Physicists develop model that pushes limits of quantum theory, relativity

Aug 03, 2010

All of the matter in the universe -- everything we see, feel and smell -- has a certain predictable structure, thanks to the tiny electrons spinning around their atomic nuclei in a series of concentric shells or atomic levels. A fundamental tenet of this orderly structure is that no two electrons can occupy the same atomic level (quantum state) at the same time—a principle called the Pauli exclusion principle, which is based on Albert Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum theory.

However, a team of Syracuse University physicists recently developed a new theoretical model to explain how the Pauli exclusion principle can be violated and how, under certain rare conditions, more than one electron can simultaneously occupy the same .

Their model, published July 26 in Physical Review Letters (vol. 105) may help explain how matter behaves at the edges of black holes and contribute to the ongoing scientific quest for a unified theory of . Physical Review Letters is a publication of the prestigious American Physical Society.

"Transitions of electrons from one atomic shell to another that violate the Pauli principle challenge the foundations of physics," says A.P. Balachandran, the J.D. Steele Professor of Physics in SU's College of Arts and Sciences. "For this reason, there is strong experimental interest in looking for such transitions. Until now, there were few viable models able to explain how such transitions can occur. Our theory provides such a model."

Balachandran is the lead author on the paper with Ph.D. candidates Anosh Joseph and Pramod Padmanabhan.

The orderly way in which electrons fill up atomic levels provides stability and structure to matter, as well as dictates the chemical properties of elements on the Periodic Table. Underlying this stability is the ability to pinpoint the location of objects (electrons, protons and neutrons) almost exactly in space and time. The new model posits that at the level where quantum gravity is significant, this picture of space-time continuum breaks down, deeply affecting the rotational symmetry of the atoms and triggering electron transitions (movement from one shell to another) that violate the Pauli principle.

"The Pauli principle is not obeyed in the model we built," Balachandran says. "We then used existing experimental evidence to put limits on when these violations in transitions can occur."

According to the model, violations of the Pauli principle would theoretically occur in nature in a time span that is longer than the age of the universe—or less frequently than once in the proverbial "blue moon."

"Though this effect is small, scientists are using high-precision instruments to try to observe the effect," Balachandran says. "If found, it will profoundly affect the foundations of the current fundamental physical theories. "

"Additionally, chemistry and biology in a world where such violations occur will be dramatically different," adds co-author Padmanabhan.

The fact that the Pauli principle can be violated may also help explain how matter behaves at the edge of black holes, Joseph says: "While we don't know what happens to matter in a black hole, our model may give hints about how matter behaves as atoms collapse from the gravitational pull of ."

Explore further: Uncovering the forbidden side of molecules

More information: prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v105/i5/e051601

Provided by Syracuse University

4.3 /5 (29 votes)

Related Stories

Who cares about the fourth dimension?

Feb 03, 2009

Austrian scientists are trying to understand the mysteries of the holographic principle: How many dimensions are there in our universe?

Recommended for you

Uncovering the forbidden side of molecules

Sep 21, 2014

Researchers at the University of Basel in Switzerland have succeeded in observing the "forbidden" infrared spectrum of a charged molecule for the first time. These extremely weak spectra offer perspectives ...

How Paramecium protozoa claw their way to the top

Sep 19, 2014

The ability to swim upwards – towards the sun and food supplies – is vital for many aquatic microorganisms. Exactly how they are able to differentiate between above and below in often murky waters is ...

User comments : 94

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 03, 2010
The same topic with a slightly different title:
http://lanl.arxiv...006.1185
stuart_sevier
4.8 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2010
Who wrote this article ? Besides say hardly anything about the physics there is just a bunch of poor writing.

"the Pauli exclusion principle, which is based on Albert Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum theory."

This is just plane wrong. The Pauli principle by itself has nothing to do with relativity. It's also painful to hear so many names associated with physics concepts. People that know anything don't go around spouting off "Einstein's X" or "Pauli's Y" like it means something. Just plain "the exclusion principle" or
relativity" is fine. I expect better physorg.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2010
Stuart,

The Exclusion pricinple wouldn't have been developed, at least not by Pauli, without the knowledge of relativity and the rise of particulate masses based upon energy content within relativity. They're related, but only in the most distant of manners.

The author isn't wrong, just inaccurate.
frajo
4 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2010
People that know anything don't go around spouting off "Einstein's X" or "Pauli's Y" like it means something. Just plain "the exclusion principle" or
relativity" is fine.
Not if you want to be precise. "Relativity" alone could as well refer to one of many alternatives to Einstein's GTR. For example to Ernst Schmutzer's 5-D "projective relativity". You won't find his name on (the English) wikipedia, but he's on arXiv.org.
Jarek
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 03, 2010
Exclusion principle is idealized simplification - what fermions like to do is creating couples, usually of opposite spin: electrons on orbitals, Cooper pairs, nucleons in nucleus ... and it's more connected with magnetic properties of spin than with QM or relativity ...
After that they became 'bosons' - like grouping - but also not in the idealized by QM way, but e.g. BEC is just a liquid of clearly nonzero volume...
And I also don't like mixing it with relativity ...

About the situation in the middle of black hole - besides that I don't think we have good enough basis for such considerations, many particle models like supersymmetry requires proton decay, which is also useful to explain nonzero baryonic number of our universe - it would be nature's failsafe to prevent infinite densities - this matter would be just transformed into energy earlier ...
Jigga
1 / 5 (9) Aug 03, 2010
Actually every boson condensate is composed of fermions, which are violating Pauli's principle - as they're behaving like single particle.

..The Pauli principle by itself has nothing to do with relativity..
You're right, but this is a part of mainstream propaganda - to induce and illusion in laymans, mainstream theories explain everything. Actually it's a completelly empirical stuff, which was originally ad-hoced as a way to explain the arrangement of electrons in an atom.
yyz
not rated yet Aug 03, 2010
frajo,

Thanks for the link to the paper. I see that it is an elaboration of computations from their earlier paper, which fully describes their model: http://lanl.arxiv...003.2250

jarek,

I was thinking of the similar use of proton decay in theory too, especially wrt the timescales discussed(i.e. 'longer than the age of the universe').
Jarek
5 / 5 (1) Aug 03, 2010
hi yyz,
I thought about it while considering new soliton particle model (ellipsoid field - between too simple optical vertices and too abstract skyrmions) - strong/weak interaction appears there on effective(structural) level (what asymptotic freedom suggests) and its baryons (and nucleuses) are hold together by topology - so extremely high temperatures could destroy them (4th section of http://arxiv.org/pdf/0910.2724 ).
Anyway, my point is that time could be not enough for proton decay - it assumes that another idealization: Boltzmann distribution, behaves well far far away - that huge energies (like TeV) could appear spontaneously with nonzero probability in water tank they are testing it...
Better place to search for proton decay should be rather extremely hot like neutron star centers or quasars ... maybe huge energy they would produce could explain beyond GZK cosmic rays? (photons from one decay could stimulate others to do the same resulting in chain reaction?)
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 03, 2010
Actually every boson condensate is composed of fermions, which are violating Pauli's principle - as they're behaving like single particle.
Wrong.

In a BEC the wave forms become congruent so that individual particles are indistinguishable from one another. They do not become a single particle.

Learn your WPD.
Jigga
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 03, 2010
...individual particles are indistinguishable from one another. They do not become a single particle...


"...Related experiments in cooling fermions rather than bosons to extremely low temperatures have created degenerate gases, where the atoms do not congregate in a single state due to the Pauli exclusion principle. To exhibit Bose-Einstein condensation, the fermions must pair up to form compound particles (e.g. molecules or Cooper pairs) that are bosons..."

http://en.wikiped...ndensate

You know - I don't believe you a single word without linked reference. Actually it's apparent, the authors of this study forget the existence of BEC in the same way, like you. They predicted the phenomena, which was observed already many times.
Jigga
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 03, 2010
Better place to search for proton decay
Classical cosmology predicts, all matter would collapse into black holes and or evaporate into radiation. And black hole will evaporate into radiation too via Hawking mechanism - so that I don't understand, why physicists don't search for proton decay at the same place, where black holes are decaying.

Aether theory predicts instead, some new matter will be formed from interstellar dark matter during this, so that the total amount of observable matter inside of our universe will remain the same in similar way, like the entropy. Compare the new steady-state models of Universe here:

http://www.physor...806.html
http://www.physor...631.html
Jigga
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 03, 2010
..our model may give hints about how matter behaves as atoms collapse from the gravitational pull of black holes.
I'd expect instead, these atoms will evaporate into accretion radiation. Of course, inside of black hole (a "collapsar" would be a better term here - as the classical black hole concept denotes unphysical singularity by relativity theory) the matter will be at boson condensate state - thus violating the Pauli's exclusion principle in the same way, like boson condensates under lab conditions.

http://www.pnas.o...545.full

Actually we can see, how one group of physicists promotes concept, which were developed somewhere else - just under different name. Because physicists actually do not understand or even know about their theories mutually.
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (11) Aug 04, 2010
Aether Crap not being a theory cannot predict anything. You however have it predicting EVERYTHING or the opposite for nearly every article here.

Then in a masterpiece of fraudulent self-aggrandizement you rate yourself, under another name, a five. While giving ones, by multiple false names, to anyone that has had enough of your nonsense.

And then have the temerity to call others trolls and censorious.

You started this war and if you want the ones to stop YOU will have to start behaving yourself by using ONE name.

BECs do not violate the Pauli Exclusion Principle since it applies to electrons WITHIN atoms. Singularities, assuming they can exist, do not violate the PEP either since there are NO electrons in a singularity.
I'd expect instead, these atoms will evaporate into accretion radiation.
As written that is self-contradictory. Perhaps you intended to say something else but since you think a singularity qualifies as a BEC you might really think that way.

Ethelred
MustaI
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 04, 2010
BECs do not violate the Pauli Exclusion Principle since it applies to electrons WITHIN atoms.
It's not true, try to read the citation of Wikipedia above - or to provide another link, supporting your view.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (8) Aug 04, 2010
You know - I don't believe you a single word without linked reference. Actually it's apparent, the authors of this study forget the existence of BEC in the same way, like you. They predicted the phenomena, which was observed already many times.

Then continue using the wikipedia articles that I probably contributed on as a resource. I'd recommend you read the rest of it.
MustaI
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 04, 2010
Then continue using the wikipedia articles that I probably contributed on as a resource.
It's just another claim, where I'm missing some evidence from your side. You cannot imagine, I don't trust you at all - can you?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 04, 2010
Then continue using the wikipedia articles that I probably contributed on as a resource.
It's just another claim, where I'm missing some evidence from your side. You cannot imagine, I don't trust you at all - can you?

http://www.jupite...ein.html
Everything is either a boson or a fermion. The spin of an object determines whether it is a boson or a fermion. For more details, click here.
The reason why is important to differentiate between bosons and fermions is that they have vastly different quantum mechanical behavior. Identical fermions cannot occupy the same place. This is called the Pauli exclusion principle. For example, you cannot put two electrons spinning in the same direction on top of one other. It is forbidden and never happens in nature. Bosons behave in almost the opposite way. They like to overlap.


Of course with no understanding of QM and rough Newtonian understanding you won't get it.
MustaI
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 04, 2010
Thank you for another citation, supporting my stance. I even upvoted you for it.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 04, 2010
Thank you for another citation, supporting my stance. I even upvoted you for it.

Your stance is that the bosons become a single particle. The statement above does not evidence this effect. They "overlap" which requires uncertainty. Uncertainty means wave action, not particle action. Learn your WPD.
Jarek
4.4 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2010
Of course with no understanding of QM and rough Newtonian understanding you won't get it.

Please explain what's so quantum about BEC?
Mathematical essence of thermodynamics: Boltzmann distribution itself says that in low temperatures there are chosen the lowest energy states - for quantum orbitals but also the same for classical e.g Bohr-like models...

Because of 'quantum bosons'?
It works for photons - somehow EM wave makes that excited states of the same energy difference deexcitate easier - kind of EM resonance (where is QM here?)
But BEC behaves differently - these atoms are spatially distributed creating liquid - loosely connected by EM interaction. And because of low thermal noise, it's (electrons) internal dynamics is so ordered that there is no transverse momentum transfer...
But where exactly do you need QM here?

People often use 'it's quantum' as cool and universal explanation of internal dynamics of processes they don't bother to try to really understand...
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2010
But where exactly do you need QM here?
1000 characters is not enough to explain it.

http://www.fortun...ose.html

That should clarify this for you.
Jarek
5 / 5 (3) Aug 04, 2010
As I expected - instead of a concrete argument, I got a long text not answering the question, but with explaining everything Heisenberg uncertainty principle (which restricts observational possibilities not internal dynamics!) and low mark - typical behavior for 'it's quantum/miraculous/spiritual' type of person.
Thanks anyway
Skeptic_Heretic
3.8 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2010
Jarek,

What part of
When the temperature becomes sufficiently low, however, each atom's wave packet begins to overlap with those of neighbouring atoms. When this happens, the atoms "Bose - condense" into the lowest possible energy state, and the wave packets coalesce into a single, macroscopic packet. The atoms undergo a quantum identity crisis: we can no longer distinguish one atom from another.
Did you not understand? Classical mechanics cannot speak to the stripping of information that occurs at extreme energy contents.
MustaI
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 04, 2010
...typical behavior for 'it's quantum/miraculous/spiritual' type of person...
.. answering the questions with another questions...

..classical mechanics cannot speak to the stripping of information that occurs at extreme energy contents..
Why not? BTW Where you got "extreme energy contents" from at the case of boson condensate?
Jarek
3 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2010
Doest the fact that we cannot distinguish two electrons means that physics (gravity, EM, ...) also can't?
That their dynamics is 'quantum-connected'?
For example some electron on Earth from some electron on Sun?

About choosing the lowest possible state - but we have it also in classical thermodynamics ...
Imagine abstract world without QM: atoms are made as Bohr-like models - thermodynamics says that in low temperature they would be in the energetically lowest states/orbits/trajectories, doesn't it?
otto1923
4 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2010
Thank you for another citation, supporting my stance. I even upvoted you for it.
Jesus you are a busy little troll arent you?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2010
Doest the fact that we cannot distinguish two electrons means that physics (gravity, EM, ...) also can't?
That their dynamics is 'quantum-connected'?
For example some electron on Earth from some electron on Sun?

About choosing the lowest possible state - but we have it also in classical thermodynamics ...
Imagine abstract world without QM: atoms are made as Bohr-like models - thermodynamics says that in low temperature they would be in the energetically lowest states/orbits/trajectories, doesn't it?

Bohr's model is flawed, this is evidenced by observation and the lack of sync radiation produced by "orbiting" electrons. Your statement on electrons is faulty. Electrons are not bosons and are subject to Pauli's Exclusion.
Why not?
You should already know.
BTW Where you got "extreme energy contents" from at the case of boson condensate?
The extremes of energy content. Extremely high and extremely low. This is extremely low.
Jarek
5 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2010
My intention wasn't advocating Bohr model ... but ok - let's look at it - synchrotron radiation?? But where do you think energy of these photons would come from??
I haven't looked at it closer yet, but electron's magnetic moment makes that fast electrons are repelled near proton by Lorentz force - it allows for different falling-ascending like periodic trajectories. Models of this professor were published in best journals a few decades ago as better corresponding to experiment, here are his lectures:
http://www.cyf.go...ang.html

I don't understand how your comment about electrons not being bosons is connected to my question if electrons being in different places are distinguishable by physics?
BEC has nonzero volume and so many 'electrons in different places' - I would think that physics distinguish between e.g. electric fields created by them?

Until you are completely sure that you really understand whole QM, please try to use classical picture as long as you can ..
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Aug 05, 2010
Until you are completely sure that you really understand whole QM, please try to use classical picture as long as you can ..
No one understands the whole of QM, try not to be a troll would you.
MustaI
1 / 5 (11) Aug 05, 2010
.. no one understands the whole of QM..
It's not so difficult to understand QM by dense aether theory - these experiments may serve as clue for you

http://www.physor...511.html
http://prl.aps.or.../e240401

If we can explain the iconic experiments of QM, like the quantum tunneling and/or double slit experiment by water surface model, why not the rest of whole QM?

Of course, physicists aren't interested very much in popularization of these experiments and models from the same reason, like shamans of ancient era - it would make their jobs transparent for layman public.
Jarek
1 / 5 (1) Aug 05, 2010
No one understands the whole of QM

I agree - and because there should be a difference between science and religion, I believe it should bother scientists...
For example that they at least should take intuitive noncontroversial classical picture as far as it is possible ... while it is practically silenced that there are better models than Bohr's - look and check the list of publications below http://www.ipj.go...tom.html

And what thermodynamics generally says about particle behavior?
That when we don't know which trajectory particle has chosen, we should assume Boltzmann distribution among these scenarios, untrue?
Please do the math yourself (or look to 2nd section of http://arxiv.org/pdf/0710.3861 ) - it doesn't lead to Brownian motion as is generally believed, but gives going to square of coordinates of dominant eigenfunction of Hamiltonian - 'quantum' decoherence.

Where exactly is the classical-quantum boundary?
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Aug 05, 2010
Where exactly is the classical-quantum boundary?
There isn't one.

Classical physics explains reality jsut as well as the naked eye discovers astronomy. You can see many stars, you can see they move, you can differentiate planets from stars by motion, etc.

