steevey

Matter isn't a conserved quantity. Pair annihilation converts mass into another form of energy, because in the rest frame E=mc^2

 

So then the once established idea of "matter cannot be created nor destroyed" is completely irrelevant and eventually the universe will contain twice as much energy as it does now since matter keeps getting created from nothing but then gets converted into energy and stays in the universe? It seems like that time travel paradox where because you keep traveling in time in the past in the future, there will be an infinitely increasing number of the time traveler.

Steevey, I and the references I cite don't say what you think at all. In addition, I don't understand what the last two sentences you added mean. What skulls and what genome are you talking about? SM

 

The article that stated that in the last 650 years, the skulls of human populations have changed, while you seemed to be arguing that different genomes are more expressed rather than different genes being created and assimilated into the human race.

That's still not a virtual particle.

Yeah, I got that

 

The point of quantum mechanics is that the electron, for most of the time, has no defined location. It is merely somewhere, with the probability of finding it at a given point given by the square of the wavefunction. It's not that it's a small particle that pops from one place to the next -- it has no single location.

Well that, when its just in an undetermined wave state I already know. But, when the electron is determined, its position or location seems to be going to different places without appearing the intervening space. How else could an electron have a chance of appearing on the other side of the universe if it couldn't just "appear" in different locations without traveling the distance to get there?

 

 

 

It's like asking what physical thing is going on to give a particle mass.

 

Matter gives things mass doesn't it? It's how much matter, which should be physical. If there's a physical phenomena, shouldn't there be a physical cause? A physical cause for the interference pattern is that physically, the electron isn't just a particle, its also a wave.

No, that's not "literally" what happens.

 

Well thats the way I've heard it from multiple sources, and if thats not whats happening, what is? Why else would scientists say "the electrons appears at another location without traveling through the intervening space"?

Those are not virtual particles. Not having a well-defined trajectory is part and parcel of quantum mechanics.

It's not that its not a well defined trajectory, its that electrons literally appear and disappear in and to different locations.

 

 

 

That's unanswerable. The physical things ones would use as analogies are classical, and spin is not classical. It's not a physical object spinning. It really doesn't matter how many times you ask the question. The answer isn't going to change.

 

I'm not picturing an electron as actually spinning, which I keep telling you, but I am also visualizing an electron as a wave which isn't classical either. I'm only see spin as a physical thing thats going on, but I want to know what that physical thing is. But if we can't answer that, then thats fine for now, but since we don't know what it is exactly, its not fair to say it can't possibly be a physical thing.

 

Doesn't it depend on what you mean by "physical object." If physical objects are made of particle-fields, then why aren't those particle-fields themselves physical objects that constitute the larger object?

 

 

Your trying to say how you can make something physical from something thats not physical?

Low energy annihilations will produce two gamma rays with 511 KeV. The lhc operates with particles at much higher energies - the lead nuclei will eventually have c 500 TeV so 511 KeV won't be a problem.

 

PET scans work by detecting those two gamma rays that are given off when a positron annihilates with an electron in the body.

 

So if I take one electron and one positron and put them together, they will generate two low energy gamma rays, and according to theoretical physics, this is happening everywhere all the time. But, whats the frequency of this happening? If my entire room was filled with these gamma-rays forming from matter-anti matter pairs, why wouldn't I get some kind of cancer easily? One of those low energy gamma rays would certainly be enough to accidentally ionize something.

 

And since this phenomena produces energy which doesn't disappear, doesn't that violate the conservation of matter and energy? I have two particles which are creating out of the nothingness of space, but then they annihilate each other and they get converted into energy which then goes about the universe...that doesn't seem right.

Steevey, I read the BBC and Time articles. They are both news items and don't actually provide any evidence of Evolution. In the BBC article the lead author of the report is Peter Rock, an orthodontist. I couldn't find any research article by him in Google Scholar that would demonstrate that his speculations have been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Most of what he reports can be explained by improved environment (e.g. nutrition or health).

