posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 06:52 AM
There is no perfect vacuum; since a vacuum is so dirty with particles, I have shunned the research drawn from it altogether...sure you can calculate
the probability of how many particles that will exist in this vacuum no matter what and try to make the base number nil enough; and conduct the
experiment over and over to try and get some form of datum to be some what repeatable. Does that make it so? In my mind no.
Particles do have energy and when this energy depletes; they cease to be labeled as the same particle. Think of the sparks from a campfire; there's a
pop and a spark of material is ejected from the flames, when the energy of the material it is consumed the trail ceases and the spark seems to
If you think of the origin of the spark there was no existing spark, just the log and the fire consuming the logs energy, during this consumption a
mass ejection that creates the spark, it still has the properties of both the wood and the fire, just a smaller scale of it...once the fire consumes
the small bit of sparked wood the energy is gone, and now the wood is ash.
Thinking of time in regard to that example; there is an observable scale. The wood and fire, is the same as the spark that is wood and fire, one lasts
for maybe an hour and one lasts for a second or two, time scale is relative to size...it takes a person maybe 6 steps to cross a room, an Ant
thousands...so what took you seconds may seem to the Ant hours. (of course we have to toss out planetary rotation for this time measurement and use
For your particle to last longer or shorter the mass of the particle would have to be larger or smaller. So that begs to question; does the same
particle come in different sizes? If one particles energy is burned out faster than another's from decay...was it smaller than the other? Or less
energy to be consumed causing it's faster decay? If particles are all a relative size...then they will likely decay at relatively the same rate.
Of course, depending on conditions a particles state can change...such as super heating or cooling, fields, electricity, vacuums, speeding up or
slowing down from forces on space time curves etc. trying to make a particle a constant in the midst of variables, and extract data...when the
constant could very well be a variable itself is pretty tricky and questionable science. So we create uncertainty principles etc. for things we do not
understand but observe. The problem is the constant building off of one uncertainty after another, without solving the first...anything built on top
of that uncertainty is just wishful thinking, in my personal opinion.
Much in the same way that; an illogical thought process creates a false construct out of irrational thinking that gives rise to delusions of how
something is vs. how it actually is.