Agnostic.com

7 1

Carbon Atoms: More Quantum Weirdness?

Quantum physics, otherwise known as quantum mechanics, is weird and downright counter-intuitive. However, you don’t have to read a textbook on quantum anomalies in order to come to terms with high strangeness. Just do a thought experiment with your everyday run-of-the-mill carbon atoms.

As we all are aware, collections of carbon atoms comes in various forms. There's graphite, coal (minus all impurities), diamonds, and even Bucky-balls.

As we are also well aware of, the space inside of atoms is mainly empty space, to the tune of 99.99% empty space. If you think of Yankee Stadium as an atom, a fly would be the nucleus on the pitcher's mound, and the electrons a tiny swarm of gnats out there in the upper deck and bleachers.

Now say we have a 1 mm thick chunk of graphite, coal, diamond and a Bucky-ball structure.

Into those we fire a single wavelength of light - lots and lots of photons - from within the visible spectrum. After all we want to see what's happening.

All the photons are identical; the photons have no electrical charge or other electromagnetic (EM) properties that will react with the various chunks or parts of the carbon atoms. The photons either hit or miss.

Commonsense would dictate that nearly all the photons should pass right through the carbon structures, being mostly empty space and all, just like if you spray BB-gun pellets around Yankee Stadium you're rather unlikely to hit the fly or the gnats, even if you line up hundreds and hundreds of Yankee Stadiums in a row, each with one fly and a few gnats.

Now the surprise is that despite the fact that 99.99% of your carbon blocks, each 1 mm thick, are just void, your beam of photons aren't going to pass clear through. The coal and the graphite are opaque*. Well that's odd. Even odder, that other solid structure, the diamond, is not opaque but transparent. It's still a 1 mm thick bunch of just carbon atoms, but somehow this time the photons mostly make it through. But, and there's always a ‘but’, that presents another oddity.

The oddity is that some photons reflect off of the outer surface of the diamond; some reflect off of the back inside surface and while some of those immediately exit, some bounce around inside for a while before exiting; and some photons just pass straight through and don't reflect off any surface of the diamond. That's odd since all the carbon atoms are the same; all of the photons are the same; and there's only the one wavelength being fired. It's an enigma when you have identical scenarios with different outcomes.

The question is, how do each of the identical photons 'know' whether to reflect off the outer surface of the diamond, pass through the outer surface and reflect off of the inner surface, or pass straight through as if the diamond didn't exist at all?

*I'm not exactly sure what transpires with the Bucky-balls never having any to muck around with.

johnprytz 7 Jan 17
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

7 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

I just watched a show on PBS Nova titled "Einsteins quantum Riddle" [pbs.org] Apparently quantum mechanics has an aspect called "Quantum Entanglements".
[sciencedaily.com] This is a strange concept which may open up a whole new world.

@johnprytz Looking over the discussion I am starting to wonder if this could be a matter anti-matter issue.

@johnprytz Somewhere in looking up more information I came across the idea of matter/anti-matter. It made some sense to me (if the two particles could merge would they cancel each other out?). This is way beyond my pay grade but one reference I found was: "That is exactly what I was trying to get at. If matter/matter entanglement were shown to violate Bell's inequality but matter/antimatter were shown never to violate it could it be concluded that entanglement is a chiral property?"

Reference [physicsforums.com]

@johnprytz Funny, all the debates one can get in with physics. A recent program titled "Particle Fever" [imdb.com] talked about finding the energy level of the Higgs-Boson. A high energy could indicate a multiverse and a low energy our single universe (the result was a medium energy level). A good friend of mine is a physicist and he laughs at the mere mention of a multiverse. Is it just me but even the preview gets me emotionally.

0

You're right about weirdness but there are two simple concepts that might help.
First, electrons in the outer shell of an atom are what create most photons. The energy can be either gained or lost by the photons.
Second, the actual photons are not the same going in as going out according to what I was taught. Photons seem to slow as they pass through material. Either they are bouncing around on one side like a Newton cradle, it hits on one side energy is transfered through the material, then just the energy comes out the other side. Or it gets in and bounces around until it gets out but is still not the original photon.

0

I can’t recall exactly what Bucky-balls are?

I read some interesting things about the quantum qualities of bio Photons, which I found fascinating.

0

Lost between ‘diamonds,’ baseball or carbon… where I got was the invisible, even light bending forces within the carbon structures or atoms affecting the photons in numerous ways.. Though I got lost, it can’t be magic 😉

Varn Level 8 Jan 17, 2019
0

Such phenomena are bound to be "weird or counter-intuitive" if we do not understand them. The business of science is to try to learn about them toward the end of understanding, at which point they may still be counter-intuitive, but perhaps not so weird.

1

I looked in the box and the cat was dead but I knew it was alive when I closed the lid. Well, I'm not a quantum physicist. Maybe it's the other way around.

@johnprytz Apply this to religion and Jebus and then have proof of heaven. Yeah!

0

I could just eat you up John...you bring out my maternal side 😉

@johnprytz hmmmm no, I find babies a bit tough, also mine are a bit big. I mean I find you rather adorable.

@johnprytz Beauty (and adorability) is in the eye of the beholder matey

@johnprytz I am fine with it too John. I am not eloquent enough to fully explain myself here. Beauty is not always a physical thing. Music is often beautiful. Sometimes (for me) the awareness of a thoughtful intelligent mind is adorable. Especially if their cuteness is not apparent to themselves.

@johnprytz I also doubt you have a venonmous side

@johnprytz erm. You haven't got any enemies

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:267590
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.