How fast does fire travel?

"the electron can gain energy from some outside source, heat say or a collision with another photon, and 'jump' to a higher energy state."

What phisically happens to the electron when it "jumps" to a higher energy state? What happens to its nucelar orbit etc?

"I have described in detail strong evidence of a probabilistic basis for the laws of physics, namely radioactive decay."

How can you tell the difference between random, and very hard to predict? Things are going pretty fast in the nucleaus wouldn't you say? So do you really think that with our current technology we could detect the entire state of an atoms electon-cloud and its nucleaus itself that would be neccesary for a deterministic prediction?

"That is the language of religious faith, not science. "

I remind myself of muscleman when I say that you too put your faith in randomness. Why do you dismiss determinism? We can very well use determinism on large objects. Why? Well, I say it is because we can evaluate the variables much easier. Not only are they (the variables) changing much slower, but we can detect them without tearing anything apart.

"Deterministic processes are characterized by smooth trajectories and objects with continuous properties. Quantum objects have discrete properties."

I don't disagree with quantisized properties in any way. If processes had smooth trajectories it would go against my anti-infinity gut-feeling. Planks constant is supposed to show this ultimate level of smallness, but there must always be something that goes against my anti-infinity gut-feeling. If we walk in a straight line, it is always shorter than taking a grid route (like going up then over). This means that there must be an infinite number of different angles in a circle in the real universe. Right, a little off topic...

The problem I have with quantum theory is that you say properties are based on probability, and I disagree. Discrete properties are not a problem to me if I ignore that whole off-topic circle thing I was taking about.

"but at the quantum level, it is a discrete variable. "

It is descrete always, and as I have said, this is not what I'm contesting. I completely agree.

"His arguments are similar to yours on Quantum randomness and determinism."

Not exactly. His argument concerns continuous vs. descrete; they have nothing to do with randomness. I am contesting the randomness with my determinism. Is determinism the wrong word for this?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thed:

"If the electron exists near a strong magnetic field (near a black hole say) the electron will be accelerated by the field."

Just to clarify, black holes don't have a strong magnetic field, unless it is made completely out of protons...

"If you really read his book and he agrees with your belief in determinism, you would have provided a quote or a paraphrase of his opinion on the subject."

Is that a fact? So you are saying that, because I lied about reading the book, I did not put a quote down. My response is that you said I was a crackpot and an idiot for believing in determinism. I just put down someone with all those credentials you like that agrees with this point of view. You yourself said he sounds like a knowlegable phisicist. My point was not to prove myself right through use of a "real" scientist. If you think I'm a lier, I don't know what to say. Providing a quotation of someones opinion would be rather pointless.

"How do you expect me to react to that advice? Do you expect me to go a library or book store"

I certainly did not expect you to have a cow over it. It was a simple response to your attacks against my thoughts. And no I don't expect you to go to the store and buy it, although it is a pretty interesting book.

"It is true that Einstein disagreed with many of the later developments in quantum theory. He argued in favor of deterministic explanations"

This is exactly what I was reffering to. If you like making big deals out of trivialities, go right ahead.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"but simply implied that they travel in a wave mation."

Does this mean that a particle actually travels in a sinusoidal path? That seems a bit odd if it has no other internal structure. Although it would explain all of the interference stuff quite well.

"how would you explain holograms id photons didn't travel in waves?"

I might answer this if I knew more about holograms.

"The bigger the cluster of matter, the smaller the wavelength it travels in."

That would make a lot of sense if particles traveled in sinusoidal paths. Of course you would mean it would have a smaller average wavelegth.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'll try to answer as best I can in a limited time. There's far too much to address here and I have real work to do.

Anyway. All that happens is the electron gains energy. This changes it's wave function which changes the allowed position within the atom that it occupies. Do not think that electrons orbit the nucleus in neat circles with increasing radii. The real picture is much, much more complex than that. This link on orbitals shows some of the electron configurations for some combinations of quantum properties. Warning, it's slow to load and a large download but worth it.

Two things. If decay was non-random it would not follow the Poisson/Gaussian distributions. (I can't remember off hand which one it is). Secondly, decay can be described by the weak nuclear field and electro-weak theories. These, being based on QM, are non-deterministic by nature. The very models describing atomic/particle behaviour are non-determinsitic and observation supports the models.

Just to clarify, the accretion disks of holes can and do have extremely powerful magnetic fields caused by plasma interactions, or magnetohydrodynamics. This is how black holes are detected. The accretion disks, in some cases, produce powerful jets of X-Rays that are highly collimated. The X-Rays are just very energetic photons produced by synchrotron radiation from electrons accelerated in the disk.

