 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / September 2005The more abstract a theory is-the less chance to be wrong
But at the same time .... *less useful*....... TIA Y.Porat ---------------------------- let me start with just a start example that comes to my mind: (and there are a lot more) the HUP ( if not a hteory.a .Principle) now the question is : what is the *practical uses untill now* that were done based on that principle?? TIA Y.Porat ------------------------ Probabilty waves give the chances of finding a particle in a particular position. I say particles spen more time in some place than others. That is why they are found more often or less often along the wave. Hi porat! hank you Nike yet i was meaning more : 'how many loafs of bread' did the HUP produced? while i say 'loafs of bread' --lets it be for instance how many $ did it produced to the national income or world welfare!! just an example: while Michel Faraday invented his electricity machine or even his electrolysis laws he definitely contributed to the welfare of mankind so may be that is an outstanding example so suppose we are satisfied with much less than that - than what is that 'much less' the say HUP contributed (beside millions of teaching ours for proffessors....... including extra hours....) TIA Y.Porat ----------------------------- Now, now ----- if you want nice, practical results, you have to stick with cybernetic physical constructivism. So if you ask "what good came of this or that" just answer yourself "if it's constructivistic, it produced a useful result. If not, it's like spending 2 hours at a fantasy movie, like the stuff Spielberg cranks out" Hope this helps. Thank you donstockba (i nearly broke my fingers typing your name -not my fault (:-) now as you know i am a primitive person so i like to think about tangible examples because the more abstract a sentence is the less .......... (:-) so why dont we stick as a start to the HUP?? how many 'loafs of bread' it produced during nearly a Century?? you see since i am an incurable 'cost benefit' believer i always consciously and subconsciously as myself 'is it worth investing efforts in it' etc etc or may be i should invest in something more 'profitable' from the point of view of 'loaf producing' (shame on my shameless desire for expediency !!) which btw IMHO i see very little of it here in this and similar NG's --------------- TIA Y.Porat ------------------ Hi Porat! >let me start with just a start example >that comes to my mind: >(and there are a lot more) >the HUP ( if not a hteory.a .Principle) >now the question is : >what is the *practical uses untill now* that were done >based on that principle?? specifically to the HUP, a very closely related phenomenon is quantum tunneling (position uncertainty w.r.t. a potential barrier), an effect which is used in tunnel diodes, quantum cascade lasers and Josephson junctions, to name a few. In general, though, it is good to know the laws of nature as it prevents time wasted working on an idea that will not work. The 2nd law of thermodynamics prevents perpetual motion machines - what is the use of that? Well it could be to get people to stop wasting time and money trying to build one. OTOH, some people will try anyway, but hopefully they won't waste their whole life on it. If they do, they can't say that nobody told them it wouldn't work. br > Hi Porat! > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > specifically to the HUP, a very closely related phenomenon is quantum Hi Brendan actually a few seconds before i saw your post... very similar to yours about 'spending time' occurred to me as well!! but there is another side of that coin: if for instance people interpret of misinterpret the HUP (just because it is very abstract **)it can cause huge damage!! imagine for instance that someone 'understands' that due to the HUP we can know nothing about say the inner geometric structure of the Atom and nuc while *that understanding is wrong*!!and that 'understanding is becoming 'common understanding- it is an incurable damage to the advance of science !! > tunneling (position uncertainty w.r.t. a potential barrier), an effect > which is used in tunnel diodes, quantum cascade lasers and Josephson sorry here you are AFAIK wrong!! the tunneling was found accidentally by a Danish experimental Engineer sorry i forgot his name he is a Nobelist) so that is stealing credit from the place it belongs to.... or as they say in our place to 'decorate yourself with others feathers' > junctions, to name a few. > > In general, though, it is good to know the laws of nature as it > prevents time wasted working on an idea that will not work. here i fully agree with you but again can you nail it say quantitatively how much 'vane work' did the HUP saved?? The 2nd law > of thermodynamics prevents perpetual motion machines - what is the use that is a good (even wonderful example to your argument!) example of a good useful law that saved a huge vane work !!! but i an not at all you can say it about the HUP > of that? Well it could be to get people to stop wasting time and money > trying to build one. > > OTOH, some people will try anyway, but hopefully they won't waste their > whole life on it. If they do, they can't say that nobody told them it > wouldn't work. see my example above about misinterpretation the HUP. ATB Y.Porat --------------- now we are not done yet my next example will be VIRTUAL PHOTONS' ........ ---------- > br Porat wrote: >if for instance people interpret of misinterpret the HUP >(just because it is very abstract **)it can cause huge damage!! yes, misinterpretation is always bad. But does that mean you don't say anything in case it is misunderstood? You have to tell it the way it is, and put up with the consequences. Indeed this is why *training* is important - how to interpret properly, and which is why people without training make more mistakes (see discussions on relativity... need I say more!) (notice I don't imply that people with training make no mistakes) >> tunneling (position uncertainty w.r.t. a potential barrier), an effect >> which is used in tunnel diodes, quantum cascade lasers and Josephson > sorry here you are AFAIK wrong!! >the tunneling was found accidentally by a Danish experimental >Engineer sorry i forgot his name he is a Nobelist) >so that is stealing credit from the place it belongs to.... >or as they say in our place >to 'decorate yourself with others feathers' I don't claim that Heisenberg was the first to realise tunneling would be a consequence, but it was found very early, possibly even before HUP. Both tunneling and HUP are direct consequences of the waviness of the Schroedinger eqn, which is why I said they are "closely related", though they are not identical effects. >> junctions, to name a few. >> In general, though, it is good to know the laws of nature as it >> prevents time wasted working on an idea that will not work. >here i fully agree with you >but again can you nail it say quantitatively >how much 'vane work' did the HUP saved?? haven't a clue. It possibly even added vain work due to the amount of people purposely trying to get around it! "You're telling me I can't do something, therefore I'll do it!!!", but nobody's succeeded. Karl Popper tried to get around HUP with entangled photons, and surprisingly looked like he was right! "Experimental Realization of Popper's Experiment: Violation of the Uncertainty Principle?" Y.-H. Kim and Y. Shih, Foundations of Physics 29, 1849 (1999) "An entangled pair of photons (1 and 2) are emitted to opposite directions. A narrow slit is placed in the path of photon 1 to provide precise knowledge of its position on the y axis and this also determines the precise y position of its twin, photon 2, due to quantum entanglement. Is photon 2 going to experience a greater uncertainty in momentum, i.e., a greater Delta p_y, due to the precise knowledge of its position y? The experimental data shows Delta y\Delta p_y<hbar for photon 2. Can this recent realization of the historical thought experiment of Karl Popper signal a violation of the uncertainty principle? " http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.org:quant-ph/9905039 However, the experiment actually *agrees* with QM (ie, you *can* know both the position and momentum to <hbar/2, but only with entanglement and not for individual particles) (though the interpretation is under criticism from some) >> The 2nd law >> of thermodynamics prevents perpetual motion machines - what is the use >that is a good (even wonderful example to your argument!) example of a >good useful law that saved >a huge vane work !!! >but i an not at all you can say it about the HUP I don't really know, but experiments decide what works or not, and still no-one has got around HUP. You'd need a good reason to justify. br [theHUP.wpd]; DOooOP DOooOP De dooOP De.. [GUESS momentum FRAME of REFERENCE ..HEiSENBERG UNcertainty:] o o o o o o o vector o o o PROjECTiON A - - VELOCiTY vector - - -> B - - - - - -> C o o o o o o o o ANY train-track or PATH Note, ANY OTHER two POiNTs on SAME PATH a DiFFERENT VECTOR.!! A. HEiSENBERG UNcertainty: [i CANNOT ((focus)) on BOTH ENDs of VELOCiTY vector, AT ONCE] [ CLEARLY the POSiTiON B is an ARBiTRARY point on the PATH. ] [ Heisenberg UNcertainty's ALL about HOW dimwits ((focus)). ] B. PLANCK UNcertainty: [ i CANNOT measure POSiTiON A MORE ACCURATE than +or- lp/2. ] *You CANNOT ((focus)) POSiTiON A closer than PLANCK LENGTH.!! Planck HiMSELF did ORiGiNAL DERiVATiON h EQUATiON = (+or-) h. Note this was reduced for the photon & phonon to (+or-) hbar. PLANCK EQUATiON claims KNOWLEDGE is MATHEMATiCALLY QUANTiZED. [ This applies iNHERENTLY for "EXACT position of the ball." ] THEREfore, Heisenberg's UN-necessary UNcertainty's REDUNDANT. Duh ..VERY sincerely, u c, ``Brian (you can call me DR-like). >><> >><> >><> >><> >><> > Porat wrote: > >if for instance people interpret of misinterpret the HUP [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > > br > o o o o > o o o vector [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > o o > ANY train-track or PATH are you implying that particles travel along a sinusoidal path? that's not at all implied by the wave of Schroedinger, or E-field of Maxwell >i CANNOT measure POSiTiON A MORE ACCURATE than +or- lp/2 indeed, but HUP does not depend on Planck length. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length "Consequences By the Heisenberg uncertainty principle of standard quantum mechanics, an object whose position was accurate to the Planck length would have an uncertainty in momentum approximately 3.2629 kg m / s. What this means is, if one could use some hypothetical apparatus to determine the position of a baseball (or any other object of the same mass) and be accurate to the Planck length at a given moment, it would be impossible to distinguish a speed of zero (at rest) from a speed of 22.89 m/s." >Planck HiMSELF did ORiGiNAL DERiVATiON h EQUATiON = (+or-) h. what is this supposed to mean? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle "It is one of the cornerstones of quantum mechanics and was discovered by Werner Heisenberg in 1927." Planck introduced h for black body radiation quantization. >THEREfore, Heisenberg's UN-necessary UNcertainty's REDUNDANT. no br > are you implying that particles travel along a sinusoidal path? -- HUP denies, in STEP A, exactly what it claims in STEP B, duh.!! PLANCK length UNcertainty applies *LOCATiNG POSiTiON A* ONLY.!! [Still no-one has got CLOSER than PLANCK LENGTH to POSiTion A.] [ GUESS momentum FRAME of REFERENCE ..HEiSENBERG UNcertainty: ] o o o o o o o vector o o o PROjECTiON A - - VELOCiTY vector - - -> B - - - - - -> C o o o o o o o o ANY train-track or PATH Note, ANY OTHER two POiNTs on SAME PATH a DiFFERENT VECTOR.!! A. HEiSENBERG UNcertainty: [i CANNOT ((focus)) on BOTH ENDs of VELOCiTY vector, AT ONCE] [ CLEARLY the POSiTiON B is an ARBiTRARY point on the PATH. ] [ Heisenberg UNcertainty's ALL about HOW dimwits ((focus)). ] B. PLANCK UNcertainty: [ i CANNOT measure POSiTiON A MORE ACCURATE than +or- lp/2. ] *You CANNOT ((focus)) POSiTiON A closer than PLANCK LENGTH.!! Planck HiMSELF did ORiGiNAL DERiVATiON h EQUATiON = (+or-) h. Note this was reduced for the photon & phonon to (+or-) hbar. PLANCK EQUATiON claims KNOWLEDGE is MATHEMATiCALLY QUANTiZED. [ This applies iNHERENTLY for "EXACT position of the ball." ] THEREfore, Heisenberg's UN-necessary UNcertainty's REDUNDANT. > -- that's > not at all implied by the wave of Schroedinger, or E-field of Maxwell Maxwell's equations ONLY apply BETWEEN flat PLATEs.!! > >i CANNOT measure POSiTiON A MORE ACCURATE than +or- lp/2 > > indeed, but HUP does not depend on Planck length. The location of POSiTiON A is the FiRST STEP there ..dimwit. But, POSiTiON A CANNOT be LOCATED closer than Planck Length. The PLANK length UNcertainty takes effect for POSiTiON A,.. ..BEFORE you EVEN get to consider POSiTiON B UNcertainty. PLANCK length lp = DiRAC angular momentum hbar / PLANCK Mp*c $ hbar = Mp*lp*c This is the SAME hbar of Heisenberg's UNcertainty Principle. Therefore, POSiTiON B and HUP are REDUNDANT, DOooOPs.!! HUP down.!! Duh ..VERY sincerely, u c, ``Brian (you can call me DR-like). >><> >><> >><> >><> >><> > -- Check out > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > br >HUP denies, in STEP A, exactly what it claims in STEP B, duh.!! if you are saying that HUP denies Planck uncertainty by already presuming that you can measure to arbitrary accuracy, then no, HUP kicks in *way* before you get down to Planck lengths - just think of diffraction slits, 1e-6 m for light, 1e-9 m for electrons, 1e-35 m for Planck length. Planck length is not even relevant. >PLANCK length UNcertainty applies *LOCATiNG POSiTiON A* ONLY.!! ok >[Still no-one has got CLOSER than PLANCK LENGTH to POSiTion A.] ok >[ GUESS momentum FRAME of REFERENCE ..HEiSENBERG UNcertainty: ] what is this relevant to? > o o o o > o o o vector [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > ANY train-track or PATH >Note, ANY OTHER two POiNTs on SAME PATH a DiFFERENT VECTOR.!! are you implying that particles travel along a sinusoidal path? If not then what is above diagram relevant to? >A. HEiSENBERG UNcertainty: >[i CANNOT ((focus)) on BOTH ENDs of VELOCiTY vector, AT ONCE] >[ CLEARLY the POSiTiON B is an ARBiTRARY point on the PATH. ] >[ Heisenberg UNcertainty's ALL about HOW dimwits ((focus)). ] that's your misinterpretation. HUP follows from Schroedinger Eqn. >B. PLANCK UNcertainty: >[ i CANNOT measure POSiTiON A MORE ACCURATE than +or- lp/2. ] >*You CANNOT ((focus)) POSiTiON A closer than PLANCK LENGTH.!! ok >THEREfore, Heisenberg's UN-necessary UNcertainty's REDUNDANT. if you imply that you can get HUP from lp, then no you can't. >Maxwell's equations ONLY apply BETWEEN flat PLATEs.!! are you delusional, or do you have a reason for the above statement? >The location of POSiTiON A is the FiRST STEP there ..dimwit. >But, POSiTiON A CANNOT be LOCATED closer than Planck Length. >The PLANK length UNcertainty takes effect for POSiTiON A,.. > ..BEFORE you EVEN get to consider POSiTiON B UNcertainty. so? >PLANCK length lp = DiRAC angular momentum hbar / PLANCK Mp*c >$ hbar = Mp*lp*c >This is the SAME hbar of Heisenberg's UNcertainty Principle. so? You have found Planck's constant in two equations that use Planck's constant. But neither (let alone both) are used to *define* h, and you can't get HUP from lp or vice versa. If you think you can, please show how. However, you can get HUP from Schroedinger eqn, and you can get lp as the length where the Schwarzschild radius and the Compton length are equal distances for a particular mass. You don't get the Schwarschild radius from Schroedinger eqn (or indeed Dirac eqn). >Therefore, POSiTiON B and HUP are REDUNDANT, DOooOPs.!! no br Still no-one has got CLOSER than PLANCK LENGTH to POSiTion A.!! [ SUBsequently, "still no-one has got around HUP" FOR SURE.!! ] theHUP.wpd]; DOooOP DOooOP De dooOP De.. [GUESS momentum FRAME of REFERENCE ..HEiSENBERG UNcertainty:] o o o o o o o vector o o o PROjECTiON A - - VELOCiTY vector - - -> B - - - - - -> C o o o o o o o o ANY train-track or PATH Note, ANY OTHER two POiNTs on SAME PATH a DiFFERENT VECTOR.!! A. HEiSENBERG UNcertainty: [i CANNOT ((focus)) on BOTH ENDs of VELOCiTY vector, AT ONCE] [ CLEARLY the POSiTiON B is an ARBiTRARY point on the PATH. ] [ Heisenberg UNcertainty's ALL about HOW dimwits ((focus)). ] B. PLANCK UNcertainty: [ i CANNOT measure POSiTiON A MORE ACCURATE than +or- lp/2. ] *You CANNOT ((focus)) POSiTiON A closer than PLANCK LENGTH.!! Planck HiMSELF did ORiGiNAL DERiVATiON h EQUATiON = (+or-) h. Note this was reduced for the photon & phonon to (+or-) hbar. PLANCK EQUATiON claims KNOWLEDGE is MATHEMATiCALLY QUANTiZED. [ This applies iNHERENTLY for "EXACT position of the ball." ] THEREfore, Heisenberg's UN-necessary UNcertainty's REDUNDANT. Duh ..VERY sincerely, u c, ``Brian (you can call me DR-like). >><> >><> >><> >><> >><> > I don't really know, but experiments decide what works or not, > and still no-one has got around HUP. You'd need a good reason > to justify. > > br >Still no-one has got CLOSER than PLANCK LENGTH to POSiTion A.!! >[ SUBsequently, "still no-one has got around HUP" FOR SURE.!! ] >theHUP.wpd]; how are these related? >Planck HiMSELF did ORiGiNAL DERiVATiON h EQUATiON = (+or-) h. what is this supposed to mean? Planck found that h=+-h? br [RhHALL.wpd]; quantum HALL resistance HHUP: Hope this Helps U dimwits ((Phocus)), the H H U P.!! HUP Helps dimwits like U ((Phocus)), H U P ..POSiTiON B.!! Still noONE's CLOSER than a PLANCK LENGTH to POSiTion A.!! Note Quantum HALL RESiSTANCE, Rh = R_Hall PROPER notation. Magnetic FLUX QUANTUM, (#) = Weber_flux " " ..etc etc. 2*(#) k*c Ra*c Uo*c C1 4*(#)^2 -- -- = -- -- = -- -- = -- -- = -- -- -- -- = -- -- -- = Rh {e} {e} F 2*a 2*pi*{e}*C2 h 1 |V_H| B B Vu^2*h (k*c)^2 = -- -- -- = -- -- = -- -- = -- -- -- = -- -- -- = -- -- -- 2*a*c*Eo | I | Ns*{e} N*t*{e} (eH)^2 h 2*pi*Qx^4*(e)^128 2*pi*Qx*(e)^124 Ub h = -- -- -- -- -- -- = -- -- --- -- -- = -- -- -- -- = -- -- 10 ^23 10^43 Zs*c*{e}^2 {e}^2. -[GUESS plus + the OUTgoing; GUESS minus - the iNcoming.!!]- Heisenberg UNneceSSary UNcertainty momentum is a VECTOR.!! Note, sqrt[1] = (+or-) 1, duh.!! VERY sincerely u c, ```Brian ( You can call me, DR-like. ) >><> >><> >><> >><> >><> brian a m stuckless wrote:.. > [theHUP.wpd].!! ; > how are these related? > what is this supposed to mean? Planck found that h=+-h? > > br >HHUP: Hope this Helps U dimwits ((Phocus)), the H H U P.!! [snip irrelevant] how's that supposed to help? or in other words: start with lp and derive HUP. >Heisenberg UNneceSSary UNcertainty momentum is a VECTOR.!! HUP applies in any direction you choose, why is that relevant to anything you have said? br > Porat wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > say more!) (notice I don't imply that people with training make no > mistakes) 1 i still do not let you to acquire credit to QM to be the cause for Tunneling discovery! do you claim that QM actually predicted the tunneling?? (and therefore led to its discovery? or may be it was the other way round IE first was the experimental discovery and only then- -- QM 'took a ride' on its back'?? do you remember the story of the flea