Sebastian wrote:
> While I tend to agree that no one really knows the nature of electrons or anything else for that matter -
Are you certain of that 8^)
> Further I bristle at the physists who endless chase smaller particles generally on the taxpayers bill with no sign of useful aplications.
For thousands of years science simplified nature, to the realm of a few particles. Then particle accelerators started creating hundreds of new particles, about the time quantum theory began describing matter as waves, and equating matter with energy. States of the vacuum.
The most obsured thing about physics I find today is the discarding of an 'aether', because particles were not found to drift in it, and not saying that particles and atoms were made 'of' it.
How can you polarize a vacuum - nothing, void? How can you vibrate a void? How can you bend the space and time of a void, let alone if a void has space and time is it a void? And since space and time is only meaningfull in terms of the matter and energy (which have been shown to be waves) which reside in it, I conclude there is no true 'vacuum' in our universe!
Scott
Fusion - 'Untwisting' particles?
-
guest
Re: Fusion - 'Untwisting' particles?
Scott Stephens wrote:
> Sebastian wrote:
>
> >my understanding that electrons do not "orbit" a nucleous so much as they exist as a wave function about the nucleous.
>
> Yes, a vibration mode. Now what is it that is vibrating? An electromagnetic field in the vacuum, or charged 'mass'?
The vacuum must be vibrating against itself - other wise how does one eliminate the problems of origin. Perhaps similare to a photon which essentially seems to provides its own "either" as it travels. So no I don't think its that difficult to concieve just different from the way we've been taught to describe the atomic and sub-atomic realm.
>What is mass? Mass can be shown to be equivalent to >electromagnetic energy/momentum, and to distance. Again, >its the vacuum itself that is vibrating.
Conception can be aided I believe by chunking out the notion of mass all together. After all mass is a totally infered concept, we measure forces not mass. Relativity for example becomes much easier to swallow if one uses momentum rather than mass, even rest energy can be described as a "rest momentum" after all wavicles do behave as if there was a component moving at c even at rest. Relativity not only can work as Einstien stated but even make some sense.
>
> This is such a difficult notion?
No.
>
> Scott
Follws some ponderings perhaps foolish ones on my part.
Once one elininates mass from consideration it seems that many concepts such as inertia can be more readily understood. Observe that any difference in velocity creates a time differential between the two objects. Inertia resolves into the unseen acceleration against the axis of time. Time then resolves into any of at least four spacial dimensions depending on ones orientation.
Dimesnions only exist as a reference to something, so the universe completes its reduction to nothing having a rather intense conversation with itself. One supposes that gravitational time dialation results from having all that spacial dimensional self referencing crammed into itself?
Unfortunately I am mathamatically impared due to trauma or maybe its just lazyness, but it would seem that these notions should be rather simple to formulate.
So that is my pet theory of everything.
How this will get us to a working fusion machine in my basement I have not a clue. Like Richard I am more interested in something that heats my basement. Or at least provides a beautiful plasma.
Re: Fusion - 'Untwisting' particles?
A couple of points in reponse to this interesting discussion.
I realize incidentally, that while it is not to be taken too literally, electrons do actually have regions where they are found. Whether you like to think of those regions as a probability shell, or whatever, it doesnt really change things. Personally, I prefer the picture of a "shell" as region around the nucleus where you will observe the electrons presence some percentage of the time during which you make observations. Over the total volume of that "shell" the electron is there 100 percent of the time. This seems to be a physically satisfying interpretation of the probability density function, whose square is the probability of a physically realizable measurement..
What I struggle with about concepts of vibrating vacuum, or "acoustical" process is the apparent difficulty in performing some type of definitive experiment to establish that concept in favor of another. Asserting that vacuum vibrates... doesn't prove it does. Are there tests that could be done to "prove" this view is correct?
Primitive though it is, the physical construct we have called the electron manifests itself, even in very small numbers as a distinct, movement of charge. We call this a "current". Modern ammeters measure as little as a few attoamperes..(1E -18 amperes) or just a few dozen electrons/second. Whatever is actually moving amongst the atoms of the conductor, is doing it quite slowly, (on the average). The average current no doubt consists tiny current pulses from the individual electrons. I have actually seen some evidence of this in dielectric leakage measurements in the femto ampere range.
The point I was trying to make earlier, is that the principle of correspondence... which helps preserve our sanity in these discussions.... says that representations should actually predict the behavior observed.
Now if the simple idea of a movement of "charges" as a current... is more or less a continuous thing from mega amperes to atto amperes...about 24 orders of magnitude... we are dealing with a relatively useful concept... that of a localizable quantity of charge... we call the electron.
At the finer, subatomic scale, the actual internal structure of the beast, is really a separate issue and some stimulating concepts have been aired here, as well as elsewhere.
I heard a paper years ago discussing the "size" of an electron... pointing out that the usual process of shooting electrons at each other at higher and higher energies, only leads to smaller and smaller "sizes" for the electron. The kinetic energy of the electron localizes it., shrinking the envelope of its wavefunction. Thus the model emerging is rather like a soft compressible structure.
What this structure does around the nucleus is simply not known. It clearly finds a stable configuration, that is both localizable when chemical bonding occurs, energy conserving as I noted earlier, and only slightly bound in the cases of conducting atoms. To be no longer "electrostatically" attracted to the oppositely charged core without some sort of motion, and if in motion , to simply not radiate energy, as is the case when unbound, is the issue I find fascinating.
Dave Cooper
I realize incidentally, that while it is not to be taken too literally, electrons do actually have regions where they are found. Whether you like to think of those regions as a probability shell, or whatever, it doesnt really change things. Personally, I prefer the picture of a "shell" as region around the nucleus where you will observe the electrons presence some percentage of the time during which you make observations. Over the total volume of that "shell" the electron is there 100 percent of the time. This seems to be a physically satisfying interpretation of the probability density function, whose square is the probability of a physically realizable measurement..
What I struggle with about concepts of vibrating vacuum, or "acoustical" process is the apparent difficulty in performing some type of definitive experiment to establish that concept in favor of another. Asserting that vacuum vibrates... doesn't prove it does. Are there tests that could be done to "prove" this view is correct?
Primitive though it is, the physical construct we have called the electron manifests itself, even in very small numbers as a distinct, movement of charge. We call this a "current". Modern ammeters measure as little as a few attoamperes..(1E -18 amperes) or just a few dozen electrons/second. Whatever is actually moving amongst the atoms of the conductor, is doing it quite slowly, (on the average). The average current no doubt consists tiny current pulses from the individual electrons. I have actually seen some evidence of this in dielectric leakage measurements in the femto ampere range.
The point I was trying to make earlier, is that the principle of correspondence... which helps preserve our sanity in these discussions.... says that representations should actually predict the behavior observed.
Now if the simple idea of a movement of "charges" as a current... is more or less a continuous thing from mega amperes to atto amperes...about 24 orders of magnitude... we are dealing with a relatively useful concept... that of a localizable quantity of charge... we call the electron.
At the finer, subatomic scale, the actual internal structure of the beast, is really a separate issue and some stimulating concepts have been aired here, as well as elsewhere.
I heard a paper years ago discussing the "size" of an electron... pointing out that the usual process of shooting electrons at each other at higher and higher energies, only leads to smaller and smaller "sizes" for the electron. The kinetic energy of the electron localizes it., shrinking the envelope of its wavefunction. Thus the model emerging is rather like a soft compressible structure.
What this structure does around the nucleus is simply not known. It clearly finds a stable configuration, that is both localizable when chemical bonding occurs, energy conserving as I noted earlier, and only slightly bound in the cases of conducting atoms. To be no longer "electrostatically" attracted to the oppositely charged core without some sort of motion, and if in motion , to simply not radiate energy, as is the case when unbound, is the issue I find fascinating.
Dave Cooper
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15039
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: Fusion - 'Untwisting' particles?
I agree with Dave Cooper on the concepts useful for working with the electron, for that is all we can do is work with the concepts to make real world things happen. The concepts were hammered out over a long time. Whether they have any genuine physical embodiment is anyone's guess.
