Is This Man A Good Pick For Secretary Of...
News1 min ago
Water
Is water wet or does it just make things wet?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jamberlew. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Actually, I'm not sure of a connection with the Schrodinger's cat paradox. However, you need to define what you mean by wet. That may seem profoundly simplistic, but I think you find the answer to your question within that defintion. If you mean that something is 'wet' when a residue of water is left on its surface or within it, then, obviously the answer is water makes things wet. By virtue of having that ability, water itself, by deduction, must also be 'wet'...
Clanad, since wetness is a question of perception, and could not be established without human interference it is the basic example of Schr�dinger's cat paradox.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger's_Cat
S.
But, JustSia, the question was not "Is water wet if I don't touch it?" it was is it wet or does it make things wet. The answer is as Clanad says, that wetness is a matter of perception, which carries with it the implication that we are going to test it in some way. If we test water for wetness, it is wet. If we test the "things" referred to, they are wet because of the water. Water is wet and as a consequence it makes other things wet.
Therein lies the problem, JustSia, wetness is not a matter of perception, but can be measured and quantified without disturbing the item being measured. Additionally, Schrodinger's Paradox is applied uniquely to quantum physics... is it not? In fact E. Schrodinger(How do you get the umlaut?) titled his work, Die gegenwartige Situation in der Quantenmechanik and dealt with the problems presented when dealing with Planck time and Planck distance as well as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, none of which has much to do with determining wetness... in my opinion...
Yes you are right.
However, I looked at the above question with a particular degree of irony, simply because it contains far too many intricacies.
As people were right to say, it would require a definition of wet/ness(W), which is �the condition of containing or being covered by a liquid (especially water)�. Our general perception of W is based on the sensation we receive when we interact with water/moisture. So the question is which one did jamberlew mean?
We can measure moisture but when we talk about water�s properties we generally talk in terms of viscosity/surface tension. Water is described to �to feel wet�, i.e. how we perceive it to be.
According to the Thesaurus definition, water would make things wet by covering them, so you can stop there, question answered. However, our perception of this would not necessarily be the same. A compound can interact with water and not �feel wet�, examples, drying agents/oil, water complex crystals. Water can be in a solid state. So it is relative to the surface, substance, temperature, pressure.
......see the following post....
I am, and please forgive me for that, of the opinion that in this case a definition of human perception was used. So in order to establish W one would require to feel/test the object. Until then it�s a question of probabilities. Hence my example of Schr�dinger�s Cat experiment.
And no it�s not only relevant to QM. That experiment demonstrates the probability functions in situations where a human observation is required. And yes, QM�s entire foundation is based on these probabilities. And Schr�dinger�s equation is used in the quantum MC Method to test the water�s properties on the molecular level.
And I mean this is how silly it is, which is why I like it so much. Because it depends on the human observation/perception, I can then argue that me believing it to be the definition of feeling, and you, say the Thesaurus definition would create a similar paradox.
In case you haven�t noticed I don�t look at this problem seriously. I amuse myself with all the possibilities. Because if the question could be answered straight, I don�t think a single mother with no recognisable qualifications would be the person to do it, and yeah it would have been done already.
S.
