Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Big Bang Bamma
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 80 (260677)
11-17-2005 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by cavediver
11-17-2005 6:03 PM


Is it strong nuclear force that holds the photons (and other electron) together?
No, absolutely not.
I went back and edited this question after realizing what I had asked but it was after you started the reply, i guess. Thanks for being so quick. I took the "(and other electrons)" out because it just doesn't make sense ot have nuclear forces acting on electrons. The question was more about the photons because I thought they were chargeless.
I don't have time to really read your reply right now, I just wanted to clarify this part. I'll fire some more questions at you later tonight if I have time.
Thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by cavediver, posted 11-17-2005 6:03 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by cavediver, posted 11-17-2005 6:34 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 47 of 80 (260681)
11-17-2005 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by New Cat's Eye
11-17-2005 6:16 PM


I'll fire some more questions at you later tonight if I have time.
No problem Please understand that you are delving into some very deep stuff here. I'm running out of analogies, as you can probably tell from my insertion of "technical" speak!
Oh, just invented a new analogy! Electrons and photons are like bricks and mortar. Bricks do not bind to bricks and mortar just forms an amorphous splodge on its own. It takes the two together to create bound structures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-17-2005 6:16 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-17-2005 7:09 PM cavediver has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 80 (260687)
11-17-2005 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by cavediver
11-17-2005 6:34 PM


If we try to zoom in on the electron, we no longer see "one" electron but rather a seething sea of virtual particles. If you sum over this observed volume, you will regain the charcteristics of the one electron (mass, charge, etc), but there is no one "object".
Is this applicable to valence electrons?
The above quote makes sense for covalent bonding, but for an ionic bond the electron seems to be too quantized to remain a wave.
what we deal with at this scale are individual fourier modes of the quantum field
So does each mode correlate to a different fermion?
For the electron, the field is fermionic and the individual modes obey a Grassmanian algebra.
And the projection of the fermionic field causes the interpretation of the electron to be an “object”?
No, absolutely not. It is the interaction of photons and electrons that give rise to what we call "force".
I’m confused by the part about the electron being made up of photons and electrons, I might be wrong in my understanding of the photon. I don’t think it is affected by electromagntism, I think that it is electromagnetism, hence the thought “are they affected by something like nuclear forces?”
Crap, I out of time again . possibly more questions to follow tonight . .or tomarrow.
Thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by cavediver, posted 11-17-2005 6:34 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by cavediver, posted 11-18-2005 2:13 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Tony650
Member (Idle past 4033 days)
Posts: 450
From: Australia
Joined: 01-30-2004


Message 49 of 80 (260830)
11-18-2005 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by cavediver
11-16-2005 1:31 PM


Re: More questions.
Hi cavediver. Let me quickly echo CS's appreciation for the time you take explaining this stuff to us poor uneducated plebs.
Ok, I think I understand your point regarding intrinsic vs. extrinsic curvature. My problem is that I simply don't understand how intrinsic curvature can exist without that other dimension.
In fact, your example is a perfect illustration of the mind jolt that I get when trying to follow this to its logical conclusion. No matter what you do, you will never get any piece of the football to lie flat. So, if we then say that the third dimension simply doesn't exist, then I can't see how the football can possibly exist. By its very nature, it can't exist in two dimensions, can it?
cavediver writes:
The football is by its very nature curved... the extra dimension just enables you to observe that curvature. There are several 2d surfaces that are curved, but 3d is not sufficient for viewing them: the klein bottle and RP2 are the two prototypes of this behaviour. Both are doughnut like surfaces, but with "mobius strip"-like twists. You cannot visualise them in 3d.
This is kind of what I'm getting at. I was under the impression that, without a fourth spatial dimension in which to exist, a true Klein bottle simply can't exist. The best we can do is to create three-dimensional "shadows" of it. Are you saying that a Klein bottle could in fact exist, even if there is no fourth dimension to contain it? It is purely a matter of the object having the necessary intrinsic curvature, even if we could never observe its extrinsic curvature?
Incidentally, I'm familiar with the Klein bottle, but what is the RP2? Can't say I've heard of that one.
cavediver writes:
Put an arrow on the north pole pointing south (obviosuly ) towards London. Slide it down to the equator along the Greenwich meridian. Now slide it sideways until it is at New York's longitude, but still on the equator. Slide it back up to the pole. It is now pointing towards New York. Conclusion - the Earth's surface is curved. No need to mention a third dimension.
I believe I understand the principle you're referring to. What I can't figure out is what it means without another dimension. I know there's no need to mention another dimension, but, in the example of the Earth's surface, it does exist.
I'm having trouble finding the words for this. I think I know what I'm trying to ask, but ugh...
How about this? I understand that the curvature of a body can be shown without referencing any dimension outside of the body, but how can the body possess that characteristic without the other dimension?
This is one of those things that, ultimately, you can really only understand mathematically, isn't it?
P.S. On re-reading my post, I think I have a better way of expressing it. Simply put, how can a body have an intrinsic curvature but no extrinsic curvature? How can one property exist without the other?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by cavediver, posted 11-16-2005 1:31 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by cavediver, posted 11-18-2005 5:59 PM Tony650 has replied
 Message 79 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 04-17-2011 3:27 AM Tony650 has not replied
 Message 80 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 04-17-2011 3:27 AM Tony650 has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 50 of 80 (260979)
11-18-2005 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by New Cat's Eye
11-17-2005 7:09 PM


