Can two electrons have the same location?

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Physics is based on math

No, it is not. It is "based" upon the observation of matter in motion. Math is a TOOL for describing that, not it's "basis." Math does NOT dictate the facts, sorry.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

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

Answer my prior questions first.

1 Reply

@layman,

This is the answer to your questions. The scientific definition of acceleration is given by the function

A(t) = dV/dt

If you define the motion of any object as Velocity as a function of time, then you can figure out the object's acceleration as a function of time. I have already shown you one example where acceleration is non-zero at the same time as velocity is zero (this is actually quite a common occurrence in physics).

If you have a specific example where you can give me a objects velocity as a function of time, I will be happy to calculate the derivative for you to determine its acceleration at any point in time.

I have given you the scientific definition of acceleration, and I have used it to show you that one of your claims (according to this definition) is incorrect. You seem to be saying (incorrectly) an object at rest can't accelerate because an object at rest can't accelerate. I think you are the one with the tautology.

If you don't accept the scientific definition of acceleration... why not give a definition of acceleration that supports your point without your point being part of the definition.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Another alias, eh?

"puzzledperson's post is sheer nonsense. 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 said that a mathematician would probably say that X is in the same position but that its differential acceleration is no longer zero. So apparently my post isn't "sheer" nonsense. But this merely encapsulates a logical contradiction, as I've already explained. Nothing you wrote changes that.

Amazing also that your last course on the subject was at an unspecified college nearly half a century ago and that you've forgotten all but the highlights, yet that doesn't stop you from pontificating about what is necessary for intelligent conversation. You also don't respond to anything I wrote, but merely reassert maxdancona's equally non-responsive ad hominem. Because you're simply wasting my time and have selected yet another alias to avoid my ignore list, I'm adding your latest userid to the list.

1 Reply

@puzzledperson,

There is no "logical contradiction" in the science. The only logical contradiction is due to the fact that you and layman don't understand the science.

If you took a basic physics course, it would fix the problem.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

This is the answer to your questions.

No it is not. I guess you can't read read spoken words, only math symbols. Or more likely, I suppose, you just didn't read my questions and hence have no idea what they are.

2 Replies

@FBM,

"The Pauli exclusion principle is the quantum mechanical principle that states that two identical fermions (particles with half-integer spin) cannot occupy the same quantum state simultaneously. In the case of electrons, it can be stated as follows: it is impossible for two electrons of a poly-electron atom to have the same values of the four quantum numbers (n, ℓ, m ℓ and m s ). For two electrons residing in the same orbital, n, ℓ, and m ℓ are the same, so m s must be different and the electrons have opposite spins. This principle was formulated by Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli in 1925."

This doesn't seem to apply.

It's sort of amazing to me that no attempt has been made to refute any of my original statements (perhaps because they're so fundamental), but instead lots of silly posturing and personal insults (and no, I'm not talking about FBM here: his contribution is OK). And lo and behold, brandon9000 gets "most popular" replies by virtue of a little "thumb magic".

1 Reply

@layman,

I read the spoken words... it is just that your particular spoken words don't make any sense in a science context. You are asserting (incorrectly) that something with an acceleration can't be at rest... but I don't see where you do anything to explain this, and as I pointed out, the mathematical definition of acceleration contradicts your assertion.

It's possible I missed it, if you explained why you think that what you are saying is true please explain again.

And please excuse the mathematics, it is just that real scientists, the people who are designing planes, building the internet and putting robots on Mars, use mathematics. This is because it is quite descriptive and can explain very well how the universe works with none of the "logical contradictions" that some of you seem to be experiencing with your wordy explanations.

1 Reply

@layman,

What you don't understand is that maxdancona and brandon9000 are simply two flavors of the same retardobot. They can't discuss anything but they can be insulting. Don't ask one to explain anything, because it will just repeat what it already said without responding. Note how both fling equations like holy water on vampires: not because of any respect for science or mathematics, but simply on the principle that if they can't dazzle 'em with brilliance they'll baffle 'em with bullpucky.

1 Reply

@puzzledperson,

Quote:

maxdancona and brandon9000 are simply two flavors of the same retardobot. They can't discuss anything but they can be insulting.

I love irony. (I don't see either Brandon or myself resorting to childish name calling like "retardobot".)