 

The Times article reports on a legitimate research article. Read it here- http://www.pnas.org/...ppl.1/1787.full . This report demonstrates, with a statistical analysis, how differential reproduction rates have biased the frequency of some phenotypic traits by a very small amount in a population. This would take a very long time to change the genome and would only do so if the same reproductive advantage was consistent over time and there was no outbreeding. This sort of natural selection that alters gene frequency, not genes, is interesting, but is sort of like saying that humans as a whole are changing to be more like the populations of China and India because they have become a larger portion of the world population in recent years. It is also the type of selection that would be reduced for the reasons suggested by the original post in this thread.

 

I also did a search for any research showing special genetic traits related to Inuit diet and could find nothing. This group migrated to the Americas 11,500 years ago and look pretty much like the Siberian group that they migrated from and to some north American native americans (e.g. Navajo).

 

This is a difficult topic, and I suggest you read- http://www.plosgenet...gen.0030090#top to get some idea of the complexity involved in doing genetic analysis for evolutionary changes in humans. This is pretty hard going, but it references other research articles that you can follow up on if you wish to learn more. This article suggests that actual changes in genes occur on the order of tens of thousands of years. SM

 

It would seem you and your links trying to support the arguement, that because there doesn't need to be a new many adaptations to survive, that evolutionary process in humans is stopping. I could agree with you that perhaps the process of evolution in humans right now is slowing currently, but its not coming to a halt and the environment will change just as its been for the last 3.9±.2 billion years but usually very slowly. And if we discover how to travel faster than light and learn how to live on other planets, theres whole new worlds in which to adapt to.

Although evolution can and normally does take many years, how else do you explain the variation in skulls of humans if not by a more prominent and efficient form surviving? I don't think one genome getting more expressed can really do that an an entire population.

STEEVEY

 

Not all lines of scientific research are following the same approach to the fabric of space time. Some view it as a blank canvass others a void seething with activity. Frank Wilczek a Nobel prize winner and professor involved with the Large Hadron Collider, calls it Grid The which has several layers of activity including the virtual particles commented on earlier. However these are separate to the particles such as the electron pairs we were discussing . Professor Frank Close also involved with the large hadron collider speaks of it as the Void. The idea that space is empty seems to be fading fast. Neutrinos also seem to be teeming across space; from the sun ; from power stations ; through the earth ; through you by the billion; even from the Big bang. So the small though not tiny electron with its SPIN whatever that is , is quite a significant happening in amongst all this other stuff.

 

Matter, energy, momentum, spin, orbitals, and just about anything else on the atomic and sub-atomic level are all quantized, so therefore, there has to be an end somewhere since infinitesimal and infinite amounts of matter and energy couldn't exist. There might be a lot of activity that we don't notice, but the fabric of space itself hasn't been proven to exist.

 

Although, what seems promising is that thing about space being a composite of all the indefinite waves since it would explain why an electron could pop all the way on the other side of the universe: Not because there's some hole poking through the 4th dimension to the 3rd dimension at two points, but because the electron's existence itself extends all the way to the other side of the universe.

 

I can visualize these pairs of electrons in some way being coupled and being particularly comfortable doing their angular momentum bit in some form of balancing "up" and "down" opposite direction. This is exactly how tuning fork prongs move. Touch one the other stops. Tap one the other moves but in an opposite direction. Try to make one vibrate on its own. It will but not as balanced and comfortable as the pair. This has striking resemblance to the electron pairs. Also if you try to bring in a third prong. No deal. Exclusion. This is only a model, but as I mentioned in a previous posting Prof Frank Wilczec says its good to have toy models untill you knock them down for something better.

 

Are we talking about the same electron pairs? I'm talking about two electrons at the first energy state, but you seem to be talking about an electron and positron appearing out of the nothingness of space then annihilating each other and then trying to explain a medium using it.

But also, isn't the energy released from that type of collision suppose to be very big? Why aren't there explosions everywhere when in the Hadron Collider one particle and its anti-particle release huge amounts of measurable energy when collided?

Steevey, I may have something for you to visualize . I am working on some research at this very moment concerning WHY the pauli exclusion principle is invoked by two electrons in the same orbit or energy band. My area of research is to an extent looking for analogue models in the classical world where two tightly coupled particles behave in both an attractive/ repulsive coupling yet behave in opposite modes exactly. One such analogue is the tuning fork, where two similar prongs of a tuning fork vibrate in opposite directions IE one going exactly west when the other prong is going exactly east. This is irrelevant of initial striking of one prong of the tuning fork. Although this may sound crude as an equivalence of quantum mechanics , however ref:The new Quantum Universe Hey and walters 2009 edition page 58,59 shows violins bodies and drum surfaces as analogues to quantum mechanics wave functions , standing waves etc.

 

So if we find electrons coupled in pairs as they appear to be in orbitals the equivalence of coupling and movement ( angular momentum ) may yet become evident.

 

It is unreasonable to think of some formula or rule (pauli exclusion principle ) floating about in space , so as to impose a rule on two electrons in proximity, rather the fabric of space time and all particles and forces that such space consists of, having within itself the coupling necessary to facilitate the orientation we find happening with two coupled electrons in a given energy band or orbital.

 

Prof Lee Smolin of Princetown University Institute in Canada, has been proposing for years that space time is not a backdrop on which thing playout thier lives (particles , forces etc) but rather Space time comes out of / or is indemically part of the particles and forces themselves. ( Quantum Gravity the road to reality By Lee Smolin).

 

Hope this is of some help . !

 

Sorry Steevey I seem to have no got the method of attaching postings of mine to the members questions. Its there somewhere in the overall listing of postings

 

I don't know what your trying to tell me exactly, but there is no "proof" for a fabric of space-time, since no particle has been discovered which comprises it or acts as a medium for light and forces, so I suppose its possible that space being infinite and all is a composite of the waves of particles which, a wave function also extends indefinitely through space.

The Pauli exclusion principal though seems to come second; If I start with one electron is the lowest energy orbital then add one more electron, the other electron is already there and repels the other electron, so the added electron will have something different about it such as its spin.

If your trying to ask "why two objects can't occupy the same space", its because forces such as the electro-magnetic force prevent it. One electron will repel the other, and without extensive research on things like neutronium, the matter in neutron stars comprised only of neutrons, that's the best we can do it seems.

When trying to visualize the quantum mechanical world, I can't rely just on real-world objects, I have to use my imagination too combined with the understanding of how it works. I can't really visualize the fact that an electron is undetermined, so I just have to realize that as I'm imagining it as a wave and that it results in this spherical shape which is the electron in an undetirmed state of existence. Usually, real-world objects are only good for the mathematic portions, such as what you said with the tuning fork. If I have a double p orbital or dumbbell, then one is + while the other is -. Or its also good because we can't distinguish two different electrons at that level, so we have to use math to make it as though their wave functions are combined to form a single one, which the warp-able surface or a drum might be good for as well, although you can just use cosine/sine substitution and see the same effects on a wave.

They know it exists because of experiment:

 

http://en.wikipedia....lach_experiment

 

Classically, an electron does not have physical spin. Physical spin cannot account for spin angular momentum. Physical spin has nothing to do with spin angular momentum. Electrons do not spin.

 

The only way you can think of spin angular momentum is that it is "some property an electron has that behaves like angular momentum." You cannot visualize it, because it is not spinning. You cannot liken it to any motion of the electron because it has nothing to do with how the electron moves. It's just a property an electron has. It acts like angular momentum.

 

I don't think an electron is actually spinning like a top, but doesn't there have to be some explanation or physical thing for it? Or do scientists not yet know that? Scientists don't know whats physically going on with spin, but they know there's some property of it?

Steevey I think they want something more like this or this.

 

If I had good sources other than books and people in real life, on the internet, I would have used them, but the links I used still contain real research and scientific input, so there's no reason for them to keep saying that evolution can't possibly be going on today.

You have most of it, gravity and temperature are important factors in holding onto an atmosphere but the size of the planet would matter as well, if you took a planet 3/4 the size of the earth but with the same mass it could not hold onto as extensive an atmosphere as the Earth does now and the Earth couldn't hold onto as extensive an atmosphere as a planet 5/4 the size of the Earth could with the same mass. Saturn's moon Titan is a good example it has a huge atmosphere several times deeper than earths atmosphere and with a higher pressure and density. If Titans mass was in a smaller body it could not hold onto such an extensive atmosphere. the gravitational potential falls off slower from a large planet than a small planet if there masses are the same.

 

If the gravity of a planet smaller than Earth is much stronger than Earth, why can't great amounts of atmosphere exist if the gravity can hold it in place? There's even atmospheres of iron gas predicted to be around neutron stars. Are you saying it requires too much potential energy? Cause if a planet was small and had a large atmospheric mass, the atmosphere would extend further into space than on Earth, so would the atmosphere just have so much poential energy then that it would just leave the planet?

Sure, but that doesn't make them virtual.

 

 

I don't think you can actually think of electrons in orbits as occupying a certain space or having a certain shape. Spin is merely something an electron has. You can't consider it as a way the electron moves or orbits.

 

Quantum physics can't be visualized in terms of discrete particles moving around in certain ways. It won't work.

 

 

 

But when I'm picturing an electron, I'm not picturing it as this particle, I'm picturing it as a wave which is the undetirmination of an electron with relative shapes. They have regions, but the regions get weaker or "less probable" as the distance increases from its most probable place, which is more or less where on a wave, it would be the crest, just like in the double slit experiment where the most probable place corresponded to being hit on a wall as a wave on the wave crest or top of the wave.

How exactly do scientists know "spin" exists if there is no determined path for an electron and it pops up in different random places?

Is it that classically, an electron still does have a physical spin or physical movements, but because of quantum mechanics, an electron is also undetermined and follows mathematical probability? It would make a lot more sense for electrons exist in the same state but still avoid each other as waves.

Discussions of virtual particle/antiparticle pairs are not discussions about electrons in an atom.

I'm not talking about matter-anti matter pairs, I'm talking about the electron itself re-appearing in different locations without passing through the intervening space.

 

 

 

I can't explain that. To or paraphrase Feynman what I can explain, I can't explain in terms you understand. (It's not a matter of simplifying the terminology, it's a matter of you taking, and passing, three years of physics at a university)

I've seen lectures though and I know some of the math for it and how its quantized and that it helps avoid the exclusion principal, I just don't visually see how it would be physically operating within a particle such as an electron. I can imagine that two electrons exist in the same energy level and shell because they have opposite spins, which mathematically makes them not occupy the same exact space at the same time, but what physical thing is going on thats making them do that? What is spin doing to the electrons to make them not hit each other or occupy the same space or give them the specific shapes it gives them? It isn't necessarily directed towards you, but to anyone who can answer it.

Is Hati a modern country? Is Mexico a modern country? No, they are not!

If you question why different people is asking you a similar question again and again, the answer should be obvious that they do not understand your point.

 

Except if you read my links you'd know that there is real evidence evolution is going on today. I didn't mention them that much in the actual post because I thought it would be redundant since you'd be expected to read them before saying my point is invalid.

I don't know exactly what your trying to say, but it might have to do with more than just charge. Electrons do repel each other with the same amount of strength since all electrons are identical, but there are other factors which determine where they are, such as energy or the angular momentum and the mysterious spin which allows electrons to exist in other places because of the Pauli exclusion principal. Electrons don't tend to cancel out each-others existence by having all the same properties, but to avoid that requires some properties to be different such as the ones I mentioned before. So its not just charge that repels electrons, its also exclusion, and for specific and different distances from the nucleus, the properties required to occupy that space can change. Two electrons might exist in the s orbital at the first energy level and classically they would repel each other, which they do, but also, one will have spin up and the other will have spin down making them different and distinguishable.

I've explained a number of time that it's not a virtual particle. It's getting to the point of being really annoying that you keep incorporating that into your questions.

 

It's not derived form the Bohr model. It's observed by experiment, and incorporated into quantum mechanics.

 

It's not tied in with discrete trajectories, because they don't exist. That's the way quantum mechanics is, and how these systems behave.

 

Angular momentum tells us that some transitions are not possible. Because a photon is spin-1, you cannot have a photon absorption get you between certain states, e.g. from an S state to a D state, because they differ by 2 units of angular momentum. You also can't go from an S state to another S state, because the angular momentum must change by 1. (these are called selection rules)

 

Maybe electrons aren't virtual particles, but I keep seeing in places that they seem to "pop" in and out of different locations with no discrete pattern. In fact, I've even heard that electrons themselves pop in and out of existence in different locations very quickly almost quote-ably. But if thise isn't a virtual particle, what makes an electron different? Another way I heard it was that electrons, as particles, can appear in different locations without existing or passing through in the intervening space.

 

But also, I don't see what about spin actually exists in reality. I have a hydrogen atom, surrounded by a single electron. The electron is a wave-particle which when undetermined takes the form of a specific shape, which I think is "S" for "sphere". Where's the angular momentum in this electron which is just a wave? It's just a wave that has the form of a sphere. Unless that doesn't matter because observable things only occur with particles in a determined state, making a wave act as single particle, but they still have no discrete path, so how is their angular momentum even constant if the path it takes isn't specific? It could go one direction, or the other. It could go that way, or the other way, with no predictable motion, so how does a physical spin exist?

No, there are transitions where the principle quantum number doesn't change. A spin-flip transition. The change in angular momentum is in multiples of [imath]\hbar[/imath]. Changes in energy have no similar basic unit, i.e. the energy of different transitions are not multiples of each other.

 

I'm still not seeing how angular momentum plays out in the picture if spin or angular momentum has nothing to do with any physical motion. Is it derived from the Bohr model since electrons occupied circular orbitals and therefore were always accelerating in a different direction but in a constant pattern? I thought the Bohr model was wrong. If I just have this piece of matter thats a wave, and then it gets determined to be a single point, does its virtual-particle-ness disappear? And if so, is it that there is a physical motion caused by angular momentum, however an electron is moving so fast with no determined pattern that we can't tell exactly where it is? But if it has only 1 specific quantized angular momentum, and its only acting as a particle and not at all like a virtual particle, what's stopping scientists from actually finding an exact position or determining where it will be next?

I agree with SMF that you are trolling.

 

Please explain why in modern society the Natural Selection still continues in human beings if they are lived in the way to prevent deaths.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Airlines don't stop everything do they? Some times sicknesses sweep through nations, like Cholera in Hati, or in Mexico. The population of Mexico is resistant to Cholera since in very recent geological time their ancestors drank water which contained Cholera. But, not every process of evolution is driven by resistances to germs either, which should be obvious. There's also this article to provide yet some more evidence http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4643312.stm that natural selection is still at work, and once again, here's this http://www.time.com/...1931757,00.html

The English language wasn't designed with Quantum mechanics in mind.

 

Nobody here is trying to reduce everything to equations, that's just the way things have to be. I wish some things could be explained with some simple analogy, but the fact is that many things in science cannot. Especially in quantum mechanics where the whole subject is quite counter intuitive. If we could explain the behavior of atoms and particles with classical mechanics then we wouldn't need quantum mechanics at all.

 

Mathematics for unobservable things is based on words put into terms of numeric values, there has to be some way to describe it which logically equals the equation otherwise the equations would be meaningless and no one would know what they represent. Maybe Heisenberg forgot to mention it in his diary or only high esteemed physicists know.

 

 

 

No, there is no physical motion associated with spin. There is no exact position to locate. Again, you cannot model this classically and have it make any sense. Any analogy you draw with macroscopic phenomena will probably fail.

 

If there is no physical spin or physical thing that is the electron going at an angle, how does angular momentum exist? Is it more of a way to measure the orbitals? It seems as though "energy" and "angular momentum" in QM seem to be the same thing, since one unit of angular momentum makes an electron leap up 1 orbital, and a photon with 1 eV (or something along those lines) makes an electron leap up 1 orbital. I can see an electron as a wave just fine, but what I don't see is how this constant "angular momentum" fits in anywhere. I just can't seem to work out what x is in z=cos(log(Ln(x+z^cosh+y-(2/acos(t/y)))^tan(Q)+U^tan(J))))^tan(90)

The electron in an atom is NOT a virtual particle. I'ver mentioned this before.

 

You cannot assign a trajectory to an electron. That's classical, and this is quantum. Orbitals tell you where you can find the electron, if you were to look for it, now how it moves.

 

 

 

It's angular momentum. It would be more misleading and confusing to physicists if you called it something else.

 

QM is confusing. That's why physicists study it for a long time. I took undergraduate and graduate semester-long sequences in basic QM, and more courses in applications of it, read lots of papers, and then research on top of that. That's in addition to having years of learning the classical foundations of physics.

 

Ok, so as a particle, an electron does in fact have some kind of motion related to angular momentum, but what about as a wave? And then why can't scientists locate the exact position of an electron at any desired moment in time if its not because they keep "appearing" and "disappearing" to new places which are random but still have specific areas where its more likely to happen?

Steevey, I am beginning to think that you are trolling. You say say--

 

 

 

So, prove me wrong by providing any evidence whatsoever of genes that have died out, or any new genes that have appeared. Any peer reviewed scientific evidence will do. You seem to be just making this stuff up. SM

 

I didn't mean it to say that the actual genes causing them are disappearing, but rather that the amount of extreme genetic diseases has gone down, especially since nations starting restricting people from marrying members of their own families. There are definitely still many people all over the world with different genetic diseases, but with all the research being done, people can even see which genetic diseases they are carriers for.

 

And by the context, it's important to note that "appeared" doesn't mean "suddenly created", it also means "noticed" or "becoming more prevalent", which I've already provided evidence for with populations becoming immune to diseases or germs and groups of populations developing different diets such as being able to digest lactose or raw meat without negative effects.

I don't think there's exactly an uncertainty of measuring distance, but I suppose if there is a particle that comprises the fabric of space time, the uncertainty principle might effect it.

This is another example to see how the process of Natural Seletion has been stopped by public heath care in modern society.

 

It hasn't been "stopped" by any means, which if you read any of my other posts you would know, but its a way to prevent deaths.

 

Of course, all the discussion about genes may not be that relevant. What is important, I think, is the expression of these genes. Until recently, if a gene could not express say, a factor such as tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) then the person would be at a disadvantage if (s)he had a heart attack (blood would clot easily, causing a worsening of the condition and possible death). Today this is not important because your hospital pharmacist can provide a shot of recombinant tPA, the mainstream treatment for thrombolysis. The same with insulin. Until several decades ago, if your genes could not (eventually) produce insulin you were done for. Now it is possible to by-pass the genetic problem by popping down to your local pharmacist and buying some insulin.

 

So, any genetic defects that would have been detrimental in the wild are now slowly becoming irrelevant. Technology is by-passing the process of natural selection.

 

Just because more negative genes are dying out doesn't mean positive or just different genes aren't appearing more. There's also still plenty of genetic diseases scientists have no cure for which arise from people marrying in the same family or pure coincidence.

It's called angular momentum because it's angular momentum. Whether this "logically relates" to ability of something spinning depends on your "logic." This is quantum mechanics. If "logic" means using classical physics as a premise, then the answer is no. The electron spin is inherent and quantized. Its magnitude never changes — all you can do is change the orientation.

 

There are spin behaviors between electrons. Did you read up on the Ising model link ajb provided?

 

I know spin is quantized, but I'm still not visualizing what it is or what it looks like in quantum mechanics. Are you trying to say that the electron spins in integers, as if it moved in pixels? Even at that point, I still don't see how the electron is a virtual particle and a wave but somehow moves about in a circular motion with angular momentum, unless that's exactly what's going on. What if there's a p orbital or a d orbital? It wouldn't seem to be moving circular, but rather helically or conically.

 

Based on all the research I've done outside here, it would appear that spin is a real circular motion that particles move about with, even if they go in and out of reality. But, is that just for particles in a determined state, or do waves also have angular momentum? Or if it is in a wave, is it more of a relative term for an actual "particle" form?