Is this applicable to valence electrons?
The above quote makes sense for covalent bonding, but for an ionic bond the electron seems to be too quantized to remain a wave.
This is for any electron. It doesn't have a clue about ionic or covalent bonding, both of which occur at a much larger scale. It just experiences interactions with photons.
the electron seems to be too quantized to remain a wave
Do you mean "too localised" rather than "too quantised"?
In a sense this is true. It is interaction with other systems (multiple atomic systems in this case) that seems to bring about the ermergence of classical behaviour.
So does each mode correlate to a different fermion?
Sort of... or I should say, each additional quantum mode increases the number of fermions by one. But there are no "different" fermions. You cannot distinguish two fermions... all you know is that there are two.
This is far more fundemental and bizarre than it sounds... In normal probabilty, if you have two balls that you cannot distinguish, you have to still count the possibilities as ball1, ball2 and ball2, ball1. This is not true for electrons... there is only one state: two eletcrons. So the probablity counts differently to everyday experience. This is the source of the "statistics" weirdness. I haven't even mentioned the "spin" weirdness yet
And the projection of the fermionic field causes the interpretation of the electron to be an “object”?
As fond as I am for the word "projection", in this case I would simply say the large scale observation of the field causes the interpretation of the electron to be an “object”
I might be wrong in my understanding of the photon. I don’t think it is affected by electromagntism, I think that it is electromagnetism
Yes, that is exactly right. Sorry if I made it sound otherwise. Photons are neutral so they do not interact with themselves. They are also colourless, so they do not interact with gluons. So not strong force involved. They only interact with fermions with charge - electrons, muons, tauons, and the quarks. That's why the neutrinos are so damn elusive. They only interact via the weak... If you want to catch a particular neutrino, put an earth sized lump of lead in its path... you may just be lucky!
This message has been edited by cavediver, 11-18-2005 02:13 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-17-2005 7:09 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 51 of 80 (261067)
11-18-2005 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Tony650
11-18-2005 5:31 AM


Re: More questions.
Let me quickly echo CS's appreciation for the time you take explaining this stuff to us poor uneducated plebs
You are more than welcome
My problem is that I simply don't understand how intrinsic curvature can exist without that other dimension.
Difficult, I know... it comes from living your life in flat space. Making this jump is like visualising your first 4d object: mind-blowing!
The problem is your are still thinking of curvature as having something to do with "curves", which isn't too surprising, but not at all useful. A surface can have curvature without any concept of distance. In this case, no amount of extra dimensions is going to help you visualise what is happening, becasue you cannot (yet) even conceive of a distance-less surface.
This is one of those things that, ultimately, you can really only understand mathematically, isn't it?
Yup
how can a body have an intrinsic curvature but no extrinsic curvature?
Simple, where there is no higher diemensional space within which to have your extrinsic curvature!
Incidentally, I'm familiar with the Klein bottle, but what is the RP2? Can't say I've heard of that one.
RP2 - Real Projective plane in 2d.
How about this: take a globe. Conside all of the diameters of this globe. Each diameter can be represented simply by the position of one of its end-points on the surafce of the globe. What is the space of these end-points? Well, for a few local diameters in a bunch, their end-points will simply define a small 2d patch of the surafce of the globe. So their space is just 2d space. But what happens when you consider a larger bunch of diameters? The points spread out so they cover a larger and larger portion of the globe's surface. But then something strange happens. When you have points that are on opposite sides of the globe, you find that they represent the same diameter. So you only need half the globe to cover all of the diameters. Say we started at the north pole and spread outwards until we hit the equator. As we hit the equator, every equatorial point becomes identified with the equatorial point on the opposite side of the globe. So the space is like a disc with opposite points on the circumference identified. This 2d space is RP2. For contrast, the whole surface of a globe can be imagined as a disc with the circumference identified as a single pont, the south pole in our example. Think about this...
So RP2 needs four dimensions to visualise properly without making identifications, but it most certainly exists in our 3d world, because diameters of globes certainly exist!
This message has been edited by cavediver, 11-18-2005 06:18 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Tony650, posted 11-18-2005 5:31 AM Tony650 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Tony650, posted 11-19-2005 1:19 AM cavediver has replied
 Message 73 by madeofstarstuff, posted 12-01-2005 12:07 AM cavediver has replied

  
Tony650
Member (Idle past 4033 days)
Posts: 450
From: Australia
Joined: 01-30-2004


Message 52 of 80 (261194)
11-19-2005 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by cavediver
11-18-2005 5:59 PM


Re: More questions.
cavediver writes:
You are more than welcome
Well, thanks again. You clearly have a lot to teach about these subjects and you work hard to help anyone that's interested. You seem to be getting something of a pile on in this thread, and I wanted you to know that your efforts are genuinely appreciated.
cavediver writes:
Difficult, I know... it comes from living your life in flat space. Making this jump is like visualising your first 4d object: mind-blowing!
I've spent years trying to do that. I fear I'm veering even further from the topic but I must ask... can you visualize four dimensions? That is, truly four dimensions. Can you picture four perpendicular axes? The true form of a 4D simplex? A tesseract? A glome? And so on?
cavediver writes:
The problem is your are still thinking of curvature as having something to do with "curves", which isn't too surprising, but not at all useful. A surface can have curvature without any concept of distance. In this case, no amount of extra dimensions is going to help you visualise what is happening, becasue you cannot (yet) even conceive of a distance-less surface.
Well, with your help, I hope to rectify that.
Ok, so... a distance-less surface. Whew! I have to admit, that one hurts my brain. Is there any explanation you can give that I won't require a PhD in advanced mathematics to understand... or am I asking the impossible?
If you can't, no problem. I'd love to understand this but I get the feeling that we're rapidly approaching some concepts that there are no sufficient analogies for.
cavediver writes:
This is one of those things that, ultimately, you can really only understand mathematically, isn't it?
Yup
That's so frustrating. When you say that you can only understand it mathematically, are we talking... you know... really complex math? As in, the kind that you can spend your entire life studying? Do I, as a layman with no higher education in mathematics, have any hope of ever understanding this, or are several decades of university level study the only real chance I have?
cavediver writes:
Simple, where there is no higher diemensional space within which to have your extrinsic curvature!
Heh... yes, I realize that.
What I meant was that I can't see how it can have intrinsic curvature without expressing it as extrinsic curvature. Make sense?
It seems to me that I'm connecting the two while you're saying they're not connected. You seem to be saying that it can be intrinsically curved yet completely flat. I didn't word that well but I think you get my meaning. I hope.
The problem, for me, seems to go back to the football analogy. You can cut it, bend it, twist it, squash it, but it will never settle into a flat, two-dimensional plane. That's what I'm getting snagged on. If intrinsic curvature renders it unable to be flat then how can it have intrinsic curvature in a 2D universe? Doesn't 2D space preclude the very existence of such a property?
I apologize if I appear to be repeating myself. To be clear, I'm not doing it to be argumentative. I don't doubt the accuracy of what you're telling me... I'm sincerely trying to understand it.
Also, thanks for the info on RP2. Right now, though, I need sleep. I'm pretty tired and that whole last paragraph flew straight over my head. Will recharge the batteries and then check it out. Thanks again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by cavediver, posted 11-18-2005 5:59 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by cavediver, posted 11-19-2005 5:12 AM Tony650 has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 53 of 80 (261205)
11-19-2005 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Tony650
11-19-2005 1:19 AM


Re: More questions.
can you visualize four dimensions?
Well, I think I can But it wouldn't be in the way you think. However, before you can think of imagining 4d objects, you must learn to imagine 3d objects. You only have experience of flat 3d objects,which is rather restrictive. Take a 3-sphere, the possible topology of spatial sections of our universe. It is a very simple 3d space, but very difficult in conception. And we still haven't tackled the 2d spaces!
I was digging around on wiki for some images to use, but found this all nicely presented here 2d spaces
The sphere one looks a bit odd, but the idea is that the entire perimeter of the square is one point. With RP2, diametrically opposite points are identified. The torus has points either side of the square identified. The Klein bottle is a mix of RP2 and the torus.
These are your fundemental 2d compact spaces.
Notice how all of them are completely flat. It is the identifications that introduce the curvature. To easily visualise the identifications, that is where you require the higher dimensions: 3d for the sphere and torus, 4d for the Klein bottle and RP2. But the diameters of a globe demonstrate RP2 in 3d, so clearly the 4d is not required for the existence of RP2.
That's so frustrating. When you say that you can only understand it mathematically, are we talking... you know... really complex math?
Interesting you ask this... by complex maths, do you mean strings of complicated equations? Because this is not the maths to which I am referring. By complex maths, I am talking about a way of thinking. Much of the maths here simply involves juggling images and concepts, without a single number, expression, or equation. It is extraordinarily simple... but it takes the years of study to get to the level of understanding where this can be done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Tony650, posted 11-19-2005 1:19 AM Tony650 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Tony650, posted 11-21-2005 10:35 PM cavediver has replied

  
Fabric
Member (Idle past 5672 days)
Posts: 41
From: London, England
Joined: 02-27-2005


Message 54 of 80 (261214)
11-19-2005 6:06 AM


Where did all the Energy come from in the first place, thats what i always ask myself...

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by mark24, posted 11-19-2005 6:08 AM Fabric has not replied
 Message 56 by cavediver, posted 11-19-2005 7:23 AM Fabric has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 55 of 80 (261215)
11-19-2005 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Fabric
11-19-2005 6:06 AM


Where did god come from in the first place?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Fabric, posted 11-19-2005 6:06 AM Fabric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Christian7, posted 11-20-2005 2:50 PM mark24 has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 56 of 80 (261227)
11-19-2005 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Fabric
11-19-2005 6:06 AM


Where did all the Energy come from in the first place, thats what i always ask myself...
The universe just is. It's energy did not come from anywhere, it is just a property of the universe. It does not matter whether there was a Big Bang 14 billion years ago, or whether the universe has always existed. Either way, the universe is a self-contained whole. It did not come from anywhere and it's not going anywhere. It just exists. The big bang is not an explanation of why the universe exists. It is merely a description of one end of the universe. The big crunch, or perpetual expansion, are descriptions of the other end of the universe. But neither explain why we have a universe. If the universe has always been here, that does not answer the question either...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Fabric, posted 11-19-2005 6:06 AM Fabric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Tony650, posted 11-23-2005 7:58 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Christian7
Member (Idle past 249 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 57 of 80 (261586)
11-20-2005 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by mark24
11-19-2005 6:08 AM


First of all, God is self-sufficent and transcends time and space.
Anything that is not bound by time does not need a begining.
This message has been edited by Guidosoft, 11-20-2005 02:50 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by mark24, posted 11-19-2005 6:08 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by mark24, posted 11-20-2005 3:58 PM Christian7 has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 58 of 80 (261587)
11-20-2005 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Christian7
11-20-2005 2:50 PM


guidosoft,
First of all, God is self-sufficent and transcends time and space.
Maybe the energy that started the big bang trancended space & time, too.
Anything that is not bound by time does not need a begining.
Why not? If I made a time machine that jumped universes, I still note that I still had a beginning.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Christian7, posted 11-20-2005 2:50 PM Christian7 has not replied

