questionposter

Probably because you can't really measure a single atom. Maybe with super advanced instruments that were developed really recently you can, but the energy change of 1 atom is kind of hard to measure.

So light's frequency is relative, so does that mean light is both most likely to exist in a certain area and also NOT likely to exist in the same area? How can the physical space light occupies be relative? Because to one thing light can be a gamma ray and to another thing it can be a radio wave, but those two wavelengths have different localization patterns. So just because I measure something, it automatically determines the physical space that it exists in for my point of view?

Well, I guess we can't answer "why" to a great extent but there are experiments that prove it. The best bet is that light follows the curves in the fabric of space too. Why this happens isn't answered right now.

I guess I know they have different 1 or the other, but I don't know how exactly.

String are suppose to be 1 dimensional oscillating strands of energy. As far as scientists have come up with, there are only 5 types of them, and some can extend to different sizes, even to the size of the universe. The reason there aren't millions of elements is because of how sub-atomic particles add up as you increase the amount of them in a specific area. If you have too big of a nucleus, the strong force can't hold it together, it just takes too much energy to do so and the nuclei are too big.

String are suppose to be 1 dimensional oscillating strands of energy. As far as scientists have come up with, there are only 5 types of them, and some can extend to different sizes, even to the size of the universe. The reason there aren't millions of elements is because of how sub-atomic particles add up as you increase the amount of them in a specific area. If you have too big of a nucleus, the strong force can't hold it together, it just takes too much energy to do so and the nuclei are too big.

Light is not matter, it has no mass, it's primary composition is just energy, and energy is another form of matter and vice versa. Both are effected by the fabric of space and they both effect the fabric of space. Light can't escape from a black hole simply because the gravity of a black hole is too powerful, it creates a gravitational well so steep not even light has enough speed to escape it. As far as scientists can tell, nothing comes back from the event horizon except perhaps whatever the result is of black hole evaporation. Once light passes the event horizon, it doesn't come out. Black holes don't emit optical photons, so they are the color of black.

So the amount of energy needed to go the the next energy level lessens as you travel further away from the nucleus? Does it lesson the same for each nucleus? I don't get how these more energetic photons come about then, because aren't those photons suppose to be the result of high energy electrons accepting a photon then going back? And also, how can cell-phones pick up such low energy radio-waves then if atoms can't generate that low energy of a photon? Would a denser or heavier element be able to pick up radio waves and a lighter element wouldn't?

I don't know how to google that is specific enough, but do you happen to know that/those gene(s) I'm talking about where scientist manipulated them in worms to make them live twice or half as long? It's just that it comes up more than once and I haven't been able to give even the name.

Yeah, I thought that would happen, but then again, maybe there's some way to use entanglement... And Cap, it basically only uses basic symbols and parenthesis along with "sin" and probably a few other things, but it's weird because there are more advanced instruments on the program where all I do is turn a knob and a sine wave turns into some perfect square wave, and there's even an oscillatometer that supposedly reads perfect square waves when I play a pre-made square wave sound.

Wait, so, shouldn't the weakest light possible for matter to generate be by the ground state of an atom of normal matter? Because there was one link you gave me which somehow mixed the bhor model and cloud model together and it stated that the electrons on heavier nuclei were closer to the nucleus than that of hydrogen, but I asked a chemist I know and they said that it's not correct, and that the problem comes from measuring negative joules. I don't get how we have radio waves and only have few things to pick them up while everything else cant if every atom's electron energy levels are the same distance from any nucleus.

That's weird that I wasn't able to find that stuff, but wait, how does a muon decay if it's not composed of smaller particles? But otherwise those other properties make sense, I'd imagined that a more massive electron would be closer to the nucleus, but what about both normal electrons and muons in the same system at once? I know, but, how does the whole "changing neutrino" thing work then?

And on the opposite end, What about water bears? They can indefinitely survive without water, have scientists found what makes them tic? Because I think if its discovered why waterbears can remain indefinitely dormant that it can answer other questions about how other life forms deal with water.

If you naturally wouldn't do anything that someone else tells you to do no matter what, what could someone suggest to you to make you do something?

I read a few articles, and I already know how fractals themselves work, but I don't get how I'd write a formula for them or make them on paper. Basically all I know about them mathematically is that in a Julia set it just repeats a function over and over again, and a Mandelbrot set uses imaginary numbers, and the initial points don't escape to infinity.

Ya'know, those tau and mau and etc types of particles. I guess I know what happens when 3 different generations of neutrinos mix, but idk about these other scenarios. Have scientists tried bombarding one generation of electrons with the next generation to see what the difference is?

Well you know how you go around a unit circle and you get all these coordinates like sqrt(3)/2, 1/2 and etc? Well what about doing that with a trapezoid or equilateral triangle? That's cool, but that's not exactly what I'm talking about. I'm talking about substituting the circle in a unit circle for another shape.

Wait a minute....Douglas Adams?

Well I guess the description makes sense, but the formula controller doesn't read a summation or limit symbols, I don't know how else to write it, I can't type infinitely and the program doesn't have infinite space.

What happens if you have heavy electrons in a normal atom, or heavy neutrons n a nucleus, or different electrons in the same relative location?

It's not all pop science though, that's why I think it's correct, as well as the fact it's a very rare exception. And with compromising I'm sure different sources can look at the same information and see different things at a time, I was thinking more of piecing together a view, such as "these live around hydrothermal vents normally in temperatures of around 50-80 C, but these worms get their nutrients from the vents and in fact go into the vents to get food where the temperatures surge to 500 C". My book isn't a pop-science book, its not just some thing with random facts about the ocean, it's highly organized and edited and there's still a lot of it that's boring. It took so much reading just to find that little rare exception quoted from the book, that's how not pompous the book is.

Are there formulas for different shapes on a plane other than a circle? What do they generate? Or is that how you make different waves?

On an oscillometer a square wave looks like a sine wave but with rectangles instead of parabolas. It's the type of wave some synthesizers make, and there's a formula controller in the sound program I'm using so I want to make different types of waves from scratch.

Basically that, I know that there has to be some way to infinitely add types of sine waves so that they have the same period, but I don't really know how to do it, and websites arn't discrete enough for me.

Well, I tried to compromise with the sources, but you insist that only your precious journal entries have to be 100% correct. Of course, it would be more logical if multiple sources were explaining different parts, but w/e, I guess I can't stop you form believing.