steevey

So your saying microwaves do nothing to water? What about the drastically different ice crystals then? How about this: The effects of a microwave on water linger for some amount of time, as microwaves do cause changes in things like the polarity interaction with other molecules, and that those effects linger but fade away after a while? Also, do you have any sites to verify the experiments are not repeatable or anything? Because really any actual proof for either side would be good.

I've heard from some of some things that Masaru does that microwaves change some of the properties of water and makes the ice crystals form all weird and ugly. But, I can't find any valid experiments anywhere and I don't know exactly what microwaves are doing to water as to cause it to have different properties. Can anyone help me on this?

Nobody knows the answer?

Eh, I don't know about that, because anti-matter still distorts the fabric of space in the same way. An anti-proton has the same or a similar mass/amount of material as a normal proton, and the electron configurations shouldn't really be different. I guess when you make something into anti matter, your making its waves peak and minimize at different moments with a different spin direction? Also I have a question for Swan In the diagrams of matter and anti-matter annihilation, like with a pair, it looks like this: e+ + e- = y + y. But in another topic, you had said that not matter or energy ever get converted into each other, and someone else said only their location or amount change, but from that equation, it would appear exactly as an anti-particle pair converted into gamma rays, with no left over mass, just energy. What's really going on? Is it just not mentioning some particles that were created?

The electron's wave characteristics inhibit it from accelerating in a classical manner around a proton as to cause it to radiate its energy. When an electron is bound to a nucleus, it doesn't accelerate, but rather exists in a quantized region due to some wave characteristics. However, it's quite possible that because the electron passes right through the nucleus and forms some wave patterns as if there were no attractive charge that there is yet another undiscovered force or particle and that the EM force really just isn't enough at that level to do anything. It's almost as if the election is being slightly repelled in some way by some other force. Although, those quantized wave patterns also could be the result of the attractive force. You don't see dumbbells and toruses in unbound electrons. Even electrons with the lowest possible amount of energy, those in Bose-Einstein condensates don't fall into the nucleus to form other particles, but in a particle accelerater, they do collide and release energy and form other particles. Maybe electrons just completely "miss" the quarks in the nucleus, but in a particle accelerator, since they gain more energy, they become more localized... The real question is, why do those electron regions exist at all?

The electron hangs around because A, unlike forces attract each other, an electron is negative and a proton is positive, B, it doesn't radiate its energy away since its not actually accelerating, so an electron always has that momentum and has some other static properties. Because those properties are static, and the electron's location waves, the electron's existence happens to oscillate in a pattern which is around the nucleus and since its quantized, no where else. These wave properties can change with the interaction of other particles such as y and z and w bosons however. It almost makes it seem as though there's a "wave force" which is stronger than all the other forces.

Oh, so NOW your saying the electromagnetic attraction ISN'T strong at all? But I thought you said So which is it? I really don't even need to do math though, I can just say an object located 100 angstroms away will not experience as strong of an attraction as millions of protons 100 angstroms away by just knowing that the electromagnetic force gets weaker by the square of the distance. But, I guess I can give you an example since you'd probably ask me to anyway. Lets say a proton has an attractive force equal to 1 unit (I know its actually +1.602 x 10-19 Columbs but I'm keeping it simple). The EM force gets weaker by the square of the distance, so lets pick an object located 100 angstroms away. 1/100^2=.0001. The attractive force at 100 angstroms of a single proton is .0001 units. Now, lets take a look at a large substance. I still want to measure the force at the same point, but in a substance, some atoms are closer and further, and lets pick standard hydrogen isotopes. Let's say there's a million protons, some are 10% are 60 angstroms away from that point, 10% are 70 angstroms away, 10% are 80 angstroms away, etc. 100,000 protons, the ones at 150 angstroms away will have an attractive force equal to (1/150^2)100,000 which is about 4.44444444444444 units. A single proton 100 angstroms away would have an attractive force of 1/150^2 which is about .000044 units. As this clearly shows, many protons at great distances can be more powerful than small amounts of protons at short distances. However, the individual attraction of all those protons is extremely weak, which is why in the macroscopic world, large substances don't always just take individual electrons away unless they are ionized. This is one of the reason the QM world is so different. The macroscopic world is built off of a culmination of very small forces added together, while the QM world works on an individual basis since forces are individually stronger and more concentrated in those small areas but still insignificant compared to what I was saying before about the macroscopic force.

