Author Topic: The Non Linear Plasma Reactor  (Read 74902 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online bd139

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 23024
  • Country: gb
Re: The Non Linear Plasma Reactor
« Reply #975 on: July 02, 2022, 10:11:41 am »
Ah ok.  That’s wrong then. The model works fine for far up the EM spectrum. Antennas turf out photons. v is just different in E=hv. Thus higher energy.

I’m open to the thoughts with some physicists that photons don’t exist as elementary particles however. There are statistical tests that don’t fit the standard model. Whether or not that’s a refinement of the model or we got it totally wrong is something we shall find out when more qualified folk come up with a way of testing it.
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7949
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: The Non Linear Plasma Reactor
« Reply #976 on: July 02, 2022, 01:47:53 pm »
Werner Heisenberg once told me (and the other thousand guys in the lecture hall) that he did not expect particle physics to be any less complicated than quantum chemistry.
The "Standard Model" is particle physics, and has evolved over time with better and more experimental data and evidence, and continues to be challenged with new results.
"Quantum Mechanics" is basic physics, and seems to be holding its own "underneath" particle physics and chemistry.
 

Offline AnalogueLove1867

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 68
  • Country: au
Re: The Non Linear Plasma Reactor
« Reply #977 on: July 02, 2022, 10:55:32 pm »
No he’s right. Photons are the discrete packets of energy within the quantisation limit of Planck’s Equation (E=hv). If a state transition occurs it farts out a discrete chunk of energy that we call a photon. The photon abstraction is just a discretisation abstraction. It’s still waves in theory.

It doesn’t contradict the model. Just a different way of looking at it which is correct also.

Re-read what he wrote. He claims photons only happen at visible wavelengths, which is plain wrong.

https://physics.aps.org/articles/v13/s62

https://www.arpansa.gov.au/understanding-radiation/what-is-radiation/ionising-radiation/x-ray


The only person who has ever said that is you.....

I cannot possibly give 100 different examples or scenarios of everything just because some people are incapable of using their own brains.
Even If we just stick with the incandescent bulb example. Huge amounts of Infra-red photons are emitted.
Also very hot objects can even emit Ultra-violet radiation photons by thermal emission alone ( that includes incandescent bulbs and old halogens )
Then you can have single atom photon emissions of X- rays and even Gamma rays from particle bombardment, radioactive decay etc.
Having said that, There does seem to be a lower limit to thermal radiation around low frequency microwaves ( for atoms not far above absolute zero ).
So either you can create photons ( short pulses of electromagnetic radiation from single atoms ) Or you can create a continuous never-ending wave from a forever accelerating charge.
This isn't rocket science.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2022, 11:11:01 pm by AnalogueLove1867 »
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf