Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: ImaFungi
From what I have seen, man is not to careful, nor does he care very much, how much he is describing or knows reality, so that turns me off extremely.

From what I have witnessed, man is extremely careful, but the answers are extremely complex, and that is exactly how it is.

What we know and observe for these interactions is understood from extremely high numbers of collisions. Particle accelerators do not operate on a single shot basis, one particle by one particle. The focusing required and the accuracy of the 'shooting' is just not possible. So the accelerator will produce bunches, consisting of many many particles. The only one I can think of a number off hand because I worked with the experiment. The T2K beam produces bunches of around 10^14 protons, and smacks them into a fixed graphite target.

Now in a regular accelerator and collider it is smaller but you get the picture.

Each event is then reconstructed based upon the passage of the resulting particles through a whole suite of detector systems. This detector is often magnetized also. In the thought experiment you talk about what you would see in the case of a e+ e- machine is the following when producing a muon anti mion pair.

two tracks, back to back, transverse to the beam line, with opposite curvature in the inner tracker, with small deposits of energy throughout the whole detector suite that make up a line following the curvature as observe by the inner tracker, if the whole of the detector is magnetized.

As the energy of each electron wont be perfectly the same, any net imbalance in the momentum will result in a forward or backward projection of the outgoing particles. The tracker tells you with very high accuracy how many particles have been produce at the interaction point, and the curvature gives you an indication of the momentum and the charge.

Behind the tracker you typically have two Calorimeters, the first one is designed to stop particles that interact strongly electromagnetically, and the second is to stop Hadronic particles. The muon will pass through both of these depositing only a very small amount of energy.

Finally you have a muon range detector which will have signal throughout as the muon passes straight through.

This happens every single time the e- e+ machine produces a muon muon pair. Every time. BUT a muon anti muon is not the only possibility.

It is the same for other particles produced, we observe similar types and classes of events that each mean their own thing. Now the models we have take this data and allow you to predict with fairly high accuracy what should happen in a particle accelerator. If you want to play around with this, you can simulate it yourself. Look up GEANT4, download it, compile it and get the databases it is all free.

What we have is an absolute mountain of data to support the theories... explaining it away or saying it is irrelevant is to say a cat is a dog in exactly my poor analogy above

originally posted by: Nochzwei
There is no circle to begin with. Sapce crafts and celestial bodies all travel in a straight line as I have said earlier. Go ahd and re-read and ponder over all my posts on this subject and you will have your answer

The Earth isn't a perfect sphere and probably no orbit is a perfect circle, they are at least somewhat elliptical.

But to simplify the discussion, let's call the Earth spherical, and let's say the spacecraft maintains a fixed distance above the surface of the Earth which would make the orbit circular.

You're saying that this circle is actually a straight line? I'm sorry but that sounds like nonsense.

The spacecraft is TRYING to go in a straight line due to inertia, but gravity is preventing it from doing so, therefore it's not going in a straight line (relativity aside which you deny anyway).

originally posted by: ImaFungi
The reason I dont want to read Feynman lectures, is because I dont know math at all, nor want to know it,

I dont care about mans physics, I only care about reality, and how well mans physics can express it.

If you don't want to do any work to understand, you won't get far, and recognize that your ignorance is your own doing when you repeatedly fail to understand answers which are available and which are explained to you.

Anything that can possibly occur in reality I can visualize, even if abstractions need to take place, I can still comprehend the generalities and principles, via scaling. You may not need to visualize in your head each of the quadrillion particles being shot out of a rockets thruster to comprehend the principle behind the activity.

I dont want to learn the math, because if you cant visualize in your head, imagery of how reality exists and what is going on, then there is no point in my learning the math, because that visual, imagery comprehension, is all I am after, that is how truth needs to be seen, to know that you are seeing and knowing truth.

Visualization works much of the time to understand physics but not all of it.

The reason I suggest the Feynman lectures is that they are the best introduction to the physical reasoning of any elementary textbook, despite being less than ideal for somebody who actually needs to solve problem sets and develop mathematical techniques. They have less math and more physics and intuition in them.

