The entropy of systems

Not often I'm right but I'm wrong again[][]

Taking a look at the temperature of a ball of degenerate matter, with a negative refractive index, in the heart of our sun. I get 1.36501E 09 degrees C. That's if the divide by 0.0004 thing works with changes of such a huge scale in refractive index. I used a refractive index of the speed of light times the speed of gravity to get 2.9302E-13 as the index. Now the problem is of by how much does the r.i. change with the radius. In this stuff we would have a lower temperature at the centre than at the boundary surface.

I'm toying with the thorny question of why stars explode. Why they implode is one thing, why they then explode, could well be answered by assuming a neg r.i. core. Early days, and I'm not even going to look at it until I've finished my anglo saxon novel.

<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 />...Rutherford's experiment, where he fired alpha particles at a thin sheet of gold. A few of them bounced back!! ...So take a small sun and stick it top of an alpha particle, then roll it off and lo and behold the alpha particle is still there good as new! Wow!!!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hi Stoat,

Are you saying the alpha particle stays a particle? For example: when an atom is smashed in a collider, the particles make a whirl type pattern (the same as the "phase space/attractor" diagram). When the particle stops spinning is it still lying there as a particle?

It depends on the sizes of the particles and how they are hit. Take for example "k capture". A nucleus might be a little proton rich, an electron from its k shell drops down into the nucleus and totally disrupts it.

Sometimes an alpha particle will tunnel into an atom nucleus of something with a lower mass than that of the gold atom used by Rutherford. The main thing to grasp is, just how tough these particles are. An electron doing 0.9c hits something and bounces back!! It decelerates faster than light! Does it remake itself from the energy release of impact? I would say that it can, because it contains a tiny gyro of gravitational mass and a "bigger" gyro of electromagnetic mass. The gravitational gyro isn't in the least bit bothered by a "fender bump" as slow as 0.9c To it, the electromagnetic outer part of itself is a mere will o the wisp.It tunnels through no bother and it's miles away before it has to go back and regather its slower part.

Hello Stoat,

I see that alpha particles move very fast but for a very short time (or a very short distance).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bragg_Curve_for_Alphas_in_Air.png


I will use George Gamov's assessment concerning the particle/ wave duality of the electron and try to apply it to the phase space diagram posted earlier:

The trajectory (curve)of the particle is influenced by its changing energy state. Therefore it moves from a quanta of energy (particle) to a wave.

If Ernest Rutherford would have put the target further away, no particles would have reached it.
(even in vacuum: it would only take more time for this process to take place.)

What do you think Stoat?

Hi GD, Rutherford wanted to smack cold atoms, so he did the experiment in a vacuum. Alpha particles in air will slow down very fast but remember that there are billions of gas atom targets to slow them down. The curves of particles are down to to their respective charges. The experiments are done in a magnetic field. As we are talking very small masses, there is no spacetime curvature to fret about. Not that I believe in such a thing as spacetime.

Quote "If Ernest Rutherford would have put the target further away, no particles would have reached it.
(even in vacuum: it would only take more time for this process to take place.)"

Not sure what you mean here, light travels 186 thousand miles a second, gravity even faster.

Stoat:
"Rutherford wanted to smack cold atoms, so he did the experiment in a vacuum... magnetic field..."

GD:
I did not realize the degree of constraints to change the trajectory of the particle!
According to you what would be the trajectory with less constraints (in vacuum only)?

Stoat:
"The curves of particles are down to to their respective charges. The experiments are done in a magnetic field. As we are talking very small masses, there is no spacetime curvature to fret about."

GD:
I am suspecting the changing energy state of the particle is affecting its path: less energy it has, the less space it covers with time. (space-time)


GD:
"If Ernest Rutherford would have put the target further away, no particles would have reached it."
- Here, I am talking about a particle changing into a wave as distance and time increases.


Stoat:
"Not sure what you mean here, light travels 186 thousand miles a second, gravity even faster."

GD:
When you say "light" do you mean particle or wave? (I mean wave)


A particle that changes into a wave with time, but which covers less space with time seems to work well with the increase entropy of systems, dissipative systems, attractors...

Does this still make sense?