Can we really touch anything?

[Buket]

He says something different than majority says.. He explains how contact actually happens between two objects..

[geordief]

"contact" is also a word. I am not qualified to say whether the balance of forces he is describing is actually the case but ,until I hear otherwise it will be my working model.

 

If he wants to call it "contact" then fine but I hope it is a definition that is widely accepted ( a convention). It is best that we all use the same language so far as possible.

 

He makes the point the things never completely occupy the same space. I like that idea but ,who knows perhaps there are exceptions I do not know about......

Edited October 25, 2016 by geordief

[Strange]

He says something different than majority says.. He explains how contact actually happens between two objects..

 

I haven't watched the video (because it is a video). But are you saying that contact is not due to the electromagnetic interaction of the outer electrons of atoms?

He makes the point the things never completely occupy the same space. I like that idea but ,who knows perhaps there are exceptions I do not know about......

 

Well, bosons can all occupy the same space. But they are probably not "things" ...

[Buket]

 

I haven't watched the video (because it is a video). But are you saying that contact is not due to the electromagnetic interaction of the outer electrons of atoms?

 

 

Well, bosons can all occupy the same space. But they are probably not "things" ...

Yes. He says when two forces (attracting and repelling) get into balance the contact happens between objects..

[Buket]

Here is another video of Prof. Moriarty if you are interested..

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NO3iDNBUuSA

 

I am curious about your opinions..

[Buket]

There is an attractive force before repelling force between atoms and contact happens when these forces reach an equilibrium. This is how two objects contact. I find this quite logical. Any comments?

[geordief]

There is an attractive force before repelling force between atoms and contact happens when these forces reach an equilibrium. This is how two objects contact. I find this quite logical. Any comments?

I don't think "logical" adds anything to what are supposed to be scientific observations.

 

If a scientist( which I am not) allows him or herself by what seems "logical" it may be the equivalent of him "resting on his laurels".

 

If something appears "illogical" ,however it must be a sign that something is amiss ,either with the observation or the interpretation of the observation.

 

That it appears "logical" though may add nothing to what we already (think we)know.

[Buket]

I don't think "logical" adds anything to what are supposed to be scientific observations.

 

If a scientist( which I am not) allows him or herself by what seems "logical" it may be the equivalent of him "resting on his laurels".

 

If something appears "illogical" ,however it must be a sign that something is amiss ,either with the observation or the interpretation of the observation.

 

That it appears "logical" though may add nothing to what we already (think we)know.

Yes I shouldn't have used the word logical..

 

And may I ask another question? In the video I sent before : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P0TNJrTlbBQ there is a point when the interviewer asks the professor about the planck length between the electrons and the professor says something that I don't understand.. ( english is not mu first language) Can you please tell me what it is if you have time? It is close to the end of the video.

[geordief]

The interviewer says; (at around 9 minutes in)

 

"I think true contact between 2 particles ,say 2 electrons is the point at which the space occupied by the electron could have no Planck lengths between it and the space occupied by another electron..... "

 

The professor says that that way of looking at the situation simply does not apply in quantum mechanics . He goes on to say that things cannot occupy the same space and that the interviewer is trying to define "contact" as the time when the two footballs "overlap" (become one football -which never happens).

 

He finds the interviewer's suggested definition for contact "extreme" (he means "impossible" )

 

He also says (the Prof) that "you cannot define an electron like a particle like that"

Edited October 27, 2016 by geordief

[Buket]

The interviewer says; (at around 9 minutes in)

 

"I think true contact between 2 particles ,say 2 electrons is the point at which the space occupied by the electron could have no Planck lengths between it and the space occupied by another electron..... "

 

The professor says that that way of looking at the situation simply does not apply in quantum mechanics . He goes on to say that things cannot occupy the same space and that the interviewer is trying to define "contact" as the time when the two footballs "overlap" (become one football -which never happens).

 

He finds the interviewer' suggested definition for contact "extreme" (he means "impossible" )

 

He also says (the Prof) that "you cannot define an electron like a particle like that"

 

Thanks a lot...🙏

[Buket]

Anyone who have any information about this issue?

[Buket]

What does interaction of electromagnetic fields mean when two objects touch eachother?

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Previous post merged from separate thread. One thread per topic, please.

[geordief]

I will guess that the electrons' interference patterns reinforce or cancel out each other.

 

I know extremely little about this and am not sure how physical proximity affects this but I guess that it increases the amplitude of the waves in the area in question.

[Buket]

I read that there is photon exchange during interaction. What else?

[Buket]

How can we get diseases from contacting (eg. Viruses) if we can not touch anything?

[Over 9000]

How can we get diseases from contacting (eg. Viruses) if we can not touch anything?

 

You're begging the question by using the word "contacting". If by "touch" we mean "maximum proximity before particle fields repel", we mean the same for "contact". So however close we get when "touching" or "contacting" is enough for a virus to stick/enter or whatever it does.

[zapatos]

How can we get diseases from contacting (eg. Viruses) if we can not touch anything?

Because "touching" is not a requirement to get diseases.

[Buket]

Because "touching" is not a requirement to get diseases.

We get some diseases by the contact of skin

[zapatos]

Is 'contact' the same as 'touching'?

 

There is an interaction. People get diseases. You can call it whatever you want, and you can define 'touching' however you want, but the fact is we get disease through this interaction.

Edited November 12, 2016 by zapatos

[Buket]

Is 'contact' the same as 'touching'?

 

There is an interaction. People get diseases. You can call it whatever you want, and you can define 'touching' however you want, but the fact is we get disease through this interaction.

What is interaction?

[StringJunky]

What is interaction?

A virus could hitch a lift on an aerosol droplet from a sneeze that occurred a hundred metres away and give the new host a cold; it's an effect occurring between two or more objects

[John Cuthber]

Since no meaningful wave function decays to exactly zero in a finite distance, an equally valid question is " can we really not touch anything?"

Since we find ourselves equally unable to dismiss either of two contradictory points, maybe we should just write it off as "it depends on your definitions" and not waste a fifth page on this

[zapatos]

What is interaction?

 

Seriously? You've used that term twice in your last four posts. You sound like you are bored and have nothing better to do than see how long people will respond to you.

Edited November 12, 2016 by zapatos

[StringJunky]

 

Seriously? You've used that term twice in your last four posts. You sound like you are bored and have nothing better to do than see how long people will respond to you.

Yeah, I'm getting that thought.