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.
Originally posted by SoulVisions
Apologies for the interruption here, I just wanted to throw in there that not all atoms are spherical.
Originally posted by beebs
the wave structure of matter(the only context where toroid lines of force and cymatic structures of the ψ-field make sense)
To see the sounds that lie at the heart of matter is to lift the veils that conceal many mysteries of the universe.
The CymaScope represents the first scientific instrument that can give us a visual
image of sound and vibration - a cymatic image - helping us to understand
our world and universe in ways previously hidden from view.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by metalshredmetal
reply to post by buddhasystem
Yes, avoiding the question, avoiding an answer, avoiding backing up your statements with real proof.
not surprised.
Did I ever said there was not geometry involved? Why do I need to prove something I didn't say in the first place?
Useless.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Sand is subjected to a field with a complex geometrical structure,
whereas the electron in the H atom is not.
Originally posted by metalshredmetal
yes, you "ever said" that there was not geometry involved in atoms.
If you look at an atom, you'll something quite different. The field (in a good approximation for this discussion) is a spherically symmetric Coulomb field. It does not possess "nooks and crannies" to be occupied by unsuspecting electrons.
Please do make an effort to read my post. Sand is subjected to a field with a complex geometrical structure, whereas the electron in the H atom is not. Meditate on this, if you will. That should be a very simple thing to understand for an average person, your mileage will vary.
Originally posted by beebs
Be sure to read the Carver Mead interview.
In this book Carver Mead offers a radically new approach to the standard problems of electromagnetic theory. Motivated by the belief that the goal of scientific research should be the simplification and unification of knowledge, he describes a new way of doing electrodynamics--collective electrodynamics--that does not rely on Maxwell's equations, but rather uses the quantum nature of matter as its sole basis. Collective electrodynamics is a way of looking at how electrons interact, based on experiments that tell us about the electrons directly. (As Mead points out, Maxwell had no access to these experiments.)The results Mead derives for standard electromagnetic problems are identical to those found in any text. Collective electrodynamics reveals, however, that quantities that we usually think of as being very different are, in fact, the same--that electromagnetic phenomena are simple and direct manifestations of quantum phenomena. Mead views his approach as a first step toward reformulating quantum concepts in a clear and comprehensible manner.The book is divided into five sections: magnetic interaction of steady currents, propagating waves, electromagnetic energy, radiation in free space, and electromagnetic interaction of atoms. In an engaging preface, Mead tells how his approach to electromagnetic theory was inspired by his interaction with Richard Feynman.
Collective electrodynamics reveals, however, that quantities that we usually think of as being very different are, in fact, the same--that electromagnetic phenomena are simple and direct manifestations of quantum phenomena.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Mead is the author of a book Collective Electrodynamics: Quantum Foundations of Electromagnetism, published by The MIT Press in August 2002.
It is interesting to read its Amazon.com Book Description
The thrust of Carver's book: QM applies to all matter--not just small systems or isolated particles--is well made. He brings up experimental data from superconductors to illustrate that the phenomenon of coherent quantum entanglement can, and does, occur at macroscopic scales; and that such behavior is very quantum. Thus he proves, quite convincingly, that quantum mechanics applies to all coherent systems.
He then closes by making some very important points. (1) He shows that quantum behavior of such systems can be expressed in quantum language (wave function), relativistic language (four-vectors), or electrodynamics (vector potential, scalar potential) in an equivalent fashion. This is important, as it proves that a superconductor is macroscopic, exhibits quantum behavior, and that these quantitative results agree with those found from the other approaches. (2) He makes the point that the quantum and relativistic equations show that electromagnetic phenomena consist of two parts: one traveling forward in time; the other backward in time. Feynmann and others have said this for a long time, and he shows how thermodynamics (or un-coherent behavior) forces what we see as only time-evolution in one direction in un-coherent systems. (3) He illustrates, modeling single atoms as tiny superconducting resonators, that two atoms that are coherently linked will start exchanging energy. This causes an exponential, positive-feedback loop that ends with each atom in a quantum eigenstate. Thus quantum collapse is neither discontinuous, nor instantaneous; and in fact makes a lot of sense. (4) He explains, using four-vectors, that all points on a light-cone are near each other in four space. This point--together with (2)--shows that there's no causality contradiction between relativity and quantum mechanics. For example, he explains that two entangled particles, such as photons light years apart, can affect each other immediately if one falls into an eigenstate, since the four-dimensional distance between them (R1 dot R2) is zero. Although separated in three space, they're neighbors in four space. Through these demonstrations and proofs, he successfully suggests that there is a way to further develop the 'behavior of charged, coherent systems' such that quantum mechanics and relativity will agree--but the conceptual changes he suggests are necessary and must be further developed. Also, he admits that a better, more appropriate mathematical and computational methods [sic] will be needed, since the complexity of coherent systems runs as n^2.
