PDA

View Full Version : Fission and transmutation in crystals



KhashayarShatti
2012-Jul-02, 03:51 PM
http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/06/more-on-alberto-carpinteris-lenr-theories/
From replies by Dr Carpinteri to Prof. Guglielmi of the University of Bath, I realize that if it turns out true, then what can be said about the main reason behind this ?:
"The main point I want to emphasize is that we are dealing with four converging evidence of the phenomenon (piezonucleare fission) neutron emission from both brittle fracture and earthquakes, the transmutation of the same chemical elements in samples from both the laboratory and in the earth's crust."
Could this be related to the curvature of spacetime?

Strange
2012-Jul-02, 04:14 PM
I have no idea if there is any basis for the idea of "piezonuclear" reactions. The fact that it is on that website makes me assume it is nonsense. There is also a bogus reference to "quantum entanglement" on that page which makes it sound even more implausible.

However, I can't see how it can have anything to do with spacetime curvature, which is an explanation for gravity not nuclear fission or fusion.

Van Rijn
2012-Jul-02, 04:49 PM
I have no idea if there is any basis for the idea of "piezonuclear" reactions. The fact that it is on that website makes me assume it is nonsense.


E-Cat world, ouch. KhashayarShatti, E-Cat is a scam. Any web site or news writers who haven't figured that out yet should be ignored.

Googling, I found this:

http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2012/05/italy-chimeras-of-cold-fusion.html

Quoting:



Since 2007, Cardone's "theory of the deformed space-time," a daring alternative to Einstein's relativity, remains firmly ignored in the literature. As to "its phenomenon", it has been immediately criticized by four physicists of Uppsala University who found "serious errors" in Cardone's data and measurements. In Canada, three more physicists replicated the experiment, and their “results and findings were in conflict with those reported by F. Cardone et al." Other authors also criticized Cardone's results. Nowhere in the scientific literature it results that Cardone's results have been reproduced or validated.


It links to this article, questioning the assumptions and testing methods:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0910.3501v1.pdf

One of the first things that struck me quickly is that there is a claim that the "piezonuclear" effect is profound: An increase of a factor of 10,000 over the normal decay rate! Seems to me that if this were happening, its surprising this isn't already well known. But then the article later gets into the problems with the tests.

There's also links to this: (abstract available free, article behind a pay wall)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960109014893

Anyway, sounds like more nonsense (the piezonuclear claim).

KhashayarShatti
2012-Jul-03, 05:06 PM
There are hundreds of articles about fusion by sound waves from which too difficult to get the up to date information and find out about the true nature of it being scientific or not. Mentioning Sonoluminescence, but when repeated by different scientists, no results seem to have been achieved. One thing struck my mind as a bubble of thought; Could this be achieved or give rise to a more satisfactory result if doped crystals were used instead? Would this increase the probability of fusing interaction at the right place at the right time at the right available energy?

Swift
2012-Jul-03, 05:17 PM
One thing struck my mind as a bubble of thought; Could this be achieved or give rise to a more satisfactory result if doped crystals were used instead? Would this increase the probability of fusing interaction at the right place at the right time at the right available energy?
No. It is fundamentally not possible. Small changes in the properties of the crystals from doping will not change that.

Strange
2012-Jul-04, 09:43 PM
but when repeated by different scientists, no results seem to have been achieved

And that is the basis of the scientific method. If it can't be reproduced by anyone, then one has to assume there was some sort of error in the original experiment. In the case of some people reporting these things you can't rule out self-deception or fraud either.

KhashayarShatti
2012-Jul-05, 01:07 PM
No. It is fundamentally not possible. Small changes in the properties of the crystals from doping will not change that.
Surely you are familiar with the behaviour of heavily doped p type or n type silicon or similar materials that change the conducting properties of the material.I would like to ask a question but please don't think that I want to develop ATM here, I really would like to know the answer without conducting experiments. The question is : If a kind of conductor could be doped with hydrogen atoms, would a kind of transmutation occur under heavy oscillating currents due to expansion/contraction by Lorentz force(JxB)? Don't forget that i assume all this may be related to a kind of space-time reaction. You know the main criteria in physics seem to be the binding energy which is generally said not to be achievable under low temp conditions, but if energies around 8Mev could reach hydrogen ions then at least one should say the criteria is fulfilled.No? It is very important for me to know how far mankind could be successful to use experience but not experiment to know the exact answer to a new science question that relates to the scientific structure of evolving nature.

