It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can 2 electrons ever touch?

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 09:47 PM
link   

FriedBabelBroccoli
Fundamental particle ‘splits’ into quasiparticles, including the new ‘orbiton’.
Thanks for the information. I'm not sure if quasiparticles qualify as "bits" but it's interesting nonetheless. The quasiparticle I've studied the most is the "electron hole", and it's not a real particle at all as the term "quasiparticle" implies.




posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


That seems wrong and misunderstood, like they are choosing characteristics of the electron and saying the characteristics are 'separate things'. It would be like saying a spinning apple was made of fruit, red, and spin. Thats what it seems like at least. It is interesting to think about a fundamental particle, how it can be this fundamentally exact quantity of mass, like all electrons are the same exact mass, and I have a problem with people saying in a 3d universe 'anything' can be non 3d like when some people try to say that an electron is a point particle or 1 dimensional even... but if I stick to my logic and intuition which tells me it must be 3d particle, and it has mass, which means it takes up an area, this is very intriguing to think about, because then it must be some type of 'blob' like an 'objectness' with area and dimension and 'joint' quantity of stuffness, like we know classical objects can be split into pieces and they take up space etc. But its thought an electron, idk theoretically or just practically could never be split, but it is weird then like if it is an object with dimension and area, aka it takes up space, is there something that keeps it so attached to itself, you catch my drift? The idea of point particle 1 dimension is absurd, and not in the 'yea everything about the universe is absurd' in the, is logically and physically impossible and unexplainable but i would be willing to hear someone who believes that attempt to from their own personal understanding which i would suppose they would have if they were willing to believe it, explain how it is possible that it is 1dimensional object and has no area.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 01:21 AM
link   

ImaFungi
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


That seems wrong and misunderstood, like they are choosing characteristics of the electron and saying the characteristics are 'separate things'. It would be like saying a spinning apple was made of fruit, red, and spin. Thats what it seems like at least. It is interesting to think about a fundamental particle, how it can be this fundamentally exact quantity of mass, like all electrons are the same exact mass, and I have a problem with people saying in a 3d universe 'anything' can be non 3d like when some people try to say that an electron is a point particle or 1 dimensional even... but if I stick to my logic and intuition which tells me it must be 3d particle, and it has mass, which means it takes up an area, this is very intriguing to think about, because then it must be some type of 'blob' like an 'objectness' with area and dimension and 'joint' quantity of stuffness, like we know classical objects can be split into pieces and they take up space etc. But its thought an electron, idk theoretically or just practically could never be split, but it is weird then like if it is an object with dimension and area, aka it takes up space, is there something that keeps it so attached to itself, you catch my drift? The idea of point particle 1 dimension is absurd, and not in the 'yea everything about the universe is absurd' in the, is logically and physically impossible and unexplainable but i would be willing to hear someone who believes that attempt to from their own personal understanding which i would suppose they would have if they were willing to believe it, explain how it is possible that it is 1dimensional object and has no area.


Right you are on the 1D particle, it is not actually existing in one dimension, just it is best described as a point moving through multidimensional space (not 3d . . . thanks string theory). Modern physics models are heavily reliant upon mathematics to derive the behavior of particles. So think of the 1D as being the smallest scale you can make a graph to with the distance approaching a quantum length. The hard part is figuring out a way to test them. When they break the electron down to quasiparticles you must realize that at such a small scale you are essentially dealing with information (think black holes and firewalls).

A large part of the this has to do with string theory and superposition as Arbitrage stated earlier. You see there is this spooky action where the charge of a particle is positive or negative (just meaning it is spinning in one direction or another) and no matter the distance between the two, once one is measured the other immediately takes up the opposing spin. But what about the orbit? Well we can solve that by adding a orbitron to account for that information.

Imagining planes, areas, dimensions, etc is the most difficult part of physics and mathematics. A higher dimension (R^m) will start displaying characteristics of "wrapping" around other dimensions. These other dimension for lack of a good method of explaining become bounded (like a fence) by observed behavior of particles or by maths.

I could probably find you some material to really help flesh the idea out if you are interested, but so far I have not come across anything that really gives you a sense of it without using the maths. It is not to be snobby, but if you don't understand calculus (partial integration/derivation, vectors) then the images and explanations really lack that awe inspiring substance.

