Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Does the quantum state have a vibrational frequency?

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Science has a branch of thought known as Molecular Vibration

It's basically recording the frequency in Hz of Atoms and Molecules.

So theoretically we should be able to measure or record the vibrational frequency of the Quantum state, which if this frequency is known, will allow us further experiments to see if the quantum state can be manipulated or if energy can be pulled out by some sort of resonance factors




posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 


6 to the 13th × 9 to the 13th = 42 to the 13th (using base 13). therefore the only possible answer would be


According to Douglas Adams



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 


Isn't 'vibration' dependant on temperature? So if something is hotter it vibrates at a higher frequency or is more excited? Vice versa for cold.

If that's the case there won't be a base or common vibration point for anything? It will depend where in the universe your measuring and what the conditions are at the present time. Maybe.... I think



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
Science has a branch of thought known as Molecular Vibration

It's basically recording the frequency in Hz of Atoms and Molecules.

So theoretically we should be able to measure or record the vibrational frequency of the Quantum state, which if this frequency is known, will allow us further experiments to see if the quantum state can be manipulated or if energy can be pulled out by some sort of resonance factors


What do you mean by the "quantum state" in the first place?

The Wiki link is not bad, by the way.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   
All matter and most particles have both a wave function and a particle function. The wave function by it's very nature has a frequency. But the frequency for each item that has a wave function will be different from most, if not all, the other wave functions. So, in answer to your question, there is no frequency associated with quantum physics as such; just the individual wave function frequencies.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   
What Grifter81 said is correct - a particle (atom or molecule) will vibrate more or less depending on its energy. If a particle is hotter/cooler, experiences increased/decreased pressure from surrounding particles, absorbs/emits a photon(s) (e.g. fluorescence) it will experience a change in its overall energy.

I think what the OP means by 'quantum state' is the particle's wavefunction - I could be wrong though, it's been a while since I've done any QM. A particle's wavefunction essentially describes the probability of finding the particle in a given place at a given time and particles with higher energy tend to move around more than those with lower energy.

Molecular vibrations are just periodic movements of atoms within a molecule - each of the oscillating atoms may or may not wave the same wavefunction. The 'Symmetrical stretching' cartoon shows two atoms that would have the same wavefunction and in the 'Asymmetrical stretching' cartoon the wavefunctions would be inverted.

I don't think I fully understand the question about using this information to 'pull out energy' - all molecular vibrations and wavefunctions do is describe the motion/location of particles. Please clarify.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nelldogg
What Grifter81 said is correct - a particle (atom or molecule) will vibrate more or less depending on its energy. If a particle is hotter/cooler, experiences increased/decreased pressure from surrounding particles, absorbs/emits photon(s) (e.g. fluorescence) it will experience a change in its overall energy.


You realize, of course, that an atom cannot be "Hotter/Cooler", since the temperature is a macroscopic value. It's also incorrect to talk about "Pressure" on an atom, for same reasons.

As to the OP, I think there is a mixup of concepts there. When we talk about molecular vibrations, the wave function will describe the expected positions of the atoms comprising a molecule, as a periodic function of time according to the vibration frequency. This is to say that vibrations can be thought of as quasi-classical. This is different from the case where let's say the system is already in the ground state and components aren't really moving (i.e. expected values do not vary with time).

By the way all this becomes clear if one carefully reads the quoted Wiki page.



edit on 28-11-2012 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Well then wave function it is....... the frequencies of wave functions and the surrounding space around.

By quantum state, i meant for example what happens to carbon atoms in Bose-Einstein condensate, where they become strings, and then are everywhere and nowhere at once entanglement.
Quantum States

So there should be a measurable frequency to the quantum state in which wave functions occur



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
you can PM me if you want the answer.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Well I took quantum mechanics class taught by Professor Herbert Bernstein, Harvard trained. Then I finished my graduate degree by taking energy training classes from spiritual master Chinese yoga Taoist Chunyi Lin of springforestqigong.com....

O.K. so you want to study the Law of Phase Harmony of Louis de Broglie, quantum physicist.

Basically at zero frequency there is infinite energy as phase. Now this is the quantum entanglement you're referring to. So it can not be measured directly by technology but it can be measured after the fact -- when the phase is converted to amplitude measurement by squaring the probabilities.