If you dont visually see in your head, the details of these fundamental activities with EM field, EM wave, electron, what mass, and energy, and matter, means and how it relates to the concept of time, and momentum, if you dont see the imagery of how reality must be reality, in your mind, then you do not know.

You still have to learn it.

Something. Nothing.

Is there a difference between these two words, when attempted to be used as words, to point to real conceptual real things that are aspects of reality.

"something" and "nothing" is not physics. It's naive unexamined linguistics combined with naive unexamined philosophy. Human language maps very poorly onto physical law. "visual diagrams" map OK, mathematics maps best.

Imagine the highest perspective of reality, if we paused reality, and can zoom out indefinitely, lets imagine eventually we reach a point, where if we were to continue to zoom out, we would just see more and more black surrounding 'the totality of all things'.

Ok, are you able to do this? For fun, for experiment? Zoom out, of our solar system, out of our solar systems neighborhood, out of our galaxy, out of our galaxies neighborhood, out of the universe, if there is a multi verse, now we are out of our universe, we see some universes in our neighborhood etc. etc.......

We zoom all the way, out, and see all the universes, surrounded by black. There is no 'stuff' beyond the totality of stuff we can say...lets say.

Under this impression. Would you agree that there is, THAT WHICH IS.... ANd then also.....flsdjflkdsjfksdjfljsd NOTHING!QK:WJME:KJK

JSK

AMS

Nothing is nothing is nothing is nothing.... if this symbol 0 could be used to represent nothing it would be 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing.

I am the walrus,
goo goo ga joob?

Something!>!>!>!>!!>!>!>! is DIFFERENT THEN NOTHING!!!!! ABSOLUTELY!L!:!!:K!:!K:!K the biggest most primal most obvious distinction that can be made.

and so what? Sure, I happen to like being in a universe, because then I can get coffee.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Hey ImaFungi, I will not answer any of your question here, but I have 3 short videos for you.

the first one is the standard particle model, jut to give you rough picture how it is believed to be


the second is the muon detection


the third one is ghost detection



non of this videos satisfy me, but hey, we live in a strange world, right ?
Full of mysteries and believes

originally posted by: [post=18338338]Arbitrageur
You're saying that this circle is actually a straight line? I'm sorry but that sounds like nonsense.

Lol, your understanding has taken a leave of you. Sounds nonsense does not make it so.
Space crafts frame of ref is what matters and in it, it is going in a straight line.
Read my replies to solvent green and ponder and you will have your answer.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur


You're saying that this circle is actually a straight line? I'm sorry but that sounds like nonsense.

The spacecraft is TRYING to go in a straight line due to inertia, but gravity is preventing it from doing so, therefore it's not going in a straight line (relativity aside which you deny anyway).

That's what I was trying to get asked when I asked him my question about Newton's Cannon:



He responded that all three cannonballs are actually going in straight lines, even though the shape of the trajectory is defined by gravity AND the cannonball's initial velocity.

So if the cannon had a much greater velocity than the three shown, and it takes a straight path away from Earth, with enough velocity for the path to be virtually unaffected by the Earth's gravity, then is THAT also a straight line path.

I mean, jeez -- how many straight lines are there? It seem no matter what I do to the cannonball (throw hard, throw soft, drop, toss, roll, shoot up, shoot down, shoot slow, shoot fast, etc, etc.) that every path is a straight path. That's a lot of straight paths (in fact, infinitely many).

Why would the initial velocity of the ball or the initial direction of the ball be such an intrinsic aspect of the nature of the universe (according to you)?

You need to explain that one. If you can't explain it, then you don't understand what you are talking about.


It's more likely that the reason for the path is the balance of the force of gravity and the force of the cannonball out of the cannon. The equilibrium between the velocity of the ball and the force of gravity is what defines the shape of the path....

...An equilibrium between the angular velocity of an orbiting astronaut and the force of gravity is what defines the astronaut's free-fall orbit. Just because this equilibrium means the astronaut feels no force as he falls, that doesn't mean the orbit is a straight line. It simply means to forces are in equilibrium, thus he doesn't feel those forces.

a reply to: ErosA433

Ok thank you.

Have you noticed maybe the reason I havent been attempting to discuss interactions of 10^14 particles, is because I am only wondering the fundamental principle behind the nature of this interaction you have brought up, in which you can result with more rest mass then you started with. Have you noticed that, in part is what my line of questioning has been attempting to grasp. How, in what way, in what meaning, rest mass can be created from momentum. Can you tell me 'from where' 'from what' the resulting additional rest mass comes from. Do you know, that I know you will say it comes from the original rest masses momentum? Do you know, I will then ask, what does that mean, how, what, how does mass come from momentum, in a not relativistic way? I understand the concept of relativistic mass.

And then in another post you were trying to tell me that rest mass is not a measurement purely of matter? If a fundamental particle meaning it has no substructure, meaning it at its most fundamental is matter, isnt the rest mass the measurement of its purest material essence? An attempt to measure the quantity of matter almost? Or does rest mass take into account things like how the matter EMly interacts and such?

So the electron is matter. The electron, which is matter, has a rest mass. What is the energy factor that goes into calculating a regular electrons rest mass? What is the energy component.

Because you are telling me, there is an energy component in the resulting rest mass. An energy component which can turn into rest mass. I am wondering what kind of energy component this is. What is the meaning of this energy component. Is it EM energy, is it gravity energy, is it virtual particle energy. What is the meaning of saying, the new rest mass 'comes from momentum'.

Arb is saying relativistic mass isnt real, you seem to be saying, what we are attempting to discuss is purely an example of the super realness of relativistic mass. That is, a rest mass can increase, purely by accelerating it.

Which is why I ask, is a muon, merely, an accelerated rest mass, measured as a relativistic mass. You an accelerate an electron and you can measure its rest mass, because im sure you know of other signatures an electron would leave, so when you see those, even if you detect a large mass, you posit you have detected the relativistic mass of an electron, because the signatures. When you detect a relativistic mass greater then is possible for an electron to have, but it displays electron signatures, you say this is a muon. You calculate, if its relativistic mass is this much, and the system gave this particle this much energy, its rest mass must be this, which is much greater then the electrons rest mass, thus, new electron like particle, muon, but we didnt start with a muon.

Do you understand all I am asking, is what final rest mass, is 'made of', give me some theory, as to where it comes from. If you say 'from the vacuum energy', can you expand a little on what this concept and theory means, because this is the word energy again, which if we are honest, refers to 'matter moving'. If I am wrong, please tell me more exactly what energy refers to in this case, especially this case of vacuum energy, which may be your answer, as to where additional rest mass can be retrieved from...some frickin how.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: ErosA433
Which is why I ask, is a muon, merely, an accelerated rest mass, measured as a relativistic mass. You an accelerate an electron and you can measure its rest mass, because im sure you know of other signatures an electron would leave, so when you see those, even if you detect a large mass, you posit you have detected the relativistic mass of an electron, because the signatures. When you detect a relativistic mass greater then is possible for an electron to have, but it displays electron signatures, you say this is a muon. You calculate, if its relativistic mass is this much, and the system gave this particle this much energy, its rest mass must be this, which is much greater then the electrons rest mass, thus, new electron like particle, muon, but we didnt start with a muon.

So this is where i was going in one of my earlier posts.

If you have a electron, and you accelerate it, give it 1 GeV and aim it at a calorimeter, say in this instance it is a lead sampling calorimeter, that is layers of lead sandwiched between layers of detector material. What happens is that the electron will penetrate into the first layer, deposit a track of ionization, and then it will 'convert' What this means is that it will interact directly with another electron in the material and the result is an electromagnetic shower. You produce many scattered electrons, gammas and positrons that pass through the layers until the energy of each component is below the interaction energy to continue the shower.

This effect is the same for a 1 GeV gamma, which will actually penetrate a little further than the electron, but will produce an identical shower.

The muon at 1 GeV will however not do the same, it will leave a single ionisation track through the detector, it might scatter a few electrons and loose a bit of energy, but it will not produce a shower in the same way.

Why? Well because the muon is a different particle to an electron, and the interaction strength between electron and electron is greater than that of an electron and a muon. This is what we observe, so this higher energy particle, remains the same species if it is at rest, or if it is relativistic.

