I would suggest that light is 'special' for many extremely fundamental reasons - most of which, we are yet to recognise/accept.
For a start, it is the very basic building block of everything physical - so that kinda sets it apart for our purposes, wouldn't you think?
If we are yet to recognize them this seems like pure speculation.Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
OK, physics is not my subject. Please explain briefly how light is the building block of, say, the chair I'm sitting on.For a start, it is the very basic building block of everything physical - so that kinda sets it apart for our purposes, wouldn't you think?
Well firstly I have to admit that physics is not really my subject either, and further admit I have no idea of what material/s your chair is constituted - be it timber, plastic, steel, gold, leather, material, beans, fluff, a composite, or what? Even so, whatever it be, will most assuredly be 'matter' - just like your flesh and bone - the physical stuff of our planet. Therefore, the response you seek will be precisely the same - it was at some point in the past - ROCK!OK, physics is not my subject. Please explain briefly how light is the building block of, say, the chair I'm sitting on.
However, even before that, it was molten rock (magma) - as spurted out under an increasing pressure from within the bowels of the planet, to initially cool and harden, prior to subsequently breaking down - in a relentless process towards the finished result upon which you now find yourself sitting - and everything else 'physical'.
This molten mass was (and still is) materialised at the planet's core, via an ongoing, naturally occurring process of fusion. So what do you suppose is 'fused' in this genetic process responsible for everything of which we are aware - at least, being tangible and physical?
The answer to this question was a matter of pure speculation, until Albert Einstein came up with his Theory of Relativity, and the formula E = mc2, followed by the advent of fission, that his theory ushered in - which, in a most emphatic manner; proved the relationship for all to witness.
BTW, as scientists explain - fission is the dissolution process to fusion. Fusion being the composition of matter; fission - the decomposition of that matter.
So when man proceeded to crack open a relatively small volume of matter in order to liberate the building blocks within the atom that constituted that matter, what he unleashed in enormous quantities, was - as Einstein predicted - LIGHT!
And for mine, that makes the stuff fairly 'special' - in anyone's language.
So now my friend, your personal portion of the earth, can indeed enjoy being supported by all that processed and re-modeled - fused LIGHT!
Extraordinary things are happening all the time - all around us, and even to us, although I'd fall short of referring to the majority of these as 'surprising' - being one reason why we have become so apathetic in acknowledging such abounding beneficial realities. The second of course, is due to a tenebrous arrogance within our human nature, and the disturbing ignorance that flourishes like a pernicious weed in it.
In any case, I'm not sure why you would invoke a delusion into such reality as we readily experience, even if our vision fails pathetically to recognise it - unless your purpose is to illustrate why we have become so dependent on religious myths.
is light recognised by the standard theory to in fact be the 'very basic building block of everything physical '
??????? i ask ??????
I thought I would get my head lobbed off for saying that to a physicist.........
Magma did not originate at the Earth's core.
Magma does not originate at the Earth's core.
Magma will never originate at the Earth's core.
Magma is not generated by fusion, if you mean nuclear fusion.
Magma is not typically generated by fusion, if you mean blending, but by a contrary process - partial melting.
Incorrect. Both fission and fusion result in the conversion of mass (the right hand side of Einstein's equation) to energy (the left hand side).
Who said anything about any standard theory?
Frankly, I have to admit to not being the biggest fan of theories, particularly the kind with the qualification 'standard'. I guess it's a legacy for which I am these days exceedingly thankful, from my years under my father; who for a relatively uneducated man, is surprisingly intelligent and still; at 90, vital in his reasoning. For as long as I have known him, he has never been satisfied with viewing things in any 'conventional' manner, unless it was compatible with his logic of the moment.
So I guess the apple in this regard hasn't fallen far afield, and therefore I would much rather witness the realities of the world around me, and in seeking an obedience to my allotted INTELLIGENCE, apply as much logical discernment as I can muster to what I see - and from that basis, draw my own conclusions. Of course, also keeping my ears open for reasoned explanations of previous observations by others, cannot be discounted; yet that by no means equates to subjection.
Naturally, this approach is threatening to some and has landed me in a little trouble at times, but I will continue to be thankful for the ability, whenever I can; to seek answers outside the square.
And yes - I would certainly maintain that light itself is the basic building block of rock, and therefore - all matter, at least as far as this planet is concerned.
Finally...... your head is safe, as far as I'm concerned.
The issue of adequately defining that about which we are conversing, is vital in order to communicate at a suitable level. Or, as Sunshinewarrior - who is more proficient than I with words, wrote; "If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating."Incorrect. Both fission and fusion result in the conversion of mass (the right hand side of Einstein's equation) to energy (the left hand side).