So most quantum physicists state this is just a mathematical probability but Louis de Broglie noted this paradox -- as energy frequency increases in Einstein's relativity then time as wavelength amplitude also increases -- this violates the Law of Pythagoras stating that frequency is inversely proportional to wavelength.

So the thing is that the "period" is inverse to wavelength and wavelength is based on speed as amplitude -- but period is the phase. So De Broglie solved Einstein's paradox by his Law of Phase Harmony stating there are "two clocks" -- an internal period that is infinite phase at zero frequency. This is called the "pilot wave" that guides the energy and it is non-local as entanglement. So de Broglie argued it really does exist.

Bernard d'Espagnat also argues that quantum mechanics logically infers formless consciousness as the foundation of reality.

O.k. de Broglie stated he did not know what the "frequency" was that enabled this infinite information. There was just a new experiment also verifying that there is infinite information outside of spacetime. I will post this on the thread so others can read it.

Well I took quantum mechanics class taught by Professor Herbert Bernstein, Harvard trained. Then I finished my graduate degree by taking energy training classes from spiritual master Chinese yoga Taoist Chunyi Lin of springforestqigong.com....

O.K. so you want to study the Law of Phase Harmony of Louis de Broglie, quantum physicist.

Basically at zero frequency there is infinite energy as phase. Now this is the quantum entanglement you're referring to. So it can not be measured directly by technology but it can be measured after the fact -- when the phase is converted to amplitude measurement by squaring the probabilities.

So most quantum physicists state this is just a mathematical probability but Louis de Broglie noted this paradox -- as energy frequency increases in Einstein's relativity then time as wavelength amplitude also increases -- this violates the Law of Pythagoras stating that frequency is inversely proportional to wavelength.

So the thing is that the "period" is inverse to wavelength and wavelength is based on speed as amplitude -- but period is the phase. So De Broglie solved Einstein's paradox by his Law of Phase Harmony stating there are "two clocks" -- an internal period that is infinite phase at zero frequency. This is called the "pilot wave" that guides the energy and it is non-local as entanglement. So de Broglie argued it really does exist.

Bernard d'Espagnat also argues that quantum mechanics logically infers formless consciousness as the foundation of reality.

O.k. de Broglie stated he did not know what the "frequency" was that enabled this infinite information. There was just a new experiment also verifying that there is infinite information outside of spacetime. I will post this on the thread so others can read it. Well I took quantum mechanics class taught by Professor Herbert Bernstein, Harvard trained. Then I finished my graduate degree by taking energy training classes from spiritual master Chinese yoga Taoist Chunyi Lin of springforestqigong.com....

O.K. so you want to study the Law of Phase Harmony of Louis de Broglie, quantum physicist.

Basically at zero frequency there is infinite energy as phase. Now this is the quantum entanglement you're referring to. So it can not be measured directly by technology but it can be measured after the fact -- when the phase is converted to amplitude measurement by squaring the probabilities.

So most quantum physicists state this is just a mathematical probability but Louis de Broglie noted this paradox -- as energy frequency increases in Einstein's relativity then time as wavelength amplitude also increases -- this violates the Law of Pythagoras stating that frequency is inversely proportional to wavelength.

So the thing is that the "period" is inverse to wavelength and wavelength is based on speed as amplitude -- but period is the phase. So De Broglie solved Einstein's paradox by his Law of Phase Harmony stating there are "two clocks" -- an internal period that is infinite phase at zero frequency. This is called the "pilot wave" that guides the energy and it is non-local as entanglement. So de Broglie argued it really does exist.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Have you ever wondered why the more scientifically literate members here on ATS get so touchy about people using well defined scientific terms in a way that is contrary to that definition?

It's because once people start redefining terms willy nilly to suit their own concepts it becomes very hard to communicate.

This is part of the issue with quantum physics being taken over by the woo woo types and pop culture idealogues... they are using all the right terms but they don't actually understand what they mean or what it implies and so all the people they pass on their "knowledge" to also get indoctrinated into using this set of terms wrong.

The quantum word salad needs to stop.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by roguetechie
 


So who are you pointing at, as the guilty party of this quantum word salad issue?

For support of this thread and my question, I can say in the least that I do retain a decent level of understanding of molecular frequency, bose-Einstein condensate, and a few features of quantum physics.

