lemur

I am interested in what information allows you to exclude all the things you exclude at the beginning of this post. Are the methods of imaging individual atoms in dynamic situations really good enough to allow them to be observed under pertinent conditions? Assuming that you are positive about behavior like ductility emerging from the lattice relations and the characteristics of the atoms that determine their particular latticing tendencies, could you please explain in a concrete example how this works? I.e. pick a particular metal and explain its ductility in terms of its latticing tendencies and how these tendencies are determined at the atomic level.

Isn't this what nuclear warfare amounts to generally? That's why I noted the connection between nuclear holocaust and other identity-based forms of holocaust, such as genocide. As long as nations are viewed as natural containers for ethno-social solidarity, they are natural hostage-pools for inter-national relations. National socialism ends when there is no more logic in bombing a certain region for the actions of its government or other individual/institutional actions identified with it than bombing another region. If every nation was simply a regional subset of free global migrations, any nuclear blast would claim casualties of all ethnic identities, the way the WTC bombing killed people with every national citizenship. However, as long as there's a notion that, e.g., the US can be destroyed by nuking all the states, or that the French, Germans, Israelis, etc. could be eliminated by nuking a corresponding nation-state, that national-socialist ideology of regional-ethnic correlation lives on.

Theoretically it should be possible to lease out your private property to public/state or public/corporate enterprises. So someone could start a company that pays individuals' to lease their unused processing capacity - but of course then there has to be a client who wants to pay to use that capacity. It would also be theoretically possible to set up online networking software that allows people to borrow and lend each others tools and other items. The problem with that, though, is that when you lend out an item, say a chainsaw, and someone else uses it, there is wear and tear, maintenance and sharpening that needs to be done, etc. so unless you have some way to regulate the liabilities and responsibilities, sharing things can be a hassle. Plus, capitalism generally seems to have evolved into a profit market where everyone uses every form of economic transaction to maximize profit. This means that you'll end up paying more in the long term to share things publicly, because there are loads of people looking to make a comfortable level of income from administering, regulating, and investing in organizing anything and everything people are doing publicly. Some things, like the public bicycle idea, seem great until you think about what they're really doing. After all, each bicycle has to be cared for and maintained, flat tires fixed, chains and bearings lubed, etc. So while the majority of users are just picking up a bike and leaving it when they're finished, numerous other people have to fix the flat tires they create and keep the bikes in good mechanical condition for them. Better, imo, for everyone to have their own bicycle because this stimulates personal responsibility in riding it carefully. What's more, I even think people should learn to maintain their own vehicles so that they will understand how to ride/drive them to minimize repair/maintenance headaches. It's easy to treat your bicycle/car roughly when repairs are nothing more than a question of dropping off the vehicle and paying the bill (when you have abundant income). It's a different story when you know that it will be you slaving over the machine to fix whatever you break.

You make good points about logistics and very clearly so. I would just like to add that I think that the threat of nuclear holocaust, and holocaust/genocide generally, have had a significant hegemonic effect in promoting nationalism and other forms of regional solidarity, such as keynesian economic governance. Specifically, I think the nuclear threat was used to propagate two social-political ideologies in particular: 1) that people living within the same region were/are equal in exposure to the same military threat 2) that the world could end at any moment so the economic present should be privileged over any concerns about the future. Globalism and economic/ecological sustainability fly in the face of these 20th century ideologies. I think there's a reason you typically see the nuclear threat propagated in terms of national governments in conflict with other national governments, instead of inter-corporate conflict, for example. During the cold war, European nationalism was preserved by reference to the violence of WWII and the idea that the "superpowers" US/USSR kept each other in check and national (social) autonomy was a given because ethnic solidarity was garnered in opposition to a nuclear and genocide threat that targeted people at the level of the masses and in terms of ethno-national identity.

I could understand the analogy of potential energy with savings and kinetic energy as spending/consumption; but how can dumb objects hold and keep track of debts? Wouldn't that require memory? I suppose you could say that a compressed spring has memory, which is related to its ability to store energy as potential, but how could energy be put into a spring or other storage medium with constraints on how that energy gets "repaid?" Doesn't a physical system necessarily have to look for the path of least resistance where energy gets expressed?

That's logical in terms of conservation of energy from the perspective of the electron wanting a quantized amount of energy, but what about the particle colliding into it? How can a particle receiving momentum from a collision decide that it will only accept amounts of momentum that satisfy its particular energy-quanta requirements? This could be solved, I think in terms of collision elasticity, where an atoms would divide received momentum between receivable EM quanta and velocity-change. I don't know how this could be deductively tested, though, since the only way I know to test velocity-change in molecules is in terms of net energy-change, in terms of heat/pressure/volume. Idk how you could test whether subsequent weak collisions can build up a level of energy that permits emission. It could just as well be that random emissions within a low-temperature substance could be caused by an exceptionally energetic collision that delivered all the energy necessary to raise the energy level at once. I'm not trying to be slippery. Oftentimes my thinking conflicts with scientists who elevate inductive modeling about deduction. I see no problem with taking known parameters and playing with them loosely to see what kinds of models could emerge just to practice deducing testable hypotheses and ramifications. If anything, I was mentally modeling in a way that would necessitate a certain kind of data so that I could compare that to known data, as you have done. I'm not trying to "change data," just to think about what the data would have to look like to support a certain model and then compare that with the data that has actually been collected. I know people use it as endearment. It's just a personal thing that I would rather hear any of those other names instead of "dude." We don't have to sleep together for you to call me sexy because that just refers to the fact that I'm sexy period.

Thanks, Michel, for getting this at the basic level that I meant it. The gas comparison seems to be relevant in so many cases of electron behavior. This is conform with what I read in Planck's book "Survey of Physical Theory," where he writes that electricity will ultimately be studied like a gas in terms of gas laws and thermodynamics, etc. This has already made sense to me in terms of energy transmission through a conductor, including sound waves. So why shouldn't this same ana-logic be applied to the electron's relationship with volume around the nucleus? I haven't dismissed what Swanson and others are writing. I see that there's no simple relationship between atomic volume and energy, as with pressure and heat with a gas, etc. I also still haven't figured out a simple way to think about the relationship between positive charge-attraction and volume-producing electron energy without treating the electrons like gas particles surrounding the nucleus. Nevertheless, I could imagine explaining things like ductility vs. crystal rigidity in terms of "pressure rigidity" if atoms were viewed like little balloons with variable size and pressure/rigidity.

I read that more total firepower can be delivered by traditional means and because the targeting is more specific, the net effectiveness is greater than with dropping on big bomb with a giant radius.

I've read that convention bombs can be deployed more effectively than nuclear weapons now and with more firepower. I think the benefit of nuclear weaponry is that it seems to be a quick, painless exit for those close enough to the center of the blast radius. I view it as preferable to other WMD or death by bullet. There's also some comfort in knowing that you're not dying alone, no?

You're missing that documentation-requirements could be expanding to the level of inter-Bantu regional control in Apartheid SA. Of course, considering EU member-state governments maintain rigorous identity-controls (as far as I know), maybe this is just a move in that direction.

Although my values agree more with elite intellectualism, that is a substantial evolutionist point that 90% of humans wouldn't be religious if there weren't some survival value in it. I think that you're too quick to be with or against religion, though. There are religious elites who are intellectuals and there are religious masses who only recite dogma for the pragmatic effects that come with doing so. Science is the same. There are the dogmatic masses who worship evolutionary theory only because it supports their rejection of their parents' religion and there are elites who actually pay attention to scientific questions regarding the evolution of species. Certainly popularity doesn't make anything respectable, but that is because respectable is an elite value whereas popular/normal is, well, a popular one. It is normal to participate in religion for many people, so that has survival value for them. It may just as well be loving Mickey Mouse; it's about agreeing with other people and gaining social perks by doing so.

