Re: S4E13 The Other Three Doctors, or Yer, right...


<pbowles@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:37014346-3419-4973-a413-b17fc400f9c5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 12 Jul, 12:15, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<pbow...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:27cab63b-7a20-4d91-b190-27213b872a63@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





> On 11 Jul, 22:03, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> <pbow...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

>>news:ac7d7e22-0259-472f-8847-5a05de957cfd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>> > On 11 Jul, 12:38, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> <pbow...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

>> >>news:12d6f65d-f7bc-4f1a-9345-98a4850e2f50@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>> >> > On 10 Jul, 23:42, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >> <pbow...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

>> >> >>news:1cd9f86a-6033-4762-887a-40cafa6acd48@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>> >> >> > On 10 Jul, 09:04, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> <pbow...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

>> >> >> >>news:e8395361-3c79-4785-a2ea-121358cf305e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>> >> >> >> > On 10 Jul, 04:14, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> <pbow...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

>> >> >> >> >>news:c88ffdb0-f72c-4dda-9555-9decf76afcf9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>> >> >> >> >> > On 7 Jul, 01:28, "Agamemnon" >> >> >> >> >> > <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> >> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> "Stephen Wilson" >> >> >> >> >> >> <stephen.wilson2004nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> >> >> >> >> wrote
>> >> >> >> >> >> in
>> >> >> >> >> >> message

>> >> >> >> >> >>news:5Gbck.169906$8k.39676@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>> >> >> >> >> >> > "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>> >> >> >> >> >> > message
>> >> >> >> >> >> >news:zb6dnaNf2a6I3uzVnZ2dnUVZ8hednZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>> >> >> >> >> >> >> "Stephen Wilson"
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> <stephen.wilson2004nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> wrote
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> in
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> message
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>news:shbck.169901$8k.100789@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> message
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>news:ZM2dnaOCVeZrpOzVnZ2dnUVZ8sninZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>> >> >> >> > otherwise called molecules and crystals, and an atomic
>> >> >> >> >> nucleus. I have already stated that Davros's device did >> >> >> >> >> not
>> >> >> >> >> interfere
>> >> >> >> >> with
>> >> >> >> >> the strong nuclear force holding a nucleus together, at >> >> >> >> >> least
>> >> >> >> >> not
>> >> >> >> >> according
>> >> >> >> >> to his speech. It pulled atoms apart by neutralising the
>> >> >> >> >> electromagnetism
>> >> >> >> >> between them.

>> >> >> >> > And then "the atoms will become nothing" - plainly >> >> >> >> > something
>> >> >> >> > happens
>> >> >> >> > to them as well.

>> >> >> >> The atom is the whole including the electrons.

>> >> >> > "will become nothing" - not "will dissociate into free nuclei >> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > spare electrons" - i.e. the components of the atom are >> >> >> > themselves
>> >> >> > destroyed.

>> >> >> A free nucleus is not an atom. It can't form molecules so it's >> >> >> as
>> >> >> good
>> >> >> as
>> >> >> being nothing.

>> >> >> >> I thought you took first year Physics? Wasn't the valence >> >> >> >> shell
>> >> >> >> model
>> >> >> >> part
>> >> >> >> of first year QM?

>> >> >> > I thought you had a degree in physics. What does the valence
>> >> >> > shell
>> >> >> > have to do with electrical charge or electrical fields? Or are
>> >> >> > you

>> >> >> It looks like QM wasn't part of your physics course then.

>> >> > I'm eager to hear you 'educate' me on the subject. Specifically >> >> > in
>> >> > the
>> >> > context of how the valence shell is associated with Davros'
>> >> > "electrical field".

>> >> Your use of shell instead of shells indicates that you obviously >> >> don't
>> >> know
>> >> what you are talking about

>> > Is avoiding the question so important to you that you insist on
>> > embarrassing yourself even further? An atom only has one valence >> > shell
>> > by definition - the valence shell is *defined* as "the outermost >> > shell

>> Twaddle. Maybe I should have made my self clearer since I am talking >> to
>> an
>> idiot. Your use of valence shell instead of electron shells indicates
>> that
>> you obviously don't know what you are talking about.

> Not a bad recovery, for you. However, I already admitted making a
> mistake in focusing on the valence shell in the first place. The above
> was in relation to a separate point, where you specifically claimed
> that I'd talk about multiple *valence* shells if I "knew what I was
> talking about". And even for a good recovery, your wriggling is
> showing - non one who knows what they're talking about would talk
> about electron *shells* at all in relation to valency, other than
> perhaps the valence shell, but to valence *electrons* regardless of
> which shell they're in (which will often be the valence shell).

You're not going to get out of this one by trying to change the subject to
valency. The subject was about the quantum model of the atom which you are
clearly not familiar with.

No shifting the goalposts, please. From the start this discussion was
about Davros' claim about "electrical fields" holding everything in
the universe together, which you interpreted as describing quantum
processes binding this together. I pointed out that the reactions
involved were chemical, at which point you responded (correctly, for a
wonder) that chemical reactions are a product of valency. Hence the
discussion has always been about valency, nothing to d with the
"quantum model of the atom".

Nope. Valency is a result of the quantum reality of the atom. Without the electromagnetic interaction atoms and chemical reactions and bonding will not work.


>> > of an atom" to take the closest source that comes to hand with a
>> > precise definition (which happens to be Wikipedia, for no other >> > reason
>> > than it's convenient to navigate when I can't be bothered to seek >> > out
>> > a physics dictionary - and before you ask, no I didn't need to look >> > it
>> > up to know what it was, I was just looking for a specific definition
>> > from a quotable source).

>> You can look for all the definitions you like but that doesn't mean >> you
>> understand them. You looked up the definition of significant figure

> No I didn't; not only am I familiar with the concept in a way you
> plainly aren't, I wasn't citing a definition so I didn't need to find
> a quote.

You still don't know what a significant figure is.

How often have I told you that repeating yourself doesn't make
something true?

It's already true. Repeating myself is for your benefit so that you know it is true to.


> and you
>> still don't understand that. You either don't know or can't remember
>> first
>> year QM.

> Okay, plainly I don't remember what electrical fields have to do with
> valency - so once again I prevail upon you to explain. Given how much

Whose talking about valency. We are talking about the atom and how the
electrons form shells and subshells around it dictated by quantum theory.

When were we talking about that? We were talking about how electrical
fields hold molecules together as Davros claimed.

And your point is?


> First year QM.

> Then no doubt it will be the easiest thing in the world for you to
> describe, given that you claim to be knowledgable on the subject,

Oh, for sods sake. How do you think QM models a hydrogen atom? You start of
with a positively charged proton as the nucleus and a single negatively
charged electron bound together by the Coulomb force.

Yes, Aggy, we did that one ages ago - well done, I was the one who

No, no, no. What you did was the planetary model. What I am doing is the quantum model. They're completely different and work completely differently.

explained it. This is not the point at hand. The reason I brought that
up as what Davros (i.e. RTD) was presumably thinking of with the
"electrical field" comment is that, at the time RTD would have done
his O-Levels, the atomic model with electrical charge holding negative
electrons in orbit around positive protons would have been the
dominant one, not just for hydrogen but for other atoms.

What? The planetary model lasted less than about a decade before it was replaced completely by Quantum Mechanics in the 1920's and Quantum Electrodynamics in the 1940's. The planetary model was taught pre-O-Level and it was always stated it was wrong and just an over simplified illustration. O-Level chemistry taught you about valency and gave you formulae to learn for it and the valency shell model was explained properly at A-Level where you got to learn about energy levels and drew pictures of electron shell probability distributions. (Ok, so in RTD's day the computers probably hadn't worked them all out yet.)


Let's see if I can explain the reasoning here more clearly, because
for once it may not be your comprehension that's at fault:

RTD is a 45 year old man. He would last have studied science over 30
years ago. Probably for all he knows that science is still current.

RTD knows enough about science to know the eventual fate of the universe in Utopia so I'm guessing that the books he's read have also explained to him all he needs to know about QM.

When trying to write science into his stories, this is the background
he has to fall back on. We can therefore reasonably assume that the
science his characters talk about, when it makes an effort at
accuracy, is accurate by the standards of science 30+ years ago, not
modern theories. We see this, for example, with the prism laser in
Tooth & Claw - I'm over a decade younger than RTD, but I remember
being taught Newtonian optics using prisms at the same level in
school, as well as the basic principle of constructing lasers using
large numbers of internal mirrors. And to his credit RTD articulates
this pretty well in that story, although the end result would of
course not be a weapon powered by moonlight that could vapourise
werewolves.

It's this that I'm suggesting is behind Davros' comment in Journey's
End - back in RTD's day (and indeed rather later), the simple
planetary model is the basic image of high school atomic physics.
Atoms were described than nothing more complex than protons in the
nucleus (along with a few neutrons in most cases), orbited by an equal
charge in electrons, with the interaction between the electrons' and
protons' charges holding the atom together. You aren't going to find
any high-level physics in a kids' programme scripted by someone who's
unlikely to have opened a science textbook in in thirty years or
studied the subject beyond O-Level. That's why I suggested that this
is probably what was meant by cancelling out the "electrical field"
holding matter together - you were the one who introduced the idea
that he was talking about binding molecules together (hence my
pointing out that these bonds are chemical, and the subsequent
digression about valency);

You were suggesting that wiping out the electric field inside atoms would not have caused people to disintegrate.


Phil

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: S4E13 The Other Three Doctors, or Yer, right...
    ... >>> mistake in focusing on the valence shell in the first place. ... > wonder) that chemical reactions are a product of valency. ... >> electrons form shells and subshells around it dictated by quantum>> theory. ... not just for hydrogen but for other atoms. ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)
  • Re: My New Website
    ... dont you realise just now that you are unable to calculate ... ie no many shells and no many 'shmells' in ther Au atom ... >> that shold not be compatible witht the shell model ... >> since they have much different numbers of electrons!! ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: S4E13 The Other Three Doctors, or Yer, right...
    ... spare electrons" - i.e. the components of the atom are themselves ... context of how the valence shell is associated with Davros' ... An atom only has one valence shell ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)
  • Re: S4E13 The Other Three Doctors, or Yer, right...
    ... spare electrons" - i.e. the components of the atom are themselves ... Your use of shell instead of shells indicates that you obviously don't know ... An atom only has one valence shell ... Who said anything about "the electromagnetic field"? ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)
  • Re: OT - Global Warming Revisited
    ... >>Electromagnetic radiation is made when an atom absorbs energy. ... >>The absorbed energy causes one or more electrons to change their ... means that each shell can contain a limited number of electrons. ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)
Loading