Is Cold Fusion possible?

Is Cold Fusion possible? And if so, how would you destroy the world with it?

[Bob Baddeley]

This thread should go in chit chat.

If cold fusion were possible, it would be happening randomly all the time. The forces required to condense two atoms close enough together that their nuclei fuse are massive. We're talking about overcoming the Strong Nuclear force, the strongest of the four forces, and it doesn't happen at room temperature.

Besides, why would you destroy the world? Then my current project would be worthless.

bob

Of course cold fusion is possible, every week i actively try to prevent cold pizza fusing to my carpet. On numerous occasions I have almost resorted to strong nuclear forces!

heheheheheh

[kedaman]

Cold fusion is possible, i'm just working on an application with some API's that calls them self i an order that starts some coldfusion in the electronic circuits at R2D2C3P0 in the mainboard. Occasionally i blow up the computer too.

I agree with yu as well. Cold Fusion is possible, maybe in the near future we can prove it.

[joey o.]

What exactly would you like to do? Blow up the world? If so, I don't want to help you. What I need to know is what's meant by "fusion". Is this the release of energy though two atoms combining? If so I think that squaring the force of the individual atoms's resistence would counteract their ability to split apart, but I don't know how you could make the shells envelope their selves.Thanks for letting me babble.

[V(ery) Basic]

I am a scientist.

Well, not really. But I know enough.

The thing is that at Kelvin 0 (c. -273 degrees celsius)
all atoms stop moving.

The temperature for cold fusion to occur is below -273, but
since all atomic and subatomic movement ceases at -273 there
is now way to get colder, and therefore no way to have cold
fusion.

:o

Why does it have to be below 0 Kelvin?

[Sam Finch]

There's no such thing as below 0 Kelvin, or do you mean a negative temprature (-ve tempratures are wierd quantum things that are actually very hot indeed), below zero tempratures is like saying bigger than infinity. (Gen-X leave it.) it just doesn't make sense.

[kedaman]

0K is not the same as -273C, its -273,15... a Real constant
But in my computer it went below 0K

Is there any limit to the hottest temperature?

[Sam Finch]

Nope as long as you can keep the heat pumping in.

heh :) I wonder how hot it was at plank time (A couple of seconds after the big bang)

[Sam Finch]

Pretty Toasty

you could be fried in a second.

Another thought about cold fusion: It could help us
with our energy problems a lot!! We wouldn't have to
worry about nuclear wastes etc. etc.

[kedaman]

Megatron: Is there any limit to the hottest temperature?
Sam Finch: Nope as long as you can keep the heat pumping in.

Yes there is a limit, if we use all the energy in universe including all heat, movement, matter (E=MC^2), exactly everything to heat up something, and we take the smallest particle in universe, and see how "hot" it gets. Well that would be pretty hot i think, but you can't exceed that temperature.

[Sam Finch]

Why does Cold Fusion produce less waste than Hot Fission?

I think because the joining of the atoms can cause the "waste" to be reused.

[Sam Finch]

I'd disagree with that, we havn't even decided what atoms are best for cold fusion(or have we? I don't know about these things)

Probably Hydrogen, since 90% of the universe is hydrogen.

[kedaman]

0% is of universe is hydrogen you mean, 90% of universe matter.

90% of matter is hydrogen :)

[Sam Finch]

So what.

[kedaman]

The thing is that i need to get more posts, youre way to close. When i wake up tomorrow youre long way up 700 posts, and thats unfair:(

[Sam Finch]

don't worry, I'm still 17 posts behind.

What's this about Cold Fusion?

[kedaman]

15 posts actually, but I was really afraid you would take over this night, batsam

Nobody stay up all night just to post (or do they...)

[kedaman]

Yes, I am, and its your fault megatron, youre overposting this site, i got a bunch of 14 replies to, and guess what, they where all from megatron!

But it wasn't at night.

[kedaman]

It is here, 24:00, and guess what, im going up 6 to work

You should get some sleep

[Sam Finch]

any comments about cold fusion?

