Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Clones of original atoms?

Clones of original atoms?

missmendeleev - 22-10-2015 at 14:08

Today in my Grade 11 Biology class I learned about cloning. That got me thinking: what if diatomic elements, such as hydrogen or oxygen, are clones of just one of two resulting atoms?

DraconicAcid - 22-10-2015 at 14:17

Atoms are not cells. Yes, they both have nuclei, but that's the only resemblance.

aga - 22-10-2015 at 14:27

Please explain more what you mean.

hissingnoise - 23-10-2015 at 00:24

Indeed, the world could be made almost entirely of cloned atoms ─ copies of real atoms held in a secure vault somewhere ─ unfortunately we have have no way yet of knowing which ones are real and which are mere copies!

Pyrovus - 23-10-2015 at 01:13

Clones are when you have two biological organisms (which are as it happens, things made of atoms) that have the same genetic material. As such, you can't clone atoms, because if you did, before long you'd end up with mutated neutrinos, and we all know the sort of nonsense that results when that happens.

Praxichys - 23-10-2015 at 04:30

Quantum teleportation is very much like "cloning" particles. Essentially, it assigns the same quantum state to a new particle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation

_40279873_teleportation_info416.gif - 12kB

hissingnoise - 23-10-2015 at 05:26

Quote:

As such, you can't clone atoms, because if you did, before long you'd end up with mutated neutrinos, and we all know the sort of nonsense that results when that happens.

Waaay too serious!

Anyhoo, how do we know that atoms of the sixth element aren't just carbon-copies . . . ?

szuko03 - 23-10-2015 at 12:52

At least shes not afraid to try to bridge two ideas and ask questions about what she comes up with eventually that will make her a good scientist. If the personality and desire to learn are there all thats missing is time to learn.

Cloning refers to making a biological copy from cells that mature, atoms dont need to mature and grow and you dont clone inanimate objects. I swear i know the reason its just hard to convey!

Quote: Originally posted by Pyrovus

before long you'd end up with mutated neutrinos, and we all know the sort of nonsense that results when that happens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strangelet

Quote:

If the strange matter hypothesis is correct and its surface tension is larger than the aforementioned critical value, then a larger strangelet would be more stable than a smaller one. One speculation that has resulted from the idea is that a strangelet coming into contact with a lump of ordinary matter could convert the ordinary matter to strange matter.[14][15] This "ice-nine"-like disaster scenario is as follows: one strangelet hits a nucleus, catalyzing its immediate conversion to strange matter. This liberates energy, producing a larger, more stable strangelet, which in turn hits another nucleus, catalyzing its conversion to strange matter. In the end, all the nuclei of all the atoms of Earth are converted, and Earth is reduced to a hot, large lump of strange matter.

[Edited on 23-10-2015 by szuko03]

aga - 23-10-2015 at 13:17

Quote: Originally posted by missmendeleev

Today in my Grade 11 Biology class I learned about cloning. That got me thinking: what if diatomic elements, such as hydrogen or oxygen, are clones of just one of two resulting atoms?

Despite the deluge of 'this is really what a clone is' responses, i would like, if possible, to hear more from missmeleev on the thought processes that arrived at the OP.

So often Crucial leaps-of-thought leading to New and Unexplored phenomena are lost when an Idea is pronounced, then Leapt upon and trampled flat by know-it-alls.

OK. It may lead no-where.

How come this is not a Flat Earth anymore ?

Oh yes, now i remember.

[Edited on 23-10-2015 by aga]

missmendeleev - 24-10-2015 at 16:02

Quote: Originally posted by aga

Quote: Originally posted by missmendeleev

Today in my Grade 11 Biology class I learned about cloning. That got me thinking: what if diatomic elements, such as hydrogen or oxygen, are clones of just one of two resulting atoms?

Can you rephrase that? Not trying to be rude though.

From what I understand of what you wrote, I can tell you that cloning in biological terms is taking genetic material from one nucleus and placing it in another.

[Edited on 25-10-2015 by missmendeleev]

zed - 24-10-2015 at 16:27

Clones of what? Atoms? You insist on believing there is such a thing as an atom?

I keep telling everyone that there is nothing here.

It's all done with smoke and mirrors.

We live in a cleverly crafted virtual reality.

Pfft. Atoms indeed!

missmendeleev - 24-10-2015 at 16:30

Quote: Originally posted by zed

Clones of what? Atoms? You insist on believing there is such a thing as an atom?

I keep telling everyone that there is nothing here.

It's all done with smoke and mirrors.

We live in a cleverly crafted virtual reality.

Pfft. Atoms indeed!

From your post it seems like you believe there's no such thing as atoms.

blogfast25 - 24-10-2015 at 16:42

Quote: Originally posted by Praxichys

Quantum teleportation is very much like "cloning" particles. Essentially, it assigns the same quantum state to a new particle.

No, it isn't. For one, there's no duplication, you don't end up with a copy (clone).

And so far only information has been teleported, not material particles, let alone whole atoms.

aga - 24-10-2015 at 23:31

Quote: Originally posted by missmendeleev

cloning in biological terms is taking genetic material from one nucleus and placing it in another.

Transfer of genetic material occurs in a similar way in Nature (virii) and also by a simpler method in some plants, such as Dragon Fruit.

A piece breaks off, hits the ground and takes root.

The two plants are then physically separate and autonomous, yet genetically identical.

Quote:

clones of just one of two resulting atoms?

I was just wondering what you were imagining the 'atoms' to be - hopefully not just living entities with DNA.

Dr.Bob - 25-10-2015 at 14:44

How do you tell the good, Brand Name atoms from the cheap, cloned (or generic) atoms? Do they use substandard neutrons. or imported electrons?

zed - 26-10-2015 at 14:43

Huh? Do you mean like prion disease? Or, Ice 9 crystalization?

Wherein a couple of proto-atoms formed, and like seed nuclei, induced the rest of the unbridled energy/universal-will-to-become, to follow suit?

"Like....Hey! Look at us! It would be easier for your potential-oid massive-ness, to follow our example, than to think up something else! We've been failing at our attempts to construct an interesting universe, for a long time. Maybe this way, it will finally work."

Possibly so. Keeping in mind, that these are just clever little footnotes, in a massive volume of entertaining fiction.

[Edited on 26-10-2015 by zed]

DeIonizedPlasma - 26-10-2015 at 16:55

Quote: Originally posted by missmendeleev

Can you rephrase that? Not trying to be rude though.

It seems the issue here is that you think an atomic nucleus is the same as a cellular nucleus. Cells are quite small (A human red blood cell is about 9 micrometers across, or 0.0001 cm.), but atoms are much smaller still (A hydrogen atom is 0.000000005 cm across). A cell's nucleus can be thought of as a tiny organ for the cell, holding DNA which determines most of what the cell ends up doing. The nucleus of a cell is made up of millions upon millions of atoms all bonded in different ways. In an atom, the nucleus is just a grouping of protons and neutrons held together by the strong force. There are really no constituents that you can look at for data like you can in the nucleus beyond these, and they certainly can not be cloned or copied like in a cell. The two nuclei in this case are completely different and the only thing that is the same between them is the name, which was chosen because they are at the center of their respective construction. We may as well call the core of the earth a nucleus, but that does not mean we could clone the planet.

Little_Ghost_again - 26-10-2015 at 17:00

Quote: Originally posted by missmendeleev

Today in my Grade 11 Biology class I learned about cloning. That got me thinking: what if diatomic elements, such as hydrogen or oxygen, are clones of just one of two resulting atoms?

Welcome, dont let some of the more erm (funny??) responses put you off, there is actually good advice at times, but some piss taking as well.

Its good to be different, I too am different and pleased to be so! I hope you stick around its good to hear ideas outside the norm

ELRIC - 28-10-2015 at 11:54

missmendeleev,

First, I must say that i agree with little ghost again. Second, you are in the midst of some of the

greatest minds involved in chemistry when you registered to this forum. I am not one of those.

What has shocked me is that nobody has mentioned the Law of Conservation of Mass. Maybee

i misunderstood what you were trying to say, but if im not, you should ask yourself one question.

How can one atom" create another ".

aga - 28-10-2015 at 12:53

That raises the Dread Question : how was it all created in the first place (if there ever is/was/will be such a thing)

Yes, one 'atom' could be seen to Create another particle, including another atom, however that's just what would be Observed by us monkeys.

The mechanism behind those phenomenon are still beyond our grasp.

Fact (dispute if any evidence is known) :-

All of modern understanding is based on a set of monkey-senses, of which Time is the most fundamental, and the most limiting.

zed - 28-10-2015 at 14:18

Ummmm. Seems to me, it is the "Law of Conservation of Mass (and energy)".

And, within our current situation it seems to be valid. But, we are talking about the time of the non-universe, as it was then. No, real Universe yet, and No rules!

