 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / July 2005A question about protons and neutrons in a nucleus.
When protons and neutrons bond into a nucleus, do the protons and neutrons still exist individually. For example, if we consider the protons and neutrons to be little balls, is the nucleus made from these little balls being stuck to each other or would the protons and neutrons make one big ball. > When protons and neutrons bond into a nucleus, do the protons and > neutrons still exist individually. Yes > For example, if we consider the protons and neutrons to be little > balls, is the nucleus made from these little balls being stuck to each > other or would the protons and neutrons make one big ball. The nucleus is not quark-gluon plasma, no. PD >>When protons and neutrons bond into a nucleus, do the protons and >>neutrons still exist individually. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > PD What does a quark look like? Also, what does a gluon look like? Please. John "Look like" presumes a visual representation, which presumes that ray-traceable light optics will work on such an object. That is not a good assumption for objects that are comparable or smaller than an optical wavelength. It furthermore presumes that the object can be observed in a frame of reference where it is at rest and that it has a boundary that can be referenced for a shape. None of these qualities apply to a quark or an electron. Your macroscopic/biological prejudices have forced you to make some poor presumptions. PD > >>When protons and neutrons bond into a nucleus, do the protons and > >>neutrons still exist individually. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > John > "Look like" presumes a visual representation, which presumes that > ray-traceable light optics will work on such an object. That is not a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > PD Exactly wrong. "Look like", as I was using it, means give us its physical dimensions. Give us its shape, or shapes, if it changes through a cycle. Whether or not they are less than what light can show us. Then relate those dimensions to how it moves, certainly showing why one is 'up' and the other is 'down', and continue by surmising on the actual material making it up, which must follow if up can be distinguished from down. No, my statement had nothing to do with light. Red herring. It had everything to do with the difference between a 'word' and a 'thing'. Standard model has lots of the former, but NONE of the latter. John > > "Look like" presumes a visual representation, which presumes that > > ray-traceable light optics will work on such an object. That is not a [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > a cycle. Whether or not they are less than what > light can show us. As I mentioned above, "shape" implies a boundary. What is the shape of a dipole electric field? What is the shape of a radioactive fallout cloud? What is the shape of the freshwater flow in the Gulf of Mexico from the Mississipi River? In answering these and similar questions, note that many conventions exist, such as taking the orbital shape to mean the outline where there is a 90% probability of find the particle inside it, just as the shape of a dipole field might be represented by the envelope of an arbitrarily chosen set of field lines. However, they are just conventions. As far as we've been able to measure, quarks and leptons have no structure and they have no measurable charge distribution. How would YOU then characterize their "shape"? > Then relate those dimensions to how it moves, > certainly showing why one is 'up' and the > other is 'down', and continue by surmising > on the actual material making it up, which > must follow if up can be distinguished from > down. As for "up" and "down", these quark labels are labels only, the result of a convention that noticed that quarks seem to exhibit a property that is mathematically similar to spin (hence called "isospin") and for which it then was suggestive but not physically meaningful to appoint "up" and "down" labels. It certainly implies nothing about motion. The properties that are relevant are the aforementioned mathematical ones, because they describe the behavior, not structural adjectives. PD > No, my statement had nothing to do > with light. Red herring. It had [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > John >>>When protons and neutrons bond into a nucleus, do the protons and >>>neutrons still exist individually. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Also, what does a gluon look like? >Please. What does an atom look like?  Signature"I often think how wasteful it is that those with real capabilities should doubt their abilities, while bunglers seem so damn sure of themselves." -- Gil Amelio, "On the Firing Line" >>>>When protons and neutrons bond into a nucleus, do the protons and >>>>neutrons still exist individually. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > What does an atom look like? Like a galaxy. The Periodic Table reflects the building of concentric rings of 16 members on a disc: http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/periodicpattern.GIF John In sci.physics, John Sefton <vegan16@accesscomm.ca> wrote on Sat, 23 Jul 2005 09:14:08 -0600 <42e25cae$1@news.accesscomm.ca>: >>>>>When protons and neutrons bond into a nucleus, do the protons and >>>>>neutrons still exist individually. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/periodicpattern.GIF > John The old Bohr model was discredited long ago. Granted, there are some minor issues on how one "looks" at an atom; the size of an atom is roughly 200 picometers, whereas the size of a visible wavelength of light is at a minimum about 300 *nanometers*. But assuming one can pelt the atom with gamma rays without disrupting it too much -- an assumption that is not borne out, BTW -- one can see, in a sense, a tight little nucleonic cloud (it is far from clear to me whether the individual quarks of each proton and neutron cluster, or whether it's a can o' quark/gluon soup vaguely reminiscent of the J. J. Thomson model; for chemistry it's not that important) surrounded by a far larger electronic cloud of varying size and shape. The Orbitron is probably one of the better resources of how these orbitals shape themselves, but is not quite right as it shows the surfaces as definitive mirrors, as opposed to the proper clouds. There are also regions where the wave function is negative -- a meaning that may not be all that clear for those of us used to the macroworld where a probability is either 0 or 1 or somewhere in between. http://www.shef.ac.uk/chemistry/orbitron/ I am also wondering where the 3dx^2 and 3dy^2 orbitals went. No doubt the 5 orbitals shown represent 5 degrees of freedom in the equation solutions, and that's all one gets (the rest are linear combinations). However, it's been a long time since I've studied this stuff. http://www.shef.ac.uk/chemistry/orbitron/AOs/3d/index.html The 3dz^2 orbital, however, does have the shape of a ring, which is as close to the Bohr model as one is likely to get nowadays. The higher orbitals can show even more esoteric structures, such as double rings. Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. Download Atom in a Box instead. It makes fuzzy pictures as it should, and are much prettier than the Orbitron. AiaB has been around much longer. PD could learn what a spectrum is. In sci.physics, Autymn D. C. <lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> wrote on 23 Jul 2005 19:32:13 -0700 <1122172332.965681.152410@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>: > Download Atom in a Box instead. It makes fuzzy pictures as it should, > and are much prettier than the Orbitron. AiaB has been around much > longer. PD could learn what a spectrum is. Doesn't do me a lot of good unless I can get the source code, unfortunately. I don't have a Mac. :-/ Still, the pictures are far closer to what I personally would expect regarding electronic wavefunctions. (If nothing else, they're fuzzy! :-) ) Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. > Download Atom in a Box instead. It makes fuzzy pictures as it should, > and are much prettier than the Orbitron. AiaB has been around much > longer. PD could learn what a spectrum is. I have AiaB on my machine and agree that it is nice software. I also know what a spectrum is, but I have no idea what relevance that has to what an electron looks like or what a quark looks like. Note that an electron orbital's shape (whatever THAT means) is not intended to describe what an electron looks like. PD > I have AiaB on my machine and agree that it is nice software. I also > know what a spectrum is, but I have no idea what relevance that has to > what an electron looks like or what a quark looks like. Note that an > electron orbital's shape (whatever THAT means) is not intended to > describe what an electron looks like. A electron, quark, or gluon is bound, letting portions of EM energy to be sent back to the observer. Even free particles reradiate when accelerated, in Lamor power, giving them looks. Macroscopic objects only look like what their electrons do by how their sustems behave. So one should ask what a particle looks like under particular conditions. Otherwise, if the particles don't interact, they can be said to be "clear", "grey", or "sparkly". -Aut > I have AiaB on my machine and agree that it is nice software. I also > know what a spectrum is, but I have no idea what relevance that has to > what an electron looks like or what a quark looks like. Note that an > electron orbital's shape (whatever THAT means) is not intended to > describe what an electron looks like. The electron, quark, or gluon is bound to other particles, and together allow a portion of EM energies to be sent back to the observer. One should ask what a particle looks like under what particular conditions. So other than not interacting with radiation, in which case the particle may be said to be "clear" or "grey" or "sparkly", it interacts in other ways: Even free particles will interact and reradiate as they're accelerated, in Lamor power. What any macroscopic object looks like is dictated by what the electrons are doing, so one can say the electrons look like what their sustems look like. -Aut sustems ???? iow you said very little !! 2 to know about a particle only from its radiation is a very poor knowledge!! that cannot be satisfactory!! yet you will be surprised that there are some people who know about protons and neutrons and deuteron's *much more than you or another QM wisard* and much more than you could dream of !! just by accumulating data in a way that never occurred to you !! so you should say: 'i (and the other parrots ) know very little about the above issue and .... it seems that there are other people who know something more than my very abstract impressive phrases!!' ATB Y.Porat -------------------- > sustems ???? Yes, less-corrupted Greek with its upsilon and not ypsilon. > iow > you said very little !! enough > 2 to know about a particle only from its radiation is > a very poor knowledge!! that cannot be satisfactory!! We were talking about looks, so shut up and go away. -Aut shut up you ...... (choose for yourself an insult) just go to my site and see who knows something more about how 'it looks' Y.Porat ------------------------- > shut up you ...... (choose for yourself an insult) > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Y.Porat > ------------------------- Notice how you always end up disagreeing with everyone? Ever consider that you are the one who is wrong? I see even Bjorern got tired of arguing with you. OK so better get tired of me ...... if feyerbacher is your hero worship good luck now 1 it is not everyone it seems that your memory even the personal one is leaking.... just to remind you a little example: while i published my thread (btw unprecedented idea!!) 'point particles cannot annihilate themselves' it was ......... you the first one to support me !! or may be you would like just now to retreat about it ?? -and you are not the only example i have a lot of them only your memory is selective and i am goint to push you to the corner just now.....: if we take the Deuteron for example can we assume wit the highest probability that in the Derron the proton is located next to the neutron?? if yes that is bypassing the HUP and not as your hero worship fellow claims against me that HUP makes my model 'dead by arrival'!! and just to mention you that in my geometric model there is no scale and no exact distances between sub- particles presents there so i am sure you have no real idea about my model. btw have you ever saw my site?? did you understood anything of it ?? if you didn't understood why don't you ask questions ?? -- ------- do you agree with me or with your hero worship?? and i guess that many people will agree with my above example and conclusion that we can bypass the HUP by other experimental data 2 my findings are really revolutionary so it i difficult for parrots to get it 'everyone' is not the supreme judge for me indeed it makes it tough for me but i became used to it that was the faith of many real innovators it seems that you are not the right character for missions like that you prefer to 'drive only on the easy 'autosrada' yet driving only on the autostarda will lead to to where other billions are . nothing more ... ------ so keep well Y.Porat ----------------- have you ever saw -> have you ever seen did you understood -> did you understand didn't understood -> didn't understand autostarda -> autostrada > In sci.physics, John Sefton > <vegan16@accesscomm.ca> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > The old Bohr model was discredited long ago. The Bohr model was the planets orbitting the sun. But you can't even say that, because higher orbits were not in the same 'ecliptic plane', so that's different from any planetary system we've seen. The Galaxy Model is just that: a physical modelling of the atom after the galaxy, and vice versa. It says they are identical in every way except scale. And galaxies are different from solar systems. In this model, all the electron material is certainly always in the same plane- because of the magnetic fields it produces as the disc turns it has to be- and the magnetic jets it produces *as the galaxy precesses* are very apparent in ions, when their lighthouse sweep creates the ion's electric field. > Granted, there are some minor issues on how one "looks" > at an atom; the size of an atom is roughly 200 picometers, [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > The higher orbitals can show even more esoteric structures, such > as double rings. Question: are all five d orbitals the same? John Galaxy Model http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/ In sci.physics, John Sefton <vegan16@accesscomm.ca> wrote on Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:14:20 -0600 <42e34bce@news.accesscomm.ca>: >> In sci.physics, John Sefton >> <vegan16@accesscomm.ca> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > when their lighthouse sweep creates the ion's > electric field. Way too many problems with this model. For starters, how does one explain the Lyman series? A galactic pattern would presumably have far more lines than the piddling few shown by hydrogen of that series (since there would be an indefinite number of orbits). Also, in any reasonable classical theory of this type the electron will just emit brehmsstrahlung (?) and spiral into the nucleus. Since this is obviously not happening something's wrong with that particular subpoint of the model. >> Granted, there are some minor issues on how one "looks" >> at an atom; the size of an atom is roughly 200 picometers, [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >> > Question: are all five d orbitals the same? Define "the same". Four of them show four regions (two positive wave function, two negative), oriented in different orientations in the 3-D space. The fifth showed a different pattern, including the ring. > John > Galaxy Model > http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/ Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. > In sci.physics, John Sefton > <vegan16@accesscomm.ca> > wrote > on Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:14:20 -0600 >>Question: are all five d orbitals the same? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>Galaxy Model >>http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/ Perfect! In the galaxy model, 4 of them are on the outer shell, and the 5th builds in the interior. See: http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/periodicpattern.GIF where the red ones fill on the inside. John > Way too many problems with this model. For starters, how > does one explain the Lyman series? A galactic pattern [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > classical theory of this type the electron will just emit > brehmsstrahlung (?) and spiral into the nucleus. You may want to dig into AIP's PNU and look for cold neutrons falling in a trap to measure quantum gravity, which did show quantised gravitic orbitals, for energy at least. -Aut >>>>>When protons and neutrons bond into a nucleus, do the protons and >>>>>neutrons still exist individually. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/periodicpattern.GIF >John That's a model of the atom, a little story about the way you think things should be. Signature"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering > >>>>When protons and neutrons bond into a nucleus, do the protons and > >>>>neutrons still exist individually. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/periodicpattern.GIF > John Your model is inconsistent with VSEPR, with hybrid orbitals and their energies, with spectroscopy, and with a whole host of other experimental observations. It ain't enough to be pretty. It has to explain why hydrocarbon chains have the shapes they do. Perhaps you could use your model to explain chair and boat cyclohexane configurations. PD see my model at my site we have nothing but models yet the question is who is the closest to reality posibility No 2 one model is closer in one aspect the other is closer in another aspect ------- ATB Y.Porat ----------------------- > >>When protons and neutrons bond into a nucleus, do the protons and > >>neutrons still exist individually. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > John Subatomic particles belong to the world of Harry Potter where ghostly states and kaleidoscopic dreamy fluctuations, etc. are the rule rather than the exception. What's so good about them is they can be described by mathematics as it pertains to macroscopic effect which we see as normal object. Therefore you can never model the subatomic realm using classical physics like you are doing with your Galaxy Model. It doesn't make any Harry Potter sense. The best thing to do is figure out what makes macroscopic object decohere and lose the quantum properties. Roger Penrose the super genius says it has something to do with gravity. Others say it is noises. If we can be certain and eliminate it. You can find yourself disappearing and reappearing anywhere in your house or in the street as you can exist as superposition. Then you can trash your Galaxy Model being certain quantum mechanics is real. Some saints can somehow bilocate or in two places at once maybe because they can push hbar to higher value or isolate the decohering source for an instant? I have a friend who while sleep can project into pure solidity and appear at parties interacting with people. This is purely impossible with your galaxy model but not quantum mechanics if one can learn the secret of isolating the decohering source making macroscopic object subject to quantum properties and some extra degree of freedom. p6 > > When protons and neutrons bond into a nucleus, do the protons and > > neutrons still exist individually. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > PD A deuteron has less mass than the combined mass of the proton and neutron. This implies that a proton and neutron are not just little balls stuck to each others surface, but are slighty overlapping each other. This overlapping implies that the proton and neutron are not solid, and have reconfigured themselves to form the new particle. > > > When protons and neutrons bond into a nucleus, do the protons and > > > neutrons still exist individually. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > This overlapping implies that the proton and neutron are not solid, and > have reconfigured themselves to form the new particle. It implies no such thing. The atom has less mass than the combined mass of nucleus and electrons, as well, with no significant overlap. What you are noticing is called "binding energy" and is a consequence of special-relativistic equivalence between mass and energy. The binding energy in the nucleus is about a million times larger than the binding energy of an atom, because the driving force is different, but the principle is the same. You seem to be stuck in a highly classical notion that "overlapping" must mean removing a chunk of mass from solid objects where the overlap occurs, as you would to get two billiard balls to *appear* to overlap. (Note that if you removed a scoop of one of the billiard balls to give this appearance, the billiard balls would not in fact be overlapping at all.) Consider what you mean by "solid". A block of metal gives the appearance of being solid, and yet it is empty space except for 1 part in a quadrillion. So ask yourself the question, what is it about a chunk of metal that makes it inpenetrable by my finger? That is, what makes it "solid"? PD a very goo dquestion that it seems that i have a very definit answer for it see my site: http://www.geocities.com/porat_y/mypage.html (quote frommemory and hope no typing mistakes. now to your good question: do they exist individually: partly yes partly no!!! one of my revolusionary and axcuse my lack of modesly - historic findings- is that some of the Protons: *looses their electric field* i say some of them it is those that are connected on both of their sides and tha t leads to the next answer: th e nucleid *is not a 'ball' it is something longish!! madeby its suboarticles :--------- --- CONNECTED LINEARILY!!! ATB Y.Porat ---------------------- I checked out your pdf. You say that in heavy atoms, the number of electrons is not neccessarily the same as the number of protons. If this were the case then these atoms would be charged. Are these atoms charged or neutral? > When protons and neutrons bond into a nucleus, do the protons and > neutrons still exist individually. > > For example, if we consider the protons and neutrons to be little > balls, is the nucleus made from these little balls being stuck to each > other or would the protons and neutrons make one big ball. Thats the way I see it exactly. The structure of matter is all balls. Regards, Monitek (Arden Barker) just have a look at my above site and you might change your mind.(at least a bit....) Y.Porat ------------------------ > When protons and neutrons bond into a nucleus, do the protons and > neutrons still exist individually. > > For example, if we consider the protons and neutrons to be little > balls, is the nucleus made from these little balls being stuck to each > other or would the protons and neutrons make one big ball. Let's look at this from another angle. If we consider the proton and neutron to be wavefunctions, does a deuteron consist of the 2 wavefunctions, or does it have its own unique wavefunction. If the deuteron has its own unique wavefunction, then the protons and neutrons do not exist individually, and the deuteron is made from one big ball. If a deuteron consists of the 2 wavefunctions of the proton and neutron, then the protons and neutrons still exist individually, and the deuteron is made from little balls. balls eh??? in the deuteron Proton and Neutron are located side by side!! and they are not balls !!! 'one big 'ball does not have two poles .. therefore the deuteron is a longish shape see it in my site you dont have to invent the wheel again and again. Y.Porat ---------------------- I am not talking about the shape, that is why I introduced the wavefunction example. wave function is very nice and abstract but it will not lead you too far way God (or nature ) don't know what a wave function is !!! anyway just consider that once i give you a more specific substantiated shape it leads you closer to your unsolved questions for example if i give you the shape of the Deuteron to be side by side proton and neutron and not just a mixed 'scrambled egg' being a combined 'ball' it leads to further away in understanding some basic rules of particles combinations! (IE the way particles combine.. and it seems that you and most people are not aware and not even curious enough to look for that crucial aspect) any additional knowledge , is necessary and leads you to further advance don't you think so ?? ATB Y.Porat P's checked by my new spell checker!! ------------------------------ ... > (IE the way particles combine.. and it seems that you and most people > are not aware and not even curious enough to look for that crucial > aspect) Bull, Mr. Boar's good question relates to the power of the H-bomb, many have been curious aboot that. > any additional knowledge , is necessary and leads you to further > advance [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Y.Porat > P's checked by my new spell checker!! Great, now I'll now why I'm confused gooder! Ken :) read again the op it does not mention at all any H bomb. he was asking exactly about what i answered!! if you add to it my site data no one did it so clear and unequivocal! ATB Y.Porat -------------------- If the proton and neutron are located side by side, then why does the deuteron have less mass than the combined mass of the proton and neutron. protons and neutrons are not just 3 quarks they are much more than that see my site and the 'chain of orbitals' there during combining some of those chains are lost (ejected as energy) so now you starts to understand why i am so persistent with my claim that *energy i smass in motion* !!! and the most shocking innovation of my findings is that (sit still on your chair...) that is as well why ... some of the protons are (listen carefully and don't forget from whom you first hear ed about it: SOME OF THE PROTONS IN THE INNER STRUCTURE LOOSE THEIR ELECTRIC CHARGE (that is in the heavier ones) and that is why the common paradigm of one electron per one proton is boggling the mides of science for more than a century!! (no to say boggling the testicles (:-) and leads to am in measurable unbelievable wast of time and human resources. see my' home made ' site (its *content* is not 'home made' !! ATB Y.Porat ---------------------- loose -> lose mides -> minds no to say -> not to say wast -> waste home made -> homemade do you mean lose their electric charge or their field? nice that you are interested 2 thanks for the corrections 3 you see that even my new spell checker does not solve the problem completely (nothing in our world is not solved completed (:-) even not the space shuttle... 4 (and most important) it loses (Right spelling ??) its electric charge- therefore its field as well!! not the strong force of course. and that will explain to you why th existing calculations will never solve satisfactorily all the elements- all aLong the periodic table !! if one will try to stuff in those 'Z' electrons in it . (and please don't forget who told you that the first time .....though i said it a million times before ....) please note my other important and interesting remarks one of the members asked how it it that the Deuteron is lighter *in mass* than its components !! i said: it lost it by --energy radiation (that is indisputable until now right? now one has to be blind in order of not to do the next obvious conclusion: energy has mass!! EM radiation has mass it stems right from the above fact and common phenomena.(not to mention many other seasonings) and please note: it was rest mass that was 'lost' but it was not really lost it just changes 'owners' it got just another 'incarnation' now you will say how come that rest mass moves with C so here comes the next inevitable conclusion: the Em is an exception to the rule that rest mass cannot move with C just as simple as that no need to invent 'relativistic mass' !! ---------- ATB Y.Porat ---------------------------- > > When protons and neutrons bond into a nucleus, do the protons and > > neutrons still exist individually. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > neutron, then the protons and neutrons still exist individually, and > the deuteron is made from little balls. A standing wave in a guitar string is caused by the reflection of a traveling wave at (say) the fixed ends of the string, and as such the standing wave is the superposition of two traveling waves. Is there one standing wave on the string or two traveling waves? The question really has to do with the effectiveness of the representations. In creating the standing waves, are the physical predictions of traveling waves lost? Do the traveling waves physically disappear in any sense? No. PD > > > When protons and neutrons bond into a nucleus, do the protons and > > > neutrons still exist individually. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > standing wave is the superposition of two traveling waves. Is there one > standing wave on the string or two traveling waves? This is what I was trying to ask with my question, you just put it much better than I ever could. So, is there one standing wave on the string or two traveling waves? > The question really has to do with the effectiveness of the > representations. In creating the standing waves, are the physical > predictions of traveling waves lost? Do the traveling waves physically > disappear in any sense? No. > > PD I looked at a few websites regarding standing waves and they all said that the travelling waves produced a new resultant wave. But thinking about what you said about the travelling waves not dissapearing, it seems to me that the standing wave is an illusion. I also read that in a hydrogen atom the proton and electron share the same wavefunction. Does this apply to all hydrogen like atoms, for example, positronium, pionium, etc. > > > > When protons and neutrons bond into a nucleus, do the protons and > > > > neutrons still exist individually. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > So, is there one standing wave on the string or two traveling waves? Yes. I'm not being facetious. The point is, the answer is "both", as in "either is fine". > > The question really has to do with the effectiveness of the > > representations. In creating the standing waves, are the physical [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I looked at a few websites regarding standing waves and they all said > that the travelling waves produced a new resultant wave. Yes, that's what I said, too. This does not mean the traveling waves have disappeared. > But thinking about what you said about the travelling waves not > dissapearing, it seems to me that the standing wave is an illusion. Not at all. The standing wave is a superposition of two traveling waves, but it is also a perfectly good solution to the wave equation that governs the oscillatory behavior of the string. One does not have to have "primary reality" at the expense of the other. > I also read that in a hydrogen atom the proton and electron share the > same wavefunction. Does this apply to all hydrogen like atoms, for > example, positronium, pionium, etc. All that I've said about standing and traveling waves has an analogous statement in this context as well. PD |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.