PDA

View Full Version : Space and matter, but what is matter?



gzhpcu
2004-Jul-17, 10:55 AM
Our universe consists of space and matter. But what is matter?
All the models (quantum mechanics, superstring theory) are just structures that science has empirically defined to try to understand the behaviour of that which is too small for us to see. Scientists speak of points or vibrating strings as if they physically existed. Actually they are just abstract concepts.


It bothers me that we only have models and no idea of what is actually there.

What is matter made of really? Will we ever know?

Ut
2004-Jul-17, 10:59 AM
"What is matter really made of?"

Energy.

Now, ask yourself: What's energy? And what is it made of?

soupdragon2
2004-Jul-17, 11:12 AM
Don't forget the Dark Matter and Dark Energy. :wink:

cable
2004-Jul-17, 11:35 AM
There is no such an empty space, ie. without any matter or any energy.
What we call vacuum, is not empty.
Matter is a condensed or granulated form of energy.
Matter is created in result of observation/disturbing in a space filled with quiescent energy, ie. by decoherance.

gzhpcu
2004-Jul-17, 12:34 PM
OK, matter is the temporary, physical manifestation of a ubiqitous underlying network of energy.

But what does the manifestation consist of?

Ut
2004-Jul-17, 12:42 PM
You seem to be implying that energy isn't physical...

gzhpcu
2004-Jul-17, 01:17 PM
You seem to be implying that energy isn't physical...

Correct my assumptions:

photons are a form of energy, fast-moving particles have kinetic energy.

Photons have no mass.

Neither seems physical to me.

Energy does not seem physical to me. It has no mass.

Aren't the fundamental particles supposed to be quarks and leptons? If so, they are just models and do not represent reality...

cyrek1
2004-Jul-17, 01:34 PM
cyrek1 reply

gz
We are surrounded by matter. That matter is visible because it reflects energy (light).

The basic form of matter are the charged particles known as the electron and the proton. These have been determined by experiments. They are extremely dense particles.
I suggest you gat an introductery book on physics and learn more about this.

The basic form of energy is the electromagnetic force fields that surround these charged particles. Whenever these particles move, they generate disturbances in these fields. This then is the photon that constitues light.

My personal opinion is that energy cannot exist without matter in spite of Einsteins mass/energy formula.

gzhpcu
2004-Jul-17, 02:04 PM
cyrek1 reply

gz
We are surrounded by matter. That matter is visible because it reflects energy (light).

The basic form of matter are the charged particles known as the electron and the proton. These have been determined by experiments. They are extremely dense particles.
I suggest you gat an introductery book on physics and learn more about this.

The basic form of energy is the electromagnetic force fields that surround these charged particles. Whenever these particles move, they generate disturbances in these fields. This then is the photon that constitues light.

My personal opinion is that energy cannot exist without matter in spite of Einsteins mass/energy formula.

The basic forms of matter are not electrons, protons and neutrons. We are now down to the quark level.
If the universe had a beginning, it was, I thought just pure energy and no matter. Matter was created soon thereafter.

I think you have read rather old physics books.

Ut
2004-Jul-17, 02:16 PM
So, now you're claiming that physical = massive. So, temperature is not a physical property. Colour is not a physical property. Reflectivity is not a physical property.

So, if energy isn't physical... What is it?

gzhpcu
2004-Jul-17, 02:35 PM
So, now you're claiming that physical = massive. So, temperature is not a physical property. Colour is not a physical property. Reflectivity is not a physical property.

So, if energy isn't physical... What is it?

Just to set the matter straight: I am not claiming anything.

I am trying (just for myself) to understand what matter is. I still don't. Just want to see if anyone has any helpful insights (for me).

As to your counter-question of what energy is: OK, please tell me, what is energy?

bigsplit
2004-Jul-17, 02:44 PM
Matter is the combinations of polarized charges of space. Negativly charged space and positively charged space. Neutrally charged space is the closest thing to nothing conceivable. So basically, the Big Bang was the polarized decay of this neutrally charged space. This split caused density differenciation and the 4 forces which we desribe as matter.

gzhpcu
2004-Jul-17, 03:23 PM
Matter is the combinations of polarized charges of space. Negativly charged space and positively charged space. Neutrally charged space is the closest thing to nothing conceivable. So basically, the Big Bang was the polarized decay of this neutrally charged space. This split caused density differenciation and the 4 forces which we desribe as matter.

So what are the "polarized charges of space"?

How do they tie into this:
http://www-ed.fnal.gov/projects/exhibits/searching/exhibit_home1.html

Still looking for the building blocks of matter...

(It is not that I do not get the gist of the answers, it is just that I do not see them as describing actual physical reality)

Ut
2004-Jul-17, 03:25 PM
Energy is, and sorry for the cop out here, the ability to do work.


Now, I really have to ask: What do you consider to be physical reality? Everything science has to offer consists of mathematical models...

gzhpcu
2004-Jul-17, 03:42 PM
Energy is, and sorry for the cop out here, the ability to do work.


Now, I really have to ask: What do you consider to be physical reality? Everything science has to offer consists of mathematical models...

Mathematical models are there to try and explain what is happening, but have nothing to do with physical reality.

What do I consider physical reality? Let's take a table for example. I can look at it and feel it. When I begin to magnify it at some point a transition occurs as we change equipment: microscope, electron microscope, particle accelerator. Our every day sense of reality (in the sense of a table as an observable object breaks down). How does the change occur at the boundary, where we then have another definition of reality (other than the every day sense of reality). It is this every day sense of reality I am talking about. From the subatomic levels downward, things change and become ghostly. Where is the boundary?

Ut
2004-Jul-17, 03:51 PM
Well... Since things at the quantum level resemble things as they are in every day life, I'd have to say that your boundry creeps into things well before you have to worry about what matter is made of.

gzhpcu
2004-Jul-17, 04:01 PM
Well... Since things at the quantum level resemble things as they are in every day life, I'd have to say that your boundry creeps into things well before you have to worry about what matter is made of.

?? Electrons which have a particle/wave duality and clouds of probability resemble things in every day life? And quarks?

Gullible Jones
2004-Jul-17, 04:25 PM
Long overdue nitpick: photons do have mass. They have no rest mass, though - a photon at rest simply cannot exist.

cable
2004-Jul-17, 04:31 PM
Mathematical models are there to try and explain what is happening, but have nothing to do with physical reality.


Right. But they must fulfill emperimental observations.
Accelerated electrons do interfere. That 's a wave property.
Yet this wave is not real. It comes from Schrodinger complex formula.
EM wave is real. Schrodinger's wave is not.

gzhpcu
2004-Jul-17, 04:32 PM
As long as we are nit-picking: regarding temperature: I thought that heat was energy, and temperature a measure of the average energy level of the particles in a substance.

Ut
2004-Jul-17, 05:12 PM
How does the change occur at the boundary, where we then have another definition of reality (other than the every day sense of reality). It is this every day sense of reality I am talking about. From the subatomic levels downward, things change and become ghostly. Where is the boundary?

Well... Since things at the quantum level resemble things as they are in every day life, I'd have to say that your boundry creeps into things well before you have to worry about what matter is made of.

?? Electrons which have a particle/wave duality and clouds of probability resemble things in every day life? And quarks?

Yes, electrons (and quarks, and protons, and neutrons, and atomic nuclei) exhibit wave/particle duality. So do baseballs, but you can't see it. There are a lot of quantum effects that aren't observable at macroscopic levels. These are effects which you, essentially, rule out in your concept of "reality". So, if you can't even get down to the level of atomic nuclei before the nature of matter leaves your realm of discussion, there's no way you'd honestly care to philosophise over the physical makeup of matter at smaller scales.



As long as we are nit-picking: regarding temperature: I thought that heat was energy, and temperature a measure of the average energy level of the particles in a substance.

Temperature is a physical property of an object. Temperature is also massless -- it's an abstract concept. I'm saying that your definition of physical is unclear.

Basically, matter is just another type of energy, no different than heat, or gravitational potential energy, or kinetic energy. Matter is just a form of potential energy.

gzhpcu
2004-Jul-17, 06:52 PM
Ut,
Well, first of all, thanks for your patience.
Do you mean the elementary particles of which the baseball consists exhibit wave/particle duality? Not the baseball itself as an object?

IF so: A macroscopic object (not its parts) does not display quantum effects, until zooming in to an ever smaller part (tissue, molecule, etc. quark), suddenly the quantum effects are visible for that sub-object (at that level of the hierarchy). Where does this first occur? At the proton/neurton/electron level for this first time? Or does the hydrogen atom, for example, as an entity (not its individual parts), already display quantum effects?

OK, then afterwards, what happens is simply unknown in the context of every-day observable effects at the macro level.

If energy is the ability to do work, what do you understand ûnder "work"? I can see where if you have an elementary particle you want to accelerate you need work, but what if you have energy in empty space? Or is there no thing as empty space because it bubbles with particles/anti-particles pairs which appear and disappear?

bigsplit
2004-Jul-17, 10:53 PM
Matter is the combinations of polarized charges of space. Negativly charged space and positively charged space. Neutrally charged space is the closest thing to nothing conceivable. So basically, the Big Bang was the polarized decay of this neutrally charged space. This split caused density differenciation and the 4 forces which we desribe as matter.

So what are the "polarized charges of space"?

How do they tie into this:
http://www-ed.fnal.gov/projects/exhibits/searching/exhibit_home1.html

Still looking for the building blocks of matter...

(It is not that I do not get the gist of the answers, it is just that I do not see them as describing actual physical reality)

There are two basic properties of space, it can push or pull and any combination in between. Laws of Conservation require that there be equal amounts of push and pull on the aggragate. So the gross property of space is essentually neutrally charged space with a Universal charge equal to 0. This Neutrally charged space is nothing unless it can decay into opposite yet equal charges and maintain the universal nothingness, thus allowing the plurality of a monism.

The neutrally charge space can split into a positive and negatively charged space allowing electromagnetism that generates highly complicated structures with differential structures, dynamics and charge. All of this and it still equals 0 or nothingness. Our Universe is truely something from nothing, or the only nothing that is possible.

Joe87
2004-Jul-18, 12:49 AM
Do you mean the elementary particles of which the baseball consists exhibit wave/particle duality? Not the baseball itself as an object?


Actually, a baseball in motion has a wavelength (the De Broglie wavelength), defined as h/mv, where h is planck's constant. For a baseball, this wavelength is exceedingly small, which is why no one needs to consider it. For subatomic particles, on the other hand, the mass is so small that their wave/particle duality is important. There is no cutoff where the wave nature of matter ceases to exist, it just becomes trivial for everyday objects.

01101001
2004-Jul-18, 01:08 AM
Aren't the fundamental particles supposed to be quarks and leptons? If so, they are just models and do not represent reality...
Heh. The quarks and leptons are the reality. All else is illusion, created by your brain, which, of course, is itself an illusion.

You can believe in quarks and leptons, but they'll never believe in you.

Grey
2004-Jul-18, 01:22 AM
Aren't the fundamental particles supposed to be quarks and leptons? If so, they are just models and do not represent reality...
In what sense do you consider quarks and leptons "just models" with no basis in reality? Do you want to be able to see them in order to accept them as real? Is it important to you that "real reality" behave according to common sense rules the way tables do? I'd suggest that reality at its lowest level is in fact "ghostly" as you describe it, but why should that make it less "real"?

Quantum particles are the dreams that stuff is made of. - David Moser

gzhpcu
2004-Jul-18, 03:58 AM
Thanks for the replies.

OK, so just as a baseball displays relativistic properties which we are unable to observe in everday life, some quantum mechanical properties are also there. (Even though if we through baseballs at a wall with two slits without observing them, we will never get a wave-like impact distribution behind the wall, for example)

Every day observation is an illusion.

But regarding the fundamental particles:

Are quarks and leptons reality? They have never been observed singly in the particle accelerators. Aren't they just a mathematical model?

And regarding energy: aren't bosons just mathematical models also?

Couldn't these also prove not to be the fundamental particles. Might not Superstring theory postulate lower levels?

PhantomWolf
2004-Jul-18, 04:10 AM
Actually photons do have a mass, it's just VERY small. Without mass they can't have either kinetic energy or momentum and they have both. ;)

It's even been discovered very recently (within the past few months IIRC) that Neutrino's have mass, though it's suspected to be less than a photon's. It does go someway to understanding the anomolies of momentum in Beta decay though.

Celestial Mechanic
2004-Jul-18, 04:37 AM
[Snip!]But regarding the fundamental particles:

Are quarks and leptons reality? They have never been observed singly in the particle accelerators. Aren't they just a mathematical model?[Snip!]
Electrons are leptons, and we observe them all the time. Muons are leptons, and we observe them in accelerators and in showers of cosmic rays all the time. Quarks have not been observed singly in any direct manner, but we have indirect observations in the form of two-jet events and of gluons (which you did not mention but I'll bring them up here) in three-jet events.

You seem to have some weird aversion to mathematics, that if something is described with mathematics then it somehow cannot be "real". This is a very unproductive attitude. Experiments reveal that the molecular, nuclear, and subnuclear worlds just do not conform to our notions of common sense and everyday experience, and only mathematics can show us how to arrive at a "new" common sense for these phenomena.

gzhpcu
2004-Jul-18, 07:00 AM
You seem to have some weird aversion to mathematics, that if something is described with mathematics then it somehow cannot be "real". This is a very unproductive attitude. Experiments reveal that the molecular, nuclear, and subnuclear worlds just do not conform to our notions of common sense and everyday experience, and only mathematics can show us how to arrive at a "new" common sense for these phenomena.

It is not really an aversion, it just remains perplexing to me. Don't misunderstand me: I am not contesting the benefit of mathematical models to predict the mechanics of physical phenomena. I am just stating that they are idealized models. For example, quarks are too small to be measured, so the standard model treats them as if they were points. Superstring theory replaces a point with a string. Isn't this unreal? A point and a line are just mathematical definitions. They are only approximations.

You mentioned gluons of the standard model as carriers of the strong force. They bind quarks together to form protons, neutrons and other hadrons. When evidence for a clear three-jet structure was found in the 1980's, the third jet was "attributed" to one of the produced quarks emitting a gluon. But was a gluon actually observed in the bubble chamber?

cyrek1
2004-Jul-18, 12:09 PM
cyrek1 reply

gz
Quarks do not exixt in isolation so I do not consider them to be basic particles.

The BB started out with the creation of space and time. Where did the energy come in?

Anyway, I do not give the BB any credibility.

Grey
2004-Jul-18, 02:15 PM
Quarks have not been observed singly in any direct manner, but we have indirect observations in the form of two-jet events and of gluons (which you did not mention but I'll bring them up here) in three-jet events.
Also, in very deep scattering experiments with protons, it's been demonstrated that the electric charge of a proton isn't spread throughout the proton, but concentrated in three points, with charges of +2/3 +2/3 and -1/3, just as we'd expect. I'd actually consider that a pretty direct observation, even though the quarks in question are still bound.

Ut
2004-Jul-18, 02:26 PM
Going back a few steps.


If energy is the ability to do work, what do you understand ûnder "work"? I can see where if you have an elementary particle you want to accelerate you need work, but what if you have energy in empty space? Or is there no thing as empty space because it bubbles with particles/anti-particles pairs which appear and disappear?

Hrmm... What is work? I don't remember the verbal description of it, just the equation which I have conveniently written down in a table... I think you know what work is, anyway.

There is energy in empty space. It's potential energy. That energy has the potential to, apparently, accelerate space itself, if you believe some people.



Actually photons do have a mass, it's just VERY small. Without mass they can't have either kinetic energy or momentum and they have both.

But when most people think of mass, they think of rest mass. Photons have zero rest mass, but they're never at rest. They're happy little bundles of kinetic energy. It'd be really weird, and sort of funny, if kinetic energy stopped to take a break every so often. :P



OK, so just as a baseball displays relativistic properties which we are unable to observe in everday life, some quantum mechanical properties are also there. (Even though if we through baseballs at a wall with two slits without observing them, we will never get a wave-like impact distribution behind the wall, for example)

Right. Remember, just because you can't see an effect, it doesn't mean it's there. The deBroglie baseball makes perfect sense if you drop the notion of particles all together. "Particles" are, by their nature, wave-like. They have no macroscopic analogue. So, in any macroscopic object what you actually have are countless superimposed waves. We see the particles associated with those waves (since we can't see the waves at all) as a baseball, or a table, or a car. That's just the way matter is.

cable
2004-Jul-18, 04:30 PM
Actually, a baseball in motion has a wavelength (the De Broglie wavelength), defined as h/mv, where h is planck's constant.

Yeah !!
Does this wave really exist ? Any experiment in support ?
Note that De Broglie is about the infinitesimal scale. Not for the macroscopic one !!

Ut
2004-Jul-18, 04:39 PM
If you assume mater particles to have a waveforum governing their motion, whether physical or imaginary, then structures made out of the individual particles must also have a waveforum consisting of the interacting, overlapping waveforms of all the individual particles.

gzhpcu
2004-Jul-18, 07:34 PM
If you assume mater particles to have a waveforum governing their motion, whether physical or imaginary, then structures made out of the individual particles must also have a waveforum consisting of the interacting, overlapping waveforms of all the individual particles.

What bothers me here are the words "assume" and "physical or imaginary"... which does not really go well with your earlier "That's just the way matter is.". Or am I just misinterpreting your wording?

Ut
2004-Jul-18, 08:56 PM
Well, particles interact with other particles as if they were particles. They propagate as if they were waves. They're neither, but sort of both.

The waves are imaginary because there's nothing actually waving. At least, there's nothing we've detected to date. Mathematically, the wave equations are imaginary because they involve sqrt(-1).

gzhpcu
2004-Jul-18, 09:08 PM
But if you observe the particle it propagates like a particle doesn't it, since it collapses, choosing one particular probability?

gzhpcu
2004-Jul-18, 09:10 PM
Even if you interfere with it, by bouncing a photon off of it to be able to observe it...

P.S. Wonder how the photon knew where the particle was in the first place to be able to hit it. Thought the particle as a wave was just a diffuse probability cloud...

edited for typos...

SiriMurthy
2004-Jul-18, 09:38 PM
Just to set the matter straight: I am not claiming anything.
:wink: :)


(Emphasis mine)

Celestial Mechanic
2004-Jul-19, 04:24 AM
It is not really an aversion, it just remains perplexing to me.
That's OK, it is perplexing to a lot of people and there is a bit of mathematics that I find perplexing too.

Don't misunderstand me: I am not contesting the benefit of mathematical models to predict the mechanics of physical phenomena. I am just stating that they are idealized models.
And the reason for the idealized models is to limit the degree of complexity so that we can actually calculate something. Once we have reasonable results, then we can add back more of the complicating effects in order to approximate things even better.

[Snip!]A point and a line are just mathematical definitions. They are only approximations.
But useful approximations nevertheless.

[Snip!]But was a gluon actually observed in the bubble chamber?
No, because gluons do not carry electroweak charge, they only carry color charge. But we still infer its existence from the jet of paricles and their decay products produced.

gzhpcu
2004-Jul-19, 07:27 AM
A question about the elementary particles like electrons exhibiting particle/wave duality: why is it that a particle when not observed propagates itself like a wave, but the moment you observe it, it propagates like a particle? At that instant it "materializes", collapsing the wave function. Stop observing it and it turns back to a wave. (Hope I got this right...) It is like a mode switch triggered by observation. In particle mode the electron exhibits the physical properties of mass and dimension. Becomes "real" so to speak (at least "real" from my limited perspective).

Ut
2004-Jul-19, 12:22 PM
The particles don't propagate as a particle when you observe it. It interacts with other particles in a particle-like manner. When you observe observe the particle, you bombard it with photons. That's pretty much the point where I run dry. Call me in 10 months; I hope to know more by then ;)

cable
2004-Jul-19, 01:18 PM
A question about the elementary particles like electrons exhibiting particle/wave duality: why is it that a particle when not observed propagates itself like a wave, but the moment you observe it, it propagates like a particle? At that instant it "materializes", collapsing the wave function. Stop observing it and it turns back to a wave. (Hope I got this right...)
Not exactly.
When you stop observation, ie. disturbance, it doesn't turn back to wave.
It turns back to something else, an entity which is neither a wave nor a particle.
This entity has many facets. But only 2 facets are observable ( measurable) to us: wave or particle.

And remember, the entity is seen AFTER alteration due to observation/measurment.
We see the disturbed state not the undisturbed.

gzhpcu
2004-Jul-19, 02:57 PM
A question about the elementary particles like electrons exhibiting particle/wave duality: why is it that a particle when not observed propagates itself like a wave, but the moment you observe it, it propagates like a particle? At that instant it "materializes", collapsing the wave function. Stop observing it and it turns back to a wave. (Hope I got this right...)
Not exactly.
When you stop observation, ie. disturbance, it doesn't turn back to wave.
It turns back to something else, an entity which is neither a wave nor a particle.
This entity has many facets. But only 2 facets are observable ( measurable) to us: wave or particle.

And remember, the entity is seen AFTER alteration due to observation/measurment.
We see the disturbed state not the undisturbed.

Looking at the old classical "two slit" example: electrons are shot against a barrier with two slits. If you make no observation, each single electron goes simultaneously through both slits like a wave and the impact distribution on a wall behind the barrier shows a wave-like distribution with interference patterns. If you set up an observation to see which of the two slits the electrons go through, then you have a normal impact distribution you would expect from particles.

In the second case, the electron is forced to make a choice. It has acted the way a particle is expected to act. If we set up the experiment to only observe the slits, what happens exactly? Before we get to the slit, it is moving like a wave. At the slit, the wave function collapses due to measurement interference (interaction with a photon). After the slit? There is no more observation/interaction. Does it go on propagating itself in a wave-like fashion, but with a memory of what is expected from it when it hits the wall behind the barrier, i.e. particle-like impact distribution and not wave-like impact distribution? (When it hits the wall behind the barrier, it is observed again to see where on the wall it hits, but when the wave function collapses again for particle interaction with the wall, it "knows" where the wave function has to collapse.) Is that it? Or is there another explanation?

cable
2004-Jul-19, 07:13 PM
Looking at the old classical "two slit" example: electrons are shot against a barrier with two slits. If you make no observation, each single electron goes simultaneously through both slits like a wave and the impact distribution on a wall behind the barrier shows a wave-like distribution with interference patterns.


I still disagree.
To see the interference pattern, you have to make observation.
The pettern is a measurement, kuz we can count tne number of dark stripes. isn't it ?

Both the wave or particle are the result of observation.
What we cannot see/measure is the non collapsed state, which is the real nature of light.

gzhpcu
2004-Jul-19, 08:30 PM
Looking at the old classical "two slit" example: electrons are shot against a barrier with two slits. If you make no observation, each single electron goes simultaneously through both slits like a wave and the impact distribution on a wall behind the barrier shows a wave-like distribution with interference patterns.


I still disagree.
To see the interference pattern, you have to make observation.
The pettern is a measurement, kuz we can count tne number of dark stripes. isn't it ?

Both the wave or particle are the result of observation.
What we cannot see/measure is the non collapsed state, which is the real nature of light.

Sorry, I was unclear, I did not explicitly state that the patterns can only be determined by observation:

1) in both cases you have to make observations at the wall to determine the interference pattern.


2) In one case you do not make an observation at the slits. By not doing so you observe a wave-like interference pattern on the wall.

3) In the other case you make an additional observation at the slits, causing the wave function of the electron to collapse and thereby determing a particle-like interference on the wall.

For the rest, my questions remain...

gzhpcu
2004-Jul-20, 09:34 AM
That is to say: We have the Standard Model, then SuperString Theory, then M Theory. Will there soon be need for a G Theory ("Grandmother of all Theories")? We have never encountered a quark singly, they come in 6 flavors (with weird tags), we have no idea of the size of a quark or electron. Is the quark really fundamental? This is supposed to be reality? Sure, the mathematical models make predictions we can verify in accelerators, but looks more like a black box approach to me. You know what goes in and what goes out and make a mathematical model to cover this, without really knowing what is going on in the black box.

Ut
2004-Jul-20, 01:29 PM
That is to say: We have the Standard Model, then SuperString Theory, then M Theory. Will there soon be need for a G Theory ("Grandmother of all Theories")? We have never encountered a quark singly, they come in 6 flavors (with weird tags), we have no idea of the size of a quark or electron. Is the quark really fundamental? This is supposed to be reality? Sure, the mathematical models make predictions we can verify in accelerators, but looks more like a black box approach to me. You know what goes in and what goes out and make a mathematical model to cover this, without really knowing what is going on in the black box.

We know the size, mass, and charge of the electron. We know lots about the electron. I'm not sure why you keep insisting we don't.

And I still don't know what you mean by "reality". Quarks have very little to do with everyday life. QM has very little to do with everyday life. The definition of "reality" you've given above.

Are quarks real? There's evidence to support their existance. We don't see them shotting off through space in bubble chambers, though. It's sort of like asking if you're real. I've never seen you, but I have some evidence of your existance. Are you reality?

If the mathematical model predicts what goes out, and in what direction, based on what goes in, and it's physically impossible to see in side the "black box", then there's no reason to care if the model represents reality or not. If it's impossible to see what's going on, then it's outside the realm of experimental science.

Eta C
2004-Jul-20, 02:43 PM
Are quarks real? There's evidence to support their existance. We don't see them shotting off through space in bubble chambers, though.

We have, however, observed that protons and neutrons have three distinct components which we now associate with quarks. This is the result of deep inelastic scattering experiments at SLAC and other places. If these three components aren't quarks any other theory has to come up with an explanation of why they're there. This, together with the ability of the quark model to explain the observed "zoo" of hadrons, is powerful evidence for the reality of quarks despite the fact that no one has ever observed a "naked" quark.

gzhpcu
2004-Jul-20, 03:25 PM
If the mathematical model predicts what goes out, and in what direction, based on what goes in, and it's physically impossible to see in side the "black box", then there's no reason to care if the model represents reality or not. If it's impossible to see what's going on, then it's outside the realm of experimental science.

That actually is my point. When we get down to these scales, we base ourselves on mathematical models and start looking at traces in bubble chambers at best. And going beyond that (in the vicinity of the Planck length we are totally in the realm of theoretical physics). You state that there's no reason to care if the model represents reality or not. From the practical side, I agree. From the intelectual curiosity side, I disagree: It is a question of intellectual curiosity to wonder what really is there.

cyrek1
2004-Jul-20, 04:07 PM
cyrek1 comment

The way I percieve reality is by the proven existance of research.
However, nuclear research is a waste of much needed money.
No real benefit has come from it

On the other hand, our research in the cosmos is much more interesting
because it is more understandable and a picture of beauty.

The electron is a particle always. It does not transform into a wave at any time. Its wave characteristics come from its inherent property of being a charged particle. This property creates a magnetic field when the electron is in motion. Its wave pattern is generated by the interaction of its presence with another particle.

The double slit experiment that portrays the electron going through two openings can be explained by the presence of its magnetic field. The magnetic field will penetrate both slits but the electron will pass through one only. I came to that conclusion just recently.

Laser Jock
2004-Jul-20, 04:13 PM
cyrek1 comment

The way I percieve reality is by the proven existance of research.
However, nuclear research is a waste of much needed money.
No real benefit has come from it

On the other hand, our research in the cosmos is much more interesting
because it is more understandable and a picture of beauty.

The electron is a particle always. It does not transform into a wave at any time. Its wave characteristics come from its inherent property of being a charged particle. This property creates a magnetic field when the electron is in motion. Its wave pattern is generated by the interaction of its presence with another particle.

The double slit experiment that portrays the electron going through two openings can be explained by the presence of its magnetic field. The magnetic field will penetrate both slits but the electron will pass through one only. I came to that conclusion just recently.

What about neutrons? They have no charge yet will interfere in a two-slit experiment. #-o

papageno
2004-Jul-20, 05:59 PM
cyrek1 comment

The way I percieve reality is by the proven existance of research.
However, nuclear research is a waste of much needed money.
No real benefit has come from it

On the other hand, our research in the cosmos is much more interesting
because it is more understandable and a picture of beauty.

The electron is a particle always. It does not transform into a wave at any time. Its wave characteristics come from its inherent property of being a charged particle. This property creates a magnetic field when the electron is in motion. Its wave pattern is generated by the interaction of its presence with another particle.

The double slit experiment that portrays the electron going through two openings can be explained by the presence of its magnetic field. The magnetic field will penetrate both slits but the electron will pass through one only. I came to that conclusion just recently.

What about neutrons? They have no charge yet will interfere in a two-slit experiment. #-o

Indeed, spin-resolved neutron diffraction is used as a measurement tool.

And don't forget that electrons have intrinsic magnetic moments.

Eta C
2004-Jul-20, 06:30 PM
cyrek1 comment

The way I percieve reality is by the proven existance of research.
However, nuclear research is a waste of much needed money.
No real benefit has come from it

I should be insulted by your cavalier dismissal of the work I and other physicists have done. No real benefit indeed! Leaving aside nuclear power (this one's for you Glom) we can mention MRI, positron emission tomography, a host of radiation therapies for cancer, and other non-medical applications (such as that computer you're typing at). If, however, you're referring to work in particle physics, that relates to your next sentence.


On the other hand, our research in the cosmos is much more interesting
because it is more understandable and a picture of beauty.

But you fail to realize how much our understanding of the cosmos is informed by work in nuclear and particle physics. Our understanding of stellar evolution, the early development of the universe, and the origins of matter (to name a few areas of cosmology) are linked to developments in particle physics. Of course, you may not feel that these add to our aesthetic appreciation of the universe. Your loss. Cosmology is more than pretty pictures taken from the Hubble telescope (fascinating as they are).


The electron is a particle always. It does not transform into a wave at any time. Its wave characteristics come from its inherent property of being a charged particle. This property creates a magnetic field when the electron is in motion. Its wave pattern is generated by the interaction of its presence with another particle.

Wrong. As I've said in response to you before, the notion that particle and wave are distinct and mutually exclusive categrories is obsolete. You're mired in a classical world view that was left behind over 100 years ago. That CRT you're typing on depends on knowledge of the wave nature of electrons. More so if you're using a flat screen display. Not to mention the operation of the semiconductor CPU in your computer.


The double slit experiment that portrays the electron going through two openings can be explained by the presence of its magnetic field. The magnetic field will penetrate both slits but the electron will pass through one only. I came to that conclusion just recently.

Provide the mathematical description that explains the interference pattern as well as quantum mechanics does. Until then you're just waving your hands.

cyrek1
2004-Jul-22, 03:37 PM
cyrek1 reply

Eta C
Sorry Eta, I did not know you were in nuclear research.
MRI - OK. Radiation therapy for cancer - thumbs down. There are
alternative therapies that out- perform RT.
That computer is a product of the transister invention and subsequent
inprovements.

The nuclear beginning of the BB is nothing but a hypothesis that was
prompted by the Hubble observations. Naturally, when they went back
in time, they had to invent the beginning with particle physics.

Eta, I have studied electronics and that has nothing to do with
nuclear research. It you are using the old research to determine the
nature of matter, and the subsequent findings on the electron and
proton, then you are drifting into another research area which is
basic physics.

Why is mathematics necassary to prove the nature of electron
properties? This data was acquired in laboratory research.
If I remember Plancks work, he finally merged two incompatible
spectrums by other scientists into the complete 'black body radiation
curve' to resolve that problem. That was a long sought achievement.
I understand the idea of the quanta radiation. Granted, this was a
mathematics solution.

But, mathematics can be manipulated to produce some bizarre theories
like the string theory and the inflation theory, both of which I do
not give much credibility to.

Laser Jock
Explain the involvement of neutrons in the slit experiment

papageno
Spin resolved neutron diffraction? Any data on this?

Laser Jock
2004-Jul-22, 03:51 PM
Laser Jock
Explain the involvement of neutrons in the slit experiment


What is there to explain? You fire a neutron beam at a double slit and an interference pattern will form. My point was that uncharged particles exhibit wave-like behaviour just like charged particles. You said:


The double slit experiment that portrays the electron going through two openings can be explained by the presence of its magnetic field.

which is wrong. Charge, magnetic field, and your other hand-waving attempts to explain the wave-like properties of matter by ignoring quantum mechanics fall short with the simple example of neutron interference.

Tensor
2004-Jul-22, 03:58 PM
cyrek1 reply

Radiation therapy for cancer - thumbs down. There are
alternative therapies that out- perform RT.

Care to explain that to my mother? The RT took care of her cancer, after alternative therapies failed.


That computer is a product of the transister invention and subsequent
inprovements.

And those subsequent improvemnts were made how? By guessing?

Are you aware, that size wise, transistors approaching the quantum limit?

papageno
2004-Jul-22, 04:06 PM
That computer is a product of the transister invention and subsequent inprovements.


Band-structure engineering would not exist without quantum mechanics.



The nuclear beginning of the BB is nothing but a hypothesis that was prompted by the Hubble observations. Naturally, when they went back in time, they had to invent the beginning with particle physics.


Why naturally?
What about the stars?



Eta, I have studied electronics and that has nothing to do with
nuclear research. It you are using the old research to determine the
nature of matter, and the subsequent findings on the electron and
proton, then you are drifting into another research area which is
basic physics.


Neutron-transmutation doping of semiconductors. Nuclear physics useful to electronics.



Why is mathematics necassary to prove the nature of electron
properties? This data was acquired in laboratory research.


The "mathematics" is useful to explain why certain data and not others are acquired in lab experiments.



But, mathematics can be manipulated to produce some bizarre theories like the string theory and the inflation theory, both of which I do not give much credibility to.


The validity of a theory is determined by the experiments.




Laser Jock
Explain the involvement of neutrons in the slit experiment

papageno
Spin resolved neutron diffraction? Any data on this?

Google gave me about 10000 hits.

Try this (http://www.hmi.de/bensc/).

Eta C
2004-Jul-22, 05:01 PM
Eta C
Sorry Eta, I did not know you were in nuclear research.
MRI - OK. Radiation therapy for cancer - thumbs down. There are
alternative therapies that out- perform RT.
That computer is a product of the transister invention and subsequent
inprovements.

Tell that to my father. Like tensor's mother, his cancer was successfully treated by external radiation therapy two years ago. The existence of other therapies does not mean that RT has been abandoned. Not all treatments are appropriate for all people.

As others have pointed out, the development of transistors was due to quantum mechanics. All semiconductor physics of the last half century is based in QM. (Side note, when I was in grad school at Illinois, my office was just down the hall from John Bardeen's. A truely great physicist and an all-around nice guy to boot).


Eta, I have studied electronics and that has nothing to do with
nuclear research. It you are using the old research to determine the
nature of matter, and the subsequent findings on the electron and
proton, then you are drifting into another research area which is
basic physics.

What does this mean?


Why is mathematics necassary to prove the nature of electron
properties? This data was acquired in laboratory research.
If I remember Plancks work, he finally merged two incompatible
spectrums by other scientists into the complete 'black body radiation
curve' to resolve that problem. That was a long sought achievement.
I understand the idea of the quanta radiation. Granted, this was a
mathematics solution.

All science is based in math, as much as you would prefer it were not. Science is a quantitative discipline. This requires mathematical theories. This has been the case since at least the days of Galileo if not before. Plank found that the black body spectrum could only be explained if the energy of EM radiation was quantized in packets we now call photons. He developed the relation E = h * f where h is the constant named after Plank.


But, mathematics can be manipulated to produce some bizarre theories
like the string theory and the inflation theory, both of which I do
not give much credibility to.

Speaking of bizarre theories, have you been able to reproduce the electron diffraction pattern using your magnetic field idea yet, or are you still waving your hands around? Until you can do that I would suggest that any complaints you have about other fields of physics are null, void, and lacking in substance.

cyrek1
2004-Jul-24, 04:31 PM
Before I answer Laser, tensur and papa, I want to say that I do not
refute the quantum theory as it portrays the hydrogen atom (HA) and
especially the Bohr theory of the HA.
Quantum is just that. It breaks up the idea of a continuous wave into
a pulse of energy which is the photon (quanta).
The Bohr theory not only explains the HA spectrum but to me, also the
'black body radiation curve (BBRC).
The electron transitions in the Bohr planetary atom would trace out a
BB pulse because the electrons velocity increases during its transit
and its orbital trajectory decreases from a larger to a smaller orbit.
This is why the pulse is a BB pulse. The sum of all these pulses from
the ultra violet to the deep infra red combine to complete the entire
BBRC. The starting portion of the curve is at the low end of the BBRC
where the energy is lower than at the high point.

The Schroedinger equations improved the theory to explain the higher
atomic radiations from helium on up. The Schroedinger orbitals or
spherical clouds for the hydrogen atom are time expanded to show the
possible locations of the electrons probable positions.
However, in any instant in time, the electron will reveal itself to
be in one position only as a particle. In other words, the electron
is not scattered into a cloud but always remains as a particle.

Laser
This neutron double slit experiment - do you have a web url for this
experiment?

How does QM create particle waves?

Tensor
I am glad for your mother's success from the RT treatment. What type
of alternative treatment did she have prior to?

The subsequent improvements in computer technology were the result of
further research.
If you are trying to say that these improvement resulted from nano-
research, I doubt it. Nano stocks would skyrocket. I think nano-
technology is still a decade away.
I believe the improvements were made in the 'integrated circuits'
which dates back a decade or more.
These circuits have a series of tiny transistors mounted on tiny
boards.

Papa
What is the 'basic working hypothesis' of QM?

Space and time preceded the creation of stars. I sometimes wonder how
the stars condensed at those high temperatures when they do not
condense in intergalactic space at the low temperature of 2.73K.
Are there shock waves out there?

Neutron transmutation of doping of semiconductors - Can you elaborate
on that?

I never said mathematics is not useful. It is just the use of creating
some far out theories..

The validity of a theory is determined by the experiments. With that,
I agree papa.


cyrek1

papageno
2004-Jul-24, 05:17 PM
Before I answer Laser, tensur and papa, I want to say that I do not refute the quantum theory as it portrays the hydrogen atom (HA) and especially the Bohr theory of the HA.

The Hydrogen atom in Quantum Mechanics is not Bohr's model.



Quantum is just that. It breaks up the idea of a continuous wave into a pulse of energy which is the photon (quanta).
The Bohr theory not only explains the HA spectrum but to me, also the 'black body radiation curve (BBRC).
The electron transitions in the Bohr planetary atom would trace out a BB pulse because the electrons velocity increases during its transit and its orbital trajectory decreases from a larger to a smaller orbit.
This is why the pulse is a BB pulse. The sum of all these pulses from
the ultra violet to the deep infra red combine to complete the entire
BBRC. The starting portion of the curve is at the low end of the BBRC where the energy is lower than at the high point.


Are you saying that you get the balck body radiation spectrum from an Hydrogen atom?

(By the way, we already know that Bohr's model is not good enough.)



Laser
This neutron double slit experiment - do you have a web url for this
experiment?

How does QM create particle waves?


Quantum Mechanics does not "create" anything.
It is a theory that describes phenomena.
The state of a system is described by a wavefunction, and experiments show that it is a correct description.



Tensor

[...]

I believe the improvements were made in the 'integrated circuits'
which dates back a decade or more.
These circuits have a series of tiny transistors mounted on tiny
boards.


Look up "High Electron Mobility Transistor" (HEMT).
Band structure engineering is possible because Quantum Mechanics works.



Papa
What is the 'basic working hypothesis' of QM?


The theory of Quantum Mechanics is based on several assumptions.
Do you have something specific in mind?



Space and time preceded the creation of stars. I sometimes wonder how the stars condensed at those high temperatures when they do not condense in intergalactic space at the low temperature of 2.73K.
Are there shock waves out there?


Astrophysics is not my field, but there was plenty of time and gravity is patient.



Neutron transmutation of doping of semiconductors - Can you elaborate on that?


Google gave me about 1700 hits.

gzhpcu
2004-Jul-25, 03:47 AM
Cyrek1,
Without mathematics we would be nowhere. Einstein certainly found it so. He was not a particularly good mathematician and needed help in working out the equations to theories he often arrived at intuitively. Our understanding of the universe would be no where without mathematics and mathematical models.

What I tend to agree with you, however, is the statement that it "creates some far out theories" in the sense IMO that the associated picture of reality with it may not at all be consistent with the actual reality. Which is the point I was trying to make with this thread.

cyrek1
2004-Jul-25, 09:06 PM
Eta
Well, I am glad for your father. I always like to hear of successes
rather failures. I could cite some failures but I do not want to
promote pessimism.
Because I am an optimist, I would like to mention that there is a
naturopathic doctor in Texas that has a 70% success rate in treating
cancers with his own developed medicine . That is far more than the
conventional rate for treating cancers. Such successes are not
pulicized by the mainstream press.

To get back to the subject matter regarding transistors, which came
first, the research or the QM's in developing the transistors? In
other words, was the transistors developed with QM's first and then
produced in the lab or the other way around? All I know is that the
transistors were developed by a couple of Bell Telephone researchers.

The paragraph you did not understand - is to clarify that electron
and proton research existed before nuclear accelerator research came
into being. Atom smashing does not necassarily involve QM either.

I have nothing against mathematics but the math generally follows the
experimental research.

My idea of the DSE is the result that an electron was shot at one slit
but reproduced waves from both slit areas.
This electron creates and is surrounded by a magnetic field during its
flight. This magnetic field is wide enough to penetrate both slits.
That is why both slits create a wave pattern. I think that is a
logical explanation.

cyrek1

gzhpcu
2004-Jul-25, 09:13 PM
crek1,

You said:

My idea of the DSE is the result that an electron was shot at one slit but reproduced waves from both slit areas.
This electron creates and is surrounded by a magnetic field during its
flight. This magnetic field is wide enough to penetrate both slits.
That is why both slits create a wave pattern. I think that is a
logical explanation.


The double slit experiment has two outcomes:
1) you shoot electrons through the two slits and obtain an interference pattern consistent with wave interactions
and
2) same as above, but in addition you make an observation to determine which of the two slits the particle actually goes through. In this case the pattern measured is the classical particle impact pattern.

How does your theory explain 2)?

cyrek1
2004-Jul-26, 08:46 PM
papa

If the HA isn't Bohr's, whose is it?
True as far as the idea goes because his mentor (can't recall his name)
provided the planetary idea, but he did most of every thing else
himself.
I did not think QM dealed with such simply ubderstood ideas.

Yes. The Bohr model IMOO does explain the BBRC.
If the Bohr model is not good enough, than can you explain how the BBRC
is generated IYOO from QM?

I did not explore QM because I am not interested in the micro world.
My specialty is cosmology and general astronomy.

Can you name a few assumptions of QM. I know the Schroedinger equations
are a forerunner but that is about it.

gz

Our understanding of the universe is certainly not giving Einstein
much credibility since the current concept of the universe is that it
is 'flat'.
Where is the curvature?
Even the observational researchers portray it as flat.

Your later repply about the DSE says you shoot electrons through both slits. Do you mean simutaneously?
I thought they shoot electrons through one slit and get a double slit
pattern?

Anyway, the wave pattern can be caused by the atoms on the sides of the slits interacting and deflecting the electron to generate the wave pattern.
This is a possibility.

cyrek1

gzhpcu
2004-Jul-26, 09:00 PM
cyrek1,
Here is a link to the Double Slit experiment. Suggest you read it, then we can discuss it further...
http://nanoatlas.ifs.hr/double_slit.html

Jerry
2004-Jul-27, 03:19 AM
Actually, a baseball in motion has a wavelength (the De Broglie wavelength), defined as h/mv, where h is planck's constant. For a baseball, this wavelength is exceedingly small, which is why no one needs to consider it.
Perhaps we should consider the wavelength of a baseball. Now matter becomes boundary conditions in electromagnetic space: The more condensed the boundary condition, the higher the frequency, and the higher the probability that the boundary cannot be penetrated by radiation: It can be reflected, refracted, absorbed as thermal energy, but it is not possible to model the behavior of an electromagnetic wave without considering the effect of these boundary conditions...even in the near vacuum of space.

edit: missing preposition

Jerry
2004-Jul-27, 03:53 AM
Eta
Well, I am glad for your father. I always like to hear of successes
rather failures. I could cite some failures but I do not want to
promote pessimism.
Because I am an optimist, I would like to mention that there is a
naturopathic doctor in Texas that has a 70% success rate in treating
cancers with his own developed medicine . That is far more than the
conventional rate for treating cancers. Such successes are not
pulicized by the mainstream press.


This is one of the most unimpressive and unsupportable suppositions i have ever seen. I have a glue gun in my attic I could use for treating prostate cancer, and I can promise the treatment would be rather painful, but successful greater than 70% of the time. Should you be impressed? No. Almost all men over the age of 60 have prostate cancer, and 70% of them die of something else before prostate cancer catches up to them.

If you knew the first thing about cancer you would know 1) The success rate depend upon the type, location, family history, drinking, drug and smoking habits; the enviroment, stage at detection, attitude and general health of the victim, province, skill of the doctor, and aggressiveness of the the treatment.

You would know radiation is only used where it is statistically more successful than any know alternative because there is a known statistical probability the radiation will cause terminal cancer. (Up to 1% for some treatment plans.)

If some doctor in Texas is enjoying more success than mainstream medicine, he should be held in criminal neglect for not sharing his secrets with this cancer challenged world: Would doctors object? Hell, my doctor's daughter just died from cancer: If someone is withholding a better treatment than he could offer, I wager he would throw the first punch!

In the aggregate, a success rate of 70% - whatever that means would be considered rather poor. Even for the most aggressive cancers -breast, brain, liver, testicular - a 70% survival rate in five years is not impressive. Quack Quack QUACK.

Mushushi
2004-Jul-27, 03:54 AM
I need analyse about that model.

The big flaws of the currently accepted atom model
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-flaw.asp


From waves to particles
by standing waves in space
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-wave.asp

gzhpcu
2004-Jul-27, 04:45 AM
Mushusi,
Thanks for the interesting links. It raises the question I originally brought up in this thread? What is really down there at the sub-atomic level? Our mathematical models do not necessarily correspond to reality.

gzhpcu
2004-Jul-27, 05:08 AM
A quote from the above mentioned source, which underlines what I have been saying:

The problem here seems to be that, at the subatomic level, the behaviour of matter appears to be radically inconsistent with our daily experience. In fact, the more we examine it, the less and less tangible matter becomes. We cannot help but ask, "Is matter as real as we think it is?" As Feynman said, if we keep picturing electrons and atoms as little steel balls, we're always going to have trouble understanding what is happening at the quantum level

papageno
2004-Jul-27, 10:01 AM
If the HA isn't Bohr's, whose is it?
True as far as the idea goes because his mentor (can't recall his name) provided the planetary idea, but he did most of every thing else himself.
I did not think QM dealed with such simply ubderstood ideas.


Bohr's model describes the Hydrogen atom as an electron orbiting a proton, both treated as classical particles, and the orbits are determined by the quantization of the electron's angular momentum.

In Quantum Mechanics, the time-independent Schroedinger equation for the Hydrogen atom (electron and proton as point-like particles, described by wavefunctions and interacting via Coulomb force) can be solved exactly (as many undergraduate student found out).
It is not a planetary model, because the electron does not follow orbits in classical sense.

The two models are different.



Yes. The Bohr model IMOO does explain the BBRC.
If the Bohr model is not good enough, than can you explain how the BBRC is generated IYOO from QM?


Bose-Einstein statistics of a gas of photons.
Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics of electromagnetic waves (harmonic oscillators), quantized by boundary conditions.
Both ways yield Planck's formula.



I did not explore QM because I am not interested in the micro world.
My specialty is cosmology and general astronomy.


So, why are you trying to explain black-body radiation using Bohr's model?
Shouldn't you first find out how the current theories explain it?

Why are you trying to explain the double-slit experiment using the magnetic field generated by the (moving) electron?
Shouldn't you first explain why you do not accept the current explanation?



Can you name a few assumptions of QM. I know the Schroedinger equations are a forerunner but that is about it.


What do you expect?

A proper introduction to Quantum Mechanics is not suitable to a BB (and, I'm sorry, requires a couple of years of mathematics and theoretical mechanics: that's why undergraduate students do not study Quantum Mechanics from the first day).
Have you anything specific in mind, or do you want a general outline of the assumption of the theory?

Maybe you would be better off in a library.

gzhpcu
2004-Jul-27, 11:03 AM
Crek1,
Here is a quick introduction:

http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/

cyrek1
2004-Jul-28, 09:24 PM
Jerry

In case you do not know, the FDA is trying to put most if not all Naturopathic physicians out of business.

The conventional (drug Drs.) do not dare offend the FDA for fear of their wrath.

The FDA tried to shut down the Texas Dr. (A Dr. Burzynski) and took him to court. A big mistake! The jury and the trial judge realy slapped the FDA down with severe criticism of their actions. Since then, the FDA has mellowed a bit.

The above data comes from a Naturopathic physician named Julius Whitaker who has abandoned the drug therapy as having a low success rate. He still uses some drugs but the great majority of his treartments are the result of using natural ingredients like vitamins, minerals, herbs, dietary corrections, hormones and etc.

Joe

Baseballs do not create waves. Only 'charged particles' create waves.

papa

You still did not answer how QM generates BB pulses of light.
Can anyone else there answer this question?

cyrek1

TravisM
2004-Jul-28, 09:40 PM
Cyrek1, at the risk of answering for someone... what about cases of baseballs on the ocean? or their constiuent particles? If elementary particles exhibit wave-particle duality, elephants should as well.

TravisM
2004-Jul-28, 09:44 PM
and this link cyrek, about black body radiation:

http://www.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/black_body_radiation.html

careful, there's math...

papageno
2004-Jul-29, 09:12 AM
papa

You still did not answer how QM generates BB pulses of light.
Can anyone else there answer this question?


Quantum Mechanics does not "generate" anything: it is a theory, and it is used to explain and describe.

If you look into a book of Statistical Mechanics, you will see that black-body radiation can be described as the radiation of a gas of photons. Using the appropriate distribution function (which gives the probability of a photon having a certain energy), we get Planck's formula in a straightforward manner.
And without the need of "dodgy" assumptions (Planck's assumption that radiation and matter exchange energy in discrete quantities was not justified at that time).

If you want to know more, I am afraid that you will have to go to a library.

(What I find amazing is how much it is possible to tell about black-body radiation using classical thermodynamics.)

trob
2004-Jul-29, 10:19 AM
It seems to me that gzhpcu's question was much more philosophically inclined than the answers he got. :D Indeed, from a philosophical point of view matter might not even be necessary for science to function. Indeed matter implies realism, but realism is by no means a certain thing from a philosophical point of view. Just think of Logical Positivism, instrumentalism, pragmatism, and various other idealist philosophies that are totally compatible with science. The late Wittgenstein and Kuhn have both formulated anti-realist conceptions of science that have been really popular - these would both claim that there is no such thing as real matter - the concept is a construct, no matter (LOL) how much math you put behind it. Mind you I do not agree with them.
I would suggest that gzhpcu reads Roger Trigg: "Rationality and Science - can science explain everything?" (Blackwell, 1993) or Chalmers: "Whats this thing called Science?". Maybe even Søren Harnow Klausens brilliant book: Reality lost and found - An Essay on the Realism-Anti-realism Controversy" University Press of Southern Denmark. Odense. 2004.
A quick introduction to metaphysics can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics
Routledge also have an introduction to metaphysics: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0415261074/qid=1091096052/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/026-5896114-4318040[/quote]

trob
2004-Jul-29, 10:20 AM
It seems to me that gzhpcu's question was much more philosophically inclined than the answers he got. :D Indeed, from a philosophical point of view matter might not even be necessary for science to function. Indeed matter implies realism, but realism is by no means a certain thing from a philosophical point of view. Just think of Logical Positivism, instrumentalism, pragmatism, and various other idealist philosophies that are totally compatible with science. The late Wittgenstein and Kuhn have both formulated anti-realist conceptions of science that have been really popular - these would both claim that there is no such thing as real matter - the concept is a construct, no matter (LOL) how much math you put behind it. Mind you I do not agree with them.
I would suggest that gzhpcu reads Roger Trigg: "Rationality and Science - can science explain everything?" (Blackwell, 1993) or Chalmers: "Whats this thing called Science?". Maybe even Søren Harnow Klausens brilliant book: Reality lost and found - An Essay on the Realism-Anti-realism Controversy" University Press of Southern Denmark. Odense. 2004.
A quick introduction to metaphysics can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics
Routledge also have an introduction to metaphysics: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0415261074/qid=1091096052/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/026-5896114-4318040[/quote]

bigsplit
2004-Jul-29, 02:14 PM
Some might say that any concept of an energy field is unrealistic and even magical. In these terms particle and scale must be infinate with no smallest particle or closed universe. These ideas are much more realist oriented than our most popular modern theories. To sum it up if you believe that light is a pure wave, the vaccum of space/time must be filled with an ether, in order for a wave to propagate. Otherwise, this would be magic. So all "particles" must have mass, to argue otherwise is not realism or materialism.

I believe it is likely that all matter is energy fields interacting, giving we complex dynamic systems. the impression of matter....and the idea of materialism and for all practicle purposes the realism of matter.

gzhpcu
2004-Jul-29, 03:52 PM
Trob,
Thanks for the reading recommendations. Will certainly look into it. Just ordered Klausen's book. I am familiar with the basics of metaphysics. Am not really happy with either the overly philosophical/esoterical approach nor the mathematical approach. (This is me)
I still view the mathematical models as just that: models. Very valuable to analyze and predict the outcome of physical events but not helpful in understanding what matter is actually made of. The philosophical approach which questions whether our senses are delivering accurate information, etc. just tells you what you supposedly can not know and does not satisfy my curiosity either.

trob
2004-Jul-29, 07:01 PM
Hi' gzhpcu
I'm happy that my post was of interest. :D Let me warn you, though, that Klausen's book is rock hard philosophy. ...what it discusses is whether or not things such as matter, colour, weight, causality and so on exist independently of our thought of it or are pure constructs. If this sought of thing is not in your taste it could be quite a mouthfull (no pun intended)(my copy is almost 600 pages). You could also look into some discussions on dualism and the mind-body problem, which is directly related to the concept of matter.

Enjoy

Trob

gzhpcu
2004-Jul-29, 08:08 PM
Hi' gzhpcu
I'm happy that my post was of interest. :D Let me warn you, though, that Klausen's book is rock hard philosophy. ...what it discusses is whether or not things such as matter, colour, weight, causality and so on exist independently of our thought of it or are pure constructs. If this sought of thing is not in your taste it could be quite a mouthfull (no pun intended)(my copy is almost 600 pages). You could also look into some discussions on dualism and the mind-body problem, which is directly related to the concept of matter.

Enjoy

Trob

Trob,
I did not mean to imply I was not interested in metaphysics. (Amazon said the book wasn't released yet. How did you manage to get it so soon?) Just as I do not mean to imply I am not interested in mathematical models, such as quantum mechanics or superstring theory. It is just that they all in the end leave me wondering what is really down there at the subatomic level.
Regards

iantresman
2004-Jul-29, 08:40 PM
Our universe consists of space and matter. But what is matter?

I think a more interesting questions is: What is Space?

Space apparently has the amazing property of being able to expand, presumably at a much faster rate in the intergalactic wilderness, than where it is gravitationally constrainted.

Do we know what "dark force" is able to do this? And with no inate points of reference, how we can measure it?

Regards,
Ian Tresman

factman
2004-Jul-29, 09:02 PM
gzhpcu: On passing by from a much more mundane subject ( human nature) I could not help but note some of the recommendations for your reading, and I must pass on this warning: Beware Metaphysics!

Reading philosophy is ok, but skepticism is mandatory.

Many (oh, so many) years ago, Whitehead brought me to a realization of the world we live in (think of your table as a "seething, raging mass of activity"), and the importance of living without certitude. Barring a nuclear holacaust, we and our great-grandchildren will outlive the possibility of the end of our universe. (There are no guarantees for other universes.)

trob
2004-Jul-29, 09:19 PM
Hi' gzhpcu
Good job...you had me worried for a second there - I thought you had bought a book you would hate.... on my advice :o
As to where I got the book - well there are certain advantages of being in Scandinavia. I studied with Klausen for a while at The University of Southern Denmark (SDU), in fact Im still there. I got the book about a month before the doctoral defence.
You could try ordering the book here: www.boghandel.sdu.dk
which is the university bookstore at SDU, where I know for a fact that they have them.
As for the philosophy of space see: Lawrence Sklar: "Space, Time and Spacetime" University of California Press, Berkeley. 1977. See also: Christopher Ray: "Time, Space and Philosophy" Routledge, London 1992. Or for a Classic: Hans Reichanbach: "The Philosophy of Space & Time" Dover Publications, New York, 1958. There are many books on this subject.

