swansont

2 hours ago, Lucas Bet said:

1) Great example. A photodetector works as an observer precisely because the Brain works as a photodetector. 

But the converse is not true. The photodetector is not a brain, and yet it's an observer. A brain is not required.

2 hours ago, Lucas Bet said:

And because the Brain works precisely by translating information from photons into a representation of matter, it is no wonder that a photodetector plays the part of an observer. But here is the catch: even in that case, a photodetector wouldn't solve the quantum superposition in Schrodinger's cat. If that was the case, the problem wouldn't be currently unsolved in physics! A solution for Schrodinger's cat requires the observer plays an active part in determining what is going to be the "chosen reality" inside the cat's box. In other words, considering the Brain as a computer seems to be the only solution which doesn't consider the intervention of mysterious or God-like forces.

2) One thing is thinking about how the Mind (our own consciousness) mobilizes our nervous system to interact with the world. Of course, it can do mistakes, and it is not performing precise physical calculations. The Brain, on the other hand, must be performing correct calculations about how we perceive reality. Otherwise, we would be hallucinating different realities: in other words, if our Brains were not doing similar calculations we would all be schizophrenic, perceiving different realities.

Evidence?

All you've done is make an assertion. 

2 hours ago, Lucas Bet said:

We can only perceive similar realities because each of our Brains has a similar mathematical structure. After all, if our Brains perceived neutrinos instead of photons, we would never see the Sun, for example, and this would be a very different Universe. And because our Brain determines everything we can actually perceive about the Universe, after the Brain is considered in physics, this amounts to a theory of everything.

The brain has nothing to do with why we can't perceive neutrinos

2 hours ago, Lucas Bet said:

 

And how does that creates intelligence?

Well, just ask Chat GPT!

Absolutely not. ChatGPT is not a science resource. It's souped up predictive text.

9 minutes ago, Lucas Bet said:

 

1) The observer need not to be a conscious being - true;

There is no connection to the Brain - false.

Consciousness is not an intrinsic property of the Brain. A pigeon can have a Brain, but still it has no consciousness, because it lacks a Mind.

Therefore, a pigeon would still be a physical observer, but this has nothing to do with consciousness.

A rock, on the other hand, would be considered an object, and not an observer, because it lacks a Brain.

A photodetector lacks a brain but can be an observer. 

9 minutes ago, Lucas Bet said:

2) The Brain performs calculations in the form of electrical signals. It does that by alternating between it's two hemispheres. The perceptive side provides our perception of color, content, and matter in general. This is done in parallel, just like a GPU operates. And the rational side provides our sense of shape and form, it relates every perceived content together. This is a method generally adopted by every Turing machine. The perceptive side of the Brain corresponds to the states of a Turing machine, and the rational side of the Brain corresponds to the algorithm of a Turing machine. And the physical operations of the Brain happen even if we have no consciousness do deal with, like in the case of an animal, for example.

A brain can do calculations. The issue is whether it’s doing calculations in all of these circumstances where the claim is made. Iterative feedback works, too. And while you can model such things with math, it doesn’t mean you are doing calculations. You throw a rock and it falls short of the target. The next time you throw it harder, and so on, until you hit it. There’s no quantification going on, it’s just iteration.

1 hour ago, NormaVega said:

It is true that panspermic organisms could have evolved in very different conditions than planets around class O or B stars. However, life's ability to adapt to a variety of environments is remarkable, and it is plausible that the imported organisms, and even more so in the case (very likely) that these are microorganisms and/or Extremophilic bacteria for the mere fact that they are organisms that have been traveling for a considerable amount of time on small celestial bodies through deep space, can adjust to the conditions of these still very hot planets in a surprisingly short period of time.

But Earth’s Hedean era lasted ~500 million years, so if that’s similar for other planets you don’t have habitable planets for O and B type stars. 

Other habitability issues arise as well - for hotter stars, the “Goldilocks” zone is farther away, but the far planets in the solar system are gas giants, not rocky ones like the inner planets. If that’s true elsewhere, it makes A type stars an iffy proposition.

1 hour ago, Lucas Bet said:

And it is strange how we never truly talk about what is the observer in physics.

I think you’ll find a few threads on our site that discuss this very topic.

One common response is that an observer need not be a conscious being. There’s no connection to the brain.

Quote

This means the Brain does quaternion algebra: it can read continuous information from mass and energy, and translates that into information about position and momentum; then this means our Brain is actually doing calculations in both relative and quantum terms. And it is always actively participating in our view of physical Universe.

I’m leery of claims like this - that the brain is doing calculations. I’ve never seen good evidence for it. The arguments either lack rigor or the definition of calculation is diluted past the point of being meaningless.

