questionposter

Yeah, he wants me to read a book that is essentially a lecture of a physicist in the form of words. The idea comes from the fact that whenever I based a question or statement off of quantum mechanics and never mentioned classical mechanics, he just said "go read the book" or called it gibberish. If it's still at the library I'll go check it out.

There is logically not enough information on this topic to prove I'm wrong with regards to energy. I can assume that if Rocket advocates the book enough to spam over it, then that means it shares the same views as him, which means it's likely 95% classical mechanics, and classical mechanics is the problem. And, the only reason people come on this website with the exception of a few is to post questions they personally have and get answers. It's like he hates quantum mechanics though, he somehow thinks only classical mechanics can describe every single event in the universe or something. Yep, there are dozens, but generally the ones with the complex equations such as mine are generally one's that aren't pop-science as pop-science is trying to convey complex information in the simplest manner. Well there we go, thermo-dynamics applies to the classical world, so there's room for it to be wrong in the atomic world. Why do other energy levels have such uncertainty but not the ground state? So even at the ground state, electrons have a probability of being at a higher energy level (further away from the nucleus), but where did that energy come from? So wouldn't that violate thermodynamics? I know it's not energy itself, it's something like heat turned into mechanical work, but theoretically all energy should be lost in the form of entropy since every process causes some entropy (which is why a system can't ever be 100% efficient), so everything's energy in classical thermodynamics would gradually bleed out and the universe should eventually lose all energy to entropy, which probably won't actually happen. I don't think it's that I just think it's that I'm challenging how certain classical mechanics holds on the atomic level and many people here credit themselves with being smart by knowing a lot of classical mechanics, which isn't to say that people aren't smart, it's that classical mechanics can't perfectly describe the universe, it can only approximate some things and not even every thing, I don't think there is ever a perfect system that is described by relativity in reality or Newtonian mechanics, I think at most it is just an approximation, like not being able to use all decimals of an irrational number. And so far there isn't much evidence that I've seen on this thread to suggest that notion is wrong.

Is "i" literally just some imaginary figment to make up for the flaws in our math? Or is it just a number who's value we cannot comprehend?

http://physical-thou...f-neutrino.html Seems to correspond to both of what we're saying, although I'll admit it's mostly what your saying I think all you really do when you have neutrinos emitted from a source like the sun is just add up the wave functions of the 3 different neutrinos into a single wave just like you'd do with two electrons whom share the same energy state, and then you have a single wave which contains a probability of finding all 3 masses, http://universe-review.ca/R15-13-neutrino.htm like in there, but I suppose it's only for a single flavor. but I guess some expert can correct me if I'm wrong.

If my problem was a personal problem and that was your solution, this website would be dead.

http://en.wikipedia...._thermodynamics http://www.physicspl...-thermodynamics Energy will always be lost from a process and no system can be 100% efficient, so theoretically the energy of the universe is "bleeding out" in the form of entropy and eventually all energy in the universe will be entropy, but an atom can't lose any more energy on it's own when it reaches the ground-state even though the ground state contains energy that is not in the form of entropy. Also, how is it that we can achieve 100% precision with the known energy of an atom? Are there any links you can direct me to that say such a thing is possible? And if we 100% precisely know the energy of an electron around an atom, doesn't that mean the electron is infinitely undetermined in location? And wouldn't that mean that it can occupy a location at a greater distance away form the nucleus? Well that's energy, but it can't just "bleed out" into entropy. All the laws of thermodynamics are based on classical mechanics and classical observations, so there's no way they could be 100% accurate. Well I just don't see how I'm wrong, because you aren't really explaining what's wrong with the notion that the uncertainty principal is "the more precisely you know the energy, the less precisely you know the location", because that's one of the things I based what I was saying on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics http://www.physicsplanet.com/articles/three-laws-of-thermodynamics Heat will always be lost from a process, so theoretically the energy of the universe is "bleeding out" in the form of entropy and eventually all energy in the universe will be entropy, but an atom can't lose any more energy on it's own when it reaches the ground-state. Also, how is it that we can achieve 100% precision with the known monentum of an atom? Are there any links you can direct me to that say such a thing is possible? Well that's energy, but it can't just "bleed out" into entropy. All the laws of thermodynamics are based on classical mechanics and classical observations, so there's no way they could be 100% accurate. Well I just don't see how I'm wrong, because you aren't really explaining what's wrong with the notion that the uncertainty principal is "the more precisely you know the energy, the less precisely you know the location", because that's one of the things I based what I was saying on.

So, the Heisenberg Uncertainty principal is crap? The Planck quantinization of wavelengths within atomic systems that was even used by Einstein to explain the ultra-violate catastrophe is false? Because those are the quantum mechanical principals that I presented in my posts, and those things are proven to exist...so, I don't think I need to get a better book. It's even observed what I was saying about liquid helium. Whether or not those observations break the laws of thermal dynamics I guess is something I'm waiting on swan for. Although, is every atom in a substance existing in a ground state technically absolute 0? Or I guess a distinction would need to be made again with classical and quantum, because if you look around you, then according to some properties of relativity in this topic, those objects all have 0K because they aren't moving relative to you since they are all on the Earth's surface and so rotating at the same speed as you. But at the same time, on the atomic level, there's constant motions which are happening but not apparent enough for you to observe them, supposadly even tiny constant motions predicted by manifold physics within the fabric of space itself...

So...what about sunlight? Or what about geothermal energy? Or what about the energy in the Earth's tides? Or what about wind? Or what about genetically engineered microbes? I mean the alternative energy and multi-story greenhouse would solve that food problem, but the only problem is right now it's very expensive. And money is also why you don't have those huge ocean water purifiers all over Africa.

Well I mean I know altruism doesn't usually work when things are scared for their own survival and doesn't usually work on it's own, but what about ants? There's probably more ants in the world than people...

It doesn't need to say that. If you know the laws of thermal dynamics, you'd know it's violated. The second law of thermal dynamics says that energy will always flow of hot to cold within a substance, but in liquid helium, as stated by the NASA site, can do cold to hot. Well, heat isn't suppose to escape a black hole, and we can't measure that black holes have any entropy. Ok, energy, but atoms can't decay past the ground state even though the laws of thermal dynamics say that all matter has to eventually decay to heat or I guess photons right? Also, if it won't start spontaneously moving at all, isn't that stating that we know with 100% accuracy what it's precise energy is for the energy of an atom to be solely at one single energy level? Not written by them, but with summarized information they discovered. Even Einstein who pioneered relativity helped to explain how light works using the quantinization discovered to exist within atomic systems. So what about Enrico Fermi and Debroglie?

Well I already said that I can agree that time stopping isn't logical and haven't mentioned it since. You should really read my posts more carefully because I said that exact same thing. It would be weird except atoms actually do follow principals of quantum mechanics which for some reason he doesn't like. It's very ironic because I discovered quantum mechanics from reading a small book called Quantum Mechanics in the first place. It's not pop science, the atoms LITERALLY have an undefined location because they aren't only a particle, they're also a wave. http://en.wikipedia....i/Liquid_helium http://cryo.gsfc.nas...uid_helium.html "-It carries no thermal energy (no entropy): all of the heat energy is in the normal component<br style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: medium; ">-It has no viscosity: it can flow through tiny holes.<br style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: medium; ">-It flows towards areas where the helium II is heated. Heat causes superfluid to convert to normal. A flow of superfluid into the heated area cools that area and restores the uniform mixture of normal and superfluid." "Since superfluid helium flows from cool areas to warm areas " Maybe a substance can be at absolute 0 because "it carries no thermal energy"? Otherwise, is there actually some other experiment where we would relatively measure something to be at absolute 0 just because of the angle or location we're at? Ok, so we agree that left on their own, atoms can ONLY decay to the ground state and not magically to pure entropy, right? But, even at the ground state, do atoms not have a probability of containing higher momentum? Well we can't really prove anything with black holes, but entropy is carried by photons right? Well photons aren't suppose to be able to escape a black hole, but I don't know for sure because Stephan Hawking, a very smart person, said black holes can evaporate. It's not pop science though, a bunch of great scientists have worked on quantum mechanics: Warner Heisenberg, Max Planck, and even Einstein in some ways.

