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.

 

Atoms and The Unknown

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 02:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: John333
did you forget. we re talking about the frequency of everything from empty space come right back to the slowest oscillating manifestation in this universe. when dealing with the frequency of empty space, we are literally dealing with the frequency of that which we call by all definition: 'Nothing'. so there it is. what's the frequency of nothing? ill bet you a gajillion dollars that it has a fequency with oscillations that travel faster than the speed of light. and thus appears as empty space.


This is the sort of bibble babble you get when someone combines a foggy misunderstanding of both philosophy and physics.

Empty space is simply a volume with no matter in it. Simple. The flailing about with the term "nothing" is due to your lacking a way to conceptualize emptiness. For a lot of people, it's due to no science or math education at all, and your being forced to rely on English, which is not up to the task.



im still on topic. always am. so u see the paradox? we're not necessarily dealing with the frequency of 'a thing" per se...


Yet that's all frequency relates to. It's one of the simplest concepts in science. But you're trying to make it into something it absolutely is not.



frequency has to be a thing. because it has a label.


Why? I've heard this a lot on ATS, and it's absolutely untrue. Let's slide it into something more commonplace and less theosophic. I have a handful of blue. Not of something that's blue, like blue air, or blue water, or a blue ball. Just "blue", as a concept. What does that look like? Right. It's easier to see that "blue" is an attribute. Something can BE blue, but you can't chuck a bucket of "blue" as a concept at someone.




posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 02:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: arpgme
Atoms are like pieces of ice in water. There is no void/emptiness. Even so-called "empty space (with no heat, sound, matter, light) still have a subtle energy.


"subtle" in this context is a synonym for "bull#"



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 02:30 AM
link   
First off.. the PhD that posted in here... Bravo! That was an awesome post I'd give a thousand stars if I could.

Now for something I disagree with
@bedlam

I think your missing the OP's point.. he's not trying to develop and understanding of what we know already. He is trying to spur conversation about what we have no clue and/or observation of, and potentially discover.. conceptually.. a few potential hypothesis.

While reading these posts I've already thought of a multitude of questions that can expand on some of what has been covered.

In relation to "space" or what lies where there is nothing (example from before.. what is the empty space that lies between a nucleus and it's electrons?)..

What if there are things that exist that are smaller than electrons themselves?

How do we know that protons.. neutrons.. and electrons aren't themselves made of of things infinitely smaller? On the same scale to how small an atom is to us?

And what if on that same scale.. there is no such thing as "nothing" ...what if that "emptiness" is actually a tightly packed conglomeration of particles we can fathom the size of?

I wonder if this has been able to be tested or studied or if there is any theories on this.

Beyond that someone made a thought provoking comment about emptiness just being energy at an extremely low "frequency" or something to that effect..

What If energy itself IS a particle.. but one on a scale we can't see.. or a form we don't understand.

I guess that example stumped me. How can they generate photons from nothing?



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 03:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
...and potentially discover.. conceptually.. a few potential hypothesis.


Although the ones put forward mainly seem to rotate around "I can't get my mind around something being empty, yet existing, because the English word for it..."nothing"...would seem to negate the thing existing.

Get past that, and a lot of the head-scratching goes away. It's easy if you try. "A bounded volume with no contents can exist" OMM OMMM...



In relation to "space" or what lies where there is nothing (example from before.. what is the empty space that lies between a nucleus and it's electrons?)..


It's called...empty space. A volume containing no matter. It's made out of empty.



What if there are things that exist that are smaller than electrons themselves?


An electron is thought to be a point, having no extension at all. So that would be tough. But maybe with more research, it'll be found that quarks and electrons have extension, at which point it's at least possible that they're composites, like protons and neutrons.



How do we know that protons.. neutrons.. and electrons aren't themselves made of of things infinitely smaller? On the same scale to how small an atom is to us?


