|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Maybe I missed something, but has anything been observed with regard to
> gravity that doesn't conform to QM? I thought the issue is with gravity
> that they just haven't been able to come up with a way to prove or
> disprove the predictions that QM makes.
I thought that QM simply doesn't describe gravity *at all*, and that was
the problem.
Then again, I know nothing about QM, so.....
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> In this particular case, however, I have the feeling that an observed
> phenomenon (gravity) is tried to forcefully be fit into an existing theory
> (quantum mechanics) even though it's contradicting it.
The basic "faith" of science is that physical laws are consistent
everywhere, everywhen, etc. (Except perhaps for singularities like black
holes or the big bang or whatever.) The assumption, in other words, that
the *true* theory of gravity is consistent with the *true* theory of QM is
taken on faith.
Since QM is much, much easier to measure, we have much, much better evidence
that it's correct at the energies well below LHC levels. Since QM seems very
correct, the assumption is that at levels where we can't currently measure
gravity, it's likely to act like QM does.
> the theory is that "everything must be quantized", and they are observing
> that "gravity doesn't seem to be quantized", and rather than revising the
> theory they are trying to forcefully make gravity quantized to fit the
> theory.
They *are* revising the theory. It's the theory of gravity they're revising.
I think there are also constant revisions of QM being proposed that
harmonize it with gravity. I've seen people suggest that gravity is caused
by the nearness of QM "multi-worlds", or that string theory predictions that
relate the two, etc.
> and devising a new theory which does fit observed phenomena.
In what way is quantum gravity not devising a new theory? The problem you're
seeing, I think, is that it's easier to measure QM effects than gravity
effects, since gravity is many orders of magnitude weaker than the weakest
QM interaction.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> I thought that QM simply doesn't describe gravity *at all*, and that was
> the problem.
There are a number of different theories of "QM", depending on what you're
looking at.
QM of photons interacting with electrons is QED, Quantum Electrodynamics.
That covers everything but nuclear reactions and gravity. I.e., all of
chemistry and everything that's based on chemistry, as well as why electrons
"orbit" the nucleus, *why* the periodic table of elements is how it is,
electricity, friction, lasers, pauli exclusion, partial and total
reflections, diffraction gratings, polarization, etc.
There's a kind of QM (whose name I don't know) that accounts for the strong
and weak nuclear forces. It has muons an mesons and stuff like that acting
like photons, with neutrons and protons acting like electrons, and etc. (I'm
probably messing all that up, but...) It's essentially the same formula with
different numbers plugged in. This theory is not so well confirmed, because
the numbers are a couple orders of magnitude bigger - i.e., the same
difference between a chemical bomb and a nuclear bomb.
QCD is quantum chromodynamics, which I think accounts for all the different
subatomic particles based on quarks. Again, it's essentially the same
process, with a few extra kinds of numbers thrown in (but which behave the
same way). Kind of like having polarization in other directions.
So given that every other "action at a distance" seems to follow the same
basic formulas and seems to move at the speed of light, and that gravity
itself seems to move at the speed of light, it's not surprising that gravity
is thought to maybe follow the same basic formulas.
Just like people thought photons were waves because they followed the same
basic formulas as waves do, but it turns out they're 100% always particles,
it's sort of like gravity perhaps follows the same math as curved space
time, but maybe is exchange particles after all. I have never heard of us
actually measuring actual curved space-time unambiguously. I'd be interested
in hearing if we did.
Or, it's possible that gravity works in a way that's just incompatible with
QM and the two physically cannot be unified regardless of theory chosen. :)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
>> In an ideal world, QM should be dead wrong. Unfortunately, it's been
>> verified beyond any reasonable (and unreasonable) doubt.
>
> *Part* of it has been verified. As we have seen, it's currently unsuitable
> to explain everything.
What's missing in QM? Or, rather, what has QM predicted that it's unsuitable
to explain?
That QM doesn't explain relativity doesn't mean QM is wrong. It just means
it doesn't explain QM, any more than relativity explains nuclear reactions.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> QM of photons interacting with electrons is QED, Quantum
> Electrodynamics. That covers everything but nuclear reactions and
> gravity. I.e., all of chemistry and everything that's based on
> chemistry, as well as why electrons "orbit" the nucleus, *why* the
> periodic table of elements is how it is, electricity, friction, lasers,
> pauli exclusion, partial and total reflections, diffraction gratings,
> polarization, etc.
Wait, back up a sec - you mean there's a *reason* why the transition
metals exist? And people actually know WTF this reason is??
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Wait, back up a sec - you mean there's a *reason* why the transition
> metals exist? And people actually know WTF this reason is??
Yes.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Wait, back up a sec - you mean there's a *reason* why the transition
>> metals exist? And people actually know WTF this reason is??
>
> Yes.
OK, that's quite impressive.
Last time I heard, an atomic nucleous has a cloud of electrons floating
around it. (Seems reasonable - they're negatively charged, while the
nucleous is positively charged. Why wouldn't they orbit it?) Except that
rather than just floating around, they all stay 100% rigidly confined to
a discrete set of orbit shells. (Um, WTF? Why?) And the inner-most shell
can only hold 2 electrons (OK), the next shell can only hold 8 (um...
OK), and next one out also holds 8 (er... why?), and the next shell can
contain up to 18 electrons but when you start filling that shell you can
only fill it up to a certain point, and then you have to go back and
fill the shell below and then you can finish filling this shell (WTF?!)
And the shell numbers are apparently just plucked out of the air, and
the shell filling orders are completely arbitrary. And this is all
assuming an atom with zero energy; apparently real atoms have more
energy than that, which causes electrons to migrate between different
shells, and when one falls back to a lower shell it emits energy
(usually in the form of EMR). And don't even get me started on chemical
bonding...
It all seems wildly complicated and completely random.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>>> Wait, back up a sec - you mean there's a *reason* why the transition
>>> metals exist? And people actually know WTF this reason is??
>>
>> Yes.
>
> OK, that's quite impressive.
>
> Last time I heard, an atomic nucleous has a cloud of electrons floating
> around it. (Seems reasonable - they're negatively charged, while the
> nucleous is positively charged. Why wouldn't they orbit it?) Except that
> rather than just floating around, they all stay 100% rigidly confined to
> a discrete set of orbit shells. (Um, WTF? Why?) And the inner-most shell
> can only hold 2 electrons (OK), the next shell can only hold 8 (um...
> OK), and next one out also holds 8 (er... why?), and the next shell can
> contain up to 18 electrons but when you start filling that shell you can
> only fill it up to a certain point, and then you have to go back and
> fill the shell below and then you can finish filling this shell (WTF?!)
> And the shell numbers are apparently just plucked out of the air, and
> the shell filling orders are completely arbitrary. And this is all
> assuming an atom with zero energy; apparently real atoms have more
> energy than that, which causes electrons to migrate between different
> shells, and when one falls back to a lower shell it emits energy
> (usually in the form of EMR). And don't even get me started on chemical
> bonding...
>
> It all seems wildly complicated and completely random.
And now you can see that the electrons are actually in those fields.
http://insidescience.org/research/first_detailed_photos_of_atoms
I had done the math in chem class, I could understand that this model
worked and predicted everything we knew, but seeing these images is
still a stunner.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Last time I heard, an atomic nucleous has a cloud of electrons floating
> around it. (Seems reasonable - they're negatively charged, while the
> nucleous is positively charged. Why wouldn't they orbit it?)
Because they're oppositely charged, and therefore would be attracted far too
hard towards the nucleus for centripital force to hold them out.
> Except that
> rather than just floating around, they all stay 100% rigidly confined to
> a discrete set of orbit shells. (Um, WTF? Why?)
Because of the fermi exclusion principle, and the fact that they *are*
quantum particles, and there's only so much "room" that close to the
nucleus. (Where "room" is measured in terms of possible quantum states.)
> And the inner-most shell
> can only hold 2 electrons (OK), the next shell can only hold 8 (um...
> OK), and next one out also holds 8 (er... why?), and the next shell can
> contain up to 18 electrons but when you start filling that shell you can
> only fill it up to a certain point, and then you have to go back and
> fill the shell below and then you can finish filling this shell (WTF?!)
Yep.
> And the shell numbers are apparently just plucked out of the air, and
> the shell filling orders are completely arbitrary.
No. It's just relatively complicated math.
> It all seems wildly complicated and completely random.
Well, somewhat random and fairly complicated when you look at the results of
the arithmetic, yes. It's all based on sums of infinite series of complex
numbers, where the values of the individual complex numbers are based on
what particles are interacting and where (in 4-D space) they are.
But you're looking at stuff like "A handful of the dots move relative to the
background, and sometimes even go backwards (WTF?) but most don't, except
some show up every 76 years and they aren't even round, and then there's
this big one that changes shape over the course of a month. It all seems
wildly complicated and completely random." And you're missing orbital
mechanics, which is a small handful of simple math.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> And the inner-most shell
> can only hold 2 electrons (OK), the next shell can only hold 8 (um...
> OK), and next one out also holds 8 (er... why?), and the next shell can
> contain up to 18 electrons but when you start filling that shell you can
> only fill it up to a certain point, and then you have to go back and
> fill the shell below and then you can finish filling this shell (WTF?!)
> And the shell numbers are apparently just plucked out of the air, and
> the shell filling orders are completely arbitrary.
I recall it's 2 * n^2
2, 8, 18, 32...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|