientation.WFPM (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry again, but no. Because the field is inhomogeneous, there is a net force on the dipole particles along the axis of the S-G apparatus. Going through the physics, this is what you find - If the particles were classical spinning objects (or even objects like what you suggest above), the distribution of their spin angular momentum vectors would be random and continuous. Each particle would then be deflected by a different amount, producing a smooth distribution on the detector screen. Instead, the particles passing through the Stern-Gerlach apparatus are deflected either up or down by a specific amount. This result indicates that spin angular momentum is quantized (i.e., it can only take on discrete values), so that there is not a continuous distribution of possible angular momenta. For spin-1/2 particles, this means there are two groups, and for spin-3/2 there are four, and so on. Again, experimental evidence in favor of quantum mechanics. --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you're neglecting the primary operation occurring in the apparatus. It evidently wants the spin of the particles passing through to be in one of two opposite directions. And that's an alignment process. Then the magnetic interaction force vector operating on the aligned particles is such as to cause them to avoid a centralized area of avoidance, probably due to a helical path of travel, and such as to result in their impact on the target in accordance with the observed pattern. So they start out randomly oriented, and then they get coerced into two different paths on the way to the target. And this coercion process must be the operating principal of the inhomogeneous magnetic field, and if you didn't have that, you probably wouldn't have the travel path resulting in the area of avoidance.WFPM (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not neglecting anything. I'm simply analyzing the apparatus using simple classical electromagnetism. If the magnetic field were homogeneous, the force on either end of the dipole would be equal and you would simply get a torque on the dipole that would align it to the magnetic field. This would be like placing a small bar magnet between the two poles of large horseshoe magnetic - it wouldn't move toward either pole, but would spin to align itself. However, if the field is inhomogeneous as it is in the SG apparatus, the force on either end of the dipole is not necessarily equal so along with a net torque, you also get a net force in either direction that will be related to the initial orientation of the the dipole. The dipoles which enter with a dipole moment perpendicular to the SG axis would be deflected the most, and those with a dipole moment parallel to the axis would not be deflected at all. This is all based on classical electromagnetism. You're description doesn't rely on a known physics, let alone classical (non-quantum, non-relativity) physics, but instead relies on inventing new, never-before-seen forces between dipoles and magnetic fields to create the "centralized area of avoidance". In addition, your description would not explained the multiple "areas of avoidance" seen when particles with spin greater than 1/2 are run through the apparatus. --FyzixFighter (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm obviously a novice at Stern-Gerlach experiments and would like to see the target of a 3/2's spin particle with multiple areas of avoidance. But in the absence of a controlling magnetic field I don't understand how translating magnetized dipoles can be expected to still be organized into two different categories of spin direction. But maybe the translated particles' interrelationship is such as to organize the spin polarities or something. Like when I throw 50 pennies into the air in a heads/tails ratio experiment, I don't assume that they have any particular heads/tails distribution while they're in the air, nut that the probability is pretty good that they will have one at the end of the experiment.WFPM (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The only way that the translated dipoles can occur in two different categories is if the component of their dipole moment along the axis of the SG apparatus is quantized. Well, this is exactly what quantum mechanics says should happen, namely that the component of the dipole moment/angular momentum along a measured axis can only have values of -S...+S (times a proportionality factor - I think it's h-bar for angular momentum) in integer steps. The total angular momentum of the particle is sqrt(S(S+1)). A physical analogy to this is that the particle looks like a spinning top that isn't standing perfectly upright so that it precesses about the center axis. The real fun quantum stuff happens when you start putting a series of SG apparati together. --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You keep baiting and I keep responding in my limited way. A nodulating spinning top is an illustration of a failed initial process due to an unsustainable initial position and describes the process of recovery to a stable position. And the cause of the initial inadequate position can be explained. And you're telling me that we don't have to have an explanation for the initial failed position because like Feynman says it just has to happen, and probably does every way it can. But I'm thinking that physics is about determining about how things are as opposed to how things potentially could be. See Cotes' preface in the second edition of the Principia. I guess that's the way Engineers think about things. We don't spend much time on unutilizable concepts. But we do try to understand the processes that we utilize. I've worked with PhDs who would analyze a subject to death, while I was just trying to meet a specific application requirement. But I'm in favor of maximum knowledge about a subject matter if we have the time.WFPM (talk) 04:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The only problem with saying that it's an initial failed position is that it doesn't matter what axis you use, you always get two groups. You can even take the same set of particles, run them through an SG apparatus, bring the two groups back together, run them through another SG apparatus at another angle, and so and so forth, and every time you will still get two groups. The problem with such a classical, deterministic view of physics is that there are experiments like this where it just can't explain the results. --FyzixFighter (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so you run them through the first SG apparatus and they come out organized into two orientation directions, and with an unknown property of orientation stability, and then you run you run them into a second apparatus and repeat the process. Well, if the first SG unit could temporarily organize the orientation property, I don't see why the second and additional units couldn't do the same thing, unless the orientation property is related to the magnetic field of the transient stream of magnetized particles, which wouldn't argue in favor the particle stream being made up of opposed orientation particles. But that organization of opposed orientation magnetic properties in a stream of bar magnets becomes almost a requirement for your proposition of the continued existence of up/down magnetic properties in your test stream of the magnets. So we're involved with the orientation properties of bar magnets at such a minute level of existence that it's hard to know when and/or where to figure out their activity within the system.WFPM (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

