Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Everything posted by joigus

  1. Found this definition by one such Jason Preston at Quora that I like, and think is relevant to this discussion: https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-examples-of-sophistry
  2. Yes, it is. A neutral chlorine atom has zero charge. So does a neutral sodium atom. But they stick together because sodium "donates" its extra electron (the 3s1 electron), which is very loose, for quantum-mechanical reasons, while the incomplete 3p5 level of sodium is much more stable with an extra electron. Ionic bonds are electrostatic in nature, but not because the original atoms are charged. It's a matter of quantum stability vs electrostatic attration, so to speak. The chemical bond does not happen because of electrostatic unbalance, but because atoms create these stable "rooms" for the electrons to be in. Atoms with similar electronegativity create a common orbital, in which to share electrons. That's the essence of the covalent bond. While transition metals create gigantic orbitals to cut loose their extra electrons. Those are the conduction bands. A salt crystal is neutral overall though, same as metals, and covalent substances. Electric unbalance for macroscopic samples of matter is a tiny, tiny percent. Electron and proton are not kept apart because of the exclusion principle. The exclusion principle is valid for identical particles. Electron and proton are very far from identical. They're kept apart because of the HUP. One thing is attraction proton-electron in the hydrogen atom (electrostatic), and another thing is atom-atom attraction. I was addressing @JustJoe's request, (My emphasis.) Those are different phenomena.
  3. You definitely need quantum mechanics to understand how atoms stick together. They are not electrostatic forces, as a chlorine atom attracts a sodium atom for reasons other than electrostatic force. They stick together because of a quantum equilibrium. With old ideas about force you can cover only so much ground. I'm sorry.
  4. Anyway, charge can be grounded. Gravity can't. You would have to make all mass go to infinity to "ground" mass. I find it impossible to think of an analogue for a conductor in the case of gravity.
  5. As @Lorentz Jr told you, the CoM of e- and proton coincide. If e- is in an s-wave, the charge distribution has no polarity. Is that "nullified" enough for you? If the electron is excited to a state with angular momentum, a slight polarity appears. So at very short distances you would see the electron "sticking out." You see, there are details --many of them-- that you're missing. So your picture is probably very imprecise on many accounts... EDIT: No polarity, sorry. A displacement of charge density, but no polarity. I find it very difficult to understand what you mean, honestly.
  6. Equalised? I don't know what you mean. Electron attracts proton, proton attracts electron. They get as close as they can without contradicting Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. What is equalised there? I don't understand. Physics has a language that refers to a mathematical formulation. What is equal to what? The concept of force is less useful in quantum mechanics because we have stationary states, which can't be understood in terms of force. Many other quantum phenomena can't be understood in terms of force, like degeneracy pressure, or tunneling, or pair production... There are many things that cannot be understood in terms of force. Is that better?
  7. The force is "nullified" --that's not the proper terminology though-- because of quantum mechanics. The electron keeps at a distance because it cannot get closer due to quantum constrictions. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
  8. What you've probably read is that excess electrons go upwards, so lightning goes from the surface of the Earth to the atmosphere, rather than the other way around. It's electrons that move, not protons. I don't understand the question. Coulombs don't measure force; they measure electric charge. Science ignores force???
  9. The actual reason why electricity cannot be "grounded" --or, if you will, there is no similar principle for gravity, as there is for electricity, as "grounding of a distribution of charges and currents"-- is that electricity is polar, while gravity is not. Charges can be positive or negative, while mass is always positive and the interaction is always attractive. Positive distributions of charge have a natural place to set the zero for the potential: Spatial infinity. Negative distributions of charge have a natural place to set the zero for the potential: Spatial infinity. Distributions of mass have a natural place to set the zero for the potential: Spatial infinity. This is because, far enough away from the distribution of either charge or mass, the field always "looks" monopolar- except for radiation. You can see this from a totally general multipolar expansion of the electrostatic field. Gravity, as we know, is described by GR, but the pre-relativistic approach is enough for the purposes of this discussion. If anything, consideration of GR would make the analogy even more implausible. For electric charge, actually, there are deep principles of physics that tell us that far enough away from the distribution of charge, the monopolar term must go to zero. This is not exactly equivalent to what a recent poster said that "total charge must be zero," or something to that effect. It just means that, at large enough distances, charges will screen each other so as to make the electrostatic field go down at large enough distances. IOW: You just cannot take excess positives to one region and excess negatives to another at arbitrarily large distances. The Earth is a relatively good conductor and can take as many excess electrons as regular physical processes near its surface can produce without substantially changing its global electric charge --which is zero. So you can set its electrostatic potential to V=0, while keeping consistent with V=0 at spatial infinity You cannot do that with gravity... The upshot --if nothing else was understandable-- is: Gravity cannot be cancelled.
  10. Thanks, Eise. I feel young again. You guys took me back to the times when I used these cute little ultra-light tools, and uploaded files with FTP. Those were the days...
  11. This begs the question that, 1) This meta-observer must exist 2) Its observations satisfy a Boolean algebra Why should we believe that? Quantum mechanics is not Boolean. Why should "God" see the world in a Boolean way?
  12. Yeah, there must be some "family connection" between both, as last night when I googled for it trying to remember the name, a lot of ELIZA results popped up.
  13. Obviously chatGPt hasn't had to face real referees. Understatement is a stylistic must. This has reminded me of Kant Generator: I remember this old software from the '90s. It was fun, but you could tell very easily it was nonsense. I also played with "doctor" --which was invoked with an emac command. It talked to you and was supposed to work like a therapist, and give you advice. But it was so lame compared to chatGPT. It had a tendency to get start looping at some point. Emac was a very sophisticated text editor for Open Source platforms.
  14. On the other hand, bots would never use such convoluted verbiage as "in the face of extremely challenging epistemological hardships." LOL It's important to have a long heartfelt laugh at yourself from time to time. I wonder if bots will ever be able to do that.
  15. Humans can change their minds while in the process of analysing their own learning from data. I'm waiting for the bot that can change its mind based on some thinking process, and explain why. This "explaining why you changed your mind" is, I think, very unmistakably human. Also, humans seem to be capable of saying they don't understand something, and explaining why they don't. Many years ago, when I got frustrated because I didn't understand some complicated argument on the blackboard, I told myself: "Not understanding is not that bad. You should at least be able to explain to yourself what the critical points are that bring confusion to your mind." (Something like that, not in words, but in sequences of internal impressions.) Looking at the blackboard in puzzlement with a blank mind is not the same as looking at it in puzzlement with a critical mind. I think this is a very important difference between bots and human minds. Humans can make better, they can make do with, they can improve their understanding in the face of really challenging epistemological hardships. I'm skeptical --so far-- that circuitry can do what cell-based adaptive systems can. Moist brains still have the edge, IMO. Not that this is valid for all humans I know, but it certainly is for some of the humans I admire most.
  16. No. The term singlet comes from group theory. A singlet under SO(3) --rotations-- is essentially unique --mod projective representations--, and it is, \[ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\left|\uparrow\downarrow\right\rangle -\left|\downarrow\uparrow\right\rangle \right) \] The triplet representation is 3-dimensional, \[ \left|\uparrow\uparrow\right\rangle \] \[ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\left|\uparrow\downarrow\right\rangle +\left|\downarrow\uparrow\right\rangle \right) \] \[ \left|\downarrow\downarrow\right\rangle \] It's made up of 2 non-entangled states and one entangled state. But the middle one --even though it's entangled-- is not nearly as "badly" entangled as the singlet one. The singlet state is an entangled state, but not all entangled states --in spin-- are singlets. The singlet state is peculiar for special reasons. One of them is that it's a scalar under unitary representations of the rotation group, which physically means it looks as having 0 spin angular momentum in every direction you look. The other reason is that it has maximal Von Neumann entropy. So it's maximally undetermined, so to speak. Both reasons are intimately related, but are not equivalent. Keeping maximal entanglement entropy and maximal indetermination for bipartite states is a considerable technological feat. It's the opposite of what you said. Far-apart systems are tipically non-entangled. Entanglement generally comes from particles interacting close to each other. It's hard to find a phrase in what you say that's not badly wrong in one sense or another. Stop saying things you know next-to-nothing about. It's bad for you, and it's bad for the discussion. As I said, one silly --or incorrect-- statement at a time...
  17. It's quite humbling, isn't it?
  18. Most particles do not decay --ever--, and hardly do they annihilate. Electrons last forever, until they stumble upon a positron. Then both annihilate --each other.
  19. Let's say it's puzzling, not paradoxical. Keep in mind inertial observers at spatial infinity are an idealisation. More realistically, far away observers that are locally inertial would have to be falling ever so slowly towards the BH. Times would be very, very long; but not infinite. I'm saying this without doing any calculation, BTW. From intuition. Static observers, OTOH, would have to be trying to escape to the attraction, in order not to fall. They would have to power up their rockets to stay there. The closer you get to the BH, the more dramatically the static observer differs from the locally inertial one. @Markus Hanke and/or @Mordred will probably give a more detailed, and much more rigorous account of it.
  20. This is only because you can't read appropriately. It's been explained before. I suggest you go back and do your homework. You've said many more silly things, but one silly thing at a time, please. You say this because you don't understand quantum mechanics. Quantum states have a space-time factor and a spin factor. These are very different Hilbert subspaces of the overall state. Einstein's original argument was about particle trajectories, which "live" in the space-time factor of the state. Particle trajectories have to do with a highly singular space of states. A model of hidden variables for particle trajectories does exist however insatisfactory it may be for heuristic reasons. It's called the De Broglie-Bohm pilot wave. Bell considered this model very closely, and wondered why, if his theorem forbids hidden variables, the explicit building of a model implementing particle trajectories is possible. Here, my dear ignoramus: From: Bell was puzzled by this: How is it possible, when swarms of impossibility theorems concerning the completion of QM with hidden variables were known at the time, that a model of hidden variables was flying in the face of those? Is there something wrong with our theorems? You see? History of ideas is more intricate than what you'd have it be. The answer is very simple, although in no way obvious: Einstein's original argument is about particle trajectories, while the argument of hidden variables post-Bohm, is only about spin. It's not that I haven't told you, is it? Because QM, in its entirety, needs to be factored out into space and spin, the whole of QM will never be possible to expand in terms of hidden variables that give you all that the theory gives you. Period. But the commutation rules for the space algebra and the commutation rules for the spin algebra are very, very different. One can be given a discrete parameter representation, while the other cannot. One requires non-compact operators --unbounded-- while the other doesn't. And another important difference: While, for space variables, you can pick the x-representation for all of it and expand the whole space factor of the state in mutually commuting variables, for spin OTOH, you must be content with only one projection. IOW, space admits a totally-commuting representation for its variables. This doesn't happen for spin. There's a mathematical frustration for spin. There are no c-numeric functions of (sx,sy,sz) even though all these components "live" in the same subspace of the overall state. You must pick one, plus the total square of all of them to expand the basis: (sz, sx2+sy2+sz2), as you should know. Otherwise, you have no business discussing anything here. OK. I will leave the argument there for the time being. Try to see if you can digest that, and I'll try to explain more as I can.
  21. Here's a riddle for you. If they've sent FTL information, how come it can't be used to send an FTL signal? You haven't described any protocol that does that, and you haven't described the physics. And I'm certain that it can't be done for reasons abundantly explained. I couldn't care less what you think about I'm in touch with this or that, or whether I understand this or that. The principles they've used in the Danube experiments have been known for nearly a hundred years. Quantum mechanics is a local theory and has no FTL transmission of anything, or of any kind, as proved and explained repeatedly. It wasn't only by myself, but also by many others, some of whom are more in touch than you or I will ever be with "the experimental side of things." Quantum systems have this feature of keeping "indefinition in classical data" for long distances. That's everything at play here. No new physical principles have been discovered in the Vienna experiments. It's all good-old-reliable QM, known since the '20s-'30s. It was Schrödinger who first pointed those out. It's only that the experiments have been possible to conduct only very recently. And hats off to that. The problem with QM is it's so unintuitive --even so late in the game as today-- that people who don't understand the conceptual and mathematical framework well enough, and start drawing conclusions from popular-science books and YT videos, like you seem to do, easily get in the habit of repeating this kind of poorly thought concepts to no end. I'm very familiar with this social phenomenon, and Gell-Mann shrewdly prevented against it in the snap of an interview that I posted at the start. Feynman, of course, had similar views, as expressed by Gell-Mann in other fragment of the same interview. Bell was very ambivalent about the consequences of his theorem, and sometimes preferred to declare that "it only proves quantum mechanics is right." You can find a testimony to that from Susskind on his lectures about entanglement. You seem to be only interested in wearing down other members by mumbling over and over the same misconceptions. That they are misconceptions has been shown very clearly. You haven't answered to Swansont's arguments about the signal; you haven't answered to MigL's and mine on the formalism, you haven't answered to Eise's review of the literature, and finally, you haven't answered to Markus Hanke's laconic --but mathematically precise-- account of what entanglement is all about, pretty much clarifying or insisting on points raised by MigL, Eise, Ghideon, Swansont, and myself. In order to keep living in this imaginary world of yours, you appeal to whatever fringe interpretation there is, embracing one theory --no matter how speculative-- and dropping another --no matter how fundamental-- as you see fit, only as long as it seems to support your claims. Sometimes it is the TIQM we have to believe, other times it's the WF of radiation with absorbers at spatial infinity, which is a theory of classical electrons and classical radiation... Other times it's Copenhagen's interpretation --the last one without you even realising you're implying it. And still other times you declare SR is not relevant to this discussion, or Zurek's discussion of the measurement is not relevant to these measurements --for some mysterious reason.
  22. This is, I think, an interesting question that can be answered on a number of levels. 1) Mathematically: You solve the equations and see that GR really does predict these distorsions of space-time escaping away from the colliding BHs at speed c. 2) Empirically: LIGO experiment did confirm this prediction 3) Intuitive afterthoughts, thoughtful phrasings of what the equations might be telling us, and why the naive reasoning might fail: Gravitational waves do not behave like EM radiation or fluxes of charged particles at all. Upon further reflection, there's actually no reason why they should. First, they correspond to a highly non-linear, highly non-static situation, in which you absolutely can't see them as "objects" running away from a static horizon. I'm not sure that, during the collision, the horizon is even properly defined, or smoothly defined in any clear way. You can look upon them, though, as distorsions of space-time that, to make things even more complicated, propagate as degrees of freedom of the Weyl tensor (the part of Riemann curvature tensor that doesn't have to vanish, even in the vacuum.) I'm certain that radiation and particles do not propagate as degrees of freedom outside of the Einstein tensor. I expect this answer you won't find 100% satisfactory or understandable, but I hope it is enough to convince you that you can't think of GW in terms of radiation escaping from a static horizon. They are, in a manner of speaking, distorsions of space-time itself that run away from the initial colliding distorsions. Put quote marks as you see fit especially in the last sentence. I hope that's helpful. No, we see nothing. Light escaping from immediate vicinity of BH's horizon is extremely red-shifted, thereby undetectable. Light from inside can't get out.
  23. Oh, I see. "Assuming a syllogism" was a bad choice of words. With this "assuming a syllogism" I was referring to the illusion it creates, IMO. But the system is not thinking logically, at least not a 100% so. The only logic is a logic of "most trodden paths" so to speak. I may be wrong, of course. Perhaps modern AI implements modules of propositional logic in some way. I'm no expert. 😊 I liked your "experiments" anyway.
  24. But I didn't mean that it derives its conclusions from pure logical assumptions. I meant the opposite: That there's an apparent element of empiricism, as is to be expected from a machine that learns from experience:
  25. Well done! You've just conducted an experiment to test the hypothesis. The chat engine is clearly assuming something --B's sex-- that's not literally implied by the question. It seems as though the system is assuming the answer must be based on a syllogism, not a "loop," or a truth to be derived from the question itself. It's good to have you back, BTW. I wonder if there's a way to guarantee that's what's going on here.
  • 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.