Bishadi

Our brains work differently than CPUs. Computers are Turing machines, and the brain works in a fundamentally different manner than that of the Turing machine. We can, however, draw an analogy between consciousness and computer programming.

 

Our minds are analogous to computer programming. we can look at computer programming from various levels. You can look it it from the low level of electrons moving about on wires. In the same manner, you can look at the brain as ion currents through neurons.

 

nope, as then a magnet would be like cryptonite! case closed!

 

 

Our consciousness comes from a thin covering of the "old brain" called the neocortex.

 

 

funny stuff as that can be proven wrong by cutting it open for brain surgery.

 

when wishing to comprehend 'consciousnees' think of a whole bunch of em running on a whole bunch of fibers and the combining; the mass is resonating a heat (the combining energy in coheranance is where consciousness exists) (ie... the 'heat' word was just for an analogy)

 

think of the coherance of energy when thinking conscious (to go biblical or even infra red; think of the aura)

 

or better still; when someone dies, all the same mass is there but the 'lights are out'

 

or.. when sleeping, no awareness of self (kind of practicing death and most don't know it)

I hope you are aware that carbon nanotubes have quite different properties from proteins as e.g. tubulin? Just because they are in the same size range does not give them equal properties.

sure i am aware, just as each musical instrument has it's own tune

 

my add...

think in the lines of comparing usable building blocks; electrical: binary(on/off) see chips for computers

 

then compare to mass (the range and molecular variations) and the spectrum of electromagnetism. Think of mass as just 'holding' a resonance (soliton/photon) and when some systems (resonant) come into contact, the combining increases total power of the energy. (i suggest this is how the phospholipid bilayers assemble; the resonant energy is associating without structural bonds between the lipids (rather peptide))

 

or even 'common sense'; 2 men; each can lift a maximum but together they can lift more than the sum of their individual maximums (basics)

 

that last paragraph part was an analogy to assist in what is being observed (simply that all mass that ever combines to make a molecule is because of em) ie... no electron even 'jumps' without it. (bohring model)

 

electron transfers across proteins (e.g. via cytochromes) are short range affairs, generally in the tunneling range.

Tunneling?

 

(is that Gibbs free energy?)

 

What frame is that derived from?

 

now if you are masking the heme in the cytochromes then find THAT iron based molecule can retain a HUGE range of wavelengths; the 688nm, heck most of 300's on up in many oxigenase configs

 

have you ever done homework on the P680?

 

that is the horse of plants and go look at how the INCREASE of energy occurs during the process... (perhaps another thread)

Looks like some interesting work came out of NorthWestern

 

http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehler/nerves.htm

 

Signal transmission is unlikely to drastically change the microtubule structure.

 

If microtubules, indeed, conduct such signals one could hardly expect them to cause structural changes of the microtubules drastic enough to be visible in a microscope. Such an expectation would be analogous to the search for structural changes of the optical nerve every time the retina transmits images to the brain. Nevertheless, for several years I tried but failed to find any direct effects of pulsating near-infrared light signals on microtubules or other cytoskeletal components.

 

Signal transmission may alter the effectiveness of anti-microtubular drugs.

 

 

http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehler/contents.htm#cont3

 

the online reading

 

kind of like a course study on a hypothesis

 

any think this idea has merit?

 

perhaps some of the posters can add a bit and share with us

Off the top of my head I do not know.

each element has a different refractive index

 

http://interactagram.com/physics/optics/refraction/

 

the STP for each is just the bench to measure from

 

i am getting the impression that you are suggesting, if the STP of the system is the same, that no matter the element; the refraction would be the same; i disagree

 

the wheels STP in this case are dead

 

As I stated go look up teh values you will see they do not vary with just the mass of the gas.

provide link

 

If a gamma ray got absorbed it would ionise the material and therefore not be re-emitted.

wrong.... the mass can change the wavelength and re-emit. (think of what 'heat' is)

 

Yes, absorbed and re-emitted many many times. Your link provides nothing that states this is not true.

i never said that was NOT TRUE either..... i said "not necessarily"

 

but the pub shared how the mass, can change the orientation and filter as the em is exchanged

 

If the photons did not get absorbed and re-emitted the refractive index would be 1.

what?

 

not absorbed and yet 're-emitted'.............????

 

It's not that I don't like it, it's that it's wrong, I've given you a trivial way to go and look up something that shows you that the dependence is not mass related.

 

common sense tells you ANY exchange with em is mass related

 

you are arguing for nothing and i have yet to figure out why

 

The STP thing in itself was rediculous....

 

 

you have been trying to suggest the mass, environment, etc.... has nothing to do with why gamma rays ionizing mass

 

the reason gamma and the so called gamma bursts are so scary is because it 'easily' ionizes mass of living mass and is throught to cause cancer.....

(a whole lot BETTER than radio, visible, vhf...etc of the em spectrum)

 

the gamma is a hammer and i say the reason is that some mass in some environments can capture it better than others.

 

kind of like a radio being tuned in to KMET (twiddle-dee to heaven 94.7 KMET, twiddle deee)

All it turns up is protein crystal structures, which is really just a way of describing the 3-D structure of a protein.

 

that is not fair

 

are you describing a SNARE?

 

but that analogy you posted is incorrect

 

There are no "nano tubules"; you're thinking of microtubules. And I strongly doubt they're transmitting light, especially since it's pretty dark inside most animals.

 

wow.....

 

they measure microfilaments, micotubules and cytoskeleton in nm, just like nanotubes (organic or not)

 

both "grow" an that growth is still considered magic; no matter the discipline.

 

my comment was "nano tubular-like structures"

 

as for light and tubule STRUCTURES (nano sized)

 

"This is the first measurement of the intrinsic conduction properties of semiconducting nanotubes," Fuhrer said in a statement. "It is an important step forward in efforts to develop nanotubes into the building blocks of a new generation of smaller, more powerful electronics."

 

The findings were published in the journal Nano Letters and publicized earlier this month.

 

The team said it had to use (relatively) extremely long nanotubes for the experiment, using lengths of up to 0.03 centimeters, about 100 times longer than nanotubes previously used in semiconducting experiments.

 

Within a decade, nanotubes could replace silicon as the transistors inside processors and memory chips. Tubes could also be used to convey light through optical fibers and, further out, to deliver medicines to specific cells inside a body or even restructure the nation's power grid

 

from even simple article

 

http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/hardware/0,39042972,39161987,00.htm

 

http://news.cnet.com/The-stuff-of-dreams/2009-1008_3-5091267.html

 

i would suggest any who enjoys the future material in the works, focus on the conveyance of energy via em (light) and nano structures.

No, it isn't. If you claim life doesn't have random processes, you need to prove it. Offer evidence. Not equations, *experimental* evidence.

 

Mokele,

 

eating is not random! (instinct is not random)

 

ie.... if life evolved from a weee little cell a billion or so yrs back, and that living cell divided and combined and finally made a man/women; then the FACT is, that life has not equilibriated for billions of years. (breaks "the law", at each reproduction)

 

there is no greater evidence than life itself.

 

so the evidence is apparent, as it is the current 'law' (math) that has blinders over the comprehension.

 

That paper is purely hypothetical. I asked for Experimental Evidence.

 

Show me a paper in which someone has actually done real experiments on actual neurons.

 

now above (on life) shares just how different reality is in comparison to the science and how mankind has come to believe in the uncertainties of the current paradigm.

 

So what that means is many of the published items will not reflect in the words and posture that will contest the 2nd but i do and why it seems so esoteric.

 

But if you are truly serious, then i will finish this request

 

what it requires is combining a few disciplines of math, evidence and common sense; not law abiding crap just to make 'steam engine' ideology work. (that is the period the 2nd was incorporated) (see planck's 1901 pub)

 

All currents in neurons are flows of ions,

may seem like that but it isn't so.

 

in fact, that 'flow' is what i contested many moons ago and is what prompted the my first paper on the subject (photon neuron conduction, 83') (just to give yu an idea of 'how long' i have been in this game)

 

let's start with this pub and note the 'actin'

 

this pub shares the use of energy in frequencies (laplace; autocorrelation (from the combining energy)), the non-equilibriation, the 'active forces' of the cytoskeleton (energy/signaling(my opinion))

 

By performing active and passive microrheology on the same micron-sized probe bound to the cell membrane, we were able to infer the precise amplitude and frequency dependence of the fluctuating forces spectrum exerted on this probe, bringing evidence that these forces are generated by active, out-of-equilibrium, biological processes.

 

http://lanl.arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0901/0901.3087.pdf

 

now be fair... because we are starting at the basics while answering your question. This pub is just one of hundreds that will build the pyramid to assist any who are really interested in making a difference.

