Foundations of physics

[DevilSolution]

We have physical building blocks to all matter, these combine in particular ways to make something bigger, after we do this a few times we will have object on our scale of reality that posses a set of properties. These sets of properties and there relationships then account for everything that can be sensed (and in some exotic cases not), also scientifically these properties and particular relationships can be demonstrated; such as sending and receiving radio wave, but dont necessarily need to be understood; such as the creation of mass? we can measure them over some time scale, observe the behavior of the property and even use proven methods to modify them in a predictable way.

 

What i would like to know however is if the building blocks we are basing everything else on are actually the base at all?

 

If you could calculate a precise amount of energy for a base object, could we calculate the exact energy in our universe?

 

Is there any reason to believe that inside an atom there's not a whole lot of similar things happening to what we observe if we were to encapsulate our entire universe?? Essentially meaning astronomy / cosmology become quantum physics and all the laws we currently use could then be applied to the atom?.

 

Also i imagine to conceptualize an atom existing in the same nature as our entire universe we must first comprehend time in a much faster or slower way (slower for quantum, faster for universal).

 

Also if an atom shares only a superficial relation to the combined universe, then would it be possible sub atomic particles exist which may not be only "superficial", like the thing that creates a proton, neutron or electron. I know on a Quantum level things act particularly strange and i dont claim to understand any of it, but id venture to say its only because we can only observe things or capture things on our scale of time.

Edited February 27, 2013 by DevilSolution

[ACG52]

Is there any reason to believe that inside an atom there's not a whole lot of similar things happening to what we observe if we were to encapsulate our entire universe??

The structure and behavior of the inside of an atom is nothing at all like the structure and behavior of the universe.

[DevilSolution]

The structure and behavior of the inside of an atom is nothing at all like the structure and behavior of the universe.

 

And by what means are we testing? Wouldnt we would first need something smaller than atom to look inside of it? And something faster than an atom to take fast enough images or such?

 

Like if we took a picture of the our solar system so it sat flat on an axis and then took another every million years we might see that the planets are circling, but based on the fact we can only take a photo every million years, any prediction of the time each planet takes to orbit would be bogus? even if a pattern emerged, so every million years one moves 27" another 42" etc etc, that still doesnt measure how many cycles each have gone through, infact we'd probably measure that pattern and say its only moving by that many degree's when in actuality that pattern could relate to both distance and speed of origin. In other words if you make time big enough you would probably get totally random results and even if you had found a time that gave a pattern, the pattern doesnt necessarily show the true nature of whats been observed.

 

Also from a cosmological point of view, what do we actually know?

 

This is a map of the universe, i dont know how accurate it is.

http://www.openculture.com/2011/05/3d_map_of_universe_captures_43000_galaxies.html

 

There's atleast a distinct (possibly superficial) similarity between the empty space in our universe and that of an atom.

[ACG52]

And by what means are we testing? Wouldnt we would first need something smaller than atom to look inside of it? And something faster than an atom to take fast enough images or such?

We look inside the atom by means of particle accelerators. I'm not sure what you mean by 'faster than an atom'. It seems to be a meaningless phrase.

 

Like if we took a picture of the our solar system so it sat flat on an axis and then took another every million years we might see that the planets are circling, but based on the fact we can only take a photo every million years, any prediction of the time each planet takes to orbit would be bogus?

No. That's the nice thing about science. It allows ;you to make predictions based on the laws of physics.

 

There's atleast a distinct (possibly superficial) similarity between the empty space in our universe and that of an atom.

 

 

No, there really isn't.

[swansont]

We look inside the atom by means of particle accelerators.

 

At the atomic level we look with spectroscopy and scattering, to name two possibilities. Scattering technically/arguably can be from a particle-accelerator, but not at the scale that probes nuclei. Simply put, a lot of what we know of atoms is by shining light on them and seeing what happens. But there's a lot of clever ways you can shine light on an atom and get information.

[DevilSolution]

We look inside the atom by means of particle accelerators. I'm not sure what you mean by 'faster than an atom'. It seems to be a meaningless phrase.

 

No. That's the nice thing about science. It allows ;you to make predictions based on the laws of physics.

 

No, there really isn't.

I'll go from bottom to top.

 

How is it that the empty space of an atom and our universe are not even remotely similar??

Science says they are both over 99%, so i'd say it is.

 

I understand how physics works in general, im merely suggesting that in a hypothetical situation where the time frame of capturing an image doesnt correlate correctly with cycles or nature of the thing being captured, the results would either seem to give a very random output OR if a particular pattern did emerge then it could conceivably be misinterpreted.

