Imagine Everything

Thanks as always, just trying to see if I can make any sense of things like this yet. Appreciate it. Thanks also Studiot, I'll have a read when I have more time later on. Have a good day.

I'm a little hmm lost perhaps or it's a little back to front in my head atm.... H is 1P/1E but if it lost the electron then doesn't that just become a free P? Or are free protons described as H ions? I see a lot of double descriptions for things as I learn stuff. Is this a chemistry thing? as in the valance electrons (I assume it would be the outer shell that was changed electron speaking) and whichever way it happened, emmission or absorbtion, attaracted by a like minded atom 40ų to 40ų (is that the right symbol for amu?) for instance, wouldn't that mean the electron shell it left or came to would then be unstable and become an isotope? Or have I got it a bit back to front? Is an ion the loss or gain of an electron and an isotope is the loss or gain of a neutron? So K,L,M,N is the physics term. 1,s, 2s, 3s, is the chemistry term? And reading what you wrote here, does each shell behave in this manner and if so going forward, does each subshell have angular momentum and is angular momentum the same as an orbit, just a different name for orbit? And hmm, I'm going to try ask a question about this please. The bracketed equasions? is that the chemistry and physics meaning of the same subshell? And have you called that 2L because it goes like this...1K, 2L, 3M, 4N....? And would that also end up as 1Ks, 2Ls, 2Lp, 3Ms, 3Mp, 3Md etc or have I got this all mixed up trying to make sense of it? Could you please explain in words the meaning of these symbols. Im going to take a guess that the first n in gn is the subshell. But Ik what the g is or the next bit, oh and why is the next bit in brackets? Is that just to illustrate to shell types somehow?

Thanks for your reply as always Mordred and the links, Didn't mean to stray in chemistry really, just watching Khan Academy lectures on atoms, electrons, shells, unified atomic mass unit, isotopes and isobars so far. And then re watching them. You are indeed right, there is an awful lot I don't understand however there is also some which I now do understand, a bit anyway. And if I'm honest, it looks like I could spend a year or more? just trying to get to grips with electrons, shells, subshells, spins, the difference/equivilence between chemistry and physics at this level. Good news is that I do have time to do this, so with time I hope to understand a lot more of this and perhaps even put together an equasion of my own at some point trying to explain what I see in this 3rd state idea. (I still haven't come across anything that tells me it can't work yet, though it has come close a couple of times) I do know a few symbols now & what they represent & mean, though I am yet to be knowledgable enough to put them together. But hey, 3 months ago, I knew nothing. I just need to study it again & again & again & again. Thank you, all of you.

I'm getting to understand the shells a bit better now, hopefully I'll remember If K(1s) L(2s,2p) M(3s,3p,3f) and so on have a math definite of 2n². (did I say that correctly?) Is it also true in reverse not with electrons but with quarks? It's very confusing and seemingly very busy in these shells and their orbits. So when you talk of half spin, does that literally mean an electron in a subshell is only orbiting half of it's orbit? Also, I'm a little confused by the s orbital Why doesn't it also have w? going from the top left diagonal to the bottom right diagonal? This scientist is talkign about the octet rule and says that it usually means the outermost shell (the electron shell?) can have a maximum of 8 electrons, but the diagram shows 2 electrons on the outermost shell when the subshell m can have up to 18. Does this mean that even if the 2n² applies that even if a subshell can have up to 18+ electrons, it can't if it is the outermost shell. Am I right in calling the outermost shell the electron shell? Do isotopes only go downwards by neutrons 6/8 6/6 6/4 for example (Pro/Neu)

Thanks

Thanks Mordred I read somewhere that someone (Einstein was it?) wondered if an atom worked similar to a solar sytem. Sorry I can't remember exactly, anyway I'm looking more intensely now at these orbits, electron shells, tetraquarks, quarks and stuff and can't help but wonder if our universe is merely a giant version of all these things that exist at their tiniest form. What if it was seen universally instead of locally (solar system) Expansion causes expansion causes expansion as it were. I'm not just thinking about universe expansion but the expansion of everything within and including the universe. Hmm...What I think I'm trying to say is that hyperthetically speaking, maybe our solar mass is just a huge electron?, maybe DM is just a huge expanse of the space between the electron and the nucleus?, maybe the planets or such like are merely huge protons or similar?, I don't know nearly enough to explain this properly but does that make any sort of sense? Like maybe the things that are seemingly created, are not neccessarily what they appear to be, they are just another building block on the road to recreating the small into the giant sizes of themselves? I also saw on a science programme that we should theoretically have binary solar masses but for some reason we don't. Wouldn't that be the equivalent of the first 1s or K shell? Though I don't know what the nucleus would be in that scenario. This could also be the answer? to the question: What is the point of the universe? The answer could be there is no point, it just is what it is , just self replicating and replicating and replicating... hmm...no doubt one of my more zanier imaginations

Thank you Q6 What does P orbital stand for? The s, p, d, and f, respectively stand for sharp, primary, diffuse and fundamental. The letters and words refer to the visual impression left by the spectral lines’ fine structure that occurs because of the first relativistic corrections, particularly the spin-orbital interaction. Now it makes sense though I also now have more orbital understanding to do. Can nucleai and their electrons be seen as states and if so, does that mean they each also have their own boundary conditions? Can nucleons be seen as states with boundary conditions of their own?

Gary Delaney joke Knock Knock Who's there? Grandad Quick stop the funeral!! Jimmy jones joke but I'll keep it nice as I can. A family of four is walking through the forest to a picnic area to have a picnic. All of a sudden a bee jumps flies in front of the daughter. The daughter swats the bee and kills it. The dad ask her "why did you do that?" The daughter says " I don't like bumble bees" The dad say " Right for that, you shall have no honey on your bread for a week" She says "Suit yourself I don't care" So they all carry on walking and a butterfly flies in front of the son. The boy swats it and kills the butterfly. The days says "Why did you do that?" The boy says "I don't like butterflys" The dad says "Right, you shall not have butter on your bread for a week" The son says "Suit yourself don't care" So they carry on and get to the clearing and set up a picnic. All of a sudden, a cockroach crawls across the picnic cloth. The mum stamps on the cockroach. The dad looks at his children, the children look back and the son says to his dad " Are you going to tell her or shall I?"

This made me smile, thanks Studiot, I think I kind of understand the 1s2, 2s2, 3s2 (sorry for the lazy writing there)..still learning this part but I'm sorry, why isn't called 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s..I don't understand the named shell sequence. My head is looking for the pattern but doesn't understand it. If s means shell , what does p mean And e, f, d etc I understand the orbital part i think just not why it is called p or e or d or f. Atm my head is thinking that this is like saying a numerical count (not science related) 1, 2, 3, 4 r, s, t, u, 7, 8, 9, 10 instead of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.

Probably, I will re read it a few times to try and understand it better. I miss stuff sometimes, (can't see the woods for the trees as it were) science can be a quite mystifying & immensely confusing lol I'm also a bit confused as to why it goes 1s, 2s, then 2p, 3s, 3p etc Why isn't it all s's? Have I missed or not seen something somewhere?

Thanks Studiot In the pages you scanned, is the 'core' the nucleus? And all the elements listed on the left are the elements that make the named cores? Can you also tell me the signs used for boundary condition, state & quantum tunneling please.

Thanks Mordred

Thanks What is the physics term for these shells called?

Hey Swansont, hope you're well. Thanks for that. It makes a more sense now. Can I ask, does it go all the way from K -> Z ? Or would Z live in the realm of undiscovered heavier elements? I'm assuming without knowing better that these shells are filled the initial 2 & then they have 8 electrons before needing to have another shell for more electrons?

The protons and neutrons would be the nucleus. The electrons are not part of it; they are part of an atom. Sorry that wasn't as dumb as it might have sounded, I mean nucleus with the proton with the electron orbiting. I imagine without an electron orbiting it would simply be a free proton? Oh and is it always nucleus surrounded by K shell / L shell / M shell / N shell...? If it is, why not start with A shell / B shell / C shell? Interesting, thanks Studiot It might seem at times that I ask the same question twice or ask a question about something I previously learnt. It's slowly sinking in but hard to remember so much.

For a nucleus to exist, must it have at least 1 proton? Just thinking, is that a stupid question directly above? Would no protons simply mean no nucleus? Or does a nucleus need at least 1 proton and 1 electron? If it didn't would it mean that if there was an electron, it would be a free electron? Is there such a thing as a free proton or neutron? Another weird question perhaps (idk why I can't stop thinking about DM) what would be the difference (if DM could be measured like light and photons) between these 2 massless particles? Is that how you guys have managed to see DM? Simply by seeing what is there vs what seemingly isn't? I'm assuming DM would have to be massless or v similar to light & it's photons. Dark light & dark photons perhaps. Hmm and so my imagination starts running again.... Relating to BH theory & information from things pulled into and destroyed by it, I have (as you may have seen) read and heard about quantum hairs being the information about such objects left behind. Has anyone been able to calculate what this QH might look like sub atomically? Would or could it exist as some time of particle, maybe even on a sub quantum or maybe a base level that everything else is built on top of as it were? Is there even such a thing as a base level? Would that be quantum or does/can it go even smaller? Or would that be some sort of degeneracy that at some point also collapses in on itself when it can no longer zip around due to the gravitational pull of the BH singualirty? Idk if that question is impossible to answer or not, Idk if QH's have been proven or just predeterminedly and probability thought of in the possible randomness of a BH singularity. lol see what your help and guidance has done to me!!!

Thanks Studiot Hmm..so in my idea I see this 'whatever this is' particle being created by possible quantum tunneling & the merger/collison or like minded/attracted atoms/particles through the boundary conditions, which could then be the incident? and cause of the vibration within whatever this particle is, but due to the very busy nature of them and all the other atoms/free particles/vp's in this 3rd state (gap) could or would they all be vibrating due to their creation and the various collisions within this gap? It doesn't neccessarily have to be what I see in this idea, does this scenario happen anyway when any 2 states/boundary conditions meet each other? Do free electron collisions create incidents towards or with other atoms? Is a vp an incident that sends back slightly more energy to free electrons for example? I hope I said that right.

This is a Jimmy Jones joke if I remember correctly, I'll try to keep it clean A man punk goes to a party and see's a lady punk he likes. He goes up to her and says "Hi doll, you can dance with me if you like" She says "I willlllll" They dance for a bit and the punk man says "You can buy me a beer if you like" She says "I willllll" So she buys him a beer and they carry on dancing until the man punk has enough and says to the lady punk "You can go home with me tonight if you like" She says "I willlll" So they go back to the man punks flat and start playing records until the man punk gets a bit hungry & says to the lady punk "Ere doll, I'm a bit hungry, you can make me some sandwiches if you like" She says "I willllll" So they're both a bit drunk and well fed and the man punk starts to feel a bit randy & so says to the lady punk "You can sleep with me tonight if you like" She says "I willlll" So they go to the bedroom and have a bit of romance. Afterwards the man punk looks at the lady punk and says "In about 9 months, you're going to have a baby, a baby boy. You can call it Peter if you like" The lady punk then looks at the man punk with a glint in her eye and says " In about 2 weeks you're going to have a rash, you can call it measles if you like" I watched him a couple of weeks ago, that guy is so funny.

What is an Incident Neutron or Incident Photon, what this Incident description referring to, sorry Mordred I got a little lost trying to understand it. Would Newtons cradle be described as Inelastic? https://juddy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Notes-4.1.3.pdf This made a lot more sense to me after watching the sound wave Khan Academy lectures. Thanks for those Khan links Modred, I seem to be able to understand a lot more and retain the information better from watching them. My head likes to see things in images, though I think I'm good with english, it's much easier for me to see these things in action as images/animations with their definitions & explanations I extracted the below sentence because it sounds quite like what I see in my idea (I don't know for sure yet) but one of my thoughts that I posted not so long ago was the connection between people among other things and how we seem to be able to pick up whether we instantly like them or not. As in we all have our very own personal resonant frequency and like certain types of atoms, we are attracted or repelled by other peoples resonant frequencies. In simple terms, a resonant frequency is “a natural frequency of vibration determined by the physical parameters of the vibrating object” Anyway, I digress a little, just wanted to say thanks again. And ask those 2 questions.

Yep me again lol, This is a thought around spring/summertime this year, I have no idea if it would work, can work or would indeed be useful or more of a hindrance. I'm not looking for validation and I offer this freely to anyone & everyone that might or can make use of it (if it works) as it might help our dear planet Earthy' to repair itself a bit or at least maybe calm down a bit of global warming. That's the thought behind it anyway, nothing else, not new science or particles or anything else. Just hopefully a way to help ourselves and our planet. I'm also not going to concentrate on it as I am currenty extremely busy on my other post. https://news.mit.edu/2022/dirt-cheap-solution-common-clay-materials-may-help-curb-methane-emissions https://www.whoi.edu/press-room/news-tip/more-methane-from-the-deep-sea-mud-volcanos-as-methane-source/ https://www.sciencing.com/uses-carbon-dioxide-gas-6364016/ https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/do-zeolite-work-in-sea-water.231479/ So could this work to help reduce methane and use the resulting Carbon Dioxide for industrial use? The idea is an underwater structure made of or surrounding an inner Zeolite structure. Perhaps the structure could somehow allow seawater to traverse into the structure surrounding the zeolite structure (like stemming the flow on a hosepipe with your thumb) and cause preesure/energy to power this process. I don't know, just thinking out loud I guess. Maybe placed on the sea bed itself or hung somehow (from a buoy?) above something like a mud volcano If this structure was placed in the sea, could the energy/power from the sea current/s power this process and make it even more environmental friendly.? The zeolite would capture methane from the sea/bed, perhaps even from mud volcanoes if it was placed near enough and process it into Carbon Dioxide. The resulting Carbon Dioxide could then be extracted perhaps to be used industrially. I state that I do not know the impact of creating more Carbon Dioxide, I'm just wondering if by converting the methane into this, perhaps it could be used instead of just heating up the globe as it does inside methane. I did read that Carbon Dioxide is less harmful than Methane in on of the above links. No doubt this is a very rough idea and I dont claim it to be anything other than that, hopefully you'll get the gist of it though. I don't think or claim that if this works, that it would sort the whole globe out, if it does work, it would no doubt just be a tiny cog in a very big wheel that's desperately needed to do that. Thanks for reading this anyway, feel free to move this to trash if you think it should belong there, I'm cool with that and don't mean to upset this forum in anyway. Even if it doesn't work, maybe it will trigger one you very very clever people into finding another way that can help with global wamring solutions. Back to studying now

Thanks Mordred

This was very interesting, I'll leave it there for now but already I'm starting to see or wonder how this fits into my original post. Is a mediator a wave length?

It wasn't so much I was thinking about the hubble tension, more that I stumbled across it and in my head it kind of slightly crossed it into my 'idea' about a 'particle?' in this 3rd state I see/envision and the way it might work if it does. And thanks, I understood the below sentance and wouldn't have done without yours and Studiots help. Its a problem more in terms of fine tuning of luminosity to distance relations I don't mean all the things behind that sentance but more the terms you used. Perhaps one day there will be a telescope powerfull enough to be able to see even further and more definitively. Way way too advanced but sort of interesting. That in itself led me to wanting to ask a few questions but I won't. I've seen images of our sun next to even bigger and bigger stars, red giants and blue giants, totally amazing to think just how small our sun is compared to them and then how small our earth is to our sun and then how small we are as humans to our planet and seemingly no matter how big something is, it all seems to have started at a very tiny point somehow. I there's an asian saying/philosophy I heard once 'Every long journey starts with one small step'. I need to go watch these lectures now so I will head off to Khan academy, thanks Mordred.

Thanks Mordred, appreciate the time it took, very kind of you. I had yet another imaginative thought moment last night but man who knows..maybe I can find out as I move along with more learning, however here it is in all its shameless glory lol https://www.livescience.com/space/cosmology/james-webb-telescope-confirms-there-is-something-seriously-wrong-with-our-understanding-of-the-universe So I saw a video about different rates of expansion and byt looking around found that the name for this is Hubbles Tension. The imaginative thought was this... Could the rates of expansion be measured by their content? What I mean is, if this 'thingy' I'm talking about is simply created & forced into this 3rd state space before it dies thus creating a small non attractive movement by pushing whatever was in that space before it was created, outwards in all directions, could it be the reason there might be different rates of expansion? And even if it isn't my weird and wonderful thought, doesn't DM have to made of something that keeps being created somehow for expansion to take place at all? So my thought last night was wondering if somehow more DM was being created in certain parts of the universe than it was in others. Could it be that whatever creates this DM, maybe creates more forced pushing and then in turn creates a faster expansion due to more DM being created? And also the slower rate of expansion would follow this if the above is true? The less DM being created means less forced pushing and therefore less expansion or slower expansion? And perhaps this can only happen on a cosmic scale due to the nature of quantum or perhaps sub quantum size. Wouldn't DM itself have to have started life as a seriously seriously tiny minisculey miniscule % of an energy type?' something' (I have no idea what its called or could be called, perhaps its similar to a wimp) Anyway, finally I get to the nitty gritty , sorry had to say that first bit first to get to this... So could it be that maybe certain types of galaxies and all their wonders withing perhaps even BH, quasars and certain types of stella nurseries, Neutron stars, Nebulae in one part of space contribute to a more greater volume of DM being created? Possibly even more or even more of a certain type of things and less of another, whatever it is that creates DM to start with? And also the same for the slower rate, perhaps there aren't enough stella nurseries or galaxies or BH's or whatever to create the same amount of DM and is slower because of it. I'm sure there is a lot more out in the universe but you get the idea hopefully. Even though no one knows what DM is or how it's made yet, could that idea make sense?. Or does DM simply stretch across the universe in which case I guess what I just wrote doesn't apply really. I might also just be talking right out of my huh hmm, Off to learn some more now , thanks again for the links Mordred I'll look at as much as I can this week and try not to post too much inbetween, it always seems to take me further into the ordered chaos/chaotic order that seems to be science I'm reposting these here for my own benefit otherwise I keep having to hop back and forth between pages in this thread. Another khan University lesson I would like you to watch is constructive and destructive interference. https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/mechanical-waves-and-sound/standing-waves/v/constructive-and-destructive-interference#:~:text=Constructive interference happens when two,they cancel each other out. This will help to understand Elastic vs inelastic scatterings when two particles meet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastic_scattering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inelastic_scattering the first link will also help understand wave resonance. https://juddy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Notes-4.1.3.pdf HINT the mechanical elastic PE terms above apply ie a crystal resonating with a frequency those resonations of the atoms will follow the same equations of motion (sound waves are mechanical energy) take k for spring constant now replace with binding energy via the coupling constant of a field. In those Feymann integrals "g" for the EM field g is the fine structure constant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant An ty Studiot for making the Newtons cradle more defined to me, I always thought it was a perfect line of energy that went back and forth, didn't know it could act differently at each end

Thanks Studiot Thats really ϹΘΘɭ Did not know about this, thank you very much!