UG Community @ Ultimate-Guitar.Com The New ONLY Religion & Philosophy thread.
 Register FAQ Members List Search Today's Posts
Search:

04-18-2015, 01:40 PM   #6461
JamSessionFreak
UG Newbie

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Slovenia
No, the probability density of finding the electron inside the atom or rather inside the atomic orbital is always 95%, that's how the orbital is defined. It's not 100% because that would include the entire universe due to the nature of waves.

Probability density is this special kind of integral where you integrate the square of the wave function of a particle. It's purely mathematical and it is related to where the electron wave is localised I think. I'm a bit wary of going further into this because it will force me to make analogies which I won't be completely sure about.

I put 'finding' in quotes because to observe an electron you have to bounce a photon off of it - this is scattering and due to the wavelength of the photons used I think nodes don't really have much effect on it. Again, going further into this is forcing me to make certain 'classical' visualisations which I'm not perfectly comfortable making due to my limited knowledge of the subject.

Exact opposite with the nodes. More nodes, higher energy state, less stable. In guitar terms, higher pitch means more energy and less stability. The string is most stable when unfretted so in it's base state.

This is a picture of all possible molecular orbitals of a benzene ring where the p-orbital electrons are delocalized in a cloud above and beneath the molecular plane. The bottom-most picture, where all of the blue orbital halfs are above the plane and all of the red ones are beneath it has no node - no changes switches between red and blue (remember, visualisation) - therefore it is the most stable one. The uppermost picture where the red and blue colours constantly switch has 6 nodes - 6 colour changes - and is the least stable. This state of 6 p-orbitals is actually less stable than six lone p-orbitals so if electrons would forced to 'inhabit' this state it would actually make the entire system less stable.

__________________
Quote:
 Originally Posted by mystical_1 mr. europacifist teenager who has never had their child murdered by someone and hypothesizes from their idealic bedroom rose pedal window

Last edited by JamSessionFreak : 04-18-2015 at 02:31 PM.

04-18-2015, 01:43 PM   #6462
JamSessionFreak
UG Newbie

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Slovenia
I'm sorry if I'm becoming more and more vague but this is the part of quantum physics where you start to rely heavily on mathematics. I can't describe it anymore like I'd describe say an orange. The orange is now becoming more and more abstract, defined not by its appearance and shape but by certain equations that govern how it behaves as an object.
__________________
Quote:
 Originally Posted by mystical_1 mr. europacifist teenager who has never had their child murdered by someone and hypothesizes from their idealic bedroom rose pedal window

04-18-2015, 01:48 PM   #6463
JamSessionFreak
UG Newbie

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Slovenia
I'm not sure how much they teach you in chemistry but s, p, d, f, ... orbitals are atomic orbitals of different energy states. As units of volume they look sort of like this. Notice how the s-orbital, the one in the lowest energy state, has no nodes and is just a ball. As you go to p and d orbitals the number of nodes increases which is indicative of higher energy states.

The nodes are the parts of empty space, where you are very unlikely to find an electron. So the entire orbital always has a 95% probability density for an electron - if you sum up the probability density of the entire orbital (this means integrating the square of the electron wave function across the entire volume of the orbital) you get 95%. But certain parts that make up the orbital have varying probability densities. Nodes have a probability density of practically zero so if you'd say integrate the function square across almost all of the orbital except the nodes, you'd still get 95% or maybe like 94,99999999% or some shit like that.
__________________
Quote:
 Originally Posted by mystical_1 mr. europacifist teenager who has never had their child murdered by someone and hypothesizes from their idealic bedroom rose pedal window

Last edited by JamSessionFreak : 04-18-2015 at 01:53 PM.

 04-18-2015, 01:53 PM #6464 Fat Lard 💯     Join Date: Jun 2006 lol trust me, thats not vague for me Learned pretttttty much nothing from 11th grade Chem. And the pi thing is kind of giving me some flashbacks to calc 1 and the class' s clock that had pi/2 as 6pm, etc... Infinite energy for changing the bottom was it, right? So the top would not require much energy (if thats even possible to add electrons to), which would have the electromagnetic field more stable environment? show but yeah, this us wayy to over my head atm so I'll revisit this stuff in the future rather __________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ LIGHTNING 2015 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS Last edited by Fat Lard : 04-18-2015 at 01:55 PM.
04-18-2015, 02:02 PM   #6465
JamSessionFreak
UG Newbie

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Slovenia
Oh, please don't connect this to potential wells and the energy needed to get an electron out of said well. That's going in the wrong direction or rather would require a shitton of text to explain every nuance.

Look at it like this - if an electron would inhabit the non-bonding molecular (not atomic) orbitals, it would have to vibrate at a higher frequency than if it would just be in a lone atomic orbital. So you would actually need to give the electron energy to inhabit that orbital. Since the electron is always looking to be in the lowest possible energy state, it would rather not bond at all than to inhabit that orbital, which is why it is called a non-bonding orbital.

However, if the electron inhabits the bonding molecular orbital it inhabits an energy state with a lower energy than the energy of a lone atomic orbital. Because of this the electron actually loses energy by bonding and that gives it a hard on.

To get two atoms to bond, you have to combine their atomic orbitals into an molecular orbital in such a way that their electrons lose energy when the atoms bond. The bonded state has a lower energy than the two nonbonded atoms so the electrons can get their perv on in the bonded state.

This basically means that the energy of the molecular orbital is lower than the sum of the energies of the two separate atomic orbitals.

And this is the theory of molecular orbitals which is one of the models we use to explain bonding and predict the thermodynamics of molecules. The other one is valence bond theory. One works better for some bonds and molecules, the other for other bonds and molecules but overall both are good enough that we don't throw them out the window.
__________________
Quote:
 Originally Posted by mystical_1 mr. europacifist teenager who has never had their child murdered by someone and hypothesizes from their idealic bedroom rose pedal window

Last edited by JamSessionFreak : 04-18-2015 at 02:04 PM.

04-18-2015, 02:52 PM   #6466
JamSessionFreak
UG Newbie

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Slovenia
After checking out some old textbooks I want to make a correction. Probability density is the unintegrated square of the wave function, by integrating it you get actual probability. As for the physical, measurable implications of said probability, I'd rather not comment on those because of some problems with 'collapsing' an electron down to a particle. Something about the observer effect I'm not completely sure about.

Maybe we're able to make some measurements I thought were impossible due to instrumental limitations.
__________________
Quote:
 Originally Posted by mystical_1 mr. europacifist teenager who has never had their child murdered by someone and hypothesizes from their idealic bedroom rose pedal window

04-20-2015, 12:28 AM   #6467
Fat Lard
💯

Join Date: Jun 2006
Quote:
 Originally Posted by JamSessionFreak Look at it like this - if an electron would inhabit the non-bonding molecular (not atomic) orbitals, it would have to vibrate at a higher frequency than if it would just be in a lone atomic orbital. So you would actually need to give the electron energy to inhabit that orbital. Since the electron is always looking to be in the lowest possible energy state, it would rather not bond at all than to inhabit that orbital, which is why it is called a non-bonding orbital. However, if the electron inhabits the bonding molecular orbital it inhabits an energy state with a lower energy than the energy of a lone atomic orbital. Because of this the electron actually loses energy by bonding and that gives it a hard on. To get two atoms to bond, you have to combine their atomic orbitals into an molecular orbital in such a way that their electrons lose energy when the atoms bond. The bonded state has a lower energy than the two nonbonded atoms so the electrons can get their perv on in the bonded state. This basically means that the energy of the molecular orbital is lower than the sum of the energies of the two separate atomic orbitals.

