Electron energy: forever?

[swansont]

So I take it there wasn't any flaws in what I was saying?

 

No, don't assume that. I haven't had time to read all of the overnight (for me) posts yet. In general, you shouldn't assume silence is the same as agreement.

[lemur]

I explained this already

http://www.sciencefo...639#entry585639

Ok, now I see more what you meant. I didn't get it the first time because you didn't explicate any relationship between adding energy and the electron configuration. You just noted that the configuration changes the relationship between atoms and free electrons or atoms and other atoms. So the net conclusion would be that energy can only break particles apart and it takes force to bind them together.

 

The Bohr model was abandoned because it didn't fit the known data. It was "good theorizing" because it started with valid physics concepts, added an hypothesis which didn't contradict empirical evidence, and went through the right process on its way to being rejected.

I think you overemphasize the inductive aspect of modeling, and it may be a personal bias I have toward deductive/critical testing/research. Granted, the more rigorously inductive the model-building process is, the more likely it will be that the model will hold up longer to critical rigor. But I prefer to see a clear theory asserted and submitted for critical scrutiny than a slow inductive modeling process that builds up to such elaborate description that it resists determinant criticism just by virtue of its breadth and complexity. Global climate change models bother me for this reason. Apart from any political concerns about the political ramifications of the science one way or the other, large scale models that have so much variability in how to select sampling methods, consolodate data, etc. end up spending so much energy on simply describing the model that critical application of logic gets lost in the process.

 

Anyway, that was a tangent. My point is that the Bohr model wasn't just good because it fit existing knowledge and was falsifiable. It was good because it provided a mechanical analogy to a classical mechanical system that made it possible to theorize further implications. So, for example, if the Bohr model would have been maintained, it would be possible to make all sorts of extrapolations and deductions about subatomic processes simply by contemplating the interdynamics of the various parts of the machine. I.e. with a strong qualitative model of a system, you can theorize how it will behave under all sorts of conditions and interactional inputs because you have an idea of why and how the parts function as they do.

 

I'm not sure who you think is assuming that sub-atomic particles are fundamentally incomprehensible. People wouldn't do science of they thought things were fundamentally incomprehensible. That's very different from pointing out that a particular model fails to work.

I know people don't think they're fundamentally incomprehensible at the quantitative level. It's the qualitative modeling that people seem to eschew. It seems like every qualitative model nowadays is just a prop designed to facilitate quantification and math-building, e.g. postulating particles for any and all sorts of interaction to be able to quantify amounts of force/energy carried by the particle and quantify the collective behavior of numerous particles behaving in tandem. How many math-savvy physicists would support a good qualitative model if that model made it difficult or impossible to quantify and do equation-work with the model? I'm not saying that if it turned out that some qualitative model was more representative of how nature works but difficult to use quantitatively, that this would undermine the utility of good math that delivers precise predictions with parsimonious equations, etc. I'm just saying that if there was a way to understand what electrons are really doing in a concrete qualitative way, it would be nice to be able to do so instead of having only snapshots of probability distributions of wave functions, etc. Maybe I just haven't yet understood what the significance of these wave-function shapes is yet and how they influence the force-interactions between the particles.

 

The problem is when you get to questions of "how this works" where there is no testable model. Those questions can't be answered, because there's no way to tell if they are wrong.

What makes it so hard to formulate models and then look for ways to test them using existing evidence or deducing new kinds of tests/observations?

Edited January 27, 2011 by lemur

[Sisyphus]

lemur, it seems like you are insisting on a "qualitative model" to be some robust analogy to a classical physics situation. Why?

 

I'll tell you why not: because it doesn't work. It is impossible to model an atom with classical physics. That's why there is quantum physics.

 

So what's the appeal of it? "To understand what it actually is," sure. But what does that mean? Would picturing it as little balls orbiting around a center make it more understood? No. It would just make it more familiar, which is not the same thing. And it would make it so you could have a mental image of it, which is not the same as understanding it, either.

 

The fact is that quantum behavior, which is outside our ordinary experience, is what is real. And ordinary experience, with things like orbits and solid objects that have particular locations at all times, are the illusion. Or rather, they are emergent phenomena, but simply not how the world works on a fundamental level. Put together enough little wavicles, and you start to get something that looks like a coffee mug (for example). Just like if you put together enough ones and zeroes, you start to get something that looks like Firefox (for example). And what you're essentially saying is that for any of those ones or zeroes, there simply must be some way to model it as a web browser, or else we don't really understand what a one or a zero is.

 

Does my tortured analogy make sense?

[lemur]

lemur, it seems like you are insisting on a "qualitative model" to be some robust analogy to a classical physics situation. Why?

 

I'll tell you why not: because it doesn't work. It is impossible to model an atom with classical physics. That's why there is quantum physics.

 

So what's the appeal of it? "To understand what it actually is," sure. But what does that mean? Would picturing it as little balls orbiting around a center make it more understood? No. It would just make it more familiar, which is not the same thing. And it would make it so you could have a mental image of it, which is not the same as understanding it, either.

 

The fact is that quantum behavior, which is outside our ordinary experience, is what is real. And ordinary experience, with things like orbits and solid objects that have particular locations at all times, are the illusion. Or rather, they are emergent phenomena, but simply not how the world works on a fundamental level. Put together enough little wavicles, and you start to get something that looks like a coffee mug (for example). Just like if you put together enough ones and zeroes, you start to get something that looks like Firefox (for example). And what you're essentially saying is that for any of those ones or zeroes, there simply must be some way to model it as a web browser, or else we don't really understand what a one or a zero is.

 

Does my tortured analogy make sense?

Your argument is well-stated, though I've heard it before. The problem with it is that there really is no modeling, quantitative or qualitative, that doesn't rely on assumptions derived from the visible level of observation. You would assume that quantification and math are totally abstract and universal tools for description and analysis but how can you say that things at the fundamental level are quantifiable just because energy appears to travel in discreet packets in the 'emergent' reality of experimental measurements? So if you're throwing away every concept derived from experiential cognition, you would have to throw away quantification too, I think. If you want to make the argument that math works and is therefore applicable, whereas qualitative modeling doesn't, that is still not a conclusive argument against ALL possible qualitative modeling.

 

The main problem with your attitude (which many people hold, not just you) is that it is defeatist (and even obstructionist) instead of hopeful with regards to modeling. You're basically assuming that (sub)atomic level processes necessarily defy any possible attempt at rationalizing them except in the quantitative ways that they already are. It's fine to consider phenomena as being emergent, but that shouldn't be a barrier to analyzing in what ways they could emerge and why the things from which they emerge behave as they do or don't. If you claim that it is a macro-illusion that solid objects have fixed locations and move in continuous trajectories, then you would have to look for some other form of movement to describe electron dynamics but why would you abandon the very possibility that there is a logic to how electrons tunnel around or whatever it is they do? Why wouldn't anyone work on theorizing the nature of those "wavicles" and what they will and won't do under various conditions and why?

 

Such modeling wouldn't have to make any process more familiar, as you say with the balls example. It just needs to provide some foundation for building up an idea of what the components are actually doing and how that relates to the observational data and the patterns recognized and described in equations, rules, laws, etc..

Edited January 27, 2011 by lemur

[swansont]

In many cases, qualitative models can't be tested with any degree of precision. This is true even for the Bohr model — the one aspect it gets right is the energy, which is a quantitative prediction. That's the only reason, AFAICT, it ever moved past the speculation stage.

[lemur]

In many cases, qualitative models can't be tested with any degree of precision. This is true even for the Bohr model — the one aspect it gets right is the energy, which is a quantitative prediction. That's the only reason, AFAICT, it ever moved past the speculation stage.

There are many things that can't be tested precisely. Imagine trying to test hypotheses about how a cloud's shape will change under various conditions. Still, you can start with very general ideas like that the cloud will dissipate in the sun or hot, dry air or that it will condense and rain in cold air. From there you could come up with various cloud-mechanics logics and these could be tested with relative inaccuracy by subjective observation. Yes, the discourse would involve a lot of vagueness, but there is nothing inherently false about thinking that there might be a logic to how clouds change size and shape and how they interact to cause various emergent weather phenomena. Obviously, you could also simply classify clouds into various categories and approximate sizes and then count how many of each are present at certain moments and look for patterns in sky-composition and correlate these with weather conditions, but that would be a more quantitative approach that would miss the interactive dynamics of the clouds themselves and other "climactic objects."

Edited January 27, 2011 by lemur

[swansont]

The main problem with your attitude (which many people hold, not just you) is that it is defeatist (and even obstructionist) instead of hopeful with regards to modeling.

 

Seems to have worked pretty well so far. Is your objection from the perspective of a practicing scientist? If not, why should your opinion carry any weight?

 

There are many things that can't be tested precisely. Imagine trying to test hypotheses about how a cloud's shape will change under various conditions. Still, you can start with very general ideas like that the cloud will dissipate in the sun or hot, dry air or that it will condense and rain in cold air. From there you could come up with various cloud-mechanics logics and these could be tested with relative inaccuracy by subjective observation. Yes, the discourse would involve a lot of vagueness, but there is nothing inherently false about thinking that there might be a logic to how clouds change size and shape and how they interact to cause various emergent weather phenomena. Obviously, you could also simply classify clouds into various categories and approximate sizes and then count how many of each are present at certain moments and look for patterns in sky-composition and correlate these with weather conditions, but that would be a more quantitative approach that would miss the interactive dynamics of the clouds themselves and other "climactic objects."