  
Tony650
Member (Idle past 4033 days)
Posts: 450
From: Australia
Joined: 01-30-2004


Message 59 of 80 (262218)
11-21-2005 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by cavediver
11-19-2005 5:12 AM


Re: More questions.
cavediver writes:
Well, I think I can
Heh, that's what Rrhain said. More and more, I'm getting the impression that this is something you simply have to "see" for yourself.
cavediver writes:
But it wouldn't be in the way you think.
To try and clarify a little, when I say "visualize" I mean can you conjure, in your mind, that which a four-dimensional creature in a 4D hyperspace would see? For instance, can you picture 4D primitives as they would appear to an indigenous creature? Or can you picture four mutually perpendicular axes with the four-space perspective such a being would have?
Or, to try something slightly different, can you imagine a three-dimensional solid embedded in four-dimensional hyperspace, and then rotate the solid such that its three-dimensional "surface" is exposed and you can see the flat 3D cross-section of the entire solid... every point within its three-dimensional structure simultaneously?
To use an analogy (sorry for my rambling style - please bear with me )...
Most people in Flatland can only "understand" higher-dimensional concepts like "hyper-circles" and "hyper-squares" by picturing their edge-on cross sections as they pass through 2D space. Some scientists/mathematicians, however, are adept enough in the concepts to be able to actually visualize the constructs known as "spheres" and "cubes" in the way that we 3D creatures actually see them.
That is, despite its physical impossibility in their space, they can picture, in their mind, what we see. The image they visualize is a two-dimensional surface projection with three-dimensional perspective i.e. exactly what our eyes receive. There is no way, of course, that they could physically display or describe it to others in their world, but they can imagine it.
In essence, what I'm asking is are you one of the scientists in this scenario?
Do you believe that what you are able to visualize is actually a true three-dimensional "surface" projection with four-dimensional perspective? Or does your ability to visualize 4D still come up short of what a 4D creature possessing retinas with 3D "surfaces" would see?
cavediver writes:
Interesting you ask this... by complex maths, do you mean strings of complicated equations?
Frankly, I don't know. I'm not familiar with the underlying mathematical theory of higher-dimensional topology, or whatever the field is called. If I knew what it was I guess I wouldn't need you to explain all this to me.
Since you mention it, though, I have seen the kinds of equations to which you refer and, honestly, it always looks more like hieroglyphics than mathematics to me. I've seen some equations in which I am hard pressed to recognize anything.
cavediver writes:
Much of the maths here simply involves juggling images and concepts, without a single number, expression, or equation.
Sounds like my kind of math.
Seriously, though, it does sound like my kind of math. I have (I think) a reasonably well developed visual imagination, but abstract mathematics tends to throw me.
I've been doing more reading on dimensional concepts in the time we've been discussing this, and when I'm reading the specifics of certain concepts where I'm being presented with measurements or calculations, I'm always looking for images.
cavediver writes:
It is extraordinarily simple... but it takes the years of study to get to the level of understanding where this can be done.
In a previous discussion on this subject, I once said that I imagined the ability to visualize higher dimensions would require you to virtually re-train your mind in how to think. Living the entirety of our lives in three dimensions ingrains a 3D way of thinking onto our psyche. Clearly, that just gets in the way when trying to conceptualize dimensions higher than three.
Thanks for the Wiki link, by the way. I read the page and I believe I got some of it... but, again, I'm reading (and writing) when I should be sleeping. I plan to read it again anyway.
Once more, sorry for my prattling... I think I'm even worse when I'm tired. Thanks for your patience, cavediver.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by cavediver, posted 11-19-2005 5:12 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by cavediver, posted 11-26-2005 8:12 AM Tony650 has replied

  
Tony650
Member (Idle past 4033 days)
Posts: 450
From: Australia
Joined: 01-30-2004


Message 60 of 80 (262757)
11-23-2005 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by cavediver
11-19-2005 7:23 AM


Argh! Wrong post!
Sorry cavediver... I just realized that my reply isn't showing in your topic index. Probably because I didn't reply to your most recent post. My apologies.
Just letting you know that I did reply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by cavediver, posted 11-19-2005 7:23 AM cavediver has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024