Water,a manifestation of WHAT?

[dolphin]

Just quickly:

In other words: if one of the minimum ingredients required for defining "liquid state" (at least in chemistry) is "several atoms or molecules interacting" (someone said six are required for water); then to talk of "one atom becoming liquid" is like talking of one brick becoming a house.

You could wait all day but never see a brick be anything other than a brick even after it was added to many others to form a house? Not quite; the brick would have undergone some pushes and pulls as it was moved into position with the other bricks.
It would become part of a circuit of strain in the building: you could perhaps measure a slight strain on the brick after the house was built.

If you did North's experiment and added hydrogen and oxygen atoms one by one; once you had enough of them and enough pressure and containment and a spark of energy to overcome the energy barrier you could get water.

Would the hydrogen and oxygen atoms be any different then? To measure one of them surely you would have to separate it out by doing electrolysis of water (pass an electric current through the water and see what happens at a zinc and a carbon electrode diped in the water).

But whatever hidden stress or strain was in the individual atom would presumably be released via electrolysis, so your collected hydrogen and oxygen would look just as they usually do?

Similarly pull a brick from a house and whatever strain it is under is gone. If the brick was made of rubber it might expand a bit after you pulled it out. It is conceivable that atoms of hydrogen and oxygen are slightly squashed when in liquid form but that they avoid this by synchronising their respective squashed-ness by tumbling all over one another so some expand a bit while squashing others; but with an overall net lower volume than before the liquid condensed?

A liquid might be a self-referring volume, a single quantum (meeting) state of volume. A solid might be quantised area.

If this were the case then "water: a manifestation of what?" might be answered:

a manifestation of an ongoing exchange among its molecules re: their volume so that the sum of the volume of all the molecules added up based on statistics would be greater than the actual volume of the water divided by the number of water molecules.

You could suggest water is a manifestation of quantum tunneling.

-just some ideas thrown around!

-Alan

 

[dolphin]

another thing:

IF chemistry is holographic:

like each phenomenon is a language that the others can "speak"; than "oxygen" can "speak" hydrogen and hydrogen can "speak" oxygen.

And "temperature" can speak both "hydrogen" and "oxygen"; and "pressure" can speak all three and so on.

Actually in broad terms it may be like this by default: to know two things are different requires that they be distinct against a mutual common background.

If you couldn't tell the difference betwen oxygen and pressure how would you get far in chemistry?

"water" is a language spoken by hydrogen and oxygen you might say, when seen against the background of certain atom quantities, pressure, temperature, and historical breaking-of-energy-barrier conditions.

So you could ask: what conditions are needed so that hydrogen can speak "liquid"?

Some items might "speak" a certain "language" only when certain items are excluded from the conditions with others included; so as to avoid contradictions in how each is defined.

-Alan

 

[russ_watters]

If you did North's experiment and added hydrogen and oxygen atoms one by one; once you had enough of them and enough pressure and containment and a spark of energy to overcome the energy barrier you could get water.

I didn't see that in north's proposal.

But whatever hidden stress or strain was in the individual atom would presumably be released via electrolysis, so your collected hydrogen and oxygen would look just as they usually do?

Correct.

Similarly pull a brick from a house and whatever strain it is under is gone. If the brick was made of rubber it might expand a bit after you pulled it out. It is conceivable that atoms of hydrogen and oxygen are slightly squashed when in liquid form but that they avoid this by synchronising their respective squashed-ness by tumbling all over one another so some expand a bit while squashing others; but with an overall net lower volume than before the liquid condensed?

I'm not sure you realize this, but you're arguing my point here, not north's. Yes, the brick only has measurable stresses associated with being part of a house when it is part of a house - similarly, a molecule doesn't exhibit any properties of a liquid unless it is part of a liquid.

