View Full Version : water,a manifestation of WHAT?
i asked this in chemistry but have been asked to come here so here goes.
why, when H&O2 come together (apparently there must be 6 molecules before water appears) does this liquid manifest it's self. now i know the mechanics involved but i want to beyond this.if i seperate H from O2 no liquid appears (maybe always there?) so why when H&O2 come together does a liquid appear? what is the liquid a manifestation of? also we know that both H&O will become liquid(that is another query!) on there own at sufficiently low temperatures,now when i bring the two (elements) together it seems that the temperature for liquefaction rises why? and why expand when frozen? does the lower temperature allow a little more fluid in? or is there an energy flow blocked so the the liquid cannot flow back so expands? do H&O work together as some sort of catalyst,in temperature and energy flow? i think that perhaps there is more going on inbetween the nucleous and the electron shell of atoms.
when you think about it,we know why and how water becomes. but we really don't know WHAT it is!!
any thoughts?
ram1024
Jun28-04, 07:48 PM
water is hydrogen and oxygen in a particular chemical configuration that exists with the "properties" of "liquid"
liquid is NOT a specific THING, rather it is a state of a certain body of an elements of complex molecules that behave in a certain matter / fashion. typically, liquids behave in slipping motion when in contact with other liquid molecules
gases push away from each other
solids cling to each other
that's the VERY basics of it.
so to say water "forms" as a liquid is incorrect. what happens is hydrogen and oxygen combine and form a molecule that exhibits "liquid" properties
ram1024
Jun28-04, 07:55 PM
and why expand when frozen?
crystalization. it is rigid and creates "pockets"
think of it like this. take 500 lego blocks and stack them together into a cube. put that cube in a box or bag exactly its size. this is water, basically able to flow and fill every gap it finds. now take all the blocks apart and just throw them into the container you just had/made. you will not be able to get them all in the same container because of that configuration, it makes pockets and generally wastes alot of space.
okay it is a state. but lets go back to why then that hydrogen and oxygen both go to a liquid state at very low temperatures. there are no bonds,molecules or configurations there. what happens here?
russ_watters
Jun28-04, 09:50 PM
what happens here? Chemistry.
If you haven't had any, it can be a complicated answer...
ram1024
Jun28-04, 09:54 PM
if i'm not mistaken ALL elements have "states" they acquire at different "temperatures"
these are fundamental and i think they are related to energy states of electron orbits.
electrons "jump" to different orbits depending on their energy level, at lower energy levels (temperature) atoms "jump" to a different "state" that just reacts differently to other atoms.
i don't know how much of this is theory or reality, this is just information congealed from my physics and chem classes :|
Alkatran
Jun28-04, 10:58 PM
Think of it this way: All the molecules have a slight attraction on each other, but at high energies the can escape this attraction.
Consider a daycare: You can't keep all the children in order while they are full of energy (hot) but once they get sleepy (cold) it's childs play to get them to behave.
Water is constantly fighting the crystalisation that it tends towards. Get it?
guys,i appreciate the effort but we are still talking in terms of bonds etc. let me put it this way we need the bonds to produce the reaction needed to get the state of liquidity but the thing is the electrons don't change form and neither does the nucleous and yet the state of liquidity exists. to me it has nothing to do with density and bonds because the atoms themselves don't fundamentaly change in anyway shape or form and neither does it's ability bond again. we have been still talking in terms of chemistry. the only answers i get are based on chemistry which up to this point have not really answered the Ques:WHAT is water the liquid state of? the i think that chemistry is the frame work but not the interior.
Russ please go ahead i have had a little but i would like to hear what you have to say. i've tried finding more about it myself but none of the chemistry books that i have even mention liquid hydrogen at all.
Ques:WHAT is water the liquid state of?
Maybe I'm missing something but water is the liquid state of a bunch of H2O molecules.
as an example of what i mean see if this makes what i'm asking a little clearer. if i have a nail and i punch a hole into a tire air comes out,now for this to happen i need a tire full of air and a nail when i combine the two air comes out but the nail nor the tire tells me what the air IS and yet the air does exist.
when i bring H&O together in the right amount and mixture, i bring into existence a state of liquid and yet the atoms are NOT in of themselves in a liquid state WHAT IS this liquid state a state of? the H2O molecules are necessary for this state to become(exist) but this not explain the nature of the liquid it's self, just how i can produce it.
russ_watters
Jun29-04, 10:59 AM
guys,i appreciate the effort but we are still talking in terms of bonds etc. let me put it this way we need the bonds to produce the reaction needed to get the state of liquidity but the thing is the electrons don't change form.... Yeah, they do (or rather, they change state). The "glue" that holds water together and we see as surface tension is called hydrogen bonds. Hydrogen bonds arise due to the asymetry of water molecules. Uneven electron distribution means uneven charge distribution, causing net positive and net negatively charged areas on the molecules. Opposites attract, so the molecules start sticking together.
When it gets colder, the molecules aren't moving fast enough to avoid lining up and sticking together in a tight chrystal structure: that's ice.when i bring H&O together in the right amount and mixture, i bring into existence a state of liquid... Not quite. Mixing hydrogen and oxygen (molecules) yeilds a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen molecules. They have to react to form water (burn). ..and yet the atoms are NOT in of themselves in a liquid state... True. Single atoms aren't bonded to anything and can't be described as "solid" or "liquid." ...WHAT IS this liquid state a state of? The word "liquid" is a word used to describe how water (or any substance) acts under certain conditions.the H2O molecules are necessary for this state to become(exist) but this not explain the nature of the liquid it's self, just how i can produce it Now you're not making sense. There are other liquids besides water, but in this case we're talking about water. "The liquid itself" is a collection of water molecules that act in a way consistent with the definition of a word called "liquid." Its still water, just a specific form (state) of water.
Maybe you could explain what you mean by "nature of the liquid." It sounds like you think that all liquids are the same and not just states of different types of molecules. You can see this easily enough by comparing mercury with water. Mercury and water clearly are not the same liquid.
[QUOTE=russ_watters]Yeah, they do (or rather, they change state).
___________________________________________
but not the electrons actual form,meaning size, shape or energy doesn't change just position.
___________________________________________
The "glue" that holds water together and we see as surface tension is called hydrogen bonds. Hydrogen bonds arise due to the asymetry of water molecules. Uneven electron distribution means uneven charge distribution, causing net positive and net negatively charged areas on the molecules. Opposites attract, so the molecules start sticking together.
Not quite. Mixing hydrogen and oxygen (molecules) yeilds a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen molecules. They have to react to form water (burn).
___________________________________________
this is some of what i was thinking that the bonding of H2&O raises the liquidity temperature from it being very low to produce a liquid state to a much higher temperature.
___________________________________________
Now you're not making sense. There are other liquids besides water, but in this case we're talking about water. "The liquid itself" is a collection of water molecules that act in a way consistent with the definition of a word called "liquid." Its still water, just a specific form (state) of water.
___________________________________________
true but i just wanted to start with water, i was also thinking of oil.
___________________________________________
Maybe you could explain what you mean by "nature of the liquid." It sounds like you think that all liquids are the same and not just states of different types of molecules. You can see this easily enough by comparing mercury with water. Mercury and water clearly are not the same liquid.
___________________________________________
no they are not but i was just trying one query at a time. but it does lead me to this though,getting a little side tracked but i was eventually going there anyway. what gives any element and their combinations their texture? steel,leather, mercury,oil,wood,lead etc. i'm having a hard time thinking that it is just because of electrons,i'm thinking that it is also somehow, something else is going on. lets say for arguments sake that all textures are caused by electrons in whatever lattice the atoms are in,lets use steel for example,now if i look deep into the lattice so that i can focus on just one atom of this lattice,of course the atoms that are attached to this atom from other atoms are still there but we are so focused on the one that they are not in sight,but the electrons from other atoms are seen,now assuming (perhaps wrongly) that the electrons are are motionless state, this is a solid,would it not follow that the electrons in this steel atom must be in a metal state? which means of course that electrons actually change form. i think that electromagnetism is involved somehow,someway it has the energy and the flexibility to change form,i just think that it might be coming from the "empty space" in the atom,if not the electrons themselves,if not then something else is responsible for the texture or hardness.and this applies to all textures and states.
ram1024
Jun29-04, 12:54 PM
electrons determine how atoms are going to come together to make elements <mostly>
the elements themselves make different molecules
different molecules stuck together make up what you deem to be "texture"
each step of this can all be traced back to the electrons that determined "how things were going to come together"
you may think of electrons as being ridiculously small, how can they be significant? understand that the rotations of the electrons in an atom is a vast amount of kinetic energy <comparatively> that and the electron bears the same charge as a proton but opposite despite being orders of magnitude smaller in size.
they use electromagnets to lift cars in wrecker junkyards. nothing else is causing the force except the motion of electrons through a coil. and this is at a visible level, these forces increase in power exponentially as the distances between them shrinks. on a molecular and atomic level, that's a VERY strong bond.
different molecules stuck together make up what you deem to be "texture"
each step of this can all be traced back to the electrons that determined "how things were going to come together"
you may think of electrons as being ridiculously small, how can they be significant? understand that the rotations of the electrons in an atom is a vast amount of kinetic energy <comparatively> that and the electron bears the same charge as a proton but opposite despite being orders of magnitude smaller in size.
they use electromagnets to lift cars in wrecker junkyards. nothing else is causing the force except the motion of electrons through a coil. and this is at a visible level, these forces increase in power exponentially as the distances between them shrinks. on a molecular and atomic level, that's a VERY strong bond.[/QUOTE]
___________________________________________
all well and good but lets get back to the steel focus, what is happening here,in that the texture must start to form either with the electrons or has something to do with the interior of the atom(s) otherwise WHERE does the texture come from, since all the electrons are bound forming the lattice?
ram1024
Jun29-04, 02:23 PM
the texture is the molecule configuration, which is made BECAUSE of the electron configuration.
depending on which level you want to analyze, it's ALL making "texture". once a molecule is made it's pretty much "rigid". it's molecular bonds that flex and shift.
there is no "leather" molecule, you'd make a structure out of carbons hydrogens nitrogens etc etc to create a structure with the "properties" known as leather.
simply the electrons play a HUGE part in atomic structure, but the bulk of "mass" of a substance will always be neutrons and protons. don't forget them :D
[QUOTE=ram1024]the texture is the molecule configuration, which is made BECAUSE of the electron configuration.
___________________________________________
what configuration do you mean here, since all the electrons in the steel lattice are bonded?
___________________________________________
depending on which level you want to analyze, it's ALL making "texture". once a molecule is made it's pretty much "rigid". it's molecular bonds that flex and shift.
___________________________________________
i agree it takes the whole molecule to produce the form and texture as well as the position and geometry.i just think that when this happens the energy within the whole that is produced, transforms . it is not the molecule that transforms but the energy released by the molecule because of the molecule configuration.
__________________________________________
there is no "leather" molecule, you'd make a structure out of carbons hydrogens nitrogens etc etc to create a structure with the "properties" known as leather.
__________________________________________
yeah,bad example!
__________________________________________
simply the electrons play a HUGE part in atomic structure, but the bulk of "mass" of a substance will always be neutrons and protons. don't forget them .
__________________________________________
actually i havn't, but that is my fault that you may think this.
my basic thinking is this, that between the electron(s) and the protons etc. there must be more to this "empty space" for if there was no form of communication between the two, in some form, then the balance would not be kept, there must be in some sense a medium(energy) and that this energy, my thinking is electromagnetic, and that with the combination of things,temperature,pressure,reaction,configuration etc release some, all and any combinations thereof to produce all states of matter, there is the energy needed and the flexibility needed for all forms possible to be produced.this is why i think that things like liquid or solid state are caused, if you will, by the key of the whole configuration unlocking the potental form of a particular molecule or atom.
ram1024
Jun29-04, 05:02 PM
i'm thinking that's way more complicated than it needs to be :D
but i'm glad you're pioneering. i will see your name in a sci-journal one of these days and be all like, "yep, that guy wasn't satisfied. he went out and kicked its *** personally"
more complicated yes but more efficient yes.
perhaps the drop of water is just the tap barely turned on. or perhaps we could create a hole from the outer shell to the nucleous letting energy out under control or reach in and pull the nucleous through turning the atom or molecule inside out what kind of things while pulling it on the way out would happen.and perhaps then picking off any part of the nucleous that we need, just having fun :biggrin:
to pioneering, cheers!!
russ_watters
Jun29-04, 11:32 PM
Well, I see why they sent you to TD. What you are talking about here doesn't have any connection to reality. I'm sorry, but the things you are saying just plain aren't true. You'll need to start off with a basic education in chemistry if you're really interested in how atoms and molecules work.
One tidbit to get you started: the chemical properties of an atom/molecule are entirely due to the interactions of its electrons.
i'm not saying that electrons aren't important,they are but all i'm asking,as i have with the steel lattice example is that if i look close then at one atom with all the electrons even from other atoms in it's proximity that i should see a fraction of the metalic form. and that it should lead to see wether the electrons change form, or some other reason why there is a metalic form. the metalic form one would think is evident in each atom that makes up the whole.in other words lets build the lattice one atom at a time,for at some point the metalic properties would begin to show and would lead,i think to better understanding of WHAT is the root of it's metalic properties. and as soon as it does show these properties stop it and slowly back up. is this not a valid inquery?
russ_watters
Jun30-04, 10:54 AM
i'm not saying that electrons aren't important,they are but all i'm asking,as i have with the steel lattice example is that if i look close then at one atom with all the electrons even from other atoms in it's proximity that i should see a fraction of the metalic form. and that it should lead to see wether the electrons change form, or some other reason why there is a metalic form. the metalic form one would think is evident in each atom that makes up the whole.in other words lets build the lattice one atom at a time,for at some point the metalic properties would begin to show and would lead,i think to better understanding of WHAT is the root of it's metalic properties. and as soon as it does show these properties stop it and slowly back up. is this not a valid inquery? One problem here is you are using extremely poor grammar, which makes it very difficult to understand what you are asking. But from what I can understand of your question, the answer has already been given. I'll say it again - the properties of any material are a result of its chemical structure which is a result of the electron configuration (which is a result of the number of protons). One reason you need multiple atoms to start to see the properties of even a pure element is the properties are related to the chrystal structure and you need a specific number of atoms for a complete chrystal unit.
It is a valid inquiry, its just that you don't seem all that interested in listening to the answer.
[QUOTE=russ_watters]One problem here is you are using extremely poor grammar, which makes it very difficult to understand what you are asking. But from what I can understand of your question, the answer has already been given. I'll say it again - the properties of any material are a result of its chemical structure which is a result of the electron configuration (which is a result of the number of protons). One reason you need multiple atoms to start to see the properties of even a pure element is the properties are related to the chrystal structure and you need a specific number of atoms for a complete chrystal unit.
___________________________________________
i just don't see it as a complete answer , we know that free electrons are just that free electrons,there are no liquid or solid properties,and yet when put into an atom things change and if an atom does not have one it will,if i may,search one out,therefore the atom senses that the balance is not right. and so these electrons which apparently don't change form or cause any other type of form change can now with protons etc produce certain qualities.my point is this electrons don't change form and the nucleous does not change form and yet when i get a group of them together we get certain qualities even though the electrons nor the nucleous change form!! so just because i get a group of electrons all of a sudden some quality emerges even though electrons don't change form,where then does the quality come from?!
ram1024
Jun30-04, 03:24 PM
something itself cannot exert a force unless there is something to exert the force ON.
in essense, an atom could be a bar magnet in your left hand. there's nothing in your right hand, no matter what you do with your right hand to try and detect the properties of the bar magnet in your left hand you get nothing. now put and atom <magnet> in your right hand. by moving your right hand near your left now you can feel the attractions and repulsions that come from proximity of the two magnets (atoms).
the properties of liquid, solid, gas don't come from one atom. they come from atom interactions. just as molecular interactions would make texture
hope this analogy helps some :D
russ_watters
Jun30-04, 03:37 PM
i just don't see it as a complete answer , we know that free electrons are just that free electrons,there are no liquid or solid properties,and yet when put into an atom things change... A house is made of bricks, yet bricks do not posess rooms or windows. I really don't see why you are having such a hard time with this point.electrons don't change form and the nucleous does not change form and yet when i get a group of them together we get certain qualities even though the electrons nor the nucleous change form!! so just because i get a group of electrons all of a sudden some quality emerges even though electrons don't change form... Melting point is a property. Since melting point is the energy at which atoms will break their chrystal structure, why would you think that protons and electrons should have such properties? They aren't aoms. Its axiomatic. ....where then does the quality come from?! Asked and answered several times already. But another analogy: a brick has certain properties and a wall has certain properties. Some of them are smilar, some aren't. Some of the properties of the wall depend more on the grout (is that the word?) holding the bricks together than on the properties of the brick itself. And when you are building a house, you don't care about the properties of the individual bricks, just the properties of the wall. Same with atoms. so just because i get a group of electrons all of a sudden some quality emerges even though electrons don't change form... Yep. where then does the quality come from?! You tell me: what properties do electrons have that affect how they interact with atoms?
thats the thing, are the electrons changing or is something else going on. has it got something to do with the perhaps "communication" if you will between the electron and the proton etc.which is obvious that they do. and the "empty space" between the two.which may have energy yet untapped who's to say. i wish i had the facilities to investigate, i'm sure the things to be found would be fascinating.and right now nobody has the "quality" answer. just bricks and mortar answer and that is just not enough.
its fine for production considerations,you know, i need 100,000lbs of this or that. but not for those that question,want to know and just simply enjoy Discovery.
one last thing from what i understand as well is that the electron at it's center is hollow and so is the proton,although it is not as large as the electrons hollow center,
interesting....HMMM!!
Electrons are thought to be geometric points. They appear to have zero size, and appear to have no internal structure or components. Certainly they are not "hollow."
Protons are thought to be composed of three quarks, which are themselves pointlike like the electron. You could say that the rest of the space inside the proton is empty, but, since particles don't behave like little billiard balls (they are probabilistically spread out in space), the notion is really misplaced.
- Warren
by the way Russ and others thanks for the feed back it's first time i've really had any discussion on this topic of mine it has helped alot and i enjoyed it!!
Electrons are thought to be geometric points. They appear to have zero size, and appear to have no internal structure or components. Certainly they are not "hollow."
__________________________________________
and yet they play such an important part. if we were to take them out of the picture completely what would happen?
from what i understand both electrons and protons have hollow centers.
___________________________________________
Protons are thought to be composed of three quarks, which are themselves pointlike like the electron. You could say that the rest of the space inside the proton is empty, but, since particles don't behave like little billiard balls (they are probabilistically spread out in space), the notion is really misplaced.
- Warren
__________________________________________
just curious, how then do we get the order of matter that we do, i mean elements etc.
i got the information of the hollowness of the electron and proton from Paul Marmet's site, from the paper 1A-X.
north,
I suggest you carefully consider who Paul Marmet is, what his accomplishments are, and why you should or should not believe what he says.
- Warren
north,
I suggest you carefully consider who Paul Marmet is, what his accomplishments are, and why you should or should not believe what he says.
- Warren
___________________________________________
i think this approach is highly inappropriate.
i will not get into a personal and/or reputation bashing session,against anyone.i would perfer that you looked at his theory on its own merits as science should be, nowadays and cold fusion is a good example,there is to much of the personal bashing i will have no part,that said to me there is nobdy above question and nor should they think themselves as above question and if you have any questions about what he has to say then i suggest you make the necessary communication.
now please lets just stick to theories and there validity and discuss.
north
russ_watters
Jul1-04, 10:48 AM
i think this approach is highly inappropriate.
i will not get into a personal and/or reputation bashing session,against anyone.i would perfer that you looked at his theory on its own merits as science should be, nowadays and cold fusion is a good example,there is to much of the personal bashing i will have no part,that said to me there is nobdy above question and nor should they think themselves as above question and if you have any questions about what he has to say then i suggest you make the necessary communication.
now please lets just stick to theories and there validity and discuss.
north Thats a very dangerous way of going about it. You're opening yourself up to be duped. Credibility in science is of critical importance.
As is sometimes the case, people neglect to check out what has been done in the field of interest, and so end up doing many rounds of aimless and endless speculation. In the case of liquids, there's a long history of theory, which in full strength is formidable. A key descriptive variable is the radial distribution function, g(r) -- roughly proportional to the probability of finding a molecule at a distance r from another molecule. (Liquids, like gases are presumed to be isotropic, a characterisic honored by Nature.) For a crystal lattice, g(r) is spikey, reflecting the regular discrete structure of the lattice. For a perfect gas, g(r) = 1; molecules can be found anywhere with equal probability. For liquids, g(r) is in between, much like a damped sine wave, with g(r)=0 at r=0, reflecting a strong repulsive force for molecules very close to each other, then a maxima due to attractive forces from shell-shell interactions, a minima, a smaller maxima, and so forth. X-ray diffraction provides a method to measure g(r), and, I think, that slow neutron scattering does as well.
The game is to compute g(r) from basic molecular properties, and to relate it to the physical properties of the material. What little I know about the subject comes from D.L. Goodstein's States of Matter, available from Dover. In his Statistical Mechanics, Feynman discusses the quantum liquid, liquid helium, which can become a superfluid.
I'm sure a Google search will provide many years worth of reading. As is often the case, simple physical arguments not backed up by mathematics can be quite wrong and misleading. And the language of liquids, primarily statistical mechanics, is difficult indeed.
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson
Thats a very dangerous way of going about it. You're opening yourself up to be duped. Credibility in science is of critical importance.
___________________________________________
Russ
it is only "dangerous" if we don't question and challenge the theory,the person themselves are irrelevent.if we talk of credibility then we would have never questioned Einstein. there is no one who knows it all and is above question and if this happens, that someone is above question, then that is a truly "dangerous" precedent.
has science become a vocation of indoctrination,where the truth of seeking of reality has been clouded with ego and reverence that is above question? if so, then our ability to be objective and discover is lost and we are headed to deevolving in thought and discovery, it is a dark age repeating it's self.
without new ideas, new perpectives by whom ever we will smother understanding and discovery which will keep us moving ahead.
lastly i suggest you e-mail Paul personaly he is open to discussion, if you have the desire to have an open mind. if your set, then don't.
i will not discuss this further.
As is sometimes the case, people neglect to check out what has been done in the field of interest, and so end up doing many rounds of aimless and endless speculation. In the case of liquids, there's a long history of theory, which in full strength is formidable. A key descriptive variable is the radial distribution function, g(r) -- roughly proportional to the probability of finding a molecule at a distance r from another molecule. (Liquids, like gases are presumed to be isotropic, a characterisic honored by Nature.) For a crystal lattice, g(r) is spikey, reflecting the regular discrete structure of the lattice. For a perfect gas, g(r) = 1; molecules can be found anywhere with equal probability. For liquids, g(r) is in between, much like a damped sine wave, with g(r)=0 at r=0, reflecting a strong repulsive force for molecules very close to each other, then a maxima due to attractive forces from shell-shell interactions, a minima, a smaller maxima, and so forth. X-ray diffraction provides a method to measure g(r), and, I think, that slow neutron scattering does as well.
The game is to compute g(r) from basic molecular properties, and to relate it to the physical properties of the material. What little I know about the subject comes from D.L. Goodstein's States of Matter, available from Dover. In his Statistical Mechanics, Feynman discusses the quantum liquid, liquid helium, which can become a superfluid.
I'm sure a Google search will provide many years worth of reading. As is often the case, simple physical arguments not backed up by mathematics can be quite wrong and misleading. And the language of liquids, primarily statistical mechanics, is difficult indeed.
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson
___________________________________________
Reilly
appreciate your in put, however whether the probabilty is this or that does not seem to me to take away from the fact that, if an electron does not change form and that neither does the atom it's self and that since the existence of the molecule and it's qualities depends on the bonds of the two elements which ties up the electrons,protons etc. then where does the qualities of the liquid come from? is it a system dynamics? and if so, with all electrons held in postion so to speak,still where does the qualities of a liquid come from, not the electrons(or maybe) then WHERE?
North -- My point is that if you will study the literature, you will find the answers. Of course the molecules are distorted/perturbed; they collide for goodness sakes. Go to Goodstein's book -- there you will find how the g(r) and the properties of being fluid are related. If you find Goodstein, or equivalent difficult, I imagine the people here who know physics will be happy to help. With all due respect, do your homework .
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson
(retired professor of physics)
Reilly
fair enough, i've ordered the book, my math skills,well lets put it this way i have one year university,tried chemistry 3 times failed 3 times,so needless to say it is my math skills that have prevented me from being where i should be, so i hope i can at least understand the philosophyof what their getting at.
north
Hi North!
I can understand your frustration.
You have a problem and nobody seems to really understand what the question is.
I hope I can help you a bit by not talking to much math, but using analogies.
As far as I understood, you are wondering how identical things like protons and electrons can form so many different appearances in our macroscopic world (right?).
I'll try to answer this:
The basic clue to it is combination.
I hope you agree with me, that identical items can be combined in very different ways. If you take some yellow, red, and blue paint and you take single drops of each, you are able to produce countless different colours, though the individual paintparticles don't change. You agree with me so far?
Then let's go to different structures:
By taking metalbars and screws you are able to produce very different shapes and structures - though the screws and bars themselves are identical.
The same applies to atoms and molecules.
Water's main property (which is the cause for its "strange" behaviour) is its dipol-character. That means, that the oxygen draws a bit stronger at the electrons than the hydrogen does, resulting in a partial charge of the "oxygen-end" of the molecule:
H (+)
(-) O <
H (+)
Therefore water molecules like to arrange themselves in certain structures, depending on the availabe energy (that means temperature)
If you take the above structure to be this: <
then water molecules like to arrange in "stacks" :
<<<<<<<<
This is not a firm bond, it's flexible, therefore resulting in a fluid appearance.
But they need energy to be "movable" in such a way.
When the energy is to low (i.e. it's colder), they form hexameres (that means, six molecules form like a three-dimensional "star"), which is a cristalline structure.
You can imagine, that you can't pack those "spiny" stars as tight as the "stacks" I mentioned above, so frozen water needs more space than fluid water.
Metals have a different structure. They like to arrange themselves in symmetric "grids" (more shaped like cubes). That's a different kind of a crystalline. We imagine it to consist of symmetrically arranged cores with the electrons "floating" freely in between (resulting in the conducting properties of metal).
The "texture" of a metal is a result of inhomogenity. Natural matter is not assembled atom after atom, but kind of "grows". So you don't have one big crystal in a piece of metal, but many different crystals attached to each other and "impurification" with other substances. If you were able to create a "pure" monocristalline piece of metal (as is partially possible by now), the metal would not be textured, but seem absolutely homogenous.
The actual color and surface-property (as reflectivity) is a result of the substances' interaction with light. Depending on how light is absorbed, reflected, etc. we perceive different molecular structures to look diffently in our macroscopic world.
If you are wondering why different molecules form different structures, or why molecules are formed of protons, electrons and neutrons at all,
then I just have to say that this can be explained quite well by basic physical effects as charge-interaction etc. (but I think you know these).
I hope this is of some help for you, if I still didn't get your question right, I'm sorry! Just try again!
Hi North!
I can understand your frustration.
You have a problem and nobody seems to really understand what the question is.
I hope I can help you a bit by not talking to much math, but using analogies.
As far as I understood, you are wondering how identical things like protons and electrons can form so many different appearances in our macroscopic world (right?).
___________________________________________
Ans:Yes
__________________________________________
I'll try to answer this:
The basic clue to it is combination.
I hope you agree with me, that identical items can be combined in very different ways. If you take some yellow, red, and blue paint and you take single drops of each, you are able to produce countless different colours, though the individual paintparticles don't change. You agree with me so far?
___________________________________________
Ans:Yes
___________________________________________
Then let's go to different structures:
By taking metalbars and screws you are able to produce very different shapes and structures - though the screws and bars themselves are identical.
___________________________________________
Ans: true
___________________________________________
The same applies to atoms and molecules.
Water's main property (which is the cause for its "strange" behaviour) is its dipol-character. That means, that the oxygen draws a bit stronger at the electrons than the hydrogen does, resulting in a partial charge of the "oxygen-end" of the molecule:
H (+)
(-) O <
H (+)
Therefore water molecules like to arrange themselves in certain structures, depending on the availabe energy (that means temperature)
If you take the above structure to be this: <
then water molecules like to arrange in "stacks" :
<<<<<<<<
This is not a firm bond, it's flexible, therefore resulting in a fluid appearance.
But they need energy to be "movable" in such a way.
When the energy is to low (i.e. it's colder), they form hexameres (that means, six molecules form like a three-dimensional "star"), which is a cristalline structure.
You can imagine, that you can't pack those "spiny" stars as tight as the "stacks" I mentioned above, so frozen water needs more space than fluid water.
___________________________________________
Ans: so far so good
___________________________________________
Metals have a different structure. They like to arrange themselves in symmetric "grids" (more shaped like cubes). That's a different kind of a crystalline. We imagine it to consist of symmetrically arranged cores with the electrons "floating" freely in between (resulting in the conducting properties of metal).
___________________________________________
Ques: if the electrons are floating freely how does it keep it's balance,keep it's existence so to speak?
___________________________________________
The "texture" of a metal is a result of inhomogenity. Natural matter is not assembled atom after atom, but kind of "grows". So you don't have one big crystal in a piece of metal, but many different crystals attached to each other and "impurification" with other substances. If you were able to create a "pure" monocristalline piece of metal (as is partially possible by now), the metal would not be textured, but seem absolutely homogenous.
___________________________________________
Ques: how would i picture this absolutely homogenous state, of this kind of metal?
___________________________________________
The actual color and surface-property (as reflectivity) is a result of the substances' interaction with light. Depending on how light is absorbed, reflected, etc. we perceive different molecular structures to look diffently in our macroscopic world.
___________________________________________
ans:interesting
___________________________________________
If you are wondering why different molecules form different structures, or why molecules are formed of protons, electrons and neutrons at all,
then I just have to say that this can be explained quite well by basic physical effects as charge-interaction etc. (but I think you know these).
__________________________________________
I hope this is of some help for you, if I still didn't get your question right, I'm sorry! Just try again!
___________________________________________
Muddler
i appreciate your effort and the light perspective was something i hadn't yet considered.but lets use that to perhaps help me make myself better understood.
what i think is important here is to actually break the mould or thinking of chemistry. for instance purely on it's own,chemical reaction should produce nothing but electronic behavour.(attraction-repel) however we get more than that, we get textures,hardness softness and those inbetween, these to me are BEYOND simply electronic reactions. we get, because of this electronic behavour,water,steel and an abundance of other states in different circumstances.
by discussing i think i'm getting better at relaying what i'm thinking(or really,what i'm picturing).i can picture at a microscopic level ( in the theory of chemistry at the moment) elements that come together and that the electrons bring them together.but i have a hard time thinking that the electrons and protons ALONE account for liquidity,hardness.it's like i think that when they do come together that they release something(some form of energy,a key themselves which opens up a source)which flows,sort of a energy flux,which transforms, Because of the electronic configuration of the element and/or molecule.
in other words the basic chemistry ALLOWS for the TRANSFORMATION of energy into the form that the chemistries electronics has the potential for.
i have this feeling i'm still not clear.
Muddler thanks for your willingness to try to understand and yes it is frustrating because this is a concept problem,it is well....different.
i think your inability to understand us stems from your misconception of how small ATOMS actually are.
atoms are NOT microscopic. they are so ridiculously unfathomably smaller than microscopic. And inside the atoms are wonderful goodies.
http://www.satirewire.com/news/may02/prizes.shtml
:rofl:
i think your inability to understand us stems from your misconception of how small ATOMS actually are.
atoms are NOT microscopic. they are so ridiculously unfathomably smaller than microscopic. And inside the atoms are wonderful goodies.
http://www.satirewire.com/news/may02/prizes.shtml
:rofl:
___________________________________________
i was hoping they'd find a garden hose filling a pool :biggrin:
it's not the size of the atoms and from chemistry that i have taken many years before i understand the concepts of chemistry i just think that elements and any combination thereof are more than the sum of their parts.
___________________________________________
... i just think that elements and any combination thereof are more than the sum of their parts.
I think I know what your problem is now. But I don't think we will be able to find an answer here.
You deeply want to assign "supernatural" aspects to matter-interaction (which is okay! We just don't know yet!).
Of course there might be more to all the variety we see than just atomic effects, but physics alone is capable of explaining quite a lot of it.
We know how neurotransmitters make our brain work, but we still have no idea what our mind is made of. Is there a soul? What are dreams?
Maybe science will one day be able to explain all of it, maybe we will never know...
I personally have no problem in taking the explanations science gives me so far to picture why water is fluid. What I told you is sufficient for my own understanding of atomic water behaviour.
Finally it is the ability of few to be never satisfied with given answers that drives science forward...
Good luck!
look at what i'm saying this way.
we have a molecule that in some ways behaves as a key to a door.
i have 2H+1O and when i combine the two the state of a liquid becomes.
i look at this as a combination of a lock, when the combination is right the door opens and what comes out is liquid,secondly, even though these molecules collide, the liquid manifestation is realitivly consistent,meaning that the liquid does not come and go,it remains a liquid.all things being stable.
so far we have h2-O molecule(s) which produces a liquid because of this particular combination of elements. and yet in the theory so far there is no suggestion to either the electrons form or the form of the atoms themselves change.
so where does this lead one. no matter their configuration(and/or geometry) or that they collide,does not escape the fact that alone forms(which produce the effect) aren't changing yet the result of this combination of forms(electrons-atoms) brings forth a state which is beyond their normal capacity except at very low temperatures.and that when these two get together they "burn" WHAT is burning?
is it not possible that there is something here that could be,with deeper analysis,seen as a state of energy that as of yet has not yet been explored?
call it supernatural if you so choose,but what ever you may call it,i would say that provokes thought.
I'm sorry, but I think you still have an inadequate image of what a liquid is.
H20 is not "becoming a state of liquidity" the moment the atoms are combined.
In fact, water is only liquid in a very narrow range of temperature (and pressure). Zero to a hundred degrees Celsius might seem a lot to us, but from a universal point of view, most of the water should be either frozen or vaporized. (actually, deeply frozen water clouds far out in space behave a lot more like fluid water, than the ice we observe here on earth, but that's not the point...)
So, a water molecule is not a liquid per se.
It only behaves like what we call "liquid" under very special circumstances (i.e. pressure and temperature)
This behaviour, manifested through its interaction with other water-molecules, is fairly explainable through its physicochemical structure (as I explained earlier).
I know, you think: "I take a piece of one gas and two pieces of another and I get a liquid" - and that might sound quite magical.
The problem is, no atom or molecule "is a gas" or "is a liquid" primarily. We usually see which appearance a certain substance has under (to us) "normal" circumstances here on earth and automatically assign this special state to the substance in general.
This generalized image (like: "water is a liquid - no matter what") is what causes a lot of misunderstanding. If you understand that every substance can be either massive, liquid or gas, depending on the physical environment, then there should be no need for additional undiscovered effects. Of course, the subatomic mechanisms that keep atoms and molecules together are not always easy to understand, but I am convinced and satisfied by current physical explanations of why the water in my glass is liquid.
Cheers!
russ_watters
Jul9-04, 08:14 AM
It only behaves like what we call "liquid" under very special circumstances (i.e. pressure and temperature)
This behaviour, manifested through its interaction with other water-molecules, is fairly explainable through its physicochemical structure (as I explained earlier). Good answer, but I'd go a little further: this behavior is explainable to a very high degree of precision through its chemical structure/behavior.
I'm sorry, but I think you still have an inadequate image of what a liquid is.
H20 is not "becoming a state of liquidity" the moment the atoms are combined.
In fact, water is only liquid in a very narrow range of temperature (and pressure). Zero to a hundred degrees Celsius might seem a lot to us, but from a universal point of view, most of the water should be either frozen or vaporized. (actually, deeply frozen water clouds far out in space behave a lot more like fluid water, than the ice we observe here on earth, but that's not the point...)
___________________________________________
Reqest: please elaborate on the cloud point.
___________________________________________
So, a water molecule is not a liquid per se.
It only behaves like what we call "liquid" under very special circumstances (i.e. pressure and temperature)
___________________________________________
Reply: this i can follow,it makes sense,since at very low temperatures,both H&O are themselves in a liquid state.
___________________________________________
This behaviour, manifested through its interaction with other water-molecules, is fairly explainable through its physicochemical structure (as I explained earlier).
I know, you think: "I take a piece of one gas and two pieces of another and I get a liquid" - and that might sound quite magical.
___________________________________________
Reply: yes and no for i have touched on the fact that at very low temperatures that both H&O have liquid states.
___________________________________________
The problem is, no atom or molecule "is a gas" or "is a liquid" primarily. We usually see which appearance a certain substance has under (to us) "normal" circumstances here on earth and automatically assign this special state to the substance in general.
This generalized image (like: "water is a liquid - no matter what") is what causes a lot of misunderstanding. If you understand that every substance can be either massive, liquid or gas, depending on the physical environment, then there should be no need for additional undiscovered effects. Of course, the subatomic mechanisms that keep atoms and molecules together are not always easy to understand, but I am convinced and satisfied by current physical explanations of why the water in my glass is liquid.
Cheers!
___________________________________________
Reply: but does this really explain "WHAT" this molecule is really manifesting. under certain circumstances,whether on Earth or in space the potential form is still there.
in other words, i'm not disagreeing with the forms it would take,depending on environment,which it seems is explained here but rather the essence of it's form and potential, in the first place. so the form of which it takes or environment is not so much my concern but rather the existence of this energy potential is,go deeper than it's forms,to the essence of the energy of it's forms,which is manipulated by the environment.
Good answer, but I'd go a little further: this behavior is explainable to a very high degree of precision through its chemical structure/behavior.
___________________________________________
but does that really ans. the question,the structure or the behavior is not really the query,rather it is the essence of existence of the substance which brings forth the forms.that is the question!? since it is beyond the atom(s) and/or electrons themselves.
russ_watters
Jul9-04, 01:38 PM
but does that really ans. the question,the structure or the behavior is not really the query,rather it is the essence of existence of the substance which brings forth the forms.that is the question!? since it is beyond the atom(s) and/or electrons themselves. From the standpoint of chemistry (self evident, but bears repeating) the liquid known as "water" is defined by the chemical properties of water molecules.
It really seems to me like you are looking for some deeper meaning to something that has no deeper meaning.
Please elaborate on the cloud point
I almost regret mentioning it
:wink:
I don't know too much about this phenomenon, for I am no astrophysicist, but I might find some links for you...
What I have heard is the following: giant water clouds in deep space seem to behave like viscous liquids in a way that organic molecules are able to be formed and organized in them (to stop speculations: that does not mean life or anything).
Those clouds have to be real huge, in a way that their own gravitational pressure kind of "breaks up" the crystal-structure that is normally found in ice.
(I hope I recalled this right, otherwise some scientist is gonna kill me... :uhh: )
We really do not know much about the deep, deep why's of nature. Why does QM afford us such a powerful descriptive tool? Who knows? Wigner wrote about the mystery of why Nature is susceptible to mathematical analysis. Again, who knows?
But as quite a few have stressed in this thread, basic QM does an astonishing job of describing water, in its various forms, as well as the hardness of metals, the spectra of hydrogen, the secrets of chemical bonding in all its arcane forms. We can do a great job of describing Nature from a few basic ideas. Why those ideas work is anyone's guess.
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson
geistkiesel
Jul10-04, 02:06 PM
___________________________________________
Reply: but does this really explain "WHAT" this molecule is really manifesting. under certain circumstances,whether on Earth or in space the potential form is still there.
in other words, i'm not disagreeing with the forms it would take,depending on environment,which it seems is explained here but rather the essence of it's form and potential, in the first place. so the form of which it takes or environment is not so much my concern but rather the existence of this energy potential is,go deeper than it's forms,to the essence of the energy of it's forms,which is manipulated by the environment.
I don't know if this will help, but consider the developing fetus during pregnancy. Why does not the fetus just end up aa a bag of a mixture of protein? The fetus has lot of information it must structure as to provide somehow for the growing of pubic hair later, of breasts, baldness and so on. DNA is the usul knee jerk response, but this doesn't answer anything. The DNA in you tongue is the same DNA in you little toe. How does the form develop as it does? Can DNA actually be responsible for why I favored my mother's external looks, facial charateristics and so on, blond and blue, while my sister favrored our dad, fairly dark hair, brown eyes and clearly facially rsimilar? I cannot see how this can occur. There must be some unifying resonance, a habitual attuning if you will, that moderates or models things as they form.
A protein for instance, manufatctured by DNA and RNA processes in the cells can be many thousands of amino acids long. When manufactured it is strung out in a a very long thread, There may be hundreds of final shapes that are very near to a minimum potential for a random folding process, yet each unique proton always folds exactly like the trillion upon trillions of proteins that folded before the newest. All humans share identical proteins, yet it is important to realize that only one shape will be sufficient for the function of the protein. It ain't all chemistry and electronics, gravity or nuclear forces.
And water, there isn't a more importatnt chemical in the universe. There my be some that are as important as water, but the sheer simplicity of water and the infinite variety in critical fuinctions it peforms is too much to start thinking in awed terms. You will paralyze yourself if you do. Have a drink then go find your wife, she wants you to be looking for her you know..
geistkiesel
Jul10-04, 03:13 PM
___________________________________________
Reply: but does this really explain "WHAT" this molecule is really manifesting. under certain circumstances,whether on Earth or in space the potential form is still there.
in other words, i'm not disagreeing with the forms it would take,depending on environment,which it seems is explained here but rather the essence of it's form and potential, in the first place. so the form of which it takes or environment is not so much my concern but rather the existence of this energy potential is,go deeper than it's forms,to the essence of the energy of it's forms,which is manipulated by the environment.
I don't know if this will help, but consider the developing fetus during pregnancy. Why does not the fetus just end up aa a bag of a mixture of protein? The fetus has lot of information it must structure as to provide somehow for the growing of pubic hair later, of breasts, baldness and so on. DNA is the usul knee jerk response, but this doesn't answer anything. The DNA in you tongue is the same DNA in you little toe. How does the form develop as it does? Can DNA actually be responsible for why I favored my mother's external looks, facial charateristics and so on, blond and blue, while my sister favrored our dad, fairly dark hair, brown eyes and clearly facially rsimilar? I cannot see how this can occur. There must be some unifying resonance, a habitual attuning if you will, that moderates or models things as they form.
A protein for instance, manufatctured by DNA and RNA processes in the cells can be many thousands of amino acids long. When manufactured it is strung out in a a very long thread, There may be hundreds of final shapes that are very near to a minimum potential for a random folding process, yet each unique proton always folds exactly like the trillion upon trillions of proteins that folded before the newest. All humans share identical proteins, yet it is important to realize that only one shape will be sufficient for the function of the protein. It ain't all chemistry and electronics, gravity or nuclear forces.
And water, there isn't a more importatnt chemical in the universe. There my be some that are as important as water, but the sheer simplicity of water and the infinite variety in critical fuinctions it peforms is too much to start thinking in awed terms. You will paralyze yourself if you do. Have a drink then go find your wife, she wants you to be looking for her you know..
From the standpoint of chemistry (self evident, but bears repeating) the liquid known as "water" is defined by the chemical properties of water molecules.
It really seems to me like you are looking for some deeper meaning to something that has no deeper meaning.
___________________________________________
Really is not meaning it is "deeper understanding" which to me is the next step,we have the basics, now it is time to ask again,in some sense, what may seem obvious, deeper questions.
I almost regret mentioning it
:wink:
I don't know too much about this phenomenon, for I am no astrophysicist, but I might find some links for you...
What I have heard is the following: giant water clouds in deep space seem to behave like viscous liquids in a way that organic molecules are able to be formed and organized in them (to stop speculations: that does not mean life or anything).
Those clouds have to be real huge, in a way that their own gravitational pressure kind of "breaks up" the crystal-structure that is normally found in ice.
(I hope I recalled this right, otherwise some scientist is gonna kill me... :uhh: )
__________________________________________
no problem, explore it, then you'll know!!
We really do not know much about the deep, deep why's of nature. Why does QM afford us such a powerful descriptive tool? Who knows? Wigner wrote about the mystery of why Nature is susceptible to mathematical analysis. Again, who knows?
___________________________________________
as Einstein says first the Concept then the Math. both are tools that are critical to understanding,things.
___________________________________________
But as quite a few have stressed in this thread, basic QM does an astonishing job of describing water, in its various forms, as well as the hardness of metals, the spectra of hydrogen, the secrets of chemical bonding in all its arcane forms. We can do a great job of describing Nature from a few basic ideas. Why those ideas work is anyone's guess.
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson
___________________________________________
True, however perhaps we should get back to asking fundamental questions again and bring back the want to know rather than resting on what we do know.we have the fundamentals, lets use them to explore deeper questions.my question is not about the disrespect of what we know,rather using what we know to go deeper.from Galileo to the present, is that not precisely what we have been doing,True!?
for i find that the rewards will be fascinating.
I don't know if this will help, but consider the developing fetus during pregnancy. Why does not the fetus just end up aa a bag of a mixture of protein? The fetus has lot of information it must structure as to provide somehow for the growing of pubic hair later, of breasts, baldness and so on. DNA is the usul knee jerk response, but this doesn't answer anything. The DNA in you tongue is the same DNA in you little toe. How does the form develop as it does? Can DNA actually be responsible for why I favored my mother's external looks, facial charateristics and so on, blond and blue, while my sister favrored our dad, fairly dark hair, brown eyes and clearly facially rsimilar? I cannot see how this can occur. There must be some unifying resonance, a habitual attuning if you will, that moderates or models things as they form.
A protein for instance, manufatctured by DNA and RNA processes in the cells can be many thousands of amino acids long. When manufactured it is strung out in a a very long thread, There may be hundreds of final shapes that are very near to a minimum potential for a random folding process, yet each unique proton always folds exactly like the trillion upon trillions of proteins that folded before the newest. All humans share identical proteins, yet it is important to realize that only one shape will be sufficient for the function of the protein. It ain't all chemistry and electronics, gravity or nuclear forces.
And water, there isn't a more importatnt chemical in the universe. There my be some that are as important as water, but the sheer simplicity of water and the infinite variety in critical fuinctions it peforms is too much to start thinking in awed terms. You will paralyze yourself if you do. Have a drink then go find your wife, she wants you to be looking for her you know..
___________________________________________
try a systems approach to life, i've been reading a book by Fritjof Capra,"The Web of Life"(ISBN#0-385-47676-0) fascinating read,for example even non-living matter order themselves into a system.
Reilly
i finally got the book "States of Matter" i'll do my best to understand. but the math!! i'm sure i'll learn something though.thanks for the suggestion!
north
Reilly
i finally got the book "States of Matter" i'll do my best to understand. but the math!! i'm sure i'll learn something though.thanks for the suggestion!
north
Good luck -- it's a graduate level text, and, indeed, is full of difficult math. But it does, I think, give some insight into how professional physicists go about understanding matter. I think you'll find also, the use of physical intuition and "physics" as a guide to better understanding. It's the real deal. Your efforts with such a book will pay handsomely.
I suspect that questions you run into might be good issues for discussion.
Again, good for you, and good luck.
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson
russ_watters
Jul11-04, 09:15 PM
True, however perhaps we should get back to asking fundamental questions again and bring back the want to know rather than resting on what we do know.we have the fundamentals, lets use them to explore deeper questions.my question is not about the disrespect of what we know,rather using what we know to go deeper.from Galileo to the present, is that not precisely what we have been doing,True!? Well, ok - then ask questions and propose experiments to find the answers to them. I expect what you'll find is that the questions have already been asked and the answers already found. Reading a chemistry textbook may help prevent your wasting time by spinning your wheels in place.
loseyourname
Jul11-04, 09:40 PM
You know, I remember you asking this in the Chemistry forum, and I think the answers given there were adequate.
russ_watters
Jul12-04, 10:12 AM
You know, I remember you asking this in the Chemistry forum, and I think the answers given there were adequate....and reading over that thread, we gave much the same answers here. If the properties we describe with chemistry can be adequately described by chemistry, then is meaningless to look for some other cause.
Well, ok - then ask questions and propose experiments to find the answers to them. I expect what you'll find is that the questions have already been asked and the answers already found. Reading a chemistry textbook may help prevent your wasting time by spinning your wheels in place.
___________________________________________
i would start with an experiment in which you take one hydrogen and oxygen atom,separately, in as complete vacum as possible, slowly bring them down,in temperature, to the known liquidity state and analysing,i mean in minute increments with control,from as many points of view as possible,electromagnetic,movment,electron change(form),geometry of atom (form),and any energy out put or the trying to draw in energy or any shape that might imply this.also if necessary add one atom at a time and with each atom added, analyze results,slowly methodically. and if possible give it as much time as possible.
then introduce one hydrgen and one oxygen atom together at room temperature,under as controlled conditions as possible,even to the point of speed of bonding,with analysis at every point,with increments as minute as possible.with the ability of holding a set position,slower the better.
Russ
i was wondering,do you know what i'm really trying to get at? you've described the production of water.since you agree that the electrons don't change and the atoms themselves don't change in any way,i find that your answer is not deep enough. you mentioned that when hydrogen and oxygen get together that they "burn", well then WHAT burns????? surely electrons don't and the atoms themselves don't,so what does? so the "burn" involves well nothing explainable?
russ_watters
Jul12-04, 03:58 PM
i was wondering,do you know what i'm really trying to get at? I suspect that not even you know what you are really trying to get at. Your question about burning is evidence that you don't understand what one means when it is said that something "burns." Ignorance is fine (everyone is ignorant of something), but you'd be well advised to learn such things before trying to push the envelope beyond them. since you agree that the electrons don't change and the atoms themselves don't change in any way,i find that your answer is not deep enough. What about my house analogy? A pile of wood and nails doesn't make a house, but if organized correctly, you can make a house without changing its constiuent parts. Why can't you apply that resoning to molecules? you mentioned that when hydrogen and oxygen get together that they "burn", well then WHAT burns????? surely electrons don't and the atoms themselves don't,so what does? so the "burn" involves well nothing explainable? All it implies in chemistry is that two hydrogen and one oxygen molecule got together and are now sharing some electrons. Energy (in the form of heat) is released when this happens.
What do you think is implied by the word "burns?" Why do you believe something more must be happening? Where does "surely electrons don't..." come from? Who suggested that they do? What do you think should be happening to them? Doesn't the fact that the process is reversable, repeatable, and predictible using the tools of chemistry indicate that chemistry's explanation is sufficient? i would start with an experiment in which you... That's not bad. What do you think would happen in this experiment and why?
You know, I remember you asking this in the Chemistry forum, and I think the answers given there were adequate.
___________________________________________
actually the answers are not adequate,if you have read the forum throughly you will find a surface explaination.for as of yet "WHERE" or "WHAT" the form of liquid comes from is beyond "production". and as of now it has been a purely productionest understanding. this is beyond production,it is understanding it's(liquid,water) essence of existence,not the cause and effect(of chemistry) but rather the existence of the state after the cause and effect react, with neither having any change in themseleves and in any way change the shape or form of the constituents and yet bring forth a form completely different from themseleves.
I suspect that not even you know what you are really trying to get at. Your question about burning is evidence that you don't understand what one means when it is said that something "burns."
___________________________________________
and yet nobody has tried to explain! i've asked this before but it has been over-looked.please explain!!
___________________________________________
Ignorance is fine (everyone is ignorant of something), but you'd be well advised to learn such things before trying to push the envelope beyond them. What about my house analogy? A pile of wood and nails doesn't make a house, but if organized correctly, you can make a house without changing its constiuent parts. Why can't you apply that resoning to molecules? All it implies in chemistry is that two hydrogen and one oxygen molecule got together and are now sharing some electrons. Energy (in the form of heat) is released when this happens.
___________________________________________
but WHY is my point,if something burns does it not mean something is the fuel? WHAT is the fuel?
___________________________________________
What do you think is implied by the word "burns?" Why do you believe something more must be happening?
___________________________________________
Why? for instance we know that at extremly low temperatures there can be a burning.if one substance is lower in temperature than the other there can be a burning effect when the two combine.
___________________________________________
Where does "surely electrons don't..." come from?
___________________________________________
nobody made the comment that they do, otherwise i would know that electrons would change form,but since nobody said anything to contrary i assume they don't,if they do tell me, if i'm wrong no problem.
___________________________________________
Who suggested that they do?
___________________________________________
nobody.
___________________________________________
What do you think should be happening to them?
___________________________________________
not necessarily anything,maybe something,it's just a possiblity perhaps. but if not then what is happening?
___________________________________________
Doesn't the fact that the process is reversable, repeatable, and predictible using the tools of chemistry indicate that chemistry's explanation is sufficient?
___________________________________________
No, because i think that production is one thing the true essence is another.
also, is this not just a basic understanding,for i find that perhaps we can get more(energy) out of atoms than we do now.
___________________________________________
That's not bad. What do you think would happen in this experiment and why?
___________________________________________
what i think would happen in this experiment is that we would find that there is a release or flow of energy that was not expected and as well, this out flow could be shaped by the passing of the out flow by the electrons themselves or maybe electrons do change,i would not be surprised and perhaps even the frezzing of magnetism into a fluid which makes it wave, which to me always was, but condenses it, also there is a depth to inside the atom it's self, could it's self flow energy,which is what i suspect.frezzing just makes it easer for the energy to flow. of course there could be ambient influence too.
but if we take it one slow step at a time the dynamics i'm sure will come apparent.even if not clear why.i'm sure the experiment will show interesting results. i wish i could be there if this done!!
north
Russ
i would also like to know hydrogen and oxygens resting temperature,pressure and electrodynamics per atom at room temperature. and contrast this info. with liquid states at very low temperatures."WHAT" change is there, is there change in each atom!? if so,how does the change manifest it's self? in what form, specifically?
russ_watters
Jul13-04, 08:41 AM
...the existence of the state after the cause and effect react, with neither having any change in themseleves and in any way change the shape or form of the constituents and yet bring forth a form completely different from themseleves. You have yet to comment on my house analogy. What is it about this analogy that you consider insufficient?and yet nobody has tried to explain! i've asked this before but it has been over-looked.please explain!! For some reason, you quoted my explanation but didn't respond to it. Here it is again: All it implies in chemistry is that two hydrogen and one oxygen molecule got together and are now sharing some electrons. Energy (in the form of heat) is released when this happens. That's combustion: burning.but WHY is my point,if something burns does it not mean something is the fuel? WHAT is the fuel? The hydrogen is the fuel, the oxygen is the oxidizer. Are you under the impression that the fuel must be consumed and cease to exist? It isn't.for instance we know that at extremly low temperatures there can be a burning.if one substance is lower in temperature than the other there can be a burning effect when the two combine. Yes. So what? nobody made the comment that they do, otherwise i would know that electrons would change form,but since nobody said anything to contrary i assume they don't,if they do tell me, if i'm wrong no problem. No, electrons don't burn. Refer to my bolded explanation of what it means to burn. Electrons merely change their orientation (energy level) around atoms. not necessarily anything,maybe something,it's just a possiblity perhaps. but if not then what is happening? Again, its explained above in bold.No, because i think that production is one thing the true essence is another. Huh? What do you mean by "true essence"? Again, chemistry's explanation works. If there was something else behind it, chemistry's explanation would not work.also, is this not just a basic understanding,for i find that perhaps we can get more(energy) out of atoms than we do now. We can: through nuclear reactions. But you need to get a handle on chemical reactions before you can have any hope of understanding what goes on in a nuclear reaction. what i think would happen in this experiment is that we would find that there is a release or flow of energy...[emphasis added] You use the word "energy" a lot and the context you use it in makes it apparent that you have no idea what it means. HERE (http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/Primer/forms_of_energy.htm) is an explanation of what the various forms of energy are. Note, it breaks them apart a little more than necesary: sound is not really a form of energy, but a combination of potential and kinetic. but if we take it one slow step at a time the dynamics i'm sure will come apparent.even if not clear why.i'm sure the experiment will show interesting results. i wish i could be there if this done!! It is difficult to contain a single atom for this purpose. A chemist would say such an experiment is unnecessary because you can glean all the relevant chemical information from watching groups of atoms. In fact, nothing much of interest would happen to that single atom in your experiment: Pretty much everything we experience in our everyday world except for the sun, nuclear power, and gravity comes from chemical interaction.
But in any case, what would happen is the electron would slowly reduce its energy level in the steps predicted by chemistry. That's it.
russ_watters
Jul13-04, 08:58 AM
I'm going back over the thread to see if I can find more of the source of your misunderstanding. Here's a biggie: okay it is a state. but lets go back to why then that hydrogen and oxygen both go to a liquid state at very low temperatures. there are no bonds,molecules or configurations there. what happens here? Yes, there are bonds, molecules, and configurations there. Two hydrogen atoms stick together to form a hydrogen molecule. Why do hydrogen molecules enter a liquid state at a different temperature than water molecules? Different molecules contain different strength bonds.
Also, I keep thinking about this post: fair enough, i've ordered the book, my math skills,well lets put it this way i have one year university,tried chemistry 3 times failed 3 times,so needless to say it is my math skills that have prevented me from being where i should be, so i hope i can at least understand the philosophyof what their getting at. There is very little math in 1st semester chemistry. The problem you are having, as I see it, is you just plain are not listening to the explanations given to you. You are spending all your time asking these questions and not spending any time learning what is actually known. I wouldn't normally recommend it, but even if you were to simply memorize and regurgitate what your chemistry teacher was teaching you, not only would you pass the course, but you'd likely pick up at least some understanding of the subject. Right now, it seems like you're ignoring the subject of chemistry entirely. It may even be due to frustration - you had some trouble the first time, so now you don't want to try agan. Maybe you hope that by asking these questions, you can avoid learning chemistry. Sorry, but you can't. Chemistry is tough. It takes some effort. If you truly want to understand the nature of molecules and atoms, you're going to have to learn it.
And even if there is some 'deeper meaning' to all of this or something else going on, it doesn't matter: you must learn the chemistry first. I'll let you in on a little secret: there is more going on (though its really not all that relevant here). But you are nowhere near ready for it.
I'm going back over the thread to see if I can find more of the source of your misunderstanding. Here's a biggie: Yes, there are bonds, molecules, and configurations there. Two hydrogen atoms stick together to form a hydrogen molecule. Why do hydrogen molecules enter a liquid state at a different temperature than water molecules? Different molecules contain different strength bonds.
___________________________________________
bonds are important otherwise water would not exist.
and bonds in my chemistry book is ALL they talk about. the book does not tell us why the end result leads to water other than the bonds involved.there is a "cause"-the bonding of H2&O,the "effect"-liquid state, if this true then from here it follows that for this liquid state to exist then the bonds must remain intact.so looking at this from a different perspective WHAT would happen if you were to slowly break this bond,slowly pull them apart? how would it's liquid state behave? it would cease to be, but just before the bonds break, what changes in the liquid's state form would happen? once the liquid ceases to be then slowly bring them back together so that,at minute increments,the liquid state forms again and repeat this until we can see precisely what happens. just keep going back and forth,in this way we could see why the bonding of H2&O brings forth a liquid state in the first place.
___________________________________________
Also, I keep thinking about this post: There is very little math in 1st semester chemistry. The problem you are having, as I see it, is you just plain are not listening to the explanations given to you. You are spending all your time asking these questions and not spending any time learning what is actually known. I wouldn't normally recommend it, but even if you were to simply memorize and regurgitate what your chemistry teacher was teaching you, not only would you pass the course, but you'd likely pick up at least some understanding of the subject. Right now, it seems like you're ignoring the subject of chemistry entirely. It may even be due to frustration - you had some trouble the first time, so now you don't want to try agan. Maybe you hope that by asking these questions, you can avoid learning chemistry. Sorry, but you can't. Chemistry is tough. It takes some effort. If you truly want to understand the nature of molecules and atoms, you're going to have to learn it.
___________________________________________
my chemistry course which i took was concerned more with how many moles to produce such and such.
___________________________________________
And even if there is some 'deeper meaning' to all of this or something else going on, it doesn't matter: you must learn the chemistry first. I'll let you in on a little secret: there is more going on (though its really not all that relevant here). But you are nowhere near ready for it.
___________________________________________
where this "meaning" comes from i don't know,it's as i've said before a "DEEPER UNDERSTANDING" oh i know more is going on but it's ALL related to bonds and with geometry,temperature,electronics,pressure etc. and obviously what i'm asking must be beyond all this because the question that i've asked has not been answered and neither is the question "what burns" when they get together,for you have not answered it still as of yet. you brought it up but fail to give an explaination,i can't help but think that you don't really know the answer.as for what i'm ready for or not ready for, i can't be doing to bad since i've asked a fundamental question that as of yet can not answered!! sometimes someone looking in from the outside or someone within but stepping back a bit can see things others don't. because it can be easy to miss the obvious or if not obvious then a different perspective.
russ_watters
Jul15-04, 10:43 AM
bonds are important otherwise water would not exist.
and bonds in my chemistry book is ALL they talk about. the book does not tell us why the end result leads to water other than the bonds involved.there is a "cause"-the bonding of H2&O,the "effect"-liquid state, if this true then from here it follows that for this liquid state to exist then the bonds must remain intact. That's all correct. so looking at this from a different perspective WHAT would happen if you were to slowly break this bond,slowly pull them apart? how would it's liquid state behave? it would cease to be, but just before the bonds break, what changes in the liquid's state form would happen? That's called a "gas." once the liquid ceases to be then slowly bring them back together so that,at minute increments,the liquid state forms again and repeat this until we can see precisely what happens. just keep going back and forth,in this way we could see why the bonding of H2&O brings forth a liquid state in the first place. "Why" is not a question science is really equipped to answer. That's just the way it works. If you're religious, you could choose to believe God designed the 3 phases of matter to work that way. Its not relevant to the question of HOW it works though - and the explanation given (which, it appears you understand, its just that it isn't satisfying to you for some reason). where this "meaning" comes from i don't know,it's as i've said before a "DEEPER UNDERSTANDING" oh i know more is going on but it's ALL related to bonds and with geometry,temperature,electronics,pressure etc. and obviously what i'm asking must be beyond all this because the question that i've asked has not been answered and neither is the question "what burns" when they get together,for you have not answered it still as of yet. you brought it up but fail to give an explaination,i can't help but think that you don't really know the answer. "What burns"? Hydrogen burns in the presence of oxygen. I've answered it a number of times now - you just aren't accepting that that is all thats going on. I can't help you with that. as for what i'm ready for or not ready for, i can't be doing to bad since i've asked a fundamental question that as of yet can not answered!! No. You've asked basic questions that have been answered, a handful of meaningless questions, some unanswerable questions, and some irrelevant questions. If I accomplish anything here, helping you see the difference would be key. sometimes someone looking in from the outside or someone within but stepping back a bit can see things others don't. because it can be easy to miss the obvious or if not obvious then a different perspective. I'm sorry, but the reason you are failing chemistry is you refuse to look at it from the inside. If you can't understand something, you can't know its wrong or incomplete. You must get a complete understanding of the known meaning before you can look for deeper one. That should be obvious - how can you know what "deeper" is unless you have a more basic explanation from which to reference it. How deep is a pool that is 3 feet deeper?
That's all correct. That's called a "gas." "Why" is not a question science is really equipped to answer. That's just the way it works. If you're religious, you could choose to believe God designed the 3 phases of matter to work that way. Its not relevant to the question of HOW it works though - and the explanation given (which, it appears you understand, its just that it isn't satisfying to you for some reason).
___________________________________________
really,WHY is not the answer that science is equipped to answer? is that not the question,of WHY, we've been asking ourselves all along.we've discovered the HOW which is a start,now it is time for WHY. to place it to god or whatever is a signal to me that there is a lack,limit, of imagination here,it is time to dig deeper.
___________________________________________
"What burns"? Hydrogen burns in the presence of oxygen. I've answered it a number of times now - you just aren't accepting that that is all thats going on. I can't help you with that.
___________________________________________
that is the first time you have actually answered the question.
___________________________________________
No. You've asked basic questions that have been answered, a handful of meaningless questions, some unanswerable questions, and some irrelevant questions. If I accomplish anything here, helping you see the difference would be key. I'm sorry, but the reason you are failing chemistry is you refuse to look at it from the inside. If you can't understand something, you can't know its wrong or incomplete. You must get a complete understanding of the known meaning before you can look for deeper one. That should be obvious - how can you know what "deeper" is unless you have a more basic explanation from which to reference it. How deep is a pool that is 3 feet deeper?
___________________________________________
the key here is that this is beyond simple bonds etc. for the essence of HOW is known,but the essence of WHAT and WHY is not. it reminds me of an architect,in that here are the materials,we learn about the materials,strengh,flexiblity,shapes,endurance and yet does not need to know or necessarily want to know their essence.
so chemistry has become a form of architecture,we know how but no longer have the desire nor the want to know WHAT or WHY this form is so, since logically to chemists, there is no deeper answer than bonds,when in reality bonds in themselves are not enough to answer the question of,WHAT,is water the manifestation of? if you knew then your explaination would go beyond bonds etc. but the explaination does not, it is much like the carpenter knows that a screw will join to pieces of wood together,yet has no desire to understand the screw itself nor cares too!
the word science is from the GREEK language to know,we have lost the desire to know and now are technicians of what is known.
North -- I hate to say it, but you are either pulling our collective chains, or being seriously disingenuous. Liquids are much harder to understand than either solids or gases -- the molecules are neither highly constrained, and have little kinetic energy, nor are they quite free with their gaseous state energy being primarily kinetic, gases typically live as they do in long-range potentials, and quite nicely described by the Maxwell-Boltzman distribition (no electron gases until second or third year physids and chemistry). The various states of water have a lot to do with the strength of hydrogen bonds.
If you want to understand water and the fluid state, you must, repeat must be able to master first year chemistry. If you don't, you very likely might not even recognize a valid discussion of water. No wonder you posit the possibility of electrons changing-- it does not happen. Fluidity depends on the details that apparently you could not grasp in your chemistry course, basics like atomic theory, chemical bonding and the like. You have a lot of homework to do.
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson
Gokul43201
Jul18-04, 06:38 PM
north, do you understand what makes something a liquid ? The liquid state is typically characterized by its viscosity, which is a macroscopic manifestation of inter-molecular forces. Water (H2O) is a liquid because the strength of the intermolecular hydrogen bonds is just right to make the viscosity be in the requisite range.
terrabyte
Jul18-04, 09:06 PM
yes and nothing is "burned" and "consumed" in the creation of water H2O from Hydrogens and Oxygen. Energy is released from this reaction. it's a strong bond and it takes a lot of energy to "break" this bond, which is where conservation of energy comes into play.
North -- I hate to say it, but you are either pulling our collective chains, or being seriously disingenuous. Liquids are much harder to understand than either solids or gases -- the molecules are neither highly constrained, and have little kinetic energy, nor are they quite free with their gaseous state energy being primarily kinetic, gases typically live as they do in long-range potentials, and quite nicely described by the Maxwell-Boltzman distribition (no electron gases until second or third year physids and chemistry). The various states of water have a lot to do with the strength of hydrogen bonds.
___________________________________________
Reilly, it is not the bonds i have trouble with,for they are IMPORTANT,Maxwell-Boltzman distribution is a mathematical function of state of Quantitiy of change,which is statistical statement of position and velocity particles at any time,according to my dictionary(chemistry).and the physics dictionary is no different. this to me is beyond STATISTICS. my challenge is this, try the experiment which i proposed with the minute increment freezing of hydrogen and oxygen seperately, and go from there,before anybody debunks me,with i hope an open mind and honour for i find,no insult intended,but with the Cold Fusion mess,which by the way is being performed all over the world,i have my doubts whether the truth will be openly admitted to me, i don't want to here about preconcived conclusions,just do it! and see what happens.!!
___________________________________________
If you want to understand water and the fluid state, you must, repeat must be able to master first year chemistry. If you don't, you very likely might not even recognize a valid discussion of water. No wonder you posit the possibility of electrons changing-- it does not happen.
___________________________________________
my proposal of electron change was simply an idea, not written in stone.
___________________________________________
Fluidity depends on the details that apparently you could not grasp in your chemistry course, basics like atomic theory, chemical bonding and the like. You have a lot of homework to do.
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson
___________________________________________
this not details of atomic theory nor is it, the lack of understanding of basic chemistry.it is the understanding of when they(H2&O) combine,WHY and then WHAT is the reason this combination brings forth the state they do!! atomic theory and basic chemistry give a bonding concept of the dynamics involved to bring forth the state of liquidity. this is cause and effect only. now WHY does this cause and effect have this result, that is my question. the cause of the frame of the house to be, is the effect of the screws with wood.but what is the cause and effect of before the frame, before the shape,that which gives it it's shape, there exists the forms(energies) which allow the states to be,which brings forth,in the end, the end result because of the cause and effect before the chemical cause and effect allows this to happen.
in other words the frames becomes,but it is the nature of the elements essence of the frames which allows the forum of the frames(ecssence,shapes) to become in the first place. which takes certain combinations and ordered structures of their outer essence to bring forth their form.
terrabyte
Jul18-04, 10:03 PM
people have said electrons MANY times this thread.
someone post the "stone deaf" forum warrior :D
Reilly
forgive me if i may seem distrusting. but as the way science is nowadays and the way reality is, these are real concerns.
dolphin
Jul18-04, 11:36 PM
Hi, this is my first post to this forum.
Unforunately I do not have a computer or internet. I want to see if this actually works when I try to post this. I have skim read some of the discussion on water but this computer is too slow.
Suggest try a GOOGLE search on: water, structure, hydrogen bonds.
I found out that if it wasn't for hydrogen bonds, water would boil at - 90 degrees C.
They say that extremely temporary connected groups of water molecules form and break up again in water. The H3O+OH- decomposition reaction is the fastest in all of chemistry (15 million known chemicals) if I recall what they said.
There is a way of understanding things which can simplify physics and maths; haven't got my notes here but here are some clues:
Mathematics assumes numbers are made of equal-size and equal spaced units. This assumption looks self-referential like Zeno's Arrow where the halving of each remaining gap from the arrow to its target per each moment involves defining each moment in terms of the halved gaps. The "imaginary wall" the arrow supposedly hits in midair before reaching the target is made of the "bricks" of assumed-equal-size moments that actually had no size other than what was defined on, by saying "the next moment the arrow went half the remaining distance".
I came across Dr. Stafford's work, he claimed much of physics was circular reasoning. He seems to be on to something. What we call "physics" appears to be patterns of logic (about "scattergories")(how to break things up and put them back together).
(example: claiming 1 + 1 doesn't equal 2 but could equal 2 requires a third element that could associate with either of the ones)(this basic structure looks like H20 molecule)
What we call "mathematics" appears to be logic of patterns (so about categories)(conservation of separations)(example: claiming 1 + 1 = 2, involves requiring the ones remain separate in the 2)(This basic structure looks like three H20 molecules? two are hydrogen bonded, one is outside; they take turns in which is bonded) (for 1 + 1 to equal 2 requires supersymmetry: a mutually shared space?)
There are little bits of physics (of logic) floating in maths (in categories): called "axioms". These are a math-kind of wave-funtion: "wave" is "group"; "function" is "group"; a "wave-function" is a group-group; that is expansion-room.
An axiom allows expansion in math. It is like an "axion" in physics: it is self-referential.
There are little bits of maths (of categories) floating in physics (in logic): called "wave functions". These are a physics kind of "axiom": they are constrictions (since physics involves logic so expansion-room; a superposed expansion will restrict it).
These are seen as conservation laws. They are like prime numbers in math; they only have two factors, themselves and one.
If you make physics look like math by dealing with lots of little bits (atoms); you may end out with math looking like physics (broken in to big chunks)(so the math becomes irreconcilable; separated; too hard).
This is got around by making physics and math swap places (via "re-normalisation" groups: take any other problem and asociate it with your current problem)(looks like H30+OH- reaction?)
If you measure anything you see sub-atomic particle patterns: measure a chair-arm with a book: call them "c" and "b": how can you measure them: so far just have 1 to 1?
So you divide one (make one at least 2 to the other): this threesome is called "colour" as in quantum chromo-dynamics.
How conserve your measurement? Need divide both: but which division came first? This "time" issue introduces anti-colour.
How conserve again? Need another division. This reconciles colour and anti-colour: have one "mark" and six quarks. But to see the quarks and the colours requires a further division: get 8 gluons.
Eventually you end out with "Higgs particles" the concept "particle" requires a unit on a background.
Science involves: take some ingredients. Change something, see if anything else changed or not. Carefully describe the basic process of doing science and you seem to get the patterns we call the standard model.
The five forces of physics appear to relate as:
electro-magnetic: + / -
weak/ strong: x / divide
gravity: =
loop quantum gravity appears to be disguised set theory; string theory appears to be disguised number-lines.
-just a hint of what I found
Alan
russ_watters
Jul19-04, 08:11 AM
forgive me if i may seem distrusting. but as the way science is nowadays and the way reality is, these are real concerns. I'm not sure what you mean by that, but sceince, especially in the past century has been enormously successful in explaining how the natural world works. If science was wrong, none of our modern technology - including the computer you are using now, would work.
I know you are frustrated by your failure thus far, but you're just going to have to get over it and make the effort to learn the way things really are if you really desire to learn how the natural world works. We've done all we can to help you short of trying to teach you all of 1st semester chemistry.
Hi, this is my first post to this forum.
Unforunately I do not have a computer or internet. I want to see if this actually works when I try to post this. I have skim read some of the discussion on water but this computer is too slow.
Suggest try a GOOGLE search on: water, structure, hydrogen bonds.
I found out that if it wasn't for hydrogen bonds, water would boil at - 90 degrees C.
They say that extremely temporary connected groups of water molecules form and break up again in water. The H3O+OH- decomposition reaction is the fastest in all of chemistry (15 million known chemicals) if I recall what they said.
There is a way of understanding things which can simplify physics and maths; haven't got my notes here but here are some clues:
Mathematics assumes numbers are made of equal-size and equal spaced units. This assumption looks self-referential like Zeno's Arrow where the halving of each remaining gap from the arrow to its target per each moment involves defining each moment in terms of the halved gaps. The "imaginary wall" the arrow supposedly hits in midair before reaching the target is made of the "bricks" of assumed-equal-size moments that actually had no size other than what was defined on, by saying "the next moment the arrow went half the remaining distance".
I came across Dr. Stafford's work, he claimed much of physics was circular reasoning. He seems to be on to something. What we call "physics" appears to be patterns of logic (about "scattergories")(how to break things up and put them back together).
(example: claiming 1 + 1 doesn't equal 2 but could equal 2 requires a third element that could associate with either of the ones)(this basic structure looks like H20 molecule)
What we call "mathematics" appears to be logic of patterns (so about categories)(conservation of separations)(example: claiming 1 + 1 = 2, involves requiring the ones remain separate in the 2)(This basic structure looks like three H20 molecules? two are hydrogen bonded, one is outside; they take turns in which is bonded) (for 1 + 1 to equal 2 requires supersymmetry: a mutually shared space?)
There are little bits of physics (of logic) floating in maths (in categories): called "axioms". These are a math-kind of wave-funtion: "wave" is "group"; "function" is "group"; a "wave-function" is a group-group; that is expansion-room.
An axiom allows expansion in math. It is like an "axion" in physics: it is self-referential.
There are little bits of maths (of categories) floating in physics (in logic): called "wave functions". These are a physics kind of "axiom": they are constrictions (since physics involves logic so expansion-room; a superposed expansion will restrict it).
These are seen as conservation laws. They are like prime numbers in math; they only have two factors, themselves and one.
If you make physics look like math by dealing with lots of little bits (atoms); you may end out with math looking like physics (broken in to big chunks)(so the math becomes irreconcilable; separated; too hard).
This is got around by making physics and math swap places (via "re-normalisation" groups: take any other problem and asociate it with your current problem)(looks like H30+OH- reaction?)
If you measure anything you see sub-atomic particle patterns: measure a chair-arm with a book: call them "c" and "b": how can you measure them: so far just have 1 to 1?
So you divide one (make one at least 2 to the other): this threesome is called "colour" as in quantum chromo-dynamics.
How conserve your measurement? Need divide both: but which division came first? This "time" issue introduces anti-colour.
How conserve again? Need another division. This reconciles colour and anti-colour: have one "mark" and six quarks. But to see the quarks and the colours requires a further division: get 8 gluons.
Eventually you end out with "Higgs particles" the concept "particle" requires a unit on a background.
Science involves: take some ingredients. Change something, see if anything else changed or not. Carefully describe the basic process of doing science and you seem to get the patterns we call the standard model.
The five forces of physics appear to relate as:
electro-magnetic: + / -
weak/ strong: x / divide
gravity: =
loop quantum gravity appears to be disguised set theory; string theory appears to be disguised number-lines.
-just a hint of what I found
Alan
___________________________________________
Alan
thanks for your input. to say that it is fascinating is an understatement. if i got you right,in summerizing, math needs points to be of value and to be, but in a wave function points lead to little understanding.to be honest i was thinking this( that perhaps molecules don't actually move but despite heat,i saw things more as a wave,not points ) but i darn't go there yet, i was having trouble where i was as it is!!!!
i will read more of this site later.
i saw liquid as a coating persay,a function of inner energy, transforming depending on outside conditions,which effects the inner(the so called empty space between the electron and proton) atomic energy,the flow of energy between the outer and inner of the atom.
i was also thinking that..................superconductivity!
I'm not sure what you mean by that, but sceince, especially in the past century has been enormously successful in explaining how the natural world works. If science was wrong, none of our modern technology - including the computer you are using now, would work.
___________________________________________
you know exactly what i mean that there is dishonesty in the science circle,ego,money. you are not that naive i'm sure.
as for the second part, "if science was wrong", you just don't get it, you are confused as to my point,what "works" is not the point,my question is beyond what works,this is an out of the "works box" understanding,period!!!
___________________________________________
I know you are frustrated by your failure thus far, but you're just going to have to get over it and make the effort to learn the way things really are if you really desire to learn how the natural world works. We've done all we can to help you short of trying to teach you all of 1st semester chemistry.
___________________________________________
simply do the first experiment i proposed and do it professionally, with all that,professionalism, implies.that is my challenge to you,up for it??
actually to anybody that can, just try the experiment,why not?
dolphin
Jul19-04, 05:14 PM
Hi North,
I have use of a computer again I'll try and figure out what you wrote:
(quote) "if i got you right,in summerizing, math needs points to be of value and to be, but in a wave function points lead to little understanding."
I found that ordinary English usage of words can be very revealing as to what the scientific usage really implies. Take the phrase: "what is the point of this discussion?": this means "what is the purpose,,," so "what is the overall direction..." so what is giving structure..."
A "pointless discussion" wanders all over the place with no apparant structure (but by virtue of its own wanderings self-referring among themselves you get a default structure built up gradually yet invisible as it is time itself i.e. it is only seen if you freeze observer time from beginning to ending of the experiment so the experiment duration is seen as a whole)(which is interesting because that IS memory: seeing a spread of time at a single glance)
(the experiment you proposed for gradually adding single electrons and protons etc, IS ITSELF the very definition of emergent structure and a "perfect liquid" as liquids are structure (solid)(pressure) without structure (gas)(volume).
(Pressure without volume occurs at a surface: a surface is a hyper-space (Michio Kaku's "flat-land" IS potential hyper-space it seems; his kinetic hyper-space is mathematics (math is flat-land as it treats all ones as same size)(to accomodate both views of flat-land have to overly flatten one (curled up dimensions) and overly inflate the other (attach strings: filter the math through re-normalisation groups)(result is area of a black-hole (uncertainty in defining a number) (Lee Smolin breaks the black-hole in two so area gets quantised, volume gets quantised; but pressure becomes uncertain (time stands still). To get time (gravity)(coming together) to move he breaks gravity into number, gravity, and time (graph, gravity x 2, time x 2) (graph, imaginary space, imaginary time). Stephen Hawking keeps the imaginary time but collapses the imaginary space into the fixed space (graph) giving a "1 + 1 = 2" (pea instanton).
The superposition of solid (fixed association)(pressure) and gas (free association)(volume) is possible because the solidity is only seen (the specific (solid!) groups that formed now and then) when the free association (freedom to form different groups) is seen (the gas is seen): (requires TIME)
that is by seeing for example your proposed experiment as a whole (from beginning to ending) it is seen to be both gas (free association) and a solid (specific groups associated).
To see BOTH the specific groups and the freedom of their constituents to freely associate in different group arrangements requires seeing the internal freedom among constituents of a group to break away (you called "inner energy") and the external
constraint among groups to associate the members of each group only as "teams" (you call "coating").
To see your proposed experiment AGAIN (to have two perspectives on it) would require breaking up the free association into two sides (placing a barrier between them) and potentially disrupting some of the temporary groupings.
By gradually adding single items together and allowing them to freely associate you get
potential temporary groupings that form and break up again. (Interestingly this free association to form and break groups is precisely what scientists have found occurs with the forming and breaking of hydrogen bonds in water that gives temporary structures of bonded groups of water molecules).
To observe your experiment would require containing it and placing a barrier between it and you the scientist (or how do you know where it stops and you begin?)
Containing it gives it internal room to change (by definition as it is an experiment not a static blob); placing a barrier gives it a coating (you the observer "surround " it you might say (or you plus whatever is not part of the experiment).
Since the experiment is itself "liquid" and its means of control is "hyper-liquid" there is the possibility of the experiment self-controlling (condensing as a real liquid from the two imaginary liquids) when you are not looking (when you exercise self-control).
This you call "transforming depending on outside conditions".
Quote: "to be honest i was thinking this( that perhaps molecules don't actually move but despite heat,i saw things more as a wave,not points ) but i darn't go there yet, i was having trouble where i was as it is!!!!
i will read more of this site later.
i saw liquid as a coating persay,a function of inner energy, transforming depending on outside conditions,which effects the inner(the so called empty space between the electron and proton) atomic energy,the flow of energy between the outer and inner of the atom.
i was also thinking that..................superconductivity!"
If two people watch the experiment they must both exercise self control which requires "super conducting" the lab experiment?!
Thanks: I made discoveries as I went along trying to figure out what you said.
-Alan
Reilly
forgive me if i may seem distrusting. but as the way science is nowadays and the way reality is, these are real concerns.
__________________
Science is today pretty much like it has been for a long time. Sir E.T. Whittaker's History of the Aether and Electricity, Prof Schweber's QED and the Men who Made It, Watson's The Double Helix will confirm this, as will Histories of Science with a broader time scale.
Reality -- what's your problem?
I know with almost certainty that a detailed and exhaustive study of the physics of liquids, including the basic chemistry, the basic statistical mechanics will answer most of the questions you have. Having been a professor of physics I will tell you with all due respect that your questions, laudable as they are, are those of a bright beginner -- one whom most teachers will point out what to study, so that your scientific vocabularly and intuitive conceptual grasp of science will allow you to be far more specfic in you questions. Further, it is often the case that such study leads to a growth of reality based self confidence. When you know your stuff, people will be far more likely to respect your ideas, orthodox or not. When you don't know the basics, respect and attention will be difficult to obtain.
For example, the why and what of things have been the topic of some of the most brilliant and innovative, orthodox and nonorthodox thinkers of the past many centuries. Do your homework, they might teach you something.
Enough,
Reilly Atkinson
Hi north,
Maybe the deep thing that you are looking for can be found by the symmetry concept.
By symmetry we sometimes can find the deep connections that exist between so-called different things.
We have learned during the last 100 years that the power of simplicity that is expressed through symmetry can be found in the basis of many interesting abstract and non-abstract systems, for example:
Mendeleyev periodic table (http://www.nfinity.com/~exile/periodic.htm),
Hadrons family (http://www.egglescliffe.org.uk/physics/particles/hadron1/hadron1.html),
Fibonacci series (http://goldennumber.net/links.htm),
Gauge theory (http://www.britannica.com/nobel/micro/228_45.html).
Fundamental constant http://comp.uark.edu/~strauss/sym.2/sym.4.2.html
In this address http://plus.maths.org/issue10/features/topology/ You can see how the symmetry which stands in the basis of a Donut, can be transformed to a Cofee cup, and vise versa.
The physical laws of nature are also described in terms of symmetry and broken symmetry states.
Please tell me if I am in the right direction before we continue.
Yours,
Lama
dolphin
Jul20-04, 05:48 PM
Hi again,
I located this question on the internet:
"How come you can't take one canister of hydrogen and one canister of oxygen and spray them at each other to make water?" www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem99/chem99148.htm
Now there may be a clue in a typo I made but corrected: I first typed "spray then" but "corrected" it to "spray them".
I once heard a music expert being interviewed (Brian Eno) who had this idea "honour thy error": if he made a mistake he would take another look as it just MIGHT open up a new perspective. Then again it just might not help much.
However in this case I can dream up an idea: "then" leads me to ask: who goes first?
If spraying hydrogen and oxygen at each other: who sprays at who? Does the oxygen have a jump-start on the hydrogen, or vice-versa?
One of them has to have a head-start? Or do they both combine with equal velocity from equal positions? But that would mean they were already combined in a third party that defined them as equal? Because what does "combined" mean if not "sharing"?
So we seem to have an "alternatives" barrier to getting this show on the road. How to overcome this barrier?
Well: we need a spark: a bright spark to break down the barrier; break the ice as it were. How about we add some heat: have the hydrogen and oxygen move out of their comfort levels by experiencing some externally-sourced influence; now they start bouncing off each other and juggling this third influence.
Suppose someone is juggling balls and you bump into them. Consider this juggler juggling balls "makes water" (metaphorically) (keeps his "liquidity": doesn't drop the balls) after you bump him, by speeding up his juggling act.
(Why would he speed up his juggling act just because you bumped into him? If you gave him another space to juggle in (a hyper-space); he could categorise his list with it (so in the case of hydrogen and oxygen you could lower the energy (the alternatives) barrier by providing a hyperspace to keep track of things (like providing another juggler to share the load). Solid platinum is a catalyst here I learned; it gives hydrogen and oxygen a "chat room" to get to know each other (to "break the ice"; lower the energy barrier).
What if you bumped him in such a way as to speed him up? Now the bump is hidden in the heat (hidden variable!)(Bell inequalities: he is "ringing" like a bell you might say: ringing the changes)
He is now effectively juggling the balls AND the external influence (from when you bumped him), but that influence is hidden in "ringing the changes".
If this juggler was occassionally swapping balls with other jugglers, you could get a chain reaction and eventually the external-influence of you bumping one juggler, could become very diluted in the exchanges spread over many jugglers.
("Jingle bells, jingle bells; jingle all the way. Oh what fun it is to ride on a one-horse open sleigh!")
Overall the liquidity (ability to carry on juggling)(The one-horse open sleigh if you work/play? with the metaphors here, using your imagination) of all the jugglers could be maintained with just a slight increase in their overall speed ("temperature" concept here).
If they could find a ready means to give off this heat they might transfer it back to the external world; then the fact that you disturbed one of them becomes just a memory, encoded into the large-scale structure of groups of balls spread among the jugglers.
Your collection of jugglers is effectively now a Bose-Einstein condensate; as they now all share the same meeting state (quantum state) as the beginning (you bumped one of them) and the ending (they collectively bumped you: i.e. gave you + outside world some heat) are what contains them. They now know you ("We
've met before: you bumped into me, and we juggled that bump and gave it back carrying knowledge about our society of jugglers" you could imagine this Bose-Einstein condensate saying)
The answer given at the web-site does say that there is an energy barrier, that the hydrogen and oxygen need added heat or a catalyst to get the reaction started.
Once a couple of molecules are kicked over the barrier the H2 and O2 molecules can break apart and form H2O.
-Alan
dolphin
Jul20-04, 07:18 PM
If I may add to my previous message:
Sometimes seemingly irrelevant remarks can be worth a closer look; they might contain the pattern we are looking for (then again they might not? Or is everything a perspective on everything else? So whatever you say about something, in some maybe unexpected way it may not only tell you what it does about the thing in question; but could shed light on other aspects (it may have common ground with some other perspectives (if you are not restricting your awareness).
(If restricting your awareness (tunnel vision) you might see the other possible connections as broken into individual tunnels (a straw metric!). If you put up "straw men" you put up individual tunnels that are realy one tunnel and offer no resistance to being broken down into constituent items?)
If you bring any two perspectives on a thing together; all the other perspectives may break up into groups (chat-rooms!) where they also have mutual space in which the original perspectives I mentioned can be seen under a new light( can be differentiated and integrated).
Reilly wrote: "...gases typically as they do in long-range potentials, and quite nicely described by the Maxwell Boltzman distribution".
"...no electron gases till 2nd or 3rd yr. physics and chemistry"
Now this seems a liitle radical to do what I do here but for fun I tried it:
Physics is patterns of logic.
Mathematics is logic of patterns.
Chemistry is the math implied from two views of logic (frozen math)(hence Pauli exclusion priciple: effectively 1 + 1 = 2 (also an inclusion principle: the 1s are excluded as 1 + 1 yet included in the 2).
To count chemistry requires an alternative 1 + 1 = 2. To keep counting chemistry requires an overall 1 + 1 = 2 distributed over four ones (quantum numbers) and two twos (quantum electro-dynamics: fine structure constant (like a pump: expand: contract)
To see fine-structure constant and four quantum numbers requires a periodic table of the elements (the fine-structure four plus the quantum number four: gives a table (area)(a x b) with four legs (2 + 2 but what is "+" and what is "2" as have both a and b views on 1 + 1 giving a square root of minus one times the other view as your point of comparison (renormalisation with external view)(collapse of wave function).
(Re-normalisation involves take your problem and some other problem; so can call these y and x and call that "the square of plus one")(The anti-dote to the square root of minus one"!?)(gets you back to square one?)
Which is which? Isolate compare of compare (speed of light) from mutual ground (Gravity constant) from non-mutual ground (Planck jump).
Biology is the chemistry implied from physics and math (logic and categories) sharing together (so involves growth opportunities in niches in environment).
Man? Jesus Christ has said (if I recall reading/ hearing): "thou art Peter and to you do I give the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. As you bind on Earth consider it bound in Heaven. As you loose on Earth consider it loosed in Heaven".
"no electron gases till 2nd or 3rd year physics and chemistry":
A radical interpretation!:
list physics and chemistry (logic and categories) 2 or 3 times:
logic; logic; (logic) gives the first two logics projects chemistry (math from 2 logic)
the third logic might break it up?
categories; categories; (categories) gives first two projects structure that could conserve in the third.
"electron gas" is "modification modifications" so potential structure.
We have potential structure that could conserve mixed with might break up but build/break are in suspension: sounds like "potential structure" that is "electron gas"!
Actually since water boils at minus 90 deg. C if not for hydrogen bonds; perhaps water is "cold plasma"; after all if H3O+OH- decomposition is the fastest reaction in all of chemistry?
North wrote: "math function of state of quantity of change (typo: I wrote "quality" at first) (but my hand scribbled note was hard to read)(i.e. I'm not superstitious)(don't have to see hidden messages left right and center!)(but not wanting to block any bright ideas) re: Maxwell-Boltzman distribution.
Translating: "math" as categories; "state" as "category meets category" (surface effect); "quantity" as "category"; "change" as group group:
A category meets category is a group (cars meet buses = vehicles with members at least one car, bus say)(to meet they must share so be grouped together)
A group group is a category (car, bus group meets bicycle, stage-coach group get category: wheeled vehicles)(they need a meeting place and that can categorise them as one?)
So we have: ("function" is "group"):
"category group of group category of category"
reduces to: (occam's razor?)
(cutting the straw metric?)(manufacturing tunnel vision?)
category group of group group (as two "cats" make a group)
gives:
cat group of cat (as two groups make a cat)
gives a list of a cat (a catalyst!)
"Statistical statement of positions and velocities of particles at any time" is "every way the quantum event can happen (that 1 + 1 can "equal" 2)(i.e. be 1 + 1)(share space without treading on each other)(like have eternal life in Kingdom of Heaven where everybody can be at peace?)
It seems that H2 plus O2 plus spark gives: they can swap roles after the spark by encoding the spark as a collection of H2O; the water cnains a hidden circuit of H2, O2?
But hydrogen bonds resist this superconductor of H2, O2 reducing it to a semi-conductor. Water as a H2, O2 semi-conductor? Moving water as a computer of space and time or something?
Speculation!
-Alan
russ_watters
Jul20-04, 08:39 PM
___________________________________________
simply do the first experiment i proposed and do it professionally, with all that,professionalism, implies.that is my challenge to you,up for it??
actually to anybody that can, just try the experiment,why not? I rather suspect a typical physicist or chemist would find your experiment pointless. But if you still think it will be informative when you're working toward your pHd, then by all means, do it. But I rather suspect that if you get far enough in physics (or chemistry) that you understand what is already known, you'll agree that it isn't very informative.
Either way, this doesn't change what I said before: you need to learn basic chemsitry before trying to expand on it (or discard it).
dolphin
Jul21-04, 06:15 PM
Curiously the experiment would be indeed pointless: it is an attempt to investigate the prior assumptions in science.
In normal science you would try to interact water with other things and learn about it (epistemology)(what can we say about it); in investigative science you might want to see what is the essence of water (ontology)(what is the minimum necessary logical /mathematical structure to define water; what is the water-point? (the zero-point energy say).
What is the place where we are one with water?
If something has a point; it has an overall structure; a goal that directs it.
The experiment is a deliberate attempt to locate the inner guts as it were of water; it is trying to uncover if water has any structure other than what scientists paint on to it, and what is the least "painting" possible? Is there an oversight in the scientific story; did they miss something?
It is designed to be non-informative in that it is not supposed to tell you anything about water as such; but to break apart the scientific model of water and see what holds it together.
The interesting thing is:
"you need to learn basic chemistry before trying to expand on it (or discard it)":
this is, at one level; precisely what North is doing.
What we call "learning basic chemistry" IS expanding on it (or discarding it); that is: sorting the wheat from the chaff as to what belongs to chemistry you might say; when compared to the essence of chemistry: which is that 2 = 1 + 1 (in everyday English we talk of a "chemistry" between people when there is a 2-ness between them, i.e. a mutual understanding apparent between them say).
Of course I know what Reilly means; but North is maybe stepping outside the box is it were.
-Alan
russ_watters
Jul22-04, 08:45 AM
...North is maybe stepping outside the box is it were.
-Alan The problem is that north has never even seen the box, wouldn't recognize it if he did, and thus has no way of knowing if he were inside or outside. He needs to learn about the box first before he can try to explore what is outside it.
dolphin
Jul22-04, 09:07 AM
Quoting an earlier comment by North:
"by discussing i think i'm getting better at relaying what i'm thinking(or really,what i'm picturing).i can picture at a microscopic level ( in the theory of chemistry at the moment) elements that come together and that the electrons bring them together.but i have a hard time thinking that the electrons and protons ALONE account for liquidity,hardness.it's like i think that when they do come together that they release something(some form of energy,a key themselves which opens up a source)which flows,sort of a energy flux,which transforms, Because of the electronic configuration of the element and/or molecule."
Simplifying things to extremes:
"a" meeets "b":
this is so far "hard" (as "a" bumps up against "b" you might say) yet also liquid (as "a" swims in "b" space and vice versa) yet also gas ("a" and "b" could be anywhere in each other's space).
Like two categories meets (so far unknown number of meetings between them).
Like a bell ringing (so far the hidden variable is the variation between "a" and "b" and not hidden at all; but to see it you would have to split this "a" meets "b" micro-cosmos and allocate one coupling of a:b as Bell inequalities (where "a" and "b" retain their differences) and the other coupling of "a" and "b" as a mixture (a superposition of "a" and "b") where the variation between them is by definition concealed from view (muddled together).
To see both "hidden variables" AND "Bell inequalities" in the same viewpoint you would (say) have to muddle THESE concepts together in one place and separate them in another.
So you get a superposition of a:b that rings of hidden inner structure; and distinctive aspects of "a" and "b" that ring in your ears so to speak; and a blend of a:b that looks well mixed say.
If you see isolate the ringing inner structure (atomise it) you could lose track of some aspects of "a" and "b" that ring and may notice something seems uneven about the blend of a:b.
So you get atoms of "a" and "b" with surrounding electron clouds (losing track of some aspects of "a" and "b")(electron is fuzzy space; or "modification"); the something uneven about the blend is the promoted perspective, the proton.
To identify protons and electrons (electrolyise "a" and "b") you would need to partly de-atomise them (form them into molecules), un-fuzzy the fuzzy space (get more aspects) to some degree (heat it: make it jiggle back a bit) and even up the uneven blend a bit (make lumps: neutrons).
(careful analysis brings up three generations of particles: cancel (original a:b effect (Hall effect); not-cancel (original "a" chat to "b" effect (Aspect experiment); uncertain ("a" and "b" meet the universe: quantum spin effect); and things like neutrinos, muons, etc. haven't some notes with me here)
To identify all these together (atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons) you would need to
divide them up and allow them to swap places.
Dividing them up gives eight groups; allowing them to swap places gives a musical chairs game with one missing place left over (when the music stops you have seven periods).
To see all that in one view you will need to allow your 8 groups and your 7 periods to mix together. You could split the 7 into two groups to give 14; but combine the 8 into one overall coupling: this delivers two batches of 14 elements. These are the Actinide and Lathanide series.
Now you can re-combine the two 7s while redistributing the couple-view of 8; this breaks up the periods into a simple combination that is spread wide as two angles on the 8 groups: gives you hydrogen and helium.
Split the 7s again and ..... well I figured it out elsewhere but haven't got my notes here.. (potential mistakes)
Returning to "a" meets "b": this meeting could be called "quantum"
To analyse this meeting you need "quantum-electrodynamics" (QED) which is apparantly same idea as "quo erat demonstrandum" ("that which was to be proved").
Take "a", take "b":
Do they belong together? Look at some other view of "a" and look at some other view of "b": do the other views harmonise with first views of "a" and "b"? If so you get a new perspective on "a" and "b" that is logically consistent with your initial conditions.
Details written up not yet typed. (Thankyou Dr. Stafford for giving the game away!)
(QCD is fuzzy logic: expand/contract a:b in a sample a:b space (aysmptotically flat anti-de Sitter space): get nuts and bolts of an argument (of the a:b sample)(See Prof. Stephen Hawking's work on "Taub nut", "Taub bolt" , and translate the simplicity out from it)
(QCD leaves you with three fuzzy possible a:b samples (colours); a muddling of a:b / a:b as 8 gluons, a muddling of both colours and gluons as anti-colours plus a plug-the-leak of renormalisation that leaves you with one difference (Back where you started "a" meets "b")(The square root of minus one sample, reconciled with the square of plus one other problem)
If a:b is solid (hard up against); liquid (swim in each other's space); gas (could be anywhere in each other's space):
if "a" and "b" are not alone:
get a:b chat, see new view a:b
so hard:hard = liquid; and liquid:liquid = hard
so a:b / a:b gives gas (the hardness is the pressure; the liquidity is the volume; the uncertainty is the temperature )
Here "a" and "b" swim through each other's space but come hard up against each other occasionally.
(Heat it greatly and "hard up against" can swap places with "swim" so get un-swim (electrons: fuzzy space) and less-hard (protons: spacy fuzz)! This gas called a plasma.)
a:b alone: not alone (free to associate)(space is time stands still)("eternity lies still")
hard:hard became liquid, plus hard: gives pressure
liquid:liquid became hard, plus liquid: gives volume
so have a gas.
a:b alone; not alone; either (freedom to take a break)(to have a home and a front door)(hospitality)
This is what chemistry is about.
get h:h: as l ,+ l + hard/or liquid
l:l: as h, + l + hard/ or liquid
Now have an alternatives barrier (energy barrier).
A triple point (hamiltonian mechanics?)
a:b: alone/not alone/alone
h:h: as l; + h + l pressure release (into liquid as it must swim somewhere new)
l:l: as h; + l + h volume release (into solid as it must push against something)
So provide a container and this gas inflates it. Provide no container and this gas swims against its own pressure: it condenses into liquid (in a container alive-dead space (a Shrodinger's cat space)(where containment is possible so the gas expands against the universe)(Fischer sampling?) A liquid is its own container, so can not be compressed much.
A liquid is direction in space (locality)?
A directed liquid is non-local (flows from a to b)
Water may be a self-directed liquid (as it has a second way of self-referring, via hydrogen bonds) so have high internal cohesion (resistance to being directed) (takes a lot of heat to evaporate it).
-Alan
it is the flexiblity of mind and the want to know is the crux of the problem here, to UNDERSTAND DEEPER WHAT IS GOING ON,so there is a discredit of myself because of my lack of certain knowledge.this is a cop out.the reluctance to do the first experiment i proposed,because it is "pointless" is absurd and ridiculous, nature does not recognize who knows this or that,only that the the question is asked and explored in the first place. i concluded that there is a fear,i may be right,but how, who really knows.although i maybe not totally right,in how i vision this state,there is something to of which i ask to done,this is SCIENCE after all, SO JUST DO IT. understanding is not resticted to those in the higher know but also from the outside. so the challenge stands JUST DO THE EXPERIMENT. because if you don't i'm sure someone eventually will who has flexibility of mind and the want to go deeper and has the curiosity to just give a chance. what aspect of science has not been questioned over time? are we going to stay stuck in the "box" or expand our thought? HMM......for those who don't question, will be left behind to "produce", but this is hardly SCIENTIFIC in the true sense of the word. it is time to reexplore what seems obvious and question and challenge our imagination,again,for a more complete and deeper explaination.
Quoting an earlier comment by North:
"by discussing i think i'm getting better at relaying what i'm thinking(or really,what i'm picturing).i can picture at a microscopic level ( in the theory of chemistry at the moment) elements that come together and that the electrons bring them together.but i have a hard time thinking that the electrons and protons ALONE account for liquidity,hardness.it's like i think that when they do come together that they release something(some form of energy,a key themselves which opens up a source)which flows,sort of a energy flux,which transforms, Because of the electronic configuration of the element and/or molecule."
Simplifying things to extremes:
"a" meeets "b":
this is so far "hard" (as "a" bumps up against "b" you might say) yet also liquid (as "a" swims in "b" space and vice versa) yet also gas ("a" and "b" could be anywhere in each other's space).
Like two categories meets (so far unknown number of meetings between them).
Like a bell ringing (so far the hidden variable is the variation between "a" and "b" and not hidden at all; but to see it you would have to split this "a" meets "b" micro-cosmos and allocate one coupling of a:b as Bell inequalities (where "a" and "b" retain their differences) and the other coupling of "a" and "b" as a mixture (a superposition of "a" and "b") where the variation between them is by definition concealed from view (muddled together).
To see both "hidden variables" AND "Bell inequalities" in the same viewpoint you would (say) have to muddle THESE concepts together in one place and separate them in another.
So you get a superposition of a:b that rings of hidden inner structure; and distinctive aspects of "a" and "b" that ring in your ears so to speak; and a blend of a:b that looks well mixed say.
If you see isolate the ringing inner structure (atomise it) you could lose track of some aspects of "a" and "b" that ring and may notice something seems uneven about the blend of a:b.
So you get atoms of "a" and "b" with surrounding electron clouds (losing track of some aspects of "a" and "b")(electron is fuzzy space; or "modification"); the something uneven about the blend is the promoted perspective, the proton.
To identify protons and electrons (electrolyise "a" and "b") you would need to partly de-atomise them (form them into molecules), un-fuzzy the fuzzy space (get more aspects) to some degree (heat it: make it jiggle back a bit) and even up the uneven blend a bit (make lumps: neutrons).
(careful analysis brings up three generations of particles: cancel (original a:b effect (Hall effect); not-cancel (original "a" chat to "b" effect (Aspect experiment); uncertain ("a" and "b" meet the universe: quantum spin effect); and things like neutrinos, muons, etc. haven't some notes with me here)
To identify all these together (atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons) you would need to
divide them up and allow them to swap places.
Dividing them up gives eight groups; allowing them to swap places gives a musical chairs game with one missing place left over (when the music stops you have seven periods).
To see all that in one view you will need to allow your 8 groups and your 7 periods to mix together. You could split the 7 into two groups to give 14; but combine the 8 into one overall coupling: this delivers two batches of 14 elements. These are the Actinide and Lathanide series.
Now you can re-combine the two 7s while redistributing the couple-view of 8; this breaks up the periods into a simple combination that is spread wide as two angles on the 8 groups: gives you hydrogen and helium.
Split the 7s again and ..... well I figured it out elsewhere but haven't got my notes here.. (potential mistakes)
Returning to "a" meets "b": this meeting could be called "quantum"
To analyse this meeting you need "quantum-electrodynamics" (QED) which is apparantly same idea as "quo erat demonstrandum" ("that which was to be proved").
Take "a", take "b":
Do they belong together? Look at some other view of "a" and look at some other view of "b": do the other views harmonise with first views of "a" and "b"? If so you get a new perspective on "a" and "b" that is logically consistent with your initial conditions.
Details written up not yet typed. (Thankyou Dr. Stafford for giving the game away!)
(QCD is fuzzy logic: expand/contract a:b in a sample a:b space (aysmptotically flat anti-de Sitter space): get nuts and bolts of an argument (of the a:b sample)(See Prof. Stephen Hawking's work on "Taub nut", "Taub bolt" , and translate the simplicity out from it)
(QCD leaves you with three fuzzy possible a:b samples (colours); a muddling of a:b / a:b as 8 gluons, a muddling of both colours and gluons as anti-colours plus a plug-the-leak of renormalisation that leaves you with one difference (Back where you started "a" meets "b")(The square root of minus one sample, reconciled with the square of plus one other problem)
If a:b is solid (hard up against); liquid (swim in each other's space); gas (could be anywhere in each other's space):
if "a" and "b" are not alone:
get a:b chat, see new view a:b
so hard:hard = liquid; and liquid:liquid = hard
so a:b / a:b gives gas (the hardness is the pressure; the liquidity is the volume; the uncertainty is the temperature )
Here "a" and "b" swim through each other's space but come hard up against each other occasionally.
(Heat it greatly and "hard up against" can swap places with "swim" so get un-swim (electrons: fuzzy space) and less-hard (protons: spacy fuzz)! This gas called a plasma.)
a:b alone: not alone (free to associate)(space is time stands still)("eternity lies still")
hard:hard became liquid, plus hard: gives pressure
liquid:liquid became hard, plus liquid: gives volume
so have a gas.
a:b alone; not alone; either (freedom to take a break)(to have a home and a front door)(hospitality)
This is what chemistry is about.
get h:h: as l ,+ l + hard/or liquid
l:l: as h, + l + hard/ or liquid
Now have an alternatives barrier (energy barrier).
A triple point (hamiltonian mechanics?)
a:b: alone/not alone/alone
h:h: as l; + h + l pressure release (into liquid as it must swim somewhere new)
l:l: as h; + l + h volume release (into solid as it must push against something)
So provide a container and this gas inflates it. Provide no container and this gas swims against its own pressure: it condenses into liquid (in a container alive-dead space (a Shrodinger's cat space)(where containment is possible so the gas expands against the universe)(Fischer sampling?) A liquid is its own container, so can not be compressed much.
A liquid is direction in space (locality)?
A directed liquid is non-local (flows from a to b)
Water may be a self-directed liquid (as it has a second way of self-referring, via hydrogen bonds) so have high internal cohesion (resistance to being directed) (takes a lot of heat to evaporate it).
-Alan
___________________________________________
Alan
you have a way to put things!! tomorrow i will think about what you have said above. i think i get it, but not sure.
thanks for your perspective,get back to you!!
in the mean time could you summarize?
dolphin
Jul24-04, 01:43 AM
Thanks North!
I was having to remember stuff that I've got written up; I hope to post it soon.
But some underlying ideas are:
to identify something you need to be able to tell it apart from other things ("colour it" some way, say)
This is like give it accomodation: so hospitality: chemistry (sharing).
to identify two or more of something you need to tell them both apart (as a group) (called a "lie group" in physics) from other things; this creates a local group and everything else.
This is like give them breathing space; somewhere to think and talk; keeping the peace; physics.
to compare local groups you need to tell the groups apart from everything else (so identify their regional space).
This is like play games; make things; math.
-alan
Quoting an earlier comment by North:
"by discussing i think i'm getting better at relaying what i'm thinking(or really,what i'm picturing).i can picture at a microscopic level ( in the theory of chemistry at the moment) elements that come together and that the electrons bring them together.but i have a hard time thinking that the electrons and protons ALONE account for liquidity,hardness.it's like i think that when they do come together that they release something(some form of energy,a key themselves which opens up a source)which flows,sort of a energy flux,which transforms, Because of the electronic configuration of the element and/or molecule."
___________________________________________
Simplifying things to extremes:
"a" meeets "b":
this is so far "hard" (as "a" bumps up against "b" you might say) yet also liquid (as "a" swims in "b" space and vice versa) yet also gas ("a" and "b" could be anywhere in each other's space).
Like two categories meets (so far unknown number of meetings between them).
___________________________________________
sort of ,but go from there,your flexibility is there,now lets see if it true,don't let me deter you,i'm trying to understand what you think but i admit i'm not sure! go with it.
___________________________________________
Like a bell ringing (so far the hidden variable is the variation between "a" and "b" and not hidden at all; but to see it you would have to split this "a" meets "b" micro-cosmos and allocate one coupling of a:b as Bell inequalities (where "a" and "b" retain their differences) and the other coupling of "a" and "b" as a mixture (a superposition of "a" and "b") where the variation between them is by definition concealed from view (muddled together).
___________________________________________
could be,Bell's point of view could be the Key!! local variations(this is new to me) maybe missed by quantum-mechanics.
___________________________________________
To see both "hidden variables" AND "Bell inequalities" in the same viewpoint you would (say) have to muddle THESE concepts together in one place and separate them in another.
___________________________________________
interesting, but explain your thinking here.
___________________________________________
So you get a superposition of a:b that rings of hidden inner structure; and distinctive aspects of "a" and "b" that ring in your ears so to speak; and a blend of a:b that looks well mixed say.
___________________________________________
this tough from me to follow,superposition of a:b that hints of a inner structure but yet keeps the distinctive features of each,your stretching me here, no problem,keep going!!
in the spirt of Bell,is this a hint of in away of what he was saying,in that quantum-mechanics does not go deep enough in it's explaination of all things!!?
___________________________________________
If you see isolate the ringing inner structure (atomise it) you could lose track of some aspects of "a" and "b" that ring and may notice something seems uneven about the blend of a:b.
___________________________________________
not sure here what you mean,sort of do, but not enough to give a comment.
___________________________________________
So you get atoms of "a" and "b" with surrounding electron clouds (losing track of some aspects of "a" and "b")(electron is fuzzy space; or "modification"); the something uneven about the blend is the promoted perspective, the proton.
To identify protons and electrons (electrolyise "a" and "b") you would need to partly de-atomise them (form them into molecules), un-fuzzy the fuzzy space (get more aspects) to some degree (heat it: make it jiggle back a bit) and even up the uneven blend a bit (make lumps: neutrons).
(careful analysis brings up three generations of particles: cancel (original a:b effect (Hall effect); not-cancel (original "a" chat to "b" effect (Aspect experiment); uncertain ("a" and "b" meet the universe: quantum spin effect); and things like neutrinos, muons, etc. haven't some notes with me here)
To identify all these together (atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons) you would need to
divide them up and allow them to swap places.
Dividing them up gives eight groups; allowing them to swap places gives a musical chairs game with one missing place left over (when the music stops you have seven periods).
To see all that in one view you will need to allow your 8 groups and your 7 periods to mix together. You could split the 7 into two groups to give 14; but combine the 8 into one overall coupling: this delivers two batches of 14 elements. These are the Actinide and Lathanide series.
Now you can re-combine the two 7s while redistributing the couple-view of 8; this breaks up the periods into a simple combination that is spread wide as two angles on the 8 groups: gives you hydrogen and helium.
Split the 7s again and ..... well I figured it out elsewhere but haven't got my notes here.. (potential mistakes)
Returning to "a" meets "b": this meeting could be called "quantum"
To analyse this meeting you need "quantum-electrodynamics" (QED) which is apparantly same idea as "quo erat demonstrandum" ("that which was to be proved").
Take "a", take "b":
Do they belong together? Look at some other view of "a" and look at some other view of "b": do the other views harmonise with first views of "a" and "b"? If so you get a new perspective on "a" and "b" that is logically consistent with your initial conditions.
Details written up not yet typed. (Thankyou Dr. Stafford for giving the game away!)
(QCD is fuzzy logic: expand/contract a:b in a sample a:b space (aysmptotically flat anti-de Sitter space): get nuts and bolts of an argument (of the a:b sample)(See Prof. Stephen Hawking's work on "Taub nut", "Taub bolt" , and translate the simplicity out from it)
(QCD leaves you with three fuzzy possible a:b samples (colours); a muddling of a:b / a:b as 8 gluons, a muddling of both colours and gluons as anti-colours plus a plug-the-leak of renormalisation that leaves you with one difference (Back where you started "a" meets "b")(The square root of minus one sample, reconciled with the square of plus one other problem)
If a:b is solid (hard up against); liquid (swim in each other's space); gas (could be anywhere in each other's space):
if "a" and "b" are not alone:
get a:b chat, see new view a:b
so hard:hard = liquid; and liquid:liquid = hard
so a:b / a:b gives gas (the hardness is the pressure; the liquidity is the volume; the uncertainty is the temperature )
Here "a" and "b" swim through each other's space but come hard up against each other occasionally.
(Heat it greatly and "hard up against" can swap places with "swim" so get un-swim (electrons: fuzzy space) and less-hard (protons: spacy fuzz)! This gas called a plasma.)
a:b alone: not alone (free to associate)(space is time stands still)("eternity lies still")
hard:hard became liquid, plus hard: gives pressure
liquid:liquid became hard, plus liquid: gives volume
so have a gas.
a:b alone; not alone; either (freedom to take a break)(to have a home and a front door)(hospitality)
This is what chemistry is about.
get h:h: as l ,+ l + hard/or liquid
l:l: as h, + l + hard/ or liquid
Now have an alternatives barrier (energy barrier).
A triple point (hamiltonian mechanics?)
a:b: alone/not alone/alone
h:h: as l; + h + l pressure release (into liquid as it must swim somewhere new)
l:l: as h; + l + h volume release (into solid as it must push against something)
So provide a container and this gas inflates it. Provide no container and this gas swims against its own pressure: it condenses into liquid (in a container alive-dead space (a Shrodinger's cat space)(where containment is possible so the gas expands against the universe)(Fischer sampling?) A liquid is its own container, so can not be compressed much.
A liquid is direction in space (locality)?
A directed liquid is non-local (flows from a to b)
Water may be a self-directed liquid (as it has a second way of self-referring, via hydrogen bonds) so have high internal cohesion (resistance to being directed) (takes a lot of heat to evaporate it).
-Alan
___________________________________________
Alan
your beyond me!! much of this i DON"T UNDERSTAND but if your willing show me,i'm all eyes!! i may not always agree with you but i'm sure it will be interesting!!
thanks,north
Hi north,
Maybe the deep thing that you are looking for can be found by the symmetry concept.
By symmetry we sometimes can find the deep connections that exist between so-called different things.
We have learned during the last 100 years that the power of simplicity that is expressed through symmetry can be found in the basis of many interesting abstract and non-abstract systems, for example:
Mendeleyev periodic table (http://www.nfinity.com/~exile/periodic.htm),
Hadrons family (http://www.egglescliffe.org.uk/physics/particles/hadron1/hadron1.html),
Fibonacci series (http://goldennumber.net/links.htm),
Gauge theory (http://www.britannica.com/nobel/micro/228_45.html).
Fundamental constant http://comp.uark.edu/~strauss/sym.2/sym.4.2.html
In this address http://plus.maths.org/issue10/features/topology/ You can see how the symmetry which stands in the basis of a Donut, can be transformed to a Cofee cup, and vise versa.
The physical laws of nature are also described in terms of symmetry and broken symmetry states.
Please tell me if I am in the right direction before we continue.
Yours,
Lama
Hi north,
Maybe the deep thing that you are looking for can be found by the symmetry concept.
By symmetry we sometimes can find the deep connections that exist between so-called different things.
We have learned during the last 100 years that the power of simplicity that is expressed through symmetry can be found in the basis of many interesting abstract and non-abstract systems, for example:
Mendeleyev periodic table (http://www.nfinity.com/~exile/periodic.htm),
Hadrons family (http://www.egglescliffe.org.uk/physics/particles/hadron1/hadron1.html),
Fibonacci series (http://goldennumber.net/links.htm),
Gauge theory (http://www.britannica.com/nobel/micro/228_45.html).
Fundamental constant http://comp.uark.edu/~strauss/sym.2/sym.4.2.html
In this address http://plus.maths.org/issue10/features/topology/ You can see how the symmetry which stands in the basis of a Donut, can be transformed to a Cofee cup, and vise versa.
The physical laws of nature are also described in terms of symmetry and broken symmetry states.
Please tell me if I am in the right direction before we continue.
Yours,
Lama
___________________________________________
Lama
give me time here,i'll get back to you.i apologize for seemingly to ignore you earlier,all inquaries and efforts are appreicated.
how symmetries could be involved here i'm not sure.but i'm in no position to deter you.keep exploring your angle please.
just one thing though,as with you or Alan.to start with the liquidity of both hydrogen and oxygen at very low temps. and following through with their ability to bring the state of liquidity at room temperature i think is the key here,i could be wrong,but i have no problem if i am. to get to the bottom of the liquid state,the essence of the form or WHAT and/or WHY this form is possible in the first place is the challenge. chemical reactions open and close the door,whats behind the door??
but i will get back to you in any case!!
dolphin
Jul27-04, 02:11 AM
Hi North and Lama,
Unfortunately I have a problem: I do not have my own computer or internet! I was staying somewhere while travelling where I had access. I hope to find a way of typing off-line so occasionally I could use an internet cafe.
I would like to elaborate more but am constrained by present situation.
A physicist, Stephen Wolfram, has been reported as saying when physics is figured out it will be incredibly simple. Maybe that is already the case?
It seems that science involves: someone takes some ingredients, changes something, looks to see if something else changed or not.
They also measure the ingredients and try to measue the changes.
They also use maths, they talk of numbers. Numbers involve base and units.
They also try to confine their definitions while broadening them sufficiently so as to give the impression that they are repeating an experiment to see if they get what they think looks like the same result, again.
They also compare notes with other scientists.
What I have found:
it seems that Dr. Richard Stafford's idea that physics might involve circular reasoning (like look up meaning of a word in a dictionary, get more words; look those up, get more words...etc. till you seem to be going round in circles at least quite a lot) has provided a serious insight into what is going on.
You can go beyond dictionaries and talk of "comparing and matching patterns".
One could say that words are defined by intersecting categories. If you look (like the explanation on defining words given in John Hosper's book "An Introduction To Philosophical Analysis") at the process of broadening and narrowing the region where categories intersect: it looks a lot like the patterns of physics (you get generalisation (categorising) as "electro-"; specification (intersection of categories) as "magnetic"; strings attached as like string theory, defined lumpiness (sets) as loop quantum gravity, and so on.
Example: what if you didn't know what "cat" meant?
But what if you knew it was somehow connected with "mat"?
All you know is they "swim" as it were in each other's definition space.
What if you didn't know what "sat" meant?
But you knew that it has something to do with "cat" and with "mat".
Since we now have three categories, we have the possibility of placing them in different orders. Before, you could have put "cat" and "mat" anywhere as it were as they are only directed to each other as it were.
When you add "sat"; there is the possibility of bias, of one-sidedness; of "cat" coupling with "mat" THEN with "sat". The simple logic of cat:mat has become fuzzy.
This basic three seems to be what "colours" refer to in quantum chromo-dynamics.
(Couple "on" to "cat sat" but before "mat" and you get "cat sat on mat": an internal swim space for the items to define themselves: a volume that pushes in on itself and out against the world but is pulled back by its own space: a liquid. Give the liquid another way to self-organise (say hydrogen bonding) and it looks like water? )
Physics appears to be about tracking information. It appears to be about patterns of logic.
Mathematics appears to be about categorising things, about lumping them all together in one same-difference (it assumes numbers are equal sized and spaced units).
With three categories we can start to have math: we could say in the" world" of "sat" there are two concepts: "cat" and "mat".
Math doesn't tell you more than what you tell it; its about freezing everything.
Physics says: you could have different couplings of "cat", "mat", and "sat"; maths just says you can have ANY couplings of "cat", "mat" and "sat".
Quantum electro-dynamics appears to be about logic: about freezing math. Since math is already frozen, QED warms it up slightly (by one hop). Logic involves take two items, see how they look with other items; check that there are no contradictions in how they mix outside themselves and with how they mix together again with how they may mix to start with and how the outside things can mix to start with ("which was what was wanted").
It says "cat" meets "mat" (so each quantizes the other say) then in the say "calibration-"yawn"!" space (Calib-yau space) of "sat" you have options (alternatives)(energy): how they couple (who came first ? cat-mat, cat-sat, mat-sat? sat-mat? sat-cat?mat-sat? these six options are called "six quarks for Mr. Mark" (YOU are Mr. Mark say) They allow you to mark (notice) some other item as entangled with this group.
If you divide this other item into the six quarks you have got to allocate it to some of them. Physics then calls the resulting mixture "8 gluons" as you get the 6 quarks muddied by you (observer) mixing with the new item. So now have "8 gluons for Mr. Muon". When they discovered the muon someone said "who ordered that?".
The muon is the "who ordered that" particle, you might say. As it arrives when SOME OTHER item turns up. It is 40 times the mass (the uncertainty) of the electron (the electron is the potential fuzziness between you (Mr. Mark) and the third item ("sat").
To be seen it requires a new item (to tell it apart): so a hidden muon; to see the hidden muon requires a fifth item. To see the fuzziness (mass) of the muon requires a sixth item; this is confused by the six quarks so you end out with a fifth that is fuzzy in the 8 gluons giving 5x8=40 compared to electron.
Physics tracks order, and deflates the potential expansion of possibilities. Maths loses track, and inflates the possibilities. Physics mixed with maths is partly muddled (mathematical) while partly unmuddled (physical).
Maths: say 53 oranges: doesn't tell you much. Number is like a black-hole: from the observer's perspective: the "event" of you meet orange is muddled by 53. However, given what Professor Stephen Hawking has just told an international conference: the information (of what circumstances were involved when you met orange) need not be considered destroyed, only mangled.
The mangling is done by 53.
What physicists appear to be doing is rediscovering their own assumptions looking back at them in disguise. It is possible they will conclude that the information is not completely mangled, but has a protocol. Example: you: 53 oranges; protocol: 4 oranges now inside you.
They might next find the protocol involves addresses (splits in information into definite regions); then that it has homepages (content at addresses); then that there are exchange-places (calib-yau spaces)(chat-rooms); then specific exchanges that place limits on what happened; then that the black-hole is full of information; then that it is a memory that rings and "number" (53) has "evaporated" as actual reality (differences) takes over from math type fuzzying of things (over categorising); then that the "sound of silence" anyone can hear in their head in ultra-quiet surroundings is a superposition state of everything they ever experienced in their body.
(I discovered this about the singing of silence through an exploration of consciousness)
A basic idea in looking at understanding science:
finding the common ground, the background where two ideas are like different ways of looking at the same thing. Christopher Langan has developed the idea of "same-difference" in a paper on what he calls "conspansive duality".
My post is saturated with the very idea that Lama is talking about: symmetry and symmetry breaking.
A Fibbonacci series involves adding the previous two numbers to get the next one. It is a one-step slipped version of same-difference in a way.
This is dashed off; is costly so maybe post some more stuff then take a break.
(Also: takes time to develop water theory from liquid oxygen, liquid hydrogen platform; not sure when)
-Alan
dolphin
Jul27-04, 03:56 AM
Hi,
some more ideas:
the sixth quark in the previous post should have been "mat-cat" (although since you have to start the series somewhere it is perhaps not surprising it is fuzzy as I started with "cat" ; to solve this I would need to start with a coupling perhaps (like "cat-white") so that the sixth quark (Sith Lord in Star Wars movie you might say) can have a double-edged light ( as "comparison") sabre!
Physics:
Consider:
"a" meets "b"
The EVENT is "a" meets "b".
The EVENT HAPPEN: something went on when "a" met "b": so they exchanged greetings say. Have two perspectives on "a" meets "b":
a:b
a:b
To see this event happen: requires noticing a difference in a:b so put a circle around one of the two perspectives on a:b.
GAUGE the meeting: observer compares "c" with a:b; new a:b.
The comparison is "photon" exchanged between "c" and a:b against background of new a:b and observer (or simply a stopped clock where the change in a:b is frozen at the change in observer:c giving a sharing outside time. Labeling the items would generate the impression of a ticking clock but its just the label-machine ticking away say...?).
The "c" and a:b exchange is modified by new a:b so call this modification "electron".
So an electron is a fuzzying of the space a:b has to be different-looking a:b to the observer, via observer gauging that new look a:b via "c".
The role of "c" as a constant of comparison between a:b and new perspective a:b is an exchange medium, or photon. This appears why physcists say that space is null lines along a light beam.
To see the possibility of emission or absorption of the photon:
need "d", another gauge. This gives the electron mass, if you don't give the photon mass (uncertainty).
To see whether the photon is emitted or absorbed requires "e", another gauge.
Now the photon can be emitted OR absorbed. This is because your three gauges are now establishing their own localisation which is invariant relative one photon exchange with the two perspectives on a:b.
"e" gives fine structure to the space in which the event happened:
event is "a" meets "b"
happen is something went on so there are two perspectives on "a" meet "b":
so "event happen" is a:b; a:b
to gauge this event happening need "c" (a point of comparison to see it against which requires a ripple in "c" which is hidden as the new "a:b" seen on "c" background with observer (called a "wave function")
to collapse this wave function (get a handle on what happened when a:b became new a:b seen against background "c" by observer) you need "d". This allows a modified view of a:b becomes new a:b by seeing how c:d changed (the ripple in "c" hidden by new a:b can now show up in d (BUT DOESN"T HAVE TO: the laws of physics are voluntary it seems).
If we add "e" then we can lose the c:d perspective on a:b; a:b and call it "fine structure" in the c:d room that a:b had to reconfigure from a name-the-spaces perspective (math perspective; cateorising perspective).
Can now define distance within a:b becomes new a:b as the "e" in the invariant gauge (two gauges locked together) of c:d.
If add "f" can lock the fine structure "e" to "f" and call it "fine structure constant".
OR can call a deal betwen gauge e and f : the speed of light constant (as the light that "c" perspective sheds on a:b; new a:b seen in movement space d:e perspectives for observer to think about the event he is seeing; can be held constant in "f" as this gives an alternative way to balance the views available to him.)
(Need "g" to know speed of light constant: Michelson-Morley experiment is a "g" (graviton)(blind to direction)
OR could have a "d", "e", "f" deal (which gives a fixed local space to gauge event a:b; new a:b against a fixed alternative mixing space "c": so that d:e:f makes a:b; a:b appear 3 dimensional against "c" background; or makes the a:b seem to form a square in space-time with added length from observer's share-space and depth from its own share-space re: observer: so get a square root (a:b; a:b) of minus one (the background where observer meets event-happening)(the "time before time" as physicists may say) (beyond the infinite: the elongated square with depth as a door to outer space from inner space: the black monolith in the movie "2001 A Space Odyssey"! :Planck's constant (A constant plank for the observer to walk on: the mutual given space say)
OR could have a deal between perspectives "c", "d", "e", "f" which leaves the event a:b; new a:b to form lumps (masses) lumped together constant (gravity constant: the four in four).
String theory:
event happen a:b; a:b
the string attached is "c" condition on new a:b from old a:b
an "f" perspective allows the string to become theoretical.
If the "f" is distributed over perspectives c:d:e on the event a:b, new a:b;
get a "brane".
Brane theory:
The "f" perspective now hidden in the event a:b; new a:b (so a "no-brainer") requires two string theories to project it (or five string theories allow the event to dissapear or reappear: so the five string theories have to have a duality (on-off switch) connecting them if the event is real) (or have two times if the duality is switched to on)(or have two spaces (loops) if the duality is switched to off i.e. if gravity (the event) is split (quantised)........ or something like this!)
(Two string theories is involved in f-theory: so since logic involves comparing strings: f-theory is "physics" re-appearing in disguise! (Physics is apparently patterns of logic).
M theory: "the cat comes back": the event a:b; new a:b comes back as the mother of the gauging of the event when you have 5 string theories living with duality and with time and imaginary time. This can be called "imaginary event" or "the time before time".
(Since math assumes equal-size numbers and multiplication law; M-theory (return of the event a:b; new a:b) looks like math dressed up and reappearing to scientists)
(Total recall: admit all that is; and one's stem cells might re-activate and bring new life?)
Pea brane:
A mix of m-theory and f-theory:
FM: may be actually like radio frequency modulation ("radio" as communication; have an a:b; new a:b event modulated by its own two strings (logic possibility space) so get all kinds of actual possibilities (baby universes in a:b space) .
These gravitations of a:b; a:b into local loops (lie groups say)(sets); so a:b lumps in an a:b matrix if seen from a hop perspective (named spaces perspective) = variables in a fixed a:b grid, so matrix algebra in a non-commutating space (a hop space).
The above is very rough; I've got tidier stuff elsewhere!
-Alan
dolphin
Jul27-04, 04:54 AM
Hi North,
Sorry I did not directly address your comments before.
I am under severe financial constraint so may have to drift away soon.
Quote N: "by discussing i think i'm getting better at relaying what i'm thinking(or really,what i'm picturing).i can picture at a microscopic level ( in the theory of chemistry at the moment) elements that come together and that the electrons bring them together.but i have a hard time thinking that the electrons and protons ALONE account for liquidity,hardness.it's like i think that when they do come together that they release something(some form of energy,a key themselves which opens up a source)which flows,sort of a energy flux,which transforms, Because of the electronic configuration of the element and/or molecule."
A: My guess is that what we call "electrons" are time-frozen ideas but that when the electrons of neighbouring molecules get together in the case of liquid you get like a single electron (like if "electron" is "modification of space" isn't a liquid a "modified space" as it has internal boundaries (it pushes and pulls within itself: it flows).
What is it that the electrons release to become a single electron (a liquid) in certain situations?
My guess is that they combine their respective protons as a single proton which becomes the localisation of space in the liquid as a single space; by releasing their respective neutrons as a single neutron. This gives the universe a neutral view of the liquid so allows the liquid to be self-contained.
I'm guessing that a liquid has an electron, proton, and neutron distributed over the whole thing.
___________________________________________
A: Simplifying things to extremes:
"a" meeets "b":
this is so far "hard" (as "a" bumps up against "b" you might say) yet also liquid (as "a" swims in "b" space and vice versa) yet also gas ("a" and "b" could be anywhere in each other's space).
Like two categories meets (so far unknown number of meetings between them).
___________________________________________
Quote N: sort of ,but go from there,your flexibility is there,now lets see if it true,don't let me deter you,i'm trying to understand what you think but i admit i'm not sure! go with it.
A: The idea is that there is a super simple way of looking at this where you can choose which perspective: if "a" meets "b" they are solid, liquid, or gas; depending on how you look at it.
A: The idea
Like a bell ringing (so far the hidden variable is the variation between "a" and "b" and not hidden at all; but to see it you would have to split this "a" meets "b" micro-cosmos and allocate one coupling of a:b as Bell inequalities (where "a" and "b" retain their differences) and the other coupling of "a" and "b" as a mixture (a superposition of "a" and "b") where the variation between them is by definition concealed from view (muddled together).
___________________________________________
could be,Bell's point of view could be the Key!! local variations(this is new to me) maybe missed by quantum-mechanics.
___________________________________________
A: I found "quantum" to fit the idea "meeting"; and "mechanics" to fit the idea "mechanical" or a "fixed structure that can adjust" (like a mechanical digger).
So "quantum mechanics" becomes: "meeting fixed adjustments" or "logic" (every way (the meeting) adjustment can be fixed)
A: To see both "hidden variables" AND "Bell inequalities" in the same viewpoint you would (say) have to muddle THESE concepts together in one place and separate them in another.
___________________________________________
interesting, but explain your thinking here.
A: If the event "a" meets "b" involves something happened ("a" said "hi" to "b") if you were to describe this as a bell ringing (as something vibrated: "Hi" was heard) you would have dificulty saying that "a" and "b" were unequal (that ONE of them said "Hi" and one listened to "Hi")
But if you muddle these ideas (by having someone observe the event) you can then talk of the ringing Bell (a vibration in a:b space AND the inequality (one of them said "Hi").
Sorry this internet cafe closing now...
-Alan
Hi north,
Maybe the deep thing that you are looking for can be found by the symmetry concept.
By symmetry we sometimes can find the deep connections that exist between so-called different things.
We have learned during the last 100 years that the power of simplicity that is expressed through symmetry can be found in the basis of many interesting abstract and non-abstract systems, for example:
Mendeleyev periodic table (http://www.nfinity.com/~exile/periodic.htm),
Hadrons family (http://www.egglescliffe.org.uk/physics/particles/hadron1/hadron1.html),
Fibonacci series (http://goldennumber.net/links.htm),
Gauge theory (http://www.britannica.com/nobel/micro/228_45.html).
Fundamental constant http://comp.uark.edu/~strauss/sym.2/sym.4.2.html
In this address http://plus.maths.org/issue10/features/topology/ You can see how the symmetry which stands in the basis of a Donut, can be transformed to a Cofee cup, and vise versa.
The physical laws of nature are also described in terms of symmetry and broken symmetry states.
Please tell me if I am in the right direction before we continue.
Yours,
Lama
___________________________________________
symmetry could be the angle needed.for there seems to be a symmetry between hydrogen and oxygen when brought down to very low tempteratures and that when brought together,the liquid state reapears,but now under different,outside enviromental circumstances.(their combination-energy-heat) which now allows the state of liquidity at much higher temperatures,WHY? its like to me the liquidity state is always there but held until temperature(which changes something but WHAT?) allows it to flow again. so lets start at low temps. for hydrgen>liquid state>raise temp.>liquid state no longer>combine with oxygen>liquid state again.both change, i think the same thing(s) within them but in different ways. the symmetry is broken(no longer a liquid state) to the H2O combination>liquid state>symmetry but now the reason FOR the symmetry has changed.the state of liquidity is ALLOWED to happen SOONER(higher temps.)
no reason that i can see says this is not a path to be explored here to see the deeper symmetry between H&O which i think is hidden in the space between the outside and center of the atoms themselves.i wouldn't be surprised that because of the symmetries found that something completely unexpected is going on!! form(s) change to something which change to something else which.......etc.
i've been trying to think of a way to better relay what it is that i'm try ing to get at.
lets expand the hydrogen atom to a size we can see.using the football(English version of the game) as representing the electron and the proton being 1840 or so times this size,i can now stand and see this atom.now lets bring the temperature down,i'm not affected,now suddenly(perhaps not,i suspect not suddenly),at the right temperature,it has a liquid state,now the thing is,is that, there is nothing in our present state of knowledge that would PREDICT this state of liquidity.we know this to happen but could we PREDICT this to happen,for i find that there is nothing within the atom that gives any hint of the possibility of a liquid state. my question is WHY then can we not PREDICT this. because if we could predict WHAT causes a liquid state in any element(s) and combinations thereof then we would truly answer,WATER, a manifestation of WHAT.
we should be able to say that this element(s) and combinations thereof will form a liquid state in such and such circumstance without actually having to do an experiment. could we even now if it had not already been known PREDICT that Hydrogen would become a liquid a low temperatures? we can not,but WHY can't we? what else should we know about HYDROGEN that should have told us this?
terrabyte
Jul27-04, 02:58 PM
temperature IS energy level at an atomic level.
you can't say bring the temperature down and let's observe what happens to the atomic level because the atomic energy level DEFINES temperature. it also defines matter "states" vis-a-vis solid,liquid,gas
russ_watters
Jul27-04, 03:48 PM
I'm wondering if I should bother, but.... ...now lets bring the temperature [of one atom of hydrogen] down,i'm not affected,now suddenly(perhaps not,i suspect not suddenly),at the right temperature,it has a liquid state... What about this thread would lead you to that conclusion? It has been explained, by now a dozen times, that the properties of a liquid are based on the interactions of multiple molecules. One atom of hydrogen at any temperature will not display properties of a liquid. That is not a failing of physics or chemistry, it is a failing of your understanding of physics and chemistry.
Since the premise you base your question on is wrong, the rest of your description there is meaningless. You are spinning your wheels in place and asking meaningless questions.we should be able to say that this element(s) and combinations thereof will form a liquid state in such and such circumstance without actually having to do an experiment. We can do precisely that, with the obvious caveat that we can only make predictions about liquid properties when liquid properties exist. You are faulting physics for not being able to predict certain properties when there are no such properties to predict.could we even now if it had not already been known PREDICT that Hydrogen would become a liquid a low temperatures? we can not,but WHY can't we? what else should we know about HYDROGEN that should have told us this? Yes, as a matter of fact, we can make such predictions. Do you know why? If you've been paying attention, you should. I'm not optomistic...
russ_watters
Jul27-04, 03:50 PM
Since the premise you base your question on is wrong, the rest of your description there is meaningless. I'm not sure you'll understand this, so I'll explain with an example:
Premise: I'm God.
Question: What powers do I have?
Clearly, since I'm not God (or am I? :wink: ), I don't have any powers to investigate, therefore asking "What powers do I have?" is a meaningless question.
dolphin
Jul29-04, 02:24 AM
Just quickly:
In other words: if one of the minimum ingredients required for defining "liquid state" (at least in chemistry) is "several atoms or molecules interacting" (someone said six are required for water); then to talk of "one atom becoming liquid" is like talking of one brick becoming a house.
You could wait all day but never see a brick be anything other than a brick even after it was added to many others to form a house? Not quite; the brick would have undergone some pushes and pulls as it was moved into position with the other bricks.
It would become part of a circuit of strain in the building: you could perhaps measure a slight strain on the brick after the house was built.
If you did North's experiment and added hydrogen and oxygen atoms one by one; once you had enough of them and enough pressure and containment and a spark of energy to overcome the energy barrier you could get water.
Would the hydrogen and oxygen atoms be any different then? To measure one of them surely you would have to separate it out by doing electrolysis of water (pass an electric current through the water and see what happens at a zinc and a carbon electrode diped in the water).
But whatever hidden stress or strain was in the individual atom would presumably be released via electrolysis, so your collected hydrogen and oxygen would look just as they usually do?
Similarly pull a brick from a house and whatever strain it is under is gone. If the brick was made of rubber it might expand a bit after you pulled it out. It is conceivable that atoms of hydrogen and oxygen are slightly squashed when in liquid form but that they avoid this by synchronising their respective squashed-ness by tumbling all over one another so some expand a bit while squashing others; but with an overall net lower volume than before the liquid condensed?
A liquid might be a self-referring volume, a single quantum (meeting) state of volume. A solid might be quantised area.
If this were the case then "water: a manifestation of what?" might be answered:
a manifestation of an ongoing exchange among its molecules re: their volume so that the sum of the volume of all the molecules added up based on statistics would be greater than the actual volume of the water divided by the number of water molecules.
You could suggest water is a manifestation of quantum tunneling.
-just some ideas thrown around!
-Alan
dolphin
Jul29-04, 02:49 AM
another thing:
IF chemistry is holographic:
like each phenomenon is a language that the others can "speak"; than "oxygen" can "speak" hydrogen and hydrogen can "speak" oxygen.
And "temperature" can speak both "hydrogen" and "oxygen"; and "pressure" can speak all three and so on.
Actually in broad terms it may be like this by default: to know two things are different requires that they be distinct against a mutual common background.
If you couldn't tell the difference betwen oxygen and pressure how would you get far in chemistry?
"water" is a language spoken by hydrogen and oxygen you might say, when seen against the background of certain atom quantities, pressure, temperature, and historical breaking-of-energy-barrier conditions.
So you could ask: what conditions are needed so that hydrogen can speak "liquid"?
Some items might "speak" a certain "language" only when certain items are excluded from the conditions with others included; so as to avoid contradictions in how each is defined.
-Alan
russ_watters
Jul29-04, 08:10 AM
If you did North's experiment and added hydrogen and oxygen atoms one by one; once you had enough of them and enough pressure and containment and a spark of energy to overcome the energy barrier you could get water. I didn't see that in north's proposal.But whatever hidden stress or strain was in the individual atom would presumably be released via electrolysis, so your collected hydrogen and oxygen would look just as they usually do? Correct.Similarly pull a brick from a house and whatever strain it is under is gone. If the brick was made of rubber it might expand a bit after you pulled it out. It is conceivable that atoms of hydrogen and oxygen are slightly squashed when in liquid form but that they avoid this by synchronising their respective squashed-ness by tumbling all over one another so some expand a bit while squashing others; but with an overall net lower volume than before the liquid condensed? I'm not sure you realize this, but you're arguing my point here, not north's. Yes, the brick only has measurable stresses associated with being part of a house when it is part of a house - similarly, a molecule doesn't exhibit any properties of a liquid unless it is part of a liquid.
I'm not sure you realize this, but you're arguing my point here, not north's. Yes, the brick only has measurable stresses associated with being part of a house when it is part of a house -
___________________________________________
similarly, a molecule doesn't exhibit any properties of a liquid unless it is part of a liquid.[/QUOTE]
___________________________________________
maybe for a molecule but not necessarily for a lone atom.right now the basis for understanding liquids is based on behaviour and why.for instanace, in most cases, dense gases are considered the same as liquids.there is pressure-compression,thermodynamics,magnetism,electronics etc.to consider, and it is considered that a liquid state could not happen unless there is a minimum cluster of atoms.it may take a minimum amount of atoms for us to detect the state of liquidity but that does not mean that it does not happen i say that this is an "ASSUMPTION" there is a possibility that a liquid state can exist in a lone atom.
try the first experiment and STUDY its behaviour.
in the book "States of Matter" David admits they not only do not fully understand liquids, he says and i quote "The fact is that if one inquires closely enough,even our elegant and eminently successful theories of solids have their quantitative shortcomings.Their success lies in that we believe that we have a firm grasp of the basic principles of the problem.It is that kind of grasp that we lack in the liquid problem.All the formalism we have gone through is no substitute for the intuition we need.The hope, rather, is that it may lead us to that intuition."
intuition is precisely what guides me here.right or wrong my first experiment is valid.the minimum to be gained is knowledge.
russ_watters
Aug1-04, 10:27 PM
maybe for a molecule but not necessarily for a lone atom. On what observation do you base that? What properties could they display? Viscocity? Melting point? If I were a plant, what color would my eyes be?in most cases, dense gases are considered the same as liquids. Yes.... what does that have to do with anything? there is pressure-compression,thermodynamics,magnetism,electronics etc.to consider, and it is considered that a liquid state could not happen unless there is a minimum cluster of atoms.it may take a minimum amount of atoms for us to detect the state of liquidity but that does not mean that it does not happen... Well, you tell me: what happens on a molecular level when you compress a liquid or solid? What, precisely is being compressed? ...i say that this is an "ASSUMPTION" there is a possibility that a liquid state can exist in a lone atom... What you see as an unfounded assumption is something so basic that its hard to express in words. I'm having a hard time understanding how you could not understand it. It seems that you are simply refusing to accept reality at face value.
try the first experiment and STUDY its behaviour.
in the book "States of Matter" David admits they not only do not fully understand liquids, he says and i quote "The fact is that if one inquires closely enough,even our elegant and eminently successful theories of solids have their quantitative shortcomings.Their success lies in that we believe that we have a firm grasp of the basic principles of the problem.It is that kind of grasp that we lack in the liquid problem.All the formalism we have gone through is no substitute for the intuition we need.The hope, rather, is that it may lead us to that intuition."
intuition is precisely what guides me here.right or wrong my first experiment is valid.the minimum to be gained is knowledge.[/QUOTE]
i have no observation,just my curiosity,i'd just like to see for myself what happens when one hydrogen atom is brought down to it's liquid state.and as of yet no one has done this.
i also found that it is curious that a liquid is considered the same as a dense gas.i can understand this comparision.the thing that struck me though is that, there is a change of state.
for compression in what i have read so far, David was talking about the incompressibility of condensed matter because atoms don't like to enter each others core.
the trouble is Russ,when i first proposed the first experiment,you said not bad,with no feed back from you on the validity of the experiment.now you have changed your tune.what i'm refusing to believe is that when someone says "not bad" at first then makes a complete turn around and shoots it down or appleals to my not accepting things as they are,(of course not, this is science after all, in it's true spirit,some question things as they stand,some like your self don't,and people like myself do) makes me wary of really where you stand.i would expect that if there was a problem with the experiment in the first place i would expect the objections right then and there,not further down the road.
the fact is what "works" isn't enough.and it's just not me who thinks so whether you like it or not.i think it's you who has the difficulty accepting the fact that we don't "know it all" and THAT is the reality.
russ_watters
Aug2-04, 11:51 AM
i also found that it is curious that a liquid is considered the same as a dense gas.i can understand this comparision.the thing that struck me though is that, there is a change of state. No, there is no change of state. Its just that at a certain pressure and temperature (but not an exact temperature and pressure) the properties become indistinguishable. This should be easy to understand: a liquid is essentially a dense, viscous gas. the trouble is Russ,when i first proposed the first experiment,you said not bad,with no feed back from you on the validity of the experiment.now you have changed your tune.what i'm refusing to believe is that when someone says "not bad" at first then makes a complete turn around and shoots it down or appleals to my not accepting things as they are I probably should have given you more feedback and for that I apologize. It isn't a bad experiment, it just won't tell us anything (of course, that may be exactly what you need to see). i would expect that if there was a problem with the experiment in the first place i would expect the objections right then and there,not further down the road. There are some practical issues with carying it out, but the main objection is that most scientists wouldn't consider it useful. It may be useful to you to see the experiment produce nothing, but a scientist isn't going to run an experiment like that just to show you that nothing happens. the fact is what "works" isn't enough.and it's just not me who thinks so whether you like it or not.i think it's you who has the difficulty accepting the fact that we don't "know it all" and THAT is the reality. Yes, there are a lot of people who believe that: philosophers, theologians in particular. But not scientists. To a scientist, the one and only critereon for determining the vailidy of a theory is how well it "works."
just a point to be made.what would you have thought if someone came to you and said that they would like to try an experiment to show that "cold fusion" is possible.going by how you come across here you would have said it won't happen, so whats the point, you would be wasting your time,alot of scientists would have agreed with you,and yet in time all of you would be proven wrong.there are scientists all over the world that are doing just that,producing cold fusion even though at this point they may not fully understand why.but to understand it is still going on.
if we stick to what just works(which really has not been the question here in the first place,since it does work,no argument)then we would never come across cold fusion in the first place.all i'm trying to do is open up the POSSIBILITY that we JUST MIGHT unexpectedly come across something and not close the door until we absolutely know for sure,rather than assuming that nothing will become of it,based on what we know now,what ever that something is. so just look at it this way,simply why not anyway.i mean really, why not? if i'm wrong that nothing happens so be it,but if i'm right........ you see what i've always liked about science is discovery.that i think is the difference between you and me,i like discovery-you on the other hand like what works(although without discovery you wouldn't have what works!! kind of a paradox for you,wouldn't you say!)
russ_watters
Aug2-04, 03:57 PM
just a point to be made.what would you have thought if someone came to you and said that they would like to try an experiment to show that "cold fusion" is possible.going by how you come across here you would have said it won't happen, so whats the point, you would be wasting your time,alot of scientists would have agreed with you,and yet in time all of you would be proven wrong.there are scientists all over the world that are doing just that,producing cold fusion... Wow. No, sorry, no one is producing cold fusion. It doesn't work. Cold Fusion research exists today as crackpots reproducing the work of frauds (Pons and Fleischman). Your issues with science run far deeper than I realized. Sorry, but I cannot help you.
Wow. No, sorry, no one is producing cold fusion. It doesn't work. Cold Fusion research exists today as crackpots reproducing the work of frauds (Pons and Fleischman). Your issues with science run far deeper than I realized. Sorry, but I cannot help you.
___________________________________________
WOW, a little behind the times are we!! of course you can't help me(thats plainly obvious) you are what works,thats just not deep enough.!! :biggrin:
for those open minded enough, a web site to visit on Cold Fusion is http://www.infinite-energy.com ,there are links as well.
russ_watters
Aug4-04, 11:35 AM
WOW, a little behind the times are we!! of course you can't help me(thats plainly obvious) you are what works,thats just not deep enough.!! :biggrin:
for those open minded enough, a web site to visit on Cold Fusion is http://www.infinite-energy.com ,there are links as well. Not just me - why hasn't the Nobel Prize comittee weighed-in on this yet? Its the greatest discovery in the history of science (it really would be, if true). And where can I buy a generator? I'll make a fortune selling power back to my power company...
I honestly, sincerely hope you come to your senses some day soon. I just hope it doesn't take decades of continuing failure. Failing chemistry class won't hurt you much in the long run, but the further down this path you go, the greater the failures and their effect on your life.
Deeviant
Aug4-04, 02:26 PM
Russ, your patience is amazing. North is so close to being a forum troll I can't tell the difference.
Not just me - why hasn't the Nobel Prize comittee weighed-in on this yet? Its the greatest discovery in the history of science (it really would be, if true). And where can I buy a generator? I'll make a fortune selling power back to my power company...
I honestly, sincerely hope you come to your senses some day soon. I just hope it doesn't take decades of continuing failure. Failing chemistry class won't hurt you much in the long run, but the further down this path you go, the greater the failures and their effect on your life.
___________________________________________
as you know, seeing as that your some what familar that there is politics therefore money involved here i can't think you are that naive as to ignor this fact.those with flexibility of mind are always feared by those who have no hope of understanding their theory and history proves this.your a conformist pure and simple.you fear what you can't understand,don't worry your not alone. insult me all you want but there are people out there that are more intelligent and imaginative than you, that are beyond you,period!!
Russ, your patience is amazing. North is so close to being a forum troll I can't tell the difference.
___________________________________________
youv'e lost your focus,think about the experiment and what i've quoted from "STATES of MATTER". all the rest is a matter of the universe being flexible and whether we are. is there science in the true sense of the word or stagnation. so "we know it all"??? really!! so we can explain absolutely everything now and into say, next 100,000 years of observation,detection and study. well that is a revelation, well then there are "NO MORE SURPRISES" we can explain things so well, lets now look into the future and i suspect that you will be coming out with this book or whatever soon. is there a Noble Prize here,there's got to be, i mean who knew, i'll be looking!!
russ_watters
Aug5-04, 12:42 PM
as you know, seeing as that your some what familar that there is politics therefore money involved here i can't think you are that naive as to ignor this fact. Conspiracy theory? My god, north, take a step back and think about what you are saying here. This is 2004 and you are on the internet: the government or evil rich people cannot suppress such information. Besides, you gave me a link to some such information (bad information, but information nonetheless) - don't you see the contradiction there?
Perhaps you also need a history lesson: do you know the history of cold fusion? When it was first announced by Pons and Fleischman in 1989, do you know where they announced it? Scientific American? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists? No, they announced it in The Wall Street Journal! That should have been a red-flag, but despite that breach of the scientific method, the entire scientific world stopped for a month to try to duplicate the findings: that kind of response was unprecidented. The scientific community was met with nothing but deception and evasion from Pons & Fleischman. After a month of unanswered questions, the scientific community concluded the idea was bunk - some say P&F were just incompetent, but by the end, it really did become fraud. P&F did NOT observe fusion and cold fusion research since then hasn't either.
North, you are decending into a rapidly tightening crackpot death spiral of self-reinforcing delusions. You need to stop, back up, and regain control. I'm not saying this to insult you - I hate to see this happen to people who have potential.
North, in the past 100 years, science has taken us from riding horse-drawn carriages to riding cars, riding planes, and riding rockets to the moon. You cannot ignore the fact that this science you despise so much has produced everything that is part of modern life today. is there science in the true sense of the word or stagnation. so "we know it all"??? really!! so we can explain absolutely everything now and into say, next 100,000 years of observation,detection and study North, you are not in a position to say such things as you have refused to learn anything of what we do know. Its hypocritical.there that are more intelligent and imaginative than you, that are beyond you,period!! Absolutely. I'm not Einstein and never pretend to be. And you could be! But you need to realize the same thing. You need to realize that far from Einstein, the aveage college freshman knows more about real science than you do. You have a long way to go before you are beyond anyone. You could become the next Einstein, but do it the way Einstein did it. Its not possible the way you are doing it.
Conspiracy theory? My god, north, take a step back and think about what you are saying here. This is 2004 and you are on the internet: the government or evil rich people cannot suppress such information. Besides, you gave me a link to some such information (bad information, but information nonetheless) - don't you see the contradiction there?
___________________________________________
from what i understand,they relised their mistake but it seemed that they were forced to because,i think it was a university in Utah(can't remember the name)was going to publish their results before them and they had to hurry there findings before they were ready,hence they unorthodox method of announcing their findings. a shame really.but there has been research since then.
i mentioned politics and money because there was a loby by certain people to denounce it because of the money that was going into hot fusion(40 billion dollars)this employs alot of people, i believe at MIT alone.so it seemed to me(the DOE was involved here to) which had asked that this be looked into but was discouraged to do so. the book by Eugene F.
Mallove "Fire from Ice"(who by the way has died recently,which at this point is being perceived as a homicide)is a good read on the events that took place. it has been recomended by;
Dr.Frank Sulloway former MacArthur Fellow Science historian,MIT program in Science,Technology,and Society.
and also Dr.Henry Kolm, cofounder of MIT's Francis Bitter Magnet Laboratory.
and as well Julian Schwinger, Nobel Laureate in Physics.
All i have ever asked is an open mind.
by the way if you or any body else is interested in Eugene's book it can be bought on the infinite-energy web site.
___________________________________________
North, in the past 100 years, science has taken us from riding horse-drawn carriages to riding cars, riding planes, and riding rockets to the moon. You cannot ignore the fact that this science you despise so much has produced everything that is part of modern life today.
___________________________________________
yes it has been a fantastic and a fascinating ride has it not!!? no argument here!! but there never was,really!! this is not so much a challenge to what we know but now that we know this, lets just carry on and go further in.
___________________________________________
North, you are not in a position to say such things as you have refused to learn anything of what we do know. Its hypocritical. Absolutely. I'm not Einstein and never pretend to be. And you could be! But you need to realize the same thing. You need to realize that far from Einstein, the aveage college freshman knows more about real science than you do. You have a long way to go before you are beyond anyone. You could become the next Einstein, but do it the way Einstein did it. Its not possible the way you are doing it.
___________________________________________
you are right, i don't know as much as alot of others. and that has been my down fall in getting respect for my ideas,but i'm well into my 40's and have enjoyed science all my life, just can't do the dam math!!,oh-well, life gives us our path.
but i've made it my goal to be as open to as many theories as possible,with critizism,so i'm used to different ideas and theories,there are so may out there really!
for instance Tom Van Flanderns book, Dark Matter Missing Planets & New Comets(he has a web site by the way http://metaresearch.org,his book is availible on his site too) i wish you or someone like you would join this site because your knowledge is greater than i think any others on the site as far as challengeing his ideas,THIS NOT ABOUT ANY DISCREDITING YOU OR TOM, but simply a discussion of different perspectives.
by the way for myself i don't agree with all that he puts forth especially about scales
the basis of my experiment is to not take what we know for granted.we could miss the smallest detail,maybe not,but at the same time nobody has. that could add to what we already know.no harm there, is there?really.
Hi,
first may I run a test:
I typed this sentence on an old Apple lap-top computer:
"the cat sat on the mat"
hopefully it will appear which means I can type off-line.
To Russel:
I take your point re: the rubber brick.
I was not disputing your perspective but trying to find clarity as there is the possibility in physics debates that there is a way of looking at the scenario where what look like clashing views might be able to be seen as different perspectives on a bigger picture such that both parties are right.
On the face of it North seems to be looking for "liquid" state in a single atom which appears to be a contradiction in terms as in science "liquid" and "single atom" appear to be mutually exclusive.
However a group of molecules comprising several atoms can have a liquid state; but it appears that the attempt to observe any individual atom would require an injection of energy such as to interfere with what you are observing so as to give you just a typical looking atom with no "liquid" properties.
However one could analyse the "obervation process" itself and the interference required to separate the atom to look at it, and compare that with making such an observation of an atom in a gas. One could then propose that the difference in what you need to do to see one atom in a gas compared to seeing one atom in a liquid; this difference in how you have to go about observing IS ITSELF one could suggest a way of looking at what "liquid" means.
Speculating here:
a molecule might be regarded as a "liquid atom"; a group of molecules in a liquid state might be considered to be "liquid atoms, liquid again" ; if so this double-defining of "liquid" would lead the logician to propose that molecules in a liquid exhibit some atom-like properties not shown in non-liquid state.
This highly speculative theory would be testable: is there any atomic property of hydrogen, and of oxygen; that re-appears in liquid water but is not present in gas or solid water? The property might be distributed over the entire liquid, may be coded in some way.
Here is another thing:
This is not fully thought out but:
It appears that there is a super simple way to unravel mathematics, physics, and chemistry. It is reminiscent of what we are told about the Kingdom of Heaven: where "every stone is overturned"; "I will give you a logic that needs no rehearsal"; "ask and it will be given you, knock and the door shall be opened to you"; "He shall come in glory at the end of time, and His kingdom will have no end"; there appears to be a "consciousness space" where all is known and transparent, where "the wolf shall lie down with the lamb":
This super simple approach reminds me of these sayings.
Idea:
Mathematics is built around the idea that "1 + 1 = 2". But obviously they can not exactly be the same, or you would have just one. Mathematicians get around this by inventing "base" and "number".
Physics: physics notices that in the real world "1 + 1 might not be 2"; it deals with this by assuming "1+1" is split into "this aspect of 1 + 1" and "that aspect of 1 + 1".
Physics doesn't claim to know how big each one in this four is. When the initial two ones exchange some of each other, who knows how much each gives to the other?
This expansion and contraction is the basic model of physics: it is logic. "prove a car is blue": you look at other things that are blue (expand "blue") and see if "car" is like that other blue thing (does "car" look like "Earth's sky on middle of a sunny cloud-less day"?)
Here "blue" has expanded to include "sky"; "car" has been contracted to "like sky".
But "expansion" (mass: uncertainty) and "contraction" (charge: bias) seem interchangeable here. But introduce some other problem (re-normalisation)(make everything stringy: with strings attached) (gravitate the categories via a loop that quantises their coming together: loop quantum gravity): "who's car is claimed to be a blue car? Joe's car or Bill's car? "
Now we have a "double slit experiment": "Joe" and "Bill" are two slits in the screen of "some other problem". The "photon" (the juggling of "car", "sky" and "blue": being three it is "self referent reference i.e. time-standing-still" being juggled (so with space) is passing through two slits.
If you were to split the photon "car1sky1blue1" and "car2sky2blue2" you would have to collapse the two slits into "Joe or Bill" that is an expansion-contraction space. This is called "The EPR experiment". If photon 1 is spun left to Joe, you cannot see "spin up, spin down" that is whether its "sky" component is bias to "car" or "blue".
If you can see that it is spun up or down (has internal bias), you can not see "Joe; Bill" bias because of the problem of induction (the expansion-contraction uncertainty principle). So we have "non-locality" and "entanglement" possibly explained. Also quantum spin explained and the relationship between scale and direction?
What physics does: QED tracks information to cover all bases; it is about swapping the operations of addition (which requires a same-difference between addends so virtual multiplication) and multiplication (which assumes an exchangeable difference such as the extra 1 in 3 compared to 2 can (though "2" implies a background so already a hidden 1) be swapped in "2 x 3" so involves virtual addition".) Virtual addition is "direction" of the arrow and virtual multiplication is "ratio" (probability): compare with other arrows and you get Feynman QED (adding of arrows on a piece of paper).
Physics collapses the problem of induction into "alpha: the fine structure constant" which is an attempt to fix the expansion:contraction. The price of doing this is to require a constant of comparison ("C" the spoeed of light constant); a constant of difference (non comparison) ("h" the Planck constant); and a constant of boundary to expansion contraction: G: the "set" constant which covers lumps" gravity: curved space.
The standard model of physics can be extensively mapped by this approach, it appears. This is just a bit typed up; subject to debate!
Chemistry: chemists seem to tackle the "does 1 + 1 = 2?" problem by saying:
instead of talking of a fuzzy four like the physicists; we will make a Pauli exclusion priciple and say the two ones exchange information but then exchange it again so could be back where they started but might not be". This gives the possibility of four zeroes (called "four quantum numbers") and 8 groups.
But is anything uneven amongst the 8 groups? How big is each group? This is solved by chemistry by saying something could be exchanged among the 8 groups; so call this 8-1 = 7 periods describing the fuzzying of scale by the 8 groups. (These 8 groups turn up in physics as 8 gluons). So we have 7 periods x 8 groups = 56 transition elements in the periodic table.
I am speculating somewhat here and do not claim to have all the answers. Why 104 basic elements? The initial 4 in physics: splitting "1 + 1 = 2" into four; with uncertain scale: so split this aspect off and call it the "5"; then multiply the 4 by the 5 get 20; but now the "4" is 16 with the fuzziness as an extra 4? So multiply by 5 get 20 x 5 = 100 and the extra 4 is redistributed among the 5 so as to not dictate whether the fuzziness is real or not; then add 4 more (100 + 4 = 104) so as to make a Higgs field? A field where the scale difference can appear and dissapear? Rather messy trying to work it out!
-Alan
Alan
what are you trying to say,specificly?
russ_watters
Aug10-04, 07:58 AM
the basis of my experiment is to not take what we know for granted.we could miss the smallest detail,maybe not,but at the same time nobody has. that could add to what we already know.no harm there, is there?really. That's fine, north. All I'm saying is that without the expectation of finding anything, you'll have a hard time convincing anyone to do the experiment. Most will want you to make a prediction about what will be observed.
dolphin
Aug11-04, 03:38 AM
To North:
Scientists' DEFINITION of liquid requires several atoms. To them it is nonsense to talk of one liquid atom on its own.
In your experiment you would have to not just add atoms one at a time; you would have to contain them in a limited space (pressurise them) and you would have to add some spark of energy they say. Also you would have to cool them.
Actually that sounds like a contradiction: cool them yet add a spark. But the spark perhaps alows the "cool" and the "pressure" to swap places partly: cool under pressure: liquid?
A liquid has its own built-in pressure (it is self-contained) and its own built in cooling: the molecules swap some of their individual jiggling for group jiggling (I theorise).
I'm theorising that this group dance of the molecules puts pressure on each one to "sail the ship": so pressure is internal.
But actually pressure is relieved by cool-ness / pressure exchanges? This is achieved by surface area minimisation (in space you get a ball of liquid).
There is maximum choice of molecules changing position in synch with the rest in a ball? And group jiggling has minimum requirement in a ball? So no internal gravity needed? In a gravity field the liquid plays with gravity and surface (it flows) to achieve its free-est state it seems?
If you tried to keep tabs on each atom individually while you did all that cooling and pressurising and spark-adding; you would have to keep the atoms apart which would prevent them from becoming a liquid! Hot under pressure: your experiment would produce a plasma.
In fact you would have to contain it in a magnetic bottle and you might get nuclear fusion!
About physics:
it appears to be patterns of logic.
About maths:
it appears to be logic of patterns.
About chemistry:
it appears to be about hospitality (making rooms for things)
If you look at what I have written about the double slit experiment and the EPR experiment and M theory and F theory and QED (logic) and QCD (fuzzy logic) and compare with the scientific literature you may see that what looks like complex science can be mapped it seems in a very simple way?
-Alan
That's fine, north. All I'm saying is that without the expectation of finding anything, you'll have a hard time convincing anyone to do the experiment. Most will want you to make a prediction about what will be observed.
___________________________________________
the hydrogen atom will become a liquid it's self. so why? because the electron will condense.and if you fire an electron at it in it's liquid state does it bounce off,or be absorbed.baring that, what are it's characteristics in this state.what does it do,not do,if you use X-Rays what does it look like? but more than this i just want to know WHAT HAPPENS.look we know that both oxygen and hydrogen are liquids at very low temps. and yet when brought together a liquid forms at higher temps. but why, i think that one or the other acts as some kind of catalyst and that has something to do with electrons,notice that oxygen has a lower liquid state than hydrogen.oxygen having more electrons than hydrogen.something is going on but what? like i said before, i think there is a transformation of electrons themselves. something new i thought of, is there a density of the liquid state between hydrogen and oxygen, i predict that oxygen will have a denser liquid state in it's pure form than hydrogen.
To North:
Scientists' DEFINITION of liquid requires several atoms. To them it is nonsense to talk of one liquid atom on its own.
In your experiment you would have to not just add atoms one at a time; you would have to contain them in a limited space (pressurise them) and you would have to add some spark of energy they say. Also you would have to cool them.
Actually that sounds like a contradiction: cool them yet add a spark. But the spark perhaps alows the "cool" and the "pressure" to swap places partly: cool under pressure: liquid?
A liquid has its own built-in pressure (it is self-contained) and its own built in cooling: the molecules swap some of their individual jiggling for group jiggling (I theorise).
I'm theorising that this group dance of the molecules puts pressure on each one to "sail the ship": so pressure is internal.
But actually pressure is relieved by cool-ness / pressure exchanges? This is achieved by surface area minimisation (in space you get a ball of liquid).
There is maximum choice of molecules changing position in synch with the rest in a ball? And group jiggling has minimum requirement in a ball? So no internal gravity needed? In a gravity field the liquid plays with gravity and surface (it flows) to achieve its free-est state it seems?
If you tried to keep tabs on each atom individually while you did all that cooling and pressurising and spark-adding; you would have to keep the atoms apart which would prevent them from becoming a liquid! Hot under pressure: your experiment would produce a plasma.
In fact you would have to contain it in a magnetic bottle and you might get nuclear fusion!
About physics:
it appears to be patterns of logic.
About maths:
it appears to be logic of patterns.
About chemistry:
it appears to be about hospitality (making rooms for things)
If you look at what I have written about the double slit experiment and the EPR experiment and M theory and F theory and QED (logic) and QCD (fuzzy logic) and compare with the scientific literature you may see that what looks like complex science can be mapped it seems in a very simple way?
-Alan
__________________________________________
from what i understand it is density that allows for the cooling,less dense more the cooling.
russ_watters
Aug16-04, 08:52 PM
the hydrogen atom will become a liquid it's self. so why? because the electron will condense.and if you fire an electron at it in it's liquid state does it bounce off,or be absorbed.baring that, what are it's characteristics in this state.what does it do,not do,if you use X-Rays what does it look like? None of that will have any meaning to any scientist you talk to. Its just a jumble of unrelated words. but more than this i just want to know WHAT HAPPENS. I'm sorry, but thats just not good enough.look we know that both oxygen and hydrogen are liquids at very low temps. and yet when brought together a liquid forms at higher temps. but why, i think that one or the other acts as some kind of catalyst and that has something to do with electrons,notice that oxygen has a lower liquid state than hydrogen.oxygen having more electrons than hydrogen.something is going on but what? like i said before, i think there is a transformation of electrons themselves. This is all ground already covered. Scientists already have reasonable explanations that work for them and you're going to need something to convince them their explanations are inadequate. something new i thought of, is there a density of the liquid state between hydrogen and oxygen, i predict that oxygen will have a denser liquid state in it's pure form than hydrogen. You don't need to predict that, you can look it up.
dolphin
Aug17-04, 06:11 AM
Hi,
Quoting North:
Originally Posted by north
"the hydrogen atom will become a liquid it's self. so why? because the electron will condense.and if you fire an electron at it in it's liquid state does it bounce off,or be absorbed.baring that, what are it's characteristics in this state.what does it do,not do,if you use X-Rays what does it look like?"
To North and Russ:
something really curious seems to be going on in physics. I came across a paper by a nuclear-physics-phD (called "Foundations of Physical Reality") where he (Richard Stafford) claimed to have derived close approximations to physics laws by a model where he tried to minimise assumptions.
I seem to have differences in opinion with him but maybe he doesn't quite follow my extreme simple approach. When he debated with Chroot at this forum; I fond how they could both be right (haven't posted details).
In discussion forums I eventually realised that the complicated-looking math could be apparently bypassed. I showed his paper to a mathematician and he agreed that you didn't have to use math; that it could be mapped as being about definitions; which involves categories and intersecting categories.
Now vast areas of physics appears to have kind-of disintegrated into simple patterns of logic. Numerous mysteries in physics become transparent.
I found that often ordinary English uage of a word used in physics could often give the insight on the simple underlying pattern.
Also sometimes people write things that I can see wouldn't make sense to a classically trained scientist yet they can be seen in a way that reconciles their view with classical science.
I found that the word "electron" fits the simple pattern of the word "modification".
So in this way North can be right though perhaps I seem to have added an unusual twist here:
To see one atom in "liquid state" would require several atoms; or the energy to separate that from from the others would if modern science is right presumably neutralise the liquidity of it. But if "liquid" requires several atoms (as modern science says); then by definition it involves modifying those atoms (by each other acting as "honorary" electrons?)
By predicting the electron would condense; North may be on to something: but this is what the electron might look like when condensed: it would be a magnetic bottle containing the atom and holding it apart from the others. And all the others would need magnetic bottles too.
I'm suggesting that the aparatus needed to do North's experiment is itself the "condensed electron": namely if "electron" is "modified space" which fits hyperwave's point-geometry look at "electron"; then the condensation of "modified space" is what North's experiment would do!
One could argue that such a structure is a kind of proton-neutron-eectron; that you would have an apparatus that was a single honorary hydrogen nuclei?
So North can be right yet totally consistent with hyperwave and Russ!
The apparatus to do the experiment is the condensed electron?
Fire an electron at that and you get a modfication colliding with a structured modified space; my guess is it would emit a proton.
-Alan
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.