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

Two Atom Systems

  1. Aug 27, 2004 #1
    Are there any experiments that have just two (single) atoms?

    I know that single photons can be counted individually, can the same be said of Atoms?

    I am about to place a thought experiment on the relativity boards, which will deal with a Man, two atoms, and a lift in freefall.

    I would like to know if there are any experiments that deal with just two atoms and their comunication, ie absorption and emissions between just Two Atoms.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 28, 2004 #2
    Try a Penning trap

    AFAIK The use of a device called a Penning Trap? has been used to isolate and levitate a single electron and that suggests that an ion rather than an atom may be capable of isolation. Cheers, Jim
     
  4. Aug 28, 2004 #3
    Thanks Jim. I had been proposing a Penning Trap as part of my thought experiment, but all the data I have shows no such formation of "linear-comunication" between two single atoms?

    I am going to put the thought up for some feedback.
     
  5. Aug 30, 2004 #4
    Ok we have a experiment wherby a Man is in an elevator that is about to freefall. He has two boxes in each of his outstretched hands, each box has a single Helium 4 particle within.

    The lift falls away.

    If the falling observer opens any of the boxes, what are the chances of the Helium 4 still being there?..will the rate of decay be influenced by the Freefall, or by the observer?

    Is there a Gravitational wavefunction, or is there an Observational wavefunction?..that initiates the half-life of "particle/atomic" decays.
     
  6. Aug 31, 2004 #5
    Hi Olias,
    I'm a bit lost on your "thought experiment"; mostly because neither Helium-4 nor Helium-3 has an iota of probability for decay. Cheers, Jim
     
  7. Aug 31, 2004 #6
    How does the wavefunction of the Universe of Space, dissapear, or transform from a 3-D spacetime to the Electro-Magnetic-Vacuum (VIRTUAL), of 2-D space between Galaxies?

    Has the transformation of wavefunction (observable state-vectors) of Dark Matter been mis-diagnosed?..should we not be using Quantum Mechanics for the explination of all of Space Vacuum?

    Physically meaningful observables must also satisfy transformation laws which relate observations performed by different observers in different frames of reference. These transformation laws are automorphisms of the state space, that is bijective transformations which preserve some mathematical property. In the case of quantum mechanics, the requisite automorphisms are unitary (or anti-unitary) linear transformations of the Hilbert space V. Under Galilean relativity or Special relativity, the mathematics of frames of reference is particularly simple, and in fact restricts considerably the set of physically meaningful observables.

    The facts of the matter, however, are far more prosaic. Specifically, if a system is in a state described by a wave function, the measurement process affects the state in a non-deterministic, but statistically predictable way. In particular, after a measurement is applied, the state description by a single wave function may be destroyed, being replaced by a statistical ensemble of wave functions. The irreversible nature of measurement operations in quantum physics is sometimes referred to as the measurement problem and is described mathematically by quantum operations. By the structure of quantum operations, this description is mathematically equivalent to that offered by relative state interpretation where the original system is regarded as a subsystem of a larger system and the state of the original system is given by the partial trace of the state of the larger system.


    The above three paragraphs are from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable

    The energy of Space must be reduced to a 2-Dimensional field, this Surrounds Galaxies, not the other way around, kinda cute having the Milky-Way immersed within a 2-D field Energy!
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2004
  8. Sep 1, 2004 #7
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?