ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Bose-Einstein condensates , cold fusion , Coulomb barrier , Eugene Podkletnov , Frank Znidarsic , planck's constant , quantum mechanics , quantum theory , Quantum Transition

Reply
Old 6th January 2011, 04:24 AM   #121
Evilgiraffe
Scatterer of X-rays
 
Evilgiraffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 760
Originally Posted by JCM View Post
Here is everything in a pdf
http://www.wbabin.net/ntham/davis.pdf
it explains why the electron doesn't ever crash into the nucleus
I always thought it was because the probability density function, |ψ|2, for the electron tends to zero as the radius tends to zero. Effectively the electron spends no time at the nucleus and hence can't crash into it.

If this is wrong, could someone with a better understanding of QM clarify it for me?

Last edited by Evilgiraffe; 6th January 2011 at 04:26 AM. Reason: Added quote because of cross-posting
Evilgiraffe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2011, 04:34 AM   #122
JCM
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 651
Originally Posted by Evilgiraffe View Post
I always thought it was because the probability density function, |ψ|2, for the electron tends to zero as the radius tends to zero. Effectively the electron spends no time at the nucleus and hence can't crash into it.

If this is wrong, could someone with a better understanding of QM clarify it for me?
The paper is stating
Quote:
The electron has to transition from parent state to daughter state through the transitional (collapsed) subset of the wavefunction. There is no collapsed transitional wavefunction smaller than ground state transitional orbital (rc for the hydrogen atom), because that is the smallest multiple that it can be; only positive integers are allowed for the factor of n. Because there is no transitional state for it to transition to from the ground state, in essence; there is no daughter state for it to transition into during it's transitional (collapsed) wavefunction progression. This essentially locks the electron into the ground state orbital (it can only jump higher, not lower), rendering it into a state of perpetual motion; that if left undisturbed, will stay in motion until the end of the universe.
__________________
" You are uneasy; you never sailed with me before, I see. " Andrew Jackson
JCM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2011, 04:38 AM   #123
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,424
That's just a regression to the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom, which invokes quantisation without any reasoning. It's less of an explanation than QM.

Really, WTF is so incomprehensible or unbelievable about the concept of a standing wave?

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2011, 04:57 AM   #124
JCM
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 651
Quote:
That's just a regression to the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom
The Bohr radius has a real significance to reality, because the point at which the electron cloud's wavefunction predicts the highest probability of finding the electron directly matches the radius predicted by Bohr

In every Bohr orbital the electron carries an integer multiple of Planck's constant. This is because the period of the harmonic motion of the electron equals 2pi / omega

The fine structure constant is the factor between the ground state Bohr radius of hydrogen , the electron's reduced Compton wavelength , and also the classical electron radius
__________________
" You are uneasy; you never sailed with me before, I see. " Andrew Jackson
JCM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2011, 05:27 AM   #125
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,424
The Bohr model isn't insignificant, it's incomplete. The point is that QM explains both the quantisation of energy levels and the absence of radiation due to the orbital motion of the electron, because the electron orbital is a standing probability wave; in effect, there is no orbital motion. The model you're proselytising discards that explanation and doesn't present an alternative one; it just asserts that electron motion is quantised so the transition can't occur. It doesn't attempt to resolve the contradiction between this assertion and the predictions of classical electromagnetic theory. At least Bohr was honest enough to admit that, rather than pretend to have solved it.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2011, 05:30 AM   #126
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by JCM View Post
Frank's classical radius of the electron shows that the fields of matter are pinned into the structure of matter at that classical radius of the electron like you pin fields in to a superconductor by adding discontinuities. With that model you get the phase velocity equals the velocity the phase velocity equals the velocity of light the group velocity equals the movement of the structure and all of special relativity emerging under that condition
Looking at the Compton frequency, the De broglie wave being the Doppler shifted reflected Compton frequency emerges naturally from this model out of that condition
I see , you are saying he has fudged in classical features, well I guess then he can explain that. And why QM despite all attempts does not match classical models.

The electron probability may have what you could call a 'classical radius', but I am not sure it is really appropriate.

