tylers100

Flawed for sure, eh.. No problem at all.. better to attempt reasoning than none at all. Well, off to learn more about classical and quantum physics. Thumbs up.

dimreepr: Hmm. I'm interested in discussing about the origin of causality and other things related to causality. See my comments a bit further down below. Strange: I was being a bit too bold in saying "evidences of causality are everywhere." I do not fully know or understand in depth about the decay of radioactive atoms and fundamental particles, ..but I think as science progresses with more time and resources (ie newer technologies, etc) then surely the causes of things will be known? It's just that to me (as far my limited understanding) is that... the particles (even fundamental or elementary ones) randomly decay without any cause of sort: this implies magic. The magic is simply......... so illogical. Without a cause of sort = implies magic which is unacceptable. MigL: I'm still learning a bit more about quantum mechanics along with classical physics (at this moment, just concepts) but I still do not fully understand it. Truthfully, I think I was a bit too confident about causality... something that even quantum mechanics is no strange to it. But at this moment, I still think it is though.. but perhaps I will change my mind as I learn in depth more about quantum mechanics. The reason for this discussion about causality is... I'm thinking that if I know and have understanding of the truth (eg causality), then it might could act as guide to make the rest of things to be easier to understand for me. Additional comments about magic: Something that does action without a cause implies magic. The magic is self-contradiction thing which cannot exist at first place. For magic to exist, it requires... you guess it: causality. But.. since if the magic is the product of causality and it have properties that could break laws of physics, that would mean it also can override its own... origination (ie causality)? That doesn't make sense to me. Therefore magic absolutely cannot exist at all at first place. This paragraph reminds me of the paradox: Could one with omnipotent power make an object that is too heavy to lift for him/her? I honestly think that he or she simply cannot do it (ie making it be so) because of causality. The origin of causality... I said asymmetrical energy could be that. Hmm. It's just that my reasoning says that symmetrical energy (order) would not allow a causality to happen because it wouldn't need to do so at first place because.......... it is already (or timeless) "oneness." It is perfection thing and has all... possibilities figured out (eg that is something the Borg would want lol [from Star Trek: The Next Generations]) Asymmetrical energy as chaos would continually produce possibilities into infinity. The asymmetrical energy could be an infinity place itself. But one of infinite numbers of possibilities could be causality itself, but yet it STILL would require a causality to even exist at first place!! See? Causality is inherently required for anything or everything to exist at first place. But the ultimate question is... What made the causality itself to exist at first place? I said asymmetrical energy.. but when I mentioned it, another question arised: what cause it to exist at first place before that and so on? Anyway, I want to talk about the sole origination... the only one and simplified thing that originated the causality itself at first place. One of possible answers is magic, but remember what I said about magic? Well, what else could it be? Maybe my reasoning is somehow flawed? To help clarify things, I'm basing the entirely of my reasoning on the premise that causality must be made by "what" origination, not "who" which is kind of difficult. I said difficult because......... of this understanding: an absolutely primitive "object" thing (without any intelligence of sort OR additional properties that can produce any causality of sort) can't possibly produce the causality at first place. This denies the entirely of my post, but I'm trying to somehow... override its logic?

After a lengthy time of reasoning about the nature of causality itself, I have come to conclusion that it must be the universal (or absolute, ultimate) truth behind everything. The evolution, life and death, laws of physics (universe)... each of all is the product of causality. The causality definitely must be the guiding truth behind everything. Everything is inherently confined to causality. It is conceivable that there could be something called the "asymmetrical energy" which always has existed and it is chaos. It must be the origination of causality. If it was symmetrical one, it wouldn't have produced a causality at first place. If one is to say symmetrical energy somehow produced a causality of sort, that would mean breaking the "law" of causality. Why? The symmetrical energy as the origination of causality IMPLIES magic of sort. The magic obviously doesn't exist. Asymmetrical energy altogether is term words which I sort of made up to conceptually describe something where the causality could originated from. It is possible that the causality is the only one that is "logical and conceivable" way to make universe (and possibly multiverse?) by asymmetrical energy itself (ie by accidents)? The universe is fine-tuned for life because of... a lucky accident by causality, perhaps from asymmetrical energy. Evidences of causality are everywhere.

studiot: Thank you for explaining things in sort of explicit way.. I appreciate that.

studiot: Reduce axes (eg dimensions) to minimum number.. So very simple.. Almost like Occam's razor or reductionism approach, but of course only so far as evidences are concerned, right? One of other quantities along on an axis; is possibly energy.. Could you please elaborate on that more if you don't mind?

studiot: Very helpful comments. Sensei: Good idea. Questions and Comments on Atoms in Relation to Causality and Time: In general, an energy or energies cause a motion of sort in atom? (I'm sure it "depends" on whatever.. but I'm being very general.) If energy or energies does in fact cause a motion of sort in each atom, and make things happen... then what exactly is time.. in absolute sense? To me, it seems that an energy or energies in atoms make things happen, not time. If time doesn't exist, and it is actually energy or energies that make atoms move/interactions/etc. Then... the time as spacetime or 4-D doesn't exist? Seems the energies... should be the one that define other dimensions? Energies as 1st dimension while the rest (2nd,3rd, and 4th) are spatial dimensions (ie xyz or width, height, and depth)? And it also seems that causality might be the only one conceivable way to make 4-D universe. I'm sure the questions and comments above might sound stupid or baffling or something like that, but these make sense in my mind somehow (at this moment so far).

studiot: Yes, on the 2nd picture.. I can see the difference between two representations of methane; the charge cloud on left is 3-dimensional and "ball and stick" on right is 2-dimensional. (the 2-dimensional representation.. is it called valence structure.. or Lewis structure? reference link: Lewis Structure)

studiot: I drew a picture. See below. Do the picture match your conceptual description of atoms? I drew two different groups of atoms as clumps of dense fog (1st located top and 2nd located below on the picture); I was unsure about the first one...it could be inaccurate representation of your conceptual description, so I drew second group.

Studiot: Yes, I'm still interested. It's just that I thought there are certain aspects of atom such as subatomic particles and elementary particles to be maybe bit too advanced or beyond my understanding for time being, that's why I mentioned that line (last few questions before moving on to other lectures or topics). But then I started reading this website: The Particle Adventure it seems to be interesting and useful, but however I'm not completely sure whether if it is credible or not.. let me know if it is or not, I don't want to blindly learn and understand wrong things. Anyway, about the space between atoms... sure, as I'm still thinking about that.

Ok, I'm beginning to understand a bit more about what atom is and how it work in very basic way. Last few questions before I move on to other lectures and / or topics: 1. What "power" or "energize" a particle to "cause and effect" (ie interactions) on another particle? 2. And what originated it at first place?

Sensei: Thanks for the youtube video clips. Kinda very cool things to watch. I do not know or understand fully how it work but Heh I wonder if there is any way that we could somehow safety adapt the method to see traces of particles like on those video clips.. to "dye" air atmosphere, then the dye would somehow attach to electrons or other sub-atomic particles of atoms such as oxygen or nitrogen (the nitrogen is better since the large percent number of it is everywhere than oxygen), after that we'd see something similar to video clips. Man, it'd be amazing or even awesome but then afterward a period of time it'd drive some or all of us to crazy or something like that.. as we wouldn't really function with clouds appearing everywhere all around about us (ie can't see very well) I'm definitely not ready to purchase and build my own particle detector as I'm still learning science/physics. But I have bookmarked it for future reference.

swansont and imatfaal: About the gaps between atoms (or clusters of atoms)... the gaps are gaps.. nothingness itself in absolute sense? If yes, then what I always thought about the empty space between atoms or clusters of atoms is wrong. I always thought there must be other different atoms or particles existing.. occupying in all gaps or empty space areas because... surely that would help propagate or mediate interactions and / or forces between atoms or particles? If gaps are in fact just empty or nothing in absolute sense, then it must be interesting to learn and understand how atoms or particles' interactions and / or forces work through or around that. Or am I just thinking a bit too hard about the empty space or nothing? Ok. I haven't moved on past to other lectures, I'm still on atoms. I have decided to try be a bit careful and I'm taking it one step at a time. I'm still reading the replies from you guys.. back and forth, visiting wikipedia and other websites. I'm learning a bit more in depth about the conceptual structural model of an atom, term words for component parts of it, and how it work (very basic only). I have chosen the oxygen atom, but is it good idea to use the oxygen atom as example to "generally and universally" describe the structural and component parts of other atoms? The very basic make-up of an atom as I can understand so far.. consists of: electron and nucleus (proton and neutron).. (but the isotope of hydrogen (protium) has only one proton, so that must be one of exceptions? reference link: hydrogen) Now for oxygen atom example: Each oxygen atom has 8 electrons (negative charge), nucleus containing 8 protons (positive charge) and 8 neutrons (neutral). 1. So each of other different atoms is generally like that... having different amount number of electrons, protons, and neutrons that make it to be different from each of other different atoms? I'm also keeping in mind about the isotopes of element (nucleus) in each of different atom. Is the isotope of element sorta same as the original atom (ie because of same # of protons or atomic number) but with different # of neutrons.. reference link: Isotope 2. If the question #1 (first sentence) is true, then do that factually mean the fundamental interactions (Electromagnetism, Gravity, Strong, and Weak) behave differently in each of different atoms? I kind of suspect it is obviously yes, but I just want to make absolutely sure. (note: I think this question is a bit too ahead or far for my current understanding as I've yet to understand those fundamental interactions in depth but I still want to have a very basic understanding of what those are for time being.) 3. If the question #2 is true, then that makes sense. Different atoms with fundamental interactions behaving differently in each of these... all of that complicate things and make results (ie universe). That makes me think about causality, it definitely must be the universal truth of how universe work.

[note: Hey moderators, I'm not sure whether to post this under here (homework help) or physics section.. which is exactly appropriate for this kind of post? I'm not student, but I'm self-teaching (non-formal education) to learn physics for time being.] Location of Atoms 1. "Everything is made of atoms" sentence was mentioned on the 11th paragraph, 1-4 chemical reactions. So does that mean the universe is 100% fully made of atoms which are evenly located and "distributed" in every directions (although not in a perfect matrix structure order).. there is no such as absolutely empty vacuum space, devoid of atoms? Shape Definitions on Atoms 2. Are all kinds of atoms' actual shape pretty much undefined as these are the smallest things and can't really be directly seen on any microscopes. Only that the properties and indirect evidences from atoms are known from experiments? On 9th paragraph, 1-4 chemical reactions, there is a "somewhat" direct evidence (Brownian motion example) but that still is not absolutely direct evidence though. I remember reading somewhere on the Internet that there is sort of cloud-alike surrounding the nucleus of the atom, called electrons. Why the cloud word? Is it because the electrons are best imagined like cloud or is it an expressive term to conceptually describe a difficult and undefined shape of electrons located around about the nucleus? Behaviours of Atom 3. An atom with different numbers of protons/neutrons and electrons will determine which types of atom and how many atoms it will attract with? 4. Are attracting and repelling behaviours between atoms the only "mechanical actions" that any atom can do? 5. Do the repelling behaviour only happen because of the in-compatibility factor of properties between each of the atoms? 6. Do each of the atoms actually exert a "negative gravity" force against a mismatching atom when repelling? (and / or exert a positive gravity when attracting?) 7. Are the force(s) between atoms simply called interactions? 8. What are the force(s) between atoms made of? Elementary particles, more specifically the gauge bosons group I presume? 9. Which govern the force(s) between atoms; electrons or nucleus? I mean, the electrons would be responsible for "attracting" to another electrons of an atom? But.. I wonder, the numbers of electrons would only exist according to the nucleus. After all, without nucleus there would be no electrons? If yes, then is nucleus ultimately the one that governs the interactions between atoms? 10. What fuel/energize the atom to attract at first place? Is it motion? If yes, then since motion is caused by temperature.. which is ultimately caused by source of energy? Energy, Temperature, and Motion of Atom 11. Is higher temperature only thing that cause a motion in an atom? 12. Energy -> Temperature -> Motion. Are everything and / or us are generally always at motion (speaking at atomic level)? 13. What exactly is energy? (I know the general meaning, but not properties or deeper meaning of the energy word when used in physics or science.. sort of strict sense or something like that.)

Mordred: Thanks for the links. The one with by Feynman lectures.. I bookmarked it for later reading. Bignose: Yes, check known facts on physics against ideas to see if these ideas are compatible with or not and then listen or read feedback.. keep or revise or discard ideas afterwards. I didn't do the first thing above at first place, I realized that.. but learned lessons as time and more feedback inputs start rolling in. I'm interested in learning and understanding more about the classical physics and quantum mechanics, but I'm a bit worried about my ability to tackle the mathematics side. Mathematics was not my strongest suit back in high school years. I'm more of visual person. The motivation for my interest / wanting to learn physics is having a complete picture of universe with knowledge and understanding of scientific facts, and perhaps then contribute to development of some sort of technology application(s) that can benefit us. I have many questions to ask myself about the physics but for now, I suspect I might will find answers on the links Mordred provided and elsewhere. And or I could ask questions on homework/help section. At this moment, to me.. the physics is sorta like very complicated 3D jigsaw puzzles with perpetual motion.

ajb: I do not know anything about the standard formulations of quantum mechanics and field theory. I'm non-scientist and newcomer. I mentioned I only read some of the Quantum Encounters Consciousness book and some websites on double-slit experiments. Let's forget all about the phase medium theory I posted. I prematurely went ahead and made the phase medium theory when the facts are that I do not possess any formal education on classical and quantum physics, not enough to warrant or justify the creation of phase medium theory. I jumped too ahead. I guess I was caught up with my idea or something like that. Thank you all.. ajb, mordred, and others for your time replying to my posts. But.. by now, it might become apparent that it was waste of your time. It was my mistake to post it here at first place. I'm sorry.

[note: scanned picture of very simple drawing at bottom of this post] Definitions of Phase Medium: I'm going list definitions for phase medium in the next couple of paragraphs. The phase medium theory is entirely speculative and is baseless, but regardless I want to share my thoughts on it to you guys. 1. What is it? Phase medium is membrane-alike lining between quantum realm and elementary particles. It's like invisible and untouchable water. It governs ALL interactions between known particles, AND interactions between particles and quantum realm. It "mechanically" ensures that the laws of physics are obeyed at both micro and macro scale due to the compatibility factor. 2. What it is made of? Phase medium particles. Maybe let's call these "pm" particles or something like that. Those covers or coats all known elementary particles. Those pm particles are special, those can interact elementary particles to and from between quantum realm depending on condition(s) effected/caused by elementary particles, I think. 3. Why it exist? If without the phase medium, how are the elementary particles going to be "enforced" to follow the laws of physics? The laws of physics exist because of the compatibility factor that exists in the phase medium.. between particles, and between quantum realm and particles. The key words are compatibility factor. The particles does things in sort of mechanical way, right? Each particle adds up (is compatible with another similar particle or certain particles, making direct effect or side effect) or not (incompatible but nevertheless could make direct effect or side-effect). 4. Where is it? It's everywhere. It is the container of this reality / universe. 5. How did it formed? I think the phase medium was formed along with the big bang from catalytic events in quantum realm. However, I think it might is evolving along with the expanding of the universe. Bottom to up approach. 6. How do it work? I do not entirely know. Not much to say except it simply enables and enforces (laws of physics) all interactions between particle to particle, and between particles and quantum realm. And it's stabilizer and container of this reality / universe. 7. What am I saying? I think the quantum mechanics (results) might be the phase medium at work. 8. How do we find an evidence of its existence? I do not know exactly how. Since it is likely invisible and untouchable we might need to make an inference of its existence from experiments, mathematics models, or something like that. I think the phase medium will be the final piece needed to be identified out of all unknown and other particles making up the entirely of physics.. science.. everything. lol I feel like actually talking out of my ass. I really don't fully know what I am saying.. but though, I want to share in case if my idea is somehow useful. If not, fine.. no harm in trying and sharing, right? For some reason this post made me think of wrap drive or faster than light (FTL) jump technology with quantum based computer navigation box. Heh. I've done what I can to share my thoughts to you guys. I feel better.

imatfaal: I try to. ajb: I'm not fully sure on how to produce model building of my idea the scientific way, as I'm non-scientist. I googled but still do not fully understand how to.. but I know how to make basic models using image editing program (create a simple 2-D graphic image) or use diagram software to create flowchart image or draw models of my idea then scan it to my computer.. is any of that at least sufficient? Is this a good example of modeling? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling#/media/File:Atmosphere_composition_diagram.svg Morded and swansont: I'm not well educated on elementary particles, but.. after visiting this webpage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle- yes, elementary particles: gauge bosons group = interactions between particles "within" phase medium. I have some more thoughts and explanations on phase medium but I will post about it on tomorrow or so. You guys have good night or day.

My apologies to moderator for posting it under quantum theory at first place. Oh yes, I know the "phase medium" is probably unheard of as it is made up by myself because I was trying to abstractly or conceptually describe something that is surrounding (or inter-connected) each particle. Yeah, it is a bit intangible.. or perhaps my choice of term words (phase medium) is poor. Maybe I should use quantum phase or something like that? Okay. I will try to explain what the phase medium is with analogies and other explanations. Analogy #1: Imagine a room, and 100 balls floating in it. Every ball is connected to each others via wool string. Now.. just substitute the "wool string" words with "phase medium". Analogy #2: 100 billions of neurons in an average/normal human brain, right? Each neuron is connected to around 10,000 neurons via dendrites. Now.. just substitute the "dendrites" words with "phase medium". Do you get what I'm talking about now? Very simple explanation: Phase medium is.. similar to octopus creature. Its tentacles are connected to all particles. It takes quantum stuff from quantum realm, and turn quantum stuff into physical stuff or things that we can make perceptions of. Or when something happen in universe like double-slit experiments, the octopus turns light or physical stuff into quantum stuff and back to physical. It also makes sure the physics laws are obeyed. The bottom line is.. I think there exists something fundamental that is connecting to every particle in this entire universe. And that something I call phase medium. It.. has the ability to change two or more of separated particles at great distance to whatever directions or states. The phase medium is unseen because our perceptions are not well-evolved, or inherently inability due to our limited chemical make-up or something like that.

[note: I'm newcomer/not-fully-native with English language to learning and understanding things about universe and quantum. I'm no scientist/philosopher/researcher, just a regular person who is trying to make sense of the existential nature of this universe and beyond in my own way. I just want to express and form my thoughts into this post and share it to you people and maybe get some inputs from you guys.] Familiarity Introduction The universe we live in is physical, temporal, and generally observable. All of that are mostly familiar to us, and some of us feel comfortable with that. Then we encounter quantum mechanics/physics: uncertainly about location of a particle, “a particle can be in two places at once” / spooky action at distance, power of observation (Schrodinger's cat), and others – and some examples from: [ref - http://www.saidwhat.co.uk/didyouknow/strange-things-about-quantum-mechanics] Results of Double-slit Experiments and Quantum I do not fully comprehend and don't have extensive knowledge and understanding of the double-slit experiments and quantum mechanics, so I'm only making my own interpretations the best I can at this moment. My understanding and knowledge are mostly from reading some of the following book: - Quantum Enigma - Quantum Encounters Consciousness Second Edition by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner Please go ahead and correct me if you want whether if I'm completely wrong or not: Are the results produced by double-slit experiments are actually the result of light particles being dis-integrated or transformed into quantum and back more easily than other, or perhaps than rest of physical matter in this universe? But how? It makes logical sense that there has to be an enclosure of sort.. surrounding each and every particle, to make the connection(s) between particles to be possible - to make something seemingly impossible to be possible. We... at this moment just merely don't have the ability to have perceptions of the connections and / or the enclosure (with mechanism in it) behind those connections. An enclosure.. it's something I call the phase medium. (note: these words make sense in my head somehow, but however if you guys have a better term name suggestion.. let me know.) Is it possible that what scientists/researchers witnessed produced by the double-slit experiments may be actually the phase medium at work? The Phase Medium [note: see the attached image at the bottom of this post. wave-function symbol image from http://blog.michaelgaio.com/2011/09/25/archetypal-semiotic-transference/ and right-side picture is from http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/wallpaper.php?id=PIA04221 ] I think there is a relationship between quantum and universe.. it is something called phase medium. The phase is sort of medium between quantum and universe, but is really an extension part of the universe. If the phase medium is extension part of the universe, then why it exist? It exists to convert information between quantum and universe. Example: A pair of shoes is in a state of flux (or wave function?) and is everywhere/everything at once, then the phase medium converts the... "matrix" information of that pair of shoes from quantum into physical universe. Without the phase medium, we'd be... everywhere/everything at once (as pure wave functions) or reside "in/out" the quantum. I think the phase medium is also responsible for enforcing the known physics laws in this universe. If an observer is required to have something exist, then surely in his/her/it own way.. he/she/it would have perceptions of something more different and stranger than what we actually normally can, right? But yet, why do we... as evidently observe and verify same things? Example: An apple. Two people standing close to it. Person #A said, "I can see red-green apple. Can you too?" Person #B replied back, "Yes, I can." So, they must both share the same perceptions. But.. whose observation makes the red-green apple at very first place? For me, I think it is the phase medium that is responsible for making the red-green apple to exist as it is. Another example - moon: A person passed away, but there are still other people. They can still see the moon, right? The moon will be still there when we are gone hundreds of years later, right? I think that is correct and fixed. But whose observation made the moon to be fixed or exist as it is at first place? I say phase medium. Where did it came from? How did it came about? What does it look like? I don't know exactly.. just this: converting “matrix” of information from quantum to universe, and ensuring/enforcing those to behave according to its own physics laws. Perceptions, Time, and Universe We all live in a 4-D universe, with a chance to make perceptions (feel, touch, see, and smell) without having to be everything/everywhere at once in quantum.. do we owe thanks to the phase medium? However, we so far cannot seem to have perceptions of the phase medium itself. Why? Perhaps we aren't well evolved and / or do not have the technological ability to do that. Or we simply have inherent inability to perceive it, for forever? I think time as dimension itself is hard to define as it is by-product or an emergent property of animation happening in three dimensions (xyz or width/height/depth) universe, but.. the mechanism(s) behind the animation (or Life/Consciousness?) at this moment are very complex and not fully understood by myself at this moment. Is the universe including the phase medium formed from “bottom to up”, not the other way.. and is expanding? Quantum The quantum.. is it the realm where everything originated from? I don't know exactly for sure, just this possibility: The quantum realm is full of infinite number of imaginable and unimaginable possibilities of.. everything. Comments Personally I don't think that this universe we all live in is just singular cosmic existence of everything. I think it's possible that there exist a multi-verse or mega multi-verse containing multi-verses, then in turn containing multiple universes.. each with same or different physical physics laws. Also each could be a virtual simulation of reality for all we know.. also containing sub-realities within and so on.. (russian dolls.) Perhaps in quantum, nothing is absolute or fixed.. It's just the phase medium that is making sure everything as we experience in this universe to be fixed. It is the phase medium that needs to be investigated and understood.