It is also possible to study the formation of 'muonic' atoms, in which the muon can form a stable orbit around an atomic nucleus, that is stable until the muon decays

a reply to: mbkennel

This is a train of thought that is important to me you have neglected, there are two posts in this link I would much appreciate your addressing: ImaFungi


As to that prior post, that was merely my attempt to prove to you the most fundamental, obvious, beyond axiomatic, beyond logical, pure logical, pure physical, pure truth, absolute perfect statement that can be made. And you seem to have trouble with it, or wish to ignore it? That entire post, was an attempt to stress the significance of that point, to then further on a logical argument. You failed to grasp the contents of that post, and significance, which his the simplest, basic, most important and obvious thing, especially for any physicists or baby to understand and know.

The terms something and nothing, I dont know why you attempt to attack, we have mainly been using words in these discussions, and now you have a problem with these two. What about 1 and 0. Can 0 not represent nothing? Or will you be one of those worst people, that say 'well nothing must be something, because if you can think about it, its something tehehehe', do you even understand why that argument and therefore those people are the worst?

Please, answer the line of questioning in that link to you. And consider if you are brave enough to answer honestly, and accept the first axiom of my line of questioning, regarding something or nothing.

"It's naive unexamined linguistics combined with naive unexamined philosophy"


bhahahahahhfjsdhffhsdsdfkkjsdfjksdfjkfsdjks


HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH

WHATTTTTTT

something equals postive numbers lslkfjksf YOuuuuu!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Something + 1234567891011211314151617181912939395495959595969688594958585\\

Nothing 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

These are representations!!!

Your failures to comprehend this is extremely telling! you can not visualize these logical purely truthful concepts? There is obviously, truthfully, absolutely, in reality, in physics, in truth, in truth, the distinction between "that which fricking exists and is something' and 'flksdjfklsjlfsdlfjsfkljs nothing nothing everything else, which is non else''

There is 'the totality of all things, which change, which is time' and 'that which is not/.....meaning that besides the totality of all things,, which is non things....which is not....which is not thing....which is nothing....which has no effect....which has no....which is no...... nothing........ no energy...no particles... no matter... no fields.... I am merely making an obvious logical and physical distinction, between all energy and matter and fields and particles and their collection and collective and waves and matter and force..... and all that potential space if it even exists... even if the space doesnt exist.... that is what I am saying, it doesnt exist, its non existence, its non stuff,,, its non quality and quantity... its non non non non non non no no no no no no thing nothing nothing nothing 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

a reply to: ErosA433

You completely ignored the main essence of my questions.

I am only wondering, where the additional rest mass to create a muon comes from.


I am wondering firstly, what rest mass is the measurement of.

And then, 'what' turns into the additional rest mass.

originally posted by: [post=18338905]Soylent Green Is People
You need to explain that one. If you can't explain it, then you don't understand what you are talking about.

...An equilibrium between the angular velocity of an orbiting astronaut and the force of gravity is what defines the astronaut's free-fall orbit.

On the contrary, I perfectly know wt I am on about.
I'll give you a cue : frame of ref.
There is no angular vel , just a vertical free fall. Did you read my replies or ponder at all. I guess not
Awww.... forget it, it's beyond your and arb's understanding.

a reply to: ImaFungi

It is a circular argument, in the standard model at an interaction point, in this case either a gamma is exchanged, or a Z boson. It is a conversion of the mass and or the momentum, into a mass less particle(the gamma) or a virtual massive particle (the Z), which has energy/momentum, and then the spontaneous production of the new particle within the time allowed by the uncertainty principle. Why? Well I cannot offer you a good answer right now. (Can of worms opened and falls to the floor... waiting for the "OH you dont know anything crowd to chirp in")

I'd postulate that each of these particles represent stabilities in a quantum field, such that once excited, if that excitation has the correct energy, there is a possibility of producing a particle assuming it not otherwise violating any conservation laws. That is NOT to say it is an ether like process.

I cannot say "Oh it is some form of goop that everything is made out of" because we really don't know. Mass in fundamental particles appears to be something intrinsic, Mass on none fundamental particles seems to be an interactive property between intrinsic particles with mass.

Your questions are good ImaFungi, but often they don't have an answer because we simply do not know yet. We have theories that have allowed us to take what we observe and write down sets of rules to predict what happens for other interactions. We have it in excruciating detail and accuracy. Is mass a physical thing? or an interactive thing? It appears interactive from the higgs mechanism, but it isn't quite as simple as that.

What makes each particle exist at the mass they have and the energy scale they are observed? This too is unknown. In the theory we use creation operators.... but that is just math

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Hey mate, gravity as such has nothing to do with magnetism of any sort. They are completely different entities not linked in any way shape or form.

a reply to: cloaked4u

why does a compass point to magnetic north ? Magnetics and the actual motion spin of an abject in space maybe creates gravity. What about static electricity. Just before you get struck by lightning your hair stands up. How do i know. because me and another person were walking up the driveway to watch a storm and just before the lightnign struck, all my hair stood up. Then the lightning struck, then the big bang rumble, then the flying orbs around the tree. The static electricity causes things to float. Rubbing a balloon experiment. Maybe the same concept. Is this not somewhat magnetic when earth has two poles. A north and a south. Does a magnet not have a north and a south pole. Does not a static electrified balloon have a north and a south. Check it with a compass. IT does. I am talking about this pole thing. I am not sure if it is quite related to magnatism or maybe it just creates it's own form of magnatism who knows. I am quite sure that there is a relationship between magnatism and static charges. Even a van der graph can make things float. Your hair stands up. and you can make other things float. Today they can suspend, float frogs in the air without harming them in a magnetic field. SO you cain't say that gravity has nothing to do with magnatism of any sort. If this is true then explain why the frog floats in mid air. We can see that the moon doesn't spin and still it has a slight gravity. Maybe because of static charges present on the moon. I would love to see a statically charged van der graph and the effects of no gravity on people who are next to it. I bet they would get pushed away from it. This would also help in aiding in the particles hitting the space station. They would be repelled away from it. I am also somewhat confident that a van der graph can repell forms of sun's ray's. Tho i do not have the equipment to test such things. I appreciate the input. Thanks.

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: [post=18338905]Soylent Green Is People
You need to explain that one. If you can't explain it, then you don't understand what you are talking about.

...An equilibrium between the angular velocity of an orbiting astronaut and the force of gravity is what defines the astronaut's free-fall orbit.

On the contrary, I perfectly know wt I am on about.
I'll give you a cue : frame of ref.
There is no angular vel , just a vertical free fall. Did you read my replies or ponder at all. I guess not
Awww.... forget it, it's beyond your and arb's understanding.

I understand the concept of frames of reference from a relativistic standpoint, but that cannot be applied here.

Let's go back to my earlier question about the long piece of lumber cantilevering off of a ledge...:

If I were to apply your same argument that all of Newton's cannonballs are traveling in a straight line, no matter what their initial velocity of initial direction is, then (using your logic) you would seem to want to also say that a cantilevered board that is bending due to gravity is not really bent, but is straight. No matter if I use a stronger board (less bend) or a thinner board (more bend) or if I point the board at an 85 degree angle up from horizontal (less bend)...EVERY ONE of those boards being bent by gravity would in fact be straight (according to you).

That would mean that the thickness of the board would be an intrinsic property of the universe -- considering how it is intrinsically involved in the bend of the board, or whether the board was mahogany (stiff) or balsa (pliable) is also an intrinsic property of the universe -- considering how the stiffness is involved in the bend (you say straightness) of the board.

Like I said, I understand the relativistic view of the universe and frames of reference, but you need to explain how YOU are applying that idea to the velocity of a cannonball and the stiffness of a piece of lumber.

Lol log is a bad example , bending stresses and fixing moments.
This post www.abovetopsecret.com... should suffice for the entire argument.
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

a reply to: ErosA433
as you said yourself...

...We have theories that have allowed us to take what we observe and write down sets of rules to predict what happens for other interactions. We have it in excruciating detail and accuracy....

so I would like to come back to your explanation on electron gamma muon detectors

If you have a electron, and you accelerate it, give it 1 GeV and aim it at a calorimeter, say in this instance it is a lead sampling calorimeter, that is layers of lead sandwiched between layers of detector material. What happens is that the electron will penetrate into the first layer, deposit a track of ionization, and then it will 'convert' What this means is that it will interact directly with another electron in the material and the result is an electromagnetic shower. You produce many scattered electrons, gammas and positrons that pass through the layers until the energy of each component is below the interaction energy to continue the shower.

