Jump to content

steevey

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    642
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-45

About steevey

  • Rank
    Molecule

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Quantum Mechanics, Astronomy
  1. As far as we can tell, the universe has no physical boundary and extends indefinitely or infinitely. The totality of the universe by that means cannot have a "center", however its possible there may have been a single point that all visible matter in the universe originated. This point cannot be concluded due to all the time that has past, the interactions with galaxies among each other and the size of the region where matter lies combined with the acceleration of galaxies away from each other. With the acceleration, every galaxy seems to be moving away from many other galaxy so that no single point can actually be traced back using straight intercepting lines of the trajectory of the galaxies. But, if you play that motion backwards, the matter in the universe does seem to come closer together. Researches strongly supported this when they found the Cosmic background radiation, the left over radiation from the earlier stages of the universe that mapped where much matter was located at that earlier point in time.
  2. The only probablem with being satisfied with answers is when I think I understand what swan is saying, I use that interpretation in a post and he says its wrong. So I can't just accept an answer from him because I likely got the wrong interpretation. Probably because he likes answering advanced questions more and isn't so use to answering questions so that they are simpler and easier to understand.
  3. Actually, the only reason I did go to his lecture at all is because I actually had questions on what the Hadron Colider was looking for and about how other exotic particles act the way they do, like how we can't see dark matter. If you don't want to answer questions, why are you an expert on this website? You also seem to be getting a little too defensive. Your just not as good at explaining things so that someone without much prior knowledge can understand it and you don't need to go blaming my ignorance for it because if I'm asking you such basic questions then you should already know that I'm not as acquainted with the subject of the question. If you only like answering super advanced questions let other people answer my questions. I don't like answering medical science questions so I don't answer them. There's probably many other people who would answer questions here if you don't like doing so. Oh yeah, and this isn't basic stuff either, this is quantum physics and advanced particle physics, something on the frontier of human understanding, so don't blame me for not knowing much about it.
  4. Oh yeah, I've seen that graph before, but it still goes to show that there's a radius where its really really most likely, and those are the ones I want to know for different atoms. I guess its more delocalized that I remember. However, doesn't that mean that an electron can posses energy that would cause its own wave destruction? I mean, the graph also shows a non-zero probability of an electron being in between Bhor radii, and I thought an electron could only posses specific values of momentum for a given system. Is there some other function I input into that graph to see all the quantized places an electron appears in, or does and electron really go into a continuum of energy states? Also, is it possible to create a nucleus so massive electrons fall into it? Or does that already happen with large synthetic elements?
  5. Well I'm not talking about when they annihilate each other, I'm talking about just anti-matter on its own. Photons don't carry any charge that I know of, so I expect their photons from quantum leaps to be the same as normal matter, but I don't know for sure.
  6. I'm sure there's videos on youtube, but I don't know what they are called. And some of them aren't all renowned physicists either, they are just people in the same city as me. I think one of them might be Brian Cox though when explaining dark matter or what the Hadron Colider is looking for. There's probably youtube videos of him since I saw people recording him with cameras at one of his presentations.
  7. If scientists managed to make a solid block of antimatter that they would be able to visually see in front of them, would they actually be able to see it if light were shown upon its surface and reflected? I=Or is the light from anti-matter different somehow. Maybe we can't answer it right now because we don't have a visible clump of entire anti-matter atoms...
  8. I'm not mad at swan at all, he's just bad at explaining things, thats why I need to ask him so many questions. Also, are all you guys absolutely 100% sure that a wave function is that ONLY wave property of particles? As in, your 100% sure there's no other wave-properties of particles that aren't just its location?
  9. I'm not mad at swan at all, he's just bad at explaining things, thats why I need to ask him so many questions. There's people who can explain like an hour of information and I don't have to ask them any questions at the end. This unfortunately does not seem to be true for swan, at least with me.
  10. Perhaps I am misinterpreting it, but I see a lot of specific values, no "limits" or sigmas to establish limits, no infinities, just single number answers for calculations of the radii. and it says electrons actually "move 1/4 as fast" as if to say the electrons are actually in some way accelerating around the nucleus. I get what it should be saying from your view, but I can just look right in my text book where it says "electron's location 90% of the time". It even says "Diameter of typical atom = 300 pm". Doesn't say "from x - y" or "approximately" or anything to suggest the level of uncertainty your suggesting as far as I can see. And if locations really are as unstable as you make them seem, why do specific stable compounds form? And how do they form over and over again in the same ways?
  11. In other words, temperature is an increase in energy caused by photons, but something like physical movement is cause by either repultion or attraction between atoms or gravity...
  12. Well I thought I saw from multiple sources that in places such as that first hydrogen radii that thats where the electron is about 90% of the time, hence the reason its the most likely place at that energy level, unless your suggesting that its energy level is always changing from its environment.
  13. Oh wait, is it something to do with the frequency? Like instead of doing something like throwing it making the individual atoms vibrate faster, its just a push from the electro-magnetic resistance between atoms? But then, how does that energy get transfered through repulsion?
  14. Yeah but thats what I care about. I don't care where the electron is the other 5-10% of the time, I want to know the locations and radii that cause all the interactions. SO your saying initial conditions need to be taken into consideration? What if I said a block of zinc at 72 degrees Fahrenheit? What would the orbitals between the zinc atoms look like? Because the electrons in molecules are shared in some way and I've seen hybrid orbitals formed by wave functions in QM...so if you know all the variables, why not hybrid orbitals?
  15. Well wait, how did scientists figure out there was particles created out of the vacuum of space unless they did have real effects? Didn't they have two plates and they were forced apart because of the energy in the vacuum caused by virtual particles?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.