Last minute tweaks

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

uwot
Posts: 3248
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Last minute tweaks

Post by uwot » Sat Jan 13, 2018 10:42 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 8:43 pm
The terms "empty" and "space" also implies that space acts simultaneously as a boundary as empty implies a deficiency.
But it isn't clear that there is any such thing as 'empty space'.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 8:43 pm
Space is "being", in simple terms.
Which is pretty much how Parmenides described it 2500 years ago. How does that differ from 'the universe is everything that exists'?

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 534
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Last minute tweaks

Post by -1- » Sat Jan 13, 2018 6:31 pm

1/ "Space can be empty."
2/ "Not of EM and gravitational fields, as far as we know."

2 is true. I just don't consider EM and GF stuff. They can't be eaten, they can't be thrown. They can't be rubbed. They are something, but not stuff. Stuff is something you can stuff plush toys with: Electrons, protons, neutrons, photons. Whatever you cannot use to stuff stuffed toys with, is not stuff -- while it may be something.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 534
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Last minute tweaks

Post by -1- » Sat Jan 13, 2018 6:33 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 8:43 pm
The terms "empty" and "space" also implies that space acts simultaneously as a boundary as empty implies a deficiency.
Absolutely. It is a mental and emotional as well as moral deficiency of space to not contain anything but itself. Very selfish, inwardly-turning. Empty space must be punished, and punished severely.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 991
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Last minute tweaks

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Jan 13, 2018 8:12 pm

uwot wrote:
Sat Jan 13, 2018 10:42 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 8:43 pm
The terms "empty" and "space" also implies that space acts simultaneously as a boundary as empty implies a deficiency.
But it isn't clear that there is any such thing as 'empty space'.
If space is viewed relativistically there is "empty space" as empty implies a deficiency of one space from another.

In a separate respect empty space can be viewed not as a thing initself but rather a "limit" to the "1" space, much in the same manner 0d is not a thing in itself but rather the "limit" of 1d. 1d however is infinite, hence 0d is the perpetual individuator as multiplicity (a 1d line continual individuates through the 0d point.).

Space as unity is 1d, while space as multiplicity (as the limit of unity, considering nothing is nothing) is premised in 0d.


Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 8:43 pm
Space is "being", in simple terms.
Which is pretty much how Parmenides described it 2500 years ago. How does that differ from 'the universe is everything that exists'?
It doesn't if all dimensions are viewed strictly as extensions of 1, and multiplicity is merely an approximation of 1.

Impenitent
Posts: 1659
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Last minute tweaks

Post by Impenitent » Sun Jan 14, 2018 3:10 am

how much space is between electrons and nuclei?

how much between elements in a molecule?

would a sound wave fit in that space?

is that nothing greater than any other nothing?

-Imp

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2810
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Last minute tweaks

Post by Greta » Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:11 am

Sorry for being late to the party, William.

I'm only partway through but I have to say it's amazing! Fantastic work - it would have taken an age :)

The spectography graphics explained how it worked more clearly than any documentary I've seen, and I've seen many.

If anything non-trivial jars me as I continue I'll give feedback, but so far it's all thumbs up from me. I have no argument with the content because, as far as I can tell, you are just explaining the science as it stands today rather than providing opinions.

uwot
Posts: 3248
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Last minute tweaks

Post by uwot » Sun Jan 14, 2018 1:19 pm

-1- wrote:
Sat Jan 13, 2018 6:31 pm
I just don't consider EM and GF stuff.
Fair enough. For practical purposes they can simply be treated as forces that different point sources of charge, or mass, exert on each other. As far as the maths is concerned, it doesn't necessarily matter how big a source of charge or mass is; you could replace the Sun with a bucketful of black hole, and the Earth would continue to orbit it.
Impenitent wrote:
Sun Jan 14, 2018 3:10 am
how much space is between electrons and nuclei?
If subatomic particles are treated as point sources, then the cloud of protons and neutrons (and their constituent quarks) that make up a nucleus is typically 1/10000 the size of the orbit of the surrounding electrons. So if a nucleus were the size of this full stop . the electrons would be something like 5 metres away, and everything in between would be empty space.
However, nobody seriously believes that fundamental particles are tiny little balls. You've got yer string theorists, who try to describe the world as if it were completely bonkers, and maybe it is. Then there's the slightly less extravagant claims of quantum field theories, according to which particles are some sort of distortion in a mechanical medium, i.e. some 'stuff'. If you have ever seen the rubber sheet/spacetime fabric analogy often used to explain general relativity (here for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05L5F4GwOqM ), you've got the basic idea. The difference is that at the quantum level, you can dispense with the objects (stars, planets etc in spacetime) and consider fundamental particles simply as the distortions.

uwot
Posts: 3248
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Last minute tweaks

Post by uwot » Sun Jan 14, 2018 1:29 pm

Greta wrote:
Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:11 am
Sorry for being late to the party, William.
Better late than never. (It's Will, by the way.)
Greta wrote:
Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:11 am
I'm only partway through but I have to say it's amazing! Fantastic work - it would have taken an age :)
Thank you-it did.
Greta wrote:
Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:11 am
If anything non-trivial jars me as I continue I'll give feedback, but so far it's all thumbs up from me.
Well, if you are reading the blog, rather than the book, it's a slightly dated version,which I am in the process of revamping, but any and all feedback is very welcome.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 534
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Last minute tweaks

Post by -1- » Sun Jan 14, 2018 2:55 pm

uwot wrote:
Sun Jan 14, 2018 1:29 pm
(It's Will, by the way.)
Greta wrote:
Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:11 am
....partway...
I am in the process of revamping,
I learned several things, and got reassured in several things by reading the post.

1. There is a Will.
2. There is a partway.
3. If there is a Will, then there is a partway.
4. Will likes vamps.
5. That might be vampires, wanton women, or Volt-Amperes.
6. And Will likes to do it again. (Re-vamping.)

Question: is Will in jail, or out of jail? If the latter, then I need to do a complete philosophical and weltanscahuung turn-around 540 degrees, to renounce my old ways, to abandon my one-time conviction and commitment to an ideology based on logic, and to admit that indeed there is a free Will.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 534
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Last minute tweaks

Post by -1- » Sun Jan 14, 2018 3:09 pm

Math indicates that in the sub-atomic Quantum world these things happen regularly, and some of the laws that apply to quantum world can be verbalized as follows:

1. A particle does not need to travel through the space between A and B, but can get there instantaneously.
2. The smaller the space, the larger the energy it contains, regardless of what "stuff" is inside the space.
3. Things that are caused happen before they are caused; the causes happen after the effect takes place.
4. Entropy does not apply.

I might think of more. Others are invited to add their items to the above list. The above list contains those events in Quantum World, which are unimaginable in the primarily sense world by humans.

These things are non-intuitive, and more: counter-intuitive to the human mind. Some philosophers reason that humans' intuition has been shaped by the environment, inasmuch as their comprehension is geared to events that aided their survival; and the intuitive capacities we, humans developed are not compatible with what's required to not be antagonistic with quantum theory discoveries and interpretations.

One way of dealing with the seemingly impossible events in Quantum movement is to say it's all math, and the rendering it to human-readable images produces false images, because the math can't and ought not to be translated to human-readable imagery. The other way of dealing with the seemingly impossible events and concepts in Quantum World is to say that human intuition is limited, and cemented its own limitations due to what had been required of it to read and interpret the world around it for a billion years of evolution.

Impenitent
Posts: 1659
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Last minute tweaks

Post by Impenitent » Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:28 pm

uwot wrote:
Sun Jan 14, 2018 1:19 pm
Impenitent wrote:
Sun Jan 14, 2018 3:10 am
how much space is between electrons and nuclei?
If subatomic particles are treated as point sources, then the cloud of protons and neutrons (and their constituent quarks) that make up a nucleus is typically 1/10000 the size of the orbit of the surrounding electrons. So if a nucleus were the size of this full stop . the electrons would be something like 5 metres away, and everything in between would be empty space.
However, nobody seriously believes that fundamental particles are tiny little balls. You've got yer string theorists, who try to describe the world as if it were completely bonkers, and maybe it is. Then there's the slightly less extravagant claims of quantum field theories, according to which particles are some sort of distortion in a mechanical medium, i.e. some 'stuff'. If you have ever seen the rubber sheet/spacetime fabric analogy often used to explain general relativity (here for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05L5F4GwOqM ), you've got the basic idea. The difference is that at the quantum level, you can dispense with the objects (stars, planets etc in spacetime) and consider fundamental particles simply as the distortions.
interesting video- if all matter in the universe is currently moving towards a singular point...

if nobody believes that fundamental particles are tiny little balls, why are atoms taught as if they are?

-Imp

uwot
Posts: 3248
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Last minute tweaks

Post by uwot » Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:37 am

Impenitent wrote:
Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:28 pm
interesting video- if all matter in the universe is currently moving towards a singular point...
Well yeah, Einstein thought it should be, but he also believed the universe is stable. To account for galaxies' failure to move towards a singular point, Einstein made up a force that exactly counteracted gravity. It was never more than a mathematical fudge, so it never got more than a mathematical name-the cosmological constant.
Turns out that far from being stable, with the exception of a couple of nearby galaxies, notably Andromeda, which gravity is dragging us towards, the other several hundred billion observable galaxies are all moving away from us. Belgian priest Georges Lemaître took this to mean that the galaxies used to be closer and, in fact, originated from a singular point. This was too much like a moment of creation for British atheist Fred Hoyle, who ridiculed the idea, calling it the big bang theory. Realising he'd cocked up, Einstein called the cosmological constant the biggest blunder of his career.
Until fairly recently, it was thought that gravity might slow down the expansion of the universe; maybe halt and even reverse it, so that the entire universe would be moving towards a singular point-the big crunch. However, further observations show that not only is the universe expanding, the rate at which it is doing so is accelerating. This time, because the origin is observation, rather than maths, the explanation is given a physical, rather than mathematical name-dark energy.
Impenitent wrote:
Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:28 pm
if nobody believes that fundamental particles are tiny little balls, why are atoms taught as if they are?
Easy to visualise.

Impenitent
Posts: 1659
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Last minute tweaks

Post by Impenitent » Tue Jan 16, 2018 2:32 am

uwot wrote:
Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:37 am
Impenitent wrote:
Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:28 pm
interesting video- if all matter in the universe is currently moving towards a singular point...
Well yeah, Einstein thought it should be, but he also believed the universe is stable. To account for galaxies' failure to move towards a singular point, Einstein made up a force that exactly counteracted gravity. It was never more than a mathematical fudge, so it never got more than a mathematical name-the cosmological constant.
Turns out that far from being stable, with the exception of a couple of nearby galaxies, notably Andromeda, which gravity is dragging us towards, the other several hundred billion observable galaxies are all moving away from us. Belgian priest Georges Lemaître took this to mean that the galaxies used to be closer and, in fact, originated from a singular point. This was too much like a moment of creation for British atheist Fred Hoyle, who ridiculed the idea, calling it the big bang theory. Realising he'd cocked up, Einstein called the cosmological constant the biggest blunder of his career.
Until fairly recently, it was thought that gravity might slow down the expansion of the universe; maybe halt and even reverse it, so that the entire universe would be moving towards a singular point-the big crunch. However, further observations show that not only is the universe expanding, the rate at which it is doing so is accelerating. This time, because the origin is observation, rather than maths, the explanation is given a physical, rather than mathematical name-dark energy.
Impenitent wrote:
Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:28 pm
if nobody believes that fundamental particles are tiny little balls, why are atoms taught as if they are?
Easy to visualise.
that's funny- the universe is moving away from us at increasing speed and we call it dark energy

-Imp

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests