Yes, everything is made from the same stuff. Sometimes the stuff make living things like people and sometimes the stuff makes inanimate things like rocks.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Evidence of Common Descent (LOTS, across the sciences)
- Thread starter abu afak
- Start date
Okay.Yes, everything is made from the same stuff. Sometimes the stuff make living things like people and sometimes the stuff makes inanimate things like rocks.
ReinyDays
Gold Member
I already showed you the mechanism. The rock must be in an external magnetic field (consider it... its "ecosystem"
Nothing reduces "itself", it's always a reaction with something else.
An example of what would behave like an enzyme, for a magnetic rock, is a local region of criticality . The Ising model shows that magnetic substances have "phases" (like gas/liquid/solid). Here is a phase map for an Ising rock:
View attachment 964313
Interestingly enough, the phase structure depends on the number of dimensions. The above is for 2 dimensions. But if you refer back to the Wiki on Ising I posted earlier, they discuss 3 dimensions, and 4. (And they show you the math).
It is well known in chemistry, that reactions that occur readily in one phase may not occur at all in another, and vice versa. A criticality can behave like a local phase change, with results that mimic enzymatic activity.
Let's look at it another way. The Ising Wiki shows how the underlying math is formally equivalent to a graph. (And the section on history discussed its mapping to arbitrary Cayley trees).
Here, read it again:
Ising model - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Your citation doesn't confirm your claim ... absolute no mention of rocks in that article ...
I already showed you the mechanism. The rock must be in an external magnetic field
No you didn't ... you stated your theory ... you haven't provided a demonstration, maybe a real citation for this "mythological" Ising Rock ... rocks are fully oxidized, the same as entropy ... your definition states life is opposite of entropy ... life is opposite of rocks ...
All Earth's rocks are in an external magnetic field ... what manner of spew is this? ...
Your citation doesn't confirm your claim ... absolute no mention of rocks in that article ...
That's because you don't understand what's being discussed.
I already showed you the mechanism. The rock must be in an external magnetic field
No you didn't ... you stated your theory ... you haven't provided a demonstration,
Sigh. I showed you a Boltzmann machine after 10,000 iterations. You clearly don't understand the discussion.
maybe a real citation for this "mythological" Ising Rock ...
Here, read:
Rock magnetism - Wikipedia
rocks are fully oxidized, the same as entropy ... your definition states life is opposite of entropy ... life is opposite of rocks ...
You're stuck on your own definition, just like Ding. I ain't gonna argue, if it works for you that's fine.
All Earth's rocks are in an external magnetic field ... what manner of spew is this? ...
They're also in gravitational fields and electron fields. There's a lot more to rocks than just... well... rocks.
Magnetic anomaly - Wikipedia
Our brains create magnetism. The Earth's field interacts with that too. It interacts with the iron in your blood too. It interacts with anything that has a magnetic dipole moment. WATER, is paramagnetic. So is oxygen.
Nothing happens in isolation. Physics is physics. There's no such thing as a closed system.
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 97,438
- 73,671
- 3,645
Choosing the characteristics is arbitrary, of course. Not the characteristics themselves. You mangle the language, in your fervor.Explain how any of the characteristics of living things are arbitrary?
The arbitrariness appears when we meet something that only meets part of the working definition.
Again, we're thinking a bit beyond just the happy accident of life on Earth. At least, I thought we were. I don't disagree with you that it is easy on Earth to distinguish between life and rocks. The definition you present is the best we have, in that regard.
Choosing the characteristics is arbitrary? Are you a fucking idiot?Choosing the characteristics is arbitrary, of course. Not the characteristics themselves. You mangle the language, in your fervor.
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 97,438
- 73,671
- 3,645
Indeed. For we may, indeed, find life that does not meet that particular, strict definition. I think life as defined by you (or by anyone) formed gradually, over time. As such, I think life comes more in degrees, than it does in the stark contrast that is our little snapshot of this planet.Choosing the characteristics is arbitrary?