0 Replies

@layman,

"He" doesn't have any idea what anything is. "He" is equivalent to a defective inference engine programmed to perverse contrarianism and irrational hostility. There is also a strong time-wasting and disruption component. Too bad this damn thing keeps showing up in (and ruining) various threads I participate in, under various aliases or stolen accounts. A comprehensive audit is in order.

0 Replies

@puzzledperson,

Hi puzzledperson. I gather that there's a fair amount of conflict habituation on this forum. It seems to lead to pervasive derailing. I gather that the "ignore" function was meant to counter that, but to my newbie eyes, it's not working.

Just a thought: you could temporarily put derailers (which would be anyone who prefers insults to addressing the topic) on ignore. If doing that results in there being no thread at all, that's ok. It's the magic of trolling. Smile

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

I read the spoken words... it is just that your particular spoken words don't make any sense

It wasn't "my" spoken words that I asked you about.

http://able2know.org/topic/300351-2#post-6060305

1 Reply

@layman,

The definition of acceleration is given by the function "A(t) = dV/ dt". So the problem is that in order to scientifically answer your question, you need to explain what "V(t)" is.

The is answer is probably yes depending on V(t))... but the words you are using are not specific enough to define what V(t) is.

For example, if V(t) is a piecewise function where where V(t) = 0 for (t<0) and V(t) = 2t for (t >= 0) then at time 0s the acceleration will be 2m/s/s and the velocity will be 0m/s. This is a perfectly good example of a situation where velocity is 0m/s and acceleration is non-zero.

Science provides a simple, exact definition for acceleration that works in any circumstance without any logical contradiction.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

but the words you are using are not specific enough to define what V(t) is

I'll say it again. I'm not asking about my words.

A statement was made here, in plain English (not by me) and it was NOT given by way of a math formula. I responded in plain English.

Is the statement, as written (in English), accurate in your opinion?

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

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?

You made this statement, in plain English, that is factually incorrect. I have shown you, a couple of times now, using the scientific definition of acceleration that it is possible for an object to have a non-zero acceleration while being at rest.

There are many good reasons that scientists use mathematics. One of them is that sometimes plain English (or any other spoken language) is inexact... it can be taken a couple of different ways. On the other hand mathematics is an exact way to express ideas... the function A(t) = dV/dt has a definite meaning that any scientist understands. Of course this makes you define Velocity as a function of time... but this is a good thing. It eliminates any of the imprecision that comes from using human language.

But your words above are easily disproved by using the scientific definition of acceleration (as I have shown several times now). And you have not provided an alternative definition of acceleration that supports your claim in a way that isn't circular.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

You made this statement, in plain English

For the THIRD time, that is NOT the statement my question is about. I even gave you a link to the question. Do you pay any attention to what the question is before you give an "answer?"

1 Reply

@layman,

The answer to your question is "yes" .... assuming that the English words imply a mathematical piece wise function with a changing function of V(t) for the segment that includes t = 0s.

English words are imprecise, and it is possible to interpret your words in a way that the function of V(t) is not changing for the segment that includes t= 0s. In that case the answer would be "no".

If you can specify which of these two statements best fit your English words.. then you have your answer. I don't know how much more clear I can be here.

In any case there is no logical contradiction in the math or the science. The definition, and the resulting answers, work just fine (assuming you understand the basic mathematics).

0 Replies

@puzzledperson,

Quote:

Why can't a geometric point be divided? Because it has no extension in any dimension (direction). But then it does not occupy space, so how can it indicate position in space? A line of a given length has exactly the same length after you remove the end points, because points don't have length. This should make it abundantly clear that a point is a nothing posing as a something. It is in fact a logical contradiction.

Well, you're quite right, of course, PP, but, ya see, as a matter of PHYSICS, you're wrong, because physics is MATH, no more, no less. Physics has nothing to do with existing objects whatsoever. It is a compilation of mathematical idealizations, that's all.

What you need to do, boy, is take a physics class. On second thought, forget that. It won't help you any. You need to take a math class!

Quote:

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. (Albert Einstein)

2 Replies

@layman,

I still remember the day. I was 16 years old, sitting in a geometry class. I had read the definition of a "point" and asked the teacher:

"Miss Johnson, are "points" real? I mean, like, do they exist in the real world?"

She said: "Why, of course they do, Layboy."

I quit school the next day.

1 Reply

Can two electrons have the same location?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know