Go Back   Physics Help Forum > Physics Forums > Philosophy of Physics

Philosophy of Physics Philosophy of Physics Forum - Philosophical questions about our universe

Like Tree8Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Aug 28th 2018, 05:43 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Xinhui Guangdong Province China
Posts: 106
wavicles

what's wavicles? I can't find this word in my dictionary.
htam9876 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 28th 2018, 07:58 AM   #22
Senior Member
 
Woody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: England
Posts: 594
Wavicles

This is a portmanteau word, made by "pushing" the two words wave and particle together.

It was suggested by some people that this new word could be used to describe these weird QM entities that seemed to sometimes behave like particles and sometimes behave like waves.

However the suggestion was not accepted by enough people to get it into the dictionaries.
__________________
~\o/~
Woody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 28th 2018, 08:24 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Xinhui Guangdong Province China
Posts: 106
wavicles

Bohr mislead Q to become tiny point while Schrodinger mislead QM to become electron cloud following coordinate system,and the tramp mislead wavicles to become a toasted duck in 200000 V grid.
htam9876 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 28th 2018, 09:06 AM   #24
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,442
Originally Posted by htam9876 View Post
Bohr mislead Q to become tiny point while Schrodinger mislead QM to become electron cloud following coordinate system,and the tramp mislead wavicles to become a toasted duck in 200000 V grid.
QM didn't exist when Bohr proposed his model of the atom. There is no shame there.

Aside from the Schrodinger equation being non-relativistic (as opposed to the Dirac equation which is what he should have used, if he had known about it at the time) there is nothing wrong with the Schrodinger equation.

You seem to have a misunderstanding... The particle and wave pictures of QM are equivalent. They both make the same successful predictions. It just happens that for some problems waves are easier to work with and for others particles are easier to use.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 28th 2018, 09:29 AM   #25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Xinhui Guangdong Province China
Posts: 106
duality

I never said Schrodinger equation is wrong, and I have developed it to G-s equation in the first thread. The tramp always consider the American captain is a hero, isn't it?
htam9876 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 3rd 2018, 02:44 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 211
Originally Posted by htam9876 View Post
I see a thread here in China, it ask a question: energy and mass which one first(exist in cosmos)? it's so funny that I just can't hold myself and give a reply:
in men's eye, it will be a logic never to be made clear, while in the eye of cosmos, it's just one thing two forms.
If you believe the extrapolations of the canonical lambda-CDM model for cosmogenesis, then the answer is most definitely energy. The early universe was radiation dominated and mass appeared later once the temperature of the Universe had cooled (a sort of "condensation" phenomenon).

I'm not sure if we'll ever get an answer however.
benit13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 3rd 2018, 06:54 AM   #27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Xinhui Guangdong Province China
Posts: 106
...

Can zero bang........full of energy?
htam9876 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 3rd 2018, 12:49 PM   #28
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,442
Originally Posted by benit13 View Post
If you believe the extrapolations of the canonical lambda-CDM model for cosmogenesis, then the answer is most definitely energy. The early universe was radiation dominated and mass appeared later once the temperature of the Universe had cooled (a sort of "condensation" phenomenon).
That isn't quite right. In the early micro-micro seconds of the BB the Universe was a soupy mess of all kinds of particles. The BB had quarks, protons, neutrons, photons, gluons, and their anti-particles to name a few, and probably with all sorts of stuff we don't yet know about. As I said before (I think it was this thread) you can't have energy without particles to carry it.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 3rd 2018, 05:19 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Xinhui Guangdong Province China
Posts: 106
soup

Of course, tramp likes soup although he is not willing to eat some nuts in the soup. The tramp is not astronomical but he is very intereted in astronomy. Why theory consider that there must be anti particle included in the beganing soup?
htam9876 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 3rd 2018, 05:31 PM   #30
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,442
Originally Posted by htam9876 View Post
Of course, tramp likes soup although he is not willing to eat some nuts in the soup. The tramp is not astronomical but he is very intereted in astronomy. Why theory consider that there must be anti particle included in the beganing soup?
A high energy photon can "decay" into, say, an electron-positron pair. The higher the photon energy is the more massive the particles can be.

Now, there is a problem here: If all the photons from the BB did just this then there would be no predominance of matter over anti-matter. There are some hints in the kaon system.. there is a slight trend to create more matter than anti-matter. But we don't know if that is a big enough process to reduce the anti-matter in the early Universe.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Physics Help Forum > Physics Forums > Philosophy of Physics

Tags
bohr, radius, track



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Physics Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bohr photon aditional problem MMM Light and Optics 7 Mar 19th 2015 11:14 AM
Bohr model and energy mss90 Energy and Work 10 Dec 18th 2014 01:54 PM
Bohr Model/Radius Ella Atomic and Solid State Physics 1 Aug 8th 2013 11:49 PM
Rutherford-Bohr Model of the Atom wassupman Quantum Physics 1 Jun 15th 2010 01:30 PM
Banked track werehk Kinematics and Dynamics 18 Aug 11th 2009 10:03 PM


Facebook Twitter Google+ RSS Feed