Mordred

I think he may be referring to equations 21 to 29 Of the article I posted above. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.umich.edu/~chem461/QMChap7.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwibhrbC_oTVAhXhyoMKHSjVCOgQFggtMAQ&usg=AFQjCNGb61ArfRFhBsDYVwvvsfmRoVO8QA However his confusion seems to stem from a misguided view that the mass term only applies to a corpuscular view of particles. Ie matter. However I am only guessing as his posts are rather lacking in any detail. I hope I am interpreting his posts correctly as to that being his source of problem with the Schrodinger model of orbitals. Ie he is visualizing the electron as a corpuscular matter bullet instead of knowing that all particles are field excitations.

I have to ask. Do you know the difference between invariant mass and inertial mass? Your biggest confusion is how mass is defined. As long as this confusion exists you will never understand how Schrodinger equations work.

Try answering the question as it will answer why energy doesn't need to be created. Start with three basic defintions. 1) energy 2) potential energy 3) kinetic energy. Go from there I have a specific reason why I asked these questions as they relate to "Observer effects". Has nothing to do with my beliefs but literally physics definitions. Please do not give me the argument this is philosophy not physics. Philosophy is pointless in metaphysics if it doesn't adhere to how physics defines a property. You want a thread beyond mere personal claims and blah blah blah defenseless assertions then apply some basis of science. After all isn't the title of this thread not. Philosophy, Science and reality? I see tons of posts applying very little science.

what does science have to do with that? isn't that a philosophical question not a scientific one?

I would like to ask this related question. What does it mean to state the energy of a system is zero? (you can replace state with field if you so choose). This question is probably one of the more least understood aspects on how all universe from nothing models work... Secondly why is the observer aspect so important to consider in the first question? I'm curious as to the range of answers on those two questions. PS if you get the first answer correct the second questions answer will be automatic. These questions directly relate to the topic of what is observable or measurable take your pick. Little hint the answers to the above will be the same regardless if you use relativity, statistical mechanics, classical mechanics, or QFT. They will also demonstrate the difficulty involved in defining "real" Real as per some absolute value.

A side note. Every model just mentioned above is still around. They are all different than their original design but every model above has a modern contender. It is extremely rare to see any alternative model completely go away. I for one cannot recall any that has done so.

I should also add a field is any collection of values under geometry. While I am mentioning proper definitions under physics. "In physics, a field is a physical quantity, typically a number or tensor, that has a value for each point in space and time" The term physical does not mean material. You need to apply the physics definition of physical. Though unfortunately that definition isn't as clear cut. Loosely it is any measurable quantity/relation or system that can be described under physics.

I just posted the equation for you. Massless particles is not part of the system under discussion. You have two massive particles. The electron and the proton. Stick with the correct application of Schrodinger for the system under discussion. Massless particles has nothing to do with atomic orbitals unless your including virtual exchange bosons. The article I posted is VERY clear on how science went from the Bohr model to the Schrodinger model of the atom. 1)start with Bohr 2) apply Keplers laws 3) apply spherical harmonics for the Heisenburg uncertainty. Voila the equation posted above. The steps are all in that article. READ IT... there are so many errors in this statement I don't even know where to start. Lets start with the obvious mass is not matter. Nor is it a property restricted to matter. Mass under physics is "resistance to inertia change" that resistance can be applied to BOTH matter and force fields. The strength of two fields coupling to one another gives you the mass term. Have you never heard of electromagnetic mass??? Its been around in physics longer than the Bohr model itself. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_mass "In physics, mass is a property of a physical body. It is the measure of an object's resistance to acceleration (a change in its state of motion) when a net force is applied. It also determines the strength of its mutual gravitational attraction to other bodies. The basic SI unit of mass is the kilogram" here is the physics definition of mass

