Sciencemadness Discussion Board - The Strange Fate of a Person Falling into a Black Hole

The Strange Fate of a Person Falling into a Black Hole

Pages: 1 2 3

annaandherdad - 3-7-2015 at 10:35

I've asked a bunch of times. How do you model of an atom compacted infinitely?
Start simple... The energy of that atom at normal atmospheric pressure. Double it, double it, double it.

Does the energy go up? down? stay the same?

Common sense tells me the energy in that atom goes up. Force creates force right?

This concerns the equation of state of matter at high pressures. Let's take the following question: What happens if you take a sample of ordinary matter at ordinary temperature and pressure and compress it until the volume occupied by each atom becomes much less than originally? How do the pressure, temperature and internal energy depend on the volume (which is getting smaller)?

Here is a rough way of thinking about this question that involves only simple considerations. Let each atom have a share of the volume of the system given by V=L^3, so that L is the edge length of a cube whose volume is the average volume per atom. Initially, L is the Bohr radius times a number of order of magnitude unity, that is L is roughly 10^{-8} cm, but L decreases as the sample is compressed.

The main physical process determining the pressure as L decreases is the confinement of the electrons to smaller and smaller volumes, which by the uncertainty principle pushes their momentum to higher and higher values. If we model the electrons as particles in a box, then their momentum is of the order of hbar/L, which goes up as L goes down. Being slightly more quantitative about this, the particle in a box model gives the pressure as a function of the density as

P = (hbar^2/15 m*pi^2) x (3*pi^2*n)^{5/3},

where m is the electron mass and n is the number of electrons per unit volume. This is a standard result in statistical mechanics, and it applies at zero temperature. The pressure goes as the 5/3 power of the density. The same applies to the internal energy, which goes up because of the work done in compressing the sample.

This however ignores the electrostatic replusion of the electrons from one another, and the attraction of the nuclei for the electrons. For example, if we use the formula above to compute the pressure of the valence electrons in a metal such as copper (at ordinary pressure), we find that the pressure of the electron gas is enormously much larger than atmospheric pressure. The reason the copper doesn't explode from this pressure is the net attraction caused by the electrostatic forces (including the positive nuclei), which reduces the pressure to nearly zero.

The formula above is the equation of state of a noninteracting electron gas at zero temperature, but it is valid as long as the actual temperature is much less than the Fermi temperature. For normal copper metal, the Fermi temperature is much larger than 300K, so the temperature as far as the electron gas is concerned is effectively zero. The actual temperature remains much below the Fermi temperature as the sample is compressed, so the zero temperature formula continues to hold.

If we compress the sample until L is much less than its original value, L << the Bohr radius, then one thing that happens is that the effect of the electrostatic forces between the electrons and nuclei becomes less and less important, so the formula above becomes a more and more accurate description of how the pressure depends on the volume. That is, the pressure becomes dominated by the effects of the uncertainty principle, and the effects of the electrostatic forces becomes negligible.

This continues until the momentum of the electrons at the top of the Fermi sea reaches relativistic values, p ~ mc. This happens roughly when L is about alpha times the Bohr radius, where alpha is the fine structure constant, about 1/137. The volume is then alpha^3 times smaller than originally, and the density 137^3 larger, that is, over a million times larger. Such densities are realized in white dwarf stars.

Above this transition to relativisitic electron velocities, the pressure shifts over to a 4/3 power of the density instead of 5/3.

At a certain point, as alluded to by blogfast, the energy of the electrons at the top of the Fermi sea becomes large enough to induce inverse beta decay in the protons in the nucleus. This is the reaction,

e + p -> n + nu

where nu is an electron neutrino. It is very hard to confine neutrinos so they will escape. The effect is that the nuclei become more and more neutron rich, and electrons are removed. This reduces the pressure and the material suddenly becomes much more compressible. At a certain point there are so many neutrons that they cannot be bound by nuclear forces, and they start to drip off the nuclei, forming a gas of free neutrons. These cannot beta decay (the normal fate of a free neutron) because the outgoing electron would have to occupy some state, and those are already filled up to the top of the Fermi sea (and the energy of the outgoing electron in beta decay would be below the top of the Fermi sea at this level of compression).

This is very roughly what lies behind the collapse of a white dwarf star to a neutron star (a type of supernova), but the model here is very simplified. If further collapse stops at the neutron star stage, it is because the neutrons form a Fermi gas, whose pressure (for nonrelativistic velocities) is the same formula above, except with the neutron mass instead of the electron mass.

There is an interesting discussion of this process in the the book Gravitation by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, although they don't worry about the electrostatic effects at low pressure.

[Edited on 3-7-2015 by annaandherdad]

Zombie - 3-7-2015 at 11:02

I recognize much of the discussion of this thread in your post. I also see much of what I speculated without any quantification on my part.

I'm happy to see Blogfasts statement that matter will at some point change included in your explanation.

This whole conversation started with me making a statement of a mathematical model, and 20.00 bucks.
You have no reason to trust me but PM me me an account I can send 20 bucks to, and its done. Even a PO box. I don't care...

