| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
22 Sep 2006 08:53:36 AM |
| Object: |
Heisenberg theory vs. Magnetic Carbon |
We all know the marvels of QM, but I found an interesting article that
questions Heisenberg's theory. The following article claims that QM
does not predict magnetic Carbon. Supposedly there's research that even
questions which electrons cause the magnetic field in iron. It was
thought the d and f electrons caused ferromagnetism, but the following
article says, "Some researchers, for instance, suggest that the
electrons responsible for a permanently magnetic state might not be
attached to the metal atoms at all. They might be the same itinerant
electrons that allow the metal to conduct electricity."
I would very much appreciate any further research, references, and
comments on this topic.
Here is a quote from:
http://www.discover.com/issues/dec-02/features/featmagnet/
---
An iron atom has a strong magnetic field because it has four unpaired
electrons in its outer shell, all lined up. An iron crystal made of
many atoms has a strong field because the fields of those atoms line
up-- Heisenberg's second condition for creating a permanently magnetic
state. How does this pattern of alignment occur? Again, says Coey, it's
a matter of electrons lowering their repulsive energy by spreading out.
Only this time, they are spreading beyond a single atom to its
neighbors, occupying "holes" available for electrons of that particular
energy and spin. By exchanging electrons of the same spin, the
neighboring atoms align their magnetic fields. "There's actually no
mystery in it," says Coey.
In practice, though, calculating the effects of these electron
exchanges is such a complicated mess that it has to be done with
computers, and even then physicists get only ballpark answers for the
properties of a particular material, which leads some of them to wonder
WHETHER HEISENBERG'S THEORY IS A FULL PICTURE OF REALITY. SOME
RESEARCHERS, FOR INSTANCE, SUGGEST THAT THE ELECTRONS RESPONSIBLE FOR A
PERMANENTLY MAGNETIC STATE MIGHT NOT BE ATTACHED TO THE METAL ATOMS AT
ALL. THEY MIGHT BE THE SAME ITINERANT ELECTRONS THAT ALLOW THE METAL TO
CONDUCT ELECTRICITY.
One thing is certain: Neither Heisenberg's theory nor anyone else's for
the moment can explain Tatiana Makarova's magnets. According to
Heisenberg, carbon should not be magnetic, and of course the ordinary
stuff isn't.
---
Paul
.
|
|
| User: "Joachim Pimiskern" |
|
| Title: Re: Heisenberg theory vs. Magnetic Carbon |
25 Sep 2006 10:05:25 AM |
|
|
<softwarelabus@yahoo.com> schrieb:
We all know the marvels of QM, but I found an interesting article that
questions Heisenberg's theory. The following article claims that QM
does not predict magnetic Carbon.
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2004/split/678-1.html
http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=883
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/3/4
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/6/11/8
Regards,
Joachim
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Heisenberg theory vs. Magnetic Carbon |
25 Sep 2006 10:20:23 AM |
|
|
wrote:
We all know the marvels of QM, but I found an interesting article that
questions Heisenberg's theory. The following article claims that QM
does not predict magnetic Carbon. Supposedly there's research that even
questions which electrons cause the magnetic field in iron. It was
thought the d and f electrons caused ferromagnetism, but the following
article says, "Some researchers, for instance, suggest that the
electrons responsible for a permanently magnetic state might not be
attached to the metal atoms at all. They might be the same itinerant
electrons that allow the metal to conduct electricity."
I would very much appreciate any further research, references, and
comments on this topic.
Here is a quote from:
http://www.discover.com/issues/dec-02/features/featmagnet/
---
An iron atom has a strong magnetic field because it has four unpaired
electrons in its outer shell, all lined up. An iron crystal made of
many atoms has a strong field because the fields of those atoms line
up-- Heisenberg's second condition for creating a permanently magnetic
state. How does this pattern of alignment occur? Again, says Coey, it's
a matter of electrons lowering their repulsive energy by spreading out.
Only this time, they are spreading beyond a single atom to its
neighbors, occupying "holes" available for electrons of that particular
energy and spin. By exchanging electrons of the same spin, the
neighboring atoms align their magnetic fields. "There's actually no
mystery in it," says Coey.
In practice, though, calculating the effects of these electron
exchanges is such a complicated mess that it has to be done with
computers, and even then physicists get only ballpark answers for the
properties of a particular material, which leads some of them to wonder
WHETHER HEISENBERG'S THEORY IS A FULL PICTURE OF REALITY. SOME
RESEARCHERS, FOR INSTANCE, SUGGEST THAT THE ELECTRONS RESPONSIBLE FOR A
PERMANENTLY MAGNETIC STATE MIGHT NOT BE ATTACHED TO THE METAL ATOMS AT
ALL. THEY MIGHT BE THE SAME ITINERANT ELECTRONS THAT ALLOW THE METAL TO
CONDUCT ELECTRICITY.
One thing is certain: Neither Heisenberg's theory nor anyone else's for
the moment can explain Tatiana Makarova's magnets. According to
Heisenberg, carbon should not be magnetic, and of course the ordinary
stuff isn't.
---
Paul
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Heisenberg theory vs. Magnetic Carbon |
28 Sep 2006 01:52:13 PM |
|
|
Hello,
Nice to see your discussion, but the paper on magnetic carbon was
retracted earlier this year.
"In this Letter we reported high-temperature ferromagnetism in a
polymeric phase of pure carbon that was purportedly free of
ferromagnetic impurities1. Since then, however, measurements made on
the same and similar samples using particle-induced X-ray emission
(PIXE) with a proton microbeam have indicated that these had
considerable iron content2, 3, 4. Also, polymerized C60 samples mixed
with iron before polymerization had a similar Curie temperature (500 K)
to those we described1, owing to the presence of the compound Fe3C
(cementite)5. In addition, it has since been shown that the pure
rhombohedral C60 phase is not ferromagnetic6."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Heisenberg theory vs. Magnetic Carbon |
25 Sep 2006 03:14:21 PM |
|
|
wrote:
We all know the marvels of QM, but I found an interesting article that
questions Heisenberg's theory. The following article claims that QM
does not predict magnetic Carbon. Supposedly there's research that even
questions which electrons cause the magnetic field in iron. It was
thought the d and f electrons caused ferromagnetism, but the following
article says, "Some researchers, for instance, suggest that the
electrons responsible for a permanently magnetic state might not be
attached to the metal atoms at all. They might be the same itinerant
electrons that allow the metal to conduct electricity."
I would very much appreciate any further research, references, and
comments on this topic.
Here is a quote from:
http://www.discover.com/issues/dec-02/features/featmagnet/
---
An iron atom has a strong magnetic field because it has four unpaired
electrons in its outer shell, all lined up. An iron crystal made of
many atoms has a strong field because the fields of those atoms line
up-- Heisenberg's second condition for creating a permanently magnetic
state. How does this pattern of alignment occur? Again, says Coey, it's
a matter of electrons lowering their repulsive energy by spreading out.
Only this time, they are spreading beyond a single atom to its
neighbors, occupying "holes" available for electrons of that particular
energy and spin. By exchanging electrons of the same spin, the
neighboring atoms align their magnetic fields. "There's actually no
mystery in it," says Coey.
In practice, though, calculating the effects of these electron
exchanges is such a complicated mess that it has to be done with
computers, and even then physicists get only ballpark answers for the
properties of a particular material, which leads some of them to wonder
WHETHER HEISENBERG'S THEORY IS A FULL PICTURE OF REALITY. SOME
RESEARCHERS, FOR INSTANCE, SUGGEST THAT THE ELECTRONS RESPONSIBLE FOR A
PERMANENTLY MAGNETIC STATE MIGHT NOT BE ATTACHED TO THE METAL ATOMS AT
ALL. THEY MIGHT BE THE SAME ITINERANT ELECTRONS THAT ALLOW THE METAL TO
CONDUCT ELECTRICITY.
One thing is certain: Neither Heisenberg's theory nor anyone else's for
the moment can explain Tatiana Makarova's magnets. According to
Heisenberg, carbon should not be magnetic, and of course the ordinary
stuff isn't.
Well, the reason Heisenburg's theory is right,
is because Heisenburg Unceratinity Relation
quite accurately predicts that Heisenburg
was quite aware of the difference between natural magnetic
and induced magetic moments.
Whereas the people who use Pauli Spin Groups
with a natural insulator like carbon are so full of buckeyball *****,
that they really should be called
Hemmoroids, rather than scientists.
---
Paul
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Matz" |
|
| Title: Re: Heisenberg theory vs. Magnetic Carbon |
23 Sep 2006 12:29:57 PM |
|
|
I have evidence from the theory of complex index, that magnetic (para ans
dia) dispersion
(the real part of the complex permeability depends on cunductivity and the
imaginary part of
permeability depends on the dispersive dielectricity function. A frequeny
independent constant
of the material delivers the strength of the magnetic effects.
This is the only magneto optic dispersion theory consistent with energy
conservation objections.
Yes there seems to be a general relation between conductivity and magnetism.
