steevey

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.

You don't seem to want to participate in accepting answers, you want to be fed simple answers that fit your view without taking the time to learn anything extra. There are a few posts in this thread that offer some really good textbooks to allow you to learn more.

 

Are *you* interesting in learning?

 

Maybe you should go over my previous post some more before you so callously try to piss in the well you drink from.

 

~mooey

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.

So you are comparing a written response with a video explanation, and these videos are not in response to specific questions that you have asked. I guess the reason I don't find your observation insulting is that it's so barking irrational, and that there's a simple cure.

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.

I'm really not interested in writing posts on introductory physics to bring you up to speed. These things already exist. They are called textbooks. If you want to ask advanced questions yet can't be bothered to educate yourself on the basics, the blame for not being satisfied with the response starts in the mirror.

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.

Scroll down to Real radial distributions. Second graph from where the link takes you, after the x-ray spectrum graph.

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?

You would expect anti-matter to emit anti-photons.

 

Of course, since a photon and an anti-photon are the same thing, you would not notice a difference.

 

Since anti-matter will tend to annihilate with ordinary matter, there would be a LOT of photons.

 

You would notice a really bright light. But not for very long.

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.

You have a link to someone who has written an hour's worth of material, on demand, as an answer to a question you had?

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.

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...

That was funny. Why did you vote negative? When the pupil has the courage to say he doesn't understand, part of the blame goes to the professor IMHO.

Most of the time you get angry when the pupil doesn't admit his ignorance. Now is the time to choose.

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?

That was funny. Why did you vote negative? When the pupil has the courage to say he doesn't understand, part of the blame goes to the professor IMHO.

Most of the time you get angry when the pupil doesn't admit his ignorance. Now is the time to choose.

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.

No, what I'm suggesting is that your source was wrong.

 

http://twinkle_toes_...drogen%20radius

 

Scroll down for the graph of the 1S orbital radial distribution.

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?

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?

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...

It's a distribution function, and not that sharply peaked. The electron is about half as likely to be found at either 0.5 or 2 Bohr radii as at 1.

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.

Bulk motion does not change the temperature.

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?

Simple: you can't. Thats the most probable distance in wave mechanics. It's the peak of the distribution function.

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.

Well, hybrid orbitals don't really exist. They are an approximation given to freshmen undergrads and high school students that explain molecular geometry in a "pseudo wave mechanics manner". In real life, it's not so easy. Hybrid orbitals do not represent the true electron probability distribution function, but there is some truth to them.

In real life, we have to add atomic atomic orbitals through linear combination, optimize the geometry (usually with computers), check for vibrational overlaps...etc. The process is quite laborious and is something I'm just now getting to where I can wrap my head around.

 

What you want to know is the HOMO (highest occupied molecular orbital), between two zinc atoms. All the other lower energy orbitals contribute 0 to the net bond enthalpy. You're not going to like this answer but it depends on what else is bonded to the zinc atoms. Zn-Zn bridges do exist, but the dimensions of the d-d Zn-Zn bond will be dependent on back donation from other ligands. You can't just have di-zinc that I'm aware of. I'm sure some nerd has made it in the gas phase though.

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?

You can't extract it. You certainly can't extract it using a system similar to how you suggest. The particle pairs are only in existance for a tiny tiny time (prescribed by the uncertainty principle), it would take more energy to make them into real particles and then annihilate something with the antimatter and capture that energy than you would ever extract from the system.

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?

what about this?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110527/sc_afp/australiaastrophysicsscience

 

 

As far as electronic excitation goes, the first excited state of He is about 20 eV, which is 100,000 times higher than the thermal energy.

So your trying to say liquid helium doesn't discontinue being liquid helium by moving it because it takes a lot of energy to make it into a higher energy state? How does it still move with a greater force if I move it more violently still on an atomic level, because if I move them really hard, don't they have to have more energy in order move a greater distance?

The electrons will be closer on average in He as compared to H. There is no precise value, because there is no classical trajectory.

