Arrow of Time
in [Physics]
|
From: eric gisse on 5 Jul 2010 16:29 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: [...] > Solve the Schrodinger equation for the atomic system I identify and > you will see that I am correct. What solutions are you looking at? Everything past Hydrogen is analytically unsolvable except for Hydrogen-like systems. > > RLO > www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Yousuf Khan on 5 Jul 2010 22:07 On 7/5/2010 10:25 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jul 5, 9:30 am, Yousuf Khan<bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> They are atoms in highly excited Rydberg states. They involve particle- >>> like electron wavefunctions, planarity, and orbiting just like the >>> Solar System. >> >> Though that's true, Rydberg atoms are actually very good examples of >> where the transition from the quantum state to the macroscopic state >> occurs. The electrons in Rydberg atoms are so far away from their >> nuclei, that they are far outside the quantum realm. They are just >> balancing on the edge of becoming completed ionized. In the uncontrolled >> daily life on Earth, Rydberg atoms would be ionized right away, as their >> binding energy would be far less than the thermal energy of the background. > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > You offer a rather mediocre understanding of atomic physics. > > A Rydberg atom with n = 10 or even n = 30 is still very much a quantum > system. Yet a Rydberg atom with such a low n-number, like 10, wouldn't exhibit the classical-style physics that you're so keen to use as an example. It's only when the outer electron gets far, far away from the inner electrons that the classical shapes start appearing. Otherwise, the electrons wavefunctions begin to overlap and affect each other. > When you get to n =/> 100 then classical behavior tends to dominate, > but quantum behavior is still there. We can agree there. > If you compare a lithium atom with electrons having principle quantum > numbers of 1, 5 and 168, and with l ~ m ~ n-8, with the Solar System, > you would be hard pressed to find ANY difference between these two > analogues EXCEPT THEIR RELATIVE SCALES. Which is why it's considered a _transition_ point from quantum to classical behaviour. Yousuf Khan
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 6 Jul 2010 00:22 On Jul 5, 1:12 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > "Close-minded"??? Hmmmm, no. > I am giving you the benefit of a chemist's analysis. ---------------------------------------- Ok then look at the papers in this list that deal with variable stars (2 have been published in a peer-reviewed physics journal). http://arxiv.org/a/oldershaw_r_1 START with the SX Phoenicis stars paper. Read it with an open mind. I doubt that you can attribute this unique match-up between the stellar and atomic analogues to random chance or cherry-picking or forcing. But I am willing to listen to your arguments. Let's take it ONE issue at a time. We may both learn something. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 6 Jul 2010 00:27 On Jul 5, 10:07 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > > Which is why it's considered a _transition_ point from quantum to > classical behaviour. -------------------------------------------------- Near the transition point. Both systems are quantum/classical systems. Most people do not recognize the quantum nature of the Solar System, but it is there for anyone to see, just as in the case of the atom. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Yousuf Khan on 6 Jul 2010 01:43
On 7/6/2010 10:27 AM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jul 5, 10:07 pm, Yousuf Khan<bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> Which is why it's considered a _transition_ point from quantum to >> classical behaviour. > -------------------------------------------------- > > Near the transition point. > > Both systems are quantum/classical systems. > > Most people do not recognize the quantum nature of the Solar System, > but it is there for anyone to see, just as in the case of the atom. The classical nature of the solar system or anything macroscopic is just its completely degraded quantum nature. In that sense anything is quantum/classical. But really it's the classical aspect that's taken over at that point, and to consider its quantum nature is just being pedantic. Yousuf Khan |