Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Buych778

  1. This article was started as more of a debate than an answer to the question.

    According to Chaos Theory, any number, n, is defined as being higher than anything with lower value, or higher than any value from 0 to n, and lower than anything with a higher value, or lower than any value from n to infinity. Now, this may seem quite obvious, but also according to Chaos Theory, infinity cannot exist as a number. Both of these are stated in Chaos Theory, and are noted as a flaw in the number system, as how can a definite number be described as being below infinity, yet infinity is not a number in itself?

    Chaos Theory also states that any number has no definite point of "accuracy", meaning that no number can be exact. Lets say you divide one by three, you get .333 repeated infinitely, but if you plan on actually using this number, you cannot use it as exactly .333 repeated, as no computational device can have them as infinite. The only way that the computer can use it infinitely, is to make it 1/3, which therefore, is not exactly .333 repeated. I am not referring to the value of 1/3, but I am referring to the exact form of .333 repeated. This means that no computer can actually calculate anything of value.

    Another thing to discuss, what defines the value of a number? What makes the value of 10, 10? Why doesn't the value of 10 equal 4? What defines the space between each number? What defines a number as large, or small? How can our mathematical functions have any distinction on what actually happens? If every number is not exact, how can one predict anything to actually either exist or occur?

  2. Ah, I only realized this was in the mathematical section, as I found this topic in the "Recent Topic" section. As for that, I assume you would prefer a mathematical formula or equation to be in accordance to the Theory of Infinity and Random.

    Due to that ,I sincerely apologize. x3


    But the concept you pose is also a scientific and a real-based one. After all, what is maths, but a concept, to help us understand reality better? :3


    You don't have to apologize, I wasn't just referring to random and infinity in mathematical terms, I was also trying to get answers scientifically.


    Due to my research, I have concluded that the universe cannot be infinite, as it would not be mathematically possible.

    If the universe was infinitely sized, that would mean that the amount of inhabited planets and uninhabited planets would both be infinite. To find the percent of inhabited planets, you would divide the number of inhabited planets by the total number of planets, which would be infinity divided by infinity. If the equation were mathematically possible, which it is not, but if it were, the answer would be 1, which would imply that 100% of planets are inhabited. The same would go for uninhabited planets, therefore creating a paradox which can only be solved by having all numbers to the equation being finite. This concept can be implied in any situation, therefore making the physical, 'Infinity' impossible. However, the theoretical possibility of infinity can exist as a way to describe numbers, as 1/3 would be exactly described as zero point three repeated to infinity, implying that it never ends, which would make infinity a concept, not an exact number.

  3. I have done quite a bit of research on this, and my friend and I are at a disagreement. As we physically cannot get a particle to absolute zero, as that would require us to get every particle in the universe to absolute zero, I am asking whether this could be theoretically possible.


    Here is what I currently know: Temperature is the measure of heat (obviously), which is the measure of the speed that particles have (these are basics that I didn't need to research at all). The particles therefore would have to have negative speed. But, as I thought about it, the speed of particles would tell how much energy they have. Energy is linked to the electrons. So, a solid, liquid, and gas all have electrons, but not plasma, as it is the form of matter that can have no electrons. If, hypothetically, some molecule of plasma came in contact with some antimatter in the plasma state, the protons would be attracted to the antiprotons, as they have opposing charges. The outcome would be a molecule with absolutely no energy, or possibly negative energy. I don't know if this could physically work, as it would be pretty much impossible to create this experiment, as we could not make antimatter into plasma with current technology. I would like to know if this experiment could even possibly work, or if it can't, why it wouldn't work.

  4. I cannot find any way possible to prove any of these two concepts to exist in our three dimensional world. So, therefore I would like someone to prove that either one or both of these concepts actually exist in our three dimensional world.


    My only way that I can prove the concept of infinity would be a transition between dimensions. For instance, if you have a 2D square, and cut all of it into 1D lines, which is not physically possible, only theoretically, you would obtain infinite 1D lines, as they have no width to remove from the 2D square.

  5. Ok Nullus, let me correct what is incorrect on your last few posts.

    1. Dark Matter is matter as anything with mass is matter, and the dark matter theory was created to explain the "missing mass" in our space.

    2. There is no such thing as clear antimatter, antimatter is the same exact thing as matter, but it has a negative polarity, and reacts with matter to form energy.

    3. Dark energy is not positive energy, you are mixing up way to many theories. There is no positive or negative energy, but there is a positive and negative charge. I don't know that much about dark energy, but I do know quite a bit about black holes and know that the charge that is contains may vary, as it may be made of antimatter or matter.

    4. The way you organize your info is way to confusing and it is just messing everything up, you should just explain everything in paragraph form or a list as I am doing.

    It seems that you are mixing up to many theories, again, as strange said, provide references for your info, and define things better, it seems as though you just keep saying the same thing in the same way, expecting us to understand, which would be the definition of insanity, which by you sound like does not seem to be correct. You seem to know quite a bit of stuff, just you are referring to things using incorrect terminology, and are again mixing up theories. I don't mean to sound mean, and you are not wasting any of my time, actually, you have got me researching more and trying to figure out what you are saying, which has expanded my knowledge, and so thank you. I am just trying to have a discussion where we are all looking at information that we all know about. I am sorry if this sounds mean, or if any of my previous posts have sounded hostile, it wasn't really intended in that way.

  6. Whether it is important or not is likely irrelevant. We are genetically inclined to be curious. And so we are. The result, as they say, is history.


    I do understand this, and would like to add the fact that it is unknown whether this research will be important or not, as we do not know the exact results this all will yield us in the future.


    Since the predominant method of interaction with the electron is electrostatically, where its charge is the important "size" factor, at least for such interactions. I don't know what is meant by a "physical" radius; I don't know that it has meaning. The electron is not a little billiard ball.


    The EDM experiment I linked to tells us the electron is not actually sampling the field over a large area. Not knowing where it is is not the same thing as saying it's big.


    The factor if 1836 is the mass ratio, not the charge radius ratio. The electron's charge radius is much likely significantly smaller than the upper bound given by experiment.


    By physical radius, I mean it's physical size, which would probably be best to measure in mass. So therefore, the electron has about 1/1836 mass of a proton, not it's charge radius. Correct?

  8. The composition of extrasolar planets is unknown very accurately. A handful of teams claim to have observed atmospheres and even a composition, but this relies on a few received photons, and to my knowledge, has not been observed by two independent teams. So while we may have this knowledge in the future, presently it's more hype and buzz for popular science and the general press.


    This really doesn't answer my question

  9. No, this topic is not about the book by Douglas Adams.

    I would like your opinions on whether it should be important that we search for answers to all of our questions about life, the universe, and everything else. Is it worth all of the money it costs to do this? Should this research be costing us great amounts of money? Is it worth finding the answers that just makes us ask more questions? When should this cycle end of creating and answering questions? What would be the benefits of exploring the universe?




    To answer the first questions, you must answer the last question. What are the benefits of exploring the universe? I have found many benefits such as searching for a planet that could sustain life that may help us to have a place to move in times of crisis. Another one includes allowing us to create more energy efficiently for our planet, which would in turn help save it by reducing the amount of pollution we are creating, and reduce the amount of fossil fuels being used up. We can also find more efficient ways of transportation through the universe by exploring the field of wormholes. This would allow us to travel long distances quickly without using lots of energy to do so. Is it worth the money we pump into it? I would say yes, because the amount of money we put into this will eventually pay itself off, and we are also helping to satisfy human curiosity. I think that we should start expanding the research that Nikola Tesla and create much cheaper energy costs, which we would not use for large companies that would use the free energy to make trillions of dollars more, but rather for scientific research so that we can find the answers to our questions quicker and cheaper. I would think that by the time that we get all of our questions about the universe answered the human race will be dead, and if we stop researching the universe now, that end to the human race will be a lot quicker than we think.

    To summarize this, it is important that we continue to research to find solutions to expanding the life of the human race by finding solutions to large problems that may or may not occur over the time of the next few years.

    To summarize the summary, science is essential for the human race to survive.

    To summarize the summary of the summary, science is important.

  10. I would like to see what are the opinions on alchemy in science, whether you think it is good or bad. By alchemy, I mean the alteration of the number of protons to change one atom into another element. I do NOT mean taking a rock and making it into gold, this is not the definition of alchemy. This was what alchemy was in the medieval ages, as that was the time where gold was really valuable and making it from a rock was considered magical and turned the common understanding of the word alchemy, into making gold from rocks, which is not what it really is. So, therefore, don't post anything on "making gold" as that is not what I am talking about. If you want more information on alchemy and are confused, go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy

  11. how i remember dark is not exist.. or did I miss something ?



    dark bright ( or not enough bright )

    nothing everything

    not vacuous vacuous

    silence noise ( or not enough noise )

    no etc etc


    correct me if I'm wrong.


    just try to name dark matter to clear positive antimatter, black hole to cluster of clear negative particles, and you will get levitation of mixed positives and negatives ( stars - galaxies - us ) in a middle, and answer why light is bent over massive object.

    is it clear antimatter is Sterile Neutrino? I think it is to early answer at least for me.


    Ok, I have to correct you on many, many things here. First of all, there are areas in space that have absolutely nothing in them, they are called voids. We cannot detect the presence of them, but we can detect the absence of them, as they are areas that have no matter. Also, dark matter must exist, as there is an unknown form of matter adding mass to our space. You can call it whatever you want, but is still must exist. Silence can exist in a void, as there is nothing to carry the waves through, same with a vacuum and darkness. Antimatter is not made of Sterile Neutrinos, as they collide with regular matter to create energy. I think that you are thinking that dark matter is called antimatter, but antimatter is the opposite form of matter. There is no such thing as positive antimatter, as that would be matter, and would a complete waste of characters to rename it that. black holes are not just a cluster of clear negative particles, they are highly condensed matter or antimatter that has such a powerful gravitational force that it pulls in light with it. I don't understand what you mean by this "and you will get levitation of mixed positives and negatives (stars - galaxies - us) in a middle." The reason why light can bend over a massive object is because light is formed of energy, which energy must have mass, as energy plus energy yields matter. The mass of energy is very small, but it still has mass. All mass is affected by gravity, so therefore, if you have a massive object, the light is affected by gravity and bends around the object, almost beginning to orbit the object, but not quite. If I am incorrect on anything here, someone correct me, but I do know that most of this is true.


    I'm sure this is antimatter maybe not very clear. but is not supposed to named as dark matter,

    we have to rename it - not because it is easy but because it is hard ( I like this context of the words ) :)

    Antimatter is not to be confused with dark matter, they are two completely different forms of matter.

    Antimatter is the opposite of matter, and it created from energy when matter is created, when combined with matter it creates a massive amount of energy.

    Dark matter is an invisible form of matter that is uninteractable, meaning that it can't collide with normal matter. The theory of dark matter was created to explain the "missing" mass when measuring the mass of other galaxies. By measuring the mass through the amount of matter, the yield was less than that of measuring through gravitational forces. This sparked the idea that there is an invisible amount of mass that would account for this extra gravitational force that exists.





    We have the result of experiments.


    The proton's charge radius is about 0.877 fm; there's some controversy about this because muonic hydrogen experiments give ~5% smaller results than normal hydrogen with very high precision



    electrons are at least a thousand times smaller, with r < 10-18 m; that's an upper bound limited by experiment, not a lower bound — the result is consistent with zero



    So the proton is experimentally shown to be bigger than the electron?


    If by size you mean the charge radius, yes.


    As has been explained earlier, though, "size" is not well-defined in QM — there are a number of ways one might interpret it, and context matters.


    So therefore, what you are saying is that the electron's physical radius is not known, and as far as we know, they can be huge or minuscule. We can only determine how big the charge stretches around the electron, and that appears to be about 1,836 times smaller than that of a proton. Am I correct?

    I think that most of my questions that I have asked are answered, but still, I don't see what makes up electrons and quarks, but I believe that the answer to that is unknown at this time, as it appears that nothing can give me a definite answer on this.

  13. Is it possible that the string theory is tied into this at all? Could the components of electrons, positrons, and neutrinos possibly be strings of energy? I would think this could be so because if energy is combined it produces matter and antimatter, so therefore, energy must be some form of matter that can be a wave at the same time, so I would assume they could be a string. Could this be possible?


    I only ask these questions because I think of them in my chemistry class and my chemistry teacher can't answer them, and I am trying to simply connect the dots to get the answers to the questions I think of.

  14. -So basically what you are saying is when a down quark decays, it produces an up quark, an electron, and an anti-neutrino.



    -And when an up quark decays, it produces a down quark, and another electron and antineutrino.


    It produces down-quark, positron and neutrino.

    Positron is anti-particle of electron (opposite positive charge).

    Neutrino is anti-particle of anti-neutrino (or vice versa).


    This happens *exclusively* in proton-rich nucleus.


    If particle and anti-particle meet together, they annihilate. Which for positron and electron means that 2 or more gamma photons will be created in their place.


    I understand now, thank you for your help.


    An electron or quark in a usual state will be spread over a certain region of space. With an electron,

    it's often spread over an atom, a region of size about 10^(-10)m. With a quark, we've only seen them

    spread over the interior of a proton / neutron / meson, a region of size about 10^(-15)m.


    In fact (and this is Quantum Mechanics here - you'll have to accept it's weird), at least an electron

    can be distributed over a much larger volume in some circumstances. You could put it in a box

    of size 1 mile x 1 mile x 1 mile and the electron "cloud" would be spread over this 1 mile^3 volume.


    But this is not what we mean by "size" in this discussion. Here, "size" means the MINIMUM SIZE

    WE CAN GET IT DOWN TO. With an electron or quark THIS IS IN THEORY LIMITLESS.


    What this means is that by measuring its position accurately enough, we could in theory reduce that

    cloud / wave / whatever you call it down to a size of, say, 10^(-30)m or even smaller. (We can't actually do this

    because we don't have accurate enough instruments).


    So, in fact, what you'll get from the above if you read it carefully is the following:

    ***Measurement of a particle to within an accuracy of distance d will reduce the size of its cloud

    to that distance.***


    I understand Quantum Mechanics pretty well and understand what you are saying, but I am not necessarily referring to the electron cloud, as I know that can be limitless in size, I was wondering about the size of the electron itself, which I understand that it is not a definite size, but I know that it cannot be massively large.





    It's probably more helpful to think of fundamental, sizeless particles as waves or clouds rather than

    billiard-ball-like objects, which is what I think you're doing.


    No, I understand that an electron is a cloud-like object.


    Another thing that may tie into this is the fact that energy combined with energy yields matter, and matter split apart yields energy. So therefore, if matter is composed of energy, energy must exist as some form of matter, and probably be the constructor of electrons and positrons. I would assume that it would exist as strings as stated in the String Theory which would allow them to also exist as a wave of energy, while being matter. Does anyone understand what I am saying and is this a possibility, or is there evidence that would contradict this? Yes I do know that this is a different matter, but it can help in my understanding of the Atomic Theory better.

    If particle and anti-particle meet together, they annihilate. Which for positron and electron means that 2 or more gamma photons will be created in their place.


    I understand this very well, as I have done quite a bit of research on anti-matter and believe in the future of antimatter used to create energy for the earth's energy demands.


    Down quark is decaying to up quark and electron and antineutrino:


    [latex]d \rightarrow u + e^- + \bar V_e[/latex]


    It happens in neutron-rich nucleus, or bare neutron.

    [latex]n^0 \rightarrow p^+ + e^- + \bar V_e + 0.782 MeV[/latex]

    (neutron has half-life ~10 minutes, and mean-life ~15 minutes)


    The first isotope that's decaying this mode is Tritium (3rd isotope of Hydrogen, and the first unstable atom):

    [latex]T^+ \rightarrow _2^3He + e^- + \bar V_e + 18.6 keV[/latex]

    (Tritium has half-life 12.32 years)


    As you can easily see on the right side there is energy that varies depending on which isotope decayed. It's not constant. It's not even constant for electron and antineutrino. Once electron is accelerated more, other time reverse, and neutrino is taking more energy.


    Don't be "fooled" that down quark is "made of" electron and up quark.

    In proton-rich nucleus exactly reverse reaction happens:


    [latex]u \rightarrow d + e^+ + V_e[/latex]


    Up quark is decaying to down quark, positron and neutrino.


    f.e. Carbon-11 will decay to Boron-11, positron and neutrino:

    [latex]_6^{11}C \rightarrow _5^{11}B + e^+ + V_e + 0.960408 MeV[/latex]


    So basically what you are saying is when a down quark decays, it produces an up quark, an electron, and an antineutrino. And when an up quark decays, it produces a down quark, and another electron and antineutrino. So from what we can tell, the up and down quarks must be made of a basic quark that when it decays, it changes form to the opposite quark while releasing some stored energy in the form of electrons and antineutrinos. Is that correct?


    If so that would mean that we cannot tell what makes up the quarks at all.

  16. I would like to learn a little bit more about the interesting cosmic structures and planets out there. I already know about these planets and cosmic structures:

    Gliese 436 b - Planet made of superheated ice

    55 Cancri e - Planet made of Diamond

    Huge LQG - Second largest cosmic structure, stretching 4 billion light-years across and containing 73 quasars

    Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall - Largest cosmic structure, border between the Hercules and Corona Borealis constellations stretching 10 billion light-years across

    Kepler 186f - Planet that is quite similar to earth, having a very high chance of being habitable by other lifeforms

    The Giant Void - A large void that is 1.3 billion light years across

    Sagittarius A - Supermassive black hole in the center of the milky way galaxy. It has a mass of about (4.31 + 0.38) x 106.

    I do know more, but they are not coming to my mind, and I would like to learn a little bit more about this, as it is quite interesting. Also, other people who want to learn more can do so by looking at this discussion.

  17. I actually just found that out by doing research, that the electrons are not made of quarks. Also, the fact that I am a Lepton on this site does not really apply to the fact that I am a noob on science, I just specialize more in Astrophysics, Nuclear Chemistry/Physics, and Quantum Mechanics, rather than Chemistry. I am also new to this site, which would explain why I am still a Lepton. I still don't know why the electron is way smaller, about 1/1,836 the size of a proton, and still hold the same charge.

  18. This I KNOW cannot be officially proven today, as current technology is not advanced enough to detect this. I posted this so people can just post their hypotheses on this matter.

    As scientific law states, all matter must be composed of something. So therefore, dark matter must be composed of something, but what?

    My theory states that dark matter is composed of a Sterile Neutrino, which is similar to a quark, but has no electromagnetism, which means that there is no way to detect this. Sterile Neutrinos do have a gravitational force, however, and so they could be the building blocks to the mysterious phenomena. Sterile Neutrinos are hypothetical matter, and so this may not be correct, but it is very similar to dark matter. The Sterile Neutrinos also are uninteractable, meaning that they cannot collide with any other matter, so that would explain the theory that dark matter is currently passing through us. Another theory that I have made states that the dark matter is constructed in another dimensional form. This would allow them to pass through three-dimensional matter without colliding with it. This theory has no official evidence as the previous one was, but theoretically it would make sense that is is extra-dimensional.

  19. I know that this is a very advanced question, but this was asked in my Chemistry II class today, and the teacher said that he did not know the answer, nor had he ever thought of the question. And so I was curious and wanted to ask this question to someone who knows chemistry and about protons and electrons better than I.

    If electrons have a smaller mass than the proton, than how do they have the same charge?

    I do know this, that charge is related to the quarks, and that up quarks have +2/3 charge, and down quarks have -1/3 charge. If an electron has -1 charge, than they would have to contain 3 down quarks. The proton has two up quarks and one down quark. Both have 3 total quarks, so why are they different masses? Are down quarks a different mass than up quarks? Is there more than quarks in the protons?

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.