Sorcerer

I thought as much, so in addition to the waste energy vehicles give off in vibrations it would drain a little extra? Let's say if we put piezoelectrics and a battery in lamp posts with LED lights would the cost of not having to wire them up off set the cost of the crystal and battery? Also I notice these posts sway in the wind, could that be used to create electricity piezoelectricly. Is the lower cost of solar panels due to the actual resource cost or because the infrastructure is already available for production?

This ties in a bit with my thread on piezoelectricity and roads, perhaps piezoelectric crystals could be used as shock absorbers, helping to dampen the noise and recover some of that (even if only slight) energy loss. I'm guessing this has been thought off and overlooked due to cost/benefit ratios though.

They lost me completely because they did dumb it down. Lucky it was all external exams, I'd just show up at the end of the year and get my A.

Would it be possible to develop a road surface with peizoelectric crystals embedded in it, or just embedded in the base of the light poles on the side of the road and use the vibrations given off by traffic to generate electricity? If so this could be fed into the mains or assist in powering the road lighting directly, especially since modern lighting is LED and much more efficient. Would the cost of doing this be worth it? For example Quartz is piezoelectric and relatively abundant, do the crystals need to be of a quality that makes them expensive? Would there be a need for wiring if embedded in the carriageway itself, which would make it too expensive? Would it reduce vehicles fuel efficiency? ie would it not only use the normal waste vibrational energy, but drain more energy. Would it reduce road noise? How much power could be generated this way? If you assume some numbers for a high volume highway, what kind of power could be generated, how would the cost compare to other power sources?

Mike did mention this, so he's hardly ignorant of it. His reasoning for using long wave was that it's safer.... less likely to cook people. I think that's on the first page.

@ the OP : Actually the simple solution would be to realise we don't "require" much energy at all, but rather we "desire" it. The energy we do need, we get from the sun, in the forms of heat suitable for our metabolism and chemical energy via plants photosynthesis (and a little from chemotrophs). I'm also not sure what you mean by getting energy "directly" from the sun.... a solar sail? I got through 3 pages, it's enough lol. How about I simplify it to this: We build a massive solar array in space, we use that electricity to power a radio station. This sends radio waves to earth, which are somehow converted back to electricity. I'm not sure how you'd do this, I was imagining a large sub woofer vibrating peizo electric crystals or driving a diaphram in a pipe to pump a piston. But then I realised you'd need a power source to convert the radio waves into sound waves and probably would need more energy in that is able to be got out. So I did a search. Google gave me this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dXUWytchhk http://phys.org/news/2011-08-rectenna-radio-electricity.html http://phys.org/news/2011-08-rectenna-radio-electricity.html It's possible, but doesn't look like the returns would be worth the cost of the infrastructure even if this technology gets alot more efficient. My main concern would be that by increasing energy delivered from the sun to the earth we would upset natural cycles. Electricity use inevitably leads to heat being emitted, that goes into the atmosphere. Also extra energy of any kind, even long radio waves will interact with the atmosphere, however slightly and heat it up. lol....... and this popped into my head https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty0TaNGLmIs The simple way out is to stop inflicting it needlessly on ourselves. We don't need constant economic growth, we don't need constant population growth. We can have a zero growth economy and live perfectly satisfying lives.

Yes it is. It's also about referring to the universe as a container, when it's actually the entirety. Every other possible use of the word in, implies that the object refered to was either added at some point or can be removed. I understand english does this alot and often it's not confusing, because we don't think about it, we equate the container for the substance. For instance, "the water is in the swimming pool", when actually the swimming pool is the water and it's in a hole, or container. In English there can be an empty swimming pool (but you can't swim in it), and the water (which is the pool) can be taken out and put back in the pool. Or the human body, organs can be said to be "in" the body, the organs can be removed, but it's not much of a body without the organs, its more of a corpse, unless you put them or a suitable replacement back in. Rather, the body is actually made of organs, organs are a PART of the body. In the case of the universe, all parts of it are conserved, there is no physical boundary between in and out. Nothing can be added or removed. And as ajb stated the use of the word itself is redundant as everything is a part of the universe. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ So I just hurt my brain, using the definition of "in" and giving the universe a boundary or limits and trying to visualise something "in" nothing. I went through the possibilities of it being the boundary of our physical laws and there being something else outside, because to assume there's nothing is just as big as an assumption as assuming there is something* (marshmellow or a big bowl of flying spaghetti monsters), but then realised that if there's something, by definition it is inclusive of the universe. So, as a boundary of out physical laws, just like the "observable universe", we would have to give it a diminutive name, as a subset of the Universe. *you might say to go with the most simple hypothesis, and that 0 parts is more simple that any other number of parts. However it isn't relevant here because there is no way to test the hypothesis, which therefore doesn't make it a hypothesis at all and just another speculation. So anyway, trying to visualise a boundary with nothing surrounding something is extremely hard. The best I can do is visualise a bubble of nothing with something surrounding it, I'm not sure why that's easier. I guess I'm more familiar with empty vessels than I am with vessels inside emptiness.........

I think it's important for teachers to be honest about the topic, it needs to be stated that when teaching simplifications that they are just that and there are deeper more complex models. They also need to explain that models are only styilised ways of descibing reality and not necessarily the pecise reality itself. I don't think this concept is hard to grasp for anyone at any age or level. I agree, the mention of the universe itself is superfluous. Everything is a part of the universe, the confusion lies with the seperation of the object with the structure it is a part of. When objects are normally seen as being "in" something, it seperates them from that thing. I can be in my room, when I am not in my room, my room still exists. But if I was not in the universe, then that universe wouldn't be the same, because I am a part of the universe.

If I was to learn over again I would prefer to begin with concepts which are true, the idea of the universe having something exterior to it wasn't just from the word "in", but from the very beggining I was fed misleading information. Teachers who has the wrong concepts passing on the bad ideas, even body language made a difference, hands would motion to show an encircling shape when speaking of the universe. It's a repeated theme throughout my schooling, the mathematical concept of a sphere wouldn't just be made analogous to a ball, the ball WAS a sphere. There was no mention of it being a polyhedron with numerous minute faces, there was no mention of the microscopic inperfections. There was too much worry of making the issue complicated or confusing, but really it's dumbing it down. Concepts like these which would've made calculus just so natural. A few I mentioned above. Learning about valence electrons for instance, using Lewis dot diagrams, with no mention of how it was an oversimplification, we were taught to see the electrons like this, they WERE in perfect dots and all in ring oribitals. The word "IN" when referencing the universe IS one of these analogies you speak of.

I'll repeat what I wrote in case you missed it. There is anecdotal evidence, I have met many people who have posed the question to me "what is outside the universe", I have also read alot of people's ideas about the nature of existence and alot of them come from a view of them or something outside the universe watching it coming into existence. There is direct evidence from semantics, which is that the position of "in" infers the relative position of "out". I would place a bet on a hypothesis that if you asked a large random sample of people the question "what is outside the universe", the majority answer would be something other than "nothing". It wouldn't be hard to test. I have changed my mind, I now think: that the use of the word "universe" should be excluded in almost all cases, and those in which it can't it should be replaced by "everything". There's probably better ways to phrase that question for the experiment, which aren't leading. It's not much of an "experiment" either, there isn't any control. Perhaps just an opinion survery would work, ask the question " does saying something is "in" the universe infer that there is something "out" of the universe". It is also a theistic idea (some of them) that God is external to the universe, so I'd be ok with excluding theists.

Computer models are a part of the universe. Without having first having a clear definition of the word universe, people assume it is an object like all the lesser objects to it, rather than the ultimate object. From there telling someone that something is "in" the universe leads to the inference that there is an "out" of the universe, just as all the objects lesser to the universe have a position "out" of them. Perhaps it is best to make sure the correct understanding of the word "universe" is gained. However because of the way english is learned as a first language, simply by emersion, definitions are rarely gained by research, but rather inferred by the surrounding sentences meaning. iii) RMC136a1 is the Universe's most massive star that is known to astronomers. While I think (i), is the most clear, I think (ii) is misleading when compared to (iii). Given your use of words, it shows that the use of the word "universe" can be excluded in almost all cases, and those it can't it can easily be replaced by "everything". I think in modern usage "universe" has become a hype word. There is anecdotal evidence, I have met many people who have posed the question to me "what is outside the universe", I have also read alot of people's ideas about the nature of existence and alot of them come from a view of them or something outside the universe watching it coming into existence. There is direct evidence from semantics, which is that the position of "in" infers the relative position of "out". I would place a bet on a hypothesis that if you asked a large random sample of people the question "what is outside the universe", the majority answer would be something other than "nothing". It wouldn't be hard to test.

English and its semantics https://www.google.co.nz/#q=axis+of+symmetry+definition https://www.google.co.nz/#q=bilateral+symmetry

I think it's quite important for people who contribute here to be able to understand how to communicate science in a way that is easily acessible to everyone and not misleading. This topic may seem inconsequential or pedantic to you Strange, but please consider how something so simple as the word "in" leads to a misnomer for the word "universe", which then leads to trains of thought which distract from correct thinking, leading to non productive tangents, when otherwise linear logical trains of thought could be followed. And that something so simple as a rephrasing of descriptions of the universe can fix this. If you do so, then the merit of why we should communicate with this pedantic clarity should be obvious. Perhpas there are or were creative geniuses who lost the chance to follow an idea which could have brought a revolution in science, all because they assumed that the universe has something external to it, all because they misunderstood the literal meaning of the word due to english's misleading semantics.

Yes perhaps I am in the wrong forum for the topic, it does however relate to science communication and cosmology.

"nicks" of time have times other than that instant. "seconds" have a second before and after them. "mourning" is an emotional state which infers that there was an emotional state before which wasn't mourning and an emotional state after which isn't mourning. "front" has the object, behind the object and all the range of positions in a continuum that include the position front. "denial" can change to being aware, or end in death, where there is no long a state of denial, and also must come at a certain time, in which before you weren't in denial. Nice try at using english semantics to confuse the issue, thanks for playing No it would only suggest that there are other places that exist outside of those places. Yes I would agree mathematics can explain it sensibly, with the universe being the greatest possible set of all things. However my point was that a simple phrase like "in the universe" can lead to a false supposition that the universe has something exterior to it.

But when entropy is at 0 isn't it also true you can "re-arrange any of the particles making up that 'uniform' gas/system and nothing will change."? Interesting you said this as I was just looking at the third law of thermodynamics. A perfect crystaline structure at absolute 0 is also uniform. There is no temperature potential difference, no work can be done, however entropy is minimised, or 0. Am I just seeing paralelles where there are none?

Most organs we consider singular exhibit bi lateral symmetry if we look at them in low detail. On the topic of the brain it has 2 hemispheres with a division down the middle, without going into great detail on the folding, it is roughly a bitlaterally symetric organ. The same applies for the heart, it has 4 compartments, which can be divided down the middle, it has migrated off center slightly and each side has specialised. If we divide the livers 4 lobes into 2 lobes through the thin plane, it's roughly symmetrical. If we go into huge detail about bilateral symmetry, it becomes evident it is actually a gross oversimplification. Even our skeletal structure is slightly asymetrical. We have different finger prints on each hand. One boob, or one nut is slightly bigger than the other etc. The basic plan of deuterostomes is that of bilatteral symetry though. I think the main question I wanted answered was: "Do singular organs form on the axis of symmetry and migrate to their positions?"

I liked it Not all of my questions have been answered, although both threads are about entropy, looking back to the OP, they're different. So a system can be at maximum entropy, ie have uniform heat, or heat at equilibrium, and the content of information able to be extracted from it is independant, because the "state" of maximum entropy with regards to heat is independant of the "state" of maximum entropy with regards to information? How does a system retain/maintain information without being able to do "work"? Perhaps really I should have made a thread for each different question, I'd like an answer to this one specifically.

