Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


joigus last won the day on May 31

joigus had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

51 Good


About joigus

  • Rank
  • Birthday 05/04/1965

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

1943 profile views
  1. joigus

    Free will

    No. Here you got me wrong. I think the illusion of free will (please, be aware I have no problem saying "the illusion of temperature" or "the illusion of entropy") is an emergent property. I was more going along the lines of what I've heard some anti-reductionists say. Namely: electrons or protons are ideas or theories, not real things. So electrons and protons really are "born" in your mind. Therefore (they say) neither gives rise to the other. I've been called a naive realist. But the person who called me that got called "simplistic idealist" by me. Idealists and anti-reductionists are not the only ones who can claim the right to hang an adjective on those they disagree with. Neither am I naive nor are you shallow. You probably are. Aren't we all?
  2. Aha, right. That totally adds up in my mind. So ignoring the QCD factor, which I wouldn't be able to calculate anyway, for an estimation of electrostatic attraction between proton and electron, we can use the inverse Bohr's radius, which proportional to the mass of the electron. That would give an estimation of chemical energy released in hydrogen reduction. For an estimation of electrostatic repulsion between proton pairs (which is the order of energy released when the nucleus undergoes fission,) you can assume the energy proportional to the mass of the proton. The reason being that the reduced mass of the p-p system is mp/2 while the reduced mass of the p-e system is me. I'm being very schematic here, because p-p is not an EM bound state. So the solutions will not be the same, but they will scale the same. That would give, \[\frac{E_{pp}}{E_{pe}}\sim\frac{r_{pe}}{r_{pp}}\sim\frac{m_{p}}{m_{e}}\sim2000\] A rough estimation does give you order of 1000 times more energy released. And then there would be corrections due to breaking QCD bonds that you're referring to. The rough way to picture it for me would be a rubber sheet that gets very loose when the protons get closer together, but pulls very hard when they pull apart. Until they break. But having to break the gluon bond would subtract from electrostatic energy stored. The higher order term would have no dependence on either alpha_EM or alpha_QCD coupling constants, but the other would carry a QCD-coupling dependence for sure. I think the mp/me does appear as the dominant factor, but the argument was missing. As you suggested, it's not a coincidence. I think it's a consequence of separating the leading term, which is electrostatic in nature. Thanks a lot, @swansont, and corrections most welcome. I agree, @MigL.
  3. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You got me there. I was just thinking about re-editing that bit. Edit1. On the other hand, the average ratio in interactions is of the order 102, so it really is: \[\alpha_{\textrm{QCD}}/\alpha_{\textrm{EM}}\sim100\] Masses don't play a part, AFAI can see. Thank you. Edit2. On second thought. Energy released in fission what really is is stored electrostatic energy from proximity of the protons. So the estimation is different and is not governed by, \[\alpha_{\textrm{QCD}}/\alpha_{\textrm{EM}}\sim100\] 100 times stronger seems to me peculiarly small. What do you think, @swansont?
  4. joigus

    Free will

    I loved this example from: If you don't mind, I would like to add it to my toolkit as a wonderful illustration of emergence. The problem for me is that I tend to see in emergence a fundamental asymmetry between the explanatory elements and the explained ones. That cannot be reversed: You cannot use pressure or temperature to derive positions and momenta of the particles. You cannot use your A to B wave to explain the behaviour of cars going B to A; but you can use cars to explain the emergence of an apparent car going in reverse direction. And the word "apparent" here is very relevant, in my opinion. Similarly, it's atoms that explain the behaviour of people, or will, presumably, some day. But people do not explain the behaviour of atoms... Unless... Wait a minute. Is that what you mean? Theories are emergent in people's minds? So people, by forming concepts in their minds, are trapped kind of in a circle. Is it the atoms that explain your mind, or is it your mind that explains the atoms because they are actually a concept in your mind? Is that what you mean? I'm not saying I agree. I would have to think about it, but, is that what you mean? Or does it go somewhere in the direction that you mean? Especially from your last arguments with MigL, I think something like that is related with our lack of agreement here. The reason for our discrepancies, I think, is that while you do not accept reductionism, I think @MigL, @iNow, (I'm not so sure about @Ghideon, @Prometheus and @vexspits,...) and I are reductionists.
  5. Yeah, I was thinking for a while about writing the solution with all the information you didn't write and I didn't know about. But then I thought: "probably Hodja is working on this already from some sector of the noosphere, and will guess the missing parameters." It seems I was right. Hats off to Hodja!!!
  6. I agree with StringJunky. I will just try to add other aspects after him. You've done nothing to deserve people being hard on you, as far as I can see. The particles are not destroyed after your body burns; they just change chemical state. Your iron will still be iron; your sulfur, sulfur; your magnesium, magnesium. They'll change the oxidation state and keep going. They're going to feed somebody else, that's all. Maybe a plant. Speculating about the afterlife may be perfectly valid, but it's not a subject of science. "Theory" is also one of the most widely misunderstood terms in science. One last thing. I think this question belongs in philosophy. As the afterlife is not a topic of biology. Be optimistic, @Sorrow. Nature takes care of everything, even if our tiny, fatty, bloody, watery brain can't understand it.
  7. I don't understand it either. Seems like you want to compare the reducing power of hydrogen versus energy released by 235U in fission... [?] I agree with Strange in everything I can think of +1. Another way is seeing it is by scaling/dimensional arguments. Nuclear rearrangements typically are 103 = 1000 times more energetic than electron rearrangements. That's about the ratio mp/me, which is the order of 2000.
  8. Sorry. I thought it was about how to introduce the concept of entropy. My mistake.
  9. You can also introduce entropy axiomatically from statistical mechanics. From that approach temperature is more of a derived concept and entropy has a very intuitive meaning. I always hated the Carnot approach, @studiot. I'm very interested in the method that you suggest.
  10. OK. It took me a while to realize what you were trying to do (plus I've been busy.) I was missing some words and/or some data in the statement of your problem. I should have noticed that there must be a reason that you were given the volumes. For some reason I thought you were given the concentrations at equilibrium. It was a neutralization of two solutions with hydrolysis of the salt with initial concentrations and volumes specified, and you were given the k_a of the weak acid, right? I didn't know that. It seems you've solved it. I haven't checked the numbers in the quadratic eq. for the moles in equilibrium, but the method is correct. Plus it should give you a pH slightly above 7, so everything checks AFAICT.
  11. Why? Something wrong with the logarithm? I may be getting this totally wrong, but what's the problem with [acid]=[base] and Henderson-Hasselbach? Most people are concerned with the murder of George Floyd now, which is only fair. So it seems that you're stuck with me, the chemical idiot of the lot. So, what's wrong with it?
  12. Why? Something wrong with the logarithm? I may be missing something. Please, wait for the experts, I'm not one. In the meantime, maybe we both get lucky and you can find the key to your problem with my help, by discussing the basic concepts. If not, I'm sorry if I lead you into more confusion. I'm answering this because nobody else is reacting to your post so far and you seem to be in a bit of a hurry. Good luck! I meant "titration."
  13. OK. I'm a bit hazy on this right now. But I think the key words you're looking for are Henderson-Hasselbach. Try to work it out, and if I'm not helping, maybe someone can provide better help. You must picture the tritation curve in your mind. It's what biologists call a sigmoid curve.
  • 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.