Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics

Advances in the investigation of the physical universe we live in.

Re: Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics

Postby Typhoon » Thu Sep 03, 2015 8:23 pm

Please see above :wink:
All the world's a stage.
User avatar
Typhoon
 
Posts: 13655
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics

Postby Typhoon » Thu Sep 03, 2015 8:24 pm

All the world's a stage.
User avatar
Typhoon
 
Posts: 13655
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics

Postby Doc » Thu Oct 08, 2015 4:11 am

The classes and the races to weak to master the new conditions of life must give way {..} They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust --Karl Marx
User avatar
Doc
 
Posts: 7591
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics

Postby Heracleum Persicum » Thu Oct 22, 2015 3:37 pm

.

One of the most fundamental claims of quantum theory — that objects separated by great distance can instantaneously affect each other’s behaviour.

The finding is another blow to one of the bedrock principles of standard physics known as “locality,” which states that an object is directly influenced only by its immediate surroundings. The Delft study, published Wednesday in the journal Nature, lends further credence to an idea that Einstein famously rejected. He said quantum theory necessitated “spooky action at a distance,” and he refused to accept the notion that the universe could behave in such a strange and apparently random fashion.

In particular, Einstein derided the idea that separate particles could be “entangled” so completely that measuring one particle would instantaneously influence the other, regardless of the distance separating them.




.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
 
Posts: 8252
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics

Postby Doc » Thu Oct 29, 2015 11:23 pm

And now for something completely different "Confuse a Cat"

http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/pop ... eshire_cat
The Quantum Cheshire Cat In The Wonderland of Quantum Physics


"Well I've often seen a cat without a grin... but a grin without a cat is a most curious thing"

Can you have a ring without a bell? A bark without its dog? In the weird quantum world you can. The Quantum Cheshire Cat Experiment, named after the mischievously grinning feline Alice encounters in Wonderland, has turned from theory to reality the remarkable feat of separating particles from their properties. Physicists were able to separate neutrons from their spins, like the Cheshire cat and its grin, and in doing so further question our understanding of the world around us.

We are taught that the universe is made up of many different particles - light of photons, atoms of electrons and protons and neutrons - and that these all have specific properties such as charge and spin. The idea that somehow these particles could exist without their properties, and ever stranger that these properties could exist without their particles, is a notion that goes against our intuition though one that is permitted by quantum theory.

Quantum physics emerged a century ago, and whilst contrary at the time to our classical understanding, has proven to be hugely successful. No experiment has disagreed with its predictions. Though it provides an accurate description of the microscopic world, this is a strange world, where particles can be in different places at the same time, spin clockwise and anticlockwise at the same time, and instantaneously influence each other from across the universe. Quite why the behaviour in the microscopic and macroscopic worlds differs so much is yet to be fully explained, with physicists still lacking a deep understanding of QM. This has resulted in experiments that have, and continue to, reveal a wonderfully weird picture of our world.

One of the most fascinating theories was provided by Aharonov half a century ago, showing that time in quantum mechanics is, at least mathematically, two way - it does not have to flow from past to present. This let to the time-symmetric formulation of quantum mechanics in the 1960s, which showed that not only did time flow both ways, but that events in both the past and the future could affect the state of a quantum system in the present. In the 1990s Tollaksen and Aharonov found that these influences could lead to a particle and its properties being separated. The Quantum Cheshire Cat analogy was founded.

Tollaksen, in his PhD thesis in 2001, proposed an experiment to test this theory. The first step is called pre-selection, in which a large number of neutrons all with identical spins are gathered. These particles are then sent into a device called an interferometer, where a beamsplitter splits the beam of neutrons in two. Each of the neutrons is then in the state of superposition, where it is travelling along both paths at the same time. On both paths there is equipment capable of making measurements of the neutrons and their spins. The two beams are then brought back together, combining in such a way that the neutrons exit one of two ways. The neutrons exiting along one of the paths undergo a process called post-selection, where their spin is measured. Only some of the neutrons will have the desired spin value, the others are disregarded. These processes of pre-selection and post-selection relate respectively to affecting the past and future of the quantum state of the neutrons. Now here's the curious thing. The mathematics shows that all the neutrons with the desired spin observed in post-selection took the same path inside the interferometer, whereas their spins went along the other path. The Cheshire cat and its grin would be separated.

It was a nice thought experiment, but the real intrigue has been whether in reality it can occur. Testing any quantum theory though encounters a serious problem. In the quantum world particles can spin clockwise and anticlockwise at the same time, but we only ever see them spinning one way or the other, due to the act of measuring them destroying the delicate superposition of states. Aharonov and colleagues theorised however in the late 1980s that by measuring with a device that interacts extremely weakly with the particle, its quantum state is preserved, and information about it can be gathered. But this insight into the particle's quantum nature comes with a great uncertainty. So studying one particle is not really any use - but the trick is to make these weak measurements on numerous identical particles, thereby providing through averaging the data information on the quantum state with a reduced uncertainty.

At the time this approach was met with disbelief and scepticism. But with the advancements in technology in the decades since, theory has become reality, and physicists have been able to study the quantum world in depth. To now investigate, Tollaksen and a team of researchers at Austria's Vienna University of Technology set about attempting to make such weak measurements on neutrons, a feat never previously achieved. They did so using an experimental setup involving weak magnetic fields and a weakly interacting neutron absorber to make the measurements. When the absorber was placed in one of the paths of the interferometer, there was an affect on the output, however placing it in the other path resulted in no such effect. This showed that the neutrons were travelling along only one of the two paths. Along each path of the interferometer, a weak magnetic field was established to interact with the spin of the neutrons. On one of the paths the magnetic field interacted with the neutron's spin and produced a change in the interferometer's output, however there was no such interaction on the other path. This therefore confirmed that the neutrons and their spin had taken different paths. The cat and its grin had been separated.

An amazing bit of experimental physics. But where do we go from here? Speculation has begun into the possibilities resulting from this ability to split particles from their properties, with particular intrigue into measuring the electric dipole moment of the neutron, which is crucial in theories explaining the matter-antimatter composition of the universe. Whilst the experiment involved neutrons and their spin, it isn't limited to this setup. In theory other particles such as photons and electrons, and other properties such as charge and magnetic moment, could all be studied. The only thing that can't be done is to separate particles from their mass. The Cheshire cat phenomenon could perhaps be best put to use in quantum computing, to overcome the major problem of shielding particles from external disturbances that destroy their important superposition of states that is key to the system. Another possibility is in high-precision metrology. Numerous other ways to take advantage of this physics are surely to be found.

It's important not to get too carried away with this new take on reality. The strangeness of the quantum world is clearly far from our everyday experience of the world around us. The post-selection process of the experiment is a neat trick to give an insight into the quantum nature of particles, but is not analogous to the sci-fi tales of future actions changing the past, such as squishing a bug today causing the extinction of the dinosaurs millions of years ago. This quantum take on the Cheshire cat and its grin only makes sense if you give physical meaning to these weak measurements and accept the conclusions based on averaging many results to reduce the high uncertainties. Furthermore, and fundamentally to the whole concept, it is unclear what it actually means for particles and their properties to be separated.

What is obvious is that the quantum Cheshire cat, the separation of particles and their properties, is a fascinating theory now become reality that is further proving insight into the bizarre quantum world and continuing to challenge our understanding of reality. Curiouser and curiouser indeed.

The classes and the races to weak to master the new conditions of life must give way {..} They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust --Karl Marx
User avatar
Doc
 
Posts: 7591
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics

Postby Typhoon » Sun Nov 01, 2015 4:15 pm

Nautilus | Math’s Beautiful Monsters

Image

In mathematics, the Weierstrass function is an example of a pathological real-valued function on the real line. The function has the property of being continuous everywhere but differentiable nowhere. It is named after its discoverer Karl Weierstrass.
All the world's a stage.
User avatar
Typhoon
 
Posts: 13655
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics

Postby Typhoon » Thu Dec 24, 2015 4:58 pm

All the world's a stage.
User avatar
Typhoon
 
Posts: 13655
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics

Postby Parodite » Sat Dec 26, 2015 12:53 pm

Typhoon wrote:Closing the Door on Einstein and Bohr’s Quantum Debate

It is a quantum universe.


The next step is for quantum physicists to find a different language to communicate the theory to themselves and the public. Sentences like "an electron can be at two places at the same time" is not only linguistically an oxymoron but also misrepresents the quantum reality it describes.
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4072
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics

Postby Parodite » Sun Dec 27, 2015 3:40 pm

Parodite wrote:
Typhoon wrote:Closing the Door on Einstein and Bohr’s Quantum Debate

It is a quantum universe.


The next step is for quantum physicists to find a different language to communicate the theory to themselves and the public. Sentences like "an electron can be at two places at the same time" is not only linguistically an oxymoron but also misrepresents the quantum reality it describes.


More of same language madness:

The strange fate of a person falling into a black hole

If you fell into a black hole, you might expect to die instantly. But in fact your fate would be far stranger than that

By Amanda Gefter

25 May 2015

This was the most-read story on BBC Earth in 2015. Here is another chance to read it.

It could happen to anyone. Maybe you're out trying to find a new habitable planet for the human race, or maybe you're just on a long walk and you slip. Whatever the circumstances, at some point we all find ourselves confronted with the age-old question: what happens when you fall into a black hole?

You might expect to get crushed, or maybe torn to pieces. But the reality is stranger than that.

The instant you entered the black hole, reality would split in two. In one, you would be instantly incinerated, and in the other you would plunge on into the black hole utterly unharmed.

[...]
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4072
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics

Postby Simple Minded » Sun Dec 27, 2015 4:42 pm

Parodite wrote:
More of same language madness:

The strange fate of a person falling into a black hole

If you fell into a black hole, you might expect to die instantly. But in fact your fate would be far stranger than that

By Amanda Gefter

25 May 2015

This was the most-read story on BBC Earth in 2015. Here is another chance to read it.

It could happen to anyone. Maybe you're out trying to find a new habitable planet for the human race, or maybe you're just on a long walk and you slip. Whatever the circumstances, at some point we all find ourselves confronted with the age-old question: what happens when you fall into a black hole?

You might expect to get crushed, or maybe torn to pieces. But the reality is stranger than that.

The instant you entered the black hole, reality would split in two. In one, you would be instantly incinerated, and in the other you would plunge on into the black hole utterly unharmed.

[...]


Life after death in the scientific realm as well as the religious realm..... the differences between those with exclusive "knowledge/data" blur. Probably intentionally.

Similar to the language madness of "social libertarian." A lefty or a righty?
"It takes a remote mountain village.... in either Iran or Apple-achia.... to raise a child.
Simple Minded
 
Posts: 5976
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:24 pm

Re: Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics

Postby Typhoon » Sun Dec 27, 2015 6:49 pm

Parodite wrote:
Typhoon wrote:Closing the Door on Einstein and Bohr’s Quantum Debate

It is a quantum universe.


The next step is for quantum physicists to find a different language to communicate the theory to themselves and the public. Sentences like "an electron can be at two places at the same time" is not only linguistically an oxymoron but also misrepresents the quantum reality it describes.


I reread the article and could not locate any reference to "an electron can be at two places at the same time".

Rather I found the article to be a clear exposition of the QM versus local reality issue and of the conceptual and technical challenges faced by the three recent tour de force experiments in testing Bell's Theorem.

Regarding "an electron can be at two places at the same time" the accurate statement is that what one calculates is the evolution of the probability amplitude of the electron.

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_03.html
All the world's a stage.
User avatar
Typhoon
 
Posts: 13655
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics

Postby Parodite » Sun Dec 27, 2015 10:29 pm

Typhoon wrote:
Parodite wrote:
Typhoon wrote:Closing the Door on Einstein and Bohr’s Quantum Debate

It is a quantum universe.


The next step is for quantum physicists to find a different language to communicate the theory to themselves and the public. Sentences like "an electron can be at two places at the same time" is not only linguistically an oxymoron but also misrepresents the quantum reality it describes.


I reread the article and could not locate any reference to "an electron can be at two places at the same time".


Not in this article, but in countless other articles where QM physicists or commentators use such language.

Rather I found the article to be a clear exposition of the QM versus local reality issue and of the conceptual and technical challenges faced by the three recent tour de force experiments in testing Bell's Theorem.


Which means that when expirement reveals new information or verifies an existing predictive theory, it is about time to consider its meaning for physical reality.

Regarding "an electron can be at two places at the same time" the accurate statement is that what one calculates is the evolution of the probability amplitude of the electron.

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_03.html


What I get from that is not that an electron has a probability amplitude but that what will be measured follows these probabilities.
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4072
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics

Postby Typhoon » Mon Dec 28, 2015 8:19 am

Parodite wrote:
Typhoon wrote:
Parodite wrote:
Typhoon wrote:Closing the Door on Einstein and Bohr’s Quantum Debate

It is a quantum universe.


The next step is for quantum physicists to find a different language to communicate the theory to themselves and the public. Sentences like "an electron can be at two places at the same time" is not only linguistically an oxymoron but also misrepresents the quantum reality it describes.


I reread the article and could not locate any reference to "an electron can be at two places at the same time".


Not in this article, but in countless other articles where QM physicists or commentators use such language.



Don't know as I don't read popularizations of QM.

Parodite wrote:
Rather I found the article to be a clear exposition of the QM versus local reality issue and of the conceptual and technical challenges faced by the three recent tour de force experiments in testing Bell's Theorem.


Which means that when expirement reveals new information or verifies an existing predictive theory, it is about time to consider its meaning for physical reality.


It is not clear to me what you are trying to state here.

The experiments have ruled out local reality theories and provided strong evidence that QM as described by it's mathematics is how nature works.

Parodite wrote:
Regarding "an electron can be at two places at the same time" the accurate statement is that what one calculates is the evolution of the probability amplitude of the electron.

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_03.html


What I get from that is not that an electron has a probability amplitude but that what will be measured follows these probabilities.


From the point of view of the QM math, the distinction is not meaningful.
All the world's a stage.
User avatar
Typhoon
 
Posts: 13655
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics

Postby Parodite » Mon Dec 28, 2015 3:43 pm

Parodite wrote:
Rather I found the article to be a clear exposition of the QM versus local reality issue and of the conceptual and technical challenges faced by the three recent tour de force experiments in testing Bell's Theorem.


Which means that when expirement reveals new information or verifies an existing predictive theory, it is about time to consider its meaning for physical reality.


It is not clear to me what you are trying to state here.


Well, the article does mention some ideas where future technology, if it works, would prove non-local instanteneous causation (or, to stay on the safe side, call it correlation) [my bold]:

The schemes demonstrated by the Vienna, NIST, and Delft groups have important consequences for quantum information. For instance, a loophole-free Bell’s inequality test is needed to guarantee the security of some device-independent quantum cryptography schemes [27]. Moreover, the experiment by the Delft group, in particular, shows it is possible to entangle static quantum bits, offering a basis for long distance quantum networks [28, 29].


It seems to me that this would truly be a revolution.

The experiments have ruled out local reality theories and provided strong evidence that QM as described by it's mathematics is how nature works.


