Write4U's stream of consciousness

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Write4U, Feb 3, 2024.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    No "B" is your choice, never mine.
    That's the point. There is no alternative . Can you cite one?
    OK, if you want to end up in Plato's Cave?
    And what is it that makes you like bananas? Bio-chemistry?
    Is the nutritional value of bananas not based on bio-chemical interaction with our symbiont bacteria. Without our symbiont bacterial friends we would die. These critters are of existential value to humans. Do bananas have value? You bet they do. Potassium is a necessary chemical for many living organisms.

    The importance of potassium
    July 18, 2019

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Potassium is necessary for the normal functioning of all cells. It regulates the heartbeat, ensures proper function of the muscles and nerves, and is vital for synthesizing protein and metabolizing carbohydrates.
    The effect of potassium on high blood pressure

    All very mathematical, wouldn't you say?
    Again, dualism is your position, not mine.
    Nooo... I use the term very carefully, because we have been on this road several times before. Have you forgotten?
    Every physical thing does have a value, regardless if humans can perform any measurements.
    See post #37 for "kinds" of values.
    Who says that social values have no mathematical impact on the environment?
    Really? Can you explain the mathematical value and consequence of the social use of recreational vehicles using oil instead of say, solar power?
    No, I am not required to give you numbers, but for starters, the construction took

    Elegant Shape Of Eiffel Tower Solved Mathematically By University Of Colorado Professor
    Date: January 7, 2005
    Source: University Of Colorado
    I answered that question in post # 37.[/quote]
    Eiffel Tower
    M. Patel

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Feb 8, 2024
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    But that's just view B - that the universe exhibits some mathematical properties. You need an argument for view A - that the universe is nothing but mathematics.
    No, but it's a non-mathematical model. I gave you what you asked for. Remember, you were insisting that only mathematical models of the universe are possible. I showed you that a non-mathematical model is possible.
    Where's the science?
    You mean the elephant and tortoise model? That's not my preferred model of the universe. I don't think it's an accurate model of the universe. On the contrary.
    That's a strange thing for you to say. I have nowhere asserted that a god exists.

    What I said is that you have a religious belief. You believe that the universe is nothing but mathematics. You believe that because, apparently, you're willing to believe anything the Great Prophet Tegmark says. For you, mathematics has taken the place of the traditional God of, say, Christianity. Now, your explanation for everything is "Math did it", which just replaces "God did it". You have a faith-based belief system with all the hallmarks of a religion. You have a Supreme Force or Being. You have the One True Prophet. Your faith explains literally everything that exists, by appealing to one overriding principle. And - most importantly - you have no evidence that supports the tenets of your faith.
    I don't think I have said that, exactly. We can discuss, if you like.
    Is saying "the universe works the way we observe it" equivalent to saying that our models of the universe are good at explaining how the universe works? If so, then I agree that our models do a decent job. After all, we've had a long time to refine our models, and some smart people working on the problems.
    I don't understand what you're asking. Higgs didn't produce the Higgs boson. Higgs came up with a theory that predicted the existence of the Higgs boson. That prediction was verified by scientists working at the Large Hadron Collider.

    Clearly, the Higgs boson can exist independently. If it couldn't, it wouldn't be a discrete particle. What are you talking about?
    I have no idea how you think it was proved. What do you mean by "the first time"? And do you think the errors weren't quantified at CERN?
    There was no guarantee that the experiment would prove the theory. There's never any guarantee. And, in fact, many experiments fail to prove various hypotheses.

    Pointing to one successful mathematical theory - or even hundreds - does not prove that the universe is made of mathematics. Not even close.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    The argument can only be made from extant theory. The current model you cling to predicts at least some mathematical properties. Tegmark's argument is that if the universe has some mathematical properties , what prevent it from having only mathematical properties?
    AFAIK, mathematics are not guided by universal physics. Physics are guided by universal mathematics.
    No, you didn't. A non-mathematical model requires an Intelligent Designer. That's what makes you the religious believer according to the common definition of religious belief.
    As for me, a quasi-intelligent mathematical model does not require a God or anything else and that's what makes me an atheist. It solves all dualist concepts.
    I agree. I did not present that model, except in the form of CDT (Causal Dynamical Triangulation) which assumes that the universal fabric unfolds (another Bohmian phrase) in a self-similar fractal manner.
    You have not provided a viable alternate model. That's why I asked for an alternate model that does not rely on ANY mathematics. If you allow for SOME mathematical functions at all (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division) then why NOT ONLY mathematical functions? What is the argument against mathematics?
    No I don't and I have expressed that on occasion.
    Is mainstream science your religion? That is your "preferred" model, no? So to you the universe is partly mathematical and the other part is.......religion ??????
    Oh jeez..., that's just BS.
    Quantum and Relativity are your religion. You believe in those models don't you? Oddly the two are not even compatible as modeled.
    "Shut up and compute" actually advises you to use mathematics to solve your physics problems.
    I have enough on my plate right now.

    I'll just respond to the term"evidence". The rest is your "invention". The evidence is axiomatic. Our symbolization of relational values and our descriptions of how they interact in the real world are very reliable, by all accounts, i.e. "the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics". Where human maths are not effective, they are simply wrong.
    I find it eminently reasonable that mathematics, which is a logical discipline, are the guiding principle in the interaction of relational values.
    Logic and other disciplines
    Technical disciplines
    The relations of logic to mathematics, to computer technology, and to the empirical sciences are here considered.



    Note that any problem humans have with maths, does not in any way affect the perfection of the universe's use of mathematics.
    Well, we have agreement, fancy that.

    Last edited: Feb 8, 2024
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    There does not exist a single Higgs boson that is hidden somewhere in the Higgs field. They are mathematically (probabilistically) produced by field-dynamics. Higgs used the correct dynamics.
    Quite clearly it cannot.
    IOW, it cannot exist independently in our world, because it decays immediately after it has become manifest.
    Apparently only Cern was qualified to perform the experiment.
    Right, there was no guarantee, unless Higgs maths were perfect and they were, and presto a boson was manifest, and gone again.
    Now you are arguing with yourself. You have expressed agreement on "some" mathematical properties (and functions) of spacetime, now you say that even if it works "unreasonably effectively", it doesn't prove anything other than it worked as expected compared to many experiments that failed due to human errors in the maths?

    If anything, those mathematical failures suggest that the maths must be correct for it all to function, and if the math is correct, you will be rewarded with success.

    I agree, incorrect mathematics yields incorrect results. We get; "Garbage In --> Garbage Out!"

    Hawking: God Not Needed for Universe to be Created

  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    No you didn't. All extant models except for Intelligent Design are mathematical in essence.

    Give me a non-religious, non-mathematical model. There aren't any.
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Where do you think human mathematics come from? We just made them up? Or did we symbolize and codify what we observed in nature, such as the Fibonacci sequence?
    And how do you propose that mathematics can be discovered or tested in a non-mathematical universe? How would you go about that? Mathematics being a language how would you translate your story to non-mahematicians?

    All human maths describing earthly patterns are from observation. Even in modern cosmology where theoretical maths are sometimes necessary, the cosmologist readily admit that when the right maths are tested, the universe will reveal the correctness or errors in the equation.
    The Higgs boson is a perfect example of using correct mathematics to demonstrate the reliable (and reasonable) effectiveness of mathematics even if this involves new maths.
    Another example is Newton's limited observation and theory of gravitational forces on earth, being refined by Einstein at a grander cosmological scale.

    One cosmologist told it this way: "If you ask the Universe something and you ask it "nicely" (correctly), the universe will reward you with an answer". (He was not a religious fellow)
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    If I spend time finding where you agreed that B was your argument and you weren't sure about A, will you admit that (a) you lied, or perhaps (b) your memory has failed you, to the extent that you don't remember what you wrote less than a year ago?

    If you're going to pretend your position never flipped-flopped on this, and I show that you're lying about that, what penalty do you think will be appropriate, bearing in mind that one or our site posting guidelines is that knowingly telling lies is a no no?
    I did. In the very next sentence after the one you quoted in order to ask this question.
    You didn't answer the question I asked you.

    That's because the truth is you did nothing to rule out the alternative. But you don't want to admit that, so you tried to distract and ignore instead. This, too, is dishonest.
    Try to focus.

    Once again: your claim is that everything has a mathematical value.

    In addition, you wrote "Any other non-mathematical concept cannot be codified and/or understood other than 'its magical'". The word 'other' in there appears to be superfluous to the position you are taking, especially since you didn't mention any 'other' idea before you wrote that sentence. So, your claim appears to be the following: non-mathematical concepts cannot be understood in other than magical terms.

    In fact, since your overarching claim is that the universe is nothing but mathematics, a logical consequence is that, in your worldview, there are no non-mathematical concepts.

    To be consistent, therefore, you have to say that a banana is mathematics, and it has a "mathematical value", because there can be no other kinds of values in a purely mathematical universe.

    And yet, here you are, completely incapable or telling me what the mathematical value of a banana is. You have talked about "nutritional value" - which, in passing, I might also point out might have nothing to do with why I like bananas - but you've made no link to mathematics.

    In your position, I assume that at some point you'll argue that nutrition is a mathematical concept because everything is mathematical. But that's just begging the question: assuming what you need to demonstrate.

    You have done nothing to rule out the likelihood that my liking bananas - or the topic of nutrition, for that matter - is a non-mathematical concept. You can't just define yourself into having a mathematical universe. You need to provide some argument (and preferably evidence) for your claim that there is no alternative.
    Where's the maths?
    You have made no case in support of that proposition, either.
    In other words, that's just an article we're supposed to take on faith, without evidence.

    It is also a completely unfalsifiable assertion. If I point at anything and claim that it doesn't have a mathematical value, you'll just say "Oh, but it does. It's just that us humans can't perform any measurement to detect it!"

    That's exactly the same as the invisible God, or the invisible dragon in my garage.
    I see no "kinds of values" there. Besides, what you need to do is to show that there are only mathematical values. If you can't do that, you should at least try to back up your subsidiary claim that everything has a mathematical value. But you've haven't even tried. And now you're giving excuses that makes it unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific.
    You're obviously completely at sea here. Keep your eye on the ball. Try to support your claims.
    No, I cannot. Please tell me: what is the mathematical value of the social use of recreational vehicles using oil instead of solar power?

    Because, remember, you said everything has a mathematical value. Is this one 17? 106? 3.5? pi/6?
    If you say so.

    So, there other kinds of mathematical value, apart from numbers? What are they?
    You still haven't managed to answer the question I asked you: what is the mathematical value of the Eiffel Tower?

    Let me try to help. Are you claiming that the shape of the tower is its mathematical value? Is that all? Does it have just one mathematical value, or more than one?

    Is "mathematical value" always defined by shape, then? Everything has a mathematical value, you say. Is the mathematical value always the shape? Or do different things have different kinds of mathematical value?

    Perhaps your claim is that all the properties of everything are "mathematical values". So, for instance, the nutritional content of a banana is a "mathematical value". And its value as an art object is a mathematical value? And its yellow colour is a mathematical value.

    The problem with this again, though, is that it begs the question. If the claim that you want to prove is that "there are only mathematical values", you can't do that by just assuming from the start that there are only mathematical values. You need to make an argument that isn't circular.
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2024
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    No "B" is your choice, never mine.
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Damn...lost another 3 page reply to your questions, which I already answered..

    I'm getting tired of this grilling. From now on, unless you read my quoted materials, I shall refer you back to my original post.

    There is nothing gained by me in your testing my ability for rational thought.
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

  14. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    What always strikes me as so silly about this is that all the mathematics has to refer to physical quantities. These are concepts that have to be defined in words, not maths, before any mathematics can be applied to them. We use c to refer to the speed of light in vacuo, but we have to state that, in words, before we can make sense of any mathematical relationship involving it.

    So yes, the universe has mathematical properties, but that does mean the universe is mathematics. It looks like the same category error that arfa brane used to make about energy: confusing an entity with its attributes.
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    True, but all of it is interpretational, no? Mathematical "numbers" are a human symbolic language for relational values, just like "words" are mathematically arranged symbolic letters) .
    I'm sure you meant "that does not mean the universe is mathematics"?
    But is that not the case with all axioms? "The proof lies in the pudding". Mathematics is by definition a function of "order"

    The universe is a dynamically inflating object that started as a singularity, but after establishment of a "spacetime geometry" and "environment" during the cooling period, certain self-organizing "patterns" emerged and evolved in a dynamical, but orderly transmutation processes that have been observed, measured, codified in symbolic language and has at least "guided" the creation of orderly patterns in a dynamic environment that formed earth and the rest of the story. I see the concept of self-ordering as a strictly mathematical function.

    Order (mathematics)

    But I am only echoing Tegmark in the argument that if we unconditionally accept that the universe acts by some underlying logic and has "at least" some mathematical qualities, why must we exclude a model that has "only" mathematical qualities and where the adoption of that model would solve a lot of problems with the dualistic concepts such as "life" and "consciousness". These are the emergent and evolved result of the initial 4 simple mathematical functions..

    Chemistry is mathematically knowable, no? IOW, we have learned the mathematics of chemistry and transmutation.
    After all , laboratories are replications or emulatios of natural conditions. Chemicals act in a lab the same as in nature.

    In a mathematical world:
    relational values <=> differential equations <=> patterns <=>meaning <=> understanding <=> consciousness....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Because you don't have any?
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    The current model I cling to is accepted science. Science uses mathematics as a tool. Science quantifies things, measures things and makes predictions about things. The things that scientific theories describe are not the same as the scientific descriptions themselves. The descriptions (models) may be mathematical, but it is a mistake to conclude that, therefore, the physical things that are being described are also mathematical or - worse - nothing but mathematics.

    The problem you and Tegmark both face is that mathematics, by itself, can't do anything. It can't make any physical thing. It can't control any physical thing. It can't do anything at all. Moreover, nothing physical can be made of mathematics, because mathematics is an abstraction - a set of ideas. Ideas are not physical things. The idea of an apple is not an apple.
    See the previous paragraph.
    Since mathematics can't do anything by itself, it also can't guide anything by itself.
    So does a mathematical model. What's your point? There is no mathematics without a mathematician.
    No. I do not just believe things on faith (i.e. without evidence), like you do. I do not worship a prophet or a God, like you do.

    Typically, a religion involves belief in a supernatural power that is able to control human destiny. In your case, the relevant supernatural power is "mathematics". Mathematics is all and does all, in your religion. It's essential a pan-theistic belief, religious due to its dogmatism and lack of evidence.
    All you have done is renamed your God "mathematics", as far as I can tell.

    If you think you have a scientific theory there, tell me: what test could conceivably show that the universe is not made of maths? Is there any? If not, then you have an unfalsifiable faith-based belief.
    That's just word salad. A meaningless string of words that you think make you sound scientific.
    Yes I have. The alternate model is that the universe is not made of mathematics: it is made of physical things that are not made of mathematics.

    Everybody, apart from a few fringe figures (including yourself) regards that as a viable model of the universe.
    I have no issue with mathematical models. You seem to be confused about that.
    See above. It's not difficult, and you've had since around 2018 to think it through. But you're still stuck where you were back then.
    No. I don't have a religion.
    Well, all science is provisional, so I don't exactly have a "preferred" model. There are various scientific models that have stood up to rigorous testing, certainly, so I'm inclined to accept those, provisionally. It's the rational thing to do. I try to avoid believing things on faith (i.e. without any evidence).
    If your claim is correct - that everything is mathematics - then it follows that religion is mathematics. So, to you, all religion is mathematics, necessarily.

    But my point is that mathematics is your religion.
    No. They are scientific ideas.
    I accept that certain elements of those models have been well tested, while others are more speculative. I apportion my belief to the evidence.

    It does not advise me to believe that the physical world is somehow reducible to mathematics.

    Axiomatic means you just assume it to be true. That's the opposite of evidence.
    We have some useful mathematical models of physical reality, yes.
    I have no idea what you mean by "effective". Effective at what? Effective for whom?
    Word salad. And also a statement of your faith, nothing more.[/quote]
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2024
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    The model is that the boson is an excitation of the field.
    Let's backtrack. What do you mean when you say the Higgs boson cannot exist independently? Independently of what?

    I assumed you meant it can't exist as a separate, identifiable particle, but it seems that you meant something else. What?
    Oh, did you mean to say that anything that only exists for a short time before turning into something else has no independent existence? That doesn't make much sense.

    The Higgs boson does not decay "immediately" after it forms. It decays after a very short time.
    Actually, no, because there were already hints of the Higgs in Fermilab data, prior to its confirmation at the Large Hadron Collider.
    The Higgs math is incomplete, and therefore not "perfect". For instance, it could not pin down exactly what the Higgs boson mass should be. That had to be discovered experimentally.
    No. I have not contradicted myself. Your position, on the other hand, has changed a couple of times over the past few years. Most recently, you've found yourself back where you started with Tegmark.
    It doesn't prove what you and Tegmark need it to prove: that the universe is made of mathematics.
    No. For instance, Newton's law of motion function perfectly adequately for many purposes. They worked quite well enough to enable the progress of a lot of science over a period of 4 centuries. However, we know that Newton's maths is not correct. We also know that Einstein's maths is not correct. Nevertheless, both lots of maths are very useful.
    Yes. There are, of course, varying degrees of garbage. There's "near enough" and then there's "wildly, hopelessly wrong".
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    We have established that whenever you say "values" you mean mathematical values, although you don't seem to be able to explain what a mathematical value is, exactly.

    Anyway, here you are saying "Mathematical 'numbers' are a human symbolic language for mathematical values", which appears to be tautological. Besides, in your view, human symbolic language is just one more type of math, because math is all there is.
    axiom (n.): a proposition that is not susceptible to proof or disproof. It's truth is assumed to be self-evident.

    In other words, whatever you say your axioms are, you're just assuming they are true. If, for you, it is axiomatic that the universe is made of maths, then you just have a contested assumption, nothing more. In your case, I think it goes beyond that: it is essentially a faith-based belief you have.
    Mathematics is nowhere defined as such.
    How can patterns self-organise? How can a pattern do anything, of its own volition? How can a pattern "guide" anything?

    A pattern is a kind of regularity that we humans recognise. That is all.
    Please write down the concept of self-ordering using mathematical functional notation, then.

    Because nothing with only mathematical qualities can ever hope to produce anything with physical qualities. It's simple, when you think about it.
    Explain how those concepts are "dualistic". What do you mean?

    And how does pretending that the universe is made of mathematics solve whatever the problem is?

    This is new. Are you now asserting that the universe originally consisted of just four mathematical functions? Can you write down the functions for us, please? Be sure to use mathematical functional notation.
    Please explain what you mean. What does it mean for something non-mathematical to be "mathematically knowable"?

    Is a banana mathematically knowable? How so?
    Is the Eiffel Tower mathematically knowable? (Remember, you couldn't specify its "mathematical value".)
    Is true love mathematically knowable?
    Is The Lord of the Rings mathematically knowable?
    Is my sister's 30th birthday mathematically knowable?
    Is the colour purple mathematically knowable?
    Transmutation? What are you talking about?

    Where's the mathematics of transmutation? What is transmutation? Is that a real thing?
    Not usually. A laboratory is usually used to isolate, as much as possible, a subject of scientific study from potentially-confounding variables in the natural environment. The aim is to control for things that aren't being studied, as much as is practical.
    I don't know what you mean. I think you're just guessing.
    Meaningless word salad...
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2024
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    I searched back over some old threads. Since 2018, you have posted on the topic of the "mathematical universe" over and over, in so many different threads that I'm sure you've forgotten many of those previous conversations.

    To pick out just one, see if you can refresh your memory about this one:

    Quantum Creationism -- Is It Science Or Is It Religion?

    In post #424 of that thread, Sarkus put this to you:
    After giving a hopelessly muddled response, consisting almost entirely of word salad, in post #426, Sarkus and I both asked you, essentially to actually try answering the question Sarkus asked you.

    In my post #429, I asked you a series of numbered questions. In question 1, I quoted you (from earlier in the same thread). You wrote:
    I told you that this contradicts Tegmark's position that everything is made of mathematics.

    In post #431, you said to Sarkus:
    That led to a further exchange of posts between you and Sarkus, in which you were totally unable to say anything that made any sense. You couldn't explain how "causal to HOW" was any different to "causal to". Probably you've forgotten that whole muddled episode you had there.

    Sarkus told you, in post #456:
    In post #457, in reply to something I wrote, you said:
    But there's no meaningful distinction between "causal to" and "causal to HOW".

    In post #459 you said:
    Can you see the pattern here? At that time, only half a year ago (July 2023), you were assuming that physical processes are separate from your mathematical functions. You denied that mathematical functions can cause anything. But, simultaneously, you contradicted yourself in a muddled sort of way, claiming that somehow, even though mathematical functions can't cause physical effects, they can somehow magically "guide" physical effects.

    In post #469, Sarkus gave you some useful advice:
    In post #524, I observed:
    Since then, you've had quite a few months to think things through, but it looks like you haven't taken any time to actually do any thinking.

    Here we are in February 2024, and you've now flip-flopped back to saying that you're completely a Tegmark disciple once again, and that you now hold (once again) that there is literally nothing but mathematics in the universe (i.e. the universe is mathematics).

    Moreover, you're now insisting that you never believed anything other than that, even though here's a clear record from only a few months ago of you stating the exact opposite: "I have never claimed that stuff is made from mathematics."

    Will you now at least admit that your position has shifted back and forth?

    Have you managed to be clear in your own mind what you believe about Tegmark's mathematical universe, or do you still have the same doubts and equivocations you had back in July 2023?

    Will you at least admit that the record from July 2023 shows that your earlier claim in this current thread, that you have always been 100% behind Tegmark's notion that maths is all that exists, is demonstrably wrong? You didn't believe Tegmark back in July 2023, even if you do now.

    To refresh your memory, you could do worse than re-reading the entire linked thread from back then. It could save a lot of time, since you keep reposting previously debunked arguments over and over.
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2024
  21. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    I'm going to go out on a limb here but I don't think W4U will admit that he was wrong...
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    No, you do not have the qualifications to pass judgment.
    Meaningless label
    Another current model billions of people cling to is "accepted religion".
    Mathematics may not be causal (dynamical), but it clearly guides self-organizing mathematical patterns. Religion does not do anything. Why is that "accepted" origins? Belief is meaningless unless based on demonstrable proofs.
    It is descriptive of an apple as a mathematical object.

    The idea of a cube is a cube, and it is a mathematical object.

    Mathematical object

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Anything with which mathematical reasoning is possible
    List of mathematical objects by branch
    more.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_object



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Self-organization in micron-sized Nb3O7(OH) cubes during a hydrothermal treatment at 200 °C. Initially amorphous cubes gradually transform into ordered 3D meshes of crystalline nanowires as summarized in the model below.[1]
    more.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization#

    Regularity suggests that it is mathematically based and all that is required.
    Answered. and demonstrated.
    You're welcome.
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2024
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Of course there is a meaningful distinction between "causal to" and "causal how."
    Self-0rganization is a causal function.

    Hermann Haken (2008), Scholarpedia, 3(8):1401.doi:10.4249/scholarpedia.1401revision #139276 [link to/cite this article]
    Hermann Haken, Institute for Theoretical Physics I, Center of Synergetics, University of Stuttgart, Germany

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Figure 1: Snow Crystal. In the beginning of quantum mechanics and statistical physics it was believed that a crystalline structure can be calculated by determining the minimum of the free energy. This may be true, e.g. for ionic crystals, such as sodium chloride, or metals. In this case, the Schrödinger equation for the ground state or possibly low lying states must be solved. In general, this requires the solution of a many particle problem. As the example of snow crystals shows, this picture is too narrow. It is not only necessary to calculate binding forces, but rather the whole kinetics, e.g. of dendritic growth. Besides kinetics, also symmetry, may play a decisive role, e.g. the hexagonal symmetry of the snowflake is caused by the symmetry of H2O which acts as a nucleation center. This example shows that in the formation of crystals, such as the snowflake, kinetic processes and the problem of binding forces are strongly interwoven with each other.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Figure 2: A satellite photograph taken by NASA. On the left hand side cloud streets can be seen, whereas on the right hand side a vortex is formed. Cloud streets are dynamic patterns in that in the individual streets the water vapor molecules are moving upwards or downwards, alternatively. The basic question is: how do the tiny water molecules know how to arrange their concerted movements over many kilometres?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page