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.

 

For the First Time Ever, Scientists Watch an Atom's Electrons Moving in Real Time

page: 2
42
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 08:20 AM
link   
yeh KORG , by observing the electrons and their changes between orbits , we have altered their natural state !

The very act of observation of particles changes their natural state

that is mind boggling

so without human observation would the universe exist in any sense ?




posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Kewl, I got no understanding of quantuum physics whatsoever. Still I'd be willing to bet there's a limit as to how far down into the micro energy and matter can manifest itself, and at that frontier we'll discover that everything is made of the same thing and structure is the only thing that differentiates one thing from another.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
What's really going to bake your noodle is...

If the scientist didn't observe the electrons movement, would they have moved at all??

Korg.


This is among the most difficult topics to speculate on. any speculation leads to either rigging up a workaround to ignore the concept altogether.

Or it ends up in a discussion about the holographic universe, which is close enough to the Matrix as to make most people feel uncomfortable even considering it.

But to answer your question (in my opinion (which is based on no education whatsoever
), they would exist only in the fuzzy areas at the back of the universes mind. To ask if they either exist or don't exist is irrelevant until we can determine what it means to "exist".



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by 19872012
 


Thats just what i was gonna put,the more and more you cut,the less and less is there



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Any humble scientist will tell you that there is no such thing, whatsoever, as any laws/facts in science.

Nothing is 100% proven whatsoever, all science is observation of a physicality that has underlying mechanisms which are not observable from the perspective of physicality. This is the same thing as the argument of the paranormal, it cannot be observed or considered fake/real if it is not observable/measurable with physical means of doing so.


Science is not fool-proof truth finding method of understanding the reality that is observed, people seem to forget that science is just as lost as them and take everything that a scientist say as evidence, proven and real.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by misinformational
 


Absolutely,but that doesn't mean our reality is not



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by 19872012
the sub-atomic realm doesn't even seem real. it seems like digital code or something to me, which makes me question if the world we live in, really is just a simulation.


Interesting thought. PhD Physicist Thomas Campbell has claimed that we are living in a digital information field and that we ARE living out a simulation. His recent lecture in England is extremely fascinating.

Also noteworthy, Tom worked for Robert Monroe way back and was the first scientist Bob hired to prove scientifically that OOBE travel is a real phenomenon.

Tom later went on to complete his work with a Theory Of Everything (TOE of reality) which is found in a trilogy of books. Also extremely fascinating.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Just wondering but does this mean the probability of the electron being in a definded location has increased because the lenght of time between measurements has decreased?

Or and more likely has this just gone right over my head



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 08:53 AM
link   
what about The Measurement Problem? It says nothing can been seen until we actually look for it, suggesting that everything is an illusion.

does that mean that the back of my chair isnt visible or even there just now cause no one is looking at it??????

got to love quantum phsyics, blows the mind every time



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   
When we start to "see" things at this scale with more and more detail, we're going to really start to get a grasp of whats happening in the quantum world. This is in contrast to colliding particles and seeing what kind of stuff falls out - which is obviously informative, but it's like trying to figure a car out by blowing it up and combing over the wreckage.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedarktower
what about The Measurement Problem? It says nothing can been seen until we actually look for it, suggesting that everything is an illusion.


The measurement problem isn't some mystical element of reality - it's pretty simple when you think about it. In order to "see" something at this scale, we either have to observe particles/energy that is ejected by the object(s), or bombard it with external particles/energy so that we can see what bounces back. In either case, by nature, the thing we are observing is disturbed.

To be "informed" of something requires the transmission of energy in some form or another, and if the thing we are wanting to be informed about strongly interacts with the mediums of information, then when we measure it, it changes.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Loki
 


Actually the issue with measuring position and speed (energy) is that by measuring one, you break the superposition and so can not measure the other quantity.

Thet have not broken this system, they are just measuring it so quickly that they can see the relative motion, then knowing the time between images, they can determine a speed. Of course, it could be a multiple of this (think stroboscope).

attosecond = 0.0000000000000000001 second, or 1x10^-18 sec.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by timepolarity

Originally posted by thedarktower
what about The Measurement Problem? It says nothing can been seen until we actually look for it, suggesting that everything is an illusion.


The measurement problem isn't some mystical element of reality - it's pretty simple when you think about it. In order to "see" something at this scale, we either have to observe particles/energy that is ejected by the object(s), or bombard it with external particles/energy so that we can see what bounces back. In either case, by nature, the thing we are observing is disturbed.

To be "informed" of something requires the transmission of energy in some form or another, and if the thing we are wanting to be informed about strongly interacts with the mediums of information, then when we measure it, it changes.


Not quite.

The measurement problem is all to do with the wave particle duality of matter.

In effect when we observe something, the wave function collapses and as such the values are set at that point. In other words an electron has the potential given its energy state to be at any place within a cloud radius, this fuzzy cloud is directly unobservable but can be deduced through math.

Here are is an image of the wave probability for Hydrogen.



The different shapes are derived from different energy states of the electrons in question.

And here is an image of an electron in wave state...



The higher the peaks the higher the probability.

Hope this helps,

Korg.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by Korg Trinity]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by misinformational
reply to post by 19872012
 



the sub-atomic realm doesn't even seem real. it seems like digital code or something to me, which makes me question if the world we live in, really is just a simulation.


I was watching some quantum physics/mechanics program on the Science Channel a bit back and found out that there's already an argument for that:


The Simulation Hypothesis or Simulation Argument proposes that reality is a simulation of which those affected by the simulants are generally unaware. The hypothesis does not have global (there exist reality that is not simulated) scope since, if true, the laws of physics in our known universe require that there is a reality that is not a simulation as there must be a place housing the machinery on which the simulation is being run.


Simulation Hypothesis

[edit: formatting]

[edit on 5-8-2010 by misinformational]


I saw something similar (may have been same program - Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman). It was a little unsettling for me as there didn't seem to be an obvious (as if anything is obvious anymore) place for a "universal consciousness" in the "bigger picture." Yes, it could certainly be argued to exist within the simulation - and now that I think about it, I guess it would exist and extend via the simulations' creator...

Oh dear...sure wished I had the formal knowledge to make better sense of the quantum realm,,,didn't need to start reading this thread now - got WAY too much to do today!



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by old_god
 


It would be interesting if they had the technology to peer into the hidden world, I don't think they will have that ability in our life time, of course you never know with the quantum leaps that have already happened.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

Not quite.



Obviously you are very knowledgeable on this topic, and I don't mean to dispute what you've provided - however, I would like to clarify what I stated.

My response was directed at someone who was taking a loose interpretation of this concept to question the nature of reality. I was merely trying to correct the loose interpretation with a very general statement that observing something at this scale requires us to interact with it - whether its changing its state or freezing its state to a single position of many it might occupy - both of these things are by nature disturbing the flow of the thing we are observing.

Perhaps I was too general, covering more than just the literal Measurement problem, but I do believe that general truth is valid.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 





And here is an image of an electron in wave state...


I saw this demonstrated very recently on either Discovery or H.I. and the excitement it provoked by the scientists who did the experiment.

Thank you for your post Kong Trinity.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Some of these baseless hypotheses are very amusing.
"A simulation ?"



Electrical energy is in essence the movement of electrons so if they weren't doing what they are saying they are doing, as in moving, then electrical energy in itself would not exist.

Meaning that your monitor that you are looking at right now, reading these words, which relies on electrons and Photons of light energy to create the images simply wouldn't exist.

Your computer powered by electricity which relies upon the flow of electrons and their charge, leaping from one atom to the next, called electrical current would not exist.

There is a thread on free online courses in Physics at The Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

More ATSers should consider taking some of them....It would really make a lot more sense to some of us here without these baseless hypotheses !



Want to learn science from MIT? It's free, and has won an award.


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Even a nanosecond snapshot collapses the waveform, so by making these ionization pulses very, very fast and often, I'm not sure anything can be gleaned about the electrons in their non-ionized state. In other words, it's only half the information. Sure, I love learning about this stuff, but until I learn otherwise, it's mere probablilty. Long live the Principle of Uncertainty!



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Seeing this news made me gibber, and giggle , and do a silly dance. Im still speechless. I mean, its absolutely staggering! Coherant comment later... perhaps much later... so astounded I cannot think.




top topics



 
42
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join