farmboy

That is one instance.

There are some from the past as well.

 

Judges 6

11 The angel of the LORD came and sat down under the oak in Ophrah that belonged to Joash the Abiezrite, where his son Gideon was threshing wheat in a winepress to keep it from the Midianites. 12 When the angel of the LORD appeared to Gideon, he said, “The LORD is with you, mighty warrior.”

Lol dude, if angels have (apparently) shown themselves in the past why did you specifically say they hadn't in your opening post?

That aside it only requires a minor change to the point I was making, essentially your whole argument rests on the premise that if an angel does exist, and it does have free will it would want to pose as god. I don't see how you can make such a claim, and your entire argument folds after that.

Hey!

 

I am just wondering what was he trying to prove in this experiment? (Schrödinger's Cat)

 

Thanks for any information!

I wouldnt say he was really trying to prove anything, I suppose he was trying to highlightt the absurdity of extending the copenhagen interpretation (specifically the uncertainty principle) to macroscopic (I mean human sized lol) objects.

A little bit like scalar and vector quantities.

So the difficulty is in the way we tend to define objects? Then to say the whole is greater than the sum the parts is a kind of hedge for the discrepancy between how we intuitively define objects and how we should define them? Or it actually is greater than the sum of the parts? this is giving me brain squeak.

I don't think there is any problem with the way we define objects (systems). As someone else has already said consciousness is something that comes about as a result of the electrochemical processes taking place in our brains. It isn't a phenomena in its own right, distinct from our physicality.

I am in High school and would like to know some things of chemical Engineering.

 

1. Will you be able to do nano-technology reaserch with it? Or is that for more technology types of engineers?

2. Can anyone with a master of science degree in Chemical Engineering do research instead of working in a factory?

3. Will there be a lot of jobs for it in 6 years from now?

 

Thanks!

1. I'm really not sure to be honest mate, if you want to get into proper research then you will need PG qualifications and I think it is what you do then that will dictate what field your career is likely to be in. Personally if you definitely want to go into research I'd go with a standard chemistry degree at UG (will be way more interesting anyway), and then if you want to be an engineer instead pick a masters/phd project that is in the engineering field.

2. Yes, same as before, to go into research you will need PG qualifications, whether you are an engineer or a chemist will only influence the type of projects you are likely to be accpeted on.

3. I can't predict the future, but chemical engineers are highly emplyable. A chem eng BSc will generally find it easier to get a job than a pure chem BSc.

With regards to what I think the OP was asking, an inability to sense light (i'm not sure that this is actually true in all bats) would probably have retarded our discovery of relativity. WOuld it have prevented it completely or led us to come to some crazy conclusion about the speed of sound? No.

It doesn't. The oxygen atom has 6 valence electrons in it's outer shell. If it forms a SINGLE bond with another oxygen atom then it is not achieving the 8 electrons in it's valance shell that is 'wants'. By forming a double bond with another oxygen atom, it is sharing two electrons from the other atom and this is what completes the octet. IF an oxygen atom started off with 7 valance electrons (like Fluorine for example) then a single bond would be sufficient to complete the octet. If you look at the Lewis structure for an F2 molecule you'll see this.

 

hope that helps!

What you say is true, but I suspect the OP may be asking about dative covalent bonds (been years since I used that term lol) in which one of the bonding atoms 'provides' both bonding electrons. I think, though I'm far from certain, that this happens in instances where one atom is fairly electropositive and the other strongly electronegative meaning that both the bonding electrons are assosciated with the more electronegative of the two atoms.

Think about them in what respect?

Indeed

Apologies if I missed it, but which country are we talking about?

I think I can since scriptures show some kind of God like prophet and an anti-Christ at end times.

 

Just who is who will be the discussion at that point in time.

Well I'm not sure that they do, but even assuming that is true and we assume that one of those beings is an angel we only have evidence to show that they will reveal themselves at the end of days. Doesn't help the foundation of your argument.

I'm always skeptical of new things being created that don't exist in nature. Some things don't exist because they shouldn't exist.

Yeah, like cheese.

Will science ever come to and end? or will it continue infinately?

