Does procreation offer proof;

[RussDill]

I really tend more to the side that Bishadi is some sort of troll. But then, I'm not sure...If he isn't, I really feel sorry for him and the very small world he lives in.

Entropy? Thermodynamics? The way they can explain processes that were such mysteries for so many centuries is amazing considering how simply they can be derived. Penrose's Road to Reality lays it out in a very masterful way.

And the irrational clinging to the bohr model of the atom when a) the Schrodinger model and how it relates to chemistry is so awesome and b) how a simple google search for 'chemistry orbital' makes it very clear which model actually gets used.

It'd really help to understand the mental state of Bishadi, because I can't figure out his logic for the life of me...How does Bohr's 1913 atomic model relate to his 1927 work on the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.

I'm not sure, does he think we are saying that Bohr is "wrong" about his 1913 model of the atom, and he is attempting to argue that, no, no, look here, Bohr is "smart" because of the Copenhagen interpretation thing, so his atomic model must also have merit?

Bishadi: It'd be really helpful if instead of just posting what we see as word salad, if you could lay out the logical steps that lead you to post whatever it is you are posting.

 

[Mojo]

Uh.....Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't most physicists and chemists discard the Bohr model a long time ago?

I'm not sure that it was ever considered to be anything more than an analogy.

 

[Bishadi]

I really tend more to the side that Bishadi is some sort of troll. But then, I'm not sure...If he isn't, I really feel sorry for him and the very small world he lives in.

no pity

Entropy? Thermodynamics?

1st law is solid.

2nd by the clausius (A second formulation, due to Rudolf Clausius, is the simplest formulation of the second law, the heat formulation or Clausius statement:

Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature.)

this claim is not causally defined by default because 'heat' is not a property of nature it is the description of a system (as heat is general is)

radio active decay breaks the law in itself as cold object can become hot just by the release and HEAT is not the object of release.

kind of like santa CLAUS aint real either.

And the irrational clinging to the bohr model of the atom when a) the Schrodinger model and how it relates to chemistry is so awesome and b) how a simple google search for 'chemistry orbital' makes it very clear which model actually gets used.

schrodinger was a wave guy. While the whole periodic table is bohr style. The greatest difference is how angular momentum is addressed. One as like a torque of spin of a point particle, the other like the magnetic field (vector field).

here is a physics rendition....http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/qangm.html#c1


ie..... the bohr analogy of chemical elements (periodic table) is the foundation to chemistry versus the wave (schrodinger) frame.

It is why 'heat' is so important to chemistry as temperatures are more relevant than the 'wavelength' of the energy state of the elements via the photon (einstein).

...How does Bohr's 1913 atomic model relate to his 1927 work on the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.

plancks constant. L to angular momentum (a spin (sphere) to the particle) (dirac..h-bar/2) which is how the bohr analogy (electron spinning around a center (proton), still lives within chemistry; the energy of the electron is based on it)

I'm not sure, does he think we are saying that Bohr is "wrong" about his 1913 model of the atom, and he is attempting to argue that, no, no, look here, Bohr is "smart" because of the Copenhagen interpretation thing, so his atomic model must also have merit?

the error is not bohr so much as planck.

That unit to energy (E=hv) is based on a it. And what planck did was identify a 'speed' (direction (d/t) to energy (incorporates entropy).

That is the error of today's physics. The underlying root to most of the math and laws held today. (and it is all based on the bohr analogy of mass having a point particle invoked by the 'angular momentum' verse the fields (electric/magnetic).. It is like having removed half of the causal interpretation of maxwell's em (electric and magnetic fields in perpendicular planes; the occillating wave)

Bishadi: It'd be really helpful if instead of just posting what we see as word salad, if you could lay out the logical steps that lead you to post whatever it is you are posting.

i just did and this thread has so much in one spot that any students who wish to exceed the existing paradigm will be far more capable by returning to a debroglie combined with a feshbach type rendition to a system, then anything the physicist at LHC will ever produce; all at your desk!



So to finish up the thread; Life abuses entropy and the ones who dont comprehend that are still 'walking the planck' (and are drowning)

 

[PixyMisa]

radio active decay breaks the law

No.

 

[Mojo]

So to finish up the thread; Life abuses entropy and the ones who dont comprehend that are still 'walking the planck' (and are drowning)

It has been repeatedly explained to you why life does not violate the second law.

The only effect this seems to have had is to convert the question in the O/P to a bald assertion with an insult attached.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I really tend more to the side that Bishadi is some sort of troll. But then, I'm not sure...If he isn't, I really feel sorry for him and the very small world he lives in.

I'm leaning toward self aggrandizement. There was this fellow, DavidJayJordan, who posted here a while back. He had a similar style to that of Bishadi. He knew next to nothing about science beyond the words and phrases that he picked up here and there, yet pretended, probably to the point of truly believing it himself, that he was an expert in many fields of scientific exploration. He too would post pseudoscientific word salad and dismiss or ignore all evidence contradicting his claims. He even got the distance to the moon wrong (it was important to one of his 'calculations') and when corrected he would not even acknowledge the error. The transparent purpose of his posts was to feed his delusion that he was smarter than everyone else.

 

[Dinwar]

any students who wish to exceed the existing paradigm

Aaaaand here we have the answer to our questoins. This guy isn't interested in an honest debate; he's Moses come down from the Mountain, to teach us "students" how we're all wrong.

 

[RussDill]

2nd by the clausius (A second formulation, due to Rudolf Clausius, is the simplest formulation of the second law, the heat formulation or Clausius statement:

Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature.)

this claim is not causally defined by default because 'heat' is not a property of nature it is the description of a system (as heat is general is)

radio active decay breaks the law in itself as cold object can become hot just by the release and HEAT is not the object of release.

And this is a prime example of what I'm talking about. Rudolf Clausius's formulation might be "simple" but he formulated it in 1850's. Is it somehow a surprise that it doesn't take into account radioactive decay?

I'm not sure if you are aware, but there have been several advances in the areas of thermodynamics and physics in the past 150 years that are really exciting. Perhaps you should look into them? The power of the second law and the concept of entropy in general to describe systems boggles the mind.

schrodinger was a wave guy. While the whole periodic table is bohr style.

Ok, are you really confused on this point? Are you aware that the periodic table was developed more than 40 years before the Bohr model of the atom?

The greatest difference is how angular momentum is addressed. One as like a torque of spin of a point particle, the other like the magnetic field (vector field).

here is a physics rendition....http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/qangm.html#c1

ie..... the bohr analogy of chemical elements (periodic table) is the foundation to chemistry versus the wave (schrodinger) frame.

again...chemistry was "founded" long before the Bohr model of the atom.

You keep stating this over and over again without any supporting material. Perhaps you can give me an example of how the Bohr model of the atom is used in chemistry, eg, to determine the rate of a reaction, or the structure of a crystal. And then contrast that to the result using the Schrodinger model of the atom would give. Bonus points for explaining what chemists would gain by using a model of the atom that is incorrect.

plancks constant. Converted L to angular momentum (a spin (sphere) to the particle) which is how the bohr analogy (electron spinning around a center (proton), still lives within chemistry; the energy of the electron is based on it)

That'd be quite the trick as the Bohr model only approximates the behavior of hydrogen atom (as well as some systems similar to the hydrogen atom). Not only that, it gives totally wrong values for angular momentum in many cases.

Are you trying to make the claim that the Bohr model produces correct results for angular momentum, and the Schrodinger model produces incorrect results?

That qubit to energy (E=hv) is based on a it. And what planck did was identify a 'speed' (direction (d/t) to energy (incorporates entropy).

If you want to discuss physics, please use standard terminology. I think you've already been told that you are not using the term qubit in a way that is familiar to anyone. Additionally, speed and direction are two very different concepts, direction has nothing to do with d/t. And of course you've used entropy in a way that makes no sense as is.

