Making a precision copy of an existing model. Is this Good, Bad Or What ?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

There appears to be something in the natural environment , that steers a little bit away, from having an IDENTICLE COPY ? I think ? Even if it is a " round peg in a round hole " ?

 

Thinking of Atomic Particles, Reproduction in living things ( plants and animals , ) .

Not sure about microbes ?

 

Even today's society forbids , outright plagiarism,( some difference required ), copyright infringement , etc .

 

Is there BOTH..... An advantage. and. . disadvantage ......in having IDENTICAL THINGS .

 

Clearly a wheel and axel need to have slightly different dimensions to function at all. *

 

Perhaps there is a principle here? Not sure?

 

Mike

 

*. ..

Edited September 3, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Fundamental particles are identical. Atoms (of the same isotope) are identical, or can be (two atoms could be in different excitation states). We know this because Bose or Fermi statistics, which apply only for identical particles.

 

On a macroscopic scale there are so many possible configurations that are only marginally different. There isn't enough error correction to ensure that items would be identical.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

A) Fundamental particles are identical.

 

 

 

B ) Atoms (of the same isotope) are identical, or can be (two atoms could be in different excitation states). We know this because Bose or Fermi statistics, which apply only for identical particles.

 

 

 

C) On a macroscopic scale there are so many possible configurations that are only marginally different. There isn't enough error correction to ensure that items would be identical.

..

 

A). But are they ? Surely the fact that two electrons can not and do not have the same identicle energy state, or spin , in their atomic energy level . This is testament to this exclusion idea , that no two electrons can be Identical? Do we know for a fact , that exclusion phenomenon do not equally apply at smaller sub atomic particles , like quarks , neutrinos , etc

 

B) Not sure of the science on this one ?

 

 

C). Need to think on that one ? Again not too sure

 

---------------

 

There does appear to be an exclusion principle , away from ' identical ness ' in the animal / human kingdom .

 

male -,female .... Parents ----children , etc

 

Naturally the animal kingdom , and by a study of genetics , close relative breeding is viewed as a retrograde step . In other words , identicle genes crossed in reproduction can ( I beleive , but I am not a Biologist, ) . Can cause weaker strains to develope, thus the species can go into decline ( I think ? ) .

 

---------------

 

So too my axel , wheel example . ( previously illustrated )

 

A 5mm shaft will not work , in a 5 mm hole .( at least in practice ) .

 

 

Mike

Edited September 3, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

A). But are they ? Surely the fact that two electrons can not and do not have the same identicle energy state, or spin , in their atomic energy level . This is testament to this exclusion idea , that no two electrons can be Identical? Do we know for a fact , that exclusion phenomenon do not equally apply at smaller sub atomic particles , like quarks , neutrinos , etc

Yes. It's because they are identical that they can't occupy the same state. There has to be some difference, and it's the spin orientation, orbital angular momentum, or energy state. Not the particle itself.

 

B) Not sure of the science on this one ?

 

Then open up a new thread and ask.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Yes. It's because they are identical that they can't occupy the same state. There has to be some difference, and it's the spin orientation, orbital angular momentum, or energy state. Not the particle itself.

 

.

But surely , that's what the particle is ? Is it not . There is no central lump of anything ( is there ) ?

 

Mike

Edited September 3, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

I'm

 

But surely , that's what the particle is ? Is it not . There is no central lump of anything ( is there ) ?

Mike

A particle has intrinsic properties: mass, charge, spin. The particle doesn't have to be in an atom to exist.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

A particle has intrinsic properties: mass, charge, spin. The particle doesn't have to be in an atom to exist.

.

Yes but a lump with .. ' mass' .. ' Charge '. ... 'Spin ' .. A lump of what ?

 

 

Mike

Edited September 3, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

.

Yes but a lump with .. ' mass' .. ' Charge '. ... 'Spin ' .. A lump of what ?

 

image.jpeg

 

Mike

 

 

That's not the question at hand, is it? The question was whether they are identical, and the evidence is that they are identical.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

The question was whether they are identical, and the evidence is that they are identical.

So from this it would appear ?

 

Some particles , must be identicle for their operation ,

Other. ' things '. must be different in their state for their particular operation to function?

 

Bringing this back into an Engineering , Manufacturing, Creating. Context .

 

In making piece parts , say for an Aircraft Engine or any other machine , you would need to know for sure , that a replacement part , was identical !

 

On the other hand , when designing and building a new engine , fitting tolerance and lubrication may require slightly different dimentions , in order to ensure correct and lasting operation of the two complimentary parts .

 

Maybe this is why atomic structures have this Pauli Exclusion principal in operation ?

 

Mike

Edited September 5, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

So from this it would appear ?

 

Some particles , must be identicle for their operation ,

Other. ' things '. must be different in their state for their particular operation to function?

 

Bringing this back into an Engineering , Manufacturing, Creating. Context .

 

In making piece parts , say for an Aircraft Engine or any other machine , you would need to know for sure , that a replacement part , was identical !

 

On the other hand , when designing and building a new engine , fitting tolerance and lubrication may require slightly different dimentions , in order to ensure correct and lasting operation of the two complimentary parts .

 

Maybe this is why atomic structures have this Pauli Exclusion principal in operation ?

 

Mike

 

 

The Pauli exclusion principle only applies for identical particles. If the particles aren't identical, they can have the same energy and spin states.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

The Pauli exclusion principle only applies for identical particles. If the particles aren't identical, they can have the same energy and spin states.

.

But it would not be an electron , then , so it would not be identical anyway , regardless of spin or energy ? Or have I missed the point ?

 

 

-------- -------------

 

 

I am trying to assertain whether the universe does not favour identical 'items ' particularly when one is trying to build more complex structures.

 

Eg . children , or living things , atoms , complex structure , crossing genetic families ?

 

Mike

Edited September 5, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[michel123456]

There appears to be something in the natural environment , that steers a little bit away, from having an IDENTICLE COPY ? I think ? Even if it is a " round peg in a round hole " ?

 

Thinking of Atomic Particles, Reproduction in living things ( plants and animals , ) .

Not sure about microbes ?

 

Even today's society forbids , outright plagiarism,( some difference required ), copyright infringement , etc .

 

Is there BOTH..... An advantage. and. . disadvantage ......in having IDENTICAL THINGS .

 

Clearly a wheel and axel need to have slightly different dimensions to function at all. *

 

Perhaps there is a principle here? Not sure?

 

Mike

 

*. .. image.jpeg

I think it has more to do with the need of empty space.

It is like the famous 15 puzzle,

If you fill the 16th square, you have locked the system, the squares cannot slide anymore. In your axis & hole example, the axis need some gap to enter the hole, otherwise it sticks.

In the atom & electron example, again some void is needed, otherwise nothing could work.

[swansont]

.

But it would not be an electron , then , so it would not be identical anyway , regardless of spin or energy ? Or have I missed the point ?

-------- -------------

I am trying to assertain whether the universe does not favour identical 'items ' particularly when one is trying to build more complex structures.

Eg . children , or living things , atoms , complex structure , crossing genetic families ?

Mike

Right, it wouldn't be an electron. Then it could be in the same state as an electron.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Right, it wouldn't be an electron. Then it could be in the same state as an electron.

What is it called now , when it's in the same state as an electron . But not an electron ?

 

Mike

[swansont]

What is it called now , when it's in the same state as an electron . But not an electron ?

 

Mike

 

 

I don't think there is any term for it.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

 

.. UNIQUE ..

 

Ref : https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Unique&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-gb&client=safari&dlnr=1&sei=bblsWPr6Ice8swGJgLvYBg

 

Ref wiki : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique

 

Unique ' as applied to physics ' ref : http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/99590/are-atoms-unique

 

 

In delving into the depths of atomic particles and sub atomic particles , it becomes clear , there is a facility for UNIQUE ' ness .

 

Just how the uniqueness effects the activity of this UNIQUENESS is perhaps the objective of science/ Physics ?

 

Mike

Edited January 4, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Bender]

Time for an engineer to answer this question

 

In your axis & hole example, the axis need some gap to enter the hole, otherwise it sticks.

No gap needed, just hit it with a hammer. Or put the axis in liquid nitrogen.

 

In engineering, each part has a tolerance. You make it as broad as possible and as tight as necessary. You want to make it broad, i.e. allow for large variations, because then it is as cheap as possible to make. Making two parts exactly identical would require all of the materials to be pure, the crystal latices to be perfect and the atom count to be exact, all of which is practically impossible and insanely expensive to get even close.

 

For the axis and hole, it depends what you want:

- if the connection has to be able to transfer force, the axis has to be larger than the hole (force or cooling/heating required for assembly)

- if the connection has to be mounted manually, and is not critical, the axis and hole can be about the same, typically h/H tolerances, which means the axis is at most the nominal diameter and the hole is at least the nominal diameter

- if the connection has to slide easily, the axis has to be significantly smaller than the hole (but not too small, because than it risks clamping at the edges)

 

Don't mix up engineering with physics . Nothing is exact in engineering; after calculation, we multiply by 2, just to be sure.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I think it has more to do with the need of empty space.

It is like the famous 15 puzzle,

If you fill the 16th square, you have locked the system, the squares cannot slide anymore. In your axis & hole example, the axis need some gap to enter the hole, otherwise it sticks.

In the atom & electron example, again some void is needed, otherwise nothing could work.

.

Yes , I do understand that phenomenon from my youth! Everything is fine if a gap is present. Two things trying to be in the same space , seem to do something .

 

My last trip on a plane , A man stood up from his seat in the aircraft . He looked just like me . When I look in a mirror at my face , he looked like my face . . ' but he was over there ! ' It was rather ' spooky '.

 

There is this exclusion issue in atoms ? Pauli Exclusion Principle . So it is no insignificant issue ? Is it ?

 

 

Mike

Edited January 6, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[michel123456]

.

Yes , I do understand that phenomenon from my youth! Everything is fine if a gap is present. Two things trying to be in the same space , seem to do something .

 

My last trip on a plane , A man stood up from his seat in the aircraft . He looked just like me . When I look in a mirror at my face , he looked like my face . . ' but he was over there ! ' It was rather ' spooky '.

 

There is this exclusion issue in atoms ? Pauli Exclusion Principle . So it is no insignificant issue ? Is it ?

 

 

Mike

It is not insignificant. It is about uniqueness.

Each thing is different from another if it occupies another 4 coordinate x,y,z,t.

For example, you have 2 absolutely identical electrons, but they are located at a different place at the same time. That makes each one of them unique.

BUT if an electron can make a loop in time,as proposed by John Wheeler, it may be that those 2 electrons are the same, IOW it could cancel uniqueness.

Which makes me think that uniqueness is a concept ruled by time.

IOW the weird feeling that you felt was caused by the fact that you saw yourself at 2 different places at the same time.

Magicians use it for tricks.

[Bender]

This all sounds like philosophy.

 

Certainly not engineering.

 

btw, only fermions can't occupy the same space. Bosons can.