Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!phys2094@waikato.ac.nz From: phys2094@waikato.ac.nz Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds Subject: Re: "Space" -- electron energies Message-ID: <9008082218.AA27737@milton.u.washington.edu> Date: 8 Aug 90 22:00:59 GMT References: <9007250107.AA01311@hitl.vrnet.washington.edu> Sender: hlab@milton.u.washington.edu Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand Lines: 24 Approved: hitl@hardy.u.washington.edu In article , wex@dali.pws.bull.com (Buckaroo Banzai) writes: > It would be easy in this framework to have, for example, a quantum dimension > which represented the energy states of electrons. In such a dimension > objects could occupy only specific points along the dimension, and not be in > between. This quantum dimension is not clear. The possible energy states of electrons lie on the positive portion of the real number line. Only when the potential for the system is specified does the energy spectrum become a subset of the positive portion of the real number line. To suggest that points will occupy only specific points and *not those in between* would only apply to a discrete energy spectrum which applies to a special subset of potentials. In fact even the discrete spectrum can vary continuously with a continuous variation of some parameter in the potential. Looks to me like a set of discrete points would not be the best way to represent the energy spectrum for general systems of electrons. > ... despite the blatherings of a certain idiot in this newsgroup. Let's make a deal. I won't blather and you don't discuss concepts in physics that you are not knowledgeable about. Are we friends now? -- Barry (the watchful physicist)