Now. It's Friday, july 3rd. If you can imagine what a hootch drinkin' hillbilly would be doing on said date... I'm going to have to re-read this post, and see what I understand, and how I can use the model you so generously supplied.

For the moment I will say thank you, and Happy 4th.
Later I will realize time travel, and sell you all rides to anytime you want to go. (Round trip not guaranteed)(alpha testing)

aga - 3-7-2015 at 11:42

Very nice post annaandherdad

It should be said that notions such as Fermi liquids (see also Dirac and Landau) are postulations of what may be happening, not actual proven fact.

One of the biggest problems with mathematical extrapolation of known physics into very extreme conditions is that we have already experienced the failure of linear extrapolation.

In very extreme conditions, all sorts of things can happen, even in reverse to what has been calculated or assumed.

annaandherdad - 3-7-2015 at 13:22

Zombie, aga, thanks for your responses. No need to send money, I'm just glad I could help. I delayed a couple of weeks in posting, because I had to convince myself that I understood why the electrostatic forces become negligible as L /a ->0, where "a" is the Bohr radius.

aga - 3-7-2015 at 13:33

'understanding' is always a good thing, but please be aware that what you seek to understand can only be 'understood' inside the confines of what is known, and the reality may well be significantly different.

A Theory is not a fact.

Zombie - 4-7-2015 at 02:45

Quote: Originally posted by aga

In very extreme conditions, all sorts of things can happen, even in reverse to what has been calculated or assumed.

This is exactly what I believe happened at the 3C303 event. Taking what is accepted as a model of a black hole, the event at 303 could not have happened... but it did.

I believe this is information that should recreate the model(s).

I have no idea why but to me this is perhaps the most fascinating thing I have ever thought about. It seems that the answer to "free" energy is in this somewhere. There has to be one atom of something that begins the entire process.

IrC - 4-7-2015 at 05:59

Quote: Originally posted by annaandherdad

If further collapse stops at the neutron star stage, it is because the neutrons form a Fermi gas, whose pressure (for nonrelativistic velocities) is the same formula above, except with the neutron mass instead of the electron mass.

If the density were greater I imagine the neutron star could become a Quark matter star but from what it seems to me zombie is trying to describe he is talking about exceeding the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit and I cannot fathom any other outcome than the formation of a black hole. Before that density is reached we have the neutron star. From what I can discover on average 1 in 10 become magnetars. I am wondering if this relates to the temperature during collapse to neutronium, if low enough with density high enough to form quark matter could the occurrence of Color superconductivity be the reason 1 in 10 become magnetars.

In any case when all the lowest quantum states are filled in my mind higher densities must equate to formation of black holes. Or am I missing something here?

annaandherdad - 4-7-2015 at 08:52

Quote: Originally posted by IrC

Quote: Originally posted by annaandherdad

You're talking about some current ideas in astrophysics (magnetars, quark matter stars etc) and not being an expert in the field all I can say is that there is much speculation about these hypothetical objects. The simplest theoretical game one can play (ie a gedankenexperiment) is to imagine compressing a sample of matter at zero temperature, allowing any reactions (nuclear etc) to take place as they will, allowing the resulting heat to escape so that we remain at zero temperature, and then continue the compression. This game is discussed in the book Gravitation by MTW which I mentioned. That book is out of date and won't tell you about current speculation about exotic objects, but the basic physics hasn't changed and is discussed well. This gedankenexperiment is only indirectly related to what happens in actual stars, because they are not at zero temperature nor even in thermal equilibrium. For example, actual white dwarfs typically have cores of made of carbon, and if one increases the compression by adding matter accreted from a companion, then instead of compressing the carbon to higher and higher densities what happens at a certain point is the temperature in the core reaches the stage where the carbon can undergo fusion to heavier elements, a process that runs away and blows the star apart. The energy for this comes from carbon fusion. This is one type of supernova.

In more massive stars the core fuses stably to heavier elements, reaching finally iron after which there is no more energy to be obtained via fusion. Then at a certain point the Chandrasekhar limit is reached in the core (when the pressure of degenerate electrons can no longer support the star against gravitational collapse) and the core collapses to a neutron star or black hole, depending on the mass. This is another type of supernova, and the energy released is mostly gravitational.

The formula I gave for the pressure as a function of the electron density treats the electrons as an ideal gas of nonrelativistic particles. Actually if we could carry out our gedankenexperiment the actual pressure would not follow the formula exactly because the electron gas is not ideal. I mentioned the problem of corrections due to electrostatic forces, and mentioned that these are proportionally less important as the density increases. Also, the formula needs to be modified when the electrons become relativistic; this is necessary to get the Chandrasekhar limit, which doesn't exist in the nonrelativistic model. The usual derivations of the Chandrasekhar limit also don't take into account inverse beta decay, which I mentioned, but certainly there is an upper limit to the velocities of the electrons due to this effect. In any case, inverse beta decay certainly takes place in the core collapse of a massive star, we know this because the neutrinos have been observed (in the Magellanic cloud supernova in the 1980's).

If you wish to model a neutron star as an ideal gas of neutrons at zero temperature, supporting itself against gravitational collapse due to the pressure of degenerate neutrons, then you can use the same formula I gave or its relativistic generalization, but with the "m" being the neutron mass and "n" being the number of neutrons per unit volume. This leads to a new limit on the maximum mass supportable against gravitational collapse, a version of the TOV mass limit. But the basic idea is the same as in the Chandrasekhar limit. This is only a model, however, because the neutron matter is not an ideal gas, and the equation of state of compressed neutron matter is poorly known. The nuclear physics of working out something more realistic is complicated and difficult. So there is some uncertainty about the TOV limit or what physics goes on inside a neutron star, but no one as far as I know doubts that there is an upper limit to the mass of a neutron star. After that it has to be a black hole, and there seem to be plenty of those around.

aga - 4-7-2015 at 14:43

Quote: Originally posted by annaandherdad

This is only a model, however, because the neutron matter is not an ideal gas, and the equation of state of compressed neutron matter is poorly known.

This is the biggest problem when applying Science to the big stuff.

Impossible to do a controlled experiment to test and find out.

Observing stuff is about all we can do, and attempt to draw conclusions from occluded observations.

It's a bit like determining the way the bearings inside an internal combustion engine are constructed by examining the exhaust pipe emissions from 4 light years away.

[Edited on 4-7-2015 by aga]

Zombie - 4-7-2015 at 21:29

I still think it is simpler than that.

We/I am talking about the forces involved with one atom. A seed if you will. There has to be something that initiates the process.

Perhaps this is cyclic, and involves stars / supernovas / white dwarfs or perhaps it is a specific atom that we do not know or understand, or perhaps it is dimensional... I really think that following the math will provide answers or maybe the correct questions.

Think of examples on an atomic scale that can occur in space. Fission? Fusion? What about light waves... Perhaps a frequency that is so energetic it can compress an atom.
when you take harmonic frequencies they amplify each other. Perhaps the frequency of a complete galaxy is the power source that begins the process. There is always a "sweet spot" where the frequency is at it's strongest. Maybe this is where a BH is "born".

Hells bells... Tesla was correct! There is free energy. We just need a better receiver...

IrC - 5-7-2015 at 03:53

http://laplace.physics.ubc.ca/000-People-matt/200/gravitatio...

Thanks for mentioning the book, hopefully I can find some time to look at it in the near future.
-----------------------------------------

I moved this post so I can comment after opening the PDF, I was half tempted to just remove the link but it is the only free to view source for this book I can find. Whoever scanned it did an unimaginably bad job as well as scanning about half of the pages upside down. This forces you to rotate the page 180 degrees to read it. I will leave the link but be warned reading the text is very annoying. I can think of no better example of the wisdom in just saying no to drugs to whoever scanned this book.
------------------------------
Zombie, If what you are thinking had a probability far above zero, nearly empty space would be forming black holes all the time. The process occurs due to the effect an incredibly large number of atoms have on each other. Thus the reason there is a line between a ball of particles which turns into a black hole and one that does not. I do not see how you are going to get there with individual atoms outside of building a powerful enough accelerator which thankfully CERN has been unable to do thus far.

A mini black hole getting loose on earth is not a comforting thought. No evidence has thus far been found that any process out in space would focus enough energy on such a small location for this to occur naturally. At least not since the first seconds of the universe. Think about it. If even a small probability existed, by now one would think spacetime would be well on the way to being eaten alive. In nearly 14 billion years there would be many mini black holes wandering around out there.

Zombie - 5-7-2015 at 07:12

I obviously don't know about all that...

If you take a "big bang" for example. This could appear to be what happened at 303, potentially.
This is a spontaneous release of energy, and perhaps matter. I imagine it is the opposite of the formation of a BH but maybe not the end of one either. Just a release of electrostatic energy.

In thinking about resonant or harmonic frequencies, look at what Tesla did in his apartment building with a simple machine. He rocked a 4 story building with frequency.
I can only guess that the galaxy as a whole has enough energy to compress an atom. The process has to have a beginning, and why not one atom. One attracts two, two attract 4, and so on.

I kind of like the idea of making your own mini BH's... Of course I do.
Remember when the theory was an atomic detonation would ignite the atmosphere? Imagine the runaway process of a BH.

IrC - 5-7-2015 at 13:56

I am not quite sure why you are so taken by 303 or how it has all that much to do with the thread title. Lots of jet spewing black holes exist out there. Not much special here. Moving charged particles IS a current flow. If 303 is the largest one still not all that applicable to the thread. Anyone close enough to actually use any of that energy within several hundred generations would be vaporized anyway. Remember being 2 billion light years away it would take 2 billion years for the power in EM radiation form to get to your toaster oven. Even longer for the particles themselves.

aga - 5-7-2015 at 14:11

Zomb likes the idea it seems.

The thoughts in this thread are a bit random, but then the OP Title is too.

Falling 'into' a BH is ambiguous, seeing as it isn't a Hole at all.

Not as if you'd randomly be able to 'fall' or 'into' one.

Zombie - 5-7-2015 at 15:12

I've never really cared much for Quantum sciences. Same thing for theories.

I'm a prove it to me or I have better things to do sort. Just as random as falling into an open sewer that leads you to some other dimension the process of thinking about what makes BH's 'tick" sort of fell into my lap.

The 303 deal is fascinating because just as everyone is telling me that nothing can escape the "gravitational pull of a BH... one goes, and pukes all over it's galaxy. Pretty much in sync as I am believing that according to what we understand about physics, the event logically must occur.

The thing that gets me is when I am told that physical laws can not be changed or altered to fit a theory, the same persons will state that another form of understanding that only a handful of people can understand applies (see John Smith) yet the math involved is tailored to the answer(s) sought.

Besides getting me thinking about something that I have never thought about, this entire process is allowing me t understand things I never understood.
I have to go insulate my thumper now. I'm experimenting with sound waves as my heat source. It gets pretty warm just yelling at it.

IrC - 5-7-2015 at 17:43

I'm not quite sure what your thinking but hopefully you understand the jet coming from 303 is not coming out of the black hole (from inside it). Rather the disk of matter outside the horizon is being accelerated (some of it) outward in a jet. These highly charged particles moving very fast and in large quantities in a line constitute the electric current. Anyway there is one simple answer to the thread title.

Help I've fallen and I can't get up.

Fulmen - 5-7-2015 at 18:07

Quote: Originally posted by Zombie

just as everyone is telling me that nothing can escape the "gravitational pull of a BH... one goes, and pukes all over it's galaxy

This actually happens "everywhere", google quasars.

IrC - 5-7-2015 at 20:19

If you remembered the news stories in the 50's and 60's the newly discovered quasar was big. Companies were even naming products after them. I do not know if before or during that time if black holes were discussed or commonly accepted at least in the astrophysics realm of science. So the name sort of bothers me because it was sold as some new fundamental thing unknown in origin. It was not thought of as what today we are sure they are so the idea the impossible energy could be accounted for by a black hole jet pointed at us was unknown as far as I know. They were not some new unique thing as was portrayed in popular mags. So calling it a Quasar just does not jive for me. It was merely a special form of something already known. Theories most popular went along the lines of several galaxies all squished into a big ball to account for the energy. I never once read any article that considered the analogy of staring at a hundred watt light bulb compared with looking into the same power laser beam. Lasers were known by then I am sure, even before the Ruby laser of fame circa 1963 or around then. I need to look up the history but I think HeNe was known around the time the Quasar was discovered. A long winded poor explanation I guess but back then Quasar meant a new fundamental unique entity and knowing what it really is at least to me discounts the use of a 'special' name. Unless it makes sense to say Quasar rather than one of over 200,000 known 'odd black holes which shoot beams'. Or is this just me.

aga - 6-7-2015 at 08:49

Quote: Originally posted by Zombie

I'm experimenting with sound waves as my heat source. It gets pretty warm just yelling at it.

You been watching the film 'Dune' again ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Twmc6jUrNw

IrC - 6-7-2015 at 11:05

Usul no longer needs the weirding module.

Zombie - 6-7-2015 at 16:17

No. I need the weirding thing... I made one from my tinfoil hat, and a gallon of EtOH.
There was another part but I think I swallowed that.

I'm kind of preoccupied with another project, My mind is swimming in this one so I am having a hard time following my own train(s) of thought.
I've told you all that I keep busy to keep partially sane. When projects are at 1/2 way stages I can easily follow but right now I have 4 projects of my own, and 2 for customers that are almost completed. I'm losing my mind at the moment.
Thinking about BH-s will drive me over the top.

IrC - 6-7-2015 at 17:09

Theres your problem, one cannot operate the weirding module on a tinfoil hat, and a gallon of EtOH alone. You need Mata Hari.

Fulmen - 6-7-2015 at 19:09

IrC:

From Wikipedia: Quasar or quasi-stellar radio sources ... Their spectra contain very broad emission lines, unlike any known from stars, hence the name "quasi-stellar."

IrC - 6-7-2015 at 21:25

Quote: Originally posted by Fulmen

IrC:

From Wikipedia: Quasar or quasi-stellar radio sources ... Their spectra contain very broad emission lines, unlike any known from stars, hence the name "quasi-stellar."

True but my point was based upon the reality of the definition.

quasi- ˈkwāˌzī,ˈkwäzē/ combining form prefix: quasi- seemingly; apparently but not really.

Even the definition proves my point. It was not really a new unique thing. Rather just a newly discovered rare form of an already known thing. The point is moot to discuss it based upon the knowledge and thought of today with hindsight. I am talking about the news stories of the early 60's taken in with the knowledge and though (mindset) at that time. If you were there you know. If not it can only be thought about in terms of today. Which was not the point I was making. I guess one would have to have been there to see my point. Or owned the new Quasar TV with astounding color and ultrasonic remote control. Equally exciting in 1967.

Fulmen - 7-7-2015 at 01:50

Ah, I wasn't around to experience that hype. From what I can gather they were discovered before BHs were commonly accepted as real objects. And it wasn't until the 70's that accretion disk models were able to explain the observations. So I don't agree that they were already known, in fact it seems that our understanding of BHs were advanced by the discovery and explanation of these quasars. While BHs were predicted from GR without any observable evidence I don't think anybody predicted the extreme physics of the accretion disk before the quasars were observed.

IrC - 7-7-2015 at 13:23

Quote: Originally posted by Fulmen

Ah, I wasn't around to experience that hype. From what I can gather they were discovered before BHs were commonly accepted as real objects. And it wasn't until the 70's that accretion disk models were able to explain the observations. So I don't agree that they were already known, in fact it seems that our understanding of BHs were advanced by the discovery and explanation of these quasars. While BHs were predicted from GR without any observable evidence I don't think anybody predicted the extreme physics of the accretion disk before the quasars were observed.

No disagreement, earlier I stated I don't know for sure if the astrophysics (which should include: or physics) community knew about black holes with accretion disks focusing beams of energy or whether one pointed at us could account for their observation of incredible energy, if one considers they concluded this same energy level radiated in all directions. I have to believe your conclusion is correct that in the next decade or two this study gave them the current state of theory. It was cool at the time though. Hard to explain by the mindset of today but fantastic claims sort of sparked the public imagination in a way that resulted in new products being named after the Quasar. No idea why this occurred but there it is. Not having to get up to change the channel was like being part of the new wave of the future. Actually this is true but I'm not so sure it was a good thing if one considers the content being aired today. Maybe entire generations would have been better off without such creations.

Fulmen - 7-7-2015 at 13:38

Well at least it only produced some silly ideas, just think of the radium-hype of early 20. century or the quantum-spiritual bullshit peddled by alternative quacks today.

Zombie - 7-7-2015 at 14:01

If your referring to Tom Cruise... Take that back!

Tom-Cruise-Upside-Down--56923.jpg - 90kB

blogfast25 - 7-7-2015 at 14:02

Quote: Originally posted by Fulmen

Well at least it only produced some silly ideas, just think of the radium-hype of early 20. century or the quantum-spiritual bullshit peddled by alternative quacks today.

Help yourself to some of that Deepshit Choprak quantumspiritzy thingymejibs!

aga - 7-7-2015 at 14:43

The Chopra analogy is quite apt.

Quantum is basically a way for people to barble crap as much as they like so long as they produce some maths, sufficiently impenetrable, in order to claim some sort of Prize, such as A Theory.

Testosterone expressed mathematically.

The Facts relating to the nature of matter stand much as they were before 1990 : we do not know.
We have ideas, impossible for us to test, but we don't really know.

With this as the Reality, random ideas from idiots might have some value : they may well be avenues to explore that lead somewhere useful, maybe not, same as any other idea from any other route.

However the Norm is to ignore any ideas that come from Outside, much as a Baboon would shoo away a Baboon not of their troupe.

Can't escape the fact that we're mere Apes trying to understand the Universe.

Fulmen - 7-7-2015 at 15:20

We might not know fundamentally more, it's pretty much been about furthering the Standard Model. But we do know more about what we don't yet know, solving the dark energy/matter-mystery will probably change a lot.

blogfast25 - 7-7-2015 at 17:46

Quote: Originally posted by aga

The Chopra analogy is quite apt.

Quantum is basically a way for people to barble crap as much as they like so long as they produce some maths, sufficiently impenetrable, in order to claim some sort of Prize, such as A Theory.

Damn yeah. That must explain why QM explains most of Chemistry! Doh!

'Some math'... Just because it's impenetrable to YOU doesn't make it whatever you think it might be, Homer.

That Deepshit Choprah thingy isn't an analogy in any way, shape or form: it's a spoof of a huckster who hijacks pseudo-QM speak for Big Buck$$$. To peddle to idiots. Sadly, it's easy for snake oil merchants to blind people with pseudo-science (or sciency sounding New Age speak or religion or whatever) for base commercial gains. To confound Deepquack with QM is murderously stoooopid.

Want to know something else? Basic QM is A-level math. Maybe you should try it?

I mean, if you're going to gratuitously rubbish an entire scientific paradigm don't you owe it to its practitioners to at least familiarise yourself with its fundamentals?

[Edited on 8-7-2015 by blogfast25]

Zombie - 7-7-2015 at 19:15

I'd rather have a whole bunch of nothing than nothing at all.

That is in the spirit correct?

Could someone please post up something from a quantum math example so I could see if my idea of what it is, is really what it is.

I imagine it being, one zero plus another zero equals two zeros... In reality it's still zero.
Einstein had some quote about reality, and math... I forget what it is tho. Something about how math can explain reality but not really.

Fulmen - 8-7-2015 at 00:36

Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25

if you're going to gratuitously rubbish an entire scientific paradigm don't you owe it to its practitioners to at least familiarise yourself with its fundamentals?

Word, bro.

QM isn't simple, as Feynman put it: If you think you understand QM, you don't. Nevertheless, it works. If you come up with an alternative that has better predictive powers you'll be the "next Einstein", but that won't happen by simply dismissing a century of hard work by the world's brightest minds.

As I said, QM works. It might not make sense to you and me, but you can't argue with the results. Start with the basics, Planck's solution to thermal radiation and Einsteins explanation of the photoelectric effect.
These are two very important discoveries that together with GenRel has fueled a century of unprecedented scientific advances. Toss out QM and you have nothing. No understanding of anything smaller than an atom, no advanced chemistry or computers for that matter.

blogfast25 - 8-7-2015 at 06:46

Quote: Originally posted by Zombie

Could someone please post up something from a quantum math example so I could see if my idea of what it is, is really what it is.

I’m contemplating organising a seminar on QM/WM<sup>*</sup> on SM for beginners but only if the Evildoer Aga

joins, as a form of penitence!

Dressed in his tar and feathers costume, naturellement!

Quote: Originally posted by Fulmen

No understanding of anything smaller than an atom, no advanced chemistry or computers for that matter.

Advanced chemistry, Fulmen? ALL of chemical bond theory is QM/WM! As one post-Schrödinger physicist said [paraphrasing]: ‘QM explained nearly all of chemistry, overnight’.

Quote: Originally posted by Zombie

Could someone please post up something from a quantum math example so I could see if my idea of what it is, is really what it is.

I'm not going to do that unless you 'fully' understand the particle/wave duality. But has it ever occurred to you to wonder where the Electron Configurations of elements come from? Why the Periodic Table is the way it is? QM in action, man!

<sup>*</sup> Wave Mechanics, the calculus-based version of QM (very simply put).

Quantum Mechanics is arguably the most successful theory of science: reject it without requisite expertise and go play with your marbles (assuming you haven't already lost them...)

[Edited on 8-7-2015 by blogfast25]

Fulmen - 8-7-2015 at 07:46

Blogfast: I know, but fact is that we had a pretty decent understanding of chemistry even before QM. More empirical in nature perhaps, but it's not like QM invented chemistry. But your point is well taken, chemistry is QM. No way to get around that.

As for understanding the particle/wave-duality I feel it's more a matter of accepting it. That's just the way it is whether you like it or not. Rejecting QM is like rejecting gravity.

blogfast25 - 8-7-2015 at 09:10

Quote: Originally posted by Fulmen

Blogfast: I know, but fact is that we had a pretty decent understanding of chemistry even before QM. More empirical in nature perhaps, but it's not like QM invented chemistry. But your point is well taken, chemistry is QM. No way to get around that.

As for understanding the particle/wave-duality I feel it's more a matter of accepting it. That's just the way it is whether you like it or not. Rejecting QM is like rejecting gravity.

Inventing is not the same as explaining. Point taken though. The chemical bond is at the heart of modern chemistry.

The particle/wave duality IMHO is really no more counter-intuitive than was 'force' and all its implications for motion and gravity was from the Ancient Greeks up to Newton. Read e.g. 'The Great Equations (Robert P.Crease)' to get an idea just how 'mysterious' these concepts were experienced and how hard it was to get to the kind of definitions we now have. Nor did Newton explain the source of this mysterious central force field (re. solar systems and other satellite systems).

What's truly near-impossible to grasp (visualise, imagine) is QM's ultimate consequence: spooky action at distance aka quantum entanglement. There you need to apply a kind of logic that rubs against 'common sense'. Yet that too has been proved to work, beyond reasonable doubt.

Do you think a basic seminar on QM/WM and its implications for Chemistry would find fertile ground here on SM?

IrC - 8-7-2015 at 09:26

"Do you think a basic seminar on QM/WM and its implications for Chemistry would find fertile ground here on SM? "

I would be interested in reading it. Now for my main problem. It is not fair, how come zombie gets his own stars? More importantly why can't he train them to be quiet they are keeping me awake all night.

NASA's NuSTAR Captures Possible 'Screams' from Zombie Stars

http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasas-nustar-captures-poss...

"Peering into the heart of the Milky Way galaxy, NASA's Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR) has spotted a mysterious glow of high-energy X-rays that, according to scientists, could be the "howls" of dead stars as they feed on stellar companions.

"We can see a completely new component of the center of our galaxy with NuSTAR's images," said Kerstin Perez of Columbia University in New York, lead author of a new report on the findings in the journal Nature. "We can't definitively explain the X-ray signal yet -- it's a mystery. More work needs to be done."

The center of our Milky Way galaxy is bustling with young and old stars, smaller black holes and other varieties of stellar corpses – all swarming around a supermassive black hole called Sagittarius A*.

NuSTAR, launched into space in 2012, is the first telescope capable of capturing crisp images of this frenzied region in high-energy X-rays. The new images show a region around the supermassive black hole about 40 light-years across. Astronomers were surprised by the pictures, which reveal an unexpected haze of high-energy X-rays dominating the usual stellar activity.

"Almost anything that can emit X-rays is in the galactic center," said Perez. "The area is crowded with low-energy X-ray sources, but their emission is very faint when you examine it at the energies that NuSTAR observes, so the new signal stands out."

Astronomers have four potential theories to explain the baffling X-ray glow, three of which involve different classes of stellar corpses. When stars die, they don't always go quietly into the night. Unlike stars like our sun, collapsed dead stars that belong to stellar pairs, or binaries, can siphon matter from their companions. This zombie-like "feeding" process differs depending on the nature of the normal star, but the result may be an eruption of X-rays.

According to one theory, a type of stellar zombie called a pulsar could be at work. Pulsars are the collapsed remains of stars that exploded in supernova blasts. They can spin extremely fast and send out intense beams of radiation. As the pulsars spin, the beams sweep across the sky, sometimes intercepting the Earth, like lighthouse beacons.

"We may be witnessing the beacons of a hitherto hidden population of pulsars in the galactic center," said co-author Fiona Harrison of the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in Pasadena, and principal investigator of NuSTAR. "This would mean there is something special about the environment in the very center of our galaxy."

Other possible culprits include heavy-set stellar corpses called white dwarfs, which are the collapsed, burned-out remains of stars not massive enough to explode in supernovae. Our sun is such a star, and is destined to become a white dwarf in about five billion years. Because these white dwarfs are much denser than they were in their youth, they have stronger gravity and can produce higher-energy X-rays than normal. Another theory points to small black holes that slowly feed off their companion stars, radiating X-rays as material plummets down into their bottomless pits.

Alternatively, the source of the high-energy X-rays might not be stellar corpses at all, astronomers say, but rather a diffuse haze of charged particles, called cosmic rays. The cosmic rays might originate from the supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy as it devours material. When the cosmic rays interact with surrounding, dense gas, they emit X-rays.

However, none of these theories match what is known from previous research, leaving the astronomers largely stumped.

"This new result just reminds us that the galactic center is a bizarre place," said co-author Chuck Hailey of Columbia University. "In the same way people behave differently walking on the street instead of jammed on a crowded rush hour subway, stellar objects exhibit weird behavior when crammed in close quarters near the supermassive black hole."

The team says more observations are planned. Until then, theorists will be busy exploring the above scenarios or coming up with new models to explain what could be giving off the puzzling high-energy X-ray glow.

"Every time that we build small telescopes like NuSTAR, which improve our view of the cosmos in a particular wavelength band, we can expect surprises like this," said Paul Hertz, the astrophysics division director at NASA Headquarters in Washington.

NuSTAR is a Small Explorer mission led by Caltech and managed by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, for NASA's Science Mission Directorate in Washington."

More information is online at:

http://www.nasa.gov/nustar

Extra X-rays at the Hub of Our Milky Way Galaxy

"NASA's Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array, or NuSTAR, has captured a new high-energy X-ray view (magenta) of the bustling center of our Milky Way galaxy. The smaller circle shows the area where the NuSTAR image was taken -- the very center of our galaxy, where a giant black hole resides. That region is enlarged to the right, in the larger circle, to show the NuSTAR data.

The NuSTAR picture is one of the most detailed ever taken of the center of our galaxy in high-energy X-rays. The X-ray light, normally invisible to our eyes, has been assigned the color magenta. The brightest point of light near the center of the X-ray picture is coming from a spinning dead star, known as a pulsar, which is near the giant black hole. While the pulsar's X-ray emissions were known before, scientists were surprised to find more high-energy X-rays than predicted in the surrounding regions, seen here as the elliptical haze.

Astronomers aren't sure what the sources of the extra X-rays are, but one possibility is a population of dead stars.

The background picture was captured in infrared light by NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope.

The NuSTAR image has an X-ray energy range of 20 to 40 kiloelectron volts.

Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech"

MrHomeScientist - 8-7-2015 at 09:31

I think it would be an awesome read. One of my favorite moments in all of my schooling was when we derived the energy levels of the hydrogen atom in QM starting from wave equations. Bridging and connecting two branches of science like that was really amazing; it felt like the mysteries of the universe were finally revealing themselves to me

With entanglement, I like to think of the particles as just two aspects of a single entity (though I don't know if that's at all valid). To change one is to affect the other because they are really the same object. To use a lower dimensional analog (as we usually have to do), it's like me as a 3D being sticking two fingers through a 2D world. From the 2D perspective, it looks like two different circles that have the weird property that they can't get farther apart than a certain distance (my armspan). The 2D beings might conclude there is some 'spooky' elastic force keeping them together, but looking in the higher dimension reveals they are connected to one object.

Fulmen - 8-7-2015 at 11:57

Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25

The particle/wave duality IMHO is really no more counter-intuitive than was 'force' and all its implications for motion and gravity was from the Ancient Greeks up to Newton.

Huh. That is an interesting point. And I think I've made a similar one myself in this thread, if reality was intuitive we wouldn't need science.
What I found really hard about the P/W-duality was reconciling a physical wave with a marble-like particle. Once I realized these were just metaphors it became easier.

