Spacetime; Why it exists. Why it must.

Electrons 3D---See IBM Gold Atoms

My point was that the IBM gold atoms are first visuals ever of gold atoms and what were seeing is electron cloud and electrons are particles.

You totatlly ignore the fact as I present them--- a clear example of 3D particles contrary to a your "point" particle concept only claims ---- and all you want to do is go an on about your use of terminology of point particle. You stand corrected yet don't want to admit it.

Electrons are elementary particles in some older physics and or chemistry books ergo fundamental Alapha. Here again you are in. Electrons subdivide as a combination of fermionic and bosonic particles. Electrons are a elementary/fundamental fermionic particle.

When you have a reference that is evidence otherwise, I will consider it. Mayb new information or catagorizations of elementary/fundamental have changed. Show me, if that is the case.

I certainly never made any reference to anything called and "air-particle". I made reference to my beliefs that particles are 3D. Simple and gave as one reference IBMM gold atoms--- i.e. see fuzzy electron cloud ----. You stand correct just don't want to admit it.

I never said hydrogen is a single particle Alpha. You keep wanting to correct me--- and infer concepts I never stated ---when I've not stated anything incorrectly--- except for most part my grammar, thx ---. I repeat again when looking at the IBM gold atoms we are getting shot of what appears to be spherical 3D cloud of electrons( plural ) and my feeling/belief is, thta,

if we could get a similar visual of a hydrogen atom we would see it 3D fuzzy electron( not plural as you infer I'm stating ) cloud.

Other than stated my belief that particles have a 3D volumetric nature to them and you disagreed, and when I give just one example to validate my belief, you want to disregard it for the most part, and go on about other stuff, rather than admit my belief is a correct one and that you where in errot to insist that a particle is only a point particle.


Your envisioning of a "point" particle is a mathematical construct based on some energy values humans have observed. So let me state this another way to help you understand your errors regarding particles having a 3D volumetric nature.

Energy/physical has a 3D nature Alpha, and energy/physical is the generalization for each and every particle of Universe--- whether fermionic or bosonic ---or any collection thereof.

You stand correct with out acknowledging so, or just barely so, based on only one reference I've gave to validate my beliefs that particles have a 3D volumetric nature and are not viewed only as "point" particle only.

If that is the case, then consider the single electron around the single proton--- I repeat hydrogen ---and we have the exact same scenario you state here above Alapha. My belief of particle having a3D volumetric nature--- and specifically referenced using electrons ---is a correct one irrespective of of disrespecting of my beliefs as stated, and not as you continually try to infer my statements as to have some other meaning.


You stand corrected Alpaha and I accept your grammar correction as stated.

r6

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The Gold atom thing is not localising electrons, it is showing the smeared out electron orbital energy level formed by the arrangement of atoms. It does nothing to contradict what I said. In fact the mainstream model of such things, which considered the electron as a point, is extremely accurate. Look up things like density functional theory which is all about computing the energy levels and orbital shapes of complex molecules in order to better understand multi-atom systems such as Carbon nanotubes, protein folding and nano-structures like those IBM seems to like building.

You just made a contradictory statement. Either electrons subdivide into more particles or they are elementary, which is it? Electrons are currently viewed as fundamental, they do not subdivide into anything, fermionic or bosonic. You say 'older physics books' but this is the current view of particle physics and there is no experimental evidence electrons are composite. If you claim otherwise then please provide a reference which backs that up. Of course you could be claiming the opposite, since you say both and therefore you might not be claiming they are composite, I'm unable to tell given your poor communication skills.

Funny how you make both assertions, provide evidence for neither and then ask me to back up my position, which is the current mainstream position.

We have experimental evidence protons and neutrons are made of quarks via deep inelastic scattering, which uses electrons. Electron-electron and electron-positron scatterings have been extensively studied, the previous collder at CERN was LEP, the Large Electron-Positron collider, and it provided no evidence that electrons (and thus positrons) are composite. If they are composite then the binding of the internal components is several orders of magnitude stronger than the 1 TeV scales currently probed.

I didn't say you did. I was explaining how a colloquial use of the term 'particle' can be in reference to a composite particle but the particle physics use of the word predominantly refers to fundamental particles since it is only when dealing with effective theories does a model become 'blind' to the internals of composite bound states.

The structure seen in the IBM experiments is obtained using a variant of an electron scanning microscope, which builds up a high resolution picture of atomic scale structures using electron scatterings. This results in the image being formed by electron interactions with the electron orbitals of the molecules. Atomic orbitals can have quite elaborate structures despite the fact the electron which resides in said orbital being point-like. The most basic of all atomic systems is the Hydrogen atom, one electron and one proton. It is the standard example every student doing quantum mechanics will do because its equations can be solved algebraically using Legendre polynomials and spherical harmonics. The complex shapes are not due to the electron being 3d or the proton being 3d but because the wavefunction of the electron is spread over a complicated region around the proton. The lowest energy level is the spherical orbital \(1s^{1}\). This sphere has a radius, giving it non-zero volume and thus the Hydrogen atom isn't point-like, despite the electron being point-like in the model.

Molecular orbitals get even more elaborate and it is a seriously difficult domain of quantum chemistry to try and compute such orbitals for multi-atom molecules. The orbitals deform away from their isolated versions, smearing into one another due to covalent bonds, delocalised bonds like the pi bond and, in the case of metals, the delocalised nature of electrons with the metal cation lattice. This results in a system composed of many electrons moving around a large 'orbital' whose structure is 'blob-like'. Since the system is not very energised the electrons of each of the atoms will be sitting in their ground state configurations ie the atoms look like little spheres which have 'melted' into the background shape of the metal the Gold atoms are sitting on.

The IBM experiment is completely consistent with the notion electrons are point-like. Yes, it may well be the case they are not point like and we just have a mistaken interpretation of what we're seeing in the data but presently there is no model of such systems capable of accurately describing such systems that views the electrons as having volume. Therefore to really make the case for the experiment implying non-zero volume for the electron you need to either provide a model which works or you need to show there is a fundamental inconsistency between the current models and the experiment in question. Even if you do the former it wouldn't negate the fact current models do describe such systems properly, if a little computationally expensive, so it still wouldn't be the case the experiment shows electrons have volume.

I would surmise from the fact you seem not to be familiar with the notion of energy levels and electron orbitals that you've not had any working experience with such concepts within quantum mechanics. If this is the case it would seem a little unwise for you to be asserting things about what the current model can or cannot do in regards to said experiments. Think about it for a moment, if the IBM experiment were contradictory to the current models, that it showed one of the core principles of all of quantum physics was wrong in such a clear way, then why isn't it being trumpeted all over the physics community as clear evidence we need to completely redo our understanding of quantum systems? Disproving quantum mechanics and quantum field theory in such a blatant manner is Nobel Prize winning stuff, its the sort of thing the physics community would fall upon in huge numbers, all trying to develop the next big paradigm. And yet it isn't. Instead it is taken as an example of how precise and delicate technology has become that we can build nano-structures atom by atom now, due in no small part to the success and accuracy of current quantum mechanical models.

I didn't say you had said it. Rather I was using it as an example of how the electron can be point-like and yet form a structure, its orbital, which is not point-like. The complicated shapes the electron in Hydrogen forms via its orbital wavefunction are taught to all students doing quantum mechanics so by mentioning it I was hoping it might jog some memory of yours, on the assumption you'd enough familiarity with quantum mechanics, even on a qualitative level, to have come across such things. Obviously it didn't because you don't have said memory.

Yes, we'd see such structures, which are utterly consistent with and indeed predicted by the wavefunction model described by the Schrodinger equation.

