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 1st February 2011, 02:15 PM   #241
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 13,752
Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
There has been a dispute about the use of the word "phonon", which I think FZ treats as a compression wave.
It has been denied that such a thing exists.
No.

Phonons exist, and are defined in science.

However, the phonons in real science are NOT the phonons FZ uses.

And what people are saying is impossible is a "compression wave" inside an atomic nucleus.
Hellbound 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 1st February 2011, 02:38 PM   #242
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
.
Even if Newtonian physics hit you right in the face as in the WTC7 case, you would probably find a way out and claim something - and here all what you had learned in QM magically disappears - completely improbable that even contradicts empirical data (no steel frame high-rise building has ever collapsed due to fire - there have been fires burning for 48h straight with much higher temperatures without reducing the whole building to a pile of rubble neatly arranged between adjacent buildings).
Sorry, you belong in the CT, I shan't respond further to this kind of nonsense.
__________________
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 1st February 2011, 02:40 PM   #243
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
There has been a dispute about the use of the word "phonon", which I think FZ treats as a compression wave.
It has been denied that such a thing exists.
How do you get a compression wave with asymptotic freedom? Compression wave, where doing what?
__________________
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 1st February 2011, 02:48 PM   #244
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
I found another forum that discusses FZs work and other interesting stuff.
Those people are actually *reading* the stuff. And they try to use it.
Look at quantumtransition dot com.
This is something I want to see here too. People like most of you want to destroy everything that doesn't accord to the Mainstream. This has always been a bad idea.
But might not be the only phenomenon here, I would guess.
Even if Newtonian physics hit you right in the face as in the WTC7 case, you would probably find a way out and claim something - and here all what you had learned in QM magically disappears - completely improbable that even contradicts empirical data (no steel frame high-rise building has ever collapsed due to fire - there have been fires burning for 48h straight with much higher temperatures without reducing the whole building to a pile of rubble neatly arranged between adjacent buildings).

I hope I'm right so I can rant a little more ;-)
The above wouldn't be a load of baseless claims with zero supporting evidence would they? Oh yes, I do believe they would.
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 1st February 2011, 03:52 PM   #245
Chronopolitan
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 48
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Sorry, you belong in the CT, I shan't respond further to this kind of nonsense.
I knew it. Should have placed a bet on that one...
Chronopolitan 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 1st February 2011, 04:12 PM   #246
Chronopolitan
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 48
Ok, my friends, that settles it.

Unlike QM, people on this forum are extremely predictable.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
[People typing: "This is indeed easily predictable: You write crap, we react to it accordingly"]

See? I win again. ;-)

But seriously. You obviously don't want to think other models if they try to start totally new at some point. Imagine, you're in a dead end. Where do you start looking for another way? Right - where you last had an opportunity to branch off.
This is obviously not the case in physics. Now you need fancy "dark matter" to explain the "wrong" measurements.

According to Kurt Gödel, your theory will either be contradictory (GR-QM) or incomplete (can't compute Time Zero for the Big Bang)
This is where people normally insert "G*D".
Or "G*del".


As for the compression wave - I try to understand FZ's paper - this is the photon "crashing" into the atom, thus producing a resonance which has to be matched with the atom's resonance that is of the electron in the shell and the proton which obviously cannot eat the electron.
FZ talks about "impedance matching", a term used in electro engineering. Fz is an engineer after all...
He obviously tries to find the propagation of this "collision" of waves somehow.
What is the Standard Model for this, and how could or could not FZ have found a different approach to the same phenomena.
Again, I want to know, like JCM wants to know. I still, after 7 pages of thread, have no idea why FZ's approach doesn't make any sense. That's because you compare it to the standard model, and it's different, thus it must be wrong.
Please specify *using the paper* why his model is IN ITSELF illogical. If this doesn't rip a hole into the paper, then try to get out some math to predict values for experiments you want to check. Devise new experiments who could prove FZ right and are at odds with the standard model.
That's science!
All you do is trying to ridicule. And I want knowledge, not a good time laughing at people and their thoughts.
Chronopolitan 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 1st February 2011, 04:21 PM   #247
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
Ok, my friends, that settles it.

Unlike QM, people on this forum are extremely predictable.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
[People typing: "This is indeed easily predictable: You write crap, we react to it accordingly"]

See? I win again. ;-)
Snore.

Quote:
But seriously. You obviously don't want to think other models if they try to start totally new at some point. Imagine, you're in a dead end. Where do you start looking for another way? Right - where you last had an opportunity to branch off.
This is obviously not the case in physics. Now you need fancy "dark matter" to explain the "wrong" measurements.
Huh? Dark matter is a pretty simple solution to a whole arrange of otherwise unexplained observations. ITs not so much killing two birds with one stone as killing three or four. If you have a better solution then by all means tell us...?
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 1st February 2011, 04:35 PM   #248
Chronopolitan
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 48
Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
Huh? Dark matter is a pretty simple solution to a whole arrange of otherwise unexplained observations. ITs not so much killing two birds with one stone as killing three or four. If you have a better solution then by all means tell us...?
A friend, Ph.D. in physics, said if you regard the galaxy as a section of a sphere, the values come out right.
Another friend wasn't sure, if physicists take into account that huge rotating gravitational objects might develop magnetic fields that somehow produce the effect for which dark matter was invented.
Chronopolitan 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 1st February 2011, 06:17 PM   #249
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
MattusMaximus, you are truly the champion of willing misunderstanding here.
As a scientist, you should know that it is still possible, if not likely, that the next "GUT" comes from an outsider.
If Faraday had posted on this forum, he would have been ridiculed. Shame on all of you.'
Okay, consider me shamed. Now that that's accomplished, how about some actual physics, as opposed to all-too-standard "the Establishment just doesn't want to accept the Truth" crankery?

Quote:
MattusMaximus, as a professor you should not look down upon laymen or students. Do not disregard those who QUESTION, for those who question are the natural selection of the evolution of science.
If they are wrong, tell them where they are wrong.
Did that, as did plenty of others in this thread.

Quote:
All YOU did was saying: "It does not accord to the Standard Model we have today, therefore it must be wrong."
Where, exactly, did I say that?

Quote:
You have to prove HIM wrong.
Why? Are we to assume that he's automatically right until proven otherwise? Are we suddenly given the burden of proving a negative? If that is the standard, then I challenge you to prove that you AREN'T a leprechaun riding a unicorn which farts rainbows - until such a time as you provide such proof, I am automatically correct.

Quote:
His math is valid.
His algebra may be valid, but the physical assumptions behind it are way off.

Quote:
You have to USE HIS equations to fill in the gaps of QM and find out what does not comply and WHY. Present your findings in an orderly scientific discussion. If you ridicule those people, they will never publish peer reviewed papers.
They won't publish peer review papers because their assumptions are faulty and their logic is essentially circular in nature. Hell, they don't even understand the very theory (QM) that they claim to be on the brink of "overthrowing". As a result, they will never pass any kind of decent peer review process in a respected physics journal.

Quote:
Lord Kelvin said around 1900: "There is nothing new in physics. All we have to do is measure correctly." Or words to that effect. Boy, was he wrong.
Oh wow, with a quote like that you MUST be right! You win the game
__________________
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; 1st February 2011 at 06:25 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 1st February 2011, 06:22 PM   #250
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
It more seems to me like predicting how the waves on a lake's surface will move not knowing exactly where the stone will fall. Something like that.
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
So you don't understand the nature of reality, particles are waves all the time. They are waves all the time.
Chronopolitan, my advice is that you should take some time to read up on the QM concept of wave-particle duality. Otherwise, all you will accomplish here is a grand display of your ignorance of the subject matter.
__________________
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; 1st February 2011 at 06:26 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 1st February 2011, 06:58 PM   #251
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
A friend, Ph.D. in physics, said if you regard the galaxy as a section of a sphere, the values come out right.
Another friend wasn't sure, if physicists take into account that huge rotating gravitational objects might develop magnetic fields that somehow produce the effect for which dark matter was invented.
We do take magnetic fields into account. They are observed to be very weak and have no effect whatsoever on the main observations.
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 1st February 2011, 08:37 PM   #252
Chronopolitan
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 48
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
We do take magnetic fields into account. They are observed to be very weak and have no effect whatsoever on the main observations.
Well, then try the other one. I don't know, he didn't follow the thought.
Maybe you will.
Chronopolitan 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 1st February 2011, 08:43 PM   #253
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
Well, then try the other one. I don't know, he didn't follow the thought.
Maybe you will.
From your paraphrase, I cannot make out what the other one was talking about.
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 1st February 2011, 08:48 PM   #254
Chronopolitan
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 48
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
Chronopolitan, my advice is that you should take some time to read up on the QM concept of (....) Otherwise, all you will accomplish here is a grand display of your ignorance of the subject matter.
Thanks for the advice. In fact, the duality has always come to me as illogical. There are two seperate realms.
Now that the double slit experiment even works with bucky balls, what exactly is the point in assuming there is something like a particle?

If you look at Conway's Game of life (2-3 rule), there are stable or oscillating structures. It is possible to construct a turing machine within the rules. It is possible to create meta-cells who exactly follow the underlying rules.
There is a "particle" (the Glider) that moves at constant speed and this is the maximum speed of all things in Game of Life.

Yet no one would assume that the structures are "particles" or "waves".
The underlying rules alone make up the whole thing.

If there's "particles", they must act like particles. If they are waves, they must behave like waves.
But waves need a medium such as an "ether", which does not exist.
Additionally, there's not even a vacuum. How does that fit together?
Waves must have a medium, particles must have a vacuum to travel in.
It's both sides of the same coin.

I never understood that. Maybe you can explain it to me.
Chronopolitan 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 1st February 2011, 11:03 PM   #255
khan2012
New Blood
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 21
Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
I have found something by Hagelstein (MIT) mentioning "phonons".

"Inclusion of phonon exchange in a nuclear matrix element" (2007)

You can find this on arXiv...


Thanks for the reference
khan2012 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 2nd February 2011, 02:32 AM   #256
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
A friend, Ph.D. in physics, said if you regard the galaxy as a section of a sphere, the values come out right.
Well you could hypothesize that the actual matter in a galaxy is very different from the one inferred from observation with telescopes (which is certainly not spherical). For this to make sense you would have to add some matter that is dark (since it isn't seen) to your model of the galaxy. Oh, and it might be good if you come up with a good name for this matter that is dark. Nothing springs to mind at the minute though.
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 2nd February 2011, 02:35 AM   #257
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
Now that the double slit experiment even works with bucky balls, what exactly is the point in assuming there is something like a particle?
If you just assume it's only a wave and run the experiment one buckyball at a time then you'd get a completely different result to what you'd expect.
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 2nd February 2011, 04:29 AM   #258
Chronopolitan
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 48
Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
If you just assume it's only a wave and run the experiment one buckyball at a time then you'd get a completely different result to what you'd expect.
Now what would the result be?

I read:
"One of the deepest mysteries of quantum mechanics is that an interference pattern is formed even if there is only one particle in the experimental set-up at any given time. The Vienna team write that "all these observations support the view that each carbon-60 molecule interferes with itself only." They also confirmed that the interactions of the molecules with their environment - such as the spontaneous emission of photons by the thermally excited molecules - could not reveal which slit they had passed through. Even the mere possibility of being able to know which slit the particle passes through would be enough to wipe out the interference pattern.

Another mystery in physics is the length scale at which quantum behaviour breaks down. The carbon-60 molecules in the Vienna experiment are the largest objects ever to have shown quantum behaviour, but they are still 15 orders of magnitude smaller than true macroscopic objects. In the quest to establish when and how quantum mechanics breaks down and classical physics takes over, Arndt and co-workers plan to repeat their experiments with larger macromolecules and possibly even viruses."
(physicsworld dot com 1999)


So there is a mystery.

If there's ONLY waves, which I prefer but cannot prove, there must be all kinds of waves, and certainly there must be vortices.
How can you possibly predict the behavior of vortices at such a small scale?
Is "spin" a vortex?

Please elaborate.
Chronopolitan 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 2nd February 2011, 04:38 AM   #259
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
Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
There has been a dispute about the use of the word "phonon", which I think FZ treats as a compression wave.
It has been denied that such a thing exists.
Phonons are a well known concept in solid state physics, where they are simply quanta of lattice vibrations. It has not been, or should not have been, denied that such things exist; whether they're a useful concept in modelling the nucleus is the important question.

Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
Even if Newtonian physics hit you right in the face as in the WTC7 case, you would probably find a way out and claim something - and here all what you had learned in QM magically disappears - completely improbable that even contradicts empirical data (no steel frame high-rise building has ever collapsed due to fire - there have been fires burning for 48h straight with much higher temperatures without reducing the whole building to a pile of rubble neatly arranged between adjacent buildings).
Take it to the 9/11 sub-forum, where a whole bunch of us will be more than happy to explain to you how idiotic the above rant is.

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 2nd February 2011, 04:48 AM   #260
Chronopolitan
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 48
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Phonons are a well known concept in solid state physics, where they are simply quanta of lattice vibrations. It has not been, or should not have been, denied that such things exist; whether they're a useful concept in modelling the nucleus is the important question.
Thanks Dave for your clarification. Now let's discuss the question:
Does modeling the "crash" of a photon into an atom make sense? Does a collision of a wave into a standing wave (atom) produce something like a vibration that could be interpreted as a "phonon"?

Please be kind and explain why or why not. I want to understand.
Chronopolitan 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 2nd February 2011, 05:20 AM   #261
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
Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
Does modeling the "crash" of a photon into an atom make sense?
None whatsoever, if you're viewing the photon and the atom as macroscopic objects. Why should it make sense? Modelling the interactions between photons and atoms is perfectly sensible, but it's a worthless terminology to use the word "crash" to describe it.

Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
Does a collision of a wave into a standing wave (atom) produce something like a vibration that could be interpreted as a "phonon"?
No. A phonon is a collective excitation of atoms in a lattice, where they are subject to electrostatic interactions which act as a restorative force when their positions deviate from specific lattice sites. Phonons behave as quasi-particles, which can propagate indeterminate distances through a lattice. Using the same terminology to describe the effects of photon absorption by an atom is of no value, because the electrons are localised on the atom and hence any vibrations cannot propagate.

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 2nd February 2011, 05:23 AM   #262
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
A friend, Ph.D. in physics, said if you regard the galaxy as a section of a sphere, the values come out right.
Another friend wasn't sure, if physicists take into account that huge rotating gravitational objects might develop magnetic fields that somehow produce the effect for which dark matter was invented.
Sorry. the measured magnetic fields are way too small.

I am sorry that you don't like neutrinos, they too are dark matter.
__________________
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 2nd February 2011, 12:20 PM   #263
Chronopolitan
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 48
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Sorry. the measured magnetic fields are way too small.

I am sorry that you don't like neutrinos, they too are dark matter.
......really? I thought neutrinos had zero mass? How could they exert gravity?
Chronopolitan 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 2nd February 2011, 12:25 PM   #264
Chronopolitan
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 48
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
No. A phonon is a collective excitation of atoms in a lattice, where they are subject to electrostatic interactions which act as a restorative force when their positions deviate from specific lattice sites. Phonons behave as quasi-particles, which can propagate indeterminate distances through a lattice. Using the same terminology to describe the effects of photon absorption by an atom is of no value, because the electrons are localised on the atom and hence any vibrations cannot propagate.
I don't understand. Atoms are pinned into the lattice. Electrons are pinned to their orbits. This is just a battle over words.
Let's call it something else.
Now, photons are particles/waves (as either of them they can interact with other particles/waves). If a photon "loads" its energy into the atom, causing electrons to jump to higher orbitals... what is the exact cause of that? I don't understand, please elaborate.
Chronopolitan 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 2nd February 2011, 12:34 PM   #265
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
Now what would the result be?
If the buckyball were purely a wave then every buckyball would produce an interference pattern on the screen. In fact, every buckyball produces one dot on the screen. It is the large collection of dots that reproduces the interference pattern.
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 2nd February 2011, 12:35 PM   #266
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
I'm disappointed by the lack of "THEY LAUGHED AT GALILEO" in this post.
Looks like one, long argument from ignorance.
tsig 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 2nd February 2011, 12:37 PM   #267
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
Maybe you want to work on your quote/own text ratio. :-D
The info/word ratio is what's important.
tsig 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 2nd February 2011, 01:15 PM   #268
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,888
Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
......really? I thought neutrinos had zero mass? How could they exert gravity?
Well, they don't and as such they can.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba 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 2nd February 2011, 02:07 PM   #269
Chronopolitan
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 48
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Well, they don't and as such they can.
Please explain why there can be gravity from neutrinos.
Chronopolitan 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 2nd February 2011, 02:11 PM   #270
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,888
Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
Please explain why there can be gravity from neutrinos.
Because they have non-zero mass.


It's not really a difficult concept.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba 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 2nd February 2011, 02:13 PM   #271
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
Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
I don't understand. Atoms are pinned into the lattice. Electrons are pinned to their orbits. This is just a battle over words.
No, it's not. Phonons are not atoms, but collective excitations of atoms. Think of it as waves moving along a string; they can start in one place, and move through the lattice to another place, and keep on going. They're like sound waves in a crystal; in fact, they are sound waves in a crystal. And it's that feature of phonons - that they can move long distances - that sets them apart from the motion of electrons in atoms.

Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
Now, photons are particles/waves (as either of them they can interact with other particles/waves). If a photon "loads" its energy into the atom, causing electrons to jump to higher orbitals... what is the exact cause of that? I don't understand, please elaborate.
In the classical approximation, the oscillating field of the photon causes an oscillation of the electron, increasing its orbital velocity and leaving it with more energy. We know that's wrong, because orbital energies are observed to be quantised. In QM, we don't know the precise details of the process, but we know the starting conditions and the finishing conditions, and we can deduce rules by which we can work out the finishing conditions from the starting conditions. Again, why should we expect to know any more than that? It's not like we can "see" a photon; photons are the instruments we see with.

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 2nd February 2011, 02:17 PM   #272
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
Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
......really? I thought neutrinos had zero mass? How could they exert gravity?
No, neutrinos have been shown to have non-zero mass. The value isn't known exactly - we only know that it's extremely small, but not zero. There's some information to start from on the Wikipedia page on neutrinos. And, given that they have mass, they can (indeed, must) therefore exert a gravitational force.

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 2nd February 2011, 02:29 PM   #273
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
......really? I thought neutrinos had zero mass? How could they exert gravity?
Zero mass, what makes you think that?
__________________
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 2nd February 2011, 02:30 PM   #274
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
Please explain why there can be gravity from neutrinos.
Please explain the evidence that they have zero mass.
__________________
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 2nd February 2011, 02:42 PM   #275
Dilb
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 737
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
In QM, we don't know the precise details of the process, but we know the starting conditions and the finishing conditions, and we can deduce rules by which we can work out the finishing conditions from the starting conditions. Again, why should we expect to know any more than that? It's not like we can "see" a photon; photons are the instruments we see with.

Dave
It's understood perfectly in QED. See for example the Jaynes-Cummings model. It's really very similar to the classical situation: the electric field couples to some polarized state, and if the frequency of the light is the same as the frequency of the atom transition (which is the same as saying the photon has the same energy as the excited state), then there is a large probability that the atom will go into the excited state.
Dilb 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 2nd February 2011, 02:45 PM   #276
Chronopolitan
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 48
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
No, it's not. Phonons are not atoms, but collective excitations of atoms. Think of it as waves moving along a string; they can start in one place, and move through the lattice to another place, and keep on going. They're like sound waves in a crystal; in fact, they are sound waves in a crystal. And it's that feature of phonons - that they can move long distances - that sets them apart from the motion of electrons in atoms.
In the classical approximation, the oscillating field of the photon causes an oscillation of the electron, increasing its orbital velocity and leaving it with more energy. We know that's wrong, because orbital energies are observed to be quantised. In QM, we don't know the precise details of the process, but we know the starting conditions and the finishing conditions, and we can deduce rules by which we can work out the finishing conditions from the starting conditions. Again, why should we expect to know any more than that? It's not like we can "see" a photon; photons are the instruments we see with.
Now that's what I call helpful!

Some new questions arise:

1.) Lattice oscillations are produced by .... mechanical energy, say bouncing crystals together like Newton's manager toy? Or are the atoms in the lattice oscillate under influence of .... electromagnetic waves?
2.) If the EM waves excite the atoms in a lattice, producing a propagating wave (which type of wave?), what is the "speed" of the wave? That is, how fast does the wave propagate? Which parameters influence this "speed of the phonon"? Are we able to calculate that speed?
3.) Why "approximation"? Why not exactly measurable? Let's leave that aside - if the electron is oscuillating under photonic influence, what type of oscillation would that be? Oscillations ARE waves. They must have a wavelength. If the wavelength of the photon is known, and the electron is also a wave (is it during transition?), these waves must interfere.
How would you calculate the interference?
4.) It seems FZ uses "phonon" as both lattice vibration and oscillation induced by a photon on the electron. Let's consider that valid for a moment and call it electronic phonon.
5.) You state it is unknown what exactly is going on during the transition. Therefore it must be legitimate to explore this further. This is what FZ claims to do. Maybe he's wrong. But it must be allowed to be questioned.
6.) In mathematics, you can think outside a system. That is what Gödel did, proving that by axioms alone you cannot prove certain sentences from within the system established by the axioms. But by proving that, he transcended the problem, proving, this is valid for ALL formal systems.
Physics is a formal system as well. It developes by expanding the theory to match "reality". But remember, a theory is not an axiom, although it seems to be treated as such.
But certainly a photon will not make you give up!

So lets discuss this, but Dave style please.

Last edited by Chronopolitan; 2nd February 2011 at 02:47 PM.
Chronopolitan 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 2nd February 2011, 03:13 PM   #277
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
Responding selectively here; others may want to comment on points I've omitted.

Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
1.) Lattice oscillations are produced by .... mechanical energy, say bouncing crystals together like Newton's manager toy? Or are the atoms in the lattice oscillate under influence of .... electromagnetic waves?
These and anything else that dumps energy into the lattice. Typically, heat, which equates to mechanical energy at the atomic scale, and electromagnetic interactions.

Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
2.) If the EM waves excite the atoms in a lattice, producing a propagating wave (which type of wave?), what is the "speed" of the wave? That is, how fast does the wave propagate? Which parameters influence this "speed of the phonon"? Are we able to calculate that speed?
It's a big subject, but yes, all this is knowable and measurable. It depends on the elastic constants of the lattice. For low energies, it's simply the speed of sound in the medium.

Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
3.) Why "approximation"? Why not exactly measurable?
Because it's wrong, really. Assuming classical electrodynamics gives results that don't agree with experiments. That's why we need to use quantum mechanics, which give results that do.

Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
4.) It seems FZ uses "phonon" as both lattice vibration and oscillation induced by a photon on the electron. Let's consider that valid for a moment and call it electronic phonon.
We can't consider it valid, because it isn't. Phonons propagate through a lattice, and are affected by the periodic nature of the lattice. A single atom isn't a lattice; it has no translational symmetry. The behaviour of an electron in an atom considered in isolation is fundamentally, qualitatively different from that of an excitation in a lattice.

Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
5.) You state it is unknown what exactly is going on during the transition. Therefore it must be legitimate to explore this further. This is what FZ claims to do. Maybe he's wrong. But it must be allowed to be questioned.
No problem. I'm an applied solid state physicist, so I'm not too strong on QED, but as Dilb has pointed out there are models of the transition that give the right results. That makes them good models.

Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
6.) In mathematics, you can think outside a system. That is what Gödel did, proving that by axioms alone you cannot prove certain sentences from within the system established by the axioms. But by proving that, he transcended the problem, proving, this is valid for ALL formal systems.
Physics is a formal system as well. It developes by expanding the theory to match "reality". But remember, a theory is not an axiom, although it seems to be treated as such.
We don't assess theories by how well they follow from the axioms that have already been established, nor do we assess them by how emotionally satisfying a portrayal they offer of phenomena. We assess them by how well they predict the results of experiments and the behaviour of systems. If FZ can produce a theory that predicts behaviour that other theories can't, it'll be valued. If it can't predict behaviour that other theories can, it won't.

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 2nd February 2011, 03:26 PM   #278
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
If there's ONLY waves, which I prefer but cannot prove, there must be all kinds of waves, and certainly there must be vortices.
How can you possibly predict the behavior of vortices at such a small scale?
Is "spin" a vortex?
Why do you assume this? What is your evidence for such "vortices" and how exactly do they fit into modern physical theories? Heck, what is your definition of a "vortex"?
__________________
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 2nd February 2011, 03:29 PM   #279
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
Does modeling the "crash" of a photon into an atom make sense?
Yes it makes sense, because we've observed this via a phenomenon called Compton scattering.
__________________
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 2nd February 2011, 03:31 PM   #280
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
......really? I thought neutrinos had zero mass? How could they exert gravity?
Be careful... photons - unlike neutrinos - actually have zero (rest) mass, yet they still interact via gravity. Ever heard of gravitational lensing?
__________________
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; 2nd February 2011 at 03:34 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
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 12:22 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.