Heavy element production in MM

I don't subscribe to the uncertainty principle either as an explanation of the mechanism(s) behind electrons staying out of a nucleus it should be strongly attracted to.
[/quote]


I was unable to determine the exact size, location and velocity of a puff of smoke. Therefore I shall impose the Uncertainty Principle. Or invent another particle: the half-pint, purple, bitter tasting, moody, upside down unquark.

Dr. Van Flandern has suggested that an electron might be an assembly of elysium particles. Such an assembly could form up or dissipate, change shape, flow....sounds a lot like "electricity" doesn't it?

If a scientist is blind to a gravitational flux and a light carrying medium, then every phenomenom must be a hard particle. We have invented hundreds of them.


Gregg Wilson

123,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
How does limitations in knowledge, or maybe we should call it
ignorance, become a cause of a physical phenomenon?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This is questionable indeed, but as far as my limited understanding goes, the Uncertainly Principle merely reflects our own inablity to measure a form beyond some particular resolution. That is to say, no Mars Orbiter can ever have an onboard camera with a resolution higher than 2 meters: "Sorry, but uncertainty does not allow us to locate Spirit/Oppertunity precisely." I'd suggest you get a better camera....

Well, I guess it's true then.

Heisenberg, Bohr, Dirac, DeBroglie, Pauli, Schrodinger, Feynman, Gell-Man, etc. were just a bunch of idiots. ;o)

It's not OUR knowledge of the position and momentum of an electron that counts. It's the electron's "sense" of where and what it is that determines what it will do. Apparently, since it percieves no reference frame (on the scale of its own dimensions), it can't stay in a smaller volume either. Which means, it can't reside within the proton which is much smaller, i.e. like a telescope looking for details on Mars, it can't "resolve" the image of the proton and thus cannot locate it with sufficient precision and thus ... "go there".

Something like that is closer to the correct answer.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br />Well, I guess it's true then.

Heisenberg, Bohr, Dirac, DeBroglie, Pauli, Schrodinger, Feynman, Gell-Man, etc. were just a bunch of idiots. ;o)

It's not OUR knowledge of the position and momentum of an electron that counts. It's the electron's "sense" of where and what it is that determines what it will do. Apparently, since it percieves no reference frame (on the scale of its own dimensions), it can't stay in a smaller volume either. Which means, it can't reside within the proton which is much smaller, i.e. like a telescope looking for details on Mars, it can't "resolve" the image of the proton and thus cannot locate it with sufficient precision and thus ... "go there".

Something like that is closer to the correct answer.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


I see what you mean. But if we can claim that the proton is much smaller than the electron, why do we invent uncertainty to conclude that the electron will not go there? I fail to see what uncertainty has anything to do with this. The proton has a certain dimension and so does the electron, so if the electron is larger, it will not go into the proton for trivial reasons. Please fill me in on this one since it is clear I don't get it. []

The who's right who's wrong road gets you nowhere. The fact is stuff happens at the atomic level that is not understood. The models don't help understanding so why argue which one is most right? There are several facts that can be listed and logically studied so why not start with this little bit of data and see what develops? The ideas of QM don't need to be used for that.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br />Well, I guess it's true then.

Heisenberg, Bohr, Dirac, DeBroglie, Pauli, Schrodinger, Feynman, Gell-Man, etc. were just a bunch of idiots. ;o)

It's not OUR knowledge of the position and momentum of an electron that counts. It's the electron's "sense" of where and what it is that determines what it will do. Apparently, since it percieves no reference frame (on the scale of its own dimensions), it can't stay in a smaller volume either. Which means, it can't reside within the proton which is much smaller, i.e. like a telescope looking for details on Mars, it can't "resolve" the image of the proton and thus cannot locate it with sufficient precision and thus ... "go there".

Something like that is closer to the correct answer.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

How about Einstein? He was no slouch either in physics and he
didn't think much of the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle. "God does
not play dice." Schrodinger, one of the co-founders of QM,
himself doubted QM as a valid picture of phyiscal reality. In
his famous thought experiment, Schrodinger's Cat, he tried
to demonstrate the absurdity behind the Copenhagen interpretation
of QM.

It seems that it was only Heisenburg, of the original developers
of the theory, that was diehard about the Heisenburg Uncertainty
Principle as being a statement about the operation of the real world.
And who was Heisenberg, besides being a mathematical genius?
Well, he was a student who in the oral exam of his dissertation,
failed to derive the resolving power of a common instrument
such as a telescope and microscope. He didn't even know how
a storage battery worked. In short, he sucked in the physical
sciences. (read: www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p06.htm ).

When he first proposed a physical experiment then to demonstrate
the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle using a gamma ray microscope
set-up, it's no wonder that it had to be corrected by one of
his colleagues.

I find it very ironical indeed that a principle that has much
to say about the resolving abilities of measuring instruments
and that eventually became a broad philosophical statement about
reality was arrived at by someone who couldn't derive
the resolving ability of the simplest of measuring instruments.


As for the rest of your comments, I can't imagine how "resolving power"
has much if anything to do with the electromagnetic forces that causes
attraction between oppositely charged particles. In particular,
I cannot make heads of the idea of "perceiving reference frames" and
of the term "resolving power" as it applies to the
question of electrons not falling into an attractive nucleus.
These concepts sound new to me and do not correspond
to anything I've read about the Uncertainty Principle.
Most publications just regurgitate Heisenburg's physical arguments
it seems, which when rephrased, basically say that the math is the cause behind the physics- no mechansim is required. Mathemagic.