 

Why are you under the impression that a model that tells you how a cloud's size would change under a certain set of conditions doesn't include logic and an interaction mechanism?

[steevey]

No, don't assume that. I haven't had time to read all of the overnight (for me) posts yet. In general, you shouldn't assume silence is the same as agreement.

 

Well I'm not just asking for lemur too. I specifically don't remember exactly how it works so I want to know how it works. If it turns out I described it right, then good for me, I don't need to figure out anything else.

[lemur]

Seems to have worked pretty well so far. Is your objection from the perspective of a practicing scientist? If not, why should your opinion carry any weight?

My status doesn't matter. The validity of my position should be ascertainable from its content. If you can invalidate it with your savvy as a practicing scientist, or any other form of valid reason, I'm sure your argument would carry weight to anyone that's not beyond argument by reason, which are precious few people by the way.

 

Why are you under the impression that a model that tells you how a cloud's size would change under a certain set of conditions doesn't include logic and an interaction mechanism?

I'm not. I was talking about the alternative approach I described where the clouds would just be classified into ideal types and statistically correlated and otherwise studied without directly modeling the hows of interactive dynamics/mechanics. If cloud-formation was studied like electron motion, people would say that certain shapes of clouds appear under certain conditions but they would say that it was impossible to theorize about how the shape-changing took place and what the water molecules were doing vis-a-vis other atmospheric molecules and energies.

 

 

[swansont]

My status doesn't matter. The validity of my position should be ascertainable from its content. If you can invalidate it with your savvy as a practicing scientist, or any other form of valid reason, I'm sure your argument would carry weight to anyone that's not beyond argument by reason, which are precious few people by the way.

 

 

If people outside the system complain that it doesn't work, but people within the system says it works great, who are you you going to listen to? You appear to be telling me that science is failing because it doesn't conform to your wishes, and I look around at all the discoveries being made under the current paradigm, and am concluding that your argument isn't valid. You haven't made your case. There's nothing to rebut.

[lemur]

If people outside the system complain that it doesn't work, but people within the system says it works great, who are you you going to listen to? You appear to be telling me that science is failing because it doesn't conform to your wishes, and I look around at all the discoveries being made under the current paradigm, and am concluding that your argument isn't valid. You haven't made your case. There's nothing to rebut.

It's not failing in quantitative rigor. It is shirking qualitative rigor because, as you have said, qualitative modeling is harder to test and harder to get right, which makes it seem like a waste of time. It really doesn't matter to me where coherent mechanical modeling comes from (i.e. 'inside' or 'outside' "the system"). I don't care if some crackpot posts a viable qualitative model of electron behavior as long as it doesn't require tons of reading and thought to understand and then immediately fails the most obvious validity testing.

 

I think your attitude in this post is generally too defensive. You're taking what I am saying as an attack on a system, which you apparently view as a fortress designed to hold out barbarians. You started by demanding that I had sufficient credentials for my opinion to even be heard. Basically, you're reacting to my explanation of why qualitative theorizing has value and my analysis of why it is unpopular by putting up systems-defenses. That's silly because I'm not criticizing any system - only making points about the knowledge generally.

 

Please answer one question for me: why is it that whenever qualitative modeling is mentioned, people begin getting defensive and never do they reflect on the forms of qualitative modeling that they do value? Is it that people are so engrossed in the mathematics that follow the qualitative modeling that they no longer recognize the qualitative part of the work as qualitative in the first place?

Edited January 28, 2011 by lemur

[imatfaal]

Oh Lemur - but the barbarians are at the gate. Science is under attack - not merely in terms of funding, regulations flowing from extreme moral positions, and big business's casual attitude to publication of result, to name but a few - it is under attack from those who believe their opinion and anecdotes are a valid argument against empirical evidence.

 

Here is just one link - that I believe shows an area in which science is losing out to pseudoscience http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html and the dangers associated with a lack of quantitative empirical testing

[swansont]

I think your attitude in this post is generally too defensive.

 

It's amazing how little I care. OK, not so amazing.

[lemur]

Oh Lemur - but the barbarians are at the gate. Science is under attack - not merely in terms of funding, regulations flowing from extreme moral positions, and big business's casual attitude to publication of result, to name but a few - it is under attack from those who believe their opinion and anecdotes are a valid argument against empirical evidence.

The more you square off against people who seem to think differently than you, the more likely the conflict is to escalate in the direction of more personal and/or physical forms of conflict. This is NOT the direction anyone should want to take conflict in. Science cannot be so unscientific to assume its own righteousness against competing views. Instead, science should do what it does best, subjecting alternative perspectives to critical scientific dissection. The problem is that an impasse occurs when people get stuck in petty paradigmatic battles over axiomatic assumptions. For example, when religious people claim God exists and scientists claim it's not possible, they are essentially battling over materialism. Religious materialists want God's existence to be a material fact and scientists want to elevate materialism to a level that renders theism sub-valid. Imo, scientists should admit that they are subjective embodied humans and not purely omniscient, objective science in and of themselves. Science can seek to transcend pure subjectivity and bias without denying the importance of subjective knowledge/beliefs to human psychology. In other words, they could recognize that God's existence has concrete subjective/psychological function and thus stop trying to pester religion into relinquishing belief in the supernatural just because it isn't supported by materialist science.

 

Furthermore, it is not legitimate to use scientific findings as a philosophical basis for politics. Scientific knowledge can be taken into account in politics, but technocracy is no substitute for democratic discourse among competing belief systems. You cannot just expect people to lay down and accept anything you say is good politics because you are a scientist. You have to reason your case and if people are obstinate, it is their responsibility to reason their case to you as well. At what point to you simply give up and shift to a race to destruction of the other because you believe the impasse is hopeless? Obviously people do this all the time, but does it ever end conflicts and impasses? Do you really ever expect a technocracy to evolve in which people chant "heil science" the way they chanted, "heil Hilter" during the third reich? If not, you have to have some patience that science has to make its case in democratic discourse with religion and other ideologies.

 

Here is just one link - that I believe shows an area in which science is losing out to pseudoscience http://whatstheharm....homeopathy.html and the dangers associated with a lack of quantitative empirical testing

I do my best on a regular basis to extend scientific ideas to believers in homeopathy and other 'pseudosciences.' I do this not with the goal of undermining their beliefs but rather I try to get them to show interest in the scientific basis for what they believe their magical remedy is doing. For example, if someone is using a homeopathic remedy you can explore with them what the ingredients are and why they've been told it works. This way, if it is in fact snake oil as you suspect, at least you're not assuming so and pushing your assumption uncritically on someone who has clearly devoted enough interest in it to want to invest money and potentially prolonged sickness in this remedy.

 

It's amazing how little I care. OK, not so amazing.

Why do I deserve rudeness?

 

 

[mississippichem]

Lemur,

 

What you may call being defensive is just an attempt to make it clear that there is no qualitative model that describes with complete accuracy any system. If someone says that a ball is red, that may be true, but it is not precise. A precise, and in my opinion more scientific and falsifiable, statement is that the ball's color is 760 nm-red. Then I can directly measure the frequency of the light in question and definitively conclude as to whether or not the statement is accurate. If the statement is inaccurate, I can quantify this error and say that for example that the predicted frequency is 5% wrong. This is just a simple example.

 

When examining the finer points of our natural world like quantum mechanics or general relativity, things that our outside our everyday intuition of "medium-sized-slowly-moving" macro objects, it becomes even more crucial that definitive statements are only made quantitatively. Sometimes there simply are not words to describe the phenomena that are occurring. We have no word for something that has some particle-like nature but also displays wave-like properties. So we say that the electron orbitals are solutions to a differential equation:

 

[math]i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \Psi = \hat H \Psi[/math]

 

You may not know what all this means; that's alright, don't feel bad. Relatively few have enough math knowledge to understand the complete implications of the above equation. However, just because you do not understand doesn't mean there must be a better way to describe it. Thus far, any qualitative explanation that has been offered to explain the behavior o atomic electrons has been flawed in some crucial way, namely violating the uncertainty principle. That's just how it is. Swansont didn't write the laws of nature, he just understands them better than many here on the forum. Give him a break, eh? He's just trying to ensure that the correct information bounces around the forum.

 

We must be alert and, somewhat defensive even, when talking about issues that are so laden with such common logical errors. One wrong phrase can drastically alter someones perception and in turn cause them to spread falsities. Bad information seems to travel very fast; faster than good information for some reason. I'm a private tutor for college chemistry students and I always take great care not to give the wrong impression about a finesse concept. Some may call me uptight about it, but I frankly don't care. If you are a student of mississippichem you will be instructed precisely and correctly, I think that is something to be proud of.

[lemur]

What you may call being defensive is just an attempt to make it clear that there is no qualitative model that describes with complete accuracy any system. If someone says that a ball is red, that may be true, but it is not precise. A precise, and in my opinion more scientific and falsifiable, statement is that the ball's color is 760 nm-red. Then I can directly measure the frequency of the light in question and definitively conclude as to whether or not the statement is accurate. If the statement is inaccurate, I can quantify this error and say that for example that the predicted frequency is 5% wrong. This is just a simple example.

I feel like I'm getting repeatedly strawmanned as eschewing any and all quantification and math because I'm making a case for qualitative modeling. 760 nm-red may be more accurate than "blood red," "fire engine red," or "apple red," but "760nm" only becomes meaningful to me when I compare it with something else that size. E.g. I find the chart comparing EM wavelengths to the size of common items and the amount of energy transmitted to be most helpful. I'm not sure why it matters that there are microwaves the size of a basketball, but it feels like there is some theoretical potential in knowing that. Am I saying it's accurate to mention the size of a basketball without specifying the diameter of the basketball in question? But does that matter in the context in which I am using it as a comparison? No.

 

When examining the finer points of our natural world like quantum mechanics or general relativity, things that our outside our everyday intuition of "medium-sized-slowly-moving" macro objects, it becomes even more crucial that definitive statements are only made quantitatively. Sometimes there simply are not words to describe the phenomena that are occurring. We have no word for something that has some particle-like nature but also displays wave-like properties. So we say that the electron orbitals are solutions to a differential equation:

Can't you just say that it is waves that transmit energy in discreet amounts? When you say, "the electron orbitals are solutions to a differential equation," it sounds like you're just mixing physical description with logical processing." "Orbit" refers to a physical aspect of electron-motion, correct? "Solution to a differential equation" refers to equation-relations between observed-patterns. Since I don't understand that equation, allow me to use a simple one, I do understand to discuss the point: acceleration is change in speed over time, while speed is change in distance per unit time. The speed of a continuously accelerating object is described by the tangent line of the curve, which represents its acceleration. I believe the line can be derived from the curve using differential equations or some other form of calculus (I can't remember now). However, I do understand how one rate of change can be a rate of change of another rate of change; but I can also understand how constant speed can be associated with momentum and acceleration can be associated with force, in that momentum involves stabile inertia while force involves inertial resistance to an impulse that results in speed-change. So I find both methods of description useful, but I prefer the qualitative approach because 1)I'm not very good with math that uses numbers and greek letters and 2) I can directly relate to the experience of speed, acceleration, force, and inertia in various lived situations, whereas to do that with math I have to first convert the math into identifiable material experiences.

 

Swansont didn't write the laws of nature, he just understands them better than many here on the forum. Give him a break, eh? He's just trying to ensure that the correct information bounces around the forum.

It seems I have given the general impression that I want to somehow harass people and that I don't value the information they provide from their knowledge. That's not the case. I just don't see any problem with unapologetically expressing critical thoughts I have and/or asking question that might not be answerable by current science. I do this unapologetically because I don't see science as a game of respect and deference. I feel like people should just be able to say and ask what they want and if you don't know the answer or you're not interested in going in a certain discussion, you just say you don't know or that you don't find that issue interesting. Is that so difficult to do without offending each other and lapsing into rude comments and defensiveness?

 

We must be alert and, somewhat defensive even, when talking about issues that are so laden with such common logical errors. One wrong phrase can drastically alter someones perception and in turn cause them to spread falsities. Bad information seems to travel very fast; faster than good information for some reason. I'm a private tutor for college chemistry students and I always take great care not to give the wrong impression about a finesse concept. Some may call me uptight about it, but I frankly don't care. If you are a student of mississippichem you will be instructed precisely and correctly, I think that is something to be proud of.

That sounds like a good ethic. I try to explicitly mention that I am not an expert when posting information that I think may be valuable but know that there are others who are more experienced. I don't think there's anything wrong with being an expert on some things and then switching gears to speculate a little about how it might be possible to answer a question that you're not sure of yet. It is possible to raise relevant issues that contribute to figuring out how to approach the question, and then have some other expert recognize the issue and post a conclusive response because they now get what the OP is getting at. There are lots of routes to arriving at valid knowledge and I don't think it's a problem to contribute to such routes as long as you are very explicit about what basis you have to say whatever it is you are saying.

 

 

[steevey]

Lemur,

 

We have no word for something that has some particle-like nature but also displays wave-like properties. So we say that the electron orbitals are solutions to a differential equation:

 

[math]i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \Psi = \hat H \Psi[/math]

 

Actually, its called a "wave-particle" of which the term for is "wave particle duality". Not only that, but an electron is never actually just a particle. Even when its determined, it still carries some aspects of being a wave.