SamBridge

Quantum physics and relativity did not originally have string theory, but they had working models of math, I want to know the explanations that are based off of experiments utilization those. String theory itself has little evidence, not only that but oscillation is not a change in energy, a constant state of energy has a single oscillation mode which has variation in maximum and minimum depth over time, I would not expect the interaction of coupling to take place in terms of physical oscillation.

I'm not saying nasa is "more important", but I think it can be broken down based on spending. Right now the US is spending billions of dollars on wars, and NASA even with its limited budget, as a government program does have involvement with the armed forces, not only that but the US tries to develop programs for countries to help their own people as does France and China and thier developed nations.

I don't know if it's exactly the same, it is similar but I don't think it is exactly the same, at first I thought it was different, and I did have some different points and this one is somewhat different because in that one I was just using a base unit as an example for a change rather than a change itself, in the other topic it was more like switching the reputation system to an absolute scale, like with Kelvin versus Celsius, and what would the point of a reputation system be if it should be ignored? If it should be ignored why not just not have it? The people who made the site obviously think it has some purpose other than to be ignored, but the actual purpose seems to be vague, you can interpret "reputation" in any number of ways.

S the reputation seems to be some open ended interpretation that can be interpreted in any arbitrary way that someone wants, so what if instead there was a specific unit or meaning, and instead of just having it say "like a post", you have it say "it successfully answers your question". It can still be positive or negative because I suppose a comment may actually detract from the answer to the question in such a way that it creates a conflict outside of scientific argument. At least there would be some concise way to agree on what positive and negative means rather than just throwing around some arbitrary likes and dislikes. Just have some kind of concise unit that everyone can agree on of what positive or negative should should actually mean, I mean we all agree to measure mass in kilograms and amounts of atoms in moles and speed in some variation of meters per second (in terms of science), it would be only fitting that on a science site that there would be a concise unit for the basis of its reputation system.

In reference to the first post, the belief itself does not, it's basing fundamental actions and logical causation off of some arbitrary god or entity that does, this is similar for other systems such as Buddhism and science.

In that theory what exactly makes something a super-partner of a given particle? What are some examples right now?

"Why is it important?" depends on the context of what it would be important to. If you ask "why is it important to just surviving?", in a traditional sense it's not too important, though it would still be important to learn specific patterns, but if you ask "why is it important to fitting into a modern scoeity?", it's because modern society arose from technology which was created by science, science fuels nearly every aspect of modern society except perhaps the artist and maybe political sides, but even with dealing with art, there's neurological explanations for how certain colors and artist depictions will make someone feel as well as all those pictures that seem to fool the eye, there's still specific patterns used in a specific style of art. Although, even though science a lot of time wouldn't be directly useful to the survival of an individual, I doubt you'd be able to save Earth without some kind of science to deflect something like a meteor, so actually the survival of the species will probably depend on science at some point. Perhaps it already had because if we didn't have science there would have been some major infection that would have wiped out the human race.

What that's what I'm saying, I don't see how higgs fit on and how they are necessary to explain all of the phenomena. Well you know that matter has a certain amount of energy it can indirectly be converted to right? The equivalence is probably not as direct as I made it out be, but energy itself can distort the fabric of space to a degree, a mass with a greater amount of energy will distort space more than the same mass without that energy. I did get mixed up with the nucleons though, gluons do hold a lot of energy to bind quarks together which is why it takes massive amounts of energy to break that binding, the energy that holds various nucleons together, the residual energy from fusion comprises the binding energy to hold the nucleons, but even if the nuclear fore s the residual strong force, the strong force itself as well as the nuclear force is still thought to be mediated by gluons or hold nucleons together, at least based on what I know, and gluons would still be localized to the nucleus. In general particles with higher almost "base" mass/energy are still more localized, if you look at photons, higher the energy of a photon is, the greater its localization, which I think would make sense as relative mass. I don't think energy itself causes coupling with Higgs bosons, but how exactly does the increase in energy distort the fabric of space more then? Especially in photons? Photons are mass-less but they can still distort space, but coupling with higgs bosons are suppose to be what causes mass which light does not have, so what exactly is the point of mass, or what exactly is it if it is not something to do with distorting space? It obviously isn't just "how much" of something there is as there are mass-less particles, what exactly causes distortion? And what is mass on it's own?

Well there's no better way to express sadness than a happy face Alright I'm done, what about Stephen Hawking?

I'm not saying they don't make sense, I'm saying we don't really have any observable evidence they exist.

