Ask any question you want about Physics

Why ask any questions when you keep stating you know all the answers in a deeper manner than everyone else?

originally posted by: ErosA433
Why ask any questions when you keep stating you know all the answers in a deeper manner than everyone else?

Intellectual dishonesty on display. I didn't say that, I said:
DanielKoenig

Anyone beyond Delbert responding to me is pointless, he is a master among schoolboys here, he is an original artist compared to a coloring-book kid. I understand if he doesnt want to deeply respond to all my questions and play the game of slowdancing towards more-true, maybe he rightly thinks doing so cannot be fruitful, maybe he wrongly thinks so. There is no point responding to any of my posts without answering every single sentence and critiquing it and unpacking it, so then I can question and shine a light on your methods of legitimacy and doing so, anything less than that is falsely speaking to your self in your diary while looking in the mirror, for the love of hearing your own voice.

a reply to: DanielKoenig

When a deuteron fuses with a triton the helium ion and neutron produced have 17.6 million electron volts of energy from those two participants, or 8.8 million eV per participant. A single molecule of TNT has 21 atomic constituents and liberates about 10 eV when it decomposes, or about 2 eV per participant. In both cases the reaction produces moving resultant particles, which then scatter off of other particles and give those other particles motion. Those other particles continue the process and spread motion to many, many other particles (which may be in a house, etc.) nearby. Heat is the energy of motion, and that heat leads to pressure. Since you have a factor of over five million in output energy per gram (on average, the TNT reactants are heavier than the fusion ones), for a fairly small source of nuclear fuel you get a very large effect.

I do not have an answer for you regarding a physical model for the nuclear force. I don't know that anyone else does either. The status quo no longer deals with physical models, as relativity decrees point-like interactions in four-space. Since I am a proponent of absolute theory, I can return to physical models, and I am working on a physical model for electromagnetism based on an aether. I have some nascent ideas that gravity might simply be an effect in that same aether, but at this point my gravity thoughts are just a conjecture. I am curious about the strong force too, but so far I don't have anything firm to share on that one either.

I can however offer a general observation and a speculation. In my aether approach, the forces are of two types. There are flow forces that are proportional to the flow - they are drag forces. Then there are a tension force and a separation force, and these have the equation of a spring - the force is proportional to the stretching. Those simple forces, I believe, lead to both Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz Force Equation. I suppose it is possible that the strong force is simply another spring force, but with a much stiffer spring. But that's just a wild stab in the dark - it is not science.

When studying physics through my Ph.D. years it was often mentioned that F = kx appears frequently in nature. It is the first term in the Taylor expansion, and that explains part of it no doubt.

But all of my thoughts on gravity and the strong force are mere speculation at this point. I have no real answer concerning the physical origins of the strong force. I hope however to have a full physical answer on electrodynamics before the end of the year.

a reply to: delbertlarson

To understand the nuclear force takes time learning about experiments done at places like the LHC. I guess first thing to understand is All forces arise from an exchange of particles. For example the electric force arises from the exchange of photons. The nuclear force is caused by the exchange of pions .• At a more fundamental level the nuclear force becomes
the strong force, caused by the exchange of gluons .

The strong force acts between the quarks inside the nucleons. The strong force arises from the exchange of gluons. The gluons “glue” quarks into protons, neutrons, and pions. To go any deeper requires alot of math and an understanding of fundamental particles.

a reply to: dragonridr

I understood the pion model many years ago; less so the gluon model. When in grad school I learned that QCD was only good to about 10%, so I was disappointed to the point of disillusionment with where nuclear theory was. To my knowledge QCD hasn't gotten much better in 30 years. Compared to the beauty and accuracy of the quantum mechanical treatment of the hydrogen atom, where we are with nuclear matter is in its infancy to my understanding.

Here is the test for nuclear theory that I don't believe has been met: calculate the meson masses. They are two body states - a quark/anti-quark system. If we have a good theory we should be able to predict the masses quite accurately. Perhaps we need a perturbative approach ala QED, but that should be the test for the theory - accurately predict the masses. I don't believe there is such a theory. At least there was none 30 years ago. From what I understand, most of the advances since then have been in less mundane things, such as string theory, multiple dimensions, and finding the Higgs. But without a satisfactory theory for the meson masses I would judge the theory as woefully incomplete.