Oh yeah, I forogt what the whole point of this subject was!
Some posted, awhile back that the temperature has to be 0 Kelvin to achieve Cold Fusion. Why does it have to be that low?

[Sam Finch]

Having looked at that again, That's stupid, cold fusion is aboud getting nuclear fusion at atainable tempratures. At the moment we use nuclear fusion in nuclear weapons, but you need a normal nuclear bomb to get the temprature hot enough to achieve fission.

It is stupid, 0 kelvin means that the atoms are absolutley still.

[Sam Finch]

I don't know exactly how you're going to get them to fuse without them being able to move close to each other.

It doesn't have to be 0 Kelvin though. They can virtually stop wobbling at -250 C.

[Sam Finch]

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
:D:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):D
:D:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):D
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

[Edited by Sam Finch on 05-06-2000 at 12:35 AM]

[Sam Finch]

Just make sure nobody knows

[Sam Finch]

Actually don't bother, I think it's out the bag.

[kedaman]

:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)
:):):):):):):):):):):):):):)
:):):):):):):):):):):):)
:):):):):):):):):):)
:):):):):):):):)
:):):):):):)
:):):):)
:D:D

Any one know what this is`?

[Sam Finch]

yes, it's

:D:D
:):):):)
:):):):):):)
:):):):):):):):)
:):):):):):):):):):)
:):):):):):):):):):):):)
:):):):):):):):):):):):):):)
:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)

upside down

[kedaman]

Hmm, we need the starter of this thread to delete this thread

It's turning more into a junky thread than a matter of wheather cold fusion is possible of not.

[Gen-X]

I hate raining on people's parades :(

Recent studies have shown that atoms do NOT cease to move when they reach 0 Kelvin.

In fact what they have found is that the atoms actually "oscilate" where they stand (very slight movements to each side), disproving the theory that ALL matter ceases to function at what is known as "Absolute Zero".

I dont know what the repercussions of this discovery is but what it does show is that ALL matter is continually moving and continually expending energy.

I think one of the "theories" was that if we could instantaneously freeze a human being at absolute zero then we could effectively have cryogenic stasis and revive the person in 200 years time and they would not have aged a day... Considering now that the atoms do still expend energy it means the possibility of suspendid animation is even less than previously thought.

Its the whole reason why the clone of Dolly is genetically 3 years older than the it should be... because while the genetic material was stored using liquid nitrogen at near absolute zero... "aging" still occured on that material.

[Sam Finch]

I don't understand.

I thought the definition of absolute zero was that the particles weren't moving.

And what do you mean "Studies have Shown" that they are, I was under the impression that it was impossible to reach absolute zero as the wavelength of the particles becomes infinate and they need an infinately large container to set up the correct standing wave, which obviously means that they could be anywhere in this infinatly large container so they become hard to look at, plus in order to look at them you need to bounce some light off them, which warms them up.

Or are you saying that 0K is not infact absolute zero and we've got our scale wrong, or the scale is nonlinear at very low tempratures or something?

[joey o.]

those particles you said oscilate at OK can't be at OK because there movement is energy and energy creates heat. Unless it bounces back and forth from OK then moves then goes back.Their study doesn't cut it!

You're right. We can never get Adsolute Zero. People have come close (0.0000001 Kelvin) but never 0 on the dot.

[The Candlesitck Maker]

Absolute Zero Rules 0K.

[kedaman]

I have an idea, how do you define temparature? Yes it's from a single point in space. The if you have no particles at one point(vacuum) you have 0K at that point.

[Sam Finch]

I think you've missed the point Ked.

Temprature is technicly defined by the energy levels of electrons going round andividual atoms (I think Gen-X, this is something you might know?) I can't remember the details but you can technicly get a -ve temprature but not zero. I think the temperature of a group of particles is defined by the RMS (root mean square ie for a group of 5 particles

sqrt( ( T(1)^2 + T(2)^2 + T(3)^2 + T(4)^2 + T(5)^2 ) / 5 )

in clasical physics the tempature is the RMS of the Kinetic Energies of all the particles in a group of particles .

You can't have a temperature of a vacuum, there's nothing to take the temperature of.

[Gen-X]

That sounds about right Sam.

The word "Temperature" itself talks about how often particles touch each other.

"HIGH" temperature means high collisions and "LOW" temperate means fewer collisions.

Thus because there are no particles in what you call a classical "vaccum" temperate is irrelevant.

Funny thing is that people say the "vaccum" of space is really cold, but it certainly isn't absolute zero or else anything that moved INTO that space would freeze.

So I wonder if that means there HAS to be particles in what we call a vaccum... Obviously photons must be in there if we are LOOKing at this vaccum, or if we stand on other sides of it, or if we send ANY form of device into it to detect if it is a vaccum or not... and obviously the WALLS of whatever "contains" the vaccum are made of particles some of which must "leak" into the vaccum itself.

In fact... I am pretty sure that no matter WHERE I am in space, I can look in any direction and "SEE" stars. This means photons are hitting my eyes...

So is there really any such thing as a vaccum in space?

I wonder WHO came up with the idea that at -273.15 degrees below a thing we decided to call "celcius" because at 0 water froze, was something called "absolute zero"

Surely if the whole idea of the celcius scale being 0 - 100 (water boil and freeze) then absolute zero ONLY relates to water?

[Edited by Gen-X on 05-10-2000 at 10:22 PM]

[Sam Finch]

Gen-X i'm shocked.

I wonder WHO came up with the idea that at -273.15 degrees below a thing we decided to call "celcius" because at 0 water froze, was something called "absolute zero"

Surely if the whole idea of the celcius scale being 0 - 100 (water boil and freeze) then absolute zero ONLY relates to water?

It was my understanding that you were pretty good at physics. and had a degree in it, yet you don't seem to understand Boyles law, which is taught as GCSE level (exams for 15-16 year olds)

Boyles Law states (T+c) = kPV for an "Ideal Gas" in a box, where

T is the temprature in C of the Gas,

c is some constant,

k is another constant for what the gas is and how much is in the box,

P is the Pressure of the gas and

V is the Volume of the Box.

This describes a straight line for the graph T against PV.

We Can see that keeping the temperature constant If we reduce the size of the Box the pressure rises, and some other relationships you see in everyday life.

But what we see is that If T+c = 0 then for any finite sized box the pressure is zero, this must mean the particles are not moving.

c was worked out to be 273.15

wheather this holds at quantum level is debatable, as I mentioned before absolute zero can never be reached as the particles wavelength must be infinite and can not be contained. also this is a statistical law so at the low low temperatures needed for QM to be dominant ther'es no such thing as an Ideal gas.

Fusion comes from the sun. If we had fusion..we wouldn't need gas. Electric/gas heating. Or moving at light year speed. And flying cars :). That's why we can't explore much of space..cuz there just isn't enough gas! Fusion would be so much cheaper and prolly last longer than gas. But unfortunately..humans are still to primitive yet to acquire that kinda thing. Not totally. We acquire some fusion..the heat and energy from the sun in a way.

[Edited by Matthew Gates on 05-11-2000 at 04:06 PM]

[Sam Finch]

We can do nuclear fusion, but only in bomb form, it's why we're looking for cold fusion, at the moment the conditions for fusion to occur need to be so hot that it takes a fusion bomb to reach them.

I understnad why it needs to be so hot for fusion to take place, but how does it work when it's cold?

[Sam Finch]

If we knew that there's be less of a problem.

[Bob Baddeley]

Read this. All of it. It's relevant and might stop some of the silly bickering.

There is something called Brownian motion, which is the continuous oscillation of atoms, but you have to wonder where it gets all the energy to move.

Also, "studies have shown" absolutely nothing because we can't get down to absolute zero. It has a little to with the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, I believe. As soon as you attempt to measure something, you affect it. How do we measure if it is at absolute zero without introducing something that is warmer? For example, putting a thermometer in won't work because the thermometer is warm and it will heat everything up. Also, using a scanning electron microscope won't work because you introduce energetic electrons. Basically, you can't tell if it's at absolute zero without destroying the data. Ooh, this is Schrodinger's superposition! Long live the cat in a living/dead state, because if you open the box to see if it's alive, it's one or the other. As long as the box is closed, it's both alive and dead. I love quantum mechanics.

I'm worried I'm being a little over the heads of some of you, so back to the relevant matter.

Cold fusion does indeed have to occur at attainable temperatures, but that's very difficult. Do you remember high school chemistry when we talked about energy activation barriers? That is the amount of energy it takes to get a reaction to occur. If that energy is less than or equal to the amount of energy present, then the reaction will occur spontaneously. The trouble is that it takes a whopping amount of energy to counter the strong magnetic force that's keeping the atoms apart. Remember that + and + repel and - and - repel? try sticking two atoms together when first the electrons repel each other, then the nuclei. It takes a phenominal amount of energy, unless you can devise a catalyst that nullifies the strong nuclear force, in which case you redefine physics, win the nobel prize, and are assassinated by the entire physics community.

Eek my paragraphs are too long.

bob

More to the point...

Is Cold Fusion 3.1 possible on IIS 5?

I can't get it to work but I can't figure out why.
(Just to completely change the subject :p )

[Tainc]

Something has always bugged the heck out of me about the whole concept. Isn't it a bit presumptuous to assume that because we do knot know whether otr not the cat is alive while the box is closed, tht it is suspended between them? Everything is based on observation, right? Could the cat, a (once, at least) living organism, not percieve itself and therefore be alive?

Wouldn't that be like saying that if I'm having a conversation with someone and close my eyes, they cease to be there until I open them again?

The person who was standing there is most certainly still there, and they know it.

I think I'ts a bit arrogant for a scientist to assume that because they do not know what state something is in, that is does not HAVE a state.

-tainc

[Sam Finch]

This one's a bit of a puzzler, you are right. The reason we say this is because we are looking at it Objectively.

Imagine I run a strange Casino, one of the Games you can play is the Shroedinger game.

The rules are as follows. I have a pack of cards, you make a bet and I turn the top card over.

you get to make one of 2 bets

Bet 1

you bet that the top card is red. I'm giving you odds of 3:2 (ie you give me £2 and if it's red I give you £3 and your original £2. If it's Black I keep your £2


Bet 2

You bet that the card is a 10, I'm giving you Evens, ie you give me £1 if it's a 10 I giive you £1 plus your original $1 back.

Clearly bet 1 is better, you have a higher chance of winning and are given better odds.


now before you make your bet I look at the top card but I don't show it to you. It's the 10 of Spades

How should you bet?

now If you've seen the card you should choose bet 2 because it means you win whereas bet 1 means you loose.

but you havn't seen the card. Can we say it would be irrational to choose bet 1?

No of course not. you can see how the card is in a state of not having a value when it's not been looked at, that state doesn't change when I look at the card, because that information is not available to you.


So how can the state of the card be different for 2 observers, well that's just how things work, the universe can be different for 2 different observers.

Imagine there is a star 100 light years away from earth, you measure the distance with your increadable distance measurer, it's exactly 100 light years (give or take the radius of the earths orbit) now I get in a spaceship and set off towards it at half the speed of light and I measure the distance from the earth to the sun, it's only 25 light years. nobody is wrong, it's just that the universe can be different to 2 different observers.

[Tainc]

That was a really good explanation, Sam. Thanks.
Actually, since you understand that so well, could you explain something else for me?

Wave vs. Particle properties of light.
I've done three studies on this topic and I can't seem to grasp one thing: according to the slit experiments, light is in wave form when it is not being observed, but in particle form when it is. I know this has to sound like a stupid question, but, what determines whether or not it is being observed?

[parksie]

Ouch. We've just done wave/particle duality in A-level Physics. Light is assumed to be a wave, because of diffraction, refraction, and such. That was how it was for quite a long time. However, scientists love to confuse people who think they've got it made, so...they decided to give it particle activity as well. This is because of the photoelectric effect. If you shine UV light onto a negatively charged plate (ie more electrons), then it is possible to measure the number of quanta absorbed into each electron, and the Zinc leaf experiment is used for that. UV light is used because high frequencies have higher energy photons. The fact that electrons immediately begin to be liberated proves that it is particle effects. With UV light acting as a wave, there should be an approx 3 second delay before the effects were noticed, as a wave cannot carry that much energy.

This is probably incomprehensible but that's because I don't completely understand what is already a weird topic.

As for whether or not it's being observed...it is both at the same time!

[Tainc]

nnnyeehh... unngghhh.....
*twitch twitch*

Both at the same time? ...how?

[parksie]

That's the problem with quantum mechanics. What things are depends on how you observe something. For example, there is the thing with quantum particles and either knowing its speed or its position, but never both at the same time (I think).

[Guv]

Some of you should have started new Threads instead of digressing from the subject of this Thread. Perhaps you respond without reading the Thread First? Bright idea.

There were a lot of remarks made that indicated almost zero pertinent knowledge. For example, "Cold Fusion" refers to some experiments done at room temperature. The subject has nothing to do with absolute zero. It would probably be considered "Cold Fusion" if it happened at 1000 degrees.

Sam Finch & and a few others seem to know what they are talking about, but the rest of you are clueless.

Interstellar space is considered cold, even though it is almost a vacuum & perhaps technically no temperature reading is possible. It is considered cold because a warm body would radiate its heat very fast and get cold in a hurry.

The Shroedinger's Cat experiment is more subtle than you might suppose. The problem is that certain Quantum properties can have only one of two possible states when actually measured. However, logical arguments based on assuming either value (without actually making a measurement) lead to erroneous conclusions (or results contrary to experiment). This leads to the conceptt that neither state exists until a measurement is actually made. Bohr (a genius) was serious when he said "If you are not bewildered by it, you do not understand it."

[Sam Finch]

I thought this might come up.

the first thing to realise is that in fact a particle and a wave are the same thing, It's not that sometimes a wave is like a particle and sometimes it's like a wave, it's always both.

When the particle travles it always travles like a wave, ie it defracts and refracts (N.B. Reflection is slightly different) it has a wavelength like all waves, (It's amplitude is slightly different that a normal wake though, I believe it's a complex number)

but bsicly it's like a wave in that respect.

I said it's amplitude was a bit wierd, but essentially you can think of it as a probability wave, at the peaks (and the troughs) the probability is high, where it crosses the axis the probability is low (you have to imagine a Sine wave while reading that)

Probability of what you say?

it's the probability of a collision. The best way to explain this is to imagine a particle(that is completley a particle, not a wave at all, They don't exist but it helps if you imagine one) so if this very particle like particle (we'll call it a pure particle) crosses through the axis of the wave if it is crossing where there is a peak or a trough there is a high probability that it will collide with the particle, if it passes through at a root there is a probability of 0 that they will collide.

now in reality there is no such thing as the pure particle so we get 2 of the wave functions crossing and the probability of a collision is much harder to work out, but the same principal applies.


The collision can be worked out with the same rules as conventional particles colliding, this is where we get the particle like properties of the wave.


That's the basics of it, As for whether it's being observed or not in order to observe it you have to bounce something off it or bounce it off something, ie there must be a collision, this is why you can say the particle properties kick in when it is observed.


It's quite complicated and wierd, but it's the way it is, the reason it seems so wierd is that it's nothing like the world we see around us. because all this is probability, and there are so many particles rules of statistics start kicking in and we get very predictable results, ie the probabilities no longer apply and things are very particle like. but deep down at particle level it's completley different.


Right onto the Uncertainty Principal.

one thing I forgot to mention is that all these particles have a momentum (this is what we use to calculate how the collisions turn out) the wavelength and the momentum of the particle are very much connected, they are inversley proportional, ie the larger the momentum the smaller the wavelength and the larger the wavelength the smaller the momentum. Thsi is an Iron Clad rule, there's no probability involved here Momentum * Wavelength = h

where h is a constant (Plancs constant,
it's about 10 ^(-30))

Now comes the wierd bit


Imagine we have a single particle, which we know the Momentun Exactly, a momentum that gives it a wavelength of Exactly 1M

Imagine its probability wave, stretching on to infinity in both directions. Remember that the Probability of finding a particle at a position relates to the height of the wave there. so the probability of finding the particle is the same at all the peaks of the wave, so we have no way of knowing where it is, it has an equal probability of being at any of these peaks, ie it could be anywhere

now imagine we don't know it's momentum exactly it's wavelength could be exactly 1M or just a tiny tiny bit less, it could be either, we assume there is an equal probability of it being either. So how do we calculate the new probability? we average the 2 wave functions. Now on your Wave choose one of the peaks, and align it exactly with one of the peaks on the shorter wave (because the waves go in infinatly there has to be one of these peaks) so at that point the peaks align, look over to the next peak, they don't align exactly, they miss slightly, another peak along they miss a bit more, next peak even more. So when we add the 2 waves together the place where the peaks align is the highes part of the wave, the next peak along is slightly lower, and they keep getting lower as we go outwards.

Now if we say its wavelength could be anywhere between 1M and 99cm. we add up the waves for every wavelength between the 2 (basicly we integrate, If you really want some justification of why we can average an infinite number of things read a book on real analysis, but I don't recomend it) but basicly the peak in the middle is very mch the highest peak, the next one is much lower, the third is very low indeed. so we can be almost certain that we will not find the particle outside that first peak, ie we can be pretty certain that it is in that first peak.

the bigger the range of momentums we integrate over for our particle the more defined the middle peak is ie the more certain we can be of its position.

we can reverse this logic to show that the more certain we are of its position the less certain we can be of its momentum.


and that's the uncertainty principal. The more certain you are of a particles position the less certain you can be of its momentum and vice versa.


That is how it works in 1 dimension in 3 dimension the same Ideas apply but it's much more complicated.

That is the uncertainty principal. Yuo may have noticed that it takes a while to explain is fairly mathsy and difficult to follow.

there is another explanation of why you can't know both momentum and position at the same time. that is that in order to observe it we have to bounce something off it, which changes its momentum, the more accuratley we want to know its position the harder we have to hit it (this idea pops out when you do the maths of 2 probability waves colliding but you can just state that and people will believe you)

While this is partially true (it breaks down if you know the initial momentum of one of the particles because you can work the rest out) It is not the uncertainty principal, it is another Idea completley, but often confused with the uncertainty principal because it's much easier to explain and people use it when asked about the uncertainty principal. The second Idea doesn't take into account that the particle doesn't actually have a position, this is just something that gets assumed because everything we see in our macroscopic world does. but down at particle level particles dont have a position, just an area where the probability of colliding with it is high.

Guv

I don't think it's fair to try to exclude people from these conversations just because they know less about the subject than others, this is an open forum and in topics like this we are essentially just bouncing Ideas off each other, if someone doesn't know the ins and outs of the science involved then explaining it helps to clarify ideas, ecpecially with relitivity I feel that I understand the topic better after explaining it to a few people in other threads.

with regards to starting new threads remember there is no real objective to these discussions other than our own amusement, the threads evolve like conversations, it encorages the free flow of Ideas. Starting new threads doesn't really help this, plus we just get loads and loads of threads discussing pretty much the same thing. While in the VB forums it's a good thing to have lots of threads because it helps people find the answers to their questions in the chit chat the discussions are of a different nature and different rules apply.

[HarryW]

try sticking two atoms together when first the electrons repel each other, then the nuclei. It takes a phenominal amount of energy, unless you can devise a catalyst that nullifies the strong nuclear force, in which case you redefine physics, win the nobel prize, and are assassinated by the entire physics community.


Just to clear up a point, I think what Bob meant here was 'unless you can devise a catalyst that nullifies the electromagnetic force'. The strong nuclear force is the attractive force that only takes hold at very short distances, it is the EM force that is repelling.




When I did A-Level Physics we were encouraged to replace the term 'temperature' with 'internal kinetic energy'.

[Guv]

Sam, you seem to be so knowledgle in this area, I am suprised that you would say that particles & waves are the same thing. Both classical and quantum physics view waves and particles as different.

The Quantum anomaly is that you can set up an experiment which measures wave properties of a Quantum Object and another which measures particle properties. You are never able to set up an experiment which shows both types of properties. Quantum objects sometimes appear to be particles, sometimes waves, never both.

Did you ever see an optical illusion which seems to be either a black vase or two human profiles staring at each other? It is the nature of this illusion that the human mind can see either but not both of these objects. Neils Bohr once used this illusion as an analogy. He asked what was really there: The vase or the profiles? His answer was that what was really there was black ink on a piece of white paper. The profiles and vase were something in the human mind. He said that what is "really there" in the Quantum World is so weird that the human mind cannot visualize what is really there (unlike the illusion, which we can think of as black ink on white paper).

He claimed that we are too conditioned by our experience in the larger non-quantum world to be able to comprehend what is really there in Quantum Land. We only have imperfect interpretations based on quantities measured by our instruments. He really meant it when he said you do not understand if you are not baffled & confused (or words to that effect).

[Sam Finch]

I'm confused now, I thought the whole point of quantum physics was that they were.

Obviously in clasical physics the 2 concepts are completly different but in the quantum world the distinction isn't made.

I'm a mathematician, not a physicist, so I probably see things a little differently. but If we take say an electron, you can model it as a wave or a particle depending on the situation. It's the same object, which always behaves in the same way but we need 2 models to describe its behaviour. there's nothing in the quantum world that is purley a particle and nothing which is purley a wave.

I'm pretty sure my description of the uncertainty principal is accurate, If it isn't tell me.

With regards to being bewildered by It I wasn't at all, although that's because

1 I havn't been that far into it
2 I see the whole thing as a big bunch of equations rather than a tangible object

I have never even tried to visualise one of these things, neither do I believe I would be able to. I don't see the point really. As I say, Mathematician not a physicist.

[parksie]

Sam - your description of the Uncertainty Principle is pretty damn good, and about as close as a standard person is likely to get.

PS: To all those others going on about quantum mechanics - they aren't both at the same time. They're both until you look at them, then they're one or the other, depending on what you want to look at.

[Cahlel]

Why does it have to be COLD fusion? why not luke-warm fussion or that-temperature-that-everybody-hates fusion?

[Cahlel]

Anyone ever read "Schrodiger's Cat" (a book)? If that's real, then we don't really know what's going on....

[Guv]

I have read a lot about Schroedinger's (?spelling) cat. I only claim to understand a little of what they said.

Last Post is correct. We really don't know what is going in the Quantum World. The Hotshots in this field have some equations that work. They can say "If you perform such and such experiment, your instruments will indicate Blah, Blah, Blah"

If you ask for an interpretation of what is "really happening," they either admit to not knowing or make unintelligble (to us) statements.

A pretty bright guy once said something like "If Quantum objects acted anything like classical objects, we could
make large scale models and see what is really happening."

Our mental concepts are conditioned by 100,00 or more years of evolution with classical world experiences. This has resulted in "hard-wired" concepts in our minds. The Quantum world is so weird that we cannot visualize what is happening there.

Consider that mathematicians can provide all sorts of theorems & formulae relating to objects in 4 or more dimensions. They can compute distances, areas, volumes, hypervolumes, and provide various theorems. For example, in 100 dimensions, a one inch hypercube has a diagonal 10 inches long. Can you or anybody you know visualize what the corner of a 4-dimensional hypercube looks like? If you think you can (I doubt it), then try for visualizing the corner of a 5-dimensional hypercube. Those corners are among the simplist, most fundamental objects in extra-dimension spaces.

Similarly, we just cannot visualize what Quantum World objects look like, how they interact, et cetera.

[Sam Finch]

I think people are placing too much emphasis on being able to picture these objects, to me it would be enough to be able to predict what they would do in any given situation (which obviously I can't do) and have at least some Idea why, to me this is enough of a mental picture, even though it would have to be a big load of formulae and equations.

[parksie]

Well, I put emphasis on it!

http://forums.vb-world.net/showthread.php?threadid=25442