 

Okay the third point is quite difficult to explain. the main problem is; how is it possible to get through or view something which is rotating so fast and is so small by using something that is equally as fast and equally as small?

 

As far as the phrase "faster than an atom" goes, im confused at how you can calculate or record something that i presume is the smallest measurement of time. Basically we need a device to capture the inards of an atom, the recording device (not a camera, something magnetic i presume) would have to capture the orbits of the electrons faster than they are cycling to see whats happening inside of the atom. The electricity being used by the recording device and data being sent and even the magnetic waves used to capture the atom are products of atoms themselves (i.e the function of passing information through wave form) and are therefor by definition constrained to pass data only at the rate of which the atom can. I think this would mean the data we collect will be slower than the atom is at creating its own shell (in its natural form). If your using something smaller and faster than the atom then the same principle applies to it, how do you get data about its existence based on the fact its the fastest and smallest thing?

 

Side question; is it possible to view an atom in its natural form?? without having to smash into it

 

At the atomic level we look with spectroscopy and scattering, to name two possibilities. Scattering technically/arguably can be from a particle-accelerator, but not at the scale that probes nuclei. Simply put, a lot of what we know of atoms is by shining light on them and seeing what happens. But there's a lot of clever ways you can shine light on an atom and get information.

Can it be viewed it in its natural state without having to send particles in at ridiculous speeds?? It seems to me that by using this method we can see what the atom is made of but not the nature in which it exists?

Edited February 27, 2013 by DevilSolution

[swansont]

 

Side question; is it possible to view an atom in its natural form?? without having to smash into it

 

 

How? How would you observe something without interacting with it in some way?

[DevilSolution]

How? How would you observe something without interacting with it in some way?

 

This is what i mean, only something on the same size scale would be able to objectively observe it and then again you would have shrink a whole lot more to get a glimpse at the nature of it. I understand that its possible to collide them and record what happens in great detail for a very short period of time but wont it be having some adverse effect on the atom??

[swansont]

This is what i mean, only something on the same size scale would be able to objectively observe it and then again you would have shrink a whole lot more to get a glimpse at the nature of it. I understand that its possible to collide them and record what happens in great detail for a very short period of time but wont it be having some adverse effect on the atom??

 

Why is size an issue? This is not a classical system. I can induce the spin-flip of an electron in an atom with microwaves. In Cs-133 this is at 9.2 GHz, which is wavelength a tad over 3 cm. In Hydrogen it's 21 cm. Your premise on size is simply not true.

[DevilSolution]

Quick question slightly off topic; Do the laws of physics always relate to pure mathematics?? such that a force, mass, energy etc etc exist only as a multiple, divisor, sum etc etc of each other?? is there no abstract relation between the fundamental laws of physics?? for lack of a better example in the same way we might differentiate two subjects like english and philosophy but also understand the direct relation of there existence being entwined but not in any mathematical sense.

 

Also, if we replace atom with boson or fermion (or any particle in the sub atom model), can we relate it to the structure of the universe? perhaps not in a purely mathematical sense (as all the variables / laws are not yet discovered) but in a hypothetical sense.

Edited March 7, 2013 by DevilSolution

[Delta1212]

 

This is what i mean, only something on the same size scale would be able to objectively observe it and then again you would have shrink a whole lot more to get a glimpse at the nature of it. I understand that its possible to collide them and record what happens in great detail for a very short period of time but wont it be having some adverse effect on the atom??

Observe it with what? Sight isn't magic. Our eyes are just light detectors. No matter how small you are, you can only "see" something by bouncing photons off of it, and photons don't get smaller just because the detector gets smaller. Something the size of an atom can't "see" things that are small in any greater detail than we can with lab equipment, because there is a lower bound on the level of detail that it is physically possible to observe.

[swansont]

Quick question slightly off topic; Do the laws of physics always relate to pure mathematics?? such that a force, mass, energy etc etc exist only as a multiple, divisor, sum etc etc of each other?? is there no abstract relation between the fundamental laws of physics?? for lack of a better example in the same way we might differentiate two subjects like english and philosophy but also understand the direct relation of there existence being entwined but not in any mathematical sense.

 

Also, if we replace atom with boson or fermion (or any particle in the sub atom model), can we relate it to the structure of the universe? perhaps not in a purely mathematical sense (as all the variables / laws are not yet discovered) but in a hypothetical sense.

 

Laws in science are mathematical relations of some sort, so the answer to that is yes.

 

You can relate the structure of an atom to that of the universe in the sense that they both obey the laws of physics, but those laws manifest themselves in very different ways because the scale is different. So one is not going to behave like the other.

[DevilSolution]

Observe it with what? Sight isn't magic. Our eyes are just light detectors. No matter how small you are, you can only "see" something by bouncing photons off of it, and photons don't get smaller just because the detector gets smaller. Something the size of an atom can't "see" things that are small in any greater detail than we can with lab equipment, because there is a lower bound on the level of detail that it is physically possible to observe.

 

I was under the influence we observe it using some form of magnetism not our physical sight (limiting us to the electro magnetic spectrum)

 

What i meant was if you were to transform into an atom and exist as a conscious atom, you would be observing an atom in its natural form, you would be seeing hows it shell is created and the wars the shells are currently partaking in, if you shrink yourself again to become a boson or such, you would see the inner nature of the atom and start seeing your own part in the atoms creation. This is only possible because you would be perceiving time at the same level as was the smallest detectable particle, any time scale above and the data can only be interpreted because your missing data. For a stupid example, its like measuring the 100 meter race in only seconds, if 2 different people ran the race in 2 different locations and both got 10 seconds, you'd declare they were the same speed, but if we use milliseconds we will see a different picture, because someone will be atleast a millisecond faster. So in other words whatever your measuring time in will dictate the nature of the results, patterns may emerge but again the pattern isnt whats truly happening.

 

What are photons made of?? WHY is there a lower bound? for the life of me, the only sense i make of the sub atomic model is that at some level its a recurring pattern of our own physical reality (and in fact our reality is dictated by its (lets say hydrogen)). so the sub atomic laws, or sub sub atomic laws etc etc are at some base level exactly the same as ours and infact create our laws.

Edited March 11, 2013 by DevilSolution

[swansont]

As I said before, the laws that manifest themselves at the atomic and nuclear level are very different from the ones we see at the macroscopic level.

[Delta1212]

I was under the influence we observe it using some form of magnetism not our physical sight (limiting us to the electro magnetic spectrum)

 

What i meant was if you were to transform into an atom and exist as a conscious atom, you would be observing an atom in its natural form, you would be seeing hows it shell is created and the wars the shells are currently partaking in, if you shrink yourself again to become a boson or such, you would see the inner nature of the atom and start seeing your own part in the atoms creation. This is only possible because you would be perceiving time at the same level as was the smallest detectable particle, any time scale above and the data can only be interpreted because your missing data. For a stupid example, its like measuring the 100 meter race in only seconds, if 2 different people ran the race in 2 different locations and both got 10 seconds, you'd declare they were the same speed, but if we use milliseconds we will see a different picture, because someone will be atleast a millisecond faster. So in other words whatever your measuring time in will dictate the nature of the results, patterns may emerge but again the pattern isnt whats truly happening.

 

What are photons made of?? WHY is there a lower bound? for the life of me, the only sense i make of the sub atomic model is that at some level its a recurring pattern of our own physical reality (and in fact our reality is dictated by its (lets say hydrogen)). so the sub atomic laws, or sub sub atomic laws etc etc are at some base level exactly the same as ours and infact create our laws.

Sub-atomic laws average out to macroscopic laws. It's like how if you flip a million coins, it averages out to almost exactly a 50/50 split between heads and tails, but if you flip one coin, you only get either heads or tails.

 

On the macroscopic scale, you can only see a million coins or more flip at a time. Individual coins are far too small to observe. So in our day to day lives, we can see that coin flipping always comes up half heads and half tails. On a sub-atomic level, we could see coin flips that come up only heads, or only tails, or three-fourths heads, or what have you, and these would seem extremely counter-intuitive because they contradict our everyday experiences of coin flipping.

 

The sub-atomic weirdness doesn't require a deeper level where the laws are the same as our own, it's just that it's such a small sample size that it's much more heavily subject to randomness, whereas we deal with such huge numbers of particles in the course of our normal experience that the weirdness gets smoothed out to the point where things that are probabilistic seem entirely deterministic because the odds of them deviating by any noticeable amount from the average are vanishingly small to the point of being practically impossible.

[DevilSolution]

Sub-atomic laws average out to macroscopic laws. It's like how if you flip a million coins, it averages out to almost exactly a 50/50 split between heads and tails, but if you flip one coin, you only get either heads or tails.

