Another Gedanken Experiment

[Little Bang]

I agree with you Infamous, at least one of those states must exist or maybe both contribute to the spin state of the electron. I think most of the scientific community still adheres to the Copenhagen interpretation of QM which treats a measuring device in terms of actual reality and particles as a superposition of possibilities. I can not believe that the macro universe has one set of rules and the quantum universe another.

 

nkt, setting up to emit one electron has been done many times. As far as an electron going around the nucleus someone else can help with this but I think it doesn't actually go around the nucleus it can exist anywhere in it's energy level around the nucleus.

[UncleAl]

Unc, did I at any time claim that I am an expert on anything, no, and apparently you don't know what the word gedanken means, And the only joke around here is your antagonistic bad disposition.

Gedanken is German for "thought" (weak masculine noun) as in the hybrid word Gedankenexperiment.

 

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~german/Grammatik/Nouns/genitive.html

 

Now you take a crack at Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänsmütze.

 

Arguably the most famous Gedankenexperiment is

 

Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität u. Electronik 4 411 (1907)

The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 2 English translation, A. Beck, trans. (Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, 1989) p. 252.

 

Here's a hint: You cannot fake it. Science is not bonehead Engish in which any scrawl of ink on paper can be sold as "art" (Alice B. Toklas making some kind of sense out of Gertrude Stein). If you propose theory that is contradicted by empirical observation, you are wrong. There are no appeals or bandages. You have garbage. Do better.

[infamous]

 

nkt, setting up to emit one electron has been done many times. As far as an electron going around the nucleus someone else can help with this but I think it doesn't actually go around the nucleus it can exist anywhere in it's energy level around the nucleus.

Yes, it is more properly understood as a cloud of electrons rather than point particles surrounding the nucleus. It is known that all atoms are more stable when the outer shell has eight electrons circling the nucleus. I have othen wondered if the electron energy within these shells can be defined as a homogeneous sphere without descrete localized concentrations of energy? Where individual electron lose their idenity and join with other electrons to form a singleness of shared existence. Maybe more to the point, if I can convey my thought more precisely, the shell becomes more like a single electron but with a multiplied energy of the number of single electrons combined into one entity.

[Qfwfq]

I can not believe that the macro universe has one set of rules and the quantum universe another.

Indeed, there aren't two different sets of rules, there is only the question of coherence.

[Qfwfq]

Yes, it is more properly understood as a cloud of electrons rather than point particles surrounding the nucleus.

For an atom with one electron you could make it "cloud of electron".

 

It is known that all atoms are more stable when the outer shell has eight electrons circling the nucleus. I have othen wondered if the electron energy within these shells can be defined as a homogeneous sphere without descrete localized concentrations of energy?

They do act like a charge distribution, of density according to modulus-square of psi.

 

Where individual electron lose their idenity and join with other electrons to form a singleness of shared existence. Maybe more to the point, if I can convey my thought more precisely, the shell becomes more like a single electron but with a multiplied energy of the number of single electrons combined into one entity.

See the indistinguishibility principle and its consequences, including the Pauli exclusion principle.

[Qfwfq]

Surely someone will have actually measured the spin polarisations of a bunch of randomly emitted electrons? I would think 50% and random.

 

As for the idea about a single emitting atom, and the distribution resulting, I strongly suspect it will be 50% and random.

There is no mystery about this.

 

As a final point, you would need to measure the spins before they left the tip, then again afterwards, to see if they had taken a bias, changed, or not changed, or else the results would be meaningless.

This wouldn't be useful. Up until the emission, there is the thermal agitation. Each electron is not even in a prepared state. The odds are uniformly distributed, even by classical randomness.

[nkt]

There is no mystery about this.

I know.

This wouldn't be useful. Up until the emission, there is the thermal agitation. Each electron is not even in a prepared state. The odds are uniformly distributed, even by classical randomness.

It wouldn't be useful anyway. The results are already known. However, if the object was to determine if the tip geometry had any effect on the resulting spin of the electron in free space, the spin immediately beforehand would be important.

 

EDIT: When electrons get together and pair up, that's superconductivity under some circumstances. See the BCS theory of superconductors.

[Little Bang]

As a final point, you would need to measure the spins before they left the tip, then again afterwards, to see if they had taken a bias, changed, or not changed, or else the results would be meaningless.

