Breakthrough in Alzheimer's

[Yesterday]

Well, yes there has to be some genetic memory. What would develop out of no memory?

Yes, there is genetic memory, we both agree. What I wonder though is how extensive that memory could be. What kind of information could it entail? Could our meta experiences with our personal pasts come genetically? How much if any history is built into our genetic memory.

Well, by religion I don't mean an organized institution I mean the belief in a god or the spiritual aspect of life.

[Yesterday]

By the way, I have learned a lot in the last few days regarding theory, science and debate. I appreciate both Pliny and Bonam, their opinions and knowledge. It has been good for me to remember my interest in this stuff. Thank-you for tolerating my misplaced terms and understandings. I think I will go find myself another book to read about some more of this. I must say, I am getting a little bored at the moment with all the financial stuff I've been trying to learn. I think its called brain drain....I need a holiday.

Bonam, being a physics engineer, what do you do specifically?

I had a great discussion once with a physicist who works with photons. It was fascinating, I learned about the language of light. There is/was so many interesting studies done about it. The one I remember that interested me the most was one where, for example, when a firefly pulls one of the tails of a phosphate molecule there is a burst of light...thus its glow in dark ability. In a study somewhere some tests where done with photons being shot through a gel medium and the result showed different vibrational patterns for each and every photon and it was speculated at the time (a few years now) that perhaps this vibrational difference could represent an ability to communicate at least in terms of differentiating themselves to each other. That the burst of light in a firing synapse might be just as big a part of the picture as the chemical reaction that causes/follows the burst in terms of instruction. I wonder how far this study has progressed?

As to personal beliefs...I consider myself a scientist at heart. There is no God for me. I honestly believe that we are the physical manifestation of our thoughts and when I learned about this possibility of photons having communication ability I was excited because I have believed for a long time that we are heavily restricted by both internal and external influences in our ability to understand language much beyond what we can speak. A casualty of our emotional and physical design. I want to believe that complexity of language and the ability to understand it does not require the same vast amounts of energy expenditure as in our physical mechanisms like ears to the complexity of our electrically/chemically run brains.

[Bonam]

Bonam, being a physics engineer, what do you do specifically?

I research plasma physics and its applications in the fields of space propulsion systems and fusion energy.

Edited August 12, 2010 by Bonam

[Remiel]

At the risk of also being ridiculed by those with a better than " folk " understanding of quantum physics, I have always been skeptically of the idea that quantum particles pop in and out of existence. It is not the popping in and out part, but rather the " of existence " part that I find... intellectually questionable.

[Yesterday]

I research plasma physics and its applications in the fields of space propulsion systems and fusion energy.

WOW! I imagine there could be a few of us here who would have to play Pinkie to your Brain...

Plasma is certainly very interesting. I haven't finished reading about its application in propulsion yet but I will finish reading your links tonight. Thanks.

[Yesterday]

At the risk of also being ridiculed by those with a better than " folk " understanding of quantum physics, I have always been skeptically of the idea that quantum particles pop in and out of existence. It is not the popping in and out part, but rather the " of existence " part that I find... intellectually questionable.

I find it intellectually questionable too and instinctively I am more comfortable with a shift in dimension as opposed to a birth upon appearance and a death upon disappearance at least in terms of neutrinos.

[Guest TrueMetis]

A theory is a theory. It is not a truth. And science will not admit to a truth in the absolute sense.

And a theory will always remain a theory, because it is impossible to know anything 100%. So a theory is a close as we will ever get. If you can't understand that you have no business speaking on science.

[Bonam]

oops double post

Edited August 12, 2010 by Bonam

[Bonam]

WOW! I imagine there could be a few of us here who would have to play Pinkie to your Brain...

Plasma is certainly very interesting. I haven't finished reading about its application in propulsion yet but I will finish reading your links tonight. Thanks.

Yup it's definitely very interesting stuff, and has wide ranging applications. Over 99% of the visible matter in the universe is in a plasma state, such as the stars which are entirely plasma. A deeper understanding of plasma dynamics lets us understand how they behave, and it's definitely exciting because it is a very new field (compared to many other fields of physics).

