Fundamental or nearly fundamental energy and the origin of Intelligence?

[Dennis Tate]

Dennis:

Okay. And what tests might conceivably prove that belief to be incorrect? Are there any? If not, then the belief is probably not a scientific one.


Can you please define "fundamental energy"? I don't know what that means.


Maybe I do. How do you propose to measure intelligence? What would be the most important difference between the "first intelligence" and whatever came just before that?


What makes you think that forms of energy can predate the big bang, in the first place?
And then, what makes it "obvious" to you that "intelligence" would originate in that form of energy?
What form would that pre-big bang Intelligence have taken?

None of this is at all "obvious" to me, and so far you've provided no reason why I should accept any of it.

Why do you think that "near death experiences" are a real experience of "higher invisible dimensions", as opposed to merely being the imaginative experiences that an oxygen-deprived brain might have, for example?


That seems like a total non sequitur to anything you said before that. What has plant fear got to do with fundamental energies, the big bang, or near death experiences? You're all over the place.


What makes you suspect that animists may have access to special knowledge? Why animists, in particular?


Since there's no good evidence that any such thing actually happens, is it really worth wasting time speculating on how it might work, if it was real? Surely the first step is to confirm that "out of body experiences" actually occur.


What convinced you?


That would tend to refute your belief that "out of body experiences" aren't the product of the brain, would it not?


Nerve conduction in the human body and in the brain also uses electricity. Does that help?


I don't know what you mean by that. String theory only references the usual fields that physicists already know about, the electromagnetic field being one of them.


What do you mean by a "higher level truth"? How many levels of truth are there? How do you know?


You have a quote mark at the start of this. Whom are you quoting?


Energy isn't "stuff". It's essentially an accounting system. How could anything be "composed of energy"?

Can you name anything that is "composed of energy"?

Also, you keep saying that lots of things "seem obvious" to you. Based on what? Your overactive imagination?


There are lots of ifs and assumptions in that sentence.

I don't know what "fundamental energy" is; maybe you'll explain.

On what basis do you "assume" that Stephen Hawking shared your belief in "fundamental energy"?

As for evolution: we already know it's possible. It happens. That's an established fact. We don't need infinite time for that.


It sounds to me like you don't have the first clue about what "evolution" means, or what the "theory of evolution" is about.


Again, what makes you think that "near death experiencers" have special access to knowledge - or access to special knowledge?


Do you understand what Hawking is talking about? He is speculating that there might be a multiverse consisting of a large number of "island universes" which have different values for their fundamental physical constants (the ones that determine the relative strengths of fundamental physical forces and so on). But Hawking always explicitly stated that this is speculation. It is not verified in any way.

There are a number of reasons why I take NDE accounts very seriously.......
(which does not rule out the possibility that somebody might make up an NDE account for less than sincere reasons but).......


the effect of near death experiences on the people who have had them is impressive. Even the researchers quoted in various Psychology Today articles on the topic seemed to
have felt that these accounts had some sort of psychological value.........
even if it was just to give people at least some sort of "hope" or sense of value in the larger scheme of things.

Bright Lights, Big Mystery | Psychology Today
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200910/bright-lights-big-mystery?page=4

For Sappington and others, the issue is not whether the person is actually meeting God, but why NDErs routinely seem better adjusted, more at peace and content with themselves and the world after their experience. Disregarding, for the time being at least, how they got that way, and focusing on the changes themselves, psychologists would like to borrow this newfound sense of well-being and utilize it in therapy.
Reports are highly consistent and common: "I understand things so much more" and "My senses all seem heightened." Subjects claim "sudden knowledge and comprehension of complex mathematical theorems." Psychologist Ring has identified a consistent set of value and belief changes. They include:
a greater appreciation for life
o higher self-esteem
o greater compassion for others
o a heightened sense of purpose and self-understanding
o desire to learn
o elevated spirituality
o greater ecological sensitivity and planetary concern
o a feeling of being more intuitive, sometimes psychic.
o He also observes "psychophysical changes," including:
o increased physical sensitivity
o diminished tolerance to light, alcohol, and drugs
o a feeling that their brains have been "altered" to encompass more
o a feeling that they are now using their "whole brain" rather than just a small part.
NDErs undergo radical changes in personality, and their,significant others--spouses, friends, relatives--confirm these changes, reports Bruce Greyson, M.D., clinical psychiatrist and associate professor at the University of Connecticut. Like Sappington, he is concerned with what can be learned from such new outlooks on life." (Psychology Today, article Bright lights, big mystery, by James Mauro, published on July 01, 1992)

