Yes, atoms do 'touch' when two objects touch. |
|
Yes, atoms do 'touch' when two objects touch. |
|
Saying quantum physics explains cognitive processes is just like saying geology explains jurisprudence.
Electron clouds are not physical. An electron cloud is nothing but a region where it is more likely to find an electron in a given situation. That said, electron clouds don't usually touch either (at least in normal circumstances) - the repulsive force becomes too strong before they do collide. But you're not to say nuclei don't touch - they did in Rutherford's experiment, like a century ago. |
|
Saying quantum physics explains cognitive processes is just like saying geology explains jurisprudence.
The point is, people often spread around this idea that objects never actually touch, when it isn't really true. Touching is only electrostatic repulsion anyway. |
|
There's no evidence that quarks have any dimensions. Same goes for leptons (leptons and quarks make up the entirety of matter). |
|
Doesn't mean they don't have. There once was no evidence the earth was round. Voilá. |
|
Saying quantum physics explains cognitive processes is just like saying geology explains jurisprudence.
Actually there is evidence, I think (there certainly isn't evidence against which is what you suggested). According to current models, the only reason that any non-fundamental particle has a volume in the first place, is due to the separation of the particles that constitute it; for example, atoms only have diameters of about 10^-10 m because the electrons are a large distance from the nucleus. |
|
Last edited by Xei; 06-29-2009 at 08:24 PM.
There was evidence the Earth was round, everyone didn't see it or chose to ignore it. As Xei said, giving dimensions to the smallest possible things is a logical contradiction under the current physics. You would need something like string theory to start predicting dimensional particles. |
|
198.726% of people will not realize that this percentage is impossible given what we are measuring. If you enjoy eating Monterey Jack cheese, put this in your sig and add 3^4i to the percentage listed.
I'd love to respond but unfortunately nothing you say ever makes any logical sense. |
|
2 + 2 = 4. |
|
Semantics. You got my point. |
|
Saying quantum physics explains cognitive processes is just like saying geology explains jurisprudence.
You are of course correct in essentials, but I do remember reading in A Brief History of Time somewhere that there is some evidence that quarks are truly fundamental particles. |
|
I googled "quark size". I don't know if it means anything to you or how reliable it is but here is the first link it got: link |
|
What, the Michael Jackson thing? Yes indeed I was wrong in that vitiligo can cause patches of your skin to cause to turn very pale white, but of course you'd still have to be extremely gullible not to question that a chronic liar like MJ has such a disease (he claims to have only had 2 facial surgeries for goodness sakes). |
|
For christ's sake, guys, drop it. |
|
All-right, but who said quarks aren't made of something else, much smaller than them? There is a huge difference in not having size and not having observable size. In fact, if they do move in a particular manner, then they *are* probably made of something else. I'm not criticising, I'm just throwing the idea out there. I hate it when science becomes pseudoscience, that's it. Doctors once believed that the liver circulated blood, and that the heart circulated "vital spirit". You never know when or where we could be wrong. |
|
Saying quantum physics explains cognitive processes is just like saying geology explains jurisprudence.
Well, distinguishing between the two is the point of the scientific method. |
|
Space might as well be infinite. Sure, it's not currently infinite. But the universe's boundaries are determined by the farthest distances light has traveled in any direction, forever pushing outward. |
|
Last edited by The Cusp; 07-05-2009 at 02:50 PM.
For me space is infinite and I can't comprehend it otherwise. That might be because I know too little but have a very large point of view. Space for me is not something that I would want to define because definitions create limits and I always try to look beyond the limits. |
|
Bookmarks