Swift
2012-Jul-05, 01:23 PM
Surely you are familiar with the behaviour of heavily doped p type or n type silicon or similar materials that change the conducting properties of the material.
I am. My degree is in solid-state chemistry and I've spent a large part of my career growing crystals (though not silicon).


The question is : If a kind of conductor could be doped with hydrogen atoms, would a kind of transmutation occur under heavy oscillating currents due to expansion/contraction by Lorentz force(JxB)? Don't forget that i assume all this may be related to a kind of space-time reaction.
I have no idea what you are talking about; it just sounds like words strung together with no physics behind it. Hydrogen is actually rather ubiquitous in many types of crystals. For example, in the quartz crystals I grew, hydrogen (in the form of protons) is very common.

It is very hard to make a statement about generic dopants in generic crystals, the particular effects depend upon the particular materials involved. But generally, dopants make very small changes in the band structure of the crystals, so as to have small effects on the electrical and/or optical properties. We are talking about energy changes of under 1 eV (look up information about band gaps).

I don't know much about space-time physics, but the energy levels you are talking about are very different. I can't imagine circumstances where dopants would make any difference to this.

Strange
2012-Jul-05, 01:46 PM
Surely you are familiar with the behaviour of heavily doped p type or n type silicon or similar materials that change the conducting properties of the material.

My background is in semiconductors.


The question is : If a kind of conductor could be doped with hydrogen atoms, would a kind of transmutation occur under heavy oscillating currents due to expansion/contraction by Lorentz force

I don't see why the presence (or otherwise) of hydrogen would make a significant difference to a conductor. Doping is normally used with semiconductors to add (or remove) free electrons and so modify the conduction band. I'm not sure what sort of expansion/contraction you are talking about? Distorting the crystal lattice? This is more likely to be caused by thermal or mechanical stress. Although we do have to worry about electromigration caused by large DC currents.


Don't forget that i assume all this may be related to a kind of space-time reaction.

And I still don't see why you think space-time has anything to do with electronics or crystal structure.


You know the main criteria in physics seem to be the binding energy which is generally said not to be achievable under low temp conditions, but if energies around 8Mev could reach hydrogen ions then at least one should say the criteria is fulfilled.

I have no idea what that means.


It is very important for me to know how far mankind could be successful to use experience but not experiment to know the exact answer to a new science question that relates to the scientific structure of evolving nature.

Many questions can be answered, often very accurately, using just theory. We use theory (and computer models based on the theory) to design everything from transistors to microchips to houses to the LHC. What is the relevance of that to your original question?

KhashayarShatti
2012-Jul-05, 02:18 PM
What is the relevance of that to your original question?
The sun as a fusion reactor, it doesn't seem that in the process of the expansion of the universe, experiments were carried out to confirm that the sun would work. It just comes out true and works. Many other natural phenomenae follow the same path. However one may say, well there could be many more possibilities and this is one of them. But whatever it is , the nature works naturally and scientifically without experiments. OR is it not so?
The relevance: Are we not so experienced or knowledged that have to do experiments to confirm and shape our future?

NEOWatcher
2012-Jul-05, 02:33 PM
experiments were carried out to confirm that the sun would work.
Absolutely wrong. Experiments were carried out to determine HOW the sun works.


But whatever it is , the nature works naturally and scientifically without experiments.
And science is figuring out HOW that happens. Figuring it out is going to get us a lot farther than just experience.
Besides, what exactly is experience. Isn't it the result of being able to repeat something based on stuff you have already learned? Don't people with experience "try" new ways of doing things based on thier knowledge?
Guess what... That's called an experiment.


The relevance: Are we not so experienced or knowledged that have to do experiments to confirm and shape our future?
Science and experimentation have nothing to do with confirming nature, it's to confirm our understanding of nature and how we can make use of that knowledge.

