Write4U's stream of consciousness

[Write4U]

I have noticed that the word "zombie" is often used in a scientific context.

Question: Is "zombie" even a scientific word? If not, why use it?

 

[Write4U]

My gosh, those darn microtubes are the cat's meow aren't they?

Yes, and looking at the increasing body of microtubule research, they are constantly discovering new microtubule properties and functions. Without them, cats would not be able to meow.

Microtubules: Evolving roles and critical cellular interactions

Understanding the mechanisms of microtubule stabilization and the associated microtubule post-translational modifications is an evolving field of study. Appropriate cellular homeostasis relies on not only one cytoskeletal element, but also rather an interaction between cytoskeletal proteins as well as other cellular regulators. Microtubules are key integrators with actin and intermediate filaments, as well as cell–cell junctional proteins and other cellular regulators including myosin and RhoGTPases to maintain this balance.

Impact statement
The role of microtubules in cellular functioning is constantly expanding. In this review, we examine new and exciting fields of discovery for microtubule’s involvement in morphogenesis, highlight our evolving understanding of differential roles for stabilized versus dynamic subpopulations, and further understanding of microtubules as a cellular integrator.

more ... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6880148/#

or the new (improved?) site: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6880148/

 

[Write4U]

Returning to the presence of benzene molecules
Question: In regard to the role benzene plays in quantum computing as in ORCH OR, that requires a stable neutral polar environment.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2203.05275

Particularly stable

There are delocalized electrons above and below the plane of the ring, which makes benzene particularly stable. Benzene resists addition reactions because those reactions would involve breaking the delocalization and losing that stability.

Structure and Stability of Benzene - Chemistry LibreTexts
https://www.bing.com/search?q=is benzene a stablemolecule&pc=GD01&form=GDAVST&ptag=3601

In addition this is what I found,
Vibrations and waves

A vibration is a periodic back and forth motion that remains fixed in one location. Examples of vibrations include a swing moving back and forth (like a pendulum) or a mass bobbing up and down on a spring. The video below demonstrates this periodic back and forth motion using the example of a swing set. (While the swing moves back and forth, this periodic motion does not propagate through space. Therefore, it is an example of a vibration.)

A wave is a traveling vibration that transfers energy from one place to another. There are many different types of waves: light waves, sound waves, water waves, gravitational waves, seismic waves, and more.

The term periodic oscillation refers to the types of motion that waves make. This is a repeating pattern that gives rise to many wave properties. A wave is periodic motion that gives rise to a variation in some value (intensity, energy, pressure, or some other property) over time as the wave property propagates through space. The video below demonstrates both the time-varying and space-varying properties of a wave as it travels. It shows that, at a single point in space, the wave properties vary with time. It is also possible to see how a wave varies in space at a single snapshot in time.

more....
https://cod.pressbooks.pub/physics1100/chapter/vibrations-and-waves/#

and

A Wave Transports Energy and Not Matter
What is a Wave? (Waves and Wavelike Motion)

When a wave is present in a medium (that is, when there is a disturbance moving through a medium), the individual particles of the medium are only temporarily displaced from their rest position. There is always a force acting upon the particles that restores them to their original position.

In a water wave, each molecule of the water ultimately returns to its original position. And in a stadium wave, each fan in the bleacher ultimately returns to its original position. It is for this reason, that a wave is said to involve the movement of a disturbance without the movement of matter.

The particles of the medium (water molecules, slinky coils, stadium fans) simply vibrate about a fixed position as the pattern of the disturbance moves from one location to another location.

Waves are said to be an energy transport phenomenon. As a disturbance moves through a medium from one particle to its adjacent particle, energy is being transported from one end of the medium to the other. In a slinky wave, a person imparts energy to the first coil by doing work upon it. The first coil receives a large amount of energy that it subsequently transfers to the second coil. When the first coil returns to its original position, it possesses the same amount of energy as it had before it was displaced.

This characteristic of a wave as an energy transport phenomenon distinguishes waves from other types of phenomenon.

Consider a common phenomenon observed at a softball game - the collision of a bat with a ball. A batter is able to transport energy from her to the softball by means of a bat. The batter applies a force to the bat, thus imparting energy to the bat in the form of kinetic energy. The bat then carries this energy to the softball and transports the energy to the softball upon collision. In this example, a bat is used to transport energy from the player to the softball. However, unlike wave phenomena, this phenomenon involves the transport of matter. The bat must move from its starting location to the contact location in order to transport energy.

In a wave phenomenon, energy can move from one location to another, yet the particles of matter in the medium return to their fixed position. A wave transports its energy without transporting matter.

more... https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/waves/Lesson-1/What-is-a-Wave

I should like to know how a wave can be part of physics, when it is not a physical object.
But it can be measured as a mathematical object, which would place it in the category of "mathematics", no?
Can anyone explain his apparent contradiction?

 

[exchemist]

Returning to the presence of benzene molecules
Question: In regard to the role benzene plays in quantum computing as in ORCH OR, that requires a stable neutral polar environment.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2203.05275

Particularly stable

Structure and Stability of Benzene - Chemistry LibreTexts
https://www.bing.com/search?q=is benzene a stablemolecule&pc=GD01&form=GDAVST&ptag=3601

In addition this is what I found,
Vibrations and waves
more....
https://cod.pressbooks.pub/physics1100/chapter/vibrations-and-waves/#

and

A Wave Transports Energy and Not Matter
What is a Wave? (Waves and Wavelike Motion)
more... https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/waves/Lesson-1/What-is-a-Wave

I should like to know how a wave can be part of physics, when it is not a physical object.
But it can be measured as a mathematical object, which would place it in the category of "mathematics", no?
Can anyone explain his apparent contradiction?

Yes.

 

[James R]

I should like to know how a wave can be part of physics, when it is not a physical object.

Lots of entities in physics - maybe even most of them - are not physical objects. Gravity is not a physical object. Electric fields aren't a physical object. Energy is not a physical object. Momentum is not a physical object. Angular displacement is not a physical object. Baryon number is not a physical object. etc. etc.

But it can be measured as a mathematical object, which would place it in the category of "mathematics", no?

How could anybody measure a mathematical object?

Can you measure the number 6 or the sine of 17 degrees? What measuring instrument would you use?

Can anyone explain his apparent contradiction?

It's just a misunderstanding on your part. Not unusual.

 

[Write4U]

Yes.

. OK, that solves that. Very enlightening.

How could anybody measure a mathematical object?

By its relational value or set of values. In mathematics an "object" is anything that can be formally defined and measured.
A Platonic solid is a mathematical object. A sinusoid is a mathematical object.

 

[Write4U]

Lots of entities in physics - maybe even most of them - are not physical objects.

Can you see the contradiction in that sentence?

Could it be that when a object is not a physical object, it is a mathematical object?

 

[James R]

By its relational value or set of values.

That's word salad, not measurement.

In mathematics an "object" is anything that can be formally defined and measured.

Where did you get that? You just made it up, didn't you?

 

[exchemist]

That's word salad, not measurement.

Where did you get that? You just made it up, didn't you?

Looks like it, certainly. The Wiki definition of a mathematical object is quite different: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_object.

I note the opening statement says it is an abstract concept.

Needless to say, "Measurement" appears nowhere, which is hardly surprising as such things as theorems and sets are mathematical objects.

 

[Write4U]

There's two mathematics now? Since when?

I believe that there are generic universal mathematics and the human codified and symbolized descriptions of the generic maths.

Some scientists had to have observed the registering of the boson on the collider's detectors. It doesn't just all happen inside
with no one looking.

So, you think that these things do not occur elsewhere in the universe, without human observers?
I believe that if we can do it, the universe has already done it. In fact there is nothing we do that is contrary to what the universe does.

Whatever humans do, is only because it is mathematically allowed by the universe.

 

[Magical Realist]

So, you think that these things do not occur elsewhere in the universe, without human observers?

No.. you said science doesn't use observation anymore. I pointed out that it does and that it is an essential part of studying real physical phenomena and verifying theories and their predictions. It has nothing to do with bosons flitting in and out between dimensions while nobody is looking.

 

[exchemist]

I believe that there are generic universal mathematics and the human codified and symbolized descriptions of the generic maths.
So, you think that these things do not occur elsewhere in the universe, without human observers?
I believe that if we can do it, the universe has already done it. In fact there is nothing we do that is contrary to what the universe does.

Whatever humans do, is only because it is mathematically allowed by the universe.

Reported for thread hijacking

 

[Write4U]

No.. you said science doesn't use observation anymore

No, I did not say that science does not need observation. That would be ludicrous.
I am saying that the universe does not need human observation.

 

[Write4U]

Reported for thread hijacking

Are you crazy? Look at the thread title!

 

[exchemist]

Are you crazy? Look at the thread title!

In my opinion the title of the thread does not give you a licence to wrench the discussion round, yet again, to your stupid and interminable obsession with Tegmark's mathematical universe. Once you get onto that, you will monopolise the thread with shit and the thread will be gone, down the toilet. You have wrecked countless intelligent threads in this way in the past. There's a thread open on Tegmark's mathematical universe. We don't need lots more.

 

[Write4U]

That does not prove the theory right, just that it worked for this phenomenon

What phenomenon? Every gravitational well in the universe?
Are you suggesting that the scientific model of warped spacetime in the presence of a massive object is not a universal phenomenon?

 

[Write4U]

A scientific theory is never proven in the same sense because it is not just one thing, one equation.

Can you expand on that? In a dynamic environment, aren't all things the result of multiple equations?
2 + 2 = 4 is a single equation and meaningless in and of itself, unless it is connected to another equation (or set of equations) attached to a physical object?

 

[Write4U]

In my opinion the title of the thread does not give you a licence to wrench the discussion round, yet again, to your stupid and interminable obsession with Tegmark's mathematical universe.

Forget Tegmark , I did not mention him in that post. It is you who is disrupting this thread with your constant barrage of ad hominems.

Once you get onto that, you will monopolise the thread with shit and the thread will be gone, down the toilet. You have wrecked countless intelligent threads in this way in the past. There's a thread open on Tegmark's mathematical universe. We don't need lots more.

Question, in context of the thread title: Are you disputing the fact that the Universe operates in some form of mathematical order?
If not, what is your problem? Myopia?

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Einstein's theory was not based on observation but on universal mathematics.

There is no "universal mathematics". Einstein's theory just uses the usual old mathematics that human beings have come up with. There's no mystical well of mathematics that theories can naturally tap into.

That's the beauty of maths. They are a property of the universe.

Insofar as human beings are a "property" of the universe, I suppose you're right. Humans do math. Math is done in the universe. etc.

When the maths are correct, the theory can be proven.

Mathematical proofs exist. A mathematical proof consists of a chain of mathematical statements that follow according to the agreed rules of mathematics. All proofs rely on the prior acceptance of a number of axioms that are agreed to be "self evident" from the start.

Physical theories, on the other hand, cannot be proven, because we can never test all conceivable physical situations in which the physical theory might turn out to be wrong. The best we can say, for a physical theory, is that no experiments and observations have yet come to light to refute the theory. But there are no guarantees that won't happen tomorrow, or next year.

A cosmologist posited that: "if we ask the universe a question and we ask it nicely (with the correct maths), it always provides the right answer."

The "correct maths" part of that is doing a lot of heavy lifting. How do we know the maths is correct? Because it matches experimental or observational evidence we have collected. But we can't collect infinite amounts of experimental or observational evidence. See above.

The Higgs boson cannot exist in this dimension...

Demonstrable nonsense.

First the Higgs would have manifested even without human observation.

I assume you meant to put a "not" in that sentence. If so, you are wrong.

But it was the applied mathematics that created the proper physical environment for the boson to manifest for a "quantum instant"?

Mathematics cannot create any physical environment.

You keep making the same category error, over and over. Why?

I believe that there are generic universal mathematics and the human codified and symbolized descriptions of the generic maths.

You believe in a fantasy that you have just made up in your head.

Whatever humans do, is only because it is mathematically allowed by the universe.

This is so hopelessly muddled, I hardly know where to start to explain the many ways in which it is wrong and misguided.

Are you saying that Eddington did not prove Einstein right?

He did not prove Einstein's theory of gravity right. He gathered some real-world evidence that supports Einstein's theory of gravity. Not the same thing.

Are you suggesting that the scientific model of warped spacetime in the presence of a massive object is not a universal phenomenon?

How could a human-created scientific model be a "universal phenomenon"?

Question, in context of the thread title: Are you disputing the fact that the Universe operates in some form of mathematical order?

Nobody has disputed that the universe operates in some form of mathematical order, on this forum, as far as I can recall. (Although, probably, if you went through the whole forum history, you'd find some unhinged person who held that view, I'm guessing. We've had all kinds of kooks blowing through here over the years.)

 

[Pinball1970]

Can you expand on that? In a dynamic environment, aren't all things the result of multiple equations?
2 + 2 = 4 is a single equation and meaningless in and of itself, unless it is connected to another equation (or set of equations) attached to a physical object?

No, I have already told you that physical theories are tested edited and refined frameworks that describe nature.
They are based on empirical data and contain mathematical models put together by scientists to describe phenomena.

GR s not a star, black hole or galaxy is DESCRIBES them, just like QT is not a positron