Pingpang Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 are you 2 married? (bago/ping)??? ash lol u nevva know, eh? it sure looks that way when u read the last page of posts heh heh where's me dinna? and wot did u do with my clean socks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 lol u nevva know, eh? it sure looks that way when u read the last page of posts heh heh where's me dinna? and wot did u do with my clean socks? lol, no reply by bago means your not, she would have bust your ass by now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bago Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Yes, harsher words should've been said, but a lady shouldn't though ! He's just being pedantic to wind me up. The git. where's me dinna? and wot did u do with my clean socks? Yeh, right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 I've skipped the last 8 or so posts, but to summarise, bago you description was basically nonesense. If your A-level physics teacher heard you he'd have a fit. I notice that a few important quantum behaviours haven't been mentioned, superposition and the uncertainty principle to be precise. The idea that at the quantum level things behave as both wave and particle until you look at them and force them into one state or the other. This also extends to other physical attributes, eg spin. Uncertainty - you can't measure both the velocity and position of a particle accurately, by measuring one you change the other in an unpredictable way. Phan - How did you reach the conclusion about not having computers, tv's or radios without consciousness affecting quantum states? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bartfarst Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Damn! Cyclone's right - sorry Bago, but your post (number 13 I think) was pants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Okay, this is my attempt at decoding it into layman terms of the basic "idea" of it. I can't say theory, since I'm not sure what they are currently. If you cut any object and split it again and again, until you have the smallest particle, you get an atom. You can view an atom by strong microscopes. However, if you split an atom and want to look inside it, I don't think you can see it. Smallest particle inside an atom are (by guess work), electrons, protons, and neutrons. With negative electrical charges, positive electrical charges, and no charges respectively. These particles are the smallest particles known to man, and it is widely accepted as scientifically true. Its existence are proven by experiments. However, I don't think you can see the electron, proton, or neutron by the most powerful microscope. Now, Quantum Physics is about the interactions of these sub-particles, (if they are indeed particles), inside the proton and neutron. (I think this is right, cos both of these have a mass, whereas an electron has no mass, but just a charge.) Quantum physics is about how these particles (known as 'quarks' ?) bump into each other, and how they interact to produces the effect that is seen inside an atom. I think theories in this area is still being debated, and scientifically proven. i.e. how fast they are, how they move, when do they move, which direction do they move etc etc etc Electrons do have mass as do protons and neutrons. Although the last paragraph is correct it is really describing Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) which one could consider a very specialised subtopic of quantum mechanics. So you are explaining one particular application of quantum mechanics (though QCD is actually based on quantum field theory which is what you end up with when merging quantum mechanics and the special theory of relativity). Though its more complicated than that since you should account for lots of other effects too if you want to understand nuclei. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgksheff Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Electrons do have mass as do protons and neutrons. or ..... the best explanation for other observed phenomena are that something we call electrons must exist and must have mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GabbleRatcht Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 I would point anyone posting here without any understanding to read anything by Richard Feynman. It will explain every thing you need to know. He is the person I would most like to have met. Unfortunately he is no longer with us. Particularly 'QED-The Strange Theory of Light and Matter'. He basically pinned down the interactions between the electron and photons. But you should also try to read everything about him. QED is 'Quantum Electro Dynamics' btw. I know quantum mechanics, but I am not about to start explaining the theories here. Read for your self. Google for Niels Bohr Copenhagen Interpretation Richard Feynman Hans Bethe Erwin Shrodinger Go here and you will find enough links to fill your mind with mystery for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 or ..... the best explanation for other observed phenomena are that something we call electrons must exist and must have mass. well, yes. As with any scientific theory it is only the most likely thing with respect to data that has been thought of so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heyesey Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 or ..... the best explanation for other observed phenomena are that something we call electrons must exist and must have mass. Some of those observed phenomena being that electrons have been seen and weighed.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.