Iwonderaboutthings

Neuroscience. Your questions are hardly as unanswerable as you seem to believe.

I think neuroscience would be better off for a topic on hyper dimensional reality and QM, were talking about love not pop science..

"I'm sorry are these the protocols of science or am I confused on this???"

You are confused.

Re

"What does it look like?

Does it have a color?

Can you touch this " physically?

Does it have mass???"

the same can be said of plenty of abstract scientific ideas like gravity

I think its only more than obvious non of us "here" can prove love's emotional existence, either being philosophical, intuitive or what have you.

Of which should make professional scientist look bad in a public forum..

How so???

Because they live accordingly to humanity's emotional addictions...

IE: they have families they care for, they are passionate about discoveries, they get married, etc etc.

No one wins really, its just that human emotions cannot be proven by scientist.

So then the big question????

What then are emotions???? Could they exists in another dimension such as time??

I am no joking when I ask these question by the way.

I think I get it:

What the poster is asking is "how reliant are we on our measurement tools?", "what is the interdependence of science and its measurement tools?" and "can we do science without measurement?"

 

You have to understand that science, in its heart, is an explanation of measurements. As measurement tools and technology improve, so does the science. I love spectroscopy, so I'll use it as an example.

 

Your eyes are a measurement device. You see blue. You see different shades of blue (I, however, am colorblind, so my measurement tool is very imprecise). Using a prism, you can look at how broad the different hues are or how they relate to one another (is one to the left or right to another in position). Upon careful observation and multiple experiments, you find that blue occurs at wavelengths between 450–495 nm. Then you replace your eye with a photodiode. You can now get a better look at the intensity/position of the light. Now you have a spectrum.

 

Sir Chandrasekhara Venkata Raman was able to observe the Raman effect in 1928, but it wasn't able to be used practically until the invention of the laser. Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy was not widely used until computers were readily available to do the complex FT calculations quickly. Science is, indeed, limited by its tools. However, new tools are often created in scientific investigations. h does not have to be found in a kiln. If he had ran a current through silicon carbide, he would have seen the same thing.

 

What does this have to do with balancing chemical equations? Take 1 part sulphur, 2 parts saltpetre, and 3 parts charcoal and mix. I image if you eyeball this, you would make a functional gunpowder, just not as good if you measured it with a scale. And nowhere near as good if you balanced the masses using molecular weights. And guess what, you are still using a measurement tool (your eyeball)! I came up with that using chemical equations. There would, however, be no equations without careful measurements in the past.

 

As a throwaway aside on the clone/soul, there is a (kinda) scientific answer to your question. There is no fundamental difference between a clone and an identical twin (outside of time between births). Same genetic material, same gene sequence. So unless identical twins are soulless (hence, the evil twin), clones would also have a soul. QED! You cannot measure a soul, so it is not a science topic. A friend once asked if I believed in ghosts (he and his wife had a disagreement over their existence), to which I replied "I don't know if they exist or not, and unless you can figure out a way to make them power my cell phone, I don't care!" As a religious scientist, I recognize that these things must remain separate.

 

Finally, a "scientific question" actually differs from a regular question. It must be carefully posed to eliminate ambiguity. Ideally, it should either be explainable using current science or testable using experiment. The soul question actually highlights both of these. Souls are not able to be explained using current science knowledge. There are no satisfactory experiment that can be done to "measure" a soul (though many have tried!). You need to tighten your train of thought, think about what you are asking, or the question becomes unanswerable.

I will take your advice only because I think you are incredible! WOW! best answer.....

Not that it really matters, because whether or not someone is a scientist and also believes in god is really irrelevant, but it should be noted that Andre is not (yet) a scientist. He's already shared elsewhere on the site just 2 days ago that he's still a student still in training and not yet practicing professionally.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/81127-biology-and-physics/#entry786334

What does " professionally" have to do with physical facts??

Does this mean I need to make their comment any less???

Thats politics, I think you confuse " human survival " IE: a job, a man made monetary system, with physical observable orders of nature..

Rather someone gets paid to prove a fact or not, the fact is still a fact, or am I confused on this???

You mention that this person is still a student and does not know the whole of physics??

I have yet to see " paid" scientist find physical evidence of the emotional premise of " love" not to mention " time."

Love:

What does it look like?

Does it have a color?

Can you touch this " physically?

Does it have mass???

I'm sorry are these the protocols of science or am I confused on this???

Why do so many describe this emotion with " intangible explanations???

Truly their should be an equation "prediction" to find it then...

Presumably, if you do all those things "as a scientist" you have evidence for them all.

Please cite it.

I don't mean to barge in here, but why am I thinking about " plastic surgery" and the effects it has on the human mind... Hymmm, anyway...

Doesn't serotonin react to sunlight???

"Physiological" reactions of negative and positive thinking perhaps?

Not sure if this is applicable to love though but they are physical consequences of neural reactions to human emotional interactions--> that still need to be proved for their existence by scientist. That is, to prove this physical chemical reactions linked to something in-dependent from the source, in this case love, emotions and the human "brain."

Chocolate on the Brain

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro04/web1/kcoveleskie.html

Hormones that make you happy

http://www.2knowmyself.com/Hormones_that_make_you_happy

Male Puberty Hormones and What They Do

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/human-biology/male-puberty4.htm

Thats a start...

1

2

As a scientist..

 

I believe in God, I believe in the soul, I also believe in Love.

 

I believe that God is the source of all energy, energy is life.

 

We have a soul, which is our energy, our unit of life.

 

Love is said to be a chemical reaction, but than so would be happiness, and so his hurt and pain. If you burn your hand ... are you not really burning your hand? Or is it just a chemical reaction that you feel the pain?

 

Just cause its a chemical or a neurological reaction doesn't make something not real, infact I think it makes it even more real.

Well it is about time I hear this from a scientist, I agree 100% with you..

That's unfortunate, because he's substantially wrong.

This bit

"True scientists believe in love because it is observable"

is right, but he simply hasn't understood evolution: I'd explain why but it's OT.

who cares if its out of the OT, I would like to hear your point of view.

So then, what would evolution have to do with love??

I " although philosophically speaking" believe that our concepts of " attraction" and or emotional bonding has much to do with our first experiences with our parents and or parent..

Our mind's adjust to this " connection of human to human dependency such as a monetary systems per say, in where a whole species becomes " compliant to an order and or structure for survival, when in fact humans are animals with frontal lobe brain usages " a trained species per say" along with their emotions.

By the way, when I say emotions I mean:

Human desires, love and affection, the need to have nice clothes, cars, diamonds, awards and etc...

These all share " emotional addictions" either man made or from other areas of the mind we do not know of...

So to continue :

humans are animals with frontal lobe brain usages, I guess natural selection??? Interesting, hymmm how about maybe these frontal lobe capabilities is what keeps humanity from evolving " bonding" becoming one with nature per say... Now that is evolution and boding at least in a workable progressive " evolutionary sense."

Its all psychological and passed down from generation to generation.

However, since emotions are intangible, how can anyone define them and or prove they exists???

This also includes passion for discoveries, the quest for discipline, the need to explore.

They all involve an intangible desire " undefined."

I look at it this way as well, a scientific device that is created to give results and thus the results inherit the man made deficiencies...Man made devices are all subjected to " defects and or other mechanical issues of imperfection..

They are such as time in where time " only evolves if and only if there is a distance as a derivative and a observable..

Otherwise there is no exist " period." ??? Was that right of me to state??

I assume this to be the case but I may be wrong, which is always welcomed..

I hope you don't imply that all scientists don't believe in a deity. As well, it can be defined that anybody who uses the scientific method is a scientist in a sense. So when you say scientists don't love, it's hard to see. I consider myself an amateur scientist and I know that I unconditionally love my parents, family, and friends. And the feeling is mutual.

 

As far as I'm concerned, scientists lead a healthy social life no more than the next human being if not more.

Well the issue arises when " love" as an intangible form " cannot be physically proven to exist " by scientist.

I have been told by scientist that since this is the case, that " love " and all that it has connection to including god and the human spirit ie " life force" energy or what ever you want to call it, does not exist... IE God teaches people to love each other through religious beliefs, rather this is true or false, it appears that scientist fallow this same similarity??? They can love then???

if so, is this a unique type of love?

Or is Love something universal?

In other words, is the love scientist feel " not the same as the love god and religion teaches people to have for each other???

SERIOUSLY???

Maybe I am just a bit too mindful in a sense as what is what, and how to define what with whatever can be used to define something that we cannot see only feel..

Personally, I think humans created love because just as with all things they have, it can never be " constant" to the true forces of nature.

Example: Gays and Lesbian are not allowed to equally share this love and bonding I am reading on this thread, and yet we all share the " same constant" oxygen in the air. Humans however alter this love privilege among themselves...

As for love still remaining intangible.

I see the same principles with time. On regards of humans being naturally selected, is there or can there ever be a scientific way to prove this?

As far as I see it to be, scientist like so many seem to accept this intangible emotions " fact" when in reality it is no different than the speed of light that defines time, of which time cannot be physically proven to exist.

What really bothers me about all this in general is that humans have their own " dogmas" rules laws styles and etc, and yet they all can share love????? HOW SO???

Given what I have been told over and over again about " scientific fact" either Love is something that is perceived as being a good thing, or scientist are wrong about other systems of metaphysical nature..

True scientists believe in love because it is observable where an individual puts others before themselves. Whereas evolutionary scientists have no answer for love, as evolution dictates that selfishness is the only cause for evolutionary advancement. What was the name evolutionists use for love between animals or species that is unexplainable in their theory.

 

WHY because love goes against their theory, everything is luck and chance and seflish genetic advancement. Putting others before themselves is absolutely diabolical in their way of thinking because they can not explain it.

I 100% agree with you!

 

Please don't go off-topic. Make a new one.

 

 

I made them myself. You can download them and use as you wish.

Shape of the wave of a single photon

Is the title of the OP

However, I think I have read enough already, "the shape is not understood, and is not known" "" period--->."

ya its right according to quantum physics that electron emits energy as photon when jumps from higher to lower orbit but can you suggest that how much energy or how much photon it can release at the time of orbit change??? and how much time it continue the jumping process???

I don't mean to jump in ask this, but I cannot help to..

Does this mean that the electron has both mass and " no mass"?

In otherwords here..

Does the electron, " transform into a photon??

Also if you don't mind please, I am reading that the " shape" of the electron is " not fully understood by scientist??

Meaning that scientist don't "really" know the shape of the electron?

What about electron microscopes?

 

I would guess it is just the paint soaking through the card. However, it could be the effect of the light causing the cardboard to be slightly bleached.

 

Here is your opportunity to do some science!

 

Create three pictures as similar as possible.

Dry them in different ways:

1. As normal (facing the sun)

2. Reversed (back to the sun)

3. In the dark (either indoors somewhere warm, or outside in the shade)

 

Compare the results. Draw conclusions. Report here for peer review.

Hymm sounds interesting I will give it a try as soon as I figure out a "slight mystery" going on with another painting..

It seems that the geometry is off by 9 cm. At first I thought it was Barrel Distortion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distortion_(optics)

In where digital images get slightly distorted, but this is not the case here, or can it be?

I have measured over and over again till I am dizzy! And some how feel even dumb asking about this.

But in a way I am excited cause I may have mistakenly created an " optical illusion on canvas??

When I look at this painting outside of the images the right lamp is still off by 9 cm, its not supposed to be like this.

I cropped the left lamp to compare the sizes.

However the very center is exactly one foot across.

Measuring within the boundaries from the photo above the length is 1 in 4 cm

However on the left the discrepancy should be 1 inch 9 cm, but in this photo I see it to be 1 in 6cm or 7 cm averaging, THIS IS NOT CORRECT, its off by 9 cm exactly outside of this photo.

On the OUTER REGIONS of the canvas, the length on both sides is a perfect 1in 7 cm

I have highlighted in green where the main problem of a 9 cm " right lamp area" difference is apparent..

The image on the bottom is the front view of the painting as perfect as I can get it with no distortion, and no flash taken outside. Perhaps my measurements are off, my eyes are tired, may be barrel distortion, or I created and optical illusion on canvas?

I am going to feel more than stupid if I did not notice something from that 9 cm difference outside of these photos, but I swear I measured over and over and over again...

Thanks for the previous suggestion..

May I add a few other quick suggestions?

Cut some shapes out of cooking foil and pin them to some card + leave it out in the sun.

The foil will be more opaque than any paint, but it can't "soak in" so any effect would have to be due to the sun bleaching (or staining) the card.

 

The usual problem with flash illumination is not the colour or nature of the light, but the position of the source, right next to the camera lens.

It means that any specular reflection messes up the image (red-eye is an extreme example).

I normally find this to be the case when I have placed a light source " parallel" with the camera.

The foil test technique sounds interesting, gonna do this tomorrow, Hymn, cant wait to see the results.

About red eye.

I have heard this to be a phenomena.

Could this be an issue cause the human eye also has photoreceptures as with the photorecepture of the digital camera?

Kinda makes logical sense I think.