For further clarification, Black Holes are not made of Protons. You can only know 3 things about a Hole. It's mass, charge and angular momentum. As current physics stands we can not determine what is inside a black hole. But whatever is inside is highly peculiar. Gravastars and other models not withstanding.

Again, this issue comes down to the fundamentals of QM.

A particle (not a photon) does not, in general, follow a sinusoidal path. When you treat a particle as a wave that wave is not an EM sinusoidal wave. It is a wave that descibes the superposition of all possible states the particle could be in. By applying constraints, based on the system under consideration, you caclulate the most probable outcome. We say the wave function decomposes or collapses to a state. That state is only one of many possible states.

To re-iterate a point. The wave under question is here, a priori, a wave describing probability functions. It is by it's very nature non-deterministic.

The same in reverse. Take a classical EM wave and apply QM. That wave can be composed of particles of light, the photon. Photons obey rules of QM. Light waves obeys deterministic properties. Particles can be deterministic (in bulk amounts) but they obey non-determinstic properties as well.

The mind bending thing of QM is that this duality occurs in nature. It is what Einstein railed against when he called it a 'theory of wood' meaning a non-beautiful or inelegant theory. Give into it.

 

Let's take a thought-experiment. For now, ignore the quantum mechanical uncertainties in position and momentum -- they aren't relevant.

Take an electron -- just a lonely, free, isolated electron. Observe the shape of the electric field around it: it's spherical, and the magnitude of the field decreases proportionally to the square of the distance.

Now swiftly move the electron two steps to the left. Observe what happens to the field: the information about the electron's new position propagates outward at the speed of light. The field gets "smeared" in the direction of the motion.

Now smoothly move the electron back and forth, two steps left, then two steps right, in a sinusoidal pattern, once every second. The field undulates now, with a frequency of 1 Hz. You've created a wave in the electric field. The information leaves the system at the speed of light, and, with a suitable detector, you could detect the field's undulation some distance away. At any position, you'll detect the electric field's intensity going up and down sinusoidally. You've detected a wave in the electric field.

Maxwell's equations (and Faraday's experiments, among others) indicate that changing electric fields create magnetic fields. This case is no different. The constantly changing electric field created by your wiggling electron is accompanied by a similarly changing magnetic field. It turns out that the magnetic field disturbance always accompanies the electric field disturbance at right angles, too. So now you can imagine the magnetic field undulating in the perpendicular direction to the electric field.

What you've created is light -- an electromagnetic disturbance that propagates through space at the speed of light. Would you call it a photon, though? Probably not. The wave is so smooth, so continuous, and so imminently measurable that you'd prefer just to call it a wave. And this is fine!

Now, if you start to pump up the frequency a bit, and jiggle your electron faster and faster, you'll begin to see the wave characteristic subside, and the particle characteristics take center stage. You'll begin to detect the energy coming in tiny packets, one after another, discrete and separate in time. The reason you didn't notice the particle characteristics at very low frequencies is because the particles were too "big" -- their wavelengths were of similar size to your detector. Notice that I put the word "big" in quotation marks -- photons don't really have a "size," and as such, it really makes no physical sense to speak of a "big" or "small" photon. However, photons with long wavelengths and photons with short wavelengths certainly are different, and the way that they interact is certainly different.

Take a radio dish, for example -- the kind they used back in the 1980's for satellite TV, or continue to use for radio astronomy -- the ones made out of chicken wire. Notice that radio waves (long wavelength photons) are readily and efficiently reflected by the chicken wire -- yet you can see right through it. The long wavelength photons experience the chicken wire as an impenetrable, smooth surface, because their wavelengths are much larger than the holes in the chicken wire. Visible-light photons, however, have tiny wavelengths as compared to the holes in the chicken wire, and behave much like bullets -- they go right through the holes.

This would seem to imply that longer wavelength photons are "bigger" in some sense -- but in what sense?

...stay tuned for Part II.

- Warren

 

"Do not think that electrons orbit the nucleus in neat circles with increasing radii."

I realize this; it is one of the reason that I believe that the "randomness" is actually just very very hard to predict rather than actually random.

"If decay was non-random it would not follow the Poisson/Gaussian distributions."

Why do you say so?

"Just to clarify, the accretion disks of holes can and do have extremely powerful magnetic fields caused by plasma interactions"

My mistake, I didn't consider X-rays to be a magnetic "field". By the way, when I mentioned protons, I meant that it would be absurred if that were the case.

"It is a wave that descibes the superposition of all possible states the particle could be in."

Phisically, what is "superposition"?

 

"What you've created is light -- an electromagnetic disturbance that propagates through space at the speed of light."

The model you described shows the light as one continuous wave that propegates in all directions as a water wave would. But, as I understand it, this is not exactly how things work. How can a photon be at a certain approximate point if it propegates in all directions?

"It turns out that the magnetic field disturbance always accompanies the electric field disturbance at right angles"

What is the difference between an electric "field" and a magnetic "field"? I have never had these described as separate items, only as the "electromagnetic force".

"Notice that radio waves (long wavelength photons) are readily and efficiently reflected by the chicken wire"

This brings into question how the electro-magnetic force travels and how it interacts. I am not very familiar with force interactions since I have mainly seen particle interactions. Why would the entire "wave" be reflected by the chicken wire? Why wouldn't some of the wave go through and some interact with the wire?

This light stuff is driving me crazy!

 

I've been struggling with this statement of yours. You know the Bohr model is conceptually wrong and yet don't accept the non-determinism of QM. Your statement leads me to believe you might be a troll.

Did you not admit to not learning much Physics since age 11. If so, and I assume Maths is included, I doubt you'll appreciate any answer.

Non-random distributions follow other functions. Even if the function is outrageously complex or chaotic, it is not Poisson in nature.

And X-rays are not magnetic fields either. I see you are struggling with this concept. Perhaps a seperate thread is in order?

Do you know the Schroedingers cat analogy?

Put Cat in sealed box with radioactive source that triggers oison to kill cat. Without opening the box we don't know of the cat is dead or alive. The states of this system are 'dead' and 'alive'. A superposition of states means that both states are equally valid. In other words without looking int he box the cat is both dead and alive.

If we apply this to real particles the same holds. If a particle can have two states, spin up and spin down say, it's superposition imeans the particle is both spin up and down. Only when we observe the system does the superposition 'collapse' into one state. Which state is chosen depends on the probabilities of each state existing. It's why in QM the wave function is analyzed with things like eigenvectors and eigenfunctions.

This is one of the aspects of QM that either you 'see' and realise it's significance or you decide it's a pile of baloney, close your mind, and move on. To paraqphrase Churchill, occasionally Man stumbles across the truth and not realising it carries on about his business as if nothing happened.

Which stance do you wish to take? That the perceived wisdom is wrong and that you, and only you, have the right answer or that the quantum world is indeed random.

 

So I'm a troll, eh?

"Did you not admit to not learning much Physics since age 11. "

Right. I read about quantum mechanics and string theory when I was 11. I was probably the smartest 11 year old in phisics for a 500 mile radius. Since then I haven't spent too much time reading about this stuff. In no way did I mean to suggest that I have the phisics-mind of an 11 year old.

"If so, and I assume Maths is included"

I've taken calculus, if that helps you to show me stuff.

"And X-rays are not magnetic fields either. I see you are struggling with this concept. "

You said: "If the electron exists near a strong magnetic field (near a black hole say)"

I took this to mean a black hole had a strong magnetic field. When I mentioned this, you retorted with X-rays, which, it seems, both you and I agree are not magnetic fields. If anything, I am struggling with your unorganized comments.

"A superposition of states means that both states are equally valid. In other words without looking int he box the cat is both dead and alive."

With this analogy, you can say that: without measuring a particle, you cannot know weather it's spin is up or down (dead or alive). This does not mean that the cat is both dead AND alive. As we all know, a cat is either dead OR alive, not both (disregarding definitions of death). For a particle, it is fairly intuitive to say that without measuring something, you won't know that something. This in no way shows me that it can be BOTH. But in any case, thanks for telling me what a superposition is, I understand it.

Ill give you something to think about:

WHAT IF, instead of being random, every particle that is "known" to have X number of "states" that have displayed probabilistic properties, instead is not random, but it ciruculates through each state for amounts of time that correspond to the probabilities? For example, the particle Y has three states: up, down, and strange. Up has been shown to have a 50% probability of being seen, down has 30%, strange has 20%. Instead, this could mean that, in 100 seconds, the particle will HAVE an up spin for 50 of those seconds, HAVE a down spin for 30 of those seconds, and HAVE a strange spin for 20 of those seconds.

Can you tell me why this idea is wrong?

 

"I urge you to check that what people tell you about physics "

I'm fine with believing people about facts and experiments. BUT as for believing their (and professional) opinionistic interpretations of the data, I have to have that honor myself. No journal, text book, or any other source can give me this. I'm not looking for a consensus, I'm looking for truth I can understand.

"I would warn you against trying to construct your own theory merely because a widely-accepted theory seems too difficult or non-sensical to you "

All of you have their own theory like I do. It is merely my understanding of science. All of you have your own understanding, mine may be a bit more of an outlier than yours.

"I respectfully suggest that you start admitting to yourself where your knowledge is incomplete."

My knowledge is very incomplete and I will ask questions about things I don't understand. I usually just find points to argue about the reasons you give me for understanding in YOUR way.

 

Only might be. Selective quoting and questioning of points made is trollish behaviour. It is also astute behaviour.

To be honest, it did come over that way. It is also obvious you are way more intelligent than that.

If you don't mind me asking, how old are you?

String theory was developed in the early 1980's. The first popular books where published in the mid 1980's, IIRC. Assuming you got hold of the very first expositions on string theory that makes you about 26-30 yrs old.?

It's also funny you where reading up on string theory that tried to unify QM and Relativity. Any book on string theory, in the 1980's, would assume the reader has a strong grasp of QM and it's behaviour. your statement looks like an appeal to authority to me.

Oh, BTW, I was a student at http://www.qmc.ac.uk in 1982 when Brian Green, one of my lecturers, first published his papers on String Theory.

Matrices are the preferred language of QM.

Not at all unorganised. It is well known Black Holes have jets caused by magnetic fields in the accretion disk. So well known it is a standard method of detection for black hole candidates.

Funny that you where reading books at age 11 on string theory, in the 1980's but are unaware of research from the 1960's. Cygnus X-1 anyone?

Actually, QM, at least the Copenhagen interpretation, says precisely that. And that is why it is completely mind bending. As some one posted, there is a quote from Pauli along the lines of, if you are not baffled by QM you do not understand it.

Again, this is not what QM says. QM completely contradicts anything you know as common sense.

Actually, based on your reply I think you do not understand it. In a purely deterministic system, as you advocate, you can say what properties the particle has, even when not observing it. That is the nature of deterministic systems such as Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity. Fundamentally all variables can be known, determined, calculated and there effects determined.

QM says this is not possible. It says that, when not observing an event, all possible outcomes can occur and will occur. Take quantum tunelling for example. Classically, a particle with some energy can be trapped in a potential well if the potential is higher than the particles energy. Simply, the particle never has enough energy to escape. Qm says that there is a small probability the particle exists outside the well. This allows the particle to spontaneously exist (escape) outside the well.

It's a very subtle point but used to great effect in zener diodes.

To go back a few posts about Heinsenberg. If you assume, as Qm does, that waves are probabilistic in nature you can perform a fourier transform on the wave. This leads to the point that certain properties, momentum and position say, can never be determined precisely. It has nothing to do with accuracy of equipment and a lot to do with the nature of what you are dealing with. It seems to work in reality as well.

Big difference here. Let us measure the system every second. If it is non-random we can determine before hand what state the thing is in. QM says that you can not make that determinism, it's random, but over the sample period you see the 50/30/20 split.

QM has been shown, repeatedly, to be correct.

th "<&psi;|H|&psi;'>ed

 

"If you don't mind me asking, how old are you?"
"Assuming you got hold of the very first expositions on string theory that makes you about 26-30 yrs old.?"

Or younger. I kind of do mind, but as long as you don't use my age against me... I am only 16, rrr. I don't have a large super-memory, so I'm not going to know a whole data base of raw facts.

"It's also funny you where reading up on string theory that tried to unify QM and Relativity. "

Actually it was more like explaining them separatly. I see those two theories to be at opposite ends of the spectrum.

"one of my lecturers, first published his papers on String Theory."

What was it about, anything specific?

"It is well known Black Holes have jets caused by magnetic fields in the accretion disk. "

To tell you the truth, I haven't read about black wholes very in-depth. I recall seeing that mentioned; it just didn't stick.

"Actually, based on your reply I think you do not understand it."

I do understand it, I just don't believe in it. That is possible you know. I think you understand determinism well enough, but you obviously don't believe in it.

"In a purely deterministic system, as you advocate, you can say what properties the particle has, even when not observing it. "

Thats in theory. To do that we would need perfectly precise data (that kills the mood right there) AND have that precise data about ALL particles that might enter or be in the system AND apply those to a, yet, undiscovered perfect unified theory. Those make it pretty hard for us.

"It says that, when not observing an event, all possible outcomes can occur and will occur."

So you are saying that the universe knows when we are observing it? Seems a bit odd...

"Classically, a particle with some energy can be trapped in a potential well if the potential is higher than the particles energy. Simply, the particle never has enough energy to escape. "

Since most things are in a flux motion (if you drop a cork on water, the cork will bob up and down indefinitely at increasingly short amplitudes) and many things can accept "energy" from elsewhere, there is always that small probability that it will be on the higher of its energy flux AND receive a bit of energy from an outside source, enough so that it escapes the well. To me, randomness just refers to the lack of precise predictions.

