Mike Smith Cosmos

 

Like it or not, non-relativistic quantum mechanics is a model that works extremely well.

 

Whats that supposed to mean ?

.

In the latter years of his life Einstein spent much time with his friend Goedel discussing time. Does it really exist , they mused ? Its nature ?

Yes out here in the classical world, its very positive and with entropy very uni-directional. ( My comment )

But what happens in the quantum world ? ( My question )

There appear to be hints of something different ? ( Richard Feynman )

.

Have I missed something, or was this scientology thing an APRIL 1st joke ?

No. It is the lot of scientists to discover how the universe behaves. One cannot be sure that the models scientists develop are how the universe actually works.

Is this not the difference between a medical symptom being understood "behaves " and not understanding the underlying 'cause' "works ".

Surely it behooves us to get at the underlying 'cause' , "works", in science if we are ever going to manipulate the underlying "works" to our advantage .

.

Again, this is all thinking very classically.

 

 

 

Quantum mechanics is what is needed.

Yes, Fine . But I personally still have the need, the way my brain works , for me to contain ideas, and work forward, to translate the quantum concepts into a working Model.

This so, even if that model has all sorts of bits, waves and things hanging off it, unlike anything in the normal classical world, I still need a model or series of models.

The maths is all well and fine but much as I understand the operations of much of the maths, I am unable to keep a picture going in my mind when it all goes too convoluted. You mathematicians seem to be able to wander unruffled in a sea of equations. Very well done , but I need to pull some workable models out of this quantum jungle.

At a later juncture, and in another subject area, say September when I return , I would like to investigate this issue of :- are we using maths to describe reality, perhaps sometimes in an awkward way, or is maths the reality that underlays the universe?

In a universe full of all sorts of Particles and Waves, does the change of state of the particle or wave constitute merely a change or a passage of time .

( if so who's time ) . If only change exists does it matter going from state A to state B or from state B to state A . Does this constitute time going in the opposite direction.

Is there some guarantee (of which I am unaware) that we can understand "exactly what" makes everything work? Or even what "exactly" means?

Surely it is the "lot" of scientists to discover and find out how the universe works! If not, how can we learn to harness the "goodies", move and exist.

"Exactly " means more than a superficial level of understanding.

Guarantee toward understanding. Well there's a thing ! If not, then we must remain like the Eloy or whatever they are called in H.G.Wells the time machine. Those below the earth and those above ( the Eloy ) just wandering about accepting everthing at face value , smiling. ( Perhaps that is the better state to be in )

.

Of course we could look at it like this....

 

The electron is a standing wave around the nucleus.

 

Standings waves are by their very definition stationary.

 

Therefore the electron has no speed.

 

But this is also wrong. The problem here is the electron isn't a classical thing, you can't think of it like that. Which is annoying!

Surely if we cannot pin the electron down to some understandable form , we are in a ( blindfolded ) position of not understanding exactly what makes the whole of chemistry, much of physics, much of the workings of the universe, work.

.

Back in my University days - during Maths I and Physics I - for some reason I was deeply uncomfortable with the "foundation on which the higher-level arguments" were built.

 

I always felt there was something missing - that there was something "shaky" at the root.

 

Somehow I had this (intuitive) feeling that I was being led into a house of cards, but I could never quite work out from whence exactly my discomfort stemmed.

 

That's what started me off on this 15 year track of investigation.

 

 

I am sure you have probably come across Lee Smolin A lecturer ( Prof or Dr ) at the Peninsular Institute Canada ( an offshute of Princetown University ) He came up with Loop quantum gravity as a link from/between quantum mechanics and relativity. He found that space rather than being a backdrop to " things" came out of, and with, the loops and knots . See The road to reality by Lee Smolin

My (vague) understanding is that when a determined particle (in this case, a photon), interacts with an electron probability cloud (wave function), the electron "pops" into existance at the point of interaction.

I have no idea why this is.

Whether it is of any use SysD. Whenever anyone speaks of waves I always thing of waves on the sea. Early physics often uses sea waves as a model. The recent Tsunami is a wave example. The source of energy to the wave was a major jolt in the pacific plate. The Tsunami wave could be seen all over the world on TV. If anyone said where is the wave ( equivalent of the electron ) then you could point to the wave on the tv screen.But which part of a wave miles upon miles wide would you point to. Bit difficult as its all over a long wave front. However once the wave is interfered with, ie landfall. It was easy to see exactly where the collapsed wave was. ie JAPAN or even more specifically the northern region which took the brunt . ( electron now , not a wave but a particle - Energy hit that caused an atomic power station to blow up . The model is only of use so far , but it does illustrate the difference of a wave like condition and a particle like condition ( wave fairly benign while out at sea ( boats bob up and down ) destructive or energetic when a particle of confronted enegy ( boats smashed to bits )