 

nkt, in the Stern-Gerlack experiment they make three measurements. The first splits the electrons into all spin-up, the second splits the previously all spin-up into 50% spin-up and 50% spni-down, the third does the same thing.

[Qfwfq]

However, if the object was to determine if the tip geometry had any effect on the resulting spin of the electron in free space, the spin immediately beforehand would be important.

Due to thermal agitation, it really wouldn't have any effect. You don't get a prepared state at all.

 

When electrons get together and pair up, that's superconductivity under some circumstances. See the BCS theory of superconductors.

Cooper pairs.

[Little Bang]

This was taken from Quantum Reality by Nick Herbert.

 

When astronomers detected a double image of quasar QSO 0957 + 561 which they calculate to be caused by the deflection of it’s light by a galaxy that happens to lie precisely between the quasar and the Earth. Quasar light traveling to the left of the galaxy is bent around and meets light that has traveled to the galaxy’s right. This light comes to a focus ( sometimes more than one focus, which accounts for the double image ) just like light passing through a camera lens. In this case the lens is formed not of glass, but of the galaxy-induced curvature of space-time. The aperture of this galactic camera is thousands of light years wide.

Gravitational lenses are interesting in their own right, but Wheeler uses them to illustrate a peculiar feature of quantum theory. We can look at galaxy bent quasar light photon by photon and ask, did this particular photon take the right hand path, the left hand path, or both at once? Whatever the answer, this question would seem to have been settled long ago: we are looking here at light that is ten billion years old, light that started on it’s way before our sun began to shine. Wheeler argues, however, that depending on what we choose to measure now, we seem to be able to influence whether this photon took one path or both in the distant past. Wheeler’s delayed-choice experiment seems to show that the past is not fixed but alters according to present decisions.

 

To me this supports that conscious observation can influence the outcome of experiments any where or any when.

[infamous]

 

To me this supports that conscious observation can influence the outcome of experiments any where or any when.

I agree Little Bang, and along with this idea of consciousness influencing the outcome I would like to suggest another possibility. We humans are really just a collection of particles, assembled in an orderly fashion to produce a being that boasts of itself, consciousness. Where do we draw the line when defining consciousness, and how slight an evidence should we consider as conscious equivalent? Scientists refer to theories called Quantum Consciousness. Does this idea of consciousness on the quantum level add up to a similar notion as human consciouness but only on a very tiny scale? In this universe of ours, are we the only entities blessed with memory, forthought, or abstractions? Certainly the more complex the organism, the higher must be the conscious level. But can something as small as an electron have a memory, is it possible that particles have a degree of consciousness???????

[Little Bang]

I can’t see any way to prove that there is particle consciousness but the inference is that it communicates in some fashion with the universe. It’s kind of funny but it seems like that for every experiment I find on the proton I find a hundred on the electron. If anyone knows a good link for info on proton experiments it would be very helpful.

[infamous]

I can’t see any way to prove that there is particle consciousness but the inference is that it communicates in some fashion with the universe.

Yes Little bang, maybe that is a better term. There certainly is evidence that these particles communicate on some level with their surroundings.

It’s kind of funny but it seems like that for every experiment I find on the proton I find a hundred on the electron. If anyone knows a good link for info on proton experiments it would be very helpful.

I can't help you with this at the present but I think it's a good idea to search out articles concerning proton interactions. I will be spending some time looking for this information.

[Little Bang]

Another question that comes to mind, if it takes an infinite amount of energy to separate two quarks, according to QCD, how in the world did we ever discover them.

[infamous]

Another question that comes to mind, if it takes an infinite amount of energy to separate two quarks, according to QCD, how in the world did we ever discover them.

I believe that Murry Gellman proposed this theory a number of years ago and to date this theory has become generally accepted by the scientific community. Weather an individual quark has ever been isolated for study I sincerely doubt.

[Little Bang]

But I thought that they had observed the tracks of quarks in cloud chambers which makes me think the energy required is not infinite. since no collision would be energitic enough to separate them?

[infamous]

But I thought that they had observed the tracks of quarks in cloud chambers which makes me think the energy required is not infinite. since no collision would be energitic enough to separate them?

I haven't read about this new developement yet, can you give me a link?