Re: Surviving Einstein.

From: AE (hidden_at_nospam.com)
Date: 07/24/03 

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:37:03 +0200

Stonelock wrote:
> AE wrote:
>>...
>>In case the electron would be a particle orbiting the proton in a way
>>that centrifugal force and electrostatic attraction would equal each
>>other the orbit would describe an ellipse, that way more or less
>>shielding the proton in the plane but not in any other direction.
>
> Yes, now consider this. atoms are not alone in the universe; they are
> surrounded by other atoms all constantly moving in different
> directions, at different speeds, different molecules, etc., This also
> means that there will be electrostatic interactions between all these
> constantly changing processes. It is absolutely impossible to have a
> plane orbit in such circumstances. Thats a first thing to consider.

The interaction between atoms is well known since these are the forces
creating molecules - it's easy to calculate what molecules would look
like if your model were right - it doesn't fit to what we are measuring
or observing in chemistry.

> The other important factor is a lil bit more complex and involves the
> constituant of the proton, their dynamic structure and their
> interactions with the electron.

The inner structure of the proton doesn't have enough effect on the
electron to cause an important effect - you can calculate the amount
of orbit disturbance cuased by the inner structure of the proton -
that's why it was so hard to find out quarks exist: Their effect on
everything outside the nucleus is close to zero.

>...
>>
>>It is uniform - absolutely uniform indeed: Obviously time inside a car
>>moving with 100 km/h goes by a factor of about 0,99999995 compared to
>>a person not moving - most times this simply doesn't matter.
>>
>>The position of a car of 1 ton weight moving with 100 km/h cannot be
>>determined better than with an accuracy of 3e-38 meters. This means
>>you surely can calculate the wave functions of the car to see with
>>what probability you'll find it within a distance of 1e-38 meters from
>>the point where you expect it, but why should you want to do this?
>
> The important thing to realize here is that these restrictions are not
> physical, they are due to METHODS OF CALCULATION. Before wave
> functions existed, could you have even considered doing such a
> calculation? of course not? And why not? Simply because the methods of
> calculation weren't adequate. They are not perfect yet. It would be
> sad to see you content of such 'imprecise' methods of calculation.
>
> The search isn't over.

Indeed you are right: The search isn't over.

Nevertheless our present description of universe (relativistic quantum
mechanics describing propagation as waves, creation and desctruction as
particles) is much more precise than classic mechanics which still is
seen as a very good approximation for distances, time and energies
typical for the world in which we are living and which we are observing
with our natural senses.

The next step will result in even smaller corrections in our world that
are becoming important under even more extreme conditions.

AE

Relevant Pages
Quantcast