Am I the universe too? [Archive]

Andonyx

15th February 2003, 01:00 AM

Originally posted by Whodini

So we never actually really touch anything then?

How about this question: When I lie down on a bed, what is the distance between me and the bed?

Well, like any thing on a sub-atomic level, you have to define your terms very very carefully.

Like one of the biggest debates in quantum theory rests on the definition of, "measurement' and "observation."

If you define touching something as two bodies interacting in such a way that one can impart force or energy on another without an intermediary, then yes, we touch stuff all the time.

But if you're talking about the elements of atoms actually coming into contact with eachother, that almost never ever happens.

I mean we have to use super colliders just to get particles to sort of come into contact with eachother using gajillions of joules of energy for a few particles.

You're not going to create that energy by flopping into bed, and certainly not among a bazillion atoms on your surface.

But they're constantly interacting... with the air, the moisture, the heat energy, etc, etc.

Soapy Sam

15th February 2003, 06:49 AM

But be reassured. You, the bed, the fleas and the music are one, through the wondrous medium of photon exchange, to say nothing of the vapour pressure of the sweat boiling off your skin and reacting with the fibres of your sheets (and any other body fluids you may chance to leak). And yes, sometimes you do get close enouch to touch, at which point not just photons, but atoms and even molecules may cross the energy divide twixt you and your bed. So when you leap out to greet the sun, the sheets come with you. For further information, contact Third Twin, or your nearest STD clinic.

Stimpson J. Cat

15th February 2003, 07:25 AM

Andonyx,

Well, like any thing on a sub-atomic level, you have to define your terms very very carefully.

Like one of the biggest debates in quantum theory rests on the definition of, "measurement' and "observation."

If you define touching something as two bodies interacting in such a way that one can impart force or energy on another without an intermediary, then yes, we touch stuff all the time.

But if you're talking about the elements of atoms actually coming into contact with eachother, that almost never ever happens.

I mean we have to use super colliders just to get particles to sort of come into contact with eachother using gajillions of joules of energy for a few particles.

You're not going to create that energy by flopping into bed, and certainly not among a bazillion atoms on your surface.

But they're constantly interacting... with the air, the moisture, the heat energy, etc, etc.

Actually, even in the case of subatomic nuclear reactions, the situation isn't any different. All interactions are "action at a distance".

At the quantum scale, it is not very meaningful to talk about particles "touching" each other, because they do not have well-defined positions or sizes. Instead, they have a region of space over which they are likely to interact with each other.

That said, if we are to define "touching" in a coherent way, we have to be very specific. I would define it to be that two macroscopic objects are "touching" when the electromagnetic interaction between their molecules becomes significant.

As to the topic of this thread, I would say it is pretty clear where your skin stops, and the bed starts. That isn't quantum physics, it's just common sense. Your atoms may interact with those of the bed, but they could hardly be said to "intermingle".

Dr. Stupid

J3K

15th February 2003, 07:29 AM

since we never really "touch" anything. Can somebody explain how friction works please??

Soapy Sam

15th February 2003, 09:30 AM

Same. Electromagnetic Force, carried by photons. Just like touch.
Just like chemistry. Just like life.

hammegk

15th February 2003, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by J3K
since we never really "touch" anything. Can somebody explain how friction works please??

And also could someone discuss the concept of "heat". What atomic and/or subatomic realm contains "heat"?

What does zero Kelvin mean with regards to photons, electrons, quarks, bosons, etc?

Stimpson J. Cat

15th February 2003, 12:20 PM

hammegk,

And also could someone discuss the concept of "heat". What atomic and/or subatomic realm contains "heat"?

Heat is a measure of the kinetic energy of the particles. For solids that means vibrational kinetic energy. For liquids it also includes rotational kinetic energy, and for gasses it also includes translational kinetic energy.

What does zero Kelvin mean with regards to photons, electrons, quarks, bosons, etc?

Nothing. It is a limit which cannot be reached, even asymptotically. The uncertainty principle renders absolute zero unattainable. The actual "minimum temperature" of any quantum mechanical system is not absolute zero, but instead some small finite positive value that directly depends on the number of degrees of freedom of the system.

Dr. Stupid

Andonyx

15th February 2003, 12:54 PM

Hey Stimpy,

Am I correct in also sayting that heat has no definition for an individual atom, or partcle?

As I understand it since heat is the measure of AVERAGE kinetic energy in a substance, you cannot have a temperature measurement for an individual particle or atom.

Is this correct?

Stimpson J. Cat

15th February 2003, 12:59 PM

Andonyx,

Am I correct in also sayting that heat has no definition for an individual atom, or partcle?

As I understand it since heat is the measure of AVERAGE kinetic energy in a substance, you cannot have a temperature measurement for an individual particle or atom.

Is this correct?

Yes. Words like "heat", "temperature", and "entropy" are all defined in terms of statistical mechanics. They are only meaningful for systems with many randomly (or approximately randomly) interacting degrees of freedom.

Dr. Stupid

hammegk

15th February 2003, 02:51 PM

Umm, ok, heat is an "average" maesure of energy stored in quantum mechanical systems. You say however that heat would not be a viable concept for the energy contained in a single photon wavicle.

However, once many photons interacted with many atoms in some material, heat would be a measure (or at worst a function) of the energy increase of the material.

It would seem heat would also be a measure of energy transfer from 1 photon to a single atom. If not, what would be?

Also, are you then saying that "heat death" is not the final end for even an open universe?

rwald

15th February 2003, 03:01 PM

Heat is an average. You can't have an average of one photon. Yes, it does bring rise to questions such as, "What's the smallest number of photons for which the term "heat" is meaningful?" but I don't think that questions such as that keep many physicists up at night.

And the term "heat death" is, in my opinion, a misnomer. What a "heat death" means is that the universe continues expanding forever, and all energy is eventually turned into mass (right, Stimpy?), and basically everything freezes. Not a plesent way for the universe to end, but better than the alternative (which we no longer need worry about)...

Andonyx

15th February 2003, 03:22 PM

Stimpson J. Cat

15th February 2003, 03:25 PM

hammegk,

It would seem heat would also be a measure of energy transfer from 1 photon to a single atom. If not, what would be?

The measure of the energy transfer from 1 photon to a single atom is energy, obviously.

Also, are you then saying that "heat death" is not the final end for even an open universe?

No, whatever gave you that idea?

rwald,

Heat is an average. You can't have an average of one photon. Yes, it does bring rise to questions such as, "What's the smallest number of photons for which the term "heat" is meaningful?" but I don't think that questions such as that keep many physicists up at night.

Well, sort of. Temperature is an average. Heat is the total thermal energy of the system. It is a total, rather than an average. There's really not much distinction, though. Temperature is just the heat of a system, divided by the number of degrees of freedom.

And the term "heat death" is, in my opinion, a misnomer. What a "heat death" means is that the universe continues expanding forever, and all energy is eventually turned into mass (right, Stimpy?), and basically everything freezes. Not a plesent way for the universe to end, but better than the alternative (which we no longer need worry about)...

Close. Not all of the energy is turned into mass. Some of it will still be moving at the speed of light. The idea behind the heat death scenario is that eventually the universe will all be the same temperature. This temperature would asymptotically approach zero as the Universe continues to expand. The point is that when there is no longer any temperature gradient, there is no longer any possibility to do work. All forms of "machine", from an organic life form, to a simple motor, to a star, require a temperature gradient to actually do anything.

Dr. Stupid

rwald

15th February 2003, 03:28 PM

Yea, yea, I said "heat" when I meant "temperature." At least I was somewhat correct about "heat death."

sorgoth

15th February 2003, 04:40 PM

So...if atoms don't really have a size, then...how can you calculate how many atoms are in whatever...and how much mass they take? Or is size irrevelant to mass on the quantum scale?

Andonyx

15th February 2003, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by sorgoth
So...if atoms don't really have a size, then...how can you calculate how many atoms are in whatever...and how much mass they take? Or is size irrevelant to mass on the quantum scale?

Well, wait.

Atoms, do have a size. The atom's nucleus has a configuration of neutrons and protons, which have a mass, and size that can be measured. The combined mass is listed on the periodic table of elements as atomic mass.

It's electron levels are without a definite form or size as we have come to know the words on a macroscopic scale, but the limits of where an electron can be at any given time can be expressed in a probability distribution, and we know how many levels each atom should have, as well as how far out from the nucleus those levels are.

Now sub-atomic particles are a different story. Neutrons and Protons are fairly well recognized to have mass. And a size could be given by determining how fast the electromagnetic forces say such as the strong forces increase as you get near them. from that some idea of a center and mass can be calculated.

Electrons are harder to figure out. They travel in ill-dfined levels as I mentioned above, and for a while it was believed they may be "point" particles which had no mass or volume, but simply embodied the effects of charge and spin.

The difficulty in a model that has electrons with no mass or volume of course is asking what causes the charge. In other words, with no "stuff" there how does one explain the mechanism of charge?

I believe more recent thinking points to an incredibly small mass, but NOT a point particle.

As far as measuring how many atoms are in a thing, it's a matter of checking its atomic mass versus the mass of the entire thing. Then just divide by volume to get density.

Here are some more details:

Atomic Mass
The weight of an atom is determined by the number of neutrons and protons that are present in the nucleus. The proton and neutron, which are similar in mass, each weighs approximately 1,836 times greater than a single electron, thus the mass contributed by electrons is insignificant when determining atomic weight or atomic mass. The atomic mass is the sum of the protons and neutrons in the nucleus. Carbon has an atomic mass of twelve. Since there are six protons in carbon (remember, it has an atomic number of six and, therefore, must have six protons), it must have six neutrons:

http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/periodic/atom_anatomy.html

hammegk

15th February 2003, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
....The point is that when there is no longer any temperature gradient, there is no longer any possibility to do work. ...

Stimpy, are we assymtotically approaching an understanding of a basic measurement of "energy"?

The "temperature gradient" comment sounds interesting although how do we get to a single photon's energy expressed as heat? or temperature? Could gravity fit in this temperature and/or heat concept of "energy"?

Andonyx

15th February 2003, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by hammegk

Stimpy, are we assymtotically approaching an understanding of a basic measurement of "energy"?

The "temperature gradient" comment sounds interesting although how do we get to a single photon's energy expressed as heat? or temperature? Could gravity fit in this temperature and/or heat concept of "energy"?

Wouldn't it be joules?

Not heat?

hammegk

15th February 2003, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by Andonyx

Wouldn't it be joules?

Not heat?

We could express the amount of energy a photon carried in joules(units of energy), but I'm trying to get at the most basic idea of what is "energy".

Things have it, we can quantify it, but what *is* it?

Andonyx

15th February 2003, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by hammegk

We could express the amount of energy a photon carried in joules(units of energy), but I'm trying to get at the most basic idea of what is "energy".

Things have it, we can quantify it, but what *is* it?

The ability to do work?

No that can't be right, and isn't that power anyway?

Oh well, hey Ham, I used ot be a 22015 myself, crazy.

Hey here's a really good site for this discussion:
http://www.ftexploring.com/energy/enrg-types.htm

Walter Wayne

15th February 2003, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by Andonyx

The ability to do work?

No that can't be right, and isn't that power anyway?

Oh well, hey Ham, I used ot be a 22015 myself, crazy.

Hey here's a really good site for this discussion:
http://www.ftexploring.com/energy/enrg-types.htm
Energy = Ability to do work
Power = Rate of work

Andonyx

15th February 2003, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by Walter Wayne

Energy = Ability to do work
Power = Rate of work

Once again I second guess myself into wrong thinking.