All the best

trob
2004-Jul-29, 09:33 PM
factman: you cannot not have metaphysics [-X - I think the Logical Positivists proved this splendidly: They could not verify the verification principle (the result of absurd glorification of fact) and had to seek an explanation elswhere or accept it as a religion. What would you rather have: a)rational metaphysics - providing a basis for truth or b)dogmatic religion?

If you have some complaint about metaphysics and its relationship to science bring it on and we can have a good chat about it. You could also join our discussion on falsification on the neighbouring topic!

trob
2004-Jul-29, 09:35 PM
factman: you cannot not have metaphysics [-X - I think the Logical Positivists proved this splendidly: They could not verify the verification principle (the result of absurd glorification of fact) and had to seek an explanation elswhere or accept it as a religion. What would you rather have: a)rational metaphysics - providing a basis for truth or b)dogmatic religion?

If you have some complaint about metaphysics and its relationship to science bring it on and we can have a good chat about it. You could also join our discussion on falsification on the neighbouring topic!

gzhpcu
2004-Jul-30, 02:22 AM
Ian,
I agree with you that what is space is also a very interesting question. But does space really have the properties of expansion? We are basing this assumption on Einstein's GR model, but is it reality?
Trob,
I already shot off the order to Amazon. If it takes too long, I will order from where you recommended. Thank you. It is very helpful to get knowledgeable persons to recommend books and not to have to resort to trial and error.

By the way: Do you think I am being unreasonable in my views? If not, do you think we will ever know? If we have to resort to better and better mathematical models for understanding our physical universe, we will better understand how it works but not what it is.

trob
2004-Jul-30, 07:03 AM
Hi' gzhpcu
I try to take a moderate standpoint in regard to the relationship between science (of all kind) and philosophy.
The interaction between philosophy and science is essential and productive - as Kuhn has pointed out there is a tendency for science to be driven forward increasingly by philosophical reflexions rather than empirical ones in times of crisis (I am not a follower of Kuhn, but from the perspective of the history of science he does have a good point. Einstein is a really good example of this (see our deliberations over this in regard to falibilism and falsification).
Secondly, science is based upon some assumptions that are not themselves scientific and could never be accessible to scientific study. Every single attemt not to accept this point is itself a philosophical standpoint and a bad one at that. All the reductionisms you've ever heard of: biologism, positivism, psychologism, historicism and so on are ALL, without exception, self-defeating standpoints of this kind.
The last 20 years have witnessed the revival of a particular kind of linguistic reductionism that is connected to French, post-structuralist thinking (but also has connections to the analytical tradition via Wittgenstein ect.) that I find particularly terrible. (a good book is, by the way, Sokal & Bricmonts "Intellectual Imposteurs" that shows how these thinkers have misused science and mathematics - hillarious).
What these standpoints all fail to to do is to check for reflexivity - are they self-defeating? Another way to put it is: do they live up to the criteria given in Gödels theorem: do they claim that it is impossible to find any validation, proof or reason outside the thought system that is posited to exist? You will find that they do! This follows from the point that these are theories of everything: everything is language, everything is history, everything is physics. Remember Gödels second incompleteness theorem: any consistent system cannot be used to prove its own consistensy. (What a guy!)
On the othe hand philosophy does not really go anywhere without external stimulus. Most of the best philosophy you encounter in modern times is in some sense connected to scientific developments. Immanuel Kant was, for exampel, the epitomy of the tradition seeking to validate Newtonian physics (See: Michael Friedman: Kant and the Exact Sciences. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, 1992). Also we moved on from the unflexible kantianism through the discovery of non-euclidean geometry and its implication for our thought about the universe (See Henri Poincaré: "Science and Hypothesis" Dover Publications, New York, 1952(orig. 1905). Another good example is Quantum Mechanics and the Philosophy of Mind (See Roger Penrose: Shadows of the Mind, Vintage, 1994).

All in all I would say that neither part should be so stuck up so as to not recognize each other as valid areas of study and infact actively seek to work together or at least employ each others results and methodologies. :D

trob
2004-Jul-30, 07:56 AM
Hi' gzhpcu
in regard to whether or not there are any inherent epistemological limits to how well we can understand reality, I think you should join us in the discission on falsification (you'll find it in: Against the mainstream), I've just joined in the last couple of pages, but I think the discussion is heating up abit. We are working on a philosophical/scientific thought experiment that considers just this. Come have a say. :D

gzhpcu
2004-Jul-30, 03:10 PM
Hi' gzhpcu
in regard to whether or not there are any inherent epistemological limits to how well we can understand reality, I think you should join us in the discission on falsification (you'll find it in: Against the mainstream), I've just joined in the last couple of pages, but I think the discussion is heating up abit. We are working on a philosophical/scientific thought experiment that considers just this. Come have a say. :D

Thanks Job,
I will look into that thread. (As far as philosophy is concerned, about all I have really read is Joad's Guide to Philosophy).

factman
2004-Jul-30, 11:14 PM
First, trob: Be assured I had no pejorative intent in my caution to gzhpcu. On considering the original question (obviously a query about the purely material), I felt that the answers were best pursued through a study of physics, and I think the thrust of most of the responses was in this direction. The intrusion of philosophy into the issue bothered me, not because philosophy has no bearing on either the answers or the discussion, but because it has, and our guard should be up against any ontological influence. That should be debated in another forum.

That Alfred North Whitehead was an important factor in my approach to philosophy (aside from readily revealing my age: does anyone longer read Whitehead?) should indicate an underlying skepticism toward, not science, but the influence of science. Yet must we rely on science to provide answers to the fundamental material questions. We simply must be certain to know when the scientist is become the philosopher, and vice versa.

Given that, you may understand I desire only to preclude confusion in gzhpcu's mind.

Secondly, gzhpcu: I hope you will look at physics as the source for answers to your questions; they are not easily come by. The physicist must examine the basic elements of the universe from two perspectives: the infinitely small and the infinitely large. This might suggest that "infinity" is ultimately measureable; but it might also suggest that infinity is the ultimate measure of the universe.

This was the rationale for my warning about metaphysics. I urge study in both fields, but equally urge careful separation of the two. Either can require a lifetime - and longer, and both can be enormously rewarding.

Keep searching and thinking! See ya, trob?

gzhpcu
2004-Jul-30, 11:37 PM
Factman,
I intend doing just that more intensively than I have in the past. I feel the answer can only come from physics, but as long as the priority of physics is to explain how things work above all, it seems to me that to explain how things actually are (much more difficult) remains second priority. (if our universe turns out to be finite, maybe the micro view will turn out to be finite as well).
Trob,
Many thanks to both you and Factman. :D


edited for typo

Jerry
2004-Jul-31, 04:02 AM
Jerry

In case you do not know, the FDA is trying to put most if not all Naturopathic physicians out of business.


As they should. Snake oil salesman have been around since ancient Egypt,

All the FDA is asking is that anything claimed to have medicinal value be tested for safety and effectivity - and no, not all natural ingredients pass the test.

And the test is to employ proven scientific methology, which usually means double blind studies. Billions of dollars are spent every year on useless medications - simply because of greed and ignorance. Are all naturapaths quacks? No. How does one know which are and which are not?

Gullible Jones
2004-Jul-31, 04:09 AM
As they should. Snake oil salesman have been around since ancient Egypt,

All the FDA is asking is that anything claimed to have medicinal value be tested for safety and effectivity - and no, not all natural ingredients pass the test.

And the test is to employ proven scientific methology, which usually means double blind studies. Billions of dollars are spent every year on useless medications - simply because of greed and ignorance. Are all naturapaths quacks? No. How does one know which are and which are not?

Seconded.

I've heard that a lot of naturopaths are actually fooled themselves, though, so a good number may not be participating in active quackary.

cyrek1
2004-Jul-31, 03:28 PM
TraviusM

Charged particles generate waves when they are interactimg with another charged particle. This is elemantary physics.
Neutron wave activity is miniscule compared to that of charged particles.
The baseball is composed of neutral atoms.

Also, light generated by electrons in an atom do not radiate a continuous wave. The Bohr atom explains this adaquately to simplify the Quantum theory.

papa

Why complicate things with QM. The Bohr theory explains the nature of the HA adaquately.

cyrek1

cyrek1
2004-Jul-31, 03:44 PM
Jerry

This proof of DB studies requires $$$$$. Only the drug companies can afford to finance such studies with their obscene profits.

Besides, all drugs on the market are not verified with these FDA requirements for proof.
And how many drugs have been pulled off the market because of their danger to the recipients?
The FDA is nothing but an enforcer for the drug companies to eliminate the competition.

Natiropathic physicians rely on clinical proofs of patient response and their results are sufficient enough to give them reasons of why they abandon the drug therapoes.
Much better results than what they had with the drug therapies.

cyrek1

Grey
2004-Jul-31, 04:47 PM
Why complicate things with QM. The Bohr theory explains the nature of the HA adaquately.
Actually, no it doesn't. The Bohr model gets the energy levels of the hydrogen atom right, but experiment shows that it fails to predict the angular momentum correctly. A full treatment by quantum mechanics successfully predicts both the energy levels and the angular momentum.

papageno
2004-Jul-31, 05:16 PM
Why complicate things with QM. The Bohr theory explains the nature of the HA adaquately.

Actually, no it doesn't. The Bohr model gets the energy levels of the hydrogen atom right, but experiment shows that it fails to predict the angular momentum correctly. A full treatment by quantum mechanics successfully predicts both the energy levels and the angular momentum.

Indeed.
Bohr's model uses Newtonian Mechanics and postulates a quantization of the orbits.

In Quantum Mechanics, the quantization of the spectrum arises from the solution without being forced upon the system as a condition.

And there are many more reasons to use Quantum Mechanics (one of my favorite is Gibbs' paradox).

Jerry
2004-Jul-31, 08:53 PM
Jerry
Besides, all drugs on the market are not verified with these FDA requirements for proof.
Yes they do. My son works in an FDA monitored laboratory, and the QA procedures are extremely rigorous. In contrast, I have a friend who worked in one of the many non-regulated "health food suppliment" laboratories. QA was totally non-existant, no testing for effectivity, purity, anything - no regulations means explotation.


And how many drugs have been pulled off the market because of their danger to the recipients? The most recent was the 'natural' ephedra, which was unregulated. Sure drugs occassionally make it through the screen process, that shouldn't. But in the natural food market, there is nothing to keep me from filling a gelcap with radiated horse manure and selling it as a natural laxative. I'll bet it would be both save, and effective. I could make money on this without even knowning.
[/quote]

genebujold
2004-Aug-01, 03:21 PM
Matter is bound energy. Energy expresses itself in the form of electromagnetc radiation of a quantum (discrete) nature. Is it any wonder that when that energy is bound it still expresses itself at the atomic level more like a wave than what are senses tell us is solid?

Try this experiment:

Turn on the faucet so that you're getting a steady, non-aerated, non-turbulent stream of water.

Put you finger in the middle of the stream and move it up towards the faucet until the water begins to bead.

By constraining (binding) the water, you're creating a standing wave.

Energy within the atom is similarly bound.

The real question is - what's doing the binding, and how?

bigsplit
2004-Aug-01, 03:59 PM
Matter is bound energy. Energy expresses itself in the form of electromagnetc radiation of a quantum (discrete) nature. Is it any wonder that when that energy is bound it still expresses itself at the atomic level more like a wave than what are senses tell us is solid?

Try this experiment:

Turn on the faucet so that you're getting a steady, non-aerated, non-turbulent stream of water.

Put you finger in the middle of the stream and move it up towards the faucet until the water begins to bead.

By constraining (binding) the water, you're creating a standing wave.

Energy within the atom is similarly bound.

The real question is - what's doing the binding, and how?

Electromagnetism and the SNF

genebujold
2004-Aug-01, 08:00 PM
Matter is bound energy. Energy expresses itself in the form of electromagnetc radiation of a quantum (discrete) nature. Is it any wonder that when that energy is bound it still expresses itself at the atomic level more like a wave than what are senses tell us is solid?

Try this experiment:

Turn on the faucet so that you're getting a steady, non-aerated, non-turbulent stream of water.

Put you finger in the middle of the stream and move it up towards the faucet until the water begins to bead.

By constraining (binding) the water, you're creating a standing wave.

Energy within the atom is similarly bound.

The real question is - what's doing the binding, and how?

Electromagnetism and the SNF

There are two more, but only one (weak) has any material effect at the quantum level: http://www.schoolscience.co.uk/content/5/physics/particles/partich6pg1.html

cyrek1
2004-Aug-01, 08:26 PM
Grey and papa

Bohrs theory uses the Planck constant in its formula. Is that Newtonian?
The orbits are determined by a more simpler formula.

When I speak of the Bohr Theory of the HA, that excludes all higher atoms.

How does QM determine the angular momentum of the electron? Doesn't the Heisenberg Pronciple prevent this?

Regardless, I do not dispute QM. But I also believe in Occams Razor. So why try to complicate the HA since it is the simplist of the elements?

To me, it explains the nature of the HA and how it can produce black body pulses as photons. The black body radiation curve is the final solution to these BBRC's and the CMBR.

cyrek

cyrek1
2004-Aug-01, 08:40 PM
Jerry

The suppement industry is not entirely honest. But also includes the drug industry.

The Naturopathic physicians are not that easily fooled by the commercial market. That keep track of the content of any healing products they use or dispense.
They also rely on scientific research jounals to keep track of the natural substances they may use.

That is why they produce much better results with their treartments then the drug industry will ever achieve.

Most illnesses are caused by dietary deficiencies.
Drugs do not replace these deficiencies.

cyrek

Gullible Jones
2004-Aug-01, 09:20 PM
Most illnesses are caused by dietary deficiencies.
Drugs do not replace these deficiencies.

That's baloney, Cyrek1, dangerous baloney.

And since you're obviously not going to read the PM I sent you, I'll just say it here: you need to back up your what you say.

gzhpcu
2004-Aug-02, 01:10 AM
Matter is bound energy. Energy expresses itself in the form of electromagnetc radiation of a quantum (discrete) nature. Is it any wonder that when that energy is bound it still expresses itself at the atomic level more like a wave than what are senses tell us is solid?

Try this experiment:

Turn on the faucet so that you're getting a steady, non-aerated, non-turbulent stream of water.

