On Jun 29, 3:17 am, greg <g...@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: > Paul Rubin wrote: > > Steven D'Aprano <st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au> writes: > > >>But that depends on what you call "things"... if electron shells are real > >>(and they seem to be) and discontinuous, and the shells are predicted/ > >>specified by eigenvalues of some continuous function, is the continuous > >>function part of nature or just a theoretical abstraction? > > Another thing to think about: If you put the atom in a > magnetic field, the energy levels of the electrons get > shifted slightly. To the extent that you can vary the > magnetic field continuously, you can continuously > adjust the energy levels. > > This of course raises the question of whether it's > really possible to continuously adjust a magnetic field. > But it's at least possible to do so with much finer > granularity than the differences between energy levels > in an atom. > > So if there is a fundamentally discrete model > underlying everything, it must be at a much finer > granularity than anything we've so far observed, and > the discrete things that we have observed probably > aren't direct reflections of it. > > -- > Greg
Electron shells and isolated electrons stuck in a magnetic field are different phenomena that can't be directly compared. Or, at least, such a comparison requires you to explain why it's proper. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
