Sorcerer

But electrons do have a measurable structure, with mass, energy and spin. Photons too have a dual structure, with energy and spin. Perhaps then energy and spin are the primary particle. Can one ever be found without the others presence? So like quarks (but yeah you're right not really at all) they can only exist paired. And like quarks they have a third interchangeable particle mass. How would you design an experiment to look at an electron? Don't they absorb photons? If they're made of photons, isn't that like trying to look at a photon by reflecting another off it? Anyway merry Christmas. I've got a nice brunch waiting. Damn this stuff is interesting though. Thanks for the input.

Can't photons themselves create electron positron pairs though? Intuitively I would view an electron then being made of photons, like a proton is made of quarks. I know QM isn't very intuitive, but how would saying this be wrong? Also that wiki confuses me in the introduction. Saying after sodium absorbtion of 2 photons energy is emitted in all directions, how can 2 photons be emitted in all directions. And if more photons are emitted where does their spin come from? Maybe by all they mean opposing directions? Or perhaps any direction, no specific direction? And now I am thinking of everyday visible light reflection. Where does the spin go when a green plant uses that photons energy for photosynthesis?

Where is the spin located for that brief time? Where does the photon "go"? In the case of phosphorescence, is it wrong to view an excited electron as containing or being joined with a photon If a photon had all its energy removed would it come to rest? Would a photon with 0 energy at rest even be measurable?

Fluorescence differs from phosphorescence in that the electronic energy transition that is responsible for fluorescence does not change in electron spin, which results in short-live electrons (<10-5 s) in the excited state of fluorescence. In phosphorescence, there is a change in electron spin, which results in a longer lifetime of the excited state (second to minutes).Fluorescence and phosphorescence occurs at longer wavelength than the excitation radiation. http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Spectroscopy/Electronic_Spectroscopy/Electronic_Spectroscopy%3A_Theory

So how does the spin of an atom differ post absorbtion, what subatomic particle holds the spin, does it matter? Are some forbidden, eg fermions and bosons are defined and grouped by their different spin types.

What evidence is there which would falsify the hypothesis that energy is only transferred to the electron during absorbtion. While the photon, minus all but a non 0 amount continues. And emission is where a similar photon gains energy from the electron? Is there any direction preferred in fluorescence. Eg are photons absorbed and emitted perpendicularly, tangentially etc. If we made direction a priority, would uncertainty over momentum hinder an experiment testing this? While an electron is in an excited state, where is the photons energy located? Is it in the electron moving it away, or in the nucleus pushing it away?

I used to be very comfortable thinking of it like this. But have had it driven into me on this forum that photons aren't energy, they have energy. They also have spin, how does that energy loss create the spin of the photon? And where does the spin go during absorbtion? Is there a spin/energy equivalency? Can photons exist with 0 energy as dormant spin only?

When a atom floresces an electron drops down an energy state and a photon is emitted. Is it correct then to say that photon is a part of the atom? Is there any specific place it resides. Was it a part of the electron? If it isn't a part of the atom and only carrying away energy, is there any preference in the process for which photon it embers? IE does it choose the nearest, ones travelling in specific directions etc over others? If it is neither of these and the photon is created, where does the photons other property, spin come from?

Is there good evidence to support this or is it a prediction? How do we know if other galaxies are made of matter or antimatter? How do we know that there isn't lone antimatter drifting in voids?

I was meaning antimatter left over from the big bang.

Is some of the universe still antimatter and will it all eventually encounter matter and annihilate.

No one knows what it is. I think it's energy rebalanced from the initial big bang. I think the default condition of the universe is space expanding faster than light. This property divides the universe. The initial condition was one which contained only dark energy. The quantum nature of the vacuum allowed that space to borrow some of this energy to create virtual particles pairs. When space expands faster than the speed of light virtual particles pairs are separated from each other. The random nature of the quantum vacuum meant that a large and dense enough mass could be produced randomly the size of our universe. This would instantly collapse under its own gravity and lack of dark energy. As space collapses particle/anti particle pairs recombine. Some of the energy released is returned to being dark energy. Quantum randomness allowed regions of space to have an imbalance of matter. Some of the energy couldn't be rebalanced. At a tipping point there wasn't enough matter (and dark matter) left lending gravity and borrowing energy to counteract dark energy, space began to expand again but not faster than the speed of light. This is the big bang. Shortly afterwards as more antimatter annihilated the universe returned to a faster expanding state and there was inflation. Inflation too produced mass and slowed itself down. Then there was recombination. Over time, and as galaxies began to pull mass together again, more mass was converted back to dark energy. And still is. This gradual addition accelerates the expansion of space. Random imbalances of 0 allowed for the universe.

Very true, you can calculate the distance to the point. But there is no distance at the point. True with time as +1 dimensions the point is a line. But so is the line a plane and the plane a solid and the solid 4d. But imagine if time was an ultimate dimension, when we add a geometrical 4th dimension, it then encompasses 4d and is described as 5d. Like we can sample a 2d circular slice of a sphere, we can too take a slice of our 3D without time. If we are confined to only 3D observation, points could have size resolving conflicts between quantum mechanics and general relativity. If there were instead 4 dimensions and time, our observation of time would be only 3/4 of reality. And it is precisely this paradox I am using to solve the black hole singularity paradox. Quantum mechanics denies a singularity due to heisenbergs uncertainty principle, it also prevents 2 fermionic occupying the same space. Since gravity bends time and space to such an extent where these things should happen, but cannot, perhaps it bends them so they are external to our 3D, the point is apparent from our perspective, but (like the line/circle/chord analogy) is actually just the intersection where a loop of 3D space time is outside the circle but still in a greater sphere.

Is it advantageous to "know" "you" want to survive? Did self awareness evolve from selective pressure in social groups? Was it an opporunistic adaption available because of flexable functions synergistic with brain expansion for creative ability to make tools? To what extent do other species exhibit self awareness, is it correlated with tool use? Does ironically our theory of mind bias us from pursing an objective answer?

They should conserved, it needs to be experimentally verified. The momentum would be trapped outside 4d, but conserved in 5d. The charge could leak through, it depends on it range relative to distance from the intersection. Imagine a line intersecting with a circle, forming a chord, the line segment of the chord is our observable universe. At a singularity the line is pinched at one point where it intersects the circles circumference. Thinking about this I need to add 1 more dimension. Surrounding this line and circle is a sphere, in this sphere would be an envagination where a loop of the line outside the circle holds the contents of the singularity.

Wouldn't there be a very slight coriolis effect then? Wouldn't that mean a very slightly twisted field? Wouldn't this torsion enable the poles to drift and even flip?

The earth doesn't rotate as one peice either. Hence the geomagnetic field right? But aren't momentum and energy equivalent to mass, couldn't it be explained the other way? What would an observer spinning as the earth moon system see? IE there reference frame view both as stationary?

If there was a higher 5th dimension and the universe we observe is a 4 dimensional slice of this, could all point particles have size in 5 dimensions but only intersect our universe at a tangent or 0 dimensional point. Like a circle touches a line without intersection. Could heisenbergs uncertainty principle be the result of vibrational movement or KE in the 5th dimension? Does it make sense to view a singularity as a zero point particle. Where all its mass in 5d no longer intersects the 4D universe but touches it at a single point. Could 0 point energy, or virtual particles be random intersection, due to the uncertainty principle of 4d space and 5d space. IE the line very close to tangent (our 4 dimensions) vibrates briefly to intersect with the circle (5d) protrudes into observable space time and then warps back again to where it doesn't intersect? So could virtual particles be seen as dynamic random vibrational intersections of 5 dimension with 4 dimensions? Hawking radiation could be seen as the circle edge or line forming a wave across the boundary and protruding through 4d. Where one half of the 5d wave function intersects 4d and the balancing other half remains unobservable in 5d.

Considering 4 dimensional space time or even 1 dimensional space can be said to be composed of an infinite amount of 0 dimensional points. This means a singularity takes up 0 space in our universe, having 0 space it should therefore also not have any time, so doesn't exist. Yet it can be observed via it's gravitational effects. Does it make any sense to view the collapse of a star, to a singularity, as the formation of a 0 dimensional bridge in space time. Mass in a seperate unobservable 5th dimension via gravity can then effect the lower 4 dimensions across this bridge. I mean if mass exists in 5d and we observe that mass that intersects with our 4d directly, black holes are points where the curvature of space time pulls that intersection away from where we can observe it. Gravity however can move through the 0 dimensional point intersection and effect us still.

