Imagine Everything

I understand the 4 + -1 being 5. Your diagram helped a lot with that ty, it was the trying to understand the -4 + -4 = 4 I can't get my head around. Do 2 minuses make a plus? In the Khan lecture he made that sum but in my mind both the minus 4's seem to be pointing in the negative. So wouldn't that make 8 and not 4? It was a 2 part sum, the -4 + -4 was the number at each of the tops of the the 2, 2 tupel columns. There was another sum involved for the bottom part of the vectors but I think I understood that.

I'm wading through as I said, the Khan lectures and at one point he is explaining the vectors & tupels and equasions of a + b and adds -4 + -4 together to make 4 which I don't really understand if this is being explained using something you posted Studiot and he is also posting in the lecture. What is it I'm not seeing?

Still have a fair bit of re reading and lectures to go through. Weird how much slipped from my head in just a week or so. If I haven't posted for a little while, it's just because I'm just catching up. Stay safe

My pc is back again finally but needs some attention. The HD went mad and some data got lost / transferred And I need to do some catch up so I'll be back in a few days.

Hello, Just a quick update, pc is still down Hope you're well.

Hello Hello My pc has decided to go a bit weird, not sure what the issue is but I might not be able to post a lot in the next few days. If you don't hear from me much, that's why. Hopefully it won't be too long.

Thanks both of you, still watching the lectures atm, don't know nearly enough yet.

Immensely, a kind of Rosetta stone ty.

My head is a bit foggy again with magnitudes, vector units, square roots and things. Bit confusing right now but I think I understand vector and scalar more now so thats something. Have a good night. Thanks for your help

I've had to back track a lot on Khan academy to linear vectors and real co-ordinate spaces, I was getting very lost seeing 4 + -1 = 5 - still not sure why that isn't 3. Anyway, it's talking about more than 3d which is interesting. I guess I'm writing this because as I said in my first post, this is a very simple idea but can get very complicated. Little did I know what I was talking about even though I was talking about it lol Anyway, perhaps my 'simple idea' is actually more like 4d, 5d or even further along. I don't know if thats even possible or how far it goes if it is. Left side/right side Inside/Outside Surface/top/bottom Diagonals Nuecleus/decay Information transfer? (quantum hair) Boundary condtions & the behaviour of electrons?, between the boundary conditions, perhaps also what is happening within the states themselves and how they may be affected by quantum tunneling? (if thats a possibility, I saw this as leakage before you mentioned quantum tunnelling to me), fields (EM/Higgs?) and idon't know what else. I have a lot of lectures to watch now before I get back to the determinant lecture you gave me a link for Mordred. I undertstood this, a*d - b*c = But when it went 3d..well thats where it went a bit confusing for me.

Thanks, I took a day out from it all or so I thought. The above link, about halfway down shows a 3d determinat matrix (is matrix the right word) and I am being frustrated by their answers to the 3rd determinant I'm not asking for answer, I need to figure it out but thats where I am atm. So I thought I took a day out, hahaha my bloody brain wouldn't shut up.....so Not too sure about the underlined part, still need to learn more. By the bit I emboldened wouldn't leave me alone. I make the mistake now and then of thinking of literal particles and not energy/wave lengths. I this 'thingy' in my idea exists, from what I have learnt and if it indeed is created to die instantly, it would have to exist as energy I think. I'm still learning as you know so please bear with me. So going back to the emboldened part, it kept making me think and think and think, what could it be if it is in an enclosed/conserved state / system...hmmm...and more hmm..and more hmm.. Then it struck me, perhaps I'm only thinking or have only suggested this in 2d. Atm I can't think of anything that would only have sides. It has to have surfaces too (3d) and therefore state 3 would perhpaps be the meeting of the 2 boundary condtions but maybe..just maybe, there's a bit of quantum tunneling going on and it might not be a 'totally' conserved state even though it is (mmm it sounds weird to me too) due to quantum tunneling (Im still learning about that too). The surface of both state 1 and state 2 would also be next to something making this perhaps a 3d kind of state. After all, isn't everything, even if it is part of a chain (all be it a universally sized chain, in all directions) be connected to each other. Whether 1st gen connection (direct contact), 2nd gen connection, or even 1 billionth gen connection ... So whatever the surface/s is/are in contact with are somehow helping to create this thingy in state 3. A question: Do nuclear force & weak force not count in a conserved system? I'll leave it there as it is already confusing me and thoug I think I can sort of see it in my head, I don't know enough to present it in written or maths form. You guys know more than I do and idk how stupid that may or may not sound to you, but this is kind of where I am so far. Off to try and understand 3 det now again...

Thanks, just curious, did you Studiot or Swansont or even any other scientist / mathematician get frustrated when you started learning about maths and science?

In the Slater determinant are the x1 & x2 the electrons in the 1st part before the =? I'm trying hard to understand this better but hmm, is the 2nd part of it after =, simply the wavelength without the wavelength symbol in front of it? Does the commar in the first x1,x2 have a relevance other than splitting the 2 x's up? This is as far I have got so far, still reading, still mostly confused but it's a lot to take in all at once, so I don't expect I will make much sense of it atm. I will eventually I hope... Oh and when I see RHS mentioned, does it mean Right Hand Side? Going by the Pauli exclusion about Fermions, how is it that a nucleai can have the same protons in the same space, or is this not what is going on in the nucleus? Is it rather, that the protons are simply close to each other in a tight space? Perhaps I've read too much today, the determinants are starting to drive me nuts a bit too. I'll try again tomorrow.

Ok, throw it at me lol, lets see what I can learn and hopefully remember.

Another Jimmy Jones joke, I'll try and keep it clean as always (there is a lot more swearing in the original) A ship is sailing along happily when it suddenly encounters really really thick fog. The captain goes up to the crows nest to see if he can get a better sense of direction from the stars, when he notices a light in the distance. Realising his ship was heading towards it, he grabbed his megaphone and shouted.... "Ahoy there, ahoy there, I am the captain of this here ship, change your direction or we are going to ram you" There's no answer and his ship is getting closer so again the captain shouts.... "I am the captain of this here ship, change your direction or we'll ram you!!" Still no reply comes and this is really stressing the captain out. The ship is now quite close to this light& the fog is even thicker. Worriedly the captain shouts out again as loud as he can with his megaphone... "I AM THE CAPTAIN OF THIS HERE SHIP, CHANGE YOUR DIRECTION OR WE ARE GOING TO RAM YOU!!!!" This time he hears a reply.... "I am the keeper of this here lighthouse and you can please your f...ing self."

My friend you are not wrong. I've just been watching a couple of lectures on spin and symmetry. Read a little about pions earier too. I take back what I said before, maybe it'll take a good few years to learn about electron orbits / clouds / spins 😮 So much to learn...oh well lol "here i go again on my own, going down the road I know I need to learn" My own 'spin' on a cool song

lol, I feel a bit silly now, yes yes yes ofcourse you can and why didn't I think of this already.... I focus too much sometimes on complex things that I forget the simple things.

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?"