Put you finger in the middle of the stream and move it up towards the faucet until the water begins to bead.

By constraining (binding) the water, you're creating a standing wave.

IMO: use these concepts by all means for progress in science and predicting the outcome of experiments, but not for a real understanding of what the subatomic realm really is.

Energy within the atom is similarly bound.

The real question is - what's doing the binding, and how?

If you really believe this yourself, fine. But I can not. First of all, this is just an analogy using a physical phenomena in the macroworld (a wave in a physical medium -water) in an attempt to explain what is going on in the microworld.
Secondly, what is space? I thought it was a vacuum - nothing - what is left when you remove matter (or energy, if you prefer). What is being rippled?
The more I think of particle/wave duality, the less I like it (not as a model trying to explain an observable phenomena, but as an actual explanation of what is "really" down there.)
Be it energy, be it matter - the idea of a wave is convenient as a model, IMO, but nothing more. A "particle" is an idealized concept of a macroworld small entity, and a "wave" is based on water waves. The wave has amplitude and frequency, again a convenient model, but nothing more.
We have no idea of what is really going on down there. We just model the microworld with analogies in the marcoworld for lack of better. How do explain what sight is to a person blind since birth?

Grey
2004-Aug-02, 03:27 AM
Bohrs theory uses the Planck constant in its formula. Is that Newtonian?
The orbits are determined by a more simpler formula.
Bohr's model is kind of a transition model between Newtonian mechanics and quantum mechanics. As such, it gets some things right, like the energy levels, but has been shown to be an incomplete picture.


How does QM determine the angular momentum of the electron? Doesn't the Heisenberg Pronciple prevent this?
No, it's possible to know the magnitude of the total angular momentum, and if it's nonzero, any one component of the angular momentum (x, y, or z) simultaneously without any problems. Trying to know the value of, say, the x and z components of a nonzero angular momentum simultaneously would violate the uncertainty principle.

In any case, Bohr's model is based on assuming the hydrogen atom has an orbital angular momentum of L = nh*. In particular, note that for n = 1, L = h*. A full quantum treatment predicts that the total angular momentum will be based on a second quantum number l, which can range from 0 up to n - 1. Specifically, L = sqrt[l(l + 1)] h*. Note in particular that for n = 1, l = 0, so L = 0. For n = 2, the Bohr model would predict L = 2h*, whereas quantum mechanics expects that it could be either L = 0 or L = sqrt(2)h*, and so forth. Experiment has verified the predictions of quantum mechanics, and shown that those of the Bohr model are incorrect.

You can find a full discussion of this in any quantum mechanics text, since the hydrogen atom provides such a nice example.


Regardless, I do not dispute QM. But I also believe in Occams Razor. So why try to complicate the HA since it is the simplist of the elements?
Only because it doesn't work. :D It was a good first step, but to stop there when a more accurate description exists doesn't make sense. To quote Einstein, "Everything should be as simple as possible. But no simpler."

* I'm going to use h* here to indicate h-bar, or h/2pi, since it will make everything easier to read.

papageno
2004-Aug-02, 10:28 AM
Bohrs theory uses the Planck constant in its formula. Is that Newtonian?
The orbits are determined by a more simpler formula.


Bohr's model uses Newtonian mechanics and adds a condition (quantization of orbits) which is not justified theoretically (it is an ad hoc assumption to get a better agreement with experiment).



When I speak of the Bohr Theory of the HA, that excludes all higher atoms.


In principle, Quantum Mechanics can deal with other atoms, not only Hydrogen. Therefore it can do more.



How does QM determine the angular momentum of the electron? Doesn't the Heisenberg Pronciple prevent this?


See Grey's response.



Regardless, I do not dispute QM. But I also believe in Occams Razor. So why try to complicate the HA since it is the simplist of the elements?


As Grey already pointed out, Quantum Mechanics does a better job and does not require ad hoc assumptions to fit the experimental results.

genebujold
2004-Aug-02, 10:40 AM
Most illnesses are caused by dietary deficiencies.
Drugs do not replace these deficiencies.

That's baloney, Cyrek1, dangerous baloney.



Actually, I've a good friend who's a certified nutrionist (Doctorate) and has been practicing for 27 years, lectures the world around, etc.

He says the same thing.

Furthermore, he also says the vast majority of ingredients in processed food interfere with our body's ability to process nutrients, and can themselves cause harm to our body's chemistry.

Finally, it's a well-documented fact that, per pound, per unit of volume, today's foods don't have nearly the nutrional content as the foods we ate 100 years ago. In fact, it's only slightly more than 1/3.

Why?

Because strains and hybrids are not selected for their nutrional qualities, but for their ability to grow large, fast, and look their best on the grocery's isles.

And before you go demanding everyone prove themselves to you, have you considered spending some time at Google and do your own research?

After all, we're not defending our doctoral thesis, here, so please don't treat us as if we are. We're just sharing some information, some experience, and lessons learned along life's way. If you're interested, explore it further. If not, please don't resort to intimidating comments like "That's baloney, Cyrek1, dangerous baloney," without have first done some research yourself.

Although you might have been able to thoroughly peruse the many scientific and governmental resources out there which support this position, the 40 minutes that elapsed between Cyrek's post on yours don't give me much confidence that you have...

cyrek1
2004-Aug-03, 08:37 PM
Gene

See response to Gullible below.

Yes, food additives do cause digestive problems. It stands to reason
that these additives are added to extend the 'shelf life' of the
product. This is one important reason why todays foods are more
difficult to digest.
Another reason is that cooked foods destroy a lot of nutrients also.

The hybrid plants are as you describe but you faied to mention that
todays farming methods also cause 'soil depletion of mineral content'.

Your pragraph about intimidation seems to be addressed to Gullible(?).

I do not intimidate with my posts, I try to inform.
I have been a Vegan for 34 years and at my age, I am in good health.
Shopping at the health food stores has given me free magazines that
I have read for those 34 years.
I also have a large volume of USDA manuals about the nutritional
composition of Vegan foods which are the fruits, vegetables, legumes,
nuts, seeds and grains.
I have also suscribed to just about every Naturopathic physicians
newsletter.
Being informed about the Naturopathic physicians ways of treatments is
beneficial to me because I am convinced that they are more honest in
their treatment of their patients rather than being 'drug dispensors'
for these people.

Gene, I believe you have addressed most of your issues to Gullible.
From reading some of his responses, I think he selected the right name.

cyrek

cyrek1
2004-Aug-03, 08:44 PM
gullible

Regarding dietary deficiencies and diseases, a lot of statistical studies have been done correlating
dietary habits, blood sampling, moods and etc with diseases. From this, they learn how to correct some problems.
One notable problem was a link between folic acid deficiency and spinal bifidia in newborn infants.
Another example – a woman entered an emergency hospital six times because of internal bleeding. Each time, exploratory surgery was done to find the cause. Eventually they decided to take a blood profile and discovered she had a deficiency of vitamin C. She happened to be using aspirin tablets which caused the problem. Vitamin C strengthen the capillaries as well as other such benefits.
There are other such examples.

Grey

What has Bohr’s model have to do with Newtonian Mechanics? I never saw this term NM used before. Gravity is infinitesimal compared to the EMF’es. Plancks quantum physics is associated with the EMF.
The hydrogen atom (HA) formulas do include the mass of the electron but the electron charge (Coulomb) is the main force in determining the angular momentum (my assumption).

Bohr’s Model determined the spectrum of the HA and its energy levels (orbits) as well.
From his planetary model, I have deduced that this model plus Planck’s Quantum physics is what causes the Black Body Radiation Curve as I have described on other posts. Bohr’s model works for me.

I should not have used the Uncertainty Principle against the angular momentum because it is determined from the known property of the electron and mathematical calculations.

Papa

Bohr’s model uses this ‘quantifier of the orbits‘ because it solved the spectrum of the HA.
Most mathematics is ad hoc to explain experimental data.

QM got its start with the Schroedinger equations. An ad hoc situation(?) to improve the Bohr model for the helium and higher atoms.

cyrek

Grey
2004-Aug-04, 02:45 AM
What has Bohr’s model have to do with Newtonian Mechanics? I never saw this term NM used before. Gravity is infinitesimal compared to the EMF’es.
I didn't say anything about gravity. I find it hard to imagine that you've never heard of Newtonian mechanics. Quite apart from Newton's work on gravity, he developed three basic laws that govern the motion of objects. These laws are what we're talking about when we refer to something behaving classically (as opposed to relativistically or in a quantum manner). Bohr used Newtonian mechanics to describe the motion of electron, with an ad hoc assumption that only certain orbits are allowed.


Bohr’s model works for me.
But you should realize that it's not really accurate or complete. A full quantum description, in addition to getting the angular momentum right, also predicts other things that the Bohr model doesn't even address, such as how long it will take an atom to jump from one state to another. As I said, the Bohr model wasn't a bad first step toward an explanation of the strange behavior in the hydrogen spectrum, but it's good to be aware that it does not in fact describe all aspects of the hydrogen atom correctly, and was superseded by later theory.

scourge
2004-Aug-04, 07:43 AM
I find the matter-energy issue fascinating. On one hand, we have this weird enormous zoo of particles and quasi-particles and virtual particles, and on the other, the simplicity of a direct corollary. I guess the heart of the issue is most shockingly simplified in the matter-antimatter reaction. Two massive particles collide and are converted into light (and I think some neutrinos, right?).

I can't resist the temptation to believe that this is a reversible reaction...that someday, someway, we'll be able to make matter out of light (and a few neutrinos, I guess).

Do we really understand the mechanism that binds light (and those neutrinos) into matter? I have to doubt it. If we did, wouldn't we already be making that conversion in the lab? Sure, colliding protons against tungsten can make anti-protons, but that seems so, I dunno, ‘inelegant.’ It's not as convincing to me that we have a real grasp on the intricacies, as birthing new matter directly from light itself would be.

Can anyone elucidate the anti-matter/matter reaction, please? I seem to recall that only two very high-energy photons are generated from the reaction, but that seems to imply that maybe each particle consisted of a single photon to begin with, which was somehow liberated all at once…is that right?

And maybe it’s just me, but it’s intriguing that a proton’s radius seems very close to the wavelength of its equivalent energy photon. Are quarks really ‘things,’ or could they be representations something more abstract? Could a proton, or a neutron for that matter, just be light bound by some kind of geometrical motion?

Sorry for my ignorance, I don’t know if these are valid questions.

papageno
2004-Aug-04, 12:25 PM
Bohr’s model uses this ‘quantifier of the orbits‘ because it solved the spectrum of the HA.
Most mathematics is ad hoc to explain experimental data.

QM got its start with the Schroedinger equations. An ad hoc situation(?) to improve the Bohr model for the helium and higher atoms.


I told you.

The quantization of "orbits" is an assumption which is not justified within classical mechanics.

In quantum mechanics it is a result.

As Grey already said, QM works much better than Bohr's model.

Grey
2004-Aug-04, 02:51 PM
I find the matter-energy issue fascinating. On one hand, we have this weird enormous zoo of particles and quasi-particles and virtual particles, and on the other, the simplicity of a direct corollary. I guess the heart of the issue is most shockingly simplified in the matter-antimatter reaction. Two massive particles collide and are converted into light (and I think some neutrinos, right?).
By coincidence, Celestial Mechanic just made a recent post (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=309934#309934) talking about this on another thread.


I can't resist the temptation to believe that this is a reversible reaction...that someday, someway, we'll be able to make matter out of light (and a few neutrinos, I guess).
It is reversible, and someday is today (or really, quite a few years ago). Generally speaking, though, pair production is easier to do by colliding a single high energy photon with a stationary target such as an atom, rather than trying to get two photons to collide. It's easier to shoot something standing still than to fire two bullets to hit each other. It doesn't work with a single free photon, because you can't get both the momentum and energy to balance out - you need something to absorb some of the recoil.


Can anyone elucidate the anti-matter/matter reaction, please? I seem to recall that only two very high-energy photons are generated from the reaction, but that seems to imply that maybe each particle consisted of a single photon to begin with, which was somehow liberated all at once…is that right?
I'd suggest that the photon isn't contained within the particle just because particles can annihilate to create photons, any more than the photon is made of particle-antiparticle pairs since it could give up its energy to produce them in a collision. However...


Are quarks really ‘things,’ or could they be representations something more abstract? Could a proton, or a neutron for that matter, just be light bound by some kind of geometrical motion?
You might be interested in taking a look at M theory, which suggests, that quarks, leptons, photons, and all the other particles that we see are in fact all made out of the same thing - really, really small strings. What we perceive as different particles are just different vibration modes of the strings. So in that sense, everything is just a kind of geometrical construct.

At this point, M theory is really just a mathematical model, and there are currently no ways to test it. Still, it can be interesting to speculate about, and it does look as though there may actually be some predictions that could be tested in the future as our equipment improves. Here (http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_ss.html)'s a site with a slightly more in depth discussion, or head over to this thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=15484).

kmarinas86
2004-Aug-04, 03:11 PM
Here is my "ad hoc" hypothesis:

Universes are made of clouds of stars called galaxies.
Galaxies are made clouds of atoms called star systems.
Star systems are made clouds of quarks called atoms.
Atoms are made of clouds of tiny galaxies called quarks
These tiny galaxies themselves are made of star systems, atoms and quarks.
Our universe is a quark of a much larger "mutiverse".
This quark is a part of an atom which is a part of a star system which is part of a galaxy which is part of this multiverse of which this quark is our universe.

Is this theory testable today with our current level of scientific knowledge and technology? No it is not.

To me, I think that the 4D universe (or the hall of mirrors) is an ad-hoc hypothesis for the big bang theory.

gzhpcu
2004-Aug-04, 05:12 PM
This whole thread just confirms what I assumed, namely, we have lots of mathematical models, but no real idea how things really look like down at the subatomic level (certainly not viabrating strings).

kmarinas86
2004-Aug-04, 05:24 PM
This whole thread just confirms what I assumed, namely, we have lots of mathematical models, but no real idea how things really look like down at the subatomic level (certainly not viabrating strings).

TRU DAT.

Grey
2004-Aug-05, 02:40 AM
This whole thread just confirms what I assumed, namely, we have lots of mathematical models, but no real idea how things really look like down at the subatomic level.
Part of the problem may be expecting things to "look like" something. That is, in some respects I think the subatomic world is so alien that expecting it to be anything we could perceive intuitively is missing the point. An electron seems more like a cloud of probability than a little sphere, and the fact that I'm not sure what that would "look like" suggests more that I'm trying to cram what the world is really like into my existing notions of what the world should be like. Still...


(certainly not viabrating strings)
Um, why not? If it turns out that the universe is made of vibrating strings, why would that be a problem?

gzhpcu
2004-Aug-05, 06:01 AM
This whole thread just confirms what I assumed, namely, we have lots of mathematical models, but no real idea how things really look like down at the subatomic level.
Part of the problem may be expecting things to "look like" something. That is, in some respects I think the subatomic world is so alien that expecting it to be anything we could perceive intuitively is missing the point. An electron seems more like a cloud of probability than a little sphere, and the fact that I'm not sure what that would "look like" suggests more that I'm trying to cram what the world is really like into my existing notions of what the world should be like. Still...


(certainly not viabrating strings)
Um, why not? If it turns out that the universe is made of vibrating strings, why would that be a problem?
Well, as I understand it, quantum mechanics had the model of an idealized point for elementary particles. This is a mathematical point with a coordinate in space, but no dimension. Since one gets into trouble with this simplification when really small distances are investigated, something better is needed: enter Superstring theory. The strings are one dimensional objects. (BTW: I wonder if someday the one dimensional string will be replaced by a theory with a two-dimensional membrane, which will then be replaced by some three dimensional object - which might be getting us a bit closer to the reality I am looking for.)

The probability cloud is a consequence of wave/particle duality in quantum mechanics.

We have models that seem to come out of Abbott's Flatland.

These are just models. I am not looking for a spiritual, philosophical or mathematical view. It is all just beating around the bush for me (again: nothing against these models at all. We need them to understand how the universe functions). I would like to start a journey with a hypothetical, idealized microscope with no magnification limit and see what happens during the descent into the microcosmos.

scourge
2004-Aug-05, 07:20 AM
Thank you Grey!

I love this board, so many great minds.




It is reversible, and someday is today (or really, quite a few years ago).

Wait--are you saying that we've made matter of some kind directly from (exclusively) photon interactions?


I'd suggest that the photon isn't contained within the particle just because particles can annihilate to create photons, any more than the photon is made of particle-antiparticle pairs since it could give up its energy to produce them in a collision. However...?

I see...yes, that was a naive assumption on my part.


Are quarks really ‘things,’ or could they be representations something more abstract? Could a proton, or a neutron for that matter, just be light bound by some kind of geometrical motion?

You might be interested in taking a look at M theory, which suggests, that quarks, leptons, photons, and all the other particles that we see are in fact all made out of the same thing - really, really small strings. What we perceive as different particles are just different vibration modes of the strings. So in that sense, everything is just a kind of geometrical construct.? At this point, M theory is really just a mathematical model, and there are currently no ways to test it. Still, it can be interesting to speculate about, and it does look as though there may actually be some predictions that could be tested in the future as our equipment improve

When I think about all we've learned to be true in the past, it seems like we can easily visualize what we've discovered, and that intuitively feels like real understanding. The macrocosmos is relatively easy to visualize, no doubt because we have such great telescopes these days. Maybe the same will never go for the microcosm, but it's a hard impulse to set aside. I like geometrical relationships because it feels like you understand something if you can clearly visualize it, that goes for me anyway. I've read 'Elegant Universe,' and while I love the mechanistic simplicity of string theory, there's an intuitive horror at the thought of eight extra spatial dimensions that are conveniently balled-up into structures far too small to detect in the near-term. But I'll keep at it, maybe if I could grasp the math it would hold more appeal. Is M theory the only sensible contemporary contender for a possible unified field theory?

Thanks again, I'm a reading fool on all this right now :)


I would like to start a journey with a hypothetical, idealized microscope with no magnification limit and see what happens during the descent into the microcosmos.

That would be a great project to work on--a really accurate-looking descent into the microcosm...but how can we depict the parts that are beyond our current direct instrumental resolution? It would end up being a best guess...and that could be misleading, instead of illuminating. I'm not even sure if we have a good visual grasp on what a nucleus looks like...though we have the general elongation ratios and such. Have we settled on the 'liquid drop' model? And I don't know if we have Any idea what the interior of a nucleus would look like, visually. We'd sure have to slow down the action if we hoped to resolve the constituents...

gzhpcu
2004-Aug-06, 02:55 AM
That would be a great project to work on--a really accurate-looking descent into the microcosm...but how can we depict the parts that are beyond our current direct instrumental resolution? It would end up being a best guess...and that could be misleading, instead of illuminating. I'm not even sure if we have a good visual grasp on what a nucleus looks like...though we have the general elongation ratios and such. Have we settled on the 'liquid drop' model? And I don't know if we have Any idea what the interior of a nucleus would look like, visually. We'd sure have to slow down the action if we hoped to resolve the constituents...

Right. That is why I said "hypthetical". We are resorting to particle accelerators for ghostly images of bubbles. Like wanting to know what an airplane is by looking at a chemtrail. (this is the current situation - which you refer to as a "best guess", and IMHO is misleading.)

Celestial Mechanic
2004-Aug-06, 03:46 AM
[Snip!](BTW: I wonder if someday the one dimensional string will be replaced by a theory with a two-dimensional membrane, which will then be replaced by some three dimensional object - which might be getting us a bit closer to the reality I am looking for.)[Snip!]
Already done! That's what the various brane (short for membrane) theories are about. No one knows how many dimensions should be in these branes, the theories are still very new and speculative.

Normandy6644
2004-Aug-06, 04:00 AM
Is M theory the only sensible contemporary contender for a possible unified field theory?

There is one other very interesting alternative that I know called Loop Quantum Gravity. Read Lee Smolin's fantastic Three Roads to Quantum Gravity to get a lot of good detail. It's similar to string theory's solution (or partial solution) to the unified field theory in that it imposes a finite minimum length, and so it calms some of the "quantum jitters" you ofter read about.

gzhpcu
2004-Aug-06, 06:23 AM
[Snip!](BTW: I wonder if someday the one dimensional string will be replaced by a theory with a two-dimensional membrane, which will then be replaced by some three dimensional object - which might be getting us a bit closer to the reality I am looking for.)[Snip!]
Already done! That's what the various brane (short for membrane) theories are about. No one knows how many dimensions should be in these branes, the theories are still very new and speculative.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the m-brane theory postulates that all particles and forces are confined to a "membrane" that constitutes our four-dimensional spacetime universe... except for gravity. (for gravity you need more dimensions). The membrane describes space but not matter.

TravisM
2004-Aug-06, 06:24 PM
Actually, strings, open or closed, can sweep out a brane as they 'move' through 'time.' (When the dimensions get high enough its hard to keep track of `em all.)
Branes in general are anything. A point particle, with only instantaneous existance, is called a 0-brane. A point particle that persists with time yet doesn't move is called a 1-brane... etc...

gzhpcu
2004-Aug-06, 07:31 PM
Actually, strings, open or closed, can sweep out a brane as they 'move' through 'time.' (When the dimensions get high enough its hard to keep track of `em all.)
Branes in general are anything. A point particle, with only instantaneous existance, is called a 0-brane. A point particle that persists with time yet doesn't move is called a 1-brane... etc...

Another more complicated mathematical model which gives us a better understanding how things work in the universe, but still no answer to what is actually there.

This thread is an interesting discussion, but the bottom line is that we do not know now, nor most probably will never know what is down at the subatomic level. :(

TravisM
2004-Aug-06, 08:04 PM
But in 1950 we'd never image an atom either....

gzhpcu
2004-Aug-07, 03:13 AM
But in 1950 we'd never image an atom either....

You lost me there. Sorry if I am a bit thick. Could you elucidate?

cyrek1
2004-Aug-07, 01:51 PM
Grey and papa

I can visualize the Bohr planetary model as being realistic.

The Schroedinger and subsequent QM models reduce the electron to
clouds. This, to me, is unrealistic.
Can you explain in your own words whether the electron is dispersed from a particle to bits forming a cloud or how the cloud composition is formed?

cyrek

papageno
2004-Aug-07, 03:08 PM
I can visualize the Bohr planetary model as being realistic.


Too bad that it does not agree very well with experimental results.



The Schroedinger and subsequent QM models reduce the electron to clouds. This, to me, is unrealistic.


Unfortunately, Nature does not care about what we find realistic or not.



Can you explain in your own words whether the electron is dispersed from a particle to bits forming a cloud or how the cloud composition is formed?


The "cloud" is a mathematical function that gives us information about the state of the electron.
We can compute the probability that a certain measurement has a certain outcome.
The electron is not dispersed over a region of space and the "cloud" is not a material cloud. The electron is still a point-like particle but it is not pinned down to a certain position or orbit.
We can ask the question what is the probability that the electron can be found at a certain distance from the nucleus?. To calculate that probability (and thus predict an experimental result) we use the mathematical function that is pictured as cloud.

Normandy6644
2004-Aug-07, 04:37 PM
Grey and papa

I can visualize the Bohr planetary model as being realistic.

The Schroedinger and subsequent QM models reduce the electron to
clouds. This, to me, is unrealistic.
Can you explain in your own words whether the electron is dispersed from a particle to bits forming a cloud or how the cloud composition is formed?

cyrek

So are you saying you don't agree with QM, probably the most experimentally sound (albeit really weird) theory of the past century, maybe even ever?

Diamond
2004-Aug-07, 09:17 PM
Grey and papa

I can visualize the Bohr planetary model as being realistic.

The Schroedinger and subsequent QM models reduce the electron to
clouds. This, to me, is unrealistic.
Can you explain in your own words whether the electron is dispersed from a particle to bits forming a cloud or how the cloud composition is formed?

cyrek

So are you saying you don't agree with QM, probably the most experimentally sound (albeit really weird) theory of the past century, maybe even ever?

I'd have to say, paranthetically, that even Einstein struggled with QM.

Normandy6644
2004-Aug-07, 10:12 PM
Grey and papa

I can visualize the Bohr planetary model as being realistic.

The Schroedinger and subsequent QM models reduce the electron to
clouds. This, to me, is unrealistic.
Can you explain in your own words whether the electron is dispersed from a particle to bits forming a cloud or how the cloud composition is formed?

cyrek

So are you saying you don't agree with QM, probably the most experimentally sound (albeit really weird) theory of the past century, maybe even ever?

I'd have to say, paranthetically, that even Einstein struggled with QM.

Philosophically, yes. And do remember we have 50 or so years on him, with all the new experimental evidence and advances in the theory. Were Einstein alive today, apart from being very old, he would have to acknowledge the accuracy of QM, and while it may still be up in the air as to how to interpret it, the theory certainly works.

cyrek1
2004-Aug-08, 03:57 PM
Cyrek reply

I DO NOT question the vality of QM. I know its been proven to be very important for science.

But why try to discredit the Bohr model of the HA. I can understand why the BBRC is a reality with and because of the Bohr planetary model.
With this model, it explains why the HA absorbs and radiates photons at various levels of energy. Why their are absorption and emmission lines in the solar spectrum.

Give credit where credit is due.

QM makes minor adjustments to the HA spectrum.
The clouds as I said on other threads is nothing but an 'extended time period' of where the electron may be. It is nothing but a 'probability factor' of where the electron may be.
Why should the electron keep changing its orbital positions in the first place to create this probability factor? This can only be accounted for in 'electron interactions' with other electrons in close proximaty o each other.

In isolated environments like interstellar space, the electrons would remain in stable orbital positions to comply more closely to the Bohr model.

Grey
2004-Aug-08, 04:25 PM
These are just models. I am not looking for a spiritual, philosophical or mathematical view. It is all just beating around the bush for me (again: nothing against these models at all. We need them to understand how the universe functions). I would like to start a journey with a hypothetical, idealized microscope with no magnification limit and see what happens during the descent into the microcosmos.
I think we disagree about the nature of reality. I think that talking about how something behaves is describing what it "is", but you seem focused on what it "looks like". Every time we interact with an electron, for example, it seems like a point particle with no internal structure, regardless of how deeply we probe. That suggests that no matter how powerful our idealized microscope, we're still not going to see anything more than a dot*.

But just being concerned with what it looks like ignores its strange wavelike behavior when we aren't looking, which I think goes further to describe it's "reality" than its appearance. An electron isn't just a tiny dot, it's a tiny dot that acts instead like a wave in some ways, that can cross barriers "magically", that can sometimes have a chance of being here or there at the same time, but no chance at all of being halfway between the two points. At the level of the very small, the question "what does it look like?" just isn't really getting to its "reality".

You also seem insistent that a real particle would have to have more than zero dimensions, but I don't think that's necessary. In fact, if at huge magnification it looks like anything other than just a dot, I'd suggest that means that it has to have internal structure, so we could describe it instead in terms of its parts. At the bottom of the chain, we'll have to get to something that has no internal structure, or we haven't gotten to the smallest possible constituent part.

* Of course, I did bring up M theory which suggests that a particle may be a weird string existing in eleven dimensions, but that's as yet purely hypothetical, and I'm not sure that would really help visualize it better anyway. I don't know about you, but I can imagine a point particle much better than I can imagine anything in eleven dimensions...

Grey
2004-Aug-08, 05:03 PM
But why try to discredit the Bohr model of the HA.
Only because it doesn't work. :D


With this model, it explains why the HA absorbs and radiates photons at various levels of energy. Why their are absorption and emmission lines in the solar spectrum.
True. But that's all it gets right. There are other features of the hydrogen atom that the Bohr model cannot explain.


Give credit where credit is due.
I do. In just about every post I've pointed out that it was a great first step. Bohr was a brilliant man, and this first model suggested some of the ways that a quantum treatment of an atom could explain the discrete spectra that were observed. He was also the one who introduced the Correspondence Principle as a test for qunatum theory, the liquid drop model of the nucleus. As quantum theory was developed further, he used Heisenberg's ideas to work out a more accurate picture of atomic structure.

gzhpcu
2004-Aug-08, 05:41 PM
think we disagree about the nature of reality. I think that talking about how something behaves is describing what it "is", but you seem focused on what it "looks like". Every time we interact with an electron, for example, it seems like a point particle with no internal structure, regardless of how deeply we probe. That suggests that no matter how powerful our idealized microscope, we're still not going to see anything more than a dot*.
Yes, we do disagree about the nature of reality. For me, describing how something behaves need not necessarily describe what it is. You can explain the behavioral pattern of a bear to a person, but unless the person can see/feel/etc it, the person will have no idea what the bear is. Yes, I know that I am focused on what things look like, feel like, smell like, etc.


