Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
spin in physics with monopoles existing Chapt13.4.01 Particle Physics table #897 New Physics #1017 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
16 views
Skip to first unread message
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 14, 2012, 2:30:01 PM9/14/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Looks like I have to return to this chapter in order to make sense of
spin of particles, for most particles have spin of either the 1/2 or
of spin 1. But in particle physics zoo there is the pion and K-meson
and Eta-meson with alleged spin of 0 and then there is the Omega
particle with alleged spin 3/2.
So I am going to have to reconcile those spins, given the fact of a B
as two monopoles of M- and M+.
Can I reconcile the 0 and the 3/2 spin if physics has 4 components on
a transverse wave?
The photon has spin 1 because it has all 4 components of E- and E+
with M- and M+. Particles of spin 1/2 have only 2 components on their
transverse wave, usually a E and M component but in the case of the
neutrino, it has only a M- and M+ component.
Now one possibility for getting a 0 spin is to allow longitudinal
waves rather than having every particle with a transverse wave.
But I see that as unnecessary.
I speculate that these particles spin of 0 and 3/2 were mistakes,
because of a assumption of these particles. In that it is assumed they
are independent particles and not composite particles.
I am using the old textbook of Halliday & Resnick, 1986, PHYSICS, part
2 extended version, Appendix F.
The Pion is 0 spin but decays into a muon, neutrino, or photons. And
ditto for the K-mesons and Eta-meson. The Omega particle with its 3/2
spin decays into a proton and pion.
Now, for the life of me, I cannot understand why particle physicists
are so bozotic in their mind, in that they seem to never get the
message or idea or understanding, that the most important feature of a
particle is not the silly categories with numbers such as spin,
charge, strangeness, those silly categories, but rather, the one most
important column of a particle and to understand that particle is the
end product decay.
To give a metaphor analogy example, if we were to categorize humanity
as physicists categorize particles, they would be so silly as to have
columns of shirt color, belt length, hat or no hat
as columns that represent spin, charge, strangeness, and the only real
important column of the end product decay would be a DNA column.
So, what I am saying is that all of physics is a transverse wave which
has a maximum of 4 components which the photon has and the spin is 1
because it has those 4 components. The photon is an independent
particle just as the electron, proton and neutrino with their spin
1/2, since they have only 2 of the 4 components.
Now, can I get rid of the folly of thinking the spin of pion, K-meson,
Eta-meson are spin 0 and the folly of thinking the Omega
is spin 3/2? Well, let me give it a try at this very moment. If you
look at the decay products they come in pairs of either a muon with
neutrino or pairs of photons. With pairs of photons, an easy mistake
is to think that the superposition of two photons as one independent
particle has 0 spin rather than the spin 1. So there is a mix up of
particles superpositioned and particles joined as a independent
particle. As for the muon paired with neutrino, they would have a 1/2
and 1/2 spin each and so paired should have the 4 components of E-,E
+,M-,M+ and have spin 1, not 0.
The Omega particle is alleged to have spin 3/2, but its decay
endproduct is a proton and a pion negative which Halliday and Resnick
do not even list. So here again, the physicists were too confused with
their erroneous assumption of thinking these particles are
independently existing particles when all they are, are compound
particles of a fleeting moment in time as they decay into the four
basic fundamental particles of electron, proton, photon, neutrino.
The only scientific table of humanity would have DNA as its
centerpiece characteristic. The only scientific table of particles of
physics would have its endproduct decay as its centerpiece.
There are no particles in physics of final decay, other than proton,
electron, photon, and neutrino. Even a bright teenager can sense the
importance of whether a particle is independently existing and thus
decays no further, or whether it decays. But it seems as though most
physicists in their ivory towers are lost in the woods over what is
really fundamental to particles.
I used to berate biology, with its biologists who lack the ability to
do and think science, and where they spend and waste their time on
word games, inventing names which have no science, such as that of
"memes", "altruistic behaviour" "evolutionary stable strategy" and
other word game poppycock. Science is not dreaming up words and
concepts that do not exist, only in the imagination. Science is about
the mechanisms of how things work and operate according to the Maxwell
Equations.
DNA splits apart and reforms according to Maxwell Equations. Arms and
legs move according to Maxwell Equations. Thought and ideas come into
a brain from the nucleus of the Atom Totality according to Maxwell
Equations. The only time word games enter science is to make language
and expression easier.
For particle physics, we throw out strangeness as a word created not
because it exists in science but because physicists had no real
science to show for themselves.
Spin in physics is the components of the transverse wave. The photon
has spin 1 because it has all 4 components, the proton and electron
and neutrino are spin 1/2 because they do not have all 4 components.
It maybe that some of the particles have 3 components but still be 1/2
spin.
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
spin of particles, for most particles have spin of either the 1/2 or
of spin 1. But in particle physics zoo there is the pion and K-meson
and Eta-meson with alleged spin of 0 and then there is the Omega
particle with alleged spin 3/2.
So I am going to have to reconcile those spins, given the fact of a B
as two monopoles of M- and M+.
Can I reconcile the 0 and the 3/2 spin if physics has 4 components on
a transverse wave?
The photon has spin 1 because it has all 4 components of E- and E+
with M- and M+. Particles of spin 1/2 have only 2 components on their
transverse wave, usually a E and M component but in the case of the
neutrino, it has only a M- and M+ component.
Now one possibility for getting a 0 spin is to allow longitudinal
waves rather than having every particle with a transverse wave.
But I see that as unnecessary.
I speculate that these particles spin of 0 and 3/2 were mistakes,
because of a assumption of these particles. In that it is assumed they
are independent particles and not composite particles.
I am using the old textbook of Halliday & Resnick, 1986, PHYSICS, part
2 extended version, Appendix F.
The Pion is 0 spin but decays into a muon, neutrino, or photons. And
ditto for the K-mesons and Eta-meson. The Omega particle with its 3/2
spin decays into a proton and pion.
Now, for the life of me, I cannot understand why particle physicists
are so bozotic in their mind, in that they seem to never get the
message or idea or understanding, that the most important feature of a
particle is not the silly categories with numbers such as spin,
charge, strangeness, those silly categories, but rather, the one most
important column of a particle and to understand that particle is the
end product decay.
To give a metaphor analogy example, if we were to categorize humanity
as physicists categorize particles, they would be so silly as to have
columns of shirt color, belt length, hat or no hat
as columns that represent spin, charge, strangeness, and the only real
important column of the end product decay would be a DNA column.
So, what I am saying is that all of physics is a transverse wave which
has a maximum of 4 components which the photon has and the spin is 1
because it has those 4 components. The photon is an independent
particle just as the electron, proton and neutrino with their spin
1/2, since they have only 2 of the 4 components.
Now, can I get rid of the folly of thinking the spin of pion, K-meson,
Eta-meson are spin 0 and the folly of thinking the Omega
is spin 3/2? Well, let me give it a try at this very moment. If you
look at the decay products they come in pairs of either a muon with
neutrino or pairs of photons. With pairs of photons, an easy mistake
is to think that the superposition of two photons as one independent
particle has 0 spin rather than the spin 1. So there is a mix up of
particles superpositioned and particles joined as a independent
particle. As for the muon paired with neutrino, they would have a 1/2
and 1/2 spin each and so paired should have the 4 components of E-,E
+,M-,M+ and have spin 1, not 0.
The Omega particle is alleged to have spin 3/2, but its decay
endproduct is a proton and a pion negative which Halliday and Resnick
do not even list. So here again, the physicists were too confused with
their erroneous assumption of thinking these particles are
independently existing particles when all they are, are compound
particles of a fleeting moment in time as they decay into the four
basic fundamental particles of electron, proton, photon, neutrino.
