studiot

Then why is this thread in Modern and Theoretical Physics, not Classical Physics, if we can't use all available to explain/describe something? How, for instance, do purely mechanical charged balls lead to chemical bonding? And why does a classical nucleus, with all that positive charge, not violently tear itself apart?

Nor is the electron a point. In fact it could be regarded as a smeared out comet like something with a dense head and a long tail that it drags through/past the nucleus. In this view the nucleus is much closer to a point than an electron in an atom. The electron could be said to gather itself together in a more pointlike fashion in an electron beam, when it is free of the atom.

Yes we all agree this, but it should be remembered that both particles and waves are idealisations. We can use them in analysis because one characteristic or another has a dominant role, so we can ignore others. But in the real world I don't think there is an perfect example of either.

Are you sending them to dancing class?

Molecules are fine too, they work the same (at least in principle). OK so for (1) you require solutions to the Schrodinger equation. This is full on quantum mechanics. Have you seen any plots of electron densities/probabilities? These are commonly called atomic/molecular orbitals. The point about these is that they answer the age old question: Why does the orbiting electron not spiral down into the nucleus? If you look at an atomic orbital (there ae plenty of images on Google) you will notice that the probability of finding the electron at the origin is essentially zero. So this is saying that bound electron won't fall into or through the nucleus. For completeness, when an external electron approaches an atom (whether it belongs to another atom or not) it 'sees' the atom's cloud of circling electrons shielding the nucleus. Of course this cloud is negatively charged, like the electron so the approaching electron is repelled ever more strongly, the closer it gets. The equation in this case is called Lennard-Jones potential theory. Again this means that the electron will never fall into the nucleus. So we are left with firing incredibly energetic beta particles (electrons) in an atom smasher to find out what happens. Here I look forward to one of Sensei's posts.

No I mean this. There are two types of electron. 1) Those that belong to the same atom/molecule as the nucleus. 2) Those that are exterior to this atom/molecule.

Since f(x) is unknown, have you thought about examining the direction field, and the orthogonal trajectories to it, to find out what form it must have?

Well, if I turn on a light switch the light will flood out in all directions and fill up all available space. It doesn't need pushing it just goes there. In particular, no further apparatus is needed, though additional apparatus is sometimes used for particular purposes. Further it will flood through any gaps in obstructions and try to fill the space beyond. In (your) previous threads about the double slit there was a demonstration of water waves approaching and passing a double slit. They are the same. Once generated they just keep going and spreading. They are also the same in another respect. The generated wave is a plane wave and the waves emerging from the slits are circular or spherical. Finally neither the water nor the light carries a charge. But the electron does. This is fortuitous since a free electrons does not readily jump through gaps. It wanders about randomly until it is snapped up by nearby matter particles. The fact that it is charged allows us to accelerate and direct it so that we can send it through the slit. But this requires extra apparatus which is normally ignored when discussing the slits. So the electron has to be forced through. The photon just wanders through naturally. As you with me thus far?

What sort of electron?

So why is it technically difficult? That is what my comments are about.

When you look again, find out why (or how if you like) the electrons pass through the slit. This is important because it adds something to the electron version that is not there in the slit experiment for light or water waves.

Where did I say that my post was an objection? I am trying to get you to think about the subject you put so much effort into preparing an Opening Post for.

You have a nonhomogeneous linear differential equation. The standard routines can be found here https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=nonhomogeneous+first+order+linear+differential+equation&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=yT8wWvzGJ6zP8Ae7g4vAAQ

Which double slit experiment? My point was to illustrate that electrons are quite different from photons. And you didn't answer my question, which was about electrons since your only question involved them.

This is the only question I can find in all that screed. So why should the electron go through the slit? W hy should it be moving at all? You say it 'bounces off the wall' otherwise. Why? Electrons can pass through or along solid matter. So what sort of wall is this? There is no interference pattern in the slits themselves. The pattern appears (perhaps over time depending upon the rate of electron production) in the region beyond the slits. One of the few good things about Al Khalilli's offering are the white lines radiating outwards showing the alternate high and low density regions and making the comment that these do not denote waves.

Giving the best hairstyle to a tennis ball. (The Hairy ball theorem - Brouwer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hairy_ball_theorem )

I don't usually refer to Brittanica, but clay minerals have a special chemistry due to their structure. https://www.britannica.com/science/clay-mineral/Chemical-and-physical-properties

Most discussions of this nature tend to founder on what is meant by 'exist', so I suggest you start by discussing this. For instance you claim "all that exists.........." If that is so, what do they exist in? What lies between the bits of matter and/or energy and separates them?

For something of this complexity some explanation would be helpful. Especially description of the variables. It's not clear what is known and what you are trying to get to. You start with equation 1 and then state that one of the vectors (A) is a scalar times another vector s' in the second un-numbered equation. The third equation is almost a substitution of this second equation into teh first, but is suddenly equated to vector B. Where did this come from? Then again you state "I've found this result", but not where or how.

Indeed it may be. It is the electric field that antenna respond to.

This is a science website so why are you using from a general language dictionary to look up a science specific word?

An alleged conversation at the Royal Astonomical Society conference November 6th 1919. Silberstein "Professor Eddington, you must be one of the three persons in the world who understand General Relativity" Whilst waiting for a reply as Eddington thinks, Silberstein "Don't be modest, Eddington" Finally Eddington "On the contrary, I'm trying to think who the third person is."

Yes. A question for you to think about. You describe the scope display as increasing when you move the probe towards the room walls or the capacitor plates. Did you try placing the probe statically at decreasing distances and recording the scope readings at various distances after the display had settled? That is did the movement make any difference? Do you know anything about the effect of capacitance on scope inputs?

I'm not complaining about the BBC science programmes in general, some are absolutely brilliant and I have linked to them here myself. The Earth Science ones are especially good as was the one on Electricity a couple of years back. But my comments on the JAK style are twofold. 1) Asking questions the audience (or anyone else) can't answer and then handwaving when things get difficult. 2) Presenting explanations as though they were cut and dried Physics, not the subjects of considerable modern debate. Here is an interesting two pages from a Roger Penrose book covering much of the same ground. RP has the guts to admit when we just don't know and offers an evently balanced presentation of different speculations by world class scientists. #The Large, the Small and the Human Mind

Hello marco is this homework? The pdf doesn't work Just write it out by hand and post a scan or photograph.