Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

yes, one excludes the other, if Big Bang created all the energy/matter in the Universe, there was nothing before.
It doesn't say converted !
Big Bang was the beginning of everything is what the MS science claim.

a reply to: KrzYma

Another example that you're criticizing the mainstream claims when you don't even know what they are. Sure there are mainstream scientists who speculate about what was before the big bang, but usually they admit they are speculating, because mainstream ideas for anything before the big bang are speculative.

The truth is, mainstream claims that "we just don't know" what happened before the big bang.

Thinking About Time Before the Big Bang

What happened before the Big Bang? The conventional answer to that question is usually, “There is no such thing as ‘before the Big Bang.’” That’s the event that started it all. But the right answer, says physicist Sean Carroll, is, “We just don’t know.”

This is a more detailed article explaining how we don't even know how long cosmic inflation lasted and why it poses difficulties for us in understanding what preceded it, but it also advises us against perceiving the speculation about what happened before as anything but speculation:
What Happened Before The Big Bang?

But what came before (cosmic inflation/big bang)? We only have theoretical possibilities, with likely no data or information from that time contained within our observable Universe to guide us. We’ll keep searching for clues, but for right now, don’t believe the hype (and I’m looking at you, Steinhardt, Turok, and Greene, among others); keep them as possibilities if you fancy them, but that speculation is no replacement for the best that science has to offer right now!

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: dragonridr

Ok so now that we know the term vacuum, no longer is what we thought it was (when we thought it was nothing), now what is it said vacuum is? Is it not critically known and understood that when one uses the term 'vacuum', they are referring to Gravity field, EM field, Quark field, Electron field, and Higgs field?

Physics redefined a vacuum as the lowest possible energy state of a given area. Simple way to be all inclusive yet brief.

Ok so if earth is the given area, where is the vacuum of/in/on earth? Its when people say 'atoms are mostly empty space', its really maybe equal or more so, pockets of meta material, which is low dense regions of 'field space', that exist in all atoms and between all atoms? And very dense objects are just stronger/denser bonds of atoms and molecules so there is less low density region between them right?

In real dense objects are the atoms themselves more dense? In the way that people say between the nucleus and electron there is so much empty space, and even in the nucleus there is empty space (?), in really dense objects is even the atom, nucleus to electron ratio more dense?

This view, and seemingly likely truth, gives greater understanding and meaning maybe to the nature of electron orbital geometries, and how they arrange as they are in their orientations based on the field disruptions surrounding them.

Atoms are not empty this is a misconception there isnt space because at any given time in an atom its electron can be anywhere its what's called an electron cloud. The density of this coloud depends on how many electrons we have or there atomic number. So in a way yeah you can kind of say density has to do with their weight. Just get rid of the idea that atms are mostly empty space thats changed since id say about the 50s.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: KrzYma

Another example that you're criticizing the mainstream claims when you don't even know what they are. Sure there are mainstream scientists who speculate about what was before the big bang, but usually they admit they are speculating, because mainstream ideas for anything before the big bang are speculative.

The truth is, mainstream claims that "we just don't know" what happened before the big bang.

Thinking About Time Before the Big Bang

What happened before the Big Bang? The conventional answer to that question is usually, “There is no such thing as ‘before the Big Bang.’” That’s the event that started it all. But the right answer, says physicist Sean Carroll, is, “We just don’t know.”

This is a more detailed article explaining how we don't even know how long cosmic inflation lasted and why it poses difficulties for us in understanding what preceded it, but it also advises us against perceiving the speculation about what happened before as anything but speculation:
What Happened Before The Big Bang?

But what came before (cosmic inflation/big bang)? We only have theoretical possibilities, with likely no data or information from that time contained within our observable Universe to guide us. We’ll keep searching for clues, but for right now, don’t believe the hype (and I’m looking at you, Steinhardt, Turok, and Greene, among others); keep them as possibilities if you fancy them, but that speculation is no replacement for the best that science has to offer right now!

Ah, really ? What about the video from New Scientist ? This video tells us something different than "we don't know"

originally posted by: dragonridr
Just get rid of the idea that atms are mostly empty space thats changed since id say about the 50s.

We are still teaching this idea about atoms being mostly empty space to students today, and I'm surprised you'd argue against it:

nsspi.tamu.edu...

The size of the nucleus and the electrons are very small, so the atom is mostly composed of empty space.

If you look at the "electron cloud" as a wave function probability plot, it's still telling us the cloud is mostly empty space because the electron itself is extremely small relative to the size of the cloud.

If the atom wasn't mostly empty space, then why would a neutron star have 25 trillion times the density of Earth? The neutron star is many trillions of times more dense because its composition is such that it vastly reduces the empty space in atoms caused by their mostly empty electron clouds, right?

originally posted by: KrzYma
Ah, really ? What about the video from New Scientist ? This video tells us something different than "we don't know"

Science writers are wrong frequently. That's apparently written by a science writer, not a scientist, and that is also addressed in the source I provided pointing out that's a common answer, but it's based in speculation rather than mainstream science.

I can also find you an article by a science writer talking about radio waves that traveled faster than the speed of light. They didn't, and what's worse, most ATS members didn't even see through the error by the science writer, until about page 9 in that thread.

Putting faith in science writers can be risky. You're better off getting the story directly from the scientists themselves, if you want any accuracy.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

What i have a problem is people claiming its a repulsive force i guess i look at it from QM there is no empty space. Like mentioned earlier the reason your hand doesnt pass through a table. Its because electrons are fermions, hence (this is the Pauli exclusion principle) cannot occupy the same volume without being in different energy states. If you attempt to push the orbital electrons of two atoms into the same volume of space, most of the electrons will need to be promoted to much higher energy states.Now on orbitals the electron is at all points in the orbital until actually measured there is no empty space,the act of observation makes it chose a point. Remember its just a wave function until we observe it.This is why in physics we look at orbitals knowing electrons are at any point in this area and every point as well.

a reply to: dragonridr
I can stack sponges one on top of another too, and they don't occupy the same space, but it doesn't mean they don't have a lot of space in them. I noticed you avoided addressing the neutron star density.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

OK, I admit, I was thinking little more about nothing and something.

If potential difference is energy, like difference in charge or velocity,
how much potential is between nothing and something... ??
nothing must be infinite therefore probability exists, something will be.

But since this are just words "nothing" and "something" what kind of energy would it be ?
It is possible in our minds to create something like potential difference between nothing and something,
or is any kind of this energy been measured somewhere ?

a reply to: Arbitrageur
I'm thinking weed wacker. Even with a single line trimmer the "nylon cloud" is mostly empty space but good luck penetrating it without contact when it's spinning fast enough.

Is that a decent analogy?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: dragonridr
I can stack sponges one on top of another too, and they don't occupy the same space, but it doesn't mean they don't have a lot of space in them. I noticed you avoided addressing the neutron star density.

Neutrons stars density is caused by pressure causing the structure of an atom to change. Basically protons and electrons are pushed together to form neutrons. If gravity is great enough Neutrons will break down to their constituent parts meaning quarks. This is a matter of gravity compacting things to there most basic element. this causes a size decrease for example quarks are way smaller than an atom allowing more mass a given point. Its about size of particles not the space they take up.

a reply to: KrzYma
Dark energy may be vacuum energy, and if so we have a measured value for this which is small per unit volume but because there's so much space in the universe, it's the largest component of the matter/energy content of the universe.

Prior to the big bang as I said is speculative.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation
In that example you describe difficulty of another object infringing on the space occupied by the rotating nylon line. However when two hydrogen atoms are brought together, there is no such effect and in fact the electron clouds will want to overlap and merge together to bond the two hydrogen atoms together into a hydrogen molecule as seen in these illustrations of the electron clouds, which is more of the reason I don't quite buy into dragonridr's argument about matter not being mostly space:

www.tannerm.com...


It is actually a wave function though so this professor's analogy is quite interesting at demonstrating the wave function concept of electron orbitals which I suppose is probably better than the weedwacker analogy: This analogy is probably one of the better ones I've seen, though still imperfect.

9. Chladni Figures and One-Electron Atoms


See time index 19m43s for some example shapes, each of which could represent an electron orbital and multiple different orbitals can overlap each other simultaneously. It's still not an accurate analogy since it's 2d, not 3d, like electron orbitals.

originally posted by: dragonridr
Its about size of particles not the space they take up.

I don't quite follow that particular comment. Seems like the space they take up is key to density. I understand your argument about electron clouds, and it's not totally without merit, however lots of university sources read like the following and I find it difficult to disagree with them:

abyss.uoregon.edu...

atoms are very small and matter is mostly empty space, but 'feels' solid because the atoms of your hand are repelled by the electromagnetic forces between your atoms and an objects atoms (like a table).

atropos.as.arizona.edu...

atoms are mostly empty space

I could make a long list and maybe you want to contact all these universities and tell them to stop teaching wrong stuff, but even when I studied electron clouds and wave functions, I didn't think that totally invalidated these claims; it just put them in a different perspective.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

In that example you describe difficulty of another object infringing on the space occupied by the rotating nylon line.

I know, I don't explain my thoughts well at all. I was only trying to give a simple example of how the line could have the appearance of a solid disc even though at any given point in time most of the disc/electron cloud is empty space, like an atom.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

That diagram of the merging electron clouds is interesting. It is suggesting (or natures action is proving) the attractive force between electrons and proton is stronger then repulsive force between electron cloud and electron cloud huh?

Like with bar magnets, its what the electrons do to their immediate space, that allows the force of attractive magnetism to be exhibited. So too, the electromagnetic fields created by the motions (or existence) of protons and electrons, keep them in place in the atom, and dictate the (paths of least resistance, or) natural forces which should then dictate what should occur when another atom, in its formation, approaches at its specific spin, velocity, and direction.

The whole thing about appearing solid, and forces being the illusions of solidity is quite...something, I dont know, amazing...cool. To think that in bar magnets, the majority of mass is nucleus right? And so you look at this perfect black rectangle, but all you are seeing is the result of 'so' many electrons spinning around and/or shaking so fast that they regularly (well I said black magnet so) fail to send any light back that lands on it, yet still! It is seen to be a solid mass of object.

This notion of the importance of 'non baryonic' field-space that exists in atoms and between them, is what originally led me to (believe I) realize(d) that this must be how magnetism is possible, the space in and surrounding the bar magnet, due to the uniform motions of electrons, must also be uniformly moving, and this is what a magnetic field must be, and how it may interact with other materials that have the ability to interact with magnetic field. And though I still dont see clearly, exactly how the field exists, and what exactly electrons are doing to the field, to force a material of other electrons to come towards it, I do believe this is the only deep explanation (for myself) I have pierced at, in order to further my comprehension of fundamental space, and quanta.

I know this is the general theory, but for some reason, it seems there is a shying away from exclaiming at all, how important and dynamic the 'not nothing' space is. Which is field theory. But then it needs to be determined if there is no such thing as non field space at all...there is no meaning or need for the word space to exist...unless it is made clear that the word 'empty space' = 'all fields' (All fields that are not quantas of quark or electron...but holy crap is field theory confusing...like, is the EM field made of a large finite number of pieces that are stuck together tightly, or is it no pieces but one large fundamental particle and it just has a perfect partless area, and where does the fact that EM waves cant interact with EM waves fit into either of those pictures..Is there another possibility other then those 2 regarding the physical nature of a fundamental field, parts, or whole?)....or something.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Well its a matter of perspective granted when an atom isnt being observed all possible spaces an electron can be it will be. Part of the reason electron clouds can merge its a wave function. The hardest concept for people in physics is to realize matter isnt what you were taught in high school. Its energy waves and will act like waves when we arent watching. Only when we try to pin it down does it actually choose a location if you will. also means we learn unusual properties of matter under different conditions like superconductivity for example it changes its wave function.

a reply to: ImaFungi

I just want to caution you not to get the types of field confused. What i mean is you have classical field theory for example that exist everywhere such as newtonian gravity and then there is quantum field theory in this all interactions are handled by force carriers or gauge bosons. Like magnetism in your magnet its the movement of photons EM waves are quantized in packets called photons.To make matters worse there virtual photons meaning they pop in and back out vagain. Everything in QFT goes straight to the uncertainty principle. QFT is the ultimate roller coaster it tells us everything you see touch or taste is just a temporary state of energy.

a reply to: dragonridr

In quantum field theory, do the fields the gauge bosons are derived from, not exist everywhere?

Magnetism in the magnet, movement of photons; It is electrons that cause this right, the very act of electrons existing, and circumstantially moving in the appropriate manner as to create a magnet, interacts with the field that the electrons and all particles exist 'in/on'? And the 'points' at which the electron 'physically touches' the field, and causes it to react to the electrons movement, those points are called photons?

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

That diagram of the merging electron clouds is interesting. It is suggesting (or natures action is proving) the attractive force between electrons and proton is stronger then repulsive force between electron cloud and electron cloud huh?

Not exactly. It's telling us more about the structure of electron orbitals and how they explain the arrangement of elements in the periodic table corresponding to their bonding tendencies, depending on how many orbitals are occupied and how stable they are.

For example, if you instead bring two helium atoms together, you don't see this same overlap/bonding effect as in hydrogen. The orbital shells of Helium are already in a filled and stable (thus inert) configuration, so they don't bond like hydrogen atoms.

Of course in the ionized state of plasma the electrons aren't in the orbitals so the H2 hydrogen molecules don't form.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: dragonridr

In quantum field theory, do the fields the gauge bosons are derived from, not exist everywhere?

The fields exist everwhere but can have vacuum values in most places.

Magnetism in the magnet, movement of photons; It is electrons that cause this right, the very act of electrons existing, and circumstantially moving in the appropriate manner as to create a magnet, interacts with the field that the electrons and all particles exist 'in/on'?

Yes, they interact with the EM fields.

And the 'points' at which the electron 'physically touches' the field, and causes it to react to the electrons movement, those points are called photons?

Not quite, the electromagnetic fields when computed in the correct quantum mechanical manner can vibrate only in certain 'modal' ways from quantum mechanics. The elementary components/basis functions of those 'modes' are photons. An analogy is a Fourier decomposition of a continuous function. The 'contniuous function' is the large amplitude E&M fields as described by Maxwell equations. You approximate this with certain quantities of elementary excitations of the fields which are permitted by QM: a certain 'number' of photons of a given momentum vector & wavelength plus some more of others etc roughly 'sum up' to the macroscopic E&M fields. The photon represents the physical fact that there is some elementary minimum that you can't go below in amplitude (and this changes with frequency), just as an atom is the smallest piece of what was originally thought to be macroscopic continuous matter.

originally posted by: mbkennel


The fields exist everwhere but can have vacuum values in most places.

And vacuum values arent 0 right, as the whole prior 'vacuum energy' discussion?

Not quite, the electromagnetic fields when computed in the correct quantum mechanical manner can vibrate only in certain 'modal' ways from quantum mechanics. The elementary components/basis functions of those 'modes' are photons. An analogy is a Fourier decomposition of a continuous function. The 'contniuous function' is the large amplitude E&M fields as described by Maxwell equations. You approximate this with certain quantities of elementary excitations of the fields which are permitted by QM: a certain 'number' of photons of a given momentum vector & wavelength plus some more of others etc roughly 'sum up' to the macroscopic E&M fields. The photon represents the physical fact that there is some elementary minimum that you can't go below in amplitude (and this changes with frequency), just as an atom is the smallest piece of what was originally thought to be macroscopic continuous matter.

Hm. So doesnt the term 'coupled', when referring to the electron and the EM field mean that, there exists a medium, that the electron particle is 'attached' to, and as the electron moves in this medium, the medium reacts, and the reaction is called 'EM radiation' and the reaction is called 'Photons'?

So say an electron is traveling at a steady velocity (us minding the existence of its coupling to the EM field), and then it is accelerated (which has to be done by it approaching a gravity well, or it approaching or being approached by a charged particle that is also coupled to the EM field and as they get close, the EM radiation, or Photons, that are being rippled from the electrons travels, (which brings up a question as ive always thought, or at least I know its debated whether or not an electron traveling at a steady velocity radiates), and as they approach their local radiating force fields cause them to repulse, and this repulsion is a form of changing of momentum, resulting in more radiation being created. So because the frequency of force subjected onto an electron causes it to disturb the local medium it is coupled to in lesser and greater degrees of energy and radiative repercussion, this means the EM field is an energy dense medium of sorts. But an interesting thing is how the medium always reacts and ripples/propagates at the same speed, but the energetic force or intensity depends on the energetic force and intensity of which the electron was vibrate.

Well thats not that weird, but maybe it is weird. Because if you think of a jump rope, if one is completely taught with an end attached to a wall and an end attached to your hand, will every vibration you make with your hand register at the wall in the same amount of time? And the only difference can be in the energy associated with the A to B event, which is in the form of the wave frequency at which you jerk your hand? But thats also interesting the higher amount of energy is in high frequency right? Ohh well its just a time thing, because I would think if you lifted your hand high above your head and then gave a might blast tug down that would be more energy then a quick little high frequency jolt...maybe... maybe it has to do with concentration of energy. But maybe it has to do with the usual high frequency having to do with a 'numbers game' of sorts, its rarely a single tiny hand jolt, it would be 100 quick hand jolts compared to the one big one, and that adds up to be higher energy for the higher frequency...maybe.

But yes, still plenty of problems with the nature of a field, HOW it is coupled/attached to an electron, and HOW exactly does the electrons movements step by step, mechanically, cause and effectly, touch the field it is touching, and make the field move, into the form of a 'photon'.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Ok he threw you in the middle of the ocean without a life raft. Hes right but its hard to explain so ill use an analogy to help you understand.Ok let me get some background for you first the universe is constantly seeking the lowest energy state. Lets say i have a ball between two hills of the same size. If i put the ball anywhere in between the two it will always stop at its lowest energy state. In our example it will always be right between our two hills it would take more energy to move it to the top of the hill. The ball has reached a stable equilibrium we see this as zero energy since the ball can no longer move on its own but needs energy to do so. This is the same as a zero vacuum value but a zero vacuum value isnt always the lowest energy state possible. Say we take our same ball and balance it on top of one of our hills again the ball won't move we see zero energy this is our vacuum state there is potential energy there but only with a push. Well gauge bosons give that push to particles this is why there force carriers. So what it the actual field than but energy sitting at its lowest energy state at that moment. So think of space as a ball sitting on our hill its not moving no energy to use until it get the slightest push then the ball rolls down picks up speed rolls part way up the next hill then back down again so on so forth.

That is what fields are in QM a lower energy state like dominoes falling. Now i can explain how the ball got to the top of the hill in the first place because ultimately the energy was from the start of the universe. But i have a meeting in the morning and i need to get to bed early.