The only scientific table of humanity would have DNA as its
centerpiece characteristic. The only scientific table of particles of
physics would have its endproduct decay as its centerpiece.
There are no particles in physics of final decay, other than proton,
electron, photon, and neutrino. Even a bright teenager can sense the
importance of whether a particle is independently existing and thus
decays no further, or whether it decays. But it seems as though most
physicists in their ivory towers are lost in the woods over what is
really fundamental to particles.
I used to berate biology, with its biologists who lack the ability to
do and think science, and where they spend and waste their time on
word games, inventing names which have no science, such as that of
"memes", "altruistic behaviour" "evolutionary stable strategy" and
other word game poppycock. Science is not dreaming up words and
concepts that do not exist, only in the imagination. Science is about
the mechanisms of how things work and operate according to the Maxwell
Equations.
DNA splits apart and reforms according to Maxwell Equations. Arms and
legs move according to Maxwell Equations. Thought and ideas come into
a brain from the nucleus of the Atom Totality according to Maxwell
Equations. The only time word games enter science is to make language
and expression easier.
For particle physics, we throw out strangeness as a word created not
because it exists in science but because physicists had no real
science to show for themselves.
Spin in physics is the components of the transverse wave. The photon
has spin 1 because it has all 4 components, the proton and electron
and neutrino are spin 1/2 because they do not have all 4 components.
It maybe that some of the particles have 3 components but still be 1/2
spin.
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Timothy Sutter
Sep 14, 2012, 2:34:59 PM9/14/12
to
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
there is no "electron dot cloud"
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
there is a "probability density" which
is oftentimes portrayed -as- a 'cloud'
but that portrayal does -not- suggest that
the hydrogen nucleus is surrounded by a
myriad of myriad of electrons.
-please- fix you .sig file.
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 14, 2012, 5:27:36 PM9/14/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Alright, following up on my previous post where I take aim at
silliness of spin 0 and that of spin 3/2.
The table of particles as shown in Halliday and Resnick, 1986,
Appendix F there is but one very important column and that is the
column of "Typical decay mode".
When we examine that column we realize physics has but only 4
particles stable to the world. Those 4 are proton, electron, photon
and neutrino.
So that a person of logic, a person of reasoning would list the
particles by name and then have the most immediate characteristic of
the particle-- its end product of decay. A particle that is composite,
would have a property of spin, only once the spins of the composite
particles are added up. For example, HR show the muon as decaying into
that of electron plus neutrino plus antineutrino. So we take the
electron which has a E- and a M- transverse wave and the neutrino and
antineutrino have both a M- and M+ transverse wave, all three having
spin 1/2. We compound those three particles into making a muon. And in
that compounding process the M- and M- superpose, so are remaining
with E-, M-, M+ for the muon
particle. Now, further, the E- combines with one of the two M's,
whether M- or M+
and finally we have E-, M- as the muon particle, whose spin is 1/2.
So, in real particle physics, we get rid of absurd assumptions, that
just because a
accelerator spews out a particle track does not mean such a particle
has independent existence, but rather is a compounded particle which
has stable particles that make it up. And so it is utterly silly and
nonsense to list stable particles with compounded particles and expect
to believe they all have properties of spin, charge, strangeness as
fundamental particles.
The only particles that have spin, charge and strangeness are the
proton, electron, photon and neutrino. All have 0 strangeness. Proton
has +1 charge, electron -1 and photon, neutrino have 0 electric
charge. All have spin 1/2 except the photon has spin 1.
To cite a spin, charge, strangeness for any particle other than these
4 stable particles is crackpot physics.
Now I can make a good analogy to chemistry on this idea of only 4
stable particles needs a Table, and compound particles should be
ignored. For in chemistry is a property called "electronegativity" and
Wikipedia shows fluorine to be the most electronegative at 3.98 and
francium the least at 0.7. Now to say in physics that the Omega
particle is spin 3/2 is as silly and crackpottish as saying that the
electronegativity of CsF, the compound is 3.98 - 0.7 = 3.91
electronegative, where the number 3/2 spin is as ridiculous as the
number 3.91
for CsF.
For the life of me, I do not know why physicists of the last century
could never seem to collect their wits about whether a particle is a
fundamental particle or a compound particle and that compound
particles do not deserve much attention as does fundamental particles.
I guess when scientists do not have much logical acuity, they overlook
things like whether a particle is independent or a compounded entity.
silliness of spin 0 and that of spin 3/2.
The table of particles as shown in Halliday and Resnick, 1986,
Appendix F there is but one very important column and that is the
column of "Typical decay mode".
When we examine that column we realize physics has but only 4
particles stable to the world. Those 4 are proton, electron, photon
and neutrino.
So that a person of logic, a person of reasoning would list the
particles by name and then have the most immediate characteristic of
the particle-- its end product of decay. A particle that is composite,
would have a property of spin, only once the spins of the composite
particles are added up. For example, HR show the muon as decaying into
that of electron plus neutrino plus antineutrino. So we take the
electron which has a E- and a M- transverse wave and the neutrino and
antineutrino have both a M- and M+ transverse wave, all three having
spin 1/2. We compound those three particles into making a muon. And in
that compounding process the M- and M- superpose, so are remaining
with E-, M-, M+ for the muon
particle. Now, further, the E- combines with one of the two M's,
whether M- or M+
and finally we have E-, M- as the muon particle, whose spin is 1/2.
So, in real particle physics, we get rid of absurd assumptions, that
just because a
accelerator spews out a particle track does not mean such a particle
has independent existence, but rather is a compounded particle which
has stable particles that make it up. And so it is utterly silly and
nonsense to list stable particles with compounded particles and expect
to believe they all have properties of spin, charge, strangeness as
fundamental particles.
The only particles that have spin, charge and strangeness are the
proton, electron, photon and neutrino. All have 0 strangeness. Proton
has +1 charge, electron -1 and photon, neutrino have 0 electric
charge. All have spin 1/2 except the photon has spin 1.
To cite a spin, charge, strangeness for any particle other than these
4 stable particles is crackpot physics.
Now I can make a good analogy to chemistry on this idea of only 4
stable particles needs a Table, and compound particles should be
ignored. For in chemistry is a property called "electronegativity" and
Wikipedia shows fluorine to be the most electronegative at 3.98 and
francium the least at 0.7. Now to say in physics that the Omega
particle is spin 3/2 is as silly and crackpottish as saying that the
electronegativity of CsF, the compound is 3.98 - 0.7 = 3.91
electronegative, where the number 3/2 spin is as ridiculous as the
number 3.91
for CsF.
For the life of me, I do not know why physicists of the last century
could never seem to collect their wits about whether a particle is a
fundamental particle or a compound particle and that compound
particles do not deserve much attention as does fundamental particles.
I guess when scientists do not have much logical acuity, they overlook
things like whether a particle is independent or a compounded entity.
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 14, 2012, 5:37:28 PM9/14/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Sep 14, 4:27 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
> electronegativity of CsF, the compound is 3.98 - 0.7 = 3.2
Sorry, should be 3.2 and corrected on original
> electronegative, where the number 3/2 spin is as ridiculous as the
number 3.2
> for CsF.
>
> For the life of me, I do not know why physicists of the last century
> could never seem to collect their wits about whether a particle is a
> fundamental particle or a compound particle and that compound
> particles do not deserve much attention as does fundamental particles.
> I guess when scientists do not have much logical acuity, they overlook
> things like whether a particle is independent or a compounded entity.
>
> Archimedes Plutoniumhttp://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
Sorry, should be 3.2 and corrected on original
> electronegative, where the number 3/2 spin is as ridiculous as the
> for CsF.
>
> For the life of me, I do not know why physicists of the last century
> could never seem to collect their wits about whether a particle is a
> fundamental particle or a compound particle and that compound
> particles do not deserve much attention as does fundamental particles.
> I guess when scientists do not have much logical acuity, they overlook
> things like whether a particle is independent or a compounded entity.
>
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 14, 2012, 5:55:47 PM9/14/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
vanquish all the doubt that you know nothing of what you speak.
Some maybe tempted to think Tim has at least a 1st year course of
physics under his belt. I would say he never had any formal physics. I
would say Tim has only some computer courses. And this is a modern day
shame that so many computer people think that knowing a tidbit about
computers qualifies them to "pretend to know something about physics
or chemistry or math".
The electron dot cloud is the best possible interpretation of the psi
function. But don't tell that to Tim.
If you cannot say the "electron dot cloud" then all you can say is
psi.
In the Atom Totality theory, I push the dot cloud interpretation to
its final resting point-- the universe must be an atom itself.
Now if Tim were around during the days of Galileo where Galileo said
the Earth moves and circles around the Sun, then Tim would have popped
up there also. Tim would have scorned Galileo also, by saying that
Earth could not possible move around the Sun because all the people in
the southern hemisphere would fall off of Earth and that the Earth
must be stationary and that the Earth must be flat.
So, now, which of these two Tim's is the most ridiculous Tim? Is the
Galileo Tim who thinks that Earth must be stationary and flat in order
for people not to fall off. Or the Tim of the psi interpretation who
thinks that electron dot clouds is some fairy tale explanation.
I do not want to include this in the textbook, for if I started such,
then it would be full of nothing but this sort of "pushing back the
tide of nonphysicists who open their shrill mouth".
AP
Timothy Sutter
Sep 14, 2012, 6:58:24 PM9/14/12
to
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> > > where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
> > there is no "electron dot cloud"
> > there is a "probability density" which
> > is oftentimes portrayed -as- a 'cloud'
> > but that portrayal does -not- suggest that
> > the hydrogen nucleus is surrounded by a
> > myriad of myriad of electrons.
> > -please- fix you .sig file.
the =probability density= associated with
said electronic state.
it is a representation of a =probability density=
and -not- a representation of a -number- of electrons
actually inhabitting electronic orbitals.
these spacial regions are solutions to
the angular momentum harmonics of the
hydrogen/like shroedinger equation
there is no =cloud= of electrons inhabittting
-any- electronic orbital.
there are two at most inhabitting
the s orbitals the three p orbitals
the 5 d orbitals... etc f g h
you like to mention on occasion,
the "aufbau" principle of ordering
but this concerns that they go in
one at a time and then double up.
usually you may see these harmonics orbitals
with a spherical shape for the s orbitals
three dumbbell shapes for the p orbitals
one aligned with each axis and a series
of sort of like clover shapes for the ds with
one sort of having a torus shape around the center.
-sometimes- they don't show solid color representation,
but a hazy looking cloudy apearance but this in no way
suggests that an gigantic number of electrons may
inhabit -any- electronic orbital,
so, your simile;
"whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies"
is simply well short of even metaphorical exactitude.
if you are looking at a =picture= of the electronic orbitals
and someone has represented these orbitals as dot-clouds and
-you- are drawing the conclusion that there are actually
a cloud of electrons inhabitting a given orbital,
you have tricked your self.
but, i find this difficult to believe.
> If you cannot say the "electron dot cloud"
> then all you can say is psi.
then say "psi" because electron dot cloud
is a reprsentation of the...=probability density=
associated with the given discrete energy levels
this is because the location is...probabalistic
i'm sure you -must- realize this, but you seem
to like carrying on this charade for some strange reason.
> In the Atom Totality theory, I push the dot cloud interpretation to
> its final resting point-- the universe must be an atom itself.
well then there now, your universe does not represent
a similitude to -any- of the hydrogenlike wavefunctions.
these waveforms are discrete energy levels and galaxies
are not arranged in this manner around any central
universal location.
show me the central nucleus of the universe
show me how galaxy's charge densities
perturb the locations of each other
show me how any of these galaxies behave as
a "rigid rotor" attached to this central
nuclear-like region of the universe.
show me how any of these galaxies are behaving
as harmonic oscillators with this central
nuclear region of the universe.
short of anything like these, your universal atom theory
is just another cosmical imaginary meandering.
the -behaviors- are not at all similar.
> Now if Tim were around during the days of Galileo where Galileo said
> the Earth moves and circles around the Sun, then Tim would have popped
> up there also.
no, but Bohr theory which actually does have a single electron
orbitting a nucleus in a manner somewhat like that of
planetary motion, fails outside of this single case.
admit it, Archimedes, you metaphor is wholly unworkable
as a true representation of any actual reality.
our solar system doesn't even behave in a manner
consistent with the wave forms of the hydrogenlike atom.
> So, now, which of these two Tim's is the most ridiculous Tim? Is the
> Galileo Tim who thinks that Earth must be stationary and flat in order
> for people not to fall off.
this does not resemble anything said by me here
nor anywhere else that you wil acually be able to show.
this representation exists only in your mind.
> Or the Tim of the psi interpretation who
> thinks that electron dot clouds is some fairy tale explanation.
dood, there is no cloud of elctons orbitting any nucleus.
there is a region of =probability density=
which is -portrayed= by some as a cloud but which
does -not- even begin to sugget that a cloud of
electrons actually inhabit a given
electronic orbital.
-you- are making it sound as if there are
trillions of electrons inhabitting a -single- orbital
when it is strictly -impossible- some say, "forbidden"
for more that -two- to inhabit a given elecronic orbital
i say again, -please- change your 'sig file.
it is misleading.
but, buy all means, if accuracy is not
your main concern, then keep on making
this allusion.
etc.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> > > where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
> > there is no "electron dot cloud"
> > there is a "probability density" which
> > is oftentimes portrayed -as- a 'cloud'
> > but that portrayal does -not- suggest that
> > the hydrogen nucleus is surrounded by a
> > myriad of myriad of electrons.
> > -please- fix you .sig file.
> The electron dot cloud is the best possible interpretation of the psi
> function. But don't tell that to Tim.
nonsense, any "cloud" is only a -portrayal- of
> function. But don't tell that to Tim.
the =probability density= associated with
said electronic state.
it is a representation of a =probability density=
and -not- a representation of a -number- of electrons
actually inhabitting electronic orbitals.
these spacial regions are solutions to
the angular momentum harmonics of the
hydrogen/like shroedinger equation
there is no =cloud= of electrons inhabittting
-any- electronic orbital.
there are two at most inhabitting
the s orbitals the three p orbitals
the 5 d orbitals... etc f g h
you like to mention on occasion,
the "aufbau" principle of ordering
but this concerns that they go in
one at a time and then double up.
usually you may see these harmonics orbitals
with a spherical shape for the s orbitals
three dumbbell shapes for the p orbitals
one aligned with each axis and a series
of sort of like clover shapes for the ds with
one sort of having a torus shape around the center.
-sometimes- they don't show solid color representation,
but a hazy looking cloudy apearance but this in no way
suggests that an gigantic number of electrons may
inhabit -any- electronic orbital,
so, your simile;
"whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies"
if you are looking at a =picture= of the electronic orbitals
and someone has represented these orbitals as dot-clouds and
-you- are drawing the conclusion that there are actually
a cloud of electrons inhabitting a given orbital,
you have tricked your self.
but, i find this difficult to believe.
> If you cannot say the "electron dot cloud"
> then all you can say is psi.
is a reprsentation of the...=probability density=
associated with the given discrete energy levels
this is because the location is...probabalistic
i'm sure you -must- realize this, but you seem
to like carrying on this charade for some strange reason.
> In the Atom Totality theory, I push the dot cloud interpretation to
> its final resting point-- the universe must be an atom itself.
a similitude to -any- of the hydrogenlike wavefunctions.
these waveforms are discrete energy levels and galaxies
are not arranged in this manner around any central
universal location.
show me the central nucleus of the universe
show me how galaxy's charge densities
perturb the locations of each other
show me how any of these galaxies behave as
a "rigid rotor" attached to this central
nuclear-like region of the universe.
show me how any of these galaxies are behaving
as harmonic oscillators with this central
nuclear region of the universe.
short of anything like these, your universal atom theory
is just another cosmical imaginary meandering.
the -behaviors- are not at all similar.
> Now if Tim were around during the days of Galileo where Galileo said
> the Earth moves and circles around the Sun, then Tim would have popped
> up there also.
orbitting a nucleus in a manner somewhat like that of
planetary motion, fails outside of this single case.
admit it, Archimedes, you metaphor is wholly unworkable
as a true representation of any actual reality.
our solar system doesn't even behave in a manner
consistent with the wave forms of the hydrogenlike atom.
> So, now, which of these two Tim's is the most ridiculous Tim? Is the
> Galileo Tim who thinks that Earth must be stationary and flat in order
> for people not to fall off.
nor anywhere else that you wil acually be able to show.
this representation exists only in your mind.
> Or the Tim of the psi interpretation who
> thinks that electron dot clouds is some fairy tale explanation.
there is a region of =probability density=
which is -portrayed= by some as a cloud but which
does -not- even begin to sugget that a cloud of
electrons actually inhabit a given
electronic orbital.
-you- are making it sound as if there are
trillions of electrons inhabitting a -single- orbital
when it is strictly -impossible- some say, "forbidden"
for more that -two- to inhabit a given elecronic orbital
i say again, -please- change your 'sig file.
it is misleading.
but, buy all means, if accuracy is not
your main concern, then keep on making
this allusion.
etc.
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 14, 2012, 8:45:16 PM9/14/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Sep 14, 5:58 pm, Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com-> wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> > > > where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
> > > there is no "electron dot cloud"
> > > there is a "probability density" which
> > > is oftentimes portrayed -as- a 'cloud'
> > > but that portrayal does -not- suggest that
> > > the hydrogen nucleus is surrounded by a
> > > myriad of myriad of electrons.
> > > -please- fix you .sig file.
> > The electron dot cloud is the best possible interpretation of the psi
> > function. But don't tell that to Tim.
>
> nonsense, any "cloud" is only a -portrayal- of
> the =probability density= associated with
> said electronic state.
>
> it is a representation of a =probability density=
> and -not- a representation of a -number- of electrons
> actually inhabitting electronic orbitals.
>
Alright, I see your mistake and it is easy enough to fix. In fact, I
> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> > > > where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
> > > there is no "electron dot cloud"
> > > there is a "probability density" which
> > > is oftentimes portrayed -as- a 'cloud'
> > > but that portrayal does -not- suggest that
> > > the hydrogen nucleus is surrounded by a
> > > myriad of myriad of electrons.
> > > -please- fix you .sig file.
> > The electron dot cloud is the best possible interpretation of the psi
> > function. But don't tell that to Tim.
>
> nonsense, any "cloud" is only a -portrayal- of
> the =probability density= associated with
> said electronic state.
>
> it is a representation of a =probability density=
> and -not- a representation of a -number- of electrons
> actually inhabitting electronic orbitals.
>
should have
read your entire first post where you speak of "myriad of myriad
electrons"
Your mistake is innocent enough and a lot of people, taking first year
chemistry or
physics would make that mistake. Somehow you never realized your
misconception.
The dots of the electron dot cloud are not individual electrons making
up one electron.
The dots are the probability of finding the single electron at that
spot in space.
So that if you take a single electron and smashed it into say 10^30
fine pieces
and spread that single electron powder over that same space, then that
is your
electron dot cloud.
So that if you take a atom and say it is the Cosmic Atom, then its
electrons would be these single electrons smashed to pieces and spread
in space.
So that if the Cosmos were a single plutonium atom, the total of the
Universe a atom of 231Pu, then as you look at the night sky you see
dots, and those dots are stars or galaxies.
But if those dots are stars and galaxies, another interpretation of
those stars and galaxies is that they are the smashed to pieces of
10^30 pieces of one electron of this Cosmic atom totality.
So your mistake Tim, is that you think a electron is a tiny solid ball
that revolves around a nucleus. What the psi tells you is that the
electron has a probability of being in a specific spot. So that one
interpretation of this psi is that it is an electron dot cloud, where
each dot is a tiny piece of that One Single Electron.
And I just expanded the interpretation to its utmost conclusion, that
the dots are pieces of the single electron but for the Cosmic Atom the
dots are stars and galaxies and all matter seen in astronomy.
I hope this helps you correct your mistake, in that no-one is talking
of myriad electrons forming a dot cloud. A single one electron forms a
dot cloud and the dots are bits and pieces of the smashed electron. I
am guessing a electron can be smashed into 10^30 separate pieces, but
maybe it is 10^40.
Sorry, I do not have time to read your rest.
AP
Timothy Sutter
Sep 14, 2012, 9:32:40 PM9/14/12
to
descriptive -of- the =probability density=
where the =probability density= is a function of the
-probability- of finding one electron in a given spacial region.
the -reason- that some people show this as a cloud of dots is
that the harmonic orbitals give us only upwards of 90% certainty
of finding the electron and so, the closed space images are not,
strictly speaking, the truest picture of what is actually going on.
part of this is due to the fact that an "infinite series" is
integrated only up to two or three terms and the successive
terms are truncated and left off and not integrated.
this is considered "ok" because the first two or three terms
of the infinite series take the lion's share of the probability
and the remaining terms quickly diminish to a negligible state.
it has ZERO to do with any idea of smashing an electron to
smithereenies and imagining the smashed up electron
actually forms a dust cloud around the nucleus.
i'm certainly glad that you do -not- think that the "electron cloud"
is actually a myriad of electrons surrounding a nucleus
but neither is it representative of a smashed electron.
it is...now get this,
it, the "electron cloud," is only a descriptive -device-
and it is descriptive of,...the =probability density=
> So your mistake Tim, is that you think a electron is a tiny solid ball
> that revolves around a nucleus. What the psi tells you is that the
> electron has a probability of being in a specific spot.
as far as what -i- think about an "electron"
an electron could be a phantom
that is solely descriptive of force field interactions
and some mathematical models "work" which attest to its,
the electrons, "reality"
see, and what you are suggesting is that, the electronic orbitals
are really spacial regions with electronic force behaviors spread
out along the entire region and that there really is no electron
to speak of at all.
-not- that there is some sort of disintegrated ball
scattered throughout such a spacial region, with some
unknwoable elctronic charge associate with each
shattered and scattered fragment.
and, the large objects which make up galaxies and stars
and galaxie clusters are operating in a gravitational field
and the electronic interactions are negligible and the chemical
atomic forces are electronic and the gravitational effect is
negligible and you have yet to show me how gravitational
fields align in discrete energy levels and not
a continuous spectrum.
etc.
Timothy Sutter
Sep 14, 2012, 10:16:39 PM9/14/12
to
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > > whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> > > > > where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
> > > > there is no "electron dot cloud"
> > > > there is a "probability density" which
> > > > is oftentimes portrayed -as- a 'cloud'
> > > > but that portrayal does -not- suggest that
> > > > the hydrogen nucleus is surrounded by a
> > > > myriad of myriad of electrons.
> > > > -please- fix you .sig file.
> > > The electron dot cloud is the best possible interpretation of the psi
> > > function. But don't tell that to Tim.
not when you say things like this;
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > > whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> > > > > where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
> > > > there is no "electron dot cloud"
> > > > there is a "probability density" which
> > > > is oftentimes portrayed -as- a 'cloud'
> > > > but that portrayal does -not- suggest that
> > > > the hydrogen nucleus is surrounded by a
> > > > myriad of myriad of electrons.
> > > > -please- fix you .sig file.
> > > The electron dot cloud is the best possible interpretation of the psi
> > > function. But don't tell that to Tim.
Message-ID:
<d0e7a8c9-10cd-45c2...@z8g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
"""palladium superconducts and also has a subshell switch then the
crystal geometry of a 4d8, 5s2 should be altogether very much
different from 4d10"""
Message-ID:
<2ca9ee87-c991-435f...@o8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
"""So as we cool Helium-4 to that of 2 Kelvin, why would one of the
electrons convert from its down spin to be a up spin and have two up
spins in that suborbital?"""
see, you speak of spin states orbital population
and these spin states and orbital populations are
best described -by- an integral electron and not by
any sort of dust cloud.
how do you propose to assign an integral spin quantum state
to a dust cloud?
etc.
Timothy Sutter
Sep 14, 2012, 11:38:19 PM9/14/12
to
no animals will be hurt during
the course of these next
several sentences.
if you have a bowling ball and
you stick the bowling ball in
a cardboard box in which
a refrigerator came,
then you could say that you know
where the bowling ball is, only
that you don't know exactly where it is,
because you just know that it's
in the cardboard box somewhere.
it's in there somewhere, and given that
you left a lot of packing material in the box,
the ball may not be on the bottom of
the box, but could be anywhere in the box.
it's in there somewhere.
now, you leave the room,
if you feel like it,
but you don't have to,
and someone else comes in and takes
the ball out of the refrigerator box,
and sets it into a color television box.
now, you come back and look at the new box,
and you can say that you know the ball is
in that box somewhere,
and, seeing that the box is smaller,
your knowledge of where the ball is
is a little bit clearer,
but, it's still in there somewhere.
now, your assistant takes the ball
and places it into a small green
trash bag that -just- fits over
the ball, and now, you can prwactically
see the shape of the ball,
and you can say that you know
fairly well where the ball is,
it's right there in the bag.
the container -just- fits over it.
now you start working with
much smaller objects, and
what you find eventually,
is that you cannot make container
small enough for you to have as
clear an image of where the ball
is as you had with the bowling
ball in the trash bag.
this because the stuff you have
to work with to make a box for
your object, itself -contains-
the objects you are trying to observe.
the stuff you have for making containers
has an inherent spacial void which
cannot be overcome by your ingenuities.
so, for these tiny objects,
within their own tiny little containers,
you basically get back to a bowling
ball in a cardboard refrigerator box
and find that the best you can say is;
"it's in there somewhere"
always realizing that the container
is a bit larger that the object,
-but- you can get a fairly, not
so bad, idea of where the refrigerator box is,
or, in this case, the single 'atom' of tungsten.
so, you know where the little particle is.
for all practical purposes,
it's in the little box somewhere.
and you pretty much know where the little box is.
a bowling ball you can hold in your hand.
an electron is already in your hand.
whether there actually is such
an object as an electron, inasmuch
as you can't see it, is moot,
some set of phenomena,
taken together and looked
at independantly, seem to
behave as if such a thing
as an electron does,
in fact, exist.
it's somewhere in the box
and the box is right there.
the course of these next
several sentences.
if you have a bowling ball and
you stick the bowling ball in
a cardboard box in which
a refrigerator came,
then you could say that you know
where the bowling ball is, only
that you don't know exactly where it is,
because you just know that it's
in the cardboard box somewhere.
it's in there somewhere, and given that
you left a lot of packing material in the box,
the ball may not be on the bottom of
the box, but could be anywhere in the box.
it's in there somewhere.
now, you leave the room,
if you feel like it,
but you don't have to,
and someone else comes in and takes
the ball out of the refrigerator box,
and sets it into a color television box.
now, you come back and look at the new box,
and you can say that you know the ball is
in that box somewhere,
and, seeing that the box is smaller,
your knowledge of where the ball is
is a little bit clearer,
but, it's still in there somewhere.
now, your assistant takes the ball
and places it into a small green
trash bag that -just- fits over
the ball, and now, you can prwactically
see the shape of the ball,
and you can say that you know
fairly well where the ball is,
it's right there in the bag.
the container -just- fits over it.
now you start working with
much smaller objects, and
what you find eventually,
is that you cannot make container
small enough for you to have as
clear an image of where the ball
is as you had with the bowling
ball in the trash bag.
this because the stuff you have
to work with to make a box for
your object, itself -contains-
the objects you are trying to observe.
the stuff you have for making containers
has an inherent spacial void which
cannot be overcome by your ingenuities.
so, for these tiny objects,
within their own tiny little containers,
you basically get back to a bowling
ball in a cardboard refrigerator box
and find that the best you can say is;
"it's in there somewhere"
always realizing that the container
is a bit larger that the object,
-but- you can get a fairly, not
so bad, idea of where the refrigerator box is,
or, in this case, the single 'atom' of tungsten.
so, you know where the little particle is.
for all practical purposes,
it's in the little box somewhere.
and you pretty much know where the little box is.
a bowling ball you can hold in your hand.
an electron is already in your hand.
whether there actually is such
an object as an electron, inasmuch
as you can't see it, is moot,
some set of phenomena,
taken together and looked
at independantly, seem to
behave as if such a thing
as an electron does,
in fact, exist.
it's somewhere in the box
and the box is right there.
Timothy Sutter
Sep 14, 2012, 11:38:36 PM9/14/12
to
> and you pretty much know where the little box is.
or, like a bowling ball in a baseball stadium.
and this bowling ball is self propelled
and spinning around the stadium.
you know exactly where the baseball stadium is.
and the bowling ball in there
somewhere,
spinning around.
and, we don't -have- to say
that the baseball stadium
is the size of the perceived universe,
and that the bowling ball is -just-
"somewhere in the universe"
cuz then, of course, we'd be entirely sure,
but we can be quite sure even in baseball stadiums
that are -much- smaller that the perceived universe
and even say that in a baseball stadium
the size os a small glass of water,
there is a clear certainty that -many-
electrons are contained therein.
for a fact.
and believe it or not, we can reduce
the size of that baseball stadium
even further, and know that
some phenomenon
which could be likened to
a spinning bowling ball,
is definitely in there.
see, a snowflake
is your baseball stadium
and you can be sure that there are
quite a lot of many bowling balls
in that baseball stadium
because that baseball stadium is,
itself, -constructed- of things that
behave just like tiny spinning
bowling balls.
Timothy Sutter
Sep 14, 2012, 11:43:35 PM9/14/12
to
"classical mechanics" simply does not work as the 'best explanation'
when applied to teh behaviors of very small things, like electrons,
and, so-called "quantum mechanics" was developed to provide a more
correct explanation for phenomenon associated with
very small objects and light.
as the moon travels around the earth
any electrostatic interaction/s
will be buried under the much
larger gravitational forces.
if you shrink the earth and moon
to very tiny proportions,
there comes some point when
the gravitational forces
are somewhat comparable to
the electrostatic interactions.
at this point, the gravtitational forces
would be so small and not enough to hold
the earth and moon in orbit about each other,
and the tendency would be for the
moon to fly away from the earth
sort of like, if you had a ball on
a string and were spinning it
around your finger,
and, if you cut the string,
the ball would go flying off away from you.
but now, with the really
very tiny moon and earth
with a gravitational force that
would tend towards them flying apart,
the electorstatic interaction starts
to play a significant role
and the two bodies, with nearly
equal and opposite charges
are being held together by this force, while
at the same time, trying to fly apart from
each other because the gravity is very
weakly unable to hold them together,
but, the two bodies do not simply become
glued together and form a de facto single body,
because, in this dimensional range,
the two forces, gravity and
electrostatic interactions
are so ideally matched
that, the flying apart
and the attracting together
are bound up in a "harmonic oscillation"
sort of like the electrostatic interaction
constitutes what amounts to a tiny spring
string which holds the two together even
as they would be flying apart.
and the two oscillate with "harmonics"
very much like the "harmonics"
of musical instrumentation.
the "music of the spheres,"
as it were.
when applied to teh behaviors of very small things, like electrons,
and, so-called "quantum mechanics" was developed to provide a more
correct explanation for phenomenon associated with
very small objects and light.
as the moon travels around the earth
any electrostatic interaction/s
will be buried under the much
larger gravitational forces.
if you shrink the earth and moon
to very tiny proportions,
there comes some point when
the gravitational forces
are somewhat comparable to
the electrostatic interactions.
at this point, the gravtitational forces
would be so small and not enough to hold
the earth and moon in orbit about each other,
and the tendency would be for the
moon to fly away from the earth
sort of like, if you had a ball on
a string and were spinning it
around your finger,
and, if you cut the string,
the ball would go flying off away from you.
but now, with the really
very tiny moon and earth
with a gravitational force that
would tend towards them flying apart,
the electorstatic interaction starts
to play a significant role
and the two bodies, with nearly
equal and opposite charges
are being held together by this force, while
at the same time, trying to fly apart from
each other because the gravity is very
weakly unable to hold them together,
but, the two bodies do not simply become
glued together and form a de facto single body,
because, in this dimensional range,
the two forces, gravity and
electrostatic interactions
are so ideally matched
that, the flying apart
and the attracting together
are bound up in a "harmonic oscillation"
sort of like the electrostatic interaction
constitutes what amounts to a tiny spring
string which holds the two together even
as they would be flying apart.
and the two oscillate with "harmonics"
very much like the "harmonics"
of musical instrumentation.
the "music of the spheres,"
as it were.
Timothy Sutter
Sep 15, 2012, 12:29:31 AM9/15/12
to
> and, the large objects which make up galaxies and stars
> and galaxie clusters are operating in a gravitational field
> and the electronic interactions are negligible and the chemical
> atomic forces are electronic and the gravitational effect is
> negligible and you have yet to show me how gravitational
> fields align in discrete energy levels and not
> a continuous spectrum.
see, another problem is, let's say the moon
> and galaxie clusters are operating in a gravitational field
> and the electronic interactions are negligible and the chemical
> atomic forces are electronic and the gravitational effect is
> negligible and you have yet to show me how gravitational
> fields align in discrete energy levels and not
> a continuous spectrum.
is slowly drifting away from the earth, not
entirely hypothetical as some people suggest
that the moon is, in fact, slowly drifting
away from the earth,
ok, so, in this drifting, the moon is passing
thru a continuous spectrum of energy states
and is -not- doing what electrons seem to do,
which appear in one state, a ground state lets say,
and then, appear in a higher -discrete- energy state
and never make an appearance in some
state -between- ..say, 1S and 2Px
so, the stars and galaxies and planets and all that space dust
is not found in discrete energy states, but...apparently,
in a rather continuous spectrum of energy states.
and this behavior is not at all -like- a universal plutonium atom.
we wouldnt be getting pelted with meteorites if there was
such a discrete set of possible energy states as on the atomic level.
this first year student is not convinced...
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 15, 2012, 3:42:37 AM9/15/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Sep 14, 8:32 pm, Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com-> wrote:
(snipped)
geometry representations. You are probably still in Precalculus, Tim,
to be able to
mathematically prove that the psi function is the very same thing as
taking a
electron and smashing it into 10^40 tiny pieces and to replace the
dots with a
"bit of the electron".
Tim, you would have to have taken at least Symbolic Logic and
differential geometry to prove that these two statements are the same
thing:
A. the hard ball electron has a psi probability of finding that whole
electron in a specific point of the atom
B. if we smash the hard ball electron into 10^40 tiny pieces and
placed those pieces on the psi probability dots
So Tim, even though you lack the math and logic to prove that A is the
same as B, you can still start to think about it.
And secondly, from the book you are reading about the psi; try looking
forward in that book you are reading to where they talk about
collapsed wavefunction and uncollapsed wavefunction. Because you see,
in your stance, the electron is always a hardball whole object and so
there cannot be a collapsed or uncollapsed wavefunction.
But if you see A and B are the same thing, then a collapsed
wavefunction is when the electron is a hardball whole object such as
electricity flow in current, and where the electron as tiny pieces of
10^40 pieces of a dot cloud is the electron uncollapsed wavefunction.
> where the =probability density= is a function of the
> -probability- of finding one electron in a given spacial region.
>
A collapsed electron wavefunction, but that does not allow the
electron as a uncollapsed wavefunction.
> the -reason- that some people show this as a cloud of dots is
> that the harmonic orbitals give us only upwards of 90% certainty
> of finding the electron and so, the closed space images are not,
> strictly speaking, the truest picture of what is actually going on.
>
Your now waffling off tangent.
Schedule yourself to taking Symbolic Logic, so that your mind is not
so much waffling off tangent.
AP
(snipped)
>
> the "electron cloud" -is- a descriptive -device-
>
> descriptive -of- the =probability density=
>
The psi function is the electron dot cloud. Both are equivalent
> the "electron cloud" -is- a descriptive -device-
>
> descriptive -of- the =probability density=
>
geometry representations. You are probably still in Precalculus, Tim,
to be able to
mathematically prove that the psi function is the very same thing as
taking a
electron and smashing it into 10^40 tiny pieces and to replace the
dots with a
"bit of the electron".
Tim, you would have to have taken at least Symbolic Logic and
differential geometry to prove that these two statements are the same
thing:
A. the hard ball electron has a psi probability of finding that whole
electron in a specific point of the atom
B. if we smash the hard ball electron into 10^40 tiny pieces and
placed those pieces on the psi probability dots
So Tim, even though you lack the math and logic to prove that A is the
same as B, you can still start to think about it.
And secondly, from the book you are reading about the psi; try looking
forward in that book you are reading to where they talk about
collapsed wavefunction and uncollapsed wavefunction. Because you see,
in your stance, the electron is always a hardball whole object and so
there cannot be a collapsed or uncollapsed wavefunction.
But if you see A and B are the same thing, then a collapsed
wavefunction is when the electron is a hardball whole object such as
electricity flow in current, and where the electron as tiny pieces of
10^40 pieces of a dot cloud is the electron uncollapsed wavefunction.
> where the =probability density= is a function of the
> -probability- of finding one electron in a given spacial region.
>
electron as a uncollapsed wavefunction.
> the -reason- that some people show this as a cloud of dots is
> that the harmonic orbitals give us only upwards of 90% certainty
> of finding the electron and so, the closed space images are not,
> strictly speaking, the truest picture of what is actually going on.
>
Schedule yourself to taking Symbolic Logic, so that your mind is not
so much waffling off tangent.
AP
Timothy Sutter
Sep 15, 2012, 4:41:55 AM9/15/12
to
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> (snipped)
> > the "electron cloud" -is- a descriptive -device-
> > descriptive -of- the =probability density=
> The psi function is the electron dot cloud. Both are equivalent
> geometry representations. You are probably still in Precalculus, Tim,
> to be able to
> mathematically prove that the psi function is the very same thing as
> taking a
> electron and smashing it into 10^40 tiny pieces and to replace the
> dots with a
> "bit of the electron".
there is never any real moment when an electron
is a smashed cloud of 10^40 tiny pieces
> Tim, you would have to have taken at least Symbolic Logic and
> differential geometry to prove that these two statements are the same
> thing:
> A. the hard ball electron has a psi probability of finding that whole
> electron in a specific point of the atom
not quite, that's the whole bloody point,
we cannot successfully predict position
and momentum of such particles simultaneously.
you don't seem to be implying the the nucleus
is ever considered as an exploded dust cloud of minutia
so, think about why you don't tell me that the nucleus
of an atom is dispersed over space.
do you suspect that it is because we have
such a greater idea of where it is?
i bet you can see how frightfully disturbing
it would be to model the nucleus as this
sort of dust cloud.
you'd have bits of proton intermixed
in the electronic orbitals.
for some strange reason, the angular momentum
harmonics seem to consider the proton/nucleus
as fixed in the central region and the
electron orbitting that region in a
-probabalistic- manner.
see, think about how your dust cloud would be
when you have =2= electrons in a single orbital
you would undoubtably have some violation
of Pauli exclusion going on, with some oddball
sharing of the 4 principle quantum numbers
being an inevitable outcome.
etc.
> B. if we smash the hard ball electron into 10^40 tiny pieces and
> placed those pieces on the psi probability dots
at -best- you'd be considering the energetic
wave form pattern as a diffuse discrete packet.
-not- as if an electron was scattered in the breeze.
> And secondly, from the book you are reading about the psi; try looking
> forward in that book you are reading to where they talk about
> collapsed wavefunction and uncollapsed wavefunction. Because you see,
> in your stance, the electron is always a hardball whole object and so
> there cannot be a collapsed or uncollapsed wavefunction.
you might like to look into molecular orbital theory
and consider how atomic orbitals show an overlap
when bonding occurs.
orbital 'hybridization' and the gaps between the highest
unoccupied molecular orbital and the lowest unoccupied
molecular orbital and how this contributes to bonding.
people don't say that the electrons are smashed to smitereenies
they say that the waveforms hybridize and overlap.
see, the spacial regions overlap because
they are of similar energy status.
ut as you would have it, it wouldbn't be the orbitals that hybridize,
but the electrons themselves that hybridize and this would lead to
some violation of Pauli exclusion, i'm sure.
you'd end up with two electrons sharing the -same- quantum numbers.
> But if you see A and B are the same thing, then a collapsed
> wavefunction is when the electron is a hardball whole object such as
> electricity flow in current, and where the electron as tiny pieces of
> 10^40 pieces of a dot cloud is the electron uncollapsed wavefunction.
so, you do allow as that the electron is quite well modeled as a
hardball.
now all you have to realize is that this hardball is a blurry little
phantom
that occupies a -state- just like Idaho, only its -address- is unknown.
> > where the =probability density= is a function of the
> > -probability- of finding one electron in a given spacial region.
> A collapsed electron wavefunction, but that does not allow the
> electron as a uncollapsed wavefunction.
i think you need to ponder this some more.
all the "interpretting" in the world isn't going
to smash the electron in to smithereenies
you -do- have electric -fields- to deal with,
sure, fine, not a problem
but like i said, at -best- your smithereenies contention
is -trying- to see the electronic field strngth of the
entire box with the whole spinning =charged= critter inside it.
> > the -reason- that some people show this as a cloud of dots is
> > that the harmonic orbitals give us only upwards of 90% certainty
> > of finding the electron and so, the closed space images are not,
> > strictly speaking, the truest picture of what is actually going on.
there is a consequence to this.
etc. etc. etc.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> (snipped)
> > the "electron cloud" -is- a descriptive -device-
> > descriptive -of- the =probability density=
> The psi function is the electron dot cloud. Both are equivalent
> geometry representations. You are probably still in Precalculus, Tim,
> to be able to
> mathematically prove that the psi function is the very same thing as
> taking a
> electron and smashing it into 10^40 tiny pieces and to replace the
> dots with a
> "bit of the electron".
is a smashed cloud of 10^40 tiny pieces
> Tim, you would have to have taken at least Symbolic Logic and
> differential geometry to prove that these two statements are the same
> thing:
> A. the hard ball electron has a psi probability of finding that whole
> electron in a specific point of the atom
we cannot successfully predict position
and momentum of such particles simultaneously.
you don't seem to be implying the the nucleus
is ever considered as an exploded dust cloud of minutia
so, think about why you don't tell me that the nucleus
of an atom is dispersed over space.
do you suspect that it is because we have
such a greater idea of where it is?
i bet you can see how frightfully disturbing
it would be to model the nucleus as this
sort of dust cloud.
you'd have bits of proton intermixed
in the electronic orbitals.
for some strange reason, the angular momentum
harmonics seem to consider the proton/nucleus
as fixed in the central region and the
electron orbitting that region in a
-probabalistic- manner.
see, think about how your dust cloud would be
when you have =2= electrons in a single orbital
you would undoubtably have some violation
of Pauli exclusion going on, with some oddball
sharing of the 4 principle quantum numbers
being an inevitable outcome.
etc.
> B. if we smash the hard ball electron into 10^40 tiny pieces and
> placed those pieces on the psi probability dots
wave form pattern as a diffuse discrete packet.
-not- as if an electron was scattered in the breeze.
> And secondly, from the book you are reading about the psi; try looking
> forward in that book you are reading to where they talk about
> collapsed wavefunction and uncollapsed wavefunction. Because you see,
> in your stance, the electron is always a hardball whole object and so
> there cannot be a collapsed or uncollapsed wavefunction.
and consider how atomic orbitals show an overlap
when bonding occurs.
orbital 'hybridization' and the gaps between the highest
unoccupied molecular orbital and the lowest unoccupied
molecular orbital and how this contributes to bonding.
people don't say that the electrons are smashed to smitereenies
they say that the waveforms hybridize and overlap.
see, the spacial regions overlap because
they are of similar energy status.
ut as you would have it, it wouldbn't be the orbitals that hybridize,
but the electrons themselves that hybridize and this would lead to
some violation of Pauli exclusion, i'm sure.
you'd end up with two electrons sharing the -same- quantum numbers.
> But if you see A and B are the same thing, then a collapsed
> wavefunction is when the electron is a hardball whole object such as
> electricity flow in current, and where the electron as tiny pieces of
> 10^40 pieces of a dot cloud is the electron uncollapsed wavefunction.
hardball.
now all you have to realize is that this hardball is a blurry little
phantom
that occupies a -state- just like Idaho, only its -address- is unknown.
> > where the =probability density= is a function of the
> > -probability- of finding one electron in a given spacial region.
> A collapsed electron wavefunction, but that does not allow the
> electron as a uncollapsed wavefunction.
all the "interpretting" in the world isn't going
to smash the electron in to smithereenies
you -do- have electric -fields- to deal with,
sure, fine, not a problem
but like i said, at -best- your smithereenies contention
is -trying- to see the electronic field strngth of the
entire box with the whole spinning =charged= critter inside it.
> > the -reason- that some people show this as a cloud of dots is
> > that the harmonic orbitals give us only upwards of 90% certainty
> > of finding the electron and so, the closed space images are not,
> > strictly speaking, the truest picture of what is actually going on.
> >part of this is due to the fact that an "infinite series" is
> >integrated only up to two or three terms and the successive
> >terms are truncated and left off and not integrated.
> >this is considered "ok" because the first two or three terms
> >of the infinite series take the lion's share of the probability
> >and the remaining terms quickly diminish to a negligible state.
> >it has ZERO to do with any idea of smashing an electron to
> > smithereenies and imagining the smashed up electron
> >actually forms a dust cloud around the nucleus.
> >integrated only up to two or three terms and the successive
> >terms are truncated and left off and not integrated.
> >this is considered "ok" because the first two or three terms
> >of the infinite series take the lion's share of the probability
> >and the remaining terms quickly diminish to a negligible state.
> >it has ZERO to do with any idea of smashing an electron to
> > smithereenies and imagining the smashed up electron
> >actually forms a dust cloud around the nucleus.
> Your now waffling off tangent.
not quite, the infinite series -is- truncated
there is a consequence to this.
etc. etc. etc.
Timothy Sutter
Sep 15, 2012, 5:01:54 AM9/15/12
to
> you might like to look into molecular orbital theory
> and consider how atomic orbitals show an overlap
> when bonding occurs.
> orbital 'hybridization' and the gaps between the highest
> unoccupied molecular orbital and the lowest unoccupied
> molecular orbital and how this contributes to bonding.
excuse me, that's
> and consider how atomic orbitals show an overlap
> when bonding occurs.
> orbital 'hybridization' and the gaps between the highest
> unoccupied molecular orbital and the lowest unoccupied
> molecular orbital and how this contributes to bonding.
orbital 'hybridization' and the gaps between the highest
molecular orbital and how this contributes to bonding.
lowest unoccupied
^ [gap]
|
highest occupied
Michael Moroney
Sep 15, 2012, 12:45:21 PM9/15/12
to
nearly 20 years.
My personal guess is that he encountered a diagram of the electron
probability density in a cheap high school chemistry book with primitive
printing techniques, where they represented high probability with lots of
dots close together and low density with few dots. Kind of like old B/W
newspaper photos made of dots, except newspaper photos use bigger/smaller
dots for dark/light and not more/fewer dots. (I have seen such
chemistry books)
He just took the diagram (way) too literally.
David Bostwick
Sep 17, 2012, 10:13:05 AM9/17/12
to
Timothy Sutter <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote in
news:5053E5...@lycos.com-:
Tim, give up. You will never persuade AP that he's wrong. Don Quixote
will defeat the windmill first.
news:5053E5...@lycos.com-:
Tim, give up. You will never persuade AP that he's wrong. Don Quixote
will defeat the windmill first.
Timothy Sutter
Sep 17, 2012, 11:29:11 AM9/17/12
to
> >Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> >> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
> >> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> >> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
> Timothy Sutter writes:
> >there is no "electron dot cloud"
> >there is a "probability density" which
> >is oftentimes portrayed -as- a 'cloud'
> >but that portrayal does -not- suggest that
> >the hydrogen nucleus is surrounded by a
> >myriad of myriad of electrons.
> >there is no "electron dot cloud"
> >there is a "probability density" which
> >is oftentimes portrayed -as- a 'cloud'
> >but that portrayal does -not- suggest that
> >the hydrogen nucleus is surrounded by a
> >myriad of myriad of electrons.
Michael Moroney wrote:
> Good luck convincing Archie of that. He's been spewing that crap for
> nearly 20 years.
<...>
> Good luck convincing Archie of that. He's been spewing that crap for
> nearly 20 years.
David Bostwick wrote:
> Timothy Sutter wrote
> Tim, give up. You will never persuade AP that he's wrong.
> Don Quixote will defeat the windmill first.
/Message-ID:
<ac260f67-6b2c-454b...@a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>
/Collapsed Wavefunction is simply a different term for saying -- the
/particle nature of matter. An Uncollapsed Wavefunction is simply a
/different term for saying the wave nature of matter.
/So that when an Electron in a atom is in 10^40 tiny pieces it is in
/the wave form of the electron. And when the electron is a single
/hardball moving in a wire of electricity, it is a collapsed
/wavefunction of a particle.
/In atoms, the electrons in orbit are in uncollapsed wavefunction and
/the psi function that describes the probability of finding an electron
/at a specific point of geometry, is replaced by a sliver piece of the
/actual electron, forming the electron dot cloud. So an electron dot
/cloud of an atom is the atom of a uncollapsed wavefunction and the
/electron as a wave, not a hardball particle.
AP is having some difficulty with 'wave/particle' duality
AP may want to give a brief look here;
http://www.chemteam.info/Electrons/deBroglie-Equation.html
http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/physics/quant/node6.html
it seems to me, that the wave particle duality is exhibitted
by electrons as particles in that their energies is related to a
wavelength.
(wavelength) = h/mv [h = constant, m = mass, v = velocity]
AP seems to say, an electron is -either- a wave or a particle
but, that, when an electron is a wave, it is still particle/s plural.
AP says that when the electron is behaving as a 'wave'
it is no longer a single particle but 10^40 particles.
but the thing is, that, when an electron is what it is, a 'particle'
it already has a wave behavior given by (wavelength) = h/mv .
and so, there is no need for a slivered 10^40 piece electron
to show a wave nature in an electron.
AP says this above;
=
"the psi function that describes the probability
of finding an electron at a specific point of geometry"
=
you almost get the idea that AP thinks uncertainty principle
holds for the "dust cloud wave" but not for the particulate
"hardball" particle.
anyway, AP may like to look in to de Broglie waves.
i don't think it's an 'either/or' but a 'duality'
teh electron as particle has a wave behavior
as would a bowling ball, only the diffraction slits needed
to -test- the wave nature of a bowling ball would be impracticable.
i had no intention of chasing it around forever...
Brian Salter-Duke
Sep 17, 2012, 6:38:30 PM9/17/12
to
EVEN wrong!
--
Brian Salter-Duke Melbourne, Australia
My real address is b_duke(AT)bigpond(DOT)net(DOT)au
Use this for reply or followup
Collaborating with chemists in Melbourne and World-wide
Salmon Egg
Sep 17, 2012, 6:45:50 PM9/17/12
to
In article <GDN5s.1331$Wo3...@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>,
--
Sam
Conservatives are against Darwinism but for natural selection.
Liberals are for Darwinism but totally against any selection.
Brian Salter-Duke <b_d...@bigpond.com.au> wrote:
> Agreed, but as Pauli once remarked about someone else's ideas, AP is not
> EVEN wrong!
I miss Uncle Al.
> Agreed, but as Pauli once remarked about someone else's ideas, AP is not
> EVEN wrong!
--
Sam
Conservatives are against Darwinism but for natural selection.
Liberals are for Darwinism but totally against any selection.
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Sep 17, 2012, 7:18:04 PM9/17/12
to
"Salmon Egg" <Salm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:SalmonEgg-7D412...@news60.forteinc.com...
In
article <GDN5s.1331$Wo3...@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>,
Brian Salter-Duke <b_d...@bigpond.com.au> wrote:
> Agreed, but as Pauli once remarked about someone else's ideas, AP is not
> EVEN wrong!
I miss Uncle Al.
--
Sam
Brian Salter-Duke <b_d...@bigpond.com.au> wrote:
> Agreed, but as Pauli once remarked about someone else's ideas, AP is not
> EVEN wrong!
I miss Uncle Al.
--
Sam
==============================================
Chiral
Idiot!
Feel
better now?
--
This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
hanson
Sep 17, 2012, 11:18:40 PM9/17/12
to
"Salmon Egg" <Salm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Brian Salter-Duke <b_d...@bigpond.com.au> wrote:
>
Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
>> Agreed, but as Pauli once remarked about someone
>> else's ideas, Archie-pooh is not EVEN wrong!
Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
>> Agreed, but as Pauli once remarked about someone
>
Sam wrote:
> I miss Uncle Al.
>
Why?
David Bostwick
Sep 18, 2012, 3:12:44 PM9/18/12
to
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in news:k38pcv$a5d$1...@dont-email.me:
Boy, this is like old home week.
Timothy Sutter
Sep 19, 2012, 12:53:52 AM9/19/12
to
http://tinyurl.com/carvone-twins
| O O |
// \// \\ / \\
| | | |
\ / \ /
| |
/ \\ // \
(+)carvone (-) carvone
oil of caraway oil of spearmint
| O O |
// \// \\ / \\
| | | |
\ / \ /
| |
/ \\ // \
(+)carvone (-) carvone
oil of caraway oil of spearmint
0 new messages