Strange
2012-Jul-05, 02:42 PM
The sun as a fusion reactor, it doesn't seem that in the process of the expansion of the universe, experiments were carried out to confirm that the sun would work.

I'm not sure what the connection is between the expansion of the universe and the way the sun functions.

Many experiments were carried out which gave us an understanding of the [physical processes going on in the sun. Some of these were observations of the sun. Some were investigations of nuclear reactions on earth. As always in science some of these experiments led to new theoretical work; in others they were done to test the ideas of the theory.


It just comes out true and works.

What does?


Many other natural phenomenae follow the same path. However one may say, well there could be many more possibilities and this is one of them.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Science (the process) works because many different people come up with many different hypotheses which are then tested against the data (observation and experiment). In the end, the hope is to end up with a single explanatory theory; and preferably one that explains several different phenomena.


But whatever it is , the nature works naturally and scientifically without experiments. OR is it not so?

I'm not sure what this means. Nature just is. We experiment to understand it. In what sense could nature be said to perform experiments (if that is what you are trying to say)?


The relevance: Are we not so experienced or knowledged that have to do experiments to confirm and shape our future?

Of course we have to do experiments to test our theories. You asked if we could explain things purely by theory. And the answer is yes, frequently we can. But that doesn't remove the need for further experiment and observation.

KhashayarShatti
2012-Jul-05, 03:19 PM
Perhaps my question is wrongly said. May I put it this way: Is the universe creating stars or earth or the nature by experiment? Or had it the experience from the big bang what to do, in which case perhaps a kind of information must have existed before the big bang. Of course I must say that I saw a video from Sir Martin Rees referring to our universe as a possible computer simulation.

If we had enough funding, would we allow everyone use experience and achieve something in which case the probability of scientific findings could increase dramatically. One example relating to the thread topic: Gold is being used more and more. If one day it turns out that we are in shortage of the existence of gold, then one thing that could be done is to make it artificially. Under incomplete knowledge only few people get funds and that means that we don't know if the result of this funding would be successful in which case probability of success reduces.

Strange
2012-Jul-05, 04:34 PM
Perhaps my question is wrongly said. May I put it this way: Is the universe creating stars or earth or the nature by experiment? Or had it the experience from the big bang what to do, in which case perhaps a kind of information must have existed before the big bang.

You seem to be suggesting there is some intelligence behind the universe that work out what to do by experiment? As fasr as I know, that isn't the case. Does your car use experiments or experience in order to move? No, it just works.


If we had enough funding, would we allow everyone use experience and achieve something in which case the probability of scientific findings could increase dramatically. One example relating to the thread topic: Gold is being used more and more. If one day it turns out that we are in shortage of the existence of gold, then one thing that could be done is to make it artificially. Under incomplete knowledge only few people get funds and that means that we don't know if the result of this funding would be successful in which case probability of success reduces.

I can't follow the logic of that at all. New technology development is funded by private companies, governments, etc. The funding is usually given to the projects that seem to have the best chance of success: they put forward a good proposal using sound science and have relevantly experienced people.

Are you saying that research funding should be given out at random, or to everybody, and that would improve the chance of success?

Swift
2012-Jul-05, 04:41 PM
Perhaps my question is wrongly said. May I put it this way: Is the universe creating stars or earth or the nature by experiment? Or had it the experience from the big bang what to do, in which case perhaps a kind of information must have existed before the big bang. Of course I must say that I saw a video from Sir Martin Rees referring to our universe as a possible computer simulation.

If we had enough funding, would we allow everyone use experience and achieve something in which case the probability of scientific findings could increase dramatically. One example relating to the thread topic: Gold is being used more and more. If one day it turns out that we are in shortage of the existence of gold, then one thing that could be done is to make it artificially. Under incomplete knowledge only few people get funds and that means that we don't know if the result of this funding would be successful in which case probability of success reduces.
KhashayarShatti,

This has absolutely nothing to do with fission in crystals. You will stop this entire line of discussion now. If you want to talk about star formation or scientific funding, start threads on those topics in the appropriate part of BAUT. Just because you start a thread, doesn't mean you can drag the discussion in any direction you like. If you have nothing further to discuss about the OP, that's fine, you can just stop posting in this thread.

