new theory...

new theory...

neutrons repell, proton attract. Depending on how many neutrons there are over protons tells us if its gas or solid (depending on pressure). Neutrons are the opposite of proton. Yet the opposite of these two is electrons. Electrons spread evenly, depending on resistance of flow.

If you combine these opposites on a subatomic level, they should cancel eachother out,.. hence quantum fluxuation. Maybe God did create everything from nothing.

Of course my theory about God is, sins are sins because they hurt us on some level. Only an all seeing God can show us rules to a better life that are beyond our comprehension. Science would reveal why God created certain rules. Yet how could science do such things if it doesn't recogonize the single most important element of human exsistance,.. the soul.

Love is evidence of the soul. For when you feel love, it comes from outside your body (where you are hugged or kissed),.. not from with-in like a hormone. I theorize that sex outside of love is a sin because love gives sex content. Sex outside of love is prioritizing getting off, and what you use to get off can be whatever you want it to be. We may make rules for proper sleeping around, but are these rules grounded in reality?

Re: new theory...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"systemoftheuniverse\")</div>

SOU,
Neutrons do not repel. They are merely particles that have no charge. In this sense, you could say that neutrons are the opposite of both protons and electrons, since those two particles do have charge (although the charges are opposite.) The true opposite of a proton is an antiproton; an electron, the antielectron; a neutron, the antineutron.

The number of neutrons "over" protons is in no way informative of whether or not a substance is gaseous. Every element will be gaseous at the right temperature, as well as solid or liquid.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"systemoftheuniverse\")</div>

If you combine the true opposites that I listed above, they do cancel out. It doesn't matter if you look at it on a subatomic level or not. If you combine the opposites you listed "on a subatomic level," you will get atoms. No cancellation will occur.

Harte

Re: new theory...

If they did 'cancel each other out' we would not be here to read this post...

nice try though, keep it up...

Re: new theory...

To the first post... your a joke,.. no one found any antiprotons. matter and antimatter. Yet antimatter could be a forth opposite,.. not acting like any of the 3 elements of matter.

Gasses repell (hence gasious pressure infinativly reacting in space), liquids attract (hence a drop of watter on a table will bubble up). Liquids harden to a solid and keep form. Yet gassious planets keep form because of a liquid core creating a greater gravity reacting to all matter that shares the three basic elements.

to the second post... What are the chances of these three elements combinning on a subatomic level? especially since these three elements have found their own exsistance. obviously it only happens as much as quantum fluctuation happens.

How many theories do you know that explain quantum fluxuation???

Here's somthing deeper. the two elements of electromagnatism are created when resisted by two elements of protons and neutrons. Since every atom has bolth protons and neutrons, you cannot have one without the other. We use magnatism to create electricity because you cannot excite one energy without exciting the other.

Stuff that in your pipe and smoke it.

Re: new theory...

I don't know how do you explain it ? Is this not one of the theories put forward to shore up the expanding Universe theory, or is that made up ?

<edit> Sorry just a spelling mistake, Google does come up with a few matches for it though...</edit>

And what ? Quantum Fluctuation, is the appearance of particles that are instantly anhialated by their anti-particle.

Atoms are atoms, they are there and exist. If the neutron and electron are opposite they would finish each other off. The atom is stable so this doesn't happen or am I missing the point ?

what's that rumbling noise ?

Re: new theory...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"thenumbersix\")</div>

The expanding universe...so gravity is caused by matter expanding, witch causes some unexplained resistance. But wouldn't that mean that other energies have to mysteriously multiply to equal the gap created by expansion. Or is energy just mysteriously growing to force this expanding universe.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"thenumbersix\")</div>

neutrons and elctrons are opposites. But then there is a third and equal opposite,.. witch is electrons. But wiat, there might be a forth opposite,.. antimatter witch follows no ordinary order.

Yet you say that anti-matter has three elements, witch are equal and opposite energies to ;protons, neutrons, and electrons. Yet antimatter has been found in how many forms??? Obviously the way antimatter has been found doesn't allow us to study it... only because it acts differently then the three opposites we do know of; electrons, neutrons, and protons.

Where are the three different definitions of antimatter? At least in theory you say they are possiable,.. but how are they possiable. Anti matter acts one way we know of. Pertaining no stability that we could study it. Yet that is the exact opposite to the three things we do know.

the only real way to compare; electrons, neutrons, and protons is by definition. Numbers just explain how much this definition takes place.

and by numbers we see how much; electrons, neutrons, and protons react. But just like an X and Y axis grid there is the equal and opposite X and Y grid defined by negatives, antimatter still cannot be possiable concieved into a relative definition of your theory.

burdon of proof.

Re: new theory...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"systemoftheuniverse\")</div>

SOU,

(From HERE)</span>

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/font]I may be a joke, but you have revealed yourself as ignorant. Antimatter was first discovered (meaning actually found) in 1932. Get your head out of your *** or wherever it's been since you were born and you might find out a few things about the world. For example, did you know that humans have actually visited the Moon?
For your edification, here are some links about this substance that you had assumed was only theoretical:

http://encarta.msn.com/related_761567432_1...Time.html#tcsel

http://www.psigate.ac.uk/roads/cgi-bin/psi...t=0&subject=All

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"systemoftheuniverse\")</div>

Gas is one phase of matter (any matter,) there are four phases of matter. Gasses do not repel in the least. Nor do liquids attract. Liquids (most liquids) exhibit what is called "surface tension", which is a very weak electromagnetic attractive force which is also present in the other forms of matter. With gasses (and plasmas), this weak force is overcome by the energy (temperature) of the molecules in question. In a solid, this force is present but not observed because there are stronger attractive forces at work (molecular bonds).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"systemoftheuniverse\")</div>

Quantum fluctuation is occuring in all places at all times (even in the spaces between your "three elements of matter" in every atom in every object.
If you are asking what are the chances of a proton, a neutron and an electron combining to make an atom, the answer is 100%, if they are near enough to each other. This is called deuterium, or "heavy hydrogen". On the other hand, if by "subatomic level" you mean a level at less than atomic (which is what it actually means) then the chances are almost zero, unless you have applied a tremendous amount of force (enormous gravity can combine electrons with protons, creating neutrons, that's how a neutron star is formed.)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"systemoftheuniverse\")</div>

The nature of this question implies that you know nothing about quantum fluctuation. This phenomenon was predicted by quantum mechanics, it cannot be observed per se. You are asking for an explanation of quantum fluctuation as if it needs one. It does not. It is completely explained by the original quantum theory. In fact, this theory predates the above mentioned discovery of antimatter (and also predicted that.) Run your own Google search this time.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"systemoftheuniverse\")</div>

Find the neutron in a hydrogen atom, Mr. Science.

Here you reveal your complete lack of understanding of electromagnetism. Protons and neutrons are in no way associated with "creating" electromagnetic energy or electricity or magnetism or electromagnetism. These statements of yours make no sense whatsoever. They are actually nonsensical.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"systemoftheuniverse\")</div>

Perhaps you should examine the contents of your own pipe before making such a suggestion.

Harte

Re: new theory...

heheh..

Re: new theory...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"systemoftheuniverse\")</div>

I'm not sure if this will further the discussion, but in my experience, gases repel the most shortly following a turkey dinner.

Re: new theory...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"systemoftheuniverse\")</div>

The arrival of there supposedly being masses of dark matter around to fuel the expansion is probably the most popular theory to explain the apparent accelerating expansion of the universe. All of these are still in a fairly early stage but do seem to have some substantial observational evidence, let's seee if it pans out..

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"systemoftheuniverse\")</div>

As I understand it antimatter is matter that is the opposite that your are looking for, it is not another 'element' it is an opposite element, there are anti-neutrons, anti-protons and anti-electrons, no doubt these can combine to make anti-atoms if left alone by matter ?

Isn't it thought that during the big bang an almost equal amount of matter and anti-matter came into existence but anhialated most of each other to leave behind the 'solid' matter that was around at the very beginning ?

The explanation for why there wasn't a mutual destruction I don't really know but no doubt Universe building is not an exact science, if this is a fluid process then sooner or later this eventuality must happen, otherwise we wouldn't be here to observe all of these things....

If there was an equal mutual destruction of matter and anti-matter the universe would again not exist, there would be a void of space and time possibly, would quantum fluctuation still work with the absence of anything ? Haven't they said that a point where mutual fluctuation has tipped the balance enough at one point to trigger the big bang ? This would then imply the presence of space and physics as we know it or is quantum physics working differently here also ?

Anyway, with a void where matter and anti-matter have perfectly annhialated each other would the big bang process eventually start all over again, this is mostly theoretical and some off the top of my head and obviously un-proven but to me for intelligent life to come about the Universe must be in a natural process of some sorts where natural selection works at its' most basic...somethimes the conditions are right and life evolves other times it is not right enough to sustain suitable physics to hold it all together and it collapses back into some almighty singularity, who knows, I'm just scratching around in it here...

Re: new theory...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Eutychus\")</div>

Eutychus,
While these gases may or may not repel, it has been established that they are repellant.
Harte

Re: new theory...

So your really saying that matter and anti matter combine to create quantum fluctuation. For the only way to eleminate energy is to combine it to to it's opposite. Combine positive and negative, and you get no effect. So all matter does come from nothing?

Here is a starting part. Perpendicular resistance creates all new energy. So all energy that isn't contained in an atom is the result of perpendicular resistance? Then this energy radiates out at the speed of light? After all the speed of light is the limit of the universe,.. going faster then that is impossiable. For when you stop in space, time space stops and time takes over. When you reach the speed of light, time stops and space takes over.

So how can light travel at the speed of light if it has weight?

Re: new theory...

No, matter and anti matter when combine anhialate each other, they no longer exist. Wether this then adds to another pool of energy somewhere I do not know. Maybe this is the energy source for quantum fluctuation, or at least one of them...We live in an extremely complex and fluid environment where energy levels are constantly vying for a balance...

Quantum fluctuation is the theoretical, spontaneous appearance of particles in Space (not necessarily outer space in the traditional sense). These usually only last for tiny amounts of time before 'disappearing' again, supposedly reacting to another particle either in the same space or with itself through time.. (I think, please correct any misunderstandings anybody)

The definitions of matter, as I understand them are

1) Solid
2) Fluid
3) Gas
4) Plasma.

Plasma is the only area I can find a reference to this perpendicular resistance, could you elaborate on it a bit ?

Light travels at the speed of light, when it is slowed it has the potential for more energy, this also implies a mass as it sticks to E=Mc2. Obviously there is a point of weight that can travel at the speed of light and is present in light ? Though this matter may be the smallest available, the fact that it can travel at the speed of light doesn't therfore mean we can, we are made up of a collection of lot larger matter than an individual photon.

Read some on Ronald Mallet this seems relevant here also... He is devising an actual time machine and has some credibility with him also, for now.

Re: new theory...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"thenumbersix\")</div>

Energy is not required for quantum fluctuation. As you said, matter plus antimatter equals nothing. Quantum fluctuation is this equation in reverse.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"thenumbersix\")</div>

Six, the disappearing you refer to is the annihilation you mentioned earlier, although there are some changes these particles (and their antiparticles) can go through before they are snuffed out of existence.

I must say here that I am surprised and gladdened to see that you are indeed well versed in quantum theory, assuming you don't do it for a living, that is. There is (or was, at least) an idea floating around out there that antiparticles could be thought of as just time-reversed particles. In other words, there could be only one electron in the universe. It just goes back and forth through time as an electron, then positron, then electron again, etc. until it has filled every niche that calls for an electron (or positron) through the entire span of time itself. An odd but elegant idea, no doubt not true, but it is a fact that particles and antiparticles can be considered the same, just time-reversed from each other. Excellent point TN6, but probably lost on SOU.

Harte

Re: new theory...

Don't you find it funny that light takes off with no transfer of momentum, but you expect it to slow down from momentum. Photons vibrate so fast that they escape the matter holding them at the speed of light? Yet the last vibration they exert to escape has no equal and opposite reaction for momentum.

the only way to do some real deep space travel is by repelling energies, not propulsion. Unless you think we could go to the edge of the universe where all the antimatter collects, and capture it.

Re: new theory...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"systemoftheuniverse\")</div>

SoU, you have some real thought going there. Light doesn't necessarily have to 'escape' its' source, think of the masses of energy in the sun and other stars. I have to say that light is energy and wavelike and only appears as a 'solid' photon when we 'interfere' with it.

Read up on holographic universe theory, if you get bogged down with that try some General Relativity, I think you might appreciate it.

You're thinking too 'physical world' on this in that light must act by Neutonian Laws, it does not obey much nowadays..

Not sure about there being loads of anti-matter outside of the universe, maybe there is, once we reach the edge of space/time maybe that is what is out there and our universe is an anomolous bubble in this sea.

Personally I like to think there is nothing there, literally, no time or space. You would either disappear from existence, or pop up somewhere in the Universe where the energy you just removed from it is most needed or naturally drawn toward, like in an electric circuit (analogous). The centre of a star maybe !


Harte,

n1, has been a bit of a hobby of mine for quite a few years now, I like to know how things work. Hey if you know of any jobs where they will pay me to post this kind of stuff, be sure to let me know

Is a nice theory, is simplistic and would be so right. Would make time somewhat more of an important influence. Our universe could after all be just another atom in another Universe somewhere, and so on... Put's a whole new slant on splitting the atom though....

Six.

Re: new theory...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"thenumbersix\")</div>

Six,
Unless I'm mistaken, current cosmological theory holds that there is no "edge of the universe" as SOU puts it. While it is theoretically possible to attempt to reach the edge of the "known universe", we must remember that the universe has been expanding for around 10 to 15 billion years. If you were to travel at a speed extremely close to the speed of light, you could reach the edge of the known universe rather quickly (as time is measured by your watch) but it would take billions of years measured by the clocks on Earth. All that time the universe would be continuing to expand. It's an interesting problem to try to discover what would happen if you could reach the edge of this expansion, but it is most likely that, although the edge no doubt exists in some higher dimension, this edge has no reality in our 4-d perception. This is because it is space itself which is expanding. There exists nothing beyond that space is expanding "into". I am certain you were aware of this last fact, but many people here and elsewhere are not. I have a sister who works as an engineer at NASA, yet even she refuses to believe this!

If the universe is "spherical" (closed), you would eventually find yourself back where you started. If the universe is "hyperbolic" (open), you would never be able to reach anything like what we would think of as an "edge." I must say here that these types of curves I mention are not what you may think. They are nonlocal spacetime curvatures and hence would only be perceptable by observers in some higher dimension. Similar to the way that Charlie Brown cannot be aware that the paper he exists on has been folded.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"thenumbersix\")</div>

I also have found that having at least some understanding of the nature of reality is strangely non-profitable. I first began to learn of QM when I decided one day to find out what electricity is. I'd had several courses in college about how to do this or that with circuits, how to measure or predict voltages, currents, etc. but never any decent explanation of how electricity yields power to, for example, the very calculator I was using to perform the requisite calculations. Imagine my surprise when I found that the reason for this lack of information was because, at its most basic level, nobody really knows.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"thenumbersix\")</div>

I know you've read some of Dmitri's posts here on the creation of life. The idea of quantum particles traveling in time is basic to what he believes, in short that some future civilization is causing the necessary changes (on the quantum level) that happened here for life to begin, and subsequently for new species to form. This would be all well and good to me, but he allows this future race to be creating their own predecessors (us), which is of course a flagrant violation of causality, a principle for which he apparently cares very little. Hope he doesn't read in this topic, don't want to give him any freebies.

Harte

Re: new theory...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Harte\")</div>

I am OK, Harte,

I am not a physicist anyway. My concern will be to test ID in its most general sense. I treat all specifics as hypothetical only and do not hold them dear. Thanks for your insights.

~Dmitri

Re: new theory...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Harte\")</div>

I have to agree on that one, I'd like to think that the Universe, as we know it, is closed. As for the shape, is anybodys guess. I think the most popular theories involve a doughnut shape, or was the 3D Simpsons episode I'm thinking of


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Harte\")</div>

Quite, Is a bit disappointing and after a while exciting when you find you're at the edge of known science and the answers are either all theoretical or you have to come up with something yourself. I guess this is why I have more time for religion as faith is starting to become relevant in modern Physics to some extent. That and the Ultimate Being may after all be our Universe...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Harte\")</div>

heheh, there is some credence of the idea of effect preceding cause, how much of this is to answer akward questions I don't know, probably a lot or it's just a thought experiment.

Is amazing how many people resort to the unknown intelligent influence to answer difficult questions. Why is it so hard to believe that the system we live in works because it does. Some of the astonishing things that actually physically happen are mind blowing enough to heap a lot of respect onto the Universe we live in and the Planet we live on...

SoU, is early and am probably being slow, but what do you mean by ID ?

Re: new theory...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"thenumbersix\")</div>

Six,
If you're referring to Dmitri's post above, ID means Intelligent Design.
Harte