Sorcerer

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. Apart from energy, what other properties do photons have? Where do these properties go or what do they transform into during electron/positron pair production? The energy of the photons goes to both energy and mass. Does this energy create any other properties? What portion of the energy creates the positive and negative charges? Or are these a creation of the opposing split of the charged particles, eg +1-1=0 photons have 0 charge. (Doesn't this suggest there is some kind of fleeting particle intermediary which has 0 charge and consists of the energy and mass equivalent to the positron and the electron = Energy of the 2 photons?)

No there's only 1 possible state once you've picked them up. Deterministicly there is only 1 possible state for the pages to end up in because of the way you ripped them out and all other combining factors and how you picked them up. There might be 100! possible states before you ripped them out, but it is still only in 1 state as the whole book, with !100 possible states that it's pages could be rearranged. Ripping them out will only give 1 state out of 100!-1 states, but the way that occurs determines which state it is, it is only ever that one, there is only ever 1 possible state. You could purposefully repeat and arrange them in different orders, but each time they were never possibly going to be in any other order. They were in the order you put them in. The probability doesn't make sense. It seems like a lazy way to approximate reality. Or is it rather that the reality in regards to heat that it's distribution actually IS only probabalistic and not deterministic? What exactly are the peices in the analogy, with regards to heat. Sorry I didn't understand what you were saying in #4. I have been told on this forum that a system with maximum entropy is at equilibrium. And that apparently equilibrium is then the most disordered state. Are you saying that there can be various types of equilibrium, and that maximum entropy isn't a requirement? Let me rephrase: "Why is a system with maximum entropy considered to be less ordered than a system with less entropy?" "Why is a system uniform in heat distribution, less ordered than a system with uneven heat distribution?" "How is it possible to rearrange something uniform in more ways than something which is uneven?" "Why does the position or order of equal quantities of something create a new arrangement, when it is quantafiably identicle?"

How can the Higgs Boson/field simultaneously have mass and embue other particles with mass? Does the Higgs interact with itself?

Why? You back this up with nothing. Also time is meaningless at the point of a singularity. You're using a gods eye view where you observe the singularity as a line before the expansion. Instead the only view which makes any sense to us is that from a point after expansion where we can look back in time towards it. You are drawing a comparison between the causal nature in a low entropy state, (I'm not sure if entropy even makes sense in the physical context of a singularity), and a maximum entropy state. You seem to find some paralelle where they bare very little resemblance, it is tempting to find similarities in near opposite contrasting events and then ascribe some meaning to the paralellism. The reason why no events are occuring in a maximum entropy state are not the same as the reasons why something has "not yet" (if that even makes sense) occured in the low entropy state. I know it's tempting because of the seeming symmetrical beauty to draw paralleles between opposites and try to tie them together. However often this "beauty" is misleading and it's actually just false pattern recognition and bad inductive logic. Invalid, sorry, your premises aren't correct. Try assuming a singularity doesn't exist, start an argument from there. Is that because a singularity has 0 dimensions it doesn't have any "inside"? Any event would occur AT (even that makes no sense) the singularity. Don't make the mistake of trying to dis/prove something because you do/n't like the idea of it, be impartial. Confirmation bias will hinder your ability to look at other avenues, you get tunnel vision on a problem which isn't actually a problem. If there's heat death, there's heat death, bad luck. The science doesn't care. I wish the universe hadn't created mosquitoes, but I don't go around trying to disprove their existence.

Since a photon is an "arrangement, or state, of particles and fields", which has a number associated with it for Mass (0) and energy, would you call a photon matter? What about a Gluon? Or the theoretical graviton? All of these bosons have (or are meant to have) 0 mass. I can understand the other bosons being grouped with Matter since they have mass, but I would group massless particles/fields under Energy, not Matter. Photons stand out especially since they are the carrier of the electromagnetic field, and they only have a value for Energy associated with them. Therefore they are just Energy. If 2 gamarays with E but no M can produce a e+ e- pair which then has both M and E, and particles which have M + E are matter, while particles with only E and no M are Energy, then Energy can create Matter. Again I would ask, do you include the photon as matter then? Is the word, matter arbitrary when the massless particles are included because it is then all inclusive and makes no distinction between anything? Is misleading to say a photon IS energy, but rather it should be said it HAS energy? Could it be said that these particles have none of their energy total tied up in mass (γ · g and the graviton,) but the rest include their mass as a part of their energy total? (About the Higgs, energy and mass) Does this mean that mass is just the part of the energy total which associates with the Higgs field? IE in the particular configurations of energy found in the particles with mass, part of that energy is tied up with interactions with the higgs field, and this we measure as mass, while there is also various ammounts of non-mass energy (energy) associated with each particle. How does E=mc2 relate or fit in with models of the Higgs field?

