steevey

That barely has anything do do with the answer to what I'm asking. I'm asking for a classical and mathematical way to describe how electrons act as waves in plasma.

But how much longer? And while its still being observed? That can't be right...

But as a single point, an electron can exist in a specific location for a brief period of time, which constitutes for being a virtual particle. With superposition though, an electron is is still a wave after you observe it, however you just can't see its properties as a wave. So, theoretically if the time is brief enough, probably around Planck time, the electron can occupy two single points at the same time.

Alternate planes of existence are already predicted by certain aspects of quantum mechanics, but branching universes aren't how quantum mechanics work exactly. Instead, its more of different positions of the same matter. In one "universe", we see matter occupying a specific position. In another universe, that matter occupies another specific position because the matter's existence cannot overlap itself by existing as two different states in the same place. So, what happens is, however matter specifically is in this universe, it can't specifically be that in another universe. The branching universes theory has been remodeled from its pages and pages long equation to fit quantum mechanics itself more exactly, but even at that point, it seems more like the equation is saying every event is flipping a coin with your perception, which I don't think probability in quantum mechanics can be interpreted in the classical world.

When you look at electrons as standing waves, they are waves of existence itself. However, an electron being this weird wave of existence seems to pop in an out of existence at seemingly random positions (also called virtual particles), travel along multiple paths at a time, and if the time is brief enough, occupy two different point positions at a time. When you say "orbits", such as a distance of .529x10^-10 meters from the nucleus (also known as the ground state or lowest energy orbital), you're simply describing the most probable location for an electron to be observed as a single coordinate (where in the frequency of a wave function, it's equal to the polar coordinates of where the wave crest is maximum OR minimum since mathematically your using absolute value). The actual places an electron can show up are anywhere in the universe, or another way of putting it is that an electron's wave function extends indefinitely through space, however, electrons spend most of the time in the most probably places since as you get even a little bit further from their most probably location, the probability of finding that electron there is pretty close to nothing. This is also why the quantum world seems so different from the classical world. The highest probability for a ground state electron to show up is a sphere with just a diameter of .529x10^-10 meters, so its not that the classical world is different, its that the probability for an electron in around in atom in say, a pencil, to appear even one millimeter away from the surface of a pencil is closer to nothing than you could possibly imagine. There there is a chance a pencil could suddenly teleporrt a few feet, but the probability of even one electron in an atom of that pencil doing that is at least 1 in 10^1000 chance of that happening, which is a pretty unimaginably small percentage. There's an equation that could probably tell me more accurately what its probability would be, but I don't remember it.

Mathematically alternate "universes" exist, but that's if you apply the wave function to when the universe was a singular point, which means any other plane of probable existence would be out of our view because of the property of the wave function that all probable states collapse into a single state when observed. If alternate planes of existence exist, there would be no way of being able to perceive them in any way according to modern physics. But, also seems like a conservation-of-matter-like thing, since if it's applied to the singularity universe, that means all of the same matter is in every most probable state, so if in this "universe" we see matter in a specific position or state, then in another "universe, it would have to occupy a different probable state or position.

Well early on a lot of matter got used up for a bunch of systems smaller than "super-massive galaxies", and as the universe progressed and age, these developing galaxies began to move farther and farther apart, so it become harder and harder for matter to gather in a small region of space. Galaxies can collide, but in the process, much matter is thrown outward and away from the galaxies. This is only if your talking about a singular galaxy however. In the universe, there are "Galactic Super-clusters" which are sections of the universe categorized by the large number of galaxies within them. In fact, we're in the Virgo super-cluster right now.

So we know how to calculate the most probable places for electrons to show up as points if they have pound orbitals, but what if the electrons have a more amorphous movement such as in plasma?

What about molten iron then? It would have a weak magnetic field, but I bet if the temperature was low enough, it could have some type of structure to sustain it as a liquid.

ok, the name "D H" is on the list of forum moderators here http://www.sciencefo...tats&do=leaders Unless by forum moderators do you actually mean "residential experts"? And also, when did I ever ask about a spectrometer? Is it from a different topic? I remember saying something about analyzing the light from stars somewhere, but certainly not in this topic.

What tends to happen with metals, especially transition metals is that when the electrons are given enough of a type of energy, they are released from their current bonds, but cannot escape the totality of the copper as to form a plasma, so what an electron does is try to go to the next atom, or whatever atoms is closest. The reason an electrical "current" forms is because as soon as that atom loses an electron, it wants one back, so when you have all the atoms losing electrons while the electrons aren't completely free, it allows the electrons to be carried along the wire. But, if the wire runs into something where there can no longer be a current, the electrons can't go go forward, which means the electrons behind it also can't, which means no more atoms are losing electrons. And the reason electricity travels so efficiently though metals is because in metals, the electrons are more aligned with each other and close to each other, much like in the picture, where as in something like sulfur, the atomic structures are more complex and over the place, and is less dense.

Ok, here's how enzymes work. They have a special shape and special chemical properties for two or more chemicals. Normally when you mix two reactants together, on a molecular level its random if the molecules come into contact with each other to bond. What an enzyme does is take both of those reactants and combines them for you. Enzymes just speeds the process of the reactants forming new chemicals, more like this. Then, after the chemicals are bonded, they are no longer attached the to enzyme, so the enzyme can now bond two more.