There seems to be two things wrong with that: There aren't many protons to collide at high velocity in the vacuum of space, at least not within Earth's magnetic field, and second the photons produced by such an annihilation I'm pretty sure aren't in the visible spectrum. What you're trying to talk about sounds like virtual pair annihilation which has to do with virtual particles and not anti matter.

Why exactly did you put a happy satisfied face at the end? "Physics lost a real scientist who could have helped answer very tough questions, good thing he's dead so he can't answer them or help at all." I don't get it.

Thanks for the in-depth response, it seems to make more sense and after researching a couple things mentioned in the post I think I will have an answer satisfactory to my depth of inquiry.

Hmm seems like it was dated 1983

Electrons do not contain more mass, they are just less localized than a protons.

that seems to do it!

Well the later part of your post makes sense, so it's starting to make more sense but I'm not completely sure, so you are saying that when particles are closer together, there is a lesser, let's say, "energy density" to make it simpler, in that small space outside, because the boundaries of the electromagnetic fields and probabilities of particles never reach 0 expect for nodal surfaces, at that proximity are too high to allow modes of existence of other electro magnetic field oscillation and probability density? But if the probability of the excluded energy never reaches 0... Perhaps at that proximity, the energy stored within the field is too great or has some coinsurance that is too often, but too often to do what exactly? How is it that the particles are excluded from these indefinite boundary just because o proximity?

If the point is that morals are impossible without religion I completely disagree, I don't have a religion right now but I still have moral standards that I hold myself to regardless of what any religion says. Wasn't religion the basis for all those old wars and even many now? The Crusades even? Burning people alive cause they're gay? Comes from religion. Of course there's religions like Buddhism and Shintoism and Taoism and Confucianism and some old Celtic religion I can't remember the name of, which aren't so bad. Also if morals cannot be independent from religion, how did religion get started in the first place? Someone had to have had some moral standard before in order to base a philosophical understanding of the world off of it.

When you say they are about to "discover" a higg's boson, that seems odd, because they do not have charge and cannot emit photons, how exactly can they be observed or measured? Also how does it explain the pattern of the uncertainty principal in Heisenberg or Dirac mathematics? Because if you've noticed, more massive particles are more localized, which is why electrons are on the outside, but they did not have Higg's Bosons to explain that, so how does coupling with Higg's Bosons cause the oscillation mode to differ in such a way that something is less localized? Perhaps something to do with the energy? Even at that point a most of the nucleus is energy, the relative mass of which would be typically greater than the relative mass of an electron. This I think is different than ionization energy however, when an electron gains energy it can enter in a different mode of oscillation, what I'm talking is more of the potential energy required to create the field oscillation in the first place. You could argue "but what about gluons? They are massless." while it may be true they do not couple with higg's bosons, they have a greater relative mass, energy itself can still distort the fabric of space (or at least that's what I'm assuming since Neil DeGrasse Tyson wanted to build an accelerator by bending the fabric of space using lasers made of photons to accelerate particles and he is certified in physics as well as interactions with photons in distorted space anyway), and so gluons are very localized enough to even fir multiple individual ones in nucleons, which you can also see evidence of when an atomic bomb is detonated, they store quite a lot of energy in their bonds (not chemical bonds).

Oh ok if that's his point I completely disagree, I don't have a religion right now but I still have moral standards that I hold myself to regardless of what any religion says. Wasn't religion the basis for all those old wars and even many now? The Crusades even? Burning people alive cause they're gay? Comes from religion. Of course there's religions like Buddhism and Shintoism and Taoism and Confucianism and some old Celtic religion I can't remember the name of, which aren't so bad.

So I guess it seems like it's distorting space to cut the distance between future points.

That's fine you can say that all you want and I won't stop you, I'm just not putting the work into it because even if I do, compared in ratio to the posts that do not seem to have that problem it won't seem like it is a problem ever.

I wouldn't call it a "theory", a theory is based off of scientific data, we have never observed a "cycle" of the entire universe and don't even know if it has an end or not or even how exactly it began. You will also have to specify which article you wanted me to view, some seem vague.

Humans are the one exploring science in the first place, how is it that they are inhibiting-it? The actions you described merely slow down the progress, they do not reverse the gaining of the knowledge we have already attained.

The link I posted is essentially direct proof that neurological terms and process can be described in terms that the layman can understand, you just don't know enough about it to give an answer you are confident in, in fact you're being at least three times as vague as the article of which I asked specific questions about which not only show that I have some kind of more in depth understanding on their own but also pertain directly things found in the article.