 

By definition, we cannot know about what we do not know about! Science might eventually dwindle as all the "low hanging apples" currently accessable to humans run out. This is not to say that humans will have discovered all natural phenomena, simply that it may be increasingly difficult for them to make additional discoveries.

 

Alternatively, there may be unexpected new discoveries, or ways of understanding natural phenomena, that may greatly expand the abilitity of humans to discover new things.

 

By 1900, most scientists believed that almost all scientific principles had already been discovered and adequately described. But this was certainly not the case. Even in the realm of chemistry, countless important reactions were later described, new fields of research emerged.

 

I can only offer my own opinion, which is that completely new and unexpected fields of research will develop that will expand the investigative power of researchers even further. There might be a plateau period of relative inactivity before that period. My guess is that no significant discoveries will be made in the next few decades, but at some point there will be a very important discovery, or a collection of advancements that will interplay with eachother to lead to a rapid advancement of technology.

 

I would also like to note that virtually all the important scientific research in the last century has emerged from government universities. Private industry has only refined and made commercially practical such research. But the very structural importance of government research may also be the main hindrance. Several decades ago, Feynman remarked that his colleagues pursued cargo cult science: an activity which is indistinguishable from science except for its lack of useful output. Scientific research decisions have, in some ways, become overcentralised. Curiosity-driven research is now frowned upon. But at the same time, more centralisation will be required to make future discoveries that will require a high level of resources and financing.

 

Again, in my opinion, the "information technology" age has really not been very revolutionary compared to many of the industrial advancements before (electricity and the automotive engine). The scientific world has been relatively stagnant since 1970. The progress of Science also stalled in the historical period between 500 AD to 1000 AD.

 

The progress of science is not always a continuous steady stream of advances. Science grows in sudden clusters of small discoveries, or in great leaps and bounds of understanding.

I don't think it is possible to give an absolute (or even an evidence based) answer to your question. Will science as practised by humans eventually reach a plateau? Very possibly. If we assume that there are absolute answers to life the universe and everything then it is entirely possible that these answers will prove to be beyond our understanding. Personally I don't think that will be the case, if nothing else I think that we will eventually be able to create machines capable of higher levels of thought than humans, but then that is pure speculation lol.

I'll give the postive point first, I think that the general content of your proposed book will appeal to the new-age/pseudoscience crowd, and I can imagine that type of reader appreciating the connections you have made.

That aside I thought that this work was pretty poor. For something you have apparently been contemplating for 30 years you don't seem to have spent much time considering what you would actually write. This type of stream of thought typing just doesn't work very well when you are trying to write a concise and convincing argument. In general you don't seem to have left yourself anywhere to go in the rest of the book, as you have already given your opinion on the majority of the ideas prevalent in modern physics which are likely to be of interest to non-experts. I think you mentioned that your goal was to unite science with pseudoscience, and if this was really what you hoped to achieve you have failed. You make it clear from the beginning that you are incredibly sceptical of science in general and feel that making up zany theories is the better way to go.

You may have a science background (I'm not convinced if I'm honest) but if you genuinely want to write a book that discusses various scientifc principles you need to do a little revision. Your understanding of relativity and QM in particular were at a level that one could get from any basic history of physics book and you have twisted some of the concepts assosciated with these theories in ridiculous ways so that they might support your personal theories. Saturn and the speed of light are both somehow akin to infinity whilst atoms are generally close to zero? That really has no meaning with regards to relativity. The list of simpler scientific principles which you dont seem to grasp, or at least misunderstand, is not short and it stretches right from evolution to thermodynamics.

Not sure there is much more I want to say on the subject.

Well based on our "records" of religious phenomena, it is a likely possibility, just like how "If god existed, he would punish all the gays".

Those gays do need punishing...lol

 

 

If angels have free will, why has one never shown themselves?

 

There are apparently good angels and evil angels that have been renamed as demons.

 

If either of these showed itself, we could not distinguish it from God himself. No one has ever seen God.

 

Your whole argument seems to be based on the assumption that if angels are real and that they can infact reveal themselves without consequence they would have the desire to do so. I don't think you can make any such claim.