Does a spinning body have more mass than a stationary one. What frame of reference applies, does an observer on a spinning body interpret it as extra mass and an outside observer view it as spin? To what extent is spacetime twisted by a spinning body? Can they warp it like the coriolis force warps convection currents? If a black hole formed from a rotating accretion disk and we take the ballerina pulling in their arms analogy, the closer to the center the greater the speed of rotation. So a hypothetically large as possible disk could form a black hole that spins at a speed approaching the speed of light. How does this alter the black holes effect on spacetime. Does the black hole have greater energy and therefore mass equivalence compared to a non rotating black hole made of an equal amount of matter? If there were multiple micro black holes rotating at close to the speed of light, what density would be needed to account for them as dark matter. How does it make any sense to say a singularity is rotating? It lacks the dimensions for a rotational axis, while being the axis for material rotating around it. Is it seen as the rotational energy (E) becoming mass (m) at the singularity, since as it approaches it forms a limit to ( c ). But at the singularity c isn't a property, because there is no distance in 0 dimensions. However mass and energy are conserved and their effect observed by gravity? Just as the moon earth system loses earth spin and seperates in distance. Wouldn't tidal forces from orbiting stars also slow the singularity's spin. But since it isn't spinning, isn't it just transferring it's mass to energy? How does this mass energy equivalency have meaning where outside the singularity E=mc^2, but inside c isn't a value, because there is no distance and therefore no speed only E=m. Could this conflict of physical laws across the dimensions, allow for the creation of mass without loss to the singularity? The singularity spin energy can't be tapped because it isn't spinning, ie it locks that energy away as perpetual.

Wouldn't the moon have been spinning out of sync with the earth originally too though? Or do they form in a system already tidally locked? If the moon formed in a collision how would that effect rotation? Is the sun spinning too and will it slow down? Thinking of it as the earth slowing in spin and the moon orbiting higher and gaining orbital speed. Couldn't it be viewed under relativity as the earth losing mass, gravity weakening and the moons orbit increasing? I mean under E=mc^2. The loss of speed would be the same as a loss of mass and the moon gained that energy. The total mass of the system remains the same I guess, but doesn't the relative masses alter gravity's effect and therefore the orbit? So space flattens out as the earth spins slower, does this mean rotating bodies curve space tighter? If the universe were rotating would this account for some or all missing mass/dark matter? What if a super massive black hole rotates near the speed of light at the center of galaxies?

How did the earth acquire it's rotation? How fast was it originally spinning and does the suns gravity slow it down. If earth slows down, how does this effect measurements, will GPS need to account for any difference in 100 million years. How does the reduction in speed influence the coriolis effect and how has/will wear the patterns change as a result? Wouldn't a faster spinning earth have a smoother climate/be more uniform or at equilibrium than a slower turning one? Since less rotation would slow the coriolis mixing of the atmosphere, enabling greater areas of variation/ steeper temperature gradients? How does the moons gravity effect the earth's spin? Has the earth's gravity effected the moons spin? What is the Kinetic energy of the spinning earth converted to as it slows?

Could you use a spinning body like a motor. Say if a drive shaft gravitationally locked between the earth and a relatively stationary body in space, couldn't the spin of the earth be used to rotate a turbine in a generator and produce electricity. It guess it's similar to tidal locking with the moon, the tides can be used to make electricity. Does this energy transfer slow the earth down over time?

In a way they're not even blocks, they don't exist singularly, but as a descriptive component of hadrons. It just happens that hadrons can be described as having varying combinations of quarks. Quarks are more a shared property of hadrons, a derived measure of similarities.

The straight line is the ideal, but of course gravity will turn a balls path to a slight curve. What I was getting at is that there should be a difference between steeper arcs and shallower ones. Is there? The coriolis force, being called a pseudo force and derived from newton's laws and a special reference frame. How does it relate in Einsteins theory and what explanation does relativity give it?