Having 0 kinetic energy

[questionposter]

What version of the law says that?

 

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?

 

 

 

 

Yes we know the energy of the ground state. The ground state has an infinite lifetime, so that fits with the HUP.

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.

 

 

 

Whatever you are reading, assuming it's correct, it is obvious you are not understanding it sufficiently well. When someone here who know physics tells you that you are wrong, perhaps it would be better to assume your understanding is less than perfect.

 

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.

 

 

[questionposter]

What version of the law says that?

 

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?

 

 

 

 

Yes we know the energy of the ground state. The ground state has an infinite lifetime, so that fits with the HUP.

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.

 

 

 

Whatever you are reading, assuming it's correct, it is obvious you are not understanding it sufficiently well. When someone here who know physics tells you that you are wrong, perhaps it would be better to assume your understanding is less than perfect.

 

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.

Edited January 25, 2012 by questionposter

[DrRocket]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well I just don't see how I'm wrong,...

 

True, but that is your personal problem.

 

Go read the book.

[questionposter]

True, but that is your personal problem.

 

Go read the book.

 

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

[mooeypoo]

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

 

What's the alternative, questionposter? You say you don't understand it, and you were refered to a book that has the answer in it, laid out much better and in much more detail than anyone on a web forum can offer you. Instead of trying to understand where you might have a misunderstanding with the actual physics, you keep arguing against it out of personal incredulity.

 

Just because you don't understand a concept doesn't make the concept wrong.

 

You can't expect people on a forum to explain a whole book or concept of physics in 2 seconds to make something "click". And you can't really expect people to do the work for you when the problem is you not understanding.

 

Go read the book, research a little bit, and come back to us with specific questions if you still have a problem understanding the concept. At least then we can understand where to start explaining things.

 

~mooey

[Samm]

Well I already said that I can agree that time stopping isn't logical and haven't mentioned it since.

 

Looks like we're making progress.

You should really read my posts more carefully because I said that exact same thing.

 

To be fair, you looked as if you were attempting to discredit General Relativity, by stating:

 

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.

 

As if that somehow meant something, other than General Relativity isn't 100% perfect.

 

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?

 

If temperature is the average kinetic energy of particles randomly bouncing off each other, in different directions, then no.

 

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.

 

Photons are the messenger particles for the electromagnetic force. Entropy and photons have little to do with one another. Entropy is just a measure of how much non "useful" energy there is in a system ie. how much energy can't be used to produce work. Or alternative the number of ways one can rearrange the atoms of an object and have the object still look the same, although I'm not too sure on that one.

 

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?

 

Wait... Are you confusing this with the idea of the heat death of the universe? A state where close to maximum entropy is reached, pretty much at the end of the universe. Supposedly all the matter evaporates into photons or decays into leptons

 

Although, is every atom in a substance existing in a ground state technically absolute 0?

 

No. There is a such a thing as zero point energy, which is the energy that a something has in its ground state.

[swansont]

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.

 

From your first link: "the entropy of an isolated macroscopic system never decreases". An atom is not a macroscopic system, and constant entropy is consistent with the entropy not decreasing. So, no violation. Also, entropy is not a form of energy.

 

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?

 

[math]\Delta{E}\Delta{t}>\hbar/2[/math] The ground state has an infinite lifetime, so you can observe it for an arbitrarily long time. The uncertainty in the energy tends to zero — they have zero width.

 

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?

 

No, because position is tied with momentum in the HUP and energy and momentum are not the same thing. And orbitals do have the electron possibly being far away from 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.

 

Again, entropy isn't a form of energy. A simple check of the units will show this.

 

 

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.

 

Let's say you have a particle with a momentum of p, so its kinetic energy is p^2/2m. Let's also say you know this energy exactly. But momentum is a vector. If you don't know the direction of motion, the uncertainty in the momentum is of order p, i.e. it could be going left or right, or up or down, but you don't know. So you could say that the momentum is 0 ± p.

 

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

 

Inquisitiveness is great. Inquisitiveness with attitude, not so much.

[D H]

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?

So, the Heisenberg Uncertainty principal is crap?

 

Stop. That. You aren't going to learn anything by appealing to ridicule.

