The entropy of systems

Right, back to entropy again. Let's say that the reason why the electron doesn't spiral down into the atomic nucleus is down to its "space" being zpe. It draws on this and stays in a strictly defined quantized orbit. I would argue that a faster than light graviton makes for a much neater explanation. The proviso is that, for the electron to appear to have nonlocality its space can have a negative refractive index whilst it makes its faster than light jump to another orbit.

With this model, the near infinity energy of space, simply doesn't show up as mass in sub light speed space.

It's my hunch that these faster than light graviton interactions, at quantum level, are related to decoherence and some new contracted form of entropy. A self observing universe.

<i>Originally posted by Stoat</i>
<br />Right, back to entropy again. Let's say that the reason why the electron doesn't spiral down into the atomic nucleus is down to its "space" being zpe. It draws on this and stays in a strictly defined quantized orbit. /quote]

I have previously posted a link to a web site concerning the bonding of atoms or molecules. It stated that the more bonds there were, the less energy the molecules had.
What does this have as repercussion on the stability of the atom.
For example, if we compare different size mass of atoms:
- a rain drop
- an asteroid
- a planet
- a sun

Is the energy state of the atom composing these bodies the same?

Is the bonding of atoms the effect of a system which is not in equilibrium?

An atom which trades energy for a force is this not what causes motion?

A little aside first. If we look at Carroll's equation we have an exponential entropy curve. If we allow complex roots, by adding a faster than light graviton, then we have a hyperbola. I think that's interesting. Something added at 20 billion c, barely chages the curve. I can zoom in on the curvey part of the graph and get the right answer to how fast my cup of tea falls to room temperature.

Another point about the electron, I hold to the view that an electron is a photon twisted into a torus, so it chases its tail. Its electric field corkscrews round the torus and it magnetic field is at right angles to that. (A model favoured by people who look at Cooper pairs of electrons.) Think of it as a gyroscope, then try and push the thing up to the speed of light, it doesn't want to go []

Aggregate mass, let's take the nearest thing we have to an ideal gas; helium. As we lower its temperature, its potential energy increases at the cost of its kinetic energy. It emits photons of longer and longer wavelength and it fights tooth and nail to conserve its energy. It becomes strongly diamagnetic, becomes bosonic and its electrons pair off and flip so that they can move, yet not emit any heat, a superconductor.

I think that this shows the inadequacy of the laws of thermodynamics to explain what happens at the horizontal, and vertical, parts of our exponetial entropy curve

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Stoat</i>
<br />... I can zoom in on the curvey part of the graph and get the right answer to how fast my cup of tea falls to room temperature.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Would you say the temperature of your cup of tea is relative to the distance of the center of the earth to your room?

Lets say for argument sake, that a zillion more atoms are added to increase the size of the earth. The distance of your room to the center of the earth gradually reaching the same distance than that of the radius of the sun. What would happen to your cup of tea as this distance increases?

If the electron is a contorted photon how come it has a lot of mass and the photon has none? You use these concepts without indicating what is modeling and what is real-Is there any difference? I said before entrophy is manmade-not real. But, the photon is not manmade and is real whereas the electron is manmade and not real. But, I do know the photon does change into a unit of electric charge, so if you have a model that shows how the photon transforms into an electron with or without the rest mass then that is very important and interesting to me.

[] One point to correct, when I said I get a hyperbola, I should have said I get half, but by rights I shouldn't just ignore the part of the graph in the upper quadrant. Don't know, I'll have to think about that bit.

At the top of Mount Everest my cup of tea will boil at a pretty low temperature. if the Earth were as massive as the sun, then obviously I can't talk about tea. I could however, in principle, give a ball park figure for how long a sunspot will take to reach the ambient temperature. In practice however, we just don't know enough about the "atmosphere" ot the sun to do the sums We don't disagree about entropy's existence, only its rate change. I believe the half life of the electron to be infinite but I would listen if someone said it wasn't. I would still expect it to be some huge number.

Jim, leaving aside for the moment whether the photon has rest mass or not, its energy can be converted to mass in special circumstances. Electrons are not man made, the model of the electron is man made. In fact the idea of the electron being a dimentionless charge point, is not much of a model. So, a little sphere, or a little torus. I prefer the little torus, as it gives us a better mental picture of the positron. An electric field corkscrews one way for an electron, the other way for a positron.

A model is a logical construct. There are some theorists who take the extreme positivist position that a model is "real" and therefore doesn't have any meaning with regard to its truth vis a vis existence. Steven Hawking is one of these but most people hold to the view that a model is just a working hypothesis to be built upon.

[}][8D] Now to add a bit of X Files stuff. it makes a lot of sense to look for faster than light gravitons from Cooper pair electrons in a superconductor. If we want to make a room temperature superconductor it helps to make our wires, or sheets, as thin as possible. So make them in an I beam coater, the way we create computer chips. A sandwich of different materials can be put together which superweld and create an epitaxial layer of some new alloy.

Linda Howe's alleged piece of ufo, looks very much as though someone has been working along those lines. Makes ya think eh? [8D][]