foodchain

But i dont want it to move.I want a model.

Well what do you mean by just a model? Like something static?

How small of a scale or vector I guess can science currently detect the effects of or realities of relativity be it general or special?

A cell doesn't have empty spaces. Everything within it is in solution - in water. And I wouldn't call it a sphere, because cell shapes vary tremendously.

Right, I know a cell shape can vary moment to moment depending on environmental variables alone. It was just a way to frame the question I guess, also thank you. SO would it be safe to apply the term molecular motor to a cell as a whole?

I want to know about how to make the robot not programming it. Basically a lifeless robot.

Well I am no robotics expert actually. I know some people made a robot out of about 2$ really using trash but those guys new what they were doing and of course this goes back to the definition of a robot. I think something simple could be say a sphere that rolls depending on say something used as a gyroscope for direction. The reaction mechanism of decision I think would be very important but for a lifeless option as you would put it. I guess use would leave a thermal mark and such a high temp could allow a switch to flip for say a change in the circuits being used by an electric flow at any giving time. Maybe like changes to the robots "homeostasis" could lead to different behavior. I think something like that might be possible and you could avoid programming.

How much empty space does a cell have or is it more or less a molecular "sphere" for instance?

You're right, I got confused. It would be a hugely elongated orbit, most of which would be far below ground level. It would have a funny shape too, because it would get less gravitational attraction the deeper it went. I suppose it probably couldn't even be called an orbit if it is mostly inside the earth.

It seems like you understand this stuff so I would like to ask you a question which I think pertains to the thread greatly, if not sorry.

Say you had the ability to make a BEC like the size of the earths moon for instance. If you would or could do that would it by itself interact with dark matter to any more visible degree or even a different then normal degree?

Can anyone give me a link(s) to get info on robotics?

If you're wondering it's for a school project.

Any help is appreciated.

I don’t know. Robotics is not just one type of invention or type really. Most robots are actually remote control and not autonomous. I would think you might need to start reading up on clusters of logic gates and digital electronics and programming languages:D I guess it would depend on what you want in a robot.

I'm not big on the rubber sheet for other reasons, one of which Sayonara touches on. For one, it gives you this sense that space-time is material--I'm not a big fan of that view even if flows naturally from the math. Material space-time feeds into the notion that there is some ambient coordinate system that naturally applies to a varying topological space, which in turns gets us back to this whole "edge" and "center" business. So while GR could model a material called space-time, it's probably preferable simply to think of space-time as the topology's dimensionality and think of GR as a theory of fields within those dimensions.

 

That said, the thing to remember about expansion is its a affine-geometric theory. That is to say it means nothing without picking two random points and comparing their varying displacement from one another. Expansion also means that there is no particular point you can choose and say "this is origin;" any coordinate choice is arbitrary.

Is that what it called diffeomorphism by chance? What I don’t understand is for many other things in physical reality you can have an origin, yet not for this? Why is that? Is it simply a point of no origin based on the perception of origin in this case?

please don't shy away from anything, i want to know everything there is to know about this subject. starting at the very basics, and proceeding to the most in-depth answers posible

Well that’s about at the bottom for anything I would consider accepted overall as an opinion. I mean I know little trinkets of stuff such as what a sidechain is or an amide to an amine, but nothing in particular more really about an atom per say. I think though when you are doing counts of say protons to neutrons, which is the atomic number on say a periodic table the count might not come out correct in respect to neutrons, at that point you would always round up I think. Besides that I think it pretty much goes into bonding and things like defects, or what an acid or a base is. Your best bet I think would simply be to start at wiki, and type in say the atom, or matter, or chemistry. It will give you more of the vocab for say further reading or studies, for instance if you were looking to buy a book by say linus pauling who will tell you to take vitamin c. That and look up nucleosynthesis, I think its rather neat and surely pertains to an atom.

Not necessarily. In the Standard Model of elementary particle physics, all "force carriers" happen to be bosons (more specifically, vector-bosons, which simply means spin-1 bosons). But there are bosons which are not force carriers, e.g. [math]^4\text{He}[/math] (and all the other atoms which Bose-Einstein condensation is done with).

Is vector the same as gauge in this situation, and is vector being used as it would be used to denote either a vector or scalar type measurement? I could see now why BEC is boson because of having to occupy a the quantum state right?

Right but I know that a different isotope which you pointed out is a neutron affect is also a part of chemistry. I tried to shy away from what would be more exotic to the question posed also, such as antimatter. Bosons are force carriers right? Yet knowing this is important I think to understanding and atom right? I am sure you could skip the world typically but I am not sure of what all exists in reality for instance;) sry. When I was talking about reactivity I did not want to go into for instance reaction mechanisms or environmental conditions, such as you have to reach a certain enthalpy for say a exothermic type of reaction, or any other step. I tried to keep it basic but of course I could not get as technical as physically possible:D I do hope though that your reply helped clear up any other questions the poster had.

This is a question that the quantum darwinists think they can answer. They call it 'eigenselection'. Check out the wiki.

I could not find anything on wiki about it, do you mean by chance quantum decohernnce? I found a paper or abstract of one on the net that was talking about environmental interaction and I think it used that phrase or term.

I also thought quantum Darwinism was a view proposed by a biologist to explain rapid extinction and speciation?

 

can some one please explain to me the structure(s) of an atom?

 

(i know its a very "open ended" question... but i really don't ave any clue were to start.)

 

any input at all is a lot of help

 

thank you

 

I am sure someone will be able to offer a better answer then mine but here I go.

An atom if you are thinking I guess in a periodic table sense of an atom is made up basically of protons, neutrons and electrons. The proton and neutron and electron are all subatomic particles, I think they are also all fermions though they are different in other regards which puts them into other genera’s. I think this comes from the status if they are either elementary or composite, also spin is a factor in definition, though this is not all of what defines a particle. You have different genera’s of subatomic particles and not all of them are in an atom in an earthly or normal periodic table sense, such as antimatter.

An atom has a basic structure in say it has a nucleus and a surrounding electron cloud. The nucleus is made up typically of protons and neutrons. A difference in this count for instance is what gives you isotopes. Outside of the nucleus you have orbitals which are typically denoted in a quantum mechanical framework. They are the bulk of what gives chemical potential or reactivity though they are not the only factor of course.

Bonding of atoms into say large molecular structures such as a rock for instance can have a pretty large amount of forms, such as weak or strong bonds for example, in which you also have variance in that, such as you can have a weak bond that is stronger then a type of strong bond. You can also have ionic bonds which reflect naturally from say electronegativity which again relates back to the subatomic configuration of a giving element or atom, or the count of electrons for instance in relation the nucleus of the atom. Example being if it has more electrons then protons or vice versa, more protons then electrons. These states also have there own titles.

Ok I don’t really know how to frame this question all to well so if someone is confused feel free to state that and I will try to assist.

So on an subatomic level you have a certain amount of uncertainty, now I know in a traditional sense this is to apply strictly to say orbitals really in trying to determine both position and momentum correct?

Well my question I guess at this point would be purely metaphysical if even that. How do we know that uncertainty only applies to that? I mean if time for whatever that is, an example is some calling it entropy, how do we know uncertainty and time do not have any kind of a relationship. I mean even if this relationship is "weird" how do we know such does not exist? I ask this question because I am thinking of selection rules in relation to time and of course relativity.

I think one of the only way to truly define a species when you get so close evolution wise is sexual barriers to reproduction. I know even this is not as good when you actually look at life of course and there are many examples in which the barrier seems to make no sense but once you hit that barrier you do have an isolated group. I think this of course ties into many other mechanisms or functions of course of life but these themselves could be temporal also in an evolutionary sense.

In a few discussions here we have had the problem that intelligence is badly defined. Here's my definition:

 

Intelligence is the ability to think of solutions to problems. By think of, I mean compute, model, etc rather than physically solve. An ability to solve only specific types of problems would be a specific subtype of intelligence.

 

How do you define intelligence?

Do you view intelligence and consciousness having to be existing together or part of one another?

I don’t know myself. I would say if life did not work for survival overall it would not be here, I think such reflects in evolution and of course the various phylum’s down to species. I think lots of big assumptions are made daily in science and happen to be kept until something better comes along to support the data. For instance, the gene centric point of view. That use to be and still is a big one, but now we have so many views of life. The protein view, the cellular, heck is there any angle you cant study life from?

I still go with the organismal point of view, but it seems more and more that’s getting lost to all kinds of fancy trends. I mean already in this thread I have seen the neo-Darwinists point of view to many others. Anyone up to talk to some evo-devo, or what about the simple aspect of gene regulation? How can an amoeba have way more genetic code then a human and be an amoeba?

I mean I don’t think I have heard much about the backbone of life in this thread which is natural selection. I mean what about plants for instance, what will plants be in context of natural selection in say four billion years? Can we know? Personally these are big questions and why I hope nasa or what not discovers life soon on other planets. Most want to simply look towards chemistry, well from materials point of view what about mechanical logic, or electrochemical logic, what about boundary conditions in cellular automata, does anyone even go outside the view of chemistry, it really does not seem like it. Homeostasis to me appears to be nothing more then a sort of equilibrium in a physical reality. I don’t know how anyone can say life wants to evolve, or really cant stop from its current structure on earth. I also do not know why something like a prokaryote could be considered alive but a virus could not. I mean biochemistry, what cant you talk chemistry of, you can have wallchemistry, it seems pretty moot to me when you bias yourself but to just one part of physical reality.

The more I study biology really the more I want to study physics, I do know this.

Well.

 

The universe/space appears continuous because of how we observe it, basically our eyes suck. But when you get down to the most fundamental level, thats where Planck's constant comes in, existence is discrete.

So basically the forces described by the standard model happen to be what keeps the universe together? Then the big trick is basically evolving say how a solar system comes to be from that then?

Atoms and their constituents are certainly subject to relativity. Electron state changes are one way we actually measure time and time intervals. The "weird" behavior is the orbital vs orbit distinction that Klaynos already mentioned.

