The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: A Member Editorial: Is it time to change gears?  (Read 8816 times)

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
A Member Editorial: Is it time to change gears?
« Reply #25 on: 22/01/2010 03:32:53 »
I'm just quoting what I've read about the lifetime of the proton. I have to guess it would be a catastrophic dissipation since I believe the proton to be a wave.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
A Member Editorial: Is it time to change gears?
« Reply #26 on: 22/01/2010 04:40:27 »

But the idea still disturbs me. It seems to imply that a atom is 'indestructible' if left alone?
Like it won't lose any energy, yet we have the idea of this 'probability cloud' of electrons varying with different measurements. Meaning that it must use 'energy', and if it does some of that must 'radiate' away?

If it doesn't you will have an perpetuum mobile (perpetual motion machine) as it has 'moving parts' but won't lose energy.


Just a though. Does it really have moving parts, or is the movement "powered" by radiation received? What happens to an atom at 0K? Is there any movement at all?

Now you're turning it around :)
i was thinking of it radiating and you want to discuss if it receives radiation.
that one you will have to explain a little more Geezer?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
A Member Editorial: Is it time to change gears?
« Reply #27 on: 31/01/2010 15:11:46 »
Okay Geezer. Nice question, 'what happens to an atom at 0K'.
The easy answer is that we can't reach that temperature. but the relevance is still there. What happens to it? And I like mine too :) How does it decompose if it never 'radiates' by itself?

Bohr's model of an atom is not the one used by QM it seems? It have instead been replaced by a 'probability model' based on Louis de Broglie question about if light could behave like both waves and particles, why shouldn't particles also behave like waves?

"Thus, electrons in an atom were not moving in orbits but filled an orbit as standing waves. Familiar electromagnetic radiation, like light, exists as traveling waves, moving through space at the velocity of light. A standing wave does not move, but vibrates between fixed points, like the string on a violin."

While Bohr's model of the atom could account for spectral lines, it still could not account for why electrons had quantacized angular momentum in atoms and why electrons could be in orbit in atoms, which would involve acceleration around the nucleus, without radiating away all their energy, which accelerated electrical charges do. The atom could simply not be a little solar system, based on charge rather than gravity, since electrons, on classical principles, would lose energy and fall into the nucleus.

Familiar electromagnetic radiation, like light, exists as traveling waves, moving through space at the velocity of light. A standing wave does not move, but vibrates between fixed points, like the string on a violin. The sine wave at right represents a whole wavelength. It has a portion with a positive magnitude, a portion with a negative magnitude, and a node, which has zero magnitude.

The ends of the wave, which also have zero magnitude, are usually not considered to be nodes. Half a wavelength would have no nodes; one and a half wavelengths, two nodes; and two whole wavelengths, three nodes. A one dimensional wave has nodes that are points, and it vibrates into two dimensions. Similarly, a two dimensional wave, like a wave of water on the ocean, has nodes that are lines, and it vibrates into three dimensions.

A three dimensional wave, which is what electrons in an atom would be, has nodes that are surfaces. Such surfaces can be planes, cones, or spheres. By analogy, we might want to say that a three dimensional wave would vibrate into four dimensions, but this aspect of the matter does not seem have been much discussed or explored. In electron waves, each non-spherical node represents a quantum of angular momentum.

Thus, a half wavelength, with no non-spherical nodes, is 0 angular momentum; a full wavelength, with one non-spherical node, is angular momentum; a wavelength and a half, with two non-spherical nodes, is 2 angular momentum; etc. "

But it still doesn't answer the question about an atoms dissipation of energy if left alone?

From the Quantacized Atom


Now take a look here conservation_of_energy

What we read here is firstly 'energy can neither be created (produced) nor destroyed by itself. It can only be transformed.' All of this I presume to build on the idea of a closed system naturally but under that assumption it makes good sense to me. then we come to 'In quantum mechanics energy is expressed using the Hamiltonian operator. On any time scales, the uncertainty in the energy ... is similar in form to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (but not really mathematically equivalent thereto, since H and t are not dynamically conjugate variables, neither in classical nor in quantum mechanics).

So, how am I supposed to understand this. Is this a suggestion that an atom is on that indeterminate 'scale' that it gets its 'energy' from HUP (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle)? And as HUP is outside Planck scale it is free to violate times arrow, which means that all bets on an atoms energy is open to interpretation? And if so, what regulates that 'energy' to a 'consistent system' differing for different atoms under our arrow of time.

Don't know if I made this clear enough, but I hope you can follow it?
You have to remember that when I'm looking at it, I differ between the 'arrow of time' and 'time' in itself. 'Time' is what exist, like a pool of undifferentiated water, where the stream we see will be our 'arrow of time' defining us macroscopically.
 
« Last Edit: 31/01/2010 15:19:40 by yor_on »
 

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
A Member Editorial: Is it time to change gears?
« Reply #28 on: 06/10/2010 18:45:10 »
This thread had approached the limit of what is considered a new theory. There is more I would like to discuss so I will start a new thread in New Theories.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

A Member Editorial: Is it time to change gears?
« Reply #28 on: 06/10/2010 18:45:10 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums