Posted on 09/14/2017 11:41:53 AM PDT by BenLurkin
Abstract
The asteroid belt contains less than a thousandth of Earth's mass and is radially segregated, with S-types dominating the inner belt and C-types the outer belt. It is generally assumed that the belt formed with far more mass and was later strongly depleted.
We show that the present-day asteroid belt is consistent with having formed empty, without any planetesimals between Mars and Jupiter's present-day orbits. This is consistent with models in which drifting dust is concentrated into an isolated annulus of terrestrial planetesimals. Gravitational scattering during terrestrial planet formation causes radial spreading, transporting planetesimals from inside 1 to 1.5 astronomical units out to the belt.
Several times the total current mass in S-types is implanted, with a preference for the inner main belt. C-types are implanted from the outside, as the giant planets' gas accretion destabilizes nearby planetesimals and injects a fraction into the asteroid belt, preferentially in the outer main belt.
These implantation mechanisms are simple by-products of terrestrial and giant planet formation. The asteroid belt may thus represent a repository for planetary leftovers that accreted across the solar system but not in the belt itself.
(Excerpt) Read more at phys.org ...
Wouldn't that make it a moon?
-PJ
perhaps y9u didn’t read your post ....
“Alternative views are also presented here. These views are not generally accepted by mainstream physics,”
Correct, which is why I had been since preparing to post this...
Wave–particle duality is the concept in quantum mechanics that every particle or quantic entity may be partly described in terms not only of particles, but also of waves. It expresses the inability of the classical concepts “particle” or “wave” to fully describe the behavior of quantum-scale objects. As Albert Einstein wrote:[1]
It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the other, while at times we may use either. We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do.
Through the work of Max Planck, Einstein, Louis de Broglie, Arthur Compton, Niels Bohr and many others, current scientific theory holds that all particles also have a wave nature (and vice versa).[2] This phenomenon has been verified not only for elementary particles, but also for compound particles like atoms and even molecules. For macroscopic particles, because of their extremely short wavelengths, wave properties usually cannot be detected.[3]
Although the use of the wave-particle duality has worked well in physics, the meaning or interpretation has not been satisfactorily resolved; see Interpretations of quantum mechanics.
Bohr regarded the “duality paradox” as a fundamental or metaphysical fact of nature. A given kind of quantum object will exhibit sometimes wave, sometimes particle, character, in respectively different physical settings. He saw such duality as one aspect of the concept of complementarity.[4] Bohr regarded renunciation of the cause-effect relation, or complementarity, of the space-time picture, as essential to the quantum mechanical account.[5]
Werner Heisenberg considered the question further. He saw the duality as present for all quantic entities, but not quite in the usual quantum mechanical account considered by Bohr. He saw it in what is called second quantization, which generates an entirely new concept of fields which exist in ordinary space-time, causality still being visualizable. Classical field values (e.g. the electric and magnetic field strengths of Maxwell) are replaced by an entirely new kind of field value, as considered in quantum field theory. Turning the reasoning around, ordinary quantum mechanics can be deduced as a specialized consequence of quantum field theory.[6][7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality
You are right, until a quantum entity such as an electron or proton is observed it exists only within a probability wave. But once it is observed the probability wave aspect of its reality collapses and the entity becomes a particle.
And of course, the composition of Jupiter shows it formed beyond the current orbit of Neptune, and the other gas giants were “bullied” out of their original orbits nearer the Sun. Hi BL.
The remains of the planet Krypton, IIRC.
Your observations and input are always welcome.
You do know that the whole 12th planet thingy is based on a life insurance salesman’s fake attempt to translate Sumerian cuneiform?
Sumerian dictionary is available on line and you can translate the same docs as the salesman but will not find his take anywhere in them.
Exactly!
I always thought that photons formed binary pairs (or small groups) that orbited one another and described a helix as they moved. Viewed in two dimensions the movement of the “light particles” would appear to describe waves.
How would I measure this without a grant and a lab? No idea.
Ha. He said, annulus.
Like all elementary particles, photons are currently best explained by quantum mechanics and exhibit wave–particle duality, exhibiting properties of both waves and particles. For example, a single photon may be refracted by a lens and exhibit wave interference with itself, and it can behave as a particle with definite and finite measurable position or momentum, though not both at the same time.
The photon’s wave and quanta qualities are two observable aspects of a single phenomenon, and cannot be described by any mechanical model;[2] a representation of this dual property of light, which assumes certain points on the wavefront to be the seat of the energy, is not possible. The quanta in a light wave cannot be spatially localized. Some defined physical parameters of a photon are listed.
The modern concept of the photon was developed gradually by Albert Einstein in the early 20th century to explain experimental observations that did not fit the classical wave model of light.
The benefit of the photon model was that it accounted for the frequency dependence of light’s energy, and explained the ability of matter and electromagnetic radiation to be in thermal equilibrium. The photon model accounted for anomalous observations, including the properties of black-body radiation, that others (notably Max Planck) had tried to explain using semiclassical models. In that model, light was described by Maxwell’s equations, but material objects emitted and absorbed light in quantized amounts (i.e., they change energy only by certain particular discrete amounts).
Although these semiclassical models contributed to the development of quantum mechanics, many further experiments[3][4] beginning with the phenomenon of Compton scattering of single photons by electrons, validated Einstein’s hypothesis that light itself is quantized.[5][6] In 1926 the optical physicist Frithiof Wolfers and the chemist Gilbert N. Lewis coined the name photon for these particles.[7]
After Arthur H. Compton won the Nobel Prize in 1927 for his scattering studies,[8] most scientists accepted that light quanta have an independent existence, and the term photon was accepted.
In the Standard Model of particle physics, photons and other elementary particles are described as a necessary consequence of physical laws having a certain symmetry at every point in spacetime. The intrinsic properties of particles, such as charge, mass and spin, are determined by this gauge symmetry.
The photon concept has led to momentous advances in experimental and theoretical physics, including lasers, Bose–Einstein condensation, quantum field theory, and the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics.
It has been applied to photochemistry, high-resolution microscopy, and measurements of molecular distances. Recently, photons have been studied as elements of quantum computers, and for applications in optical imaging and optical communication such as quantum cryptography. ...”
No.
The equation you posted gives as much information about what energy is as the sentence “Is is to be” gives about being.
We don’t know what energy is.
Same can be said for just about aspect of reality, physical or otherwise. For example, gravity, electrical and magnetic attraction and repulsion, light/electromagnetic radiation, the workings of the atom, the Big Bang, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, the totally bizarre world of quantum mechanics, on and on.
We have a general idea about what these things are and how to apply them in practical use, but we are still very much in the dark as to their ultimate fundamental nature, and to what is really going on, assuming there is such a single bottom line truth or explanation to everything.
I just used the 12th planet illustration because it was handy. I think SOMETHING spanged into Earth and tore a Helluva hole where the Pacific is now. I’m thinking plate tectonics exist because the land masses are moving to cover up the hole. (Yeah, I know it’s a crust floating on magma.)
If the earth was revolving as it solidified, why do they keep showing Gondwana or whatever as one giant land mass on one side of the earth, then breaking apart? It seems to me it broke apart to cover the missing land mass torn out.
Or, on the other hand, all land masses were located roughly where the South Pole is today until after 650 Million years ago and have migrated since - according to most geologists. This makes the ‘hole’ just a void that has not been filled - like the smaller void in the Atlantic.
Why they were located there is an interesting question - was there a larger body which the Earth orbited and gravity pulled the land masses toward it - see the Saturn Myth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.