So Harold, with regards fission - I previously noted it, as being about the 'decomposition of matter' - as in a nuclear detonation. You posted that it is the conversion of mass (the solid rock) - to energy. Now whilst I accept your terminology is more technically astute, yet the two definitions seem reasonably concordant, and basically self explanatory - once you correctly define the relevant term.
Now please explain how the other term - 'fusion', being (generally) indicative of a JOINING TOGETHER - a melding towards a result of increased corporeality, which seems to suggest an opposing process to fission (the other side of Einstein's equation) - yet by your definition; rather than opposing, the term actually means; the same process as fission????
It would appear one of us is confused, and I sincerely hope it is me.
Fission is a process by which the subparticles of an atom's nucleus (the protons and neutrons) are split apart, forming other elements. In the process, the mass of the elements and particles that are formed contain less mass, or matter, than the original nucleus. This is converted to energy by Einstein's famous formula. This is the source of energy for the explosion of a bomb or the energy from a nuclear reactor. Fusion is a process where nuclei of elements combine. In a sustained fusion reaction the combined atom weighs less than the sum of the elements that were fused, and in this way energy is also released. This is the source of energy for a hydrogen bomb.
If you could recombine the same atoms that were split in a fission reaction, that would be fusion, and would consume energy, as you are thinking. But that kind of reaction does not actually happen, and that is not what people normally think of when they talk about fusion.
Other elements? What would these be?
This would seem axiomatic, given your previous statement. Even so, I'm far from convinced about that previous statement.
I think you mean - 'shown by Einstein's formula'.
This is where I think you're a little mixed up, because the energy comes OUT (from) the explosion, not INTO (for) it.
I believe this is a entirely theoretical. For the process of fusion, whilst it must be a reality somewhere, is still entirely conceptual to our thinking. For mine, you miss the most elemental point; for fusion is a process in which the enormous supply of light - available in an omnipresent electro-magnetic spectrum, is the stuff that becomes 'fused' - into matter, and (again) this has been shown by Einstein's theory and equation, and subsequently physically proven - through fission.
Again, energy is released (from) - thereby depleting the matter, not infused into it - (for) a hydrogen bomb
Correct, however I still maintain that it was energy (LIGHT) that was released in the reaction, not smaller parts of matter.
I disagree, because I believe this very process has been happening constantly from even before we have had land (earth) on which to stand - which is in fact; the physical evidence of this very process.
That would depend upon the element that was fissioning, wouldn't it. You seem to doubt the truth of Harold's statement.
I believe this is a entirely theoretical. For the process of fusion, whilst it must be a reality somewhere, is still entirely conceptual to our thinking..[/quote]This is so wrong that I see little point in reading anything else you have to say on this matter. I am confident Harold will correct this blanket statement of stupidity. Fusion has been practically demonstrated thousands and thousands of times.
There is a fundamental difference between doubt and questioning. Even so, how are we ever going to discover reality unless we question? And isn't this precisely what science is supposedly all about? And isn't doubt one of the essential impulses that generates a need to question in the first instance?That would depend upon the element that was fissioning, wouldn't it. You seem to doubt the truth of Harold's statement.
Really? Well that would seem to be your opinion, and indeed it may well eventuate as correct. Even so, if it is ok with you, I will continue to ask questions, and Harold (or someone else) might be kind and patient enough to respond. Alternatively, I will have to make do, right?This is so wrong that I see little point in reading anything else you have to say on this matter. I am confident Harold will correct this blanket statement of stupidity.I believe this is a entirely theoretical. For the process of fusion, whilst it must be a reality somewhere, is still entirely conceptual to our thinking..
Ultimately, if my expectation is eventually proven incorrect, so be it, and I will happily accept it as such. But how surprising you are feeling a little emotional like this, so please feel at liberty to avert your eyes in future.
Thousands of times, huh?
Well that is certainly different from my perception of what Michio Kaku believes. For he seems to indicate that the closest we can get to fusion at this time, is inside distant stars. So perhaps you know more than he, or alternatively I may be somewhat misreading his words. Either way, I doubt at this stage, it makes too much difference in regards my concept.
My understanding would have it that fusion requires a far greater pressure and temperature, than man is currently able to generate. On the other hand, both of these two constitutional parameters are certainly abundantly present, at the core of our awesome planet.
In case you haven't yet noticed; I believe I have reason to consider fusion as the genetic process of creation (of matter) - if such a statement isn't too cyclical.
Finally, perhaps you can enlighten me further on these "thousands of times" when man (might think he) has created 'fusion' - provided you have read thus far?