It is interesting that the electrons in any stable atom cannot be detected by their charge except through guess work based on chemical bonding. This theory was built up empirically as well over the years.
The only way physical electrons can be seen or measured is free of the atom. An ionized atom is a charged atom which has undergone some trauma of ten or more electron volts. If negative, we say an electron has been added. Positive charge indicates one is missing, having uncovered nuclear charge. The free electron is a distinct charge and it is from this that all of our knowledge was gathered and further inferences made. There appears to be no such thing as a free, thermalized electron here on earth. (too much charge floating about to let them be still) They are always kineticized and study of them in a static or slowed down state is just not possible.
Electrons or their kineticized influence represent a current as Dave has said. This is a mystery of bulk matter of which we know nothing, but assume much. What we assume is predictive and that is good enough for the making of wheelwork.
The classic wigglewand experiment in the femto and pico amp range is a classic and bizarre example of energy transfer which we, I think, stupidly attribute to a field.
Fields are at once useful to the mind and yet repugnant to the soul for internally we realize it is as much of a stretch towards magic as the aether is, but someone had us settle for field magic instead of aether magic. Fair thinkers who have been taught the world is one of fields, who can disassociate themselves from the concept, will have to readily admit the concept is totally magical and designed to keep us in a safe, touchy, feely, conceptualization mode.
Alas, for all my bluster, I offer no substitute and work with field concepts daily, but feel their weakness and paucity of value more and more when thinking about core issues.
A charged teflon rod is waved at a rate of 0.1 hz through an arc of only about 6 inches. At a distance of 12 feet there is placed a 1 foot diameter metal sphere of isotropic capacity (~13pf). A good electrometer connected to the ball will show a voltage swing of over 300 volts (-150 thru 0 to +150volts at that range. A little figuring will see that countless trillions of electrons were made to huff it in and out of the meter in an ebb and flow. RF field? NO Electrons flowing between wand and ball? NO, I am afraid not. This is more of an open capacitor experiment where the "electrostatic field" is in play. According to Maxwell we are dealing with "displacement" currents. He dreamed this up to make things work where there is are NO conductors, but energy transfer in the capacitor. It remains a total mystery still, though his math works tolerably well as it was based on observation. We just don't have a real physical grasp of what really happens here in this experiment. But seeing it in real life opens a new world of marvel and the hard realization as to just how electrical the world is. An unending ebb and flow of energy between all macroscopic things in motion involving billions of electron charge units, AT MINIUM which forever remain unseen, unfelt, unheralded.
Richard Hull
It is interesting that the electrons in any stable atom cannot be detected by their charge except through guess work based on chemical bonding. This theory was built up empirically as well over the years.
The only way physical electrons can be seen or measured is free of the atom. An ionized atom is a charged atom which has undergone some trauma of ten or more electron volts. If negative, we say an electron has been added. Positive charge indicates one is missing, having uncovered nuclear charge. The free electron is a distinct charge and it is from this that all of our knowledge was gathered and further inferences made. There appears to be no such thing as a free, thermalized electron here on earth. (too much charge floating about to let them be still) They are always kineticized and study of them in a static or slowed down state is just not possible.
Electrons or their kineticized influence represent a current as Dave has said. This is a mystery of bulk matter of which we know nothing, but assume much. What we assume is predictive and that is good enough for the making of wheelwork.
The classic wigglewand experiment in the femto and pico amp range is a classic and bizarre example of energy transfer which we, I think, stupidly attribute to a field.
Fields are at once useful to the mind and yet repugnant to the soul for internally we realize it is as much of a stretch towards magic as the aether is, but someone had us settle for field magic instead of aether magic. Fair thinkers who have been taught the world is one of fields, who can disassociate themselves from the concept, will have to readily admit the concept is totally magical and designed to keep us in a safe, touchy, feely, conceptualization mode.
Alas, for all my bluster, I offer no substitute and work with field concepts daily, but feel their weakness and paucity of value more and more when thinking about core issues.
A charged teflon rod is waved at a rate of 0.1 hz through an arc of only about 6 inches. At a distance of 12 feet there is placed a 1 foot diameter metal sphere of isotropic capacity (~13pf). A good electrometer connected to the ball will show a voltage swing of over 300 volts (-150 thru 0 to +150volts at that range. A little figuring will see that countless trillions of electrons were made to huff it in and out of the meter in an ebb and flow. RF field? NO Electrons flowing between wand and ball? NO, I am afraid not. This is more of an open capacitor experiment where the "electrostatic field" is in play. According to Maxwell we are dealing with "displacement" currents. He dreamed this up to make things work where there is are NO conductors, but energy transfer in the capacitor. It remains a total mystery still, though his math works tolerably well as it was based on observation. We just don't have a real physical grasp of what really happens here in this experiment. But seeing it in real life opens a new world of marvel and the hard realization as to just how electrical the world is. An unending ebb and flow of energy between all macroscopic things in motion involving billions of electron charge units, AT MINIUM which forever remain unseen, unfelt, unheralded.
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: Fusion - 'Untwisting' particles?
Scott Stephens wrote:
> Sebastian wrote:
> >my understanding that electrons do not "orbit" a nucleous so much as they exist as a wave function about the nucleous.
> Yes, a vibration mode. Now what is it that is vibrating? An electromagnetic field in the vacuum, or charged 'mass'?
>The vacuum must be vibrating against itself - other wise how does one eliminate the problems of origin. Perhaps similare to a photon which essentially seems to provides its own "either" as it travels. So no I don't think its that difficult to concieve just different from the way we've been taught to describe the atomic and sub-atomic realm.
A photon provides its own 'aether'? The problem with the conception of fields and particles. You get this flux stuf cluttering up the place. The vacuum is a continuum, and the photon is a state of the continuum, and if you say the continuum is 'aether' fine, but if you call it a vacuum you have (IMHO) contradicted yourself because, nothing is neither continous or discontinous, nothing is nothing. But I'll say vacuum to prevent confusion.
>all wavicles do behave as if there was a component moving at c even at rest.
That is the notion I get from Minkowski & GR!
> Relativity not only can work as Einstien stated but even make some sense.
>Dimesnions only exist as a reference to something, so the universe completes its reduction to nothing having a rather intense conversation with itself. One supposes that gravitational time dialation results from having all that spacial dimensional self referencing crammed into itself?
If you look at the reference (Puthoff) I posted, it looks a lot like mass and the contraction of space associated with the mass can be described by saying it is the refractive index of the vacuum or a scaling of electromagnetic permiability and permittivity. How can nothing have a refractive index, permittivity or permiability? Yet the vacuum with gravity behaves as if regions of it are warped, or regions of it have a different characteristic impedance/phase velocity/permiability and permittivity.
The problem with assigning warped characteristic impedance rather than warped distance is you must say the 'speed of light' differes depending on where you are in space, and this is certainly heresy! But in the end, the math says the same thing. Being an engineer that works with piezo ceramics and ferromagnetics, I find it more comforting to think space has warped impedance, resulting from density (acoustic) deformation, rather than being a scientist fluent with math and a hundred years of working with the premise EVERYTHING is relative to the one great, immutable constant - the speed of light.
>How this will get us to a working fusion machine in my basement I have not a clue. Like Richard I am more interested in something that heats my basement. Or at least provides a beautiful plasma.
It is profoundly significant! The great obstacle to fusion is anomalous transport - the radiation of power out of an unstable plasma. If the plasma could be put in a state similar to an atom, so it absorbs its own radiation, our jets would be flying through the air in streams like traffic on a highyway at rush hour. We would be taking trips in giant, hotel sized ships to the outer planets and the tree hugging usefull idiots and their federal Bolshevic handlers wouldn't be dumbing down (trying to make more 'efficient' which means decrease the capacity and making more expensive!) our toilet bowls, computers, appliances, cars, et. to save the earth which apperently labored 5 billion years to produce creatures capable of giving a millisecond of pause to contemplate morality before decieving and devouring their tasty neighbors.
Bending space with its electromagnetic 'flux' can potentialy lead to the untangling of the momentum oscillating between charge and space, changing its form, from particle to photon.
Scott
> Sebastian wrote:
> >my understanding that electrons do not "orbit" a nucleous so much as they exist as a wave function about the nucleous.
> Yes, a vibration mode. Now what is it that is vibrating? An electromagnetic field in the vacuum, or charged 'mass'?
>The vacuum must be vibrating against itself - other wise how does one eliminate the problems of origin. Perhaps similare to a photon which essentially seems to provides its own "either" as it travels. So no I don't think its that difficult to concieve just different from the way we've been taught to describe the atomic and sub-atomic realm.
A photon provides its own 'aether'? The problem with the conception of fields and particles. You get this flux stuf cluttering up the place. The vacuum is a continuum, and the photon is a state of the continuum, and if you say the continuum is 'aether' fine, but if you call it a vacuum you have (IMHO) contradicted yourself because, nothing is neither continous or discontinous, nothing is nothing. But I'll say vacuum to prevent confusion.
>all wavicles do behave as if there was a component moving at c even at rest.
That is the notion I get from Minkowski & GR!
> Relativity not only can work as Einstien stated but even make some sense.
>Dimesnions only exist as a reference to something, so the universe completes its reduction to nothing having a rather intense conversation with itself. One supposes that gravitational time dialation results from having all that spacial dimensional self referencing crammed into itself?
If you look at the reference (Puthoff) I posted, it looks a lot like mass and the contraction of space associated with the mass can be described by saying it is the refractive index of the vacuum or a scaling of electromagnetic permiability and permittivity. How can nothing have a refractive index, permittivity or permiability? Yet the vacuum with gravity behaves as if regions of it are warped, or regions of it have a different characteristic impedance/phase velocity/permiability and permittivity.
The problem with assigning warped characteristic impedance rather than warped distance is you must say the 'speed of light' differes depending on where you are in space, and this is certainly heresy! But in the end, the math says the same thing. Being an engineer that works with piezo ceramics and ferromagnetics, I find it more comforting to think space has warped impedance, resulting from density (acoustic) deformation, rather than being a scientist fluent with math and a hundred years of working with the premise EVERYTHING is relative to the one great, immutable constant - the speed of light.
>How this will get us to a working fusion machine in my basement I have not a clue. Like Richard I am more interested in something that heats my basement. Or at least provides a beautiful plasma.
It is profoundly significant! The great obstacle to fusion is anomalous transport - the radiation of power out of an unstable plasma. If the plasma could be put in a state similar to an atom, so it absorbs its own radiation, our jets would be flying through the air in streams like traffic on a highyway at rush hour. We would be taking trips in giant, hotel sized ships to the outer planets and the tree hugging usefull idiots and their federal Bolshevic handlers wouldn't be dumbing down (trying to make more 'efficient' which means decrease the capacity and making more expensive!) our toilet bowls, computers, appliances, cars, et. to save the earth which apperently labored 5 billion years to produce creatures capable of giving a millisecond of pause to contemplate morality before decieving and devouring their tasty neighbors.
Bending space with its electromagnetic 'flux' can potentialy lead to the untangling of the momentum oscillating between charge and space, changing its form, from particle to photon.
Scott
-
guest
Re: Fusion - 'Untwisting' particles?
>What I struggle with about concepts of vibrating vacuum, or "acoustical" process is the apparent difficulty in performing some type of definitive experiment to establish that concept in favor of another. Asserting that vacuum vibrates... doesn't prove it does. Are there tests that could be done to "prove" this view is correct?
Plenty, especially intriguing are those dealing with gravitation, such as atomic beams and Bois-Einstein condensates.
>Primitive though it is, the physical construct we have called the electron manifests itself, even in very small numbers as a distinct, movement of charge. We call this a "current".
I see the universe (vacuum) is one big, nonlinear material, that allows momentum waves in differently scaled dimensions of charge and space to get tangled. We call the centroids of these tangles 'particles'. Then the slow or static perturbations resulting from these tangles drift around, and we see them as distinct particles with 'fields'. Like fish, we don't understand the ocean we're in, and when we see a bubble or a current of bubbles in the water we think it, rather than everything around it, is 'something'.
Scott
Plenty, especially intriguing are those dealing with gravitation, such as atomic beams and Bois-Einstein condensates.
>Primitive though it is, the physical construct we have called the electron manifests itself, even in very small numbers as a distinct, movement of charge. We call this a "current".
I see the universe (vacuum) is one big, nonlinear material, that allows momentum waves in differently scaled dimensions of charge and space to get tangled. We call the centroids of these tangles 'particles'. Then the slow or static perturbations resulting from these tangles drift around, and we see them as distinct particles with 'fields'. Like fish, we don't understand the ocean we're in, and when we see a bubble or a current of bubbles in the water we think it, rather than everything around it, is 'something'.
Scott
-
guest
Re: Fusion - 'Untwisting' particles?
>According to Maxwell we are dealing with "displacement" currents. He dreamed this up to make things work where there is are NO conductors, but energy transfer in the capacitor. It remains a total mystery still...An unending ebb and flow of energy between all macroscopic things in motion involving billions of electron charge units, AT MINIUM which forever remain unseen, unfelt, unheralded.
Couldn't you make the same observation about the gas and the atmosphere? If you are in a closed chamber and blow up a balloon (from a compressed gas cylinder for instance) you notice a barometer on the other side of the room change. Your balloon must have an invisible 'field' around it? Or perhaps the room isn't empty, but full of little particles of 'gas' to light to measure but vibrating very quickly and transfering a 'displacement current' of momentum?
Scott
Couldn't you make the same observation about the gas and the atmosphere? If you are in a closed chamber and blow up a balloon (from a compressed gas cylinder for instance) you notice a barometer on the other side of the room change. Your balloon must have an invisible 'field' around it? Or perhaps the room isn't empty, but full of little particles of 'gas' to light to measure but vibrating very quickly and transfering a 'displacement current' of momentum?
Scott
-
quinnrisch
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 3:26 pm
- Real name:
WHY ELECTRONS DON'T RADIATE IN ORBITS
Simply: Pauli exclusion principle.
DEtail: In the ground state of an electron around a nucleus the electron is still, that is to say it's wave function actually straddles the nucleus. It is almost a guassian about the nucleus. It is actuall still, and not moving, and therefore cannot radiate, even classically.
NOW, if there is an electron in an actual orbit around the nucleus it has to be able to "fall" to a lower state because the pauli exclusion principle says 2 electrons cannot have the same quantum numbers. Therefore the electron in the higher orbit is stuck there, almost stacked on top of the one in the center, and therefore it cannot fall and raditate.\\
All other electrons follow the same line of reasoning. If you question weather or not an electron is still in the center of of the nucleus in its ground state just plot the wavefunction in 2-D horizontal axis radius, and vertical the probability; you will see that the probablity peaks at radius equal to 0.
DEtail: In the ground state of an electron around a nucleus the electron is still, that is to say it's wave function actually straddles the nucleus. It is almost a guassian about the nucleus. It is actuall still, and not moving, and therefore cannot radiate, even classically.
NOW, if there is an electron in an actual orbit around the nucleus it has to be able to "fall" to a lower state because the pauli exclusion principle says 2 electrons cannot have the same quantum numbers. Therefore the electron in the higher orbit is stuck there, almost stacked on top of the one in the center, and therefore it cannot fall and raditate.\\
All other electrons follow the same line of reasoning. If you question weather or not an electron is still in the center of of the nucleus in its ground state just plot the wavefunction in 2-D horizontal axis radius, and vertical the probability; you will see that the probablity peaks at radius equal to 0.
-
guest
Re: WHY ELECTRONS DON'T RADIATE IN ORBITS
quinnrisch wrote:
> Simply: Pauli exclusion principle.
Is the 'Pauli exlusion principle' a cause, or a definition of an effect? How can a principle be a cause?
Electromagnetic momentum self-consistantly affects the spacetime it resides in. An impedance mismatch or spacetime discontinuity will reflect energy - a force will exist between non-conjugate charge-mass spacetime configurations.
Bois - Einstein seem to be an exception to this, as their spin, momentum configurations are analogous to lasers.
Scott
> Simply: Pauli exclusion principle.
Is the 'Pauli exlusion principle' a cause, or a definition of an effect? How can a principle be a cause?
Electromagnetic momentum self-consistantly affects the spacetime it resides in. An impedance mismatch or spacetime discontinuity will reflect energy - a force will exist between non-conjugate charge-mass spacetime configurations.
Bois - Einstein seem to be an exception to this, as their spin, momentum configurations are analogous to lasers.
Scott
-
quinnrisch
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 3:26 pm
- Real name:
Re: WHY ELECTRONS DON'T RADIATE IN ORBITS
THe Pauli exclusion principle is a consequence of the rules of quantum mechanics and has been seen to be empirically true. This principle is the name of a property of electrons and all fermions. It is hard to say what came first the chicken or the egg in this arguement however and I understand some of your confusion, but there are experiments that show this same property so saying that this is entirely an ad hoc arguement is untrue. All this says is that electrons cannot be identically superimposed on one another, just like how you cannot be standing exactly where I.
Electrons are fermions and therefore cannot, by definition and empirical observation, form a Bose-Einstein condensate because a Bose-Einstein condensate is when all the bosons in a system have exactly the same energy and quantum numbers. If an electrons were to have the same energy and quantum number as another electron its wave function would collapse because it is anti-symetric, that is to say it is that the electron's wave function is composed from two equal magnitude positive and negative functions that if added with another exact copy would cancel out. Bosons do not have this property, they are sysmetric and when added together with another exact copy only makes a larger wave function.
You are right in saying that Bose-Einstein condensates are analogous to lasers. Photons are bosons and therefore can form a bose-Einstein condensate.
The atom is one of the greatest examples of how fields don't exist, but how virtual particles instead carry the force of "field" interactions. It is a little creepy I know but to think that humans could inately understand the universe and things we have never even experienced is even more ludicris.
I hope that this helped.
Electrons are fermions and therefore cannot, by definition and empirical observation, form a Bose-Einstein condensate because a Bose-Einstein condensate is when all the bosons in a system have exactly the same energy and quantum numbers. If an electrons were to have the same energy and quantum number as another electron its wave function would collapse because it is anti-symetric, that is to say it is that the electron's wave function is composed from two equal magnitude positive and negative functions that if added with another exact copy would cancel out. Bosons do not have this property, they are sysmetric and when added together with another exact copy only makes a larger wave function.
You are right in saying that Bose-Einstein condensates are analogous to lasers. Photons are bosons and therefore can form a bose-Einstein condensate.
The atom is one of the greatest examples of how fields don't exist, but how virtual particles instead carry the force of "field" interactions. It is a little creepy I know but to think that humans could inately understand the universe and things we have never even experienced is even more ludicris.
I hope that this helped.
-
quinnrisch
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 3:26 pm
- Real name:
Re: WHY ELECTRONS DON'T RADIATE IN ORBITS
As a quick minor retraction: electrons by themselves cannot form Bose-Einstein condensates, but they can form Cooper pairs and then behave as bosons, much like He3, which is a fermion, but at VERY low temperatures has been shown to display superfuild motion just likes its boson isotope He4 does at a higher temperature.
Re: WHY ELECTRONS DON'T RADIATE IN ORBITS
It seems to me that we are no closer to answering the original question. But we have enjoyed a quite a presentation of various models.
Hidden in the structure of Q-M are some very important assumptions about what can ultimately be known about subatomic particles. Statistical theory is invoked to bolster that view. But there seems a certain feeling of deja vu about this. Be on the lookout for another Copernicus..to sort it out.
Dave Cooper
Hidden in the structure of Q-M are some very important assumptions about what can ultimately be known about subatomic particles. Statistical theory is invoked to bolster that view. But there seems a certain feeling of deja vu about this. Be on the lookout for another Copernicus..to sort it out.
Dave Cooper
-
quinnrisch
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 3:26 pm
- Real name:
Re: WHY ELECTRONS DON'T RADIATE IN ORBITS
I certainly feel like I have answered the question. Do you ask for more explaination when some one tells you that that a clocks hands move "clockwise". The electrons cannot be in the same place with the same energy and quantum numbers, just as you cannot be in the exact location as some one else.
I am sorry that there isn't a more mystical answer.
I am sorry that there isn't a more mystical answer.
-
guest
Re: WHY ELECTRONS DON'T RADIATE IN ORBITS
Dave Cooper wrote:
> Hidden in the structure of Q-M are some very important assumptions about what can ultimately be known about subatomic particles. Statistical theory is invoked to bolster that view. But there seems a certain feeling of deja vu about this. Be on the lookout for another Copernicus..to sort it out.
I came across an online paper that affirms what I (an "obsolete, mechanistic materialists") concluded:
http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/prob.as.logic.pdf "PROBABILITY THEORY AS LOGIC" E. T. JAYNES page 3:
"instead of covering up our ignorance with fanciful assumptions about reality, one accepts that ignorance but attributes it to Nature. Thus in the Copenhagen
interpretation of quantum theory, whatever is left undetermined in a pure state is held to be
unknown not only to us, but also to Nature herself. That is, one claims that represents a phys-
ically real \\propensity" to cause events in a statistical sense (a certain proportion of times on the
average over many repetitions of an experiment) but denies the existence of physical causes for the
individual events below the level of ."
Scott
> Hidden in the structure of Q-M are some very important assumptions about what can ultimately be known about subatomic particles. Statistical theory is invoked to bolster that view. But there seems a certain feeling of deja vu about this. Be on the lookout for another Copernicus..to sort it out.
I came across an online paper that affirms what I (an "obsolete, mechanistic materialists") concluded:
http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/prob.as.logic.pdf "PROBABILITY THEORY AS LOGIC" E. T. JAYNES page 3:
"instead of covering up our ignorance with fanciful assumptions about reality, one accepts that ignorance but attributes it to Nature. Thus in the Copenhagen
interpretation of quantum theory, whatever is left undetermined in a pure state is held to be
unknown not only to us, but also to Nature herself. That is, one claims that represents a phys-
ically real \\propensity" to cause events in a statistical sense (a certain proportion of times on the
average over many repetitions of an experiment) but denies the existence of physical causes for the
individual events below the level of ."
Scott
-
guest
Re: WHY ELECTRONS DON'T RADIATE IN ORBITS
quinnrisch wrote:
> I certainly feel like I have answered the question. Do you ask for more explaination when some one tells you that that a clocks hands move "clockwise".
But why? Why don't Leptons and Bosons obey the same rules? Geometry perhaps, or because that's what the books and the proff's say? Just because God wants it that way?
Why can't I escape psychology and politics? I run but I can't hide.
> I am sorry that there isn't a more mystical answer.
The Shadow-Things whisper to me that the 'static' RMS average (not dynamic!) geometry of Leptons are sphericaly symetric and bosons are an eversion (inside-out). But I want to see for myself because they often lie to me =(
http://www.math.uiuc.edu/~jms/Papers/is ... r/opt2.htm
Scott
> I certainly feel like I have answered the question. Do you ask for more explaination when some one tells you that that a clocks hands move "clockwise".
But why? Why don't Leptons and Bosons obey the same rules? Geometry perhaps, or because that's what the books and the proff's say? Just because God wants it that way?
Why can't I escape psychology and politics? I run but I can't hide.
> I am sorry that there isn't a more mystical answer.
The Shadow-Things whisper to me that the 'static' RMS average (not dynamic!) geometry of Leptons are sphericaly symetric and bosons are an eversion (inside-out). But I want to see for myself because they often lie to me =(
http://www.math.uiuc.edu/~jms/Papers/is ... r/opt2.htm
Scott
-
quinnrisch
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 3:26 pm
- Real name:
Re: WHY ELECTRONS DON'T RADIATE IN ORBITS
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.
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.
-
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: 15039
- 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