I think such "almost life", as you might say, surely existed prior to any eukaryote.
You just make shit up as you go along, don't you? You haven't gotten one single thing right yet. Rather than keep digging your hole of idiocy, wouldn't it be easier to just admit the truth? There are living things and there are inanimate things. The difference between the two can be identified by the characteristics or traits that living things have that the inanimate things don't. Stop being a moron.Indeed. For we may, indeed, find life that does not meet that particular, strict definition. I think life as you like to define it formed gradually, over time. As such, I think life comes more in degrees, than it does in the stark contrast that is our little snapshot of this planet.
Here, for general education
The Earth's magnetic field at the surface is about 1/4 of a Gauss.
On the other hand, a typical magnet in an MRI machine is about 20,000 Gauss.
And, the magnetic field created in our brains is about 1/40,000 of a Gauss, 1mm away from the scalp.
The question is, how much magnetism does it take to magnetize a rock?
The answer is, if depends on the magnetic susceptibility of the rock The overwhelming majority of rocks are paramagnetic, but the dipole moments of the constituent atoms are DISORDERED, they point in random directions.
When you put a rock in an external magnetic field the atomic dipole moments begin to ALIGN, they start pointing in the same direction. If you a magnetic rock near your brain not much happens, because the field isn't strong enough to align the moments). But if you put the rock in an MRI machine, all the moments will instantly align.
For computational experiments, we're interested in "programming" the alignment. We wish to control both the direction and the amount. How do we do this?
Let's say we have a chunk of iron, and we want to store a magnetic hologram in it. How do we do this?
First, we note that the iron atoms in the rock are only a few hundred nM apart. So whatever device use,has to be precise at that level. So right off the bat, we're looking at something more sophisticated than a SQUID or an optically pumped sensor.
Turns out, you can do it with lasers. Or masers. It's not easy though.
To render a computational result you have to be able to control the alignment down to about 1/10 micron. Such equipment is cumbersome and expensive.
If you can do it though, you can use the rock as a computational device
The Earth's magnetic field at the surface is about 1/4 of a Gauss.
On the other hand, a typical magnet in an MRI machine is about 20,000 Gauss.
And, the magnetic field created in our brains is about 1/40,000 of a Gauss, 1mm away from the scalp.
The question is, how much magnetism does it take to magnetize a rock?
The answer is, if depends on the magnetic susceptibility of the rock The overwhelming majority of rocks are paramagnetic, but the dipole moments of the constituent atoms are DISORDERED, they point in random directions.
When you put a rock in an external magnetic field the atomic dipole moments begin to ALIGN, they start pointing in the same direction. If you a magnetic rock near your brain not much happens, because the field isn't strong enough to align the moments). But if you put the rock in an MRI machine, all the moments will instantly align.
For computational experiments, we're interested in "programming" the alignment. We wish to control both the direction and the amount. How do we do this?
Let's say we have a chunk of iron, and we want to store a magnetic hologram in it. How do we do this?
First, we note that the iron atoms in the rock are only a few hundred nM apart. So whatever device use,has to be precise at that level. So right off the bat, we're looking at something more sophisticated than a SQUID or an optically pumped sensor.
Turns out, you can do it with lasers. Or masers. It's not easy though.
To render a computational result you have to be able to control the alignment down to about 1/10 micron. Such equipment is cumbersome and expensive.
If you can do it though, you can use the rock as a computational device
Free-standing two-dimensional ferro-ionic memristor - Nature Communications
2D ferroelectric materials have emerged as significant platforms for next-generation functional devices. Here, the authors present the programmable flexoelectric engineering for nanoconfined conductive filaments in free-standing 2D ferro-ionic memristor.
www.nature.com
Deterministic control of ferroelectric polarization by ultrafast laser pulses - Nature Communications
Controlling the electric polarization in ferroelectric materials at room temperature is an important aspect in the design of novel ferroelectric-based devices. Simulations of a typical ferroelectric material now provide insights into why and how its ferroelectric polarization can be partially...
www.nature.com
Switching nanomagnets using infrared lasers
Physicists have calculated how suitable molecules can be stimulated by infrared light pulses to form tiny magnetic fields. If this is also successful in experiments, the principle could be used in quantum computer circuits.
www.sciencedaily.com
ReinyDays
Gold Member
That's because you don't understand what's being discussed.
Sigh. I showed you a Boltzmann machine after 10,000 iterations. You clearly don't understand the discussion.
Here, read:
Rock magnetism - Wikipedia
You're stuck on your own definition, just like Ding. I ain't gonna argue, if it works for you that's fine.
They're also in gravitational fields and electron fields. There's a lot more to rocks than just... well... rocks.
Magnetic anomaly - Wikipedia
Our brains create magnetism. The Earth's field interacts with that too. It interacts with the iron in your blood too. It interacts with anything that has a magnetic dipole moment. WATER, is paramagnetic. So is oxygen.
Nothing happens in isolation. Physics is physics. There's no such thing as a closed system.
You don't understand either ... that article is about statistics ...
I asked for an example of an Ising rock ... you didn't provide one so it's easy to assume you're nothing but bullshit ... if you understood, you'd explain yourself ... instead you keep bouncing around ...
A rock is a rock ... silicon dioxide ... nothing more ... why do you believe the Gaia Hypothesis? ...
Here, for general education
The Earth's magnetic field at the surface is about 1/4 of a Gauss.
On the other hand, a typical magnet in an MRI machine is about 20,000 Gauss.
And, the magnetic field created in our brains is about 1/40,000 of a Gauss, 1mm away from the scalp.
The question is, how much magnetism does it take to magnetize a rock?
The answer is, if depends on the magnetic susceptibility of the rock The overwhelming majority of rocks are paramagnetic, but the dipole moments of the constituent atoms are DISORDERED, they point in random directions.
When you put a rock in an external magnetic field the atomic dipole moments begin to ALIGN, they start pointing in the same direction. If you a magnetic rock near your brain not much happens, because the field isn't strong enough to align the moments). But if you put the rock in an MRI machine, all the moments will instantly align.
For computational experiments, we're interested in "programming" the alignment. We wish to control both the direction and the amount. How do we do this?
Let's say we have a chunk of iron, and we want to store a magnetic hologram in it. How do we do this?
First, we note that the iron atoms in the rock are only a few hundred nM apart. So whatever device use,has to be precise at that level. So right off the bat, we're looking at something more sophisticated than a SQUID or an optically pumped sensor.
Turns out, you can do it with lasers. Or masers. It's not easy though.
To render a computational result you have to be able to control the alignment down to about 1/10 micron. Such equipment is cumbersome and expensive.
If you can do it though, you can use the rock as a computational device
Wait ... do we have a chunk of iron ... or do we have a rock ... one's reduced the other oxidized ... you don't know much about simple chemistry do you? ... [giggle] ... one's made of iron #26, the other silicon #14 ... so make up you damn mind ... rocks or iron ...
Iron atoms are a few 100 nm apart ... hilarious ... that's visible light, of course we can resolve that with optical microscopes ... a Foucault tester resolves down to 50 nm ... 1/4 a wavelength of violet light ...
Here's a video, note the resolution ... ten's of µm's ... are you starting high school next year? ... take a biology class ...
You don't understand either ... that article is about statistics ...
I asked for an example of an Ising rock ... you didn't provide one so it's easy to assume you're nothing but bullshit ... if you understood, you'd explain yourself ... instead you keep bouncing around ...
Bullshit. I gave you three examples. THREE. I described the conditions in detail. You're just brain dead today, that's all. I can't help it if you don't get it.
A rock is a rock ... silicon dioxide ... nothing more ... why do you believe the Gaia Hypothesis? ...
Bullshit. Magnetic rocks are made of more than silicon dioxide. Try cracking a book or something
Wait ... do we have a chunk of iron ... or do we have a rock ... one's reduced the other oxidized ... you don't know much about simple chemistry do you? ... [giggle] ... one's made of iron #26, the other silicon #14 ... so make up you damn mind ... rocks or iron ...
Cut the crap, clownie.
Go study nanomagnets. Don't come back till you have a clue.
Iron atoms are a few 100 nm apart ... hilarious ... that's visible light, of course we can resolve that with optical microscopes ... a Foucault tester resolves down to 50 nm ... 1/4 a wavelength of violet light ...
Here's a video, note the resolution ... ten's of µm's ... are you starting high school next year? ... take a biology class ...
My left toenail knows more about biology than you ever will, Mr Redox Man. Go study how lasers are used to program nanomagnets. Get back to us when you know something.
ReinyDays
Gold Member
Bullshit. I gave you three examples. THREE. I described the conditions in detail. You're just brain dead today, that's all. I can't help it if you don't get it.
Link or it didn't happen ... Ising rock please, with citation ... you seem to think EM is magic or something ... it's not ... it's force, which performs work ...
Do you know what a rock is? ... chemically? ... basalts aline to the magnetic field as the magma cools ... we know that, but how is that useful in a definition of life? ...
Do we teach sedimentation in a biology class? ...
Do we teach glycolysis in geology class? ...
How is it useful to combine these two (apparently) different sciences? ...
Wait ... do we have a chunk of iron ... or do we have a rock? ... no answer is an answer in itself ... you've confused these two and now you're dodging ... coward ... I asked if 59% of the Earth's crust is living matter ... that doesn't include iron, not one atom ...
Geology is all fine and dandy, but I'm talking physics. Magnetic dipole moments at the atomic and subatomic level. The particular geology only matters insofar as it affects the coupling constants. Yes, different structures have different couplings. Here's an example of how you calculate the coupling constants for a material:Link or it didn't happen ... Ising rock please, with citation ... you seem to think EM is magic or something ... it's not ... it's force, which performs work ...
Do you know what a rock is? ... chemically? ... basalts aline to the magnetic field as the magma cools ... we know that, but how is that useful in a definition of life? ...
Do we teach sedimentation in a biology class? ...
Do we teach glycolysis in geology class? ...
How is it useful to combine these two (apparently) different sciences? ...
Wait ... do we have a chunk of iron ... or do we have a rock? ... no answer is an answer in itself ... you've confused these two and now you're dodging ... coward ... I asked if 59% of the Earth's crust is living matter ... that doesn't include iron, not one atom ...
Read more about it here:
Coupling constant - Wikipedia
So... a magnetic dipole has an angle (direction), and it also has a spin. The coupling between the angles is what we've been talking about so far. However there is also spin-spin coupling, in the vernacular it's known as J coupling. Read more about it here:
en.wikipedia.org
Why this matters is, the number of degrees of freedom in coupling determines the dimensionality of the information you can process and store in your system.
In any mixed material (like, a rock), the coupling constants organize into a spectrum. A lot of work has been done with spectroscopy this way, especially NMR. For example:
If you know how NMR works, this should be intuitive for you because you have a radio signal perpendicular to your magnetic field. If we took a rock and crushed it up and put it in a test tube in an NMR, you would see peaks corresponding to the types of coupling. One must be careful though, because there are false peaks. Like this:
organicchemistrydata.org
Sometimes we can predict the couplings theoretically, sometimes not. Here is some information on that:
pubs.aip.org
If you're just going to take a random set of materials (like you might find in "any old rock"), you need a quick and reliable way of predicting the couplings, so you can get "in the ballpark's with your spectroscopy. The density functional method is "pretty" good, it seems to work with most things.
link.aps.org
And finally, recently there has been work to try to predict couplings with AI and neural networks. Here is an example:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
These couplings are ubiquitous in nature. We call them "couplings" for lack of a better term, because much of the time we don't exactly know how they work. However the string theorists think they know, in 12 dimensions you have dilatons and lots and lots of fields, and there is math to match the materials with the fields. Calabi-Yau is above my pay grade though, so I'll stop here.
J-coupling - Wikipedia
Why this matters is, the number of degrees of freedom in coupling determines the dimensionality of the information you can process and store in your system.
In any mixed material (like, a rock), the coupling constants organize into a spectrum. A lot of work has been done with spectroscopy this way, especially NMR. For example:
If you know how NMR works, this should be intuitive for you because you have a radio signal perpendicular to your magnetic field. If we took a rock and crushed it up and put it in a test tube in an NMR, you would see peaks corresponding to the types of coupling. One must be careful though, because there are false peaks. Like this:
NMR Spectroscopy
This set of pages originates from Professor Hans Reich (UW-Madison) "Structure Determination Using Spectroscopic Methods" course (Chem 605). It describes Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) in details relevant to Organic Chemistry. It also includes NMR summary data on coupling constants and...
organicchemistrydata.org
Sometimes we can predict the couplings theoretically, sometimes not. Here is some information on that:
Theoretical prediction of magnetic exchange coupling constants from broken-symmetry coupled cluster calculations
Exchange coupling constants (J) are fundamental to the understanding of spin spectra of magnetic systems. Here, we investigate the broken-symmetry (BS) approach
pubs.aip.org
If you're just going to take a random set of materials (like you might find in "any old rock"), you need a quick and reliable way of predicting the couplings, so you can get "in the ballpark's with your spectroscopy. The density functional method is "pretty" good, it seems to work with most things.
Magnetic coupling constants from a hybrid density functional with 35% Hartree-Fock exchange
The magnetic coupling constants of ${\mathrm{KCuF}}_{3}$, ${\mathrm{Sr}}_{2}{\mathrm{CuO}}_{2}{\mathrm{Cl}}_{2}$, ${\mathrm{La}}_{2}{\mathrm{CuO}}_{4}$, ${\mathrm{La}}_{2}{\mathrm{NiO}}_{4}$, ${\mathrm{K}}_{2}{\mathrm{NiF}}_{4}$, ${\mathrm{KNiF}}_{3}$, ${\mathrm{NiF}}_{2}$...
link.aps.org
And finally, recently there has been work to try to predict couplings with AI and neural networks. Here is an example:
Predicting scalar coupling constants by graph angle-attention neural network
Scalar coupling constant (SCC), directly measured by nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, is a key parameter for molecular structure analysis, and widely used to predict unknown molecular structure. Restricted by the high cost of NMR experiments, ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
These couplings are ubiquitous in nature. We call them "couplings" for lack of a better term, because much of the time we don't exactly know how they work. However the string theorists think they know, in 12 dimensions you have dilatons and lots and lots of fields, and there is math to match the materials with the fields. Calabi-Yau is above my pay grade though, so I'll stop here.
Oh - you asked me to show you some real world Ising materials. Here you go:
www.scielo.br
But as I mentioned earlier, the model applies to anything that can be math'd as a certain kind of graph. For example, DNA, and certain kinds of superconductivity.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Earlier I showed you how it applies to neural networks. Any of the above can be "mapped" onto a neural network, that's how we get AI to look at the data, model it, and make predictions.
www.scirp.org
The Ising model and real magnetic materials
The factors that make certain magnetic materials behave similarly to corresponding Ising models...
www.scielo.br
But as I mentioned earlier, the model applies to anything that can be math'd as a certain kind of graph. For example, DNA, and certain kinds of superconductivity.
The Ising Model in Physics and Statistical Genetics
Interdisciplinary communication is becoming a crucial component of the present scientific environment. Theoretical models developed in diverse disciplines often may be successfully employed in solving seemingly unrelated problems that can be reduced to ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Earlier I showed you how it applies to neural networks. Any of the above can be "mapped" onto a neural network, that's how we get AI to look at the data, model it, and make predictions.
Leveraging Quantum Computing for the Ising Model to Simulate Two Real Systems Magnetic Materials and Biological Neural Networks (BNNs)
Quantum computing is a field with increasing relevance as quantum hardware improves and more applications of quantum computing are discovered. In this paper, we demonstrate the feasibility of modeling Ising Model Hamiltonians on the IBM quantum computer. We developed quantum circuits to simulate...
If you grok'd all that and you're still interested, I'll offer this as an approximate example of the state of the art.
The question is not really whether the Ising model applies, but rather how much of it is reflected in what we see. "What other things are contributing" to the empirical data.
link.aps.org
This is a mouthful:
If you know what "Kitaev-like" means, you"re probably saying "oh shit" when you read stuff like this. We're talking non-Abelian math, stuff that doesn't commute. Anyons, stuff like that.
www.nature.com
Things get really interesting when you push your material into the quantum critical point. You get stuff like "quantum spin liquids", a situation which obviously completely breaks the lattice approximation
The question is not really whether the Ising model applies, but rather how much of it is reflected in what we see. "What other things are contributing" to the empirical data.
Single-ion properties of the transverse-field Ising model material ${\mathrm{CoNb}}_{2}{\mathrm{O}}_{6}$
$\mathrm{Co}{\mathrm{Nb}}_{2}{\mathrm{O}}_{6}$ is one of the few materials that is known to approximate the one-dimensional transverse-field Ising model (1D-TFIM) near its quantum critical point. It has been inferred that ${\mathrm{Co}}^{2+}$ acts as a pseudospin $1/2$ with anisotropic exchange...
link.aps.org
This is a mouthful:
However, the behavior of CoNb2O6 is known to diverge from the ideal TFIM under transverse magnetic fields that are far from the quantum critical point, requiring the consideration of additional anisotropic, bond-dependent (Kitaev-like) terms in the microscopic pseudospin-1/2 Hamiltonian
If you know what "Kitaev-like" means, you"re probably saying "oh shit" when you read stuff like this. We're talking non-Abelian math, stuff that doesn't commute. Anyons, stuff like that.
Theory of the Kitaev model in a [111] magnetic field - Nature Communications
Previous numerical work has predicted a new spin liquid phase in the antiferromagnetic Kitaev model at intermediate magnetic fields; however, its nature is not easily discernible by numerical approaches. Here, by using a variational approach, the authors show that this phase is a gapped Abelian...
www.nature.com
Loading…
www.ggi.infn.it
Things get really interesting when you push your material into the quantum critical point. You get stuff like "quantum spin liquids", a situation which obviously completely breaks the lattice approximation
ReinyDays
Gold Member
Wall of bullshit ... all to avoid answering questions ... where's your Ising rock, or are you lying? ...
You don't know the difference between rocks and metal ... stupid ... maybe you should give up? ...
You don't know the difference between rocks and metal ... stupid ... maybe you should give up? ...
You're just not following. This seems to be above your pay grade.Wall of bullshit ... all to avoid answering questions ... where's your Ising rock, or are you lying? ...
You don't know the difference between rocks and metal ... stupid ... maybe you should give up? ...
For those who ARE following, there is an amazing new report this morning. Here it is:
Study proposes new constraints on exotic spin-spin-velocity-dependent interactions between electron spins
A research team has utilized solid-state spin quantum sensors to scrutinize exotic spin-spin-velocity-dependent interactions (SSIVDs) at short force ranges, reporting new experimental results between electron spins. Their work has been published in Physical Review Letters.
This is what I'm talking about. "Propagators". That are entangled, therefore fulfilling the two key elements of conscious awareness.
How can anyone say this stuff isn't ALIVE?
Boggles the mind.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 219
- Views
- 32K
- Replies
- 382
- Views
- 65K
- Replies
- 306
- Views
- 39K
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 74
- Views
- 12K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 4K
- Views
- 62K
- Replies
- 498
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 180
- Views
- 940
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8513
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 483
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-