So how do collision energy-exchanges interact with electron-level changes? You're right. It would be ridiculous to try to make the data fit the theory unless you thought for some reason that the data could be interpreted in some other way that made more sense vis-a-vis the theory. But, no, I would not want to blatantly change data to work for some theoretical idea. Finally, please stop calling me "dude."

Well, how would you know if a molecule got jarred in a collision and absorbed a certain amount of the energy into its electrons without it leading to an amount sufficient to result in photon emission? Also, how do you know that when atoms transfer momentum from one to the other, they don't do so as a result of their electron-excitement as much or more so than their actual linear motion as an atom? I guess that was the pauli exclusion principle that I thought required the electrons to add up to whole numbers. I didn't think the waves could overlap. I still think there's something to the idea that these things are propagating as "subsequent shadows" as opposed to cohesive units in continuous motion. I think such continuous motion may be facilitated by the fact that "propagative-space" can curve in on itself and move as a frame relative to other "propagative-space frames."

Volume isn't a type of energy? It's a function of energy, isn't it? Atoms aren't solid "matter," are they (whatever that would mean)? I don't understand. When I think of an attractive field, i think of every trajectory through it in any direction resulting in increases and decreases of potential energy as it is exchange for kinetic energy and vice versa. How can two things attracted to each other lose distance without an increase in kinetic energy that is conserved in whatever forms it is converted? It's not a predictive model. It is an analytical summary description. It is like saying that coal is a conversion of gravitational force into carbohydrate concentration or that sugar beets are a conversion of sunlight into carbohydrates or like saying that fission/fusion is a conversion of mass into energy or fire is a conversion of chemical potential into heat. Is it incorrect in comparison with these?

You're bringing up important points that I am indeed overlooking in my attempt to just conceptualize some plausible basis for quantized electrons and photon energy. The spectra of different elements are interesting to me. I see what you mean that they aren't perfect black bodies and thus only absorb and emit certain wavelengths and not others. Still, they must also absorb energy in the form of kinetic energy of heat among molecules. So this kinetic energy could theoretically be continuous instead of quantized, right? In that case, the jarring of the molecules during collision could raise their energy levels somewhat but not to the threshold of photon emission, or not? Also, you don't see my point about the electron waves having to link-up in a way that creates a whole number of waves having a determinant effect on the ability to emit certain photons and not others? This is why I think something like surface-tension could be responsible for the wave's insistence on forming only certain sizes/number and not others. The big question to me is what the electrons are at the wave level. Are they like photons (propagating EM fields) but with mass? With the EM field propagation, there seems imo to be some interactive effect between electric and magnetic fields that results in their linear propagation. It's as if the one is the shadow of the second and the next is a shadow of the second, etc. Thus it makes sense to me that their quantum nature would have to do with them propagating as repetitions of the same basic entity. That still doesn't say anything about why only certain quanta are possible and not others.

My analogy wasn't meant the way you took it. I was just referring to the fact that it would take a certain amount of energy to cause a ball of water in zero-gravity to deform to the point of fragmenting and that amount of energy would be related to the surface tension of the water. Could the case be similar with photon field-cohesion? I.e. as a magnetic field begins to emerge, it cannot begin propagating until it reaches a certain threshold at which point it suddenly generates an electric field, which in turn generates another magnetic field, etc. linearly. It's like the electron has its own containment force that gets overcome at the moment the fields start propagating. As long as the energy is not sufficient to overcome that containment, it probably just causes the atom to wobble and contributes to its vibrational KE. Only when it wobbles so much, it could either ionize or emit a photon, depending on the electrostatic conditions I think. Metals are known to be more prone to lose electrons than non-metals, but are non-metals also more likely to emit photons with the same amount of energy input as an ionizing metal? Well, let's assume for a moment that an atom can receive an amount of momentum from a collision with another atom that gives it a partial quanta of energy (idk if this is possible or not). Then the electrons might swell/stretch a little trying to go up a level but they couldn't yet without sufficient energy to do so. Then once they reach the needed threshold, they could suddenly gain an additional wave and go up a level; and afterward could drop back down as a result of re-seeking electrostatic equilibrium, with the photon carrying away the surplus energy. The photon quanta would thus be a consequence of the electron quantization, which would be a result of the inability for electron "waves" to overlap, which would be a result of the wave shape/size being determined by the texture of the field-force that composes the wave, which behaves as if it has some kind of surface-tension to energy-amount ratio for fragmentation into waves.

