steevey

There is no observed boundary for the universe, so as far as cosmologists and astronomers know, the universe has no boundary.

How does it exist in a wave, or if it doesn't, how could it exist in a virtual particle? If I drop a pebble in the water, does the wave it produces have angular momentum of some sort?

Mathematics would help me see the patterns of spin, but it why would it help me see it as a physical thing.?I can see an electron as a wave of existence without considering any mathematics, yet math is crucial for determining the specifics of that. And I wasn't saying "tiny" in referring to the importance of its definition, but rather of its importance to my question.

How do I know that website about the Belgian man is accurate? I guess it's just your opinion since its a website, according to your views. If you actually looked at my most recent links, they aren't blog posts, they are backed up by scientists who have been asked for data. According to you, any link on the website someone uses isn't evidence if my links that I posted aren't actual evidence for anything. I'll try one more time, and if you fail to see any evidence, then I give up with you http://www.nytimes.c...ce/26human.html Look at the 4th paragraph, providing evidence that diets can change by the process of evolution. I'm pretty 100% sure writers for news papers don't make up with the scientific information themselves, especially when there's quotes from scientists who exist. You might also want to read some of this http://www.bmedrepor.../archives/17554 and this http://www.wwnorton....5/welcome.shtml If you took a proper biology class, you should at least know that certain populations evolved immunities certain to diseases. Why do you think air-lines are so against letting any sort of contagious person into another country even if the disease isn't that big of a deal in the home country? It's because the other population of a country they are going to might not have a natural immunity since their ancestral populations might have never been exposed to the pathogen and therefore could have never evolved to be more resistant to it.

I think that would require marrying members of your own family, and it would have to be a father to daughter to son to daughter thing which would lead to a lot of genetic diseases.

Point taken I know your trying to help me, but I don't just care about the tiny semantics right now as much as I care about people understanding the concept I'm asking about so that it can get my question answered. Is spin an actual physical thing, or is it more like and imaginary number where the classical components of it can be mathematically used to describe the shape or positions but doesn't actually exist?

One theory is that the universe is infinite, another theory is that we don't know and never will, and a third theory suggests the big bang itself occurred because of improbability, which means before it there was nothing.

The evidence is what has already been uncovered in history and biology which is that populations develop immunities over time through evolution. I honestly don't know how you couldn't possibly know that unless you never paid attention in high school or wherever you took a biology class. Eating meat also isn't something you can just go about doing. Some populations over time developed immunities to germs like salmonella which allows them to eat raw meat. I've gotten food poisoning from raw chicken about three times and each time after the first time, I haven't fought the symptoms any better. Some people just have a better immune response which allows them to eat raw meat, over time, they can bring that to a population. Some people can train to become a good runner, but others are quite capable of it naturally or naturally have a greater lung capacity. And why do you suppose that is? It's not cause of magic, its cause of genes. The reason that I only need the fact that adaptation has been proven and that evolution has insurmountable evidence is because all of the things I mentioned could only happen because of evolution. I don't see why you are so against evolution effecting populations when the evidence for it is insurmountable. If you want to go ask some experts in real life if I'm right, be my guest, because thats how I found out about those things. Even skin color is a basic adaption you should have learned about early on. Darker skin is better for resisting sun burns, however people migrating to Europe didn't need darker skin since there was annually less sunlight, so eventually European populations which then spread through the world develop lighter skin. If you still somehow think I'm completely bs, here's this http://www.wired.com...umans-evolving/ and this http://www.time.com/...1931757,00.html which also contradicts the title of this topic. Something that's evolved also doesn't necessarily have to be something superior than to something before, just different.

It's still a number that isn't existent in reality but still helps you find the results in it which also happens to be the nature of squared negative numbers. It's only mathematically that a circumference has infinitesimal length because a, I could theoretically just cut it into a straight line proving its finite length, or b, it contains only a specific number of atoms.

So although an electron isn't just a single point, as a wave it sort of acts like its turning and moving in specific ways? Because that really doesn't seem like how virtual particles act at all. Spin and angular momentum at this level seem more like an imaginary number, like Pi.

If you were in high school or probably even middle school, you should have learned about the Black Death, so you'll have to go back and ask some teachers Otherwise, wikipedia mentions that Inuits have raw meat in their diet http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Inuit_diet which could only happen as an entire people if they gene generationally developed an immunity to the germs in raw meat. Although I wasn't able to find a clear source on the internet since I'm mostly running into things like this http://www.elitefitn...kly-220438.html which still support my claim but only adequately, but otherwise I can safely say a doctor specializing in health told me herself that African people have a greater muscle advantage/density. Here's the tribe in mexico that runs a lot http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Tarahumara I don't know how you can peruse me on it this much, because even without me mentioning any of this, it should be quite clear that there are many different circumstances for the human race to adapt to and improve upon. I think it would be pretty nifty if people could work out a lot, then after not working for a month, have the same muscle capacity if they wanted without working out, but that's not the case, since your muscle's gradually degrade the less you use them, which is probably due to the fact that if your sitting in a chair most of your life, it would be inefficient to use up metabolism for strength you don't need, but I can still think of instances where this would be useful if there was some way you could control it.

Wait, if they froze the people, then the heat from traveling at such great speeds would thaw them in time?

Everything I've listed is proven, but the only way those specific adaptions could occur with such a large scale of people is by the process of natural selection, unless aliens have been secretly tampering with people's DNA throughout history. The people who survived the Black Plague had a natural immunity to it, so they went on to raise future generations, while the people without the immunity in that region died.

Parts of human society through natural selection can still develop immunities to different diseases, or better physical abilities, or better mental abilities, or develop more adaptive health capacities, etc. Don't say this is racist, because its not: Shortly before the Renaissance, Europeans who survived things such as the bubonic plague or black plague developed immunities to them. African people in the past had developed a greater muscle density while the groups of humans who split off to form all the other groups all over the world develop such as tribes in Mexico developed a greater capacity to run, such as for over 100 miles in a race, and they still exist today (the race is called a "century", and there are tribes in Mexico that still do it today), while late Europeans developed better swimming abilities. The Indians living in the Northern parts of Canada have developed a better way to survive in the cold, and some tribes there are even capable of eating raw meat with any damaging infections. I don't see how you can say evolution is coming to an end when there's so many things that could change and so many different environments and lifestyles on the Earth.

I still don't get why spin matters then if a particle in the atomic level acts nothing like we see in the classical level. Aren't they virtual particles there? How can they really even have angular momentum unless thats just another classical description that would make sense to describe its shape?

THe human race is not naturally operating on the most efficient scale to have the best chances of survival.

Do particles have angular momentum in the way that you can derive the shape of an electron using and angular momentum properties and some other properties in a 3D Cartesian grid? Like the shape of an electron is in sphere, so in a classical sense the electron is circularly traveling around the nucleus?

You think with all the problems in the world caused by humans that the human race doesn't need to change that much? The process of natural selection doesn't occur because we need it to or not. There will always be some genes that get mutated, and my guess is that some of them will survive for tens of generations even if they aren't completely necessary as some are right now.

It says at the high temperatures, gamma rays are emitted, but then why did the ultra-violate catastrohpy occur? Weren't objects only suppose to emit mostly UV or x-rays past a certain point from thermal energy?

No, I think your perception of anti-matter is highly obscured. Anti matter is not the complete reverse of normal matter in every way, its just material in which the nucleus of its atoms have a negative and neutral particles and the particles surrounding the nucleus have a positive charge. So in anti-matter, protons are negative, and electrons are positive, and that's it. Nothing else special about it.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1265211/electrons_ride_light_waves/ I can see one possibility of how I see the image I'm seeing, but I don't get how an electron "rides" a photon or even what that really means.

That's what I was thinking, but I don't know for sure. In a gamma ray, the position and wavelength seems to be more determined but the energy is less determined, while in radio waves, the position or wavelength seems to be less determined while the energy seems to be more determined. Forces and effect where the most probable places are located, but a description of a particle's probable places is different than the forces acting on it. An atom could be by Earth, which has a smallish gravity, but an electron will continue to have a distinct area of probability around an atom even if it was by the sun which has a much higher gravity. The reason the area of probability would change for something other than its position is because of energy. If an electron gains enough energy to become unbound to any particular atom, it will exist as a wave bound to no particular region, although I think there is some sort of shape or concentration like a wave packet like this or this and I think the peak is the most probable place to exist, or the wave crest.

The thing is though, although a particle's wave function extends indefinitely through space, the probability of finding particles that far away become unimaginably small. It's like considering the gravity of Pluto here on Earth. Gravity goes on indefinitely, but it just gets really meaningless and close to nothing after a certain point. But otherwise, a wave-function is mathematical, but its still derived from the observational fact that a particle can show up in places other than its most probable place, it's just unusual or less frequent, and the mathematical pattern that describes how it shows up in its most probable place also predicts it showing up in any place in the universe, but again, is very unlikely.

Well an electron has a specific mass, but that mass is a very precise small number. A proton has a very large mass compared to it, so its a more general number. Its sort of like accuracy in a sense. A smaller and smaller decimal of an irrational constant gives you a more accurate or more precise outcome when using it as a decimal, and a particle's wave function extends indefinitely through space, so in that analogy, a particle's existence like an irrational constant.

I've always been wondering why gamma rays always seem to act like particles, while radio waves which are also photons act more like waves than particles. So I'm wondering now if the reason is because of the uncertainty principle: The energy in a radio-wavelength photon is more precisely determined (or in general, just smaller) so its position is less determined, while in a gamma ray its energy is less precisely determined (or in general, larger) therefore its position is more precisely determined.