studiot

That is not the same as how does energy move a matter particle? Surely since the word kinetic means 'to do with motion' it is not suprising that any kinetic theory of anything at all is about motion? But motion of what? Well motion of particles. The original 'particles' were proposed before molecules were 'discovered'. So they were only equated with molecules later in the development of physics and still to this day do not need the existence of molecules for particulate theory to hold good. So what is a particle? Here is DF Lawden (Professor of Mathematics University of Canterbury NZ) on Particles Using these definitions we can develop the whole conventional theory of rigid and fluid body motion and interaction without further ado. We start by observing that solids are a continuum and that when solids melt there is almost no expansion so we postualte that liquids are also a continuum. We then divide up the liquid into lots of adjacent fluid mechanical particles to develop fluid mechanics, We note that a when a given fluid turns into a gas it expands considerably - Water expands approximately 1700 times. So do we postulate that the particles expand 1700 times when water evaporates and shrink again when the steam condenses? Or do we postulate that the particles separate and there is space between them? Can you think of a simple experiment to test which is correct? This is the basis of the original kinetic theory. The application of Lawden's mathematics came later. Of course as soon as we do some mathematics we can attribute an energy due to motion or kinetic energy to each particle and we are in business of developing a mathematical kinetic theory. (It was not Lawden who did this). Again it is simple to observe by stirring a liquid that some particles move fast and some move more slowly and that energy is transferred from the fast ones to the slow ones as might be expected from the observation that when to particles collide or just brush past the faster particle can hit harder (carries more energy) than the slower one. So now can you answer my question. Have you ever seen Brownian motion, since your last comments suggest you are unsure as to what exactly it is? Oh and please note that all this would work just as well if there were no 'molecules'.

Nice to know there are some other humans on this website. I do it all the time.

You need a biophysicist for that one.

I am not sure where you are coming from here since you ask specifically about large structures, then want to discuss individual atoms? I will address these separately. Looking back I realise that I have not been very clear. The sound you hear is in the air not the wires! Resonance is about the transfer of periodic energy from one system to another and can occur when the control of this transfer is by the driving system. However resonance only happens when the driving system frequency exactly matches the natural frequency (or a whole number multiple) of the driven system. At this time there is maximum amplitude or velocity of vibration. Control can be by the driving (also called forcing) system or by the driven system. When control is exerted by the driven system we call the oscillation a relaxation oscillation. If the telephone wire was twanged like a musical instrument string it would vibrate at its natural frequency according to Rayleigh’s equation, or the simplified harmonic version may suffice. The frequency is governed by the wire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh%E2%80%93Plesset_equation But this is not the mechanism by which vibration is generated when a steady wind passes over a wire. This occurs by vortex shedding and the frequency of this is controlled by the fluid mechanics of the wind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_shedding#Governing_equation The strouhal function has wiggle in its graph that sets the frequency of what you hear. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strouhal_number The frequency of vibration is set by the driving system (the speed of the wind). For most frequencies this does not match the natural frequency of vibration of the wires so resonance does not occur, although the wires still vibrate. In the odd case where it does large amplitude oscillations can occur and rip the wires out. Note that Wiki gives the impression that all periodic transfers of energy are resonant. They are not. A simple basic test is to ask what happens if the drive is removed. If the driven system reverts to its own natural frequency then the drive was not resonant If the driven system carries on as if nothing had stopped (except for any slow decay of the oscillation) then the transfer is resonaant. With regard to your comments on micro systems look here http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gold/pdfs/quantray.pdf

From your diagram it is not clear whether the thickness and properties of the semiconductor are sufficient to significantly distort the normal coax equations, which assume a homogenous material (or lack of it) between the conductors. BTW What is the purpose of the semiconductor? Is it for instance connected to an earth or source of voltage?

So it is already in use. Thank you I have learned something. +1

Like it +1

This is the fifth time I have asked you provide some details of what you are asking. Otherwise you might as well ask "How do I do Structural Analysis?" Do you actually know what resonance means and why I said that wind induced oscillations are not usually resonant?

What does any of this have to do with your question?

I don't think either Newton or Einstein ever said anything to remotely suggest there is no force of attraction, either in German or Olde Englishe.

Have you checked your post for ??????????

Yes, that's right. there is reference to this in the literature and that is why even with superconductors there is no free lunch on this. But it may be much faster and more compact. So Microsoft will be able to reach new heights of computing inefficiency when they get all to exabytes to waste.

Spin is not polarised it has one of two quantum values +1/2 or -1/2. Quantum spin in Fermi bands (non localised orbitals) is not yet well studied so I repeat, it may happen in the future.

Wind induced vibrations are often non resonant, for example the sound of singing in telephone wires is nowhere near the resonant frequency of the wires. This is a big subject and quite interesting but, You really do need to ask a proper question to get a proper answer.

You really shouldn't produce parts of formulae when you don't know what they mean so they appear as nonsense. I assume you mean one not zero dimensional for the first one. In which case the use of the partial derivative is inappropriate. Nabla2 in the second equation is an operator that takes an argument, and you have provided none. Please don't post maths because it looks pretty or impressive or something. Of course, the Hamiltonian itself is an operator and under the same requirements.

The current state of 'spintronics' is that it is somewhere between wishful thinking and a gleam in its parents eyes. That does not mean it might one day become useful. http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/superconducting-spintronics-pave-way-for-next-generation-computing My discussion was firmly based on current (pun intended) practice.

It's not clear whether this job is in production or development, but why are you expecting experiments? Yes don't rush = slow and methodical. Like the old site carpenter said, measure twice, cut once. Check your work.

Dont' rush. Don't even rush the don't rushing. go well

@metacogitans. You have allowed yourself to get diverted from your original ideas, I was trying to help you develop in posts 2, 6 and 9, which has been shown to be a very fruitful line of enquiry. You will find more about these ideas here at post24 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/84931-equating-motion-with-energy/page-2 if you wish to pursue them.

I have been trying to offer rational discussion of the Kinetic Theory with you, but you seem to prefer disputing minor points with others. A really good description and history, both mathematical and physical is to be found in the chapter devoted to the Kinetic Theory of (IMHO) the best Physical Chemistry textbook ever written. Physical Chemistry by W Moore. ( I like the 4th edition although I also have later). Moore does not mention random in his definition of the motion of molecules. He does, however note that it is a model and he goes on to develop much more sophisticated kinetic model, including what it would be like if the motion were random. The fact that it is a model is important for two reasons developed in my sketches below. Firstly because if we consider fig1 which is a hollow tube carying particles. There is a flux of particles in one end and out the other. If we wish to model this we may find that exact calculations are too onerous and may be replaced with another function or mechanism that has the same flux at each end, but is mathematically much simpler to evaluate. This process is much used in numerical maths as I will return to in fig2. For a zero flux the assumption of a random motion mechanism has has the same end fluxes and is much much simpler to calculate since it is an averaging calculation. It is so good that if we replace the tube with a bar and the gaseous flux with an electron flux we can explain the operation of a PN junction (and thus the transistors in this computer), using the drift and diffusion equations for the model. Not only that but the principle is appropriate when we do finite element analysis (FEA) as in fig2a. The values of the desired (or measured) function are exact at mesh points A, B etc, so we look to replace the difficult or impossible to solve actual function with an approximating simple one that has the same values at the mesh points. Then we shrink to mesh to a fineness where the difference throughout the region is immaterial. So the randomness is not a prerequisite it is just that a gas behaves as if its molecular motion was random when a large enough number of particles are involved.

I would suggest that there are two things that would help. Firstly for scientists in the widest sense to show more enthusiasm themselves and to be more prepared to answer questions and offer encouragement. For instance in this recent thread http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85033-a-good-book-to-start-my-journey-into-chemistry/ Secondly I commented in my response to that thread that the presentation in one book is poor because it presents every topic as a series of disjoint items to be learned and makes no attempt to link them together to form or build up a coherent whole. I am convinced that we learn better when we see how things fit in with each other rather than as a long list of isolated facts.

OK so you want a general overview? I would recommend Chemistry for Dummies. But I woudl not recommend Chemistry Demistified as its presents a series of @how clever we are@ articles without attempts to link things into a coherent whole or give any indication of the breadth of coverage. Some other books that are a good read in themselves and quite motivational are Molecules by Atkins Chasing the Molecule by Julian Buckingham Materials for Electronics (Open University set book) You might like to also look at some Materials Science books, those by Askland, Callister or Higgins are good.

That's a big question that needs a heap more information to begin to answer.

Sorry I've no idea, but many are following this so perhaps someone else can say.

Spin is irrelevent to the super orbitals. Electrons (and holes) obey the Pauli Exclusion principle which basically says that no two coupled electrons ie in the same orbital can have the same set of quantum numbers. What happens is that all the quantum numbers that define energy levels are very close together and form what is known as an energy band so the delocalised electrons occupy these states. That is what Strange meant by talking of controlling energy levels. So in effect, the electrons already do what you are suggesting, because they move about freely within the energy band. We do not have the ability to define the very fine levels within the band.