What are electrons? (Is why a duck?)

Arc_Central

A percept is a sense or impression of an object. The word visual in front of the word percept should give you a birds eye view of what I am talking about.

I am now starting to believe you Warren. You are terrible at putting into words, an explanation of anything without the use of mathematical equations. I'm sorry I brought it up. You best keep this part of your life a secret.


Well Warren - If you have ever received a government check. I have every right to expect you to struggle to use language I understand, and yes Warren it's not ok for you to suggest that I go learn the math. But it's ok Warren - I have come to understand that you are a dunce when it comes to putting in simple english....the overall gist of the equations you hold so deeply to your chest.

chroot

You seem to be drawing this conclusion in the complete absence of evidence. In another thread in which you attacked me earlier:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...9284#post49284

I went ahead and gave several examples.
What's a government check have to do with anything? And I want to know WHY, moron, I should have to use your language, rather than you mine. What do you think I owe you? You're welcome to remain in the trenches of your own ignorance as long as you'd like.

You need to realize the reason people like stephen kalb get so confused in the first place is precisely because English prose is a terrible vehicle for explaining a physical theory.

- Warren

Tom Mattson

The student should not tell the teacher how to teach, government check or no. If someone who is knowledgable in physics tells you that mathematical knowledge is required to put all this stuff together, then that's what you have to do. I taught physics at the university level for 4 years, and there's simply no way to do it without using math. Quantitative problems require a quantitative language. If you don't like that, then physics isn't the field for you.

You're making a complete idiot of yourself, do you realize that? You keep saying that Warren is hiding behind mathematics, but what is really happening is that you are hiding behind your own ignorance.

But that's OK, if you want to keep groping around in the dark I won't stop you.

Tom Mattson

Yes.

No, an electron in an atom is described by the same equation as a free electron.

Yes.

It's better to speak of the energy of an electron rather than the velocity, because the latter carries with it the connotation of a definite trajectory. As far as the "quarks and leptons" bit goes no, it is not possible that quarks are really orbiting the nucleus. Since electrons are leptons, I say yes to that by default.

If that's how it looks to you, then you are peering through some very muddy windows. Atomic phenomena are extremely well understood, both theoretically and experimentally.

No gospel here. Quantum mechanics is precisely formulated, and it is well tested. Because of that, it is an accurate description of the way matter behaves. No more, no less.

I say: Forget string theory for now.

You clearly need to grasp the basics to get on the road to enlightenment, because you do not even know that humble, nonrelativistic quantum mechanics describes atomic phenomena very well, with no need for fudge factors or "gospel". The gaps are not in our theories, they are in your knowledge.

Arc_Central

Since I'm through with Warren.[;)]


For starters - I'm not a student. Just curious about the world we live in. If you can't explain (stuff) on the quantum level with plain ole words - Then you are of no use to me either when it comes to understanding it. I have found plenty of sites on the web that at least try to explain. Some are better than others. I learned something today (no numbers required) on the quantum level. Probably something you would apparently swear needed 4 years or more of intense number crunching. I'll say the same thing to you as I did to Warren. Your statement that higher math is an absolute requirement to understanding this (STUFF) is pure BS.

Tom Mattson

Since you're through with Warren, you're going to give the same naive speech to me?

That's too bad. I'll be a student till the day I die, and I'm looking forward to every minute of it.

I'd be of plenty of use to you if you were open to learning.

I so love it when people make my point for me.

Arc, how would you know that some are better than others? To what do you compare these websites? The fact is, the only way to judge them is to compare them to the thing they are trying to explain, which is the theory itself.

That would depend on what it was you think you learned. But again, you make my point for me. How do you know that you understood it properly? How do you know the author didn't make a mistake? The answer is obvious: You don't know. Now if you learned the theory from scratch, you could derive the results and compare them to the "English translation" to see if--and even more importantly--to what extent the prosaic version corresponds to the real thing.

Sorry, but you're still in the dark, and your attitude isn't doing you any good.

And I'll say the same thing I already said to you, since you ignored it the first time:

Quantitative problems require a quantitative language. If you don't like that, then physics isn't the field for you.

This thread started out with a question that reflects some severe misconceptions about what quantum mechanics does and does not say, as well as some factual errors held by the original poster. That sort of thing requires qualified instruction from people who know the subject well. Since you have nothing to offer in that regard, how about letting those knowledgeable people who are good enough to spend their efforts on this do their job without your innane heckling?

