Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 15, 2015 - 11:45am PT
|
Dingus, how about answering the question instead of working so hard to discredit our right to ask it? This is a recurring pattern on this thread - when something disrupts your take on reality, attack the verity of the messenger rather than address the issue.
Again, the question is:
". . . what the physical extent is of gauge bosons, photons and gluons." Or put differently, for the known phenomenon that have no physical mass, what is their physical extent?
Another way to look at this is:
When you shut up and stop calculating, what does your mind reduce to?
JL
|
|
STEEVEE
Social climber
HUMBOLDT, CA
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2015 - 01:17pm PT
|
I deal with quanta on a daily basis in medical imaging.
A photon, gluon and gauge bosun are quanta. They behave both as a particle and electromagnetic energy. They have a duality that can be measured as energy...no mass. They are massless particles, kind of like thoughts.
I can tell you when I don't have enough quanta that make it to my image receptor because it makes for an awful image.
|
|
tolman_paul
Trad climber
Anchorage, AK
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2015 - 01:44pm PT
|
Everything in the universe has a physical extent, how many times must I tell you?
You forget the space between the physical objects, it is just as real as the physical objects but has no physical extent.
Your argument is akin to saying that music is only made up of the notes, neglecting the pause between the notes that are just as essential to the music.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2015 - 01:57pm PT
|
Why do you find boundaries and hesitate pulling out all the stops? You stay in bounds of what is conceptually and theoretically possible. Is that prudence? If so, then you might also be doing it so that you continue to have some legitimacy among a community that you may have significant differences with. It references a social bond and commitment to others.
What a paradox. The more honest and truthful any of us become, the more we alienate ourselves from others. What is more important: community or a fleeting sense of truth?
Alienation results not from proposing wild ideas. It comes from implying/asserting they are fact or that there is real but unspecified data supporting them. If something is wild but is interesting, you just say that's the way you find it.
I don't feel the need to express myself. On a few occasions I have managed to accomplish something with others. I have not found any other experience to be comparable.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2015 - 02:23pm PT
|
You forget the space between the physical objects, it is just as real as the physical objects but has no physical extent.
I think Hendrik Casimir might take exception to that statement if he was still around...
|
|
STEEVEE
Social climber
HUMBOLDT, CA
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2015 - 02:39pm PT
|
However, if they (any of them) affect the physical realm (they do), then they have a physical extent, its that simple.
Most definitely. Just as space can't exist without the mass. Can't have one without the other. There's duality in everything that I have observed, especially humans.
Is the duality of quanta the transcendental state?
I'm not equipped to understand much in this universe with my feeble mind but it sure is fun f#ck around with thoughts, flesh and photons
|
|
STEEVEE
Social climber
HUMBOLDT, CA
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2015 - 02:51pm PT
|
Think about that for a minute...
Trust me...I have. With the understanding that the awful image may not look so awful to someone who doesn't know what they're looking at.
I showed a 6 year old a CT image of his cervical spine and he pointed out an image of a seal to me. Wow! That was pretty cool.
Edit: To stay on topic I'll say you can't teach a machine that. To me, that is sentience.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 15, 2015 - 03:00pm PT
|
Dingus says: As with light, they have a physical extent, or they wouldn't behave as particles.
But Dingus, you haven't answered the question. Simply asserting that they have a physical extent is not the same as saying what that physical extent actually IS.
We are NOT asking you about the effect these phenomenon have on other particles or phenomenon, rather, what is the physical extent of the bosen, etc.
The answer, without question, is "they have no physical extent."
Here we find the very limit of materialism. When some phenomenon does not pan out as "stuff," then you default to it's effect on other stuff, anything to cling to the fiction that there is only one side of the coin.
And what's more, what does your mind resolve to when you shut up and stop calculating?
JL
|
|
cintune
climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2015 - 04:06pm PT
|
Here we find the very limit of materialism.
Dum de dum de doodaleedoo.
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
tolman_paul
Trad climber
Anchorage, AK
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2015 - 04:15pm PT
|
To continue the music analogy
or, DMT is someone who can measure the world, but not see it.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2015 - 04:27pm PT
|
The answer, without question, is "they have no physical extent." (JL)
Since the Planck length is so many orders of magnitude smaller than any current instrument could possibly measure, there is no way of examining it directly. According to the generalized uncertainty principle (a concept from speculative models of quantum gravity), the Planck length is, in principle, within a factor of 10, the shortest measurable length – and no theoretically known improvement in measurement instruments could change that. (Wiki)
Absolutely no physical extent or merely no measurable extent? This is about space or spacetime itself.
Massless particles are known to experience the same gravitational acceleration as other particles (which provides empirical evidence for the equivalence principle) because they do have relativistic mass, which is what acts as the gravity charge (Wiki)
So "no-thing" is non-measurable, occupies no space, and is oblivious to time? In other words it's absolutely nothing and has no kind of extent. Even a thought has a kind of extent, so when you engage no-thing in meditation you have moved beyond space and time and since thoughts are the product of consciousness, you are not conscious. And yet you can report back from this mysterious realm. Very impressive.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2015 - 04:55pm PT
|
'no physical extent' hasn't a shred of science backing it
"Everything in the universe has a physical extent" is total bullsh!t.
It's completely unscientific and is a bonafide fact since day ONE.
You're whole western scientific system is based ultimately on pure mental speculation.
You haven't a shred of truth to stand on for your "Everything in the universe has a physical extent"
But the real truth is:
Life is nonphysical and nonchemical.
It is beyond matter and it is transcendental to the physical extent.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2015 - 05:25pm PT
|
Since the Planck length is so many orders of magnitude smaller than any current instrument could possibly measure, there is no way of examining it directly. According to the generalized uncertainty principle (a concept from speculative models of quantum gravity), the Planck length is, in principle, within a factor of 10, the shortest measurable length – and no theoretically known improvement in measurement instruments could change that. (Wiki)
place holder
Something bothers me here but until I do some homework I have nothing to say.
The discussion below is getting a little animated but that's OK. I find it interesting, though I have no prior vested interest in any of the ideas. We will just have to wait and see how things work out.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2015 - 08:36pm PT
|
Jstan:
I remember the article entitled, “That’s Interesting!” by Davis (1971), a sociologist. Davis argues that theories that are "non-interesting" are those that affirm certain assumptions of their audience. "Interesting theories" are those that deny certain assumptions of an audience. In both takes, there is a reference not to one’s experience (which one may not be able to truly define) but to a community’s standards. It’s difficult to have any conversation unless you’re willing to observe and honor community conventions.
An economist named Keynes once quipped that some theories in the sciences can become true by modifying the reality they purport to explain. (I think Kuhn said something along these lines, too.) That happens through the institutional designs (systems, structures, metrics, processes) that transform image into reality. Social norming creates accepted truths, and people are hesitant to violate powerful prescriptive expectations. Language, too, affects what people notice and ignore. In sum, theories can become self-fulfilling. Theories may not attain their lofty status because they are true, but because they are interesting and engage the attention of experts and practitioners. I suppose folks will make the argument that empirical data allow confirmation of theories, but I’d say that data are theory-laden. In the last analysis, it can look like sandcastles in the air. I’m not saying that objective things don’t exist. I’m just saying I don’t know. My initial question to you was, how do you know what boundaries to observe? If you’re saying it’s because they are interesting, then I’ll just quit there with you on the subject.
(BTW, “incomparable experiences” would be almost certainly be highly subjective, I would think.)
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2015 - 09:36pm PT
|
Or put differently, for the known phenomenon that have no physical mass, what is their physical extent? (JL)
I'm sitting here staring at a blank wall and imagining a circle of radius one foot. I can see it clearly in my mind's eye. This phenomenon has no mass, but it's physical extent is Π square feet.
That happens through the institutional designs (systems, structures, metrics, processes) that transform image into reality (MikeL)
So, if a group of physicists conjecture the existence of a hitherto unobserved particle, they simply design their equipment in a way that the particle will appear. Fascinating.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2015 - 10:04pm PT
|
An economist named Keynes once quipped that some theories in the sciences can become true by modifying the reality they purport to explain.
You're seriously sitting at your keyboard quoting an economist criticizing science because it's subject to groupthink? Man, I sorry, but that's just plain f*#ked up.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2015 - 10:46pm PT
|
Healje:
i think you finally read and understood my writing. Where you been?
Jgill: So, if a group of physicists conjecture the existence of a hitherto unobserved particle, they simply design their equipment in a way that the particle will appear. Fascinating.
Your derision is hardly veiled.
And YOU complain often about the paucity or quality of the conversation?
|
|
STEEVEE
Social climber
HUMBOLDT, CA
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2015 - 08:27am PT
|
So, if a group of physicists conjecture the existence of a hitherto unobserved particle, they simply design their equipment in a way that the particle will appear. Fascinating. What's even more "fascinating" is our ability to build machinery to "create" or should I say liberate such "unobserved particles" (since they've always been there). We have a short but productive history of doing so from Crooke's tubes to the Large Hadron Collider.
It seems our mistake as scientist is that we're always trying to separate the parts from the whole and wanting to go even smaller, never understanding the whole.
Edit: By the way, it's the parts that will kill you, but as a whole it's beautiful.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2015 - 08:29am PT
|
JL,
You are not a boson. You have physical extent. Your carpool is no match for Alvy Singer's Mom.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2015 - 08:30am PT
|
It seems our mistake as scientist is that we're always trying to separate the parts from the whole and wanting to go even smaller, never understanding the whole.
100% on the money ......
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!