• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Ask a physicist anything. (2)

Status
Not open for further replies.

corvus_corax

Naclist Hierophant and Prophet
Jan 19, 2005
5,588
333
Oregon
✟29,911.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Ok, this means the storm is bigger than the size of Earth, and is made of concentrated hydrogen.
Yep, it could fit 2, possibly 3 earth diameters within it.
Katrina was a pre-preschool play fest in comparison.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
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.
Why does that have any bearing one whether bosons constitute matter?
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.

The double-slit experiment shows that particles (such as electrons and photons) can interact with themselves, but that hardly shows they can only interact with themselves. The Michelson interferometer, Bragg diffraction, even rainbows, are all instances of interference patterns that occur because photons are interacting with other photons.
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.
Electrons feel a force from any charged particle, while photons only feel force from massive particles. It just so happens that electrons are charged, and photons are massless.
And if I accept that a Helium-4 nucleus is a boson then I can infer that quarks are bosons, right?
No. But do you agree that the nucleus is matter? If so, why? What about it makes it matter? It's a boson, isn't it?
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.
Who said I do? The only ontologically significant ones are those which are consistent with themselves and with reality. I'm not criticising your definition, I'm simply puzzled why you adhere to it.
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.
And nowadays we have the Standard Model, which explains phenomena in terms of particles. Do you really reject the existence of particles? Or do you just not understand the rather crucial difference between electrons and electron holes?
 
Upvote 0

Maxwell511

Contributor
Jun 12, 2005
6,073
260
41
Utah County
✟23,630.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
[LEFT said:
Wiccan_Child[/left];54110443]Why does that have any bearing one whether bosons constitute matter?

Because there is an informal definition of matter that has existed for centuries which is based on a rule that two things cannot exist in the same place at the same time. Fermions seem to comply with this rule, bosons do not. You brought up matter. I would be happy just with the idea of fermions.

The double-slit experiment shows that particles (such as electrons and photons) can interact with themselves, but that hardly shows they can only interact with themselves.
Are you saying that wave-particle duality doesn't exist and particles are just "interacting" with themselves?
The Michelson interferometer, Bragg diffraction, even rainbows, are all instances of interference patterns that occur because photons are interacting with other photons.
These are all due to the wave nature. Are you saying that the wave nature is the result of particles interacting with themselves? Do you have any papers that support this claim?

Electrons feel a force from any charged particle, while photons only feel force from massive particles.
Electrons actualise the forces between each other by emitting and absorbing photons. Photons are the interactions of electrons and other charged particles.

All the force carriers (maybe not gluons I have not read up on that) "feel" the shape of the space around them. This does not mean that things like Photons actually feel a force it means that the interactions of leptons and quarks have some dependency on the shape of the spacetime between them.

It just so happens that electrons are charged, and photons are massless.
While it just so happens that photons are massless it does not just happen they are free of charge.

No. But do you agree that the nucleus is matter? If so, why? What about it makes it matter? It's a boson, isn't it?
Two Helium 4 nuclei cannot occupying the same space, they figure out that they are made of fermions if they are brought to close together.

Who said I do? The only ontologically significant ones are those which are consistent with themselves and with reality.
Define consistency.

I'm not criticising your definition, I'm simply puzzled why you adhere to it.
Which definition are you talking about. If it is my definition of matter I am just using the one that seem the most reasonable to me from the intuitive definition of matter. I personally would prefer to leave it with fermions and bosons. You understand that my definition of matter might include electron holes since they can be fermions and are not reducible to other particles (emergent but not reducible). I don't like it.


And nowadays we have the Standard Model, which explains phenomena in terms of particles. Do you really reject the existence of particles?
I do sort of. I reject that they must be or are definitely fundamental. I consider that what we call an electron might be an emergent phenomenon. I don't reject the idea of a electron in the same manner I don't reject the idea of a homo sapiens sapiens.

Or do you just not understand the rather crucial difference between electrons and electron holes?
IMO electron holes are a mathematical abstraction of the interaction of electrons and quarks. I also think that photons are a mathematical abstraction of the interaction of electrons and quarks.

What do you think is the crucial ontological difference between photons and electron holes beyond their relative properties? I don't see one.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,464
597
✟87,895.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Last edited:
Upvote 0

RealityCheck

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2006
5,924
488
New York
✟31,038.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Oh please, Doveaman. You can't seriously believe that Angel is actually performing miracles, making the laws of physics work differently for him. He's a professional illusionist. So was David Copperfield, and he made the entire Statue of Liberty "disappear." Do you believe that really happened, too? Or do you understand that these guys are very good at using technology to create convincing illusions?
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
So, is there a scientific explanation for all this?

Did the glass melt for a few seconds?

Did the water become solid for a few seconds?

What about the air, did the air become solid for a few seconds?
Because, y'know, they'd all pass rigorous testing in a controlled environment...

Randi's $1,000,000 offer is still up for grabs, as are many other prizes.
 
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,464
597
✟87,895.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Oh please, Doveaman. You can't seriously believe that Angel is actually performing miracles, making the laws of physics work differently for him.
I don't know about miracles, but the laws of physics certainly do appear to be behaving the way physicists says it shouldn’t.
He's a professional illusionist.
Maybe it's all just illusions, but how can you tell? The people nearby certainly couldn't.
 
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,464
597
✟87,895.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
I don't know about miracles, but the laws of physics certainly do appear to be behaving the way physicists says it shouldn’t.
Key word: appear. They're entertainers making money on TV. If they actually, genuinely could do what they claim to do, you think they'd settle for a quick buck on MTV?

Maybe it's all just illusions, but how can you tell? The people nearby certainly couldn't.
Paid actors don't make for good witnesses. And, another key word there: illusions. They're designed to mislead you.

You mean like a swimming people with people swimming underneath?

That hardly constitutes rigorous testing.

Does this mean you have no scientific explanation for what he did?
No, it means charlatans have been around for millennia. That they cannot (or will not) do their stunts under controlled, experimental conditions is sufficient proof that they are charlatans.
 
Upvote 0

pgp_protector

Noted strange person
Dec 17, 2003
51,901
17,803
57
Earth For Now
Visit site
✟465,120.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
I don't know about miracles, but the laws of physics certainly do appear to be behaving the way physicists says it shouldn’t.
Maybe it's all just illusions, but how can you tell? The people nearby certainly couldn't.

They're good illusions, but illusions none the less.
And I'm sorry I'm not the masked magician, I don't tell others how illusions work.
I pay to learn how to do them, so don't give them away for free.
 
Upvote 0

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
51
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
I don't know about miracles, but the laws of physics certainly do appear to be behaving the way physicists says it shouldn’t.
Maybe it's all just illusions, but how can you tell? The people nearby certainly couldn't.

They would've if they were watching the show -- Angel explicitly explained the inspiration for the first trick.
 
Upvote 0

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
51
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
Did he explain how he did it? Y'know, properly :p

He said he got the inspiration from the "magic glass" trick from the children's magic kits.

I used to have one of those kits. the glass slides to hide the hole.

of course, the kind of people who think this is actual sorcery are the same ones who wonder how all those people fit inside their television sets...
 
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,464
597
✟87,895.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
He said he got the inspiration from the "magic glass" trick from the children's magic kits.

I used to have one of those kits. the glass slides to hide the hole.

of course, the kind of people who think this is actual sorcery are the same ones who wonder how all those people fit inside their television sets...
OK, lets say he was hanging on wires for the air trick, and use sliding glass for the glass trick, but what about the water trick, any explanation for that?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.