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

On 12 Jul, 14:04, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<pbow...@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.

Oh, not a "well, ultimately everything has something to do with
quantum mechanics so whatever I say about quantum mechanics is
ultimately true in some way" wriggle again.

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?

That you still haven't addressed that point, rather preferring to
wriggle and equivocate.

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.

You're talking about the scientific paradigm, not what was taught in
textbooks. I've seen university textbooks written in the 1990s that
still use the planetary model as an illustration - yes, noting that
it's an oversimplification, but still treating it as essentially
accurate, at least at early stages in the course. Science takes a very
long time to filter into schools - the evolution taught in schools has
barely registered anything since Darwin and Mendel.

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.

Thanks, Utopia's another good example - again of RTD reaching the
wrong conclusion (by modern thinking), using ideas that were current
decades ago. The universe of Utopia is not expanding with an infusion
of dark energy - indeed, Yana believes that what appears to be a
sublight speed rocket can reach other planets; there still are planets
and stars that haven't been torn apart as the universe's expansion
separates their atoms. Yana talks about galaxies burning out and
dying. This is the likely fate of the universe portrayed pre-1997,
known as the heat death model - just going on as now until the energy
finally runs out and stars die of old age. That's not the current
model. Again this suggests RTD drawing on science from the textbooks
of his childhood.

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.

On the contrary, that's exactly what I suggested Davros 'meant' (i.e.
RTD intended) - you were the one saying that the atoms would be intact
and that it was molecules that would be broken apart by the
nullification of the electrical field that, in Davros' words, connects
all matter.

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: 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: nuclear shell model periodic table
    ... > a hint what its valence probably is. ... in which any additional electron is added to the external shell ... *Perhaps* you refer here to the fact that the electrons in the outer s ... is it not fiddeling with a model?? ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Origins and Mental Activity
    ... you're interested in interstellar chemistry. ... I think what you're asking is how do you get from a bunch of atoms ... Atoms have electrons, and electrons try to get as close to ... any electrons in it is called the valence shell. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why... (OT)
    ... sodium ions on nerve transmission. ... with electrons occupying a series of shells ... Now, different atoms have different properties, and one of the most ... Each shell can only hold so many electrons, ...
    (uk.people.support.depression)
Loading