It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

Scientist say the wave function is a non physical reality

page: 6
30
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 09:09 AM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

Thank you very much for that well thought out explanation.

Is there any way you can prove these statements wrong, or give me reasons as to why they are not most likely:

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle, is not a description of reality; that is to say, it is a wave function equation that does not perfectly and absolutely embody the existence of particle/wave of reality, thus it is not to say that a particle or wave of energy behaves in a superposed state and it does not have an exact location and momentum. But that the uncertainty principle is only a human made tool, that is our best yet form of 'wrangling' bits and areas of nature, into the neatest and tidiest ways of measuring it, and predicting it? An analogy of the question I am asking is, the uncertainty principle relating to a stick figure drawing made by a 10 year old of the most details of the mile radius surrounding his childhood home, and then referring to it as reality in an argument, and then me saying, but dont you mean that that stick figure of your mom and dad is an approximation, your best yet, of a truer more viable reality? And the 10 year old saying, no according to my stick figure drawing this is what my mom and dad are.

The other statement I want to make and for you to try and prove wrong, or not most likely:

When 'entanglement' occurs, what really occurs, is 2 separate particles being created, that are not 'entangled' in any way, but merely have inherently, do to the event which created them, opposite characteristics, so that when either is measured, it is discovered that the other has its opposite characteristic. This is to say, if we imagine a quarter, a pre 'entanglement' event particle, and then we split the quarter and create 2 'entangled quarters', when we measure one and discover that it is heads, instantaneously! it signals the other side to make sure that it transforms into tails. (please heed the sarcasm

Both statements are wrong, if i understand you correctly.

1. I interpret it as if you want to know if the uncertainty principle is just a limitation to what we can find out about a system or if it is a limitation in the system itself.

In essence, what Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says is that the more you know about a particle's position, the less you know about it's velocity (speed and direction). This seems to imply that you just can't measure the two at the same time, but that is not the whole truth. Simply put, the particle can't have a well-defined velocity if it's position is known precisely. You could see this as the very reason why particles behave as waves, or conversely as a consequence of the wave nature. It's hard to prove this to you in writing, but I can assure you there are experiments that you can perform which proves it. For example, if you shoot electrons at a tiny hole in a wall and detect them on the other side, you will find that they spread out. This can be interpreted in regards of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, since what you do when passing the particles through a hole is to restrict their vertical and horizontal position to be within a small zone, which makes their velocities spread out. This is exactly how waves behave, so this is equivalent to their wave nature.
2. This statement was really the point of the entanglement analogy I gave earlier. No, it can't be described as two particles with opposite characteristics due to the event that created them, just like Alice and Bob can't agree on opposite answers before being questioned.

posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 09:41 AM

originally posted by: mbkennel

The EM field enters through the stress-energy tensor which sums up contributions from material particles, pressure, and electromagentic fields. It's not quite right to say that the EM field has mass, though it does have an energy density and momentum flux, but more correct to say that gravitation responds to a sum of mass plus other stuff. In practical quantitative terms, mass dominates the other stuff in almost all cases (other than maybe cosmology).

In an average and arbitrary volume of space, does there exist EM field and gravity field? Do they exist entwined around one another, over lapping on top of each other? Are they stuck together like a + to - attraction and its just a really dense lattice of gravity and EM field all throughout space?

Knowing that light follows the curve/geometry of gravitated space, and that light is known to not have rest mass, is it possible that light does not create gravity, but just obeys the topography of the local gravity field? So an electron is creating a disturbance in the gravity field as its moving along, and then the electron is accelerated, and it creates disturbance in the EM field, and the disturbance of the EM field follows the path of the geometry of gravity field, but you are saying the EM field disturbance is also creating its own disturbance in the gravity field?

About the function space you mentioned earlier; So the function space, every point being a function of space (in an arbitrary volume of space, how many function points are there(is it exact, or is it up to the doer of math to decide for their equation and experiment)? As many Planck lengths as there are?( are function points of function space physical objects or are they only the function of expansion of space?), and do they also affect results of equations because increasing the value of the space between each point has an effect on all non point space values (non space stuff, particles) placed in the space?

