Could the electron be prevented from emitting electromagnetic
radiation (a photon) because of the nuclear force (similar to how
gravity bends light)?

Therefore the light would bend (and maintain it's initial momentum) in
the same orbital trajectory as the electron?

***********************************

And then only when the electron is sufficiently accelerated/
deccelerated to another atomic orbital would the photon have
sufficient energy to escape as an emission??


(I "believe" it's only a single photon (quanta) for the electron to
change orbital levels therefore more plausible why at smaller
accelerations (due to electron's trajectory in the "same" orbit) no
photon emission is produced)?

On Jun 1, 7:58 am, " wrote:
Could the electron be prevented from emitting electromagnetic
radiation (a photon) because of the nuclear force (similar to how
gravity bends light)?

Therefore the light would bend (and maintain it's initial momentum) in
the same orbital trajectory as the electron?

Nice try, but let's go back to some basics.

First of all, the nuclear force is a million times stronger than the
force that holds the electron in its orbital around the nucleus. So
you have to ask the question why a force that is a million times
stronger would bend a photon in exactly the *same orbital* as the
electron, held in place by a force a million times weaker.

Secondly, it isn't the nuclear force that binds the electron in an
atom, it's the electromagnetic force. This force is in fact mediated
by photons. That is, it is the swap of photons between the proton and
the electron that holds the electron bound to the proton in the atom.
However, photons do not swap photons with anything, so the
electromagnetic force won't bind the photon to the proton.

Third, it is useful to separate the world into two kinds of particles:
fermions and bosons. The bosons have integer spin and mediate the
interactions -- they ARE in some sense the interactions. The fermions
have half-integer spin and they FEEL the interactions by virtue of
different kinds of charge they have, and that charge tells you how it
radiates or absorbs the bosons. Fermions can have more than one kind
of charge, and so feel more than one interaction. Neutrinos, for
example, feel the weak interaction and the gravitation interaction.
Electrons feel the weak, the electromagnetic, and the gravitational
interaction. Protons feel all four fundamental interactions: strong,
weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational. The story is similar for the
bosons, but you'll find that bosons are more limited. Photons, for
example, do not carry any strong or weak or gravitational charge, and
so they do not feel any of those forces, including the nuclear force.


***********************************

And then only when the electron is sufficiently accelerated/
deccelerated to another atomic orbital would the photon have
sufficient energy to escape as an emission??

What makes you think the electron is more accelerated when it switches
orbitals than when its in a stable orbit?


(I "believe" it's only a single photon (quanta) for the electron to
change orbital levels therefore more plausible why at smaller
accelerations (due to electron's trajectory in the "same" orbit) no
photon emission is produced)?

"PD" wrote in message
oups.com...
: On Jun 1, 7:58 am, " wrote:
: Could the electron be prevented from emitting electromagnetic
: radiation (a photon) because of the nuclear force (similar to how
: gravity bends light)?
:
: Therefore the light would bend (and maintain it's initial momentum) in
: the same orbital trajectory as the electron?
:
: Nice try, but let's go back to some basics.
:
: First of all, the nuclear force is a million times stronger than the
: force that holds the electron in its orbital around the nucleus.

Prove it, ****head.

On Jun 1, 1:12 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"PD" wrote in message

oups.com...
: On Jun 1, 7:58 am, " wrote:
: Could the electron be prevented from emitting electromagnetic
: radiation (a photon) because of the nuclear force (similar to how
: gravity bends light)?
:
: Therefore the light would bend (and maintain it's initial momentum) in
: the same orbital trajectory as the electron?
:
: Nice try, but let's go back to some basics.
:
: First of all, the nuclear force is a million times stronger than the
: force that holds the electron in its orbital around the nucleus.

Prove it, ****head.

:)
You could go back to the 1930's, Androcles. That's where all the data
about the difference between nuclear and atomic binding energies was
being gathered.

However, you could just compare, for example, the energy of emissions
from atomic excitations (few eV) with the energy of emissions from
nuclear excitations (few MeV).

PD

"PD" wrote in message
ups.com...
: On Jun 1, 1:12 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
: "PD" wrote in message
:
: oups.com...
: : On Jun 1, 7:58 am, " wrote:
: : Could the electron be prevented from emitting electromagnetic
: : radiation (a photon) because of the nuclear force (similar to how
: : gravity bends light)?
: :
: : Therefore the light would bend (and maintain it's initial momentum)
in
: : the same orbital trajectory as the electron?
: :
: : Nice try, but let's go back to some basics.
: :
: : First of all, the nuclear force is a million times stronger than the
: : force that holds the electron in its orbital around the nucleus.
:
: Prove it, ****head.
:
::)
: You could go back to the 1930's, Androcles. That's where all the data
: about the difference between nuclear and atomic binding energies was
: being gathered.
:
: However, you could just compare, for example, the energy of emissions
: from atomic excitations (few eV) with the energy of emissions from
: nuclear excitations (few MeV).

Prove it, ****head.

In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles

wrote
on Fri, 01 Jun 2007 20:59:13 GMT
:

"PD" wrote in message
ups.com...
: On Jun 1, 1:12 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
: "PD" wrote in message
:
: oups.com...
: : On Jun 1, 7:58 am, " wrote:
: : Could the electron be prevented from emitting electromagnetic
: : radiation (a photon) because of the nuclear force (similar to how
: : gravity bends light)?
: :
: : Therefore the light would bend (and maintain it's initial momentum)
in
: : the same orbital trajectory as the electron?
: :
: : Nice try, but let's go back to some basics.
: :
: : First of all, the nuclear force is a million times stronger than the
: : force that holds the electron in its orbital around the nucleus.
:
: Prove it, ****head.
:
::)
: You could go back to the 1930's, Androcles. That's where all the data
: about the difference between nuclear and atomic binding energies was
: being gathered.
:
: However, you could just compare, for example, the energy of emissions
: from atomic excitations (few eV) with the energy of emissions from
: nuclear excitations (few MeV).

Prove it, ****head.


Can't. No axioms, rules, or general criteria. Since we
are unable to prove that the nuclear strong force is
millions of times stronger than the electroweak, it of
course follows that the nuclear strong force is *not*
millions of times stronger than the electroweak, of course,
by AndroclesLogic(tm). This means that cold fusion should
be easily possible by simply sticking one's finger in a
pitcher of warm milk, and stirring a bit. (Kids: do NOT
do this at home without putting on a tinfoil hat first.
Also, make sure the milk is in fact warm. Cold milk
is even worse.)

--
#191,
Been there, done that, didn't get the T-shirt.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...
: In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
:
: wrote
: on Fri, 01 Jun 2007 20:59:13 GMT
: :
:
: "PD" wrote in message
: ups.com...
: : On Jun 1, 1:12 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
: : "PD" wrote in message
: :
: : oups.com...
: : : On Jun 1, 7:58 am, " wrote:
: : : Could the electron be prevented from emitting electromagnetic
: : : radiation (a photon) because of the nuclear force (similar to how
: : : gravity bends light)?
: : :
: : : Therefore the light would bend (and maintain it's initial
momentum)
: in
: : : the same orbital trajectory as the electron?
: : :
: : : Nice try, but let's go back to some basics.
: : :
: : : First of all, the nuclear force is a million times stronger than
the
: : : force that holds the electron in its orbital around the nucleus.
: :
: : Prove it, ****head.
: :
: ::)
: : You could go back to the 1930's, Androcles. That's where all the data
: : about the difference between nuclear and atomic binding energies was
: : being gathered.
: :
: : However, you could just compare, for example, the energy of emissions
: : from atomic excitations (few eV) with the energy of emissions from
: : nuclear excitations (few MeV).
:
: Prove it, ****head.
:
:
: Can't.