 

[north]

I'm not sure you realize this, but you're arguing my point here, not north's. Yes, the brick only has measurable stresses associated with being part of a house when it is part of a house -
___________________________________________
similarly, a molecule doesn't exhibit any properties of a liquid unless it is part of a liquid.[/QUOTE]

___________________________________________

maybe for a molecule but not necessarily for a lone atom.right now the basis for understanding liquids is based on behaviour and why.for instanace, in most cases, dense gases are considered the same as liquids.there is pressure-compression,thermodynamics,magnetism,electronics etc.to consider, and it is considered that a liquid state could not happen unless there is a minimum cluster of atoms.it may take a minimum amount of atoms for us to detect the state of liquidity but that does not mean that it does not happen i say that this is an "ASSUMPTION" there is a possibility that a liquid state can exist in a lone atom.

try the first experiment and STUDY its behaviour.

in the book "States of Matter" David admits they not only do not fully understand liquids, he says and i quote "The fact is that if one inquires closely enough,even our elegant and eminently successful theories of solids have their quantitative shortcomings.Their success lies in that we believe that we have a firm grasp of the basic principles of the problem.It is that kind of grasp that we lack in the liquid problem.All the formalism we have gone through is no substitute for the intuition we need.The hope, rather, is that it may lead us to that intuition."

intuition is precisely what guides me here.right or wrong my first experiment is valid.the minimum to be gained is knowledge.

 

[russ_watters]

maybe for a molecule but not necessarily for a lone atom.

On what observation do you base that? What properties could they display? Viscocity? Melting point? If I were a plant, what color would my eyes be?

in most cases, dense gases are considered the same as liquids.

Yes... what does that have to do with anything?

there is pressure-compression,thermodynamics,magnetism,electronics etc.to consider, and it is considered that a liquid state could not happen unless there is a minimum cluster of atoms.it may take a minimum amount of atoms for us to detect the state of liquidity but that does not mean that it does not happen...

Well, you tell me: what happens on a molecular level when you compress a liquid or solid? What, precisely is being compressed?

...i say that this is an "ASSUMPTION" there is a possibility that a liquid state can exist in a lone atom...

What you see as an unfounded assumption is something so basic that its hard to express in words. I'm having a hard time understanding how you could not understand it. It seems that you are simply refusing to accept reality at face value.

try the first experiment and STUDY its behaviour.

in the book "States of Matter" David admits they not only do not fully understand liquids, he says and i quote "The fact is that if one inquires closely enough,even our elegant and eminently successful theories of solids have their quantitative shortcomings.Their success lies in that we believe that we have a firm grasp of the basic principles of the problem.It is that kind of grasp that we lack in the liquid problem.All the formalism we have gone through is no substitute for the intuition we need.The hope, rather, is that it may lead us to that intuition."

intuition is precisely what guides me here.right or wrong my first experiment is valid.the minimum to be gained is knowledge.[/QUOTE]

 

[north]

i have no observation,just my curiosity,i'd just like to see for myself what happens when one hydrogen atom is brought down to it's liquid state.and as of yet no one has done this.

i also found that it is curious that a liquid is considered the same as a dense gas.i can understand this comparision.the thing that struck me though is that, there is a change of state.

for compression in what i have read so far, David was talking about the incompressibility of condensed matter because atoms don't like to enter each others core.

the trouble is Russ,when i first proposed the first experiment,you said not bad,with no feed back from you on the validity of the experiment.now you have changed your tune.what I'm refusing to believe is that when someone says "not bad" at first then makes a complete turn around and shoots it down or appleals to my not accepting things as they are,(of course not, this is science after all, in it's true spirit,some question things as they stand,some like your self don't,and people like myself do) makes me wary of really where you stand.i would expect that if there was a problem with the experiment in the first place i would expect the objections right then and there,not further down the road.

the fact is what "works" isn't enough.and it's just not me who thinks so whether you like it or not.i think it's you who has the difficulty accepting the fact that we don't "know it all" and THAT is the reality.

 

[russ_watters]

i also found that it is curious that a liquid is considered the same as a dense gas.i can understand this comparision.the thing that struck me though is that, there is a change of state.

No, there is no change of state. Its just that at a certain pressure and temperature (but not an exact temperature and pressure) the properties become indistinguishable. This should be easy to understand: a liquid is essentially a dense, viscous gas.

the trouble is Russ,when i first proposed the first experiment,you said not bad,with no feed back from you on the validity of the experiment.now you have changed your tune.what I'm refusing to believe is that when someone says "not bad" at first then makes a complete turn around and shoots it down or appleals to my not accepting things as they are

I probably should have given you more feedback and for that I apologize. It isn't a bad experiment, it just won't tell us anything (of course, that may be exactly what you need to see).

i would expect that if there was a problem with the experiment in the first place i would expect the objections right then and there,not further down the road.

