If you left that carbon atom in a box, then came back in a million years, those electrons would still be whizzing around just as you left them.
I think you need to talk to schrodinger's cat last time he/she explained/ didn't explain it all to me
Chat Forum
How do atoms last forever ?
-
I think you need to talk to schrodinger's cat last time he/she explained/ didn't explain it all to mePosted 8 months ago # -
They're very frugal.
Posted 8 months ago # -
If you left that carbon atom in a box, then came back in a million years, those electrons would still be whizzing around just as you left them.
Since the electrons have a probability space to exist in that space can be outside the box. Hence they could "tunnel" through it
Posted 8 months ago # -
AFAIK, "The electrons aren't "orbiting" as such". But I think they tell you this to stop you wondering why they don't fall into the nucleus (because it's massive and opposite charge).
Or possibly they use the word "orbit" because in Newtonian mechanics, an orbit/altitude corresponds the kinetic energy of the object, higher orbits having higher energy. While in sub-atomic physics it corresponds to the quantum electrodynamic energy [I'm on seriously shaky ground here - help!] of the electron.
Posted 8 months ago # -
It's more like a vibration at a specific frequency in an infinite flat plane, if I remember that bit of Stephen H's "A Short History..." correctly?
Posted 8 months ago # -
AFAIK, "The electrons aren't "orbiting" as such". But I think they tell you this to stop you wondering why they don't fall into the nucleus (because it's massive and opposite charge).
That's not the problem, the attractive force towards the centre is exactly what allows things to orbit. The problem is classically the electrons should emit electromagnetic radiation as they are accelerated round the orbit, and hence lose energy and spiral into the nucleus. They are still called orbitals as a hangover of the classical picture.
Posted 8 months ago # -
So what are the individual parts of quark?. And therefore what are they made up of ?. This must go on for infinity or it wouldn't exist. They have got to be made up of something or we'll disappear in a puff of logic.
"Sits in woodland glade meditating on a surf board"
Posted 8 months ago # -
*Skims through*
Yeah, what everyone else said, mostly.
When you start getting to this level of quantum physics everything starts getting a bit fuzzy. You look at pictures of electrons and think, oh right, it's a tiny little ball. Well, it isn't. It's an enigma wrapped in a lie.
Normal physics is so much more fun. Planes on conveyor belts, spinning bicycle wheels, helicopters in fish tanks, etc. etc.
Posted 8 months ago # -
where is the higgs boson in all of this?
Posted 8 months ago # -
where is the higgs boson in all of this?
In the church, debating with a priest whether he should be allowed in or not.
Posted 8 months ago # -
how can he be in the church debating whether he should be allowed in or not?
Posted 8 months ago # -
If you mean in a socially acceptable way, then the same as I could walk into the girls changing room and debate whether I should really be allowed in there or not. If you mean in a physical, can a higgs boson actually be in any 3 dimensional object, where the dimensions are height, width, and depth, then I'm not really sure how.
Posted 8 months ago # -
oh so it wasn't a 'quantum mechanics joke' then?
Posted 8 months ago # -
" It's an enigma wrapped in a lie."
I like that
Posted 8 months ago # -
Posted 8 months ago # -
They have got to be made up of something or we'll disappear in a puff of logic
And what is this 'something' of which you speak?
Try pushing two magnets together with the same poles facing. Sure feels like there's 'something' squishy in the way, doesn't it?
Posted 8 months ago # -
.JPG)
Yup they last forever, still have a set on my commute bike
Posted 8 months ago # -
As I understand it, an atom is made up of a nucleus of neutrons and protons, with a load of electrons orbiting it.
Well this understanding is what, maybe more than a hundred years out of date?
As others have said, quantum mechanics changed our view of what a particle is, although the big problem is that there is no agreement within this discipline as to how to explain the results of quantum experiments.
There are still paradoxes within QM to be resolved, but what I still see in much writing is this need to believe in particles, however small or fundamental. We need to think in terms of whole systems, and maybe we also need to let go of our need for thinking of time and space as fundamental aspects of reality too.
All IMHO of course
It's a great question, but then so many aspects of our cosmos are still a mystery to us, it's great to explore these things huh?
Posted 8 months ago # -
That diagram is completely wrong......
.......everyone know electrons are orange, not green
I like this one :D... A lot :D. Basically as said newtonian physics don't apply here. You need to solve the Schrodinger's equation. However, you're a bit screwed as it can't be solved for more than 3 bodies. Hence resorting to bullying a cat.Posted 8 months ago # -
And don't forget, every 1 in a billion times someone stabs a knife into some butter, the blade goes between the nucleus and proton of an atom and the butter spontaneously combusts.
If people went around sticking knives into fissionable material with the same regularity they do with butter, the earth would have turned into a star by now. That's what all stars are, planets where people stabbed thorium-232 just once too often.
Posted 8 months ago # -
We need to think in terms of whole systems, and maybe we also need to let go of our need for thinking of time and space as fundamental aspects of reality too
You're not a scientist, are you?
These 'whole systems' are so complex that they could never be understood fully. We know how a brain cell works, but the human mind? Forget it.
Posted 8 months ago # -
If I remember according to Dr Cox in his last series current thinking in some circles is that at a totally unimaginable point in the future the final proton will decay and that's yer lot, all gone no where. Just ceased to be.
Posted 8 months ago # -
You're not a scientist, are you?
I guess I am not a scientist in the same way that James Lovelock, Basil Hiley and David Bohm were not scientists then
Posted 8 months ago # -
My old physics essay would answer this if I can find it...
Posted 8 months ago # -
Nothing last forever.
Posted 8 months ago # -
Beware of quantum ducks......
Quark Quark
Posted 8 months ago # -
If I remember according to Dr Cox in his last series current thinking in some circles is that at a totally unimaginable point in the future the final proton will decay and that's yer lot, all gone no where. Just ceased to be.
True, I saw the same thing in that episode of Futurama where the professor builds a time machine that only goes forward, where billions and trillions of years into the future, the last proton decays. So it must be true.
Posted 8 months ago # -
molgrips - Member
....We know how a brain cell works....
actually we don't
we have a fair understanding how some components of some cells found is some brains function on a biochemical and electrochemical level,
we have less understanding of how these components interact in any physiologically significant environment,
we have almost no understanding of how these interactions maintain a functional biological unit we label 'a brain cell'As Simon said, reductionist science has has it's day and made it's contribution, but we need to start thinking integrally (or holistically if you like) or our (theoretical) scientific advances are just going to consist of making up new names &/or numbers for 'things we don't understand' or to 'make the equations work'
As for the planetry model of atomic structure, please don't tell me that is still being taught at anything higher than junior school level
Posted 8 months ago # -
at a totally unimaginable point in the future
I just imagined it. Does that make me some kind of genius? Where do I go do collect the cheque?
Posted 8 months ago # -
I guess I am not a scientist in the same way that James Lovelock, Basil Hiley and David Bohm were not scientists then
I don't think they were starting from the same point as we all are
Not saying you are wrong, but your post was rather glib.
As Simon said, reductionist science has has it's day and made it's contribution, but we need to start thinking integrally (or holistically if you like) or our (theoretical) scientific advances are just going to
Had its day?
Saying we need A instead of B is rather simplistic, don't you think? What area are you talking about?
Posted 8 months ago # -
E=mc^2
Posted 8 months ago # -
but is c constant?
Posted 8 months ago # -
molgrips - Member
Had its day?
Saying we need A instead of B is rather simplistic, don't you think? What area are you talking about?
Yes, had it's day
Reductionist techniques have taught 'us' a lot about our world, it's place in the universe and the creatures that inhabit it etc.
But, and IMO it's a BIG but, it is now proving to be a barrier to advancement (in Life Sciences) as, on an operational front it discourages cross disciplinary exchanges and encourages a "big fish, small pond" way of thinking in which research groups are increasingly encouraged to become 'centres of expertise' rather than collaborators in larger projects.
On the scientific front, it is becoming ever more apparent that (again in Life Sciences) that the 'mini-machine' view of life is just not applicable to anything other than the most elementary of systems, and often only when these systems are investigated out of context.
There is a need to increase contextual scientific studies rather than divide the existing field of knowledge into ever decreasing areas of study if any useful new information is to be found, so 'turn the telescope around' if you like.
Life exists in context not detail, systems are important not components, environments/niches matter not species and so on...
And yes, I am being simplistic because primarily that's the way to start discussions, secondly it's a mixed audience and finally this is stw remember and the thread will descend into name calling/point scoring soon enough and I don't want to get drawn in too deeeeeep or I'll get distressed and Elfish Oh postscript, I meant 'as well as' rather than 'instead of' which is why I said "need to start thinking..."
Posted 8 months ago # -
I'm taking my son for a tour around CERN for his birthday. He is a geek. I am thick. Can anyone suggest a kind of 'stick in the spokes' type thing I can do to their big particle machine thingy?
Posted 8 months ago # -
Can anyone suggest a kind of 'stick in the spokes' type thing I can do to their big particle machine thingy?
Sprinkle the place with holy water and watch those suckers buuuurrrrrrn
Posted 8 months ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
