Stupid question of the day....

  • Thread starter AllTel - Jim Hubbard
  • Start date
Hi

I just want to remind u sth. When we say: electrons flow & flow like
this & flow like this in that direction & .... It's nothing except
what a "model" is saying, a model that has matched the experiment
results in the best & most convincing way. But who can be sure that
this model matches the truth - I mean the real mechanism- as well as
experiment results. However, I don't claim it is empty of truth (in
fact, any model that is completely empty of truth can't continue even
for a short time, believe it or not).
Well, I don't mind to make u disappointed, simply want to say: BE
CAREFUL not to mix up the "model" of what happens with what
"exactly" happens.

Now experts can answer ur question based on different models, I just
wanted to remind sth that was likely to be forgotten.

--adn
 
DBLEXPOSURE wrote:
Or maybe the paint falls off? :)
Ed



Lol... You have to use Gluon based paint :)
Click to expand...
I was afraid of that. The guy at Fermi paint
where I get my supplies always hits me with
a Planck when I ask for gluon paint. But at
least he's constant. He always tells me the
paint must not be shaken or stirred, but spun,
one and only one time. Go figure.

I asked my friend Werner about the electron
popping thing - he said he was uncertain.
'Nuff for now - pardon me while I duck.

Ed

 
redbelly wrote:
DBLEXPOSURE wrote:


The motion of the electron about the nucleus is a somewhat controversial
topic. The electron does not move in a continuous path- rather, it seems to
appear in and out of existence, at various points around the nucleus (of
course, 90% of the time the electron can be found in its designated
orbital). It would seem to me the other 10% of the time it must be
somewhere else or become something else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron


I would call those statements (on the part of the wikipedia.org)
misleading. An electron is always SOMEWHERE, but the uncertainty
princeiple prevents us from knowing exactly where the electron is
located. This is quite different than saying it ceases to exist, or is
transformed into something other than an electron.

HTH,

Mark
Click to expand...
I thought the idea was that you can know where the
electron is or what direction it is travelling, but
never both at the same time. So (theoretically) you
could know exactly where it is located, which would
lead to it popping in and out of the space under
examination, since the "exactness" restricts the
space to ever smaller observational limits.

It makes it hard as hell to paint the damn things. :)

Ed
 
On 20 Aug 2005 06:28:39 -0700, "redbelly" <redbelly98@yahoo.com> Gave
us:

DBLEXPOSURE wrote:

The motion of the electron about the nucleus is a somewhat controversial
topic. The electron does not move in a continuous path- rather, it seems to
appear in and out of existence, at various points around the nucleus (of
course, 90% of the time the electron can be found in its designated
orbital). It would seem to me the other 10% of the time it must be
somewhere else or become something else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

I would call those statements (on the part of the wikipedia.org)
misleading. An electron is always SOMEWHERE, but the uncertainty
princeiple prevents us from knowing exactly where the electron is
located. This is quite different than saying it ceases to exist, or is
transformed into something other than an electron.
Click to expand...
The guy is a freakin' loon.
 
Electrons travel way slower than light speed. Slower than walking speed as
a matter of fact in a conductor.

Okay, I tell ya what. We gonna get some wire, a good power supply and a
light bulb. We'll string out, oh say, 1/4 mile. You get the fastest car
you can find, hell, get an airplane or a rocket if you want. I'll throw
the switch and if you can get whatever vehicle you find to the other end of
the wire before the light is lit I'll give ya $100,000 if you loose, you pay
me the $100K. Deal? Hell, I'll even give ya a head start....
Click to expand...
Which would prove what exactly? I could do the same with a piece of string
strung out over the quarter mile, and that doesn't mean I can pull on the
string to move it at a rate faster than you can drive.

just because the signal reaches the end of the wire doesn't mean it's the
exact same electrons coming out one end that went in at the other a fraction
of a second earlier, because it isn't.

--

Bye.
Jasen
 
ehsjr wrote:
I thought the idea was that you can know where the
electron is or what direction it is travelling, but
never both at the same time. So (theoretically) you
could know exactly where it is located, which would
lead to it popping in and out of the space under
examination, since the "exactness" restricts the
space to ever smaller observational limits.

It makes it hard as hell to paint the damn things. :)

Ed
Click to expand...
Well, yes, that's a somewhat better description of the
uncertainty principle. But it really is talking about
a particle's position and momentum. The direction
of travel is included in that.

Still, electrons do not pop out of existance, as one
might believe after reading the wikipedia description.
The space the electron might be located in (after having
been located precisely at some earlier time) is not
infinite in size, since the electron can not travel
faster than the speed of light. Choose a large enough
volume of space, and you can be certain the electron is
still located somewhere within it.

Mark
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top