This burger suggests it probably is. Last time I listened to my food it didn't end well though, so keep that in mind.

I'm on the science forums..... right?

Its duty to democracy? Has democracy asked it to do anything else?

I am interested in what information allows you to exclude all the things you exclude at the beginning of this post. Are the methods of imaging individual atoms in dynamic situations really good enough to allow them to be observed under pertinent conditions? Assuming that you are positive about behavior like ductility emerging from the lattice relations and the characteristics of the atoms that determine their particular latticing tendencies, could you please explain in a concrete example how this works? I.e. pick a particular metal and explain its ductility in terms of its latticing tendencies and how these tendencies are determined at the atomic level.

The walls are melting, makes it difficult to answer your question.

In response, AFM, SEM.

Dynamic situations are irrelevant, in the model you are suggesting we would see different atomic radii and shapes all the time in all solids. We dont.

I'll come back tomorrow and perhaps I'll be able to explain ductility then. But until I return, research some inorganic chemistry.

Biscuits, OUT!

Were we to please permit an over-extended analogy...

 

Charged fundamental particles, are a little like 'submarines'... which constantly fire 'virtual photon torpedos'... in various different directions... and which 'time the torpedos', based upon how much energy ([math]\Delta E \implies \Delta t[/math]) they 'borrow from the energy bank'.

 

And now, if those 'virtual photon torpedos', fired in some direction, actually 'hit something' -- interacting, with another charged fundamental particle -- then they 'explode' ('promoted', into 'actualized reality' -- albeit, immediately [and destructively] absorbed). For, that other particle, by adjusting its momentum-and-energy, can pay back the 'debt to the energy bank'.

 

And, so, in some sense, those 'virtual photon torpedos', are like Cash-on-Delivery (CoD) 'debt instruments', bearing the words 'bearer owes the energy bank 1 eV'. Thus, they are 'fired' from one charged fundamental particle; propagate through space; and 'hit' another particle, who 'picks up the tab, and pays the bill' (the ultimate 'passing the buck'). Again, at that point, the photon is immediately 'actualized', 'promoted' from virtuality to reality -- and promptly absorbed, deflecting the other particle, and so accounting for the EM charge interaction.

 

If this picture is appropriate, then charged fundamental particles are constantly 'emitting messengers', with which they are constantly 'probing their environment', constantly querying "is their a charge over there? or, how about over that-a-way" ?? And, if any of their 'CoD virtual photon torpedos' actually 'hit' other particles, those particles 'pick up the tab, & pay back the bank', thereby 'actualizing' the photon, from virtual-to-real, and then absorbing the ensuing momentum/energy, accounting for the EM interaction. (Again, such virtual photons, being destroyed upon actualization, amount to a private point-to-point communication, whose former virtuality, and ensuing instantaneous reality, are utterly unobservable, to all other particles, who are "not involved", which is why the photons, underlying the EM interactions, are never observed, except by their effects upon charged particles, whose paths are visibly deflected by those photons.)

 

Otherwise, the 'virtual photon torpedo' presumably 'fizzles out like a dud'... and the firing particle 'goes back to the way it was', 'undoing the recoil of firing the torpedo in the first place'. (Perhaps all those 'recoils', from constantly 'borrowing from the bank', and 'firing photon torpedos every which way', accounts for the Schrodinger-equation spreading of Wave Functions ???)

Widdekind, is what you've said here (and in the last post) just an interpretation of the stuff you quoted by the Zukav dude, or was it based on your own personal knowledge also? I had never heard of this phenomena before this thread, but thought I was understanding it anyway, but then all this stuff about repaying debts between atoms didn't really seem to fit with what I had read before.

What I had understood up to that point was that the HUP allows the formation of these virtual photons because as well as a relationship between momentum and location there is also a relationship between energy and time. So essentially because the time is so short that allows us to have a greater uncertainty in the energy involved in the process (or maybe that is backwards) which allows the existence of the virtual photons without violating conservation of energy. This also explains why interactions decrease in strength the further the interacting particles are from one another. Is that incorrect (could easily be pure BS lol)?

