Thread: Can a hydrogen atom have a p orbital?

With only 1 electron not sure. Help and thanks.

Originally Posted by spinner42

With only 1 electron not sure. Help and thanks.

I don't think so. I don't think it really can can it? Even if you had 3 electrons for the atom (which is doubtful at the moment), you'd still have an atom that would no longer behave like Hydrogen, so would it be Hydrogen? I guess there may be a way, in the same way there might a d, or an f :?

Even if you had 3 electrons for the atom (which is doubtful at the moment), you'd still have an atom that would no longer behave like Hydrogen, so would it be Hydrogen? I guess there may be a way, in the same way there might a d, or an f

If you had three electrons it would just be H^2+ which might not exist in nature but I am sure can be made syntheticly. it would just be another Ion just in the way there is carbon 12, 13, 14,

As for a p orbital with only one electron I think that its totally impossible. correct me if I am wrong.

Originally Posted by svwillmer

Originally Posted by spinner42

With only 1 electron not sure. Help and thanks.

I don't think so. I don't think it really can can it? Even if you had 3 electrons for the atom (which is doubtful at the moment), you'd still have an atom that would no longer behave like Hydrogen, so would it be Hydrogen? I guess there may be a way, in the same way there might a d, or an f :?

Can't answer the original question, but to clear things up with svwillmer... If it has one proton, it's hydrogen. Period. End of discussion. It could have ten trillion electrons and still be hydrogen. Element is determined solely by proton number. And, if it had three electrons, it'd be an ion, not an atom as you said.

Originally Posted by GenerationE

Even if you had 3 electrons for the atom (which is doubtful at the moment), you'd still have an atom that would no longer behave like Hydrogen, so would it be Hydrogen? I guess there may be a way, in the same way there might a d, or an f

If you had three electrons it would just be H^2+ which might not exist in nature but I am sure can be made syntheticly. it would just be another Ion just in the way there is carbon 12, 13, 14,

As for a p orbital with only one electron I think that its totally impossible. correct me if I am wrong.

GenerationE snuck in their post while I was writing my first one...

Maybe I can answer the first question. Oops. Hydrogen with three electrons would be H^-2, not H⁺². Simple mistake. And yeah, doesn't exist in nature but it could probably be made, given enough energy (that's along the lines of (I think) my very first post on this site, about a lithium -7 ion, if anyone remembers). There's nothing wrong with having only one electron in a p orbital. Boron atoms do, to give one example. And make sure you're getting your terminology right, everyone... "p" is a subshell. There are 3 orbitals in the p subshell, each containing up to two electrons...

Would require quite a lot of energy i'd imagine.
first electron affinity H + e- ----H-

2nd electron affinity H- + e- ---- H2-

second electron affinity would require large amount of energy i reckon. applying a negative charge to a negatively charged ion takes quite a bit of energy.

Also not sure on this but would the H- ion have high charge density due to it being so small and therefore increase the energy required to overcome the repulsive force.

I'd imagine it could be possible but would take lots of energy.

I'm not certain but I believe every atom has all of the possible orbitals, even if they are normally empty. If an atom absorbs energy of the right quantum value, an electron is kicked up to a higher energy level. It can then release the energy and return to its ground state. That's what spectroscopy is all about.

So where does the excited electron go? Wouldn't the 1s hydrogen electron be kicked up into a 2s orbital and then to the 2p orbital, and so on? In that sense, hydrogen has all possible orbitals.

Huh I'm not sure SteveF. You would probably know better than me. I have very little interest in Chemistry.

GenerationE snuck in their post while I was writing my first one...

Maybe I can answer the first question. Oops. Hydrogen with three electrons would be H-2, not H+2. Simple mistake. And yeah, doesn't exist in nature but it could probably be made, given enough energy (that's along the lines of (I think) my very first post on this site, about a lithium -7 ion, if anyone remembers). There's nothing wrong with having only one electron in a p orbital. Boron atoms do, to give one example. And make sure you're getting your terminology right, everyone... "p" is a subshell. There are 3 orbitals in the p subshell, each containing up to two electrons...

Hehe Sorry chemboy I am super fast. Sorry about the mistake too I meant to say H^2-.

how do I make me quotes say the persons name I am quoting?

Originally Posted by SteveF

I'm not certain but I believe every atom has all of the possible orbitals, even if they are normally empty. If an atom absorbs energy of the right quantum value, an electron is kicked up to a higher energy level. It can then release the energy and return to its ground state. That's what spectroscopy is all about.

So where does the excited electron go? Wouldn't the 1s hydrogen electron be kicked up into a 2s orbital and then to the 2p orbital, and so on? In that sense, hydrogen has all possible orbitals.

I agree with this. Absorbing the correct amount of energy, I think it could theoretically have an electron in any higher shell or subshell.

Originally Posted by Chemboy

Originally Posted by SteveF

I'm not certain but I believe every atom has all of the possible orbitals, even if they are normally empty. If an atom absorbs energy of the right quantum value, an electron is kicked up to a higher energy level. It can then release the energy and return to its ground state. That's what spectroscopy is all about.

So where does the excited electron go? Wouldn't the 1s hydrogen electron be kicked up into a 2s orbital and then to the 2p orbital, and so on? In that sense, hydrogen has all possible orbitals.

I agree with this. Absorbing the correct amount of energy, I think it could theoretically have an electron in any higher shell or subshell.

Yes. Calculate the difference between the 1s and 2p shells for a proton and shine that wavelength of energy on your hydrogen. You will make excited hydrogen with its electron in the 2p orbital. Of course, it won't stay there for long before it drops back down to the 1s orbits and reemits another photon.

Ok, this might be a dumb question, but would some energy not be lost, since some work has been done? All photons have the same energy don't they?

Originally Posted by KALSTER

All photons have the same energy don't they?

No they don't, there is more energy as the frequency gets higher

E = hc/l Where l = wavelength, c speed of light, H plancks constant

And since c/l = f (frequency) then E = Hf

No they don't, there is more energy as the frequency gets higher
E = hc/l Where l = wavelength, c speed of light, H plancks constant
And since c/l = f (frequency) then E = Hf

Ok, so could a photon possibly not have enough energy left to elevate an electron to a higher orbital? I mean if a single photon gets absorbed and a new one gets emitted, it loses energy and I guess red-shifts? So eventually does the final photon emitted only ad temperature when absorbed, not to be emitted again?

Yes it does redshift, a good example of this is UV light in a disco, invisible to the naked eye yet when reflected from certain materials, they are transmitted in the lower wavelength of visible light. this then is finally converted to heat and is then part of the ambient, it cannot get cooler.

I am not sure I could comment further without the risk of making errors..

Yes it does redshift

This makes me wonder: How would interstellar dust then affect light? Could light be emitted 10 billion light years away and the red-shift due to absorption/emittion not be a significant component of the red-shift attributed to the expansion of space?

The amount of reflected light in comparison to the amount of direct light is (IMHO) minute, think of the sun and moon in the daytime, compare the direct sunlight with that reflected from the moon

Some of the really distant galaxies only throw a few photons an hour at us (direct) so the indirect light would only be seen as photographic 'noise' and even that is debatable.

I can imagine that mathematics allows us to calculate within a band how many photons we should receive from a source at any distance, if this figure is more than an order of magnitude out it would alert the observer to an anomaly.

Some of that is guess work though it is the way I might approach the problem, could all be BS though.

I guess that makes sense, since they still consider the red-shift a credible piece of evidence for expansion.

The photon that’s re-emitted from the excited hydrogen atom will normally not be red-shifted. It will have exactly the same wavelength as the photon that was absorbed. There are ways that it could be higher or lower in energy (life if the atom undergoes some sort of thermal relaxation or something between when it absorbs the photon and when it re-emits), but in general the wavelength will be the same.

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

The photon that’s re-emitted from the excited hydrogen atom will normally not be red-shifted. It will have exactly the same wavelength as the photon that was absorbed. There are ways that it could be higher or lower in energy (life if the atom undergoes some sort of thermal relaxation or something between when it absorbs the photon and when it re-emits), but in general the wavelength will be the same.

Ok, so where does the energy come from to move the electron to higher orbital, I mean work has been done, hasn't it?

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Ok, so where does the energy come from to move the electron to higher orbital, I mean work has been done, hasn't it?