Ok and earlier you mentioned non local space, and was still trying to grasp what you meant by this; So you are suggesting there is a massive difference between the classical world and the quantum world? For example you would say that if you and I were standing 25 feet away from each other, the quantum particles that make up each of our bodies (in a truer measurement of distance) would be closer (or further)? Or that all classical things measured are measured to be further (or closer, not sure which you are suggesting) then they quantumly are (quantum, being the truest expression of reality)? So that is what you are saying, the classical realm is a 'delayed' illusion of sorts, and the quantum world is really much more closer and existing in a different 'realm' or space (time/space) because it is operating at such a higher rate, so it cant possibly be existing and operating on the plane where our fleshy hands and our throwing of stones into water exist, because every time, by the time these events occur, the quantum information has already occurred millions of times over...or something?

Like in your body right now, we know of skin and bones and veins and cells and brain and heart and organs and chemicals, but with non locality, the main thing you are suggesting is that 'a more, or the most objective essence/view of reality' is the quantum fields and particles that are constantly motioning about, which result in the building up or temporally solidifying the classical world? So you are suggesting the quantum particles that are always acting about to make your body appear like a body, really dont exist where your body is? Sheesh, im really not grasping the true idea of non locality, and I still have never heard anyone offer a logical theory on how entanglement can possibly exist.

posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 09:45 AM

originally posted by: mbkennel

Because your "skepticism" and intuitive assumption of "what can make stuff move" is completely influenced by our evolutionary biology and practical observations of the classical limit that dominates nearly everything that we do or observe, in which case our assumptions work.

Tell me an unintuitive example of 'what can make stuff move', making something move, please. And just, im not asking for a lot, your thoughts in a few simple sentences, some background, on how and why, it is possible, for the example you will provide, to occur. What establishments and truths of nature, physical/material, or not, allow this to occur, and force it to occur.

posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 10:19 AM

originally posted by: Deran

Both statements are wrong, if i understand you correctly.

I interpret it as if you want to know if the uncertainty principle is just a limitation to what we can find out about a system or if it is a limitation in the system itself.

In essence, what Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says is that the more you know about a particle's position, the less you know about it's velocity (speed and direction). This seems to imply that you just can't measure the two at the same time, but that is not the whole truth. Simply put, the particle can't have a well-defined velocity if it's position is known precisely.

I just dont think it can be true, that a quanta of energy or material can be said to exist at all, but not exist.... Saying that it does not exist in an exact location in and of itself at all times, is equal to saying it does not exist at all. Same with the velocity. I propose that (if the universe is real, and not a video game or gods computation of some kind) then if humans existed or not, or observed or not quanta of energy or matter, they always have exact velocities and locations.

You could see this as the very reason why particles behave as waves, or conversely as a consequence of the wave nature. It's hard to prove this to you in writing, but I can assure you there are experiments that you can perform which proves it. For example, if you shoot electrons at a tiny hole in a wall and detect them on the other side, you will find that they spread out. This can be interpreted in regards of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, since what you do when passing the particles through a hole is to restrict their vertical and horizontal position to be within a small zone, which makes their velocities spread out. This is exactly how waves behave, so this is equivalent to their wave nature.

Yes im familiar with the double slit experiment, if thats what you were referring too, I dont think its sufficient enough evidence to believe that uncertainty principle is an exact but symbolic (symbolic meaning, made of math, not a particle) replica of reality.

So is there such thing as 1 electron? And then there is such thing as 2 electrons? And this thing that is called an electron is not composed of parts, but a pure 'area/volume' of electron substance? And this electron moves linearly through time and space in and up and down pattern, which is its wave like nature? Or the physical 'area/volume' of the electron itself, is vibrating up and down like a wave? In the same way a jump rope is 1 physical area of rope, and it itself can move in a wave like manner.

This statement was really the point of the entanglement analogy I gave earlier. No, it can't be described as two particles with opposite characteristics due to the event that created them, just like Alice and Bob can't agree on opposite answers before being questioned.

Yes sorry, I admit I did not grasp your examples with the questions and Alive and Bob. But I still dont see how my expression can be proved false. Every time entangled particles are observed, they are always found to be opposite characteristics, yes? Noone knows what the characteristics of either are before they are observed, yes? Then my expression seems the most logical conclusion, and I have never seen anything that should warrant me to 'believe' otherwise.

posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 02:00 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: mbkennel

Because your "skepticism" and intuitive assumption of "what can make stuff move" is completely influenced by our evolutionary biology and practical observations of the classical limit that dominates nearly everything that we do or observe, in which case our assumptions work.

Tell me an unintuitive example of 'what can make stuff move', making something move, please. And just, im not asking for a lot, your thoughts in a few simple sentences, some background, on how and why, it is possible, for the example you will provide, to occur. What establishments and truths of nature, physical/material, or not, allow this to occur, and force it to occur.

These are all the results of the QM experiments on entangled sets of particles maintained in QM state until 'observed'.

By 'making stuff move' I mean making atoms and electrons do stuff in the particle detectors which end up registering signals on macroscopic scale so people can see the results.

posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 02:03 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: mbkennel

The EM field enters through the stress-energy tensor which sums up contributions from material particles, pressure, and electromagentic fields. It's not quite right to say that the EM field has mass, though it does have an energy density and momentum flux, but more correct to say that gravitation responds to a sum of mass plus other stuff. In practical quantitative terms, mass dominates the other stuff in almost all cases (other than maybe cosmology).

In an average and arbitrary volume of space, does there exist EM field and gravity field? Do they exist entwined around one another, over lapping on top of each other? Are they stuck together like a + to - attraction and its just a really dense lattice of gravity and EM field all throughout space?

Knowing that light follows the curve/geometry of gravitated space, and that light is known to not have rest mass, is it possible that light does not create gravity, but just obeys the topography of the local gravity field?

Possible but would violate general relativity. I'm not sure about the status of the experimental confirmation, but I would never bet against Einstein. I'm not an expert on the theoretical motivations for sure but I have an idea. If you consider that electromagnetic interactions with particles can transfer energy and momentum back and forth from particles to EM fields, if only part of those gravitated and the others didn't, you'd probably end up with violations of conservation laws which aren't observed. Or you'd have a trick to make warp drive.

edit on 24-4-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 04:12 PM

originally posted by: mbkennel

Possible but would violate general relativity. I'm not sure about the status of the experimental confirmation, but I would never bet against Einstein. I'm not an expert on the theoretical motivations for sure but I have an idea. If you consider that electromagnetic interactions with particles can transfer energy and momentum back and forth from particles to EM fields, if only part of those gravitated and the others didn't, you'd probably end up with violations of conservation laws which aren't observed. Or you'd have a trick to make warp drive.

I am the one who is with Einstein on most everything, you are the one who bets against him by claiming entanglement is a real phenomenon and not a blunder like confusion.

So can radiation be the candidate for 'dark matter', if there is a lot of radiation, thats a lot of gravity its creating right?

And also can you touch about my inquiry regarding the nature of EM and gravity field, how they coincidally exist in space, occupy the same area, or if they exist next to each other in a dense 3d medium? If they are 2 sides of the same 3d all encompassing substance? Or if there are EM field particles that are squished together tightly and held together strongly and thats the EM field, and there are gravity particles that are squished together tightly and held together strongly and thats the gravity field, and when you take any area of space every single planck length of the volume of that space, is packed in with a pure substance of EM and gravity field...how does these fields exist in that space, how do they appear to and as themselves, what is their objective nature of existence?

posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 04:17 PM

originally posted by: mbkennel

Because your "skepticism" and intuitive assumption of "what can make stuff move" is completely influenced by our evolutionary biology and practical observations of the classical limit that dominates nearly everything that we do or observe, in which case our assumptions work.

This is the statement I was replying to. I took it to mean, since I was claiming like Einstein, no spooky action at a distance, which we are quite familiar with the classical world, I took you to say there is a lot of spooky action at a distance possible in QM. I was asking, what an example of how this can exist is? I do not believe spooky action/entanglement is real phenomenon.

What is your evidence that 'entanglement' is not due to my rhetoric in an above discussion; a particle being split into 2 distinct particles of opposite qualities/characteristics...no spooky communication across infinite distance, no superposition and suspended state until observed? What is one, or a few if you would like, reasons why my view on that is not the possible reality?

posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 08:31 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: mbkennel

Because your "skepticism" and intuitive assumption of "what can make stuff move" is completely influenced by our evolutionary biology and practical observations of the classical limit that dominates nearly everything that we do or observe, in which case our assumptions work.

This is the statement I was replying to. I took it to mean, since I was claiming like Einstein, no spooky action at a distance, which we are quite familiar with the classical world, I took you to say there is a lot of spooky action at a distance possible in QM. I was asking, what an example of how this can exist is? I do not believe spooky action/entanglement is real phenomenon.

I do, because the experiments keep on telling us so, and we don't have any better explanation beyond quantum mechanics.

What is your evidence that 'entanglement' is not due to my rhetoric in an above discussion; a particle being split into 2 distinct particles of opposite qualities/characteristics...no spooky communication across infinite distance, no superposition and suspended state until observed? What is one, or a few if you would like, reasons why my view on that is not the possible reality?

Experiment.

posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 08:56 PM

originally posted by: mbkennel

I do, because the experiments keep on telling us so, and we don't have any better explanation beyond quantum mechanics.

Its more likely my interpretation is right. You are making an interpretation on the data of experiments, my interpretation is more likely to be correct, yours requires a leap of faith. Please show me or tell me why as I have stated, 'entanglement' cannot be the result of 2 distinct particles of opposite characteristics being created? Why is that not the case? There is nothing I have seen that suggests that is not what occurs, and so that is the most logical interpretation of the experiments. Your interpretation is completely baffling and seemingly invented from belief and imagination, please tell me, please, please, please, one way in which there is no way my interpretation can be correct, which is if I need to say it again. 2 distinct particles are created, call them A and B, you say they are entangled, I say they have opposite characteristics, we observe A, its A, we observe B, its B. I say A was A and B was B, you say A was A/B and B was A/B and when you observed A, A/B turned into B, because of spooky action at a distance.

posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 09:22 PM

originally posted by: Kashai
Animals communicate with pheromones and that seems a factor in what is referred to as telepathy. In other words due to the complexity of the brain we are able to express more complex ideas than animals are able to in this way.

In and of itself though I feel it is important to point out that humans as a whole. Seem to experience some strange sensation, when certain metal objects are placed 2 cm from their foreheads.

There is no scientific documentation in existence that seems to explain why this is happening. Myself I was brought up understanding this experience so have had plenty of time to engage in samplings. It is really simple to do; place the copper top of a number 2 pencil about 2cm from your forehead, then consider why you are having that experience.

Perhaps the Universe is an phenomenon inherent to a larger system like a rainbow is inherent to a thunderstorm.

Any thoughts?

Russian submarines used to have the offspring of a mother rabbit on board, back at base in Russia they had the doe wired up to an encephalogram, when the submarine wanted to send a message ,they killed one of the rabbits. This action caused the mother rabbits brain waves to go crazy, which alerted the listening post for a message.
At a subconscious level by actually thinking of a target person the blood pressure of the target goes up. Back in the sixties a message was sent across Russia using this method. This action seems to be at a non conscious cellular level. Cell scrapings from a donors mouth, react electrically as if they were still in the donors mouth,even at great distances. So something is going on, but I think most of this stuff has gone top secret, and only tantalising glimpses were floating around in the sixties when the super powers were spending the money on it.

posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 07:23 AM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

I just dont think it can be true, that a quanta of energy or material can be said to exist at all, but not exist.... Saying that it does not exist in an exact location in and of itself at all times, is equal to saying it does not exist at all. Same with the velocity. I propose that (if the universe is real, and not a video game or gods computation of some kind) then if humans existed or not, or observed or not quanta of energy or matter, they always have exact velocities and locations.

Well, for all intents and purposes, they don't have exact positions and velocities. If they did, the universe as we know it wouldn't exist. Atoms would collapse, for instance. The very existence of atoms verifies quantum mechanics.

I really don't see how this would make the particle any less real. It's still there, it's just smeared out a bit.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Yes im familiar with the double slit experiment, if thats what you were referring too, I dont think its sufficient enough evidence to believe that uncertainty principle is an exact but symbolic (symbolic meaning, made of math, not a particle) replica of reality.

So is there such thing as 1 electron? And then there is such thing as 2 electrons? And this thing that is called an electron is not composed of parts, but a pure 'area/volume' of electron substance? And this electron moves linearly through time and space in and up and down pattern, which is its wave like nature? Or the physical 'area/volume' of the electron itself, is vibrating up and down like a wave? In the same way a jump rope is 1 physical area of rope, and it itself can move in a wave like manner.

Yes, there is such a thing as one and two electrons, and no, it doesn't move up and down. The electron itself is a wave, which means it occupies a volume of space instead of having a position. It is a wave because the 'amount' by which it exists in any specific location varies like a wave.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Yes sorry, I admit I did not grasp your examples with the questions and Alive and Bob. But I still dont see how my expression can be proved false. Every time entangled particles are observed, they are always found to be opposite characteristics, yes? Noone knows what the characteristics of either are before they are observed, yes? Then my expression seems the most logical conclusion, and I have never seen anything that should warrant me to 'believe' otherwise.

The thing is, they're not always opposite. Sometimes they're equal, and sometimes there's no relation at all; and this depends on how you measure. Because of this dependence on how they are measured, it is possible to show that there is absolutely no way to pre-determine answers that give the results you get. It is evident that one's properties depends on how the other was measured.

I do understand the skepticism though. It's not an easy thing to just accept on blind faith, and it requires a lot of work to verify it for oneself. The thing is, when you understand it, you also see how impossible it is to explain it any other way.

You don't even need quantum theory to prove that entanglement is real and that there actually is 'spooky action at a distance' going on. You only need to do the measurements and apply some statistics and you'll find that the results are impossible unless we acknowledge that the particles are entangled.

posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 02:23 PM

originally posted by: Deran

Well, for all intents and purposes, they don't have exact positions and velocities. If they did, the universe as we know it wouldn't exist. Atoms would collapse, for instance. The very existence of atoms verifies quantum mechanics.

I really don't see how this would make the particle any less real. It's still there, it's just smeared out a bit.

Of course they have exact positions and velocities! We dont know them. We cant know them. But they have them...they are them.

To say an electron is orbiting an atom, or creating an electron cloud around an atom, is to say, an electron exists. To say an electron exists, and is orbiting an atom, or creating an electron cloud around an atom, is to say that the electron is always in its exact position, an electron in your eye right now is not on the moon, its not on the sun, its not in the galaxy over, or the galaxy beyond that, and its velocity is not an exact ~.000001 - 9999999 miles an hour. It is more then likely, definite in my opion or at least approaching certainty, that the electron by nature of being something that exists and is not nothing, is always traveling at a definite velocity, it would be silly, meaningless, and wrong to exclaim that an electron is traveling but not at a velocity. Sure it may change its velocity, it may change its velocity 100 times a second for its entire existence, or more so, have its velocity changed by surrounding circumstances, but its still always traveling a particular velocity. A car may change its velocity, a car on a 100 mile drive you may ask, what is that cars velocity, i can say, well it doesnt have a definite velocity, why because it changed throughout its travel, yes, well I propose at all times from start to finish the car was traveling exact velocities.

The thing is, they're not always opposite. Sometimes they're equal, and sometimes there's no relation at all; and this depends on how you measure. Because of this dependence on how they are measured, it is possible to show that there is absolutely no way to pre-determine answers that give the results you get. It is evident that one's properties depends on how the other was measured.

Well if they are equal, then can it be said they were not entangled, the experiment failed to produce 'entangled particles'? Same thing can be said if there is no relation at all? If both particles are measured and found to be equal, or both particles are measured and found to be un related, in what way would they say to be 'entangled'?

I do understand the skepticism though. It's not an easy thing to just accept on blind faith, and it requires a lot of work to verify it for oneself. The thing is, when you understand it, you also see how impossible it is to explain it any other way.

You don't even need quantum theory to prove that entanglement is real and that there actually is 'spooky action at a distance' going on. You only need to do the measurements and apply some statistics and you'll find that the results are impossible unless we acknowledge that the particles are entangled.

You still have not simply prove my hypothesis wrong; When 'entangled' particles are created (I will call them sibling particles, brother and sister) they are 2 exact particles that have opposite characteristics. What aspect of experimentation proves my interpretation incorrect?

If we had two bags, one with a blue ball in it and one with a red ball in it. You are saying before one of us looks in our bag, your bag contains a blue/red ball and my bag contains a blue/red ball, and then when you look in your bag and see that it is a red ball, faster then the speed of light your red ball signals my blue/red ball to turn blue, which what do you know, when I look in my bag, its a blue ball.

posted on May, 9 2014 @ 09:52 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Deran

Well, for all intents and purposes, they don't have exact positions and velocities. If they did, the universe as we know it wouldn't exist. Atoms would collapse, for instance. The very existence of atoms verifies quantum mechanics.

I really don't see how this would make the particle any less real. It's still there, it's just smeared out a bit.

Of course they have exact positions and velocities! We dont know them. We cant know them. But they have them...they are them.

To say an electron is orbiting an atom, or creating an electron cloud around an atom, is to say, an electron exists. To say an electron exists, and is orbiting an atom, or creating an electron cloud around an atom, is to say that the electron is always in its exact position, an electron in your eye right now is not on the moon, its not on the sun, its not in the galaxy over, or the galaxy beyond that, and its velocity is not an exact ~.000001 - 9999999 miles an hour. It is more then likely, definite in my opion or at least approaching certainty, that the electron by nature of being something that exists and is not nothing, is always traveling at a definite velocity, it would be silly, meaningless, and wrong to exclaim that an electron is traveling but not at a velocity. Sure it may change its velocity, it may change its velocity 100 times a second for its entire existence, or more so, have its velocity changed by surrounding circumstances, but its still always traveling a particular velocity. A car may change its velocity, a car on a 100 mile drive you may ask, what is that cars velocity, i can say, well it doesnt have a definite velocity, why because it changed throughout its travel, yes, well I propose at all times from start to finish the car was traveling exact velocities.

The thing is, they're not always opposite. Sometimes they're equal, and sometimes there's no relation at all; and this depends on how you measure. Because of this dependence on how they are measured, it is possible to show that there is absolutely no way to pre-determine answers that give the results you get. It is evident that one's properties depends on how the other was measured.

Well if they are equal, then can it be said they were not entangled, the experiment failed to produce 'entangled particles'? Same thing can be said if there is no relation at all? If both particles are measured and found to be equal, or both particles are measured and found to be un related, in what way would they say to be 'entangled'?

I do understand the skepticism though. It's not an easy thing to just accept on blind faith, and it requires a lot of work to verify it for oneself. The thing is, when you understand it, you also see how impossible it is to explain it any other way.

You don't even need quantum theory to prove that entanglement is real and that there actually is 'spooky action at a distance' going on. You only need to do the measurements and apply some statistics and you'll find that the results are impossible unless we acknowledge that the particles are entangled.

You still have not simply prove my hypothesis wrong; When 'entangled' particles are created (I will call them sibling particles, brother and sister) they are 2 exact particles that have opposite characteristics. What aspect of experimentation proves my interpretation incorrect?

If we had two bags, one with a blue ball in it and one with a red ball in it. You are saying before one of us looks in our bag, your bag contains a blue/red ball and my bag contains a blue/red ball, and then when you look in your bag and see that it is a red ball, faster then the speed of light your red ball signals my blue/red ball to turn blue, which what do you know, when I look in my bag, its a blue ball.

Is it possible that at one moment the electron is in a cloud, say in the outer shell, then it moves to the other outer shell of another atom, for this movement to take place there must have been a change in speed. On this level its quite possible that its the timeline that's changed, due to an increase of speed. Or rather a time slowdown? that causes what we think is entanglement, if the electron goes to another atom it might just blip out of existence on the first atom but as long as they are on different timelines could appear to be real. Thus existing in two places at once. Assuming one electron is exactly the same as any other electron they have us guessing.

posted on May, 9 2014 @ 10:10 PM
I am impressed by the issue of the Strange Quark with respect to its activity as a part of the proton. It constitutes 1 percent of the mass of an atom. But if as a virtual particle it would stop appearing in the atom, the atom would dissolve.

What if 1% of a Virtual Strange Quark would cease to exist in hypothesis; would that result in an atom dissolving?

What about 1% of 1% of a Virtual Strange Quark ceasing to exist, does the atom dissolve??

Is the change in mass enough to cause the atom to be disrupted?

Any thoughts?

posted on May, 9 2014 @ 10:32 PM

originally posted by: Kashai
I am impressed by the issue of the Strange Quark with respect to its activity as a part of the proton. It constitutes 1 percent of the mass of an atom. But if as a virtual particle it would stop appearing in the atom, the atom would dissolve.

What if 1% of a Virtual Strange Quark would cease to exist in hypothesis; would that result in an atom dissolving?

What about 1% of 1% of a Virtual Strange Quark ceasing to exist, does the atom dissolve??

Is the change in mass enough to cause the atom to be disrupted?

Any thoughts?

As a 1% part of the Proton this subatomic particle must have a reason for existence, in the balance of the wave functions we call reality. It might hold 1% of the positive charge within the atom, if this goes missing it might cause enough electrons in the outer shell of the atom to go missing, which might cause the chemical bonds between elements to become less stable.

top topics

30