No, you build upwards, no outwards http://www.wellespar...ards-greenhouse The same thing is happening with silicon chips, only instead of silicon it's micro-pillars of carbon non-tubes.

If all forces and motion are carried through virtual particles, shouldn't a black hole just suck up all virtual particles that carry forces and motion? I suppose the way kinetic energy works here on Earth is that the electro-magnetism of atoms repel one another with a lot of force when they get into close contact with each other, but a black hole should suck up those virtual force carriers as it does with Hawking Radiation. Or is there maybe something about a Higg's field that causes only some particles to get sucked up by a black hole and not others?

I think the way it works is a virtual particle pair forms near a black hole, and one get's sucked in and another doesn't. One virtual particle is just barely not close enough to get into the event horizon and so follows the curve of the fabric of space until (if ever) it get's at the right angle to travel away from a black hole.

Well your probably not a scientist because real scientists know that laws aren't meant to be these "grand, un-shakable pillars of eternity". They simply state what "should" logically happen given our current knowledge. But, we don't know everything, so there's room for these things to be wrong and change, just as the very model of an atom has changed. Besides, I thought kinetic energy and quantum mechanics was physics, but I guess if you have some way to disprove all of that, I'd like to see it. Once again, general relativity isn't the only thing that describes the universe, and in fact it cannot completely describe the universe because it implies determinism. Yeah, I understand all these "reference points" and how all that works, but some things are just not so relative. The laws of physics are not relative, at least not with our current knowledge, and part of the laws of physics is that atoms exist as entities of undefined locations, as well as kinetic energy having the inherent property to make things move, although "how" much something moves can be perceived differently. What I'm saying with regards to liquid helium and broken thermal dynamical laws has been proven through experiments conducted around the world (except for black holes obviously). If you are somehow a scientists, your obviously one of those scientists who isn't really keeping up with the times, much like Einstein who didn't even acknowledge the existence of the Strong Force within nuclei and so faded away from the frontier of science. C'mon, even quantum mechanics was invented like half a century ago, get with the times.

With liquid helium, I forgot which law specifically, but something about infinite thermal conductivity causes some problems. Liquid helium can also transfer energy from both hot to cold and cold to hot, which I know goes against 1 rule thermal dynamics. Otherwise, atoms themselves break I think the second law which implies that "everything will exhaust energy" or radiate it away in the form of entropy, is broken by the mere fact that even at the ground state, an atom won't just lose it's energy because energy in an atomic system is quantized as well as uncertain. So the energy of an atom will never just "decay" to 0 or at least stay at defined at 0. And then there's something about black holes not being able to radiate entropy, although theoretically they evaporate, but I don't know how seriously that's taken by the science community.