If I may comment on Apopohis Reject reply:
I think you are incorrectly quoting Michio Kaku. What I think Ophiolite was getting at was that fusion as a concept in chemisty has been proven thousands of times - fusion as found in power generation on a massive scale has only ever been seen in a sun (the tests they are currently doing are much smaller scale).
You see fusion everyday in your car between your air and fuel mixture.
As far as I am aware there is nearly always fusion in the tests for power generation at temperatures and pressures that we have generated, but it costs them to do so as they have not got more 'useable energy' out yet than they put in.
Have you been following the National Ignition Facility in USA at all?
Here is an example from the Wikipedia article on fusion. "Fusion of deuterium with tritium creating helium-4, freeing a neutron, and releasing 17.59 MeV of energy, as an appropriate amount of mass converting to the kinetic energy of the products, in agreement with E = Δmc2."
It's theoretical but it's a pretty darn good theory. When the nuclear physicists think they can build a thermonuclear bomb based on this theory, then they go ahead and do it, and make a nice big mushroom cloud, then I think their theory will stand until somebody comes up with something better.I believe this is a entirely theoretical. For the process of fusion, whilst it must be a reality somewhere, is still entirely conceptual to our thinking.
Well, there you are just wrong. Light does not become fused into matter, ordinarily. It has been done in the lab, but it is not called fusion.For mine, you miss the most elemental point; for fusion is a process in which the enormous supply of light - available in an omnipresent electro-magnetic spectrum, is the stuff that becomes 'fused' - into matter, and (again) this has been shown by Einstein's theory and equation, and subsequently physically proven - through fission.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0918045841.htm
Fission is well understood. Lighter elements are created by the process. Once again, nuclear physicists predicted what would happen, then they did it. It was called the Manhattan project. Fission happens daily in nuclear reactors. The predicted fission products are produced, and those fission products emit exactly the wavelengths of radiation they are supposed to emit. The chemists find the elements they are supposed to find in the reactor coolant. Why are you even questioning it?Correct, however I still maintain that it was energy (LIGHT) that was released in the reaction, not smaller parts of matter.
Believe as you wish. The existence of matter does not prove your idea of how it was created.I disagree, because I believe this very process has been happening constantly from even before we have had land (earth) on which to stand - which is in fact; the physical evidence of this very process.
i agree with harold on this one - what makes the theory 'correct' is that they make a prediction from it and then prove that with experiment.
This has been done more than I could count between the manhatten project and now with more money then I could spend in my lifetime...........doesn't make it right but in my mind it is very nearly 99.999999999% going to be closer to being 99.999999% correct.
May I ask what exactly it is you are questioning/doubt about all this?
Well I doubt that would surprise anyone too greatly - especially in the physics forum, at least.
Indeed I recognise there to be an amalgamation of air and fuel in a car, just as if you were to make a shade of green paint by combining blue and yellow, but I do not regard these processes in the same vein as the 'scientific' concept of fusion. Or alternatively perhaps, I am using the incorrect term in my conceptualisation.
Please consider; if you were to take the blended blue and yellow paints for instance; when we mix them, they would seemingly disappear, being replaced by the green. So it is very easy to regard them to have been fused, creating a third colour. However this is illusory, for it is only our eyes (perception) that do not see the two originals any longer. They are both in fact, still there and entirely unchanged in themselves, so fusion has not at all taken place, but rather a simple amalgamation.
As for the 'fusion' you refer to in power generation; I am certainly eager in hearing what you have to say on the matter, as I have little insight into such. So please explain it a little more for me - particularly if you are referring to the nuclear type of generation. I have to admit to you right now (this may change, and if so - I will thank you for such), I'm thinking it will most likely not be fusion in the sense of creation towards new matter, but more aligned to the (above) blue and green paints. Even so, I am willing to accept that we may be talking about two different processes, which will indicate I am still to learn the scientific term for the process of my reasoning.
On the other hand, right now I'm still expecting that Einstein's equation to be indicative of true fusion - as towards creation of new matter from subatomic substance, which I still have reason to believe must be light. Now please don't go into a knee jerk reaction - thinking that last sentence is about a dogmatic ignorant refusal to listen to further reasoning of folk who know. It is just the most correct way I can presently see, to describe my considerations of the past few years according the tenure of this exchange.
Your reaction to my questioning on the other hand, as well (so far) as Harold's, is something for which I am grateful. I can understand the annoyance at members posting all kinds of seemingly weird concepts and demanding to be taken seriously. It can be truly frustrating on a reactive scale, however I do not regard mine as so 'out there', because I have been considering them in an extremely logical fashion for quite some time, and I have many scientific (to me at least) details to back up the assertions/questions, which I can never seem to explore due to all the knee jerking going on around this forum.
