Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


What makes atoms do what they do?

- Sat, 10 Mar 2018 11:49:56 EST PTghO7Nx No.79012
File: 1520700596496.jpg -(161331B / 157.55KB, 639x999) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. What makes atoms do what they do?
Sup /chem/,

There is a fundamental gap in my understanding of the universe. When we look out into the sky and see the sun and stars, measure the Earth orbiting the sun, or see a volcano, it is commonly accepted that eventually, all of these processes will run out of energy and cease to do their thing. However every atom in the universe has positive and negative charges, with the negatively charged particles constantly in motion (and i guess the positive ones too if we count vibration or whatever). How do subatomic particles get a charge in the first place? Will it ever wear off? What makes electrons move? Will an electron ever stop moving and become neutrally charged? Can we apply this seemingly infinite source of subatomic energy to the macro scale to prevent a big freeze or one day generate limitless energy?
A_Wizard !cMZsY.BCnU!!vVWR8L52 - Sun, 18 Mar 2018 00:41:13 EST H2dReURr No.79018 Reply
1521348073005.jpg -(7542B / 7.37KB, 236x347) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
The laws of nature do not change in accordance with scale.
Edwin Blabberford - Tue, 20 Mar 2018 18:04:05 EST 8eK2pPPB No.79021 Reply

why don't subatomic particles ever lose their charge?
Caroline Mirrymidge - Tue, 27 Mar 2018 17:38:37 EST tYFzA0GS No.79026 Reply
Firstly, yes the laws of nature do change with scale. See quantum vs classical physics.

Secondly, protons and neutrons are made of quarks. The charge is determined by the types of quarks involved and their spin. Electrons are an elementary partical but a positively charged electron, known as a positron, is actually a product of nuclear decay.

When you see an arc of electricity you are seeing photons being released as a result of a series of high energy collisions with electrons and atoms in the air
Archie Noddleham - Tue, 27 Mar 2018 18:10:26 EST S+r2WxSN No.79027 Reply
Its not so much that entrophy is lack of spin or movement, its that spin becomes the only way to spin. Everything behaving the same way with the same energy spread evenly.

Think about this, big bang, blah blah blah, entropy, big crunch.......... big bang

That second big bang must be identical to the first due to no outside influences right? So all that matter must form into the same shapes as it did the first time, which means I've written this all out to you before, and will do it again, forever.
Eliza Goodbanks - Wed, 28 Mar 2018 13:17:12 EST H2dReURr No.79029 Reply
Tits or it didn't happen. Show me a picture of a quark or a neutron, otherwise you're no different than a catholic priest telling me his dick is the breath of jesus.
Polly Bunkinsork - Fri, 06 Apr 2018 00:47:24 EST +0GOZxpM No.79039 Reply
1522990044117.png -(487193B / 475.77KB, 646x534) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>it is commonly accepted that eventually, all of these processes will run out of energy

Energy cannot be created or destroyed. It's just the way things are. It's the first law of thermodynamics. The processes you mention won't "run out" of energy, rather the energy spreads out as entropy increases (Second law of thermodynamics). As the universe continues to expand, everything in it spreads out. Energy remains constant, despite changing forms, but is spread over an ever increasing volume.

Particles are made when high energy gamma rays do their weird high energy gamma ray stuff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

Basically you need to take a bunch of physics classes to answer these questions, and even then some will be unanswered.
Science cannot answer many of these "why?" questions.
A_Wizard !cMZsY.BCnU!!vVWR8L52 - Fri, 06 Apr 2018 03:59:04 EST H2dReURr No.79041 Reply
You had me until...
Particles only exist when humans use faulty equipment or bad math.
Walter Pindlewud - Fri, 06 Apr 2018 06:09:22 EST S+r2WxSN No.79044 Reply
No way dude
when acting as a particle
when acting as a wave
A_Wizard !cMZsY.BCnU!!vVWR8L52 - Mon, 09 Apr 2018 17:05:46 EST H2dReURr No.79051 Reply
Every element is defined by a precise frequency that it resonates at. How can this be a characteristic of anything but a wave?
Charlotte Sinderhood - Mon, 09 Apr 2018 19:23:49 EST a9li1sY3 No.79052 Reply
Waves and particles are both abstractions. Sometimes one is more useful than the other. Particles are described by wavefunctions.

>Every element is defined by a precise frequency that it resonates at.
Each element is defined by the number of a specific type of particle (proton). This is an example where the particle abstraction makes more sense than the wave abstraction.
press !//CEObOMBY - Tue, 10 Apr 2018 15:41:17 EST hPCnM+xH No.79053 Reply
before i give in to my first instinct,
would you mind elaborating what you mean by "defined by a precise frequency that it resonates at", because i really hope youre not refering to spectral lines.

and the whole wave particle dualism is due to momentum and position being conjugate variables
trypto - Wed, 11 Apr 2018 01:41:54 EST a9li1sY3 No.79054 Reply
>iI really hope youre not refering to spectral lines.
That's probably what they're talking about.
A_Wizard !cMZsY.BCnU!!vVWR8L52 - Thu, 12 Apr 2018 01:00:26 EST H2dReURr No.79057 Reply
I think I was talking about something more related to resonance. Something to do with a fundamental frequency for each element.
press !//CEObOMBY - Thu, 12 Apr 2018 04:21:48 EST owgnkIMV No.79059 Reply
1523521308317.jpg -(158843B / 155.12KB, 2048x1593) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
thats how shit like spectroscopy is explained and it works pretty fine while assuming that the atom/electron behaves as a particle
do you know what absorption /emission spectra are?

by convention we define an element by its number of protons in the nucleus.
besides convention i get the strong the impression youre just spouting some esoteric understanding of physics that you find very pretty and thus believe in.

check this out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBnnXbOM5S4
Phineas Blammerlare - Sat, 14 Apr 2018 19:42:40 EST 8eK2pPPB No.79064 Reply

when different elements absorb and then re-emit light they do so at specific frequencies which allows us to identify the makeup of something by the light it gives off
A_Wizard !cMZsY.BCnU!!vVWR8L52 - Mon, 16 Apr 2018 19:31:31 EST H2dReURr No.79067 Reply
No, I would rather find that I am wrong, than to believe what is false. That's part of having curiosity. Something missed, means there's a dozen or more new questions to be asked.
>behave as a particle
Humor me and explain the differences and why such behaviors mandate that it is a particle? Why must this criteria only point to this conclusion?
>esoteric understandings
Really if we go that route, I'll be spamming images of ancient geometry and possible representations of EM fields, and then going on about pythagorean mathematics and harmonics... though we are pretty close to that, so I could later if you want.
>number of protons
This subject actually deserves a better post than I'm quite up for at the moment, though if you want you can prepare in advance for when I'm higher and less distracted. The topic will be on how protons and weight in general, are merely improper understandings of the interactions of wave-forms in relation to another wave we call gravity.
A_Wizard !cMZsY.BCnU!!vVWR8L52 - Mon, 16 Apr 2018 19:33:00 EST H2dReURr No.79068 Reply
Has there been a good explanation of the mechanics of this phenomena yet? Also, details of the tests involved in the theories?
trypto - Mon, 16 Apr 2018 22:24:03 EST a9li1sY3 No.79069 Reply
>Humor me and explain the differences and why such behaviors mandate that it is a particle? Why must this criteria only point to this conclusion?

"Particle" is an abstraction. So is "wave". Don't get caught up too much by the common usage of these words. A proton isn't like a bread crumb or a sound wave. But it shares qualities of each. They're metaphors, and shouldn't be taken too literally.

Protons/electrons/neutrons, and other particles are quantized. You can't have half an electron. You have 0, 1, 2, 3, etc. That is very particle-y. When detected in low quantities, they're very particle-like.

it's just an abstraction. They can also be described as waves. This is closer to how physicists actually describe these things.

Wave functions describe particles. But they're not "waves" in the every-day sense.

>Has there been a good explanation of the mechanics of this phenomena yet?
Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_spectrum is a good place to start, but the concepts apply to most of spectroscopy. Atoms and molecules absorb and emit light at quantized amounts.
Charles Hurringstock - Tue, 17 Apr 2018 12:59:13 EST w5OQwkxU No.79071 Reply
You know less than A Wizard, stfu about your sci 101 discovery channel bullshit
trypto - Tue, 17 Apr 2018 16:51:44 EST a9li1sY3 No.79072 Reply
Nah. I know what I'm talking about. P-chem and QM are not my strong suits, but I took the classes in school. I've read texts outside of school, too (Dirac's Principles of QM is my fave). I Also did lots of spectroscopy as a working chemist, and a little bit of computational modeling.

A Wizard is getting hung up on semantics, and for some reason doesn't want to call particles "particles." That's pointless.

We call these things particles. Why? Because they're quantized. They' can also localized in space/time. "Particle" is a good word, as long as you don't make the mistake of thinking about it like a dust speck.

Particles are described using wave functions. Why do we call these wave functions? Because they typically consist of sums of sin/cosin waves in the complex plane. "Wave" is a good word, as long as you don't make the mistake of thinking about it like an ocean wave.

Yes, this is some basic shit. Yes, I know more. But I'm not able to teach a QM course on an imageboard. I'm just trying to nudge A Wizards esoteric shit into a slightly more scientifically valid place.
Charles Pockfuck - Tue, 17 Apr 2018 19:18:53 EST 8eK2pPPB No.79073 Reply

please continue. go to the next levels. i am reading with interest
press !//CEObOMBY - Wed, 18 Apr 2018 15:02:56 EST 1c1ca2sB No.79075 Reply
it seems strange to ask these things instead of reading up on them.
trypto - Sat, 21 Apr 2018 16:52:54 EST a9li1sY3 No.79080 Reply
I'll try to explain a bit more of the historical/experimental basis. Here's just a list of what was known In the late 19th century/early 20th century.

Electricity and magnetism were very well-understood. Maxwell's Equations perfectly described the phenomenon.

Electrons were known to exist, and be somehow part of atoms (although what atoms looked like was a mystery). The mass of an electron was also known https://www.nyu.edu/classes/tuckerman/adv.chem/lectures/lecture_3/node1.html

Light was understood to be a wave described by some solutions to Maxwell's equations. The wave nature of light was obvious, and easy to demonstrate. Just think of light going through a pinhole. However, there was a problem: Waves need a medium to travel through. Sound waves go through air, ocean waves through water, etc. What did light go through? At the time, physicists called the hypothetical medium "the ether". Attempts to study "the ether" failed ( https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment ).

Blackbody radiation was also a known phenomenon. You know blackbody radiation. It's the reason hot things give off heat, very hot things glow red, then blue, then white, etc. That's blackbody radiation. These experiments revealed something else that didn't quite jive with the wave theory of light. The classical theory of light predicted far more UV/high energy radiation than experiments showed. It was more accurate to assume light is emitted in 'packets'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe

Also around this time, neon/halogen lights were invented. When a halogen light is shined through a prism, the spectrum looks very different than what they were expecting. Instead of a smooth continuous spectrum, they saw very small lines.

That was the state of physics, which set the stage for quantum mechanics, and wave-particle duality. I'll write more later.
MULTIVAC - Sun, 15 Jul 2018 13:56:08 EST 0zm+STH/ No.79175 Reply
>prevent a big freeze
Isabella Siggleridge - Sat, 18 Aug 2018 22:20:00 EST /hCtHqXN No.79206 Reply
My question is
What is the difference between negative and positive charges?

william Blake is quoted to have said "There are no differences except for the difference between difference and no difference." I think.
trypto - Sun, 19 Aug 2018 12:22:32 EST OdR7meD+ No.79207 Reply
That's a very difficult question, and I doubt there's an answer that 'feels' satisfactory. Look up Feynman's explanation for magnetism, and the answer to your question is kinda similar. Electromagnetism is a fundamental force in the universe, and all we can do is use math to describe it. In the case of electric charge, it just so happens there's two types. There's a lot you can say about those two types interact with another. But

>"There are no differences except for the difference between difference and no difference."
This is kinda relavent. The difference between positive and negative charges is just that they're different. A positive charge interacts with a positive charge differently than a negative charge interacts with a negative charge. It's possible to imagine a universe where all the charges are reversed, and there would be everything would behave the same. In other words, atoms would be composed of a NEGATIVE nucleus (antiprotons instead of protons), and positrons (like electrons, only positively charged). This is an open question in physics: why did the universe develop with electrons and protons instead of positrons and positrons? As far as we know, the only difference between the two is that they're different!

Awe shit.
trypto - Sun, 19 Aug 2018 12:24:48 EST OdR7meD+ No.79208 Reply
>why did the universe develop with electrons and protons instead of positrons and positrons?
Should be antiprotons and positrons. Good lord there's a lot of weird typos in that post.
trypto - Sun, 19 Aug 2018 13:06:02 EST OdR7meD+ No.79209 Reply
OK. I'll finally try to follow up. Quickly.

In the last post, I brought us up to the point where physicists saw that light is emitted in packets called 'quanta' at the time. They knew that because of theoretical work following the 'ultraviolet catastrophe'.

But they also knew light acts as a wave, since a single wavelength passing through two slits produces a diffraction pattern (like water waves going through small slits). This is Young's double slit experiement, and was actually an early 19th century experiment (predating most of the experiments I'm talking about here).

They also knew light is a wave because Maxwell's Equations can be used to describe light as an electromagnetic wave very accurately.

But, unlike waves, light didn't appear to travel through any medium. Sound travels through air, ocean waves through water, 'guitar waves' on taught strings, etc. They called the theoretical media that light uses "ether", but attempts to prove its existence failed (the michelson morley experiement).

They also realized that, in many cases, light spectra weren't smooth and continuous. They had very sharp, unexpected lines.

Also at this time, Einstein described the photoelectric effect, where light could be absorbed in quanta

In other words, there were a bunch of experiements and theoretical models that "proved" light was a wave. And there were a bunch of experiements and theoretical models "proving" that light is a particle. I'm not sure if the following is how it developed historically, but I'm trying to mirror how it's typically taught progressively. I might be getting the exact order and technology used at the time wrong.

Now all that brings us to the more advance two-slit experiments. At some point, some idiot decided to try the two slit experiment with electrons. We *know* electrons are particles. There were detectors that can detect a single electron. The mass of the electron was known. It's a fucking particle. But when shot through two slits with a detector on the other side, the detector see a wave-like pattern.

Same with neutrons. WTF? Protons and electrons are particles for sure. They have mass. They make up virtually our entire world. So this was a shocking result to see them behave as waves.

When a wave passes through two slits, mathematically modelling the pattern is produces is fairly simple. One of the most important variables in modelling the wave is the wavelength (especially in relation to the size of the slit, the slit spacing, etc.). Well, it turns out these electron and proton waves could be modeled just the same.

In these mathematicals models, the wavelength is proportional to the mass (and velocity) of the particle. This is called the de broglie wavelength. Basically, the more momentum something has (the faster it's going, or the more massive it is), the smaller its apparent wavelength is in this experiment (and others). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave

The de Broglie wavelength is the first 'weird' equation you'll see in a quantum physics textbook, because it shows how there's a smooth transition from the quantum weirdness of particles to more human sized objects. The more mass or velocity something has, the smaller this wavelength gets. The smaller the wavelength gets, the less you'll see this apparent wave behavior. So an electron is very wave-like. A proton, slightly less so. An atom (say, He) could see some wave-y stuff. A molecule, too.. although it's getting less likely. When you plug in the numbers for something like a bullet, or a tennis ball, you'll see that the wavelength is so small, it's meaningless. But there is that transition.

Hopefully that wasn't too rambly.
trypto - Sun, 19 Aug 2018 13:29:31 EST OdR7meD+ No.79210 Reply
To recap: At this point, the long-held theory that light is a wave was being challenged by a bunch of experiments/models.

And then, while trying to figure that shit out, a bunch of experiments/models suddenly showed that MATTER is a wave.

This is still really only the preamble to quantum mechanics, and it's where the math starts to get more intense. Until this point, the math involved was pretty much calculus and differential equations

The next big experiment would be the one that hippies and armchair philosophers love, which is the variation of the double-slit experiment where observation changes the expected outcome. People try to extrapolate so much metaphysical bullshit with this experiment, and I hate it. Yes, it's an amazing result. yes, the math is deep and profoundly alters how we view reality or truth itself. But at the same time, it's simply a mathematical model that's describing what we see. And then we call it reality. It's boring.

IF I do another post, I'll try to explain this experiment, the math it spawned, and the (legit) philisophical interpretations. This is where linear algebra comes into play, infinite arrays, the schrodinger equation, imaginary numbers, wave equations, and more. IMO, it's the point where "quantum weirdness" becomes solved for the most part. There's some philisophical differences of opinion, but they're not too important.
trypto - Sun, 19 Aug 2018 13:35:45 EST OdR7meD+ No.79211 Reply
>A positive charge interacts with a positive charge differently than a negative charge interacts with a negative charge.
Also, fuck. This should be "A positive charge interacts with a positive charge diferferently than a POSTIVE charge interacts with a negative charge".

Of course, P-P interactions are identical to N-N interactions.
trypto - Sun, 19 Aug 2018 13:48:46 EST OdR7meD+ No.79212 Reply
> IMO, it's the point where "quantum weirdness" becomes solved for the most part. There's some philisophical differences of opinion, but they're not too important.
Oh yeah, and of course special relativity/gravity is still an open question in regards to quantum-scale. Blefht. I'm done. These rambling posts brought to you by Bush. Breakfast of champions.

Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.