Real Physics!

page: 2
28
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by yampa
 


Impossible.
You can't describe particle motions with classical mechanics because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, among other things. But lets just focus on uncertainty.

"the more accurate you define an objects position the less accurately you can define its momentum."

This is due to the wave-particle duality of all matter.
You cant describe the orbit of an electron with classical mechanics, along with pretty much any quantum mechanical event.

Do you think physicists were just bored and made all this # up? We don't like the implications of quantum mechanics any mmore than the skeptics. Einstein hated it, im sure you have all heard the quote "God doesn't play dice" well like leonard susskind said "Einstein, don't tell God what to do". QM came from observation; rectifying the physics with our observations. Google "cathode ray, electron" and read away.



edit on 30-9-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-9-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-9-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   
I haven't seen much real come out of Einstein's modeling of empirical formulas.
We knew atoms absorbed and emitted certain energy bands.
How long did it take a light flash on a ruby rod to make a laser light.
So we have lasers now.

Anything else real can you can think of from what we already knew and
a formula was upgraded to quantum style, can you toss me a bone here.

Quantum modeling came from known energy levels.
Real knowledge came first.
Getting it real was missed even by Newton and Maxwell.
Forces can left out and solutions agreed upon to mislead the underlings.

You think great minds are going to tell you exactly how things work.
Get real.
How many published electrical circuits work out when you build them.
Got you there.
Well I assume the video is real quantum Wave Functions because of the
symbol he showed that tracks in the text books.


edit on 9/30/2012 by TeslaandLyne because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne


Anything else real can you can think of from what we already knew and
a formula was upgraded to quantum style, can you toss me a bone here.

Quantum modeling came from known energy levels.
Real knowledge came first.
Getting it real was missed even by Newton and Maxwell.
Forces can left out and solutions agreed upon to mislead the underlings.

You think great minds are going to tell you exactly how things work.
Get real.
How many published electrical circuits work out when you build them.
Got you there.
Well I assume the video is real quantum Wave Functions because of the
symbol he showed that tracks in the text books.


edit on 9/30/2012 by TeslaandLyne because: (no reason given)


Im gunna go out on a limb and guess at your point, cause you still havent made it clear.

Your saying that our current model of physics could be incomplete and we are missing something, and everything else was just conjecture to prove that point? cause otherwise it looks like your just rambling.

And define empiracle theory?



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ubeenhad
 


Sure.
There is no theory in empirical data.
Its all real.
A lot of data is formulated into a law.
Something that actually happens.

www.google.com...
here are some examples
www.google.com...
things like

k , is Boltzmann's constant.
The constant fits the data but is not explained further.

k is perhaps shown by quantum and Einstein methods to be some
fancy probability distribution.

But the process is already known.
The physical measurements and attributes are fixed forever.
There are still unclear areas to some not even going into quantum
or wave functions that may still impact what is real.
Well thats my other side of real physics I suppose.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
reply to post by ubeenhad
 


Sure.
There is no theory in empirical data.
Its all real.
A lot of data is formulated into a law.
Something that actually happens.

www.google.com...
here are some examples
www.google.com...
things like

k , is Boltzmann's constant.
The constant fits the data but is not explained further.

k is perhaps shown by quantum and Einstein methods to be some
fancy probability distribution.

But the process is already known.
The physical measurements and attributes are fixed forever.
There are still unclear areas to some not even going into quantum
or wave functions that may still impact what is real.
Well thats my other side of real physics I suppose.


dude whatever drugs your on I want some. I dont know if your messing with me or these are your actual organized thoughts, either way its becoming too frustrating discussing this with you. I concede.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ubeenhad
 


This is insanely awesome!

Thanks for finding and sharing it!



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ubeenhad
 


He's not messing with you, he genuinely believes he's making sense. Welcome to ATS, where the normal is strange and the strange is insane
edit on 1-10-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 03:37 AM
link   
That is a great site, I will be there a lot. I hope to be studying a lot of this stuff in the future so getting the concepts straight beforehand is very useful.

If anyone wants a basic intro to learning Physics properly. I could not recommend Udacity - PH100 enough. It has short videos and questions that you can just watch again if required or look at the answer video to understand how to solve the question. It is a new way of learning.

