Quantum physics

[Mohit Pandey]

I don't think there is any logic in quantum physics ("There's life Jim but not as we know it" -ST)

 

If this is so, then why scientists are supporting it for long years. Although I know there is a little bit problem with it. Can you give another theory which would account for the dual properties of matter?

 

Everyone assumes you must be intelligent as they don't understand a word you are saying. :confused:

Yes, you are correct in saying that there are many technicality in it. Stephen Hawking once said that now astronomy theories are going out of reach to the common man.

Quantum physics books like the very popular A Brief History of Time,( which stayed on the British Sunday Times best-seller list for a record-breaking 237 weeks.) by Stephen Hawking; is a bit like Karl Marx- "the most read/quoted but least understood book of all time". anon

Your statement was little bit astonishing to me. If the book was not understood by people, then how come it stayed on the British Sunday Times best-seller list for a record-breaking 237 weeks.

I don't think anyone can write such a book. Karl Marx was a socialist whose views were critically opposed by the capitalists. His views are successful only in China and Russia(partly). Moreover his views were scientific in nature. Whereas Hawking not only presented his views, but also of others. He gave only those theories in that book which were supported by scientists. He humbly gave anomalies in the present day theory. But this was not the case of Marx.

Please don't relate the two persons and their work. They are very very.... different.

 

If a person has a little bit of knowledge of physics, then he/she can understand it properly. I myself understood most of the thing in it.

I will cover those missed parts during next academic year because I need to learn more things such as complex numbers.

[Mohit Pandey]

What happened Michaelangelica? I am waiting............

[Mike C]

Another question, Quantum Physics. how is it that the same particles are governed by two completly different sets of laws of physics? I realize there are attempts to come up with a universal set of physics, at least I think there is. But in the meantime, how can we really rely on the laws we have come up with? That logic seems akin to a student in school that finds out a way to solve a certain set of problems, but not the real way that works for everything in that unit area of study. i also realize that the microcosm is much more governed by the strong and weak nuclear forces than the macrocosm around us is so that might be why, but in anycase, could someone offer me an explanation to the rationality of relying on two different sets of physics to explain the same particles, only on different scales?

 

I reduced the cosmolgical physics to just one common denominator.

See below:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-cosmology/11640-grand-unified-theory.html?highlight=Grand+Unified+Theory+GUT

 

Mike C

[sanctus]

Mohit, this is a reply where I write as an admin.

If people don't answer you don't always post in thread to ask them to reply; I know sometimes it is annoying when you have to wait a long time for an answer, but that is implicit of a forum. So if you are scared that someone will never reply or impatient, write them a pm it is much more effective (I do that often) and so the thread stays more on the subject.

 

I don't say you can never ask in a post to reply to given part of a previous post which you feel has not been considered, but to ask only this in a post only increases your post count and makes the thread go out of subject.

 

I tell you this now, because it seems to me you do it a bit often lately...

 

Feel free to send me your comments via pm or start a thread in the user feedback forum about this (do not reply too it here... ); just know that the next week I will be away.

[Michaelangelica]

What happened Michaelangelica? I am waiting............

 

Here I am

Now, what do you want to do with me?:)

(I have been off line, due to technical difficulties, for a week.)

 

I have read your reply- you don't like me comparing Hawking and Marx as being the most/least read and least understood writers of all time? OK.

So what do yo want me to say?

 

Personally I find all of quantum hard to get my head around, as I also find it hard to get my had around lots of other things, like space and the sheer size of the universe.

[Mohit Pandey]

I have read your reply- you don't like me comparing Hawking and Marx as being the most/least read and least understood writers of all time? OK.

 

I thought you would be giving your arguments but you didn't.:)

 

Personally I find all of quantum hard to get my head around.....

I think I have a solution for you as I faced same sitution some time back.

Just give some patience and energy to understand the concept.:)

I am giving you two links. Feel relax , clear your mind and then view them. After that think over it and then post your doubts in Hypo.

1.The Double Slit Experiment http://youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

2.Mechanics - Indirect Observation http://youtube.com/watch?v=Y8IQbL_DnGk&feature=relatedQuantum

[Mike C]

To All

 

All Planck did was transform the 'continuous' EM waves to 'pulses'.

The Bohr atom explains how it all happens.

 

Mike C

[Qfwfq]

Mike the Bohr atom is obsolete and Planck's ad hoc assumption was not that of the waves being pulses. Such an assumption, whatever you mean by it, would have been of no use in matching up with the observed blackbody spectrum.

[Mike C]

Mike the Bohr atom is obsolete and Planck's ad hoc assumption was not that of the waves being pulses. Such an assumption, whatever you mean by it, would have been of no use in matching up with the observed blackbody spectrum.

 

The Bohr model of the hydrogen atom is not obsolete.

The Schroedinger equations confirmed Bohrs model of the energy levels of the HA

However, it is applicable to the HA only. When applied to Helium, it then falters a bit. Here, the difference in the nuclei is the reason IMO.

 

Prior to the Planck work, it was assumed that light was a continuous sign wave.

Plancks formula transformed the visible light into pulses.

Subsequently, the Bohr model explains how these pulses are created.

 

These photons are radiated as 'black body pulses' because of the variability of the electron transitions from outer to inner orbits and the velocity variations resulting from these transitions.

This only happens in 'closed' orbittal atoms . In plasmas, they would be sign wave pulses as open orbittal electron passages by the protons IMO's.

 

But the continuous sign wave patters still exists in the standing wave radiations of the electrons. Contrary to popular belief, The HA's do not lose energy here because all the other HA's are radiating the same waves. So there is no energy transfers between these SW atoms.

 

Mike C

[dellcom]

Well in general theories are just a good explanation of the world we see around us.

 

If we can predict something through calculation and then show that it works repeatably then its a valid scientific theory. As you have realised not all theories work in every situation we can apply them to. Newtonian mechanics is a great and much simpler explanation than Einsteins Relativity, but it doesnt work when velocities start getting up towards the speed of light. Because of the nature of our everyday experience most of the time it is fine to use the simplified equations because it just doesnt make that much difference.

 

This happens with the quantum world also. One could calculate the probability of being able to spontaneously walk through a wall, but the probability would be so low that you would have to walk into it for longer than the age of the universe to have even a small chance of succeeding. Quantum effects are so small in most everyday experience that we can just ignore them.

 

Currently there is no theory that can be applied to every situation, such a thing is called a Theory of everything (TOE) or a grand unified theory (GUT) and IMO we are a long way off finding one! The main problem is being able to connect the small scale quantum world with the large cosmological scale one. The is loads of literature available on the net, just try googling some of the above terms or even 'quantum gravity' happy hunting :)

 

I would just like to state that IMO it could be very possible that there are two different sets of physics for the micro and the macro universe. Because as you say "Quantum effects are so small in most everyday experience that we can just ignore them." I agree with you 100% with that and i think that also trying a find a unified theory of everything might be a little unobtainable.

 

That would be like coming up with a theory that can describe every living creature on Earth. Again using this analogy, it would be hard to come up with a theory that can explain the microscopic single celled organism and then using the same theory explain how billions of these single celled organisms form a macroscopic entity (i.e. a human or a 'fighting mongoose" <-- futurama ) Instead we know that they group together, (i.e. liver cells together form a functioning organ that is the liver etc..), and then have this theory explain how the whole ecosystem works.

 

Now going back to quantum physics, is it possible that "big size" physics are the sums of the "small size (or fun size)" things that make them up. It would be like trying to find the volume of a rectangular prism, we could use the equation LWH=V (representing Newtonian physics), or the sum of the infinite 2-dimensional rectangles that make up the prism itself.

 

 

Im not really sure if im making any sense, but i hope you get a feel for what i am trying to convay at 5:41 in the morning :D

[Mike C]

Mike the Bohr atom is obsolete and Planck's ad hoc assumption was not that of the waves being pulses. Such an assumption, whatever you mean by it, would have been of no use in matching up with the observed blackbody spectrum.

