My argument against materialism

[gentlehorse]

You may have a point in such an extrapolation.

*Non sequitur snipped*

Yeah, well, earlier folks were saying that electromagnetic forces kept stuff from collapsing into infinite density. You disagreed.

Do you still disagree?

 

[kenkoskinen]

I Bolded My Questions

Not in the way physicists count these things - it's just one force.

It's true that you can think of the force between nucleons (i.e. protons and neutrons) as mediated by pions, but that's just an effective description. The underlying theory is quantum chromodynamics (QCD), and the fundamental force carriers are gluons.

Yes ... but counting is relative. If you discovered a force with two different strengths and each used a different set of bosons, what would you call it? One or two? Physicists have yet to explain the connection. Can you?

None of this is relevant to the far more basic issue we were discussing, however. Will you answer PixyMisa's question?

I've already answered it in a previous post and he knows it. Go back to my earlier post, I can't be bothered to do the search. It's there! Further Pixie hasn't answered many of my questions. Why aren't you complaining about that? I've asked him why he doesn't write a concise statement about what this strange and undetected EM repulsion is? So far ... nothing! I haven't been given anything on it. I can't find anything and I think neither can you or anyone else! Prove me wrong ... please do not cite any more general and by their nature unrelated ... goose chasing articles!

Sol, you're supposed to be this high powered physics guy ... but based on this post I don't see any signs of scientific objectivity. If this thing exists why isn't it in QED? Why didn't you comment about that?

Why can't anyone cite a clear reference to it.

I've tried and asked ... now if you're a physics prof. like daffydd claimed then show your colors. Dig up the sources. Show me something other than your insistence that I answer Pixie's repeated questions, recently spices by his promise of enlightenment! If he knows something other than how to write one word or one line non-answers & how to write redundant questions ... let him write a concise explanation. Then I'll have a shot at critiquing him! I think that would be his worst nightmare! That's turning the tables and he doesn't want that!

I have some other questions for you. Are you really interested in physics? Or are you primarily motivated in helping your internet friends win an argument? I hope you are interested in learning more about what we all live in!

 

[kenkoskinen]

Read My Earlier Posts

Yeah, well, earlier folks were saying that electromagnetic forces kept stuff from collapsing into infinite density. You disagreed.

Do you still disagree?

Yes ... it's only a thought experiment. Well, read my earlier recent posts for what I think! What do you think?

 

[Nonpareil]

Yes

And round and round and round he goes.

 

[PixyMisa]

Ken, I didn't see your answer, and can't find it. But no-one else seems to have seen your answer, and you just spent 200 words complaining about having to provide a one-word answer to a question.

So, please, just answer it again. If I missed it the first time, please point me to the relevant post, and I'll humbly apologise.

Take two objects, negatively charged at one end and positively charged at the other. The net charge on each one is zero. Not hypothetical particles, any arbitrary object.

If we push the two negatively charged ends together, what is the resulting force (again, considering only electromagnetism)?

1. Attraction
2. Repulsion
3. Zero

 

[sol invictus]

Yes ... but counting is relative. If you discovered a force with two different strengths and each used a different set of bosons, what would you call it? One or two?

Pions aren't fundamental particles. Would you say that wind blowing in your face is its own force, one that's distinct from E&M?

Physicists have yet to explain the connection.

Nonsense, it's well-understood.

Sol, you're supposed to be this high powered physics guy ... but based on this post I don't see any signs of scientific objectivity. If this thing exists why isn't it in QED?

I really have no idea what "this thing" is supposed to be. If you mean that EM forces can be repulsive, of course that's in QED. If you want a specific example, compute the electron-electron scattering cross-section. Tree level will do.

I have some other questions for you. Are you really interested in physics? Or are you primarily motivated in helping your internet friends win an argument? I hope you are interested in learning more about what we all live in!

I couldn't care less about "winning" internet arguments, so I think I'll bow out of this one. Enjoy.

 

[gentlehorse]

What do you think?

Since you ask, I think you're being dishonest.

 

[tsig]

You are right Sol. It's easy to misfire on a word while writing. Here is another semantic point. The strong nuclear force is really two. The strong color force acts on quarks i.e. the constituents of protons, neutrons and mesons. Its boson is the gluon (8 different ones). The residual nuclear force keeps the protons and neutrons within atomic nuclei via exchanging mesons. The nuclear forces have different bosons and have different strengths but for some reason the popular literature at least counts them as one.

Gravity is out of the SM picture as you say. It's hypothetical boson has been dubbed the graviton but has never been detected. When quantum mechanical math was applied to quantize gravity it resulted in pesky infinite values. That is nonsense to math and of course to physics as it can not describe a path nature takes. In other words ... breakdown! The challenge is called the problem of quantum gravity and it's a biggy!

Your posts seem to be random collections of thoughts without any unifying structure.

 

[kenkoskinen]

Cite this in QED! Look up Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

Of course EM repulsion is part of QED! As for net-neutral objects exerting EM forces on each other, they very often do - because they have a non-zero internal charge distribution.

If you agree the standard model can account for the elasticity and stiffness of materials, it can only be because of QED. The weak force is totally irrelevant, and the strong force acts only within atomic nuclei - and that's it, that's the standard model.

Repulsion in QED arises in an obvious way between like charges or like-charged parts of a larger object or atom, and it also arises because of the "Q" in QED. Ask yourself this: why doesn't the electron in a hydrogen atom fall into the proton? Why instead is it nearly 100,000 times further away from the proton than the proton's size?

A recent source indicates the electron cloud is 10,000 times the size of an nucleus. This may well be more depend on the quantum makeup of the particle/waves in question, than anything related to our question. However the electron orbits maybe quantumized in space/time. The Pauli Exclusion Principle also plays to fermion positions. None of it has anything to do with the imaginary physics on this thread!

Once you understand the reason, and also understand that neutral atoms can and do exert fairly complex EM forces on each other, you may start to have a clue as to how this all works.

Sure Sol ... show this in QED! Neutral objects/particles do not EM quantum interact beyond the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Which is to say it's NOT detectable! The people on this thread are claiming this thing causes neutral objects e.g. the earth and people to repel and thereby cancel an equivalent value of gravity. And other such nonsense! What are you really suggesting? Was this intended as some kind of diversion? Look it comes down to extending QED! You know that ... and so do I!

 

[PixyMisa]

Ken, Sol Invictus is, of course, correct, and you are entirely wrong. The details of your own post highlight why you are wrong. And you would understand all this if you would simply answer my question:

Take two objects, negatively charged at one end and positively charged at the other. The net charge on each one is zero. Not hypothetical particles, any arbitrary object.

If we push the two negatively charged ends together, what is the resulting force (again, considering only electromagnetism)?

1. Attraction
2. Repulsion
3. Zero

 

[kenkoskinen]

Imaginary Question!

Since you ask, I think you're being dishonest.

Is that all you think? You asked me a question ... I gave an answer. You deleted most of it. So, do you think anything else other than ... honesty? How does that relate to your imaginary question about the universe?

 

[kenkoskinen]

Smoke & Mirrors

=sol invictus;6989314]Pions aren't fundamental particles. Would you say that wind blowing in your face is its own force, one that's distinct from E&M?
Nonsense, it's well-understood.

It's not about wind blowing in one's face! That's not the question. Can you or anyone else explain it quantum mechanically?

I really have no idea what "this thing" is supposed to be.

Neither do I or anyone else, including PixieMisa! He's been asked to write a concise statement. Instead he want to keep asking questions that have already been answered.[/QUOTE]

If you mean that EM forces can be repulsive, of course that's in QED. If you want a specific example, compute the electron-electron scattering cross-section. Tree level will do.

Of course, I don't mean that! You should have realized this by now.

I couldn't care less about "winning" internet arguments, so I think I'll bow out of this one. Enjoy.

Okay ... it's your choice. I don't blame you because this one has no real substance! It's all smoke and mirrors!

 

[PixyMisa]

It's not about wind blowing in one's face! That's not the question. Can you or anyone else explain it quantum mechanically?

Neither do I or anyone else, including PixieMisa! He's been asked to write a concise statement. Instead he want to keep asking questions that have already been answered.

You'll note that Sol Invictus agreed with me, not you. That's why I keep asking you that question. You are the only one in the thread who thinks anything I've said is the slightest bit odd.

And neither I nor anyone else seems to have seen this answer. All we're asking for is one word. It will take you maybe two seconds to answer this.

Take two objects, negatively charged at one end and positively charged at the other. The net charge on each one is zero. Not hypothetical particles, any arbitrary object.

If we push the two negatively charged ends together, what is the resulting force (again, considering only electromagnetism)?

1. Attraction
2. Repulsion
3. Zero

 

[SusanB-M1]

Earlier in the thread, when kenkoskinen had assumed that PixyMisa was a she, there was a patronising element in his words because of, apparently, talking to a female, but there has also been a generally patronising tone to all posters. But now to be patronising towards SolInvictus too..... well, just who does kinkoskinen think he is?

 

[Belz...]

Apparently everything isn't obvious to some people on this thread. PixieMisa wrote: "To produce a black hole, all it needs to be is unopposed." The idea is black holes can form anywhere independent of mass/energy/density in a locality. Of course, he means ideally in a thought experiment. Even here it's not so simple. Imagine if you magically removed EM out of a single atom of hydrogen. Does that mean it would form into a black hole? I think not. It's not just eliminating obstacles. Its still also about mass/energy/density in a location.

Now you're simply operating out of your own opinion.

A reasonable person would've taken the amount of opposition you're getting here as a sign that you should do some research and verify your claims and beliefs about this issue. Why haven't you done so ?

However black hole production in the cosmos isn't just a mater of a planet accreting matter. As far as we know the thing has to become a star first.

No. As far as YOU know. Physicists have known for some time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole

"In principle, a black hole can have any mass above the Planck mass."

Three solar masses worth of neutron star mass, another example, and it could become a black hole. You can do searches on these terms and learn more.

That's because the gravity has to overcome the strong nuclear force that it needs such a mass. In the absence of both EM (ionised gas (plasma) doesn't have electrons) and the strong nuclear force, nothing is stopping gravity from producing black holes out of everything.

On earth in accelerator experiments the values aren't that certain because we haven't yet (for sure) seen a man-made mini-black hole.

So now you KNOW that those miniature black holes exist in theory but you feigned ignorance anyway ?

Sometimes we forget these details when we write a few lines about imaginary black hole production.

I have rarely seen such ignorance used in such a patronizing way.

 

[Belz...]

Well, resistance or opposition to what gravity does to a particle/object can be many things: all three standard model forces (including the action of EM), Pauli's Exclusion Principle (not one of the four forces), what I refer to as the neutral barrier (it separates two neutral objects because EM doesn't interact between them) and hence it is not quantum EM activity.

Neutral barrier ? Did you just make that up ?

No ... I merely saying in context to the thought experiment, that lack of opposition or resistances to gravity isn't the whole picture. Even then, you still have to have sufficient mass/energy/density in a location.

No you don't. In fact, your problem here isn't even one of ignorance but of flawed logic, now. You KNOW about EM forces preventing you from passing right through your chair, but somehow you fail to make the connection with that very effect resisting gravity. You've erroneously interpreted what you've read about black holes needing a certain mass in order to exist as evidence that black holes could not form without said mass even if there wasn't resistance against gravity. That is a non sequitur.

The reason why you need 3 or such solar masses in a star's core in order to get a black hole is because in order to reach that stage, gravity has to overcome the strong nuclear force that would otherwise stabilise the star's continual collapse to a neutron star. Once the mass is beyond that threshold, you get a black hole. But if gravity didn't have to contend with the nuclear force at all, you'd always get a black hole. And if EM didn't exist, everything would be a black hole by now.

That EM action can resist gravity action on particles/objects isn't the issue.

How is it NOT the issue ? You've just admitted it CAN resist gravity, and then you say, in the SAME sentence, that it is besides the point that gravity encounters resistance that prevents it from compressing matter further ?

 

[Belz...]

You may have a point in such an extrapolation.

If that's a "yes", then you've finally admitted that gravity would produce black holes all over the place if it weren't for the other forces.

You keep contradicting yourself. I suspect you either don't understand what follows from various premises, here, or that you are simply incapable of admitting to having made a mistake. No one will bash you for being wrong.

Yes ... it's only a thought experiment.

So IF all other forces were removed they would result in black holes but because it's a thought experiment and in reality you can't remove the other forces you still maintain that EM isn't responsible for preventing Earth from compressing further due to gravity ?

If this thing exists why isn't it in QED?

It is.

Dig up the sources.

You're the one who is proposing something contrary to KNOWN physics. You should be the one making the effort, now that we've pointed you, repeatedly, in the right direction.

 

[Belz...]

Your posts seem to be random collections of thoughts without any unifying structure.

Well, he IS a philosopher.

 

[Belz...]

Okay ... it's your choice. I don't blame you because this one has no real substance! It's all smoke and mirrors!

Sol may not care about "winning" internet arguments, but you sure do. This confirms what I said earlier about you being unable to admit your mistakes. You think this would mean "losing". This is childish. Making mistakes is part of learning to make fewer ones in the future. Therefore such an admission by you would actually be "winning".

Imagine that.

 

[tsig]

It's not about wind blowing in one's face! That's not the question. Can you or anyone else explain it quantum mechanically?


Neither do I or anyone else, including PixieMisa! He's been asked to write a concise statement. Instead he want to keep asking questions that have already been answered.

I asked my quantum mechanic about it and he said was probably bad muffler bearings causing a loud screeching noise or the gas tank spark plugs misfiring.

BTW: Do you know where I can buy some quantum wrenches? My current supplier is uncertain if he can locate any or what size they would be if he did?