granDODyssey

i guess you are right... i heard that EM radiation is also emitted in things like particle accelerators...( i think i should have said that the electron release photon when they move to lower energy state...without the words "orbits" , "nucleus" etc...) but one question ...when you accelerate a charged particle like electron....say.. you give the kinetic energy to the electron ....and so the electron becomes energetic ( say higher energy state ) ....and i believe that the electron will release the energy when a collision occurs or when it becomes decelerated(say lower energy state)....right? ..correct me if i am wrong ...thanks.

light can be created by heat, by chemical reaction, by electrical source or by nuclear reaction...etc.. but whatever the source, it always involves electrons moving up and down their orbits around the nucleus of the atoms of the light source. when the electrons gains energy by some means, the go up to the higher orbits but they can't stay forever in the higher energy state...and eventually they will go down to the normal orbit releasing (energy)what they have taken as photons ( light). As you can imagine, electrons are orbiting the nucleus at high speed, it is not possible for them to emits the photons into specific direction under normal circumstance. So you can assume that the photons are emitted into all direction at it's source level. so..you can see light from any angle... the car head light is a focused light beam redirecting most ray of light into one direction by mean of reflection.. the laser is another focused light beam redirection almost all ray of light into one direction... ;-)

to quote .."this is nature's way of telling us ...we are doing something wrong" see...we invented Zero.....it's not even "natural number"....now it turns back and bite "us"(sound similar?). go back to the basic ...what is zero...can you show me zero monkey? no you can't ...i bet!!

in 4-dimentional space framework...it has been said that "everying" (particle to planet) is moving at light speed in space-time. (from "the Elegant universe" by Brain Greene ) it seems impossible...but...it states that things appeared stationary are the way they are because they are moving in time dimention only and not in space dimentions..(at light speed of course...) if you consider a photon, it is moving in space dimentions only and not in time dimention ( so they haven't aged a single atto-second or whatever since the big bang, from a single photon point of view there is no sense of time at all ...coz no one (no other photo) has struck it and tell that "hi i m here and u r there"...or "how u doing!" simply because they are moving at unifrom velocity and from their frame of reference they all agreed that they are moving at light speed.....and they will never catch each other (i would neglect the collation of two photo to simplify this line of thinking) ) so any other things moving lower than light speed are just diverting their velocity from time dimention to space dimention) simply put....if a thing is moving at 100mph ...it's velocity in the passage of time ( is slow down the same amount )..... (this may not be precise as an list of equations but just the idea..)

let's take the particle physics, R -> S -> M particle/energy -> messenger particle -> space (quarks etc.) (photon,gluon ect...) (multi-dimentional ) if you consider a hypothetical universe with a few quarks and enough space to hold them...and they will be sending...say.. "gluon" messenger particles each other forming a strong force field...it sounds like the universe has a mind of it's own...

A neutron can be either bound in an atomic nucleus or free. it could have 2 kinds of momentum : angular momentum(spin) or momentum like any other object when they are moving ( for free neutron ...like in nuclear reaction ). A free neutron is not stable and decayed into a proton, an electron, and a neutrino having Half-life of about 1*10^3 sec

neutrons do not repel protons or each other....when they are in a atomic nucleus...they all are glued together by strong force..when they are free in outside world, that's another story of course.(...) only protons repel each other with electromagnetic for only 137 times weaker than the strong force which holds them together. "The composition of the proton is a combination of 3 quarks -- 2 up and 1 down quarks. For the neutron, the combination is 1 up and 2 down quarks. " of course, the strong force is also the one responsible for holding these quarks together...but still you can consider a proton ...proton ...(not 3 quarks) i guess the weak force is known to be responsible for nuclear reaction involving atomic decay in some elements like radium ..etc

