Does the quantum state have a vibrational frequency?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Anyway, if I were to take a piece of cloth and freeze it, would it form the same product as lighting it on fire?

I invite you to try and see the result of the experiment. Or maybe read a couple of books. It might help, you know.

More basic nature is nonsense?

In the case under consideration, i.e. more COMPLEX compounds formed in the combustion process, yes, absolutely. It may not be obvious to ignorant people.

Nuh uh. Anything that is mad of molecules with lower vibrations has the same effect.

I pointed at the gross error in your description of metals, but you aren't capable of reading into it. Your loss.

Are you nit picking my example for lack of anything better to do?

I enjoy sustaining the motto of this board, which is "deny ignorance". Ignorance is denied here, even if in this case it concerns you.

And I didn't have to "nit pick". What you wrote was so silly and irrelevant, didn't take effort at all.

reply to post by Grifter81


Nice AV Grifter.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Then do us all a favor and post a dictionary on here

In my experience, as long as the wikipedia article doesn't have the disclaimer at the top such as "may contain original research...Needs additional citations" and so forth, the articles on physics are pretty good explanations for non-experts.

There is even an article on quantum state which the OP mentioned but didn't link to.

Another nice feature of wiki are the disambiguation pages. An example of a word that has a specific meaning in physics is "work". Search that in Wikipedia and you get this disambiguation page:

en.wikipedia.org...

The specific definition in physics is clearly marked and even links to further description. So the resource is there, it's up to you to use it. While I wouldn't flame someone for using "work" in some sense other than its physics use, I would politely explain it has a specific meaning to a physicist.

However when the topic is "quantum" something, I think it is helpful to note that there is lots of woo being promoted by slapping the word "quantum" in front of something by people that apparently don't even understand quantum mechanics (this is a general observation, and not a reference to dominicus). They rely on a gullible audience that doesn't understand quantum mechanics either, so it's one of those "red flag" words that can have a high woo factor associated with it depending on the source. "Frequency" is another "red flag" word that woos seem to like.

Nothing wrong with using "quantum" or "frequency" correctly, but it does help to be aware of the fact that these words (and a few others) are used (or should I say "abused"?) to promote woo, so when I see them, I read carefully, as should anyone who wants to separate fact from fiction.

Shouldn't that data be found from the "God Particle" study team?

Originally posted by InTheLight
Shouldn't that data be found from the "God Particle" study team?

What is exactly the question and the "data"?

I'm on that team.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by InTheLight
Shouldn't that data be found from the "God Particle" study team?

What is exactly the question and the "data"?

I'm on that team.

One has to start somewhere.

Originally posted by InTheLight

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by InTheLight
Shouldn't that data be found from the "God Particle" study team?

What is exactly the question and the "data"?
I'm on that team.

One has to start somewhere.

You are right! For you, there is Wikipedia. Great source, really.

reply to post by buddhasystem


You're on the team that says it may have found something that points in the general direction of a possible indication that it may not be entirely incorrect in its hunt for the traces of a particle named after a fictional character?

Sounds like fun.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

You're on the team that says it may have found something that points in the general direction of a possible indication that it may not be entirely incorrect in its hunt for the traces of a particle named after a fictional character?

No matter what you try to post, on any subject, you can't help making factual mistakes. Outstanding.

reply to post by buddhasystem

No matter what you try to post, on any subject, you can't help making factual mistakes. Outstanding.

I noticed the failure to point out said factual mistakes. Or can't you be bothered to enlighten me on the subject? Perhaps you couldn't figure out a way to inform me without insulting me? Please, do display your astonishing degree of superior intelligence in all matters, earthly and otherwise.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

No matter what you try to post, on any subject, you can't help making factual mistakes. Outstanding.

I noticed the failure to point out said factual mistakes.

I didn't fail to describe in a fair amount of detail how and why your concept of the combustion process is wrong to the point of absurd and medieval. Read up on this thread, oh well, in case this is not too much to ask. As to Peter Higgs, read up on that person as well. It just seems that you are simply not good at reading.

reply to post by buddhasystem

I didn't fail to describe in a fair amount of detail how and why your concept of the combustion process is wrong to the point of absurd and medieval.

My concept wasn't absurd. It was simplified, and you don't seem to like simplification. My claim was that molecules are broken apart through high vibrations. You rebutted that with something about the chemistry changing, and how it's completely different. Then I answered by pointing out that the chemistry changes due to high vibrations. You just got more detailed with it.