Arc_Central

Nice comeback![:D] Now yer talkin.

I can only assume that if I visit say 10 sites on a subject...that there will be at least some form of general consensus. For the most part - I consider this agreement to be true. From this - I can build on a brick by brick basis.

ahrkron

There are many problems with this.

1. How do you know you are sampling correctly? There are plenty of crappy sites on the net (especially about QM). How would you distinguish a marginally good one from a failed attempt (even if made with good intentions). The "consensus" you mention can be out from all the wrong sites.

2. Have you ever read a poem to a friend, and then exchange impressions? She may have found amazing precisely the line that you judged useless. When interpreting language, it is not only the intent of the writer that plays. Your own past experiences, your expectations and the peculiar associations you have assigned to each word are also on play. Big time.

3. Despite the impression left by many popularization books, QM involves many complex relationships and very subtle distinctions. Putting it into few words necessarily looses much of the meaning.

I emphasized "few" for the following reason, which is probably close to what you are thinking about:

In principle, yes, all math can be put into words. Words are our way to communicate, and we do teach math using words.

HOWEVER, how many words do you need to describe Pythagoras' theorem? to describe a straight line? to reason your way from the description of gravitational attraction to obtaining the speed of the International Space Station right now?

You can surely see how these decriptions can become extremely long, while math abbreviates them big time, reducing at the same time the chances for mistakes.

Actually, the mathematical description of a phenomenon is precisely the minimum expression of such! It has already taken out all unneeded information, and deals only with the absolutely essential pieces of data we need.

English can be used instead of math, indeed, but then you either:
1. Get an accurate but enormous word-description of things, as incomprehensible as the "math-version" to a math-layman, or
2. Reduce the description to an "intelligible" one, which can be put in much less phrases, at the cost of loosing all the rest of the structure.

There's no way out.

The "brick by brick" basis you mention is based on incomplete bricks, devoided of most of their structure.

Finally, remember that, in dealing with QM, you're not only trying to describe interactions that are far from your everyday perceptual experience, but also a theory that needs to make use of (i.e. whose absolute minimum description requires) mathematical structures far more complicated than those I used as examples.

Arc_Central

Didn't say there weren't problems with that method. If all I use are web sites (including this one), and maybe a few books. All I can do is sift through everything, and make some kind of conclusion. Can I get it wrong? - You bet I can. Do I get it wrong? - I do. But everytime I find something wrong with my interpretations - I'm actually getting it right.....eventually. I have no problem with this.



You may see it that way, but it's still a palace to me. I'll likely have a patchy lawn to go with it too, and who knows ....maybe I'll void the bricks and build my universe without them. Sort of a universe without matter. Who woulda thought? What a concept!

Many of you guys speak from positions that absolutely require you to put the numbers up. I don't have that position, and I'm not looking to take yer spot. I will not dispute that the math is very complex, and I sympathize with you for what it took in your understanding of it. I have no intention of climbing that wall. There is no reason that a math equation can't be descibed on a perceptual basis, and if it can't - There are no numbers possible...for the entirety of math is a representation of perception.

Adam

As an engineering student, I find myself getting stuck into maths and physics a little now and then. However, my field is computer engineering. It's very light on the physics. Apart from some littlle bits and pieces to explain the stuff I'm studying, mostly the physics is just a hobby for me. I like to learn a bit in my free time. Also I'm crap at maths, having avoided it almost entirely at school and only gone into higher education after quitting the navy. I expect I would be good at maths if I studied it properly, but as yet I haven't had the time and training. Anyway, I find that maths alone describes the things I am trying to learn, although phrasing it in English in different ways often helps me get my head around a concept. English often assists, but truly understanding the details reqires seeing what is happening in a mathematical way.

Personally I find Chroot an objectionable individual, but he is far more advanced in his studies than I am, and I consider him quite correct about it being impossible to accurately describe physics in English. I also find reading Chroot's posts (when he remains on topic and is not being said objectionable individual) quite enlightening.

Well, that's all really. From my own 2nd year student point of view, I find that things must be described in terms of pure maths for true comprehension.

chroot

Hey, I'm "objectionable!" [:D]

Oh well, I've been called far worse. [;)]

- Warren

Albrecht

I read the threat of Steven Kalb the first time today and I do understand his confusion.

This confusion about the electron (and the elementary particles in general) has a lot to do with the historical development of particle physics. And this confusion was always a good fertiliser to the development of quantum mechanics.

Lets start from the beginning when it was much less complicated. Louis de Broglie stated in 1923 that an elementary particle is built by constituents which orbit each other. This causes an alternating field around them which is the origin of the (seeming) wave behaviour. So also its scattering at a double slit.
De Broglie received the Nobel price in 1929 for this approach. - So, according to de Broglie the electron is a particle and not a wave, but it sometimes looks like a wave.

The discrete energy levels of an electron were also explained by him: When an electron has surrounded the nucleon in the atom it has to meet the alternating field of it's previous orbit in the correct phase. This limits strongly the possible frequencies and so it's energy levels.

In the Dirac equation of the electron (1928) it was stated that the constituent(s) of an electron orbit permanently with the speed of light. (Dirac also received the Nobel price). If this is assumed the constituent(s) of the electron must have no mass, otherwise this would contradict relativity. And there must be (at least) two constituents, otherwise there would be a permanent contradiction to the momentum law.

If it is assumed that the constituents of the electron have no mass and there are exactly 2 of them, then there is no contradiction to the experimental situation. I have worked for a big accelerator and I know the experiments made with the electron, and I discussed this point with a research director of that accelerator: There is in fact no contradiction to this assumption of 2 mass-less constituents. The reason for the different conclusion is the fact that the physicists always assume that a constituent must have a mass. This is a wrong and unnecessary assumption.

If you understand the electron in this way you can understand a lot of what is normally assumed to be only understandable by quantum mechanics: e.g. also it's magnetic momentum and it's constant spin.

McQueen

I would like to call your attention to the following remarks made by Luddendorf at a famous historical event: "By appointing Hitler Chancellor of the Reich you have handed over our sacred German Fatherland to one of the greatest demagogues of all time. I prophesy to you this evil man will plunge our Reich into the abyss and will inflict immeasurable woe on our nation. Future generations will curse you in your grave for this action."
For those of you who profess ignorance , a demagogue is one of those persons who belong to the school of I am right you are wrong kind. Demagoguery can not only be unpleasant it can also be dangerous. Standing here on the side lines I have seen certain members of this forum use every possible subversive and underhanded tactic to undermine the position taken by Steve. These tactics have included derogatory remarks on his taste in reading , although the books he has quoted have been written by some of the finest scientific minds of the day, casting aspersions on his intelligence and his mental abilities and demeaning any people who would wish to support him. The worst part in all of this was that all these tactics were cloaked in an aura of self righteousness. The purpose of any forum is to encourage constructive criticism , not to brow beat and bully any and everyone who happens to take a different point of view. I give credence to the fact that Steve has taken a valid stand which I believe has merit and needs to be discussed. Steve’s point of view is that the science of physics seems to be getting too arcane in its outlook and has lost some of the cohesion that it at one time was famous for. There is a lot of truth in this . Traditionally physicists have been the guys who get out the tape measure and start to measure , sure they naturally have to use a lot of mathematics to note down and evaluate their findings , but it is the measuring which they are into. In the same way the traditional mathematician has been some one who sits on his own mental cloud and tries to figure out the square root of the nth. Series of fibonacci numbers just for the fun of it. In recent times mathematicians have been playing a bigger and more important role in physics and quite frankly the result has been something of a mess , for one thing there are definitely areas in which pure mathematical theories have come into conflict with established classical findings. The point that I am making is that Steve might well have a valid point in what he is saying and that his remarks are worthy of more attention and sensible discussion.

jcsd

Bollocks McQueen, as people here may know well that I have studied physics and history at university and I'm sorry but crack-pottery is crack-pottery and there is too much of it on this forum, and in this case Godwin's law applies.


Ignorance is no defence.

NeutronStar

Hi everyone. This is my first post to these forums. I have read several threads including this one in it's entirety.

I just want to say that I agree wholeheartedly with Arc_Central about the mathematics.

I mean, don’t get me wrong. I believe that it is very important to learn and understand the math. But if a mathematician can't put his conclusions into English then I highly question whether he truly understands his conclusions at all.

Mathematics is a highly symbolic language, but all of those symbols mean something. And just as E = mc^2 can be translated into English as "Matter and Energy are interchangeable" so can every other mathematical statement.

I am anxious to learn the math of quantum physics for the main purpose of translating that information into English.

There are some truths that must be brought out here:

1. No one truly understands quantum mechanics (mathematically or otherwise)

If they did they wouldn't be on an Internet forum arguing about it, they would be accepting the Nobel Prize for their insight.

2. Anything mathematical can indeed be translated into English. If it can't be, then it is incompressible even to the mathematician who are trying to understand it. Just because a formula gives the correct numerical results doesn't automatically mean that the mathematician understands why. And if they don't understand it they why don't they just say so instead of hiding behind the flimsy excuse that it can't be put into English.

While it may be true that multidimensional spaces may be hard to visualize, they can still be discusses with amazing insight using plain English.

I often hear physics professors telling me that we can't comprehend imaginary components. They aren't 'real' so we shouldn't think of them that way. That is total nonsense. Electric and magnetic theory has taught us otherwise. Imaginary components are not only real, but they can be comprehended perfectly well.

In much the same way quantum physicists claim that the traveling waves that make up a packet should not be thought of as real. Well, if they are part of the mathematics needed to describe the particle then why shouldn't they be considered real? Simply because they must travel faster than c which is forbidden? That's not good enough for me.

If they are needed for the theory then they are part of it. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Yes, I do believe that the mathematics is the way to go. And I'm attempting to head off in that direction. But like Arc_Central I don't buy it when mathematicians claim that they can't put things into English. This just says to me that they really don't understand the math themselves. Like I say, no one understands quantum mechanics. All they can do is calculate probabilities. Big deal. That doesn't help one iota toward understanding what they heck is going on.

I'm currently studying Liboff's "Introductory to Quantum Mechanics". I'm just getting started, and I have a long way to go in differential calculus as well. But up to this point I haven't found anything mathematical that I can't put into English. And I am just dying to learn something mathematical that I can't put into English. Because when I reach that point I guarantee you that I will find a way to explain it in simple English. Either that, or I'll have to openly admit that I genuinely don't understand the mathematics.

Probabilities don't count by the way. There's simply nothing there to translate into English. There's no enlightenment there to be translated. Mathematicians that can do super fantastic probabilities don't understand anything more than anyone else. There's no understanding to be had from probabilities. All that can be had from that are the numerical predictions to experiments. That's hardly an understanding of anything. They can say what might happen, but they can't say why it might happen, other than to point to the mathematics of probabilities and say, "It can't be translated into English". Well, big deal. There's nothing there to translate. It's just a probability. In fact, that *is* the English translation, "It's just a probability", period amen. Translation complete. The mathematician doesn't know anymore than anyone else.

McQueen

This is the point that I am trying to make. Just because you have studied Physics doesn’t mean you are right in your conception of how some one else views the same subject. Physics is anything but a perfect science , as you should know. For instance take the theory of electromagnetism , Maxwell , formulated his equations and predicted the existence of electromagnetic radiation four years before they were found , eighty years before an electron was properly measured and more than a hundred years before the atom was split . Can anyone really say , with the kind of absolute certainty that you obviously seem to entertain , that he even knew what he was talking about . It is a basic tenet of physics , like it or not , that the more you know about a subject the more accurate will be your understanding of it. By these standards where does Maxwell stand. Using Maxwell’s theories of electromagnetism , Feynman , Diriac and others built up their own theories of electromagnetism , using QED (quantum electrodynamics ) . The point here is , isn’t there a possibility , however small , in all this of an error being made somewhere along the line. You talk of mathematics. Yet for mathematicians 0/0 makes sense , which we obviously know to be untrue , but is nevertheless an abstraction which makes sense to mathematicians. Let me also state here that greater minds than our own have been able to say that they were wrong . Newton for instance first started out with his particle (corpuscular ) theory of light , when experiments of the day showed that light exhibited the properties of waves he was able to accept the fact. The fact that he was eventually proved to be partly ( according to the accepted theories ) right , makes no difference. For two thousand years before Newton , scientists believed that the natural tendency of an object was to stop moving once the force moving it was brought to zero. Newton turned the world upside down when he suggested that in fact the natural tendency of an object was to keep moving until some external force came into play which altered its course or brought it to a stop. With extreme mathematical abstractions taking the place of observed or observable criteria , a small margin of error can lead to a huge divergence from the situation as it actually is. Is this acceptable and to what extent ?