foodchain

A false vacuum is a possible reality spawned by the study of QM that is analogous to quantum tunneling?

Does the concepts behind a false vacuum apply to the behavior of electrons in attempting to achieve the lowest possible energy state?

Cancer can come from or be triggered by more then just abnormal behavior of a cell or group of cells. For instance, asbestos. So did the cells that become cancerous from asbestos rely on the proposed mechanism? Then again if cancer was known to some form of adaptive or fixed immunity of an organism to be environmental for instance, how would it know and overall how does such related to NKC behavior? Lastly from a molecular viewpoint biodiversity suggests that this can evolve also in a manner not so “mathematically” acute. Such as why do some species posses a type of RNA we don’t? To a better example of why do prokaryotes look the way they do compared to Eukaryotes, and why have eukaryotes become more prone to evolve? What I am trying to get at here is the molecular mechanism in question might simply be around because it worked and never was selected against overall, which means also its only reason for existence could be just that, not that its a smashing success, just that it made it and or can function.

I just shortened the post so you would know I am still replying to you is all:doh: Ok. Let me try again. Here is a trick question, or at least I think its tricky. If you could move at the speed of a photon away from the universe as we know it, in terms of size. This is if you could do such, eventually the universe would become so small that you would not see it anymore. So in that, is distance really what is existing or the change brought about by acts of energy/information? Is it by energy that my environment has changed so much, or is it simply spatial distance that has changed so much? What I am trying to get at is physics has taken all the natural phenomena of the universe, and put it through a human made thing, such as our thought of chiefly current mathematics. So when you take a physical model of the universe, to view the universe and everything in it, from a photon to an amoeba, what I am I really looking at in terms of that model? I mean the entire reality of a black hole as put forward currently is theoretically accepted on the basis that such models have produced success in being able to predict natural phenomena’s behavior. So the black hole for all intensive purposes in what? What does this mean for what a particle is, or a photon, or even the structure of an atom or even what an atom is? I always thought physics was trying to determine the exact or absolute reality of nature, but I don’t really know if that’s what its about anymore, so I am confused. So the question again is really this one. Does physics try to figure out what energy is, or does it simply build mathematical models based on trying to predict the behavior of natural phenomena? As for the rest, such and philosophy and everything else in-between. One of the reasons I am so interested in biology is I think we really need to be able to solve for life, I think its applies to so much really, such is how we think or even how we view to really anything that has to do with humans or and or life.

Something I have noticed is computer models using mathematics can develop all kinds of exotic environments in where strange stuff can occur. You seem to be one very interested in say physics for example. I have a rather stark question basically. Is the reality as put forward by physics more or less a quantitative mathematical model that represents only that. What I mean is you can understand what will occur via the math, but only to that extent. Also, if per say this is true, when we view say the universe through a physics model, is it safe to say then what I am really seeing is a mathematical model of the universe? Such as our current skills with math basically doing the whole QM observer thing on reality? Now I don’t put math at any different of a regard then language in general. It can be used to bias and of course can simply be wrong, or more or less human overall. What I am trying to ask is if physical models of the universe as produced by physics extend understanding past simply being a model that will predict based on math, and as such trying to think about energy as for what it really is, is not something such models really attempt to do at all. If this is true then what branch of science really attempts to explain what stuff is? I think the question applies to information and its processing.

Why do galaxies take on the shape they happen to take on? What I am wondering is that if space was a vacuum, and gravity has infinite range, then galaxies of course should really respond to each other or collectively I guess to all the gravities of galaxies per say operating at once. It would seem as if this is not true. That’s not really my question though. Is it purely gravity that causes the shape of a galaxy, or is it a mix of various natural phenomena, such as gravity, electromagnetic and thermal effects operating at once? I am just wondering if you get so far from a galaxy, which I know we cant do, if you would detect no gravity really. I know that’s not at all the mainstream idea, but how do we know for sure that gravity does not exist only by bodies with mass? I mean if a galaxy for instance cannot feel the effects of another galaxies gravity, is it merely moving according to how spacetime is being morphed? Such as one galaxy makes a certain shape in it(temporal) in which other temporal shapes other bodies like galaxies make can come to react or push against each other. Like using weight to displace melting plastic… I am trying to get a good enough of an example going is all. So I guess its two questions. 1) Is gravity the only influence on a galaxies shape. 2) How do we know for sure that outside of bodies with mass(to a certain scale outside a body of mass) gravity exists at all, and if not is galaxy movement really just a product of mass distorting spacetime?

I thought that was invariant mass?

I get what you are saying but in reality humanity is typically playing catch up on such "natural disasters" after the fact. Also as a chemist you are more inclined to take precautions and posses general understanding of the reality of what you work with. I mean why do you think we need to make msds a reality in the first place? Its almost insane to me in the light of just how complex chemistry is in the real world and not the lab per say, and how we just go about injecting large amounts of non native stuff into it. Its pretty much along the same lines of carbon sinks and global warming I know, but what’s common sense to you about chemistry holding a graduate level degree in such is hardly the same equated across all of humanity or just America for example. I mean do you remember the issue with Teflon and DuPont? That’s just one case study that the reality of ignorance typically sets in after the fact when dealing with issues like this. The same goes for asbestos. They are still dealing with American born cancer patients of such, and why? Its still just people playing with mercury. The other reality you have to consider is to what extent will a company go through to make sure a product is safe. Speaking of which what about diet and an item like Doritos chips. Do you think they held a large population of people over there lifespan feeding that stuff? Does being forty or being twenty have an impact on human physiology down a chemical level? I am not trying to drag down the "system" if you will as much as I am just pointing at inherent flaws in it. I can go an open the cabinet in my bathroom and the reality of understanding I would need to understand all of the chemistry before my eyes in just that regard is quite astonishing, but I am sure its safe for me and whatever it comes into contact with after going down the sink or what not. Then lets think of millions of people doing pretty much the same in all reality.

I don’t know about freaking out. I have been to some pretty nasty places chemically speaking, you know people vomiting from the simple act of breathing and so on, so I have a bit of a focus I would say on the stuff. Plus You might think one person using its not much, which i would agree, but In time and the multitudes of people that do use such stuff produce a rather large amount of it in the environment. I think most people would probably venture off from such endeavors if they had some idea of what they were using. I think of it akin to mercury, people use to play with that stuff in there bear hands before understanding set it about such. Personally I look at the use of the chemical industry today as somewhat in the same light, simply put human biochemistry is not fully understood, nor is the chemistry of say earth or any of its parts and thusly I would say the relationship such shares with say all the various chemicals we produce and use in typically vast quantities with no thought of it all, in which I blame the concept of the garbage can in our lifestyles. I would easily also say if the university in reach of my lifestyle had such a degree, I would be going for A.C.S in environmental chem if at all possible, but its not.

Yes, but I beat you to it though.

SECTION VI - HEALTH HAZARD INFORMATION Potential Health Effects: Inhalation of high concentrations of vapor is harmful and may cause heart irregularities, unconsciousness, or death. Intentional misuse or deliberate inhalation may cause death without warning. Vapor reduces oxygen available for breathing and is heavier than air. Liquid contact can cause frostbite. Human Health Effects: Contact with the liquid may cause frostbite. Overexposure by inhalation may include nonspecific discomfort, such as nausea, headache, or weakness; or temporary nervous system depression with anesthetic effects such as dizziness, headache, confusion, incoordination and loss of consciousness. Higher exposures (>20%) may cause temporary lung irritation effects with cough, discomfort, difficulty breathing, or shortness of breath-, or temporary alteration of the heart's electrical activity with irregular pulse, palpitations, or inadequate circulation, abnormal kidney function as detected by laboratory tests. Gross overexposure may be fatal. Individual with preexisting diseases of the central nervous or cardiovascular system may have increased susceptibility to the toxicity of excessive exposures. http://www.sisweb.com/referenc/articles/dustoff.htm I know I know, I will try better next time.

biologists in the field of biology know that evolution does not stand at 100% perfect understanding currently. In contrast to say in our past understanding of evolution was at the zero percent marker or did not exist. that being said this books takes unknown variables in an equation for instance or example and basically uses them as leverage to apply anything that typically person might feel like using such for. Such is an overused tactic of anti evolutionists really. For biology to accept evolution as a scientific field with many disciplines that all study such one way or another, from medicine to molecular biology and not find evidence for evolution yet still support it is a preposterous idea by any means of rationality. Biology as a collective field has in what is my opinion so much empirical evidence to back the reality of evolution that its impossible for a single person to know it all. that’s why I don’t care to read the book to be honest. I can bear criticism to evolution, but only ones that happen to be something other then a product of an agenda that really has little to do with science and or understanding, peace and all that good stuff.

Its not just that but the reality of the chemical structure as it would relate to any humans total chemistry I would think from the reality of economics was not exhausted in regards to study. I would also think from the chemical that it has say familiar chemistry to life to some extent, though I don’t know if this of course is true to any regard. I would say prolonged use of it will mean that you will then absorb through various means that chemical in some quantity, not to mention that its use will then allow it to become a "free" chemical species(?) in the environment again coming into contact with whatever it may, which I would think again from economics such a reality was not thoroughly exhausted via investigation.

The last bit of help I could try to offer is something like a mold can look different at different times or points in its life. So if you do get a good lead you might not want to just look at one image of the specie and then be off if its not a perfect match. Sorry I could not be more help.

crud, I was thinking of something totally different as in I thought it was more 2d then that. No, I don’t know of any chemical reactions that look like that:D I was thinking of properties of diffusion waves and what not.

I don’t know, I was thinking mold at first but I don’t know of any molds that look like that. It sounds biologic for sure but I don’t know of anything off hand of what you describe, then again I don’t really know nearly enough to know for sure. I do know that some chemical reactions can make patterns and leave products is all, so I was just checking with you but it sounds different then that.

Are you sure its not just a chemical reaction? They can leave patterns also is all and produce products.

Fluorine by itself is super reactive, or better yet ultra reactive really. I don’t know the reactivity on the top of my head for the compound in question though. I would think physical means could save your from your problem more so the introduction or use of various other chemicals. Such as the use of a Q-tip really, or a rag even on the end of a wire or wire guided rag use, that’s why I tend to rely on. The chemistry of the rag might be important though in relation to the surfaces and dynamics overall of its application. One thing to look at is the idea that you do have fluorine present in whatever application you happen to be using. Now not knowing what type of bond the compound in question reflects, such as strong or weak or what one of those per say, it will then leave your rifle to the surrounding chemistry of your local environment. That basically means it will be free to propagate and react or what not with anything it comes into contact with, which I would safely say was not part of its designers original plan when making such a product. Also, moisture is present in the atmosphere so it will be present to some extent on your rifle if you take it into the elements. Not to say you cant defeat rust, just that I would say via use its pretty much inevitable even in the face of regular maintenance.

Well from what I understand QM needs to come into play on an atomic subatomic level simply because classical means of explanation cannot be used to success in such environments. Then the idea comes of nuclear power which if I have anything close to a proper understanding of such is basically centered around the nucleus of an atom and is something in the ballpark of nucleosynthesis if I might add in reverse. QM though basically puts forward a certain level of uncertainty that exists in quantum systems, so does such also apply to nuclear reactors currently? Or is such defeated by working in bulk with various materials. I also lastly want to know about the idea of using radioactive isotopes in nuclear processes. Such as would it be possible at all to use a super cooled plasma in such?

Well if you happen to look at other books this guy has produced he seems to basically hate Darwin or anything that has to do with evolution. I have never read the book or plan to be quite honest, I am sure its a long list of offensive statements made by a person that cares little about evolution really. If you want to know why the book is wrong just consult biology in general really, for I don’t think they will be dropping evolution or natural selection anytime soon for various empirical reasons to numerous to list.

What are the implications of nuclear reactions, atomic power and so on in relation to QM. What I mean basically is how does QM come to bear in regards to nuclear activities of any kind really.

This is where I think physics falls short not looking at all natural phenomena including life in attempting to generate more grand perceptions of reality. As far as I could care the level of determinism to my life happens to come from the fact I am human. I could do a whole grand amount of things tomorrow or in the next minute if I so choose. This of course ties into many other things such as what do I know to think on for instance but the bottom line is evolution shows something other then that direct chain of causality as so strongly emphasized by some. I mean to really take all life into perspective if such was a strong force by any means then it was pre ordained at the big bang to have a holocaust or many of them to the idea we might kills ourselves via pollution. Then the other more apt reality to me is basically how natural selection has molded life to an extent we can of course learn, even if its at the hand of pain, which is natural. I mean determinism exists in life, but the reality of life shows something else then strict determinism. Life is natural, just like anything else in nature. I think this needs to be realized in relation to bigger questions such as what is everything and why for instance. I mean life exists in the same universe as everything else, by all the same laws and what not. The reality of life, evolution, natural selection and so on I don’t think has been consciously realized to the extent it probably should be.

1) A boundary to what, what encapsulates the universe, the size of its own existence? Dark matter/energy? I have no idea either... 2)I think expansion has already been proven right? 3)Decrease into what? Does it devolve:eek: Does is go into that nothing at the boundary, or is it stuck in what is the current universe occupying empty space that has no mass or matter or what not in it. I asked a question about what happens to photons emitted towards nothing, such as the boundary, or what happens to a photon that never touches anything. I just wonder if they live forever is all.

I just read up on that John Wheeler guy and I would have to say that he is my newest hero along with that Erwin guy... I would like to add in on the post but I will save my words for another forum. I don’t have the physics chops to pipe in really.

Yes but no form of life is energy generating in the sense of making its no food supply from nothing. A retrovirus which does not even contain DNA for instance to one that does happen to contain DNA may require something in order to survive but last time I checked that applies to a great deal of life past simply a virus. I think what is being viewed is different means of survival that life currently employs to successful ends via natural selection. The study of life cannot be done is simple pattern or simple deterministic means. The idea that life, as an entity in nature happens to require energy is really a concept that can be applied to I guess the universe as a whole really and anything in it really. The reality of physics and chemistry I think apply fully to life, but looking at the universe for instance those same laws apply to planets yet even in our own solar system there is a great deal of variation to even that. I think it just dwells on a higher scale reality of what natural selection truly represents in maybe its more of a product of natural phenomena executing over time. Speaking of retroviruses such is another example of natural selection and evolution if you want to read up on such.