super atoms

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

MrDudeMan

Lifer
Jan 15, 2001
15,069
94
91
Originally posted by: William Gaatjes

I understand what you mean, unfortunately.

Fortunately, i am not one of them. I am the one you never hear although i am very present, but i prefer to work ahead. In that way i have more time to think about what i have learned and do not need to bother with learning for tests. At least that was how i did back in the days.

Nowadays, my work is usually still finished ahead of time. Now however to much unforeseen consequences keep me very busy. Another reason why i cannot spend enough time.

In time i present my idea's and will backup them. I can always be wrong afcourse, but i have tendency to always find something others overlooked. And that can be more of a curse then a blessing... Alas we will see. Maybe my grasp is too high, maybe i can cling on.

Unfortunately for you, Cyclowizard has a history of being helpful and not arrogant. You, however, seem like an arrogant prick. Lastly, it is obvious you are blowing super-heated hot air out of your blowhole.
 
May 11, 2008
22,175
1,402
126
Originally posted by: MrDudeMan
Originally posted by: William Gaatjes

I understand what you mean, unfortunately.

Fortunately, i am not one of them. I am the one you never hear although i am very present, but i prefer to work ahead. In that way i have more time to think about what i have learned and do not need to bother with learning for tests. At least that was how i did back in the days.

Nowadays, my work is usually still finished ahead of time. Now however to much unforeseen consequences keep me very busy. Another reason why i cannot spend enough time.

In time i present my idea's and will backup them. I can always be wrong afcourse, but i have tendency to always find something others overlooked. And that can be more of a curse then a blessing... Alas we will see. Maybe my grasp is too high, maybe i can cling on.

Unfortunately for you, Cyclowizard has a history of being helpful and not arrogant. You, however, seem like an arrogant prick. Lastly, it is obvious you are blowing super-heated hot air out of your blowhole.


That is odd, when reading his replies i have come to a different conclusion.
However, it seems to me that his and your response are very equal. Name calling , empty remarks and no thorough explanation why what i was wondering about is impossible.
And i know why, because you cannot explain it. It is the same reason why the standard model can not be used to describe every phenomena out there in nature. It does not fit.
I mentioned once in another post, researchers will continue to find particles . Look up the scientific news. Another particle has been found.

new particle


particle

particle




Anyway...
I would go so far to estimate that the both you have similair views.
But for now i will withdraw because i see it is useless here to post anything.
No technical insight, No ability to have an abstract insight view to understand how things work. Just a lot of agression and loud mouths. I hope you are all proud of your self.







 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: William Gaatjes
Anyway...
I would go so far to estimate that the both you have similair views.
But for now i will withdraw because i see it is useless here to post anything.
No technical insight, No ability to have an abstract insight view to understand how things work. Just a lot of agression and loud mouths. I hope you are all proud of your self.
Good - please take your ignorant arrogance with you. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
 

KIAman

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2001
3,342
23
81
Originally posted by: William Gaatjes
That is odd, when reading his replies i have come to a different conclusion.
However, it seems to me that his and your response are very equal. Name calling , empty remarks and no thorough explanation why what i was wondering about is impossible.
And i know why, because you cannot explain it. It is the same reason why the standard model can not be used to describe every phenomena out there in nature. It does not fit.
I mentioned once in another post, researchers will continue to find particles . Look up the scientific news. Another particle has been found.

Before assuming people will put any work into why it's impossible, it would be good if you put the work into why it IS possible. Nobody can read your mind.

Obviously you have never had a discussion with a devout <insert religious group> and ask them to prove their God exists. It sounds exactly like the quoted remark.
 
May 11, 2008
22,175
1,402
126
I once mentioned string theory and the behaviour of particles :

I got this reply in my superwave post:

First, string theory has absolutely nothing to do with any of this. You're essentially saying something like: "From what I know about blue whale migration habits, the moon's orbit makes sense." You also seem to be stringing a bunch of words together which make sense on their own but not together. We already manipulate crystal lattices. Piezoelectric crystals deform when we apply a voltage across them. We can create defects in crystal lattices, we can introduce different atoms into a crystal lattice (doping). We can move impurities in a crystal lattice around using voltage and/or heat.


Luckily other people have a more open mind like me :


Physical reality of string theory demonstrated


I can predict already that when the LHC starts, all new particles and behaviours will be found that does not comply with existing theories.

But then again, Science would not be science if we have all the answers already...

 
May 11, 2008
22,175
1,402
126
Originally posted by: KIAman
Originally posted by: William Gaatjes
That is odd, when reading his replies i have come to a different conclusion.
However, it seems to me that his and your response are very equal. Name calling , empty remarks and no thorough explanation why what i was wondering about is impossible.
And i know why, because you cannot explain it. It is the same reason why the standard model can not be used to describe every phenomena out there in nature. It does not fit.
I mentioned once in another post, researchers will continue to find particles . Look up the scientific news. Another particle has been found.

Before assuming people will put any work into why it's impossible, it would be good if you put the work into why it IS possible. Nobody can read your mind.

Obviously you have never had a discussion with a devout <insert religious group> and ask them to prove their God exists. It sounds exactly like the quoted remark.

Actually i did many times, and it is quite easy to debunk religious people.

Simple set of questions you can ask :
Why do you try to be the best person you can be ?
Because you expect something in return or because it is the best thing to do ?

By definition being good because you want to be in heaven makes you not the best person you can be. Because it is fear that drives you...


Nobody can read your mind.

That would make life a lot easier would it...

When you compare all my posts , you can actually read my mind.
Nothing is seperated and exists independently. That is why Heisenberg's uncertainty principle seems an impossible hurdle. It is not, just do not look in the wrong direction.

All in good time..





 

Born2bwire

Diamond Member
Oct 28, 2005
9,840
6
71
Originally posted by: William Gaatjes
I once mentioned string theory and the behaviour of particles :

I got this reply in my superwave post:

First, string theory has absolutely nothing to do with any of this. You're essentially saying something like: "From what I know about blue whale migration habits, the moon's orbit makes sense." You also seem to be stringing a bunch of words together which make sense on their own but not together. We already manipulate crystal lattices. Piezoelectric crystals deform when we apply a voltage across them. We can create defects in crystal lattices, we can introduce different atoms into a crystal lattice (doping). We can move impurities in a crystal lattice around using voltage and/or heat.


Luckily other people have a more open mind like me :


Physical reality of string theory demonstrated


I can predict already that when the LHC starts, all new particles and behaviours will be found that does not comply with existing theories.

But then again, Science would not be science if we have all the answers already...

What the hell does that article have to do about anything that you have been blabbering about? My God, I can't think of a better response to your post than this:

First, string theory has absolutely nothing to do with any of this. You're essentially saying something like: "From what I know about blue whale migration habits, the moon's orbit makes sense." You also seem to be stringing a bunch of words together which make sense on their own but not together.
 
May 11, 2008
22,175
1,402
126
Originally posted by: Born2bwire
Originally posted by: William Gaatjes
I once mentioned string theory and the behaviour of particles :

I got this reply in my superwave post:

First, string theory has absolutely nothing to do with any of this. You're essentially saying something like: "From what I know about blue whale migration habits, the moon's orbit makes sense." You also seem to be stringing a bunch of words together which make sense on their own but not together. We already manipulate crystal lattices. Piezoelectric crystals deform when we apply a voltage across them. We can create defects in crystal lattices, we can introduce different atoms into a crystal lattice (doping). We can move impurities in a crystal lattice around using voltage and/or heat.


Luckily other people have a more open mind like me :


Physical reality of string theory demonstrated


I can predict already that when the LHC starts, all new particles and behaviours will be found that does not comply with existing theories.

But then again, Science would not be science if we have all the answers already...

What the hell does that article have to do about anything that you have been blabbering about? My God, I can't think of a better response to your post than this:

First, string theory has absolutely nothing to do with any of this. You're essentially saying something like: "From what I know about blue whale migration habits, the moon's orbit makes sense." You also seem to be stringing a bunch of words together which make sense on their own but not together.



Clearly you have not read the article.

Your anger does not bother me. Your anger is holding you back.


pffff...

OK, a brief eplanation :

the standard model is nice for describing particles but does not do a good job when describing a collection of particles and the interaction they have. That is because the relatively new concept of entanglement is a more universel principle then is being admitted at this moment. But that will change. When you want to understand how stuff works, you first have to acknowledge that nothing in this universe exists seperately from one and other. There is always an influence. and does not has to be a direct link. You are newtonian speaking a seperate entity of your computer monitor but not in the fluid space of virtual particles.

The fluid space that you can measure when seeking for example the casimir force. You can see fluid space when seeing superconductivity discovered by Gilles Holst in the laboratorium and using the tools of Kamerlingh Onnes. However since Kamerlingh Onnes was a professor and Holst only a researcher the name of Holst was not presented on the paper. You can see fluid space in superfluids and superconduction of thermal energy as found by Mac Lennan.
A bit of history...


It is not the string theory itself that is usefull in this case . It is the idea behind it. When you talk about fermions and bosons also think about how antenna's work.

A side note.
Elektromagnetic radiation is composed of an electrical field and a magnetic field.
However , in perfect vacuum an electromagnetic wave can perfectly propagate. This makes me think that the same cause behind the casimir force is responsible for carrying on this electromagnetic wave.

From the article :
They used the aspect of string theory known as AdS/CFT correspondence. This allows situations in a large relativistic world to be translated into a description at minuscule quantum physics level. This correspondence bridges the gap between these two different worlds.


The researchers used the mathematics behind the string theory on the collective of electrons. Now, to come back to basic information : wavelengths. Everything combined of elementary particles in our universe is basically an antenna. The big question is, is this also the case when we think of gravity. Or is gravity the reason everything behaves as an antenna ? Or is the same principle behind gravity and behind everything behaving as an antenna the same explanation that is now called the higgs boson ?

Much to think about :)













 

Born2bwire

Diamond Member
Oct 28, 2005
9,840
6
71
I read the article. It has nothing to do with this shit you keep spouting about super atoms and protein folding. It's like you do nothing but spend all day skimming press releases for buzz words to string together and feel self-congratulatory about.

When you talk about fermions and bosons also think about how antenna's work.

Really? An antenna is a device that transitions guided waves to propagating waves and vice versa. Tell you what, why don't you go to the Physics Forum and go bother them.
 

firewolfsm

Golden Member
Oct 16, 2005
1,848
29
91
Superatoms really are interesting, we should be discussing electron shells, not elementary particles or string theory. Please, all of you, just drop this argument as of this post.
 
May 11, 2008
22,175
1,402
126
Originally posted by: firewolfsm
Superatoms really are interesting, we should be discussing electron shells, not elementary particles or string theory. Please, all of you, just drop this argument as of this post.


I have no problem with that. The superatom idea and the ibm experiment of the quantum mirage give me an odd feeling. That and the wave/particle nature of electrons keeps giving me an itch that does not leave me alone. Now since everything we seem to "discover" has been used by nature (while rolling dice) once or twice through evolution i was just wondering if more of these super atoms but afcourse from a different composition naturally occur. That was actually my only question before i got attacked by the 3 musketeers .




 
May 11, 2008
22,175
1,402
126
Originally posted by: firewolfsm
Wave-Particle Duality gives you an "itch" because you don't know the math behind it.



Hello, sorry for the late reply...


In all honesty i am still trying to understand how Max Planck found his constant.

So yes, i do not know the math around it. I think E = m c2 has something to do with the dual particle nature but since photons do not seem to have any mass. I know that with math a solution can be found but is it actually our reality ?



I have some websites from my bookmarks (EDIT : very recently, have not even read site 2 completely, where is my time...) :

Site 1 has dates and data of discoveries done.
Site 1

Site 2 is a good read. I am enjoying reading the site.
Do you think the writings on site 2 are valid ?
I find them very interesting...

Site 2


 
May 11, 2008
22,175
1,402
126
It is amazing. What i was thinking is described on this site as well.
Ever since i read about the quantum mirage experiment about 9,10 years ago, i was thinking in waves and antenna's and rejected the particle idea and orbit idea. Then i read about Einstein and relativity and it made more sense. Antenna's not only work at the designed wavelengths but also on for example 1/4 of the wavelength. I always thought that something like that is also the case when thinking of atoms and electron shells and what is really going on.


And the person of the second site says more or less the same thing. I am glad i took today the time to read this site. Thank you for your reply firewolfsm. Or i would have forgotten about the site. :thumbsup:


 
May 11, 2008
22,175
1,402
126
Meh, Xavier started out good and then he got way to religious with respect to the geometric shapes and i still doubt the Hutchison effect.

But the standing waves by Dr Milo Wolff is interesting.

 
May 11, 2008
22,175
1,402
126
They have done another discovery about "super atoms".



Superatoms Mimic Elements: Research Gives New Perspective on Periodic Table

ScienceDaily (Dec. 29, 2009) &#8212; Transforming lead into gold is an impossible feat, but a similar type of "alchemy" is not only possible, but cost-effective too. Three Penn State researchers have shown that certain combinations of elemental atoms have electronic signatures that mimic the electronic signatures of other elements.

According to the team's leader A. Welford Castleman Jr., Eberly Distinguished Chair in Science and Evan Pugh Professor in the Departments of Chemistry and Physics, "the findings could lead to much cheaper materials for widespread applications such as new sources of energy, methods of pollution abatement, and catalysts on which industrial nations depend heavily for chemical processing."

The researchers also showed that the atoms that have been identified so far in these mimicry events can be predicted simply by looking at the periodic table. The team used advanced experimentation and theory to quantify these new and unexpected findings. "We're getting a whole new perspective of the periodic table," said Castleman.

The team's findings will be published in the 28 December 2009 early on-line issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and at a later date in the print edition of the journal.

Now, Castleman's new research takes the superatom idea to a new level and provides a sound quantitative foundation for the concept of superatoms. "It looks like we can predict which combinations of elemental atoms mimic other elemental atoms," he said. "For example, by looking at the periodic table, you can predict that titanium monoxide will be a superatom of nickel. Simply start at titanium, which has four outer-shell electrons, and move six elements to the right, because atomic oxygen possesses six outer-shell electrons. The element you end up on is nickel, whose 10 outer-shell electrons make it isoelectronic with the 10 outer-shell electron molecule resulting from the combination of titanium and oxygen. We thought this finding must be a curious coincidence, so we tried it with other atoms and we found that a pattern emerged."

Now i would really not be surprised anymore if this is already used in nature.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091228152348.htm
 
Last edited:

Cotswolds

Member
Jan 20, 2010
43
0
0
William, I really don't mean this as a flame. But you remind me of one of those scientists that "believes" in global warming. You just have a itch, and it must be true! To hell with empirical evidence, two phenomena exist there must be a correlation!
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
67
91
William, I really don't mean this as a flame. But you remind me of one of those scientists that "believes" in global warming. You just have a itch, and it must be true! To hell with empirical evidence, two phenomena exist there must be a correlation!

I do mean this as a flame. When it comes to ignoring empirical evidence of global warming, you should try my new invention -- the mirror. :eek:
 

Cotswolds

Member
Jan 20, 2010
43
0
0
I see you have "admin" by your name, so I might not last long on this forum.. But global warming's "empirical" evidence doesn't exist. Do an appropriate amount of research on the subject and perhaps you won't look like such a fool. There are far more climatologists that disagree with the global warming model than there are that agree with it. Even the guy credited with the "hockey stick" model has been debunked.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
67
91
I see you have "admin" by your name, so I might not last long on this forum..

I've been an admin for over ten years, and I have yet to ban anyone for disagreeing with me.

But global warming's "empirical" evidence doesn't exist. Do an appropriate amount of research on the subject and perhaps you won't look like such a fool. There are far more climatologists that disagree with the global warming model than there are that agree with it. Even the guy credited with the "hockey stick" model has been debunked.

If you're going to make such bullshit statements, try posting links to credible sources for your claims, or at least, tell us about whatever it is you're smoking. :rolleyes:
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
67
91
Cotswolds -- That's the BEST you can do? Buahahahaha!!! You're still as much of a bad joke as the rest of the global warming denyers. Will you soon be telling us Sarah Palin was right about men living with dinosaurs?

Get a freaking clue. There are two big differences between what is happening, now, and conditions in any prior time in human history:

1. We are in an era where human beings are dumping unprecedented levels of pollution into the environment, including chemical components that never existed before the last 50 - 100 years.

2. The earth's population is greater than at anytime in history, and it continues to expand. Therefore, even if each person, today, contributes no more pollution than previous human beings, pollution will continue to grow... unless we use our brains to figure out how to mitigate the damage we do to our planet.

In attempting to solve the problems and mitigate global warming, the worst that can happen is that we'll develop products and means that will save money and reduce global contamination.

On the other hand, if we follow your lead and keep our collective heads up our collective asses, and you happen to be wrong, the worst that can happen is that humanity perishes, and there will be no one left to thank you for the results of your piss poor anal-cranial thinking. Remember...

56156741v5_225x225_Front_padToSquare-true.png
 

Matthiasa

Diamond Member
May 4, 2009
5,755
23
81
Eh its now global cooling or global climate change get your story straight. :p
but anyways how is this is any way related to the initial topic?

/looks at date bah to old for my stupid presentation I need to do :(
 

Cotswolds

Member
Jan 20, 2010
43
0
0
I'm sorry, man, but you're so far off base. You asked for links, I provided them. I doubt you read them fully, but cest la vie.

First you need to realize there's a large difference between pollution and the so-called greenhouse gases. I made no statement regarding pollution and certainly don't condone "dumping of unprecedented amounts" into our environment. CO2 and CH4 are both naturally occuring. Second, this isn't even the warmest time humans have seen on earth. It was warmer in the middle ages. And third: AVERAGE temperatures on earth are dropping, not rising.

The above statements are illustrated in several publications on the subject, including the two I linked. You retort with assertions about the population levels followed by cataclysmic predictions, yet provide no facts to back your claims.

By having the responsible and developed nations of the world beholden to the third world nations (by way of emmissions standards) there are indeed MUCH worse things that could happen than just developing "products and means that will save money and reduce global contamination". This was the intent of Kyoto and Copenhagen: essentially a grab for western money by third world governments.

I am not a climatologist, but I am a scientist. I don't know what Palin has to do with this discussion (other than a lame attempt to marginalize me) but I can assure you I will make no wild statements about dinosaurs and man hanging around together.

Your argument seems more based on emotion than fact. And that's fine, there's much worse things you could be passionate about than the environment. And for the record, I"m very much in favor of sensible conservation and keeping our environment as clean as we can, but reasonable measures could accomplish this without a chicken-little mentality.