Electron Wave Function

Let say for sake of illustration that the earth is the nucleus of
an atom, and the moon an electron. Quantum physics says the
electron doesn't orbit around the nucleus or the moon doesn't
orbit around the earth but the electron exists as wave or some
kind of blur. So we can imagine the moon to be at all places of
the sky at once when existed as a wave function entity. Now
suppose Mars moons also existed as wave function entities and it
(representing an atom with electrons for sake of illustrations)
comes headed to earth to combine (granted they fulfill their
charge requirement and balancing as taught in chemistry). How
would the two objects look like when they are bonding (as in
realistically as if you are viewing it from the surface of a
nucleus). You have an earth with the moon as blur or all around
earth and the moons (or satellites) of mars all around mars. When
they combined. How does it happen in real time "visually" where
one can imagine it. Better yet, anyone aware of a site that has
java applet that shows in visual demo how it all occurs. Don't
philosophize that quantum physics says when the electrons (or
moons) are measured. They no longer existed as wave function
entities hence the mere fact the computer screen displays it says
it is "measuring" it. Let's pretend we are also a wave function
entity and observing two wave function entities meeting together
and bonding. How would they bond or intercourse visually (step by
step or descriptively) in real time or quantum time. It's been
years since I last studied chemistry. So if I made any wrong
assumption. Let me know. Thanks.

Consc

Consc wrote:

Lose the bad analogy. It can only mislead your thought processes.
Better to work with the abstract mathematical representations.


How about an empirical image of a real molecular orbital:
[Only registered users see links. ]

It looks almost exactly as would be expected from the LCAO (Linear
Combination of Atomic Orbitals) theory would have it. Prof. Dewar at
the University of Texas was using this theory over 30 years ago to
calculate (accurately!) the thermodynamic properties of molecules that
had not even been synthesized at the time.


This question assumes that there would be "something" to see. The
Heisenberg Principle prevents us from being able to detail the behavior
of an electron (or two) in space and time in terms of anything remotely
like "visual tracking" of the electrons. We can know the quantum
properties (charge, spin, energy, angular momentum, and the orbitals)
associated with each. We certainly could not 'watch' as they make the
transition from independent movements to a state in which they are
bonded to each other, as they are quantum-mechanically identified as
either bonded or not bonded.
..
..
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

"Consc" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1103797323.579071.92660@c13g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...

Consc is requesting that we trash physics. QM provides a
completre disciption of Nature. QM doesn't predict that
which is not observed, nor can one observe that which is
not predicted by QM.

However, it is possible to illustrate the evolution in time of
the electron cloud about a nucleus in response to the
electric field of a proton that zips by . For large impact
parameters (no excitation), the electron orbitals pass
through a succession of non-orthogonal stationary ground
states in the changing composite field of the nucleus and
the proton.

In his more emergetic days, Old Man attempted such, but
gave it up as to complicated and time consuming for
whimsical purposes (that which produces no income or
fame).

For stars and planets, the calculation is much easier. Here
is a link to a computer simulation depicting the capture of
Earth by a rogue star:

http://www.iw.net/~jakoepke/capture03e.jpg

Have fun. [Old Man]

Consc wrote:

Not even wrong.

[snip crap]

False analogy.

--
Uncle Al
[Only registered users see links. ]
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
[Only registered users see links. ]

Old Man wrote:


What really happen during a quantum measurement. I want
to understand the why or whats' behind the scene.
Somehow science is like religion... where instead of
believing in God. Science believes in calculations. It
is important to ask the why of it... "Why does God exist?
Who created God"... the religious must ask. Likewise,
science must too or it would become religion (only with
mathematics). Of course I'm not depending religion. I
hate religion as it is the cause of all wars that is
based on a stupid ideology. Somehow. If physics can
attempt time travel. I say kill Jesus, Muhammad, etc.
if they are not mere figment of the imagination. Then
the world now would be a much peaceful place.


Universities and classrooms can benefit great from it. It
can earn you some income in terms of CD programs sold

Consc

"Consc" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1103836955.555163.84040@z14g2000cwz.googlegro ups.com...

Consc requires physics to practice that which he
hates in religion. Consc wants to know what is "really"
going on in Nature, but there aren't any "hidden
variables", like God, in QM or in the rest of physics.
Via quantitative prediction and empirical confirmation,
physics is, at most, sufficient to Nature. There aren't
any necessary conditions in physics.

In physics, you get what you see, no more. You see
what you get, no less. To find out what's "really"
going on in Nature, go to church.

[Old Man]

Old Man wrote:


I just want to understand what realy happens inside
a wave function and the essence of measurement.
Presently physicists differ with 3 interpretations.
1. Copenhagen Interpretation 2. All-Quantum
Interpretation 3. Neorealist Interpretation.
Copenhagen Interpretation says quantum system and
measuring device are theoretically inaccessible.
The quantum system's dynamic (position, momentum)
attributes have no definite values, the measuring
device on the other hand is experienced by human
observers "classically" and the wave function
being a technical tool to express their distinct
relationship. This may be your viewpoints. It doesn't
solve the measurement problem but conceal it. In Von
Neumann's all-quantum interpretations, both system
and measuring device as proxy waves and the system's
waveform must collapse during a measurement anywhere
in the line thru observer consciousness mediated
mechanism. While Neorealist envisions both the
system and measuring device to be made of particles
which interact with one another via invisible
superluminal waves as believed by David Bohm, Louis
de Broglie and other physicists. I'm thinking what
represent reality better.

Consc

"Consc" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1103883694.797527.215210@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...

The wave function is a complete description of
Nature. If you know the wave function for a
system of interacting particles, you know every
thing about the system.

There isn't any limit on the accuracy to which the
wave function can be known. The wave function
is completely described by a set of quantum
numbers (energy, angular momentum, parity, ect.)
There isn't any limit upon the accuracy to which
those quantum numbers can be known or measured.

The set of quantum numbers that describes a system
of interacting particles forms a complete description
of the system. That set of quantum numbers is
subject to strict causality. They tell you precisely
and completely what is "really going on".

[Old Man]

Consc wrote:

Fundamentally, this was one of the hardest things for physicists of
this century to accept. It is generally currently thought, based on the
anguished gnashings of folks like Bohm, von Neumann, Bell, Bohr and so
on who wrestled hard with it, that there IS no fundamental or deeper
explanation under quantum mechanics. It's not that the reality is
hidden from us, or that there are infinitely many worlds simultaneously
in action through which the observer hops, or that the reality is there
in the open and simply muddied by the thick-fingered influence of our
experimental observations. The current notion is that It Makes No Sense
to Ask the Question.

Reality is what it is. Our models are conceptual instruments on this
reality that allow us to predict the behavior of that reality,
sometimes with great accuracy and, more rarely, in complex detail.
There is no point to wondering whether the model is an accurate
representation of what's really going on. That's an unanswerable
question.

For an excellent exposition on this anguish, and the similar anguish
that went on with statistical mechanics and thermodynamics, I suggest a
book called The End of Physics, by Lindley.

PD

Old Man wrote:


I know the above. What I mean is the nature of the
wave function itself. Ok. Let me address the
question directly that has been bugging me for days.
In Airy experiment where light hit a wall. All
electrons do not strike the same phosphor molecule
but hit different spots on the screen. If all
electrons are really alike, why do they behave
differently. Orthodox physics explains that fact
that unmeasured electrons are identical in being
but different in behavior by appealing to quantum
randomness. Physics stops at this point.

Now. I'm wondering if it is possible to act directly
on the wave function that can bestow order to it.
Better yet, whether one can program the wave function
itself. As in programable wave function. This means
the wave function may not be just a dry nothingland
or static but is intelligent that can accept input.
Furthermore. I think electron behavior and atomic
expression can be affected thru wave function
programming. In the following is experiment where
what we described in the east as qi or conscious
energy can affect the crystal patterns of water.

[Only registered users see links. ]

My theory is that the qi can directly affect the
wave function of the water as if qi is one entry
point that can program the wave function. Of course
this is not accepted by physics. I'm asking what
if it can. Ok. Rather than debating what is qi and
you commenting how delusional people can be. Can you
suggest an experiment where one can perform at home
where one can attempt to alter the wave function
of a system and seeing if there is a change in the
output. You can't tell me to attempt controlling the
light wave function to make the light strike at the
center and reduce the airy disc size. I'm talking
more in terms of affecting the electron probability
clouds of atoms and their collective expression such
as crystal patterns in water. This theory suggests
the wave function has certain limit to how you can
manipulate it as if there is just a window of
parameters where you can affect it like the crystal
patterns of water.

You may comment I'm delusional. I'm just asking "what
if". And I will rely on experiments to disprove what
I'm talking about. Thru experiment I also want to
find out if input to the wave function is not only
possible but need certain energetic configurations
(like qi or others). So pls suggest experiments rather
than telling me flat that it is not possible because
conventional quantum physics says so. I want to know
from direct knowledge it is not possible after
trying many energetic input parameters to affect
or program the wave function at will.

Sincerely,

James