Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

originally posted by: mbkennel

Take as fundamental the fields of the Standard Model. An electron is an excited state of the electron field (roughly) like a photon is an excitation of the EM field, and these are the results of what's called 'creation operators' in QFT.

But earlier you were claiming the EM field and im assuming here, the electron field 'dont really exist'?

No, it doesn't work like that---if the object itself has specific physical properties which result in influencing nearby stuff, like being charged and making EM radiation----then it will do so. Energy considerations give some overall constraints---they're like a 'budget', but the details are specific to the interaction. So a heavy charged particle will loses kinetic energy quickly when its velocity changes, which it can do by colliding with matter, but a neutrino loses less.

Ok but pretty much every particle is charged, so that means for the most part they are constantly touching their local field, which is 'billions of photons interacting locally a second'?

And all massive particle is always interacting with gravity field.

And quarks are always utilizing gluons right, so if a proton has its energy value at rest, and then is accelerated, say we measure its energy value for 5 seconds, and then accelerate it for 5 seconds and measure its energy value at the 5th second; in the second case of the proton being accelerated, do you think the quarks are utilizing more gluons per second, and more gravity field a second, (and I know they have some charge so I think I can say) and EM field per second, and could it be that 'these values' are the true source of energy associated with motion?

Analogy: energy is what you have in your bank account. Specific commercial interactions are what you actually buy and do to make money go from one person to another. What did you buy, who did you work for? Energy is like the financial constraint that unless you're the God of Dollars (Fed + Banks) you can't make new ones, just transfer existing ones. Just like a financial value is a property of a piece of art, it is not the same thing, and does not comprise the totality of what the art does and doesn't do.

"motion" and "energy" are like 'fast" and 'rich".

Take a man. He's fast (property of person). He is rich (property of person). He is Usain Bolt (name of the person itself). "Usain Bolt" is even a property but it is the unique name given to one particular collection of Jamaican cells with awesome DNA, that's the man himself.

Energy is like "wealth". Is wealth a "thing"? Does it "exist"? Yes, in human conceptual terms it 'exists', but it is not a thing like biological entities who eat.

energy : matter :: wealth : people

Im thankful for you attempting to speak to me in an analogous language; Let me ask this; Remove all energy from the universe (lets assume this universe is the only aspect of reality), what are you left with?

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: mbkennel


I told you my operational definition for "physically exists" --- is a source term (causative) in Einstein gravitation. Works so far.

Is a graviton a source term in Einstein gravitation? Higgs particle?

Graviton, yes, in the sense that the Einstein field equations are nonlinear and 'warp of space' contributes to curvature. Of course there is no fully tested quantum gravity theory in which the 'graviton' could be precisely defined but since you expect it to reduce to classical physics in the appropriate limit, the answer appears to be 'yes'.

Higgs, everybody presumes so though experimental verification is essentially impossible.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: mbkennel

Take as fundamental the fields of the Standard Model. An electron is an excited state of the electron field (roughly) like a photon is an excitation of the EM field, and these are the results of what's called 'creation operators' in QFT.

But earlier you were claiming the EM field and im assuming here, the electron field 'dont really exist'?

Wasn't me.

No, it doesn't work like that---if the object itself has specific physical properties which result in influencing nearby stuff, like being charged and making EM radiation----then it will do so. Energy considerations give some overall constraints---they're like a 'budget', but the details are specific to the interaction. So a heavy charged particle will loses kinetic energy quickly when its velocity changes, which it can do by colliding with matter, but a neutrino loses less.

Ok but pretty much every particle is charged, so that means for the most part they are constantly touching their local field, which is 'billions of photons interacting locally a second'?

And all massive particle is always interacting with gravity field.

Yes.

And quarks are always utilizing gluons right, so if a proton has its energy value at rest, and then is accelerated, say we measure its energy value for 5 seconds, and then accelerate it for 5 seconds and measure its energy value at the 5th second; in the second case of the proton being accelerated, do you think the quarks are utilizing more gluons per second, and more gravity field a second, (and I know they have some charge so I think I can say) and EM field per second, and could it be that 'these values' are the true source of energy associated with motion?

"true source of energy"? Energy is a property you measure of a configuration. Remember that there's a transformation depending on your reference frame, so that when you travel faster you 'mix up' the energy and momentum differently (special relativity).