There are some practical issues with carying it out, but the main objection is that most scientists wouldn't consider it useful. It may be useful to you to see the experiment produce nothing, but a scientist isn't going to run an experiment like that just to show you that nothing happens.

the fact is what "works" isn't enough.and it's just not me who thinks so whether you like it or not.i think it's you who has the difficulty accepting the fact that we don't "know it all" and THAT is the reality.

Yes, there are a lot of people who believe that: philosophers, theologians in particular. But not scientists. To a scientist, the one and only critereon for determining the vailidy of a theory is how well it "works."

 

[north]

just a point to be made.what would you have thought if someone came to you and said that they would like to try an experiment to show that "cold fusion" is possible.going by how you come across here you would have said it won't happen, so what's the point, you would be wasting your time,alot of scientists would have agreed with you,and yet in time all of you would be proven wrong.there are scientists all over the world that are doing just that,producing cold fusion even though at this point they may not fully understand why.but to understand it is still going on.

if we stick to what just works(which really has not been the question here in the first place,since it does work,no argument)then we would never come across cold fusion in the first place.all I'm trying to do is open up the POSSIBILITY that we JUST MIGHT unexpectedly come across something and not close the door until we absolutely know for sure,rather than assuming that nothing will become of it,based on what we know now,what ever that something is. so just look at it this way,simply why not anyway.i mean really, why not? if I'm wrong that nothing happens so be it,but if I'm right... you see what I've always liked about science is discovery.that i think is the difference between you and me,i like discovery-you on the other hand like what works(although without discovery you wouldn't have what works! kind of a paradox for you,wouldn't you say!)

 

[russ_watters]

just a point to be made.what would you have thought if someone came to you and said that they would like to try an experiment to show that "cold fusion" is possible.going by how you come across here you would have said it won't happen, so what's the point, you would be wasting your time,alot of scientists would have agreed with you,and yet in time all of you would be proven wrong.there are scientists all over the world that are doing just that,producing cold fusion...

Wow. No, sorry, no one is producing cold fusion. It doesn't work. Cold Fusion research exists today as crackpots reproducing the work of frauds (Pons and Fleischman). Your issues with science run far deeper than I realized. Sorry, but I cannot help you.

 

[north]

Wow. No, sorry, no one is producing cold fusion. It doesn't work. Cold Fusion research exists today as crackpots reproducing the work of frauds (Pons and Fleischman). Your issues with science run far deeper than I realized. Sorry, but I cannot help you.

___________________________________________

WOW, a little behind the times are we! of course you can't help me(thats plainly obvious) you are what works,thats just not deep enough.!

for those open minded enough, a website to visit on Cold Fusion is http://www.infinite-energy.com ,there are links as well.

 

[russ_watters]

WOW, a little behind the times are we! of course you can't help me(thats plainly obvious) you are what works,thats just not deep enough.!

for those open minded enough, a website to visit on Cold Fusion is http://www.infinite-energy.com ,there are links as well.

Not just me - why hasn't the Nobel Prize comittee weighed-in on this yet? Its the greatest discovery in the history of science (it really would be, if true). And where can I buy a generator? I'll make a fortune selling power back to my power company...

I honestly, sincerely hope you come to your senses some day soon. I just hope it doesn't take decades of continuing failure. Failing chemistry class won't hurt you much in the long run, but the further down this path you go, the greater the failures and their effect on your life.

 

[Deeviant]

Russ, your patience is amazing. North is so close to being a forum troll I can't tell the difference.

 

[north]

Not just me - why hasn't the Nobel Prize comittee weighed-in on this yet? Its the greatest discovery in the history of science (it really would be, if true). And where can I buy a generator? I'll make a fortune selling power back to my power company...

I honestly, sincerely hope you come to your senses some day soon. I just hope it doesn't take decades of continuing failure. Failing chemistry class won't hurt you much in the long run, but the further down this path you go, the greater the failures and their effect on your life.

___________________________________________

as you know, seeing as that your some what familar that there is politics therefore money involved here i can't think you are that naive as to ignor this fact.those with flexibility of mind are always feared by those who have no hope of understanding their theory and history proves this.your a conformist pure and simple.you fear what you can't understand,don't worry your not alone. insult me all you want but there are people out there that are more intelligent and imaginative than you, that are beyond you,period!

 

[north]

Russ, your patience is amazing. North is so close to being a forum troll I can't tell the difference.

___________________________________________

youv'e lost your focus,think about the experiment and what I've quoted from "STATES of MATTER". all the rest is a matter of the universe being flexible and whether we are. is there science in the true sense of the word or stagnation. so "we know it all"? really! so we can explain absolutely everything now and into say, next 100,000 years of observation,detection and study. well that is a revelation, well then there are "NO MORE SURPRISES" we can explain things so well, let's now look into the future and i suspect that you will be coming out with this book or whatever soon. is there a Noble Prize here,there's got to be, i mean who knew, i'll be looking!

 

[russ_watters]

as you know, seeing as that your some what familar that there is politics therefore money involved here i can't think you are that naive as to ignor this fact.

Conspiracy theory? My god, north, take a step back and think about what you are saying here. This is 2004 and you are on the internet: the government or evil rich people cannot suppress such information. Besides, you gave me a link to some such information (bad information, but information nonetheless) - don't you see the contradiction there?

Perhaps you also need a history lesson: do you know the history of cold fusion? When it was first announced by Pons and Fleischman in 1989, do you know where they announced it? Scientific American? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists? No, they announced it in The Wall Street Journal! That should have been a red-flag, but despite that breach of the scientific method, the entire scientific world stopped for a month to try to duplicate the findings: that kind of response was unprecidented. The scientific community was met with nothing but deception and evasion from Pons & Fleischman. After a month of unanswered questions, the scientific community concluded the idea was bunk - some say P&F were just incompetent, but by the end, it really did become fraud. P&F did NOT observe fusion and cold fusion research since then hasn't either.

North, you are decending into a rapidly tightening crackpot death spiral of self-reinforcing delusions. You need to stop, back up, and regain control. I'm not saying this to insult you - I hate to see this happen to people who have potential.

North, in the past 100 years, science has taken us from riding horse-drawn carriages to riding cars, riding planes, and riding rockets to the moon. You cannot ignore the fact that this science you despise so much has produced everything that is part of modern life today.

is there science in the true sense of the word or stagnation. so "we know it all"? really! so we can explain absolutely everything now and into say, next 100,000 years of observation,detection and study

North, you are not in a position to say such things as you have refused to learn anything of what we do know. Its hypocritical.

there that are more intelligent and imaginative than you, that are beyond you,period!

Absolutely. I'm not Einstein and never pretend to be. And you could be! But you need to realize the same thing. You need to realize that far from Einstein, the aveage college freshman knows more about real science than you do. You have a long way to go before you are beyond anyone. You could become the next Einstein, but do it the way Einstein did it. Its not possible the way you are doing it.

 

[north]

Conspiracy theory? My god, north, take a step back and think about what you are saying here. This is 2004 and you are on the internet: the government or evil rich people cannot suppress such information. Besides, you gave me a link to some such information (bad information, but information nonetheless) - don't you see the contradiction there?
___________________________________________

from what i understand,they relised their mistake but it seemed that they were forced to because,i think it was a university in Utah(can't remember the name)was going to publish their results before them and they had to hurry there findings before they were ready,hence they unorthodox method of announcing their findings. a shame really.but there has been research since then.
i mentioned politics and money because there was a loby by certain people to denounce it because of the money that was going into hot fusion(40 billion dollars)this employs a lot of people, i believe at MIT alone.so it seemed to me(the DOE was involved here to) which had asked that this be looked into but was discouraged to do so. the book by Eugene F.
Mallove "Fire from Ice"(who by the way has died recently,which at this point is being perceived as a homicide)is a good read on the events that took place. it has been recomended by;

Dr.Frank Sulloway former MacArthur Fellow Science historian,MIT program in Science,Technology,and Society.

and also Dr.Henry Kolm, cofounder of MIT's Francis Bitter Magnet Laboratory.

and as well Julian Schwinger, Nobel Laureate in Physics.

All i have ever asked is an open mind.
by the way if you or anybody else is interested in Eugene's book it can be bought on the infinite-energy web site.

___________________________________________

North, in the past 100 years, science has taken us from riding horse-drawn carriages to riding cars, riding planes, and riding rockets to the moon. You cannot ignore the fact that this science you despise so much has produced everything that is part of modern life today.
___________________________________________

yes it has been a fantastic and a fascinating ride has it not!? no argument here! but there never was,really! this is not so much a challenge to what we know but now that we know this, let's just carry on and go further in.

___________________________________________

North, you are not in a position to say such things as you have refused to learn anything of what we do know. Its hypocritical. Absolutely. I'm not Einstein and never pretend to be. And you could be! But you need to realize the same thing. You need to realize that far from Einstein, the aveage college freshman knows more about real science than you do. You have a long way to go before you are beyond anyone. You could become the next Einstein, but do it the way Einstein did it. Its not possible the way you are doing it.

___________________________________________

you are right, i don't know as much as a lot of others. and that has been my down fall in getting respect for my ideas,but I'm well into my 40's and have enjoyed science all my life, just can't do the dam math!,oh-well, life gives us our path.

but I've made it my goal to be as open to as many theories as possible,with critizism,so I'm used to different ideas and theories,there are so may out there really!

for instance Tom Van Flanderns book, Dark Matter Missing Planets & New Comets(he has a website by the way http://metaresearch.org,his book is availible on his site too) i wish you or someone like you would join this site because your knowledge is greater than i think any others on the site as far as challengeing his ideas,THIS NOT ABOUT ANY DISCREDITING YOU OR TOM, but simply a discussion of different perspectives.

by the way for myself i don't agree with all that he puts forth especially about scales

 

[north]

the basis of my experiment is to not take what we know for granted.we could miss the smallest detail,maybe not,but at the same time nobody has. that could add to what we already know.no harm there, is there?really.

 

[dolphin]

Hi,

first may I run a test:

I typed this sentence on an old Apple lap-top computer:

"the cat sat on the mat"

hopefully it will appear which means I can type off-line.

To Russel:

I take your point re: the rubber brick.
I was not disputing your perspective but trying to find clarity as there is the possibility in physics debates that there is a way of looking at the scenario where what look like clashing views might be able to be seen as different perspectives on a bigger picture such that both parties are right.

On the face of it North seems to be looking for "liquid" state in a single atom which appears to be a contradiction in terms as in science "liquid" and "single atom" appear to be mutually exclusive.

However a group of molecules comprising several atoms can have a liquid state; but it appears that the attempt to observe any individual atom would require an injection of energy such as to interfere with what you are observing so as to give you just a typical looking atom with no "liquid" properties.

However one could analyse the "obervation process" itself and the interference required to separate the atom to look at it, and compare that with making such an observation of an atom in a gas. One could then propose that the difference in what you need to do to see one atom in a gas compared to seeing one atom in a liquid; this difference in how you have to go about observing IS ITSELF one could suggest a way of looking at what "liquid" means.

Speculating here:

a molecule might be regarded as a "liquid atom"; a group of molecules in a liquid state might be considered to be "liquid atoms, liquid again" ; if so this double-defining of "liquid" would lead the logician to propose that molecules in a liquid exhibit some atom-like properties not shown in non-liquid state.

This highly speculative theory would be testable: is there any atomic property of hydrogen, and of oxygen; that re-appears in liquid water but is not present in gas or solid water? The property might be distributed over the entire liquid, may be coded in some way.

Here is another thing:

This is not fully thought out but:

It appears that there is a super simple way to unravel mathematics, physics, and chemistry. It is reminiscent of what we are told about the Kingdom of Heaven: where "every stone is overturned"; "I will give you a logic that needs no rehearsal"; "ask and it will be given you, knock and the door shall be opened to you"; "He shall come in glory at the end of time, and His kingdom will have no end"; there appears to be a "consciousness space" where all is known and transparent, where "the wolf shall lie down with the lamb":

This super simple approach reminds me of these sayings.

Idea:

Mathematics is built around the idea that "1 + 1 = 2". But obviously they can not exactly be the same, or you would have just one. Mathematicians get around this by inventing "base" and "number".

Physics: physics notices that in the real world "1 + 1 might not be 2"; it deals with this by assuming "1+1" is split into "this aspect of 1 + 1" and "that aspect of 1 + 1".
Physics doesn't claim to know how big each one in this four is. When the initial two ones exchange some of each other, who knows how much each gives to the other?

This expansion and contraction is the basic model of physics: it is logic. "prove a car is blue": you look at other things that are blue (expand "blue") and see if "car" is like that other blue thing (does "car" look like "Earth's sky on middle of a sunny cloud-less day"?)

Here "blue" has expanded to include "sky"; "car" has been contracted to "like sky".
But "expansion" (mass: uncertainty) and "contraction" (charge: bias) seem interchangeable here. But introduce some other problem (re-normalisation)(make everything stringy: with strings attached) (gravitate the categories via a loop that quantises their coming together: loop quantum gravity): "who's car is claimed to be a blue car? Joe's car or Bill's car? "

Now we have a "double slit experiment": "Joe" and "Bill" are two slits in the screen of "some other problem". The "photon" (the juggling of "car", "sky" and "blue": being three it is "self referent reference i.e. time-standing-still" being juggled (so with space) is passing through two slits.

If you were to split the photon "car1sky1blue1" and "car2sky2blue2" you would have to collapse the two slits into "Joe or Bill" that is an expansion-contraction space. This is called "The EPR experiment". If photon 1 is spun left to Joe, you cannot see "spin up, spin down" that is whether its "sky" component is bias to "car" or "blue".

If you can see that it is spun up or down (has internal bias), you can not see "Joe; Bill" bias because of the problem of induction (the expansion-contraction uncertainty principle). So we have "non-locality" and "entanglement" possibly explained. Also quantum spin explained and the relationship between scale and direction?

What physics does: QED tracks information to cover all bases; it is about swapping the operations of addition (which requires a same-difference between addends so virtual multiplication) and multiplication (which assumes an exchangeable difference such as the extra 1 in 3 compared to 2 can (though "2" implies a background so already a hidden 1) be swapped in "2 x 3" so involves virtual addition".) Virtual addition is "direction" of the arrow and virtual multiplication is "ratio" (probability): compare with other arrows and you get Feynman QED (adding of arrows on a piece of paper).

Physics collapses the problem of induction into "alpha: the fine structure constant" which is an attempt to fix the expansion:contraction. The price of doing this is to require a constant of comparison ("C" the spoeed of light constant); a constant of difference (non comparison) ("h" the Planck constant); and a constant of boundary to expansion contraction: G: the "set" constant which covers lumps" gravity: curved space.

The standard model of physics can be extensively mapped by this approach, it appears. This is just a bit typed up; subject to debate!

Chemistry: chemists seem to tackle the "does 1 + 1 = 2?" problem by saying:
instead of talking of a fuzzy four like the physicists; we will make a Pauli exclusion principle and say the two ones exchange information but then exchange it again so could be back where they started but might not be". This gives the possibility of four zeroes (called "four quantum numbers") and 8 groups.

But is anything uneven amongst the 8 groups? How big is each group? This is solved by chemistry by saying something could be exchanged among the 8 groups; so call this 8-1 = 7 periods describing the fuzzying of scale by the 8 groups. (These 8 groups turn up in physics as 8 gluons). So we have 7 periods x 8 groups = 56 transition elements in the periodic table.

I am speculating somewhat here and do not claim to have all the answers. Why 104 basic elements? The initial 4 in physics: splitting "1 + 1 = 2" into four; with uncertain scale: so split this aspect off and call it the "5"; then multiply the 4 by the 5 get 20; but now the "4" is 16 with the fuzziness as an extra 4? So multiply by 5 get 20 x 5 = 100 and the extra 4 is redistributed among the 5 so as to not dictate whether the fuzziness is real or not; then add 4 more (100 + 4 = 104) so as to make a Higgs field? A field where the scale difference can appear and dissapear? Rather messy trying to work it out!

-Alan

 

[north]

Alan

what are you trying to say,specificly?

 

[russ_watters]

the basis of my experiment is to not take what we know for granted.we could miss the smallest detail,maybe not,but at the same time nobody has. that could add to what we already know.no harm there, is there?really.

