Jump to content

joigus

Senior Members
  • Posts

    2899
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    31

joigus last won the day on March 8

joigus had the most liked content!

About joigus

  • Birthday 05/04/1965

Profile Information

  • Location
    (0,0,0)
  • Interests
    Biology, Chemistry, Physics
  • College Major/Degree
    Physics
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Theoretical Physics
  • Biography
    I was born, then I started learning. I'm still learning.
  • Occupation
    teacher

Recent Profile Visitors

15584 profile views

joigus's Achievements

Primate

Primate (9/13)

699

Reputation

  1. Carbon. It takes a hundred suns to die before your magic web extends. But once it does, a world of possibilities is revealed. Your opening act is: "Let there be life". Not quite satisfied with this, you make things that make things that bring about: The hardest substance (diamond) The best lubricant (graphite). The best thermal conductor (graphene). Is there an end to this magic? If the Ancient Greeks had only suspected your capital importance, they would have named a god in your honour. Sorry, I got carried away with carbon love. Here's the news: https://phys.org/news/2022-05-long-hypothesized-material.html?fbclid=IwAR2lCoyyVSC4bkt0XDRGCG9FRV7Y16dM78pO8n4Hq03hv-4QbzeMqIPcFf0
  2. OK. But with that what you're doing is inventing a fancy complex mass m=Re(m)+iIm(m) (a quite esoteric quantity) which is only there to give rise to the 'actual mass', which is its modulus (norm.) You're quite right. You can always declare any positive real quantity as the norm of some other inconsequential complex variable. But Ockam's razor will cut it off.
  3. You would have a violation of unitarity, which isn't a good thing. All relativistic state vectors for massive particles have a factor that in natural units looks like, \[ e^{-imt} \] Assuming, \[ m=\textrm{Re}\left(m\right)+i\textrm{Im}\left(m\right) \] You would get, \[ e^{-imt}=e^{-i\textrm{Re}\left(m\right)t}e^{\textrm{Im}\left(m\right)t} \] Now, suppose you have \( \textrm{Im}\left(m\right)>0 \) => runaway solution everywhere for growing t. But if \( \textrm{Im}\left(m\right)<0 \) you have a vanishing solution everywhere for growing t. Both violate unitarity, so you have a much bigger problem than with a negative mass. Negative masses are no good because of decay. Particles would spontaneously decay to lower levels, 'more negative'-mass states. But non-unitarity is a non-starter. I'm sure there are more other arguments but, to me, that would be enough.
  4. No way. I wanted to make a contribution here. I was thinking about mentioning 'residual QCD forces' to complete the picture (similar to mesonic states flying to and fro), and @MigL beats me to the punch.
  5. OK. Thanks for your answer, but you're wearing your political glasses. I didn't mean 'evolving' as 'going towards something good.' I meant it as 'going towards something different.' Believe me, I pain for the loss too. Interesting. Why?
  6. Simple enough: Are we? It seems inevitable that we are. Then languages like Quechua or Walpiri will be reduced to the roles that now play Hittite or Assyrian. Or will we evolve into a multi-dialectal pansociety? Local versions of the same, say, English; but with people being able to understand each other all over the Earth. Will we evolve towards a bi-polar, tripolar, etc. model? What do you think? And why?
  7. The progressive element is essential in any society that pursues betterment of the human condition. Progressivism, as a tenet, is a good theoretical starting point. Problem is: Self-declared progressive parties vie for power and control of the budget, like everybody else. If under pressure, they will act in ways that contradict their 'theoretical principles,' provided working politicians really have some of those. Whatever their tenets are, and out of this pressure to out-elbow everybody else, they will not hesitate to re-define their concepts. As MigL said,
  8. You set your standards very high, @beecee. Finding a fossil is hard enough on Earth! Just a molecule that couldn't conceivably have been produced by geology wouldn't be enough?
  9. I find it impossible to disagree with that. It is true, though, that your average scientist has been concerned about philosophy at least at some point rather more often than your average accountant, for example. But @TheVat's point is well taken which is, I think, in a similar direction. Funny that not many non-experts would commit an opinion in, say, computer science; while most of us have an opinion on philosophical questions no matter what our level of familiarity with the subject may be. The questions that philosophy more intensely deals with are at the core of what every human being wants to know. It seems that Einstein ruffled more philosophical feathers than those of Bergson, because I remember another episode with Rudolf Carnap about the nature of time. My --totally partial view of what happened is: Einstein said he was deeply concerned about the nature of time. Aaah, but definitions are crucial. It is a common misconception that definitions are arbitrary. Good definitions cut, and melt, and grind, and have power. They synthesise hours and hours of previous observation and intuition. Good point! My hands are down.
  10. So we need a theory of life, or a definition at least. In the absence of that, what chemical would our distinguished members consider to be a dead giveaway? --Puns aside.
  11. I find pretty much the same problem with any proposition including the words 'as it really is.' As if there's some bogus way, and then there's the 'really real' one. That's as much as I can say without actually reading the book.
  12. There have been so many puzzles in theoretical physics, and so many more people working on it than ever before, that almost every conceivable idea of that kind has already been tried. Dirac tried with his sea of negative-energy electrons, but it was proven that Dirac's vacuum would be unstable, and wouldn't last. A vacuum in quantum field theory with negative-energy quanta is nothing like our universe's.
  13. Only true knowledge brings you true emotion. So I understand. Other people experience it with less of an outpour, but every bit as intense and authentic.
  14. Sorry. Wires got crossed with another conversation.
  15. CaO2 is a peroxide, actually. Just to be precise.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.