Water.

Discussion in 'Physics' started by socratus, Oct 8, 2012.

  1. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    Water.
    1
    7/10/2006
    Water, Energy, and Life: Fresh Views From the Water's Edge.
    Dr. Gerald Pollack, UW professor of bioengineering, has developed
    a theory of water that has been called revolutionary.
    http://www.uwtv.org/video/player.aspx?mediaid=16213809
    2.
    June 30, 2008
    The traditional picture of how liquid water behaves
    on a molecular level is wrong,
    http://phys.org/news134058290.html
    3.
    December 8, 2011,
    Scientists investigate water memory
    http://odewire.com/170441/scientists-investigate-water-memory.html
    ======.
    Conclusion:
    We don’t have theory of water..
    =.
    ==..
     
  2. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,766
    2,536
    I thought the second article interesting, but this quote from the third article left me cold.

    IMO, poor science at its worst. Energy is a specific term, and here the term is used in metaphysical way.
     
    DerStrom8 likes this.
  3. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    I agree : the third article sound like metaphysical.
    "When we can't know the truth, we claim truth is all possibilities simultaneously."
    / James S Saint /
     
  4. vortmax

    Member

    Oct 10, 2012
    103
    18
    I sort of read it as the author saying "magical" as a synonym to "wonderful" or "amazing", and not being literally magic.

    However, the 'experiment' described is no where close to being fully constrained. My research group studies how water freezes and you wouldn't believe the controls we go through to reduce free parameters to a manageable level.
     
  5. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    As a member of research group studies water
    will you agree with this quote:

    "Water is still not fully understood, although it is the basis
    of our existence. I expect more surprises to be discovered
    in the future."
    / SLAC scientist Anders Nilsson. /
    http://phys.org/news134058290.html
    =.
    In my opinion we have two "magical" , "wonderful" or "amazing"
    elements in nature: helium II ( helium I ) and water.
    We dont have fully theory about them.
    =.
     
  6. MvGulik

    Member

    Nov 3, 2011
    40
    9
    All elements are magical, wonderful or amazing. But so is a computer if you did not grow up with one.
    Things are the way they are. Its the learning trip of figuring it out that's the fun part. (And figuring out how to put it to good use comes at a close second place.)

    What goose for water(molecule) goose for all elements to. Until we are able to fully pre-calculate/simulate the characteristics of any molecular combination ... we still got a lot of interesting stuff to figure out. (Fear the day we think we know it all.)

    This seems a nice step into getting to now a bit more than we know right now in relation to that.
    Lithium in action: Advanced imaging method reveals fundamental reactions behind battery technology (phys.org, Oct 2012)


    ... (off topic and rhetorical) I don't really like you(socratus). Or to be more specific, your general writing format,style,text etc. ...
     
  7. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    Yes, it is an interesting stuff
    The nano-engineering technology is grown every day,
    every day a new success - new discovery.
    And it seems that really all elements are magical and amazing.
    ==.
    But . . . . .
    1
    Let us say that we want to write a full theory about elements.
    Then we cannot begin from the lithium.
    Lithium is too complex element.
    The Periodic table says we need to begin from hydrogen.
    But in my opinion we need to begin from helium II.
    Why?
    Helium II exists below at 2.19 K
    We don’t know any another element that exist below this coefficient
    Below is Nothingness : T=0K
    The idea of Nothingness is not a new one.
    There are enough physicists who try to understand it.
    #
    When the next revolution rocks physics,
    chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum,
    that endless infinite void.
    http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything
    #
    And Paul Dirac wrote:
    " The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
    is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly
    describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
    of something more complex? "
    ==.
    2
    Professor Yang Shao-Horn says:
    "We focused on finding out what really happens during
    charging and discharging,"

    In my opinion there isn’t charging and discharging without photon
    ( electric charge)
    =.
    So, we come again to QED: what is happen in interaction
    between photon / electron ( quantum of light) and matter.
    =.
     
  8. vortmax

    Member

    Oct 10, 2012
    103
    18
    Yes, but so is gravity....and we don't suspect gravity has anthropomorphic properties. We have a good understanding of water on the macroscale....we don't understand the microscale. Not to mention the fact that the research in the video was not studying water....he was studying a solution. As soon as water is contaminated with something its dynamics change radically. It's also hard to say if the results of this "simple technique" are really due to the water, or if sensitivities in the technique itself overwhelm the measurement and what you are seeing is just repeatable noise.
     
  9. MvGulik

    Member

    Nov 3, 2011
    40
    9
    lol, that should teach me not to feed him.

    ?
    Did he just(only) forget to past the word "liquid" in there?

    socratus: your topic is water, no?
     
  10. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    ==.
    Sorry.
    Did you forget your post :

    Lithium in action: Advanced imaging method reveals fundamental reactions behind battery technology (phys.org, Oct 2012) ' ?
    =.

    I read it and posted my opinion.
    All the best.
    =.
     
  11. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    Thank you.
    P.S.
    By the way, we don’t have quantum gravity.
    =.
     
  12. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,766
    2,536
    Actually gravity is an open subject, we still don't understand the fundamental mechanism, just the effects. I include bending space/time under effects.
     
  13. DerStrom8

    Well-Known Member

    Feb 20, 2011
    2,428
    1,328
    Umm, so what exactly are you saying we don't understand about water?

    We know how it is created on the chemical level--two hydrogen atoms bond with an oxygen atom. We know why it is a liquid--the hydrogen atoms are free to move around the oxygen atom. We understand why it can be turned to a solid--when it gets cold, the electrons move slower and the charges in the two hydrogen atoms repel and are forced directly across from one another, creating a straight, crystal-like structure. We understand why it can be turned into a gas (water vapor)--when the molecule heats up, the electrons are able to move more quickly, and the energy of the charges becomes high enough for the molecules to break away from each other. We know water is very plentiful, because hydrogen and oxygen is plentiful. The bond is easily made. We know gravity has an effect on water, causing it to flow downhill and to pool in the lowest possible places. This creates rivers, lakes, ponds, oceans. What exactly don't we understand about water? If you want my personal opinion, those "studies" performed in your links are done by people who just want attention. They don't know what they're looking for. They're just hoping they find something that we don't already know. And if you ask me, that's like trying to prove there's a god. They're only going to find pieces of the same puzzle, but they're never going to fit it all together into an all-inclusive "theory of water".

    That's my 2 cents :p
     
  14. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    I agree.
    =.
    An example.
    It says that the universe is expanding.
    We can assume that gravity would slow down this expanding.
    But it is actually speeding up.
    It means that gravity goes to zero point.
    If this is correct then we need to take zero gravity as a point of thinking.
    Maybe the zero gravity can help us to understand the macro-gravity.
    =.
     
  15. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    The laws must unify, or we are describing things
    that don't actually exist.
    / Allen Francom /.
    #
    You can fool some of the people all of the time,
    and all of the people some of the time,
    but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
    / Abraham Lincoln./

    Therefore one day the physicists will fit all pieces of physics
    into one unified theory.
    =.
     
  16. DerStrom8

    Well-Known Member

    Feb 20, 2011
    2,428
    1,328
    I strongly disagree with that last statement. Yes, everything is connected mathematically, physically, etc. However, humans lack the ability to learn everything about anything. They will never know everything about water, even though all the information is out there. There's always more to learn, and they will never come up with a correct unified theory. Of that I am certain.
     
  17. MvGulik

    Member

    Nov 3, 2011
    40
    9
    Just wondering.
    Do we know why water has its highest density at 4~ degree Celsius?
    Its one of those little things about water that makes it stand out in relation to other liquids.
    (Are there other known liquids(pure) that have a similar feature?)
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2012
  18. vortmax

    Member

    Oct 10, 2012
    103
    18
    we do know why. Density is a loose (inverse) function of temperature. As water cool from warm temperatures, it's density increases until around 4C when thermal randomness isn't enough to keep the water form forming an ice-like lattice. As you drop below 4C, ice-like lattice structures stick around longer due to the decreasing thermal activity, which leads to a decrease in mean density.

    As for gravity.... If loop quantum gravity were proved tomorrow, it would change very little. Classical mechanics would still be just as valid as it is now. We wouldn't throw out a century of scientific knowledge...we would append a foot note that says "this works for 99% of all situations. The other 1% are.... see LQG". Sure it would lead to an entire new burst of knowledge and discovery, but it would invalidate little.
     
  19. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,766
    2,536
    I basically agree with you on most points, except for one. True understanding of a natural phenomena can lead to the ability to manipulate it. Since we do not truly understand gravity the ability to manipulate it is beyond us. Even when we do understand the mechanism this may be so, but we won't know either way until we have the understanding.

    What you talked about is very true about Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, Newtonian physics was used for the moon shot. It was good enough.

    Fact is, there is something different about water. It behooves us to study it. If we ever do find a similar liquid (and I know of none such) we may have a different chemical that can be a solvent for life. Temperatures, for example, could be quite different. Even if it used DNA, it would not be life as we know it.
     
  20. MvGulik

    Member

    Nov 3, 2011
    40
    9
    Ps: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_(properties)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 12, 2012
Loading...