| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"George Kinley" |
| Date: |
20 Oct 2003 04:12:23 AM |
| Object: |
Terve |
How is One Hydrogen atom different from another, or how one Electron differs
from another,
if they are just different by space between them , then how do we have
Varity of elements ,
if it sounds foolish so just laugh but answer this seriously. Not all of us
are as intelligent as you all
--
.
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Terve |
20 Oct 2003 06:18:36 AM |
|
|
Periodic Table is Based On Quantum Numbers
http://www.rwc.uc.edu/koehler/biophys/6b.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Terve |
20 Oct 2003 02:12:09 PM |
|
|
George Kinley:
How is One Hydrogen atom different from another, or how one
Electron differs from another,
What would justify calling something a hydrogen atom or an electron
hydrogen atoms or electrons weren't all the identical.
if they are just different by space between them ,
As superconductors, superfluids and other macroscopic quantum
phenomena demonstrate, it's not even possible to label different
particles by location.
then how do we have Varity of elements ,
If all hydrogen atoms weren't identical to all other hydrogen atoms or
all oxygen atoms (etc.) weren't identical to all other oxygen atoms,
why would you call something a hydrogen atom, an oxygen atom, etc?
The reason we have a finite variety of atoms is because hydrogen is
hydrogen, oxygen is oxygen, etc. The reason that we have _some_ variety,
is that atoms can have different numbers of electrons, protons and
neutrons and the type of atom (an element) is defined by the number
of protons.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gordon D. Pusch" |
|
| Title: Re: Terve |
20 Oct 2003 10:10:25 AM |
|
|
"George Kinley" <Georgekinley@hotmail.com> writes:
How is One Hydrogen atom different from another, or how one Electron differs
from another,
They aren't. All atoms and elementary particles are IDENTICAL, indistiguishable,
and interchangable (modulo possible sign change of the wave function if they
are fermions, for all the pedants in these groups)
if they are just different by space between them,
They aren't even different by that much !
then how do we have Varity of elements ,
Non sequitur. Why would individual atoms of a GIVEN element have to be
"different" (distinguishable) from each other in order for there to be
_different_ elements ??? One does =NOT= need to be able to tell two
hydrogen atoms apart in order to determine that a hydrogen atom is not an
oxygen atom, or a carbon atom, or a Uranium atom.
Likewise, why would individual electrons have to be "different"
(distinguishable) from each other in order for there to be different
elements ??? One does =NOT= need to be able to tell two electrons apart
in order to determine that a hydrogen atom is not an oxygen atom, or a
carbon atom, or a Uranium atom!
The type of element an atom is is determined by the number of protons in
its nucleus, and (in the un-ionized state) the equal number of electrons
surrounding that nucleus. One does not need to be able to tell two individual
protons or electrons apart in order to be able to count them, any more than
one needs to be able to tell two sheep apart to be able to count them.
-- Gordon D. Pusch
perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Sefton" |
|
| Title: Re: Terve |
20 Oct 2003 10:41:41 AM |
|
|
Gordon D. Pusch wrote:
"George Kinley" <Georgekinley@hotmail.com> writes:
How is One Hydrogen atom different from another, or how one Electron differs
from another,
They aren't. All atoms and elementary particles are IDENTICAL, indistiguishable,
and interchangable .........
That's like saying all fir trees are identical.
Think about it.
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Terve |
20 Oct 2003 02:16:51 PM |
|
|
John Sefton:
Gordon D. Pusch wrote:
"George Kinley" <Georgekinley@hotmail.com> writes:
How is One Hydrogen atom different from another, or how one
Electron differs from another,
They aren't. All atoms and elementary particles are IDENTICAL,
indistiguishable, and interchangable .........
That's like saying all fir trees are identical.
No, it isn't. If all fir trees were identical, you couldn't
label them and specify its location.
Think about it.
Many people have thought about it and you can find the conclusion
in a quantum mechanics book under "identical particles".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Terve |
20 Oct 2003 01:37:46 PM |
|
|
"John Sefton" <vegan1@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message
news:3f940053$1@news3.accesscomm.ca...
Gordon D. Pusch wrote:
"George Kinley" <Georgekinley@hotmail.com> writes:
How is One Hydrogen atom different from another, or how one Electron
differs
from another,
They aren't. All atoms and elementary particles are IDENTICAL,
indistiguishable,
and interchangable .........
That's like saying all fir trees are identical.
Think about it.
John
I've thought about it. I conclude there is no comparison between fir trees,
which are not all identical, and electrons, which are. Give me two fir
trees, and I'll show you the difference. You already have two electrons
before you, show me how they differ.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gordon D. Pusch" |
|
| Title: Re: Terve |
20 Oct 2003 03:26:27 PM |
|
|
"Androcles" <jp006f9750@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> writes:
"John Sefton" <vegan1@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message
news:3f940053$1@news3.accesscomm.ca...
Gordon D. Pusch wrote:
"George Kinley" <Georgekinley@hotmail.com> writes:
How is One Hydrogen atom different from another, or how one Electron
differs from another,
They aren't. All atoms and elementary particles are IDENTICAL,
indistiguishable, and interchangable .........
That's like saying all fir trees are identical.
Think about it.
John
I've thought about it. I conclude there is no comparison between
fir trees, which are not all identical, and electrons, which are.
Give me two fir trees, and I'll show you the difference. You already
have two electrons before you, show me how they differ.
More to the point, if electrons were =NOT= indistinguishable fermion,
the Pauli Exclusion principle wouldn't work, atoms wouldn't be stable,
and all the matter in the Universe would collapse. The fact that this
has =NOT= happened sets =EXTREMELY= tight limits on how distinguishable
electrons are --- which is that the _AREN'T_ distinguishable, to an
=ENORMOUS= number of decimal places...
-- Gordon D. Pusch
perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gordon D. Pusch" |
|
| Title: Re: Terve |
20 Oct 2003 03:19:02 PM |
|
|
"Androcles" <jp006f9750@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> writes:
"John Sefton" <vegan1@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message
news:3f940053$1@news3.accesscomm.ca...
Gordon D. Pusch wrote:
"George Kinley" <Georgekinley@hotmail.com> writes:
How is One Hydrogen atom different from another, or how one Electron
differs from another,
They aren't. All atoms and elementary particles are IDENTICAL,
indistiguishable, and interchangable .........
That's like saying all fir trees are identical.
Think about it.
John
I've thought about it. I conclude there is no comparison between
fir trees, which are not all identical, and electrons, which are.
Give me two fir trees, and I'll show you the difference. You already
have two electrons before you, show me how they differ.
More to the point, if electrons were =NOT= indistinguishable fermion,
the Pauli Exclusion principle wouldn't work, atoms wouldn't be stable,
and all the matter in the Universe would fall apart. The fact that this
has =NOT= happened sets =EXTREMELY= tight limits on how distinguishable
electrons are --- which is that the _AREN'T_ distinguishable, to an
=ENORMOUS= number of decimal places...
-- Gordon D. Pusch
perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Bell" |
|
| Title: Re: Terve |
20 Oct 2003 03:06:18 PM |
|
|
In article <gid6cr3bnt.fsf@pusch.xnet.com>,
Gordon D. Pusch <g_d_pusch_remove_underscores@xnet.com> wrote:
More to the point, if electrons were =NOT= indistinguishable fermion,
the Pauli Exclusion principle wouldn't work, atoms wouldn't be stable,
and all the matter in the Universe would fall apart. The fact that this
has =NOT= happened sets =EXTREMELY= tight limits on how distinguishable
electrons are --- which is that the _AREN'T_ distinguishable, to an
=ENORMOUS= number of decimal places...
I thought distingushability (in the context of QM) was sort of like being
pregnant, i.e. you can't be just a little bit... :-)
--
Jon Bell <jtbellap8@presby.edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gordon D. Pusch" |
|
| Title: Re: Terve |
21 Oct 2003 12:46:07 AM |
|
|
(Jon Bell) writes:
In article <gid6cr3bnt.fsf@pusch.xnet.com>,
Gordon D. Pusch <g_d_pusch_remove_underscores@xnet.com> wrote:
More to the point, if electrons were =NOT= indistinguishable fermions,
the Pauli Exclusion principle wouldn't work, atoms wouldn't be stable,
and all the matter in the Universe would collapse. The fact that this
has =NOT= happened sets =EXTREMELY= tight limits on how distinguishable
electrons are --- which is that the _AREN'T_ distinguishable, to an
=ENORMOUS= number of decimal places...
I thought distingushability (in the context of QM) was sort of like being
pregnant, i.e. you can't be just a little bit... :-)
That's exactly roght! However, there has been some work on "interpolating"
statistics or "parastatistics," in which particles would be neither purely
fermions nor bosons, but could exhibit a "mixture" of the two statistics.
[NOTE: Such "anyonic" or "quonic" statistics are permitted in two dimensions,
but ought to be strongly forbidden in three dimensions, due to the very different
structural properties of the rotation groups in 2-D (U(1)) and 3-D (SU(2)).]
It turns out that even an _epsilonicly small_ admixture of "bosonic" behavior
in the electron's commutation relations would have HUGELY noticeable effects
on the behavior of matter. We therefore know experimentally that the electron
is a "pure fermion" to a huge number of decimal places --- and as a corollary,
that electrons must be indistiguishable particles under permutations to a
very high degree of accuracy.
