Jump to content
Science Forums

watcher

Members
  • Content Count

    323
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

watcher last won the day on December 25 2014

watcher had the most liked content!

About watcher

  • Rank
    Understanding
  1. can we really say it's finite when there is a planck of an uncertainty in our measurement? i think i appears finite because it is the smallest measurement our measuring stick (light) can make. but i intuit that it is further infinitely divisible , it's just that we came to the limits of our physical "realms". i feel that we really don't have t invent new physics to reconcile the two. as if the answer is just right in out nose. and that the problem lies only within our own lack of full understanding. i wonder what could have happened if science embrace fully de broigle wave theory
  2. einstein said every dick and harry think he knows quanta. but they are mistaken. bohr said, quanta are not particles and they are not waves. these are classical objects borrowed just to make qm intelligible. imo, incoherent interpretation like these taking all possible paths and future photon going back in time is also a part of our fundamental misunderstanding about the subject. for instance, hans tetrode conclusion upon pondering energy exchange said : "When I see light from a star 100 light years away, not only do I know that the light was emitted 100 years ago but also a group of ato
  3. sorry that's not really what i meant. i know that qm is the most succesful theory ever so it must be well understood. perhaps what i meant is that qm now is like newtons universal law of gravitation then, whereas the "general physical law were derived from empirical observations by what Isaac Newton called induction." so that they can calculate without having an idea what gravity is. the same way we can make predictions in qm without a full understanding of what eneegy exchange is
  4. if we could further breakdown these elementary particles, will it hopefully explains energy exchanges? is it possible that the mechanism for energy exchange is thru resonance frequency of the system. that it is vibrational energy that is being transferred?
  5. thanks. so nobody knows how energy exchange works. we just assume it happens. i thought i was mssing something.
  6. i was thinking about this for quite sometime. . . is there an exact physical mechanism that describes how an electron emits/radiates/shoots-out a photon from itself as it jumps down to its lower orbital?
  7. measuring time is like measuring a meter. time is the measure of flow or motion. it is a quantity of motion. time in our equation is a mathematical representation of motion. motion is real because it exerts a force. aside from being self evident.
  8. 1. then why do we need much more energy in our particle collider to break down the higg's boson. isn't the rule, the more fundamental a particle, the harder to crack it? 2. in string theory, strings as fundamental constituents of matter is packed with enormous energy. 3. in Lorentz transformation. .. the sign that a particle is energetic is it vibrates very fast and the wavelengths shrinks. so naturally a fundamental particle must have a very high frequency and very short wavelength.
  9. shouldn't be that's the logical way of thinking it? that in the hierarchy of particles, the fundamental ones have higher energies?
  10. a cycle of a particular ponderable consciousness
  11. all that have mass should have the capacity to attract and repel each other. gravitation is an attractive force, but not all attractive forces can qualify as gravitation. i for one believe that gravity field is faster than c, so the attractive force of photon cannot be qualify as gravity in nature. i think it was max born who said that the compression force on a leaf spring is nothing more than the elasticity of space. matter as a condensed form of something to me has merit. but i wouldn't call the thing that condenses as energy. energy is more like the compression itself. but what it is t
  12. i don't think that photons have gravity field. it's like asking if gravitons have gravity field. photon is the quanta of binding energy between the nucleus and it's orbit. if it ever produces a field, its the field of our vision. ;)
  13. garret lisi's e8 lie group is a promising theory derived from standard model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory_of_Everything
  14. the inward directions of gravity and the outward directions of emf. same reason why we have imaginary number ( negative sqrt of 1)on top of the usual 3 (xyz) directions.
  15. energy is the tensity present in a distorted space caused by mass. then we call it gravity. energy is the capacity to do work. what does it means to say, i.e. a concentrated energy ? or what is an evenly distributed energy even means in the first place?
×
×
  • Create New...