Master_Ghost_Knight
New Member
There is no such thing so you are on a bad start.Inferno said:
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Observational Evidence for the...
- Thread starter AndromedasWake
- Start date
Master_Ghost_Knight
New Member
ToE. Theory of Everything. Does not exist.Inferno said:
Master_Ghost_Knight
New Member
Ah..uh.. kay. I confused it for something else.Bearcules said:
)O( Hytegia )O(
New Member
I'm in.
I would bring forth two topics -
Atomic Theory
Theory of Relativity
I have also created a new YouTube account for you to all start talking to regularly, called AnIncredibleUniverse, from which I will be forging my videos.
Enjoy.
I would bring forth two topics -
Atomic Theory
Theory of Relativity
I have also created a new YouTube account for you to all start talking to regularly, called AnIncredibleUniverse, from which I will be forging my videos.
Enjoy.
Laurens
New Member
Is anyone interested in collaborating on something?
I'm willing to write a script (but if the other person involved wanted to then that's fine)
I also recently got Sony Vegas Pro - so I'd be able to put a fairly professional looking video together.
I'm just crap at talking, so if someone wanted to do that part of things then it would be cool
I'm willing to write a script (but if the other person involved wanted to then that's fine)
I also recently got Sony Vegas Pro - so I'd be able to put a fairly professional looking video together.
I'm just crap at talking, so if someone wanted to do that part of things then it would be cool
Laurens said:Is anyone interested in collaborating on something?
I'm willing to write a script (but if the other person involved wanted to then that's fine)
I also recently got Sony Vegas Pro - so I'd be able to put a fairly professional looking video together.
I'm just crap at talking, so if someone wanted to do that part of things then it would be cool
Theory of Evolution? If yes, PM me. (I'm crap at making videos.
))O( Hytegia )O( said:
Atomic theory? You mean, the Thompson model? The Rutherford model? The Bohr model? Or Quantum theory?
I'm curious, I read in some book about 20 years ago that accelerating charges radiate energy. How can an electron orbit the nucleus of an atom, when the Lienard-Wiechert potentials from Maxwell's equations state that an orbiting electron will radiate away it's energy and fall into the nucleus? How is it that atoms are stable?
Theory of Relativity? You mean special relativity or general relativity?
I'm curious, in Newtonian mechanics, an increase in velocity means an increase in kinetic energy, which is given by 1/2*m*v^2. If you double your kinetic energy, then you increase your velocity by the square root of 2. Yet, in special relativity, if you double your kinetic energy, the increase in velocity becomes less and less than the square root of 2 as you approach the speed of light. Where does this energy go?
AndromedasWake
New Member
That very realisation is one of the principal reasons why QM is considered to be a better model for the electron's behaviour. Its position/energy is characterised by a statistical model (called orbitals, but not related to classical orbits)>< V >< said:
It isn't trivial to interpret electrons as moving bodies in orbit when modelled by QM.
The 'missing' energy is expressed as an (exponential) increase in the mass of the moving body. Since the body becomes asymptotically massive close to c, it requires asymptotic force to deliver the KE necessary to accelerate the body (increasing its velocity.)
Sorry to jump in there, but sometimes I can't help myself!
)O( Hytegia )O(
New Member
Quantum Mechanics.>< V >< said:
Are you intentionally being dishonest with yourself, or are you actually as daft as to the intentions of my posts?
AndromedasWake answered your question before I got back from my pickup game of baseball. >.>
This was a legitimate question. Both can be compounded into two 7 minute videos.Sockpuppet said:
Because you don't actually host an understanding of Special Relativity enough to step into a thread and shoving your cock into places that it shouldn't go.Sockpuppet said:
Once again, AndromedasWake beat me to the punch on this answer.
AndromedasWake said:That very realisation is one of the principal reasons why QM is considered to be a better model for the electron's behaviour. Its position/energy is characterised by a statistical model (called orbitals, but not related to classical orbits)>< V >< said:
It isn't trivial to interpret electrons as moving bodies in orbit when modelled by QM.
The 'missing' energy is expressed as an (exponential) increase in the mass of the moving body. Since the body becomes asymptotically massive close to c, it requires asymptotic force to deliver the KE necessary to accelerate the body (increasing its velocity.)
Sorry to jump in there, but sometimes I can't help myself!
Not bad, +10 respect for you. Everyone else I've commented too thus far has earned -10 respect.
)O( Hytegia )O( said:
Actually, Andromedawake's comments are on the right track, but not correct. So why don't you correct them?
Quantum mechanics does not replace Maxwell's equations. As a matter of fact, when one solves for the electronic structure of atoms, the potential that is used in the Schrodinger equation IS the Coulomb potential from Maxwell's equations.
Maxwell's equations, like Quantum mechanics are not models, but first principle physics. A "model" in physics is something that cannot be derived from first principle physics. For instance, there are many models for high temperature superconductivity, but no one has yet been able to derive high temperature superconductivity from first principle physics. To assume that all of physics is just "models" is to assume that we are learning nothing of the true nature of the universe.
It is a fact of nature that accelerating charges radiate away their energy, which does not change at the atomic level. Electrons are already at the atomic level. Quantum mechanics does not change Maxwell's equations, but contributes to them. And Quantum mechanics certainly does not give a "better picture" of the electron than Maxwell's equations. Quantum mechanics can't even derive the Coulomb potential, hence why it has to be inserted into the Schrodinger equation. Quantum mechanics "adds" to the picture of the electron.
Since you're going to make a video about "atomic theory", tell us, why are atoms stable against the fact that accelerating charges radiate away energy?
Saying "orbitals" or "quantum states" is on the right track, but simply saying orbitals, does not answer the question.
)O( Hytegia )O( said:
In no definition of relativistic mass is it exponential. In special relativity, energy and mass represent the same thing. If you explode a nuclear device in a box, the box will weigh the same before and after the explosion. I suggest you do some research on relativistic mass, since you apparently think the question is so simple to answer. What you'll find is that the concept of relativistic mass is being phased out. And if relativistic mass is being phased out, then where does the energy go?
AndromedasWake
New Member
Couple of corrections: the orbitals approach is a model of greater utility, and does provide an answer to how atoms can be stable. Of course the model does not replace Maxwell's equations, but presents a scenario in which the motion of the electron is considered to be a standing wave.>< V >< said:
Generally speaking, if you seek a classical interpretation of a quantum object using classical field physics (Maxwell) you will find yourself with questions like the one you asked. But Schrodinger's treatment of the electron is not inconsistent with Maxwell's equations, because it deals with orbitals (quantised states), not two bodies in orbital motion with a continuum of possible orbital radii.
So to rephrase my first answer, atoms are stable because electrons occupy quantised orbital states. Since this model agrees strongly with experiment, we can say that there must be a disparity between 'acceleration' of a charge as considered by Maxwell and contemporaries, and the kind of motion electrons experience.
I want to address further (possible) confusion about the nature of physics and models just briefly. Let's take a different approach and consider the probability distributions of the electron and the nucleus of an atom. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle forbids the former from becoming smaller than, and being contained within the latter. In other words, the probability distribution of the electron is always much larger than the nucleus, and the electron must remain 'outside'. What fundamental truths can we draw from the Heisenberg and Maxwell, or Schrodinger? In each case, we express laws, for which models are approximate solutions which incorporate some empirical data. Physics is not just models, and I doubt anyone would make that claim. QM does not present a "better" picture than Maxwell's equations, because they're not a picture.
What we can say is that Schrodinger's equation and related models (de Broglie) are better (whether by refinement or replacement) than Bohr's earlier formulation (which was in conflict with Maxwell's equations.)
I would steer clear of the word "picture" too. It's a bit treacherous!
I don't really understand the first statement here. It is simply not true. Relativistic mass is the product of the rest mass and the Lorentz factor (gamma). As a body approaches c, gamma increases asymptotically, so for a body with nonzero rest mass, the relativistic mass also increases without limit.
If we use the approach of relativistic mass, which I did, then my previous answer is correct.
Relativistic mass is not being phased out, it is simply a convenient tool for understanding special relativity. It does not translate well (at all) to general relativity, or the unification of SR with quantum field theory. So when attempting to jump a level, a student will always at some point have to abandon the notion of relativistic mass.
For a student who is going to progress to advanced relativity, I would always recommend using the Minkowski formulation of SR, but for answering someone on a message board (when you can only guess at their current level of knowledge on the subject) Einstein will usually do.
It's my fault for making the assumption that you only had a passing interest in the subject. To rephrase my previous answer, the energy goes into the geometry of the surrounding space-time. Or to put it in (possibly) more lucid terms, the energy which a body at relativistic speed possess is the geometry.
When the space-time is always flat (as in SR) then the relativistic mass is really better described by the energy-momentum (as per Minkowski).
Sorry for any confusion, but it seems to me that if you understand why relativistic mass is a simplified concept - a teaching tool - then you already understand where the energy goes, whether you take an invariant-mass-only approach that incorporates momentum, or a geometric approach.
unhealthytruthseeker
New Member
Hi, new here. Anyway, I'd justify the post-inflationary big bang on the following premises:
P1. The Fraunhofer lines emitted by each substance are a sort of sprectroscopic fingerprint. When we observe distant galaxies, we see the distinct spectroscopic lines of several different atoms. However, these patterns are shifted in an obvious way toward the red end of the spectrum. Since they retain their characteristic shapes, we can know that they are not simply brand new spectroscopy lines, and instead are lines representing the same old atoms shifted toward the red.
P2. We know of two main phenomena that can cause redshift, the source moving away from us, or the space in-between us and the source expanding.
P3. We observe from evidence like the CMBR and the highly Gaussian distribution of galaxies throughout the universe that the overall distribution of both matter and energy is extremely close to perfect homogeneity and isotropy.
P4. From Einstein's Field Equations in general relativity, which works very well on large scales, we can show that a perfectly homogeneous, isotropic stress-energy tensor throughout the universe should either cause the universe to uniformly expand, uniformly contract, or remain perfectly stable. This solution produces the so-called Friedmann equations.
P5. The situation where the universe remains perfectly still is perturbatively unstable.
By P3, P4, and P5, we know that space must either be approximately uniformly expanding or uniformly contracting. By P1 and P2, we know that it is expansion, and not contraction, which is occurring.
If general relativity is true on large scales, then our observations basically demand that the universe MUST be expanding.
P1. The Fraunhofer lines emitted by each substance are a sort of sprectroscopic fingerprint. When we observe distant galaxies, we see the distinct spectroscopic lines of several different atoms. However, these patterns are shifted in an obvious way toward the red end of the spectrum. Since they retain their characteristic shapes, we can know that they are not simply brand new spectroscopy lines, and instead are lines representing the same old atoms shifted toward the red.
P2. We know of two main phenomena that can cause redshift, the source moving away from us, or the space in-between us and the source expanding.
P3. We observe from evidence like the CMBR and the highly Gaussian distribution of galaxies throughout the universe that the overall distribution of both matter and energy is extremely close to perfect homogeneity and isotropy.
P4. From Einstein's Field Equations in general relativity, which works very well on large scales, we can show that a perfectly homogeneous, isotropic stress-energy tensor throughout the universe should either cause the universe to uniformly expand, uniformly contract, or remain perfectly stable. This solution produces the so-called Friedmann equations.
P5. The situation where the universe remains perfectly still is perturbatively unstable.
By P3, P4, and P5, we know that space must either be approximately uniformly expanding or uniformly contracting. By P1 and P2, we know that it is expansion, and not contraction, which is occurring.
If general relativity is true on large scales, then our observations basically demand that the universe MUST be expanding.
AndromedasWake said:
Orbitals, quantum states are not models, but a fact of nature.
AndromedasWake said:
The answer to why atoms are stable is because there is a ground state. Electrons cannot radiate away energy when there is no lower state for them to fall into. If electrons are excited to a higher state, they can then radiate away energy (emit a photon) and fall into a lower state. This is why simply saying "quantized orbitals" does not answer the question, because having orbitals still allows the electron to radiate away energy and fall into a lower state. It's the fact that there is a ground state that prohibits the radiation of energy, because the electron cannot fall into a lower state that doesn't exist.
AndromedasWake said:
The radial solution for the hydrogen atom does show a probability of finding the electron within the radius of the proton. You ambiguously use words like "probability distribution" with the word "contained", when being "contained" within the radius of the proton has a vastly different meaning than a "probability distribution". Visible light is not contained to my room, but there is a probability of finding it there from it's probability distribution. No one said the electron is "contained" inside the nucleus, but the radial solution for the hydrogen atom does show a probability of finding it there. All l = 0 states, the 's' orbitals, have a probability of finding the electron within the radius of the proton.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HAtomOrbitals.png
Where do the 's' orbitals show the highest probability value of finding the electron?
(NOTE: The highest probability value does not mean the expectation value. The expectation value is a weighted average over all states and the expectation value is outside the radius of the proton.)
AndromedasWake said:I don't really understand the first statement here. It is simply not true. Relativistic mass is the product of the rest mass and the Lorentz factor (gamma). As a body approaches c, gamma increases asymptotically, so for a body with nonzero rest mass, the relativistic mass also increases without limit.
If we use the approach of relativistic mass, which I did, then my previous answer is correct.
Relativistic mass is not being phased out, it is simply a convenient tool for understanding special relativity. It does not translate well (at all) to general relativity, or the unification of SR with quantum field theory. So when attempting to jump a level, a student will always at some point have to abandon the notion of relativistic mass.
For a student who is going to progress to advanced relativity, I would always recommend using the Minkowski formulation of SR, but for answering someone on a message board (when you can only guess at their current level of knowledge on the subject) Einstein will usually do.
It's my fault for making the assumption that you only had a passing interest in the subject. To rephrase my previous answer, the energy goes into the geometry of the surrounding space-time. Or to put it in (possibly) more lucid terms, the energy which a body at relativistic speed possess is the geometry.
When the space-time is always flat (as in SR) then the relativistic mass is really better described by the energy-momentum (as per Minkowski).
Sorry for any confusion, but it seems to me that if you understand why relativistic mass is a simplified concept - a teaching tool - then you already understand where the energy goes, whether you take an invariant-mass-only approach that incorporates momentum, or a geometric approach.
I'm glad you did some research. As you now see, mass does not increase with velocity, nor is it's increase exponential. Relativistic mass is a tool that is being phased out, because it gives the false impression that mass increases. The energy does go into the curvature of spacetime, which acts like a lense that makes the mass appear larger in other reference frames as well as the length to appear shorter.
unhealthytruthseeker
New Member
>< V >< said:
No, the energy goes into kinetic energy. In relativity, kinetic energy is not 1/2mv^2. Instead, it is (γ-1)mc^2, an expression required by Lorentz invariance, which still holds locally even in general relativity. In the limit of small velocities, you can expand that expression in a Taylor series about v = 0 in order to derive a lowest order approximation of kinetic energy as 1/2mv^2.
unhealthytruthseeker
New Member
>< V >< said:
The energy doesn't "go" anywhere, because even in special relativity, where there is no space-time curvature (the limit G -> 0), the formula still holds. Yes, mass-energy is part of the generator of Ricci curvature in space-time, but the energy doesn't go into gravitational curvature, in the ordinary sense, especially considering that the kinetic energy of a point particle changes from one Lorentz frame to the next, and is zero in some reference frames.
Even in completely flat space-time, in a universe where G = 0, the inertia of an object increases with respect to a given frame of reference if it's velocity increases in that frame. Sure, most physicists nowadays use the word "mass" in the same way they used to use the word "rest mass," but that doesn't change the fact that an object's inertia depends both on it's mass and its state of motion, even if space-time curvature did not exist. Hence, the curving of space-time explanation can't be quite right.