If you notice, in the rear illuminated picture, the hair and face and hands are more transparent to the light which conforms with the 'image' on the rear. There was sufficient photons illuminating the surface fibres on the rear of the picture to cause them to darken. in those areas much more than the rest of the picture.

 

Your camera is 13 years old, it's worth getting a new one because they have advanced significantly since then and the indoor performance will be quite a bit better. Bear in mind, even with a new camera, the outdoor pictures will still look better than the indoor ones but if you compare the indoor shots of the current camera with those taken indoors with a modern one you should see better images.

I hope so, I know my sister has one that uses this matrix thing and calculates skin tones, detects exposures even, it even has this ISO, image movement sensitivity mode, I think thats what they call it. Do you think that since " oil " tends to blur on canvas that this may be the issue with photos?

I hope not if I need another camera, I will need at least 12 mega pixels..

Or better yet!

Is this a "digital" camera issue?

Are cameras that are non digital better??

I know that digital photoreceptures can be tricky to work with at times.

What Sony model do you have?

its a Sony DSC-S75

Here are some examples " rather issues" I am having. This is my painting of the Mona Lisa.

OUTSIDE IN THE SUN.

INSIDE BUT THE BACK IS FACING THE WINDOW WHERE THE LIGHT BEAMS COME INTO THE HOUSE.

THE FRONT AREA IS FACING ME, BUT THE LIGHT IS COMING FROM BEHIND THE ART WORK.

SINCE WE ARE HERE:

In this one, why is Mona Lisa's Shadow on the back of this card board??

What I do when I paint is lay the wet art piece in a box, and let it dry in the sun outside..

I assume the light photons from the sun outside left the shadow on the card board from behind " the canvas" while it was drying?????

 

I agree with Strange. How do you define love Iwonderaboutthings? My definition for love does not require a belief in the human soul or a god. The Oxford dictionary defines love as:

 

 

None of these definitions require a belief in a soul or in a god.

 

 

Yes, I believe that you are confused. It's not that scientists don't have emotions, but that they have to remain unbiased in their opinions and feelings when conducting science in order to get to the truth of the matter.

I see now, I heard once that doctors don't perform operations on their own family members cause " emotions" get in the way..

I can see now why emotions can be an issue when dealing with the extreme disciplines of math and science combined..

Its better to have them out of the way, or trained to not get in the way,

Why I included god and the soul is because I had no other methods to describe this OP..

They seem to be still a mystery, especially the forces of two people that fall in love..

Now if I could only understand desires...

IE, the desire of a Nobel Piece Prize!

wow! thanks for all the replies, I never thought that light bulbs produced light photons much less lasers cause they radiate in a straight line, I thought they were synthetic per say, and the knowing of the eye's mechanism to adjust light brightness helps much, I think I will try all suggestions...

I am thinking of low quality flash as being "cheap" maybe a better " brand " might help, but this is a sony, hymm...

Thanks...

Lately i get the notion that scientist " somehow" do not believe in love.

The reason for this is because:

They don't believe in God.

They don't believe in the human soul.

They appear to have no connection linked with anything that deals with " emotional connections."

And yet I hear and even see marine biologist desperately searching for methods to restore coral reef, sea life and etc.

The cure for breast cancer is another perfect example, in where doctors " passionately" use science as a means for cures.

Another example are doctors I know that have stated the reason why they became a neural surgeon was because someone in their family passed away due to cerbral trauma and or other forms of brain damage..

Yet I hear and read all over that scientist do not believe in the human soul, god, spirit and etc..

Aren't these what create human to human compassion?

I am confused really I am..

Aretha Franklin, Nat King Cole, The Movie Beaches, Finding Nemo and etc, have all had incredible success in the entertainment world due to their " emotional connections" with people..

Although perhaps in structured financial gains, it has had positive implications on people's lives...

I feel however, that scientist don't love their children, do not love as in marriage?

I am totally confused and need some guidance as to what science is really all about these days regarding their "claims" of helping the world become a better place..

Reason:

I have this digital camera " sony" high quality good mega pixels that does not give great " clarity photos" when the photos are taken in doors, " regardless of the settings" IE, outside mode, indoor mode etc..

However:

When photos are taken outside or at the beach for example, the photos are crystal clear!

Again: " regardless of the settings"

I wonder if it is the flash that is low quality, but then again:

Isn't anything that creates ie " light flashes, light bulbs not including lasers, all " forms or light photons"?

 

Yes, it's a positive number. The exponent in this notation only tells you how big the number is.

EUREKA! This now makes better sense! tHANKS!

