 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Astro Forum » Are Atoms Nonlinear Dynamical Systems?... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Knecht... |
 Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:21 am |
|
|
|
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:
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
spin interactions of a single atom 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 |
|
|
|
| Knecht... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 11:21 am, Knecht <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 |
|
|
|
| dlzc... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 8:08 pm, Knecht <rlolders... at (no spam) amherst.edu> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 11:21 am, Knecht <rlolders... at (no spam) amherst.edu> wrote:
So it is not unreasonable to ask: are atoms
nonlinear dynamical systems?
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, ...
[/quote]
Here is a fourth question:
Why do you stand on a soapbox in an astronomy newsgroup? Don't you
think sci.physics.research or sci.physics.foundations would be a
better venue?
David A. Smith |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Gordon Stangler... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 9:54 pm, dlzc <dl... at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 8:08 pm, Knecht <rlolders... at (no spam) amherst.edu> wrote:
On Nov 1, 11:21 am, Knecht <rlolders... at (no spam) amherst.edu> wrote:
So it is not unreasonable to ask: are atoms
nonlinear dynamical systems?
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, ...
Here is a fourth question:
Why do you stand on a soapbox in an astronomy newsgroup? Don't you
think sci.physics.research or sci.physics.foundations would be a
better venue?
David A. Smith
[/quote]
He is asking the same questions there, too. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| dlzc... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear cosmo:
On Nov 2, 3:24 am, "cosmo" <co... at (no spam) invalid.ccc> wrote:
[quote]"dlzc" wrote
Here is a fourth question:
Why do you stand on a soapbox in an astronomy
newsgroup? Don't you think sci.physics.research
or sci.physics.foundations would be a better venue?
you are right but
both are moderated newsgroups but if a moderator
don't like your question or answer ( in my case )
your question/answer isn't posted. sci.physics is
a better choice; the biggest risk is that someone
calls you an idiot.
[/quote]
I consider that a mark of distinction. However, asking a question in
an off topic newsgroup, and then receiving no answer at all is not a
good thing either. sci.physics is about like Micro$haft's support
newsgroups.... to busy to get any serious attention. If it takes more
than 6 seconds to answer it, it is unlikely to garner any attention
there.
David A. Smith |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| cosmo... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"dlzc" wrote
[quote]Here is a fourth question:
Why do you stand on a soapbox in an astronomy newsgroup? Don't you
think sci.physics.research or sci.physics.foundations would be a
better venue?
[/quote]
you are right but
both are moderated newsgroups but if a moderator don't like your question
or answer ( in my case ) your question/answer isn't posted.
sci.physics is a better choice; the biggest risk is that someone calls you
an idiot.
.................................................................
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
[quote] >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Knecht... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 7:01 am, Gordon Stangler <gordon.stang... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Here is a fourth question:
Why do you stand on a soapbox in an astronomy newsgroup? Don't you
think sci.physics.research or sci.physics.foundations would be a
better venue?
David A. Smith
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
He is asking the same questions there, too.-
-------------------------------------------------------------------[/quote]
Thanks Gordon, but knowledge might only confuse them.
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| gb... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 5:21 pm, Knecht <rlolders... at (no spam) amherst.edu> wrote:
[quote]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:
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
spin interactions of a single atom 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?
RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
[/quote]
They are things that can be charged together. When an atom splits it
discharges its energy.
The formula E=mc2 predicted that mass can release energy and create an
atomic explosion.
They are trying the reverse, to build an atom from energy at Cern by
reversing the E=mc2.
Basically an atom is made of subatomic energy particles, atom was
discovered in the 19th Century as something that exists.
All they are are a charge, an energy capsule. It is the energy inside
the atom which gravitates.
Since it is charge..., could have compressed field energies, it is
unknown perhaps if it is dynamical, it might be static. Generally in a
world of fields, like in the macro world of the Universe, things are
in motion. Energy processes basically are all based on motion, so
probably it is dynamic in my opinion. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Nov 30, 2009 2:55 am
|
|