Can two electrons have the same location?

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

At some point in time, an object begins to accelerate from rest. In that exact instant, it has an acceleration (by definition), but when zero time has elapsed since the acceleration began, it does not yet have a changed velocity or position.

Your formula doesn't add anything to this. So let me ask you about this statement.

You say when it begins to accelerate, then it has acceleration. Easily understood, as is any tautology. Now what?

You say "when zero time has elapsed since the acceleration began, it does not yet have a changed velocity or position." Yet another tautology.

This is supposed to require a physics class!? A thing doesn't move until it moves?

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

The people who study physics in college are the very people who are designing airplanes and landing robots on Mars and creating semiconductor circuits.

It is funny that people who reject the science and math that are behind so much of our modern life are still able to type out this non-scientific nonsense on a computer built using on the very same science and math they are scorning.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

This is supposed to require a physics class!? A thing doesn't move until it moves?

Yes, apparently it does require a physics class. Why don't you take one and then we can see if it helps you understand this pretty basic concept.

(Actually there is a little bit of interesting science for when a physical object begins to accelerate at t is very close to 0... but nothing that math doesn't fully explain.)

1 Reply

Looks like several of you know more about physics than I do (which ain't saying all that much, really), but my first thought was the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Electrons are fermions.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

this pretty basic concept.

What basic concept?

Quote:

nothing that math doesn't fully explain

Statements have been made in terms of "things." Are you talking about things, or just math concepts that you are trying to impute to "things?"

Or do you even know the difference?

1 Reply

@FBM,

The Pauli Exclusion principle is a result of the Schrodinger equation (you can derive it from the Schrodinger equation). When you look at possible states you are really looking at possible solutions to the Schrodinger equation.

Again, you can't really understand this without starting with Schrodinger.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

The Pauli Exclusion principle is a result of the Schrodinger equation (you can derive it from the Schrodinger equation). When you look at possible states you are really looking at possible solutions to the Schrodinger equation.

Again, you can't really understand this without starting with Schrodinger.

Thanks for the tip. I wasn't aware of that. I haven't seen the inside of a physics class (or textbook) in a couple of decades.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

What basic concept?

f(t) = at

evaluated at t=0 is 0.

2 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
At some point in time, an object begins to accelerate from rest. In that exact instant, it has an acceleration (by definition), but when zero time has elapsed since the acceleration began, it does not yet have a changed velocity or position.

Your formula doesn't add anything to this. So let me ask you about this statement.

You say when it begins to accelerate, then it has acceleration. Easily understood, as is any tautology. Now what?

You say "when zero time has elapsed since the acceleration began, it does not yet have a changed velocity or position." Yet another tautology.

This is supposed to require a physics class!? A thing doesn't move until it moves?

You tell me. You're the one who said it was wrong:

layman wrote:

If that's what they learn, then they should get the hell out of public schools.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

You didn't answer either of my question.

What is the concept---can you say it? Or is it effable--a mystical kinda thing?

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

You tell me. You're the one who said it was wrong:

I said this :

Quote:

If that's what they learn, then they should get the hell out of public schools

In response to this:

Quote:

People learn this kind of stuff in high school physics all around the world. If X is at rest and starts moving at midnight, then at midnight, its position is unchanged, and its velocity is unchanged, but it now has a non-zero acceleration.

I didn't say it in response to the tautological "explanation" you later gave.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

If X is at rest and starts moving at midnight, then at midnight, its position is unchanged, and its velocity is unchanged, but it now has a non-zero acceleration.

Are you trying to say that a thing that has "started moving" (i.e., is no longer "at rest"), but it's "velocity" is unchanged?

Can you have "acceleration" without a change in either speed, direction, or both?

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

...its velocity is unchanged, but it now has a non-zero acceleration.

In terms of "high school" (i.e. Newtonian) physics, "non-zero acceleration" means "not at rest and/or not moving uniformly in a "straight" line, doesn't it?

Which means it's velocity HAS changed (from an "at rest" state), right?

Why do you say it's velocity HASN'T changed?

Your full statement again (with different emphasis being given):

Quote:

If X is at rest and starts moving at midnight, then at midnight, its position is unchanged, and its velocity is unchanged, but it now has a non-zero acceleration.

1 Reply

@layman,

No, Layman. You are wrong.

An object can have a non-zero acceleration at the same time it has a zero velocity... so when you say a non-zero acceleration means an object is "not at rest" you are simply wrong. Let me demonstrate.

The definition of acceleration is given by the function

A(t) = dV/dt

This is the only valid scientific definition of acceleration. So anything you say about acceleration that has any scientific validity has to deal with this function.

So... to demonstrate, let's consider an object that has a velocity at any given time determined by this function

V(t) = 3 - 1.5t

So please (I will let you do the work yourself so you can be sure that you understand).

1) Use the equation for acceleration to calculate the acceleration of this object at time t = 2s (hint: I am sure that after taking the derivative you will see this is a constant acceleration).

2) Evaluate the velocity function at t = 2s.

QED

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

evaluated at t=0 is 0.

"0 is o," eh? Yet another hollow tautology that one would have to take a physics class to understand, eh?

Yeah, right.

1 Reply

@layman,

People who took physics classes are the very same people who are responsible for designing airplanes to be safe. If you don't trust physics (as taught in physics classes)... you might want to think again before stepping on an airplane.

This science that you are calling "hollow tautology" seems to be pretty successful at doing all the things that we depend on in the 21st century... like the internet for example. The people who design the semiconductors required for the internet to function (for for us to have the information) have all taken Quantum Mechanics in college and depend on Schrodinger's equation to do their work

Yes... you do have to take a physics class to understand. That would be a good start.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I'm ignoring your mathematical symbols for now, just as you have ignored my questions to you.

Tell me this, Max, are you also claming that this statement is accurate?

Quote:

If X is at rest and starts moving at midnight, then at midnight, its position is unchanged, and its velocity is unchanged, but it now has a non-zero acceleration.

Yes, or no?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

This science that you are calling "hollow tautology" seems to be pretty successful at doing all the things that we depend on in the 21st century... like the internet for example.

This whole post is ridiculous but let me just address this part. Why in the world do you try to represent me as having called "science" hollow? Hmm?

I said that a tautology, such as "red is red" is hollow, not all physics. Can you comprehend that difference? What do airplanes have to do with it?

2 Replies

@layman,

Physics is based on math. If you are ignoring the math, then this discussion has nothing to do with science.

If you give me a function to describe the velocity of this object at each time, then I will do the derivative for you and tell you it's acceleration at each point in time.

That's how science works.

1 Reply

@layman,

The scientific definition of Acceleration is

A(t) = dV/dt

Do you accept this? (A definition is not a tautology.)

1 Reply

Can two electrons have the same location?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know