Dark Matter Found?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

Could you unpack that a little? I am not a physicist, my area is biochem, but i am curious. And whst do you mean by “massive objects”? Ive never bought into the layperson bohr model of the atom although it obviously is very handy simplification for all applicstions, i viewed the electrons more as waves. But from my uneducated look at whst you just said it would seem the standard model has certsin limited aspects in common with string theory?? That doesn’t seem right but my inadequate understanding is that according to string theory matter is the terminal point of extradimensional strings…which would seem essentially the same regarding electeons being terminal points.

Forgive me, it has been years since i read or reread any physics at all, even “popular” physics, so i am sure i am not communicating well. also, messaging from my phone lol[/quote]

I do not know what TH is trying to say, but the bohr model is pretty much correct in that the vast majority of the mass of an atom is located in the nucleus and the electrons are located outside the nucleus, and that the radius of the nucleus has a clearly defined boundary and is much smaller then the radius of the atom. The only real difference between current understanding and the original bohr model is that he defined electrons only as particles that orbit in specific and unchanging rings around the nucleus.

We now know that electrons behave both as waves and particles and describe their positions around the nucleus through use of what is known as an electron cloud. We cannot calculate the exact position of an electron in the electron cloud, but rather the probability of an electron being at a specific point when its position is measured. There are technically an infinite amount of energy rings on which electrons can appear, but those tend to decay very rapidly to more stable energy states, which generally coincide with the electron rings from the original bohr model.

I do have some thoughts and information to share on the article in the OP, but that will have to wait until after my last class is over.

42

All this from a guy who can’t tell me why 2+2=4. On a side note, years ago when I worked at lenscrafters I used to read one of the optician’s text books in my spare time and they were saying that light behaves as both particles and waves as well.

43

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
All this from a guy who can’t tell me why 2+2=4. On a side note, years ago when I worked at lenscrafters I used to read one of the optician’s text books in my spare time and they were saying that light behaves as both particles and waves as well.[/quote]

Yes, ‘basic’ physics. It’s called Waveâ??particle duality. You can read more about it in wikipedia.

44

All those various light waves are a given, we were CREATED to see the World through a “reality
filter” anyway…not earth shattering news.
If we walked around the house, or went outside and we were able to “see” EVERY spectrum of light
the Sun gave out…we’d be like that 70’s song…“Blinded By The Light”…lol.
We wouldn’t be able to function at all because of all the unnecessary light pollution.
Same thing with our Hearing, if we had Superhearing we’d be hearing all kinds of distracting noises…Dog Whistle frequencies and stupid shit we don’t need to hear.
Sadly, we weren’t created with a reality filters that blocks out Joe Biden frequencies on the hearing
scale, and the hideous “Octomom” on the light wave frequency scale other than the changing the channel
on the fuckin’ remote.
'Wish I could see through walls however, that woulda came in handy in High School near the Girls Locker room.

45

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Definition is a space that lacks matter. Ergo, even if it did exist it would not be observable. God can create a vacuum, he very well may have (hidden behind some planet, in a galaxy far-far away, with the flying spaghetti monster people keep talking about), but if we are to take his character and promise seriously then this would go against the order of the Universe and his promise (though since you reject Wisdom you’re missing a very valuable piece of scripture to make this idea concrete rather than assumed (based off Catholic theology which is based off scripture (talk about catch 22))). [/quote]

It may lack matter, but that does not posit it is necessarily empty. And even if it were it’s still a something. If nothing else it would be just an empty container in space time…

46

[quote]Karado wrote:
All those various light waves are a given, we were CREATED to see the World through a “reality
filter” anyway…not earth shattering news.
If we walked around the house, or went outside and we were able to “see” EVERY spectrum of light
the Sun gave out…we’d be like that 70’s song…“Blinded By The Light”…lol.
We wouldn’t be able to function at all because of all the unnecessary light pollution.
Same thing with our Hearing, if we had Superhearing we’d be hearing all kinds of distracting noises…Dog Whistle frequencies and stupid shit we don’t need to hear.
Sadly, we weren’t created with a reality filters that blocks out Joe Biden frequencies on the hearing
scale, and the hideous “Octomom” on the light wave frequency scale other than the changing the channel
on the fuckin’ remote.
'Wish I could see through walls however, that woulda came in handy in High School near the Girls Locker room.
[/quote]

Well to the point of ‘nothingness’ that Tirib, BC Kam and I were talking about, while the above is technically not ‘nothing’ it is equally unintelligible.

47

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

Could you unpack that a little? I am not a physicist, my area is biochem, but i am curious. And whst do you mean by “massive objects”? Ive never bought into the layperson bohr model of the atom although it obviously is very handy simplification for all applicstions, i viewed the electrons more as waves. But from my uneducated look at whst you just said it would seem the standard model has certsin limited aspects in common with string theory?? That doesn’t seem right but my inadequate understanding is that according to string theory matter is the terminal point of extradimensional strings…which would seem essentially the same regarding electeons being terminal points.

Forgive me, it has been years since i read or reread any physics at all, even “popular” physics, so i am sure i am not communicating well. also, messaging from my phone lol[/quote]

I do not know what TH is trying to say, but the bohr model is pretty much correct in that the vast majority of the mass of an atom is located in the nucleus and the electrons are located outside the nucleus, and that the radius of the nucleus has a clearly defined boundary and is much smaller then the radius of the atom. The only real difference between current understanding and the original bohr model is that he defined electrons only as particles that orbit in specific and unchanging rings around the nucleus.

We now know that electrons behave both as waves and particles and describe their positions around the nucleus through use of what is known as an electron cloud. We cannot calculate the exact position of an electron in the electron cloud, but rather the probability of an electron being at a specific point when its position is measured. There are technically an infinite amount of energy rings on which electrons can appear, but those tend to decay very rapidly to more stable energy states, which generally coincide with the electron rings from the original bohr model.

I do have some thoughts and information to share on the article in the OP, but that will have to wait until after my last class is over.
[/quote]

Well just fail them all and get on with it :slight_smile: Looking forward to your thoughts.

48

[quote]kamui wrote:
Kamui would just say this :
What is problematic is the extension of the concept of “nothing”, not its definition, which is a negative but perfectly clear one.

concepts like “thing” and “existence” are on the opposite side of the spectrum, so to speak.
Their extension is obvious, their (non-tautological) definition impossible.
[/quote]

I don’t see it’s definition as a negative. A negative is something. Nothing doesn’t exist, literally.

49

“negative definition” = “understood (only) by contrast with something (else)”.
ie : you can only say what it is by saying what it is not. (nothing is what is not a thing.)

i agree it “doesn’t exist”. That’s what i said the concept has no extension.

50

An atom is made of a nucleus and electrons, which “orbit” (for lack of a better word) the nucleus. The space between the nucleus and electrons is nothing. Someone please explain this.

51

Well, it is nothing, but likely “something”…In Science I remember of our Teachers saying the model of
of the nucleus and electrons as depicted in Curriculum drawings, the drawings we all
ALL remember in Science class BTW, is not to scale, and as an analogy She said that if nucleus
was a the size of a Beach Ball, the Electrons would be at least far as India orbiting the nucleus
with lots of perceived empty space in between.

The Atom depictions where the electrons are VERY close to the nucleus is wrong,
but even if electrons were as close as the cartoon versions in School Books,
it’s still space, and if you think that particular space is still SOMETHING, then good for you,
I’m open to that as well.

52

[quote]kamui wrote:
“negative definition” = “understood (only) by contrast with something (else)”.
ie : you can only say what it is by saying what it is not. (nothing is what is not a thing.)

i agree it “doesn’t exist”. That’s what i said the concept has no extension.[/quote]

Yes, I agree. I just don’t agree with that idea is that asserting a ‘negative’ is the same as asserting nothingness. Nothingness is less than that, in that it lacks all things.

53

[quote]squating_bear wrote:<<< Damn man, what’s with the quoting style?
:slight_smile:
Its like your trying to block people from quoting you…[/quote]My slipperiest friend ever? My favorite Ursa major? NEVER! Some times I double or even triple nest the quotes so as to make the post understandable to somebody who hasn’t seen the rest. It makes it easier for them to get my point is all

[quote]squating_bear wrote:<<< By NOthing your getting at the idea of nonexistence, if we are thinking of the same “thing”? >>>[/quote] Yes I was.

[quote]squating_bear wrote:<<< When I was little the concept of zero used to put me in a weird zone of thought but now the concept is trivial. That’s because zero isn’t nothingness, it just looked kind of like it to me back then. >>>[/quote] I agree. A mathematic zero is not identical to ontological non existence.

[quote]squating_bear wrote:<<< space itself counts as a ‘thing’ - right? >>>[/quote] That was one of the things I was asking. There are a whole buncha semantics involved here as well.

[quote]squating_bear wrote:<<< But true nonexistence cannot be interacted with at all by definition because there is nothing >>>[/quote] That I believe is what Kamui means by “extension”, though he is of course free to correct me if I’m wrong.

[quote]squating_bear wrote:<<< zero <<<>>> is still not true nonexistence because you interact with that still >>>[/quote] Agreed (pretty much)

[quote]squating_bear wrote:<<< its defined as the undefinable, >>>[/quote] I don’t think I can go along with this anymore this way. I think this is where Kamui hit a nerve. We can define “nothing” as long as we don’t attempt to extend it beyond the realm of the purely abstract.

[quote]squating_bear wrote:<<< as soon as you come up with a cool way to redefine ‘it’ in order to allow interaction, you’ve gotten caught in the slipperiness and are dealing with something else entirely >>>[/quote] Which is what I believe Kamui was saying and I just restated directly above.

[quote]squating_bear wrote:<<< ‘it’ might… ‘exist’ for lack of a better word, but not in this mode of logic we use of 2 + 2 = 4. >>>[/quote]I would say that math IS logic, or at least one classification of logic. Math is at once purely abstract adn yet extended throughout all of known existence.

[quote]squating_bear wrote:<<< and I get the funny feeling Kamui is gonna samurai me to bits and pieces… [/quote]Nah, He wouldn’t do that. He’s too laid back.
Check your email

54

indeed.
We can not experience it. In any way.

@Tiribulus,
I just sent you a message on gmail.

55

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

Could you unpack that a little? I am not a physicist, my area is biochem, but i am curious. And whst do you mean by “massive objects”? Ive never bought into the layperson bohr model of the atom although it obviously is very handy simplification for all applicstions, i viewed the electrons more as waves. But from my uneducated look at whst you just said it would seem the standard model has certsin limited aspects in common with string theory?? That doesn’t seem right but my inadequate understanding is that according to string theory matter is the terminal point of extradimensional strings…which would seem essentially the same regarding electeons being terminal points.

Forgive me, it has been years since i read or reread any physics at all, even “popular” physics, so i am sure i am not communicating well. also, messaging from my phone lol[/quote]

I do not know what TH is trying to say, but the bohr model is pretty much correct in that the vast majority of the mass of an atom is located in the nucleus and the electrons are located outside the nucleus, and that the radius of the nucleus has a clearly defined boundary and is much smaller then the radius of the atom. The only real difference between current understanding and the original bohr model is that he defined electrons only as particles that orbit in specific and unchanging rings around the nucleus.

We now know that electrons behave both as waves and particles and describe their positions around the nucleus through use of what is known as an electron cloud. We cannot calculate the exact position of an electron in the electron cloud, but rather the probability of an electron being at a specific point when its position is measured. There are technically an infinite amount of energy rings on which electrons can appear, but those tend to decay very rapidly to more stable energy states, which generally coincide with the electron rings from the original bohr model.

I do have some thoughts and information to share on the article in the OP, but that will have to wait until after my last class is over.
[/quote]

Ok, thanks doc. I am indeed pretty damned bad at articulating these things. I seem to be pretty much on the same page as you just mentioned regarding cloud vs. partcle

56

It seems that space can only be defined by having matter in it. If there were no galaxies, planets, asteroids etc… to fill the void, then there could be no void or vacuum. Or perhaps, nothing to define it as such.

57

Wadda blast!!!