In any case, I again thank you (and Harold), for your patience.
I have no idea what this would be, so please if you would be so kind; enlighten me further.
If you again consider honestly my posts on this topic, I think you will find that there is reason for a little further investigation, for even though the conclusions may not appear so 'regular', the reasoning behind it is relatively sound and logical on a scientific basis.
If I again find blank walls, I will have to accept it as such and continue on. It's as simple as that, but I really am not a blank wall myself, even though I cannot seem to convince too many people about that.
This is a chemical reaction, not a nuclear reaction. A chemical reaction involves only the electron shells of atoms and does not alter the nucleus. You can call a chemical reaction fusion, but then you would be inventing your own term for it. We like to apply specific meaning to words in their scientific usage.
July 14th, 2010, 07:55 PM
How extremely interesting and a little - bloody annoying!
I mean, I make a simple observation regarding a concept I have been logically analyzing over for a couple of years as scientifically as a non-scientist can, and because I have never pretended to be a 'scientist'; I try and make certain (I have had to learn to do this), that I keep my expressions of this model per this site; as low-key as possible, so as not to rouse any emotionally demonic zealotry of members whose actions would suggest they perceive themselves as excessively SUPERIOR - to everyone else.
Well, this is how I have generally worked at presenting my posts - as inoffensively as I can muster, whilst still making my point without a profusion of apologies for having the temerity to own a computer and be alive. Even so, some contemptuous members seem to have taken a disliking (*shudder) to anything from my keyboard, and seemingly regardless of the subject matter I post, attack - not the issue from a logical perspective, but myself with observations of 'stupidity' and 'nutjob' and the most ridiculous of all - 'religious'. How scientific of them!
I'm further advised to leave the forum and get an education - by a (supposedly) snotty-nosed student no less, and that my posts would be best ignored. Then I have my posts removed to 'trash' and 'New Hypotheses' as if totally worthless, while posts by others suggesting such dreamy concepts as; some guy traveled back in time from the future - to before there was life, and then created it, and *poof* here we are - remain as if on topic and valid and worth discussing further.
Then after all this, perhaps surprisingly, and perhaps; the only genuine and honest member on this site, kindly provides this, which while it falls short of the full extent of my model, is an OBVIOUS PROOF that my concept is possible, and indeed has been PROVEN by 20 physicists. Who would have thunk it????
Now obviously members who dislike me are welcome to continue doing so, and if they wish to attack my subject matter with reasoned scientific argument in the stead of knee-jerk childish rants, I will be delighted to engage them further - and even admit it when I'm proven incorrect - but I really MUST be the judge of that proof, after all. However they want no such interaction, in case they end up being embarrassed, and then have to consider the terrorising possibility of being caught out as the audacious and narcissistic phonies they are.
If being a 'scientist' means I would be required to present with the emotionally charged imperiousness that some here enjoy, then please; may I NEVER be a scientist! On the other hand, the far more scientific Harold's of the site, might just manage to resurrect a little of the respect I once had for an increasingly pompous term.
Yes. Thousands of times.Thousands of times, huh?
Category 1: Hydrogen bombs employ fusion - a very practical and obvious application. Here is a listing of the approxiamte number of hydrogen bomb tests carried out by various nations.
USA 900
USSR 600
UK 9
France 190
China 40
North Korea 2
India 5
Total (Approx): 1750
Category 2: Tokamak Reactors There are many such reactors which fuse light atoms while containing them within a magnetic field. More than throty such reactors have been built with a combined operating time of over five hundred and fifty reactor years. Multiple experiments are carried out, with fusion, each year. A conservative estimate of the number or experiments is one per month.
This yields a minimum of 6,600 practical demonstrations of fusion.
So, with these two categories we have a total of over 8,000 demonstrated instances of fusion. That is certainly thousands and thousands. And I have not even considered the generation of transuranic elements in particle accelerators.
North Korea is not believed to have tested a hydrogen bomb yet. Recently, xenon gas has leaked across the border, indicating a weapon test or reactor leak. Seismic sensors however, say this was not an underground test.
Interesting. I compiled my list from a very quick scan of the more obvious internet sources. I excluded Israel, because there seems to be much debate on whether they have or haven't; and likewise Pakistan, who I think have only tested atomic weapons. I wasn't too concerned either way, since my argument - in terms of total approximate numbers - stands up, even if I only include USSR and USA.
| « Dielectric properties and absurdities of modern physics | quantum time » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