Searching the arXiv with the keywords "pauli principle violation" will turn
up 10 papers on that subject, and using "anyon*" or "quon*" will turn up more.
Searching Google for "pauli principle violation" will turn up over 1800
webpages --- but caveat emptor: A lot of them are crackpot droppings...
-- Gordon D. Pusch
perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'
.
|
|
|
| User: "Starblade Darksquall" |
|
| Title: Re: Terve |
21 Oct 2003 05:08:54 AM |
|
|
(Gordon D. Pusch) wrote in message news:<gismln16u8.fsf@pusch.xnet.com>...
jtbellq2f@presby.edu (Jon Bell) writes:
In article <gid6cr3bnt.fsf@pusch.xnet.com>,
Gordon D. Pusch < > wrote:
More to the point, if electrons were =NOT= indistinguishable fermions,
the Pauli Exclusion principle wouldn't work, atoms wouldn't be stable,
and all the matter in the Universe would collapse. The fact that this
has =NOT= happened sets =EXTREMELY= tight limits on how distinguishable
electrons are --- which is that the _AREN'T_ distinguishable, to an
=ENORMOUS= number of decimal places...
I thought distingushability (in the context of QM) was sort of like being
pregnant, i.e. you can't be just a little bit... :-)
That's exactly roght! However, there has been some work on "interpolating"
statistics or "parastatistics," in which particles would be neither purely
fermions nor bosons, but could exhibit a "mixture" of the two statistics.
[NOTE: Such "anyonic" or "quonic" statistics are permitted in two dimensions,
but ought to be strongly forbidden in three dimensions, due to the very different
structural properties of the rotation groups in 2-D (U(1)) and 3-D (SU(2)).]
It turns out that even an _epsilonicly small_ admixture of "bosonic" behavior
in the electron's commutation relations would have HUGELY noticeable effects
on the behavior of matter. We therefore know experimentally that the electron
is a "pure fermion" to a huge number of decimal places --- and as a corollary,
that electrons must be indistiguishable particles under permutations to a
very high degree of accuracy.
Searching the arXiv with the keywords "pauli principle violation" will turn
up 10 papers on that subject, and using "anyon*" or "quon*" will turn up more.
Searching Google for "pauli principle violation" will turn up over 1800
webpages --- but caveat emptor: A lot of them are crackpot droppings...
I think rather than a pauli principle violation, we should just look
for an instance in which electrons aren't identical.
If electron symmetry was a broken symmetry then we could have a
situation where two electrons with similar but different quantum
states could exist.
-- Gordon D. Pusch
perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Herring" |
|
| Title: Re: Terve |
21 Oct 2003 10:33:33 AM |
|
|
(Starblade Darksquall) wrote in message news:<4aa861fb.0310210208.7403c1f0@posting.google.com>...
g_d_pusch_remove_underscores@xnet.com (Gordon D. Pusch) wrote in message news:<gismln16u8.fsf@pusch.xnet.com>...
jtbellq2f@presby.edu (Jon Bell) writes:
In article <gid6cr3bnt.fsf@pusch.xnet.com>,
Gordon D. Pusch <g_d_pusch_remove_underscores@xnet.com> wrote:
More to the point, if electrons were =NOT= indistinguishable fermions,
the Pauli Exclusion principle wouldn't work, atoms wouldn't be stable,
and all the matter in the Universe would collapse. The fact that this
has =NOT= happened sets =EXTREMELY= tight limits on how distinguishable
electrons are --- which is that the _AREN'T_ distinguishable, to an
=ENORMOUS= number of decimal places...
I thought distingushability (in the context of QM) was sort of like being
pregnant, i.e. you can't be just a little bit... :-)
That's exactly roght! However, there has been some work on "interpolating"
statistics or "parastatistics," in which particles would be neither purely
fermions nor bosons, but could exhibit a "mixture" of the two statistics.
[NOTE: Such "anyonic" or "quonic" statistics are permitted in two dimensions,
but ought to be strongly forbidden in three dimensions, due to the very different
structural properties of the rotation groups in 2-D (U(1)) and 3-D (SU(2)).]
It turns out that even an _epsilonicly small_ admixture of "bosonic" behavior
in the electron's commutation relations would have HUGELY noticeable effects
on the behavior of matter. We therefore know experimentally that the electron
is a "pure fermion" to a huge number of decimal places --- and as a corollary,
that electrons must be indistiguishable particles under permutations to a
very high degree of accuracy.
Searching the arXiv with the keywords "pauli principle violation" will turn
up 10 papers on that subject, and using "anyon*" or "quon*" will turn up more.
Searching Google for "pauli principle violation" will turn up over 1800
webpages --- but caveat emptor: A lot of them are crackpot droppings...
