> H20 is not an atom - its a molecule composed of three
> atoms.
Yes, that is true, it is a molecule, a slip of my thought
while typing too fast!
> Even so, its net charge is 0; water molecules are not
> deflected by electric or magnetic fields.
Yes, but, your statement applies to macro distances,
not atomic distances. Everything I wrote is absolutely
true! Your statement is true, classically, but not in
quantum understanding of the physics of atoms.
> > Richard Feynman once said that most of physics could be
> > derived from only very few fundamental pieces of information,
> > and by an individual equipped with the tools of mathematics.
> > One of his fundamental and required pieces of information
> > for this total derivation is that matter is composed of tiny
> > particles called atoms -- little particles that move around
> > in constant motion, attracting each other when they are
> > a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed
> > into one another. He claimed that preceding sentence
> > to contain an enormous amount of information of great
> > value. Another piece of his required fundamental
> > information is that these "atoms" are composed of
> > electrically charged particles.
And the above statements are directly from Feynman's
"Lectures on Physics", copywrite, California Institute
of Technology, 1963, Addison-Wesley Publishing,
Chapter 1, page 1-1 and 1-6. I also happen to have
the lecture recorded. He developed Quantum
Electrodynamics, for which a Nobel Prize was won
for his development and use of the "path integral".
It was this development which opens the probability
that sub atomic particles can go "backwards" in
time, and that these same particles can erupt
into space from NOTHING. And this leads on, and
into Brian Greene's work.
> For a readable update on
> nuclear physics, try Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe:
> Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the
> Ultimate Theory". And while you're visiting Amazon.com,
> you'll certainly enjoy Feynman's "Surely You're Joking,
> Mr. Feynman!".
I have eagerly read/own Greene's book, love the multi-dimension
space theories, and believe I have, and have read every
one of the books by and about Feynman, including the complete
review of his work some years ago in Physics Today. I also
enjoyed very much Greene's appearance and review of
his work on the Discovery Channel, I think it was earlier
last Spring.
I am a member of the American Institute of Physics, a
professional group to which you must be approved by
peer review of one's work in a field of physics; mine
was/is astronomy. Among Feynman's final work was his early
effort in the field of Quantum Computation, the subject
of the lead editorial/invited commentary "editorial" of the
July 2000 Physics Today journal; this entire journal issue
is devoted to Perspectives on Copenhagen, the earlier
efforts to understand the quantum, Heisenberg's visit there
(1941) early in WWII, the German Uranium Project and
Heisenberg vs. Albert Einstein, their scientific conflicts as well
as the political stresses between the two men.
> > I have no idea whether the gold atom, which is really rather
> > large and heavy, has any net external electric field. However,
> > it has a cloud of 79 electrons, so it may well "appear"
> > negative; but do not know for sure.
>
> The nucleus of a gold atom contains 79 protons, which
> electrically balance its 79 electrons.
Yes, at macro distances, and in a "sea" of other
Au atoms, electrically balances; but near to a single Au atom
itself, and near to the probability envelope of the quantum field
"wavefunction" of the Au atom itself -- I don't know. Another,
as AE would have said, "gedanken question!". He loved
posing those to Niels Bohr as he argued against the
idea that "God played dice" with physical "laws" (a
difficult to accept idea of the quantum theory, that what
occurs at the atomic level can only be expressed as
probabilities, not certainties).
The physics of chemistry has a look into the physical
atomic (quantum) conditions, not just those explored by
the chemist in his test tubes, etc., hi! What is the chemical
explanation for why water "wets"; that it sticks to
other objects with which it comes into contact? Why
does an oil slick reflect a spectrum of colors, but not
one which appears in the same order as that seen
in the rainbow? This latter phenomena was the cover
illustration on a paperback edition of one of Feynman's
small books; unfortunately, I find I no longer have it.
Feynam very much enjoyed using that illustration to
explain some quantum effects.
A couple of years ago, I donated to the University of
Hawaii library system the great bulk of my former
library, since I am now retired, hi. Sometimes I miss
the opportunity to rush in, find just the correct volume
in which there is some quote I need, but at the time and now,
for me, I felt that would be selfish -- at least that was part
of the motive behind my donation. Of course, I also
realized a nice tax deduction; the library folks were
very generous in their acknowledgement value letter, hi!
I have called myself, for years, a "nature loving
theorist"; I crave to know why about even the
most elementary of presumed already known
phenomena.
73, Jim, KH7M
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/amps
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
|