I think that the idea that nuclear energy is clean and practically infinitely abundant contributes to an attitude that high energy dependence is not detrimental except insofar as it depletes energy reserves, which in itself would just be a social-political issue, but I believe it stimulates engineering , design, and other industrial approaches that treat energy as nothing more than an afterthought. So, for example, following WWII power appliances started multiplying, such as washing machines, electric clothes dryers, air-conditioning, electric heaters, etc. all presumably with the idea that convenience was more valuable than energy, which was viewed as suddenly as abundant as atoms. Even if atomic energy did/does turn out to be infinitely abundant, I still think it has a detrimental effect on humans to become so accustomed to lifestyle patterns that depend on levels of energy that would be extremely difficult to replicate using traditional methods such as wood-burning or even coal-power. It's fine, imo, to save a mountain, or forest, or some coal-miners from getting trapped underground by substituting nuclear power for other industrial energy-sources, but I still think conservation should continue to work toward cultural patterns that reduce people's overall energy-dependency so that they have more power of their environments relative to what they are accustomed to in the event of energy unavailability. It just doesn't make sense to me for individuals to consume many hundreds or even thousands of kwh when extracting that same amount of energy from sunlight, coal, wood, etc. would overwhelm them.

I don't know what you mean by it being the cause. What is it that generates volume in the atom and how? Then what happens when the electron(s) collapse into the nucleus and why is energy released as a result?

So attractive force doesn't equal potential energy insofar as the particles/objects in question accelerate, thus gaining momentum? Doesn't force always mean acceleration of mass? I've sort of noticed this pattern with molecular bonding, where stronger bonds tend to be shorter. It's like the stronger the electrostatic force, the tighter the pattern between the electrons and protons in question. I wasn't saying that atomic volume was a uniform density of energy, though. I was just saying that in general it seems like the volume of the atom is due to electrostatic relations between the nucleus and electrons, as well as between electrons themselves. So if the electrons collided with the protons and neutralized their charge, that would amount to a deletion of the atomic volume and a corresponding amount of energy released in some other form, which you basically confirmed. Only for some reason, you don't want to refer to that as conversion of the atom's volume into energy, which I still don't understand why.

Idk, if I think about a hypothetical situation where a high energy photon hits a molecule, causes it to ionize, emit some electron(s), changes its momentum, and re-emit lower-energy photons, for example, it seems like the fixity of the electron and photon quanta are playing a determinant role in how much energy ends up as velocity-change in the resulting fragments. So I would think that the electrons get excited and either emit a certain frequency photon or break off, but that there is tension as to when the electrons stabilize instead of breaking off. I see it like a ball of water in zero-gravity where something hits the ball and a certain number of fragments/drops break off from the ball but the remaining energy keeps wobbling as waves and shape-changing of the unbroken ball. If the water was a liquid with more surface-tension, it might not break apart at all with a given amount of energy added, whereas a liquid with less surface-tension might break off into smaller-sized fragments. Something else I wonder about with the electrons is that the fact that their waves need to fit exactly into whatever quantized configuration would seem to mean that any energy that doesn't result in the threshold needed to increase the number of waves would have to be expressed as something else, e.g. velocity-change of the atom as a whole. There has to be conservation of energy, but the quantizing-requirement of the electron energy seems to determine where the energy will go. So it is as if there is room for non-quantized amounts of energy to be expressed as momentum, acceleration/deceleration, at the macro level that automatically pick up the slack of the quantum fixity. Is this incorrect, though? Are energy-amounts at the macro level also shown to be quantized in the same quanta as photons and electron-levels? As for perturbation theory, I hear that mentioned a lot and I vaguely understand the meaning of the verb, "to perturb," but I have tried googling the term and it only sounds like a methodological approach to study, not a direct descriptive theory of a mechanical behavior - but am I understanding it wrong?

