mississippichem

You still haven't established that the at rest frame is the "correct" one. If all of our Earth science was done at speeds near c, you would be saying that the reference frame measuring the nearly spherical Earth was absurd.

And get labeled a biochemist for the rest of my life...yeah right! Take that back. I just got my licensing for the GAMESS computational package. I can include a MD docking simulation and then call it p-chem. Wonderful how journal classification works.

Well, I don't know what the actual limit is. However, at some low pH, stuff will begin to hydrolyze. Also, a very low pH might mess with the hydrogen bonding scheme of the nucleobases once everything gets protonated. You might end up with non-Watson-Crick base pairing (stuff like T-T or A-C) or no base paring at all. It's actually an interesting question. I'm sure the biochemers around here know a lot more.

The existence of quarks is well supported. Your evidence must be at least that good to even make your theory considerable. So far, you've talked about tennis balls and squishiness. You've not produced any quantitative model or testable predictions. Here is a good idea for you: Show that your model can predict the binding energy of a simple nucleus, let's say He-4. Show all of the calculations from first principles. Also, show how your model is consistent with any already existing empirical data concerning atomic nuclei You should also show how there is a flaw in the current theory, and how your theory fills this hole. No one is burning you as a heretic. Science demands a very high standard of evidence. You are merely being subjected to the everyday processes of the scientific method.

It would appear so. That's surprising. I guess it is the hydrolysis of the amide then! It would be nice to see kinetics for capsaicin+receptor, lemon juice+capsaicin+receptor, and hydrolyzed capsaicin+receptor.

Or not. The measurements made from various reference frames are predictable and can be calculated before hand. In this way, the answer will always be predictable and is therefore objective. Subjective would mean that things like length contraction and time dilation are dependent on what kind of mood you were in at the moment or dependent on the identity/past experiences of the person who is observing. This is obviously not the case. If you give a physicist a set of quantities describing a reference frame and a set of quantities describing the object being observed, they will give you a reproducible, quantitative, and consistent answer that describes what measurements will be observed... i.e. objective.

So is the amide the active site? I would assume so, as I can't see that orthomethoxy-phenol group having good docking properties anywhere due to steric bulk and rigidity. Maybe lemon juice is a competitive inhibitor for TRPV1, capascin's receptor. Or maybe the acidity of lemon juice has some allosteric effect on that enzyme. These may not be the case, I'm just throwing stuff out there, (which is how all good chemistry starts ).

The properties of the lead atom are determined by the quantum behavior of the electrons protons and neutrons that comprise the lead atom though. I would say that a single atom, even a large one, is still small enough to exhibit "quantum behavior" because things like the radius of the atom or ion are determined by things like oxidation state, and orbital filling which are quantum phenomena. An atom is mostly empty space containing a few to a couple of hundred quantum objects interacting with each other.

Oh I see! A linear combination of all [math] \psi_{alive} [/math] and all [math] \psi_{dead} [/math] gives [math] \Psi _{zombie} [/math]. The question now is...can it be normalized? and is the undead operator, [math] \hat{U} [/math], hermetian anywhere?

The current problem is it costs more energy to extract hydrogen from alkanes or water than one can get by reacting the hydrogen by combustion or fuel cell. I think this problem will be addressed eventually. I'm willing to bet some money on it. I've got my money on solar induced homogeneous photo-catalysis to extract hydrogen from water. Several recent papers have shown the correct cyclic voltammetry to accomplish such (a nice "fat" reversible couple in the correct potential range). I'm sure some chemical engineers would be willing to call my bet though for a heterogeneous catalyst instead...right CaptainPanic?

What do you mean by reducing? Sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult here. "Reducing" just has a very specific meaning in chemistry that isn't in line with the non-scientific usage of the word, similar to confusion over the word "work" in physics.

I understand. Lets see the calculations.

If anyone wold like the "invariant" part of this thread split for further discussion I'll be glad to get it split for you. Just let me know.

No sir, incorrect. Without mathematics there is no objective way for us to tell whether or not you are correct. You can't make a quantifiably testable prediction. Learn some mathematics, then come back to the Theory of Everything. You'll find its not all bubbles and igloos.

First you have to establish that the Aether exists at all. You're going to have to overturn the Michelson-Morley experiment or give a reason why its conclusion (Aether does not exist) is invalid. This will require math. I'm sorry.

I would make sure that I had mastered many of the general chemistry concepts before moving on to organic, especially equilibrium and a little bit of kinetics (not the hardcore p-chem kinetics, just the basics). Also you should be very comfortable with acid /base trends, valence rules, as well as electron configurations for the p and s-blocks. You can definitely teach yourself some organic chemistry, just remember to learn how to "push-arrows" instead of just memorizing reactions. If you don't know what I'm talking about here you will soon enough once you get into the basic reaction types like SN2, E1...etc.

Sometimes I feel like ties are just pre-tied hangman's nooses. So when your boss decides to string you up, the noose is already around your neck.

Being in chemistry, I never think much about bosons at all (except for the for photons though I never really have to deal with them directly, just the excitations they cause). I've always assumed what you stated, that bosons are forces and fermions are matter. I'm not too familiar with the Higgs Boson but it seems like an interesting philosophical question. Why would the Higgs Boson not be a force from your perspective ajb, as it is a boson?

You are obviously not aware of mass deficit. The sum of all the masses of all the nucleons in the nucleus is greater than the measured mass of the nucleus. So we can say that for this situation: [math] \Delta E = (\Delta m)c^{2} [/math] It has been observed that the "missing" mass is given by simply solving for [math] \Delta m [/math]: [math] \frac {E_{radiated}}{c^{2}}= \Delta m [/math] A few citations where mass defect is used: On the Mass Defect of Helium, Phys. Rev. 43, 252–257 (1933) On the Yield of Nuclear Reactions with Heavy Elements, Phys. Rev. 57, 472–485 (1940) There are more current articles available upon request. I wanted to get some older stuff where the mass deficit is discussed more as it was then in those times relatively new science. So mass energy equivalence does have relevance. You would be advised to some reading before you go on a rant about how one of the most useful and insightful expressions in modern physics is only for unit convention. Any of you have yet to give one example of one physicist obfuscating the truth from the general public. Your claims are baseless, if you want to have a real argument bring some real evidence. I'm growing tired of these personal anecdotes and rhetorical style speeches. If you want to make radical claims, then let's have a citation and LaTeX war. Count me in. I'm not a physicist so any of you physics types out there feel free to chime in and/or correct me if I'm wrong. Logic and math do coincide. But there is a reason we use the mathematical logic instead of the verbal logic. The verbal logic is confined to our everyday experience, is subject to semantic disagreement, and is in general not precise enough to convey the level of detail needed to discuss physical science. People here keep saying that certain theories aren't logical. Why? If math is founded in logic and physics is founded in math then what is the problem? It is so incredibly ignorant to hold the view that the universe must obey human English language logic. It is also intellectually lazy. Do you really think that physicists would spend all this time learning all this frustrating and laborious advanced mathematics if it wasn't totally necessary? Let's look at philosophers, men of formal verbal logic. What have they brought us in the last hundred years? I'll answer that for you...nothing. Regardless of your opinions on how the universe should work, relativity and quantum physics work. Period. It is up to you guys to produce evidence that it does not. You can try to do that without mathematics but I'll go ahead and warn you that it is not going to happen. You won't be able to make any quantifiable testable predictions and we will not accept hand waiving as proof. Pony up the math or citations to prove that all these things are illogical or stop it already. It should be easy if all this physics is so illogical. Stop hand waiving and prove it.

Bold text added by me for clarity without quote mining But the example I gave you is straight quantum mechanics, no interpretations involved at all. Scanning Tunneling Electron microscopy is completely dependent on the existence of tunneling currents to work, and it does work. Google it. How can you say I should not believe in tunneling? It is observed! You should really do some reading about quantum mechanics and theory before you attempt to replace it or deny it. You aren't in a position to criticize it if you don't understand it, which it is becoming apparent that you don't. I don't mean this in an insulting or condescending way either. I'm just being honest. You don't know what you are talking about. What is your level of math skill? I can recommend books for you to read as I do want you to come to an understanding. I think your intent is good but you are just plain wrong. michel123456: Short on time for the moment. I've read your comments and will return to them later today when I have time. My apologies.

Don't know what you are on about. If it involves reincarnation it's best that you wait until you have the minimum number of posts to post in the religion forum. We don't discuss such things here in the science sections of SFN as they are not science.

I have nothing against simplicity. Simplicity is a beautiful thing, and when scientists get a simple answer for a complex question we almost piss ourselves in happiness. I do have a big problem when simplicity becomes more valued than having a theory that actually models reality. Fact of the matter is the universe is not simple. There are facets of it that operate under some limit like Newtonian mechanics and these things are simpler. Here is the heart of my argument: Science has advanced to the point where the things that are being analyzed are usually far removed from our daily experience. Even basic first year undergrad quantum mechanics can be highly counterintuitive in my opinion. For example it is very hard to understand, with logic and intuition, how a fermion can be delocalized on both sides of a solid barrier. It simply doesn't make "logical" sense to people like you and me. When I throw a ball against a wall, it bounces back. It never tunnels through the wall a begins to oscillate on the other side. So by that experience/logic/memory, objects are not allowed to tunnel through barriers. However, one quick inspection of the Shroedinger equation and the position operator shows that said particle can in fact tunnel through that wall. Once the classical physics and mathematics are in place (some calculus, diff. equations, and linear algebra), this tunneling becomes blatantly obvious! Once a student gets to things like general relativity or relativistic quantum mechanics, intuition goes totally out the window and we are forced to rely solely on mathematics. True, math does not "explain" anything, as you stated. However, thats all we have to work with when talking about zillions of tiny wave/particle like things whizzing around at near the speed of light in a gravitational field that is really just a dent in space-time as far as we know. Take that last sentence as an example, that was incredibly cumbersome, no? And it didn't really even give you that much information about the scenario. That same situation can be succinctly and completely (within the HUP) described by mathematics in a manner that is consistent and unambiguous. Logic tells us that the earth is a near spherical object and should appear as such no matter how fast we are moving of which direction we are coming from. This is simply not the case. We must then use mathematics to describe a situation that is becoming increasingly more complex as we analyze further. So I end the answer to your question with another question. Surprise! What do you have against complexity if said complexity is a necessary evil to get to the truth of the matter? Said like a true outsider. Why does everyone come to the accusatory conclusion that science is complicated by design to prevent the common man from understanding? Do you not realize how much money science foundations donate to help children better understand science? Why the hell do all these experts (of which I am by far the least) take their time to try and explain this seriously complicated stuff to random people on the internet? Because scientists love it when society understands their plight. Better public understanding of science leads to more research money. More research money leads to more good science. More good science leads to public interest. Public interest leads to better public understanding of science and the cycle continues. So as you can see it is the opposite of what you claim. We love it when the public can understand science in all of its nerdish glory. Trying to obfuscate the truth from the public would really be "shooting one's self in the foot". One caveat though, we will not compromise the truth value of theories in the name of being easier to understand. If you think someone made all this up in order to "protect the system" then you have neither mathematics nor logic on your side.

I disagree, really with the entire thread. I don't see the value in finding "logical" explanations for scientific theories at all. Please, someone use verbal logic to tell me how long it will take a 1 kilogram ball to hit the ground after being dropped from a height of 10 meters. Use verbal logic to predict the products of any chemical reaction or interpret some spectroscopy. Though logical explanations make us feel good, I admit that, they don't do much to further science or a theory's predictive value. Any conclusion reached by a "logical explanation" is subject to the language it is spoken in. This debate would be very diferent were we speaking Mandarin Chinese right now. Take for example the US constitution. Two hundred and something years later, and people are already debating over what the original authors intended. Then take for example the works of Newton. He wrote everything down mathematically, though there was supporting prose, and today there is little or no ambiguity as to what Newton intended. When we use logic to think about science instead of math (logic does have some part to play) we end up with silly arguments over semantics like the "ontology of time" thread we have here. People that do not understand the mathematics cannot access deep understanding of scientific theories, period. Even biological stuff like evolution and population dynamics require a large degree of quantitative analysis. If we used logic as our meter stick, we would still be kicking around with Newtonian mechanics and would have no comprehension of the more modern concepts like quantum stuff, relativity, or even statistical thermodynamics. Another thing, that this thread fails to realize is that mathematics is the perfect logic. Every piece of current mathematics falls apart if even one of the fundamental properties of arithmetic fails. As a result, mathematics is far more internally consistent and logical than any verbal logic can ever be.

Thermodynamics applies everywhere in the universe that we are aware of today. Living organisms do not violate energy conservation laws. Living things simply take in chemicals and react those chemicals to make products that have a lower energy of formation. We take the excess energy and convert it to mechanical energy to move muscles that move bones etc...

Why do you need a high temperature cuprate superconductor?