But the experiments do not solve the problem of qm-gravity? at least not before the 2-spin graviton has been detected for starters.

Another thing that is mentioned in the article (and that appears to be down played a bit) that could spoil the fun is this [my bold]:

Of course we must remember that these experiments were primarily meant to settle the conflict between Einstein’s and Bohr’s points of view. Can we say that the debate over local realism is resolved? There is no doubt that these are the most ideal experimental tests of Bell’s inequalities to date. Yet no experiment, as ideal as it is, can be said to be totally loophole-free. In the experiments with entangled photons, for example, one could imagine that the photons’ properties are determined in the crystal before their emission, in contradiction with the reasonable hypothesis explained in the note in Ref. [18]. The random number generators could then be influenced by the properties of the photons, without violating relativistic causality. Far fetched as it is, this residual loophole cannot be ignored, but there are proposals for how to address it [30].


In your understanding, is this [the bold] a relevant possibility that can explain long distant non-local instantaneous/faster than light correlation? Of course Einstein maintained, up to his death bed, that faster than light causation or information transfer is impossible. He never liked "spooky action at a distance" for that reason. Did this experiment in Delft prove he was wrong there too?

Parodite wrote:
Regarding "an electron can be at two places at the same time" the accurate statement is that what one calculates is the evolution of the probability amplitude of the electron.

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_03.html


What I get from that is not that an electron has a probability amplitude but that what will be measured follows these probabilities.


From the point of view of the QM math, the distinction is not meaningful.


But Bohr, in his 30 years debates with Einstein, claimed that really nothing to very little can be said about the nature of physical reality such as "an electron" as it exists, may exist, independent from measurements in quantum experiments. The phrase "an eletron has a probability amplitude" is more how Einstein would say it. But then of course, he rejected the idea that electrons have probability amplitudes. He didn't like the idea of God playing dice. So they both would agree that probability amplitudes say very little about the nature of reality independent from scientific experiment, measurement and human observation in general.

But I understand your view on causal and/or ontological interpretations of QM. None of them ever added anything, changed anything; standard QM theory and application work like a breeze. Can't recall Feynman's exact words, but somewhere he says that it doesn't really bother him that QM is kinda weird, intuitively difficult/impossible to grasp. That also in Newtonian physics there is endless ontological mystery remaining. That all that matters in the end is what theory works and predicts best. "Shut up and do the calc". It seems to me he was an agnostic when it comes to interpreting QM beyond the math. I doubt he would claim that reality is probabilistic in nature.
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4072
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics

Postby Typhoon » Sat Jan 16, 2016 1:20 am

All the world's a stage.
User avatar
Typhoon
 
Posts: 13655
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics

Postby Parodite » Mon Jan 18, 2016 8:20 pm

Awesome.. thanks.
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4072
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics

Postby Typhoon » Wed Jan 20, 2016 7:17 pm

All the world's a stage.
User avatar
Typhoon
 
Posts: 13655
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics

Postby Doc » Tue Feb 09, 2016 5:38 am

CS I have a crazy question for you.

Do you think there is possibly a way to directly sensing potential chemical energy before it is released, in a universal way? For example like measuring a battery, but for all types of chemical energy. With a battery it is a matter of knowing the material it is made of. You measure the electric charge and knowing what voltage the battery against the known capacity of the battery. But in this case you would not know what the sample was made of but could still sense the potential energy it contains without knowing anything else about it.
The classes and the races to weak to master the new conditions of life must give way {..} They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust --Karl Marx
User avatar
Doc
 
Posts: 7591
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics

Postby Typhoon » Tue Feb 09, 2016 2:07 pm

Parodite wrote:
Parodite wrote:
Rather I found the article to be a clear exposition of the QM versus local reality issue and of the conceptual and technical challenges faced by the three recent tour de force experiments in testing Bell's Theorem.


Which means that when expirement reveals new information or verifies an existing predictive theory, it is about time to consider its meaning for physical reality.


It is not clear to me what you are trying to state here.


Well, the article does mention some ideas where future technology, if it works, would prove non-local instanteneous causation (or, to stay on the safe side, call it correlation) [my bold]:

The schemes demonstrated by the Vienna, NIST, and Delft groups have important consequences for quantum information. For instance, a loophole-free Bell’s inequality test is needed to guarantee the security of some device-independent quantum cryptography schemes [27]. Moreover, the experiment by the Delft group, in particular, shows it is possible to entangle static quantum bits, offering a basis for long distance quantum networks [28, 29].


It seems to me that this would truly be a revolution.

The experiments have ruled out local reality theories and provided strong evidence that QM as described by it's mathematics is how nature works.


But the experiments do not solve the problem of qm-gravity? at least not before the 2-spin graviton has been detected for starters.

Another thing that is mentioned in the article (and that appears to be down played a bit) that could spoil the fun is this [my bold]:

Of course we must remember that these experiments were primarily meant to settle the conflict between Einstein’s and Bohr’s points of view. Can we say that the debate over local realism is resolved? There is no doubt that these are the most ideal experimental tests of Bell’s inequalities to date. Yet no experiment, as ideal as it is, can be said to be totally loophole-free. In the experiments with entangled photons, for example, one could imagine that the photons’ properties are determined in the crystal before their emission, in contradiction with the reasonable hypothesis explained in the note in Ref. [18]. The random number generators could then be influenced by the properties of the photons, without violating relativistic causality. Far fetched as it is, this residual loophole cannot be ignored, but there are proposals for how to address it [30].


In your understanding, is this [the bold] a relevant possibility that can explain long distant non-local instantaneous/faster than light correlation? Of course Einstein maintained, up to his death bed, that faster than light causation or information transfer is impossible. He never liked "spooky action at a distance" for that reason. Did this experiment in Delft prove he was wrong there too?

Parodite wrote:
Regarding "an electron can be at two places at the same time" the accurate statement is that what one calculates is the evolution of the probability amplitude of the electron.

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_03.html


What I get from that is not that an electron has a probability amplitude but that what will be measured follows these probabilities.


From the point of view of the QM math, the distinction is not meaningful.


But Bohr, in his 30 years debates with Einstein, claimed that really nothing to very little can be said about the nature of physical reality such as "an electron" as it exists, may exist, independent from measurements in quantum experiments. The phrase "an eletron has a probability amplitude" is more how Einstein would say it. But then of course, he rejected the idea that electrons have probability amplitudes. He didn't like the idea of God playing dice. So they both would agree that probability amplitudes say very little about the nature of reality independent from scientific experiment, measurement and human observation in general.

But I understand your view on causal and/or ontological interpretations of QM. None of them ever added anything, changed anything; standard QM theory and application work like a breeze. Can't recall Feynman's exact words, but somewhere he says that it doesn't really bother him that QM is kinda weird, intuitively difficult/impossible to grasp. That also in Newtonian physics there is endless ontological mystery remaining. That all that matters in the end is what theory works and predicts best. "Shut up and do the calc". It seems to me he was an agnostic when it comes to interpreting QM beyond the math. I doubt he would claim that reality is probabilistic in nature.


I was not privy to Feynman's thoughts so I don't know. All I know is what he wrote:

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_03.html

It is quite clear that Feynman has no issue with presenting a probabilistic interpretation of the canonical QM experiment and thus of nature.

Feynman, btw, developed an alternative [3rd] formulation of QM: the sum over histories a.k.a. the path integral method that is entirely equivalent to and consistent with the wave and matrix methods of Schroedinger and Heisenberg, respectively.

It is the one that is most used today in QFT.

This was his Ph.D. thesis work.
All the world's a stage.
User avatar
Typhoon
 
Posts: 13655
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics

Postby Typhoon » Tue Feb 09, 2016 5:27 pm

Doc wrote:CS I have a crazy question for you.

Do you think there is possibly a way to directly sensing potential chemical energy before it is released, in a universal way? For example like measuring a battery, but for all types of chemical energy. With a battery it is a matter of knowing the material it is made of. You measure the electric charge and knowing what voltage the battery against the known capacity of the battery. But in this case you would not know what the sample was made of but could still sense the potential energy it contains without knowing anything else about it.


I'm not sure that I understand your question. Would you please elaborate.
All the world's a stage.
User avatar
Typhoon
 
Posts: 13655
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics

Postby Doc » Wed Feb 10, 2016 5:22 am

Typhoon wrote:
Doc wrote:CS I have a crazy question for you.

Do you think there is possibly a way to directly sensing potential chemical energy before it is released, in a universal way? For example like measuring a battery, but for all types of chemical energy. With a battery it is a matter of knowing the material it is made of. You measure the electric charge and knowing what voltage the battery against the known capacity of the battery. But in this case you would not know what the sample was made of but could still sense the potential energy it contains without knowing anything else about it.


I'm not sure that I understand your question. Would you please elaborate.


OK You have package you don't know what is inside. Just that is full of say powder mix of some kind. Is there route you can think of to sense the chemical potential energy contained in the package like you can measure the energy of a battery. IE Does have the potential chemical energy of a bomb or that of a mix of sugar and salt? Like I said it is a crazy question. Just a more or less random thought I had.
The classes and the races to weak to master the new conditions of life must give way {..} They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust --Karl Marx
User avatar
Doc
 
Posts: 7591
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics

Postby Typhoon » Wed Feb 10, 2016 6:51 pm

Doc wrote:
Typhoon wrote:
Doc wrote:CS I have a crazy question for you.

Do you think there is possibly a way to directly sensing potential chemical energy before it is released, in a universal way? For example like measuring a battery, but for all types of chemical energy. With a battery it is a matter of knowing the material it is made of. You measure the electric charge and knowing what voltage the battery against the known capacity of the battery. But in this case you would not know what the sample was made of but could still sense the potential energy it contains without knowing anything else about it.


I'm not sure that I understand your question. Would you please elaborate.


OK You have package you don't know what is inside. Just that is full of say powder mix of some kind. Is there route you can think of to sense the chemical potential energy contained in the package like you can measure the energy of a battery. IE Does have the potential chemical energy of a bomb or that of a mix of sugar and salt? Like I said it is a crazy question. Just a more or less random thought I had.


To know the potential chemical energy inside the package you would have to know the chemical composition of the material inside.

If the containing package is non-magnetic then one might be able to use NMR [Nuclear Magnetic Resonance].

There is something of an industry trying to do this for chemical explosives; to detect them via some form of scanning.

One popular method is NQR [Nuclear Quandrapole Resonance]
which unlike NMR does not require an external magnetic field.

This method relies on the fact that the most common isotope of nitrogen [99.636%], 14Ni, has a nuclear spin of 1.
Most chemical explosives are nitrogen rich.
All the world's a stage.
User avatar
Typhoon
 
Posts: 13655
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics

Postby Typhoon » Thu Feb 11, 2016 4:51 pm

Massive [pun intended] physics news:

Einstein's gravitational waves found at last
All the world's a stage.
User avatar
Typhoon
 
Posts: 13655
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics

Postby Parodite » Thu Feb 11, 2016 8:01 pm

Nobel prize for Einstein who predicted those waves to exist. A new era for physics is born.
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4072
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics

Postby Typhoon » Thu Feb 11, 2016 8:11 pm

Parodite wrote:Nobel prize for Einstein who predicted those waves to exist. A new era for physics is born.


Unfortunately, being deceased, Einstein no longer qualifies.

However, the three guys who came up with the LIGO concept are probable candidates.
All the world's a stage.
User avatar
Typhoon
 
Posts: 13655
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Science + Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron