Water,a manifestation of WHAT?

[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.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[north]

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 vacuum 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.

 

[north]

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]

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?

 

[north]

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 explanation.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.

 

[north]

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 extremely 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

 

[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]

...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 extremely 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 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]

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 let's 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 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.

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.

 

[north]

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 explanation,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]

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 explanation,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 that's 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?

 

[north]

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 that's 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 explanation would go beyond bonds etc. but the explanation 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.

 

[reilly]

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]

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]

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]

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]

people have said electrons MANY times this thread.

someone post the "stone deaf" forum warrior :D

 

[north]

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]

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 into 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]

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.

 

[north]

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 into 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!

 

[north]

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]

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 apparent 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 accommodate 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]

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

 

[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

 

[dolphin]

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]

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 really 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]

___________________________________________

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]

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]

...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]

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 apparently 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

 

[north]

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 explanation.

 

[north]

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 apparently 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]

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

 

[north]

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 let's 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 explanation 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 apparently 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

 

[Lama]

Symmetry

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

 

[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

___________________________________________

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]

Hi North and Lama,

Unfortunately I have a problem: I do not have my own computer or internet! I was staying somewhere while traveling 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]

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 physicsts 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 disappear 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]

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 let's 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