That's fine, north. All I'm saying is that without the expectation of finding anything, you'll have a hard time convincing anyone to do the experiment. Most will want you to make a prediction about what will be observed.

 

[dolphin]

To North:

Scientists' DEFINITION of liquid requires several atoms. To them it is nonsense to talk of one liquid atom on its own.

In your experiment you would have to not just add atoms one at a time; you would have to contain them in a limited space (pressurise them) and you would have to add some spark of energy they say. Also you would have to cool them.

Actually that sounds like a contradiction: cool them yet add a spark. But the spark perhaps alows the "cool" and the "pressure" to swap places partly: cool under pressure: liquid?

A liquid has its own built-in pressure (it is self-contained) and its own built in cooling: the molecules swap some of their individual jiggling for group jiggling (I theorise).

I'm theorising that this group dance of the molecules puts pressure on each one to "sail the ship": so pressure is internal.

But actually pressure is relieved by cool-ness / pressure exchanges? This is achieved by surface area minimisation (in space you get a ball of liquid).

There is maximum choice of molecules changing position in synch with the rest in a ball? And group jiggling has minimum requirement in a ball? So no internal gravity needed? In a gravity field the liquid plays with gravity and surface (it flows) to achieve its free-est state it seems?

If you tried to keep tabs on each atom individually while you did all that cooling and pressurising and spark-adding; you would have to keep the atoms apart which would prevent them from becoming a liquid! Hot under pressure: your experiment would produce a plasma.

In fact you would have to contain it in a magnetic bottle and you might get nuclear fusion!

About physics:

it appears to be patterns of logic.

About maths:

it appears to be logic of patterns.

About chemistry:

it appears to be about hospitality (making rooms for things)

If you look at what I have written about the double slit experiment and the EPR experiment and M theory and F theory and QED (logic) and QCD (fuzzy logic) and compare with the scientific literature you may see that what looks like complex science can be mapped it seems in a very simple way?

-Alan

 

[north]

That's fine, north. All I'm saying is that without the expectation of finding anything, you'll have a hard time convincing anyone to do the experiment. Most will want you to make a prediction about what will be observed.

___________________________________________

the hydrogen atom will become a liquid it's self. so why? because the electron will condense.and if you fire an electron at it in it's liquid state does it bounce off,or be absorbed.baring that, what are it's characteristics in this state.what does it do,not do,if you use X-Rays what does it look like? but more than this i just want to know WHAT HAPPENS.look we know that both oxygen and hydrogen are liquids at very low temps. and yet when brought together a liquid forms at higher temps. but why, i think that one or the other acts as some kind of catalyst and that has something to do with electrons,notice that oxygen has a lower liquid state than hydrogen.oxygen having more electrons than hydrogen.something is going on but what? like i said before, i think there is a transformation of electrons themselves. something new i thought of, is there a density of the liquid state between hydrogen and oxygen, i predict that oxygen will have a denser liquid state in it's pure form than hydrogen.

 

[north]

To North:

Scientists' DEFINITION of liquid requires several atoms. To them it is nonsense to talk of one liquid atom on its own.

In your experiment you would have to not just add atoms one at a time; you would have to contain them in a limited space (pressurise them) and you would have to add some spark of energy they say. Also you would have to cool them.

Actually that sounds like a contradiction: cool them yet add a spark. But the spark perhaps alows the "cool" and the "pressure" to swap places partly: cool under pressure: liquid?


A liquid has its own built-in pressure (it is self-contained) and its own built in cooling: the molecules swap some of their individual jiggling for group jiggling (I theorise).


I'm theorising that this group dance of the molecules puts pressure on each one to "sail the ship": so pressure is internal.

But actually pressure is relieved by cool-ness / pressure exchanges? This is achieved by surface area minimisation (in space you get a ball of liquid).

There is maximum choice of molecules changing position in synch with the rest in a ball? And group jiggling has minimum requirement in a ball? So no internal gravity needed? In a gravity field the liquid plays with gravity and surface (it flows) to achieve its free-est state it seems?

If you tried to keep tabs on each atom individually while you did all that cooling and pressurising and spark-adding; you would have to keep the atoms apart which would prevent them from becoming a liquid! Hot under pressure: your experiment would produce a plasma.

In fact you would have to contain it in a magnetic bottle and you might get nuclear fusion!

About physics:

it appears to be patterns of logic.

About maths:

it appears to be logic of patterns.

About chemistry:

it appears to be about hospitality (making rooms for things)

If you look at what I have written about the double slit experiment and the EPR experiment and M theory and F theory and QED (logic) and QCD (fuzzy logic) and compare with the scientific literature you may see that what looks like complex science can be mapped it seems in a very simple way?

-Alan

__________________________________________

from what i understand it is density that allows for the cooling,less dense more the cooling.

 

[russ_watters]

the hydrogen atom will become a liquid it's self. so why? because the electron will condense.and if you fire an electron at it in it's liquid state does it bounce off,or be absorbed.baring that, what are it's characteristics in this state.what does it do,not do,if you use X-Rays what does it look like?

None of that will have any meaning to any scientist you talk to. Its just a jumble of unrelated words.

but more than this i just want to know WHAT HAPPENS.

I'm sorry, but that's just not good enough.

look we know that both oxygen and hydrogen are liquids at very low temps. and yet when brought together a liquid forms at higher temps. but why, i think that one or the other acts as some kind of catalyst and that has something to do with electrons,notice that oxygen has a lower liquid state than hydrogen.oxygen having more electrons than hydrogen.something is going on but what? like i said before, i think there is a transformation of electrons themselves.

This is all ground already covered. Scientists already have reasonable explanations that work for them and you're going to need something to convince them their explanations are inadequate.

something new i thought of, is there a density of the liquid state between hydrogen and oxygen, i predict that oxygen will have a denser liquid state in it's pure form than hydrogen.

You don't need to predict that, you can look it up.

 

[dolphin]

Hi,

Quoting North:

Originally Posted by north

"the hydrogen atom will become a liquid it's self. so why? because the electron will condense.and if you fire an electron at it in it's liquid state does it bounce off,or be absorbed.baring that, what are it's characteristics in this state.what does it do,not do,if you use X-Rays what does it look like?"

To North and Russ:

something really curious seems to be going on in physics. I came across a paper by a nuclear-physics-phD (called "Foundations of Physical Reality") where he (Richard Stafford) claimed to have derived close approximations to physics laws by a model where he tried to minimise assumptions.

I seem to have differences in opinion with him but maybe he doesn't quite follow my extreme simple approach. When he debated with Chroot at this forum; I fond how they could both be right (haven't posted details).

In discussion forums I eventually realized that the complicated-looking math could be apparently bypassed. I showed his paper to a mathematician and he agreed that you didn't have to use math; that it could be mapped as being about definitions; which involves categories and intersecting categories.

Now vast areas of physics appears to have kind-of disintegrated into simple patterns of logic. Numerous mysteries in physics become transparent.

I found that often ordinary English uage of a word used in physics could often give the insight on the simple underlying pattern.

Also sometimes people write things that I can see wouldn't make sense to a classically trained scientist yet they can be seen in a way that reconciles their view with classical science.

I found that the word "electron" fits the simple pattern of the word "modification".

So in this way North can be right though perhaps I seem to have added an unusual twist here:

To see one atom in "liquid state" would require several atoms; or the energy to separate that from from the others would if modern science is right presumably neutralise the liquidity of it. But if "liquid" requires several atoms (as modern science says); then by definition it involves modifying those atoms (by each other acting as "honorary" electrons?)

By predicting the electron would condense; North may be on to something: but this is what the electron might look like when condensed: it would be a magnetic bottle containing the atom and holding it apart from the others. And all the others would need magnetic bottles too.

I'm suggesting that the apparatus needed to do North's experiment is itself the "condensed electron": namely if "electron" is "modified space" which fits hyperwave's point-geometry look at "electron"; then the condensation of "modified space" is what North's experiment would do!

One could argue that such a structure is a kind of proton-neutron-eectron; that you would have an apparatus that was a single honorary hydrogen nuclei?

So North can be right yet totally consistent with hyperwave and Russ!

The apparatus to do the experiment is the condensed electron?

Fire an electron at that and you get a modfication colliding with a structured modified space; my guess is it would emit a proton.

-Alan