Jump to content

Philosophy, Science & Reality


Randolpin
 Share

Recommended Posts

Mordred,

 

In the one link though it showed an electron responding to zero point energy like a ball on the end of a spring, with a sine wave type recoil pattern shown.

 

An electron can't become a little more or a little less matter. It has to have a little more or a little less energy to follow the sine wave pattern shown. That would indicate a potential in an energy field, carried by a photon like entity. And my question is, if energy is exchanged in quanta, by a single photon of a certain energy, wavelength and amplitude, does this mean, to get the sine wave pattern shown in the spring recoil model, does an electron need to receive a photon on every up and release a photon on every down?

 

Regards, TAR

Edited by tar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your looking at the harmonic oscillator via the spring inaccurately. I would like to properly show how the spring via Hookes law relates to the QM oscillator but will need to do so tonight. When I have time to properly answer the above.

 

Its too important to cheapen the answer.

 

However for now think of it this way. In the spring there is an equilibrium point in its range of motion. The equilibrium point being determined by the potential and kinetic energy.

 

So when I have time later I will apply this to Hookes law then step it into QM

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...
  • 2 weeks later...
On 5/21/2017 at 8:17 AM, Randolpin said:

This topic talks about the relationship of philosophy, science and reality.

I will expound it thru questions:

1. Is philosophy more advance than science in understanding reality because it can form ideas even when there is no experiments performed or observations (While science on the other hand can't step forward because it relies on data)?

2. Is philosophy always correct? Are there instance that science prove philosophy?If philosophy always correct, we can rely solely to philosophy than science.

3. Is philosophy as accurate as science?

4. When can we say that a question become philosophical? Can we say that philosophy is an advance science? If yes then we can conclude that the only task of science is to prove philosophy ( is it correct?).

 

I hope you understand my points. If you need clarifications, just ask me. Thank you...

--

 

In answer to your first question it is my opinion that that philosophy is far superior to science.Mainstream science  just thinks it knows best…it doesn’t.

Mainstream science is wrong and failing because it adopts a half philosophy that it has no way of definitively proving.

Half philosophy science suits secular scientists though because it pampers to their hopeful belief systems.All they have is hope you see like everyone else.

If you let unaware secular scientists loose with science it will all go belly up and it has.

Secular scientist don’t even understand consciousness and yet a child could understand it.

What mainstream scientist don’t get is you have to adopt “player” science to understand consciousness.You can’t understand it with “spectator” science.

Its the “easy problem” in “player” science and not the “hard problem”.

Edited July 8 by Jasper10

Speaking to the OP,
1. Here is a false dichotomy, in either science or philosophy I think you're describing forming a hypothesis. Of course observations will follow once you've identified what to observe, just as a philosophical proposition is brought about for the sake of debate.
2. Excessive philosophizing can be characterized as useless, as when there is no test for the hypothesis the philosophical exposition is simply impractical.
3. I think they both get towards accuracy through refinement.
4. I don't know, but I doubt it.

On 7/14/2017 at 4:28 PM, tar said:

Mordred,

 

In the one link though it showed an electron responding to zero point energy like a ball on the end of a spring, with a sine wave type recoil pattern shown.

 

An electron can't become a little more or a little less matter. It has to have a little more or a little less energy to follow the sine wave pattern shown. That would indicate a potential in an energy field, carried by a photon like entity. And my question is, if energy is exchanged in quanta, by a single photon of a certain energy, wavelength and amplitude, does this mean, to get the sine wave pattern shown in the spring recoil model, does an electron need to receive a photon on every up and release a photon on every down?

 

Regards, TAR

 

On 7/15/2017 at 9:28 AM, Mordred said:

Your looking at the harmonic oscillator via the spring inaccurately. I would like to properly show how the spring via Hookes law relates to the QM oscillator but will need to do so tonight. When I have time to properly answer the above.

 

Its too important to cheapen the answer.

 

However for now think of it this way. In the spring there is an equilibrium point in its range of motion. The equilibrium point being determined by the potential and kinetic energy.

 

So when I have time later I will apply this to Hookes law then step it into QM

Oh, great. How did this get to here? I'll have to read this thread...

Yeah, a particle in a box is like the quantum harmonic oscillator. It's a 1-D string. 

The classical Ideal Hooke spring or Hooke atom is a 2-D harmonic oscillator, related by the spring constant. A spring like that could store potential energy.
In a 3-D electron with spin we have torsion, maybe compression. I for one doubt it needs a photon, and would bet on resonance as a bigger player in a system of harmonic oscillators. Debye's method that is accurate for specific heat of solids models harmonic oscillators in a box as a lattice network. I think a more accurate model than the EM-photon field would be the connected system of oscillators vs. the isolated electron needing a discrete photon, which is similar to Debye's method vs. Einstein's crystal solid conception of specific heat. So the electron could change energy or change rate of vibration through absorbing or emitting a quanta of vibration? I think similar to how the Hooke spring is characterized by the spring constant a 3-D harmonic oscillator network is under the energy storage / mechanical compression force interchangability known as piezoelectricity in electromechanical terms.

 

On 7/8/2022 at 3:46 PM, mistermack said:

Even if a philosopher managed to "think" himself to Mars, he would still die within seconds. 

I think if I had to go, I'd rather let the scientists organise it. 

Horses for courses

DAMMIT, COHAGEN, ZE AIR! I'M A CESIUM REACTOR, AYEOWHYEAH!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • 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.