Can two electrons have the same location?

@layman,

Speaking of "potential energy" along with "gravity," and all, brings my mind back to the question of whether there is "perpetual energy."

I see gravity as energy, insofar as it has the capacity to do "work." Is gravity perpetual? Or is it going to cease to exist sometime?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

If you really were an Electrical Engineer, even if you only had a four year degree, you would have had to study 3 semesters of calculus, plus linear algebra and at least 3 or 4 semesters of physics (in addition to the engineering classes which are based on math and physics).

You would certainly understand the mathematics behind electrical fields, and energy.

If this is true Leadfoot, could you please explain to Layman why what he is saying about things that he have learned in high school physics is nonsense?

You did study several semesters of calculus in a University to become an Electrical Engineer... didn't you Leadfoot?

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

You would certainly understand the mathematics behind electrical fields, and energy

Maxxy, baby, understanding the "mathematics behind" them aint the same as understanding electrical fields and energy, cancha see?.

1 Reply

@layman,

Potential energy is a mathematical concept (as is everything else in Physics). It can be measured, and it can be used in mathematical functions to describe how things work and make accurate predictions.

It is no different than any other mathematical concept in science, for example velocity or temperature or electron spin.

Physics is based on mathematics. The concepts we study in physics are all described mathematically. This is why if you haven't taken the time to master mathematics, you can't possibly a real understanding of any of these concepts.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

I take EE to mean "electrical engineer." It that accurate?

Yes.

Leadfoot Quote:
"the exact mechanism for electron motion makes not one wit of difference"

Quote:

If so.. does it make any (practical) difference in that field?

Not to my knowledge, but I was not working in the field of cutting edge physics research where it might.

If you are working in everyday electronics design you can envision wires as pipes, electrons as loose balls rolling down the pipes and transistors as valves and it wouldn't matter.

Yeah, I used some math, but it's amazing how little of it you need.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

There's another thread here addressed to the notion of "p-zombies," where such items as "turing tests" have been mentioned.

If I was the one doing the grading, I don't think Max could pass my turing test. I would immediately think he is a programmed machine, rather than an independently thinking human being, ya know?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

I didn't say that the field emitted photons, I said the electron did. I said that an electric field consists of photons (whether actual or virtual) and that photons are energy.

Electrons at rest continuously emit photons, otherwise there wouldn't be a static electric field associated with them. There is, and the field strength at every point in the universe where it exists has the potential to do work (move matter) on any other electrically charged particle that happens to be there.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

If you really were an Electrical Engineer, even if you only had a four year degree, you would have had to study 3 semesters of calculus, plus linear algebra...

As I gladly admitted in a different thread, I was an 'undocumented' engineer. All my formal math training was in high school. The rest was self taught. I was a technician at Sperry Univac when a technical problem came up with the Navy standard mini-computer (UYK-20) that they manufactured. None of the staff engineers (including some with Phds) could solve it. I was offered an engineering position if I could do it and they made good on their promise when I did. Sometime intuitive understanding trumps book knowledge.

OTOH, I'm in awe of the math whizzes who figured out how to compress audio and video data with algorithms like MPEG. Math has it's uses.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

They are perpetual motion devices because they continuously do work without running down and without energy being added to them. The energy IS harnessed since it is what keeps protons and electrons separated yet in "orbits"and allows a charged particle like a free electron to exert an attractive or repulsive force (as applicable) on any and every other charged particle in the universe since its static electric field fills the universe.

Talk of "moving parts" and "frictionless bearings" is a hopelessly inappropriate mechanical analogy when applied to putative "point particles" like electrons.

2 Replies

@puzzledperson,

Quote:

"point particles"

You got the scare quotes right, that's for sure.

0 Replies

@puzzledperson,

No fair changing terms. To refresh your memory, you said:

Quote:

Well, an electric field consists of photons, whether actual or virtual, doesn't it? Aren't photons energy? They don't have a rest mass.

You didn't say 'electron', you said electric field. An electron 'has' one but that is not synonomous with 'is' one. But to go further, an electron is not emitting photons either. If it is MOVING and hits something (like in a CRT or X-ray tube) it will CAUSE photons to be emitted.