How come I can say the radius of an S orbital of the first energy level of hydrogen is precisely .529 angstroms in both the Bhor AND wave mechanics model? Not only that, but isn't there something like 0 potential between walls of orbitals, so the only possible place has to be the quantized places they can appear and not what your implying which is because there's no classical trajectory, electrons can appear in energy levels that aren't actually possible like a 2.375834766th energy level? So what if it doesn't have classical trajectory, it still has rules.

The center of mass motion of the bulk doesn't matter — that's not how temperature works. Throwing an object in and of itself, doesn't make it hotter. There's a also a matter of scale: a helium atom at 2K has an average speed of almost 100 m/s

I think I can get how it can still move, but I don't see for sure how the energy level of at least the electrons doesn't increase when I move the vile of liquid helium. Lets say I have it in my hand, then I suddenly move it. The atoms in my hand would repel the atoms in the liquid helium due to electro-magnetism, thus causing them to move, but couldn't I only be moving my hand if my hand had energy to do so, and if I'm using that energy and giving it to the helium, how does greater or lesser amounts of physical force repel the helium atoms at greater or lesser speeds without energy actually being absorbed by the atoms? If I accelerate an atom, does its output of electromagnetic force increase? Or why wouldn't there just be a single speed or force that atoms repel each other at?

All this time travel stuff seems a bit convoluted. I would just not worry about it, especially since it would probably cause trouble if we did manage to do it.

Im not expertise on this field,

however I do concern about the sustainability on our earth.

and finding a renewable energy base on quantum physics

seems inspire me alot.

 

I know there is a new form of energy call vacuum energy

and it exist everywhere, everytime, but why we can't exploit this energy?

 

according to E=mc2, when two virtual particles collide,

they should just like matter-antimatter collide, which

ends up as gammaway.

 

According wikipedia,

"the vacuum energy in a cubic centimeter of free space has been estimated to be 10⁻¹⁵Joules.^"

http://en.wikipedia....i/Vacuum_energy

 

which mean if we can build something big enough,

such as a device

1000000000000000 x 1000000000000000 x 1000000000000000 big,

we should able to extract 1 J of energy in the given time.

 

I know my idea sounds stupid to some of you,

but assume we are now able to build this hypothetical device

is that really going to extract 1 J in every given time

and recharge my MP3 player? (for free)

Maybe its some kind of energy, but is it usable in any way? I mean we can't really even use gravitational waves themselves unless we have substances to cause friction, like a waterfall, sand paper, etc. Also, it seems incredibly inefficient anyway. Unless the units your using is angstroms, 1000000000000000 of any unit to get like 1 joule isn't that efficient.

If I have a helium nucleus, will electrons be closer to it than in a hydrogen nucleus due to the greater amount of positive charge force attracting an individual electron? And if the radii vary, what are the precise radii or at least what is the formula with a given atomic number?

Also about hybrid orbitals, how do I figure out their dimensions/radii? I mean there's geometry, but I mean besides that, like how I could figure out the shape and dimensions of a hybrid orbital between two Zinc atoms.

The ground state is not a zero-motion state.

But if I'm just moving it around in a vile, thats adding KE, and that increases the energy level, so how does this whole thing work out? Would you have to keep colling it as your moving it?

That's what you are doing when you increase temperature — you give them more KE. They are in a higher energy state and because of that they are no longer in the superfluid (ground) state.

So then how could be actually be frictionless if any movement puts the atoms in a higher state than the ground state, thus not making it a super-fluid?

In addition to what Klaynos said — the blackbody spectrum is a continuum. The absorption spectra are discrete lines. They are separate effects.

But why can't black bodies emit light due to the electrons going to lower energy levels?

It is due to the second law of thermodynamics.

 

A system will always want to reach a configuration that minimises the potential energy. This is known as the minimal potential principle.

What "makes" that happen on the atomic level though? Is it the classical attraction between a photon and electron and the fact that there's "room" at a lower energy level?

Like in the classical world, the reason that law usually happens is because of gravity, like with water. But, since there's stuff in the way which has enough energy to resist the water and remain at its distance from the core, the water doesn't just fall into the center of the Earth.