But if I point out that one of the features of the structure of my models in Talk:Nuclear model is that they are constructed in a manner consistent with way that magnets go together, that information is disregarded as not being relevant to the subject matter. So how's that for a catch 22?

But the fact that I still always get two groups regardless of what axis I use for the SG experiment is incompatible with an initial failed position argument you put forward and the known mechanism for how an inhomogeneous magnetic field interacts with particles with dipole moments. There are other variations of the SG experiment involving blocking one of the exit groups and using orthogonal axes (see Stern-Gerlach experiment#Sequential experiments). It's not so much that the particles are composed of two groups of opposed orientations, but that the results of the measurement are quantized, and that measurements along different axes don't commute. It doesn't matter that we are dealing with bar magnets (or rather magnetic dipoles) at such a minute level, classical electromagnetism still doesn't work. And that's the point, classical physics fails but quantum mechanics can explain it. Quantum mechanics is a simple set of rules that explains and predicts a variety of behavior that classical mechanics (even if we assume a lack of known details in our calculations) can't. That's the measure of any model.

I couldn't care less whether your nuclear model uses the idea of how magnets go together because your model doesn't measure up to what we know about reality. You may be able to get the numbers right, but so does quantum mechanics. However, your model can't be what is physically going on in an atomic nucleus because a host of experimental results disagree with it. The results do agree with the quantum mechanical model of the nucleus. Your models could be a nice mnemonic, but if I needed a physical description of the atom for making something like semiconductors or something that dealt with physics at the atomic level, I'd take quantum mechanics because it matches with measurements of the physical world and it accurately predicts behavior that your model does not. --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ole!! And I'm glad that you appreciate my models as a mnemonic because then it's good for something. And who cares about what I know about models? Or about what you know. It's just a comment about a subject of Amiable? discussion, And if you disagree that seriously you must have at least looked at it. And maybe you can tell me what a semiconducter hole really is. You'll probably say it's an atom lacking and therefor having am open position for an "orbital" electron and that involves the shuffeling of this "hole" in the upstream (negative) direction towards a barrier next to the negative voltage potential source. But maybe you've got a quantum electrodynamics theory explanation, but I doubt that it's simpler. And I'm with Newton in thinking that simpler is better as long as you can rationally explain the situation. So we'll each look for solutions to problems using our own MO. But I like my models because they tell me where to put Z=119 and 120 in the (Janet) periodic table. And I wish they would do a set of real physical models using the standard tables and then try to explain their rationale.WFPM (talk) 01:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

One other question. If I want to have a quantum electrodynamic concept of the atom, how do I start out with a visual concept? Is it like Dr Pauling's "Hypothetical" models that he shows in his General Chemistry (page 94)? Or on Gamow's paperback "the Atom and it's nucleus" With the orbit electron mesh network. And when does this concept change from a sophisticated organization of electron orbitals, (which don't conserve angular momentum, and are therefor probably pseudo), in 18 of the 26 trisected cubic space volumes around the atom, (and with none in the 8 corners, so they must have been thinking about a spherical space volume) to something I can visualize? And how do I visualize the spin of say 4Be9 to be -3/2 and then 5 B10 to be +3. Does QE tell me that?WFPM (talk) 02:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I speak Portuguese, not Spanish, so the "Ole" is a bit lost on me :). Semiconductor physics is usually done with a semiclassical approach to quantum mechanics. That is, quantum mechanics and the Schrodinger equation explain the band structure, but the electrons get to be treated as particles moving along the potential within the bands. That means holes can be treated the same way, as essentially positive imaginary particles like you described. Simpler is better, but not always accurate - I'm fine with it if it's just accurate enough for what I'm doing - that's why we can get away with Newtonian mechanics for most day-to-day real life physics without resorting to Relativity - unless you're doing stuff with GPS software (I'm suddenly reminded about a physics joke involving a spherical cow with an even distribution of milk). Only in some cases like in tunneling diodes or spintronics do the electrons have to be treated as quantum mechanical "fuzzy" objects. In these cases, an electron (or a hole) have to be treated as a non-localized entity that can interfere and act like waves spread out across multiple atoms. And to tell the truth, I find quantum mechanics to be completely rational - it's an entirely consistent set of underlying rules and assumptions that make sense to me.