Then there is always an average above 0. I have yet to see a head line that saying "Scientists Achieve Absolute 0 in a substance" or even something as 'simple' as "Scientists Achieve Absolute 0 With Single Atom". Some classical mechanics happens at the atomic level. When you have kinetic energy, atoms are LITERALLY moving. When you push on something, you are LITERALLY pushing on the atoms and giving them kinetic energy and making them move and bump into each other. Energy within an atomic system, such as with hydrogen gas, is quantized. Losing all kinetic energy requires an electron to lose energy past it's ground state (which is always a non-zero momentum above the nucleus) and remain solely in the nucleus, which isn't known to be possible. And then, we can try to force an electron into the nucleus, but that only adds more energy to the system and eventually forms high-energy degenerate matter. I get that there are frames of reference, but there's also different frame's of reference in which to measure light yet it is always measured at C. Given the proper instruments, we could always measure something is moving because we can never actually achieve a perfectly "still" or "perfectly in uniform motion" system, and this is because everything we can measure light from is made up of atoms which have uncertain momentums. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal is quantum mechanics, not classical mechanics. Even though I already mentioned the quantinization problem, it still holds true that there is uncertainty about the momentum of a particle and thus the energy level of a particle cannot actually solely be at 0. Perhaps it maybe can be "at 0 and at it's next energy level and some energy levels above that" but all simultaneously. Math is not reality because math is deterministic. The laws of thermal dynamics which have already been broken by substances like liquid helium apply to physical objects, not measurements. Kinetic energy can be defined basically as something that causes acceleration or motion, and atoms have both literal and quantum mechanical motion. Perhaps you can try to make the net kinetic energy of an object "0" so that you can try to state it has no kinetic energy and isn't traveling in any direction, but the atoms themselves will have to be moving as they cannot exist in a defined location. Only a defined location can have a net energy equal to 0 at least in a vector system. How could an undefined location have it? It doesn't exist a specific location, so it doesn't hold specific kinetic energy. With a measurement itself however, a measurement, which is the point, isn't traveling distance over time and so can't be moving, so the measurement has 0 kinetic energy. A measurement has no momentum so that is perhaps why we perceive atoms as points instead of waves since you need momentum to generate a wave. It's already expected and essentially proven that consciousness has weird effects on matter on the atomic scale, I don't get why the above notion this is such a catastrophe to people.

I suppose no "object" can have 0 kinetic energy (and therefore has to be constantly moving in some way?), but a measurement isn't an object...

Sure it could happen, the only problem is doing it at a slow enough rate to not actually kill every plant, because if you just put any random plant in sea water, it's just going to die, that's like throwing someone into a valconoe, just too big if a difference. But, if you perhaps have only .01 percent salt for one generation, then .02 percent for hte next and so on, you might see some results, but it's still purely random if it would even happen.

But you technically don't know the position still, all you know is what the photon tells you and by the photon is measured the particles has already gone into a state with an undefined location. Perhaps there is uncertainty in "where" you will end up measuring the location of the point which can be contained within the photon you measure information from, otherwise what else are your eyes and instruments actually measuring? Are they measuring triangles? Circles? Squares?

In the older eras there were also localized desert pockets scattered about even in tropical regions, like in Africa, and in tropical climates I guess things did decay faster, but there is also a lot of soil erosion, so fossilization could have been accelerated in some areas due to the constant depositing of soil and sediments carried by streams. The rate of evolution is usually a very long time, a large shift within a species doesn't really happen in only 10 thousand years without some kind of major catastrophe, otherwise I don't really get what your saying. Of course fluctuation in climate happened in the past, the only difference is before they happened more slowly and right now they are happening a lot faster than they ever did before. Smaller changes are more likely to happen quicker. What your saying is possible but it's not supported by any evidence, so it's not very likely.

Because if a wave doesn't have energy, then it's no longer a wave, and when you measure something, we don't measure it as a wave which suggests it may not have energy, and the other part is that a measurement which is a point isn't traveling any distance over time and thus cannot have momentum or I guess kinetic energy. Also, I thought it was impossible for a particle itself to have 0 momentum because of the uncertainty principal and you would have to add energy into the system to try and force a a particle to a lower energy state beyond it's lowest possible state to 0 which isn't decreasing the energy, it's just forming degenerate matter which definitely has a lot of energy.

If you put an EM wave through a double slit, you technically don't even measure the phosphorous, you measure a photon, which is why there should be a distinction between a measurement and the object you measure. A point I think also occupies one dimension.

So to sum it up, even though there's 3 different neutrinos, because of wave mechanics, their wave functions combine to form one wave function?