Water,a manifestation of WHAT?

[north]

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 let's just stick to theories and there validity and discuss.

north

 

[russ_watters]

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 let's 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.

 

[reilly]

Liquids are hard (to explain)

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

 

[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.

___________________________________________

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.

 

[north]

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 probability 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?

 

[reilly]

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)

 

[north]

Reilly

fair enough, I've ordered the book, my math skills,well let's 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

 

[Muddler]

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!

 

[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?).
___________________________________________

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 let's 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.

 

[ram1024]

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

 

[north]

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

___________________________________________

i was hoping they'd find a garden hose filling a pool

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.

 

[Muddler]

___________________________________________

... 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!

 

[north]

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.

 

[Muddler]

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]

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.

 

[north]

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.

 

[north]

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]

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.

 

[Muddler]

Please elaborate on the cloud point

I almost regret mentioning it


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 going to kill me... )

 

[reilly]

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]

___________________________________________

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]

___________________________________________

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..

 

[north]

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.

 

[north]

I almost regret mentioning it


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 going to kill me... )

__________________________________________

no problem, explore it, then you'll know!

 

[north]

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, let's 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.

 

[north]

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.

 

[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

 

[reilly]

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]

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, let's 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]

You know, I remember you asking this in the Chemistry forum, and I think the answers given there were adequate.