Plasma science is also the most important underlying part of physics that is critical for developing controlled nuclear fusion. In my lab right now, one of the things we are developing is a high efficiency plasma injector for a compact toroidal fusion experiment in another lab at the university. I see fusion energy as the main medium-long term solution for our energy needs.

As for space propulsion, I personally find that to be of greatest interest, mostly due to my "vision" for the future of humanity where we exploit resources throughout our solar system to fuel the needs of our civilization, and eventually travel to other star systems and colonize other Earth-like planets that we find. Such undertakings are impractical to the point of being impossible using only chemical rocket technology, but enter the realm of possibility using advanced propulsion concepts. For our solar system, the use of nuclear powered plasma propulsion systems opens up relatively fast and cheap transportation between locations such as the Earth, Moon, Mars, and the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. All the fundamental technologies for this already exist, but working in the continued development of this field is very exciting. There is much work to be done yet before these are synthesized into functional spacecraft.

[bloodyminded]

It's cool Bonam, sincerely. Real cool.

[Remiel]

It's cool Bonam, sincerely. Real cool.

Hardly. It's really hot, .

[bloodyminded]

Hardly. It's really hot, .

Honestly, I saw this coming.

[Bonam]

At the risk of also being ridiculed by those with a better than " folk " understanding of quantum physics, I have always been skeptically of the idea that quantum particles pop in and out of existence. It is not the popping in and out part, but rather the " of existence " part that I find... intellectually questionable.

Let me shed a bit of light on this if I can.

In common situations, which human intuition is based upon, we have the well known physical "laws" of the conservation of mass and the conservation of energy. You are used to mass being conserved: an object doesn't just randomly become more massive for no reason.

But, when one digs deeper, one finds that mass is not always conserved. Situations in which this is not the case are inherently non-intuitive, which confuses many people. A simple example is a nuclear reaction. When, for example, a plutonium atom undergoes fission and forms two lighter atoms, the combined mass of the resulting particles is lower: some of the mass has been converted into energy. This is a violation of the intuitive "law" of conservation of mass, but is nevertheless follows the laws of physics, in this case, mass-energy equivalence (E=mc² and all that jazz).

Now, what about conservation of energy? Energy is still conserved in the above example. Is energy always conserved? As long as you have a closed system, and you measure it at two different times, you'll always find it to have the same energy. But, one of the core issues of quantum mechanics is the nature of the process we call "measuring" something or "observing" something. Just looking at a big, macroscopic object, doesn't affect it. But when you look at a subatomic particle, it is very much affected by whether you are looking at it or not. For example, if you are using light to look at it, the photons from your light source are interacting with the particle (for example, an electron), and so what you are seeing is not what the electron's behavior would have been had you not interfered with it, but what the electron's behavior is including the effects of your interaction with it.

The result of this is that it is physically impossible to measure both the position and velocity of a particle simultaneously without some minimum error being introduced. This is called Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Associated with these errors in position and velocity are also errors in time and energy. You can only measure the energy of a system to within a certain error, and the more rapidly you try to measure it, the bigger that error becomes. This is not due to some flaw or engineering limitation with the measurement apparatus, but is a fundamental physical mechanism as described in quantum mechanics.

Now, if you can only measure whether the system changed its energy every so often, for example, once every Planck timescale (that's about 5x10^-44 seconds: that's a really, really, really short time), then, technically, you can't say whether its energy might not in fact be changing on timescales smaller than that. For example, it could gain energy for a period of time of length 5x10^-50 seconds (and then lose this energy), and it would be absolutely impossible for you to know that this had happened. In physics, everything not explicitly ruled out by the laws, as we know them, is "possible". So there is nothing ruling out a system from gaining or losing energy (non-conservation of energy) on timescales faster than you can measure. And, due to mass-energy equivalence, these changes in energy can be associated with the creation and destruction of particles on those timescales. But, what is important to realize is that in just about all situations, these effects are not "real". That is, they cannot be measured, they cannot have an effect on their surroundings that can be measured. The only exception to this that I know of, where this "popping in and out" can indeed have a measurable effect, is black holes, where they lead to the production of Hawking radiation.

Leaving the black hole exception aside (it's a whole other topic, trust me), there really is no "popping in and out of existence". Practically speaking, these particles never really exist at all, since they can never be measured, since the time over which they "exist" is too short for that.

Edited August 13, 2010 by Bonam

[Yesterday]

Let me shed a bit of light on this if I can.

In common situations, which human intuition is based upon, we have the well known physical "laws" of the conservation of mass and the conservation of energy. You are used to mass being conserved: an object doesn't just randomly become more massive for no reason.

But, when one digs deeper, one finds that mass is not always conserved. Situations in which this is not the case are inherently non-intuitive, which confuses many people. A simple example is a nuclear reaction. When, for example, a plutonium atom undergoes fission and forms two lighter atoms, the combined mass of the resulting particles is lower: some of the mass has been converted into energy. This is a violation of the intuitive "law" of conservation of mass, but is nevertheless follows the laws of physics, in this case, mass-energy equivalence (E=mc² and all that jazz).

Now, what about conservation of energy? Energy is still conserved in the above example. Is energy always conserved? As long as you have a closed system, and you measure it at two different times, you'll always find it to have the same energy. But, one of the core issues of quantum mechanics is the nature of the process we call "measuring" something or "observing" something. Just looking at a big, macroscopic object, doesn't affect it. But when you look at a subatomic particle, it is very much affected by whether you are looking at it or not. For example, if you are using light to look at it, the photons from your light source are interacting with the particle (for example, an electron), and so what you are seeing is not what the electron's behavior would have been had you not interfered with it, but what the electron's behavior is including the effects of your interaction with it.

The result of this is that it is physically impossible to measure both the position and velocity of a particle simultaneously without some minimum error being introduced. This is called Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Associated with these errors in position and velocity are also errors in time and energy. You can only measure the energy of a system to within a certain error, and the more rapidly you try to measure it, the bigger that error becomes. This is not due to some flaw or engineering limitation with the measurement apparatus, but is a fundamental physical mechanism as described in quantum mechanics.

Now, if you can only measure whether the system changed its energy every so often, for example, once every Planck timescale (that's about 5x10^-44 seconds: that's a really, really, really short time), then, technically, you can't say whether its energy might not in fact be changing on timescales smaller than that. For example, it could gain energy for a period of time of length 5x10^-50 seconds (and then lose this energy), and it would be absolutely impossible for you to know that this had happened. In physics, everything not explicitly ruled out by the laws, as we know them, is "possible". So there is nothing ruling out a system from gaining or losing energy (non-conservation of energy) on timescales faster than you can measure. And, due to mass-energy equivalence, these changes in energy can be associated with the creation and destruction of particles on those timescales. But, what is important to realize is that in just about all situations, these effects are not "real". That is, they cannot be measured, they cannot have an effect on their surroundings that can be measured. The only exception to this that I know of, where this "popping in and out" can indeed have a measurable effect, is black holes, where they lead to the production of Hawking radiation.

So really, non-existence in this frame of reference just means that there is no understanding of or no ability to measure yet. So since they cannot view a neutrino accurately they say it doesn't exist when they can't see it but they don't really mean gone, more just missing? Have they managed to see it through the effect of it's mass but then lose it trying to measure its velocity?

Leaving the black hole exception aside (it's a whole other topic, trust me), there really is no "popping in and out of existence". Practically speaking, these particles never really exist at all, since they can never be measured, since the time over which they "exist" is too short for that.

There are things that pop in and out of a black hole? That's interesting. I wonder if this is explained in the book 'Shadows of our Universe'? Perhaps now would be a good time to pull that book off the shelf again and have another try at reading it. I love a good challenge. Maybe I could pick your brain when I get stuck, that might keep me motivated to get through it. Yup, I am going to put this book in my working pile, right now there is only 3 and all about finance and I am struggling a bit to stay focused. Maybe a book with a different topic thrown in the mix would give me an out when I need to decompress and ignore all numbers. Mind you this book is not short on formulas but I can ignore those and just read the words of explanation.

You'll have to forgive me for not finishing reading last night, it was the Pleiades's(?) meteor shower last night and I just had to watch. Man, was it ever funny. I live on a farm, lots of Coyotes at night...picture me out in the fields all by myself, fine for the first hour till the howlers showed up. I never ran so fast for the farm house in my life. I watch from then in the safety of the front porch but it faces east towards the city so it wasn't such a good view from light pollution. Good grief. Oh well, it was spectacular, over 20 shooting stars in the first half hour. It is sort of a special night, I have done that every year since my son was born, usually with him but he is away this year.

[Remiel]

Everything before the following section I was familiar with already.

Now, if you can only measure whether the system changed its energy every so often, for example, once every Planck timescale (that's about 5x10^-44 seconds: that's a really, really, really short time), then, technically, you can't say whether its energy might not in fact be changing on timescales smaller than that. For example, it could gain energy for a period of time of length 5x10^-50 seconds (and then lose this energy), and it would be absolutely impossible for you to know that this had happened. In physics, everything not explicitly ruled out by the laws, as we know them, is "possible". So there is nothing ruling out a system from gaining or losing energy (non-conservation of energy) on timescales faster than you can measure. And, due to mass-energy equivalence, these changes in energy can be associated with the creation and destruction of particles on those timescales. But, what is important to realize is that in just about all situations, these effects are not "real". That is, they cannot be measured, they cannot have an effect on their surroundings that can be measured. The only exception to this that I know of, where this "popping in and out" can indeed have a measurable effect, is black holes, where they lead to the production of Hawking radiation.

Leaving the black hole exception aside (it's a whole other topic, trust me), there really is no "popping in and out of existence". Practically speaking, these particles never really exist at all, since they can never be measured, since the time over which they "exist" is too short for that.

I think I get in now. All that is meant by the " popping in and out of existence " are transformations in timescales too small to be observed? Whenever I had heard this phrase before it had made it sound as if it was not a transformation, but a spontaneous cessation or creation of base existence, to and from nothingness. Thanks for clearing that up, Bonam.

[Pliny]

WOW! I imagine there could be a few of us here who would have to play Pinkie to your Brain...

What'll we do tomorrow, Brain?

Same thing we always do, Pinky. Try and take over the world!

[Pliny]

And a theory will always remain a theory, because it is impossible to know anything 100%. So a theory is a close as we will ever get. If you can't understand that you have no business speaking on science.

Yes, there is a theory that the earth is round and not flat but we can't be 100% sure.

You are simply incapable of having an opinion.

Science, is very important. Skeptics such as yourself are entirely concerned with scientific evaluation.

It is indeed impossible for you to know anything 100%. I, however chose to be able to predict something 100%. I have a 100% certainty the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning. As hard as it is for you to accept that 100%, it is true. You can add in all the "what ifs" you want to make yourself feel right. But I will talk to you tomorrow and we will see if there is any possibility of knowing something 100%.

You see knowing something 100% does take a little faith of which you have none. Science must inform you of your opinions and they will probably say there is a 99.9 to the nth degree possibility of the sun rising in the east tomorrow morning. They are quite certain then but they have no faith. If there were the possibility of that not occurring we would have already calculated the percentage.

I have seen too many failures of science to accept peer-reveiwed literature as the final word. Kept entirely in the scientific realm it is perhaps the basis for further study and corroboration. When politicians or economists or lap dogs such as yourself start promoting policies based upon "scientific studies" then it becomes suspect and I completely understand the concept of the impossibility of 100% certainty. The entrance of politics and/or economics into the equation reduces the certainty by at least 50%. I consider therefore anything that David Suzuki might say as requiring scrutiny and a certain level of skepticism. He seems to be more interested in what the politics of the science can produce than the purity of the science itself.

[Pliny]

Everything before the following section I was familiar with already.

I think I get in now. All that is meant by the " popping in and out of existence " are transformations in timescales too small to be observed? Whenever I had heard this phrase before it had made it sound as if it was not a transformation, but a spontaneous cessation or creation of base existence, to and from nothingness. Thanks for clearing that up, Bonam.

A spontaneous cessation or creation of base existence, to and from nothingness?

Bonam, the only way you will have intergalactic travel is if that is true. We may mechanically be able to reach the closest planets but I guess your concept is that colonies on space vehicles must be established and it will take several hundred generations to reach the nearest galaxy.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Yes, there is a theory that the earth is round and not flat but we can't be 100% sure.

The earth isn't round, it's an oblate spheroid. But of course more sophisticated measurement techniques will change that as well.

Science, is very important. Skeptics such as yourself are entirely concerned with scientific evaluation.

Yep, because the track record of science beats everything else. Look around you every man-made object you see is a product of science. Without it we'd still be bashing rocks together.

You see knowing something 100% does take a little faith of which you have none.

Your right there, faith is for the foolish.

I have seen too many failures of science to accept peer-reveiwed literature as the final word.

And cause I know that science has the best self-correcting method that we have ever devised I'll trust science over anything and everything. Science doesn't care about politics or economics the only thing that matters to it is the truth.

I'll stick with science it is the single most powerful thing in the universe.

Edited August 14, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Pliny]

I research plasma physics and its applications in the fields of space propulsion systems and fusion energy.

Gosh! A real scientist. This seems an odd place for a physicist? You're work seems really interesting.

Never the less, I am happy you are here.

[Pliny]

The earth isn't round, it's an oblate spheroid. But of course more sophisticated measurement techniques will change that as well.

Sorry, I was just making the point that we can be 100% certain it isn't flat.

Yep, because the track record of science beats everything else. Look around you every man-made object you see is a product of science. Without it we'd still be bashing rocks together.

Bashing rocks together? must have been a scientist.

I can't agree with you since, science changed in the nineteenth century the double blind peer reviewed procedure didn't exist until then. Before that we had the age of enlightenment or the age of Reason.

I shouldn't really knock science but instead the premature adoption of scientific data for uses other than science.

Your right there, faith is for the foolish.

It has it's uses. It gets us to rise to new levels. If not for faith, and despite science, we would not have anyone running the four minute mile.

Your total faith is in science. It isn't that you don't have any.

And cause I know that science has the best self-correcting method that we have ever devised I'll trust science over anything and everything. Science doesn't care about politics or economics the only thing that matters to it is the truth.

I will grant you that. Here you are using science for your own purpose and that, not the science, is what I find offensive. I can disagree with the science if it does indeed need correction or further data but I can't disagree with a zealot or politician who has seized upon some scientific study as reason to run to the fox's den.

I'll stick with science it is the single most powerful thing in the universe.

Yes, you will. You have just elevated it to supreme status. Dop oyou burn incense in it's honour?

[Pliny]

I had mentioned in an earlier post that electro-chemical processes of the brain were an effect and not a cause.

Just to elaborate on that I would like to offer the following. An electro-chemical process does not produce a stimulus. In other words a perception occurs and then consequently an electro-chemical process occurs. and if an action is decided to be necessary another consequent electro-chemical process is initiated to produce the action.

It is therefore an effect and not a cause.

Could these electro-chemical processes be jumped? It certainly would explain the latent lucidity that some Alzheimer patients have experienced.

[Guest TrueMetis]

It has it's uses. It gets us to rise to new levels. If not for faith, and despite science, we would not have anyone running the four minute mile.

I don't think it was faith that got people to do that. More likely determination, and how is it despite science? Lots of peer-reviewed article saying it couldn't be done.

Your total faith is in science. It isn't that you don't have any.

No I really don't have any.

Yes, you will. You have just elevated it to supreme status. Dop oyou burn incense in it's honour?

Every night. Seriously though what has more power than science? It's science that feeds the people of earth, it was science that created the first nuke. In terms of accomplishments science beats everything.

[Remiel]

Science doesn't care about politics or economics the only thing that matters to it is the truth.

I do not think that that is precisely correct. Science cares about what works. Philosophy cares about what is true.

[Pliny]

I do not think that that is precisely correct. Science cares about what works. Philosophy cares about what is true.

That is more precise and perhaps how science gets into trouble. It cleaves to theories that have proven to work and sticks there. Ultimately science must give way to truth. It seems to have an innate resistance to change, almost an arrogance which is a human trait and not a characteristic of science.