Excuse me for jumping all the way down the thread, But from what I've "Learnt" there was for many years a dispute about Particles. Some said particles acted like wavefunctions, while others said that particles were in fact wavefunctions acting like particles. The eventual deduction is that "particles" is just a coining, a way to reference a Wavefunction that behaves in a particular way. This is where most basis's of the "Holographic Universe" have originated from. (In the sense that the universe is built of multiple layers, each layer being a parallel replica of the whole, that from the observatory reference point of any layer has equal mass in comparison to a parallel reference point to the whole, or any other layer.) In this understanding, it allows the mergence of String theory, (in the sense of multiple dimensions and how they comprise the universe) it eventually breaks down the whole universe to just be quanta layers (be it coined right or wrong) where everything is just a superpositioned waveformation state. (although the classic definition of superpositioning is just the alignment of atoms through the EPR paradox.) Just to go over a few points of how I've seen things from what ever information I have gathered over the past couple of years: (If it's wrong just post a response with your correction Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) Heisenberg's principle of Uncertainty (which you've mentioned multiple times) originally was caused from the Observation of a Hydrogen atom through photon bombardment, Heisenberg speculated that the photon bombardment was changing the direction of the electron (and how it was re-acting). In certain respects this form of Uncertainty tallies with Multiworlds theory, because a frequency can be altered, and the positioning of the electron can differ as a whole universe. This is where the theory that the very Psi-waveformation that Schrödinger discovered, could be proven to be the "ghost in the shell" of parallel positioned electrons. It would also explain how Mass can change with radiation, and how radiation can be formed also through this effect. I'm actually suprised though that no conversation of "Schrodinger's Cat" has appeared. "God does not play dice." I think this was refering to "Look before you Leap", in the sense that "we shouldn't gamble if we don't know the outcome", suddenly everyones a winner.
Your wording is a little difficult, but basically, yes. All particles are wave packets. They show particle characteristics when experiments are conducted in which relevant scales are much larger than the wavelength, and like waves when experiments are conducted in which relevant scales are similar to or smaller than the wavelength. The Holographic Universe is a crackpot theory. It has nothing to do with science. No. Do you even know what the EPR paradox is? No. MWI is an interpretation of quantum mechanics. All interpretations (like the Copenhagen) still include the principle, since it is hardcoded into the mathematics of quantum mechanics. No. Special relativity covers this phenomenon. I'm not -- we weren't discussing interpretations of quantum mechanics. No, it wasn't. Einstein said this because he had a "gut feeling" that the probabilistic model of quantum mechanics was wrong, and that the world really is deterministic. As I've said, he didn't have the benefit of modern experimentation. - Warren
Chroot My book (I mean the one I own) states differently to a couple of your points. Especially about what Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle stemmed from (thats why I wrote that information down). For the Holographic Universe, You admit yourself that Atoms comprise of particles that are wavefunctions that interact with wavefunctions. Photons are wavefunctions too, not because of similarity but because at the end of the day everything is a mergence of wavefunctions, this is where the coining "holographic" comes from. it's definitely not crackpot. (You should be careful with your coining of crackpot, otherwise your going to drive yourself bonkers calling everything crackpot) As for EPR, yes I understanding it, I know I said alignment of Atoms through EPR, how else do you think the atoms align into molecules without some form of communication? I won't bother mentioning the other points, because there would be little point. I knew what I meant, in certain cases it paralleled what you stated, but you coined where I could coin not. (This is purely because my research on Quantum mechanics misses out everything between 1940 and about 1990)
Which book? Wavefunctions are mathematical formalisms to define the state of systems. Particles are not "wavefunctions" any more than planets are "1/r^2 force law equations." "Mergence" isn't a scientific term. I have yet to see this term used in any quantum mechanical situation. It most definitely is. Like I said, you have no idea what the EPR paradox is. - Warren
The Book is aptly titled: "Quantum Theory for Beginners" by J.P. McEvoy and Oscar Zarate. (ICON BOOKS) The book didn't actually mention it, it appears that I was wrong, but not totally. Heisenberg used the method of bombarding an atom with photons so as to view a representation of the atom through an electron-microscope and mention that the effect of photons could cause the uncertainty principle on the electron. It wasn't just the material that caught my attention on the shelf, but the shear fact that Charactures and comic sentiment brings it into it's own framework to present the information of how Quantum theory began. (unfortunately the last pages cliff hanger was EPR) Another great book, is "In Search of Schrödinger's Cat" by John Gribbin To which I can probably read now if the fault in my eye doesn't start up again. (This is the main cause for skipping details) Another book which is good but you'd probably not understand why I mention it was "Chaos" by James Gleick.
I've read "In Search of Schrödinger's Cat" and "Chaos." Both are thought-provoking books, but, well, they're just pop-science. They're going to whet your appetite, but teach you very little of substance. Do you think people learn how to be medical doctors by reading $5.95 paperbacks? No. If you really want to learn physics, and not just a pseduo-philosophical recount, go to your local college bookstore and pick up a few textbooks. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! - Warren
Chroot Do you think medical doctors become medical doctors without reading paperbacks? Okay, there is a probability they could fraud the system to thinking that they have the qualifications. Another point is do you think that people who have created an understanding in physics, or meta-physics did so by reading paperbacks? Some might of, although others might have been discussing this before there was even an alphabet, yet you still read about their existance. (For instance Aristotle, I know he wrote material, but most of the information that he talked/wrote about was through the discussion at an open forum, where there probably was someone like yourself raising to the forum how much a crackpot each and everyone of them was.)
No, I don't think they do. I think they go to school, work very hard, and read textbooks. At least, the doctors I choose to see did. No, I don't think they do. I think they go to school, work very hard, and read textbooks. At least, the physicists whose research is of value did. I entirely fail to see the relevance of Aristotle to the current discussion. - Warren
True. Einstein didn't like the idea of probability. He believed in determinism. Two observers in different reference frames will not agree on simultaneity. D = v*t - Warren
"True. " What? Dah. So what was all that about electrons not going at different speeds? "Einstein didn't like the idea of probability." Yes I agree with you. I am saying, Einstein would have to explain the rolling of a dice, commonly attributed to probability. Einstein would probably have said that we could predict what number it will be if we had all the information, but we do not. SO he would put probability off for something that comes out of the lack of information and ability to predict. Do you really think Einstein did not understand the concept of probability? "Two observers in different reference frames will not agree on simultaneity. " Ya.... Right. Could you give an example. When I say example I mean, like, a thought experiment to demonstrate it. "D = v*t " Ok, I assume you choose the distance between objects. THEN, would you also agree that two observers could disagree whether an object was accelerating or not? Like one person runs away from a camera at a constant speed, Im saying that a person standing away from them to the side would see the persons speed to be slower than the camera would see it, and he would also think the person was accelerating. This is all while the camera and the obersever are both stagnant relative to eachother. Hopfully that made sense.... Did I say that before?
I've explained the electron-speed deal of yours in great detail already. Ok, whatever. :shrug: Does it matter? Do I really have to spell it out for you? :sigh: Lemme pull out Gravitation and see if I can find a good clean example for you. Of course. Maybe I'm just too tired, but I can't decipher this sentence. I'll try to explain anyway. You can break down the relative velocity into three components (since we live in 3D space). Relativistic corrections like length contraction affect each dimension independently. - Warren
"I've explained the electron-speed deal of yours in great detail already. " But you just agreed with me that different masses of electrons must be attributed to different speeds.... Did I get the wrong message or something? What did you mean when you said true? I thought you meant you agreed.... "Do I really have to spell it out for you? " My mind would definitely be blown if it was common knowlege that simulataneity was relative... I sincerely need it spelled out for me. I see no place for gravity in the conversation in any case... "Of course. " So wouldn't that mean that two people traveling at the same speed could have different time dialations compared to the moving object? Or would the acceleration cancel this out? "Relativistic corrections like length contraction affect each dimension independently. " thats impossible, the universe does not have a stagnent grid we can go by. How can you tell where the dimentions point?
I only read the first 15-20 posts to this thread, so maybe somebody has already made the following points. It seems quite obvious that the answer to the initial question here depends on the substance which is burning. Only a little bit of experimentation leads to this conclusion. Temperature is a measure of molecular motion, not electron motion. At least this is a valid statement until you get close to absolute zero temperature. Near absolute zero (-273 Centigrade), I think that electron & nuclear particle motion is taken into consideration. Burning is a chemical phenomenon. Id est: It is a molecular level process, not an electron movement process, although rearrangements of valence electrons are always involved in chemical reactions. BTW: The uncertainty principle prevents any substance from reaching absolute zero. At that temperature, the velocities of all particles would be known precisely (velocity = zero). As a consequence there could be no knowledge of positions, which is an intolerable situation. Search for articles about Boise-Einstein condensates for more data on this phenomenon. Heat is some measure of thermal energy or perhaps the numbers of moving molecules. You can survive for a while when the air temperature is near or below freezing, but will die quick in salt water near the freezing point of pure water. This is because the heat loss to water is greater, even when the temperature is the same.
"The uncertainty principle prevents any substance from reaching absolute zero. At that temperature, the velocities of all particles would be known precisely (velocity = zero). As a consequence there could be no knowledge of positions, which is an intolerable situation. " I really don't think that "knowledge" of particles is a problem. The universe doesn't know if you know something. A more likely solution to this is that two particles traveling at the EXACT same speed and direction is pretty much impossible, not to mention more than two particles. The exact anything is always impossible, always. There is no way in hell that knowledge of particles is impossible, there has to be a morefundemental law concerning actual data and forces. By the way, you cannot prove something impossible unless the something would replace something we know exists, which happens not to be the case in the uncertainty principle.
Frencheneesz: You made the following comment about my previous post. Sorry that I got a little sloppy in my terminology relating to the uncertainty principle. I do not know enough to make precise statements in this area of knowledge. You might not understand a precise statement on this subject. Quantum theory is devilishly subtle, and the uncertainty principle is some what mind boggling. Neils Bohr once said something like the following. In a weird sense, one might say that the universe does care about what the observer knows. It is more accurate to say that the universe cares about what an observer can know, even if there is no observer who makes measurements and thereby knows. The reason that absolute zero is unreachable is definitely due to the uncertainty principle, which is a statement about the fundamental nature of quantum particles. For we laymen, ithe principle is generally stated in a manner which implies a problem in making measurements. It is sometimes described by pointing out that the measuring apparatus interferes with the quantity being measured. It is often described by referring to an observer’s knowledge of the value of position and momentum. These explanations for the laymen are misleading because they do not indicate that the problem is due to the fundamental nature of quantum particles. If you can find a good article about Boise-Einstein condensates, it will impart some intuition about the implications of the uncertainty principle. At least, it improved my insight on the subject. Briefly, a Boise-Einstein condensate is a group of atoms (molecules?) which are cooled to almost absolute zero, making their momentum almost zero and hence Known very accurately. Below some extremely low temperature, the entire group starts to behave as one quantum entity. This is explained as being due to the uncertainty of position making the particles no longer distinguishable as individual atoms. To the best of my knowledge a Boise-Einstein condensate would behave peculiarly even if there was no observer making measurements.
Yep, despite the fact that it seems unsettling and bothering, it turns out that we don't seem to ever be able to create an experiment in which two non-commuting observables (like position and momentum) can be determined precisely at the same time. It really does seem to be that the universe literally doesn't assign both momentum and position to a particle at the same time; it assigns something of a mixture of the two, and when any one is measured, the other becomes uncertain. Weird, but apparently all too true. Almost correct, but not exactly. First, the term is BOSE-Einstein condensate. The uncertainty principle really has very little to do with such condensates. Here's the deal: There are families of particles, called Fermion and Bosons. Particles with integral spin (like He-4 atoms and photons) are referred to as bosons, after the same man, Bose. Particles with half-integral spins are referred to as fermions, after Fermi. Fermion obey what is known as the Pauli exclusion principle, which basically dictates that no two particles can exist in the same quantum state at the same time. If you imagine fermions as people filling an auditorium, you'd see the front row fill first, then the second, and so on all the way to the back of the auditorium. Each fermion occupies its own specific quantum state (or seat). If you instead imagine bosons entering the auditorium, they all pile up on the stage. You can keep dumping as many as you like into the auditorium, and they will all happily continue to fill up the same space and quantum state. You're familiar with the effect with light -- photons don't seem to "notice" each other. Normally, He-4 atoms have thermal energy, and the energy causes them occupy a large number of different quantum states. As you cool the liquid He-4 further and further, though, the thermal energy keeps going down. Because the He-4 atoms are bosons, there's no exclusion principle to keep them from all reaching the same energy. Below a critical temperature, the He-4 has become a superfluid -- a fluid in which each particle is occupying the same quantum state. Superfluids exhibit the array of odd properties like zero viscosity and quantized angular momentum. - Warren
Dinosour: "It is more accurate to say that the universe cares about what an observer can know" Actually it is just as accurate and just as wrong. The universe cannot "care". I don't care how you word it, personifying the universe will not get your point across. Chroot: It seems that every time someone explains the uncertainty principle, I find something fundementally wrong with it. I cannot see how the universe could not assign both momentum and position to a particle at the same time. It makes absolutely no sense to me. Saying that we cannot devise an experiment to find the properties is another story. It seems quite possible that you could predict when a photon would hit a photo-sensitive sheet, therefore knowing what momentum (same for every photon) and position (the mark left in the sheet) at the same time. If position and momentum are not defined then how can we mesure both of a flying rock?
*shrug* okay. Do you want a cookie? A whole box of cookies? A scintillation detector will provide you information on position, not on momentum. You can't, precisely. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Quantum mechanics governs even the behavior of the rock, but the effects are so slight that they can't be detected in a macroscopic system. Mathematically, the position and momentum must obey the uncertainty principle: (uncertainty in position)*(uncertainty in momentum) >= h-bar For a 1kg rock with a position specified to within a nanometer, you cannot know the momentum more exactly than 6.6261 x 10-34 J-s / 1 x 10-9 m = 0.00000000000000000000000066261 J-s/m. Rest assured that most people never notice this level of imprecision. - Warren
Chroot: You are quite right about the spelling of Bose. My spelling is usually good, but my memory is bad. I could claim that I was thinking about a city in Idaho, but I just plain forgot how to spell the man’s name. On the following issue, you are incorrect. I have copied and pasted some paragraphs from the following site. http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/bose.html I hope I did not make a typo on the URL. I found it by searching for “Bose-Einstein” & uncertainty. According to that site, the uncertainty principle is a fundamental cause of the condensate. Otherwise, your post is basically correct in its comments on the Bose-Einstein condensate. The following paragraphs are from the above site.
