Physicists create Bohr Atom

Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Physicists create Bohr Atom

I found this article somewhat interesting and thought to share:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080630173921.htm

Previously, all I'd ever really heard (or perhaps I read it) about the model of Niels Bohr atom is how the energy of electrons will, under higher temparatures, increase in relation to localized orbits.

Apologies if already posted.

 


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Oooh, I haven't seen that.

Oooh, I haven't seen that. Awesome sauce.


Ken G.
Bronze Member
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Thanks Wonko

 That was a very surprising piece of Knowledge ,I really dig Science.It reminded of an article that I read in Omni magazine back in the 70's ,describing Antimatter,and when I was telling my uncle about it,he looked at me and said "Well Ken that sounds great ,but will it help me fix my car or the broken leg on the kitchen table ?" I just looked back at him and said "Of course not"but some day in the future it will help your Grandchildren maybe. And then he went on about how the U.S. Government just waste our tax dollars on a lot of these needless projects etc.etc...And he worked with Philipps at the time,so I thought that he would understand research and development.

 

Signature ? How ?


Ken G.
Bronze Member
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Some how

 Some how my reply posted twice,so I edited it out.

 

Signature ? How ?


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
I wonder what this means for

I wonder what this means for certain hypothetical elements, such as Untrioctium, given E=mc21-Z2α2, where Z is the number of protons and α is the fine structure constant (≈1/137).

mc2=3.28944395*1016 m2 kg s-2 mol-1
α2=3.89749758*10^102 m-8 kg-4 s6 A2
1-Z2α2=7.22560161*1053 i m-4 kg-2 s3 A

E=(-2.10259936*1017 + 1.10831164*1017 i) m-2 kg-1 s A mol-1

. . .or something. Probably not very accurate since I used Google Calculator and Notepad to do it all with, and I'm 90% sure something went horribly wrong with the units. Feel free to slap me with a fish or something if you redo them.

Anyone with some deeper knowledge of physics or science history would probably be able to figure out what all that is; I've reproduced the calculations that led to the discovery of antimatter (the imaginary part there with the i, a positron).

So, never mind, I answered my own question - it doesn't mean anything. In fact, now that I think about it, I should've know that to begin with. Doh.


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Wonko wrote:I found this

Wonko wrote:

I found this article somewhat interesting and thought to share:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080630173921.htm

Previously, all I'd ever really heard (or perhaps I read it) about the model of Niels Bohr atom is how the energy of electrons will, under higher temparatures, increase in relation to localized orbits.

Apologies if already posted.

 

See this is what I've always said. Quantum physics is impossible. A wave is a configuration of things-- a thing cannot be a wave. Nor can it be in many places at once, take many paths at once, or have many identities at once. A thing is a thing: it has a specific identity, a specific position, and a specific velocity. Again, we find that the law of identity is evil's enemy and its conqueror.

I am an unabashed Bohrian. I do not believe that reality is fundamentally a blurred, undifferentiated mass of acausal sludge. I will not accept the postmodernists' mutilation of science, reality, and logic. The same laws that govern the most massive planet also control the tiniest particle of matter. To say otherwise is to suggest that logic is limited to the large, and that the very small is the playground of irreality.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I am an unabashed

Quote:

I am an unabashed Bohrian.

Then you have missed out on everything in physics from 1927 onwards. As was pointed out in the article, the Bohr model has been overturned by the Schrodinger model. Additionally, quantum mechanics has absolutely nothing to do with "postmodernism", nor is it a "mutilation" of science. These are comments that could come only from people like yourself, not versed in the most basic physics. Quantum mechanics is the most accurate and heavily verified set of principles ever but forth in any discipline of science.

Here's a quick crash-course to get you started on everything you've missed. Quanta are the smallest units of description. The photon is the quanta of an electromagnetic field. The cent is the quanta of American currency. Light has been known to display the property of quantization since it was demonstrated over 100 years ago by Hertz in the experiments that demonstrated the photoelectric effect. Max Planck realized that the energy of a photon is proportional to the wave frequency, or rather E=hf, where h is Planck's constant. Einstein and Bohr collaborated on the concept of discrete energy levels of electrons, which led Einstein to develop the concept of a work function, which is sometimes called the threshold frequency, given by: E(photon)=Φ+KE(max). The work function is the mininum energy electrons needed to be promoted to the surface of a metal and escape. A photon's absorption can transfer energy to an electron to allow for its promotion.  Thus by this point, it had already been demonstrated that light had  wave-particle duality. It was quantized into discrete energy packets, but also behaved like a wave (an electric field oscillating at 90 degrees to a magnetic field) The fact that this (wave-particle duality) would hold for electrons as well would be demonstrated by de Broglie, Davisson and Germer later in the century.

The development of the quantum model of light by Planck and Einstein led Heisenberg to formulate the uncertainty principle (confusing idiots to this day). Given that a photon is the smallest and most unobtrusive device that could be employed to measure the velocity and position of an electron, when photons are shot at electrons, they will impart momentum onto the electron (given by: p=h/λ ). Thus, by measuring an electron, we have altered the measured variable. Thus, any accurate measure of velocity will forfeit accuracy of measure of position and vice-versa.

Bohr's model of the atom has been totally falsified, long since by Schrodinger's model, as we can see here. The Bohr model was put forth after the Rutherford scattering experiment, where it was realized that the plum pudding model was false:

The statistical rate of sharp curvature of the electrons and the rate of total reflection allowed Rutherford, Geiger and Marsden the ability to calculate the amount of space occupied by the nucleus. Geiger said the results were like firing tank shells at paper and having them occasionally bounce off. When Bohr demonstrated that the atom has electron energy levels which the electrons can jump between (this produces the emission spectra effect used in flame tests) his model took precedence. Since you claim to be a staunch Bohrian, I assume you know that his model has three postulates:

1. The electron orbits are quantized into discrete levels. The lowest is called the ground state, and everything after that as 2,3,4...etc. The excitation of electrons therefore promotes them to higher energy levels. In the Einstein work function equations, this describes how the transfer of energy from a photon to an electron can promote its excitation and promotion. Given enough energy, the electron can escape the surface of the atom. Thus, although Hertz did not realize it, when he shined purple light on zinc, he was actually watching electrons escape.

2. Electrons absorbing exactly enough energy to be promoted will do so

3. The relaxation of an electron towards the ground state or a state such that n2<n1 will cause the opposite of the photoelectric effect. A photon will be released.

Unfortunately, this model is false. The first real crack in it was formulated by de Broglie in 1924. de Broglie proposed the concept of a matter wave, like this: λ=h/p. The wave function is Ψ and Ψ2 is the probability of the electron occupying that particular point. Thus, each electron has a probability density function that describes the probability space the electron occupies. At this point, the Bohr model had basically collapsed. The derivation of the structure constants, orbital magnetic fields and of course the interference pattern of electron diffraction can only be explained by the Schrodinger model. Radioactivity, the stability of atoms, the ability of electrons to tunnel, covalent bonding, hydrogen bonding, indeed, virtually everything central to modern physics and chemistry simply stands in contradiction to the idea that electrons occupy quantized energy levels. They don't. They occupy hazes called probability density functions. You may not be aware of this, but covalent and hydrogen bonding are concepts that break down in the Bohrian model, because the treating of electrons as distinct entities that zoom around the nucleus like little planets does not allow for the formation of atomic bonds (actually, it doesn't reall allow for the formation of atoms either. The only reasons atoms are stable is because the probability density functions of electrons (usually referred to as 1s, 2s, 2d, 3s, 3d etc. etc.) allow for the maximal distance between mutually repulsive electrons. This is called Pauli exclusion and is the basis of something called VSEPR theory, which can only be explained by the Schrodinger model.

Instead of being arranged in orbitals, electrons are therefore arranged in probability spaces. Each probability space can only describe two electron due to Pauli exclusion. This is the basis of chemical bonds and chemical potential energy. In short, precisely those two things which are the basis of pretty much everything we say around us.

Shown in diagram: VSEPR theory allows for the formation of covalent bonds. These are normally called sigma-pi bonds.

The formation of single covalent bonds. Because these molecules are polar (and therefore have charge seperations, distinct probability spaces that occupy certain parts of the atom) the probability map is color coded. The formation of these covalent bonds is the basis of chemical thermodynamics, because these bonds can store chemical potential energy in the form of reactive chemical groups, because the forcing together of probability spaces does physical work (due to Pauli exclusion). This, for example, is why ATP hydrolysis releases a lot of free energy. This sort of molecular interaction is not possible in the Bohrian model. It only works because of VSEPR. Because the probability spaces are arranged in such a way that they as far from each other as possible (again due to Pauli exclusion), the probability spaces change when chemical bonds are formed. We see that having two electrons in close proximity is a low probability occurange. This is why in a p orbital the two sub-orbitals that make the probability space are positioned as to be far away from each other. Where they get nearer, the probability shrinks, where they get farther, the probability rises. In bonds which store chemical potential, the configurations are low-probability, allowing them to do thermodynamic work.

 

We now come to the famous double slit experiment.

If your Bohrian assertion was correct, there would be a complete model of description of the trajectory of particles as the struck the back of the polarized plate. Superposition alone cannot tell us the diffraction pattern of the electrons, nor can the Bohrian model (if it were true, the electrons wouldn't diffract). The resulting diffraction patterns, and the fact that the same thing can be done with photons indicates that photons and electrons can both be described as matter and waves, but not both at the same time. The latter is also empirically demonstrated by same experiment. And if you don't believe me, you can try it yourself with a polarized plate and a light source. And if you happen to keep an electron gun in your house, you can use that instead.

 

The diagram here shows the Davisson-Germer experiment. Th constructive interference of the adjacent atoms being struck by the electrons fired from the filaments determines the angle of the electron scattering.

It really doesn't matter how much you protest. Bohr's model has been totally overturned. Everything since Davidsson-Germer is in direct contradiction to your assertions. Sum-over histories and path dependance of electrons can be demonstrated (it was first done so by Feynmann). The following things were verified by the following people: Entanglement (Bell), photoelectric effect (Hertz), probability density functions (Planck), multiple path diffraction (Feynmann), wave properties of matter (de Broglie) etc. etc. Everything in QM, regardless of how strange, is verified. The accuracy of these experiments is analogous to the accuracy of measuring the United States in length from coast to coast to the order of one hairs breadth. The idea that somehow these highly sensitive and extremely accurate and powerful experiments have anything to do with "postmodernism" is the height of ignorant nonsense.

Don't get me wrong, the Bohrian model is still useful as a conceptual tool for understanding electron promotion, work functions, etc. but it breaks down if we try to consider things like covalent bonds, probability functions, etc. etc. It's just false. It can't explain the data. That's what happens in science when the testable predictions of the theory fail. The theory gets replaced.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

The same laws that govern the most massive planet also control the tiniest particle of matter. To say otherwise is to suggest that logic is limited to the large, and that the very small is the playground of irreality.

Who's saying otherwise? Honestly, Presupp, you must get to know the real science, there's no saying that different laws govern different magnitudes of matter, it's all governed by the same laws it's just the computational power and algorithms required to calculate the very large from the very tiny are ever so slightly beyond reach right now. **Granted that if we discovered them tomorrow then the very large might look rather fantastically different to what we've become accustomed to, however, it's pretty much assured that the laws of relative objects will still work within that framework for certain purposes.

As for your being precious about the erstwhile conclusions and axioms of logic, you should know it makes you a hypocrite for claiming that naturalism doesn't hold consistent with it's presuppositions. If 'God controls all things in the universe" is your presupposition then your God cannot function under those logical laws as even the most pedestrian logical syllogisms regarding the characteristics of the Christian theistic deity will demonstrate easily. You're being inconsistent to be precious over what uniformity your "god" must ultimately adhere to.

Quantum science on the other hand is thoroughly consistent with it's natural presupposition (which isn't much of a presupposition in the sense that it's otherwise known as just taking things as they come).

DG is an excellent tutor, read what he has written and familiarise yourself with the facts of the matter.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The same laws that

Quote:

The same laws that govern the most massive planet also control the tiniest particle of matter

You're absolutely right. This set of laws is called quantum mechanics.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
This is the part of your

This is the part of your post that attacks Bohr's theory:

Quote:
Unfortunately, this model is false. The first real crack in it was formulated by de Broglie in 1924. de Broglie proposed the concept of a matter wave, like this: λ=h/p. The wave function is Ψ and Ψ2 is the probability of the electron occupying that particular point. Thus, each electron has a probability density function that describes the probability space the electron occupies. At this point, the Bohr model had basically collapsed. The derivation of the structure constants, orbital magnetic fields and of course the interference pattern of electron diffraction can only be explained by the Schrodinger model.
 

Baloney. Schrodinger's model explains nothing since it contradicts the law of identity. Bohr's model is correct. It is the only logical model, and if you cannot figure out how the observations can be made to fit it, you must try harder.

Quote:
Radioactivity, the stability of atoms, the ability of electrons to tunnel, covalent bonding, hydrogen bonding, indeed, virtually everything central to modern physics and chemistry simply stands in contradiction to the idea that electrons occupy quantized energy levels. They don't. They occupy hazes called probability density functions.
 

Yes of course matter is nothing but a haze, reality is a fog, everything is probability, nothing is true, A is not A. Makes perfect sense.

Quote:
You may not be aware of this, but covalent and hydrogen bonding are concepts that break down in the Bohrian model, because the treating of electrons as distinct entities that zoom around the nucleus like little planets does not allow for the formation of atomic bonds (actually, it doesn't reall allow for the formation of atoms either. The only reasons atoms are stable is because the probability density functions of electrons (usually referred to as 1s, 2s, 2d, 3s, 3d etc. etc.) allow for the maximal distance between mutually repulsive electrons. This is called Pauli exclusion and is the basis of something called VSEPR theory, which can only be explained by the Schrodinger model.

SO TRY HARDER. You can't give up just because you've run into a problem. QM is running into problems anyway, why not backtrack and give the reasonable model another shot?

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Bohr's model is

Quote:

Bohr's model is correct. It is the only logical model, and if you cannot figure out how the observations can be made to fit it, you must try harder.

Bohr's model is directly contradicted by the diffraction experiment. Electrons are not point charges. They can't be. We've demonstrated this for nearly 100 years. Electrons can diffract. That alone indicates they have wave properties.

Quote:

SO TRY HARDER.

They did, believe me. It's wrong. What don't you understand? It is mathematically impossible to treat electrons as point charges. It doesn't work at all. Electrons are described by probability functions, probability functions whose accuracy is better then anything else in any discipline in science.These probability functions predict the behaivor of electrons perfectly. When I say perfectly, I mean absolutely perfectly. Quantum mechanics is the most accurate discipline of science. Bohr's model, by contrast, cannot predict the observed properties and can be demonstrated directly false since it is heavily empirically verified that electrons can diffract, which means they are not point charges. But they can also take a slit-pattern, which means they are not waves. I'm just giving you the empirical data here. All the effects predicted by Schrodinger but impossible under the Bohr model are demonstrated. Electrons tunnel, for instance. They can disappear and, although probabilistically extremely unlike, appear outside the probability space. The probability of an electron being outside the localized probability space has been empirically demonstrated to match perfectly with the square of their wave function. This is obviously not predicted by Bohr. According to Bohr, electrons should not be able to spontaneously escape their orbitals, because that requires a specific energy input to promote them. Additionally, according to Bohr, electrons should not be able to be described by probability spaces since they are in quantized orbitals. Obviously, however, it has been empirically demonstrated that electrons can indeed be described by probability spaces and therefore the central tenet of Bohr's model (orbital quantization) is incorrect.

Quote:

Baloney. Schrodinger's model explains nothing since it contradicts the law of identity. Bohr's model is correct. It is the only logical model, and if you cannot figure out how the observations can be made to fit it, you must try harder.

Yes of course matter is nothing but a haze, reality is a fog, everything is probability, nothing is true, A is not A. Makes perfect sense.

Well, if you actually studied QM, you would realize that early in the century, the founders of the discipline put forth interpretations to articulate precisely what properly could and could not be said in common language about their often counterintuitive results.

Nowhere in any of my two posts did I state that a wave function is real. It might be, depending on the interpretation of QM you side with. The wave-function, as I have stated, is a way to describe the electron very accurately. Whether or not it is actually real is another matter (and an aside, since it does not change the fact that Bohr's model is false since it has long since been demonstrated that electron orbitals are not quantized). The interpretations in question are concerned with the evolution of a quantum system over time to a state called wavefunction collapse.

In other words, if you don't really like the identity implications of quantum mechanics, pick an interpretation in which wavefunction collapse is redundant or unnecessary (sum-over histories, Many-worlds or ensemble). Doesn't change the fact that these might all be wrong, but it will keep you happy. Don't, on the other hand, pick an interpretation which requires wavefunction collapse (Copenhagen is the most obvious).

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Anonymous
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Davisson Germer experiment picture

 deludedgod,

Please remeve the picture of Davisson Germer experiment from your post. If you have time for disccusions, you should have time to draw a picture and not to copy one with link of the original site. 


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Bohr's model is

Quote:
Bohr's model is directly contradicted by the diffraction experiment. Electrons are not point charges. They can't be. We've demonstrated this for nearly 100 years. Electrons can diffract. That alone indicates they have wave properties.

Electrons are things, and waves are relationships between multiple things. Since a thing is not many things, electrons aren't waves by definition, ergo they do not refract. The problems you are having with diffraction must be resolved in some coherent way. Since electrons are inherently bouncy, they can obviously appear to strike more than one place while in fact bouncing between several places. This can be confirmed by highly sensitive equipment, which, when we get it, will detect slight differences in arrival time and vindicate Bohr once and for all. Though much maligned, Bohr prevails as always.

Quote:
They did, believe me. It's wrong. What don't you understand? It is mathematically impossible to treat electrons as point charges. It doesn't work at all. Electrons are described by probability functions, probability functions whose accuracy is better then anything else in any discipline in science.These probability functions predict the behaivor of electrons perfectly. When I say perfectly, I mean absolutely perfectly. Quantum mechanics is the most accurate discipline of science.

Oh please, anybody can get lucky. Even if QM got a couple of things right it doesn't follow that the theory is correct, especially since it contains contradictions.

Quote:
Bohr's model, by contrast, cannot predict the observed properties and can be demonstrated directly false since it is heavily empirically verified that electrons can diffract, which means they are not point charges. But they can also take a slit-pattern, which means they are not waves.

The illusion of diffraction is explained by the bounciness of electrons. The slit pattern is explained by electrons being normal electrons. I don't get you, DG. If Bohr is wrong, he's wrong, and if he's right, he's wrong? Postmodern biases, much?

Quote:
All the effects predicted by Schrodinger but impossible under the Bohr model are demonstrated. Electrons tunnel, for instance. They can disappear and, although probabilistically extremely unlike, appear outside the probability space. The probability of an electron being outside the localized probability space has been empirically demonstrated to match perfectly with the square of their wave function. This is obviously not predicted by Bohr.

You're darn right it's not predicted by Bohr! It's baloney! Reality is not an incoherent ocean of randomly jumping blips. Reality is reality, things are things, electrons are electrons. An electron has a specific position and velocity, and it does not leap from place to place without cause. If your theory has led you to that conclusion, perhaps you should consider converting to mine.

Quote:
According to Bohr, electrons should not be able to spontaneously escape their orbitals, because that requires a specific energy input to promote them. Additionally, according to Bohr, electrons should not be able to be described by probability spaces since they are in quantized orbitals. Obviously, however, it has been empirically demonstrated that electrons can indeed be described by probability spaces and therefore the central tenet of Bohr's model (orbital quantization) is incorrect.

Bohr's model is wrong because electron movement "can be described" by your theory? I'm not sure I see the problem here. Anything "can be described" as anything else.

Quote:
In other words, if you don't really like the identity implications of quantum mechanics, pick an interpretation in which wavefunction collapse is redundant or unnecessary (sum-over histories, Many-worlds or ensemble).

If the rest of your arguments against Bohr are this poor I'll have no need of them.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The illusion of

Quote:

The illusion of diffraction is explained by the bounciness of electrons.

The bounciness of electrons? Particles don't have "bounciness". There is no "illusion" of diffraction. Do you even know what diffraction is? Since you obviously don't, I shall tell you. Diffraction is an effect observed when waves pass through a gap in a boundary, this results in something called a diffraction pattern. Different waves diffract with respect to boundaries in different ways. Light has very little diffraction, sound, by contrast, is heavily diffracted. This is why

Additionally, I don't think you understand precisely what an interference pattern is, so I shall tell you. Interference occurs when two waves meet. There are two possibilities under consideration here. The two concepts belong under the general concept of superposition, which is commonly stated as this:

For some xy plane of a 2D wave, for some two waves that meet at any point in the plane, the superposition resulting is the sum of the individual y displacements of the two waves. If this results in a larger peak or trough of the wave, this is said to be constructive, if the sum displacement decreases the sum amplitude (called cancellation) the interference is said to be destructive. Diffraction and interference tend to go together because when waves diffract through gaps, the sum components interfere on the other side, producing an interference pattern

 

The wavefunction of the diffraction beam is described as follows. The structure factor describes electron scattering on the back of the plate as F, such that:

F=Σife-2(pi)igr

We should then note that beam intensity is equal to the modulus of the square of the wavefunction (we employ the modulus here because we are solely concerned with magnitude. Since the wavefunction is said to be a nonreal answer (which means it is given in terms of complex numbers, which have an imaginary part) it isn't meaningful to refer to real valued answers with respect to the value of the wavefunction. We must talk about the modulus. Hence:

I=/ψ/2

Here, obviously /x/ is a crude approximation of modulus.

According to Heisenberg: L=h/p

This describes the wavelength of the electrons.

The wavelength of electrons can be measured by analyzing the slit interference pattern. They indicate de Broglie was correct, as was Heisenberg, electrons diffract. Particles don't. Diffraction is a property of waves.

Returning to the previous point, the firing of electrons through the slits can produce distinct patterns. The first is interference, as shown:

This results from the wave property of electrons. The slits in the diffraction experiment act as the diffraction grating. The slit-interference pattern on the double split indicates a wave property. An interference pattern indicates a wave. 

Quote:

Oh please, anybody can get lucky. Even if QM got a couple of things right it doesn't follow that the theory is correct,

...

Bohr's model is wrong because electron movement "can be described" by your theory? I'm not sure I see the problem here. Anything "can be described" as anything else.

 This is not a discussion of getting "lucky", this is not a discussion about "getting a few things right". This is a discussion about a set of mathematical descriptions of reality that have gotten everything right, everything perfectly described, everything empirically verified and everything to an accuracy far greater than any other field of science. If you were to use an electron gun to perform a double slit experiment, you would be able to predict perfectly the positions of electron contact with the plate, but more importantly, when electrons are fired in a single file through the slit, the order in which they enter is completely random. There is no way to tell the path taken by the electron. This is so heavily verified there is no dispute about it. When the gun is tuned to fire electrons one at a time, the interference pattern is that which would appear if multiple electrons had been fired simultaneously, because of electron diffraction. Electrons can be described as waves. In this, there is no room for rational doubt. If you can consider two slits in front of a mounted polarized plate where the guns fire through the slits, the electrons do not impact around the edges of the slit, as would be the case if they were particles. You can clearly see electrons diffract, there is no room for doubting

 The fact that electrons have wave-properties has been known for 80 years. However, a more important feature of path dependance of electrons was demonstrated with sensitive lab equipment. If we fire electrons in burst, the diffraction pattern is accounted for as similar to a macroscopic diffraction grating, like with a water wave, or a light wave:

The interference pattern created by the electrons being fired across the slits indicated to the physicists performing the experiment that the electrons were interfering with each other to create superposition as well as diffraction. Later in the century, the apparatus was developed to perform the same experiment with single electrons being fired through the gun, and...the same thing happens. Interference patterns result. So, as has been verified countless times, this indicates that the electron is interfering with itself, which means it is going through both slits at the same time (electron path dependance). By way, electrons aren't the only things that diffract and interfere. Protons do too. And neutrons. And atoms. Even large molecules like bucky balls can diffract, which is kind of cool when you think about it, given that a bucky ball is about 7 orders of magnitude bigger than an electron.

Quote:

You're darn right it's not predicted by Bohr! It's baloney!

It's not. It's heavily empirically demonstrated. Here's a hypothetical wavefunction in a quantum system:

This wavefunction describes the quantum state. However, this is only a portion of the wavefunction, albeit by far most of the probability space. Electron tunnelling across a barrier can be predicted by knowing the quantum state of the system. It is worthy of note that as h-bar tends to zero, so does the transmission coefficient, which is why bigger objects like you or me, don't tunnel.

The process of tunnelling, of course, does not only apply to electrons. It also applies to the nucleus, which is the basis of radioactive decay. Electron tunnelling, in fact is used all the time (such as in tunnelling microscopy and in the plane of the mitochondrial membrane in the transfer of electrons between the electron carrier groups of the oxido-reductase system of the mitochondria's ATPase system.

Quote:

 

The slit pattern is explained by electrons being normal electrons.

The electron can behave as both depending on the observation of the electron crossing the slit. It can diffract in a wave pattern, or in a particle pattern. You probably will object to this but since it has been so heavily empirically verified that this would be a waste of time.

Quote:

ince electrons are inherently bouncy, they can obviously appear to strike more than one place while in fact bouncing between several places. This can be confirmed by highly sensitive equipment, which, when we get it, will detect slight differences in arrival time and vindicate Bohr once and for all

Have you ever bothered to study properties of particles or the experiments verifying the terms under discussion? Electrons are fired from the gun at high velocity through the slit. The acceleration potential is a reasonable fraction of c depending on the pd. being used. In a cathode ray tube, thermal emission of electrons via a filament causes their striking a phosphorous screen, like so:

If Bohr's model was correct, electrons would behave in a slit-diffraction gap in the exact same manner as they do in a cathode ray tube. In a tube, they As I have already pointed out, interference patterns are created by single electrons. This alone refutes your hypothesis. The guns we use for the slit experiments are so finely tuned they can fire single electrons through the slits. The screen behind the mounted slits captures electrons. Do you really think that the original founders of QM didn't think of this before you did? The double split experiments are designed in such a way that the electron is captured the moment it reaches the screen. At any rate, bouncing electrons would produce chaotic patterns, not interference patterns. The interference patterns created by the double split experiments are a form of diffraction and superposition which is mathematically directly explained by Schrodinger's equations. Whereas I can outline precisely every single measure used to rule out the alternatives you propose, you continue to vaguely defer to "sensitive measuring devices". We don't need "more sensitive measuring" devices to confirm or refute the idea that the patterns of diffraction are caused by bouncing electrons. All we have to do is point out that the patterns of electron distribution are diffraction patterns that result in superposition. Only waves diffract, ergo electrons are waves.

Because electrons are accelerated through the slit at near light speed, and they are captured upon impacting the mounted screen, this immediately rules out your "bounciness" hypothesis. Imagine firing bullets through slits in a wall into a wooden frame. Like I said, the founders of quantum mechanics considered the possibility you put forth, and they refuted it. According to Schrodinger, when you remove a single slit, the electrons should resume a particle-like pattern (like firing bullets) instead of a diffraction pattern. When there are two slits, electrons interfere and cause diffraction. Schrodinger was exactly right. When you take one slit away, the electrons pass through the gun and hit the back like bullets, just like Bohr would have predicted with his model. When you put two in, they have the properties of a wave even if only one electron is fired. Thus electrons have the property of wave-particle duality. There is no way around this. There is no rational room for denying it. It is one of the most heavily verified principles in science.

Quote:

An electron has a specific position and velocity, and it does not leap from place to place without cause.

Yes it does. We can watch it do so.

Quote:

If the rest of your arguments against Bohr are this poor I'll have no need of them

I was being sarcastic. I think now may be the best time for you to shut your arrogant mouth. Up until this point I have been perfectly civil despite the fact that I could have easily abandoned that and mocked you endlessly for knowing nothing about basic physics and not having the first clue about the mathematics being discussed. You have humiliated yourself endlessly by saying the most ridiculous things and demonstrating remarkable confidence for someone with a remarkable lack of expertise. In other words, even though I have been perfectly entitled to mock you, I have not. You have mocked me. So at this point I will abandon civility and tell you bluntly that you know nothing of basic mathematics or physics (the bounciness of electrons). You know no basic quantum mechanics, yet you talk with the grandiose confidence of an expert. You have put no effort into this subject. You have not made the slightest attempt to learn the immensely complex mathematics behind modern physics. Do you know, for example, what the Schrodinger equation is? Do you know how to integrate probability spaces, employ complex pseudovectors, write eigenfunctions for quantum states, etc. ad infinitium? 

Lastly, could you stop charging me with "postmodernism", whatever that means? I hate postmodernism. Quantum mechanics is a highly rigorous, heavily verified, very, very accurate discipline of physics. It has nothing to do with postmodernism.

Returning to the weary point that electron orbitals are not quantized as Bohr stated. We have already demonstrated countless times that electron sub-orbitals are probability spaces describing two electrons due to Pauli exclusion. We have observed electrons tunnel, disappear, reappear, diffract, exist in multiple places, all in ways whose quantum states are perfectly predicted by the Schrodinger equation and its derivations. Electrons are not point charges that orbit a center of postive charge.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

Since electrons are inherently bouncy, they can obviously appear to strike more than one place while in fact bouncing between several places.

This can be confirmed by highly sensitive equipment, which, when we get it, will detect slight differences in arrival time and vindicate Bohr once and for all. Though much maligned, Bohr prevails as always.

More sensitive equipment isn't needed to test your 'bounciness' theory Presupp. You only need to take away one slit from the two slit experiment and it will become obvious that you're wrong. The scatter just won't do what it needs to do to support your hypothesis, surely you don't entertain the notion that nobody has ever tried to rule that out before.

 

Quote:
The slit pattern is explained by electrons being normal electrons.

Indeed, normal electrons are a field of probabilistically distributed potentials.

 

Quote:

Bohr's model is wrong because electron movement "can be described" by your theory? I'm not sure I see the problem here.

Was it too subtle for you when DG explained, electron movement cannot be described by the Bohr model, this is clearly something that Schrodinger has over Bohr, wouldn't ya think?

Presupp, since you seem to have ignored everything I've posted for quite some time now I don't expect a response to this but I'm going to say anyway. You say your problem with the schrodinger equation describing reality is that it insults your sensibilities. You argue that the wave hypothesis contradicts identity law, but I think your real problem is that it promotes relative identity because that undermines your predetermined concept of Lord on HIGH overseer implying, no less, God decomposing under your toenails and you can't stand the idea. 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Hey Presup,As Grant said to

Hey Presup,

As Grant said to Lee at Appomattox, "You give up?"

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Hey Presup,As

jcgadfly wrote:

Hey Presup,

As Grant said to Lee at Appomattox, "You give up?"

Here here. I myself wonder how Presup would explain the behavior of the Mach-Zehnder Interferometer (brief: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach-Zehnder_interferometer), which to my knowledge can only be described in terms of complex Hilbert space and not as a series of vectors as would be implied by the more Newtonian model.

In this case, does the photon bounce back through the mirrors, collide with its alternate self, and affect its own probability of diffraction for no other reason than to make sure to follow some arbitrary rule? A similar device can be constructed using the spin states of electrons, rather than a photon's direction of travel. How then, brown Ben?


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The bounciness of

Quote:
The bounciness of electrons? Particles don't have "bounciness". There is no "illusion" of diffraction.
 

Aha! But if it was an illusion, you would not know it was an illusion, so you can't say there is NO illusion. QED.

And yes, particles obviously are bouncy. We see light bouncing off of things all the time. If your model does not accomodate this, I think we now know whose is superior.

Quote:
Do you even know what diffraction is? Since you obviously don't, I shall tell you. Diffraction is an effect observed when waves pass through a gap in a boundary, this results in something called a diffraction pattern. Different waves diffract with respect to boundaries in different ways. Light has very little diffraction, sound, by contrast, is heavily diffracted. This is why

"This is why" what?

Anyway, I know precisely what diffraction is and I believe that with respect to electrons it is an illusion caused by the law of bounciness of electrons, or LBE. I have explained all of this before, and you have not acknowledged it, while I have addressed each point in your posts. DG, to be frank, I am becoming frustrated with this exchange. If you continue to choose not to express an understanding of my positions I shall have to end our discussion.

Quote:
Additionally, I don't think you understand precisely what an interference pattern is, so I shall tell you. Interference occurs when two waves meet. There are two possibilities under consideration here. The two concepts belong under the general concept of superposition, which is commonly stated as this

 This is not a discussion of getting "lucky", this is not a discussion about "getting a few things right". This is a discussion about a set of mathematical descriptions of reality that have gotten everything right, everything perfectly described, everything empirically verified and everything to an accuracy far greater than any other field of science.

You said this already. Look, if I postulated a magical ghost who moves things around, and deduced a few things that happened to be true from properties that I ascribed to this ghost, I would not have warrant to believe in the ghost. You can get a few things right by sheer luck if your initial premises are of the proper sort. What I am saying is you may have stumbled onto formulas that get things right by luck but will eventually lead you wrong.

Quote:

The interference pattern created by the electrons being fired across the slits indicated to the physicists performing the experiment that the electrons were interfering with each other to create superposition as well as diffraction. Later in the century, the apparatus was developed to perform the same experiment with single electrons being fired through the gun, and...the same thing happens. Interference patterns result. So, as has been verified countless times, this indicates that the electron is interfering with itself, 

Stop right there. Look, for the billionth time: A thing cannot have two positions at the same time, ergo a thing cannot collide with itself. You keep denying the laws of logic to support your theories.

Quote:

It's not. It's heavily empirically demonstrated. Here's a hypothetical wavefunction in a quantum system:

<snip picture>

This wavefunction describes the quantum state. However, this is only a portion of the wavefunction, albeit by far most of the probability space. Electron tunnelling across a barrier can be predicted by knowing the quantum state of the system. It is worthy of note that as h-bar tends to zero, so does the transmission coefficient, which is why bigger objects like you or me, don't tunnel.

There are 4 problems here.

#1: For a quantum state to be described, the quantum state would have to have an identity, but you deny that these things have set identities, ergo you contradict yourself. #2: A function cannot have a portion, since a function describes a relationship between two variables with an input and output, ergo if it is truncated (or partitioned) some part must be omitted, thereby disabling the function. It either is a function, or it is not. This is the law of noncontradiction, which you must deny again to support your theory. #3: A system as a whole cannot have a "state", since a state is a property of an individual, and a system is a conglomeration of individuals. #4: Large objects obviously can tunnel, as exhibited by moles and construction equipment daily. Words have meaning, and you cannot so easily separate the concept of "tunneling" from its referents. You deny the identity of words, the laws of logic, and the nature of man's mind to support your theory.

Quote:

The electron can behave as both depending on the observation of the electron crossing the slit. It can diffract in a wave pattern, or in a particle pattern. You probably will object to this but since it has been so heavily empirically verified that this would be a waste of time.

I doubt that very much. A thing is either a thing OR a wave, not both. This is obvious from the most cursory examination of reality: waves are relationships between multiple things, and hence cannot BE things. You keep hitting this wall. Reality will not go away, so you must actually fit your reasonings within it.

Quote:
Have you ever bothered to study properties of particles or the experiments verifying the terms under discussion?

Yes, as should be clear by now and as is evidenced throughout our correspondance.

Quote:
If Bohr's model was correct, electrons would behave in a slit-diffraction gap in the exact same manner as they do in a cathode ray tube. In a tube, they As I have already pointed out, interference patterns are created by single electrons. This alone refutes your hypothesis. The guns we use for the slit experiments are so finely tuned they can fire single electrons through the slits. The screen behind the mounted slits captures electrons. Do you really think that the original founders of QM didn't think of this before you did?
 

I do not have a responsibility to explain the thought processes of the enemies of reason.

Quote:
The double split experiments are designed in such a way that the electron is captured the moment it reaches the screen.
 

Obviously not, or they wouldn't bounce.

Quote:
At any rate, bouncing electrons would produce chaotic patterns, not interference patterns.

Bouncing is an orderly process, my friend, when governed by the Newtonian mechanic. You naturally deny any semblance of order. Your lack of confidence in reality is striking.

Quote:
 The interference patterns created by the double split experiments are a form of diffraction and superposition which is mathematically directly explained by Schrodinger's equations. Whereas I can outline precisely every single measure used to rule out the alternatives you propose, you continue to vaguely defer to "sensitive measuring devices". We don't need "more sensitive measuring" devices to confirm or refute the idea that the patterns of diffraction are caused by bouncing electrons. All we have to do is point out that the patterns of electron distribution are diffraction patterns that result in superposition. Only waves diffract, ergo electrons are waves.

No, because the diffraction is wholly illusory, caused by the bouncing of electrons. Only more sensitive equipment will be able to confirm my model.

Quote:
Because electrons are accelerated through the slit at near light speed, and they are captured upon impacting the mounted screen, this immediately rules out your "bounciness" hypothesis. Imagine firing bullets through slits in a wall into a wooden frame.

Light bounces, dude. Since LIGHT bounces, obviously things can bounce at the speed of LIGHT. This is what permits you to see stuff, so I am somewhat surprised that you forgot.

Quote:
 Like I said, the founders of quantum mechanics considered the possibility you put forth, and they refuted it. According to Schrodinger, when you remove a single slit, the electrons should resume a particle-like pattern (like firing bullets) instead of a diffraction pattern. When there are two slits, electrons interfere and cause diffraction. Schrodinger was exactly right. When you take one slit away, the electrons pass through the gun and hit the back like bullets, just like Bohr would have predicted with his model. When you put two in, they have the properties of a wave even if only one electron is fired. Thus electrons have the property of wave-particle duality. There is no way around this. There is no rational room for denying it. It is one of the most heavily verified principles in science.

Argument from assertion.

Quote:

Yes it does. We can watch it do so.

Well if you want to play that game: Nuh-uh! No you caint!

Quote:

I was being sarcastic. I think now may be the best time for you to shut your arrogant mouth. Up until this point I have been perfectly civil despite the fact that I could have easily abandoned that and mocked you endlessly for knowing nothing about basic physics and not having the first clue about the mathematics being discussed.

I seem to recall things differently. *ahem.*

"...you have missed out on everything in physics from 1927 onwards."

 

"These are comments that could come only from people like yourself, not versed in the most basic physics."

 

"The idea that somehow these highly sensitive and extremely accurate and powerful experiments have anything to do with "postmodernism" is the height of ignorant nonsense."

I, on the other hand, have been nothing but respectful. Perhaps your perception of my posts is more reflective of your philosophic insecurities than my tone.

Quote:
Lastly, could you stop charging me with "postmodernism", whatever that means? I hate postmodernism. Quantum mechanics is a highly rigorous, heavily verified, very, very accurate discipline of physics. It has nothing to do with postmodernism.

It is very heavily postmodern. Heidegger himself was very heavily influenced by postmodern thought, and the theory is the basis of every major attack on reason in the last fifty years.

Quote:
Returning to the weary point that electron orbitals are not quantized as Bohr stated. We have already demonstrated countless times that electron sub-orbitals are probability spaces describing two electrons due to Pauli exclusion. We have observed electrons tunnel, disappear, reappear, diffract, exist in multiple places, all in ways whose quantum states are perfectly predicted by the Schrodinger equation and its derivations. Electrons are not point charges that orbit a center of postive charge.

I think I have addressed each of those arguments already.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
inspectormustard wrote:In

inspectormustard wrote:

In this case, does the photon bounce back through the mirrors, collide with its alternate self, and affect its own probability of diffraction for no other reason than to make sure to follow some arbitrary rule? A similar device can be constructed using the spin states of electrons, rather than a photon's direction of travel. How then, brown Ben?

Yes, precisely, and we have to figure out why rather than asserting random acausalities.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Who's saying

Eloise wrote:

Who's saying otherwise? Honestly, Presupp, you must get to know the real science, there's no saying that different laws govern different magnitudes of matter, it's all governed by the same laws it's just the computational power and algorithms required to calculate the very large from the very tiny are ever so slightly beyond reach right now. **Granted that if we discovered them tomorrow then the very large might look rather fantastically different to what we've become accustomed to, however, it's pretty much assured that the laws of relative objects will still work within that framework for certain purposes.

But there IS a de facto refusal to treat the large and small the same.

Quote:
As for your being precious about the erstwhile conclusions and axioms of logic, you should know it makes you a hypocrite for claiming that naturalism doesn't hold consistent with it's presuppositions. If 'God controls all things in the universe" is your presupposition then your God cannot function under those logical laws as even the most pedestrian logical syllogisms regarding the characteristics of the Christian theistic deity will demonstrate easily. You're being inconsistent to be precious over what uniformity your "god" must ultimately adhere to.

So bring it on. Name one of these alleged syllogisms.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Presupp, since

Eloise wrote:

Presupp, since you seem to have ignored everything I've posted for quite some time now I don't expect a response to this but I'm going to say anyway. You say your problem with the schrodinger equation describing reality is that it insults your sensibilities. You argue that the wave hypothesis contradicts identity law, but I think your real problem is that it promotes relative identity because that undermines your predetermined concept of Lord on HIGH overseer implying, no less, God decomposing under your toenails and you can't stand the idea. 

This is what passes for argument here? Look Freud, I don't want to hear about my mother's influence on my subconscious love of peanut butter. I want to see arguments.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
You've just repeated

You've just repeated everything you stated in the previous post.

As I said before, and will say over and over again:

-Electrons are captured by the screen the moment they impact it. They cannot rebound and impact the screen a second time

-Removing one slit causes a particle pattern without diffraction. If the electrons bounced, and this was responsible for diffraction as an illusion, then we would see a diffraction pattern regardless of the presence of a second slit.

-Did you even read the piece on diffraction? What don't you understand about the fact that your bounciness assertion has been ruled out? Take one slit away, and the particles impact with the back of the screen like bullets.

-When particles are accelerated at near c towards the mounted screen, they are captured immediately, like in a Cathode ray tube. Again, for the seventh time, the acceleration of electrons towards the screen is like firing a bullet. That's what electron guns do.

Quote:

Obviously not, or they wouldn't bounce.

Don't you get it? You keep deferring to bouncing as ad hoc. You are reasoning in a circle. You presume the electrons must bounce, and so if we rule it out, there must be something wrong with the equipment, not the hypothesis. There is nothing wrong with our equipment. I'll say it again: If we take away one slit, the electrons form a particle pattern of impact. They do not bounce. If electron bouncing created the illusion of diffraction, then it would do so regardless of other slits in the experiment.

-Bouncing cannot create a diffraction. Diffraction patterns result from waves transmitting through a boundary, as outlined below, the pattern is so distinct it cannot be confused for anything else.

-Additionally, single electrons fired at the slit still produce superposition. As I said before, if a single electron is fired in a single slit, then a single point of impact is registered. If a single electron is fired and there are two slits, a diffraction pattern results. Diffraction patterns cannot be caused by rebounding particles.

Quote:

Light bounces, dude. Since LIGHT bounces, obviously things can bounce at the speed of LIGHT. This is what permits you to see stuff, so I am somewhat surprised that you forgot.

The proper term is reflect. Light reflects. Like all waves, light reflects when it meets a particular boundary. However,you forget that not all boundaries induce light reflection. Some induce absorption, depending on the wavelength, which is the basis of color. This is so simple I am surprised you forget. Indeed, this is the basis of the Bohr model so I am even more surprised you forgot it. But since you didn't actually know the postulates of Bohr's model I suppose we cannot be too surprised. According to Bohr, electron promotion by energy input to a particular next quantized orbital can only be induced by the correct energy input. Thus for example, for some orbital n, if the difference in energy with n+1 is 3eV, then the energy input into the system to induce the excitation of the electron must be exactly 3eV. This is why particular surfaces reflect and absorb various wavelengths. Schrodinger also points out this principle, since the probability spaces described by VSEPR form sub-orbitals which are the basis of orbitals (albeit not quantized orbitals. That was where Bohr was wrong. He admitted the error and became a staunch defender of QM).  Electrons, as I said, are absorbed into the mounted screen and captured, just like in a cathode ray tube. The plate upon which the slit is mounted in front of is absorptive. Electrons will not reflect off it.

Quote:

Only more sensitive equipment will be able to confirm my model.

More sensitive equipment? Like what? We have electron guns that fire single electrons and produce the described effect. What could possibly be more sensitive than that?

Quote:

Argument from assertion.

That's ridiculous. Have you ever researched double slit experiments? Have you ever performed or watched them being done? You can set up your own double slit experiments using photons if you want, with a photographic plate. See what happens.

EDIT: I think this is a reasonable request. I do not think you should respond until you have performed the experiment yourself. I've done it with both light and electrons, although I don't know if you have access to an electron gun (I do), but even if you didn't, you can demonstrate identical behavior with photons. So, do it yourself, or don't come back, because you clearly know nothing about the experiment. Considering that this experiment is central to QM, your ignorance is totally inexcusable.

I am telling you precisely what happens in a double slit experiment, verified countless times, and you dismiss it as being "argument from assertion". It is clear that you are being ad hoc and deferring to your explanation despite its having been proven false, and then trying to pin it on equipment flaws. There are no flaws in the equipment. Electrons are captured immediately. The rebounding of electrons off the back plate is not permitted. The guns fire single electrons, the pattern which I described results. You cannot get more accurate, or more precise, than modern double slit experiments, which can time impact within femtoseconds and can fire single electrons. This debate is over. The effects observed are still there. The possibility that particle-like electrons are rebounding to cause diffraction pattern has been eliminated. Electrons can readily interchange between behaving as particles and waves. They can diffract and superimpose on each other and on themselves, as can photons (demonstrated by Mach-Zehnder interferometers). You cannot dismiss the results of these experiments. The founders of QM were very suprised too, as you can imagine, and tried every concievable mechanism to refute the results or to make them fit with the view that electrons are particles. Einstein put forth the electron in the box thought experiment to refute the idea of wavicle duality but he was refuted by Bohr who pointed out that he (Einstein) had forgotten to take Relativitistic kinematics into account.

Quote:

Bouncing is an orderly process, my friend, when governed by the Newtonian mechanic.

Yes it is. But it produces a very different effect from diffraction. If we allowed an electron to bounce across a reflective screen, we would see a distinct dispersal pattern, like the marks left by squash balls in a squash court. The points of impact left by the ricochet would be all over the screen. As I said before, the effect produced by electron diffraction is distinct.

PS: Since the acceleration is close to c, electron motion from the gun is actually described by Relativity, not Newtonian mechanics. Newtonian mechanics would be unable to explain the the acceleration of the electron out of the gun, since it does not obey Newton's laws.

If we mounted a slit in front of the screen and allowed a wave to transmit through the boundary, we would get a pattern very much unlike that described above. Diffraction patterns are quite different to impact patterns producing by ricocheting particles. For light diffraction, there is inverse proportionality between distance of diffraction from the slit, and the intensity. Similar descriptions hold for electrons. This cannot be produced by bouncing. As I already said before, and will say again the wavefunction explains this perfectly:

We should then note that beam intensity is equal to the modulus of the square of the wavefunction (we employ the modulus here because we are solely concerned with magnitude. Since the wavefunction is said to be a nonreal answer (which means it is given in terms of complex numbers, which have an imaginary part) it isn't meaningful to refer to real valued answers with respect to the value of the wavefunction. We must talk about the modulus. Hence:

I=/ψ/2

Hence. given that the intensity is the square of the modulus of the wavefunction, we see a pattern of diffraction that is not the same as the pattern which would be produced by bouncing. Firstly, as the slit widens, the pattern is destroyed. If the electrons ricocheted across the mounted screen, this would not be observed. If one of two slit is removed, the pattern is destroyed. Again, this would not be observed under your proposal. This is all irrelevant anyway since the mounted screen captures the electrons. Once the screen captures electrons, they lose the kinetic energy gained by the gun acceleration, so they wouldn't rebound, similar to a cathode ray tube. Finally, intensity is inversely proportional to distance from the slit (as you can see from the formula). This again, indicates a wave.

Imagine a steel wall with a gap in it mounted in front of a second steel wall. Imagine you fire a gun through the slit and allow the bullet to ricochet around. What do you expect to find in terms of impact? Now consider firing bullets through a gap into a second mounted wall made of wood. What do you expect to find in the latter case? Bullets embed in wood, so you will find a dispersal pattern consistent with firing bullets through the gap. Electron gun firing is analogous to the second scenario, in that the mounted screen captures electrons. However, as I said before, with two slits, you see diffraction, a very distinct and recognizable pattern indicating wave-properties, even with only one electron.

 

Quote:

Large objects obviously can tunnel, as exhibited by moles

I laughed so hard I almost choked when I read this. Do you know what tunnelling means in the context of quantum mechanics? When a mole tunnels, they are merely displacing dirt, when an electron tunnels, it directly violates a law of classical mechanics by penetrating a barrier with a higher impedance than the kinetic energy of the particle. Two distinct concepts. Don't confuse them.

A common example of tunnelling in the quantum sense is employed in the oxido-reductase system that transfers electrons from NADH to O2 to generate ATP in the plane of the inner membrane of the mitochondria. The system has four large components:

The protein components each contain the electron carrier groups that allow for electron transfer between a set of precisely positioned faces of the polypeptide chains which hold the electron carrier groups. The reduction potentials of the groups are such that the affinity for electrons increases through the chain (or, in more technical, there is a drop in reduction potential). This ensures no short-circuiting can occur, since the energy of the electron downgrades with each transfer because it is mechanochemically coupled to the pumping of protons out of the mitochondrial matrix, which is an energetically unfavorable conformation change in the protein. Because of this, electrons need to "jump" between a carrier group and the next in a manner which is not possible under classical particle descriptions of electron motion. The two most common carrier groups are heme and iron-sulfur centers. The electrons jump between the carrier groups, from one to the next in a unidirectional fashion just described. The Oxido-reductase system would not function if it were not for the ability of the electrons to tunnel. There are other similar examples (radiation is a form of tunnelling, albeit of protons and neutrons). This is not possible under the classical model of nuclear binding. You can do the math yourself and find out how much energy is needed for an He4 to escape from a large nucleus.

You can do the math yourself and prove it. Just use the formula ∆E=c^2∆m, but be sure to use SI units or you will get confused. Remember that c^2=9x10^16ms^-1 and the kinetic energy of an escaped alpha particle is 5.84 MeV, and that the factor of conversion between eV and J is 1.6x10^-19, and that the conversion between amu and kg is 1.66053878x10^-27 kg.

There, I've just provided you with all the data to prove that an alpha particle emitted from the nucleus directly violates a law of classical physics overcoming the kinetic energy barrier confining it to the nucleus, and that this is therefore by definition an example of tunnelling. Gamow pointed this out first, since if you calculate correctly, you should realize alpha particles are confined to the nucleus by a potential well and therefore do not escape by classical means of overcoming a kinetic energy barrier. Once outside the potential well, the nucleus exerts great force on the particle due to repelling charge which causes it to move at a speed of approximately 1.5x10^4ms^-1. However, until then it is trapped. However, if you do the mathematics correctly using the Schrodinger equation for prediction of the transmission coefficient, you should find that the probability of a helium nucleus tunnelling out corresponds to the rate of decay depending on the isotope stability (which is determined by the proton/neutron ratio). Thus a helium nucleus directly violates a law of mechanics, at least classical mechanics, and overcomes a kinetic energy impedence. This is not a violation of conservation of energy, since the total energy remains unchanged when the alpha particle exits the nucleus, it is however, a violation of the classical principle of activation energy. It can only be explained under QM.

Naturally, I expect you to confirm this for yourself, although the mathematics behind quantum tunnelling are highly intricate, since you are an expert on this subject, that should not be a problem.

To prove this to yourself, I suggest you choose several isotopes, calculate the potential wells.  The V on the x axis refers to the hill potential.

For this you must calculate the turning points of the kinetic energy barriers if considered under classical mechanics. The turning points, you will find, are those points where the gradient of the function are zero. Once that is done, you can consider finding the coefficient predicted by quantum tunnelling. You can refer to the graph, but first you must find V which. For accuracy, however, to find T I suggest this equation use this equation:

T = {e^{-2/int_{x_1}^{x_2} dx /sqrt{{2m}/{hbar^2} / V(x) - E )}}}/{ 1 + {1}/{4} e^{-2/int_{x_1}^{x_2} dx /sqrt/{2m)

Check your calculations and come back to me. You should find that radiation is impossible under your description, but predicted with perfection by Gamow and Schrodinger. If the above is impenetrable to you, I offer you the following help:

T=Transmission coefficient

e=exponential factor

int=integral

The bound integral is expressed as int_x_1^x_2. This means the bound integral between x1 and x2, where x1 and x2 are the turning points of the potential hill.

sqrt=square root

V(x)=potential hill

m=mass

hbar=Reduced Planck's constant (or if you prefer: Fermi-Dirac constant)

You should note that a potential hill is the opposite of a potential well. A potential well is the problem faced by an alpha particle in a large nucleus. The potential well is the area surrounding an area of minimum energy. If a body is said to be "trapped" in a potential well then it cannot convert its potential energy to another form (usually kinetic). Once an alpha particle has escaped, it is outside the potential well and it is highly energetically favorable for the energy to be converted to kinetic energy. A potential hill is the opposite. It is the area surrounding a local maxima of potential energy. On one side of the barrier, a particle is said to be in a well and on the other it is said to be  on a hill. The values for the hill and the well potentials you need to calculate using mass-energy equivalence. Once done, you can find T and then you can compare the probability of tunnelling to the rate of decay for that isotope and see how they match. Since I've done these calculations myself, I can tell you they do. Prove it to yourself, I've given you all the tools.

Quote:

A thing cannot have two positions at the same time, ergo a thing cannot collide with itself

Well, electrons do, so do photons (evidenced by Mach-Zehnder interferometers). At any rate, electrons are not particles. Your assertion would certainly be true if they were, but they are not. Electrons have wave properties.

Quote:

For a quantum state to be described, the quantum state would have to have an identity, but you deny that these things have set identities, ergo you contradict yourself

Like I said, that depends on how you treat wavefunction collapse. It depends on the interpretation of QM being taken. Right now, I remind you, we are arguing about whether electron orbitals are quantized. As I have said before, they are not. According to some quantum physicists, there is no such thing as a wavefunction beyond a mere description of an electron, whereas others like de Broglie state that a wavefunction is a real property of an electron.

PS: Every time you talk about "vindicating Bohr" you shoot yourself in the foot as Bohr was one of the lead proponents of QM. The staunch opponent of QM was Einstein, at least until Bohr refuted him with the electron in a box thought experiment.

Quote:

A function cannot have a portion, since a function describes a relationship between two variables with an input and output, ergo if it is truncated (or partitioned) some part must be omitted, thereby disabling the function

Somebody needs a little mathematical tutorial. Do you know what a complex number is? A complex has a real and imaginary component. An imaginary components refers to a second axis on what used to be called (about 500 years ago) the number line and is now called the number plane. The imaginary unit, i is simply defined as r(-1). Thus a complex number, for example, is 4i+7. In this case, the real component refers to 7. A nonreal answer is said to be a function which delivers an output which has an imaginary component. However, when you square an imaginary unit, the nonreal component disappears. That is why we refer to the square of the modulus of the wavefunction. This is because i2=-1, which is a real-valued answer.

EDIT

It appears someone needs two math tutorials. Wavefunctions are generalized in complex space. The square of the wavefunction refers to the probability density of a particular space with respect to the electron. Thus, in referring to a part of the function, we do not mean a mathematical component of the function in the sense of a "truncated" function (in this case the Schrodinger equation), rather we mean a bind on the range, describing a particular component of the probability space as opposed to the entire probability space. The function is identical, but when we say a "part" of the output we refer to a bind on the range. Since you are an expert on this subject, you presumably know that within complex space, there is a surjection map between the complex Hilbert space under description and complex numbers (which is the codomain, the range being probability amplitudes). A bind on the range of the probability function will not retain the property of surjection mapping, thus will not describe the whole probability space. That is the only difference.

So that you do not get confused:

Wavefunction:

Domain=Possible quantum states in Hilbert Space

Range=probability amplitude values

Codomain=Complex numbers

Wavefunction squared:

Domain=Possible quantum states in Hilbert states

Range=Probability density values

Codomain=Real numbers

Probability density in quantum mechanics is said to be normalizable. This means the sum probabilities of the particle occupying a particular real space must be 1. Thus, when we talk about normalization of a wave-function, we refer to the fact that under a bound integral, the probability of the electron occupying the space being talked about will be less than one. According to some, the probability space for an electron is the entire universe and therefore to normalize a wavefunction, we must place no restrictions whatsoever on the space it could occupy at any given time. This is what I mean when I say "part" of the function. I mean (and it should be obvious when you think about it) part of the range.

 

Quote:

system as a whole cannot have a "state", since a state is a property of an individual, and a system is a conglomeration of individuals

It appears someone needs a little physics tutorial too. Do you know what a quantum state is? In physics, a "state" is a property of a system. In thermodynamics we refer to macroscopic states and microscopic states. In QM, a quantum state refers to complete mathematical description of any multi-vector quantum system. Please stop conflating simple everyday terminology with that terminology used in physics, or you will continue to look ridiculous.

Lastly, do not tell me you have been perfectly respectful. It is nothing but the height of arrogance to talk with the authority of an expert on a subject you have never studied, to dismiss quantum mechanics when you would be unable to recognize wavefunction equations, integrate probability spaces, generalize complex vectors, or interpret a Feynmann diagram. It is the height of arrogance to talk like this when it is clear you are unfamiliar with basic terms like complex number, tunnelling, quantum state, eigenvalue, fine structure constant, Hilbert space, etc. etc.. All these terms and concepts have thus far cropped up and are pertinent to the discussion. So what makes you think you can hold such a discussion without knowing them? It is the height of arrogance to talk with grandiose confidence about Bohr's model when I had to tell you Bohr's postulates. So, please, do not tell me you have been perfectly respectful.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Who's saying otherwise? Honestly, Presupp, you must get to know the real science, there's no saying that different laws govern different magnitudes of matter, it's all governed by the same laws it's just the computational power and algorithms required to calculate the very large from the very tiny are ever so slightly beyond reach right now. **Granted that if we discovered them tomorrow then the very large might look rather fantastically different to what we've become accustomed to, however, it's pretty much assured that the laws of relative objects will still work within that framework for certain purposes.

But there IS a de facto refusal to treat the large and small the same.

It's not so much a refusal as a shrewd application of good old fashioned patience. Everyone and their dog wants to do it, but you can't allow that desire to get away with you and expect to produce good science.

 

Presuppositionalist wrote:

Quote:
As for your being precious about the erstwhile conclusions and axioms of logic, you should know it makes you a hypocrite for claiming that naturalism doesn't hold consistent with it's presuppositions. If 'God controls all things in the universe" is your presupposition then your God cannot function under those logical laws as even the most pedestrian logical syllogisms regarding the characteristics of the Christian theistic deity will demonstrate easily. You're being inconsistent to be precious over what uniformity your "god" must ultimately adhere to.

So bring it on. Name one of these alleged syllogisms.

Ke? Don't tell me you haven't heard the one about the rock?

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Presupp, since you seem to have ignored everything I've posted for quite some time now I don't expect a response to this but I'm going to say anyway. You say your problem with the schrodinger equation describing reality is that it insults your sensibilities. You argue that the wave hypothesis contradicts identity law, but I think your real problem is that it promotes relative identity because that undermines your predetermined concept of Lord on HIGH overseer implying, no less, God decomposing under your toenails and you can't stand the idea. 

This is what passes for argument here? Look Freud, I don't want to hear about my mother's influence on my subconscious love of peanut butter. I want to see arguments.

DG is doing a fantastic job of schooling your physics, already. I'm hoping you'll take the time to read through all of his posts cause unlike him I have a habit of jumping to the inference at every turn, so I don't really do textbook accounts and DG does great ones anyway.

Do you have a problem with what relative identity infers about your God, or don't you? I don't care if you answer, as I said. I just like pointing out that God is dirt and impertinently charging other theists with not being able to handle it.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:You've just

deludedgod wrote:

You've just repeated everything you stated in the previous post.

As I said before, and will say over and over again:

-Electrons are captured by the screen the moment they impact it. They cannot rebound and impact the screen a second time

-Removing one slit causes a particle pattern without diffraction. If the electrons bounced, and this was responsible for diffraction as an illusion, then we would see a diffraction pattern regardless of the presence of a second slit.

-Did you even read the piece on diffraction? What don't you understand about the fact that your bounciness assertion has been ruled out? Take one slit away, and the particles impact with the back of the screen like bullets.

-When particles are accelerated at near c towards the mounted screen, they are captured immediately, like in a Cathode ray tube. Again, for the seventh time, the acceleration of electrons towards the screen is like firing a bullet. That's what electron guns do. blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah

<SNIP OF JUSTICE!!!!>

I have already addressed all of the points in your post. Your arguments are dead. Please do not waste my time.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
You ignored virtually my

You ignored virtually my entire post, you ignored all of my points in the previous post and the ones in this post. You never "adressed" anything, you just deferred back to your bouncing explanation which I just demonstrated false again. Please do not waste my time by walking in and pretending to be an authority in a subject you know nothing about. You didn't even read my entire post.

Quote:

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah

At this point, you are now trolling in the thread. Please don't troll. It's against forum rules.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Do you have a

Eloise wrote:

Do you have a problem with what relative identity infers about your God, or don't you? I don't care if you answer, as I said. I just like pointing out that God is dirt and impertinently charging other theists with not being able to handle it.

No, God obviously exists. I have no problem with relative identity's (or any other sort of identity's) implications for God.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:You ignored

deludedgod wrote:

You ignored virtually my entire post, you ignored all of my points in the previous post and the ones in this post. You never "adressed" anything, you just deferred back to your bouncing explanation which I just demonstrated false again. Please do not waste my time by walking in and pretending to be an authority in a subject you know nothing about. You didn't even read my entire post.

I read your post. You did not introduce new points.

Quote:

At this point, you are now trolling in the thread. Please don't troll. It's against forum rules.

Apologies.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I read your post. You

Quote:

I read your post. You did not introduce new points.

Yes I did. I introduced quantum tunnelling very precisely and explained completely your misunderstanding of it. I outlined why in every possible way why your hypothesis has been eliminated. I explained the distinct patterns that arise and how they are indicative of diffraction. I explained the experiment is performed and carried out and the multiple ways we use to ensure that the model you put forth is not possible. I corrected your multiple misunderstandings of terms and concepts such as tunneling, function binding, quantum states, etc. I also pointed out that you really didn't adress the points in question when made in the previous post. When I explained that the diffraction pattern is destroyed when one slit is removed (refuting your hypothesis) you dismissed it as "argument from assertion". When I explained how the screen captures electrons, you deferred to ad hoc and said "obviously not, or they wouldn't bounce". Do the experiment yourself and see that I am right! I've done it myself many times so I have no need to prove it to myself further. I've given you all the mathematical and experimental tools to demonstrate these things to yourself (electron tunnelling, wave-particle duality, etc.), so there is no way I'm writing another textbook-style post. Either do the math and the experiments yourself, or don't come back.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
DG has really tried to make

DG has really tried to make this clear to you Presupp, and I admire his tenacity. Now, I'm going to try and simplify this for you as much as I can.

 

Presuppositionalist wrote:

Electrons are things

*Buzz* !Wrong!

Electrons are "things" was a proposition of naturalism, which has been experimentally falsified. If electrons were discrete 'things' they would obey the logical laws that govern discrete objects.

It's relatively easy to test if electrons will act as though that they are discrete objects because it only takes a little energy to make them jump about their orbitals or separate from an atomic nucleus altogether. Given the right conditions you can launch an electron from its orbital like a rocket from a little launch pad and observe what it does in a space gap. The rules that govern its motion, if it is a discrete object, are thoroughly well established and it's easy enough to recognise a result governed by those laws.

However, given enough gaps to play in an electron will refuse to behave as a 'discrete thing'. with the erstwhile success of atomic theory electrons not behaving like discrete objects, sometimes, was, of course, very unexpected and the controls were, naturally, questioned and cross-examined.

As such.. for instance... you can close one of the slits and see plenty of evidence that discrete electron paths 'bouncing or not bouncing' can not accrue diffraction or interference patterns, and you can keep both slits open and detect the electron at the slit to ensure that you know whether it goes through one slit or both, and when you do, again, there is plenty of evidence that discrete electron paths, bouncing or not bouncing, can not accrue diffraction or interference patterns.

Once the controls have been well cross-examined you have one alternative to consider - the proposition was wrong - electrons display a non-discrete nature.

That is where we are with that.

 

Presuppositionalist wrote:

Oh please, anybody can get lucky. Even if QM got a couple of things right it doesn't follow that the theory is correct, especially since it contains contradictions.

A couple of things? I call straw manning! the extensive and extraordinary success of QM is hardly represented by "a couple of things".

In any case, however, of course I can grant you that it doesn't mean the theory is 'correct' it means that there is a strong correlation between the theory and the reality it is describing and when you have this you have much cause to respect the propositions of the theory, regardless of whatever insult those propositions present to your sensibilities.

 

Quote:
An electron has a specific position and velocity, and it does not leap from place to place without cause.

Here you are demonstrating a basic misunderstanding of Quantum Theory, this is not an argument against QM at all. QM agrees with you, we have the collapse postulate which states heuristically that for physical significance an electron takes a specific position and velocity and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle which states that our observation interaction is too disruptive to that state for us to determine it completely. This is all overshadowed by the measurement problem which is basically the evidence that physical significance imparts physical significance, somehow, from one quantum state to another.

As for electrons leaping from one place to another without cause, there is a cause! The electron is already there! The cause is the wave evolution which places the electron in multiple potential states, a physically significant state is simply one of those. It is apparent, reiterating the measurement problem, that physical significance imparts physical significance from one quantum object to another, therefore if there is physical significance to a quantum leap it occurs, its cause is the evolution of the wavefunction of the electron, the reality we are accustomed to is the result.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:Have you

deludedgod wrote:

Have you ever performed or watched them being done? You can set up your own double slit experiments using photons if you want, with a photographic plate. See what happens.

Here's one you, or anyone, can do right now. Take your thumb and forefinger and hold them close together just in front of your eye, line the gap up parallel to a light source, your computer monitor should do the job just fine unless it's LCD, if so just use your lamp... anyhow... peer through the gap between your forefinger and thumb carefully, you will see black to grey areas around the edges of your digits in the gap. The dark area is described by destructive interference by the waves of light as they pass through the gap.  If you experiment with the gap carefully for a few turns narrowing it to the right width you will be able to see a clear interference pattern; it will present as shadow lines floating in the gap between your digits with light passing through above and below them.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Yes, I see them. That's

Yes, I see them. That's quite a nice effect. I also note that the slit created by your thumb and finger acts like a divergent optical focus, which is why you should see a concave image of whatever you are looking at. That effect is the result of the curvature of your finger and thumb as they form a slit, they curve inward slightly, resulting in a concave lens. The latter effect is more easily observed if you are staring at a screen with words on it (like I am now). You have to move your makeshift slit back and forth a bit to get that effect, because like all lenses, the one made by your fingers has a specific focal length.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Do you have a problem with what relative identity infers about your God, or don't you? I don't care if you answer, as I said. I just like pointing out that God is dirt and impertinently charging other theists with not being able to handle it.

No, God obviously exists. I have no problem with relative identity's (or any other sort of identity's) implications for God.

God obviously exists to you, eh? Then you should be able to articulate it in a way to make it obvious to everyone here.

I don't see you doing that. Why not? Great Commission not apply to you?

You came here to tell people about the obviousness of God and have yet to do it. Instead, you shoot yourself in the foot by displaying your lack of understanding.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
I didn't know I could see an

I didn't know I could see an interference pattern so easily! It works on LCD monitors too. Thanks for sharing! Smiling

 

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:deludedgod

Eloise wrote:

deludedgod wrote:

Have you ever performed or watched them being done? You can set up your own double slit experiments using photons if you want, with a photographic plate. See what happens.

Here's one you, or anyone, can do right now. Take your thumb and forefinger and hold them close together just in front of your eye, line the gap up parallel to a light source, your computer monitor should do the job just fine unless it's LCD, if so just use your lamp... anyhow... peer through the gap between your forefinger and thumb carefully, you will see black to grey areas around the edges of your digits in the gap. The dark area is described by destructive interference by the waves of light as they pass through the gap.  If you experiment with the gap carefully for a few turns narrowing it to the right width you will be able to see a clear interference pattern; it will present as shadow lines floating in the gap between your digits with light passing through above and below them.

Hee hee, that's fantastic!


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

inspectormustard wrote:

In this case, does the photon bounce back through the mirrors, collide with its alternate self, and affect its own probability of diffraction for no other reason than to make sure to follow some arbitrary rule? A similar device can be constructed using the spin states of electrons, rather than a photon's direction of travel. How then, brown Ben?

Yes, precisely, and we have to figure out why rather than asserting random acausalities.

Okay, except that it would have to do this faster than light, as the change occurs at the speed of light. I think this is still impossible from your standpoint. correct? Did you even look at the experiment?

Here's another one for you: Elitzur-Vaidman bomb-tester

In case you're not feeling very link-clicky, here's the breakdown:

Quote:

If the bomb is a dud:

  • The photon both (i) passes through the 1st half-silvered mirror and (ii) is reflected.
  • The bomb will not absorb a photon, and so the lower route is a possible path to the point of interference.
  • The system reduces to the basic Mach-Zehnder apparatus with no sample, in which constructive interference occurs along the path horizontally exiting towards (D) and destructive interference occurs along the path vertically exiting towards (C).
  • Therefore, the detector at (D) will detect a photon, and the detector at (C) will not.

If the bomb is usable:

  • The photon both (i) passes through the 1st half-silvered mirror and (ii) is reflected.
  • Upon meeting the observer (the bomb), the wave function collapses and the photon must be either on the lower route or on the upper route, but not both.
  • If the photon actually takes the lower route:
    • Because the bomb is usable, this photon triggers the bomb and it explodes.
  • If the photon actually takes the upper route:
    • Since the lower route is not taken, there will be no interference effect at the 2nd half-silvered mirror.
    • The photon on the upper route now both (i) passes through the 2nd half-silvered mirror and (ii) is reflected.
    • Upon meeting further observers (detector C and D), the wave function collapses again and the photon must be either at detector C or at detector D, but not both.

On average, this will identify all of the dud bombs, explode two thirds of the usable bombs, and identify one third of the usable bombs without detonating them.

In 1994, Anton Zeilinger, Paul Kwiat, Harald Weinfurter, and Thomas Herzog actually performed an equivalent of the above experiment (they didn't use bombs, just photon detectors), proving interaction-free measurements are indeed possible.