If you want to learn about other galaxies you need a better tool. QM is that tool for physical interaction. QM doesn't stop being relevant. There's no boundary condition under which Classical works and quantum doesn't. Quantum replaces Classical just as the telescope replaces the naked eye. We can do everything that classical physics does with quantum mechanics and more.
MustaI
1 / 5 (8) Aug 05, 2010
where exactly is the classical-quantum boundary?
Actually classical models are going deeper then QM, because QM can be interpreted with 4D model - but classical mechanics can model infinite number of nesting of density fluctuations - including those, which cannot be observed from at all from our local perspective.

In dense aether theory only boundary between relativity and quantum mechanics can be defined and it's observer size/mass energy density dependent. Classical model is universally valid here.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Aug 05, 2010
Actually classical models are going deeper then QM, because QM can be interpreted with 4D model - but classical mechanics can model infinite number of nesting of density fluctuations - including those, which cannot be observed from at all from our local perspective.
That's simply not accurate.
MustaI
1 / 5 (7) Aug 05, 2010
That's simply not accurate.
Why not? Try to show us an example, where such inaccuracy occurs - or simply avoid the comments, which you cannot support with arguments. It's unscientific - if not unethical - approach to discussion.
MustaI
1 / 5 (9) Aug 05, 2010
..classical physics explains reality just as well as the naked eye discovers astronomy...
QM is only approximation of classical physics for extrinsic perspective of large particle systems. Actually it still relies on classical physics on background with its Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalism, borrowed from optics. Energy terms used in QM are concepts of classical physics, too.

You cannot make QM more exact, because it doesn't support gravity and it predicts, all particles of observable matter will spread into infinity. It will always remain biased in such a way.

But you can make classical physics models more exact just by increasing of number of particles involved. Classical mechanics is extendable ad-infinitum.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2010
That's simply not accurate.
Why not? Try to show us an example, where such inaccuracy occurs - or simply avoid the comments, which you cannot support with arguments. It's unscientific - if not unethical - approach to discussion.
I'm sorry, but the burden of proof is on you. If such models and formulae exist then you should be able to provide them. One example of greater than 4d QM is string theory, another is M theory. Those are merely two of thousands of examples that support my stance.
You cannot make QM more exact, because it doesn't support gravity and it predicts, all particles of observable matter will spread into infinity. It will always remain biased in such a way.

Classical physics states the exact same thing. I'm not sure where you're headed with this line of reasoning. As for gravity, quantum mechanics is not complete, we all know this. Classical mechanics cannot describe gravity either so you're incorrect in your statement.
Jarek
not rated yet Aug 05, 2010
Where exactly is the classical-quantum boundary?
There isn't one.

I agree - they are just different points of view - classical mechanics usually works on corpuscular picture, while QM usually operates on waves - like momentum picture after Fourier transform - eigenfunctions of linearized evolution operator given by Euler-Lagrange equations - because in fields governed by Lagrangian mechanics basic excitations are waves: on water, EM, gravitational ... or more generally: periodic behavior, like precessive motion of electron in EM field ...

We can for example look at BEC through normal modes of this 'generalizes pendulum' ... but also simultaneously through concrete movement of EM interacting particles creating it.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Aug 05, 2010
We can for example look at BEC through normal modes of this 'generalizes pendulum' ... but also through concrete movement of EM interacting particles creating it.
Yes I agree, however, we cannot look at a BEC and decipher the informational transforms or the loss of individual certainty without using QM. Classical mechanics simply doesn't include informational states. Classical mechanics states that a BEC can exist, it simply doesn't tell us what a BEC is. To determine that we must break the BEC down further, into the land of QM.
MustaI
1 / 5 (7) Aug 05, 2010
classical mechanics cannot describe gravity either.
Did you hear about Duillier's / Le-Sage model of gravity. This is very classical model of gravity, indeed.

http://en.wikiped...vitation

Le-Sage gravity is a special example of the recent Erik Verlinde's entropic model of gravity (surface tension pseudoforce inside of black hole). Entropy is classical physics model too, being based on Boltzmann gas concept.
MustaI
1 / 5 (9) Aug 05, 2010
Classical mechanics states that a BEC can exist, it simply doesn't tell us what a BEC is.
And quantum mechanics does so? The point simply is, you can model QM with classical physics phenomena and experiments - but not vice-versa. You can explain QM with using of classical physics - but not vice-versa, because no one understand the (origin of) QM postulates.

The causal superiority of classical physics over QM (and GR) is quite apparent here.
Jarek
not rated yet Aug 05, 2010
Skeptic, yes - it's too complicated to get one concrete classical picture.
But similar situation we have in a gas tank - so there thermodynamics come - mathematical theorems like maximum uncertainty principle says that in such situations we should assume some (canonical) statistical ensemble among all possible scenarios - it leads to that we should assume some fluctuations around quantum ground state (Maximal Entropy Random Walk and extensions).

And quantum mechanics works well (unitary) until decoherence - now simplifications of this picture comes out and it only can predict probability distribution among outcoming situations.
Like that thermodynamical model can say only probability distribution among the number of particles escaped while specific valve opening of the gas tank.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Aug 05, 2010
Skeptic, yes - it's too complicated to get one concrete classical picture.
But is the concrete classical picture correct? So far the answer is "I don't know".

With QM you can model each and every known interactions and derive a more accurate picture than classical computation will allow for. The reason why we still use classical mechanics is because, going back to the astronomy example, it's good enough for our purposes to see the moon with the naked eye to determine that it is there. Decoherence is simply when we reach a state under which we do not know what is governing the actions. This is the incompleteness of QM.

As for the Lesage gravitational mechanic, Alizee, it has been conclusively discredited.
Jarek
not rated yet Aug 05, 2010
But is the concrete classical picture correct? So far the answer is "I don't know"

I agree, but both pictures have own advantages so we should work on both of them, because there is a chance that they are just equivalent ... and classical one is intuitive and understandable, what is very important for scientific models.
peace
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Aug 05, 2010
and classical one is intuitive and understandable
Yes but you're assuming that the Universe is elegant and simplistic.

I greatly doubt this is the case. Thanks for the chat.

Alizee, take notes, this is how two people, with opposing views debate a topic.
MustaI
1 / 5 (8) Aug 05, 2010
As for the Le-Sage gravitational mechanic .. it has been conclusively discredited.
..or completely misunderstood - after all, in the same way, like dense aether model itself...

Can you provide some evidence against Le-Sage model - or do you just feel, you would have no chance in such discussion?

..there is a chance that they are just equivalent.
It isn't, as QM predicts different results, then the Newtonian physics and observation - in QM all objects (free particle wave packet) expand into infinity - in classical mechanics they're remaining unchanged.
Jarek
not rated yet Aug 05, 2010
Like that some time ago lightning wasn't understandable, so they've introduced Zeus :)
Fortunately some scientists don't give up so easily and use the scientific way: go back to what we can be really sure and try to consequently expand it ... instead lack of safe basis allowed modern physicists for limitless creative expression and so the right has who shouts louder :/
Thanks for the chat
MustaI
Aug 05, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 05, 2010
:-) Try to explain after then, why I got downvoted seven-times during this discussion just by you (who made my comments invisible in such way) - while Jarek or Skeptic_Heretic not?
Your comments aren't invisible. I can see each and every comment. Just disable the comment filter, most people do.
Jigga
1 / 5 (8) Aug 05, 2010
Just disable the comment filter, most people do.
..and if I'll downvote you, all people will do so...;-)
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 05, 2010
Just disable the comment filter, most people do.
..and if I'll downvote you, all people will do so...;-)

So be it, I won't cry about it if you don't.
frajo
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 05, 2010
Try to explain after then, why I got downvoted seven-times during this discussion just by you (who made my comments invisible in such way) - while Jarek or Skeptic_Heretic not?
You are downvoted because
1) you are using more than one account and
2) you are rating your own comments.
(As in comment #10 in this thread, 9 votes, one of them from MustaI, i.e. from yourself.)

This has been explained to you before
but you refuse to understand as you refuse to understand the English language hints that are given to you.
Nobody except you is responsible for your refusal to understand and thus you'll be downvoted until you understand or are banned.

One more hint: We (i.e. all users who think you are a cheater) need to downrate you in order to be able to easily detect your new accounts. Ohjoy :)
Jigga
1 / 5 (8) Aug 05, 2010
LOL - you could use uprating with the same result - don't you think?...;-) Actually you're just abusing voting system for purpose, for which it wasn't dedicated definitely, but it's not my problem. I can use voting feature for its original purpose - for identification of ad-hominem and/or off topic posts of users, who are labeling posts for their author, instead of their content.

I've no problem with my easy identification of course, as it partially removes the effect of the lost of identity after account ban. If everyone will downvote others here, it will just lead readers to disable voting filter completely - which will improve the readability of thread significantly - and everyone will remain happy.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 05, 2010
LOL - you could use uprating with the same result - don't you think?...;-) Actually you're just abusing voting system for purpose, for which it wasn't dedicated definitely, but it's not my problem.
Thought you weren't going to cry about it.
Jarek
not rated yet Aug 06, 2010
If you guys will conclude this extremely interesting debate...
It made me think that it's a shame that such natural atomic model, which in dozens of peer-review papers (see citation numbers) was shown to correspond well to experiment (at least much better than Bohr model) ... is just unknown ...
Please help expand this mini-stub: there are especially some really concrete comments needed...
http://en.wikiped....224.239
MustaI
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 06, 2010
@Jarek: it's well known, electrons are moving radially inside of atom, because it was observed already...

http://xenophiliu...hr-atom/

But electron is making vacuum foam more dense around itself during motion too (in similar way, like the swimming duck is expanding water surface with its undulations) - which is the effect, which Bohr's model doesn't describe well (if at all) at the case of more complex atoms and which makes path of electrons more complex at the proximity of atom nuclei.
Jarek
not rated yet Aug 06, 2010
In this link electrons move not radially but circularly ...
For large radius these Bohr orbits are fine, but closer Lorentz force becomes essential - it pull or push electron radially, making such orbits unstable.
For small atomic numbers more physically looks these almost radial falling-ascending type trajectories.
MustaI
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 06, 2010
In this link electrons move not radially but circularly ...
I see, I missed the different meaning of this word at all. Of course, if electron doesn't move only circularly (as Bohr model predicts), it must exhibit some motion in radial direction. This is why Sommerfeld has used the elliptical path model for description of atoms with higher number of electrons. Actually Sommerfeld's model is able to explain the shape of p-orbitals in the same way, like Bohr model can explain the shape of spherical orbitals - but for more complex atoms it fails again.

http://superstrun...anim.gif
Jarek
not rated yet Aug 06, 2010
I haven't worked on such models yet, but I think Sommerfeld model still have the same problem with Lorentz force making it unstable ...
These practically unknown (but which passed many peer-reviews) models have different behavior - almost completely radial free-falling, which is bent in the last moment by Lorentz force - there are nice animations in his lectures:
http://www.cyf.go...ang.html
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Aug 06, 2010
If you guys will conclude this extremely interesting debate...
It made me think that it's a shame that such natural atomic model, which in dozens of peer-review papers (see citation numbers) was shown to correspond well to experiment (at least much better than Bohr model) ... is just unknown ...
Please help expand this mini-stub: there are especially some really concrete comments needed...
http://en.wikiped....224.239

I disagree with the free fall model. I don't think we can state empirically that electrons exist as a particle in the orbitals of atoms.

The atomic model I'm most familiar with is the wave shell model.

Effectively each valence level is simply made more "solid" by the presence of greater quantities of electrons. Tough to explain when character limited.
Jarek
5 / 5 (1) Aug 06, 2010
Skeptic, I'm not saying that it solves all problems, but that it's natural and better than Bohr for small atomic numbers - and as you can see, many world class reviewers had agreed with it a few decades ago.
I'm just saying that physicists should be aware that the history of classical models doesn't end on Bohr and Sommerfeld.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2010
I'm just saying that physicists should be aware that the history of classical models doesn't end on Bohr and Sommerfeld.
I would hope they already are.
MustaI
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 06, 2010
almost completely radial free-falling, which is bent in the last moment by Lorentz force
As usually, for every concept exists its dual variant.

http://snelsonatom.com/?p=6

In Snelson's atom model the electrons are moving only tangentially(?) around atoms along so-called "cyclospheres". Such "crazy" model is still able to predict correct sequences of quantum numbers reliably. It's evident, both later models are related mutually via T-duality.

Of course, classical Schrodinger's model of atom is still the most universal one, as it can predict the behavior of particles in more asymmetric complex arrangement (double slit, for example). It still suffers with instability for free moving particle, though, as it predicts its evaporation into infinity. It works well only in space-time curved by presence of Coulomb fields - whereas the previous models suffer with radiation of electron along "curved path", instead.
MustaI
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 06, 2010
..I don't think we can state empirically that electrons exist as a particle in the orbitals of atoms...
...Whereas the quantum mechanics models doesn't care about location of electron at all.

Dense aether theory is somewhere in the middle of the discrete and fuzzy model of electron, as it predicts, every moving particle is surrounded with less or more dense "cloud" of vacuum represented by de Broglie wave, which gets more compact and dense with increased speed of particle.

When the energy density exceeds certain limit, the particle will literally dissolve in its own deBroglie wave into boson - but such energy density is close to energy density inside of atom nuclei. So we can estimate rather safely, inside of atom orbitals electrons are moving both like waves, both like particles.

The ionization energy of electrons increases with number of protons inside of atom nuclei, so that the electrons inside of low quantum numbers orbitals of large atoms are delocalized heavily.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Aug 06, 2010
Whereas the quantum mechanics models doesn't care about location of electron at all.
This has several distinct benefits when it comes to relative accuracy compared to empirical observation. The "orbit" effect can be described as the intensity peak of the standing wave form, where the electron actually encapsulates the nucleas. This lends to describing the lack of synch radiation, removes the need for angular momentum and when expounded upon can be used to explain the magnetic moment with a greater degree of accuracy than the free fall, or Bohr models.
Jarek
not rated yet Aug 07, 2010
About lack of localization - so how do you explain that we can literally make magnified pictures of them: measure where exactly single electrons were before being tear off:
http://www.mizozo...tom.html

About synch radiation - this argument is a complete nonsense!
It appears in synchrotron because of momentum conservation - to compensate electron's acceleration ... but the center of mass of atom doesn't have to move - 'electron and proton exchange virtual photons'.
And again - where energy of these photons would come from?
I understand falling on positron (about 142ns) ... but on proton? to create neutron? :)
Periodic trajectories are themselves because of being in some energetic optimum - cannot decrease it just like that to produce photon.
Jigga
1 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2010
..about lack of localization - so how do you explain that we can literally make magnified pictures of them..
These pictures are just illustrating electrons delocalized around volume of the whole orbital. It's a time averaged picture.
Jarek
not rated yet Aug 07, 2010
It's a time averaged picture

I agree - in classical picture point-like electron starts moving on some trajectory around, stabilizing thermodynamically own statistics (using some complicated deterministic motion) to expected probability density (maximizing entropy) and finally is tear off by potential - natural thermodynamical model: Boltzmann distribution among possible trajectories says that this stabilized probability density (time average) is exactly the same as for the lowest quantum state.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 07, 2010
About lack of localization - so how do you explain that we can literally make magnified pictures of them: measure where exactly single electrons were before being tear off:
Quantum wave form collapse due to observation.

Is this another of your aliases Jigga?
Jarek
not rated yet Aug 07, 2010
Quantum wave form collapse due to observation

I understand - 'it's quantum' - everything is explained, end of discussion ... and it doesn't bother you that wavefunction - 'smeared electron' just gathered into a corpuscle in one moment because ... there is duality? - we can have only one physics in one moment: quantum or classical? ... (what about Afshar experiment? http://en.wikiped...periment )
... but classical is a result of quantum (like Ehrenfest theorem)...
But you are completely sure it doesn't work in the opposite way: that they are not just equivalent - that common classical picture couldn't get neat inconceivable quantum ... ?

Please explain why??
Jarek
not rated yet Aug 07, 2010
Skeptic (please don't occur to be one of QUANTUM_Fanatic clone):
ALL WAVES ARE OSCILLATIONS, BUT NOT ALL OSCILLATIONS ARE WAVES!
Modes of conjugated pendulum, quantum orbitals - are periodic motions, oscillations - but not plane waves!
'Waves' in the duality denotes not plane wave, but 'rotation of quantum phase' - something much more general: oscillation.

Now look at electron - it behaves similarly to a gyroscope - there is precessive motion involved (called zitterbewegung in QM) - after each period it returns to given state.
So such 'classical' electron is both corpuscle and has 'internal periodic motion' - oscillation - is 'wave'.
In some situations it's essential for it to just be somewhere and in another it has to 'fit well with own phase' to the situation - duality.

So this poor little particle doesn't have to constantly worry to which kingdom he has to magically jump now, but is in both simultaneously.
Jigga
1.4 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2010
Is this another of your aliases Jigga?
Easy man - not every guy smarter then you must belong with my IDs necessarily...
frajo
4 / 5 (4) Aug 07, 2010
Is this another of your aliases Jigga?
Jarek is definitely not an Alizee clone.
otto1923
4 / 5 (4) Aug 07, 2010
Is this another of your aliases Jigga?
Easy man - not every guy smarter then you must belong with my IDs necessarily...
Its 'thAn you', not thEn, dimmu. Somebody reminded you of this again yesterday. You really are immune to any outside influence whatsoever, arent you?
Jigga
Aug 08, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
james11
not rated yet Aug 09, 2010
Have you ever explained it to him? "Then" is referring to a specific time. "Than" expresses comparison.
MustaI
1 / 5 (7) Aug 09, 2010
This explanation is great - I believe, I'll understand it after ... well, it doesn't matter...
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Aug 09, 2010
@Jarek,

So this poor little particle doesn't have to constantly worry to which kingdom he has to magically jump now, but is in both simultaneously.
So technically we agree and we're looking at it from irreconcilable opposite sides of the same problem.
frajo
4 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2010
Have you ever explained it to him? "Then" is referring to a specific time. "Than" expresses comparison.
More than once, by more than one user.
He's either inable or unwilling to learn.
Jarek
not rated yet Aug 09, 2010
Skeptic, the whole time I am asking why do you think that they are irreconcilable?
Look at conjugate pendulums - we can see it through positions (classically), or as 'superposition of rotations of normal modes phases' (quantum).
Now create a lattice of such pendulums (crystal with phonons), make infinitesimal limit - and you get some classical field theory (like water surface, EM, Klein-Gordon) - we can look at it through some concrete field valuations (classically), but also in eigenbase of differential Euler-Lagrange evolution operator - getting 'superposition of rotations' - unitary evolution.
For linear operator this eigenbase are plane waves, but we know that physics isn't linear - and so some nonlinearities allows for solitons - localized defects:
http://en.wikiped...l_defect
They are both corpuscular and often have some 'internal phase rotation' - wave nature, which allows for interference stuff.
And their thermodynamics leads to decoherence also classically.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 09, 2010
Skeptic, the whole time I am asking why do you think that they are irreconcilable?
I don't think there are in perpetuity, just presently.
Jarek
not rated yet Aug 09, 2010
Do you want to say that you don't accept Lagrangian mechanics (like GRT, EM, K-G, QFT)?
Their picture is clear and completely deterministic: we live in space-time, move with 4D entropy gradient(time arrow), created for example by relatively low entropy of big bang - in static action optimizing four-dimensional solution - which each point is in equilibrium with its 4D neighborhood: space-time is kind of 4D jello - what e.g. :
- is literally seen in Wheeler's delayed choice experiment,
- makes that to choose given event, it had to be chosen on ends of both past and future halves of spacetime (tension in jello works in all directions) - their correlations are related by squares against Bell's intuition,
- allows for quantum computers ( http://www.thesci...936t.php ),
- diagonalized linearized evolution operator is 'superposition of rotations',
...
Dear Skeptic, what better alternative for Lagrangian mechanics do you have?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 09, 2010
Do you want to say that you don't accept Lagrangian mechanics (like GRT, EM, K-G, QFT)?
No certainly not. I don't think we should wholly discard classical mechanics, but we shouldn't consider the field to be complete. Each of the two fields have large areas of understanding missing from their depth.

Overall, the two fields have some fundamental discrepancies especially when addressing the very small where Qm wins out for accuracy, and on the very large, where classical mechanics appear more descriptive.

The two are largely describing the same aspects of reality and missing the corrolary pieces that unite the two halves of the whole.
Dear Skeptic, what better alternative for Lagrangian mechanics do you have?

Currently, nothing as accurate or complete in overall understanding. I think you have me painted as an opponent of classical mechanics, that'd be an incorrect assumption.
Jarek
not rated yet Aug 09, 2010
Classical? As I've written, Klein-Gordon and Quantum Field Theories are also Lagrangian theories! ... and I still haven't heard any argument what this picture: clear mathematical, naturally used in physics on all scales is missing ... ???

I just give up. I'm only a simple (widely educated, but) mathematician ... talking with modern physicist is kind of talking with creationists - they can nod for a single arguments, but while trying to join them into a coherent picture ... logic, reasoning, arguments ... they just no longer applies ??? ...
Guessed by Schroedinger formula was inconceivable and so it had to become a dogma, started an age in which intuition, logic no longer applies and so you can trust only authorities and their new exciting ideas ...
You can return to your infinitely quickly branching parallel alternative entropic realities in fractal number of curved dimensions ...
Cheers
Jarek
not rated yet Aug 09, 2010
Assuming inconceivable, incoherent dogmas corresponds to that in mathematics from 0=1 you can derive whatever statement you want ...
Mathematics is about finding as SIMPLE as possible, really COHERENT deep UNDERSTANDABLE picture of what is actually going on ... while modern physicist doesn't even look at theories without a scent of mysticism ...
Like that using just Coulomb and Lorentz force we can get really good agreement with experiments on atoms, even after being verified and approved by many reviewers of world class journals ... is just called controversial and ignored http://en.wikiped...ic_model
Or that while doing thermodynamics right: assume Boltzmann distribution among trajectories (similar to Feynman path integrals) - we don't get Brownian motion, but exactly 'quantum' decoherence ... who cares?

Dear physicists,
Please gain really DEEP UNDERSTANDING of LAGRANGIAN MECHANICS, their CONSEQUENCES, THERMODYNAMICS ... before going to new exciting theories.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2010
Classical? As I've written, Klein-Gordon and Quantum Field Theories are also Lagrangian theories! ... and I still haven't heard any argument what this picture: clear mathematical, naturally used in physics on all scales is missing ... ???

I just give up. I'm only a simple (widely educated, but) mathematician ... talking with modern physicist is kind of talking with creationists -
You've gone too far with a poor understanding of the diverse field of physics. Your statements are accurate, but only on base understanding.

I applaud you for being a rather skilled mathematician and having the introductory mathematical disciplines in order to have a rather deep understanding of a complex but small field of physics.
Jarek
not rated yet Aug 10, 2010
Great - thanks for another extremely explaining comment. I would gladly respond, but for that I would need at least a smallest piece of anything concrete...

I had dozens of QM lectures on theoretical physics studies, read more books about it ... but as a mathematician I could find satisfaction with finally some coherent its picture ... after throwing away most of its mysticism hidden behind complicated formulas ...
Look precisely what using field theories governed by Lagrangian really means ... and QM emerges itself - clear, simple mathematical picture ... unfortunately it would hurt feeling of quantum worshipers and so is called controversial ...
nice 'discussing' with you, bye
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2010
Look precisely what using field theories governed by Lagrangian really means ... and QM emerges itself - clear, simple mathematical picture ... unfortunately it would hurt feeling of quantum worshipers and so is called controversial ...

At what point in time did I call it controversial, or state that your linking lagrangian mechanics to QM was in error? QM came from Lagrangian formulae and then went further into the elementary particle boundaries and internal structures that lagrangina mechanics cannot speak to, nor can thermodynamics give an accurate picture.

If you really want to get into a complex discussion of the likeness of primordial atoms to singularities and the regression problem within QM as compared to the regression problem within Classical, I'd be happy to do it somewhere that doesn't have a 1000 character limit and can handle plus signs.
Jarek
not rated yet Aug 10, 2010
Look at my posts - in 1000 characters you can find a dozen of concrete arguments...
I'm saying that QM emerges naturally in Lagrangian mechanics - we don't have to assume any additional inconceivable dogmas - just pure clear math and natural picture it presents - linearized evolution differential operator in its eigenbase makes literally 'superposition of rotations' - unitary evolution - we get interference also on 'classical' water surface.
When we don't know where particle go, we should assume Boltzmann distribution among possible scenarios (trajectories), what leads literally to 'quantum' decoherence also classically (in 'pure QM' it had to be additionally assumed).

I'm asking why do you believe that these pictures - classical and quantum cannot be just equivalent - that there are just needed some additional inconceivable quantum dogmas ...
To be able to respond, I need to finally see at least one concrete argument ...
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Aug 10, 2010
I'm asking why do you believe that these pictures - classical and quantum cannot be just equivalent - that there are just needed some additional inconceivable quantum dogmas ...
To be able to respond, I need to finally see at least one concrete argument ...
These pictures are not irreconcilable. Legrangian gave rise to Hamiltonian, from which QM sprang. It is a continual refinement of measurement.

Where they fall apart is further down the chain. Go ahead and produce a solution to the microscopic many body problem. Oh that's right, you can't. You need to use pure QM to do so as the Faddeev and Faddeev-Yakubovsky equations will not solve out. Where QM shines and classical fails, where they are irreconcilable, is illustrated when dealing with a boundless interaction problem, such as "entanglement".
Jarek
not rated yet Aug 10, 2010
Couldn't you translate these 'concrete arguments' into a bit more common language as I've done? :)
As many reviewers verified and approved - Gryziński's model successfully produces solutions to concrete 'microscopic many body problems'... ?
When we cannot trace them, natural thermodynamics leads to 'wavefunction collapse' ... ?
Could you e.g. give some paper explaining this argument?

Hamiltonian is energy density in field theories - with kinetic part like
sum_{i=0..3}(d_i f)^2
the interesting about this really fundamental property is that it completely doesn't emphasize any (time) direction in spacetime - it has full 4D symmetry ('4D jello').
We break it while choosing direction we want to consider evolution along - making mathematical transformation 'Wick rotation' of this selected time direction to get Lagrangian density - less fundamental than energy density.
So in Lorentz invariant theories, spacetime is just completely symmetric R^4 - pure and simple deterministic picture.
Jarek
not rated yet Aug 10, 2010
If these arguments are related with Bell inequality ... it assumes intuitive for us 'evolving 3D' picture of reality.
Living in a field theory solution goes with qualitatively different picture - 'static 4D' - '4D jello' in which there is minimalized tension towards all directions, also to past and future (kinetic terms) - it leads to qualitatively different probabilistic theories (with squares against Bell).
To feel this difference, make simple combinatorics exercise: derive formulas for Maximal Entropy Random Walk - just uniform distribution among paths on graph - see where the 'squares' of coordinates of dominant eigenvector of 'discrete Hamiltonian' (minus adjacency matrix) as stationary probability density appears here from ...
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Aug 10, 2010
Couldn't you translate these 'concrete arguments' into a bit more common language as I've done? :)
This would be why we're having a big disconnect. I really can't without redefining the statement entirely.

The Microscopic Many Body problem is effectually continual interaction with a time basis set in a single direction. As you state, when bound it can be solved by classical mechanics, however, reality is unbound which is why you need non-directional QM, based on the tenets of Hamiltonian non-specific time equations.
Jarek
not rated yet Aug 11, 2010
Ok - it has something to do with entanglement and interference?
In linear field theories situation is simple: eigenbase of evolution operator are just plane(/circular...) waves, like on water surface.
But in nonlinear physics, eigenfunctions which 'superposition of rotations' evolution is - are much more complicated and constructing them from plane waves in perturbative picture doesn't really present the situation well - like when eigenfunctions are localized solitons.
It becomes subtly hidden, but the evolution is still superposition(entanglement) of rotations - with qualitatively much more complicated full interference capability (just QM)

Ok, taking entanglement to the limits is used in quantum computers.
In '4D jello' picture, QM allows us to simultaneously 'mount trajectories' of particles in both past (initialization) and future (measurement):
http://www.thesci...936t.php
Is something wrong with such understanding?
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Aug 11, 2010
I was right, you are Alizee.
Jarek
not rated yet Aug 11, 2010
Why these wisely sounding names and this another concrete explanation didn't surprised me?

For both quantum mechanics and field theories (linearized), the basic evolution is unitary, untrue?
But QM has additionally decoherence ... which in modern view is believed not to be out of unitary picture, but thermodynamical consequence of interaction with environment, untrue?
Classical thermodynamics: that when we cannot trace particle, we should assume Boltzmann distribution among possible trajectories, leads to going to the lowest Hamiltonian eigenfunction (with nonzero projection), untrue?
It explains decoherence and for example makes that stable orbits while stochastic perturbation shifts toward the nearest quantum state...

Talking to a wall... bye