Underdetermination, for example:

[amihart]

Not sure how an electrons momentum increases as its energy decreases.

That is not what I wrote. The uncertainty principle prevents the electron from falling into the nucleus. Metaphysical statements like "it's not a particle" doesn't address anything, that's metaphysics. Doesn't matter how you interpret it. Whatever the hell it is, it is negatively charged and the proton is positively charged. They should end up in the same place unless something in physics prevents this. And that "something" is the uncertainty principle, because the electron cannot be confined to a narrow probability distribution of possible locations without its distribution of momentum spreading out, and thus if it were to fall into the nucleus it would increasingly become more and more likely that it would gain the necessary momentum needed to escape it. Statistically, it ends up remaining in a stable orbital around the nucleus, although this is just statistical, so it can be found pretty much anywhere around the nucleus.

according to wave/particle duality it's not even a material object until it is observed as such

If you choose to believe that, but that is metaphysics. I was just talking about the physics. How you interpret it is a separate question open to interpretation. It is better discussed in the other threads that are specifically about quantum interpretation.

[Flannel Jesus]

Not sure how an electrons momentum increases as its energy decreases.

That is not what I wrote. The uncertainty principle prevents the electron from falling into the nucleus. Metaphysical statements like "it's not a particle" doesn't address anything, that's metaphysics. Doesn't matter how you interpret it. Whatever the hell it is, it is negatively charged and the proton is positively charged. They should end up in the same place unless something in physics prevents this. And that "something" is the uncertainty principle, because the electron cannot be confined to a narrow probability distribution of possible locations without its distribution of momentum spreading out, and thus if it were to fall into the nucleus it would increasingly become more and more likely that it would gain the necessary momentum needed to escape it. Statistically, it ends up remaining in a stable orbital around the nucleus, although this is just statistical, so it can be found pretty much anywhere around the nucleus.

according to wave/particle duality it's not even a material object until it is observed as such

If you choose to believe that, but that is metaphysics. I was just talking about the physics. How you interpret it is a separate question open to interpretation. It is better discussed in the other threads that are specifically about quantum interpretation.

Seems to me that talking about the uncertainty principle as if it's a physically casual fact about reality is as metaphysical as talking about wether electrons are really particles, or waves, or somehow both.

In fact the uncertainty principle and the wave like aspects of these "particles" are two sides of the same coin. It feels arbitrary that you'd accept one in this conversation, but reject the other as too metaphysical.

[Age]

Bringing up "evidence" on a topic regarding wild speculation ("we live in a black hole") is also a bit strange.

I was a bit thrown by this:

Inside of a black hole, objects move towards the singularity at the center. That is the opposite of what we observe in our universe.

What do we observe?

Many, many different things. And this is because you human beings mostly 'look from' your own personal and individual beliefs and assumptions. Which is, exactly, why you all 'observe' 'different things.

On the one hand the universe is expanding,

No It is not. 'This' is just what some of you 'see' and believe is true.

The Universe, Itself, could not, and is not, expanding at all.

And, the proof for this irrefutable Fact can be shared, and explained. That is, as always, for those who are Truly interested.

but not from any central point, as far as we can tell.

The Universe, Itself, is not expanding from any point. Full stop, and end of story.

On the other, gravity is still an attractive force and matter moves toward the strongest source.

And ...

Are you yet aware of what the so-called 'strongest source' even is, exactly?

Similar reason as to why the electron doesn't fall into the center of the atom. The uncertainty principle disallows the electron from being confined to such a small space.

The so-called human being made up 'uncertainty principle' does not allow, nor disallow, absolutely any actual physical thing. As every idea or view is nothing at all that even could allow, or disallow, physical interactions at all.

The more you confine it to the narrow location at the center of the atom, the more momentum it gains that causes it be able to escape. The uncertainty principle thus creates a kind of "quantum pressure" that prevents the electron from falling into the nucleus.

That's not how I understand the uncertainty principle.

Once more, and very clearly and obviously, 'you human beings mostly 'look from' your own personal and individual beliefs and assumptions. Which is, exactly, why all of you 'observe' 'different things'.

Not sure how an electrons momentum increases as its energy decreases. It's not as if an electron is literally orbiting the nucleus, according to wave/particle duality it's not even a material object until it is observed as such.

So, what is an 'electron', exactly, before it is 'observed', if 'it' is not 'material'?

You can read my take on it in my comic book: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html

But, again, 'your take' is Wrong, and faulty.

As I have already explained, shown, and proved. But, as always, 'you' are absolutely free to ignore, and/or not 'see', 'this' and all other matters and/or Facts, in Life.

[Age]

Not sure how an electrons momentum increases as its energy decreases.

That is not what I wrote.

I did not think you did, either. But, "will bouwman" does, at times, 'observe' and 'see' things 'differently', as well as which are actually not 'there'.

The uncertainty principle prevents the electron from falling into the nucleus.

But, 'principles' are just thoughts within human heads, or are just said and written words. Which, obviously, do not prevent, nor cause, 'electrons' to do what you say and claim, here.

Metaphysical statements like "it's not a particle" doesn't address anything, that's metaphysics.

If some one claims some thing like, 'It is not a particle', then why not just ask them some thing like, 'What is 'it' then, exactly?', instead?

Doesn't matter how you interpret it. Whatever the hell it is, it is negatively charged and the proton is positively charged. They should end up in the same place unless something in physics prevents this.

And, what that 'something' is, exactly, I have already said, and partly explained.

And that "something" is the uncertainty principle,

Once again, 'that principle' exists in 'thought'.

because the electron cannot be confined to a narrow probability distribution of possible locations without its distribution of momentum spreading out, and thus if it were to fall into the nucleus it would increasingly become more and more likely that it would gain the necessary momentum needed to escape it. Statistically, it ends up remaining in a stable orbital around the nucleus, although this is just statistical, so it can be found pretty much anywhere around the nucleus.

Sounds like 'you' are pretty 'certain' where 'it' is, always.

according to wave/particle duality it's not even a material object until it is observed as such

If you choose to believe that, but that is metaphysics. I was just talking about the physics. How you interpret it is a separate question open to interpretation. It is better discussed in the other threads that are specifically about quantum interpretation.

If you say and believe so, then okay.

[Age]

Not sure how an electrons momentum increases as its energy decreases.

That is not what I wrote. The uncertainty principle prevents the electron from falling into the nucleus. Metaphysical statements like "it's not a particle" doesn't address anything, that's metaphysics. Doesn't matter how you interpret it. Whatever the hell it is, it is negatively charged and the proton is positively charged. They should end up in the same place unless something in physics prevents this. And that "something" is the uncertainty principle, because the electron cannot be confined to a narrow probability distribution of possible locations without its distribution of momentum spreading out, and thus if it were to fall into the nucleus it would increasingly become more and more likely that it would gain the necessary momentum needed to escape it. Statistically, it ends up remaining in a stable orbital around the nucleus, although this is just statistical, so it can be found pretty much anywhere around the nucleus.

according to wave/particle duality it's not even a material object until it is observed as such

If you choose to believe that, but that is metaphysics. I was just talking about the physics. How you interpret it is a separate question open to interpretation. It is better discussed in the other threads that are specifically about quantum interpretation.

Seems to me that talking about the uncertainty principle as if it's a physically casual fact about reality is as metaphysical as talking about wether electrons are really particles, or waves, or somehow both.

I agree.

But, then again, do any of you even agree on what the 'metaphysical' word is in relation to, exactly?

Why, by the way, you do not. See, 'you human beings mostly really do 'look from' your own personal and individual beliefs and assumptions. Which is, exactly, why all of you 'observe', and 'see', 'different things'.'

As shown, and proved, below, here.

In fact the uncertainty principle and the wave like aspects of these "particles" are two sides of the same coin. It feels arbitrary that you'd accept one in this conversation, but reject the other as too metaphysical.

[Will Bouwman]

Not sure how an electrons momentum increases as its energy decreases.

That is not what I wrote.

No, but as someone with an interest in physics, you will know that the less spread out an electron, loosely analogous to being in an orbit closer to the nucleus, the lower its energy. Here's the bit you can help me with:

The more you confine it to the narrow location at the center of the atom, the more momentum it gains that causes it be able to escape.

How does an electron gain momentum while losing energy?

[amihart]

But, 'principles' are just thoughts within human heads, or are just said and written words. Which, obviously, do not prevent, nor cause, 'electrons' to do what you say and claim, here...Once again, 'that principle' exists in 'thought'.

I was only talking about mathematical consistency of the theory within the mathematical model. Whether or not mathematical models describe reality, are equivalent to reality, or actually only exist "in thought in human heads" and have no relation to reality, is a separate discussion entirely which I am not particularly interested in commenting on.

Sounds like 'you' are pretty 'certain' where 'it' is, always.

What?

Seems to me that talking about the uncertainty principle as if it's a physically casual fact about reality is as metaphysical as talking about wether electrons are really particles, or waves, or somehow both.

I am just talking about the internal mathematical consistency of the model. Not your opinion on what it implies about reality. Maybe electrons are particles, maybe they are waves, maybe they are both. That's a separate discussion which at least at the moment I'm not particularly interested in engaging with here in this thread.

In fact the uncertainty principle and the wave like aspects of these "particles" are two sides of the same coin. It feels arbitrary that you'd accept one in this conversation, but reject the other as too metaphysical.

The uncertainty principle is a mathematical property of the theory. It is not a claim about whether or not electrons are fundamentally particles, waves, just exist in our minds, or whatever. There are unambiguously wave-like characteristics in the mathematics, but these mathematical waves are elements of an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space, so the connection to physical reality is not so clear and is very much debated. They can be interpreted as physical waves if you wish, but then you have to also believe that physical reality exists not in a 3+1 space but an infinite-dimensional space. They can also be interpreted in a dispositional way that avoids treating Hilbert space as a physical space. There's many ways to interpret the meaning of the mathematics in relation to reality and the mathematics alone does not carry its own unambiguous interpretation.

How does an electron gain momentum while losing energy?

It gains kinetic energy but loses potential energy.

[Age]

But, 'principles' are just thoughts within human heads, or are just said and written words. Which, obviously, do not prevent, nor cause, 'electrons' to do what you say and claim, here...Once again, 'that principle' exists in 'thought'.

I was only talking about mathematical consistency of the theory within the mathematical model. Whether or not mathematical models describe reality, are equivalent to reality, or actually only exist "in thought in human heads" and have no relation to reality, is a separate discussion entirely which I am not particularly interested in commenting on.

And I was only just Correcting your previous comment. Which, at the moment, is about some thing that I am not particularly interested in commenting on, also. I firstly just wanted to Correct your Incorrect comment, then I might engage in your discussion.

Sounds like 'you' are pretty 'certain' where 'it' is, always.

What?

The very thing that your usage of the 'it' word, for seven times, was in relation to.

you used the 'it' word seven times in that very small snippet of yours that I quoted so if you do not know what the 'it' word is in relation to, exactly, then how are the readers meant to?

[Will Bouwman]

How does an electron gain momentum while losing energy?

It gains kinetic energy but loses potential energy.

That's not what I was taught. As I understand it, the more confined an electron, again loosely analogous to being in a tighter orbit, the less energy it has, because, energy levels being quantised, the atom has to lose energy in the form of a photon for an electron to make the quantum leap.

[amihart]

That's not what I was taught. As I understand it, the more confined an electron, again loosely analogous to being in a tighter orbit, the less energy it has, because, energy levels being quantised, the atom has to lose energy in the form of a photon for an electron to make the quantum leap.

Electron's don't have neat orbits around the nucleus. They only have statistical orbitals; they can be found just about anywhere around the nucleus. But some places are less likely than others for the reasons I stated, if it's too close to the nucleus, some of its potential energy must have converted into kinetic energy, meaning it will have the momentum needed to back away from the nucleus. The balancing act on average gives you the statistical distribution of an orbital. If you decrease the total energy of the system, then it can have orbitals more tightly bound to the nucleus, but again, the actual electron can be found just about anywhere. The electron's position and momentum are constantly fluctuating randomly, but in such a way that it gives you a rather stable statistical distribution of where it should be, and that distribution can be changed by adding or removing energy. These are two different phenomena. One is the reason why an electron in any arbitrary orbital would in fact stay in that orbital and not just collapse into the nucleus when it is electromagnetically attracted to it. The other is how you can change the orbitals.

[Will Bouwman]

That's not what I was taught. As I understand it, the more confined an electron, again loosely analogous to being in a tighter orbit, the less energy it has, because, energy levels being quantised, the atom has to lose energy in the form of a photon for an electron to make the quantum leap.

Electron's don't have neat orbits around the nucleus. They only have statistical orbitals; they can be found just about anywhere around the nucleus.

I think yours is a more mathematical approach to mine, which is great if you want to make things work, but my interest is in what atoms are made of and what actually happens.

But some places are less likely than others for the reasons I stated, if it's too close to the nucleus, some of its potential energy must have converted into kinetic energy, meaning it will have the momentum needed to back away from the nucleus. The balancing act on average gives you the statistical distribution of an orbital. If you decrease the total energy of the system, then it can have orbitals more tightly bound to the nucleus, but again, the actual electron can be found just about anywhere.

The way I understand it is that until it is made to appear as one, the actual electron is just part of the overall energy of an atom. By energy, in this context, I mean waves, eddies, compression, in fact any disturbance in one or other quantum field. In my book I use the analogy of a rug that gets scuffed. It might just compress the rug, making it shorter, but adding potential energy, as in a spring. That potential energy could appear as a wrinkle anywhere in the rug, the likelihood decreasing with distance from where it was scuffed; but until it wrinkles, it doesn't make sense to say where the wrinkle is.

[Impenitent]

the wrinkle is in the fact that electrons never vote...

-Imp