- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by Thequ1ckPikiwedia is not an authority on quantum physics, as the incompleteness definition shows clearly enough.
The definition of 'volume' as given by Wiki with respect to physical volume is this.
"Volume is the quantity of three-dimensional space enclosed by some closed boundary, for example, the space that a substance (solid, liquid, gas, or plasma) or shape occupies or contains"
The authors point is that an atom is not a 'closed volume'. The only 'closed' volume within in an atom is the nucleus.
With regards to spin. 'spin' in physics is a shortening of 'spin direction'.
No, 'spin' in quantum physics is a modification of that term in classical physics, and, if you insist, a shortening of a longer term such as 'spin direction'.
Well, surprise: 'volume' in quantum physics is also a modification of that term in classical physics, and if it makes the author of this page feel better about it, he may think of it as a shortening of the phrase 'quantum volume'.
To build a whole new theory of gravitation without any experimental underpinning and no connection to the rest of quantum physics, on the basis of one single such terminological inexactitude but without being bothered by any of the others, is more than a little fractoceramic.
Richard
Originally posted by Shallow BlueNone of that is substantive criticism, though.
Pikiwedia is not an authority on quantum physics, as the incompleteness definition shows clearly enough.
[b]The authors point is that an atom is not a 'closed volume'. The only 'closed' volume within in an atom is the nucleus.
With regards to spin. 'spin' in physics is a shortening of 'spin direction'.
No, 'spin' in quantum physics i ...[text shortened]... g bothered by any of the others, is more than a little fractoceramic.
Richard[/b]
Sure, there are many valid reasons not to drink from the Kool-Aid just yet. That said, the theory seems very parsimonious and intuitive so it's intriguing.
1 edit
Originally posted by Thequ1ckHe doesn't point it out he defines it.
The authors point is that an atom is not a 'closed volume'. The only 'closed'
volume within in an atom is the nucleus.
Besides, he does not say that the only closed volume is the nucleus. He says all particles with mass have a closed volume including protons, neutrons and electrons.
Why he doesn't break the neutrons and protons down into quarks, I am not sure.
Its funny that he states as 'validation' his definition:
Definition: A closed volume is a particle that has mass.
Validation: Closed volumes have mass.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI thought electrons were both/neither particles or waveforms?
He doesn't point it out he defines it.
Besides, he does not say that the only closed volume is the nucleus. He says all particles with mass have a closed volume including protons, neutrons and electrons.
Why he doesn't break the neutrons and protons down into quarks, I am not sure.
Its funny that he states as 'validation' his definition:
Definition: A closed volume is a particle that has mass.
Validation: Closed volumes have mass.
Yes, he does say "closed volumes (volumes with mass)"
But he validates it by saying that this is a "mass effect" which he defines
as a pressure related to the distortion of space time.
"A "mass effect" appears, i.e. an effect having all characteristics of mass."
I think the idea is that the formulation can be further applied to
smaller, constituent particles.
Originally posted by Thequ1ckAll fundamental particles are both/neither particles or waveforms. So too are groupings of particles.
I thought electrons were both/neither particles or waveforms?
Electrons have mass which is what is relevant here.
I think the idea is that the formulation can be further applied to
smaller, constituent particles.
Well then it can equally be applied to larger groupings of particles like atoms as a whole or even molecules.
What I don't get is why you are emphasizing that an atom is mostly empty space, but ignoring the fact that a nucleus too is mostly empty space - and I believe a proton or neutron too is mostly empty space.
5 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadElectrons have energy which is equated to mass.
All fundamental particles are both/neither particles or waveforms. So too are groupings of particles.
Electrons have mass which is what is relevant here.
[b]I think the idea is that the formulation can be further applied to
smaller, constituent particles.
Well then it can equally be applied to larger groupings of particles like atoms as ucleus too is mostly empty space - and I believe a proton or neutron too is mostly empty space.[/b]
But their mass is several magnitudes lower than the nucleus.
Personally I believe that the spin state of an elementary particle
is very relevant.
We are tutored into believing elementary particle(EP)'s to be the same as
billiard balls, they are not. EP's are the same as each other, it would be foolhardy
to believe that they are independent of one another.
Surely the "mass effect" is due to the multiality of EP's?
2 edits
Originally posted by Thequ1ckThey have mass just like protons and neutrons have mass. It is not some different sort of mass.
Electrons have energy which is equated to mass.
Most importantly, they have momentum when moving and that momentum is easy to measure using a magnetic field and measuring the deflection as compared to the velocity.
But their mass is several magnitudes lower than the nucleus.
Correct, but that is no reason to pretend it doesn't have mass.
We are tutored into believing elementary particle(EP)'s to be the same as
billiard balls,
Only before you get into quantum mechanics, at which point they become probability clouds / waves.
they are not.
How do you know?
EP's are the same as each other, it would be foolhardy
to believe that they are independent of one another.
Not sure what you mean here.
Clearly, different quarks are different from each other and different from leptons and bosons. Or are you saying there is something more fundamental that makes up quarks, leptons and bosons?
Originally posted by PalynkaI am disputing Thequ1ck, not the website.
He doesn't pretend they don't have mass.
Thequ1ck stated earlier:
The authors point is that an atom is not a 'closed volume'. The only 'closed' volume within in an atom is the nucleus.
I simply don't see why one should treat the nucleus as any more solid than the atom as a whole nor why one should ignore electrons simply because they have a lower mass than the nucleus.
Any new theory of mass must deal with mass in all its manifestations including as a component of momentum. I don't think the website explains much on that score. How does one explain conservation of momentum in terms of space-time curvature?
7 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe paper isn't ignoring the electrons.
I am disputing Thequ1ck, not the website.
Thequ1ck stated earlier:
[b]The authors point is that an atom is not a 'closed volume'. The only 'closed' volume within in an atom is the nucleus.
I simply don't see why one should treat the nucleus as any more solid than the atom as a whole nor why one should ignore electrons simply because they have a hat score. How does one explain conservation of momentum in terms of space-time curvature?[/b]
Let us say that the probability wave of an electron constitutes a closed
volume with respect to the nucleus. Of what magnitude is an electron
to the volume of the sphere of its orbit?
Bohr radius(distance from proton to electron) is : 5×10^-11
Radius of an electron(Pauline Linus) is : 1x10^-13
Volume of an atom = 4/3 x 3.141 x (5×10^-11)^3
= ~ 5.5 x 10^-31 m^3
Area of an electron = 3.141 x (1 x 10^-13)^2 = 3 x 10^-24.
5 x 10^-31 / 3 x 10^-24 = ~ 2 x 10^7 = ~ 20 million.
My maths is well rusty but the 'closed' volume of an atom encapsulated by an electron would be veryveryvery approximately 10^-7
Originally posted by twhiteheadI simply don't see why one should treat the nucleus as any more solid than the atom as a whole nor why one should ignore electrons simply because they have a lower mass than the nucleus.
I am disputing Thequ1ck, not the website.
Thequ1ck stated earlier:
[b]The authors point is that an atom is not a 'closed volume'. The only 'closed' volume within in an atom is the nucleus.
I simply don't see why one should treat the nucleus as any more solid than the atom as a whole nor why one should ignore electrons simply because they have a ...[text shortened]... hat score. How does one explain conservation of momentum in terms of space-time curvature?[/b]
Is this about the website or Thequ1ck? We know that the nucleus is where most of the mass of an atom is. The theory in that sense is consistent because they interpret mass as evidence of what he calls "closedness".
Conservation of momentum seems like it's still a primitive, what does the theory need to explain?
Originally posted by Thequ1ckAnd surely you can make the same argument regarding the volume of quarks in relation to the volume of the nucleus, yet you seem to treat the nucleus as a single clearly defined object.
My maths is well rusty but the 'closed' volume of an atom encapsulated by an electron would be veryveryvery approximately 10^-7
Originally posted by PalynkaIf two particles collide and join together, they proceed along a path based on the sum of their momentums which is also a direct function of their mass'.
Conservation of momentum seems like it's still a primitive, what does the theory need to explain?
This is very different behaviour from gravity which is the tendency of particles to attract each other which is also a function of mass.
What I can't see is how the momentum side of things is explained by the ideas on the website. (but then again I don't understand general relativity and how it explains it either).