Heisenberg Uncertainty principle: (ab ≠ ba) and Electron.

[socratus]

Heisenberg Uncertainty principle: (ab ≠ ba) and Electron.
==.
Sir Arthur Eddington wrote:
We used to think that if weknew one, we knew two,
because one and one are two. We are finding

that we must learn a great deal more about`and'.
Why?
Because one (1) can be different from another one (1).
Take electron -symbol (e)
Take proton - symbol (p)
They are absolute different particles.
And interaction between electron and proton is not thesame
thaninteraction between proton and electron: ep ≠ pe
(non-commutative algebra. Heisenberg Uncertainty principle)
=================== . . .
Theelectron (particle/wave) is not the same as the proton.
They are absolute differentsubstances / matter.
#
There is EM wave theory,there isn't proton-magnetic theory.
Energy/ information can be transferred only by electromagnetic fields.
Andin 1895 Lorentz proved that there isn’t em waves withoutElectron
Noother particle can do this work.
We don’t have a theory about protono-magnetic fields that can
transfer an energy/information.
In our earthly world there is only one (1) uniquefundamental
particle - electron (!) what can transferenergy as an information.
==..
Electronhas six ( 6 ) formulas:
1900, 1905. Planck and Einstein found the energy of electron: E=h*f.
1916. Sommerfeld found the formula of electron : e^2=ah*c,
1928. Dirac found two more formulas of electron’s energy:
+E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2 (positron).
According to QED in interaction with vacuum electron’s
energy is infinite: E= ∞
Electron tied with atom by the energy: E=-me^4/2h*^2= -13,6eV
And pure proton doesn't have formula, it has only "letter".
=.
It means that electron is active particle (pure energetic particle)
and proton is passive mass-particle.
These particles have absolute different structure and matter.
Therefore the interaction between electron and protonis not the same
thaninteraction between proton and electron: ep ≠ pe
(HeisenbergUncertainty principle)
==..
Somebody wrote another example.
A thing called “shoe” and a thing called “ sock” alongwith
the operator”and” which combines “shoe” and “sock” things.
If you play around with it, you will find
that the “ order “ is fairly important.
======== . .. .

 

[socratus]

LinkedIn Theoretical Physics Discussions:
HeisenbergUncertainty principle: (ab ≠ ba) and Electron.
==..

 

[socratus]

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a magic wand forsome physicists.
If a fact/process is impossible to explain logical then somephysicists solve
the problem saying :
'but using the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle this processis possible'
===.

 

[darkbeaver]

Dr. Michael Clarage: Earth’s Electric Environment | EU2014 →
Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille: On the Validity of Kirchhoff’s Law | EU2014
Posted on April 5, 2014 by B Talbott


THIS ONE WILL BE OF GREATEST INTEREST TO THEORETICAL PHYSICISTS. Please help out by directing the attention of physicists to this video.

Kirchhoff’s law of thermal emission (formulated in 1860) is presented and demonstrated to be invalid. This law is crucial to our understanding of radiation within arbitrary cavities. Kirchhoff’s law rests at the heart of condensed matter physics and astrophysics. Its collapse can be directly associated with 1) the loss of universality in Planck’s law (Planck’s constant and Boltzmann’s constant are no longer universal in nature), 2) the collapse of the gaseous Sun as described in Standard Solar Models, and 3) the inability of the Big Bang to act as the source of the microwave background.

Pierre-Marie Robitaille, PhD is a Professor of Radiology at The Ohio State University, with a joint appointment in Chemical Physics. He initially trained as a spectroscopist and has wide ranging knowledge of instrumentation in the radio and microwave bands. A recognized expert in image acquisition and analysis, Professor Robitaille was responsible for doubling the world record in Magnetic Resonance Imaging in 1998. In 2000, he turned his attention to thermodynamics and astrophysics, demonstrating that the universality advanced in Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Emission is invalid. He has published extensively on the microwave background, highlighting that this signal arises from water on the Earth and has no relationship to cosmology and has recently published a paper on the Liquid Metallic Hydrogen Solar Model (LMHSM).

Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille: On the Validity of Kirchhoff’s Law | EU2014 | thunderbolts.info

 

[Kreskin]

Soc, man, you are the life of a party.

 

[Locutus]

 

[eh1eh]

Heisenberg.

Never. Watched. One. Episode.

 

[Cliffy]

I am uncertain about his principle.

 

[Twila]

Breaking Bad has ruined Heisenberg for me for life.

 

[Tonington]

It's burger love month in PEI, one restaurant has an offering called the Heisenburger. It would have been delicious if they hadn't overcooked it.

DB's thunderdolt:
Ripples in Ohio From Ad on the Big Bang - NYTimes.com
Pierre-Marie Robitaille, another crank working outside his field.

Not sure what you're trying to drill down to Socratus, there's far more than one elementary particle that is unique, the Higgs Boson is pretty unique:

 

[socratus]

Not sure what you're trying to drill down to Socratus,
there's far more thanone elementary particle that is unique,
the Higgs Boson ispretty unique:
/ Tonington /
==.
Question:
In which frame of reference theHiggs boson was found ?
The Higgs boson was found in LHC's vacuum (as a model of cosmic vacuum ).
Without vacuum the LHC is maybea good place for formula-1 competition.
============.
In 1906, Rutherfordstudied internal structure of atoms,
bombarding them with high energya- particles.
This idea helped him tounderstand the structure of atom.
But the clever Devilinterfered and gave advice to physicists
to bomb atom with morehigh energy !
And physicist created hugecannon-accelerators of particles.
And they began to bombmicro particles , in hope to understand
their inner structure.And they were surprised with
the results of thisbombing. Several hundreds of completely new
strange particlesappeared. They lived a very little time.
What God carefully created itwas destroyed in accelerators.
The clever and artfulDevil is glad. He again has deceived man.
Physicists think that anaccelerator - is first of all the presence of huge energy.
And the Devil laughs. Heknows, that an accelerator - first of all is Vacuum.
But this, he has withheld fromman.
He has not explained thatthe Vacuum is infinite and inexhaustible.
And in infinity there iscontained an infinite variety of particles.
And by bombing the vacuum,one can find centaurs and sphinxes.
But my God, save us fromtheir presence on Earth.
========= ….
Rutherford was right.
His followers are mistaken.
Why?
The way physicists study theinner structure of particles is similar to
a man who smashes a watchagainst a wall to see how it works.
Does he have many chancesto understand the mechanism
of the watch ? Will you call him a normal man?
===…
The Nature works veryeconomical.
For example, biologistsknow 100 ( hundred ) kinds of
amino acids. But only 20 (twenty) kinds of amino acids
are suitable to producemolecules of protein, from which all
different cells created on ourplanet. What are about another
80 % of amino acids? They aredead end of evolution.
The physicists found many ( 1000) new elementary particles.
But we need only one ( 1)electron and one (1 ) proton to create first atom.
All anotherelementary particles (mesons, muons , bosons, taus,
all their girlfriends- antiparticles, all quarks and antiquarks…etc)
are dead end of evolution.
==..

 

[Tonington]

You wrote that "Rutherford studied..." screed at the latest by 2009, well before the Higgs Boson was discovered.

The way physicists study the inner structure of the atom is not like smashing a watch to see how the watch works. Smashing the particles out of atoms reveals what is there, you can't understand how a watch works if you don't at least know what is there inside the watch first. You can study intermediate parts once you know what they are, and if you did this you could figure out how to make a watch work. If you had no idea what a ratchet wheel is, or what a spring is, and all the other parts, and how they function, then there is no way to deduce by logic or reason what the mechanism of the watch is.

The bit about amino acids is even further out there. There are at least 23 amino acids that form proteins, and of those that don't, many are actively involved in metabolic pathways. That does not suffice as a dead end, when the metabolic pathways that life depends on, themselves depend on those intermediate amino acids. Biology is about far more than proteins.

Though similarly to a man smashing a watch apart who doesn't know what the parts of the watch are, I have no idea what you're driving at by throwing all these words together.

 

[socratus]

Wikipedia: " Inertia is the resistance of any physical object
to any change in its state of motion . . . "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia
=.
In other words the Wikipedia said:
” Inertia is a tendency to do nothing or to remain unchanged.”

The tendency of bodies at rest to stay at rest ( unchanging all the time )
and for bodies in motion to stay in motion ( unchanging all the time )
is contradict to the laws of Nature and Universe.
Nature and the Universe are changeable.

That isn't bad to read Wikipedia articles critically.
===..

 

[socratus]

Another proof of Heisenberg Uncertainty principle:
One cannot know the momentum and position of one's vodka at once.
=.