I shouldn't be having to tell you this if you knew any decent amount of quantum mechanics but the description of sub-atomic systems is done using a wavefunction, which describes how the probability of finding an electron at a particular location evolves. For example in the Hydrogen atom the lowest orbital is the \(1s^{1}\) sphere. This means that the electron's wavefunction is spread over a spherical region some distance from the proton. By repeatedly measuring the location of the electron we'll find that it is always at (approximately) the same distance from the proton but the position in terms of 'latitude and longitude' on that sphere of constant radius is uniform. For more complicated orbitals, such as the p^{2}[/tex] orbitals (second row) there are preferred angles the electron will be more likely to be found at and these will also have varying distance from the nucleus. Higher energy orbitals get even more elaborate. A colour map representation is given here. The orbitals are found by solving the Schrodinger equation for the electrons, which interact with one another and the nucleus they are bound to. Anything beyond Hydrogen requires computers to solve (and giant ones at that) but the principle is the same, solve the equation. The orbitals are special solutions in that they are those with a precise energy (formally known as eigenstates for the Schrodinger equation).

You have a belief which you have not justified. Furthermore you have asserted that the IBM experiment is inconsistent with the notion of point particles. I have repeatedly explained it isn't. I am not excluding the possibility electrons really do have volume or are composite.

There is a difference between saying "The IBM experiment is consistent with the notion electrons have volume" and "The IBM experiment is inconsistent with the notion electrons are point particles". The former might well be true but the latter is false. Do you understand the difference? You're welcome to say "I think a model with a non-zero sized electron could explain the IBM experiment", though you'd then need to provide such a model to make your case. You're wrong if you say "The IBM experiment proves we need to have a model which has non-zero sized electrons" because it is a demonstrable fact the experiment can be modelled using current physics, which treats the electron as a point particle.

It is all about where you put the negations. "The IBM experiment is consistent with electrons not being points" is not shown to be true but also not proven false. "The IBM experiment is not consistent with electrons being points" is false, as we have a working model which does just that.

You are obviously throwing around terminology you have no idea about and you certainly don't have any kind of formalisation to justify your claim. "Energy/physical has a 3d nature"? That isn't even a coherent sentence. "Energy has a 3d nature" is at least a grammatically correct sentence, "Physical has a 3d nature" is not.

Energy is a scalar quantity, it is a quantity we can assign to physical systems when certain conditions are met. In the case of electron orbitals the energy of an orbital is defined by the Schrodinger equation. The Schrodinger equation says \(i\partial_{t}\psi = \hat{H}\psi\) where \(\hat{H}\) is the Hamiltonian, a combination of all the kinetic and interaction contributions in the system, and \(\psi\) is the system's wave function, dependent on time and the configuration of the particles, \(\psi(x,t)\). Using standard undergrad methods (separation of variables) this can be turned into two separate equations, one for time and one for configurations. The latter is \(\hat{H}\phi(x) \propto E\phi(x)\). This is an eigenvalue problem, something any undergrad for physics, engineering or mathematics will have come across (before you complain I'm just throwing around advanced concepts). The orbitals are those \(\phi(x)\) wavefunction spreads which correspond to eigenstates of the Hamiltonian and the energy of said state is the associated eigenvalue. In other words if \(\phi_{n}\) is an eigenstate (normalised for convenience) then the system of that eigenstate is the expected value of the Hamiltonian, \(E_{n} = \langle \phi_{n} | \hat{H} | \phi_{n} \rangle \). Energy, by this definition (which is the same as everywhere else in physics), is a scalar quantity. It is not a 3d thing, it is a property we assign to the wavefunction (or system configuration) and it is the wavefunction which is defined over 3d space.

If you think what you're saying is making a sound argument then you're very much mistaken. I suggest you find yourself an introductory book to quantum mechanics (though you'll need working proficiency in numerous domains of mathematical methods first) and work through it. You'll then see what it means to properly and formally describe and model things within physics, as well as how things like the 3d fuzzy nature of electron orbitals arises from a model which treats the electron as a point. You'll also learn what various pieces of terminology mean so in the future you don't say nonsensical things (at least as much as you do now).