But just being concerned with what it looks like ignores its strange wavelike behavior when we aren't looking, which I think goes further to describe it's "reality" than its appearance. An electron isn't just a tiny dot, it's a tiny dot that acts instead like a wave in some ways, that can cross barriers "magically", that can sometimes have a chance of being here or there at the same time, but no chance at all of being halfway between the two points. At the level of the very small, the question "what does it look like?" just isn't really getting to its "reality".
Not so sure I agree. The Schrödinger wave function (or a "many worlds" effect) is needed because we have come up originally with a particle-based (incomplete) model to which we had to add particle/wave duality to address its shortcomings.


You also seem insistent that a real particle would have to have more than zero dimensions, but I don't think that's necessary. In fact, if at huge magnification it looks like anything other than just a dot, I'd suggest that means that it has to have internal structure, so we could describe it instead in terms of its parts. At the bottom of the chain, we'll have to get to something that has no internal structure, or we haven't gotten to the smallest possible constituent part.
* Of course, I did bring up M theory which suggests that a particle may be a weird string existing in eleven dimensions, but that's as yet purely hypothetical, and I'm not sure that would really help visualize it better anyway. I don't know about you, but I can imagine a point particle much better than I can imagine anything in eleven dimensions...[/quote]

I can neither imagine a particle with no dimensions (this represents a coordinate to me, and nothing else) nor ten physical dimensions and a vibrating string as representing reality (from my point of view). We have a situation where for superstring theory to work we are "forced" to accept an additional 7 physical dimensions. IMHO this a kludge to make the mathematics give the right results, but does not mean there actually are 10 physical dimensions. I think people take these models too literally.

edited for a typo

papageno
2004-Aug-09, 09:51 AM
QM makes minor adjustments to the HA spectrum.
The clouds as I said on other threads is nothing but an 'extended time period' of where the electron may be. It is nothing but a 'probability factor' of where the electron may be.
Why should the electron keep changing its orbital positions in the first place to create this probability factor? This can only be accounted for in 'electron interactions' with other electrons in close proximaty o each other.

In isolated environments like interstellar space, the electrons would remain in stable orbital positions to comply more closely to the Bohr model.

Due to the attraction of the nucleus, the electron tends to be confined close to it. That means that the uncertainty about its position is reduced. The result is that the uncertainty of its momentum is increased.

And the solution of the (time-independent) Schroedinger equation describe stationary states, which means that an electron does not jumpp from one orbital to another unless it is perturbed.

Since the electron within an atom cannot be described as classical particle, talking about "orbits" is inappropriate.

As Grey already said, Bohr's model is just the first step to a more correct picture.
Quantum mechanics does not simply make minor adjustements to Bohr's model, but gives a consistent theoretical treatment of atoms in general (not only the Hydrogen atom).

Grey
2004-Aug-09, 03:54 PM
Yes, we do disagree about the nature of reality. For me, describing how something behaves need not necessarily describe what it is. You can explain the behavioral pattern of a bear to a person, but unless the person can see/feel/etc it, the person will have no idea what the bear is. Yes, I know that I am focused on what things look like, feel like, smell like, etc.
A bear does have some characteristics like shape, color, and smell, that would be useful in a description of a bear. But the person I was explaining to wouldn't know very much about a bear if I didn't also tell them something of the behavior - that bears hibernate in the winter, that they're good at catching fish, that they like honey, and so forth.

There are other things, where describing what it does goes further to explain what it is than what it looks like, in my opinion. For example, describing what a jet engine looks like or sounds like misses the most important characteristic of a jet engine, that it makes things move fast.

I'm sure that most people would agree that asking what an electron sounds like or what it smells like is a meaningless question. Sounds and smells seem like basic properties to us, but we've discovered that these are decidedly macroscopic phenomena, requiring large groups of molecules to trigger the relevant nerve signals. I'm suggesting that color is also a property that electrons simply don't have, and unless the string theorists are right, electrons may not have a shape, either. Insisting that all real object must have these properties is imposing your preconceived views of what reality must be, rather than simply accepting the world as it is.


Not so sure I agree. The Schrödinger wave function (or a "many worlds" effect) is needed because we have come up originally with a particle-based (incomplete) model to which we had to add particle/wave duality to address its shortcomings.
And I'd suggest that we should take that at face value. That is, when we assumed that electrons were particles, we got the wrong answers, which suggests that electrons are not particles. When we treat them like they're weird things that have some properties of both particles and waves, we get the right answer. Why not take that as evidence that they are weird things that have some properties of both particles and waves?

By the way, as a nitpick, the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is only one of several, and not the most popular. I think most physicists these days would espouse the Copenhagen interpretation (one of the other contributions of Niels Bohr!). Here's a list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics) of some of the others.*


I can neither imagine a particle with no dimensions (this represents a coordinate to me, and nothing else) nor ten physical dimensions and a vibrating string as representing reality (from my point of view). We have a situation where for superstring theory to work we are "forced" to accept an additional 7 physical dimensions. IMHO this a kludge to make the mathematics give the right results, but does not mean there actually are 10 physical dimensions. I think people take these models too literally.
I'll talk about this a bit on the other thread, since I want to answer Glom, too, but again, I think this is imposing the limits of your preconceived ideas. Just because you can't imagine something, why does that mean it can't be the way the universe works? What prevents the universe from being made of vibrating strings, or point particles with no shape or size?

* On a complete tangent, in finding that link, I see an interesting recent experiment that I hadn't heard about, showing light behaving in an even weirder quantum way (http://www.sciencefriday.com/images/shows/2004/073004/AfsharExperimentSmall.jpg) than expected, with light showing both particle-like and wave-like behavior at the same time.

TravisM
2004-Aug-11, 06:14 PM
When we first started using STElectron microscopes, we'd never imagine we'd 'image'...

http://www.aip.org/png/2004/214.htm - pictures of atom clouds (not a cloud chamber)

http://www.aip.org/png/2003/208.htm - pictures of 1D gasses - Bose Einstein Condesate

http://www.aip.org/png/2003/182.htm - OPTICAL pictures of nano-tubes

[edit]

I had a link I couldn't find that shows a layer of gold atoms from foil that had been pounded until it was only a few atoms 'thick'... I'll keep digging...

gzhpcu
2004-Aug-11, 06:51 PM
I'll talk about this a bit on the other thread, since I want to answer Glom, too, but again, I think this is imposing the limits of your preconceived ideas. Just because you can't imagine something, why does that mean it can't be the way the universe works? What prevents the universe from being made of vibrating strings, or point particles with no shape or size?


Sorry, but "the way the world really is" is something which transcends the narrow interests of theoretical physicists. They are only interested in finding out how things work. Hence all these models based on point particles and vibrating strings. The point particles of QM are only valid in the realm of QM, which is not a theory about everything. Vibrating strings with 11 dimensions also are not the final theory. It is just as naive to believe in point particles as it is to believe in Bohr's planetary model for the atom.

Celestial Mechanic
2004-Aug-11, 09:08 PM
[Snip!]Sorry, but "the way the world really is" is something which transcends the narrow interests of theoretical physicists.
And what special insight do you have into "the way the world really is"? How does your insight "transcend the narrow interests of theoretical physicists"?

They are only interested in finding out how things work.
And a very useful thing, too. Can the same be said of your trancendent vision of "the way the world really is"?

Hence all these models based on point particles and vibrating strings. The point particles of QM are only valid in the realm of QM, which is not a theory about everything. Vibrating strings with 11 dimensions also are not the final theory. It is just as naive to believe in point particles as it is to believe in Bohr's planetary model for the atom.
No, QM and GR and string theory are not the "final theory", and I doubt that you have this "final theory". I know I sure don't! But right now QM and GR are the best theories we have, and once we find good tests of string theory either it will become the new best theory or it will join phlogiston in the scrap heap of science history.

Tell me, since you are so dissatisfied with the mathematical models that we theoretical physicists with our "narrow interests" use in our quest for understanding, what would you find convincing? What do you think "the way the world really is" is?

gzhpcu
2004-Aug-12, 02:53 AM
[Snip!]Sorry, but "the way the world really is" is something which transcends the narrow interests of theoretical physicists.
And what special insight do you have into "the way the world really is"? How does your insight "transcend the narrow interests of theoretical physicists"?

They are only interested in finding out how things work.
And a very useful thing, too. Can the same be said of your trancendent vision of "the way the world really is"?

Hence all these models based on point particles and vibrating strings. The point particles of QM are only valid in the realm of QM, which is not a theory about everything. Vibrating strings with 11 dimensions also are not the final theory. It is just as naive to believe in point particles as it is to believe in Bohr's planetary model for the atom.
No, QM and GR and string theory are not the "final theory", and I doubt that you have this "final theory". I know I sure don't! But right now QM and GR are the best theories we have, and once we find good tests of string theory either it will become the new best theory or it will join phlogiston in the scrap heap of science history.

Tell me, since you are so dissatisfied with the mathematical models that we theoretical physicists with our "narrow interests" use in our quest for understanding, what would you find convincing? What do you think "the way the world really is" is?

You are still all misunderstanding me, darn it. :( Whoever said I was dissatisfied with our mathematical models? I find it incredible the progress we have made thanks to these mathemtical models, and find it very fascinating reading about them. I just keep saying over and over (and it is not sinking in apparently) that they are models of how things work. We do not know how things really look. (This is just intellectually interesting - brings no material benefit like the mathematical models do)

Celestial Mechanic
2004-Aug-12, 04:27 AM
[Snip!]You are still all misunderstanding me, darn it. :( Whoever said I was dissatisfied with our mathematical models? I find it incredible the progress we have made thanks to these mathemtical models, and find it very fascinating reading about them.
It is the general impression I have based on repeated statements (such as below) that we "do not know how things really look", do not know "the way the world really is", and so on.

I just keep saying over and over (and it is not sinking in apparently) that they are models of how things work. We do not know how things really look.[Snip!]
But why the constant obsession with "how things really look"? We have two somewhat contradictory sayings: "Seeing is believing", and "Looks can deceive". Which one is valid? Depends on the situation.

No doubt you have seen countless pictures of, say the Andromeda Galaxy. Have you ever seen it through a telescope? Doesn't look the same, does it? Photographic film/CCD chips accumulate light, the human eye does not. Which one is real? Both are, they just capture different aspects of the same reality. Likewise with models. To the extent that they reflect reality they help us to perceive things we cannot directly see or experience. But we must always be aware of their limitations, and you are correct in stressing this. =D>

Where I disagree is that I feel that you worry too much about such things as "how things really look" that we can never really know. I'm sorry if I have seemed too harsh in my commentary. :oops:

gzhpcu
2004-Aug-12, 05:31 AM
CM,
First of all, don't worry, I did not consider your answers harsh. I enjoy the discussion on this thread otherwise I would have stepped out long ago.
You asked me:


why the constant obsession with "how things really look"?

Why? Just pure intellectual curiosity. I do not "worry" about it. Just extremely curious. I know it brings no direct material pay-off, but I personally find it fascinating, just as the big bang/multlple universe discussions are. I have always been interested in the very large and the very small.

Guess I am alone in a minority in posing this question.

cyrek1
2004-Aug-12, 01:24 PM
cyrek reply

papa
The electron has mass and was experimentally proven to have momentum and charge and other characteristics. It is a real particle not a virtual particle like modern physics would like to portray it.
It is the more important particle of the two which includes the proton.

The electron is the reason why we have all the electronic gadgets today.
It is by far, the most interacting particle of the two. That is why I prefer to think of it as it is.

papageno
2004-Aug-12, 02:35 PM
The electron has mass and was experimentally proven to have momentum and charge and other characteristics. It is a real particle not a virtual particle like modern physics would like to portray it.
It is the more important particle of the two which includes the proton.

The electron is the reason why we have all the electronic gadgets today.
It is by far, the most interacting particle of the two. That is why I prefer to think of it as it is.

The electron is a real, but not purely classical particle.
It is a quantum particle, and as such the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle applies (that is why I was talking about uncertainty in momentum).
If it did not, most experimental results would not make sense.

And the electronic gadgets would not work as designed, if modern physics were wrong.

By the way, have a look at this (http://www.bo.imm.cnr.it/researchs/educational/main_educational.php).

Celestial Mechanic
2004-Aug-12, 05:35 PM
[Snip!]The electron has mass and was experimentally proven to have momentum and charge and other characteristics. It is a real particle not a virtual particle like modern physics would like to portray it.
An electron can be a virtual particle, for example, a photon can become a virtual electron/positron pair (though only briefly!). This results in quantum corrections to the photon propagator and the consequences have been observed.

It is the more important particle of the two which includes the proton.
I wouldn't consider the neutron to be a hunk of chopped liver. And don't forget the neutrino. Even though they interact so weakly the neutrino is important as a byproduct of nuclear decays and fusion reactions.

[Snip!]It is by far, the most interacting particle of the two.[Snip!]
Maybe you meant most interesting, and that is not subject to argument. But as for interacting, the proton and nucleon have strong interactions with themselves and with other strongly-interacting particles as well as weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational interactions, whereas the electron only has weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational interactions.

Celestial Mechanic
2004-Aug-13, 04:15 AM
Just a further clarification about a point I made in the earlier post:

The phenomenon that I spoke of where a photon occasionally transforms into a virtual electron/positron pair is called "vacuum polarization" and it causes a tiny deviation in the Coulomb potential of a charged particle. Imagine a nucleus of charge +Ze accompanied by one electron of charge -e. According to the Dirac equation, the ns_1/2 and np_1/2 energy levels are degenerate. Here n refers to the principal quantum number (greater than or equal to 2 for the example presented here), s and p refer to the orbital quantum number, 0 units of h-bar for s and 1 unit for p, and the 1/2 refers to the total angular momentum of the electron which is the total of the orbital and spin parts. Vacuum polarization splits these energy levels apart, as predicted by Lamb and Retherford and subsequently observed.

Virtual particles are very real, they have effects that can be measured.

TravisM
2004-Aug-13, 11:48 AM
Sweet link on electron interference patterns. :D Nice to see it done w/ other than light. 8)

See? All particles, even 'heavy' ones behave as waves occasionally on all scales.