I think rather than a pauli principle violation, we should just look
for an instance in which electrons aren't identical.
Then you must have a deeper understanding of such matters than most
mortals. Care to explain to us just how the Pauli principle is
derived, and what kind of non-identical particles wouldn't violate it?
If electron symmetry was a broken symmetry then we could have a
situation where two electrons with similar but different quantum
states could exist.
Now that's an interesting concept. What would make different states
"similar"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Starblade Darksquall" |
|
| Title: Re: Terve |
21 Oct 2003 11:41:03 PM |
|
|
(Richard Herring) wrote in message news:<63ee5e77.0310210733.32e0cdc9@posting.google.com>...
Starblade13@Yahoo.com (Starblade Darksquall) wrote in message news:<4aa861fb.0310210208.7403c1f0@posting.google.com>...
g_d_pusch_remove_underscores@xnet.com (Gordon D. Pusch) wrote in message news:<gismln16u8.fsf@pusch.xnet.com>...
jtbellq2f@presby.edu (Jon Bell) writes:
In article <gid6cr3bnt.fsf@pusch.xnet.com>,
Gordon D. Pusch <g_d_pusch_remove_underscores@xnet.com> wrote:
More to the point, if electrons were =NOT= indistinguishable fermions,
the Pauli Exclusion principle wouldn't work, atoms wouldn't be stable,
and all the matter in the Universe would collapse. The fact that this
has =NOT= happened sets =EXTREMELY= tight limits on how distinguishable
electrons are --- which is that the _AREN'T_ distinguishable, to an
=ENORMOUS= number of decimal places...
I thought distingushability (in the context of QM) was sort of like being
pregnant, i.e. you can't be just a little bit... :-)
That's exactly roght! However, there has been some work on "interpolating"
statistics or "parastatistics," in which particles would be neither purely
fermions nor bosons, but could exhibit a "mixture" of the two statistics.
[NOTE: Such "anyonic" or "quonic" statistics are permitted in two dimensions,
but ought to be strongly forbidden in three dimensions, due to the very different
structural properties of the rotation groups in 2-D (U(1)) and 3-D (SU(2)).]
It turns out that even an _epsilonicly small_ admixture of "bosonic" behavior
in the electron's commutation relations would have HUGELY noticeable effects
on the behavior of matter. We therefore know experimentally that the electron
is a "pure fermion" to a huge number of decimal places --- and as a corollary,
that electrons must be indistiguishable particles under permutations to a
very high degree of accuracy.
Searching the arXiv with the keywords "pauli principle violation" will turn
up 10 papers on that subject, and using "anyon*" or "quon*" will turn up more.
Searching Google for "pauli principle violation" will turn up over 1800
webpages --- but caveat emptor: A lot of them are crackpot droppings...
I think rather than a pauli principle violation, we should just look
for an instance in which electrons aren't identical.
Then you must have a deeper understanding of such matters than most
mortals. Care to explain to us just how the Pauli principle is
derived, and what kind of non-identical particles wouldn't violate it?
Well, apparantly (Though I don't know if this has actually been
prooven or not) things with half spin have anticommuting wavefunctions
while things with integer spin have commuting wavefunctions. Also, it
IS known that if two identical things have anticommuting
wavefunctions, they cannot occupy the same space, whereas if two
identical things have commuting wavefunctions, then they can occupy
the same space.
However, if two things aren't identical, then the pauli exclusion
principle doesn't apply. For example, an electron with righthanded
spin and an electron with lefthanded spin can occupy the same space as
eachother.
That's what we know.
If we extend this, then logically, if there were even more quantum
states of the electron, then a number of them could be at the lowest
energy level.
If electron symmetry was a broken symmetry then we could have a
situation where two electrons with similar but different quantum
states could exist.
Now that's an interesting concept. What would make different states
"similar"?
Well, that's subjective. In fact, they can be quite different. But to
us we wouldn't see the difference, we'd just see anomolies, suggesting
that there was enough of a difference for the pauli exclusion
principle not to apply.
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Herring" |
|
| Title: Re: Terve |
23 Oct 2003 04:34:55 AM |
|
|
(Starblade Darksquall) wrote in message news:<4aa861fb.0310212041.4926a5f6@posting.google.com>...
news01@clupeid.demon.co.uk (Richard Herring) wrote in message news:<63ee5e77.0310210733.32e0cdc9@posting.google.com>...
(Starblade Darksquall) wrote in message news:<4aa861fb.0310210208.7403c1f0@posting.google.com>...
[...]
I think rather than a pauli principle violation, we should just look
for an instance in which electrons aren't identical.