"This leads to the point that certain properties, momentum and position say, can never be determined precisely. "

Everyone always uses the word precisely. OBVIOUSLY, nothing can be measured PRECISELY. Everything has its limits on exactness. This failure to be exact can ALWAYS be attributed to instruments, because they are ALWAYS not completely exact. IF you write a definition without the word precisely, it would be much less redundant.

"Let us measure the system every second. If it is non-random we can determine before hand what state the thing is in. "

If by non-random you mean predictable, of course. But lets say that it is non-random and we do not KNOW why the particles switch spins. It could switch spins once every trillionth ofa nanosecond. Then we would see a probability marking because we cannot measure continuously enough to actually see the spins in changing motion. Besides, we don't always have all the information, in fact, we never have ALL the information.

 

i think i disagree on that comment to "some level of certanty".

i guess it is true, if we can say that we know precisly "this", but then again that might just be the way it appears if not looked at in a deeper sense.

an example of what i'm talking about would be MRI magnetic resonence imaging, or formerly known as nuclear resonance imaging (or somthing like that).

when an mri is shown, there is somewhat of a graphical representation of what is being observed. this representation can show how many protons are in an atom observed. the amplitude of the "wave" or function in a given spot will directly quarrelate to the number of protons. now say we determine this to be .99 or 2.01 or some number like that, we would know it is the number of the nearest integer (because we cant have 2.1 protons)

of course, you will probably argue that there can be and we just havnt discivered it yet.

well thats my thoughts on this anyways.

i say we do have the information, since we have the particle. its just a matter of being able to interpret it. look at your hand. you have protons in it. theres the information right there. can you even see the atoms in your hand? no. but the information is there, you have it. you just arn't capable of seeing it.

 

French,

Phenomena such as Young's double slit interference, quantum entanglement, radioactive decay, and the blackbody spectrum cannot be described using any known deterministic formalism. This is a very far-reaching statement.

- Warren

 

"of course, you will probably argue that there can be and we just havnt discivered it yet."

Well, I've never thought of that, but it is a good example of how our instruments are never completely accurate. There is the possibility that some other stray particles were around or in the atom when the measurements occur, but I would just bet that you could disregard those. No I wouldn't argue that there can be a tenth of a proton.

"i say we do have the information, since we have the particle. its just a matter of being able to interpret it. look at your hand. "

Well, we may "have" it in our hand, but we do not have the means to "get" all the information about everything in the atom and anything that might affect the atom. If we are not able to "see" the "information", then we are obviously not able to apply it to any unified theory.

 

"Phenomena such as Young's double slit interference, quantum entanglement, radioactive decay, and the blackbody spectrum cannot be described using any known deterministic formalism. "

2000 years ago, there was no formula at all that could explain most things. This doesn't mean that it can't exist. My problem with the way you describe the randomness, is that you describe it as this general thing where everything is random. I think if things are probabalistic, then there are going to be fundemental probabilities that would have to do with fundemental particles. If you say that there is such and such a probability that a mouse will die, you can't just stick that into your Quantum theory! You should be able to explain why a mouse dies with more fundemental particles (cells, atoms, subatomic, etc). The mouse itself doesn't have funemental probabilities, but follows rules for more fundemental particles.

 

So, once again, you advocate a universe of infinite complexity -- you pull up the floorboards on one level and find one yet deeper, and so on, forever.

Okay.

- Warren

 

"So, once again, you advocate a universe of infinite complexity"

No, I don't advocate that. There may very well be a more fundemental level than we know of now. But Do you really think that the short time we have had such an understanding of the universe is long enough that we can rule out finding more?
What I said advocates more complexity, but not at all necessarily infinite.

That was not the point of the mouse explanation, however. What I was getting at is that the decay of radioactive particles is KNOWN to be composed of smaller and more fundemental particles such as electrons and protons, as you know. IF we take the electrons and protons to be fundemental, even then we will find things hard to predict because they interact at such high speeds in so many ways that measuring all the data neccesary for prediction is too hard to do.

 

Well, yes you do -- you just don't realize it. It's not possible that the universe has finite complexity, unless the deepest level of complexity is probabilistic. Otherwise, you cannot have randomness (which is observed) at larger scales.

Decay has nothing to do with measurement, and everything to do with the universe being fundamentally probabilistic.

Fire ten million muons of very similar energies into a cloud chamber. Observe that they each decay (typically) into a muon neutrino and an electron. Observe that the time when each decays is random, and obeys a very precise Poisson distribution.

- Warren