It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
All right, Stan. Don't labour the point. And what have they ever given us in return?
Oh yeah, yeah they gave us that. Yeah. That's true.
And the sanitation!
Oh yes... sanitation, Reg, you remember what the city used to be like.
All right, I'll grant you that the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done...
And the roads...
(sharply) Well yes obviously the roads... the roads go without saying. But apart from the aqueduct, the sanitation and the roads...
Another Masked Activist:
Other Masked Voices:
Medicine... Education... Health...
Yes... all right, fair enough...
Activist Near Front:
And the wine...
Oh yes! True!
Yeah. That's something we'd really miss if the Romans left, Reg.
Masked Activist at Back:
And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now.
Yes, they certainly know how to keep order... (general nodding)... let's face it, they're the only ones who could in a place like this.
(more general murmurs of agreement)
All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?
(very angry, he's not having a good meeting at all) What!? Oh... (scornfully) Peace, yes... shut up!
Originally posted by Sandalphon
This is sort of what I've been waiting for.
The hydrogen image looks a lot like what I drew of what an oxygen atom might look like.
Like the two layers of skins around the inside sphere. Well in my hypothetical model, one of those skins is a boson, which isn't quite a particle but it becomes one when something is in it. Except in the oxygen drawing at my house, there were 8 little spheres inside the two layers.
They are really like frogs eggs. Except notice the two dark "fish" shapes in the hydrogen model. One goes one way, the other goes the other way. I never expected two of them in a hydrogen model; I thought it was one "fish" shape per little sphere, which is the electron. Those fish shapes, they might be trapped micro black holes. Don't they look like a yin yang symbol?
Originally posted by mulder85
Amazing to ponder that the red area in the center could actually be a tiny black hole. However, one thing I don't quite understand about the "atoms-are-actually-galaxies" philosophy/theory is how to reconcile the physics we observe at the quantum level with the physics we observe in the cosmos. Why don't celestial objects get entangled, for example? Or do they?
Originally posted by mbkennel
The way to resolve this is to understand that atoms-are-most-definitely-not-actually-galaxies because other than a general central potential and conservation of angular momentum resulting in vaguely similar shapes, there is no particular relationship any more than a rock is an orange.
Originally posted by XaniMatriX
Next thing they will see is a galaxy.
Isaac Asimov put it in words better then anyone else I know, the deeper we look into our self's, the more of the universe we would see that surrounds us.
Basically he had the idea that, if were to create a microscope strong enough to see an atom, then we would see a star, and planets revolving around it.
The picture that nearly everybody has in mind of an atom is of an electron or two flying around a nucleus, like planets orbiting a sun. This image was created in 1904, based on little more than clever guesswork, by a Japanese physicist named Hantaro Nagaoka. It is completely wrong, but durable just the same. As Isaac Asimov liked to note, it inspired generations of science fiction writers to create stories of worlds within worlds, in which atoms become tiny inhabited solar systems or our solar system turns out to be merely a mote in some much larger scheme.
Finally, in 1926, Heisenberg came up with a celebrated compromise, producing a new discipline that came to be known as quantum mechanics. At the heart of it was Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, which states that the electron is a particle but a particle that can be described in terms of waves. The uncertainty around which the theory is built is that we can know the path an electron takes as it moves through a space or we can know where it is at a given instant, but we cannot know both.22 Any attempt to measure one will unavoidably disturb the other. This isn’t a matter of simply needing more precise instruments; it is an immutable property of the universe.
What this means in practice is that you can never predict where an electron will be at any given moment. You can only list its probability of being there. In a sense, as Dennis Overbye has put it, an electron doesn’t exist until it is observed. Or, put slightly differently, until it is observed an electron must be regarded as being “at once everywhere and nowhere.”
If this seems confusing, you may take some comfort in knowing that it was confusing to physicists, too. Overbye notes: “Bohr once commented that a person who wasn’t outraged on first hearing about quantum theory didn’t understand what had been said.” Heisenberg, when asked how one could envision an atom, replied: “Don’t try.”
So the atom turned out to be quite unlike the image that most people had created. The electron doesn’t fly around the nucleus like a planet around its sun, but instead takes on the more amorphous aspect of a cloud. The “shell” of an atom isn’t some hard shiny casing, as illustrations sometimes encourage us to suppose, but simply the outermost of these fuzzy electron clouds. The cloud itself is essentially just a zone of statistical probability marking the area beyond which the electron only very seldom strays. Thus an atom, if you could see it, would look more like a very fuzzy tennis ball than a hard-edged metallic sphere (but not much like either or, indeed, like anything you’ve ever seen; we are, after all, dealing here with a world very different from the one we see around us).
Originally posted by TheNewRevolution
Here is what I don't understand - and someone please enlighten me so I can if I am way off base.
All things are made up of atoms. Millions and billions and trillions of atoms.
Assuming this to be true, how would any microscope be able to single out one single atom. Would it not also pick up all the atoms around it? The air? The lens? The glass frame? The base? The objects beneath the atom?
If this atom was able to be singled out away from all other existent object, shouldn't this be a greater feat than simply viewing it?
Originally posted by riffraff
I know nothing about physics. Could someone smarter than me tell me if this solves the measurement paradox that I've heard so much about? That you can't measure a atoms mass and location at the same time, or something close to that.
As to people talking about the wave function collapsing, correct me if Im wrong, but it's not the observation that causes the collapse, it's the intent of consciousness. I believe this has been demonstrated in a few experiments involving lots of shielded boxes, some funky hats, and a few lasers. I can't recall thier actual names or the institutions but Im pretty sure its been shown by multiple sources the intent causes the collapse, not the act of a device measuring something.
Spherical Harmonics (SH) are a data representation, nothing more. But like a Fourier transform, the SH data transformation has been allowing incredible images to be produced in a fraction of the time and with massive data sets – that only a few years ago seemed impossible. We explain SH and the amazing way Weta Digital in particular is pushing their use in production rendering. Spherical Harmonics representations are used extensively in various fields. They are a basis that is restricted to the sphere, as the name would suggest. They have been used to solve problems in physics, such as in heat equations, the gravitational and electric fields. They have also been used in quantum chemistry and physics to model the electron configuration in atoms.
Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
Spherical harmonics are useful basis functions for parameterizing angular dependence of functions in spherical geometries. Just as sines and cosines are useful basis functions for parameterizing periodic functions in on the line.