and the Elephant: while it was riding the dashing elephants back is is shouting loudly: look look what a big dust we do !! in case no one got me-- the elephant is the experimental scince!!....... --------- --------------------- > >> tunneling (position uncertainty w.r.t. a potential barrier), an effect > >> which is used in tunnel diodes, quantum cascade lasers and Josephson see above. -------- > > sorry here you are AFAIK wrong!! > >the tunneling was found accidentally by a Danish experimental > >Engineer sorry i forgot his name he is a Nobelist) his name might be something like: Ivor Geiver or something like that a Danish that immigrated to the US. > >so that is stealing credit from the place it belongs to.... > >or as they say in our place [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > be a consequence, but it was found very early, possibly even before > HUP. no much later Both tunneling and HUP are direct consequences of the waviness of > the Schroedinger eqn, which is why I said they are "closely related", > though they are not identical effects. read how it was found there was no Schrödinger in the mind of the discoverer!!.......may be only after the discovery!! > >> junctions, to name a few. > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > and not for individual particles) (though the interpretation is under > criticism from some) let us check about ways of understanding and interpreting the HUP by being more specific: the size of the nuc is certainly ways smaller than the Atom so: will you say that the above fact and the HUP prevent us knowing anything about the geometric inner structure of the nucleus ?? --------- > >> The 2nd law > >> of thermodynamics prevents perpetual motion machines - what is the use [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I don't really know, but experiments decide what works or not, and > still no-one has got around HUP. You'd need a good reason to justify. ------------- actual examples will come later after your answer. now beside the 'virtual photon question' that i have in my pocket i have another much more painfully question: what can QM do against the coming catastrophe of energy crisis?? that is not a question of leisure it is a question of survival for too many people on this globe. TIA Y.Porat --------------------- > br Porat wrote: >1 i still do not let you to acquire credit to QM to be the >cause for Tunneling discovery! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >first was the experimental discovery and only then- > -- QM 'took a ride' on its back'?? I wasn't familiar with all the history (hey Yehiel, I'm still learning!), but found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunneling "By 1928 George Gamow solved the theory of the alpha-decay of a nucleus via tunneling." ie, Schroedinger did his eqn 1926/1927, HUP was 1927 and tunneling was in use in 1928. There wasn't much in it really, almost instantly if you consider the time it takes to get published. Maybe you were thinking of Max Born <same page> "After attending a seminar by Gamow, Max Born recognized the generality of quantum mechanical tunneling" and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Born "During this period <1921-1933>, he formulated the now-standard interpretation of the probability density function for * in the Schrdinger equation of quantum mechanics, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1954, some three decades later" so he also did his stuff pretty simultaneously with Schroedinger, but only got the Nobel for it much later. >the size of the nuc is certainly ways smaller than the Atom >so: >will you say that the above fact and the HUP prevent us >knowing anything about the geometric inner structure of the >nucleus ?? If the nucleus had a fixed geometric structure, it would scatter high energy electrons (which IIRC can probe 1/10 the diameter of a proton) like a crystal scatters x-rays. Results suggest more of a blob (liquid drop model). If you try and fix the positions of the constituents, you would get a very high confinement energy - could be possible, but what is doing the confining, and does the energy you get contradict experiment? (ie mass-energy of nuclei are known) >now beside the 'virtual photon question' that i have >in my pocket [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >that is not a question of leisure it is a question of survival >for too many people on this globe. conservation of energy and increasing entropy still hold in QM. Solar cells (photovoltaic) are designed with QM as background knowledge (bandgaps of semiconductors, p-n junctions, electron-hole pairs, etc). Solar heating (black box in the sun with water pipes in it) doesn't require much QM (!) Nuclear power is explained/developed via QM/standard model Wind power - classical will do Wave power - ditto Hydrogen power - classical chemistry probably good enough br > Porat wrote: > >1 i still do not let you to acquire credit to QM to be the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I wasn't familiar with all the history (hey Yehiel, I'm still > learning!), but found ------------ i am as well learning i found in a book about Ivor Giaver and his work about tunneling that awarded him the Nobel it was much later than 1939 or so but still you cannot say that QM predicted tunneling!!! it was *first found experimentally* that particles can escape the nuc .... and only then people started to look for a theory that will *explain it * !! right? and it was first found that even the nuc can eject particles and ...... only following that experimental data QM got in to explain and calculate it it was not a HUP prediction!! ---------- > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunneling > "By 1928 George Gamow solved the theory of the alpha-decay of a nucleus [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > energy electrons (which II RC can probe 1/10 the diameter of a proton) > like a crystal scatters x-rays. you must be joking please think again about what you were writing !! hint no 1 those high energies are actually smashing the inner structure or may be even not coming close to the inner structure?? --------- Results suggest more of a blob (liquid the bulb model is dead long ago!! 2 why just a bulb and not a cucumber?? (:-) > drop model). > > If you try and fix the positions of the constituents, you would get a > very high confinement energy - could be possible, so can you decide ?? can it be a fixed structure or not ?? but what is doing the > confining, and does the energy you get contradict experiment? (IE > mass-energy of nuclei are known) how is it contradicting?? btw how do you imagine the so definite structure of the atom 'governed by a 'boiling porridge' of nucleids ?? > >now beside the 'virtual photon question' that i have > >in my pocket [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >that is not a question of leisure it is a question of survival > >for too many people on this globe. what is (until now) the cost benefit of 'virtual photons' theory??!! > conservation of energy and increasing entropy still hold in QM. but that is not goo enough to produce 'barrels of oil'!! (or equivalent to 'barrels of oil' ) - > Solar cells (photovoltaic) are designed with QM as background knowledge th solar cells was not invented due to QM it was found experimentally IQ got only later to get a ride on that finding!! a lot of trial and error work was done before so : it is not 'nice' (in understate, undrestimation) to decorate yourself with others feathers ..... --------- > (bandgaps of semiconductors, p-n junctions, electron-hole pairs, etc). > Solar heating (black box in the sun with water pipes in it) doesn't > require much QM (!) here as well the first and most credit does not belong to QM QM never dreamt about it before the experimental findings!! again unfair to experimental science !! and too much chest drumming.(not of yours it is the general system of all that society of QM people that 'decorate themselves with others feathers') > Nuclear power is explained/developed via QM/standard model again nuclear power was found first ***experimentally!!!*** by the German scientists Hann and Strqassmann (spelling please!)in 1939 QM could not even dream about predicting it!! > Wind power - classical will do yes i know classical!! so it does not belong to HUP nor QM! > Wave power - ditto as above but not goo enough to save us from that crysis > Hydrogen power - classical chemistry probably good enough we are looking for the ' magic Darn of qm' etc that--- soo mauch was invested in it!!!........... so please dont though on 'others back' that burdain !! (:-) while QMSO peopburdenQMle will sit smug in their ivory tower and ask others to do the practical work they have to 'earn their bread.'! especially in times of crisis. ATB Y.Porat ----------------- > br $ DoooOP DOooOP De dooOP De dooOP De dooOP De dooOP De.!! $ CALL.!! CALL DR-like G Pusch, iMMEDiATELY, if you HAPPEN to: -["Fix ANY HUP position" A closer than PLANCK length lp.!!]- A. HEiSENBERG UNcertainty: [i CANNOT ((focus)) on BOTH ENDs of VELOCiTY vector, AT ONCE] [ CLEARLY the POSiTiON B is an ARBiTRARY point on the PATH. ] [ Heisenberg UNcertainty's ALL about HOW dimwits ((focus)). ] B. PLANCK UNcertainty: [ i CANNOT measure POSiTiON A MORE ACCURATE than +or- lp/2. ] *You CANNOT ((focus)) POSiTiON A closer than PLANCK LENGTH.!! [GUESS momentum FRAME of REFERENCE ..HEiSENBERG UNcertainty:] o o o o o o o vector o o o PROjECTiON A - - VELOCiTY vector - - -> B - - - - - -> C o o o o o o o o ANY train-track or analogeous momentum PATH Note, ANY OTHER two POiNTs on SAME PATH a DiFFERENT VECTOR.!! Planck HiMSELF did ORiGiNAL DERiVATiON h EQUATiON = (+or-) h. Note this was reduced for the photon & phonon to (+or-) hbar. PLANCK EQUATiON claims KNOWLEDGE is MATHEMATiCALLY QUANTiZED. [ This applies iNHERENTLY for "EXACT position of ANY ball." ] THEREfore, Heisenberg's UN-necessary UNcertainty's REDUNDANT. VERY sincerely u c, ```Brian ( You can call me DR-like. ) >><> >><> >><> >><> >><> > > Porat wrote: [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > > > If you try and fix the positions of the constituents,-- insert ...see top. > > -- you would get a > > very high confinement energy - could be possible, [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > > > > br Porat wrote: >it was *first found experimentally* that particles can escape the nuc yes >and only then people started to look for a theory that >will *explain it * !! right? yes >and it was first found that even the nuc can eject particles >and ...... >only following that experimental data QM got in to explain >and calculate it yes, but at least it got there! >it was not a HUP prediction!! not a prediction in this case, but when Born realised it was intrinsic in the wave function, that allowed for the cascade lasers, etc, that *were* predicted before they were made. Nobody could have made a cascade laser accidentally, as it requires exact calculation of energy levels in quantum wells to align up, while simultaneously having barriers the right thickness to tunnel through. Not easy to design and make at all. I don't know who Ivor is, are you sure he got the Nobel? Is he on the list - http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/index.html Which year? >> If the nucleus had a fixed geometric structure, it would scatter high >> energy electrons (which IIRC can probe 1/10 the diameter of a proton) >> like a crystal scatters x-rays. >you must be joking >please think again about what you were writing !! >hint no 1 >those high energies are actually smashing the inner structure >or may be even not coming close to the inner structure?? I'm not going to start into this now! >>Results suggest more of a blob (liquid >the bulb model is dead long ago!! oh, I dunno - http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/liqdrop.html >2 why just a bulb and not a cucumber?? (:-) because that would contradict the opening sentence of the above link: "Scattering experiments suggest that nuclei have approximately constant density, so that the nuclear radius can be calculated by using that density as if the nucleus were a drop of a uniform liquid. " if it was a rapidly rotating pipe, then it would appear to have higher density at the centre of rotation, and less at the edges >what is (until now) the cost benefit of 'virtual photons' theory??!! I imagine approximately zero (in any appropriate Earth currency). Most people get on with their lives quite happily without it, doesn't mean it's wrong though. Are you saying now is pay-back time? >>but what is doing the >> confining, and does the energy you get contradict experiment? (IE >> mass-energy of nuclei are known) >how is it contradicting?? well, you'd have to say what the dimensions of your nucleus are >btw how do you imagine the so definite structure of the atom >'governed by a 'boiling porridge' of nucleids ?? I didn't think there was a definite structure >> conservation of energy and increasing entropy still hold in QM. >but that is not goo enough to produce 'barrels of oil'!! >(or equivalent to 'barrels of oil' ) certainly not - and you can't just create matter from nothing either! ;P However, you can work towards making processes more efficient. >> Solar cells (photovoltaic) are designed with QM as background knowledge >th solar cells was not invented due to QM it was found experimentally [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >it is not 'nice' (in understate, undrestimation) to decorate yourself >with others feathers ..... optimisation of photovoltaics is based on QM, and also lets you know what your limits are >we are looking for the ' magic Darn of qm' etc that--- soo mauch was >invested in it!!!........... I seriously don't know what a magic Darn is, but two areas where QM earns its money are lasers (which were *predicted*) and theoretical chemistry where it's used an awful lot nowadays in designing new materials and chemicals. As for solving the world's energy crisis, what about fusion? Is building a fusion reactor only possible with knowledge of QM? You may argue that research is guided by experiment, but experiment is guided by theory. br > Porat wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > barriers the right thickness to tunnel through. Not easy to design and > make at all. i don know much about lasers so i will not argue about it yet if we are in energy crisis i would like to see its contribution to it IMHO th energy crisis should be given first priority no if not much earlier than now!! ---------- > I don't know who Ivor is, are you sure he got the Nobel? Is he on the > list - > http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/index.html > Which year? > --------- i just quoted the name from memory (by book was lost.. and i am still looking for another one ... it i s not like you that you step out of your door and enter a library my be some Goggle search can do anyway - lets leave it.(unless you are very interested in it) ------ > >> If the nucleus had a fixed geometric structure, it would scatter high > >> energy electrons (which II RC can probe 1/10 the diameter of a proton) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I'm not going to start into this now! yes you are not an expert about it. ------ > >>Results suggest more of a blob (liquid > >the bulb model is dead long ago!! [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > "Scattering experiments suggest that nuclei have approximately constant > density, that means nothing!! constant density in those tiny distances between nucleid are as if it is constant provided that the distances are similar and you may count on me that this is the case !!! --- so that the nuclear radius can be calculated by using that > density as if the nucleus were a drop of a uniform liquid. " it i snot a radius a radius is only for amateurs in that issue just think for instance that nearly all nuclei are dipoles electrically magnetically etc a sphere has no poles !! it is a 3D 'rectangular pipe' for all the elements above Fluorine !! > if it was a rapidly rotating pipe, then it would appear to have higher > density at the centre of rotation, and less at the edges it is not rotating unless you are talking of light single atoms like say hydrogen!! now the main point is that the inner structure is kept 'steel steady'!! IE no relative charge in positions of the members!! it is not a boiling porridge !! a boiling porridge will never give you a well defined geometrically atom and lated a steady crystal etc etc it is much less chause than you imagine the 'chause is only in the mind of ignorant scientists that pose as if they know anything but know close to zero!!(not you i know you have no pretensions on that field) ---------- ------------ > >what is (until now) the cost benefit of 'virtual photons' theory??!! > > I imagine approximately zero obviously that is the case! -- (in any appropriate Earth currency). Most > people get on with their lives quite happily without it, doesn't mean > it's wrong though. Are you saying now is pay-back time? i think so ! what do you think? -- > >>but what is doing the > >> confining, and does the energy you get contradict experiment? (IE > >> mass-energy of nuclei are known) > >how is it contradicting?? > > well, you'd have to say what the dimensions of your nucleus are now we come to my main point my model for instance is not claiming exact dimensions!! what i claim is the (listen carefully) it is the mutual location of any nucleid in the nucleus without the length scale!! and mind you it is a lot of useful information! at lest potentially as you can imagine what does it mean to know the 'map' 3D map of all the nucleid of the periodic table!! (a map without the length scale- though i did some work about inner distances and relative distances of the nuc lids!!for instance i know in some places that the distance between A and B are say two times than that between C and D and things like that) > >btw how do you imagine the so definite structure of the atom > >'governed by a 'boiling porridge' of nucleid ?? > > I didn't think there was a definite structure so there are some news for you and actually not only for you!! even as i mentioned about you can have some abstract considerations that will lead you to the conclusion that it cannot be otherwise IE it cannot be chaotic in sight the HUP i guess the HUP demands- obscurity. it is not obscure it is fantastically well and accurately unequivocally defined. let me tell you that even a change of a *single nucleid* from one place to another gives you very different properties of the nuc. --------- > >> conservation of energy and increasing entropy still hold in QM. > >but that is not goo enough to produce 'barrels of oil'!! > >(or equivalent to 'barrels of oil' ) > > certainly not - and you can't just create matter from nothing either! but may be it should find some revolutionary way to do it??!! > ;P > However, you can work to wards making processes more efficient. OK yet still that is usually done by engineers not by theoretics > >> Solar cells (photovoltaic) are designed with QM as background knowledge > >th solar cells was not invented due to QM it was found experimentally [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > optimisation of photolytic is based on QM, and also lets you know > what your limits are right yet we are looking for new breakthroughs isn't that?? > >we are looking for the ' magic Darn of qm' etc that--- soo mauch was > >invested in it!!!........... > > I seriously don't know what a magic Darn is, while people invented the inner combustin engine -that was a magig darn or the locomotive. i for instance am looking for a new 'oven' that will make *controlled* fussion! QMSO has combustionmagicfusionno chance as it is now!! and btw my understanding of nuclear strucure tells me that the ITER that is going to be built in France is a big huge 'flopp'!! that is the power of right knoeledge!! ----------- ---------- but two areas where QM > earns its money are lasers (which were *predicted*) and theoretical > chemistry where it's used an awful lot nowadays in designing new > materials and chemicals. ok if you say so two point for Qm yet still not going to save us from the energy crisis. > As for solving the world's energy crisis, what about fusion? Is yess that is a right direction but with the situation of the existing ignorance and wrong paradigm- no chance !! ----- > building a fusion reactor only possible with knowledge of QM? if so Go ahead!!!! (you have no idea how far are you wrong!! QMstructurefloppyknowledge has no real clue about waht and how to do that is the best example of verifying my title above of this thread!!) > You may argue that research is guided by experiment, but experiment is > guided by theory. the history of scince is actually different most of the great breakthroughs were done by accidental experiments just have a short lookQM aboQMwhatut the history of sciencescience and its advance. radioactivity th electric machine penicillin vaccination X rays etc etc etc the list is too long. ATB > br I found your man - Ivar Gieaver (Norwegian originally, Nobel 1973 for tunneling experiments done in 1959) http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1973/giaever-lecture.pdf pdf page 1 "I ... had developed the feeling that the mathematics was much more advanced than the actual knowledge of the physical systems that we applied it to." pdf page 7 "By about April, 1959, we had performed several successful tunneling experiments. The current-voltage characteristics of our samples were reasonably reproducible, and *conformed well to theory*... By this time, *I had solved Schrodinger's equation enough times* to believe that electrons sometimes behave as waves, and I did not worry much about that part anymore." (my emphasis) in other words, the theory was well in advance of the experiment! So I maintain that tunneling was recognized as a feature of QM in 1928, but it took another 30 years to experimentally control, and the Nobel only in 1973! This reminds me of entanglement, which EPR were *theoretically* discussing in 1935, but which took till the 1960s to start *experimentally* investigating, and the famous Alain Aspect experiment only in the 1980s. This effect is *only now* utilised in quantum cryptography (totally secure communication channels), which is now commercially available via several start-up companies. So another point for QM prediction. >i for instance am looking for a new 'oven' that will make *controlled* >fussion! well I look forward to this! any hints for us at this stage? >QMSO has combustionmagicfusionno chance as it is now!! >and btw my understanding of nuclear strucure tells me that the ITER >that is going to be built in France is a big huge 'flopp'!! >that is the power of right knoeledge!! but they already know the binding energy of the nucs involved, so how can it fail? >> You may argue that research is guided by experiment, but experiment is >> guided by theory. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >radioactivity th electric machine penicillin vaccination >X rays etc etc etc the list is too long. indeed that is the way it often used to be, but since QM/GR, it seems that research is much more theoretically driven. That is, experiments have been *directed* at testing these theories! Since these theories have passed the tests, it means there have been no surprises. What experimental surprises have there been in the last 50 years? (neutrino oscillation is one I can think of, but then what has been the cost benefit of that???) br On the subject of tunneling, even better is to have a read of Esaki's Nobel speech http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1973/esaki-lecture.pdf "The continuous nonzero nature of such solutions, even in classically forbidden regions of negative kinetic energy, implies an ability to penetrate such forbidden regions and a probability of tunneling from one classically allowed region to another. The concept of tunneling, indeed, arises from this quantum- mechanical result. The subsequent experimental manifestations of this concept can be regarded as one of the early triumphs of the quantum theory." notice his use of "subsequent" and "early triumphs" Next paragraph: "In 1928, theoretical physicists believed that tunneling could occur by the distortion, lowering or thinning, of a potential barrier under an externally applied high electric field." which explained field emission of electrons from a metal by tunneling: Fowler, R. H. and Nordheim, L., Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) A 119, 173 (1928). and then Gamow did his atomic decay analysis "An application of these ideas which followed almost immediately came in the model for a decay as a tunneling process put forth by Gamow (6) and Gurney and Condon. (7)" 6. Gamow, G., Physik, Z., 51, 204 (1928). 7. Gurney, R.W. and Condon, E. U., Nature 222,439 (1928). All of the above in 1928. Handy site, NobelPrize.org, must read the rest of it! regards, br $ PRE-Hiesenberg momentum PLANCK position A UNcertainty; ( This has NOTHiNG to do with the subsequent momentum.!! ) = The PRE-Electron-tunnelling PLANCK position A UNcertainty; ( This has NOTHiNG to do with the subsequent tunneling.!! ) CAN'T "PEG" electron position A closer than PLANCK LENGTH lp. Note PLANCK LENGTH lp = hbar / Mp*c ..withOUT any conjugates. Heisenberg's UNnecessary UNcertainty Principle's REDUNDANT.!! GUESS e-mail notation (Observe LEFT / (No BOTTOM bracket); -[ Dirac's hbar = Mp*lp*c = me*a*ao*c = me*wlc*c / 2*pi ]- PROPER notation... Dirac's h_bar = M_p*l_p*c = m_e*a*a_o*c = m_e*wl_c*c / 2*pi. VERY sincerely u c, ```Brian >><> >><> >><> >><> >><> > On the subject of tunneling, even better is to have a read of Esaki's > Nobel speech [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > br i was posting an answer but it didnt show up so i will try again to past it: > I found your man - Ivar Gieaver (Norwegian originally, Nobel 1973 for > tunneling experiments done in 1959) yess indeed i said that i rely only upon memory and you know that sometimes even a vague memory is better than a very accurate knowledge *that is unknown .... iow my inaccurate memory *at the right moment* was more useful than someones good memory that *does not show* at the right time. > http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1973/giaever-lecture.pdf > pdf page 1 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > it to." > pdf page 7 OK Brendan at this time you win!!(about facts- but not on sweeping conclusions see later) > "By about April, 1959, we had performed several successful tunneling > experiments. > The current-voltage characteristics of our samples were reasonably > reproducible, and *conformed well to theory*... By this time, *I had > solved Schrodinger's equation enough times* to believe that electrons > sometimes > behave as waves, and I did not worry much about that part anymore." > (my emphasis) yet i have to remind you that tunneling was not a *prediction of QM* we agreed about it it was a result of experimental knowledge and even the theory was advancing only because of that *experimental knowledge*! > in other words, the theory was well in advance of the experiment! See just above -- > So I maintain that tunneling was recognized as a feature of QM in 1928, > but it took another 30 years to experimentally control, and the Nobel > only in 1973! so why was it that just Giaever got the Nobel?? did any theorists got it all along that time??.....!! (again i just dont know the facts 2 please read again the OP of mine and the claim behind it: i at least am looking for (in our place we call it 'Tachless...) IE practical use and benefit!! so who was doing the practical benefit of it the theory or the experimental scientist that btw is an engineer ....... ------------ > This reminds me of entanglement, which EPR were *theoretically* > discussing in 1935, but which took till the 1960s to start [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > commercially available via several start-up companies. So another point > for QM prediction. very nice and ..... how many 'loafs of bread or oil barrels (until now) it produces ??!! ----------- > >i for instance am looking for a new 'oven' that will make *controlled* > >fussion! > > well I look forward to this! any hints for us at this stage? you will be surprized the answer is yes: since i know the geometric structure of the Alpha the deuteron and Triton i know better than anyone about how they should be accelerated and combined and what are the geometric features of that reactor that must be taken into account it is certainly not a donut in which 'the dogs' are running to catch their tailes..... is it a good enough hint for you?? which leads me to the previous question that i am not going to let you get around it: is the HUP prevents us from any knowledge of the inner structure of the nucleus??!! and it is just now that you start to understand that THIS IS NOT JUST A THEORETIC QUESTION!! THIS IS A VERY CRUCIAL PRACTICAL QUESTION FOR ADVANCE OF SCIENCE AND *TECHNOLOGY* and if you like (or dont like..)- even for our future welfare or may be even for survival !! -------- > >QMSO has combustionmagicfusionno chance as it is now!! > >and btw my understanding of nuclear strucure tells me that the ITER [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > but they already know the binding energy of the nucs involved, so how > can it fail? see above th hint is : the dogs there are ruining after their tails to catch it!! that is not the way to catch a tail with a mouth...!!! please not the geometric connotation the nucleus is not just a porridge of protons and Neutrons it is aveery definite equivocal 3D structure in which any nucleid (proton neutron) as its exact 3d location and address!! all nuclei above Fluorine are sort of a 'rectangular pipes' under fluorine it is different you can see it in my site.very tangibly (except the very heavy ones that i had to invent graphic way sort of encrypting it in order of not getting lost in 3d descriptions.) ----------- please stick it to your memory and dont forget from whom you hared about it the for first time!! > >> You may argue that research is guided by experiment, but experiment is > >> guided by theory. while we deal with pioneering science it was always the experiments that were the leaders i gave you the examples from medicine radioactivity X rays and even if you like Astronomy!! no one could think about galaxies black holes etc without the technology of astronomic tools !! right ?? only after discovering galaxies black holes QM gets in and 'takes a ride on its back' !! it never predicts it!! ---- > >the history of science is actually different > >most of the great breakthroughs were done by accidental experiments [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > have been *directed* at testing these theories! Since these theories > have passed the tests, it means there have been no surprises. no surprised??? did qm ever deamt about black holes before discovering it experimentally by experimental observations? did QM ever dreamt about fusion before knowing experimentally whats going on on the sun? i demand fair credit to the experimental science and its place in the advance of scene and not least what are the proportions of what was the share of theory and the share of experimental observations .... we see now for instance that QM too long contributed noting in needed breakthroughs for the welfare of mankind though the tremendous investment in it !! it needs some rethinking what is the reason for it i say: one of the main reasons is some wrong paradigm in it !!! and too much dwelling on mis leading theories !1 see for instance 'virtual photons and W bosons etc) ----------- What > experimental surprises have there been in the last 50 years? (neutrino > oscillation is one I can think of, but then what has been the cost > benefit of that???) see for instance the surprises in astronomy (or astonoutics..) ATB Y.Porat --------------- > br |
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.