|Mar17-12, 10:08 AM||#18|
Why do electrons revolve so fast?
At any time I'm okay to say I'm not moving, in effect re-coordinating my measure of length / time comparatively, in that sense the "scale" is not applicable universally.
That being said individually, as in a single FoR there is a speed "scale" of 0 - >c.
"...but having a scale and being relative are not mutually exclusive." Because "Having a scale and being relative are different properties."
That is a much much better way to put it.
Especially if "scale" is defined here as measure of proper time / length, and specifically not the calculated speed. Similar the OPs confusion regarding what speed looks like and what speed is measured. (specifically it's frequency of events or "happenings" confused with measured speed)
I did exclude the fact there is a scale of 0-c for every FoR (due to how dimensions are measured), and focused on the fact it can be applied to any object (considering relative motion).
So in that sense, from the perspective of SR, I see speed as an "appearance" when ....Universally Speaking (woo hoo RHCP!!), Both from a visual & measurement perspective, but not from a proper measurement perspective.
Not specific to your post Dalespam, but telling the OP that the electron is not an object of position, and describing it as having a speed is pretty confusing. Stick to one physical reality, from there grow it into why moving so fast (having low mass) makes exact predictions probabilities. (sorry for the poor choice of words, think the meaning is still there)
|Mar17-12, 11:34 AM||#19|
|Mar17-12, 12:09 PM||#20|
I am starting to wonder why physics discounts the dichotomy of appearance between a wave & a particle. In what sense is it not a point particle, that appears as a wave when "stretched" across a distance when in motion, in effect changing dimensional shape into something measured as space like, where the position of the "end" of the wave is simultaneous with the position of the "front" of the wave. Going even more arbitrary, a particle looks like a wave if the time "component" is "removed".
Why is the way we measure time / length carried over into observations of particle(time)/waves(length) when the technique is accurate but lacks a determinate prediction?
I ask this because the measure of time / length is defined by c, but
I'll have to check out Naty1's links, I'd guess it'd cover these elementary misunderstandings of mine.
|Similar Threads for: Why do electrons revolve so fast?|
|Examining aluminium foils stopping potensial on <0.98c fast electrons||Advanced Physics Homework||0|
|How fast do CRTs shoot electrons?||High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics||6|
|How do electrons revolve around in molecule bonded by covalent bonds?||Chemistry||5|
|Bunched electrons: How many and how fast?||High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics||7|
|Will it revolve?||Classical Physics||13|