And then there was the example of how, when we touch cold metal, our molecules slow down to match the vibrations of the molecules in the metal. You failed to address the concept of matching vibrations, but instead decided to pick out how metal is not constructed of molecules, but instead a crystalline lattice. Big deal - the vibrations are still part of the main attraction in that particular exchange.

So your condescension is unnecessary. I'll still take it though. I like getting people to reveal their true character. Meanwhile, I'll get back to examining the discussion on quantum vibration. Should be interesting.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I didn't fail to describe in a fair amount of detail how and why your concept of the combustion process is wrong to the point of absurd and medieval.

My concept wasn't absurd. It was simplified, and you don't seem to like simplification.

Things can be "simplified" to the extent that they become incorrect and even dumb, and this is certainly the case here. And no, I don't like dumb.

My claim was that molecules are broken apart through high vibrations.

This is what you said:

Why do you think stuff burns? Its molecules are vibrating so fiercely that it releases energy,

So you are wrong on more than one level. Stuff does NOT burn because it "fiercely vibrates". In chemical reactions electrons move from one atom to another, and vibrations are of much lesser importance. You don't know any of that. Why don't you read Wikipedia at least, before you venture to post uninformed and false statements?

And then there was the example of how, when we touch cold metal, our molecules slow down to match the vibrations of the molecules in the metal. You failed to address the concept of matching vibrations

What "matching"???

but instead decided to pick out how metal is not constructed of molecules, but instead a crystalline lattice. Big deal - the vibrations are still part of the main attraction in that particular exchange.

It is a big deal because there is also contribution of conduction electrons, to the heat capacity, and that has nothing to do with "vibrations".

So your condescension is unnecessary.

I can hardly be called condescending by simply calling things what they are, which in your case is lack of basic education and reading comprehension. It does not make you a bad person, just an ignoramus.

reply to post by buddhasystem

So you are wrong on more than one level. Stuff does NOT burn because it "fiercely vibrates". In chemical reactions electrons move from one atom to another, and vibrations are of much lesser importance. You don't know any of that. Why don't you read Wikipedia at least, before you venture to post uninformed and false statements?

Judging by the average content posted on ATS, I didn't know it was a crime.

What "matching"???

It's in the dictionary.

It is a big deal because there is also contribution of conduction electrons, to the heat capacity, and that has nothing to do with "vibrations".

Because you haven't looked deeply enough. Something that is resistant cannot carry a whole lot of energy (otherwise known as "heat), and what causes resistance?

I can hardly be called condescending by simply calling things what they are, which in your case is lack of basic education and reading comprehension. It does not make you a bad person, just an ignoramus.

And you're an emu. I don't know, I'm just being funny and you're being serious on a site that doesn't take things seriously. Otherwise, half these people wouldn't be here.

Now, I have more opinions to spread. Maybe you should follow me across the threads, you seem to have a lot to say regarding my education.

reply to post by buddhasystem


You make good jokes.

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

You make good jokes.

Thanks, - that, too. I also used to be a decent physics teacher. From experience, I know that if a person isn't willing to read up and try to comprehend the very basic stuff, they'll be stuck in their quite ignorant state.

reply to post by buddhasystem


I've also learned that those that can't .... don't.

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I've also learned that those that can't .... don't.

Oh, I agree, you obviously can't and don't, 2-in-1. Totally. And you learned that.

reply to post by buddhasystem


You make funny jokes.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Now, I understand the "used to be a decent teacher" part. That's quite understandable, if you act this way in the classroom. I've had teachers like you before. The students were obstinate just because they didn't like the...erm, teaching methods. Like those memes where the Asian teacher decides to be a complete...well, you know...just because she's in command of the class room and she doesn't like her job. If you keep treating someone like an idiot, they start acting like one. In fact, they may snap and take out half the class room. Proven psychology. Being a **** doesn't pay off.

Try being nicer. People might listen to you more. Sometimes, I get the facts wrong just to watch you stomp around and go roar. It never fails. But maybe, if you're nicer, people will be more inclined to hear what you have to say instead of being distracted by your sense of acerbic enlightenment. Kind of reminds me of pills - tastes like crap, is healthy for me. Screw it, I'm eating candy. Bad for the teeth, but easier to swallow.

Back to the subject. There's another thread I've been going through which claims that the world has a natural frequency that we've been mucking up because of our technology and all that other good stuff that throws up man-made frequencies. All of our industrial prowess interferes with the natural harmonies.

Now, if there's natural harmonies to the earth, if there is a global frequency emitted by nature, and all of our biology communicates using electromagnetic and radio frequencies, then why can't the quantum state have a vibrational frequency? What would happen if all the particles stopped moving altogether?