decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Shells? Collisions? Orbits? Nonsense! | 661 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Shells? Collisions? Orbits? Nonsense!
Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 01:42 AM EDT
Those are silly words because they make us all think of moons orbiting around a
cluster of planets with asteroids bouncing off them.

The standing wave thing sounds right. Standing waves are seen at our dimensions
when travelling waves are reflected back on themselves. However, at the smaller
dimensions of atoms it seems sensible that individual electrons can be a field
that holds itself together as a single wavelength standing wave. That would
provide an explanation for protons and neutrons as well, except that they would
be merged fields. The Higg's Boson field would be that component of the cluster
that gives mass. The electric field would be that which gives a proton a
positive charge. That would explain why all the bits fly off in a collider. They
are just single wavelength standing waves. Perhaps only the electron waves have
those wobbly properties. Perhaps the Higg's Boson is just a heavy lump of stuff
with no wobbling.

I wonder what heat energy interacts with. It can travel from atom to atom
without ripping things out of the atom. The more heat energy, the further apart
individual atoms get. Brownian motion suggests that whatever the interactive
component is, it wobbles probabilistically just like electrical energy.

If I imagine an electric standing bubble field wobbling around and perhaps with
its magnetic axis waving about all over the place, then the idea that energy
could be added without changing the magnitude of the electric charge makes
sense. There is still the problem of the electric differential. Perhaps electron
fields have a positive core and protons have a negative core.

Perhaps electrons don't get ripped from conductor atoms in order to get a 'flow'
of electricity. Perhaps an addition of energy raises the energy of one or more
of the atoms electrons and increases the wobble or spin such that the
probability of the electron interacting moves further out. Then the electrons
can just pass that energy to the next electron or can radiate a quantum of that
energy as a photon of a particular standing wavelength.

So, is it electrons in a vacuum tube or is it photons. Why would it be photons
in the vacuum of space and not electrons. And, what is it that causes
interactions with refraction gratings? Why would an electron (or a photon, if
they are different) interact with the grating? Is it with Higg's Boson fields in
protons and neutrons or can the electron field interact with other electron
fields?

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )