A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Titius Bode Rule is a Balmer Rydberg rule Chapt16.16 deriving BalmerRydberg from Maxwell Equations #1479 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 8th 13, 05:41 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.math,misc.legal
Archimedes Plutonium[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 858
Default Titius Bode Rule is a Balmer Rydberg rule Chapt16.16 deriving BalmerRydberg from Maxwell Equations #1479 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Now on page 1113 of Halliday & Resnick's, Physics, part 2, extended
version, 1986, we see H&R discussing the Balmer Rydberg formula of
this:

1/y = R(1/m^2 -(1/n^2))

So let us see how all of Spectral Physics is beginning to be all
derived out of the Maxwell Equations. This should be the case since
both the Schrodinger and Dirac Equations are derived out of the
Maxwell Equations. When the Maxwell Equations are the axioms over all
of physics, then everything in physics is directly tied to the Maxwell
Equations.

Alright, these are the 4 symmetrical Maxwell Equations with magnetic
monopoles:

div*E = r_E

div*B = r_B

- curlxE = dB + J_B

curlxB = dE + J_E

Now to derive the Dirac Equation from the Maxwell Equations we add
the lot together:

div*E = r_E

div*B = r_B

- curlxE = dB + J_B

curlxB = dE + J_E

________________

div*E + div*B + (-1)curlxE + curlxB = r_E + r_B + dB + dE + J_E + J_B

Now Wikipedia has a good description of how Dirac derived his famous
equation which gives this:

(Ad_x + Bd_y + Cd_z + (i/c)Dd_t - mc/h) p = 0

So how is the above summation of Maxwell Equations that of a
generalized Dirac Equation? 
Well, the four terms of div and curl are
the A,B,C,D terms. And the right side of the equation can all be
conglomerated into one term and
the negative sign in the Faraday law
can turn that right side into the negative sign.

Now in the Dirac Equation we
need all four of the Maxwell Equations
because it is a 4x4 matrix 
equation and so the full 4 Maxwell
Equations are needed to cover the 
Dirac Equation, although
the Dirac
Equation ends up being a minor subset of the 4 Maxwell Equations,
because the Dirac Equation does not allow the photon to be a double
transverse wave while the Summation of
the Maxwell Equations demands
the photon be a double transverse wave.
And the Dirac Equation never has the magnetic monopoles of north and
south always attracting which the Maxwell equations never has any
repulsion of magnetic monopoles.

But the Shrodinger Equation derived from the Maxwell Equations needs
only two
of the Maxwell Equations, the two Gauss laws.
The Schrodinger Equation
is:

ihd(f(w)) = Hf(w) where f(w) is the wave function

The Schrodinger Equation is easily derived from the mere 2 Gauss's
laws combined: These are the 2 Gauss's law when no monopoles are
expected :


div*E = r_E


div*B = 0

Now the two Gauss's law of Maxwell Equations standing alone are
nonrelativistic and so is the Schrodinger Equation.

div*E = r_E

div*B = 0
____________

div*E + div*B = r_E + 0

this is reduced to

k(d(f(x))) = H(f(x))

Now Schrodinger derived his equation out of thin air, using the Fick's
law of diffusion. So Schrodinger never really used the Maxwell
Equations. The Maxwell Equations were foreign to Schrodinger and to
all the physicists of the 20th century when it came time to
find the
wave function. But how easy it would have been for 
Schrodinger if he
instead, reasoned that the Maxwell Equations
derives all of Physics,
and that he should only focus on the Maxwell Equations. Because if he
had reasoned that the Maxwell Equations
were
the axiom set of all of
physics and then derived the 
Schrodinger
Equation from the two Gauss
laws, he would and could 
have further reasoned that if you Summation
all 4 Maxwell Equations, that 
Schrodinger would then have derived
the 
relativistic wave equation and thus have found the Dirac Equation
long
before Dirac ever had the
idea of finding a relativistic wave
equation.

So, now, how does the Maxwell Equations of just the two Gauss laws
with magnetic monopoles derive the Balmer-Rydberg formula? Very easily
is the answer because when you have magnetic monopoles in the two
Gauss laws, you have in effect, two inverse square laws and thus you
have the 1/m^2 term and the 1/n^2 term in a Summation of the two Gauss
laws:

div*E = r_E

div*B = r_B

Those two laws can be translated into two Coulomb laws:

F1 = K1(1/m^2)

K2(1/n^2) = F2

Now Summation of those two Coulomb forces gives this:

F1 + K2(1/n^2) = F2 + K1(1/m^2)

which yields this

F1 - F2 = K1(1/m^2) - K2(1/m^2)

now the F's are consolidated into a 1/y and the K's constant terms
merge into one consolidated constant of R, Rydberg constant.

So in the above I have outlined how the Maxwell Equations is all of
Spectral Physics, is all of Quantum Mechanics and even more than
Quantum Mechanics.

So that when physicists and astronomers see something like the Titius-
Bode Rule, what they are in fact seeing is a law of Physics as the
stars, galaxies, planets and moons are atomic physics writ large.
--

I post this also to misc.legal for maybe a lawyer can tell me why AP
is receiving this Google discrimination? Why is it that the author-
archive of AP has become broken since May of 2012 where 90 percent of
my posts are missing. And where Jeff Relf claims "Google Groups is
100% uncensored, so it isn't fully indexed. Were Google Groups fully
indexed, it'd be used to game the system;.. " Yet anyone looking at
another poster, David Bernier has a full intact author archive up the
latest hour of posting. So someone is discriminating against
Archimedes Plutonium by destroying his Google author archive. If David
Bernier and others have a full Google author-archive, no excuse for AP
to have the same.

Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a excellent, simple and fair author-
archiving of AP sci.math posts for the past several years as seen
he

http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
  #2  
Old April 9th 13, 08:02 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.math
Archimedes Plutonium[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 858
Default binary stars collectively follow a Titius Bode rule? Chapt16.16deriving Balmer Rydberg from Maxwell Equations #1480 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

On Apr 8, 11:41Â*am, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
Now on page 1113 of Halliday & Resnick's, Physics, part 2, extended
version, 1986, we see H&R discussing the Balmer Rydberg formula of
this:

1/y = R(1/m^2 -(1/n^2))

So let us see how all of Spectral Physics is beginning to be all
derived out of the Maxwell Equations. This should be the case since
both the Schrodinger and Dirac Equations are derived out of the
Maxwell Equations. When the Maxwell Equations are the axioms over all
of physics, then everything in physics is directly tied to the Maxwell
Equations.

Alright, these are the 4 symmetrical Maxwell Equations with magnetic
monopoles:

div*E = r_E

div*B = r_B

- curlxE = dB + J_B

curlxB = dE + J_E

Now to derive the Dirac Equation from the Maxwell Equations we add
the lot together:

div*E = r_E

div*B = r_B

- curlxE = dB + J_B

curlxB = dE + J_E

________________

div*E + div*B + (-1)curlxE + curlxB = r_E + r_B + dB + dE + J_E + J_B

Now Wikipedia has a good description of how Dirac derived his famous
equation which gives this:

(Ad_x + Bd_y + Cd_z + (i/c)Dd_t - mc/h) p = 0

So how is the above summation of Maxwell Equations that of a
generalized Dirac Equation? 
Well, the four terms of div and curl are
the A,B,C,D terms. And the right side of the equation can all be
conglomerated into one term and
the negative sign in the Faraday law
can turn that right side into the negative sign.

Now in the Dirac Equation we
need all four of the Maxwell Equations
because it is a 4x4 matrix 
equation and so the full 4 Maxwell
Equations are needed to cover the 
Dirac Equation, although
the Dirac
Equation ends up being a minor subset of the 4 Maxwell Equations,
because the Dirac Equation does not allow the photon to be a double
transverse wave while the Summation of
the Maxwell Equations demands
the photon be a double transverse wave.
And the Dirac Equation never has the magnetic monopoles of north and
south always attracting which the Maxwell equations never has any
repulsion of magnetic monopoles.

But the Shrodinger Equation derived from the Maxwell Equations needs
only two
of the Maxwell Equations, the two Gauss laws.
The Schrodinger Equation
is:

ihd(f(w)) = Hf(w) where f(w) is the wave function

The Schrodinger Equation is easily derived from the mere 2 Gauss's
laws combined: These are the 2 Gauss's law when no monopoles are
expected :


div*E = r_E


div*B = 0

Now the two Gauss's law of Maxwell Equations standing alone are
nonrelativistic and so is the Schrodinger Equation.

div*E = r_E

div*B = 0
____________

div*E + div*B = r_E + 0

this is reduced to

k(d(f(x))) = H(f(x))

Now Schrodinger derived his equation out of thin air, using the Fick's
law of diffusion. So Schrodinger never really used the Maxwell
Equations. The Maxwell Equations were foreign to Schrodinger and to
all the physicists of the 20th century when it came time to
find the
wave function. But how easy it would have been for 
Schrodinger if he
instead, reasoned that the Maxwell Equations
derives all of Physics,
and that he should only focus on the Maxwell Equations. Because if he
had reasoned that the Maxwell Equations
were
the axiom set of all of
physics and then derived the 
Schrodinger
Equation from the two Gauss
laws, he would and could 
have further reasoned that if you Summation
all 4 Maxwell Equations, that 
Schrodinger would then have derived
the 
relativistic wave equation and thus have found the Dirac Equation
long
before Dirac ever had the
idea of finding a relativistic wave
equation.

So, now, how does the Maxwell Equations of just the two Gauss laws
with magnetic monopoles derive the Balmer-Rydberg formula? Very easily
is the answer because when you have magnetic monopoles in the two
Gauss laws, you have in effect, two inverse square laws and thus you
have the 1/m^2 term and the 1/n^2 term in a Summation of the two Gauss
laws:

div*E = r_E

div*B = r_B

Those two laws can be translated into two Coulomb laws:

F1 = K1(1/m^2)

K2(1/n^2) = F2

Now Summation of those two Coulomb forces gives this:

F1 + K2(1/n^2) = F2 + K1(1/m^2)

which yields this

F1 - F2 = K1(1/m^2) - K2(1/m^2)


Sorry, I was typing too fast and should have an "n" where the "m" is:

F1 - F2 = K1(1/m^2) - K2(1/n^2)

which is further reduced to the Balmer Rydberg formula as seen on page
1113
of Halliday & Resnick.

I corrected this in the original with a (sic) sign.

Now I was thinking about stars, binary stars and wondering if we are
able to plot their orbits around each other with any accuracy? Of
course I suspect we cannot plot exoplanets orbits with any precision,
but perhaps with nearby binary stars we can have precision. If so, I
suspect that binary stars follow a similar pattern as the Titius Bode
Rule of doubling of distances. So that one binary star pair would have
a orbit like that of Venus versus Sun and another binary pair have an
orbit like that of Earth versus Sun and a different binary pair have a
orbit like Jupiter versus Sun. So in a way, or manner, we have
quantized binary star orbits, that the orbits can be only according to
a doubling pattern that we see in Titius Bode Rule. So where Tifft
found quantized galaxy speeds (quantized redshifts), I am proposing
that the orbits of binary stars are quantized as per distance of
orbits and following a Balmer-Rydberg formula. Now if we cannot tell
the orbital distance of star binaries with any sort of accuracy, then
forget I wrote this. But if we can, then we have a great opportunity
to see that the Titius Bode Rule is not just linked to the Solar
System but throughout the stars of the Cosmos.



now the F's are consolidated into a 1/y and the K's constant terms
merge into one consolidated constant of R, Rydberg constant.

So in the above I have outlined how the Maxwell Equations is all of
Spectral Physics, is all of Quantum Mechanics and even more than
Quantum Mechanics.

So that when physicists and astronomers see something like the Titius-
Bode Rule, what they are in fact seeing is a law of Physics as the
stars, galaxies, planets and moons are atomic physics writ large.


--

Google has stopped archiving all my posts and thus I am looking for a
new
forum where all my posts will be archived. A place like Drexel
University's
Math Forum. Only problem with Drexel's Math Forum is it is math
related and
many of my posts deal with other sciences. It would be nice if every
science
is hosted by a University.


Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a excellent, simple and fair author-
archiving of AP sci.math posts for the past several years as seen
he

http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Chapt16.16 Titius Bode Rule from Maxwell Equations fromBalmer-Rydberg formula #1478 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 0 April 7th 13 07:22 PM
Titius-Bode Rule becomes a law of physics from Maxwell EquationsChapt16.15 Gravity Cells #1456 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 7 April 4th 13 09:54 AM
Chapt30 Titius Bode Rule quantized #373 Atom Totality 4th ed Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 0 March 17th 11 06:34 AM
Chapt30 Titius Bode Rule quantized #372 Atom Totality 4th ed Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 0 March 16th 11 08:05 PM
Chap30 Titius Bode Rule #371 Atom Totality 4th ed Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 0 March 16th 11 08:25 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.