I have a masters in genetics but now I work in industry as a biochemist. I got pretty burned by academia and not sure if I want to go back for a PhD or not.
water molecules adheres to eachother through weak forces, hydrogen bonds. So it's not really just "seemingly random". They follow each other, and hold some other incredible properties, like expanding when freezing/solidifying as well as becoming less dense. No other material does that.
I think this is the big question, and if altruism exists, it's probably somewhere within this. We just don't know what consciousness is or the mechanisms behind it. We only know that certain areas of the brain become more active with certain behavior/activity. You have calcium running between synapses and neurons firing electric signals, but… what is happening when we're choosing a meal at a restaurant? What chemicals or ions are making those decisions? Or.. are "we"? Something that is beyond the physical, a "soul"? It's a taboo question in science. I was reading some stuff by this guy named Erik Hoel, and he's a neuroscientist in opposition to determinism. He has an interesting take, though he's really technical and hard to follow if you aren't very versed in physics or biology.
There is still discussion on the form of the water molecules on the surface of ice, but the molecules are in a more water-like state and they are in the center of the ice due to having fewer long-lasting bonds between molecules. However, my understanding is that there is a temperature below which ice is no longer slippery because the surface has become ice-like rather than water-like. If I remember, it is around -50 Celsius.
Pressure and friction will increase the pre-melted layer on ice, but it exists even without those:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41570-019-0080-8/
intermolecular forces are what determine when stuff melts and freezes and boils and condenses. Hydrogen bonds are a big deal in water-soluble substances (vodka = ethanol + water), so they hold stuff together. They become more viscous as they get colder, but it's harder for them to freeze into a solid crystal since they're a mix of different liquids. Thus, they just progress to be more and more viscous. - Water, because of its hydrogen bonds, actually gets less dense as it goes into its solid state. Water becomes more and more dense as it cools until it freezes at which point the polarity of the h2o molecules cause water assume a crystalline formation so there is actually more space between the molecules of ice than in super chilled liquid water.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-dynamic-kinematic-viscosity-d_596.html
Skis work because the friction heats up the snow melting it (similar to ice skates), thats why you wax skis. Similar to how an avalanche works - its melting the snow with heat as its moving which lowers the friction coefficient. Plus a vacuum effect of pushing the air in front out back accelerates it. Its not one mass, it acts as a fluid (snow vs the clumping of dirt and rock), so the stuff from the front can get to the back. Basically it can leapfrog and and pull stuff in behind it like a self feeding loop. The front pushes air out which can make it faster than free-fall (up to ~200mph if I remember correctly)
Asymmetric bonds allow the paired electrons to spend more time near the atom that most likes the electrons. Both hydrogen and carbon have half-filled shells, so they are fairly similar in character. In contrast, oxygen just needs two more electrons to fill a shell of 8 electrons, so it is desperate for more electrons. Therefore oxygen – hydrogen and oxygen – carbon bonds are less symmetric than carbon – carbon, carbon – hydrogen or hydrogen – hydrogen bonds, which keeps the electrons spending more time near atoms that really want them.
Put a drop of water on a piece of wax paper or leaf, it looks like a sphere. A spherical water droplet is the electromagnetic force. Water molecules make hydrogen bonds with one another which in this context we refer to as cohesive forces. Thats why water has a very high surface tension (the paperclip floats because of surface tension). And thats why a water droplet remains spherical. So that it can maximize the number of hydrogen bonds that are formed and keep the system at the lowest energy possible. In this example, water curves due to the electromagnetic force, it therefor can curve under the influence of any force, including gravity.
This is an approximation that ignores other electromagnetic forces (such as hydrophilic surfaces), and strong gravity (the water droplet will not be anything close to spherical on the surface of a neutron star…)
But yes, Water definitely becomes more viscous with cooler temperature, and yes, it is driven by hydrogen bonding.
I have a masters in genetics but now I work in industry as a biochemist. I got pretty burned by academia and not sure if I want to go back for a PhD or not.
water molecules adheres to eachother through weak forces, hydrogen bonds. So it's not really just "seemingly random". They follow each other, and hold some other incredible properties, like expanding when freezing/solidifying as well as becoming less dense. No other material does that.
I think this is the big question, and if altruism exists, it's probably somewhere within this. We just don't know what consciousness is or the mechanisms behind it. We only know that certain areas of the brain become more active with certain behavior/activity. You have calcium running between synapses and neurons firing electric signals, but… what is happening when we're choosing a meal at a restaurant? What chemicals or ions are making those decisions? Or.. are "we"? Something that is beyond the physical, a "soul"? It's a taboo question in science. I was reading some stuff by this guy named Erik Hoel, and he's a neuroscientist in opposition to determinism. He has an interesting take, though he's really technical and hard to follow if you aren't very versed in physics or biology.
You're a biochemist: whats your take on this?
I've been reading a lot of discord on whether the dissolution or dissolving of salt & sugar in water is a physical reaction or a chemical one?
No bonds are broken when sugar is dissolved in water, when sugar is a solid crystal it is held together by intermolecular forces, because the intermolecular forces between sugar and water are stronger then those between sugar molecules, water can dissolve the sugar molecules exposed on the outside of the crystalline.
The dissolution of sugar into water is a physical change, its not a chemical change. If you dissolve a salt in water like sodium chloride you may consider that to be a chemical reaction as the salt is ionized into chloride and sodium ions.
NaCl(s) = H2O = Na*(aq) + Cl-(aq)
Because of hydration - if you had a transition metal (which can have water as a ligand) and when you have water as a ligand you would consider that to be a new chemical compound, at least if you're an inorganic chemist. Normally if we're talking about a chemical change we would call that a chemical reaction. But I think calling something a physical reaction isn't necessarily a useful thing to do.
Electrons are exchanged and atomic forces
in the first atomic shell are critical, all features
characteristic of chemical interactions. The strength of the chemical "bonds" involved are weaker than, say, most carbon-carbon bonds. However, if you consider the transformation of Manganese Chloride tetrahydate (a solid) to manganese chloride mono hydrate (a solid with a different crystal structure) a "chemical reaction," which I think most scientists do, then you should consider salt dissolution a "chemical reaction," as the atomic forces involved are extremely similar.
A change in "state of matter" is a purely
physical reaction. So when you boil salt water,
the water becomes vapor and the salt gets left
behind. So it doesn't seem like a chemical
reaction to begin with. Though there are some
physical reactions that involve some chemical
reactions as well.
Are not salts already ionized, just in a crystal
lattice? The electrons have already changed
atoms as part of the chemical reaction to create
the salt. In the case of sodium chloride, isn't
water just substituting its polar intermolecular
forces for ionic attraction in the crystal lattice?
Common salt (NaCI) is ionic in the solid state and in solution. what is changed is the atomic environments. The case of HCI (g) is different. The gas is covalent but the solution is ionic and the process should be counted as a chemical change. However, the statement "Electrons are exchanged and atomic forces in the first atomic shell are critical, all features characteristic of chemical interactions" is distilled nonsense for common solutions.
It depends on the type of bond that the water goes into with the salt in question. If it is a coordinative bond like in copper sulfate, I would classify as a chemical reaction since electrons are exchanged, which also gives it its blue color. If it is merely a
hydrogen bond like in sodium sulfate, it is not a
chemical reaction and the salt is simply physically dissolved like sugar would be. I can understand the distinction being drawn, but the reasoning seems odd to me because many hydrogen bonds are stronger than some co-ordinative bonds. Besides, in marginal cases I am more inclined to say that a
reaction is BOTH physical and chemical, rather
then attempting to find finer and finer delineations of either/or.
No electrons are exchanged in hydration of Cu ion in copper sulfate solution.
If you add a solute to a solution and it dissolves
and then reacts, there are two processes:
dissolution and reaction. Those are not the
same. Just because two chemicals may react,
doesn't mean they also didn't dissolve first. Metallic zinc dissolves in hydrochloric acid (a) is an irreversible chemical reaction and you cannot separate dissolution and reaction in this case.
A reaction is between different
molecules. When you put sodium (Na)
into hydrochloric acid (HCI) you get table salt
(NaCI) and hydrogen gas (H2). The equation
would be
2 HCI + 2 Na = 2 NaCI + H2
So in our case when we put table salt into water,
what exactly reacts with what and what's the
resulting stuff?
H20 + NaCI == H20 + NaCI
When the water evaporates, it's still H2O, just
vapor instead of liquid. That's just a physical
change of state. Where would the salt go?
That's how we actually extract salt from the
sea. Take salt water and let it evaporate in large
ponds. The salt would be left over (together with
any other solids which may have been dissolved
in the water).
A lot of substances become charged ions in water, so research on salts is applicable to a wide variety of substances (including most minerals). Second, dissolution and sedimentation is a major way that rocks move around on the earth surface, and that process often involves salts (minerals) dissolving in water. The behavior of these salts depends in a non-trivial way on temperature, pressure, and concentration of various salts. Almost all medication
and supplements are in salt form(magnesium
salts, amphetamine salts etc) and the way they
enter our bloodstream is by being dissolved in
blood (water). Its abit more complex than that when it comes to pharmaceuticals.. Solubility as it pertains to bioavailability plays a role certainly also equally as important is stability and crystalizability/storage and shelf life concerns. In the case of CNS drugs solubility in water probably decreases bioavailability and considering its basic amine is probably a mess to store/package, salt form for amphetamine was probably the wiser choice. I like 'chemical interaction' for ionization but I'm not sure about reaction.
I have a masters in genetics but now I work in industry as a biochemist. I got pretty burned by academia and not sure if I want to go back for a PhD or not.
water molecules adheres to eachother through weak forces, hydrogen bonds. So it's not really just "seemingly random". They follow each other, and hold some other incredible properties, like expanding when freezing/solidifying as well as becoming less dense. No other material does that.
I think this is the big question, and if altruism exists, it's probably somewhere within this. We just don't know what consciousness is or the mechanisms behind it. We only know that certain areas of the brain become more active with certain behavior/activity. You have calcium running between synapses and neurons firing electric signals, but… what is happening when we're choosing a meal at a restaurant? What chemicals or ions are making those decisions? Or.. are "we"? Something that is beyond the physical, a "soul"? It's a taboo question in science. I was reading some stuff by this guy named Erik Hoel, and he's a neuroscientist in opposition to determinism. He has an interesting take, though he's really technical and hard to follow if you aren't very versed in physics or biology.
Again, seemingly and it was also more of a metaphor.
To answer your questions, no, I have not that book but I'll add it to my list. Thanks! Secondly, I have heard of him but have not ready his work. I'll check it out. Thank you for sharing!
The uncertainty principle plus chaotic interactions ensure free will within one universe.
The fine details of neuroscience or psychology will be hard to predict from first principles, but the broad picture will be worked out.
Again, I don't know if anyone definitively knows one way or the other (currently). What is the evolutionary purpose behind art? Jewelry I understand. Status symbol. But beyond that, is it just a byproduct of sentience? I don't know. Attractive serves an evolutionary purpose. Bur what about beauty? When a dog sees a sunset, does it admire the beauty or simply feel comfort?
The human sole - an expression of mind, not brain, yes - but a supernatural, ethereal entity?
something that would fuse the material world to an ethereal netherworld like a collective consciousness of a biosphere? Its kind of a nice thought to think that there is an afterlife and a spirit world.
I think people have "aura" I guess which are distinct but I think that aura is just people seeing a manifestation of your subconscious whether it's in a corporal language that is so strong that it exudes a distinct emotion and personality or other less scientific and more kind of mystical thing. But overall I still think this so called aura or soul or whatever is called is either in the brain of an individual (as in being is subconscious) or being the result of a connection between brains of two different people but that might imply the "soul" of a person would vary depending on who's perceiving it and there constantly changing and evolving. It would be messy and complicated but things are complex so why not."
An example of soul would be my grandfather, and all the people he touched in his life that are still influenced by the way he lived, and that will in turn influence others.
I am not preoccupied with "why we are here" because in the omniverse sense the answer is "because we can be".
But I do pay attention to progress in understanding the process of how we got here (abiogenesis, evolution).
I have never found a testable prediction that my version of the multiverse makes that differs from the predictions that quantum mechanics makes. My version merely provides a simple, plausible explanation for:
wave function "collapse" upon observation, the need to have an observer for a given "reality" to exist, and spooky action at a distance.
fine-turing and the anthropic principle.
It also answers the physics question from an "exam" that I saw in my high school guidance counselor's office:
"explain the universe in 25 words or less, and give two examples". My answer is: "everything that can exist always exists, and in some universes you realize this".
(the biology question was something like "write down a complete, balanced chemical equation for life").
Everything that can exist always exists, and the set of all things that can exist should properly be called the Omniverse. However we do not know whether what can exist forms a continuum, in which case the multiverse is the same as the Omniverse, or whether existences cluster, in which case our local cluster is the multi-verse and the set of all clusters is the Omniverse (and there may be levels of hierarchy in between).
The multiverse theory I subscribe to is a different flavor than the classic "every observation causes a splitting" nonsense.
A multiverse solves the fine-tuning problem, and makes sense of quantum mechanics (both the apparent randomness, and the spooky action at a distance).
I definitely don't have all the answers. And I'm sure it will be quite a long time before we do.
how often does someone just walk up to u to help u out and u never asked. So yes I do believe it exists. These days the trait of empathy is discouraged out of the population, because if u have that trait u are going to have a harder time functioning in this system. People who lack empathy will be more successful in a system like this, they are far less sensitive, they view relationships as transactions and u as an object that either serves them or doesn't. If u cease to be of use to a low empathic person they just discard u like a broken appliance.