Correct.


: No axioms, rules, or general criteria.

Correct.

: Since we
: are unable to prove that the nuclear strong force

http://www.answers.com/topic/existence-theorem

: is millions of times stronger than the electroweak,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_theorem


it of
: course follows that the nuclear strong force is *not*
: millions of times stronger than the electroweak, of course,
: by AndroclesLogic(tm).


No, just ordinary logic.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ExistenceTheorem.html


I can "prove" anything I like about bright green flying elephants (except
their existence) just by saying "it is so", that being YOUR criterion for
proof.
You have the same problem with your imaginary forces and so does (did)
Einstein
with his imaginary 2nd and 3rd postulates.

On Jun 1, 11:00 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles

wrote
on Fri, 01 Jun 2007 20:59:13 GMT
:







"PD" wrote in message
oups.com...
: On Jun 1, 1:12 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
: "PD" wrote in message
:
: roups.com...
: : On Jun 1, 7:58 am, " wrote:
: : Could the electron be prevented from emitting electromagnetic
: : radiation (a photon) because of the nuclear force (similar to how
: : gravity bends light)?
: :
: : Therefore the light would bend (and maintain it's initial momentum)
in
: : the same orbital trajectory as the electron?
: :
: : Nice try, but let's go back to some basics.
: :
: : First of all, the nuclear force is a million times stronger than the
: : force that holds the electron in its orbital around the nucleus.
:
: Prove it, ****head.
:
::)
: You could go back to the 1930's, Androcles. That's where all the data
: about the difference between nuclear and atomic binding energies was
: being gathered.
:
: However, you could just compare, for example, the energy of emissions
: from atomic excitations (few eV) with the energy of emissions from
: nuclear excitations (few MeV).

Prove it, ****head.

Can't. No axioms, rules, or general criteria. Since we
are unable to prove that the nuclear strong force is
millions of times stronger than the electroweak, it of
course follows that the nuclear strong force is *not*
millions of times stronger than the electroweak, of course,
by AndroclesLogic(tm). This means that cold fusion should
be easily possible by simply sticking one's finger in a
pitcher of warm milk, and stirring a bit. (Kids: do NOT
do this at home without putting on a tinfoil hat first.
Also, make sure the milk is in fact warm. Cold milk
is even worse.)

LOL! Well then maybe somebody can prove that the strong force isn't
electromagnetic. If it is, then it would make more sense to say that
"the strong force acting between nucleons is a million times greater
than the force binding electrons to the atom". OTOH, this form of the
statment would make more sense even if the strong force isn't
electromagnetic in nature.

"RP" wrote in message
oups.com...
: On Jun 1, 11:00 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
: wrote:
: In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
:
: wrote
: on Fri, 01 Jun 2007 20:59:13 GMT
: :
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: "PD" wrote in message
: oups.com...
: : On Jun 1, 1:12 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
: : "PD" wrote in message
: :
: : roups.com...
: : : On Jun 1, 7:58 am, " wrote:
: : : Could the electron be prevented from emitting electromagnetic
: : : radiation (a photon) because of the nuclear force (similar to
how
: : : gravity bends light)?
: : :
: : : Therefore the light would bend (and maintain it's initial
momentum)
: in
: : : the same orbital trajectory as the electron?
: : :
: : : Nice try, but let's go back to some basics.
: : :
: : : First of all, the nuclear force is a million times stronger than
the
: : : force that holds the electron in its orbital around the nucleus.
: :
: : Prove it, ****head.
: :
: ::)
: : You could go back to the 1930's, Androcles. That's where all the data
: : about the difference between nuclear and atomic binding energies was
: : being gathered.
: :
: : However, you could just compare, for example, the energy of emissions
: : from atomic excitations (few eV) with the energy of emissions from
: : nuclear excitations (few MeV).
:
: Prove it, ****head.
:
: Can't. No axioms, rules, or general criteria. Since we
: are unable to prove that the nuclear strong force is
: millions of times stronger than the electroweak, it of
: course follows that the nuclear strong force is *not*
: millions of times stronger than the electroweak, of course,
: by AndroclesLogic(tm). This means that cold fusion should
: be easily possible by simply sticking one's finger in a
: pitcher of warm milk, and stirring a bit. (Kids: do NOT
: do this at home without putting on a tinfoil hat first.
: Also, make sure the milk is in fact warm. Cold milk
: is even worse.)
:
: LOL! Well then maybe somebody can prove that the strong force isn't
: electromagnetic. If it is, then it would make more sense to say that
: "the strong force acting between nucleons is a million times greater
: than the force binding electrons to the atom". OTOH, this form of the
: statment would make more sense even if the strong force isn't
: electromagnetic in nature.
:
LOL! Well then maybe somebody can prove there is a strong force
to being with, but it won't be you, Ghost or Phuckwit Duck the
world class champion hand-waver.
A flock of sheep, all of ewe.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SR.GIF

In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles

wrote
on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 08:30:15 GMT
:

"RP" wrote in message
oups.com...
: On Jun 1, 11:00 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
: wrote:
: In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
:
: wrote
: on Fri, 01 Jun 2007 20:59:13 GMT
: :
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: "PD" wrote in message
: oups.com...
: : On Jun 1, 1:12 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
: : "PD" wrote in message
: :
: : roups.com...
: : : On Jun 1, 7:58 am, " wrote:
: : : Could the electron be prevented from emitting electromagnetic
: : : radiation (a photon) because of the nuclear force (similar to
how
: : : gravity bends light)?
: : :
: : : Therefore the light would bend (and maintain it's initial
momentum)
: in
: : : the same orbital trajectory as the electron?
: : :
: : : Nice try, but let's go back to some basics.
: : :
: : : First of all, the nuclear force is a million times stronger than
the
: : : force that holds the electron in its orbital around the nucleus.
: :
: : Prove it, ****head.
: :
: ::)
: : You could go back to the 1930's, Androcles. That's where all the data
: : about the difference between nuclear and atomic binding energies was
: : being gathered.
: :
: : However, you could just compare, for example, the energy of emissions
: : from atomic excitations (few eV) with the energy of emissions from
: : nuclear excitations (few MeV).
:
: Prove it, ****head.
:
: Can't. No axioms, rules, or general criteria. Since we
: are unable to prove that the nuclear strong force is
: millions of times stronger than the electroweak, it of
: course follows that the nuclear strong force is *not*
: millions of times stronger than the electroweak, of course,
: by AndroclesLogic(tm). This means that cold fusion should
: be easily possible by simply sticking one's finger in a
: pitcher of warm milk, and stirring a bit. (Kids: do NOT
: do this at home without putting on a tinfoil hat first.
: Also, make sure the milk is in fact warm. Cold milk
: is even worse.)
:
: LOL! Well then maybe somebody can prove that the strong force isn't
: electromagnetic. If it is, then it would make more sense to say that
: "the strong force acting between nucleons is a million times greater
: than the force binding electrons to the atom". OTOH, this form of the
: statment would make more sense even if the strong force isn't
: electromagnetic in nature.
:
LOL! Well then maybe somebody can prove there is a strong force
to being with, but it won't be you, Ghost or Phuckwit Duck the
world class champion hand-waver.
A flock of sheep, all of ewe.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SR.GIF



Can't you even tell us *apart*? That wasn't Draper that replied to you,
Androcles.

As for proof of a strong force, I can't prove it, to be sure, but one
can at least consider the theoretical problem of bringing 2 protons in
close proximity without it. How fast would they fly apart?

Then play with a toy balloon.

--
#191,
Useless C++ Programming Idea #1123133:
void f(FILE * fptr, char *p) { fgets(p, sizeof(p), fptr); }

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com