ETA: I see that this also relates to the probability and the radius in Bohr's model, so others have addressed that this is then incomplete. So not so much a fudge as a return to an incomplete model.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

Last edited by Dancing David; 6th January 2011 at 05:38 AM.
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2011, 05:32 AM   #127
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by JCM View Post
True or not?
The speed of light is invariant, the travel of a photon through a medium is not. There is a difference.

Maybe you should start with Feynman and refreactive indexes.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2011, 08:26 AM   #128
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
Originally Posted by JCM View Post
I was thinking this as well haha. I have gotten ahead of myself and enjoy the jrefs ability to help refine my viewpoint to something more coherent or at least logically presented


I can provide a rough powerpoint Znidarsic made and the papers and the video below which is Frank himself. I obviously cannot offfer a summation for a damn so I will not

Its hard to find the 1.32fm proton radius too.

This is Znidarsic's 25 minute Lecture at John Hopkins only himself speaking. The lecture is old
Part One
Part Two
Dude, I read through Znidarsic's paper, and I found it to be... crap, essentially. Linking to more crappy powerpoints and Youtube videos that contain the same errors and bad arguments isn't going to convince us of anything, except maybe that the crap pile is bigger than we thought.

What you have to do is actually address the criticisms brought up here by those knowledgeable in physics, as opposed to ignoring the criticisms and acting like a broken record
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness

Last edited by MattusMaximus; 6th January 2011 at 08:28 AM.
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2011, 08:30 AM   #129
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
Originally Posted by Evilgiraffe View Post
I always thought it was because the probability density function, |ψ|2, for the electron tends to zero as the radius tends to zero. Effectively the electron spends no time at the nucleus and hence can't crash into it.

If this is wrong, could someone with a better understanding of QM clarify it for me?
Yup, that's basically it.
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2011, 08:33 AM   #130
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
Originally Posted by JCM View Post
The Bohr radius has a real significance to reality, because the point at which the electron cloud's wavefunction predicts the highest probability of finding the electron directly matches the radius predicted by Bohr

In every Bohr orbital the electron carries an integer multiple of Planck's constant. This is because the period of the harmonic motion of the electron equals 2pi / omega

The fine structure constant is the factor between the ground state Bohr radius of hydrogen , the electron's reduced Compton wavelength , and also the classical electron radius
JCM, do you even understand that the Bohr model is, at best, only an approximation for hydrogen atoms - and only hydrogen atoms? As soon as you introduce another electron into the system, Bohr's model goes right out the window. If you want to do anything useful with electrons and more complex atoms, you have to go the route of dealing with electron clouds, probability distributions, and wavefunctions; all of which have much more practical relevance to real life than does the Bohr model.

Apparently, Znidarsic doesn't understand this fact either, yet he wishes to take down QM; it's as bad as creationists wanting to tear down evolution, yet they have no clue about the very theory they are against
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness

Last edited by MattusMaximus; 6th January 2011 at 09:40 AM.
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2011, 09:28 AM   #131
Skwinty
Philosopher
 
Skwinty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,593
Pedantic question here wrt why the electron doesn't crash into the nucleus.

If the Copenhagen interpretation is being used to explain why the electron stays away from the nucleus, then the Copenhagen interpretations claim to only correlate statistical patterns with experience has been stretched, because that interpretation is only describing the statistical correlation to the observation.

Would it not be more accurate to say that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the Pauli exclusion principle is the reason.

End of pedantic question.
__________________


What is reality? Nothing but a collective hunch.
--Lily Tomlin
Skwinty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2011, 10:00 AM   #132
Evilgiraffe
Scatterer of X-rays
 
Evilgiraffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 760
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
Yup, that's basically it.
Thanks Mattus. It's nice to know that at least some of the QM lectures lodged in my brain.
Evilgiraffe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2011, 10:31 AM   #133
RussDill
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Charleston
Posts: 5,426
Its pretty clear whoever wrote the paper hasn't studied much physics at all:

Quote:
One of the greatest mysteries in quantum mechanics is why the energy contained in photon is proportional to its frequency.
It is no such mystery. It is actually really, really clear why it must be so. The rest of the paper contains similar straw men.