Wait, you think that nature is reasonable or that nature being beautiful is reasonable?

But do you see what I'm getting at? You can come up with any explanation for how anything works using math since we don't know everything. We know that E=mc^2, but we don't know all the details as to why, so that's where all these other ideas come form, which still claim to have the evidence from the fact that E=mc^2. He/she's a moderator, he/she's not on probation anymore...but, it's the only way most people can think for a forum to work properly.

So just because someone is religious means they can't contribute to science? During the time periods of the crusades, Muslims were the ones who greatly increased our understanding of math, astronomy, anatomy, geometry, (etc) because Muslims don't see science as being a violation their faith. And before the Muslims, it was the Greeks in Romans who were polytheist throughout most of history who also came up with many inventions, a lot of which were from Archimedes which either are still used or were recently used with breakthroughs of simple machines. Even in the Christian culture, new inventions were being developed, so just because the person has faith in something in no way impairs their ability for scientific understanding. Do you want another link that states the same thing but isn't religious? Here you go: http://skyserver.sds...basic/universe/ (second paragraph under "The Expanding Universe") I know real astronomers in the Washburn observatory who uses the big telescope to look at the universe, who have religion, but the religion DOESN'T interfere with their work in any way. If you were at least in High-school you should have at least known a bare minimum that not every single thing was invented by atheist Americans in the 20th and 21st century. Even the concept of zero was invented by a Hindu in India. Did you even read what I said? I never said we know how the universe began or anything like that, I said that scientists have determined is must have originated from a single point. Space is moving expanding so all the galaxies are moving away from each other which the exception of some interactions caused by gravity. All the information such as how hot the universe was after the big bang and the concentrations of matter are either inference or based on the cosmic background radiation, which can't tell us everything. This contradicts with what you said in the previous quotation. All you do is look up wikipedia articles and you suddenly think your a genius, stop wasting my time.

Except then, you can come up with any sort of crazy theory to describe something and just make up equations for it, which is how things like string theory and particles which aren't even proven to exist are assumed to exist. Well I'm claiming that the gravity on Earth is 20 times as high as you think it is, so here's my equation for gravity on Earth: 196m/s^2. Or I could say that energy isn't equal to matter and that it's just that there's yet another force which matter gets converted into and the energy comes from super-subatomic potatoes which release more energy the more they are forced together which is why in particle colliders when particles are smashed together they release large amounts of energy.

Yes, Ferro Fluid is magnetic and responds to magnetic fields. Otherwise in planets like Jupiter, you have liquid metallic hydrogen, which is a liquid and for some reason is highly magnetic and is one of the reasons Jupiter has such a powerful magnetic field. http://www.youtube.c...h?v=me5Zzm2TXh4 http://www.youtube.c...h?v=zpBxCnHU8Ao

Won't let me delete it

Although relativity can be described as a bending of the fabric of space time, that doesn't necessarily mean there is a fabric of time. The reason the fabric of space time appears to bend as a 2D plane is because the Gauge Boson for gravity has no mass, which means it travels indefinitely, which being energy, can also effect light without changing it, but also gravity gets weaker by the square of the distance. In mathematics, on a graph, using a square of a variable is usually two dimensional or forming a square, so the reason the "fabric" bends as a 2D fabric type of fashion is because gravity mathematically 2D, but is 2D in every direction since Gauge Bosons are given off in a spherical manner.

Well there has to be A LOT of matter then to be spread out over 12 light days and still have enough friction to heat up all the way into the gamma-spectrum. Because although it isn't a direct relationship, the friction comes from the fact that there's a large amount of matter being forced into a small space.

http://www.albalagh...._universe.shtml I don't know why your getting all theoretical on me because any theory you have or link you have to how the universe began or what it was like that that time is just speculation too. As the article states, the universe can be mathematically traced back to a single point of zero volume and infinite density. Subsequently at that same point in time, all the forces, the Strong Force, Weak Force, Gravitational Force, and Electro-magnetic force could only be united through that explanation.

While it may not have been an explosion, at one point in time, it's been determined that the universe was a single point of existence before the big bang, where all the forces were united. Because if I do use the equation (x^2+y^2+z^2+t^2) (probably with some modifications since the universe has been expanding differently throughout time), I can get to 0 with all the coordinates, even before a Planck time and Planck distance.

You can sort of base its mass based on how bright it is, but a very important key factor that you wanted to leave out is its binary partner. If scientists can figure out the time it takes for those two things to orbit each-other at what distance, you scientists can figure out its mass that way too. But, from brightness, your mostly making an assumption about its mass because it could just be that the bright object is a dimmer object but just a lot closer. The reason you didn't find it on the internet is probably because the energy output of the friction in gas from the quaser isn't in a direct relationship to the mass, but rather the speed and temperature of the gas.

No, I'm just suggesting that to the rest if the world, if you cloned someone and no one else knew about, it would be as if that person would be living on forever. And if some people did know about it, it still might be considered living to them, since it may not be the same exact person but it's still all the same DNA. The same DNA and body would still be in functioning form.

Spiritually though, the person would still be living on which is how some people thought it was possible to live forever, which is why I made the point earlier to say "completely materialistic" for the other process.