steevey

It doesn't matter if there are other "dimensions" or "possible worlds" because those are all just different forms of the same one universe and/or superpositions of matter. Even in that membrane theory, there is a totality of membranes that exist which is how different membranes could bump into each other.

What your husband sees is in fact something everyone sees when they close their eyes whether they notice it or not. Basically, its just the cells in your eyes as well as some very small veins in your eyes. If you focus on it, you can see a lot of detail of it, but because you generally move your eyes very slightly, the images change constantly which might be why its hard for you to focus on it. If you don't focus on it though, then you won't really notice it. If you look at a bright object and then close your eyes, can you see a blotch of the bright object? You should be able to, and that's sort of what happens with your eyes when you close them whenever.

Perhaps because light only comes from particles which carry charges? Even a neutron is a composite of charges since its made of quarks which have color charge.

Because you can't miss what you never had. Here's the situation we have: Measuring/observing determines a particle. But also, NOT measuring/observing a particle determines a particle. No particles would EVER be a wave state if both those statements were true, and its scientific consensus that when a particle is observed, that a particle becomes determined, not when its NOT observed.

Well I'm not just asking for lemur too. I specifically don't remember exactly how it works so I want to know how it works. If it turns out I described it right, then good for me, I don't need to figure out anything else.

Your saying that the act of a particle not being observed is a form of determining it, but that doesn't make sense because you can't know you didn't observe it anyway. Also if it worked that way, then there should be no waves at all, since everyone is constantly having a photon "not go their way" and thus determining particles according to you.

The "from nothing at all thing" is also whats described as the wave function of the singularity universe. But, there is a totality of everything. No matter where matter exists and how, by definition, the universe is EVERYTHING. Doesn't matter if there's another dimension, its part of the universe. Doesn't matter if there's a worm hole, its part of the universe. Doesn't matter if theres some other place with a bunch of matter and energy like that in out visible space, its still the universe. It doesn't matter if multiple permissibility of matter are existing in determined forms, its still part of THE universe. It's impossible to have multiple everything's.

But if things are determined by not seeing them, how did the electron act as a wave in the double slit experiment? Wouldn't it just be deitirmined in that the scientists specifically weren't observing the electrons?

But that would be suggesting that before the photon hit your retina which carried information, the properties were determined by measurement. But, light doesn't travel at infinite speed, so how can that be right?

So I take it there wasn't any flaws in what I was saying?

Citric also is also what helps make your skin. Keeps stuff out, helps build other compounds, etc. Unless, am I thinking of vitamin C?

There's no other "verse" though, it would just be another place where there's a large quantity of matter and energy.

A particle is essentially a wave with determined properties and positions. What happens is when we observe an electron in a wave stat is for some reason the properties become determined (which determines the position), and that appears to be a particle. When you have just the wave state, the properties such as angular momentum aren't determined so the electron can occupy multiple places. It's sort of weird that way, but if things aren't determined, multiple possibilities exist simultaneously. I can make a lose analogy to flipping a coin. You toss a coin in the air and whatever face becomes facing the ground after the coin's landed can't be the surface facing up. But, when the coin is in the air, you don't know what face is facing the ground. The face thats facing the ground is changing constantly, so the outcome is not yet determined, or you don't know what it is. And, in this motion either of both sides of the coin are at some point in time facing the ground. This sorta does make it seem like a cycle, but its not. The actual wave of a particle isn't the exact same thing as a coin flip.

Well, sometimes bonds don't need any extra energy from fire or light. Room temperature might be good enough for them. Generally, an "electron" emits a photon when it travels to a *lower* energy state from a higher one, or when it is accelerated. Otherwise, I don't know for sure. I think the reason that in something like a covalent bond why an electron wouldn't be emitting light is either because its not changing energy levels like with multiple atoms of the same element like carbon, or that maybe the electron actually IS gaining and losing energy when it switches off from one atom to another. You should probably ask swan or some other expert. The energy of an electron at least according to my understanding doesn't decrease *until* the electron jumps down to a lower energy state. I'm guessing that if an outside force isn't strong enough, an electron can as you say gets "reeled in" to a lower energy state after it receives a proton, thus emitting an photon. But like I said before, you should probably check with some expert, because I can't remember exactly how it works. Also, I said fluorine becomes "positively ionized" even though what I meant to type was "negatively ionized"

The specific genes that make a Neanderthal a Neanderthal I don't think exist anymore, but the genetic difference between a Neanderthal and the homo sapiens we see today is a difference of only .01%. I guess if you wanted to use that, then you could even say the DNA that flourished in the first organisms on Earth is also flourishing in us.

When Fluorine gains a single electron it becomes both stable and negatively ionized. The reason energy comes into play is I guess because if you didn't have that extra energy, there wouldn't be enough electro-magnetic force generated by an opposing atom without it to cause the electrons to want to bond. Like, if I have oxygen and carbon, they both want electrons from each other, but their nuclei are so powerful that the attraction of either nuclei cannot overcome the other. But, when I shoot a photon at an electron in the highest energy state, the electron then has enough energy to "leap further" from its parent nucleus so that the charge of the parent nucleus isn't as strong at that greater distance, which leaves room for the other atom to also be attracted to it, but not steal it since the parent nuclei is still fairly attractive, forming a covalent bond. Actually, I might be thinking of how water works, but I know many compounds work this way. In other words, with energy, electrons can break "more free" from their parent nucleus since the electromagnetic force gets weaker by the square of the distance. Adding energy to a bound electron increases its distance from the nucleus, thus weakening the effect the electro-magnetic force that the parent particle has on it. That's why outer electrons in heavy elements such as uranium can be put into another bond more easily than something such as oxygen, however, as a consequence of that property, the bond itself wouldn't store as much energy which is why organisms typically don't have enzymes and chemicals containing metals with high atomic numbers.

Ok, if you have an element such as Fluorine, its missing 1 electron in its outer shell to be completely stable (or to have 8 electrons in an outer shell). However, because of the properties of matter, an un-ionized atom of fluorine STILL only has as many protons as there are electrons even though theres an outer electron missing to make the element stable. So, when fluorine DOES gain an electron and gets its outer shell filled, it then has more electrons than protons, making it a negative ion.

There can't be "another universe". The universe is everything that exists, so if there's another large quantity of matter somewhere, that's still part of the singular universe. Also its not a black hole thats predicted to be before the big bang, its a region of space with 0 volume and therefore infinite density that's predicted to be there. Also before the big bang, there shouldn't have been any matter or energy to create a black hole.

The opposite. When an atom GAINS an electron, then there are more electrons than protons, giving the atom a negative charge since electrons have a negative charge. Alternatively, if an atom lost an electron, there would be more protons than electrons, giving the atom a positive charge. Say I have Sodium. Now, I take that sodium and combine it with chlorine. The sodium atom has lost an electron to the chlorine, so now the sodium atom has more protons (from the nucleus) than electrons, while the chlorine gained an electron making it positive and then forming salt since opposite charges attract.

Or the information for every event is still there and thus the only way to travel back would be to re-arrange all matter and energy in the universe to an exact previous state it once was.

Wait how is light deterministic? We don't even know which direction it will get emitted in... If a photon hits an electron, they still hit each other as waves. The electron absorbs and jumps to a new state and probable location change. When the electron jumps back down, it re-emits the photon once again as a wave. That doesn't ell us anything about determining the position of either the photon or the electron.

Well I forgot what momentum and work specifically mean. I think work is something like how much force over what distance, but since the photon would never stops traveling distance, its infinite/pure something. And momentum is something like the mass times the speed.

I might have to disagree since if you just reason something out you can come up with an equally valid solution. If I want to...find the area of an annulus, thats like PiR^2-Pir^2, but in reasoning, I could say thats "Big circle minus the little circle". The universe doesn't even work like that mathematically, there's nothing about the universe saying theres a radius and pi, its that some atoms got moved away from an object, and then math based on that observation allows us to describe it much faster without working it out other ways. All the physics to describe something are there, but since we don't know all of them, we use the logical system of mathematics to take a shortcut. This is even true for simple math. Never in reality are two apples going "1+1=2". It just happens to be that one apple is getting close to other apple. They never count as the same system. You could even try it for yourself. What happens when you bring two apples close together? Do they fuse to make one apple with twice as much material as either of the individual apples? Nope, the electro-magnetic force doesn't even allow the surface of the apples to actually make contact, only seem like it on a large scale. Not only that, both the apples have different masses anyway.

Well for life on land anyway, ozone is usually required. There's no way we'd survive a total lack of ozone if we were outside in the summer. Plants would burn up, and without plants, even the bugs that could maybe possibly survive that would die due to ecosystem collapse. There's also fossil evidence for this since there was no life on land until the ozone was around 15% its current level. This is why bugs have a high resistance to UV light. They were around to adapt to when the ozone was much less than it is now. Its true life could exist in the sea without ozone, but not on land. However, the ozone molecule is usually mildly poisonous, but not the actual 02, just the 03 itself. I'm sure if it was more prevalent that some life could adapted to it anyway.

Because its essentially the same thing as a rechargeable battery. You eat some food, some energy restores the bond on the end of the ADP to make a ATP, and then whenever a microscopic cell needs some energy, it just breaks off an end of ATP which turns it to ADP where the cycle continues. There are other things that can do this, but in some ways they are inefficient for cells to use. ATP is made up of all sorts of elements abundant on the surface of the Earth so its only natural that the one of the most efficient cycles would be from those. Other chemicals can give off energy when a bond is broken too, but the bond often can't be restored just by adding energy since usually the "end" is then bonded to something else which you'd need a LOT of energy to get from. Take the air you breath for example. You get energy from the oxygen, however, when you have carbon dioxide, you need a large concentration of energy or a VERY large amount of more spread out energy separate the O2 and the C from each other. Plants can do this easily because they've evolved to use medium wavelength photons from the sun which carry enough energy in a concentrated region to fuel chemical reactions that might otherwise take as much as a small flame to fuel, which obviously wouldn't be very efficient and would be hard to work around if you had to use fire.