OT Attn: Eulerfan

[red5angel]

I heard you were into physics? By your screen name maybe mathematics as well?

If so how is your understanding of particle physics and may I ask you a couple of questions on a concept I am having?

[eulerfan]

I am in math. I tutor physics. Trigonometry based Newtonian Mechanics. I have taken one class in Modern Physics. That had a few chapters on quantum mechanics. So, you know, I've solved the particle in the box and banged my head up against the Schrodinger equation. But I wouldn't call myself well versed.

Tell me what you're wondering about and I can think out loud. But it's going to be the musings of a mathematician.

[FatherDog]

Somewhere, on a forum devoted to high level physics, someone is asking someone else how to throw a proper sidekick.








:D

[red5angel]

LOL@ Fatherdog, sorry, this came up on a thread here yesterday and I am reading a book currently that has me pondering.

Here is my problem, while all the numbers and the math is great and all, I am trying to figure out just how atoms share electrons. I understand the theory behind it and I understand the math I think, but whta I dont get is how the electrons are actually interacting with each other. Does the shared electron choose to orbit Both nuclei similar to the P electron shell on an atom, a sort of barbell shape with each nuclei at one end? Is it more of a conceptual thing, meaning that the electrons are bonded but the electron doesn't necessarily go between the shells?
My other question would be, if atoms form Molecules, is the idea of a "molecule" just a conceptual one as well? Obviously molecules are bundles of atoms but if you have ever seen "pictures" of atoms you see the nucleonic waves and you see dimples where there are missing atoms, but where did the molecules go?! The pictures I have seen are all of certain materials and I have never seen it stated that it is a picture of a molecule
Am I making any sense here?

[Serpent]

You need to get out more.

[eulerfan]

Originally posted by red5angel
LOL@ Fatherdog, sorry, this came up on a thread here yesterday and I am reading a book currently that has me pondering.

Here is my problem, while all the numbers and the math is great and all, I am trying to figure out just how atoms share electrons. I understand the theory behind it and I understand the math I think, but whta I dont get is how the electrons are actually interacting with each other. Does the shared electron choose to orbit Both nuclei similar to the P electron shell on an atom, a sort of barbell shape with each nuclei at one end? Is it more of a conceptual thing, meaning that the electrons are bonded but the electron doesn't necessarily go between the shells?
My other question would be, if atoms form Molecules, is the idea of a "molecule" just a conceptual one as well? Obviously molecules are bundles of atoms but if you have ever seen "pictures" of atoms you see the nucleonic waves and you see dimples where there are missing atoms, but where did the molecules go?! The pictures I have seen are all of certain materials and I have never seen it stated that it is a picture of a molecule
Am I making any sense here?

I can't really figure out what you mean by the second question.

Your first question I think I understand. Don't take my word on this. I'm only attempting to answer because I think it will help clarify the question, if that makes sense to you. First, the shapes of the shells are conceptual. I don't think the electrons orbit in those paths. Those paths are spherical horses, as it were. In fact, I think the actual path of the P shell is really complex. They certainly don't stay in a plane. Shells affect each other and are affected by spin allingments of the electrons.

When atoms share electrons, those electrons orbit both nuclei. If the attraction of one nuclei is stronger, the electron will spend more time orbiting that nuclei.

An electron can only orbit a nuclei at a specific energy level. It jumps from one energy level to another, emitting or absorbing a 'quanta' of energy. There's no gradient. They don't even travel in between. They are at one level, then at another. That's what a "shell" is. So, in a covalent bond, it's not really going between shells. It's in both shells at the same time.

Now, I am neither a chemist nor a physicist. This is just what I remember from those classes. I hope this was some modicum of help.

[The Willow Sword]

I havent had sex in a long time cause i spend all my time on my ass at this computer....and now that i found out that there is a woman on the forum i am going to try and score by asking her an off topic question......i tried the same line with Wushuchik but found out real quick that shes not having any.....so now i am going to prey on this screenname and maybe i will SCORE.:p :p :p :p

[dezhen2001]

good luck, i think u will need it :D

dawood

[Sharky]

i would answer those quesitons, if i wasn't so stoned

[joedoe]

Isn't the 'shells' model of the atom just a simplification to help explain atomic structure? I thought that it was more like an electron cloud than a series of levels of electrons?

[Sharky]

and i'm sitting here with a half shaven head. i need to shave the rest of the fuzz off my melon. then shower. then bed. i'll reply tomorrow if no one else has

makes a good OT thread though, better than the usual :rolleyes:

[eulerfan]

Originally posted by The Willow Sword
I havent had sex in a long time cause i spend all my time on my ass at this computer....and now that i found out that there is a woman on the forum i am going to try and score by asking her an off topic question......i tried the same line with Wushuchik but found out real quick that shes not having any.....so now i am going to prey on this screenname and maybe i will SCORE.:p :p :p :p

a) He is nowher near me.

b) I like the attention so BACK OFF!