So that the exponent works much like translation?

HOW ON EARTH DOES SCIENCE MEASURE SOMETHING SOOOOOOO SMALL????

It would be a nuisance but I could measure out a 300 miligram dose of aspirin for you even if I only had scales that measure to the nearest gram. or even the nearest 10 grams.

 

But you still need to work on the clarity of your questions.

You also need to understand that putting ideas like the soul into a scientific discussion is, at best, a waste of time.

 

"I guess the real question is, why did science evolve in this fashion in our current world today???"

Well, here's the simple answer.

http://xkcd.com/54/

You should have warned me about the -> " this comic occasionally contains "strong language"

Yes I agree with you I need to work the clarity of my questions a bit better, but at times science coupled with all the " unknown" realities of this craft at times can be quite difficult..

Another example about devices is how Max Planck found his constant in a kiln, ie black body radiation and " Standing Waves."

I am trying to express the devices used coupled with their discoveries..

I am wondering if it had not been for this kiln could the h constant still have been discovered, using another method ?

Don't know if this could be be any help, but I am mostly talking about multiples and their sound units, like the milligram example earlier.

What's your point?

 

 

What does the soul have to do with anything? I thought you were asking scientific questions here.

 

 

That's not what mean. Read my post again. Of course ancient civilisations experimented with chemistry and used chemical methods without actually knowing what was going on, but that's not what exactly I said. I mean that the concepts that we now know and put under the blanket of chemistry were there before we had the methods of detecting them. John's example of photosynthesis is a good example. Plants have been around for eons and chemistry of photosynthesis has been around for longer, yet we only discovered it relatively recently.

 

 

The bits in red make absolutely no sense. If you want to have your questions answered to your satisfaction, you need communicate them more effectively. Your 'fact' is totally irrelevant to your initial question and to John's response and your question of beacon size...what beacons? Thermometers are fairly old as far as technology goes as well.

 

You aren't asking hard questions, you're asking a combination of nonsensical and trivial ones.

So where in the forum rules does it say that questions need to be in certain preferred classes?

Method?

Style?

I thought I was " too" asking scientific questions, until I realized, they were --> nonsensical and trivial ---> as per your words.

About the human soul, spirit or what ever it is, it still remains something scientist cannot explain..

"Love" being one of them!

The other member forget this refereed to ---> " man made devices"

The periodic table was as much a discovery as an invention.

Cloning has next to nothing to do with chemistry.

The soul has even less. The problem with trying to involve a "soul" in science is that there is no reason to believe that a soul exists.

 

The clear answer to the question "

Would chemistry still exist, if their were no " man made" measuring devices?"

is yes.

 

"Can a scientist " without these devices" still perform science methods as normal routine?"

Matter of definition.

Am I allowed to make the devices?

If so then I can still do science.

If not then the scope is a bit limited, but I could, for example, still make soap.

Now things make better sense John thanks!, although the soup can still be created, it would still have different masses, color and etc, " assumed you did this by hand" if your were to create more and more and open your own business " example there"

"Machinery" I am assuming that devices are used for precision ie, such as milligrams in aspirin for example.

Since aspirin in boxes at stores must be "even multiples" of each other, ie have same dosages for the patience, I assume then your method " soap" example would not work.

Could this have been an issue back in ancient times??????

Considering the human mass and milligrams we know of today as a standard dosage??

I guess the real question is, why did science evolve in this fashion in our current world today???

You are very correct about the periodic table by the way..

Of course it would. Th principles of chemistry existed before we had ways of probing them and detecting their outcomes, so I'm not sure I understand your question. The rest of your post makes little to no sense.

Wasn't the periodic table created not too long ago?

Cloning is a good example here:

Would the " subject still have a " soul" if the subject was cloned as another human being?

The body would be the device " ie: measuring tool that holds the molecules together" and the organic copy " ie: the human" would be the chemical substances.

Where does the humun's soul come from, can science create this to???

So you mean that in "Ancient Times" they could have been experimenting on nuclear methods as science does today in our current day and age with the current devices to measure?

I have read that Uranium was found near by the ancient pyramids..

http://nuclearpyramid.com/other_two_pyramids.php

Long before mankind was here, plants grew.

CO2+ H2O --> Cellulose etc. + O2

 

That's chemistry with or without human intervention.

" man made" measuring devices?" John, of coarse I already knew this.

But in our current world we now have more " harmful elements in the air than any other time due to scientific experiments, this is fact here. Let me be more direct:

Can a scientist " without these devices" still perform science methods as normal routine?