There's a lower bound to smallness. The universe is too grainy for anything smaller than a Planck volume to exist. The "what if an electron is an entire solar system...and what if each planet in that solar system is made of electron atoms that have electrons...and what if each of THOSE are solar systems ad infinitum" thing is a trope from the late 1800s that persisted into the 50s, I think Matheson's "The Shrinking Man" was the last go at it that I recall.




And what if on that same scale.. there is no such thing as "nothing" ...what if that "emptiness" is actually a tightly packed conglomeration of particles we can fathom the size of?


Why does empty bother you? It really seems to frustrate people. And most of them seem to be aether believers, as well. How about you?



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
First off.. the PhD that posted in here... Bravo! That was an awesome post I'd give a thousand stars if I could.

How do we know that protons.. neutrons.. and electrons aren't themselves made of of things infinitely smaller? On the same scale to how small an atom is to us?


Cheers


Well in the case of protons and neutrons they are composite particles as far as the evidence is concerned. The evidence mainly starts out in electron - positron colliders, in which you use a barrel detector (fairly standard design) with an electromagnetic calorimeter and an a hadronic calorimeter.

The design is quite simply due to the fact that electrons and gammas convert and shower within a short distance, depositing their energy quickly, where as high energy hadrons dont, they can pass through most of the inner calorimeter and require a bigger thicker high z device in order to have them depart their energy.

This is useful as what quickly occurs when you look at the data, you can quickly separate events into two types... lepton production, and hadron production. The ratio of this production is very important as it gives you a handle to the nature of hadrons.

While admittedly what I will say below will look like numerology, it is the starting point of a deeper theory and, is something that can be tested... and was tested

Firstly, the machines we have built and the experiments conducted have never seen a fractional charge with respect to the electron. It is either integer or zero. So with a very basic starting point you have a parameter R which is the cross-section ratio between hadrons and muons in electon-posititron collisions.

A cross section is basically a production probability. At the most basic level the cross section for each of the experimental outcomes is proportional to the square of its charge, thus we get a prediction that our parameter R = Sum(Qq/e)^2

We can test this, in a low energy regime at about 1 - 2 GeV the machines observe a R of about 2, so what can this be interpreted as?

Well, if we have only a single particle we basically say that R = 1, the number of hadrons vs number of muons should be the same... but that is not right.

So how about 2 components? So we have (1/2)^2 + (1/2)^2 = 1/2, which still isn't right

So, what else? Well how about 3 quarks, but 3 quarks would mean that to make each particle either zero charge or +1 like we see, we have to have 2 low energy particles with fractional charge 2/3 and 1/3 respectively and a higher energy particle, which we will call 'strange' because of strange behaviour in the lab when it is created (thats pretty much where the name came from), this higher energy particle we will give a fractional charge of 1/3

So now we have (1/3)^2 + (2/3)^2 + (1/3)^2 = (1/9+4/9+1/9) = 2/3

Hmmmm perplexing.... So we think about what binds the quarks together and think, what if this binding has an analogue to charge? lets call this property colour, and a bound state of quarks should be colourless and there are 3 colours, We multiply the above by 3 and this gives us our ratio of 2...

so this looks like numerology, yes? Except that we can test this, It predicts that if there are more quarks than just those 3, then at higher energies the ratio should change... and indeed it does!

When the charm particle production threshold is reached, the ratio does in fact increase to about

3( (1/9+4/9+1/9+4/9) = 3(10/9) = 3 1/3

when the bottom becomes active, we see the production ratio settle at about 3 2/3 and finally when the top is active we see a ratio of about 5

If gives us a way of looking at the data and to make some very basic predictions, maybe its 5 quarks one colour? well no that doesnt work, what about 6? well no that doesn't work either.

It is from this that the quark model got its roots more or less, and how the model proposed might have looked like numerology on the surface, actually has fundamentals that we can test, and has predictive power. This is what makes such models powerful and worth investigation... Now the more fundamentals goes way way deeper, and predicting actual production cross sections of specific hadrons is in the subject of Quantum Chromodynamics, which does a really good job at a much finer detail, taking into account that at higher and higher energies we actually have tau production also as a fine tuning.



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

u say i have a misunderstanding. and i see u got like 4 stars for your comment which drives down my own. what would u say then if i could produce full scientific reference for all that im saying that will show you as the one that totally misunderstands the depth of empty space. what if i told u u totally misunderstand the manifesting of particles in this universe.

again you have a problem with imagination. where there is empty space u say there is no matter. but that my friend is a matter of the semantics of english.

do u understand oscillations as they pertain to the forming of solid matter? do you realize that without those oscillation(frequency) that no matter would form? do you consider only matter 'a thing'. or are forces also considered 'a thing'. yes perhaps a force is not considered matter. but it exists no? can a force exist in empty space? the answer is yes. so then.. when we look at empty space with a force acting over that area. what do we have? nothing? or something?

ill await your reply. and my scientific references which will aim to teach you about the foundation of empty space and an oscillatory universe will follow.

the thing is. i totally understand the way you see it. the non-imaginative definition of things. however, when we delve into things like empty space. we are no longer dealing with simple physics. at the quantum level there is revealed apparent chaos and unpredictability. the paradox of existence becomes ever so clear and constantly re-occurring at every level. chaos as the creator of order. darkness as the creator of light. matterless matter. and all the weird things that seem to contradict basic physics of this universe.

take for instance an electro magnetic force. or any magnetic force. what medium does it use for transport? empty space? is it travelling on nothing? nothing at all? these are the question YOU have to ask in your understanding. because they contradict qyuantum behaviour and u are here trying to school us in a rigid basal understanding of empty space using basic physics.

it just doesnt work that way. the rules and operations at the quantum level, which refers to everything that occupies "apparent empty space"(we know its not really empty) do not operate in the same predictable manner. and generally are able to hold 2 states of readiness simultaneously. so if ur talking to me from one side of the fence.. u only have half of the equation. but since ive already come round to your side to see what ur talking about. its u now that needs to come over to my side to see what im talking about to get the other half.

who knows.. u just might learn something new.
edit on 22-9-2015 by John333 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: John333

You believe in aether too, don't you?



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 10:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: John333
a reply to: Bedlam

u say i have a misunderstanding. and i see u got like 4 stars for your comment which drives down my own. what would u say then if i could produce full scientific reference for all that im saying that will show you as the one that totally misunderstands the depth of empty space. what if i told u u totally misunderstand the manifesting of particles in this universe.

again you have a problem with imagination. where there is empty space u say there is no matter. but that my friend is a matter of the semantics of english.

do u understand oscillations as they pertain to the forming of solid matter? do you realize that without those oscillation(frequency) that no matter would form? do you consider only matter 'a thing'. or are forces also considered 'a thing'. yes perhaps a force is not considered matter. but it exists no? can a force exist in empty space? the answer is yes. so then.. when we look at empty space with a force acting over that area. what do we have? nothing? or something?

ill await your reply. and my scientific references which will aim to teach you about the foundation of empty space and an oscillatory universe will follow.

the thing is. i totally understand the way you see it. the non-imaginative definition of things. however, when we delve into things like empty space. we are no longer dealing with simple physics. at the quantum level there is revealed apparent chaos and unpredictability. the paradox of existence becomes ever so clear and constantly re-occurring at every level. chaos as the creator of order. darkness as the creator of light. matterless matter. and all the weird things that seem to contradict basic physics of this universe.

take for instance an electro magnetic force. or any magnetic force. what medium does it use for transport? empty space? is it travelling on nothing? nothing at all? these are the question YOU have to ask in your understanding. because they contradict qyuantum behaviour and u are here trying to school us in a rigid basal understanding of empty space using basic physics.

it just doesnt work that way. the rules and operations at the quantum level, which refers to everything that occupies "apparent empty space"(we know its not really empty) do not operate in the same predictable manner. and generally are able to hold 2 states of readiness simultaneously. so if ur talking to me from one side of the fence.. u only have half of the equation. but since ive already come round to your side to see what ur talking about. its u now that needs to come over to my side to see what im talking about to get the other half.

who knows.. u just might learn something new.


This is strange to it right for the wrong reasons. First there can never truly be an area with nothing. In any area of space virtual particles exist regardless of vacuum. This is what's referred to as quantum foam. I'm reluctant to say it's a medium do to its very nature but it can act like one. Let me explain something.

In 1947 two men by the name of Hendrik Casimir and Dirk Polder wanted to test the idea of this quantum foam that was detected. They decided If the quantum foam was real then these particles should exist everywhere in space. And since particles also have a wave nature, there should be waves everywhere.So what they imagined was to have two parallel metal plates placed near one another. The quantum foam would exist both between the plates and outside of them. But because the plates were placed near one another, only short waves could exist between the plates, while short and long wavelength waves could exist outside them. Because of this imbalance, the excess of waves outside the plates should overpower the smaller number of waves between them, pushing the two plates together. Thirty years after it was first predicted, this effect was observed qualitatively. It was measured accurately in 1997.

So these virtual particles like any particle can transfer energy think of an area of space as a perfect balance between particles piping in and others leaving. Well in QM we can borrow from the future for a very brief moment. Sort of like writing a check on Thursday knowing you would be paid friday. That money doesn't exist yet just like that virtual particles and the energy all particles have doesn't exist. But we see there effects including propagation of em waves. This area is more QED and still not fully understood.



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Thats the direction I was headed....

When you hear people theorize about wormholes, and that our perception and existence as we know it lies within the "fabric" of space/time.. and a theoretical "wormhole" tears through that "fabric".. what is it?

Nothing is something, we just dont understand what it is or cant perceive it yet with our technology or knowledge yet.


If space was a sheet of paper.. and all matter is lead on that paper, then what is the paper as it pertains to space?


It is something, cant be nothing I presume



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 11:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: John333

You believe in aether too, don't you?


well u see. i know what aether is. ive been playing with it 24/7 for the past 10 or so years

i dont believe, i have experience and the proof of its existence.

that you dont believe in it just sets limits on your scientific pursuit of knowledge. frankly uve said, "i dont want to know". and i can respect that



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 12:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: John333

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: John333

You believe in aether too, don't you?


well u see. i know what aether is. ive been playing with it 24/7 for the past 10 or so years



There we go. It seems a truism that any "I don't understand how vacuum can exist" advocates are always believers in aether as well. I'm not sure why they go together. I suppose if you feel you need to believe in an aether "because something has to wave" then you need to advocate for it in the form of "not understanding" emptiness.



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

precisely. now we have something we can say occupies empty space. Quantum Foam. but that is only for us intellectuals. to everyone else.. including bedlam. there's nothing there.

now we could say, quantum foam would also be made up of many different, sub-sub-atomic particles like the bits and pieces that make up an atom. but that doesnt seem to be the case when observed right? so ur stuck, because u expect to see the smaller building blocks. but.. they dont exist outside of a built particle. because what we have at the baseline is a wave. and it is the wave that takes the shape and form of a particle. the particular particle that is formed i have said is decided by a frequency. or an orchestra of frequencies. the frequency themselves, acting as the combination numbers to a safe to unlock the desired formation. this is why i say frequency itself can very much be seen as an item of it's own. if it were one frequency it'd be simple. but when it comes to multiple frequencies, a synchronous pattern evolves generating complex formations.

for example: a 528hz cycle has a straight baseline of 528hz. but say a particular formation needed a both a 528hz and a 312hz cycle starting simultaenously and persisting to create. that baseline changes. and as you add more frequencies for more complex patterns and formations, the baseline frequency that is obtained from all of them in unison determines the final form that will be manifested by the wave.

apparently as my work with aether has taught me(let's keep laughing shall we)... energy provides the force to generate a frequency, and the frequency determines particle formation. so the universe is like an operating system and frequency is used to program formations in it. change the frequency and the formation will change. remove the frequency and the formation will be gone. back into the wave.

and about particles piping in and other piping out. that is an easy one. the natural formation that achieves this balance in nature is the spiral/whirlpool/tornado shape. it allows for two streams travelling in opposite directions, one up, one down.. one in, one out simultaneously, and is the symbol for equilibrium, balance, infinity and nothing. with further connotations of death and so forth that are not particularly relevant to this application.



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 12:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: John333

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: John333

You believe in aether too, don't you?


well u see. i know what aether is. ive been playing with it 24/7 for the past 10 or so years



There we go. It seems a truism that any "I don't understand how vacuum can exist" advocates are always believers in aether as well. I'm not sure why they go together. I suppose if you feel you need to believe in an aether "because something has to wave" then you need to advocate for it in the form of "not understanding" emptiness.


hmm i think u got me categorized all wrong bud. i understand fully how a vacuum can exist. i just dont think ur aware of the potential that can be found in a vacuum. it appears that in your mind you have put a limit on what the universe can do to achieve it's goal. and as to how it should operate if it were operated by a sane individual. u expect sanity out of the universe, u may even be atheist. but ill say, yes, it's a very sane universe. but u just need to understand its level of thinking to understand why it's not crazy.



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 01:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
In 1947 two men by the name of Hendrik Casimir and Dirk Polder wanted to test the idea of this quantum foam that was detected. ...Thirty years after it was first predicted, this effect was observed qualitatively. It was measured accurately in 1997.
But was it? I've been looking for a good rebuttal to this 2005 paper saying they didn't measure zero-point energy, but actually measured van der Waals force, and haven't found one, have you seen one?

The Casimir Effect and the Quantum Vacuum

In discussions of the cosmological constant, the Casimir effect is often invoked as decisive evidence that the zero point energies of quantum fields are "real''. On the contrary, Casimir effects can be formulated and Casimir forces can be computed without reference to zero point energies. They are relativistic, quantum forces between charges and currents. The Casimir force (per unit area) between parallel plates vanishes as α, the fine structure constant, goes to zero, and the standard result, which appears to be independent of α, corresponds to the α → ∞ limit.

I have no horse in the race for which explanation of the Casimir effect is correct (the relativistic, retarded van der Waals force, or zero-point energy), so I'm not arguing that either explanation is right or wrong as I don't really know, but it seems to me like the science isn't settled on this issue.

edit on 2015923 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 01:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Then can you please explain how you can create "something" from "nothing"?



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 01:49 AM
link   
a reply to: John333

The universe is chaos in entirety, yet it can be very subtle and look like "nothing" is happening at the same time.



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 02:31 AM
link   
I see the electron-proton relationship like I do the male-female relationship. Why does the electron dance around its beloved positively charged nucleus, and not reconvene with destiny? Similarly, why do I dance around potential mates, only to continue my futile orbit around them?

Maybe we can all learn something from the atom.



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 03:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: ExternalForces
a reply to: Bedlam

Then can you please explain how you can create "something" from "nothing"?



survey: You believe in aether (y)/(n)



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 04:12 AM
link   
Sorry. wrong thread. pls delete.
edit on 23-9-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 04:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: ExternalForces
The atom, itself, is unique. It has it's own cliché, charge, mode, energy, etc. I know the multitudes of microscopes to examine prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. Just to clarify another thing, I understand about positive, negative, and acid-fast staining techniques. If you are unfamiliar with these techniques here are a couple of links briefly describing them. Gram Staining Acid-fast Staining

My question to you guys is do you believe that some parts of an atom that are there that we can still be missing or not seeing? Also, are there certain staining techniques that have been undiscovered?

Much love,

EF


My opinion is right out of ancient vedic literature which is there are infinate universes even more vast than our own within every single atom. Check out micro black holes and then we may start going somewhere. Considering that this may all be true, each part may contain the whole.




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join