 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Fractals Science Forum » Are Atoms Nonlinear Dynamical Systems?... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Robert L. Oldershaw... |
 Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 5:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Submitted to sci.physics.research as a follow-up to the thread "Is
Perfect Reversibility A Myth?"
On Oct 31, 1:42 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders... at (no spam) amherst.edu>
wrote:
[quote]
[/quote]
Refining the general question of whether exact reversibility/
integrability is an idealization or is actually realized in nature,
one could narrow the discussion as follows. Are atoms correctly
characterized by linearity, reversibility and integrability or is this
characterization a good but limited approximation to a more
sophisticated characterization of atoms as nonlinear dynamical
systems.
When chaos theory [aka NLDS theory] was first acknowledged as being
fundamental to modeling much of natural phenomena, it was thought that
its application was limited to the macroscopic domain.
Then one began to see the first papers arguing that period-doubling
and other chaotic phenomena could be observed in the atomic domain, if
one looked hard enough.
In the last decade the application of NLDS modeling to atomic scale
phenomena has been steadily accelerating, especially in regard to
atoms in highly excited Rydberg states.
Now, in the 10/8/09 issue of Nature, we see a potentially paradigm-
changing paper by Chaudhury et al which may herald the advent of a new
era in the modeling of atoms. In this paper the nuclear and electronic
interactions of a single are shown to display a quantum version of
classical chaotic behavior: the kicked top phenomena.
The authors also state: "We ... present experimental evidence for
dynamical entanglement as a signature of chaos.
So it is not unreasonable to ask: are atoms nonlinear dynamical
systems?
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Robert L. Oldershaw... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 10:18 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders... at (no spam) amherst.edu>
wrote:
[quote]
So it is not unreasonable to ask: are atoms nonlinear dynamical
systems?
[/quote]
Here are two more impertinent questions.
Is there a fundamental distinction between the physics of the atomic
microcosm and the physics of the macrocosm that can stand up to
persistent and objective scientific scrutiny?
Is the current Balkanization of physics due to incomplete and
inadequate modeling.
If there is but one physics for all of nature, ...
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Robert L. Oldershaw... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 10:06 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders... at (no spam) amherst.edu>
wrote:
[quote]
[/quote]
Some people might ask:
"What IS this guy's problem?"
Well, let me explain.
I have watched theoretical physics descend
into untestable pseudoscience over the last
few decades, and it is very disturbing to anyone
who loves testable natural philosophy and
experimental science.
First it was the hordes of unobservable particles,
then the untestable and childishly idealistic
cosmological assumptions, then the whole
string theory excursion into la-la land, then
the deplorable "anthropic reasoning", then
the 10^500 random "multiverses", then the
"Boltzmann Brains" [egad!].
When I learned about the Nielsen/Ninomiya
papers it was like a "call to arms". The fact
that one cannot be entirely sure if the authors
intended to be taken seriously, or if the whole
fiasco is an elaborate hoax, just makes the
insult to science that much worse.
I would roughly estimate that 50% of current
theoretical physics, including the most
"fashionable" brands, are untestable pseudoscience
at best, and Platonic twittery if we are being candid.
People like Einstein and Schroedinger have been
replaced by execrable "natural pilosophers" who
may be very adept at abstract and hermetic
analytical methods, but who seem to have little
or no intercourse with the real world of nature.
The sycophants follow like sheep because they
feel it is not their role to question the Glass Bead
Game.
Well, I could go on at great length, but now you
know what the "problem" is. The question is:
What is to be done about it?
Hoping for a new paradigm,
and a definitively testable
paradigm, at that,
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Nov 28, 2009 11:22 am
|
|