It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

Ask any question you want about Physics

page: 74
74
<< 71  72  73    75  76  77 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Fungi, if you want to circumvent the associated math, just look upon spin as a potential energy of sorts. And wait till MS discovers that, there are analog spin states instead of discreet ones.




posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel
The experiment uses neutrons (which do have a magnetic interaction even though they are net uncharged, because neutrons, unlike electrons, are composed of quarks which have charges). Because regular electrons would interact much too much with matter to see the effect.

In a nutshell, the 720 degrees rotation in spin space happens when there is precession of the particles in an external magnetic field. As it travels the particle 'turns' in the otherwise invisible 2-d spin space which you can think of as being attached to the particle in the 3-d physical space everywhere, and the turning in this spin space gets back to the starting point after 720 degrees.

If it had been a macroscopic magnetized body in regular 3-d space the precession would return to its initial point after 360 degrees as the rotation would be in normal 3-d physical space.



And to make it even more unpalatable, because they're rotating through an imaginary component part of a complex space. Or at least, that's how I visualize it. (double facepalm)

mbkennel, whilst I was reading your explanation, one of my peskier sub-personas that likes whispering shaggy dog explanations into my internal ears pointed out the first line of your above quoted text was wrong - a neutron is a hydrino. Everyone's looking in the wrong place for them at Black Light. They should be looking for the production of anomalous thermal neutrons. That's where the hydrinos go.

The reason a neutron has a magnetic moment is that the hydrino has only one orbital and it's very very very close due to the less-than-ground-state of the...what would you call it, a protino? It's also why you have an electric dipole moment. And why a free neutron decays into (tada!) a proton and electron. And why if you smack a neutron with anti-proton you get a leftover electron. Or if you hit it with a positron you get a leftover proton. It's because neutrons...are...hydrinos. They're not rare, they're EVERYWHERE. I ARE A GEENIUS!!! I'll take my Nobel in bitcoins, please.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam


It gets back to Stern-Gerlach.

Since you can't "see" marks on an electron, you have to determine the spin other ways. Ones that generally preclude the direct visualization that you are fond of. And that's true for most quantum problems.


Below you say "oh, and electrons are dimensionless points". First of all, that statement defeats itself, as the term point infers a non nothingness dimension of at least greater than dimensionlessness.

Stop thinking you are demeaning and belittling me by hating on the concept of mentally visualizing reality. If there were no humans alive, reality would still exist. Reality always equals itself. This means, that which exists is exactly that which exists. Always. This means that even if we cant visualize (yet), or if you dont want to try to, this doesnt matter, because reality is a physical, causal, machine, that is reasonable, and that is physical logic. Everything that physically occurs does so exactly because what exactly physical things are in and of themselves, how they are moving, and what is surrounding them. If you and science do not know what an electron looks like, this does not mean electrons look like nothing. Everything that exists looks exactly like something, it looks exactly like what it actually exactly is... all the details, all the information. All the information that exists equals all the information that exists. Human knowledge is not the supreme council of information (in the physical sense, all information is an extension of physicality, besides arguably concepts of like platos realm of forms), humans can only struggle, strive, and hope they amass a small portion of information from the totality of information that exists. The exact truth of all physical objects and the quantitative and qualitative relation laws that govern them, exists, the laws of physics are not depending on your solving of them for them to exist. Beyond language, if the term electron, is a word invented to describe something that actually exists in reality, if we have faith in that, than we play this faith game, and I admit, yes the electron exists, this means it must have at least 1 quality related to the minimum qualities it takes to admit that something exists. The minimum requirement for something to be said to exist, is that it is more than absolute nothing, or that, it is not nothing. That which is not nothing, is. Tautologically, as in, defined by humans, and attempting to relate to reality, the nature of dimension is one that attempts to describe the relative area of space an object takes up. 0 dimensions, refers to 0 area, refers to no object, refers to non existing, refers to absolute nothing.

If you start with nothing, if you start with absolutely nothing in 0 dimension, and you want to add the minimum amount of somethingness conceivably, hypothetically possible, the ultimate precipiace between nothing and something, a mathematical example would be the smallest numeric distance from 0 towards 1, if it is said there are potentially an infinite number of decimaled numbers between 0 and 1, which is the first number, after 0? The physical equivalent is what I am asking for.

Will you not discover, that the nature of 0 is absolute, that though this murky play of numbers and the infinite potential to write them in a row, will show that 0 is 0, and any attempt to get more than 0, is only resulting in non 0, as in, more than 0, as in, something.