How can something which is uniform (at maximum entropy) be arranged in any other way?

Any preposition which has a direct opposite infers that direct opposite exists. Name something which occurs "in" any proper noun which doesn't have a relative position called "out". The star can "belong" to many other things it is also that solar system's star. It is the star that was created from a particular nebula in a particular part of a galaxy, which are all a part of the universe. It doesn't imply that it can "belong" to a set of objects greater than the universe though. Since the universe is the entire set.

When speaking of the universe and parts of it, it is common for people to refer to those parts as being "in" the universe. I think this is sloppy wording. By definition if something has the position considered as "in", then there is an opposing position "out". Given that by definition the universe is everything the position of outside the universe is nonsensical. For example should the sentence: "It is the largest known star in the universe." Instead be worded as: "It is the universe's largest known star." This semantic error I believe actually causes a lot of problems with visualisation when picturing the universe on a large scale, leading to "God's eye" views of the universe when the only viewpoint which makes any sense is from that of an observer surrounded by the rest of the universe. I would however allow the use of something being "in the observable universe", since there is unobservable universe surrounding it. You may be thinking, "how pedantic". However correct use of English is very important especially when teaching people new concepts. Attributing the position of "in" to something relative to the universe can lead to critical errors in thinking until the false concept is realised, which may be never, many will go their lives thinking this way. The error is very similar, and as easy to make as attributing intention or desire to evolution. Errors like these were common throughout my school,for instance when learning of covalent bonding, we were told the atoms "wanted" to have a full shell of electrons. The teacher was astute enough to point out they don't actually have any desire, but without ever trying to explain why it was otherwise. So what do you think, should we try our hardest to stop referring to things being "in" the universe?

The answer wasn't the big deal, it was being able to induct the correct question to ask.

It is interesting that while photons combine for pair production, after pair production they again are needed for carrying the electromagnetic force of the 2 charged particles. Are these force carriers and their energy derived from the original photons? Are they an internal part of the electron and positron? Or are the photons which carry these forces borrowed from the surrounding system, is there something "virtual" about these photons themselves? If so, is their virtual nature balanced by the opposing charges of the pair, so they are opposite and equal and don't violate any conservation laws? Thanks my source is wiki, it was wrong, it has been updated. iirc it said that 2 photons were needed for the production of the virtual pair near a nucleus. And it needs to be there to conserve momentum. The photon must be near a nucleus in order to satisfy conservation of momentum, as a photon pair producing in free space cannot both satisfy conservation of energy and momentum.

Sorry, I misread your first part before and made a wrong reply I edited it, but you mustve replied while I was typing. Quote Why are the W and Z bosons which have mass, but are also force carriers not considered matter? Do these show some duality? What about the composite bosons? They're made from "matter" and are included under bosons not for their force carrying property but for their spin. Any meson, since mesons contain one quark and one antiquark. The nucleus of a carbon-12 atom, which contains 6 protons and 6 neutrons. The helium-4 atom, consisting of 2 protons, 2 neutrons and 2 electrons. That's it ammended. Ok, let me rephrase: when 2 photons combine in electron/positron pair production, what is the mechanism by which their properties create the postive charge of the positron and the negative charge of the electron? Since photons only contribute energy and spin, how are the +/- charges formed? Do the photons combine to an intermediary particle which is a precusor of the e+ e- pair with a neutral charge? When this precursor splits, is the neutral charge split into it's constituent charges? IE photon (0 charge) + photon (0 charge) ------> intermediary/precursor (charge 0) --------> e+ (+e) , e- (-e) ( Precursor 0 = +e-e )

I'll need to dust up on my math before I go that deep, just trying to understand things from a semantically descriptive perspective for now. It's good to know I can use my inductive logic, sometimes, to get a good hypothesis. It's nice to know it's the correct one too.