 

On the macroscopic scale, you can only see a million coins or more flip at a time. Individual coins are far too small to observe. So in our day to day lives, we can see that coin flipping always comes up half heads and half tails. On a sub-atomic level, we could see coin flips that come up only heads, or only tails, or three-fourths heads, or what have you, and these would seem extremely counter-intuitive because they contradict our everyday experiences of coin flipping.

 

The sub-atomic weirdness doesn't require a deeper level where the laws are the same as our own, it's just that it's such a small sample size that it's much more heavily subject to randomness, whereas we deal with such huge numbers of particles in the course of our normal experience that the weirdness gets smoothed out to the point where things that are probabilistic seem entirely deterministic because the odds of them deviating by any noticeable amount from the average are vanishingly small to the point of being practically impossible.

 

Okay i understand and appreciate your explanation of the sub atomic and atomic models we use; However i question its validity for scientific purpose.

 

As you say, flipping a coin gives either heads or tails, 1 time 1 answer, on average a probability will arise for heads and tails HOWEVER; the point still remains that given a single smallest measurement of time, it is either coming out heads or tails, although we may perceive it as being heads and tails simultaneously, in an exact scientific way, it will only ever be one or the other.

 

To be honest, im claiming the process that creates an atom also creates the universe, the lifetime or cycle of the smallest atomic particle (or atom) could mirror our universe, but because of the way we perceive time in relationship to the atom and our universe it gives us results that are miss-interpreted and the forces used to explain these relationships are actually uniformally the same.

 

What proof would be needed? a simulation of the lifetime of the universe with the current physical laws? or using sub atomic?

[Delta1212]

 

Okay i understand and appreciate your explanation of the sub atomic and atomic models we use; However i question its validity for scientific purpose.

 

As you say, flipping a coin gives either heads or tails, 1 time 1 answer, on average a probability will arise for heads and tails HOWEVER; the point still remains that given a single smallest measurement of time, it is either coming out heads or tails, although we may perceive it as being heads and tails simultaneously, in an exact scientific way, it will only ever be one or the other.

 

Keep in mind that the coin flip analogy is solely meant to illustrate how small samples of probabilistic randomness can produce counter-intuitive results to people who are used to dealing exclusively with very, very large samples (which is almost everyone), even though the large processes derive directly from the smaller ones. The behavior of coins doesn't really otherwise apply to the behavior of sub-atomic particles in any kind of one to one fashion.

 

 

To be honest, im claiming the process that creates an atom also creates the universe, the lifetime or cycle of the smallest atomic particle (or atom) could mirror our universe, but because of the way we perceive time in relationship to the atom and our universe it gives us results that are miss-interpreted and the forces used to explain these relationships are actually uniformally the same.

 

What proof would be needed? a simulation of the lifetime of the universe with the current physical laws? or using sub atomic?

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here, or how what you're arguing for differs from accepted physics other than that you seem to be saying that atoms are actually whole universes, but I'm not completely sure that's what you mean, and even if it is, I'm not clear on your reasons for thinking that may be the case.

[ACG52]

To be honest, im claiming the process that creates an atom also creates the universe, the lifetime or cycle of the smallest atomic particle (or atom) could mirror our universe, but because of the way we perceive time in relationship to the atom and our universe it gives us results that are miss-interpreted and the forces used to explain these relationships are actually uniformally the same.

 

You may claim that, but given that there is no evidence for such, and that the universe is very different than an atom, and that the forces which explain the two act very differently, your claim has nothing to support it.

[swansont]

To be honest, im claiming the process that creates an atom also creates the universe, the lifetime or cycle of the smallest atomic particle (or atom) could mirror our universe, but because of the way we perceive time in relationship to the atom and our universe it gives us results that are miss-interpreted and the forces used to explain these relationships are actually uniformally the same.

 

The problem is basically Planck's constant. h = 6.63 x 10^-34 J-s

 

That's a really small number. It's the basic unit of angular momentum — systems can only change their angular momentum in units of h. Angular momentum of a system dictates it's behavior. Integral spin systems can overlap, while half-integral spin systems can't (Pauli exclusion). There's no question as to whether two moons or planets can overlap, depending on their spin.

 

deBroglie wavelength is h/p. Atomic (even molecular) scale particles can show wave behavior — interference. That won't happen when the mass becomes large and the wavelength becomes much smaller than the object.

 

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle scales to h. You don't observe the effect for systems anywhere close to solar system size

 

 

Atoms are not miniature solar systems.