1. Time Travel Institute has been upgraded, courtesy of Mop's wallet and Cosmo's lack of social life! Feel free to explore the new features, one of us will post an announcement thread with a few highlights later tonight.

Physics Question.

Discussion in 'Time Travel Discussion' started by RenUnconscious, Aug 21, 2005.

  1. RenUnconscious Member

    Can anyone explain if the speed of the electron orbit of an atom increases or decreases when the atom is in motion? Such as accelerating through a particle accelerator? Or is electron orbit speed even measureable at that degree? Any degree?

    Thank you for anyone who might have a clue.

    /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
    RenUnconscious, Aug 21, 2005
    #1

  2. RainmanTime Administrator

    Hi Ren,

    I'd hope Darby sees this thread and chimes in with anything I might be stating incorrectly in what follows, but I'll take a shot.

    That's a pretty deep question, and one that would he hard to answer without asking some more questions about what you specifically mean. And even then, there is the question of whether the electron is a particle orbiting the nucleus, as told by the Bohr model. The quantum model says the electron is a probability cloud, and in such a model one does not even make the assumption that the electron is moving as a particle. It could just be disappearing and reappearing at a different spot in the electron cloud.

    Second, I assume you mean in your question the speed of the electron with respect to some neutral (inertial) reference frame, and not with respect to the atom's nucleus. In this case, and assuming the Bohr model of an orbiting electron is correct, then the inertial speed (meaning the magnitude of the total velocity vector) would modulate as the atom moved. The speed of the atom itself (if it was constant) would be like a DC term. The additive speed of the electron would be like an AC signal component on top of the atom's linear, constant velocity (the DC component). This is a simple dynamic relationship that could easily be modeled in a program like MATLAB. An analogy would be modeling the forward motion of a helicopter while also modeling the rotation of its blades. The heli forward motion is a DC velocity, with the rotating blades being an AC additive.

    OK, in this case I do not believe you are accelerating entire atoms, but rather electrons that have been stripped off of atoms.

    As indicated above, quantum theory is based on the claim that the simple Bohr model of the electron, whizzing around the nucleus in a nice, stable orbit is incorrect. In quantum theory, the electron is not a particle, but it is a probabilistic wave function. Quite literally one could claim that the electron is not so much moving in an arc around the nucleus but instead appearing and disappearing in various different places... with the wave function denoting the possibilities that the electron appears in certain places more often than in other places.

    Here is a good article, with some great graphics, that might help.
    http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-flaw.asp

    RMT
    RainmanTime, Aug 21, 2005
    #2

  3. Einstein Active Member

    Hi Ren

    This is something that I came across a while back at anomalies.net. The name of the thread was "The Orbit of the Electron and the Passage of Time". What makes the thread stand out in my memory is that the initial poster for the thread actually thinks and analyzes like me. But there is more. This thread appeared right around the time the anomalies site was being bombarded by hits from government surveilance agencies. So I'm connecting the two. Also the initial poster seems to have posted the topic for my benifit only. After that there were no more posts from this poster.

    Here's the link:

    The orbit of an electron and the passage of time

    Now I do have to say that the answer to your question can only be a theoretical one. A way to actually observe the electron and report on it's whereabouts without influencing the observation does not exist to my knowledge. But I do tend to side with the Bohr atomic model. But you could logically deduce a possible answer to your question. If you add energy of motion to an object, time dilation accumulates. Now suppose that extra energy is devided up between all the electrons in the atomic orbits of all the atoms in the object in motion. We know that adding energy to an atom in the form of voltage causes the electron orbits to increase and eventually break their atomic bonds. So one could deduce that an energy increase from motion also causes an increase in electron orbital radius. But at larger radiuses the orbital rotation rate goes down. So in answer to your question I would have to say the orbital electron velocity goes down. But my answer is hypothetical. But it is consistant with known accepted theory.
    Einstein, Aug 21, 2005
    #3

  4. John Thomas Active Member

    Hi. Do any of you remember me from 2004? I vaguely remember posting this. But it is a blur.
    John Thomas, Jul 20, 2012
    #4

  5. RenUnconscious Member

    You are the crazy guy going around passing himself off as Ren. Well I was using the name long before you. This is my account, and I have no affiliation with you or your claims to be John Titor #13955931 or whatever. You didn't start this thread in 2004, I did.

    Please nobody confuse me with this guy, people who know me know I am nothing like this guy. I don't look like him or talk like him. I also don't claim to be John Titor from the year 2015. I've seen your posts on Paranormalis mr John Thomas (Ren) and you are an absolute loon. Please do not involve me in any way with your lunacy.

    So just remember people, RenUnconscious <> Ren (John Thomas)
    This can be confirmed by Darby or RMT or a host of others here on TTI. I just don't want my name being dragged down with the trash and people confusing me with this guy.

    Thank you.
    RenUnconscious, Jul 20, 2012
    #5
    Skarpz likes this.

  6. Darby Well-Known Member

    Hey Ren,

    Yeah, I was about to respond to this thread when your post showed up. You're right, you have had very specific off-the-boards PM conversations with me that would absolutely determine who is who (and I'm not asking for a show of proof). John Thomas is not RenUnconscious - and he's not John Titor.
    Darby, Jul 20, 2012
    #6

  7. John Thomas Active Member

    Ren is a very uncommon name. Do you have any idea why this person used the 'RenUnconscious' handle? It's freaking me out a bit.
    John Thomas, Jul 20, 2012
    #7

  8. John Thomas Active Member

    I am not RenUnconcious and John Titor but I do believe I'm being used to convey important messages.
    John Thomas, Jul 20, 2012
    #8

  9. Darby Well-Known Member

    Yes I do

    Not my problem. (Though, in reality, I don't believe that it's either a problem for you or freaking you out. You like playing at being John Titor and RenUnconscious for some reason.)
    Darby, Jul 20, 2012
    #9

  10. RenUnconscious Member

    Thanks Darby. You know who is who. Now I am going to respond to the other Ren.
    RenUnconscious, Jul 20, 2012
    #10

  11. RenUnconscious Member

    I chose the handle because of personal reasons. I don't know why it would freak you out. Ren is short for Rendered, as in Rendered Unconscious.
    RenUnconscious, Jul 20, 2012
    #11

  12. RenUnconscious Member

    What important message do you wish to convey to me? I don't think you'll get ahold of John Titor though, pretty sure he's long gone.
    RenUnconscious, Jul 20, 2012
    #12

  13. servantx Member

    Hi RenUnconscious,

    Have you found any new findings about the subject lately?
    servantx, Jul 20, 2012
    #13

  14. John Thomas Active Member

    Thank you for the clarification.
    John Thomas, Jul 21, 2012
    #14

Share This Page