AkinPhysicist:


1.UNTIL you find an experimental verification of your 'theory' you are just blowing hot smokes.

2. It is 'true' because we have experimentally verified it

3. factor in ALL relevant predictions? A prediction is just that. A prediction. If it not proven by experiments its not worth the paper its written on.

4. If you have an idea that explains more than the wave-particle theory then present it. The problem with the idea you presented is that its un-physical. Physics is a study of the PHYSICAL world. If you present an idea that is un-physical - that idea fails by default. You ascribed an intrinsic electromagnetic field to a non-accelerating electron - there is no such thing.

benji93:

is there any experimental proof that an electron could be in a box and outside a box at the same time, there is none, thts a theory, there is a proof of the wave-like behaviour of electrons(double slit),you seem not to be following the argument, i am not disputing the verity of this fact, but i am disputing the reason provided for it.The double slit experiment explains the wave-like behaviour, due to the effect of superposition.Generally we ascribe this to the probablistic behaviour of electrons, but i dont agree with this fact.A theory in this regard is a proposal meant to express a fact,the theory could be correct but the reason provided for the theory could be reasonable but tht does not make it true.So in certain cases, a theory could be a reason for an occurence,in other cases a theory could be the occurence itself.We need to understand which stance a proposal takes.
2.to some extent my point on wave-particle duality is not a theory, its is my proposition about the reason for which that exists.
3.you are missing a point, you mistook electromagnetic field for electromagnetic wave.The latter is emitted by a decelerating, due to a change in the intrinsic electromagnetic field.So a non-accelerating electron has an intrinsic electromagnetic field, but an accelerating electron could mean a change in the electromagnetic field, but it does not mean electromagnetic field does not exist, it means the electromagnetic field component(electricand magnetic field) vectors have changed.I hope u get my point.
4.I agree that i should have been more specific, about my point, nt just saying its a theory, but was not wrong by calling it a theory,i was only vague.In other words, it is a theory that explains a theory.

AkinPhysicist:


1. Guy- you don't know what you are talking about. Quantum Tunneling was confirmed decades ago. It is one of the experimental corner stones quantum physics.You still do not understand double-slit experiment - please go back and re-learn it. The fact is an electron behaves both as a particle (photo-electric effect) and as a wave (double-slit experiment).

2.As long as you are not disputing this fact, then we are good.

3.You don't understand Electromagnetic fields. Go and re-learn it. EM fields are generated by accelerating charges - no such thing as the mysterious ambient/intrinsic EM field you seem to be suggesting. Please go and re-learn this basic stuff.

AkinPhysicist:


You sound like a lazy fellow (who doesn't even know the meaning of PRACTICAL APPLICATION). Google is your friend.

yoged:
Did quantum chemistry in Unilorin when I was in 300L, Taken by Dr rabinowitch and Dr eke Now a professor. I just hate this damn topics. It's like magic To me plus the 2 lecturers makes it so boring. All those Schrodinger equation. And So many annoying signS. Ended up having D. (46) Omo I thank My God. Alot of people dey carry the course

benji93:

you are wrong," is there any experimental proof that an electron could be in a box and outside a box at the same time", you missed the point, i used the word "simultaneously", this phenomenon described above does not mean quantum tunnelling,quantum tunnelling is the process by which quantum objects including atoms pass through barriers,especially when a barrier initially reflective is made thinner.
2.Yet again you are assuming a stationary electron cannot be charged, which is the same as assuming tht a stationary proton cannot be charged. If you agree that electrons are charged.
3.What is a magnetic force? Basically F=Bqvsin(theta)(v=velocity), so an electron does not have to be accelerating to be affected by a magnetic force, and y would the constant velocity electron be affected by a force, if it does not exert such a force itself?so a constant velocity electron must be producing a magnetic field itself, well it will accelerate due to the external force, but this is only because, it has a tendency to accelerate or accelerate another entity by virtue of the force field.Before the electron moves it accelerates from rest,thts fine, but this time i am talking about the state by which it is moving at a constant velocity.I repeat again, you need to reevaluate ur knowledge bro,its a fact that electromagnetic radiations are emitted by accelerating charges,this does not mean non-accelerating charges to not produce electromagnetic fields-an electromagnetic radiation implies an electromagnetic field, but the reverse is not true. because by virtue of the aforementioned, electrons moving at a constant velocity should produce both electric and magnetic fields. Now let me refer you to an argument tht will help us tread on the same lane.How is an electromagnetic radiation produced, you might say an accelerating charge.But literally and deeply electromagnetic waves are produced by oscillating electric and magnetic field, this oscillation implies, there is a change in electric and magnetic field, so we can thus say an accelerating charge can produce an electromagnetic wave(sometimes it does not).But we are talking about changing electric and magnetic fields here not the presence of electric and magnetic field itself.The electromagnetic field can be present but not changing,so an electron moving at constant velocity can produce an electromagnetic field but not a changing electromagnetic field, hence no radiation of electromagnetic waves.
summary
i.the electric field produced by the electron is intrinsic, regardless of whether it is moving or being at rest.
ii.a magnetic field is produced by an electron in motion, be it uniform or non-uniform,that is explainable by the expression F=Bqvsin(theta).So a stationary electron cannot produce a magnetic field, by virtue of the expression
iii.an electromagnagnetic radiation is produced by a changing electric and magnetic field.
You need to have an open mind bro.So tell me why you think an electromagnetic field is only produced by an accelerating charge(electron)

AkinPhysicist:


1. Guy- you don't know what you are talking about. Quantum Tunneling was confirmed decades ago. It is one of the experimental corner stones of quantum physics.You still do not understand double-slit experiment - please go back and re-learn it. The fact is an electron behaves both as a particle (photo-electric effect) and as a wave (double-slit experiment).

2.As long as you are not disputing this fact, then we are good.

3.You don't understand Electromagnetic fields. Go and re-learn it. EM fields are generated by accelerating charges - no such thing as the mysterious ambient/intrinsic EM field you seem to be suggesting. Please go and re-learn this basic stuff.

benji93:

you are wrong," is there any experimental proof that an electron could be in a box and outside a box at the same time", you missed the point, i used the word "simultaneously", this phenomenon described above does not mean quantum tunnelling,quantum tunnelling is the process by which quantum objects including atoms pass through barriers,especially when a barrier initially reflective is made thinner.
2.Yet again you are assuming a stationary electron cannot be charged, which is the same as assuming tht a stationary proton cannot be charged. If you agree that electrons are charged.
3.What is a magnetic force? Basically F=Bqvsin(theta)(v=velocity), so an electron does not have to be accelerating to be affected by a magnetic force, and y would the constant velocity electron be affected by a force, if it does not exert such a force itself?so a constant velocity electron must be producing a magnetic field itself, well it will accelerate due to the external force, but this is only because, it has a tendency to accelerate or accelerate another entity by virtue of the force field.Before the electron moves it accelerates from rest,thts fine, but this time i am talking about the state by which it is moving at a constant velocity.I repeat again, you need to reevaluate ur knowledge bro,its a fact that electromagnetic radiations are emitted by accelerating charges,this does not mean non-accelerating charges to not produce electromagnetic fields-an electromagnetic radiation implies an electromagnetic field, but the reverse is not true. because by virtue of the aforementioned, electrons moving at a constant velocity should produce both electric and magnetic fields. Now let me refer you to an argument tht will help us tread on the same lane.How is an electromagnetic radiation produced, you might say an accelerating charge.But literally and deeply electromagnetic waves are produced by oscillating electric and magnetic field, this oscillation implies, there is a change in electric and magnetic field, so we can thus say an accelerating charge can produce an electromagnetic wave(sometimes it does not).But we are talking about changing electric and magnetic fields here not the presence of electric and magnetic field itself.The electromagnetic field can be present but not changing,so an electron moving at constant velocity can produce an electromagnetic field but not a changing electromagnetic field, hence no radiation of electromagnetic waves.
summary
i.the electric field produced by the electron is intrinsic, regardless of whether it is moving or being at rest.
ii.a magnetic field is produced by an electron in motion, be it uniform or non-uniform,that is explainable by the expression F=Bqvsin(theta).So a stationary electron cannot produce a magnetic field, by virtue of the expression
iii.an electromagnagnetic radiation is produced by a changing electric and magnetic field.
You need to have an open mind bro.So tell me why you think an electromagnetic field is only produced by an accelerating charge(electron)

butterfly88:
Although this branch of physics is a vast ocean,will want to contribute a drop into it hoping it will enlighten readers and lovers of physics

Want to be brief as possible so lemme start
quick intro
In the early twentieth century sometimes around 1925 a new theory burst into existence. With dizzying, almost meteoric speed, this theory overthrew long-cherished notions about matter that had been held since the time of the Greeks. Almost effortlessly, it vanquished scores of long-standing fundamental problems that had stumped physicists for centuries. What is matter made of? What holds it together? Why does it come in an infinite variety of forms, such as gases, metals, rocks, liquids,
crystals, ceramics, glasses, lightning bolts, stars, and so on?

The new theory was christened quantum mechanics, and gave us the first comprehensive formulation with which to pry open the secrets of the atom. The subatomic world, once a forbidden realm for physicists, now began to spill its secrets into the open.

To understand the speed with which this revolution demolished its rivals, we note that in the early 1920s some scientists still held serious reservations about the existence of "atoms." What couldn't be seen or measured directly in the laboratory, they scoffed, didn't exist. But by 1925 and 1926, Erwin Schrodinger, Werner Heisenberg, and max born had been developed an almost complete mathematical description of the hydrogen atom. With devastating precision, they could now explain nearly all the properties of the hydrogen atom from pure mathematics. By 1930, quantum physicists such as Paul A. M. Dirac were declaring that all of chemistry could be derived from first principles. They even made the brash claim that, given enough time on a calculating machine, they could predict all the chemical properties of matter found in the universe. To them, chemistry would no longer be a fundamental science. From now on, it would be "applied physics"

Fairly rapidly, quantum theory began to give us a comprehensive framework in which to describe the visible universe: The material universe consists of atoms and its constituents. There are about 100 different types of atoms, or elements, out of which we can build all the known forms of matter found on earth and even in outer space. Atoms, in turn, consist of electrons orbiting around nuclei, which in turn are composed of neutrons and protons. In essence, the key differences concepts of quantum theory can now be summarized as follows------**

Oops before that let's give a formal definition of quantum physics

what us quantum physics?
Simply put it is the description of the behaviour of matter and light on an atomic scale(smale scale)---hence the difference between quantum physics and Einstein's relativity

now the key concepts of quantum physicd
1-Forces are created by the exchange of discrete packets of energy, called quanta--meaning ?

In quantum theory light was to be chopped up into tiny pieces. These packets of light were named photons, and they behave very much like point particles. When two electrons bump into each other, they repel each other not because of the curvature of space, but because they exchange a packet of energy, the photon.
The energy of these photon measured in units of something called Planck's constant (6.626 x10*34js)
The almost infinitesimal size of Planck's constant means that quantum theory gives tiny corrections to Newton's laws. These are called quantum corrections, and can be neglected when describing our familiar, macroscopic world. That is why we can, for the most part, forget about quantum theory when describing everyday phenomena. However, when dealing with the microscopic sub-atomic world
these quantum corrections begin to dominate any physical process, accounting for the bizarre, counterintuitive properties of subatomic particles

2Different forces are caused by the exchange of different quanta.

Lemme explain--we have the weak the strong the electromagnetic and gravitation force,and the 2nd theory is trying to explain how this forces are caused. Now this is how they are caused

- weak force, is caused by the exchange of a different type of quantum, called a W particle (W stands for "weak" the strong force holding the protons and neutrons together within the nucleus of the atom is caused by the exchange of subatomic particles called pi mesons

Both W bosons and pi mesons have been seen experimentally in the debris of atom smashers, thereby verifying the fundamental correctness of this approach. And finally, the subnuclear force holding the protons and neutrons and even the pi mesons together are called gluons

In this way, we have a new "unifying principle" for the laws of physics. We can unite the laws of electromagnetism, the weak force, and the strong force by postulating a variety of different quanta that mediate them. Three of the four forces (excluding gravity) are therefore united by quantum theory

OK let's take a short break,,hunger is knocking
3rd and 4th theory on their way..

coolsegun2002:




U try.....all I was expecting from the females in this thread was a single word comment like..hmmm!, intresting , nice , educative, informative,following...no offence to the ladies, I ddnt like physics either back in d days mama had to fast and pray for me before I could get a B3

fabre4:


Can quantum mechanics be used to know the position of an orbital in an atom

fabre4:




D? how did u do it studying it 400 level I can easily derive Schrödinger wave equation but that equation for total energy is using Hamiltonian operator is a dead end for me

promqueen247:
This is real knowledge here. Albert Einstein even made wrong assumptions prior to this topic. quantum physics is very advance, complex and broad.

oaroloye:


Suppose you know that- OF WHAT POSSIBLE USE can that Knowledge be to you?

How could you apply that Knowledge in a USEFUL way that benefits the Average man- not ACADEMICS, who get PAID for juggling MYTHOLOGICAL IDEAS about things ordinary people can NEVER see, nor experience their whole life?

oaroloye:
SHALOM!

I know that you mean well, but using THEIR version of Reality makes us their Subordinates and their Slaves.

With all this "QUANTUM KNOWLEDGE," can you, or any other Engineer revamp our POWER GENERATION TECHNOLOGY, so that we can have Electricity, 24/7? On NATIONAL Scale? STATE Scale? TOWN Scale? Or ONE HOUSE- such as your own?

I think not.

If you set out to execute such a project, YOUR TRAINING will tell you that "you need this," "you can't get that," "that is too expensive..." and at the end of the day, you end up doing nothing.

Whereas, Engineers have come forward- such as Lieutenant-Colonel THOMAS BEARDEN if the US AIR FORCE (retired) - proving that PHYSICS HAS BEEN FALSIFIED- that the ORIGINAL Electromagnetism Equations, written in something (above my head,) called QUARTERNION ALGEBRA, proves that Electricity can be generated NATURALLY, and INDEFINITELY- without a POWER SOURCE!

But to HIDE this Knowledge from the PUBLIC, the equations were rewritten into something called TENSOR ALGEBRA, which makes the Scientist think that an Electric Circuit must consist of TWO POLES that CANCEL EACH OTHER OUT!

People have practicalized this Knowledge- then died mysteriously, when they tired to practicalize it.

THOMAS BEARDEN was going to produce an Electric Car that used his MOTIONLESS ELECTROMAGNETIC GENERATOR- which has been built and demonstrated at the tabletop level, producing 500W, merely powered by a motionless magnet- in 1995.

He shelved the project, saying, that one can build such a car- but one won't be around to drive it!

The mistake that these people always made was that THEY INSISTED on trying to commercialize their inventions in AMERICA.

Where the OPPOSITION is STRONGEST.

Had they come to AFRICA- and introduced the technology in a SENSIBLE manner, they could wind up with TEMPLES erected in their honour!

I should be interested to know what PRACTICAL USE "QUANTUM PHYSICS" and "QUANTUM CHEMISTRY" has ever been put to in Black Africa.

macphilip:
@OP Quantum Mechanics is far difficult and complicated than the simple way you are describing it
Am a second class upper graduate of pure and applied Physics, so I know what am saying

benji93:

you are wrong," is there any experimental proof that an electron could be in a box and outside a box at the same time", you missed the point, i used the word "simultaneously", this phenomenon described above does not mean quantum tunnelling,quantum tunnelling is the process by which quantum objects including atoms pass through barriers,especially when a barrier initially reflective is made thinner.

benji93:
Yet again you are assuming a stationary electron cannot be charged, which is the same as assuming tht a stationary proton cannot be charged. If you agree that electrons are charged.

benji93:

What is a magnetic force? Basically F=Bqvsin(theta)(v=velocity), so an electron does not have to be accelerating to be affected by a magnetic force,

benji93:

and y would the constant velocity electron be affected by a force,f it does not exert such a force itself?

benji93:

so a constant velocity electron must be producing a magnetic field itself,

benji93:

[s]well it will accelerate due to the external force, but this is only because, it has a tendency to accelerate or accelerate another entity by virtue of the force field.Before the electron moves it accelerates from rest,thts fine, but this time i am talking about the state by which it is moving at a constant velocity.[/s]

benji93:
I repeat again, you need to reevaluate ur knowledge bro,

benji93:

its a fact that electromagnetic radiations are emitted by accelerating charges,this does not mean non-accelerating charges to not produce electromagnetic fields-an electromagnetic radiation implies an electromagnetic field, but the reverse is not true. because by virtue of the aforementioned, electrons moving at a constant velocity should produce both electric and magnetic fields. Now let me refer you to an argument tht will help us tread on the same lane.How is an electromagnetic radiation produced, you might say an accelerating charge.But literally and deeply electromagnetic waves are produced by oscillating electric and magnetic field, this oscillation implies, there is a change in electric and magnetic field, so we can thus say an accelerating charge can produce an electromagnetic wave(sometimes it does not).But we are talking about changing electric and magnetic fields here not the presence of electric and magnetic field itself.The electromagnetic field can be present but not changing,so an electron moving at constant velocity can produce an electromagnetic field but not a changing electromagnetic field, hence no radiation of electromagnetic waves.

benji93:

i.the electric field produced by the electron is intrinsic, regardless of whether it is moving or being at rest.

benji93:

ii.a magnetic field is produced by an electron in motion, be it uniform or non-uniform,that is explainable by the expression F=Bqvsin(theta).

benji93:

So a stationary electron cannot produce a magnetic field, by virtue of the expression

benji93:

iii.an electromagnagnetic radiation is produced by a changing electric and magnetic field.

Phinity318:

U sound more like a lazy teacher who doesn't know his subject...

fabre4:

D? how did u do it studying it 400 level I can easily derive Schrödinger wave equation but that equation for total energy is using Hamiltonian operator is a dead end for me

mvem:
...not all sciences are meant to be applied just like pure physics and pure maths...they are done for beauty of it, thats if u understand what i mean....some theories are very abstract and pure but no one can say that it is useless because in the next 100 years it might be applicable and game changing....just look at relativity that was known as abstract and not making sense but now it is very fundamental in a lot of tech

ponzihater:
[s]Quantum physics proofs dat science and spirituality are interrelated. Quantum physics reignites a new phase of spirituality. I am a quantum leaper, I believe that every individual Running about an orbit must at one point in time take a leap or cease to exist. Then there's a concept of wandering stars. These were revolving round an orbit but did not gather enough energy to quantum jump to the next orbit thus fell off the circle.

Will be righting an article on quantum physics and conceptual age spirituality - what we should know. It will teach how to use quantum physics to attain a immense spiritual heights.[/s]

Sgt Ponzi Hater

AkinPhysicist:
Here is the flogging your teachers failed to impact into your unfortunate life.

Phinity318:

Dummies like u will always resort to abuse and intimidation when threatened.

AkinPhysicist:


Absolute thrash. Quantum physics is PHYSICAL science. There is no such thing as SPIRITUAL in physics.

ponzihater:


[s]People like u end up wearing one old worn out trousers for months. Quantum physics brought a rebirth to spirituality. The bible says "things which are seen where from things which are not". That phrase it self explains the invisible part of matter. I know your feeble academic frame cannot withstand this and you'll resort to insults. Know the academic aspect of quantum physics will do you no good, understanding how it affects your everyday life changes the whole picture. I am a quantum leaper and I keep making quantum leaps in life because of my sound practical knowledge and spiritual illumination on quantum mechanics.[/s]
Sgt Ponzi Hater

AkinPhysicist:

Unmitigated thrash. There is no such thing as a quantum leaper. The writers of the bible have ZERO idea about quantum physics. Stop deluding yourself.

dayleke:
Quantum of ........
That James Bond movie noni

AkinPhysicist:

Unmitigated thrash. There is no such thing as a quantum leaper. The writers of the bible have ZERO idea about quantum physics. Stop deluding yourself.