As for a seminar, I dunno. I (believe I) already have a decent conceptual understanding of QM, but I'm not really interested in advanced chemistry anymore. So I'm not the right one to ask, as I don't really have any use for the math. I sure would read it if you did of course...

blogfast25 - 8-7-2015 at 12:02

IrC and MrHS:

Thanks. I'll probably put out some 'feeler' thread to gauge potential interest.

I was thinking of a two parter: I. WM basics (up to and including atomic orbitals) and II. applications in chemical bond theory (mainly VESPR, as it's slightly less abstract than MO theory). Each chapter developed in bite-sized 'lectures'. For the first part HyperPhysics provides an adequate online textbook. For the latter I've my own fairly basic seminar.

[Edited on 8-7-2015 by blogfast25]

Zombie - 8-7-2015 at 13:33

I'm 100% in. I only learn when I can ask my asinine questions.
I HATE it when I get back to a thread with lots of new posts. My mind scrambles.

First off I had NO idea that QM was involved in atoms. I assumed it was a simple calculation of frequency = density or something similar. X amount of energy required to maintain valance shells or something.
If I knew this stuff.... watch out world.

Those NuSTAR images are fantastic. I get the impression that the center has to have an emission of energy, whether we see it, understand it or not.
The whole idea of gravity warping space time seems too simple for this. On a simple model sure but in reality it has to be as simple as something Blog said. The deal with distant attractions that should not but DO occur. I said this way back in this thread. That atoms must be exponentially attracting at the center of a BH. The idea of gravity creating this effect does not fit the model.

Gravity illustrates the model but does not explain it. The answer must be atomic attraction that grows as the entity grows. (BH's can be an entity right?)

Going with the laws of attraction/repulsion these BH's must be repelling each other, and as they grow so does their energy that we can NOT see or yet explain. Dark energy is what we are now calling it but the source I believe is the BH itself. Not the empty space.

Honestly I feel the answers are all in modeling a compressed atom. The one thing that I know of that has not been researched to the point of a conclusion. The power to do this must be immense, and the power radiated from it has to be equal. Singularity!

Blogfast, Please post up something that old jerks like myself, and new comers to the sciences can sink our teeth into. I have no excuses for not learning this earlier in life, and I sure would like to have something real to work with. You guys should only know what I don't post! Moon cheese, and such. We could feed the world. (where did the moon cows go?)

aga - 8-7-2015 at 13:58

Education is required.

Someone who has a clue, please launch into Education mode.

blogfast25 - 8-7-2015 at 15:17

A thread will be started tomorrow. Thanks.

Fulmen - 8-7-2015 at 15:49

Quote: Originally posted by Zombie

I had NO idea that QM was involved in atoms

You have no idea. QM is essential to our understanding of reality. It mainly applies to the subatomic, but since everything is subatomic at some level it applies to everything.
The "quant" is derived from "quantum", i.e. a measure of a quantity. To be more specific it's a quantity of energy. When one thinks of energy one usually see it as a continuous stream, something that can be divided into infinitesimal small units. But all empirical evidence tells us that energy only appears as discrete units. At some level you can't split en amount of energy into two halves.
It's a bit like an ocean wave. It seems continuous, but if you look closely at it sooner or later it becomes atomic in nature. And you cannot divide the wave into slices of the atom, the whole atom moves as a unit. It's similar with energy, at some level it behaves "lumpy". You can split a ray of light into many weaker rays, but at some level you'll see a single photon that cannot simply be divided into two weaker parts. It just doesn't work that way. And while that might seem insignificant in the larger scheme of things the fact is it dictates everything.

Zombie - 8-7-2015 at 19:14

Now that I don't get Fulmen.
I would have to think anything can be continuously halved. I have this vision in my mind that there is no end to anything.

Perhaps there is. I can't argue that but as Mr. Aga states QM might just not have all the answers. In fact I'm sure everyone can agree on that.
I'm very curious to learn much more about this.

Fulmen - 9-7-2015 at 03:45

Well, yes and no. You can't split a piece of iron into infinitely small pieces, sooner or later you end up with a single atom. Sure you can split the atom itself, but then it's no longer iron. Right? It's the same with energy. If you attenuate a ray of light, sooner or later you'll see it as a "spray" of individual photons. And this has been proven many times experimentally. It's not something to get or don't get, it's a fact you just have to accept.
This was at the heart of Planck's discovery when he solved the problem with thermal radiation. Nobody could get the math to make any sense until he assumed that energy was emitted and absorbed in discrete quantities. Later Einstein proved him right by using this model to explain the photoelectric effect. It was also Einstein that solved the apparent paradox of the particle/wave-duality by realizing it couldn't be one. If light behaves as a wave in some experiments and as a particle in others, the only conclusion is that both are right. Light isn't a simple wave or a particle, it's something entirely different that has properties that resemble both. Now in the macroscopic world this doesn't make much sense, but you can't assume that the subatomic behaves just like macroscopic objects.

If you're asking if one can smash a photon into smaller parts, and then these parts into even smaller parts, sure. Matter and energy is a bit like matroska dolls, so far we've never been able to find anything that cannot be divided further. But that's a different question that I'm not qualified to explain.

Pages: 1 2 3