 

 

t'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.

There are dozens and dozens of books called "Quantum Mechanics." In some whose target audience is graduate students you'll see so much abstract math it will make your head spin. In others aimed at a lay audience you won't even see [math]\Delta x\Delta p \ge \hbar/2[/math] because that's too much math. Those lay descriptions are pop sci. How much math, how much calculus, and how much group theory was in the small book that you read?

[questionposter]

What's the alternative, questionposter? You say you don't understand it, and you were refered to a book that has the answer in it, laid out much better and in much more detail than anyone on a web forum can offer you. Instead of trying to understand where you might have a misunderstanding with the actual physics, you keep arguing against it out of personal incredulity.

 

Just because you don't understand a concept doesn't make the concept wrong.

 

You can't expect people on a forum to explain a whole book or concept of physics in 2 seconds to make something "click". And you can't really expect people to do the work for you when the problem is you not understanding.

 

Go read the book, research a little bit, and come back to us with specific questions if you still have a problem understanding the concept. At least then we can understand where to start explaining things.

 

~mooey

 

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.

 

Stop. That. You aren't going to learn anything by appealing to ridicule.

It's like he hates quantum mechanics though, he somehow thinks only classical mechanics can describe every single event in the universe or something.

 

 

 

There are dozens and dozens of books called "Quantum Mechanics." In some whose target audience is graduate students you'll see so much abstract math it will make your head spin. In others aimed at a lay audience you won't even see [math]\Delta x\Delta p \ge \hbar/2[/math] because that's too much math. Those lay descriptions are pop sci. How much math, how much calculus, and how much group theory was in the small book that you read?

 

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.

 

From your first link: "the entropy of an isolated macroscopic system never decreases". An atom is not a macroscopic system, and constant entropy is consistent with the entropy not decreasing. So, no violation. Also, entropy is not a form of energy.

Well there we go, thermo-dynamics applies to the classical world, so there's room for it to be wrong in the atomic world.

 

 

 

[math]\Delta{E}\Delta{t}>\hbar/2[/math] The ground state has an infinite lifetime, so you can observe it for an arbitrarily long time. The uncertainty in the energy tends to zero — they have zero width.

Why do other energy levels have such uncertainty but not the ground state?

 

 

 

And orbitals do have the electron possibly being far away from the nucleus.

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?

 

 

 

Again, entropy isn't a form of energy. A simple check of the units will show this.

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.

 

 

 

Inquisitiveness is great. Inquisitiveness with attitude, not so much.

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.

Edited January 25, 2012 by questionposter

[D H]

It's like he hates quantum mechanics though, he somehow thinks only classical mechanics can describe every single event in the universe or something.

What ever gave you that idea? Read Dr. Rocket's posts again.

 

 

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.

If you wouldn't mind telling us, what is the full title of the book and the author? Even better, find the copyright page (very close to the front) and find the ISBN number. It will look something like ISBN 0-13-843557-X.

[questionposter]

What ever gave you that idea? Read Dr. Rocket's posts again.

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 you wouldn't mind telling us, what is the full title of the book and the author? Even better, find the copyright page (very close to the front) and find the ISBN number. It will look something like ISBN 0-13-843557-X.

 

If it's still at the library I'll go check it out.

Edited January 25, 2012 by questionposter

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

questionposter, the issue here seems to be you are not understanding the replies people are making and assuming that is because they are wrong and you understand the currently mainstream science. It is apparent from your replies that you don't therefore any reply that could educate you to the level where you would understand and see why the reply you were given was correct would be far too in depth for a simple internet forum.

What you are doing is not taking part in a reasonable discussion but assuming your understanding is correct without the background knowledge to understand why it is not.

The posters have made valid suggestions for you to do some background reading. The Feynmen lectures are commonly reguarded as the best explanations of modern science ever recorded by one of the best lecturers ever. They are a brilient starting place for anyone who wants to learn. Please try and understand that no one has any malicious intent in their suggestions but are attempting to assist you in learning.

[swansont]

Well there we go, thermo-dynamics applies to the classical world, so there's room for it to be wrong in the atomic world.

 

It becomes statistical, but atoms still do not violate it. There is no inconsistency with an atom not increasing in entropy and the second law. NONE. In macroscopic systems you have multiple states which the system can occupy. In a ground-state atom you do not. A ground-state atom looks like a reversible system, which is what you need to have constant entropy.

 

Why do other energy levels have such uncertainty but not the ground state?

 

Because, as I explained with the HUP, the uncertainty depends on the lifetime of the 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?

 

"Further away from the nucleus" is not an equivalent statement to "has more energy"

 

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.

 

Entropy is not a form of energy, so it cannot be "heat turned into mechanical work" nor can you lose energy "in the form of entropy" or "lose all energy to entropy". Energy is a conserved quantity. Entropy is not.

 

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.

 

It comes across as being argumentative when you tell someone who knows more physics than you do that you are right and they are wrong, when you are indeed wrong. That you don't see yourself as wrong is a problem, but one solution is to take the comments of physicists as being correct and looking for the misconception you hold, rather than asserting that your misconception is true. Being wrong and getting corrected isn't fun, but in the long run it's better than being in denial about being wrong. And lest you think you are being picked on, there was a time when each of us struggled to pick up concepts such as these. But how you fix your ignorance matters.

[mooeypoo]

We're not supposed to prove you wrong, you're supposed to prove yourself right. That's how science works.

[questionposter]

It becomes statistical, but atoms still do not violate it. There is no inconsistency with an atom not increasing in entropy and the second law. NONE. In macroscopic systems you have multiple states which the system can occupy. In a ground-state atom you do not. A ground-state atom looks like a reversible system, which is what you need to have constant entropy.

So your saying that because an atom can't lose any more energy, that it doesn't violate the second law because the second law only states that if it "can" then it eventually will?

How does this apply to virtual photons or how forces are carried?

 

 

"Further away from the nucleus" is not an equivalent statement to "has more energy"

How do electrons get further away from the nucleus without containing more energy? And if electrons are further away from the nucleus, couldn't they have a probability of forming a bond with another atom because of that larger distance?

 

It comes across as being argumentative when you tell someone who knows more physics than you do that you are right and they are wrong, when you are indeed wrong. That you don't see yourself as wrong is a problem, but one solution is to take the comments of physicists as being correct and looking for the misconception you hold, rather than asserting that your misconception is true. Being wrong and getting corrected isn't fun, but in the long run it's better than being in denial about being wrong. And lest you think you are being picked on, there was a time when each of us struggled to pick up concepts such as these. But how you fix your ignorance matters.

 

I don't think any of what people are saying is particularly right or wrong, it's just a matter of if it all logically fits together. With time stopping, I suppose it didn't, with the second law, I'm still working on that.

We're not supposed to prove you wrong, you're supposed to prove yourself right. That's how science works.

 

But if it can't be proven that I'm wrong, how is there not a probability that I'm right?

 

I already know that information out there could probably prove it either way, it's just a matter of when and if that information comes to light.

 

I didn't even think the "time stopping" thing was actually a correct notion, I just wanted to be 99% sure it was wrong.

Edited January 25, 2012 by questionposter

[mooeypoo]

But if it can't be proven that I'm wrong, how is there not a probability that I'm right?

 

I already know that information out there could probably prove it either way, it's just a matter of when and if that information comes to light.

 

"Gravity is flat out wrong. There's actually an invisible unicorm dancing polka above your head and makes sure you don't float away."

Prove me wrong, or I'm right.

 

Does this seriously sound logical to you?

(While you're at it, go read the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It makes a very similar point in a very "convincing" manner. Prove *it* wrong, why don't you?)

 

You're making an assertion here. First, the assertion is something *you* need to prove, not us. Thats your job. That's not a discussion, by the way, that's the definition of how science works. Arguing about it won't change the fact that no one will ever accept your assertion just because it "can't" be proven wrong.

 

Second, people did prove you wrong, multiple times, you just insist on not listening.

 

I suggest you take a breath, remember that science is not about ego, and go read about the topics you insist on saying are wrong. There's nothing to lose on your part -- you're either going to see your error and fix it, or you'll be able to adjust your ideas and, at the very least, speak the same language as physicists.

