Jump to content

Anharmonic Oscillator


Recommended Posts

On 2/21/2020 at 10:52 PM, swansont said:

Without existing in between those points? 

As you can see, the particle disappears when it moves too fast. And appears on its extremities because it marks a certain stop.
It is an optical illusion known as Optical flow. And that is calculated. Why not have done the approximation?

Reminder:
When you increase the speed to 20 or 40, you will achieve perfect harmony. --> See the animation

So we can see two distinct dots from a single particle. 

Edited by Kartazion
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 276
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The gauge groups I mentioned are not specifically the harmonic oscillator. QFT accounts for the quantum harmonic oscillator in its gauge groups but that isn't the full story.  https://www.google.

Sigh no you have to recognize that harmonic, inharmonic and anharmonic are descriptives of the characteristics of the oscillator.  Here is how classical harmonic oscillator is described.  A

Be careful of such bold statements for example try to define that statement above to the Higgs coupling constants. First ask yourself the function of a coupling constant in regards to mass. (Hint

Posted Images

1 hour ago, Kartazion said:

As you can see, the particle disappears when it moves too fast.

It only disappears because the display cannot render the intermediate positions (or, if it were a physical object) because the eye cannot react that fast. 

You are playing around with optical illusions. This has nothing to do with quantum theory. I'm not sure why this thread has been allowed to drag on for so long.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Strange said:

It only disappears because the display cannot

the intermediate positions (or, if it were a physical object) because the eye cannot react that fast. 

Yes.

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

You are playing around with optical illusions.

And as said before this is calculated.

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

This has nothing to do with quantum theory. I'm not sure why this thread has been allowed to drag on for so long.

I am only emphasizing the result of the very high frequency anharmonic oscillation.
In addition this thread talk about of a classical and not quantum oscillator.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

I am only emphasizing the result of the very high frequency anharmonic oscillation.

No you are not. You said, "As you can see, the particle disappears when it moves too fast" which is not true. It does not disappear.

So you are lying being deliberately inaccurate about "the result of the very high frequency anharmonic oscillation."

13 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

In addition this thread talk about of a classical and not quantum oscillator.

Also not true. There are about 30 posts where you have mentioned quantum theory. And you were the first to introduce the topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Strange said:

No you are not. You said, "As you can see, the particle disappears when it moves too fast" which is not true. It does not disappear.

So you are lying about "the result of the very high frequency anharmonic oscillation."

Yes its probability of presence allows it. Because the anharmonicity is focused on the stop of the particle at its ends, unlike, where between two, its acceleration is very fast.
You are therefore more likely to find the particle at its ends, than between.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Strange said:

Also not true. There are about 30 posts where you have mentioned quantum theory. And you were the first to introduce the topic.

I had not seen the addition and modification of your message.

I misspoke. I should have clarified again that I was based on the arrangement of this subject which has been clarified since.

On 2/21/2020 at 12:06 AM, Kartazion said:

Split reference:

 

Conclusion: The oscillator that I am trying to exploit is classical and not quantum.
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kartazion said:

Conclusion: The oscillator that I am trying to exploit is classical and not quantum.

So you are no longer claiming that this is some sort of explanation or model of quantum effects? If so, good. That is some sort of progress.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Strange said:

So you are no longer claiming that this is some sort of explanation or model of quantum effects? 

I'm not savvy enough to be able to say it. Maybe the same electron is oscillating with another electron.

But my oscillator is classic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Strange, do you agree with that: 

You are therefore more likely to find the particle at its ends, than between. Because the anharmonicity is focused on the stop of the particle at its ends, unlike, where between two, its acceleration is very fast.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
2 hours ago, Kartazion said:

To show the probability of the presence of the particle.

It becomes the classical solution when n is large. Again: why would you want to do this?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, swansont said:

Again: why would you want to do this?

I wanted, with the wave function, to exploit the classical presence form of the particle as the electron in a hydrogen atom at different energy levels such as 4,3,3

hydrogen.PNG.a3d764d8d56fe1c1b3d5ab0b53557c23.PNG

I remind you that I'm a novice and I haven't figured it all out yet. So I think I'm going in the wrong direction to explain this, with a classical particle ; or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

I wanted, with the wave function, to exploit the classical presence form of the particle as the electron in a hydrogen atom at different energy levels such as 4,3,3

hydrogen.PNG.a3d764d8d56fe1c1b3d5ab0b53557c23.PNG

I remind you that I'm a novice and I haven't figured it all out yet. So I think I'm going in the wrong direction to explain this, with a classical particle ; or not.

n=4 isn't going to give you a classical solution. n = 4000 might.These systems are hard to investigate because they are so easy to ionize at that point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kartazion said:

I wanted, with the wave function, to exploit the classical presence form of the particle as the electron in a hydrogen atom at different energy levels such as 4,3,3

 

I remind you that I'm a novice and I haven't figured it all out yet. So I think I'm going in the wrong direction to explain this, with a classical particle ; or not.

 

I know you haven't followed up any of the references I have already given but you might like to look at this one.

Chapter 2 of

Molecular Quantum Mechanics by Atkins and Friedman is largely about your current discussion with swansont.

In particular they work out in great detail the difference between the classical harmonic oscillator and a quantum (probability) one with many plots and diagrams similar to the ones you are looking at. It would save you a lot of work and offers a great deal of explanation about what is and is not possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, studiot said:

I know you haven't followed up any of the references I have already given but you might like to look at this one.

I've only been in the study phase for a few weeks. It is difficult for me to follow everything as mathematical evidence.
What is the reference that I should have followed in order to be able to talk about the probability of presence of the particle?

9 hours ago, studiot said:

Chapter 2 of

Molecular Quantum Mechanics by Atkins and Friedman is largely about your current discussion with swansont.

Thanks for the tip. It's a great document as a whole, but it's highly quantum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/29/2020 at 7:56 PM, swansont said:

n=4 isn't going to give you a classical solution. n = 4000 might.These systems are hard to investigate because they are so easy to ionize at that point.

Isn't that the Rydberg atom principle? With a high n value? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

Isn't that the Rydberg atom principle? With a high n value? 

Yes, that would be a Rydberg state. Which approaches a classical solution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes, that would be a Rydberg state. Which approaches a classical solution.

For fun; one could create an oscillator of the electron of a hydrogen atom with the variation of the wavelength of a laser assimilated to the electronic layers. 
This variation could be done between the false vacuum (surely the ground state) and the highest excited state of the potential well. Without ionization of course. 
As an output we could then study the Rydberg wave packet.

The question is, why, or in what sense would this be a classic solution approach when we have a big n?

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/30/2020 at 6:04 AM, Kartazion said:

Thanks for the tip. It's a great document as a whole, but it's highly quantum.

Which is hardly surprising considering the title.

1 hour ago, Kartazion said:

The question is, why, or in what sense would this be a classic solution approach when we have a big n?

Nevertheless if you had read the reference it would have explained this with diagrams you could follow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kartazion said:

For fun; one could create an oscillator of the electron of a hydrogen atom with the variation of the wavelength of a laser assimilated to the electronic layers. 

Not sure what this means.

4 hours ago, Kartazion said:

This variation could be done between the false vacuum (surely the ground state)

False vacuum? An atom isn’t a vacuum. and a false vacuum implies a lower energy state. What state is below the ground state?

4 hours ago, Kartazion said:

and the highest excited state of the potential well. Without ionization of course. 

n goes to infinity, so there is no highest state.

 

4 hours ago, Kartazion said:

The question is, why, or in what sense would this be a classic solution approach when we have a big n?

Thanks.

The energy state differences become small, approximating a continuum. The orbital angular momentum changes, too, and approaches the classical solution for large L

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, swansont said:

What state is below the ground state?

The true vacuum?

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

False vacuum? An atom isn’t a vacuum. and a false vacuum implies a lower energy state. 

n goes to infinity, so there is no highest state.

But the energy and thus the principal quantum number n follow the shape of the potential well?

406515659_Capture17.PNG.d6a1fde1c19b98eccbc84ed9f63b5243.PNG

https://www.academia.edu/8950511/Molecular_Quantum_Mechanics_4th_ed_ATKINS-FRIEDMAN

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

The true vacuum?

How does that apply to an atom?

56 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

But the energy and thus the principal quantum number n follow the shape of the potential well?

n follows the shape of the potential well? What does that mean?

Energy depends on n, but they are not the same thing. In hydrogen, for example, it depends on 1/n^2

 

56 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

That’s the probability distribution, not the energy

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, swansont said:

How does that apply to an atom?

For the atomic nucleus I don't know. But the electron can use quantum tunnelling and pass the potential barrier from the false to the true vacuum.
In the QFT the Higgs potential determines whether the Universe is in one of a true vacuum, or a false vacuum.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

n follows the shape of the potential well? What does that mean?

Doesn't the ground state represent the lowest energy level of an atom? And so at the bottom of the well at x=0?
So that a large value of n could bring the energy to the highest in the well?

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Energy depends on n, but they are not the same thing. In hydrogen, for example, it depends on 1/n^2

Ok.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

That’s the probability distribution, not the energy

We have a better chance of finding the particle at the extremities than in the center of the well.

Link to post
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

×
×
  • 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.