Baby Astronaut

How odd, I had a dream about that.

I applaud the effort, yet I'm of little help in that area of knowledge, so can't verify or disprove what you've shown. That seems an entirely different beast than what you've presented here. I could see insane alien's misgivings, but even so I think if you provided the maths for a specific concept, that you did your part sufficiently at least for that one concept, regardless if your other stuff were bunk or not.....I really wouldn't know. But can you predict what types of elements the next discoveries will be, in advance? I'm not sure if you're claiming that, but if so, why not give us a list? Something we're able to check/verify in the future? Unless I'm wrong about the purpose of your Structural Table of Elements to begin with. Just because it appears elegant doesn't mean it's correct. But your thread hasn't really gotten the full weight of the "criticism hammer" as would've a thread by most crackpots, so maybe that's indicative of something or maybe not. What I'd like to know for sure: does your claim reduce/ignore the other scientifically established theories, or does it build upon it? I understand you're sort of branching into unexplored areas, rather than challenging modern understanding. Am I correct in that?

Is elas really on to something here? (no clear idea what, but it appears fairly elegant and perhaps consistent) Maybe a new way to predict the types of elements to be encountered down the road? Is that what you're getting at elas?

I thought if photons were to disappear into a particle, they'd be spat out eventually. Or is that not the same photon as the absorbed one? Confused a bit here. For such a detection, wouldn't the photon have to bounce off whatever it "hit", and then return to the detection unit?

What the heck is a boson number? I did a search on Wikipedia and it returned: Did you mean: bacon number

I knew someone would resurrect the haiku thread once it got mentioned

Can't, not enough info. I was just trying to help avoid communication breakdown, which happens often enough if people with different definitions of *theory* are discussing one.

What happens to it? (Do scientists know to where the photon goes?)

Antoine, it's definitely not a theory yet, more like a hypothesis. For example no one's tested or peer reviewed it -- or even made consensus on any findings. Just letting you know so we're all on the same page.

Say you observe an electron or photon to detect which slit it entered through. Does the observation add more energy to the particle than it began with?

Just ignore the "baffling" part. Scientists understand it's acting like a wave. Imagine that the photons being fired are more like waves coming out really fast. Much like an ocean wave, it's spread out -- enough so that it hits both slits. Now as the wave reaches the two gaps/slits, the wave hits them, entering both, and so naturally it'll be split into two parts. Again, both "new" waves spread out and so naturally they'll soon meet and do the interference pattern you see in nature from waves colliding in a pond. But I'm yet a newb at double-slit knowledge and thus might be incorrect, however someone will point it out if so.

Gravity pulls on an object, which speeds up thus gaining kinetic energy. Like-charged particles repel, which seems to be a method of energy production. What am I missing?

If the difference is tied to the strength of atomic/molecular bonds, wouldn't solids flow due to external factors -- like how much pressure's involved?

Wow, I didn't realize the such vast difference between a few micrometers and the (less than) 1 femtometer range of distance.

If two particles were in the act of exchanging bosons, and in the meanwhile one/each particle disappeared, would the boson headed towards it "miss" the vanished particle and now exist on its own? Example 1: virtual particles disappear before the exchange is complete. Example 2: with normal particles, but one's velocity was suddenly altered before the exchange got completed.

Makes sense except...what about the other forces, all stronger than gravity -- doing the pulling instead?

It's funny that as probe development improves to reach any of the planets, it could still be unable to reach areas on this one.

I think many newcomers probably arrive with a lifetime/ingrained habit of viewing evolution and the universe beginnings not as a scientific model, but rather as a *theory* in the sense of...."Hey, did they find out who stole the Bung Family's jewelry? I have a theory who's behind it all"....instead of in the more accurate sense of...."Hey, did they find out who stole the Bung Family's jewelry yet? Hmm, no? Because I've formed a model with details and some evidence with calculations -- rechecked by other departments -- that points to who's behind it all". I like that. Excellent point. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Who's the last person to complain about having a discussion moved to "speculations"? (in place of complaining about the word "pseudoscience")

Not exactly. It probably feels as if the title were closer to "Nonsense and Speculations" But if you reversed it around to "Speculations (plus occasional nonsense)"....then it'll have a pretty different feel.

Wouldn't that be a more constructive name for this section of the forums? Or even: "Speculations (and Pseudoscience)"

What is the diameter of such an extended wave? Greater than an orange/apple? That's the reason for the question above. How localized is the wave? I had thought it extended to infinity. I'm probably confusing it because of the double-slit experiment. If the wave becomes like a particle after it's observed, this doesn't seem to have anything to do with spin up or down (or "whatever" ).

Is there a specific method you must follow to send entangled particles on their merry ways (in opposite directions)? For example, can you just shoot a lengthy and concentrated beam of entangled particles into open space while their partners remain locked in a box here on Earth? Then later on, you interact with the particles from the box to affect their distant partners.

But did you have that confusion ever in your life? That's what the poll's for

If a wave is observed, I'm thinking it becomes a particle. It collapses into that shape, at least. If correct so far, then shouldn't it lose its wave/particle duality after the collapse, and just be a particle? Taking it further (...if such is the case that it becomes a particle only), does it ever revert back to its wave/particle form? Also, something from another thread... What is the difference between observing an electron and a photon randomly bumping it? Why doesn't it act the same as purposeful interaction/observation?

Am I correct to say that matter only contains -- instead of is -- energy? If so....the reason for this poll is get an idea of how many people actually once thought the reverse, incorrectly -- with energy as some real (but insubstantial) thing in air or space, visible only in the form of lightning or detectable as photons?