: I was just trying to make the point that we have no idea how to build a robot that is conscious but a fertilised human egg will divide many times over the course of 9 months according to the laws of chemistry/nature etc and produce a baby that is conscious. In principle they might have varied over space and time, but there is neither experimental evidence nor good theoretical reason to think they actually did, at least within the part of the universe that we can see and over the time since the electroweak phase transition. How does that happen? But I would have thought “density” would be a component of the tensor, but it seems like the 74-22-4 decomposition must be based on some kind of norm?
Whether or not it has the properties of a boson when viewed from a sufficient distance does not keep it from being “matter that takes up space.”In a theory with no quarks, the gluons would bind up into hadrons called “glueballs”. would it be fair to say that everything is energy and it manifests only in two ways: matter and force fields ? Rather, weight is a property you have (e.g. I think that a nice definition of ‘stuff’ would be ‘particles’ (Ripples.) Where does it go ?Two words regarding the matter\energy equivalence debate, “conserved quantities”… energy and matter are interchangeable. Today, with the universe much cooler, the electron is in the category of matter.” Why does “high temperature” make the Higgs (and gluon?) are we running in a circle ?The mass of the proton is not merely all of its quarks’ energies E divided by c^2 (and to the extent a more precise statement is true, it is true only of a stationary proton.) That wave is still energy, it’s just energy that stays in one place rather than travelling through space.When I put my hand on the tabletop, I’m not actually touching it. Thanks again for your article.A very famous idea in physics I can think of is Newton’s 3rd Law of Motion: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.I think of light as almost mass-less matter (bosonic matter) and fermionic (baryonic / normal) matter as matter with less energy observable compared to radiant (bosonic/light) energy. So, the Fermi sphere is the “mechanism” of transferring momentum from one standing wave to another? I know an intuitive answer that isn’t really correct (namely, to consider how photons in a box lose energy if the box expands). How should one approach educating children about the distinction between matter and energy or the types of energy and matter if this is an incorrect dichotomy? Of course, only subjective experience can tell. We don’t really know. Here I want to discuss the annihilation of electrons and anti-electrons (or “positrons”), or the annihilation of muons and anti-muons. This post couldn’t be written any better! ?Fascinating article, thank you. Thank you for contributing in the efforts to hold back the flood of assumption and more assumption about one’s ability to comprehend PHYSICS.THANK YOU!“Life is a Jigsaw of Illusory Linguistic Manipulation”. you have done a magnificent task in this subject!Excellent post. I like your blog.In all your posts you mentioned fields so many times , you never explained what is it , the max. conservation of energy ?but if movement was generated , what caused its generation ?Let me be bold and see if I, an “outside observer”, can “cause” a “disturbance” and create some “fire” in this “medium”.I say, for the lack of a better theory, God caused the universe to ignite and hence the Big Bang. Energy is eternal it can not be created nor destroyed, only transferred between fields of mass….Also it is my opinion that dark energy is a result of entropy caused by the transfer of energy not being 100 % efficient during the energy transfer process. thanks to UT, LC and others here who allowed me to realize some of this as someone not formally trained in the field of science.. A long chain of equal and opposite reactions from the macro scale down to the micro….This is truly a poor article.
Are we missing some math?Well, calling fermions the essential ingredient to “matter that takes up space” still seems consistent to me, as long as we add a caveat about how closely you look. i can sit a study a math page and get very quickly but the next day I would forget the details and only the images that were created remain, for a long long time, “… for a particular physical system, what its one-electron states are; then the exclusion principle says that nature cannot put two electrons in the same state.”Can one interpret this as saying the second “electron” wave cannot superimpose over the first “electron” wave because the “electric charge” imbalance will “push” the second wave to a different phase, higher state?
Whether or not it has the properties of a boson when viewed from a sufficient distance does not keep it from being “matter that takes up space.”In a theory with no quarks, the gluons would bind up into hadrons called “glueballs”. would it be fair to say that everything is energy and it manifests only in two ways: matter and force fields ? Rather, weight is a property you have (e.g. I think that a nice definition of ‘stuff’ would be ‘particles’ (Ripples.) Where does it go ?Two words regarding the matter\energy equivalence debate, “conserved quantities”… energy and matter are interchangeable. Today, with the universe much cooler, the electron is in the category of matter.” Why does “high temperature” make the Higgs (and gluon?) are we running in a circle ?The mass of the proton is not merely all of its quarks’ energies E divided by c^2 (and to the extent a more precise statement is true, it is true only of a stationary proton.) That wave is still energy, it’s just energy that stays in one place rather than travelling through space.When I put my hand on the tabletop, I’m not actually touching it. Thanks again for your article.A very famous idea in physics I can think of is Newton’s 3rd Law of Motion: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.I think of light as almost mass-less matter (bosonic matter) and fermionic (baryonic / normal) matter as matter with less energy observable compared to radiant (bosonic/light) energy. So, the Fermi sphere is the “mechanism” of transferring momentum from one standing wave to another? I know an intuitive answer that isn’t really correct (namely, to consider how photons in a box lose energy if the box expands). How should one approach educating children about the distinction between matter and energy or the types of energy and matter if this is an incorrect dichotomy? Of course, only subjective experience can tell. We don’t really know. Here I want to discuss the annihilation of electrons and anti-electrons (or “positrons”), or the annihilation of muons and anti-muons. This post couldn’t be written any better! ?Fascinating article, thank you. Thank you for contributing in the efforts to hold back the flood of assumption and more assumption about one’s ability to comprehend PHYSICS.THANK YOU!“Life is a Jigsaw of Illusory Linguistic Manipulation”. you have done a magnificent task in this subject!Excellent post. I like your blog.In all your posts you mentioned fields so many times , you never explained what is it , the max. conservation of energy ?but if movement was generated , what caused its generation ?Let me be bold and see if I, an “outside observer”, can “cause” a “disturbance” and create some “fire” in this “medium”.I say, for the lack of a better theory, God caused the universe to ignite and hence the Big Bang. Energy is eternal it can not be created nor destroyed, only transferred between fields of mass….Also it is my opinion that dark energy is a result of entropy caused by the transfer of energy not being 100 % efficient during the energy transfer process. thanks to UT, LC and others here who allowed me to realize some of this as someone not formally trained in the field of science.. A long chain of equal and opposite reactions from the macro scale down to the micro….This is truly a poor article.
Are we missing some math?Well, calling fermions the essential ingredient to “matter that takes up space” still seems consistent to me, as long as we add a caveat about how closely you look. i can sit a study a math page and get very quickly but the next day I would forget the details and only the images that were created remain, for a long long time, “… for a particular physical system, what its one-electron states are; then the exclusion principle says that nature cannot put two electrons in the same state.”Can one interpret this as saying the second “electron” wave cannot superimpose over the first “electron” wave because the “electric charge” imbalance will “push” the second wave to a different phase, higher state?