Baby Astronaut

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?

He means number of bosons, of which photons are one kind. In other words, it doesn't have to go anywhere, it simply no longer exists.

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?

Usually you say it is "absorbed," which basically just means that its energy has been transferred to whatever it "hit." And that's how you would detect it.

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?

Boson number is not a conserved quantity — you can make and destroy photons.

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

I love how someone has to make that point in every thread like this regardless of whether they have something substantive to say about the hypothesis itself.

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.

Photon detection is usually destructive — no more photon.

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

In the paper "GRAVITATION AND ELECTROMAGNETISM - Introduction to the THEORY OF INFORMATONS by Antoine Acke" - published on http://www.wbabin.net/astro/acke2.pdf - a new theory is presented....

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?

Stronger than gravity but short-ranged, so they cannot account for the effect. It must be electromagnetic in origin.

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.

So gravity is too weak to pull the plates together and so it was figured that it must be the virtual particle pairs popping in and out of existence that was pushing the plates together --

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

I would speculate that even though the core is probably a solid, it might exhibit some kind of "flow" that would permit it to move similar to liquids. But this is pure speculation on my part.

 

If only we could send a probe down there to take measurements and retrieve a sample for us.

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.

So, when a post is placed in "Pseudoscience and Speculation" do the initial posters think?

 

1) It is here because, despite the hard work and incredible attention to scientific practice my "idea" it is still speculative at the moment because it lacks experimental verification. Remembering that the "idea" is based on accepted frameworks and builds on what is know.

 

2) It is here because I am not prepared to learn established science as it is far to complicated to be right and as such I believe pseudoscience is the way forward. We don't need mathematics, pure intuition, analogies and pictures will see us right. Don't forget that Einstein and Feynman both used pictures and diagrams and look how famous they are.

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".

Anyway, it seems to be logical to put Speculations first because, at the end of the day, an idea that is put there is still considered open for discussion then it may it be classed as Pseudoscience.

I like that. Excellent point.

Merged post follows:

There's no evidence that I am aware of that word order makes the difference being claimed here.

Who's the last person to complain about having a discussion moved to "speculations"? (in place of complaining about the word "pseudoscience")

Six of one, half dozen of the other.

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)"

We pass from a point-like description to an extended wave-like one. In a sense, the particle becomes speared into a little fuzzy blob.

What is the diameter of such an extended wave? Greater than an orange/apple?

The closest thing to a "particle" in this description is a highly localised wave-function.

That's the reason for the question above. How localized is the wave? I had thought it extended to infinity.

What I think you are confusing is the notion of wave-function collapse.

 

What this says (roughly) is that all possible states are combined linearly into the actual state the particle assumes. Up on measurement one of these states is selected. (Like spin up or down or whatever.)

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...

Not really, the interaction results in a momentum change for the electron, all interactions do. This results in no interference.

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?

Psst, we already do, sort of

Not hemispheres, two whole brains (or more). aka zombie food.

15) Imagining a new sense.

14) Having two or more brains