The entropy of systems

---

Originally posted by Stoat

picks up the energy from a photon, It jumps from the middle of the stick to the end of the stick, then it emits the photon and jumps back. ... it ceases to exist across its jumping distance.

I think that its electromagnetic mass is absorbed into its gravitational mass, which can move faster than light, then it rebalances its books when it gets to the end of the stick.

---

Hello Stoat,

Is this how beta decay in the atom works? The electron goes from position A to position B. This involves change in momentum and energy state.
The coupling force, frequency, permittivity... etc. varies from time A to time B.
The electron has particle properties before time/position A.... wave, frequency, energy properties between A & B.... and particle properties at time/position B.

At time/position A, the coupling force, frequency, energy state is higher than at time/position B.

The orbit of the electrons are more tightly bound at A than B.

Enrico Fermi associates motion with time in his "golden rule"

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/fermi2.html

Stoat,
Earlier you mentioned a slight increase in mass (volume). The only way I can see an atom increase in mass is when the coupling force decreases which makes the electrons spin slightly further away from the nucleus (I guess this would generate heat!).
This coupling force would probably fall to zero when the energy state suddenly changes (ie: lightning)

Kenneth Krane (See link above) probably has some very good ideas on this.

What are your thoughts Stoat?

(Edited) I'll scrub that, I've made an idiotic mistake on the maths. I'll do it again. []

Hi GD, that link you gave is a very good site to visit but its navigation is pretty dire. In the index flow chart, pick quantum mechanics, then from the new flow chart, forces. That opens a window that has a link to coupling constants. The one we're looking at is at the bottom of the page. I think it helps enormously to look at the equations properly printed out. I have a great deal of bother reading equations on this board; and a lot of them are equations that I've written!!

Note that the coupling constant differs, depending on which charged particles are used. Now, if we say that the coupling constant is the reciprocal of the speed of light, times the reciprocal of the speed of gravity, then that's pegged down. It also means that we have look at one particle rather than two, it's self coupled between its gravitational mass and its electromagnetic mass.

I transposed the equation to find out what the mass would be. Then found that taking a cube root of that would give me something very close to a proton mass. That cube root suggests that there's a hidden radius in the permitivity of free space constant.

So we have a fraction, a mere ratio. Increase the numerator and we have to decrease the denominator. But there's a fraction 1 / (4pi epsilon) in the denominator, so that hidden radius gets larger.

Now here's a quite major mistake that I made. I transposed over the charge squared to the right hand side of the equation. A good mistake to make as it came out with something close to a proton mass as the answer. Yet that charge squared, is one charge times another equal charge, so my particle has two charges. Not good!!

Is there an electromagnetic charge and a hidden gravitational charge? Or is my proton simply a neutron? I don't have a clue as yet. I'll have to plug in various masses and see what comes out in the wash.

Hi GD & Stoat,

GD, you asked a cazillion questions and I am not sure that you understood what I was attempting to get across regarding flywheel experiment and GRAVITON CYCLE. Do we agree that mass is not an isolated system and does not contain all of the energy that it will have for its life time---including gravity? Newton could not have understood inertia because of the FTL nature of the Graviton. Simply put no one will ever see a gravity wave, it is impossible because gravity is instantaneous/FTL and operates at higher frequencies above our spectrum. Okay so far????

I will try to provide you a better explanation of flywheel experiment: You would expect the lower flywheel to spin in the same direction or not spin at all because of conservation of energy, mass at rest tends to stay at rest. However, this acceleration was due to added energy pushing in the opposite direction on the lower plate causing the flywheel to move. What energy? From where?

The graviton/antigraviton cycle is the answer. What is confussing is the fact of the additional energy, now you are correct there is no additional energy added to Universe. But, there is a cycling of energy otherwise nothing would exist or have high speed orbits. We are but an eddy of lower frequency atomic structures in a large river of higher speed/frequency gravitons and antigravitons,,,maybe that is a more understandable way of putting it.

Regarding time and speed of motion. The faster the motion, the slower time in comparison to our time zone. We operate with in a very small viewplane whereas greater Universe has many circulations on many levels. Time is relative. John

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by cosmicsurfer</i>
<br />Hi GD & Stoat,

1)... Do we agree that mass is not an isolated system and does not contain all of the energy that it will have for its life time---including gravity? ....

2)... However, this acceleration was due to added energy pushing in the opposite direction on the lower plate causing the flywheel to move. What energy? From where?

3)... But, there is a cycling of energy otherwise nothing would exist or have high speed orbits...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hi John,

1) I disagree on this. The atom can interact with its invironment but has a set amount of energy which decreases with time (the electrons slow down with time).
I think by adding more energy to the nucleus/electron this would change the order of things with respect to the arrow time. the nucleus would have the possibility of coming apart!

2) Could you show me some real examples of this working. Has this been tested before? The pushing energy you are talking about, would this be some magnetic field of some sort? Or are you saying some sort of event causes an opposite action somewhere else?
For example: in this area of the universe galaxies are clustering, but elsewhere the opposite is happening?

3)Has the speed of orbiting planets always been the same (and will always remain the same)? How would a galaxy look like if all of its mass had the same energy state. Why are solar systems lined up in arms around the galaxy center as if moving to a specific point?

The other day I stumbled upon a graph which looked strikingly like our galaxy:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_space

"For every possible state of the system, or allowed combination of values of the system's parameters, a point is plotted in the multidimensional space. Often this succession of plotted points is analogous to the system's state evolving over time...

...Because of this, it is possible to calculate the state of the system at any given time in the future or the past, through integration of Hamilton's or Lagrange's equations of motion..."

John, do you think the path our solar system is taking through the galaxy could be plotted the same way?

<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 />
Is there an electromagnetic charge and a hidden gravitational charge? Or is my proton simply a neutron? I don't have a clue as yet. I'll have to plug in various masses and see what comes out in the wash.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hello Stoat,

I think Krane's equation shows only a partial image of how the atom's energy state could vary with time.
Maybe the time interval (or reaction time) is too short.