I must say that the more I dig deeper into intrinsic spin of the electron, there seems to be a lot of difference of opinion as to what is physically going on. The post that "spinjunkie " gave me with a web link as he said led to a personal interpretation, which sounded fairly plausible , though I feel many have different opinions. He referred back to the earlier work of Paul Dirac who was one of the first to try to understand spin. Mr Milo Wolff of the linked article described a spherical fields situation surrounding the electron where "in waves go in and outwaves go out " and this is the cause of the spin , which is only in the presence of a magnetic field. Outside of the magnetic field , say outside the atom, No field No spin. That the spin is reflected onto the three dimensional coordinates ( x, y, z ). and Two complete rotations were required to regain symmetry. He claimed he got most of this from Diracs work, but I am still not sure what the latest thinking is , as to what physically is happening.

So capt refremment/ string junkie/ajb/swansont what is going on?

In response to the thread " Something from nothing " I would like to pose a Theory which I have found covers the whole Shebang, namely " the LoT "

It is not stated in mathematical form.

It is not some fundamental particle , force , etc.

It is a lingual or language based statement: It can be built on with other principles and Mathematics as and if required.

" A Lingual / NON-Mathematical THEORY OF EVERYTHING ".

 

1. " Anything or everything can occur, if there is no reason for it not to occur "

 

2. " Anything or everything can occur, if there is no reason for it not to occur, if there is some form of initiative for it to occur. "

 

3. " If there are reasons for anything not to occur , left to their own devices, the path of least energy and /or resistance will be followed. "

I have found this works well. Covers Big Bang and before. The whole Shebang, namely " the LoT , ( including Scientific Principles that can be verified)"

TRY IT OUT . It works .

an infinite layer of zeros would equal zero.

 

 

Everything did not come from one big nothing. We don't know what caused our universe to come into existence. call it God(actually, there is something called the fine tuning problem which suggests that our universe might have had to have been created by God and this is the subject of Stephen Hawkings book The Grand Design) or if you don't like God, you can imagine that maybe our universe is like a bubble and it formed by popping off of a much larger universe(the collection of all these conjectured universes is often referred to as the multi-verse) But whatever explanation you like, the fact is that we just don't know what caused the big bang, but there had to have been energy and fundamental forces at least to have caused it.

 

 

I have a theory for this one " Something from nothing ". But in view of the rules of the forum I better put it in the " Do you have a new theory ? " thread at the top of this quantum Physics section.

I'll call it " A Lingual / NON-Mathematical THEORY OF EVERYTHING ".

How is a photon hitting an electron measuring it in any way? And what about the photon itself? Just because a photon hits an electron doesn't mean the photon is determined either.

You cant detect the presence of the electron say without looking. To look and see , you need some form of light , even if its ordinary light, UV light or X ray light they are all photons. They all have wave functions, they all have a certain amount of energy. The nearer to x rays the greater the energy. Thats why the dentist runs out of the room when he x rays your teeth. So its like bashing the tortoise with a string of Ping Pong Balls , the tortoise shrinks his head back into his shell. I'm sure there is a mathematical equation for this. Some form of fourier analysis of the two wave functions ( of the observing photon and the electron) perhaps. No doubt Mr Swansont will put me right if not.

So your trying to say that the photon hitting the electron determines it whether there's an observer or not?

Yes !

You might get something from this:

 

http://wsminfo.org/a...es/spin-qed.htm

Ta, Looks interesting. Some good reading for tonight !

If the photon hits the electron but hasn't hit your retina yet, will the electron be determined? Also, I don't think just any interaction between particles collapses a wave function otherwise particles couldn't be entangled through close interaction.

Steevey. If I am gaining a good picture of what is going on. I think. The wave function that is associated with the electron is described by Schroenigers equation and plots distance away from ' center of operations' of the electron against the probability of it being there. So I think this fairly wide wave of probability sweeps forward toward the two slits or whatever. If its left alone it sweeps through both slits and interfears with itself the otherside of the slits. Thus producing the interference pattern. I don't think the shreoniger equation brings time into it.

Too much messing with the electron ie by shining photons on, or generally intruding on the electrons flight and the wave pattern of the electron gets radically changed, collapsed, or whatever by the wave function of the intruding "thing". If I've got a correct picture that is.

Good point, but upon rereading I think we diverted from Steevey's issue about where the energy goes between absorption and re-emission. Actually, your post would answer that though by reference to the electrons emitted, which I'm guessing occurs because the energy level jump in the absorbing electron would bump high level electrons in the same atom or others out as free electrons as the atoms themselves become positively ionized (maybe?)

I'm still reading hard. You might like to look at a post I have just placed in the virtual particle thread. Its from wikipedia and says a couple of really interesting things about electrons, virtual photons and spin. Have a look and tell me what you think, as I notice your mind 'ticks' a bit like mine.

Isn't that just one explanation for it? There doesn't seam to be actual proof of virtual particles, but rather just evidence that would make sense in describing certain things, and wouldn't that also violate the statement that matter and energy can't be created or destroyed? Or is there some quantum mechanical thing about their determination and indetermination too?

I have just read in Wiiipedia today ( Electron subsection virtual particles ) that :-

" In classical physics, the angular momentum and magnetic moment of an object depend upon its physical dimensions. hence the concept of a dimensionless electron possessing these properties might seem inconsistent. The apparent paradox can be explained by the formation of virtual photons in the electric field generated by the electron. These photons cause the electron to shift about in a jittery fashion ( known as zitterbewegung) . Which results in a net circular motion with precession. This motion produces both the spin and the magnetic moment of the electron. In atoms this creation of virtual photons explain the Lamb shift observed in spectral lines "

I wonder if this has to do with why some frequencies of light bounce off (reflect) certain electrons instead of getting absorbed.

Is this not to do with the very original basis of Einstein and Plank and the photo electric effect demonstating the quantum effect . The frequency of infra red was not high enough to give the high enough energy for the electron to be emitted. No matter how intense the IR. Yet one photon of Ultra violet had sufficient high frequency to develop enough energy to release an electron. More photons of UV more electron emitted.

So if the photon doesn't fit the required energy to move the electron exactly the next or some multiple of the next energy level, then the photon will be absorbed and re-emitted nearly instantly?

Steevey, I am going to do a bit of looking for information on the mechanism of electron to photon conversion within the atom. Similarly for photon absorption by the electron in the atom. If I find anything interesting and understandable I will let you know. I think it is all tied up with this angular momentum Spin issue.

I think its worth remembering that Einstein spent a great deal of time reading peoples ideas and inventions in the swiss patent office. Gazing out the window day after day. Coming up with thought experiments. Riding light beams in his mind , wondering what happened as he approached the speed of light. Being on rocket ships and in elevators. He seemed to come up with some pretty amazing theories. True he later did the maths in conjunction with other mathematicians.

Bring back pondering ; observation; postulation; testing by existing theory & experimentation : evaluation; rethinking; argument; discussion: surely that's what we are all about.

 

"There are known knowns; there are things we know we know.

We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.

 

But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know." - Donald Rumsfeld, 2002.

 

These are the really interesting ones ! These are the ones going on under our very noses , in the depths of the atoms, or in the far reaches of the cosmos.

Some interesting scientist ( can't remember who) once said " if you look over the edge you will always see something you did not expect, or is interesting". I think we should do more Blue sky research. Bernard Lovelle of Jodrel Bank (The big dish Radio waves) said " If we do not do more blue sky research , we will bankrupt our future of new discoveries and developement."

xx So, who's for looking over the edge ? xx

This is what the "personal conversations" feature is for. Click on the user, and then the "send me a message" button.

Sorry, I have not got used to the full features of Science Forum yet.

I thought a photon was spin (0 zero) . If not what is spin 0 and spin 2 if a photon has spin 1

See http://jayryablon.fi...hat-is-spin.pdf

 

It represents spin as the energy flow of a wave packet of limited size around z-axis. However the spin does not depend on the packet size. Factually it is shown that a vector field has spin 1 and spinor field does 1/2. We knew this without wave packets.

BoB Could you contact me , when you have a moment. Thanks Mike Smith Cosmos

I didn't see the Ising model until graduate statistical mechanics. What does that mean? It means undergraduate courses (not necessarily just one semester) in general physics, upper-level classes in E&M, thermodynamics, dynamics, modern physics and quantum mechanics, along with calculus and differential equations. At a minimum. Oh, and then a graduate class in dynamics, too. We didn't just show up one day and say "I want to understand this, even if it takes all day"

 

This just in: physics is hard. One does not expect to take up a new sport and quickly be able to play at the professional level. Science is really no different.

Things seem to be making gradually a lot more sense with me now I have my little model in my head ( no matter if it is right or wrong ) . I know you are not too keen on these. But I need them as a prop for moving forward.

It would seem now to me that the paired electrons in shells , say the first shell, or any other paired electrons in higher shells have a combined angular momentum of 0 ( zero ) , derived from these paired electrons having + 1/2 and - 1/2 spin ( net 0 Zero ). This then is suitable for either a Photon exchange, angular momentum 0 ( zero ) to do some form of exchange and still conserve the angular momentum .

Is this a correct interpretation for conservation of angular momentum when moving from Fermion (electron ) to boson (photon ?

.