Thanks for the parachute, Walter.

Stimpson J. Cat

16th February 2003, 02:23 AM

hammegk,

Stimpy, are we assymtotically approaching an understanding of a basic measurement of "energy"?

What do you mean?

The "temperature gradient" comment sounds interesting although how do we get to a single photon's energy expressed as heat? or temperature?

Heat is just the total thermal energy of a system. Thermal energy is defined to be the kinetic energy of the particles making up that system. Temperature is defined in terms of entropy, and for systems in which the kinetic energy is quadratic with respect to the quantized degrees of freedom (as is the case for all thermal systems), the temperature is proportional to the heat of the system, and inversely proportional to the number of degrees of freedom.

Could gravity fit in this temperature and/or heat concept of "energy"?

I don't know what you mean. Temperature and heat are not "concepts" of energy. Heat is energy. Temperature isn't energy at all, although for thermal systems it is proportional to the average energy.

We could express the amount of energy a photon carried in joules(units of energy), but I'm trying to get at the most basic idea of what is "energy".

Things have it, we can quantify it, but what *is* it?

We've been over that before. The term "energy" is defined to be a specific set of observable characteristics. That is what it *is*.

If you want to know what the "ontological' properties of energy are, it is a meaningless question. It doesn't have any, because it is defined in terms of observable characteristics.

Dr. Stupid

17th February 2003, 02:11 AM

Originally posted by Whodini
When you lie in bed, at what point does your skin stop and the bed begin? At an atomic level do we not intermingle?

Eddington enters a room.... (http://www.artseensoho.com/Life/readings/eddington.html)

I am standing on the threshold about to enter a room. It is a complicated business. In the first place I must shove against an atmosphere pressing with a force of fourteen pounds on every square inch of my body. I must make sure of landing on a plank travelling at twenty miles a second round the sun - a fraction of a second too early or too late, the plank would be miles away. I must do this whilst hanging from a round planet head outward into space, and with a wind of aether blowing at no one knows how many miles a second through every interstice of my body. The plank has no solidity of substance. To step on it is like stepping on a swarm of flies. Shall I not slip through? No, if I make the venture one of the flies hits me and gives a boost up again; I fall again and am knocked upwards by another fly; and so on. I may hope that the net result will be that I remain about steady; but if unfortunately I should slip through the floor or be boosted too violently up to the ceiling, the occurrence would be, not a violation of the laws of Nature, but a rare coincidence...

Verily, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a scientific man to pass through a door. And whether the door be barn door or church door it might be wiser that he should consent to be an ordinary man and walk in rather than wait till all the difficulties involved in a really scientific ingress are resolved.

Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World New York-Cambridge, 1929, p. 342

Soapy Sam

19th February 2003, 02:19 PM

UE -Wonderful. People could write in them thar days.

Interesting reference to the Aether wind for so late a date as 1929.

19th February 2003, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
UE -Wonderful. People could write in them thar days.

Interesting reference to the Aether wind for so late a date as 1929.

I thought that was rather shocking as well.

The best physics professor I ever had (we approached electromagnetic phenomena by deriving Maxwell's Equations first and then working backwards through history, seeing how they explained previous observations - very eye-opening! :D ) was firmly convinced that the Ether existed. A wave, he insisted, was a disturbance propagating at the speed of light. "If there is no ether, what is it propagating through?" he would ask.

A brilliant man but a bit dotty on this one subject.

19th February 2003, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
UE -Wonderful. People could write in them thar days.

Interesting reference to the Aether wind for so late a date as 1929.

From the same site :

The most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religion.

Albert Einstein.

If you like these writings then you may be interested in this :

Quantum Questions (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0394723384/103-3173869-7890211?vi=glance)

rwald

19th February 2003, 03:52 PM

The way I think of it, there is no ether; light is both a particle and a wave, and the "wave" part of it propagates on the "particle" part!

This probably has no bearing on the actual science involved, but it makes sense to me.

hammegk

19th February 2003, 04:11 PM

Higgs field is lurking too.