1 Reply

@neologist,

The models change with each generation. Compare Feynman's lecture series to Bohr before him and today's generation of physicists who talk about particles as epiphenomena of fields (Google "fields and their particles" or "ripples of a field"). Tomorrow it will be even more removed from anything concrete or comprehensible, say, string theory), because every flaw that shows up has to be obscured by something even more arcane. The greatest geniuses of yesterday are the quaint dopes of today; not because progress is being made but because grifters who don't freshen their game risk being caught out by the rubes.

1 Reply

@layman,

The basic disagreement we have is over the nature of "science".

1) I believe that the term "science" should be reserved for the mathematically rigorous field where claims most be challenged by experiment, and hold up to currently proven theories (also supported by experiment), in order to be accepted as valid. Of course, this means that the people doing science must do the work to master mathematics and to understand the work of people before him. And yes, this is hard work.

2) You seem to believe that science involves making things up that seem logical to you, and rejecting things that don't sound right to you based not on a mathematical understanding, but based on things you read from popular science articles you found on the internet.

The issue I have is that you people are confusing the two... taking scientific sounding words and phrases you find in the internet, often taking things real scientists have said out of context, and presenting them in your own mismash of words as if this counts as something close to what real scientists do.

This is completely wrong.

As long as no one confuses this made up science with the real science you are aping, then I have no problem with it.

1 Reply

@puzzledperson,

Quote:

They are perpetual motion devices because they continuously do work without running down and without energy being added to them. The energy IS harnessed since it is what keeps protons and electrons separated yet in "orbits"and allows a charged particle like a free electron to exert an attractive or repulsive force (as applicable) on any and every other charged particle in the universe since its static electric field fills the universe.

Talk of "moving parts" and "frictionless bearings" is a hopelessly inappropriate mechanical analogy when applied to putative "point particles" like electrons.

You do have an appropriate on-line handle.

What 'work' are atoms continually doing? They STORE energy but unless they are in the process of decaying, they produce NO energy.

Inappropriate or not, analogies can be powerful tools for understanding, and you claim to be in search of that. Ignore them if you like.

1 Reply

@layman,

Good points, but if I'm trying to discredit nonsense on its own terms, and I want to be taken seriously by those who speak the language of nonsense while doing so, I have to employ its nomenclature.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

I am curious... what was the problem you solved?

There is a reason that they make Electrical Engineers take so many semesters of Calculus. There are a bunch of problems that don't require calculus... but there are problems that Engineers often face that require a mastery of advanced calculus, not to mention that to write a paper or discuss the validity of an experiment or to read other people's research requires it.

1 Reply

@puzzledperson,

puzzledperson wrote:

The models change with each generation. Compare Feynman's lecture series to Bohr before him and today's generation of physicists who talk about particles as epiphenomena of fields (Google "fields and their particles" or "ripples of a field").

If you don't understand the mathematics that these models are written in, then you don't have the knowledge required to understand either the models of the last generation or the new models.

If you don't have the knowledge (or mathematical background) to understand either, then how can you understand how they have changed. If you had an education you would understand how models have evolved over the past 150 years.

Google is not an education.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

"I designed airplanes and propulsion systems for them after my life as an EE and the exact mechanism for electron motion makes not one wit of difference to how they fly."

Great, so we could replace the standard model of particle physics with s system of magical elves and fairies and still airplanes would fly.

1 Reply

@puzzledperson,

Quote:

Leadfoot quote:
"I designed airplanes and propulsion systems for them after my life as an EE and the exact mechanism for electron motion makes not one wit of difference to how they fly."

puzzled replied:
Great, so we could replace the standard model of particle physics with s system of magical elves and fairies and still airplanes would fly

Now you are beginning to understand. Yes they would.
Do you really think the Wright brothers knew anything about particle physics?

0 Replies

@neologist,

I have maxdancona on ignore, but since you quoted him I'll briefly address his comment. He has no capacity to perceive basic logical inconsistency, whether in physics or in simple everyday usage of English. I've come across his type before and the reason he loves mathematical "physics" is that recourse to rote formulas is safe, sterile, doesn't require critical thought or judgment, and without interpretation it can't be related to the concrete observable world at all; and its arcane language allows him to throw sand in the rubes' eyes while posing as a genius wonderchild.

1 Reply

Can two electrons have the same location?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know