Ask a physicist anything. (2)

[sk8Joyful]

Bringing them to the fore, here were my questions:

1. for what beneficial uses (name as many as you like), did you choose your most recent multiverse TWFG 'time-warp'

experience?
&
2. For instance, what impressed

you most? about how God lived His mortal sojourn amongst us
&
3. Aware... the world is experienced, as a person only believes, & not as it really... is
for instance (unlike Greek-influence got some believing), glass is a solid, not really. What experience have you changed from your own past?
&
4. How have you transformed your own energy, in such a way as to create

the life you might want to really live.

 

[Jnwaco]

That sounds a little like gnosticism to me.

 

[Cabal]

(This explains, how more-aware people like some in the East, are able to move their hand thru glass to retrieve a flower from the (perceived 'other') side, without it being harmed, & without harming the person, and without the glass 'shattering'.)

And why I asked you the questions, as I did. - Given this new understanding, you may want to review...

Good day!

This is not "understanding". This an unsupported assertion.

Provide documented empirical evidence first, and then there may be review.

We know Newtonian mechanics isn't accurate on all length scales, quantum mechanics takes care of that. That doesn't mean we can put our hand through glass.

 

[Maxwell511]

I don't see how. Assuming we agree on what the words 'electron', 'quark', and 'photon' refer to, I don't see how my question can be any more well-defined: what is the difference between electrons and quarks, and photons?

The question is ill-defined in the sense that has multiple answers not that there is no answer. What is the sort of answer that you want?

Another difference is that quarks and leptons are fermions and the photon is a boson. Is that not a big difference?

That electrons can absorb photons doesn't mean one is matter and one isn't; it's simply a physical reaction where one particle is annihilated.

The absorption of photons by an electron is not the type of reaction a photon can engage in with a chance of survival. That was my point. That is a difference. The point was meant to be that electrons can interact with each other while photons can not, that is a big difference. (It wasn't exactly explained I know).

An electron and an anti-electron annihilate, creating photons: by your logic, leptons therefore aren't matter, while photons are matter.

That wasn't really my logic.

My definition of matter is that which is either a fermion or a composite of fermions (I am not sure on the last bit). That does not include photons so I can't give you photons as being matter.

What is your definition of matter and how does it include photons?

Which is?

A quantization of observed phenomenon.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The 'Newtonian imagination' has long populated the universe mostly with that nice solid stuff called matter (solids, liquids, & gases), which was made of little hard balls called atoms, as chunks of matter which happened to interact via (forces, or fields of them, such as gravitation, or electricity).

Well, they do . We can see them:

We deduced their existence long ago, and it's become trivial to prove they exist. Atomic theory is as well evidence and well established as evolution, the Big Bang, germ theory, heliocentrism, etc.

This may burst your belief-bubbles, but glass -like supposed 'liquids' or 'solids'- is foundationally nothing more than "force-fields" , or to be more technically accurate, multiverses exist as ripples in universal fields of force, that carry energy like about 24 different kinds. These force fields provide the structure of space in which matter and other particles such as photons travel in relation to. All matter is made up of magnetic resonant field patterns, of varying strength and frequencies. All electromagnetic fields are force fields, carrying energy and capable of producing an action at a distance. And yes, that describes all matter. -
too

Err... what? Can you justify any of that?

(This explains, how some more-aware Eastern people, are able to move their hand thru glass to retrieve a flower from the (perceived 'other') side, without the pane in pieces, or their hand & flower harmed.

Again, source? Do you have any evidence that these so-called "more aware Eastern people" can perform such a feat?

And why I asked you the questions, as I did. - Given this new understanding, you may want to review...

I do not, since you have not given us a 'new understanding', any more than L. Ron Hubbard gave us a 'new understanding'.

For anyone, whose 'mind-reality' does not allow for such, do NOT try that; as what you expect will happen, does.
That's the nature of the mind.

That's a rather convenient get-out-of-jail-free card: if it doesn't work, it's not because it's wrong, it's because you just don't believe enough!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The question is ill-defined in the sense that has multiple answers not that there is no answer. What is the sort of answer that you want?

Your answer. You believe there is a difference between electrons (which you consider to be matter) and photons (which you don't). What is that difference? Why are electrons considered 'matter' and photon's not? That was the question I was asking.

Another difference is that quarks and leptons are fermions and the photon is a boson. Is that not a big difference?

Not really. Why do you not consider bosons to be matter?

The absorption of photons by an electron is not the type of reaction a photon can engage in with a chance of survival. That was my point. That is a difference. The point was meant to be that electrons can interact with each other while photons can not, that is a big difference. (It wasn't exactly explained I know).

Photons can indeed interact with each other: they create interference patterns, they can be entangled, etc.

My definition of matter is that which is either a fermion or a composite of fermions (I am not sure on the last bit). That does not include photons so I can't give you photons as being matter.

Why do you count fermions as matter, but not bosons?

What is your definition of matter and how does it include photons?

If we accept that molecules are 'matter', then it is logical to infer that their constituent particles are also matter. Since molecules are made of both fermions and bosons, both fermions and bosons constitute matter.

You could also argue that anything with mass is matter; while this would exclude photons, it would include W and Z bosons.

The point is that there are many definitions of what constitutes matter, especially in light of modern particle physics.

A quantization of observed phenomenon.

That phenomenon being?

 

[Cabal]

That's a rather convenient get-out-of-jail-free card: if it doesn't work, it's not because it's wrong, it's because you just don't believe enough!

Yup - and at which point it no longer has a place in a science discussion. Something that only works if you "just believe", Disney-style, is not science.

 

[Jnwaco]

And since science is impotent at providing the answers, then it's a ridiculous debate.

 

[Cabal]

And since science is impotent at providing the answers, then it's a ridiculous debate.

Right, I forgot, because we can totally wibble our hand through glass without shredding our hands or breaking the glass

We're talking about something just a tad more everyday than multiverse hypotheses here.

Well, at least, the scientists aren't.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

And since science is impotent at providing the answers, then it's a ridiculous debate.

The answers to what? Whether people can put their hands through glass without breaking it? That's just a matter of observation, which science can indeed provide answers for.

 

[sandwiches]

The answers to what? Whether people can put their hands through glass without breaking it? That's just a matter of observation, which science can indeed provide answers for.

He keeps going on about the 'most interesting' questions or the 'why' and other, vague, cryptic phrases like that.

 

[pgp_protector]

Right, I forgot, because we can totally wibble our hand through glass without shredding our hands or breaking the glass

We're talking about something just a tad more everyday than multiverse hypotheses here.

Well, at least, the scientists aren't.

Ya just need to know how

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXVLqnYpT9k

 

[Wiccan_Child]

He keeps going on about the 'most interesting' questions or the 'why' and other, vague, cryptic phrases like that.

Oh, the Big Questions™. I find science ignores the protests of philosophers and goes where it may.

 

[Cabal]

Oh, the Big Questions™. I find science ignores the protests of philosophers and goes where it may.

We've not exactly done badly by that approach

 

[TerranceL]

And since science is impotent at providing the answers, then it's a ridiculous debate.

Says the guy sitting behind a computer.

 

[Maxwell511]

Your answer. You believe there is a difference between electrons (which you consider to be matter) and photons (which you don't). What is that difference? Why are electrons considered 'matter' and photon's not? That was the question I was asking.

Not really. Why do you not consider bosons to be matter?

Because they do not occupy space in the same manner as bosons. If a fermion is occupying a state then that state is off limits to other fermions this is not the case for bosons.

Photons can indeed interact with each other: they create interference patterns, they can be entangled, etc.

Interference patterns are the results of the wave nature of individual photons, it has nothing to do with them interacting. If you run the double-slit while just releasing one photon at a time you will get the same pattern. It is a very basic conception in QM that the interference pattern has nothing to do with photon interactions.

Entanglement is a different issue but something which electrons also do. The photon does not experience a force from another photons, quarks and leptons do. This is the interaction that I was considering.

Why do you count fermions as matter, but not bosons?

See above.

If we accept that molecules are 'matter', then it is logical to infer that their constituent particles are also matter. Since molecules are made of both fermions and bosons, both fermions and bosons constitute matter.

And if I accept that a Helium-4 nucleus is a boson then I can infer that quarks are bosons, right?

You could also argue that anything with mass is matter; while this would exclude photons, it would include W and Z bosons.

The point is that there are many definitions of what constitutes matter, especially in light of modern particle physics.

If there are many definitions of what constitutes matter then it is not reasonable to place ontological significance on model abstractions based on the claim that they are matter.

That phenomenon being?

Phenomenon are observable occurrences. We observe phenomenon and then explain them in terms of particles (or waves or natural selection or whatever). Particles are more than likely not a true reflection of reality but more a product of our limited reasoning. Had you been a physicist 150 years ago you would probably have put ontological significance onr luminiferous aether.

"All models are wrong, some are useful"-George Box

 

[Chesterton]

"All models are wrong, some are useful"-George Box

Good quote! Yes, some models are useful:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_1Heq9DM68

 

[catzrfluffy]

What's that red spot on Jupiter?

 

[canehdianhotstuff]

A giant storm.

 

[Maxwell511]

A giant storm.

And not just gigantic in the normal sense of a giant. It is gigantic in the sense that there is a giant standing on the shoulder of another giant, who is standing on the shoulders of another giant, while the original giant is wearing a really big rain coat to pretend that he is a mega-giant.