As a consolation maybe take the time to realize we have gone from counting our fingers to divining the imperceptible with only addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division (though it can be argued there are not 4 of these but only 2). (42 ref FTW)

-FBB



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 04:04 AM
link   
science should get going on the unified field theory.

only been 110 yrs, give or take.

oh well. someday.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Two atoms are talking.
The first atom says "I've lost an electron"
The second atom says "are you sure?"
The first atom says " I'm positive".



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Beartracker16
Two atoms are talking.
The first atom says "I've lost an electron"
The second atom says "are you sure?"
The first atom says " I'm positive".


hahaha I have got to share this nerdy joke!!



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 12:08 PM
link   

tsingtao
science should get going on the unified field theory.

only been 110 yrs, give or take.
2 of the 4 fundamental forces were unified in 1968 in electroweak theory (not 110 years ago) and they should get some credit for that, right?



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


Quasiparticles are not actually real particles. It's just something that "behaves like" a particle. For example, a phonon is a quasiparticle. Phonons are akin to sound waves on an atomic level (basically just a mechanical energy transfer).

On topic, quantum mechanics regards electrons as zero-dimensional point particles. So, quantum mechanically, two electrons touching doesn't actually make sense, unless they occupy the (exact) same position in space. But even so, in quantum mechanics there is no such thing as a particle in an exact, well defined, position in space, since the best description available is the wave function (whether the wave function is just a description or more is another discussion, however). It is, however, possible for precisely two electrons to be in the same quantum mechanical state (no more though, this is known as Pauli's exclusion principle). You could argue that these two are "touching" since they occupy the same state (if this sounds cryptic: think of the electron as a cloud; the two electrons' clouds are identical and occupy the same space).



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


I would like to see most of all the highest knowledgeable physicists of all fields theoretical and experimental locked up in a section of a university for a month, with the only task of organizing all current knowledge of the physics of the universe, and making sense of it philosophically, realistically and in a simplified manner. It seems like instead of getting more and more elegant the comprehension of reality is getting more and more sloppy and messy. I understand that reality may be infinitely sloppy and messy, but the different nodes of quantum particles and events and fields and atoms is hierarchy, which means not sloppy, but order, and the classical world we are and are apart of seems to be comprehend able. How come it seems like no knowledgeable person of quantum physics knows what they are talking about, well they know what they are talking about, but doesnt know what the universe may be or how it actually works. Thousands or millions of peoples whose sole individual and collective over the past 100 years over the past 20 years over the past 5 years has been to do nothing but to think about these problems and make sense of knowledge, theory, experimentation, and derivation of truth, why can they not simply describe what the universe might be? I understand it may be the furthest thing from simple, but even the analogies and approximations are full of holes. I know analogies and approximations can never be perfect and are a bane to science but thats not true, math is an analogy of reality, language is an analogy of reality, all we have are things to point at other things to make other things to say what things are. I hate when I think people think its more about them being smart and cool talking about wave functions and they are really excited and happy about all the kookiness and intrigue instead of wanting to kill everyone from their lack of comprehension, even their lack of comprehension over what they tell people they comprehend.

The universe sucks, I hate it. I want to know what it is. You want to be cool. You think you know about it. You dont. No one does... and it sucks.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 09:33 PM
link   

ImaFungi
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


I would like to see most of all the highest knowledgeable physicists of all fields theoretical and experimental locked up in a section of a university for a month, with the only task of organizing all current knowledge of the physics of the universe, and making sense of it philosophically, realistically and in a simplified manner. It seems like instead of getting more and more elegant the comprehension of reality is getting more and more sloppy and messy. I understand that reality may be infinitely sloppy and messy, but the different nodes of quantum particles and events and fields and atoms is hierarchy, which means not sloppy, but order, and the classical world we are and are apart of seems to be comprehend able. How come it seems like no knowledgeable person of quantum physics knows what they are talking about, well they know what they are talking about, but doesnt know what the universe may be or how it actually works. Thousands or millions of peoples whose sole individual and collective over the past 100 years over the past 20 years over the past 5 years has been to do nothing but to think about these problems and make sense of knowledge, theory, experimentation, and derivation of truth, why can they not simply describe what the universe might be? I understand it may be the furthest thing from simple, but even the analogies and approximations are full of holes. I know analogies and approximations can never be perfect and are a bane to science but thats not true, math is an analogy of reality, language is an analogy of reality, all we have are things to point at other things to make other things to say what things are. I hate when I think people think its more about them being smart and cool talking about wave functions and they are really excited and happy about all the kookiness and intrigue instead of wanting to kill everyone from their lack of comprehension, even their lack of comprehension over what they tell people they comprehend.

The universe sucks, I hate it. I want to know what it is. You want to be cool. You think you know about it. You dont. No one does... and it sucks.


Your comment makes me think of the phrases, order out of chaos and all is relative.

Physics is a wild place and many a physicist has transitioned from physical science to philosophy.

Maybe there is a reason for that?

People tend to not handle the unknown very well, perhaps a number of these physicists use their perceived understanding of the universe as a means of dealing with the stress?

I don't know.

-FBB



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 09:44 PM
link   
1 thinks its possible OP but may require advanced controlled experimentation and oversight...


ELECTRONS somewhat processed as Atomic mediators
mediators?
articulators & communicators between interacting atoms PROTONS & NEUTRONS...

1 is not a EA*RTH licensed professional in this scientific related field of expertise so please bare with...


Element ATOM 1 & element ATOM 2 Unique in structure but interactive both have proton neutron Formulas that are incased inside a electron field. So how do the different atoms 1&2 know to recognize and even respond to each other in this perceived reality?

Like the atoms in the air being processed inside your EA*RTH environment suits atmospheric canisters/lungs. They the atoms of your environment suits lungs & and the air know how to Communicate & recognize each other, just as your hands touching the keyboard.

Atoms...

The mediator or distributer of information to the protons and neutrons to 1 subjectively seems to be the electrons.

Their non attachment to the core atomic structure why in field surrounding protons/neutrons seems to allow area for other electron fields from other atoms to communicate or interact intelligently. All the way to the atoms in the brain processing the atomic observed/perceived behavior/interactions-DATA, and then telling the body (with senses known and unknown?) how to recognize and respond to the atomic data perceived/processed.

Respond=build and interact within the many running atoms programs... That make up reality.

@ times 1 wonders are there atoms related to thoughts? But that's another conscious manifesting thread.

Is it possible the electron field is telling the atoms what to do when in contact with each others electron fields , just as you walk on a floor/ground and not fall thru it. (considering the hover affect and potentially you not even coming in contact with the other atomic fields directly) - that space between the atoms electron fields and protons/neutrons when added up into mass = a substantial amount of ENERGY.

Maybe if electrons are disturbed or removed from floor/ground and environment suit/body feet walking on them the protons/neutrons from the floor/ground and feet walking on them (BOND or Dissolve or both somehow) - thinks like Philadelphia experiment shared movie data.

Due to no field to control the atoms activities... An electron field less realm where no distance is between you or any other object near you, like peanut butter in texture but STILL unique in each atom group bonds that are bonded to other atoms elastic but tightly connected...

Using EA*RTH standards for example the air ground and inhabitants protons/neutrons would all be close connected without the appearance or processing of space between the air ground or inhabitants atom groups... yet still have existence potential

Accelerator machines or advanced laser arrays may be able to disturb or temp remove electron fields. This if not under safe containment may cause Collapse or access from parallel U. bonding... No electrons no e-fields leaves non intelligent/guided atoms left to just bond or evaporate.

evaporate = energy exchange into something else perhaps. No electron fields = fail in a electron field designed reality but may not be fail in a non electron designed reality. existence potential

This came to mind as 1 was processing the thread OP in relation to electron field displacement separation... Good question



LOVE LIGHT ETERNIA
NAMASTE*******



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   
A beam of electrons can knock other electrons out of an atom, but I'm not sure if this interaction involves actual physical contact. More likely, the electrons' negative charge pushes them apart. www.ammrf.org.au...

Two electrons can't merge together, because two particles cannot occupy the same quantum state. An electron can merge with a proton to form a neutron, though.



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


That isn't exactly splitting an 'electron' in a conventional way.

It is a different representation of the collective dynamics of a large group of particles undergoing coupled behavior.

This comes about because of fundamental quantum mechanics---there is always a choice of 'representation' or 'basis'. The idea is that in some cases, like the ones described, the collective behavior can be more cleanly described as more independent excitation of these quasi-particle fields.

It's conceptually similar to electromagnetic propagation in a complex wave guide or vibrations: once you go into the right 'eigenbasis' the equations of motion become more simple and independent.

Same thing with QM. It's been like this forever since Bohr & Heisenberg, but the consequences continue to surprise. No, quantum mechanics never becomes intuitive, you just get used to it eventually.

Your intuition was evolved to deal successfully with a world of rocks, meat, teeth, spears and sex. That's why things which are invisible (germ theory of disease, climate change from global warming, quantum mechanics) are far from intuitive and take intense effort to try to convince people.


edit on 29-3-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-3-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join