KhashayarShatti
2012-Jul-05, 06:06 PM
KhashayarShatti,

This has absolutely nothing to do with fission in crystals. You will stop this entire line of discussion now. If you want to talk about star formation or scientific funding, start threads on those topics in the appropriate part of BAUT. Just because you start a thread, doesn't mean you can drag the discussion in any direction you like. If you have nothing further to discuss about the OP, that's fine, you can just stop posting in this thread.

Right Swift. There are articles with less scientific justifications. One of them regarding atomic resonance as follows:
http://www.humanresonance.org/transmutation.html
I think experts in this field could give us some information about the nature of these internet articles, I hope.

Swift
2012-Jul-05, 06:58 PM
Right Swift. There are articles with less scientific justifications. One of them regarding atomic resonance as follows:
http://www.humanresonance.org/transmutation.html
I think experts in this field could give us some information about the nature of these internet articles, I hope.
From the linked webpage:

I have achieved both in this process, and have successfully converted copper to gold and platinum. The original theory was the single conversion of copper to gold. The formation of platinum was not predicted but was an unexpected occurrence.

100 pounds of copper was placed in a single phonon resonance device and produced 800 troy ounces of gold and platinum. Several ounces of gold and platinum have been refined and tested by independent facilities. This is the world's largest demonstration of a low energy nuclear event. This was accomplished using standard household electrical power within 30 days.

This is nonsense; it is alchemy, it is black magic. I don't know what this guy did, nor am I going to waste my time trying to figure it out, but it is in violation of pretty much all we know. I have no clue what a "single phonon resonance device" is, but it sounds like something from bad science fiction. Just because someone has a webpage and puts pictures of copper slag on it, doesn't mean anything.

NEOWatcher
2012-Jul-05, 07:38 PM
have no clue what a "single phonon resonance device" is, but it sounds like something from bad science fiction.
Oh; come now Swift, just contact the extraterrestrial contacts from the Plejares star system before the Mayan calendar cosmic date. If they can teach tibetan monks to make singing bowls, I'm sure they'll show you the Plejaren plasma beamship. :p

Strange
2012-Jul-05, 07:40 PM
Right Swift. There are articles with less scientific justifications. One of them regarding atomic resonance as follows:
http://www.humanresonance.org/transmutation.html
I think experts in this field could give us some information about the nature of these internet articles, I hope.

If you can't tell immediately that that web site is just full of fantasy and nonsense, then you really need to learn a little basic science.

KhashayarShatti
2012-Jul-06, 07:22 AM
........ then you really need to learn a little basic science.
:rofl: I have a good sense of humor.
You see I'll not bother myself for a religio-science manner to reject something. There are many many similar cases not only in physics but many other science branches such as myt engine, superconductor at room temp.... A simple scientific rejection is required because no one is so unaware to simply give away an important discovery by simply disclosing it in a web site. As long as you mention that is not presented in a sientific manner and lacks principles of science that would be fair enough. However a firm scientific rejection would be more appreciated.
You see I googled this man: Dr.Joseph Champion of the Phonon Resonance Institute in St. George, Utah. There are many web pages claiming $30/ounce of gold. That sounds unbelieveable because it could have revolutionized gold industy so far and the price of gold wouldn't have risen to 1540 Euro/ounce. However scientific justifications in this forum suits BAUT.Let's not waste time on this but can I ask this hoping not to be off topic and hoping Swift will not blame me:if someone pretends to have obtained gold by transmutation, what would be the simple possible mainstream experiment to test it to be real or not without damaging it(NDT)? Is it acid nitric? Many people ask me these questions.

Shaula
2012-Jul-06, 10:10 AM
Simplest test (although not non-destructive) would be to mass spec a tiny sample. Check the isotopic ratios and any impurities. If they look Earthly then there is no reason to suppose it didn't come out of the ground.

Hornblower
2012-Jul-06, 12:42 PM
Gold has only a single stable isotope, atomic weight 197, so that aspect will tell you nothing. Impurities would tell something about the ground it came from. I would just have it assayed by the same testers gold miners use to make sure it really is gold, and not something along the lines of "fool's gold."