Franko

20th February 2003, 12:55 PM

So we never actually really touch anything then?

You never really touch anything because the "matter" doesn't actually exist.

Soapy Sam

22nd February 2003, 01:16 PM

Franko- This is a philosophical viewpoint hard to defend when someone superglues you to your bicycle. There are only two ways out of the dilemma, both potentially embarassing.
Do not repeat this experiment at home.;)

hammegk

23rd February 2003, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
Franko- This is a philosophical viewpoint hard to defend when someone superglues you to your bicycle. ....

Interesting thought. Per Whodini's original premise, we arrived at, what? virtual photons appearing/disappearing/trading locations between bed & (for simplicity, nude) person?
[muse on]
So glue must provide a barrier stong enough to overcome the virtual photon exchanges bed-glue, glue-glue, & glue-skin? What is the characteristic of glue that overcomes the virtual photons' force? Is it most basically sub-atomic, atomic, or molecular level?[/muse off]

Stimpson J. Cat

23rd February 2003, 07:33 AM

Does anybody else see the incredible irony of this?

[muse on]
So glue must provide a barrier stong enough to overcome the virtual photon exchanges bed-glue, glue-glue, & glue-skin? What is the characteristic of glue that overcomes the virtual photons' force? Is it most basically sub-atomic, atomic, or molecular level?[/muse off]

Don't get me wrong, Hammegk. Your complete ignorance of basic physics is nothing to be ashamed of. But it seems to me that anybody who is so completely clueless about basic physics that they would say the above, has absolutely no business engaging in discussions about Higgs fields or String Theory, and certainly has no business criticizing the field of Physics, as you so often do.

And just for the record, nothing is "overcoming the virtual photon's force". Virtual photons don't exert forces at all. They are the quanta of the force field itself. The same force that prevents two atoms from "touching" is also what holds them together. It is the electromagnetic force. All of chemistry is based on the electromagnetic force.

Dr. Stupid

hammegk

23rd February 2003, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat

And just for the record, nothing is "overcoming the virtual photon's force". Virtual photons don't exert forces at all. They are the quanta of the force field itself. The same force that prevents two atoms from "touching" is also what holds them together. It is the electromagnetic force. All of chemistry is based on the electromagnetic force.

Dr. Stupid
Er, yes, and my comment tried to take note of the fact that photons are the EMF field mediators. Are you saying the bed-skin interaction is involved at weak or strong force level?

I certainly have difficulty expressing my thoughts, although my -- admittedly layman's -- understanding of physics is not absolutely
incorrect.

How about a spirit of assistance here in discussing -- as you would phrase it -- the difference skin-glue, glue-glue, and glue-bed?

Stimpson J. Cat

23rd February 2003, 02:04 PM

hammegk,

Er, yes, and my comment tried to take note of the fact that photons are the EMF field mediators. Are you saying the bed-skin interaction is involved at weak or strong force level?

Neither. It is electromagnetic.

I certainly have difficulty expressing my thoughts, although my -- admittedly layman's -- understanding of physics is not absolutely
incorrect.

Well, so far I haven't seen you say anything (about physics) that was correct, so if there is any aspect of your understanding of physics that is not incorrect, it is something you haven't mentioned yet.

How about a spirit of assistance here in discussing -- as you would phrase it -- the difference skin-glue, glue-glue, and glue-bed?

The difference is in the chemistry. Whether the electromagnetic interaction between atoms is repulsive or attractive, and what ranges it has an effect over, depend on the types of atoms involved, and the types of molecules they are formed into. I suggest you read a book on introductory Chemistry. Any Freshman level college text, or even a Senior level high-school text, should cover this stuff.

Dr. Stupid

rwald

23rd February 2003, 03:04 PM

To answer the question, I'm pretty sure that glue acts on the molecular level; it fills in microscopic holes in the surfaces, and thereby prevents them from seperating. Stimpy could clearly express this better than I could.

hammegk

23rd February 2003, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by Stimpy
....
Neither. It is electromagnetic.
Or, more correctly, "yes, hammegk, what you initially inferred was correct".

Well, so far I haven't seen you say anything (about physics) that was correct, so if there is any aspect of your understanding of physics that is not incorrect, it is something you haven't mentioned yet.
Something like your "logical" definition of materialism that subsumes entirety, no matter what entirety may be, and no matter how lovely & logical your prose. I'm not troubled by what you "have faith in". Nor am I worried about your opinion of my lack of knowledge. Anytime you want to add light rather than heat, step right up. If you prefer to address only postdocs in your specialty, no problem to me either.

The difference is in the chemistry. Whether the electromagnetic interaction between atoms is repulsive or attractive, and what ranges it has an effect over, depend on the types of atoms involved, and the types of molecules they are formed into. I suggest you read a book on introductory Chemistry. Any Freshman level college text, or even a Senior level high-school text, should cover this stuff.
I suggest you don't hurt yourself falling off your high horse.

Originally posted by rwald
....I'm pretty sure that glue acts on the molecular level; it fills in microscopic holes in the surfaces, and thereby prevents them from seperating. Stimpy could clearly express this better than I could.

Yeah, unfortunately Stimpy has decided his ******* impersonation is better than an answer. 'the difference is in the chemistry' -- ********.

Somehow I think molecular level forces are also mediated by virtual particle exchanges -- assumedly at the EMF level.

I agree I may be wrong. When atoms are bound -- with electron(s) -- to make molecules, I think that EMF still is the force, and I also think photons continue as force mediators.

Note that glue "filling gaps" at the molecular level no more "touches" what it's gluing than we actually "touch" the bed.
At any rate thank you for your courtesy and an answer to my question.

hammegk

27th February 2003, 04:08 AM

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat

....Well, so far I haven't seen you say anything (about physics) that was correct...

After consideration, I am sure you are wrong. I've said enough about physics here I couldn't be 100% "not correct". Logically, only idealism could be 100% correct.

Twinkle, twinkle, little star, Power equals I-squared R
Little star up in the sky Power equals R-squared I.

See, 50% anyway. :p

How's the literature discussion going?

DrMatt

27th February 2003, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by Whodini
When you lie in bed, at what point does your skin stop and the bed begin? At an atomic level do we not intermingle?

This is ultimately a semantics question. Usually, an operational answer is the best you can give, like the operational definition of "boiling point".

DrMatt

27th February 2003, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by hammegk
{loads of funny stuff}

I agree I may be wrong. When atoms are bound -- with electron(s) -- to make molecules, I think that EMF still is the force, and I also think photons continue as force mediators.

Nice to see you making up physical chemistry as you go along.
You really should take that first-year physics class and stop hurling around terms like "force".

DrMatt

27th February 2003, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by rwald
Heat is an average. You can't have an average of one photon. Yes, it does bring rise to questions such as, "What's the smallest number of photons for which the term "heat" is meaningful?" but I don't think that questions such as that keep many physicists up at night.

And the term "heat death" is, in my opinion, a misnomer. What a "heat death" means is that the universe continues expanding forever, and all energy is eventually turned into mass (right, Stimpy?), and basically everything freezes. Not a plesent way for the universe to end, but better than the alternative (which we no longer need worry about)...

For a single particle, one could speak of its kinetic energy. Measuring that energy might be tough.

"Heat death" is so-named because thermodynamics is where it was first considered. It works like this:

1) All the energy which drives change and processes depends upon differentiation between the contents of different places in the universe.

2) While the expenditure of energy may locally, temporarily produce very orderly-looking highly-differentiated-seeming things like tornados or people, the ultimate outcome of the expenditure of energy is a reduction in the basic differences between places in the universe. Some of the temporarily highly-differentiated things, like tornados and humans, actually have a net effect of speeding up the process.

3) This ongoing reduction of differentiation may not be able to continue forever.

In short: energy is driven by global increases in entropy.

27th February 2003, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by DrMatt

This is ultimately a semantics question. Usually, an operational answer is the best you can give, like the operational definition of "boiling point".

So, in other words you don't know.

27th February 2003, 10:30 AM

There are two books I must recommend to anyone who is as mystified by the way the universe works, and by quantum mechanics/physics, as I am.

The first is The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene, and the other is In Search of Schrodinger's Cat by John Gribbin.

Gribbin's ego in the Acknowledgements at the very beginning of his book almost caused me to put the book down and not read it. I am so glad I kept going.

I am reading both books simultaneously. I read a little of one, allow some time for it to digest, then I read a little of the other, and so on. For some reason, this has been a tremendous learning experience for me.

My biggest obstacle to understanding these books was what I thought I already knew. I have to keep checking myself. And I have to keep remembering not to anticipate where the subject is going. As I have done this, I have had several "light bulb" moments reading these two books.

They are both written for the layman without insulting the intelligence of the layman.

Again. I highly recommend them.

hammegk

27th February 2003, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by DrMatt

Nice to see you making up physical chemistry as you go along.
You really should take that first-year physics class and stop hurling around terms like "force".

Ah, probably just "semantics". ;)

Are you going to get up on your hind legs & educate me?us?them? or do you intend to just blather?

Soapy Sam

28th February 2003, 07:14 PM

Hammegk- summary as I understand it.

We are discussing chemistry, so, for the moment,
forget weak and strong nuclear forces. Forget gravity. All chemical reactions (including glues) are expressions of electromagnetic force.
Chemical reaction is how we describe the events caused by photons being exchanged between any two points in space time.
In some cases there may not be any material object at either of those two points.

We can observe and describe the phenomenon at many levels.
We must choose the level most suited to our needs:-
A man stuck to a bicycle.
Interpenetration of wrinkles and ridges of trousers and seat by liquid molecules which then set as a solid.
Electron sharing between valence shells of atoms in the molecules of trousers and seat.
Interaction of atoms and photons.

Its all the same kind of turtle, all the way down. Just set to different levels of "zoom"
I hope I'm not misleading anyone here. If so, I hope I'll be corrected.

Soapy Sam

28th February 2003, 07:23 PM

LukeT- My own copy of "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat" fell apart some years ago. I still have the text from page two, but nothing before that. (The sequel "Schrodinger's Kittens" is as good or better). I'm curious- Gribbin never struck me as conceited, but I was used to his style from his many articles in New Scientist. What was it he said that irritated you? (I'm on my old hobby horse of subtle distinctions between US and UK usage causing major problems here).

Incidentally, largely on your recommendation, I bought "The Elegant Universe". I've read about 80% , but find it tough going.
I think I need to start over. I find JG's style a lot easier. Which do you prefer?

I will give your alternating method a try and see how it sits.

hammegk

1st March 2003, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
Hammegk- summary as I understand it.

We are discussing chemistry, so, for the moment,
forget weak and strong nuclear forces. All chemical reactions (including glues) are expressions of electromagnetic force.

Yeah, that's the way I recall it too.

Forget gravity.
Who knows; current science doesn't.

Chemical reaction is how we describe the events caused by photons being exchanged between any two points in space time.
In some cases there may not be any material object at either of those two points.
I'd go so far as to say there is definitely not any "material objects" involved; just energy fields interacting. For EMF (electro-magnetic field) photon "energy waves" mediate force.

We can observe and describe the phenomenon at many levels.
We must choose the level most suited to our needs:-
A man stuck to a bicycle.
Interpenetration of wrinkles and ridges of trousers and seat by liquid molecules which then set as a solid.
Electron sharing between valence shells of atoms in the molecules of trousers and seat.
Interaction of atoms and photons.

However both the beginning description and ending description need to take the most basic realm of energy into account. Chemistry is a fair ways up the line.

At any rate thank you for the response. ;)