The point is that I am wondering if these devices have anything to do with " distance" IE the " size " of beacons per say, the length of a thermometer.

Not sure why someone gave me a negative reputation but obviously some scientist don't like it when people ask " hard questions" that seem un- answered. People look up to scientist for answers, they should be more patient, more sincere, more compassionate....As for " me" I just like asking them question

Yes. The negative sign in the exponent means that it is a number less than 1.

e.g. 6 x 10^-1 = 0.6

6 x 10^-2 = 0.06

 

There are 33 zeros after the decimal place before you would write the "6". h is a very small number.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_magnetic_dipole_moment

You stated that h is a positive number?

" h is defined to be a positive number" --->your words..

Why does the exponent matter? I thought this was not the case...

Would chemistry still exist, if their were no " man made" measuring devices?

The image are " some" of the measuring tools I speak of.

The point I am trying to comprehend is how chemistry is connected to " perimeters of geometry " see images." When I say connected, I mean how a substance is used with the science tool to carefully measure its volume, mass and etc..

With this said, how does this correlate with " balancing chemical equations."

Would that be pointless with man made tools of measure then???

Or am I not getting something?

h is defined to be a positive number; it's a magnitude. If the angular momentum is negative, it's from the spin value, e.g. being -1/2 instead of 1/2

Crazy question then:

6.62606957(29)×10⁻³⁴is a positive number????

Planck constant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant

If h is a magnitude I assume its linear, such as a radian?

Otherwise how else could the quantum of action " evolve" in relation to " electron spin orbitals"?

h bar?? but that involves another fundamental constant as pi ratio, which is also used to measure:

volumes, circumferences, gas prices and etc. Seems pi ratio is virtual involving spin.

h is a positive number, Hymm, If this is not the case, then can their ever be something as, traveling back in time??

If the h constant is the quanta of action, then I believe so.

But then their is the issues of the suspected " graviton sir"

Graviton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

With all its interactions with the quantum world, I assume the electron spin orbitals and shells also connect to the " evolution" of time.

 

Those are the two possible orientations of the electron spin. You pick an axis for measurement, and the projection along that axis will be either + or - one unit of angular momentum (Planck's constant). We call that up or down.

Spin is a solely quantum-mechanical phenomenon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics)

If this is truly the case, " could " this mean that the h constant has a double? an anti per say?

In this model : http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/spin.html it shows the formula with h similar as up or down.

I think what confuses many about this is that h = 1 and -1 simultaneously or proportionally sound.

That could mean the h constant is a squared number somehow.

I assume this is why the wave function focuses on the electron and nothing else.

In this video however, it shows how the h constant is related to chemical interactions of the periodic table:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6DiVspoZ1E

But as with the later mentioned if this is such the case, then h must have an anti association.

 

I tried to produce an artists illustration of what I thought was going on accoding to the various quantum explanations .

 

attached

 

DSCF3299.JPG

 

The photon is the bit shooting out at the speed of light after the electron has jumped from higher to lower orbit .

 

Hope of some help. just a visualisation ( maths boffs dont like these, but I need them to remain sane ! )

 

Mike

WOW! that is a nice work of art

Are standing waves = to " a regular distance"?

Or does this only apply to QM?

The reason I ask is because of how a typical distance in the physical real world " also" applies to time.

Time I mean the speed of light, and "typical distance" I mean " example" from your house to your job.

Yes I know about atomic clocks and time dilation.

Not sure if c is applicable to " ordinary time though" as in 12: 40 pm, 1:20 am and so fourth.

Distance from x to dx, is this another way of describing what I am asking?

The way I am thinking is that c " time" which does not exist in this dimension being constant in the known universe must be = to " any distance, vectors and etc that describe time including waves and standing waves. These must be obsolete forms do to Newtonian Mechanics.

However, if this is the case, then photons, " mass-less" particles must be something else other than what we know them as, because of their connection to time and distance.

I truly believe that photons " do not exist as distance does no exist at all because of the later mentioned.

I may be wrong though and need more clarity on this distance and c relation.

However, c is a 2d representation " only" with no " volume and or pressure relation to G it appears.

Where G most likely is a separate case in this all together.

This being said, then E=mc squared is incorrect??????????

Remember: in the physical real world " does this apply or is this only valid for QM?

But it is rather confusing because to me distance is distance because its relation to time which is c.

Then you have G that makes things move rotate, have mass. This is going to be an interesting topic!