Quantum Biology?!

[A Mallard]

Sorry, too long, didn't read! I should be doing work and was just taking a curious look at the topics on here! But if you are interested in quantum biology I have just started reading this book at it's a good read so far!

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Most life is carbon based, because carbon atoms can form so many molecular bonds, particularly with it self. From diamonds, to graphite, to graphene, to human beings, carbon can produce some amazing stuff. Obviously, whatever subtle difference is going to make the chemical wholly different in function and abilities than other chemicals is subatomic, and thus likely quantum, as it can't be the atoms themselves making the difference. In fact, it may be possible that what we think as otherwise duplicate atoms, carbon atoms just all being copies of each other, might not be true, with different subatomic properties influencing their behaviour and properties drastically, but not enough to notice it at the atomic level. When an electron explodes, it might give off 1-2 photons. Why does electron positron annihilation give off an unequal amount of photons? Shouldn't there always be two? Or one? Or three; some static number?

It turns out, that certain electrons have more than a single photon, or are made up of more than one photon. That means, that while we tend to think of protons, electrons, and so on as being all the same, they actually do have differences, and can have slight differences from each other. Which means, there could be more complexity to things at the quantum level, and particularly with carbon based molecules, or life, this could be pretty important.


That being said, there's likely not any quantum computing going on in side, say, DNA. Maybe our brains or something, since we don't really know how it works and there seems to be near infinite information that can be stored there. The differences would be more mechanical in nature, and wouldn't allow for anything complex, like needing to read an arbitrary positioning of something to figure out what it would mean to a computer designed to use the placement, which otherwise doesn't matter, as information.

[Vannak]

Suicidesoldier#1

Most life is carbon based, because carbon atoms can form so many molecular bonds, particularly with it self. From diamonds, to graphite, to graphene, to human beings, carbon can produce some amazing stuff. Obviously, whatever subtle difference is going to make the chemical wholly different in function and abilities than other chemicals is subatomic, and thus likely quantum, as it can't be the atoms themselves making the difference. In fact, it may be possible that what we think as otherwise duplicate atoms, carbon atoms just all being copies of each other, might not be true, with different subatomic properties influencing their behaviour and properties drastically, but not enough to notice it at the atomic level. When an electron explodes, it might give off 1-2 photons. Why does electron positron annihilation give off an unequal amount of photons? Shouldn't there always be two? Or one? Or three; some static number?

Spin.

Particle interactions and exchanges are NOT the result of a particle breaking into consistuants. We know this is how things are, for instance, in atoms, but a photon is not inside of an electron. This is obvious when you consider gravity in such a sistuation.

What its really about is an elaborate system of book keeping. If you keep track of certain numbers, such as spin, charge, lepton number, and energy, you can list all the possible particles that can come out of an interaction. You then look at the interaction of the various particle fields through their mutually interacting forces and you find out the probability of getting a particular result. There are symmetries in these numbers. For instance, having an opposite lepton number makes you anti-matter.

What the confirmation of the standard model tells us is that we aren't missing very important numbers when we do experiments. Previously, we were missing numbers such as spin, which we've mathematically accounted for and understand. There aren't more properties to a carbon atom, on the energy scales of life. This is what the confirmation of the standard model tells us. There isn't extra information in particles to account for these particles in a consistent way.

The reason, therefore, that a particle will decay in different ways isn't because it was always different, and was predetermined to do such a thing. It comes down to a difference in energy and field interaction strength, say in a magnetic field. This changes the book keeping and makes different outcomes more likely, or make new interactions possible.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Vannak

Suicidesoldier#1

Most life is carbon based, because carbon atoms can form so many molecular bonds, particularly with it self. From diamonds, to graphite, to graphene, to human beings, carbon can produce some amazing stuff. Obviously, whatever subtle difference is going to make the chemical wholly different in function and abilities than other chemicals is subatomic, and thus likely quantum, as it can't be the atoms themselves making the difference. In fact, it may be possible that what we think as otherwise duplicate atoms, carbon atoms just all being copies of each other, might not be true, with different subatomic properties influencing their behaviour and properties drastically, but not enough to notice it at the atomic level. When an electron explodes, it might give off 1-2 photons. Why does electron positron annihilation give off an unequal amount of photons? Shouldn't there always be two? Or one? Or three; some static number?

Spin.

Particle interactions and exchanges are NOT the result of a particle breaking into consistuants. We know this is how things are, for instance, in atoms, but a photon is not inside of an electron. This is obvious when you consider gravity in such a sistuation.

What its really about is an elaborate system of book keeping. If you keep track of certain numbers, such as spin, charge, lepton number, and energy, you can list all the possible particles that can come out of an interaction. You then look at the interaction of the various particle fields through their mutually interacting forces and you find out the probability of getting a particular result. There are symmetries in these numbers. For instance, having an opposite lepton number makes you anti-matter.

What the confirmation of the standard model tells us is that we aren't missing very important numbers when we do experiments. Previously, we were missing numbers such as spin, which we've mathematically accounted for and understand. There aren't more properties to a carbon atom, on the energy scales of life. This is what the confirmation of the standard model tells us. There isn't extra information in particles to account for these particles in a consistent way.

The reason, therefore, that a particle will decay in different ways isn't because it was always different, and was predetermined to do such a thing. It comes down to a difference in energy and field interaction strength, say in a magnetic field. This changes the book keeping and makes different outcomes more likely, or make new interactions possible.

Spin is important, but if a single electron can produce, or "turn into" 2 photons, or even 3, then it's not just a matter of spin. That particular particles properties change dramatically based on subtle variations is important to the overall effect (electromagnetic radiation, from gamma rays to visible light, are all the same particle, just with different wavelength and frequencies), but if two come out, no amount of energy can produce a new photon out of nothingness, or pure energy; and the energy is the same. If an electron where to change it's spin and change properties, that makes sense; but to create multiple particles, essentially matter, isn't really possible based on a change of spin or even the addition of energy alone, which is what implies there was more than one particle there to begin with.

As for there being more information, that's not really what I was talking about, since computers are arbitrary anyways, with 0's and 1's being read by a machine that makes determinations after the fact, rather than some inherent quality. So even if there was some kind of mechanism that could be useful in quantum computing, the results by themselves aren't important without an ability to read it. So, a hard disk with a bunch of 0's and 1's is useless in the real world, just as language is, but the hash marks or dots or whatever you use to record data (pixels in pictures, etc.) can be useful if you can interpret it to mean something important, like even these letters here.


As for the energy levels not being enough, if it manages to influence the bond of a carbon atom, say an extra electron or what have you to make a new connection, then you could have radically different molecular shapes. If the electrons are bigger or more powerful, that might mean enough to do something. Or it might not, just an idea. xp

I suppose the real interesting real life idea of "certain things that shouldn't exist" would be potassium hexaboride. Hypothetically, it's a chemical that shouldn't exist, but does for some reasons at the right temperature. The basic idea is that a bond should not form, yet it behaves like a new molecule. With some stranger subatomic properties possible, structures that shouldn't otherwise exist, or bonds that should be impossible, could exist, leading to far more complex materials, or say, iron/titanium bonds forming something similar to that of a diamond, or graphene, producing stronger or weirder materials. Even if we can't get anything we want, we could get really weird stuff, with properties not considered possible in those elements before. Or it might not exist in organic life at all, just some, weird s**t could happen.

[Vannak]

Suicidesoldier#1

Vannak

Suicidesoldier#1

Most life is carbon based, because carbon atoms can form so many molecular bonds, particularly with it self. From diamonds, to graphite, to graphene, to human beings, carbon can produce some amazing stuff. Obviously, whatever subtle difference is going to make the chemical wholly different in function and abilities than other chemicals is subatomic, and thus likely quantum, as it can't be the atoms themselves making the difference. In fact, it may be possible that what we think as otherwise duplicate atoms, carbon atoms just all being copies of each other, might not be true, with different subatomic properties influencing their behaviour and properties drastically, but not enough to notice it at the atomic level. When an electron explodes, it might give off 1-2 photons. Why does electron positron annihilation give off an unequal amount of photons? Shouldn't there always be two? Or one? Or three; some static number?

Spin.

Particle interactions and exchanges are NOT the result of a particle breaking into consistuants. We know this is how things are, for instance, in atoms, but a photon is not inside of an electron. This is obvious when you consider gravity in such a sistuation.

What its really about is an elaborate system of book keeping. If you keep track of certain numbers, such as spin, charge, lepton number, and energy, you can list all the possible particles that can come out of an interaction. You then look at the interaction of the various particle fields through their mutually interacting forces and you find out the probability of getting a particular result. There are symmetries in these numbers. For instance, having an opposite lepton number makes you anti-matter.

What the confirmation of the standard model tells us is that we aren't missing very important numbers when we do experiments. Previously, we were missing numbers such as spin, which we've mathematically accounted for and understand. There aren't more properties to a carbon atom, on the energy scales of life. This is what the confirmation of the standard model tells us. There isn't extra information in particles to account for these particles in a consistent way.

The reason, therefore, that a particle will decay in different ways isn't because it was always different, and was predetermined to do such a thing. It comes down to a difference in energy and field interaction strength, say in a magnetic field. This changes the book keeping and makes different outcomes more likely, or make new interactions possible.

Spin is important, but if a single electron can produce, or "turn into" 2 photons, or even 3, then it's not just a matter of spin. That particular particles properties change dramatically based on subtle variations is important to the overall effect (electromagnetic radiation, from gamma rays to visible light, are all the same particle, just with different wavelength and frequencies), but if two come out, no amount of energy can produce a new photon out of nothingness, or pure energy; and the energy is the same. If an electron where to change it's spin and change properties, that makes sense; but to create multiple particles, essentially matter, isn't really possible based on a change of spin or even the addition of energy alone, which is what implies there was more than one particle there to begin with.

No, you're just wrong on this. A single photon turns into a electron positron pair. You have 1 spin, turned into two spin 1/2 particles. You have zero net charge turning into -1 and +1 charges. You have E turning into an Electron of energy A and a positron of energy B, where A + B = E, and you have a zero leptop photon turning into a +1 lepton number electron, and a -1 lepton number positron. These things check out, particle number is not conserved- lepton number is.

Quote:

As for there being more information, that's not really what I was talking about, since computers are arbitrary anyways, with 0's and 1's being read by a machine that makes determinations after the fact,

after the fact of what?

Quote:

rather than some inherent quality. So even if there was some kind of mechanism that could be useful in quantum computing, the results by themselves aren't important without an ability to read it. So, a hard disk with a bunch of 0's and 1's is useless in the real world, just as language is, but the hash marks or dots or whatever you use to record data (pixels in pictures, etc.) can be useful if you can interpret it to mean something important, like even these letters here.

I think you interperted me saying that there isn't an extra number, or extra information, as having something to do with computability. What i mean is that there isn't another number needed to describe atoms. You have your spin and energy numbers, and that's all you need to explain the atoms. Similarly, no experiments show any need to add extra features to fundamental particles that we can see. We could use a bunch of extra particles, and some theories duplicate ours like supersymmetry.


[/qupte]As for the energy levels not being enough, if it manages to influence the bond of a carbon atom, say an extra electron or what have you to make a new connection, then you could have radically different molecular shapes. If the electrons are bigger or more powerful, that might mean enough to do something. Or it might not, just an idea. xp no idea what you're saying here


I suppose the real interesting real life idea of "certain things that shouldn't exist" would be potassium hexaboride. Hypothetically, it's a chemical that shouldn't exist, but does for some reasons at the right temperature. The basic idea is that a bond should not form, yet it behaves like a new molecule. With some stranger subatomic properties possible, structures that shouldn't otherwise exist, or bonds that should be impossible, could exist, leading to far more complex materials, or say, iron/titanium bonds forming something similar to that of a diamond, or graphene, producing stronger or weirder materials. Even if we can't get anything we want, we could get really weird stuff, with properties not considered possible in those elements before. Or it might not exist in organic life at all, just some, weird s**t could happen.There are two senses in which something "shouldn't exist". The first is that it violates, directly, a feature of a theory. The second is that a normally applicable approximation fails in this case, and we need to figure out which. Usually its the second.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Vannak

Suicidesoldier#1

Vannak

Suicidesoldier#1

Most life is carbon based, because carbon atoms can form so many molecular bonds, particularly with it self. From diamonds, to graphite, to graphene, to human beings, carbon can produce some amazing stuff. Obviously, whatever subtle difference is going to make the chemical wholly different in function and abilities than other chemicals is subatomic, and thus likely quantum, as it can't be the atoms themselves making the difference. In fact, it may be possible that what we think as otherwise duplicate atoms, carbon atoms just all being copies of each other, might not be true, with different subatomic properties influencing their behaviour and properties drastically, but not enough to notice it at the atomic level. When an electron explodes, it might give off 1-2 photons. Why does electron positron annihilation give off an unequal amount of photons? Shouldn't there always be two? Or one? Or three; some static number?

Spin.

Particle interactions and exchanges are NOT the result of a particle breaking into consistuants. We know this is how things are, for instance, in atoms, but a photon is not inside of an electron. This is obvious when you consider gravity in such a sistuation.

What its really about is an elaborate system of book keeping. If you keep track of certain numbers, such as spin, charge, lepton number, and energy, you can list all the possible particles that can come out of an interaction. You then look at the interaction of the various particle fields through their mutually interacting forces and you find out the probability of getting a particular result. There are symmetries in these numbers. For instance, having an opposite lepton number makes you anti-matter.

What the confirmation of the standard model tells us is that we aren't missing very important numbers when we do experiments. Previously, we were missing numbers such as spin, which we've mathematically accounted for and understand. There aren't more properties to a carbon atom, on the energy scales of life. This is what the confirmation of the standard model tells us. There isn't extra information in particles to account for these particles in a consistent way.

The reason, therefore, that a particle will decay in different ways isn't because it was always different, and was predetermined to do such a thing. It comes down to a difference in energy and field interaction strength, say in a magnetic field. This changes the book keeping and makes different outcomes more likely, or make new interactions possible.

Spin is important, but if a single electron can produce, or "turn into" 2 photons, or even 3, then it's not just a matter of spin. That particular particles properties change dramatically based on subtle variations is important to the overall effect (electromagnetic radiation, from gamma rays to visible light, are all the same particle, just with different wavelength and frequencies), but if two come out, no amount of energy can produce a new photon out of nothingness, or pure energy; and the energy is the same. If an electron where to change it's spin and change properties, that makes sense; but to create multiple particles, essentially matter, isn't really possible based on a change of spin or even the addition of energy alone, which is what implies there was more than one particle there to begin with.

No, you're just wrong on this. A single photon turns into a electron positron pair. You have 1 spin, turned into two spin 1/2 particles. You have zero net charge turning into -1 and +1 charges. You have E turning into an Electron of energy A and a positron of energy B, where A + B = E, and you have a zero leptop photon turning into a +1 lepton number electron, and a -1 lepton number positron. These things check out, particle number is not conserved- lepton number is.

Quote:

As for there being more information, that's not really what I was talking about, since computers are arbitrary anyways, with 0's and 1's being read by a machine that makes determinations after the fact,

after the fact of what?

Quote:

rather than some inherent quality. So even if there was some kind of mechanism that could be useful in quantum computing, the results by themselves aren't important without an ability to read it. So, a hard disk with a bunch of 0's and 1's is useless in the real world, just as language is, but the hash marks or dots or whatever you use to record data (pixels in pictures, etc.) can be useful if you can interpret it to mean something important, like even these letters here.

I think you interperted me saying that there isn't an extra number, or extra information, as having something to do with computability. What i mean is that there isn't another number needed to describe atoms. You have your spin and energy numbers, and that's all you need to explain the atoms. Similarly, no experiments show any need to add extra features to fundamental particles that we can see. We could use a bunch of extra particles, and some theories duplicate ours like supersymmetry.

Quote:

Quote:

As for the energy levels not being enough, if it manages to influence the bond of a carbon atom, say an extra electron or what have you to make a new connection, then you could have radically different molecular shapes. If the electrons are bigger or more powerful, that might mean enough to do something. Or it might not, just an idea. xp

no idea what you're saying here

Quote:

I suppose the real interesting real life idea of "certain things that shouldn't exist" would be potassium hexaboride. Hypothetically, it's a chemical that shouldn't exist, but does for some reasons at the right temperature. The basic idea is that a bond should not form, yet it behaves like a new molecule. With some stranger subatomic properties possible, structures that shouldn't otherwise exist, or bonds that should be impossible, could exist, leading to far more complex materials, or say, iron/titanium bonds forming something similar to that of a diamond, or graphene, producing stronger or weirder materials. Even if we can't get anything we want, we could get really weird stuff, with properties not considered possible in those elements before. Or it might not exist in organic life at all, just some, weird s**t could happen.

There are two senses in which something "shouldn't exist". The first is that it violates, directly, a feature of a theory. The second is that a normally applicable approximation fails in this case, and we need to figure out which. Usually its the second.

To be completely honest, before this conversation, I wasn't 100% certain if photons could be created. I was pretty sure that the laws of conservation of mass and energy, along with the fact that creation of a particle was impossible, meant that you couldn't produce a photon from pure energy alone, but now I'm pretty certain. Photons cannot be created, but they can change forms. "Because of momentum conservation laws, the creation of a pair of fermions (matter particles) out of a single photon cannot occur. However, matter creation is allowed by these laws when in the presence of another particle (another boson, or even a fermion) which can share the primary photon's momentum. Thus, matter can be created out of two photons." As well, pair production cannot occur by a single photon, it has to interact with another particle for it to happen, usually in the case of position-electron pair creation, it needs to interact with a nucleus of an atom. This requires extra particles, to convert, in order to produce different particles; you can't produce more than one particle, from a single particle, or photon in this case.

As for the material not supposed to exist, basically, it only exists under certain conditions, due to the fact that subatomatic interactions between molecules, which forms the atomic bonds, can be influenced by other factors. While a more obvious way to create "exotic" materials would be the addition or removal of electrons, to create valence electrons, say through a laser, some type of subtle influence could, in theory, produce radically different chemicals. By quantum, I am referring to electrons and such, or ways to get around that. It could explain some weird chemicals, may be nothing more than anomaly, idk, just thought I'd add something to the potential organic differences as a result of some weird quantum mechanics stuff.



Basically, diamond, graphene, graphite, etc. only exists because carbon atoms can be rearranged into different shapes, due to the way atomic bonds are created, predominately determined by the electrons shell. These all have radically different properties, due entirely to the arrangement of the atoms. While this is usually determined by valence electrons, there are ways to influence this without the proper valence electron shape, such as in the case of pottasium hexaboride. If that's the case, then you could, hypothetically, create a lot of weird chemicals not possible through traditional means, and thus if just dropping the temperature can do it, subtle changes in quantum mechanics, could possibly, as well.

[Vannak]

Suicidesoldier#1

Vannak

Suicidesoldier#1

Vannak

Suicidesoldier#1

Most life is carbon based, because carbon atoms can form so many molecular bonds, particularly with it self. From diamonds, to graphite, to graphene, to human beings, carbon can produce some amazing stuff. Obviously, whatever subtle difference is going to make the chemical wholly different in function and abilities than other chemicals is subatomic, and thus likely quantum, as it can't be the atoms themselves making the difference. In fact, it may be possible that what we think as otherwise duplicate atoms, carbon atoms just all being copies of each other, might not be true, with different subatomic properties influencing their behaviour and properties drastically, but not enough to notice it at the atomic level. When an electron explodes, it might give off 1-2 photons. Why does electron positron annihilation give off an unequal amount of photons? Shouldn't there always be two? Or one? Or three; some static number?

Spin.

Particle interactions and exchanges are NOT the result of a particle breaking into consistuants. We know this is how things are, for instance, in atoms, but a photon is not inside of an electron. This is obvious when you consider gravity in such a sistuation.

What its really about is an elaborate system of book keeping. If you keep track of certain numbers, such as spin, charge, lepton number, and energy, you can list all the possible particles that can come out of an interaction. You then look at the interaction of the various particle fields through their mutually interacting forces and you find out the probability of getting a particular result. There are symmetries in these numbers. For instance, having an opposite lepton number makes you anti-matter.

What the confirmation of the standard model tells us is that we aren't missing very important numbers when we do experiments. Previously, we were missing numbers such as spin, which we've mathematically accounted for and understand. There aren't more properties to a carbon atom, on the energy scales of life. This is what the confirmation of the standard model tells us. There isn't extra information in particles to account for these particles in a consistent way.

The reason, therefore, that a particle will decay in different ways isn't because it was always different, and was predetermined to do such a thing. It comes down to a difference in energy and field interaction strength, say in a magnetic field. This changes the book keeping and makes different outcomes more likely, or make new interactions possible.

Spin is important, but if a single electron can produce, or "turn into" 2 photons, or even 3, then it's not just a matter of spin. That particular particles properties change dramatically based on subtle variations is important to the overall effect (electromagnetic radiation, from gamma rays to visible light, are all the same particle, just with different wavelength and frequencies), but if two come out, no amount of energy can produce a new photon out of nothingness, or pure energy; and the energy is the same. If an electron where to change it's spin and change properties, that makes sense; but to create multiple particles, essentially matter, isn't really possible based on a change of spin or even the addition of energy alone, which is what implies there was more than one particle there to begin with.

No, you're just wrong on this. A single photon turns into a electron positron pair. You have 1 spin, turned into two spin 1/2 particles. You have zero net charge turning into -1 and +1 charges. You have E turning into an Electron of energy A and a positron of energy B, where A + B = E, and you have a zero leptop photon turning into a +1 lepton number electron, and a -1 lepton number positron. These things check out, particle number is not conserved- lepton number is.

Quote:

As for there being more information, that's not really what I was talking about, since computers are arbitrary anyways, with 0's and 1's being read by a machine that makes determinations after the fact,

after the fact of what?

Quote:

rather than some inherent quality. So even if there was some kind of mechanism that could be useful in quantum computing, the results by themselves aren't important without an ability to read it. So, a hard disk with a bunch of 0's and 1's is useless in the real world, just as language is, but the hash marks or dots or whatever you use to record data (pixels in pictures, etc.) can be useful if you can interpret it to mean something important, like even these letters here.

I think you interperted me saying that there isn't an extra number, or extra information, as having something to do with computability. What i mean is that there isn't another number needed to describe atoms. You have your spin and energy numbers, and that's all you need to explain the atoms. Similarly, no experiments show any need to add extra features to fundamental particles that we can see. We could use a bunch of extra particles, and some theories duplicate ours like supersymmetry.

Quote:

Quote:

As for the energy levels not being enough, if it manages to influence the bond of a carbon atom, say an extra electron or what have you to make a new connection, then you could have radically different molecular shapes. If the electrons are bigger or more powerful, that might mean enough to do something. Or it might not, just an idea. xp

no idea what you're saying here

Quote:

I suppose the real interesting real life idea of "certain things that shouldn't exist" would be potassium hexaboride. Hypothetically, it's a chemical that shouldn't exist, but does for some reasons at the right temperature. The basic idea is that a bond should not form, yet it behaves like a new molecule. With some stranger subatomic properties possible, structures that shouldn't otherwise exist, or bonds that should be impossible, could exist, leading to far more complex materials, or say, iron/titanium bonds forming something similar to that of a diamond, or graphene, producing stronger or weirder materials. Even if we can't get anything we want, we could get really weird stuff, with properties not considered possible in those elements before. Or it might not exist in organic life at all, just some, weird s**t could happen.

There are two senses in which something "shouldn't exist". The first is that it violates, directly, a feature of a theory. The second is that a normally applicable approximation fails in this case, and we need to figure out which. Usually its the second.

To be completely honest, before this conversation, I wasn't 100% certain if photons could be created. I was pretty sure that the laws of conservation of mass and energy, along with the fact that creation of a particle was impossible, meant that you couldn't produce a photon from pure energy alone, but now I'm pretty certain. Photons cannot be created, but they can change forms. "Because of momentum conservation laws, the creation of a pair of fermions (matter particles) out of a single photon cannot occur. However, matter creation is allowed by these laws when in the presence of another particle (another boson, or even a fermion) which can share the primary photon's momentum. Thus, matter can be created out of two photons." As well, pair production cannot occur by a single photon, it has to interact with another particle for it to happen, usually in the case of position-electron pair creation, it needs to interact with a nucleus of an atom. This requires extra particles, to convert, in order to produce different particles; you can't produce more than one particle, from a single particle, or photon in this case.

As for the material not supposed to exist, basically, it only exists under certain conditions, due to the fact that subatomatic interactions between molecules, which forms the atomic bonds, can be influenced by other factors. While a more obvious way to create "exotic" materials would be the addition or removal of electrons, to create valence electrons, say through a laser, some type of subtle influence could, in theory, produce radically different chemicals. By quantum, I am referring to electrons and such, or ways to get around that. It could explain some weird chemicals, may be nothing more than anomaly, idk, just thought I'd add something to the potential organic differences as a result of some weird quantum mechanics stuff.



Basically, diamond, graphene, graphite, etc. only exists because carbon atoms can be rearranged into different shapes, due to the way atomic bonds are created, predominately determined by the electrons shell. These all have radically different properties, due entirely to the arrangement of the atoms. While this is usually determined by valence electrons, there are ways to influence this without the proper valence electron shape, such as in the case of pottasium hexaboride. If that's the case, then you could, hypothetically, create a lot of weird chemicals not possible through traditional means, and thus if just dropping the temperature can do it, subtle changes in quantum mechanics, could possibly, as well.You're actually right on the one photon can't turn into another particle, but that's just because it's traveling at the speed of light and therefore can't have an internal "clock" to know when to "decay up" to an electron. This is NOT because one particle would turn into two, it IS because of special relativity.

As an example of one particle turning into two, an electron is totally allowed to become a lower energy electron + a photon, and the most common example of this is a S2 to an S1 orbital change. Its really important to understand: An electron in an S2 energy state does not have a photon inside of it. This is just not how electrons work.

What is more likely the case with these weird materials is that when we do calculations on atomic bonding, we use a handful of computer approximations and generalized rules which are calculable, as the fundamental equations are not. These general rules and approximations fail at some point in chemistry that is complex enough, and we need to rework how we apply them.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Vannak

Suicidesoldier#1

Vannak

Suicidesoldier#1

Vannak

Suicidesoldier#1

Most life is carbon based, because carbon atoms can form so many molecular bonds, particularly with it self. From diamonds, to graphite, to graphene, to human beings, carbon can produce some amazing stuff. Obviously, whatever subtle difference is going to make the chemical wholly different in function and abilities than other chemicals is subatomic, and thus likely quantum, as it can't be the atoms themselves making the difference. In fact, it may be possible that what we think as otherwise duplicate atoms, carbon atoms just all being copies of each other, might not be true, with different subatomic properties influencing their behaviour and properties drastically, but not enough to notice it at the atomic level. When an electron explodes, it might give off 1-2 photons. Why does electron positron annihilation give off an unequal amount of photons? Shouldn't there always be two? Or one? Or three; some static number?

Spin.

Particle interactions and exchanges are NOT the result of a particle breaking into consistuants. We know this is how things are, for instance, in atoms, but a photon is not inside of an electron. This is obvious when you consider gravity in such a sistuation.

What its really about is an elaborate system of book keeping. If you keep track of certain numbers, such as spin, charge, lepton number, and energy, you can list all the possible particles that can come out of an interaction. You then look at the interaction of the various particle fields through their mutually interacting forces and you find out the probability of getting a particular result. There are symmetries in these numbers. For instance, having an opposite lepton number makes you anti-matter.

What the confirmation of the standard model tells us is that we aren't missing very important numbers when we do experiments. Previously, we were missing numbers such as spin, which we've mathematically accounted for and understand. There aren't more properties to a carbon atom, on the energy scales of life. This is what the confirmation of the standard model tells us. There isn't extra information in particles to account for these particles in a consistent way.

The reason, therefore, that a particle will decay in different ways isn't because it was always different, and was predetermined to do such a thing. It comes down to a difference in energy and field interaction strength, say in a magnetic field. This changes the book keeping and makes different outcomes more likely, or make new interactions possible.

Spin is important, but if a single electron can produce, or "turn into" 2 photons, or even 3, then it's not just a matter of spin. That particular particles properties change dramatically based on subtle variations is important to the overall effect (electromagnetic radiation, from gamma rays to visible light, are all the same particle, just with different wavelength and frequencies), but if two come out, no amount of energy can produce a new photon out of nothingness, or pure energy; and the energy is the same. If an electron where to change it's spin and change properties, that makes sense; but to create multiple particles, essentially matter, isn't really possible based on a change of spin or even the addition of energy alone, which is what implies there was more than one particle there to begin with.

No, you're just wrong on this. A single photon turns into a electron positron pair. You have 1 spin, turned into two spin 1/2 particles. You have zero net charge turning into -1 and +1 charges. You have E turning into an Electron of energy A and a positron of energy B, where A + B = E, and you have a zero leptop photon turning into a +1 lepton number electron, and a -1 lepton number positron. These things check out, particle number is not conserved- lepton number is.

Quote:

As for there being more information, that's not really what I was talking about, since computers are arbitrary anyways, with 0's and 1's being read by a machine that makes determinations after the fact,

after the fact of what?

Quote:

rather than some inherent quality. So even if there was some kind of mechanism that could be useful in quantum computing, the results by themselves aren't important without an ability to read it. So, a hard disk with a bunch of 0's and 1's is useless in the real world, just as language is, but the hash marks or dots or whatever you use to record data (pixels in pictures, etc.) can be useful if you can interpret it to mean something important, like even these letters here.

I think you interperted me saying that there isn't an extra number, or extra information, as having something to do with computability. What i mean is that there isn't another number needed to describe atoms. You have your spin and energy numbers, and that's all you need to explain the atoms. Similarly, no experiments show any need to add extra features to fundamental particles that we can see. We could use a bunch of extra particles, and some theories duplicate ours like supersymmetry.

Quote:

Quote:

As for the energy levels not being enough, if it manages to influence the bond of a carbon atom, say an extra electron or what have you to make a new connection, then you could have radically different molecular shapes. If the electrons are bigger or more powerful, that might mean enough to do something. Or it might not, just an idea. xp

no idea what you're saying here

Quote:

I suppose the real interesting real life idea of "certain things that shouldn't exist" would be potassium hexaboride. Hypothetically, it's a chemical that shouldn't exist, but does for some reasons at the right temperature. The basic idea is that a bond should not form, yet it behaves like a new molecule. With some stranger subatomic properties possible, structures that shouldn't otherwise exist, or bonds that should be impossible, could exist, leading to far more complex materials, or say, iron/titanium bonds forming something similar to that of a diamond, or graphene, producing stronger or weirder materials. Even if we can't get anything we want, we could get really weird stuff, with properties not considered possible in those elements before. Or it might not exist in organic life at all, just some, weird s**t could happen.

There are two senses in which something "shouldn't exist". The first is that it violates, directly, a feature of a theory. The second is that a normally applicable approximation fails in this case, and we need to figure out which. Usually its the second.

To be completely honest, before this conversation, I wasn't 100% certain if photons could be created. I was pretty sure that the laws of conservation of mass and energy, along with the fact that creation of a particle was impossible, meant that you couldn't produce a photon from pure energy alone, but now I'm pretty certain. Photons cannot be created, but they can change forms. "Because of momentum conservation laws, the creation of a pair of fermions (matter particles) out of a single photon cannot occur. However, matter creation is allowed by these laws when in the presence of another particle (another boson, or even a fermion) which can share the primary photon's momentum. Thus, matter can be created out of two photons." As well, pair production cannot occur by a single photon, it has to interact with another particle for it to happen, usually in the case of position-electron pair creation, it needs to interact with a nucleus of an atom. This requires extra particles, to convert, in order to produce different particles; you can't produce more than one particle, from a single particle, or photon in this case.

As for the material not supposed to exist, basically, it only exists under certain conditions, due to the fact that subatomatic interactions between molecules, which forms the atomic bonds, can be influenced by other factors. While a more obvious way to create "exotic" materials would be the addition or removal of electrons, to create valence electrons, say through a laser, some type of subtle influence could, in theory, produce radically different chemicals. By quantum, I am referring to electrons and such, or ways to get around that. It could explain some weird chemicals, may be nothing more than anomaly, idk, just thought I'd add something to the potential organic differences as a result of some weird quantum mechanics stuff.



Basically, diamond, graphene, graphite, etc. only exists because carbon atoms can be rearranged into different shapes, due to the way atomic bonds are created, predominately determined by the electrons shell. These all have radically different properties, due entirely to the arrangement of the atoms. While this is usually determined by valence electrons, there are ways to influence this without the proper valence electron shape, such as in the case of pottasium hexaboride. If that's the case, then you could, hypothetically, create a lot of weird chemicals not possible through traditional means, and thus if just dropping the temperature can do it, subtle changes in quantum mechanics, could possibly, as well.

You're actually right on the one photon can't turn into another particle, but that's just because it's traveling at the speed of light and therefore can't have an internal "clock" to know when to "decay up" to an electron. This is NOT because one particle would turn into two, it IS because of special relativity.

As an example of one particle turning into two, an electron is totally allowed to become a lower energy electron + a photon, and the most common example of this is a S2 to an S1 orbital change. Its really important to understand: An electron in an S2 energy state does not have a photon inside of it. This is just not how electrons work.

What is more likely the case with these weird materials is that when we do calculations on atomic bonding, we use a handful of computer approximations and generalized rules which are calculable, as the fundamental equations are not. These general rules and approximations fail at some point in chemistry that is complex enough, and we need to rework how we apply them.
But an electron is made up of multiple particles in the first place, is my point, and there are electrons of different states based on how many photons are inside of them.

It can't produce another photon, you couldn't consistently get an electron to produce photons, the only way to add more "energy" as well would be to add more photons. If it's made up of multiple photons, then loses one as it drops in energy, that would kind of make sense. Whether or not a lower energy state electron has any bearings on molecular shape, and thus can influence things in the macroscopic world based on the quantum one, idk, but that's more or less the idea of how it could be possible.

That and anomalies we don't understand yet. xp

It's not so much the energy levels of the quantum world effecting anything, so much as the way molecular bonds form, which are by and large orders of magnitude weaker than nuclear forces, and thus more plausible from the energy required to effect stuff in any significant way from that perspective, as well.



Or perhaps more realistically, the electrons can absorb photons when exposed to them, and change properties slightly.

[Fermionic]

Suicidesoldier#1

But an electron is made up of multiple particles in the first place, is my point, and there are electrons of different states based on how many photons are inside of them.

No, that's just wrong.
Electron states are based on their wave function.
They do not contain photons.

Quote:

It can't produce another photon, you couldn't consistently get an electron to produce photons, the only way to add more "energy" as well would be to add more photons. If it's made up of multiple photons, then loses one as it drops in energy, that would kind of make sense.

Photons are particles. They are particles of an energy given by the product of their frequency and Planck's constant.
Upon interaction with an electron, their energy can sometimes be absorbed by the electron. This is known from the equivalence of mass and energy.
As only particular energies are permitted for the electron (the allowed energies are quantised), each allowed energy has an eigenfunction, a permitted wave function. Hence, the wave function (a total description of the electrons spatial-spin state) will change with it's corresponding eigenvalue (energy).

Quote:

Whether or not a lower energy state electron has any bearings on molecular shape, and thus can influence things in the macroscopic world based on the quantum one, idk, but that's more or less the idea of how it could be possible.

Molecular shape is completely determined by the permitted wave functions of the constituent electrons and nuclei.
Exciting electrons normally has the effect of modifying the rotational state, the vibrational state, and the bond order of the molecule. These all modify the shape of the molecules, and a vast amount of chemistry is determined by these aspects.
Generally the macroscopic world corresponds to a Boltzmann distribution.
However, quantum concerns are what cause chemistry.

Quote:

That and anomalies we don't understand yet. xp

Everything I've described is well understood, and accepted.

Quote:

It's not so much the energy levels of the quantum world effecting anything, so much as the way molecular bonds form, which are by and large orders of magnitude weaker than nuclear forces, and thus more plausible from the energy required to effect stuff in any significant way from that perspective, as well.

The energy levels are paramount.
Other than that, I doubt this paragraph has any real meaning to it.

Quote:

Or perhaps more realistically, the electrons can absorb photons when exposed to them, and change properties slightly.

They increase in energy.

Key point; electrons do not bodily consist of photons.

[Vannak]

Suicidesoldier#1

The electron is capable of holding many multiples of its fundamental units of its energy, momentum, and spin. Therefore, it can lose precise amounts of these quantities to create a few photons.
The issue is that a photon has spin in multiples of 1, while an electron has spin in multiples of 1, + 1/2, or (N*1)+1/2. Generally this means that an electron has trouble giving off photons, unless it can some how rotate around something and have wide range of potential angular momenta to possess.... This most commonly happens in an electric field, when an electron can lose energy and therefore get the electromagnetic energy lower by sending a bit of momentum energy away in the form of a photon, which can escape. The calculation of this is pretty simple, a bit of the electric potential energy just flies away, since the momentum energy given away as a photon doesn't feel electric potential. This is an electron jumping to a lower energy state.

The general point is that the energy, spin, and momentum of the photon was never differentiated from the energy of the electron. In absorption, the electron gains momentum (=energy), which increases its columbic attraction to the nucleus! if you were thinking something like pokemon, where the electron just writes down "1 MeV photon, 3 .24 Mev Photons, 25 18 Kev Photons, etc.", then no. The properties of the electron are added to the electron. Later they may be subtracted. The energy and such of the photon isn't what is specific- its the amount of spin.

[Michael Noire]

centuries ago, people started using microscopes to explain that living things were more complex than they thought, and smaller moving parts than realized. As time went on, physicists assumed the role of going smaller and smaller, while biologists largely stopped somewhere at the chemical level. I think, in retrospect, we will find "life" and its functions to continue to manifest at whatever scales we discover continue to have interactions. Basically, when we evolve beyond the nanotech scale and nanotechnology becomes mundane, working with picotechnology, or femtotechnology, or "quantum" technology and attempts to make reverse computing/toffoli gates possible, for example, we are eventually going to discover life forms were doing this stuff the whole time.

The problem people forget is that Life is a manifest part of the universe, obeying whatever laws everything else is. If a principle feature makes some kind of as of yet unknown interaction (like the preon theories of the past) possible and germane, then in all probability, whatever makes "life" is following the same principles, thus life isn't actually "as we know it" but something far more complex, and what we define as life and its fundamentals have to be revised to allow for that new scale of interaction.

It is entirely possible life functions with interactions of wave forms/boson reactions and signals we don't yet have sensing equipment to detect. For all we know, there's a portion of the universe at frequencies or quantum chemistries we don't yet understand or have machines to predict or sense, and that s**t is happening right now doing all kinds of weird s**t.

The main difference with "life" and "inanimate" objects, is instinctive or neurological causality chains are different. "Action at a distance" etc. Basically, when a dog or mold or whatever receives some kind of benefit to its survival using mechanisms we can't understand or explain the causality for. That kind of thing starts to get really disturbing if the order of operations can more or less be bypassed between systems. For example, in a normal motion of a human hand, electrochemical impulses from the brain make the arm move through muscle contractions. But these are tiny things invisible to the naked eye that move the arm. These things are way smaller than a gear or pulley system Davinci might contrive to explain arm motion. Now imagine what's possible if we start applying that "desire to move the hand = hand motion" mechanics with some scale far smaller than chemical reactions of a nervous system. Like some kind of "somethings" interacting on the scale of Plank or Near Plank? At that point, wouldn't our existing models of biology seem as clunky and ridiculous as a Pulley system mechanical arm?

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Vannak

Suicidesoldier#1

The electron is capable of holding many multiples of its fundamental units of its energy, momentum, and spin. Therefore, it can lose precise amounts of these quantities to create a few photons.
The issue is that a photon has spin in multiples of 1, while an electron has spin in multiples of 1, + 1/2, or (N*1)+1/2. Generally this means that an electron has trouble giving off photons, unless it can some how rotate around something and have wide range of potential angular momenta to possess.... This most commonly happens in an electric field, when an electron can lose energy and therefore get the electromagnetic energy lower by sending a bit of momentum energy away in the form of a photon, which can escape. The calculation of this is pretty simple, a bit of the electric potential energy just flies away, since the momentum energy given away as a photon doesn't feel electric potential. This is an electron jumping to a lower energy state.

The general point is that the energy, spin, and momentum of the photon was never differentiated from the energy of the electron. In absorption, the electron gains momentum (=energy), which increases its columbic attraction to the nucleus! if you were thinking something like pokemon, where the electron just writes down "1 MeV photon, 3 .24 Mev Photons, 25 18 Kev Photons, etc.", then no. The properties of the electron are added to the electron. Later they may be subtracted. The energy and such of the photon isn't what is specific- its the amount of spin.

But for an electron to gain energy or momentum it must first having something act on it through a mediator. You can't simply add or subtract pure energy, it has to be through something. An electron absorbing energy in this manner would also absorb and then reemit the photon some time later. While spin and the like can change, it's all essentially the same base particle. Photons can't just pop out into space because a certain amount of energy was applied, so assuming they could do so out of an electron seems a might presumptuous.

You may be able to create a photon from basic particle conversion, but essentially, you've still got that particle it's a part of. An electron that has several extra photons might behave differently than an electron without it. Since not all electrons are the same, essentially, some have higher energy and so on, than it's possible you could create a new chemical based on subatomic properties, simply by effecting molecular shape, and therefore it's properties.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Fermionic

Suicidesoldier#1

But an electron is made up of multiple particles in the first place, is my point, and there are electrons of different states based on how many photons are inside of them.

No, that's just wrong.
Electron states are based on their wave function.
They do not contain photons.

Quote:

It can't produce another photon, you couldn't consistently get an electron to produce photons, the only way to add more "energy" as well would be to add more photons. If it's made up of multiple photons, then loses one as it drops in energy, that would kind of make sense.

Photons are particles. They are particles of an energy given by the product of their frequency and Planck's constant.
Upon interaction with an electron, their energy can sometimes be absorbed by the electron. This is known from the equivalence of mass and energy.
As only particular energies are permitted for the electron (the allowed energies are quantised), each allowed energy has an eigenfunction, a permitted wave function. Hence, the wave function (a total description of the electrons spatial-spin state) will change with it's corresponding eigenvalue (energy).

Quote:

Whether or not a lower energy state electron has any bearings on molecular shape, and thus can influence things in the macroscopic world based on the quantum one, idk, but that's more or less the idea of how it could be possible.

Molecular shape is completely determined by the permitted wave functions of the constituent electrons and nuclei.
Exciting electrons normally has the effect of modifying the rotational state, the vibrational state, and the bond order of the molecule. These all modify the shape of the molecules, and a vast amount of chemistry is determined by these aspects.
Generally the macroscopic world corresponds to a Boltzmann distribution.
However, quantum concerns are what cause chemistry.

Quote:

That and anomalies we don't understand yet. xp

Everything I've described is well understood, and accepted.

Quote:

It's not so much the energy levels of the quantum world effecting anything, so much as the way molecular bonds form, which are by and large orders of magnitude weaker than nuclear forces, and thus more plausible from the energy required to effect stuff in any significant way from that perspective, as well.

The energy levels are paramount.
Other than that, I doubt this paragraph has any real meaning to it.

Quote:

Or perhaps more realistically, the electrons can absorb photons when exposed to them, and change properties slightly.

They increase in energy.

Key point; electrons do not bodily consist of photons.

But they do absorb photons, and that could change their interactions with other electrons, and thus the molecular shape of certain molecules. That part of it all is nothing more than speculation.

Chemicals such as potassium hexaboride show that electrons don't always operate in the same manner, and quantum tunnelling allows certain organic chemicals to exist in space that otherwise shouldn't. Molecular formations are more complex than many originally theorized, which means new chemicals, or chemicals which only exist under specific conditions, can form outside of the ordinary predicted realms. Which means that, strange interactions at the quantum level can influence the production of molecules, in ways people didn't previously consider. Meaning there's more to it than a simple straightforward path, or that electron wave forms alone are responsible.


Or perhaps better put, "classical" mechanics say they should not exist, at least in the state they do.

[Fermionic]

Suicidesoldier#1

But they do absorb photons, and that could change their interactions with other electrons, and thus the molecular shape of certain molecules. That part of it all is nothing more than speculation.

They do not physically consist of photons.

Excitation effects geometry, this is well documented. Far from "nothing more than speculation".

Quote:

Chemicals such as potassium hexaboride show that electrons don't always operate in the same manner, and quantum tunnelling allows certain organic chemicals to exist in space that otherwise shouldn't.

Do you think it's a contemporary scientific position that quantum effects do not effect chemistry?

Quote:

Meaning there's more to it than a simple straightforward path, or that electron wave forms alone are responsible.

"Simple straightforward path" is a measure of understanding only.

Electron wave functions are a complete description of an electron's properties.

Quote:

Or perhaps better put, "classical" mechanics say they should not exist, at least in the state they do.

Nobody considers classical mechanics a definitive measure in chemistry. Not even close.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Fermionic

Suicidesoldier#1

But they do absorb photons, and that could change their interactions with other electrons, and thus the molecular shape of certain molecules. That part of it all is nothing more than speculation.

They do not physically consist of photons.

Excitation effects geometry, this is well documented. Far from "nothing more than speculation".

Quote:

Chemicals such as potassium hexaboride show that electrons don't always operate in the same manner, and quantum tunnelling allows certain organic chemicals to exist in space that otherwise shouldn't.

Do you think it's a contemporary scientific position that quantum effects do not effect chemistry?

Quote:

Meaning there's more to it than a simple straightforward path, or that electron wave forms alone are responsible.

"Simple straightforward path" is a measure of understanding only.

Electron wave functions are a complete description of an electron's properties.

Quote:

Or perhaps better put, "classical" mechanics say they should not exist, at least in the state they do.

Nobody considers classical mechanics a definitive measure in chemistry. Not even close.

They possess photons, which changes their properties. They can absorb them. How important this is to determining molecular shape, idk, but it could have some degree of significance.