A_Son_of_God
Forum Reasoner - Nemesis of the Trolls
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2023
- Messages
- 339
- Reaction score
- 94
This is the infinite part of the universe. The part where no matter how far we go, we only demonstrate that we have so much more to learn, and we will never ever learn it all.
There is an article where the scientist states,
The fact that he states both an answer IF they are point particles, and IF they are not, makes me appreciate this true scientist. Always open to the possibility that something fundamental to our understanding is completely wrong.
It was the early '00s when I was looking at this kind of thing, and at the time electrons were being spoken of also as particles, and how they acted as a wave, but due to that, some stated that it meant there are no smaller particles that electrons can be made up of. The same was said of quarks.
There are statements and formulae to show how they relate to being point particles too, demonstrating that if the mathematics was applied in such a way, it would demonstrate useability of the theory, and from that, some presume that because there is a mathematical formula added to something, it HAS to be absolute.
So, what do we do now with this "Virtual Particle", that apparently surrounds the electron? While the electron exists in some form of perceived cloud around the nucleus, what is this cloud around the electron?
Why does an electron - now presumed to not be an actual physical unit with size by some, have "particles" surrounding it that influence the stability of its spin?
Sure, they may not be particles inasmuch as we may consider a grain of flour, but that's the whole problem. What exactly IS a grain of flour? Depending on the size of the particles, the flour may act as a solid, a liquid or a gas even (well, technically it'd be a colloid, but you get the point). Also, depending on the particle size, it may sit different ways and react to the environment around it differently. In fact, from the air, a field of wheat where the flour was sourced may seem very two dimensional. And the further out we go, it may seem again to be curved and three dimensional in a totally different way.
This is like a painting in pointillism. There is an optimum distance at which we can see the overall painting, and another where we can observe the dots used to paint it. Here is an article, showing a few examples.
Here is the article that I'm vaguely touching on that you might enjoy.
www.scientificamerican.com
My conclusion from it only confirms again that we are given an existence to perceive in a space of time where we can share with other created things, but our universe is actually a never ending Matreshka doll, and the same goes the other way. It is an illusion in a sense, but that illusion is actually reality. My belief is that if we go on exploring this, we will find that each fluctuation difference we would be able to define again with unique "particles". And each one of those will also demonstrate uniqueness, and be able to be again identified as particles.
This is the infinite part of the universe.
We will forever go on searching these things if permitted to go on searching them. There will be no end. The strangest thing about a perfectly straight line and a perfectly concentric circle is their rarity in nature, other than the unseen "between the lines" thing. Is it not true that we imagine the straight line between two stars? We see the shortest route with our imagination first, and presume in fact it is the shortest route.
The problem here is we're on a journey where we no longer state that the sky is blue. "It isn't blue, it is bla bla bla", when at that point, at that explanation, the sky is indeed very blue, and sufficient in information to provide data to explain what is necessary. If we tell our child when he says the sky is blue that it isn't while we're having a general discussion with them, we're creating a world where nothing ever can be learned, and that the child is stupid, when they're not. Have a think about this next time your child draws you a picture. Will you critique the bone structure? The lack of detail in the eyes?
Frankly, the whole explanation of everything here is binary. Every single thing. Everything is black and white? No, that is not binary. Because black can be mixed with white and form grey. White can be separated into colours. So in at least two ways - colour and brightness, we can sift the black and white into even smaller proportions. This is eternal. We can break the white down into individual frequencies, and intensity. Then we can say of something, "Under these parameters, this is the point". Yet, it must be acknowledged that infinitely, we can keep on breaking things down into unique items. There is always an exception to the rule, or many exceptions to the rule.
Isaiah 55:8,9
'"For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
And your ways are not my ways,” declares Jehovah.
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So my ways are higher than your ways
And my thoughts than your thoughts."'
Romans 11:33-36
"O the depth of God’s riches and wisdom and knowledge!
How unsearchable his judgments are and beyond tracing out his ways are!
For “who has come to know Jehovah’s mind, or who has become his adviser?"
Or, “who has first given to him, so that it must be repaid to him?”
Because from him and by him and for him are all things.
To him be the glory forever. Amen.
There is an article where the scientist states,
Answered by: Yasar Safkan, Ph.D., Software Engineer, Noktalar A.S., Istanbul, Turkey, and taken from THIS article.
The fact that he states both an answer IF they are point particles, and IF they are not, makes me appreciate this true scientist. Always open to the possibility that something fundamental to our understanding is completely wrong.
It was the early '00s when I was looking at this kind of thing, and at the time electrons were being spoken of also as particles, and how they acted as a wave, but due to that, some stated that it meant there are no smaller particles that electrons can be made up of. The same was said of quarks.
There are statements and formulae to show how they relate to being point particles too, demonstrating that if the mathematics was applied in such a way, it would demonstrate useability of the theory, and from that, some presume that because there is a mathematical formula added to something, it HAS to be absolute.
So, what do we do now with this "Virtual Particle", that apparently surrounds the electron? While the electron exists in some form of perceived cloud around the nucleus, what is this cloud around the electron?
Why does an electron - now presumed to not be an actual physical unit with size by some, have "particles" surrounding it that influence the stability of its spin?
Sure, they may not be particles inasmuch as we may consider a grain of flour, but that's the whole problem. What exactly IS a grain of flour? Depending on the size of the particles, the flour may act as a solid, a liquid or a gas even (well, technically it'd be a colloid, but you get the point). Also, depending on the particle size, it may sit different ways and react to the environment around it differently. In fact, from the air, a field of wheat where the flour was sourced may seem very two dimensional. And the further out we go, it may seem again to be curved and three dimensional in a totally different way.
This is like a painting in pointillism. There is an optimum distance at which we can see the overall painting, and another where we can observe the dots used to paint it. Here is an article, showing a few examples.
Here is the article that I'm vaguely touching on that you might enjoy.
Why Aren't We Made of Antimatter?
To understand why the universe is made of matter and not antimatter, physicists are looking for a tiny signal in the electron
My conclusion from it only confirms again that we are given an existence to perceive in a space of time where we can share with other created things, but our universe is actually a never ending Matreshka doll, and the same goes the other way. It is an illusion in a sense, but that illusion is actually reality. My belief is that if we go on exploring this, we will find that each fluctuation difference we would be able to define again with unique "particles". And each one of those will also demonstrate uniqueness, and be able to be again identified as particles.
This is the infinite part of the universe.
We will forever go on searching these things if permitted to go on searching them. There will be no end. The strangest thing about a perfectly straight line and a perfectly concentric circle is their rarity in nature, other than the unseen "between the lines" thing. Is it not true that we imagine the straight line between two stars? We see the shortest route with our imagination first, and presume in fact it is the shortest route.
The problem here is we're on a journey where we no longer state that the sky is blue. "It isn't blue, it is bla bla bla", when at that point, at that explanation, the sky is indeed very blue, and sufficient in information to provide data to explain what is necessary. If we tell our child when he says the sky is blue that it isn't while we're having a general discussion with them, we're creating a world where nothing ever can be learned, and that the child is stupid, when they're not. Have a think about this next time your child draws you a picture. Will you critique the bone structure? The lack of detail in the eyes?
Frankly, the whole explanation of everything here is binary. Every single thing. Everything is black and white? No, that is not binary. Because black can be mixed with white and form grey. White can be separated into colours. So in at least two ways - colour and brightness, we can sift the black and white into even smaller proportions. This is eternal. We can break the white down into individual frequencies, and intensity. Then we can say of something, "Under these parameters, this is the point". Yet, it must be acknowledged that infinitely, we can keep on breaking things down into unique items. There is always an exception to the rule, or many exceptions to the rule.
Isaiah 55:8,9
'"For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
And your ways are not my ways,” declares Jehovah.
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So my ways are higher than your ways
And my thoughts than your thoughts."'
Romans 11:33-36
"O the depth of God’s riches and wisdom and knowledge!
How unsearchable his judgments are and beyond tracing out his ways are!
For “who has come to know Jehovah’s mind, or who has become his adviser?"
Or, “who has first given to him, so that it must be repaid to him?”
Because from him and by him and for him are all things.
To him be the glory forever. Amen.