Can two electrons have the same location?

@maxdancona,

Quote:

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

Einstein himself said his "constancy of the speed of light" postulate was "arbitrary," freely chosen, and unproven. Accept it, and maybe you can derive the Lorentz transformations from it. Of course, Lorentz has already done that, based on assumptions which conflicted with Einstein's.

Lorentz's theory of relativity makes all the same predictions as Al's special relativity does, and some (accurate) predictions that SR doesn't make. Both theories use "math." But the math is NOT the theory. Nor does "math" dictate the theory.

Yet without some "scientific theory" preceding it, the math would be meaningless and useless. Furthermore the math can never serve to prove either theory or even show that one is "better" than the other.

Kinda funny that they call the theory "scientific," eh?

2 Replies

@layman,

No, he (maxdancona) can't see that formal relationships between abstract symbols have no relation to physics without corresponding interpretations that are nonmathematical. He's the sort of dope who refers to the physical in physics as "metaphysics".

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

No, he (maxdancona) can't see that formal relationships between abstract symbols have no relation to physics without corresponding interpretations that are nonmathematical

Yeah, Max, what PP done said.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

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

How to solve an open collector driven network that was overloaded (beyond the specified fan-out spec for the drivers) without replacing the drivers or receivers and not degrading the rise time of the network.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

You're still misquoting me (or at least misrepresenting my quotes). I said: an electron at rest emits a static electric field. And yes, that means emitting photons, whether actual or virtual. What do you suppose does work on other charged particles in that field, whether they are next door or light years away? What do you suppose a static electric field consists of except photons, and where do these come from except from the electron associated with the field?

What I said beyond that is that the static electric field of an electron is part of the electron and contributes to its mass; electric fields have inertial mass and just try moving an electron without taking this addition momentum into account. You don't suppose that electromagnetic momentum comes from nowhere?

Try Googling "static electric field" together with "virtual photons" to see what electrons emit when they are at rest.

Going back to the original question, because electrons are present everywhere their fields are, and because fields of multiple particles are co-determined by wave interference, it isn't logically consistent to talk about either "the location"of an electron, or even "an" electron, since there is one big field with various maxima and minima, and you're choosing to call the maxima "point particles" even though they're neither localized nor separated from one another.

Quite aside from all this, how can you localize an electron when the wave function governing its potential position allows it to be anywhere in the universe with varying degrees of probability? Even a maxdancona should admit this last paragraph!

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

I've told you several times now what work atoms are doing: keeping protons and electrons separated yet bound together in orbits.

It isn't my fault you're as dense as a log. Stop wasting my time this way or be prepared to be added to the ignore list.

1 Reply

@puzzledperson,

I think responding to someone you have on ignore to talk about "logical inconsistency" is rather funny. But you have my point exactly wrong.

The rigorous mathematics behind real science isn't to make it safe. It is to make it accountable. In real science any claim is challenged, and if it doesn't stand up to mathematical reasoning it is discarded.

It absolutely does require critical thought. This is why science is at the forefront of our our modern society and impressive technology. We as a society are constantly pushing forward the limits of our knowledge and are abilities. We are going further, living longer and understanding more.

These accomplishments aren't being done by rejecting mathematics and the work done throwing out the work done by previous generations. It is done by hard work from very educated people using mastery of mathematics and past work to push further ahead.

Every claim made by physical science is backed by experiment, questioned for logic and based in mathematics that can be examined and tested. This is a good thing.

Yes, it means that the people doing real science must do the work to master the mathematics and follow a rigorous process for their research to be accepted... but having such a high bar means that science can continue to progress and benefit us.

Real science isn't idle musing based on google searches.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

" How to solve an open collector driven network that was overloaded (beyond the specified fan-out spec for the drivers) without replacing the drivers or receivers and not degrading the rise time of the network."

Give it the "Fonzie" smack until the dead moth creating a short shifts off the circuitboard.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Einstein himself said his "constancy of the speed of light" postulate was "arbitrary," freely chosen, and unproven.

What counts from Einstein are his papers, mathematically solid and well-reasoned. This is what was accepted by science (and rewarded by Nobel). He wasn't God... and clearly he was wrong about things, even science things.

The mathematical reasoning in Einstein's papers was brilliant, and these ideas have stood the test of time. You could read them yourself (but you will need a couple of years of calculus to be able to understand them).

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

You quote me, very selectively, as saying

Quote:

Einstein himself said his "constancy of the speed of light" postulate was "arbitrary," freely chosen, and unproven.

Then you respond with your opinion of "what counts."

Quote:

What counts from Einstein are his papers, mathematically solid and well-reasoned.

In the meantime, you ignore everything I said about the connection (or lack thereof) between theory and math. Typical. And wrong. The theory must come first. It is of paramount importance, not it's mathematical consequences.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

And wrong. The theory must come first. It is of paramount important, not it's mathematical consequences.

This is an interesting philosophical question... but a theory that doesn't can't be tested by experiment and shown to be mathematically valid is not scientifically valid.

You are claiming that the concept of potential energy is "logically inconsistent" even though this concept is accepted, and used, by scientists and engineers. You are saying this is "logically inconsistent" because it doesn't make sense to you. And yet, the educated hard working people who actually do real science don't agree with you.

The great thing about science is that when two people disagree -- in this case you and real scientists, there is a clear, unambiguous way to show who is correct and who is wrong.

You set up the question in mathematical terms. You design an experiment making predictions based on your hypothesis. You run the experiment taking careful record. You then publish the experiment, along with your mathematical reasoning for other scientists to check for correctness. Then you decide if the results support your hypothesis or not (and if it doesn't, you drop it).

The great thing about mathematics is that there is a clear, objective, definition of rightness and wrongness.

The reason I believe in potential energy as a valid scientific concept is because

1) I have studied and I understand the math (an integral path through a force field).
2) Not only do I understand the experiments that support the concept, I have actual performed them myself (I can't say this about QM experiments).
3) I have seen the concepts based on potential energy (from electrodynamics and thermodynamics) and see their usefulness and their experimental validity.

There is a very strong argument in favor of potential energy (as a matter of fact, people who have taken a single college course in Physics know it as fact).

Yet you reject it because it doesn't make sense to you. Let's see if you have an alternative explanation.... Potential Energy explains and predicts what happens when an object falls in gravity... or a ball rolls down a low-friction ramp. Do you have an alternative to potential energy that can do this?

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

You are claiming that the concept of potential energy is "logically inconsistent" even though this concept is accepted

You obviously have no clue what I'm saying. That's not what I said.

Quote:

Yet you reject it

I didn't say that either. What I did say is what I said. If you could read without your idiosyncratic glasses on, you would know what that was.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

people who have taken a single college course in Physics know it as fact

Fact, eh? Heh.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

The great thing about mathematics is that there is a clear, objective, definition of rightness and wrongness

That is indeed "the great thing." How does it apply to physics? For probably the third time now, I will defer to Einstein on that issue:

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)

1 Reply

@layman,

You should take that quote in context Layman

Quote:

One reason why mathematics enjoys special esteem, above all other sciences, is that its laws are absolutely certain and indisputable, while those of all other sciences are to some extent debatable and in constant danger of being overthrown by newly discovered facts.

In spite of this, the investigator in another department of science would not need to envy the mathematician if the laws of mathematics referred to objects of our mere imagination, and not to objects of reality. For it cannot occasion surprise that different persons should arrive at the same logical conclusions when they have already agreed upon the fundamental laws (axioms), as well as the methods by which other laws are to be deduced therefrom. But there is another reason for the high repute of mathematics, in that it is mathematics which affords the exact natural sciences a certain measure of security, to which without mathematics they could not attain.

At this point an enigma presents itself which in all ages has agitated inquiring minds. How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality? Is human reason, then, without experience, merely by taking thought, able to fathom the properties of real things.

In my opinion the answer to this question is, briefly, this:- As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Thanks for the context, Max.

The question: "Is human reason, then, without experience, merely by taking thought, able to fathom the properties of real things.?"

Using Kant's terms, he is asking if a priori synthetic knowledge is really possible (as it might appear--to the naïve--to be)? His answer: There is no apriori synthetic knowledge:

The answer: " As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

Read this part, and see if it is even possible for you to understand it (which I doubt):

Quote:

In spite of this, the investigator in another department of science would not need to envy the mathematician if the laws of mathematics referred to objects of our mere imagination, and not to objects of reality. For it cannot occasion surprise that different persons should arrive at the same logical conclusions when they have already agreed upon the fundamental laws (axioms), as well as the methods by which other laws are to be deduced therefrom.

Hints:

1.Tautologies are true by definition (not because of sense experience)
2. "Objects of reality" are NOT "objects of our mere imagination."
3. Final "hint:" math deals with "objects of our mere imagination"

1 Reply

@puzzledperson,

Quote:

It isn't my fault you're as dense as a log. Stop wasting my time this way or be prepared to be added to the ignore list

Until you can give me an answer to back up your claim that 'atoms are constantly doing work (i.e. producing energy)' I have no further use for the conversation so put me on 'ignore' any time you like.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

It isn't my fault you're as dense as a log. Stop wasting my time this way or be prepared to be added to the ignore list

You didn't ask me, PP, but if you did I would tell you that such statements are uncalled for and unbecoming. They are not a product of reason, and smack of smug bigotry

Don't get me wrong though--they might very aptly be directed to some around here. But not to leadfoot--at least not in this instance.

0 Replies

@layman,

I don't think you understand it Layman. I have never said that science is the only way to understand reality.

Science provides a rigorous process for reaching a certain type of understanding of reality based on mathematics, experiment, transparency and a formal process of logic.

Science has proven very useful in making measurable, objective predictions and it has also given us the remarkable technology that we have today and a story about the nature of the universe that matches our best measurements. If the idea that mathematical hypotheses tested by careful experiment is a tautology... it is unquestionably a very useful tautology. Modern life (including the computer you are using right now to read this) is based on it.

But sure, there are questions that science can't answers, and there are other views of reality that aren't science.

It isn't science if you are going to leave the realm of rigorous mathematics, and careful experiment and deep study of the work of people before us. It might be your musings about reality based on your personal observations, but it isn't science.

Things like Photons, electrons, electrical fields are all mathematical concepts developed by science to give a scientific view of the universe. If you are going to reject the mathematical formalism of science... why stick with these terms.

It is kind of funny to read about your musings about whether electric fields are made of photons. Of course there is a real scientific answer to this (which does involve mathematics because the scientific definition of electric field is a mathematical function and the current view of photons involves the Schrodinger equations).

Of course, you are free to make up anything you want and call it whatever you want. I just wish that you wouldn't pretend that it has anything to do with what real scientists do.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Science provides a rigorous process for reaching a certain type of understanding of reality based on mathematics, experiment, transparency and a formal process of logic

.

"Science is sometimes divided into two types: (1) theoretical science and (2) experimental science. Why so divided? Because they deal in completely different realms of activity and concern themselves with different kinds of questions. You give the impression that you think experimental science is the be all and end all of it.

Quote:

It isn't science if you are going to leave the realm of rigorous mathematics

As I stated before, the fundamental axioms of special relativity, for an example, were not a product of mathematics. And it is theoretical science, not experimental. Everything that follows from the two basic axioms of special relativity are "tautological"--i.e., the are logically implied by the axioms, whether phrased in mathematical or verbal form. The are logical necessities, not physical necessities.

As Al put it: "it cannot occasion surprise that different persons should arrive at the same logical conclusions when they have already agreed upon the fundamental laws (axioms), as well as the methods by which other laws are to be deduced therefrom."

In other words, you can't be surprised at a conclusion drawn from a valid syllogism, however unsound it might be. The conclusion is "contained in" the premises.

You never did address the post I made on this particular topic, at least not insofar as it relates to the limitations of math.

http://able2know.org/topic/300351-7#post-6062520

1 Reply

Can two electrons have the same location?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know