Dagl1

11 hours ago, OldChemE said:

The question comes down to this:  Should we ban X because X may lead to damage to the person who chooses to do X?  As long as the individual who chooses X is the one who faces the risk, then a free society has no moral right to ban X.

But in the case of boxing, the people doing the boxing aren't the only ones at risk, as they will have to be cared for by society eventually due to the potential damage they have accumulated over the years. So in that case, do we have a moral right to ban to thereby reduce the burden on people who aren't taking that risk?

Alright I see; so you want to transmit some DNA to bacteria present within the human body (and this DNA should not be detected as to not destroy it through immune defences I presume) which then should produce a protein inside those bacteria. As Charon said previously, researchers have used several small molecule / nano containers for drug delivery, you may be interested in reading further into nano-containers: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5636659/ . One other thing is to make sure that if your target for protein production are bacteria and not humans, you have to choose the right promoter etc. 

At university I once had to give a presentation about polymer nanocontainers, and while looking back at the presentation its pretty bad, but here are some references used:

These are mostly regarding drug delivery

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4322773/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20394391 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4626985/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19825408

For gene therapy:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5449975/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780081005576000043
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19488722

However, of course these methods are mainly for eukaryotic cells, I think exogenous RNA/DNA delivery into bacteria present within the body is something not researched very much.
 

@CharonYIs it possible to, as OP is asking, provide a protein-encoding plasmid that is immuno-invisible? I feel like it shouldn't as that protein could always become an antigen for T cells to present right?

Edit: OP isn't specifically asking for a protein-encoding plasmid, but I could see how non-coding plasmids could be immuno-invisible, so the question is mostly interesting when talking about protein-encoding plasmids

Hmm personally I lean towards allowing it if no one is forced and everyone is like Prometheus says, but for me more importantly would be consistency:

If boxing would be banned, american football and rugby maybe as well should be banned and I feel like then possibly alcohol should also be banned. If other people are not allowed to practice a sport they enjoy for their own entertainment and that of others, while acknowledging the risks, then i feel that should apply to alcohol and all things in life.

But as I said, I lean to allowing most things and just letting people deal with the consequences (if people are adequately warned and have some sort of choice (not in the free-will sense but just general common language), but if we do decide to ban sports like boxing, then please lets go all the way and be consistent.

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

what is the definition of knowledge or value of knowledge?

The ones I am using and haven't thought too much about would be:
Knowledge; information known by any intelligent species or recorded/accessible by any intelligent species. (Def. of intelligent species in THIS particular case; any species capable of storing information or passing on information in a manner that is not sheer luck (and leads to technology? I don't know how to exclude bacteria and animals capable of carrying genetic information across generations in their epigenetic markers.)
Value of knowledge; the value of knowledge lies in the potential benefits that come from changes motivated by knowledge

Gotta be honest, I am not 100% attached to these definitions, but feel like I should at least give it a try, I am open to other more inclusive/exclusive definitions

1 minute ago, Strange said:

And there you are, engaging in metaphysics! What is does it mean to "know" something? What are the limits to what we can know? Is there more than one way of knowing something? Is knowledge only knowledge if it is scientific knowledge? Does something have to be "predicted, measured or modelled" in order to count as knowledge?

Are these things "unknown" (as mistermack said). Not really. (Depending, of course, on your definition of "know")

Are these things "unknowable" (as you said). Maybe. But is that a reason not to think about and discuss them? Maybe we can reach some conclusions that most people will accept. That could then become part of our shared knowledge.

Is thoughtful analysis of these things "speculation"? I would say not, because that word too often has connotations of idle guesswork.

 

Ye I okay, I see your point and in response my view is now: While engaging in metaphysics can be interesting and one can use thoughtful analysis and apply logic to these questions, but whatever answer is accepted by everyone, can never be validated or falsified right? I think that's why before I used speculation, but I do see how that term is stigmatised. 

