My conversation with S.H. [B.S. Information Technology, American Inter-Continental University Atlanta, Graduated 2004]
The question we were discussing was:
Does a proton have a defined lifetime? Have we ever observed proton decay?
Me: “Quantum particles are outside of space and time (the Newtonian state). Decay requires time, so the answer is: they don’t decay.”
S.H. “What is happening with muons, then, or unbound neutrons? They are routinely observed decaying.”
Me: “Observed? What color are they?”
S.H. “What color is air? Just because the human eye, with its limitations on resolution and frequency band, cannot perceive something, does not mean that that thing cannot be observed. “Observe” has a broader meaning than you seem to be thinking: “to see, watch, perceive, or notice”. Using various techniques, both direct and indirect, we observe many things—including muon and neutron decay.”
Me: “So this decay hasn’t been perceived? How are they observing decay of the unperceivable in this instance?”
S.H. “Eh? What do you mean? I’ve been saying that these decays are perceived. A muon usually decays into an electron, a muon neutrino, and an electron anti-neutrino; a neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and an electron anti-neutrino. These are observed using cloud chambers, bubble chambers, and the like.”
Me: “How do cloud chambers help you see a muon decaying into an electron?”
S.H. “Read about them here: Cloud chamber . Really, I should not have to do basic research and reading for you.”
Me: “No. I’m asking you to see if you actually know or not. If you don’t know, you shouldn’t be here pretending you know the answers.”
S.H. “I’ve (yes, actually) known about muons, unstable neutrons, and detectors therefor for >45 years, sir; no problem there.
“If you don’t know, you shouldn’t be here pretending you know the answers.”
—Says the man who asserts a seemingly impossible condition (timeless, massive particles) without providing any support for it. Do you know the answers, or are you just pretending?”
Me: “If you know, why are you handing me over to someone else (via link)? Answer my question: How does a cloud chamber reveal muons decaying into electrons?
If there is no motion, the conditions are perfect for timelessness. Particles have location coordinates. If you have position coordinates (x,y,z and t), you aren’t moving. If there’s no movement, no linear time can be measured.
Massive particles? You think I said that?”
S.H. “If you know, why are you handing me over to someone else (via link)?”
—I know, but am supplying corroboration for my assertion—unlike you, I repeat.
“Answer my question: How does a cloud chamber reveal muons decaying into electrons?”
—Fast-moving charged particles, such as muons, collide with molecules in the supersaturated atmosphere of the chamber. This knocks electrons off the molecules, resulting in ions that serve as nucleation centers for condensation of droplets of the vapor (water or alcohol). The sign of the charge of the incoming particle is obvious from its direction of travel through the magnetic field surrounding the chamber—as is the sign of product particles, such as electrons. The length and shape of a particle’s track give evidence of its mass. The observed tracks are consistent with what is expected (from theory) for both the muon and electron. (The neutrinos, of course, do not show in the cloud chamber, but they can be detected by other equipment if desired.)
“If there is no motion, the conditions are perfect for timelessness. Particles have location coordinates. If you have position coordinates (x,y,z and t), you aren’t moving. If there’s no movement, no linear time can be measured.”
—This would be true if the universe were deterministic, and all quantities could be measured exactly.
Unfortunately for your argument, this turns out not to be the case. In all experiments to date that have been set up to test this, a fundamental inexactness has been observed. The position coordinates are understood to be (x±Δx, y±Δy, z±Δz, t±Δt), where Δx, Δy, Δz, and Δt can be made very small—but nonzero. (Recall the Heisenberg uncertainty relation: ΔpΔx ≥ ħ/2.) From the foregoing, we see—well, most of us see—that full motionlessness is not possible, and your assertion is therefore untenable.
“Massive particles? You think I said that?”
No, you didn’t say that. I was restricting the discussion to nonzero-rest-mass particles, excluding things such as photons that—according to Einsteinian relativity—do not experience time. Still waiting for you to provide independent support for your claims…recall Sagan’s observation that “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
Me: ““Fast-moving charged particles, such as muons, collide with molecules in the supersaturated atmosphere of the chamber.”
Forget the narrative. What do you actually see and what was done to cause change?
“The length and shape of a particle’s track give evidence of its mass”
Can I see a picture of the particle track’s length and shape?
“Still waiting for you to provide independent support for your claims.”
I’m repeating claims made by the scientific community. Which one is it that you’re questioning? If you don’t believe orbitals have coordinates (making them a stationary phenomenon), do a Google image search, “orbitals x,y,z”.
S.H. ““What do you actually see and what was done to cause change?”
—You see curved streaks, consisting of droplets of condensed vapor, as is well known. What causes it, I have already said. Go re-read it.
“Can I see a picture of the particle track’s length and shape?”
—As you have recommended, do a Google search. Google Images has a plethora of offerings: https://www.google.com/search?hl...
“I’m repeating claims made by the scientific community.”
—Not the “mainstream” community, you’re not. Most of the people working in modern physics believe that the Heisenberg uncertainty is real. And they have lots of experimental evidence to back up that belief.
“If you don’t believe orbitals have coordinates (making them a stationary phenomenon), do a Google image search, “orbitals x,y,z”.”
—Are you familiar with the joke about the common simplifications used in elementary-level physics? (“Imagine a spherical cow….”)
Do you know that the shapes and locations of things such as electron orbitals (and even whole atoms) are probabilistic in nature, and as such do not have the crisp boundaries that appear in the simplified drawings to which you refer? Your coordinates refer to the center of the most probable region wherein electrons, etc. are to be found. As I have said, motion and location can only be approximated at the quantum scale of things. Live with it—along with the rest of us.
Me: “This has nothing to do with simplification or sophistication. Either there are x,y, and z coordinates or there aren’t. Are you obfuscating for any particular reason? Probability doesn’t make your problems go away. A probable region is a location. Another PROOF that quantum particles are stationary is the fact that they have wave nature. Waves don’t move. A wave is always connected to both the arrival and departure locations (meaning distance or space is non-actual). Give me an example of a probable region that can be graphed with x,y and z [that’s a point, not an area].
Wave nature of electron
Me: “I looked at those images and what I see is something amounting to random scratches that are given labels : ‘low energy electron’, ‘proton with delta ray’ ..but all they are in appearance is scratch-like marks. There is no explanation to how one could read in to a scratch and decide that it’s a ‘low energy electron’.”
No comments:
Post a Comment