Grashtel
2012-Jul-06, 10:55 PM
Gold has only a single stable isotope, atomic weight 197, so that aspect will tell you nothing. Impurities would tell something about the ground it came from. I would just have it assayed by the same testers gold miners use to make sure it really is gold, and not something along the lines of "fool's gold."
How long lived are the unstable isotopes? If gold really was being produced by atomic transmutation I would expect significant amounts of the unstable isotopes to be formed along with the stable one making it easier to differentiate from natural gold if they have reasonably long half lives (depending on how quickly it is examined a few days or weeks could be enough).

Shaula
2012-Jul-07, 08:52 AM
I think the longest lived half lives are a few hours. Most are very short-lived.

KhashayarShatti
2012-Jul-07, 06:22 PM
If, gold by transmutation of cheap fabric could be abundantly produced , or production of any material by this method, would mankind lose natural life? Perhaps natural gold will become antique and not only lose its precious value, but become very expensive. Would it be so? What would be the world like by transmutation or fission of all kinds of elements?

Hornblower
2012-Jul-07, 07:23 PM
If, gold by transmutation of cheap fabric could be abundantly produced , or production of any material by this method, would mankind lose natural life? It might discombobulate the commodities markets, but I would not expect it to be the proximate cause of any loss of life.
Perhaps natural gold will become antique and not only lose its precious value, but become very expensive. My bold. Those two phrases are mutually contradictory. Please explain what you mean here.
Would it be so? What would be the world like by transmutation or fission of all kinds of elements?You can let your imagination run wild here.

KhashayarShatti
2012-Jul-08, 03:26 PM
It might discombobulate the commodities markets, but I would not expect it to be the proximate cause of any loss of life.My bold. Those two phrases are mutually contradictory. Please explain what you mean here.You can let your imagination run wild here.

That is business. Unfortunately ill business implements a reverse process;while it could be sold at a higher price why not cutting down producton. Imagine you sell gold for 1540 Euro/ounce. What would you think if production is halved? Most probably businessmen would raise the price to perhaps 3000 Euro/ounce. In this case less work, less time.....but the same benefit. Be sure that people would buy it. So I think when gold is produced abundantly and cheaply by transmutation, natural gold production will be reduced but sold at higher prices because people prefer natural gold for beauty as long as testers would be available to the people. You know that original stamps cost a lot more than copies and artificial diamond(not transmutation of course) costs a lot less than real diamond even though artificial diamond has a few better properties. Generally it is up to the evolving mechanism and that totally is up to the people to decide. I think rules should be developed to save natural life. Synthetic materials are being produced more and more and electricity by fission has not reduced the price of oil.

NEOWatcher
2012-Jul-09, 02:15 PM
So I think when gold is produced abundantly and cheaply by transmutation, natural gold production will be reduced but sold at higher prices because people prefer natural gold for beauty...
Gold is a single element, it is stable. No matter how it is created, it is still the same element. It can be melted, shaped, remelted and so on, and it's the same product.

It is not like artificial diamond or other synthetic materials. Those are forms of elements, and not elements themselves. Diamond is nothing but dirty old carbon. Artificial diamond is not as good because man cannot reproduce it as well as the Earth's processes can.


I think rules should be developed to save natural life.
Like what? You are talking about minerals, not life. I don't see the connection.


...electricity by fission has not reduced the price of oil.
Why would it? Very little oil is used in electricity production.

Swift
2012-Jul-09, 02:48 PM
Diamond is nothing but dirty old carbon. Artificial diamond is not as good because man cannot reproduce it as well as the Earth's processes can.
I don't know about diamond, but for many gem stones, quality is not the only determinant for price, as KhashayarShatti is saying. I've told this before, but at one point in my career I grew synthetic amethyst and citrine. Even though our material was "better" (better color, fewer defects), the "natural" stones commanded a higher price, because people wanted "natural".

But I agree, that seems less likely for gold.

And, as these kinds of transmutations of elements are not possible in the foreseeable future, and are probably fundamentally impossible, particularly in any sort of quantity or at with any kind of reasonable technology, it doesn't much matter.

KhashayarShatti
2012-Jul-09, 04:55 PM
......
And, as these kinds of transmutations of elements are not possible in the foreseeable future, and are probably fundamentally impossible, particularly in any sort of quantity or at with any kind of reasonable technology, it doesn't much matter.

By similar processes, I think may be natural gold could only be produced by natural gold. It sounds nonsense first but to some extent from your statement , a bubble of thought made me think of a process similar to the growth of grains, plants......

If and only if it is basically found that this transmutation technique would be impossible , the fundamental processing system of nature may be helpful to realize that from 1 gram of gold it may be possible to get 100 grams of gold as a natural transmutation process if we call it transmutation. This natural process would be lovely! It will save nature for ever. Humans are part of nature.

You know when you add one spoon of yogurt to milk you get 1Kg of yogurt from that milk and that only happens when original yogurt is used to get original yogurt. I'm not sure if this process is a kind of scientific and natural process in nature but my question is: could it be possible to grow gold from gold?

Swift you seem to be expert in crystal growth, by my little knowledge in this field about a kind of byproduct of sugar, is it true that crystals are grown from crystals? Now is it possible to grow a crystal from 10% similar and 90% non similar materials letting the process to react with surrounding in a natural way?

Is this process currently what is actually happening in nature? (seeds from seeds, plants from plants, grains from grains,.....mankind from mankind). Please don't ask me: what about the beginning? because I simply DON'T KNOW.

Swift
2012-Jul-09, 05:05 PM
If and only if it is basically found that this transmutation technique would be impossible , the fundamental processing system of nature may be helpful to realize that from 1 gram of gold it may be possible to get 100 grams of gold as a natural transmutation process if we call it transmutation. This natural process would be lovely! It will save nature for ever. Humans are part of nature.

I'm not actually sure what you are describing here, but I think the answer is no.

Crystal growth does not involve the transmutation of one element to another. It is only a change of physical form. So, when I grew a 1 kg quartz crystal, I started with 1 kg of quartz, and just changed it from a polycrystalline form (think sand, though that is not exactly correct) and changed it to a single crystal. And yes, the formation of natural crystals happens with a similar process.

Your process of making yogurt is a biochemical process, the organisms in the spoon of yogourt convert the milk to yogurt. This is similar to what yeast do in bread or beer. These are chemical transformations.

A process to make gold from some other element would be a nuclear transformation; exceedingly different process.

NEOWatcher
2012-Jul-09, 05:11 PM
By similar processes, I think may be natural gold could only be produced by natural gold.
Did you completely miss the point that gold is an element. It is not a mixture, it is not a shape, it is not a compound, it is not a structure, etc.


It sounds nonsense first but to some extent from your statement , a bubble of thought made me think of a process similar to the growth of grains, plants......
Those are complex molecules undergoing molecular trasnformation. They are not elemental compounds.


If and only if it is basically found that this transmutation technique would be impossible , the fundamental processing system of nature may be helpful to realize that from 1 gram of gold it may be possible to get 100 grams of gold as a natural transmutation process if we call it transmutation. This natural process would be lovely! It will save nature for ever. Humans are part of nature.
How will it change nature?



You know when you add one spoon of yogurt to milk you get 1Kg of yogurt from that milk...
That is microbe grown consuming the milk. It has nothing to do with minerals.


Is this process currently what is actually happening in nature? (seeds from seeds, plants from plants, grains from grains,.....mankind from mankind).
No, nature is complex molecular transformations. It is not at the element level.

KhashayarShatti
2012-Jul-09, 05:50 PM
No, nature is complex molecular transformations. It is not at the element level.

Great. If we think of an element, or atom or a molecule, subatomic particles give a structure to it. yet it is not known how deep these substructures exist. At a macroscopic scale molecular structure has been realized. But at picoscopic(I don't know if this word right) or lets say hexascopic..... scales substructures are not known yet.
Currently one may say this artificial crystal is similar to natural crystal, but one day it may turn out that they are highly different from each other at hexascopic scales. So wherever you travel in space, have one gram of natural gold with you.

