CALLING ALL PHYSICISTS: Is atomic theory almost wrong?

Page 1 of 3 [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

JSBACHlover
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,282

31 Jan 2014, 3:23 pm

It is thought that there must be "smallest particles," because without some finite form (that can be described mathematically), matter cannot exist.

However, what if I propose that the smallest material unity is of a form which can be represented by various numerical assignments in a set of qualities (i.e., mass, charge, spin, superstring dimension, etc.) according to the following rule: That the elements of such a set are comprised of a listing of two possibilities: either 0 or the least real number >0?



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,944
Location: temperate zone

31 Jan 2014, 3:36 pm

This should be in the science forum, and not in the general autism forum.

In regards to the question: To my understanding they pretty much have proven that atoms exist. They are not really "indivisible" ( thats why we have atom bombs), but they exist.



JSBACHlover
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,282

31 Jan 2014, 3:40 pm

Hmm. Ok I hope they move it there.

Of course of course atoms exist. But I am speaking of the notion of a smallest particle. So, something smaller than quarks and strings, etc.

Are you a physicist?



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,944
Location: temperate zone

31 Jan 2014, 3:45 pm

I dont even play one on TV!

My cousin is one, and his dad was one of the Manhatten project physicist. But Im not.

Sorry.



JSBACHlover
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,282

31 Jan 2014, 3:49 pm

Aw that's cool. You're related to a bomb guy. Which one if I may ask?



RedEnigma
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 4 Aug 2013
Age: 27
Gender: Female
Posts: 103

31 Jan 2014, 3:53 pm

Can you elaborate as to what you mean?
My reading comprehension is below average.

Physics is (one of many) my special interests.
I would like to discuss this with you.



Fogpatrol
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 1 Dec 2013
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 70

31 Jan 2014, 3:53 pm

Id say the strings in the string theory are composed of something else than charges.



JSBACHlover
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,282

31 Jan 2014, 3:59 pm

I am wondering, you see, if whatever the foundational particle is, is that which can be described as a permutation of some set A: A= {x1, x2, x3 ... xn} with values for xn either 0 or the smallest real number > 0. Such a set could be those variables which can be used to describe the vibrations of a string.



JSBACHlover
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,282

31 Jan 2014, 4:03 pm

Actually, as I look at that set idea, the set needs to be composed of elements of either 0 or 1.
But the multiplier of the set would be x: x least real number >0.

Am I making sense here? I am being extraordinarily foundational here.



Adamantium
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1019
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,998
Location: Erehwon

31 Jan 2014, 4:39 pm

JSBACHlover wrote:
Actually, as I look at that set idea, the set needs to be composed of elements of either 0 or 1.
But the multiplier of the set would be x: x least real number >0.

Am I making sense here? I am being extraordinarily foundational here.


I'm not sure I'm quite getting your concept of a foundational particle. Are you thinking about this in relation to the standard model?

How does your theoretical ultimate particle relate to quarks, leptons, bosons?

It seems to me that the idea of a smallest unit of stuff sort of ignores some perspectives that come into play in the quantum realm.

It sounds like an attempt to look at the particle zoo in classical terms. Maybe that's not the most helpful direction in the light of current data?

Image



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,902
Location: Stendec

31 Jan 2014, 4:46 pm

JSBACHlover wrote:
... what if I propose that the smallest material unity is of a form which can be represented by various numerical assignments in a set of qualities (i.e., mass, charge, spin, superstring dimension, etc.) according to the following rule: That the elements of such a set are comprised of a listing of two possibilities: either 0 or the least real number >0?

Show the maths.



Cornflake
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 46,969
Location: Over there

31 Jan 2014, 4:47 pm

[Moved from General Autism Discussion to Computers, Math, Science, and Technology]


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


Willard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,030

31 Jan 2014, 5:17 pm

Adamantium wrote:
It seems to me that the idea of a smallest unit of stuff sort of ignores some perspectives that come into play in the quantum realm.

It sounds like an attempt to look at the particle zoo in classical terms. Maybe that's not the most helpful direction in the light of current data?



I second that emotion.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,944
Location: temperate zone

31 Jan 2014, 5:33 pm

JSBACHlover wrote:
I am wondering, you see, if whatever the foundational particle is, is that which can be described as a permutation of some set A: A= {x1, x2, x3 ... xn} with values for xn either 0 or the smallest real number > 0. Such a set could be those variables which can be used to describe the vibrations of a string.


Zero. Or the first real number after zero?

Lol!

That latter would be "one over infinity".

Wouldnt it?

Zero, or "One infinitieth".



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,944
Location: temperate zone

31 Jan 2014, 5:36 pm

JSBACHlover wrote:
Aw that's cool. You're related to a bomb guy. Which one if I may ask?


Not one of the handful of famous biggies you would have heard of (like Fermi, or Oppenheimer). But he cut his professional teeth at Los Alamos among the other hundreds involved in the Manhatten Project.