Bago Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Quote: Originally Posted by Bago 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. grammar, but not so bad so far You're nitpicking. Split. Cut. Divide. Same thing. We're talking of a high-level idea, and not to be taken as literal. It was how it's explained to me when I was a student, and I shall use the same idea and analogy to explain it to others. What is difficult about science is the inability to 'quantify' something which you cannot see, hear or feel. You have to accept theories. Hence the OP did say that he is not scientifically minded. So why I can not use basic everyday terms to explain my meaning ? So it is at least understood and quantified by the OP himself ? To think of electrons and other particles as things that are solid and can be cut, is not a bad idea to start with! Quote: 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) I hope there's no guesswork involved Okay, Mr nitpick ! LOL...God strewth ! If I have to be more politically correct, and true to science, then I should've said: Inside an atom are particles known as a nucleus which is made up of protons and neutrons, with a positive charge, and surrounded by electrons with a negative charge. However, the nucleus and the electrons cannot be seen by the strongest of electromagnetic microscope, and therefore it is only predicted by way of experiment that they exist. Any matter which are smaller than this level are only proven by theories only. (Therefore my term used as 'guesswork' ! Predicted by mathematics, but still intangible.) Quote: , electrons, protons, and neutrons. With negative electrical charges, positive electrical charges, and no charges respectively. These particles are the smallest particles known to man No, just the smallest we can actually see directly Well, they are known to an AVERAGE man. So you agree that they are the smallest which we can use equipments to see with ? Well ! So at least I do know something ! So it's accepted in "principle" by yourself then judging by your above comment. If I have to be anal, I would take that literally and say, " See, how? With what??". It is ALL relative ! Quote: , and it is widely accepted as scientifically true. it being what? That electrons, protons, and neutrons exists. It is scientifically accepted because it is used within other areas of science too. Chemistry accepts it. Biology accepts it. Medicine accepts it cos it's based on biochemistry. The charges of these atoms and molecules make up the whole existence of life itself ! So therefore it is scientifically true in this accepted context. If this is not true, then other sciences should not base itself on something that is false. It just invalidates the subejct itself. Quote: 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.) as already explained you've seized on a small part of quantum theory here, it's certainly not the bigger picture though Quote: 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 Yes a lot of this is still under debate and revision, but like I said you're focussing on a subset of quantum behaviour here, quite a small subset. Do you mean to say that if I was given half the chance to explain what I mean, before I was jumped on and was nitpicked by others, that my posts could be considered as valid in itself ? You may think that it is 'subset' (can't believe how often you use this term. lol...It is indeed very IT orientated), but to the OP, it is the 'basic' to start off with ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bago Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 You may be able to neglect its mass for chemistry but that is an approximation specific to whatever calculation(s) it is they do this for, but in general no one who has a clue about physics claims the mass of the electron is zero. Ah-ha ! But the OP said he wasn't scientifically-minded, and wanted to start a discussion on it. So therefore is it not okay for me to say that it was negligible ? Since we are starting with the basic model ! When it's mentioned that it's negligible, then it's easier to accept that the electrons can act like a wave. Just like the wind. You can see it, but it affects other objects. And I already gave you an example where you must know the mass, so your claim you can neglect it for physics is wrong (though there may of course be cases where you can neglect it). Yeh yeh yeh. I may of course be at least in knowledge of *some* principles, if not all principles related to quantum theories. Anyway, where did I neglect it for physics ? I never stated that. I just said electrons have no mass. Although not scientifically and definitively true, but it is true in a relative sense, on a high-level concept, and in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defstef Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 You may think that it is 'subset' (can't believe how often you use this term. lol...It is indeed very IT orientated), but to the OP, it is the 'basic' to start off with ! I disagree. I'll reiterate again: If somebody asks, "Can you explain quantum mechanics?", then the most simple answer would be that energy can only be given to or taken away from a system in discrete amounts, rather than any old amount. Anything else is superfluous. {edit: For information, the terms 'quantum mechanics' and 'quantum physics' are interchangeable. I also included the amendment that many of the consequences of QM are exotic phenomena, which is the wacky stuff people seem to get hooked by.} p.s. where did you study chemistry, Bago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bago Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 You have no idea what you are talking about and are just creating confusion. Protons and neutrons are not made of hadrons, they are made of quarks. And yes there is vast amounts of experimental data indicating the existence of hadrons and quarks going back to something like the 1960s or early 70s. This evidence is just as good as evidence for electrons, protons and neutrons. I am not creating confusion for the sake of it. I am deconstructing something that I know, and feel comfortable in understanding in. What I have stated is where my knowledge is limited. My understanding stops around the theory of Quarks, though judging from the responses on this thread, as well as the links that I scanned from Wikipedia, I don't think it's that hard to grasp a general idea of ! I had no idea previously as to wht QCD was. But at least now I know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics Quantum chromodynamics (abbreviated as QCD) is the theory of the strong interaction (color force), a fundamental force describing the interactions of the quarks and gluons found in hadrons (such as the proton, neutron or pion). QCD is a quantum field theory of a special kind called a non-abelian gauge theory. It is an important part of the Standard Model of particle physics. A huge body of experimental evidence for QCD has been gathered over the years. QCD enjoys two peculiar properties: - asymptotic freedom, which means that in very high-energy reactions, quarks and gluons interact very weakly. That QCD predicts this behavior was first discovered in the early 1970s by David Politzer and by Frank Wilczek and David Gross. For this work they were awarded the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics. - confinement, which means that the force between quarks does not diminish as they are separated. Because of this, it would take an infinite amount of energy to separate two quarks; they are forever bound into hadrons such as the proton and the neutron. Although analytically unproven, confinement is widely believed to be true because it explains the consistent failure of free quark searches, and it is easy to demonstrate in lattice QCD. From quoting this, are hadrons NOT neutrons OR protons ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bago Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 I disagree. I'll reiterate again: If somebody asks, "Can you explain quantum mechanics?", then the most simple answer would be that energy can only be given to or taken away from a system in discrete amounts, rather than any old amount. Anything else is superfluous. {edit: For information, the terms 'quantum mechanics' and 'quantum physics' are interchangeable. I also included the amendment that many of the consequences of QM are exotic phenomena, which is the wacky stuff people seem to get hooked by.} p.s. where did you study chemistry, Bago? LOL. That's your opinion only. I have my method of explaining science to a non-scientist. So I am definiely going to stick by that. Whereas since a lot of people here are quoting literal definitions of it. Do bystanders understand it all though ? At the end of the day, the prove of the pud would be if the OP did not understand it. I studied it in UMIST. I did my A-levels in Physics in Norton College. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defstef Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 I From quoting this, are hadrons NOT neutrons OR protons??? Perhaps you might like to read some of my posts: You have no idea what you are talking about and are just creating confusion. Protons and neutrons are not made of hadrons, they are made of quarks. Sorry, but protons and neutrons are hadrons, which comprise 3 quarks and the necessary binding bosons in normal matter. ...you see, as well as backing you up, I also answered the OP's question. 3 times. See above: (or, in a case of superposition, below) If somebody asks, "Can you explain quantum mechanics?", then the most simple answer would be that energy can only be given to or taken away from a system in discrete amounts, rather than any old amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bago Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 In plain English. I don't have a scientific brain - is there anyone who can explain the basics of quantum physics for me? (I have done some philosophy, and I understand that quantum physics sort of comes under that heading, but I don't understand what it is). The guy did say in PLAIN ENGLISH. i.e. not scientific terms which need its own definitions. Cut, divide, split. Plain words. Particles, solids. Plain words. Don't understand why I was jumped on for being general and basic ! Bah ! Sods. Defstef: And I was answering that guy ! lol... Yes, I did read it. I was challenging him in actual fact, and responding to him cos he quoted me. Only polite to respond. Anyway, never mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Ah-ha ! But the OP said he wasn't scientifically-minded, and wanted to start a discussion on it. So therefore is it not okay for me to say that it was negligible ? Since we are starting with the basic model ! you said it was zero mass as I recall: "whereas an electron has no mass" which is quite different from saying it is negligible in certain situations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bago Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 you said it was zero mass as I recall. Ok, tell me then, how does something which has mass moves like the wind ? 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.) I did say, I 'think' this is right, cos it's been a bloody long time since I picked up a chemistry book ! i.e. a hint of unertainty. I just recall that one of these particles have a relative mass of zero. Zilch. De na da. Maybe I should've written..."whereas an electron has no mass relatively, but just a charge." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Sorry, but protons and neutrons are hadrons, which comprise 3 quarks and the necessary binding bosons in normal matter. {edited for my own stupidity} did I say they were not? I said they were not made out of hadrons, but out of quarks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.