Im thankful for you attempting to speak to me in an analogous language; Let me ask this; Remove all energy from the universe (lets assume this universe is the only aspect of reality), what are you left with?

Assuming you remove everything which could be measured to have energy but rest mass, then you'd have a boring un-moving cold universe. Except there's still gravitational potential if everything isn't all in the same place.

When you say 'remove all energy' this means 'remove all properties which compute out to have energy'

a reply to: Mary Rose

The linked article mentions Energetic Neutral Atoms (ENA) several times.

Neutral atoms = don't have an electrical charge = no electricity (no charge, potential difference or current flow).

Totally NOT supporting "Electric Sun" theories.

An admission that we do not fully understand nature and have found something unexpected does not equate with a validation of your pet theory. The specifics of the discovery actually argue against it.

originally posted by: mbkennel


Graviton, yes, in the sense that the Einstein field equations are nonlinear and 'warp of space' contributes to curvature. Of course there is no fully tested quantum gravity theory in which the 'graviton' could be precisely defined but since you expect it to reduce to classical physics in the appropriate limit, the answer appears to be 'yes'.

Higgs, everybody presumes so though experimental verification is essentially impossible.

So the graviton gives its own gravity, does this mean there are mini gravitons around it, and mini gravitons around them, and gravitons all the way down?

The higgs cant give itself mass can it? What gives the higgs mass? It cant give itself mass, because if particles can give themselves mass, then theres no reason for the higgs, one could just say quarks and electrons can give themselves their own mass.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: mbkennel


Graviton, yes, in the sense that the Einstein field equations are nonlinear and 'warp of space' contributes to curvature. Of course there is no fully tested quantum gravity theory in which the 'graviton' could be precisely defined but since you expect it to reduce to classical physics in the appropriate limit, the answer appears to be 'yes'.

Higgs, everybody presumes so though experimental verification is essentially impossible.

So the graviton gives its own gravity, does this mean there are mini gravitons around it, and mini gravitons around them, and gravitons all the way down?

The higgs cant give itself mass can it? What gives the higgs mass? It cant give itself mass, because if particles can give themselves mass, then theres no reason for the higgs, one could just say quarks and electrons can give themselves their own mass.

Water gives itself wetness, just like it wets other things.

originally posted by: mbkennel


"true source of energy"? Energy is a property you measure of a configuration. Remember that there's a transformation depending on your reference frame, so that when you travel faster you 'mix up' the energy and momentum differently (special relativity).

Oh I really thought I had something there with my train of thought on that. The 'true source of energy property or value' not being from an abstract notion of motion, (though thats what it technically is), but being exactly from that fact that motion, and particular motion of an increasing velocity, means; matter that is interacting with more local field per second. Interacting with more local field per second means, the energy associated with the rest point of interaction, is incrementally increased as the velocity of the rest mass is incrementally increased. I am thinking, the reason this is so, where and why, the movement of mass is energy, and motion is energy, is because of the difference in 'amount of time, and i suppose quantity' the particle is evoke from the fields it is coupled with.

I guess as you bring up operators, computations and algorithms, this is what im trying to express and envision physically, as the physicality of the coupled fields, and their (as I suppose you call them, virtual particles...that is to say the constantly changing points of contact between the particle and the local field its coupled too) particles, 'are aware of the presence of the speed', the velocity is registered by the local system, as energy, its accounted for, what does it mean to say energy is stored in motion? Is it stored in the field, the body does not physically gain matter/mass, 'where is the energy', the energy is the 'movement', this is so weird to me, its hard for me to accept, I just cant believe it, what it means.

We have a distance of 100 feet. We have a tennis ball, which is coupled to EM field, gravity field, and also the quarks gluon field maybe (and stuff like that).

The tennis ball is thrown 5 mph across the distance.

The tennis ball is thrown 100 mph across the distance.

The tennis ball that is thrown 100 mph, interacts with its local fields with more force then 5 mph, on all accounts?

this is the why and how an object traveling with greater velocity has more energy? This is just a try for me, a proposition, im trying to think of.

I have a similar trouble with the whole, 'travel at speed of light and not age' in this sense. If what I said above is remotely true, which I have a feeling its not, though I do wish to further comprehend the nature of motion, i would wonder why the slower moving object does not have more energy, if it takes longer time to cover the same distance, it should have more time to 'be producing energy', and I suppose this is similar to the frequency and wave length sort of thing. But then I think, its not a production of energy, its an object put in motion so its a constant, its not like its producing energy and storing it every second in those trials, its the energy expended to accelerate it, and then it locally somehow posses and contains and maintains, conserves, that energy...in...movement.

Assuming you remove everything which could be measured to have energy but rest mass, then you'd have a boring un-moving cold universe. Except there's still gravitational potential if everything isn't all in the same place.

When you say 'remove all energy' this means 'remove all properties which compute out to have energy'

K so you would then have boopyloopylillions of electrons and quarks, and they can exist stabely without energy? They would be true particles then, like marbles, and they would just be freeze frame, because removing all energy, would mean they would literally have to be relatively and objectively still, just marbles standing perfectly still. And then one could still ask, what are those marbles? What is the 'stuff' that makes them, their essence, are they made of 'pure hard'? Could you squeeze and break them, with a hand, a hammer, an anything? Can they be stretched, smeared, combined? Or are they fundamental quality of reality, these hard balls of stuff, that are not energy, prime eternal matter. The hard stuff had to have come from somewhere. Had to have come from something. Has to be something.

originally posted by: chr0naut


Water gives itself wetness, just like it wets other things.

The phenomenon of gravity is said to be due to mass curving space; the space that is curving being referred to as 'the gravity field', the graviton being refereed to as, the particle constituent of the gravity field.

Lets say no other mass exists but the gravity field, but a field of gravitons.

If you are suggesting the gravitons produce gravity.

This would mean the gravity field naturally curves itself.

If it is assumed all gravitons are equal, and without any other mass, the gravity field would be homogeneous; Then in what way would the gravity field curve itself? How would a graviton give itself, or its neighbors the phenomenon of curving the gravity field?

Would each graviton be attracted to each other surrounding graviton, what would be the result of that?

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: chr0naut


Water gives itself wetness, just like it wets other things.

The phenomenon of gravity is said to be due to mass curving space; the space that is curving being referred to as 'the gravity field', the graviton being refereed to as, the particle constituent of the gravity field.

Lets say no other mass exists but the gravity field, but a field of gravitons.

If you are suggesting the gravitons produce gravity.

This would mean the gravity field naturally curves itself.

If it is assumed all gravitons are equal, and without any other mass, the gravity field would be homogeneous; Then in what way would the gravity field curve itself? How would a graviton give itself, or its neighbors the phenomenon of curving the gravity field?

Would each graviton be attracted to each other surrounding graviton, what would be the result of that?

A homogenous graviton field would bend space equally everywhere, which equals a 'flat' graviton field. The effect from our frame of reference would be that spacetime is not curved at all.

This is not to say that I entirely believe that gravitons exist outside of theory. It could be that the effects we see and assume are mediated by gravitons are the cumulative result of as yet untheorised new particles.

It could also be that we have totally the wrong initial paradigm and that the standard model is wrong. The problem is that it works so well in so many other instances (like for instance the expected mass range of the Higgs) that it lends confidence to the theory.

originally posted by: chr0naut

A homogenous graviton field would bend space equally everywhere, which equals a 'flat' graviton field. The effect from our frame of reference would be that spacetime is not curved at all.

You must know that 'the curving of space that is the phenomenon of gravity and called the gravity field which is made up of gravitons', is nothing other then the existence of the gravitons themselves, as a network, as a field, reacting to the existence of mass in their presence, or so the theory goes.

So 'bending space equally everywhere', is meaningless. Because 'the space masses bend', is a 'space made purely of gravitons'. That is why the 'fabric of space/gravity field/gravitons' were posited and invented.

So this is the same idea about the higgs. The higgs gives particles mass, what then gives the higgs mass? The graviton gives particles gravity, well what then gives the graviton gravity?

This line of thought is in response to Mbkennels statement that 'all real things are source terms in equation of gravity', and me asking is the graviton a source term in gravity.

So yes, if a field of gravitons exist, that curve when mass is present, what is the nature of gravity on itself, is this not a meaningless concept, like saying a negatively charged particle is repulsive to itself, a graviton, the gravity giving particle, gives itself gravity?

Or you are merely suggesting, it being a non curved field, would just mean the curvature would be held in check, the curvature of the gravity field is not the fundamental nature of the graviton and field, just a reaction to different types of fundamental matter/energy, the phenomenon of gravity is just a result, something it does, but it itself is just like any other field, a network of particles that exist. So the notion that their sole purpose is to provide curvature or gravity is a contrived notion, they dont need to just exist and curve, they can just exist as a stable network when no mass is present, and when mass is present then they will be distorted and displaced. But still what then does it mean to say the graviton is a source of gravity, or it causes the phenomenon of gravity, which is graviton area curvature? because it would seem like it wouldnt cause that, as if there are only gravitons there is no curvature, its the gravity field at its purest. Would that be its lowest energy state or highest?

If you have a local area of gravity field, gravitons, with no mass near by, is it true that in that area, lets say an objective area of '5 units', the graviton field energy is '10'. Now we add a massive object into that are of '5 units', is that same gravity field of '5 units' have the same energy value for it itself, or has the displacement and curvature given it less or more energy? Notice im not asking does it give the massive object more or less potential energy, or a body orbiting the massive object, or people on the massive object. Im asking the field itself, in a specific area under 2 different conditions, does the field itself have greater or lesser energy value as it is, unperturbed and homogenous, or displaced/distorted/curved? Or is the answer it has the same energy (and shall someone say whether a graviton is energy or matter?) its just that prior to the introduction of a mass into the area, the energy is potential, and if gravitons are matter, they have little relativistic mass. Then when a mass is present, the masses motion into the area, causes the field to move, which is giving the field kinetic energy and relativistic mass, but I wonder how it would be measured in that same area the energetic value of each graviton, or if such a thing only makes sense to measure relative groups of gravitons, or each graviton in relation to time and its relative movement?

Because Where the mass is currently, as it enters the area, is 'taking up the space' where there was currently gravitons, this means those gravitons that were there have to go somewhere, and they are pushed away, displaced, so where the mass is there is less energy, or quantity of gravitons. And then also to be considered is, when the mass leaves the area, all the gravitons rush back to fill up the displacement, slap back in place. So that is the unleashed potential energy associated. The mass enters the area, it lifts the gravity field up, which is kinetic energy for the gravity field, and then leaving, it lets it fall back into place, which was potential energy, 2 separate forms of potentially equal energy. The gravity field has equal energy before and after the mass passes through its area, it is given a temporal spike in energy equivalent to the mass of the mass and maybe the velocity of the mass.

This is not to say that I entirely believe that gravitons exist outside of theory. It could be that the effects we see and assume are mediated by gravitons are the cumulative result of as yet untheorised new particles.

Because everything we know to exist by law of logic and obviousness must be 'something not nothing', the concept of particles is the easiest and perhaps most natural way to express a quanta of somethingness. Gravity is a phenomenon that exist, it is known it must be caused to occur by something by someway. Therefore, if gravity is not caused by nothing itself, it is caused by 'something like a particle because something like particles are the only way we can comprehend somethings existing'. Graviton is just the name chosen as 'what that particle will be called', I dont know any details about supposed theories regarding gravitons, just that if gravity is caused by something, and a field is made of particles, then the graviton is the word used to describe the particle, that is responsible for gravity. Any unauthorized new particles will just be differing values on that concept, potentially. Unless you are suggesting things like entire other systems of matter and such responsible for gravity, like composite particles and different types of gluons and such and double anti anti anti particles or something, but yea, if they are particles related to the standard model, all these yet untheorized new particles, then the winning one might as well be called the graviton.

a reply to: ImaFungi


Gravitons would be a sub atomic particle stress-energy tensor of rank 2. Much like a photon they have 0 mass they would be created similarly as well having no mass. Problem is we dont know what creates them however they couldnt exist in empty space by themselves they would have to be created if only temporarily. Meaning its very unlikely they exist every where. Most likely there are created by something else like maybe the higgs boson and its interaction with the higgs field. Its very unlikely gravity fields already exist everywhere but are created.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ImaFungi


Gravitons would be a sub atomic particle stress-energy tensor of rank 2. Much like a photon they have 0 mass they would be created similarly as well having no mass. Problem is we dont know what creates them however they couldnt exist in empty space by themselves they would have to be created if only temporarily. Meaning its very unlikely they exist every where. Most likely there are created by something else like maybe the higgs boson and its interaction with the higgs field. Its very unlikely gravity fields already exist everywhere but are created.

Ok so you are saying. A planet exists. And every single quanta of mass/matter of that planet, is touching the higgs field, constantly interacting with it (would you say higgs field exists everywhere?)?

This is why every single quanta of mass/matter, has mass and is matter.

Because the quanta of the planet interacts with the higgs field, and now, or always, is mass and matter, this means it always creates gravity.

Which according to you is; When a collection of quanta, or even one, but a collection such as a planet, interacts with the higgs field constantly to receive its mass, it also as a result, is creating gravitons.

The interaction with the quanta that interacts with the higgs field, creates gravitons. Because there are a lot of quanta in a planet, there are a lot of gravitons.

Then a near by smaller planet, that is heading towards this body, also creating its gravitons as it interacts with the higgs field.

And the planets are 3d and more spherical then not, so the total trail of gravitons the planet produces, is not smooth and homogenous, but 'curved', and so the smaller planet heads towards this trail of created gravitons, and then?

So gravitons are a virtual particle, like the gluon, which exists because quanta interacts with the higgs field constantly? What is quanta before it interacts with the higgs field, or were they born together? And thus graviton abilities of the universe were born together too?

a reply to: ImaFungi

Problem becomes we only have working theories of this but no evidence. Spin 2 is predicted for example in string theory as a closed loop. Meaning it isnt effected by normal matter as well as can travel between brains this would explain its weak interaction as well as dark matter but its all just theoretical.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ImaFungi


Gravitons would be a sub atomic particle stress-energy tensor of rank 2. Much like a photon they have 0 mass they would be created similarly as well having no mass. Problem is we dont know what creates them however they couldnt exist in empty space by themselves they would have to be created if only temporarily. Meaning its very unlikely they exist every where. Most likely there are created by something else like maybe the higgs boson and its interaction with the higgs field. Its very unlikely gravity fields already exist everywhere but are created.

Ok so you are saying. A planet exists. And every single quanta of mass/matter of that planet, is touching the higgs field, constantly interacting with it (would you say higgs field exists everywhere?)?

This is why every single quanta of mass/matter, has mass and is matter.

Actually much of the mass of hadrons (Protons & neutrons) doesn't come from the Higgs mechanism, it's from the gluon energy. Higgs explains why certain particles which should naively have zero rest mass have positive effective rest mass.

I recommend watching this lecture it answers many of the questions being asked.

originally posted by: mbkennel


Actually much of the mass of hadrons (Protons & neutrons) doesn't come from the Higgs mechanism, it's from the gluon energy. Higgs explains why certain particles which should naively have zero rest mass have positive effective rest mass.

Ok so where do the gluons come from?

originally posted by: mbkennel
Actually much of the mass of hadrons (Protons & neutrons) doesn't come from the Higgs mechanism, it's from the gluon energy. Higgs explains why certain particles which should naively have zero rest mass have positive effective rest mass.

Right, I mentioned the gluons as a source of mass on page 50:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This video talks more about how much mass comes from the Higgs though he starts off talking about the mass of the electrons, then later he adds the mass of the quarks in protons and neutrons which I would have put in the first mass figure he mentioned in the video as coming from Higgs because the quarks get their mass from Higgs, right?

Your Mass is NOT From the Higgs Boson

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Ok so where do the gluons come from?

My guess is the big bang, and i don't know where that came from. I know you don't like Lawrence Krause's answer and he may not be right but he may not be wrong either; it's speculative.

In this link the quark gluon plasma is mentioned right after the inflationary epoch:
Chronology of the Universe

After cosmic inflation ends, the universe is filled with a quark–gluon plasma. From this point onwards the physics of the early universe is better understood, and less speculative.

That's thought to be something like a billionth of a billionth of a trilllionth of a second after the big bang, I think. Before that, who knows if there were gluons or not? It's speculative.

a reply to: Mary Rose

hmm...interesting

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
My guess is the big bang, and i don't know where that came from. I know you don't like Lawrence Krause's answer and he may not be right but he may not be wrong either; it's speculative.

In this link the quark gluon plasma is mentioned right after the inflationary epoch:
Chronology of the Universe

After cosmic inflation ends, the universe is filled with a quark–gluon plasma. From this point onwards the physics of the early universe is better understood, and less speculative.

That's thought to be something like a billionth of a billionth of a trilllionth of a second after the big bang, I think. Before that, who knows if there were gluons or not? It's speculative.

But gluons are virtual particles I thought? They are 'manifested' each time a quark vibrates I thought? Or something like that. So do they exist everywhere, or do they exist in a finite amount surrounding every quark pair? Are they an unseperable fact of quark, they are just like a buddied up pair of particles that never leave each others side? And when you have a quark and wave it around automatically tons of gluons will just be popping out all around it, and these are where, and are coming from where, when they pop out of where?

Ok, Cosmic inflation ends, "and then the universe is filled with a quark- gluon plasma"...how convenient, where did this come from, they were both created separate fundamental quantities of energy/matter?

Lawerence krauss is wrong. It is a fact. The geniuses (and average mind possessors) of the past will have agreed with me, and they will agree with me in the future. It is an undisputible fact Lawerence krauss is wrong. He is an anomoly, a singularity, of dumb thought. His existence alone in higher realms of academia force me to be 1000s of times more skeptical about 'mainstream' science. This is actually the only reason, not him, I cared about science at all, realizing that complete idiots from anywhere in the country and world can read books and pass test and then make statements about the universe that children can potentially believe. It should be almost a sacred position to be a scientist, one who swears an oath to the eternal essence of objective truth, and to himself and all people of the past, today and of the future, that they will be the most skeptical, and ruthless thinker, that can possibly exist. The laissez faireness of some of these peoples makes me want to live as a primitive man. Its all or nothing, if you are embarking on this journey, of discovering the truth, do it right, or dont do it at all (looking at you, lauwerence krauss).

originally posted by: ImaFungi
But gluons are virtual particles I thought? They are 'manifested' each time a quark vibrates I thought? Or something like that. So do they exist everywhere, or do they exist in a finite amount surrounding every quark pair? Are they an unseperable fact of quark, they are just like a buddied up pair of particles that never leave each others side? And when you have a quark and wave it around automatically tons of gluons will just be popping out all around it, and these are where, and are coming from where, when they pop out of where?

Did you watch the video? I thought it was a pretty good explanation.

Ok, Cosmic inflation ends, "and then the universe is filled with a quark- gluon plasma"...how convenient, where did this come from, they were both created separate fundamental quantities of energy/matter?

To answer that we would probably have to understand inflation better than we do. For example I don't know if inflation rules out the existence of gluons prior to inflation. Inflation seemed contrived to me but with mounting evidence for it, it's become more of an accepted idea. But we still haven't found any inflaton particle or field and it's doubtful of we can achieve the energies necessary to observe them so their properties are likely to remain somewhat mysterious for a long time.

Lawerence krauss is wrong. It is a fact. The geniuses (and average mind possessors) of the past will have agreed with me, and they will agree with me in the future. It is an undisputible fact Lawerence krauss is wrong. He is an anomoly, a singularity, of dumb thought. His existence alone in higher realms of academia force me to be 1000s of times more skeptical about 'mainstream' science. This is actually the only reason, not him, I cared about science at all, realizing that complete idiots from anywhere in the country and world can read books and pass test and then make statements about the universe that children can potentially believe. It should be almost a sacred position to be a scientist, one who swears an oath to the eternal essence of objective truth, and to himself and all people of the past, today and of the future, that they will be the most skeptical, and ruthless thinker, that can possibly exist. The laissez faireness of some of these peoples makes me want to live as a primitive man. Its all or nothing, if you are embarking on this journey, of discovering the truth, do it right, or dont do it at all (looking at you, lauwerence krauss).

You criticize him, and he criticizes string theorists. But even when Krauss criticizes string theorists, he admits he isn't sure they're wrong, so I don't know how you can be so confident Krauss is wrong. Nature has thrown us a lot of curve balls over the years, giving us unexpected experimental results, so using logic and intuition to predict what it will and won't do will only get you so far in the classical world...and not far at all in the quantum world.