NEOWatcher
2012-Jul-09, 06:10 PM
... yet it is not known how deep these substructures exist.
At the level of the makeup of an element, the energies taken to create them, and how they are put together to make the element, we have plenty of information.
At the simple level, it's called chemistry, as you get deaper into it, it's particle physics.
If we had no understanding at those levels, Einstein wouldn't be famous, we wouldn't have nuclear energy, we wouldn't have radiocarbon dating.


... Currently one may say this artificial crystal is similar to natural crystal, but one day it may turn out that they are highly different from each other at hexascopic scales. So wherever you travel in space, have one gram of natural gold with you.
Repeat... A crystal is a formation that consists of an element (or more), not a definition of an element.

KhashayarShatti
2012-Jul-12, 04:27 PM
How will it change nature?
It could save the nature and its history.


That is microbe grown consuming the milk. It has nothing to do with minerals.
That is fine.What I would like to ask is: could there be a similar process at elemental level where one could replace microbes with all sorts of EM radiation(photons), phonons, cosmic particles, neutrinos,..... as a natural surrounding to react on the element's surrounding media? Something similar to quarks soup, plasma or....? BTW how did the first yogurt appear?

Swift
2012-Jul-12, 04:48 PM
That is fine.What I would like to ask is: could there be a similar process at elemental level where one could replace microbes with all sorts of EM radiation(photons), phonons, cosmic particles, neutrinos,..... as a natural surrounding to react on the element's surrounding media? Something similar to quarks soup, plasma or....?
No.

You can't just throw a bunch of terms together and say "would this work?". What you are saying has no basis in physics and is basically magic.


BTW how did the first yogurt appear?
The microorganisms that make yogurt, beer, wine, bread, cheese, etc. are all naturally occurring organisms (some are yeasts, some are molds or other fungi). My guess, for all these food stuffs, is that random chance introduced organisms into a certain food stuff (like milk) - the ones that converted the milk to something horrible, we threw away. The ones that converted the milk to something nice, we kept, and continued to propagate them.

NEOWatcher
2012-Jul-12, 05:16 PM
It could save the nature and its history.
That is not an answer. What do you not understand about the word "HOW"?


That is fine.What I would like to ask is: could there be a similar process at elemental level where one could replace microbes with all sorts of EM radiation(photons), phonons, cosmic particles, neutrinos,.....
See Swift's reply.

KhashayarShatti
2012-Jul-12, 05:46 PM
That is not an answer. What do you not understand about the word "HOW"?

My answer may be thought to be off topic, I summarize it:
1- Nature doesn't need mankind to save itself.
2- Mankind needs nature to survive.
3- Mankind may be able to create artificial nature but its stability would be under question.

I think mostly mankind is trying to master the science of the universe and in this process may lose original nature. I don't know to what extent but losing more than 60% of it may put the nature in danger.
What I was trying to say is that if we keep our processes within the integrity of natural processes(obviously mankind is trying to do so but perhaps not enough due to economic pressures), then nature with its powerful creative essence may be more beneficial. So far science says nature is very powerful to create intelligence. From evolution point of view, mankind with intelligence appeared according to this current theory of big bang. So saving nature,the probability of the creation of much more unknowns would remain high. So in response to your "HOW", I would say "replicating natural processes but accelerating them".
Most important could be replicating molecular processes at elemental levels by creating accelerating natural transmutation processes. At molecular levels mankind is capable of accelerating growth of plants by the use of natural seeds.
Would mankind be capable of replicating this process at elemental levels by using original elements?

NEOWatcher
2012-Jul-12, 05:57 PM
Gee, you weren't doing bad until here [the part that I quoted] because at some point man can destroy nature. Although, I think man's going to suffer from that destruction far harder than nature will. So; yes; you answered my "how".

From evolution point of view, mankind with intelligence appeared according to this current theory of big bang.
The theory of the big bang (which, as a side not isn't really what it is) has nothing to do with evolution and intelligence.


Would mankind be capable of replicating this process at elemental levels by using original elements?
What do you consider to be "original" elements and why?

It is conceivable that mankind can replicate many different natural processes given enough time and resources. But; not in the manner that you have been presenting as analogies throughout this thread.

Swift
2012-Jul-12, 06:17 PM
Most important could be replicating molecular processes at elemental levels by creating accelerating natural transmutation processes. At molecular levels mankind is capable of accelerating growth of plants by the use of natural seeds.
Would mankind be capable of replicating this process at elemental levels by using original elements?
KhashayarShatti,

As I said already, you are completely convoluting biochemical, chemical, physical, and nuclear processes. Quite frankly, what you are saying makes no sense at all. I can not even figure it out enough to say what is wrong with it.

KhashayarShatti
2012-Jul-12, 06:20 PM
What do you consider to be "original" elements and why?

Very good question. I don't think I could be able to answer this question, but I'm trying to find an answer for it by asking. IMO, I think elements may have elemental structures similar to organs that have molecular structures. When elements are processes, they may lose these primitive elemental structures. For example if the element is heated, its primitive elemental structure may be destroyed. Artificial processes may not be able to create these unknown elemental structures. Would there be any natural process in transmutation of elements then without destroying the natural substructures? If one destroys the natural molecular structure of a seed, then the seed is destroyed even if it contains all the substances and elements.

KhashayarShatti
2012-Jul-12, 06:30 PM
KhashayarShatti,

As I said already, you are completely convoluting biochemical, chemical, physical, and nuclear processes. Quite frankly, what you are saying makes no sense at all. I can not even figure it out enough to say what is wrong with it.

Frankly, I understood right now what you mean. Perhaps I should have asked: Could there be any intelligence in natural elements since much more of it is seen in bio nature? I hope this question doesn't make it more complicated:). References would be appreciated, because I don't get much information from books and articles regarding the origin and evolution of elements.

NEOWatcher
2012-Jul-12, 07:03 PM
Very good question. I don't think I could be able to answer this question, but I'm trying to find an answer for it by asking.
Based on the discussions in this thread, I think you need far more understanding of all the science involved than can be provided simply on a discussion board.


IMO, I think elements may have elemental structures...
Atoms (if that is what you mean by element) have a well know structure including how it's held together.


... similar to organs that have molecular structures.
No, because the components of an atom can only fit together in specific ways and defined through particle physics.
Organs, and seeds, multicellular structures, etc, are defined by chemistry and biology, are much more complex, held together in a completely different way and highly scaleable. Nothing like elements/atoms.


When elements are processes,
How can an element be a process?


... they may lose these primitive elemental structures. For example if the element is heated, its primitive elemental structure may be destroyed. Artificial processes may not be able to create these unknown elemental structures. Would there be any natural process in transmutation of elements then without destroying the natural substructures?
Without using the proper (even simple) scientific words for these nouns, I have no clue what you are trying to say.


If one destroys the natural molecular structure of a seed, then the seed is destroyed even if it contains all the substances and elements.
See earlier comment.

BioSci
2012-Jul-12, 07:24 PM
Could there be any intelligence in natural elements since much more of it is seen in bio nature?

With the normal definitions of "intelligence", "elements", "much more", and "nature" this question is rather meaningless and has no useful answer other than no - and even "no" might suggest that the question made some sort of sense.



References would be appreciated, because I don't get much information from books and articles regarding the origin and evolution of elements.

Try here for a simple description of the origin of the various elements (from a simple Google search on "origin of elements") : http://www.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/10/0.html
Remember, without extreme conditions of temperature/pressure*, elements do not change or evolve by ordinary chemical means - natural or synthetic.

Chemistry is the science of how elements can be combined to make new molecules (combinations of elements) and how such molecules interact with each other.
Biochemistry is the chemical science dealing with the types of chemical reactions common in biology. No mystery - only more complicated reactions.
"Intelligence" is generally considered an emergent trait demonstrated by animals containing brains and by extension to computing devices.

* stars/nuclear bombs/reactors (or decay of unstable isotopes).

tusenfem
2012-Jul-13, 06:39 AM
Okay, KhashayarShatti, you are just throwing together scientifically sounding words, you are confusing chemical element structures with cellular structures, you have no idea what "elemental structure" is because there are gaseous chemical elements, H, He, ... which don't lose a "structure" when they get heated, etc. etc.
Thread closed.