There are at least two ways of looking at the fact that NDE accounts or something like them actually have a number of ways of being generated......
some of which can be done under what appears like "laboratory conditions."
I am one of those people who tend to think that this tends to verify that there is something "real" about these.....
my guess at this time would be a connection between our "over soul" as former Atheist and near death experiencer Mellen Benedict termed it.....
for the part of our memories, identity or personality that seems to exist even before we were born or even conceived????????

The Dr. Ian Stevenson research may eventually be understood to shed some light on whatever that might be??????


https://www.near-death.com/psychology/triggers.html

Psychological Triggers of Near-Death Experiences
By Kevin R. Williams, B.Sc.
1.Brain Seizures
2.Brain Stimulation
3.Dreams
4.Extreme Gravity
5.Extreme Meditation
6.Extreme Stress
7.Falling from Heights
8.Hypnosis
9.Orgasm
10.Psychomanteum
11.Mental Dysfunction

 

[Dicart]

This is not the case. The equilibrium constant for the dissociation of H2O into H3O+ and OH- : [H3O+][OH-]/[H2O] = 10⁻¹⁴.

In other words, water is barely dissociated at all. It is almost all in the form of H-O-H molecules.

And you guessed it from the formula ?
No, you think in wrong direction and if one could agree that this kind of formula could fit with the observation for more simple molecules, the quantum properties of water do not permit this conclusion.

For sure, i agree with the results this formula provide, but as said, the formula apply as an average, and i works almost fine.
Here at PH =7 ("neutrality"), so [H3O+]=[OH-} , [H3O+] and [OH-] are at 10⁻7 molar concentration.
And therefore the H20 is supposed to be almost equal to 1 molar, so one could guess : Hey look, all water is in the H2O form like in the vapor state.

But, the formula do not represent what happen at the molecular scale and this is what we are here talking about; what happens at the molecular scale.

You know what "molecule" (if we can name that a molecule...) is majoritary in ocean ?
(H20)5 a walrafen pentamer with 80% abundance.
But it has the ability to change fast in the network (yes the coin is spining fast...), so talking about "a molecule" is an average point of view.
So, great max, if you want to talk about a molecule of H2O... there is 20% of free H2O in water.
This is not what your formula said ? (You said 100%).

Sure, because the formula is talking about "the average" , and not even of the average of H2O, no, at the average of H3O+ and OH-, usefull to do some Hydrxyd Potential calculation (because a liquid is not electrocharged).

On the contrary, H2O is one of the simplest molecules in nature. It's very simplicity gives it the ability (potential) of the 3 states in which H2O may become expressed in reality.

You are totaly wrong, it is very complex structure.

In fact, liquid water is some kind of O and H fast changing atomic complex network (valence and hydrogen bounds changing fast), with some temporary structuration (and sometime we have "loose" H20 with hydrogen bounds) depending on various interactions (dissolved ions, pressure, etc).
The behavious of this "liquid" is very stable with temperature change.

Almost like the plasma in the Sun.... (if the temperature would be lower), but we can forget this point for the debate.

 

[Dicart]

I have also assumed that Intelligence / intelligence = life or Life???!!!

Yes, probably intelligence with consciousness so the qualia, is linked to life.
No life without water, no intelligence without water.

 

[Dennis Tate]

Yes, probably intelligence with consciousness so the qualia, is linked to life.
No life without water, no intelligence without water.

A Dr. Masaru Emoto got some truly unusual results in his studies on water.

A Swiss scientist named Hans Jenny did some seemingly related research on finely ground sand. One of the only questions I can think of related to water would be......
does water somehow conduct at least some..... Energy from Quantum Vacuum or something similar???????????

 

[Dennis Tate]

Dennis Tate:

I asked you a lot of very specific questions about two of your posts. You have skipped over them - essentially ignored them - and then gone on your merry way almost as if I never posted anything. Why is that? Were my questions too difficult for you to address? Or is it that you'd prefer not to confront those kinds of things? Are you so comfortable in your beliefs about near death experiences and the like that any suggestion that they aren't good evidence for God or the supernatural just goes in one ear and out the other? Or what?

Should I write you off as a person I should simply ignore, then? Somebody who isn't worth listening to, because you just ramble on regardless of what anybody else says to you?

Gravity, electromagnetism and the nuclear forces are not "energies" - or at least not in the vague sort of way you seem to be using that term. They are best described as "fundamental interactions" that describe how the fundamental particles in the universe (that we know of) all interact with one another.

Probably you are thinking of theories that "combine" the four "fundamental interactions" into a single "super force" at very high energies. So I guess there's a hint of actual physics in what you're talking about, but it sounds like you don't understand it very well - or more that you understand it from a sort of "popular science" perspective, which tends to use words to explain things rather than mathematics and quantitative theory.


Okay. You were doing well right up until you mentioned "evidence in parapsychology or pseudoscience". What does parapsychology have to do with string theory or fundamental forces? And what is the "evidence" you're referring to?

You know that "pseudoscience" is "fake science" - nonsense dressed up to look like science, essentially? It has the trappings of science without bothering about any actual evidence collection or methodological rigour, or critical thinking - those kinds of things that we find in real science.


Well, there's a difference between a wild guess and an educated guess. Which is yours?

Are you educated in the physics necessary to understand string theory properly? Are you able to read Hawking's original scientific papers and understand them? If so, then your "guess" might be worth something. If, on the other hand, you've just read "A brief history of time", without really understanding the last half of the book, and a few other pop-science articles on string theory that contain no mathematics, then your "guess" is unlikely to point us towards fruitful avenues for future research.

What is a far worse sign is that you appear to be putting as much, or more, emphasis on information you believe you have from pseudoscientific ideas (parapsychology and near death experiences, for instance) as you do on information from real scientific sources, like Hawking. That suggests to me that you're not very good at telling the difference between science and pseudoscience, yet.


I don't know what you're referring to when you say "energy somehow goes off the scale". Can you refer me to a specific source that makes that claim? That is, a reputable scientific source (even a pop-science one will do), not a crank pseudoscientific source?

In which experiment(s) did "energy somehow go off the scale"? In what way? With what measurement? The energy of what? I want some details.

Which facility? What kind of facility?


Maybe, if it could be harnessed. And so...?


You think there's a conspiracy to hide important science from the public, concerning limitless sources of energy, or similar? Got evidence of that?

Can you list a few of the similarities? Maybe five of them, say, for starters? How specific are they?

Are you claiming that this Mellen Benedict person gained access to special knowledge about physics as a result of a near death experience? Is there any other evidence of that?

Ordinarily I would not have been able to be on this forum as much as I have been due to my now being five days into a fourteen day quarantine......... Whether my guesses are wild or educated would depend on how you would define the world "educated." I assume that you would likely consider my guesses to be rather wild...... that is certainly your choice!

I began to read String Theory for philosophical reasons...... not because of a background in Physics.

Yes... I do believe that Mr. Mellen Benedict did indeed gain knowledge on higher invisible dimensions during his brush with death and......
due to whatever increased intellectual capabilities he got during his NDE that he would be able to use every day from the time of his NDE until his eventual death?????

The very fact that a WHITE SUBSTANCE was added to the Stanley Meyer hydrogen fuel dune buggy in a USA court of law............
indicates that the judge on the case was willing to go down in history as one of America's most cowardly and / or corrupt...... justices.......
I assume due to the level of political influence from which the order came for him to allow that to happen in his court??????

Stanley Meyer on the other hand may well have TURNED DOWN an offer of a billion dollars or so for his technology but..... he knew the buyer would put it on a shelf and hide it. Stanley Meyer seemed to sincerely think that his technology could positively transform the world economy and eventually save millions of lives.


No... I am not educated in the physics necessary to understand String Theory properly......
but.....
IF NEAR DEATH EXPERIENCER DR. GEORGE RITCHIE was telling the truth about his 1943 NDE
then... fifty years from now our grandchildren may consider that my having read the NDE of DR. George Ritchie with an open mind.........

may be in some ways a better background than that of somebody with a Doctorate in Theoretical Physics......
who for dogmatic and simplistic reasons writes off the Dr. George Ritchie quite interesting testimony that sounds a lot like
String Theory as it was worded in the 1990's.... on at least a number of important levels?!


https://www.electro-tech-online.com/threads/stanley-meyers-and-zero-point-energy.42388/

Fraud charges

It failed to work during a required demonstration of the water-fueled car in a 1990 court case. An Ohio court found Stanley Meyer guilty of "gross and egregious fraud" in a case brought against him by disgruntled investors. The court decided that the centerpiece of the car, his water fuel cell, was a conventional electrolysis device, and he was ordered to repay the investors $25,000.[1]

However, in their 1 December 1996 issue , the London Sunday Times published an article entitled "End of Road for Car that Ran on Water" by Tony Edwards. It upheld the court case, stating that three "Expert Witnesses" were not impressed and decided that the WFC was simply using conventional electrolysis. It stated Stan Meyer was found guilty of "gross and egregious fraud" and was ordered to repay the investors their $25,000. It implied that Michael Laughton, professor of electrical engineering at Queen Mary and Westfield University, London was due to examine the car, but was not allowed to see it. However, not mentioned was that this occurred in 1990 and that the WFC Water Fuel injector tech-base was still under U.S. National Security Review as in accordance to U.S. Patent Law and not available for public viewing. Also not mentioned were the many WFC Patents, verified laboratory and university testing that supports the bases of WFC technology nor the WFC appeal filing to dismiss Judge Corzine ruling due to Judicial default and other relevant information.[2]

On 18 October 1995, a pretrial deposition hearing to inspect the WFC Dealership demonstration units (Variable-plate Electrical Polarization Process (VIC) Fuel Cell and Rotary Pulse Voltage Frequecy Generator Tubular-Array Fuel Cell) was held in the office of the plaintiff's attorney, Robert Judkins. Present were the plaintiff's, their attorneys, plaintiffs expert witness, Michael Leverich (Electronics Engineer), Stan Meyer, Dr. Russel Fowler, WFC witness and defense attorneys Judge Roger Hurley and James Detling, as well as a deposition recorder. During the deposition, Attorney Judkins attempted to have the WFC dismantled prior to implementing proper test procedures, which Stan Meyer refused. Michael Leverich confirmed that his initial measurements of the WFC Fuel Cells showed that it operated exactly as the WFC documentation stated it should, as so recorded on WFC Deposition Video Tape. However, he then added a unknown white substance (powder) for additional testing. Stan objected to this, since the WFC Fuel Cell uses plain tap water and does not require a chemical additive. The plaintiffs also admitted that, during their observances at WFC Dealship Seminars, tap water was always used without any chemicals added to the water. Despite Stan's objection, plaintiff measurements were taken of this chemicallized water-bath and recorded. This illegal act of tampering with WFC Evidence of Records was witnessed by WFC Cameraman, Dr. Russ Fowler, and all others who attended Plaintiffs Deposition To-Test.[3]

In 1996, Stan Meyer gave oral testimony before the court demonstrating the WFC Fuel Cell "Mode of Operability" by using the Voltage Intensifier Circuit (VIC) to produce voltage of opposite polarity to separate and disassociate the water molecule into its component gases, hydrogen & oxygen. However, the court audio sound recording equipment seemed to malfunction and was switched off.........

 

[Write4U]

Chapter thirteen of "Stephen Hawking's Universe" that was entitled "The Anthropic Principle" goes into an Atheistic or Agnostic version of The Cyclic Model of the Universe that fits with the idea of their being an essentially infinite number of "Unsuccessful Universes" out there somewhere in which there is no life due to electromagnetism, gravity, weak and strong nuclear force, in those unsuccessful universes...... not being properly tuned to produce life and / or intelligence as we would tend to think of either life or intelligence.

A Universe by natural selection? That's an interesting thought.

 

[Dennis Tate]

A Universe by natural selection? That's an interesting thought.

A truly interesting thought indeed.......
but I was definitely reminded of chapter thirteen of "Stephen Hawking's Universe" when I read what former Atheist Mellen Benedict wrote about his "void" experience!

It seemed similar on many levels to what Dr. Stephen Hawking and his co-author had came up with!


https://www.near-death.com/experiences/exceptional/mellen-thomas-benedict.html#a05

 

[Dywyddyr]

It seemed similar on many levels to what Dr. Stephen Hawking and his co-author had came up with!

Only if you're utterly clueless.

 

[Dennis Tate]

Only if you're utterly clueless.

Then I guess I am utterly clueless.......
and I should probably be banned from this forum before my cluelessness does any further damage to the reputation of Sciforums?!

My blog that I did to attempt to summarize my thoughts on all of this a few years ago should be sufficient reason to ban me?

CarbonBias
.blogspot
.ca

My bias AGAINST the traditional Darwinian Model of Evolutionary Theory that I was taught around 1968 or 1969 is rather obvious.

My all time record for being disfellowshipped from Christian churches is two.....
all in about one month back in 1991.....
but they did me a favour. I no longer fitted in either church due to my no longer by that time being willing to believe in the Soul Sleep Theory that Evangelist Garner Ted Armstrong had taught me when I was a teenager. That theory had greatly assisted in bringing me out of Atheism beginning around 1973 when I was fourteen. I had been an Atheist from the time I was about eight.. .until I began to listen to Garner Ted.

 

[Write4U]

https://www.near-death.com/experiences/exceptional/mellen-thomas-benedict.html#a05

An interesting tale
I can relate to this experience of seeing a bright light during near death experience. But then I had a light bulb blow out in a bright flash before it went completely dead, unable to process any energy at all. This event reminded me that all near-death experiences seem to occur before death and there are no tales of returning from death with tales of lights an experiences of infinity, what have you.

I have experienced bright lights after my head was hit by a soccer ball. I saw a bright flash of light (short circuiting of my brain), before I passed out for a few seconds. I don't attribute that to entering a spiritual afterlife. What, if any is the difference between one and the other?

IMO, to draw any conclusion of an after-life is unwarranted. There is just no evidence, whereas we can demonstrate shorting and heating and even bright lights before going dead, which is the return to fundamental elemental state of energy before thermodynamics kick in.

 

[Dicart]

Other water form for the "simple water", Probably the most aboundant water form in the Universe :

Black Hot Superionic Ice.

new experiment confirms the existence of “superionic ice,” a bizarre form of water that might comprise the bulk of giant icy planets throughout the universe.

/../

Physicists have been after superionic ice for years — ever since a primitive computer simulation led by Pierfranco Demontis in 1988 predicted water would take on this strange, almost metal-like form if you pushed it beyond the map of known ice phases.

Under extreme pressure and heat, the simulations suggested, water molecules break. With the oxygen atoms locked in a cubic lattice, “the hydrogens now start to jump from one position in the crystal to another, and jump again, and jump again,” said Millot. The jumps between lattice sites are so fast that the hydrogen atoms — which are ionized, making them essentially positively charged protons — appear to move like a liquid.

This suggested superionic ice would conduct electricity, like a metal, with the hydrogens playing the usual role of electrons. Having these loose hydrogen atoms gushing around would also boost the ice’s disorder, or entropy. In turn, that increase in entropy would make this ice much more stable than other kinds of ice crystals, causing its melting point to soar upward.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/blac...e-natures-most-common-form-of-water-20190508/

I will not talk about the controversial water memory experiments of Nobel prize winner Luc Montagnier but it is worth (in my opinion) taking a look.

DNA teleportation is a claim that DNA produces electromagnetic signals (EMS), measurable when highly diluted in water.

This signal can allegedly be recorded, transmitted electronically, and re-emitted on another distant pure water sample, where DNA can replicate through polymerase chain reaction despite the absence of the original DNA in the new water sample.[1]

The idea was introduced by the Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier in 2009.[2] It is similar in principle to water memory, a concept popularised by Jacques Benveniste in 1988.[3] No independent research has supported the claim, and traditional science does not provide a plausible mechanism by which it might work.[4] In 2015, Montagnier's team published another finding similar to the original one, but using bacterial and viral DNA.

Here they claim that the electromagnetic waves could be explained in terms of an unspecified quantum effect.[5]

https://handwiki.org/wiki/Biology:DNA_teleportation

 

[Write4U]

All that is good and well, but now we are no longer talking about H2O (water).

All this ionization changes the water molecule H2O into a new compound molecule with a different name, Hydronium.

Hydrogen ion
chemistry

In common usage, the term hydrogen ion is used to refer to the hydrogen ion present in water solutions, in which it exists as the combined molecule H+·H2O.

The formula H+·H2O is also commonly written as H3O+ and denotes the hydronium or oxonium ion. The amount of hydrogen ion present in a water solution is used as a measure of the acidity of a substance; the higher the concentration of hydrogen ion the more acidic the solution and the lower the pH.

https://www.britannica.com/science/hydrogen-ion

You might be interested in yet another state of water,

The Science Behind Dioxytetrahydride Gas

After studying the Intriguing Nature of Water for many years, the lead Chemist and Mechanical Engineer of WIT discovered the Fifth State of Water. Three of the states of water are liquid, solid (ice) and steam (or water vapor that condensates back to liquid water). Water also can become gas which is the fourth State of Water.

https://www.wateriontechnologies.com/science.asp

I believe there is a conflict here. IMO hat should read the Fifth state of water.

The term "Fourth state of water is already taken"

The Fourth state of water

 

[Dicart]

"States" are not any more be taken to be so "fundamental".
We added plasma states, then bose-einstein condensat, and many other ognanisation behavior followed, that could also be names "states".

For water, there is an other theory i can remember (i couldnt find any of this on internet any more).
Some scientists (physicians) think that the liquid state of water is not like other liquid.
It would not be a liquid state but some special "bose einstein condensat state" occuring at normal temperature (i do not remember the details but it looked plausible at time i read this).

 

[Write4U]

"States" are not any more be taken to be so "fundamental".
We added plasma states, then bose-einstein condensat, and many other ognanisation behavior followed, that could also be names "states".

For water, there is an other theory i can remember (i couldnt find any of this on internet any more).
Some scientists (physicians) think that the liquid state of water is not like other liquid.
It would not be a liquid state but some special "bose einstein condensat state" occuring at normal temperature (i do not remember the details but it looked plausible at time i read this).

We'r really talking about "fluids".

Definition of Fluids (read this, its really interesting)

Fluids can actually exist in all three phases of matter. All gases and all liquids are fluids, as well as a few solids known as "amorphous solids," like glass. A fluid is matter that flows when a force is applied to it.

https://www.shmoop.com/study-guides/physics/fluids/states-matter#

 

[exchemist]

And you guessed it from the formula ?
No, you think in wrong direction and if one could agree that this kind of formula could fit with the observation for more simple molecules, the quantum properties of water do not permit this conclusion.

For sure, i agree with the results this formula provide, but as said, the formula apply as an average, and i works almost fine.
Here at PH =7 ("neutrality"), so [H3O+]=[OH-} , [H3O+] and [OH-] are at 10⁻7 molar concentration.
And therefore the H20 is supposed to be almost equal to 1 molar, so one could guess : Hey look, all water is in the H2O form like in the vapor state.

But, the formula do not represent what happen at the molecular scale and this is what we are here talking about; what happens at the molecular scale.

You know what "molecule" (if we can name that a molecule...) is majoritary in ocean ?
(H20)5 a walrafen pentamer with 80% abundance.
But it has the ability to change fast in the network (yes the coin is spining fast...), so talking about "a molecule" is an average point of view.
So, great max, if you want to talk about a molecule of H2O... there is 20% of free H2O in water.
This is not what your formula said ? (You said 100%).

Sure, because the formula is talking about "the average" , and not even of the average of H2O, no, at the average of H3O+ and OH-, usefull to do some Hydrxyd Potential calculation (because a liquid is not electrocharged).



You are totaly wrong, it is very complex structure.

In fact, liquid water is some kind of O and H fast changing atomic complex network (valence and hydrogen bounds changing fast), with some temporary structuration (and sometime we have "loose" H20 with hydrogen bounds) depending on various interactions (dissolved ions, pressure, etc).
The behavious of this "liquid" is very stable with temperature change.

Almost like the plasma in the Sun.... (if the temperature would be lower), but we can forget this point for the debate.

OK, but you were not expressing yourself very clearly then. I was correcting the misleading impression you gave that water was largely dissociated into H3O+ and OH-.

The issue of transient hydrogen bonded structures is another matter. Thank you very much for drawing my attention to this pentamer structure. I was not aware of this work. I found a very good article about it here: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2018JC014457

However it is not fair to think of water as consisting of pentamer units, since these structures are rapidly breaking apart and reforming all the time, due to the binding energy of the hydrogen bond being comparable to kT at ambient temperatures*. What seems to be the case is that if you take a snapshot at any given instant, 80% of the molecules will be in a pentamer configuration. But a snapshot taken a microsecond later would show the same molecules being members of different pentamer units. But interesting, certainly.

*The molar value of kT is RT, which is about 0.6 kcal/mol at 25C (298K). The molar strength of the H bond , according to the article, is about 2 kcal/mol.

 

[Dicart]

However it is not fair to think of water as consisting of pentamer units, since these structures are rapidly breaking apart and reforming all the time, due to the binding energy of the hydrogen bond being comparable to kT at ambient temperatures*.

On the contrary, i would say that this is a good example continuing the idea that H2O in "water" is not a fixed structure.
With the H30+ and OH-, it is well known and obvious; in the network or grid point of view it is like if there would be some H2O that would appear and disappear among the grid, so some intermediate state of H3O+ and OH-.
Here with the pentamer we go a way further, saying that there could be some bigger fast created / disapearing structures using the H2O more tiny structure, "connecting"/"disconnecting" to other pentamer.
And here , we only talk (about pentamer) about what we actually could have observed.

It is very likely (in my opinion) that the good "model" is a more complex and multiscaled structuration, where there is localy/temporaly H2O molecule "by chance" (some transition) but more fundamentaly liquid water could be a networked organisation of H and O with covalent bounds and hydrogen bounds.

 

[Write4U]

IMO, water is H2O. Any more complex molecule other than H2O is no longer just plain Aqua.

We do not call water Hydronium, we call it water .

Hydronium is the cation that forms from water in the presence of hydrogen ions. These hydrons do not exist in a free state - they are extremely reactive and are solvated by water. An acidic solute is generally the source of the hydrons, but hydronium ions exist even in pure water.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydronium#

What is a cation?

A cation has more protons than electrons, consequently giving it a net positive charge. For a cation to form, one or more electrons must be lost, typically pulled away by atoms with a stronger affinity for them.Aug 15, 2019

Formed by: Metal atoms
Charge: Positive
Electrode attracted to: Cathode (negative)
Examples: Sodium (Na+), Iron (Fe2+), Ammoni...

The dihydrogen monoxide parody involves calling water by an unfamiliar chemical name, most often "dihydrogen monoxide" (DHMO), and listing some of water's properties in a particularly alarming manner, such as accelerating corrosion (rust) and causing suffocation (drowning). The parody often calls for dihydrogen monoxide to be banned, regulated, or labeled as dangerous. It plays into chemophobia and demonstrates how a lack of scientific literacy and an exaggerated analysis can lead to misplaced fears. The parody has been used with other chemical names such as hydrogen hydroxide, dihydrogen oxide, hydroxic acid, and hydric acid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_parody[/quote]

 

[exchemist]

On the contrary, i would say that this is a good example continuing the idea that H2O in "water" is not a fixed structure.
With the H30+ and OH-, it is well known and obvious; in the network or grid point of view it is like if there would be some H2O that would appear and disappear among the grid, so some intermediate state of H3O+ and OH-.
Here with the pentamer we go a way further, saying that there could be some bigger fast created / disapearing structures using the H2O more tiny structure, "connecting"/"disconnecting" to other pentamer.
And here , we only talk (about pentamer) about what we actually could have observed.

It is very likely (in my opinion) that the good "model" is a more complex and multiscaled structuration, where there is localy/temporaly H2O molecule "by chance" (some transition) but more fundamentaly liquid water could be a networked organisation of H and O with covalent bounds and hydrogen bounds.

This seems close to word salad.

But thanks again for putting me - indirectly - onto that Raman spectroscopy paper. I've learned something from that, at least.

 

[James R]

Dennis:

Mostly because I work full time as a janitor plus......
I picked up my wife after her visit to our children and grand dchildren on Saturday morning.

That's your excuse for failing to answer the questions I asked you?

I have observed that you've managed to find lots of time to post miscellaneous bits and pieces from your favorite websites concerned near death experiences, often to try to make spurious connections between those experiences and fundamental physics. And yet, when I ask you direct questions in connection to what you post, suddenly you have no time to formulate a coherent response.

Are you here to discuss things, or just to preach the word about your belief system?

Your opinions seem to me to be a sort of disorganised hodge podge. You are apparently a Christian of some kind. You place special significance on your belief in near death experiences, for some reason - maybe because you think those experiences are evidence for God, or something. And you seem to believe that people who report near death experiences have special access to knowledge, or access to special knowledge, about the fundamentals of the universe, and more.

When when I try to drill down into the reasons you believe all these things, I hit a wall - like it's not something you're able to explain, or like you think you don't need good reasons to believe all that stuff, or like you think you have good reasons despite being unable to explain what they are.

I think it's great that you're interested in scientific cosmology, but my impression is that you lack any kind of tool kit which would allow you to distinguish between pseudoscience and legitimate science. Your religious views and your scientific ones just sort of blur together into a vague and incoherent glom.

Until you start facing up to questions about how you know what you think you know, you'll remain in the sort of mental haze you're currently in. I'd like to help, but you have to be willing to engage.

 

[James R]

Dennis:

Chapter thirteen of "Stephen Hawking's Universe" that was entitled "The Anthropic Principle" goes into an Atheistic or Agnostic version of The Cyclic Model of the Universe that fits with the idea of their being an essentially infinite number of "Unsuccessful Universes" out there somewhere in which there is no life due to electromagnetism, gravity, weak and strong nuclear force, in those unsuccessful universes...... not being properly tuned to produce life and / or intelligence as we would tend to think of either life or intelligence.

It's interesting to me that you label this as an "atheistic or agnostic version", as if Hawking was talking about religion rather than science. Are you aware that atheism holds no position on any particular "model of the universe"? Atheists don't believe in God; that's all. They can believe all kinds of things about the universe, apart from that.

The multiverse idea you mention here is a speculative hypothesis. In the context you refer to it, it's just one possible idea that Hawking is throwing up for consideration. He's not stating his personal belief that it is true. Like a good scientist, he is content to wait until there's evidence one way or another before committing to a belief in something.

To at least some degree the Extremely High Energies postulated in fundamental or nearly fundamental energies by String Theory should, I would think, tend to produce a greater level of mental activity....

What makes you think that? Be specific. How does mental activity tie in to string theory or extremely high energies?

I mean, if this is really something you think/believe, then you must have some reasons for thinking or believing it. What are they?

I listened to several youtube lectures by Mr. Roger Penrose yesterday and I heard him refer to temperatures of several trillion degrees being generated within particle accelerators in Europe as certain types of collisions took place between subatomic particles. This fact tends to verify basic String Theory as it was worded even two or three decades ago.

What makes you think that the existence of high temperatures in a particle accelerator does anything to verify string theory? Where did you get that specific idea from?

For instance, I can understand that you might have read reports along the lines that "scientists hope to use high-temperature particles in particle accelerators to test string theory", or something like that. But that isn't saying that the high temperatures themselves are evidence for string theory. So maybe you're just confused about that.

I also plead guilty to being somewhat affected by the character on Star Trek named "Q" whose off the scale capabilities fitted with what String Theory, as it was worded in that version of the article on it that I quoted from in the first or second post on page one, would tend to indicate might be possible. The writer who created the character "Q" was probably aware of basic String Theory.

"Q" is a fantasy figure in a science fiction TV show.

I'm not sure what particular parallels you're trying to draw between that character and string theory. It sounds like your thought process goes something like this:

• Q is a very powerful figure in Star Trek, with apparently "superhuman" abilities.
• String theory is something that is said to be most visible at "high energies", not usually seen in everyday human life.
• Therefore, string theory must be sort of like a "superhuman" thing, which sounds a bit like Q.
• The TV writer who wrote the Q character must have had similar thoughts.

Can't you see that the connections you're making there are incredibly tenuous and speculative? Ask yourself:

• Is there any direct reference made to string theory in the Star Trek episodes involving Q?
• Could the writer not have known anything about string theory, and still have written the same character for Q?
• Is there anything in string theory that even hints that the "superhuman" traits of the Q character might be possible?