And of course more misunderstandings:

Quote:
A photon in free space is known to have a wavelength, but standard
science does not consider its wavewidth to be relevant. The width
of the wave of the uncollapsed photon is known to exist though, as
the two-slit experiment proves.
[...]

Quote:
A photon is an oscillating positive and negative charge. In the above
gure, on the y-axis (vertical) above the zero line of the photon rep-
resents a positive charge. When the photon dips below the y-axis,
its charge becomes negative.
Really JCM? Really? You read this and went "WOW!"
__________________
The woods are lovely, dark and deep
but i have promises to keep
and lines to code before I sleep
And lines to code before I sleep
RussDill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2011, 11:16 AM   #134
Vorticity
Fluid Mechanic
 
Vorticity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,681
Originally Posted by Evilgiraffe View Post
I always thought it was because the probability density function, |ψ|2, for the electron tends to zero as the radius tends to zero. Effectively the electron spends no time at the nucleus and hence can't crash into it.

If this is wrong, could someone with a better understanding of QM clarify it for me?
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
Yup, that's basically it.
Actually, I think that's only true for states with non-zero angular momentum. All other states have a maximum of density at the nucleus.

ETA:

More info..
__________________
Free lunch. Final wisdom. Total coverage.
http://stopsylvia.com

Last edited by Vorticity; 6th January 2011 at 11:19 AM.
Vorticity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2011, 11:59 AM   #135
Evilgiraffe
Scatterer of X-rays
 
Evilgiraffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 760
It's true that states with non-zero angular momentum have a node at the nucleus and so the probability is identically zero there.

Zero angular momentum 's' states also have (essentially) zero density at the nucleus because to find the probability, one must multiply
|ψ|2 by a spherical volume element 4πr2dr. This obviously tends to zero as the radius decreases, reducing the probability of finding the electron as one approaches the nucleus.

Last edited by Evilgiraffe; 6th January 2011 at 12:00 PM.
Evilgiraffe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2011, 12:26 PM   #136
Vorticity
Fluid Mechanic
 
Vorticity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,681
Originally Posted by Evilgiraffe View Post
It's true that states with non-zero angular momentum have a node at the nucleus and so the probability is identically zero there.
Agree.

Quote:
Zero angular momentum 's' states also have (essentially) zero density at the nucleus
Disagree.

You're confusing the total probability density for all three polar coordinates with the marginal probability density you get for r alone. These two things are distinct. The total density |ψ|2 for an s orbital is unambiguously non-zero at the origin.

Quote:
because to find the probability, one must multiply
|ψ|2 by a spherical volume element 4πr2dr. This obviously tends to zero as the radius decreases, reducing the probability of finding the electron as one approaches the nucleus.
Agree and disagree. It's a funny question, actually.

If I'm dealing with the n = 1 wave function in spherical coordinates, I can ask "What is the most probable value for the radius r?" I can then calculate the probability density function (pdf) for the radius r of the electron. It has 0 pdf at r = 0, and a maximum at the Bohr radius.

Now, if I'm dealing with that same wave function in Cartesian coordinates (which is a perfectly valid - if inconvenient - thing to do), I can ask "What is the most probable value for one of the Cartesian coordinates - say x?" I can then calculate the pdf of x, and find that it's most probable position is at x = 0! (ETA: In fact, I just did a little figuring, and it looks like the pdf of x diverges logarithmically at the origin!)

Is there a contradiction between these two things? No. It's merely an artifact of the spherical coordinate system: There's "more space" at higher r than at lower r, hence the 4πr2dr factor you mention above. When we switch to Cartesian coordinates, for which the underlying "space" is homogeneous, this effect disappears.
__________________
Free lunch. Final wisdom. Total coverage.
http://stopsylvia.com

Last edited by Vorticity; 6th January 2011 at 12:39 PM.
Vorticity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2011, 12:57 PM   #137
Evilgiraffe
Scatterer of X-rays
 
Evilgiraffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 760
Ah, thanks Vorticity. So the question now is, if it's not the lack of electron density at the nucleus that stops s electrons crashing into the nucleus, what does?
Evilgiraffe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2011, 01:37 PM   #138
Vorticity
Fluid Mechanic
 
Vorticity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,681
Originally Posted by Evilgiraffe View Post
Ah, thanks Vorticity. So the question now is, if it's not the lack of electron density at the nucleus that stops s electrons crashing into the nucleus, what does?
Lack of a discrete electron.

If your electron is a nebulous cloud of probability rather than a discrete classical particle, what would it even mean for the electron to crash into the nucleus?
__________________
Free lunch. Final wisdom. Total coverage.
http://stopsylvia.com
Vorticity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2011, 01:54 PM   #139
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by Evilgiraffe View Post
Ah, thanks Vorticity. So the question now is, if it's not the lack of electron density at the nucleus that stops s electrons crashing into the nucleus, what does?
Nothing. Or at least the wave-function penetrates the nuclear interior. "You" can actually use this to measure some nuclear properties. Roughly, the wavefunction and corresponding atomic energy level will differ between a point nucleus approximation and one with a finite size that you measure (think Gauss' law). You can then use that difference to work out (with a lot of maths) the charge radius of the nucleus in question.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2011, 02:10 PM   #140
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
Smile Thanks for the correction & clarification Vorticity!

Originally Posted by Vorticity View Post
Lack of a discrete electron.

If your electron is a nebulous cloud of probability rather than a discrete classical particle, what would it even mean for the electron to crash into the nucleus?
Not to mention, you have to recall that in this view we're looking at the electron in terms of a wavefunction, and it is a fundamental property of waves that when they interact they pass through each other and they are non-localized. Perhaps not the best way to think about it, but certainly better than thinking of the electron as a billiard ball (at least in this case).

ETA: What Tubbythin said
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness

Last edited by MattusMaximus; 6th January 2011 at 02:11 PM.
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2011, 02:13 PM   #141
JCM
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 651
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
QM explains both the quantisation of energy levels and the absence of radiation due to the orbital motion of the electron,
So does this theory. There is no radiation due to 100% energy tranfers due to impedance matching
__________________
" You are uneasy; you never sailed with me before, I see. " Andrew Jackson
JCM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2011, 02:15 PM   #142
JCM
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 651
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
JCM, do you even understand that the Bohr model is, at best, only an approximation for hydrogen atoms - and only hydrogen atoms?
This model Frank puts forth works for all atoms
__________________
" You are uneasy; you never sailed with me before, I see. " Andrew Jackson
JCM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2011, 02:17 PM   #143
JCM
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 651
Originally Posted by Evilgiraffe View Post
So the question now is, if it's not the lack of electron density at the nucleus that stops s electrons crashing into the nucleus, what does?
This is why the electron has to transition from parent state to daughter state through the transitional (collapsed) subset of the wavefunction. There is no collapsed transitional wavefunction smaller than ground state transitional orbital (rc for the hydrogen atom), because that is the smallest multiple that it can be; only positive integers are allowed for the factor of n. Because there is no transitional state for it to transition to from the ground state, in essence; there is no daughter state for it to transition into during it's transitional (collapsed) wavefunction progression. This essentially locks the electron into the ground state orbital (it can only jump higher, not lower)
__________________
" You are uneasy; you never sailed with me before, I see. " Andrew Jackson
JCM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2011, 02:20 PM   #144
JCM
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 651
Can we at least all agree the radius of a proton is 1.36fm?
__________________
" You are uneasy; you never sailed with me before, I see. " Andrew Jackson
JCM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2011, 02:23 PM   #145
JCM
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 651
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
Dude, I read through Znidarsic's paper, and I found it to be... crap, essentially. Linking to more crappy powerpoints and Youtube videos that contain the same errors and bad arguments isn't going to convince us of anything, except maybe that the crap pile is bigger than we thought.

What you have to do is actually address the criticisms brought up here by those knowledgeable in physics, as opposed to ignoring the criticisms and acting like a broken record
The davis paper explain better with maths any mathematicians able to look at the math in the paper
here
__________________
" You are uneasy; you never sailed with me before, I see. " Andrew Jackson
JCM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2011, 02:26 PM   #146
Evilgiraffe
Scatterer of X-rays
 
Evilgiraffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 760
Originally Posted by Vorticity View Post
Lack of a discrete electron.

If your electron is a nebulous cloud of probability rather than a discrete classical particle, what would it even mean for the electron to crash into the nucleus?
Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
Nothing. Or at least the wave-function penetrates the nuclear interior. "You" can actually use this to measure some nuclear properties. Roughly, the wavefunction and corresponding atomic energy level will differ between a point nucleus approximation and one with a finite size that you measure (think Gauss' law). You can then use that difference to work out (with a lot of maths) the charge radius of the nucleus in question.
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
Not to mention, you have to recall that in this view we're looking at the electron in terms of a wavefunction, and it is a fundamental property of waves that when they interact they pass through each other and they are non-localized. Perhaps not the best way to think about it, but certainly better than thinking of the electron as a billiard ball (at least in this case).

ETA: What Tubbythin said
Thanks guys, this makes a lot of sense.

Originally Posted by JCM View Post
This is why the electron has to transition from parent state to daughter state through the transitional (collapsed) subset of the wavefunction. There is no collapsed transitional wavefunction smaller than ground state transitional orbital (rc for the hydrogen atom), because that is the smallest multiple that it can be; only positive integers are allowed for the factor of n. Because there is no transitional state for it to transition to from the ground state, in essence; there is no daughter state for it to transition into during it's transitional (collapsed) wavefunction progression. This essentially locks the electron into the ground state orbital (it can only jump higher, not lower)
This is just the same snippet of the Davis paper you posted earlier. Except this time it's rehashed to make even less sense. I wasn't sure that was possible, but somehow you managed it. Well done!
Evilgiraffe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2011, 02:28 PM   #147
JCM
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 651
Originally Posted by Evilgiraffe View Post
Thanks guys, this makes a lot of sense.

This is just the same snippet of the Davis paper you posted earlier. Except this time it's rehashed to make even less sense. I wasn't sure that was possible, but somehow you managed it. Well done!
well this is why not the complicated stuff you claim "makes sense" Would you have me believe if everyone wasn't looking at the moon it would collapse into a wavefunction? and can you at least admit you were wrong about the radius of a proton at least the FULL radius
__________________
" You are uneasy; you never sailed with me before, I see. " Andrew Jackson

Last edited by JCM; 6th January 2011 at 02:30 PM.
JCM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2011, 02:28 PM   #148
Mister Earl
Illuminator
 
Mister Earl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,504
JCM, if cold fusion has been done and has been "replicated around the world", then why isn't this crank powering his house with it? His car? Why isn't he the richest person on the planet, yet?
Mister Earl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2011, 02:31 PM   #149
JCM
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 651
Originally Posted by Mister Earl View Post
JCM, if cold fusion has been done and has been "replicated around the world", then why isn't this crank powering his house with it? His car? Why isn't he the richest person on the planet, yet?
I didnt say uniformly replicated nor standardized prototyped and made commercially viable did I?
You are building strawmen the two do not relate at all. He is not the emperor of an empiracle controlling cold fusion. he hasnt discovered everything. he cant pay for his own lab, materials, prototypes and whatnot. Anyone say it was easy to do this? How dare you label him a crank
__________________
" You are uneasy; you never sailed with me before, I see. " Andrew Jackson

Last edited by JCM; 6th January 2011 at 02:36 PM.
JCM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2011, 02:31 PM   #150
Skwinty
Philosopher
 
Skwinty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,593
Originally Posted by JCM View Post
The davis paper explain better with maths any mathematicians able to look at the math in the paper
here
Maybe this is the problem JCM


Would Bohr be born if Bohm were born before Born?


http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0702069
__________________


What is reality? Nothing but a collective hunch.
--Lily Tomlin
Skwinty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2011, 02:32 PM   #151
JCM
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 651
Originally Posted by Skwinty View Post
Maybe this is the problem JCM


Would Bohr be born if Bohm were born before Born?


http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0702069
You are making more sense than the others in the thread
__________________
" You are uneasy; you never sailed with me before, I see. " Andrew Jackson
JCM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2011, 02:34 PM   #152
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
Originally Posted by JCM View Post
Can we at least all agree the radius of a proton is 1.36fm?
No, it isn't. The international standard is 0.8768 fm.
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2011, 02:35 PM   #153
Mister Earl
Illuminator
 
Mister Earl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,504
Originally Posted by JCM View Post
You are building strawmen the two do not relate at all
I respectfully disagree. It was a valid question. Please answer it. If this guy has actually successfully created cold fusion, and if it's been successfully duplicated around the world, why is his house still on the power grid? Why is he not the richest person on the planet? Why hasn't every nuclear, coal, and natural gas power plant in the world been shut down or reconfigured to use cold fusion? Why is it not all over the news?

