SPACES. The Final Frontier.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

For every thing there, IS. There is far, far, far more that , IS NOT . Or maybe IS as well !

Exploring the opportunities that are in these vast open spaces , could well be , :-

 

THE FINAL FRONTIER

 

It always used to bother me with Mathematical equations , when plotted out on a two dimensional , or three dimensional graph. The line was there wiggling away. That was what was there! But that was a minuscule amount of the space offered by the 2 dimensional , or three dimensional , Space, also there.

 

In Electronics , say Conductors , or Semi conductors , we surmise there are negative 'electrons' , flowing to produce an electric current, but we can also say there are positive ' Holes' flowing in the opposite direction ( this is pretty well two dimensional ) .

 

What of three dimensional activity ? Say Gravity ? Things move toward the centre of the Earth ? What moves in the opposite direction , away from the centre of the Earth ?

 

So is the rest of this 'Three Dimensional Space ' The final Frontier ?

 

Ref link to sprites going into space :- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2188689/Sprites-space-Lighting-high-Earth-captured-unique-video.html

 

 

Mike

Edited March 19, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Robittybob1]

That is quite a hard post to follow-on to. Are you OK? The graph could be like your paintings going to the edge of the paper but the scene they represent goes on forever.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

That is quite a hard post to follow-on to. Are you OK? The graph could be like your paintings going to the edge of the paper but the scene they represent goes on forever.

 

Well , I did not say it was going to be easy ! Could be quite an exciting ride though !

 

I am serious however . Think of particles. The standard model is all about particles. I am sure Richard Feynman had something to say about opposites . Maybe as particles move in one direction , something else moves in another direction .

 

But Gravity is what excites me. We are always thinking, in terms of mass 'over there ' , distortions in space time , making us move toward the mass . Is there the equivalent of Electrons and Holes moving in opposite directions ?

 

Even if not , I am still interested in ' what is over our shoulder ? ' . There is much more space as you go outwards , so much more opportunities.

 

Mike

Edited March 19, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Endy0816]

x*0=y*0

 

Electron holes are pseudo particles.

Edited March 19, 2016 by Endy0816

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

x*0=y*0 Electron holes are pseudo particles. .

.

It is surely difficult to ' tell' , if anything is actually ' there' . An effect is there, but when you dig deep, really deep , has anyone yet found a small piece of anything , at the heart of a particle or a string, or whatever smallest conceived ' thing' .

 

If so, please tell me what it is ? Is it an infinitesimal ,micro small piece of spinning micro quark grit , or what?

 

Maybe I missed something , but it sounds like it is more like a screwed up field, charge , energy packet, string or something , which we have not yet got to grips with.

 

But the effects we are well used to and versed in . IS THERE .

 

I am not sure , quite what these ' sprites ' are , but if it's anything to do with lightning? Not sure, ? Then the massive contortions of the electro- magnetic field , given a major ' Bolt ' , might just send something that looks like a free-standing ionised particle , go winging off into space.

 

Again with ' quarks ' ( the ingredients of many sub atomic particles ) , I might be behind the times, but I was of a mind that the collider only saw where quarks should be , but not the actual ' thing' . Again, an humongous impact , screwing and twisting ' space' up into something free standing . But is there anything there, at the centre , or is it just , screwed up fields.

 

Anyway , what is a field , is there anything there ? Is there anything ' anywhere?

 

Three equivalent examples of ' things ' as is 'any things ' of no solid content , but contrived out of the surrounding environment ( equivalent to fields, etc ) .

Waves out of wind and water

Vortex out of hose and water

Bubble out of air and water and soap

 

 

Each case has an energy input , plus a field or malleable environment /medium .

 

Mike

Edited March 19, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Carrock]

The standard model is all about particles. I am sure Richard Feynman had something to say....

One of Richard Feynman's tall tales was about a discussion with philosophers about whether an electron was a thing. To clarify their definition of a thing, he asked if a brick was a thing. They never did get back to the electron.....

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Mike, please clarify what it is you want to talk about, and then stick to that topic. We've had enough free-form, anything-goes, meandering in other discussion, and this is posted in the science bit of the forum.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

One of Richard Feynman's tall tales was about a discussion with philosophers about whether an electron was a thing. To clarify their definition of a thing, he asked if a brick was a thing. They never did get back to the electron.....

If what I have described above is how it is , then there is NOT anything there( as in some material solid object . But a lot of energy is at play to disturb the field , medium , or whatever that constitute ' space-time ' , so as to bind it up into , the entities we describe in our terms , like " particle " , "wave" , " distortion bending, vortex in space-time "

 

Is this how you see it , or do you feel we will find some ' things ' at the core of each particle ?

----------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------

The two related things that I wanted to Talk about , and Discuss with members of the forum is :-

 

(A)

 

Is it possible that there are new discoveries that we can find out about in the Three dimensional region of space-time , that are not confined to the ( Mathematical style ) continuous line sort of approach (illustrated Red (A) . Namely , instead of looking to confine things to a very specific line orientated way, but rather looking outwardly ( illustrated green )

 

(B)

 

Is it possible that rather than in our endeavour to pin matter down , as Particles and carriers by the standard model and string Theory type of inward looking approach , that :- We could explore the Idea that " there is nothing there " . But that these particles are in fact the effect that certain critical energies has been inflicted , somehow or other , on Space -Time to produce EFFECTS , that show themselves looking like Particles , with different energies , when In fact there is nothing of substance there. See illustrated (B)

 

To discuss.

 

(A)

 

(B) NOT THIS

 

BUT THIS

 

Mike

Edited March 19, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

The two related things that I wanted to Talk about , and Discuss with others is :-

 

(A)

 

Is it possible that there are new discoveries that we can find out about in the Three dimensional region of space-time , that are not confined to the continuous line sort of approach illustrated (A) . Namely , instead of looking to confine things to a very specific line orientated way, but rather looking outwardly

What is this "line oriented way"? To me, that clarifies nothing.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

What is this "line oriented way"? To me, that clarifies nothing.

(A)

I am saying that mathematics tends to be Formulae based . As such to understand the phenomenon it is often necessary to plot the variables in order to understand ' what is going on ' . This tends often( not always ) , as lines , on a 2D or 3 D graph . That leaves a lot of uncovered space . Is there a possible better way to illustrate what is going on ?

I suppose , with (A) I am suggesting , most of us do not 'See' with our brain ( our 'minds eye ' ( lined graphs , and mathematic formulations ) the question being , could there not be a better way of understanding what is going on , other than the formulaic way. The formulae can give the ' spot values' and other accurate specific points on a graph or calculation . But this other way of understanding ( I am asking , not sure what it could be ? But I think it is worth finding . There are other way of comprehending something other than mathematical . ( such as 'he says ' ) .

 

Perhaps some form of illustrative , Pigeon Maths . Not Mathcad but PigeonCad ( based on abbreviated critical variables , boundary conditions , core formula. Even illustrative running models of key concepts. Wikipedia has this sometimes which is really illuminating . Other times it's awl to wall formulae , which can be overpowering ,

 

 

(B)

I am asking , is it possible that there are NO actual particles of substance , there are only effects produced in the Fields , and in whatever else is there? ( as spoken of a post or two ago , and illustrated (B) except no green particle at the centre ?

 

 

Mike

Edited March 19, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

(A)

I am saying that mathematics tends to be Formulae based . As such to understand the phenomenon it is often necessary to plot the variables in order to understand ' what is going on ' . This tends often( not always ) , as lines , on a 2D or 3 D graph . That leaves a lot of uncovered space . Is there a possible better way to illustrate what is going on ?

I suppose , with (A) I am suggesting , most of us do not 'See' with our brain ( our 'minds eye ' ( lined graphs , and mathematic formulations ) the question being , could there not be a better way of understanding what is going on , other than the formulaic way. The formulae can give the ' spot values' and other accurate specific points on a graph or calculation . But this other way of understanding ( I am asking , not sure what it could be ? But I think it is worth finding . There are other way of comprehending something other than mathematical . ( such as 'he says ' ) .

Perhaps some form of illustrative , Pigeon Maths . Not Mathcad but PigeonCad ( based on abbreviated critical variables , boundary conditions , core formula. Even illustrative running models of key concepts. Wikipedia has this sometimes which is really illuminating . Other times it's awl to wall formulae , which can be overpowering ,

(B)

I am asking , is it possible that there are NO actual particles of substance , there are only effects produced in the Fields , and in whatever else is there? ( as spoken of a post or two ago , and illustrated (B) except no green particle at the centre ?

Mike

Sounds to me that these are two separate discussion topics.

 

(A) http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/94026-split-a-from-spaces-non-math-representations/

(B) http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/94027-split-b-from-spaces-the-reality-of-science/