But setting all that aside, I believe Daniel was looking for a physical model. That is what I am searching for, so I answered his question that way. I don't believe anyone has such a model. Furthermore, relativity has done away with such thinking. It is all point-like exchanges now, just as you mention.

I agree the present theory works to some extent. But there are some serious unanswered questions, and I believe there is a simpler way. Here are some links to that simpler way:

A Return To Realism and Absolute Theory
Absolute Theory
The ABC Preon Model
The Aether
Absolute Quantum Mechanics

I believe QCD has actually gotten a lot better over the last 30 years, it i think for some processes is at the % level in terms of accuracy, which is pretty good compared to watch it was. There are plenty of places where we have to just shrug and go... yeah... we don't know.

Great example is Jets and Hadronisation... its just... purely empirical for the most part... in some ways the exact process doesn't really matter, only that we want to measure the total energy of the initial particle.

Nuclear theory is also tricky in that it suffers badly from the counting problem, that the models that deal with the fundamentals and are able to predict excited states etc in very low z nuclei totally become unworkable at higher and higher z. So we introduce theories that are underpinned by those fundamentals with shortcuts and tricks to make calculations and predictions possible.

You then get other weird things going on with distorted nuclei when you get to higher z, something that is not well predicted, but does give very wildly different results. In all, the confinement and interactions between fundamental particles gets quite complex.

a reply to: ErosA433

Hi ErosA433, It is good to see there has been progress. However even 1% fails miserably in comparison to the Schrödinger equation based treatment of the Hydrogen atom, which I believe is good to about one part in ten to the six, and only falls short when considering the Lamb shift. And I readily agree that N-body states are complicated, so that it is hard to get accurate models there. That is why my main criticism concerns the mesons. Mesons are two body states! The two body problem in a central potential can be reduced to a one body problem, as is well known. If we really knew much about the strong force we should be able to solve for the meson mass spectra.

I have produced an alternative formulation for high energy quantum mechanics. Have you looked at it? It won't take long to get through the whole thing. I would guess a half hour, tops. It is here: Absolute Quantum Mechanics. By applying the right potential it is my guess one could solve for the meson masses. Of course, by The ABC Preon Model the mesons are actually four-body states, but I believe the bindings between the C particles and their corresponding A or B may be strong enough so that the two-body approximation may be pretty good and the meson spectra should be calculable.

Of course, my quantum mechanics treatment is not relativistic, so many discard it right there. But recall that Schrödinger's treatment isn't relativistic either, and it is spectacularly successful. Also, if we move to my quantum mechanics treatment we eliminate the need for QFT, and thereby eliminate the issue with the cosmological constant.

Please take this seriously and have a look! Perhaps you can derive the meson mass spectra!

a reply to: ErosA433

I should have added that my high velocity QM is an exact treatment. As I recall, QCD had trouble with doing a perturbation approach because the expansion was not in a small quantity. Hence, having an exact equation should be quite useful.

originally posted by: delbertlarson
looking for a physical model.

There is nothing, and there is something. Everything that is not nothing exists some way, at all times, exactly as it exists. That which exists (that which is not nothing) should be able to be approximated and represented with concepts (such as geometry, which should be able to be approximated away from pure substanceless abstractions of geometry (like a 2d blueprint, a bridge made of toothpicks) into a 3d/4d representation (physical mode) of reality. Legos, tinkertots and erector sets do not exactly mimic sky scrapers and mansions, but the massive complex idea can relatively be contained and represented in smaller, simpler 'physical statements' and representations.

The difficulty is that from current, at least simple explanations, and models and theories, there is an unbridged gap between this, what you are talking about, our knowledge, conception, comprehension, understanding of the absolute totality of fundamentality and beyond of how all pure physicality actually exists (or knowledge of absolute physical Truth: is not currently, it seems, a 1:1 match with the absolute physical Truth; a main reason you are interested in these subject and topics, is to direct us closer to that big T), and spaces in that, the noumenas, pure physicality, how absolutely everything that absolutely actually exists (all that is not nothing, right now, and now, and now, and now, and now, ad infinitum) actually exists, and how each aspect of the totality of things that exist interact and can interact with one another, how their interactions and results of interactions result in what they do. So that mysterious things like magnetism and to some extent gravity, and nuclear force cant be represented with legos (according to those with the most knowledge (at least according to what we have been able to find), that may also be, or seems to be, incomplete).

How can the electrons attraction to a proton be expressed with purely physical pieces/parts? How can the neutrons pulling of the proton toward it be expressed with purely physical pieces/parts? Where is the missing gap of knowledge and understanding and what is the physical truth that is standing in that gap out of sight and reach? The universe appears to be not so simple as bare bones legos, primarily because at least the believed perception that things can influence other things at a distance, and it is difficult or impossible to see this mediation, to understand its subtleties, intricacies, and nuance. How many people have seen a car engine and understand how part a works with part b that moves as part t moves and part y moves part w synchronized with part z attached to part e,r,v,d which all move in opposing ways at the same time making part o, p, u, move up and left and right which cause q, s, h, x to move this way and that, all at their perfect speeds, all with their perfect sizes, how many people have seen this and understand the physical parts and causal relations that result in this happening so this happens, and see that all those physical variables actually tangibly exist, and can be represented in physical model: how many people have seen gluons and understand their shape and size and how many exist right there and there and how they interact with part e and n and p to keep them going? How have gluons been physically modeled as a physically operating mechanism that makes physical sense as to the job/duty it is said to perform: the fan does this, the belt does this, the oil tank does this, the pistons do this, these valves do this, their movements and interactions can be modeled and the sensal causality can be seen to make physical sense: how has the part of gluon been modeled to make sense of the claim that it can, do what (?)(physically) to hold on tight to neutron and proton? Of course we can easily say: it seems there is this proton and neutron thing, and they seem to be stuck together, therefore, lets say there exists the: stick-together-proton-neutron-thing, do we have any clue on how it does that, how it works, any theories on how that can possibly work? How much reality are these theories based on? How does dots/particles moving back and forth between 2 particles keep them together, whats a physical model theory as to how 100 or a million particles moving back and forth between 2 particles keeps them strongly together (to how tight of a degree?).

This is just a semi related musing on maybe something relevant, I am sorry, almost more to myself, that I havent read your what seems to be interesting reply to me yet, as I have personally happily been away from this topic for sometime and it takes a bit of effort for me to muster up the desire to dive back into the deep mysteries, the deep seas of mysteries in search of the little specks of anchor and gold.

originally posted by: delbertlarson
my quantum mechanics treatment is not relativistic

just skimming, why is it not relativistic, what about it escapes physical relativism (of movements in measurement reference frames and directions of movements (rotation, wobble, velocity, acceleration in relation to the various surrounding particles and their velocities and momentums as particle desired to be measured is passing) of particles being measured)?

a reply to: DanielKoenig
a reply to: delbertlarson
ok, ok, continued musing, this may be one of the more stupid questions ive asked now, but, why are gluons even need, why is it impossible for the insides of neutron to tightly latch on to the insides of proton and not let go, like velcro, or a zipper/lock? Or to go back to an example I used before: the difference in character part relationships between oil in a glass of water and 2 cups of sugar in a glass of water (representing to my perspecive of ignorance, 2 possible models of two separate parts inter-relations: do protons and neutrons touch each other like oil and water, or do they get more snug like sugar in water: I concluded that, in both cases the identity still largely remains, I am not sure if the chemical bonds of sugar partially break down, or completely, when sugar is mixed in water, what percent of electrons are stripped from the sugar molecules and float freely or attach to water molecules: or if even in the classical mixture, h20 remains close to as is/was at the start, and if sugar molecules do alter/break down at all/lose electrons/or just remain the core sugar molecule but break into pieces, even though they are classically mixed, they still remain their separate identities and characteristics, sugar molecules are protons, water molecules are neutrons, their mixture is a nucleus, how hard would it be to take your fingers and split the near sugar molecules from the water molecules they are near? what are the analogous gluons that hold the sugar molecules to the water molecules (magnetism eh)? If quarks have charge, why might it not be magnetism that holds the quarks in the proton to the quarks in the neutron, just that the quantas are able to become in closer proximity to one another than electron and proton, and once they come in closer proximity they meld more easily and more tightly. Speaking of, you ever play with legos and there is the normal block and under it one of the really thin ones and its stuck on really tight? sometimes its like impossible to separate them, must be a lot of gluons between them ay? As with sugar water example, I have brought up bread: multiple parts, you mix them together, its hard to separate the parts you started with, I have a loaf of bread, there is egg particle and flour particle and wheat particle in there, good look splitting them out. The only troubling aspect of the surfaceness of these examples now, is when you do succeed and getting what you are pretty sure is pretty purely a spot of flour, or egg, or wheat out from the loaf, it doesnt explode.

a reply to: DanielKoenig
I guess another perspective to go about my initial nuclear wondering, what percent of energy of an atom bomb blast is absorbed/contained/lost/transmitted in the air as shockwave/sound? Aannnd, how different would that be if an atom bomb was set off in the purest of pure vacuums in the middle of interstellar/and/or theoretical-intergalactic-space?

Not intending to go down the rabbit whole of arguments about the nature and meaning of the term and concept and reality of 'vacuum', so the question implies 2 directions: 1) what is thought of is the reality of the possibilities of vacuum, the feasibility of if the experiment ever could be tried, 2) to test the purest possible truest complete absolute perfect understanding of the pure perfect knowledge of the absolute actual substance and physics and pure theory of total possible nature: if the original conception of the vacuum being absolute pure nothingness, could in theory be imagined to exist: lets say 10000 x 10000 x 10000 yard area was possible to contain absolutely nothing, not a single atom or particle in it, what would the result be if an atom bomb went off in it.

1) is asking without the air there (and maybe even asking about gravity (arc) and how gravity even influences the air there) to effect the atoms split blast, what would the result of atom bomb blast be.

a reply to: DanielKoenig

Hi Daniel, to go in reverse order on your last three posts.

1) When you get into details on nuclear bombs, such as shockwaves and sound, I am not the best one to answer here. Arbitraguer does a much better job on such topics.

2) In the The ABC Preon Model nuclear particles are postulated to be held together by a force carried by neutrinos, and the preons have neutrinic charge. That force is postulated to be far stronger than electromagnetism. Unfortunately, I have yet to get much deeper than that on the force aspect. For the more presently accepted theories, dragonridr has summed things up succinctly - forces are transmitted by the exchange of particles.

3) My theory is not relative in that time remains time and space remains space. A spatial interval does not become both a temporal interval plus a spatial interval just because you move with respect to it, as is the case in relativity. There's actually quite a bit that goes into this topic. Please read my article on Absolute Theory as it should answer things.

At this point it is important to mention that you should really read and think over what is already written and linked to in the responses you get from others, rather than writing ever more walls of text that we are supposed to read, while in the new wall of text you say you don't even read the responses to your previous walls of text. The answers to your questions may already be written in those responses, and if you never read them to find the answers, why continue to ask the questions?

originally posted by: delbertlarson
nuclear particles are postulated to be held together by a force carried by neutrinos, and the preons have neutrinic charge. That force is postulated to be far stronger than electromagnetism. Unfortunately, I have yet to get much deeper than that on the force aspect.

By your last sentence, have yet to get much deeper on that aspect, is that in response to my attempt at the 'engine' analogy, meaning you have not considered how the 'hold together' aspect physically mechanically exists and works? Am I right in thinking this may be where domino effects of uncertainty begin to pile, because, how well have single protons and single neutrons been measured in the wild and in labs? How well and how possible is it to be certain of their unrelativistic characteristics, their objective characteristics, aspects, attributes, their mass, their rotation, the possible energies imparted of their rotation, what possibly can cause their rotation and the limit of the speed of rotation, how much gravity effects them, etc. it is an interesting puzzle for sure of trying to plug in positive values into variables and result in the checks and balances that reality itself has resulted in; I think I am aware of the difficulty of quarks, in their singular measurement and seeing and detailing, how they physically exist and the totality of their possible attributes; so we are left with and at a position where many qualities and attributes are known of this tiny tiny thing (that is an integral part of most things we know and are aware of) and another tiny tiny tiny thing, and they interact in some way, they stick together strongly in some way, so thing 1 has attributes x, y, z, thing 2 has attributes a, b, c,: they come together and stick strongly and this allows thing 1/2 to have attributes; different and/or beyond and/or less than a,b,c,x,y,z (?); and part of this attribute is: when a neutron is known in the wild or lab, it is obviously not, when it is singularly known, to be sticking to a proton, when a proton is seen completely independent as is, there it is only there itself in that state and it does not as is right there sticking to a neutron: so where and how does this exist, this strong sticking capability. Man had to start on working backwards, from the conclusion, from the result, of: sticking together: thing 1 attributes___ thing 2 attributes___ thing 1/2 sticking together attributes ____ what is different, what makes this strong sticking able to occur, what are the physical mechanical hypothesis as to how and why they can so strongly stick together: and it is posited this strong sticking together is or must be associated with an increase or a particular use of energy and/or a different type of matter: which is why I thought it so important to mutually agree and calmly establish ourselves with a great understanding and working definition and according to how reality would label itself, accurate depiction of what the term should mean and what physicality or attribute of physicality it points to in reality.

3) My theory is not relative in that time remains time and space remains space. A spatial interval does not become both a temporal interval plus a spatial interval just because you move with respect to it, as is the case in relativity.

Am I wrong in thinking a large aspect of relativity theory is the certainty of measurement problem, due to the possibly multiple directions and speeds of motion of the measurer and possibly multiple directions and speeds of motion of the measured? The Earth is rotating and revolving and traveling linearly, does that not unavoidably have an effect on the result of a measurement when measuring a particle traveling from outside the earth, that may also have rotation, might such characteristics (its movements coupled with out movements) impart measurement results that are not so purely qualities of what is being measured, but of the difficulty to purely suss the actual energetic values of the particle measured? So it went and goes, if a 200 pound man holds himself up on a pull up bar, that requires energy, and it requires a certain amount of energy to pull him away, is it figured the more energy the man has the more difficult it would be to pull him away: the neutron is difficult to pull away from the proton, therefore the concept of a lot of energy must be tossed inside the relation of the connected proton to neutron, and obviously at least I am aware of under the conditions of much surrounding air (hence one aspect of my questioning) a lot of energy does seem to some how be related to the difference between neutron/proton connected, and forced apart, I didnt yet see if it was answered what forms that energy is contained in and why and how (electromagnetic, sound, but the original spark of my intrigue of questioning was how is so much fit in so tiny, and what physical and mechanical forms does that 'so much' take on in the so tiny, how much of the resulting electromagnetic energy and sound/shockwave is contained in, possessed by, attributed to, neutrons themselves, protons themselves, the quarks themselves, electrons themselves, photons/phonons in the atoms themselves (all these in the list, prior to splitting, that is), gluons themselves, when the atom is split, how many gluons are there and what is their course of action, how much energy do they posses in what form, where did they get it, how were gluons originally formed, how does each nucleus access a particular number/unlimited supply of gluons (what percent of the resulting energy blast, is attributed to which of each material parts, how much kinetic energy did each material part possess right before split/blast, what mechanical form was the potential energy of each part contained as and how was the quantity of potential energy it is said each part possessed, deduced.

a reply to: delbertlarson
a reply to: DanielKoenig
continued*


To really understand this, the meaning, nature, and actuality of existence would have to be so intimately known and understood, in the sense that, well the very idea of EM field has always been difficult for me to complete see the reality of, there are likely 50 pages worth of my attempting to shine light for myself onto the topic in this thread, but some people posit that an independant structure called the em field actually exists, as like a 3d net/web, and that it is not simply the totality of all existing photons in real time, or the totality of all existing photons and all existing electrons and the totality of their spatial relation and their movements in real time, that the em field is something more than that, some invisible all encompassing tiny structure that all charged things are always touching, and somehow uncharged things are not, and how a charged thing touching this em field, and made to accelerate, will shake the field, and that shaking which propagates away (in how many directions?) from the point of charge acceleration is called em radiation: so according to that believed perception of reality, if one were to take an electron (even in a vacuum, away from other particles, I wont say the 10000 x 10000 yard example, but the example would also be cheapened by suggesting in the vacuum there are a million electrons per cubic inch, because we are trying to understand fully the nature of the parts independent from others, and distill and understand fundamental attributes of fundamental parts) and shake it up and down one would be generating em radiation, this is maybe one example of how easily one can trip up in semantic tricks, well another example would be, do I turn matter into energy when I flick a guitar string over and over, (and as mad as you may be at me for writing walls of texts, maybe you can offer me the smallest smile here for hinting at field(?)/aether) my finger and the guitar string are matter, their movement is energy, the air is matter, I turn the matter of my finger and string, into the energy of sound waves, (I guess where my thinking and analogy stops is where it is posited energy (at the fundamental level..I guess it depends how you define it, who defines it with what level of absolute certainty and authority and how perfect, pure, rigorous, and reality accurate justification): the continuously accelerated electron is moved up and down, up and down, up and dow, 100 times, 10000 times, and it is continuously generating em radiation (physically, mechanically, how?)(not how does an imperfect idiots finger painting says it occurs, how does reality say it occurs): so this in mind, when the bundle of atoms are split, there possibly is a lot of particulates moving up and down and this has the possibility of generating a lot of continual energy, the problem remains that the motion must come from somewhere, the ability towards motion, we dont imagine the cause of the shockwave and mushroom cloud and electromagnetic energy is a few million or billion electrons and charged particles moving up and down a few times, but this is where if it is theorized there is an actually existing, semi independent (semi independent, where difficulties arise in labeling strict attributes to particulars, as a cell is independent, but is existing as a part of a body, and perhaps the whole body cannot be ignored in relation to the attributes of the cell and its ability to exist as it does; to understand purely the exact independent existent nature of the em field though also it is intimately attached to charged particles and photons and radiation) EM field and who so intimately knows the totality of its attributes and deepness and actualness of its most fine grain existence that on the smallest and most energetic associations with it: the splitting of the nucleus energetically violently, so touches some deep core aspect of the fundamental construct of the EM field that some supra activity takes place, and unleashes so disproportionate in relation to size and energetic result, electromagnetic energy (though of course, it may also, or partly just be, as I had wondered, in relation to chain reaction of the charged particles of the surrounding air). In the same way, the gravity field is said to actually be something that really actually exists and exists every where, so to it exists at the blast point, and who knows how its so rare and violent disruption energetically reacts: my point being many such factors may be at play in regards to the result/measurement of energy, and the totality of that result is all being attributed to being possessed entirely within the nucleus it self.


and please do not entirely blame me for these rants for I am not entirely responsible for them, something deeper within me begs me to follow these lines of thought, and it is too difficult not to listen.

At this point it is important to mention that you should really read and think over what is already written and linked to in the responses you get from others, rather than writing ever more walls of text that we are supposed to read, while in the new wall of text you say you don't even read the responses to your previous walls of text. The answers to your questions may already be written in those responses, and if you never read them to find the answers, why continue to ask the questions?

I mentioned the reason is to me, it is like the difference between going on a 2 week hiking trip into the jungle, and taking an evening stroll around the neighborhood, I put off the diving back into my attempt at strenuous grappling with the responses, a path of most resistance, but as the day went on curiosity to check this page touched me, or I just randomly had another thought, so easely went with its flow, that is why I have further mused without reading the responses yet.

originally posted by: ErosA433
in some ways the exact process doesn't really matter

The whole point is that (a branch, at least a roomful on earth, of) absolute theoretical fundamental physicists job is to never say that.

originally posted by: delbertlarson
In my aether approach, the forces are of two types. There are flow forces that are proportional to the flow - they are drag forces. Then there are a tension force and a separation force, and these have the equation of a spring - the force is proportional to the stretching.

Finally worked up the courage to digest this scary numbers post, and must thank you for its being informative, I believe some of my wonderings have been clarified but as I see you say, I believe I, sorry, redundantly, harped on out of reach. These statements of yours are however interesting, and maybe a few questions about them come to me now and maybe some more will some other time. Any theories, imaginings on the nature of the substance of the aether? How it couples to all possible particles? How many parts per planck length it exists, densely? How the rotation of various bodies effects it? How it might react for various types of bodies (with various types of charge) to collide with one another with the aether in between it (i.e. does it compress, can it be squeezed), or whenever two bodies approach touching the aether in between them slips out between them (associated energy with that?) as maybe someone pouring water on your upturned hand and trying to slap or slowly press your top hand onto bottom will cause the water to slip out the sides. How many different types of parts is the aether made up of, the electron is different from the neutron, different from the proton, the atom is made of different types of parts, is the aether made of only 1 type of part (as if it is all electrons) or multiple (as the ocean is made of h,o, (and electron , proton...)? If you are looking above at aether, and you punch it, which way do the energy waves you have imparted on it travel? The aether, one substance (pending your multiple types of parts answer), gravity and em? When EM radiation is detected: when EM radiation is generated: you take a charged particle and shake it up and down over and over: this moves the local aether up an down, what is the nature of the dimensions of the wave: is it thin and skinny like a sheet of paper, going up and down forward, or like a cube of paper or even expanding more (when you move an electron up and down does EM radiation propagate away from it up and down and to the sides, or just like a single rope/snake the dimensional size of the electron (there are follow up questions to these that I am failing to ask for multiple reasons, like what would be the physical reason for it resulting in the way it does)? (sorry sorry sorry for the confusion and crudetusion of these questions)

originally posted by: delbertlarson
1) When you get into details on nuclear bombs, such as shockwaves and sound, I am not the best one to answer here

But my question is about the understanding of the atom, the subatomic particles that make it up, their possible masses and possible energies, which I would think your deep foundation laying fundamental theory would if not completely contain, severely, sufficiently, confidently touch upon. If you know how and why so much energy is released when an atom is split (the initial essence of my initial question of my first post I made the other day), how much of that energy is attributed purely to the fundamental, subatomic parts, than it would seem one would have some good guesses on what would happen if an atombomb went off in 1) (semi) feasible outer space container of vacuum and 2) pure theoretical area of absolute nothing. If you fundamentally knew the fundamental parts, it often follows that you can deduce how they might interact in different environments, part of my line of questioning was to get closer to seeing how much may be attributed to fundamentalities due to only being able to experience results including their existence and interaction in very specific and particular environments.

originally posted by: DanielKoenig

originally posted by: delbertlarson
1) When you get into details on nuclear bombs, such as shockwaves and sound, I am not the best one to answer here

But my question is about the understanding of the atom, the subatomic particles that make it up, their possible masses and possible energies, which I would think your deep foundation laying fundamental theory would if not completely contain, severely, sufficiently, confidently touch upon. If you know how and why so much energy is released when an atom is split (the initial essence of my initial question of my first post I made the other day), how much of that energy is attributed purely to the fundamental, subatomic parts, than it would seem one would have some good guesses on what would happen if an atombomb went off in 1) (semi) feasible outer space container of vacuum and 2) pure theoretical area of absolute nothing. If you fundamentally knew the fundamental parts, it often follows that you can deduce how they might interact in different environments, part of my line of questioning was to get closer to seeing how much may be attributed to fundamentalities due to only being able to experience results including their existence and interaction in very specific and particular environments.

I like that question....kinda fundamentals of reality before we send the math in

Spirit.....let's plow deep....Spirit in Scripture displays the historically best math

In our face to get our attention.....so math is the language....but God says he will not reveal and cannot reveal....

So math entanglement mixed with super secrets.......keeps us thinking, huh?!!!!