If the electron is not nothing.

Than it is not 0 dimensional.




Having 1/2 spins causes (mathematically) a requirement for some behaviors, and a 720 degree rotation is one. You can thank eigenspinors for that one.


I asked some questions a few months ago, that would have been nice if you guys answered, because they have to do with how I must abstractly view the field that surrounds the electron. The EM field, it exists surrounding all 'sides' of the electron, spherically? But only propagates perpendicularly in relation to the direction of electron acceleration. Of course I am compelled to think about the nature of the EM field, and how if there is any funny business, or nature to do regarding 'spin' at all, it might be due to the conditions of the EM field which surrounds the electron, and how exactly it is effected when the electron is rotated, perhaps a full rotation of the electron causes the EM field to fully wobble in some way, that establishes the opposite of how it started, and so it takes another full rotation for everything to become settled again. Also ambient things like the nature of the experiment, how the energy was pumped in to cause the electron to rotate effect the EM field surrounding, where that energy went off to, how it was registered etc.

I am very interested in hypothetical and theoretical circumstances, for I believe that is the best way to test your knowledge, so if you knew all the details about the existence of the electron as it exists in and of itself, and everything about the local EM field as it exists in and of itself, you should be able to comprehend exactly what and why occurs when it is (unlawfully, magically...in impossible hypotehtical and theoretical terms, with the god hand of our minds, 0 energy, EM usage, with our mind fingers, rotate the electron, without the atoms of our fingers messing with the experiment, we only want to fully know what occurs, what the relationship with the electron in and of itself is with the EM field) rotated. So no detectors or anything, no experiments or earths or people, just our absolute knowledge of the electron and our absolute, highest, knowledge of the EM field. The electron is slowly started to rotate by the power of our imagination,( or it is quickly started to rotate, and will that effect the experiment? ), why, when we rotate the electron 360 degrees, does the rotation of the electron 360 degrees, not equal the electron being rotated 360 degrees?




edit on 8-1-2015 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam


All that to say, you can't leave the classical world where things you visualize in your head may have some correlation to what's real - you were 'designed' to process that. But when you start looking under the hood, things stop being what you'd think. And you're NOT 'designed' to directly visualize it. Thus do you need maths.


Your assumptions are your assumptions. The mind is a potential simulator of the universe. When it beholds an objective truth, it is in a moment congruent with a truth of reality. For example; "Something exists", my mind has realized a real truth of reality. A cannonball can be moving towards me, in one example I may think that it will miss so I do not move, and then it hits me, and reality thus has proved my thought false. In another example I move out of the way, for I had beholden the causal relationship between objects in space (yes, classical classical wahh) and I had known truth about a moment of reality.

The imagination works in some comparably scaled way to the existence of reality. There is substance/object, details about that object, and details about that objects relation to what surrounds it. The mind can pseudoly break the laws of physics (i.e. cartoons. dreams), and those are cases in which the mind is not relating its contents to truths that exist outside it. This does not mean that the mind cannot grasp any potential truth, the catch is to sacrifice detail, for the knowledge of hierarchy of concepts, of groups. I do not know every video game, or all the details that can be known about every video game, but I generally know what video games are, and roughly their limits, and their effects and affects on society.

That is an analogy to express my belief, that just because the mind cannot simulate the full realtime details of an aspect of reality i.e. what happens to each of these 9,000,000,000 grains of sand over the course of a minute when I dump them into a river.... Just because I cannot imagine the exact subtle details of such uber complexities, does not mean I cannot comprehend the nature of complex and detailed situations, generally, and that further does not mean that my doing so is meaningless, or non valuable. And that also does not mean you abandoning thinking, imagining, logic, reason, ration, and generality, for the sake of building math machines that crunch data, is infallible and without flaw and shortsightedness.

Physics needs to start from the fact that an eternal substance exists. Than discuss and conceptualize how might an eternal substance exist, what might it fundamentally be, yes visualize, yes simulate, yes express in dimension, as yes, somethingness does exist, and it cannot be created or destroyed, and yes so it exists in dimension, and yes so there potentially is a minimal theoretic limit to in eternal time the tiniest possible quanta this substance can possibly be sliced up into, and yes even though it may be impossible theoretically, it may be something along the lines of that precipice of 0 to 1, and yes I am correct in still claiming it would be greater than 0 dimension, and yes I would love to argue how I also think it would be by default 3 dimensions.






Trying to think of electrons as little balls of plastic with red/white marks on and insisting that's all need be done is not going to get you into the horrifying world of quantum mechanics.


Are electrons not "stable, substantial, objects" in an of themselves, but are they the 'persistently illusive' results of other objects? Is the big point of field theory, that objects dont exist, just lesser and greater contextual energetic stabilities?

First I believe it must be admitted, I am not sure to what mean or matter, but that time is not discrete, but continuous. If you disagree with that sentient, please state your reason why and I will destroy that reason easily, as something I stated above already proves the opposite of my sentiment incorrect.

Once, it is admitted that energy exists, and cannot be created or destroyed (eternal quantity of substance, that always equals itself) it can be seen, that in any ultimate context it must be admitted that all objects are only temporally related constructs, contexts (besides the underlying substance of what it is that all things are, that which does not change; the quantity of substance;somethingness)

So this is where he 'excitation of the field comes in', and perhaps how you can get away with attempting to swipe away the electrons object ivity.






Hell, I defy you to sit down and do something as commonplace as "visualize" a digital filter design. Without calculus level maths, you aren't going to be able to.


Can you generally comprehend the principles behind what a digital filter is, what digital filter designs are, what the point of them is, the meaning, what they are intended to do, why they exist, what materials they might be made out of, and why those materials, can you generally comprehend why a digital filter design is more like digital filter designs and less like a boulder or lava? There are reasons why digital filters exist, many reasons, many reasons why they need to be exactly as they are to function and exist, and the reason is because they are not like anything else. The catch is, there may be other things that they are like, that they share likenesses with, but that just adds to the data base of scalable comparisons.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: joelr

Point particles in physics means that the spatial extent of the object has no detectable consequence



"...the spatial extent of the object has no detectable consequence"

As a statement, does not equal:

"An object exists which has no spatial extent"



It kinda does. The theory that predicts the electron as a point happens to be the one that makes correct predictions.
That's all there is too it. If you want to say otherwise then you can but it's just philosophy. If it doesn't make sense that's because there are all sorts of common sense laws that are clearly broken at the quantum size. Boolean logic can break down at that scale so it's useless to try to figure it out with common sense.

Even particles that are more like 3D structures, are not at all like 3D structures because they cannot be pinned down to a specific location. The more you know the position the less you know the momentum and the difference has to do with the Planck number. You cannot ever see it as a static 3D object.
It's existing as "probability" and if we compare that to the macro-scale where things exist or they don't, it makes no sense.
It's a new kind of thing.

The field itself is also a mathematical object. Field equations happen to work well, but again, it's a field of something that according to classical laws doesn't exist.

edit on 8-1-2015 by joelr because: why not



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

So the conclusion that electron has spin 1/2 (720 degrees) was not done on experiments with an electron, but with a neutron?

The 2d spin space seems like a means to 'mark' the electron (all of this speaking of degrees and rotation, depends on a means to mark the electron, and so all of this seems like a means to mark the electron), but I dont get what is meant by taking the electron and rotating it in 2d space 360 degrees, and it not really equalling 360 degrees.

This can only mean that before the electron is rotated, its immediate environment exists in state 1, and by rotating the electron 360 degrees, state 1 is not detectable. Which doesnt mean that the electron is not back to normal, original, starting orientation, it just means that the rotation of the electrons changes the surrounding environment/field orientation in a non trivial way. And then it seems, that giving it one more 360 degree twist, offsets whatever just occurred, to return the environment into state 1.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

Below you say "oh, and electrons are dimensionless points". First of all, that statement defeats itself, as the term point infers a non nothingness dimension of at least greater than dimensionlessness.


Nope, points have no dimension. The term point, in fact, DOES infer no dimension, as that is the definition of point. You are still thinking "point" and thinking a little ball or something. In fact, a point is dimension-free, it's one of their salient characteristics.



Stop thinking you are demeaning and belittling me by hating on the concept of mentally visualizing reality.


I'm not, but it's only going to get you so far actually understanding things.



If there were no humans alive, reality would still exist. Reality always equals itself. This means, that which exists is exactly that which exists. Always. This means that even if we cant visualize (yet), or if you dont want to try to, this doesnt matter, because reality is a physical, causal, machine, that is reasonable, and that is physical logic.


Ah, back to trying to use English to describe things and thinking that causes them to be something they're not. Do you have problems thinking of absolute vacuum existing? A lot of verbally concrete people have issues with considering an absolutely empty volume.



If you and science do not know what an electron looks like, this does not mean electrons look like nothing.


Does something that can't be seen have an appearance? Electrons, being points, can't be imaged with light. You will never see them. That doesn't mean they don't exist. Just that they are not large enough to ever image with visible light. Or, really, anything else.



Everything that exists looks exactly like something,


Why? This is an appeal to visualization - everything must be visible. Everything ISN'T. Seriously, you can't see all sorts of things.




Beyond language, if the term electron, is a word invented to describe something that actually exists in reality, if we have faith in that, than we play this faith game, and I admit, yes the electron exists, this means it must have at least 1 quality related to the minimum qualities it takes to admit that something exists.


It does have minimum qualities. Very minimum. It has charge, it has rest mass, it has constrained spin. It has a very infinitesimal gravitic field. It has a magnetic moment caused by spin. It can have velocity. It has momentum. It's got orbital angular momentum. It does not have spatial extension. That's about all I can think of.



The minimum requirement for something to be said to exist, is that it is more than absolute nothing, or that, it is not nothing. That which is not nothing, is. Tautologically, as in, defined by humans, and attempting to relate to reality, the nature of dimension is one that attempts to describe the relative area of space an object takes up. 0 dimensions, refers to 0 area, refers to no object, refers to non existing, refers to absolute nothing.


I really bet you have an issue with vacuum being empty, don't you? Come on. Admit it. Vacuum can exist and have dimension and duration. And have absolutely NOTHING in it. And yet, exist.

Electrons can have qualities and yet have no extension. They have a probability of being somewhere though, and that defines for some classical systems an "electron radius". Although you're not measuring an electron radius, but the place it's very likely to be/have been.



The physical equivalent is what I am asking for.


And thus you're trying to apply classical Newtonian world view to quantum mechanics, a thing you will find it most resistant to.



If the electron is not nothing.

Than it is not 0 dimensional.



It's dimensionless, and only probably in any one place.

Oh, and you can have a vacuum, and it can have a volume.
edit on 8-1-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Why is it when you are in a vehicle and you slow to a stop light and everything pushes forward but then when you are not fully at a stop there is that 3 second window of time there where the vehicle rolls forward only an inch or two, much slower than the initial deceleration, yet the drag forward is even more pressurized and there is always an accented jerk at the end of the movement while braking no matter how smooth of a braker you are? Why is that? You'd think that the slower you decelerate the less pressure there would be.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Asynchrony

Static friction always has a higher coefficient than moving friction.

It is always easier to keep something from beginning to move than it is to stop it.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Asynchrony
...and there is always an accented jerk at the end of the movement while braking no matter how smooth of a braker you are? Why is that? You'd think that the slower you decelerate the less pressure there would be.


As the car slows to a near dead stop, the brakes transition from "friction" to "stiction" and your last little bit of momentum goes to the car's springs. At that point the wheels stop and the body of the car oscillates forward and back, essentially undamped.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam



Nope, points have no dimension. The term point, in fact, DOES infer no dimension, as that is the definition of point. You are still thinking "point" and thinking a little ball or something. In fact, a point is dimension-free, it's one of their salient characteristics.


Yes. Your statements are correct when speaking purely of a non existing math realm. But if you try to cross over such abstract concepts into physical reality, you fail. In math 0 dimensional object exists (purely in conjecture, arbitrary simplicity), in my abstract realm, -6534 dimensional object exists. I said that, I wrote the number, so technically its true. If you can say that that 0 = point. I will say -6534 dimensional point exists. You try to bring your 0 dimension abstract math point into physical reality, because you dont care about truth. I will not do the same with my imagined follies, because I care about truth as it is.

"A point particle (ideal particle[1] or point-like particle, often spelled pointlike particle) is an idealization of particles heavily used in physics. Its defining feature is that it lacks spatial extension: being zero-dimensional, it does not take up space.[2] A point particle is an appropriate representation of any object whose size, shape, and structure is irrelevant in a given context. For example, from far enough away, an object of any shape will look and behave as a point-like object." - wiki

This is a short hand tool, to make conceptualizing and working with complexities simpler and smoother. Your speak is not an absolute statement about an object that exists in reality.





Ah, back to trying to use English to describe things and thinking that causes them to be something they're not. Do you have problems thinking of absolute vacuum existing? A lot of verbally concrete people have issues with considering an absolutely empty volume.


