chandragupta

Thank you. You have given me a good insight into the nature of the term 'OBSERVER' in the realm of quanta. Thank you. You have given me a good insight into the nature of the term 'OBSERVER' in the realm of quanta. You mentioned quite correctly that the term 'OBSERVER' cannot be limited entirely to humans & an atomic clock could act as an 'OBSERVER' aboard a rocket etc. YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT HERE. My only comment here at this moment will be that when the time comes to read the atomic clock in question, then only a HUMAN OBSERVER will meet the requirement. Your thoughts?

Thank you. I would also be deeply interested to know your view re. my concept of PERTURBATION THEORY as applied to the world of quanta . This concept was attached as the main theme prior to the matter of Richard Feynman's diagram.

You stated 'electrons inside the atom are not waves but particles only'. Does that mean that electrons behave as waves only when they are outside the confines of the atom I.e. floating as 'free agents' beyond the reach of ''attracting- force' of positively charged protons (as actually happens inside the 'plasma' of a FUSION REACTER or inside the 'plasma' of FUSION REACTION taking place in the core of the SUN?)Your thoughts?

Space is the 'sine qua non' or an absolutely necessary thing for the existence of any entity, be that entity as it may the SINGULARITY or any other entity. In other words ANYTHING which has any kind of dimension cannot exist without the existence of space first.My question is:- Since SINGULARITY before the beginning of the universe as well as at the of the universe is conceived as containing the cosmic space time (as a potential) inside itself then how this thing called SINGULARITY itself exists outside any kind of space unless we conceive this SINGULARITY as a DIMENSIONLESS POINT OF EXISTENCE? Your thoughts?

Enthalpy(30/10/12) When you state that 'orbitals' of the electrons are solid & extend over much of the so called 'empty' space of an atom, please explain what is the nature of these orbitals? My idea of these is that they are fields of electromagnetic force belonging to electrons.Your thoughts? You stated that it is very very difficult to push a second atom really close to the first atom (even though the space between an atom's nucleus & its electrons superficially appears to be empty). So my question is:- What force prevents (or repels) the second atom from comming close to the first atom? Is this force be the electromagnetic force of the electrons in the light of the fact that electrons are much closure to their counterparts in the second atom than to their own nucleus (keeping in mind that electrons are negatively charged & thus electrons in first atom repel the electrons in the second).Your thoughts?

Thanks. Your posting re. Perturbation theory in the realm of quanta has been very helpful. I conceive that in this theory the unimaginably vast regions of space time which remain unoccupied by galaxies & giant primordial hydrogen clouds are accepted as being not TRUELY ABSOLUTE VACUUM regions. Instead they are conceived as being filled with unseen & unmeasurable oceans of energy where quanta of all kinds are being formed & are being immediately annihilated so as to maintain the EQUILIBRIUM between the aforesaid ocean of unseen energy on one hand & the world of quanta on the other. In this 'DANCE' between ocean of unseen energy & the formation of world of quanta , minutest of minute perturbations in the ocean of energy are the initiators .Richard Feynman's Diagrams are a very beautiful way to express this 'DANCE' between unseen ocean of energy & quanta. Your thoughts ?

My understanding of PERTURBATION THEORY is that it relates to classical world of mega structures such as stars where this theory tries to explain as to how the initiation of the process of birth of a baby star takes place inside the primordial cloud of hydrogen. In this theory it is conceived that when two such cloud formations bump into each other , they cause a 'squeeze' in this hydrogen cloud (these clouds can be 100 light years across) which increases the density inside the cloud & thus BIRTH OF GRAVITY & consequent initiation of BABY STAR FORMATION takes place. Therefore like you I would find difficult to relate this concept of PERTURBATION THEORY to the world of quanta. Can I request you to explain the LATTICE FIELD THEORY which you have mentioned?

You mentioned 'glueballs', bound states of gluons, in the context of existence or otherwise of quarks. Would you be kind to indicate how these glueballs relate to interaction represented in Richard Feynman's 'Feynman diagram' where a quark & antiquark are shown to annihilate each other to give rise to a photon & a gluon? Do these gluons then bound together to form these glueballs ?

Thanks. You have been very helpful.

How far the energy level of electrons can be increased so as to enable them to help us 'see' the inside structure of nucleus ? The article you mentioned, states that high energy content of electrons tends to rupture or break down ( my word, not of the article writer) the possible quarks into hadrons ,thus issue becomes that of interpretation. So there is no way to directly 'see' quarks even with the help of high energy electron beam except in an indirect way via interpretation of the breakdown products i.e. hadrons, of quarks. Your thoughts?

Thank you for your reply that Electrons are the primary repelling force if atoms are separated.In this context I.e. in the context of the structure of atom , is the positive charge of protons is the main force to keep the electrons in their orbitals & if the latter is true then + charge of protons must be equal in magnitude or strength to that of electron's negative charge?

Thanks for confirming that there is an electromagnetic force that keeps the atoms from co-locating. Could I ask you as to who is the source of this electromagnetic force I.e. are they the electrons of the atom in question or the protons( or both )of the same? Is there any way to picturize an electron. Let me explain. Richard Feynman's 'Feynman's diagrams' are very helpful in picturizing his concepts.

Thank you. You have introduced me to a beautiful site. It gave me a great insight into the workings of this amazing quantum world.

Even though the space time between the nucleus & its electrons appears to be empty or unoccupied but in truth this is not so as evidenced by the observation that a second atom can't be pushed next to the first atom. This emplies that there is something in between the nucleus & its electrons. My question is: What is this 'something'? Could it be electro-magnatic force? Your thoughts? When you state: ' electrons fill the atom completely(despite being 'point-like'), does it mean, these electrons fill the atom completely with their electromagnetic force ? Your thought?

'Illusion' pertains to observer & not to matter.Wall is matter & so is the head without the observer inside it . Thus a head without the observer inside it can be banged against the wall without generating any inference regarding the the aforesaid Illusion.your thoughts?

Matter is made of atoms. Atom is made of a nucleus & electrons. If size of the nucleus is imagined to be that of a brick (for ease of picturization) then electron would be about a mile away from the nucleus & then there will be this intervening empty space time in between the nucleus & electron. My question is: Is the solidness or solidity of matter is an illusion of the observer? Your thoughts?

Here i.e. in relativity, the OBSERVER is a mere outsider passively perceiving the matter & trying to make sense of its structure & function,never for a moment thinking that IT IS HE WHO ALONE IS 'SELF-AWARE' & not the matter & IT IS HE ALONE WHO PROCLAIMS 'look,here is this character called matter. Let us make sense of it'.Your thoughts?

In this context OBSERVER is a mere slave of matter & is forced to swallow whatever crumbs matter throws at him from its table.Your thoughts?

Thanks. I shall enjoy this. Yes. It is called ' OBSERVER'. You have beautiful insight about ' strangeness ' of this amazing universe of ours. Very true. Would you be kind enough to explain in simple terms this ' IMPECCABLE AXIOMATIC MATHEMATICS OF JOHN NEWMAN (1932) THAT CONSCIOUS OBSERVATION OF THE WAVE- FUNCTION'S CONTENTS MAKES IT COLLAPSE. Would you be kind enough to explain in very simple understandable terms:- What these two words namely 'EIGENVALUE & EIGENSTATE MEAN?

Michel 123456. What do you mean by saying: 'relativity is already a kind of mathematics by the observer'? Please explain!