Then you must have a deeper understanding of such matters than most
mortals. Care to explain to us just how the Pauli principle is
derived, and what kind of non-identical particles wouldn't violate it?
Well, apparantly (Though I don't know if this has actually been
prooven or not)
As Bilge keeps telling you, go and read a *textbook*. Then you _would_
know.
things with half spin have anticommuting wavefunctions
while things with integer spin have commuting wavefunctions.
*Operators* commute, or don't. Wavefunctions are symmetric, or not,
under particle exchange.
Also, it
IS known that if two identical things have anticommuting
wavefunctions, they cannot occupy the same space, whereas if two
identical things have commuting wavefunctions, then they can occupy
the same space.
Nope. They cannot, or can, occupy the same _state_.
However, if two things aren't identical, then the pauli exclusion
principle doesn't apply. For example, an electron with righthanded
spin and an electron with lefthanded spin can occupy the same space as
eachother.
That's _not_ an example. The two electrons _are_ identical, but,
because of their different spins, they are _not_ in the same state.
That's what we know.
Then "we" are wrong.
If we extend this, then logically, if there were even more quantum
states of the electron, then a number of them could be at the lowest
energy level.
If electron symmetry was a broken symmetry then we could have a
situation where two electrons with similar but different quantum
states could exist.
Now that's an interesting concept. What would make different states
"similar"?
Well, that's subjective. In fact, they can be quite different.
You're not answering the question. What would make them "quite
different"?
But to
us we wouldn't see the difference, we'd just see anomolies, suggesting
that there was enough of a difference for the pauli exclusion
principle not to apply.
You're confusing the variable state of a particle with its invariant
properties.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Starblade Darksquall" |
|
| Title: Re: Terve |
21 Oct 2003 05:02:32 AM |
|
|
"Androcles" <jp006f9750@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<_XVkb.5$z43.4@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
"John Sefton" <vegan1@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message
news:3f940053$1@news3.accesscomm.ca...
Gordon D. Pusch wrote:
"George Kinley" <Georgekinley@hotmail.com> writes:
How is One Hydrogen atom different from another, or how one Electron
differs
from another,
They aren't. All atoms and elementary particles are IDENTICAL,
indistiguishable,
and interchangable .........
That's like saying all fir trees are identical.
Think about it.
John
I've thought about it. I conclude there is no comparison between fir trees,
which are not all identical, and electrons, which are. Give me two fir
trees, and I'll show you the difference. You already have two electrons
before you, show me how they differ.
Androcles
This electron's going into that gate, and that electron's going into
this gate. Otherwise my computer would not function.
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Terve |
21 Oct 2003 08:12:40 AM |
|
|
"Starblade Darksquall" <Starblade13@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4aa861fb.0310210202.12adbe94@posting.google.com...
"Androcles" <jp006f9750@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<_XVkb.5$z43.4@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
"John Sefton" <vegan1@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message
news:3f940053$1@news3.accesscomm.ca...
Gordon D. Pusch wrote:
"George Kinley" <Georgekinley@hotmail.com> writes:
How is One Hydrogen atom different from another, or how one Electron
differs
from another,
They aren't. All atoms and elementary particles are IDENTICAL,
indistiguishable,
and interchangable .........
That's like saying all fir trees are identical.
Think about it.
John
I've thought about it. I conclude there is no comparison between fir
trees,
which are not all identical, and electrons, which are. Give me two fir
trees, and I'll show you the difference. You already have two electrons
before you, show me how they differ.
Androcles
This electron's going into that gate, and that electron's going into
this gate. Otherwise my computer would not function.
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
You can exchange the electrons and it won't change how your computer
functions.
I can show you how fir trees differ, and it isn't because I burned one for
Yule logs and put shiny balls and a star on top of the other. I did that
because one was prettier than the other. Electrons are not prettier than one
another.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Herring" |
|
| Title: Re: Terve |
21 Oct 2003 10:22:17 AM |
|
|
(Starblade Darksquall) wrote in message news:<4aa861fb.0310210202.12adbe94@posting.google.com>...
"Androcles" <jp006f9750@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<_XVkb.5$z43.4@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
"John Sefton" <vegan1@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message
news:3f940053$1@news3.accesscomm.ca...
Gordon D. Pusch wrote:
"George Kinley" <Georgekinley@hotmail.com> writes:
How is One Hydrogen atom different from another, or how one Electron
differs
from another,
They aren't. All atoms and elementary particles are IDENTICAL,
indistiguishable,
and interchangable .........
That's like saying all fir trees are identical.
Think about it.
I've thought about it. I conclude there is no comparison between fir trees,
which are not all identical, and electrons, which are. Give me two fir
trees, and I'll show you the difference. You already have two electrons
before you, show me how they differ.
This electron's going into that gate, and that electron's going into
this gate.
Bzzzt. WRONG!
_An_ electron's going into that gate, and a different electron's going
into this gate. That's the most you are entitled to say.
Otherwise my computer would not function.
If the electrons weren't indistinguishable, they would not have
Fermi-Dirac statistics, and your computer certainly would not
function.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Terve |
20 Oct 2003 12:18:32 PM |
|
|
John Sefton wrote:
Gordon D. Pusch wrote:
That's like saying all fir trees are identical.
Think about it.
John
No John, atoms and particles may be identical, but every fir tree is
different due to random processes and environmental factors! Think
about it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Terve |
20 Oct 2003 05:54:10 AM |
|
|
"George Kinley" <Georgekinley@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XFNkb.648$k4.14424@news1.nokia.com...
How is One Hydrogen atom different from another, or how one Electron
differs
from another,
if they are just different by space between them , then how do we have
Varity of elements ,
if it sounds foolish so just laugh but answer this seriously. Not all of
us
are as intelligent as you all
--
It would seem that you are asking why we have a variety of elements, and
have named one, Hydrogen.
I think your question is primarily a chemistry one. "What is water?" for
example.
Water is a molecule consisting of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, so
what makes oxygen different from hydrogen, is that what you are asking? I'll
presume so, and explain. Otherwise you'll have to be clearer in what you are
asking.
The hydrogen atom consists of a nucleus, made of one proton, which has a
positive charge. This is balanced by an electron, which has a negative
charge.
In the Bohr model of this atom, the nucleus is like the Sun, and the
electron is like a planet going around the sun.
Oxygen consists of a nucleus that has 8 protons and 8 neutrons. Neutrons are
almost the same mass as protons but have no charge. So there is a clump of
16 'balls', if you will, with a total charge of 8. The charge is balanced by
8 electrons. Now you have a model of a sun, surrounded by a cloud of 8
electron-planets.
Now, as it turns out, there is something we refer to as 'valency'. Exactly
what causes it isn't something I'll go into, but essentially you can
consider that the hydrogen atoms like to have two electrons rather than one
in their shell. This means that two hydrogen atoms, each with only one
electron, can share with each other, so that we have two electrons around
both nucleii, like having two suns with two planets orbiting both. Thus we
have the hydrogen *molecule*, H2.
The oxygen atom wants to share as well, but it has 2 electrons in an inner
shell, filling it up, leaving 6 in an outer shell, and it wants 8 in the
outer shell, so it is has two electrons missing. It can link up to another
oxygen atom and share two electrons, so now it has 6+2 shared (or borrowed),
the other oxygen atom has 6+2 shared, and both are happy they have 8. This
is O2, as you breathe it. Another way to keep everyone happy is for one
oxygen atom to share one electron with one hydrogen atom, so now the H atom
has one plus one shared = 2, but the oxygen atom still wants one more. It
grabs another hydrogen atom, and now it has 6 + 2 shared = 8. Thus we have
two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen aton in a molecule, and we call it H2O, or
water.
The nucleii of the atoms are the same "stuff", as are the electrons, but put
together in different amounts that we call elements.
Carbon has 6 neutrons and 6 protons at its nucleus, with 6 electrons. Two
are used in the inner shell, and 4 are in the outer shell. To have 8 in the
outer shell, 4 more are shared. We say that carbon has a valency of 4.
Methane, CH4, is carbon with 4 hydrogen atoms. Diamond (or graphite) is
carbon with four carbon atoms attached.
You may have heard of carbon 14. This is chemically identical to carbon 12,
having the same number of electrons, but it has an extra two neutrons in its
nucleus. This nucleus is unstable, and that gives us radioactive decay. When
matter is 'living', as we are and trees are, the carbon is constantly being
recycled, fresh carbon 14 is entering our bodies as food, and the ratio of
carbon 14 to carbon 12 remains roughly constant. When death occurs, the
recycling stops, but the radioactive decay continues. By measuring the ratio
of carbon 14 to carbon 12 remaining, we can obtain an estimate of when the
tree, piece of cotton fibre from a shroud or a person died. The more time
that passes, the closer the amount of carbon 14 atoms gets to carbon 12
atoms.
Hope that helps,
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Starblade Darksquall" |
|
| Title: Re: Terve |
21 Oct 2003 05:01:03 AM |
|
|
"George Kinley" <Georgekinley@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<XFNkb.648$k4.14424@news1.nokia.com>...
How is One Hydrogen atom different from another,
There's deutrium and tritium.
or how one Electron differs
from another,
They might have different potential energies.
if they are just different by space between them , then how do we have
Varity of elements ,
if it sounds foolish so just laugh but answer this seriously. Not all of us
are as intelligent as you all
--
Here's a dollar. Buy a remedial English course.
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Herring" |
|
| Title: Re: Terve |
21 Oct 2003 10:27:42 AM |
|
|
(Starblade Darksquall) wrote in message news:<4aa861fb.0310210201.7541ad36@posting.google.com>...
"George Kinley" <Georgekinley@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<XFNkb.648$k4.14424@news1.nokia.com>...
How is One Hydrogen atom different from another,
There's deutrium and tritium.
True, but not helpful. How is one 1H atom different from another?
or how one Electron differs
from another,
They might have different potential energies.
Since when is potential energy a property of particles?
if they are just different by space between them , then how do we have
Varity of elements ,
if it sounds foolish so just laugh but answer this seriously. Not all of us
are as intelligent as you all
Here's a dollar. Buy a remedial English course.
That's rich, coming from somebody who writes about "theorum"s.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Starblade Darksquall" |
|
| Title: Re: Terve |
22 Oct 2003 07:23:20 AM |
|
|
(Richard Herring) wrote in message news:<63ee5e77.0310210727.5489b90b@posting.google.com>...
Starblade13@Yahoo.com (Starblade Darksquall) wrote in message news:<4aa861fb.0310210201.7541ad36@posting.google.com>...
"George Kinley" <Georgekinley@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<XFNkb.648$k4.14424@news1.nokia.com>...
How is One Hydrogen atom different from another,
There's deutrium and tritium.
True, but not helpful. How is one 1H atom different from another?
or how one Electron differs
from another,
They might have different potential energies.
Since when is potential energy a property of particles?
if they are just different by space between them , then how do we have
Varity of elements ,
if it sounds foolish so just laugh but answer this seriously. Not all of us
are as intelligent as you all
Here's a dollar. Buy a remedial English course.
That's rich, coming from somebody who writes about "theorum"s.
Well the difference is that I never took English in the first place.
:P
Heh, seriously though, I'm joking. But... you make a good point. I'm
just being a bit of a hippocrate right now. ;P
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Terve |
22 Oct 2003 10:53:20 AM |
|
|
"Starblade Darksquall" <Starblade13@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4aa861fb.0310220423.b3d2199@posting.google.com...
news01@clupeid.demon.co.uk (Richard Herring) wrote in message
news:<63ee5e77.0310210727.5489b90b@posting.google.com>...
Starblade13@Yahoo.com (Starblade Darksquall) wrote in message
news:<4aa861fb.0310210201.7541ad36@posting.google.com>...
"George Kinley" <Georgekinley@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<XFNkb.648$k4.14424@news1.nokia.com>...
How is One Hydrogen atom different from another,
There's deutrium and tritium.
True, but not helpful. How is one 1H atom different from another?
or how one Electron differs
from another,
They might have different potential energies.
Since when is potential energy a property of particles?
if they are just different by space between them , then how do we
have
Varity of elements ,
if it sounds foolish so just laugh but answer this seriously. Not
all of us
are as intelligent as you all
Here's a dollar. Buy a remedial English course.
That's rich, coming from somebody who writes about "theorum"s.
Well the difference is that I never took English in the first place.
:P
Heh, seriously though, I'm joking. But... you make a good point. I'm
just being a bit of a hippocrate right now. ;P
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
Is a hippo-crate a box you put a hippopotamus in?
Or am I being a hippocrite?
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Starblade Darksquall" |
|
| Title: Re: Terve |
23 Oct 2003 06:49:01 AM |
|
|
"Androcles" <jp006f9750@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<NJxlb.9945$xv5.6628@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
"Starblade Darksquall" <Starblade13@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4aa861fb.0310220423.b3d2199@posting.google.com...
news01@clupeid.demon.co.uk (Richard Herring) wrote in message
news:<63ee5e77.0310210727.5489b90b@posting.google.com>...
Starblade13@Yahoo.com (Starblade Darksquall) wrote in message
news:<4aa861fb.0310210201.7541ad36@posting.google.com>...
"George Kinley" <Georgekinley@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<XFNkb.648$k4.14424@news1.nokia.com>...
How is One Hydrogen atom different from another,
There's deutrium and tritium.
True, but not helpful. How is one 1H atom different from another?
or how one Electron differs
from another,
They might have different potential energies.
Since when is potential energy a property of particles?
if they are just different by space between them , then how do we
have
Varity of elements ,
if it sounds foolish so just laugh but answer this seriously. Not
all of us
are as intelligent as you all
Here's a dollar. Buy a remedial English course.
That's rich, coming from somebody who writes about "theorum"s.
Well the difference is that I never took English in the first place.
:P
Heh, seriously though, I'm joking. But... you make a good point. I'm
just being a bit of a hippocrate right now. ;P
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
Is a hippo-crate a box you put a hippopotamus in?
