An ‘unknown’ electron.

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
socratus
Posts: 628
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:00 am
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: An ‘unknown’ electron.

Post by socratus »

conceptualizer wrote: The only other interesting detail that I now recall is that
he believes that in the future the more interesting area
of physics at this scale, in spite of the work now going
on at Cern, will be in the recombination of particles.
He said that he thinks that new unknown and useful properties and effects
will be discovered from subtle experiments to assemble particles in very
specific ways, not just disassembling them crudely with force as we
have done until now with particle smasher experiments.
It seems like there is much left for this field to tell us.
The mad CERN’s way.
http://www.spacekb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/a ... -s-project
==============.
Mike Strand
Posts: 406
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:54 am
Location: USA

Re: An ‘unknown’ electron.

Post by Mike Strand »

In an earlier post, I wrote:
This reminds me of an analogy between shuffling cards or shaking dice and the wave function of a tiny particle, such as the electron. Let's look at shaking a single die, then throwing it down on the table. The outcome will be one of the following: 1 spot showing, 2 spots showing, ... 6 spots showing, with a probability associated with each outcome. While I am shaking the die, any of the possible outcomes or "states" is present in the "cloud" of the die-shaking. But when I throw it down (i.e., stop the die from rolling and tumbling and take an observation), this "cloud collapses", like the wave function of an observed particle, and I see it in one of the possible states or outcomes.

I've heard the electron described as a "tiny wave packet" by science writers trying to explain quantum theory to the general public, like me. This puts the image in my mind of a ripple on the surface of a pond, or a display on an oscilloscope. Is it any more or less valid to view the electron's wave function as a "wave packet", than to view the die-outcome probability distribution as a little packet of probability spikes? True, the phenomenon of a die rolling around in my fist or in a canister is a physical, observable event, but the set of probabilities regarding the outcome of throwing the die down and observing the result is a mathematical concept only, not really a physical entity.

I would like to see people comment on this analogy -- its strengths and limitations in regard to understanding quantum theory.
I'm still interested in hearing from a quantum theorist about this. In particular, do the various possible states actually "exist" (is there both a live cat and a dead cat in the unopened box, or two universes, one containing the live cat-in-the-box and the other universe containing the dead-cat-in-a box), or does "exist" here merely mean "exist as a concept of probability theory (a probability distribution)?
conceptualizer
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 10:51 am

Re: An ‘unknown’ electron.

Post by conceptualizer »

I would be interested in hearing from a quantum theorist too.
I have come across explanations, like the wave function, for strange phenomena that when you ask enough questions resolve to something like ‘you must accept the maths, there is no physical metaphor’. Indeed, Prof. Schofield told us of colleagues that only use mathematical models, they do not resort to physical explanations. I am suspicious that these are necessary because we are missing some important basic understanding that requires us to create these strange theories. Much like the retrograde motion of planets with an earth centred universe was explained with some cunning maths until it was pointed out that perhaps the earth was not the centre of the universe.
nameless
Posts: 150
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:32 pm
Location: Here! Now!

Re: An ‘unknown’ electron.

Post by nameless »

Mike Strand wrote:In particular, do the various possible states actually "exist" (is there both a live cat and a dead cat in the unopened box, or two universes, one containing the live cat-in-the-box and the other universe containing the dead-cat-in-a box), or does "exist" here merely mean "exist as a concept of probability theory (a probability distribution)?
That which is not perceived, does not exist.
(At least, this moment, there is no evidence to the contrary.)

The perception of a 'thought' (thought of a cat in a box, for instance) is prima facie evidence of the 'thought's' actual existence, but not the cat's. The 'subject' of that thought, in this case, a cat, is evidenced to exist as the 'thought', and no more.
User avatar
Cerveny
Posts: 622
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:35 pm
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

Re: An ‘unknown’ electron.

Post by Cerveny »

I believe all elementary particles are some "defects" in regular structure of physical space (of vacuum). Antiparticle is an opposite/complementary defect to a particle. For example: Vacancy / interstitial or opposite oriented dislocations?
User avatar
socratus
Posts: 628
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:00 am
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: An ‘unknown’ electron.

Post by socratus »

Cerveny wrote:I believe all elementary particles are some "defects"
in regular structure of physical space (of vacuum).
Antiparticle is an opposite/complementary defect to a particle.
For example: Vacancy / interstitial or opposite oriented dislocations?
In other words:
1
Antiparticles exist in the Vacuum
2
It is possible to see some "defects" (fluctuation)
in regular structure of physical space (of vacuum)
3
As result of this "defects" (fluctuation)
in regular structure of physical space (of vacuum )
all elementary particles appear.
==================================
User avatar
socratus
Posts: 628
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:00 am
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: An ‘unknown’ electron.

Post by socratus »

The book: Albert Einstein and the Cosmic World Order

/ Six lectures delivered at the University
of Michigan in the Spring of 1962 /
by Cornelius Lanczos

Lanczos served as assistant to Einstein during the period 1928–29.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Lanczos

My brief comment on ‘ The lecture № 3.’
=============.
Cornelius Lanczos wrote:
SRT was created on two postulates.
First postulate – there isn’t absolute speed of movement.
Every movement is relative.
Second postulate – the speed of light ( quantum of light)
is constant.
Lanczos wrote: from the first point of view it seems that
to unite these two different postulates is impossible,
trying to do this is absolute nonsense. (!)
But . . . . It was be done. (!)
. . It was needed the great Einstein’s courage to do this unite. (!)
How did Einstein connected them ? (!)
1
He solved this problem saying that Newton’s absolute space
and time are relative.
2
And these two postulates can be unite in spacetime- 4D.
3
As the result we can see different occurrences :
( for example: not only the physical parameters of particles
can change but space and time too )

And Lanczos wrote: now we are accustomed to this conception
and never, not for the world give up from such manner of thinking.
==================.
Very well.
There is only small problem in this conception:
What is 4D?
Nobody knows.

S.
User avatar
socratus
Posts: 628
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:00 am
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: An ‘unknown’ electron.

Post by socratus »

Comment by Androcles:

If SR is based on two postulates, why does every jerk and
his dog mumble about clocks, inertial frames and observers?
/ Androcles /
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physi ... a99c325d4b#
User avatar
socratus
Posts: 628
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:00 am
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: An ‘unknown’ electron.

Post by socratus »

Electron cannot be composite particle.
But it obeys a whole slew of physical laws, including:
* the electrostatic interaction
* the weak interaction
* the gravitational interaction
* the interaction with the Higgs field
* the law of conservation of momentum
* the law of conservation of angular momentum
* the law of conservation of energy
* the law of conservation of lepton number
* Fermi-Dirac statistics
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
And electron obeys more three Laws
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass
b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
And it has five (5) formulas: E=h*f , e= +ah*c , e= -ah*c.,
+E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2.

All these factors must say:
electron isn’t as a simple elementary as we are thinking.
====================.
My point is:
We don’t know that 4D and electron are, but we have
Wikipedia and hundreds books and magazines where we
can read explanation about philosophy of physics.
Can we trust them?
User avatar
Cerveny
Posts: 622
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:35 pm
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

Re: An ‘unknown’ electron.

Post by Cerveny »

There is not the right way to find any deeper and deeper structure of elementary particles. The properties, the complexity of an elementary particle is to find in properties of its surround. The more “exotically” elementary particle is, the more disturbed is the regular structure of space. Thermal waving more easily attacks complex structural disorders – exotic elementary particles. For example: relatively stable defect of space, called a neutron, “corrodes” after relatively long time.
User avatar
socratus
Posts: 628
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:00 am
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: An ‘unknown’ electron.

Post by socratus »

Cerveny wrote:There is not the right way to find any deeper and deeper structure of elementary particles.
The properties, the complexity of an elementary particle is to find in properties of its surround.
The more “exotically” elementary particle is, the more disturbed is
the regular structure of space.
Cerveny
There is not the right way to find any deeper and deeper structure of elementary particles.
S
Why?
Because when electron interacts with vacuum it parameters becomes infinite.
What it means?
Cerveny
The properties, the complexity of an elementary particle
is to find in properties of its surround.
S
What is surrounded an elementary particle ?
Cerveny
The more “exotically” elementary particle is, the more disturbed is the
regular structure of space.
S
Which ‘the regular structure of space ‘ does the
‘exotically elementary particle ‘ disturb?
===========.
User avatar
Cerveny
Posts: 622
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:35 pm
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

Re: An ‘unknown’ electron.

Post by Cerveny »

socratus wrote:
Cerveny wrote:I believe all elementary particles are some "defects"
in regular structure of physical space (of vacuum).
Antiparticle is an opposite/complementary defect to a particle.
For example: Vacancy / interstitial or opposite oriented dislocations?
In other words:
1
Antiparticles exist in the Vacuum
2
It is possible to see some "defects" (fluctuation)
in regular structure of physical space (of vacuum)
3
As result of this "defects" (fluctuation)
in regular structure of physical space (of vacuum )
all elementary particles appear.
==================================
Perhaps "fluctuations" is not the best word; some defects can be stable (electron) and as such are replicated during the Universe condensation, crystallization to new history sediments, into a new space crystal lattice layer (see for example screw dislocations...). Such defects can be annihilated by the interaction with just opposite type of defect (antiparticle) only. Energy needed for creation of both (opposite) defect is then released and it is scattered as a lattice waving (photons). As a whole "space crystal" is thermally trembling (fluctuated), the more complex, complicated structural defect are attacked and dissoluted into simpler cases...
User avatar
socratus
Posts: 628
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:00 am
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: An ‘unknown’ electron.

Post by socratus »

Cerveny wrote:
Cerveny wrote: Perhaps "fluctuations" is not the best word;
some defects can be stable (electron)
. . .
Energy needed for creation of both (opposite) defect is then
released and it is scattered as a lattice waving (photons). ...
Perhaps "fluctuations" is not the best word;
Perhaps "transformations" is not the best word;
Perhaps "changes" is not the best word;
Perhaps "defects " is not the best word;
. . . . .
But the Energy needed for creation depends
only from (waving photons) / (stable electron)
========.
S
User avatar
Cerveny
Posts: 622
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:35 pm
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

Re: An ‘unknown’ electron.

Post by Cerveny »

socratus wrote:
Cerveny wrote:There is not the right way to find any deeper and deeper structure of elementary particles.
The properties, the complexity of an elementary particle is to find in properties of its surround.
The more “exotically” elementary particle is, the more disturbed is
the regular structure of space.
Cerveny
There is not the right way to find any deeper and deeper structure of elementary particles.
S
Why?
Because when electron interacts with vacuum it parameters becomes infinite.
What it means?
Cerveny
The properties, the complexity of an elementary particle
is to find in properties of its surround.
S
What is surrounded an elementary particle ?
Cerveny
The more “exotically” elementary particle is, the more disturbed is the
regular structure of space.
S
Which ‘the regular structure of space ‘ does the
‘exotically elementary particle ‘ disturb?
===========.
Please, consider the vacuum (the physical space) is (from my point of view) created by some regularly ordered elements and it is then similar to some crystal. Elementary particles are particular cases of defects in such structure *... Space’s crystal (the history) grows from some outside, less ordered phase, from the "future". The point "now" - just the quantum world - is a border (and process) between the history and a future.

* http://www-ee.engr.ccny.cuny.edu/www/we ... efects.htm

It seams to be out of sense finding a deeper and deeper structure inside the "elementary particles" - there is neither natural nor logical barrier of ending such exploration… The construction of a more complicated, less stable, more "fragile" outside ("effective") structural defect, that are easily destroyed by thermal waving of space structure, seems to be more fruitful. It is the only, the rich "place" to find some "complexity" in... Imagine, for example, several dislocations' intersection. Such difficult configuration is near to a simply combination of elementhary vacations and interstitials....
Post Reply