Would be nice if there was a forum somewhere, that allows one to ask questions without being ripped to shreds about asking questions



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
Would be nice if there was a forum somewhere, that allows one to ask questions without being ripped to shreds about asking questions
If you think this is getting "ripped to shreds", stay away from posting the 9/11 forum, since you apparently have no concept of what that looks like. But you can read the older posts there before the new rules went into effect.

This thread seems pretty polite to me. You presented a thought in the OP (regarding "asking questions", notice your OP doesn't really contain any questions, so it seems like relying on your thread title to ask the question isn't a good method of communication...if you have a question, ask it in the OP, even repeat the title if necessary). You had a mixup of concepts/terminology and this was pointed out without "ripping you to shreds".

Pointing out that terms in physics have very specific and sometimes not that flexible meanings isn't an attack so much as just a statement of fact. But I could have made the same rant as roguetechie because we see these mixups far too often. If the link you cited had contained the term "quantum state" then we might understand what you meant by that. But our normal interpretation of quantum state is something unrelated to what you asked about, and as said, apparently a mixup. So I'm not attacking you, but I have to agree with roguetechie that these kinds of mixups make communication difficult.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


The question is in the title of the thread. Thanks for the heads up. I found another science based forum with actual PhDs on there who answer questions and discuss possibilities.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Grifter81
 




Isn't 'vibration' dependant on temperature? So if something is hotter it vibrates at a higher frequency or is more excited? Vice versa for cold.


Why do you think stuff burns? Its molecules are vibrating so fiercely that it releases energy, the process of which reduces the material to a much more basic nature.

And as with cold: when you touch cold metal, you feel cold. However, that is not the metal. That is YOU. The heat leaves your body as the metals molecules absorb energy from you, and the molecules in that part of your body slow down. The slower the vibration, the colder it is. Vice versa.


If that's the case there won't be a base or common vibration point for anything? It will depend where in the universe your measuring and what the conditions are at the present time. Maybe.... I think


Not quite true. We've measured the melting points and the solid states of every element, and so we can measure the aspects of the atoms within them as well. Personally, I'll be very interested to see how we can apply the frequencies of electrons and protons. I'm convinced that vibrations control the world around us, so maybe we'll catch a glimpse into the more subtle side of nature.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Grifter81
 




Isn't 'vibration' dependant on temperature? So if something is hotter it vibrates at a higher frequency or is more excited? Vice versa for cold.


Why do you think stuff burns? Its molecules are vibrating so fiercely that it releases energy, the process of which reduces the material to a much more basic nature.


This is really woefully incorrect. In the process of burning, it's not vibration but breaking of chemical bonds and formation of new ones, with net energy release. You need to read up on basic science.

And of course, "more basic nature" is also nonsense. The opposite may be the case. Pure carbon is pretty basic, but when oxidized it can form MORE complex molecules.



And as with cold: when you touch cold metal, you feel cold. However, that is not the metal. That is YOU. The heat leaves your body as the metals molecules absorb energy from you


Wrong again. Most metals have crystalline structure so talking about "molecules" is wrong. It is the crystalline lattice that can absorb heat.
edit on 29-11-2012 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



This is really woefully incorrect. In the process of burning, it's not vibration but breaking of chemical bonds and formation of new ones, with net energy release. You need to read up on basic science.

And of course, "more basic nature" is also nonsense. The opposite may be the case. Pure carbon is pretty basic, but when oxidized it can form MORE complex molecules.


As the page was loading, I said to myself, "Buddhasystem responded to my post. Yay..." (insert false enthusiasm here).

Anyway, if I were to take a piece of cloth and freeze it, would it form the same product as lighting it on fire? Yes, the chemical bonds break - but what causes them to break?


More basic nature is nonsense? Sorry, but I view a a pile of cloth ash to be pretty basic. Half the compounds went up in smoke, so to speak.




Wrong again. Most metals have crystalline structure so talking about "molecules" is wrong. It is the crystalline lattice that can absorb heat.


Nuh uh. Anything that is mad of molecules with lower vibrations has the same effect. Are you nit picking my example for lack of anything better to do?
you amuse me.
edit on 29-11-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by roguetechie
 


Then do us all a favor and post a dictionary on here, complete with references to the relevant threads so we can all stop and gaze in wonder at your amazingly articulate piece of art that you call "scientific literacy".

Or you can just be helpful without undue affront.









 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join