Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 (edited) For every thing there, IS. There is far, far, far more that , IS NOT . Or maybe IS as well ! Exploring the opportunities that are in these vast open spaces , could well be , :- THE FINAL FRONTIER It always used to bother me with Mathematical equations , when plotted out on a two dimensional , or three dimensional graph. The line was there wiggling away. That was what was there! But that was a minuscule amount of the space offered by the 2 dimensional , or three dimensional , Space, also there. In Electronics , say Conductors , or Semi conductors , we surmise there are negative 'electrons' , flowing to produce an electric current, but we can also say there are positive ' Holes' flowing in the opposite direction ( this is pretty well two dimensional ) . What of three dimensional activity ? Say Gravity ? Things move toward the centre of the Earth ? What moves in the opposite direction , away from the centre of the Earth ? So is the rest of this 'Three Dimensional Space ' The final Frontier ? Ref link to sprites going into space :- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2188689/Sprites-space-Lighting-high-Earth-captured-unique-video.html Mike Edited March 19, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robittybob1 Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 That is quite a hard post to follow-on to. Are you OK? The graph could be like your paintings going to the edge of the paper but the scene they represent goes on forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 19, 2016 Author Share Posted March 19, 2016 (edited) That is quite a hard post to follow-on to. Are you OK? The graph could be like your paintings going to the edge of the paper but the scene they represent goes on forever. Well , I did not say it was going to be easy ! Could be quite an exciting ride though ! I am serious however . Think of particles. The standard model is all about particles. I am sure Richard Feynman had something to say about opposites . Maybe as particles move in one direction , something else moves in another direction . But Gravity is what excites me. We are always thinking, in terms of mass 'over there ' , distortions in space time , making us move toward the mass . Is there the equivalent of Electrons and Holes moving in opposite directions ? Even if not , I am still interested in ' what is over our shoulder ? ' . There is much more space as you go outwards , so much more opportunities. Mike Edited March 19, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endy0816 Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 (edited) x*0=y*0 Electron holes are pseudo particles. Edited March 19, 2016 by Endy0816 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 19, 2016 Author Share Posted March 19, 2016 (edited) x*0=y*0 Electron holes are pseudo particles. ..It is surely difficult to ' tell' , if anything is actually ' there' . An effect is there, but when you dig deep, really deep , has anyone yet found a small piece of anything , at the heart of a particle or a string, or whatever smallest conceived ' thing' . If so, please tell me what it is ? Is it an infinitesimal ,micro small piece of spinning micro quark grit , or what? Maybe I missed something , but it sounds like it is more like a screwed up field, charge , energy packet, string or something , which we have not yet got to grips with. But the effects we are well used to and versed in . IS THERE . I am not sure , quite what these ' sprites ' are , but if it's anything to do with lightning? Not sure, ? Then the massive contortions of the electro- magnetic field , given a major ' Bolt ' , might just send something that looks like a free-standing ionised particle , go winging off into space. Again with ' quarks ' ( the ingredients of many sub atomic particles ) , I might be behind the times, but I was of a mind that the collider only saw where quarks should be , but not the actual ' thing' . Again, an humongous impact , screwing and twisting ' space' up into something free standing . But is there anything there, at the centre , or is it just , screwed up fields. Anyway , what is a field , is there anything there ? Is there anything ' anywhere? Three equivalent examples of ' things ' as is 'any things ' of no solid content , but contrived out of the surrounding environment ( equivalent to fields, etc ) . Waves out of wind and water Vortex out of hose and water Bubble out of air and water and soap Each case has an energy input , plus a field or malleable environment /medium . Mike Edited March 19, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrock Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 The standard model is all about particles. I am sure Richard Feynman had something to say....One of Richard Feynman's tall tales was about a discussion with philosophers about whether an electron was a thing. To clarify their definition of a thing, he asked if a brick was a thing. They never did get back to the electron..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 ! Moderator Note Mike, please clarify what it is you want to talk about, and then stick to that topic. We've had enough free-form, anything-goes, meandering in other discussion, and this is posted in the science bit of the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 19, 2016 Author Share Posted March 19, 2016 (edited) One of Richard Feynman's tall tales was about a discussion with philosophers about whether an electron was a thing. To clarify their definition of a thing, he asked if a brick was a thing. They never did get back to the electron.....If what I have described above is how it is , then there is NOT anything there( as in some material solid object . But a lot of energy is at play to disturb the field , medium , or whatever that constitute ' space-time ' , so as to bind it up into , the entities we describe in our terms , like " particle " , "wave" , " distortion bending, vortex in space-time " Is this how you see it , or do you feel we will find some ' things ' at the core of each particle ? ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- The two related things that I wanted to Talk about , and Discuss with members of the forum is :- (A) Is it possible that there are new discoveries that we can find out about in the Three dimensional region of space-time , that are not confined to the ( Mathematical style ) continuous line sort of approach (illustrated Red (A) . Namely , instead of looking to confine things to a very specific line orientated way, but rather looking outwardly ( illustrated green ) (B) Is it possible that rather than in our endeavour to pin matter down , as Particles and carriers by the standard model and string Theory type of inward looking approach , that :- We could explore the Idea that " there is nothing there " . But that these particles are in fact the effect that certain critical energies has been inflicted , somehow or other , on Space -Time to produce EFFECTS , that show themselves looking like Particles , with different energies , when In fact there is nothing of substance there. See illustrated (B) To discuss. (A) (B) NOT THIS BUT THIS Mike Edited March 19, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 The two related things that I wanted to Talk about , and Discuss with others is :- (A) Is it possible that there are new discoveries that we can find out about in the Three dimensional region of space-time , that are not confined to the continuous line sort of approach illustrated (A) . Namely , instead of looking to confine things to a very specific line orientated way, but rather looking outwardly What is this "line oriented way"? To me, that clarifies nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 19, 2016 Author Share Posted March 19, 2016 (edited) What is this "line oriented way"? To me, that clarifies nothing.(A) I am saying that mathematics tends to be Formulae based . As such to understand the phenomenon it is often necessary to plot the variables in order to understand ' what is going on ' . This tends often( not always ) , as lines , on a 2D or 3 D graph . That leaves a lot of uncovered space . Is there a possible better way to illustrate what is going on ? I suppose , with (A) I am suggesting , most of us do not 'See' with our brain ( our 'minds eye ' ( lined graphs , and mathematic formulations ) the question being , could there not be a better way of understanding what is going on , other than the formulaic way. The formulae can give the ' spot values' and other accurate specific points on a graph or calculation . But this other way of understanding ( I am asking , not sure what it could be ? But I think it is worth finding . There are other way of comprehending something other than mathematical . ( such as 'he says ' ) . Perhaps some form of illustrative , Pigeon Maths . Not Mathcad but PigeonCad ( based on abbreviated critical variables , boundary conditions , core formula. Even illustrative running models of key concepts. Wikipedia has this sometimes which is really illuminating . Other times it's awl to wall formulae , which can be overpowering , (B) I am asking , is it possible that there are NO actual particles of substance , there are only effects produced in the Fields , and in whatever else is there? ( as spoken of a post or two ago , and illustrated (B) except no green particle at the centre ? Mike Edited March 19, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 (A) I am saying that mathematics tends to be Formulae based . As such to understand the phenomenon it is often necessary to plot the variables in order to understand ' what is going on ' . This tends often( not always ) , as lines , on a 2D or 3 D graph . That leaves a lot of uncovered space . Is there a possible better way to illustrate what is going on ? I suppose , with (A) I am suggesting , most of us do not 'See' with our brain ( our 'minds eye ' ( lined graphs , and mathematic formulations ) the question being , could there not be a better way of understanding what is going on , other than the formulaic way. The formulae can give the ' spot values' and other accurate specific points on a graph or calculation . But this other way of understanding ( I am asking , not sure what it could be ? But I think it is worth finding . There are other way of comprehending something other than mathematical . ( such as 'he says ' ) . Perhaps some form of illustrative , Pigeon Maths . Not Mathcad but PigeonCad ( based on abbreviated critical variables , boundary conditions , core formula. Even illustrative running models of key concepts. Wikipedia has this sometimes which is really illuminating . Other times it's awl to wall formulae , which can be overpowering , (B) I am asking , is it possible that there are NO actual particles of substance , there are only effects produced in the Fields , and in whatever else is there? ( as spoken of a post or two ago , and illustrated (B) except no green particle at the centre ? Mike Sounds to me that these are two separate discussion topics. (A) http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/94026-split-a-from-spaces-non-math-representations/ (B) http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/94027-split-b-from-spaces-the-reality-of-science/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts