First, do you agree with the Coopehagen interpertation of QM?
I don't know if I do.
As for why do electrons obey these rule, well that is like asking why do we exist. Electrons behave a certain way, all the time, and if you just accept that things become easier to understand.
If you want to pursue geometrical arguements I think you'll come to the same conclusion, why are electrons of this certain geometry. Personnally I don't mock your quest, but I do beleive that it will need much more effort and time than you are probably willing to give it, on the order of 5 years. This is really complex mathamatics your are trying to get into.
If you read a QM book or a nuclear phyics book and just ignore all the philosopical bullshit and interpertations you will find that there is some useful shit in there. like the wave function descriptions of a fermion (antisymetric).
Perhaps you could tkae the wave function description and find some obsurce reference for antisymetric functions that do indeed relate it to inside out spheres, or some other topography. - good luck-
For the time being rely on the fact that electrons stack on top of one another in orbits thus preventing "falling" into the nucleous.
Fusion - 'Untwisting' particles?
-
quinnrisch
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 3:26 pm
- Real name:
-
guest
Re: WHY ELECTRONS DON'T RADIATE IN ORBITS
I have to disagree with this analysis. The Pauli exclusion principle is not a cause, but rather an effect.
One of the big triumphs for quantum mechanics was that classical mechanics DOES say that the electron orbiting a nucleus will radiate energy until it collapses into the nucleus, making atoms as we know them impossible. In quantum mechanics, particles also have wave-like qualities. For an electron in an atom, the allowed energy states correspond to a standing wave wrapped around the nucleus. Even this is not the whole story with QM though. The uncertainty principle says that you can not tell the position and momentum of a particle with infinite precision. The lower bound of that is the all-powerful constant h-bar (Plank's constant divided by pi). The consequence of this is that the wave function for the electron is "smeared" out over the atom. All you can really do is quantify the probability that the electron is at point (x,y,z) at any given time. Enter the wave function. The wave function is the equation that governs how particles behave. Obviously, even my short explanation does not tell the whole story, but that is the Cliffs Notes version....
Remember that QM is not really a theory of how things should work. It is a collection of observations on how things work that STILL do not have a clear physical theory backing them up. What QM really says is how stuff behaves - not why. The why has confused people for years now.
One of the big triumphs for quantum mechanics was that classical mechanics DOES say that the electron orbiting a nucleus will radiate energy until it collapses into the nucleus, making atoms as we know them impossible. In quantum mechanics, particles also have wave-like qualities. For an electron in an atom, the allowed energy states correspond to a standing wave wrapped around the nucleus. Even this is not the whole story with QM though. The uncertainty principle says that you can not tell the position and momentum of a particle with infinite precision. The lower bound of that is the all-powerful constant h-bar (Plank's constant divided by pi). The consequence of this is that the wave function for the electron is "smeared" out over the atom. All you can really do is quantify the probability that the electron is at point (x,y,z) at any given time. Enter the wave function. The wave function is the equation that governs how particles behave. Obviously, even my short explanation does not tell the whole story, but that is the Cliffs Notes version....
Remember that QM is not really a theory of how things should work. It is a collection of observations on how things work that STILL do not have a clear physical theory backing them up. What QM really says is how stuff behaves - not why. The why has confused people for years now.
-
quinnrisch
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 3:26 pm
- Real name:
Re: WHY ELECTRONS DON'T RADIATE IN ORBITS
H-bar = Plank's constant divided by 2 pi
The wave function of the electron is NOT wrapped around the proton in a linear orbit. It is three dimensional, and actually passes through the proton.
The Pauli exculsion principle is an observation, but is backed experimental with numerous verifactions with experiments that do not resemble an atom.
Everything theory is empirical in physics, otherwise it is mathamatics. Physics relies on the empirical necessatively.
The wave function of the electron is NOT wrapped around the proton in a linear orbit. It is three dimensional, and actually passes through the proton.
The Pauli exculsion principle is an observation, but is backed experimental with numerous verifactions with experiments that do not resemble an atom.
Everything theory is empirical in physics, otherwise it is mathamatics. Physics relies on the empirical necessatively.
-
guest
Re: WHY ELECTRONS DON'T RADIATE IN ORBITS
quinnrisch wrote:
> H-bar = Plank's constant divided by 2 pi
My bad. small typo.
>
> The wave function of the electron is NOT wrapped around the proton in a linear orbit. It is three dimensional, and actually passes through the proton.
>
That is not what I said, so I'm not sure what your point is....
> The Pauli exculsion principle is an observation, but is backed experimental with numerous verifactions with experiments that do not resemble an atom.
>
The Pauli exclusion principle states that no 2 particles can be identical, i.e., 2 electrons in an atom can not have the same quantum characteristics. It says absolutely nothing about why electrons do not radiate energy.
> Everything theory is empirical in physics, otherwise it is mathamatics. Physics relies on the empirical necessatively.
Please rephrase. I don't understand what your statement is.
> H-bar = Plank's constant divided by 2 pi
My bad. small typo.
>
> The wave function of the electron is NOT wrapped around the proton in a linear orbit. It is three dimensional, and actually passes through the proton.
>
That is not what I said, so I'm not sure what your point is....
> The Pauli exculsion principle is an observation, but is backed experimental with numerous verifactions with experiments that do not resemble an atom.
>
The Pauli exclusion principle states that no 2 particles can be identical, i.e., 2 electrons in an atom can not have the same quantum characteristics. It says absolutely nothing about why electrons do not radiate energy.
> Everything theory is empirical in physics, otherwise it is mathamatics. Physics relies on the empirical necessatively.
Please rephrase. I don't understand what your statement is.
-
quinnrisch
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 3:26 pm
- Real name:
Re: WHY ELECTRONS DON'T RADIATE IN ORBITS
I quote from your earlier post: "... For an electron in an atom, the allowed energy states correspond to a standing wave wrapped around the nucleus. Even this is not the whole story with QM though. ..."
Hence, my statement that an electron's wave function is three dimensional and not the inital deBrogile viewpoint of a one dimensional standing wave wrapped around the atom in a classical orbit.
Next,... The Pauli exculsion principle states that no two FERMIONS can have the same quantum numbers, this is not the case for bosons (photons, He4, etc...)
You are correct that the Pauli exculsion principle says nothing about why electrons don't radiate in atomic orbits, HOWEVER if you read my earlier post you would see my explaination of how the Pauli exclusion princilpe relates, and why it is important to understand it. The electrons are stacked one on top of another, and just like a building, it can't fall down.
TO clarify, physics relies on the real world to disprove a conjecture, and hence the reason for all theories in physics having some grounding in empirical observations...
Hence, my statement that an electron's wave function is three dimensional and not the inital deBrogile viewpoint of a one dimensional standing wave wrapped around the atom in a classical orbit.
Next,... The Pauli exculsion principle states that no two FERMIONS can have the same quantum numbers, this is not the case for bosons (photons, He4, etc...)
You are correct that the Pauli exculsion principle says nothing about why electrons don't radiate in atomic orbits, HOWEVER if you read my earlier post you would see my explaination of how the Pauli exclusion princilpe relates, and why it is important to understand it. The electrons are stacked one on top of another, and just like a building, it can't fall down.
TO clarify, physics relies on the real world to disprove a conjecture, and hence the reason for all theories in physics having some grounding in empirical observations...
-
guest
Re: WHY ELECTRONS DON'T RADIATE IN ORBITS
Obviously what I think I am saying is not what you think you are hearing. Let's try it this way:
A good model to a first approximation is that the energy states of the electron in an atomic system CORRESPOND to those energy states which would be exhibited by a classical standing wave. In other words we can use a standing wave to MODEL the energy states of the electron.
Now, to quote from my post:
"Even this is not the whole story with QM though. "
Of course the electron is not a classical standing wave. But it is a very helpful model for somebody trying to understand the basic concepts.
Your point on the boson/lepton issue is well taken.
As for the empirical basis for theories, QM is kind of unique in that there really is no coherent theory. If you really look at it, it is a collection of facts waiting for a good theory. It tells a lot about the how, but very little about the why. That is the big difference between QM and other theories. A lot of people have tried to assign a why to QM, but I am not alone in saying that they all fall short. There are very large discrepancies in the "explanations" for QM - the actual theory, but the equations and what they say happens is very very accurate.
A good model to a first approximation is that the energy states of the electron in an atomic system CORRESPOND to those energy states which would be exhibited by a classical standing wave. In other words we can use a standing wave to MODEL the energy states of the electron.
Now, to quote from my post:
"Even this is not the whole story with QM though. "
Of course the electron is not a classical standing wave. But it is a very helpful model for somebody trying to understand the basic concepts.
Your point on the boson/lepton issue is well taken.
As for the empirical basis for theories, QM is kind of unique in that there really is no coherent theory. If you really look at it, it is a collection of facts waiting for a good theory. It tells a lot about the how, but very little about the why. That is the big difference between QM and other theories. A lot of people have tried to assign a why to QM, but I am not alone in saying that they all fall short. There are very large discrepancies in the "explanations" for QM - the actual theory, but the equations and what they say happens is very very accurate.
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15028
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: WHY ELECTRONS DON'T RADIATE IN ORBITS
I go along with Clay on this one. QM and some variants are good at mathematical predictions. Unfortunately, as Clay noted, QM adherants have often tried in vain, for nearly 80 years, to flesh out a physical reality for the math they have produced based on best fit to experiment.
There may be no cogent physical reality that we can wrap our minds around here, either. If the best minds on the planet spin there mental wheels for nearly a century and still come up wanting, the physical reality may not be understandable or is so deeply buried that we might never know the half of it.
Certainly the standard model, (supposedly based on physical reality), has long ago drifted into the realm of "make it up as you go along".
We work with systems that are predictive but have no discernable physical embodiment.
Richard Hull
There may be no cogent physical reality that we can wrap our minds around here, either. If the best minds on the planet spin there mental wheels for nearly a century and still come up wanting, the physical reality may not be understandable or is so deeply buried that we might never know the half of it.
Certainly the standard model, (supposedly based on physical reality), has long ago drifted into the realm of "make it up as you go along".
We work with systems that are predictive but have no discernable physical embodiment.
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
-
guest
Re: WHY ELECTRONS DON'T RADIATE IN ORBITS
Richard Hull wrote:
> There may be no cogent physical reality that we can wrap our minds around here, either. If the best minds on the planet spin there mental wheels for nearly a century and still come up wanting, the physical reality may not be understandable or is so deeply buried that we might never know the half of it.
Geometry and (dis)order - charge/space/time and energy. The rate of change of compactified charge (energy) determines geometry of space, and the geometry of space determines the path of energy through compactified charge.
Einstein told us quite a bit, perhaps enough for now.
Perhaps we don't see the tremendous zero-point energy (which should have the whole universe electromagneticaly glowing red ) because the zero-point fluctuations of charge and space are random 'relative to time'. An electromagnetic wave is a 'broken symmetry' or correlation of the otherwise random vibrations of charge and space - relative to time. The Plank Level is the 'plasma frequency' of the equivalence of Gaussian (random) zero-point energy vibrating between charge and space but uncorrelated (symmetric) to time.
> Certainly the standard model, (supposedly based on physical reality), has long ago drifted into the realm of "make it up as you go along".
...
> We work with systems that are predictive but have no discernable physical embodiment.
The fabric of charge, space and time is nonlinear and self-interacting like a cryptographic cipher. If you want the simplist understanding of a cipher, look at how it works and how the key decodes data.
Trying to understand cryptography in terms of the elegant hacks in the mathematics of arcane relationships in hyperdimensions is a task for professional scholars. Scholars that come up with 'magic numbers' and tell you to follow the formula for the trick to work.
That is not understanding! The quadratic equation doesn't give you an understanding or physical interpretation of 2nd order systems, just a way to accurately describe them.
But having said that, I really wonder that since space is at right angles to charge, and space is warped by the rate-of-change of charge, that an additional four-space exists at right angles to regular 3-space, and is defined by the rate-of-change of 3-space (the broken symmetry relative to time), with its own kind of 'Fine Structure Constant'.
Energy + the 1-space of charge folded into the 3 dimensions of space is naturaly unstable. A four space, with its symmetry, would 'close the loop' as it were, on energy?
And would lead to some interesting kinds of 'multiple parallel universe' phenomena!
And there are some spooky things going on - just look at biology. Life - highly complex machines like cells - factories that produce thousands of chemicals and can replicate themselves, just don't happen without a good cause. As creationists say, thermodynamics just doesn't allow you to detonate dynamite in a junk yard and wind up making a jet in the explosion.
On the other hand, as our great contemporary atheist philospher George Carlin says, 'God must have been smoking dope when he designed the Duck-Bill Platypus'. Biologic diversity and proliferation only makes sense in terms of evolution, if not thermodynamics. Whom among us proud, vain mortals would not better God in improving the world?!?! Now that we have a reference frame in which to critique the Almighty, surely we could design out predators and parasites, mosquitoes and publicans!
Consider the physics of hyperdimensional parameters of evolution, then it becomes apparent that 'virtual futures' (destiny!) can affect the probability of reactions, the scattering of particles. The nonlinear (self-consistant, self-interacting) path momentum takes through charge and space relative to time may be influenced, in turn nonlinearly, by additional dimensional degrees of freedom.
Maybe God does play dice, and the dice are loaded!
FInaly, is anyone reading this stuff, or have I learned to use the Jargon and rant and ramble as well as A. Plutonium and Bearden?
Scott
> There may be no cogent physical reality that we can wrap our minds around here, either. If the best minds on the planet spin there mental wheels for nearly a century and still come up wanting, the physical reality may not be understandable or is so deeply buried that we might never know the half of it.
Geometry and (dis)order - charge/space/time and energy. The rate of change of compactified charge (energy) determines geometry of space, and the geometry of space determines the path of energy through compactified charge.
Einstein told us quite a bit, perhaps enough for now.
Perhaps we don't see the tremendous zero-point energy (which should have the whole universe electromagneticaly glowing red ) because the zero-point fluctuations of charge and space are random 'relative to time'. An electromagnetic wave is a 'broken symmetry' or correlation of the otherwise random vibrations of charge and space - relative to time. The Plank Level is the 'plasma frequency' of the equivalence of Gaussian (random) zero-point energy vibrating between charge and space but uncorrelated (symmetric) to time.
> Certainly the standard model, (supposedly based on physical reality), has long ago drifted into the realm of "make it up as you go along".
...
> We work with systems that are predictive but have no discernable physical embodiment.
The fabric of charge, space and time is nonlinear and self-interacting like a cryptographic cipher. If you want the simplist understanding of a cipher, look at how it works and how the key decodes data.
Trying to understand cryptography in terms of the elegant hacks in the mathematics of arcane relationships in hyperdimensions is a task for professional scholars. Scholars that come up with 'magic numbers' and tell you to follow the formula for the trick to work.
That is not understanding! The quadratic equation doesn't give you an understanding or physical interpretation of 2nd order systems, just a way to accurately describe them.
But having said that, I really wonder that since space is at right angles to charge, and space is warped by the rate-of-change of charge, that an additional four-space exists at right angles to regular 3-space, and is defined by the rate-of-change of 3-space (the broken symmetry relative to time), with its own kind of 'Fine Structure Constant'.
Energy + the 1-space of charge folded into the 3 dimensions of space is naturaly unstable. A four space, with its symmetry, would 'close the loop' as it were, on energy?
And would lead to some interesting kinds of 'multiple parallel universe' phenomena!
And there are some spooky things going on - just look at biology. Life - highly complex machines like cells - factories that produce thousands of chemicals and can replicate themselves, just don't happen without a good cause. As creationists say, thermodynamics just doesn't allow you to detonate dynamite in a junk yard and wind up making a jet in the explosion.
On the other hand, as our great contemporary atheist philospher George Carlin says, 'God must have been smoking dope when he designed the Duck-Bill Platypus'. Biologic diversity and proliferation only makes sense in terms of evolution, if not thermodynamics. Whom among us proud, vain mortals would not better God in improving the world?!?! Now that we have a reference frame in which to critique the Almighty, surely we could design out predators and parasites, mosquitoes and publicans!
Consider the physics of hyperdimensional parameters of evolution, then it becomes apparent that 'virtual futures' (destiny!) can affect the probability of reactions, the scattering of particles. The nonlinear (self-consistant, self-interacting) path momentum takes through charge and space relative to time may be influenced, in turn nonlinearly, by additional dimensional degrees of freedom.
Maybe God does play dice, and the dice are loaded!
FInaly, is anyone reading this stuff, or have I learned to use the Jargon and rant and ramble as well as A. Plutonium and Bearden?
Scott
-
guest
Re: WHY ELECTRONS DON'T RADIATE IN ORBITS
O wow ... the four years in advanced physics weren't such a waste after all.
I have had Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Electronics ,Advanced Nuke with Atomic Physics and Tensor mathematics.
You guys missed the point of the entire branch of knowledge. It is to unify the basic forces of nature.
Those four forces are the strong force ,electromagnetic force, weak force and gravity. The strong force force causes fusion when two deuterons come within its operating range this force couples them together ito helium atom. The electromagnetic force resists this union until the nuclei get in the strong forces range.
Gravity gathers particles of hydrogen together to make natural fusion.
The three forces figure dirrectly in this work but:
The weak force causes radiactive decay. In alpha decay there is a small probability that an alpha particle can escape the nucleus. But the alpha particle in the nucleus bounces against the barrier potential of the parent atom moved by the energy of the surrounding heat. (brownian motion.) The probability of escape is very small for a small sample of tries against the potential barrier of the parent nucleus but it is not zero due to the Pauli Exclusion principle. But the alpha particle moves at high speeds and covers the nucleatic diameter very rapidly. The various decay times for elements can be nailed precisely to the second by computing the barrier height and fiquring the probability that an alpha will tunnel
throught the potential barrier. It was our first exercise in QM 101. We calculated this stuff and matched the elements we calculated to the measured decay rates in the CRC. Perfect match if no math mistakes happened. It is the predictive nature of Quantum Mechanics that make it so useful.
It predicts what electrons will do as long as you follow quantum rules. Quantum was formulated because the electron path never decayed and crashed into the nucleus (The Ultraviolet Catastrophy) . It was discovered by Earnest Planck that electrons only move when light of a specific color hit it. That light has a specific energy due to it's wavelength. Hence the minimun energy to move an electron was called the Planck constant (surprise). It is the application of quantum mechanics that won Einstein the Nobel prize in physics...the Photoelectric effect. Not relativity. Einstein made the quantum mechanics revolution happen.
It was the first electronic device to use quantum mechanics... the electric eye.
I used the tunneling equations to model diodes , transistors, superconductors and my favorite impossible device... the tunnel diode.
We apply quantum mechanics everytime a computer is designed, a new drug gets designed. In Physical Chemistry quantum mechanics will allow you to take a natural
medicine and manipulate it to find new drugs in a computer... It is called Computational Chemistry done on one of my other interests Beowolf Computers.
>>>>>Is it complete?<<<<<<<<<<<
NO IT IS NOT.
It is a frame work or gauge theory.
This is physics from the 1930's.
We have moved on into multi dimensional theory. In it most primative form it's called Kalusa-Klein theory. It happened when Einstein was vainly trying to fit all the four forces into a four dimensioned space. Kalusa
made it almost all fit by enlarging the Reinman tensor
into a fifth dimensional vector. It plagued Einstein till the day he died.
It worked for several years until Quarks made their debue. The Yang Mills equations detailed the actions of subatomics that were found under quantum chromodynamics (read Feinman's lecture series... old tricky Dick will make it clear .. it won't hurt so much ) It took a very large tensor to suck all the four equations + all the stuff for subnuclear particle interactions into one tensor. ( it is a ten dimensional tensor.) It is called string theory. The four forces are said to have the same range of action at the Plank Energy 10 ^19 billion electron volts.
I don't have a clue how to do it.. Neither do the so called experts.
Look I can talk all day for a year on this stuff but what's it got to do with making fusion work?
****NEW*******
All particle guys can acheive
with present day accellerators is the unification of the electromagnetic force and the weak force. All fusion stuff uses the strong force. We have no machine that will produce fast enough particles to create the virtual particles that mediate electromagnetic and the strong force. The experimental work was to happen on the
Superconducting Supercollider but alas no.
Without this data at high energy frontier , physics is at a standstill in the USA. France is it baby. I didn't go on to get my Masters in Physics Due to the fact It's mostly paper shuffling now. Most of what they call physics research today is application of past physics.
I lost the excitement of doing research... until the fusor came along.
If you want more two books come to mind.
Hyperspace by Michio Kaku
All the history with just a speck of math.
Isbn 0-385-477505-8
The Feinman Lecture Series.
The Meaning of Quantum Theory by Jim Baggot
Isbn 0-19-855575-x
Clears the air really good.
I have had Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Electronics ,Advanced Nuke with Atomic Physics and Tensor mathematics.
You guys missed the point of the entire branch of knowledge. It is to unify the basic forces of nature.
Those four forces are the strong force ,electromagnetic force, weak force and gravity. The strong force force causes fusion when two deuterons come within its operating range this force couples them together ito helium atom. The electromagnetic force resists this union until the nuclei get in the strong forces range.
Gravity gathers particles of hydrogen together to make natural fusion.
The three forces figure dirrectly in this work but:
The weak force causes radiactive decay. In alpha decay there is a small probability that an alpha particle can escape the nucleus. But the alpha particle in the nucleus bounces against the barrier potential of the parent atom moved by the energy of the surrounding heat. (brownian motion.) The probability of escape is very small for a small sample of tries against the potential barrier of the parent nucleus but it is not zero due to the Pauli Exclusion principle. But the alpha particle moves at high speeds and covers the nucleatic diameter very rapidly. The various decay times for elements can be nailed precisely to the second by computing the barrier height and fiquring the probability that an alpha will tunnel
throught the potential barrier. It was our first exercise in QM 101. We calculated this stuff and matched the elements we calculated to the measured decay rates in the CRC. Perfect match if no math mistakes happened. It is the predictive nature of Quantum Mechanics that make it so useful.
It predicts what electrons will do as long as you follow quantum rules. Quantum was formulated because the electron path never decayed and crashed into the nucleus (The Ultraviolet Catastrophy) . It was discovered by Earnest Planck that electrons only move when light of a specific color hit it. That light has a specific energy due to it's wavelength. Hence the minimun energy to move an electron was called the Planck constant (surprise). It is the application of quantum mechanics that won Einstein the Nobel prize in physics...the Photoelectric effect. Not relativity. Einstein made the quantum mechanics revolution happen.
It was the first electronic device to use quantum mechanics... the electric eye.
I used the tunneling equations to model diodes , transistors, superconductors and my favorite impossible device... the tunnel diode.
We apply quantum mechanics everytime a computer is designed, a new drug gets designed. In Physical Chemistry quantum mechanics will allow you to take a natural
medicine and manipulate it to find new drugs in a computer... It is called Computational Chemistry done on one of my other interests Beowolf Computers.
>>>>>Is it complete?<<<<<<<<<<<
NO IT IS NOT.
It is a frame work or gauge theory.
This is physics from the 1930's.
We have moved on into multi dimensional theory. In it most primative form it's called Kalusa-Klein theory. It happened when Einstein was vainly trying to fit all the four forces into a four dimensioned space. Kalusa
made it almost all fit by enlarging the Reinman tensor
into a fifth dimensional vector. It plagued Einstein till the day he died.
It worked for several years until Quarks made their debue. The Yang Mills equations detailed the actions of subatomics that were found under quantum chromodynamics (read Feinman's lecture series... old tricky Dick will make it clear .. it won't hurt so much ) It took a very large tensor to suck all the four equations + all the stuff for subnuclear particle interactions into one tensor. ( it is a ten dimensional tensor.) It is called string theory. The four forces are said to have the same range of action at the Plank Energy 10 ^19 billion electron volts.
I don't have a clue how to do it.. Neither do the so called experts.
Look I can talk all day for a year on this stuff but what's it got to do with making fusion work?
****NEW*******
All particle guys can acheive
with present day accellerators is the unification of the electromagnetic force and the weak force. All fusion stuff uses the strong force. We have no machine that will produce fast enough particles to create the virtual particles that mediate electromagnetic and the strong force. The experimental work was to happen on the
Superconducting Supercollider but alas no.
Without this data at high energy frontier , physics is at a standstill in the USA. France is it baby. I didn't go on to get my Masters in Physics Due to the fact It's mostly paper shuffling now. Most of what they call physics research today is application of past physics.
I lost the excitement of doing research... until the fusor came along.
If you want more two books come to mind.
Hyperspace by Michio Kaku
All the history with just a speck of math.
Isbn 0-385-477505-8
The Feinman Lecture Series.
The Meaning of Quantum Theory by Jim Baggot
Isbn 0-19-855575-x
Clears the air really good.
-
guest
Re: WHY ELECTRONS DON'T RADIATE IN ORBITS
Perhaps you would enjoy:
http://superstringtheory.com/experm/exper3a.html
(and the links therein)
for further reading.
Cheers
R
http://superstringtheory.com/experm/exper3a.html
(and the links therein)
for further reading.
Cheers
R
-
guest
Re: WHY ELECTRONS DON'T RADIATE IN ORBITS
Perhaps you would enjoy:
http://superstringtheory.com/experm/exper3a.html
(and the links therein)
for further reading.
Cheers
R
http://superstringtheory.com/experm/exper3a.html
(and the links therein)
for further reading.
Cheers
R
-
guest
Re: WHY ELECTRONS DON'T RADIATE IN ORBITS
You might find this (and links therein) interesting:
http://superstringtheory.com/experm/exper3a.html
R
http://superstringtheory.com/experm/exper3a.html
R
-
guest
Re: WHY ELECTRONS DON'T RADIATE IN ORBITS
I really enjoyed the site but I an experimetalist, Physicist,a romantic, poet, mystic, patriotic in that order.
String theory is really neat but it tends into philosophy
without our work on cheap fusion it hasn't got a prayer
of being tested. Besides I tend to get the same itch in my crotch I got when I took Ethics at Ole Miss. You see one of the problems of the ages was free will. If God is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscent how does he allow free will? The problem of whether God can subdivide himself to allow free will is nothing compared with the string physics Quest.
Larry Leins
Physics Teacher
String theory is really neat but it tends into philosophy
without our work on cheap fusion it hasn't got a prayer
of being tested. Besides I tend to get the same itch in my crotch I got when I took Ethics at Ole Miss. You see one of the problems of the ages was free will. If God is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscent how does he allow free will? The problem of whether God can subdivide himself to allow free will is nothing compared with the string physics Quest.
Larry Leins
Physics Teacher
-
guest
Re: WHY ELECTRONS DON'T RADIATE IN ORBITS
I really enjoyed the site but I an experimetalist, Physicist,a romantic, poet, mystic, patriotic in that order.
String theory is really neat but it tends into philosophy
without our work on cheap fusion it hasn't got a prayer
of being tested. Besides I tend to get the same itch in my crotch I got when I took Ethics at Ole Miss. You see one of the problems of the ages was free will. If God is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscent how does he allow free will? The problem of whether God can subdivide himself to allow free will is nothing compared with the string physics Quest.
Larry Leins
Physics Teacher
String theory is really neat but it tends into philosophy
without our work on cheap fusion it hasn't got a prayer
of being tested. Besides I tend to get the same itch in my crotch I got when I took Ethics at Ole Miss. You see one of the problems of the ages was free will. If God is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscent how does he allow free will? The problem of whether God can subdivide himself to allow free will is nothing compared with the string physics Quest.
Larry Leins
Physics Teacher
Re: WHY ELECTRONS DON'T RADIATE IN ORBITS
A phsysics professor from a local university came over recently to take a look at my fusor. He worked in Long Island and in Europe on synchrotron accelerators. I mentioned the problem about electron radiation around the nucleus and he replied with this:
"You have hit precisely the point where the Bohr model of the atom (in which
electrons around the nucleus are like planets orbiting the sun) breaks down.
The electrons SHOULD radiate if they are circling the nucleus. And this is
where we require the full apparatus of quantum mechanics, treating the electron
by probability amplitude (wavefunction) instead of treating it as a particle.
As an aside, one might ask, why don't we have to treat the electrons circling
the synchrotron quantum mechanically. The reason is that in the electron beam
(or pulse of electrons) there are so many electrons filling the small region of
space that makes up the pulse, that we have essentially a macroscopic current.
We can treat this macroscopic current, without resorting to quantum mechanics.
From electromagnetic theory of continuous currents, we find that a current
undergoing acceleration will radiate. Note that it is exactly this acceleration
of currents along the conducting antenna of TV, radio, and cell-phone
transmitters that is responsible for the radio waves being picked up by our
receivers. Now hows that for a broad sweep of topics.
I hope that was clear, but I'm not sure that it was...one electron around an
atom is not macroscopic, but billions and billions and trillions of electrons in
a small space is macroscopic forming essentially a continuous charge
distribution.
Hopefully I won't be so pendantic in replying to your next question.
Brian Thompson"
At the very least this should be food for thought for you guys.
Happy Theorizing,
Adam Parker
"You have hit precisely the point where the Bohr model of the atom (in which
electrons around the nucleus are like planets orbiting the sun) breaks down.
The electrons SHOULD radiate if they are circling the nucleus. And this is
where we require the full apparatus of quantum mechanics, treating the electron
by probability amplitude (wavefunction) instead of treating it as a particle.
As an aside, one might ask, why don't we have to treat the electrons circling
the synchrotron quantum mechanically. The reason is that in the electron beam
(or pulse of electrons) there are so many electrons filling the small region of
space that makes up the pulse, that we have essentially a macroscopic current.
We can treat this macroscopic current, without resorting to quantum mechanics.
From electromagnetic theory of continuous currents, we find that a current
undergoing acceleration will radiate. Note that it is exactly this acceleration
of currents along the conducting antenna of TV, radio, and cell-phone
transmitters that is responsible for the radio waves being picked up by our
receivers. Now hows that for a broad sweep of topics.
I hope that was clear, but I'm not sure that it was...one electron around an
atom is not macroscopic, but billions and billions and trillions of electrons in
a small space is macroscopic forming essentially a continuous charge
distribution.
Hopefully I won't be so pendantic in replying to your next question.
Brian Thompson"
At the very least this should be food for thought for you guys.
Happy Theorizing,
Adam Parker
-
guest
Re: Fusion - 'Untwisting' particles?
Humans like all other machines have limitations in their performance. We overcome these limitations by many methods, but the most widely used is the creation of new tool and machines, in other words technology.
Still when it comes to perception humans have a handicap, because our sensory perception extends no further than 4 dimensions, (Length, width, Height, and time) for our visual perceptions of dimensions.
Quantum mechanics and Relativity are theories, which can be defined as just models.
A model is just a set of consistently testable rules, but like all rule books there are conditions were we have to make exceptions.
The search for a Unified Theory is proof that both Quantum theory and Relativity are incomplete models of nature and the Universe.
Your point on the electron is a good one, keep in mind that Quantum physics has many larger holes than this one and that is why it always has to create new sub-models to explain its own flaws. Relativity has historically been more stable, but I can assure you it has its own exceptions, which seem to defy the fundamental theory.
Oh, a note on Occam’s Razor, in the movie Contact we are told that Occam’s razor says, “Given all the possible explanations the simplest answer tends to be the correct one”. This philosophy is not what the 15th century philosopher William Occam stated. In actuality he said, “Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily”.
The modern proper translation goes like this “One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything”.
In other words Occam proposed that we use his philosophy to turn an infinite amount of possible theories to explain a phenomenon into the simplest theory that could account for the observed or measured effects.
This is why it is referred to as a razor, because it cuts the unnecessary factors from a theory until only the most relevant factors are left.
The first so-called Occam’s razor that we all think as the real one is totally detrimental to scientific progress, because the simplest explanation will never be a new theory.
The real Occam razor is a different story, its starts by telling us to create theories and then to trim them down until only one theory is left that only possesses the absolute minimum factors to explain the phenomenon. This is very different than to try to use an existing theory to explain a new phenomenon.
Keep in mind Science is a philosophy.
Still when it comes to perception humans have a handicap, because our sensory perception extends no further than 4 dimensions, (Length, width, Height, and time) for our visual perceptions of dimensions.
Quantum mechanics and Relativity are theories, which can be defined as just models.
A model is just a set of consistently testable rules, but like all rule books there are conditions were we have to make exceptions.
The search for a Unified Theory is proof that both Quantum theory and Relativity are incomplete models of nature and the Universe.
Your point on the electron is a good one, keep in mind that Quantum physics has many larger holes than this one and that is why it always has to create new sub-models to explain its own flaws. Relativity has historically been more stable, but I can assure you it has its own exceptions, which seem to defy the fundamental theory.
Oh, a note on Occam’s Razor, in the movie Contact we are told that Occam’s razor says, “Given all the possible explanations the simplest answer tends to be the correct one”. This philosophy is not what the 15th century philosopher William Occam stated. In actuality he said, “Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily”.
The modern proper translation goes like this “One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything”.
In other words Occam proposed that we use his philosophy to turn an infinite amount of possible theories to explain a phenomenon into the simplest theory that could account for the observed or measured effects.
This is why it is referred to as a razor, because it cuts the unnecessary factors from a theory until only the most relevant factors are left.
The first so-called Occam’s razor that we all think as the real one is totally detrimental to scientific progress, because the simplest explanation will never be a new theory.
The real Occam razor is a different story, its starts by telling us to create theories and then to trim them down until only one theory is left that only possesses the absolute minimum factors to explain the phenomenon. This is very different than to try to use an existing theory to explain a new phenomenon.
Keep in mind Science is a philosophy.
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15028
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: WHY ELECTRONS DON'T RADIATE IN ORBITS
Quantum mechanics is certainly useful, but it is important to ever keep in the mind that it contains not one single physical reality. It simply links experimental observations to mathematics. In a number of cases it is predictive. (if it weren't it would be worthless) It, however, offers nothing of a tangible reality at any point.
Its assumptions, at the core level, are often irrational and ridiculous. Point source electrons, etc. All necessary for the math, but nosensical in the physical sense.
It assists in predicting macroscopic realities via mathematics built around imaginative mental constructs without giving one jot of information about the actual, real world physical entities involved.
It is, at best, a magnificently crafted and well maintained crutch allowing work to proceed well before we understand the physical realities underlying it all.
Richard Hull
Its assumptions, at the core level, are often irrational and ridiculous. Point source electrons, etc. All necessary for the math, but nosensical in the physical sense.
It assists in predicting macroscopic realities via mathematics built around imaginative mental constructs without giving one jot of information about the actual, real world physical entities involved.
It is, at best, a magnificently crafted and well maintained crutch allowing work to proceed well before we understand the physical realities underlying it all.
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
-
guest
Re: WHY ELECTRONS DON'T RADIATE IN ORBITS
Your points are well stated however ....
Quantum mechanics is only good at microscopic level.
It is the lack of macroscopic applications is why we don't switch gravity on and off like light bulb.
The largest macroscopic use of the stuff is why superfluids tend to climb out of their jars.. why you can trap slow neutrons in a glass jar. You can't at the present time warp space, travel faster than the speed of light any where excect in your mind. Beside if I had a unified field theory I would take a simple rock and turn it into a blast of energy. Also one could then truely know why an object occupies space. Screw warp drive , I would use Philip K Dick's (Bladerunner) idea
Simply overlay a waveform that would make it impossible for that object to remain there. ... It would cease to exist there and rematerialise Else where. It would not violate relativity... It would occur in no time.
So much for traveling faster than the speed of light!
There is no speed limit if it happens in no time.
I heartlily agree with Richard on this... Why break your mind on this stuff... When you can do the real thing....
I find the real stuff much more pleasing than fiction.
Larry Leins
Physics Teacher
Quantum mechanics is only good at microscopic level.
It is the lack of macroscopic applications is why we don't switch gravity on and off like light bulb.
The largest macroscopic use of the stuff is why superfluids tend to climb out of their jars.. why you can trap slow neutrons in a glass jar. You can't at the present time warp space, travel faster than the speed of light any where excect in your mind. Beside if I had a unified field theory I would take a simple rock and turn it into a blast of energy. Also one could then truely know why an object occupies space. Screw warp drive , I would use Philip K Dick's (Bladerunner) idea
Simply overlay a waveform that would make it impossible for that object to remain there. ... It would cease to exist there and rematerialise Else where. It would not violate relativity... It would occur in no time.
So much for traveling faster than the speed of light!
There is no speed limit if it happens in no time.
I heartlily agree with Richard on this... Why break your mind on this stuff... When you can do the real thing....
I find the real stuff much more pleasing than fiction.
Larry Leins
Physics Teacher
-
guest
Re: WHY ELECTRONS DON'T RADIATE IN ORBITS
I think you missed the whole point of the discussion.
I believe it was started by somebody who was confused about a QM concept.
As for what does it have to do with fusion: No QM = No fusion. Simple as that.
I believe it was started by somebody who was confused about a QM concept.
As for what does it have to do with fusion: No QM = No fusion. Simple as that.
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15028
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: WHY ELECTRONS DON'T RADIATE IN ORBITS
Fusion is a fact. It happens in spite of QM. QM is not involved with fusion at all except that it is a fabric of man's imagination attempting, not to explain, fusion and other electronic and atomic events but to make it mathematically predictive.
Mathematics never explains the physicality of anything. It is merely a tool to move forward in the study of nature. The math can be correct, but the explanation unsound, faulty, or not even half right. Explanations are derived from hunches and guesses at the submicroscopic level based on macroscopic results of experiments. The math follows naturally and can be cross checked with future experiments, but the physical embodiment might never really be known.
fusion was around a long time before QM. It always obeyed the math (recently developed), but not necessarily the physical interpretation of man.
Richard Hull
Mathematics never explains the physicality of anything. It is merely a tool to move forward in the study of nature. The math can be correct, but the explanation unsound, faulty, or not even half right. Explanations are derived from hunches and guesses at the submicroscopic level based on macroscopic results of experiments. The math follows naturally and can be cross checked with future experiments, but the physical embodiment might never really be known.
fusion was around a long time before QM. It always obeyed the math (recently developed), but not necessarily the physical interpretation of man.
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15028
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: Fusion - 'Untwisting' particles?
Well spoken Hector. Science is indeed a philosophy. Many in the scientific community fail to remember this in an often smug or pedantic attitude, feeling that their current knowledge of "how it is" is secure.
I am deeply saddened that natural philposophy, (the original and purest form of science), is held in such low regard for it was the engine which launched man from the middle ages into the age of enlightenment. I hope that science will never move to the point of the old dogmatic pre-renaissance church with its all knowing attitude complete with torments for non-believers. However, many scientific luminaries are already perceived as fathers of the church of science and their pontifications can become holy doctrine all to easily.
Thank goodness there is still empirical experiment, albeit often seen as mostly handwaving and over burdened with stretched statistical interpretation down at the infintesimally small and unimaginably large scales. In these areas, even the most learned man's thoughts are little better than an adroit observers musings.
The control of fusion awaits clearer physical understandings of the processes OR dumb luck on behalf of a researcher, dabler, or tyro.
There is a slowly and insidiuosly developing a body of experimental knowledge for lower energy proton-proton fusion. If it is real and pans out, it may prove to be either extremely useful or just a way to get widely dispersed lower grade heat from natural systems. A bit of the old wonderment may yet get injected back into science as it was in the 1890's with the bizarre discovery of the radioactivity and x-rays. All of which were never predicted, totally outside of the realm of science at the time and had no base upon which to form an understanding. Totally new concepts had to be investigated and formed from scratch. The old core knowledge remained. New vistas opened up like the explorers of old discovering the New World.
Richard Hull
I am deeply saddened that natural philposophy, (the original and purest form of science), is held in such low regard for it was the engine which launched man from the middle ages into the age of enlightenment. I hope that science will never move to the point of the old dogmatic pre-renaissance church with its all knowing attitude complete with torments for non-believers. However, many scientific luminaries are already perceived as fathers of the church of science and their pontifications can become holy doctrine all to easily.
Thank goodness there is still empirical experiment, albeit often seen as mostly handwaving and over burdened with stretched statistical interpretation down at the infintesimally small and unimaginably large scales. In these areas, even the most learned man's thoughts are little better than an adroit observers musings.
The control of fusion awaits clearer physical understandings of the processes OR dumb luck on behalf of a researcher, dabler, or tyro.
There is a slowly and insidiuosly developing a body of experimental knowledge for lower energy proton-proton fusion. If it is real and pans out, it may prove to be either extremely useful or just a way to get widely dispersed lower grade heat from natural systems. A bit of the old wonderment may yet get injected back into science as it was in the 1890's with the bizarre discovery of the radioactivity and x-rays. All of which were never predicted, totally outside of the realm of science at the time and had no base upon which to form an understanding. Totally new concepts had to be investigated and formed from scratch. The old core knowledge remained. New vistas opened up like the explorers of old discovering the New World.
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
-
guest
Re: WHY ELECTRONS DON'T RADIATE IN ORBITS
Im not saying than Qm is unimportant.
I believe I listed the ways it was in my post on 02/02/02.
But Qm is a huge field.
Some of it just isn't relevent.
But we are in the data collecting stage.
Math follows experiment.
Not the other way around.
Science is replete with the unexspected.
Good things were never ordered in reseach.
Teflon comes to mind.
Larry Leins
Pysics Teacher
I believe I listed the ways it was in my post on 02/02/02.
But Qm is a huge field.
Some of it just isn't relevent.
But we are in the data collecting stage.
Math follows experiment.
Not the other way around.
Science is replete with the unexspected.
Good things were never ordered in reseach.
Teflon comes to mind.
Larry Leins
Pysics Teacher
-
guest
Re: Fusion - 'Untwisting' particles?
I have a triple major in Philosophy,Physics and Chemistry with a minor in Mech Engineering.
Hector has brought out very relavent points.
I had a guy come in and tell the class I took in AI
that a machine could never learn anything. He was a head of philosophy at Reutgers University. The Air Force had radar sets that could be taught to recognise
targets since the early 50's. I sat down and wrote in Visual Basic stack oriented code program that could be trained to associate pictures with the words describing them. I used a reward training system. The program could even be taught the wrong word with the wrong picture! But you know what it didn't do the trick.
Specialized experts like this simply don't let substance penetrate their little world. I am a generalist. I have no alegence to one preisthood or another. I simply take what works. As Ben Fratchuk has stated many times "Where is the Beef?".
Larry Leins
Physics Teacher
Hector has brought out very relavent points.
I had a guy come in and tell the class I took in AI
that a machine could never learn anything. He was a head of philosophy at Reutgers University. The Air Force had radar sets that could be taught to recognise
targets since the early 50's. I sat down and wrote in Visual Basic stack oriented code program that could be trained to associate pictures with the words describing them. I used a reward training system. The program could even be taught the wrong word with the wrong picture! But you know what it didn't do the trick.
Specialized experts like this simply don't let substance penetrate their little world. I am a generalist. I have no alegence to one preisthood or another. I simply take what works. As Ben Fratchuk has stated many times "Where is the Beef?".
Larry Leins
Physics Teacher