This effect is the same for a 1 GeV gamma, which will actually penetrate a little further than the electron, but will produce an identical shower.

this is straight forward as explained...

The muon at 1 GeV will however not do the same, it will leave a single ionisation track through the detector, it might scatter a few electrons and loose a bit of energy, but it will not produce a shower in the same way. Why? Well because the muon is a different particle to an electron, and the interaction strength between electron and electron is greater than that of an electron and a muon....

so what exactly interacts there ? what is the force causing the shower of electrons ?
I thought the Coulomb force, muon like electron it's a charge particle, yes ?? (rhetorical questions)

maybe muon does not have the same charge like electron, and it is wrong calculated to be heavier even if it's not ??
maybe it's an "overloaded" electron interacting with itself ( cause for instability ) radiating less charge, speak, interacting less than electron does...

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Lol log is a bad example , bending stresses and fixing moments.
This post www.abovetopsecret.com... should suffice for the entire argument.
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

The sideways momentum of the cannonball in Newton's cannon is directly analogous to the stiffness of the board. Both are a force acting against gravity in a direction other than the direction of gravity. The bend of the board is defined by gravity and the force acting against it (wood stiffness) the same way the path of the cannonball is defined by gravity and the force acting against it (the velocity of the cannonball).

I have no idea why you think the direction I shoot a cannonball (or how fast I shoot it) is somehow intrinsically connected to the basic nature of space in a way that (as you claim) the ballistic path defined by both the cannonball velocity and gravity is actually a straight line, just like I have no idea why you think the stiffness of a long wooden board is intrinsically connected to the basic nature of space in a way that (as you claim) the amount of bend in the board defined by both the stiffness of the wood and gravity is actually a straight line.

..

originally posted by: cloaked4u
why does a compass point to magnetic north ?

It doesn't, unless you call magnetic south magnetic north and vice versa (which is what we do). It points to the Earth's south magnetic pole if you label the poles on earth the same way you label the poles on a bar magnet, but few people seem to realize this, because the historical terminology is very confusing.

I made a thread about this:
Science quiz: Is the Earth's North Magnetic pole a North Magnetic Pole?

Spoiler alert:

The answer is no.

originally posted by: ErosA433


From what I have witnessed, man is extremely careful, but the answers are extremely complex, and that is exactly how it is.

The existence of physicists that believe uncertainty principle is a statement of reality, physicists who believe the idea of hidden variables is not compatible with the universe because bells inequality, your inability to define time and comprehend what it truly means, your inability to define energy, your inability to express what an EM field and wave means and how it exists in reality, your inability to express how the gravity field exists in reality, and your inability to prove me wrong by answering these questions I have been asking, while supposing that these things are still accurate world views of reality is the opposite of being careful. I am not talking about 'physicists have been 98% careful, we are sooooo careful' I am talking about, psychotically, careful, supreme super computer super conscious ultimate perfect logic careful, constant thorough questioning of all beliefs from all angles, as progression constantly takes place, with each experiment and theory, careful. Never being satisfied with the current worldview because it is most obviously incomplete and messy and blurry, careful. Always propelling forward, seeking more and more information, insight, outsight, understanding, comprehension, deeper, deeper, more, more, more, better, more. Why why, how, how, what, what, when, when, where, where. For ever. More. Better. More. Smarter, unsatisfied, psycho, urgency, humility, better.

There is one complete truth, one complete reality. Truth is not a democracy. Just because the most people have learned something in school, does not mean that is the perfect expression of reality itself. You feel satisfied looking around you saying, well, its better then everyone elses. I am not comparing your knowledge, or mans knowledge, to other clusters of mans knowledge, only ever to the ultimate complete perfect truth, and as long as mans knowledge is lacking, you should not be satisfied with what you know about your models now. Which is why I have only been questioning how your knowledge of your models, relates to reality itself.