Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Is Density a Quantum Property?

  1. Apr 6, 2004 #1
    In the physics of elementary particles, as far as I know, there can be three definitions of density.

    1. density is the ratio of mass per unit length.
    2. density is the ratio of mass per unit area.
    3. density is the ratio of mass per unit volume.

    Quarks and leptons are almost point particles. They have mass but their volumes can be zero therefore their density is almost infinite.

    Photon has zero rest-mass. It doesn't matter what its volume, its density is zero.

    So in quantum physics, we seem to be dealing with density of both extreme, zero and infinity. Can we really talk about density in quantum physics?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 7, 2004 #2
    Let's talk about density of energy. The concept "mass" is formalism.
     
  4. Apr 7, 2004 #3
    You have the chair to start the discussion. Can you start with the energy density as it appears in general relativity? Is density properly a property of fields?
     
  5. Apr 9, 2004 #4
    I can give the example of change of density at exothermic process of formation of molecules of water. The atom of oxygen has mass 15.9994u and occupies volume ~9 cubic angstroms in a free molecule of oxygen (2O). The atom of hydrogen has mass 1.00794u and occupies volume ~8.5 cubic angstroms in a free molecule of hydrogen (2H). During reaction a lot of heat is formed:
    (2O) + (2H) + (2H) = (2H)O + (2H)O + 6eV
    The mass of atoms and molecules before reaction and after reaction remains identical.
    The sum of volumes of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen is equal 26 cubic angstroms. The volume of one molecule of water is equal 30 cubic angstroms, i.e. it is more on 4 cubic angstroms.
    Atomic hydrogen and atomic oxygen exist at temperature above 2500K whereas water is formed with explosion already at temperature 800-850K.
    As you can see, all these data speak that at formation of water there should be a cooling of all components, but contrary to "common sense", the reaction occurs with energy liberation.
    Hence, energy for break and transformations of connections come from any other source.
    I think, that this energy source can be found out at research crystallographic angles in atoms and molecules. At reaction of formation of water, the crystallographic angles in a molecule of hydrogen change on 65 degrees; in atom of oxygen - on 30 degrees.
     
  6. Apr 10, 2004 #5
    I need to check for myself some of your figures and numbers before I reply.
     
  7. Apr 11, 2004 #6
    I'm still checking the numbers you presented. But at this time I have two questions for you.

    1. Are you implying that by changing or controlling the crystallographic angles of atoms and molecules we can also control the change in energy density of the substance? Where the extreme cases are the complete absorption or complete emission of energy keeping the temperature and mass of the system constant.

    2. Is this phenomenon bears any relationship to what some people are doing in cold fusion?
     
  8. Apr 12, 2004 #7
    extending your idea about the change of energy density in a three-particle configuration to the nucleons, its formations must necessarily also generate energy by just adjusting the subnucleon angles of the quarks. If this adjustment can be accomplished then a tremendous amount of nuclear energy can be liberated.
     
  9. Apr 13, 2004 #8
    Antonio,
    My attitude to the theory of elementary particles is, to put it mildly, cool. I do not see prospect even in quarks. Will pass some time, and adherents of this theory will invent sub-quarks, then sub-sub-quarks, etc.
    Therefore, I prefer to speak about density of energy-mass regardless to any particles. I am interested with geometrical laws in atoms.
    It can seem rather strange, that I connect crystallographic angles in atoms and molecules with density of energy-mass. Especially, it is not clear – what attitude the theory of relativity has to these angles.
    In connection with this, I want to quote one fragment from mine thread “Puzzles of angular acceleration”:
    “…
    The Earth is rotate around own axis and around of the Sun.
    The solar system is rotate around of center of our Galaxy.
    Our Galaxy is rotate around of center of some other Supergalaxy, etc.
    Some of these systems can be rotating with accelerating; others can be rotating with slowing. The total of rotary accelerations influences the value of gravitation and mass in each point of space and time.
    Besides, all these systems vibrate – from cosmic objects until atoms and below.
    Atoms consist of vibrant energy rings - from polytrons.
    The vibration of polytrons creates in space the electrical and magnetic forces, which are indissolubly coupled with each other. Forces of vibration are spread in space with speed of light, interacting with polytrons in atoms and with free polytrons, and create the lively and active medium for everything, what can vibrate.
    In dinosaur's times the earth year and the earth day were shorter, therefore now we live in the phase of negative angular acceleration. We guess, that the electronegativity of the Earth is conditioned by her uniformly slowed gyration.
    The Earth is the huge gyroscope, which is charged by negative electricity. The gyration of electric charge generates some part of magnetic field of the Earth.
    In order to test quantitatively this supposition it is necessary go to the "magnetic" history of the Earth. During the existence the Earth, her magnetic poles had turned over some times. Not so large energy is necessary for turn over of poles of the Earth. In any case, it is significant smaller than it is necessary for rotational displacement of our earth gyroscope on 180 degrees. But if to assume, that at rotation of the solar system around of galactic center, we moving on an elliptic orbit, then the pattern becomes more–less actual.
    At moving of celestial body on an elliptic orbit the rotary acceleration of the body changes the sign four times for each turnover. The period of revolution of the solar system around of center of our Galaxy is approximately equal of 240 millions years. Therefore, the period of revolution of the magnetic field of the Earth should be equal of 60 millions years.
    …”
    The theory of relativity describes inertial systems which are located outside of atoms, therefore all these systems is indifferent identical.
    I think, that the inertial system inside atom essentially differs from inertial system outside of atom.
    In my polytronic model of atom, atoms have the form of polyhedrons. On each side of polyhedron the ring of energy (polytron) is located, which has speed of light as the main parameter. Hence, the amount of energy can be expressed as amount of centripetal acceleration.
    If to turn an axis of a ring on some angle, then arises, well known for everybody, gyroscopic effect or angular acceleration.
    Angular acceleration is a change of centripetal acceleration. The change of centripetal acceleration is a change of amount of energy-mass in atom. Hence, the change of crystallographic angles in atom should cause the change of an initial stock of energy of atom.
    Depending on the geometrical form of atom, the axises of rings-polytrons are focused in one or in some points inside atom. In these points angular acceleration has huge density, therefore these points can be interpreted, as nucleus of atoms. In these points there are no particles (quarks, leptons etc.), but in these points the laws of transformation of space work accurately.
    Thus, we should distinguish two types of inertial systems, which are located on the opposite sides concerning a surface of atoms. The constant of speed of light in vacuum can be accepted as border of dividing between these inertial systems.
     
  10. Apr 14, 2004 #9
    As a person living in this modern age of exponential breakthrough in technologies, I have no doubt that modern societies’ appetite for energy is insatiable. I am making it part of my life’s responsibilities to find new sources of energy for the continuation of mankind on this earth until the next magnetic reversal which would probably make all efforts into a moot point. There are other possibilities of natural catastrophes for earth to think about - imminent wars of nations, the collision with an asteroid, global warming, global seismic activities, the widespread of diseases and epidemics, the shortage of the food and water supplies and many more that I am not aware of which can act as a silent killer for modern societies.

    Our dependent on fossil fuel, not an inexhaustible source of energy, is somehow seem to be causing all the economic problems we are having at this time. The industrial nations are the ones affected more by these problems while the underdeveloped nations are having more of problems in food, water, living conditions, diseases, and other natural disasters. These are all human problems nonetheless. The solutions to these problems rest with the heads of state of each nation but with the cooperation of its populace. Solving the global problems of earth is a responsibility for everyone living on earth.

    Now, back to physics.

    I am interested in knowing more about your polytrons and energy rings. These might have some similarities to my own research on the “true” quantum as the square of energy.

    [tex] E^2 = r_i \times F_i \cdot r_j \times F_j [/tex]

    where the r's are infinitesimal distances and the F's are infinitesimal forces. But in complete inertial systems (no acceleration), the forces are all zero. Force is also defined as the time rate of change of linear momentum. For inertial systems, the linear momentum is always constant.
     
  11. Apr 15, 2004 #10
    You are right Antonio, about insatiability. I think, human insatiability is the most terrible murderer of all civilizations on the Earth. In Russia two bloody revolutions have been accomplished. Leaders of the first (decembrist) revolution wanted, that in Russia there were no poor people. Leaders of the second (bolshevistic) revolution wanted, that in Russia there were no rich people. The second revolution totally obliterated all Russian intelligentsia, including my parents. Your patriarch George Kennan knows destiny of our intelligentsia very well. Slogans of both revolutions were erroneous, therefore was so a lot of blood. If it would the purpose – that there were no greedy people then, maybe, we would avoid these tragedies. Now our people reap fruits of own mistakes. Now in Russia superfluous mass of greedy fools, which every day make evil for the future generations.
    Unique greed, which I approve, it is greed to knowledge.
    Now, back to physics.
    My polytrons have interesting quantum property. At resonant vibration, on length of the ring there is an integer of vibrating sites – quantrons. The area of everyone quantron is proportional to a square of amplitude. I do not know why, but the amplitude has the top limit. In the area of the ring the integer of the quantron’s areas always is located.
    Hence, the area density is quantum property.
    Except of resonant energy, polytrons possess unresonant energy, which is connected to speed of light. Some part of this energy is liberated at radioactive decay. Unresonant energy is located on line of the ring–polytron. The linear density of the energy is equal 7.111*10^34 J/m.
    I am afraid, that hasty experiences on liberation of such energy can cause any global catastrophic reaction.
     
  12. Apr 15, 2004 #11
    If there is a reasonable doubt that this new source of energy will again be used to harm the ecosystem then it's ethically justified not the release the second evil genie from the bottle.
     
  13. Apr 15, 2004 #12
    Planck density, rho*~1094gm/cm3, is a quantum property.
     
  14. Apr 15, 2004 #13
    Loren Booda,

    Thanks for this wealth of knowledge. I will be spending time reading them before I can ask you any question.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Is Density a Quantum Property?
  1. Water property (Replies: 1)

  2. Vector properties (Replies: 3)

  3. Extensive properties (Replies: 2)

Loading...