If this is not a problem for your idea then, by all means, explain why we're wrong to use this principle to perform computations without actually running the computer. Then explain why, if we're all so wrong about this quantum mechanics stuff, it predicts things so well anyway.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Erm.*Scratches back of

Erm.

*Scratches back of head*

I don't understand any of this. Electrons aren't governed by newtonian physics because they aren't really 'matter', is that right? So they are governed by quantum physics instead? What is this 'observer effect', and what causes it?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Wonko wrote:I found this

Wonko wrote:

I found this article somewhat interesting and thought to share:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080630173921.htm

Previously, all I'd ever really heard (or perhaps I read it) about the model of Niels Bohr atom is how the energy of electrons will, under higher temperatures, increase in relation to localized orbits.

Apologies if already posted.

 

 

Hello,

 

I just finished reading John D. Jackson’s short book, “Mathematics for Quantum Mechanics: Introductory Survey of Operators, Eigenvalues and Linear Vector Spaces”

   Also in the 8 weeks, basically since I began this thread, I have read all the following:

   “Molecular Quantum Mechanics”… Friedman/Atkins
 “On the Quantum Theory of Line Spectra” Niels Bohr
 and a slightly older book “Space-Time Structure” Erwin Schrödinger.


   Can anyone with some insight to: OP/quantum study/probability spaces/Schrödinger/Planck/Bohr/VSPER theory/etc. recommend some excellent books that will give me a better framework for my knowledge in these areas?

 


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Erm.

*Scratches back of head*

I don't understand any of this. Electrons aren't governed by newtonian physics because they aren't really 'matter', is that right?

No, not really Kevin, electrons are matter. Wave theory is simply what matter looks like at a certain scale.

Kevin R Brown wrote:

So they are governed by quantum physics instead?

Basically, yeah, fundamental particles are all demonstrably representable via wave equations.

Kevin R Brown wrote:

What is this 'observer effect', and what causes it?

The observer effect/measurement problem is most quickly explained by referring to the two slit experiment as well.

When you place a detector at the slits so as to measure which slit the particle passes through in the experiment the particle stops exhibiting wave properties. It would seem that in quantum experiments a passive act of measurement is no longer passive at all, but actively involved in determining the outcome. It's unclear what causes it, the question "What causes it?" is the measurement problem in a nutshell.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Wonko wrote:Wonko wrote:I

Wonko wrote:

Wonko wrote:

I found this article somewhat interesting and thought to share:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080630173921.htm

Previously, all I'd ever really heard (or perhaps I read it) about the model of Niels Bohr atom is how the energy of electrons will, under higher temperatures, increase in relation to localized orbits.

Apologies if already posted.

 

 

Hello,

 

I just finished reading John D. Jackson’s short book, “Mathematics for Quantum Mechanics: Introductory Survey of Operators, Eigenvalues and Linear Vector Spaces”

   Also in the 8 weeks, basically since I began this thread, I have read all the following:

   “Molecular Quantum Mechanics”… Friedman/Atkins
 “On the Quantum Theory of Line Spectra” Niels Bohr
 and a slightly older book “Space-Time Structure” Erwin Schrödinger.


   Can anyone with some insight to: OP/quantum study/probability spaces/Schrödinger/Planck/Bohr/VSPER theory/etc. recommend some excellent books that will give me a better framework for my knowledge in these areas?

 

How are you with the college maths, Wonko? Your list suggests that you aren't inclined  to shy away from technical material and if that's the case you should try Penrose's Road to Reality. It's a thumping big brick of a book and there's lots of maths to plough through to get into it but in my opinion it's probably one of the most comprehensive books available for what you've stated you're after - a framework for knowledge in these areas.

If you aren't looking for something requiring so much commitment at the opposite end of the spectrum Marcus Chown has published some entertaining and accessible books on physics, as has Lee Smolin.

And for the chemistry I used to access an excellent online textbook with interactive panels and contextual discussion to make the concepts more accessible, this book is the reason for every good grade I got in my early chemistry classes.

- took me a little while to find it again- http://www.wwnorton.com/college/chemistry/gilbert/home.htm the molecular shape tutorial is chapter #7 and VSEPR is here

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:   Can anyone with

Quote:


   Can anyone with some insight to: OP/quantum study/probability spaces/Schrödinger/Planck/Bohr/VSPER theory/etc. recommend some excellent books that will give me a better framework for my knowledge in these areas?

It depends on how proficient you are in mathematics. The two most important areas of mathematics in quantum mechanics are probability theory and vector calculus. You can find some good PDF textbooks on continous and discrete probability online. For an excellent intro into vector calculus, I recommend this page:

http://www.math.oregonstate.edu/home/programs/undergrad/CalculusQuestStudyGuides/vcalc/vcalc.html

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Wonko

Eloise wrote:

Wonko wrote:

 

Hello,

 

I just finished reading John D. Jackson’s short book, “Mathematics for Quantum Mechanics: Introductory Survey of Operators, Eigenvalues and Linear Vector Spaces”

   Also in the 8 weeks, basically since I began this thread, I have read all the following:

   “Molecular Quantum Mechanics”… Friedman/Atkins
 “On the Quantum Theory of Line Spectra” Niels Bohr
 and a slightly older book “Space-Time Structure” Erwin Schrödinger.


   Can anyone with some insight to: OP/quantum study/probability spaces/Schrödinger/Planck/Bohr/VSPER theory/etc. recommend some excellent books that will give me a better framework for my knowledge in these areas?

 

How are you with the college maths, Wonko? Your list suggests that you aren't inclined  to shy away from technical material and if that's the case you should try Penrose's Road to Reality. It's a thumping big brick of a book and there's lots of maths to plough through to get into it but in my opinion it's probably one of the most comprehensive books available for what you've stated you're after - a framework for knowledge in these areas.

If you aren't looking for something requiring so much commitment at the opposite end of the spectrum Marcus Chown has published some entertaining and accessible books on physics, as has Lee Smolin.

And for the chemistry I used to access an excellent online textbook with interactive panels and contextual discussion to make the concepts more accessible, this book is the reason for every good grade I got in my early chemistry classes.

- took me a little while to find it again- http://www.wwnorton.com/college/chemistry/gilbert/home.htm the molecular shape tutorial is chapter #7 and VSEPR is here

 

Eloise,

Thank you for the information. My college math was sparse to adequate, but I have self-taught away from college by borrowing textbooks from friends and especially the library system available to me as well as a few purchases. Sometimes I do have to look things up online when I can't quite follow the book(s) but I am willing to learn anything. Even if I  have to re-read the same page or paragraph five times. I don't know why I didn't find this stuff very interesting a couple of decades ago during my college. It's probably why my grades were fair to poor on some of it.  

Penrose will be at the top of my new list now. I'll also add Chown and Smolin as an easier read is, on some days, just perfect.

I will also access the online textbook and the other links.

Thanks again for taking the time to help me out.

 


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:


   Can anyone with some insight to: OP/quantum study/probability spaces/Schrödinger/Planck/Bohr/VSPER theory/etc. recommend some excellent books that will give me a better framework for my knowledge in these areas?

It depends on how proficient you are in mathematics. The two most important areas of mathematics in quantum mechanics are probability theory and vector calculus. You can find some good PDF textbooks on continous and discrete probability online. For an excellent intro into vector calculus, I recommend this page:

http://www.math.oregonstate.edu/home/programs/undergrad/CalculusQuestStudyGuides/vcalc/vcalc.html

 

 

DG,

My math is a "work in progress"... but I'm not afraid to tackle anything. I am finding it easier now than ever before to follow and understand concepts that previously eluded me. I think of the two important areas you mentioned, vector calculus may be harder for me to follow.... but as I told Eloise, I can read and check online to facilitate my journey through the tougher parts. At other times, rereading a page or paragraph really helps.

Thanks so much for the link and your advice.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Vector calculus is also

Vector calculus is also called "multivariable calculus". As such, any material on vector calculus presupposes the student has good knowledge of single variable and fundamental calculus. So if the pages in the given link are confusing, you might want to start with this first:

http://www.libraryofmath.com/calculus.html

You'll notice that this page covers everything the other link did (divergence, curl, Jacobians, Gaussian spheres, triple integrals, surface integrals, flux, etc.) but also has a lot of introductory material. I recommend reading all the introductory material on LOM, but I think the first link is more clear on the more complex calculus, also it spends more time on the deriviations, which are more important than the formulae.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Wonko wrote:DG,My math is a

Wonko wrote:

DG,

My math is a "work in progress"... but I'm not afraid to tackle anything. I am finding it easier now than ever before to follow and understand concepts that previously eluded me. I think of the two important areas you mentioned, vector calculus may be harder for me to follow.... but as I told Eloise, I can read and check online to facilitate my journey through the tougher parts. At other times, rereading a page or paragraph really helps.

Thanks so much for the link and your advice.

That site DG recommended looks very good, I don't recall ever using that one, but as I am a seasoned hunter of online learning material, (with my personal circumstances it was necessary for me to do most of my study off campus and I got good at it) I, naturally, have a favourite online calculus text. It is written by Paul Dawkins of Lamar University (don't actually know where Lamar is but his notes rock! they are the best and most accessible I've seen) - you'll find it here all the tutorials are navigable via the class notes drop down menu.

As good as those are I will also recommend if you are really concerned about your understanding of vectors and need a run of the basics that will really stick with you, you can't go past the HMC pages the section on elementary vector calculus make it literally child's play to understand.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
If you don't like getting

If you don't like getting online learning material from multiple different sources and trying to integrate them all together, then all the applied mathematics you could ever possibly want ( everything from calculus to combinatorics and discrete probability, complex algebra etc.) is bundled together in this 2320 page monster from the wonderful and sacroscant institution of CalTech:

http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/~sean/applied_math.pdf

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
DG,You are too cool and my

DG,

You are too cool and my many thanks again for your assistance.

 

Eloise,

You are beautiful and soooo helpful, a rare combination in the world.

 

And....

if anyone else has thoughts on the general topic...

Well, I'm always open to new ideas.


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:If you

deludedgod wrote:

If you don't like getting online learning material from multiple different sources and trying to integrate them all together, then all the applied mathematics you could ever possibly want ( everything from calculus to combinatorics and discrete probability, complex algebra etc.) is bundled together in this 2320 page monster from the wonderful and sacroscant institution of CalTech:

http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/~sean/applied_math.pdf

*prints it*