Magnet Evidence - Volume 2: Fill & Download for Free

The answer is a little messy because mother nature is messy.Light as a wave. Light is reflected from metals because there are free electrons that are not tightly bound to the atoms. These free electons respond easily to the incoming electro-magnetic wave. They oscillate in response to the wave and that oscillation creates a wave of its own. This wave both cancels the incoming wave and acts as a wave reflected from the metal.For dielectric materials, the electrons are not free but are bound to atoms. This constrains the electrons’ motion. They can only oscillate slightly in response to the incoming wave. They also have resonances, so they will actually absorb the wave at the resonances but the electrons will noticeably lead or lag the wave at other frequencies. This is what is responsible for the refractive index.Because of this, some of the wave is reflected and some of it is transmitted into the material where it is scattered and absorbed unless the material is very homogeneous and has no absorption resonances near the frequency of the incoming wave.See: Volume 2, Chapter 33 Feynman: Reflection of light from SurfacesThat's really it. But then you say, you thought light was made of photons.Light does behave as a particle and a wave.Light as a particle. For those who insist that light is made of particles called photons, there is another explanation. But you have to have some bizarre behavior of these photons. They interact with all the electrons in the material, exactly as before, but this time the photon is partly absorbed with a very tiny probability by every electron, which partially emits a partial photon with a very tiny probability.The electromagnetic wave is a function that determines the probability of the photon being at a particular location and being absorbed by an electron at that location.The math involved is horrible. In the end it predicts the same answer as the wave theory. With one very important difference. You either detect a whole photon or nothing.Please recognize that what really happens at the photo-electron level cannot be known. Any attempt to catch how the photon really interacts with an electron is blocked from observation by quantum mechanics.The advantage of QED is that even though the way they behave is bizarre, you can at least say light is all photons. Even if a wave function describes how they behave. See: Feynman: Quantum ElectroDynamics (QED)Review of QEDWhich is it? So if anyone tells you what is really going on at the subatomic level, that's fiction. We don't really know. Quantum mechanics is bizarre. All electromagnetic waves and subatomic particles behave like this. There seems to be evidence that gravity behaves similarly but relativity and quantum field theory are more elusive than photons and particles of matter.Unless you are dealing with entangled photons, you can usually calculate the wave function using Maxwell's equations and interpret the square of the field as the probability of finding the photon at the same point.If this all sounds complicated, welcome to my world.

I think you are referring to the results found by the authors of this journal article: Long-term Antipsychotic Treatment and Brain Volumes -- A Longitudinal Study of First-Episode Schizophrenia (2011). There was a sample of 211 patients, and the researchers administered an average of three scans per patient over the 7.2-year period. Research over the past 15-20 years indicates that schizophrenics have smaller cerebral volumes than general (e.g. one meta-analysis points to 5-7% reductions in the sizes of the amygdala, hippocampus, and parahippocampus).What is under debate is whether the decrease in brain volume is due to the pathophysiologic processes of schizophrenia, or if antipsychotics play a role [1]. Although the authors of the 2011 article could not resolve this debate [1], they found that antipsychotics seem to aggravate the decline, i.e. the more antipsychotics patients receive, the more likely they are to have a decreased amount of grey matter.The problem with the study is that there was no placebo control group. After all, patients cannot be ethically deprived of necessary medication. The study didn't have any 'within individual' studies either, in which the same patient either uses or does not uses the drugs. The researchers are well aware of these criticisms and shortcomings [2].To my knowledge, there has not been any more conclusive evidence since the 2011 findings. Older studies on healthy non-human macaque monkeys (2005) found that given doses of Haloperidol and Olanzapine (both are APs) similar to those given to humans, there was a reduction in brain volume of around 10%, mostly attributable to loss of the glial cells that support and protect neurons [3]:In summary, we found that chronic exposure of monkeys to haloperidol or olanzapine in a manner that mimics clinical use is associated with a significant reduction in brain volume that affects both gray and white matter. In contrast, although substantial and regionally specific reductions in tissue volume occur with histological processing, pre-mortem exposure to antipsychotics does not appear to affect this process.Further studies are needed to confirm these observations of antipsychotic-related reductions in brain volume, to identify the affected neural elements, and to determine the mechanisms that produce these changes.So again, we don't know the pathways and mechanisms responsible for the loss of brain volume. The authors of the 2011 paper on humans were not able to pinpoint the exact mechanisms behind the "shrinkage" either. It's also hard to compare and draw conclusions between the 2003 study on monkeys and the 2011 study on humans: the authors of both state that their work is "convergent but still circumstantial".We do have some hypotheses on how brain volume is reduced. It is possible that antipsychotics reduce blood flow to different areas of the brain, leading to starvation and death of neurons, and the elimination of synapses [2]:Previous positron emission tomography studies conducted by our group confirm that both typical and atypical antipsychotics increase putamen cerebral blood flow. In addition, antipsychotics reduce frontal cerebral blood flow, suggesting that chronic frontal hypoperfusion could be a mechanism underlying smaller brain tissue volumes. However, the available studies that have used morphometric MRI to examine the effects of antipsychotics on cortical GM have yielded ambiguous results, possibly due to small sample sizes, differing duration of treatment assessment, variation in brain regions measured, and discrepant measurement techniques [1].Figure 1 [1]: Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging brain volume trajectories between tertiles of antipsychotic treatment. Tertiles were categorized as those who received the most treatment (70 patients; mean [SD] dose, 929.4 [47.7] chlorpromazine [CPZ] mg equivalents/d), intermediate treatment (70 patients; mean [SD] dose, 391.7 [77.2] CPZ mg equivalents/d), and the least treatment (71 patients; mean [SD] dose, 111.5 [87.7] CPZ mg equivalents/d). Individual patient brain volume trajectories (thin lines) and treatment tertile group mean brain volume trajectories (thick lines) are shown for total cerebral white matter (A), lateral ventricles (B), and frontal gray matter volumes (C).The 2011 study's conclusions:Antipsychotics are effective medications for reducing some of the target clinical symptoms of schizophrenia: psychotic symptoms. In medicine we are aware of many instances in which improving target symptoms worsens other symptoms. Hormone therapy relieves menopausal symptoms but increases stroke risk. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs relieve pain but increase the likelihood of duodenal ulcers and gastrointestinal tract bleeding. It is possible that, although antipsychotics relieve psychosis and its attendant suffering, these drugs may not arrest the pathophysiologic processes underlying schizophrenia and may even aggravate progressive brain tissue volume reductions.In short, more research is needed before we can conclusively answer your question.Sources[1] Long-term Antipsychotics and Brain Volumes[2] Antipsychotic drugs could shrink patients' brains (Nature)[3] Neuropsychopharmacology - The Influence of Chronic Exposure to Antipsychotic Medications on Brain Size before and after Tissue Fixation: A Comparison of Haloperidol and Olanzapine in Macaque Monkeys (2003)

7 states?There are significantly more than 7 states of matter, if you want to be pedantic about it.Generally speaking, in physics, we define a state of matter, as being the equilibrium state on one side of a phase transition. If you go over a boundary of a phase transition, then you change from one state of matter, into another. A phase transition is a point where one of the properties of the substance changes discontinuously.For example, when crossing the phase boundary between a liquid and a gas, there is an abrupt change in the volume occupied (and hence also pressure). Thus, gases and liquids have a phase transition between them, and thus are different “states”.There are 3 phase transitions that almost everyone is aware ofSolid <-> liquid phase transition (melting/solidifying)Liquid <-> gas phase transition (vapourisation/condensation)Solid <-> gas phase transition (sublimation/deposition)This defines our usual “3 states of matter”. The smart-alecs out there will tell you that there is another phase transition, when you superheat a gas enough to tear off the electrons into an ionised soup:Gas <-> plasma phase transition (ionisation/ recombination)So that makes 4 states/phases of matter.The linked article mentions 3 more phase transitions:Bose-Einstein condensationA low temperature (/low degree of freedom) phase transition where the ground state of a bosonic system becomes macroscopically occupied, leading to quantum effects being macroscopically visible. First isolated in a ‘pure’ form in 1995, winning the 1997 Nobel Prize.Quark-Gluon PlasmaAnalogous to regular plasma, but with the protons and electrons substituted for gluons and quarks. Thought to exist at ultra-high temperatures found nanoseconds after the Big Bang. It is thought we also produce quantities of it in colliders such as the LHC, but are yet to have a coherent model of this particular type of QGP. “Tentative” results of QGP being produced were first announced in 2005.Degenerate MatterA slightly odd classification, given that (technically), the BEC is also degenerate matter, but this term generally refers to the low degree of freedom state of a fermionic fluid, which differs from the BEC due to the Pauli Exclusion principle. There are multiple types of degenerate phases, with White Dwarfs being supported by electron degeneracy, and neutron stars being supported by neutron degeneracy (and there is a phase transition between those two states, so technically there are 2 phases here!). Relatively easy to measure, as the free electrons in common metals are (approximately) a partially degenerate fermi fluid.A slightly odd grouping, it has to be said (especially as there are 4 phases included here!). However, there are at least tentative results for all of these 3 “exotic” phases, even if one of the (the QGP) is barely understood. The remaining two are well understood and well constrained, having been studied both theoretically and observationally for decades.But why do I say that it is odd? Well, if you’re going to include the Quark-Gluon Plasma, it’s odd not to include the several other phases of QCD matter, such as those demonstrated on the phase diagram below:(CFL stands for Color–flavor locking, whatever that means!)It is also odd, because there are significantly more phases that I would mention before mentioning QGP! Especially as several of these are directly observable in your everyday life:The ferromagnetic transition that allows for permanent magnets below the critical temperatureLiquid crystal transitions, resulting in one of several Lquid Crystal states of matter.Nematic phases are used in LCDsThere’s also smectic phases, chiral phases, blue phases, discotic phases and bowlic phases, hexagonal phases, lamellar phases, bicontinuous cubic phases, reverse hexagonal columnar phases (and so onm and so on)Glass transition, resulting in an amorphous state you know and loveSuperconductivity is a separate state, caused by the superconductive phase transition.There’s also a number of other phase transitions / states of matter which are less well known:Various other magnetically ordered states (antiferromagnets, ferrimagnets, quantum spin liquids etc.)Superfluid statesFermionic condensates (pairs of fermions join up to acts as bosons, and then enter a BEC phase), i.e. cooper pairs in superconducting states.Rydberg molecules (first isolated in 2009)Photonic molecules or “heavy light”, generated by interacting with a gas, which creates a state where the photons behave as if they have a large mass (not fully realised yet, but demonstrations of the principle have been performed)In this article alone, I have mentioned nearly 30 “states of matter”, and there are many, many more out there.Of these 30-odd phases, only 2 (the QGP and the photonic molecules) are disputed to the point where I would call them “theoretical”, though even this might be a stretch, as there has been experimental evidence and demonstrations of these things existing in nature, even if we can’t quite describe them yet.Of course, this is slightly ludicrous, isn’t it?If we open the gateway for these things to be called “states of matter”, then you open the gateway for dozens upon dozens of things to be called “states of matter”.I haven’t even mentioned the absurd number of solid phases there are in supposedly simple “solid water”!Yes. There’s more than 20 “states of matter” for water.If you’re willing to call “plasma” a state of matter, but not willing to admit that a bar magnet is a different state to a paperclip (they’re both solids, right?) , then you’re drawing a somewhat arbitrary line, especially as the difference in properties between a bar magnet and a paperclip are more pronounced than those between the plasma and a gas (they both interact with electromagnetic fields now, but a ferromagnet has a bunch of weird stuff to do with domains etc. on top of that).I, personally, don’t go ahead with this.I draw a distinct line between “state of matter” and “phases”. “State of matter” is the three classical phases: gas, liquid and solid.Phases are any of the above, with their precise physical meaning. There are quite possibly hundreds of them.But any time someone smugly tells me that, well, actually, plasma is the fourth state of matter, I will quite happily ask them which phase of matter they consider Ice XI to be, or the inverse cubic liquid crystal phase, or the 2 dimensional quantum hall state, and so on and so on and so on.So, to directly answer the question, of the 7 phases mentioned in the article, all of them have some physical evidence, with 6 of them being as close to facts as it is possible to get in science, with the QGP being the hanger-on.But….really?There are 3 states of matter. Solid, liquid and gas.There are many, many more phases. This is true, and I do not dispute that, but it’s just annoying when people try to tell you that “no you’re wrong” because they’ve redefined a simple term, and are acting smug about it.It’s like the damned “tomatoes are a fruit” thing. Sure, maybe technically that is true, but you don’t see me putting one in my bloody fruit salad!