 

You basically want physicists to change theories without a shred of proof, while it's clear you misunderstand basic principles, just because you're too lazy to check the proper information behind the current theories.

 

That's not how science works.

[swansont]

So your saying that because an atom can't lose any more energy, that it doesn't violate the second law because the second law only states that if it "can" then it eventually will?

 

What the second law states is that entropy doesn't decrease for an isolated system. An atom doesn't violate that. Its entropy doesn't decrease. if you analyze the system you see it's because there is no way to get to a lower energy state.

 

How does this apply to virtual photons or how forces are carried?

 

I don't really know, offhand. In our example we have an isolated atom, so there is no force on it.

 

How do electrons get further away from the nucleus without containing more energy? And if electrons are further away from the nucleus, couldn't they have a probability of forming a bond with another atom because of that larger distance?

 

Here is where a good foundation in quantum mechanics would be useful. Electrons are in orbitals, which do not have well-defined radii.

[questionposter]

What the second law states is that entropy doesn't decrease for an isolated system. An atom doesn't violate that. Its entropy doesn't decrease. if you analyze the system you see it's because there is no way to get to a lower energy state.

What about in liquid helium or Bose-Einstein condensates where it's an entire substance? Or does wave functions combining count as a single entity?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here is where a good foundation in quantum mechanics would be useful. Electrons are in orbitals, which do not have well-defined radii.

 

So then even at the lowest possible energy level of an atom, it's still possible for the 100% defined energy of an electron to still have indetirminism about it as for the electron to exist in a location further away from that nucleus that for a higher energy would be more probable and thus form compounds that would an electron at a larger distance away form the nucleus that would otherwise be normally achieved by a higher energy?

 

 

Let's look at a hypothetical:

Trillions of years have past and all of the last possible energy has been used up on entropy, and every single atom in the entire universe (which for this we have to assume that the universe is a closed system and that there are not motions within the fabric of space) has decayed to it's ground state.

Does the motion of atoms in the universe stop?

And if they are moving, doesn't that mean that they have kinetic energy?

Edited January 25, 2012 by questionposter

[MigL]

Some advice questionposer...

 

I'm sure Dr Rocket doesn't need me to toot his horn, but he's not 95% classical mechanics ( maybe you mean General Relativity ). As a matter of fact his understanding of Quantum Mechanics is probably better than 95% of us on this forum. I have dealt with him for a couple of yrs and have nothing but respect for him. He can be abrasive at times, but is always insightful and steers you in the right direction. I have learned a lot from him.

 

There is no clear demarcation between classical and quantum physics. Some classical concepts apply to the very small and some quantum concepts apply to the very large ( you yourself alluded to the evaporation of black holes via hawking radiation, but there was considerable confusion in your argument). Some understanding of the basics is required to know which can be applied and which cannot. Do not catagorically state that since a concept is classical in nature, it is osolete and no longer viable. "Reading a book" might give you a deeper understanding of the basics.

[questionposter]

Some advice questionposer...

 

I'm sure Dr Rocket doesn't need me to toot his horn, but he's not 95% classical mechanics ( maybe you mean General Relativity ). As a matter of fact his understanding of Quantum Mechanics is probably better than 95% of us on this forum. I have dealt with him for a couple of yrs and have nothing but respect for him. He can be abrasive at times, but is always insightful and steers you in the right direction. I have learned a lot from him.

 

There is no clear demarcation between classical and quantum physics. Some classical concepts apply to the very small and some quantum concepts apply to the very large ( you yourself alluded to the evaporation of black holes via hawking radiation, but there was considerable confusion in your argument). Some understanding of the basics is required to know which can be applied and which cannot. Do not catagorically state that since a concept is classical in nature, it is osolete and no longer viable. "Reading a book" might give you a deeper understanding of the basics.

 

Well I don't really know how much rocket knows about QM, but if he does know a lot about it he's not showing it.

 

Also, about the

 

Do not catagorically state that since a concept is classical in nature, it is osolete and no longer viable. "Reading a book" might give you a deeper understanding of the basics.