Who said that it was? But this is a very different claim than saying that the body isn't "running on electrical impulses"

 

 

what is the difference? kindly asking

When was the last time you were able to predict every single aspect of an organism's behavior for it's entire lifespan?

that is strawman

 

as it is like asking "show me evolution at the molecular scale"

 

(the math is off, not the phenomenon)

 

 

Both are mere math. Empirical evidence is what matters. Show me an actual nervous system displaying evidence of something more than just action potentials, membrane ion gradients, and synaptic transmission. Not in math - an *actual* experiment, on an *actual* animal with *actual* nerves.

see

 

Solitonic effects of the local electromagnetic field on neuronal microtubules

 

http://cogprints.org/3894/1/Tubulin_tail_solitons.htm

 

but i have bunches more

 

 

 

What does that have to do with this specific topic?

 

the brain is not running on electricity like some binary computer (my opinion)

STP, standard temp and pressure, you seem to know that. If you take gasses at STP, and you measure the refractive index you will find it varies, and it varies not with mass.

what is the ref index of a diamond?

 

in comparison to the He gas for dual noble gas maser?

 

I'm afraid I don't understand that sentence.

STP shares that the molar scale of the mass is relevant. You just don't see it that way.

 

I never claimed you could, you can measure the mass and refractive index for a given situation and then change the gas. You will find some light gasses have a lower refractive index than some heavy gasses, but some heavy gasses will have a lower refractive index than light gasses.

i know and the STP and mass of the gas is absolutely relevant to the differences.

The analogy is wrong. It is a very very poor analogy.

so is bringing up STP and suggestin the mass of the gas is no mass to observe

 

or even this line

 

***One of them interacts many many times, one of them does not interact at all.****

 

in which you share nothing of evidence to any of the statements

 

 

I think I see what you are getting at here. But all the visible photons that pass through glass have been absorbed.

not neccessarily

 

see this item on polarizers and a patent in the works

 

http://www.freshpatents.com/-dt20090702ptan20090168172.php

 

None of the gamma photons that pass through will have been. Please note the condition that they pass through.

 

i am, the mass is most relevant and you just don't like that

I'm shocked by this revalation...

 

I think a quick note should be added here...

 

A ToE is simply a theory that unifies gravity with the other 3 fundamental forces, no more, no less...

 

 

that is an analogy

 

perhaps another could be to combine "mass, energy and time."

 

The process (description) of the transistion; everything else must fall into place. Meaning; the truth of the matter will perhaps be a weeeee bit different than what the bohring model has imposed to current ideologies (paradigm)

 

just as ptolemy offered causality for almost 1500 yrs, when newton came in; all the rules changed and since then QM itself continues to evolve (weak force and em have already been combined)

 

didn't feynman suggest leave the door ajar?

 

better yet here

 

To decide upon the answer is not scientific. In order to make progress, one must leave the door to the unknown ajar RF

Well, things like the electron configuration.

for STP........... ??????????????????

 

Urm what? How does having all the gases at STP alter their masses?

 

Wow! I thought you were talking about 'molar volume of gas' (the standard to the system; standard conditions for pressure and temperature)

 

you said **For the simplest thing look at the refractive indices of simple gases at STP and how they vary and note how it is not related to mass.***

 

and i share that 'it is relevant' and even to establish the stp, the relevance is represented.

 

 

My argument is that; the way that visible light goes through glass (absorption and re-emission), is fundamentally different to the way gamma photons passes through matter, with no interactions.

then which way.....?

 

it is all em (electric and magnetic fields at perpendicular planes) what is so different?

 

The problem is how do you change the mass of a material without changing all of it's other features as well? If you look at the refractive indices for simple gasses you can see there is not a relationship with mass.

you can't have a gas without mass.

 

please look up masing; you are not helping and simply arguing without basis

 

 

This is a different argument. Please the discussion is why gamma radiation is not as ionising despite it's high energy, the reason for this is NOT the same as why visible light passes through glass.

 

i used the glass as an analogy

 

you state the reason as being 'not the same as why visible light passes through glass'..................

 

i didn't say it was the same; i claimed that the mass is as relevant as the glass is to light and for some reason you post STP and mention gas but again fail to observe the mass of the gas (pressure.. temp...: environment) of your rebuttal

 

Of course you can, its the theory of everything!

 

 

you gotta big ToE?

 

 

will it resolve the transition of energy to mass and back (fission/fussion)?

 

How about gravity?

 

Looking forward to what others have come up with.

 

 

Does life 'abuse entropy'?

Nothing. We're not talking about wires and circuits, we're talking about a soup of ions flowing in all sorts of directions with lots of random motion.

 

not much random about life (my opinion) (otherwise show me random in a living system)

 

What happens to salt water in an MRI? Nothing. Same for the brain.

so you are suggesting that salt water aint electrical either

 

 

If you want to claim the brain operates in any sort of quantum way, anything more than a chemical soup, you'll need to cite empirical evidence.

 

are you ready?

 

are you familiar with feshbach or stochastic systems?

 

what about even schroadingers 'what is life' and how HE claimed 'neg-entropy' (have you read his book?)

 

but of all items; life is what i know best

Yes, I did it, after 16 years I have solved the secret of the entire universe. The secret involving the unification of gravity with the rest of the fundamental forces. In short, I have solved the Theory of Everything!!

 

Do you want to know what it is or how I did it?

 

 

Wow!

 

 

Then can define how life works?

Not if I want it to be, in reality. For the simplest thing look at the refractive indices of simple gases at STP and how they vary and note how it is not related to mass.

then what molar content?

 

it seems you missed something there; the stp is quite relevant to the mass

 

Yes, we are discussing why gamma is not considered to be as ionising, it is in no way for the same reason as glass is visible at optical frequencies.. Therefore the probabilities are massively important.

i said 'almost' in the sense that gamma goes thru most everything just like light does thru a glass; it was to allow the conceptualization of observing the mass as the most relevant factor.

 

No. In one of them there is NO absorption (for the gas of the photon coming out the other side), in the other there are many events that result in the photon coming out the other side.

what 'many events'?

 

and why NO absorbtion? ("""(for the gas of the photon coming out the other side), """)

 

 

Not really, this is a different argument you are getting us into here. We are discussing why gamma is not ionising, it is in no way for the same reason as glass is visible at optical frequencies.

sure it is, the mass imposed is quite relevant. Along with the environment........... what is so tough about that?

 

 

The probability is fantastically small when compared to other more ionising radiations (please see the first post).

the probability can be adjusted by changing the conditions (mass, volume, environment) even as the STP (condition; molar standards) share

If they come out the other side they are never absorbed, whereas optical frequency photons through glass are absorbed and re-emitted.

perhaps look up a weeeee bit on masers and find that mass can change the wavelength as the energy is passing through (kind of like how water slows light (standard))

 

I'd suggest you need to re-read about them and the first post, and understand that no absorption is different to absorption followed by re-emission.

 

and no absorption and/or absorption followed by re-emission; is still based on the mass, volume and environment; nothing has changed

It is FAR more complicated than just mass.

 

i guess if you want it to be;

 

did you miss this

 

the idea is that the mass is the reason because every atom has electrons (per se) and the mass, volume and environment is quite relevant to how each element is affected when any em (gamma or otherwise) is imposed

 

Have a look at fermi's golden rule.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi%27s_golden_rule

 

Also, perturbation theory, and overlap intergral.

 

to calculate a probability?

 

Why? For the reasons discussed above, the process of no interaction and absorption and re-emission are fundamentally different.

maybe the descriptions are different but the process is not; the process exists, the descriptions vary.

 

It is more complicated than that, please see above. Permittivity and permeability of materials depends on many many many things.

exaclty and why 'clearly wrong' was made moot

 

We are discussing why gamma rays are so unionising despite their high energy. We are not saying they NEVER ionising things.

you keep capitalizing NEVER, that was my first.

 

you said gamma 'never'.......blah quote blah """Gamma ray photons come out of materials because they are NEVER absorbed"""

 

 

Please see the above statement.

you keep saying that and i am getting a kink in my neck

Please see the reasons I give above, why the two situations are fundamentally different.

you post fermi probabilities where volume, environment and time is relevant but for some reason did not comprehend; i already know that.

 

do i need to continue looking up!

Hi, I was wondering whether anyone new if it was possible to create a hot plasma from air in a small chamber? Also, if possible around what temperature could the Plasma be? Thanks in advance!

 

depends on what you define as "plasma"

 

technically, to remove an electron from a hydrogen atom and you have plasma of one atom (13.6ev)

 

how about inventions?

 

http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=2004059653

 

The present invention relates to a plasma hydrogen generator. The plasma hydrogen generator of the present invention comprises a main body for causing a mixture of hydrogen and its isotopes to be ionized, and magnet for generating a magnetic field in the main body, and the main body includes a plurality of tubes through which flow of ions in the ionized mixture is discharged. According to the plasma hydrogen generator of the present invention, there are advantages in that the efficiency of hydrogen generation can be improved by eliminating a possibility of oscillatory relaxation and its production costs can also be remarkably reduced due to its simplified structure

 

and lots in google

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=plasma+from+hydrogen&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

When a gamma ray photon is absorbed, the process os absorption is the same (but with higher energies) than that of visible like being absorbed and then re-emitted for visible light.

correct and some mass can absorb some energy levels while others can't

 

There are some very serious differences though, and they are what makes your statement wrong.

which statement and why; please?!

 

help me learn what is failing your understanding so i can learn how to comprehend you and maybe others who feel the same way.

 

Visible photons come out of the glass because they are re-emitted.

depends on the material mass of the glass; in my view

 

Gamma ray photons come out of materials because they are NEVER absorbed

then why use "irradiation" in medical fields?

 

would that mean no more cancer from (per se) gamma ray bursts or even nuclear weapons?

 

(if they do they don't come out), this is why their ionising ability is so low, because they very rarely get absorbed. Saying this is the same as glass is clearly wrong.

 

 

for some reason 'clearly wrong' cannot be used in your comment without your credibility being questioned.

Please note that if you are using sources to copy from you MUST provide links to the original source

 

okey dokey...... that is my favorite place to dwell; in evidence

so whats the source of where you copy and pasted that from?

 

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question404.htm

 

 

btw, klaynos is somewhat knowledgable about this. he does have a degree on it.

 

 

 

i like any honest comment, but degree or no degree a 14 yr old can have a greater amount of depth, now a days because of the internet; then even einstein feynman and hawking combined.

 

when a claim of 'nothing like that' is made against something i personally have researched; then they best know what they talking about and be capable to the last word (math)

 

i did not comment to mislead and will always be responsible before posting on any subject.

 

I found his comment erroneous and have provided information to assist others in overcoming the complacent as well.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

His first article is directly from the all mighty and infallible Wikipedia. His second is also from Wikipedia.

 

For my money I take Klaynos over Wiki any day.

 

 

shall we ass.u.me that this forum is more of a personality contest?

 

 

i offered wiki to assist the rookies with the basics.... (heck i thought each in this section would already know most everything posted) (we haven't even played tic tac toe......... yet)

Do you have teh DOI for your first reference?

 

http://lanl.arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+pooser/0/1/0/all/0/1

 

 

here is tool

 

see 3rd item

 

hit pdf and review the whole pub if you like

 

enjoy

 

 

p/s..........notice all the work on the subject; its the hot one on the globe!

It's nothing like that, when visible photons pass through glass they are absorbed and re-emitted many many times.

 

 

what is 'nothing like that'?

 

 

perhaps a few more lines of education;

 

 

When a gamma ray passes through matter, the probability for absorption in a thin layer is proportional to the thickness of that layer. This leads to an exponential decrease of intensity with thickness. The exponential absorption holds only for a narrow beam of gamma rays. If a wide beam of gamma rays passes through a thick slab of concrete, the scattering from the sides reduces the absorption.

 

 

Here, μ = nσ is the absorption coefficient, measured in cm−1, n the number of atoms per cm3 in the material, σ the absorption cross section in cm2 and d the thickness of material in cm.

 

In passing through matter, gamma radiation ionizes via three main processes: the photoelectric effect, Compton scattering, and pair production.

 

Photoelectric effect:

 

This describes the case in which a gamma photon interacts with and transfers its energy to an atomic electron, ejecting that electron from the atom. The kinetic energy of the resulting photoelectron is equal to the energy of the incident gamma photon minus the binding energy of the electron. The photoelectric effect is the dominant energy transfer mechanism for x-ray and gamma ray photons with energies below 50 keV (thousand electron volts), but it is much less important at higher energies.

 

 

Compton scattering:

 

This is an interaction in which an incident gamma photon loses enough energy to an atomic electron to cause its ejection, with the remainder of the original photon's energy being emitted as a new, lower energy gamma photon with an emission direction different from that of the incident gamma photon. The probability of Compton scatter decreases with increasing photon energy. Compton scattering is thought to be the principal absorption mechanism for gamma rays in the intermediate energy range 100 keV to 10 MeV. Compton scattering is relatively independent of the atomic number of the absorbing material, which is why very dense metals like lead are only modestly better shields, on a per weight basis, than are less dense materials (as mentioned previously).

 

 

Pair production:

 

This become possible with gamma energies exceeding 1.02 MeV, and becomes important as an absorption mechanism at energies over about 5 MeV (see illustration at right, for lead). By interaction with the electric field of a nucleus, the energy of the incident photon is converted into the mass of an electron-positron pair. Any gamma energy in excess of the equivalent rest mass of the two particles (1.02 MeV) appears as the kinetic energy of the pair and the recoil nucleus. At the end of the positron's range, it combines with a free electron. The entire mass of these two particles is then converted into two gamma photons of at least 0.51 MeV energy each (or higher according to the kinetic energy of the annihilated particles).

 

 

but to focus on glass and what 'the community' represents then allow the same 'common sense' approach

 

 

The atoms that bind together to make the molecules of any particular substance have electrons, usually lots of them. When photons come in contact with these electrons, the following can occur:

 

•An electron absorbs the energy of the photon and transforms it (usually into heat)

 

•An electron absorbs the energy of the photon and stores it (this can result in luminescence, which is called fluorescence if the electron stores the energy for a short time and phosphorescence if it stores it for long time)

 

•An electron absorbs the energy of the photon and sends it back out the way it came in (reflection)

 

•An electron cannot absorb the energy of the photon, in which case the photon continues on its path (transmitted)

 

 

Most of the time, it is a combination of the above that happens to the light that hits an object. The electrons in different materials vary in the range of energy that they can absorb. A lot of glass, for example, blocks out ultraviolet (UV) light. What happens is the electrons in the glass absorb the energy of the photons in the UV range while ignoring the weaker energy of photons in the visible light spectrum. If the electrons absorb the energy of any portion of the visible spectrum, the light that transmits through will appeared colored according to the portion of the spectrum absorbed. In fact, the color of any object is a direct result of what levels of energy the electrons in the substance will absorb!

 

just the basics on 'how stuff works'

 

even when the local gang is stubborn; reality will stand up all by itself!

I suspect that nobody else does.

 

perhaps see lorenz

 

it was how maxwell confirmed electromagnetic energy

 

lasing and masing is combining same 'f' but increasing the 'what' to define the total power?

 

YOU may not comprehend the comments because YOU do not have enough scope of knowledge but many have been tapping on the same thing for a long long time.

 

ie... the 'standard model' does not combine the variety of scientific knowledge and why YOU do not understand the comment.

 

so i suspect your comment is just based on a reduced scope

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

By all means, present supporting evidence for any claims you make. That's expected of you.

 

 

 

People who ask questions in the science sections deserve established answers that have been vetted by the scientific methods. Please restrict answers to that realm. Speculative discussion belongs in Speculations. This is not really negotiable.

 

 

 

i would not wish to negotiate when science is being observed

 

what i would like FROM the Mods is to be able to cause inquiry rather than isolate what may not have made the 'collective' knowledge.

 

meaning; the sciences are performing all over the world, but the books are not updated.

 

so in each comment, sure i can provide data just please identify to either the math or the idiom that is not understood.

 

be fair, please

Um, what?

 

The brain does not run on standard chemistry? Nerve impulses are not electrical?

 

You will need to cite some sources to back these assertions up.

 

what would you like over and above what you can experience and comprehend yourself

 

if the brain,

was running on electrical impulses putting your head into a 3 tesla magnet (MRI) would , do what?

 

from the most basics of eletronics to a paper clip; what happens when either is close to a magnet of such imposition (gauge theory)?

 

so just because the 'common sense' is not going to be found in the 'normal' publications........... does not make the opening post and his questions unanswerable.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Bishadi,

as I pointed out, magnetic fields do affect the brain. Your word-salad attempt to show why they don't is, therefore, rather silly.

 

 

another post with the ad hominen attacks

 

why not quote what i posted

 

 

some do but for the most part you are being real smart in identifying a flaw.

 

so i noted the same as you shared while offering a consistant truth to the OP inquiry

 

let's be fair;

 

 

you will create a real difference between us if your comments persist without having the capacity to articulate your concerns

there is more:

 

Entangled images from 4-wave mixing in rubidium vapor

Marino, A.M.; Boyer, V.; Pooser, R.C.; Lett, P.D.

 

Lasers and Electro-Optics, 2008 and 2008 Conference on Quantum Electronics and Laser Science. CLEO/QELS 2008. Conference on

Volume , Issue , 4-9 May 2008 Page(s):1 - 2

Digital Object Identifier

 

 

Summary:We show that non-degenerate 4-wave mixing in an atomic vapor can produce highly multimode twin beams. The process can be used to generate arbitrarily-shaped continuous-variable entangled twin beams that contain quantum-correlations in time and space.

 

and http://www.jqi.umd.edu/news/80-entangled-images-and-delayed-epr-entanglement.html

 

note in BEC the coherance can be maintained

 

Cool atoms make physics prize matter

 

Philip Ball

 

Wolfgang Ketterle of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Carl Wieman and Eric Cornell of JILA, an interdisciplinary research centre in Boulder, Colorado, have won this year's Nobel Prize in Physics for their work in making and understanding Bose–Einstein condensates (BECs).This new form of matter, a strange state in which a group of atoms behaves as a single particle, was first created in 1995 by Wieman and Cornell by cooling atoms of rubidium to within less than a millionth of a degree of absolute zero

 

 

coupled with

 

Quantum physicist Christopher Foot, at the University of Oxford in the U.K., also presented his work on cold atoms at the July meeting in Barcelona. He explains that this strangeness doesn't stop with atoms overlapping – atoms at temperatures close to absolute zero also become 'entangled' too.

 

Spooky actions

 

"Small particles such as atoms and electrons behave in strange ways that often seem very weird when compared to our everyday experience of large 'ordinary' objects such as a tennis ball or football," he says.

 

"A single quantum object can exist in two places at once, but this is not really as strange as it first appears when considered in terms of waves. However, there is a second property of quantum systems of two or more particles that is truly difficult to understand," says Foot. "Indeed Einstein pointed out a consequence of [entanglement] which is so bizarre that he thought there must be something wrong."

 

Atoms possess certain properties, such as their weight, charge, and the direction of spin of their electrons. At close to absolute zero, though, the direction of spin is like the Duke of York's men: neither up nor down. "It is in a state of indecision," says Foot.

 

A pair of atoms in this undecided state has what Einstein called a "spooky" influence on each other, even at a distance. These entangled atoms can communicate to their partners without the information following any path as we traditionally understand it. It's as if the information is teleported from one atom to another.

 

"By understanding [entanglement] we can do new things such as build quantum computers that, in the future, could store and process far more information than ordinary computers and may outperform them in certain applications, e.g. cracking the encryption commonly used to transmit information

electronically," says Foot.

 

just leaving the doors ajar

Bound systems have lower energy than unbound systems. There is no "increased state of energy" around.

 

that don't make sense logically.

 

ex.... a star is bound mass versus open space (which is of lower energy?)

 

not to mention life consumes (energy)

 

then to observe the solution seems to add NaCl; the water can then retain more energy

 

but mathematically your claim can be made to makes sense (2nd law to chemistry but not via quantum chemistry (resonant energy transfer)

 

Resonance Energy Transfer contains a large amount of cutting-edge research which has never before appeared in book form. It is the first comprehensive modern survey of the field, offering a broad, yet detailed view of the mechanisms of energy transfer. The broad range of applications of fluorescence and fluorescence energy transfer to studies in molecular biology and biotechnology ensures that resonance energy transfer will be a vital component of the new science and technology of the next millenium.

 

 

Note: Foerster coupling (Hamiltonian- energy shift between mass) in this frame the energy is the specimen versus the mass (product.)

 

 

this thread was asking why gamma is not ionizing mass

 

the idea is that the mass is the reason because every atom has electrons (per se) and the mass, volume and environment is quite relevant to how each element is affected when any em (gamma or otherwise) is imposed

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

"and so, for an electron to leave any atom, what must be 'upon' that electron?"

An electromagnetic force needs to act on it.

 

you can quote with [ quote ] (front of clip) then [ /quote] post clip (remove spaces)

 

but nice to see you are sharing the agreement

 

 

Anyway, if memory serves me after about 20 years of not needing to know. The answer is that the overlap integral that you can calculate from time dependent perturbation theory isn't very big.

Not very helpful as an answer, but at least it's not gibberish like Bishadi's post.

 

are postings of such insults normal around here?

 

 

and since your memory will not be able to convey the answer without your insults;

 

perhaps be nice and ask questions before posting such especially when yu share the agreement to the underlying principle.