You know that is a weird statement as under action The Schrodinger equations do account for mass. Perhaps you can tell us how you define mass as obviously it isn't how physics defines mass. I get the impression your thinking of mass as some matter density term instead of "Resistance to inertia change"... Which quite frankly would be fundamentally important as to probability wave functions. How can you possibly design a probability of position without accounting for mass? Obviously you can't. Tell me all those articles you ever read under Schrodinger equations. Did you never see the Hamilton equations being applied? It is those very equations that account for mass... It is also obvious you didn't even read the article I posted above. The first 7 equations specifically shows how the mass term is applied.... I strongly suggest you sit down and actually study the mathematics behind the Schrodinger equations before posting these false assertions. For starters the Schrodinger equation for a hydrogen atom includes the mass term in the first term of the equation. [latex]{-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\Delta^2-\frac{Ze^2}{r}}\psi r=E\psi r[/latex] Funny how you didn't see the mass term of that equation even I specifically told you to look at that equation. [latex]-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}[/latex] What did you think the m stands for if not mass in that equation? That should have been painfully obvious if you had looked at the Schrodinger equation for atoms. It took a considerable effort to find a low simple mathematical coverage of Schrodinger as applied to an atom. The least you could do is actually look it over.

Precisely my point it is an opinion not a full examination. One that was written prior to Planck data If your going to base your opinions on every pop media article out there you will never learn a single thing. There is no patchwork. Fine tuning yes patchwork no. Particularly on the topics under discussion with extremely high confidence levels. You want to sway our opinions on this forum put forth a better effort in applying the models under mathematics. I will happily listen and supply either support or counter evidence (which counts as support, if applied correctly). If you could do that. Every model in physics is constantly challenged. That is the very heartbeat of the scientific method. Examine all possibilities then test each and see what fits the best.

Get the peer review of that article first. I don't conclude anything without examining the math and data myself

When did I state abandon either? I stated study the actual model and math not pop media coverage. If you want to properly understand any model proposal that is an obvious requirement

Thanks for demonstrating my point. A physicist would review the professional paper. Inflation has always been challenged ever since Guth first proposed the model

That is BS. I study the CMB data for my model building all the time. I also have the technical know how that I do not require any words or sentences in any Papers I read. Unless you study the actual mathematics and data yourself exclusively without reading a single line. You are at the mercy of everyone elses conclusions instead of your own. Unless you know better ie understand the models and math you are at the mercy of pop media and every alternate theory out there as you do not have the tools necessary to form your own opinion based strictly from the data

I just saw this thread, if someone finds a flaw in anything I post. I welcome the opportunity to learn. What I do not do is change my understanding or views based on assertions without strong supportive material or math related to the topic. I never stop learning, most of our senior forum members do not stop learning either. If someone provides a well thought out post on a topic that contradicts the norm. Many of us will in fact support such a well thought out effort. Unfortunately that is too uncommon, far too often we get " look what I think, even though I can't back it up". For myself, I am confident those familiar with my posts that many of our members have learned from them. However I take a considerable effort in formulating any posts I make and usually back them up with articles etc so no one has to take my word on anything. (over the years on numerous forums, I've learned that its a good policy to follow)

That relation defines the Bohr frequency potential model. The problem is that Bohr never applied elliptical orbits nor the Heisenburg uncertainty principle. These were included in later models of the atom. Part of the Schrodinger equations include the spherical harmonics based upon the particles in the box mentioned by Studiot previously. Study this chapter. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.umich.edu/~chem461/QMChap7.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwibhrbC_oTVAhXhyoMKHSjVCOgQFggtMAQ&usg=AFQjCNGb61ArfRFhBsDYVwvvsfmRoVO8QA In particular the Schrodinger equation for orbitals 24. As well as the Born interpretation of the position equation 40. " According to Born's interpretation of the wavefunction, the probability per unit volume of finding the electron at the point (r;theta;pi) is equal to the square of the normalized wavefunction". As mentioned as well. More than 1 sentence to state what your after would be helpful. We cannot read your mind... Spend some time clarifying where your issue is with the Schrodinger equations. Don't make us guess.. (I would also study why the Schrodinger equations needed to account for the Heisenburg uncertainty on spherical harmonics.)

Why would it? you are determining the probable location at time t of the particle property in question. In this case the energy correspondance to mass. What is invalid in applying statistical math to account for all possible locations? Gives far greater details on describing atom orbitals if you ask me.

Roemer measured a finite speed of light from observations of Jupiter using numerous eclipses. Huygen accepted Roemers work as essentially fact and developed the wave theory of light. Assuming I recall correctly its been sometime since I last heard those two names mentioned.

He is refferring to a particular model called holographic entangled spacetimes via the holographic principle using ADS/CFT theory. Numerous physicists support ADS/CFT others don't. ADS is Anti-Desitter. With CFT being conformal field theory. Which is a particular higher dimension treatment. The model is mathematically viable, with some support. Its one possibility but as of yet does not have any strong evidental support. This has similarities but is a bit different from particle entanglement. (Though similar mathematics has been shown that particle entanglement may also involve ADS/CFT.) in a similar manner. In essence [latex]\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{H}_{qubit}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{qubit}[/latex] You have three Hilbert spaces 2 which are disentangled summing to the entangled spacetime L.H.S of equal sign. the two [latex]\mathcal{H}[/latex] on the R.H.S follow the degrees of defined by the Hilbert spaces defined by [latex]\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|00\rangle+|11\rangle)[/latex] Which is your spin up spin down states. for spin 1/2 statistics. Hilbert space under QM. I wouldn't think of this as different spaces as in a hidden dimension etc. This actually describes degrees of freedom) when the spin up and spin down degrees of freedom are entangled you have the LHS state. CFT tries to connect the spin 1/2 states to geometry via the holographic principle. It is a fancy way to describe how states becomes correlated. Yes this does show a possible descriptive in regards to Bell's inequality vs hidden dimensions. (care must be taken on how dimension is defined). There is huge misleading confusions of what this model mathematically describes. Simply due to its complexity. How do you explain IR and UV cutoff, holonomy, bifarcations, tensor degrees of freedom etc to the public? Simply put these spaces are restricted to the quantum scale. At the quantum scale the bifarcations of Hilbert spaces can occur with the density matrix being defined by the correlation function in the short and long range cutoffs defined by the IR and UV divergences (infrared and ultraviolet) S matrix cutoffs. Where each bifarcation is a cauchy foliation on our Lorentzian spacetime. lol try to explain that last paragraph to the public. Add to that the cutoffs and correlation functions are probability functions. Might help if you associate each state as a phase. The Hilbert space being the map of influence strength of each individual phase/state. (yes were dealing with waveforms/excitations under Hilbert spaces). Hilbert spaces is an excellent tool to describe sinusoidal waveforms. As you can see this model treats particles as field excitations. As it must involve QFT. Each Hilbert space corresponds to a field phase state.

If some of the links didn't parse correct use my signature the links are on my site page. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/

Lets see at [latex]10^{-43}[/latex] the temperature would be around [latex]10^{19} [/latex] The estimated number of particles using the Bose-Eistian Boltzmannn statistics is [latex] 10^{90}[/latex] particles. inflation then occurs solving the flatness problem and horizon problem. Giving us our uniform temperature distribution. Inflation causes a rapid supercooling due to the ideal gas laws. ( an increase in volume will lower temperature as the average density decreases). When inflation slow rolls to a stop there is a super reheating. This removes any further anistropy. When the temperature drops below 3000 kelvin atoms start to form giving us our CMB. So key evidence for BB. Uniform distribution via inflation, universe cooling= evidence of expansion. Correct predicted percentage of hydrogen, lithium etc= nucleosynthesis evidence. Hows that for a quick coverage to answer your questions above. If you want greater detail feel free to start a new thread in astronomy forum. The number of particles remain approximately the same but the types of particles and mixture changes. https://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446 What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with LCDM https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426 overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues Here is some free articles on Cosmology

Yes and no using strictly mass. As matter collapses into large scale structures, it concentrates matter locally. This in turn reduces mass density globally so that the universe will in fact expand instead of collapsing as the global mass density decreases. What you need is another set of relations. This being potential energy vs kinetic energy. Every particle has an energy density to pressure relation. (matter being p=0) if the inherent kinetic energy of your particle contributors is greater than the potential energy of gravity the universe will expand. It will collapse if the average gravitational potential exceeds the inherent kinetic energy of your contributors.. Here is a link on equations of state (cosmology). Read the link first, then read the universe geometry article above. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) The critical density formula gives the point where an expanding universe will start collapsing (at least prior to discovering DE). In essence it is the universe thermodynamic relations that dictate how our universe evolves. gravity is only a part of the equations.

Looks like that personal definition got busted. Ah well back to the drawing boards... Didn't think of that scenario lol +1 Goes to prove, when you try to define something to account for all possibilities.

Your first term force scalar is magnitude only. Its a vector magnitude+direction.

Your wording is incorrect here. It should be force vectors with same magnitude but reverse directions