- Thank you received: 0
Heavy element production in MM
20 years 9 months ago #8202
by Gregg
I don't subscribe to the uncertainty principle either as an explanation of the mechanism(s) behind electrons staying out of a nucleus it should be strongly attracted to.
[/quote]
I was unable to determine the exact size, location and velocity of a puff of smoke. Therefore I shall impose the Uncertainty Principle. Or invent another particle: the half-pint, purple, bitter tasting, moody, upside down unquark.
Dr. Van Flandern has suggested that an electron might be an assembly of elysium particles. Such an assembly could form up or dissipate, change shape, flow....sounds a lot like "electricity" doesn't it?
If a scientist is blind to a gravitational flux and a light carrying medium, then every phenomenom must be a hard particle. We have invented hundreds of them.
Gregg Wilson
Replied by Gregg on topic Reply from Gregg Wilson
I don't subscribe to the uncertainty principle either as an explanation of the mechanism(s) behind electrons staying out of a nucleus it should be strongly attracted to.
[/quote]
I was unable to determine the exact size, location and velocity of a puff of smoke. Therefore I shall impose the Uncertainty Principle. Or invent another particle: the half-pint, purple, bitter tasting, moody, upside down unquark.
Dr. Van Flandern has suggested that an electron might be an assembly of elysium particles. Such an assembly could form up or dissipate, change shape, flow....sounds a lot like "electricity" doesn't it?
If a scientist is blind to a gravitational flux and a light carrying medium, then every phenomenom must be a hard particle. We have invented hundreds of them.
Gregg Wilson
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 9 months ago #8149
by Jan
Replied by Jan on topic Reply from Jan Vink
123,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
How does limitations in knowledge, or maybe we should call it
ignorance, become a cause of a physical phenomenon?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
This is questionable indeed, but as far as my limited understanding goes, the Uncertainly Principle merely reflects our own inablity to measure a form beyond some particular resolution. That is to say, no Mars Orbiter can ever have an onboard camera with a resolution higher than 2 meters: "Sorry, but uncertainty does not allow us to locate Spirit/Oppertunity precisely." I'd suggest you get a better camera....
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
How does limitations in knowledge, or maybe we should call it
ignorance, become a cause of a physical phenomenon?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
This is questionable indeed, but as far as my limited understanding goes, the Uncertainly Principle merely reflects our own inablity to measure a form beyond some particular resolution. That is to say, no Mars Orbiter can ever have an onboard camera with a resolution higher than 2 meters: "Sorry, but uncertainty does not allow us to locate Spirit/Oppertunity precisely." I'd suggest you get a better camera....
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 9 months ago #8150
by EBTX
Replied by EBTX on topic Reply from
Well, I guess it's true then.
Heisenberg, Bohr, Dirac, DeBroglie, Pauli, Schrodinger, Feynman, Gell-Man, etc. were just a bunch of idiots. ;o)
It's not OUR knowledge of the position and momentum of an electron that counts. It's the electron's "sense" of where and what it is that determines what it will do. Apparently, since it percieves no reference frame (on the scale of its own dimensions), it can't stay in a smaller volume either. Which means, it can't reside within the proton which is much smaller, i.e. like a telescope looking for details on Mars, it can't "resolve" the image of the proton and thus cannot locate it with sufficient precision and thus ... "go there".
Something like that is closer to the correct answer.
Heisenberg, Bohr, Dirac, DeBroglie, Pauli, Schrodinger, Feynman, Gell-Man, etc. were just a bunch of idiots. ;o)
It's not OUR knowledge of the position and momentum of an electron that counts. It's the electron's "sense" of where and what it is that determines what it will do. Apparently, since it percieves no reference frame (on the scale of its own dimensions), it can't stay in a smaller volume either. Which means, it can't reside within the proton which is much smaller, i.e. like a telescope looking for details on Mars, it can't "resolve" the image of the proton and thus cannot locate it with sufficient precision and thus ... "go there".
Something like that is closer to the correct answer.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 9 months ago #8203
by Jan
Replied by Jan on topic Reply from Jan Vink
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br />Well, I guess it's true then.
Heisenberg, Bohr, Dirac, DeBroglie, Pauli, Schrodinger, Feynman, Gell-Man, etc. were just a bunch of idiots. ;o)
It's not OUR knowledge of the position and momentum of an electron that counts. It's the electron's "sense" of where and what it is that determines what it will do. Apparently, since it percieves no reference frame (on the scale of its own dimensions), it can't stay in a smaller volume either. Which means, it can't reside within the proton which is much smaller, i.e. like a telescope looking for details on Mars, it can't "resolve" the image of the proton and thus cannot locate it with sufficient precision and thus ... "go there".
Something like that is closer to the correct answer.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I see what you mean. But if we can claim that the proton is much smaller than the electron, why do we invent uncertainty to conclude that the electron will not go there? I fail to see what uncertainty has anything to do with this. The proton has a certain dimension and so does the electron, so if the electron is larger, it will not go into the proton for trivial reasons. Please fill me in on this one since it is clear I don't get it. []
<br />Well, I guess it's true then.
Heisenberg, Bohr, Dirac, DeBroglie, Pauli, Schrodinger, Feynman, Gell-Man, etc. were just a bunch of idiots. ;o)
It's not OUR knowledge of the position and momentum of an electron that counts. It's the electron's "sense" of where and what it is that determines what it will do. Apparently, since it percieves no reference frame (on the scale of its own dimensions), it can't stay in a smaller volume either. Which means, it can't reside within the proton which is much smaller, i.e. like a telescope looking for details on Mars, it can't "resolve" the image of the proton and thus cannot locate it with sufficient precision and thus ... "go there".
Something like that is closer to the correct answer.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I see what you mean. But if we can claim that the proton is much smaller than the electron, why do we invent uncertainty to conclude that the electron will not go there? I fail to see what uncertainty has anything to do with this. The proton has a certain dimension and so does the electron, so if the electron is larger, it will not go into the proton for trivial reasons. Please fill me in on this one since it is clear I don't get it. []
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 9 months ago #8152
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
The who's right who's wrong road gets you nowhere. The fact is stuff happens at the atomic level that is not understood. The models don't help understanding so why argue which one is most right? There are several facts that can be listed and logically studied so why not start with this little bit of data and see what develops? The ideas of QM don't need to be used for that.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- 1234567890
- Visitor
20 years 9 months ago #8155
by 1234567890
Replied by 1234567890 on topic Reply from
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br />Well, I guess it's true then.
Heisenberg, Bohr, Dirac, DeBroglie, Pauli, Schrodinger, Feynman, Gell-Man, etc. were just a bunch of idiots. ;o)
It's not OUR knowledge of the position and momentum of an electron that counts. It's the electron's "sense" of where and what it is that determines what it will do. Apparently, since it percieves no reference frame (on the scale of its own dimensions), it can't stay in a smaller volume either. Which means, it can't reside within the proton which is much smaller, i.e. like a telescope looking for details on Mars, it can't "resolve" the image of the proton and thus cannot locate it with sufficient precision and thus ... "go there".
Something like that is closer to the correct answer.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
How about Einstein? He was no slouch either in physics and he
didn't think much of the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle. "God does
not play dice." Schrodinger, one of the co-founders of QM,
himself doubted QM as a valid picture of phyiscal reality. In
his famous thought experiment, Schrodinger's Cat, he tried
to demonstrate the absurdity behind the Copenhagen interpretation
of QM.
It seems that it was only Heisenburg, of the original developers
of the theory, that was diehard about the Heisenburg Uncertainty
Principle as being a statement about the operation of the real world.
And who was Heisenberg, besides being a mathematical genius?
Well, he was a student who in the oral exam of his dissertation,
failed to derive the resolving power of a common instrument
such as a telescope and microscope. He didn't even know how
a storage battery worked. In short, he sucked in the physical
sciences. (read: www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p06.htm ).
When he first proposed a physical experiment then to demonstrate
the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle using a gamma ray microscope
set-up, it's no wonder that it had to be corrected by one of
his colleagues.
I find it very ironical indeed that a principle that has much
to say about the resolving abilities of measuring instruments
and that eventually became a broad philosophical statement about
reality was arrived at by someone who couldn't derive
the resolving ability of the simplest of measuring instruments.
As for the rest of your comments, I can't imagine how "resolving power"
has much if anything to do with the electromagnetic forces that causes
attraction between oppositely charged particles. In particular,
I cannot make heads of the idea of "perceiving reference frames" and
of the term "resolving power" as it applies to the
question of electrons not falling into an attractive nucleus.
These concepts sound new to me and do not correspond
to anything I've read about the Uncertainty Principle.
Most publications just regurgitate Heisenburg's physical arguments
it seems, which when rephrased, basically say that the math is the cause behind the physics- no mechansim is required. Mathemagic.
<br />Well, I guess it's true then.
Heisenberg, Bohr, Dirac, DeBroglie, Pauli, Schrodinger, Feynman, Gell-Man, etc. were just a bunch of idiots. ;o)
It's not OUR knowledge of the position and momentum of an electron that counts. It's the electron's "sense" of where and what it is that determines what it will do. Apparently, since it percieves no reference frame (on the scale of its own dimensions), it can't stay in a smaller volume either. Which means, it can't reside within the proton which is much smaller, i.e. like a telescope looking for details on Mars, it can't "resolve" the image of the proton and thus cannot locate it with sufficient precision and thus ... "go there".
Something like that is closer to the correct answer.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
How about Einstein? He was no slouch either in physics and he
didn't think much of the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle. "God does
not play dice." Schrodinger, one of the co-founders of QM,
himself doubted QM as a valid picture of phyiscal reality. In
his famous thought experiment, Schrodinger's Cat, he tried
to demonstrate the absurdity behind the Copenhagen interpretation
of QM.
It seems that it was only Heisenburg, of the original developers
of the theory, that was diehard about the Heisenburg Uncertainty
Principle as being a statement about the operation of the real world.
And who was Heisenberg, besides being a mathematical genius?
Well, he was a student who in the oral exam of his dissertation,
failed to derive the resolving power of a common instrument
such as a telescope and microscope. He didn't even know how
a storage battery worked. In short, he sucked in the physical
sciences. (read: www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p06.htm ).
When he first proposed a physical experiment then to demonstrate
the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle using a gamma ray microscope
set-up, it's no wonder that it had to be corrected by one of
his colleagues.
I find it very ironical indeed that a principle that has much
to say about the resolving abilities of measuring instruments
and that eventually became a broad philosophical statement about
reality was arrived at by someone who couldn't derive
the resolving ability of the simplest of measuring instruments.
As for the rest of your comments, I can't imagine how "resolving power"
has much if anything to do with the electromagnetic forces that causes
attraction between oppositely charged particles. In particular,
I cannot make heads of the idea of "perceiving reference frames" and
of the term "resolving power" as it applies to the
question of electrons not falling into an attractive nucleus.
These concepts sound new to me and do not correspond
to anything I've read about the Uncertainty Principle.
Most publications just regurgitate Heisenburg's physical arguments
it seems, which when rephrased, basically say that the math is the cause behind the physics- no mechansim is required. Mathemagic.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.377 seconds