When an object is held at a certain altitude in a gravitational field, it has a certain level of potential energy, right? When that object is released into free fall, it's PE starts getting converted into momentum, so what's wrong with calling that "translation" of (potential) energy into momentum? The same could be said of chemical potential in fuel getting converted/translated into motion and heat in an engine. If energy can't be created or destroyed but only transformed, then why shouldn't stages of transformation be referred to as "translations?" As for volume, what is the cause of atomic volume? In the Bohr model, I would say it was the force of the electrons as they orbit the nucleus. If you claim they don't orbit the nucleus in a classical mechanical sense, what causes them to exercise repellence toward other atoms that prevents the nuclei from getting closer to each other than they do? Whatever it is, there is a relationship between the electrostatic attraction and the volume of the atom, because without it the nucleus would presumably not be surrounded by electrons. In that case, why can't you look at the volume of the atom as an expression of force/energy and see that if there would suddenly be no electrostatic attraction, the atom would have no volume? It would have the same mass if the protons and electrons combined to form neutrons, but that mass would collapse into the nucleus, right?

This seems like more of a QP question than an issue for speculations, but since the issue appears to be somewhat mysterious as it emerges in other threads, I thought it might deserve its own speculations thread. My sense is that wave-quantization has something to do with the internal dynamics of force-fields. Like, if you would try to subdivide them in increments between their natural quanta that they would resist because of internal cohesion-force, like surface tension causes water to divide into rain drops. I would also guess that this quantizing force also influences how the electrons can interact with the nucleus, i.e. because there is an energy threshold that has to be reached before a wave can be added or subtracted from the atomic electrons. What do others think and/or what has been written on this topic?

I checked out the link. It makes sense that it's a reference to divinity, but that doesn't contradict what I was saying. Think about the beginning of John where it says something like, "in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God." It's like he's putting the creation before God's creation of it and then noting that the creation itself was God by being God's creation. If you think about the idea of linearity and hierarchy in citing Abraham or some other predecessor as the source of your authority, it puts a clove between you and the source of authority. So when Jesus puts "I am" BEFORE "Abraham was," it elevates present revelation over revelation through reference to the past. I think this could be 1) a reference to Holy Spirit as a more direct source of divine authority than scripture alone, 2) a general expression that the past is invoked in the present by the recipient of its revelations, as I said, as well as the reference you pointed out about simply being a general claim to divinity. Divinity has so many ideas contained in it, though, I think you could extrapolate any number of interpretations and applications from general statements about it. It's like most philosophy that involves general concepts like truth, power, knowledge, etc.

See, we even disagree on me being a prophet I sort of see what he means, because in one sense of orthodoxy, anti-orthodoxy or maybe unorthodoxy is required for true original creativity. I always think of the quote, "before Abraham was, I am" as being very anti-tradition and anti-orthodoxy. It's just a little wise than that, because it can be taken to mean that it takes interpretation in the present to recognize the past. So for Abraham to be known and cited by those who would claim his authority, they have to exist in the present. This statement was however, I believe, taken as blasphemy - or so I've heard. Maybe revelational truth is by nature rebellion insofar as it overturns the false consciousness that precedes it by exposing it as false instead of true.

Why is this so hard to read? An attractive field results in a certain amount of KE being expressed as the two objects or particles accelerate into each other, right? Second, if electrostatic attraction is balanced by whatever keeps the electrons outside the nucleus then cancellation of the electrostatic field would result in cancelation of the volume of the atom, no? Without the positive charge of the protons and the corresponding shielding provided by the electrons, atoms would have no volume although they would have the same mass if they contained the same total number of particles, right? Thus, no mass would be converted to energy but volume would along with electrostatic force.