Thread: Mass: a tiny step for atoms, but a huge leap for us.

Hey Robitty! Do you remember what I said about bad influences? Well, nevermind that then. The point here is that there is already a theory of light and matter. It is called QED and is perhaps the most successful, and accurate, and powerfully predictive, and usefully applicable theory in all the history of science. Here, if you really want some geek cred you'll eat this up like science pie; Quantum electrodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

No, I mean he has more importance on the forum, and more pleasure to shoot at first sight.

That is complete bollocks - so no, that would not be correct.
(Perhaps you should focus on reality rather than drifting around in your imaginary world.)

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

OK,

Here is the deal, science is not done by stringing a list of buzzwords and referring the audience to wiki. The bottom line is that there is no Doppler effect inside the atoms or in-between the atoms. There is no aberration inside the atoms or in between the atoms.

How can you be so sure of that?

One word: experiment. You should try learning this stuff sometime.

What experiment shows there is no Doppler effect between atoms (That shows the frequency of the virtual photons is not affected by the motion of the atoms or their subatomic components?)

There is a large number of experiments, all are a variation of the Mossbauer effect.

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

What experiment shows there is no Doppler effect between atoms (That shows the frequency of the virtual photons is not affected by the motion of the atoms or their subatomic components?)

There is a large number of experiments, all are a variation of the Mossbauer effect.

Can you post a URL to one of the papers please.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

What experiment shows there is no Doppler effect between atoms (That shows the frequency of the virtual photons is not affected by the motion of the atoms or their subatomic components?)

There is a large number of experiments, all are a variation of the Mossbauer effect.

Can you post a URL to one of the papers please.

Here

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

What experiment shows there is no Doppler effect between atoms (That shows the frequency of the virtual photons is not affected by the motion of the atoms or their subatomic components?)

There is a large number of experiments, all are a variation of the Mossbauer effect.

Can you post a URL to one of the papers please.

Here

In what way does an understanding of the Mossbauer Effect discount the idea proposed by Le Repteux?
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...ssbauer-effect

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

What experiment shows there is no Doppler effect between atoms (That shows the frequency of the virtual photons is not affected by the motion of the atoms or their subatomic components?)

There is a large number of experiments, all are a variation of the Mossbauer effect.

Can you post a URL to one of the papers please.

Here

In what way does an understanding of the Mossbauer Effect discount the idea proposed by Le Repteux?
Mossbauer effect (physics) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

You'll need to learn how to read papers, do some work, stop being so lazy.

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

What experiment shows there is no Doppler effect between atoms (That shows the frequency of the virtual photons is not affected by the motion of the atoms or their subatomic components?)

There is a large number of experiments, all are a variation of the Mossbauer effect.

Can you post a URL to one of the papers please.

Here

In what way does an understanding of the Mossbauer Effect discount the idea proposed by Le Repteux?
Mossbauer effect (physics) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

You'll need to learn how to read papers, do some work, stop being so lazy.

I'm starting to think it supports Le Repteux. If the release of a gamma ray causes a measurable recoil there should be a recoil when a virtual photon is released or absorbed as well.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

What experiment shows there is no Doppler effect between atoms (That shows the frequency of the virtual photons is not affected by the motion of the atoms or their subatomic components?)

There is a large number of experiments, all are a variation of the Mossbauer effect.

Can you post a URL to one of the papers please.

Here

In what way does an understanding of the Mossbauer Effect discount the idea proposed by Le Repteux?
Mossbauer effect (physics) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

You'll need to learn how to read papers, do some work, stop being so lazy.

I'm starting to think it supports Le Repteux. If the release of a gamma ray causes a measurable recoil there should be a recoil when a virtual photon is released or absorbed as well.

I am not surprised, you two are very similar in your ignorance. There is no virtual photon. There is no recoil. It must take a tremendous effort on your side to always get things backwards.

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

.... There is no virtual photon. There is no recoil.

Are you denying the existence of virtual photons? In what situations is there no recoil? Explain yourself properly and forget any words of personal critique please.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

.... There is no virtual photon. There is no recoil.

Are you denying the existence of virtual photons?

How can you be so dense? There are no virtual photons in the Mossbauer experiment. There are real photons (gamma rays), you ask for references but you are incapable of reading them, you come back with links but you have not read their content. You must be related to Mayflow, both of you seem to make an extra effort to getting everything backwards.

In what situations is there no recoil?

The Mossbauer effect is based on the ABSENCE of recoil. That is explained in the first sentence of the link that you have cited. The crystalline network absorbs all the recoil, otherwise there cannot be any resonance. It is easier to teach a door jamb physics than you. You have been told this before by many people.

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

.... There is no virtual photon. There is no recoil.

Are you denying the existence of virtual photons?

How can you be so dense? There are no virtual photons in the Mossbauer experiment. There are real photons (gamma rays). You must be related to Mayflow, both of you seem to make an extra effort to get everything backwards.

In what situations is there no recoil?

The Mossbauer effect is based on the ABSENCE of recoil. That is explained in the first sentence of the link that you have cited. The crystalline network absorbs all the recoil, otherwise there cannot be any resonance. It is easier to teach a door jamb physics than you. You have been told this before by many people.

There are situations where there is the resonance but other times there is no resonance and that is when there is [energy lost to the recoil].
from that Wikipedia site

However, attempts to observe nuclear resonance produced by gamma-rays in gases failed due to energy being lost to recoil, preventing resonance (the Doppler effect also broadens the gamma-ray spectrum).

So I still think I'm right for you are just talking about a very special situation. "If the release of a gamma ray causes a measurable recoil there should be a recoil when a virtual photon is released or absorbed as well." you are looking at the situation where the nuclei are held firmly in a lattice resulting in the Mossbauer effect, but if they are free atoms there is no resonance for the vital energy is lost in the recoil.
So the Mossbauer Effect confirms there is recoil and the amount of recoil depends on how firmly the atoms are held.
I have never said virtual photons are involved in the Mossbauer effect so I don't know why when I ask you "are you denying virtual photons?" you think I'm asking whether virtual photons are involved in the Mossbauer Effect?". I'm not asking that.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

.... There is no virtual photon. There is no recoil.

Are you denying the existence of virtual photons?

How can you be so dense? There are no virtual photons in the Mossbauer experiment. There are real photons (gamma rays). You must be related to Mayflow, both of you seem to make an extra effort to get everything backwards.

In what situations is there no recoil?

The Mossbauer effect is based on the ABSENCE of recoil. That is explained in the first sentence of the link that you have cited. The crystalline network absorbs all the recoil, otherwise there cannot be any resonance. It is easier to teach a door jamb physics than you. You have been told this before by many people.

There are situations where there is the resonance but other times there is no resonance and that is when there is recoil.

The Mossbauer effect is a recoil-less effect, Door jamb.

See how contradictory the sentence is that you quoted

The Mossbauer effect is based on the ABSENCE of recoil. That is explained in the first sentence of the link that you have cited. The crystalline network absorbs all the recoil, otherwise there cannot be any resonance.

You say the crystalline network absorbs the recoil, so there is a recoil, there is no "ABSENCE of recoil". But the important part is that there is no loss of photon energy in the recoil allowing for resonance to work.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

See how contradictory the sentence is that you quoted

The Mossbauer effect is based on the ABSENCE of recoil. That is explained in the first sentence of the link that you have cited. The crystalline network absorbs all the recoil, otherwise there cannot be any resonance.

You say the crystalline network absorbs the recoil, so there is a recoil, there is no "ABSENCE of recoil".

The Mossbauer effect is a recoil-less effect, Door jamb.

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

See how contradictory the sentence is that you quoted

The Mossbauer effect is based on the ABSENCE of recoil. That is explained in the first sentence of the link that you have cited. The crystalline network absorbs all the recoil, otherwise there cannot be any resonance.

You say the crystalline network absorbs the recoil, so there is a recoil, there is no "ABSENCE of recoil".

The Mossbauer effect is a recoil-less effect, Door jamb.

They are your words but can you get another person to agree with you?

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

See how contradictory the sentence is that you quoted

The Mossbauer effect is based on the ABSENCE of recoil. That is explained in the first sentence of the link that you have cited. The crystalline network absorbs all the recoil, otherwise there cannot be any resonance.

You say the crystalline network absorbs the recoil, so there is a recoil, there is no "ABSENCE of recoil".

The Mossbauer effect is a recoil-less effect, Door jamb.

They are your words but can you get another person to agree with you?

They are not my words, they are the exact words in the references you asked for.
The reference that you found says "recoil-free gamma-ray resonance absorption". The door jamb has gotten the idea, when will you?

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

See how contradictory the sentence is that you quoted

The Mossbauer effect is based on the ABSENCE of recoil. That is explained in the first sentence of the link that you have cited. The crystalline network absorbs all the recoil, otherwise there cannot be any resonance.

You say the crystalline network absorbs the recoil, so there is a recoil, there is no "ABSENCE of recoil".

The Mossbauer effect is a recoil-less effect, Door jamb.

They are your words but can you get another person to agree with you?

They are not my words, they are the exact words in the references you asked for.
The reference that you found says "recoil-free gamma-ray resonance absorption". The door jamb has gotten the idea, when will you?

That proves nothing. Recoil-free emission really just means there is no loss of energy to recoil.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

See how contradictory the sentence is that you quoted

The Mossbauer effect is based on the ABSENCE of recoil. That is explained in the first sentence of the link that you have cited. The crystalline network absorbs all the recoil, otherwise there cannot be any resonance.

You say the crystalline network absorbs the recoil, so there is a recoil, there is no "ABSENCE of recoil".

The Mossbauer effect is a recoil-less effect, Door jamb.

They are your words but can you get another person to agree with you?

They are not my words, they are the exact words in the references you asked for.
The reference that you found says "recoil-free gamma-ray resonance absorption". The door jamb has gotten the idea, when will you?

That proves nothing. Recoil-free emission really just means there is no loss of energy to recoil.

Meaning that the frequency of the gamma ray (no virtual photos here) is FIXED.
At this point, the door jamb has just pulled ahead of you on the learning curve. You share a common trait with Mayflow, both of you are unteachable.

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Meaning that the frequency of the gamma ray (no virtual photos here) is FIXED.

Of course it isn't fixed. What would you say if there was gamma ray emission from a gas, is it fixed then? Or if the substance forming the lattice is in motion, is it still fixed?

Look below there is no fixed strength to a gamma ray.

Gamma Rays from Wikipedia

Gamma rays typically have frequencies above 10 exahertz (or >10¹⁹Hz), and therefore have energies above 100 keV and wavelengths less than 10 picometers (less than the diameter of an atom). However, this is not a hard and fast definition, but rather only a rule-of-thumb description for natural processes. Gamma rays from radioactive decay are defined as gamma rays no matter what their energy, so that there is no lower limit to gamma energy derived from radioactive decay. Gamma decay commonly produces energies of a few hundred keV, and almost always less than 10 MeV. In astronomy, gamma rays are defined by their energy, and no production process need be specified. The energies of gamma rays from astronomical sources range over 10 TeV, at a level far too large to result from radioactive decay

Mössbauer effect, also called recoil-free gamma-ray resonance absorption, nuclear process permitting the resonance absorption of gamma rays. It is made possible by fixing atomic nuclei in the lattice of solids so that energy is not lost in recoil during the emission and absorption of radiation.
Mossbauer effect (physics) -- Encyclopedia Britannica...

It makes no difference what it is called.

" energy is not lost in recoil during the emission and absorption of radiation. " Doesn't mean there is no recoil but just no loss of energy during recoil.

Was that it Howard? Was that the only experiment?

Moderator Comment: It took a comparatively new member to bring some sanity to this thread. Le Repeteux, please take Blahgory's advice. When you have done so feel free to open a new thread on this topic.

Originally Posted by Blahgory

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

I don't have an argument. You propose something which is not in keeping with accepted science and you have thus far failed to support it adequately. Instead you are painting yourself under attack. This is just normal scrutiny any scientist should expect (demand, even).

No, repeating "you are a crank" endlessly is not normal argumentation, and it does not lead to normal argumentation either.

I'm sorry, but I also agree with Flick and Howard. Instead of arguing with people who don't believe you, get some evidence and then they will pay attention. Then, try as hard as you can to disprove your theory. If it stands up, as others have stated, you might have a winner.

If you tested every idea anyone has ever had by trying to disprove it, then we might possibly understand more about the world and its mechanics than we do now. Trying to disprove things makes us come up with things that can make them true. Eventually, as we repeat this process, we will come up with a more complete theory than before.

Also, if you could provide evidence (mathematics, images (other than a short .swf file of two balls moving), etc.)

If you want to improve your ideas, instead of coming up with "witty" replies, try to use mathematics and evidence to attempt to prove yourself to people who disagree. Arguing will get you nowhere.

EDIT: And I would believe you if you had any evidence. However, now that I read the rest of your thread, you seem to be very reluctant to provide any evidence besides copying definitions. At least come up with a potential experiment to test your theory?

Moderator Warning: Provocative comments and personal remarks are not acceptable. There are far too many here from people who should no better. Behave yourselves.