:D :D :D

[dezhen2001]

u go :D

dawood

[The Willow Sword]

CSN jealous, by consorting? Yup just like a woman,,,bein a playa.;) :p

[Radhnoti]

Ok...everyone here who has recently (or is it will soon?) travel/travelled to Canada to hang out with a girl they met online please raise your hand?


*Looks at TWS*


Anyone?


*Looks at TWS*



ANYone?


:D

[Sharky]

ouchies!

gutted tws

[joedoe]

Sprung! TWS is a net geek :D

[The Willow Sword]

(raises hand high) Yes yes,,,i am off to meet an internet woman in Canada,,,,,yup. been talking with her for about three months now, we send pics and talk via phone and email.
yup i am going for the exotic foreign type.
i will be staying at a 4 star hotel in the downtown art district for the first couple of days, then its off to the winter wonderland that is prevost(near st. jerome) for two weeks of sledding ,skiing, freezing, and canadian food.

(ok now,,,,,i am ready for the transexual jokes now)
:rolleyes:

[dezhen2001]

good luck TWS :)

i think many people discount the very real possibility of meeting someone online. yup its different to face to face, but in a good way :)

dawood

[The Willow Sword]

she could be the "one":eek:

[Sharky]

da dum da dum

[dezhen2001]

"there can be only one" :eek:

im not gonna knock it coz im with someone i met online as well and its also going great so far :)

dawood

[Serpent]

You should all know by now that eulerfan is mine. Of course, I'm willing to share, so long as you all acknowledge that I am the original cyber-wooer.

As to the subject, the whole shell model is only to help conceptually with energy packets (quanta), right? Isn't the whole concept still purely theoretical anyway?

(And no, not theoretical like my relationship with eulerfan.)

[eulerfan]

Originally posted by The Willow Sword
(raises hand high) Yes yes,,,i am off to meet an internet woman in Canada,,,,,yup. been talking with her for about three months now, we send pics and talk via phone and email.
yup i am going for the exotic foreign type.
i will be staying at a 4 star hotel in the downtown art district for the first couple of days, then its off to the winter wonderland that is prevost(near st. jerome) for two weeks of sledding ,skiing, freezing, and canadian food.

(ok now,,,,,i am ready for the transexual jokes now)
:rolleyes:

Now I understand why you're taking this online banter so seriously. Best of luck to you. But, seriously, off my back.;)

[Sharky]

theorectical doesn't mean the same as imaginary

[eulerfan]

And, that's right, I do belong to Serpent. He won me in an underground fighting match against HKV.

[Serpent]

Originally posted by eulerfan
And, that's right, I do belong to Serpent. He won me in an underground fighting match against HKV.

You see. All I ask is for a little recognition.

[Chang Style Novice]

Feeling better? It's good to see you around again.

[Serpent]

Yeah, I'm fine thanks for asking....

Oh, you were talking to eulerfan, right?

[Chang Style Novice]

Yeah, I'm talking to the one who left (and left me feeling like a total sh!t) not her inconsequential boytoy.

:D

[Serpent]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
Yeah, I'm talking to the one who left (and left me feeling like a total sh!t) not her inconsequential boytoy.

:D

You're just jealous.

;)

[Chang Style Novice]

I'm not the jealous type. I'm more the Times New Roman type.

What?

[eulerfan]

Thanks. :D

Finals are over. Everything seems much clearer and unimportant again.

[eulerfan]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
Yeah, I'm talking to the one who left (and left me feeling like a total sh!t) not her inconsequential boytoy.

:D

Sorry bout that.

Can't a girl tweak when things get to be too much?

[Chang Style Novice]

Glad to hear it. Now you can concentrate on the important things. Like a road trip to the State Capitol to meet your dreamboat, no-mind-games, avant-garde-literature lovin', twue wub.

Or grab a beer with some depressed, underemployed, art-student dude. Whichever.

And yeah, tweak as much as you want. I know a little somethin' about tweaking myself. Ever tell you about the time I gashed my arm open punching a window from being overstressed?

[red5angel]

Thanks eulerfan, I am having some issues explaining that second question to a physics freind of mine here at work as well.

"An electron can only orbit a nuclei at a specific energy level. It jumps from one energy level to another, emitting or absorbing a 'quanta' of energy. There's no gradient. They don't even travel in between. They are at one level, then at another. That's what a "shell" is. So, in a covalent bond, it's not really going between shells. It's in both shells at the same time."