I'm pretty sure I was saying before that kinetic motion applies at the atomic level which is why I was saying that you wouldn't measure that atoms are at absolute 0 since they never have 0 kinetic energy.

Maybe the net kinetic energy of an object from a point of reference at the macroscopic realm can appear to be 0, but because of the properties of an atom as well as all the constant macroscopic forces being applied to it as well as uncertainty in it's position, we could easily measure the atoms and even the whole object was moving in amounts too small to be seen normally. I've seen evidence to suggest that using only our eyes that we can notice a macroscopic object to be at rest, but the information of all the individual atoms existing in one location and then another are still there.

 

Also, even if all matter in the universe was at the ground state expect for our experimental devices, couldn't we use very accurate instruments and measure that the electrons around a nucleus are appearing in one spot, and then another, and then an even more different spot, suggesting motion or distance over time, suggesting kinetic energy or at least momentum?

Edited January 26, 2012 by questionposter

[mooeypoo]

Well I don't really know how much rocket knows about QM, but if he does know a lot about it he's not showing it.

He is. You're just not doing your part.

 

 

Look, this is getting from "mildly disturbing" to "severely annoying". Beyond the fact that you insist on telling everyone what you think is true when it's clear you don't understand what you're talking about, you also refuse to participate in an honest discussion and actually follow up on people's points.

 

This isn't just bad taste, this is against forum rules.

 

Are you here to learn and participate in mutual discussion, or are you here to lecture? If it's the latter, you should find another place. Ain't working much for you.

 

~mooey

[questionposter]

He is. You're just not doing your part.

 

 

Look, this is getting from "mildly disturbing" to "severely annoying". Beyond the fact that you insist on telling everyone what you think is true when it's clear you don't understand what you're talking about, you also refuse to participate in an honest discussion and actually follow up on people's points.

 

This isn't just bad taste, this is against forum rules.

 

Are you here to learn and participate in mutual discussion, or are you here to lecture? If it's the latter, you should find another place. Ain't working much for you.

 

~mooey

 

Well, I read Rocket's posts again and I don't see how they prove that I don't understand the uncertainty principal, especially since a lot of the posts are "go read a book". Even in his longest post, he just basically said "quantum mechanics and classical mechanics are different" and then tried to apply general relativity to the atomic realm in that same post, and this was all before he made 3 straight posts in a row that just said "gibberish go read".

 

Besides, you yourself would be guilty of doing the same thing if you seriously thought I said or believed

"Gravity is flat out wrong.

 

The main reason this topic is so long is because people go off topic with things like with this and with what your saying instead of just working out how scientific notions are right or wrong.

 

Maybe something looks wrong or seems wrong, but I'm definitely not just going to assume it's wrong without exploring it.

Edited January 26, 2012 by questionposter

[mooeypoo]

Well, I read Rocket's posts again and I don't see how they prove that I don't understand the uncertainty principal,

First, you clearly need to re-read the posts. Second, he's not the only one who points out your misunderstanding. 99% of the people in this thread tell you that, flat out. There may be a pattern here.

Third, the reason you don't see quite the "solution" to your problem is because DrRocket and others referred you to external sources -- which you clearly refuse to read, check up on, or cooperate with.

There's a reason people study physics for *at least* 4 years in a BSc and even then are in need of a graduate degree more often than not. These concepts are often non intuitive and difficult to master. You can't possibly expect people to teach them to you on a forum thread in two seconds.

That seems to be your expectation, though, and this is what people here are disagreeing with. You make a claim that shows you have a basic misunderstanding of the material, and people ask you to check the basics before they can continue. You refuse, stop cooperating, and call anyone who disagree with you dishonest.

Who's dishonest here, questionposter? Multiple professional Physicists are all telling you that you have a basic misunderstanding. You refuse to even *try* to accept even the slightest tiniest possibility that even a single one of them might have a point, and...... we're dishonest?

C'mon now.

You're in a science forum, not a mythos-anything-goes-ranting forum where you make your own rules and your own reality. Quite honestly, put up or shut up.

It's time you either support your claims with evidence that make sense in science, or get off your horse and learn some humility. Going out to learn about concept you might have been misunderstanding should be a GOOD thing. It's progress, it's growth, it's learning. You are so stuck in firmly rejecting everyone, you will end up being alone in your misguided belief with everyone else laughing.

You don't seriously think this will pass anything truly scientific anywhere in the scientific community if you can't pass a simple science forum with a few Physics PhDs, do you?

Stop arguing ego, and go do some reading.

especially since a lot of the posts are "go read a book". Even in his longest post, he just basically said "quantum mechanics and classical mechanics are different" and then tried to apply general relativity to the atomic realm in that same post, and this was all before he made 3 straight posts in a row that just said "gibberish go read".

that's because you're talking Physics-gibberish, and you need to learn the basics. No one here has the means and the time to teach them to you, and the book is available.

 

Stomping your feet on the ground will not make you right. It will just make you being wrong much louder.

 

Besides, you yourself would be guilty of doing the same thing if you seriously thought I said or believed

Eh? Guilty of what? Everyone's telling you the same thing. So am I. What are we guilty of?

The main reason this topic is so long is because people go off topic with things like with this and with what your saying instead of just working out how scientific notions are right or wrong.

 

Maybe something looks wrong or seems wrong, but I'm definitely not just going to assume it's wrong without exploring it.

 

That wasn't off topic, it was an example meant to show you how you sound. You're saying "X is wrong" without a shred of evidence, while not understanding what X means, says, or has in its favor, and then you have the audacity to claim that we need to disprove you.

 

If this is how you think science is done, my friend, you're in the wrong place.

 

~mooey

[questionposter]

[/size][/size]

First, you clearly need to re-read the posts. Second, he's not the only one who points out your misunderstanding. 99% of the people in this thread tell you that, flat out. There may be a pattern here.

 

Third, the reason you don't see quite the "solution" to your problem is because DrRocket and others referred you to external sources -- which you clearly refuse to read, check up on, or cooperate with.

 

There's a reason people study physics for *at least* 4 years in a BSc and even then are in need of a graduate degree more often than not. These concepts are often non intuitive and difficult to master. You can't possibly expect people to teach them to you on a forum thread in two seconds.

 

That seems to be your expectation, though, and this is what people here are disagreeing with. You make a claim that shows you have a basic misunderstanding of the material, and people ask you to check the basics before they can continue. You refuse, stop cooperating, and call anyone who disagree with you dishonest.

 

Who's dishonest here, questionposter? Multiple professional Physicists are all telling you that you have a basic misunderstanding. You refuse to even *try* to accept even the slightest tiniest possibility that even a single one of them might have a point, and...... we're dishonest?

 

C'mon now.

 

You're in a science forum, not a mythos-anything-goes-ranting forum where you make your own rules and your own reality. Quite honestly, put up or shut up.

 

It's time you either support your claims with evidence that make sense in science, or get off your horse and learn some humility. Going out to learn about concept you might have been misunderstanding should be a GOOD thing. It's progress, it's growth, it's learning. You are so stuck in firmly rejecting everyone, you will end up being alone in your misguided belief with everyone else laughing.

 

You don't seriously think this will pass anything truly scientific anywhere in the scientific community if you can't pass a simple science forum with a few Physics PhDs, do you?

 

Stop arguing ego, and go do some reading.

 

that's because you're talking Physics-gibberish, and you need to learn the basics. No one here has the means and the time to teach them to you, and the book is available.

 

Stomping your feet on the ground will not make you right. It will just make you being wrong much louder.

 

Eh? Guilty of what? Everyone's telling you the same thing. So am I. What are we guilty of?

 

 

That wasn't off topic, it was an example meant to show you how you sound. You're saying "X is wrong" without a shred of evidence, while not understanding what X means, says, or has in its favor, and then you have the audacity to claim that we need to disprove you.

 

If this is how you think science is done, my friend, you're in the wrong place.

 

~mooey

 

W/e, what your saying at this point is illogical and when I'm more-or-less actually proven wrong then I stop talking about it like with the "time-stopping" thing and the topic can't go on with you here, so I'm just going to go to another website.

 

 

 

[mooeypoo]

Okay, now you're not even reading. That's quite offensive.