Notices
Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: Do atoms/particles have magnetic fields? Can we change the fields in anyway?

  1. #1 Do atoms/particles have magnetic fields? Can we change the fields in anyway? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    9
    I am under the impression that all atoms/particles have a magnetic/electromagnetic field around them, is this true? if so, what would happen to the atoms if we changed their fields? is it even possible to change a atoms magnetic field in the first place?

    the way i see it, everything is made of the same stuff, the stuff that makes up a planet is the same stuff that makes you. the stuff that makes up trees is the same stuff that makes up you ect.. obviously there is a huge difference between a human and a tree, so it seems to me that what gives a object its properties should be how the atoms/particles that its made of interacts with each other...so if we change the way atoms/particles react with each other we could possibly pull off some witch craft and turn lead into gold by manipulating the atoms magnetic field

    also, are atoms/particles actual tiny balls? I find it impossible for atoms/particles to have any type of shell that would give it a specific shape, think about it, if a atom/particle is shaped like a ball, then the surface of that ball must consist of something in order for it to exist....thus, the stuff that atom/particle is made of must be made of something, now we have another "something" that must be made of something else ect.... it is a infinite loop, i see no end in sight. atoms/particles must not have a defined shape at all and must not be made of any type substance/material.

    one more thing, I am having a hell of a time trying to wrap my mind around the concept of atoms/particles, makes no sense to me at all. for instance, science says everything is made of atoms/particles, well, that sounds good but....if there is nothing more then atoms/particles that create ever thing then what about all that empty space between each atom/particle? that space between 2 particles must not be made of any thing at all, thus, there is literally no space between two particles....how can "nothingness" separate two particles?......deeeep breath........if nothing is something then it could not possibly be nothing, but if it is nothing then there shouldnt be nothing, so how can something be separated from each other if the thing that separates them is nothing????
    bruh.....i know...


    do we all exist in a field of nothingness? how can we exist in nothingness? I now fully understand where that doped up kid is coming from when he asked "Is this real life?" <--youtube if you havent seen it, its great.

    while we are all here, might as well go the whole 9 yards....How the hell does matter exist in the first place? the big bang does not explain what happened before the bang or where it even came from. maybe my mindset is limited but i do not see any possible way for anything to pop into existance from nothingness..... no matter how you look at it, if the stuff that makes us and our universe is a real thing then it had to of came from somewhere, right? the only thing I can think of is that somehow "nothingness" itself became aware of its self....go figure, nothing became something once it realized it wasnt nothing....sorry but thats the best i can come up with... i got a virtual high five for anyone who can do better lol.


    Last edited by xxsolarplexusxx; August 23rd, 2017 at 02:56 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,969
    Quote Originally Posted by xxsolarplexusxx View Post
    I am under the impression that all atoms/particles have a magnetic/electromagnetic field around them, is this true? if so, what would happen to the atoms if we changed their fields? is it even possible to change a atoms magnetic field in the first place?
    Yes. Atoms can have a magnetic moment, and very close to the atom you can observe differing electric potentials due to electron and proton charges. At some distance from the atom the electric charges cancel unless the atom has more or fewer electrons than normal. We call those atoms ions.

    However, all of these are characteristics of the structure of the atom. In other words, the atoms cause the fields, not the other way around.
    so if we change the way atoms/particles react with each other we could possibly pull off some witch craft and turn lead into gold by manipulating the atoms magnetic field
    Lead has 82 protons and ~120 neutrons. Gold has 79 protons and ~120 neutrons. You'd have to take 3 protons away to turn lead into gold. Which is possible with modern tools (particle accelerators, breeder reactors) but not really practical.
    also, are atoms/particles actual tiny balls?
    Not really. That's the old Bohr model of the atom, which is useful at a very high level, but when you look more closely electrons don't really behave like "planets orbiting a sun." The modern quantum model shows that electrons exist in a probability cloud near the nucleus - but this probability cloud is NOT like a torus (i.e. it's not like an orbit with less certainty.)


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,478
    Quote Originally Posted by xxsolarplexusxx View Post
    I am under the impression that all atoms/particles have a magnetic/electromagnetic field around them, is this true?
    No. It depends on the spin and orbital momentum of the electrons in the atom. These usually cancel out. So, some atoms have a magnetic moment and some don't. That is (partly) why some materials are magnetic and others aren't.

    They have an electric field, but that falls of rapidly with distance as the atom as a whole is electrically neutral.

    the way i see it, everything is made of the same stuff, the stuff that makes up a planet is the same stuff that makes you.
    Well, yes and no. You have a lot of elements in common with the rest of the planet (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, etc) but there are plenty of other elements in the planet that you don't have in your body.

    so if we change the way atoms/particles react with each other we could possibly pull off some witch craft and turn lead into gold by manipulating the atoms magnetic field
    Er, no. Lead and gold are completely different elements. The atoms have different numbers of protons, neutron and electrons.

    also, are atoms/particles actual tiny balls?
    No. They re made up of protons and neutrons (in the nucleus) surround by a cloud of electrons.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,651
    Quote Originally Posted by xxsolarplexusxx View Post
    one more thing, I am having a hell of a time trying to wrap my mind around the concept of atoms/particles, makes no sense to me at all. for instance, science says everything is made of atoms/particles, well, that sounds good but....if there is nothing more then atoms/particles that create ever thing then what about all that empty space between each atom/particle? that space between 2 particles must not be made of any thing at all, thus, there is literally no space between two particles....how can "nothingness" separate two particles?......deeeep breath........if nothing is something then it could not possibly be nothing, but if it is nothing then there shouldnt be nothing, so how can something be separated from each other if the thing that separates them is nothing????
    Doesn't this same "argument" apply to planets/ stars?
    And yet we know that there is "space between [the] two".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,478
    Quote Originally Posted by xxsolarplexusxx View Post
    I am under the impression that all atoms/particles have a magnetic/electromagnetic field around them, is this true?
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Yes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    No.
    Just to be clear, we don't disagree; I was answering the question "do all atoms have a magnetic field". Billvon was answering a more general question about (some) atoms and electromagnetic fields.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,908
    I could be wrong here, but isn't the EM field more fundamental than the particles? That the EM field exists across all of spacetime, and the particles are perturbations in that field(as a gross over simplification)?
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xxsolarplexusxx View Post
    I am under the impression that all atoms/particles have a magnetic/electromagnetic field around them, is this true?
    No. It depends on the spin and orbital momentum of the electrons in the atom. These usually cancel out. So, some atoms have a magnetic moment and some don't. That is (partly) why some materials are magnetic and others aren't.

    They have an electric field, but that falls of rapidly with distance as the atom as a whole is electrically neutral.

    the way i see it, everything is made of the same stuff, the stuff that makes up a planet is the same stuff that makes you.
    Well, yes and no. You have a lot of elements in common with the rest of the planet (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, etc) but there are plenty of other elements in the planet that you don't have in your body.

    so if we change the way atoms/particles react with each other we could possibly pull off some witch craft and turn lead into gold by manipulating the atoms magnetic field
    Er, no. Lead and gold are completely different elements. The atoms have different numbers of protons, neutron and electrons.

