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.
Originally posted by ImaFungi
so the uncertainty principle is only in effect,.., when we sloppily separate a particle and antiparticle from annihilating and attempt to calculate details about these separate particles in nano nano seconds?
and the cause of our uncertainty every every detail, is physical limitations of measurement,, and interrupting the reality we are measuring with measurement?
Originally posted by ImaFungi
its in a relative location ? or if a photon shoots out form the sun,,, even when it is detected here on earth, it is still from where it started wave wize?
does this have anything to do with what we are speaking about?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
EDIT: hasn't this equation been used to successfully predict electron position probability around an atom's nucleus in Bohr's model?
Hope the storm wasn't too bad.
Originally posted by swan001
What is your stand on quarks and gluons.edit on 6-9-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)
Going back to this post, I don't really try to be scientific and am far from qualified to answer the question of particles aligning within a nucleus or atoms aligning within a substance, but my delusion is that there is resonance between particles and they align in various ways at different energy densities, but at a given frequency or given wave energy density the alignment would be the same because of the amount of energy in the particle, the inflowing and out flowing standing wave energy and how that affects and is affected by surrounding particles. I haven't given the topic of the reality of partilce interactions much thought and have to trust the professional, but I have contemplated about how "fundamental" particles have internal composition, and when you approach the question form that perspective, though not much brainstorming has come to my attention, I'm sure there has been much brainstorming about it.
Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by BogieSmiles
When a particle spins it has an orientation that allows it to be approached perpendicular to the spin, i.e. in line with the axis of the spin. The effect is the origin of electromagnetism because approaching particles are guided to the axis of the spin and away from the direction of the spin.
Electromagnetism doesn't cause particles to head for the poles of other particles. A positive particle will attract a negative particle (even at the "equator") and repel a positive particle. This only manifests as poles when you get a bunch of particles together and create a magnet. Can you explain how a solid collection of spinning particles will cause another solid collection of spinning particles to head for a certain end while being repelled from the opposite end?
I didn't give this post enough consideration before I left for my trip to Spain, being rushed for time and all .
Originally posted by CLPrime
You got so close to answering my question, and then just stopped. Can you support your cliffhanger here? Because it would seem that the "urge" for the energy density to equalize would lessen as the energy density inside nears the energy density outside. That's how it works in real-world diffusion.
I wanted to acknowledge this post and respond. It is interesting to consider the gravitational force in my model as being able to replace certain bosons. I'm not really focused on the exact science of the particles and forces of the Standard Particle Model so discussing it with me will frustrate anyone who knows what they are talking about, so I won't presume to enter a discussion on it. But I am an expert on delusions of a lower quantum level of order and how the mechanics would work at that level so I'll just offer my delusions as my expertise.
Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by BogieSmiles
Interestingly enough, I had the thought not too long ago to attempt to describe electromagnetism and the strong nuclear force with a mechanism similar to gravity, as opposed to them being fundamentally bosonic (the opposite direction that current GUT-physics is taking). Finding such a solution would be similar to solving your problem...so, if I was willing to allow for a curved spacetime view for 3 of the fundamental forces, then I'm also more than willing to accept that there could be a solution to the electromagnetism and strong force issue in your hypothesis.
The problem, of course, is coming up with it.
Are e, u, and d designations for types of preons with the quantified mass values you mention? Do these designations and mass patterns come from the scatter data collected by detectors in colliders? I sometimes get the urge to study the data and the observations at the micro level but then seem to lose interest because of the gap between my delusions about the foundational level of order and the quantifiable observations that we are able to detect. I just don't know how big the gap is and whether or not things like preons would simply be stable configurations of particular standing wave patterns.
Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by BogieSmiles
Quarks do have assumed internal structures. I am actually working on that. They are called "preons". All kind of theories are out there, some saying that quarks are made of thousands of preons. The trouble is to make a model which predict the unlogical (but observed) mass pattern: e is 0.511, u is 2.7, d is 6, and so far nobody has made a preon model that could predict That...
I seriously doubt preons and leptons are point particles. Of course we're supposed to think they are, because otherwise it'll be too complicated... But if electrons were really points, the Exclusion Principle would take a blow. How can one share the oter position when the size of both particles are infinitely small - that is, equal to 0? Of course they would exclude, there would be nothing there!edit on 18-9-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)