questionposter

The inverse square law exists because of the properties of spheres, and as virtual particles get emitted from a source, they spread out more according to the surface of a sphere which I guess makes sense because they are emitted from a sphere-like object. Classical distance apparently exists in QM.

Ok so what if the quark created doesn't annihilate with it's counterpart?

Despite how old these concepts are and may have been happening, we're still working out the kinks. I don't think there can be concrete generalizations for all life forms except for maybe the few that separate a living thing from an abiotic thing.

I know your aware of those things, but other people aren't.

But then that's two quarks, and since those quarks attract other quarks, they have to take one from an another quark system or, form a bigger proton, or...what?

No, your giving the wrong impression, don't say "we were" or "we are", that's a large part of where the misunderstanding comes from. Humans were never anything other than humans, and any species isn't anything other that the specific species that it is. What happens is one species gives birth to a slightly mutated member, and the genes in that member might make it better for surviving, which would make that particular member survive more which means it has a greater chance to pass that mutation on, and then that mutation might mutate into something slightly different again and become successful and etc. These mutations are usually very gradual in survival as most mutations are harmful or don't do much, a monkey would never actually just give birth to a human, and a fish would never just give birth to an amphibian, that's just too big of a change to even have a chance of happening.

Gluons aren't suppose to have mass, but other than that, I don't care if I get other quarks, I just want 1 isolated quark one way or another. Isn't the conventional process enough to do that? Also how does gluon radius get effected in systems with different types of quarks like more or less massive ones?

I think those lines are caused by the fact that virtual photons spread out over distances and are in stronger concentration at the sources and become weaker as they go out, the lines don't represent the virtual particle's themselves, but how the attraction between the forces gets weaker or stronger at different distances.

Basically, humans didn't come from monkeys, they came from a species slightly similar, and as you go down the line of common ancestry, the ancestors of humans become more and more similar to "monkeys" unless you reach a species that actually did mutate from the said monkey species. Its a very slow built on slight random changes.

Well I mean there's no way to actually measure gluons in any way, all we actually know is that quarks like to stay close together, and if gluon force didn't diminish over distance, why aren't all quarks bound in one massive atom? The gluons should be affecting other quarks as well. Also, I don't care if the process creates other quarks, I just want 1 isolated quark, lets say I want an isolated quark and I don't care what the byproducts are: Don't I have a single quark after enough energy even if there are other quarks that are created? If quarks are created one at a time but adding energy, then why not use that?

If we knew that neutrinos had an anti-matter counterpart, we'd know for certain they couldn't be their own anti-particle, just like how we know an electron isn't its own counterpart because we discovered the positron.

Isn't that just a theoretical guess at how gluons act though? Plus, don't gluons exchange only at the speed of light? Couldn't you move quarks away with enough energy for not enough gluons traveling away from a quark to hit another quark and travel back in time? Also, so what if other quarks are created, I don't care, I just want 1 isolated quark, and if you need to create other quarks that are bound for that to happen then fine.

I think I understand "selfish gene theory" and I definitely understand evolution in general, but what about when people are willing to give up their life because they know it will save other people or even for concepts like the truth or liberty, even if they won't really be recognized? And what about free-will? Can't you do things because you freely want to and not because of a mechanism? Sure, a mechanism can cause the release of a chemical which has a bunch of complex stuff going on and causes a feeling of compulsion to do something, but despite all that work, you can just ignore it and do whatever some entity that is your consciousness wants to do.

You can isolate other charged particles, why not quarks? Can it theoretically be done but we just don't have enough energy? Also, why would any particle not be able to be isolated? Aren't gluons or muons inseparable? Is it the same principal?

What, how do you get this idea from the simply notion that basically particles with mass can't occupy the same space simultaneously? That effect can even be observed in the macroscopic realm.

Wait, we don't know of anti-neutrinos yet? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-neutrino Why does a science forum use wikipedia as a reference anyway?

Isn't it just the particle itself waving? I mean it's waving like a fluid and then our perception of it get's truncated to observe only a point. An electron doesn't have a probability of being in multiple places at once, it is multiple places at once, and that's because it's wave math is basically like dropping a pebble in the water, only the waves don't die out because they don't go anywhere.

They are waves because of some very complex property of the fabric of space that makes matter and energy behave in a way that follows concise mathematical motions.

Ok, that's what I thought, that's why I put in the topic post ITSELF that I had my doubts about that being true. But I still have to think what it meant instead of that then.

If you knew anything about quantum mechanics you'd know being drunk wouldn't change your perception of it.

I guess I get why the calculator said it, but I don't get what a singularity is in geometry. Why is that a manifold failing? Is a string not suppose to fold in on itself with only two dimensions? What about waves?

Well, you can raise something to the power of the square root of two, why not of negative 1?

Well, you can raise something to the power of the square root of two, why not negative 1?

I tried doing just the absolute value of i by itself on a calculator and I got "one", so wouldn't that mean "i" has a value of 1 or negative one, and not the square root of negative 1? And then I even did the square root of i by itself and got ".7071067812+.70..." What's going on here?

Even if we keep finding the smallest thing, we will just keep asking "well what causes THAT to do what it does?", and the answer will just lead into an infinite amount of questions. Even if things are deterministic on any level, there are infinite levels of determinism, which means no matter what things can't be completely determined, there's always some other smaller or larger level trying to determine things which in turn affect other levels to affect it.