Some folks contend, that many proto-universes may have attempted to form, but because they weren't constituted correctly, they failed.

Had to be just the right components, put together with the right rules, or no take-off.

Herein the numbers crunchers, speculate on why the strength of gravity, in our universe, is what it is. And, come to the conclusion that if it were stronger or weaker, our piece of turf would have either instantly vaporized, or re-crunched into nothingness. Likewise, other factors.

A large, non-volume of nothing-ness....abruptly polarizing into a supremely potent volume of something-ness, is a highly unlikely event.... Outrageous, highly unlikely, and damned nearly impossible. In math, nearly impossible, and extremely unlikely event....translate to.....must happen eventually.

aga - 28-10-2015 at 14:34

Naturally this is all clear and obvious in the agaspacian model of boozophysics.

Edit:

Progress !

I've managed to eliminate the need for a Giant HyperHampster in order to explain how Time and X relate to each other.

[Edited on 28-10-2015 by aga]

ELRIC - 28-10-2015 at 21:09

Not to mention a reference

you kinda hinted at maybe there is a new

law; one in which i am unaware of. Do you jest? I mean no offense,

but am only curious. What you and Blog have come to conclude in the

quantum thread, who knows, right?

aga - 29-10-2015 at 09:07

Everyone should know already !

My nascent hypothesis is basically the ravings of a crazed and drunken mind.

Blogfast25's Quantum lessons are the real deal.

Darkstar - 31-10-2015 at 04:38

Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise

Indeed, the world could be made almost entirely of cloned atoms ─ copies of real atoms held in a secure vault somewhere ─ unfortunately we have have no way yet of knowing which ones are real and which are mere copies!

Back in the 1940s, John Wheeler actually proposed that the reason all electrons have the same charge and mass is because there's really only one electron in the universe, and all electrons are simply manifestations of the same entity propagating through time.

aga - 31-10-2015 at 06:51

Now that is interesting.

The agaspace nonsense i've been musing on has one conclusion where there is just 1 extremly energetic particle making up the entirety of all matter, energy and time.

Astonishing that an amateur drunkard and a theoretical physicist can arrive at anywhere near the same idea.

Edit :-

I was rather hoping the OP had reached a similar conclusion which is the reason i saw it as interesting in the first place.

Unfortunately it was not so.

[Edited on 31-10-2015 by aga]

Pyrovus - 31-10-2015 at 06:53

The only problem with that idea was that it required there to be an equal number of positrons (ie the electron moving backwards in time) in order for it to work.

aga - 31-10-2015 at 08:37

Well, i'm not sure at all about any of it.

The whole notion started by trying to view reality from a stand point where Time is nothing more than One of the many dimensions that a particle 'expresses', instead of viewing Time as the fixed-and-constantly-flowing reference for all observations.

Our evolution naturally tends to bias us towards thinking of things in the X,Y,Z dimensions with Time as the fixed reference.

This works wonderfully well for avoiding lions and finding fruits, however that perceptive framework is inherently self-limiting.

zed - 31-10-2015 at 14:21

Then, you could take the viewpoint, that the physical? universe we perceive, seems to be about 13 feet high. The same height as the Archangel Metatron. It is actually constituted, by the overlapping of 4 (or possibly more) simpler universes, or sub-universes, called.....A 1 to A 10, Atziluth, Briah, Yetzirah, and Assiah,

[Edited on 31-10-2015 by zed]

aga - 31-10-2015 at 14:34

B'ware !

Dagon could very well take a different view.

Don't listen to Azrael : he's more of a drunkard than i am.

Edit:

My kind eschew drinking in the daytime.

Even Vampires detest DayDrinkers.

[Edited on 31-10-2015 by aga]

Darkstar - 31-10-2015 at 15:31

Quote: Originally posted by Pyrovus

The only problem with that idea was that it required there to be an equal number of positrons (ie the electron moving backwards in time) in order for it to work.

Which is exactly what Feynman said to Wheeler when he first suggested the possibility of a one-electron universe. But Wheeler's response was that the reason there appears to be more electrons than positrons in the universe is because the positrons are hidden inside protons. And oddly enough, it was also this very conversation that gave Feynman the idea that positrons are just electrons moving backwards in time to begin with.

aga - 31-10-2015 at 15:51

They were both 'right' in that the electron and positron are expressions of the same thing just with a different sign in the electrical dimension.

That affects their expression in the time dimension, although possibly not with a simple -ve time relationship.

They could just be zero Volume and also Heavier instead at the same time point.