    also, are atoms/particles actual tiny balls?
    No. They re made up of protons and neutrons (in the nucleus) surround by a cloud of electrons.
    ah i see, things starting to make more sense now, how ever, i am not sure what you mean when you said there is elements present in planets that are not in our bodies. i mean, yeah , there is different elements but thats only if you look at it from far. its hard to explain, like, if we break down all the stuff that makes a planet and then break down all the stuff that makes our bodies then the we should find that it is all the same stuff, like, we perceive elements and substances on a larger scale then its essential structure, so even though we may perceive water to be different from air there is still no difference in the stuff that makes it all up, not on the element or chemical scale scale but when looking at the smallest scale possible of all the individual atoms/particles they should all be the same stuff right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,478
    Quote Originally Posted by xxsolarplexusxx View Post
    ah i see, things starting to make more sense now, how ever, i am not sure what you mean when you said there is elements present in planets that are not in our bodies. i mean, yeah , there is different elements but thats only if you look at it from far. its hard to explain, like, if we break down all the stuff that makes a planet and then break down all the stuff that makes our bodies then the we should find that it is all the same stuff, like, we perceive elements and substances on a larger scale then its essential structure, so even though we may perceive water to be different from air there is still no difference in the stuff that makes it all up, not on the element or chemical scale scale but when looking at the smallest scale possible of all the individual atoms/particles they should all be the same stuff right?
    Well, all atoms are made of protons, neutrons and electrons. But that isn't very helpful when understanding the difference between animals and rocks. In that case, you need to look at the chemistry; i.e. the atoms. And there are atoms in rocks that do not exist in the human body.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xxsolarplexusxx View Post
    ah i see, things starting to make more sense now, how ever, i am not sure what you mean when you said there is elements present in planets that are not in our bodies. i mean, yeah , there is different elements but thats only if you look at it from far. its hard to explain, like, if we break down all the stuff that makes a planet and then break down all the stuff that makes our bodies then the we should find that it is all the same stuff, like, we perceive elements and substances on a larger scale then its essential structure, so even though we may perceive water to be different from air there is still no difference in the stuff that makes it all up, not on the element or chemical scale scale but when looking at the smallest scale possible of all the individual atoms/particles they should all be the same stuff right?
    Well, all atoms are made of protons, neutrons and electrons. But that isn't very helpful when understanding the difference between animals and rocks. In that case, you need to look at the chemistry; i.e. the atoms. And there are atoms in rocks that do not exist in the human body.
    yes, you are correct in a sense, atoms are indeed made of protons, neutrons and electron, that is indisputable, i understand that the particles that makes up a rock is different from the particles that makes us, however, i am not talking about the atoms in whole, i am talking about all the particles that come together and makes the atom, what im saying is that there is no difference between the protons, neutrons and electrons that makes a planet when compared to the protons, neutrons and electrons that makes us, the only thing that is different between them is the way of which the atoms/particles are combined. i guess this is hard for me to explain effectively. just because the atoms that makes a rock is different from the atoms that makes a human body doesnt mean that the rock and the human are made of different things because the particles that makes a rock is the same particles that makes a human. just to verify, you do know that when i say "particles" that i am speaking about the protons, neutrons and electrons that actually make up the atom right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,637
    Quote Originally Posted by xxsolarplexusxx View Post
    ... just to verify, you do know that when i say "particles" that i am speaking about the protons, neutrons and electrons that actually make up the atom right?
    Well, actually, that wasn't completely clear (the title of your post ambiguously uses "atoms/particles," which could mean that you are treating "atoms" and "particles" as synonymous). So thanks for now clearing that up.

    That having been said, all three of the particles you now list explicitly (electron, proton and neutron) possess magnetic moments. The neutron, of course, has no net electric charge, but it nonetheless possesses a magnetic moment. That it does is a clue that the neutron is not "elementary" in the sense that Rutherford, e.g., used the term.

    You can change fields in many ways: Set the particles into motion, bring additional particles into proximity, etc. You said "any way", but I suspect you don't actually mean that. If you could say more about what you really mean, someone here can probably give you a more detailed answer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,508
    Quote Originally Posted by xxsolarplexusxx View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xxsolarplexusxx View Post
    ah i see, things starting to make more sense now, how ever, i am not sure what you mean when you said there is elements present in planets that are not in our bodies. i mean, yeah , there is different elements but thats only if you look at it from far. its hard to explain, like, if we break down all the stuff that makes a planet and then break down all the stuff that makes our bodies then the we should find that it is all the same stuff, like, we perceive elements and substances on a larger scale then its essential structure, so even though we may perceive water to be different from air there is still no difference in the stuff that makes it all up, not on the element or chemical scale scale but when looking at the smallest scale possible of all the individual atoms/particles they should all be the same stuff right?
    Well, all atoms are made of protons, neutrons and electrons. But that isn't very helpful when understanding the difference between animals and rocks. In that case, you need to look at the chemistry; i.e. the atoms. And there are atoms in rocks that do not exist in the human body.
    yes, you are correct in a sense, atoms are indeed made of protons, neutrons and electron, that is indisputable, i understand that the particles that makes up a rock is different from the particles that makes us, however, i am not talking about the atoms in whole, i am talking about all the particles that come together and makes the atom, what im saying is that there is no difference between the protons, neutrons and electrons that makes a planet when compared to the protons, neutrons and electrons that makes us, the only thing that is different between them is the way of which the atoms/particles are combined. i guess this is hard for me to explain effectively. just because the atoms that makes a rock is different from the atoms that makes a human body doesnt mean that the rock and the human are made of different things because the particles that makes a rock is the same particles that makes a human. just to verify, you do know that when i say "particles" that i am speaking about the protons, neutrons and electrons that actually make up the atom right?
    Yes we understand that. Strange is agreeing with you, but pointing out that to explain why a rock is not the same as a human being (say), you have to look at (a) the way these particles combine to make different varieties of atom (which is explained by nuclear physics) and (b) the way the varieties of atom combine to make molecules and so-called "giant structures" (which is explained by chemistry). And then there is also the way these molecules and giant structures interact in living things (biology) and in minerals (mineralogy and geology).

    So there is a nice hierarchy of complexity, but indeed all based on the same simple set of fundamental particles, as you say.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,478
    Quote Originally Posted by xxsolarplexusxx View Post
    just because the atoms that makes a rock is different from the atoms that makes a human body doesnt mean that the rock and the human are made of different things because the particles that makes a rock is the same particles that makes a human. just to verify, you do know that when i say "particles" that i am speaking about the protons, neutrons and electrons that actually make up the atom right?
    I suppose it was a great insight when people first realised that everything in the universe was made from the same basic components (protons, neutrons and electrons). But beyond that it is not a particularly useful concept. It tells you nothing about rocks or people.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,478
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    So there is a nice hierarchy of complexity, but indeed all based on the same simple set of fundamental particles, as you say.
    And worth noting, perhaps, that protons and neutrons are made of the same fundamental particles (quarks) so all matter is made of just quarks and electrons. But that is even less helpful for understanding the nature of matter!
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xxsolarplexusxx View Post
    ... just to verify, you do know that when i say "particles" that i am speaking about the protons, neutrons and electrons that actually make up the atom right?
    Well, actually, that wasn't completely clear (the title of your post ambiguously uses "atoms/particles," which could mean that you are treating "atoms" and "particles" as synonymous). So thanks for now clearing that up.

    That having been said, all three of the particles you now list explicitly (electron, proton and neutron) possess magnetic moments. The neutron, of course, has no net electric charge, but it nonetheless possesses a magnetic moment. That it does is a clue that the neutron is not "elementary" in the sense that Rutherford, e.g., used the term.

    You can change fields in many ways: Set the particles into motion, bring additional particles into proximity, etc. You said "any way", but I suspect you don't actually mean that. If you could say more about what you really mean, someone here can probably give you a more detailed answer.

    ah, i see. and my fault, i should made my statements more clear. I knew something was a miss because everything else strange explained was on point and made good sense....while researching into what atoms and its particles actually are, i seem to have stumbled into something that makes a huge mess of things......there is a experiment called " the double slit experiment" and according to what i read protons act like a wave in a state of probability when not being observed or recorded, but as soon as they are observed, monitored or recorded they collapse into particles.....i can not be the only one who thinks thats insane.....to me, it seems like that experiment is implying that our conscious mind is somehow literally responsible for giving particles their structure.

    have any of you heard about this experiment? what are you guy's thoughts on the subject?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,478
    Quote Originally Posted by xxsolarplexusxx View Post
    there is a experiment called " the double slit experiment" and according to what i read protons act like a wave in a state of probability when not being observed or recorded, but as soon as they are observed, monitored or recorded they collapse into particles....
    That is not really what the experiment shows (although I gather that some bad articles describe it that way).

    All particles have some wave-like properties and some particle-like properties. So when we send particles through the two slits they are able to pass through both like a wave. Those waves can then interfere with one another. When we detect the position of the particle, the places we detect it are affected by that interference pattern.

    One important result of this is that particles are not like solid little balls.

    (I guess you read "photons" not "protons". It would work with protons, but I am not aware of any experiments using them. It is usually done with electrons or photons. But it can also be done with whole atoms.)

    i can not be the only one who thinks thats insane.....to me, it seems like that experiment is implying that our conscious mind is somehow literally responsible for giving particles their structure.
    It has nothing to do with consciousness. The "observer" could just be a camera.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xxsolarplexusxx View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xxsolarplexusxx View Post
    ah i see, things starting to make more sense now, how ever, i am not sure what you mean when you said there is elements present in planets that are not in our bodies. i mean, yeah , there is different elements but thats only if you look at it from far. its hard to explain, like, if we break down all the stuff that makes a planet and then break down all the stuff that makes our bodies then the we should find that it is all the same stuff, like, we perceive elements and substances on a larger scale then its essential structure, so even though we may perceive water to be different from air there is still no difference in the stuff that makes it all up, not on the element or chemical scale scale but when looking at the smallest scale possible of all the individual atoms/particles they should all be the same stuff right?
    Well, all atoms are made of protons, neutrons and electrons. But that isn't very helpful when understanding the difference between animals and rocks. In that case, you need to look at the chemistry; i.e. the atoms. And there are atoms in rocks that do not exist in the human body.
    yes, you are correct in a sense, atoms are indeed made of protons, neutrons and electron, that is indisputable, i understand that the particles that makes up a rock is different from the particles that makes us, however, i am not talking about the atoms in whole, i am talking about all the particles that come together and makes the atom, what im saying is that there is no difference between the protons, neutrons and electrons that makes a planet when compared to the protons, neutrons and electrons that makes us, the only thing that is different between them is the way of which the atoms/particles are combined. i guess this is hard for me to explain effectively. just because the atoms that makes a rock is different from the atoms that makes a human body doesnt mean that the rock and the human are made of different things because the particles that makes a rock is the same particles that makes a human. just to verify, you do know that when i say "particles" that i am speaking about the protons, neutrons and electrons that actually make up the atom right?
    Yes we understand that. Strange is agreeing with you, but pointing out that to explain why a rock is not the same as a human being (say), you have to look at (a) the way these particles combine to make different varieties of atom (which is explained by nuclear physics) and (b) the way the varieties of atom combine to make molecules and so-called "giant structures" (which is explained by chemistry). And then there is also the way these molecules and giant structures interact in living things (biology) and in minerals (mineralogy and geology).

    So there is a nice hierarchy of complexity, but indeed all based on the same simple set of fundamental particles, as you say.
    its mind blowing trying to imagine the sheer amount complexity required for particles to come together in such a way that they actually gain such a vast variety of properties. its hard to explain exactly what I mean when it comes to such mind numbing concepts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xxsolarplexusxx View Post
    there is a experiment called " the double slit experiment" and according to what i read protons act like a wave in a state of probability when not being observed or recorded, but as soon as they are observed, monitored or recorded they collapse into particles....
    That is not really what the experiment shows (although I gather that some bad articles describe it that way).

    All particles have some wave-like properties and some particle-like properties. So when we send particles through the two slits they are able to pass through both like a wave. Those waves can then interfere with one another. When we detect the position of the particle, the places we detect it are affected by that interference pattern.

    One important result of this is that particles are not like solid little balls.

    (I guess you read "photons" not "protons". It would work with protons, but I am not aware of any experiments using them. It is usually done with electrons or photons. But it can also be done with whole atoms.)

    i can not be the only one who thinks thats insane.....to me, it seems like that experiment is implying that our conscious mind is somehow literally responsible for giving particles their structure.
    It has nothing to do with consciousness. The "observer" could just be a camera.
    you may be right about me confusing protons and photons. i looked through many sources of this experiment to try exactly what took place, it seems that they even fired particles one at a time because they thought firing more then one is what was causing the interference, they found that the particle would still show a interfere pattern even if it was fired by it self. also, the particle would only act like a wave and interfere with itself if was being monitored, obvserved or recorded. my point is that you do not have to have a conscious mind directly observing the results in order for the particle to act like a single particle instead of a wave. it seems that our intent to record or monitor the particle is enough to make it act like a particle. for instance, the scientist put a device that could keep track of the particle as it was fired, it acted like what you expect from a particle, but then they unplugged the device that was monitoring the particle and it no longer acted like a particle, it acted as a wave and interfered with itself. so you do not need a conscious mind present to collapse the wave function, you only have to have a conscious mind that will observe the results sometime if the future after the particle was fired....its like the particles somehow know the future. I read this many many sources but it is possible the information I read is false.

    but, there is a new, more recent double slit experiment that was designed specifically to test if the conscious mind effects the particles behavior and if the conscious intent could effect the particles behavior. turns out consciousness does effect the particles behavior.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,651
    Quote Originally Posted by xxsolarplexusxx View Post
    but, there is a new, more recent double slit experiment that was designed specifically to test if the conscious mind effects the particles behavior and if the conscious intent could effect the particles behavior. turns out consciousness does effect the particles behavior.
    Link please.
    Are you sure that was a reliable (non-crank) report?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,637
    Quote Originally Posted by xxsolarplexusxx View Post
    but, there is a new, more recent double slit experiment that was designed specifically to test if the conscious mind effects the particles behavior and if the conscious intent could effect the particles behavior. turns out consciousness does effect the particles behavior.
    No. Just no.

    There is an incredible amount of New Age shite about this sort of thing, and you have to develop a better BS detector than you currently possess. Quantum woo peddlers like Deepak Chopra, Dean Radin, etc. love to conflate quantum mystery with every other sort of mystery ("We don't understand quantum theory, and we don't understand consciousness. Therefore, they're the same/related/similar/derive from one another/buy my book and magic elixirs"). Don't fall for that crap.

    A measurement ("observation") in QM merely involves the interaction of a quantum system (e.g., double-slit apparatus) with a macroscopic instrument. Consciousness is irrelevant. Photographic film does just fine, and last time I checked, film is not conscious.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,478
    Quote Originally Posted by xxsolarplexusxx View Post
    you may be right about me confusing protons and photons. i looked through many sources of this experiment to try exactly what took place, it seems that they even fired particles one at a time because they thought firing more then one is what was causing the interference, they found that the particle would still show a interfere pattern even if it was fired by it self. also, the particle would only act like a wave and interfere with itself if was being monitored, obvserved or recorded. my point is that you do not have to have a conscious mind directly observing the results in order for the particle to act like a single particle instead of a wave. it seems that our intent to record or monitor the particle is enough to make it act like a particle. for instance, the scientist put a device that could keep track of the particle as it was fired, it acted like what you expect from a particle, but then they unplugged the device that was monitoring the particle and it no longer acted like a particle, it acted as a wave and interfered with itself. so you do not need a conscious mind present to collapse the wave function, you only have to have a conscious mind that will observe the results sometime if the future after the particle was fired....its like the particles somehow know the future. I read this many many sources but it is possible the information I read is false.
    You have a slightly confused understanding of this experiment. Let me summarise briefly what happens.

    The "classical" (not quantum) version of this experiment was performed by Thomas Young in 1801. It showed that light is a wave. Lesson 58: Young's Double Slit Experiment

    Because quantum theory says that all particles have wavelike properties, the same experiment can be explained treating light as discrete photons instead of waves. (This is also why we can use electrons to look at things in an electron microscope.)

    Quantum theory also predicts that even if only one photon at a time goes through the experiment you will still get the interference pattern. There are two ways of thinking about this. The easiest is to imagine that each photon goes through both slits and then "interferes with itself" to determine where it will end up.

    The next thing is that if you try and check which slit each photon goes through, then this destroys the interference pattern. By observing which slit the photon goes through you effectively "force" it to go through only that slit and not the other. Note that this check can be done without affecting the photon or the slit at all. So it is purely the information about which slit that changes things.

    The next thing is that you can arrange for that information to be gathered after the pattern has been fired. In that case, it will still affect the pattern even though the pattern was formed before the observation was made. You can think of this as affecting things in the past but it is just a result of the fact that quantum effects are non-local; i.e. they are affected by everything in the universe and at all times.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaye...quantum_eraser

    If you want to see this explained by the guy who developed much of the theory behind it, with this video series:
    http://www.vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,508
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xxsolarplexusxx View Post
    but, there is a new, more recent double slit experiment that was designed specifically to test if the conscious mind effects the particles behavior and if the conscious intent could effect the particles behavior. turns out consciousness does effect the particles behavior.
    No. Just no.

    There is an incredible amount of New Age shite about this sort of thing, and you have to develop a better BS detector than you currently possess. Quantum woo peddlers like Deepak Chopra, Dean Radin, etc. love to conflate quantum mystery with every other sort of mystery ("We don't understand quantum theory, and we don't understand consciousness. Therefore, they're the same/related/similar/derive from one another/buy my book and magic elixirs"). Don't fall for that crap.

    A measurement ("observation") in QM merely involves the interaction of a quantum system (e.g., double-slit apparatus) with a macroscopic instrument. Consciousness is irrelevant. Photographic film does just fine, and last time I checked, film is not conscious.
    Very well said. This comes up time after time on science forums.

    Unfortunately the Von Neumann-Wigner interpretation of wave function collapse is often cited by the better read exponents. My understanding is that this interpretation is nowadays just a historical curiosity, but people who want mystery in their lives d seem keen to hang onto it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman Rarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    There is an incredible amount of New Age shite about this sort of thing, and you have to develop a better BS detector than you currently possess.
    Yes, quite true. There will always be those spouting psycho-babble, and believers desperate for the salvation they're selling. In the past they have persuaded the gullible that answers can be found in magnetism, or radium, or crystals or whatever snake-oil was the current vogue, and these days is is often anything with the word 'quantum' in it. But to look on the bright side, that means they have almost been driven to the edge of reality for the source of their supposed magic elixirs.

    The market will always exist of course because we all find ourselves as: a) a living being in a competitive environment with an acute sense of self-preservation, and b) a sentient being with the knowledge of our time-limited existence. The snake-oil salesmen can exploit this cognitive dilemma because luckily for them we also possess c) the potential for an almost infinite degree of self-delusion.

    So a BS detector is always needed together with a basic understanding of science, but if one is short on either a good rule of thumb is to ask if the proposition being suggested is in some way supposedly going to solve the aforementioned dilemma, or to make money for the proposer. If either answer is yes then it's almost certainly fake.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,508
    Quote Originally Posted by Rarry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    There is an incredible amount of New Age shite about this sort of thing, and you have to develop a better BS detector than you currently possess.
    Yes, quite true. There will always be those spouting psycho-babble, and believers desperate for the salvation they're selling. In the past they have persuaded the gullible that answers can be found in magnetism, or radium, or crystals or whatever snake-oil was the current vogue, and these days is is often anything with the word 'quantum' in it. But to look on the bright side, that means they have almost been driven to the edge of reality for the source of their supposed magic elixirs.

    The market will always exist of course because we all find ourselves as: a) a living being in a competitive environment with an acute sense of self-preservation, and b) a sentient being with the knowledge of our time-limited existence. The snake-oil salesmen can exploit this cognitive dilemma because luckily for them we also possess c) the potential for an almost infinite degree of self-delusion.

    So a BS detector is always needed together with a basic understanding of science, but if one is short on either a good rule of thumb is to ask if the proposition being suggested is in some way supposedly going to solve the aforementioned dilemma, or to make money for the proposer. If either answer is yes then it's almost certainly fake.
    You are quoting tk421 not me, though as it happens I agree with him.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Rarry View Post
    or radium
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,747
    Quote Originally Posted by xxsolarplexusxx View Post

    also, are atoms/particles actual tiny balls? I find it impossible for atoms/particles to have any type of shell that would give it a specific shape, think about it, if a atom/particle is shaped like a ball, then the surface of that ball must consist of something in order for it to exist....thus, the stuff that atom/particle is made of must be made of something, now we have another "something" that must be made of something else ect.... it is a infinite loop, i see no end in sight. atoms/particles must not have a defined shape at all and must not be made of any type substance/material.
    If we ignore the reference to atoms and just apply this reasoning to any particle ,is this reasoning correct? Is it an intuitive way to understand that the concept of separate (billiard -ball like) particles at whatever level is a non starter and always was -even before the experimental results in quantum mechanics were made (in the early 20th century ,was it?)

    I know the standard** response on this and other forums is that the natural world cares nothing for what we would expect it to be and that (imperfect) observations put into a theoretical framework are the touch stone, but is there any point to Andrew's ( and now my) rationalisation of this particle vs non particle question?

    ** not meant in any disparaging way
    Last edited by geordief; August 28th, 2017 at 05:00 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman Rarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8
    There seems to be plenty of evidence to suppose that particles aren't 'made' of anything at all. Experiments with quantum tunneling, particle/wave duality and ideas about relativity all suggest that matter is probably not fundamental, but emergent. When we get down to the smallest things it seems that reality starts to become less 'real' in any way we are familiar with, and more a question of probablity. Mass, energy and gravity possibly can all be explained by quantum theory and relativity. It needs a shift of perception to try to visualise it and it's one we're not really designed for. Maybe sometime in the future, AI can figure it all out and explain it to us?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. What are magnetic fields made of?
    By polygon6 in forum Physics
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: October 6th, 2014, 12:39 PM
  2. Opposing magnetic fields.
    By GiantEvil in forum Physics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: December 20th, 2013, 02:21 AM
  3. Are all gravitational fields electro-magnetic?
    By jsaldea12 in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: January 18th, 2011, 06:22 PM
  4. magnetite and the magnetic fields
    By dejawolf in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: January 16th, 2008, 10:49 AM
  5. if i align magnetic fields..
    By OGIONIK in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 14th, 2007, 09:48 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •