quantum , electromagnetic or magnetic field

Discussion in 'Chemistry' started by river, Nov 11, 2011.

  1. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. river

    from your link

    " strong interaction "

    explain it
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. river

    in radon gas released from the decay of radium

    this gas came from the atom its self

    we know that it is a gas , because in Uranium mines , this gas had to ventalated out

    hence the thought that something is so hot that within the atom a gas is leaking out

    were not heating something up such as water , which is done by outside forces

    what is happening to radium > radon

    is from the very inside of radium
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2011
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    A simple, straightforward thing like looking up how radon is produced and it's too much for you to bother with? Instead you come up with this?
  8. river

    I looked up radon gas , formed from the decay of radium
  9. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    OK I am calling troll here.

    This is absurd. It has been explained to you and you still are say silly stuff like 'radon leaks out of Radium atoms'. I explained that the Radium atoms are converted to Radon atoms by alpha decay.

    If this did not make sense to you then you would have asked for clarification. I believe you are saying these silly things to screw with people - I don't beleive you are as ignorant as you are pretending to be. Hope you are enjoying yourself.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  10. river


    sometimes , I'm wrong
  11. river

    moving along though

    about the quantum energy

    this link is about quatum energy , actually plasma , between , quarks and gluons


    the only thing I object to , is that we are using high energy , to produce a gluon plasma , thats fine

    the thing is though , to really understand this energy exchange we have to be less energetic means

    inotherwords instead of trying to understand this exchange using high energetic means

    find out what is going on , this quark-gluon energy exchange , from a stable proton and/or neutron , low energy state , as well
  12. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    More woo-woo.
  13. river

    so we know that there is a quantum energy , the plasma between the gluon and a quark

    now what energy does the gluon emit to quarks , in the low energy state

    in a stable proton for example

    if you can control the gluon - quark energy exchange you could make stronger and lighter materials

    the quantum energy does affect the macro

    this is not about " cause " because cause is thought process , a way of thinking

    but effect and affect , are physical nature , describe physical movements
  14. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    You don't name them. We have names for 3 directions we're familiar with because it's been convenient as language has developed to refer to directions like "Take the next left" or "He's above you" or "He's behind you!". In string theory there is 1 time dimension and 9 spatial dimensions. 3 of those you can associate with the ones you're familiar with which are also given labels like width, height and depth. In M theory there's an additional spatial dimension.

    Quanta are not dimensions. A photon is a quantum of the electromagnetic field, it is an object, not a dimension.

    Personally I prefer 6, though I've dabbled in higher.

    Energy is energy, putting the prefix 'quantum' doesn't mean anything. That's probably why you don't seem mention of it, people who do this stuff understand when a label is unnecessary or incorrect.

    From the exchange of gluons, a particle with many of the properties of the photon but unlike photons gluons can interact with one another.

    Gas is made up of atoms or molecules, so you can't really have gas leaking from an atom any more than you can have a house leaking from a brick.

    Radon is formed from the nuclear decay of Uranium and other radioactive massive elements. The Uranium nucleus splits into two (or more) smaller nuclei, which themselve may then split. In some of these decay sequences Radon is formed. Unlike most of the products of decay sequences it is a gas and thus can seep through rock formations and into people's houses.

    This is high school stuff. The fact you're trying to argue about 'quantum energy' and the like while not understanding this like this doesn't say much about your credibility.

    I object to your objections when you don't know the first thing about this stuff.

    And you know this how? Are you familiar with quark gluon plasmas? You didn't even know about the strong force a page ago and now you're making statements about the best way to understand it?

    The QGP is interesting because it is not colour locked. Due to confinement at low energies particles charged under the strong force form tightly bound singlet states and colour cannot flow between them (compare that to how easy it is to make electrons flow between places). To break this colour locking you have to input a lot of energy and make the medium extremely dense, which is what the experiments at RHIC and CERN involve. They smash together gold nuclei rather than lone protons, because that's how you get enough nucleons in a region with enough energy for them to 'melt' into one another.

    Please explain how you are in a position to know what can or can't be done, given you clearly don't even have a high school level understanding of ..... pretty much anything in this thread.
  15. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    What does any of this have to do with chemistry?

    I'm at a loss here, and considering moving it, but at this point (unless I'm convinced otherwise) it seems like the most appropriate place for this discussion is locked in the cesspool.
  16. river

    what is interesting is in the brackets ( ) in the begining of this statement

    and to the last , or , residual strong force

    what does that mean really ? residual strong force

    from my electronic dictionary


    1: REMAINDER , RESIDUUM: as A : the difference between results obstained by observation and by computation from a formula or between the mean of several observations and any one of them

    b : a residual product or substance

    1-A is very interesting
  17. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    You shouldn't be looking in a layperson dictionary for a technical term.

    The strong force, ie that carried by gluons, acts between particles with colour, such as quarks and gluons. As I mentioned before, it's so strong is clamps them together to form bound states which do not have any colour charge. Both the proton and the neutron are colour-less, much like the neutron is electromagnetically neutral despite being made of 3 electromagnetically charged quarks. The bonding inside the nucleons is so tight gluons cannot travel from one nucleon to another, the strong force cannot directly hold nucleons together to form a nucleus.

    So how does the nucleus hold itself together? By a residual effect, a secondary interaction. One type of the other colourless bound states are known as mesons. They have 2 quarks (a quark and anti-quark) in them, unlike the 3 quarks of baryons. They can be formed inside a nucleon and when inside the nucleon their quarks can interact with the nucleon quarks. But since they are colourless they can leave the nucleon and enter its neighbour, where it can then have its quarks interact with the neighbours quarks. Thus interactions can pass between nucleons, in the same way if you can't throw a parcel to someone on the other side of the country you had it to a mail man and he delivers it for you.

    Due to this conversion process the attraction isn't as strong, it's the residual effect left over rather than the true strong force. It's still strong enough to overcome 90 protons' electromagnetic repulsion effects though.

    Rather than get your understandings from dictionaries at least use Wikipedia, that way you don't have to guess which definition, if any, are actually relevant to the word you're interested in. For example, if you looked up what 'field' meant in a dictionary you'd not get what it means to a mathematician. Or ring. Or real. Or complex. Or compact. Or closed. Or open. Or many other technical terms.
  18. river

  19. river

    in my post #93 it was residual strong force from wikipedia

    now its colour charge ( fast change ..... )


    now what really is this force
  20. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    It's roughly analogous to the Vanderwaals force then?

    I have a question - why is the interaction between a proton and a neutron stronger than the interaction between two neutrons?
  21. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Sort of, but in this case the dipoles are the objects which traverse the gaps. The nucleons emit the dipole (on both electromagnetic and colour senses) mesons, which can pass from one nucleon to another with ease and then get close enough to the quarks inside the second nucleon to then have the dipole break down and get absorbed into the charge structure of the nucleon. Meson-meson interactions would be very much like the Keesom force, with gluons mediating between the dipole (as well as the actual Keesom force for the electromagnetic interactions!).

    As for any neutrons prefer protons from other neutrons I don't know. It might be to do with possible pairing up of the quarks? Proton + neutron = 3 up + 3 down, rather than it being lop sided for 2 neutrons.
  22. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    That was my first thought as well. I didn't really have a second thought above and beyond the point that I seem to recall from somewhere long ago that quarks in a nucleon behave as a pair and a valence quark, but I can't recall details, or anything useful for that matter.
  23. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Is there any evidence that protons within atomic nuclei occupy nuclear orbital states? A charge in motion will give off a magnetic field. This means any proton motion within the nucleus (vibration, spin or translation), will generate a magnetic field. If two protons were to circulate in opposite directions, their magnetic fields will attract and appear to zero out; cancel. This extra attraction would lower the EM repulsion between the two protons.

    Say we had a nucleus held together by the strong nuclear force. Depending on the magnetic addition of the protons within the nuclear orbitals, the net nucleus binding force could be made stronger or weaker; tweaks the proton repulsion.

    If we look at the electron orbitals, these are also charges in motion. When the magnetic fields add, these like charge can get close to occupy orbitals. Do the electron orbital configurations have an impact on the nuclear orbital configurations, and vice versa? This would allow you to tweak the nucleus via chemistry; cold fusion.

    By tweaking the electron orbitals, we tweak the protons orbitals, causing this to tweak the net nucleus binding forces. If we optimize the nuclear orbitals, via chemistry, we make the net nucleus attractive force stronger, making fusion easier. Conversely, if we could tweak the nucleus orbitals, in such a way as to not cause fission or fusion, theoretically, we could induce exotic chemical states due to the propagation into the electron orbitals.

Share This Page