That's sort of the conclusion I had come to but needed some clarification! doe sthe Electron exist in both shells as different energy levels? For instance in Atom A it is up, while in atom B it is down?
The second question is harder to explain. When I am looking at these STM pictures of atoms:

http://www.almaden.ibm.com/vis/stm/images/stm1.jpg

You can see the "atoms" all in rows. now this picture is a slice of material, so my question is, if atoms make up molecules, and molecules make up matter, where have all the molecules gone in this picture? Molecules are collections of atoms, so if you are looking at a number of atoms that are bonded to make a particular type of matter then where have the molecules gone?
Let me see here...Let's assume that if you put 3 marbles together they bond to form a superball. Superballs slapped together creat a form of matter we will refer to as a "Basketball Court". Now, while it is possible to look at individual marbles, and individual superballs, if you cross section the Basketball court you should see Superballs. If you cross section a Superball you see 3 Marbles. How is it you can cross section a basketball court however, and see marbles?! In the picture above you are seeing a series of atoms but not even the hint of a molecule.

hehe that has to be easier to figure out ;)

Nope, no trolling for girls on the KFO here, eulerfan is a good looking woman, and smart to boot but I have my own and didn't have to go all the way to Canada to get her ;)

[Radhnoti]

Hope it works out like a fairy tale for you Willow. :)

Everyone else too...but there's only one eulerfan, so guess that's an impossibility. Guess I'll cheer for *flips a coin* ...Serp!

I actually looked for that picture eulerfan posted, but it was somewhere in the mid-30's of that thread...and I just got to the 40's on my dial-up connection before losing interest. :D

[The Willow Sword]

Hey you know i am just goofin' Euler, CSN, Red5angel. :D

[red5angel]

no problem TWS ;) good luck man, just don't go any place alone, unless of course she is good looking enough to risk it :p


I can be a shallow *******.........

[eulerfan]

Originally posted by Radhnoti
I actually looked for that picture eulerfan posted, but it was somewhere in the mid-30's of that thread...and I just got to the 40's on my dial-up connection before losing interest. :D

I can't begin to tell you how much I love the fact that, if somebody wants to see a picture of me he must go on an epic journey. :D

[Braden]

I hope you guys don't mind if I jump in. Both OT discussions and physics amuse me.

The snapshots we have of reality, whether quantum, atomic, molecular, or everyday levels, are all only conceptual. When you look at reality a certain way, you percieve a certain thing. All these snapshots are is reality percieved a certain way, along with models of how it behaves while it's being percieved that way.

In covalent bonding, atoms will share electrons along the appropriate orbitals, like Eulerfan described. No sort of anti-electron appears in the second atom to balance out the bonding electron. However, the electronic configuration of the atoms in question may shift so they result in a stable, low-energy state wherein they are both sharing electrons along a certain orbital. Orbitals shared in this manner do not look exactly like normal orbitals, but are deformed. The specifics of electronic configuration, which orbitals are shared, and how much the shared electrons prefer one atom over the other, will all vary depending on the situation. What keeps them together is that they mutually exist in a lower-energy state in the bonded formation. You can understand this in terms of electromagnetic interactions between nuclei and electrons.

Similarly, different sorts of molecules will be subject to molecular-level forces which keep them together. You can understand this simply in terms of multiple bonding sites on a single atom, thus creating a molecule just as described above. However, electrons can also be shared molecularly (eg. benzene ring, electronically active molecules), and there are also electromagnetic forces operating between unbonded atoms which will effect their energy states and the conformation of the molecule.

I'm not sure I understood the other questions... we can certainly visualize molecules if that's what you're asking.

[eulerfan]

Originally posted by red5angel


http://www.almaden.ibm.com/vis/stm/images/stm1.jpg

You can see the "atoms" all in rows. now this picture is a slice of material, so my question is, if atoms make up molecules, and molecules make up matter, where have all the molecules gone in this picture? Molecules are collections of atoms, so if you are looking at a number of atoms that are bonded to make a particular type of matter then where have the molecules gone?
Let me see here...Let's assume that if you put 3 marbles together they bond to form a superball. Superballs slapped together creat a form of matter we will refer to as a "Basketball Court". Now, while it is possible to look at individual marbles, and individual superballs, if you cross section the Basketball court you should see Superballs. If you cross section a Superball you see 3 Marbles. How is it you can cross section a basketball court however, and see marbles?! In the picture above you are seeing a series of atoms but not even the hint of a molecule.

hehe that has to be easier to figure out ;)

Nope, no trolling for girls on the KFO here, eulerfan is a good looking woman, and smart to boot but I have my own and didn't have to go all the way to Canada to get her ;)

AAAHHHHHH, I think I get it.

That's a picture of a xenon atom(the blue thing) on nickel. Nickel is an element. The matter that is nickel is a matrix made up of nickel atoms.

A molecule doesn't have to have more than one atom. It is just the smallest possible increment of a substance that retains the physical properties of that substance. Since a single nickel atom retains they physical properties of nickel, a nickel atom IS a nickel molecule.