 

No, it is not obsolete. All the physics books still incude it in their science.

As long as the hydrogen atom exists, so will the Bohr model of this atom.

 

All the Schroedinger equations did was confirm the 'energy levels' of the Bohr atom. So if these equations confirmed his model of the HA radiations, then how can you say the BM is obsolete?

 

I wrote an article on how the BM of the HA electron transitions happen.

These black body transitions can happen only in the closed orbits of the HA because the electron velocities 'vary as well as the orbital radiuses. So these variations will only emit black body pulses.

 

In the HA plasmas, the electron passages by the protons would only radiate a sign wave 'open' orbital pulse bacause the electrons approach and recessional velocities are similar relative to the distance between the particles.

 

Mike C

[Qfwfq]

No, it is not obsolete. All the physics books still incude it in their science.

You mean they include it in their history of science.

 

All the Schroedinger equations did was confirm the 'energy levels' of the Bohr atom. So if these equations confirmed his model of the HA radiations, then how can you say the BM is obsolete?

The Schrödinger equation matches better with spectroscopic data, offers a better explanation of why there are the eigenvalues that there are and spin fits in with it quite well.

[Mike C]

Qf

 

The HA did not change. So the Bohr model is still correct.

 

The Shroedinger orbitals are applicable to the heavier elements like Helium because the nuclei are different. So the BM is applicable to the HA only.

 

Regarding the still heavier elements, the SO's apply to the close proximity of the electrons that than gives them chaotic orbital interactions as a result of their interactions. These formulas do not have a 'time' element inserted in these formulas.

Stop the clock and the electrons will reveal themselves to be in only 'one' position within that orbital (1st level sphere).

So you will see the electron as it would be in the HA with a fixed orbital plane planetary model.

The electron did not disappear or evaporate into a Schroedinger orbital cloud, that would represent a sphere.

 

Mike C

[Erasmus00]

Qf

 

The HA did not change. So the Bohr model is still correct.

 

The atom didn't change but our measurement has- the Bohr model cannot explain the fine structure/hyper fine structure of the hydrogen spectrum.

-Will

[Mike C]

The atom didn't change but our measurement has- the Bohr model cannot explain the fine structure/hyper fine structure of the hydrogen spectrum.

-Will

 

What is the component in your explanation that is the cause of the 'fine structure' splitting?

 

I am talking about the physical cause not some mathematical creation?

 

Mike C

[Erasmus00]

What is the component in your explanation that is the cause of the 'fine structure' splitting?

 

I am talking about the physical cause not some mathematical creation?

 

The electrons orbital angular momentum interacts with its spin angular momentum (via magnetic fields). This causes a split between the spin up and spin down lines. I.e., a fine structure to the spectrum that you cannot calculate with the bohr model.

-Will

[Mike C]

The electrons orbital angular momentum interacts with its spin angular momentum (via magnetic fields). This causes a split between the spin up and spin down lines. I.e., a fine structure to the spectrum that you cannot calculate with the bohr model.

-Will

 

As you should know by now, I do not accept everything that is currently taught.

I will agree that the magnetic fields are the cause of these 'fine structure' phenomenon.

 

My opinion is that the eletrons do not spin. Instead, it is the protons that spin. However, it is 'synchronous', rather than intrinsic spin.

 

This opinion is based on the nature of our solar sustem satellites that also do NOT spin.

Only the central bodies spin like the Earth, Jupiter and etc.

The gravitational interaction distorts the shape of the satelites to prevent them from spinning.

 

This is applicable to the atoms also because the electron can have more 'fluidity' in relation to the proton.

 

These magnatic interactions are 'repulsive' to give the electrons a boost to the orbital momentum that prevents the collapse of the HA's. So the original calculations of Newtonian math that would result in the HA's collapse is also erroneous since this 'magnetic interaction' was left out.

 

Mike C