It comes from the photon. The atom absorbs the photon and an electron goes into a higher energy state - then the electron drops back down to its original energy state and a photon with the same wavelength is re-emitted.

It comes from the photon. The atom absorbs the photon and an electron goes into a higher energy state - then the electron drops back down to its original energy state and a photon with the same wavelength is re-emitted.

I get that, what I mean is that some work has been done, hasn't it? Like, say, I pick up a ball and put it back down. I still have the same hand and the ball is still the same, but I burned some energy in my arm muscle. I get that it does not necessarily work that way in the subatomic world (quantum mechanics), but is there a law that describes that? Surely…

The atom absorbs the photon

Atom or electron?

Originally Posted by KALSTER

I get that, what I mean is that some work has been done, hasn't it? Like, say, I pick up a ball and put it back down. I still have the same hand and the ball is still the same, but I burned some energy in my arm muscle. I get that it does not necessarily work that way in the subatomic world (quantum mechanics), but is there a law that describes that? Surely…

So far as I know, the system of an atom absorbing and re-emitting a photon has a perfect efficiency - no energy is lost in the process. I'm not sure whether or not changing the orbital of an electron technically qualifies as "work" in the ordinary work=force X distance sense. We talk about the electron "moving" to a new orbital, but a more technically accurate description would be to say that the electron's principle quantum number changes when it moves to a new orbital. There's an energy change, but I'm not sure how classical physics would treat it.

Atom or electron?

Either/both. I don't think you can really think of it being one but not the other.

Is it not assumed that the electron instantly moves to the orbital? OK, a hydrogen atom is 1 proton and one electron. As far as I know, the electron orbitals (when occupied) are thought of as electron clouds, since thanks to Heisenberg, the electron is thought of as occupying all positions in the orbital? So then a photon approaching the atom would inevitably hit the electron, moving it to a higher orbital instantly?

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Is it not assumed that the electron instantly moves to the orbital? OK, a hydrogen atom is 1 proton and one electron. As far as I know, the electron orbitals (when occupied) are thought of as electron clouds, since thanks to Heisenberg, the electron is thought of as occupying all positions in the orbital? So then a photon approaching the atom would inevitably hit the electron, moving it to a higher orbital instantly?

Well, keep in mind that the photons we’re talking about are much, much bigger than atoms and their electron clouds. I’m not sure if you can specify whether or not it’s the electron or the electron/nucleus combination that “does the absorbing�.

In a more complex atom, is it then always the topmost electron that gets bumped to a higher orbital?

Yes I think that is the case, the shells below that will be complete and therefore difficult to wrench electrons away from, so where an atom has an incomplete shell it can lose/gain/share electrons.

Hydrogen has a single electron, but the first shell needs two to be complete, thus hydrogen can bond but helium (which has a complete shell of two electrons does not bond? (as far as I remember)...

I think the shells are 2,8,18,32,50?....

but helium (which has a complete shell of two electrons does not bond?

I think those are the noble gasses, inculing argon, nitrogen, xenon, crypton and others I think.

The common carp, along with several other large carps, are one of the most aqua-cultured consumption fishes in the world, produced in the hundreds of thousands of tons annually.

Carp are tasty when raised in cleaner waters, when prepared properly taking special attention to the two special and unusual rows of small bones in the fillets. Fish that live in muddy waters tend to acquire a muddy flavor. In China, Japan, and Taiwan carp are esteemed as food fish and are also considered to be signs of good fortune, so are often served at banquets and other formal meals. Indeed, it has been said that they were the favored entree at imperial feasts in very ancient times in Asia and Europe.[1][2] In Central and Eastern Europe, carp are also much appreciated, and are traditionally eaten on Christmas Eve in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Germany, Croatia, Hungary and Poland.[3]

In the UK and North America carp are considered less of a table fish, but still highly sought by immigrants and ethnic communities that continue rod and reel as well as support commercial harvest.

Carp are similarly variable in terms of angling value. In Europe even when not fished for food they are eagerly sought out by anglers, being considered highly prized coarse fish that are difficult to hook. In the United States, the carp is also classified as a coarse fish as well as damaging naturalized exotic species but with sporting qualities.

Carp are an important subsistence aquaculture product, and have been cultivated in complex polycultures since the 7th century AD. Grass carp, silver carp, and common carp were all sought after during the Tang dynasty in China (618-907 AD) and did not necessarily compete in the same waters due to their dissimilar feeding habits. White Amur are often refered to as grass carp while they are not related to the common carp they are fairly unique in that they eat live plant matter with pharyngeal grinding teeth, on which they will feed continuously at the proper temperatures, consuming several times their body weight in grass per day. The other two species are a sort of filter feeder, herbivorous and omnivorous respectively. These are often eaten within a grass/fish dietary polyculture; but historically one of the important food production systems in China, on a subsistence level at least, has been rice/fish culture. The fish provide not only human nutrition, but crop fertilizer, and can increase rice yields per hectare. (However, this system tends to be compatible only with small operations using genotypically lower-yielding tall rice varieties and is not feasible on a commercial scale.) Other poly-cropping systems involving carp include livestock/carp (in which livestock wastes fertilize carp ponds, or more indirectly fertilize row crops whose green manure fertilizes the ponds), and carp/sericulture (in which pond silt is used to fertilize mulberry trees that support silkworm populations


uh? WTF? PM me please, Megabrain

Originally Posted by KALSTER

but helium (which has a complete shell of two electrons does not bond?

I think those are the noble gasses, inculing argon, nitrogen, xenon, crypton and others I think.

1. Neon, not nitrogen! And you've named them all bar Radon.

2. My understanding (for MB) of the shells is that they tend to go 2, 8, 18, 32, 32 again (the lanthanides and the actinides have both the same number of elements).

Neon, not nitrogen!

Oh, ok. Just thought it was one since it is also fairly non-reactive (used alernatively with Argon in light bulbs).

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Neon, not nitrogen!

Oh, ok. Just thought it was one since it is also fairly non-reactive (used alernatively with Argon in light bulbs).

Nitrogen has a valence of three - mid-way between Oxygen (2) and Carbon (4). It's less reactive than Oxugeb for sure, but the existence of nitrogenous compounds - ammonia, nitric acid etc - should be convincing evidence that there's nothing inert about it. All the Noble Gases, on the other hand, have a valence of 0, and are virtually impossible to get into compounds.

It's less reactive than Oxygen for sure, but the existence of nitrogenous compounds - ammonia, nitric acid etc - should be convincing evidence that there's nothing inert about it.

I was concidering the fact that 80% of the atmosphere is nitrogen and that biological processes like nitrogen-fixing bacteria (used to) produce a large part of the nitrogen compounds available. But I get and agree with your point. I won't forget it.

Back to hydrogen, whether it can have p orbitals; since the observed spectral lines of hydrogen seem to be completely described by the Rydberg formula, and the Rydberg formula seems to only predict a single energy for each "shell" (quantum number n), then it would seem to me either any p orbitals must have the same energy as the s orbital in the same shell, or electrons just never go into a p orbital.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

It's less reactive than Oxygen for sure, but the existence of nitrogenous compounds - ammonia, nitric acid etc - should be convincing evidence that there's nothing inert about it.

I was concidering the fact that 80% of the atmosphere is nitrogen and that biological processes like nitrogen-fixing bacteria (used to) produce a large part of the nitrogen compounds available. But I get and agree with your point. I won't forget it.

But but but, I thought most of the atmosphere was made out of air?

Since quantum wave structure of matter creates atoms (spectral lines) ; can we reverse the energy levels? Thus we can say:
---> Condensed matter = state at rest = zero energy developed
---> Vacuum(empty of matter) = state at full working = 100% energy developed
The hydrogen atom could correspond at 99% of it's energy developed and 1% confined. For gold Au79 its energy could correspond at 21% developed or released and 79% of it's energy could be confined.

What?

---> Condensed matter = state at rest = zero energy developed
---> Vacuum(empty of matter) = state at full working = 100% energy developed

Evidence please.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

What?

---> Condensed matter = state at rest = zero energy developed
---> Vacuum(empty of matter) = state at full working = 100% energy developed

Evidence please.

It is already used?

Originally Posted by ArnaudAntoineAndrieu

It is already used?

By whom?

Originally Posted by ArnaudAntoineAndrieu

Since quantum wave structure of matter creates atoms (spectral lines) ; can we reverse the energy levels?

What does "reverse the energy levels" mean?

Thus we can say:
---> Condensed matter = state at rest = zero energy developed
---> Vacuum(empty of matter) = state at full working = 100% energy developed

What does "energy developed" mean?

What do you mean by "condensed matter"? Liquids and solids?

Why is condensed matter at rest?

Why is vacuum at "full working"? And what does "full working" mean?

The hydrogen atom could correspond at 99% of it's energy developed and 1% confined. For gold Au79 its energy could correspond at 21% developed or released and 79% of it's energy could be confined.

Where do this numbers (99%, 21%) come from? What is "confined energy"?

As you can probably tell, I didn't really understand your post...

Originally Posted by PhDemon

He seems to be subtracting the atomic number from 100 and saying this is the % "confined energy" whatever that is...

Brilliant!
That means ununpentium has -15% "confined" energy with 100% "developed".
Wonder how that works...

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by PhDemon

He seems to be subtracting the atomic number from 100 and saying this is the % "confined energy" whatever that is...

Brilliant!That means ununpentium has -15% "confined" energy with 100% "developed".Wonder how that works...

The ununpentium is a synthetic super-heavy element not natural. In fact you get 115% confined and 0% releases

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Utter rubbish, what difference does it make, it's still an atom it and subject to the same interactions, do you have any evidence to support this insanity? (I'm guessing not)

I based on the principle of vacuum energy -- Vacuum energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia -- followed by the matter waves Electromagnetic wave equation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by ArnaudAntoineAndrieu

The ununpentium is a synthetic super-heavy element not natural.

So what?
How about fermium and the rest?

In fact you get 115% confined and 0% releases

In FACT?
Please, show us the data to support this "fact".
While you're at it, show us the data to support any part of your claim.

Originally Posted by ArnaudAntoineAndrieu

[I based on the principle of vacuum energy -- Vacuum energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia -- followed by the matter waves Electromagnetic wave equation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words you have no idea what you're doing.
For example the link you gave for your "matter waves" states, specifically, that it applies to "propagation of electromagnetic waves".
Is matter an electromagnetic wave?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by ArnaudAntoineAndrieu

The ununpentium is a synthetic super-heavy element not natural.

So what?How about fermium and the rest?

In fact you get 115% confined and 0% releases

In FACT?Please, show us the data to support this "fact".While you're at it, show us the data to support any part of your claim.

Nobody can answer me here :
--> http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/7...trings-theory/
--> http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/7...dynamic/page-7

Originally Posted by ArnaudAntoineAndrieu

Nobody can answer me here :
--> The concept of matter waves can it create Strings (theory) ? - Speculations - Science Forums
--> Asymmetry and monodynamic - Page 7 - Speculations - Science Forums

Oops, wrong.
I'm asking YOU to provide some evidence.
If you're asking others to provide support for YOUR claims then you're doing it wrong.
If no-one can give you answers to questions you're asking about YOUR claims then your claim would appear to be based on absolutely nothing.
In other words: it's complete rubbish.

Originally Posted by ArnaudAntoineAndrieu

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by ArnaudAntoineAndrieu

The ununpentium is a synthetic super-heavy element not natural.

So what?How about fermium and the rest?

In fact you get 115% confined and 0% releases

In FACT?Please, show us the data to support this "fact".While you're at it, show us the data to support any part of your claim.

Nobody can answer me here :
--> The concept of matter waves can it create Strings (theory) ? - Speculations - Science Forums
--> Asymmetry and monodynamic - Page 7 - Speculations - Science Forums

The fact that you have posted the same apparent nonsense elsewhere doesn't really answer the question.

Please explain what you mean by "confined energy" and the other questions I asked before:

What does "energy developed" mean?

What do you mean by "condensed matter"? Liquids and solids?

Why is condensed matter at rest?

Why is vacuum at "full working"? And what does "full working" mean?

And, please provide some evidence or theory to support these bizarre claims.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by ArnaudAntoineAndrieu

Nobody can answer me here :--> The concept of matter waves can it create Strings (theory) ? - Speculations - Science Forums--> Asymmetry and monodynamic - Page 7 - Speculations - Science Forums

Oops, wrong.I'm asking YOU to provide some evidence.If you're asking others to provide support for YOUR claims then you're doing it wrong.If no-one can give you answers to questions you're asking about YOUR claims then your claim would appear to be based on absolutely nothing.In other words: it's complete rubbish.

Thank you for everything. In any case, you very quickly read all the pages in record time. Sorry for that, sincerely, now I know that doesn't work.

[QUOTE=Strange;410473]

Originally Posted by ArnaudAntoineAndrieu

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

--> The concept of matter waves can it create Strings (theory) ? - Speculations - Science Forums--> Asymmetry and monodynamic - Page 7 - Speculations - Science Forums
The fact that you have posted the same apparent nonsense elsewhere doesn't really answer the question.Please explain what you mean by "confined energy" and the other questions I asked before:What does "energy developed" mean?What do you mean by "condensed matter"? Liquids and solids?Why is condensed matter at rest?Why is vacuum at "full working"? And what does "full working" mean?And, please provide some evidence or theory to support these bizarre claims.

Do you know something about quark confinement? At rest want mean "sleep" . Do you know something about condensed matter on Wiki?

Amendement to the above post - IF you do start another thread please start it in the Pseudoscience section.
Or Trash, because that's where it will end up.

Originally Posted by ArnaudAntoineAndrieu

Do you know something about quark confinement? At rest want mean "sleep" . Do you know something about condensed matter on Wiki?

Are you not going to answer any questions?

Are you suggesting that liquids and solids (and other states of condensed matter) are "asleep"?

You get further from science and reality with every post.

Are you going to present any evidence or theoretical basis for these claims?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by ArnaudAntoineAndrieu

Do you know something about quark confinement? At rest want mean "sleep" . Do you know something about condensed matter on Wiki?

Are you not going to answer any questions?

I'm trying.

Are you suggesting that liquids and solids (and other states of condensed matter) are "asleep"?

It is obvious to refer to neutron stars and pulsars.

You get further from science and reality with every post.

Are you going to present any evidence or theoretical basis for these claims?

I think the mathematical evidence is in the symmetry breaking observed. I really do not wish to make hi-jacker. I rather try to open another thread.

Originally Posted by ArnaudAntoineAndrieu

It is obvious to refer to neutron stars and pulsars.

It is not obvious at all. You haven't mentioned neutron stars until now. I am not a mind reader.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by ArnaudAntoineAndrieu

[I based on the principle of vacuum energy -- Vacuum energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia -- followed by the matter waves Electromagnetic wave equation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words you have no idea what you're doing.
For example the link you gave for your "matter waves" states, specifically, that it applies to "propagation of electromagnetic waves".
Is matter an electromagnetic wave?

from wiki,

EMR carries energy—sometimes called radiant energy—through space continuously away from the source (this is not true of the near-field part of the EM field). EMR also carries both momentum and angular momentum. These properties may all be imparted to matter with which it interacts. EMR is produced from other types of energy when created, and it is converted to other types of energy when it is destroyed. The photon is the quantum of the electromagnetic interaction, and is the basic "unit" or constituent of all forms of EMR. The quantum nature of light becomes more apparent at high frequencies (or high photon energy). Such photons behave more like particles than lower-frequency photons do.

In classical physics, EMR is considered to be produced when charged particles are accelerated by forces acting on them. Electrons are responsible for emission of most EMR because they have low mass, and therefore are easily accelerated by a variety of mechanisms. Rapidly moving electrons are most sharply accelerated when they encounter a region of force, so they are responsible for producing much of the highest frequency electromagnetic radiation observed in nature. Quantum processes can also produce EMR, such as when atomic nuclei undergo gamma decay, and processes such as neutral pion decay.

I am not sure what all this says, but there seems to be a relationship.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by ArnaudAntoineAndrieu

Do you know something about quark confinement? At rest want mean "sleep" . Do you know something about condensed matter on Wiki?

Are you not going to answer any questions?

Are you suggesting that liquids and solids (and other states of condensed matter) are "asleep"?

You get further from science and reality with every post.

Are you going to present any evidence or theoretical basis for these claims?

Sshhhh....don't disturb the condensed matter.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by ArnaudAntoineAndrieu

It is obvious to refer to neutron stars and pulsars.

It is not obvious at all. You haven't mentioned neutron stars until now. I am not a mind reader.

Now it's done

To archive ---> A Massive Pulsar in a Compact Relativistic Binary http://www.sciencema...40/6131/1233232 [1304.6875] A Massive Pulsar in a Compact Relativistic Binary

Originally Posted by ArnaudAntoineAndrieu

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by ArnaudAntoineAndrieu

It is obvious to refer to neutron stars and pulsars.

It is not obvious at all. You haven't mentioned neutron stars until now. I am not a mind reader.

Now it's done

To archive ---> A Massive Pulsar in a Compact Relativistic Binary http://www.sciencema...40/6131/1233232 [1304.6875] A Massive Pulsar in a Compact Relativistic Binary

But what does this have to do with "sleep"?

Originally Posted by ostkef

Originally Posted by ArnaudAntoineAndrieu

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by ArnaudAntoineAndrieu

It is obvious to refer to neutron stars and pulsars.

It is not obvious at all. You haven't mentioned neutron stars until now. I am not a mind reader.

Now it's done

To archive ---> A Massive Pulsar in a Compact Relativistic Binary http://www.sciencema...40/6131/1233232 [1304.6875] A Massive Pulsar in a Compact Relativistic Binary

But what does this have to do with "sleep"?

mathematically speaking :

"sleep" = Zero Expanded Universe

Originally Posted by ArnaudAntoineAndrieu

Do you know something about quark confinement? At rest want mean "sleep" . Do you know something about condensed matter on Wiki?

Originally Posted by ArnaudAntoineAndrieu

"sleep" = Zero Expanded Universe

So what you are saying is that quarks are the zero expanded universe? Got it.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by ArnaudAntoineAndrieu

Do you know something about quark confinement? At rest want mean "sleep" . Do you know something about condensed matter on Wiki?

Originally Posted by ArnaudAntoineAndrieu

"sleep" = Zero Expanded Universe

So what you are saying is that quarks are the zero expanded universe? Got it.

It shows that you are a beginner in this field. Otherwise, how will you manufacture your quarks?

Because: no big-bang = zero quark

therefore: big-bang ---> quarks into expanded space ---> EM pulsar

Originally Posted by PhDemon

How can you write such bullshit and keep a straight face...

Do you want a 'lil more to finish?

zero big-bang = maximum condensed matter asleep

no?

How do you use the standard model? Tell me?

Originally Posted by ArnaudAntoineAndrieu

Originally Posted by PhDemon

How can you write such bullshit and keep a straight face...

Do you want a 'lil more to finish?

zero big-bang = maximum condensed matter asleep

no?

How do you use the standard model? Tell me?

Would you like to create the galaxy before the big bang?

Is that it?

Originally Posted by PhDemon

How can you write such bullshit and keep a straight face...

I can't believe this is just an English-as-a-second-language problem. Or even a crackpot theory problem. These are are just strings of random words stuck together with no apparent semantic content. I think AAA is just a broken chatbot. That is probably why it started clicking Like on every post.

I see it has even started arguing with itself now. Is there a bug report mechanism in it?

The "contributions" are definitely a null effort. This member needs little rebuttal. He makes so little sense, one needs not worry about people believing what he says. Anyone that believed his words would be beyond help, anyway.

AAA, being a layman perhaps I can communicate with you......: )

Quote Originally Posted by ArnaudAntoineAndrieu View Post

Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
How can you write such bullshit and keep a straight face...

Do you want a 'lil more to finish?

zero big-bang = maximum condensed matter asleep

no?

How do you use the standard model? Tell me?

Apparently not by calling it "condensed matter asleep". Sleeping is an activity and you are trying to indicate a condition of inactive "latency".

Perhaps a better description would be the Potential of condensed universal energy. It will not contradict the standard model in any way.

Originally Posted by Write4U

AAA, being a layman perhaps I can communicate with you......: )

Quote Originally Posted by ArnaudAntoineAndrieu View Post

Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
How can you write such bullshit and keep a straight face...

Do you want a 'lil more to finish?

zero big-bang = maximum condensed matter asleep

no?

How do you use the standard model? Tell me?

Apparently not by calling it "condensed matter asleep". Sleeping is an activity and you are trying to indicate a condition of inactive "latency".

Perhaps a better description would be the Potential of condensed universal energy. It will not contradict the standard model in any way.

See what I wrote post # 35

---> Condensed matter = state at rest = zero energy developed
---> Vacuum(empty of matter) = state at full working = 100% energy developed

But yes there are several "energy" and "energy levels".

But not to confuse, zero energy developed does not mean zero energy (a lack of it). In this case this energy is simply the most concentrated.

In the case of a neutron star this energy is described by the energy of "mass movement (baryonic matter)". We can assign the name of "potential 1".
And in the case of a condensed state a second energy restrict these quarks called magnetic field (potentiel2 by example).
This is already the difference between the energy wave (EM-waves) and the energy of particle (mass movement).

Mathematically, how to determine the critical threshold switches between these two potentials?

Originally Posted by ArnaudAntoineAndrieu

Originally Posted by Write4U

AAA, being a layman perhaps I can communicate with you......: )

Quote Originally Posted by ArnaudAntoineAndrieu View Post

Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
How can you write such bullshit and keep a straight face...

Do you want a 'lil more to finish?

zero big-bang = maximum condensed matter asleep

no?

How do you use the standard model? Tell me?

Apparently not by calling it "condensed matter asleep". Sleeping is an activity and you are trying to indicate a condition of inactive "latency".

Perhaps a better description would be the Potential of condensed universal energy. It will not contradict the standard model in any way.

See what I wrote post # 35

---> Condensed matter = state at rest = zero energy developed
---> Vacuum(empty of matter) = state at full working = 100% energy developed

But yes there are several "energy" and "energy levels".

But not to confuse, zero energy developed does not mean zero energy (a lack of it). In this case this energy is simply the most concentrated.

Mathematically, how to determine the critical threshold switches between these two potentials?

I don't know if you are familiar with David Bohm's work. I am but a layman but what you described above seems very much what Bohm proposed in his theories of Potential, and the Holomovement, a continuous field of wave frequencies, so dense as be in an almost zero state of latent energy, which today has become known as string theory.....(physical properties emerging from energetic vibrations).

Originally Posted by Write4U

Originally Posted by ArnaudAntoineAndrieu

Originally Posted by Write4U

AAA, being a layman perhaps I can communicate with you......: )

Quote Originally Posted by ArnaudAntoineAndrieu View Post

Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
How can you write such bullshit and keep a straight face...

Do you want a 'lil more to finish?

zero big-bang = maximum condensed matter asleep

no?

How do you use the standard model? Tell me?

Apparently not by calling it "condensed matter asleep". Sleeping is an activity and you are trying to indicate a condition of inactive "latency".

Perhaps a better description would be the Potential of condensed universal energy. It will not contradict the standard model in any way.

See what I wrote post # 35

---> Condensed matter = state at rest = zero energy developed
---> Vacuum(empty of matter) = state at full working = 100% energy developed

But yes there are several "energy" and "energy levels".

But not to confuse, zero energy developed does not mean zero energy (a lack of it). In this case this energy is simply the most concentrated.

Mathematically, how to determine the critical threshold switches between these two potentials?

I don't know if you are familiar with David Bohm's work. I am but a layman but what you described above seems very much what Bohm proposed in his theories of Potential, and the Holomovement, a continuous field of wave frequencies, so dense as be in an almost zero state of latent energy, which today has become known as string theory.....(physical properties emerging from energetic vibrations).

Good morning. Yes I am very close to the Bohm's Implicate Order.
However my case gives the collapse of the wave-function as an inverse continuity of it's "reverse energetic acceleration" (potential energy transformed). But this includes and following the postulate of QM one of a multiple of a breach of law (speed limits imposed by example).

This is why so I used the term static density since the beginning in France (density operator as an static state level). But the french engineers have told me that it did not exist, and that I should use a tensor. Tensor to calculate a density matrix? It is impossible.