If you think I'm not providing sufficient justification for my position then I'll happily give more explicit detail. Hell, if you want me to I can go through the step by step procedure of how you go from saying "The electron and proton of a Hydrogen atom interact using the Coulomb force" through to constructing the elaborate 3d orbital structures I've linked to. Of course it'll be mathematical in nature but all within the grasp of someone competent at a bit of calculus, vectors and linear algebra. If that sounds like its going to go over your head then it only serves to illustrate you have insufficient knowledge of what the mainstream model actually says for you to be making the assertions about what the model can or cannot account for.

No, I don't. All you've done is show you have insufficient knowledge in regards to the mainstream models and that you have no idea what it means to provide justification for ones position. This isn't even a "You don't know the maths!" thing, this is basic qualitative stuff. Do you think the IBM experiment is the first to observe orbital shapes which has non-zero volume? Scanning and diffraction experiments have been producing such images for decades. There's numerous software packages which will plot such orbital structures in 3d for molecules (there's nothing special about that link, it came up when image searching for molecular orbitals). Deformations of orbitals play important roles in organic chemistry, giving rise to things like Hydrogen bonding or delocalised aromatic bonds, so they have been extensively studied outside of the physics community too.

IBM's achievement is not proving electrons have volume, it is being able to manipulate single atoms so precisely. You only think the IBM experiment brings something new to the table in regards to the nature of molecules/atoms and their electrons because you're so unfamiliar with what came before. If you knew the models you'd know how they explain the experiment. Like I said, I'll provide quantitative elaboration on any of this, there's nothing to hide.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sorry Alpaha, I had made two errors regarding elementary,

1) was misreading of you comment in post #40( see above ) as I had thought your starting that electrons were built of multiple particles,

2) and then when I replied to that I did not type it correctly to reflect that, I thought you were the one stating that elementary/fundamental particles were made of multiple particles.

Other than that mistyping/misspeaking error of my mind, I think I was clear elsewhere that I know that elementary particles are not composed of other particles of their same category i.e. electrons( 3D ) are not composed of other fermions(3D). Again, sorry for my mistyping error of what I was actually thinking and trying to convey.

Before going on to the rest of this recent reply of yours below, or others in past that I only replied to the opening replied statements by you, It just occurred to me, that, electrons( 3D ) are composed of incoming photons( 3D bosons ) and that when electrons do come apart( subdivide ) as a photon(3D ) or collection of photons, don't they sometimes come apart as both photons(3D ) and neutrinos(3D)?

Sorry, I'm just recalling something I read once and maybe misrecalling the part about electrons ever coming apart as photons and neutrinos. However, if a I'm recalling correctly then even tho I've always understood electrons to be elementary--- i.e. not composed of other fermions ---how is they could come apart as a neutrino( 3D ) and photon(s)(3D ) if they were not composed of a neutrino(3D ) to begin with.

This latter is just new thoughts for me and again, not sure about electron( singular ) coming apart as a combination of neutrino(s) and photon(s)

Ok that aside, out in front now, I go back to the original 3D controversy and your reply below and to recall, I originally stated and believe that electrons are 3D phenomena and you originally suggested or inferred/implied that electrons are not 3D thought for me to say so was nonsense, if I recall correctly.

I believe atoms are 3D Alapha. The picture of the IBM atoms is a picture is 3D assessment of a 3D phenomena i.e. if could be don with proper osbervations microscopes and the proper glasses, we would see those atoms( fuzzy clouds ) as 3D fuzzy clouds of electrons.

I also seem to recall, in a previous post, that, you actually conceded the my belief that electrons are 3D, even if it was a bare minimum of concession.

Alpha, I have never argued your point, that, your "mainstream" whatever, relates to electron(s) as a point particle.

You on the other hand have specifically appeared to argue with me---via suggestions, inference/implications ---that, electron(s) are not 3D. I disagree and that is the first controversy we do not seem to get past, tho again, you did appear to concede 3Dness of electron(s) in past post. Sorry I don't have that quote on hand and maybe I misread/misunderstood your comments then.

Yes, I agree, and barring the one error of reading--- mentioned top of this reply above --- and poor communications skills, I have stated the same, that electron(s) are elementary particles, insofar as, they are not composed of other fermions, as is the case of a proton or neutron. I'm aware of these facts and have been for years. Not new news for me.

Ok then were good on that point. Thanks for clarifying.

Atoms are 3D and the IBM picture is of 3D fuzzy electron cloud around( 3D ) the internal nucleus( 3D ) of the each gold atom.

We been over this already. I believe and state, that, even a single electron--- ex hydrogen atom ---is 3D phenomema. It is that simple and your appear to me to want to argue against that conceptual point I'm stating. As best as I recall, you even conceded as much, however briefly, in a previous reply. Once you've conceded your error and are clearly on board with reality( 3D ) of this conceptual point I've stated, then perhaps I can address the rest of your comments in a past reply post to me and this below.

3D

I'm sorry Alapha, if you do not see this Wiki comment--- that you posted --- as being contradictory, then, I'm not sure what I can say to help you see the contradictory irrationality of such a statement.

Reread the "complicated region around the proton". Even if you read this "around" as being a purely/only 2D planar phenomena that is still 2Dimensions beyond your stated "point" particle i.e. when you say "point" particle I envision that you and the alledged "mainstream" mean a zero dimensionsal particle and in fact, if I recall correctly this alledged, and seemingly zero-dimensional "point" particle( electron ) has an infinite value, ergo renormalizations was introduced by Feyman, or whomever.

Well, this appears to be more of the same Wiki article and I don't think we can go into this until rationally until we get beyond the previous contradictory irrational Wiki statements.

I dunno Alapha but "blob" etc only supports my belief that electron(s) are 3D phenomena. If you truly want to argue the electron(s)-- if not also atom(s) ---are not 3D phenomena, then I suppose I will then have to go find additional information, that you can accept, that support my belief, that, electron(s) are 3D phenomena.

Ok so picture of fuzzy cloud of 3D set of electrons around( 3D ) and nucleus is now not good enough to convince you, that, electron(s) are 3D phenomena. Let me get this straight Alapha, are you actually stating, that, you do not believe that electron(s) are 3D phenomena. I can hardly believe this is what you really believe.

Ok so I've lost track of whether it is you making statement or Wiki. It appears to me, the you will choose to deny and obvious fact irrespective of how much information, I find to support 3D electron(s) around(3D ) nucleus.

Ok, I will do a search tho its is obvious you fixed in your "point" only fixation.

I gotta go now, sorry I could not get to all of your previous replies or this one. Bye

r6

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

They taught someone wrong in school. The best answers are often the shortest explanations.

 

Infinities Irrational ergo Renormalization

Aplpha, no need to you to respond to this more recent consideration of mine, as you have plenty to deal with in trying to rationalize that electron(s) are not 3D phenomena. imho.

But here above In my quote, as I had recalled it, tho not sure it is correct recollection of the facts, however, if it is, then, we see this point particle as being of a zero-dimension( 0D ) and having an infinite physical/energy value.

So if I understood this correctly--- when I read years ago ---then the the point particle, as zero dimension and of infinite physical/energy value, was to irrational for Feynman and other physicists to work with, ergo the devised a mathematical fix to this irrational or least impossible if not impossible to deal with infinity problem.


I gotta say that does really appear to be one of those oddities or weirdities of Universe, if our measurement of a zero-dimensional particle-- if not specifically an electron ---gives us infinite values, that physcists could not rationally deal with ergo renormalization.

r6