steevey

So the electron more or less averages out to a single orbital that it can share between both atoms? What does the electron configuration look like with such a thing?

So say I have an electron from carbon sharing a bond with Hydrogen. The electron from the carbon atom has enough energy to exist in the second energy level, so what happens to the energy when it fills the shell of the first energy level of the hydrogen atom? How does the cycle continue? Shouldn't the electron lose energy when it goes to the hydrogen atom's first energy state?

Ok, when do photons ever collide to form electrons? That makes no sense. Why wouldn't they form protons or neutrons ever if that's true? ! Moderator Note This has been moved from the pair-instability supernova thread

As far as I'm concerned, if I get really focused on those "patches" and sort of shut out other things, I can see things that look like very clear defined but changing shapes. I even remember meditating and was focusing very hard on it, and I saw like some dragon flying into the rocks or something like that from those "patches" which lasted for a few seconds. Does he say how long the images last for? I don't know exactly what you mean by real pictures though, and I don't know if you know either, so this is the best I can describe it as. Otherwise there's a very very very small chance that the chemicals responsible for his dream state are occurring during other times. I think there's even a drug you can take composed of those same chemicals and it causes you to go into a dream-like state while your still awake. Maybe its somewhere in between where you'd focus so much on those "patches" you sort of lose track of the world around you for a brief moment and focus mainly on the images you make up. But it really seems over exaggerated. I'm sure the way I described it is something close to what it actually is.

Well, if the Earth had a perfect distribution of mass, the region would be any place past the center of the Earth on the other end if a rock had been falling down one end, because once the rock got past the center of the Earth the first time, there would then be more gravity behind it then in front of it. And although there isn't a perfect distribution of mass, I think it's at least roughly equal all the way around since things such as water and air want to diffuse and deeper layers of rock and mantel also diffuse but also position themselves according to density.

Well, in mathematics, there are decimals which go on forever such as e or Pi. But, I don't think those describe the physical appearances in reality. I never walk infinitely close to a mile; I either don't walk a mile or I do walk a mile. But otherwise theoretically in quantum mechanics, time moves along increments of Planck time, which also doesn't make sense to me because Planck length (which is what Planck time is derived from) only describes the movement of a single particle, a proton, at the singular speed of c. There are things which are predicted to be smaller than a Planck length and we don't even know with 100% certainty that light is the limit of speed in the universe.

If I had a perfectly straight tube running from the North pole of the Earth to the south pole and dropped a rock in it, would the rock fall to the other side or would ir stay in the center or the Earth? I guess it would depend on if the harmonic oscillator is over-damped, but I don't know for sure.

No, it wasn't that. I specifically heard something about the big bang where someone calculated something happening in 10^-43 seconds, and I'm pretty sure it was either the formation of heavy particles or one of the forces separating.

So I heard that when you shine light like a laser through a narrow vertical slit, it appears as a dot. But, when that slit becomes very narrow, the light passing through starts to spread horizontally, and the reason for that is because your more precisely confining the area or measuring the area and therefore the less precisely the direction of the light is determined. But, for some reason, that doesn't seem to make sense. Why wouldn't the light then spread vertically AND horizontally if the direction is becoming less determined? It just seems like there's some conventional or classical way to explain this. Is there?

But the the way to prove something is with proof, so it doesn't matter if there might be some hidden math somewhere in the universe to describe something, it isn't relevant unless we know for a fact that its there. Since math can't completely describe any physical object, it can't be the only thing that the universe is comprised of. But, that still doesn't prove that logic itself in all its variations can't completely describe the universe.

Ugh, mathematics itself is the patterns and systems of logic that you derive from nature itself, thats why its useful. We made up math to fit things we see around us and to more easily find patterns and predict them. The universe is something else though. It's its own thing. Mathematics is what humans made up in order to make patterns and logic out of observed data. It's not to say that everything in the universe was logical. I don't care if anyone agrees. It tastes good to me. I don't care about some pole, taste isn't quantified to me. I don't care how it tastes to other people, it taste to me however it tastes to me. There's nothing about an opinion that requires a poll or any confirmation, thats why its an opinion. Doesn't matter if its logical for you to feel some way you do, you still feel that way.

Can't you collide particles like two protons so that some of the particles that make it up get converted into energy?

It doesn't describe the universe alone though. The equations would be meaningless without outside information which isn't mathematics. I could right 1+1=2. SO, what in the universe is that describing? You don't know because you don't have non math information. The poll is still just a label. In real life, how something tastes good to you is just how something tastes good to you. Doesn't matter if other people agree on it, nothing about the fact that you like ice cream changes or is derived.

Haven't scientists measured like 10^-43 seconds after the big bang? They measured something around that timeframe, or at least claimed somethign to have happened in that time frame like one of the four forces separating.

If I had to vote I would have to vote for both since experiments in the hadron collider and the learning more about the fusing of particles would help us better understand how they act and what they are made of. Or, particle physics might tell us more about how particles fuse. In either case, they are both beneficial to each other.

Time isn't an actual force, just a periodic measurement with equidistant intervals, so I guess you could say it startled when someone started counting it.

There not "inequalities" or math of any kind. They just are what they are, and then the term "inequalities" is just our label for a particular type of situation or pattern. You forget that the universe was here before the invention of math, and thus the universe has to work in some way without math in the present. It maybe so that quantized values of energy and momentum (and etc.) exists, but never in reality are two apples going "1+1=2". All that's going on is one apple is getting closer to another. They aren't fusing into a larger apple with twice the mass or anything like that. Even in quantum mechanics, you have 1 particle plus 1 particle=1 particle (entanglement), which defies the logic of mathematics. Sure, you could develop an equation to more accurately describe it, but that equation doesn't mean anything unless you have information from outside that equation on what its describing or what's going on. There's also the fact that theres a preference and an opinion, which can't be proven or disproven with math. "I think this ice cream tastes good". Where's the math in that? How are you going to tell me I'm wrong or even right?

Except by the time you observe the photon for the electron of that particular spot, the electron has already gone to a different place. The position of an electron even in a free state has randomness too. You can't even predict where it would be next even if you could somehow manage to find the exact position. What you can do though, is find the most probable places for an electron to show up.

Actually, its called a "wave-particle" of which the term for is "wave particle duality". Not only that, but an electron is never actually just a particle. Even when its determined, it still carries some aspects of being a wave.

Ok, its scientifically proven that you cannot know the position of an electron in a determined state at any given moment. Are you arguing against that?

It's not a dream. He's seeing the cells and veins in his eyelids and eye fluids and he's imagining the shapes. Even I do it once in a while when I'm getting to sleep. It's not a condition, its just focusing on what your eyes see even when your eyelids are over them and then sort of making up shapes you see from them. It's a lot like looking at the sky with amorphous clouds and still imagining specific shapes like lions or faces.

So are you then saying THAT the position is determined and not that the actual position is known? Because even in a determined state, an electron still is a wave, but we only carries the information of a single particle upon our observation, which would make more sense for a photon to hit it at a specific location yet not have that location known...except... Swan, if an electron is free and not bound to any particular atom, does it travel along a completely determined path? Is the state of the electron no longer a region where the electron acts as a virtual particle, but rather an actual particle with only one specific point to be in, in a linear movement?

All I'm doing is pointing out things that don't seem to make sense, like this How does the act of simply shooting a photon at an electron determine either of them before before you observe them? You wouldn't know where the photon has been or even where the electron is until after the photon hits your retina so I don't see why a photon hitting an electron anywhere in the universe determines it. I think that maybe your applying classical physics to quantum mechanics, because in the classical world, if a photon hits an electron, there's only one possible place the photon could have hit and both of those particles would be defined classical particles. But, even at that stage, there's no way to determine the exact position of either of them at any point in time. You could figure out the energy level of the electron and probably of the light if you knew the material it was made up of and you analyzed the light afterwords, but that still doesn't tell you the position.

All I'm doing is pointing out things that don't seem to make sense, like this How does the act of simply shooting a photon at an electron determine either of them before before you observe them? I don't remember that anywhere. You wouldn't know where the photon has been or even where the electron his until after the photon hits your retina.

c is constant. c is always c. Quantum tunneling or at least entanglement doesn't require distance e.i. the properties become instantaneously detirmined for ane another regardless of the distance, which is different from shooting photons at higher speeds that you are suggesting.