To me, anything that cannot be validated or tested, that is added to our shared knowledge, doesn't add much value, whereas science can be falsified and its effects can be seen/experienced (inventions/technology).

Although I can see discussion regarding morality (if that is in the realm of metaphysics), moral frameworks and potentially a consensus on 1 specific moral framework that everyone believes in, to definitely have effect on our reality, but through the actions of people.

But as you said, engaging in metaphysics happens quite fast and can be interesting, so my initial view definitely was too negative and ignorant of it.

-Dagl

6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

That wiki article poorly describes the zero energy model. It is simply taking kinetic energy of the particle and subtracting the potential field energy. Both energy densities are still positive.

 Also that model requires pseudo tensors and only works well for Cartesian coordinates.

It does not imply gravity is negative mass

So would you say that this model has evidence supporting it that other models don't have, or is this model just a different way of expressing particular formulas (aka, nothing changes just a different interpretation)?

Or are there specific moments/scenarios where using this model is easier or more accurate than other models? 

@Strange So I am wondering, are you saying that metaphysics isn't speculation about unknowable (I suppose that isn't what mistermack said exactly, so maybe I am putting words in you mouth) things?

As far as I can see (but I am not well studied here so I might be wrong), metaphysics discusses stuff that by its very nature cannot be determined. If something could be predicted, measured or modelled, it would be within the realm of science/physics and not metaphysics. If at some point the entire metaphysical community agrees on a theory/hypothesis of reality, it will not change anything in reality right, nor will having it wrong or right (if that is even possible) make a difference as anything that has effects on the physical world, will immediately not be part of metaphysics.

Anyone has any thoughts or comments?

1 hour ago, SergUpstart said:

What do you think about zero-energy Universe model?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

Jump to navigationJump to search

The zero-energy universe hypothesis proposes that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero: its amount of positive energy in the form of matter is exactly canceled out by its negative energy in the form of gravity.^[1][2] Some physicists, such as Lawrence Krauss or Alexander Vilenkin, call this state "a universe from nothingness" but, in fact, the zero-energy universe model requires both matter field with positive energy and gravitational field with negative energy to exist.^[3]

So what does this model explain or predict that other models fail to and do these predictions match with what we measure, are there even measurements or predictions that would make it possible to falsify this model?

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

Is kinetic energy a special case, when it comes to bending space time etc? 

Since it's different in every inertial frame, I can't see how it translates into an equivalent of matter.

Just a follow up question; is the mass that I observe of an object (when at rest near each other they all have the same mass), going with 90% the speed of light towards me or with 20% the speed of light away from me, different?

Yes, so one would get 2 diagonal beams right (if you would have a screen after it), if now we place another 2 slits in the path of 1 of those beams, do we get another interference pattern from that second double slit? 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

If it’s with light and you’re observing the interference pattern, you’re destroying the photons. 

Even when observing which slit a photon goes through (then I suppose those experiments aren't done with photons but electrons or other mass-carrying particles?)

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

Quantum 'waves' on the other hand are not travelling waves insofar as they extend to the boundaries (or infinity) at all times.
It's just that the amplitude of the 'wave' may be very tiny indeed in some places.
Travelling particles, such as electrons may be modelled by neoclassical 'pilot waves' in some versions.
In any event they are travelling disturbances in the quantum field which exists all around
Interference happens slightly differently in that you need a 'timed exposure plate' to capture the hit pattern of say electrons fired through two slots.
This is what I mean by the quantum interference pattern builds up in time as a result of many electrons passing through.
One or two electrons will not give you an interference pattern, (I know there are some experiments where the observer can look for quantum or look for particle solutions),
but many electrons will.

It seems like you are saying that without a plate or screen there is no interference pattern? and I assumed in an experiment one would shoot many electrons (or photons) after each other so they can only interfere with themselves (that is one of the things the double slit experiment shows right?). In case you need a plate or screen at the end, I fail to see how this works, but is this in the same realm as the delayed quantum choice experiment? I will have to rewatch that as well I suppose.

1 minute ago, Strange said:

I think the discussion of plane and spherical wave fronts only applies to the classical view (where light is a continuous wave). 

I don't think you can interpret the (quantum) wave function in that way. If you want to get an understanding of how the quantum view reproduces classical results, I recommend the Feyman lectures on QED (to a lay audience) - available online as videos (from the Vega Trust) or, for the old codgers among us, as a book.

Ye will do, I also realise that I should, just like many here are recommended, understand the math behind this stuff, so I suppose I will be taking a look at the "scary" part of physics;p

After reading the thread again, I think I didn't absorb the information that much yesterday, but also realise this goes a little over my head for now.

So @studiot regarding your first message; I now understand the issue regarding planar vs spherical waves, so (please correct me if I am wrong) at first the wavefunction is only expanding "forward" (again my apologies for the lack of the right terminology, I don't know if either "expanding" or "forward" or the right words to use) towards the slits, but afterwards is expanding like a sound wave would, but that would only happen if there is no measurement at the first slits (in the double slit experiment, if we observe through which slit the wave travelled through, we see 2 lines instead of an interference pattern, right?)? But if we do no measurement, placing new slits after the first slit would not capture all of the spherical wavefunction (thereby completing changing the experiment)? 

For my understanding, if I would, lets say put a doubleslit at x distance (lets say, 5, 10 or 15cm away),  so that the new slits are directly in the path of light that goes through 1 of the slits. What kind of pattern (at all) would a screen behind this second pair of slits capture, if we have observed/measured at the first slits. And this is in a perfect vacuum with as little interference as possible from radiation(and whatever else is needed for such a thing to experimentally work). 

My thought process: As we observe the wavefunction at the first slits, we would expect the waves to produce 2 straight lines, so the wavefunctions are still travelling in a straight line, and have not become an interference pattern, so from the perspective of the second slits, this is just the light that has gone through 1 of the slits and since we aren't measuring here, I expect that this would then produce a normal interference pattern. But only if the wavefunction is not collapsed anymore because of the measurement at the first slits, so I was wondering, how would such a wavefunction "re-form" the state of superpositions in the time traveling to the next slit? 

I hope there is at least some part of this stuff that I understand, but I realise most of my assumptions or thought process will most likely be wrong or just filling in information, so thank you all for your help!

-Dagl

Alright so it seems my question boils down to: how does the particle/wave function form new superpositions, and what determines the time frame before this happens?

Can photons or other particles form a wave-function again after an "observation" or "measurement" and what determines when or how that happens. So for example, we attempt the double slit experiment, where we have a measurement device at/before the slits, and have thus collapsed the wave-function, leading to 2 lines and not an interference pattern. So if we put the screen further away, then add new splits, would we at some see an interference pattern again? 

I hope that my question itself is clear, in case there are technical reasons why my above experiment wouldn't work.

Thanks!

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

That's much more in the realm of metaphysics (i.e. philosophy), rather than physics.

 

The upper part of my post was mostly a sort of copy-paste reply to ag400002, I don't think it is the most important question, however wouldn't you agree that physics does give some description or characteristics to time through space-time/relativity, CPT symmetry (or lack thereof), thermodynamics and probably many more fields/subjects that you are way more familiar with than I am;p I feel this is still within the realm of physics than metaphysics, but maybe it is the semantics of the question "what is". 

10 minutes ago, ag400002 said:

Perhaps the deepest mystery in physics is 'what is time'

Perhaps the reason it is so, is that mainstream physics can never unravel it, because its culture and internal discipline too readily  turns its back on philosophy, where the answer is, resulting in too many of the finest and most able intellects in our universe drowning and floundering in a quagmire of mathematics 

 

 

 

Perhaps the deepest mystery in physics is "what is time"
And while we, as far as I understand, have concepts of time in both space-time and thermodynamics, 
Perhaps the reason it is so, is that pseudoscience and philosophy can never unravel this question, because their cultures and internal disciplines too readily turn their back on real measurement and theoretical modelling, where the answer is, resulting in too many people on our planet drowning and floundering in a quagmire of wild ideas, speculation and posts with many substantial claims and 0 evidence or references given.

I really like this quote: "The conquest of nature is to be achieved through number and measure."
Math is, for whatever reason reality follows these rules, the tool with which science attempts to explain reality. It is so far the most successful method,. That doesn't mean philosophy has no value (as I can see that my post may insinuate that), but that its value is not as great in the quantitative sciences as true understanding of mathematical models is.

-Dagl

One thing regarding (some forms of) phage therapy is that they negatively effect the immune system in research studies. While a phage may combat a specific bacterium, the bodies reaction to the increased viral load (if I remember correctly) leads to either overreaction of the immune system or increased infection risk to new pathogens.
(I currently don't have the papers in front of me, if someone wants them I'll look them or similar ones up).

Charon, some time ago I read these 2 papers (and some of their references) regarding acquisition of antibiotic resistance, which I believe goes counter to consensus, but I am not very read in this field except for papers from this "group", so I have a very biased view of this at the moment. I was wondering if you can comment on these papers, specifically on any statements related to: 
"Most of us were taught that terminating antibiotics prematurely can lead to the development of bacterial resistance. This has proven to be a myth as mounting evidence supports the opposite. In fact, it is prolonged exposure to antibiotics that provides the selective pressure to drive antimicrobial resistance; hence, longer courses are more likely to result in the emergence of resistant bacteria.^14,15 "
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5661683/#bibr14-1715163517735549

This article is the main driving point as far as I remember when reading about these papers, but can't access it at the moment. I really like their comment/peer review section, interesting to hear about the opinions of many in different fields. 

https://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j3418 

4 hours ago, MigL said:

Any elements heavier than Iron that you may have in your body, need energy to form, instead of releasing it.
They are formed when stars reach the end of their active life and explode ( Nova ), thereby spreading their star stuff to gas/dust clouds from which second generation Solar Systems ( such as ours ) form.

I think a lot of people have heard this, as it was the primary hypothesis, but from this PBS space time video (see below) and some other sources, it seems that novae are less of a contributor to the overall heavy element makeup and instead neutron stars are now the main culprits. 

Would like to note that I am not very researched in this field, I have just watched some videos and read some basic stuff about it, my apologies if those sources are incorrect or are presenting the change in hypothesis as something that has found consensus in the community when this may not be the case.

-Dagl

Except for the unusual usage of "ambassador" RNA for mRNA, I would like to add that RNA can be divided into many many more types (eRNA, microRNA, snoRNA, uaRNA, ptRNA, piwi-interacting RNA, and the larger non coding RNAs). So what would you like to discuss? Or do you have questions, as based on your other post, where you discussed both heterogeneous and homogeneous alleles and a thing called Zarah, it seems you have a skewed idea of biology and questions may be more useful for you than to only post information.

-Dagl

I cannot put into words the dread I feel sometimes. I'll try though.
holy fuck

Some SCP's are written much better than others (the benefit and disadvantage of having many writers that can all submit their work). 

I know that Laphroaig is a drink, but I am really not getting it;p are we comparing rules in language with alcoholism or something like that?? 

@strange SCP is a wonderful community written fictional universe, where things are written as SCP-xxxx articles (as if researchers write about SCP's in-universe). SCP stands for secure, contain, protect. And each SCP is an anomalous object, with specific containment procedures and lore behind it.

It remains strange that clear rules are not present for such (grammar) things, but I suppose it is the same as for adjective order; wooden blue big table sounds strange, big blue wooden table does not (IMO) (there are only guidelines for adjective order as far as I know).