20 minutes ago, Lucas Bet said:

No advertisement brother - it is free!

20 minutes ago, Lucas Bet said:

And I am wishing to start an honest debate.

50 minutes ago, martillo said:

The point is that the problem, as you present it, involves two variables, not only one. Please give me some time to rethink a right answer for you to all this mess. I will focus in the way you calculate it.

You can look at frequency or wavelength but they are not independent, so it doesn’t matter which one. 

In your estimation, how long does it take for heat to pass through glass?Is it appropriately measured in nanoseconds, milliseconds, seconds?

1 hour ago, NormaVega said:

Certainly, but don't rule out all possibility of life since the theory of panspermia proposes that life can be transported through space by comets, meteorites and other celestial bodies, which suggests that life could have reached a planet orbiting that kind of stars. This implies that the short lifespan of type O or B stars does not necessarily rule out the possibility that life could develop on a planet within their orbit.

Here you have a link to the panspermia theory if you are curious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

But organisms from panspermia would be adapted to their home world. And the lifetime of the star ignores formation time of any planets, which would likely have to cool before life could survive on them.

I don’t know of any macro scale tests; CP-violation experiments are exceedingly difficult, and AFAIK seen only at the atomic or particle scale.

1 hour ago, martillo said:

.02/(.03 x 10^-8) = (2/3)c 

No, that’s 2/3 x 10^8 m/s

(2/3) c is 2 x 10^8 m/s, since c = 3 x 10^8 m/s

1 hour ago, martillo said:

Not at all. What is the same is the velocity c. The frequency varies as the wavelength varies: f = c/λ.

c is a constant. Light that has the same frequency must have the same wavelength 

1 hour ago, martillo said:

More attention please, if not is useless to discuss. In the reference it is said: "the heat transfer rate varies as the difference in the 4th powers of the absolute temperatures".
I'm tired to say to you that heat transfer of energy rate is different than heat transfer of energy even with different units. I always stated:
transfer of energy rate is proportional to T⁴.
transfer of energy  is proportional to T.
So you are wrong to state "radiative heat transfer depends on T^4".
Radiactive, conductive or whatever heat transfer depends on T (according to the Thermodynamics laws).
And: whatever heat transfer rate is proportional to T⁴ (according to Stefan-Boltzmann law).

 

Take a heat transfer rate and multiply it by a time interval, and you get the heat transferred. If the rate depends on T^4, the energy transferred will, too.

I have come to the conclusion that you don’t have the math skills to analyze any of this. All of your errors here involve simple algebra. If you can’t get this right, there’s no point to the discussion.

9 hours ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

If you want we can talk about my religion, yes.

12 hours ago, martillo said:

No it is .03 x 10^-8 sec.

.03/3 x 10^8 ≠ .03 x 10^-8

12 hours ago, martillo said:

No, I'm saying that in a material with refractive index of 1,5 heat takes .03 x 10^-8 sec to pass through.
The refractive index of glass for "light" is different from that for "heat". This strongly depends on frequency.

The frequencies are the same. The wavelength are the same.

12 hours ago, martillo said:

From Wikipedia in the link you provided:

"Another situation that does not obey Newton's law is radiative heat transfer. Radiative cooling is better described by the Stefan–Boltzmann law in which the heat transfer rate varies as the difference in the 4th powers of the absolute temperatures of the object and of its environment."

Yes. Do you understand this is what we have been telling you and you keep denying?  The radiative heat transfer depends on T^4

11 hours ago, martillo said:

I think the real problem we have here is in which kind of "heat" is considered. One case is the infrared range as described in the link of "infrared optics" you provided. It is considered yet an "optical case" even in your link. So I would not call it "heat" range and yet call it "light" range, not visible but yet a "light" range would be more appropriated. Other case is yes the "heat" in the range which we can feel with our fingers for instance which is not an optical case at all. In this case much lower frequencies are involved and the glasses quite not transmit any "heat" and that's why they are good thermal insulators.

Thermal radiation near 300K is centered at about 10 microns. The wavelengths are the same. 

42 minutes ago, martillo said:

The velocity of propagation for an index of refraction is 1.5 is v = c/(1.5)c = 2c/3.
The time is t = d/v where d is the thickness so for thickness = 2 cm = .02 m is t = .02/(2c/3) = .03/c = .03x10^-8 sec.

c is 3 x 10^8, so this would be 0.01 x 10^-8 sec

42 minutes ago, martillo said:

While the index of refraction remains the same this calculation remains the same so same time of propagation.
λf = v is always verified so for each λ you just have f = v/λ just varying accordingly.
For same index of refraction 1.5 it is same v = 2c/3 and so same delay of propagation t = .03x10^-8 sec.

So that’s how you’re saying fast heat is conducted through the material? In a tenth of a nanosecond? Through 2 cm of glass?

42 minutes ago, martillo said:

No it is not the S-F law that gives me a linear relation with T. I have already told you that "energy transfer" and "energy transfer rate" are different things with different units. The S-B law gives the "energy transfer rate" of the radiation through some area at some place proportional to T⁴ while the Thermodynamics laws give the total "energy transfer" between two bodies proportional to T.

q in Newton’s law is an energy transfer rate, per unit area. They describe the same thing

From the link I provided earlier 

“q is the heat flux transferred out of the body (SI unit: watt/m2)” (watts being joules/sec) which is exactly what the units are in the S-B equation, which you posted

1 hour ago, martillo said:

In the link you provided the range of wavelength is about 1 - 10 microns but there is no mention in a change in the velocity of propagation. The velocity would remain the same. Why do you consider it varies? We have λf approximately c. While both λ and f vary accordingly the velocity remains the same: approximately c. May be there could be a little variation, I don't know exactly but there's no "10 orders of magnitude required for the heat propagation time to match the light propagation time" as you say. Your calculation is wrong.

Well, then, you do the calculation.

How long does it take for heat to propagate through a material? I’ve listed several that are transparent to IR near room temperature. Assume the index of refraction is 1.5

How long does it take light of the same wavelength to propagate through the same material?

(I had picked 2 cm for the thickness to make the calculation easy)

1 hour ago, martillo said:

Well, Boltzmann solved it in "per unit area" basis and the Thermodynamics equations derived give a final linear variation of rate transfer in T. I stay with this. I already solved the thing this way. Now is that you want to solve the thing in a different manner, well, do it. You can't ask me to solve the things in your way. At the end we reach to the same result isn't it? 

No, absolutely not. Your result is very different from mainstream physics.

1 hour ago, martillo said:

As I said, you do it in your way. I already did it in my way and there is agreement in a linear relation with T. The discussion in this topic has ended for me. Just to mention, Newton's law of cooling works for small variations in T only.

I messed it, then. How does the Stefan-Boltzmann law give you a linear relation with T?

22 hours ago, martillo said:

As I said for the case of the prism, it is possible for the velocity of heat to be different at different frequencies. The velocity would be dependent on the frequency of the photons. This is not a problem in my approach since it only implies that the time delay in the absorption with posterior emission of the photons vary with the frequency of the photons.

But in science and engineering we take the step of quantifying things. The spread in index of refraction(the dispersion) is small - perhaps a percent or two over the range of frequencies in question. Not the 10 orders of magnitude required for the heat propagation time to match the light propagation time. (which is essentially zero variation on this scale)

On 4/1/2024 at 11:16 AM, martillo said:

Not so easy, you must have a specific area to consider what depends on each case in particular to solve. S-B law is general and applies to any case.

And any case will have an area. Or you can just do it on a “per unit area” basis.

The point being that this is a simple mathematical manipulation that should be well within the capability of an electrical engineer.

On 4/1/2024 at 11:16 AM, martillo said:

More important than that, do you really pretend to solve the energy rates with Newton Second Law of force? I don't think you could solve the thing that way. You know, Boltzmann had to develop the concept of entropy and find his laws of statistical mechanics to solve the thing. You can't bypass over all that subject that way.

No, I’m referring to Newton’s law of cooling, since we’re discussing that topic. The law that says Q depends on the temperature difference for conduction and convection

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_cooling

I would not be at all surprised to find that the ability to metabolize food is not uniform in all people (because what is?), and might be worse when you’re sick. Calories are an energy content, but the ability to access and exploit that energy varies.e.g. your gut biome might not break certain foods down as efficiently as someone else’s, or the bacteria might feast on it more before the nutrients can be utilized. I’m sure there are a lot more possibilities that someone more familiar with biology could point to. A lot of moving parts here.

I think the basics apply to the average person, and you have to acknowledge the variation in individuals. The concept of energy conservation is not endangered.

30 minutes ago, martillo said:

The radiant exitance (previously called radiant emittance), �, has dimensions of energy flux (energy per unit time per unit area), and the SI units of measure are joules per second per square metre (J⋅s⁻¹⋅m⁻²),

energy per unit time per unit area. So you multiply both sides by the area, and you have an equation for power: energy per unit time, just as I said.

I said you might have to do a little algebraic manipulation, but I didn’t think that would be a barrier.

16 minutes ago, martillo said:

I will answer now that question that surged some time ago:

The answer is that the question is wrongly formulated. Stefan-Boltzmann law states that the energy density of the radiation of a system at a given temperature T is proportional to T⁴ while the heat energy transfer by conductivity is linearly proportional to T.

Nope

S-B gives radiated power, which is a rate of energy transfer, i.e. energy per unit time.

Newton’s law gives the heat transfer rate, which is also energy per unit time

16 minutes ago, martillo said:

The point is that they are different things and cannot be compared. They have different units.

They are different, since they apply to different mechanisms, but they have the same units (when appropriately stated; you might have to do a little algebraic rearrangement, depending on how the formula is written)

56 minutes ago, martillo said:

According to the Snell refraction formula it is so, we have: v₁/v₂ = n₂/n₁ 
I don't know if in some case the formula is not verified, may be other effects could be present. F.i. note that refraction happens at certain angles of incidence only.

So you concur. 

Is it actually the case that e.g. polyethylene, which is transparent in the IR, with an index of about 1.5, conducts heat at this speed? Or various glasses that works in that range, such as “Zinc Selenide (ZnSe), Zinc Sulfide (ZnS), Calcium Fluoride (CaF2) and Magnesium Fluoride (MgF2). All of these operate from the visible spectrum up to 8-10μ”

https://www.emf-corp.com/optical-materials/optical-material-infrared-optics/

According the chart, the two zinc options operate out to 14 microns. 

8 minutes ago, martillo said:

Each material has its own spectrum of absorption and emission depending on the spectrum of its atoms. Also the molecular structure and the lattice plays a role, f.i. the number of atoms the photons encounter in their way through depends on the density of the material and so could be more or less time delays and so different velocities and different intensities  (quantity of photons) passing through the material.

And it is that way. The time delay depend on the frequency and this the basis for the functioning of prismas presenting different angles of refraction of the incident light for different colors (frequency).

The dispersion effect in a prism is quite small.

So basically you are predicting that any material that is transparent in the IR will have almost instantaneous heat flow through it. A material with an IR index of refraction of 1.5, IR light will travel at 2/3 c so heat will conduct at 2/3 c. Is that correct?

4 hours ago, harlock said:

Animals live on sun's energy through plant photosynthesis, all the energy they consume comes from solar energy.

It means that all the solar energy that the animals(decomposers... also) used goes back to the environment (as you also say).

The only 'solar fuel' of the plants that remains is trunk and branches, which store solar energy for millennia(removing it from the

environment). So the difference in the amount of trees between centuries ago and today is that there is less solar energy

You’re ignoring all the coal and oil that was created in the past from dead plants and animals, and stored over the course of millions of years.

But that energy is but a fraction of what we get from the sun. Global warming is an issue of trapping too much of that energy.

4 hours ago, martillo said:

I have given a wrong answer. The same material can present different velocities in transmitting "light" or "heat". Glass for instance is an excellent light transmitter, it is transparent to light while a very bad heat transmitter, it is an insulator to heat. The difference is in the frequency of the photons involved. "Light" frequency is in the optical range while "heat" is mainly in the infrared range. Glass is an excellent transmitter in the optical range while a very bad transmitter in the infrared range.

But for your idea to be true, this must hold for all materials. There are materials that are transparent in the IR. 

4 hours ago, martillo said:

I must answer now why this happens with photons? It is because the glass' atoms cannot absorb the relative high energetic photons and they pass through the lattice or are reflected while they can well absorb and emit quite all the less energetic photons of heat. Now, how is that? Well, the absorption of photons by atoms depend on the available levels of energy in the atoms according to their particular characteristic energy spectrum with their characteristic levels of energies. I must also explain how the velocity of light in the glass is anyway less than in vacuum and this is because the light's photons pass through the lattice but have another interaction with atoms rather than absorption and emission. The interaction would be elastic collisions in which the photons are slowed down. The photons have an EM field which interacts with the EM field of the atoms with an EM force between them. The force act braking a bit the photons at first while accelerating them again after but a delay of time is involved in this process. 

But the time delay has to be the same for all photons of the same energy, because the photons are identical, regardless of how they are generated 

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

Fluorine is going to make up for a lack of carbon?

I think we’ve established that it will not.

53 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

That's not something I thought the AI would get wrong, and it seems obvious you can't trust it for even basic facts.

AI doesn’t fact check. It will make up stuff, including citations, that sound legit.

3 hours ago, NormaVega said:

1. Stevenson, D.J. et al. (2015). The prospects for life on Europa. *Space Science Reviews, 212*(1-2), 5-22.

Another bogus cite

212 issue 1-2 is from October of 2017, and the article doesn’t match what’s listed.