Pleasantly, then, the book makes elegant, defensible, mathematical and conceptual steps to resolve some nagging points of understanding. Also, the narrative gives the best introduction to electrodynamics and quantum mechanics that I've ever seen. Since the theoretical criticisms and experimental data are quite valid, his proposed resolutions are eye-opening and valuable. The methods he suggests greatly simply [sic] thinking about complicated quantum/classical problems. New approaches for future theoretical research are also suggested. Despite the dark tone in the preface, the book is positive, enlightening, and well anchored to accepted, modern experimental results and theoretical work.
Not all the reviews were so great and notably, the review by physicist Milo Wolff wasn't good (isn't he the fringe WSM physicist that beebs likes?):
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Mead is the author of a book Collective Electrodynamics: Quantum Foundations of Electromagnetism, published by The MIT Press in August 2002.
It is interesting to read its Amazon.com Book Description
From the first Customer Review:
Interesting. "so vague, sloppy, and problematic that it is "not even wrong"." might also describe Rodin's stuff.
The essence of Mead's argument is that within quantum mechanics, there is a naturally occurring 1-form on three-dimensional space with the property that integrating it over a superconducting loop gives the phase change of the "wave function" of the loop, which must be a constant multiple of an integer. Also, integrating the space part of the four-potential 1-form A over a loop gives the magnetic flux threading the loop, which for a superconducting loop is observed to be a constant multiple of an integer. This suggests identifying the "phase change" 1-form with a constant multiple of the space part of A.
Later the full A is recovered by hand-waving analogies. In my opinion, the main problem with his argument is that his construction of the "phase change" 1-form is so vague, sloppy, and problematic that it is "not even wrong".
Who can argue with that? It seems to me that scientists trying to influence the scientific community publish papers, while those writing books for the consumption of the general public have a different purpose in mind. So of course I wouldn't expect this book to have much of an impact on "the way most physicists will think about electrodynamics or quantum mechanics."
In summary, this book can be interesting, especially if you know some E&M and can follow the equations: there are some cute connections that may be fun to check out more carefully. But in the end, I don't think this is going to make any substantial impact on the way most physicists will think about electrodynamics or quantum mechanics.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Not all the reviews were so great and notably, the review by physicist Milo Wolff wasn't good (isn't he the fringe WSM physicist that beebs likes?):
The essence of Mead's argument is that within quantum mechanics, there is a naturally occurring 1-form on three-dimensional space with the property that integrating it over a superconducting loop gives the phase change of the "wave function" of the loop, which must be a constant multiple of an integer. Also, integrating the space part of the four-potential 1-form A over a loop gives the magnetic flux threading the loop, which for a superconducting loop is observed to be a constant multiple of an integer. This suggests identifying the "phase change" 1-form with a constant multiple of the space part of A.
Later the full A is recovered by hand-waving analogies. In my opinion, the main problem with his argument is that his construction of the "phase change" 1-form is so vague, sloppy, and problematic that it is "not even wrong".
Oops, you're right, I stand corrected. I saw Milo Wolff's name under the review I quoted from and thought it was his.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
You have not quoted Milo Wolff. You have quoted Stephen K. Parrott.
Pretty sloppy of you.
Then he plugs his own books.
Carver Mead is a brilliant inventor and engineer but he does not understand the "foundations of electromagnetism" in the way Feynman would have understood these words.
Don't buy this over mathematical book. Instead buy the books that go to the heart of electromagnetism. They recognize that Nature is Simple; All the Natural Laws depend on only three properties of Space. Accordingly, the books are simple. Readers will enjoy them. Awards have been given:They are:
Originally posted by beebs
Be sure to read the Carver Mead interview.
Uploaded by BBVAFoundation on Jan 31, 2012
The BBVA Foundation Frontiers of Knowledge Award in the category of Information and Communication Technologies goes to U.S. electrical engineer Carver Mead, for being "the most influential thinker and pioneer" of the silicon age, and for enabling "the development of the billion-transistor processors that drive the electronic devices -- for example, in laptops, tablets, smartphones, DVD players -- ubiquitous in our daily lives," in the words of the jury's citation.
Originally posted by beebs
Mead Interview
Originally posted by beebs
Be sure to read the Carver Mead interview.
Mead’s Startup Menu
Carver Mead has helped found more than 20 technology companies.
A selection of his newer ventures:
ACTEL Mountain View, CA
» Field-programmable gate array chips used in telecommunications
FOVEON Santa Clara, CA
» Multilayer silicon sensors for photographic imaging
IMPINJ Seattle,WA
»Low-power “self-adaptive” microchips
SONIC INNOVATIONS Salt Lake City, UT
»Advanced digital signal processing for hearing aids
SYNAPTICS San Jose, CA
»Touch pads and software for portable electronic devices
Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
Of course, stars are given by others reading a review.