Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Atoms and harmonics

Atoms and harmonics

D4RR3N - 15-4-2011 at 09:09

I have a question

Every physical object in this universe has a natural or resonant frequency from an atom to a planet.

Attached is an image of a graph showing the increase in amplitude of oscillation as you approach resonance.

As you can see the system has a natural resonant frequency of 5.

Lets suppose the nucleus of an atom has a natural resonant frequency of 300hz, obviously being very small it would be much higher however lets just say its 300hz.

If we bombarded that atom with a frequency of 300hz it would go into resonance. If we were to then increase the bombarding frequency in harmonic steps of 400hz, 500hz and 600hz the nucleus would still absorb these frequency's as they are harmonics of its natural frequency however the amplitude would decrease. What I want to know is what would be the percentage of decrease in amplitude at each step. Lets assume that the amplitude of the bombarding wave is always the same and only the frequency changes. Also the bombarding wave is electromagnetic in nature not sound

watson.fawkes - 15-4-2011 at 11:17

There are just too many false assumptions for this question to have an answer. To list just a few:

Not every object has resonant frequencies, just most of them. There are mechanical system where the first order oscillation is null. But they're unusual.
The amplitude vs. resonance graph is only applicable to certain systems. I'm guessing it's about a system with a single, simple resonance.
The relationship between modes frequencies is very much not linear in general. Just look up modes for a drum head.
The relationship between mode excitations and driving frequencies is dependent upon material properties and can't be answered in general.

D4RR3N - 15-4-2011 at 11:43

The nucleus of every atom has a resonant frequency and there are are even periodic tables which show the resonant frequency of different elements.

http://www.bruker-nmr.de/guide/eNMR/chem/NMRnuclei.html

I assume that if you bombarded an atom with an electromagnetic wave that matched its nmr it would go into resonance. I assume also that that same nucleus will absorb other frequency's however they will not excite the nucleus to the same degree.
I also assume that if you bombarded a nucleus with an electromagnetic wave matching its nmr it would become excited and release energy in an attempt to stabilise itself.

watson.fawkes - 15-4-2011 at 12:13

Quote: Originally posted by D4RR3N

The nucleus of every atom has a resonant frequency and there are are even periodic tables which show the resonant frequency of different elements.

The frequencies in those table are resonances under a magnetic field, not applicable to an isolated nucleus outside of such a field.

D4RR3N - 15-4-2011 at 12:46

True but I would imagine that every nucleus will absorb electromagnetic waves and that there will be a frequency at which absorption reaches a maximum. Perhaps Im using the wrong words but I view that as its natural or resonant frequency.
Has any study been done in relation to atoms excitement level vs frequency of exciting electromagnetic wave?

bfesser - 15-4-2011 at 13:23

Perhaps the title of this thread should be 'Crackpot Pseudoscience'.

What type of 'excitement' level are you talking about? Your Newtonian understanding of nature won't help you to explain quantum phenomena. At the scale of the atomic nucleus or the electron (especially the electron), things get pretty weird from a Newtonian perspective.

watson.fawkes - 15-4-2011 at 13:25

Quote: Originally posted by D4RR3N

Has any study been done in relation to atoms excitement level vs frequency of exciting electromagnetic wave?

Nuclei do have excited states, but these are quantized systems whose dynamics have little in common with the simple harmonic oscillators and the resonant frequencies of rigid bodies that you're analogizing from.

Go look up something about metastable excited nuclear states. Some are long-lived enough that they act similarly to isotopic variation.

Sedit - 15-4-2011 at 14:17

Watson, what natural materials do not harbor a natural resonance frequency? Granted an object needs to have some sort of media to transmit the transversal waves but recent discoverys have shown Electrons to be a sufficient media to carry out this task. The inside of a Nuclei is another story however but I would not doubt, with all the goings on inside of the Nucleus, for there to be such a media to allow a resonance to set itself up.

Tesla laid claims to such kind of research although little of his notes are being found and there was also a some what less credible scientist working around the same time named Keely who, regardless of his credibility, pioneered the fields of ultrasonics on an unimaginable scale.

D4RR3N - 15-4-2011 at 14:37

bfesser

Its not crackpot science, its the Science of the future

Suppose we have a lump of zinc metal, obviously made up of zinc atoms and a tunable laser (source of electromagnetic waves). It will be noted that when the laser approaches the UV range the zinc will start to emit electrons.

I believe something similar would happen to all elements of the periodic table, you will find that there are wavelengths at which maximum excitation will occur.

Harmonics do relate to electromagnetic systems also for example capacitors and coils. I don't see why harmonics should not apply to the atom also.

And yes I am a fan of John Keely, it was reading his work that put me on this track

watson.fawkes - 15-4-2011 at 19:12

Quote: Originally posted by Sedit

Watson, what natural materials do not harbor a natural resonance frequency?

Not natural materials so much as systems. The answer is anything that's not a simple harmonic oscillator. The SHO is the ordinary model of oscillation because it's just so damn generic. It arises, mathematically, when you have a potential energy function U(x) whose first derivative is not zero. In this case, that first coefficient acts like a spring constant and generates sinusoidal motion. The resonant frequency is the frequency of this motion in the limit of infinitesimal amplitude. There are systems where U' = 0. In other word, the Taylor series expansion looks like 1 + c<sub>2</sub>x<sup>2</sup> + ..., so the infinitesimal motion is not linear but quadratic. Such systems are, I feel the need to say, non-linear. These system do not have simple harmonic motion, thus no sinusoid, thus no resonant frequency. They have periodic, aperiodic, quasi-periodic, and whatever else motions, and while you can toss anything into a Fourier transform, it's inaccurate to say these things have a canonical resonant frequency, because that's a term about a different kind of system.

watson.fawkes - 15-4-2011 at 19:14

Quote: Originally posted by D4RR3N

I don't see why harmonics should not apply to the atom also.

Yes, that not-seeing is why I'm exiting this discussion with you. There's a long road of physics ahead of you to understand this, should you choose to embark upon it.

D4RR3N - 16-4-2011 at 02:38

When keely was talking about the resonance of an atom he was not talking about an atom oscillating (side to side) he was talking about pulsating i.e. expanding and contracting rhythmically about its nucleus. I was not implying that every atom oscillates but rather pulsates. Keely says this it due to the fact that all atoms are in space and interact with the energy of space.
To put it in modern terms space is fluctuating with electromagnetic energy called vacuum energy or zero point energy, are we to suppose that atoms do not interact with this energy?
Keely makes it clear that all atoms do interact with this energy but selectively ie different elements absorb different wavelengths according to their properties, keely calls this their natural frequency or fundamental pitch. Personally I feel there is some truth in this.

[Edited on 16-4-2011 by D4RR3N]

Pop Quiz

watson.fawkes - 16-4-2011 at 07:37

Don't worry; the quiz is multiple choice.

Q1. What is the last refuge of scoundrels?
(a) Patriotism
(b) Zero Point Energy
(c) String Theory
(d) All of the above

D4RR3N - 16-4-2011 at 09:25

LOL

You know I went to a School right next to where the Wright brothers made their first flight. Do you know why there is so little footage of that flight? The reason is because nobody turned up to witness the event despite all the local press being invited. Do you know why they didn't show up? Because a famous Scientist was asked if he thought it was possible and he said the idea was ridiculous, a heavier then air craft could never fly. I often wonder if that Scientist thought the chicken he had for dinner was lighter then air. Bet if you asked him a week after the fact he would say that he had believed it from the first.

The same goes for those scientists who are so against Zero point energy, the day it is utilised for energy successfully they will all say "well of course, its science isn't it"

Guess that's why I've always respected inventors more then scientists, they seem to be the ones behind the real discovery's while the scientists come along after to feed off the crumbs.

[Edited on 16-4-2011 by D4RR3N]

Polverone - 16-4-2011 at 11:15

Quote: Originally posted by D4RR3N

LOL

Powered flight was obviously possible since animals have been doing it for longer than humanity has existed. Likewise, it is obvious from nature that nuclear fusion is a powerful energy source even though humans haven't yet managed to master it for peaceful energy production. The reason scientists don't think useful work can be extracted from zero point energy is because it's never been seen in nature or a constructed device, and the idea that it should be capable of doing work is not clear from any well-tested theory. And of course they would change their minds if a method for it could be reproducibly demonstrated under controlled conditions. This is, ideally, the essence of science: proof by experiment rather than by faith or philosophy. Successful inventors too have to show working inventions and not just elaborate ideas. Complaining that scientists want proof before belief is like complaining that nobody will give you give you a gold medal before you've won the race.

[Edited on 4-16-2011 by Polverone]

blogfast25 - 16-4-2011 at 13:31

Quote: Originally posted by D4RR3N

LOL

Guess that's why I've always respected inventors more then scientists, they seem to be the ones behind the real discovery's while the scientists come along after to feed off the crumbs.

That's patronising baloney, frankly speaking.

Your reasoning seems to be: ‘many scientists don’t think it’s possible ergo it must be possible’, or equivalent: ‘on the grounds that many believe it’s impossible, I believe it must be possible’.

Next up: conspiracy theories claiming the G’ment is covering up the potential use of Zero point energy?

And I’m waiting for the words ‘open mind’ to come marching towards this conversation with ill-deserved confidence…

Chordate - 17-4-2011 at 03:30

I apologize if this is an unwelcome injection of attention to an otherwise unscientific thread, but this conversation did evoke for me a memory of a particularly nifty piece of technology which does rely on the quantized excitation frequency of individual isotopes generated by their hyperfine structure. The theory was hammered out in the 90 but previously required rather expensive laser technology, (wikilink=excited dimers, another cool material which is vaguely evoked by this conversation)

Now any fool with a wafer fab can bang out tune-able p-n gap diode lasers, and as a consequence isotope separation is potentially a lot cheaper and harder to police, which could have disastrous consequences for nuclear non-proliferation or awesome consequences for people who want to be able to prepare small quantities of radioisotopes without dicking around with a cyclotron. Here is a gmail books link with a short bit of information on the subject of laser isotope separation

[Edited on 17-4-2011 by Chordate]

D4RR3N - 17-4-2011 at 07:39

Polverone

Yes we have observed systems in nature utilising and extracting energy from the vacuum energy and this is the clue that it must be possible at least at the atomic level.

Quote:

Let's start with the question as top why the electron in a simple hydrogen atom doesn't radiate as it circles the proton in its stable ground state atomic orbit. This issue has been re-addressed in a recent paper by the author, this time taking into account what has been learned over the years about the effects of zero-point energy. (5) There it is shown that the electron can be seen as continually radiating away its energy as predicted by classical theory, but simultaneously absorbing a compensating amount of energy from the ever-present sea of zero-point energy in which the atom is immersed, and an assumed equilibrium between these two processes leads to the correct values for the parameters known to define the ground-state orbit. Thus the ground-state orbit is set by a dynamic equilibrium in which collapse of the state is prevented by the presence of the zero-point energy. The significance of this observation is that the very stability of matter itself appears to depend on the presence of the underlying sea of electromagnetic zero-point energy.

http://ldolphin.org/zpe.html

Blogfast25

No that's not what I'm saying, basically to discover "new" things you need to possess an adventurous spirit and obviously look in places where others have not already looked. I have observed that Scientists generally don't possess that kind of spirit and only are content in making very small steps which they feel safe in doing so.

Sometimes stepping isn't enough, sometimes you got to have the balls to leap! Inventors generally speaking have that type of spirit from my observations

Inventor invents powered flight even though told by scientist it wont work, he says stuff you it will and the aeroplane is born. After the science of aeronautics is created by Scientists who now feel safe to go into that area.

The same will happen with Zero point, the device will be created by an inventor and after the scientists will feel safe to go there and polish the subject. Also they will deny that as a whole they ever said it was impossible.

blogfast25 - 17-4-2011 at 09:32

Quote: Originally posted by D4RR3N

I have observed that Scientists generally don't possess that kind of spirit and only are content in making very small steps which they feel safe in doing so.

More broad brushing, stereotyping and cheap psychologising, as far as I'm concerned.

That the electron "in a simple hydrogen atom doesn't radiate as it circles the proton in its stable ground state atomic orbit” has nothing to do with anything here. The electron doesn’t ‘circle the proton in its stable ground state’. See the electron’s wave, as it is ‘smeared out’ over the space it ‘occupies’. Orbitals, not orbits. Read up on QM.

From Wiki:

”Harold E. Puthoff (born June 20, 1936) is an American physicist who, earlier in his career was involved in research on paranormal topics. In 1967, Puthoff earned a Ph.D. from Stanford University.[1] Puthoff is well known within gravitational physics circles[attribution needed] for his papers on polarizable vacuum (PV) and stochastic electrodynamics topics, which are examples of alternative approaches to general relativity and quantum mechanics. In the 70s and 80s he directed a CIA/DIA-funded program at SRI International to investigate paranormal abilities, collaborating with Russell Targ in a study of the purported psychic abilities of Uri Geller, Ingo Swann, Pat Price, Joseph McMoneagle and others. Both Puthoff and Russell Targ became convinced Geller and Swann had genuine psychic powers.[2] More conventional explanations for the observed abilities have also been advanced.[3]”

Nuff’ said: Uri Geller, that’s where this stuff belongs. Along with Whacko Jacko, may he rest in peace.

[Edited on 17-4-2011 by blogfast25]

watson.fawkes - 17-4-2011 at 16:06

Quote: Originally posted by D4RR3N

Yes we have observed systems in nature utilising and extracting energy from the vacuum energy and this is the clue that it must be possible at least at the atomic level.

No, we haven't observed any such thing. There's a claim that this theory explains atomic states. Well, standard quantum mechanics does also, does so in rather greater generality. If you want to say a theory is true, it has to explain everything you already understand and then it also has explain something else. Zero point energy hasn't explained anything new. Neither has string theory, but that's a rather different story.

Sedit - 17-4-2011 at 17:27

D4RR3N you would do well to study up on Teslas version of the atomic Nuclei. His ideas where not based on the common conception but he viewed it in his own words as, think of a swarm of bees around and object with the wind blowing. There will be a general cluster with a tail. I have more faith in Teslas understanding on the subject more so then the clasical model we are all taught in schools but since I don't have a full grasp on the physics behind his models im left to use clasical models in my physics until I understand Teslas better. The only "downfall" of Teslas version is it requires and Aether and since we have not found one as of yet it makes full understanding or proof a bit difficult.

Im a fan of Keely as well D4RR3N however you must understand he was a bit of a con man. Take the Trexar wire(if I recall the name correctly) it was silver wire, coated in platinum, coated in gold or something along them lines. I believe this was akin to todays fiber optics by minimizing loss along transmission however some loss did occure..... A mess load of that highly expensive wire got lost...

That being said his models of the inner workings of an atom almost exactly match todays understanding of the atoms where most of his work was based off of three particals with different spin states. The model he formulated looks remarkibly like that of quarks spin state and all.

The biggest push to show he may have been more then just a con-man is some of his work with Ultrasonics and how he stated when a certine US frequency was reached he noticed a blue glow like cold fire emitting from the other side of the metal. Researchers today are recognizing this as a form of ionization(IIRC) trigged by super high frequency Ultrasounds. Also keep in mind even though it was "magic" in his day to use Ultrasound to levitate an object its now common place to perform Ultrasonic levitation and to produce many of the effects simply and easily using solid state electronics where as he had to tune a very advanced for its time system to overlay ultrasonics until the waves "harmonized" in such a way to create frequencys unheard of even today in some cases.

There is without a doubt some credit to the things D4RR3N is saying folks and while I have my reserves on Zeropoint energy and what not its still a very understudys and valid area of science that needs further exploration.

blogfast25 - 18-4-2011 at 02:22

Darren:

From Puthoff’s web page that you linked to:

”For starters, one begins with the observation that classical physics tells us that atoms, which can be likened to a miniature solar system with electron planets orbiting a nuclear sun, should not exist. The circling electrons should radiate away their energy like microscopic radio antennas and spiral into the nucleus. But atoms do exist, and multitudinous other phenomena which don't obey the rules do occur. To resolve this cognitive dissonance physicists introduced quantum mechanics, which is essentially a set of mathematical rules to describe what in fact does happen. But when we re-ask the question, "why didn't the electron radiate away its energy?" the answer is, basically, "well, in quantum theory it doesn't." It's at this point that not only the layman but some physicists can begin to feel that someone's not playing fair.”

It’s a classic debating tactic. He starts from a ridiculous fallacy: “The circling electrons should radiate away their energy like microscopic radio antennas and spiral into the nucleus”. They should if they were effectively circling the nucleus, as in Bohr’s early (but deficient) model of the hydrogen atom, but they don’t. You should try to imagine the electron as a three dimensional standing matter wave ‘surrounding’ the nucleus, if you can (3-dimensional quantum systems are notoriously difficult to imagine or visualise)

Next he sets up a giant straw man argument: “the answer is, basically, "well, in quantum theory it doesn't."” No decent physicist reasonably well versed in the quantum mechanics of the atom would answer the question in that way (although I’ve a feeling that many in that community would rather run to the hills when Puthoff shows up at the event horizon!)

The ‘layman’, BTW, is likely to comprehend of all this about as much as of a recitation of Confucius’ philosophy… in Chinese! But on the off chance a layman is actually taking note he may well found himself grabbed by the short and curlies by Puthoff’s fake argument and subsequent straw man…

D4RR3N - 18-4-2011 at 03:30

What I find amusing is that the concept of Zero point energy (btw I don't like the name either!) is rejected by many yet those same people accept the logic that the universe is largely composed of "dark energy" which is essentially another name for zero point energy or vacuum energy.

How is it possible to visualise matter/atoms sitting in this sea of energy and not in some way interacting with it?

Google sonoluminescence as a QED vacuum effect and you will see that many are proposing that this energy is a radiation of the vacuum energy

Below is a device an inventor has created which I believe may be operating on the principles proposed i.e. sonoluminescence as a QED vacuum effect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0M2GnQluJk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yh_-DUKQ4Uw&playnext=1&am...

blogfast25 - 18-4-2011 at 05:07

Darren, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in buying...

D4RR3N - 18-4-2011 at 10:32

bogfest25

I don't need it, I can cross that river in my anti-gravity machine remember!

blogfast25 - 18-4-2011 at 12:06

Damn, I was going to throw in a few cans of anti-gravity paint...

Neil - 27-4-2011 at 16:05

Quote: Originally posted by D4RR3N

Below is a device an inventor has created which I believe may be operating on the principles proposed i.e. sonoluminescence as a QED vacuum effect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0M2GnQluJk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yh_-DUKQ4Uw&playnext=1&am...

I remember what that thing first really came out. except it was plumbed so that water when it, was converted to steam and this steam magically provided the rotary force to turn the agitator... It's like the HHO sites.. they keep trying to lose just a little bit more of the BS when ever they feel like people have caught on. some of the HHO crap is actually being sold as electrolysis (what no super oxidization of the hydrogen?)

As for Cavitation, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBxpn6odtcA&feature=relat...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQvbispmUF4

You'll pick up some good vibes off of this, I swear!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47561543/Field-Experiences-with-Hy...