studiot

Edit : stuff happened whilst I was writing so this was the Klaynos post I meant. Sorry for any confusion.

I do not doubt the validity of what you are saying, only its relevance to the subject of the thread. Non-locality in QT is not what you are describing. In the first place you introduced relativity as well as QM. In the second I suggest you read Klaynos' last post again. Your posted questions would come over much better if they actually were questions rather than flat contradictions about something you also state you don't understand/know little about. So a simple "would you explain / expand on why you brought such and such up please" would earn many brownie points. Or "does this also have relevance to QM ?" (it does).

Yes it is a simple question, but unfortunately it does not as yet have a simple or any complete, answer. Let me take you back a few centuries to Christopher Columbus. In those days they knew of the magnetic compass, but they were in a similar position as regards to its action and many (sometimes tragic) mistakes were made in its use as a result. There were, of course, speculations as to why it worked but the action remained spooky. Magnetism was just not sufficiently understood and was known by way of a bunch of example disconnected phenomena that did not make sense, but displayed unpredictable action at a distance. Fast forward to Professor Sir Charles Inglis in 1951 Spooky action again but note the date. Of course Sir Charles goes on to explain the action used for many Victorian party magic tricks which was properly understood by then. So today we have a number of instances of unexplained phenomena, seemingly connected but currently lacking a proper coherent theory. Of course there are plenty of speculations, but none without consequence elsewhere in the theory. We should always be prepared to say when we just don't know. Edit, the gyroscope is interesting because it breaks some mathematical boundaries, and maybe points the way to(wards) the resolution of spooky action/entanglement/hidden forces if you would like to discuss this.

There is a further twist to this story, that applies to relativity. There can be degrees of non locality. The (measurable) property of curvature can be local or non local. However another word is often (wrongly) taken to mean non local and that is global. You can measure the curvature of a curve at any point (locally). For example the curvature of a right circular helix is the same throughout its length so its curvature is global. Measure it at one point and you have determined the curvature at every point However the curvature ofan irregular curve that meanders its way through space cannot be so determined. Knowing the curvature at one point does not help know it somewhere else. So this is no longer a global property. This is, of course, the situation in a universe with randomly distributed matter, und General Relativity.

I'm sorry I can't offer any dazzle factor on what is a very pedestrian and mundane concept. In many instances it is known by a much more prosaic name, to whit, 'distributed'. This would be the case of the football. Non locality occurs when a specific locality (ie point in a coordinate system) cannot be allocated to a particular observable (and measurable) phenomenon or effect. If the effect can't be observed or measured (ie it has no impact on the real world or part of it) then it might as well not exist. So the pressure within an inflated football has no point of application - it is distributed within and at the surface of the ball. The figure I displayed is a perspective of an object that would be impossible in normal 3 dimensions. Yet it is also impossible to allocate any single point on that drawing that is 'impossible'. Any part of that drawing could be part of a real 3D object. It is only in totality or completeness that it is impossible This brings us to an interesting feature of such non local properties. That it may result in an emergent phenomenon. The humble arch is a less flambouyant example. The extreme structural property of the arch only emerges when the entire arch is in place. It does not reside in any part of the arch exclusively. Not only this but the emergent strength acts in a direction perpendicular to any other strength the arch may possess. A distributed load on a beam is non local, as is atmospheric pressure - they act everywhere. I tried to tell you in another thread that any wave is a non local phenomenon, but you wouldn't listen.

Why should it mean anything? It was stated to be real world example of non locality. What does a football mean? It is also a real world example of a different form of non locality. This jumble of words clearly demonstrates to me that you have no idea of the meaning of non locality or of the many and varied examples of its manifestation that occur in the real world. Perhaps unfortunately your eyes have been dazzled (like many other eyes) by the unwarranted mysticisim attached to one alleged form of non locality.

The solution of the Schrodinger equation results in a system of four quantum numbers for electrons in atoms. The principle quantum number symbol n values n 1, 2 ,3, 4......... The subsidiary quantum number symbol l values 0, 1, 2, ....(n-1) The magnetic quantum number symbol m values -l, (-1+1), ....-1, 0, +1, ...(l-1), l The spin quantum number symbol s values -1/2, +1/2 Energy increases with increasing n or l Each value of n refers to a separate quantum shell. The shells correspond to the largest jumps in energy. Within each shell the subsidiary quantum number divides the energy levels. So n=1, l=0 corresponds to the 1s shell. Strictly the solution is for hydrogen, and the quantum numbers refer to the one available electron. Although all the states represented by all the quantum numbers exist, they are just empty except for one. Luckily the quantum solutions are sufficiently similar for the atoms of all the other elements that we can simply populate them with the appropriate number of electrons.

'Tis pity (John Ford 1629) you've fallen out with John Cuthber, forsooth chemical QM is far easier to digest then physical QM.

You wouldn't directly. The wave function of anything describes its interaction with the whole of its environment. The protons constitute the dominant part of the environment of these electrons. This accounts for main quantum numbers. Only the Pauli exclusion number describes the fact they (must) have opposite spins.

So are you stating categorically that Penrose is incorrect to display that drawing as non local? Or are you disputing my statement that there are many ordinary common or garden examples of non locality in ordinary common or garden classical mechanics? Perhaps you should confirm in a few words exactly what you think non locality means. Any other discussion (including slagging him off) of Penrose is OFF TOPIC.

Here is a real example of non locality (after Penrose). There are many simpler (more obvious) ones in Mechanics.

I don't see any neutrons, would you be so kind as to point them out?

Steve, this is a suggestion for you. Applied Mathematics acknowledges something called a continuum which roughly means XY or XYZ space (or whatever). There is a whole area of ApMath called continuum mechanics which studies movement within a continuum. When rigid bodies and non rigid bodies move, they change their xyz coordinates. These changes can be split into linear deformations and angular deformations. The angular deformations can be composed into a single Vector (2D) or Tensor (3D) known as the Spin Vector or Spin Tensor. So imagine a point and a direction arrow emanating from that point on a block of rubber that is being deformed. The point will move from X1Y1Z1 toX2Y2Z2 and the arrow will rotate to point in a new direction during the deformation. These values will change as the deformation proceeds. Alternatively the distance between two points may well change as will the direction of the arrow linking them. I wonder if you are trying to describe the spin vector/tensor part of this since it is very similar to the idea you are trying to put over. A word of warning if you try to look this up. This is not the spin vector of quantum mechanics and the theoretical Physics approach using Noethers theorem is not directly relevant either. The mathematics of this requires advanced calculus and will be found in applications in diverse fields as fluid mechanics, earth science, stress analysis, electrodynamics etc.

You will need to be more specific than that for much of an answer. With some reactions that are temperature sensitive you can freeze the process thermally.

Just in case you have any doubt here is an extract from Wikepedia which shows that Deuterium was discovered, before the Neutron. It's been nice talking to ya.

Now please read the following extract from my Handbook of Inorganic Chemistry This couldn't be clearer. HYDROGEN AND ITS ISOTOPES DEUTERIUM AND TRITIUM HAS ONLY ONE PROTON A AND ONLY ONE ELECTRON If you insist on publishing diagrams of atoms of other elements and calling them hydrogen or one of its isotopes there is no point our continuing this discussion.

So you confirm they are deliberately positive signs, not just crosses?

Some of the concepts I am discussing need new words (nucleus area for example) others are my ignorance or carelessness. I do not mind being corrected, after all a person without humility cannot learn. I have corrected you twice now as nicely as I can. But you continue to misuse words with the resut that I (or anyone else) can't be sure what you are talking about. And then again you may just be misusing terminology. So I will leave you with a parting question. Why are your small circles with the positive signs in the middle not at the centres of the large circles which appear to show orbiting blobs? And why are you not using all of the three available dimensions or are your 'atoms' truly flat?

It's called the broken record technique.

Personally I blame the Kellog brothers and their sunshine breakfast for the confustion. I mean, depicting that Sun with all those rays coming off! Well! The lines or rays that are drawn are not the paths of light waves. They are geometrical lines drawn for mathematical construction purposes. In particular they are drawn perpendicular to wavefronts, which therefore exist in dimensions perpendicular to those rays.

If you really want to look into electric sign conventions, then we should have a new thread. It would be a diversion here. So I will just put up one diagram and ask you to consider the terminals of a battery, particularly the negative one. When the switch is closed conventional current is said to flow around the circuit in the direction of the red arrow. No actual discussion of charge carriers is needed. The Disney fairy tale about electrons runs like Nellie the Elephant who packed her bags and said goodbye to the circus. So the tale goes that the electrons pack their bags and say goodbye to the negative terminal and go on their holidays around the circuit, arriving at the positive terminal. Question one As each electron leaves the negative terminal does that terminal become slightly less negative ? If not that must mean new electrons arrive frome somewhere to take their place. So Question two Where do all these electrons come from (that is how do they get to the negative terminal?) ? Question three Why is the positive terminal positive?

The thing is they don't have to be big and scary. I have been trying to teach leprechaun who does my washing up to write my posts for Scienceforums.

Perhaps these responses are a bit harsh and some humility is in order. I have been frankly amazed (along with many others) at the fantastic creatures shown on Blue Planet II by David Attenborough. Remember more people have walked on the Moon than the very bottom of the Pacific Ocean.

As I said, but you didn't acknowledge, when you start using words for the purpose for which they were intended, rational discussion can move forward. You have the germ of an idea which lies somewhere between the Thompson 1904 'plum pudding' model of the atom and the Bohr 1913 orbital model. Probably quite close to the Rutherford 1911 model. However, they all called Helium, Helium and Hydrogen, Hydrogen. That enabled discussion. There was a great deal of head scratching in those days to come up with these three models and the history is quite interesting and pertineent to your ideas.

When you get to the moon, remember to bring me back a pound of green cheese.