Or am I being a hippocrite?
Androcles
A hippo crate is the box that the game Hungry Hungry Hippos comes in.
Also, since you happen to be a really big hippocrate you should take
the hippocratic oath.
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Terve |
23 Oct 2003 07:30:30 AM |
|
|
"Starblade Darksquall" <Starblade13@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4aa861fb.0310230349.7a72523a@posting.google.com...
A hippo crate is the box that the game Hungry Hungry Hippos comes in.
At least we have that settled, then.
Got anything useful to say?
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "\formerly" |
|
| Title: Re: Terve |
20 Oct 2003 09:23:19 AM |
|
|
Dear George Kinley:
"George Kinley" <Georgekinley@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XFNkb.648$k4.14424@news1.nokia.com...
How is One Hydrogen atom different from another, or how one Electron
differs
from another,
if they are just different by space between them , then how do we have
Varity of elements ,
if it sounds foolish so just laugh but answer this seriously. Not all of
us
are as intelligent as you all
The rule that seems to describe how "associated" components are different
is the "Pauli exclusion principle". This is believed to be cut off beyond
the molecular level, so that nearby molecules can have similar component
states.
Beyond the link you have been provided, atoms are constructed of protons,
neutrons, and electrons. These can be arranged in groups with equal
numbers of electrons and protons, and neutrons added to the nucleus to
maintain stability (or at least meta-stability). What differs between the
elements, is the numbers of protons and neutrons in the nucleus. And their
stability depends on how much rest mass has been surrendered to the
Universe. An atom appears to have less rest mass than its constituent
parts.
I don't think there would be a way to distinguish between a hydrogen atom
in the glass of water I just drank, and one on the sun of Alpha Centauri,
other than distance and temperature.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roedy Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Terve |
20 Oct 2003 06:44:30 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 09:12:23 GMT, "George Kinley"
<Georgekinley@hotmail.com> wrote or quoted :
if they are just different by space between them , then how do we have
Varity of elements ,
What I find so strange it the way you can start with a single proton
keep adding one proton, to generate the elements. You don't get a
gradual change in properties. They change drastically, with various
asymmetric regularity.
I learned the rationalisation about electron shells and the Pauli
exclusion principle back in high school. It still seems odd such
uniform little beasts could generate such variety with such rigor.
The elements seem so much quirkier and individual from what you might
naively expect from the theory.
In a way the periodic table parallels the asymmetry of the primes.
You create integers by a monotonous process of adding one, but you get
this strangely irregular pattern of primes as a result.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Terve |
21 Oct 2003 08:40:52 AM |
|
|
"Roedy Green" <roedy@seewebsite.com> wrote in message
news:1hs8pvokb54invqirtv84ervhh2a717an3@4ax.com...
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 09:12:23 GMT, "George Kinley"
<Georgekinley@hotmail.com> wrote or quoted :
if they are just different by space between them , then how do we have
Varity of elements ,
What I find so strange it the way you can start with a single proton
keep adding one proton, to generate the elements. You don't get a
gradual change in properties. They change drastically, with various
asymmetric regularity.
Yep. That's Nature.
But remember that as you add protons, you also add neutrons, and for every
proton you also add an electron.
I learned the rationalisation about electron shells and the Pauli
exclusion principle back in high school. It still seems odd such
uniform little beasts could generate such variety with such rigor.
The elements seem so much quirkier and individual from what you might
naively expect from the theory.
Perhaps so, but your impression is a subjective one, not an objective one.
What is the difference between, say, argon and krypton, or neon and helium?
Inert gases that you cannot see, all of them. What makes them inert?
Only the electron shells.
Or consider the rare earths, the lanthanides and actinides.
What makes them the same?
It may seem strange that sodium, a metal, will react strongly, even
violently,
with chlorine, a gas, to produce common table salt.
The chemist can explain it, using a model of electon shells, which is
entirely objective, but there is no way to explain your subjective
impression that a green gas will react with a silvery metal to to produce a
white crystal that is really clear, if you examine it closely.
In a way the periodic table parallels the asymmetry of the primes.
You create integers by a monotonous process of adding one, but you get
this strangely irregular pattern of primes as a result.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.
Good analogy. You are examining the properties of primes and singling out
the numbers you cannot divide exactly by any other integer other than 1. You
could also single out perfect numbers, those that have divisors that sum to
the same number, 6, for example, which is 1+2+3, or 28, which is 14+7+4+2+1.
Or you can just pick between even and odd numbers, or a host of other ways
to make one number different from another, such as the Fibbonacci series,
1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55,89.... This has the property that the difference
between each number forms the same series, which isn't really surprising,
considering that is how the series was created.
Yes, the properties of elements do have quirky differences.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