__________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~
LIGHTNING 2015 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS

 04-28-2015, 05:59 PM #6468 Fat Lard 💯     Join Date: Jun 2006 Any recommended readings on pragmatism? Or praxis-like stuff outside of Marx that you'd might think of as 'required to read sometime in life'. Always lined up best with thinking like that from all muh accounting studies lol Have read some selections from The Varieties of Religious Experience, and William James is apparently one of those 'US pragmatism founders' or whatever, but dont really care for delving deeper than that with him because his work seems too 'basic' I suppose __________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ LIGHTNING 2015 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS
04-29-2015, 12:06 PM   #6469
WhiskeyFace
:^)

Join Date: Dec 2008
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Fat Lard Any recommended readings on pragmatism? Or praxis-like stuff outside of Marx that you'd might think of as 'required to read sometime in life'. Always lined up best with thinking like that from all muh accounting studies lol Have read some selections from The Varieties of Religious Experience, and William James is apparently one of those 'US pragmatism founders' or whatever, but dont really care for delving deeper than that with him because his work seems too 'basic' I suppose

This is the question I was born for!

Ok so the word "pragmatism" has quite a few meanings, some quite narrow but the widest of which is very wide indeed.

I know you said you're not bothered with more James but his "The Will to Believe" is great and influential. You should at the very least consider it. You can read it here: http://educ.jmu.edu//~omearawm/ph101willtobelieve.html

John Dewey is the other important classical pragmatist but he seems to have written more on education and politics than on philosophical stuff (I don't know that much about him).

Then in the second half of the 20th century came Richard Rorty who doesn't offer a whole lot of his own arguments but synthesizers a shit load traditions to make a kind of linguistic-pragmatism, that others have since dubbed "Neopragmatism" (Rorty doesn't use the term himself, he prefers just "pragmatism").

Neopragmatism, in a nutshell, is classical pragmatism + late Wittgenstein + those 20th century analytic philosophers that reinforce Wittgenstein + some Continentals, particularly Heidegger and Derrida.

Rorty's "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature" is like THE book of Neopragmatism. The works he constantly draws on are Wittgenstein's "Philosophical Investigations", Wilfred Sellars "Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind", Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism", Donald Davidson's "A Nice Derangement of Epithaphs" (those latter 3 are papers, not books).

The other important Neopragmatist is Hilary Putnam who agrees with Rorty in detail (more or lass) but differs vastly in attitude.

(Rorty is a controversial figure. He's constantly accused of being a postmodernist, relativist, skeptic etc. I'll let you decide for yourself what to think of him.)

If Mirror of Nature is too difficult then you could read Rorty's "Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity", which was intended for a popular audience. That book is more about how to be a Neopragmatist w/r/t politics and ethics but he gives summaries of his analytic arguments.

Late Wittgenstein is also pretty important (imo) to get a grasp of these analytic figures.

Finally, I have everything mentioned here, and more, in .pdf if you'd like any of them.

04-29-2015, 12:13 PM   #6470
Fat Lard
💯

Join Date: Jun 2006
Quote:
 Originally Posted by WhiskeyFace This is the question I was born for! Ok so the word "pragmatism" has quite a few meanings, some quite narrow but the widest of which is very wide indeed. I know you said you're not bothered with more James but his "The Will to Believe" is great and influential. You should at the very least consider it. You can read it here: http://educ.jmu.edu//~omearawm/ph101willtobelieve.html John Dewey is the other important classical pragmatist but he seems to have written more on education and politics than on philosophical stuff (I don't know that much about him). Then in the second half of the 20th century came Richard Rorty who doesn't offer a whole lot of his own arguments but synthesizers a shit load traditions to make a kind of linguistic-pragmatism, that others have since dubbed "Neopragmatism" (Rorty doesn't use the term himself, he prefers just "pragmatism"). Neopragmatism, in a nutshell, is classical pragmatism + late Wittgenstein + those 20th century analytic philosophers that reinforce Wittgenstein + some Continentals, particularly Heidegger and Derrida. Rorty's "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature" is like THE book of Neopragmatism. The works he constantly draws on are Wittgenstein's "Philosophical Investigations", Wilfred Sellars "Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind", Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism", Donald Davidson's "A Nice Derangement of Epithaphs" (those latter 3 are papers, not books). The other important Neopragmatist is Hilary Putnam who agrees with Rorty in detail (more or lass) but differs vastly in attitude. (Rorty is a controversial figure. He's constantly accused of being a postmodernist, relativist, skeptic etc. I'll let you decide for yourself what to think of him.) If Mirror of Nature is too difficult then you could read Rorty's "Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity", which was intended for a popular audience. That book is more about how to be a Neopragmatist w/r/t politics and ethics but he gives summaries of his analytic arguments. Late Wittgenstein is also pretty important (imo) to get a grasp of these analytic figures. Finally, I have everything mentioned here, and more, in .pdf if you'd like any of them.

Hell yeah! Id be glad to see the pdf man, thanks. Gonna look into all of this after this piecemeal book I got the small bit of James from
__________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~
LIGHTNING 2015 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS

 04-29-2015, 01:02 PM #6471 WhiskeyFace :^)     Join Date: Dec 2008 pm'd
04-29-2015, 04:31 PM   #6472
captaincrunk
See, I Got News for You.

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Indiana
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Fat Lard Hell yeah! Id be glad to see the pdf man, thanks. Gonna look into all of this after this piecemeal book I got the small bit of James from

no story of pragmatism is complete without C.S. Pearce. He's one of the better philosophers and did a ****ton for the philosophy of science, if you ask me.
__________________
#15 in the 2012 top 100
#23 in the 2010 top 100

NEW UG ALBUM! GET UG ELECTRONIC ALBUM: DISC THREE TODAY!

Quote:
 Originally Posted by element4433 I respect crunk.

 05-04-2015, 10:47 AM #6473 WhiskeyFace :^)     Join Date: Dec 2008 Anyone else see Sam Harris get his ass whooped by Noam Chomsky? It's glorious. http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/...ts-of-discourse
 05-05-2015, 09:57 AM #6474 Bikewer Registered User     Join Date: Jan 2010 I did not, but it was the consensus over at the International Skeptics forum (previously the James Randi forum) that the opposite had occurred. Different perceptions. ( I did not see the thing myself).
 05-05-2015, 12:09 PM #6475 beadhangingOne Gnomesaiyan?     Join Date: Jul 2005 The example he gave where if Al-Qaeda bombed half the US's pharmaceutical supply. My sides. __________________ Ours is but a fragile existence su nioJ su nioJ su nioJ Welcome back!
 05-05-2015, 12:30 PM #6476 Fat Lard 💯     Join Date: Jun 2006 Give a Clinton control of operations => material losses, and pretend no contingency liabilities exist, or could ever compound over time. __________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ LIGHTNING 2015 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS
05-05-2015, 12:44 PM   #6477
WhiskeyFace
:^)

Join Date: Dec 2008
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bikewer International Skeptics

I mean, even without reading it, the 8th most cited person in the world vs. a professional dilettante; I know who I'd be putting my money on.

 Thread Tools Rate This Thread Rate This Thread: 5 : Excellent 4 : Good 3 : Average 2 : Bad 1 : Terrible

 Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts vB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off
 Forum Jump Please select one User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home -------------------- UG Community     New Members Q&A Forum     The Pit     Archives Of The Best Threads         Music Theory Archives         Technique Archives         Bands & Artists Archives         Electric Guitar Archives         Bass Archives         Songwriting & Lyrics Archives         Bandleading Archives         Community Archives Music     Bands & Artists         Rock & Indie         Hardcore & Punk         Blues, Jazz & Other Guitar Styles         Metal         Other     Songwriting & Lyrics         Songwriting & Lyrics Contests         Songwriting & Lyrics Techniques     Recording         Tabs & Chords         Recording Contests         Original Recordings         Cover Songs     Tab Talk     Musician Talk         Bandleading         Singing & Vocals     Promote YOUR Band     Classifieds         Musician Ads         Gear Ads Instruments     Guitar Techniques     Acoustic & Classical Guitar     Electric Guitar     Bass Guitar     Guitar Gear & Accessories     Gear Building & Customizing     Drums Misc     Ultimate Guitar Feedback         Site Suggestions         Mobile Apps Feedback         Tab Pro Service Feedback         Bug Reports         Bad Advertising Reports         General Information & Announcements     UG Contribution

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:46 AM.

 -- UG Black Style -- UG Classic Style
Forum Archives / About / TOS / Advertise with us / Customer Support / Ultimate-Guitar.Com © 2015