So yeah basically my problem was that I'm not sure where you are getting all this stuff about atoms borrowing money from one another and paying it back, has that information come from somewhere else (something you have studied but which hasn't been stated so far in this thread) or is that perhaps what was meant by zukarov in the sections quoted, and I have just failed to understand it.

Very interesting topic by the way, particle physics is something I know nothing about really, something I should probably try to rectify.

Where did you hear it?

Thanks, Michel, for getting this at the basic level that I meant it. The gas comparison seems to be relevant in so many cases of electron behavior. This is conform with what I read in Planck's book "Survey of Physical Theory," where he writes that electricity will ultimately be studied like a gas in terms of gas laws and thermodynamics, etc. This has already made sense to me in terms of energy transmission through a conductor, including sound waves. So why shouldn't this same ana-logic be applied to the electron's relationship with volume around the nucleus?

 

I haven't dismissed what Swanson and others are writing. I see that there's no simple relationship between atomic volume and energy, as with pressure and heat with a gas, etc. I also still haven't figured out a simple way to think about the relationship between positive charge-attraction and volume-producing electron energy without treating the electrons like gas particles surrounding the nucleus. Nevertheless, I could imagine explaining things like ductility vs. crystal rigidity in terms of "pressure rigidity" if atoms were viewed like little balloons with variable size and pressure/rigidity.

Atoms aren't like little baloons with variable pressure/rigidity though pal. Within a lattice, atomic radii are not variable (in that they don't change not that there aren't different radii within a lattice), there are many techniques we can use now which show that the actual size or shape of different atoms does not change based on how the material at large is manipulated (this only happens through chemical processes). So for example the way you are talking about it, stretching out a certain ductile material would actually deform the electron cloud of the atoms which make it up accounting for the change in shape of the material overall. That doesn't happen though, the change in shape is already perfectly explained by looking at the way the atoms move relative to one another. This is quite a big area of chemistry, but basically the properties of different lattices is dependant on the atoms which make it up (is it pure or a mixture) and what configuration the lattice takes on, the type of bonding present etc. The electron clouds aren't actually deformed in any way.

I understand Lemur.

 

If you take a macroscopic object made of a huge amount of atoms, and heat it, the object generally will expand (except for water). If you take energy out by reducing the temperature, the object will contract. In this view volume is related to energy. Isn't it the same at the atomic level?

Hmm, when you heat something and cause it to expand it isn't the atoms themselves which increase in size, just the distances between them. Is that what you meant pal, or have I missed the point lol. Now with atoms I don't think there is a direct correlation between energy and atomic size. For example lithium has a significantly greater atomic radius than fluorine (1.52A vs. 0.62A) even though fluorine contains more electrons at higher enrgy levels (I think the configuration are Li 1s² 2s¹ and fluorine 1s² 2s² 2p⁵) so I think (though im really not positive) that if volume were a type of energy first off you would see an increased volume corresponding to the increased electron energy levels and you would see the same effect if volume were directly correlated to energy levels in the electrons.

So how do collision energy-exchanges interact with electron-level changes?

I'm not 100% certain tbh dude, though I'd imagine that collisions (as well as causing changes in momentum and the like) can cause quantum changes in the atoms electrons just like absorption of EM radiation, but the changes in the energy states of the electrons would still correspond to qunatized amounts of energy.

You're right. It would be ridiculous to try to make the data fit the theory unless you thought for some reason that the data could be interpreted in some other way that made more sense vis-a-vis the theory. But, no, I would not want to blatantly change data to work for some theoretical idea.

To be fair though dude, you weren't trying to interpret the data in a different way, but trying to make electron energy quantization fit your theory by suggesting that they didn't only absorb energy in discrete packets. There is no evidence to support that though, and I personally think it is always best to work the other way. Only formulate a theory after you get evidence. I'm not having a go btw pal, I appreciate this is speculations and so some degree of speculation is likely lol, I'm just highlighting what I believe to be the better technique.

Finally, please stop calling me "dude."

Isn't that your name lol? You seem a little bit uptight its a simple term of enderment which I use quite often. I can go with the alternatives mate, pal or friend. If we sleep together some time sexy would also be appropriate.