I'm sure the holes are just missing atoms. Metal is going to have imperfections and those imperfections are evidenced all the way to the atomic level.

Does that answer your question?

[dezhen2001]

d@mn this is all waaaay over my head... im impressed though :eek:

dawood

[eulerfan]

BTW, Braden, come on in and add whatever it strikes you to add.

Like I said, this isn't my field so I don't feel incredibly comfortable being the only one answering.

[ZIM]

Gosh darn it all, you're stumping me! Go play here! (http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/index.pl)

[red5angel]

eulerfan, sister that is EXACTLY what I was looking for!!! I never even thought about the actual elements that I was looking at and the atomic/molecular structures. Your good....

Braden - I like where you are going with this, ufortunately I dont have alot of time so I wll have to come back to it, but I will be back!

[TaoBoy]

I'm just as confused as Dez. It's much easier talking about bra sizes as per the "Got Qi" thread.

:D

[Serpent]

Originally posted by TaoBoy
I'm just as confused as Dez. It's much easier talking about bra sizes as per the "Got Qi" thread.

:D

The bra is the shell that must be stripped away to reveal the pure nucleus within. And it's better not to simply strip it away conceptually; this is something we can really get our hands on.

Pretty loose connection, but I'm doing my best.

[dezhen2001]

its all so clear now :rolleyes: lol... that means im a scientist :D

dawood

[Serpent]

Originally posted by dezhen2001
its all so clear now :rolleyes: lol... that means im a scientist :D

dawood

You sure are... at least, you are as much as I am.

[dezhen2001]

maybe we should get the nobel prize? :D

dawood

[Serpent]

Maybe the Nob Prize.

;)

[dezhen2001]

LMAO!!!

hey do u ever go to wushu chiks chatroom?
http://pub7.ezboard.com/bshaolinnorthwestforum.communityChat
(have to be a member of ezboard)

dawood

[Serpent]

In a word. No.

[dezhen2001]

ok just wondering coz its easier to talk than thru kfo :D

dawood

[Serpent]

Remind me again after Xmas when I have more time and I'll check it out.

[dezhen2001]

no problem hehe

dawood

[Merryprankster]

Red5, and anybody who cares...

This is actually something I kinda understand. Unlike how to bake yeast breads properly (My single continual kitchen failure...)

Braden is correct that all these things are conceptual models. On the other hand, they work pretty **** good so we have a tendency to think they're right. I'm going to speak as though they were "fact," because it's simpler that way.

Eulerfan is also correct. When electrons are shared they are shared "more" with the nucleus that the electrons are more attracted to.

Note that my assessment of their correctness certainly doesn't validate their statements: I am no sort of authority, and Braden and Eulerfan can certainly stand on their own.

Electrons are both particle and wave. The wave nature of an electron in an atom are described by the Schrodinger Wave equation. Solutions to the Schrodinger Wave equation are called "wave functions." Individual solutions to the wave equation are associated with a specific electron energy. Squaring the wave function describes a probability distribution, that, when graphed in 3 dimensions, gives you the physical space within which you will find your electron: An electron bound to the atom with that specific energy can only exist within that physical boundary described by the square of the wave function. We call that boundary an orbital. For calculation purposes, and thanks to the uncertainty principle, this solution is 99% accurate, vice 100%.

So an orbital is really just a section of 3-dimensional space in which we are 99% likely to find the electron in question.

When you start talking about "sharing electrons," you're essentially talking about orbital overlap. The amount of sharing (or hogging) going on dictates the nature of the bond. For instance, the an H2, N2, or O2 molecule has exactly equal sharing going on and is quite covalent. On the other hand, the NaCl molecule has a disproportionate amount of sharing--the Cl atom hogs the shared electron, leaving the Na atom naked, forlorn, and hopeless.

How is this so? Well, the octet rule is the version we use to teach high school chemistry, but the "real reason," is probability distribution.

Take a 1s and 2s orbital, since they are the simplest, being spherical. The 1s is concentric with and contained within the 2s orbital, seperated by a spherical node. The 1s and 2s are also concentric with and contained within the 3s node. So, as N increases, so does the physical size of the orbital.

So now, lets take HCl as an example. The Hydrogen shared orbital is 1s, whereas the shared orbital in the Chlorine atom is the 3p (I'm pretty sure.) The 3p orbital is MUCH bigger, volume wise, than the 1s. When the oribtals hook up, they change shape and obviously, therefore energy and probability distribution, because you're combining the two wave functions to form a NEW wave function that describes the shared region.

Now, think of the total volume of the new "1s and 3p combined " orbital as a big room. Now, box off one corner of the room's floor with some tape. Make it a pretty small box compared with the rest. Now, set up a camera to take pictures at 5 second intervals and throw a tennis ball around in there. Over time, it's clear the pictures will show the ball as more frequently being in the larger part of the room than in the small boxed section.

And so it is with the HCl bond. The H doesn't get the electron much because the new probability distribution is weighted so much more to the Cl side of things. Therefore, it is more probable the electron will be found over near the Cl than near the H.

Because of this extreme disparity, you get an ionic bond. The bonds in methane, CH4, on the other hand, are pretty covalent because the degree of sharing is greater. And also some other stuff that really doesn't need to be gotten into right now :D

[red5angel]

Excellent MP! So can you tell me, with probability distribution (it's all coming back to me now) the idea of "shells" is conceptual, there are no layers per se but the idea that with more electrons the larger the area of probable location? The idea of octality is just a way of determing how big the area of probability is?
Also, isn't wave funcionality just a way to determine the location of a particle in general?
Do you remember what the Schroedinger wave equation is? Actually come to think of it, wave functionality just seems like a brain pun to me. A way of trying to identify a natural occurance, in a way that seems correct but isn't necessarily. of course at the moment I am still trying to wake up and particle/wave duality may be elluding me ;)

For those of you getting lost, here is a good webpage with a basic explanation....

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/quantumzone/schroedinger.html

[Merryprankster]

A shell is an area of space in which the waveform for the electron in question remains stable. A node is the area at which it destructively interferes with itself. They are conceptual in the sense that this is all theory. On the other hand, it seems these "probability shells," work really well as a model, so they are accepted as "fact."

There ARE layers. 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s, are all shaped the same, but they are nestled one within the other, like a russian doll set. Similarly with 1p, 2p, 3p, 4p, etc. The space between the layers are the nodes where the waveform collapses and the electron "can't be." (although with quantum mechanics...:D)

Octality is a tool, like a calculator. It's a way to get the right answer without going into quantum mechanics, much the way that you don't have to do the math with a calculator--and it's fine for that. However, I don't think I'd go so far to say it's a way of representing the area of the probability. It's a way of simply representing what's happening on a quantum scale, to make everything more accessable.

I think you are correct that wave functionality is a way to determine, within the boundaries of the uncertainty principle, the probable location of a particle. However, I was applying it specifically to electron orbitals.

[Chang Style Novice]

I rarely go to other martial arts fora. Does this stuff (physics, philosophy, politics, literature, art) happen a lot at Cyberkwoon and intheguard and all those spots you guys mention?

[red5angel]

OK, I think it is starting to come together for me now, you gotta love this stuff!!!

[red5angel]

now on to the easy stuff.....gravitons... ;)

[eulerfan]

Merryprankster,

Phew! Thank you. I'm so glad somebody came in who really knew what they were talking about.

Also, I'm glad there is somebody who will appreciate this. I went to a party Saturday night and found out that a friend of mine I've known for a while is the great nephew of Bose.

[red5angel]

"found out that a friend of mine I've known for a while is the great nephew of Bose."


Cool! I just did some intense reading on Bose-Einstein Condensates.....

[Chang Style Novice]

They make great speakers!</clueless>

[eulerfan]

Originally posted by red5angel
"found out that a friend of mine I've known for a while is the great nephew of Bose."


Cool! I just did some intense reading on Bose-Einstein Condensates.....

It was funny. He said he was really proud of himself when he managed to get a B+ in quantum mechanics but everbody else was disappointed because of his great uncle.

[eulerfan]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
They make great speakers!</clueless>

Ever hear of an elementary particle called a boson?

That's Bose.

[Chang Style Novice]

Boson does sound familiar.

You gotta understand, though - I have about a PBS level interest in and knowledge of science.

[red5angel]

"It was funny. He said he was really proud of himself when he managed to get a B+ in quantum mechanics but everbody else was disappointed because of his great uncle"

that's gotta suck to be held to those standards!!!

[Merryprankster]

As soon as they find one Red, we'll get on it ;)

[Braden]

Now on to the easy stuff... rejecting the Copenhagen interpretation.

[fa_jing]

Now to the easy part - infinite dimensional calculus

[red5angel]

actually fa_jing, doesnt superstring theory actually head in that direction :)

Braden, you the man, I was wondering when acausal randomness and objective reality were going to come into it! The whol electron thing sort of goes to the heart of that!

[Braden]

Bwahaha, sweet!

Irreducible lawlessness is nonsense!

[TaoBoy]

I read a little of Stephen Hawking's A Short History of Time yesterday. Now those blacks holes are some seriously freaky sh.t.

[red5angel]

Braden- right, and I bet your the kind of guy who thinks the electron has a definite position or velocity ;)

]taoboy, schwarzchild radius man, that's where the future of photography is man!!! :)

[ewallace]

Thank you to all that participated in this thread. A group photo was taken and may be viewed by clicking here (http://www.grudge-match.com/Images/nerds.gif)

[red5angel]

ROFLMAO@Exallace....;)







yeah I know how to spell your name tough guy, wadda ya gonna do about it? :mad:

[Braden]

red - I am, actually. ;)

What do you think about it?

[eulerfan]

red, I'm one, too.

[Braden]

Really EulerFan? Are you much into hidden variable interpretations?

[eulerfan]

No, I just think an electron has a definite position and velocity. Why wouldn't it. There are people who think it doesn't?

It's cuz I'm clueless.

Seriously, this is not my field.

[Braden]

Well... assume a spherical horse... :D

[eulerfan]

You can't assume a spherical horse in quantum physics. In Newtonian mechanics, they make everything way easier than it acually is. In quantum physics, it really seemed like they were making everything more difficult than it had to be.

I don't know. I guess that's why I could never be a physicist.

[Braden]

"No, I just think an electron has a definite position and velocity. Why wouldn't it. There are people who think it doesn't?"

Yes. Notably, anyone who accepts the orthodox quantum mechanics interpretation.

There's some interesting introductions... http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08.htm and http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/ for example.

[eulerfan]

The uncertainty principle is about KNOWING the position and velocity. It doesn't state that particles don't have position and velocity. Just that we can't know what they are. Right? What? This is different than what I was taught. I have to return to a Sopranos marathon. I'll read the links later. But, WTF?

[joedoe]

Of course a particle has position and velocity. Knowing exactly what that position and velocity is is the problem. :)

[Braden]

Heisenberg says, "The path comes into existence only when we percieve it."

[Chang Style Novice]

I may not know squat about this stuff, but I can live with the idea that not only is the exact velocity and location of an electron unknowable, but it doesn't actually exist. In my feeble understanding, this means that free will is possible, and it's important to me that free will is real.

NB - My fetish on this subject has no bearing on the facts.

[Serpent]

OK, the fact that you cannot compute the velocity if you compute the position and vice versa surely doesn't mean that any given subject doesn't have both. We just can't calculate them, right?

Or am I missing the point here?

[Braden]

Depends whose model you believe.

[Merryprankster]

The electron (or whatever particle), does have a definite velocity and position. It's just that our act of measuring them affects it. So we have a probability distribution as to location and energy level.

As for the rest, ya'll go have fun with your bad selves :D

And Braden is pretty much correct that the path comes into existence only when we perceive it, as the particle actually travels through all possible histories to acheive its endpoint.

Fortunately, the **** things cancel out mathmatically, as I recall, until you are left with the actual path. Of course, it certainly explains the results of the double slit experiment!

[red5angel]

Ah the electron, the mischevious hussy of the physics world....

Do I believe in them? Maybe, maybe not. I am slowly forming the belief that the electron might just be a brainpun, something that appears to exist because we can measure some of it's properties. I think something else is going on there but we have a propensity for finding things that don't exist, Copernicus did it, flogiston was a flash in the pan, but for a brief time it made sense.
MP brings up one of the basic principles for which I am not so comfortable with, the idea that the path does not exist until percieved, I am not sure I buy Schroedingers kitty cat yet. Unfotunately my math is weak enough it takes me a while to work through some of this stuff, and it's much easier to explain in person then over email or forum.
It's why I have been doing so much reading about it lately, something doesn't quite fit with me. Sadly, it's bugging me enough I may go back to school here this spring to get my physics degree!!

If anyone is interested, here is a pretty good link to an explanation in part of the Copenhagen interpretation.......

http://www.benbest.com/science/quantum.html

[eulerfan]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
The electron (or whatever particle), does have a definite velocity and position. It's just that our act of measuring them affects it. So we have a probability distribution as to location and energy level.


That's how I learned it. On account of you have to use light to observe it and an electron is comparable in size to a photon of light.

I have a question, since you guys are so interested in this.

Does anybody here think Heisenberg messed up the German bomb effort on purpose?

[red5angel]

I think so, the guy was too smart to not and I think his views may not have parelleled germanys politics at the time.

[Braden]

But he's not saying the path can be messed up by being observed, he's saying it doesn't have one until it's observed. It's an important difference.

The sorts of things involved in 'having a path' aren't taken to be meaningfull unless they exist within the context of a specific question. Once you put them within such a context, you have biased one such element such that the other necessry one is meaningless. In this way, an electron never truly 'has a path.'

This is a necessary conclusion for such quantum peculiarities as nodes (spaces an electron will _never_ be, though it will cross them - if it has a path, how could it manage this?), as well as quantum rejections of the principle of space and time ("that physical objects exist separately in space and time in such a way that they are localizable and countable"), and those of causailty/determination/continuity (in the quantum world, if you know everything about an element, you still can't predict it's future state).

[red5angel]

While I agree with you braden there seems to be two schools of thought on whether they do or do not posses those paths before hand
That very problem is why I don't buy what science is trying to sell at this time. I think we have stumbled upon an observation that has been misinterpreted. Copernicus had a good argument for how planets revolved around each other if you weren't paying attention, and sometimes even if you were. I personally have atendancy to go towards simplexity, the idea that most systems can be reduced to pretty simple principles and if something is too complex we have only scratched the surface. Working down the funnel from complexity to simplicity. If you look at a human being they appear to be complex but if you break them down to the most basic components they appear to become much more simple.

[Braden]

I agree more than completely. There's quite a few schools of thought on the issue. I'm not trying to describe my feelings on the matter, but rather the orthodox interpretation. The Copenhagen interpretation.

Personally, I favor the hidden-variable interpretation of De Broglie and Bohm.

[eulerfan]

Originally posted by Braden
...and those of causailty/determination/continuity (in the quantum world, if you know everything about an element, you still can't predict it's future state).

Okay, I'm simple minded. Let's attack one idea at a time. The uncertainty principle isn't just a statement to give up. It is a useful equation. Dx*Dp>=(h-bar)/2.

You can't predict its future state but there are still probabilities and liklihoods to work with. You can have an idea, can't you?

We're not talking about a random walk, there is an element(no pun intended) of predictability.

[Braden]

Yes.

[fa_jing]

Since our theories are based on observing phenomena, it is no surprise that they can only predict relations between phenomena, rather than providing us a complete description of the noumena, which is what you guys are guessing at (a popular object of speculation). In fact, my latest philosophical explorations are leading me to reject the notion of noumena, and come to believe in a being of the phemonena, which is not the same as the phenomenon of being ;). An object is reduced to the totality of the series of its appearances. W/respect to quantum physics, the observer can never be written out of the equation, because without an observer there are no phenomena! And our equations describe relations between phenomena, which happen to have certain constraints even in this reduced scope of description. The reasons for this constraint become more apparent as you study the derivation of the Uncertainty principle. Similar to Special Relativity, although I've forgotten both derivations, what I do remember is that if you look at the math, the existance of a constant (speed of light) w/respect to non-accelerated reference frames, as well as the existance of a constant constraining the level of accuracy of momentum and postion, are implied, that is to say that it is mathematically reasonable that some constant exist, although not apparent what it would in fact be. Special relativity would have been discovered within a short time after Einstein actually did, regardless of his effort. The groundwork was laid out in Lagrange and Hamiltonian dynamics.

Sorry for this vague post.

[red5angel]

eulerfan, if I understand the issue correctly then the predictability is there, the variables are small enough to basically discard for most reasons so essentially yes there is a degree of predictability there. My only problem is the small insignificant differences or variables that they are disgarding. There is a reason, in my mind why it's not perfect, we just havent found it yet....but alas, back to the superstring theory I guess.

Braden I am not totally up on Bohm or De Broglie, got any good links or resource recommendations?

[eulerfan]

No, it is a random walk. I was wrong. Sorry. D@mn!

[Braden]

Heh.

[red5angel]

I think the devil is in the details in this case.....

[Braden]

Red - "Braden I am not totally up on Bohm or De Broglie..."

You alluded to acausal randomness/irreducible lawlessness a while back, I think... It is one of the main features of the Copenhagen interpretation which has caused the most disagreement. Hidden variable interpretations are a category of quantum mechanics models which reject acausal randomness/irreducible lawlessness.

Bohm uses the analogy of Brownian motion. There was a time when the orthodox conclusion of Brownian motion was that it was a result of acausal randomness. The suggestion that tiny, elemental particles permeated space and buzzed about, slamming into visible particles and resulting in a motion which would be lawfull if only we could measure these unseen things was taken to be absurd. This is again the situation we find ourselves in, only now at the quantum level. Hidden variable models suggest, analogously, that the same thing is going on. The 'hidden variable' that is their namesake is some element which is causing the pseudo-random behavior at the quantum level. Bohm outlines a theoretical construct he calls the quantum field in this regard.

If you google for david bohm, hidden variable, or irreducible lawlessness, you should find some info. I'll post a decent summary if/when I recall where one is.

[Merryprankster]

A node is just a potential energy barrier as far as the "path" of the electron is concerned. Electron tunneling should solve the problem quite nicely. :)

Eulerfan--you are mostly right. If you wish to measure velocity as accurately as possible, you use a long wavelength of EM radiation because it will disturb the particle least. However, you can't get accurate positional data because your accuracy is limited to either 1/2 the wavelength or the wavelength itself (can't remeber which) so your particle is somewhere inbetween that large distance. Think of trying to figure out where something is in the ocean by using long, long swells. There's no increment shorter so it's tough to tell you where it is!

If you want to get a good picture of where it is, you use very short waves to make your increments smaller. Unfortunately, it's like throwing fast choppy surf at a boogie boarder--you toss it all over the place. I can tell you it's exactly so many wavelengths from such and such a point at thus angle... but I've mauled its velocity.

Braden, from an endpoint perspective, all possible histories and no path until its observed are equivalent as the "correct" path comes into being upon observation.

However, from my understanding, the results of the double slit experiment can't be explained by "no path," until it's observed. In order for the electron to interfere with itself, it must have traveled more than one path simultaneously. But, this result can be explained by the particle travelling all mathmatically possible histories. Consequently, I believe it to be the more compelling model.

[eulerfan]

Details...I haven't really sat down with it. It does look like a random walk now that I think about it. I don't want to say one way or another.

I think it would come down to whether or not physicists are able to use random walks to make these calculations. That's how I would feel sure without actually sitting down and trying to fit it to one.

[Braden]

"Braden, from an endpoint perspective, all possible histories and no path until its observed are equivalent as the 'correct' path comes into being upon observation."

Except that, according to the Copenhagen interpretation, the unobserved quantum level actually doesn't exist. Bohr doesn't see these equations as actually representing something which happens around us, but only as a mathematical model for explaining an outcome. As, I think, fa-jing alluded to, it's science, not metaphysics.

"But, this result can be explained by the particle travelling all mathmatically possible histories. Consequently, I believe it to be the more compelling model."

I didn't mean to be describing what I felt was the most compelling model, only what I felt was the orthodox model. I feel De Broglie & Bohm's model is the most compelling.

[eulerfan]

MP,

I see.

This random walk thing is bugging me. Have you ever seen an orbit described as or like brownian motion?

[red5angel]

Braden, thanks for the clarification on Bohm, I'm with you on that and De Broglie is familiar as well, but I havent had time to go into it as in depth as I want to. It takes me a while to get it down so I usually end up immersing myself and just haven't got around to De Broglie. Any help would be appreciated.

[red5angel]

Wierd, a colleague and I were just conferring about some things, he has a physics degree, and he was just talking about brownian motion as a good simile for the random walk.

[fa_jing]

Correcto, Braden.

[fa_jing]

Actually what I'm saying is that something is there when unobserved, but it is only the phenomena (defined as observed) that actually have to conform to the laws of phenomena that we call science. Something is there, but for us, unobserved it is simply undifferentiated being-in-itself. I'm pointing out a slight difference - Bohr by your description, seems to be following a philosophy of Berkeley's "Esse et Percipi" - but as I pointed out above, the being of phenomena does not cover all of the phenomenon of being. There is also a being of the observer (implied by the pre-reflective Cogito) and undifferentiated Being-in-itself, which is the Being of things-in-themselves. I can come back tomorrow with an arguement of why Esse et Percipi is not correct, although it is tough reading.

[red5angel]

good one fa_jing!!

[Braden]

I don't mean to describe Bohr like Berkeley. When I said he would claim "the unobserved quantum level actually doesn't exist", I didn't mean he would claim 'the unobserved reality doesn't exist.'

[red5angel]

Baden, what are your thoughts on acausal randomness? think we have gone as far as we can go with physics currently? I am getting the impression you do.....

[Braden]

I think acausal randomness is utter nonsense.

I think atomism in any form is utter nonsense.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'as far as we can go currently.' As of this exact moment, we're as far as we'll get as of this exact moment. But in the future, we'll "go" further.

[red5angel]

I look at science as not quite a closed loop. We can only get so far with what we have to work with currently. ancient man couldn't build a car, because "car" and most of the concepts underlying "car" were meaningless and close to incomprehensible. Every so often someone stumbles upon something that gives us a little leap in the direction we want to go.

[Braden]

I think you may find that ancient man's inability to build a car is more a result of his engineering inability, rather than his conceptual inability.

For instance, we did not finally reject acausal randomness for Brownian motion due to clever argument or conception, but rather due to engineering the ability to image the 'hidden variable' in the system.

Although I suppose it depends on how ancient you mean by ancient, and how much you trust Julian Jaynes.

Certainly though, man has conceptual evolution as it has engineering evolution. However, what we call science tends towards the latter; the former is what we call mysticism.

[red5angel]

true but I would say "engineering" ability is the product of conceptual or creative ability.

[Braden]

I'm not saying the two are independant. It becomes a 'chicken and egg' question.

However, what I am saying is that it is not a question - primacy is given towards engineering and not conception.

I'm making a distinction between the ability to make logical arguments and concieve mentally of possibilities on one hand, and the resolution power of our physical tools on the other; and claiming scientific progress is limited by the latter.

[red5angel]

I can go with that.

[fa_jing]

Braden - I understand your clarification. Hidden variables is a cool concept, BTW.