Kevin's Watch

Short name for 'Buckminsterfullerine'(?), a molecule with a 20 sided 'geodesic dome' shape somewhat like a football. One of the fullerines(?). The largest molecule (to date) that displays wave-particle duality. This is what I think I know about buckyballs but even this wants some examining.

What for example is wave-particle duality - does it just mean that buckminster fullerine can be made to display wave like properties (eg interference lines etc) under one set of experimental conditions, and particle like properties (eg to have mass, momentum etc) under another.

I have an idea that buckyballs play some very important role right at the cutting edge of our understanding of the quantum universe but can't put my finger on what it is. I'm sure I remember Steven Hawking speaking of them in one of his books, but what he said eludes me.

Can anyone bring me up to speed in laymans terms!

(also does the wave-particle thing imply we are not yet getting the nature of what matter/energy is yet ie we have work to do that will ultimately supercede the idea of 'wave' and 'particle' and produce a single experiment that will display both these properties but unified in some yet unthoughtoff whole. Will this be part of a 'GUFT' or is this separate work altogether?)

peter wrote:What for example is wave-particle duality - does it just mean that buckminster fullerine can be made to display wave like properties (eg interference lines etc) under one set of experimental conditions, and particle like properties (eg to have mass, momentum etc) under another.

What about observation?

u.

I am mis-understanding this thread I think.

If that's a cat in the image then you're as close as I am



u.

Stalin's paranoia was a self-fulfilling prophecy. So was Bucky Fuller's optimism.

--A

Interesting point here (for anyone whose interested ) re the quote that u. took from the original post. This was carefully worded to emphasise the fact that re the wave-particle duality thing we see what we are looking for. ie If we do an experiment to derive whether light is a particle or not then it turns out to be a particle. Similarly if we do one to establish whether it is a wave or not then it shows up as a wave. Neither experiment tells us anything about the 'or not' bit and the problem is you can't (as yet I think) desighn an experiment to tell whether it is a wave or a particle.

re Av's - must check out who this Busckminster Fuller was (the desighner of the geodesic dome maybe, but why the optimism - how hard can it be?)

Sorry u. What about observation?

I'm guessing that maybe Hawking was refering to the movement of wave-particle duality up the scale from the photon sized putative particle to the (relatively) monstrously huge 100 atom buckyball implying what, that it will have effects observable at the macro- level as well as the micro-

Story of my life Sarge .

ussusimiel - brilliant pic. I am stealing it.

sgt.null wrote:

Isn't that cat's name Bucky?

peter wrote:Interesting point here (for anyone whose interested ) re the quote that u. took from the original post. This was carefully worded to emphasise the fact that re the wave-particle duality thing we see what we are looking for. ie If we do an experiment to derive whether light is a particle or not then it turns out to be a particle. Similarly if we do one to establish whether it is a wave or not then it shows up as a wave. Neither experiment tells us anything about the 'or not' bit and the problem is you can't (as yet I think) desighn an experiment to tell whether it is a wave or a particle.

re Av's - must check out who this Busckminster Fuller was (the desighner of the geodesic dome maybe, but why the optimism - how hard can it be?)

Sorry u. What about observation?

You should check out Bucky...quite interesting man and work.
On u. and observation AND your "can't tell OR,"
Yea, I said peeps are arguing about that...the underlying problem is that you can't tell [so far] WHY you can't tell.

Even further underneath, and even stranger to me: in some ways, last I really looked at this kind of thing, we can't even tell whether the answer actually matters in a meaningful way. AFAIK, whichever option is real, the physics works out the same. [Within any given theoretical system, I mean...whichever you assume/choose, that system works the same either way. Theories naturally conflict with other theories]

hashi - that was the joke. plus cat/box joke, thought that lent itself to some jokes.

Vraith wrote:Even further underneath, and even stranger to me: in some ways, last I really looked at this kind of thing, we can't even tell whether the answer actually matters in a meaningful way. AFAIK, whichever option is real, the physics works out the same. [Within any given theoretical system, I mean...whichever you assume/choose, that system works the same either way. Theories naturally conflict with other theories]

What new (and interesting to me) is that something with 60 carbon atoms displays quantum qualities. I always thought that only applied with smaller particles. At that rate size is starting to look less and less important *checks out his quantumness in the mirror*

u.

ussusimiel wrote:

Vraith wrote:Even further underneath, and even stranger to me: in some ways, last I really looked at this kind of thing, we can't even tell whether the answer actually matters in a meaningful way. AFAIK, whichever option is real, the physics works out the same. [Within any given theoretical system, I mean...whichever you assume/choose, that system works the same either way. Theories naturally conflict with other theories]

What new (and interesting to me) is that something with 60 carbon atoms displays quantum qualities. I always thought that only applied with smaller particles. At that rate size is starting to look less and less important *checks out his quantumness in the mirror*

u.

Heh...yea, that's the thing...
There is a number [I'm just blurbing here, from memory, I don't guarantee any of the details]...and it is IIRC another one named after Planck...that defines exactly the largest mass that could possibly have quantum effects....but it always seemed true that only single [if large] particles or simple/small [if molecules] could do so.
But this is complex [100+ atoms] and large mass [over half way to the max], and it does so.
It's why, although I love the reach and creativity, the fucking vision of theoretical physicists, I more and more respect the carpentry and artistry/craft of the "lower classes."
As it stands now, it won't be ANY of the "stars" of physics that have a breakthrough on the quantum/classic problem. It will be the dudes figuring out how to build shit.
[although, to be fair...what is a mere "practical" person in physics is head-exploding intelligence to most of us]

Vraith wrote:
It's why, although I love the reach and creativity, the fucking vision of theoretical physicists, I more and more respect the carpentry and artistry/craft of the "lower classes."

This feels closer to chemistry than physics to me. (I have a friend who has a Ph.D. in organic chemistry and I love it when he starts talking about things like disappearing polymorphs and 'homeopathic' catalysis )

u.

He was one of the first people to understand that we're all living on a huge spaceship.

--A

Avatar wrote:He was one of the first people to understand that we're all living on a huge spaceship.

--A

And so we are indeed - you just have to get over the fact that we are on the outside with our air supply held in place by gravity rather than on the inside with everything contained by walls. It's a great design that has yet to be bettered.

Did a quick insomniac calculation the other night - we're 93 million miles from the sun and we travel the elipse in 365 days. Thats 2 x 3.142 x 93 million miles in 365 days or 2 x 3.142 x 93 million divided by 365 miles per day . This equates to 2 x 3.142 x 93 million divided by 365 x 24 miles per hour or 66,714 miles per hour, the current(ish) speed of our spaceship as it travells round the sun.

Got a feeling the world will get a whole lot weirder if quantum effects start to impinge on macro sized stuff and God knows it's weird enough already!

[edit] just by chance seen an episode on Vraith's minute physic's thread to do with this very subject. The guy tells us that every time the quantum world interacts with the 'macro' world (as in Schrodingers Cat expt) the Many Worlds model of multiple, but slightly different, paralell existences comes into play where in it's extreme form an infinite number of paralell universes exist where you have done all the stuff (and more) that you didn't get to do in the path of existence you are currently experiencing.

Strange point - I returned to Vraith's thread (it's near the top in the Loresratt page called 'Funny Physics' or something) to re-watch the linked episode on 'the Multiverse', hit the same link on the post and got to see a different episode of 'Minute Physics' ie this one on quantum/macro world interaction. That's never happened before!

peter wrote:Strange point - I returned to Vraith's thread (it's near the top in the Loresratt page called 'Funny Physics' or something) to re-watch the linked episode on 'the Multiverse', hit the same link on the post and got to see a different episode of 'Minute Physics' ie this one on quantum/macro world interaction. That's never happened before!

Spooky!

u.

You don't think I've slipped into an alternate but paralell reality do you u. - I'm having enough problems dealing with the one without having any more thrown into the mix!

Amusing as it is, I'm not sure that I'm a fan of the Graham-Everett-Wheeler model.

In fact, it's probably pretty pointless...the "we're always here and it's always now" idea seems much more important to me.

--A

Surely the 'many worlds' results of the maths of quantum mechanics is just a bizzare by product that tells us that while we might be on the right track, we have a ways to go before we get the thing signed, sealed and delivered. All those infinite infinities multiplying on and on - that has to be an artfact of a problem in the theory somewhere. Doesn't it?