That is the error of today's physics. The underlying root to most of the math and laws held today. (and it is all based on the bohr analogy of mass having a point particle invoked by the 'angular momentum' verse the fields (electric/magnetic).. It is like having removed half of the causal interpretation of maxwell's em (electric and magnetic fields in perpendicular planes; the occillating wave)

You've used the word "That" without any indication as to what it is referring to. What error? The usage of the Bohr model? The usage of the Schrodinger model? Thermodynamics?

i just did and this thread has so much in one spot that any students who wish to exceed the existing paradigm will be far more capable by returning to a debroglie combined with a feshbach type rendition to a system, then anything the physicist at LHC will ever produce; all at your desk!

You certainly haven't done anything of the sort. Can you pick a problem out of a physics textbook and show how you would arrive at a different numerical answer than the textbook does?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Clausius statement:

Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature.)

this claim is not causally defined by default because 'heat' is not a property of nature it is the description of a system (as heat is general is)

radio active decay breaks the law in itself as cold object can become hot just by the release and HEAT is not the object of release.

As far as I can see, the only problem here is confusion over terminology relating to heat/temperature/thermal energy. What term do you wish to use for the amount of thermal energy in a mass? Whatever you wish to name that property, it will not spontaneusly flow from one body to a hotter one.

What was the problem again?

 

[Bishadi]

No.

how is that?

if c-14 is cold, then a stochastic release occurs and "heats" up the surrounding mass, then a cold element spontaneously turned an environment hot

and the only way to deal with that mathematically is to suggest the nucleus is releasing energy via 'speed' (a 'hot particle')........ ie... a return to the point particle rendition versus the wave

just to have an ionization caused by a decay, in itself is evidence

the contradictions of disciplines is direct

radiation absorption and even decay conflict the point particle (bohr analogy) and schodingers wave (field vectors) as the point particle gives way to occilations (from electron as a particle to a wave occilating)

http://www.jstor.org/pss/85066

and in chemistry electrons are shared between atoms in shells.

the majority of all chemistry is based on the bohr analogy (shells and nucleus)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_shell


kind of wierd that so many here will just rant and have no idea the foundations to the scientific discipline are so diversified and contradicting.


go look into that graphene and see what i mean


Although there is nothing particularly relativistic about electrons
moving around carbon atoms, their interaction with the periodic
potential of graphene’s honeycomb lattice gives rise to new
quasiparticles that at low energies E are accurately described by
the (2+1)-dimensional Dirac equation with an eff ective speed of
light vF ≈ 106 m–1s–1. Th ese quasiparticles, called massless Dirac
fermions, can be seen as electrons that have lost their rest mass m0
or as neutrinos that acquired the electron charge e. Th e relativisticlike
description of electron waves on honeycomb lattices has been
known theoretically for many years, never failing to attract attention,
and the experimental discovery of graphene now provides a way to
probe quantum electrodynamics (QED) phenomena by measuring
graphene’s electronic properties


http://onnes.ph.man.ac.uk/nano/Publications/Naturemat_2007Review.pdf


ie... the chemical description of electron moving around (is the base understanding of chemical properties of elements) is being shared in a QED frame in which it is a wave (as an electric charge (occilation/wave))

now i will postulate that a magnetic field will be perpendicular to the direction of the 'charge' (right hand rule)

 

[Dinwar]

Ok, are you really confused on this point? Are you aware that the periodic table was developed more than 40 years before the Bohr model of the atom?

And that there were multiple versions?

Perhaps you can give me an example of how the Bohr model of the atom is used in chemistry, eg, to determine the rate of a reaction, or the structure of a crystal.

Not sure if this is a great option. I mean, minerologists may discuss the various aspects of quantum mechanics, but many of the physical properties of a crystal (cleavage, hardness, which system it's in, defraction patterns, etc) are easily explainable via looking at ions as hard spheres. It's an issue of not being more precise than the data allow--to geologists qm doesn't really matter 99% of the time. They're interested in systems that are much bigger than those which are dominated by qm effects--a crystal lattice, for example. The math for qm is weird, and the error in the results caused by using a hard-sphere model is within the error bars of the calculations.

My point is't that qm is wrong, or that it doesn't have its place in minerology/crystalography/etc., but rather to point out that in many publications in those subjects will appear to use a Bohr model or hard spheres, because it works. They know it's wrong ("first assume a spherical chicken", as the joke goes), but it's good enough.

And I don't want to give this guy any cheap outs.

 

[bruto]

Most definitely.



minds that evolve do better in life

the life that does not evolve, goes extinct over time

What a wise statement that would be if only it were true.

 

[Bishadi]

And this is a prime example of what I'm talking about. Rudolf Clausius's formulation might be "simple" but he formulated it in 1850's. Is it somehow a surprise that it doesn't take into account radioactive decay?

i know and why i posted it

Ok, are you really confused on this point? Are you aware that the periodic table was developed more than 40 years before the Bohr model of the atom?

but the 'shells' and the orbits and the comprehension of point particle (electrons) is still in use (the bohr analogy)

the valance electron sharing and all the layers of shells is based on it (chemical elements/atomic numbering

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_electron_configuration_table

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_number

That'd be quite the trick as the Bohr model only approximates the behavior of hydrogen atom (as well as some systems similar to the hydrogen atom). Not only that, it gives totally wrong values for angular momentum in many cases.

the bohring math failures does not mean the 'analogy' it is not the currently OBSERVED model of elements.

Are you trying to make the claim that the Bohr model produces correct results for angular momentum, and the Schrodinger model produces incorrect results?

nope but more people observe the planetary scope or moving electrons (chemistry in a nutshell) than the occillations of the electron field.

 

[PixyMisa]

how is that?

if c-14 is cold, then a stochastic release occurs and "heats" up the surrounding mass, then a cold element spontaneously turned an environment hot

Because the energy was there all along. Once ¹⁴C decays, that's it - it can never decay again. It's gone downhill. Thermodynamics prevails, as always.

 

[RussDill]

My point is't that qm is wrong, or that it doesn't have its place in minerology/crystalography/etc., but rather to point out that in many publications in those subjects will appear to use a Bohr model or hard spheres, because it works. They know it's wrong ("first assume a spherical chicken", as the joke goes), but it's good enough.

Are you talking about the Lewis Theory? It works better than the Bohr model because it adds in special rules and magic numbers. So it wouldn't be fair to just say they use spherical chickens, the use spherical chickens along with special rules that correct for cases where spherical chickens give the wrong results.

 

[RussDill]

i know and why i posted it

You posting it to tell us that Rudolf Clausius's formulation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is incomplete. Gee, thanks! Any other earth shattering stuff you want to drop on us? Perhaps that the greek's notion of the atom wasn't complete either?

but the 'shells' and the orbits and the comprehension of point particle (electrons) is still in use (the bohr analogy)

The spherical chicken example is good here. It is much easier to use that model math wise. So long as you understand the limitations and correct for them where necessary. Same reason pilots use Newtonian mechanics rather than special relativity.

the valance electron sharing and all the layers of shells is based on it (chemical elements/atomic numbering

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_electron_configuration_table

'...when drawing electrons in shells...'
Perhaps you want to read further and click on the link labeled "atomic orbitals"

the bohring math failures does not mean the 'analogy' it is not the currently OBSERVED model of elements.

Wait, so are you now saying that the bohr model *is* incomplete or isn't incomplete?

nope but more people observe the planetary scope or moving electrons (chemistry in a nutshell) than the occillations of the electron field.

No one observes electrons moving in orbits. Its a model. Additionally, whether or not a model is complete or incomplete is not determined by the percentage of people using it.

 

[Bishadi]

What a wise statement that would be if only it were true.

if you do not learn you could not say "momma"

and since knowledge evolves over time within the body of mankinds understanding, be certain the next paradigm shift will unroot the ignorant that hold onto a book and claim "the second law is absolute, even when we have no idea what heat is"


ie... when santa clausius shared the Cl (entropy) faraday/maxwell were just beginning the comprehension of the em (electric and magnetic fields in perpendicular planes) (the core cause of all that is 'energy')

Heat is not energy. it is the measurement of a system

Ie... if heat was causally understood prior (as energy upon mass) then i would bet the reduction would not be a law of disorder. Basic common sense.


ie.... the life of a single celled life (sperm/egg) is not increasing disorder, it is consuming within its environment (a process in action)

to put on on a coat when you are cold is a law breaker (per the 2nd) and the only way to discount that is to open up the system parameters until rendered for the bias. But them to observe there is no ending point to that expansion of parameters (how far you take the system out (earth, then sun, then solar system, galaxy, universe)) then it is easy to find that to the farthest expansion, that there is no perfect vacuum anywhere in existence to begin that 0 (Starting point of an absolute void). ie.... there is no perfect vacuum to measure 'c' as absolute either

And the proof is logical; there is no void between any points of mass (all are associated).

ie... the first LoT makes the second moot simply by comprehending a system to the absolute of causal understanding.

 

[Hellbound]

Heat is not energy. it is the measurement of a system

Um...

You do realize that energy is just a measurement of a system, yes? Energy does not exist as some seperate "thing" in and of itself, it's simply a measurement of the ability of a system to do work. Nothing more, nothing less. This brings it exactly in line with heat. Heat (a difference in temperature between two thermally-connected objects which causes energy to flow from one to the other) fits this definition precisely.

 

[Dinwar]

Are you talking about the Lewis Theory? It works better than the Bohr model because it adds in special rules and magic numbers. So it wouldn't be fair to just say they use spherical chickens, the use spherical chickens along with special rules that correct for cases where spherical chickens give the wrong results.

Possibly. To be honest, it's been a while since I cracked my minerology book, and I'm rusty. What I was talking about was ionic radii, used to determine how many atoms would cluster around each other, which in turn would dictate the crystal system and a lot of crystal properties. Precisely what the electron is doing, or where it is, isn't all that important; how closely you can pack stuff is, and a hard-sphere model works better (faster, with the same results) as a complex quantum model.

Same reason pilots use Newtonian mechanics rather than special relativity.

And engineers...

 

[Bishadi]

You posting it to tell us that Rudolf Clausius's formulation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is incomplete. Gee, thanks! Any other earth shattering stuff you want to drop on us? Perhaps that the greek's notion of the atom wasn't complete either?

sure.... energy conveys via the photon (per se) as a unit of energy, versus the 'heat' just causing momentum to mass

basic

'...when drawing electrons in shells...'
Perhaps you want to read further and click on the link labeled "atomic orbitals"

sure.... to quantum physicist, the bohr model of electrons rotation in shell is inconsistant but that does not mean in chemistry the whole foundation is still based on the 'analogy'

from your request it is clearly stated:

Additionally, an electron always tends to fall to the lowest possible energy state. It is possible for it to occupy any orbital so long as it does not violate the Pauli exclusion principle, but if lower-energy orbitals are available, this condition is unstable. The electron will eventually lose energy (by releasing a photon) and drop into the lower orbital. Thus, electrons fill orbitals in the order specified by the energy sequence given above.

This behavior is responsible for the structure of the periodic table.


just like i said on both cases; the release of a photon (energy)

as well the shells of orbit(als)............

i knew that and have spent a bunch of time sharing this (exact scope)

No one observes electrons moving in orbits. Its a model. Additionally, whether or not a model is complete or incomplete is not determined by the percentage of people using it.

and most every of chemistry is based on it.................

but few comprehend the big picture of what has occurred in science over the last couple hundred years.


ie... if lavoisier knew about the photon (energy at its core rendition), then caloric would be what? (the energy upon mass is what?)


come on kids let's here you say it together!