Electrons have orbitals, not orbits. "Electron orbitals are the probability distribution of an electron in a atom or molecule" The above picture is an electron orbital from the page. Electrons exist as a standing wave when captured in an atom.
Posted on 03/09/2002 5:41:26 PM PST by freedom9
Matter and Energy (My two cents)
One of the premises of Relativity is that matter and energy are interconvertable. Matter can be converted into energy and vice-versa. But the thing is, that matter is energy and only energy. It’s energy that has been channeled or routed to circular orbit thereby establishing a continuum.
Except for very dense matter, the type found in collapsed stars and the like, the composition of matter is more empty space than actual energy. The spacing of elemental particles in our bodies is on a scale of planets that orbit the sun. And in our solar system, empty space seems to comprise the greater part.
The discovery, exploration and understanding of the universe on macro and micro levels is really only in it’s infancy. Not being a physicist, I can only speculate and marvel according to my own understanding. But I suspect that all inward phenomena is reflected and can be outwardly observed. That is to say that all forces that seem to affect matter on a planetary scale are the exact same as the ones that govern matter or energy in atomic and even quantum scales. I think that the only two forces that have relevance are electrical and gravitational.
In particle physics, any and every particle is affected and reacts on the most part to the closest particle that’s comprised of greater mass.
In the physical realm, I don’t believe that there is such an entity as a massless particle.
The very concept of a massless particle is in and of itself a contradiction. I think further examination and explanation needs to made for any observance that’s seems to suggest such.
The Photon is a particle that is claimed to be massless.
I'm not convinced that it is a particle at all.
I believe that all interplay of cause and effect, action and reaction is back-dropped and emeshed within a FRAMEWORK of infinate mass.
The supposed ETHER that has been postulated and dissmissed for centuries does seem to have some validity. I'm willing to bet that the Photon is nothing more than tranmission of energy that is propogated somewhat like one bucket being poured into another and so on, (not a particle at all) Quantum physics even has a theory on this.
But given that we all indeed dwell within such a framework, our perceptions and awareness of it is limited only by knowledge and understanding. For if there is indeed such a critter as infinate mass, we all can be assured that we are part of it and that it is the very composition of our being. The implications of this are really something if you give them consideration.
But the real amazing thing is there are Biblical References to these vary supositions, however vague.
Isaiah 29:16
Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?
and
Isaiah 28
19 From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report. 20 For the bed is shorter than that a man can stretch himself on it: and the covering narrower than that he can wrap himself in it.
Electrons have orbitals, not orbits. "Electron orbitals are the probability distribution of an electron in a atom or molecule" The above picture is an electron orbital from the page. Electrons exist as a standing wave when captured in an atom.
How about neutrinos with imaginary mass?
Pascal's wager?
The best we can tell an electron is a point(classically). (QM-wise it is, well.... an electron wave function)
The electron (and all truly "fundamental" particles) are considered to be true mathematical points in the sense that they have no classical spatial extent. This is known, for example in the case of the electron, by performing scattering experiments: the way particles scatter off one another is quite different if the target is represented as a point as opposed to having some finite size. All of the electron scattering experiments done so far are consistent with the hypothesis that the electron is truly a "point particle."
Whether the electrons are very small or huge by comparison since the electron spins around the nucleous a billion or so times per second wouldn't centrifugal force send the electron zooming away from the atom or molecule? Unless as the article states the electrical forces here must be extremely powerful.
Not imaginary. Just very small.
Physicist could answer this far better than I; but here goes:
THE STANDARD MODEL:
The best description of how matter and energy interact (sans gravity) is called “The Standard Model” It describes the organization of all of the particles and how they interact. The elementary particles are divided into two families called quarks and leptons. Each family consists of six particles and three of each particles in each group are acted on by a force carrier.
Quarks: Six called, up charm, top, down, strange, and bottom.
Up, charm, and top use the gluon for their force carrier.
Down, strange, and bottom use the photon for their force carrier.
Leptons: Six called: e neutrino, u neutrino, t neutrino, electron, muon, and tau.
E neutrino, u neutrino, and t neutrino use the W boson for their force carrier.
Electron, muon, and tau use the Z boson for their force carrier.
Gravity is not included in the standard model, however it is believed that is exchange force is a graviton.
THE FOUR FUNDEMENTAL FORCES OF NATURE:
The four fundamental forces in nature:
Strong force
Weak force
Electromagnetism (EM)
Gravity
All of the fundamental forces are considered Exchange Forces. In other words the force involves an exchange of one or more particles.
The exchange particles are as follows:
Strong – The pion (and others)
Electromagnetic (EM) – The photon
Weak – The W and Z
Gravity – The graviton
The Strong Force:
It is a force that holds the nucleus together against the repulsion of the Protons. It is not an inverse square force like EM and has a very short range. It is the strongest of the fundamental forces.
The Weak Force:
The weak force is the force that induces beta decay via interaction with neutrinos. Not only would the Sun not burn without this force A star can “burn” by a nuclear fusion process. Three of those processes are proton-to proton fusion, helium fusion, and the carbon cycle. Here is an example of proton-to-proton fusion, which is the process our own sun uses: (two protons fuse -> via neutrino interaction one of the protons transmutes to a neutron to form deuterium -> combines with another proton to form a helium nuclei -> two helium nuclei fuse releasing alpha particles and two protons). The weak force is also necessary for the formation of the elements above iron. Due to the curve of binding energy (iron has the most tightly bound nucleus), nuclear forces within a star cannot form any element above iron in the periodic table. So it is believed that all higher elements were formed in the vast energies of supernovae. In this explosion large fluxes of energetic neutrons are produced which produce the heavier elements by nuclei bombardment. This process could not take place without neutrino involvement and the weak force.
Electromagnetism:
The electromagnetic force is the forces between charges (Coulomb’ Law) and the magnetic force which both are describe within the Lorentz Force Law. Electric and magnetic forces are manifestations of the exchange of photons. A photon is a quantum particle of light (electromagnetic radiation). This particle has a zero rest mass, however, light has relativistic mass (since its traveling at the speed of light “C”) and can be acted on by gravity. The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant and is unobtainable by matter due to the lorentz transformation. Electromagnetism obeys the “inverse square law”.
Gravity:
Gravity is the weakest of the forces and also obeys the inverse square law. The force is only attractive and is a force between any two masses. Gravity is what holds and forms the large scale structures of the universe such as galaxies.
This particle has a zero rest mass, however, light has relativistic mass (since its traveling at the speed of light “C”) and can be acted on by gravity.
This is the answer to your objection to photons being massless. They have zero rest mass, but they're never at rest. The photoelectric effect (subject of the paper for which Einstein did get a Nobel; he didn't for either special or general relativity) results when photons splat into metal foil like little rocks with enough momentum to knock loose electrons, thereby ionizing and charging the metal.
Photon mass equivalence has tripped me up, too. I once thought I figured out that, if you threw enough mass into a black hole, eventually even the quarks "cook off" and it all turns into photons. Excitedly, I explained to Physicist--do you see the presumption here?--that the mass gravitationally binding the black hole disappears and you get--Tah Dah!--a BIG BANG. So I sat back and waited for him to recommend me for a Nobel.
Instead, he simply told me that mass and energy are equivalent. Photons have energy, so photons have mass. Photons don't just bend under gravity, photons make gravity. A black hole will always be a black hole.
RA, thanks for the ping!
Nature and its fundamental forces are physical forces and a small part of the whole picture. Besides the physical forces, there are mental, psychic, noetic, and spiritual forces, among others. The three dimensional physical universe is sustained by other, more powerful forces, IMO.
To date, I have seen no evidence for this.
:-)
Me either. Something, however, made and continually sustains the physical universe; something made and continues to make life forces (human, animal, vegetable.....fungi....); some process is ongoing that results in the 'four fundamental forces of nature'. Maybe, what we do have evidence of results from processes that we don't have evidence of. That's not too far fetched to ponder and it gives us something else to search for.
Jimer, I agree with you that there is more involved than many are willing to consider. However, I would like to offer an alternative view --- that the 4 dimensional reality we perceive is a manifestation of a higher dimensional dynamic.
Post #16 by RightWhale mentions a very important development in that area. I believe he is speaking to this: In search of extra dimensions
Here is another I have been tracking for years. Introduction to 5D STM Theory Mathematically speaking, 4D matter arises as a manifestation of a higher dimensional vacuum.
This view is also consistent with the Bible, IMHO.
You neglected to mention the mysterious "ID force," which -- although unobserved and unexplained -- rules the process of evolution.
</creationism mode>
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.