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae565.cfm excerpt from article from above link... "the strong force only operates at EXTREMELY small distances. These distances are on the order of a 1000th millionth millionth of a meter (10 to the power of -15). If you think about a micrometer (one hundredth the size of a human hair), it is a billion times smaller than that. The strong force also attracts protons to protons or neutrons to neutrons. In the case of protons to protons, the strong force loses strength after the distance mentioned above and succumbs to the electromagnetic force which pushes the protons apart." All the atoms except the simplest , lightest ordinary hydrogen (atomic #1) have neutron(s), but what are they doing inside the atom? are they even neccessary? I'd like to think the following..... When atoms get heavier(their atomic # increases), they have to be "bigger" also right?...which implies that the size of their nuclei grow larger too. The "strong force" which operates on 10^-15m distances is getting busier as nucleus size larger. If you think of a big nucleus with only protons, the "strong force" will get a hard time keeping together them in places, because protons do not like each other in terms of electrostatis(they both carry positive charges and "push" each other with electromagnetic force). this nucleus would be unlikely to be stable. ( rem...the strong force is only 137 times stronger than electromagnetic...) but if you have some eletro-neural like neutrons around in the nucleus they should calms the "pushing" a little bit because they carry no charge and they don't repel each other...only glue each other and protons...so enforcing the "law and order" of sub-atomic realm?????...

that's true...i think...travelling forward in time is much easier a concept than the backward....you just need your relative time to slow it down....like if you could encircle the earth by 6-7 times in a second, you could slow your body timer to a snail's pace than that of the earth's timer....and when you finally decide to land on the earth ...you will found yourself as in "Back to the future V" or something...

if you just wish to explore the possibilities.... {going backward in time} let's say you are looking at a star 100 light years afar from earth, (obviously it means the light from that star took 100 years to reach us...and the image we see now is 100 years old archive.....because nothing could travel faster than "light" including "time" itself) and if you somehow manage to get there within 1 second , (you not only beat the fastest traveller in the universe by a 100 yr - 1 sec) but also travel (100 yr - 1 sec) back in time. (e.g imagine "you" and "light" compete in painting a picture of the star, "you" finish it in 1 sec but "light" only finish a very small fraction of what you have done....that means you got to wait about 100 years to see "light"'s finishing touch on the picture....in other word, you have travelled into past of "light"....!! ) so ...if you imagine yourself as a 100 yrs old...and want to see yourself being born....you could travel to that star with the same speed you did before for 1/2 sec and return back to earth for another 1/2 sec....i think you could see yourself crying in the labor room.... ....(just letting myself thinking wild.)

the crude example is.... if you regard your study room or bed room as a closed system, the entropy(disorder) of your room has some inital value...say...like you put your belongings ( books , cloths ) in neat and orderly fashion...so the entropy will be initally low... and let's say there is a big bang in your room and everything get scattered around...and the entropy get higher.... In hoping that you will lower the "higher entroy" by placing "things" back to their places..., something unexpected happened that....although you may have succeeded in "ordering" your belongings, you have had to exert some force to accomplish the work as well. That means you lower the room's entropy, by the price of increasing it in your own body. (like your muscles contract <= your cells burn carbs <= molecules breaks down <=...etc.) so the overall entropy of a system is always increasing....

according to string theory , it does... nothing(energy/particle) can have zero size in any of it's dimensions. this is where the general relativity failed to describe the big-bang or the center of a black-hole, where enomous gravity force crushes anything to a zero size point. but the Quantum mechanics state that ..if you are looking into such a small size, things get un-certain....like the position and velocity....the un-certainty applys "the existence" also ....that implies "thing"(or energy of course) can become-exist ...OR ...become-non-exist...in really really short time. But, if you are talking about the minimum average size (any-thing) can have ,will be about that of "planck's length" (per string theory). smaller than that will be un-probable (even in theory). So...those smaller size may apply only in Maths.....not in physics...i think..

square means a rectangular shape right?...so it is a 2D geomatry shape... i would look back to the pythagoras' theoram.... if you have a right triangle(having one of the angle 90 degree) the relationship of it's sides can be expressed as a*a + b*b = c*c ( being a , b and c are the 3 sides of the triangle. c is the one facing the right angle of course) let's say the length to a to b is 3 ( so you can represent it a line of 3 smiles but it's a just a line if you make the square of it effectively you got a total of 9 smiles which is 3 * 3 ( that's why we call it "squaring". Whenever you multiply a number(which can be represented by a line), you can get the square shape of that line) so Pythagoras could see that if one can make a square shape cut-outs for each side of the right trangle. the sum of the area of the smaller two cut-outs( e.g a*a + b*b ) will be the same as the area of the largest one..