Please answer.
Mister Earl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2011, 02:36 PM   #154
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
Originally Posted by JCM View Post
The davis paper explain better with maths any mathematicians able to look at the math in the paper
here
That paper contains the same damn arguments that have already been presented here and addressed - repeatedly!

Broken record is broken
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2011, 02:40 PM   #155
JCM
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 651
Originally Posted by Mister Earl View Post
If this guy has actually successfully created cold fusion, and if it's been successfully duplicated around the world, why is his house still on the power grid? Why is he not the richest person on the planet? Why hasn't every nuclear, coal, and natural gas power plant in the world been shut down or reconfigured to use cold fusion? Why is it not all over the news?
the news does what it will. You are drawing parallells between non related things please clairifiy how doing a cold fusion experiment would somehow cause him to become the richest person on the planet instantaneously? And his house to magically go off the grid instantaneously. Or even every nuclear, coal, and natural gas power plant in the world been shut down or reconfigured to use cold fusion in an instant. there are many steps between what you purport will happen as a matter of cause from cold fusion success and it is factious of you to be so ignorant.
__________________
" You are uneasy; you never sailed with me before, I see. " Andrew Jackson
JCM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2011, 02:41 PM   #156
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by JCM View Post
but really its 1.36fm
references for the 1.36fm
Nope, that's the average spacing between nucleons in large nuclei. It is not the radius of the proton or neutron, which (as has been said) ~0.8 fm.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2011, 02:44 PM   #157
JCM
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 651
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
Nope, that's the average spacing between nucleons in large nuclei. It is not the radius of the proton or neutron, which (as has been said) ~0.8 fm.
Is not the edge of the proton fuzzy the "average spacing between nucleons in large nuclei" is akin to the edge of proton fuzziness
__________________
" You are uneasy; you never sailed with me before, I see. " Andrew Jackson
JCM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2011, 02:46 PM   #158
Skwinty
Philosopher
 
Skwinty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,593
Originally Posted by Mister Earl View Post
I respectfully disagree. It was a valid question. Please answer it. If this guy has actually successfully created cold fusion, and if it's been successfully duplicated around the world, why is his house still on the power grid? Why is he not the richest person on the planet? Why hasn't every nuclear, coal, and natural gas power plant in the world been shut down or reconfigured to use cold fusion? Why is it not all over the news?

Please answer.
According to this link there is a resurgence in the cold fusion story.
Make of what you will.

http://www.physorg.com/news188377829.html
__________________


What is reality? Nothing but a collective hunch.
--Lily Tomlin
Skwinty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2011, 02:46 PM   #159
JCM
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 651
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
That paper contains the same damn arguments that have already been presented here and addressed - repeatedly!

Broken record is broken
Well break down the mathematic in the paper equation by equation
__________________
" You are uneasy; you never sailed with me before, I see. " Andrew Jackson
JCM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2011, 02:49 PM   #160
JCM
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 651
Originally Posted by Skwinty View Post
According to this link there is a resurgence in the cold fusion story.
Make of what you will.

http://www.physorg.com/news188377829.html
If the priests mention it in the chapel then you must seriously look at it. The dogma is mind boggling think for yourselves only now that phyorg says well maybe there is something to this do you take a look. what about all the time before your priests said this might be possible
But thanks for the link for those that do need clergy it give some credence to the idea of it being at least possible, the first of many hurdles
__________________
" You are uneasy; you never sailed with me before, I see. " Andrew Jackson

Last edited by JCM; 6th January 2011 at 02:50 PM.
JCM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:03 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.