Well some of this could easily be over my pay grade right now. I guess what is tweaking me in thought is at the scales at certain measurements of time the electron as I am trying to imagine such would I guess be everywhere at once, or in that you would have to get to such a small increment of time, in terms of being able to measure, to show it at a particular location. I mean if I had two mirrors say a trillionth of an inch apart, and I had a photon bounce back and fourth off of them, how would I know where the photon was at? That’s assuming the path of the photon stays on a trajectory that is exact from mirror one to mirror two. I am trying to imagine that such might lend itself to why we observe a wave function also, considering that an atom can become excited right, to a point in which it can "fire" off a photon in the first place.

I don’t understand the use of the word discrete enough I think. I mean individual organisms might be discrete biological units but I would qualify life as a discrete unit then also. Life though as evidenced by natural selection and ecology then must be a discrete unit of the earth:confused: As such the earth would be a discrete unit of the solar system, then again it would seem physical laws are not all that discrete unless you favor the idea that the universe itself is an aggregate of something. I think if the reality that the universe faces inflation post big bang that post heat death it should then shrink?

I guess I just don’t understand how you relate discreet to the reality that reality seems to be a whole as far as I can observer, as in we are made of star dust. Plus if the universe was discrete does that not mean you cant apply calculus to it?

Electrons are not in orbits, they are in orbitals.

 

How would it make time non-existent? If you are talking about relativity, then that isn't really the same thing...

 

What do you mean wouldn't time be different?

Well basically on the scale of human life it takes me so long to walk down a hallway physically. In the terms of atomic scales the movement of an electron at its speeds in those size dimensions. How would you track that, and would it not start to behave "weird" really in comparison to scales humans are normal with. For instance, it takes X in time for a comet to function in four dimensions, well what about an electron at atomic length scales? To cut down past even nano scale lengths of space with an object measured in what, angstroms? To be able to record the movement of such would involve time right? I mean if an electron is indeed moving in an electron cloud or what not around an atom, think about all the moment it could conduct at those scales or dimensions in even a fourth of a second, I just wonder if time itself changes also at that scale.

Is the size of an atom in relation to say electron movement part of the reason we say wave particle duality. What I mean is electrons in an orbit are to move rather fast, and at the distances such objects are moving would it almost make time non existent? I mean to move a billionth of an inch at almost light speed for example. The amount of time there I think is my question, simply put if time for instance is basically an abstraction of material reality reacting for instance, well at such scales would not time also be different then say time for a massive star?

But there's an obvious moral problem with the mechanist view:

A life, especially if it's one of ours, is morally on higher ground than a machine that gets built, supposedly because the builder has a higher moral purpose, or because we are 'constructed' differently to a machine that has only a single limited 'purpose'...

There is no problem with the mechanist view. How else do you explain how people could put other people to death so easily as if almost being insect like. If a person could not do something, they would not do it. You ask a question as to where life starts, well obviously with conception sense it is living. If you want to know where a human life starts, well what do you mean by that? Does a human life have to have a CNS, at what stage of development does a CNS have to be in before it is considered "human". This is but one of a million questions that cannot satisfy a million people really. You ask about mechanism, well "morality" seems to come about mechanically, all confused as it is, killing people too.

I don't believe you can categorically hate religions. Many good productive people have their moral foundation based in their religion. Hate the intolerance and the hatred that are taught by some religious people but not the religion itself. Religion is a tool, much like a gun, that can be wielded for good or evil. Hate those that wield it for evil.

That’s part of the problem though. This moral foundation requires a certain degree of separation of people. I don’t want to think that I could be doing good at a company, be found out not to be religious and then subsequently not be able to have as many options for advancement as I once held, and sorry to say such is a reality. So would that person who decided against me be a good productive person rooted in religion and using it for evil? Its all completely so subjective and it does indeed segregate people amongst many other things. Its also sort of like saying people cant be "good" and "productive" while not being religious, again all my thought on the issue only lends itself to the idea that organized religion is "evil". I mean we have enough issues that lead to things like war that I think we hardly need another one. Medical science, which has no jargon on who you should be has saved far more lives then religion, religions history is a giant track record of severe violence actually, I mean witch hunts anyone? You do realize the horror millions of people had to experience as they died from the hands of organized religion right, yet at the same time the people that would induce such acts are looked upon by so many as “good” and “productive”.

I mean what’s the latest thing really with the spree of child molestation. Why was law used differently in that regard then on “normal” people? Just from the reality that war could occur over something like that should be enough to get rid of it. I mean there is a test in which four people get showed from various traits, the most moral looking person in this list of anonymous people is Hitler… Hitler also had plenty of religious convictions. In fact I don’t know where you look at religion and find anything “good” or “productive” from my “moral” standpoint. IN that I think is the biggest problem it inflicts, as long as the banner or religion is toted how do you ever actually work to understanding human nature and or nurture, I would hope more then myself see the gravity on why such a question is so vitally important to have an answer.

There's a BIG morally relevant distinction between most humans and "something like a car." Most humans are people. The question you should ask is, are fetuses people?

fetuses is commonly misused at large, but that’s probably little more then a pointer to the reality that the debate has a huge amount of subjective thought bearing down on it. I wont say such is wrong but the use of science in the debate for instance I think is horribly misused.