Of course ferromagnetism is much more complicated and the connection would
be a atomar
or molecular index theory for a smooth complex index of refraction leading
to a type of mikro-
cosmic index theory. There are many indications that this is so.
Also the radiative spin effects for electromagnetic radiation are missed in
present base theories
where macroscopic unknown forces follow from an revised index theory.
It seems that magnetism can not be fully understood with the present QM
theories. It seems that
a portion of macrophysics (maxwell) also determins the properties of matter
at least magnetic effects.
Josef Matz
<softwarelabus@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1158933216.807267.176680@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
We all know the marvels of QM, but I found an interesting article that
questions Heisenberg's theory. The following article claims that QM
does not predict magnetic Carbon. Supposedly there's research that even
questions which electrons cause the magnetic field in iron. It was
thought the d and f electrons caused ferromagnetism, but the following
article says, "Some researchers, for instance, suggest that the
electrons responsible for a permanently magnetic state might not be
attached to the metal atoms at all. They might be the same itinerant
electrons that allow the metal to conduct electricity."
I would very much appreciate any further research, references, and
comments on this topic.
Here is a quote from:
http://www.discover.com/issues/dec-02/features/featmagnet/
---
An iron atom has a strong magnetic field because it has four unpaired
electrons in its outer shell, all lined up. An iron crystal made of
many atoms has a strong field because the fields of those atoms line
up-- Heisenberg's second condition for creating a permanently magnetic
state. How does this pattern of alignment occur? Again, says Coey, it's
a matter of electrons lowering their repulsive energy by spreading out.
Only this time, they are spreading beyond a single atom to its
neighbors, occupying "holes" available for electrons of that particular
energy and spin. By exchanging electrons of the same spin, the
neighboring atoms align their magnetic fields. "There's actually no
mystery in it," says Coey.
In practice, though, calculating the effects of these electron
exchanges is such a complicated mess that it has to be done with
computers, and even then physicists get only ballpark answers for the
properties of a particular material, which leads some of them to wonder
WHETHER HEISENBERG'S THEORY IS A FULL PICTURE OF REALITY. SOME
RESEARCHERS, FOR INSTANCE, SUGGEST THAT THE ELECTRONS RESPONSIBLE FOR A
PERMANENTLY MAGNETIC STATE MIGHT NOT BE ATTACHED TO THE METAL ATOMS AT
ALL. THEY MIGHT BE THE SAME ITINERANT ELECTRONS THAT ALLOW THE METAL TO
CONDUCT ELECTRICITY.
One thing is certain: Neither Heisenberg's theory nor anyone else's for
the moment can explain Tatiana Makarova's magnets. According to
Heisenberg, carbon should not be magnetic, and of course the ordinary
stuff isn't.
---
Paul
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ronald" |
|
| Title: Re: Heisenberg theory vs. Magnetic Carbon |
24 Sep 2006 06:42:23 AM |
|
|
How does diamagnetism of pyrolitic graphite fit into this?
Ron
Norway
"Josef Matz" <josefmatz@arcor.de> skrev i melding
news:45156de3$0$822$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
I have evidence from the theory of complex index, that magnetic (para ans
dia) dispersion
(the real part of the complex permeability depends on cunductivity and the
imaginary part of
permeability depends on the dispersive dielectricity function. A frequeny
independent constant
of the material delivers the strength of the magnetic effects.
This is the only magneto optic dispersion theory consistent with energy
conservation objections.
Yes there seems to be a general relation between conductivity and
magnetism.
Of course ferromagnetism is much more complicated and the connection would
be a atomar
or molecular index theory for a smooth complex index of refraction leading
to a type of mikro-
cosmic index theory. There are many indications that this is so.
Also the radiative spin effects for electromagnetic radiation are missed
in
present base theories
where macroscopic unknown forces follow from an revised index theory.
It seems that magnetism can not be fully understood with the present QM
theories. It seems that
a portion of macrophysics (maxwell) also determins the properties of
matter
at least magnetic effects.
Josef Matz
<softwarelabus@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1158933216.807267.176680@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
We all know the marvels of QM, but I found an interesting article that
questions Heisenberg's theory. The following article claims that QM
does not predict magnetic Carbon. Supposedly there's research that even
questions which electrons cause the magnetic field in iron. It was
thought the d and f electrons caused ferromagnetism, but the following
article says, "Some researchers, for instance, suggest that the
electrons responsible for a permanently magnetic state might not be
attached to the metal atoms at all. They might be the same itinerant
electrons that allow the metal to conduct electricity."
I would very much appreciate any further research, references, and
comments on this topic.
