Psy Case History Form Fill: Fill & Download for Free

The puncture scamOne of the most common scams in Pune. It's like every time my car gets puncture i am set to lose a 1000 rupee. It happened to me once with my two wheeler and then with the car aswell. Noticing a flat Tyre I stopped by a puncture shop and the guy fills air and then starts checking by pouring the soap water.. one after the other all you see is bubbles coming out of the tyre amounting to 10–15 punctures. How is that possible I wonder about a brand new tubeless tyre. A month later same thing happens but at a different location, I just asked the guy to give me the number of punctures and then I will decide weather to repair or not. Sir isme 14 puncture hai but I will charge only for 12 (Sir there are 14 punctures in your tyre). I smiled​ at him and thanked him. Took out my spare tyre and change it in front of him, then next day I visited Michelin tyre service center and asked the guy to remove the air and then fill it again. This time I monitor the guage and make sure I have exactly 35 PSI air in. Now the guy could find only one puncture. I ask this guy why and how these puncture shops cheat. And he told me all, from planting nails on the roads to damaging the tyre when you are not noticing, they do it all and do it quite professionally. In case of tubeless tyre they will fill extra air which makes the micro holes in the tyre which are not too deep to cause puncture to open up. It's an act of organized crime. And I would like to warn my fellow quorans from Pune to be extra careful near Bundgarden, and especially the puncture repair shop opposite to the petrol pump at the square from where you take a turn to KP.

tl;dr Electrons do not revolve around the nucleus, even though they have orbital angular momentum.The picture you describe is a conceit of imagining the electron as a particle. This is not the right picture - science has moved well past this. Nor should you imagine it is a wave, as the more quantum savvy among you might jump to - that isn't correct either.Most answers here - great answers for the most part - haven't captured the complexity of what rotation around the nucleus means. Some answers have sadly conflated intrinsic spin (half-integer multiples of Planck's constant h) with orbital spin - they are not the same thing, and those answers should be disregarded. Still others are still trying to think of an electron revolving around the nucleus - no.To really answer this question, however, we have to dig deep into the heart of quantum mechanics. Warning: this is going to be a math-heavy answer! I will do my best to make the math accessible, however.You can always skip to the Summary section below.Describing an ElectronAn electron is described by the square root of a probability distribution. We call this square root a wave function. For the sake of legibility, I will call this wave function [math]\Psi[/math].A one-dimensional wave function. This is not what an electron looks like; it is only how we describe it mathematically.What does this mean?It means that we are no longer operating under the assumption that the mathematics of physics has to make intuitive sense.It means that we are abandoning the idea that we are describing attributes of the electron itself, such as position or momentum, through mathematics - instead, we are saying that there is this mathematical object that corresponds to a physical object (like the electron) itself.This isn't very different to what we actually do in high-school physics. In high school, we assume that we can describe properties of objects as mathematical functions: a function of coordinates, for instance, can be said to correspond to the position of the object.In quantum mechanics, rather than talk about properties of an object (position, momentum, and so on), we say that we can describe the object itself as a mathematical object, and further that performing certain mathematical operations on this object corresponds to getting the allowed values of attributes such as position and momentum[math]^{1}[/math].How do we know what operations to make? How do we know what is a valid operation?These questions were conclusively settled by Schrodinger, Born and Heisenberg in the early part of the 1930s. Here are the rules of quantum mechanics:Every physical property (position, momentum, angular momentum) is represented by a mathematical operation on the wave function [math]\Psi[/math]. To get momentum in the [math]x[/math] direction, for example, you compute [math]-i\hbar \dfrac{\partial \Psi}{\partial x}[/math].The results of these operations are the only allowed values that the corresponding physical property can take.The wave function [math]\Psi[/math] is obtained by solving the Schrödinger equation.where [math]\Psi(t,r)[/math] is a wave function that depends on position [math]r[/math] and time [math]t[/math], [math]\nabla[/math] is a horrific-looking but really simple shorthand for a special type of derivative called the gradient, [math]\mu[/math] is the mass of the particle, and [math]V[/math] is the potential energy of the particle.To solve Schrodinger's equation, you really just have to specify what [math]V[/math] is and solve for [math]\Psi[/math]. The equation may look scary, but physicists have developed very nice and easy ways to simplify it and solve it.Congratulations - in principle you now know quantum mechanics. Everything in quantum mechanics follows from these rules above and a suitable definition of the mathematical operations.Angular Momentum in the Quantum PictureAn electron orbiting an atom exhibits not one, not two, but three types of angular momentum:Orbital angular momentum: This is the angular momentum derived from revolving around the nucleus.Spin angular momentum: This is the angular momentum derived from revolving on its own axis, not unlike a spinning top.Total angular momentum: This is the sum of the previous two momenta (I know, I know).Angular momentum is a physical quantity - given the rules of quantum mechanics, we therefore have to represent it with a mathematical operation.Denoting orbital angular momentum by [math]L[/math], it turns out that in a particular direction [math]z[/math], for example,[math]L_{z}\Psi = -i\hbar\left(\mathbf{r}\times\dfrac{\partial}{\partial z}\right)\Psi[/math]where [math]\mathbf{r} = x\mathbf{x} [/math][math][/math][math]+ y\mathbf{y} [/math][math][/math][math]+ z\mathbf{z}[/math] is the position operator i.e. the vector that, when multiplied with [math]\Psi[/math], gives you the position of the electron. The [math]\times[/math] represents a standard vector cross product.The spin angular momentum is the most famous type of angular momentum, and easily the one with the greatest history involved. Brian Bi does an excellent job of explaining it at Where does particle spin come from?, far more eloquently than I could, so I'll avoid repeating him here. Suffice it to say that, for an electron, spin can take on only two values: [math]+\dfrac{\hbar}{2}, -\dfrac{\hbar}{2}[/math]. (Other particles can demonstrate more values of spin, but let's not make this more complicated than it has to be). We usually represent spin by the simple [math]S[/math]. We won't care about [math]S[/math] very much at all except at the end, where we will point out the role [math]S[/math] plays in the atom.Orbital angular momentum has some unusual properties.Measuring[math]^{2}[/math] it first in the [math]X[/math] direction and then the [math]Y[/math] direction will not give you the same result as measuring them in reverse order[math]^{3}[/math]. Actually, this holds for any two combinations of directions from [math]X,Y,Z[/math], not just [math]X,Y[/math].If you measure the sums of the squares of the angular momentum first[math]^{4}[/math] (we shall call this [math]L^{2}[/math]), and then the angular momentum in a particular direction, your answer will be the same as if you did those operations in reverse order.The proofs of these statements are beyond what is possible in this answer, so just take my word for it (or go read Griffith's textbook on QM!). What do they mean?It means that the angular momentum, as the sum of the angular momenta in all directions, of an electron makes no sense - it always keeps changing, depending on the order of the directions you measure it in.What does make sense is the square of the angular momentum. This is essentially conserved if all you're doing is measuring angular momenta in various directions - it won't change.If all you measure is one direction, though, that direction will always have a definite value. For convenience, let's denote this arbitrary direction [math]L_{z}[/math], in deference to standard notation.We denote the possible values of [math]L^{2}[/math] by [math]\ell[/math] (called the azimuthal quantum number), and the possible values of [math]L_{z}[/math] by [math]m_{\ell}[/math] (called the magnetic quantum number). Remember: an electron has no definite value of overall orbital angular momentum directly.Angular Momentum in the AtomSome useful background may be found here: Akshat Mahajan's answer to What is the currently accepted model of atomic structure? Is there a more recent model than the Bohr or Bohr-Sommerfeld that has been observed by physicists?What does an electron look like when orbiting around an atom?Trick question! The electron itself does not look like anything - we lack the mathematical tools to describe what it looks like. All we can do, instead, is say what its wave function looks like. Remember: the wave function describes how the electron behaves, not what it looks like.In the pictures below, the regions where the probability of the electron being found is greater than 90% has been colored in. This is not what the electron looks like - only what the probability distribution of its position looks like. Put mathematically, this is what the integral of [math]|\Psi|^{2}[/math] looks like. Put simply, if you tried to pinpoint exactly where the electron is, over 90% of the time you'll find it in these regions. (The wave functions are infinite, so there is a small chance that you will find it some other region entirely).Now that I've established (proof by repetition) that one must not confuse the wave function with a picture of the electron, we can talk about this picture in more detail.Each of these distributions are generated by solving the Schrodinger equation for the potential of the atom. If you've taken a high school physics class, you can guess what this potential can be: it's the potential energy of the electric field. But that's not important. What is important is that this is the closest we will ever come to 'seeing' an electron: not as an actual object, but instead as a probability distribution.You'll notice, if you can see the image, a few numbers labelling each at the bottom right. These numbers are important: they are quantum numbers, and they control what each distribution looks like. There are four of these:The principal quantum number. This is the first number in the tuple of numbers. It dictates the energy of the electron, and is always an integer. Every electron wants to get into the state of lowest energy possible, except when that state has already been filled. We habitually denote this quantum number by the letter [math]n[/math] - the lower it is, the lower the energy.The energy of a distribution is given by [math]E = -\dfrac{13.6}{n^{2}}[/math]The azimuthal quantum number. This is the second number in the tuple of numbers. If you haven't guessed by now, it represents the value of [math]L^{2}[/math] for this distribution. It is also an integer, constrained such that [math]0 \leq \ell < n[/math].(I have lied a little - the actual values of [math]L^{2}[/math] are given by the more complicated [math]\hbar^{2}\ell (\ell + 1)[/math], but since everything else is a constant, we may as well say the value of [math]L^{2}[/math] is denoted by [math]\ell[/math])The magnetic quantum number [math]m_{\ell}[/math]. This is the third number in the tuple of numbers, and again is the exact same as the value of [math]L[/math] measured along a particular direction for this distribution (upto multiplication by [math]\hbar[/math], the reduced Planck's constant). It is constrained such that [math]-\ell \leq m_{\ell} \leq \ell[/math].Note how orbital angular momentum is playing such an important role in discerning the probability distribution of the electron!The spin quantum number s. This is the value of the spin angular momentum, also called the intrinsic angular momentum. Remember our little friend [math]S[/math]? Well, the spin quantum number is the last and final number. It can only take on two values (for an electron): [math]+ \dfrac{\hbar}{2}, -\dfrac{\hbar}{2}[/math].It has no role to play in the shape of the probability distribution. Really. Its only purpose - indeed, it's only role - is to confuse you when you're trying to count the number of electrons. Two electrons may share the same probability distribution if and only if they don't have the same quantum spin.In other words, you usually have to the multiply the total number of probability distributions by 2 to find the the number of electrons.The shell model in @AnnaBelle Cash's answer is a very simplified version of all the above. If you carefully note all the individual constraints on each quantum number, you can actually reproduce the shell model's predictions altogether!Summary (or Putting It All Together)Angular momentum in quantum mechanics is one of the trickiest and most difficult parts of the subject. Don't feel overwhelmed - this is normal. Just be glad you didn't have to prove half of these statements.I just wanted to make sure the point got across that:The electron in the atom is most closely described by a probability distribution of its position. It is not a particle or a wave - we have no idea what an electron looks like.There is no direction to this probability distribution. The electron is not moving within this probability distribution - it is simply there, waiting for us to find it[math]^{5}[/math]. We can't talk about an electron revolving at all!The shape of the probability distribution is defined by the square of the angular momentum operation as well as its value in exactly one direction.This is the reason we say the electron has orbital angular momentum - the probability distribution of the electron is affected by it, even though the electron is clearly not moving!This is why an electron can have orbital angular momentum even though it isn't revolving: the orbital momentum affects the shape of the probability distribution, not the electron itself - but because quantum mechanics asks us to believe that a mathematical object like a probability distribution can correspond to an electron, we say that effectively the electron has orbital angular momentum (because everything else just becomes a mouthful otherwise).Footnotes[1] This idea is very common in thermodynamics, where you assume you can describe the state of a collection of bodies using a state function. Performing certain operations on this function lets you compute, for example, the mean velocity of all particles.[2] By measuring, I mean literally going out and experimentally measuring it, using any sophisticated experiment. Magnetic resonance imaging, for example, directly measures it every second - think about that the next time you go for an MRI scan. Or you can always do a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern%E2%80%93Gerlach_experiment.[3] In mathematical terms, this means [math]L_{x}L_{y}\Psi \neq L_{y}L_{x}\Psi[/math]. We call this property non-commutativity. It is a direct result of the uncertainty principle![4] You can do this in one go in certain experiments. The naive way to do this, though, is to find the angular momentum in each direction, square it and add it all up.[5] Physics prevents us from trying to isolate an electron exactly in this case - the only way to 'observe' an electron is to shine a beam of light at it. The problem is that a beam of light imparts energy to the electron, which changes its energy and lets it jump to a different state with a higher value of [math]n[/math] - trying to observe its position changes it!But be glad this happens - the whole wide world of colour around us is possible only because of these excitations.

“How do you deal with someone who’s convinced they are dying, but doctors don’t know yet what’s wrong with them?”First of all, you believe that they are sick, no matter what the doctors say.I like the way you worded your question, saying “doctors don’t know yet what’s wrong with them.” That is exactly correct. If you had said, “The doctors can’t find anything wrong,” or “the doctors say nothing is wrong,” that would have been hostile and demeaning to the person.If someone is feeling so ill that they think they will die, that must be respected. I am old enough to remember when no one knew what AIDS was, but people died of it so quickly that no one questioned that something was wrong.However, there are other illnesses that kill people much more slowly, or don’t kill them at all, but ruin their quality of life.There are no tests for some of these conditions. The doctors may never know what is wrong, and may not offer any meaningful help, but that person’s reality must be respected.I had a severe illness for many years, and most doctors didn’t have a clue about it. The only doctors that treated it were the ones that also had the illness. I got sick following an exposure to black mold, repeated exposures to pesticides, and a long course of broad spectrum antibiotics because of a severe kidney infection.I was sick for 23 years. I had severe joint pain, extreme fatigue, allergies to almost all foods, and terrible sensitivities to certain chemicals. I was helped somewhat by very carefully formulated, low dose allergy shots, by sauna detox therapy, and by the Kelley/Gonzalez protocol, which is a variation on Gerson therapy.However, one of the best treatments was the removal of my silver amalgam fillings. Even though it was not done by a specialist and it was not done correctly, I still experienced a great benefit. I think I might have died if I hadn’t had that done.At the time I was sick, “the illness” as patients called it, had several labels, including environmental illness, (EI), and multiple chemical sensitivity, (MCS). The following article expresses the common reaction of regular medical doctors. What Is Multiple Chemical Sensitivity?They now seem to lump it in with Sick Building Syndrome, and that is a common cause, but not the only one. It can happen as a result of certain vaccines that are given to people who plan to travel to the tropics. Repeated pesticide exposures or working in a toxic environment such as a plastics factory are common case histories.There are specialists in this field such as Dr. Rea, Environmental Health Center - Dallas. I heard that he probably got the illness because he had polio as a child. He is getting very old now, but he’s been doing this a long time. It might be worth a consultation with him if the symptoms seem to fit that disease, but the person you know could have something entirely different.Even though I didn’t have cancer, one of the doctors who helped me the most was the highly respected alternative cancer doctor, Nicholas Gonzalez M.D., but he has since passed away from a heart attack. The closest thing you can get to Dr. Gonzalez would be either to try Gerson treatment at home, or at the Gerson clinic in Mexico, or go to the Chipsa hospital in Mexico.https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS796US796&ei=nyKIW6K2KJazjwTOuZ34Bg&q=Chipsa+hospital&oq=Chipsa+hospital&gs_l=psy-ab.3...1853.6703.0.6969.44.16.0.0.0.0.1138.1966.6-1j1.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..42.2.1966.0..0j35i39k1j0i131k1j0i67k1j0i20i264k1.0.qI4FNqEtyNkhttps://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS796US796&ei=bSOIW_GFLYPPjwS8sImYCw&q=gerson+hospital+locations&oq=Gerson+hospital&gs_l=psy-ab.1.1.0l2j0i22i30k1l8.186765.192987.0.195544.30.18.0.0.0.0.1233.4370.5-2j2j1.5.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..25.5.4369.0..0i20i264k1j0i131k1j0i67k1.0.4n0A7RetVTYHowever, even though alternative doctors helped me a lot, I was never well until I experienced a miraculous healing through prayer. I went to a spiritual warfare specialist, but I don’t think deliverance ministry was the key. I believe that the reason I recovered was through my own prayer and repentance. I was very much influenced by Pastor Henry Wright and his book, A More Excellent Way, which taught me more about health than anything else. I highly recommend the book.So when all is said and done, I think prayer and repentance are the key to health, no matter what the disease. So if I got sick again, or had a friend who was very sick, I would go to see Sandra Kennedy. Sandra Kennedy Ministries - The Healing Center - Bible-centered teachingShe is highly respected. Sid Roth has spent his entire adult life researching this field, and he has a team of doctors that check medical records to verify cases of miraculous healings, and Sid Roth thinks that Sandra Kennedy is the best teacher on this subject. He chose her to make the notes on healing in the study Bible he put out recently.Bless you for your concern, and may God bless your friend or relative with every blessing in heaven and on earth.