[yor_on]

Be that how it might Jarek, but your question about measurements is one that has been on my mind too, but in the form of 'observers', and of course 'consciousness'. And it is important to define it I think. My own view of it is that as long as you define a 'observer' as 'something' being in a interaction with 'something else' the Copenhagen interpretation makes sense, and HUp seems then to be a sort of ultimate answer on the very small plane. If you on the other hand define it such as a 'measurement' always must involve something conscious, deciding to make that measurement? Then all of your objections hold water to me.

[yor_on]

As for bosons and fermions?

Helium 4 has a rest mass, but is defined as a boson according to Bose-Einstein statistics. Its nucleus has a atomic mass (u) of 4.0026 u. That makes it a member of the Pauli exclusion principle at normal temperatures as I understand, although acting (much) as a boson when as a condensate. The definition of a boson is hinging on the spin, and there the physics differ between a even (bosons) or uneven (fermions) amount of 'spins', counted up all together (net nuclear spin + electrons spin etc etc)  for whatever atom/particle under discussion, defining how the particle will act, as a boson, or as a fermion following Fermi-Dirac theory. But there are differences to 'bosons' too, or you might otherwise be able to expect helium4 to be massless, time less, and move at 'c'

[Jarek Duda]

The need of consciousness of observer makes it extremely mystical ...
I think the best experiment to understand measurements is the Stern-Gerlach - it doesn't need any consciousness and we can get intuitions classically.
So imagine a particle with a randomly chosen direction of spin goes through such conditions (gradient of magnetic field) making it align in a line: to have spin up or down. The nearest to "up" the initial spin was, the larger probability - so this is measurement for "Pauli z matrix" observable - with two eigenvectors: spin up or down.
This measurement definitely modify the state: from a random one into one of two ... placing a few of them in different directions behaves accordingly to their order as Pauli matrices don't commute ...
Anyway, while we used to see them as something basic, measurements are physically quite subtle and complex phenomenas ...

Ok, let us look also at conscious observer situation - e.g. Schrödinger's cat.
So imagine there is a cat killed by practically random incident like nuclear decay and two observers: one near the cat, and the other separated - for simplicity let us imagine he is spatially separated, like a light year away.
Now after accidentally killing the cat, he will immediately become dead for the knowledge of nearby observer ... but for the knowledge of far observer, he will be in superposition of life and death ...
It seems there is a conflict here - while objectively cat is dead xor alive, it looks like these two observers use different quantum mechanics ... suggesting that QM only represents their knowledge ...
In fact accordingly to QM of far observer, the situation is rather:
(|cat is dead, near observer knows that cat is dead> + |cat is alive, near observer knows that cat is alive>)/sqrt(2)
so the atoms building the "conscious observer" becomes just part of physics around the cat ...

----------------------
About superfluid helium4 - indeed it is seen as made of bosons because of even multiplicity of 1/2 spin, but being all in the same quantum state is huge approximation here as it is just a liquid which can have practically any volume - liquid of electromagnetically binded alphas and electrons loosing the viscosity.
The situation is better for not composed bosons like photons, what is used in lasers for stimulated deexcitation ... but the essence here is to understand why the presence of photons makes it easier to release energy from excited atoms - understand their internal dynamics instead of just saying that photons are bosons ...

[lightarrow]

Indeed the simplest Schrodinger equation leads to that the maximum of electron density is exactly where the proton is ... but this model is just one point charge in potential of another fixed point charge - greatly simplifies the real physics. In the real world electron being in the same place as proton would mean that they create neutron, but it would require relatively huge energy: 782keV.  So including strong force holding baryons together would rather remove this density maximum from the Schrödinger's ground state.

This simplest Schrödinger picture misses much more, like magnetic dipole moments, relativistic corrections, interaction with environment ... it is rather surprising that it works so well, especially as Nuclear shell model where they model this unbelievably complex internal structure of large nucleus with just a simple potential well.
Connecting with independence of environment behavior, which should be seen as thermal noise, we see how unbelievably strong this universality of Schrödinger's ground state is ...

... and indeed it should be - if we make "classical" thermodynamical considerations of corpuscular entities, it turns out that models based on the fundamental in statistical physics: maximal uncertainty principle - Maximal Entropy Random Walk, in opposite to standard "generic random walk" only approximating this principle, also leads to stationary probability density being exactly squares of coordinates of dominant eigenvector of corresponding Hamiltonian: the quantum ground state. Here is comparison of such "classical"(approximated) and "quantum"(corrected) random walks on defected lattice - the second has strong (Anderson's) localization properties:

I have to admit to have understood nothing of what you have written, maybe it's outside of my knowledge possibilities.
Just for the news, you are the same J.Duda of the Phys. Rev. article you linked and of this: http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.2724 ?

[Jarek Duda]

What you don't understand? I have only pointed out that this density maximum in the center is a nonsense from the point of particle physics (binding proton with electron would cost m_n-m_p-m_e=782keV). This simple Schrödinger equation ignores much more physical aspects, but still gives impressively good agreement, even in nuclear shell model - it is because the quantum ground state is something extremely universal, also from thermodynamical point of view as Maximal Entropy Random Walk shows (these papers and my last PhD thesis was about) ...

[yor_on]

Jarek, what lightarrow mean is that you have had a long hard thinking about this, with friends presumably. We are new to the subject, and it might well be that we miss what you consider obvious. You keep coming back to the quantum ground state btw, can you expand on how you see that? One universal ground state, is that what you mean? And yes, spin states are a mystery to me How they can define matter from 'bosons'. So does your model simplify it, or explain them?
=

This random walk you're describing, would that then be a mechanism that we can foresee? It's what sets the spin states, if I get you right? But it would still be governed by probability, or are you saying that your model give us a tool for a 'classical explanation' that is predictable?
=

I'm probably jumping to conclusions here, but there is one more thing that intrigue me with your ideas. You refer to particles as possibly having 'internal clocks'. If I now assume that a particle, not atom, but let's say a electron can't be split in more parts, what does a internal clock means? That the arrow becomes a 'force' of sorts too? It seems to me that if I assumed a intrinsic time keeping for particles I also lift up time as a real 'dimension'?

[lightarrow]

What you don't understand? I have only pointed out that this density maximum in the center is a nonsense from the point of particle physics (binding proton with electron would cost m_n-m_p-m_e=782keV). This simple Schrödinger equation ignores much more physical aspects, but still gives impressively good agreement, even in nuclear shell model - it is because the quantum ground state is something extremely universal,

...and this is quite simple to understand.

also from thermodynamical point of view as Maximal Entropy Random Walk shows (these papers and my last PhD thesis was about) ...

...and this is the less simple part  []

[Jarek Duda]

Probability density of the quantum ground state is universal from QM point of view because other states are excited - have higher energy and so want to release this energy, deexcitating down to the ground state - so this is kind of thermal equilibrium state (in 0K).
Stochastic models also predict some probability densities for these situations, but standard models predict different from QM (much weaker localization properties). Maximal Entropy Random Walks(MERW) allows to understand this conflict - it is because standard models only approximate the basic for thermodynamics: maximal uncertainty principle. If we do it right, there is no longer conflict - MERW also leads exactly to the ground state probability density.
It also gives natural intuition of the Born rules that probability is square of amplitude (leading to violation of Bell inequalities): in this model amplitude is probability on the end of past and simultaneously on the beginning of future - to get real probability in given moment we have to multiply them. This "fourdimensional understanding" allows also to get intuitive understanding of why quantum computers are stronger than classical: because they can "mount" qbit trajectories in both past (initialization) and future (measurements). Here is schematic picture of Shor's algoritm (description):

This random walk you're describing, would that then be a mechanism that we can foresee? It's what sets the spin states, if I get you right? But it would still be governed by probability, or are you saying that your model give us a tool for a 'classical explanation' that is predictable?

MERW is thermodynamical model, that means predicting the most probable evolution. It is obtained for the maximal uncertainty principle, what basically means that if there is no reason to emphasize any scenario, we should assume uniform probability distribution. So it is not about foreseeing some concrete scenario, but operating on our knowledge - like what stationary probability we should assume, or if we know where it is in one moment, what probability density we should assume after some time (propagator).
These are completely general considerations - spin is something much more subtle (approximately the direction of magnetic dipole moment).
Please ask if you have some questions ... here are slides about MERW.

I'm probably jumping to conclusions here, but there is one more thing that intrigue me with your ideas. You refer to particles as possibly having 'internal clocks'

It's extremely offtopic here ... while there is topic about it, maybe let us take it there - it was de Broglie's idea (see Hestenes paper), and the Couder's droplets give great intuition of such view on wave-particle duality and basic quantum phenomenas from this point of view ...

[yor_on]

So you do this from assuming a even probability 'density' to the universe? "we should assume uniform probability distribution". So I got it all wrong when I wondered if you were trying for a 'classical' (Newtonian?) definition. I will have to read up on the maximal uncertainty principle, it's new to me. As for a uniform probability it makes sense to me, as long as we ignore interactions, if that is how you mean? I'm good at jumping to conclusions And I like new ideas, and yours are new to me.
==

Btw, anything that can simplify or visualize my understanding of quantum logic and their effects, as you seem to imply in the other thread comparing macroscopic systems to quantum effects, are welcome to me

I'm still stuck on the simple experiment where we split a photon in two (down converting its energy) Getting either the 'spooky action at a distance', or 'hidden variable(s)' defining the outcome. Because I see no way identical photons, whose polarization you can't predict (50% chance either way) before the measurement, as proven experimentally, still always result in the other photon 'knowing' which way the polarization was, and setting the opposite polarization.

How would you describe that from your view? Or maybe that is outside the subject?

[Jarek Duda]

In terms of random walk, one of equivalent formulation of maximal uncertainty principle says that having absolutely no information about what trajectory the object will chose, we should assume uniform probability distribution among all possible paths - it is MERW. Another formulation is by maximizing entropy.
In physics we emphasize some scenarios by assigning them energy - replacing uniform distribution with Boltzmann distribution ... we can also consider multiple particles with interactions between them through potential (in analogous way as in quantum mechanics) ... please at least look at sources like slides before asking further (especially we are offtopic)..

[yor_on]

K will do.

[jccc]

 
This is my own atomic structure theory. I think the space is negative charged elastic fluid . A positive particle such as proton will attract space to form a negative ball field around it. When an electron closing to a proton, this ball field pushes it away. The balance point is the diameter of the atom. Electrons does not fly around nuclear but bond by the ball field and proton forces. Since the space itself is charged, it conducts electromagnetic force such as light waves. Light wave is coming from electron vibrating in space.

[jccc]

This magnet toy is a good demo for a hydrogen atom.

[PmbPhy]

I know that protons are positively charged, neutrons are neutral, electrons are  negatively charged and that atoms are mostly empty space. I also know for magnets opposites attract. … So why don't electrons stick to protons instead of flying around the nucleus?

The laws of physics at the atomic level is based on what is known as Quantum Mechanics and not on the physics that you’ve probably only learned to date, i.e. Newtonian Physics which is now known as Classical Mechanics. In the case of the atom, electrons can only exist in certain states. In those states the electrons don’t move on classical trajectories, as you might otherwise think of them moving. They are found in regions of space according to what we call the Wave Function. For the hydrogen atom the wave function contains everything that can be known about the state of the electron in the hydrogen atom. The square of the magnitude of the wave function is the probability density which is used to determine the probability of finding the electron in a particular region of space. Described in this way electrons don’t move the way you’d expect them to using classical physics. The states that the electrons can exist in are described by the wave function. For each allowed state there is an associated wave function known as an eigenstate. Each eigenstate is defined by certain numbers called quantum numbers. These numbers describe things like energy, angular momentum, spin, etc.. In chemistry these eigenstates are referred to as an Atomic Orbital. You can read about them online at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital

The shapes of these orbitals are shown in this link. For the lowest energy level the electron can actually come as close to the nucleus as it wants to. I.e. the probability density at r= 0 is non-zero.

It has to do with the uncertainty principle. …I am sure Hawking himself said the Uncertainty Principle had something to do with it.

That is incorrect. The reason is as I just described it. The reason is not for the reason you give. Also it’s quite wrong and contrary to quantum mechanics to assert that electrons “must occupy every other space within the atom.” Such a thing is quite wrong in quantum mechanical terms. No electron can be said to exist in more than one place at one time. No electron can even be said to be at a place unless its position is measured and the electron is found to be there. And no. Hawking would not say such a thing. However I do agree that the Pauli exclusion principle has nothing to do with (and it’s called the “exclusion” principle, not the “expulsion” principle).

That is incorrect. When someone asks a question whose answer is a description in terms other than stating postulates then science can indeed address “why” questions. For example: the question Why is the sky blue? has a very definite answer to it.



Nasa Answers the question Why Is the Sky Blue at
http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/blue-sky/en/

Sunlight reaches Earth's atmosphere and is scattered in all directions by all the gases and particles in the air. Blue light is scattered in all directions by the tiny molecules of air in Earth's atmosphere. Blue is scattered more than other colors because it travels as shorter, smaller waves. This is why we see a blue sky most of the time.

and this answer is far from being speculative as you claim it must be.

If you like to think that Quantum theory represents reality you have to invent excuses.

Nonsense.

Quarks can not exist outside nuclei, for example. Electrons dance to the uncertainty tune, etc. To me it is much easier just to accept reality as it presents itself.

Those aren’t excuses. And we do things because of their logical consistency, correspondence with experiment, etc. Not because we want things to be “easy.” If you want easy become an auto mechanic.

But we really don't.

Wrong. We absolutely do.

I started looking for experimental evidence for wave function collapse years ago.

Any physicist worth his salt could have and would have told you that such a search is a waste of time. The wave function and the notion of the collapse of the wave function are merely mathematical intermediaries, not physical entities. E.g. we don’t measure the wave function in the lab. We don’t directly measure a probability either. What we measure are things like The particle detector at (x=2, y=4) “clicked” and thus registered the presence of an electron at 3:33:29pm. We keep repeating that kind of thing and then add these numbers up. We then calculate a probability density. Etc.

I'm still looking. None found.

If that’s true then it’s because you didn’t understand the theory and thus didn’t know what to look for or how to look for it. We can certainly observer nature and conclude that nature is consistent with the concept of wave function collapse.

We have a habit of reporting our conclusions as experimental results.
[/quotes]
Who is “we”? I know of nobody that ignorant.

[PmbPhy]

The short answer is that a "proton and electron stuck together" does happen, in a neutron.

That is quite incorrect. The neutron cannot be thought of that way, It can be shown that an electron cannot exist inside a neutron and exist as a neutron/electron system. I can't  recall where I came across that fact but no matter. It's a well-known fact. I had to prove it as part of my studies of quantum  mechanics.

[chiralSPO]

The short answer is that a "proton and electron stuck together" does happen, in a neutron.

That is quite incorrect. The neutron cannot be thought of that way, It can be shown that an electron cannot exist inside a neutron and exist as a neutron/electron system. I can't  recall where I came across that fact but no matter. It's a well-known fact. I had to prove it as part of my studies of quantum  mechanics.

There is no discrete electron-proton pair within a neutron--it is a single particle. However a neutron is the result of a proton "capturing" an electron: p⁺ + e⁻ →  n  +  ν_e

[alancalverd]

The fact that atoms don't collapse just shows that the classical electron-proton model is inadequate. There is no "why" in nature: stuff happens, and the best we can do is to generate predictive models of what happens. The classical model of electrostatics works pretty well for widely separated charges but just doesn't describe the behaviour of electrons in an atom - and there's no reason why it should.

The test of quantum theory is whether it describes what we see at a very small scale, and reduces to the classical continuum description at the mesoscopic scale: and it does. The reverse test, attempting to describe small objects form the behaviour of large ones just doesn't work.   

[PmbPhy]

There is no discrete electron-proton pair within a neutron--it is a single particle.

Not according to the Stadard Model. In particle physics the neutron is not a single particle but a system of three particles calledquarks of which there are several types. The neutron is composed of two down quarks and one up quark. When Murry Gell-Mann developed the theory of quarks it was just a nice gimmick to help describe what was being observed. Later on Gell-Mann decided to accept the reality of them as being "real" particles. Deep inelastic scattering shows that in the case of the proton the evidence suggests three lumps of charge instead of one. This is strong support for the quark model.

See see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron

However a neutron is the result of a proton "capturing" an electron: p⁺ + e⁻ →  n  +  ν_e

Just because a proton can be created that way it doesn't mean that's the only way and it doesn't mean that's what a neutron "is." There are other ways to create neutrons. It is therefore wrong to identify a neutron as "that which results when a proton captures an electron."

[PmbPhy]

Let's pretend Enertron is real, ...

That's equivalent to saying []Let's pretend that nature does not behave the way that we observe that it does and see what happens.[/i] That can result in anything that you'd like because what you're describing goes by another name, i.e. magic.

Magic is like anything that you'd like it to be so you're now free to create anything that you'd like. Have fun.

[PmbPhy]

Enertron should play a roll in many things including energy transfer, energy density, temperature etc,.

Why?

Each particle that exists is able to exist because it has all the properties which allow it to exist according to the laws of physics. Now you come along and say "The Enertron particle exists." which quite literally means that it exists outside the range of normal experience. That’s the ramification of assuming what you’re telling us to assume. Do you know what that’s called? I.e. do you know what we call a phenomenon that exists outside the range of normal range of experience? It has a very particular name. It’s know as the Paranormal. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranormal

Magic is the attempt to control or otherwise work with the paranormal. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_(paranormal)

Open mind, watch and think, predict and test. Isn't that science?

If you’re doing it with respect to those things that exist in nature than it’s called science. If you’re creating things out of thin air which in doing so violate the laws of nature by their very existence then no. That’s not science. That’s magic.

I suggest a model …

No you didn’t. At least not yet. All you said was Let's pretend Enertron is real,.. which is the furthest thing from a model that you can get.

...to explain atomic structure, created enertron sub particle idea, not magic. Not as magicle as QM.

There’s nothing in any of your recent posts which explains anything, never mind atomic structure. You never created an “enertron”. You merely pretended it existed. When you did so and did so outside the laws of nature then you’re talking about the paranormal.

Please find a dictionary and look up the term “paranormal.”

Perhaps you have no training whatsoever in particle physics. If so then that’d explain a few things. Particle physics is a theory of elementary particles. It tells us what particles can exist and what the properties of those particles are. In this thread I’m assuming the idea situation by which there exists a theory of particles whose properties we fully know. Also in this thread I’m assuming that the theory which we’re assuming that we have is able to fully account for the existence of all particles that either exist now or can be created. I’m also assuming in this thread that this “enertron” is something you dreamed up which is something which is not on any list of currently known particles. If it is then please tell me where to find the list on which this particle exists.