SamBridge

I think in a way that you are right, strings that are 1 dimensional but can curl and bend and stretch into other dimensions, even enough so to create particles, and hypothetically the boundary of this observable universe, which is where "membranes" come from. However I don't know enough about string theory so say for sure if only a single string makes a matter field or how many other ones are needed.

How about the universe created itself or that it has always existed? Both are as semantically possible as much as a god theory is.

Sorry to bud in, but I think what Bignose was saying is more about how data can get manipulated, but even if it is manipulated, there's peer review and more test done to attempt to confirm that data. You do have to put some amount of trust in scientists themselves, there's 3% of climatologists that even say the Earth is getting cooler, and actually they are right, BUT ONLY for specific periods of time, like over a period of every 10 years, the Earth gradually cools down from where it was at before, but then it jumps up, and it keeps jumping up and up to a higher and higher amount, making the AVERAGE temperature increase over 100 years a positive increase.

Not sure what you're saying or how it pertains to the topic.

Ah, but it is, because as weird of a concept it is, distance is actually "created" or "caused" by the fabric of space existing and the dimensions it holds. But outside of the universe, there is nothing to act as a medium for the existence of distance, therefore there is 0 distance outside of the universe, or at least, 0 three-dimensional distance, I'm not sure how it applies to extra dimensions.

But then we have to have some boundary over how existent a "quantity" really is, because in math, numbers are quantities themselves. It's really not that simple, you have symbols, they make accurate descriptions, but you never actually just see the number "3" floating around in space. We know there has to be something, but at what pint do we draw a line between a simple language of symbols, and their representation of reality? Of course logic will work properly were it's defined, but I'm talking about where maybe it isn't or that past a certain point it can't be because we have to assume that as an observer that what we are seeing is "1 apple = 1 apple". It's kind of like that old philosophical problem. "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around, does it make a sound?". Well if it did fall in the woods on Earth it would have to make a sound, but we don't know that it did or that it fell because there was no observer, there was no one around, we can't just go around assuming there's trees falling everywhere, we would have to know that they are falling, after they make a sound.

No I don't think they are alive, according to our standards that describe something as living. There is a very finite boundary.

Yeah I see what you mean now in a better sense, the axis was the wrong term, but I meant it in an analogy to refer to how a similar thing happens with quadratic polynomials even though this is pretty different, the way I picture it in my head makes sense. When I look at the equation, I feel like the two solutions is caused by the almost limiting process by having "2pi" in the denominator otherwise the range that it applies over would yield more than two solutions, but I might be thinking of a different Dirac equation. I'm sorry to sound so vague there's a lot of math that I interpret visually so I can deal with it better, which is why I hate spin and imaginary numbers. I'm still not sure what spin is exactly, but if it is the property that I think it is, we don't see particles with spins of "2" because "2" is the same of one, and that type of property is caused by modular mathematics, which is typical of trigonometric functions such as those used to create models of bound particles.

Couldn't say, I'm not so familiar Dirac Sea, but based on my research it doesn't seem to apply much to what you're suggesting. It seems to model different energy states of particles and antiparticles, or like an infinite number of them, but something doesn't seem quite right, I am seeing "negative x" where it doesn't make sense, unless that it something to do with the description of antimatter that I think is the quantitative of "anti matter can be thought of as normal matte but with negative energy going backwards in time", or at least that's where I think it comes from, but it does not seem to model the probability density created by interference of two electrons in a system.

The countability of a set containing all places of pi... Also I did not say that it couldn't be proven that pi was irrational or transcendental.

I guess I could see the two solutions, one is on one side of the axis, and the other is on the other side right? But what differences does that actually cause? Besides, isn't -1/2 the same as 3/2 if you're talking about a modular system of 1?

For a start you didn't present a model in this topic so there's no way I can answer that.

What about inertia? There's an infinite number of tiny changes effecting every atom, any one of those in you're model should be enough to disrupt the orbital and send the electron off in some other direction.

No math doesn't work like that because that mistake is made more often than you think, it has to be proven using logic, I can't say that just because we haven't found a place where it doesn't repeat so far means it's irrational, it has to be proven, just as any other theorem in mathematics has to be to be called "proven". There's many conjectures, but we do not know that they will work for an infinite number of numbers until they are proven to. I didn't look into it but I will assume that because it was mentioned by 2 experts/staff that there is a way to concretely prove if something's irrational.

Yeah I know that, but I mean on a more complex level. Obviously when they combine the net matter field is 0, but what makes them opposite? I thought I remembered there was some way to turn matter into anti-matter, but I want to know the actual cause-difference, and why that difference permits them to exchange bosons in a different manner.

When I was reading an old quantum physics book I actually did come across a description that treated it physically to an extent, it was saying that a particle with a spin of 1/2 would using extra dimensions have to rotate 640 or 720 degrees to make a full revolution compared to a particle with a spin of 1, thouh it could have had something to do with the vector fields more than physical rotation pretty easily. I don't know exactly why that works, but it seems like another thing that could be explained with trigonometry if only there was some direct way to investigate it. When I think about it, I think about doing sin(.5x), which increases the period twice as much, but I don't know enough to prove that that's what it is, but the notion makes sense, instead of a particle having to travel to 2pi to complete a cycle it has to travel to 4pi, which is the same as 720 degrees.

I don't know the exact math though, I can only find generalized or parent equations and not specific ones.

Yeah I'm somewhat familiar with summing different phases to get the probability amplitude when I then square to get the probability density, which I assume is what you're saying to take the integral of, there was something about that integral that had equal some specific number, because if you compare the different energy states, the absolute maximum probability of the function becomes less and less as the energy state increases (ignoring the nodal surfaces) but increases in range, it would seem like the indefinite integral would have to be a limit that approaches some finite value with every energy state, at least for representing particles that can be localized, I want to say it's the number "1" because probability is suppose to total "1", but I don't know for sure. It's something similar to this or something like this But that's not totally accurate I couldn't find the specific graph I was looking for. I have a relatively scattered understanding of it that I've been working with in my free time from reading books.

But what makes it an anti particle in the first place?

Well the "eating for pleasure" thing isn't very common about the total animal kingdoms, it's mostly found mammal kingdom, otherwise you are right they would do it out of instinct or to survive.

Ok I know what an irrational number is suppose to be, but how do we know if a number is actually irrational? It can't be expressed in a fraction that we know of, but there are infinite numbers, there could be a number that is so big we haven't counted to it yet, and not only that but we can't even generate them at will, in order to we'd have to spend an infinite amount of time writing out decimal places. So I know pi is suppose to be irrational, but how can it be proven that it isn't countable? I don't know if it has to do with cantor's proof or not, I don't fully understand it as I haven't taken set theory. Any explanations?

This property wouldn't happen to be called time symmetry would it? It seems like anti matter isn't necessarily going backwards in time, but rather it just has the reverse oscillation which would make its net oscillation "0" in infinite places when combined with normal matter. When the matter field's net probability is 0, all that's left is the potential energy that went into raising that matter to the energy state it was in at the time of annihilation which particles have a lot of energy him them without the matter.

Well not all conclusions I made were speculation, whether you like it or not it is a fact that we have not observed or found any evidence of a dinosaur holding a spear. You say it's "possible", that's as good as you're going to get without at least some direct fossil evidence.

It's a very difficult thing to understand, the only tool we really have is logic and our observations, but how do we actually prove even that logic=logic? Logic itself isn't observable, and even with our tool logic, how do we actually determine what a "quantity" or "value" means without an observer? We can't spontaneously become no longer an observer anymore to observe what that the solution is, that's a contradiction in of itself! I do see what you're saying though, but even if I thought it was 100% correct, I don't think it can be logically proven either way, even the notion that logic=logic has to eventually boil down to some kind of assumption if it isn't one already. Objects obviously have to exist outside of living things in order for them to have formed the conditions for life to have formed, but the universe does not sit there with a piece of paper working out math problems, it just goes about how it does.

I didn't see that goldbach conjecture or whatever it's called that relates all prime numbers in a predictable equation in Ulam's spiral. Has it been solved? I couldn't find solution for it.