Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8749 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-26-2017 7:16 AM
384 online now:
14174dm, jar, RAZD, Tangle (4 members, 380 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Roshankumar1234
Post Volume:
Total: 809,053 Year: 13,659/21,208 Month: 3,141/3,605 Week: 483/933 Day: 21/51 Hour: 0/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
456
7
89Next
Author Topic:   How is the Universe here?
Percy
Member
Posts: 15625
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.3


(1)
Message 91 of 131 (488426)
11-11-2008 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by cavediver
11-09-2008 6:51 AM


Re: Back again, and let's first dispense with this nonsense...
Hi Cavediver,

I have a question that I'm not sure is in the direction you're going, so please feel free to ignore this.

My understanding of electrostatic forces, the same ones you mentioned that make clapping one's hands possible, is that they're transmitted by exchanges of photons. Is that correct? If so, what is it about the exchange of photons that creates a force on the electrons that exchange them (and through them, of course, on the atoms to which they're to various degrees affixed and on up the hierarchy of scale to our hands)?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by cavediver, posted 11-09-2008 6:51 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by cavediver, posted 11-12-2008 9:04 AM Percy has not yet responded

    
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3003 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 92 of 131 (488435)
11-11-2008 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by cavediver
11-09-2008 6:51 AM


Re: Back again, and let's first dispense with this nonsense...
Think about this and digest it for a while, as it is quite mind-blowing. And note that we haven't even begun to talk about quantum theory or relativity - this is purely experimental result and classical thinking, and already our concept of 'physical' is starting to change, as all those properties we thought of as unique to physical objects, are actually properties of those invisible forces. What we think of physical, tangible objects are just the net result of a web of atomic scale forces.

It is interesting that invisible forces (not an alpha particle) in the natural are transmuting elements without the aid of an alpha particle. photons?

It is all quite mind blowing like how the chicken is transmuting the potassium in the creation of the egg and evidence the chicken came before the egg.

Stephen Hawkins however argues otherwise that the egg came first in spite of the egg being evidence that transmutation of atomic nucleur forces happened naturally, etc...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Kervran's Proof of Biological Transmutation

*Note, however, that since gravity is infolded EM, one can have extremely powerful infolded EM, yet only have miniscule electrical (outfolded) residues. Thus the actual "available power" in artificial biopotentials may not be quite so small after all.

http://www.cheniere.org/books/aids/ch5.htm

Stephen Hawking and Christopher Langan argue that the egg came before the chicken, though the real importance of the question has faded since Darwin's "On The Origin Of Species" and the accompanying Theory of Evolution, under which the egg must have come first.[5][6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken-and-egg_problem

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by cavediver, posted 11-09-2008 6:51 AM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by AdminNosy, posted 11-11-2008 12:09 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4752
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 93 of 131 (488440)
11-11-2008 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by johnfolton
11-11-2008 11:38 AM


JohnFolton -- 24 hours
You were asked not to post in this thread. You are off for 24 hours (and longer next time).
This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by johnfolton, posted 11-11-2008 11:38 AM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1055 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 94 of 131 (488505)
11-12-2008 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Percy
11-11-2008 9:12 AM


Re: Back again, and let's first dispense with this nonsense...
My understanding of electrostatic forces... ...is that they're transmitted by exchanges of photons. Is that correct?

Yes, this is often how it is expressed, but they're actually virtual photons and also virtual electron/positron pairs as well. It's essentially a big messy interaction of the quantum fields.

If so, what is it about the exchange of photons that creates a force on the electrons

Uh-oh, I hate this question. Photons carry momentum, so you can easily imagine a photon causing a repulsion. Attraction is slightly harder to explain, but essentially, virtual photons can carry -ve momentum, which if you think about a transfer of -ve momentum from one electron to a second positron, actually causes attraction. Ah, but how does the photon know what particle is at the other end? If it's +ve, then it needs to transfer -ve momentum, and if it's -ve, it needs +ve momentum!! The photon carries no charge itself, so there is no way it can tell. Fortunately, it all comes out in the wash (well, the mathematics) but it is rather messy quantum mechanics, that needs a separate thread. The trick is to understand that whenever we say virtual particle (and I rarely do) what we mean is a complex interaction in the quantum fields that can have characteristics not found in those disturbances that give rise to 'real' particles.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Percy, posted 11-11-2008 9:12 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1055 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 95 of 131 (488534)
11-12-2008 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Stile
11-10-2008 9:06 AM


Re: No Questions... this time
Is there some actual minute possibiliy of something larger possibly passing through a brick wall?

It's staggeringly unlikely. To tunnel, your wavefunction must have an appreciable value in the region you want to tunnel into. But the wavefunctions of large objects are forced to have extremely small extent because of the practically inifnite interactions with the wavefunctions of the practically infininte number of other particles around us. This is decoherence. The only way to keep a wavefunction extended is to isolate it from interactions. This is possible for electrons, even atoms, and actually even molecules in the right extreme conditions. But at our size, it is simply not possible. This is probably no bad thing as our existence is very classical in nature!

But let's just say we could isolate you sufficiently in a chamber to have an extended wavefunction. You shouldn't feel any different, because you yourself would still be classical, as your own self-interactions are more than sufficient to create the decoherence. So your body and conciousness should be fine. But you can't see anything or experience anything as we have purposely isolated you from all external interactions. To us, you would be like Schrodinger's Cat - unobserved, and in a superposition of states that include you on one side of the chamber and you on the other side of the chamber. So it is possible that we could use this to teleport you through a wall that was also in the chamber. To be impressive, we'd need to make a really big isolation chamber. In which case, it would be the isolation chamber that would be the more impressive achievement :)

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Stile, posted 11-10-2008 9:06 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by onifre, posted 11-12-2008 4:57 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 96 of 131 (488535)
11-12-2008 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by cavediver
11-12-2008 3:01 PM


Re: No Questions... this time
This is possible for electrons, even atoms, and actually even molecules in the right extreme conditions.

Even atoms and molecules? cool :eek:

I don't want to take you off course but, could you give an example of "the right extreme conditions"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by cavediver, posted 11-12-2008 3:01 PM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Stile, posted 11-21-2008 1:05 PM onifre has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 2870
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 97 of 131 (489030)
11-21-2008 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by onifre
11-12-2008 4:57 PM


I'll have a crack with this
onifre writes:

cavediver writes:

[Tunneling] is possible for electrons, even atoms, and actually even molecules in the right extreme conditions.

I don't want to take you off course but, could you give an example of "the right extreme conditions"?

Take this with a grain of salt, but here's my thoughts:

cavediver writes:

But the wavefunctions of large objects are forced to have extremely small extent because of the practically inifnite interactions with the wavefunctions of the practically infininte number of other particles around us. This is decoherence.

Therefore, "the right extreme conditions" would be things like:
-a near vacuum (other than the tunnel-er and the tunnel-ee, of course)
-near absolute zero
-both?
-a bit of "luck" to hit (enter?) the object at just the right spot

Those are my guesses, for what they're worth.
(and I wanted to bump this thread :))


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by onifre, posted 11-12-2008 4:57 PM onifre has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by rueh, posted 11-21-2008 4:12 PM Stile has responded

    
rueh
Member (Idle past 1072 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 98 of 131 (489031)
11-21-2008 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Stile
11-21-2008 1:05 PM


Re: I'll have a crack with this
Hello Stile,
Although we will have to wait for Cavediver to givwe us the correct extreme condition. I do not believe any of your examples would cause an object to fail to have a collapsed wave function. I believe what CD is referring to, is a state where two systems interact while still being in a state of superposition. There by not causing a wave function collapse of any of the interacting sytems. I do not know of any real world examples where you could observe this interaction however, since any observation would cause a collapse of the wave function and your back to classical view of reality where the two objects will interact with each other.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Stile, posted 11-21-2008 1:05 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Stile, posted 12-12-2008 7:47 AM rueh has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3427
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 7.4


(1)
Message 99 of 131 (489034)
11-21-2008 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by cavediver
11-09-2008 10:19 AM


Re: Back again, and let's first dispense with this nonsense...
cavediver writes:

I guess I should only present this stuff on the condition that the audience promises never to repeat it Anway, presenting at EvC is much more difficult because you have so little feel as to where to pitch the material.

Reconsider the condition, please. The stuff you are presenting here is too good to go untaught even on the probability the message will not get through to most or will get lost in later translations among the masses.

Knowing you are educating the few, I hope, will be enough incentive to keep you going.

How about you giving up all other aspects of life to do these threads full time? We could fill up this thread of 300 and then start another and then another forever! Percy will keep the demented sideshows to a minimum, right? Minimal distractions. What better life than this?

Don't concern yourself with the "most won't understand" stuff. Damn the torpedoes ... Teach.

Please?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by cavediver, posted 11-09-2008 10:19 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 2941 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 100 of 131 (491152)
12-12-2008 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by cavediver
11-09-2008 6:51 AM


Re: Back again, and let's first dispense with this nonsense...
cavediver writes:

Suddenly we're back to our question of what is 'touch'? If 'things' are 99.99999999% empty space, why do they seem solid? Why do our hands not pass through each other when we clap? Clearly it isn't the 'things' - electrons and nucleus - that are giving rise to the solidity. It is actually the electromagnetic forces generated by those charged electrons. The reason you cannot pass your hands through each other is because of ELECTROSTATIC REPLUSION; not because of any sense of there being 'things' in the way or the common sense view of 'clearly things cannot pass through other things'. When you 'touch' something, all that is happening is that you are being pushed away from some area of space by electromagnetism. Switch off that electromagnetism, and your hands will happily pass straight through each other, just as with colliding galaxies, where the chances of any single pair of stars actually hitting each other is very remote.

Just wanted to add something cavediver didn't mention - matter is 99.9999% empty space and the other 0.0001% is... virtual. This is very important IMO for the direction of the discussions here as it kind of shifts the topic from Christianty vs the Theory of Evolution.

Here is the whole story:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html

Read the comments after the article, some of them are pretty witty.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by cavediver, posted 11-09-2008 6:51 AM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Percy, posted 12-12-2008 10:36 AM Agobot has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 2870
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 101 of 131 (491155)
12-12-2008 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by rueh
11-21-2008 4:12 PM


Re: I'll have a crack with this
I think I understand what you're saying. I do want to point out one thing though:

I do not know of any real world examples where you could observe this interaction however, since any observation would cause a collapse of the wave function and your back to classical view of reality where the two objects will interact with each other.

I'm not assuming that any of the scenarios I mentioned were being observed in any way. In fact, I was assuming they were all necessarily unobservable. In the sense of "it could happen... but we wouldn't be able to observe it happening".

Does that help my case at all? Or not so much?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by rueh, posted 11-21-2008 4:12 PM rueh has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15625
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 102 of 131 (491169)
12-12-2008 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Agobot
12-12-2008 7:11 AM


Re: Back again, and let's first dispense with this nonsense...
Agobot writes:

Just wanted to add something cavediver didn't mention - matter is 99.9999% empty space and the other 0.0001% is... virtual.

That's not what the article you cited says.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Agobot, posted 12-12-2008 7:11 AM Agobot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Agobot, posted 12-12-2008 12:25 PM Percy has responded

    
Agobot
Member (Idle past 2941 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 103 of 131 (491184)
12-12-2008 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Percy
12-12-2008 10:36 AM


Re: Back again, and let's first dispense with this nonsense...
Agobot writes:

Just wanted to add something cavediver didn't mention - matter is 99.9999% empty space and the other 0.0001% is... virtual.

Percy writes:

That's not what the article you cited says.

--Percy

What does it say?

And how is it different to what we already knew from QM about matter(except for the source of mass), as in:

I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.

Werner Heisenberg

Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Percy, posted 12-12-2008 10:36 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by cavediver, posted 12-12-2008 12:59 PM Agobot has not yet responded
 Message 105 by Percy, posted 12-12-2008 1:30 PM Agobot has responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1055 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 104 of 131 (491194)
12-12-2008 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Agobot
12-12-2008 12:25 PM


Re: Back again, and let's first dispense with this nonsense...
What does it say?

It says nothing new - only that our calculations are getting better because we have better computers. I have said many times here at EvC that nearly all of the mass of a proton comes from 'binding energy' and not from the rest-mass of the basic quarks themselves. This binding energy arises from complex interactions of the quantum fields. They have managed to calculate these interactions better than before.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Agobot, posted 12-12-2008 12:25 PM Agobot has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15625
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 105 of 131 (491198)
12-12-2008 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Agobot
12-12-2008 12:25 PM


Re: Back again, and let's first dispense with this nonsense...
Agobot writes:

What does it say?

It says you need to read more carefully. Or, if you actually realize it didn't say anything to the effect that "matter is 99.9999% empty space and the other 0.0001% is... virtual," then it says you have to stop making stuff up.

As Cavediver said, it says nothing new. It is a more accurate validation of already accepted theory. That's not to say it isn't a stunning analytical accomplishment, because it most certain is.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Agobot, posted 12-12-2008 12:25 PM Agobot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Agobot, posted 12-12-2008 2:14 PM Percy has responded

    
Prev1
...
456
7
89Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017