The only prerequisit is Basic Algebra, if you are rusty or Mathematically challenged
you can brush up at this great site Khan Academy.

You will soon understand the importance and beauty behind Vf = Vi * 1/2 at^2 Vf = final velocity, Vi = initial velocity, a = acceleration, t = time. Force = mass * acceleration. Kinetic Energy = 1/2 mv^2. And many more.

It is taught while visiting the places where these great discoveries were made.
edit on 1-10-2012 by DJOldskool because: Grammer



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad
reply to post by yampa
 


Impossible.
You can't describe particle motions with classical mechanics because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, among other things. But lets just focus on uncertainty.

"the more accurate you define an objects position the less accurately you can define its momentum."

This is due to the wave-particle duality of all matter.
You cant describe the orbit of an electron with classical mechanics, along with pretty much any quantum mechanical event.


Sorry? Which skeptics are you talking about? afaik there is no current professional dissent against the basic ideas of Quantum Mechanics? You will not find a single mainstream science book which is dissent against the fundamentals of Quantum Mechanics either. Dissent just doesn't exist in the professional forum anymore.

There are trends in academic physics, some ideas go out of favour. String theory seems to be taking a nosedive, for instance. Some theoretical physicists stack more mathematics (or use fake mathematics) on top of the old and call it a new framework But no scientist ever tears the theory down and starts again from basic physical principles using transparent fundamental mathematics. Why would they do that - Quantum Mechanics is what pays their wages?

I think the uncertainty principle says less than you seem to believe. It says nothing about whether it is possible to model general, canonical particle motion using non-probabilistic methods. It says nothing about the ability to provide rational physical mechanics to particle motion theory. The uncertainty principle is basically saying 'your data is only as good as your instruments'. But the issue here isn't whether we can record infinitely detailed data about particle motion, the issue is whether we can model that motion canonically using rational mathematics.

I say that is possible to physically explain reality, without any 'quantum weirdness' and the models which would allow you to do that are already out there if you look properly.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by yampa

Originally posted by ubeenhad
reply to post by yampa
 


Impossible.
You can't describe particle motions with classical mechanics because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, among other things. But lets just focus on uncertainty.

"the more accurate you define an objects position the less accurately you can define its momentum."

This is due to the wave-particle duality of all matter.
You cant describe the orbit of an electron with classical mechanics, along with pretty much any quantum mechanical event.


Sorry? Which skeptics are you talking about? afaik there is no current professional dissent against the basic ideas of Quantum Mechanics? You will not find a single mainstream science book which is dissent against the fundamentals of Quantum Mechanics either. Dissent just doesn't exist in the professional forum anymore.

There are trends in academic physics, some ideas go out of favour. String theory seems to be taking a nosedive, for instance. Some theoretical physicists stack more mathematics (or use fake mathematics) on top of the old and call it a new framework But no scientist ever tears the theory down and starts again from basic physical principles using transparent fundamental mathematics. Why would they do that - Quantum Mechanics is what pays their wages?

I think the uncertainty principle says less than you seem to believe. It says nothing about whether it is possible to model general, canonical particle motion using non-probabilistic methods. It says nothing about the ability to provide rational physical mechanics to particle motion theory. The uncertainty principle is basically saying 'your data is only as good as your instruments'. But the issue here isn't whether we can record infinitely detailed data about particle motion, the issue is whether we can model that motion canonically using rational mathematics.

I say that is possible to physically explain reality, without any 'quantum weirdness' and the models which would allow you to do that are already out there if you look properly.




Please actually find out what uncertainty means. its not saying anything about our instruments. If a photon or any other particle interacts with another one there is uncertainty. it is impossible to get rid of uncertainty because the only way to interact with something is with particle interactions. I cannot stress how wrong you are, and until you can prove you actually have half a clue what unceartaty is im not gunna continue to waste my time. For some good literature I suggest even a laymen level book on QM should set you straight.
edit on 1-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad
Please actually find out what uncertainty means. its not saying anything about our instruments. If a photon or any other particle interacts with another one there is uncertainty. it is impossible to get rid of uncertainty because the only way to interact with something is with particle interactions. I cannot stress how wrong you are, and until you can prove you actually have half a clue what unceartaty is im not gunna continue to waste my time. For some good literature I suggest even a laymen level book on QM should set you straight.


Which version of the uncertainty principle do you subscribe to?


What Einstein's E=mc2 is to relativity theory, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is to quantum mechanics—not just a profound insight, but also an iconic formula that even non-physicists recognize. The principle holds that we cannot know the present state of the world in full detail, let alone predict the future with absolute precision. It marks a clear break from the classical deterministic view of the universe.

Yet the uncertainty principle comes in two superficially similar formulations that even many practicing physicists tend to confuse. Werner Heisenberg's own version is that in observing the world, we inevitably disturb it. And that is wrong, as a research team at the Vienna University of Technology has now vividly demonstrated.

Led by Yuji Hasegawa, the team prepared a stream of neutrons and measured two spin components simultaneously for each, in direct violation of Heisenberg's version of the principle. Yet, the alternative variation continued to hold. The team reported its results in Nature Physics on January 15. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.



www.scientificamerican.com...



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by yampa

Originally posted by ubeenhad
Please actually find out what uncertainty means. its not saying anything about our instruments. If a photon or any other particle interacts with another one there is uncertainty. it is impossible to get rid of uncertainty because the only way to interact with something is with particle interactions. I cannot stress how wrong you are, and until you can prove you actually have half a clue what unceartaty is im not gunna continue to waste my time. For some good literature I suggest even a laymen level book on QM should set you straight.


Which version of the uncertainty principle do you subscribe to?


What Einstein's E=mc2 is to relativity theory, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is to quantum mechanics—not just a profound insight, but also an iconic formula that even non-physicists recognize. The principle holds that we cannot know the present state of the world in full detail, let alone predict the future with absolute precision. It marks a clear break from the classical deterministic view of the universe.

Yet the uncertainty principle comes in two superficially similar formulations that even many practicing physicists tend to confuse. Werner Heisenberg's own version is that in observing the world, we inevitably disturb it. And that is wrong, as a research team at the Vienna University of Technology has now vividly demonstrated.

Led by Yuji Hasegawa, the team prepared a stream of neutrons and measured two spin components simultaneously for each, in direct violation of Heisenberg's version of the principle. Yet, the alternative variation continued to hold. The team reported its results in Nature Physics on January 15. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.



www.scientificamerican.com...


Either interpretation invalidates your claims.
Please, your embarrassing yourself.

Find me a source that says uncertainty is due to our measuring devices. A peer reviewed one preferably. Scientific american doesnt cut it lol(which it didn't say)

edit on 1-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Find me a source that says uncertainty is due to our measuring devices. A peer reviewed one preferably. Scientific american doesnt cut it lol(which it didn't say)



Why is what some non-physicist on a forum offered as a personal interpretation of uncertainty more important to you than reading a paper which disproves the version you were trying to sell here?

You don't get to choose 'either version' of uncertainty when one of them gets disproved by a physical experiment. That experiment was published in Nature Physics. The link to the paper at Nature is in the link provided. But here it is directly:

www.nature.com...

The uncertainty principle generally prohibits simultaneous measurements of certain pairs of observables and forms the basis of indeterminacy in quantum mechanics1. Heisenberg’s original formulation, illustrated by the famous γ-ray microscope, sets a lower bound for the product of the measurement error and the disturbance2. Later, the uncertainty relation was reformulated in terms of standard deviations3, 4, 5, where the focus was exclusively on the indeterminacy of predictions, whereas the unavoidable recoil in measuring devices has been ignored.


Originally posted by ubeenhad
You can't describe particle motions with classical mechanics because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
edit on 1-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)


Originally posted by ubeenhad
Please, your embarrassing yourself.
edit on 1-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)


okey dokey!



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ubeenhad
 



Why quote what you ignore as you only wish to promote your real physics
as the topic and ignore others.
At least you didn't pick through the discussions for fear of learning real physics.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


You can't be a real denier as well.
Oh yes you are.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
I doubt you can locate an electron if you wanted to much less
find the momentum without locating the electron.
This is so stupid and all unreal physics models.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
I doubt you can locate an electron if you wanted to much less
find the momentum without locating the electron.
This is so stupid and all unreal physics models.


you guys are something else.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
I doubt you can locate an electron if you wanted to much less
find the momentum without locating the electron.
This is so stupid and all unreal physics models.


Ask them why the electron doesn't crash into the proton?



I am wondering why electrons don't crash into protons, thus destroying the world. The only reasons I can find are because electrons can only exist in electron orbitals and at certain energy levels. Why can electrons only exist in these conditions?
- Mary Woodruff
Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
A:
Mary- That's a really important and deep question. I've borrowed part of our answer to a related question, because this one is important enough to answer more than once.

Naturally, one would think that because protons are positively
charged, and electrons are negatively charged, the two should attract
and stick together. The reason that doesn't happen can't even begin
to be explained using classical physics. This was one of the key
mysteries that were cleared up right away by the invention of quantum
mechanics around 1925.

The picture you often see of electrons as small objects
circling a nucleus in well defined "orbits" is actually quite wrong.
As we now understand it, the electrons aren't really at any one place
at any time at all. Instead they exist as a sort of cloud. The cloud
can compress to a very small space briefly if you probe it in the
right way, but before that it really acts like a spread-out cloud.

The weird thing about that cloud is that its spread in
space is related to the spread of possible momenta (or velocities) of
the electron. So here's the key point, which we won't pretend to
explain here. The more squashed in the cloud gets, the more spread
out the range of momenta has to get. That's called Heisenberg's
uncertainty principle. It could quit moving if it spread out more,
but that would mean not being as near the nucleus, and having higher
potential energy. Big momenta mean big kinetic energies. So the
cloud can lower its potential energy by squishing in closer to the
nucleus, but when it squishes in too far its kinetic energy goes up
more than its potential energy goes down. So it settles at a happy
medium, with the lowest possible energy, and that gives the cloud and
thus the atom its size.


van.physics.illinois.edu...
edit on 1-10-2012 by yampa because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by yampa

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
I doubt you can locate an electron if you wanted to much less
find the momentum without locating the electron.
This is so stupid and all unreal physics models.


Ask them why the electron doesn't crash into the proton?



I am wondering why electrons don't crash into protons, thus destroying the world. The only reasons I can find are because electrons can only exist in electron orbitals and at certain energy levels. Why can electrons only exist in these conditions?
- Mary Woodruff
Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
A:
Mary- That's a really important and deep question. I've borrowed part of our answer to a related question, because this one is important enough to answer more than once.

Naturally, one would think that because protons are positively
charged, and electrons are negatively charged, the two should attract
and stick together. The reason that doesn't happen can't even begin
to be explained using classical physics. This was one of the key
mysteries that were cleared up right away by the invention of quantum
mechanics around 1925.

The picture you often see of electrons as small objects
circling a nucleus in well defined "orbits" is actually quite wrong.
As we now understand it, the electrons aren't really at any one place
at any time at all. Instead they exist as a sort of cloud. The cloud
can compress to a very small space briefly if you probe it in the
right way, but before that it really acts like a spread-out cloud.

The weird thing about that cloud is that its spread in
space is related to the spread of possible momenta (or velocities) of
the electron. So here's the key point, which we won't pretend to
explain here. The more squashed in the cloud gets, the more spread
out the range of momenta has to get. That's called Heisenberg's
uncertainty principle. It could quit moving if it spread out more,
but that would mean not being as near the nucleus, and having higher
potential energy. Big momenta mean big kinetic energies. So the
cloud can lower its potential energy by squishing in closer to the
nucleus, but when it squishes in too far its kinetic energy goes up
more than its potential energy goes down. So it settles at a happy
medium, with the lowest possible energy, and that gives the cloud and
thus the atom its size.


van.physics.illinois.edu...
edit on 1-10-2012 by yampa because: (no reason given)


I dont have to ask.
Its basic Quantum electro dynamics.

It actually makes the same point I was earlyer, if you read it a couple times maybe you will pick up on it and edit that post before i take the time to fully embarrass you.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad

I dont have to ask.
Its basic Quantum electro dynamics.

It actually makes the same point I was earlyer, if you read it a couple times maybe you will pick up on it and edit that post before i take the time to fully embarrass you.


come at me, bro :0





new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join