Here is a quote from:
http://www.discover.com/issues/dec-02/features/featmagnet/
---
An iron atom has a strong magnetic field because it has four unpaired
electrons in its outer shell, all lined up. An iron crystal made of
many atoms has a strong field because the fields of those atoms line
up-- Heisenberg's second condition for creating a permanently magnetic
state. How does this pattern of alignment occur? Again, says Coey, it's
a matter of electrons lowering their repulsive energy by spreading out.
Only this time, they are spreading beyond a single atom to its
neighbors, occupying "holes" available for electrons of that particular
energy and spin. By exchanging electrons of the same spin, the
neighboring atoms align their magnetic fields. "There's actually no
mystery in it," says Coey.
In practice, though, calculating the effects of these electron
exchanges is such a complicated mess that it has to be done with
computers, and even then physicists get only ballpark answers for the
properties of a particular material, which leads some of them to wonder
WHETHER HEISENBERG'S THEORY IS A FULL PICTURE OF REALITY. SOME
RESEARCHERS, FOR INSTANCE, SUGGEST THAT THE ELECTRONS RESPONSIBLE FOR A
PERMANENTLY MAGNETIC STATE MIGHT NOT BE ATTACHED TO THE METAL ATOMS AT
ALL. THEY MIGHT BE THE SAME ITINERANT ELECTRONS THAT ALLOW THE METAL TO
CONDUCT ELECTRICITY.
One thing is certain: Neither Heisenberg's theory nor anyone else's for
the moment can explain Tatiana Makarova's magnets. According to
Heisenberg, carbon should not be magnetic, and of course the ordinary
stuff isn't.
---
Paul
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Heisenberg theory vs. Magnetic Carbon |
22 Sep 2006 10:41:18 AM |
|
|
In article <1158933216.807267.176680@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
We all know the marvels of QM, but I found an interesting article that
questions Heisenberg's theory.
Heisenberg basically said a wave doesn't have a definite position or momentum.
How does anything question that?
The following article claims that QM
does not predict magnetic Carbon. Supposedly there's research that even
questions which electrons cause the magnetic field in iron. It was
thought the d and f electrons caused ferromagnetism, but the following
article says, "Some researchers, for instance, suggest that the
electrons responsible for a permanently magnetic state might not be
attached to the metal atoms at all. They might be the same itinerant
electrons that allow the metal to conduct electricity."
I would very much appreciate any further research, references, and
comments on this topic.
Here is a quote from:
http://www.discover.com/issues/dec-02/features/featmagnet/
---
An iron atom has a strong magnetic field because it has four unpaired
electrons in its outer shell, all lined up. An iron crystal made of
many atoms has a strong field because the fields of those atoms line
up-- Heisenberg's second condition for creating a permanently magnetic
state. How does this pattern of alignment occur? Again, says Coey, it's
a matter of electrons lowering their repulsive energy by spreading out.
Only this time, they are spreading beyond a single atom to its
neighbors, occupying "holes" available for electrons of that particular
energy and spin. By exchanging electrons of the same spin, the
neighboring atoms align their magnetic fields. "There's actually no
mystery in it," says Coey.
In practice, though, calculating the effects of these electron
exchanges is such a complicated mess that it has to be done with
computers, and even then physicists get only ballpark answers for the
properties of a particular material, which leads some of them to wonder
WHETHER HEISENBERG'S THEORY IS A FULL PICTURE OF REALITY. SOME
RESEARCHERS, FOR INSTANCE, SUGGEST THAT THE ELECTRONS RESPONSIBLE FOR A
PERMANENTLY MAGNETIC STATE MIGHT NOT BE ATTACHED TO THE METAL ATOMS AT
ALL. THEY MIGHT BE THE SAME ITINERANT ELECTRONS THAT ALLOW THE METAL TO
CONDUCT ELECTRICITY.
One thing is certain: Neither Heisenberg's theory nor anyone else's for
the moment can explain Tatiana Makarova's magnets. According to
Heisenberg, carbon should not be magnetic, and of course the ordinary
stuff isn't.
---
Paul
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Heisenberg theory vs. Magnetic Carbon |
22 Sep 2006 04:36:48 PM |
|
|
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:ef1e96$ala$1@leto.cc.emory.edu...
In article <1158933216.807267.176680@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
softwarelabus@yahoo.com wrote:
We all know the marvels of QM, but I found an interesting article that
questions Heisenberg's theory.
Heisenberg basically said a wave doesn't have a definite position or
momentum.
How does anything question that?
Gawd, Lloyd, sometimes your obtuseness amazes me. That idea is *one* of
Heisenberg's many, many opera as one of the most important scientists in
human history. Do you think, because nothing else he did has a pat,
memorizable sound-bite name like "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle"
(although I personally think that "QED" is a kinda cute), that he did
nothing but sit on his butt and stare out the window from 1927 until his
death almost 50 years later???
This is right up there with not knowing the difference between power and
energy. I weep for the young minds that you "touch"!
Eric Lucas
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Heisenberg theory vs. Magnetic Carbon |
25 Sep 2006 10:23:13 PM |
|
|
wrote:
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:ef1e96$ala$1@leto.cc.emory.edu...
In article <1158933216.807267.176680@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
softwarelabus@yahoo.com wrote:
We all know the marvels of QM, but I found an interesting article that
questions Heisenberg's theory.
Heisenberg basically said a wave doesn't have a definite position or
momentum.
How does anything question that?
Gawd, Lloyd, sometimes your obtuseness amazes me. That idea is *one* of
Heisenberg's many, many opera as one of the most important scientists in
human history. Do you think, because nothing else he did has a pat,
memorizable sound-bite name like "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle"
(although I personally think that "QED" is a kinda cute), that he did
nothing but sit on his butt and stare out the window from 1927 until his
death almost 50 years later???
This is right up there with not knowing the difference between power and
energy. I weep for the young minds that you "touch"!
But, the only thing that proves, is the same thing it proves
about Feynmann, Einstein, and Oppenheimer,
that all of them worked with fissile materials.
But it proves nothing Van Neumann, Goedel, and Turing
who worked on much more powerfuk fusion materials.
Eric Lucas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Heisenberg theory vs. Magnetic Carbon |
26 Sep 2006 04:09:43 AM |
|
|
In article <1159240993.426004.82910@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"zzbunker@netscape.net" <zzbunker@netscape.net> wrote:
lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:ef1e96$ala$1@leto.cc.emory.edu...
In article <1158933216.807267.176680@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
softwarelabus@yahoo.com wrote:
We all know the marvels of QM, but I found an interesting article that
questions Heisenberg's theory.
Heisenberg basically said a wave doesn't have a definite position or
momentum.
How does anything question that?
Gawd, Lloyd, sometimes your obtuseness amazes me. That idea is *one* of
Heisenberg's many, many opera as one of the most important scientists in
human history. Do you think, because nothing else he did has a pat,
memorizable sound-bite name like "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle"
(although I personally think that "QED" is a kinda cute), that he did
nothing but sit on his butt and stare out the window from 1927 until his
death almost 50 years later???
This is right up there with not knowing the difference between power and
energy. I weep for the young minds that you "touch"!
But, the only thing that proves, is the same thing it proves
about Feynmann, Einstein, and Oppenheimer,
that all of them worked with fissile materials.
But it proves nothing Van Neumann, Goedel, and Turing
who worked on much more powerfuk fusion materials.
Eric Lucas
And while Heisenberg worked on QM and developed the matrix mechanics approach,
the HUP is the only thing of his I know of that would have the kind of
predictive ability the poster seemed to be talking about.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Heisenberg theory vs. Magnetic Carbon |
26 Sep 2006 02:43:08 PM |
|
|
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:efb8r6$seu$1@leto.cc.emory.edu...
In article <1159240993.426004.82910@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"zzbunker@netscape.net" <zzbunker@netscape.net> wrote:
lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:ef1e96$ala$1@leto.cc.emory.edu...
In article <1158933216.807267.176680@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
softwarelabus@yahoo.com wrote:
We all know the marvels of QM, but I found an interesting article that
questions Heisenberg's theory.
Heisenberg basically said a wave doesn't have a definite position or
momentum.
How does anything question that?
Gawd, Lloyd, sometimes your obtuseness amazes me. That idea is *one* of
Heisenberg's many, many opera as one of the most important scientists in
human history. Do you think, because nothing else he did has a pat,
memorizable sound-bite name like "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle"
(although I personally think that "QED" is a kinda cute), that he did
nothing but sit on his butt and stare out the window from 1927 until his
death almost 50 years later???
This is right up there with not knowing the difference between power and
energy. I weep for the young minds that you "touch"!
But, the only thing that proves, is the same thing it proves
about Feynmann, Einstein, and Oppenheimer,
that all of them worked with fissile materials.
But it proves nothing Van Neumann, Goedel, and Turing
who worked on much more powerfuk fusion materials.
Eric Lucas
And while Heisenberg worked on QM and developed the matrix mechanics
approach,
the HUP is the only thing of his I know of that would have the kind of
predictive ability the poster seemed to be talking about.
Uh...how about QM?
Eric Lucas
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
