Sentences with phrase «not as particles»

String theory purports to describe all the elementary components of matter and energy not as particles but as vanishingly small vibrating strings.

However, in other respects they turned out to function not as particles but more like waves.

Not exact matches

The casual, hourlong discussion veers from such topics as determinism and the role of the observer (get ready to reopen the catbox), why «the God particle» is an inane name for Higgs boson, and why quantum mechanics does not make faith easier, but does make pure materialism less tenable.

We have strict conservation of energy, not a strict conservation of matter... as in «matter can neither be created nor destroyed (because it can in particle annihilation)».

One virus - particle doesn't change color, but as it procreates mutations in that process can make the resulting child - virus differ from the parent - virus, so that the child - virus is capable of infecting a human as well as the original host thereby opening the possibility for a new human disease.

The real problem was that these «particles» did not behave as particles should.

At most simple levels of material synthesis, individual nodes of organization like subatomic particles are only determinate as functions within a bigger framework, so it is perhaps not surprising that their behaviour can only be expressed in terms of statistical probability.

Thus, x may be relatively well defined but not p or vice-versa, depending on the particular experimental arrangements, such as the microscope and the particles that are used.

Not even in the examples you cited: «quantum phenomena... Radioactive decay, formation of particle pairs in a vacuum, etc.» can be described as «having the quality of being within themselves.»

= > Please do not take offense as it is not you but that silly particle connected somehow to that organic blob you call a head that I take issue with.

The particle and wave models themselves can not he regarded as simply descriptive of reality, but when taken together in this complicated way they can be regarded as giving us knowledge of the real world.5

In consequence, with such models as their objective, physicists frequently formulate the content of quantum mechanics in the language of classically conceived particles and waves, because of certain analogies between the formal structures of classical and quantum mechanics... Accordingly, although a satisfactory uniformly complete interpretation of quantum mechanics based on a single model can not be given, the theory can be satisfactorily interpreted for each concrete experimental situation to which the theory is applied.2

This view comes very near to my own conception; however, it differs, because Schlick also writes (p. 293): «Consciousness can not be the essence of the brain particles for they are present even when consciousness is absent, as in death or sleep.»

The elementary particles of physics (insofar as they are concrete and not mental constructs) are «fields of energy,» «happenings,» or «energy events».

First: the basic building - blocks of the universe can not be neatly classified as either waves or particles in the traditional sense.

I personlly do believe in creation, as well as the big bang, and I don't see how discovering the higgs boson particle will disprove religion at all.

Might not the reason lie in the apparent convenience of such a fundamental particle to reductionist philosophers such as Richard Dawkins.

It may be that, as Carl von Weiszaecker (1968) has boldly suggested, since the concept of a particle itself is just the description of a connection which exists between phenomena, there may, if we are prepared to jump into strict metaphysical language, be no reason why what we call «matter» should not in fact be «spirit.»

Isn't it about things that can be physically measured, such as particles and forces?

Confined within the geometrically restricted surface of the globe, which is steadily reduced as their own radius of activity increases, the human particles do not merely multiply in numbers at an increasing rate, but through contact with one another automatically develop around themselves an ever denser tangle of economic and social relationships.

For Whitehead, the universe is not made of bits of stuff that can be understood as particles or atoms.

Some of their properties are intelligible from a substantialist perspective, so that they can be called «particles,» but others are not, so that for some purposes they must be viewed as waves without having a substrate that can be understood to «wave.»

Within black holes there may well be a gravimetric consistency whereby atomic particles release energy via electron dispersal ratios giving rise to atoms flying apart at near light speeds from said release of electrons energy dispersal rates and not via «anti-particles» as Steve Hawking suggests.

As the universe first influences the percipient subject it is not yet parceled out into distinct objects, chunks of matter, particles or any other merely spatially defined phenomena.

This is certain, that it must proceed from a cause that penetrates to the very centres of the sun and planets, without suffering the least diminution of its force; that operates not according to the quantity of the surfaces of the particles upon which it acts (as mechanical causes use to do), but according to the quantity of the solid matter which they contain, and propagates its virtue on all sides to immense distances, decreasing always as the inverse square of the distances....

Although Locke is pessimistic with regard to what we can actually know about these particles, believing as he does that we will always be in «incurable ignorance about them since we can not know the minute parts of matter nor the manner of their interaction, he thinks that at least in principle it is possible to discover the causes of natural events.

The impetus was a physical character attributed to the mass - particle itself, and the measure of mass was used as n measure of the impetus corresponding to a given velocity.

If man's loving worship of God were as autonomously unavoidable as the conceptual innovation in the vibration of an elementary particle, it would not have the same experienced value for God as if it were voluntary love.

This oscillatory character may be necessary, but it is of course not a sufficient condition for living organisms, as distinct from the fundamental particles studied in physics.

Even weather control is not as incredible as it sounds, for there is a delicate energy balance which can be changed by thin films on lakes and ice fields, or by air - borne particles.

For if the sub-atomic constituents are not particles, little parts, i.e., little material bodies, but are nevertheless implicitly conceived as having bodily characteristics, in particular as having as a basic feature that of locomotion, change of place, it would not be surprising if difficulties ensue.

But, as Bohm points out, such a position can not stand up to critical analysis, for the molecules studied by biologists in living organisms are constituted of electrons, protons and other such particles, from which it must follow that they too are capable of behaving in ways that can not be described in terms of mechanical concepts.

Surely you're not so arrogant as to think you understand particle physics and biology better than all the scientists in the world.

There is a stability at all these levels, yet not as secure as the association of atoms in molecules and elementary particles in atoms.

Modern physics supports us in our proposal that the constituents of nature are not the lifeless particles that we tend to imagine as tiny versions of inert chunks of matter.

When science has gained a more perfect picture of the spatio - temporal patterns exhibited by the life and adventures of a particle, including perhaps the evolution of the cosmos from a stage in which it did not contain this particle, and into one in which it will no longer contain it, then perhaps speculation as to an inner life of the particle.

He is trying to get to natural units which are not instantaneous, because, as we said, he was gunning for what he saw as the materialist notion of particles of matter at an instant and at a point in space.

We still don't know something as simple as whether light consists of waves or particles.

It is clear enough that the spin values dealt with in Stapp's proof are not intended as hypothetical characteristics of particles; but, taken as a class, they are not all possible experimental spin values either.

In other words, the possible spin values (with respect to a given axis) for one member of a pair of until - recently interacting particles are not the same in case the spin of the second member of the pair is to be measured along one axis as they would be if the spin of the second particle were to be measured along another axis — even if the selection of the axis for the second particle can be made after the two particles have ceased interacting.

And that law supports and is evidence for the Theory of gravity, which is a larger, umbrella explanation of gravity itself (what it is, what form the force takes — wave or particle, why gravity has that specific strength and not some other, its role as a fundamental force of nature and how it interacts with other forces, etc).

Bell's Theorem establishes a provocative, and experimentally verified relationship, such as, polarization, between two particles that exists even though signals between them at the speed of light are not possible.

The largest Nation in existence at its time Rome, the very same that put him to the cross later Bowed to him... Thousands witnessed his Miracles and converted on the spot... and this is all recorded historically... unlike many religions around the globe, this was witnessed and recorded... yet you refuse to believe it... But you are so quick to jump on the bandwagon and believe what a scientist postulated... a theory that requires as much if not more faith to believe in than Any religion... A theory that if you believe... you must throw out the natural laws of Physics...... But you call me stupid for believing in God... Wow... My bad i guess i should believe in Magical particles that always existed that randomly exploded and caused everything to exist....

In the process, the model may be altered considerably; we saw that the model of gas particles came to include features such as mutual attraction which are not found at all in billiard balls.

Thus parallels between the brightness of light and the loudness of sound, and between the colour of light and the pitch of sound, gave the clues for applying a wave theory to light when a wave theory of sound was already familiar.19 As Achinstein points out, physical similarities in some features of a pair of situations provide grounds for the plausibility of investigating possible similarities in other features.20 More typically, however, the substantive analogy is not observed but postulated, as when the physical properties of inertia and elasticity were attributed to the unobservable gas particleAs Achinstein points out, physical similarities in some features of a pair of situations provide grounds for the plausibility of investigating possible similarities in other features.20 More typically, however, the substantive analogy is not observed but postulated, as when the physical properties of inertia and elasticity were attributed to the unobservable gas particleas when the physical properties of inertia and elasticity were attributed to the unobservable gas particles.

This method won't work when a smooth, creamy texture or a uniform light color is desired; the flax seed particles will make soft ingredients such as frostings and sauces grainy and light colored baked items will have golden flecks.

When contaminants have the same colour as the good material then optical sorting will not work and additionally metal particles enclosed in products, dark stones in black pepper, stones that are coloured red by red paprika, or green glass fragments in green dried herbs, are all examples of contaminants that are invisible to optical colour sorting machines, but are detected by the RAYCON BULK system.

And a standard juicer is not much more useful, as the fast - spinning screen cuts the fruit into tiny bits and aerates these particles, leaving lots of foam, and juice with less flavor.

Until that happens, our dishwashers aren't working as well because those phosphates actually helped prevent food and other chemical particles from reattaching to everything inside the dishwasher.

And as if two entangled particles aren't spooky enough, some researchers are now thinking about what it means for three, 10 or even thousands of particles to be entangled.