Well, this is a very interesting question and idea, lets think about it. There are 4 general possibilities I can think of;

Either the system that we are familiar with as 'universe' is all the material/substance that exists in reality, and it exists 'in'/'surrounded by', an infinite spatial dimension of absolute non substance. (would that be 'the absolute vacuum existing'?). And, I suppose ultimately, no matter how many universes there are, which is to say, no matter how much total matter/energy exists/makes up reality, if we keep zooming out, eventually we must see that 'it all is existing, relatively, somewhere' when obviously, compared to the fact it all exists, and we can conceptually continually zoom out until we see all that exists, and intuitively we must assume that there exists 'space' of absolute nothingness, that exists spatially infinitely eternally in all direction... or we must assume, that there is no such thing as 'nothing space' and the totality of substance, of reality, cannot 'spread out' into a space beyond its current, eternal locality. Which would make reality just a solid object that cannot advance beyond its borders, for if it were able to, there would be nothing to stop us from admitting that there exists 'nothing space' which it would be expanding into, and what would stop us from admitting that that nothing space must than be potentially infinite in all directions, as what hypothetical circumstance would be a 'wall' on the nothing?

The other possibilities, even though I think I sort of just proved there is ultimately, very most likely, an absolute vacuum. Though this idea might circumvent it; is that if the system we term 'universe' is a contained system, that has no contact with the absolute vacuum I priorly discussed. Of course, lack of direct contact, would not enforce, lack of effect at all. As however the means by which the universe was contained away from the more ultimate reality, it would ultimately be influenced by the nature of substance, and non substance, non substance being real nothing space, real vacuum (not foamy vacuum, unless that is what you are referring to in which case I just state; energy cannot be created or destroyed; and then you try to respond).

So yes, I suppose I can agree ultimately, there is 'absolute vacuum', according to my understanding and intent of the term, meaning, real empty space, in which the real stuff, exists "in".







Does something that can't be seen have an appearance? Electrons, being points, can't be imaged with light. You will never see them. That doesn't mean they don't exist. Just that they are not large enough to ever image with visible light. Or, really, anything else.


You just made my argument look good, which didnt need any help by the way, but thanks.

What is your answer to that question you posed? I would answer YES. Does something. That cant be seen. Have an appearance. Yes. All 'somethings' by default, of being 'something instead of nothing', have an appearance, it doesn't matter if you see or know or think, this is just true. Non nothing, automatically has/is detail/information.






Why? This is an appeal to visualization - everything must be visible. Everything ISN'T. Seriously, you can't see all sorts of things.


You are right, I just put my hands over my eyes and my computer became dimensionless.








I really bet you have an issue with vacuum being empty, don't you? Come on. Admit it. Vacuum can exist and have dimension and duration. And have absolutely NOTHING in it. And yet, exist.


It exists, like a concept, like unicorns exist, as a concept. The something (of reality) that the word vacuum relates to is the notion of empty space.

Nothing doesnt exist. As in, that which exists is called some thing. No thing, is no thing existing. Some thing (s) exist in no thing. It would appear they have to, what would be the alternative, the totality of some things existing exactly on top of each other? That would be your 0d for you. Somethings not existing all on top of each other, is somethings spread out at relational distances from each other. The no thing, that is the relational distance between some things... is not 'something' (unless we really get down and dirty with discussion of fields and whether true no thing space exists at all in the universe)... If there is not no thing space in the universe, meaning the universe is a completely, perfectly energy dense system, with no holes to the outside, for no thing to make its difference (the difference is not due to no thing being a thing, its due to the nature of the things, and how the react across different relational distances).

I suppose a really annoying thought, is thinking about whether an object, a baseball for example, is constantly touching the ultimate no thing space. But that would depend on whether we agree and know if the universe is a perfectly contained system, like a bowling ball completely full of the densest substance (the vacuum being influentially delegated to outside the system. not allowed to really effect the innards too much), or if the universe is more like a handful of spaghetti thrown in the air in which the substance innards of the geometric system of energy has to deal with real space between it.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Bedlam


It gets back to Stern-Gerlach.

Since you can't "see" marks on an electron, you have to determine the spin other ways. Ones that generally preclude the direct visualization that you are fond of. And that's true for most quantum problems.


Below you say "oh, and electrons are dimensionless points". First of all, that statement defeats itself, as the term point infers a non nothingness dimension of at least greater than dimensionlessness.


It's slightly imprecise, but what it means is that there is no experimentally verified 'substructure' to an electron in X,Y,Z space, which it would have if it had some sort of three dimensional spatial extent. Clearly it does have a substructure in the 2-d spin space, but that's not directly observable.



Stop thinking you are demeaning and belittling me by hating on the concept of mentally visualizing reality. If there were no humans alive, reality would still exist. Reality always equals itself. This means, that which exists is exactly that which exists. Always. This means that even if we cant visualize (yet), or if you dont want to try to, this doesnt matter, because reality is a physical, causal, machine, that is reasonable, and that is physical logic. Everything that physically occurs does so exactly because what exactly physical things are in and of themselves, how they are moving, and what is surrounding them. If you and science do not know what an electron looks like, this does not mean electrons look like nothing. Everything that exists looks exactly like something, it looks exactly like what it actually exactly is... all the details, all the information. All the information that exists equals all the information that exists.


You mean to say, there are laws of physics governing properties and interactions of electrons which existed before humans? Nobody objects to that.


Beyond language, if the term electron, is a word invented to describe something that actually exists in reality, if we have faith in that, than we play this faith game, and I admit, yes the electron exists, this means it must have at least 1 quality related to the minimum qualities it takes to admit that something exists. The minimum requirement for something to be said to exist, is that it is more than absolute nothing, or that, it is not nothing. That which is not nothing, is. Tautologically, as in, defined by humans, and attempting to relate to reality, the nature of dimension is one that attempts to describe the relative area of space an object takes up. 0 dimensions, refers to 0 area, refers to no object, refers to non existing, refers to absolute nothing.

If you start with nothing, if you start with absolutely nothing in 0 dimension,


You're getting yourself all verklempt over nothing.


The experimental issue is that you can try to keep on bumping electrons at smaller and smaller sizes and you never ever get to some result like 'oh I hit the side of the electron' or 'I hit the upper left' vs 'I hit the middle' as you would with something which took up 3-d physical space and was composed of pieces in the usual intuitive manner.



and you want to add the minimum amount of somethingness conceivably, hypothetically possible, the ultimate precipiace between nothing and something, a mathematical example would be the smallest numeric distance from 0 towards 1, if it is said there are potentially an infinite number of decimaled numbers between 0 and 1, which is the first number, after 0? The physical equivalent is what I am asking for.


There is no physical analogue to the mathematical Cantor construction. Sorry.



Will you not discover, that the nature of 0 is absolute, that though this murky play of numbers and the infinite potential to write them in a row, will show that 0 is 0, and any attempt to get more than 0, is only resulting in non 0, as in, more than 0, as in, something.

If the electron is not nothing.

Than it is not 0 dimensional.


You're confusing 'nothing' with 0 dimensional in extent.





I asked some questions a few months ago, that would have been nice if you guys answered, because they have to do with how I must abstractly view the field that surrounds the electron. The EM field, it exists surrounding all 'sides' of the electron, spherically? But only propagates perpendicularly in relation to the direction of electron acceleration. Of course I am compelled to think about the nature of the EM field, and how if there is any funny business, or nature to do regarding 'spin' at all, it might be due to the conditions of the EM field which surrounds the electron, and how exactly it is effected when the electron is rotated, perhaps a full rotation of the electron causes the EM field to fully wobble in some way,


You can't rotate an electron in physical 3-d space, that's the point. If you rotate it in the internal 2-d space associated with spin, you change the direction of its magnetic moment. So the intrinsic magnetic field generated by the electron will look different and be axi-symmetric and have an effect in the exterior 3-d space via the magnetic field.

The intrinsic electric field generated by the electron will look the same and be spherically symmetric.


that establishes the opposite of how it started, and so it takes another full rotation for everything to become settled again. Also ambient things like the nature of the experiment, how the energy was pumped in to cause the electron to rotate effect the EM field surrounding, where that energy went off to, how it was registered etc.

I am very interested in hypothetical and theoretical circumstances, for I believe that is the best way to test your knowledge, so if you knew all the details about the existence of the electron as it exists in and of itself, and everything about the local EM field as it exists in and of itself, you should be able to comprehend exactly what and why occurs when it is (unlawfully, magically...in impossible hypotehtical and theoretical terms, with the god hand of our minds, 0 energy, EM usage, with our mind fingers, rotate the electron, without the atoms of our fingers messing with the experiment, we only want to fully know what occurs, what the relationship with the electron in and of itself is with the EM field) rotated. So no detectors or anything, no experiments or earths or people, just our absolute knowledge of the electron and our absolute, highest, knowledge of the EM field.

The electron is slowly started to rotate by the power of our imagination,( or it is quickly started to rotate, and will that effect the experiment? ), why, when we rotate the electron 360 degrees, does the rotation of the electron 360 degrees, not equal the electron being rotated 360 degrees?


As was previously explained, the rotation is not in 3-d space, because electrons don't have any physical spatial structure in 3-d space so you couldn't possibly tell. It's in a hidden 2-d space, but the effects leak out to 3-d through the magnetic field. So when people say 'rotate the electron' it's not as if there are any handles on it, it means apply a magnetic field which tweedles the electron's "hidden innards"
edit on 8-1-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
This is a short hand tool, to make conceptualizing and working with complexities simpler and smoother. Your speak is not an absolute statement about an object that exists in reality.


How do you know? It sure seems as if it is a point.



So yes, I suppose I can agree ultimately, there is 'absolute vacuum', according to my understanding and intent of the term, meaning, real empty space, in which the real stuff, exists "in"...

It exists, like a concept, like unicorns exist, as a concept. The something (of reality) that the word vacuum relates to is the notion of empty space.

Nothing doesnt exist. As in, that which exists is called some thing. No thing, is no thing existing. Some thing (s) exist in no thing.


You seem to be waffling. A defined volume can exist, not be of zero extent, and have nothing whatever inside it. Having nothing in it doesn't make the volume go away.




What is your answer to that question you posed? I would answer YES. Does something. That cant be seen. Have an appearance. Yes. All 'somethings' by default, of being 'something instead of nothing', have an appearance, it doesn't matter if you see or know or think, this is just true. Non nothing, automatically has/is detail/information.


Yet an electron can have characteristics and be a point. Characteristics != appearance.



You are right, I just put my hands over my eyes and my computer became dimensionless.


If it were dimensionless, would it have an appearance?



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

What is your answer to that question you posed? I would answer YES. Does something. That cant be seen. Have an appearance. Yes. All 'somethings' by default, of being 'something instead of nothing', have an appearance, it doesn't matter if you see or know or think, this is just true. Non nothing, automatically has/is detail/information.





I agree it seems like anything should be able to be "seen". For us "seeing" means a consciousness uses some sense to create a image of the object in it's mind. But why does that have to be a universal constant? Then do all things have to have a smell? Or a touch? How does anything touch or smell a neutrino? How does anything see dark matter?

You are forgetting the more important aspect of uncertainty being built into the universe. How can something be "seen" when the more you know how fast it's moving the less you know about exactly where it is. The concept of seeing small things is forbidden by nature. It's not forbidden by philosophy, which uses logic, which breaks down at the subatomic level. So philosophy using the wrong logic is just an exercise that has no relation to this reality.
edit on 8-1-2015 by joelr because: html

edit on 8-1-2015 by joelr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: ImaFungi

What is your answer to that question you posed? I would answer YES. Does something. That cant be seen. Have an appearance. Yes. All 'somethings' by default, of being 'something instead of nothing', have an appearance, it doesn't matter if you see or know or think, this is just true. Non nothing, automatically has/is detail/information.





I agree it seems like anything should be able to be "seen". For us "seeing" means a consciousness uses some sense to create a image of the object in it's mind. But why does that have to be a universal constant? Then do all things have to have a smell? Or a touch? How does anything touch or smell a neutrino? How does anything see dark matter?

You are forgetting the more important aspect of uncertainty being built into the universe. How can something be "seen" when the more you know how fast it's moving the less you know about exactly where it is. The concept of seeing small things is forbidden by nature. It's not forbidden by philosophy, which uses logic, which breaks down at the subatomic level. So philosophy using the wrong logic is just an exercise that has no relation to this reality.


There is no argument here, it is faulty one at least. When people work with math, are they not seeing the math in their head? And is the only reason they are working with the math and seeing it, because (hopefully) the math relates to reality? Is the math they are seeing in their head not details of quantity and quality of reality? Is this not what the nature of 'image' is? Is image, not the attempt at capturing an amount of informational, dimensional, quantitative, qualitative details about something that exists in reality? The argument is that I take things a step forward, at times they get too lost in their math tricks and games, while ignoring fundamental things that can be known about reality, and ignoring reality, and sometimes mistaking simplified and corner cut math stacked on simplified and generalized and rounded math as reality itself. So I merely ask, this math, as this is the whole point of seeking to know truth, seeking to know reality, seeking to understand reality, is an attempt to behold the information that reality is; so, I merely ask, can you tell me what the math says reality must exist as? As that which exists, exists... the very implications of this being , quantitative and qualitative values greater than 0. Reality is a painted picture, to know reality is to know what the painted picture is, and how it is being painted, that is all I am trying to know. I ask a lot of questions, these folks cant possibly answer, so they get scared and bury their noses in their books, and laugh and mock and scoff, because that feels better and is a lot easier than thinking about the things no human has ever thought of.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 11:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
There is no argument here, it is faulty one at least. When people work with math, are they not seeing the math in their head? And is the only reason they are working with the math and seeing it, because (hopefully) the math relates to reality? Is the math they are seeing in their head not details of quantity and quality of reality?
Yes and no. The math makes accurate predictions that are observed, so it reflects reality in that sense, but the math itself may involve difficult to visualize components. Consider a simple example, the imaginary unit. Can you imagine a number which when multiplied by itself results in -1? I can't, and it's called imaginary because it's NOT real. But the mathematical results ARE real in making accurate predictions, if used properly.


The imaginary unit's core property is that i^2 = −1. The term "imaginary" is used because there is no real number having a negative square.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 12:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ImaFungi
There is no argument here, it is faulty one at least. When people work with math, are they not seeing the math in their head? And is the only reason they are working with the math and seeing it, because (hopefully) the math relates to reality? Is the math they are seeing in their head not details of quantity and quality of reality?
Yes and no. The math makes accurate predictions that are observed, so it reflects reality in that sense, but the math itself may involve difficult to visualize components. Consider a simple example, the imaginary unit. Can you imagine a number which when multiplied by itself results in -1? I can't, and it's called imaginary because it's NOT real. But the mathematical results ARE real in making accurate predictions, if used properly.


The imaginary unit's core property is that i^2 = −1. The term "imaginary" is used because there is no real number having a negative square.


Yes but the complex plane makes intuitive sense, the imaginary number is just the evolution of 1 d line into 2 d plane, imaginary being the vertical component, 'imaginary' according to just the 1d number line, but very relevant to dimensional grids greater.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ImaFungi
There is no argument here, it is faulty one at least. When people work with math, are they not seeing the math in their head? And is the only reason they are working with the math and seeing it, because (hopefully) the math relates to reality? Is the math they are seeing in their head not details of quantity and quality of reality?
Yes and no. The math makes accurate predictions that are observed, so it reflects reality in that sense, but the math itself may involve difficult to visualize components. Consider a simple example, the imaginary unit. Can you imagine a number which when multiplied by itself results in -1? I can't, and it's called imaginary because it's NOT real. But the mathematical results ARE real in making accurate predictions, if used properly.


The imaginary unit's core property is that i^2 = −1. The term "imaginary" is used because there is no real number having a negative square.


Yes but the complex plane makes intuitive sense, the imaginary number is just the evolution of 1 d line into 2 d plane, imaginary being the vertical component, 'imaginary' according to just the 1d number line, but very relevant to dimensional grids greater.


All negative numbers are imaginary also.

A negative number needs a further number or process other than itself to exist in reality, a negative number does not describe a directly measureable quantity.
edit on 9-1-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
All negative numbers are imaginary also.
What about -40 degrees C?
What about latitudes south of the equator?
What if you attach a 9V battery to a circuit, in which case you apply positive 9 volts to the circuit? If you reverse the terminals, then you are applying negative 9 volts, right?

My old analog voltmeter doesn't measure negative voltage (at least not without reversing the terminals), but my newer digital voltmeter measures negative voltage just as easily as positive voltage, without changing the terminals.



edit on 9-1-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
All negative numbers are imaginary also.
What about -40 degrees C?
What about latitudes south of the equator?
What if you attach a 9V battery to a circuit, in which case you apply positive 9 volts to the circuit? If you reverse the terminals, then you are applying negative 9 volts, right?

My old analog voltmeter doesn't measure negative voltage (at least not without reversing the terminals), but my newer digital voltmeter measures negative voltage just as easily as positive voltage, without changing the terminals.




The minus sign is similar to the unit. The magnitude is always positive. Like with vectors.

A negative magnitude itself is entirely imaginary.

-1 is never an amount without reference to something else.
edit on 9-1-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 71  72  73    75  76  77 >>

log in

join