steevey

But if I graph the probability of say, finding a ground state electron in the ground state, the graph goes on infinitely, even though in order for it to have probabilities going in places other than the Bohr radius, a graph of the probability of finding it at any distance away from the nucleus would go on infinitely never reaching 0, but the exact momentum is undetermined though, isn't it? Also, someone mentioned that the uncertainty principal doesn't apply in an atom, or bound electrons. But, in order to have the current model of an atom that we have, it has to follow the uncertainty principal. Since an electron has a small mass, it occupies a larger region of space in an atom. Since a proton has a very large mass, it occupies a very small region in an atom, and the result would be the massive nucleus surrounded by very large electrons.

A single atom can undergo a subsequent and subsidiary wave function collapse. When I observe a photon which had hit an atom in a piece of matter, the wave-particles in that matter which the photon carried information for also become determined and act more like points. This is why we don't see everything existing in multiple probable places at once.

From what it sounds like in this context, your talking about the symmetry of when a wave enters negative values but still appears in reality as though it had positive values. Although the reason this would occur isn't because an electron becomes negatively probable, its just the distance from 0. I could draw a line in the same and distinguish positive and negative sides. If I suddenly step on the negative side, do I suddenly become negative matter? Nope. This is also related to superpositions, and I already know math can describe these systems of exclusion, but I want to know why in reality it appears that way.

Ok, I know the pauli exclusion principal doesn't allow matter to have all the same properties in the same system, but I want to know the physical reason why I couldn't have 3 electrons in the first orbital or 300. Would they just repel each other that much? What physical thing is going on to determine the exact number of electrons in a specific orbital? If they have greater energies though, shouldn't their positions be more determined too?

Although I'm pretty sure there's another equation for this which I can't remember, I noticed that in an energy level of say, 1, or the ground state, the wave of a single electron has 1 crest, and one troff, or two vertices total, and the amount of electrons that are allowed in that energy state is 2. Then I go to the second energy state, the wave of a single electron with its maximums and minimums has 4 vertices, and the energy level is 2, and 8 electrons are allowed. At the third energy level, there are 6 maximum and minimum vertices, and the energy is 3, and there are 18 electrons allowed in that state. It would appear as though the amount of electrons allowed in a single state is the number of vertices of a single electron wave in that state multiplied by "n" or the energy level itself. Or simply, "[math]2n^2[/math]" But, I'm not really sure why this occurs, or why it occurs the way it does.

Virtual particles are scientific law right? The process in pairs generates gamma rays and this is happening all over the place, so why am I not dead of radiation poisoning? Why aren't there many radioactive atoms in every substance on Earth and in the entire universe? Couldn't this also account for some of the randomness generated by electrons? Classically, its like an electron gets a little boost of energy once in a while at a random time, which seems like it could be explained by the gamma-rays from virtual particle pairs.

Think about the fact that atoms bond at specific angles. This is due to how the electron cloud is shaped, but its shaped in specific ways in specific shapes at specific places around the nucleus according to properties such as angular momentum. Imagine this as a clip of relatively where the electron is appearing and disappearing to And if you looked at all the places the electron has been through the course of its movement, it would have some type of angular momentum-like appearance like this only in a real atom, it would be doing this is a spherical or helical manner The reason electrons appear to have spin or angular momentum is because there is an almost physical angular pattern or a pattern at which electrons appear and disappear to. For instance, an electron at the ground state would appear to have a spin 1/2 and combined with the other properties, the electron appears and disappears in a way that makes a symmetric cloud in all directions, known as a sphere. So the things that appear to be physical spinning or angular momentum is because of how the electron appears and re-appears in certain regions. Spin is also said to generate a magnetic field, and a magnetic field is a moving electrical field, which means electrons actually are rotating some way as to cause this electrical field motion, or its something to do with how an electron moves like a I stated, which came from this http://www.angelo.ed...tum_Numbers.htm According to that, electrons are somehow actually spinning, which is causes their magnetic field.

Can spin occur without the Pauli exclusion principal, like with a free electron or a photon? Because it seems like spins are only being used when you need to use combined wave functions to describe two particles in the same states, or that they need to have a different property of angular momentum to "avoid" each other and not be in the same place at the same time, and thats it. Well I think an electron is a wave and a particle in the sense that photons are a wave and a particle by seeming to exist in specific regions at a time but also spanning over undefined areas and having things like a wave oscillation. Whether any piece of matter in the universe is actually a wave and a particle, I guess scientists can't say for sure, but if I put an electron through a slit, it acts just like a wave of probability, and the mathematics which describes it accurately also states an electron is a wave, so why wouldn't it be a wave at least some of the time? I think whats going on is that an electron doesn't physically move distance in a pattern determined by spin an angular momentum, but that spin an angular momentum effect the pattern of where the electron shows up, almost classically in fact. I'm going to work on an art thing to show you what I mean.

Perhaps your not understanding it because its not actually two measurements; it's only one measurement which disentangles the particles. Once again, entangled particles become the same particle. Expecting the transmission of information between entangled particles is like throwing a billiard ball and expecting some ghost twin to magically appear and do something. In an entangled system, there is no other particle, there's just the one system, so very simply I could express that as "x". So, lets say I have 2x. Now, solve for "x". Oh wait, you can't because its not equal to another value, its only one value, which is itself. If information were transmitted between them, then that means they would be distinguishable or different in some way, so then I could say 2x=20 and find out what the x is since I can distinguish the other side of the information which is 20. But that would require determining one anyway, which would collapse the entanglement.

Your not born knowing everything your going to learn in your life. You learn things as you go along, and at least 99.99 percent of the living human population has the ability to learn, so the notion that people should be killed off due to lack of knowledge is absurd. The ability to learn or process information however varies usually slightly from person to person, but its also affiliated with your habits. A person who engages in certain thinking methods more often will typically be able to think in those ways more efficiently than someone who doesn't. People who tend to not use their brain at all will also have a decrease in learning abilities, but that can change if they get into a habit of learning and using their brain again. There isn't a known way to completely eliminate any targeted gene from a person's body either, so the capacity for an extreme learning disability or mental retardation will likely be around for a while.

Information can be transmitted indirectly by this effect, in fact, so efficiently that scientists are working on computers to harness its processing power right now since silicon chips would eventually get so small that the uncertainty principal would cause electrons to "leak" out and damage or short-circuit the system. However, it isn't known that this can send information faster than light because a, there is no information being sent between the particles themselves since its just a single particle when they're entangled, and b, the entanglement collapses once its measured, and in order to re-entangle them, there would need to be a physical interaction between the two, or in other words, they would once again need to be carefully brought together again. Information is not transmitted between entangled particles because they are the same particle which means no new information can be present in just one particle in a distinguishable manner, they both exist in an undetermined state with properties responding exactly to each other, and my guess is that there would be some type of combined wave function to describe the system as a single particle much like how its used to describe two electrons with the same energy in the same shell type since all electrons are identical.

Does the property of spin act as if the electron were a single point in space? I can see how a wave will change its frequency and its oscillation and how a wave on an oscillometer coincides with the way the electron acts, but I still don't see how a wave like an electron has a specific angular momentum or spin unless the angular momentum is a property of an electron being like a particle and not only as a wave.

But real experiments have been done where entangled particles have been separated by over 100 kilometers, yet they still disentangle instantaneously. What's mathematically happening is that when the particles are entangled, they act as the same particle in a way that the properties of some are Dependant on the other. Both particles have undetermined states such as spin which respond to each other instantaneously as well, i.e. if one goes to spin up, the other goes to spin down. However, when one particle was measured, both the particles stopped acting as the same particle and started acting as their own separate particle again instantaneously. It's not an effect, its the event in which two or more particles which were once entangled become disentangled.

What does it actually mean to determine a particle or collapse a wave function? What makes the distinction between collapsing it and just another event if even machines can do it?

Well if you look at the experiments, when either of any pair of entangled particles is measured, the system disentangles instantaneously, which more or less means infinite speed, so would time dilation even matter if its infinite speed? I mean, infinite speed would match infinite delay.

What about time dilation? If I'm standing near a black hole with an entangled particle while someone on Earth has one, and they become disentangled right...NOW!, then how could it appear at the same time to both observers if the time of the observer near the black hole would be slowed down?

The evidence was that wiki-article of mass-energy equivalence which I'll post again here. I'm not insisting I'm right, I'm insisting that the information given to me from wikipedia is right which had already been posted http://en.wikipedia....rgy_equivalence is right. I already did consider the possibility that I was wrong which is why I was agreeing with this that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed, but the units can be changed, which means I was previously wrong before that in saying that matter can transform into energy, since that would require an amount of energy to be created. So, a good explanation would be that only the location of energy changes, which as far as I know can only assume that it can be more concentrated or less concentrated in certain regions, i.e. a single atom can have more energy or less energy.

The reason an electron acts the way it does is because its a wave, where existence itself is waving. As a result of this property, it has no specific location.

A person's intelligence isn't based on their genes, its based on how much effort they actually put into taking in more knowledge or becoming a better person, which at any moment in an idiot's life, they could do more of.

Well, theres this for starters http://www.nytimes.c...ce/26human.html and then theres http://www.newscient...d-recently.html But, evolution takes a long time as these articles show, so the only reason evolution would "appear" to be slowing down is because it takes observably longer than an individual human life time. There could be 10s or 100s of different genes evolving right now that we don't know about because it takes so long for them to show up in large populations.

Can't energy also be a measurement of mass though? Or is it only ever referring to a single part of a particle such as the amount of matter OR the amount of energy and never both when describing mass?

I didn't say mass itself is matter, I said mass is a measurement of matter. Thats why when I put something on a gram scale, I get some amount of grams, which is telling me the quantitative amount of matter thats in it. So energy equals some quantitative amount of matter times the speed of light squared. I don't see how matter and energy aren't some form of the same thing according to that unless you forgot to mention that is correct. And I'm not necessarily saying your wrong, just pointing out something that doesn't make sense to me or contradicts what I've been told, since with that, its basically your word as an expert against the word of someone else who also claims to be an expert.

Are there any natural sources of oxygen on Titan? Like maybe in its crust? It seems like just a big ball of methane, which if thats the case, we need very large quantities of materials from Earth such as oxygen and nitrogen to live there. Although I suppose there could be some kind of green house thing like there would be on mars which would be powered by the methane.

So its saying that because matter and energy can't be created or destroyed, that whenever you have something like a pair particle system colliding, its simply the location of the matter and energy that gets changed? But in modern physics, there's missing matter in colliding particle experiments, which could only be explained by the fact that matter is equivalent to energy. In fact, I think it was something like 5% of the mass of a proton is quarks, and the rest of the mass is energy since gluons don't have mass, and mass is a measure of the amount of matter, so if the mass is also the energy, then matter and energy must be the same thing? It's essentially this: amount of energy=Mass=amount of matter

So your saying I can create matter, and destroy matter but not energy, and that matter can't be converted into energy? Because "matter cannot be created nor destroyed" is one of the foundations of chemistry and the ability of matter to be converted into energy is one of the corner-stones of physics. Not even a black hole is predicted to "destroy" matter, only convert it into energy or a super-dense form. And according to Einstein, matter is a form of energy and vice versa since E=mc^2, where m=mass, which mass is a quantitative amount of matter.