Except you'd have to automatically assume that when looking at my comparison. The only way mathematically my comparison works is because trillions of protons at great distances are stronger than just one proton at a very very small distances which I even summed up at the end of that quote you have of me.

I don't have enough mathematical equations to calculate that. But I really don't see how you can say if it was a lot stronger that it still wouldn't fall into the nucleus when thats really the only reason an electron is around a photon at all is because of the opposite charges. So your telling me a single photon has a great electromagnetic attraction than a horseshoe magnet I can hold in my hand? I think your thinking that I don't know that the electromagnetic force gets weaker at greater distances, by the square of the distance in fact, so for an INDEVIDUAL proton, its EM force gets weaker on a macroscopic level, but with groups of protons, their force does not get weaker in the same way because objects would be experiencing a force from all of them in a substnace, which is at least trillions, which is why on a macroscopic level, the EM force and gravity pass a point where they are stronger than at the atomic level and 0 distance from an individual atomic level. Because they also have classical wave mechanics and can move very freely as they have very low mass, and probably some other undiscovered factors.

Well you know things on that scale are quantized right? So particles can only have specific integers of charges, and if a proton and aa single increased integer of a unit of electron-magnetic attraction, electrons might fall into the nucleus or at least be closer. It should be pretty clear what the comparison is, especially for someone who has said they have taken QM classes. Obviously, as I've stated before, things are not as strong on an atomic scale as a macroscopic scale. Like gravity for example. On a macroscopic scale, gravity is so strong it can actually directly effect the position of these "waves particles", but on an atomic scale, gravity is so weak it doesn't really do anything noticeable. Its the same with the electro-magnetic force. Also, the mathematics used to described these particle-waves are classical as well, we just see them more on an atomic level. In classical mechanics, waves also oscillate, have a minimums and maximums, have frequency, depth, wavelength, etc. Little balls of charges is actually the opposite of how I think about matter on an atomic scale, its been clearly shown multiple times that you need wave mechanics to describe the location of a particles on that level. However, particles on that level still have some finite or not oscillating properties such as mass and spin (its always 1/2 for an electron) which is where some particle properties come out, and on top of that, when these "wave-particles" become measured, even their position collapses down to a single region.

Possibly any integer stronger than what it is now, but one integer may just shift all the orbitals inward somewhat as it would then require that much more energy to exist at the previous higher distance from the nucleus and thus making the same amount amount of energy closer to the nucleus. I'd need the equations really answer this with an exact answer though. I'd want to say that if you used more massive electrons like muons that they would be closer to the nucleus because the same amount of energy wouldn't allow them to move as far away from the nucleus and the uncertainty principal would also state that its position or momentum is becoming more precise as its mass becomes less precise, but I don't know if scientists have done that experiment with being able to actually record strange electrons interacting in normal matter.

If gravity was really strong on that level, then electrons probably would fall into the nucleus. If the attraction between individual electrons and protons was a lot stronger, then electrons would probably fall into the nucleus, but once again, things are very small and close to nothing on that scale, so there's more room for freedom and forces are a lot less stronger. In fact, the reason an electron does have those probable places only around the nucleus and not in it could be the fact that on an individual basis a proton isn't strong enough to pull an electron directly inward with all the momentum and wave-like movement an electron has. On a macroscopic scale, since atoms on that level are grouped into units and have a total summed effect on other groups of atoms, you can see that in the case of the gravity of even the Earth that it pulls these "waves" towards its center and two the ground since gravity on that level is strong enough too even though the matter still has those wave characteristics. I think you don't realize that I'm not asking "why do electrons fall into the nucleus?", when I am actually exploring "why do electrons exist in those regions instead?". So I already know electrons act like waves, we should be past that, so I'm explaining why they still decide to only hang around the nucleus instead of going in it even though they are waves. Your trying to say that because they are waves that they don't fall into the nucleus, but I'm still saying that there's even an explanation for that.

I can see QM just fine now, and I use to think that matter was a wave itself, but now it makes even more sense that its just the existence of that matter that is waving and not that matter is necessarily a wave itself. Strictly speaking, matter isn't anything we think of at a classical level at all, whether thats waves of marbles, its its own thing which exhibits both properties of being in a determined location and being an in undetermined location, one can be described as having oscillating characteristics and one can be described of as not oscillating or static properties.

We can't determine that they themselves are waves if I can remember, only their locations on an atomic level can be described using wave mechanics and maybe a few other properties and thats it. Something about a particle would be wave-ing which is what the math is describing. This would perfectly explain why particles can seem classical and quantum at the same time. Like spin, its properties are "like" a classical piece of matter, but with something in matter oscillating as a wave, spin also seems to act like a wave. And if particles are only waves, why is it that they only have particle properties when we look around? Being localized is roughly the same as a particle existing since its a specific region, so being a particle isn't a property of matter acting like a wave, its a property of matter not acting like a wave, or being determined.

Obviously not as strong as a substance on a macroscopic scale. On a macroscopic scale, gravity is strong, magnets have greater distances, and as a result matter is more calculable on that scale. But forces and matter on the atomic scale are so small and minuscule they start to act a little like nothingness itself. An electron is really really close to nothing, its mass is very small, and as a seeming result, is wave occupies a greater areas, or in other words, theres much greater areas of probability which it is spread out over. But something like a rock, thats really big, so the most probable place of the rock itself doesn't really spread over any distance, its more or less congruent to itself and tends to act like a solid object.

Basically, all elementary particles have properties of their existence oscillating like a wave. The the elementary particles themselves are particles, but their trajectory and locations and any given point in time occur in wave patterns which is why you need wave mechanics to describe them. The particles, as far as our understanding goes, are not waves themselves. However, the regions these particles oscillate their existence is very very small and most of the time occurs very repetitively in specific areas, thus giving the illusion of solid objects. As a part of having wave-like properties, you cannot determine with 100% certainty where a particle will appear at any time but can figure out the most likely place for it to appear in a given system, implying that waves spread out over areas with no specific location which have crests and troffs, or most likely and least likely places to exist exactly matching the patterns found in sine waves. Even when particles are observed at a localized state, the next location cannot be determined, since even at that point, they still have some of those wave like properties.

Because an electron has wave-like properties, and those wave-like properties allow the electron to exist in regions around the nucleus without any classical trajectory but in still most-probable regions. Also, things on that scale individually are really weak. The electromagnetic pull of a single proton really isn't that strong at all, so even a little bit of energy can cause a lot of commotion as the lack of strength on that level doesn't inhibit electrons enough to fall straight into the nucleus. Electrons are also a lot less massive, nearly 2000 times less massive than protons, so that means a little energy in an electron can cause an electron to move a lot more easily.

Doesn't that imply that a singularity isn't an object so small it doesn't actually exist? Or in other words, that in some level no matter how small, its 3D?

I don't see how anyone could know anything about how to answer these questions....

Ok, so then how can an entire helium atom be in the ground state? Isn't it just the electrons that would be?

But how does a proton have a ground state?

Well all particles act like waves all the time in at least some way, but otherwise, what other type of wave would you graph things as? Because you can use 3 dimensional graphs to give you the shape of an orbital using wave mechanics and how particles act like sine waves... Could I do an molecular analysis with it? Like with those hybrid orbitals?

I think its that for every amount of matter you have, there is a specific amount of energy required to allow you to have that amount of matter, and since light is pure electro-magnetic energy, it can be used as a constant to compare the outcome energy with.

Since particle waves tend to act like sine waves, is there someway I can use a normal graphing calculator or normal 3D one to make predictions in the QM world using the sine function?

In both hydrogen and helium, when left alone, the electrons are generally located at the lowest energy level. You said electrons can't hold energy for bonds because they are at the lowest level even though thats where electrons are in hydrogen.