lol, I just googled "body definition physics" and cut and paste, quotes and all. And I didn't read the rest of the thread. Yes, mass is just another form of energy. I think the picking over equivalence and equals is a bit pointless. But still when I think of electron positron pair production, the photons energy lends its mass to the particle pair, where does the rest of the electron and positron come from? (I know some decays produce other particles, but as far as I know, 1 photon near a nucleus is enough to create matter). If energy can produce matter in this way, surely there is no harm in saying that not only is the mass and energy equivalent, but there is a very close relationship between the two kinds of particles, enough to place them all in a group together. And not a huge stretch from there to say that matter is a form of energy and vice a versa. Yes yes I know, Energy is a property of matter..... but energy is also a property of energy lol, all bosons have energy, they're not simply just energy, or are they? Neutrinos have mass, models wrong, all discussions pointless.

Actually I think the only question I need clarifying here is why is a system (lets use a gas) at equilibrium considered to be less ordered than a system which isn't? What is the measure of "Order". When trying to visualise it at equilibrium, I see a fairly uniform gas, all molecules moving roughly equal speeds, doing their brownian motion thing. But when not at equlibrium, I see some slow molecules being whacked by really speedy ones whizzing around, it seems much less ordered. Why isn't it? oh I see, it's statistics, but the way the cup broke is deterministic..... sorry I'm getting it now, it's very unlikely to unbreak, but it's just as unlikely to spontaneously rearrange into almost all of the available states, just the few closest to it.

I think I get it, it's just a cup..... But there's only 1 broken cup, it only broke one way. I don't get how this relates, you have to put work in to rearrange the peices of the cup that's broken if you want to create more possible states, the peices aren't going to move themselves.

Maybe that's where I'm getting so confused then, does information energy hold to a similar rule as the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Isn't it necessary in most cases I can think of for information to be maintained that work is done to maintain the order? e.g. life and DNA, thus the 2 entropies would be linked. I'm recalling a term I heard many years ago, negentropy or something, let me look it up. (fancy word for free energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negentropy). So, I've got 2 related threads going here, another connected maximum entropy and minimum energy and I also have related entropy of information. it occured to me, why is there conservation of energy and information, but not conservation of entropy. Isn't the increase in thermodynamic disorder, entropy also a loss of information?

To answer this question let us look at it from the possible inverted question, why is there nothing rather than something? There isn't, and that question can't be asked. Therefore you're asking the other. It makes no sense to call an eternal thing the cause of everything, it would be a part of everything, it would still exist right now. The chain of causality shouldn't see it as a first cause because it is unecessarily complex to detach it from the entirety of everything else. I prefer if you will that everything has always existed but it continually changes from one form to another, it's current form is this universe we observe ourselves in. There doesn't need to be any outside influence or special seperate prime mover. If something (seperate from everything else) can eternally exist, then it is just as reasonable to assume everything eternally existed. I can demonstrate this by showing that the cause of everything either experienced no time or was more than 1 part and if you accept the possibility of more than 1 part being eternal, then the possibility of all parts (everything) being eternal should not be excluded and is a much more simple hypothesis. From a singular first cause's perspective it would be as if no time existed, therefore it being eternal makes no sense, because eternal is a temporal word, requiring time to exist for it to be logically consistent with the semantics. If there was only 1 thing which remained unchanged which then caused the existence of everything else, there would be no time in which that one thing existed. Without more than one part a first cause would have no frame of reference, there would be nothing else relative to it, nothing could have changed (unless it contained more than 1 part). Time requires causality and that objects move relative to each other through space. Therefore there can be no time without it having more than 1 part. If you allow it to have more than one part and thus be able to change and experience time, then you must open up the possibility that every part of the universe existed eternally. It is needlessly complicated to have 1 eternal thing first which then causes everything else, when it is more simple to just have everything eternal all at once. Perhaps the idea that the universe came into being is a flawed one based on our evolved perceptions as animals which survive by perceiving time flowing from past to future. If you take the idea of eternalism seriously then it is possible to say the universe always exists whilst simultaneously having a beginning and end. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)

Isn't the universe an isolated system by definition, even if infinite? Wouldn't that have mass energy to exchange if it happened to float by something? So is it an isolated system so long as it remains isolated (and thus unobservable, since observation would input energy).... and then it's not, it doesn't really seem worth making rules for it. It's like an isolated system is the Schrodinger's cat of systems.

, which may be more or less constrained to move together by translation or rotation, in 3-dimensional space. I'd have to go back through the comments to find the how the argument progressed. Just pointing out that he does mention matter, he just doesn't use the direct word.

If we're doing semantics, what else are bodies composed of? I might not be good at the math, but I know words.

I understand that as how it relates to heat, but I was wondering also about information, lets say there's 15 particles all at thermal equilibrium, but all different, say all different elements on the periodic table, couldn't they also be arranged in an order to code information. Lets say you arranged them, that's putting energy into the system upsetting the equilibrium and stuck them in position, what would it mean for this system to be at equilibrium? Would they need to become unstuck and mix up randomly? Or would they just need to sit for a while so they and the substrate and the "glue" all became the same temperature? Tend towards or reach? Is maximum entropy asymptotic? Will there always be a tiny ammount of heat to flow to even out? I know these laws work when heat is quantified in joules, but what about when it's quantified as photons, ie as E. Do atoms stop emmitting photons when at equilibrium or do they just share equal ammounts to no effect? Edit, oops I understand photons energy can also be measured in joules, but I still think there's a good question there.

I kind of see, but it is only in one of those states. However then I get confused becuase when something is in equilibrium there is only 1 state. Ok, so lets make coloured balls represent particles with temperature. Lets use the classice blue ---> red scale representing heat (sure you know it). So if there's 3 balls all green, sitting in the corners of a triangle, even we they're rearranged the arrangement looks exactly the same, does the possible number of states also include identicle states? In that case, doesn't the tea cup exist in all it's identical states? However with 3 different coloured balls, red green blue, there is 6 possible states. Even if we count arrangements of the green balls by say numbering them 1 2 3, there's still only 6, and that's the same. Are you counting the possible states, where the red ball transfers some heat to the blue ball and there is also 3 greens, are you including possible future states? Because things only classically exist in 1 state at a time.

I have been extremely confused by Stephen Hawkings broken cup analogy for years. How is entropy eqivalent to disorder and how is the cup gaining entropy, surely the cup is the same temperature? A system at equilibrium has maximum entropy, a system at equilibrium is highly ordered, it is as ordered as it can get. All parts are equal. Ordered things are easy to describe, people in uniform are easier to describe than people in fancy dress. Isn't a system where the heat is unevenly distributed is more disordered? Is something not translating from the maths to the use of english, it just seems backwards. This analogy is terribly misleading in that it makes us think of entropy as a measure of particles positions relative to each other, surely the tea cup has just as many parts in either configuration and both are equally ordered, just in different configurations. Is entropy only a measure of heat. How did it become a measure of order? And why does the analogy seem so backwards to me?

Is it possible for a system to have a maximum ammount of disorder, ie has maximum entropy? Is this the same as equilibrium? If so, when in this state, can it change (in regards other than to heat)? Is entropy only a measure of the ordered nature of heat? Is it the same as information? Can there still be information retained in say the position of the particles, or do all the particles also have to be equidistant or completely randomly located? Does anything prevent a system at maximum entropy losing some entropy temporarily and then regaining it? Most concepts of equilibrium I've encountered is where a system will flow back and forth between states, but not simply rest in one place. How would the concept of maximum entropy be reconciled with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, if entropy always increases, how could it cease to increase? Is there no such thing as maximum entropy, but rather an assymptote with the maximum? Alot of questions I know.

Fair enough I did ask. But it's ironic how you make an analogy of 2 analogies to make your point about using elastic reasoning to make analogies fit the reality.

I just watched this rather interesting TED video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RWOpQXTltA), which dicusses Plato's allegory of the cave. It occured to me that it is also a good analogy for our difficulty in reconciling our perceptions of the macroscopic world and the quantum world. It almost perfectly fits that the shadows are the normal world we observe and the objects and light outisde the cave is the quantum world, especially since the quantum world is just that, light (gauge bosons) and objects (matter), and the shadow it creates of the macroscopic world is that which we observe through our macroscopic human senses. While both worlds are real, one precedes the other, in this case the quantum world casts the shadow which is the macroscopic world. I found this uncanny how a philosopher 2,400 years ago could almost so perfectly make this analogy. I guess it can also be expanded on to fit in (allegorically) with his theory of forms. ________________________________________________________________________________________________ It just occured to me that the man set free of the cave is Niels Bohr and among the men still chained in the cave is Albert Einstein. As in the Bohr-Einstein debates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93Einstein_debates ________________________________________________________________________________________________ And I just found a rebuttle at http://www.theimagineershome.com/blog/?p=11289#sthash.obzjZUtW.dpbs I think the author, Jeffrey O’Callaghan, is getting confused on the definition of observer and seems to think it means a conscious entity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_(quantum_physics) Where Heisenberg neatly explains the misunderstanding by removing the need for consciousness and allowing an observe to simply be an apparatus which registers the "decision". He also is confused about the nature of the mathematical equations which constitute quantum theory. He seems to think equations are entirely abstract and somehow cannot cast a "shadow", he is taking the anology too literally, of course equations can't cast shadows, but it's not a real shadow, it's a metaphor for how the underlying reality, (however counter intuitive), projects itself into the macroscopic world. It should also be noted that mathematical probabilities are descriptions of actual substance, probabilistic or not. The probabilities involved with regards to the uncertainty principle describe position and momentum, giving uncertainty to trajectory. There is no uncertainty of the actual existence of the wave/particle. There is no slippery slope here, if something is less that 100% probabilistic it doesn't cease to exist or have physical properties, only until we reach 0% probability, in all the properties we are defining, does it cease to exist. Therefore when a non zero probability defines any of a particles properties, then that particle will cast a "shadow". What are your thoughts on the subject?

The problem with shipping carbon off planet is that we would again be imblanacing the carbon cycle here on earth. In the attempt to tip the balance back from excess CO2 in the atmosphere we would be preventing the stage of the cycle where carbonate rocks form. This is probably the wrong way to go about it. If you can sequester carbon here on earth and ship it to the moon, it's better to simply store it here so it can return to the cycle. I'm not sure if that's clear enough, so more simply put: Anthropogenic CO2 from excess use of fossil fuels, tips the balance of the carbon cycle, this changes the environment faster than without us. If our solution is to try to tip the balance back by returning that CO2 to carbon and shipping it off world, we must not make the same mistake. Because then we would permanently be altering the cycle, which in the long run may be worse. Also it's arse backwards to burn fossil fuels for energy, then use energy to sequester carbon. Simply solution find an alternative source of energy.

Before I look into embryology further. I was wondering why are some organs are singular; the heart, liver, pancreas, gall bladder, appendix and maybe the cecum, bladder and stomach, (although part of the bilatterally symetric gut, are not symmetrical themselves). Do they form on the axis of symmetry and migrate to their positions? Most seem to be quite symmentrical if you rotate them so they line up with the axis. All of these seem to be related to the uptake, transport and regulation of nutrients and so are linked to the gut. The kidneys and lungs stand out as odd here in relation. What is the explanation for these apparent anomalies?

I'm not so much amazed at how often it is misunderstood, but rather how often it isn't even considered as a thought at all.

Yes Mordred, but what in the cosmological principle says that, that is not allowed?

thank you ajb

Is that value changeable or is it the same for every point? Is there a minimum period that can be set for a moment in time, or is time infinitely reducible? The same applies for space. If time is infinitely reducible, then when summing the value over any non zero period of time (or space), the result would be infinite. I however don't know if this is a problem at all, or means anything. Could the minimum scale for the higgs field be set at the minimum size/time interval for a fermion, since this would be the minimum interaction that can be measured? (and fermions obey the pauli exclusion principle) _________________________________________ I am also wondering am I correct that the higgs field and its corresponding particle is the only particle of the standard model for which energy density remains constant and doesn't decrease as space expands? (as asked but not answered in the OP)