My gosh, those darn microtubes are the cat's meow aren't they?
Understanding the mechanisms of microtubule stabilization and the associated microtubule post-translational modifications is an evolving field of study. Appropriate cellular homeostasis relies on not only one cytoskeletal element, but also rather an interaction between cytoskeletal proteins as well as other cellular regulators. Microtubules are key integrators with actin and intermediate filaments, as well as cell–cell junctional proteins and other cellular regulators including myosin and RhoGTPases to maintain this balance.
more ... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6880148/#Impact statement
The role of microtubules in cellular functioning is constantly expanding. In this review, we examine new and exciting fields of discovery for microtubule’s involvement in morphogenesis, highlight our evolving understanding of differential roles for stabilized versus dynamic subpopulations, and further understanding of microtubules as a cellular integrator.
Structure and Stability of Benzene - Chemistry LibreTextsThere are delocalized electrons above and below the plane of the ring, which makes benzene particularly stable. Benzene resists addition reactions because those reactions would involve breaking the delocalization and losing that stability.
A vibration is a periodic back and forth motion that remains fixed in one location. Examples of vibrations include a swing moving back and forth (like a pendulum) or a mass bobbing up and down on a spring. The video below demonstrates this periodic back and forth motion using the example of a swing set. (While the swing moves back and forth, this periodic motion does not propagate through space. Therefore, it is an example of a vibration.)
A wave is a traveling vibration that transfers energy from one place to another. There are many different types of waves: light waves, sound waves, water waves, gravitational waves, seismic waves, and more.
more....The term periodic oscillation refers to the types of motion that waves make. This is a repeating pattern that gives rise to many wave properties. A wave is periodic motion that gives rise to a variation in some value (intensity, energy, pressure, or some other property) over time as the wave property propagates through space. The video below demonstrates both the time-varying and space-varying properties of a wave as it travels. It shows that, at a single point in space, the wave properties vary with time. It is also possible to see how a wave varies in space at a single snapshot in time.
When a wave is present in a medium (that is, when there is a disturbance moving through a medium), the individual particles of the medium are only temporarily displaced from their rest position. There is always a force acting upon the particles that restores them to their original position.
In a water wave, each molecule of the water ultimately returns to its original position. And in a stadium wave, each fan in the bleacher ultimately returns to its original position. It is for this reason, that a wave is said to involve the movement of a disturbance without the movement of matter.
The particles of the medium (water molecules, slinky coils, stadium fans) simply vibrate about a fixed position as the pattern of the disturbance moves from one location to another location.
Waves are said to be an energy transport phenomenon. As a disturbance moves through a medium from one particle to its adjacent particle, energy is being transported from one end of the medium to the other. In a slinky wave, a person imparts energy to the first coil by doing work upon it. The first coil receives a large amount of energy that it subsequently transfers to the second coil. When the first coil returns to its original position, it possesses the same amount of energy as it had before it was displaced.
This characteristic of a wave as an energy transport phenomenon distinguishes waves from other types of phenomenon.
Consider a common phenomenon observed at a softball game - the collision of a bat with a ball. A batter is able to transport energy from her to the softball by means of a bat. The batter applies a force to the bat, thus imparting energy to the bat in the form of kinetic energy. The bat then carries this energy to the softball and transports the energy to the softball upon collision. In this example, a bat is used to transport energy from the player to the softball. However, unlike wave phenomena, this phenomenon involves the transport of matter. The bat must move from its starting location to the contact location in order to transport energy.
more... https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/waves/Lesson-1/What-is-a-WaveIn a wave phenomenon, energy can move from one location to another, yet the particles of matter in the medium return to their fixed position. A wave transports its energy without transporting matter.
Yes.Returning to the presence of benzene molecules
Question: In regard to the role benzene plays in quantum computing as in ORCH OR, that requires a stable neutral polar environment.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2203.05275
Particularly stable
Structure and Stability of Benzene - Chemistry LibreTexts
https://www.bing.com/search?q=is benzene a stablemolecule&pc=GD01&form=GDAVST&ptag=3601
In addition this is what I found,
Vibrations and waves
more....
https://cod.pressbooks.pub/physics1100/chapter/vibrations-and-waves/#
and
A Wave Transports Energy and Not Matter
What is a Wave? (Waves and Wavelike Motion)
more... https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/waves/Lesson-1/What-is-a-Wave
I should like to know how a wave can be part of physics, when it is not a physical object.
But it can be measured as a mathematical object, which would place it in the category of "mathematics", no?
Can anyone explain his apparent contradiction?
Lots of entities in physics - maybe even most of them - are not physical objects. Gravity is not a physical object. Electric fields aren't a physical object. Energy is not a physical object. Momentum is not a physical object. Angular displacement is not a physical object. Baryon number is not a physical object. etc. etc.I should like to know how a wave can be part of physics, when it is not a physical object.
How could anybody measure a mathematical object?But it can be measured as a mathematical object, which would place it in the category of "mathematics", no?
It's just a misunderstanding on your part. Not unusual.Can anyone explain his apparent contradiction?
. OK, that solves that. Very enlightening.Yes.
By its relational value or set of values. In mathematics an "object" is anything that can be formally defined and measured.How could anybody measure a mathematical object?
Can you see the contradiction in that sentence?Lots of entities in physics - maybe even most of them - are not physical objects.
That's word salad, not measurement.By its relational value or set of values.
Where did you get that? You just made it up, didn't you?In mathematics an "object" is anything that can be formally defined and measured.
Looks like it, certainly. The Wiki definition of a mathematical object is quite different: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_object.That's word salad, not measurement.
Where did you get that? You just made it up, didn't you?
I believe that there are generic universal mathematics and the human codified and symbolized descriptions of the generic maths.There's two mathematics now? Since when?
So, you think that these things do not occur elsewhere in the universe, without human observers?Some scientists had to have observed the registering of the boson on the collider's detectors. It doesn't just all happen inside
with no one looking.
So, you think that these things do not occur elsewhere in the universe, without human observers?
Reported for thread hijackingI believe that there are generic universal mathematics and the human codified and symbolized descriptions of the generic maths.
So, you think that these things do not occur elsewhere in the universe, without human observers?
I believe that if we can do it, the universe has already done it. In fact there is nothing we do that is contrary to what the universe does.
Whatever humans do, is only because it is mathematically allowed by the universe.
No, I did not say that science does not need observation. That would be ludicrous.No.. you said science doesn't use observation anymore
Are you crazy? Look at the thread title!Reported for thread hijacking
In my opinion the title of the thread does not give you a licence to wrench the discussion round, yet again, to your stupid and interminable obsession with Tegmark's mathematical universe. Once you get onto that, you will monopolise the thread with shit and the thread will be gone, down the toilet. You have wrecked countless intelligent threads in this way in the past. There's a thread open on Tegmark's mathematical universe. We don't need lots more.Are you crazy? Look at the thread title!
What phenomenon? Every gravitational well in the universe?That does not prove the theory right, just that it worked for this phenomenon
Can you expand on that? In a dynamic environment, aren't all things the result of multiple equations?A scientific theory is never proven in the same sense because it is not just one thing, one equation.
Forget Tegmark , I did not mention him in that post. It is you who is disrupting this thread with your constant barrage of ad hominems.In my opinion the title of the thread does not give you a licence to wrench the discussion round, yet again, to your stupid and interminable obsession with Tegmark's mathematical universe.
Question, in context of the thread title: Are you disputing the fact that the Universe operates in some form of mathematical order?Once you get onto that, you will monopolise the thread with shit and the thread will be gone, down the toilet. You have wrecked countless intelligent threads in this way in the past. There's a thread open on Tegmark's mathematical universe. We don't need lots more.
There is no "universal mathematics". Einstein's theory just uses the usual old mathematics that human beings have come up with. There's no mystical well of mathematics that theories can naturally tap into.Einstein's theory was not based on observation but on universal mathematics.
Insofar as human beings are a "property" of the universe, I suppose you're right. Humans do math. Math is done in the universe. etc.That's the beauty of maths. They are a property of the universe.
Mathematical proofs exist. A mathematical proof consists of a chain of mathematical statements that follow according to the agreed rules of mathematics. All proofs rely on the prior acceptance of a number of axioms that are agreed to be "self evident" from the start.When the maths are correct, the theory can be proven.
The "correct maths" part of that is doing a lot of heavy lifting. How do we know the maths is correct? Because it matches experimental or observational evidence we have collected. But we can't collect infinite amounts of experimental or observational evidence. See above.A cosmologist posited that: "if we ask the universe a question and we ask it nicely (with the correct maths), it always provides the right answer."
Demonstrable nonsense.The Higgs boson cannot exist in this dimension...
I assume you meant to put a "not" in that sentence. If so, you are wrong.First the Higgs would have manifested even without human observation.
Mathematics cannot create any physical environment.But it was the applied mathematics that created the proper physical environment for the boson to manifest for a "quantum instant"?
You believe in a fantasy that you have just made up in your head.I believe that there are generic universal mathematics and the human codified and symbolized descriptions of the generic maths.
This is so hopelessly muddled, I hardly know where to start to explain the many ways in which it is wrong and misguided.Whatever humans do, is only because it is mathematically allowed by the universe.
He did not prove Einstein's theory of gravity right. He gathered some real-world evidence that supports Einstein's theory of gravity. Not the same thing.Are you saying that Eddington did not prove Einstein right?
How could a human-created scientific model be a "universal phenomenon"?Are you suggesting that the scientific model of warped spacetime in the presence of a massive object is not a universal phenomenon?
Nobody has disputed that the universe operates in some form of mathematical order, on this forum, as far as I can recall. (Although, probably, if you went through the whole forum history, you'd find some unhinged person who held that view, I'm guessing. We've had all kinds of kooks blowing through here over the years.)Question, in context of the thread title: Are you disputing the fact that the Universe operates in some form of mathematical order?
No, I have already told you that physical theories are tested edited and refined frameworks that describe nature.Can you expand on that? In a dynamic environment, aren't all things the result of multiple equations?
2 + 2 = 4 is a single equation and meaningless in and of itself, unless it is connected to another equation (or set of equations) attached to a physical object?