With regards to elements 119 and 120, are you saying you disagree with putting them under the s^1 and s^2 columns? Or do agree with that placement, which is also where quantum mechanics predicts they should be. Since the Janet table is how the valence electrons are filled, the closest thing to a physical model would be the electron cloud images, like those at Atomic orbital#Orbitals table, which are related to the 3D spherical harmonics and arise from the solutions to the Schrodinger wave equation for a central Coulombic potential. I don't see how a trisected cubic space volume (maybe because I don't exactly know what you mean by this) enters into the spherical harmonic solutions. The spherical harmonic solutions form an infinite set so I don't see a problem when the number of electrons in an energy level gets above 18.

Pauling's hypothetical models can't be truly accurate, at least in the case of the helium nucleus. As I've said before scattering experiments show that for He4, the nucleus (and the wavefuction of each of the nucleons) is spherically symmetric and the nucleons are all most likely to be found in the same space, at the center of the nucleus. Additionally the size of the nucleus only approximately matches up with the size needed for a close-packing scheme of spheres (that and some stable molecules are not spherical). Atomic nucleus#Nuclear models has a decent summary of the modern models for the atomic nucleus and how they match up with experiment. I haven't had a chance to look at the Gamow reference yet so I can't comment on that.

And finally the case of 4Be9 and 5B10. Actually, the nuclear shell model does a good job of predicting exactly that the nuclear spin of 4Be9 should be 3/2- and that of 5B10 should be 3+. Note that the sign (+ or -) should come after the number - it refers to the parity of the spin-orbit state and not to a up/down opposing direction description. The spin number, j, is that of the combined angular momenta of the orbital, l, and the intrinsic spin, s, of the nucleon. These two angular momentum can either be parallel, in which case we add s and l to get j, or anti-parallel, in which case we subtract s from l to get j. The parallel case is slightly a lower energy state than the anti-parallel. Even number of protons and neutrons give a nuclear spin of 0+ because protons and neutrons at the same level form spin up/spin down pairs (these are proton-proton/neutron-neutron pairs) such that the their combined angular momenta cancel out. When one (but not both) of the numbers is odd, the pin is determined by the spin-orbit of the extra, unpaired nucleon - in the case of 4Be9, the extra neutron goes into the j=3/2 (l=1, s=1/2 and parallel) of level 1 (which has odd parity), so we get 3/2-. For the odd-odd numbers we can add the j's of the extra proton and neutron - in the case of 5B10, the additional proton also goes into a j=3/2 stat just like the extra neutron. So the total J will be 3/2+3/2=3, and the parity is the product of the two parities -1*-1=+1 (even parity). --FyzixFighter (talk) 07:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I've milked a lot of cows and the distribution is not even. And my wife speaks Spanish naturally and also English and French and can understand Portugese pretty well, so consider it as a complimentary commentary. And I agree with your proposed location of 119 and 120 in S1 and S2 and wonder if IUPAC and Norman Holden et al will do that in their proposed new table. Because that's where my models tell me where they should go. And the spin numbers are not actually talking about just the rotation direction of the nucleons, like I could understand visually, and combines that property with some other spin-orbit parity concept that I don't understand and cant visualize, and all this change due to the addition of one neutron to the atom! Note that I just added a commentary on the pseudo characteristic nature of the orbitals to the previous. And the side bonded magnets agree that adjoining magnets have an up/down and accordingly spin orientation relationship. And that means that they interconnect like gears and you can't use a magnet to side bond to both of 2 side bonded magnets. So the side bonding of 2 zero spin 2He4 atoms by either a neutron or a proton is out. And thus the 2He4 atoms must be made up of the bottom 4 and then the top 4 nucleons, and then bonded at the intermediate vertical level by the bonding neutron or proton, with the neutron bond being the more stable. So I'll work on understanding the j value.WFPM (talk) 11:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow what you mean when you say that the orbitals shells don't conserve angular momentum. Care to elucidate? --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Well all conical orbits involve a directional path and velocity of motion such that the angular momentum of the orbiting particle remains constant, as well as the lost free energy. That is the characteristic of conical orbits. And in the "orbital" path concept they gave up on the idea of constant angular momentum and settled on a hypothetical path that has a "constant contained kinetic energy" level value, without regard to the angular momentum property and allows figure 8 and 4 leaf clover paths of movement, and are thus not conical orbit paths.

You might note that the series level organizational system in my models is like the Janet table in that all 8 series levels of the Janet table end with the accumulation of an alpha particle, and which in my models is one that is always added to the top of the atom. It is this feature of the standard table that doesn't recognize the existence of a second accumulation of an alpha particle as a completed series accomplishment that causes the difference in format of the 2 tables. And I consider that to be a "fatal flaw" in the standard table. And so the elements 119 and 120 are the end of the 8th layers of accumulation of deuterons into the basic structure. And the "extra neutrons" are added in a dynamically balanced manner to the surface of the structure as the the extra neutron positions are created. But the extra neutron number lags behind the available location number, due to corner stability and other factors, such that the atomic stability trend lines for the atom have the formula A = 3Z - an even number, with the even number increasing as the atomic nucleus gets larger. In the 79Au to 83B area, the stability trend line formula is A = 3Z - 40 and in the 69Tm to 78Pt area it is A = 3Z - 38. So there is some method in my madness, as I have been trying to point out.WFPM (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually they didn't give up the concept of a constant angular momentum the shell model, but what they gave up was the classical idea of a definitive path because in quantum mechanics the particle is not a localized particle until you choose to measure where it is. The "clover leaf" images (for the electron orbitals I linked to) are not descriptions of path, but show where the electron is likely to be found. That's why we use the term "orbital" and not "orbit". Until you measure it, the electron is "smeared" out across a volume surrounding the atom - it's a standing wave within the potential. It's only at specific energies that you get the proper interference for there to be standing wave, which defines the allowed energies levels of an atom. This is the wave-particle duality for particles, which is a pretty well established physics fact. You can't explain the electron double-slit experiment without it. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Uniform acceleration and centrifugal force

I'm offended because I tried to contribute to the talk page and the talk page section wouldn't let me contribute and I made a valid point. There has to be a centrally directed "centrifugal force" applied to the water by the constraining bucket, Because at the point of contact of say a molecule of water against the constraining side of the bucket,the bucket material is moving along the tangent line and probably at the same velocity as the water particle. And yet the dv/dt of the particle is along a perpendicular line towards the center of the circle. So in accordance with Newton's laws, there has to be a force in the direction of acceleration, Unless you want to argue against Newton's laws of motion.WFPM (talk) 03:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC) And you might get involved with the interaction of some very small particles in the process. But that is just details.

I don't know why you couldn't edit on the talk page. You should be able to be first clicking the "discussion" tab at the top of a page and then "edit this page" while you're looking at the talk page. As to your arguments about the centrifugal force, you seem to be saying to different, contradictory things. By definition a centrifugal force is directed outward - a centripetal force is directed inward. In the text I removed, you implied that there are two forces acting on the water. If both these forces are acting on the water in opposite directions, then the net force would be zero, and therefore (according to Newton's laws) the acceleration would also be zero. But the acceleration in a circular orbit is inward, so the net force has to be inward. Newton's laws of motion are a good place to start, so let's look at the motion of a circular orbit and see what the total force acting on the object has to be. In a circular orbit the radius is constant so ${\dot {r}}={\frac {dr}{dt}}=0$. The rotation rate is also constant so ${\ddot {\theta }}={\frac {d^{2}\theta }{dt^{2}}}=0$. Newton's second law tells us that the net force is equal to the mass times the acceleration, or

$\Sigma {\vec {F}}=m{\ddot {\vec {r}}}$

Remember that this is a vector equation, so let's just look at the radial components of the equation. To get the radial acceleration we first should get the full vector acceleration using calculus like Newton by taking time derivatives of the position vector. The first time derivative gives:

${\dot {\vec {r}}}={\dot {r}}{\hat {r}}+r{\dot {\theta }}{\hat {\theta }}$

And a second derivative gives:

${\ddot {\vec {r}}}={\ddot {r}}{\hat {r}}+2{\dot {r}}{\dot {\theta }}{\hat {\theta }}+r{\ddot {\theta }}{\hat {\theta }}-r{\dot {\theta }}^{2}{\hat {r}}$

Applying the values we know to be zero for circular orbits we get

${\ddot {\vec {r}}}=-r{\dot {\theta }}^{2}{\hat {r}}$

Combining this with Newton's 2nd Law we find that the net force on an object in circular orbit is $mr{\dot {\theta }}^{2}$ inward. Whatever the forces acting on the object the sum of the forces has to give that value and be inward. If both a centrifugal and a centripetal force are acting on the water in the bucket and both those forces are the same size (but in opposite directions) then it is impossible to satisfy this condition. I could also cites tons of basic physics textbooks which address this. --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Stupid me. I pushed the Discussion button but not the edit button so the edit signs didn't show up at their expected (by me) locations so I thought I couldn't get in. Is it possible to get them into the talk section? Now as to the subject matter. My Robeson says that particles moving in a circular path are in a centrifugal force going outward, so the water moves to the bottom of the tilted bucket. But after a small particle gets in contact with the outward side of the bucket it is forced to accelerate in an inward direction by a centripetal force transferred to the particle by the material of the bucket, and I think that's what I said.WFPM (talk) 05:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC) But I'll leave it up to you how to deal with my misplaced talk contributions. But I still think my points were valid.WFPM (talk) 05:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC) And I didn't say the forces were equal, just that they were contrary. Because of course the centripetal force overpowers the centrifugal force and causes the particle to accelerate inward.

I don't think I have access to the Robeson text so I can't comment on what he is or isn't saying. I also apologize, I thought that you had said that the centrifugal force and the centripetal force were the same size. For me there are two points against the idea of a centrifugal force as you have described it. The first being that there is no source or originating body for the force. All other forces are due in some way to one of the four fundamental forces - strong, weak, gravity, and electromagnetism (EM would include contact and friction forces) which originate from some other object or source. So what object is exerting the centrifugal force on the water? I would agree that there is a centrifugal "reaction" force that the water exerts on the bucket, but I still don't see a source or cause for a centrifugal force on the body of water. The second point is that experimental measurement don't require its existence. For example, people have done experiments where a strain gauge is placed in the tether of an object being swung around in a circle and the tension in the tether matches up with the expected centripetal force, so no centrifugal force is needed in the net force summation of Newton's second law. Also we can look at other conical orbits with 1/r central potentials - the planets for example. Kepler's laws of planetary motion can be derived from Newton's laws and the only force that is assumed to be acting on the planets is a centripetal gravitational force but no centrifugal force. --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Well what do you think about the Acceleration and force in circular motion article about the ability of people to walk about on the sidewall of a rotary space station due to the centrifugal force pulling them toward the wall? It's a reference article in Talk:Centrifugal force. that I tried to use to argue in favor of the existence of a real functional centrifugal force under certain physical conditions. Can you get along without that concept? or maybe you can solve the problem by eliminating me from the discussion, by saying that a talk discussion is not about the subject matter, but about the composition of the subject of the matter. And if a strain gauge measures a retaining force in the tether, what about Newton's third law?WFPM (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If you look at that article you will see that the centrifugal force it refers to in the section on the rotating space station is not the same centrifugal force that you are advocating for. In that section of the article, it uses the phrase centrifugal force to refer to the very real Reactive centrifugal force, which forms a third law pair with the centripetal force. Note that the text says that the person exerts a centrifugal force on the ground and not that the centrifugal force is being exerted on the person. The ground exerts an inward (centripetal) contact force on the person, so the person exerts an outward (centrifugal) contact force on the floor. This is different from your description where the centripetal force and the centrifugal force are both acting on the person. Do you see how this is different from the type of centrifugal force you are describing? --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Now let's see. In the case of me with relation to the earth, there is a real force (of gravity) that pushes me towards the center of the earth's mass, and incidentally towards the floor. And that real force is called a centrifugal force on the ground (that's what you just said). And the ground counteracts that by pushing me back with a counteracting centripetal force,(due to Newton's third law). Of course the rotation factor of the earth should act to counteract those two forces but it's insignificant and can be ignored. And in the space station, the "reactive centrifugal force" that pulls me towards the wall of the space station is not a real force because it is not the force of gravity but rather some way the wall of the station has been able to move and restrict my normal transitional tangential path through space. And if I were standing on a weight scale on the wall of the space station and noticed the indication on the scale, I still couldn't say that there's a force pulling me towards the wall, because that's that's not the way it really is. But I bring up the concept that the interacting forces acting between masses are not contact forces but rather due to the interaction of forces in space, such that at the point of near approach of my body to the wall, the matter of the wall must be creating a spacial force of summary repulsion to the mass particles of my body, such that the distribution of that force on the rest of my body's mass particles allows me to move around normally. And if I narrow down the focus of attention to the area of near contact of my body to the wall I cant say that those particles are being acted on by 2 contrary forces because that isn't the way it really is. But I rest my case on the concept of what is happening to an individual particle at a point near the wall, where it is moving tangentially to the orbit of the space station plus at the same time being acted on by an angular momentum derived force against the wall and countered by a contrary repulsive interactive force between it and the particles of the wall. And I can't see that those forces are any more unreal than the force of gravitational attraction.WFPM (talk) 10:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you really are misunderstanding some basic newtonian mechanics. You are conflating forces exerted by objects with those exerted on objects. The force of gravity is exerted on you, not on the ground. In the case of you stand on the earth, the earth exerts a gravitational force inward on you. The 3rd law reaction of this is the gravitational force that exert on the earth. The ground also exerts a outward normal contact force on you, and the 3rd law reaction to this is the inward normal contact force you exert on the ground. (I only said in the case of the space station that the force exerted by you on the ground is a real "reactive" centrifugal force - for you on the earth the force exerted by you on the ground is a real centripetal force because it is directed inward). Four forces in total, only two of which are acting on you and that need to be considered to figure out your acceleration and motion. As I tried to make myself very clear, on the space station the "reactive centrifugal force" doesn't pull you - it is the force that you exert on the walls/ground of the space station. It feels like a force because you are in a rotating frame of reference, but a person floating stationary in space outside the station will see no force there - the person will merely see your body trying to move in a straight line due to inertia, and the station ground constantly getting in the way. The scale measures real forces - it measures the force that the ground exerts on you, and the force that you exert on the ground (this is the reactive force which is centrifugal in the case of the space station) which have the same value. Even on earth this is true, a standard bathroom scale measures the two contact forces and not the actual force of gravity, and that's why you get strange readings when you're accelerating up or down in an elevator. Remember that stationary observer outside the space station, if that person took the force measurement from the scale and plugged just that force into Newton's 2nd law he would get the correct acceleration for you indicating that the only force acting on you is the inward force from the ground. This is true even at the particle level you want to talk about. An individual particle at a point near the wall feels a force from the ground pushing it inward, and that same particle exerts an equal and opposite force on the ground pushing the ground outward. You are right there are two real forces, but they are acting on different objects. There is no force pushing the particle up against the wall - angular momentum doesn't create a force - due to inertia the particle wants to move in a straight line, but the station wall keeps pushing into it. When applying Newton's 2nd law only the repulsive interactive force is needed in the net force side of the equation to get the acceleration correct. Again, if you're going to try to use the article in question, you need to read it carefully and pay attention to what object it is saying forces are being exerted on and what object exerts that force. The reference article you mentioned is very clear that the centrifugal force it mentions in the space station scenario is exerted BY the person ON the ground, not ON the person as you are wanting to believe. There is a big difference there. --FyzixFighter (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I like your explanation and why don't you try it out on DVdm in the article on Centrifugal force and see what he says. Because I tried your argument on him and he threw me out. And I think there ought to be understandable explanations of phenomena in Wiki's articles that I can gather up and discuss and maybe make some sense of.WFPM (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

From my reading of your interactions on the talk page, no you did not try the same argument that I explained above. You were advocating that a real centrifugal force acts on objects moving in circular motion. Two points: 1) If you read my explanation carefully, I never argue this - I only argue that there is a real centrifugal force that objects moving circular motion can exert on whatever is providing the centripetal force, ie a reactive centrifugal force. There is no force pushing a person against the wall of the space station nor a force that pushes water against the wall of a spinning bucket nor a force that pushes the swings on the carnival ride out. 2) These are all inertial effects that look like forces only when the observer is in a co-rotating (or any other rotating) frame, but in the inertial frame it is just the particle moving in a straight line and the wall/bucket/rope exerting a force to push/pull it away from straight line motion. Forces are those things which go into $\sum F$ in Newton's 2nd law. The inertial effects are in the components of the acceleration vector and are not forces. The Centrifugal force article already covers both of these points.

Consider an elevator where you momentarily feel heavier as it begins to accelerate upwards. Does this mean that there is an extra force pushing you downwards? No, but what has happened is the force upward of the ground on you is now greater than the force downward of gravity so that the net force is upward. You think that there is a force because you are in an accelerated reference frame (Newton's laws don't apply when using the coordinate system tied to an accelerated reference frame) and you mistake the effects of inertia as an additional force. However, if we ask a person standing on the ground, they will say that you are not be pulled down into the floor of the elevator, but that the floor of the elevator is being pulled up into you. The same thing applies to all these rotation examples. The centrifugal force you want to exist is an illusion caused by adopting a coordinate system tied to a rotating frame and mistaking inertial effects as forces. That's why it's called a fictitious/pseudo/inertial force and not a real force. --FyzixFighter (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well let's narrow down the focus of attention to the forces on a particle of my body as it nears the material of the space station sidewall. Now at that both my body and the sidewall are moving in the same direction at the same time. And Newton's first law says they should continue along this line of travel. But they don't. And that is because the material of the wall starts accelerating my body in an orthogonal direction from the wall. This is the centripetal force. Now when the centripetal force acts on the influenced particles of my body, they have the property called inertia, which requires that a force proportional to their mass be applied to them and cause them to accelerate in the direction of the force. And in the case of the whirling swing, the absence of a restraining wall results in the continued tangential motion of my body until a similar situation of parallel motion is achieved by an interaction with the gravitational force. And then this situation results in a continued parallel travel of the 2 systems until the apparatus starts slowing down. And as it slows down the v squared/r magnitude of the inertia value reduces and the whirling system moves back in the direction of non whirling (rotational) stability. So you never need a concept of a real centrifugal force in the direction away from the center of motion, except as a "equal and opposite" inertial caused opposition to motion force as required by Newton's third law. And that makes sense and is understandable, if we could just get into the subject matter discussion in the article. But it is obviously NOR and POV and not notable and no reliable source and also those other reasons for it to not intrude in the generalized and more elaborate discussions re the diversified aspects and consensual opinions about this subject matter.WFPM (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I would agree with your description except on two points. 1) The inertial effects that I think you are talking about are never a real force - they only look like a force for an observer in the rotating frame - because in the stationary frame they appear as part of mass*acceleration in Newton's 2nd law. 2) The force pairs of Newton's 3rd law never act on the same object, so the "equal and opposite" force to the centripetal force acting on your body or on the whirling swings will not be one that is also acting on your body or the whirling swings. The "equal but opposite" 3rd law force therefore is real but is never the force that you've been talking about (which is the inertial effects seen from a rotating frame). Again, this description is already in the numerous (IMO too numerous) articles on centrifugal force. If you think that this needs elucidation in the article then you have a couple of different routes - 1) proposing text to be included on the talk page including what references your relying on and see where the discussion goes, 2) be bold and make the edit and switch to option 1 if you get reverted (see WP:BRD), 3) present a quote from the reference on some aspect that you don't think is covered in the article and see where discussion goes, or 4) succinctly indicate specific parts of the article that you think aren't clear and see where discussion goes. Discussion of content you want to add is always easier if coupled with a reference. However, do not expect others to go through the details of basic physics for you. One of the reasons on this topic in particular why other editors may be a bit short with you is because of the protracted debate with a single editor who had a knack for incivility, for ignoring references, and for making similar arguments that you appear to be making. --FyzixFighter (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I have a funny feeling about this. Because I wanted to know more about science, and of course Wikipedia is a good source of information. And I was welcomed and urged to contribute. And they let me have a forum for my models, for which I am grateful. And so I'm trying to be as helpful as I can in the talk sections by participating in the the organization and hopefully understanding of the subject matter therein. And I think that's because that besides the normal engineering and science books that you get with an education, I read a lot of Isaac Asimov science literature and agreed with him about the importance of understanding as much as you can as a way of staying in and enjoying thinking about the subject matters. But I'm in the position of Meno's slave in the that rather than learn a lot of factual information that convinces me about something, I wind up learning about more things that I didn't know about and about the degree of unsureness regarding their existence and activities. And so I'm not a POV crusader, And if you disagree with me that's fine. But As is the case with the Centrifugal force I like to have my points of argument at least considered and then discarded (A la Linus Pauling) before categorical assertions are made in the articles. And in the context of these atomic force phenomena my mind keeps turning and I could carry the argument on down into the force interchange between 2 particles and argue as to whether it is important to know which is approaching which as a means of telling a real force from a pseudo force. So as soon as I assimilate what I have learned I,ll calm down about what I haven't learned. And maybe spend more time on what my wife says that I really should be doing. So thank you. And you might read the section in my talk page about " Irish current" and tell me how I could have handled that.WFPM (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see my comments on article Talk page.

Hi. Just letting you know that I accepted your suggestion to discuss my edits to the section on the LDS article. Please see my comments on the article's Talk page. I'm willing to dialogue on any specific you take exception to. I noticed that your marked your reversal of my edit as a minor edit. This appears to be contrary to Wikipedia policy: "Reverting a page is not likely to be considered minor under most circumstances. When the status of a page is disputed, and particularly if an edit war is brewing, then it is better not to mark any edit as minor." I look forward to a positive discussion on this article. Scoopczar (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, you are right I mislabeled it as a minor edit. You should also familiarize yourself with WP:3RR as you did 4 reverts (all of your 4 recent edits to the article reinstated your removal of the original sin text) in less than 24hrs. Additionally, while not a required policy, if we are following a WP:BRD pattern for disagreement resolution, you should wait until after discussion and reaching consensus on the talk page before reinstating a challenged edit. --FyzixFighter (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Likewise, I apologize for the 4 reverts. I am new to editing and was ignorant of that policy. I will seek consensus if possible. As I posted on the article talk page, I see your new heading "Comparisons with mainstream Christianity" as NPOV and think it serves well. Other edit points I suppose I'll take one at a time. For example, please comment on what I wrote on the article talk page about the Original Sin issue. The LDS view clearly stands apart from Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant views. It does not belong in a list of shared doctrines. The LDS view of the Fall is that no sin was involved. That view is unique and bears no resemblance to any of the major streams of Christianity. Again, not saying who is right or wrong--just saying the views don't match. Scoopczar (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello again, FyzixFighter. Just a quick note to let you know that I finally got back to you on the LDS talk page. Scoopczar (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

"umm..that was your 4th rv in 24 hrs" Were you talking to me? This was my first revert in this most recent flurry on this always controverial topic. I restored the material to a version dated 21st of May, after stating a basic opinion and suggesting that the discussion would be better suited to the article on Mormonism and Christianity. I would appreciate your continued support in toning down the activity on the topic. WBardwin (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that - no I wasn't talking to you but intended that revert summary for the other user, Scoopczar. While I was undoing their edit (again) I started to look at the awkward placement of that subsection within the larger section and then decided to change the orders of the subsections. Strangely though WP didn't give an edit conflict warning (or if it did I failed to notice it). It wasn't until I double-checked the article history that I noticed you had restored the 21st May version before me. So again, apologize for the mix up. --FyzixFighter (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Brigham Young University

I am simple stating that BYU has been referred to as the Harvard of the West. It is obvious that this is a true, indisputable fact (that it has been referred as such, not that it actually is the Harvard of the West)and I don't understand why you continue to revert it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.237.82.66 (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Disputes at wikipedia are natural and are not unusual. However, resolution of disputes should be handled on the Talk page and not in an edit war (see WP:BRD). I would more than gladly participate in the discussion of the references (only half of which qualify as reliable sources) on the article talk page and not here. Additionally, you have now reverted 4 times in the last 24hrs, a violation of the WP:3RR policy. Please revert ourself and take this issued to the article talk page. Once it is discussed and a consensus is reached, appropriate edits can be made. --FyzixFighter (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate References on LDS

I didn't read your comment about duplication until after I got out of editing mode due to the edit conflict of us being on at the same time. Sorry about that. I agree, there was duplication. My new footnote has only new citations. Scoopczar (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I still have a few problems with the added footnote. First, Orthodoxwiki is as much a reliable source as Mormonwiki, ie it's not and should not be used here. Provide a reliable source for the Orthodox view or remove this link. Second, your added footnote should be combined with the previous footnote so that all the statements are combined within a single reference. And last, why do we need another Lutheran statement? We already have one from the ELCA, the largest Lutheran church in the US, so I see no need for an additional Lutheran reference. --FyzixFighter (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Salvation Discussion

I'm not sure if this sent you a message to let you know that I replied to your post on my page, I'm still s little new. Just wanted to let you know, thanks again.--Alan355 (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)