Mike Smith Cosmos

Sounds very interesting ! I will have to read ,and inwardly digest. How long have you been working on this Theory ?. You may find the Moderators will want to move the post to "speculation section " until the theory is analysed. Do not be discouraged as it is an internal procedure , they sometimes use with radically new ideas. ( which your Idea sounds interesting but new I think.) . I must admit that years ago , when we were all mucking about with the computer language "Basic". I put four lines of code into the personal computer I then had: They were something like :- line of code "1 let x= 1" " 2 PRINT X " then " 3 let x =x+1 " followed by " 4 goto 1 " RUN . The whole screen erupted in an explosion of X's everywhere and went on until I switched off the computer. I thought then I wondered If the universe had an incremental ,plus GOTO the first line, Loop in it. I will be pleased to see if your ideas work out OK. Make sure you keep your hand on the OFF switch if you try to create another universe. OOPS ! . .

Please have a go at explaining it, as this is the nubb of everybodies problem as they approach Quantum mechanics. If we leave it as just math, then we exclude everybody who is not a mathematician. ( like a sacred priesthood ). The rest of humanity deserves to 'know' at least in an illustrative way " What is at the root of our world ?" Tell us even in an imperfect way ! You will go down in history as a great scientific GURU ! This is your 'Moment ' do not let it pass unused by you. Use words that all scientists at least can understand, if not everyone. If necessary ordinary scientists can re-explain it to every one else. Go ! I wait with baited breath. !

Now I have two of you mathematicians together, perhaps you can explain the feelings you feel, or the images you see , or the models that build up when you say "do not commute" " non commuting observables" " components of the same vector " You can't surely make these words without some form of past experience with such a condition outside of the quantum realm. If so, what did those "things" do , when they were out there in the non quantum world. ( not the maths but the image or picture.) If on the other hand you are saying math exists , like some platonic shape existing in its own pure realm, doing its own thing that nobody can see, but the math can effect the real world that we see and move about in.

. I must say , I like your approach to this issue, as you have not totally dismissed the need I and believe me , many others have , to seek some way to visualize how things look and how they function. This of course, accepting that they ( the particles ) are going to look and behave radically different from everyday life. Perhaps you are willing to start the process off, imagining I am blind and have never seen the sea ( figuratively). . .

I don't get it. Whats wrong with trying to visualise something as fundamental as an ELECTRON Yes describe it in a Textbook full of whatever . But it obviously IS something , even if it is a charge point or bubble floating in a complex universal field ! By all means say "nobody knows !" But at least we could start looking , trying to visualise it. We have a very sophistocated brain which can comprehend great pros, poetry, art , and a whole host of abstract ideas. Whats wrong with trying to visualise the electron. The very vehicle of our modern world...

When you say the word Quantum Particle What image comes into your mind then ? If not a round ball with the standard model Rows and columns of such particles. Do you see a number of laws and Math equations Say Schroenigers equation, Etc Etc. If so what do you see them housed in ? what does it look like ? a nano something or other ? Some superstring topography, ? Where and how are the laws and maths formulae stored ? What do you see in your Head ? Surely there is some form of bedrock conglomerate that contains in some way the rules, laws and formulae if only in some form of influencing device ? If not where is it held ?

What does the Nobel Prize winning Frank Wilczec mean in his book " The lightness of being " when he speaks of a GRID pervading all space. Filled with 'Stuff' , quantum virtual particles coming into and out of existence very quickly . Yet making the universe and space full of a GRID type medium of some sort. Does this not hint at an Aether even though Maxwells equations do not necessarily require a medium.

As far as I understand it, observation is an interaction. This is because any observation is going to require a photon of one sort or another. This photon interacts with the "particle " ( whatever that means ie whatever 'Particle' means). This interaction is enough to collapse the wave function . Quite why will require a better person than me to respond. By guess is " that while they are not too tied up, they work within their probability wave parameters, When they get called on ( by interaction including observation ) to do something meaningful , they join the real world and work within a more defined position or momentum " Remember this is just a guess, or I will get my hands slapped.

. I must admit I have read this several times as an explanation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. That a photon used to observe causes sufficient interaction so as to prevent precise measurements of both attributes. I have also read of mathematical explanations which utilise the plank constant as a limiting value against either momentum or position pushing one in one direction or the other ( towards position or momentum) . However our colleague Juanrga is saying, I think , not sure ( I might have missunderstood Juanrga ) that the particle does not possess both attributes at the same time. I have often wondered which is the correct explanation or indeed if either explanation is correct.? . .

Juanrga Yes , that is all very well, but surely if we find that the descriptor is misleading and confusing, is there not a case for moving on slightly to ease the way for clarity of thought, particularly for those approaching physics and stumbling with all this mystery around quantum behaviour. Perhaps you are saying that above all else the atomic particles are PARTICLES first and foremost. ? But with all the FIELD science,; electric, magnetic, Electro-magnetic, quantum field, Higgs Field, etc etc is there not a case to view things more in that field direction say, or some other image , than the particle direction. I am not making a big issue about it, We just seem to be more and more and more particles and then trying to unify them all in the standard model. I would not dare for one moment to suggest the standard model is in any way wrong, BUT perhaps viewing from a field direction, which I am aware String theory is well and truly in that direction,, but they appear to have gone to infinity and back. Surely there must be some happy medium where we can understand what is happening at the quantum level , other than going into some Mathematical Nervanaland. No ? You are going to hit me with Maths now. ! .Yes the standard model is gaining beauty by the day, but in your link to Cern it still shows the particle as a round ball , surely we need to get off this image IF as you and I know is probably incorrect. ( I' ll probably be struck down ). It probably looks more like a spinning probability wave function.

Trillions upon trillions of meteorites. Some with white Condrules of Calcium.? . .

Then that must tell us something about the reality, or nature of a " particle" at the quantum level.. If it cannot have BOTH momentum and position , then its not a particle as our language infers. We should perhaps try to generate a new description of these entities. ! . I know we talk of wave -particle duality, but we find that hard to ',dare I say it ' visualize. . ( A wobblical entity ? ) or ( A bloblical entity ? ) . Like the Scarlet Pimpernel " You see me here , you see me there .............. ".....

. I gather from your amusing cartoon that " observe at your own peril " if trying to buck the ' momentum - position ' puzzle ! .Very good

Juanrga. Does that mean, by what you say, that the particle actually does Not intrinsically posses both position and momentum, or that we can not measure, utilize or observe both position and momentum at the same time ?

Guess, I Had Better Go Look See !

As I understand it , : When two nuclei of hydrogen atoms ( ie just two protons say ), Fuse (fusion) as in the big bang or a star like the sun, then :-. The binding energy required to keep the two protons together is less than for two separate protons, so the excess is given out as energy.( in the ratio E=mc squared ) At this stage one of the protons decays to a neutron, giving off a neutrino and a positive beta particle ie a radio active positive electron traveling at enormous speed. We then have a deuterium ( heavy hydrogen .) nucleus. If another similar process takes place between two new protons a similar result occurs. Now we have two heavy hydrogen nuclei . Namely two.Proton-Neutron pairs. If these two pairs collide with sufficient ability to overcome positive repulsion forces and combine Fuse (fusion), you end up with a helium nucleus ( namely two protons and two neutrons ). Again the binding energy of the resultant helium nucleus is less than the sum of the constituent particle parts and so the surplus energy is released as radiation and so the sun shines or the big bang radiates ( or did radiate , as the case may be ). I would say, though I am not certain, that the binding energy is the NET result of all the binding effects of all the internal Strong nuclear forces( including all the internal ingredient quarks ) at play within the individual or combined nuclear particles of the entity in question ( eg hydrogen nucleus, P only, deuterium nucleus P + N or helium nucleus 2P + 2N ) where P is a proton N is a Neutron remembering that each nuclear P or N , each are composed of 3 Quarks .

Help. There is no Oxygen in here I can't Breath .

CoFU Your Language is getting marginally better for me to understand what you are saying. Perhaps we could take one important point at a time ! so What is your Main Point ?

. ESSAY . . As I said in my message " I am about to go on a figurative adventure by descending down into the Earths early state as far back as I can go and basically see what I can see. I will be heading through the Precambrian and come up again near the Precambrian Cambrian border. I will probably come across that dark black slime you talk about ! See you later !

COFU. . I am finding it very hard to read and understand your post. I think it is because of some form of translation system is making the translation not obvious. . Could you possibly abbreviate your points to say 6 short paragraphs. ? . Then when I have got the point, I can have a go at reading the long script.

. Do we " see " as some ( not me ) have suggested, only one single electron (in the entire universe) in all possible and acceptable positions in the universe . Obeying the Pauli exclusion principle. The wave function not having collapsed because we are not a real observer ( but an Alice in quantumland observer ) . All at the same " time " ( What time ? ). Or at a succession of different times ( But what different times , a trillionth of a second, or a 10 to the minus 43 trillionths of a second later. ). Or just all sitting there as it were frozen in time just sitting with a probability to "be " or come into existence ? Or not in the entire universe, but only for this particular atom? .

. How does time work inside the atom. ? .Is there any link with Probability ? .What happens as we approach Plank time ? .What do we figuratively see if we go shorter than plank time ? ..

. . Now there's a thing ! What is it like if we are inside the atom but not a real observer in the normal sense of the word , but an Alice in quantum world observer. Thus fooling the Box and not really opening the lid. ? What do we see ? Wow ee ! . .

Thanks for all those points. I agree I am biting off a big chunk at the moment. However I am making fast progress and enjoying the ride. The names , I find a bit daunting, however I also found that when I was teaching, I could never remember all the students names. The concepts I find exciting, always have enjoyed the big picture, and I am determined to get my head around the Time Line ( Galaxies to Today ) . I have spent a lot of time on Quantum Physics ( Plank time to Galaxies ). I need to pause a bit while they sort out the Higgs Field/Boson Mechanism. . Keep with me, don't let me sink ! What quite are differentiated bodies ? .

.I suppose this still leaves me with a Gap . The trace of Calcium from : The fall to earth of meteorite (chondrite) containing:- . calcium chondrules scattered about the very early mantle and crust ..........to ............Coccoliths (micro nanoplankton). . A mere 4,000, million years . .What was happening to calcium over that time ? .